A (2:58)

I really, really dislike accusing people of operating from base motives. You know, I like to argue the merits of the case, and this is a really bad argument. I have a better argument. But sometimes, especially now, I find it very difficult to escape the conclusion that some people, I mean, no doubt some people sincerely support this war, I suppose. But when I look at people who made exactly the opposite argument not 18 months ago, and I mean exactly the opposite now, suddenly acting as if you'd have to be out of your mind to make the exact arguments they themselves made, I suppose you could have a complete 180 on something in such a short period of time. But since nothing has changed in the Middle east during that time, I look at some of these personalities. I hate the word influencers on Twitter, whose varying opinions you can set side by side and you can hardly believe it. And it's like, you know, I don't want to accuse people of just chasing clicks or chasing influence, but they feel like, well, a lot of the MAGA base seems pretty happy about this, and I, you know, I guess the living that I'm making depends on my appealing to those people. So I'm just gonna change on a dime and with no real explanation. And it's impossible to respect that on any level. It's impossible to respect that.

B (4:23)

Yeah, I don't know who exactly you have in mind, but I agree that I can also think of some people who fit that description. I think audience capture, as you alluded to, is a part of it. You know, maybe a lot of their followers still trust the plan, trust Trump to do the right thing in Iran and make this into a victory somehow. I also think a lot of these people want to retain their influence with the Trump administration, so they kind of modulate their criticism or maybe even just omit criticism, criticism. And, you know, Trump clearly, after the Venezuela raid, was in a very hubristic mood. He felt very confident in his role as commander in chief, he felt like he could achieve a lot militarily with these quick, decisive strikes without getting embroiled in a forever conflict. And I think a lot of his supporters kind of bought into that. They bought into this mystique, and they felt like if Trump is doing this, then surely they have a plan. And I'm sorry to report, it is very clear that this war is not very well thought out. It was not very well planned. You know, the Trump administration was telling Turkey and the Gulf states that it was going to last about four days. Then in the opening days, when it was clear that was not going to be the case, they were stretching to, you know, a couple weeks, maybe four to five weeks. Okay. Now we're in the fifth week, and it seems like this thing is not coming to an end. So people need to stop being plan trusters. They need to use their brain. They need to exercise their critical faculties, because we are in a mess, and it's going to be kind of difficult to extricate ourselves from this mess. So we all need to be thinking independently and critically and not just listening to Trump's, you know, bomb best about how we're winning the war.

A (5:47)

I want to go back to something you said toward the beginning there. I think it was Laura Loomer who said to somebody, you know, good luck getting invited back to Mar A Lago if you take that position. And I thought, imagine living your life that way. I couldn't care less if I go to Mar A Lago or not. That doesn't even. You know, we're all going to be dead, you know, before too long, right? Geologically speaking, it's not too long. And after that, no one's going to think about or care where you went. The only thing that somebody might still think about once you're gone is whether you had any integrity or not. You know, whether your life had been worth living or whether you were willing to throw it away for some fleeting notoriety. I mean, would you really raise your children to aspire to such trivialities? Anyway, these are all rhetorical questions. These are terrible interview questions, Andrew. Terrible. They're rhetorical. I gotta knock that off and ask you some real ones. So let me ask you a real one. Is it true that you grew up on US Military bases around the world?

B (6:43)

It is, yeah. My dad was in the Army. He was 82nd Airborne for some reason. We also lived a lot on Air Force bases. Maybe that was related to him being airborne infantry in California. I lived in Fort Knox, Kentucky, for a little bit. Sometimes we were located off base, depending on where my dad was stationed. But for the most part I was growing up on military bases and attending Department of Defense schools.

A (7:05)

Did those experiences in any way shape your current opinions or are they completely separate?

B (7:11)

I don't know, it's a little hard to say. I mean my political consciousness was formed in the context of the Iraq war and I gravitated toward an anti war position and I kind of was reading some left wing thinkers and then I was made aware of Pat Buchanan and realized that there's also people on the right who are saying this kind of thing, living on military bases. It's interesting because, you know, there is more patriotism but also people are more directly affected. So I like knew people whose sons were going off to war or who themselves were going off to war, family, friends and such. So it feels a little closer to you. And maybe that changed the way that I think about this subject, but I can't detect personally any direct causal connection between the two.

A (7:50)

Okay, well, I mean I couldn't help asking. You've said that much of us Israel related foreign policy ultimately boils down to well, this was a bad idea, but now we have to dig in. And I see a lot of that sentiment on social media now that there will be some people who say, well look, whether or not you like the. There's some people who say you have to think this was a great idea. But other people say, well, regardless of how you feel about it, once we're there, you know, then we have to quote, finish the job. Talk to me about that way of thinking. I trust you're like me, dear listeners, and you like the idea of getting paid for things you're doing anyway. Well, right now we're living through historic deficits, persistent inflation and a Federal Reserve that can't unwind what it's created. And that's why a lot of us own gold. Gold is back in the spotlight now. Not as a trade, but as real money. But here's the problem. Most gold, which we're going to own anyway, just sits there in a vault. Might as well have it work for us. It's protecting our purchasing power, but it's not generating income. Monetary metals changes that. It takes the gold you're going to buy anyway and does something with it. It lets you earn a yield on gold paid in gold. I lease my gold through monetary metals and earn a return of around 4% annually paid in physical ounces. So I keep my gold and I get more gold over time. That means I benefit from rising gold prices and I grow my holdings in ounces. No paper promises, no fiat payouts. Gold becomes a productive yield bearing asset. Again. The Fed can print dollars, they can't print gold. Learn more@monical medals.com woods and see how you can start earning a gold income. That's monetary-metals.com woods Sure.

B (9:32)

I mean it was exactly that kind of statement that I was responding to with that tweet that you just quoted. The idea that we have to finish the job. And you're right, this is rhetorically different and kind of logically different than those who say, oh, this is all going to according to plan. It's good that we did this. Now we're hearing more people and not just Continetti who you were just quoting, who is like the son in law of Bill Kristol. I believed and could be expected to say this kind of thing. Even Steve Bannon is saying stuff like this right now. You know, I don't think it's necessarily like inherently insane to make this point that we shouldn't have gone to war, but now that we're in there, you know, this is a mess and the only way out is through. But I really do disagree with this argument because one, what is the plan that we're supposed to be trusting? What is the job that we're supposed to be finishing? The administration has done a truly abomination job of telling us what the strategy is, what the strategic goals are. Whenever hegseth, you know, he hasn't given one in a while. I think maybe he did yesterday. There was a little bit of gap in his press conferences. But he previously, during these press conferences, during these Department of Defense press releases and things they post on Twitter, they tell us how many things they've bombed, how many bombs they've dropped on Iran, right? How many munitions they're expending, as if that is itself the goal of the war. That's not the goal of war. You know, the military is a means to an end. War is a means to an end. It should be something that is used as a last resort or out of necessity. And they haven't told us what is the end that they're using this means toward. I mean, Rubio will come out, they'll try to say things that make sense. But clearly the goalposts are always shifting. On the first day Trump told us that we wanted to spread freedom to Iran. He told that during the eight minute video that he released where he's wearing the baseball cap on the opening day of strikes and In a Washington Post interview, he said the same thing. They reported, based on their interview, that spreading freedom to Iran was top of mind for them. You know, J.D. vance was saying, no, this is all about their nuclear program, making sure they can't reconstitute their nuclear program that supposedly we obliterated during the Operation Midnight Hammer. Toward the end of the 12 Day War, Rubio came out and said, no, this was to stop an imminent threat. And then when he elaborated, he said, well, Israel was going to attack regardless, so we had to join the attack because that way we somehow prevent this imminent threat against our own troops. It didn't really make sense, but it was very telling that he said that it was all a jumble. It's been incredibly muddled the entire process. And that's really what worries me about this, because as far as I can tell, this war was totally optional. It's a war of aggression. It doesn't secure our interests at all. Our military presence in the Middle east, if it's for any good reason, is to do things like prevent the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And our war has caused, predictably, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. I mean, you can go read my stuff. When I was warning against this war, this was one of the things I warned about. It was very clear to anyone who just looks at a map. I feel like a small child could look at a map of Iran and point at the Strait of Hormuz and say, what if they do something bad here? It's ridiculous that they seem not to have actually planned for this. And so this is why I don't trust the plan trusters or the people saying, finish the job. I don't think that we should dig in one possibility. And I hear this a lot, especially from like foreign diplomats and foreign politicians and stuff that I talk to here in D.C. or that I reach out to. A lot of people are saying, well, if the bombing caused this big mess, maybe try stopping the bombing. You know, that might seem a little naive. I do agree it's going to be difficult because as everyone says, Iran gets a vote as to when this war ends. And so if we stop bombing, they want to make sure the bombing doesn't resume again in the future. And they don't trust our diplomacy anymore because they think we used it as a ruse in this case to kill their leaders. Right. So we're in a bit of a mess. But I do think pulling back might be the right option here. And people should understand the costs that we're inflicting on the global economy and that we're inflicting on our own force posture in the Middle East. There was a good article today in Responsible Statecraft by a friend of mine, military analyst named Jennifer Kavanaugh of Defense Priorities, in which she was asking how come over the past 10 days Iran has been pretty successful in doing these missile strikes in Israel. A lot of people are assuming it's because of the depletion of missile interceptors in Israel's stockpiles, but she speculates that that's one part of the reason probably. But another issue is that Iran has been systematically taking out our sensors and our radars in the Persian Gulf states. And there's an integrated air defense system that the U.S. israel and our Gulf partners use that requires these ground based radars and sensors. And Iran seems to be taking them out. That's going to have strategic implications for us going forward. They've destroyed or severely damaged about 13 of our bases in these Gulf states. It's not clear that we're going to be able to rebuild those. It's not clear that the Gulf Arab states are going to want us to rebuild those because obviously it's not protecting them in this case. So I do see this as, even if it stopped now, I think it would be a strategic disaster. But I think that might be the only thing we can do is to credibly signal that we're stopping now. And I've talked a bit, maybe we could talk. I had an article last week in which I suggested that Trump, to stop this war, maybe he needs to come out and credibly say we're divorcing Israel, that's going to signal to Iran that we're not going to attack again and is going to signal to Israel that to the extent that you dragged us into this war, and I do think that Israel was central to the determination to go to war, we're not going to let that happen anymore because this is clearly bad for our interests.

A (14:33)

Okay. I mean, look, that would be great, but I just, I have wished for far, far less from this administration and I haven't even.

B (14:40)

I'm not optimistic he'll do that. I think it might be the only way out at this point.

A (14:44)

Yeah, no, I hear that. I'm thinking about the relationship between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger during the Vietnam War. Now Kissinger recalls that. Or maybe it was Nixon who put it this way, now that I think about it, that Nixon would tell Kissinger to go and negotiate by telling the other side. Nixon is a crazed lunatic. And it's. I'm barely able to control him and threaten all kinds of crazy things I might do. And that way, you know, even though I'm not, I have no intention of doing any of them. But they don't know that. And you portray me as this reckless lunatic, maybe that will get more concessions. Well, Trump has a more more direct approach to this. He doesn't go through a Kissinger. He just comes right out and says, I'm a crazy lunatic. And I'm seriously considering if you don't do the following, that I might do. And then he lists these terrible things that, you know, even the Iranian diaspora, which is all. Half of them, are cheering for this. Even they would have to sit up and say, finally, oh, maybe this isn't exactly what we wanted. But the problem is Iran keeps calling his bluff over and over and over. So either he just keeps conceding and conceding and conceding, which is not really Trump's style. Trump's a winner. He negotiates, but he wins. You know, it's a little disturbing to think about where this could ultimately go. Now, if it turned out that none of these bad outcomes occurred, you and I would once again be lectured to that. We were quote panicans, which, by the way, if you use the word panican, you get seven retardation points added to your score, first of all. But you get accused of that, that you, oh, you know, why didn't you just trust in Trump? Look, I'm taken on a crazed roller coaster every 24 hours with this guy. I think I'm allowed to be concerned, is that the role of a conservative is not to be reckless and crazy, but to consider what the possible outcomes could be and prepare for them. It's completely reckless to say, oh, you don't have to worry about a single thing the guy says. What are you talking about? What's conservative about that?

B (16:40)

Absolutely. And also, this isn't the most important thing, you know, the thing that I prioritize when I'm thinking about the war is and Trump's political positioning. But actually, people like us, if Trump listened to us, it would be much better for him politically, because this is turning out to be a political disaster with mounting political costs. I feel like the longer this goes on, the more likely we're going to have a global recession. We're going to have extreme inflation or maybe like 5% and 6% inflation or something on just general consumer goods and groceries and stuff here in the United States. That's going to be bad for Republicans in the midterms. It's going to be bad for Trump politically. He's going to become a lame duck. So they should have been listening to us, actually, instead of the plan trusters. Even though Trump has a kind of basic agreeableness about him, which maybe makes him more susceptible to this kind of fawning attention that he gets from these kinds of people who have their own aims. Right. And I totally agree. You know, it's a little difficult to say whether Trump is delusional or lying or executing a kind of madman strategy, as you suggested. I don't know the answer to that question. I suspect that he doesn't really have a kind of inner life and he just says what he thinks is necessary for his, like, immediate political interests. And that often involves him bragging about what he's achieved. You know, his book the Art of the Deal was influenced by the Power of Positive Thinking, the self help classic. And that's why he's always kind of exaggerating his achievements and saying everything's great, everything is ahead of schedule, under budget. So that's not surprised that he's saying that. But then he has to meet the basic reality that the Strait of Hormuz is closed. Iran is still firing ballistic missiles. They just hit a base in Saudi Arabia and wounded supposedly 12 to 15 soldiers. I have questions about whether the casualty figures we're getting are accurate, but you supposedly at least, you know, 12 to 15, and some of those are severely wounded. Okay. That's not something that Trump can just wishcast or BS his way out of. This is an actual political problem, geopolitical problem. Iran has 92 million people. They have a serious military. They are in middle power. We are at war with them. Trump can't just be golfing and then talking about how everything is going swimmingly. We need actual strategic thinking. One thing that makes me somewhat hopeful, there's a little ray of hope. I do think he's getting basically good advice from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Cain, top military officer. So that's good. It seems like that guy is telling

A (19:01)

him in the beginning.

B (19:02)

Yeah, yeah, he was warning you. You know, it sounds like he was actually quite prescient. You know, they can close the Strait of Hormuz. And then Trump said, they probably won't. They haven't done that before. And if they do, our military will take care of it. He was saying they could ignite a regional war, which they had threatened to do. You can go read the American Conservative. Before the war, we were saying Iran's strategic calculus has changed. They're not going to do this choreographed tit for tat exchange that Trump likes to do. They're going to try to hit back hard, impose costs, make sure this never happens again because they don't want to get bombed every six months. I think Dan Cain was telling Trump that kind of thing. So hopefully now Trump sees Dan Cain as having been vindicated and will listen to him more. But who knows? We don't know what's going on behind the scenes and it seems like it's a pretty small circle of decision makers.

A (19:43)

Yeah. And of course, what we'd like to say to him is, so how do you like your brand new friends now? Remember the people who repeatedly said they would never ever vote for you, whom you're now flattering in an over the top manner because they in turn are flattering you. I wonder if you would pause to say, well, gee, these people have gotten me into a quagmire. Maybe they're not thinking about my best interests. I wonder if he can hear that in his brain through the, this is the greatest president we've ever had. I would give him an A plus. As Ben Shapiro said, you know, which one of those voices is going to override the other? I don't know. I don't know.

B (20:20)

So far it seems like the Mark Levins and the Ben Shapiro of the world are the ones who Trump is going to listen to. I mean, just on Truth Social over the weekend, he told people to listen to Mark Levin segment with what's the guy's name? Mark Thiessen, former George W. Bush speechwriter Mark Levin sounds like a total nut. Okay. Yeah, like that is not the guy that Trump should be listening to. This idea that Levin was promoting in the segment that Trump told people to listen to is that we need to send in our troops to secure the uranium. We don't know where the uranium is. Iran does know where it is. They might have booby trapped this. They could have. We're going to be within their artillery range. They could send a ballistic missile and kill a bunch of troops all in one go. It sounds to me like a suicide mission. Right. And I really hope Trump isn't listening to these kinds of people. But I suspect because they say things nice, because they tell all their Fox News viewers, oh, Trump is the best president ever. You know, this is the bravest thing. This is the most amazing war since the Revolutionary War. I think Trump likes to hear that and he probably will continue to listen to them for a while. And Things will continue to get worse, I think.

A (21:19)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, you've heard it said multiple times that you can't just say that they get angry at you if you say that Israel had something to do with this, because Trump is his own man. You know, you're denying him, quote, agency, couldn't he have made the decision? And of course, you know, on. On some level, they're right. Of course the buck has to stop with him. But on another level, they're just. I think they're just being deliberately dense, because I think we know about Trump's personality, that despite the flattery we just heard from RFK Jr. I do not believe that he is a big book reader. I do not believe that he could recreate a map of the Middle east on the back of a napkin from memory. I don't believe that. I think that's just made up to appease him. I think, to the contrary, he is very impressed by. Well, there are a number of things that impress him, but if you're the last person to talk to him about something and you're really, really passionate about it, that does have an impact. I mean, I've given the example of Vivek telling him that these people are very unhappy about the prospect of central bank digital currencies. Trump had never heard of this before. The next day, he comes out at a rally and says, we're never going to have a central bank digital currency. Everybody cheers. And he's shocked at this, and he says, wow, you guys are all really smart, you know, because he basically just heard about this. But, you know, one person talking to him for five minutes was all he needed. So I think it's a bit much for us to reject the idea that Israel might have influenced him, because, after all, he is his own man. Yeah, on some things, he might be on that ballroom. He's going to do what he wants. But on something like this, there are a lot of ways you can probably pressure him, I would think.

B (22:54)

I think it's undeniable that Israel is part of the story. If you're talking about the Trump administration's decision to go to war in, you have to talk about Israel. I mean, for one, we're waging this war in concert with Israel. Right. Two, the New York Times, other newspapers, basically all of the major newspapers have reported that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, and other Israeli officials were going to the White House, talking to White House officials, talking to Trump, constantly pushing for this war. Okay. I was reporting last year on the negotiations. I think the Negotiations that led up to the 12 Day War were for the most part sincere. And the White House and Trump really wanted to make a deal with Iran to get some kind of nuclear deal. But every time they made an actual diplomatic gesture that was concessive and it was necessary to have some concession to get Iran to agree to the deal, the Israel lobby freaked out. The foundation for Defensive Democracies freaked out. Mark Levin freaked out. They were relentless. Bibi was relentless behind the scenes in pushing for war. That's definitely part of the story. And the way that I put it is, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing for a war with Iran for decades, a US War. He admits as much. He couldn't get a president to go along with this idea until Trump. So both sides of the story are there. Israel is necessary. If you remove the Israeli component, I don't think we do have this war. But also Trump is there because other presidents didn't do this. George W. Bush didn't. Maybe he would have if the Iraq war had gone better. But actually Israel at the time wanted him to hit Iran instead of Iraq. At least the Prime Minister Sharon did, and they went with Iraq instead. Obama didn't do this. Biden didn't do it. Trump didn't do it in his first term, but in his second term, he gave Netanyahu what he wished for. A lot of that has to do with Israeli pressure, but some of it does have to do with Trump's militarist mood that he's in in his second term.

A (24:40)

Well, it wasn't just Obama and Biden who didn't do it. Of course, George W. Bush didn't either, even though there was a lot of talk then about possibly hitting Iran. And what convinced him was, it seems, was, I guess, the conflation of two things. There was intelligence reports saying we don't really have any evidence that they're doing this in terms of nuclear weapons. And then the other thing was it's always been the military side of things, not the ideological geopolitical side, but the military side of things that has said it's not obvious that there's a clear path to victory here. And that seems to have been enough to hold him off, but not quite enough for Trump. And again, we can sit here fruitlessly speculating as to what exactly went on behind closed doors. But I think what I want to do is ask you something that I asked John Hoffman last week, which is we hear a lot that from critics that some policymakers, let's say in the United States, sometimes conflate Israeli interests with the United States interests and say that virtually all the time our interests are aligned. Is that the case now? That's way too easy of a question. And if it's not the case, how would you describe Israeli interests vis a vis American interests? And like, where do they diverge? Hey everybody, Tom woods here with a quick tip for small business owners. If your business isn't showing up online, your competitors are getting the leads and you're missing out. That's where Persist SEO comes in. For over 15 years, they've been helping local businesses grow through SEO, paid ads and the latest in AI powered search optimization so you stay visible and competitive in the digital age. Whether you're in home services, legal or healthcare. Persist SEO delivers real results without locking you into long term contracts or overwhelming you with tech jargon. Visit Ineedseo Help or call 770-580-3736 to schedule your free consultation. That's Ineedseo Help. Easy to remember, powerful for your small business.

B (26:43)

Well, first I'll say I do think that American and Israeli interests vis a vis Iran significantly diverge. That's what Trita Parcia, the Quinton Institute, told me last week, which I quoted in a column that I wrote that I referred to earlier. And that's my impression as well. And the way that I would express the divergence is this. The U.S. i do think, has an interest in making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. I don't want nuclear proliferation in the Middle east, but in my view it's quite clear that we could have at least I don't know if we still can, but we could have achieved that interest diplomatically. Right? I supported the Obama Iran nuclear deal. I know a lot of conservatives feel uncomfortable with expressing support for that agreement, but Pat Buchanan, the co founder of our magazine, he was very supportive of it. He was going on these conservative news channels, including Sean Hannity's show on Fox News, and calling it the singular achievement of the Obama presidency and foreign policy. He loved that deal. He advised Trump, you know, through his columns, I mean, not to exit that deal, which Trump did withdraw from in 2018. But it seemed like Iran was willing to talk to Trump in this term. The negotiations I thought were going pretty well until we decided no enrichment. That's a new demand that what's his name, Mike Waltz, the then national security advisor, announced almost exactly a year ago on Face the Nation. He said we were going to have full dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program. Now that Shows you that it was Israeli interests that were predominating because Israel knows that Iran is not going to accept such a deal because Iran feels that they have a right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes under the non proliferation treaty to which they are a signatory. So that was a signal that Israel was starting to get what it wanted. When we made that new demand that all the experts were saying Iran would simply not accept, Israel was also pushing for us to want ballistic missiles to be part of an agreement. Why? Because Israel knows that Iran is not going to give up their ballistic missiles or any of their other conventional weaponry that they need to deter Israel from attacking. So Israel wanted to put range restrictions on their missiles so that Iran can't hit Israel. But that's non starter. Why would Iran agree to that? That would be totally nuts to expect a state to do that, especially given the belligerence that Israel and America have showed toward Iran for decades. Okay, so Israel's interest is to get regional hegemony in the Middle East. And Iran is basically the last region, big final boss. I mean, they're starting to talk about Turkey now, so I guess it's not the final boss. There's going to be a sequel to this quest for regional hegemony. But they're a main obstacle to Israel's desire to have freedom of action in the Middle East. Right, that's what they want. They would probably in some ideal world prefer regime change like installed and deposed, you know, crown prince or whatever, the Shah's son. But they know that's not going to happen. He's not going to have the legitimacy or credibility to actually govern that country, especially if the US and Israel install him. So I think they just want regime collapse, state collapse, they want chaos in Iran. They would be fine with that. That's what their goal is. And that's not in our interest. We don't want to do that because that's going to be bad for our Gulf partners, which honestly, if this work continues, those Gulf states might end up being depopulated. In a worst case scenario, if we're seeing targeting of desalination plants that they rely on for their water, we might see a very different Persian Gulf going forward because those states really rely on a sense of security so that business people can go there, a kind of haven, safe haven in the Middle East. I don't think that that's going to exist anymore, predictably because of this war. We also don't want to generate refugee crises that are going to affect Europe. And just generally we don't want this crazy chaos in this extremely important region of the world for the global economy. So those are the differences of interest. And I do agree that some people, and the US Foreign policy blob, is it somehow sometimes called, they don't really recognize a distinction between US And Israeli interests. I just tweeted the other day, Mark Dubowitz went. He's the head of the foundation for Defensive Democracies. I think he's the head. He's associated with that very hawkish think tank. He's a longtime Iran hawk. He went on Ross Douthat's New York Times podcast, and there was an interesting moment kind of midway through, I believe, where he said something about how our Gulf Arab neighbors. And I thought, those aren't our neighbors. I mean, Dubowitz is an American citizen, I believe. I think he was in Canada for a while. I'm pretty sure he's a US Citizen now. In any case, he's not an Israeli citizen. They're not our neighbors. We are not the same country as Israel. And these people seem to have difficulty for, you know, remembering this, which is deeply disturbing. You know, after Trump bombed Iran, he told the Daily Caller that he did so for Israel. I mean, one of the interesting things about Trump is his candor. But he just straight up said it, right?

A (31:21)

And I think he thought, oh, you know, they'll be happy because I did this for them and they won't. It didn't even occur to him that he's not supposed to say that out loud. This was just as much to save Los Angeles and Boston as it was.

B (31:33)

LK yeah, totally.

A (31:35)

I mean, and incidentally, on your point, I've said this a couple of times, but I think it bears repeating over and over again. The Tucker Carlson interview with Mike Huckabee. Huckabee's sitting there listing all the problems in the world that would go away if this Iranian regime were replaced. And one of them was, we wouldn't have this problem on the border with Lebanon. And Tucker wouldn't let him go any further. And he said, what problem on the border with Lebanon? I'm not having a problem with the border. On the border with Lebanon. I live in Maine. So, again, what does he mean by the problem we're having on the border with Lebanon? Who's we in this? I mean, we know the answer, but there it is. Yeah.

B (32:10)

I mean, Mike Huckabee is one of the worst offenders. And by the way, he's not Jewish. He's a Christian Zionist. A lot of people feel it's inappropriate or something to talk about the subject. I reject that totally. A lot of people that I know who are Jewish and the Left Right Restraint coalition here in D.C. that I'm part of, they're very critical of Israel right now. They're very critical of this Iran war. I can mention Stephen Wertheim, Matt Duss. Right. You said you talked to John Hoffman last week. I believe he's Jewish. I could be mistaken about that if he is.

A (32:36)

I didn't know that. Okay.

B (32:38)

I mean, that's, I think all these things. Right. And it just doesn't make sense to shy away from this. Of course the Israel lobby and Israeli officials are going to accuse people of being anti Semitic. Right. They do that. That's a tool that they use to shut down debate. It doesn't make sense because Christian Zionists are a big part of the Israel lobby. Right. They're not Jewish. And a lot of Jewish people are opposed to US Militarism in the Middle east that ostensibly benefits Israel or is supposed to benefit Israel. I think we should also note, as kind of an aside, I'm not sure this is even good for Israel's long term interests. Although that's not what I prioritize. I prioritize.

A (33:14)

I certainly see making a good case that it's not.

B (33:17)

Yeah, totally. I mean, especially when you consider that Israel is basically experiencing crisis in global public opinion and even America and other Western nations are turning against it. Young people especially are turning against Israel. We're likely heading for a situation where Israel loses the support of its erstwhile superpower patron in a moment when they have pissed off all of their neighbors. They haven't actually solved the strategic issues that have been concerning to them. Iran, I assume, will still be there. It's a country of 92 million people. They're going to be a pariah on the global stage. I actually think we're heading towards some situation where Israel realizes, oh, regional hegemony is basically impossible for us without the support of the US And I don't think that support is going to last for the rest of my lifetime. Maybe not even for the next decade or so.

A (34:04)

Yeah, I think you're actually going to start seeing the Israel question come up in politics because it had been one of these things that was so bipartisan, they don't even raise it. You know, so it was like the Federal Reserve before Ron Paul, like, who would even bring that up? But now it's not so clear that you can really get away with that now. Gavin Newsom, obviously Tried testing the waters, you know, oh, you know, it's a, an apartheid regime or something. And then immediately it was, oh, I should never have said that. It's a wonderful place.

B (34:33)

And he reveres Israel now.

A (34:35)

Yeah, yeah, exactly. I mean, that didn't take long. But the Democrats have been able to keep that wing of their party quiet by basically telling them, you know, where else you're going to go? I mean, it's what the Republicans do, you know, where else are you going to go? But I don't know. I think you're going to see on the debate stage for both parties alternative views on this because really any patriot, well, no matter what your opinion of Israel is, has to be insulted by the way this small country treats our country and the impossibility of having rational discussions about it because the word anti Semite is thrown around the way Jesse Jackson threw around racist, you know, and they don't even, they don't even see that, how embarrassing it is that they're reduced to that. Make an argument. Okay, I got it. You called me a name and I'm the worst person in the world. Got it. Now that we've established that, can we please have an argument?

B (35:23)

Yeah, I think in the next elections we're going to be learning how severe our Democratic deficit actually is. In the United States, most Americans sympathize more with the Palestinians than with Israelis. Even the Republican Party, 50% of Republicans under the age of 50 have an unfavorable view of Israel. And the Democratic Party Democrats have totally turned against Israel. So it's amazing that this geriatric political establishment, and I guess including even non geriatric figures like Gavin Newsom, still can't make the switch and be critical of Israel and say this is not in our interest. Because that would certainly reflect the voters wishes in the Democratic Party. And so far we haven't really had an option like we haven't had anyone we could vote for to put an end to this so called special relationship. But clearly public opinion has changed so much during the Iraq war, you never really heard from mainstream sources that Israel was involved in pushing for that war. Pat Buchanan was arguing it, but he was marginalized for arguing that point. But if you look back at the way that that war unfolded, it's clear that it, it was basically the same story as what we're seeing now, maybe a little less overt. You know, everyone says Ariel Sharon was opposed to the Iraq war. That's deeply misleading. Yes, he expressed some uncertainty about whether it was a good idea. He said we should hit Iran instead of Iraq. But he changed his tune pretty quickly. And Israel was definitely pushing this narrative that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. They were the main thread. We needed to go to war with them. The US should take them out and then hit Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu, he's called a private citizen. People say, oh, he was a private citizen when he testified before Congress in favor of the Iraq war. That's very misleading. He had just been the prime minister. He was actually, I believe, the finance minister at the time that the Iraq war began. In late 2002 and early 2003, he was the foreign minister. And even during this break, when he wasn't technically in a position in government, he was Sharon's main rival in the Likud Party. And he was ubiquitous on American television promoting the war in Iraq. And neocons here in America had deep ties to Benjamin Netanyahu. They had served as his political advisors and they agreed with him that we should go after Iraq. So it was the same story then. The difference is now you hear people talking about it now Americans have woken up to this reality and we'll see if our politicians have also woken up. I mean, in some level they already have always known this, but we'll see if they start reflecting the will of the voters.

A (37:42)

What do you mean when you say that you've expressed concern about an erosion of the so called nuclear taboo? Where are you seeing that?

B (37:52)

I'm seeing that in Trump. I'm deeply concerned about nuclear weapons use. You know, during the Cold War, we were kind of saved by mutually assured destruction, where both the Soviet Union and the United States figured out, oh, we can't really nuke the other state because then we'll be nuked in turn. And then a lot of game theory and political science developed out of that. And all of the strategic planners in both the USSR and the United States had that as a precept, like as a, you know, an axiom of this Cold War environment that actually nuclear weapons use, you know, no one's going to win that war, so we can't do it. This Iran situation is different because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. No one thinks that if we nuke Iran that Russia or China are going to nuke us in turn. Right. So mad mutually assured destruction doesn't apply. So we're kind of reliant on the nuclear taboo, which is a political science concept, which says that one reason we haven't seen nuclear weapons used since, you know, in Japan and in World War II is that it's just taboo. When state planners think of the option of using nuclear weapons, they. It feels a little gross to them. They don't want to do it. It seems like something you're not supposed to do. It's not part of the script of international politics. It's something kind of forbidden for kind of deep moral reasons and the conduct of military operations. Trump in the past has asked, you know, reportedly, oh, we have all these nuclear weapons. Why can't we use them? Exactly. I think he might be willing to use them. And if you look at the rhetoric from him and Hegseth, the only thing they can say that's consistent seemingly, is that they're obliterating Iran. That's the word that we keep on hearing, obliterate. Hegseth says he's going to rain death from the skies. Right. He seems to think the idea is just to kill as many Iranians as possible. So I think that there's a fair chance. I'm not going to say it's probable. I just think the chances are higher than at any point during the Russia, Ukraine war, for example. And a lot of people were worried about nuclear weapons used there. I think there's a chance that Trump feels stuck. He doesn't know what to do. You know, Sheldon Adelson, who was a mega donor for Trump, he's passed away a few years ago, he once suggested, proposed that the United States drop a nuclear weapon as a kind of demonstration in the desert in Iran to show the Iranian government that we mean business. His widow, Miriam Adelson, is a top Trump donor and Trump whisperer. Is she saying the same things to Trump? I think there's a fair chance she might be. Another possibility is that Israel resorts to nuclear weapons just out of desperation. It's a small country, as I mentioned earlier, there's clearly problems in the air defense. If Iran continues to retain the ability to hit Israel with its ballistic missiles, including hitting Dimona, which is the city where the nuclear research facility of Israel is located. I think Israel, if ballistic missiles are raining down on it, might resort to nuclear weapons as well. I don't know about the status of the nuclear taboo within Israeli strategic circles, but I am concerned that Trump himself has not internalized it.

A (40:37)

You know, we keep hearing Trump saying that he expects this to wind down soon. And then, of course, what we hear is, well, you know, the Iranians might have a thing or two to say about that. And it's to the point now where, you know, you've, like, everybody has to some degree mocked the Monday morning settling the markets comments. But this Monday morning selling the market comments was not very settling to the markets. But on the other hand, it's like the markets have already more or less priced in a general uncertainty. So it's not the tariff stuff would get spikes up and down in the markets because that would have an immediate economic effect. But these statements about how the war is going and what's likely to happen at this point, it's like the market realizes, all right, well this guy's talking out of his, you know where. And so we just have to kind of make our way based on what we can piece together. But it's. We're not going to make crazy jumps up and down based on these statements.

B (41:35)

Yeah, totally. I mean, a lot of people have been saying it seems like political commentators understand the dynamics of this war a bit better than traders and oil buyers and people who affect the oil price directly because the markets didn't seem to be reflecting what the price should be. Based on the pessimism of geopolitical analysts that the work could be wrapped up soon. I think we're starting to see now exactly what you say. I mean, the price I think went up to 116early this morning. I haven't checked it since. Previously, Trump's statements had been able to calm the markets. And we should also note the oil market's kind of difficult to predict the price action on a day to day basis because, you know, it's based on a futures contract, I believe, like what will the price be in a week? And so there's a lot of speculation that's going on and a lot of people are responding to not what they think will be the case for the war, but what they imagine other people involved in the market think will be. But now I think it's clear that this is a bona fide serious energy crisis. Other countries are already pursuing or thinking of pursuing like rationing measures and stuff like that to make sure they don't have to use energy. I mean, this is going to hit us and we are a very oil intensive economy. So if you hear people say, oh, we've attained energy independence, so this actually doesn't matter, that's not how it works. The oil price is set based on these global benchmarks. And America compared to China, for example, is much more oil intensive. We don't have as many electric vehicles. China has been electrifying their economy and their transportation system much more than we have. So actually when the price goes up, the expectation among people, economists who actually know what they're talking about is that this is going to affect America's economy more than China's economy. And so, you know, people like Mark Dubowitz are saying, oh, the price of, well only went up 50 cents a gallon back when that was the case. I think it's higher now. If Your car gets 28 miles per gallon or whatever, that's not a big deal. He's not considering 18 wheelers run on diesel. Diesel is extremely expensive now relative to what it was just a month ago. That's what's delivering your groceries and your consumer products. So the prices and everything is going to go up as a result of this energy crisis. And there's a fair chance that America is impacted worse than China.

A (43:40)

You know, I like to end with a note of hope. You gave us a note of hope earlier, but nobody knows. I mean, by the time this comes out in what, however many hours or whatever, who knows where we'll even be. The only note of hope I can think of is that, you know, at least a lot of good it's done us. But there are skeptical voices on the right. Not skeptical. Not just skeptical is lame at this point. Being a skeptic is not really enough. You have to be an outright opponent. And I do see a lot of people with big audiences saying this is a bad idea. And you know, unfortunately there are still a huge number of minds that are made up on the basis of watching Fox News. And my friend Bob Murphy said the other day, he said, I've been listening to and he listed some non interventionists and he says, and as a result nothing in the news surprises me. He says, whereas if all I listened to were Ben Shapiro and Fox News, the world would be incomprehensible to me. Nothing would make sense. So I don't know how to wrap this up. I really don't. I want this to come to an end. But I can completely understand why Iran's position would have to be. You don't get to come in here and bomb us every six months because you think we have too many missiles of a certain kind. And I'm not even talking nuclear. That's got to stop. I don't know. I don't know what happens.

B (44:58)

Yeah, I mean, I'm not optimistic about the geopolitical situation. I think the second order effects of this war are going to be disastrous for America's military power relative to China, for example. I do think there is some room for optimism as far as domestic politics because I'm quite sure, I mean, I hesitate to make Strong predictions. I was predicting very strongly that Trump would go to war, you know, on Israel's behalf, basically against Iran. I'm a little bit more hesitant to make predictions about how the war will go because there's just too many factors, and we don't know exactly, you know, what Iran's capabilities are, what their strategic thinking is, or what Trump's strategic thinking is. So the fog of war element and the way things are moving so fast makes things hard to predict. But I feel quite sure that six months from now, a year from now, people like you and me and Joe Kent, who resigned from his top counterterrorism position, and Tucker Carlson and other people who are opposing the Iran war will be vindicated. Right? People will see pretty clearly, okay, those are the guys who actually made sense. Whereas Ben Shapiro, there are just too many clips that you can pull up and show people. He was totally wrong. Right. He was saying that there's no way that Israel is going to drag America into war. I can 100% assure you Trump's not going to bomb Iran. And then he was saying before this war, oh, America should go bomb Iran. And don't worry about the Strait of Hormuz. We could take out their military in three minutes flat. These are direct quotes from Ben Shapiro that have clearly proven that he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he doesn't actually care about how this affects America because he just wants to take out Iran.

A (46:25)

Well, on that note, what's a website for people to follow you?

B (46:29)

So you mentioned my. My X account. So That's K Day 89. I also write a weekly column. Sometimes I write two columns a week at the American Conservative. I write for our print issue as well. So you can just go to the American Conservative webpage. You'll see my name on the masthead if you want to read my writings there.

A (46:46)

And it's theamericanconservative.com and as people know, since I have a print newsletter@supportinglisteners.com I very much believe in print. In this age of a godforsaken screen, every time you turn around, I like the idea of sitting in my recliner, holding something physical and reading it. So while you're over there, of course, read Andrew's columns. But, you know, what is it like, one dinner out? Not even that. To subscribe to. Get the print edition. Get the print edition. You know, be retro. Those were better days. And one of the reasons was that we held reading material in our hands, doggone it. Well, Andrew Day thanks so much for your time and I hope people do check out the American Conservative.

B (47:28)

Thanks so much for having me, and

A (47:30)

thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

B (47:34)

Make yourself and those you love less vulnerable to the regime, both mentally and physically. Get more forbidden information@tomsfreebooks.com and be sure to subscribe to the show wherever you listen. See you next time.

A (47:55)

Like the sound of the Tom Wood show, my audio production is provided by Podsworth Media. Check them out@podsworth.com Enter code WOODS50 to get 50% off your first order. If your recording sounds rough, the Podsworth app can make it not only listenable, but professional. Remember, when you use code WOODS50, you'll get half off your first order and you'll also be supporting this show this week with digital coupons at Safeway and Albertsons. Get beef rib roast for $7.97 per pound member price with minimum purchase of $50 or more in a single transaction. Exclusions the of supply. See Store for details and broccoli, cauliflower or russet potatoes are $0.97 per pound member price limit £6 plus selected sizes and varieties of Lucerne butter cheese or Philadelphia cream cheese are $1.97 each member price. Visit safewayeralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.