# Deal with Iran in 24 hours? | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

An episode of [The Team House](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1492797340), 15 Jun 2026, 1 h 03 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/pscrb.fm/rss/p/clrtpod.com/m/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/72514241/iran_deal_spreaker.mp3

We break down the latest Iran deal rumors, the Strait of Hormuz crisis, Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon, and whether any new agreement can realistically improve on the JCPOA. We also dig into broader U.S. foreign policy failures, the risks around Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, and the national security implications of Anthropic, AI export controls, and the emerging AI arms race. GhostBed ⬇️ https://www.ghostbed.com/team FOR 10% off! Support the show on Patreon:⬇️ https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouse Subscribe to our newsletter!!!! https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/join Jack's news outlet:⬇️ https://thehighside.substack.com/ Find Jon Hackett here:⬇️ Jon's Twitter: https://x.com/jonathanhackett Jon's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thejonathanhackett Jon's books: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0C5L659N5?ccs_id=e11a2062-f8d3-498e-bfd7-7d2f3869caf6 Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thejonathanhackett Twitter: https://x.com/jonathanhackett Check out Mick's new podcast here:⬇️ Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/at/podcast/pub-and-porch-applied-stoicism/id1836955475 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1k3QPmkAMwnGJxMLDwUSSd?si=n6piIu8XRcag1Z0K43A3bQ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@UCd0Hq6QFk8CoTu5j-VU0Ong Find Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️ https://fogbow.com/ Lobo Institute ⬇️ https://www.loboinstitute.org/ Twitter ⬇️ https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCA LinkedIn ⬇️ https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/ Bluesky ⬇️ https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.social Mick’s publications ⬇️ https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/ Whitefish security summit ⬇️ https://whitefishsecuritysummit.com Find Marc P here: https://x.com/Mpolymer Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️ https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8 LinkedIn ⬇️ https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023 Substack ⬇️ https://amilburn.substack.com/ Andy’s book ⬇️ https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-Operations Bluesky ⬇️ https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.social Find Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?u Bluesky ⬇️ https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.social "Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio 00:00 — Start 02:15 — Iran’s Leaked Deal Points 05:10 — War, Ceasefire, and Sanctions Whiplash 09:46 — Why Lebanon Matters in the Iran Deal 13:46 — Hezbollah’s Role in Regional Peace 16:03 — The Strait of Hormuz Insurance Crisis 22:09 — Why the UAE May Pay Billions 25:14 — Iran’s Hidden HEU Stockpile 29:56 — Why the U.S. Struck Iran Again 33:36 — Can a New Deal Beat the JCPOA? 40:01 — Why U.S. Foreign Policy Keeps Failing 47:26 — Anthropic, AI, and National Security Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

## Transcript

[0:01] Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, Welcome to another episode of Ayes on Jill Politics.
[0:04] Speaker 1: I'm here with Mick Moulroy and Jonathan Hackett. A lot
[0:07] Speaker 1: happening as usual. The Knicks hopefully will win the championship tonight.
[0:11] Speaker 1: As we're recording this, fingers crossed USA b Paraguay four
[0:15] Speaker 1: to one. And that's the end of the sports update
[0:16] Speaker 1: for this program.
[0:18] Speaker 2: Back to like what we normally talk about UFC.
[0:21] Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, UFC. It's on Sunday. Huh, that's weird. It's
[0:26] Speaker 1: never usually Sunday. It's usually Saturdays.
[0:28] Speaker 3: Trump's birthday.
[0:29] Speaker 2: Oh, happy birthday. All the better, many more, many more.
[0:35] Speaker 1: So Iran obviously, we've seen it going back and forth
[0:41] Speaker 1: again like we've seen the last like almost month. Uh,
[0:45] Speaker 1: there was I don't know if we spoke about the
[0:47] Speaker 1: Apache getting shot down and then we hit some spot
[0:50] Speaker 1: like areas in south and southwest of Iran and stuff
[0:53] Speaker 1: like that too. Israel hit Iran as well after after
[0:57] Speaker 1: Iran hit Israel or shot ballistic missiles at them. So
[1:01] Speaker 1: there's been some back and forth stuff straight. Oh, Horn
[1:03] Speaker 1: Moves is essentially closed, but there are some boats coming through,
[1:07] Speaker 1: not anywhere near where it used to be yesterday. I
[1:12] Speaker 1: believe it was Iran leaked the deal points. Then the
[1:15] Speaker 1: deal points look like maybe one of the worst deals
[1:19] Speaker 1: you've ever seen in terms of like what the US's
[1:22] Speaker 1: interests are compared to what Iranian interests are, Like Iran's
[1:25] Speaker 1: gonna have like a freaking windfall of cash if this
[1:28] Speaker 1: deal is done, President Trump true social right after that deal,
[1:32] Speaker 1: those deal points leaked that this is not true, and
[1:36] Speaker 1: then cut to maybe eight hours later, the Pakistani I
[1:41] Speaker 1: believe foreign minister but I could be wrong, said that
[1:44] Speaker 1: like we're a day out for it being signed, and
[1:47] Speaker 1: it's gonna happen. Initially was gonna happen in Switzerland, but
[1:49] Speaker 1: now they said that's not gonna happen. It's gonna happen
[1:52] Speaker 1: remotely whatever that there's a deal eminent in the next
[1:55] Speaker 1: twenty four hours. That's where we're at. Now, what the
[1:57] Speaker 1: deal looks like, No one has any fucking clue. More
[2:00] Speaker 1: so likely it looks if I had to guess, it's
[2:02] Speaker 1: looking like the stuff that Iran leaked out those deal points.
[2:08] Speaker 1: And I'll start with you, John, like those deal points,
[2:11] Speaker 1: can you give us like a little lay of the
[2:13] Speaker 1: land of what those deal points are?
[2:15] Speaker 3: Yeah, So these fourteen deal points. And first of all,
[2:19] Speaker 3: this is probably not the actual agreement. This is more
[2:22] Speaker 3: likely a exercise in public negotiation where Iran is trying
[2:28] Speaker 3: to include the public in this debate because there are
[2:31] Speaker 3: people in the United States that want this conflict over
[2:33] Speaker 3: for various reasons, and there are some who want it
[2:35] Speaker 3: extended for various reasons. And what Iran is trying to
[2:38] Speaker 3: do is use the information environment to influence the behind
[2:41] Speaker 3: the scenes parts of the negotiations. And the US has
[2:44] Speaker 3: done the same thing. If you remember back in I
[2:45] Speaker 3: believe it was March, when there was the initial talk
[2:48] Speaker 3: about any kind of ceasefire, there were a lot of
[2:50] Speaker 3: leaked lists of things. You know, there was a ten
[2:53] Speaker 3: point plan, there was a fourteen point plan, and this
[2:55] Speaker 3: and that, and a lot of that activity is not
[2:57] Speaker 3: necessarily to actually reach a negotiated settlement. Instead is to
[3:01] Speaker 3: let the public know what the contours or edges are
[3:04] Speaker 3: of the negotiation. In other words, what are the the
[3:08] Speaker 3: goalpost limits of the negotiation, like what does the playing
[3:10] Speaker 3: field actually look like here? And this is the same
[3:13] Speaker 3: thing when the US and any other country comes to
[3:15] Speaker 3: the table to negotiate, they come with maximal options because
[3:18] Speaker 3: you don't want to come and bring your like fifty
[3:20] Speaker 3: percent option to the table. You want to bring your
[3:22] Speaker 3: one hundred percent option in and negotiate down to sixty percent.
[3:25] Speaker 3: You don't want to start handicapped. So what Iran is
[3:28] Speaker 3: doing is demonstrating what are its maximalist positions, like what
[3:31] Speaker 3: does it really really want? And then you can think
[3:34] Speaker 3: about this as something that they can walk back from
[3:36] Speaker 3: privately and they can say we've had heroic flexibility and
[3:39] Speaker 3: we have decided to actually meet you at sixty percent.
[3:42] Speaker 3: This is exactly what happened in twenty fifteen, it just
[3:43] Speaker 3: wasn't public. During their Iran JCPOA negotiations with the nuclear deal,
[3:48] Speaker 3: the P five plus one, there were some extreme positions
[3:52] Speaker 3: that started and then if you remember, Iatola Jmeni said,
[3:56] Speaker 3: we have demonstrated heroic flexibility and accepted the nuclear agreement.
[4:00] Speaker 3: So it's actually designed with the end in mind that, okay,
[4:03] Speaker 3: when we actually do make an agreement, we can say that,
[4:05] Speaker 3: you know, for these principles that we hold dear, we
[4:08] Speaker 3: have decided to actually compromise, when in fact those extreme
[4:11] Speaker 3: points were never going to happen anyway. But it's about optics.
[4:15] Speaker 3: How does it look to the consumer of that agreement,
[4:18] Speaker 3: which is the Iranian people, the Iranian regime, the US,
[4:20] Speaker 3: the world. There are a lot of people that Iran
[4:23] Speaker 3: is thinking about, the regime is thinking about of how
[4:24] Speaker 3: to how to frame this properly for consumption globally, privately
[4:29] Speaker 3: and publicly.
[4:30] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[4:30] Speaker 1: Uh So, like what's wild to me though, and make
[4:33] Speaker 1: ID love to get your your you know thoughts on
[4:36] Speaker 1: is but like what's weird to me is like that
[4:39] Speaker 1: came out leaked, but we haven't really heard. Nothing's been
[4:43] Speaker 1: leaked in terms of like what the actual deal is
[4:45] Speaker 1: going to look like, at least as far as I
[4:47] Speaker 1: could I've seen, which is weird to me because if
[4:51] Speaker 1: a deal is so close to being signed and it's
[4:53] Speaker 1: essentially twenty four hours away, wouldn't like the deal points
[4:59] Speaker 1: be already like as closely negotiated as possible, Like you're
[5:02] Speaker 1: right there, you're at the like less than one yard line.
[5:05] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[5:06] Speaker 4: Yeah, So it was a lot of whiplashs last week, right,
[5:08] Speaker 4: So it was like, Hey, we needed to jump on
[5:10] Speaker 4: and talk about going back to war and taking Cargo Island. Hey,
[5:14] Speaker 4: we need to jump back on and talk about how
[5:15] Speaker 4: the fact we're not going to go back to war
[5:17] Speaker 4: and everything's going to be good, and we're about on
[5:18] Speaker 4: the verge of an agreement. Hey, we need to go
[5:20] Speaker 4: back on to talk about Iran saying that all that stuff,
[5:23] Speaker 4: but bullshit, we're not even close to her, you know,
[5:25] Speaker 4: so like and we don't know, we don't know what's
[5:28] Speaker 4: actually going on and what's not. So, you know, not
[5:31] Speaker 4: necessarily complaining about it. It's just that I think people
[5:34] Speaker 4: are to the point where they're like, once an agreement signed,
[5:38] Speaker 4: make it public and then we'll know. Because if you
[5:42] Speaker 4: listen to Iran, as you already said, the uh, that
[5:46] Speaker 4: would be the worst agreement for the US. The points
[5:50] Speaker 4: they leaked. You would essentially give away all your leverage.
[5:53] Speaker 4: We're going to give you sanctionary relief, unfreeze assets just
[5:56] Speaker 4: to open the straight, which you don't possess in the
[5:58] Speaker 4: first place. Then not only would we be paying, and
[6:02] Speaker 4: you could talk about the Reuters report that basically are
[6:07] Speaker 4: some of our Gulf states countries are going to release.
[6:10] Speaker 4: So it won't be US, but it will be that,
[6:12] Speaker 4: but we will collectively be paying them to open the straight.
[6:15] Speaker 4: If that's the case, bad idea. But I think especially
[6:18] Speaker 4: the stuff that the US can control specifically, like sanctions relief,
[6:23] Speaker 4: sanctions opposed by the US, like the frozen assets that
[6:26] Speaker 4: we have direct control of or even influence over, shouldn't
[6:30] Speaker 4: be done until dig into a new nuclear agreement. We
[6:33] Speaker 4: actually need that carot for the agreement given away before
[6:38] Speaker 4: we get the agreement. Man, they're just going to outweight
[6:40] Speaker 4: DISA administration or they just might outweight disadministration on next
[6:45] Speaker 4: because they already got the benefits.
[6:47] Speaker 2: Right.
[6:47] Speaker 4: And let's face it, we all agree that Aron shouldn't
[6:51] Speaker 4: have a nuclear weapon, but I think we can all
[6:54] Speaker 4: accept that right now Iran's thinking we should have a
[6:57] Speaker 4: nuclear weapon. Right, So we've we were in a situation
[7:02] Speaker 4: where this is even more important than it was before
[7:04] Speaker 4: the war, because I'm sure that the IRGC extremists, you know,
[7:10] Speaker 4: even amongst extreamists are saying, told you, we should have
[7:14] Speaker 4: already acquited a nuclear weapon and this wouldn't be an issue.
[7:17] Speaker 4: So it's even more important that we get to there
[7:20] Speaker 4: and we get an ironclad agreement that ensures they don't
[7:24] Speaker 4: get a nuclear weapons, which means recovery of the h
[7:26] Speaker 4: EU highly inerturatium, which means zero enrichment, and it means
[7:31] Speaker 4: the dismantling of the program that is validated by you know,
[7:37] Speaker 4: the IAEA any time anywhere inspections. If we don't get
[7:41] Speaker 4: to that, I think we got issues. We do get
[7:45] Speaker 4: to that, I think it will be viewed as at
[7:47] Speaker 4: least this endeavor was somewhat successful. So for the folks
[7:52] Speaker 4: that are either saying this is you know, already success
[7:56] Speaker 4: or already a failure, I don't think we know yet.
[8:01] Speaker 4: That's to come, and that really is how this is
[8:03] Speaker 4: going to end. It is going to end well for us,
[8:07] Speaker 4: and that's going to come with some sanctions, relief in
[8:09] Speaker 4: unfreezing assets. We've got to accept that. But that's for
[8:12] Speaker 4: the Ironcloud Agreement, not just to do something like open
[8:16] Speaker 4: up the street, you open up the straight the blockade
[8:19] Speaker 4: comes down. That seems fair, right, but after that anything
[8:23] Speaker 4: beneficial and at least from what the US is putting
[8:26] Speaker 4: out they are talking about, this is another issue. The
[8:29] Speaker 4: US is saying that Iraan has given up supporting terrorists organization.
[8:34] Speaker 4: So as you all know, Auran doesn't consider hesbel terrorist organization.
[8:40] Speaker 4: So I don't know if that's just you know, the
[8:42] Speaker 4: way that media is putting it out there, but like
[8:44] Speaker 4: there's no way that that can't be just specific hesbel
[8:51] Speaker 4: a humas obviously US do, isn't going to a terrorist organization.
[8:55] Speaker 4: That's not just a proxy. That's a terrorist organization. So
[8:57] Speaker 4: if we're talking about that, it needs to be covered
[9:00] Speaker 4: and we'll just have to see. Ultimately, I think it's
[9:03] Speaker 4: too early to say this was, you know, entirely successful
[9:07] Speaker 4: or entirely failure. A lot's going to depend on what
[9:11] Speaker 4: happens in the next twenty four hours. For some reason,
[9:14] Speaker 4: that's the new timeline, and it looks like we're going
[9:17] Speaker 4: to be done remotely okay, And I do believe it
[9:22] Speaker 4: was a rap chief of the Foreign Minister that said
[9:24] Speaker 4: it would be public, like it would be posted so
[9:28] Speaker 4: you would know what was agreed to and what wasn't there,
[9:30] Speaker 4: and that both sides need that because we can obviously
[9:33] Speaker 4: see that the the propaganda wars have left us really
[9:39] Speaker 4: puzzled about what is actually being discussed.
[9:42] Speaker 1: Well, the one thing the delta like where they've met
[9:44] Speaker 1: actually or whatever, like the Trump reposted the Foreign misspinisters
[9:50] Speaker 1: tweet about that, so that that it's going to be
[9:54] Speaker 1: public or there's a deal that's eminent or whatever. Yeah,
[9:57] Speaker 1: So like we've kind of I guess met somewhere in
[10:00] Speaker 1: the middle. John, let me ask you, do you think
[10:04] Speaker 1: Lebanon is going to be included in this.
[10:09] Speaker 3: So that's a super important point that I think a
[10:11] Speaker 3: lot of Westerners don't understand why Lebanon matters in this discussion.
[10:17] Speaker 3: As you mentioned, Nick, Hesbola doesn't view itself as a
[10:20] Speaker 3: terrorist organization. Iran doesn't view Hesbula as a terrorist organization.
[10:24] Speaker 3: Some Lebanese people, about a third of the population, do
[10:27] Speaker 3: not consider it a terrorist organization. In fact, their worldview
[10:29] Speaker 3: is kind of what we would consider it to be
[10:31] Speaker 3: inverted based on our worldview. And if you look politically
[10:34] Speaker 3: at Hesbola, what is Hesbola today? They're different than they
[10:37] Speaker 3: were thirty five years ago when they first kind of
[10:41] Speaker 3: said that they were Hesbola. Today they have twenty seven
[10:44] Speaker 3: seats I believe in parliament in Lebanese parliament, as a
[10:47] Speaker 3: political party and as a military force. Their military capability
[10:51] Speaker 3: is more than a Lebanese armed forces. This is a
[10:53] Speaker 3: big problem for the current negotiations between the Israeli government
[10:56] Speaker 3: and the Lebanese government, which is historic because Lebanon does
[10:58] Speaker 3: not recognize Israel as a state and they're in Washington
[11:01] Speaker 3: DC right now trying to negotiate bilaterally about this smaller issue,
[11:06] Speaker 3: the Lebanon Israel issue, relative to the Iran issue. Well,
[11:10] Speaker 3: twenty seven seats in parliament out of one hundred twenty
[11:12] Speaker 3: eight seats in parliament. That's that's how many people, that's
[11:15] Speaker 3: a third almost of the Lebanese government of their parliament
[11:21] Speaker 3: is Hesbulah as a political party. This is something that
[11:23] Speaker 3: cannot be ignored because if you look at from twenty
[11:25] Speaker 3: seventeen through last year, Iran sent the ier GC sent
[11:30] Speaker 3: one billion dollars a year to Hesbula, the military wing
[11:34] Speaker 3: of Hesbula. So that's a lot of money for a
[11:37] Speaker 3: militia in South Lebanon. Right, So if we don't include
[11:42] Speaker 3: that in our equation, it's kind of like when you're
[11:44] Speaker 3: doing algebra and you leave out a variable, your answer
[11:46] Speaker 3: keeps not coming to zero. It's like, why can't I
[11:49] Speaker 3: solve this problem? It's because you're not including that other
[11:51] Speaker 3: variable that has to be included in this larger equation
[11:54] Speaker 3: to balance out all the factors. And so to your point, D,
[11:57] Speaker 3: maybe it is, maybe it isn't. If it is not,
[11:59] Speaker 3: it is a mistake, or if it is not, it
[12:01] Speaker 3: is not going to last because and even Hassan Fuddlah,
[12:05] Speaker 3: he's the son of an earlier HESBULA member, a very
[12:08] Speaker 3: prominent Hesbula supporter from the eighties. Two days ago, was
[12:11] Speaker 3: making a speech in the Dahiya neighborhood, which is south
[12:15] Speaker 3: South Bay route that Israel had bombed, which is the
[12:17] Speaker 3: thing that triggered Iran to hit Israel this past week.
[12:21] Speaker 3: He was making a speech and he said that if
[12:23] Speaker 3: Lebanon is not included in the agreement, the agreement will
[12:25] Speaker 3: not last, which is actually if you read Iran's you
[12:28] Speaker 3: know what the Iran state sponsored media mayor a news
[12:31] Speaker 3: agency released two days ago, that was the first point
[12:34] Speaker 3: in the fourteen points that if Lebanon is not included,
[12:38] Speaker 3: this deal will not happen. Basically is what it came to.
[12:41] Speaker 3: So it seems that Hesbola and the IERGC are on
[12:44] Speaker 3: the same page. They're both probably in open channels of
[12:47] Speaker 3: communication about what this deal should look like because it
[12:50] Speaker 3: matters to Iran what happens in Lebanon. The reason is
[12:53] Speaker 3: because of the nuclear program. If Iran can't have a
[12:56] Speaker 3: nuclear program, they're thinking, how do we protect our territorial integris, Well,
[13:00] Speaker 3: we have to have surrogate forces between Israel and US.
[13:04] Speaker 3: The two most prominent surrogate forces are Hezbolah, which is
[13:06] Speaker 3: part of Hashtashabi or the popular mobilization forces in Iraq,
[13:09] Speaker 3: and then in Lebanon. Because we've lost Syria. Iran says,
[13:12] Speaker 3: we've lost Syria to USAD to Assunni. So now all
[13:15] Speaker 3: we have left is Hesbola in Lebanon, and we have
[13:18] Speaker 3: to keep them alive, like on life support. Otherwise we
[13:21] Speaker 3: lose our territorial integrity, our ability to actually have standoff
[13:25] Speaker 3: defense of our borders against Israel. So this is how
[13:28] Speaker 3: they're thinking about it. So if we aren't thinking about
[13:30] Speaker 3: it like that too, if we're not creating an incentive
[13:33] Speaker 3: for them to put this into the deal in a
[13:35] Speaker 3: way that makes sense for us, this deal is going
[13:37] Speaker 3: to be very weak. It's going to be very difficult
[13:39] Speaker 3: to enforce.
[13:41] Speaker 4: That is the biggest challenge of this because it really
[13:44] Speaker 4: does appear to me and maybe this is shifting, which
[13:46] Speaker 4: would be great, but the US is like the one
[13:49] Speaker 4: that actually wants us to come to the end the most, right.
[13:52] Speaker 4: So Arod's like, huh, this is really working this whole season.
[13:56] Speaker 4: The straight force in this economic energy crisis. They're autocracy, right,
[14:03] Speaker 4: so they don't really there. They're there. People can take
[14:06] Speaker 4: a lot of pain people and democracies can do something
[14:10] Speaker 4: about it. They realize that, right, So and then then Israel,
[14:14] Speaker 4: I mean this, this this could be a worst case
[14:17] Speaker 4: scenario for prime minister. Yeah, right, so they get what
[14:21] Speaker 4: are they talking about for the UA releasing like twelve
[14:23] Speaker 4: billion dollars? Yeah, yeah, I'm want to make sure I
[14:27] Speaker 4: get that right. But because Israa's looking at you know,
[14:30] Speaker 4: billion dollars is a billion dollars no matter who's releasing it, right, Son,
[14:33] Speaker 4: All of a sudden, this regime who's super pissed off
[14:37] Speaker 4: and we killed a lot of them, gets twelve million dollars.
[14:41] Speaker 4: There's a peace agreement, there's a nuclear agreement that I'm
[14:44] Speaker 4: sure Israel it's not going to agree with. And now
[14:47] Speaker 4: Israel's required to withdraw and leave Hesbalala armed and somewhat intact.
[14:55] Speaker 4: So from their perspective, that's not a good scenario. And
[14:59] Speaker 4: they and they made it clear that they're not actually
[15:02] Speaker 4: included in the ceasefire. So this is a I think
[15:06] Speaker 4: this is going to be an issue that's shared the burden,
[15:09] Speaker 4: if you will, by the United States and ron As
[15:12] Speaker 4: Jonathan just so aptly explained the relationship between Iran and
[15:16] Speaker 4: hesblah uh. They have influence, right, you know, they considerably
[15:22] Speaker 4: funded them a billion dollars a year. They need to
[15:26] Speaker 4: be a part of the regional piece or on being,
[15:30] Speaker 4: you know, putting direct pressure on Hesbola both to stay
[15:35] Speaker 4: north of the Latani River, to not attack Israel at
[15:40] Speaker 4: least at the at the basic level. And then of
[15:43] Speaker 4: course the United States would have a better time trying
[15:45] Speaker 4: to influence our partner. But it's that's going to be
[15:48] Speaker 4: the big challenge. It's it is going to be the
[15:52] Speaker 4: thing that everybody's going to be looking at, which could
[15:55] Speaker 4: blow this up, even if it's agreed to.
[15:59] Speaker 1: Your match is one of those things you don't think
[16:01] Speaker 1: about until it's too late, until you're waking up with
[16:03] Speaker 1: aches and pains and realizing you've been sleeping on a
[16:05] Speaker 1: problem for years. Today's sponsor, Ghostbed is here to change that.
[16:09] Speaker 1: And with the summer coming, there's one more thing worth
[16:11] Speaker 1: thinking about. Sleeping hot. If you ever woken up in
[16:15] Speaker 1: the middle of the night overheated and uncomfortable, you know
[16:17] Speaker 1: how much of rex you sleep. Most mattresses trap heat.
[16:21] Speaker 1: Ghost Bed is built specifically to prevent that it's built different.
[16:24] Speaker 1: Baby go, I've had a ghost Bed mattress now for
[16:27] Speaker 1: probably like ten months. I love it. It's freaking awesome.
[16:32] Speaker 1: I have the cooling thing definitely keeps it cool compared
[16:35] Speaker 1: to my old mattress.
[16:36] Speaker 2: I love it.
[16:36] Speaker 1: I'm so happy I have it, and I'm so happy
[16:39] Speaker 1: that they sponsor this show. Every mattress in the Ghostbed
[16:41] Speaker 1: lineup comes with cooling technology built right in, not an
[16:44] Speaker 1: upgrade you pay extra for. It's part of how every
[16:47] Speaker 1: mattress is designed, from their entry level comfort all the
[16:50] Speaker 1: way up to the Lux. I have the Lux, by
[16:52] Speaker 1: the way, because I'm fancy, which features there most and
[16:55] Speaker 1: the Lux features their most advanced cooling system. And if
[16:58] Speaker 1: you're not sure which one is right for you, head
[17:00] Speaker 1: to go sped dot com slash team and take their
[17:03] Speaker 1: mattress quiz. A few questions and you get a personalized
[17:05] Speaker 1: mattress recommendation, fast free shipping, and one hundred and one
[17:10] Speaker 1: nights to try it out. If it's not the right fit,
[17:12] Speaker 1: you get your money back, simple easypsy baby. Right now,
[17:15] Speaker 1: you can take advantage of a mardy pricing and code
[17:17] Speaker 1: team gets you an extra ten percent off when you
[17:20] Speaker 1: upgrade your sleep and gohot spread the makers of the
[17:22] Speaker 1: coolest beds in the world. Go get some I love
[17:26] Speaker 1: gospad that's gosped dot com slash team and use the
[17:29] Speaker 1: code team t E a M for an extra ten
[17:32] Speaker 1: percent off side wide, Thank you guys for supporting the show,
[17:35] Speaker 1: and thanks ghost Bead for supporting the show.
[17:37] Speaker 3: Love you bye, and I'll mention too about the Straight.
[17:41] Speaker 3: I've seen a lot of commenters in different videos and
[17:44] Speaker 3: podcasts kind of say that Iran doesn't really control the Straight.
[17:47] Speaker 3: There aren't Irunian vessels patrolling the Straight. You know, it's
[17:50] Speaker 3: a mistake to think that they actually do control it.
[17:52] Speaker 3: And I struggle to wrap my head around a statement
[17:55] Speaker 3: like that because you look at the effect. What is
[17:57] Speaker 3: the net effect of the situation, and the net effect
[18:00] Speaker 3: the situation is that vessels are not moving at the
[18:03] Speaker 3: same rate they were before the war started. And it's
[18:05] Speaker 3: not just because the US is bobbing her on. It's
[18:07] Speaker 3: because there's a thread against those vessels economically that even
[18:11] Speaker 3: if it was actually materially safe, like the boat could
[18:14] Speaker 3: go through without blowing up. Insurance companies, which are all
[18:17] Speaker 3: completely based on risk analyses are looking at this and saying,
[18:20] Speaker 3: I don't care if it's actually safe. We're not sending
[18:22] Speaker 3: our vessels because unless you're willing to pay two million
[18:25] Speaker 3: dollars per vessel for insurance plus the whatever toll Iran
[18:29] Speaker 3: wants to charge, you're not passing through with my ship.
[18:32] Speaker 3: I'm not going to ensure that vessel. And that's really
[18:34] Speaker 3: what is the important point about the Straits. Iran doesn't
[18:38] Speaker 3: even have to be there. It's it's the feeling that
[18:41] Speaker 3: these companies have, these economic interests, have looking at the
[18:44] Speaker 3: strait saying it's just not worth it. And until it
[18:47] Speaker 3: becomes worth it, the vessel frequency is going to remain
[18:51] Speaker 3: very low.
[18:52] Speaker 2: Yep.
[18:53] Speaker 4: And I'm told by somebody at fairly not fairly, I'm
[18:56] Speaker 4: very confident knows what he's talking about. Is it there?
[19:00] Speaker 4: There can be some seepage. I don't know if that's
[19:02] Speaker 4: the correct word, but it's only on the outflow. In
[19:05] Speaker 4: other words, you could use the you can use limited
[19:09] Speaker 4: outflow through the southern part of the of the passage,
[19:13] Speaker 4: but you can't get in. I don't know why that's case.
[19:16] Speaker 4: So we might eventually over time it'll be way reduced
[19:20] Speaker 4: to Jonathan's point, which still means that the crisis exists.
[19:24] Speaker 4: But even once you get them all out, like I
[19:26] Speaker 4: don't know, months and months and months, like, you're not
[19:28] Speaker 4: getting any in. So it's eventually even that is just
[19:31] Speaker 4: like a reserve that would eventually run dry, and eventually
[19:35] Speaker 4: they're real reserves and countries around the world are going
[19:38] Speaker 4: to run dry. Like even if this is solved, apparently
[19:41] Speaker 4: this issue is just going to be resolved economically for months.
[19:46] Speaker 4: The longer it goes on, the more compounding it's going
[19:48] Speaker 4: to be. And again it's not just energy, it's also
[19:52] Speaker 4: you know, the nitrogen, the material used to make a fertilizer,
[19:56] Speaker 4: that's key for food production. Yeah, you know the hydrogen
[20:00] Speaker 4: and are the night yeah, Helium helium, Yeah, that's used
[20:04] Speaker 4: to make the high tech chips, and all these things
[20:07] Speaker 4: are just gonna compound and get really consequential. The only person,
[20:12] Speaker 4: the only country that seems to be there isn't a
[20:16] Speaker 4: country actually that's not impacted. Obviously Aron's impacted by the
[20:19] Speaker 4: blockade and everything else. But this is really something that
[20:23] Speaker 4: I think the United States is going to press on,
[20:25] Speaker 4: but it's got a lot of challenges ahead of it
[20:28] Speaker 4: to make sure.
[20:30] Speaker 3: And even before the war started, China, the number one
[20:32] Speaker 3: purchaser of oil from Iran, has been transitioning to an
[20:35] Speaker 3: electrical vehicle society and just I believe it was in
[20:39] Speaker 3: April they reached thirty three percent vehicles on the road
[20:43] Speaker 3: are electric, are completely.
[20:44] Speaker 4: Electric, massive solar's they CNN did a whole piece on it.
[20:49] Speaker 4: It's not just the solar fields, but they have mirrors
[20:52] Speaker 4: that direct the the sunlight into these towers. Have you
[20:57] Speaker 4: seen these?
[20:58] Speaker 3: Yeah, they're becoming energy independent.
[21:01] Speaker 4: Yeah, energy independent. So that's gonna even there. There are
[21:04] Speaker 4: leverage to leverage around, right, So the further they get
[21:07] Speaker 4: away from that mattering because China doesn't like to get
[21:10] Speaker 4: involved in, you know, other people's wars. So as soon
[21:13] Speaker 4: as they can basically have less dependence, it's going to
[21:16] Speaker 4: be not good for us when it comes to not
[21:19] Speaker 4: good for a round either. What are they gonna do
[21:23] Speaker 4: when they can't sell energy to right?
[21:26] Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, it's.
[21:29] Speaker 1: Interesting to me, John. I'd love for you to name
[21:31] Speaker 1: some of those podcasts or videos who think, like you know, uh,
[21:36] Speaker 1: the straight of hor moves because it's not physically or
[21:39] Speaker 1: actually mine completely that they can't roll through no problem
[21:43] Speaker 1: like it's not if there's so many like the fact
[21:45] Speaker 1: that they can't get insured, the insurance is just you know,
[21:48] Speaker 1: astronomical to the point that doesn't make sense. It's all
[21:51] Speaker 1: it's all about the dollar, like it's all about business,
[21:54] Speaker 1: you know what I mean, Like it doesn't matter if it's.
[21:56] Speaker 3: Actually it's behavioral finance. I mean you think about, like,
[21:59] Speaker 3: all kai, how did al Qaida actually harm the United
[22:02] Speaker 3: States with the nine to eleven attack. Although the thousands
[22:05] Speaker 3: of lives that were lost was an immediate loss to
[22:07] Speaker 3: this country, it was what they did to impose costs
[22:11] Speaker 3: on our transportation system following the attacks that was the
[22:14] Speaker 3: real success for them. TSA. All these difficulties we have
[22:18] Speaker 3: going to the airport. If listeners remember who were alive
[22:20] Speaker 3: before nine to eleven, you used to just show up
[22:22] Speaker 3: at the airport and go sit in your seat and
[22:23] Speaker 3: you didn't have to go through any kind of security
[22:25] Speaker 3: at all. You just sit there and wait for your
[22:26] Speaker 3: airplane to come. That is a totally different world that
[22:29] Speaker 3: will never go back the way. It was billions and
[22:31] Speaker 3: billions of dollars that they were able to impose and
[22:34] Speaker 3: costs on not just the US, but the West Europe
[22:38] Speaker 3: and of course worldwide now because every country if they
[22:40] Speaker 3: want to fly to the West, they have to comply
[22:42] Speaker 3: with some of these security requirements. So that's the real cost.
[22:45] Speaker 3: And it only took one thing and didn't have to
[22:47] Speaker 3: do anything else ever again, and it's similar way they're on.
[22:50] Speaker 3: It's the idea, it's the danger that imposes the cost.
[22:54] Speaker 3: In fact, it's just like nuclear weapon negotiation. You don't
[22:56] Speaker 3: want to use your nukes. You want to create fear
[22:59] Speaker 3: of the nukes, but the moment you use it, now
[23:01] Speaker 3: you have to actually work with it, which is not
[23:02] Speaker 3: what you want to do. Instead, you want to you
[23:04] Speaker 3: want to leverage the feeling that the thing brings to
[23:07] Speaker 3: the table, but not actually use it. And that's exactly
[23:10] Speaker 3: what Iron is doing. And they understand that there is
[23:11] Speaker 3: this effect on the economy without ever having to touch
[23:14] Speaker 3: or put a single mind in the water. As long
[23:16] Speaker 3: as the fear is there, that's the terns.
[23:21] Speaker 4: It is working. They do not want to go through that,
[23:24] Speaker 4: they don't want to take the risk, and that your
[23:26] Speaker 4: companies don't want to ensure that. So it and it
[23:29] Speaker 4: won't be resolved by the trickle, right, It won't be
[23:33] Speaker 4: resolved by the trickle. Once a trickle actually comes out,
[23:35] Speaker 4: there's nothing going in. So this is gonna this is
[23:39] Speaker 4: going to go on for a long period of time
[23:40] Speaker 4: unless the negotiators can do their magic.
[23:45] Speaker 2: Let me ask you, guys, why is the UAE like
[23:47] Speaker 2: so down to just pay up?
[23:49] Speaker 1: You know, multiple billion? I think it's twelve or fourteen billion,
[23:52] Speaker 1: whatever the number is. It's just like, hey, don't bomb
[23:56] Speaker 1: us anymore. And also like let us bring our oil
[23:59] Speaker 1: out of the straight and like we'll give you this
[24:01] Speaker 1: fourteen bill.
[24:03] Speaker 3: This is a state acting in its own interests because
[24:05] Speaker 3: they left Opek that was number one. They joined the
[24:08] Speaker 3: Abraham Accords, that's number two. They they are seeing that
[24:11] Speaker 3: this is a moment like the say, let's past six
[24:13] Speaker 3: years is a moment in their history, a turning point,
[24:16] Speaker 3: and they're they're calculating that, okay, in the future, countries
[24:18] Speaker 3: will become energy less dependent. Let's say that means our
[24:23] Speaker 3: primary source of income is going to decrease. If you
[24:25] Speaker 3: look at what Dubai is doing is trying to become
[24:26] Speaker 3: a tourist hub and a cultural hub and trying to
[24:28] Speaker 3: relocate a lot of things from the UK, for example,
[24:31] Speaker 3: like the Louver opening in Dubai. These are all indications
[24:34] Speaker 3: that the UAE is trying to create itself as it's
[24:37] Speaker 3: a place besides an energy place. And that's I think
[24:41] Speaker 3: what they're doing right now is they're seeing this moment
[24:42] Speaker 3: is a turning point, like we have to do this.
[24:44] Speaker 3: If we don't, when when hostilities reduce, we're just going
[24:47] Speaker 3: to become like Bahrain or Qatar that's only used for
[24:51] Speaker 3: its oil or gas, and we don't want to be
[24:52] Speaker 3: that way.
[24:54] Speaker 4: And if you are in Abu Dhabi louve is, ind well, sorry,
[24:58] Speaker 4: it's super and go there every time we had to
[25:03] Speaker 4: go there on the humanitarian stuff. But so on that point,
[25:08] Speaker 4: I mean, I imagine don't know this to be true,
[25:10] Speaker 4: but I imagine they got some form of Mareen light, right.
[25:13] Speaker 4: They were probably using that literally as the carrot to
[25:17] Speaker 4: get this going. I don't like it, but you know,
[25:22] Speaker 4: nobody's asking me. I don't like paying paying countries to
[25:25] Speaker 4: set an example, not not specific to UAE, but paying
[25:28] Speaker 4: countries to do things that they don't legally have the
[25:30] Speaker 4: authority to do in the first place. Right, So as
[25:34] Speaker 4: soon as there's there is like eight major maritime choke
[25:39] Speaker 4: points if you will, around the world, and there is
[25:41] Speaker 4: some country that's next to them. So if they can
[25:48] Speaker 4: create the at least the oppression that it's dangerous by
[25:52] Speaker 4: shooting at some you see what I mean. I mean,
[25:54] Speaker 4: it doesn't we need to as an international community to
[25:57] Speaker 4: say we're not playing this game.
[25:58] Speaker 2: We're not, you're not.
[25:59] Speaker 4: You don't get to, you know, hold the world economy
[26:01] Speaker 4: hostage because you've got you know, a bunch of small
[26:04] Speaker 4: boats with you know, missiles on, and you're willing to
[26:09] Speaker 4: kill innocent civilians who happen to be you know, commercial semen.
[26:13] Speaker 4: So I think I think we have to draw a
[26:15] Speaker 4: line there. But I do understand we're gonna have to
[26:17] Speaker 4: have some carrots to get get her on to back
[26:20] Speaker 4: in the nuclear agreement. But I think that's the sanctions relief,
[26:23] Speaker 4: and I think most of their it should be performance based.
[26:27] Speaker 4: You've performed this, I opened the straight you get this,
[26:30] Speaker 4: we open the blockade. It can happen at the same time,
[26:33] Speaker 4: it can be phased. But then for the financial relief,
[26:37] Speaker 4: at least most of it should come at the conclusion
[26:41] Speaker 4: of the nuclear Yes, maybe I'm a hawk, but that's uh,
[26:47] Speaker 4: that's what everybody used to say. Let's see what they
[26:49] Speaker 4: say when this agreement come out.
[26:51] Speaker 1: It's a different world, man, you know, I mean on
[26:53] Speaker 1: Fedruary twenty seventh, I was with you until we start
[26:56] Speaker 1: a bombing them, and then now the goalpost has moved
[26:59] Speaker 1: dromat uh and not in our favor. We'll talk about
[27:04] Speaker 1: a little bit about the HU. There's a CNN report yesterday.
[27:09] Speaker 1: In recent weeks, orang is drastically escalated efforts to seal
[27:11] Speaker 1: off its cachet of UH near bomb grade uranium, deliberately
[27:16] Speaker 1: collapsing tunnels and booby trapping entrances with explosive minds, according
[27:20] Speaker 1: to five sources familiar with US intelligence.
[27:23] Speaker 2: What do you guys make.
[27:24] Speaker 1: Of that, because obviously, if we do have a cease
[27:26] Speaker 1: fire and tomorrow signed, that's a sixty day extension or
[27:30] Speaker 1: whatever in many days extension to negotiate the nuclear issue.
[27:34] Speaker 2: What what kind of what does that signal to.
[27:36] Speaker 1: You guys that they're they're trying to like vomb it
[27:38] Speaker 1: in place and make it like, you know, unattainable.
[27:42] Speaker 4: Well, there's not a deal until the steal port right
[27:44] Speaker 4: on the chairman, the chairman who had to cut short
[27:47] Speaker 4: as European trip and go to Tampa and be briefed
[27:51] Speaker 4: on it. I don't know if that's accurate, but that's
[27:53] Speaker 4: you guys know it's so they know it's they know
[27:56] Speaker 4: it's not only part of our plan, but serious briefed
[28:02] Speaker 4: part of our plan. And because of the comments around it,
[28:05] Speaker 4: they know that the US doesn't want to do it.
[28:08] Speaker 4: So the more they make it more dangerous to the
[28:10] Speaker 4: force that would be carrying it out, the more likely
[28:13] Speaker 4: we won't do it. So I think it's very unlikely.
[28:17] Speaker 4: So the best way to get recover that is to
[28:19] Speaker 4: a negotiated diplomatic which where we could just go in
[28:22] Speaker 4: nobody's getting shot at, and they can bring in the
[28:25] Speaker 4: earth movers I think, like an isophone. They're going to
[28:28] Speaker 4: have to build probably an expeditionary airfield of some sort.
[28:33] Speaker 1: Yeah, because the earthwork right, and you can only remove
[28:36] Speaker 1: the highly enricheranium with fixed wing.
[28:39] Speaker 2: You can't do it with the helicopters.
[28:42] Speaker 4: So it's way better to do this because think about it,
[28:44] Speaker 4: it could take weeks wait up till so we're gonna
[28:47] Speaker 4: have be on the ground. You know, even if we
[28:49] Speaker 4: send in you know, all the forces, we have a
[28:53] Speaker 4: raid out there, they're going to get hammered for weeks.
[28:56] Speaker 4: You know, it's in most of these facilities are in
[28:58] Speaker 4: the middle of the country. Like, it's not the it's
[29:00] Speaker 4: not the ideal solution, and we should we should we
[29:03] Speaker 4: should want that to be recovered, for sure, but it
[29:05] Speaker 4: should be recovered in a way that doesn't put you know,
[29:09] Speaker 4: this many troops significant risk.
[29:12] Speaker 3: And also, you know, I obviously haven't seen the intelligence,
[29:14] Speaker 3: but using measurement and signature intelligence, you could look at
[29:18] Speaker 3: what they're doing. Let's say that they're putting minds at
[29:20] Speaker 3: certain HGU points. Well, that's just telling me where all
[29:23] Speaker 3: the HGU is hidden. Yeah, you know, it seems kind
[29:26] Speaker 3: of interesting. I wonder, like what actually is going on,
[29:28] Speaker 3: you know that we can't see on their side, like
[29:30] Speaker 3: are they are they using opsect to like create deception,
[29:33] Speaker 3: like to put some other minds some other places, or
[29:35] Speaker 3: are they leading some that are not mine?
[29:37] Speaker 4: You know, they start putting it in all random places.
[29:41] Speaker 4: We're like, oh, I didn't know they had it there. Yeah, yeah, right,
[29:46] Speaker 4: It's tough. I mean, there's either we can either get
[29:49] Speaker 4: it all out of the country and destroy it. They
[29:51] Speaker 4: could get it out and then degrade it back down
[29:53] Speaker 4: to you know, civilian usage. I mean, and the other
[29:56] Speaker 4: thing about this whole scenario you can bring in low
[29:59] Speaker 4: and rich uranium to use for civilian purposes. If it
[30:02] Speaker 4: was really about their wanting to have a civilian nuclear program,
[30:06] Speaker 4: that could be done. But it's they have almost one
[30:10] Speaker 4: thousand pounds of sixty percent of rich geranium, which is
[30:13] Speaker 4: so far beyond what you need that it shows that
[30:15] Speaker 4: they that they it isn't about a civilian nuclear like,
[30:19] Speaker 4: there's no reason to do it to that love, which
[30:22] Speaker 4: shows that they're intent ultimately is to get a nuclear weapon.
[30:24] Speaker 4: And from a purely pragmatic perspective, you know, if we
[30:29] Speaker 4: you know, if you were on their side, you'd be like, yeah,
[30:31] Speaker 4: we need one, we don't watch it to have one,
[30:34] Speaker 4: do everything I agree with doing over But it's like
[30:36] Speaker 4: they have all the incentive now to get one. Well,
[30:39] Speaker 4: they can actually way of a deliverable nuclear weapon the
[30:43] Speaker 4: world changes.
[30:44] Speaker 2: Well.
[30:44] Speaker 3: The difficulty they have too, is that they could they
[30:47] Speaker 3: could make ninety percent weapons grade, but they haven't developed
[30:50] Speaker 3: sufficiently a delivery vehicle yet. So that's that's the other
[30:54] Speaker 3: challenge that they have not really gotten towards. So they've
[30:56] Speaker 3: done really well on the enrichment side, and they it's
[30:58] Speaker 3: a short technical step from ninety percent, but the problem
[31:01] Speaker 3: is weaponizing it, and I think that's probably what Israel
[31:04] Speaker 3: has been targeting more than the enrichment program, is the
[31:06] Speaker 3: weaponization of it, because the enrichment is one thing, but
[31:10] Speaker 3: you have to deliver it. And I think as long
[31:12] Speaker 3: as they can't deliver it the nuclear core exactly, yeah.
[31:17] Speaker 4: Yeah, miniaturize it for delivery. That's like years away, right, yeah.
[31:23] Speaker 3: And it's highly technical and they don't have the organic
[31:25] Speaker 3: ability to create the actual devices that would allow it
[31:27] Speaker 3: to work.
[31:28] Speaker 1: If it's years away, why why do we attack them?
[31:32] Speaker 3: We do almost pathway defeat, right when you say John,
[31:36] Speaker 3: pathway defeat. This is the whole concept of countering weapons
[31:39] Speaker 3: of mass destruction is that you don't just strike the
[31:41] Speaker 3: end point or the beginning point. You actually look at
[31:43] Speaker 3: the entire pathway of how it's produced and you hit
[31:45] Speaker 3: every single vulnerability along the way because it's a hedging attempt,
[31:49] Speaker 3: so that in case that your strike on that vulnerability
[31:52] Speaker 3: X was not sufficient, you're also hitting vulnerability why vulnerability
[31:56] Speaker 3: bravo all the way along, so that the whole system
[31:59] Speaker 3: itself is degrade.
[32:01] Speaker 1: But there's also like the reality on the ground right now,
[32:03] Speaker 1: after the June twenty twenty five strike For the most part,
[32:07] Speaker 1: every intelligence assessment. Obviously I'm not privy to the classified
[32:10] Speaker 1: shit said that, dam moved it. It's been there, it
[32:15] Speaker 1: hasn't gone anywhere. Isn't there something to say that, And
[32:20] Speaker 1: we were working diplomatically to figure it out, maybe get
[32:22] Speaker 1: it taken out of there. Isn't there something to be
[32:26] Speaker 1: said about, Like we did the job last June, why
[32:29] Speaker 1: do we have to do it again?
[32:31] Speaker 3: Because there's a reason. They can produce their own centrifuges now.
[32:36] Speaker 3: So even if they leave the stuff in Isfahan, they
[32:38] Speaker 3: actually have two other reactors that are under construction right now.
[32:41] Speaker 3: One's a heavy water plant which makes a special kind
[32:43] Speaker 3: of hydrogen used for weaponization, and the other is actually
[32:46] Speaker 3: an enrichment facility. They also have two million kilograms of
[32:50] Speaker 3: uranium in a mine that's in their territory. So let's
[32:54] Speaker 3: say we remove all of the uranium, we remove all
[32:57] Speaker 3: of the centrifuges. They can still produce more centrifugees and
[33:00] Speaker 3: they can still enrich more uranium. So this is kind
[33:03] Speaker 3: of the it's like a runaway problem where you're just
[33:05] Speaker 3: kind of like grabbing at them as they're running and
[33:07] Speaker 3: they're still doing it or they still could do it.
[33:09] Speaker 3: And the thing is you need to remove the will
[33:11] Speaker 3: to do it rather than anything else, because as long
[33:13] Speaker 3: as the will is gone, the threat's gone. Well, right now,
[33:16] Speaker 3: they have all the will in the world to keep
[33:17] Speaker 3: doing it with whatever resources they can, because they're being
[33:21] Speaker 3: attacked by two countries with nuclear weapons, and they're like,
[33:24] Speaker 3: we will do whatever it takes to make sure that
[33:26] Speaker 3: our program does not go away. We'll make even if
[33:28] Speaker 3: we have to make you think that it's going away,
[33:30] Speaker 3: and we'll do it temporarily. We still have the ability
[33:32] Speaker 3: to do it and not toons. They have a factory
[33:35] Speaker 3: underground that can actually make the IR seven centrifuge, which
[33:37] Speaker 3: is the most advanced centrifuge that is out there right
[33:40] Speaker 3: now besides the ones the US, Russia and China have.
[33:43] Speaker 3: This is a really advanced centrifuge. They can make it,
[33:45] Speaker 3: they have the ability to produce it, and they need
[33:48] Speaker 3: some rare earth and other special minerals to do it,
[33:51] Speaker 3: but China and Russia will give it to them, or
[33:53] Speaker 3: they can get it from other sources as well. So
[33:56] Speaker 3: I think the nuclear threat is going to exist as
[33:59] Speaker 3: long as the will exists.
[34:02] Speaker 1: And the wheels stronger than ever. Absolutely, yes, yeah, good god, guys,
[34:10] Speaker 1: what do we do.
[34:10] Speaker 4: I find out in the next twenty four hours, right,
[34:13] Speaker 4: whether this is.
[34:13] Speaker 2: What do you guys think? Does it happen? Is there
[34:16] Speaker 2: a deal in the next twenty four hours?
[34:18] Speaker 3: It is a weekend, and he loves doing stuff with
[34:20] Speaker 3: the market on the weekend. Yeah, and we just got
[34:23] Speaker 3: a SpaceX ipo. So that's good.
[34:26] Speaker 4: Flying to DC tomorrow, I'll be flying in right when
[34:29] Speaker 4: the UFC fight's going on.
[34:31] Speaker 2: Perfect, I mean, because there's no way to tell.
[34:34] Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know what to make of like
[34:36] Speaker 1: the Pakistani Foreign minister coming out and saying there's a
[34:39] Speaker 1: deal iminent, Like does that change it?
[34:42] Speaker 4: Eighty five percents there? I mean, I like to look
[34:44] Speaker 4: at the glass out full, but like fifteen percent is
[34:47] Speaker 4: actually really substantial, right, that could be like the biggest
[34:50] Speaker 4: parts of the agreement, like the fifteen percent could include
[34:54] Speaker 4: I want all the benefits up front or you know,
[34:56] Speaker 4: around telling us, and that's a non starter. I think
[34:59] Speaker 4: if the US gets what it says the terms are
[35:02] Speaker 4: were in a better place, We'll.
[35:04] Speaker 2: Have to see.
[35:06] Speaker 3: But the terms have to be better than the twenty
[35:08] Speaker 3: fifteen JCPODA. It can't just be better than February twenty eighth.
[35:11] Speaker 3: It has to be like all the way better because
[35:14] Speaker 3: the whole thing was for nothing.
[35:16] Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, it is.
[35:17] Speaker 4: You know, you can you can spend whatever you want,
[35:19] Speaker 4: but history is going to be very critical with the
[35:23] Speaker 4: decision you get out of an agreement to only get
[35:26] Speaker 4: back into the same agreement basically this many years later
[35:31] Speaker 4: after you know, the sixty percent enriched uranium, with the
[35:35] Speaker 4: proxy forces basically just increasing their activities. Everything is yeah, but.
[35:43] Speaker 3: And Americans have died in between then because of that, right,
[35:46] Speaker 3: you know, twenty nineteen, twenty twenty this year, like Americans
[35:49] Speaker 3: have died because we pulled out of that agreement.
[35:52] Speaker 4: It for strategic reasons and obviously political reasons. It needs
[35:56] Speaker 4: to be better, and really the only way be to
[35:58] Speaker 4: be better is zero and Richmond because it's very limited
[36:01] Speaker 4: at the JCPU.
[36:03] Speaker 2: I think there's no way that happens.
[36:06] Speaker 1: No way, I mean got like have the straight OHRD
[36:10] Speaker 1: moves open back to normal and a better deal than JCPOA.
[36:16] Speaker 1: There's no way orangoes for that.
[36:19] Speaker 3: Well, the only thing that would make it better is
[36:20] Speaker 3: that Hezbola is disarmed and the Lebanese armed forces take
[36:23] Speaker 3: over control of self Lebanon this this would be a
[36:25] Speaker 3: significant difference between the twenty fifteen JCPOA and whatever we
[36:29] Speaker 3: come up with now. Even if everything else was kept equal,
[36:32] Speaker 3: this change would make it arguably a better deal, although
[36:36] Speaker 3: it would you have to ask, like, was it worth that,
[36:39] Speaker 3: like everything we've done in the last eleven years, was
[36:42] Speaker 3: that cost worth just adding Hesbola to the agreement? And
[36:46] Speaker 3: I don't know the answer to that question.
[36:48] Speaker 4: At least you can have an argument. You think you
[36:50] Speaker 4: can make it right, right, we got to get to
[36:52] Speaker 4: a better agreement than the JCP and I think Jonathan's right,
[36:57] Speaker 4: we can get significant concessions has been That's a positive
[37:02] Speaker 4: for original piece for sure. Something I mean, yeah, good lord,
[37:07] Speaker 4: this is this is this country used to be, you know.
[37:11] Speaker 3: So much better of a place the Paris in the
[37:14] Speaker 3: Middle East.
[37:15] Speaker 4: Yeah, the Paris.
[37:19] Speaker 3: Yeah, when my team was there, we were we were
[37:21] Speaker 3: able to go skiing in the morning and then go
[37:23] Speaker 3: surfing in the afternoon every day if we wanted to.
[37:25] Speaker 4: But we were busy.
[37:27] Speaker 2: Yeah, now shame Let me ask you what happens quick
[37:34] Speaker 2: quite like just a little history.
[37:35] Speaker 1: That's because I'm not I don't know this, but as
[37:39] Speaker 1: a JCPO it was being negotiated. You know, in twenty fifteen,
[37:42] Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, where were they at in terms of how
[37:46] Speaker 1: much enricheranium did they have? Was it anywhere near sixty percent?
[37:52] Speaker 4: I mean the disagreement itself kept it to three point
[37:55] Speaker 4: three and a half or something. Yeah, like nowhere close.
[37:59] Speaker 4: Now the other side was you know, I'm not on
[38:01] Speaker 4: either side. The other side will say, well, there's a
[38:03] Speaker 4: lot of the enrichment when Biden came into office, and
[38:07] Speaker 4: you know, they didn't immediately get back into the JCPOA.
[38:10] Speaker 4: I don't know if that's true, but all I know
[38:12] Speaker 4: is the Pentagon. Although we obviously, you know, once the
[38:17] Speaker 4: president makes decisions to carry out orders, we questioned, like,
[38:22] Speaker 4: why not just make it a better agreement? Why not
[38:24] Speaker 4: just build off of the agreement that's there. Yeah, it
[38:27] Speaker 4: wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but neither is
[38:31] Speaker 4: zero agreement that's not perfect, right, And we could have
[38:35] Speaker 4: addressed the issues of ballistic missiles and supporting terrorist organizations
[38:40] Speaker 4: if it wasn't in the agreement. That that meant we
[38:42] Speaker 4: could address it in other by other means. Because it
[38:45] Speaker 4: wasn't in the agreement, you see what I mean? So
[38:48] Speaker 4: that's that was our position at the time, but ultimately
[38:52] Speaker 4: the President made the decision. And that's why I think
[38:55] Speaker 4: it really needs to be more substantial.
[39:00] Speaker 3: And also the reason the enrichment took so long, like
[39:03] Speaker 3: it got back during the Biden administration, because the way
[39:05] Speaker 3: that Iran abrogated its side of the deal was a slow,
[39:09] Speaker 3: incremental abrogation. So when the US pulled out in twenty seventeen,
[39:13] Speaker 3: we unilaterally pulled out completely, like we just abrogated everything
[39:17] Speaker 3: in there, and we kicked them out of the swift
[39:18] Speaker 3: banking system, so it was kind of a two pronged
[39:21] Speaker 3: strike against them. But Iran still followed the deal because
[39:25] Speaker 3: the other P five plus one countries were following it,
[39:28] Speaker 3: and so Iran had an incentive to continue because of
[39:30] Speaker 3: the sanctions structures that were associated with the agreement. So
[39:34] Speaker 3: they actually would telegraph and they would say, you know,
[39:36] Speaker 3: in three months, if X doesn't happen, we're going to
[39:38] Speaker 3: increase by this percentage, and they very incrementally did so
[39:42] Speaker 3: until about twenty nineteen twenty twenty, when they were all
[39:44] Speaker 3: the way back up to or all the way to
[39:46] Speaker 3: sixty percent enrichment. So they were telegraphing and giving opportunities
[39:50] Speaker 3: for the West to say, Okay, never mind, we're going
[39:53] Speaker 3: to come back to this agreement, which I mean the
[39:54] Speaker 3: United States by that, of course, but the US ignored that,
[39:57] Speaker 3: and Biden also ignored it. I mean, it wasn't that
[39:59] Speaker 3: it was Trump versus Biden, like it was. The US
[40:01] Speaker 3: decided not to return to the deal.
[40:05] Speaker 1: Why why wouldn't Why why wouldn't the Biden administration try
[40:09] Speaker 1: to get back into that deal?
[40:11] Speaker 3: I think, I mean, this is my opinion, probably because
[40:14] Speaker 3: the Trump administration had made an agreement with the Taliban
[40:17] Speaker 3: about the withdrawal from Afghanistan before Trump's exit, but it
[40:21] Speaker 3: was timed at the early months of the next president's presidency,
[40:25] Speaker 3: so that whichever president came next would have to deal
[40:28] Speaker 3: with the exit from Afghanistan. And you know, that was
[40:29] Speaker 3: what was going on back then. And I think probably
[40:32] Speaker 3: there was discussion within the Biden administration that we don't
[40:34] Speaker 3: want to involve ourselves in an Iran negotiation while we're
[40:36] Speaker 3: also trying to solve the Afghanistan withdrawal problem. And I
[40:39] Speaker 3: think that's probably part of the calculus that went into
[40:41] Speaker 3: why they didn't restart those talks at that time.
[40:47] Speaker 4: Out we got to look forward. I gotta learn, we
[40:50] Speaker 4: gotta learn from that, look forward to weekend. Put the
[40:53] Speaker 4: US in a better position, which is I mean, it's
[40:56] Speaker 4: challenged right now, so it's to be determined.
[40:58] Speaker 1: But why would they think that the Afghanistan withdrawal would
[41:03] Speaker 1: actually have any effect on the on the negotiations try
[41:07] Speaker 1: and get back in the JCPO way or add to
[41:09] Speaker 1: it or whatever. Why is that even in the calculus.
[41:12] Speaker 3: Because that's the entire eastern border of Iran. Okay, it's
[41:15] Speaker 3: a massive security concern for both Iran and Pakistan. So
[41:19] Speaker 3: if the US is negotiating with Katar and Pakistan and
[41:21] Speaker 3: Afghanistan about the Taliban, you know you have to consider
[41:24] Speaker 3: that issue.
[41:25] Speaker 2: Okay, man who.
[41:28] Speaker 4: Another episode talk about. Yeah, we get to a point
[41:33] Speaker 4: where we have the strongest military in the world by far,
[41:37] Speaker 4: and the best intelligence service, I'd say, and somehow we
[41:39] Speaker 4: can't come out ahead in these conflicts that we decide
[41:42] Speaker 4: to go into. It's like, I think we have a
[41:44] Speaker 4: policy making issue here, because we certainly don't have a
[41:47] Speaker 4: practitioner issue. By practitioner, I mean people are carrying out policy.
[41:53] Speaker 4: I think we have the most effective diplomats, military, and
[41:56] Speaker 4: intelligence services in the world. Yeah, we seem to have
[41:59] Speaker 4: a real hard time coming out strategically ahead in these
[42:04] Speaker 4: conflicts we decide to get into.
[42:07] Speaker 3: It's just improperly using these exquisite instruments that we.
[42:10] Speaker 2: Have right.
[42:13] Speaker 1: And likes, and you have like experts usually on the
[42:15] Speaker 1: NSC right that I'll tell you XYZ will happen most likely,
[42:19] Speaker 1: and the policymakers being like that doesn't matter, like we'll
[42:23] Speaker 1: just do this anyway and not listen to experts.
[42:28] Speaker 3: Well, even with the Obama administration, timber Sycamore, the covered
[42:32] Speaker 3: action in Syria, the NSC was the one pushing that
[42:35] Speaker 3: COVID action. They were saying, we need to go into
[42:38] Speaker 3: Syria and arm these guys against us AD, and people
[42:42] Speaker 3: in other agencies like the CIA and other places were saying, well,
[42:45] Speaker 3: if you do that, you know these guys are affiliate
[42:46] Speaker 3: with al Qaeda, and this kind of problematic and down
[42:48] Speaker 3: the road there might be some issues that happened which
[42:51] Speaker 3: ended up being true, but it took a long time
[42:54] Speaker 3: for that to actually sort itself out in a way
[42:57] Speaker 3: that we can actually see that that was true.
[42:59] Speaker 4: Ye, And I'm not saying like obviously the people that
[43:02] Speaker 4: are elected or elected and they make the ultimate decisions.
[43:04] Speaker 4: It's it's it's not a listen to the careerist over
[43:08] Speaker 4: it is we have an issue right because we're not
[43:12] Speaker 4: coming out ahead. So I'm all about the US coming
[43:15] Speaker 4: out ahead, which I think is good for you know,
[43:17] Speaker 4: the free world, especially for both the free world. But
[43:20] Speaker 4: we need to figure out what we're doing wrong instead
[43:23] Speaker 4: of just moving on to the next endeavor and not.
[43:26] Speaker 4: It's it's very difficult to do because it becomes a
[43:29] Speaker 4: partisan issue. But I think, you know, our foreign policy
[43:32] Speaker 4: should not be a partisan issue. We should have a cohesive,
[43:35] Speaker 4: comprehensive policy that lasts beyond whoever is in office. The
[43:40] Speaker 4: only way to do that is to develop it together.
[43:43] Speaker 2: Right.
[43:44] Speaker 4: Foreign relations committees, for example, should have a lot to
[43:47] Speaker 4: say inconsistency, and our strategies should last beyond you know, administrations,
[43:54] Speaker 4: because it's just really focused on our core strategic interests,
[43:58] Speaker 4: which ultimately don't shift because it's a party a different party.
[44:03] Speaker 4: That's my that's me being on the soapbox. But I
[44:05] Speaker 4: think we're I think whether you're on the right, left
[44:08] Speaker 4: or center, and whether you're a publican, Democrat or independent,
[44:11] Speaker 4: you can say we probably should be doing better with
[44:13] Speaker 4: the with the tools that we have in our toolbox.
[44:17] Speaker 2: I think that's no, there's no question there.
[44:19] Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean, uh, you know, even just dismantling
[44:24] Speaker 1: USA I d was a fucking terrible, terrible move.
[44:29] Speaker 4: I mean, there was plenty of things that it shouldn't
[44:31] Speaker 4: have been doing that it was doing. But again, then
[44:35] Speaker 4: let's get it back on track to go to our
[44:36] Speaker 4: core interests. Our core strategic interests in the United States
[44:40] Speaker 4: don't aren't partisan, They're not partisan. We want to improve
[44:44] Speaker 4: our economy. We want to stabilize the world so we
[44:47] Speaker 4: can free trade with it, right. I mean there there's
[44:51] Speaker 4: basic stuff. We want to have more democracies because why
[44:54] Speaker 4: we're a democracy and we promote it. It's in our
[44:57] Speaker 4: core Uh, it always has been, I guess until recently
[45:02] Speaker 4: that needs to be I know we're getting on a
[45:06] Speaker 4: I'm getting on a soapbox here, but we are talking
[45:08] Speaker 4: about something that we could easily go either way. Right now,
[45:12] Speaker 4: come out behind. I'm definitely hoping we're coming out ahead,
[45:16] Speaker 4: but we need to make sure that this that we
[45:19] Speaker 4: use the actual lessons learned, the expertise, and the tools
[45:25] Speaker 4: that we have in our toolbox, which are which every
[45:28] Speaker 4: America pays for let's also put it that way, right,
[45:31] Speaker 4: I mean, our next defense budget is going to be
[45:34] Speaker 4: one point five trillion dollars.
[45:36] Speaker 1: Yeah, it's fucking atrocious, Mick. I'm gonna be honest with you.
[45:39] Speaker 1: I know this is like you know, you guys are
[45:41] Speaker 1: all in the service and stuff like that. One point
[45:44] Speaker 1: five an extra five hundred billion dollars for what nobody
[45:46] Speaker 1: knows is a fucking joke.
[45:48] Speaker 2: Don't get crazy again, apox not.
[45:51] Speaker 3: The foreign policy idea is to like, please.
[45:54] Speaker 4: But like you should expect the best, right, That's what
[45:55] Speaker 4: I'm saying, Sorry for sure?
[45:57] Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I mean the form policy that we've been
[46:00] Speaker 3: we've been advertising this this administration is that we're going
[46:02] Speaker 3: to stop fighting wars overseas where we are dismantling a
[46:06] Speaker 3: lot of our security assistants. We're dismantling the Army's security
[46:09] Speaker 3: force assistance brigades. So like we're trying to pull back forces.
[46:13] Speaker 3: And the question is, well, how is it that pulling
[46:15] Speaker 3: back forces cost more than having them deployed? And if
[46:18] Speaker 3: that's true, then why take them back? Just keep them
[46:21] Speaker 3: where they are at the lower cost that they were,
[46:23] Speaker 3: rather than using more tax pay dollars for less.
[46:27] Speaker 4: And we're gonna have to pay again to get a
[46:29] Speaker 4: back out there when we realize that it's really difficult
[46:32] Speaker 4: to project force without having forces already projected, you know
[46:36] Speaker 4: what I mean, Like it isn't it's just it's it's
[46:38] Speaker 4: just basic geography, right, so we want It's not we're
[46:43] Speaker 4: not doing people a favor by having basis in their country.
[46:46] Speaker 4: They're doing us a favor. Think of all of our
[46:49] Speaker 4: efforts in Africa and the Middle East. I mean, if
[46:51] Speaker 4: we didn't have our platforms in Europe.
[46:55] Speaker 1: Yeah, no, we'd be how that'd be a logistical nightmare.
[46:59] Speaker 1: And we're supposed to. We're the best at logistics when
[47:02] Speaker 1: it comes to like being able to project power, right,
[47:04] Speaker 1: Like we're number one.
[47:05] Speaker 4: That's I think our secret, Our secret to our success
[47:09] Speaker 4: is actually the logistics, right Amateurs talk tactics and professionals
[47:13] Speaker 4: talk logistics. If the US has the ability to project
[47:17] Speaker 4: force so much better than any other military in the world,
[47:20] Speaker 4: that's our key. I mean, we have, you know, I
[47:23] Speaker 4: think the best of a lot of different spheres of
[47:27] Speaker 4: national security. But that ability to project force is really exceptional.
[47:32] Speaker 3: But you need the basing access and overflight to do it.
[47:35] Speaker 3: And that means you need partners and allies who are
[47:37] Speaker 3: willing to let you use their airspace, their airfields, their partnerships.
[47:40] Speaker 3: And that can be accomplished with one soft team of
[47:43] Speaker 3: twelve guys in that country training a Tier one force
[47:46] Speaker 3: in that country for a couple of years. That's enough
[47:48] Speaker 3: good will for that country to say, yeah, you can
[47:50] Speaker 3: use our airfield when you need to use it.
[47:55] Speaker 4: Keep your friends, keep your friends close.
[47:57] Speaker 2: Man, we're not doing a good job of that right now.
[48:00] Speaker 4: No better friend, no worse enemy we need, right absolutely,
[48:06] Speaker 4: That's that's right, General Maddice, Secretary Maatus that that that
[48:09] Speaker 4: should be our motto. And both sides of that equation, right,
[48:12] Speaker 4: because both sides cat you want people to be like
[48:15] Speaker 4: the US is a damn good friend. They're there when
[48:17] Speaker 4: it's when it's tough, and you want your enemies to be,
[48:20] Speaker 4: you know, scared, scared to death of us. Right. Another
[48:24] Speaker 4: great Mattus quote to the only thing they have to
[48:26] Speaker 4: decide is when hold they're going to die in uh
[48:28] Speaker 4: when we're there? Right? So, I mean you want both.
[48:32] Speaker 4: It can't just be one you need. I don't think
[48:35] Speaker 4: you can be most effective. You got to be the
[48:37] Speaker 4: good friend and the enemy. That people don't want to.
[48:40] Speaker 2: Go against Are we doing that? Are we living up
[48:44] Speaker 2: to that currently.
[48:46] Speaker 3: Some places, but not as much as we have been
[48:48] Speaker 3: in the past.
[48:51] Speaker 2: A little bit of a let's talk a little AI news.
[48:53] Speaker 1: John just toss this into the signal chat a statement
[48:58] Speaker 1: from Anthropic statement on us blah blah blah. The US government,
[49:02] Speaker 1: citing national security authorities, has issued an export controlled directive
[49:06] Speaker 1: to spend all access to Fable five and Mythos five
[49:09] Speaker 1: by any foreign national, whether inside or outside of the
[49:13] Speaker 1: United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. So it goes on.
[49:18] Speaker 1: So it's that's pretty wild. I mean, you know, business
[49:23] Speaker 1: side Thropic.
[49:24] Speaker 3: Well, they actually turned off Fable completely. So in reaction
[49:28] Speaker 3: to the news, just to be safe, Anthropics said, well,
[49:31] Speaker 3: we're just not going to let anybody use it. So
[49:33] Speaker 3: now they just pulled the plug on it completely.
[49:35] Speaker 4: Yeah, but what so what does FABLE do again?
[49:39] Speaker 2: Sorry?
[49:39] Speaker 3: So, Fable is their newest model that just came out
[49:41] Speaker 3: last Tuesday, I believe, and it's a very advanced version
[49:44] Speaker 3: of the different types of the reasoning models they have.
[49:48] Speaker 3: So Mythos came out before that. Mythos is even more
[49:51] Speaker 3: advanced than Fable. Some governments, including France have used Mythos
[49:55] Speaker 3: to develop cyber tools and to identify zero day vulnerabilities
[49:59] Speaker 3: and things like this, because it's it is very advanced,
[50:02] Speaker 3: and so it seems the US government is saying that
[50:04] Speaker 3: exactly now it's it's in the hands of an ordinary
[50:06] Speaker 3: user or a Russian or whomever, or a North Korean
[50:10] Speaker 3: this would be a great ransomware builder, for example. So
[50:13] Speaker 3: I think that that's the concern, But that means Anthropic
[50:15] Speaker 3: now has a business problem, like you said, where they've
[50:18] Speaker 3: developed this really advanced thing and it costs a lot
[50:21] Speaker 3: of money to develop it, and it can do a
[50:23] Speaker 3: lot of good, and maybe it's kind of to look
[50:26] Speaker 3: at like nuclear science, where you could do a lot
[50:29] Speaker 3: of good with nuclear research and you can do a
[50:30] Speaker 3: lot of bad with it. And how do you create
[50:32] Speaker 3: the right balance between those two truths?
[50:35] Speaker 4: How do how do we when we don't control what
[50:38] Speaker 4: our adversaries develop.
[50:40] Speaker 3: It's tough, plus China making it sound too you.
[50:43] Speaker 4: Can be real like preachy about it, but then where
[50:48] Speaker 4: you go, well, the enemies are going to do it.
[50:50] Speaker 4: I mean Russia had a during go back to the
[50:52] Speaker 4: nuclear issue, Russia had a plan that if it felt
[50:55] Speaker 4: like it got attacked and they couldn't and their nuclear
[50:58] Speaker 4: forces couldn't be in tech with the Kremlin, and you
[51:01] Speaker 4: just started launching all the nukes. It was a dead
[51:03] Speaker 4: man's hand. It just like this one missile went across
[51:06] Speaker 4: the tirety of the Soviet Union, just launching all the
[51:08] Speaker 4: ones that were still uh, you know, violet.
[51:11] Speaker 2: Right.
[51:12] Speaker 4: So if you if you think about that's our adversary,
[51:14] Speaker 4: you think they're not going to use AI to ultimate
[51:17] Speaker 4: benefit them once they can. I'm not saying that that's
[51:21] Speaker 4: an issue right now, but are we going to just
[51:24] Speaker 4: tie our own hands? It's it's actually a really complicated
[51:27] Speaker 4: discussion because, yeah, we don't want a computer decided to
[51:30] Speaker 4: kill all these humans. They're already doing it. By the way,
[51:33] Speaker 4: in Ukraine, AI.
[51:35] Speaker 3: You targeting Israel used it in your own also during
[51:38] Speaker 3: the first days of the Salvo.
[51:40] Speaker 4: Yep, it's happening. It's happening.
[51:43] Speaker 2: Can we use it as well?
[51:46] Speaker 4: Well?
[51:46] Speaker 3: This is a good point because Anthropic was the company
[51:49] Speaker 3: that Pete Hegsef kicked out of contracts. And I'm curious
[51:53] Speaker 3: if this this statement is a punishment for refusing to
[51:58] Speaker 3: put guardrails or to take guardrails for the deality. Yeah,
[52:03] Speaker 3: because they didn't ban anything else. They only banned anthropics
[52:07] Speaker 3: most recent model.
[52:09] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[52:10] Speaker 1: So based on the statement, our understanding is that the
[52:12] Speaker 1: government believes that it has become aware of a method
[52:15] Speaker 1: of bypassing or jail breaking Fable five, which you would
[52:20] Speaker 1: think if they release Fable five on Tuesday and mythos
[52:25] Speaker 1: it's out there right, the Chinese and the Russians likely
[52:28] Speaker 1: or even like some independent group that works for either
[52:31] Speaker 1: or both has jail broken this and figured it out,
[52:36] Speaker 1: especially the Chinese, like all their models are based on
[52:39] Speaker 1: American models. Yeah, you know, that's why they get them
[52:42] Speaker 1: out so cheap. So to think that this is going
[52:45] Speaker 1: to stop anything. And like it said in here, like
[52:47] Speaker 1: even foreign national anthropic employees, like they have the smartest
[52:52] Speaker 1: and best people are going to work at AI companies
[52:54] Speaker 1: because there's big money to be made, right, there's no
[52:58] Speaker 1: like how can they put the put the toothpaste back
[53:01] Speaker 1: in a tube?
[53:02] Speaker 2: Here? John, you know you know everything, John tell.
[53:04] Speaker 3: Us, you should ask fable.
[53:09] Speaker 4: I wish I start asking AI out of control.
[53:13] Speaker 3: Well, the thing is we have to look at it
[53:14] Speaker 3: like any other tool or weapon, which a tool can
[53:17] Speaker 3: be a weapon, and a weapon can be a tool,
[53:18] Speaker 3: we have to think about what is everybody else doing
[53:21] Speaker 3: with it, and what is our goal? And if our
[53:22] Speaker 3: goal was to remain superior to others, we have to
[53:26] Speaker 3: use it to its maximum capability because we have to
[53:28] Speaker 3: assume that they will do the same thing. And if
[53:30] Speaker 3: we don't do that, we are opening ourselves up, like
[53:32] Speaker 3: you said, Mick, to a vulnerability that they are going
[53:35] Speaker 3: to be stronger than we are in this field. That
[53:37] Speaker 3: would be a mistake. So maybe that is going on
[53:39] Speaker 3: behind the scenes and we just don't know it, and
[53:41] Speaker 3: maybe that's part of the ban on the average user
[53:44] Speaker 3: using it. But we all know that suppression is not
[53:46] Speaker 3: a good recipe for actual success, you know, like if
[53:50] Speaker 3: you try to suppress someone from doing something, they're going
[53:52] Speaker 3: to find a way around it. Iran is an excellent
[53:53] Speaker 3: example of that that repression is not going to solve
[53:56] Speaker 3: this problem. Instead, we should probably be opening it up
[53:59] Speaker 3: to like some kind of competent among you know, very
[54:01] Speaker 3: advanced hackers and users to show us how they can
[54:03] Speaker 3: best use fable to do something egregious, like actually incentivizing
[54:06] Speaker 3: that like we did at Black Hat. You know, National
[54:08] Speaker 3: Security Agency was a frequent attendee at Black hat. I
[54:11] Speaker 3: was one of those people that was there. There are
[54:12] Speaker 3: many people from intelligence entities going to these to see
[54:17] Speaker 3: these really advanced smart people. How can they use this
[54:19] Speaker 3: and how can we keep them insulated rather than isolated?
[54:22] Speaker 3: In other words, if they're making these really scary tools,
[54:25] Speaker 3: how do we bring them into the fold before they
[54:27] Speaker 3: go out and use it for bad Because you know,
[54:30] Speaker 3: if you give them the correct incentive, they're going to
[54:32] Speaker 3: want to work with you, and I mean a positive incentive,
[54:34] Speaker 3: not a negative one. There was the whole you know,
[54:37] Speaker 3: bug bounty program back in the early two thousands where
[54:39] Speaker 3: we were paying hackers to give us zero days and
[54:41] Speaker 3: then sign NDAs and promise not to use them and
[54:44] Speaker 3: let us use them in our toolkit. And that's a
[54:46] Speaker 3: reason we were able to do stucksnet against Iran's nuclear
[54:49] Speaker 3: program was because of zero day Like that, there were
[54:51] Speaker 3: a couple of zero days involved there and some other
[54:54] Speaker 3: very advanced hacks where we actually brought hackers in to
[54:56] Speaker 3: help us. And I think it's very important to bring
[54:59] Speaker 3: in programmers, people that are very savvy on this stuff
[55:01] Speaker 3: to help us and to be part of us, because
[55:04] Speaker 3: if we don't, Russia, China, North Korea Iran and even
[55:07] Speaker 3: some non state actors who are just financially interested are
[55:10] Speaker 3: going to take advantage of this new technology. And the
[55:12] Speaker 3: thing is, the technology is going to be there, whether
[55:14] Speaker 3: we like it or not. We have to accept that
[55:16] Speaker 3: it's going to be there, and what it is today
[55:18] Speaker 3: is not what it's going to be in ten years.
[55:19] Speaker 3: It's going to be dramatically more. And if we're left behind,
[55:22] Speaker 3: we're going to be this, you know, like the Byzantine Empire,
[55:24] Speaker 3: this like rump state that had this glorious past and
[55:26] Speaker 3: everything else has passed us by. And that's kind of
[55:29] Speaker 3: a choice we have to make right now.
[55:32] Speaker 1: It's shocking to me, frankly, that like the National Security Apparatus,
[55:36] Speaker 1: the United States doesn't have some kind of mechanism in
[55:41] Speaker 1: place with open AI and thropic and whoever else I say,
[55:44] Speaker 1: I I guess, but they're you know, flagging, but at
[55:47] Speaker 1: least Anthropic, which seems to be like the most bleeding
[55:50] Speaker 1: edge frontier model. How they don't have some kind of
[55:54] Speaker 1: mechanism to be like this model we just made is
[55:58] Speaker 1: fucking crazy. And we're letting you know that for guidance,
[56:02] Speaker 1: and maybe we water it down for public use and
[56:05] Speaker 1: stuff like that maybe we need to like you know,
[56:08] Speaker 1: you know, rejigger what we need to jigger, like you know,
[56:10] Speaker 1: dial it down or whatever we have to do. I'm
[56:13] Speaker 1: shocked that there isn't a mechanism like that already in place.
[56:18] Speaker 3: Well, the thing is, it's inevitable that this would be developed.
[56:20] Speaker 3: It's just like physics, like once people figure out the equations,
[56:23] Speaker 3: anybody can do it with the right resources. And whether
[56:26] Speaker 3: it's Anthropic that develops fable or some other company that
[56:29] Speaker 3: develops some other LLM, the tools are there to make
[56:32] Speaker 3: it happen.
[56:33] Speaker 2: Right, you know.
[56:34] Speaker 3: And if Anthropics first, that's great. But a Chinese company
[56:36] Speaker 3: like Deep Seek, which is very good at industrial espionage,
[56:39] Speaker 3: I mean that's China's forte figuring out reverse engineering and
[56:43] Speaker 3: making a new version. That's that's their proprietary version that
[56:45] Speaker 3: we have a hard time to understand. They're going to
[56:47] Speaker 3: do it anyway, So we should be kind of helping
[56:50] Speaker 3: Anthropic probably get even more advanced faster. It's an arms race,
[56:53] Speaker 3: for sure, but the arms race also got us into
[56:56] Speaker 3: space and created our GPS systems that we enjoy and
[56:58] Speaker 3: many other positive benefits. There's a way to harness this
[57:01] Speaker 3: to make positive benefits come to society if we're smart
[57:05] Speaker 3: about it, if we're scared about it, that's actually the
[57:07] Speaker 3: worst direction this could go, because then our adversaries are
[57:10] Speaker 3: ahead of us.
[57:12] Speaker 4: Found the third off set national security has been like that,
[57:17] Speaker 4: that continuous desire to get a step ahead. The question
[57:22] Speaker 4: is how far ahead are we going to get over
[57:24] Speaker 4: our adversaries or are we dragging them with us because
[57:27] Speaker 4: they can simply recreate what our companies.
[57:31] Speaker 2: Are, all right, you doing? Yeah, yeah, it's across the sphere.
[57:36] Speaker 4: I mean, it's a bigger conversation. But if you think
[57:39] Speaker 4: think of the top five, you know, most significant tech leaders,
[57:43] Speaker 4: they're not just running the world, you know, when it
[57:46] Speaker 4: comes to national security, it's also social and influence. And like,
[57:51] Speaker 4: these companies are coming just colossal and something that I
[57:56] Speaker 4: don't think we've really had in history, at least to
[57:58] Speaker 4: this extent. It's just for beating everything science, technology, development, culture.
[58:07] Speaker 1: And you look at the CEOs, you see these look
[58:09] Speaker 1: at the CEOs of these companies and you're like, holy shit,
[58:11] Speaker 1: do they do they really deserve this much power?
[58:13] Speaker 2: I don't know.
[58:15] Speaker 1: I'll say no, they don't because they're fucking lunatics. But
[58:18] Speaker 1: for the most part they're lunatics. You know, Yeah, it's
[58:24] Speaker 1: gonna be an interesting thing. I mean, I'm shocked that
[58:26] Speaker 1: there's no like direct line from like Anthropic to the
[58:29] Speaker 1: NSA to be like, hey, guys, the things I hope.
[58:33] Speaker 4: So there should should be established.
[58:35] Speaker 1: But at the same time, you have Anthropic in and
[58:37] Speaker 1: open AI raising money at a like a scary level,
[58:41] Speaker 1: like a like a spell bound bounding level, and they're
[58:44] Speaker 1: going to try and go pro public this year and
[58:47] Speaker 1: raise more money, so they're like, we need to be
[58:49] Speaker 1: at the top. You know, this is a battle for
[58:52] Speaker 1: fucking existence because I think in back of their minds
[58:54] Speaker 1: they know that at the end of the day, it's
[58:56] Speaker 1: probably gonna end up being like one massive AI company
[58:59] Speaker 1: rather than like three or four, just because the economics
[59:02] Speaker 1: may not work, because I don't know if it's I'm
[59:04] Speaker 1: one of the believers that AI is not going to
[59:06] Speaker 1: completely like you know, people won't have to work anymore
[59:10] Speaker 1: and change the world completely. I think it is a
[59:12] Speaker 1: place for it for sure, like in productivity, but I
[59:15] Speaker 1: don't know if it's to the point where it doesn't
[59:18] Speaker 1: even make economic sense. And like there's that's that's another show.
[59:20] Speaker 1: We could totally get into and hopefully we will. I
[59:23] Speaker 1: want to do something about AI and the business of
[59:25] Speaker 1: it on this channel. Yeah, so we'll see nothing no
[59:30] Speaker 1: good news ever. That's great, really excited about it. I
[59:33] Speaker 1: don't know how you guys worked in fucking national security
[59:36] Speaker 1: for twenty thirty years and it's just like you guys
[59:38] Speaker 1: got good news occasionally, right, We got been lodded and
[59:41] Speaker 1: that was good.
[59:43] Speaker 3: That was past.
[59:45] Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we don't want to talk. We don't want
[59:47] Speaker 1: to talk about that. Don't mention that. Uh yeah, fuck
[59:52] Speaker 1: all right, anything else that's on your mind, guys.
[59:57] Speaker 4: I think we got it good episode.
[1:00:00] Speaker 1: I want everyone to do me a favor. I want
[1:00:01] Speaker 1: everyone to go by Jonathan Hackett's book Iran Shadow Weapons.
[1:00:05] Speaker 1: I also want people to go and check out mixed
[1:00:07] Speaker 1: new podcasts that's pubbing, The Porch, Applied Stoicism, and The
[1:00:12] Speaker 1: white Fish Security something that's coming up next February. All
[1:00:16] Speaker 1: those links are in the description down below, and Patreon
[1:00:21] Speaker 1: dot com slash the Teamhouse. That's the best place you
[1:00:23] Speaker 1: can go to support the show. You get both Teamhouse
[1:00:25] Speaker 1: and Izon episodes ad free and early, and you help
[1:00:30] Speaker 1: support the show. Guys a pleasure. As always, Let's go Nix.
[1:00:36] Speaker 5: Yeah, Hey guys, I want to take a moment to
[1:00:41] Speaker 5: tell you about the Team House Podcast newsletter. If you
[1:00:45] Speaker 5: go and subscribe, it's totally free, and what it will
[1:00:48] Speaker 5: do is aggregate all of our data, all of our
[1:00:51] Speaker 5: content that we put out, the things that are on
[1:00:54] Speaker 5: the Teamhouse on our geopolitics podcast, Eyes On, things that
[1:01:00] Speaker 5: I write journalistically with Sean Naylor on the high Side,
[1:01:04] Speaker 5: anything else that we have going on books, we recommend
[1:01:08] Speaker 5: upcoming guests that we have coming on the show, and
[1:01:11] Speaker 5: also you know, filtering in some fun stuff in there
[1:01:14] Speaker 5: as well. If you'll go and check it out. We
[1:01:16] Speaker 5: send it out just once a week. We don't want
[1:01:18] Speaker 5: to spam you guys. It's just a kind of roll
[1:01:21] Speaker 5: up of all of our content on a weekly basis.
[1:01:24] Speaker 5: You can find our newsletter at Teamhouse podcast dot kit
[1:01:28] Speaker 5: dot com slash join again. The website for that is
[1:01:32] Speaker 5: Teamhouse Podcast dot kit dot com, slash join.
[1:01:36] Speaker 3: So we hope to see you there. The link will
[1:01:38] Speaker 3: be down the description

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.