Is the War in Iran Going well for the U.S.? Debate with Brad Polumbo | Prove it! with Batya

Ajouté : 2026-04-30

[00:00:27]Hello everybody. Welcome to Prove It with Batia. I am so glad to have you here. Prove it is a daily debate show in which I bring on somebody who I really respect and really admire and really disagree with to have a debate. Today I'm going to be debating with the wonderful Brad Palumbo. Um I just love Brad. He is a person who thinks for himself guys and to it we had a hard time deciding on the topic because I too am like Brad unwilling to say something I don't believe. And we initially thought we were going to debate the James Comey indictment. So the Justice Department secured an indictment from a grand jury against James Comey for that photo he put on Instagram. I guess it was a year ago that said 8647.

[00:01:18]Now 86 I've worked in restaurants all through college. It means you know you're out of something and it's become slang for you know get rid of somebody.

[00:01:26]And the Justice Department is alleging that this was a call for violence against President Trump. 47 being President Trump, 8647. And initially we were going to debate this. Brad thinks this is ridiculous. And I was like, well, can I defend this? I can't. And then I was like, no, I can't defend this. This is stupid and ridiculous.

[00:01:45]Like obviously James Comey was not calling for violence against Trump. Do I think James Comey is a douchebag? I do.

[00:01:51]Do I think that this is protected speech? I do. So, we decided we had to change topics, but I wanted to give Brad the opportunity just to give his opinion on that because it was like kind of last minute and just speaks to um the seriousness with which he takes also um free speech and informing himself of his own opinion. So, where are you on the Comey Comey decision before we uh move on?

[00:02:13]>> Yeah. Well, thank you so much for having me and for the the kind words. And that's that's one of the things I respect about you, botcha is like in a world where so many people in media are just blind team red or blind team blue, I think we can have different values and different beliefs and disagree about things in earnest if we actually believe those things. And I have respect for people like you and I would like to think myself who actually believe the things we say we believe and apply those principles accordingly rather than like deciding based on what party is doing it whether it's supposed to be good or bad.

[00:02:44]And that was part of the problem I had with the James Comey indictment. One, I do think while we should all be trying to tone down the rhetoric right now. Uh, and I don't think his post was good, I do think that saying 86 someone is vague enough and there are actually dictionary listed definitions that are not violent, right? Getting rid of, removing, uh, that it is protected speech. And then there was such a blatant inconsistency where many Republicans like Jack Bibic or Matt Gates have used that exact phrase about other politicians and they weren't getting indicted. So it looked like politization of the Department of Justice to me and kind of frankly a like a a censorship, an act of censorship. I think it'll ultimately be dismissed. And I appreciated that that when you looked into it, you were like, "Hang on, I'm not going to defend that just because Trump's doing it." Uh so I think that's what we need more of, right? is we disagree on a lot of things. Uh but hashing it out in earnest and not just retreating to our ideological camps or assuming that our our party or our side, which I I consider myself an independent anyway, but I I really don't think anybody's right about anything 100% of the time. So, we should be critically thinking about each issue than making our mind up.

[00:03:56]>> Absolutely. Yeah. And I think also just it seems to me like so the the the head of the DOJ right now, Todd Blanch, he's he's the acting head. So he was put in after Trump got rid of Pam Bondi, but he's not actually the head of the DOJ.

[00:04:11]It's he's a placeholder. And it seemed almost like he was trying to prove his worth to Trump to to audition for the job. And I just don't like to see the DOJ used that way, especially because they did this to Trump. Like Biden weaponized the DOJ against Trump. And yes, I understand people saying like we can't always be the ones taking the high ground. But sometimes when it comes to things this important, we should. All right. So, we had to find another topic, y'all, that we could actually debate about because this is a debate show. We didn't come here just to agree with each other. Kumbaya, there's enough of that around. You don't need us for that. So, what we are going to debate instead is is the war in Iran going well for the US. That is the question on the table, the topic of debate, the thing that Brad and I are going to kick around for the next 20 25 minutes with your help. So the poll is going to go up. We want you guys to vote in the poll and we'll keep an eye on that poll. And also don't forget to put your comments in the comment section and Shar's going to throw those to us so that we can interact with you guys as well. All right, so Brad, let me just go through what's new on this topic very briefly and then I want to get your thoughts on this. All right. So, um, the most recent news is that the president is considering keeping the blockade on the straight of Hermuz ongoing for a little bit longer. He called in, and we have this sheriff, if you could pull up this headline from Axios.

[00:05:29]He pulled in um a bunch of oil executives to ask them what can be done to mitigate the stress on the American consumer if he wants to use the blockade instead of going back to attacking Iran with bombs in order to force them to give up their nuclear ambitions, which of course was the purpose of this whole um operation. I imagine there was some sort of bullying going on there as well.

[00:05:54]Trump does like to call up CEOs and get their opinion, but also tell them like greedflation will not be accepted under this administration. We could debate about that, Brad, if you have strong opinions about it. Um, the other big story of the week was the UAE has withdrawn from OPEC. Now, I know this sounds like a whole bunch of letters, but OPEC is a sort of alternative source of oil kind of oil cartel to us, to the West. basically a whole bunch of nations get together and figure out what the ideal amount of oil on the market is so that they can make the most amount of money, right? Because if there's too much oil on the market, the people producing the oil don't get to make as much money. The UAE has left OPEC, meaning it can now start to produce more oil, which will hopefully bring down the cost of oil. This is a really big deal.

[00:06:41]This is actually great for the United States in my view. And I think the president is seeing all of this and thinking, okay, maybe we don't go back to bombing Iran. We have other ways of using what we economic sanctions the blockade on the straight of Hormuz in order to improve our position relative to theirs. Um, all right. So, that's where things are at. Poll right now seems to suggest 50/50. We love a 50/50 around here. Is the war in Iran going well for the US? 50% saying yes, 50% saying no. All right, Brad, take it away. What's your view on this question?

[00:07:14]Well, there there's really so much to unpack about it that it's almost hard to know where to start. But I mean, first I'll say that I entered in to this I have kind of some principal objections in principle to what the Trump administration did in Iran, for example.

[00:07:29]I do believe the way they went about it is unconstitutional. They should seek a declaration of war from Congress before you would commit an act of war. But I will also acknowledge that ship sailed, right, and other other um presidents have engaged in similar things. Oh yeah.

[00:07:43]Like not SA that ship didn't sail like last week. It sailed.

[00:07:46]>> No. No. Exactly. So it's like those are objections that I still believe in in principle, but I'm not going to raise as like uniquely awful about what Trump did. I also think that that I viewed the Iran operation or I do think it's a war.

[00:08:03]They don't they say it's not a war, but also we've always been at war with Iran.

[00:08:07]It's like the the rhetoric is all over the place. Um, but so the war I I did view it initially in the context of the Venezuela operation which I was initially very concerned about and I I still have some like very big picture questions about but I think was a success objectively like just looking at it as a military operation. No Americans died. Uh obviously Maduro is evil and and was apprehended. So >> I was wondering like is he going to pull something off like that with Iran, right? some sort of quick strike in and out because President Trump campaigned against forever wars, campaigned on no new wars, campaigned on America first, against Middle Eastern entanglements.

[00:08:48]And I think that's part of his message that I've always resonated with. There's lots of it I haven't ever resonated with. Uh but I I thought that was central. So I've kind of I I didn't want to jump the second and say this is a I I didn't think it was a good idea. I didn't think it was justified, but I I'm not going to immediately judge it as a total failure before it even started because what if he pulled something similar? So, where are we these weeks later, right? Because at the at the start of the war, the straight of or before the war rather, the straight of Hormuz was open and oil was flowing freely. The current regime was in place.

[00:09:22]Uh 13 more US service members were alive now uh then than now. Hundreds have been injured. Somewhere between $500 million to a billion dollars a day has been spent. A large number, it's very hard to have like accurate tallies in in an ongoing conflict. A large number of Iranian civilians have been killed.

[00:09:44]Obviously, not I don't believe intentionally, but just that happens in war and it's horrible. And um the regime is still in place. uh we've you know we've we've decimated their military capacity but I'm not sure what we've actually achieved replacing a regime with other officials arguably more hardline elements and we're at this stalemate with the straight of Hormuz they now have this diplomatic lever that we didn't really know they that they could execute of kind of holding the the global economy hostage and I don't believe and I'm unclear on some of the Trump administration's justifications for this war like the whole nuclear issue which we can discuss. So to me there's been tremendous human and financial cost and yet when I compare where we were before this to where we are after I see very little achieved uh that I think was an imminent threat.

[00:10:43]>> Okay. So so much there to unpack. Um, they gave three goals the night that this was announced, that Trump announced it, he gave this sort of 2 am address.

[00:10:54]And in it, he laid out three goals. And they have been pretty consistent on what those are. So, they said they wanted to destroy Iran's navy. They said they wanted to destroy their ballistic capabilities. And they said they wanted to make it impossible for them to ever achieve a nuclear weapon. So, two of those they've achieved by I think by your own admission. The Navy they've sunk, right? who said that they've destroyed their current sort of military capabilities. Um the nuclear thing, they still have the nuclear dust and they still have not yet committed to never producing a nuclear weapon. Um they are currently facing down um the prospect of so they're producing oil, right? But the oil because of our blockade can't go anywhere. We're not allowing any of that oil to be sold. So what's happening is their tankers are filling up with oil and at some point like the the storage capacity is going to hit capacity at which point they're going to have to turn off the spigots. Now when it's my understanding that with old pipes you can't just turn them back on after that.

[00:11:55]So they are facing like real financial like just complete ruination. Um to me that suggests that that one remaining um item on the list of objectives, two of the objectives have been achieved.

[00:12:09]There's one remaining one and they are like literally running out of options.

[00:12:13]That Trump's idea to counter blockade them was utterly genius. You say that the strait was open before the war, but they had the capacity to to to close it, right? To do what they're doing now, which is to create this big global, you know, energy crisis, which we're going to get into. I think we're benefiting from it tremendously because a lot of the ships that would have gone to them are now coming to us to get our oil which is great for us but um the they could have so so so we have a regime an Islamic regime a genocidal regime that wants to destroy the west which was wherever it was in terms of like distance from achieving a nuclear weapon. it was trying to achieve one, right? So, it was let's say x amount of >> We should come back to that.

[00:12:56]>> We'll let's circle back to that. Okay.

[00:12:57]Um, at the time they had this thing we didn't know they had, which is the ability to close the straight of Hormuz, right? And they had, you know, x amount of ballistic missiles. Like, however early one could find out that they could have closed the straight of Hormuz, that was the time to do it, right? Because in a year from now when they were that much closer to having a nuclear weapon, when they had that many more ballistic missiles, when their navy was that much bigger and stronger, they also could have done this, right? So it being open but being subject to their ability to close it. It wasn't really open. You had a genocidal regime trying to arrive at a situation where it had the straight of hormuz ballistic missiles, a navy, and a nuclear weapon. So like the at some point somebody had to do something. And it seems to me like every other president kicked the can down the road because they were not willing to pay the political the financial cost of it. And and it's pretty amazing that Trump was willing to do that. Um because somebody had to do it like right we all agree like Iran cannot achieve a nuclear weapon, right? Well actually let's start there. Do you agree with that?

[00:14:02]>> So I think there's a obviously I don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon if that if that's what you're asking.

[00:14:09]>> Certainly I don't want them to. Uh, I don't believe they were on the cusp of having one. And the reason I don't believe that is because DNI Tulsi Gabber testified in March of 2025 that they had not even authorized that and were not pursuing it. Then I was told by the Trump administration, right, the I'm reading it, it's still up on the White House today in June of 2025, Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated and suggestions otherwise are fake news.

[00:14:39]uh his highly successful, decisive, precise strikes against their nuclear facilities uh totally decimated it and set it back many years and decades is is is what they said. So I then I a few months later after this bombing campaign where the White House is telling me with the official White House uh stationary and it's on whitehouse.gov they've totally destroyed the nuclear program.

[00:15:06]They're now a few months later telling me, "Oh crap, now we have to actually wage a war against this country to stop their nuclear program." To me, there's a credibility crisis inside the administration and with their messaging about this that undercuts the ability to credibly claim that that they were on the verge of having a nuclear weapon. I don't believe that to be the case. And I I I also think there are other paths, including ones that President Trump ripped up, like the Obama era deal, to preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon, that don't involve a costly military conflict that that leaves US service members and civilians uh dead and cost billions of dollars.

[00:15:46]>> Okay, let me read some comments. Um, the first one says, "I think most of your arguments, I think he's talking to me, are lazy and childish, but I do appreciate you doing a show like this so I can get both sides, no matter how crazy the Trump supporters say." We really appreciate you being here. Thank you for watching the show, even though you think I'm crazy and childish. I I'm so glad you're coming. I It means a lot to me. And, you know, I hope that every day I bring you somebody who you can respect more than me and who you enjoy hearing from. Thanks for appreciating what we're doing here, even if you're not a big fan. Um, keep coming back. Um, all right. Next question from Blair. Gas not as high as June 2022 under Biden, which was $51. That is true. So, Sher, let's pop up the latest on gas. Um, this cracks me up. So, all right. So, a month ago it was at 398. Um, a week ago $4.

[00:16:36]Currently, 423. and and two months ago before this even started it was below $3 for the first time in about six years before uh below $3 a gallon. What's so funny is that um you know you and I both used to I don't do it anymore, but I used to do the CNN panel at 10 p.m. and I would always say, you know, Trump has gotten gas so cheap and they would deny it, Brad. They would deny that this was the case until the day it went up and then suddenly you could turn on CNN and they would say he got gas so low and now it's so high, right? like they literally would not talk about it until they could criticize him over it. Um, all right, let me read a few more comments and I want to >> Isn't So, sorry, wait, but isn't the flip side I I agree and that's quite funny. Isn't the flip side of that also true though that throughout the whole Biden years you could turn on Fox News and you could hear about how Biden single-handedly was causing high gas prices and now that there's high gas prices under Trump, well, it's all geopolitical. It's all outside of the president's control. It's temporary. I do think that there's in general when it comes to gas prices in particular a heavily biased coverage and attribution for them. Obviously presidents have some influence but I it's a lot of things go into it.

[00:17:46]>> Well I mean obviously this is because of the war in Iran, right? Like I don't think there's any doubt that like this is the result of Trump's actions, right?

[00:17:54]gas is clear now because of a a gamble Trump took in which he decided that, >> you know, it's more important to protect our grandchildren from a nuclear armed genocidal Islamic regime um that wants a caliphate over the entire globe um than it is to have gas at $3 a gallon. Now, um how long this lasts, I think that's open for interpretation. Gas goes up much quicker than it comes down. Um, but yeah, I mean this I think Trump, even Trump himself would acknowledge, you know, yeah, this is because of something I did. I think I made the gamble that it was worth it. Um, >> do you acknowledge though that that's not what he promised? Because he explicitly promised coming into prices are going to go down. He said over and over again, which was never really realistic. You don't see deflation in a modern economy. But he said grocery prices will go down when I'm president.

[00:18:43]Gas prices will go down. And at least so far that's definitely not the case.

[00:18:48]>> They did go down like they the whole first year they went down, right? So before he invaded Iran, they were under $3 a gallon. Gas was under $3 a gallon for the first time in like five or six years. So he did get it down. It's just that he then said, you know what, I there's something more important than that. I I don't hold against somebody what they campaign on unless they're really doing a 180. Like if it's on a yes no binary, right? like you know they campaign on getting trans women out of women's sports and then they come into office and immediately like throw that away or like someone like Gavin Newsome who pretended he was going to do that and then didn't do like that that kind of thing I would hold against someone but like what politician doesn't say I'm going to get prices down >> well isn't no new wars and then you start a new war isn't that kind of a yes no 180 >> um so I mean so this is kind of like a question of definitions he has said for 40 years Iran cannot achieve a nuclear weapon right so >> so Like I think he would what he meant by no new wars is like we're not going to put boots on the ground to do a regime change. We're not going to bring democracy to Iran. Like that is not going to happen. But like are we going to protect ourselves with a like month-long you know military operation that gets rid of the Ayatollah Kumeni and replaces him with his son who's barely alive and you know try our best to get a nuclear deal. Like I don't think that that's necessarily and the proof is in the pudding, right? Like 85% of Republicans support this and the more MAGA you think yourself the more you support this incursion. So I think that that's kind of all right. Let me read a couple more comments then we'll get back. All right. Um Paul says $4 a gallon gas is make or break America.

[00:20:22]That's wild considering how much it is in other developed countries. I think maybe he meant is is or is not make or break. I I do think if gas is above $4 a gallon at the midterms, that's going to make or break like the the the house for sure. I mean, I think there's no two questions about that. But yeah, it is still cheaper here than other places.

[00:20:40]And I think it's cheaper than it could have been if he hadn't done the Venezuela operation. We could debate that. Um Robert says, "The Navy is just using their boots to go swimming in warm water." Warm waters, troubled waters. Um all right. So, so Brad, you don't worry that your like future children are going to have to deal with an adversary like Iran having a nuclear wet. You really believe that they So, you think Steve Wickoff, for example, when he said that they bragged to him that they had, you know, enough 60% enriched uranium to build 10 bombs, you think he's just lying?

[00:21:14]>> Well, I don't know if he's lying. I do know that I've seen I've heard enough contradictory statements from this administration like the ones I mentioned that I don't know what to believe and that's one of the reasons they should not not be so dishonest. Uh obviously it's not new like White House officials are are always dishonest but then when you are talking about things of the utmost significance it's hard to believe you. So like do I believe Steve Witoff?

[00:21:41]Do I believe Tulsi Gabbard? Do I believe the White House then or the White House now? That's a real problem for me. And I guess the thing is, so you say like the Iranian regime is a genocidal regime.

[00:21:52]And I understand why you say that, but I I do not believe it is a suicidal regime, right? And so even if they would love to see an end to America, hate America, hate the West. I don't dispute any of that. I think though they are still ultimately like their navy, they were not about to attack America. I don't I I find that I directly start a war with us. Right? In the same way, were they to obtain a nuclear weapon which they're years and years away from doing so. So what my first emphasis is we should be negotiating instead of waging a war against them, negotiating a deal to stop them from getting a weapon.

[00:22:30]Right? There's many levers that the administration could pull to to get them to the table that don't involve outright conflict. And then if they were to have a nuclear weapon, I mean, we don't know the exact situation, but Kim Jong-un, even as crazy as he is, is ultimately not suicidal. And anybody who attacked, >> but he's not currently funding terror proxies all across the globe. Like, he's not currently funding assassination attempts on our president, right? He's not currently funding the Houthies who have actually stopped I mean people don't realize this but like they are still preventing a lot of commerce wherever they can right I mean things have not returned to normal there either so I think the comparison is the comparison there is that um they North Korea used their ballistic missile program to develop the nuclear program right they were so close to South Korea that basically That was a deterrent in and of itself that allowed them to now achieve a nuke that I'm sure you and I would rather they didn't have nukes. But but to compare North Korea, which is kind of like self-contained, it's not doing what we're seeing the Iranians doing all the time. I disagree with you. I think they are suicidal. I think that this was suicide because like I mean I guess they didn't believe Trump was really going to do this. I mean the Ayatollah it turns out in refusing to sanction the deal that Trump had on the table that he was trying to negotiate before this you know six weeks ago eight weeks ago that turned out to be suicidal because he's dead and Trump's kept saying like we are not going to stop until we can prevent you from having the ability to threaten our children with nukes.

[00:24:18]>> So do you think that if they had a nuclear weapon they would press the red button to shoot it at the to fire it at Israel or the United States? I don't think they would, but I think that they would then do what, for example, Russia did, which is like they would be able to then use their ballistic capabilities with much more freedom. Like they would have a much freer hand in attacking their neighbors. By the way, it's not just Israel, Saudi Arabia, right? They shot more rockets into the UAE than they did into Israel throughout this entire thing, right?

[00:24:48]>> So, here's the question I I have for you then. When the DNI Tulsi Gabbard testified in March of 2025 that they're not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader the Supreme Leader had not authorized them to resume the nuclear weapons program.

[00:25:05]Why don't we wait for that to change before launching a war to stop them from having a nuclear weapon?

[00:25:11]>> Why don't we wait until they get a nuke to stop?

[00:25:13]>> No. Until they start building one cuz this is So we just have to invade them based on the theory that they might resume building a nuclear weapon at some point. Well, what Trump has said is they refused to commit to not doing it. They kept saying, "No, this is our right to enrich uranium." So, we tried that.

[00:25:28]>> Well, enriching uranium is not the same thing as building a nuclear weapon.

[00:25:31]>> Well, it was they were enriching it past 60%. Right. That's I think undefined.

[00:25:35]Yeah. So, so they were they were enriching it beyond any civilian capacity. Right. So, we did actually try that. We tried to say, "Look, just commit and and and this will all be fine." And they refused to do it. I mean, isn't that the >> But there's a there's so many steps between enriched uranium and having a nuke you can launch at another country, right? And and my point is that they weren't even starting that. According to Tulsi Gabbard, right, testifying before Congress under oath, they hadn't even authorized the construction of actual weapons. So, it seems like you're citing a like a essentially hypothetical threat decades from now that Americans could could be in danger as a justification to actually put Americans in danger right now.

[00:26:21]>> Well, but we know that they they were enriching uranium past 60%.

[00:26:25]>> Right. But I'm talking about then building nuclear weapons.

[00:26:29]>> But that's that is a very easy that's a very easy jump.

[00:26:32]>> I don't I don't think it is at all. I think it it's a significant process.

[00:26:37]>> Um All right. I want to read another question because I'm very curious what you think about this, Brad. I think actually you might agree with me on this. Um, Aurora says, "The real question is why is Israel allowed to have nukes but Iran can't?" Um, I love this question because you hear this a lot on the left. I mean, to me it's obvious. It's because Israel is an ally.

[00:26:53]Like our allies work with us. You know, we have shared values. Like we have a shared understanding of like the rules of engagement, right? the rules of war, like the, you know, the ways you're allowed to treat civilians, both your own and other peoples, right? Which is why like we have, you know, shared and shared values and like have allies like Israel, you know, even like some of these moderate Muslim countries now as opposed to like China and Iran and Russia that simply don't see things in the same way. What would your answer to that be?

[00:27:25]>> Well, I guess we don't know if Israel has nuclear weapons, do we? Right. They don't say >> they they have a they have a policy of not actually saying whether they do, >> but I it's pretty widely understood that they do. You know, I'm just >> I think Israel >> agree with with the questioner.

[00:27:47]>> I I feel very differently about that question than I would have five years ago >> based on what I've seen Israel carry out in Gaza. I w I believed for a long time that they truly did engage in combat and in in the conflict in a way that was humanitarian and did abide by the laws of war.

[00:28:06]>> I and admittedly like we're outside of the area of my expertise.

[00:28:11]>> I don't see that when I look at what they did to Gaza. I don't see that at all. I do see a campaign of revenge and retaliation and of inhumane suffering and and widespread destruction that makes me look at them as much less of a fellow humanitarian force than I probably would have before.

[00:28:31]>> Um, we will have to have you back to debate that because I look at all of the evidence there and like I've looked into this very very deeply. Um, I think that they've set a new standard for um, civilian care in urban warfare that's never been met in the history of warfare. I mean, the the ratio now of combatant to civilian um that we now know from Kamas's own numbers because they're paying out to 50,000 Gaza families um the payments for martyrs, meaning that they are now acknowledging 50,000 kamas casualties, which means that the ratio of combatant to civilian is less than one one, which has not in regular warfare. That standard has never been met, let alone in urban warfare.

[00:29:13]So, I think that the data tells a very different story, but we'll have to have you back on. I'm glad that we disagree about this because next time Israel's in the news, you'll come on here and we'll debate that. All right, final question, final poll to the audience. Guys, please vote in the poll. Let us know if you heard something here that helped you see things from the other side. Um, give us good scores on this. This one matters to me on a deep spiritual level. You don't have to change your mind, but we like to hear that people heard something that helped them understand the other side. I certainly did, Brad. I love hearing your calm and methodical laying out of how you arrive at your conclusions. Um, it's such a pleasure to listen to you discuss these kinds of things. Um, what else is on your mind these days?

[00:29:53]>> Oh, so much. Uh, but people can check out my YouTube channel for more.

[00:29:58]>> Yes. Where's your YouTube channel? Tell us how >> Brad Palumbo.

[00:30:01]>> Brad Palumbo on YouTube. Brad is somebody who is doing incredible work.

[00:30:06]Um, you know, I often say that this administration is made up of like it's like the gayest administration in American history. And it's like the normie gays trying to save like gays and lesbians from like the the like radical far like left of the LGBT like especially the tea agenda.

[00:30:24]>> That's true.

[00:30:26]>> And you you are at the forefront of that and you bring so much humor and goodwill to everything that you do. So, thank you so much for joining us.

[00:30:34]>> Thank you. sad face. We're having a lot of nos. I guess people's minds are very made up on the Iran conflict question.

[00:30:41]Um >> I mean that's not so surprising, >> especially when we have you back on the Israel thing. We'll see if we can get people to see things from the other side. Um but Brad Palumbo, thank you very very much for joining us. Please come back soon. And to the rest of you, thank you so much for being here, especially the ones who don't like me who come to hear the other side. We love having you. And I will be back here tomorrow at 400 p.m. with another guest to take on the big story of the day. And I will catch you then. Bye.