Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe yoursel substack or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star And
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan Yonashow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together onkindinal philosophy, it's all because of you. And yeah,
I mean, I'll never be able to thank you enough.
So thank you. The pekan Yonashow dot com. Everything's there.
I want to welcome everyone back to the Peaking Yona Show.
Ron Dodson is back. Hey, Ron, how's it going.
Speaker 2: What's going on? Pete? It's always fun to always fun
to be on the show and have real conversations where
we can be a little more free in our discussion.
Speaker 1: If you know what I mean, Yes we can. So
it's Friday, this is the twenty seventh of February. You're
probably getting a lot of the same reports I am
that countries are pulling their diplomatic personnel out of Iran.
Apparently Mike Kaukabee told everybody, you know, last one out
to rotten egg, get the hell out of the embassy.
You know what, do you It.
Speaker 2: Wasn't so so as far as those diplomatic exit levels go,
it was one below the highest. So you have mandatory exits,
and it wasn't that it was encouraged exits. I mean,
what I'm hearing is that it's basically that that the
Israelis We're going to use pyramids their go time if
we weren't going to do something and that uh. And
we can get into the details of this, but but
I think Trump for for for various reasons, and we
can we can bemoan the state of of where things are.
But you've got to be realist about all this, the
the the Ultimately it comes down to, if the Israelis
jump in this deal by themselves, we're getting dragged in. Uh.
That's that happened last U last summer. I know, the
messaging tried to gloss over that. But but but they
went on their own and we got drug in and
and the reason is, the short version of the reason
is is they they very well, you know, they they
hold us hostage with their with their you know, their
samson play, their their nuclear, their new clear They keep
telling us, look, we're gonna if we go this alone,
we're going to use every means at our disposal. And
you and I both know, and I think most educated
folks in the foreign policy establishment, in the military analyst
world know that if Israel goes at this alone, and
they've already told us they would, that this goes, this
goes poorly for them after a certain amount with especially
without our Thad Overwatch, Thad Patriot. You know, Iron Dome
is not built to is not built to intercept hypersonics.
And look, every real ballistic missile is hypersonic in its
terminal phase. But maneuverable hypersonics, especially, they're just not They
get lucky on some low aspect shots, and we can
talk about that. I don't know how in the weeds
we need to get high aspect means. It's the high
aspect go You know, your aspect angle goes from zero
to ninety degrees. If you're at zero row, that means
you're looking at the missile head on. It's much easier
even for a for a for the type of interceptor
that iron Dome is, it's much easier to hit. A
high aspect angle goes all the way to ninety. That
means you're you're you're basically having a tracking shot on
a hypersonic target. They they can't do that. That's what
That's why our THAD system tries to hit them at apogee,
at the highest point of a ballistic arc. So anyway,
point being is as I think Trump feels very hemmed in.
I think we're probably gonna go within the next forty
eight hours. I'd be, you know, shocked if we didn't.
I pray, you know, I pray that the that the
Iranians would come to I say their senses. I understand
their position, honestly, but but I pray that the Iranians
would would somehow say, look, will we'll we'll vastly, we'll
we'll go ahead and acquiesce to to ending our nuclear program.
That's not gonna happen for a whole reasons. And I
think we're staring at it at an Iran that looks
a lot like Syria and Libya, and those were humanitarian disasters.
But Israel wants Israel wants the other players taken off
the board. And that's what I think in a big picture,
we can look at now and then we can talk
about details from there.
Speaker 1: If they go at it alone. I mean, we saw
what happened before. And also last time, it wasn't only
the United States who was tracking and looking to shoot
down these these missiles. Jordan was helping, There were there
were other there were other powers in the in the
region who were helping with this. I don't know how
much help. I don't know how much help they would
get this time from from those powers, because it's especially
after what could be said last week and the kind
of reaction that the Arab the Arab world had to it.
And I'm not I know Iranians aren't Arabs, they're Persians,
but you know, the they don't want I mean, I
think that people are really just sick of Israel at
this point, and really the only one that's going to
give any serious, any serious assistant is going to assistance
is going to be the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Huckabee really salted those waters. I honestly haven't heard
back channel wise any uh further developments from that. I'm
sure there's been talks. I'm sure, absolutely sure that the
State Department's been working over time. Uh, you know, the Saudi,
I mean, what I really hope doesn't happen. And I
don't want to be alarmist, my my, my, I really
want to be as realist as possible. But but but
remember that Saudis in the pack in the Pakistanis have
come to a certain understanding, and the Pakistanis in the
Afghans are going at it hard right now hard. You know,
you just don't want this thing to touch off a
region wide war conflict that could easily start collecting other
players the way you know a lint ball starts collecting
getting bigger the longer you leave it in a in
the dryer. You just you don't want that to happen,
and the problem is we've got some Look, I don't
want to I think Wikoff and Kushner UH have have
done their best. I think having Zionists Jewish guys trying
to be your lead negotiators is a mistake, but it
is what it is. I don't don't think those guys
are Look, it could be a whole lot worse. Uh.
From from our point of view, there's there's worse guys.
I mean, we could have Lutnik over there, and I
think that guy's showing his true colors now a little bit,
and he's been in way over his head. But that's
more on the economic side, obviously. But but I just
think you have you have a real witch's brew of
of factors and players that could get sideways really quick.
If if this you know, I'll be honest. In my
discretionary I'm a systematic guy, but in the discretionary part
of my UH, in in in my hedge fund, and
in my family office, we took all discretionary risk off
the table. Today. Now it may turn out I hope
that that was you know, you don't want to make
money on your hedges. I hope that turns out to
be the wrong trade. I really do. I hope that
we go well. I wish we would have stayed in
this over the weekend and through the next week. But but
that's that's me put my money where my that's where
my convictions are. I think this thing could get a
little sideways, huck could be really messed up. Let's see,
I don't think you're gonna have uh Jordan. You know,
will Jordan allow over flights? Because if Jordan doesn't allow overflight,
then you're it's gonna make You're gonna have to have
a tank or stop with anything coming out of our
It's not the link of the Ford that's in the
uh you know, in the Ford doesn't have F thirty five's.
Believe it or not, Our latest and greatest aircraft carrier
cannot utilize the F thirty five. It's just uh FA
eighteen's e's, f's and g's. So the g's are the growlers.
That's your suppression of enemy air defense platform. But it
can't use the F thirty fives. But but those the
the F eighteen, although it has better endurance than it's
early version, is not a None of these are high
endurance birds. So you're gonna have to tank if we
can't overfly Jordan, and that's a mess. So I don't
know how this works. You know, we'll see you can't
have a high sorty rate. This isn't desert storm where
we're just rolling, you know, sorty after sorty. We can't
support that. And we have a low magazine depth, probably
three rounds of Tomahawks, and so I don't know how
this goes. I think the plan will be to hit hard,
very hard, with a not try to have a knockout
punch and bring them to the table quick. We'll see
if that works.
Speaker 1: You think the point of the presence building up like
that was to part of that was to try to
bring them to the table and show them how serious
you are. And another part of it is to be
ready when you know, if quote unquote negotiations fail.
Speaker 2: I think the plan was always gunboat diplomacy absolutely is. Hey,
look look at this, we've got parked right off your
coast here. Uh, And I mean we've even moved in
the literal uh combat ships, not literal but litoral, it's
pronounced literal. Uh. The the shallow, the basically your mind, uh,
your mind clearing shallow water ships. We'll see if they
work this. You know, we have two classes of those.
Neither one have been a particular success, but those have
been moved in. So we're serious. Uh. But I think
Trump was always hoping as as with the negotiations last summer.
You know, I know a guy who was on that
negotiating team, and we we did not want there to
have to be any kind of complick. Just come to
the table, look what we can do. And you would
think that after last summer, you know, did we completely
knock out their nuclear preyer obviously not. Look we're back
at this deal. But it was a pretty effective strike
from the sense of you know, we barely got I
don't think we got shot out. We were able to
suppress on the way in h Are. You know, the
bombs all hit the targets, and we were able to
get egress effectively. So so from a from a from
an an ability to deploy uh uh, employ the weapons
as wet at our leisure. We showed the ability to
do that. But you know, the I told you know,
the the regime in Iran right now has no strategic tactically, yes,
but strategic incentive to go along with what we're proposing
because the only thing that we've shown that will keep
us from from ultimately attacking or a color revolutioning you
or whatever is a nuclear stockpile. And North Korea was
able to get it. You don't see us going and
doing this with North Korea. And they are probably a
that's a lesser other than their nukes, lesser capable group
than Iran. I mean, Iran is a fortress, you know, geographically,
you know, they don't have a ton of air power.
I mean, they got some old f F fourteen's. Hopefully,
hopefully we can. I would hate to see the last
few flying F fourteen's destroyed, you know, but they can't
they can't employ a lot of a lot of aircraft,
but missiles and and radar and those kind of things.
You know, the Chinese have been supplying them ever since
last summer. So we'll see.
Speaker 1: What's your take on the the Chinese releasing evidence that
they can in real time show where our planes are
everything is.
Speaker 2: I'm incredibly impressed. I'm incredibly impressed. Not with the the
technical complexity of what they did. That's what they released
is far below their capability. Trust me, you're seeing a
downscaled and I don't even know if if that was
a rental or if that was from their own platform.
I haven't looked at it that much. What I am
impressed with, though, is them having the the compunction to
go public rather than back channel with it, because what
they're saying is what they're doing is exactly what we
should be doing with regards and have tried to be
doing with regards to Taiwan, is make the as publicly
as expensive as possible. Now, the Chinese don't really care
about public costs, uh, but we do. We care about
really we're gonna put our guys in harm's way. I mean,
the Chinese see right where our boats are. We're gonna
you know, we as a mass democracy, for better or worse,
we care about that, and we care what the perception
is of Wait a minute, they know where all our
stuff is. Uh. So I'm impressed with the Chinese. I
don't like it, but I'm impressed. You know that that's
exactly if I were in their shoes. They're they're doing.
They are acting in their self interest and good for
them in in the sense of hopefully we learn a
little bit from it. You know, this is how you uh,
going straight to Twitter. I mean it's uh, it's I
love the ball Pardon me, but I love the balls
of it. It's great. Right, And they've got a ship
over there. You know, they got a ship sitting in
the Persian Gulf, the Chinese Navy. Hold on, let me,
I'll tell you exactly what ship it is, because I
just was working on a right up. Let me see.
I know this is great listening for all your folks.
But uh, but I'll tell you what. I'll send it
to you and you can put it in the show notes.
But they've got a boat over there, and that scares
me because that boat better not. Look, the last thing
we want is for us to have a get in
a ferb in a naval furball and have a Chinese
boat get shot at. I mean, we don't want that,
so you know, or I mean, I'm sure you're thinking
what I'm thinking ahead of time, somebody else shooting at
it and blaming it on us. You know, we don't
want that, So.
Speaker 1: I'll come I'll come back to scenarios like that. But
I want to ask you a question. Well, it would
seem very rhetorical to most people, but I know you're
a realist you're not somebody who's like radically anti war,
radically pro war. You will answer this question, honestly, what
threat does Iran pose to an average American?
Speaker 2: I think that Iran poses little to no threat to
the average American. The problem is is we are here's
the realist deal. We live in a democracy, and we
have elections, and we have and we have the number
one population of Jews in the world. This country has
more Jews than Israel. It has more Jews than Russia,
has more Jews than Poland. And so that is a
political reality. And I don't have a problem with it
being a political reality as long as it's held in
realist as long as it matches the overall self interest
of the country. In other words, I don't have us
having I don't mind us having a you know, a hotline,
a rational leader, not BB, but a rational leader of Israel.
We've got a lot of Jews here and they have
a special just as though if I were Italian, I
would have a special place in my heart for Italy.
I'm mostly English and Scottish, and hey, I get up
every Saturday morning and watch Arsenal. You know, I get that.
I love that flag that's behind us on the show.
I like the Saint George's cross. That means something to me.
It means nothing to me compared to my love for
my family, my town, my state. I'm a proud Texan,
my country. I mean, I I tier. I don't know
about you, but man, with some of those team wins,
and I watch both the women and the men win
the gold in real time, uh in the hockey. Man
when and I stayed with it for the flag raising ceremony,
and I teared up. You know that is that means
something to me? And does do? I think it means
that Israel possibly means more to to to America to
a certain portion, not all, but to a certain portion
of American Jews that America does. Yeah, I do so.
I think we have to get to a spot where
that that tension is dealt with realistically. But we're not
there politically. The lobby holds huge political sway and and
and this gets me to you know, a question I
asked to someone I know in the administration. I said, hey, look,
if we're going to go do this and and and
I do want to talk about some of the arm
twisting that I think is going on with this. Can
we get a little something out of it? Can we
get the lobby to back the Save Act? That if
we're going to be a democracy, can we at least
ensure that our democracy is legitimate? Because I don't think
it is. I don't think you think it is. We
have far too many people who have no business voting
in our elections that are voting. And if the lobby
got behind the Save Act, do you think we could
get that son of a gun passed? Of course, So
why don't we hey look not to be too machivilian,
because I don't want a bunch of Iranian people who
have no beef with us to die. I don't I
think they're going to sadly? Can we get something out
of that? And I don't think that's going to happen
because even admitting that the lobby exists publicly is considered
anti Semitic, even though everybody knows that it exists, and
everybody knows that the Fara is not enforced for Israeli operatives.
So that's my biggest issue. No Iran does not pose
a threat. Now what does Iran do? Iran's a bad actor.
I mean, Iran funds the African National Congress. I had
meetings last week with a group from South Africa. Great
guys English, South African, Dutch, South African that are working
to have some better arrangement I mean South Africa. If
you guys, you guys who are watching or listening, if
you have any connection whatsoever to what's going on over there.
It's a disaster. And Iran is the number one funding
source for the African National Congress, which is just a
Marxist disaster. And you know, Iran does it so that
they can get supposed eat cheap and easy brownie points
at the UN, you know. And they fun some bad
actors you know over there, do I. And it is
true that they had a training they were funding. I
can't remember, forgive me, I'm getting brain fogged if it
was Hamas or Hezbola training group on off the north
shore of Venezuela, for instance. That's one of the reasons
we went in to get Maduro is so that we
could have carte blanche to take care of that. So
they do some bad things, But are they a threat
to Are they about ready to create a missile that
can reach the United States? Absolutely not that that is zero.
Do I think that they could be if they wanted to.
Could they get a shotgun device a nuclear device pretty quickly? Yeah, probably,
but a shotgun device is very heavy, so that we
talked about this on a previous episode. But a shotgun device,
where you have a is a is you have a
just below you know, usually a cylinder of highly enriched
uranium that's below critical mass. You have a rod that
fits into that, that's blown into it, usually via some
form of you know, C five T and T so,
and you get a super critical mass really quick. That
was the first momb The bomb that we put on
Hiroshima was a very big that's why we needed a
whole B twenty nine to carry it. Was a was
a shotgun device. That's that's what everyone who's first doing
their first nuclear device. That's like the kindergarten level version.
Not hard to figure out how to do the but
but you still got to kind of test it, and
they don't have any ability to test so so, but
they could probably come up with one of those, I
don't know, six to eighteen months maybe, but you can't
stick it on top of a missile. These are massive,
heavy things. Now, an implosion device, you can those are
hard to make because it's the timing of getting all
the all the that's where you have a subcritical You
have a critical mass, but it's only supercritical once it's
compressed into a smaller area, and that requires the what's
very hard about that is is the timing of the
very powerful explosives that you encase that mass within. But
you can get those pretty small. Our W eighty eight
warhead that sits in our trident, you know, it's in
the Poseidon the Trident missiles that sits on top of
those and used to be in our land based missiles.
You know that that and that's a dual stage weapon,
so an implosion device that fuels a therm of hydrogen
fusion secondary. That whole thing is only eighteen inches around
at the base and sixty inches tall. It's four eighty
pounds some thereabouts. You can put one of those on
top of a missile real easy, but that takes years
of testing to get to and they're not anywhere near that.
So normally that's plutonium, not I don't know of a
implosion uranium device. Maybe it's theoretically possible. I know a
lot about a lot of things. I'm not a nuclear
engineer anyway. Point being, is the very long answer to
your very short question is no, the Iranians don't pose
any threat to us as things go right now. They're
paying the ass. They can do some things we don't like.
They can spend money here and there that we don't like,
but not even a whole lot of that. They're a
problem for Israel at the edges, but they're not really
a problem for us. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I would argue whether they are a problem for Israel
if Israel wasn't the problem that they are.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And you know, we only live in the world
that we've got right, So I don't know. I tend
to agree with you. They've been much more rational actors
than they have been portrayed as I think most of
their decision making has been along the lines of, yeah,
you game theory this out, that's what most people would do.
They in other words, they have always kept the threat
that They've been very clear they don't want nukes. They
haven't produced a nuke, they haven't done an underground test.
We would know about it if they did. But they
wanted that threat because that's the only thing that keeps
us at the table, you know, And look Israel would
love to turn them into Syria because that that means
they're not able. They are not a threat to what
Israel wants, which is Middle East hegemonic dominance. That's Israel's
long game. Look, Huckabee wasn't lying when he said that, Look,
I'd be He was clear. He said I'd be fine
if they took over the whole region. That's the game
Israel wants to play. And they've used us to take
all these other players off, the players that have been
a pain in the ass, but not real threats. Syria, Libya.
Now it looks like Iran. But you know, it's gonna
be a mess. It's gonna be a mess. I you know,
I hope hopefully the plan is miraculously good. I just
don't see how how they can, how we can do
anything without just turning it into a humanitarian and geopolitical disaster.
But you know, I'd love to be I would seriously
love to be wrong about that.
Speaker 1: Well. One of the things that our mutual friend Daryl
Cooper said on Twitter was that, you know, basically what
he's hearing is is that the reason that Trump that
Trump is trying to maneuver something. You know, you would
think that Trump would just go along with everything Israel
once at this point, and anyone whose eyes are open
realizes that's not happening. I mean, you're he's Israel's going
to get something. But I think what Daryl said was
is that people in power are scared that if Israel
goes this alone, you're gonna end up using a nuclear weapon, right,
and that that another power will use a nuclear weapon
against them, and they will revert to the Samson option
and just fire off all their nukes in whatever direction
they want to.
Speaker 2: That's right, and that that going as Eric Prince would
say going off script. He usually means that about extra
constitutional stuff here, but but that would be very off script.
And you no one wants. No one wants that, you know.
I think that's a very realistic I think Israel wants
us to think that's a that's a realistic chance that
they absolutely would do that, you know, And with regards
to with regards to Iran, I you know, do I
think they would do it? Probably? Maybe not, But I'm
like fifty to fifty maybe fifty one forty nine. And
you can't make you can't make these kind of geopolitical
decisions based on you have to have ninety percent certainty.
You know, if if Israel went nuke them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well I don't know it, you know, I don't
do they Does Israel, I mean there's multiple scenarios.
Speaker 2: Does Israel try for a decapitation strike. Do they want
to just turn the whole thing to glass? I mean,
you would think that after what's gone on in Gaza
that they would try to dial back the insanity. But
maybe maybe that they are so emboldened by our lack
of rhetoric against what's gone in in Gaza gone on
in Gaza, that maybe they think they can do you
know whatever.
Speaker 1: To me, they what happened, what happened in God said
there were a bunch of Hamas was hiding behind every
civilian and pregnant woman that was that was killed. They
turned it into the moon.
Speaker 2: You know, Gaza looks like the moon now.
Speaker 1: But but Hamas just hides behind civilians. That's all they do.
It's always human shields. It's not like it's not like
putting Unit eighty two hundred in the middle of tel
Aviv is using it is using tel Aviv as human shields, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, Pete, you know some of the stuff
is a bit intractable because it goes back, you know,
seventy years.
Speaker 1: And twelve hundred. I can go back twelved.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm talking about the particular I'm talking about the
particular execution of Hersel's dream. You know, it's I think
the answer to I have a lot of I don't
agree one hundred percent on everything, but I have a
lot of respect for John Merscheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, you know,
and Jeff's Jeff's a Jewish guy, so he coming at
this pretty honestly. But you know, just take it back
to the original border. Take Israel back to the original borders.
Allow create a neutral area in the West Bank that
is demilitarized, and you know, allow. I don't know nothing
that Israel is going to be happy with. And honestly,
right now, I think they are full on in this
march towards a greater Israel. I really think that. I
don't think there's any turning them away from that. And
as long as they've got us, you know, by the
short hairs, and let's talk about why that is. This
is where I really want to go with this is
why does and be and again to be realistic. Look,
I write for Claremont. I've got some friends. I've got
some really based Jewish friends that are awesome, and they
think this stuff is crazy, and you know, and and
uh so I want to make sure people know that
that I have a real problem with the current the
current expression of of of Greater Zion. I don't have
a problem with anybody having their own homeland to do
whatever they want to, you know, live, as Schmidt would say,
have their own way of life. I don't have a
problem with that. It's the fact that they're trying to
wag you know, they're the tail wagging us as the
dog helping us enforce them wiping out other peoples in
order to have that way alive. But but you know,
I'm not in a point being is I'm not coming
at this from some I'm a you know, I'm a
I'm a I'm a self admitted squish when it comes
to to to Jewish you know, Jewish folks. So I'm like,
you know, whatever, I don't have a I don't you know,
that's just not my thing. That being said, they they
do walk, they they do know they have us by
the short hairson, Why is that? Well, since. And I
think it's right around the Reagan period. You know Nixon
was he was no, you know, not a Philo semi,
but he got along very well with the with you
had this very weird transition from JFK, who was, you know,
not our guy, but on these things, he was very
circumspect about what was going on in Israel. I mean,
maybe it got him killed, right, I don't know. We've
never talked about JFK. But so I don't know where
you are and all that, but I know that I
know that the guy who wiped out Oswald was part
of the you know, the Jewish mob here and Rubinstein,
Jack Ruby was We have a very big presence of
Jewish organized crime here in Dallas. Why the mafia has
never been here, I hope I'm okay saying that out loud,
but trust me, that's always been the case here. And
the Italian the Sicilians have never been able to make
in roads into Dallas because of that, that's just not
their their territory. But but there's always been that presence
and here in Dallas, and maybe and and JFK was
pretty hardcore about Israel not getting nuclear weapons, and Israel
did not like that, did it get him killed? I
don't know, you know, I don't know. I know it
wasn't the Russians. The Russians called us and said, hey,
you got this nut down and meeting with us in
Mexico City. Who's making you know, overtures about wanting to
kill Kennedy? That ain't us. The last thing the Russians
wanted to was have the killing of a US president
on their deal, right, They did not want that. But
so you go from Kennedy to LBJ, and LBJ absolutely
kind of goes the other way. There's some stories about
smuggling weapons in with UH into Israel preparing for the
Six Day War and all that that that that LBJ
absolute and we know that LBJ helped snuff out the
story on the on the Liberty and and so LBJ
kind of goes the other way. And then you get Nixon,
and Nixon's tries to ride that bicycle on the tightrope.
He really does. He realizes that, hey, look I we've
got the Shaw who's on our side. And Nixon and
the Shaw got along swimmingly, and and he can deal
with the with the Israelis. You know, didn't want fighting
to further fighting to erupt with Egypt. Uh. And so
he tries to really ride that and and I think,
I think, I think Nixon with his uh his I know,
he cussed like a sailor, but the guy was a
faith I mean, he was a Quaker. He had this
kind of deep seated faith that he wanted to treat
people who had been persecuted gently. He really did. And
and so I think he tried to ride that, ride
that tightrope, so to speak. And then you get you know,
you get Ford who Ford was just trying to keep
the country from falling apart at that point, and Carter
was a mess. You know, he gets the he gets
the peace agreement with with Bagan and Sadat, but that
was at the cost of us giving both sides a
bajillion dollars. So, just in case you don't know, it's
Israel and Egypt are numbers one and two, and they're
not always it's Israel's not always number one and Egypt's
not always number two, but they are number one one
and number two in four and eight, okay. And so
that's how you got the Bagan Sadat Monock and began
Nmar Saddat peace deal is we're just gonna buy them off,
and that was Carter's deal, but it really didn't didn't
have anything other than that, and that was great. It's
just cost us a crap ton of money. But then
you get to Reagan and things change. It's like you
it's the The attitude in Washington became, this is our
protectorate now almost and we sold them a bunch of
F sixteen's. They used F sixteens and F fifteen's to
go take out Oh good Night, what was the name
of the reactor. But that was in seventy nineteen, seventy nine,
nineteen eighty, using US hardware, And that moment I think
solidified this because if you remember, it was a pretty
ballsy operation that the Israelis pulled out. They had the
call sign basically flew in very very tight formation and
had a civilian call sign in order to go over.
None of the other countries knew what they were doing.
This was before stealth. These were sixteens and seventeens, I
mean fifteens and sixteen, so eagles and vipers, and they
take out the the reactor and everybody's pretty impressed. And
at that point it became politically the thing to align with, Hey,
well we're because remember we're coming out of Vietnam where
we got our asses. I mean, God blessed those guys.
They were hamstrung by the rules of engagement. It was
a weird fire. We probably shouldn't have been over there
the way we were, but we got our asses kicked
all the way back to you know, all the way
back to Saigon, and the famous pictures of us flying
off the roofs, just like in Afghanistan. Okay, And we
had a ton of refugees from Vietnam come over here,
and we were trying to identify with winners. And that
changed this attitude towards Israel from okay, all right too, yeah,
we're with them. And that happened on Reagan's watch, and
it was very much followed by by George Herbert Walker Bush.
By that point, I think the Masad CIA sharing of assets.
Even though on the ground those two groups, the clandestine
Services and Masad do not get along, it's at the
political level that they that they get along. But anyway,
point being is this attitude towards how we treat Israel
and it becoming almost like how we would treat I mean,
we almost love it more than like, I mean Puerto Rico,
for instance, which is right off our shore and is
our protectorate or is it a protectorate or is it
a territory. I always get those two confused commonwealth commonwealth,
but but you don't need a passport to those that's
our land. But we treat Israel almost as it's more important, right,
or more important than Guam or American Samoa or the
US Virgin Islands, these places that are United States, right,
And that changed in this period of time. And that's
kind of where I see it changing. Was that with
that one operation and with US trying to regain you
know this this uh you well you saw it with
the with what Nixon the Nixon the Dixon testimony that
just came out was was foied out with that the
CIA finally released where or Justice Department released where he
basically said, Look, I'm not going to defend myself even
in Watergate, because in doing so, I'm going to have
to reveal all these things that will reflect so poorly
on the on the US as a whole, and on
the military specifically, and we just couldn't afford. I mean,
what a patriot Richard Nixon was he just took one
for the team at the cost of his own legacy.
Now that's being recovered, thank god. A patriot. But but
you see the attitude there in the mid seventies that
we were we were really limping along there. And uh so,
I think I think this attitude change with Israel came
about as as a result of that and with some
of the stuff they did. You know, they they kicked
ass and a couple of little operations in a couple
of wars and a couple of operations, and we wanted
to be associated with that and didn't realize what we
were biting off and doing so, I mean, you know,
uh so they had so Now with the lobby and
and and with the power politics in the in the
Middle East, you know, you've got these it would be
very easy to in theory to say, look, let's let
a Ran have a limited nuclear capability as a balance
of power there both against against Turkey, which is the
up and coming wanting to be the regional hedgemon. They
they built bases down in the Horn of Africa. Israel's
now committed to building a base down there in Somaliland,
which is the northern part of Somalia. And and that
all sounds good. But the problem is you have this
idea of non proliferation and why is that that that
to us realists that we we kind of push against that.
But here's here's the logic behind not proliferation. Is you
want to in game theory, if you have a Mexican standoff,
the more players you which is what MAD is mutually
sure destruction is it's a Mexican standoff. You want the
as as the number of trigger fingers and players increases,
the stability of the system decreases and you have to
assume all irrational actors. Now, while I think Iran has
acted with pretty good rationality, that is not the security
you know, the foreign policy establishment uh and does not
hold to that. So that's why you're gonna have non proliferation.
And there it's just so the idea of giving allowing
Iran to have you know, say, five to ten nukes
and also non proliferation MAD depends upon a second strike
capacity in order, otherwise it doesn't work right if they
can take all your bullets out with their first strike,
they can't. You're not dissuaded from doing that by their
second strike capacity, and no one's arguing to give Iran
one hundred nukes, right, So it's just not going to happen.
As much as that might work in theory, it's just
not gonna happen, not in the even our foreseeable future.
So so here's where we are. So Israel's got us
by the short hairs. And and if if if they
go it alone, if Israel goes alone against Iran and
it starts to go badly, which it would, it's ninety
million people versus eight And even though Israel is very
capable for that eight million, it's still just eight million.
You're gonna get drug into it because the political cost
is too high to not from the world, because we've
supported Israel all this time. Look, you're the guys who
made them what they are. You're you're the guys who
have Now you're gonna let him just get nuked. It's
just not going to happen, not nuked. But you know,
so we are where we are. I hate that, but
it is what it is. And I think I think
Trump is in a position where he feels very alone.
I think he feels like we know that IDF is
all through the Pentagon. I would be shocked if Masade
isn't at some level or at least a fellow traveler
somewhere in the in the in the West wing. I
don't say that as a judgment against us. I'm just
saying that's how would you know? You know? And so
he feels isolated and alone and with his backup against
the wall, and as opposed to allowing Israel to own
all the terms, He's going He's like, look, if I'm
going to get drug into this, I might as well
be I'm going to choose the time and place and
implement and how this goes. I don't want to get
a call in the middle of the night that Bebe's
sent rockets over to Iran and now I got to
figure out what I'm going to go do, which is
what happened last June. So that's kind of where I
think we are. I don't like it, but it's where
we are.
Speaker 1: Well, when you if you argue that the reason why
the United States government sided with Israel because they were,
you know, a success at the time, doesn't that doesn't
that imply that basically a dying empire where you you
you have to oh, we need to we need to
side with these people who were, I mean who all
are are actually rising because they can take our resources,
steal our nuclear material, do all this steal our money. Yeah,
yet we're a dying empire. I mean sure, yeah, it
did some ass kicking in Iraq in Iraq War one,
but everything after that turned into a clown show. I mean,
especially the initial the initial invasion of Afghanistan allowing you know,
allowing Bin Laden to escape into Pakistan. I mean that's one.
Speaker 2: Of the Yeah, absolutely so. So multiple answers. I'll let's
go let's go very meta. First. When people have feel
nostalgia for the United States, when do they feel it
for they the nineteen fifties, the nineteen eighties, and the
nineteen nineties, Right, they do not feel it for the sixties.
Well maybe some you know, old burnouts feel it for
the sixties, but you know, the sixties were sexual, rebel,
all these things that have led us down the path
we're in now culturally. And the seventies. Look, I lived
through the seventies. I was my earliest political memories were
of Watergate. It was you want to talk about you
think everybody was saying, well, it's just we're trying to
bide time until the Russians take over the world because
we are the dying empire now. So this is not
anything new, you know. And then Reagan came along and
it was like Katie bar the door because we were
going to have a seven hundred ship navy and ten
ten aircraft carriers and the you know, the you know.
And then Clinton, for the disgusting rapist that he was,
you know, he kept the party going, so to speak.
And we actually had a budget surplus under under Clinton
that was mostly thanks to contract with America. But Clinton
was a president and uh. And so people feel very
nostalgia about the about the fifties and the and the
eighties and nineties, but not about the seventies. It was
a mess. And so this isn't new and and could
you turn it around quickly? Yeah, but to take exercising
political will that I'm not seeing willing to be exercised.
And I'm not talking about going off script. I'm talking about,
you know again, Reagan made Will. Will Tanner is gonna
be up my rear about praising Reagan. Will is awesome
if you're watching, will love you, brother, And I'm not
Reagan made some really bad mistakes. I mean, the the
the the the amnesty deal was terrible, so and and
there were some other questionable things. But man, from where
we were coming from in the seventies, dying Empire, people
had were putting dirt on our faces, you know. So anyway,
point being is that you can turn this around with
the resources that we have, but you've got to get
things like the Save Act. You've got to get things
like getting you can you can you get your own
senators on board. You can't have Murkowski's just flipping you off.
You can't have fun, eh, you know, I don't know,
you know, I don't want federal takeover or federal elections.
That sounds kind of bad. I mean, it's a joke.
So I think I think that Trump is the type
of guy who's so big picture and he's great at that. Man,
I love the guy, but he's so big picture. He
wants Susie to run the day to day in the
West Wing, and Susie's not one of us. Susan Hey, look,
as much as she bugs me, she keeps the trains
running on time. She runs a very tight ship. But
she's not ideologically a right winger. She thinks we're nuts.
Everybody read the Vanity the Vanity Fair piece. So so
you're not gonna get and that's who is gonna whip Hey,
the White House is gonna come after your ass if
you don't get on board over here. And that's just
not gonna happen. With with with with Wiles running the
White House and she's chief of staff, That's who I'm
talking about. Susie Wiles. Her dad and my dad were
very best friends. Uh So I've been around Susie a
little bit and she was very cordial, very nice. This
has been years ago, back in the in the odds,
but you know, so, uh, it's just not gonna happen.
It's gonna take another it's gonna be the next regime
or a major shakeup in the cabinet. And I just
don't know. I don't know if that's if that's in
the cards. I just don't. I'd love to. I'm not
trying to be a downer. I'm not trying to be
a fatalist here. We're of one mind on where we
want this thing to go. I just I don't know
if it's gonna happen. It's kind of me being realist.
Ron and I'm not blackpilling again. I think you can
pull a rabbit out of this hat. I really do.
I don't even think the midterms are a fatal company
right now. I don't because the secondary. Everybody's looking at
the general numbers. Uh, general Democrat versus General Republican. But
general general Democrat General Democrat does not isn't running and
general Republican isn't running. Uh, You've got specific guys, and
those numbers aren't that bad. So I'm not even a
doomer on the on the midterms, but you better get
your ass and gear right now about getting this show
on the road. And I think Trump wants to get
this ran thing behind him quickly so that they can
move on and right now, it's just, uh, you know,
that's why I think something's going to happen.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense, Yeah, it makes sense, you know.
I guess you also have to have the perception of
being in charge. And when you have these judges running
around thumbing their nose at you, when you have states
that are completely basically lost. I mean, California is we
don't even know what California is anymore. Minnesota, and that's sad.
Speaker 2: I mean when you and our kids. I'm a little
bit older than you, Pete.
Speaker 1: But we wanted everybody wanted to everybody wanted to get
rich and moved.
Speaker 2: To move to California. Man, And it was the.
Speaker 1: Beach boys to be each boys existed because they wrote
songs about California, about living in California.
Speaker 2: H dude, surf music. Are you kidding me? When so
I was recruited to go play baseball at Pepperdine, I
don't know why. I wasn't that good. I mean, I
think I know why. It was for some cultural you know,
I was a leader and all this kind of stuff.
But but wasn't that good to baseball player? And but
I'd go out there. I went out there and visited.
It was heaven. It was. It was you. You have
you guys who are in your twenties and thirties. Now
even you have no idea what nineteen eighties California looks like.
Whatever you can imagine it was better. It was just
Texas was pretty. I love my state, but imagine Texas
except with perfect weather. I mean, La Joia, California? Are
you kidding me? It was just you know anyway? I mean,
sanfran was always weird, but but I was. I was contained.
It was contained.
Speaker 1: I was saying this just ten years ago. I was like,
I would I was planning. I wanted to go to
San Francisco to look at the architecture or see the historical.
Speaker 2: And everything like that.
Speaker 1: It's like, I wouldn't go near that place. Now, No,
ten years.
Speaker 2: And uh so you know, you're you're you're, oh gosh,
what was your point? We've got states?
Speaker 1: But saying he just has the judges, the judges, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so with the let me let me say one thing.
And I know everybody's been bashing the Supreme Court for
good reason. I mean, some of the logic and hypocrisy
has been been incredible and and uh uh uh incredibly bad.
That being said, letnux uh tariff plan from a structure
standpoint was terrible. We were all of us who had,
you know, paid attention to these things. We knew where
this Scotis situation was come there was. Could they have
gone the other way and made a legal argument for it, Yes,
because the logic they used to describe the tariffs as
attacks would have absolutely do the same court or the
same Chief Justice would have doomed Obamacare. So yeah, we
all know that's a joke. Okay, that being said, what
Nick's plan was terrible, it was it should have always
been Scott Bessant. And look, I got differences as far
as how I lived my life than Scott Bessant does.
But Scott Bessant is absolutely at the top of the
list for competency in that in that administration. This dude
is very, very smart, very competent. He looks at things
transactionally in his trades. That's how you want not just secretary,
but economic policy to be run. And he should have
always been in charge of it. Now that he is,
you it's it will be much much better. But how
having Leutnik it was a joke to begin with. Has
he has he been the face of some stuff in
the past, Yeah, yea, yeah, yeah, absolutely, but he should
have never been on that as the leader of that
of that tariff plan, I mean we had it was
an emergency deal. If you'd use that emergency language as
the way to phase in to a tariff plan, fine,
sixty to ninety days. Absolutely, But they were it was
just it was terrible. It was terrible and and but
but they never dotted the eyes and crossed the t's
and it was because you know, anyway, I can't say
enough bad about that, and I'm not saying that bad
about the president. I'm saying about you know. It's it
was very similar to to to wit coough and uh
and sorry, hold on, let me kill this right now.
So uh, the uh, Witcoff and Kushner are the exact
wrong people to have leading the negotiating negotiations right now.
Are they capable in some other areas, certainly, but it's
just a bad choice. That's the same thing with Lutnik.
You know, here's a guy who's capable in some other areas,
but he absolutely wasn't qualified to be doing this grand
tariff strategy. And we're seeing some of these same problems
that we had in the first uh administration, in the
first administration, first Trump administration recur. So, hold on, I
gotta I might have to jump here here in a second.
I've got a let me see three three, I gotta.
I gotta probably jump here in five or ten minutes. Sadly,
I've got a family issue that's just come up.
Speaker 1: I apologize, no problem, we can wrap up. Why don't
you just finish off talking about the judges and all this.
Speaker 2: The biggest issue that you have right now with the
judges is that you have this idea of judicial supremacy
to where the district courts have universal are given universal jurisdiction.
And that's a real problem because it means any district
court can absolutely shut down anything you were wanting to do.
So it's it's that's got to be and there's a
challenge before the court, but it hasn't been it hasn't
been brought up yet. I don't know the exact mechanics,
but that's what's holding things up, right. But the Supreme Court,
you you have to consider that you've got three guys
really with us, three guys kind of with us, but
you've gotta you've got to give them a reason to
be but but real. But but also know that that
Roberts hates Trump, so you got to get him over
that hump. And then three that are against you, okay,
And that's the makeup of the court. So you can't.
You can't depend on the Supreme Court to fix your
your sloppy structure. Okay, you just can't. You've gotta you've
got to have your tea's crossing, your eyes dotted and
there have been times where the administration has been fast
and loose, and and so that's the deal with the judges,
and and I don't and and Trump's not a lawyer.
He's always hired the best lawyer. So he's not going
to think through these things structurally. He's gonna think think
through things in terms of ought to and uh that's
how that goes.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, I know you got to get out
of here, so I will Sadly, I.
Speaker 2: Could talk about this for a while, but I do
need to deal with this family situation. I apologize.
Speaker 1: I will. I will make sure to link to all
your everywhere that people can find your work. And thank you,
thanks for thanks for making time for me today.
Speaker 2: Pete, this was great. Yeah. I just wrote a piece
at a piece in the American mind on the Save
Act and it's greater implications. And I've had some some
stuff on my sub that I'm really proud of, one
on Household AI that I would love your your listeners
to check out. It's free for now, and uh, I
would love to get their feedback. Yeah, I was. I
was really proud of that piece. So check it out
if you if you, if you desire.
Speaker 1: I'll link to it. Thank you, Ronie, appreciate it.
Speaker 2: You bet see you guys. M h m hmm.