Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (3:10)

I once again urge the Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian military police, to lay down your arms and receive full immunity or face certain death.

Mark Mellinger (3:21)

Though there is no clear successor to the ayatollah, a three member council has formed to temporarily lead Iran. President President Trump says he's open to dialogue with the new leadership. Democrats on Capitol Hill are mostly criticizing the Trump administration's strikes on Iran. They are calling for a swift vote on invoking the War Powers act this week. Democrats like Virginia Senator Tim Kaine say the president should have asked Congress to authorize a military strike first and that Iran did not pose an imminent threat. All of the intelligence I've seen in 13 years on the armed services and

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (3:57)

foreign relations committees tell me there was no imminent threat from Iran that justifies

Mark Mellinger (4:02)

sending our sons and daughters into war. Kaine talking to Fox News Sunday. On the same program, Republican Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick disagreed, saying Operation Epic Fury was needed to stop a dangerous adversary of America.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (4:18)

There is no regime in the world that has more blood on its hands than Iran.

Nick Eicher (4:22)

It's killed thousands of Americans through the previous operation.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (4:25)

We took out and set back their

Nick Eicher (4:28)

nuclear program significantly, but they have thousands of ballistic missiles, ballistic missile launchers.

Mark Mellinger (4:33)

McCormick, referring to the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes of last year. Invoking the War Powers act would restrain the president's power to further carry out the operation in Iran, giving him 60 days to withdraw troops or else ask Congress for further authorization. With the GOP in charge on Capitol Hill, though, any such legislation is likely to fail. In just a few minutes, Lindsay Mast and national security expert Bradley Bowman will dig deeper into the White House's rationale and goals for Operation Epic Fury. The FBI is looking into whether a fatal mass shooting early Sunday morning in Austin, Texas, might have been an act of terror motivated by the situation in Iran. A gunman wearing one shirt that said Property of Allah along with another bearing an Iranian flag design drove by a bar in an SUV and opened fire, killing two people and wounding 14 more. Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (5:33)

At one point, he put his flashers on, rolled down his window and began using a pistol, shooting out of his car windows, striking patrons of the bar that were on the patio and that were in front of the bar.

Mark Mellinger (5:45)

Police returned fire and killed the shooter, a 53 year old legal immigrant from Senegal. International reaction to the operation in Iran has been mixed. UN Leader Antonio Guterres condemned both the strikes from the US And Israel and the subsequent retaliatory strikes by Iran.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (6:06)

We are witnessing a grave threat to international peace and security.

Mark Mellinger (6:11)

Military action carries the risk of igniting a chain of events that no one can control in the most volatile region of the world. The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting on the strikes over the weekend, but it ended with no resolution. Meantime, US Adversaries have predictably reacted negatively, with China calling the assassination of the ayatollah a violation of the Iranian government's sovereignty and Russian leader Vladimir Putin characterizing it as a cynical murder. In Karachi, Pakistan, 22 people were killed and more than 120 hurt as protesters tried to storm the US consulate there Sunday. US allies like Canada and Australia have expressed explicit support for the operation, while leaders of several European nations urged caution and restraint going forward. While there have been protests and gatherings of mourners across the world in response to the US And Israeli airstrikes, there's also been a lot of celebrating. Trump, we love you. President Trump, we love you. That's the sound of people holding Israeli, Iranian and US Flags near the UN Building in New York celebrating the collapse of Iran's government. Hundreds of Iranians and Iranian Americans joined them for a march to Times Square Sunday, where they danced and celebrated some more, while also demanding democracy and an end to oppression. In Tehran, social media was saturated with similar videos of people celebrating on the streets of Iranian cities. I'm Mark Mellinger. Straight ahead, military analysis of the US Strikes on Iran and later, the economics of the attacks. This is the World and everything in it.

Mary Reichert (8:19)

It's Monday, the 2nd of March. Good morning. I'm Mary Reigert. And first up on the World and everything in it, the war in Iran. Our producer Lindsay Mast has been following and she joins us now with more.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (8:32)

Thanks, Mary. When he announced Operation Epic Fury Saturday,

Mary Reichert (8:37)

President Trump laid out both reasons for the strikes.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (8:40)

Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror and just recently killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protested. It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again. They can never have a nuclear weapon. And goals. We are going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again obliterated. We are going to annihilate their navy. We are going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world. Joining us now to tell us more

Mary Reichert (9:28)

about the strikes and what it will take to achieve those goals is Bradley Bowman.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (9:31)

He's the director of the center for

Mary Reichert (9:33)

Military and Political Power at the foundation

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (9:35)

for Defense of Democracies. He previously served as a national Security

Mary Reichert (9:39)

advisor to members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (9:44)

Bradley, good morning.

Bradley Bowman (9:45)

Good morning. How are you?

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (9:46)

I'm doing well, thank you. Walk us through.

Mary Reichert (9:49)

To start off with, walk us through the days leading up to the strikes,

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (9:52)

there were talks, but the President apparently

Mary Reichert (9:55)

decided those weren't working. Why?

Bradley Bowman (9:57)

Right. So we had these protests start in Iran in December and really build strength in January. And President Trump warned the regime not to harm the protesters, and he basically said, don't hurt them or else. And then the Islamic Republic of Iran, the regime there essentially shrugged and proceeded to kill, murder thousands. Some estimates are above 30,000 of them. So in my world of foreign policy, national security, that's basically the President issuing a red line and then an adversary regime saying, so what? And they proceed to blow right through that red line. And so when that happened, I think both because of the personal political interests of President Trump, but also the national security interests of the United States, one of two things, in my view, had to happen. Either the President needed to get a good deal at the negotiating table or there was going to be a US Military action. And I believed that a good deal, or as President Trump said a few weeks ago, a meaningful deal would have the following three or four elements. It would include an end to Iran's nuclear program, including no enrichment, addressing its ballistic missile program, the means by which Iran has habitually attacked Arabs, Israelis and American troops. Would also address their systematic support for terrorist groups, which they've been doing since 1979, and an end to the systematic murder of Iranians. And if you believe that this regime was going to agree to that, then I got a bridge I'll sell you in New York, because there is no way they were ever going to agree to that because it would require them to be something they are not. I was worried that President Trump's negotiators, his son in law and Steve Witkoff might get bamboozled, if you will. That's a technical term at the negotiating table. Thankfully, that didn't happen. And they wanted to see if they could get the deal. They couldn't get the deal. And so military action was coming. And the only question was how robust would be the American national security objectives here? What would they go for? Would be just a pin prick strikes, like a messaging strikes, if you will, or something more robust. And we now know that the President in the United States, along with our Israeli partners, have gone for a much more robust campaign objectives.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (12:07)

Well, they are robust. So what are some of the challenges to achieving destroying the missiles, raising the missile industry, annihilating the Navy and more.

Mary Reichert (12:17)

What sorts of challenges do we face there?

Bradley Bowman (12:19)

You know, the primary means by which the Islamic Republic of Iran has retaliated or lashed out are missiles. So ballistic missiles mostly, but also cruise missiles and now drones. Terrorism, maritime aggression and cyber attacks. And so always Both from the 12 Day War last June and also again now I predicted. And what we've seen in the early hours is that the first thing you go for is the radars and air missile defense capabilities and the offensive strike capabilities of the Iranian. So they have less of ability to defend themselves and you have more ability to conduct strikes and you can get off after their. Their launch capabilities. So their ballistic missile arsenal, their launch capability, their ability basically to hit our bases, to sink ships and shoot down aircraft. That's what we've seen this do. And we've also seen the involvement of B2S. These are the Stealth bombers that were involved in the last day of the 12 Day War in June that hit the hardened and deeply buried targets at Isfahan, Natanz and Fordo. And so what we're seeing is just breathtaking in scope. This is the largest war, any war Iran has had with any country since 1979. These are combined operations with the Israelis. So what we have now, we just had the Israelis declare that they have air superiority over Tehran, over Iran. And so that essentially is like playing soccer against an opponent that doesn't have a goalie. So we have already seen American casualties, which are tragic. These are US Service members who will not be returning home to our families. We're not talking about a game of checkers here. This is life and death. I suspect this will take longer than most people think and the costs will be higher. But generally speaking, it's just a matter of time until the United States accomplishes its military objective in terms of destroying things. But in the end, though, what we've had is a decapitation of the Iranian regime, the death of the Supreme Leader and all his other key military leaders, by and large. But that is not the same thing. A decapitation of a regime is not the same thing as regime change. And regime change, unless we're going to send in American ground forces, which I would strongly advise against, is going to have to come from the Iranian people. And there's some real challenges associated with that.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (14:30)

Can you go into some of those challenges?

Bradley Bowman (14:32)

I can. So the Iranian people are an incredibly impressive people, well educated, but generally speaking, they are not armed. And this regime, while decapitated, still has thousands of men with guns who are true believers in a Sikh ideology, who are ready to murder as many Iranian civilians as necessary to maintain their grip on power.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (14:56)

I want to turn to the broader geopolitical situation. Specifically, how will this affect Iran's terror proxy groups?

Bradley Bowman (15:03)

Sure. Terror proxy groups. So after October 7th, that's the horrific Hamas terror attack on Israel, which constituted the worst single day murder of Jews since the Holocaust. And let's remember, Hamas was a proxy of Iran. And then on the next day, October 8, Hezbollah started attacking Israel. So Israel has essentially decapitated the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah and they severely degraded both terrorist organizations. So in many ways they are not completely out, but they are certainly down in their shadows of their previous self. But you still have the Houthis in Yemen and you have militias in Iraq. Iran still has a regional and global terror network. And I will be surprised if we don't see terror attacks coming, whether they be lone wolf or something more systematic. We've actually seen Iran linked individuals trying to do things within the United States. I don't want people to be afraid, but we should also start with the truth. And that is true. So if this is truly an existential moment for the Islamic Republic of Iran, we should expect them to use everything they have. And I've just described some of the things they have in their terrorist arsenal.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (16:09)

Last question. One of the criticisms that's been lobbed

Mary Reichert (16:13)

so far since this has started is

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (16:14)

that this is another forever war.

Mary Reichert (16:17)

What do you say to that when

Bradley Bowman (16:19)

we talk about forever wars? Maybe they're thinking of 170,000 ground troops in Iraq. That was the high water mark. Or 100,000 ground troops in Afghanistan. The 12 day war was not a forever war. It was 12 days. And the American involvement was one mission over one evening. This war is just a few days in. I pray that it doesn't last long. But I also pray that the Iranian people will finally have a government more interest in their welfare than the export of terrorism. So I think what we cannot have as Americans, the core American national security interest here, is you can't have the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism with the world's most dangerous weapon, nuclear weapons, because they would be all the more aggressive. We can debate whether they would use it, but at a minimum, they will be more aggressive. And so we cannot permit that to happen. And even after the 12 day war, respectfully, President Trump said we obliterated Iran's nuclear program. He's right that we severely degraded isfahan Fordo, Natanz. But we did not obliterate the entire nuclear program. Otherwise, what is there to attack right now? There wouldn't be anything to attack if that were true. So we didn't know where all the centrifuges are. We didn't know where all the enriched material was. So that right there alone, I think justifies additional American military action. When you combine that with their support for terrorism and building ballistic missiles, including the use of their space launch vehicle program, where they could develop the means to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that could someday hit the United States. You put that together and this is not a peripheral concern for Americans. This is a core national security concern, something that we have to address. We can debate how to address it, but it's undoubtedly a problem that needs to be addressed.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (17:58)

All right.

Mary Reichert (17:58)

Bradley Bowman is the director of the

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (18:00)

center for Military and Political Power at the foundation for defense of democracies. Mr. Bowman, thank you so much.

Bradley Bowman (18:05)

Thank you.

Nick Eicher (18:10)

Time now for legal docket. Three cases at the Supreme Court last week. The biggest one asks what happens when the government seizes your home for back taxes and sells it for less than it's worth. The court is deciding whether the Constitution forces the government to pay you the actual market value. It's a Fifth Amendment question arising from the takings clause. It requires private property not be taken without just compensation. The question is what is just interesting questions. But before we get to it, two quicker disputes also involving confiscated property by the Castro Cuba regime.

Mary Reichert (18:51)

Well, that's right. After Fidel Castro's communist revolution in 1960, Cuba confiscated a long term contract giving a company called Havana Docks the right to operate part of the Havana cruise port, what's known as a concession. The US government later certified that loss at more than $9 million. Decades went by. And then in 2019, the US began allowing lawsuits under a federal law known as Title three that lets Americans sue companies that traffic in confiscated property. So Havana Docks sued cruise lines that used the port long after the communist takeover.

Nick Eicher (19:27)

But there's a serious wrinkle in the timeline here. The concession had a built in expiration date. It would have ended in 2004. But lawsuits under the Title 3 law did not even become possible until a decade and a half later. So the justices had to wrestle with this question. If the property right would have expired anyway, does the right to sue survive beyond it? Justice Elena Kagan pressed that very point.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (19:55)

But once the concession expired, I mean, you no longer have a property interest. You are just like that bystander that I was telling you about, which is like, you know, there was property that was confiscated all over Cuba, but that

Mark Mellinger (20:08)

doesn't mean that I have a right

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (20:09)

to be here in court.

Mary Reichert (20:11)

If Havana Docs wins, lawsuits over Cuban property could stretch decades beyond the life of the original ownership rights. If it loses, claims may end when the property interest itself does.

Nick Eicher (20:23)

A second Cuba case raises a different problem. Under that same federal law, Exxon's predecessors owned oil refineries and around 100 service stations in Cuba pre Communism. Those assets were confiscated in the revolution as well. The certified claim now totals tens of millions of dollars. And with interest, Exxon says the figure exceeds a billion dollars. So Exxon sued a Cuban state owned conglomerate under that same Title 3 law.

Mary Reichert (20:53)

But the defendants invoked a different federal statute known as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. FSIA generally shields foreign governments and their entities from being sued in US Courts. So the question here becomes, did Congress clearly override sovereign immunity when it allowed these Cuba lawsuits to go forward? Justice Elena Kagan sounded skeptical.

Mark Mellinger (21:16)

But a cause of action doesn't abrogate immunity.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (21:18)

It just doesn't. There are causes of action all over the place that rely on the FSIA as providing the jurisdictional.

Mary Reichert (21:26)

If sovereign immunity controls, many of these Cuba lawsuits could be blocked outright. If Title three overrides it, then the cases can proceed and foreign state owned companies could face major liability in U.S. courts.

Nick Eicher (21:39)

Well, now on to the case we mentioned at the top. It begins with a $2,200 tax bill, a home worth around $200,000, and a foreclosure sale of that home. And at less than half that value, just $76,000.

Mary Reichert (21:55)

And here's the constitutional question. When the government takes property to collect a debt, is it enough to run an auction or must it pay what the property was actually worth? That is the fight. The county says the family had notice for years and chances to stop the foreclosure. But the Peng family says it didn't even owe that tax in the first place. The dispute began with a Michigan property tax benefit known as the principal residence exemption, a rule that reduces taxes on a homeowner's primary residence.

Nick Eicher (22:26)

A county assessor denied that exemption. The state tax tribunal overturned the denial, but the assessor denied it again. Before the family could fully unwind the dispute, the county foreclosed over that $2,200 bill. And the house sold at auction, as you heard, for 76,000.

Mary Reichert (22:46)

The Constitution says that when the government takes private property, it must provide just compensation. The county argues that a fair public auction satisfies that requirement. The price is what the market produced. The family argues that wiping out nearly $100,000 in equity cannot be just compensation even if the auction followed proper procedures. Justice Sonia Sotomayor captured that tension.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (23:12)

They're fighting over a $2,400 tax debt that at least two courts said was an owed and yet they plowed ahead and got a price half the amount of the value of the property. At some point. Doesn't the constitutions have something to say under the rubric of what a just compensation is?

Mary Reichert (23:34)

So what counts as just compensation here, what the auction brought in or what the home was actually worth? The family's lawyer, Phil Ellison.

Mark Mellinger (23:43)

The property interest here is the value of the equity that was taken ultimately is that there is a piece of property that has been uncontested by the government to be worth, you know, approximately $200,000.

Nick Eicher (23:55)

And so how can it be constitutional, he argued, for the government to erase $100,000 in equity. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked what seemed an obvious question to the family lawyer Ellison.

Bradley Bowman (24:07)

I'm just curious, why would the county

Nick Eicher (24:09)

pursue a $2,200 debt that wasn't owed to this extreme?

Mark Mellinger (24:15)

We can't figure that answer out. We don't believe it's due. And the reality is is by the time the tax assessor actually informed Mr. Peng that the price was actually that she had put the pre credit had taken it away. That denied it once again, the the very limited 35 day window in which a Michigan taxpayer can activate the process of the tribunal to go back again

Bradley Bowman (24:37)

after he'd already won.

Nick Eicher (24:38)

I'd already gone for the county side. Lawyer Matthew Nelson argued that a fair public auction does reflect market value. After all, the auction process is lawful, so the price is just the price. After all, the owners had years of notice to make things right. A foreclosure is a forced sale as a result of the homeowner's actions. Nothing in the constitution says that the government has to act as a real estate agent to maximize returns.

Mary Reichert (25:07)

Justice Samuel Alito wondered why the family didn't just borrow the amount to pay the tax, it had more than enough equity to get a loan. Ellison for the family noted the family wanted to keep the house. And he floated the notion that the government could just have seized some personal property to resolve that debt. Not an entire home in this case,

Mark Mellinger (25:26)

with a tax debt of about 2,200 bucks. It could have been the peloton bike that was in the house.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (25:32)

You think a peloton bike today is worth $2,000. Well, if you go on Facebook Marketplace

Bradley Bowman (25:40)

and you try to sell a peloton

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (25:41)

bike today for $2,000, I don't think you're going to be very successful. How are they going to know that he has a peloton bike?

Mark Mellinger (25:50)

Traditionally, joking aside, traditionally, there are, there are a lot of different options or bank accounts, there's personal property, the vehicle,

Nick Eicher (25:57)

there's lots of the kidding aside, the underlying question was a serious one. How far does the government have to go to collect a small debt without wiping out a family's home? That created a scenario of just how messy a proportional debt collection might be. And then Justice Amy Coney Barrett put it this way.

Mary Reichert (26:17)

I mean, frankly, reading the briefs, it

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (26:19)

sounds to me like this tax assessor was like Inspector Javert. But it was even worse because Jean

Mary Reichert (26:23)

Valjean hadn't stolen the bread.

Mark Mellinger (26:25)

I mean, you didn't even, you didn't

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (26:26)

even know the tax.

Mary Reichert (26:27)

And it's this small tax and the big, you know, the big loss of the family home and of the money.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (26:34)

So it does seem that there's some unfairness there, but I'm struggling to see

Mary Reichert (26:38)

how it fits into the takings framework.

Mark Mellinger (26:41)

Can you tell me of a case

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (26:43)

that we have that treats the foreclosure of a house as a taking?

Nick Eicher (26:47)

Justice Sotomayor was even more pointed in her questioning.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (26:51)

Give me a holding from a court in our 250 year history where we have said that the measure of damages on a tax foreclosure is fair market value, not the auction price.

Mark Mellinger (27:04)

There has not been that specific holding up in this court's history. But there has been the history of, like parallel circumstances.

Emma Eicher (27:12)

Oh, yikes.

Mary Reichert (27:13)

That is the doctrinal chokehold. No precedent on point. Which is why the county emphasizes it. Yes, foreclosure is a blunt way of clearing long standing debts. That's just reality. But the family turns that 180 degrees and says if the government chooses a system that destroys equity, then the Constitution must step in. And if the county takes in more property than needed to pay the bill, it must make the property owner whole.

Nick Eicher (27:40)

Lawyer Ellison for the family closed this way, if the government is going to act like a confiscatory entity, you're responsible

Mark Mellinger (27:48)

under the takings clause.

Mary Reichert (27:49)

If the family prevails here, counties will have to come up with a closer market value or else pay the difference. And if the county wins, it will let states continue a practice that some call home equity theft by using fair process as a shield for unfair prices. And that's this week's legal docket.

Nick Eicher (28:13)

Additional support comes from Boyce College, where truth comes first. Every class begins with scripture and prepares students to live with wisdom, conviction and Christlike faithfulness. Boycecollege.com from Covenant College, where students are

Mark Mellinger (28:31)

equipped with a Christ centered education rooted in the Reformed tradition. Covenant.

Nick Eicher (28:37)

Edu World and from Free Lutheran Bible

Bradley Bowman (28:41)

College, grounding students in the word of

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (28:44)

God for life in Jesus Christ on

Nick Eicher (28:46)

campus and in person in Plymouth, Minnesota.

Mark Mellinger (28:49)

FLBC EDUARDO.

Mary Reichert (29:04)

Coming up next on THE WORLD and everything in it, the Monday Money beat.

Nick Eicher (29:10)

Time now to talk business, markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bonson. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bonson Group, and he is here now. Good morning, David.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (29:22)

Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

Nick Eicher (29:24)

Well, obviously Iran is the story of the weekend and of the week to come, maybe of the month to come, who knows. But David, I think the place to start from an economic perspective is by noting that we have had economic sanctions in place on Iran pretty much since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Just thinking of the immediate sanctions over the hostages to a trade embargo, to UN Sanctions over the nuclear program, to maximum pressure, more recently, all the way up to Saturday morning. But bottom line, for years the US and our allies have tried to contain Iran primarily through the use of sanctions and not necessarily militarily. And yet here we are. So from an economic standpoint, David, why didn't sanctions change Iran's behavior? And what does that tell us about the limits of using economic leverage to influence regimes like this?

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (30:24)

Well, economic sanctions are much more motivating for countries that value their own economic well being. And Iran has ideologically been willing for much of its population to be impoverished and more so even than a country like Russia, which is also very willing for the vast majority of its people to be impoverished. It does still value its self preservation in Russia and Iran. I'm not even sure we can necessarily say that giving some of the Shia extremism. So it's difficult to do a business deal with someone that doesn't respond to business incentives. And there's a geopolitical parallel here as well.

Nick Eicher (31:10)

Well, still a lot of uncertainty, David, about how far the Iran attack goes and the fallout from it, whether this remains contained or becomes something more sustained. So I want to ask this, when markets look at a conflict like this, a big one, how much of the economic risk comes down to duration? I mean, what's the difference between a brief disruption and a prolonged one?

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (31:36)

Well, so much of the answer that question is going to depend on the longevity and magnitude of this, the President values hard strikes, decisive victories, but quick activity. There hasn't been much that he has done geopolitically. It may have surprised some people who are radically isolationist. The President has certainly proven not to be that. But he also has not done anything yet in either the first term or in this part of the second term that suggested a tolerance for prolonged presence. And my assumption is that this will be the same. But there's just a lot of uncertainty here, Nick. And then that's where the economic aspects come in. Impact in Strait of Hormuz, impact to Israel, where other trading partners come in on this, what support Iran ends up getting from China and what that does in US China dynamics. We need some time for these things to play out because these are answers we don't have right now.

Nick Eicher (32:40)

Now, of course, one of the immediate pressure points we always watch in this region is the Strait of Hormuz. It's a critical artery for global energy and shipping. Help us understand the real economic exposure there, David, not just for oil, but for global trade more broadly.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (33:00)

Well, it's global, it's not domestic. And that's the issue that has given the President and any other US President significant leverage that we didn't have for many decades post World War II. The United States dependency on oil is sitting in West Texas. It is not sitting in the eastern part of the world. And so to the extent that there was a lot of assumption that this might happen over the last week or two and that the quote unquote prediction markets were presuming something could end up happening at over a 50% chance, we didn't know until we all woke up Saturday morning that it had happened. But there was not like a shock to this. And yet oil had been at 66, $67. There were times a few years ago, let alone a few decades ago, where just the mere chatter of this, we would have been looking at 85 or $95 oil, we'll see where it goes. But the world does not need Iranian oil, and the US Most certainly doesn't need it. And in fact, our ability to export even changes the game for global trading partners. And it's also, by the way, why those of us who believe in free trade, also in a navy and our founding fathers, you know, understood this well, although they were dealing with Barbary pirates, right? The United States will protect itself interest there. And I don't have any doubt in my mind about that. The issue on this question is more logistical. Does it take a week? Does it take a month? What delays take place, what reroutings take place. We're going to look this week at shipping prices. There's a few market signals we'll get, but the US will protect its own interests.

Nick Eicher (34:55)

Okay, and before we go and as we continue to watch developments, David, what should we be looking for in the coming days to gauge whether the economic risks here are escalating or stabilizing?

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (35:09)

Well, I really don't know that the President is willing to put ground trips in. And so that's where you start getting into quagmire talk. Being there a long time loss of US lives, Could it be a prolonged air war? Could it be a prolonged issue that affects Israeli safety? You know, we right now do have a travel ban of any fights getting out of Israel. And so those types of factors are all out there. But assuming that this goes to like a three or four year Iraq level war, I just don't see it. I don't believe it's on the table, but I don't know you'll find anyone who believes that the President has an appetite for that. So you know, there's legitimate questions regardless of what people think about the propriety of this particular effort. There's questions that we don't know the answer to right now, what the end game exactly is. But let's also not forget, Nick, that when we talk about these things there's an upside and downside, right? What if there is, unlike the case in Iraq, what if there is robust Iranian people waiting for freedom to take over with self government and open up markets And I mean this is a very big country with a very big population. There's all kinds of upside scenarios too. I don't think they're likely, but I don't want to rule them out. And I think that the left tail risk outcomes are pretty unlikely too. So just from the Economist in me, it's so hard to project this early, but I think we'll have more clarity in the days and weeks to come.

Nick Eicher (36:43)

Alright. David Bonson, founder, Managing partner and Chief Investment Officer of the Bonson Group. He writes@dividendcafe.com and at World Opinions. David, I hope you have a great week, although I imagine it's going to be a crazy one.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (36:56)

Well, that's what we're here for. Always good to be with you, Nick.

Mary Reichert (37:26)

Good morning. This is the World and everything in it from listener supported World Radio. I'm Mary.

Nick Eicher (37:32)

And I'm Nick Eicher. You're hearing your USA men's hockey gold medalist singing the anthem down in Miami, after returning from the Olympics a week ago. There's been a lot of singing of the anthem lately. Jack Eichel, the Americans top center iceman representing your country. And we all take so much pride in wearing this red, white and blue jersey and what it means to be an American.

Bradley Bowman (37:55)

And it's awesome.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (37:56)

I mean, it's incredible.

Bradley Bowman (37:56)

It's. It's really hard to put into words.

Nick Eicher (37:58)

You hear the anthem and you sing it together.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (38:01)

It's hard to explain.

Nick Eicher (38:02)

Well, today on the World History Book, we will attempt to explain it. The Star Spangled Banner is so deeply embedded in American culture, it goes back even before it officially became the national anthem, starting with the War of 1812. Here is World's Emma Eich.

Emma Eicher (38:24)

September 13, 1814. America and Great Britain are at war again. British troops have just left Washington, D.C. in ashes. Their warships are positioned in the Chesapeake Bay ready to attack Baltimore. Fort McHenry stands guard between the ships and the city as the last bastion. As the British prepare to bombard the fort, one of the ships, the HMS Tunnett, holds an American hostage, the Dr. William Beans. They accuse him of being a spy

Bradley Bowman (38:54)

and they arrest this dude named Dr.

Mark Mellinger (38:57)

Beans and they bring him aboard the ship.

Emma Eicher (39:00)

That's Mark Ferris. He's the author of the Star Spangled Banner, the unlikely story of America's national anthem. Two Americans try negotiating Beans release before the battle. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and federal agent. John Skinner.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (39:14)

They get into a tiny boat.

Bradley Bowman (39:16)

I guess they're waving a white flag.

Mark Mellinger (39:18)

They're approaching the biggest warship in the

Bradley Bowman (39:20)

world and they're like, hey, we want

Nick Eicher (39:21)

to talk about Dr.

Emma Eicher (39:23)

Beans. They manage to convince the British troops that Beans isn't a spy, and the three of them beat a hasty retreat back to their own vessel. Then at dawn, Britain blasts cannonballs and rockets at Fort McHenry. Key watches the missiles light up the dark sky and he scribbles down some of the most memorable words in American history.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (39:44)

The rocket's red glare.

Mark Mellinger (39:45)

The bombs bursting in air.

Bradley Bowman (39:47)

The rampart, that's Fort McHenry.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (39:49)

It gave proof through the night that

Mark Mellinger (39:51)

the flag was still there.

Emma Eicher (39:53)

With the stars and stripes flying triumphantly over the fort, the British sailed home in defeat. Key finished writing the piece the next day, titled the defeat of Fort McHenry. Many today consider it a poem, but Key actually wrote the piece with music in mind.

Mark Mellinger (40:09)

Lyricists invented new words to well known melodies that were already part of the cultural conversation.

Emma Eicher (40:17)

Mark Clegg is a professor of musicology at the University of Michigan. He also wrote oh, say can you hear a cultural biography of the Star Spangled Banner?

Mark Mellinger (40:26)

It's a tradition that was very common in the 19th century called the broadside ballad tradition. So he imagines those words to the Star Spangled Banner already having in mind the melody to which we sing it today and was used for actually hundreds of other songs in American history.

Emma Eicher (40:42)

Newspapers picked up the story and suddenly the whole country was singing. Key song. The ballad seemed to inject a shot of pride into the veins of the nation. Reverence for the nation's flag came along with America's newfound patriotism.

Mark Mellinger (40:55)

And after 1814. And key song. The song helps popularize the power of the flag for the American people.

Emma Eicher (41:03)

The song joined the ranks of American classics like Yankee Doodle.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (41:07)

Yankee Doodle came to town of riding on a pony, Stuck a feather in

Emma Eicher (41:12)

his cap and called it macaroni and later catching. Katherine Lee Bates, America the Beautiful. On 3-3-95 years ago, President Herbert Hoover considered which one should become the national anthem. There were other popular songs in the running too, like Hail Columbia, My Country Tis of Thee, and Gem of the Ocean. Mark Ferris says there were issues with most of them. Take My Country Tis of Thee, for example.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (41:50)

It's the melody of the British national anthem, God Save the King.

Mark Mellinger (41:56)

And as for Yankee Doodle, nobody takes Yankee Doodles seriously.

Emma Eicher (42:00)

Clegg says America the Beautiful wasn't a rallying cry for the nation.

Mark Mellinger (42:04)

Like America the Beautiful makes us feel great about, you know, America from C to signing C. And America the Beautiful is wonderful when everything's going pretty well.

Emma Eicher (42:12)

Hail Columbia was a runner up, but the Star Spangled Banner was the clear choice.

Mark Mellinger (42:18)

It was always obvious to people that the Star Spangled Banner was the symbolic song of the nation, and it was just a matter of making it official at that point.

Emma Eicher (42:27)

The anthem is tricky for singers with a sweeping 12 octave range. Clegg says that's part of what makes it great.

Mark Mellinger (42:35)

It takes a lot to sing this song well and you have to sort of go for it. And I think there's something inspiring about the tune, the melody that demands that Americans sort of be heroes like you have to become bigger than yourself in order to realize that song.

Emma Eicher (42:52)

And what would the Star Spangled Banner be without the flag itself? The Stars and Stripes came with its own traditions. Here's Faris again.

Bradley Bowman (42:59)

In the 1890s, the man who wrote

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (43:03)

the Pledge of Allegiance introduced what was known as the Bellamy Salute to the flag.

Emma Eicher (43:10)

The Bellamy Salute was taken from an old Roman tradition of standing with one arm raised to the flag, palm down. But that's where the Nazi salute came from. So Congress Revised it in 1942. It changed to standing with a hand over the heart, hats removed. The hats off part is a military custom.

Unidentified Commentator/Reporter (43:30)

It's an amazing cultural thing. And nobody around the world, there's no country on this planet that plays its

Nick Eicher (43:37)

national anthem more than we do in America.

Emma Eicher (43:41)

Flags are everywhere, on front porches, high school gyms and the biggest sporting events like the Olympics and the Super Bowl. And where the flag is, so is the Star Spangled Banner. Clake says he believes the most important word in the anthem is you.

Mark Mellinger (43:57)

Like, oh, say can you see? And the reason for that is because it invites us all to be part of the story, to have a kind of personal relationship to the song. And I think that, to me, is the magic of the song and what it calls us to do. I think it's a call to citizenship as much as it is a symbol of nation.

Emma Eicher (44:18)

That's this week's world history book. I'm Emma Eicher.

Mary Reichert (44:44)

Tomorrow, how pro life advocates are using zoning ordinances to block abortion centers. And a Senate race that could offer a glimpse of what's ahead for the midterms. That and more tomorrow. I'm Mary Reichert.

Nick Eicher (44:57)

And I'm Nick Eicher. The world and everything in it comes to you from World Radio. World's mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates and inspires. The Bible says, six days shall work be done. But on the seventh day is a sacrifice of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places. Leviticus, chapter 23, verse 3. Go now in grace and peace.