Jacob Shapiro: All right, uh, the cousins together.
Uh, Marco is joining us off of a big client call.
I have a big client call in 50 minutes, so we don't get to luxuriate
in our normal hour and a half.
We gotta, we gotta give the people what they want in 50 minutes
here, Marco, or let's call it 55.
Um, we wanted to do a postmortem on the Iran Israel War.
Uh, we wanted to talk about how, I mean, the news cycle's already onto
the next thing, the crazy things happening at the NATO summit, which
there's actually a lot to unpack there.
Everything from how the Europeans are treating Donald Trump, uh, versus Japan
and South Korea, and some of the things happening on the sidelines, or some of
the things not happening on the sidelines.
Um, where, where do you wanna start?
What do you wanna say first?
And I, and I'm wearing a tie 'cause I was just on with our
friend Emray for his CNBC program.
I know you did it, uh, for them.
Uh, what, earlier this week or last week Time has no meaning
anymore, so that's why I look nice.
Marko Papic: Um, yeah, so I, I think, uh, you know, we
keep delaying our trade value.
I'm, I'm very disappointed about this.
We we're, we're so excited to do top 30 political leaders to draft
board, uh, but we're gonna have to delay it a little bit more.
Uh, obviously I think, uh, we should dedicate this, uh, to the
postmortem of what just happened.
So, uh, where I would wanna start with first is there's this, uh, big debate
and I find this fascinating, Jacob.
Um, there's the big debate whether or not the nuclear program was obliterated,
you know, and, um, president Trump obviously claimed total obliteration.
And then, uh, there was a leaked, there was a leaked report from
the Defense Intelligence Agency, which by the way, I mean.
That's, I think, a story in of itself.
Why is the intelligence community leaking a report that's top secret
on their assessment, uh, other than to embarrass the president?
Jacob Shapiro: Well, or probably for the same reason that there was a decoy group
of bombers that went towards the Pacific.
And yes, I'm sure that some of it is to embarrass the president.
Some of it is also probably, uh, we don't know who is in Pete Hegg,
Seth's, uh, WhatsApp groups right now.
So, I mean, very real, like non-zero chance you could be getting, you
know, information somewhere, you know?
Marko Papic: Yeah.
Fair, fair.
Um, so, so look, I mean, but I think it's a fascinating
point because this idea that.
Um, the Iran nuclear program was set back by mere months, I think
is like just patently ludicrous.
That is like objectively just impossible.
And, uh, I find it hilarious that some democratic members of Congress
are latching onto this because their Trump derangement syndrome is so severe
that they're actually now becoming.
Like war Monering neocons in order to embarrass President Trump.
So you've got this guy in California who I don't even know what his name
is, he's completely irrelevant.
He's from LA area of Ventura County.
You can look him up.
But he came out and said like, you see, we didn't do enough.
It's like, okay, so are you calling for like greater war with Iran?
It's like, you know, where, where are we headed?
Look where I wanna, where I wanna go with this is, is this.
Seeing that the attack on the nuclear program did not a hundred percent
destroy the nuclear program is like seeing that the COVID vaccine is
not a hundred percent effective.
It's like, yes, that's a fact.
COVID vaccine is not a hundred percent effective.
Like you can still get COVID, you can even still die, but you should
still probably take the vaccine.
And so the reason I say this is because it's very similar to how like for
example, the Joe Biden administration.
Was kind of suggesting that the vaccine really is super effective and so was Trump
in a way because policymakers are just saying like, look, this crisis is over.
This is the solution we got.
It's the best one we have just shut up and take the vaccine.
Similarly, right now, I can objectively tell you from everything I know about
geopolitics, military affairs and like how science works is you cannot a hundred
percent obliterate in nuclear program.
When Israel did it in 1981 by bombing Alli, Iraq in Iraq, did it
obliterate the Iraqi nuclear program?
Well, George W. Bush would say otherwise.
Jacob Shapiro: I mean, they did both in Iraq and Syria, but that was because
they were at a much, much, much, much earlier stage of the process.
There was like one,
Marko Papic: but they didn't, well, they
Jacob Shapiro: never found evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq.
That was, they didn't find nuclear
Marko Papic: weapons.
But there was a nuclear program, and the reason for this is that a
nuclear program is not a building.
A nuclear program is a holistic combination of factors including human
capital, fixed capital, some tools, some toolboxes, and so saying that
the underground chambers of fordo are still intact, it's like number
one, there's no electricity to place.
It's probably gonna take them months, if not years, to get back into
those chambers, and if they move the uranium out of the chambers.
This is the part that I just think is so unfair to Trump.
They move the uranium because you warn them, the Israeli intelligence knows
where the ayatollah goes to the bathroom.
If they move the uranium, the enriched uranium out of the underground
caverns of photo, it suggests to me that they're now out in the
open and we know where they are.
Like, you know, like, relax everyone.
So yes, it's objectively correct to say that President Trump was being hyperbolic.
That's like accusing, you know, accusing Trump of being hyperbolic
is like accusing him of being orange.
This is just how he is.
The reality is that it's destroyed enough and that's a fact.
It is destroyed enough.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I, uh, I, I'm, I'm interested in why you're
focused on this point, because total obliteration to me, uh, is the exact
same thing as mission accomplished.
Any president who pulls off a military operation is going to have to take
a victory lap, no matter, like, the job is not to be accurate about
what they did, it's to say something happened and it was successful.
I think you're right.
You know, the Democrats just can't find their way out of a wet paper bag.
They had one sharp tool.
That they were starting to use it was that, um, congressional measure on halting
US involvement based on war powers.
And they got a Republican from Kentucky to sign on and sponsor the bill, but he
decided since Trump like stopped bombing already, that he didn't want to do it.
And so the speaker's not gonna bring it to the floor.
And the Republican, uh, from Kentucky, Thomas Massey, his name is not
gonna push it forward if, if the Democrats really wanna like play here.
The, you're exactly right.
The wrong thing to do is to say, ah, nothing happened.
The right thing to do is to say, Hey.
This started with the Democrats with Truman in the Korean War.
Like we are the original sin of it.
We have to get Congress back in charge of when US military force is deployed because
whether it's President Trump or President Obama or President Bush or President
Truman, like we opened up Pandora's Box and Republicans, you need to work with us.
To shut Pandora's Box be, and that's Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, all of you.
We want all of like, yeah, that's free advice there to the Democrats.
That's if you want an issue to play on, it's not gonna happen
overnight, but like that is the issue.
Yeah.
So this is, uh, you should be banging
Marko Papic: on.
So Jacob, that's, that's a great point.
Like, if you want something that's anti-Trump and that's bipartisan, go
join up with a Mago camp that didn't want the attack in the first place.
That didn't want to be Israel's tail.
That got wagged by Benjamin Netanyahu's.
Right dog.
That's what, like if you have a problem with this, there's, it's,
but it seems like the Democrats just can't quit the NeoCon line.
This is like Kamala Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney, which is hilarious to me.
Like they just don't understand the country has moved on from this.
So the media, and by the way, I got journalists tweeting at me like,
well, Trump started it by claiming that it was total obliteration.
Oh yeah.
That's, that's why you are leaking defense intelligent, uh, agency, uh,
reports that, you know, that's why.
That's why because of semantics.
No, you are just so deranged with the Trump derangement syndrome that you're
willing to basically take the stance that he didn't do enough, and therefore
we need to go into an endless warfare with Iran over something that clearly has
been set back by years, if not decades.
So,
Jacob Shapiro: yeah.
But would you say.
Do you think that it was necessary for the US to bomb Fordo and
those other sites to set it back?
Because I, I think Israel had already set it back meaningfully.
I'm not, I'm not sure what else the United States did, and so then
like, I want to agree with you and disagree with you at the same time
because I think there's a problem.
With the media and that there is Trump derangement syndrome, but there's
another part here, which is what the Trump administration was pushing.
And I'm not saying this pejoratively, it's just an objective fact in multiple
administrations of both stripes do this.
Whenever they do a military operation, they just do it in a
different style to suit their base.
It's propaganda.
The whole thing of total obl obliteration was propaganda.
And it is a journalist job to question propaganda and
to try and interrogate truth.
And so if the justification for bombing the Iranian nuclear sites was we're
going to obliterate the Iranian nuclear program, and then you get the Iranian,
uh, you get the propaganda, it is a journalist function to push back
against the, the propaganda itself.
Um, and I think that's where Trump gets into trouble because they
made it about the nuclear deal.
When I. Think what really happened, and we talked about this, was Israel struck
Iran, uh, Trump and Fareed Zakaria's point of view, had that fomo, foreign
policy, wanted to look tough, didn't wanna slap the Israelis down in public.
And so he created this thing and went forward.
And so I think you're right that the media's focusing.
On the wrong thing in that sense.
But I do think there was a journalistic function to say, okay, we get it.
Like total obliteration.
But that wasn't even the point in the first place.
Whoa, there's this relationship with Israel going back and forward.
And there was that one reporter who got Trump to say, I dunno if you saw
this, uh uh, I'm sure you saw this.
I mean, this was incredible.
Where he basically, you know, they asked him if he was mad at the
Israelis for violating the ceasefire, and he said, these two countries
have been fighting for so long.
They don't know what the fuck they're doing.
Yeah, exactly.
And I, and I honestly wanted to stop it right there and
be like, let Trump be Trump.
Get rid of all the advisors.
Like that's the best foreign policy.
Brief agree on Israel, Iran relations.
I've heard in years, they don't know what they're doing.
Like, just like, stop guys, listen.
I, like I, and I think all this other stuff around him gets in the way of it.
Marko Papic: Right.
But that's where the criticism of the semantics is idiotic.
So, no.
Mm-hmm.
I think if you're a journalist attacking the total obliteration, you're not, I
mean, yeah, sure, you're doing your job like, but I still think you're an idiot.
And here's why.
Because well be, because who, who cares?
Like he didn't like Yes.
Was, was it necessary to drop.
This massive ordinance in Fordo.
I mean on some say yeah.
Objectively.
Why not?
Why not also do that on Passant since Israel already started it.
But the real reason that that was done is so that the US gets
leverage over both Israel and Iran.
So, and that's, and that's something he can't publicly say.
Jacob Shapiro: Right?
And that, and it's the job of the journalist to try and get that, and
if not unearth that from him to Right.
But they're not doing that else.
Marko Papic: But they're not doing that.
No,
Jacob Shapiro: I agree.
That's why I said agree and disagree.
Like I don't want to throw out the function of journalists while
also criticizing like how the journalists are doing things.
And it also like in that very narrow sense like you and I are trying to
do what journalists should be doing.
Yeah.
Like instead of like some part of our job, instead of analyzing what's going
on, we also know have to be truth seekers.
It used to be you could rely on journalists to a certain degree to
try and ascertain truth, and then you could take a step back and do analysis.
But our job has gotten infinitely harder because you can't even trust
the truth function that the journalism is sending out because it's, you know,
depending on who the reporter is or what outlet they're with, they have
all these other different things.
I also wanna push back against one.
Okay.
No, go, go ahead.
No, I'll push back on
Marko Papic: something.
No, no, no.
Finish.
There.
Jacob Shapiro: Just the uranium thing.
I don't think that's, that's, um, I don't think it's quite that simple.
Like uranium doesn't breathe, it doesn't make phone calls.
These cylinders can be stored in, uh, my understanding is that they
can be stored in things that are basically, you know, 55 pounds roughly.
So something that you could theoretically get out and like send
it in a bunch of different directions.
Um, and if we don't know where it is or if.
If it has been moved all over the place, then you're absolutely right.
Not only is does the Iranian nuclear program still live, it
can be given to other groups.
It can be given to terrorists.
Like where, where is it gonna end up?
Especially if we have regime change in Iran that is coming.
We'll get to that in a second.
Like the question of where the uranium is, is one that.
Is a little bit disturbing to me, and I'm not sure that it's quite as easy to track
down a 55 pound, you know, uh, canister of stuff, especially when you're tracking, I
don't know how many of them, is it like 16 of them or something like that, enough for
10 nuclear bombs rather than just tracking 180 6-year-old dude who probably can't
be too far away from the bathroom for too long without something bad happening.
Marko Papic: I, I, I, I would push back massively on that look.
I mean, Israel has destroyed radar installations that also don't breathe.
They've destroyed, um, you know, uh, they, they've known the movements of all the
different, um, you know, uh, scientists.
I mean, it's just, it's just the reason Fordo is important is
because 80 meters underground, you can store something in it.
Once you have to pull that out of that, that's where it's out in the open.
Do we know where the 50 pound pound, you know, bag of
enriched uranium is right now?
Do we know like, no, but we will find out.
Because one thing we know for a certain is that this country leaks
like a sieve, like the Iranian navy, sorry, the Iranian government leaks
like, like, like their navy does.
So I'm just not too concerned about that because it's a, it's a, it's, it's
this idea that it's now disappeared.
Well, evils in fordo for a reason, it was protected there.
Now it's out in the open.
Yes.
There's, there's a element of mystery of it.
I am personally comfortable with that level of mystery.
And what Trump is basically saying by using hyperbole is
that he just doesn't want to hear any more arguments about this.
And he really is not talking to American audience.
He's talking to Israel.
He's saying like, listen, stop using your sources in American media to
leak government, government, uh, like.
Reports so that you can build a case for an endless war that we are
supposed to wage on your behalf.
That is what's being said, I think with President Trump, and I find it interesting
that nobody's picking up on that.
There's this like a phony of voices that's saying like, well, no, we need to do more.
The same, the same voices in some cases, particularly on the journalist
side, who two weeks ago were saying the US should not get involved.
And I think that that's, that's what's interesting to me.
This flip-flopping on, on how to make Trump look bad.
Yes, you're right.
That statement in front of the White House is he was boarding the
plane sink to both sides, like they didn't know what they're doing.
I think that that was a clear signal, you know, and he actually
went after Israel really hard.
So the reason he bombed Fordo, the reason the United States bombed Fordo is to tell
Israel like, okay, you know, we did it.
That's it.
And we're not gonna, you, you got us into this.
Well done Chapo, like well done.
But now, now it's game over.
And in particular, I think that this is something that we
discussed on the podcast as well.
The longer this conflict went on, the leverage us has over, uh, Israel
increases due to the munitions.
Uh, I focused on the offensive munitions, uh, wall Street Journal did a great job.
There you go.
I, I can also give props to journalists.
They did a great job about 10 days ago where they focused on the
stockpile of defensive munitions, particularly the aero missiles
that intercept ballistic missiles.
And so yeah, Israel is running out and so now President Trump's leverage
is increasing and he's effectively telling Israel like, okay, that's it.
That's why US bond four though, not necessarily because there's
a hundred percent effectiveness, but I would again argue that's.
That's also a bar.
That's, that's just way too high.
How are you gonna kill every single human being in Iran who
like, has taken a physics course?
You know, like, yeah.
Jacob Shapiro: Well, and I, I think that's a pretty high price to pay for what
the United States accomplished in Iran.
So maybe we, we, I. Put a pin in on this, like, um, maybe I give you my
scenarios going forward and you gimme scenarios and then we can turn to nato.
'cause in some ways, I mean, that's like the new thing and in some ways
more important I think globally and especially for our listeners.
But I've got three scenarios left on my, on my sheet right now, and
they're all about Iranian domestic politics and how Iran responds to
what, what just happened to it.
I think the most likely IST status quo.
Um, that the regime survives.
Like it showed impressive resilience considering
everything that happened to it.
Uh, the mark of a, of a strong regime is actually one that's able
to take a punch and then counter punch, and that's what they did.
They took a really, really hard punch from the Israelis and then they refocused
and they reorganized, and then they started hitting Israel and making it hurt.
So that shows me that there's some resilience there that maybe
was unappreciated interesting.
I think there's also a. A scenario where we go full North Korea.
The, the Russians didn't help us, the Chinese didn't help us, nobody helped us.
We're just gonna lock it up full on authoritarianism, nuclear weapons as
quickly as possible, like we are the hermit kingdom of the Middle East.
Or there's the NeoCon wet dream, which is the people rise up.
Liberalizing regime.
Sure, this will be an ally of the United States going forward, but I,
the reason I say it's a high cost to bomb four oh to get the Israelis
to stop, and they didn't even stop.
I don't think the Israelis think that they need to stop.
If anything, I think they are convinced that they could do whatever they want.
Now once, okay, let's restock the munitions, then we can do this again in 12
months because we found the yellow cake.
It moved from four oh to this other site, so we're gonna hit it again.
I can hear it going already, but in all of my scenarios, Iran sprints
to a nuclear weapon quicker.
I think that was the cost of this.
You've basically just given any future Iranian regime, even one that is liberal
and friendly to women and homosexuals, like they will also still want a nuclear
weapon because the United States, unlike in Russia, Ukraine, unlike in India,
Pakistan, unlike in any of the other conflicts of, of the past couple of
years, like this was direct US involvement and a different conversation has to be
had in foreign capitals and in analyst circles in those different cities.
When you're talking about.
Threat of the United States and what the risks are and
how to sort of deal with them.
So what, what's your takeaway?
Marko Papic: Yeah, I think broadly, I agree with everything.
What I'm, what I'm fascinated by is how this regime is just really
non monolithic and hasn't been.
Um, you know, in 1980 to 1988, I keep going back to the Irani Rock War.
Half a million people died.
Everyone's on Saddam's side.
I mean, everybody, Soviet Union and America are aligned together against Iran.
How does Iran respond after 1988?
Do they triple down on isolation?
Well, actually no.
They, they take their licks, you know, I. Men gendering, sorry.
But they take their legs and they, um, proceed with actually a period of
opening to the rest of the world in the 1990s, which is weird because they did
also support terrorism at the same time.
So you have the Buenos Aires attack, um, as an example, which clearly
was, um, linked to Iranian regime and Hezbollah, but the presidency
of r Sanja was quite moderate.
In the nineties, and it led to some opening with the rest of the world.
So, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if your first scenario where the regime
survives, which is your base case, also includes a domestic internal pivot.
I mean, look, if you are a member of the Iranian Elite right now, first of all,
you got completely punched in the face.
Second of all, you're looking around the region.
What are other countries doing?
They're, they're taking account of their demographics.
Like Saudi Arabia woke up one day and was like, look, I mean 70%
of the countries under the age of 35, like, what are we doing here?
And so I could see a similar sort of, not North Korea scenario,
but rather the opposite.
Taking a page out of the 1990s where President r and Johnny was
actually quite, you know, like not liberal, but quite reformist.
I mean, he actually ended up award the 2009 in opposition, uh, which cost him
off obviously his political career.
Jacob Shapiro: You know?
Yeah.
And, and it's a really important point because another historical
analogy and all historical analogies are fraught and imperfect.
But I think what happened to Egypt over the second half of the 20th century
is actually, um, somewhat explanatory.
You can explain the opening in the 1990s because of the unique nature
of the Islamic, uh, of, of the Iranian revolution, which was they
set up parallel political structures.
There was the clerics protected by the IRGC.
The job of the IRGC is literally to protect the revolution.
Now they've, they've expanded into Hezbollah and everything
else, but their original purpose was protect the revolution.
And then you had, you, you still have quote unquote, democratic elections in
Iran and you have, you know, civilian politics and they are not the same thing.
Yes.
And the IRGC was always supposed to be separate from that.
And what happened beginning with President Ahmadinejad was that the IRGC.
Started metastasizing into all these other arenas of the Iranian state and
economy that they weren't supposed to.
They were supposed to stay in their box and protect the clerics and
protect the virtue of the revolution.
Then they slowly started swallowing, um, you know, businesses, the economy.
Uh, even like the external, uh, military functions that were supposed
to be with the Iranian military, and you get to the point where the IRGC
controls like something to 50 to 60% of the Iranian economy by most
eth uh, by most estimates right now.
So no matter what happens, unless you kill all the IRGC, which is not possible.
The IRGC is gonna be there.
And I make the analogy to Egypt because think of what, what started in Egypt with
Gamal Abdel Nasser, a coup, a charismatic politician who gives this Arab nationalism
and socialism, and he dominates for, you know, 10, 15, 20 years, whatever it was.
But when he dies, and you know, eventually Sadad is assassinated
because he makes peace with Israel.
It's the Egyptian military that takes over.
Now, Nasser was a military offer.
Officer himself.
But when you look at Egypt today, it's a military dictatorship and
one that is relatively stable, but the military is calling the shots.
I think that's maybe the model here.
If you're the IRGC, it's like we've already taken over the economy.
Thanks, aog.
Now we've got all these other things, the supreme leader's about to die.
We'll put in a figurehead.
We are gonna dominate, and once we no longer have to watch our backs and
we're completely in control of this, we can behave like Egypt does today.
We can go out and deal with the world in general like that.
That I think is a path forward for them.
Marko Papic: That's the irony, Jacob, because General Soleimani,
who was assassinated by the US was on his way to doing that.
I mean, there were rumors he was going to run for presidency.
He was extremely popular just in Iran in general.
Charismatic guy, very successful in the uh, insurgency against the US and Iraq.
Um, and so then he was assassinated and IRGC kinda lost that face, but you're
right, uh, there are many others.
Uh, there was a mayor of Tehran, I forgot his name, who
was also IRGC, uh, commander.
In the past life, there are.
There are models of this that can, that can definitely
emerge as quickly, it doesn't
Jacob Shapiro: matter who it is, it's an institutional dictatorship.
Yeah.
Rather than this weird bifurcated half democratic half theocratic thing.
So I, I'm sure, I think, I think the Iranian revolution dies with Ale Khomeini
and it becomes a, like a military dictatorship, just like any other
military dictatorship in the world.
If it's the status quo, you know, of course there, there's that NeoCon
wet dream lurking in the background.
But that was always a hail Mary.
Marko Papic: And I think their military dictatorship, uh, will be very rational.
But to your point, military dictatorship will obviously want to pursue a nuclear
weapon given what just happened.
And so I do think that the negotiations are going to be very interesting.
You know, the United States of America has to now really think
about what it can give Iran.
In order to avoid them becoming, going for the breakout because the, the thing
is, US still does have leverage and the leverage is like, look, we just
figure out your S3 hundreds don't work.
You have no air defense capabilities.
We can mow the grass, you know, every couple of years if we have to, every
couple of years that you get a little bit more sophisticated on the nuclear
program, we'll just mow it down.
So, uh, you know, I do think there can be a grand bargain between the two.
This goes back to my point from the last podcast we did, and a moral
foreign policy allows the US to make those kind of deals with rivals that
it disagrees with in terms of how they treat the population or whatever.
And that's where I think it'll, it'll it, it could be a coup of grant proportions
for President Trump to really show his chops in negotiation if he can create
a grand bargain with Iran that ensures that whatever that regime evolves into.
It doesn't produce a nuclear weapon.
Jacob Shapiro: It's a bar.
I'm thinking more about that point that you made.
Uh, it is a high bar and I, I've been thinking more about that point you
made about the amoral foreign policy and actually maybe President Trump
is the right person for it, that that White House thing he did where
he was castigating, both of them.
Like I said, I wanted to isolate him from all his advisors and all the
polls and everything else and just be like, if that's your instinct, like.
That's the instinct I would like start with, if I was
starting the briefing with you.
That's the sentence I would start with.
And then we would go to like what your goals are.
Like really great.
So you already know it.
You don't need to listen to cousins President Trump.
That's fine.
But you have to sell that to the American people.
And the American people in his base are not a moral, and this very, you saw this
in the Ted Cruz interview, you saw this in all of the talk around this going into it.
This is not a moral at all.
If anything, it is super moral.
It is righteous.
It's part of of especially in.
Well, very important part of the base of, without which Trump doesn't have anything.
So in the same way that FDR had to sell foreign policy to the American
people and wait for a moment, which he got something like, president Trump
is constrained by the same things.
He cannot just snap his fingers and say, I'm gonna be a moral, and then go to
the base who are just like, well, wait, we thought this was part of the soul.
So I'm, I'm just saying like he is subject to the same constraints
as any American president
Marko Papic: I know, but I, I think the median voter has moved on.
So I think that President Trump is far more in line with where the
median voter is than, and, and I think who, who is President Trump's base.
Is it the sort of moralistic neocons like Ted Cruz, or is it the MAGA
camp, or is it the MAGA camp?
You know, which is, which we've seen in some of the commentary over the
past several weeks where they're seeing like, why are we in this fight?
Why are we letting Israel draw us into their conflict?
It's, it's, it's, it's not talking about like, well, Israel's a democracy.
It's a friend of ours.
It's a li like, I mean, a lot of things that, you know,
people may disagree with, but.
It's a democracy that's the most liberal regime in the Middle East.
Again, caveats here, I'm just saying what Juan might say.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Marko Papic: And that MAGA camp, I think is more in line with the
Bernie Sanders voters, and I think that there is, the median voter in
the US is becoming much more aligned with that kind of Machiavellian,
real politic foreign policy.
And we've seen President Trump abandon parts of his base on
different issues before, and this may be one of those as well.
So that's.
That's what's interesting.
But one thing, one thing by the way, I just want to, uh, before
we pivot to NATO and other things, there's two things I wanna say.
One, one of, uh, one of our listeners, uh, from last podcast criticized, uh,
one of the points I made, which is that President Trump was generally speaking,
uh, doing right things in with this, with this particular conflict in mind.
I think that's proven correct by him going after both Israel and Iran.
Clearly he is.
Amoral in this, but we should probably use a different term and
just say he's being real politic, realist, whatever you wanna call it.
But one of our listeners was like, but wait a minute,
what about leaving J-C-P-O-A?
So, yes, yes, dear, dear listener, you are correct.
Uh, that was, that was stupid.
I will, well, it, that, that was unnecessary.
There was just no need to leave J-C-P-O-A, uh, Iranian in Richmond.
Was it zero?
Yes, the, the deal would expire anyways.
There was a moment where he could have renegotiated, uh,
there was a way to renegotiate.
I mean, there was a way to impose or so like get better terms, but leaving it
Jacob Shapiro: and remember that, that that was Trump won where he was
surrounded by Bolton and the coterie of neocons who used the Iran issue, both on
the campaign trail to get him elected.
And they thought they were gonna use Trump as a useful idiot.
And in the first term he was.
I think he still cared about different norms.
Um, and he doesn't now for better and for worse, but he let himself be sort
of taken along the garden path there and he made that promise to voters.
And if you're, if you're defending him, like you can also say
like, yes, there was a deal.
But after there was a deal and, and part of the reason for the deal, by
the way, was that ISIS looked like it was taking over the Middle East.
Like that was the background context for the United States and Iran looking at each
other, being like, maybe we should like.
Put this to bed for a second and deal with these crazy people and then we
can go back to what we were doing.
Yeah.
Fought together.
'cause like they saw the bigger threat.
Really what we need is ISIS to come back for peace in the Middle
East, is what you're saying.
Marko Papic: No, but, but I, I think, I think ISIS was the basis of
a lot of peace in the Middle East.
Yeah.
I mean, the reason that Saudi Arabia and Iran have Deante is isis Iranian
linked Iraqi militant groups.
So Iraqi militants who were supported by Iran.
Al KZ force was calling in airstrikes from American Warthogs outside of Baghdad
to arrest the invasion by al-Baghdadi.
So like I, I agree with you.
Um, there are far worse things, in other words, in the, in the region.
I. Than the Islamic Republic One.
One thing I do wanna say, mention your, well,
Jacob Shapiro: no, and, and just, but well hold on, just on the J-C-P-O-A
though, because the, the other thing to think about the Iran nuclear deal
is that, first of all, it was supported by two lame duck presidents who didn't
have a lot of domestic support for it.
So Hassan Rouhani was president in Iran at the time.
He did not have a lot of support for it.
The IRGC was at his heels.
He was trying to push back against the IRGC and that
thing that I just talked about.
And then you had Obama who was also on his heels with Iran.
Also, after the JCPO is signed and after ISIS is dealt with.
Um, the, the Iranians, yes.
Like you can say that they were, um, they, they followed the letter of the, the law
on enrichment, but the deal said nothing about missiles and they started testing
ICBMs and all sorts of missile technology immediately, all over the place.
And so, like, if the J-C-P-O-A was gonna be effective, there
was more to a nuclear program.
Program than just the uranium.
There's also the missiles, there's also all these other things.
So they just kept on going full speed ahead at the other stuff
and said, okay, like we will get to the uranium when we get to it.
Because as you've noted before, that's old technology.
Like they could probably get there like yes, it's hard, but like they
have a lot of human capital there.
So if you really wanted A-J-C-P-O-A, we would need to go back to the way
that treaties used to be, which is.
Supported by Congress so that a future president can't just rip it up
because he feels in a particular way.
So the, the J-C-P-O-A was really, it was a, a weak effort by two weak
presidents to try and set their countries on a path away from what we just saw.
And because they didn't have the requisite support.
It didn't work.
And whether it was a failure, like maybe whether they should have done it because
it was the best they could have done, or they should have just accepted that it
was not realistic and done something else.
I don't know.
But I think that context is, is useful.
So like, yes, he shouldn't have pulled out of the J-C-P-O-A, he could have
built up on it, but there was no way that the Trump won was going to do that.
And also the deal itself was not going to prevent the Iranian
nuclear program from going forward.
Like that critique is accurate.
Marko Papic: That's, that's a, that's a really, uh, uh, a well-founded defense.
Look, look at how the rules have have flipped.
Uh, one, okay, so one thing I wanna say, uh, your scenarios I have no comment on.
So they're, they're, they're fine.
Uh, the one thing that I think we should think about though is I think
it's objectively clear that the Iran regime has weakened, not domestically.
So this isn't the point about regime change, but if you are allied with Iran.
And there are fewer and fewer of those around Middle East, but if you are
allied with Iran, you are worried.
And in particular, what I'm worried about, and this is, this can be the last
point we, we have for the postmortem.
I'm worried about Iraq.
Yeah.
You know, Iraq has a, um, basically a balance of fire.
Uh, it's, it's very important to Iran.
It's their buffer against a lot of different, uh, challenges.
And currently it's being run by effectively.
Tehran linked Iranian, uh, militias, uh, Shia militias and Shia politicians.
Now there is different groups of Shia politicians in Iraq.
The nationalists who are opposed to Iranian influence
effectively gave up in 2021.
I thought a civil war was going to happen.
And then Muta al sadder the leader of this faction who fought against
Americans on behalf of Iran, but then flipped and became pretty ardent.
Shia nationalist, opposing Iranian influence in Iraq.
He retired at the end of 2021, early 2022.
He just retired.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
Marko Papic: And that was part of, for Yeah.
Good for him.
Uh, I think he took a job at booking.
Um, he writes Wall Street Journal,
Jacob Shapiro: uh, the Tda Al Sutter chair for geopolitical analysis
that, uh, coming into a think tank.
Me, you, uh,
Marko Papic: militancy and liberalism.
At Discourse.
Um, so this will obviously
Jacob Shapiro: be one of the, the fake sponsors that we read in future episodes.
I can't wait to write the copy for that.
Marko Papic: No, but so, uh, yeah, that'd be awesome.
Uh, so Mta, Suder just retires and, and I suspect part of the reason is
that Saudis pressured both Aldo Suder and the Shia nationalists in Iraq.
Look, we have a deal with Iran.
We're giving up Iraq to them.
God bless him.
They can take it.
We wanna focus on economic modernization.
We're done with this Shia Sunni stuff.
You don't care.
And so for the past, you know, four years, Iraq has been surprisingly
calm, surprisingly stable because that side just gave up.
What happens when that side realizes that maybe they don't need Saudi
support because Iran is weak now?
I think that would be a mistake.
Iran may not have the technological capability to fight against Israeli
fighter jets, but it does have the technological capability to
support an insurgency in Iraq.
You know, those are two different things.
You're not fighting Israeli fighter jets.
You're fighting a war door to door.
That's something Iran has done in Iraq for the past 20 years.
Nonetheless, this is something that I'm worried about Jacob,
like when I think about the postmortem of what just happened.
I do think this, uh, ceasefire is highly sustainable.
I think President Trump has just smacked both Israel and Iran
and said, I don't want to hear.
It's like when I get sick of my kids fighting and I show up and
the sun is like, she started and I'm like, I don't care if I have to
come up back up here one more time.
She's like, you're both in, you know, and it's like, Serbian, Serbian.
Dad is coming out, not Santa Monica dad.
So that's
Jacob Shapiro: what Trump did.
Did, um, I I did, did you see that?
Somebody asked Mark Ruddy about, about Trump's language and he literally said
sometimes daddy has to use harsh language.
Marko Papic: No.
And, and I mean, it's like, that's exactly, like, that's what Trump I
like, I I see myself in him, like with my kids and it's, uh, and
so I think this is sustainable.
I really think if Israel crosses Trump again, I think it's gonna
be very bad for the country.
So.
That's great, but the negative is Iraq and I really worry about the destabilization
of that neighboring country.
So that's it.
Like that's, that's where I'm at right now with this.
Jacob Shapiro: All right.
And, and, and turn on the TikTok camera for one thing from your, I think this is
the first time I've asked for the TikTok camera on, for all of you ardent Kurdish
nationalists listening to this podcast.
Your time is now and you might not get another chance.
So if there's going to be an independent Kurdish state.
Like the, the dynamics that Marco was talking about right now,
this is where they come from.
ISIS used, uh, you know, a vacuum of power in Iraq to do what
it did to build dec caliphate.
You can use a vacuum of power in these lands to build the
thing that you're talking about.
So stop squabbling with each other and if this is something that you
want, like now would be the moment.
And if, if there is a plan in an Israeli drawer that says the next phase of
this is not regime change in Iran, but.
Supporting the establishment of an independent Kurdish state, which is
something the Israelis have toyed with back and forth through their history.
Like, I will, I will eat my lunch.
If, if there is, if this is part of some broader strategic plan for the record,
I don't think that's gonna happen.
But like, if there was a moment for it to happen, like the, the power vacuum
that you're talking about, is it Okay, there's my, I. I think of that as,
as out there, but maybe people won't.
Um, let's turn Marco to our last 20 minutes for the NATO summit.
Um, I want to read to you what Mark Ruddy sent.
Is it Mark Ruddy Rutt?
How do you pronounce that?
Ru I think it's Ute Ru.
Marko Papic: Our Dutch, Dutch, uh, like, uh, Dutch fans tell us.
Yeah, I'm,
Jacob Shapiro: I'm, I'm trained in Arabic, not in Dutch.
Sorry guys.
So, um, I, I, I, I just wanna read what he sent to, to Donald Trump, but
Donald Trump posted this on his truth.
Uh, and I also wanna say this sounds like, uh, he went to chat GPT and
said, could you create a message for me that makes Donald Trump happy?
Mr. President, dear Donald, congratulations and thank you
for your decisive action in Iran.
That was truly extraordinary and something no one else dared to do.
It makes us all safer.
You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening.
It was not easy, but we've got them all signed on to 5%.
Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for
America and Europe and the world.
You will achieve something.
No American president in decades could get done.
Europe is going to pay in a big way as they should, and it will be your win.
Safe travels and see you at his Majesty's dinner.
We should all be so happy as, as Mark, whatever his name is, to be happy to
pay, uh, at the expense of the Americans.
There's the European side of this, which we'll get to.
I also just wanna say in the background here.
Big problems in US Japanese relations, prime Minister Ishiba
decided not to attend the summit.
Japan also very summarily canceled a two plus two meeting that
was supposed to be July 1st.
South Korea has attended the summit the last couple of years.
They decided not to.
Um, and this is amid reports that the Trump administration is
pushing for these Asian countries to spend up to 5% on uh, uh, on.
Uh, military spending as a percent of GDP as well and trying to retrofit
NATO into an anti-China alliance.
So I think there's an Asia Pacific angle to this.
There's the NATO summit to it, and then there's just the sheer comedy of all of
these European leaders understanding that kissing, you know, see being seen to kiss
the knee is gonna get you what you want.
So no more isolating Trump off on stage left.
It's like, hey, as much flattery language as we want.
Um, so take it from there, Marco.
Let's do some cooking.
Marko Papic: Well, first of all, I would say that any man would be so lucky.
That their partner looks at them and texts them the way that Mark speaks to Trump.
You know, may you live a long and fruitful life full of romance,
and that it be filled with little, cute notes of love and affection.
The way that Mark texts Donald, that was just dripping like, dear Mr. President.
Comma, Donald, you didn't read it.
You didn't read it.
You're, you're speeding.
You're rushing through this pod episode, Jacob.
I know we have limited time, but you have to No, no.
Due the cadence.
You have to say Donald.
Pause.
It was, uh, it was incredible.
And the fact that Trump shared it with everyone was so diabolically mean.
You know, it's like, it's like he's acting like.
There's some girl that's texting him and he's sharing it with buddies, you
know, it's like, Hey, look at this.
Look at what, look at what Mark said to me.
You know, like, I'm the man.
So, yeah, I think flattery is definitely working.
Um, did you see that Pakistan nomin nominated, uh, president Trump
for the noble, uh, peace prize?
Like how did Oh, yeah.
I actually, I knew what, did nobody else think of it?
Yeah.
Like, hey.
Hats off to Pakistan.
Like what a brilliant move.
Did they, they nominated him and made it publicly like we nominated President
Trump, you know, like not anyone else.
Well, and
Jacob Shapiro: I believe that, I believe they did it 48 hours before the Israel
Iran War started, or, or was it 48 hours before the US decided to bomb Iran?
Like really afraid.
I'm
Marko Papic: right.
President Trump bombed Iran.
Not a single person died in the that bombing, and now the conflict is over.
Well deserved.
I mean, I mean like truth, I mean, look, it's subjective, like, you know, but
no, some journalists will say, like, you use the term, it's been obliterated.
Okay.
Uh, that's why nobody reads media anymore.
Anyways, uh, going back to nato, uh, so your point, uh, yeah, I
mean, look, I think that, um.
It's interesting because President Trump has now said that it's
an extraordinary success, that they're gonna hit this 5% target.
Uh, just to explain to everybody, I mean, nobody spends 3% on their
defense, like really in the world.
Like nobody.
The United States of America, I think in 2024 was like 2.7% of its
GDPI, I dunno if you'll look it up, but like, oh, yeah, I'll tell you.
Look, getting to 3.5% defense spending as percent of your GDP is like.
Double what's probably rational for most of these countries, um,
their target, uh, of 5% is false.
It's not 5%.
That's just pr.
They're committing to 3.5% in defense, 1.5% on infrastructure, like broadly
conceived, where I can see, like, I think some of these countries are gonna justify,
like improvements to their healthcare system as as necessary for defense.
So.
Let's, let's just, and the other thing is that this is by 2035 a year at
which, you know, president Trump is highly unlikely to call him out on it.
The world will be different.
And so this is where I would say, you know, yes, I do expect increase
in spending in Europe, absolutely.
But they want to increase spending in Europe for other reasons too.
They wanna do it for fiscal stimulus reasons.
They want to just have their economies grow more.
So they're not spending 5% of their GDP on military because nobody is,
including the us The US isn't a 3.5%, uh, expenditure on defense.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
Uh, well first of all, uh, about the spending on military, did you, did you
see what German Chancellor, Friedrich Mers said about, um, the German army?
Um,
Marko Papic: uh, yeah.
It was very.
Yeah, he was saying like, they're going Korea.
He said, quote that he
Jacob Shapiro: wants Germany to have the strongest conventional
army in army in Europe.
End quote, because that went so well the first time.
Thank you US government for encouraging Germany to return to the notion that it
means the la the largest army in Europe.
I'm just, excuse me.
I'm so happy about this.
Jacob, I am
Marko Papic: sorry to have to correct your knowledge.
Please do.
No, I'm
Jacob Shapiro: happy to be corrected.
Yeah, please.
Marko Papic: Two times.
It went great.
Two times, not worse.
Wait, wait.
Jacob Shapiro: And I looked up, I looked up military spending as a percent of GDP.
There are five countries in the world that spend more than 7%
of their GDP on the military.
Can you guess?
Marko Papic: Okay.
Oh, this is great.
Yes.
Live.
Uh, let's see.
North Korea is one.
Jacob Shapiro: No, although I don't, maybe they're not on here
'cause we don't have data probably.
So that's probably a good guess, but we just don't have data, so.
Huh, interesting.
I don't, I don't think the North Koreans are saying to cpr, yeah, this is how
much we're we're spending on this.
That's where I'm getting this data.
Marko Papic: Do they have data on Ukraine then?
Is Ukraine one of them?
They do.
Jacob Shapiro: Okay.
So Ukraine is, Ukraine is by far and away, number one at 34.5%
is their calculation right now.
Second, I guess, what's your next four Russia.
Russia is number five, 7.1%.
Okay.
Uh, let me see.
You've got one in five off the table.
Alright.
Uh, is Sudan one of them?
No, I'll, I'll give you a hint.
The rest of our countries are in the MENA region.
Marko Papic: Oh, okay.
Jacob Shapiro: Interesting.
Marko Papic: Alright.
Jacob Shapiro: Uh, two you should get and one I would've never
gotten in a bajillion years,
Marko Papic: Iran in Israel.
Jacob Shapiro: Israel at 8.8%.
Number two, not Iran, but our Saudi friends at 7.3% at number four, and
coming in at number three, 8% Algeria.
Marko Papic: Oh, that's, that would be okay.
But that's, you know why those are salaries, benefits.
Jacob Shapiro: Okay.
But still, like it's, it's still 8% by the way.
Marko Papic: That's an important point.
Sorry, go ahead.
Jacob Shapiro: No, no, no, no, no.
You go,
Marko Papic: no one, one of the things.
The easiest way to boost defense spending is just to give people in
military higher salaries, and that's in a lot of North African countries
like Egypt or Algeria, like Algeria or
Jacob Shapiro: Fasu.
Your favorite on this list at 4.7%.
Marko Papic: Yeah, like a lot of that is just like, you know,
the, it's this sclerotic economy.
The highly, highly entrenched interest of the military elite.
So I would say that's, uh, that's not like Algeria doesn't really have a military
that is equivalent to how much they spend because they don't spend it correctly.
But, um, but yeah, the point
Jacob Shapiro: is the only other country on this list that spends more as a
percentage of GDP than the United States.
And by the way, Columbia tied with the United States in terms of how
much, you know, 3.4%, but, uh, 3.4%.
Also US been
Marko Papic: 3.4% of GDP.
Jacob Shapiro: 3.4% according to this data.
Um, the only country that is not in like North Africa or a place
like that, that's, that's high.
Up to your point is Poland at 4.2%.
Marko Papic: Yeah, that's right.
Poland does spend the most.
So look, the point of this is like 3.5% is a lot.
It's a lot.
The US is a global, you know, superpower.
It spends 3.4% of its GDP on the feds.
I'm not sure that Portugal or Italy, it makes really any
sense for them to do the same.
Jacob Shapiro: Well, and you probably saw that Spain, uh, has secured an exception
so that it doesn't have to do this.
I, I, I actually put on our, our internal research platform at at work that, you
know, is this the end of NATO here?
If you're gonna start carving out exceptions for different countries,
and if some countries are gonna say are worried about defense, so they'll say
nice things to Trump and others won't.
And already the Asian economies are like, all right, we flirted with this
for a while, but why should we do this?
And, and the bombing of Iran, I think, sort of reinforces this.
Marko Papic: But here's my argument for that.
Here's my argument for that.
So like, does it make sense for Canada to spend 3.5% of its GDP on military?
Why not get Canada to build refining processing centers for critical minerals?
So if you're trying to create the Western Alliance.
Like, maybe you should start by ensuring that it's not Chinese rare
earth minerals in your missiles.
Uh, maybe that's, yeah.
I don't know.
Like I'm just a stupid geopolitical strategist.
But if your missile is built with like 70% Chinese components, maybe
part of the military spending and security should be that.
So like, I'm not sure that it makes sense for every country to just
buy more fighter jets and tanks.
Instead, you can look at critical advantages that other countries have.
Canada, as an example, has a lot of natural resources.
It has some processing of these complicated, um, minerals in,
in certain parts of Canada.
For example, in trail British Columbia, a very interesting piece of Western
critical infrastructure, one of the largest lead processing centers that also
does some rare earth minerals as well.
So like you could, you could contribute to the western.
Effort, if you will, without just giving salaries to colonels,
you know, to meet the 3.5% line.
And I fear that that's what's gonna happen.
A lot of countries, like, you know, Belgium, what are they gonna do?
Like, Hey, should we buy more fighter jets?
Should we buy more tanks?
You know, that's all really difficult.
It's just like, double everyone's salary and we'll satisfy Donald Trump.
You know, that's, that's where I think this is a little bit too, like rote.
But, but you're,
Jacob Shapiro: you're betraying, you're betraying your globalist credentials.
You global fillic, uh, apolitical analyst.
You, the point here is not to import refined materials from Canada
and some of these other places.
First of all, Canada's supposed to be part of the United States in this metaphor.
The goal here is to make really, really good shiny military equipment
and sell it to the rest of the world to balance the trade ballots and make
these US military industrial companies.
We're gonna do the refining here in the United States too.
So.
And by the way, in, in your one big beautiful bill that you think is like, uh,
is fiscally conservative, like, you know, you know, where we're, uh, increasing
spending on the military budget so that we can sell those guns and those weapons
to all these other different countries.
Well, we, we all hope that you enjoyed the four door air show that we put on
here to show you some of this wonderful bunker busting technology that we'll
be offering to the, it's like Dwight Eisenhower is rolling in his grave.
Marko Papic: No, I mean, that's so, yes.
I mean, a, a lot of this is just, um, yeah, I, I. The media's covering this
as if it's a, a fair, complete, it's all these countries have until 2035 to do it.
I think that they will do it in many ways, but they will spend it really on defense.
Um, and so, you know, it, it's just aligns with political interest of
whoever, everyone, president Trump cannot say that he got Europeans
to do something nobody else did.
Europeans can satisfy their own domestic political logic by boosting their economy.
But I don't, you know, I don't expect every one of these countries
to spend as much as the us.
The other thing though, I would say what is significant, Jacob, is that a lot of
people went into the Trump presidency expecting him to withdraw from nato.
That he is, you know, like not committed to nato.
He now, after this Brussels summit, I mean, the words he's using, he's
now like committed to the pod.
He's saying this was his achievement.
He's put his stamp on it.
We know how President Trump's ego works.
He's now, you know, as, as far as the next three years of his presidency go and
perhaps beyond, like he's now pro nato.
And that's, I think the big picture here.
Like President Trump is not going to pull out of nato.
Um, and that's kinda a sweet spot for Europe where it both has Friedrich Merz
out there saying we need to re-arm.
And at the same time, it still has that American umbrella because
he doesn't seem to have qualified it at this summit unless I'm
Jacob Shapiro: wrong.
Well, and another, another betrayal of Trump's principles like America.
First, we're not gonna defend the Europeans, but we are gonna defend
the Europeans via, via nato, and the Europeans are gonna be strong again.
Maybe they'll rename it tto, the Trump Atlantic Treaty Organization.
That sounds sort of good.
Marko Papic: If they were smart, they would.
Jacob Shapiro: Well, and this is why I, we, we started with the media and then
we start to close in or start to land the plane on the media, which is the
way the media is covering this thing, is they're saying, oh, isn't it so gross
and odious that all of these European leaders like the, like Mark, are texting
Trump and treating him like this king.
It's the courtier and everything else.
And it's like the story you should be telling is of.
Course they're doing that because that's how you get things out of the man.
I don't think anything has fundamentally changed here.
I think the Europeans and all the South Koreans, Japan, they've all woken up
and realized that the United States is not reliable or dependable anymore.
Now they can't flip the switch and just turn on the United States immediately.
They still need things from the United States, and as much as they can get
things from the United States, they will.
And if you are.
Gonna deal with Trump, you either have to be big enough as China to punch back
and willing to absorb the pain or like get ready to kiss a lot of Trump butt
because that's the way you get to him.
You say really, really nice things to him.
You flatter him, all these other things.
So the way to cover that is these European leaders are actually getting
the things they want out of Trump.
Things that are against the things that he's campaigned on before, by saying
really, really nice things to them.
So you may feel that it's odious because you don't wanna say things to leaders
like that, but you're a journalist.
If you wanna report on what's going on here, report on how the Europeans are
playing him and report on how Japan and South Korea are basically being like, I.
Uh, we're not even sending PlayStations.
What the f You just bombed Iran.
And you want us to show up and do things because you tell us to, you
can't even decide, you know, how much you want us to spend on military
or what tariffs you want on or off.
We're, we're leaving the meetings until you can figure something out.
Like I think this is actually a big signal that like you, like multipolarity
is accelerating and us strength.
Is not what it used to be.
I think you can say that exactly about the Israelis too.
Like even Trump saying, stop the bombs, like having to scream, stop the bombs.
Like, true.
Nobody's listening to this guy.
They're just all flattering.
Marko Papic: Well, I, I think, you know, um, there's limits to every argument, you
know, and I think multiple is clearly.
Uh, otherwise Israel would not have attacked Iran, uh, without
much of a warning to the US without really involvement that would not
have happened in a unipolar world.
But at the same time, just limits to that, right?
Like the US And this is always something that I always caveat,
especially for American audience.
I. A multipolar world doesn't mean that every country is equally powerful.
That's not what it means.
It just, there just no one country with preponderance of power.
But it doesn't mean that the US is still not the most
powerful country in the world.
It is.
As President Trump said, the only country that can deliver a payload, such as it
was and Fordo from Missouri, like that's the only country in the world that can
go that distance with that payload.
And it's the only country that can tell Israel after watching it for
two weeks disobey the US effectively.
Eventually Israel runs outta rockets, you know, to defend itself.
And now us is Aha.
Now what, so, you know, the problem with these arguments, Jacob, is
sometimes people get too literal and too, like, well, what do you mean?
Like, well, it's nuanced, but in a, in a unipolar world like this
would not have happened either way.
You're, you're correct.
I mean, it's, it's, it's a push and pull, you know, and one of the things
that will deepen multipolarity, like what will deepen it, is that Germany
will have the largest conventional army.
In Europe, which will mean that it's one of the top five greatest
military powers in the world again.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
Marko Papic: And that will deepen, I dunno if you saw.
Jacob Shapiro: I dunno if you saw also, uh, president Trump, just in the last,
as we've been talking, has been just railing on the Spaniards for not, not
agreeing to spend this much money.
Um, Spanish markets also down as a result that, uh, I don't do
much trading, but I'm, I'm pretty bullish on, on Spain in general.
But, uh, yeah, I, I, I think that just reinforces what we're talking about.
Like if you don't, if you're not nice to him, if you don't do what he says,
like he's gonna do this to you, so.
Why wouldn't the Spanish government just be like, sure, we'll spend it, we'll do
whatever you want, and then not spend it.
Like that's an own goal.
May maybe they're powerful enough or they're They're fine enough,
they don't want to, but yeah,
Marko Papic: it's a total own goal.
It's a total own goal.
And the reason it's an own goal is because it's until 2035.
Why would you stick your neck out?
Everybody else fell in line, you know, not because they're afraid
of Trump, but because why would you go through the trouble of fighting?
United States of America on this, like the, the, the goalposts are so wide
on this target that you can drive a brand new aircraft carrier through it.
So like why push against it?
And so, yeah, I I would argue that, you know, um, we have that top 30
leaders, um, trade value coming up.
Pedro Sanchez may have to drop a little bit.
Jacob Shapiro: Uh, he was.
Uh, newsflash.
He was not in my top 30.
All keep mind.
Anything else, Marco, before we go?
I gotta get outta here.
Marko Papic: No, that's it.
Uh, I think the postmortem is done.
Um, just as a summary, I think this, uh, it's nonsense to discuss whether the
nuclear program is obliterated or not.
It is highly, highly, um, unlikely that, uh, Iran's going to get a
nuke in the next like 12 months.
US can mow the grass with further military strikes.
And then the thing, uh, is regime survival.
Probably here to stay.
The question is how it evolves.
That was your point.
And then finally, I would focus on Iraq.
That's where I would wanna watch for signed And Iranian
weakness is going to lead to more destabilization in the region.
And finally, um, in closing, what I would say is send your loved one a text.
And if you need help with how to structure it, read Mark
Ruiz comments to Donald Trump.
They were very sweet.
I.
Jacob Shapiro: Uh, lessons on sensuality from a political nihilist.
That's great.
Uh, rest of the world.
Please don't blow anything up.
So we can do our leadership column, uh, podcast next week.
Like give us a week here, guys.
Jesus.
All right, me too.
See you later.