Hello listeners.
Welcome to the Geopolitical Cousins podcast emergency
episode, the US Bombed Iran.
You don't need to hear anything else from me.
Email me at jacob@jacobshaer.com if you want to send in any thoughts, comments.
I forward them to Marco and I promise in the next week or two, we will have
an email address for the podcast itself.
Okay?
Take care of each other.
All right?
How should we start?
Um, you know what?
We love God, don't we?
Marco?
Do you love God?
Do we love I love God.
Yes.
We love God.
He's vengeful.
Uh, he, he makes us work on, on the weekends.
I wanna first say, uh, I'm not here if not for, uh, the dedication of
both my wife and my mother-in-law to get childcare here on a Sunday.
So thank you to both of them.
And here I am, uh, Marco, I know you're also fighting your children
for internet bandwidth, and we'll see if we get through this.
Um, we had grand plans to do a much more insightful podcast on the trade value
of global leaders around the world.
And we have to delay that too because obviously we have to talk about what's
going on with the US and Iran, unless you are living, um, in a bunker, some
30 miles below Fordo or in Naans.
You probably know by now that the United States launched airstrikes on
three different nuclear sites in Iran.
Um, detail not exactly clear on how much is damaged.
Everything from completely wiped out to meh.
Like maybe it's not gonna set them back so much.
Uh, I think there's a lot of reporting still yet to come on that.
Um, some of the more interesting fallouts, at least that I've seen, um, is that
Iran's parliament seems to have passed.
I don't know what, it's a motion, a decision to block the straight of
war moves, but it's not up to them.
It's up to the National Security Council of Iran and they will probably not do it.
I'm sure we'll get into that.
I'm sure you saw the foreign minister of Iran is supposed to
talk to Vladimir Putin tomorrow.
Not sure what he's gonna get from all of that.
Um, I wouldn't say that President Trump and his, his cronies, his
lackies, um, have taken further retaliation off the table.
It seems pretty clear that they want, you know, an end to an, they want some
kind of nuclear deal going forward.
And they've said if there are retaliations that you know, they, that
there's much worse that could be done.
Um, but where do you want to pick it up?
Uh, Marco.
Well, I wanna pick it up at the fact that we're both, uh,
totally in the summer vibes here.
Uh, game seven NBA game seven is about to be played.
Yeah.
And, uh, too, so the end NBA season is over.
So you're, you're already in Atlanta Braves, uh, I wearing the, the
Padres, uh, famous, uh, Clemente who died tragically in an air crash.
So we're both, uh, in a baseball theme, which is interesting.
And I would, yes, to be
clear though, I've, I've been in a baseball theme ever since Zion pulled his
hamstring for the first time this season.
I, I got to summer mode pretty quickly, but yes.
Well, and I, and I wanna open up with, uh, the Tupac Jaki quote.
I've been, uh, quoting for quite some time now.
You know, uh, it's one of my favorite lines, uh, from Tupac's changes.
I still see no changes.
Can't the brother get a little piece?
There's war in the streets, in the war in the Middle East.
Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs.
So the police can bother me.
And I start off with that.
Uh, Jacob, my favorite Tupac quote, because I mean, changes is what?
1997? Mm-hmm.
Lemme see.
Actually, I don't know.
I'm gonna guess it's 1997.
Um, uh, that does sound a little bit late, but, oh my bad.
92. Um, 92, but it was remixed later in 98.
Um, so I mean, it can't be 97 'cause the man died in 96.
Oh, fail Marco fail.
I
mean, you, you think he's dead.
I mean, OO obviously this incontrovertible proof here.
Anyway,
look, the point is the man recorded, uh, those lines in 19 92, 1 of the
smoothest bars that Tupac ever spit.
I still see no changes.
There's war in the streets and the war in the Middle East.
I mean, here we are.
It's June 22nd, 2025.
I'm sitting in Los Angeles.
There's still, well, the media and President Trump would love it to be a war.
It's not really, but there's still protests in the streets and yes,
there is still war in the Middle East.
So the reason that it's relevant to start this way is because I've
gotten so many texts, Jacob, from so many people who are like children
who have walked into an adult conversation, and that's perfectly fine.
That's why you're listening to this pod.
This pod.
The intention is to, you know, like give you some ammunition when you're
arguing with your uncle or when you are on a text thread with your family.
The fact of the matter is that this is not the first time that
the United States and Iran.
At each other's throats.
This is not the first time that we have a crisis in the Middle East for god's sakes.
We've had 25 years of almost unrelenting warfare in the place.
Um, 1980s.
Were a a far more turbulent time for the Middle East, and as a result for the
rest of the world, 1970s, of course, we had a lot of things happening then too.
You and I went through this whole history when we talked about
Israel a couple of months ago.
I believe one of our first podcasts was actually war with Iran.
I think it was number two.
So,
uh,
everybody and
I, I actually remember thinking at the time, I didn't wanna be talking
about it 'cause I didn't wanna be just another Shapiro out here
talking about Israel and Iran again.
But it was the right thing to talk about, apparently.
There it was.
And so I think that's the first thing I would say.
This is, this is par for the course in that region.
But I will say that I have, this is a little bit different obviously,
because the US has been circling around the idea of bombing these facilities
for the past, you know, 20 years.
It hasn't chosen that until today.
Uh, it's clear that Israel.
Basically prompted this, uh, I, you know, you and I have already talked about this.
Just as a recap for our listeners.
I don't believe that Israel warned the United States about their intentions.
I think that President Trump has to front, he has to defend this narrative
that he knew that he was involved.
I think Israel told the US like two days before, that's why they pulled those,
uh, people from the embassies and so on.
But the reality is that Israel, uh, is the dog and the US is the tail.
And President Trump, in a way I sympathize because you don't
wanna be the tail of a dog.
You don't want to be wagged.
And so in a way, he had to do this to ensure that American adversaries,
whether they're Russia or China, know that, you know, the us Sure it can be
wagged, but it can still wag pretty forcefully and it can drop a lot of
bombs that nobody else in the world can.
Uh, by flying, uh, B two bombers out of Missouri.
Around the world and destroying something that's 80 meters,
a hundred meters underground.
So, uh, that's kind of the setup where we are.
And now of course, the number one question is how does Iran retaliate?
And the question for that really starts off with this theme that
I think we should hit head on.
We did it a little bit at the last podcast, but I still think it's worth it.
Regime change.
Like the argument goes, the argument, and I'm sure you've had many texts from
many people, from many walks of life.
Like my buddies on the fantasy ba uh, basketball, uh, league that I'm in, go
JBL, he's been running for over 30 years.
These guys are like really serious about their fantasy basketball.
And I, I lose all the time because they're really serious about it.
Um, but, uh, you know, the question is like, look, regime change, right?
A lot of people are saying like, well, clearly regime change is an option.
Uh, and this is a really important question.
It it's not just that some lay observer of geopolitics.
Thinks that it's an option and therefore we gotta talk about it.
The reason it's relevant is that yes, if the Iranian regime feels
that they're back against the wall, who knows what they will do?
That's the thesis.
You've got an 86-year-old, a religious zealot sitting there, right?
He's, he's gonna live for what, not a six months Yolo.
Let's go, let's meet DMA baby.
Let's do it quickly.
So, you know, this is, this is where we are.
Um, and so it's a very coaching question we have to, uh, uh, tack on head on.
What I would say is what I've been saying for like a week now, for two weeks, you
cannot have regime chain from the air.
It's very difficult.
Most countries don't fall apart as they're circling the wagons, you
know, just circling the wagons.
If anyone inside that circle says, Hey, you know what we should do?
We should let the Indians come into the circle.
How about that?
Yeah.
That person gets shot.
To use the Western analogy, like as you're circling the wagons.
This analogy, yes, comes from Oregon Trail era.
You circle the wagons, you're being attacked, you're shooting at
the people outside of the circle.
Anybody inside that circle starts contemplating maybe, maybe this is the
land of the Native Americans, you know, maybe we should go back to like Arkansas.
Like, no, that person, boom, dead.
Especially in the regime as brutal as Iran.
So if our listeners want an example of regime chain that came about from the
air, it's my homeland of Serbia in 1999, NATO bombed it in 1999, NATO bomb Serbia.
18 months later there was regime change, but there's a huge
difference between Serbia and Iran.
Enormous difference.
SLOs regime in Serbia never shot protestors in the streets.
They really didn't.
They beat him up.
They offed him up.
They imprisoned them, but they did not, I mean, there was like even
independent media in the country during the nineties when the guy was
like called a dictator in the west.
The truth is he really wasn't, SRBs actually elected the dude.
You know, if you wanna blame Serbia for anything, there you go.
Blame it for electing an idiot, right?
But the truth is, yeah, he stole a little bit here and there he was.
He was mean, don't get me wrong.
But there, there was nowhere near the brutality of what goes on in Iran.
So you got two things going against regime change.
And why I don't think the regime is threatened as much as people think.
There's two things going against it.
Number one is that they have no hesitation to shoot people in the streets on a
random Tuesday, let alone when they're being attacked by the little Satan.
Okay?
That's the number one and the great Satan up.
The second issue is that in the context of defending themselves against Israel,
of course that is gonna be very easy for them to basically tell everyone in the
society, like, look, it's every man up.
Everybody's gotta defend the country.
This is the moment of truth.
This comes also, you know, you hear a lot of people say like, well, but
if there's regime change, there'll be a government that will be more
conducive to being pro-Israeli.
The Shah of Iran, who was deposed, of course in 1979, the Shah did
recognize Israel and was relatively like, all right, but if you wanna see
his thoughts on Israel, go on YouTube.
Watch a 19 74, 60 minute episode where he's actually interviewed in Tehran.
The antisemitism that comes out of this guy is like, is next level.
All right.
So like this idea that there's some alternative in Iran, they will embrace in
a brotherly embrace, their long lost, you know, cousins, the Jews is just wrong.
That's just not gonna happen.
Like if there is regime change in Iran.
It wouldn't be pro-Israel, especially not after what just happened that would,
you would lose immediately legitimacy.
There's like civilians dying in Iran right now because Israel
is bombing them, you know?
And that's just, you know, obviously war.
I'm not saying anything about it.
But the point is, the point here is that I don't think this regime feels
that it's back is against the wall.
They do look vulnerable, they look weak.
This is not a good news.
They need to continue to strike Iran, uh, Israel with ballistic missiles.
But I think the first question we have to ask is how willing
are they to, um, go suicidal?
And the reason that's important is because I believe that the number one
thing that, uh, people are listening to this podcast right now for is
our thoughts on how Iran retaliates, well, that will be determined by how
suicidal they feel in Tehran right now.
Mm-hmm.
So there is a hierarchy of retaliation.
I would say the number one hierarchy, the number one, uh,
this is a hundred percent certain.
This will happen over the next 24 or 48 hours.
They're going to attack with missiles, some American basis in Iraq.
That's far for the course.
They did this after General Soleimani was assassinated by the US in January of 2020.
Many of our listeners forgot that because it's a long time ago.
You can, I mean, not just that, but it was not just a long time ago.
It was also, um, right before COVID, general Soleimani was one of the
most popular, if not the popular, most popular human being in Iran.
Everybody loved this guy.
He was awesome.
As far as Iranians are concerned, obviously from the Israeli perspective,
American perspective, kind of a terrorist.
But you know, I'm not here to judge whatever.
Uh, the point is he was assassinated while on a diplomatic mission.
Very, very dramatic increased intentions by the US Iran retaliated by bombing
some American facilities in Iraq, and President Trump said, I totally get that.
I understand it.
Let's move on.
That's the first thing that I think is going to happen.
And I think it's gonna happen, and I think President Trump will react
exactly the same as he did in 2020.
The second kind of retaliation is more serious is it would involve attacking
American assets outside of Iraq.
So things like Bahrain, Qatar, uh, the basis there, I think the US will
have to ret retaliate against that.
So that prolongs this crisis.
And then the third retaliation, of course, is straight of MOUs for those
of you who are listening to this and wondering, why are we focusing on this?
Why not on terrorism, this, that, or the other?
Because straight of MOUs would be a way where this war would finally impact
you at home because thus far you have not been impacted at all that a single
barrel of oil has been lost since 2023.
I mean, it's fascinating since that terrorist attack by Hamas
that a single barrel of oil has been lost from the region.
Fascinating amount of self-control by everyone involved.
And the reality is that if Iran were to interdict trade for
moose, it would interrupt the fallough of 20% of world's oil.
So yes, gasoline prices would rise.
So I'm gonna stop here and then we can like see what you think.
And then we can disentangle a lot of these things.
Yeah.
I wanna unpack some things.
So the first, there's a couple things I probably should have added to the
intro, which is one of the things that is happening that I don't think
has, or is sort of being covered up by, by all the, and it's hard to
cover everything right now fairly.
So I'm not, I'm not shitty on the media for that.
I have plenty of other things that shit on the media for, but
Israel's been getting hit harder.
In the last couple of days, they ban public gatherings.
Um, what looked like Iranian competence now looks at least has a semblance
of a strategy that their overwhelming missile defense with lower quality
rockets and things like that.
And then once the missile defense is confused, um, they're coming in
with, you know, three or four or five really high quality missiles and
causing a significant amount of damage.
So that wasn't true the last time that we were on the podcast.
It was just Israel spanking the Iranians into the previous century.
Like I'm not saying that it's even e uh, equal right now in terms of
the damage, but they are starting to punch back and they are imposing
real costs, uh, inside of Israel.
So I think there's that.
I think what you said about the supreme leader is really important because to
my mind, one of the most important.
Uh, reports that came out was the New York Times had this one that
the Supreme leader has put forward three names for his successor.
Mm-hmm.
If he should be taken out by assassination.
And there's, there's two things to note there.
Number one, his son is reportedly not one of them.
And he, the supreme leader got in trouble.
Was that 12 months ago?
Or, I can't remember exactly when, because he was trying to put his son in
the line for who was gonna replace him.
And that was the whole point of the Iranian revolution to get rid of
the hereditary monarchy and, and sort of sclerotic monarchy that
had, you know, uh, come about that.
So he is taken his son off the board and he is gotten three
successors, which goes to your point about he's ready for martyrdom.
He's ready to meet the mahi and he's, he's ready to sort of have
somebody else take the reign.
So he's not ready for the regime to commit suicide, but he obviously
himself has moved in that direction.
So I think that's an important thing.
Um, I want to SI want to really underscore what you said about Mohammed, uh, Raiha.
Pavi and his views.
Um, the Iranian nuclear program did not begin after the revolution with the IRGC.
It began with the Shah and the Shah who gave the middle finger to Kissinger
and Nixon and the United States saying, nah, I sort of want a civilian
nuclear program with the language that the Saudis are using right now.
It was only when the regime changed that suddenly the United States
got into a big huff about that.
And that's why, you know, the song that you listen to in the intro, you
go back and read reports from the 1980s, like, we have literally been
talking about this for over 50 years.
Like, this is not something new.
It's the eternal return of the same.
I think there's also a really important question about Iran's
capacity res to respond versus their need to, one of my scenarios was.
Maybe nuclear breakout if their backs were really against the wall.
I feel like I've seen enough to say they don't have a nuke and
that they weren't close enough to try and put anything on the board.
Straight of horror moves, like you said, that's suicidal.
If the best that they've got is some pot shots at Iraq or Qatar or Bahrain,
like we're talking about a regime that doesn't really have many options.
Um, so then like, you know, what is the big deal in the long run?
And I actually think I, I want to go back to, to, to maybe reframe a little
bit and then we can back into some of the scenarios and, and the succession
challenges and the regime change thing, which is two different people.
One of whom was my wife and another whom, another whom was a friend
who was vacationing in France, which I was vacationing in France.
Um, and their questions were actually much simpler.
They weren't, is there gonna be regime change?
Was their questions were, am I gonna be okay?
Like, is anything gonna hit me at home with this?
Do I need to be worried about this?
So maybe Marco.
So let's do that.
Yeah, let's do that first, because I think you and I are nerdy and we wanna
unpack it, but I think, well just for the listener who has suddenly woken up
and is like, oh, we're bombing Iran.
Like, are we gonna be okay?
Yeah.
Like, is is everything fine?
And then maybe we can back into some of the nerdy questions.
So let's talk about that.
Think we can do a service
there.
Talk about, yeah, let, let's do that.
Uh, I was gonna tackle straight to ose, but that's because I work
in finance, I work for investors.
Well, and, and let's get there.
'cause I think that's we'll actual, tangible.
We'll get there.
But, but, but I do think people are afraid enough.
They're like, oh my God, we're dropping the bombs and it's God
bless America, divine providence.
And like, am I okay?
Should I be keeping my kids from like, what's going on here?
You know, so,
so here's what I would say.
I mean, like, uh, everyone who's listening to this for the oil
price can wait until the end.
You know what I mean?
Uh, so yes.
Let's, let's deal with that.
So how does this become World War iii?
It becomes World War II because China and Russia decides to
defend their ally and new America.
And the chances of that are negative.
They're negative percentages and yes, yes, my dear friends who
know math, no, that's impossible.
I'm fucking, I'm staking a claim right here and creating new mathematics
where there's a negative probability.
You know, nobody's going to help Iran.
I mean, Vladimir Putin, you posted a, a tweet where he's saying
like, well, you gotta take into consideration that there's like.
Over a million Russian speaking Jews in Israel.
Like, I'm not gonna take sides.
That, that, that, okay.
Let, let's just, yeah, I, I wanna quote him directly.
Somebody asked Putin why he wasn't assisting Iran.
His response was, I'm quoting him now.
Israel today is almost a Russian speaking country.
2 million people from the Soviet Union and Russia live there.
We take that into account.
This is from the president of the country that was behind the
protocols of the elders of Zion and was probably more antisemitic.
Then Nazi Germany and any of the others, the reason the 2 million
Russian Jews are there is because you couldn't kill them quickly enough
in Russia and in the Soviet Union.
And he's saying that they're gonna hold off on bombing Israel?
No, because of Slavic like, uh, love connection.
I like literally, I don't know what to do with, by the way, you can tell there is
a Slavic Jewish love connection.
It's called the Geopolitical Cousins.
We're showing that we can work together in peace, in harmony.
But that's, you know, but that's because my SLS were trained by the
Ottomans and there was nobody more pro is, uh, proje than the Ottomans.
So, you know,
yeah.
They, they were up there.
They, they were, they were up there.
They were they nice.
They were, they were the ones who sold the Jews Palestine.
If you got problems with, uh, Israel today, it's really the Ottomans
that you should be worried about.
Not so much, you know, the guys who bought it.
Uh, but, but going back to this issue, uh, so just to tell everyone who's
worried about World War iii, it's not gonna start, and it's not gonna start
because Iran finds itself in an oddly comfortable and familiar place alone.
So this is not something that they have, you know, not experienced before.
All the talk of China, Russia, Iran Axis.
That's American propaganda guys.
And I, and I wanna turn on the TikTok camera.
Um, turn on Sponsored.
We got it sponsored by the ccp by Coinbase and ccp.
Coinbase and ccp.
Um, look, this notion that there is some access of evil out there,
that's American propaganda and it, it exists so that you, dear American
can give your taxpayer dollars to a trillion dollar defense budget.
But the fact of the matter is that, and I hit Saudi like Stephen Bannon
and like Dr. Carlson, but like there is no clear strategic alliance
between Russia, China, and Iran.
If there was Russia would not have to buy North Korean artillery shells,
they would've been able to buy Chinese.
Artillery shells, which are like better and not 70 years old.
So China has been very reticent to help Russia and its war against Ukraine.
Yeah.
They're buying their oil, but so is American Ally, India, and on
Iran, the S 300 surface to air system that Russia gave them Sure.
Did not work well.
And Russia, uh, there was a report in the media right at, when the
war started, Iran asked Russia for help, and Russia was like, sorry,
we, we just, we have our hands full.
So the fact of the matter here is that when Putin says that it's his
love for the Russian speaking Jews in Israel, that he can't choose sides.
There's a, there's a little bit of the reality that he just materially can't
because he's involved in a war that has stretched his own country, but also that
Russia hasn't really supported Iran.
Over the last 20 years.
Russia voted for the UN sanctions against Iran, the sanctions that brought
Iran to heal, and that gave us that nuclear deal that Obama negotiated.
Those sanctions were imposed with Russian support because Russia does
not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Russia dragged its feet for years to deliver the S 300 surface
to air missile that has now proven to be completely useless.
But even that, they dragged their feet.
So Tehran finds itself very alone.
And that's a familiar place because from 1980 to 1988, when Saddam Hussein
proceeded to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iran in a brutal
eight year war, which we need to keep reminding everyone who listens to
this, please, if you wanna know what's going on right now, go Wikipedia.
Just read Iran, Iraq War.
You think that what's happening now is a big deal?
This is a joke.
This is a bee sting.
Israel is a bee sting compared to the grizzly attack that Iran
had to survive from 1980 to 1988.
The regime was brand new.
It was far more on the edge of survival.
Mere months after the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, you had religious
zealous running the country.
They just took over.
And the United States and the Soviet Union together locked in arms supported
Saddam Hussein's war machine against Iran.
Lemme say that again.
There weren't many things that the United States of America and the
Soviet Union were on the same side for.
They were on the same side here.
And every other western or advanced country in the world on the planet
supported Saddam Hussein, except ironically, somewhat Israelis in alanine
way, way actually supported Iran.
Uh, so the point here is that for the eight years of that war backed up against
the actual wall, not some proverbial wall that CNN is telling you about.
No, no, no.
Actually, their, their backs were against the wall.
Iran did not lose, its cool, it fought Saddam, uh, to a standstill actually,
you know, didn't really win the war.
The war ended in a, in a, in, in relatively a tie.
They did not lose an inch of their territory in that conflict, including the
southwestern region where the Arabs lived.
Mm-hmm.
Uh, they, they, they helped.
And so my point about this is that this is not news to Tehran.
And if you listen to their foreign minister, who's walk, who's running
around, their deputy foreign minister was on Christiana Maur,
actually on CNNA couple of days ago.
They referred to this war in all of their conversation.
It was actually kind of funny because Amanpour, who's in my view, just terrible
journalist and honestly, I can't even believe that she's still fucking, like,
has a platform, but fine, whatever.
Good for her.
Uh, well done.
Go.
I mean,
it it, it's funny that that's the one that calls you.
They, they trotted out John Bolton today on CNN this morning and I was like,
oh my God, this walrus like, again,
but bolt, no, no.
Time out.
I respect Bolton.
I respect consistency.
Oh.
Oh no.
Look, I respect Bolton the way I, uh, respect like Swaggy Pete.
Like he is consistent to who he is.
AUR tries to pretend she plays a, a journalist on tv, but she's not.
But anyways, it doesn't matter.
Look, she keeps telling the guy as if she knows, she keeps telling the guy,
the deputy foreign minister of Iran, sorry, I forgot the name, but she keeps
saying, but this time is different.
What Israel is doing is much worse than what Saddam was doing.
Oh my God.
Oh, what?
Half a million people died from 1980 to 1988.
The regime was barely, they had barely the time to replace Shah's pictures
of the walls with that of the Aya.
You are telling me that that eight year confrontation with the
murderous psychopath that Sadad Hussein was not a bigger risk than
what Israel's doing right now.
You lack perspective, my friends.
If that is, if you are on that line of, if you are the side of that
questioning that you don't know what's going on in the Middle East, and
that's why that Tupac quote is for you.
The reason I begin this with, there's war in the streets and the war in Middle East,
it's in a song called Changes and what Tupac is trying to say, I see no changes.
Everything is the same.
My people are suffering in America.
That's the whole point of the song.
And he refers to war in the Middle East there as a line.
Because if you just woke up in June of 2025 and think what's happening in Iran
today is somehow news to the Iranians, then you know you need to read history.
So this is a 46-year-old regime
and in those 46 years they've seen nothing but the world gang up on them.
And I mean, look, I'm not, I'm not standing on the side of the ALS in Iran.
In many ways, there's a reason the Soviet Union in America
ganged up against you guys because you're kind of radical, you know?
And talk about Maori coming back.
So yeah, everyone's gonna be against you.
But my point is that in those 46 years, we can actually use that time
period as source of empirical data.
Okay.
So how does the regime run by a bunch of theocrats and Aya react
when they're attacked by adversaries, supported by the rest of the world?
Saddam Hussein today, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Sorry.
Benjamin Netanyahu Today.
Saddam Hussein in 1980s.
What is their reaction function to this?
Number one, the regime does not collapse.
The regime strengthens it survives.
It perseveres because it uses these threats to create solidarity.
Domestically, you know, I mean, if you are opposing the suppression
of women in Iran in 2022, it's difficult to shoot you in the streets.
But we will.
That's what Iran says.
But in 2025, if you oppose the regime while Israel is bombing
the country, you are a traitor and therefore will be obviously executed.
Right?
So like that's, if, if these people are willing to shoot people who
protest against the hijab, lemme tell you, they, they will definitely not
hesitate killing someone protesting while they're being attacked.
So that's the first thing.
The regime is safe, at least for not, and as long as there are actual
Israeli planes in the airspace of Iran, I would bet anything that
the regime will survive that.
The second thing is that while, because they are safe, they
don't panic in these situations.
And your point about the 86-year-old ayatollah pointing successors and
thus willing to meet his maker.
I actually see it differently.
The fact that there is now three successors means that the regime
is thinking long term, means that there's enough corrupt, rich, AYA
running around hoping that they see a 2027 model of the Porsche Cayenne.
And the reason I say that is that I once overheard an intelligence officer
tell me that Tehran has the highest per capita cayenne ownership in the world.
What?
What's the point of this?
What's the point?
The point is that these guys are not actually religious zealots anymore.
They were in the 1980s when Sadan attacked them.
Why didn't they close the street Tous then?
Why did they not even attempt it?
Why did they not?
I don't know, like just invade Saudi Arabia and why would they
do it today if they didn't?
Then today they got a lot of less lead left in their pencil, a lot less.
They really like that fine hand stitched green leather inside a cayenne.
You are telling me that this time they're going to be more zealous
than they were in the eighties.
I struggle to see that, and this is why we come to the big question,
like if they actually cross some red line or maybe a pink line.
It's tough to see if it's really red, but I think they know where the line is and
the line is, if you mess with that 20% of energy that transits through the strait
of MOUs, if you look at the map, dear listeners, Persian Gulf empties into the
Indian Ocean through the Strait of MOUs.
Very, very narrow choke point.
Many say, well, they don't have the capacity.
If they can't defend themselves against Israeli fighter jets, how would they,
how would they close the straits?
Well, there's a problem of a symmetry here, and the problem of a symmetry is
that they can't defend themselves against.
Israeli fighter jets, but closing the Straits of MOUs is relatively easy.
You can do it with drones, you can do it with little zodiac boats and
dinghies like the Somali pirates did.
You're attacking commercial defenseless vessels through the straits.
And so yes, they, they have the capacity to do that.
It's actually really difficult for the US Navy to protect the straight,
how do you protect it against tiny drones and tiny zodiacs filled
with like two suicide bombers, like in that famous scene in Syriana.
You know, how do you do that?
Like how do you actually do it?
The US would have no real game plan against this, and therefore
the US instead of trying to open the street, would shift towards,
let's turn Iran into a parking lot.
Something that people don't understand.
Israel is a wasp at best.
America is a grizzly bear.
Yeah.
There, there's, there's a couple things.
I, I, go ahead.
We'll, we'll, it'll take us, sorry, I went on rant.
I know.
No, no, no.
That's what we're here to rant to each other.
This is like therapy for both of us.
Um, your point about the Supreme leader.
Yeah.
I, I, I think you're right.
I think it is a sign of strengthening, strengthening the regime.
But I also think it tells you something about the supreme leader himself.
I think it tells, tells you that he might be willing to do something
radical and take the fall for it.
Mm. And then good point.
His successor fair, like, okay, the, the regime is, is in good hands.
But, you know, he's 86.
He's been sick anyway.
He's been on his way out.
Like, go down in a flame of glory, man.
What?
Supreme leader doesn't wanna die?
A martyr like this is the perfect death for that kind of person.
If he could do something.
The Straits of War moves has never seemed a convincing.
Um, strategy for me.
And if they don't have nuclear breakout, I dunno.
The, the scenario that disturbs me is, I mean, think about what Hezbollah
did in Argentina in the nineties.
Yeah.
Like, there, there is probably some nuclear material that you
could put into some kind of dirty bomb or series of dirty bombs.
And maybe you can activate cells, different parts of the west and have
plausible deniability say that it's the spirit of the revolution that is
causing groups around the world to resist the great and little Satans in
their, you know, hearts of commerce and decadence and things like that.
Like that.
That's the scenario.
That kinda, well, can we stop there the most?
Yeah.
Can we stop
there and then we'll go back?
Lets react to that because again, I, I, we promise to tackle the big
picture issues like nuclear war, world War iii, Russia and China
are not gonna stay with, uh, Iran.
China's deathly afraid of losing oil and energy.
Your point about terrorism, a lot of people ask me that.
Um, I would answer, you should a hundred percent expect terrorist activity.
And I don't wanna be callous about that, but I will be.
It is like saying like, there's a storm coming.
I might be hit by, uh, Thunderbolt.
You might be probabilistically.
You're not gonna die from a terrorist attack.
And second of all, it's par for the course.
This is a regime that supported terrorism for the last 46
years as a tool of retaliation.
So yes, absolutely there will be, and they will use plausible deniability,
as you say, it wasn't us, you know, it was the zeal of the revolution.
Somebody somewhere, some cell caught a Holy Spirit.
Mm-hmm.
And they blew themselves up.
Um, absolutely.
That's that, that, that is gonna happen.
Now to, to listeners, they might say like, oh my God.
Well, what hap what do you mean?
Like, well, I think we've seen a lot of terrorism after nine 11.
Most of it is lone wolf attacks.
Most of it is, you know, what terrorists basically realized is
they're pulling off a complex operation.
It's complicated and there's many, now that the Americans in the West are no
longer letting random people take flying lessons in Arizona, like now that we've
become, you know, focused on that, it's just through revolutionary, uh, process.
It's just much easier being somebody that executes a less
complicated terrorist attack.
And so what I would say, yeah.
Go
ahead.
Sorry.
The devil's advocate there is look at what Ukraine just did to Russia, or
look at what Israel just did to Iran.
Like the technology has changed somewhat.
Now.
I, I think the problem for Iran is it doesn't seem like their
intelligence services are very good.
Like they've shown themselves to be relatively poor in terms
of their trade craft here, especially in how the war has gone.
But if they have any good trade craft whatsoever, like there are new
technologies out there that might allow them to sort of make a bigger
yes, for sure indentation there.
But that's what I keep going back to.
Like everything I see from, I think you're right, the regime probably survives.
Like all, all that feels right to me.
But the other part of this is like, and, and Tucker Carlson got to this
in his conversation with Ted Cruz.
Can't believe I'm on Team Tucker here, but he is like, you know,
'cause he's asking Ted Cruz why he's, why he wants to attack these guys.
And Ted Cruz is saying out of both sides of his mouth, oh, they're this huge
threat and also they're incompetent.
And Tucker's like, no, no, no.
It can't be both.
Like, are they the big threat or are they completely incompetent and we
shouldn't be wasting, um, this ordinance on them because they can't do anything.
And my, like, I keep on looking in Iran and I'm like, you
guys don't have any moves.
Like the only move you have is a straight of who moves and that's a suicide move.
So, okay.
Like, you're gonna, so we should go.
There's the basis you're gonna fire out.
Like it's, it looks bad.
So we should go there.
So that's where we should go.
Um,
and I, I also, I, I, well, I want to implant two questions in your head while
we're talking about this 'cause For sure.
Um.
The first is, 'cause when you talked about China, Russia, no.
World War ii, I also agree with that, but I think the, the, the person who
listens to us and wants to disagree with us will say, but Jacob, Marco, I thought
the cousins were on Team Multipolar.
And the world you just described sounds very unipolar that the United
States can fly their bombers from Missouri and like just, you know, do
a, do a song and dance afterwards.
And we did it.
We're the greatest.
Nobody else can hit us.
We are so good and nobody's gonna stop us and nobody is stopping us.
Like that doesn't sound like a very multipolar world.
And then the second question I wanna put in your head is, Iran is not the
only country that has tried to do this.
Uh, North Korea.
Yeah.
Got nuclear weapons.
Yeah.
Pakistan.
Pakistan, yeah.
Got nuclear weapons.
Israel got nuclear weapons.
Yeah.
Why is it, why is it that we're bombing these guys?
Why didn't we bomb North Korea before they got, 'cause they do it
quietly.
Because the North, the North Koreans
were pretty loud.
No, no, not really.
I mean, they, they, they rushed to it much faster and much
more quietly than Iran did.
And because Iran's been trying to do it since the seventies, there's
been way too many eyeballs on them.
Hmm.
And I think that, uh, that's, that's really the problem.
The other problem is that North Korea had help.
Pakistan had helped, um,
Israel had help.
Israel had a ton of help, you know, thanks.
Appetite.
South Africa,
was it South?
I thought it was France.
It was kind of both, but yeah, France.
France and then South Africa provided the uranium and supposedly the testing ground.
Oh, okay.
Good.
Yeah.
Great.
So, so thanks.
You know, like, whereas, again, the one thing about Iran is, and you gotta
admire this, by the way, as just a nihilist observer of geopolitics,
like they're on their own, like.
They haven't really had any help.
Russia helped them with the bush of hair, nuclear power plant,
which by the way has not been hit either by Israelis and Americans.
Probably.
'cause they don't want to cause Iran to retaliate against demon,
which is the Israeli nuclear power plant in the negative.
But the point is, um, you know, Russians help set up the power plant.
The issue is that they also voted at the UN to impose sanctions, as I said earlier.
So Iran is, I think that's what's holding this back, that nobody really
wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Not Russia, not China.
I mean, look, China's kind of funny in all of this.
China just wants oil to transit the strait of ous.
So they're actually, they don't
care.
No, but they're, they're actually a factor of stability in the world.
And nobody even gives China credit here.
They're not encouraging Iran.
They're not encouraging Israel.
They're like, Hey guys, can't we just all get along?
You know, they're like Tupac Shakur like, yo guys, this war in the
streets and war in the Middle East.
Can't a brother get some like discounted oil?
Come on.
So China is not going to go on the side of I Iran.
And the reason it's not is because then Saudi Arabia would
obviously have a problem with that.
Right?
And, and China needs oil from both Saudi Arabia and Iran.
To your point about Multipolarity, uh, we had a great discussion about Multipolarity
couple of months ago, and what I said is that it's very important, especially for
Americans to understand what Multipolarity means and what I said almost verbatim
on this, on our show, it doesn't mean that every country has equal power.
The United States of America is quantit quantitatively and qual,
qualitatively still the most powerful country in the world.
It's just that that power doesn't go as far as it did during a unipolar world.
So yes, you can still fly B twos outta Missouri and drop, uh, a very
heavy ordinance anywhere in the world.
The problem is that that's the only way that you can compel behavior.
Not the only, but pretty much the only.
In other words, it doesn't work in a unipolar world.
You don't have to drop any bombs.
You pick up a phone and you are like, yo do X or else not just to your
enemies, but also to your allies.
So yes, you don't want to be an enemy of the most powerful country in the
world, but the problem for the US is that the rest of the world is drifting
away from just doing whatever they want.
So I'm, this is consistent with a multipolar world.
In a multipolar world, in the 19th century, in the 19th century, the United
Kingdom could still show up with a gunboat in your port and say, what's up?
And they did that.
That was come, like that happened all the time in the 19th century.
So did France.
So this, this and that, like us.
Maybe the only country that can drop this particular bomb on Iran.
But actually the reason the world is multipolar, and the reason that
this is showing that we are right, that it is multipolar is number one,
Israel couldn't care less what the US was doing in those negotiations.
They bombed Iran anyways.
And it shows that even a country like Israel has the capacity
to do something like this.
And by the way, you know who else in the region could have done this Turkey?
Hmm.
So there's many, many countries, not, sorry, not bomb fardo
with a stealth bomber.
No, but when you think about like Air War, yes, there's many other countries that
can take matters into their own heads.
That's what it means.
It just means multiple veto.
But going back to your point about terrorism, so World
War II is not gonna happen.
Sorry, Steven Bannon.
I know that's your big shtick now.
You know, like I get it.
World War II started the streets of Los Angeles.
I loved it.
By the way, I don't know if you listen to this one, where he said like West LA
is the like ground zero for World War ii.
I, I didn't see that.
Although I went at, I went at him and Ben Shapiro on Twitter yesterday.
'cause I was bored and I
was just, well, he was safe.
He was firing away at them was, you know, Bannon's Point was like, look,
Steven Miller, Ben Shapiro, these guys know la they know West la You
know, Steven Miller went to like the middle school my son goes to and
the high school my daughter goes to.
So like, and they're like, west LA is the epicenter of World War ii.
And I'm taking a stroll through Sunny Santa Monica.
Like, you know, like people jogging, walking their dog.
And I'm like, fuck,
it's all around us.
This World War ii, you know, like, oh my God, there's a cloud.
The sun is gone.
You know?
Oh my God.
Please, Steve, Steve, man, come on our show.
Come to West LA bro.
Let's go, let's, let's check out the mean streets of Santa Monica.
Marino, Delray, Culver City, up to no good.
Let's do
it.
Live.
Live and in person.
Yes, live and in person.
Like, come on man.
Like, geez.
Anyways, look.
There is no World War III threat.
Everyone can calm down.
There is a terrorism threat.
We should expect a spike of terrorism.
And in a way it's like par for the course man.
Like you, you know, you, you poke the hornet's nest.
Some hornets are gonna come out and sting you.
Like if there is a terrorist attack by Iran, I think, or like Iran linked sells.
I do think that a lot of people in the West are gonna be like, you
know, like, well, what'd you expect?
You expected them not to do terrorist attacks.
So really this boils down.
I mean, we've been talking for 42 minutes.
This boils down to the one thing that actually is dramatic, and it
does take this to the next level, which is if you around closes the
straits, the strait over most,
which, which is underwhelming too, because as we've both said, like even
if they take it to the next level, so then, then they get bombed into the
15th century and then it's 15th century.
It's like a two week, week thing.
But you and I know this Jacob.
Oh, we think we know this.
We've also known many things before.
Jacob, you, yeah,
I, I knew that Israel couldn't do this to Hezbollah and to Iran.
So Yes.
About, we've
known many things.
This is why our logo is two puppets.
So just because we know it well, no,
it's, it's, it's, it's why we are both like, you know, uh, you know,
the, it was Socrates who says at the beginning of knowledge is the
admission that you know, nothing.
Like, so let's, let's, we're willing to start over from scratch and say,
eh, like, we should take that over rather than No, no, no, no, no.
The coming war with Japan is still coming.
No, no, no.
I was predicting the collapse of China in oh nine.
It's coming.
It's coming right now.
Let, I hope that the listeners know who I'm throwing shade at.
Right?
But listen, listen, listen.
I wanna, I just wanna say the difference between us and some
random uncle or some random dude in your basketball league, you know?
No, no offense, Ben.
I love you buddy.
The difference between us is we do this for a living, so our view is backed
by some empirical evidence, and we need to give that empirical evidence.
It doesn't mean that somebody random, like, I got a buddy, uh, from college,
Rafer loved this guy to death.
I would like throw myself in front of a bus for him.
He works in, uh, industrial scaffolding.
Mm-hmm.
Just like baller, you know, and this guy trades the VIX better
than any hedge fund out there.
Like, if you are running a hedge fund right now, like you've been
humbled by Ray for, I'm telling you, the guy knows how to buy and sell
the Vix like better than anyone.
He's an industrial scaffolder.
He goes upside down, builds scaffolds inside like crazy
industrial wasteland, toxics.
I mean, he can build a scaffold inside Fordo after it got bombed.
And anyways, my buddy Rafer, you know, he, he gets, he has a really
good gut instinct for when the world is a little too complacent.
I'm not saying that someone like Rafer or my buddy Ben from
the fantasy League has no like.
Business In this conversation, I'm just saying that when you and I give a view,
it's at least backed by like some data.
So what is the data in this case?
The data is that in 46 years that Iran, the regime has existed, it's never
truly tried to close the strait of ous.
And we just have to ask the question like, but why?
If this is such a huge thing that they have on the rest of the
world, why haven't they done this?
You know, why, why not?
And so, uh, the immediate answer that's like an amateur would say is like, well,
it's never been threatened like this.
We just unpacked why it has been threatened like this
by Saddam in the eighties.
Um, why you can't really have regime change with an F
16, that's not gonna happen.
Mm-hmm.
So, so why?
And the, and, and the simple answer is, well, their own
oil goes through the strait.
I disagree that that's an issue.
They could just attack Saudi facilities across the Persian Gulf.
Mm-hmm.
You know, why not do that?
And the answer for this is that yes, the retaliation against them would
be so total and they have no ability.
Like the rest of the world is not gonna be concerned about pushing vessels
through the strait, as they said.
That's gonna be tough to do.
And precisely because it's difficult to interdict little tiny dinghy zodiac boats.
Precisely because that is not really in the arsenal of the west.
The west Saudi Arabia, Israel, everybody would just turn Iran into a parking lot.
In a way it's a nuclear option for the regime.
It's, it, it is their nuclear option.
And, and except they only have one nuke, they can deploy it in the strait.
They close that thing and then they get turned into a parking lot and there's
nothing they can do if they can't stop.
Israeli F sixteens, which have very little ordinance.
Now, this is a fighter jet.
This isn't a bomber for a reason.
If they can't prevent F sixteens from bombing, they cannot prevent the
strategic might of the United States of America, which is not like America's
not gonna use B two bombers, guys.
It will throw everything at them 1950s, 1960s bobbers.
The US will absolutely turn and, and it will be punitive.
Just like the Air War against Serbia was punitive.
It wasn't tactical.
It wasn't even strategic.
Once the US realized that SLO Demi SVI was not going to withdraw the
troops out of Kosovo and that he wasn't playing by the rules of war,
he wasn't turning on his air defense systems, the US proceeded to degrade
Serbia's industrial economic capacity.
This is what would happen to Iran as well.
And so this is why we have the view that we have for those of you listening,
because we are seeped in the knowledge of the region and history and the behavior
of Tehran over the last 46 years.
Now, I completely concede that my buddy fer could still crush us, right?
Because hey, sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is better.
They see something from a different perspective and say, yeah, but
this time I think is different.
And ultimately, if you are an investor right now, you like the risk as
symmetry is skewed towards higher Vix at, at the very least, and over
the next couple of days, perhaps even higher oil prices from here.
I mean, obviously we're all waiting for Iran's retaliation.
It's gonna come oil prices spike.
But I do think that at some point there's going to be an epic opportunity
to fade all of that because I think that there is a gravitational
pool almost by like a giant star.
You can't see here is like a black hole that you cannot see.
That's pulling Iran's retaliation and behavior towards a set of standardized
moves that it's done over 46 years.
And that gravitational pull that you don't see, that black hole that, that
most people can't identify is that like, bro, if they do this, they're
going to face the might of the us.
And before I stop my rant, I just wanna say one more thing.
I know I've said it many, many times in this show, but for those of you who are
listening to this for the first time, go on Wikipedia and read about, no, no.
Wikipedia is a great source.
Like if you're just like an an amateur geopolitical, you're just
interested, like what are you gonna do?
You know, you can't read books and stuff, you don't have time.
You have a busy life.
You're on the show to try to figure out what to read on Wikipedia.
Well, here's one operation, praying mantis critical.
So when I said that Iran has never attempted to close the straits,
that's not necessarily correct.
They did try very, very gingerly to dip their toes into this.
Idea.
They mined the strait a little bit.
One of those mines hit an American vessel.
The United States of America in the next 72 hours sunk their Navy and
attacked their energy facilities on Kag Island to the point where
the International Court of Justice actually sided with Iran many years
later saying that the US was punitive and unproportional in their reaction.
And America was like, fuck yes, we were.
And do it again.
And you'll see what we'll do next up.
I'm, I'm glad you brought that up.
'cause this is, this is one of the things that's bothering me, like in, in the
category of things that I don't know, um, how is it that Israel and the United
States can, A, do what they've already done to Iran and b to your point, if
they close the straight, like, you know, bomb them into the medieval period back
to when, you know, the Iranians were sipping Shiraz and writing poetry and
inventing algebra and things like that.
Like how can they do that?
And yet they can't stop the Houthis.
Like, you know, yeah, I An answer just six weeks, weeks ago.
No, no.
We were talking about like, no.
Easy.
Yeah.
Go, go, go.
Easy, easy, easy answer to that question.
My friend and I, I believe I already said it on this podcast a couple of weeks ago.
The Houthis are perfectly comfortable living on tattoo.
Yemen is tattoo.
For those of you who are not fans of Star Wars, uh, I'm not
going to clarify that statement.
You should fucking watch Star Wars.
Another thing to Wikipedia,
you know what I mean?
The Houthis are fa perfectly comfortable with being in tattooing.
The Iranians are not.
Yeah, but it's, it's not even like I, I I hear you on that, but it's not even that.
It's, it's, it almost seems like the Houthis got more shots on goal
against us Air assets that were pummeling them than the Iranians did.
I mean, if, if you listen to Hegseth and, and not just Heg, I mean,
hegseth was like way over the top.
It was, it was gross, the level of propaganda.
But the four star who stood next to him, who spoke after him, who was like
your typical American military officer, like straight lace, like very honest,
empirical data to back everything.
He was basically like, yeah, they didn't even see us coming.
Like, they didn't get a shot off, like, wait a minute, decoy stuff.
And we knocked out some defenses and like, they didn't get what,
like they had no clue we were there.
I think, whereas the Houthis, like the Wall Street Journal was reporting
that, like the Houthis were like close to taking down drones and like getting
shots off on, but, but US assets.
Okay.
But, but drones versus stealth bombers is different.
Stealth bombers fly very, very high.
The drones can be seen like with your open eyes and you can shoot them
with the, you know, like, I mean it's obviously I'm making it simple, but.
I just don't think it's different.
It's the same.
It's not the same thing.
And the US did not commit as many assets, nor did it like drop.
Why would you drop this ordinance?
Why would you drop the Busters and the Houthis?
The Houthis are very difficult to impose paint on.
You know, the Houthis are like the homeless guy in the alley with a knife.
No offense to the Houthis, by the way.
Don't come after me.
I love you guys.
You know, go Sam.
People like of tattoo.
You guys are fucking awesome.
And you know, I think George Lucas himself like rebuild the story of
the Sam people in the subsequent, uh, star Wars series because they
also have feelings and families.
And we should think about that too, by the way.
People have no idea what I'm talking about.
They didn't watch Star Wars.
And honestly, I don't want you as a listener, if you didn't watch Star Wars.
God, anyways.
Look or do.
Yeah.
Wait, here's the difference.
You face a homeless guy in the alley with a knife.
Why are you afraid of him?
Because he's got nothing to lose.
He's a homeless guy in the alley with a knife.
So that's why it's difficult Jacob to like, when you say that America is
going to push Iran into the medieval age, Yemen is kind of already there and
that's why the Houthis just don't care.
Their pain tolerance is infinite.
That's the point.
Iran and the people in Iran, and particularly the regime that has
enriched itself through corruption and the sanctions and everything else,
the fact that their Porsche, cayenne per capita ownership is the highest
in the world, tells you something.
This is a regime that does have a lot to lose.
They don't want to live on tattooing.
And so that's the difference.
I think it's very difficult for the United States of America to conduct
punitive airstrikes against Yemen.
Saudi Arabia found that out during their war with Yemen.
The Houthis are like just whatever, like, oh, you're gonna bomb us.
Cool.
I'm gonna go back to the cave.
No, I don't mean the cave where like I go.
When you bought me, I mean my home.
I'm perfectly comfortable with this existence.
I'm perfectly comfortable with its existence.
Like, like this is what Yemen is like.
I'm, this is it.
It's tattooing.
Yeah.
Whereas, yeah, and then maybe they're, they're all chewing Kat too, so maybe
they're just all like, yeah, that's,
you know, maybe we should be doing some of these podcasts on Kat too.
Maybe that will make us like less like, but look, my point is that
Iran doesn't have that option and uh, that's what the difference is.
Their pain tolerance is surprisingly a lot higher, one could say, but that's because
Iran is a sophisticated, educated, modern, technologically advanced country that
doesn't want to become tattoo overnight.
Whereas Yemen is tattooing.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, here, here, let's, let's, uh, let's round out on some long-term thoughts here.
'cause I've been, I've been playing around with this notion that, um,
maybe Donald Trump would've been the perfect unipolar president, but he's
actually the wrong multipolar president.
And that somebody like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, they were bad unipolar
presidents, but they would've been really good multipolar presidents.
And I say this because it seems to me that.
This is the, the US strikes on Iran are part of the general pattern
of Trump foreign policy, which is short-term wins for long-term losses
because I, I don't think there are actually going to be huge implications.
Like I, I don't think they're gonna close the straight, if they
do, it won't last for a long time.
It seems pretty clear they don't have a nuke.
If they did, they would've beared their teeth by now.
So maybe that doesn't happen.
Well least they would've exploded
it to show
they have Yeah, like something like for, you know, you've, you've got bros on
Twitter, like, you know, reading Seism McGrath in Iran being like, is this it?
It's like, no.
If it was, it like, you know, they, they did their movie thing about this
is gonna be remembered for centuries and it was a couple of missiles.
Like, nice, okay, great.
Like there's, there's some cool missiles, but they're not there.
But the point being, um, you know, the Trump administration
is taking short-term wins.
So yes, it get, it's probably gonna get short-term wins and
trade deals with European countries and China and things like that.
But in the long run, you've basically just ensured that Europe doesn't want to
be dependent on you anymore and becomes probably a competitor down the road.
Do you think that there is something to the, to the notion that, you know,
your China, your Russias, even your Europes is looking at US behavior here.
And even as some of these countries are clapping and saying, thanks for taking out
the trash, they're also saying, man, this is the us Like they could do this to me.
Like, they could do this to anyone.
They're gonna say two weeks and then they're gonna turn on a bombing.
Like, we don't trust the us.
Or do you think that that's too weeny, you know, liberal of a
position and it's like, no, no, no.
Like, like nobody's gonna think that.
It's just gonna be like, Hey, this is, this is the world that
we're in right now in the United States is doing what it's gonna do.
And like, there's mad respect there and everybody else is
gonna go do their own thing.
Like, where do you, where do you fall on
that?
The multipolar world is the world where everyone's gonna do what they're gonna do.
You know, that's why it's dangerous world.
But it's also a world where, uh, because normative and
ideological issues don't matter.
Morality doesn't matter.
That makes it safer.
I have to say, and this, this obviously shows that I'm a
realist, a brutal realist.
Uh, and many will disagree with me, but I would say that Donald Trump is including
President Trump and including and including the Supreme leader because
this is a very religious, like, ideological conflict on both sides.
At least.
At least in the way they're talking about it.
Not really like let go.
No, I would disagree, Jacob, because if it was President Trump wouldn't
say things like, look, we bombed Ford.
Oh, and now it's over.
It's time for peace.
So I actually think that Donald Trump is the perfect president for a multipolar
world, and I would applaud him in many ways on the way he has pivoted the
US towards a much more Machiavellian way of thinking about foreign policy.
Now, before I get accused of being callous and stuff, lemme just break it down.
The reason that I don't think Bill Clinton would've been good in this situation, and
definitely Joe Biden would not have been.
Because every time a moralistic liberal interventionist president who's in charge,
they don't know when to land the plane.
Once you paint a regime as immoral, you need to take it all the way with them.
You cannot sit down and negotiate.
You need an immoral, immoral, immoral foreign policy.
In a multipolar world, that's what's a requirement.
You cannot choose what country is good, what country is evil, because if you
do, then how do you stop having an antagonistic relationship with them?
How do you stop, sit down and say, okay, cool.
Look, we bombed Florida.
You know, you know what we can do.
Now we understand that, uh, you know, we don't want regime change.
Look what President Trump said after bombing, uh, the u uh, Iran, and
then he said, repeated it today, that they don't want regime change.
That is something that liberal interventionists cannot do.
If you have a moralistic compass, how do you stop yourself?
How do you say, this is enough?
We've done enough.
You can't do that.
You have to say, how many times have we invoked Hitler?
How many times have American presidents invoked Hitler as an analogy for some
leader, they don't like, whether it's neocons or liberal interventionism.
And that's where neocons, neoconservatives and liberal interventionists are the same.
They couch everything in the terms of morality of good and evil.
And so if some country is, you know, is going against American interests,
you cannot couch it in the, in the words of real politic of realism.
You couch it in terms of morality.
But once you do that, once you step into that world, how do you slow yourself down?
How do you stop bombing a rod?
How do you decide that this was enough and now it's time for negotiations and peace?
So I would say that Donald Trump is a product of his environment.
I would say that Barack Obama tried to do this, but he was not consistent.
I would, as I've said before, I think Obama and Trump are similar
in that both of them recognized that the world is multipolar.
I just think he was tougher for Obama because he surrounded himself with
liberal interventionists who are very liberal, very moralistic, very normative,
and they would always kind of say like, that's what happened in Libya.
Look, Gaddafi is a bad guy, but he gave up his chemical and biological weapon
program for guarantees of stability.
Was bombing him the right message to make?
Well, first of all, obviously not as the Italians warned, the west collapse
of Libya would lead to a migration crisis in Europe, and they were right.
So Italy was opposed to this.
Barack Obama understood these risks, but he let France in the United
Kingdom take the lead in 2011.
So he wasn't, I think, brutal enough.
He wasn't realist enough, although he tried to.
Present himself as a realist because his enemy on foreign policy was neocons.
President Trump's enemy on foreign policy is both neocons
and liberal interventionists.
And so I would say that he's a perfect president actually for a multipolar era.
Now, we will see, right, is he able to conduct a limited strike against Iran?
It will require him to take the retaliation straight in the
face like a man and then not do anything in, in re taliation.
In other words, he cannot get sucked in by idiot journalists and
tackle trade talk and Twitterati saying that weak for not responding
to something Iran is about to do.
And to his credit, he showed that consistency in January of 2020.
He, he, he, he orders the assassination, which was illegal by International Law
of General Soleimani, Iran freaks out bombs, some American basis in Iraq.
At that point, a Bill Clinton, a George Bush, a Joe Biden, a Hillary Clinton.
And yes, even Barack Obama does a lot more in retaliation because they have to,
because they feel compelled by morality.
Our troops were endangered, and President Trump said, of course,
our troops were endangered.
That's par for the course.
I understand why Iran had to retaliate.
I consider this matter over, that's almost verbatim, the tweet
he sent after Iran retaliated.
That is a multipolar president.
You know, that is somebody who can have, and this is why most commentators right
now, Jacob, and I know you also disagree as I do, but most commentators see this as
a slippery slope towards a confrontation because you're almost counting on this
reflexive need for America to couch their enemies in morality normative
like, so the reason this is a slippery slope is now we're gonna build a case
that Iran is evil and blah, blah, blah.
Immoral, immoral President does not have to couch the Iran
as, as that kind of an enemy.
He can say things like, I respect Iranians.
They're hard negotiators.
They should have taken my deal.
They didn't.
I had to punch 'em in the mouth.
I understand why they're retaliating.
I'm ready to talk when they are.
And if they cross our red lines, we turn them into a parking lot.
Well, yeah, and this is why, like, it's not a slippery slope
because they can't respond.
There's no way.
Like if they had, if, if they nuked New York City, but the problems Jacob or if
they like blocked the straight for moose and they could keep it closed for a month,
like Yeah, but I don't think they've got, I don't think they have any cards.
But see, Jacob, you're looking at this as like a objective
analyst and God bless you.
I want to kiss your receding hairline because of it.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you.
I, I love you for it.
But the, the issue is a normative president, whether of a NeoCon ilk
or a liberal interventionist ilk.
Would've taken any Iranian retaliation as a sign that they're evil war mongers
led by Adolf Hitler in clerical robes.
And thus, it is a reason for regime change.
And thus, it is a reason to smite this evil that has come under the
very heart of the hell and pursue a holy Jihad on behalf of human rights.
And that's the difference in a multipolar, in a unipolar world.
The reason that Joe Biden, in many ways is a very nice guy, great legislator,
you know, but the reason he was the wrong president for Multipolarity is because
I don't think that Joe Biden and his like Cory of experts around him would
have been able to deftly and nimbly just ignore what's coming out of Iran because
Jacob, you and I both know there is some retaliation coming, some American service.
Men and women might be in danger, might be even killed in this retaliation.
Joe Biden can't allow that to happen because he believes
there's right and there's wrong.
And the truth is that in today's world of Multipolarity, I mean there is still
right and wrong, don't get me wrong, but unfortunately, you don't have
the ability to respond to every rock.
That is the point because there's multiple threats.
It's a multiple world and you, United States of America may be the most powerful
country in the world, but your power is stretched thin around the world like
too little butter on too much toast.
To quote Jr. Token.
Yes.
Uh, it's hard being a ring bearer.
I, I think, um, that's why, uh, I, I think you're right about Obama.
Like, uh, Obama got so much flack for the red line in Syria, but that was actually
the, like, one of the most impressive things he did in the foreign policy of
his, of both of his terms, which is he made the stupid mistake about setting
a red line about yes, the Assad regime use of chemical weapons and then like,
they used chemical weapons and then like, the drumbeat started, like, I remember,
I think I was still at Strat war at the time, like, uh, like John Kerry
was, was going on CNN and thundering away about how like the red line had
to be honored and things like that.
And Obama said, eh, like, we're not, like, no.
Well, I'm, I'm not doing that.
Jacob, like, I'm pulling back.
It's, it's interesting.
I would, I would have to say that setting a red line is
stupid in a multipolar world.
He made a mistake.
Yeah.
But he didn't double down on the mistake, but he didn't double down on it.
And that was correct.
Like he, he, you know, took it in the face.
He took the punch.
But that's exactly the point.
In a multipolar world, you can't be, you can't be preachy.
You can't be going around the world saying like, Iran is evil.
Like, well, that's your opinion, man, to quote another great movie.
But,
but this is sort of where your argument is on a little bit of a,
is on like, doesn't like, because Trump has gotten preachy about this.
His red line is no nuclear weapons for this regime, and it's gone from
I want a nuclear deal, blah, blah, blah, to no, no nuclear weapons.
Like that's his new line.
Well, okay.
That's, that's, that's a different issue though.
Uh, first of all, it's very clear.
It's like objective, it's physical, it's materialistic.
It's not like we need Iran to change its behavior towards its own people.
Yeah.
He's never said that.
No, of course not.
You know, but that's, but that's, that's the issue because it is a
actionable, it is a limited and it is a clear delineation of what American
interests are, and then that's it.
But so was Obama.
It's like, I'm just saying it, it is a red line, like where three weeks
ago he, he was nothing like, there is now a red line for the United States
and maybe he won't, like, listen, maybe he won't follow through on it.
Well, okay, fine.
To be consistent.
Then what I would say is that I do think that Barack Obama also made
a mistake for not attacking Syria.
Oh, for not, not following through.
Yeah.
Not following through.
Because look, they use chemical weapons.
You can just bomb the shit out of Syria and move on.
This is my point, this is my point right now.
Too many people are extrapolating this into regime change, boots on the ground.
Why?
For God's sakes, maybe it's 'cause I'm Serbian.
Maybe because it's, I watch my hometown burn on CNN Live maybe because of that.
I remember the one example where the US did something limited and the
rest of you just forgot about it.
'cause nobody cares about Serbia except when we're, you know,
kicking your ass in sports.
Um, but, okay.
Okay, look, time out.
In 1999, bill Clinton showed up and said, look, uh, you need to
remove your military from Kosovo.
Serbs.
Were like, Yolo, you know, you know, show us what you got, nato.
Great idea.
Thanks.
Slow it on.
And then, you know, three months of like taking it in the face, the servers were
finally like, okay, fine, fine, fine.
They cried.
Uncle, the point is that at no time was the United States of America planning an
invasion of Serbia because they would've had to face a bunch of yoki and Djokovics
like, fuck, you don't wanna do that.
So like, they were like, look, we're just gonna bomb the shit out of
you until you change your behavior.
And this is why I would say to everyone who right now is just
saying like, oh, it's another Iraq.
It doesn't have to be, there are ways to use effectively what we call a
political science gunboat diplomacy.
You steam a gunboat into the port, you show the caliber of your big
guns, and then, you know, you change behavior of a country.
It doesn't have to be a slippery slope into invasions, into regime
changes, into, you know, American servicemen d dying in some random place.
The point is, it's in a limited attack.
I think Barack Obama should have done that in Syria.
I don't see why he didn't.
It's because, of course, the demons in his skeleton were left over by the
previous administration and he, he felt politically that he couldn't do that.
I think President Trump has correctly, in a way, I mean, obviously
what was incorrect was letting Israel wag him at like a tail.
But let's leave that aside.
Let's leave that aside for a second.
Now that it's happened, he did it.
And then what did he flag to Iran?
This is very important.
He said to Iran, it's not regime change, and this is it.
We're done.
We are done.
You guys can now decide where you take this, but we don't think we, we
don't care that you're an evil regime.
God bless you for it.
Go ahead being evil, just be very careful how you retaliate against this.
That is limited.
Im not immoral, immoral way to conduct foreign policy based
on hardened material interests.
And I think it's a new, it, it is a, it's almost a conscious acceptance by
America that it's a multipolar world and you cannot be running around the world
trying to turn countries into fucking Wisconsin with your foreign policy.
'cause it doesn't work.
Yeah.
I, I think you're slightly mischaracterizing what trump's I, I
think you're like 85% of the way there.
But the other part that you've left unsaid, it's not like,
okay, fine, you could be evil.
He doesn't care about that.
But he is also clearly said, and you're not going to have nuclear weapons.
That's, and I've made it clear since my first term, but that's
American interest, that you're not gonna have nuclear weapons.
Now, I don't think this is gonna happen, but let me throw you a scenario at you.
Like, for, for devil's advocacy's sake, please.
Like, let's say the Iranians, uh, have a successful test of a nuclear weapon
tomorrow, after this bombing, after everything that's happened, like.
Trump can't abide that can, of course not.
He's gonna have to figure out how to do more.
Yes, that's fine.
So like, there, there, there is a line here now, which is, it's
not just go do your own thing.
This matter is closed, it's now you will not have nukes.
And I've committed the US military to making sure you will never have nukes.
Have a nice day.
I don't listen, listen, here's what I would say.
The, the difference is not that there is no way for this
to become a slippery slope.
The difference is that that way is not moralistic or normative.
Yes, yes.
And that's, but, but, but the reason that's important, Jacob.
The reason that liberal approach to foreign policy is dangerous in a
multipolar world is because it sucks you into a never ending conflict.
Once you identify some somebody as Adolf Hitler, once you identify
somebody as a Nazi regime, you must intervene and you must spend all
your resources on that intervention.
That's important.
You can set.
You can order a country to change their flag.
Don't use green, use red.
You can order them to not have a nuclear weapon.
You can order them to stop wearing hats for Atlanta Braves
and embrace the revolution.
That's the La Dodgers.
God bless them, please.
And I can't wait for that revolution to spread to the LA Lakers.
You will all be wearing blue and purple and gold, goddammit.
But listen,
you're, you're welcome for Freddie Freeman, by the way,
you, of course.
Thank you so much.
And also for the Toronto maple leaf, uh, not maple leaf, my bad.
The Blue Jays, you know, for the Oscar.
And of course, let's not forget the Boston Red Sox for Freddie.
If
you're listening, I cannot believe you left us for them.
I cannot believe whatcha talking about
Mki Te Oscar, Freddy Japan.
He could have gone down.
He could have gone down as one of the greatest figures in storied Atlanta.
Brave's history.
No.
You wanted to go home.
Wanted to, to Southern California.
I'm, oh, I'm sorry, Jacob.
I'm sorry.
Apparently you could still live in
Southern California.
Come, apparently
the epicenter of World War III is a nice place to live, and apparently
that helps teams here attract talent.
Well, listen, listen, listen, listen.
My point is that this is the key differentiator in a multipolar.
You can set all sorts of red lines.
They can be stupid still, you can still make mistakes, but those red lines are
not whether or not somebody is evil.
And my point, my point to you and to everyone listening to
this, I'm not an evil person.
I don't cheerlead for 21st century like Hitlers out there.
The reality is that in a multipolar world, the power of the United States or any
other great power is, is, is, is limited.
There are limits to that.
It's not preponderance of power.
You cannot just parachute into some country and turn it into Wisconsin and.
Make it less evil.
And so the foreign policy has to adjust for that.
And that's where President Trump, I would say, is a perfect
president for a multipolar world.
What I fear, what I fear is the Democratic Party, because it does have
the Trump derangement syndrome, is going to throw the baby with the bathwater.
And listen, lemme tell you like Trump is a baby, he's got some stinky bath water.
Alright?
There's, there's a lot of stuff that needs to be thrown out as far
as the bath water is concerned.
But the one very, very good thing is that I, I think that his
approach to foreign policy is going to withstand the test of time.
But I do fear that it could be ideologically resisted by the next
Democratic president in 2028 or beyond.
Merely because it was Trump's foreign policy.
It's not Trump's foreign policy.
It's matter Nic, foreign policy.
It's Kissinger's foreign policy.
It is a foreign policy of anybody who's existed in the past, which
is you cannot just identify your adversaries as morally inferior.
Because once you do that, you don't know when to stop the war and actually
sit down with them and negotiate.
It becomes impossible to do that.
And therefore every freaking war then becomes a war of existential proportions
where yes, you do push countries to the brink of existential survivor.
Survivor, survivor, wait, survival.
And then they do all sorts of things in retaliation because you put them to that.
That's why this kind of a conflict, this kind of a, a military action
that just happened is unique.
And I think everybody listening to this should go and read like President
Trump's like tweet hack sets.
Yes.
Um, like, um.
Press conference.
Why?
Because America is telling its adversary.
We're not seeking regime change.
You wanna go and like do whatever you want to Your people go right ahead.
We think that's stupid.
We think you are bad actors.
We think you're repressing women, but it's not our place to change that.
Good luck to you with that.
You know, we think your time is up anyways because you are
an amoral country, whatever.
But we're not gonna punish you for that.
We're gonna punish you for this thing here, which is your nuclear program,
and then we're open for negotiations.
Yeah.
Alright, last words.
Um, 'cause I'm, I'm on the clock.
Uh, my last thing is just like, and this is not the thing that's gonna like, you
know, people wanna talk about and things like that, but for me, what's salient
when you step back from all of this is that, um, like you said, probably
not World War iii, probably not even that big of a deal in the short run.
Like probably this goes the way of India, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, maybe a slow
burning crisis that continues, that we all get acculturated to and normalized to.
And like that, that's sort of where I think it's heading.
But I do think when you take a step back and look at the world now, the
Eurasian landmass is in trouble.
Like there are problems everywhere and brush fires everywhere.
And the places where there are not brush fires or places like South America,
and I know that Southeast Asia is still technically part of the ian land mess,
but Southeast Asia looks pretty good too.
And Australia, Oceania like looks pretty good.
I wouldn't throw Sub-Saharan Africa in there 'cause they've got lots of problems.
But I think if you're just looking around the world for relative stability, like
there are pockets of relative instability.
It's just not in Eurasia.
And there's something happening like across the Eurasian land mass, which as,
as somebody who's trying to step back and not try, 'cause you know, you can
fade geopolitics and think about trading, but if you're thinking about frameworks
like beyond the short term and thinking about 5, 10, 15 years from now, um, I
think we're actually having a very stark relief where the places of stability in
the world are and where the places of instability in the world are going to be.
And for me, that's the big lesson here because we've had all of
these conflicts in, in, in short success, in in short succession.
And like we, we are also seeing where there isn't conflict.
And for me, like that's the lesson.
Uh, like, and that's how I'm trying to think about reorienting things.
What about you?
So, first of all, uh, I'm not gonna disagree with you on Latin
America and Southeast Asia.
I love those two places.
I think they're gonna do great.
However, I do wanna disagree with you.
Good.
I, I think there is a concept of a garrison state, and I think that too
many investors and too many commentators just look in the region and they say
like, oh my, I don't wanna be there.
Not a single barrel of oil has been lost since October 7th, 2023.
And I'm like, the only analyst out there that points that out repeatedly.
Not a single barrel of oil has not made it to the global market.
In other words, Iran and Israel could nuke each other.
The rest of the world can move on.
Mm-hmm.
And that's because oftentimes it's in the regions of instability that you find, the
gems, that's where things start moving.
That's where countries realize we gotta get better because we're not safe.
You know?
So I look at what's happening in Saudi Arabia.
I look at what's happening in Dubai Abu Dhabi.
I. These are countries literally in the middle of all these
rockets go flying back and forth.
And I'm not sure that I would not wanna like, visit those countries
or invest or, or, or, or have a condo like, or go for fun.
Like I absolutely would.
And I absolutely have been over the last two years going in and out seeing
the changes that are happening there.
Similarly with countries in Europe, like Europe is taking the challenge from Russia
and is actually doing the right things.
Poland, you know, I mean the economists jinx Poland by putting
them on the cover of their magazine.
But the point, the, the one thing I think where we, we agree, I think Latin
America is gonna do very well Southeast Asia too, but I think that there's
pockets of stability on this brush fire, uh, affected Eurasian, uh, landmass.
And I think that's where innovation, and that's where entrepreneurship,
and that's where vigor and that's where, uh, you know, actual.
Productivity will be shown up because necessity is the mother of all invention.
So I like the concept of Garrison states and I want to invest in those.
Gotcha.
All right.
Uh, before we go breaking news, you ready?
Yes.
Uh, the Phoenix Suns have agreed to trade Kevin Durant to the Houston
Rockets for Jalen Green, Dylan Brooks, the number 10 pick in this
year's draft and five second round picks what a poo poo platter this is.
Uh, so you can react to that or you can make your picks for Game
seven tonight before we say goodbye.
Well, I'm definitely, uh, I think game seven, man.
I mean, you know, it's United States versus Iran, right?
Ooh, spicy.
Yeah.
OKC man, the heartland, the MAGA heartland.
They just got like stealth bombers and the Canadian assassin, you know, they're
just like, yeah, so much more powerful.
But man,
the Pacers have the Caliban.
And my heart wants the Pacers to win.
But you know, I, I do think OKC is going to prove to be
just overwhelmingly powerful.
You think OKC looked scared to me?
I know they're young.
I, I listen man.
I know, but would you put money on the Pacers though?
That's such a, like, it's a, it's a crazy bet.
You know, it's, it's gonna be the, it's Oklahoma.
There's, their fans are not gonna sit down and they're just so good.
Like SGA is like so good.
I agree with you though, that the Pacers play with no weight on their shoulders.
Uh, whereas the thunder do, and look, I'll tell you this, Jacob
Shapiro, if there is a God.
He'll let the Pacers win.
I wouldn't have put money on, I wouldn't have even thought, I, I
thought the Pacers didn't have a chance until game six and now, yeah, I
think I might throw some money because like the kcs seem seemed scared.
Like they seem like they didn't know what to do and like they really
like, it's SGA and like if SGA is not cooking, like who else is there
around him, who's gonna go forward.
Yeah.
And I think the coaching aspect here really matters.
Yes, totally.
Like I, I think Carlisle's been here before and he's got
the, he's got the Porsche.
No, he's awesome.
Like, you know, he doesn't going in all directions a
hundred percent.
And listen, the reason I say there's a God, like that team
should have stayed in Seattle.
You know, they've been cursed ever since.
There's clearly like something, but you know, they are, I mean they won
like how many games have they won now?
94 or something.
Like, it's just, it's hard, it's hard for me to see them, but I would love for
the Pacers to win just for the, you know, for the, the Cinderella story of it.
Be, by the way, this will be the greatest upset mathematically in
NBA finals history if it happens.
I, I,
well, and I
check, oh, maybe 2004.
The Detroit is still bigger.
I'm not sure.
Yeah.
It, it also would be a huge victory for the United States over Canada.
'cause I mean, you know, we've been talking about multipolar
basketball here for a long time.
And SJ if you're gonna blow this shit to, you know, uh, Tyrese,
Halliburton from Oshkosh, Wisconsin, uh, like not you're, you're Canadian.
Uh, basketball geopolitics not looking so good if you fumble this,
but, but you're probably right.
Alright.
Unfortunately.
Yeah.
Alright, well this was great.
Thank you.
And by the way, for all you, uh, waiting for our long anticipated trade value,
we are going to replicate what Bill Simmons does on the basketball side.
We're going to do a trade value podcast at some point when Israel Iran calms down.
Uh, we're going to both present our top 30 leaders and basically the way it works.
The politician, that's number one.
You would not trade him or her For anybody, the politician becomes 30th.
It means that you would trade that person if you were in the country
that I run for anyone above.
So we're gonna do that soon.
I can't wait.
It's just that I can't
wait.
So, Iran, Israel, please stop this nonsense so that we can get to the
content that people really need.
And that's truly important to the future of the, I mean,
Benjamin Netanyahu should just stop bombing Iran 'cause he wants
to find out where we put him on our top 30 liter in the world.
If he makes the cut,
does he make your cut?
I don't know.
We, we'll have to wait until that episode.
All right.
I won't spoil anything.
Cheers, dude.