B (3:34)

Now, before we switch and I get your thoughts on this, David. Nick, do you want to just float some bad possibilities so that I can have actual nightmares about what could happen?

C (3:43)

Yeah. Iran has rebuilt its missile program and so it can attack not only Israel, but also US Bases in the area, in Iraq and Qatar elsewhere. It may not be able to fully close the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of world's oil passes, but it could certainly make efforts in that direction and disrupt the transit of oil. And I guess beyond that, it might be possible to decapitate the regime and kill the paramount leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But actually changing the regime itself, I think is a lot less likely. And it may well be that the irgc, the military command, is actually what takes over. And it's not obvious to me that that would be an improvement.

B (4:31)

Okay. That's plenty for me to be concerned about this week, David. On Tuesday, American and Iranian officials met in Geneva to start working toward maybe possibly a nuclear deal. There's been a buildup of forces in the region bigger than any we've seen in a very long. So what do you make of all this negotiations on the one hand, threats on the other? Is it all of a piece?

D (4:55)

Yeah. You know, it's really interesting to me that we're here right now just a few months after the word was that the nuclear program had been obliterated, that that there had been a decisive blow struck against this nuclear program. And perhaps the fact that we're here right now tells us that, yeah, there was damage done to the program, but the program still exists. Look, I think the best outcome possible at this point is that Iran blinks to some degree and we do get a nuclear deal out of this. I do not want to see this regime get a nuclear weapon. If you're going to be listing the most dangerous regimes in the world that don't have nuclear weapons, that you would not want to see them have them, Iran would be at or near the very top of the list here. So I want to see a nuclear deal. I do not tend to think that you can bomb Iran just indefinitely, keep continuing to bomb Iran to end their nuclear program. The problem here is it's very unclear really what the true administration strategy is. It is, if we're even floating regime change at this point, then you're really mixing and muddying the waters. You're really creating conditions where the regime might say, what are you talking about, nuclear deal? You're actually wanting us gone. That in many ways could cause them to hunker down. There's a very poor track record at engineering regime change entirely by airstrikes and through aerial means. You know, now, if we were able to deter, say, a massacre of innocent civilians, that would be a worthwhile use of American power. But these different outcomes and these different strategies and different approaches, it's all opaque. And this brings me to this last point. This is why you need to go to Congress. When you go to Congress and you're explaining to the American people what you're wanting to do, there's a couple of things that happen. One, you're going to be able to hold an administration accountable. If you're announcing a war aim, then we can hold you accountable to that. Number two, if you're talking about entering into military conflict, that, yes, a, it could go really well in the way previous American aerial campaigns have gone, without losses to American pilots, without serious economic or terror attack ramifications. But this is a situation that might not go as well. It might not. And you've not prepared the public for that. I think if you talk to the average American, they'd have little knowledge. This is unfolding and that is not the right atmosphere in which to start potentially dangerous military operations. So you have no public buy in. We're not clear of the, of the objectives. Throwing in regime change seems to be an extraordinary reach. Other than that, Michelle, everything's going great.

B (7:36)

Yeah, it's all great. I mean, Nick, is this like some kind of great strategic ambiguity? Do we, do we think that there is a comprehensive strategy behind this, or is he just winging it?

C (7:47)

No, I mean, I think David is exactly right. Iran has a certain capacity to suffer that I'm not sure we fully appreciate. The last year's campaign against Iran went over 11 days, and I think that may have built a certain complacency in the US and in the public about how this one will go. It's, you know, we should remember that Afghanistan is a lesson in just how difficult military campaigns can be. And I think we may also have forgotten that the US, you know, spent $7 billion bombing the Houthis in Yemen between the Biden administration and the Trump administration. And last May, we, you know, pretty much gave up and stopped the campaign without really getting anything substantial from it. And look, it would be great if there were a nuclear deal. It would be great if Iran just announced that it was going to stop supporting its proxies, and it would be great if it dismantled its ballistic missile system, which their US Demands. But I don't really see that Iran is likely to accept any of those in full. And the US Isn't really prepared to offer Iran any additional sweeteners like relaxation of sanctions. So it's hard to see a deal being reached. And meanwhile, President Trump, I think, has, by positioning all these forces there, he's kind of put himself in a position where it's very likely these forces will be used. I think everybody remembers that in January, he's told the Iranians that help is on the way, that he was encouraging the protesters, and then thousands of them were massacred without the US Doing anything much at all. So I think he's kind of on a trajectory that may well lead to bombing Iran without it being very clear what that accomplishes.

B (9:36)

Well, this is my other question here. Has he crossed a line in terms of military buildup, the president? That is. I mean, when we're talking about what's going on over there, this is something we haven't seen in a really long time, right, David, this is not like sending a few ships or whatever for the show.

D (9:53)

You know, the analogy I've used, it's this cocked pistol. It's, it's. You've moved in enough forces, you've put them in a. In a posture that is extraordinarily aggressive. It's like a cocked pistol aimed at Iran. And, and the other thing that I would say about this is there's another factor hovering over in the background here. And that other factor is that I think Donald Trump feels like he has a really good track record at dealing with Iran aggressively. So, you know, he had the strike against Qassem Soleimani. Iran retaliated with a ballistic missile strike that was really limited, telegraphed, although it inflicted American casualties, no Americans were killed. Then, you know, you come in at the very end of this long Israeli operation that had gone very, very well, and then you sort of administer the coup de grace to a limited number of targets, and you call that a day. He just went through the Venezuela raid, which was from a purely military perspective, you know, swooping in with Special Forces, spiriting out the leader of a country without widespread death and destruction was a remarkable military feat. This is also a time when you should be very alarmed and aware that that's exactly when the temptation to reach too far locks in. Because, you know, one of the records of American military engagements prior to when both Afghanistan and Iraq began to bog down is we had been through a. A long run of very successful military engagements from Desert Storm to, to the interventions in the Balkan states. And then, and then it got a lot more difficult, and then it got a lot more costly. And I'm not quite sure the administration has counted that cost in part because of some of its recent successes. And where Trump feels that this is where he has his most autonomy, the most power, that he can immediately exercise the most confidence in the outcome. And that all adds up to. And, you know, it's starting to feel, I'm not going to say inevitable, but it's starting to feel imminent. It's starting to feel as if this is unfolding. A process has started that will not stop.

B (12:01)

Okay, so I want to touch on Venezuela, but first, I want to take one step back and you guys can explain to me this. So Trump claimed with his strikes back in June that he had obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities. And this is part of why he's. He's feeling good about his record over there. But then here we are again with them having to revisit this issue. Why is this not seen as well? Actually, maybe he didn't do such great job last time, and why would we trust him this time?

C (12:33)

I mean, I think you're right. And that, look, he did not destroy the Iranian nuclear program, but he did certainly set it back quite significantly. The best guess among nuclear experts is that the highly enriched uranium is now deeply buried, that it doesn't have the capacity right now to process it, that it may be building additional facilities and bring in centrifuges and try to rebuild the program. But for right now, that is not happening. So I think you're right, Michelle, and I think that undermines the whole rationale for what I think is quite likely going ahead.

B (13:06)

Okay, so, David, you brought up Venezuela at the start of this year. The Trump administration went in, they captured Venezuela's president, Nicolas Maduro. That country is now being run by Delcio Rodriguez, who was Maduro's vice president. So not a member of the opposition party, and so not exactly regime change.

D (13:25)

Right.

B (13:26)

What is this telling us about kind of the administration's global goals of sorts.

D (13:32)

Well, you know, it tells us a few things. One is that the administration will achieve a limited success and make maximal claims about the. The magnitude of that success. So, as I said before, the actual military operation itself was pretty remarkable. It was quite a military achievement. But then you trumpet everything that he trumpeted while you're leaving the entire rest of the regime apparatus in place. Well, how much have you accomplished, really, over the long term? I think we'll ultimately look back on that operation as a footnote to his presidency, in all likelihood. And so I do think, you know, one of the things he. He does really enjoy doing, it's directly related to the strike in Operation Midnight Hammer, was he achieved something concrete, it was something real. It actually did damage the Iranian nuclear program and then dramatically overstated it. And the overstatement is obvious because here we are again. So there are a lot of things. And I'm just going to keep doing this. I'm going to keep coming back to this point, Michelle, this is why you have a Congress. This is why you have a process.

B (14:39)

Hope springs eternal for you.

D (14:41)

Yeah, I know, I know, but this is why you have it, so we can have this discussion to hold them accountable for the American people, to buy in this is a democracy, and say what you want about George W. Bush, he did that both times with Afghanistan and with Iraq, made the case, got the vote from Congress and acted under congressional authority.

B (15:01)

Okay, so I want to pull back a little bit more. Before Trump was elected, he said he wouldn't be starting wars, he'd be staying out of them. I'm sure we all remember the no forever wars talk, that that's not exactly what we're seeing. In the span of the year, he's threatened Greenland, seized Venezuela's leader, bombed Iran, threatened to do it again. What's going on here? Is there a comprehensive strategy that you see through all of this? Nick, what are your thoughts?

C (15:34)

I'm a little skeptical whenever people do have grand strategies because, you know, that's kind of what led us to Vietnam. That's what led us to the Iraq War. George H.W. bush had, I think, a much more modest sense of, you know, bit by bit, trying to engineer changes where we can, but cautious of grand, overwhelming theories. Look, the military toolbox is absolutely essential. And I think sometimes my world of liberals has underappreciated the value of that military toolbox. But on the other hand, it tends to work best with small, modest operations. And we get in trouble when we do try to remake the world in really grand ways. And, you know, the problem with the Trump administration is I don't think they. I don't have confidence in either their strategy or their tactics, but I think that some sense of being willing to use the military toolbox in some ways while also advancing our soft power, our aid, our other tools to bring about change around the world, that is fundamentally what we need. And I really don't see that happening.

B (16:49)

Okay, so now, Nick, we're going to do a hard pivot. We're going to go to a topic that you have been covering for way too long, the sex trafficking of minors. And over the past few weeks, of course, it has gotten a lot more attention because of the drumbeat of discoveries and stories about the horrific revelations from the Epstein files. Just this morning, in fact, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, a member of the British monarchy, was arrested on suspicions of misconduct in public office related to his ties with Epstein. So given your experience in this kind of dark world, what have you been thinking as the story has gone along?

C (17:32)

Well, it is great that there is scrutiny over Jeffrey Epstein and his enablers. It is fantastic that we are having these conversations, but that the problem is not fundamentally just Epstein. And so often we focus on one individual, whether it's, you know, Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein. And meanwhile, every year, there are more than 100,000 cases reported of child trafficking. And that's a huge understatement of the real number, which we don't know what that is. And we have structures in our society that fundamentally propel these kids, really troubled, vulnerable kids, toward traffickers. And just as the Epstein associates were indifferent to these young girls, so I think we as a society are indifferent to the broader problem. And, you know, in every American city, there are girls who are in trouble and, you know, mama's boyfriend is hitting on them. And what are you supposed to do if you're a 13 year old girl in that position? Well, you run away and you go to the bus station, and then the only person looking for you at that bus station is not some social worker or helpful police officer, it's a pimp. And I wish we could take this passion and concern for what is happening with Epstein and use that to fix some broken systems in the U.S. like foster care, above all, that fail these girls.

B (19:06)

So I know the analogy is imprecise, but this sort of reminds me of the discussions we have with gun violence, which is that we have these huge, horrific, spectacular mass shootings and people kind of Pile on and try to figure out what we could do to address these random massacres. When, when you're talking about gun violence in the US there's so many kind of more mundane, lower profile episodes that are really at the heart of the horrifying numbers. So. So, David, do you think it's even appropriate to talk about an Epstein class when it comes to this abuse and cover up, or should we be kind of automatically digging down to look at some of these broader social issues?

D (19:54)

That's a great question because I think there's been a lot of attention on this sort of Epstein class as a sort of uniquely vile subset of people. But if you look at scandals you've seen in churches, that's not the Epstein class. You know, in, in my journalistic career, I have covered some awful things that have happened to kids in religious settings, for example, that are again, not the Epstein class. There is a strain of depravity that runs through some subset of human beings. A strain of depravity that leads them to exploit and abuse vulnerable people. And those people can be find it found at the highest levels and they can be found at the levels of society where people are struggling the most and everywhere in between. And there's one, one also thing that I want to talk about. We need to have a real conversation in this country about the influence of pornography and what is happening, especially with the very early exposure that we're having. You know, the average age of exposure to pornography. And sometimes it's not like that the dirty pictures that were under somebody's dad's or uncle's bed. Right. It's stuff that's mind blowingly awful that kids are being exposed to at a very early age. And it's, I think it's just warping the whole way in which the sexes are interacting with each other and exploitation is endemic to parts of the porn industry. So I do think we need to have a real conversation about what are we allowing our children to be exposed to at an early age and by golly, what is, what kind of choices are adults making? And I think the pornification of our culture is an aspect of this that we just don't address enough.

B (21:39)

So Nick, you've actually done a lot of work involved with the rise of these sites and kind of their detrimental effect on society. You mentioned systemic fixes. You want to walk us through some of what you see as the most promising and the most urgent?

C (22:01)

Yeah. So one would be a real effort to prevent these girls from getting in trouble in the first place. And that means some kind of trauma enforced social care. That means schools being more alert to kids who are in trouble and at risk of running away. And then a much greater effort to stop runaways. You know, the problem is that if you're a runaway in america and you're 14 years old, a pimp is gonna find you before anybody else. And it's often very hard for these kids, girls or boys, to recover when they've gone in that direction. So more of outreach and support, more shelters and homes where they can be sent to and supported. A real effort to fix foster care, which only 4% of kids in foster care graduate from a four year college. That should be a scandal. I mean, that's on us, that's not on these kids. And David made the point that there is this evil that lurks in a lot of corners and leads to this kind of abuse of young kids. And I think that's right. And you know, how do we deal with that? I think it's with accountability. And if, you know, you can scare people into better behavior. And that means creating accountability for those colleagues of Epstein who abuse girls in that context. But it also means going after buyers of sex of these young girls. And right now, if you buy sex from a 15 year old girl, there is approximately zero risks that you will ever face any consequences. Zero.

B (23:36)

Why is that? Tell me.

D (23:38)

That's a great question, Michelle. That's a great question.

C (23:40)

Yeah.

B (23:41)

And I just, I don't understand, like this is one thing we can all agree is a terrible thing and yet. But what do we, what do we do?

C (23:49)

I mean, the problem is that a. I think there's not a lot of sympathy for these kids because in reality, look, they are, you know, they are trouble kids. They don't work well with prosecutors, they often don't trust the police. And that's often merited. The police do arrest them, do mistreat them, and they don't testify well in court. And so from the policing point of view, it's often just easier to kind of look the other way and focus on other issues. But also when you do actually arrest Johns, then they're often pillars of the community. And so they escape accountability in the same way that Epstein himself largely escaped accountability the first time around. And you know, it just requires us to understand that this is a priority. And I don't think we've made that decision. You know, I will never forget one time in Boston sitting in the home of this couple whose daughter had run away. 15 year old daughter had run away. I think she'd been on the streets for four or five months at that point. The parents had been at their wits end. They'd gone to the police, the police had been unhelpful. And sitting in that living room with the parents in 20 minutes, I found the girl advertised on Backpage as if she were, you know, a lost puppy by a pimp. And we gave that number, the pimp's phone number to the police. And that night they did raid the pimps hotel room. He was an armed pimp. He had two girls with him, you know, but that is not a scalable intervention. But the police could have done that themselves if it had been a priority. But it has not been a priority. And that's not just the Boston Police Department. That's America. That's our problem.

D (25:36)

You know, one thing that I have seen is that we're people are very good at making themselves victims and even when they should be held accountable. And here's what I mean. Every incident that I've ever looked at involving abuse within an institution, like say the head of a ministry or in a college or a big summer camp, you have one predator maybe who's a person who has abused many, many, many people. And it's the one predator who does the abuse. But it sort of takes a constellation of people around them to enable it to go forward. Through warning signs, through red flags, through.

B (26:13)

They ignore the red flags.

D (26:15)

Oh, they, sometimes the, the red flags are just waving like two, you know, like you're waving in an airplane, you know, and they'll just push through it, or sometimes they'll even know about misconduct. And then the person will say, I'm so sorry, please forgive me. And then they'll push through it. And then, and then when the truth emerges, that same constellation of people will flip around and say, I'm shocked, I'm stunned. I cannot believe how betrayed I was. And so everything gets isolated to the individual. And the individual absolutely should be 1 billion percent held accountable. But we're always so good at deflecting and avoiding responsibility, especially institutionally. And so, you know, in my view, if you see an institution that has been through a scandal and it has not engaged in very intentional and systemic reforms as a result of that scandal, as a result of what it's learned from it, avoid that institution. It's ripe for more problems. And so that accountability point that Nick makes, I just don't think it can be emphasized enough. And it extends beyond sex trafficking and into sexual harassment and sexual abuse more broadly.

B (27:27)

All right, I want us to switch gears. And before we go, let's end this on a lighter note, the way we always do with recommendations. Gentlemen, what have you got for me? Nick Guest gets to go first.

C (27:42)

So, look, there are so many grim things happening around the world that I just counsel distraction. And so in my day job, I shout at the world, and it pays no attention. But, you know, here on the farm in Oregon, we are making our little bit of wine and cider, and it is our little sandbox. And the Trump administration can't affect our sandbox. And it is so healing and therapeutic to do something that is, you know, that is ours and that the rest of the world, you know, can't interfere with. So I recommend distraction, your own little sandbox.

B (28:20)

All right. I recommend you bringing me some of that cider next time I see it.

C (28:23)

It's good.

B (28:24)

All right, David, you know, I've actually

D (28:26)

kind of struggled a little bit this week for lack of. I know. I know. For lack of new things that I've been too busy. I haven't discovered new things to stream yet.

B (28:36)

Michelle, you disappoint me, David.

C (28:37)

I know.

D (28:38)

I know. It's bad. So that means that it's time to think about classic things to stream that maybe people missed earlier in the streaming era. And so I'm going to pull back to one of my favorites. Have you ever heard of the show Catastrophe?

B (28:53)

Yes.

D (28:54)

Yes. So here's the premise of the show, and, you know, it's revealed in the first half of the pilot, basically episode that. Not really spoiling much. American businessman comes over to Great Britain, meets a young woman played by Sharon Hogan. They have a torrid affair for about a week. And then when he's back, he gets a notification from her that she's pregnant. And so he then just decides, we're going to be together. And she says, okay, let's be together. It's hilarious. As my wife says, that's a great show. It's got lots of language and butts, and so that's part of it. But it also is one of the most beautiful shows I've ever seen about the richness and complexity of human relationships and the gist, sheer authentic power of deciding I'm with you and you're with me.

B (29:49)

Love it. Okay, I am going to do two, although the first one is more of a plea. I was traveling around Texas all week, and when I was flying home, it was after the Department of Homeland Security had basically shut down, and those poor TSA agents again are out there doing the Lord's work without Pay. So just get out there and hug a TSA agent today. Just do this for me. You can ask.

D (30:18)

Thousands of hugs spreading across America.

B (30:21)

That's right. I could probably get in trouble for that. Okay, but then. So in honor of the passing of film great Robert Duvall, I just want to pitch. Everybody goes out and watches what is my favorite performance. And what I learned after his death, incidentally, was apparently his favorite performance, which is Lonesome Dove, the miniseries. Either of you, have you seen it?

C (30:49)

I have not.

D (30:49)

A long time ago. A long time. It was a phenomenon. When it came on back in the day, it was.

B (30:56)

It was back in the day where you had a hard time watching it if you missed it the first time. So it's based on a kind of western epic by Larry McMurtry, who I am also a fan of. I think the book came out 85. The miniseries came out like 89. And it's about these two old Texas Rangers after the age of Texas Rangers, after the high points, kind of herding some cattle north. And it's okay. So it sounds very basic, but it is glorious. And Robert duvall as Augustus McCrae. Just perfection. You can't.

C (31:34)

I've got some great watching recommendations from this channel. There you go.

B (31:37)

There you go. I'm sure you can. It's gotta be streaming somewhere. I have a DVD if you need it. Nick, we can go old school, but I highly recommend. So thank you guys with that. Let's do it again. Nick, please come back sometime.

C (31:52)

Happy to. It was a fun morning.

D (31:53)

Thanks, Nick. Thanks, Michelle

B (31:57)

Sa.

A (32:27)

If you like this show, follow it on YouTube, Spotify or Apple. The opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Vishaka Darba and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Alison Bruzick. Mixing by Carol Sabaro. Original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro, Efim Shapiro and Amin Sahota. The fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. The head of operations is Shannon Busta. Audience support by Christina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Shows is Annie Rose Strasser.