Can Iran Take More Pain Than Us? | Shield of the Republic

追加: 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]He thinks we have them by the throat.

[00:00:02]And I think the Iranians think they have us by the throat.

[00:00:11]Welcome to Shield of the Republic, a podcast sponsored by the Bullwwork and the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. I'm Eric Edelman, counselor at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, non-resident fellow at the Miller Center, and a Bullwark contributor. And I'm joined by my partner in all things strategery, Elliot Cohen, professor emeritus of strategy at the John's Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC, and a contributing writer to The Atlantic.

[00:00:38]Elliot, how are you?

[00:00:39]>> Personally, I'm good, but politically, I'm feeling grumpy. So, let's plunge right into Jackasserie if if we may.

[00:00:46]>> Okay, please. um have at it. So, I you know to I'm an even-handed kind of guy and after having spent uh most of the last year plus bashing uh the Trump administration and all its works, I I want to say a few things about the Democrats because this past week or two there's really been a number of things which I think are pretty odious. Um, one was uh people like Tim Kaine, Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Kelly voting against arm sales uh to Israel.

[00:01:22]And I just want to focus on Kelly for a moment who was a naval aviator and you know to vote against arm sales to a country which has been flying combat missions with our people. So Kelly was a naval aviator.

[00:01:39]um you know some of his contemporary counterparts have been flying missions with Israeli counterparts and you know at the end of the day no matter how much one loss Trump and how much one loss Netanyahu they are our allies and we're in a shooting war and they're in a shooting war and and the reason why I I find this odious is I don't think this has anything to do really with a considered view of Israel. I think this is cowardice and yielding to what's a a general trend in the Democratic party which is to platform I think you you may have used the word sanewash uh people whose antipathy to Israel goes so far that it does go over into anti-semitism. So the just a couple of the other examples uh Graeme Platner supposed Oysterman who however went to Hotchkus which is rather pricey private school who had a Nazi tattoo who's admired the October 7th attacks in a statement he subsequently scrubbed. Um who has gone on with a whole bunch of genuine undoubted anti-semite anti-semitic podcasters.

[00:02:52]um you know this is somebody who may very well be the Democratic nominee for the Senate in Maine and it doesn't matter to those people or I think the most odious thing has been the platforming of Hassan who again genuinely an anti-semite I mean it this is a guy who uh says Hamas you know Hamas and Israel same thing but it's actually stuff that's a lot worse than that I believe he said we deserved 911 Um, and you have all kinds of people making excuses for for these folks. And I think it's I mean I know you have something to say about it, but I think that the broader picture is of a Democratic party that is willing to cave to its extreme left wing or it's not even left isn't even the right word for it. Uh, it's extreme progre. I don't even view these people as progressive. It's extreme wing, let's call it, which is no different and no better than the T Tucker Carlson's and the Candace Owens. And it's opportunistic.

[00:03:59]It's cowardly. And I think it's going to blow back and bite them because if you're looking at the Senate for example, I think if they do succeed in nominating Abdul say, who's been pinging around with Hassan they guarantee that Mike Rogers, who's basically a normal Republican of the kind that you and I could deal with, will win. And a good thing, too. And so maybe they'll have to take a couple of shellackings before they realize that cowardice actually does not beat principle uh when you have something to say. So those are my thoughts.

[00:04:32]>> Yeah, I don't disagree. I mean, I I think, you know, it's up to both sides of the political aisle to, you know, police their own extremists. And the failure of Republicans to do that, you know, has brought us the Republican party that we have today. And when you, you know, when you read Ben Rhodess in the New York Times essentially, and I did use the term sanewashing Graham Platner, uh, it it's in service of a a kind of left-wing version of the isolationism, you know, the ritual incantation against no, you know, endless wars, um, that you, you know, see on the, you know, the Republican, uh, you know, alt-right, farright, you know, neo Nazi Nazi adjacent uh forces that that Republicans have allowed to you know run wild. I mean this is I think bad politically for Democrats but moreover I think it's bad for the nation. Um and it's in the same way it's really horseshoe theory. It is the exact parallel to what happened to the Republican party. And if you know I if they hadn't had that example staring them in the face one might say well you know they're trying to manage a political coalition those are hard but we know what happens when you don't you know pay attention to this. So I'm I'm with you um 100%. Yeah. No, you know, I would just add that, you know, cowardice is really the first cousin of jackasserie and and I think when you, you know, when you begin to cower in front of uh people on the extremes, you end up doing stupid things that hopefully you will uh you will regret later on. And conversely, when you take principled stands, okay, sometimes you will go down and there were certainly Republicans who went down for taking principled stance against Trump. But, you know, then again, we just had the example of Tom Tillis who said, "Look, I'm not going to approve uh Trump's pick for the Federal Reserve until they drop this insane prosecution of uh of the current chairman of the Federal Reserve and they backed down, >> right?" And you know, I I I just, you know, there's a part of me which just wonders. I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt would say if he was looking at both parties. And I think, you know, seething contempt is probably the best way to capture it. Anyway, one, now that I've gotten that off my chest, >> Yeah. No, I I I I quite agree. um including with your characterization of TR's likely response. Um you know my uh jackassery of the week is uh 29-year-old deputy assistant secretary of homeland security for counterterrorism.

[00:07:23]Uh you know an issue that probably ought to be taken seriously in light of the you know current circumstances. But uh Julia Varvaro, the 29year-old who was occupying that position, had to be uh suspended by the powers that be in the leaderless DHS uh because she was both accused by a former boyfriend uh of having milked him for $40,000, but also having been present on uh you know, sugar daddy websites. Who knew?

[00:07:56]you know, web websites where young women can look for older companionship that, you know, is meant to keep them in uh in the style to which they would like to be accustomed and maintain their lifestyles. Um, you know, just you only the best people in the Trump administration. And it's it's >> well, you know, I I remember our old uh friend uh and mentor Al Bernstein always used to say first rate people hire first- rate people, second rate people hire third rate people. third rate people hire total losers. I mean, that's my my take on the Trump administration.

[00:08:32]>> Well, um let's uh let's turn our attention if we can to uh someone who is a multiple winner of the you know jackassery of the week which is the secretary of defense Pete Hegathth who's been in the news a lot including a press briefing that he gave uh this morning.

[00:08:52]Um why don't you talk about your reaction to the press briefing and then we can dig into some of his other uh activities during the course of the week.

[00:09:02]>> Yeah, we we are going to have to retire his his number when when when he finally leaves. I he belongs in the Jackassie Hall of Fame. Um, I I didn't listen to the press conference, but I read the transcript which the so-called Department of War, actually the Department of Defense sends out. And uh, I will tell you the thing that struck me about it. I mean, set aside all the usual totally classless, cheap uh, sneameless toying and brown-nosing towards Trump.

[00:09:38]Those were all there and we expect that from from Hexath. But what was striking about it was um the way he described the war and the blockade was it was the tone of somebody who a thinks they are completely winning and that you know the the objective which will be achieved is total victory and total confidence that we've got all the resources and uh we are just going to squeeze the life out of these people and it it did not sound at all like somebody who's been told by the president to prepare for some sort of compromise, some sort of way out. Um I and I I I have to say and we're going to have a longer talk about the war. Um, I think people have been may have been mistaken when they've uh gone for some sort of version of the taco uh bet that Trump always chickens out, sort of assuming that he'll eventually back down. I mean there there was one thought that occurred to me which was I wouldn't say sympathetic to Hexath but you know when a war breaks out people immediately um resort to a very limited number of words to explain what's going on. One of course is quagmire. I mean that used to be the particular uh uh province of Johnny Apple at uh uh at the New York Times that whenever war happened this is Vietnam all over again we're in a quagmire. Another word, another word that gets overused a lot is strangle hold. That Iran has a strangle hold on um on the world and you know that invariably comes with a picture of there's some sort of gigantic poster in Iran uh showing an Iranian hand uh on the straits of Hormuz. The the truth is we have a strangle hold on Iran as well.

[00:11:35]And at least Hexath is insisting that we're getting every single major ship that comes out there. maybe not, you know, little speedboats or something like that. Uh so actually the truth is the United States does sort of have a strangle hold on Iranian commerce and it is true the Iranians have a strangle hold on global oil exports coming out of the Persian Gulf. So I just I note all that and it it does make me think that there's a good chance that this could go on for quite some time. Um, I don't know you've I know you said you hadn't read the whole thing or watched the whole thing, but you probably had some sense of some of the highlights.

[00:12:10]>> Yeah, I did see some of the takes outtakes from it um uh on on Twitter. It it struck me as a typical Hegathian, you know, performance in the way that you described. I we we could come back to some of the details about the blockade and blockades in general and and how how this is working in a second, but I the the problem, you know, I think of the Heg Seth press conferences is his presentations stand in pretty stark contrast to his wingmate, you know, General Kaine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who almost always uses his time uh to give a kind of Joe Friday just the facts ma'am you know briefing on the actual state of the war they're not quite as informative as some of his predecessors you know they tend to be much more focused on um on the kind of inputs rather than the outcomes um which I think has been a tendency not just of his but of sentcom's uh briefings as well and uh then the rest of the time is spent actually lauding the men and women of the US armed forces for for what they're doing. And this the contrast I think I could be reading too much into this but I do believe it's kind of intentional on the part of the uniform military because I think most of the senior leaders understand that Hegath is a profoundly unserious person and you know uh should not be in charge of running a war you know uh much less the largest bureaucracy in the federal government. Um I mean he's been busy on other fronts.

[00:13:57]So uh you know one of the things he seems to do well at is you know uh firing people. I mean and I mean that in a the archest sense person you know possible. I mean uh so this week uh you know after previously relieving the chief of staff of the army he now relieved um the secretary of the navy uh John Failen. And as best I can tell, and I'd be interested in what you have managed to decode about this, this appears to be largely a kind of uh interpersonal conflict uh between Failen and Hegsth and his deputy um Steven Fineberg, the deputy secretary of defense over who gets to control the kind of buildup of naval forces that President President Trump has said he supports and which I think most people believe is necessary.

[00:14:56]Um, but the way they got him fired was to go to Trump and basically complain that Fillain was not going to be able to deliver the Trump class battleship by 2028, which nobody can do. I mean just because of you know the limitations of our uh you know ship building industrial base uh and particularly given the high techch components to designing this thing. I mean you don't design you know a battleship. you'll know better than I the exact timelines for the Iowa class in World War II, but that was with a nation fully mobilized, you know, for uh material production and, you know, designing much less technically complicated vessels. So, I mean I I >> well and and one can go beyond that. You had a mature design that you know was well understood. Uh and even then it took like about three years to build battleships.

[00:15:57]Uh and this is I think the the Trump class vessels were supposed to have about a 30,000 ton displacement. That's comparable actually to Iowa class uh battleships. So I guess the the things that I've picked up is that a lot of this had to do with tension actually with Fineberg who did not think that uh Felin was up to overseeing construction programs. So they had already taken submarine construction which is of course a very technical business uh away from felin and had appointed somebody else who's in charge of it reporting directly to the deputy secretary. That's a very bad that's a very bad sign. I mean if you really can't trust the Navy secretary to do it you should have fired him before.

[00:16:40]I think they had to tread carefully because felin is an old friend of Trump's. Uh he's a neighbor of his at Mara Lago.

[00:16:50]uh and you know he's been a successful suckup on the uh on the Trump class battleships. The impression you get is that Fineberg is actually more interested in pushing uh subsurface warfare and in general unmanned systems and stuff like that. So it it may also be that um they don't particularly care for this uh this notion and and you know it's actually hard to believe that we'll build this class of ships. I mean, it's hard enough to build modern destroyers.

[00:17:23]Um, but uh, you know, battles ships like this with all kinds of fancy technology, not really. Um, so, so and that, you know, there's that there's personality clashes. It was interesting that he apparently went to the White House. They didn't give him a heads up. I mean, you know, when the even when these people do something like this, they are so graceless.

[00:17:45]Um, they didn't there was no heads up.

[00:17:48]So, there he is. He's going around giving talks at I forget what public gathering.

[00:17:53]>> He was on the hill actually. He he was on the hill.

[00:17:56]>> He he doesn't, you know, he he's stunned. So he then makes an appointment to see Trump. Trump keeps him waiting for an hour and confirms it. Um I I suspect that u Hexath and Fineberg may come to regret this somewhat because Trump finds it very hard to break with his old financial friends and neighbors. And I am sure that Felen must be furious and I am sure that he will continue to interact with Trump and he will be spilling poison into his ear. And I would also suspect that, you know, he's another one of these finance guys with a big ego. He'll be be spilling poison to a lot of journalists as well. So I think, you know, every anytime something like this happens, all the journalists I know lick their chops because it means you've got somebody else who wants to to settle some scores. The larger issue, of course, is that actually naval naval construction has been a disaster for some time.

[00:19:03]uh the Navy and and by the way I I don't think one should let the uniforms off the hook either. I mean we can just in this conflict you can see two monumental problems. won the absence of mind sweeping, mine hunting. Actually, it's really mine hunting now rather than mine sweeping. That's a somewhat archaic term. Uh, vessels and the absence of frigots. And the Navy's, I think we discussed this last time that we've they've tried several things and now they're they're setting on some kind of cockami upgraded US Coast Guard cutter which doesn't even have vertical launch tubes for the various kinds of missiles that it has to it has to carry. Um, but you know, I I think these people being what they are, nobody's really going to sort of take stock of this and figure out what happened and um and fix it. There's also I think there was some indication that Felin was not as keen on going on witch hunts for wokesters for woke admirals. Um and and that that may be that and that that was some of the tension with Hexath. So in other words akin to the tension between uh Dan Driscoll the secretary of the army and Hexath. The only thing is I think Driscoll is politically smarter and he already kind of got out there and said, "No, I'm staying uh even as he's defending Randy Randy George." But it, you know, it's it's another sign of what what Hexath is like as a manager. I Let me ask you a question. Do you think this ends up doing long-term damage to the senior officer corps? Uh well to pick up on the conversation we had last week about uh General George's removal, this is just another signal of uh you know the paranoia, the uh kind of mean-spiritedness of Hegsth as a manager and u you know I do think it sends very bad uh signals to the senior officer corps about what it takes to be successful in the Pentagon.

[00:21:10]on under this regime. And the problem is, you know, the longer this goes and the more it looks like it's a quasi permanent, you know, by bureaucratic standards, uh, dispensation, the more damage it'll do. Um, and and so I I do worry about institutional damage and not just to the senior uniforms, but also to, you know, senior civilians. May we now have a acting secretary of the Navy uh you know who was a failed Senate candidate in Virginia um and a failed congressional candidate in Virginia who u apparently believes that you know California is being taken over by witches.

[00:21:56]>> What?

[00:21:57]>> Yeah.

[00:21:57]>> Oh I I hadn't >> Yeah. No. So this is in a podcast that he did you know a while ago.

[00:22:04]>> Um >> California's been taken over by witches.

[00:22:06]So I mean I well I would like to I'm going to hereby apologize to the Iranian member of parliament that I was making fun of earlier today who said that the reason why um the new supreme leader Machaba Kami is has not appeared is uh that because of the high development of occult sciences in Tel Aviv and that you know they would be casting spells and stuff like that. And I I think I sent you the link to that I sent to some other friends and you know haha what what idiots but who knew you know let >> let us not cast stones those of us who live in glass houses that's all I can say.

[00:22:49]>> Well you know let's return to that uh because it's a you know point you made to me in the green room about kind of where we are in this war um in terms of how the two sides see each other. But before we do that, one other uh element of Hegsth's uh jackasserie at the Pentagon this week that goes back to something we talked about last week, which is apparently there is a naughty and nice list of European uh allies in NATO that the Pentagon is keeping and it's looking, you know, for ways to punish members of, you know, the alliance who have, you know, been, you know, less ractable and and not cooperative with the uh administration in the prosecution of this war. A a war that we ought to note, you know, was started by the administration without any consultation of the allies or even or even for warning. But in particular, they look to they're looking at the possibility of suspending Spain from NATO. Um you know, believe me, people have looked at the possibility of doing this in the past to France or Turkey or other countries. I I'm pretty sure that you can't do it. Um but also they want to revisit, for instance, whether the United States should recognize the British claim on the Faullands because let's resurrect that 40-year-old conflict. Yeah. Well, I mean, the British thing is ridiculous. I I I have um well, two thoughts. one is I'm I'm rather more sympathetic on Spain because Pedro Sanchez is poisonous and he is really going out of his way to be hostile to the United States. And I think, you know, I I do think what what people don't realize is the United States often lets countries get away with doing that kind of thing. And uh I think one of the virtues of John Bolton who you and I have talked to on this podcast before is John believes and I think he's right to do so that you know you reward your friends and when people are really hostile to them you you tell them that there's a price to be paid.

[00:25:01]But but and this leads to my second point. It's interesting that the Pentagon the Pentagon is thinking about this on their own. Well, they can't kick Spain out of NATO. That's ludicrous. But but this might be the kind of thing where in a normal administration you might have some meetings in the situation room where you say look uh there's an argument to be made that you want people to understand that if you you know it's one thing if you say I'm not in this war I opt out. It's another thing if you really go out of your way to try to obstruct us or make our lives difficult or denounce us >> with over overflight and things like that. Yeah. What what why don't we think of some way to to let everybody know that there's a cost for crossing us and and it might be that commerce would come up with something or Treasury would come up with something or state would come up with something that I would have no objection to. But but the very fact that it's the P, you know, the wizards of the Pentagon who are trying to come up with this just tells you there is there is no process and ultimately there is no policy.

[00:26:08]There's peak, but peak isn't the same thing as policy.

[00:26:12]>> Yeah. I mean this goes back to the conversation we had last week in the sense that you know what constitutes effective alliance management and you know um certainly there have been some positives from that have come out of the Trump uh you know hostility to NATO including getting people to take defense budgets more seriously than they have all of that was even underway frankly before uh you know Trump came into office the first time the process was beginning. Um, but I'm I'm concerned that, you know, really there's more damage going on here than than the value that we're getting out of this approach. Um, and I would point to this week the statement by Donald Tusk, the prime minister of Poland. Um, you know, Poland is one of the most pro-American countries in NATO.

[00:27:08]But, you know, Tusk was basically saying, you know, we we we can't be totally dependent on the Americans because we can't totally rely on them.

[00:27:16]Um, and you know, there was I just saw a a blog post by uh Mina Olander, who is a Finn, a very smart young woman who was a defense analyst there. And her point was the Nordics are very exposed right now um to Russian pressure particularly Finland which has a you know long you know 800 mile border with with Russia and uh she was talking about Nordic defense cooperation and how seriously the Nordics are taking it because of the threats that the US has made against Denmark and that I think you that I'm afraid is going to be lasting.

[00:28:02]Uh, and I don't I'm not saying that there's no way a, you know, future administration can't, you know, help repair some of that damage, but I think it's going to stick for a while.

[00:28:16]>> Yeah, I I I think the damage will stick.

[00:28:18]I I saw the same um I think it's a Substack.

[00:28:22]>> Yeah, Substack. Uh, and and I know Mina and she's she is a a very very smart and thoughtful uh person >> and not anti-American at all.

[00:28:31]>> Oh, far from it. Um, and I guess on the one hand, I completely understand it and and sympathize with it. And you know, you and I have uh pounded our fists on the table about uh the criminal folly of threatening to take Greenland by force and all that. I do think some of our European friends and I think also some of the Canadians too are just kind of wallowing in we can never trust you again. And and I find it it's a bit excessive. I mean, this is a serious crisis. Trump is a serious danger.

[00:29:15]It it's really a pretty elementary error, I think, to conflate Donald Trump and the United States of America. Now, I can you can say, well, you guys elected him, and that's perfectly true, but let's face it, just about every modern democracy has had disruptive right-wing movements, populist movements, uh, and will will continue to do so. But in any case, it's just not realistic. I mean, whoever comes after Trump will be different and will probably, let's say it's somebody like Rubio, maybe not Vance, but I don't think Vance has much of a chance anyway. If it's somebody like Rubio, I think you'll have much more reversion to the mean. So I I think a and I also think that some some about the commonality of interest and yes values is really is really in order and you know it's easy it's easy for them to feel self-righteous and imposed upon uh and because they know among other things you know you can really milk that when you're dealing with an American audience.

[00:30:24]of people like us or, you know, kind of normie uh foreign policy types and we'll go, "You're right. You're right. You're right. We feel so badly. We feel so badly." But but it's self-indulgent uh is really what it is. And I think, by the way, this is true for the Canadians.

[00:30:40]So, you know, Mark Carney said, "We're going to detach ourselves from the United States." Well, good luck with that, pal. I mean, when you have a couple thousand mile border, the economies are tightly integrated.

[00:30:50]They're going to continue to be tightly integrated. Yes, you can do more deals with China. By the way, a country that if you're investing in AI there, they might not let your staff leave the country, not just your money, let alone stealing your intellectual property. I mean, get real. uh is you know my my views although I you know I fully understand and I sympathize and agree with the you know the fear and loathing generated by Trump I I also think this is going a bit too far and and I think it's a good idea for people like us to kind of point that out to some of our European friends.

[00:31:29]>> Yeah. I mean I I think you know a good case in point um George Robertson had a you know an op-ed in the Telegraph which you know made many of these sort of European points about trusting the United States and and while I read it and found myself you know in sympathy with with Lord Robertson who is a you know was a I think an excellent you know NATO secretary general was a pretty good minister of defense in the UK. Um, you know, I thought he carried the carried it a little far because as you say, I mean, in the end of the day, the logic of the transatlantic link for both sides is is really pretty compelling.

[00:32:15]And so, I think, you know, look, I think Europeans would be well advised to, you know, continue to, uh, build up their own defense, you know, capabilities. We need that. We in the United States need that. Um um and they need it for themselves.

[00:32:36]Uh but avoid any permanent steps that you know damage the institutions of NATO and the transatlantic alliance.

[00:32:50]Um because I think those institutions need to be maintained so that when we get beyond Trump, we can actually go back to the business of of actually trying to manage alliance tensions and and whatnot. I will say one thing about, you know, uh punishing, you know, allies who transgress.

[00:33:13]you know, probably no ally in the history of the alliance, you know, has been more in that role than the French, right? um starting with um well not even starting with de Gaul but certainly under de Gaulle and subsequently um and having at one point you know in in the Bush administration looked at you know what what are the things we can do to punish France and you know going back and looking at the historical record we never did very much to quote punish you know France and you know in At the end of the day, France has remained an important part of the alliance. They are going to continue to be an important part of the alliance.

[00:34:01]And while it's easy to get swept up in the moment, you know, emotions get very high. I think recognizing that, you know, some of this is just the inevitable tugging and hauling of an alliance that's now 32 nations. Um, and one, you know, it's never there's never been, I think, an alliance that's this broad that survived so much, you know, uh, you know, so many contraton, uh, and still functions extremely well.

[00:34:33]And I think it's important not to get vertigo when you're trying to deal with all this.

[00:34:37]>> I agree. But um I think the difference between the French and the Spanish is first it it when there's a real crunch the French come through you know as de Gaul did during the Cuban missile crisis even in the worst days as you and I both remember uh say of the Iraq war French intelligence cooperation with us remained very good military cooperation with us remained very good we aligned on a lot of things including above all the Iranian threat where they were frequently tougher than we were. Uh they were always actually quite responsible about their own defense. Spain is one of the arch freeloaders of the NATO alliance.

[00:35:23]um you know they they radically underspend uh and and Pedro Sanchez really went out of his way not to say just we think this is a bad you know this thing's a bad idea but to really say no we need to kind of break away from the United States and so on and so forth. So it's not as serious. It's France, you know, has French statecraft is what it is and it but it's serious at least, you know, I've always felt that way. You've always felt that way. This this is actually this is Spanish domestic politics. One of the things that was not reported, by the way, in American papers, uh, but was reported in Spanish papers because I was there.

[00:36:01]This is all happening while Sanchez's wife is being indicted for corruption, >> right? And so a lot of this is what he's doing is playing on anti-American sentiments in order to get out of a domestic >> political and that makes it more reprehensible.

[00:36:18]>> Yeah. I mean in that sense it reminds me quite a bit of Ghart Schroeder um in >> Yes.

[00:36:23]>> you know in 2002 >> uh who who's turned out to be quite you know a bad actor um and essentially >> I mean a Russian shill >> a Russian shill. So yeah. Um well, let's go on to the war. Um and kind of where we stand. I you made a really interesting point in the green room about the mutual incomprehension of the leadership on both sides. And we may be running into that even as we speak because according to the White House, Jared Kushner and and uh Steve Whit are on route, you know, to Islamabad to meet. uh they are not sending Vice President Vance with them because uh Speaker Galab is not going to be going to Islamabad and there's a question about whether Galabah is going to continue to be the head of the Iranian delegation. There's all sorts of rumors on the internet about him being replaced by Sed Jalili, the former nuclear negotiator and and National Security Council head. uh between 2007 and 2013.

[00:37:34]Uh you and I remember his tenure uh at least the first year and a half of it pretty well. Um not not uh not a good augury were that to happen for the prospect of negotiations. I just leave it at that.

[00:37:49]Um, so what's, you know, what's your take on all of this about, you know, one, one of my, uh, we all have some all-purpose quotes that we always use.

[00:38:00]One of mine is from the great historian John Lucos who said uh who who who thought by the way that Hitler was very smart but he said you know Churchill was a better strategist than Hitler because Churchill could sort of imagine what it was like to be Hitler but Hitler could never imagine what it was like to be Churchill.

[00:38:22]And I think here we're dealing with a case where the the senior leadership on both sides is incapable of understanding the other.

[00:38:33]I mean, I don't think the Iranians know how to read Trump uh at all um or their even their own circumstances. I really think they think they're winning. Trump I don't think you know can get inside the head of the head of the IRGC uh General Vahiti or any of the other characters and it's a very complex array of characters as as we've discussed. So there's this profound mutual incomprehension.

[00:39:00]I think I I suspect that both sides really think that they have the upper hand. I mean, that's, you know, to go back to the Hexth um uh press conference, that's what you get. The sense you get from that press conference is there's no question in Hexath's mind, and I don't think he's smart enough to fake it. Uh but that he thinks we have them by the throat. And I think the Iranians think they have us by the throat. And in circumstances like that, it's kind of hard to see what sort of negotiation you're going to have. on on top of which and this this may actually be a case where Trump is speaking the truth.

[00:39:38]I think uh it is the case that their leadership is fragmented.

[00:39:44]Uh you know I if Machaba Kami has not appeared in public it has to be because there's something wrong. I mean, it's I I doubt that it's he's af Well, it may be because he's afraid of the uh the witches in Tel Aviv casting spells on him if he does, but um I think it's he must be pretty badly beaten up or you know, have half his face blown off or something like that. Um, you know, it's clear there are different factions in the IRGC and and and and to go further back, I mean, Kami built this rather elaborate structure with lots of different players and, you know, he was, I think, pretty the sense you get is he was pretty masterfully kind of moving the pieces around on the chessboard. And what the war has done is it's kind of tossed that chessboard up in the air. Now you some of the pieces have been knocked off the board completely. Some of them have been put back on the board, but nobody knows what the original positions were. So I think there's there's incoherence and then you have incoherent decision-making on our side because it's all, you know, what occurs to Trump at 2 a.m. while he's posting on Truth Social. Uh so I don't think any of this augers any of I don't think any of this augers well. And I you know I can imagine a number of scenarios. I can I can imagine a return to kinetic activity.

[00:41:10]Um I can also imagine a prolonged standoff or I can imagine Trump just wanting to get done with this and move on to something else and and cutting a deal. I don't know what what do what do you think's likely?

[00:41:23]>> Yeah, I I I see it similarly although I think maybe a couple of nuances here.

[00:41:29]So, so to me, the Iranian leadership seems very much like the Soviet leadership in the immediate aftermath of Stalin's death.

[00:41:39]Um, you know, you have uh a situation where you had a a uh you know, a supreme leader, you know, Stalin the VoD who made all the decisions ultimately playing off you know, factions against, you know, one another as he did very masterfully. And I think that's what Kam did when as supreme leader. You now have his son who was clearly the choice of the IRGC who lacks his octuratas to to to say the least and maybe dead. I mean the Israelis, you know, many of them think he's dead. uh you know you had this you know Farnaz Fahi story in the in the New York Times uh about you know he's had three operations on his leg all this very interesting detail she's gotten from you know regime insiders three operations on his leg badly burned lips and face which makes it very hard for him to talk and therefore he doesn't want to you know appear in public um you know who who knows know um but what I do think you have on the Iranian side as you did on the Soviet side after Stalin died is a kind of collective leadership which has to arrive at a consensus and they're you know they're at sixes and sevens. Galibah has been under pressure for days uh including for his you know videos that emerged of his wife and daughter taking a tourist swing through Turkey while you know the rest of Iranian society is you know live living under the threat of of bombardment.

[00:43:21]I I think you're right that both sides think they're winning and that time is on their side.

[00:43:27]Uh, and honestly, I'm not sure who's right about that in the following in the following sense. I mean, this is a competition at some level at who can absorb the most economic pain.

[00:43:40]The administration thinks perhaps correctly, I don't know, that they're very close to getting the Iranians to the point where they're going to have to cry uncle because they're going to run out of oil storage.

[00:43:53]They're going to have to cap wells.

[00:43:55]They're going to have trouble getting food into the country because of the blockade.

[00:44:01]Um they already were suffering from a food distribution problem. This is going to exacerbate it. Uh they're not going to be able to earn foreign exchange and therefore the currency which you know whose collapse was the what caused the big demonstrations in December and January uh is going to get driven down further. There's a whole you can construct a narrative that says yes, that's right. they're going to have to say uncle.

[00:44:26]Except that's been the narrative from the beginning of this war that just, you know, hit them harder and they're going to fold. And this is a very ideological bunch that doesn't give a about the condition of its public. And I'm not convinced they're going to fold.

[00:44:42]I'd add one other thing to that, which is blockades are always leaky.

[00:44:50]You know, it's it's great to say we've got an airtight block. It's hermetically sealed. They're not getting anything in or out, but you and I know that that's not how these things work. And it's already clear that, you know, some large number of vessels got through. I mean, that's uh you know, from data that comes from the you know, maritime authorities who track all this. And you know, will the American you will the US Navy catch up to some of them in the Indo-acific?

[00:45:20]Maybe. But but maybe not. You know, if they hug the coastline inside the territorial waters of not just Iran, but Pakistan and India, they can go a long way and get to port. So the Iranians have ways of stringing out that timeline that the administration is operating on, which by the way, I think is roughly the timeline that Trump always favors for everything, two weeks.

[00:45:44]Um, you know, I think they can drag this out for a little bit longer. Meanwhile, the president gives every indication from the number of times he's extended the ceasefire despite the blood curdling rhetoric in his truth social posts about I'm going to end a civilization, 48 hours, open the straight, you crazy you know, all of that.

[00:46:09]Um he's shown a great hesitance to go back to kinetic force, you know, and why is that?

[00:46:18]I think it's because number one, he knows this war is extremely unpopular. I mean, not only did he not do anything to prepare the public for this, but he hasn't done a very effective job of communicating during the eight weeks, and if you look at the polling, the war started out with historically low support. It's now somewhere like twothirds of the public, you know, hates this and attributes high prices at the gasoline pump. Not totally inappropriately, you know, to him and to this war. He also knows if he goes back to kinetic activity, he knows that he's shrewd enough, I think, to understand that the market has been, you know, perhaps systematically underpricing the risk here.

[00:47:03]uh in part because of the assumption that he's going to taco. And if he goes back to kinetic activity, there's going to be a market reaction and it could be quite severe because it's not just oil, right? If it's not just oil, it's also helium and sulfur and uh you know, ura and ammonia. It's food, you know, potentially because of the fertilizer that's at at planting time in a lot of the world that is going to be affected here. So, so it's not clear to me at all, you know, who can take the most pain here. And I guess, you know, we'll find out.

[00:47:38]>> So, so I mean, I I I agree with the basic judgment. I'll just add, you know, a couple little twists which uh may modify a bit. I think on the Trump side, um, you we have to remember we're dealing with somebody who's both ignorant and callous.

[00:47:55]And and so for example, I think he genuinely does not understand that oil is fungeable. His view is we've got lots of oil and other hydrocarbons and our exports actually have been shooting up.

[00:48:06]That's true. I mean probably there's there's a limit to uh how much you can even sustain that but so you know so he doesn't that global shortage he doesn't care. I mean at at a certain level maybe he should care but I don't think he does.

[00:48:22]>> He cares about the price effect though.

[00:48:25]He he cares about, but I'm not sure he even understands the price effect because we have lots of oil. So what you know I I I am I he is in some ways smart and in other ways he's incredibly dumb and I think that may be one of the ways that he's incredibly dumb and I don't think there's anybody there who's really going to argue him out of it. He's also I think he understands this war is actually going to be the dominant event of his second term. If he didn't know that already, he probably knows that now.

[00:49:00]And he has committed so much of his prestige and ego and all that.

[00:49:08]Um and he does is never going to run again.

[00:49:12]uh as he knows perfectly well that that he could go back to kinetic action. I I I and the truth is as you were saying, you know, we are continuing to move stuff there. There are now three carriers there. We're moving more Marines. So he and now that's partly to maintain pressure and keep options on the table. But I at this point I it's not only that I don't buy taco. I think some I think it's you know maybe there's Tesco. I mean, he sometimes chickens out, but sometimes he doesn't chicken out. And I I've given up trying to predict him. On the Iranian side, I would just say that I think we have to remember first that there's a lot of variation in the IRGC leadership. I think Kalibaf is one kind of character.

[00:49:53]Fahiti is another. I think they do have to care about the economics because they care about the regime.

[00:50:02]Uh and you know once people are really desperate they may not only might they try something again but you may have people inside the system who are willing to uh willing to try something. And I also believe at the end of the day look they're Iranian patriots and that they you know they they don't want their country to fail. Now, somebody like Fahiti from everything I read about him is, you know, he's just a hardcore fanatic who is equally ignorant uh but in a different way uh and more callous than Trump. So, he may not care, but but other people, you know, and by all accounts, Kobaf is a smart guy. People like him may care, but but they're also at the very last thing I'd say is at the same time, the advantage Trump has is he doesn't have to play an internal game to maintain his power.

[00:50:51]he's the president and everybody's just going to give a sickly grin and follow him. Whereas these guys, you know, I am sure that most of their energy is consumed with watching each other. I think that the one the one recommendation that we should absolutely give to all of our viewers is if you haven't seen Death of Stalin, you should watch that movie. I >> because you see that like even even at the funeral they're all you know trying to shift position and and angle each other out of it and they are very you know the other good thing about that movie is they're very different characters you know Beria is one kind of character is another character Melenov you know Zhukov >> Molotov >> um yeah they're they're not it's a great movie >> all the same >> oh it's a fantastic movie >> um look I I I largely agree with that and let me just, you know, add a kind of point to, you know, the potential of going back to kinetic. I'm not saying at all that I think Trump, you know, has ruled out going back to kinetic action.

[00:51:53]I think he would prefer not to. I think he for for a whole variety of reasons.

[00:51:58]And so I think, as you said earlier, we could be in a period of no peace, no war for some period of time here. On the other hand, I can hear voices telling him, "Look, you got to do what Nixon did in 1973 with the Christmas bombing. You know, you one big massive spasm of violence will get them to the table."

[00:52:18]Now, again, that's, you know, they've tried that like three or four times and it not gotten them to the table. Maybe it will this time. I don't know. I do think there's a potential here though that if he were and I think there will be institutional barriers to this but if he were to make good on his threats to go after the electricity uh production and distribution system the bridges etc. I mean, I think first of all, I think there's still enough integrity in the system that the lawyers would make sure that the targets were only those that were dual use, you know, to maintain, you know, stay inside the laws of armed conflict. Uh, I I think I mean I think that's right. I'm not 100% sure of that, but I think that's right. But if he were to go, you know, the full monty and really just go after all these civilian targets, I do think that there would be a reaction inside the country because it will go from being a war on the regime to being a war against the Iranian people. And I I think that could really actually redound, you know, and and I think there may be some like Fahiti who whose attitude is bring it on, you know, that's going to help us.

[00:53:35]>> Yeah. Well, that that's why I think it could happen. I you know I hadn't thought about the uh Nixon and the Hanoi Hiong bombing in was I guess 73.

[00:53:45]>> Yeah, December 7th.

[00:53:46]>> Um um I actually I think that's that's a very good analogy. I wouldn't be at all surprised if somebody's using it on on the law of armed conflict. We can defer to the lawyers, but of course they fired an awful lot of the senior >> Yeah, that's what worries lawyers.

[00:54:00]That's why I'm not completely I'm not completely confident in my judgment. And the other thing I would say is, you know, in practice, um, if if it's the kind of lawyer who wants to make the argument that his client wants to hear, >> you know, when we did, u Iraq in 1991, we hit the power grid.

[00:54:18]>> Same.

[00:54:19]>> We took it down. We same with, you know, these these these fancy munitions that, >> you know, carbon fiber that shorted everything out, which was hell to clean up, which we hadn't really thought about. Uh because you can say well you know the electrical power grid is supporting the computers in the air defense centers bridges you know well there you know they still have mobile launchers and the mobile launchers go on roads and the roads have bridges so you can take out all the bridges. So I I think he could get get away with that.

[00:54:51]And as for how the country would react is the house going to impeach him? No. I mean, a Democratic House will probably impeach him anyway, but they won't get anywhere in the Senate, even if the the Democrats take it. Do people care?

[00:55:05]I don't know.

[00:55:07]>> Yeah, >> I don't know. They care about the price of gas, >> right?

[00:55:10]>> But but I, you know, there's even a certain point where, you know, if Trump is hearing, as I suspect he is, that they'll probably lose the house anyway, >> right?

[00:55:23]>> Why Why should he care?

[00:55:25]>> Yeah. Well, I think they're I think they're now getting close to the point where I think a lot of them are afraid they're going to lose the Senate as well. Um, and there's and there's good data to make the argument for why they should be afraid of that. I I guess uh well, we we'll find out what happens in the war. We're kind of running low on time, Elliot. I do want to touch on one other issue because it just aggravates me no end. reports that the administration is negotiating to deport the 1100 Afghans who are still in Qatar who came out uh when the regime collapsed, you know, 5 years ago to the Democratic Republic of Congo, you know, a kind of active civil war, you know, um space where where, you know, millions have lost their lives. To me, this is, you know, uh, doing something to people who stood with us and fought with us.

[00:56:25]It's disgraceful and a stain on the national honor. It it is. I mean, it's utterly despicable. Um, the only thing I could add to that, and it is a it's a blot on our honor, and it's a disgrace. I mean, we have unfortunately really disgraced ourselves in the in the exit from Afghanistan in a way that we didn't in South Vietnam. I mean, in the case of South Vietnam, we really did make every effort to get people out, and it was still a horror show, but but we did make an effort to get people out and then to absorb them. You know, for me, the the thing that this brings home is the the kind of maniacal hostility to immigrants on the part of some people in this administration. I mean, somebody like Steven Miller, who I think is genuinely evil, it's it's sick. It's I mean, it's pathological. is it and it's so contrary to what we are. We're a nation of immigrants. You know, you and I are the grandchildren of immigrants.

[00:57:21]>> So, Steven Miller, >> yeah. And and where does this come from?

[00:57:27]I mean, it's it is pathological. It's the only word I can use for it.

[00:57:32]>> Yeah. No, it's it's terrible. And and this really is a huge blot. Um and I I hope they fail in their effort to do this, but I'm fearful. I I I hope some of the some of the veterans on the Republican side uh engage on this. I suspect they might.

[00:57:50]>> I I hope so.

[00:57:52]>> Well, we'll be back next week to see, you know, what further jackasserie we can uncover. Um and uh we'll find out.

[00:58:01]>> As always, we'll have a rich menu, >> I'm afraid. So, and and we may have some, you know, greater insight into, you know, who can absorb the most pain.