Trump Iran Strikes Risk Broader Escalation and Global Disruption

The Diary Of A CEO

Former CIA and security experts warn that U.S. strikes on Iran risk triggering asymmetric regional warfare, accelerated nuclear proliferation, and global economic fallout.

AI-assisted summary of WW3 Threat Assessment: Trump Bombing Iran Makes WW3 More Likely! — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-03-04

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by The Diary Of A CEO on March 4, 2026, this emergency roundtable discussion features host Steven Bartlett alongside ex-CIA officer Andrew Bustamante, national security journalist Annie Jacobsen, and Iran expert Benjamin Radd. According to the page description, the panelists break down recent U.S. strikes against Iran, the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, nuclear escalation risks, AI warfare, and potential global economic fallouts.

## TL;DR The panel examines the immediate triggers and strategic miscalculations behind the U.S. military strikes on Iran and the resulting regional chaos. They analyze intelligence assessments regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities, internal regime vulnerabilities, and how personality-driven foreign policy under Donald Trump is eroding international law. The discussion explores broader geopolitical shifts toward a strongman multipolar world, risks of AI-driven nuclear escalation, mass surveillance trends, and potential long-term impacts on global stability and average citizens.

## Atmosphere & style The conversation carries an urgent, intense, and deeply analytical tone, mirroring a high-stakes intelligence briefing behind closed doors. Sharp intellectual debate emerges between Bustamante's pragmatic, cynical intelligence background and Radd's legal and humanistic perspective, anchored by Jacobsen's sobering historic warnings. The mood shifts from tactical national security analysis to profound personal reflection, culminating in a palpable sense of apprehension regarding global stability and the future of democratic principles.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=0s) Fog of War and Information Reliability: Current media reporting and official rhetoric during active international conflicts are deeply unreliable, creating a persistent fog of war where intelligence must be cross-corroborated across conflicting sources. - [01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=100s) Historical Origins of Iran-U.S. Hostility: The modern conflict roots back to the 1953 CIA-backed Operation TPAJAX that ousted Prime Minister Mosaddegh, leading to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, and decades of complete diplomatic severance. - [15:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=950s) Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy and Executive Authority: Recent decapitation strikes signal a departure from established institutional strategy documents, operating instead under sole presidential authority (Title 50 covert operations) and personality-driven motives. - [19:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1159s) Conflicting Intelligence on WMDs: Recent official ODNI Threat Assessments concluded Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons, raising comparisons between current war justifications and pre-2003 Iraq War intelligence fabrications. - [24:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1485s) Internal Weakness of the Iranian Regime: Despite severe internal unrest—including protests where the regime killed tens of thousands of its own citizens—and degraded proxy networks, military strikes risk creating unpredictable regional casualties rather than a clean outcome. - [31:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1908s) Erosion of International Norms: Targeted strikes on sitting heads of state and unilateral interventions erode international law frameworks (such as the ICJ and UN conventions), replacing them with an exercise of victor's justice. - [37:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2258s) Title 10 vs. Title 50 and Covert Operations: The blending of standard military authority with CIA covert operations involves techniques like 'sheep dipping' special operators, while U.S. intelligence remains heavily reliant on foreign partners for target acquisition. - [01:35:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5728s) Emergence of a Strongman Multipolar World: The global order is transitioning away from American unipolarity toward a multipolar system dominated by strongman diplomacy, reducing international economic interdependence and elevating conflict risks. - [01:39:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5960s) Domestic Surveillance Expansion: National security agencies utilize red-team disaster scenarios to justify expanding mass surveillance, biometric tracking, and direct governmental integration with private technology data. - [01:41:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6106s) AI Integration and Nuclear Escalation Risks: Autonomous AI models used in military defense contexts present extreme risks, with wargame simulations showing commercial AI models consistently recommending nuclear escalation under crisis conditions. - [01:54:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6869s) Iran's Regional Counter-Strategy: Iran's military strategy against strikes focuses on asymmetric missile attacks against Gulf economic hubs (such as Dubai and Qatar) to disrupt global trade and force international pressure for a ceasefire. - [01:48:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6511s) Divergent Views on Domestic Demographics and Regime Change: While some experts argue that 80% of Iran's post-1979 population desires liberty rather than the regime, others point to past U.S. failures in Iraq and Afghanistan as evidence that foreign-driven regime change rarely yields democracy.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=0s) Debate on Trust, Paranoia, and Misinformation in the Escalation

The round-table discussion opens with a tense exchange on the true motivations behind the U.S. decision to decapitate Iranian leadership and whether official statements can be trusted. Andrew Bustamante stresses that in the fog of war, current media reporting and political rhetoric are deeply unreliable, asserting that one cannot trust anything being heard or read right now. Benjamin Radd counters that dismissing all official accounts as misinformation borders on paranoia. The panel quickly clashes over Iran's nuclear capabilities, with Benjamin emphasizing that Iran does not currently possess a functional nuclear weapon and is therefore not an immediate nuclear threat, while Annie Jacobsen argues that "nuclear language" and threat perceptions differ fundamentally depending on how close a regime is to breakout capacity.

As the debate turns to timing, Andrew poses a direct question about the risks and unintended consequences of striking Iran when its regime is at its weakest point. He emphasizes that U.S. foreign policy actions never occur in a vacuum: "There is a domino effect that happens with every decision that the United States makes."

---

[01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=100s) Historical Roots: The Shah, Mossadegh, and the 1979 Revolution

Host Steven Bartlett asks the panel to break down the deep historical context necessary to understand current U.S.-Iran hostilities. Benjamin Radd shares his personal connection to the region, noting that his family fled Iran in March 1979 when he was just two years old—shortly after the Shah departed and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile. Benjamin explains the lineage of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the Shah), whose father established the Pahlavi dynasty in the 1930s before being deposed by the British and Americans during World War II over fears of Nazi influence and oil security. Installed at a young age, the Shah ruled as an authoritarian constitutional monarch who modernized health care, literacy, and social institutions using vast oil wealth, yet severely restricted civil liberties and created a growing wealth gap that alienated rural and traditional religious populations.

``` 1930s 1941-1942 1951-1953 1979 ─────────┼──────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼────────────────────────┼───────── Pahlavi Dynasty British & U.S. Depose Operation TPAJAX 1979 Revolution Established Shah's Father; Young Ousts PM Mossadegh Khomeini Takes Shah Installed Over Oil Nationalization Power; Shah Flees ```

Benjamin clarifies a common historical misconception regarding Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was appointed by the Shah in 1951 and nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. While often remembered purely as a democratically elected hero, Mosaddegh's actions triggered a British naval blockade and an economic crisis, leading to the joint Anglo-American covert action, Operation TPAJAX. Led by CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt under President Eisenhower, the operation helped orchestrate Mosaddegh's removal and re-established the Shah's authority, solidifying decades of deep U.S. involvement.

- **Key Historical Milestones:** - **1941–1942:** The Allies depose Reza Shah; his young son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi assumes the throne. - **1951–1953:** PM Mohammad Mosaddegh nationalizes Iranian oil; U.S. and UK intelligence execute Operation TPAJAX to remove him. - **1979:** A populist coalition of leftist Marxists ("the red") and religious Islamists ("the black") under Ayatollah Khomeini overthrows the Shah, ending the Pahlavi dynasty.

---

[04:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=290s) The Rise of Khomeini and the Legacy of U.S. Meddling

Ayatollah Khomeini galvanized a broad populist movement by framing the Shah as a puppet tyrant of the West and blaming the U.S. and Israel for enabling the secret police (SAVAK) and political repression. Benjamin notes that Khomeini presented himself as an austere, uncorrupt figure who could unite disparate anti-Shah factions. However, both the U.S. State Department and the CIA failed to anticipate the rise of Islamic fundamentalism during the 1970s. Fixated on the Cold War and the threat of Soviet expansion, Western intelligence viewed the primary threat in the Middle East through a Marxist lens, while the Shah restricted direct U.S. intelligence access within Iran, relying on sycophantic internal reports that claimed the population was content.

Andrew and Annie elaborate on how this era defined modern intelligence ops. Prior to 2001, the CIA operated with minimal oversight and deep pockets, attempting to control nations by controlling their figureheads. Following 9/11, Islamic extremism suddenly became a household term, though Western intelligence often struggled to distinguish between Sunni groups like Al-Qaeda and Shia militant networks backed by Tehran. Annie highlights the legal architecture governing executive power, comparing Title 10 (which regulates standard military operations under the laws of war) with Title 50 (which governs CIA covert operations). Under Title 50 classified directives, "gives the president authority under classified presidential directive to change any rule he wants that suits him for an operation at hand," allowing covert interventions outside standard military frameworks.

---

[09:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=590s) The "Black Box" Regime and U.S. Striking Motivations

Annie emphasizes that the Iranian regime's identity has remained explicitly revolutionary since 1979, with institutions like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) keeping anti-American ideology central to state identity. The embassy hostage crisis permanently severed formal diplomatic ties, transforming Iran into what intelligence officials call a "black box" and a "rogue nation"—an isolated state operating completely outside international norms alongside countries like North Korea and Belarus. Because Iran shut out Western intelligence and diplomats, U.S. military and intelligence agencies historically de-prioritized it compared to more accessible regional partners like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar.

The section concludes as Steven brings the conversation to the immediate present, asking the panel to explicitly explain why President Donald Trump determined that this exact moment was the time to launch strikes against Iranian leadership.

- **Rogue Nations Identified in Discussion:** Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Cuba, and Venezuela (historically). - **Key Regional U.S. Energy Partners:** Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar.

[15:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=950s) What Is Really Happening With Iran And Why It’s Bigger Than It Looks

Andrew Bustamante challenges the official White House line on the strike against Iran, calling it the single most critical question of the conversation. He rejects the premise that this was the "best of all times" to execute a strike, framing that narrative as public relations spun by the administration. To back up his skepticism, Bustamante cites three major strategic pillars: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, the Department of War's 2026 National Defense Strategy, and the White House’s own National Security Strategy. He points out that the sudden military action directly contradicts all three documents in terms of stated national priorities and operational action plans.

``` OFFICIAL DOCTRINE VS. EXECUTION ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ • ODNI Threat Assessment: Iran unlikely to pursue nuclear weapon │ │ • 2026 National Defense Strategy: Focus on other primary threats │ │ • National Security Strategy: Contradicts priorities/action │ └──────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ BUSTAMANTE'S ASSESSMENT: "Cheap win after a series of losses" │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

When pushed on why the administration chose to act now despite these official doctrines, Bustamante offers a cynical political interpretation rather than a grand strategic one. He argues that the strike was a calculation designed to project strength, distract from domestic political vulnerabilities, and appease international pressure from Israel. With midterms approaching and control of the House at risk, he views it as a desperate move to score a quick foreign policy victory following a series of political setbacks.

* **Doctrinal Contradictions:** The attack runs counter to three major policy documents governing U.S. defense strategy. * **Political Motivation:** Bustamante views the operation as a distraction ahead of midterm elections and an attempt to secure a quick win.

---

[18:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1104s) Decapitation Strikes and the Intel Machine

Annie Jacobsen offers a sharply contrasting perspective, viewing the action through the lens of pure presidential power and executive dominance. She describes the Trump administration as operate strictly top-down under sole presidential authority. Driven by a fascination with effectiveness and power—especially on the heels of military operations targeting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Mexican cartel leaders—Trump saw a moments of extreme vulnerability in Iran and seized it. She emphasizes that in theoretical warfare, a decapitation strike—literally "cutting off the head of the snake"—is the ultimate move, completely removing leadership that has held power since 1979.

While Jacobsen does not attempt to justify the political rationale, she highlights the sheer scale of the intelligence achievement behind the operation. Executing a successful decapitation strike against a tightly guarded regime requires flawless, real-time intelligence gathering. She marveled at how the CIA, NSA, DIA, and NGA managed to coordinate, process, and present actionable intelligence to the president in the exact window required to execute the strike.

* **Top-Down Authority:** Jacobsen framing: The current administration operates under absolute executive decision-making. * **Intelligence Feat:** The strike required precise coordination across multiple defense and intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA, NGA).

---

[19:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1159s) The Nuclear Weapons Justification vs. Intelligence Reports

The conversation shifts to the administration's main public justification: stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Bustamante dismantles this premise using public intelligence records. He notes that the March 2025 ODNI Threat Assessment explicitly concluded that Iran was unlikely to pursue nuclear weapons development or weapon-grade enrichment, assessing instead that their focus was shifting toward biological and chemical weapons research.

Furthermore, Bustamante points out that U.S. bunker-buster strikes on the Fordow enrichment facility in June had already obliterated Iran's nuclear enrichment infrastructure. With intelligence reports stating Iran wasn't developing a bomb and subsequent physical strikes destroying their facilities, he argues that reusing "WMD threats" as a casus belli echoes the intelligence fabrications used prior to the 1992 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

``` ODNI Assessment (March 2025) ──► Iran not pursuing nuclear weapons │ Fordow Strikes (June 2025) ──► Nuclear facilities obliterated │ Current Administration Claim ──► "Must strike due to WMD threat" ```

* **March 2025 ODNI Assessment:** Stated Iran was unlikely to pursue nuclear weapons development. * **June 2025 Fordow Strike:** U.S. bunker busters had already heavily damaged key enrichment infrastructure. * **Historical Parallel:** Bustamante compares the nuclear justification to the weapons of mass destruction claims used prior to the Iraq War.

---

[20:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1221s) Personality-Driven Foreign Policy and Personal Grievances

Bustamante argues that U.S. foreign policy has shifted from institutional strategy to a personality cult centered on the president. In analyzing official military documents and public statements from key figures like Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, Bustamante notes a bizarre pattern: the constant, glowing repetition of Donald Trump's name rather than standard institutional references like "the administration" or "the U.S. government." He stresses that when every subordinate is "kissing the ring" of one individual, foreign policy decisions become tied to personal ego rather than national interest.

> "When you read the Department of War's national security strategy, what you hear more than any other word is Donald Trump... It's not around a personality usually. So it's a very interesting situation because if there's so much of a person at stake here..."

Jacobsen builds on this point by highlighting a critical detail from Trump's recent speeches: his explicit mention that the Ayatollah had previously tried to have him assassinated. She describes the strike as a straightforward, personal "tit-for-tat"—a personal vendetta carried out at the highest level of statecraft, resembling "schoolboy sandbox" behavior. She observes that human emotion and revenge often drive major geopolitical moves far more than formal intelligence reports, which she points out failed to predict monumental historic events like the collapse of the Berlin Wall or 9/11.

* **Personalized Rhetoric:** Official defense strategy and speeches heavily emphasize the president's persona over institutional policy. * **Personal Vendetta:** Jacobsen points out Trump explicitly cited Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's attempt on his life as motivation.

---

[22:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1337s) A History of U.S. Intelligence Failures in Iran

Benjamin Radd provides historical depth to the discussion, tracing the conflict back to the founding of the Islamic Republic. He reminds the panel that the regime itself exists because of a monumental failure by American intelligence in 1976–1977, when intelligence agencies failed to foresee the revolution or advise President Jimmy Carter to take the necessary steps to support the Shah and neutralize the Islamist threat. Radd argues that the U.S. track record in Iran over the last 50 years has been an unmitigated disaster across both intelligence gathering and statecraft.

Radd argues that the geopolitical calculus fundamentally changed on October 7, 2023, following the Hamas attack on Israel. That attack shattered the intelligence community's assumptions about deterrence and containment. Realizing that waiting for an "imminent threat" signal means acting too late, the administration recalculates its tolerance for risk. Given Iran’s role in funding, training, and equipping proxy groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, along with its history of anti-American terrorism (such as the 1983 Marine barracks bombing and the USS Cole attack), Radd explains why the administration viewed this as a necessary, long-overdue reckoning.

* **1970s Intelligence Failure:** U.S. failure to anticipate the Iranian Revolution led to the birth of the Islamic Republic. * **Post-October 7th Shift:** The Hamas attacks forced a strategic recalculation against waiting for "imminent threats." * **Historical Anti-American Actions:** Radd cites Iran's involvement in the 1983 Marine barracks bombing, attacks across Europe and South America, and the USS Cole targeting.

---

[24:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1485s) The Window of Opportunity: A Regime at Its Lowest Point

Continuing his analysis, Benjamin Radd explains that from the administration's perspective, a rare "window of opportunity" had opened. Following a 12-day military escalation in June that severely weakened Iran and its proxies, the regime found itself in an unprecedented state of vulnerability. Domestically, the Iranian government was facing record low legitimacy, highlighted by internal protests on January 8th and 9th where the regime brutally killed upwards of 30,000 of its own citizens to maintain control.

``` ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ FACTORS WEAKENING IRANIAN REGIME │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. June 2025 Conflict ──► Proxies (Hamas/Hezbollah) degraded │ │ 2. Domestic Protests ──► ~30,000 citizens killed (Jan 8-9) │ │ 3. Loss of Soft Power ──► Regime legitimacy at all-time low │ └──────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ RADD'S LOGIC: "If there's an opportunity to address this │ │ 47-year-old conflict, this was the window to do it." │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Radd argues that with Iran's proxy network degraded and its domestic standing at an all-time low, decision-makers saw a fleeting chance to resolve a 47-year-old conflict. However, Bustamante aggressively counters this logic, pointing out that striking Iran violates international law, sets a dangerous precedent, and has already resulted in the deaths of Americans, Saudis, and Emiratis—all to destroy a regime that was already crumbling from within.

> "It's like putting down the dead dog after it's done all of its damage."

* **12-Day June Escalation:** Severely degraded Iran's regional proxy networks, including Hezbollah and Hamas. * **January 8–9 Protests:** Regime crackdowns resulted in an estimated 30,000 civilian deaths inside Iran. * **Precedent and Casualties:** Bustamante points out that the strike caused immediate American, Emirati, and Saudi casualties while breaking international norms.

---

[28:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1680s) Unintended Consequences and Global Instability

Bustamante lays out his deeper systemic concerns, warning that unilateral strikes on a sovereign head of state trigger a dangerous domino effect across the globe. By bypassing international norms and assassinating a sovereign leader, the U.S. provides cover for other rogue nations to launch unilateral attacks whenever they see fit. This erosion of global rules destabilizes international trade, weakens economic stability, and directly compromises the personal security of American citizens worldwide.

Bustamante emphasizes that rather than making Americans safer, the military action has dramatically increased the threat level facing U.S. citizens over the past four days. He notes the bitter irony of launching a massive foreign intervention while the U.S. is consumed by its own severe domestic crises—including economic instability, immigration challenges, and intense political tribalism.

* **Erosion of International Law:** Unilateral strikes invite other nations to act aggressively against sovereign states. * **Heightened Threat Level:** Americans are significantly less safe and more targeted globally following the operation. * **Domestic Crises:** The intervention occurs alongside economic, immigration, and political crises within the United States.

---

[30:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1831s) Sovereignty, Human Rights, and International Law

The panel engages in an intense debate over state sovereignty and the international community's duty to intervene during internal atrocities. Bustamante argues that internal state violence—such as the regime's brutal suppression of Iranian protesters—constitutes an "intrastate conflict" (civil war) in which external nations have no legal mandate to intervene, upholding the principle of self-determination.

Radd forcefully pushes back, drawing a direct historical line to the Nuremberg trials following World War II. He notes that the four Allied powers established international law, war crimes tribunals, and genocide conventions precisely to stop sovereign states from hiding behind domestic law while murdering their own people. Radd stresses that the Iranian protests were not a fair civil fight, as one side held military weaponry while civilians had virtually no means of self-defense, making passive international non-intervention morally unacceptable.

* **Intrastate Conflict:** Bustamante contends that internal civil disputes do not grant foreign nations a legal right to intervene. * **The Nuremberg Precedent:** Radd argues that modern international law was designed specifically to prevent regimes from slaughtering citizens under the shield of sovereignty.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of Part 3 of the transcript.

[31:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1908s) International Law, Consistency, and Victor's Justice

Benjamin Radd points out that while the U.S. pulled itself out of the International Criminal Court (ICC), independent international legal frameworks still exist, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the United Nations structure. He argues that international law explicitly dictates what nations can and cannot do to their own people, and by launching an attack on a sitting foreign head of state, the United States has directly violated international law. He emphasizes the total lack of continuity and consistency in American foreign policy: "We choose to do what we choose to do, we choose to support what we choose to support, and we choose to abandon what we choose to abandon." Radd questions how anyone can make sense of or predict the future in such an arbitrary world—how families can plan, how people can decide where to travel, or how investors can manage risk when global norms are constantly broken. Andrew Bustamante agrees with Radd's premise, stating that international law is currently unenforced and has degraded into "victor's justice," where the dominant military power simply exercises its raw will while telling the law to be damned.

- The UN framework and ICJ operate independently from the Rome Statute and ICC treaties. - Targeted strikes against foreign heads of state violate core international legal principles. - Global instability leaves citizens and investors unable to assess basic future risks.

---

[32:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1965s) Is the Attack Driven by Donald Trump's Personal Legacy?

The panel turns to Donald Trump's underlying motivations, analyzing whether this military action is driven primarily by personal legacy. Steven Bartlett suggests that because Trump is in a term-limited position where he cannot be re-elected, his incentive structure revolves around legacy, mentioning his desire for a Nobel Peace Prize and his focus on dramatic geopolitical moves, such as Venezuela and the global economy. Bustamante delivers a sharp assessment, stating he believes Trump is the first U.S. president more focused on his *personal* legacy than his political or country's legacy. Bustamante argues that Trump is primarily concerned with the "Trump fortune" and the "Trump future" rather than his historical legacy in history textbooks or on children's bookmarks as a traditional public servant. Radd agrees, characterizing the mindset as "brand over country, the Trump brand." Radd notes that Trump fancies himself a master dealmaker who boasts about ending conflicts, and ideally, Trump would have preferred a peaceful diplomatic agreement where Iran accepted strict limits on its nuclear, missile, and proxy programs—capped off by building a "Trump casino" in Tehran.

- Trump's secondary term incentives are driven by brand building rather than traditional public service. - The panel views recent aggressive actions in Venezuela, Greenland threats, and Iran through the lens of individual legacy. - Radd suggests Trump's ideal outcome was a high-stakes deal allowing commercial expansion rather than prolonged war.

---

[34:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2089s) The Crumbling World Order and the Absence of UK Consultation

Steven highlights how the United Kingdom's Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, appeared entirely out of the loop regarding the strikes, contrasting this with past decades when the U.S. and UK acted in tight coordination. Starmer's public comments after both the Iran and Venezuela actions made it clear he had no prior notice, signifying a shift where the U.S. acts as a lone force. Radd clarifies that while Starmer was not consulted on the strike itself, Trump did approach the UK government requesting permission to launch operations from British-controlled military bases, including Diego Garcia, but Starmer turned him down and stated the UK would play no part. Annie Jacobsen frames the issue around the internal division of the United States, calling domestic political polarization America's "greatest weakness." She notes the irony of critics invoking the 2003 Iraq War as a model of proper process because the U.S. built a coalition and sought Congressional approval, pointing out that Iraq was nonetheless based on faulty intelligence and produced two decades of misery.

- The UK government formally refused U.S. requests to use shared bases like Diego Garcia for the strikes. - U.S. domestic political fragmentation is characterized as its single greatest national security vulnerability. - Critics pointing to historic multilateral processes (like Iraq in 2003) overlook that those processes still yielded disastrous long-term intelligence failures.

---

[37:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2258s) Blending Legal Authorities and the Gutting of the CIA

Jacobsen contextualizes the strike as an escalation of presidential power that has grown continuously since World War II. She explains that Trump is merging two distinct legal frameworks: **Title 10** (which governs standard armed forces bound by the laws of war) and **Title 50** (which governs covert action and permits the president to deploy CIA paramilitary forces). Under Title 50, elite Tier 1 military operators are "sheep dipped"—stripped of their official unit patches and military uniforms—and repurposed as covert agents under executive command. Bustamante builds on this, expressing deep concern over the state of the CIA. He notes that the CIA was gutted during Trump's first presidency through defunding and massive employee attrition, leaving current CIA Director John Ratcliffe as one of the least referenced intelligence heads in history. Bustamante reveals that by the early 2020s, an estimated **65% of the intelligence** produced by the CIA was actually coming from foreign allies rather than independent U.S. collection capabilities.

- **Title 10 vs. Title 50:** Title 10 covers overt military operations under international laws of war; Title 50 covers covert operations and CIA paramilitary actions. - **Sheep dipping:** The practice of temporarily transferring active military special operators to the CIA, removing their military credentials to conduct covert strikes. - **CIA Attrition:** Massive structural downsizing left the CIA heavily reliant on foreign intelligence services for up to 65% of its actionable intelligence output.

---

[40:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2457s) Intelligence Sources: Israel, MI6, and Regional Allies

A lively debate erupts over who actually provided the critical targeting intelligence for the decapitation strikes in Iran. While media outlets like *The New York Times* reported that the CIA supplied the intelligence, Bustamante dismisses this claim as a PR shield, explaining that because the CIA is the Central Intelligence Agency, all intelligence gathered by other agencies or foreign governments must legally be aggregated and funneled through them to reach the President's desk. Bustamante argues that Israel possesses the most extensive human intelligence (HUMINT) and cellular tracking network inside Iran, and the U.S. could not have carried out these strikes without direct Israeli intelligence support. Radd counters that British intelligence (MI6) has historically maintained superior diplomatic, commercial, and intelligence ties in Tehran compared to the CIA, functioning as a vital pipeline. However, Bustamante insists that Israel leveraged its cellular and biometric tracking data selectively to push the U.S. into taking out Iranian leadership.

- All intelligence from regional allies must pass through the CIA before being presented in the President's Daily Briefing. - Electronic tagging of targets in the Middle East requires local service provider access, which the U.S. lacks but regional partners maintain. - Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan all shared a common strategic interest in seeing the Iranian regime dismantled.

---

[46:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2788s) Setting Dangerous Precedents for Authoritarian Regimes

Bustamante raises his ultimate concern regarding the global fallout of these unilateral strikes. Iran was historically categorized at the low end of top American strategic priorities, sitting below main adversaries like Russia, China, and Mexican drug cartels. By jumping to extreme military measures and assassinating a foreign leader in Iran—much like recent aggressive interventions in Venezuela—the United States has effectively destroyed long-standing international norms. Bustamante warns that this grants unspoken permission to hostile nations to act similarly. Specifically, he fears that Russia could now feel justified in directly assassinating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, or that China could feel emboldened to targetedly assassinate political leadership in Taiwan without fear of global moral backlash.

- Iran ranked below Russia, China, and cartel threats on the official U.S. intelligence priority list. - Unilateral strikes against national heads of state remove long-standing geopolitical "red lines." - The panel warns that these actions set a dangerous precedent for Russia (against Zelenskyy in Ukraine) and China (in Taiwan).

[47:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2866s) The Ideology of "Death to America" vs. Global Targeted Assassinations

The discussion opens with Benjamin Radd addressing the fundamental distinction between Iran and other global conflicts. While border disputes rage across Asia or warlords operate in Africa, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's entire ideology and government system was explicitly built on "Death to America." Unlike leaders like Taiwan's president or Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky—who may want Vladimir Putin dead but do not seek the destruction of the Russian Republic itself—the Iranian regime's core identity was predicated on the total demise of the United States.

Steven Bartlett questions the shift in international norms, observing how the rules of war seem to have fundamentally changed. Growing up, he understood that direct targeted assassinations of heads of state were off-limits during geopolitical disagreements. However, recent events—such as snatching Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro out of bed with his wife or dropping bombs directly on the Supreme Leader—signal a dark "free reign" era of targeted strikes. Annie Jacobsen highlights that U.S. leadership and European allies are framing this transformation as a new reality, citing French President Emmanuel Macron's statement that "to be free, you must be feared."

Annie Jacobsen pushes back fiercely against using Iran's "Death to America" rhetoric as a justification for preemptive strikes. She dismisses the idea that the U.S. should fear a "poor, broke-ass, piddly-dink country" chanting slogans, comparing the regime to a unruly teenager throwing a temper tantrum. She points out that the U.S. military's immense power easily thwarts the vast majority of threats, arguing that a regime established in 1979 is less than a century old and lacks a true understanding of statecraft compared to older nations.

* Volodymyr Zelensky wants Putin gone, but does not seek the annihilation of the Russian nation. * Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured directly from his residence in a military raid. * French President Emmanuel Macron stated: "To be free, you must be feared." * According to Jacobsen, for every successful attack on U.S. assets like the *USS Cole*, 25 potential attacks are thwarted by American intelligence and defense.

---

[51:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3105s) Israel’s Role, International Law, and the Line Between Civilian and Combatant

The panel debates the exact legal and operational mechanics behind the strike that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and top Iranian military leaders. While initial public credit was associated with the United States, Benjamin Radd and Annie Jacobsen clarify that Israel pulled the trigger and launched the missiles, while the U.S. provided critical intelligence, targeting, and logistical backing. The discussion turns to whether Israel had the legal right to execute a foreign head of state. Iranian leadership was the only government that explicitly endorsed the October 7th Hamas attacks, and Khamenei directed Hezbollah to join the conflict on October 8th.

This raises the central legal question: Does authorizing, funding, and directing proxy forces make a political or religious head of state a legitimate military combatant? Andrew Bustamante notes that under strict military definitions, the commander-in-chief of an armed force is technically a military target. However, Jacobsen highlights the vast gray area of collateral damage and state-sponsored assassinations. Israel has a long history of targeted assassinations targeting nuclear scientists, engineers, and heads of industry—individuals who are technically civilians or non-combatants under international law.

Benjamin Radd notes that in the Middle East, the line between a civilian professional and a state actor is heavily blurred, particularly within state-funded military research programs. Jacobsen counters that coercing scientists to work on weapons programs does not strip them of civilian status under international law, warning that blurring these lines sets a dangerous global precedent for every nation's defense workforce.

* Iran was the only nation-state to officially celebrate the October 7th attacks against Israel. * On October 8, 2023, Khamenei explicitly instructed Hezbollah to open a northern front against Israel. * Under international law, non-combatants include scientific researchers, industry heads, and military generals not actively participating in a hot conflict.

---

[54:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3261s) The "2026 Hit List" Meme and Regimes on the Brink

Annie Jacobsen introduces a compelling narrative shift by highlighting a viral social media meme that began circulating immediately after Khamenei's death. The image depicted a 2026 calendar checklist: January featured captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, February displayed a targeted Mexican cartel leader, and March showed the Supreme Leader of Iran, followed by empty question marks for the remaining months of the year. Jacobsen speculates on the deliberate strategic messaging behind such events, wondering if it serves as a psychological warning to other rogue regimes.

While some might interpret the move as a signal to Russia, the panel agrees that Vladimir Putin operates on an entirely different nuclear scale. Instead, the immediate pressure falls upon Cuba and North Korea—the remaining nations on the official U.S. list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

Steven Bartlett seeks clarification on why the U.S. remains fixated on Cuba. Jacobsen explains that Cuba sits a mere 90 miles off the Florida coast and remains one of the few nations in the Western Hemisphere completely outside the American sphere of influence. Recalling the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, she underscores Cuba's historical role as a base for adversary nuclear deployments. Furthermore, Donald Trump's public comments hinting at a potential "friendly takeover" of the financially devastated island signal that Cuba could be the next target for dramatic geopolitical intervention.

* The viral 2026 timeline meme tracked major U.S. strategic actions: Maduro in January, a Mexican cartel boss in February, and Khamenei in March. * Cuba is located just 90 miles off the coast of Florida, making it a critical national security priority. * President Trump recently stated that the U.S. was in talks with the financially crippled Cuban government regarding a potential "friendly takeover."

---

[58:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3515s) Nuclear Deterrence: The Racket Phase of the Iranian Regime

The conversation turns to the ultimate geopolitical question: Does acquiring a nuclear weapon guarantee a regime's survival? The consensus among the experts is an overwhelming yes. North Korea serves as the primary historical lesson—after deceiving the Clinton administration about its nuclear ambitions in the 1990s, Pyongyang successfully developed nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles. As a result, the U.S. can no longer attempt regime change in North Korea without risking a catastrophic nuclear strike on American soil. This reality made preventing Iran from reaching a similar threshold a non-negotiable priority for Western intelligence.

Benjamin Radd addresses the religious undertones of the Iranian regime, specifically the Shiite apocalyptic concept of the Mahdi's return. While Western strategists fear an ideological regime willing to invite nuclear martyrdom, Radd clarifies that Iran's leadership was pragmatic rather than suicidal. Citing social philosopher Eric Hoffer, Radd outlines the lifecycle of revolutionary movements: "Great causes start as movements, then they become businesses, then they become rackets."

Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution began as an ideological movement under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Over decades, it transformed into a massive business controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and ultimately devolved into a mafia-style racket. With the original ideological "founding fathers" now dead, the regime is run purely by racketeers interested in power and wealth preservation rather than suicidal martyrdom. However, with Iran having already enriched uranium to 60% purity, the path forward remains highly unpredictable.

* North Korea successfully acquired nuclear weapons after negotiations failed during the Clinton administration. * Iran had enriched uranium up to 60% purity, dangerously close to weapons-grade levels (90%). * Benjamin Radd invokes Eric Hoffer's framework on revolutions: starting as *movements*, turning into *businesses*, and devolving into *rackets*.

---

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of Part 5 of the transcript.

[01:02:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3753s) North Korea, Nuclear Capability, and Hegseth’s "Burden Sharing" Doctrine

The discussion opens with an analysis of nuclear capability versus actual deployment systems. Enriched material (such as 60% enrichment) allows for options like dirty bombs or nuclear waste damage, but sustainable military-grade nuclear capability requires much higher enrichment levels. Countries like North Korea possess high enrichment, yet their ability to reliably mount a warhead onto a rocket and hit a target without exploding on the launchpad remains distinct from raw enrichment. Because of this, the panel notes that if the United States wished to demonstrate its military power against a nuclear-capable state, North Korea represents a primary focal point.

Andrew Bustamante highlights a fundamental shift in U.S. military strategy under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, calling it a doctrine of "burden sharing." Under this approach, the U.S. Department of War intentionally forces the security and economic burden of a national interest onto American allies. For instance, the U.S. might send a small naval force to bomb Iran, fully aware that Iran will retaliate by spreading destruction across neighboring Middle Eastern allies. In the eyes of the Pentagon, this forces allies to pay their share to maintain the alliance. A similar dynamic applies to European nations countering Russia in Ukraine. This doctrine gives the U.S. carte blanche to deploy limited forces, stir up a hornet's nest, and leave regional partners to pay the long-term price.

- **Nuclear spectrum:** Low/medium enrichment allows for dirty bombs or localized radiological damage, whereas full nuclear deterrence requires high-grade enrichment combined with reliable, precision delivery systems. - **Burden sharing doctrine:** The U.S. strategy under Pete Hegseth involves minimal U.S. force presence while forcing regional allies to absorb the kinetic and economic backlash of military engagements.

---

[01:04:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3860s) Gulf Reaction, Regional Food Dependence, and France's Nuclear Posture

Benjamin Radd notes that six Middle Eastern countries attacked by Iran over the preceding 48 hours have issued some of their strongest statements to date, shattering any remaining pretense of a diplomatic rapprochement with Tehran. However, Radd emphasizes that none of these Gulf states have launched offensive actions against Iran—only the U.S. and Israel have done so. Bustamante points out a unique structural power dynamic in the region: Iran’s ultimate leverage over neighboring oil-producing nations is agricultural. While Gulf countries collude on oil, many cannot produce their own food and rely heavily on Iranian agricultural exports. This creates a complex relationship where states disagree politically, religiously, and militarily, yet remain bound by basic survival needs. Bustamante compares this to the U.S. maintaining strict sanctions against Russia while carving out an exception for space exploration to preserve access to space programs.

The debate turns sharp when Bustamante claims that recent U.S. actions have 100% increased the risk of nuclear war, citing headlines that France is deploying air-launched nuclear warheads across Europe. Annie Jacobsen vigorously pushes back, arguing that France's strategic movements have "nothing to do with Iran" and everything to do with the war in Ukraine and Russian aggression. Jacobsen stresses that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon, whereas Vladimir Putin is an actual superpower leader who actively threatens nuclear use, tests NATO boundaries (such as submarine maneuvers off Norway), and tests uninterceptable intercontinental ballistic missiles like the Oreshnik.

``` +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | PERSPECTIVES ON NUCLEAR ESCALATION | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andrew Bustamante: Proliferation of air-launched nuclear warheads in Europe | | and total regional destabilization directly elevate overall global nuclear | | war risks. | | | | Annie Jacobsen: Tactical warhead movements are routine posturing. The true | | nuclear threat resides strictly in Russia's ICBM capabilities and the | | unpredictability of superpower leaders, not Iran. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ```

- **Middle East food dependency:** Despite intense geopolitical friction, several Gulf nations depend on Iranian agricultural production due to their own lack of arable land. - **Russian space carve-out:** U.S. sanctions against Russia contain explicit exceptions for space cooperation to ensure continued access to orbital infrastructure. - **Oreshnik missile:** Mentioned by Jacobsen as an example of advanced Russian ballistic missile technology that cannot be intercepted by conventional missile defense systems.

---

[01:08:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4104s) Superpower Dynamics, China's Strategy, and Cost-Asymmetric Drone Warfare

Annie Jacobsen argues that President Trump’s unpredictable, strong-arm approach creates a peer-to-peer match for an authoritarian like Vladimir Putin rather than an easily exploited dynamic, though she clarifies that "it's not diplomacy, it's just strong-arming one another." Benjamin Radd expands the threat model to include China, which is carefully monitoring U.S. ammunition depletion in the Middle East while stockpiling its own resources. If the U.S. exhausts its interceptors against Iranian missiles, China could gain a massive strategic advantage if it chooses to take aggressive action in the South China Sea.

This conflict represents a massive windfall for the defense-industrial complex due to severe cost asymmetry. Radd cites a recent statistic showing an interceptor-to-missile ratio of roughly 25 to 1, with Gulf allies and Israel firing interceptors costing upwards of 10 to 15 times more than the incoming threat. Iran can fire cheap, expendable Shahed kamikaze drones and ballistic missiles en masse, forcing its adversaries to spend millions to shoot down low-cost munitions. Jacobsen notes that the U.S. has begun copying this model, deploying its own low-cost, mass-produced systems known as the "LUCAS" to cause chaos without relying on exquisite, high-cost precision weaponry.

- **Cost asymmetry:** Iranian Shahed drones cost a fraction of the defensive interceptors fired by Israel, the UAE, and Kuwait to destroy them. - **LUCAS drone system:** The U.S. military's cheaper, mass-producible drone counterpart inspired by the operational success of low-cost loitering munitions. - **China's observation:** U.S. stockpile depletion in Middle Eastern air defense creates potential vulnerabilities that China could exploit in the Indo-Pacific.

---

[01:11:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4272s) Military Manpower, Iran's Armed Forces, and B-2 Strikes on "Missile Cities"

Host Steven Bartlett brings out visual demonstration jars displaying the relative number of active military personnel for each country. Radd clarifies a crucial structural distinction in Iran's military: the national army (*Artesh*) versus the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The national army reports through the presidency and exists solely to defend state borders. The IRGC, by contrast, is an ideological military force sitting outside traditional governance structures, accountable exclusively to the Supreme Leader, and tasked with protecting the 1979 Islamic Revolution, running foreign proxies, and projecting power abroad.

Despite losing approximately half of its missile launchers, stockpiles, and air defense batteries during previous engagements, Iran maintains the largest stockpile of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and kamikaze drones in the Middle East. Analysts estimate that at their current rate of fire, Iran would completely exhaust its remaining heavy missile stockpiles within two to three weeks. To cripple this capability, the U.S. deployed stealth B-2 Spirit bombers flying directly from the continental United States to strike Iran's deeply buried underground "missile cities." Because rogue states utilize road-mobile launchers or deeply buried underground bunkers to evade detection, heavy stealth bombers equipped with specialized bunker-busting ordnance are among the only assets capable of destroying these hardened installations.

- **IRGC vs. Artesh:** The *Artesh* guards physical territory, whereas the IRGC operates as an ideological army focused on regime survival and regional proxy networks. - **Depletion timeline:** Military estimates suggest Iran's high-volume missile launches would fully deplete its remaining heavy stockpiles within 14 to 21 days. - **B-2 stealth operations:** Long-range U.S. B-2 bomber strikes targeted underground "missile cities" that are otherwise impervious to standard airstrikes.

---

[01:14:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4449s) The Strategic Pitfalls of Miscalculating a War of Attrition

Andrew Bustamante argues that attacking Iran represents a fundamental strategic error because time favors Tehran, not Washington. Iran retains total control over when, where, and how to react. Drawing on historical intelligence training, Bustamante explains that covert operators think through a lens of "maximum damage"—a mindset Iran is currently employing. He compares the situation to Afghanistan: the U.S. killed Osama bin Laden in 2011 but remained bogged down in a war for another 11 years until withdrawing in 2022. Striking figureheads like Ayatollah Khamenei does not guarantee an immediate end to conflict; it risks leaving a vacuum that Russia and China can exploit or empowering decentralized cells that could launch retaliatory strikes months later.

Benjamin Radd points out that Iran's ultimate strategy for survival is a war of attrition—a low-level, grinding conflict designed to inflict "death by a thousand cuts." By avoiding open, theatrical battles and relying on persistent destabilization, decentralized remnants of the Iranian regime and its regional proxies can wear down Western forces over time, mirroring the long-term attrition strategies used historically by adversary states.

> "When you look at how military and intelligence operators are trained to think, we are trained to think through a lens of maximum damage. Iran is thinking through the same window right now."

- **Afghanistan parallel:** The U.S. targeted Al-Qaeda's leader in 2011 yet remained entangled in Afghanistan for an additional decade, demonstrating the limits of decapitation strikes. - **War of attrition strategy:** Iran's long-term defense relies on low-level, distributed warfare to drain Western military resources and political willpower over months or years.

---

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of the transcript section.

---

[01:16:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4619s) Hezbollah Sleeper Cells, Public Opinion, and the Lessons of History

Annie Jacobsen opens by reflecting on how the global situation will unfold, noting that Hezbollah’s covert cells operating worldwide will serve as an indicator. She cites a former National Security Council member who pointed out that these cells could either be activated inside the United States or simply fade away into obscurity. Acknowledging that she lacks a crystal ball, Jacobsen emphasizes that the entire outcome hangs on the razor's edge of public opinion, as time will tell whether the Iranian regime ultimately falls. When Steven Bartlett asks if humanity has been in this exact position before, Jacobsen responds bluntly: "Too many times." She quips that the single greatest lesson from history is simply that "we are shitty learners of history."

Andrew Bustamante builds on this historical skepticism by referencing philosopher Eric Hoffer's insight that mass movements do not necessarily require a god, but they absolutely require a devil. Therefore, the specific identity of Iran's leadership matters far less than maintaining an external enemy. So long as the United States or the Western world is cast as the adversary, that narrative alone is sufficient to sustain a prolonged war of attrition, even in the absence of a charismatic figurehead. The panel notes that while Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was a religious figure, he effectively functioned as a high-level racketeer running a corrupt system—a reality recognized by most of the Iranian population.

---

[01:18:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4711s) The 20% Baseline: Will Iranian Public Opinion Rally Around the Flag?

The debate turns to the internal dynamics of Iran, where roughly 20% of the country's 90 million people are staunch, ideological supporters of the regime—evidenced by thousands gathering in public squares like Toronto to mourn Khamenei’s death. Host Steven Bartlett suggests this 20% baseline could expand if the coming months bring increased economic misery, poverty, and war casualties, as narratives quickly shift when loved ones die. He recalls that prior to striking Iran, experts repeatedly warned of a "rally around the flag" effect that would convert secularists into regime supporters and set back the cause of democracy.

Benjamin Radd strongly rejects this warning, arguing that the predicted backlash failed to materialize. Instead of rallying around the government, the Iranian people blamed the regime itself for bringing misery upon them. Radd contends that the 20% support base will shrink even further because Iranians realize their salvation lies in liberty rather than at the "end of a turban or a robe." He emphasizes that 80% of the Iranian population was born after the 1979 revolution; they have never known the old regime, despise living under the current one, and desperately want any alternative.

Bustamante pushes back, calling Radd’s assessment "overly idealistic." He points to past American interventions, highlighting how the U.S. failed to convert Iraq after removing Saddam Hussein and failed to transform Afghanistan after ousting the Taliban. Radd counters that Iran is fundamentally different because no foreign nation-building or constitutional drafting is being attempted. When Bustamante skeptically asks how a population that has been "slaves for basically the last 40, 50 years" without proper organization will rebuild, Radd defends the Iranian populace as one of the most highly educated and Western-thinking in the world, needing only to be freed from facing the barrel of a gun. Bustamante remains doubtful, questioning whether this intellectual minority will stay to rebuild or simply take their talents and flee an economically bankrupt country.

- **Demographics:** An estimated 80% of Iran's 90 million citizens were born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. - **Support Base:** Approximately 20% of the population consists of core ideological regime loyalists. - **Historical Analogies:** The panel debates the outcomes of top-down regime changes in Iraq (Saddam Hussein) and Afghanistan (the Taliban) versus potential bottom-up change in Iran.

---

[01:21:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4886s) The Fog of War: Epistemology, Information Warfare, and Social Media Bots

The conversation devolves into a sharp debate over who can be trusted during a crisis. When Radd mentions that family members on the ground in Iran and the diaspora are eager to rebuild, Bustamante cautions that trusting personal contacts is dangerous because emotionally involved individuals are the least objective sources available. Bustamante argues that in a tumultuous information landscape where "everything is a black box," one cannot trust anything being read or reported. Jacobsen calls Bustamante's stance outright "paranoia," asserting that intelligent observers must use their faculties to discern truth from disinformation while remaining willing to stand corrected. She values ground-level accounts from family members precisely because their feelings are genuinely "heartfelt and not propaganda."

Bustamante rejects the focus on "heartfelt" feelings, stating that personal emotions are not objective data—even if rebellions are historically born from them. Drawing on his nearly ten years as an undercover CIA covert intelligence officer, Bustamante explains his analytical method: he gathers information from polar-opposite, hostile sources and looks exclusively for points of direct overlap and correlation. For example, when both anti-American Iranian state media and pro-U.S. Western forces confirm the death of specific leaders, that fact becomes corroborated. He warns that the current media environment is dominated by "circular reporting," where a single unverified source gets echoed repeatedly across news outlets—a problem exacerbated by the White House excluding legacy journalistic media.

Steven Bartlett validates Bustamante's concerns by sharing a striking personal experience. Having spent 15 years building social media audiences, Bartlett reveals that after posting about the Iranian conflict, his direct messages were flooded by thousands of coordinated accounts encouraging him to push a specific narrative. Using analytical tools his team had previously built to detect inorganic activity, he confirmed these were fake bot accounts. He describes it as an unsettling foreign influence or cyber operation specifically designed to weaponize high-profile platforms to manipulate public perception.

Jacobsen and Bustamante emphasize that algorithms create hyper-effective echo chambers by feeding users content that aligns with their existing biases. Because technology amplifies these feedback loops, Bustamante adheres to a strict rule: if conflicting sources cannot confirm a claim, one cannot draw a definitive conclusion, only maintain a flexible "living assessment."

- **Intelligence Methodology:** Bustamante relies on cross-corroboration between opposing adversarial sources (e.g., Iranian state media vs. Western intelligence) to filter out propaganda. - **Information Hazards:** The discussion highlights "circular reporting" (a single source repeated endlessly) and targeted bot operations in social media DMs aimed at manipulating influencers with large reach.

---

[01:29:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5370s) Strategic Timing and the Sacrifice of Intelligence Gathering

Radd challenges Bustamante's strictly passive approach, asking how foreign policy decision-makers, national security advisors, or the President can function if they refuse to act without total certainty. Officials cannot simply declare a lack of evidence and do nothing; they are required to give advice and make decisions. Bustamante responds that when information is incomplete, a leader's most vital tool is **time**—using time strategically to gather more intelligence, conduct surveillance, and verify facts before taking irreversible action.

By launching immediate military strikes on Iran, Bustamante argues, the United States squandered its time tool, potentially rushing the operation merely to fit an arbitrary political calendar (January, February, March). He openly questions what tangible, strategic benefits the United States actually gained from bombing Iran. Bartlett intervenes with a hypothetical scenario: if within four months—prior to the U.S. midterm elections—a completely new leadership takes power in Iran and achieves full regime change, would Bustamante alter his tune and acknowledge that the strike was a success?

- **Strategic Trade-offs:** Bustamante asserts that striking prematurely trades away the valuable asset of "time"—which is necessary for deep intelligence collection—in favor of meeting short-term political deadlines. - **Benchmark of Success:** Bartlett sets the analytical benchmark for the U.S. intervention as full regime change and new leadership established in Iran prior to the upcoming midterm elections.

[01:30:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5435s) What the U.S. Thinks It Gains from Bombing Iran

The panel engages in a heated debate over the true military and strategic objectives behind the U.S. strikes in Iran. Andrew Bustamante questions what the United States realistically expects to gain by decapitating Iranian leadership, pointing out that initial policy assessments can quickly curdle into years of civilian suffering, drought, and economic devastation. Benjamin Radd counters that based on public statements from the administration, the explicit goals were ending Iran's nuclear program and forcing regime change. Bustamante quickly pushes back, noting the administration previously claimed Iran's nuclear infrastructure was "obliterated" months prior, prompting him to ask why everyone is suddenly adopting a brand-new narrative.

Radd and Annie Jacobsen argue that dismissing reports of Iranian nuclear escalation is naive. They point to satellite imagery showing active reconstruction and truck movements at facilities like Esfahan and Natanz, as well as Iran's dangerous enrichment of uranium past 20% up to 60% purity—a technical hairbreadth away from weapons-grade 90%. Jacobsen compares the situation to North Korea, recounting an interview with former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who received personal assurances from North Korean leadership that they would never develop nuclear weapons, only for them to build a thermonuclear arsenal anyway. Bustamante clarifies that he does not doubt Iran's desire or incentive to build a bomb, but rather highlights a glaring failure in narrative control when official Intelligence Community assessments (such as ODNI reports under Tulsi Gabbard) conflict with the administration's public justifications.

- **1979 Revolution Timeline:** Radd notes the original Iranian Revolution took two full years to unfold (late 1977 to 1979), followed by a Robespierre-style "Thermidorian" reign of terror in the early 1980s, taking 4–5 years for the political dust to settle. - **Uranium Enrichment Escalation:** Transcript timeline references show Iran began 60% uranium enrichment by 2021, placing them theoretically weeks away from bomb-making capability between 2023 and 2025. - **Quotes:** - *"Why are you disregarding previous narratives to adopt the current narrative?"* — Andrew Bustamante - *"I interviewed Bill Perry, the Secretary of Defense, who went there and got the guarantee and the promise from the dear leader... Fingers crossed behind the back, thermonuclear weapon, and look where we are now."* — Annie Jacobsen

---

[01:35:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5728s) The Shift to a Strongman, Multipolar World

Bustamante argues that the underlying driver of the strike is an administration struggling with governance and attempting to manufacture a high-profile win amidst economic failures and crumbling global alliances. He asserts that the world is actively transitioning away from a unipolar American order into a "strongman multipolar world." In this emergent order, authoritarian figures like Vladimir Putin operate via strongman diplomacy—exchanging iron-fisted control for security. Radd adds that this lack of international cooperation and mutual reliance dramatically increases the likelihood of direct interstate wars, as standard channels of communication collapse.

Turning the focus inward, Jacobsen delivers a sobering assessment of how this dynamic impacts the American homeland. She warns that national security leaders routinely "red team" disaster scenarios—such as Hezbollah sleeper cells detonating a dirty bomb on U.S. soil—and view potential blowback not as a failure, but as a golden opportunity. Such crises provide the ultimate justification for expanding domestic surveillance networks, deploying biometric tracking platforms, and utilizing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems directly against American citizens.

- **Interstate Conflict Risks:** Reduced economic interdependence between major powers removes key diplomatic levers, making military force the primary tool for conflict resolution. - **Security vs. Liberty:** Jacobsen notes that homeland security expansion sets up a false dichotomy where citizens are forced to choose between personal liberty and physical security. - **Quotes:** - *"We are seeing a transition to a strongman multipolar world. When we've only ever lived in a unipolar world."* — Andrew Bustamante - *"Red teaming a bad outcome is not necessarily a bad outcome... we could counter that with legitimate reasons for more surveillance systems."* — Annie Jacobsen

---

[01:39:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5960s) Prioritizing Lives, Historical Precedents, and Mass Surveillance

The discussion turns deeply personal as the panelists debate the moral weight of human casualties and global stability. Bustamante expresses intense frustration that the U.S. chose to intervene in Iran's internal struggle, expanding a localized crisis into an active regional danger that destabilized global markets and put dozens of nations at immediate risk. When discussing casualties, Bustamante candidly states his operational stance: as an American citizen, protecting American lives must always remain the top priority over foreign populations. Radd points out that focusing solely on high-level military figures ignores the broader humanitarian toll across Middle Eastern cities, comparing it to the ongoing loss of civilian life in Gaza.

The speakers connect these foreign policy choices to internal U.S. security developments, highlighting how crises are historically leveraged to build permanent state infrastructure. Jacobsen reminds the panel that massive federal bodies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not exist prior to September 11, 2001, but were born entirely as a byproduct of a foreign attack. Bustamante agrees that domestic mass surveillance is already an undeniable reality, predicting that upcoming national security crises will simply be used to legalize, expand, and institutionalize data collection.

- **9/11 Structural Legacy:** The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created purely as a structural response to the 2001 attacks, permanently altering domestic law enforcement. - **Current Data Access:** Bustamante notes that while the U.S. government currently has to buy consumer data from tech companies like Apple, future expansion will seek direct, unchecked access. - **Recent Domestic Incidents:** Reference made to a shooting in Austin, Texas, highlighting the argument over domestic resource allocation versus foreign military campaigns. - **Quotes:** - *"You're never going to hear me say that I really care that much about an Iranian life compared to an American life. That's just not how I roll."* — Andrew Bustamante - *"Surveillance in the United States is 100% a guaranteed future. Mass surveillance has already happened. It will just get exacerbated, expanded, and legalized."* — Andrew Bustamante

---

[01:41:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6106s) AI, Defense Contracts, and Autonomous Escalation Risks

Steven Bartlett brings up recent corporate-military conflicts surrounding artificial intelligence, introducing the high-profile standoff between the Pentagon and AI lab Anthropic. In July 2025, Anthropic inked a $200 million deal to build specialized AI tools for U.S. national security. However, by February 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded unrestricted military access to Anthropic's models. Anthropic adamantly refused, citing policy prohibitions against mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weaponry—a dispute ignited after the military utilized Anthropic's "Claude" model during a January operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Hegseth threatened to declare Anthropic a "supply chain risk" unless safety guardrails were removed.

Jacobsen urges caution, warning against viewing AI corporations as moral saviors, pointing out that tech executives and former intelligence chiefs sitting on corporate boards are deeply intertwined with defense spending. She details a chilling simulation conducted by King's College London, where AI models including ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini were tasked with leading nuclear superpowers in Cold War-era war games. In every single simulation, at least one AI model escalated the crisis to nuclear threats, with Anthropic's Claude recommending nuclear strikes in 64% of the scenarios—drawing stark comparisons to the 1980s film *WarGames* and the fictional Skynet system.

- **Anthropic Defense Contract Timeline:** - **July 2025:** Anthropic signs $200M deal for U.S. national security AI tools. - **January 2026:** U.S. military uses Claude during a raid targeting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. - **February 2026:** Pentagon demands unrestricted use; Anthropic refuses over autonomous weapons and mass surveillance concerns; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatens supply chain blacklist. - **King's College London AI Simulation Study:** - Tested ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini in simulated geopolitical crises. - 100% of trial runs resulted in at least one AI escalating to nuclear threats. - Claude recommended tactical nuclear strikes in **64%** of game iterations (highest rate among tested models), though stopping short of advocating total strategic nuclear annihilation. - **Quotes:** - *"Claude, which is owned by Anthropic, recommended nuclear strikes in 64% of games... Wasn't that the plot of the movie WarGames in the 1980s? Bingo. I mean, that's Skynet."* — Annie Jacobsen / Steven Bartlett

[01:44:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6286s) Sponsor Break: Cometeer Coffee & The Diary Of A CEO Bundles

The discussion pauses briefly for a message from the host regarding show sponsors and exclusive channel offerings. He highlights Cometeer Coffee, explaining their unique process of precision brewing coffee at ten times standard strength before flash freezing it with liquid nitrogen. Frozen into recyclable aluminum capsules and delivered on dry ice, the capsules can be melted with hot water or milk for an instant, high-quality hot or iced coffee. Viewers are offered a $30 discount on their first order via `[cometeer.com/steven](https://cometeer.com/steven)`.

The host also addresses high audience demand regarding two signature *Diary Of A CEO* products. Guests sitting for the show leave unreleased personal questions in a notebook, which are published exclusively inside the "Conversation Cards" deck. Due to requests from corporate clients and couples seeking to foster deeper connection while building habits, the channel has officially bundled the Conversation Cards with the habit-tracking "1% Diary," available for order via `thediary.com`.

- **Cometeer Offer:** $30 off initial orders at `[cometeer.com/steven](https://cometeer.com/steven)`. - **Product Bundle:** Combines the guest-driven Conversation Cards with the 1% Diary for team and personal habit building.

---

[01:46:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6386s) The Most Likely Paths to Nuclear War and the Role of AI

Returning to the geopolitical assessment, host Steven Bartlett asks Annie Jacobsen—author of *Nuclear War: A Scenario*—to outline the most probable catalyst for an all-out nuclear conflict. Jacobsen notes that while she previously viewed Vladimir Putin as a rational former intelligence officer bound by historical awareness, her assessment has shifted dramatically. She points to Russia's operational test of the Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile as a dangerous escalation; although non-nuclear, the delivery system is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Even with a 30-minute advance notification sent to the U.S. State Department prior to launch, deploying such systems elevates global risk. Furthermore, North Korea remains an unpredictable threat.

``` +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NUCLEAR ESCALATION FLASHPOINTS | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | North Korea | Volatile, unpredictable nuclear posture | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Russia (Putin) | Deployment of dual-capable Oreshnik IRBMs | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Military AI Integration | Autonomous targeting & decapitation speed | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ ```

Beyond rogue leaders, Jacobsen identifies artificial intelligence as a distinct, extraordinary layer of danger. She expresses surprise over reported late-night disputes between the U.S. Department of War and AI developers like Anthropic regarding military integration. She expected greater operational restraint, but observes that the current U.S. administration exhibits a dangerous bravado—actively embracing AI to execute automated decapitation strikes and exert global dominance.

- **Oreshnik Launch:** Russia provided a 30-minute advance notice to the U.S. State Department before launching the dual-capable ballistic missile. - **Defense-Tech Friction:** Policy disputes between military officials and AI frontier labs (e.g., Anthropic) over automated military targeting and system deployment.

---

[01:48:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6514s) Norm-Shattering Leadership and the U.S.-China AI Race

The panel examines Donald Trump’s shifting geopolitical stance, noting a public desensitization to behavior that once shattered diplomatic norms. Steven Bartlett points out historical contradictions, referencing Trump’s 2013 tweets mocking President Barack Obama for pursuing military action against Iran as a sign of failed negotiation. Bartlett warns of a gradual "slippery slope" over his 33 years of observing geopolitics, highlighting how U.S. leadership at recent events like the World Economic Forum in Davos bluntly told European allies to solve their own energy crises because America no longer relies on traditional alliance structures.

``` [ U.S. Strategic Mandate ] [ Tech Founder Vision ] Maintain Military Supremacy vs. Altruistic / Utopian Goals --------------------------- -------------------------- • Must match China's pace • Unintended consequences • Integrate autonomous weapons • Dual-use technology drift ```

Andrew Bustamante addresses the fundamental tension surrounding AI development. While tech CEOs may harbor utopian visions for their software, the U.S. national security apparatus views AI through the lens of cold strategic necessity. U.S. defense documentation consistently identifies China as the primary adversary. Because Beijing pursues artificial general intelligence (AGI), recursive self-improvement, mass surveillance, and autonomous weaponry without western ethical reticence, Washington feels compelled to race ahead. Bustamante criticizes the hypocrisy of relying on AI tools for covert regime operations (such as targeting leaders in Venezuela) one day, while labeling the underlying tech vendors a "supply-chain risk" the next.

> "We are adopting more autocratic behaviors because we're seeing other countries succeed with autocratic behaviors. We are abandoning Europe... We are not leading anymore. We are mimicking. We are reacting."

---

[01:52:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6739s) Doomsday Scenarios, Legacy, and Unchecked Power

The conversation turns to the psychology of aging world leaders holding unchecked control over massive nuclear arsenals. Bartlett raises a dark scenario: what happens when an aging autocrat like Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump (who will be 83 by the end of his term) faces the end of their life or political power? Lacking future terms or long-term personal consequences, leaders with "nothing left to lose" may act impulsively on global stages. Bartlett recalls Trump joking that he admired how Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suspended national elections during wartime, musing aloud whether the U.S. could do the same if drawn into a major conflict—a remark that, while framed as a joke, fits a troubling pattern of testing institutional limits.

- **Executive Lifespan & Legacy:** Risks increase when aging leaders evaluate their legacy without long-term accountability. - **Electoral Norms:** Concerns over political figures leveraging foreign crises or conflict to bypass domestic democratic processes.

---

[01:54:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6869s) Iran’s Middle East Missile Strategy and Economic Fallout

Turning to an active tactical map displaying Iranian ballistic missile ranges, Bartlett voices shock over recent strikes impacting previously stable Gulf hubs, including Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar. He notes that personal friends in Dubai were forced into subterranean bomb shelters as local infrastructure and Dubai International Airport took fire.

``` [ U.S. / Allied Strikes inside Iran ] │ ▼ [ Iran's Counter-Strategy ] │ ┌──────────────┴──────────────┐ ▼ ▼ [ Direct Military Hits ] [ Regional Cost Inflation ] • U.S. Gulf bases • Dubai / Gulf Strikes • Naval assets in Oman • Tourism / Property Collapse • Pressure Allies to Force U.S. Pause ```

Benjamin Radd and Andrew Bustamante break down Iran's strategy as a deliberate "burden-sharing" and pain-threshold tactic. Recognizing that direct missile salvos aimed at U.S. naval task forces off the coast of Oman will largely be intercepted by advanced air defense systems, Tehran targets host nations across the Gulf. By striking energy hubs, commercial airports, and residential sectors housing Western expats, military contractors, and tourists, Iran leverages economic disruption to force regional monarchies into demanding an immediate U.S. cease-fire.

> "They are lowering the pain threshold... If you make it miserable for everybody, then the United States is pressured to bring this to an end."

The strategy carries severe long-term financial consequences for the Gulf region. Decades of multi-billion-dollar investments branding Dubai and Abu Dhabi as safe international centers for luxury tourism, real estate, and corporate relocation are severely damaged overnight. In the short term, this shift directly impacts international tax bases and alters global real estate flows as affluent expatriates seek safer havens.

- **Regional Targets:** Iranian missile and drone strikes hit commercial and military infrastructure across the UAE (Dubai Airport), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain. - **Asymmetric Objective:** Raise pain levels for U.S. regional allies to force diplomatic pressure on Washington. - **Economic Repercussions:** Devastating disruption to the Gulf's tourism, aviation, and foreign-investment real estate markets.

---

[01:57:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7072s) Conflict Timeline: Hot War vs. Multi-Year Instability

When asked to project a timeline for the war, Andrew Bustamante draws a strict distinction between the active kinetic phase and its long-term regional aftermath. He estimates that the direct, "hot conflict"—characterized by daily air sorties, ballistic missile launches, and heavy bombardment—will likely last several weeks.

However, the structural fallout will reverberate for years. Even if the Iranian central government suffers major damage, non-state proxy networks—including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and residual Iranian security factions—will maintain asymmetric resistance. Bustamante stresses that while many hope for a stable, democratic transformation in Iran, hope is not a strategic policy, and the region faces years of persistent instability.

- **Kinetic War Estimate:** High-intensity air strikes and missile exchanges expected to persist for several weeks. - **Long-Term Projection:** Asymmetric warfare, insurgency, and economic instability involving proxy groups (Hezbollah, Houthis, regional militias) will linger for years.

[01:58:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7111s) Global Repercussions: Russia, China, and the Breaking of World Norms

The discussion opens with the group assessing how major geopolitical vacuums allow hostile foreign powers to expand their footprints. In the wake of intense conflict, the United States' biggest global adversaries could easily flood into Iran to back the regime, echoing how foreign forces stepped into Afghanistan—ultimately leaving America with even less regional leverage than it holds today. Steven questions whether the chaos surrounding Iran serves as a perfect distraction from ongoing wars like Ukraine, giving Vladimir Putin cover to act more aggressively while the world’s attention is captured elsewhere.

``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ U.S. Striking Iran / Global Vacuum │ └────────────────────┬────────────────────┘ │ ┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐ ▼ ▼ ┌───────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────┐ │ Incentive A: │ │ Incentive B: │ │ Emboldens Autocrats │ │ Deterrent Effect │ │ "If the U.S. can do │ │ Decapitation danger │ │ it, so can Putin or │ │ forces actors like │ │ Xi Jinping." │ │ Cuba to behave. │ └───────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────┘ ```

The panel agrees that both dynamics can occur simultaneously: * **The Emboldening Effect:** Autocratic rulers interpret aggressive actions as validation that standard rules no longer apply. * **The Deterrent Effect:** Adversaries are put on notice that the U.S. President will not hesitate to eliminate top leadership.

While China might view the situation as an opportune window to move on Taiwan due to U.S. distraction, smaller regimes like Cuba might calculate that stepping out of line is far too risky given the threat of swift leadership decapitation.

- **Venezuelan Precedent:** The group draws a direct line to the dramatic operation in January, where 150 paramilitary, military, and intelligence officers moved in to seize Nicolás Maduro and his wife right out of a heavily fortified military base, eliminating his Cuban security detail. - **Predictive Limits:** Despite these massive events, former CIA covert intelligence officer Andrew Bustamante notes how quickly historic interventions become "old news," emphasizing that while history offers crucial patterns, predicting the exact trajectory of Iran remains fraught with uncertainty.

---

[02:01:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7269s) Constitutional Guardrails and the Iranian Timeline

When Steven asks whether Donald Trump will leave office at the end of his term, the panel offers mixed reactions rooted in American constitutional realities. While the Constitution strictly mandates a transition of power, Benjamin Radd admits he feels more hopeful after recent actions by the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, two Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justices voted against a signature policy of his second term—his trade tariffs—ruling that the presidency lacked the statutory authority to impose them. For Radd, this judicial pushback offered a reassuring sign that constitutional guardrails, the separation of powers, and institutional checks remain functional.

``` ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Current Iranian Regime: Zero Domestic Credibility │ └───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘ │ ┌────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┐ ▼ ▼ ▼ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ Kinetic │ │ Fracturing│ │ Defections│ │ War │ ─────────────> │ Support │ ─────────────> │ from IRGC │ │ (3-4 wks) │ │ (Months) │ │ (Up to 1 │ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ │ year) │ └───────────┘ ```

Turning to the timeline of the Iranian conflict, Radd aligns with Bustamante's estimate that the primary kinetic warfare phase will last roughly 3 to 4 weeks. However, the subsequent power struggle will drag on significantly longer:

- **Targeted Leaders:** Surviving members of Iran's leadership—whether forming a military junta or installing a symbolic Supreme Leader—are "marked men" vulnerable to targeted assassinations by Israel, regional rivals, or internal factional foes. - **Internal Defections:** The regime has eroded all domestic credibility, breached an unwritten pact with Arab neighbors against direct confrontation, and seen its primary global allies abandon it. Without popular support or external backing, internal fracturing and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) defections (similar to the collapse seen in 1979) are expected to unfold over the next several months to a year.

---

[02:03:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7387s) The Dark Decade: Authoritarian Shifts and the Taiwan Chip Threat

Looking at the broader impact on the average American, Bustamante warns that the U.S. is stepping into one of its "darkest decades ever." The danger lies not merely in Donald Trump's immediate actions, but in the precedent he sets for future chief executives. If a president normalizes "strong-arm" tactics and consolidates power with broad public support, subsequent leaders inherit full political legitimacy to wield heavy-handed authoritarian measures from day one. This shift risks cementing a world order driven entirely by coercive force, multipolar rivalries, unpredictable AI technology, pervasive mass surveillance, and eroded international laws.

``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Taiwan Blockade vs. Strait of Hormuz │ ├──────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Strait of Hormuz (Oil) │ Taiwan (Microchips) │ ├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┤ │ • 20% of global oil flow │ • 90% of advanced semiconductor supply│ │ • OPEC can scale production │ • No immediate alternative capacity │ │ • Stabilization takes a few weeks│ • Threatens global tech/communications│ └──────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Shifting focus to hidden strategic vulnerabilities, Radd highlights a war-game simulation examining a critical Chinese maneuver against Taiwan. Rather than carrying out a full-scale military invasion, Beijing could simply enforce a naval blockade.

- **The Semiconductor Bottleneck:** Taiwan produces roughly 90% of the advanced microchips and processors relied upon by the West for consumer devices, artificial intelligence, communications, and military hardware. - **Economic Vulnerability:** Unlike energy disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz—where OPEC can ramp up oil production over several weeks to stabilize energy markets—the West possesses no immediate alternative manufacturing capacity, labor force, or specialized infrastructure to offset a Taiwanese chip blockade. Relocating these complex semiconductor foundries back to the U.S. faces massive delays driven by environmental regulations, high labor costs, and long setup times.

---

[02:11:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7871s) Citizen Agency and Leaving the United States

In closing, Steven asks what practical steps ordinary citizens should take in response to mounting global instability. Radd insists that the public is far from helpless, urging people to exercise their democratic rights in upcoming elections. By actively participating in midterm elections, voters retain the power to reshape Congress—creating a Democratic or opposition-led Senate or House capable of acting as an effective counterweight to unilateral executive power. However, Radd notes that many citizens struggle with the patience required by a system where legislative checks only occur in two-year voting cycles.

``` ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Bustamante Family Decision: Leaving the U.S. │ └───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘ │ ┌────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┐ ▼ ▼ ▼ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │ Rejecting │ │ Escaping │ │ Raising │ │ Fear and │ ─────────────> │ Unchecked │ ─────────────> │ Global │ │ Anger │ │Capitalism │ │ Citizens │ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ ```

When Steven asks Bustamante what personal steps he is taking for his own family, he delivers a striking personal revelation: he is relocating his family out of the United States entirely. Bustamante explains that he refuses to raise his children in a culture increasingly dominated by fear, anger, eroded democratic principles, and hyper-capitalism over human values:

> "We're leaving the United States... I don't want my children to grow up in a country that is either afraid or angry. I don't want my children to grow up in a country that's constantly compromising its own democratic principles... I want my children to grow up as global citizens, to recognize that we're all interconnected, to value every human life."

[02:12:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7976s) Value of Life and the Personal Choice to Relocate

Andrew Bustamante wraps up his stance on global perspective and personal principles, acknowledging that he might seem like the perfect voice to argue that American lives are worth more than others. However, he rejects that narrative, emphasizing that he wants his children to view all lives across the globe as valuable, independent, and individual blessings. Despite trying to teach them these values, he laments that society broadcasts a conflicting message. When asked where he plans to go next, Andrew lightheartedly jokes that it is for him to know—and Costa Rica.

- Andrew wants his children to view human lives everywhere as equally valuable, independent blessings. - He shares a humorous moment regarding relocating to Costa Rica.

[02:13:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7999s) Embracing Friction, Intellectual Flexibility, and Nuance

Annie Jacobsen stresses the importance of reading as widely as possible and engaging in conversations across the entire spectrum of viewpoints. She encourages people not to fear intellectual friction, noting that disagreement and debate are precisely how the mind stays fluid and adaptable. Recognizing that one might be wrong is an essential part of intellectual growth.

Host Steven Bartlett aligns with this sentiment, observing that staying open-minded is increasingly vital in an era saturated with misinformation and disinformation. He discusses the pressures faced by podcasters and content creators to fit neatly into binary political buckets—forced either to the left or the right. Resisting these algorithmic and social pressures requires deliberate restraint and thoughtfulness. Steven highlights that even when listeners disagree with a guest, pushing past natural cognitive dissonance allows them to weigh conflicting ideas and form their own conclusions.

- Annie highlights the necessity of reading broadly and welcoming healthy debate to keep the mind flexible. - Steven reflects on how media platforms and algorithms push creators into partisan corners ("right" or "left"). - Overcoming cognitive dissonance is essential for critical thinking in a world driven by algorithms.

[02:14:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=8080s) Empathy as a Strategic Tool and Final Resources

Benjamin Radd echoes Annie's advice, urging listeners to stay curious and leverage podcasts to explore unfamiliar concepts. He explains that cognitive dissonance, though uncomfortable, forces people to confront views they otherwise would ignore. When teaching his students, Benjamin emphasizes the power of empathy—clarifying that empathy does not mean liking or agreeing with an opposing side, but rather taking a moment to "see the world as they see it."

The panel concludes by sharing where audiences can follow their work and dive deeper into their research. Benjamin mentions his social media presence on X and Instagram, along with a simulation platform he is currently designing. Annie directs readers to her extensive body of investigative work available wherever books are sold. Andrew highlights his company, EverydaySpy, his social media channels, and his New York Times bestselling memoir *Shadow Cell*, detailing the long process of getting CIA clearance to publish the story of uncovering an insider threat. Steven thanks all three experts for demystifying current global events and helping synthesize a clearer perspective on the world stage.

- **Benjamin Radd:** Focuses on teaching political empathy and designing a simulation platform; active on X and Instagram. - **Annie Jacobsen:** Author of multiple books on national security and military history. - **Andrew Bustamante:** Founder of EverydaySpy (`everydayspy.com`) and author of *Shadow Cell: An Insider Account of America's New Spy War*, a New York Times bestseller detailing a CIA mole investigation.

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=0s) There is a domino effect that happens with every decision that the United States makes. — Andrew Bustamante

> [04:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=290s) gives the president authority under classified presidential directive to change any rule he wants that suits him for an operation at hand — Annie Jacobsen

> [20:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1221s) When you read the Department of War's national security strategy, what you hear more than any other word is Donald Trump... It's not around a personality usually. So it's a very interesting situation because if there's so much of a person at stake here... — Andrew Bustamante

> [24:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1485s) It's like putting down the dead dog after it's done all of its damage. — Andrew Bustamante

> [31:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1908s) We choose to do what we choose to do, we choose to support what we choose to support, and we choose to abandon what we choose to abandon. — Benjamin Radd

> [01:30:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5435s) Why are you disregarding previous narratives to adopt the current narrative? — Andrew Bustamante

> [01:30:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5435s) I interviewed Bill Perry, the Secretary of Defense, who went there and got the guarantee and the promise from the dear leader... Fingers crossed behind the back, thermonuclear weapon, and look where we are now. — Annie Jacobsen

> [01:35:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5728s) We are seeing a transition to a strongman multipolar world. When we've only ever lived in a unipolar world. — Andrew Bustamante

> [01:39:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5960s) You're never going to hear me say that I really care that much about an Iranian life compared to an American life. That's just not how I roll. — Andrew Bustamante

> [01:39:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5960s) Surveillance in the United States is 100% a guaranteed future. Mass surveillance has already happened. It will just get exacerbated, expanded, and legalized. — Andrew Bustamante

> [01:41:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6106s) Claude, which is owned by Anthropic, recommended nuclear strikes in 64% of games... Wasn't that the plot of the movie WarGames in the 1980s? Bingo. I mean, that's Skynet. — Annie Jacobsen

> [01:46:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6419s) we are shitty learners of history. — Annie Jacobsen

> [01:54:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6869s) They are lowering the pain threshold... If you make it miserable for everybody, then the United States is pressured to bring this to an end. — Andrew Bustamante

> [02:11:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7871s) We're leaving the United States... I don't want my children to grow up in a country that is either afraid or angry. I don't want my children to grow up in a country that's constantly compromising its own democratic principles... I want my children to grow up as global citizens, to recognize that we're all interconnected, to value every human life. — Andrew Bustamante

> [02:14:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=8080s) see the world as they see it — Benjamin Radd

## Mentioned Andrew Bustamante, Annie Jacobsen, Benjamin Radd, Steven Bartlett, Donald Trump, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Mohammad Mosaddegh, Kermit Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Nicolás Maduro, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Keir Starmer, Vladimir Putin, William Perry, Tulsi Gabbard, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Barack Obama, Xi Jinping, Eric Hoffer, CIA, NSA, DIA, NGA, ODNI, SAVAK, IRGC, Hamas, Hezbollah, MI6, ICC, ICJ, United Nations, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Anthropic, Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, King's College London, Operation TPAJAX, Fordow enrichment facility, Diego Garcia, Esfahan, Natanz, Oreshnik IRBM, Strait of Hormuz, Taiwan, Dubai, Costa Rica, EverydaySpy, Shadow Cell: An Insider Account of America's New Spy War, Nuclear War: A Scenario, Biological War: A Scenario, Cometeer Coffee, 1% Diary, Conversation Cards

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk)

中文简报

特朗普对伊打击恐致局势升级与全球动荡前CIA及安全专家警告，美国对伊朗的打击恐引发不对称地区战争、加速核扩散并造成全球经济冲击。专家组深入探讨了美军打击伊朗及由此引发的地区混乱背后的直接导火索与战略误判。他们分析了有关伊朗核能力及该政权内部脆弱性的情报评估，并探讨了唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）个人意志主导的外交政策如何削弱国际法。讨论还涉及向强人主导的多极世界转变的地缘政治变局、AI驱动核升级的风险、大规模监控趋势，以及对全球稳定与普通民众的潜在长期影响。针对美国对伊朗领导层的斩首打击，前情报官员质疑该行动与ODNI年度威胁评估及国家安全战略相悖，因官方情报此前表明伊朗并未积极发展核武，突显当前外交决策已深度转向总统个人权威与政治算计。 (15:50) 虽然伊朗政权因残酷镇压内部抗议（致约3万人丧生）及代理人网络受挫而处于极度脆弱的窗口期，但单边军事打击已导致美方及中东盟友伤亡，并引发更广泛的区域安全危机。 (24:45) 在此次打击中，行政权力深度融合了正规军事法（Title 10）与中央情报局秘密行动授权（Title 50），并通过特战人员“去身份化”（sheep dipping）执行任务，情报获取则高度依赖以色列的人力与蜂窝追踪数据支持。 (37:38) 针对主权国家元首的单边刺杀严重践踏了国际法体系与战后规范，退化为军事强权主导的“胜利者正义”，可能为俄罗斯等其他大国采取同类单边打击提供借口，加剧多极强权世界的不稳定。 (31:48)

Reading summary

A panel of intelligence and national security analysts examines whether recent decapitation strikes against Iranian leadership represent an effective tactical blow or an impulsive escalation toward broader global conflict. While perspectives diverge on operational success and regime durability, the participants emphasize systemic risks spanning dismantled international legal norms, asymmetric economic retaliation, and unconstrained technological escalation. Contradictions Between Strategic Doctrine and Nuclear Justifications (15:50) Andrew Bustamante argues that the sudden military campaign against Iran directly contradicts official U.S. security doctrine, pointing to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, the 2026 National Defense Strategy, and the National Security Strategy. Bustamante notes that the March 2025 ODNI assessment explicitly concluded Iran was unlikely to pursue nuclear weapons or weapons-grade enrichment. Furthermore, because June bunker-buster strikes on the Fordow facility had already devastated Iran's enrichment infrastructure, he characterizes renewed official justifications of an imminent nuclear emergency as political rhetoric rather than objective strategy, comparing them to intelligence narratives preceding the 1992 Iraq invasion. Conversely, Benjamin Radd and Annie Jacobsen warn that dismissing Iran's nuclear potential is premature. They cite satellite imagery demonstrating reconstruction at Natanz and Esfahan, alongside uranium enrichment up to 60% purity—a technical margin away from 90% weapons-grade capacity. Jacobsen highlights historical precedents like North Korea, where diplomatic assurances failed to halt thermonuclear development. Additionally, Radd argues that the October 7, 2023 attacks fundamentally dissolved Western intelligence assumptions regarding containment, creating an urgent mandate within the administration to dismantle Tehran's regional proxy networks. Executive Unilateralism and Eroding International Norms (31:48) The panel debates whether the strike reflects institutional statecraft or an unprecedented personalization of American foreign policy. Bustamante notes that current strategic documents and public remarks by figures like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth constantly emphasize Donald Trump by name rather than traditional institutional phrasing, arguing that policy has become tethered to personal legacy and ego. Jacobsen observes that Trump publicly cited Iranian plots against his life, framing the strike partly as personal retaliation. Radd and Bustamante agree that Trump's term-limited status shifts his incentives toward brand and legacy consolidation rather than conventional public service. Beyond domestic motives, the analysts warn that direct decapitation strikes against a sitting foreign head of state dismantle long-standing international legal precedents. Radd points out that while international tribunals and United Nations frameworks established boundaries to deter state violence, the unilateral execution of foreign leaders degrades international law into raw "victor's justice." Bustamante cautions that removing these sovereign boundaries grants unspoken permission to authoritarian states, warning that Russia or China could cite U.S. actions to justify the targeted assassination of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy or political leadership in Taiwan. Allied Friction and Cost-Asymmetric Retaliation (34:49) The strikes exposed critical fractures within traditional Western alliances alongside shifts in operational intelligence. Host Steven Bartlett notes that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer was excluded from prior consultation, with Radd revealing that the British government actively denied U.S. requests to stage operations from joint military bases such as Diego Garcia. On intelligence collection, Bustamante asserts that despite media claims attributing targeting to the CIA, Israel provided the indispensable human intelligence (HUMINT) and cellular tracking infrastructure necessary to execute the strikes, with Israel launching the missiles while the U.S. supplied operational backing. In response to the strikes, Iran implemented a cost-asymmetric retaliation strategy across the Persian Gulf. Radd cites an unsustainable interceptor-to-missile ratio of roughly 25 to 1, where regional allies fire defensive interceptors costing 10 to 15 times more than incoming, mass-produced Iranian Shahed drones. Rather than targeting heavily fortified U.S. naval formations, Tehran directed strikes against regional infrastructure, commercial airports, and expat hubs in Dubai, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Bustamante and Radd analyze this as a deliberate pain-threshold tactic aimed at inflicting economic disruption on Gulf monarchies to compel them to demand an immediate U.S. operational halt. Kinetic Timelines, Autonomous Systems, and Systemic Fragility (101:46) Addressing the conflict's duration, Bustamante and Radd project that the primary kinetic phase—involving air strikes, missile barrages, and heavy bombardment—will last approximately three to four weeks. However, both stress that proxy resistance from Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iranian military factions will generate instability lasting years. Radd notes that while roughly 20% of Iranians ideologically support the regime, 80% born after 1979 desire change; nevertheless, Bustamante cautions that civil transitions rarely resolve predictably. Compounding these geopolitical risks is the rapid integration of artificial intelligence into defense planning. Bartlett highlights the February 2026 clash between Hegseth and AI lab Anthropic over unrestricted military access following the deployment of AI during operations in Venezuela. Jacobsen cites King's College London war simulations where AI models managed nuclear superpowers; in every trial, AI escalated to nuclear threats, with Anthropic's Claude advising nuclear strikes in 64% of scenarios. Looking forward, Radd warns that global choke points like Taiwan—producing 90% of advanced semiconductors—represent vulnerabilities far more disruptive than Middle Eastern oil shocks if regional instability spreads. The discussion leaves unresolved whether tactical decapitation strikes will accelerate regime collapse in Tehran or entrench years of asymmetric regional insurgency. While the analysts diverge on the morality and immediate efficacy of the operation, they agree that bypassing international legal frameworks and traditional alliances establishes dangerous global precedents, while the unchecked integration of military AI and proxy proliferation drastically narrows the margin for averting unintended superpower escalation.

精炼阅读摘要

节目围绕美国对伊朗领导层实施斩首打击展开讨论，嘉宾就其真正动机、核威慑叙事、国际法准则的瓦解以及全球外溢风险呈现了激烈交锋。战略动机：机构方针与个人意志的背离 (15:50) 前CIA情报官员Andrew Bustamante指出，对伊朗的斩首打击并不符合官方既定战略。他援引2025年3月国家情报总监办公室（ODNI）年度威胁评估，该文件明确认为伊朗不太可能追求核武器或武器级浓缩，其重点正转向生化武器研究；加之美军在6月已使用钻地弹重创了福尔多（Fordow）浓缩设施，因此以防止拥有大规模杀伤性武器为由发动打击，与2026年国防战略等文件存在直接冲突。Bustamante认为，当前的对外政策正转向围绕Donald Trump个人的权力崇拜，其决策更受个人声誉与私人恩怨驱动，包括对伊朗此前暗杀图谋的报复。 Annie Jacobsen对此持补充视角，认为此次行动展现了纯粹的总统行政集权。在针对委内瑞拉总统Nicolás Maduro和墨西哥贩毒集团头目的行动后，白宫抓住了伊朗极度脆弱的战机实施斩首。Jacobsen高度评价了CIA、NSA、DIA与NGA等情报机构在极窄战机窗口内协同提供可执行情报的效率，但也指出，由个人报复和强人意志主导的地缘决策已完全颠覆了以往基于正规情报与机构流程的传统模式。情报争议、法理边界与国际秩序崩塌 (28:00) 围绕军事打击的法律性质，专家团分歧严重。Bustamante主张，政权镇压本国抗议者属于内政冲突，外部势力无权武力干涉；对主权国家元首的直接斩首彻底践踏了主权规范，将国际法降级为毫无约束力的“胜利者正义”。Benjamin Radd与Annie Jacobsen则澄清，本次行动实际上由以色列发射导弹实施打击，美国主要提供关键情报支持。Radd强调，自2023年10月7日哈马斯袭击以色列并获得伊朗全力支持后，威慑与遏制的基本假设已破裂。Radd援引二战后纽伦堡审判的先例反驳，指出国际法的诞生初衷就是防止独裁者以国家主权为掩护屠杀国民，伊朗长期资助恐怖主义及袭击美军设施的记录，使其元首在严格军事定义下已成为指挥中枢的合法打击目标。与会者共同警示了联盟机制的裂痕与恶劣先例。Radd透露，英国首相Keir Starmer在美方行动前并未得到协商，且明确拒绝了美方借用迭戈加西亚（Diego Garcia）等基地发起行动的请求。Bustamante警告，美国无视国际法对外国元首实施定点清除，破坏了地缘政治红线，将使全球陷入更危险的不稳定状态，甚至变相为俄罗斯针对乌克兰总统Zelenskyy、或中国针对台湾地区政治领导层的斩首行动提供了借口。不对称战术、区域冲击与代理人长期动荡关于战场动态与冲突时间线，Bustamante预测，以密集空袭和弹道导弹拦截为标志的直接“热战”阶段将持续数周，而代理人网络引发的非对称抵抗和区域动荡将拖延数年。伊朗目前采取“分摊痛苦”策略，由于直接针对阿曼海域美军舰队的导弹大多被拦截，伊朗转而轰炸迪拜、沙特、巴林和卡塔尔等周边国家的商业枢纽、住宅区与机场，试图通过破坏民生、旅游和推高区域成本，迫使海湾君主国向美国施压以实现停火。 Radd分析指出，战场呈现极度不对称的成本劣势：伊朗利用廉价的Shahed自杀式无人机与导弹消耗对手，拦截弹与来袭弹药的成本比例高达10至15比1，这导致防御方弹药库被迅速消耗，进而为中国在南海等区域行动创造战略优势。针对国内政治走向，Radd指出伊朗80%的人口出生于1979年革命之后，现政权仅剩约20%的铁杆基本盘，公众并未因袭击出现“团结在国旗下”的效应，反而怪罪政权招致灾难；Bustamante则警告不可过度乐观，强调非国家武装（如真主党、胡塞武装）只要维持将西方视作外敌的叙事，就能支撑起长期消耗战。技术对抗与核升级：人工智能在战局中的隐患 (101:46) 战火蔓延正与颠覆性技术竞争高度交织。Host Steven Bartlett与Annie Jacobsen谈及五角大楼与AI实验室Anthropic的冲突：2025年7月双方签署2亿美元国家安全开发协议，但至2026年2月，国防部长Pete Hegseth要求无限制访问模型底层，Anthropic因禁止大规模国内监控与自主武器的条款予以拒绝，美军此前已在抓捕委内瑞拉总统的行动中使用Claude模型。Jacobsen警告，伦敦国王学院的冷战超级大国战争模拟显示，所有参与的AI模型最终都升级到了核威胁，其中Claude在64%的模拟场景中直接建议发动核打击，显示出自主技术极易导致核阶梯失控。 Jacobsen指出，当前俄罗斯部署具备核打击能力的“榛树”（Oreshnik）中程弹道导弹，以及朝鲜的不可预测性，正在推高核战风险。Bustamante补充指出，美国国防部门将AI视为针对中国的战略决胜工具，在追求通用人工智能（AGI）、自主武器和群体监控的竞速中，科技巨头乌托邦式的道德防线正被地缘战略现实无情压制，未来或将带来深度监控常态化与制度化的黑暗十年。本期节目的核心分歧在于：摧毁对手政权究竟是一次消除长期安全隐患的果断胜利，还是开启了缺乏战略终局、破坏主权准则并引发不可逆技术失控的危险多米诺骨牌。尽管多方一致认为直接高烈度交火可能在几周内减弱，但代理人网络反扑、全球规范瓦解以及不对称军备消耗所带来的长期余震，仍是无法回避的系统性风险。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由知名访谈播客《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 3 月 4 日发布在 YouTube 平台上。页面描述显示，这是一场针对特朗普对伊朗发动突袭、最高领袖哈梅内伊身亡后紧急召集的圆桌研讨会，特邀前 CIA 卧底特工 Andrew Bustamante、国家安全调查记者 Annie Jacobsen 以及 UCLA 伊朗问题与国际法学者 Benjamin Radd，共同拆解这场军事打击的执行内幕、核战外溢风险、AI 战术推演以及全球经济与地缘秩序的潜在走向。 ## TL;DR 节目围绕美以联手定点清除伊朗最高领导层后的战争迷雾展开全景推演，嘉宾们从历史恩怨、情报真伪与决策心理等多个维度进行了针锋相对的交锋。前情报官 Andrew 质疑官方拿核威胁作为动武借口的虚伪性，痛批单边“斩首”国家元首彻底砸碎了战后国际法底线，并警告时间实际上站在启动不对称消耗战的伊朗一边；学者 Benjamin 梳理了自 1953 年政变及 1979 年革命以来长达 47 年的深层宿怨，指出十月七日事件后预防性打击的逻辑与伊朗政权失去民意的脆弱现实；调查记者 Annie 则揭示了 Title 10 与 Title 50 法律权限的危险融合、AI 与监控体系的军事化异化，以及大国强人博弈滑向核边缘的潜在路径。三人还就海湾外溢打击、战术弹药短缺、台海半导体潜在封锁风险以及美国普通人即将迎来的“最黑暗十年”做出了深度剖析。 ## Atmosphere & style 全场对话笼罩在高度紧绷、极具思辨冲击与现实窒息感的战争迷雾氛围中。前特工的冷峻怀疑论、调查记者的锋利现实感与法学专家的历史纵深感在圆桌上频繁碰撞，现场火药味十足却又克制严谨，既有关于“人权与主权”的激烈哲理辩论，也有对 AI 兵棋推演中高达 64% 建议核打击等冰冷事实的震撼直面。随着讨论从宏大的大国博弈层层剥离至普通人如何自保、甚至嘉宾坦白“正举家迁离美国”的现实抉择，整场对谈最终从宏观政治推演沉淀为一种直面动荡时代的深刻同理心与警醒感。 ## Bulletin - [27:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1663s) 针对伊朗最高领袖哈梅内伊的斩首打击彻底打破了战后国际秩序中禁止针对主权国家元首进行肉体消灭的红线，为莫斯科或北京等大国单边动武开创了危险先例。 - [19:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1173s) 虽然官方声称动武旨在遏制迫在眉睫的核危机，但美国情报总监办公室（ODNI）此前评估认定伊朗并未推进核武器制造，其主要核设施福尔多早在此前已被摧毁。 - [01:57:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7077s) 伊朗在遭受打击后启动“分摊痛苦”战略，向阿联酋、沙特等海湾盟友发动导弹还击，重挫迪拜等地数十亿美元打造的商业与旅游避风港叙事。 - [02:09:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7750s) 专家兵棋推演显示，未来真正的西方命脉危机在台海：中国无需登陆，仅凭海上全面封锁切断西方依赖度高达90%的台湾尖端半导体，即可造成远超霍尔木兹海峡石油断供的毁灭性打击。 ## Key takeaways - [11:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=664s) 美伊矛盾根源可追溯至1953年英美联合策动的“阿贾克斯行动”政变与1979年伊斯兰革命，此后伊朗彻底沦为西方情报无法触及的“黑箱”。 - [15:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=939s) 突袭伊朗背离了ODNI年度威胁评估与五角大楼《国防战略》，真实动因高度个人化，混杂着对暗杀企图的“沙盒式以牙还牙”与中期选举前的强人政绩诉求。 - [38:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2287s) 特朗普政府通过模糊美国法典Title 10（常规军事法）与Title 50（隐秘情报特权），通过“潜行借调”将正规军转入秘密准军事名义规避交战规则与国会监督。 - [41:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2511s) 美国已严重丧失独立生产一手人力情报的能力，本次斩首打击的精确目标定位高度依赖以色列在伊朗境内长期构建的情报网络定向供给。 - [01:09:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4156s) 中东防空面临严峻的经济不对称放血，伊朗廉价无人机与弹道导弹迫使防守方发射成本高出10至15倍且拦截比率高达25:1的防空导弹，军火储备面临耗尽风险。 - [01:11:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4266s) 必须严格区分保卫国家边境的“伊朗国防军”与只效忠最高领袖、掌控弹道导弹及抵抗之弧网络的意识形态武装“伊斯兰革命卫队”。 - [01:14:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4455s) 高烈度常规交火预计仅能维系数周，但伊朗将依托时间红利与真主党等海外休眠细胞展开低烈度“千刀万剐”式消耗战，其余震将持续数年。 - [01:17:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4663s) 伊朗人口呈现深刻断层：体制内约20%的狂热意识形态既得利益者面临瓦解，而占80%的革命后年轻世代虽厌恶神权统治，却可能因经济崩溃面临严重的人才外流。 - [01:41:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6080s) 五角大楼推进的防务AI被曝在推演中具备极高的核升级倾向（Claude在64%的情景中建议发动核打击），且外部报复风险极易成为政府扩大对内全面监控的合法借口。 - [02:09:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7750s) 霍尔木兹海峡若遭封锁，其切断的20%全球原油可由OPEC闲置产能数周内对冲；但台湾若遭封锁，西方完全缺乏替代产能，整个汽车、AI与通信基础设施将面临瞬间停摆。 - [02:11:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7871s) 国际格局正加速滑向缺乏规则约束的“强人多极世界”，普通人难以扭转地缘博弈，唯有通过践行宪政制衡、打破信息茧房与接纳认知失调来维系思考与独立判断。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=0s) 开场交锋与战争迷雾：斩首行动背后的未知变数访谈在极其激烈的交锋剪辑中拉开序幕。面对“美国试图通过斩首伊朗领导层获得什么”的核心质问，嘉宾们展现出截然不同的审视视角：有人认为总统的公开表态已经说明了一切，但前情报人员随即反驳指出，在当前的混乱局势下，“无论是听到的还是看到的，几乎都不可能完全信任”。针对信息真伪的争吵迅速升温——一方认为当下的媒体报道充斥着假象与宣传，另一方则反驳称将所有声音一概斥为虚假信息纯属“绝对的偏执”。分歧进一步蔓延至核威胁的定义与打击时机的选择。讨论中明确指出，伊朗目前并不拥有现成的核武器，因此在严格意义上并不构成即时的核武打击威胁；但也有专家警告，不同专业阵营之间对话时所使用的“核语言”完全不在一个维度上。对于“为何偏要选在伊朗政权陷入历史最低谷、最虚弱的时刻发动突击”，前情报人员直言，若非确信对方缺乏自行研制并反制的能力，军政决策层绝不会轻易扣动扳机。任何由美国主导的重大突袭行动，其后续演变都绝非线性的战术清除，而必将触发一系列难以预估且极度危险的连环多米诺效应。 ### [00:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=48s) 频道订阅呼吁与破局之问 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 现代伊朗地缘政治危机历史溯源 accDescr: 展现从巴列维王朝建立到1979年伊斯兰革命，再到情报盲区与当代美伊对抗的历史脉络。 subgraph PahlaviEra["巴列维王朝统治时期 (1930s-1979)"] A["1930年代建立王朝 二战中老国王因亲德被英美废黜"] --> B["1941/1942年年轻巴列维即位 成为美国中东核心盟友"] B --> C["急速西方化与世俗化改革 石油财富流入，社会两极分化严重"] end subgraph Revolution["1979年伊斯兰革命爆发"] C --> D["传统宗教阶层（黑）与左翼社会主义者（红）联合"] D --> E["霍梅尼自巴黎流亡归来 推翻君主制，建立神权政权"] end subgraph IntelligenceBlindspot["美方情报失误与当代演进"] E --> F["CIA与国务院注意力受困于冷战防苏 彻底忽视伊斯兰原教旨主义崛起"] F --> G["2001年9/11事件后反恐重塑 美伊矛盾与秘密行动体系激化"] end ``` 在正式切入深度地缘政治对谈前，主持人 Steven Bartlett 打破紧张气氛，向长期收听节目的受众做了一个真诚的请求。他透露后台数据显示，大约有 69% 的忠实听众尚未点击订阅按钮；他坦言每当团队达成重大的订阅里程碑，整个制作组都会共同庆祝，这也是观众能够零成本支持节目持续提升水准的最直接方式。随后，话题迅速切入正题，Steven 直截了当地向在场的三位安全与情报专家抛出了普通民众最困惑的核心难题：“这到底是怎么一回事？我们到底需要了解怎样的历史背景，才能读懂眼下正在伊朗爆发的这场战争？” ### [02:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=120s) 从君主制到神权政体：巴列维王朝的覆灭之路作为亲历者的加州大学洛杉矶分校学者 Benjamin Radd 结合个人身世展开了历史回溯。1979 年 3 月，年仅两岁的他随家人匆匆逃离伊朗，那正是巴列维国王黯然流亡海外数月后、阿亚图拉·霍梅尼刚刚结束流亡回国建立神权统治的关键转折点。伊朗现代史上的巴列维王朝由老国王于 20 世纪 30 年代推翻统治两百余年的旧王朝建立；二战期间，英美盟军因担忧老国王立场倒向纳粹德国、威胁盟军石油补给线，联手将其废黜，并在 1941 至 1942 年间将年仅 18 或 19 岁、性格较为顺从的年轻巴列维扶上王位。年轻国王在此后的数十年间成长为美国在中东最坚固的盟友之一，直至 1979 年被革命浪潮彻底推翻。关于巴列维统治时期的社会风貌，评价呈现出截然对立的两极化。巴列维名义上实行君主立宪制，实际上却行使着远超英国君主立宪范畴的铁腕威权。他是一位雄心勃勃的现代化独裁者，动用伊朗庞大的石油红利，强力推行医疗、普及教育、基建等全面对标西方的世俗化社会改造： - **急速西方化与宗教割裂**：世俗化进程严重践踏了虔诚什叶派穆斯林的信仰诉求与传统习俗，国王的激进文化政策引发了深刻的社会断层与价值分裂。 - **贫富悬殊加剧**：源源不断的石油财富集中在城市精英与买办阶级手中，未能惠及广袤的乡村与底层贫民，社会底层积攒了长期的幻灭感与仇恨。 - **公民自由遭剥夺**：威权体系残酷镇压政治异见，使得原本期待更多民主参与、透明问责的民众反抗情绪持续酝酿，最终形成了全方位的民粹反弹。 ### [04:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=287s) 霍梅尼的统战策略与美国的致命情报盲区流亡在外的霍梅尼展现出了高超的政治动员能力。自 1960 年代成为巴列维政权的眼中钉后，霍梅尼历经土耳其、伊拉克等地的流亡，最终在法国巴黎郊外建立了反对派指挥中枢。他所引领的反抗并非单一的宗教狂热运动，而是一场跨越社会阶层与政治派系的广泛联合： - **红黑联盟的凝聚**：霍梅尼成功拉拢了信奉马克思主义与社会主义的“红色”左翼阵营，吸纳了由传统教士构成的“黑色”伊斯兰原教旨主义者，并将庞大的中间派抗议者团结在反帝、反独裁的旗帜之下。 - **树立外部靶子**：他极具说服力地将伊朗民众丧失生计与自由的根源归咎于美国，直指国王是美国的“傀儡暴君”，并宣称臭名昭著的伊朗秘密警察（SAVAK）所施展的残酷刑讯皆是受教于美国和以色列。 - **道德形象的塑造**：与生活奢靡的王室形成鲜明反差，霍梅尼生活极其简朴克己，这种不妥协的道德姿态让普遍饱受压迫的各派群众深信不疑。面对这场翻天覆地的巨变，美国的情报与外交系统却陷入了严重的战略误判。冷战思维主导下的国务院与中央情报局将所有目光集中在苏联可能通过伊朗向中东扩张的共产主义渗透上，严防死守“红色”左翼政党，却彻底低估了“黑色”宗教势力的革命动能。与此同时，国王本人也防范并限制了 CIA 在伊朗境内的独立情报搜集，其本土情报机构只向上汇报“民众安居乐业、爱戴君王”的谄媚谎言；直到示威潮水越过不可逆的临界点，华盛顿与德黑兰王宫才如梦初醒，为时已晚。 ### [07:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=423s) 从代理人控制到暗影执法：冷战反恐与 CIA 的双面权力前 CIA 秘密情报官员 Andrew Bustamante 剖析了美国对外干预逻辑的历史沿革。在 1970 年代末冷战高潮期，美国沉溺于一种“通过操控一国名义元首来遥控整个国家”的霸权思维中。当时无人料到柏林墙会崩塌，华盛顿的视线完全被苏东阵营遮蔽，缺乏监督、预算极其雄厚的中央情报局在海外肆意进行无拘无束的秘密行动。这种对伊斯兰激进威胁的系统性忽视一直持续到了 2001 年——基地组织发动的 9/11 恐怖袭击将长期被忽略的极端威胁直接推至美国本土家门前，使伊斯兰极端主义瞬间成为家喻户晓的全球防务焦点。但在美国大众与政策层面上，对于逊尼派与什叶派之间深刻的教义区别，以及受伊朗扶持的什叶派武装真正的地缘诉求，认知依然模糊而浅薄。国家安全记者 Annie Jacobsen 则将视角引向了更为宏观的美国国家安全权力架构演变。自二战结束后成立以来，CIA 的权力边界在历任白宫政权更迭中经历了如“手风琴”般反复伸缩的周期： - **总统的秘密之手**：CIA 历来扮演着总统在常规体系外的“隐秘手腕”，使白宫能够直接行使行政干预特权，避开军方必须遵循的严格交战规则。 - **第 10 编与第 50 编的法律分野**：美军正规作战行动受到美国法典“第 10 编”（Title 10）严格的战争法、国际条约和国会监督制约；而情报机构开展的隐秘行动则归属于“第 50 编”（Title 50），赋予了总统规避常规战争法、开展秘密特种行动与非常规打击的灰色空间。这一法律架构的差异，正是理解当代美国在伊朗及其周边采取斩首与特工战术的制度基石。 ### [09:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=559s) 革命政权的历史渊源：从巴列维国王到两任领袖讨论由美国法律框架下的总统特权切入。根据《美国法典》第50编（Title 50），总统在机密总统指令的授权下，拥有近乎绝对的自由度，可以根据行动需要修改任何规则，这一机制直接促成了当前戏剧性的军事打击。对话随后转向伊朗政权的根源：20世纪70年代末，巴列维国王被推翻，霍梅尼（Ruhollah Khomeini）以宗教革命力量凝聚民心并建立政权。现场特别厘清了常被外界混淆的两位最高领袖——开创伊斯兰革命并执政的第一代领袖霍梅尼，以及其后继任并长期掌权的哈梅内伊（Ali Khamenei）。这种长达数十年的革命狂热并非空穴来风。伊朗伊斯兰革命卫队（IRGC）之所以始终强调“革命”，是因为德黑兰政权至今仍将自身定义为对抗美国的先锋堡垒，“打倒美国”（Death to America）不仅是一句标语，更是政权合法性的核心。伊朗对1979年之前美国干涉内政、将巴列维国王扶植为傀儡的痛苦记忆，在军事打击发生前夕依然像革命初期的次日清晨一样鲜血淋漓、刻骨铭心。 ### [11:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=664s) 1953年阿贾克斯行动与西方干涉的世纪宿怨本杰明详细拆解了美伊恩怨的真正转折点——1951年至1953年间的危机。在当时的伊朗宪法下，国王拥有在议会同意下任命首相的权力。老派政治家、前朝王室远亲穆罕默德·摩萨台（Mohammad Mosaddegh）被选任为首相。摩萨台掀起了极具民族主义色彩的石油国有化运动，收回主要由英国控制的英伊石油公司（Anglo-Iranian Oil Company）资产。这一举措激怒了英国，伦敦随即对伊朗港口实施海上封锁，摧毁了伊朗的石油出口并引发严重的国家经济危机。面对困局，摩萨台试图收拢更多个人权力以推行政策，引发国内外反弹与政治孤立。英国秘密情报局（MI6）极力谋求颠覆摩萨台政权，在杜鲁门总统执政时尚未获得美方全力配合；而艾森豪威尔上台后，在中情局局长艾伦·杜勒斯（Allen Dulles）的主导下，美方通过了代号为“阿贾克斯行动”（Operation TPAJAX）的秘密政变计划，由中情局特工克米特·罗斯福（Kermit Roosevelt）亲自前线督战。美英联合策动并煽动了街头骚乱，最终推翻摩萨台，让流亡国外的巴列维国王重返权力中枢。虽然历史常将中情局视作政变的主谋，但英国实际上扮演了更主导的角色，美国仅作为抛头露面的初级合伙人介入。这段干涉不仅彻底定型了冷战时期美伊的依附关系，更在伊朗社会埋下了延续至今的反西方怨恨。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 1953年伊朗政变与西方干预脉络 accDescr: 展示1951年至1979年美英干预伊朗政局并最终导致1979年伊斯兰革命的演进过程 subgraph S1["石油危机与政变策动 (1951-1953)"] A["摩萨台推行石油国有化"] --> B["英国实施封锁与经济制裁"] B --> C["美英联合发起阿贾克斯行动 (Operation TPAJAX)"] end subgraph S2["亲美王权复辟 (1953-1979)"] C --> D["摩萨台下台 巴列维国王全面掌权"] D --> E["美伊紧密结盟 美国成为主导外部力量"] end subgraph S3["反弹与断交 (1979至今)"] E --> F["1979年伊斯兰革命爆发 霍梅尼上台建立政权"] F --> G["占领美使馆与西方彻底决裂 伊朗沦为情报'黑箱'"] end ``` - 英国自19世纪以来就是现代伊朗历史中绝对的主导殖民势力，直至二战后大英帝国衰落（1940年代）才逐渐淡出，随后美国填补了其在中东的影响力真空。 - 摩萨台作为坚定的民族主义者，认为伊朗石油资源不应受英国利益操纵，其国有化主张成为此后几十年伊朗抵抗西方控制的象征符号。 - 1979年巴列维王朝崩溃后，西方列强彻底失去了在伊朗的所有控制力与意志强加渠道。 ### [14:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=849s) 失去触角的情报“黑箱”与无赖国家定位 1979年德黑兰使馆人质危机爆发后，美英两国在伊朗的实体外交存在归零，使馆被接管，西方情报机关在这片土地上的活动被彻底连根拔起。在情报圈术语中，伊朗变成了一个名副其实的“黑箱”（Black Box）。它与朝鲜、白俄罗斯、古巴以及委内瑞拉等国一样，被归类为拒绝遵循任何国际准则与国际社会规范的“无赖国家”（Rogue Nation）。安德鲁指出，伊朗严禁外国势力尤其西方人入境，传统的人力情报搜集手段几乎彻底瘫痪。加之地理空间远离美国本土势力辐射范围，在美军与情报部门的全球优先事项名单中，伊朗的次序在过去很长时间内甚至被边缘化。然而，这一逻辑与中东的地缘现实存在巨大悖论——波斯湾本身就是全球能源的核心枢纽，中东蕴藏着巨量石油，而美国若仅为了原油保障，完全能够通过沙特阿拉伯、阿联酋、巴林和卡塔尔等阿拉伯海湾盟友满足诉求，而不必直接去触碰伊朗这个烫手山芋。这使得突如其来的直接军事打击显得尤为突兀。 ### [15:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=939s) 为什么是现在？特朗普的动因分歧与“斩首”行动面对主持人提出“为何特朗普偏偏选在此时展开全面打击”的核心疑问，现场专家给出了截然不同但互相补充的视角。安德鲁直言，官方宣称的“最佳时机”纯属叙事包装，在逻辑上根本无法自洽。这一军事行动直接背离了美国国家安全的核心指导文件：国家情报总监办公室（ODNI）发布的年度威胁评估、五角大楼的《国防战略》（NDS）以及白宫官方的《国家安全战略》（NSS）均未将突袭伊朗列为最高优先行动。安德鲁认为，这一决策完全是非理性的产物，其底层动因可能是为转移内部矛盾、屈从于以色列施加的国际压力、在经历一系列外交与内政挫败后急于摘取“廉价胜利”，亦或是在预计执政党将在今年中期选举中失去众议院控制权前的孤注一掷。安妮·雅各布森则提供了自上而下的决策解析框架。她指出，当前白宫是纯粹的高度个人集权运作模式，总统完全痴迷于展现原始权力、威严与绝对掌控力。在马杜罗政权出现变局以及墨西哥贩毒集团头目遭打击的背景下，特朗普显然嗅到了伊朗长期积累的极端脆弱性。在现代战争理论中，最致命、最究极的方式莫过于“斩首行动”（Decapitation Strike），即真正意义上的“斩断蛇头”。安妮强调，如果逆向推演这起军事行动，可以断定特朗普早有动武意图，只是在等待最精确、最无法辩驳的情报窗口。而中情局（CIA）、国家安全局（NSA）、国防情报局（DIA）和国家地理空间情报局（NGA）等多家顶级情报机关能够协同锁定绝对关键的时间与坐标，在瞬间彻底铲除自1979年以来稳坐江山的最高权力阶层，其情报搜集与执行力令人瞠目。至于特朗普公开声称动武是为了防止伊朗获取核武器，安德鲁随即针锋相对地指出事实矛盾：ODNI刚在2025年发布的年度威胁评估中白纸黑字明确指出，评估认为伊朗不太可能真正推进铀浓缩武器化或发展出实战核武器。所谓“迫在眉睫的核威胁”，与美国情报界自身的官方结论截然相悖。 ### [19:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1173s) 大规模杀伤性武器与个人崇拜：开战借口下的政治算盘安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）直接将矛头对准了官方开战借口的漏洞。他援引美国国家情报总监办公室（ODNI）在2025年3月发布的联合情报评估指出，全美情报机构当时已达成明确共识——伊朗根本没有在研发核武器，其主要资源反而是投向了生化武器的研究。更重要的是，在同年6月的美军打击中，美方投下钻地弹彻底摧毁了福尔多（Fordow）核设施，伊朗的浓缩铀提炼能力与核计划早已被彻底摧毁。在手握两份无核研发评估、核设施又已化为废墟的背景下，官方却依然抛出“大规模杀伤性武器”（WMD）来为轰炸造势。布斯塔曼特尖锐地讽刺道：“这个故事我们以前听过，就像当年拿着WMD当借口去打伊拉克一样。” 面对主持人关于“真正动机何在”的追问，布斯塔曼特直言不讳地指出，这完全是自上而下的“领袖意志”。翻开五角大楼的《国家安全战略》或聆听高层的公开发言，以往官僚体系中常见的“我们”、“本届政府”或“国家体制”等词汇几乎销声匿迹，取而代之的是铺天盖地的“唐纳德·特朗普总统”。从马可·卢比奥（Marco Rubio）到皮特·海格塞斯（Pete Hegseth），每个人的发言核心都围绕着讨好领袖、效忠核心。在布斯塔曼特看来，整套决策机制已经高度个人化，白宫官员所做的一切只是在向权力中心的单一个人“亲吻权戒”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 伊朗打击借口与实际驱动力对比 accDescr: 对比官方所宣称的打击理由与专家分析的内部真实政治动因 subgraph Official ["官方宣称理由"] A["情报警告: 疑似研发生化/核武"] --> B["定点清除WMD潜在威胁"] end subgraph Reality ["真实决策动因"] C["福尔多核设施此前已遭摧毁"] --> D["极度集权的个人效忠体制"] E["阿亚图拉针对个人的暗杀企图"] --> D D --> F["打破常规体制的个人化决断"] end ``` --- ### [21:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1272s) “他曾想杀我”：情报盲区与沙盒式报复安妮·雅各布森（Annie Jacobsen）接过了关于“个人化决策”的话题。她提到，只要仔细观察特朗普总统在空袭前后的公开演讲，答案其实早已写在脸上——特朗普在讲话中毫不掩饰地抱怨“阿亚图拉曾试图暗杀我”。在雅各布森看来，这场看似关乎全球地缘格局的军事打击，本质上混杂着粗暴的“以牙还牙”（tit-for-tat）。她以一个抚养了两个儿子的母亲视角调侃道，这更像是一场“小男孩沙盒里的打闹与报复”，这种极度情绪化、非理性的个人行为，已经彻底脱离了传统智库专著和情报评估报告的轨道。谈到官方情报的权威性，雅各布森毫不客气地泼了冷水。她直言过去40年来世界上最重大的历史事件——从柏林墙倒塌到“9·11”恐怖袭击——事前没有任何一份情报报告成功预测过。在高度不可预测的地缘现实面前，所谓的严密情报评估“有时候甚至跟抛硬币差不多准”。 --- ### [22:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1337s) 47年的宿怨与十月七日剧变：动手的战略逻辑本杰明·拉德（Benjamin Radd）顺着情报失灵的话题展开了历史纵深分析。他指出，今天的伊朗伊斯兰共和国本质上就是美国情报彻底失败的产物：早在1976至1977年，美国情报界就未能察觉革命暗潮，没能为卡特总统提供准确预警以支持巴列维国王并化解危机。过去四五十年间，美国在伊朗问题上的情报研判与治国方略（statecraft）可以说是灾难性的。然而，拉德认为从决策层的视角来看，当下动手的背后存在着更紧迫的安全逻辑——那就是2023年10月7日哈马斯对以色列发动的突袭。那场突袭彻底击碎了以色列与美国的情报假设，让华盛顿不得不重新校准安全底线：如果凡事都要等到“致命威胁挂在门外”才做出反应，一切就太晚了。伊朗数十年来不仅在资金、装备、战术和后勤上全力支持哈马斯和黎巴嫩真主党等破坏地区稳定的非国家武装，还在核协议上屡屡越线、突破20%的铀浓缩上限并欺瞒国际原子能机构（IAEA）。从1983年贝鲁特美军军营爆炸案、多起使馆遇袭案到对美军舰艇的破坏，在“9·11”之前，伊朗支持的恐怖活动造成的美国人伤亡超过任何国家或组织。自1979年人质危机以来，这场长达47年的冲突从未真正清算，而2025年6月的打击严重削弱了伊朗及其代理人网络，为华盛顿决策层提供了一个千载难逢的“解决历史遗留问题”的行动窗口。 - **历史恐怖主义伤亡**：在“9·11”之前，伊朗支持的网络是造成美国公民死亡人数最多的国家或非国家实体。 - **核协议违规**：伊朗铀浓缩丰度远超《不扩散核武器条约》（NPT）框架下的民用标准，并长期违反国际原子能机构的核保障监督条款。 - **十月七日效应**：彻底颠覆了“待威胁临近再威慑”的传统战略，转向先发制人的预防性清除。 --- ### [25:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1507s) “痛打死狗”还是历史窗口？合法性与自决权的交锋对于所谓“绝佳行动窗口”的说辞，布斯塔曼特表达了强烈质疑。他认为，即便决策层将此视为机会，这也绝非合理的行动时机。此时的德黑兰政权正处于四十年来的绝对脆弱期：国内爆发了惨烈的流血抗议（据传1月8日至9日就有高达三万人遇害），民众对神权统治的合法性彻底崩塌，软实力与外部代理人网络也已被打残。布斯塔曼特打了个尖锐的比方：“这就像一条疯狗在咬完人、造成所有破坏之后，本身就快病死了，你却非要在它咽气前冲上去再开一枪把死狗毙了。”在他看来，不仅多此一举，更直接打破了国际法规则，导致美军士兵、阿联酋人和沙特人白白送命。拉德对此进行了针锋相对的反驳：对于那些在年初刚刚被政权屠杀的上万名伊朗遇难者家属而言，这个政权绝不是一条毫无威胁的“死狗”。然而布斯塔曼特立刻反呛：“那是他们自己的国家，是他们自己的人民，必须由他们自己来决定命运，这是民族自决权！” 安妮·雅各布森随后介入调解，指出争论时机已经无法改变既成事实，“做过的事无法撤回”。眼下美国自身正深陷严重的国内政治危机，而在波斯湾采取单边军事冒险，其深远后果无法靠水晶球预测。未来两周的发展将极具决定性，任何将此次行动简单定性为“妙棋”或“臭棋”的论调，都不过是一场荒谬的政治戏剧。 --- ### [27:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1663s) “斩首”国家元首的危险先例与大国博弈随着战火蔓延，几位专家将目光投向了更深层的国际法与盟友地缘板块。布斯塔曼特警告称，从不到60天前委内瑞拉马杜罗政权被颠覆，到如今直接动用武力“斩首”伊朗最高领袖哈梅内伊，美国正在践踏维系国际秩序的基本红线。布斯塔曼特特别厘清了“撤换领导人”与“定点肉体消灭”的本质差异：在委内瑞拉抓捕或引渡马杜罗，充其量相当于“撤换公司的CEO”；而炸死一国最高领导人，则是强行摧毁并重组整个国家体制。根据公认的国际法准则，主权国家的国家元首本应受到豁免与法律保护，一旦强行打破这一禁忌，无异于打开了潘多拉魔盒，“向全世界所有国家敞开了相互暗杀元首的大门”。与此同时，针对雅各布森关于中俄只是“酒肉朋友”（fair-weather friends）、随时会抛弃德黑兰的看法，布斯塔曼特强调，伊朗在战前与俄罗斯、中国的实质性捆绑已达到历史顶峰，华盛顿的越界行为极可能促使这些反制美国霸权的阵营加速结盟，让局势滑向完全不可控的深渊。 ### [28:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1730s) 意想不到的连锁反应与美国国内的深层危机单方面对一个主权国家采取直接军事打击，将引发不可控的多米诺骨牌效应。安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）直言，这种无视国际准则的行为相当于为世界各国打开了危险的潘多拉魔盒，向所有国家释放了一个信号：任何国家都可以随心所欲地对其他主权独立国家单方面动武。其代价是催生更多不受约束的流氓政权、国际秩序的彻底崩塌、全球贸易与经济的剧烈震荡，以及普通人安全感的全面丧失。美国人并没有因为这场袭击变得更安全，反而比四天前更容易成为报复袭击的众矢之的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 单边军事打击的连锁反应 accDescr: 展示美国单方面打击主权国家如何导致国际秩序崩塌并反噬国内安全的因果链路。 subgraph 国际连锁反应 A["美国单方面军事打击主权国家"] --> B["树立危险先例 鼓励单边动武"] B --> C["催生更多流氓政权 国际规则约束瓦解"] C --> D["全球贸易动荡 地缘安全感崩溃"] end subgraph 反噬国内现实 D --> E["海外与本土美国人安全风险剧增"] F["国内现实危机 经济困境 / 移民危机 / 部族化政治撕裂"] E -.-> G["内外交困：国家安全与社会撕裂全面加剧"] F -.-> G end ``` 针对“把局势搞砸才能换来转机”的激进论调，现场展开了激烈的交锋。眼下美国本土正深陷经济低迷、边境移民失控和近乎“部族式内战”的极端政治极化之中。在自身后院千疮百孔之际，美国却选择与刚在加沙地带完成毁灭性军事行动的盟友（以色列）绑在一起，将外部冲突骤然升级，无异于在烈火上浇油。 ### [30:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1819s) 主权边界、纽伦堡遗产与国家暴力干预的悖论对话随后转向了国际法的核心争议：当一个国家动用国家机器残酷镇压本国公民时，国际社会究竟有没有权力介入？布斯塔曼特从现实主义法理角度指出，在严格的国际法框架下，这属于“国家内部冲突”（intrastate conflict）或内战范畴，国际社会在法理上并没有干预一国内政的既定责任。本杰明·拉德（Benjamin Radd）随即提出了强烈反驳，将视线拉回到二战后四国盟军筹办纽伦堡审判的法学辩论。当时国际社会的共识正是为了打破“主权至上”的野蛮逻辑——不能因为德国在其本土边界内屠杀本国人符合当时的德国法律，国际社会就听之任之。正是纽伦堡法庭奠定了反人类罪、侵略罪和战争罪等现代国际法基石，明确国家不能以主权为盾牌残害人民。拉德强调，伊朗当局对民众的屠杀根本不是均势对抗的内战，而是手持砍刀、突击步枪的军警对赤手空拳抗议者的单方面虐杀。 - **国际法适用的双重标准**：美国一方面谴责他国暴行，另一方面却在克林顿执政时期拒绝签署《国际刑事法院罗马规约》（ICC），刻意游离于普遍约束之外。 - **胜利者正义的残酷现实**：现实中不存在一视同仁的国际执法，有的只是“胜利者正义”（victor's justice）——超级大国按自身利益随意践踏规则、选择性执法，在袭击他国元首的同时又高呼国际法。这种不可预测的丛林法则让全球民众连生活规划、资产投资和安全出行都失去了基本坐标。 ### [32:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1965s) 个人品牌高于国家：特朗普的政治遗产与行事动机探讨这一重大决定的核心动机时，主持人和嘉宾们剖析了唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）极为特殊的心理诱因与利益诉求。布斯塔曼特提出，特朗普可能是有史以来第一位将“个人私利与家族遗产”置于“政治与制度遗产”之上的美国总统。他所真正在乎的，并不是百年后自己能否作为杰出公职人员被载入史册，而是“特朗普”这个商业品牌的全球估值、家族财富的延续与眼前的轰动效应。拉德对此表示赞同，指出特朗普的核心理念并非单纯的“党派高于国家”，而是“品牌高于国家”（brand over country）。特朗普始终自诩为顶级的“交易撮合者”（deal maker），渴望捧得诺贝尔和平奖，并对任内“终结或避免了多少场战争”津津乐道。事实上，发动战争并非特朗普的首选方案；他最梦寐以求的完美构想，是通过极限施压逼迫伊朗签署全面城下之盟——既锁死核武器、弹道导弹和地区代理人武装，又能为他在德黑兰市中心盖起一座金碧辉煌的“特朗普赌场酒店”（Trump Hotel & Casino）。当外交投降落空时，他就毫不犹豫地诉诸武力来巩固自身强人形象。 | 政治动机维度 | 传统总统考量 | 特朗普式核心考量 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **优先利益级** | 国家利益、宪政体制延续、盟友体系稳定 | 特朗普家族财富、商业品牌声誉与扩张 | | **对外成就感** | 长期地缘战略均势、国际多边规则巩固 | 诺贝尔和平奖、自我标榜“止战缔造者”的光环 | | **对伊理想终局** | 制度化重返核协议、防扩散核查 | 极限施压迫使对方屈服，换取包括商业开发在内的全套协议 | ### [34:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2089s) 盟友脱节与冷战后总统行政权力的无序扩张国际秩序崩解的另一个危险信号，是美国与传统盟友之间协调机制的彻底瓦解。主持人提及英国首相基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）在此次空袭中的尴尬处境：斯塔默在袭击发生后对媒体公开发言时，神态完全被蒙在鼓里，正如之前美方突袭委内瑞拉时一样毫无预警。拉德指出，美方此前曾试探性询问英方关于动用迪戈加西亚岛（Diego Garcia）等军事基地的可能性，遭到英国政府回绝后便索性彻底将最亲密的盟友排除在外。曾经基于情报共享和联合决策的西方盟国体系，正退化为美国独断专行的独角戏。安妮·雅各布森（Annie Jacobsen）从资深国家安全调查记者的视角，指出了这种单边军事行动背后的致命弱点与历史宿命感： - **内部撕裂摧毁外部强硬**：美国社会与两党政治的极度分裂是其最大的软肋。即使单次越境打击展现了压倒性的军事战术优势，本土政治体系的瘫痪与对立也会让一切战略果实付诸东流。 - **伊拉克战争的历史讽刺**：如今抨击该行动的反对党纷纷搬出当年的伊拉克战争作为反面教材，标榜当年至少走过国会授权并争取了盟国支持；但雅各布森一针见血地指出，那场看似“合法有序”的战争完全建立在伪造的虚假情报之上，导致了长达二十年的苦难泥潭。 - **秘密行动的全面公开化**：二战结束以来，美国总统的行政特权（presidential authority）在国家安全领域无限膨胀。如今这套体制演变成了一个前所未有的危险新阶段——总统可以轻而易举地将过去中情局（CIA）见不得光的“秘密斩首行动”（covert action），直接包装成白昼下的公开正规军事打击来肆意推进。 ### [38:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2287s) 战时法权融合：Title 10 与 Title 50 的危险交织对伊朗发起打击背后的法律机制引发了现场的热烈讨论。特朗普政府被指出正在将美国法典中的“Title 10”（第10篇）与“Title 50”（第50篇）法定权限进行模糊化合并。普通民众很难察觉这两种授权被糅合意味着什么：Title 10 规范的是美军正规部队，要求其严格遵守国际战争法与军事交战规则；而 Title 50 则是情报与秘密行动授权——当总统认定存在国家安全威胁时，可直接动用中央情报局（CIA）的准军事力量（paramilitary forces）。在实际操作中，五角大楼会通过所谓的“潜行借调”（sheep dip），将美军的第一梯队特种作战人员（Tier 1 operators）调至中情局名下，摘下臂章与军装标识，换上普通平民便服，派去执行高风险的军事打击任务。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Title 10 与 Title 50 法律权限融合示意图 accDescr: 展示美国总统如何将国防部的正规军事授权与中情局的秘密行动授权融合并借调特战队员。 subgraph Authorities ["行政部门法定权力 (Executive Branch)"] T10["Title 10 (国防部 / 正规军事法)"] T50["Title 50 (中情局 / 秘密反恐行动)"] end subgraph Operation ["操作层面 (Sheep Dip 机制)"] T10 -->|"调派 Tier 1 顶尖特战人员"| Merge["摘掉军服臂章与官方标识"] T50 -->|"赋予总统直接秘密行动许可"| Merge Merge --> Strike["以中情局秘密准军事名义 执行实际上的军事斩首打击"] end ``` 这种操作让总统能绕过常规军事审查，按照个人意志使用军队。作为三军统帅和国家最高行政长官，无论是国防部（DOD）还是中央情报局（CIA），都直属于行政分支（Executive Branch），而不受立法或司法分支的直接管辖。因此，总统历来有权签署行政令采取此类战术行动。 - **Title 10（军事行动法）**：要求严格遵循交战法则、国际人道法及公开战争规程。 - **Title 50（战争与国家防务法）**：赋予总统秘密反恐与隐蔽行动特权，行动无需公开展开，也不受正规交战条令的全面约束。 - **“Sheep Dip”特战借调**：军方顶尖特种兵被剥离军籍痕迹转入情报暗杀编制，行动后美国官方可保持“合理推诿”（plausible deniability）。 --- ### [39:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2360s) 衰退的 CIA 与被转包的外包情报网络前中情局特工安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）直言，外界不断渲染“CIA 的精妙行动”，但公众忽略了一个残酷的现实：中情局内部早就被严重削弱。特朗普在第一任期就公开与情报部门对抗，导致中情局人员大规模流失并被削减预算；现任局长约翰·拉特克利夫（John Ratcliffe）更是几乎隐形，鲜少被决策层引用或提及。布斯塔曼特回顾道，早在2014年他离开中情局时，局里在委内瑞拉和伊朗的情报收集就已经出现了巨大的盲区；到了2020年代初，甚至有传言指出局内高达 65% 的情报实际上来自外国盟友，美国情报机构已经丧失了独立生产一手情报的能力，转而全面走向“情报外包”。现场学者指出，情报圈老兵往往有一种“过去的机构远好于现在”的怀旧滤镜，但布斯塔曼特反驳称这不是好坏问题，而是结构性事实：根据美国国家安全体系的架构，中央情报局（CIA）顾名思义是“中央”汇聚点，国防部及各大机构的情报最终都必须经由中情局汇总整理，形成最终简报呈递总统；同时，中情局负责对接所有外国情报部门。因此，不论情报实际上来自摩萨德（Mossad）还是其他盟友，公开报道均会打上“CIA”的标签，所有功劳和黑锅自然也都落到中情局头上。 --- ### [41:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2511s) 谁是幕后推手？以色列的人力情报垄断与同盟博弈关于这次刺杀的情报源头，嘉宾之间爆发了激烈交锋。布斯塔曼特坚信，全球对伊朗政局和内部高层动向最了如指掌的国家绝非美国，而是以色列，若无以色列极端细致的情报网与紧密协同，美军根本无法完成打击。加州大学洛杉矶分校学者本杰明·拉德（Benjamin Radd）提出了不同看法，他认为英国军情六处（MI6）在伊朗同样拥有深厚而高效的渗透网络，加之英国在伊朗设有使馆并保持着外交与经贸往来，伊朗政权往往将伦敦视为接触西方的有效管道，因此以色列并非唯一的情报主导者。然而，布斯塔曼特举出历史先例：从伊拉克战争对萨达姆·侯赛因（Saddam Hussein）的斩首失败，到利比亚对卡扎菲（Muammar Gaddafi）行动后的全面失控，过去由中情局主导的情报均以惨败告终；唯独此次对伊朗政权的定点清除取得了极高的精准度。沙特阿拉伯、阿联酋和约旦等中东盟友虽然都巴不得伊朗倒台，但唯有以色列在伊朗境内编织了历时最久、最扎实的人力情报（HUMINT）资产。情报共享从不是毫无保留的——如果你手里掌握10条情报，你只会挑选能促使对方“采取行动”的3条提供给盟友。 - **目标标记（Find, Fix, Finish）的现实壁垒**：精准打击必须对涉案的数十名关键人物进行实时电子与生物标记。 - **电信中继障碍**：手机信号的地理定位必须依赖当地运营商，美国根本无法直接接入中东的电信基础设施，必须依赖当地线人和技术代理进行穿透拦截。 - **情报优先级的断层**：在五角大楼与情报界的战略排序中，俄罗斯、中国甚至墨西哥毒枭的威胁顺位均远高于伊朗。突然之间拥有如此精细的伊朗情报，只能说明其高度依赖盟友的定向供给。 --- ### [46:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2786s) 潘多拉魔盒：斩首行动对全球专制政权的恶劣示范讨论最终导向了令人不寒而栗的地缘政治后果。既然伊朗在战略优先级上并非首要威胁，美国冒着极高风险发起针对主权国家领导人的斩首打击，其深层动机被推测为：在深感自身全球霸权与影响力衰退的恐慌下，华盛顿或是被区域盟友裹挟借刀杀人，或是特朗普为了树立个人政治强人品牌而采取的冒险豪赌。这种单边斩首主权国家高官的做法，彻底打破了战后国际秩序中长期默认的暗杀禁区。布斯塔曼特提出严重警告： > “我相信乌克兰总统泽连斯基至今没有被俄罗斯暗杀的一个核心原因，就是暗杀国家领导人属于不可逾越的绝对红线，这会彻底激怒美欧。而我们刚刚亲手把这个‘行动许可’发给了全世界。” 美国不仅在委内瑞拉和伊朗打破了规则，更为世界上的其他强权提供了完美的行动先例。现在，莫斯科有了暗杀敌对政权领导人的充分借口；北京在面对台海局势时，也同样可以援引美国的逻辑实施针对单一核心人物的“精准清除”；这一连锁反应还将波及印度与巴基斯坦之间剑拔弩张的边界冲突，全球政治暗杀与跨国清算的潘多拉魔盒已被彻底打开。 ### [47:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2867s) “消灭美国”与斩首国家元首的合法性红线讨论从暗杀国家元首与军阀的法理边界展开。本杰明·拉德（Benjamin Radd）指出，伊朗最高领袖阿里·哈梅内伊（Ali Khamenei）与当今其他世界领导人存在本质区别——其整个意识形态与政权合法性正是建立在“消灭美国（Death to America）”等口号之上。无论是台湾地区领导人还是乌克兰总统泽连斯基，哪怕泽连斯基希望普京去死，也从未公开呼吁彻底毁灭整个俄罗斯国家；而伊朗的体制从根本上将毁灭美国设定为其政权运转的基石。主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此表达了深层忧虑。他认为一旦用“与众不同”来开脱，就意味着将行刺标准滑向主观裁量。在传统国际认知中，即便掌握敌国首脑行踪，直接定点清除一直被视为不可逾越的红线；然而在过去一两年间，从委内瑞拉将领导人直接从床上抓走，再到如今直接投弹炸毁别国元首住所，“斩首行动”似乎彻底变成了常规选项。巴特利特直言，这种将国家元首直接肉体消灭并在事后公开现场照片的做法，标志着一种前所未有且令人不寒而栗的地缘政治新常态。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 斩首行动合法性争议逻辑 accDescr: 对比传统国际法约束与当前先发制人定点清除国家领导人的争议逻辑路径 subgraph Traditional["传统国际秩序架构"] A["国家元首豁免权与国际法"] --> B["严禁针对建交/非交战国首脑肉体消灭"] B --> C["维持大国博弈底线与外交缓冲"] end subgraph Shift["新型斩首常态与单边行动"] D["意识形态敌对: '消灭美国'"] --> E["直接支持代理人袭击 (如10月7日)"] E --> F["将政治首脑定性为交战指挥官"] F --> G["多国定点清除与夜袭抓捕常态化"] end Traditional -.->|"底线破裂与规则重塑"| Shift ``` ### [49:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2978s) “老世界已死”与帝国面对威胁的心态分歧安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）对此给出了极为冷峻的现实主义剖析。美国国务卿声称这是美国的“黄金时代”，甚至法国总统马克龙近期也宣称“要获得自由，必先令人畏惧”。布斯塔曼特认为，旧世界秩序确实已经瓦解，但他对政客将“消灭美国”等口号视为生存威胁嗤之以鼻。在他看来，一个贫困、落后且地处偏远的小国在街头叫嚣口号，对真正拥有全球霸权的美国而言毫无实质杀伤力，就如同叛逆期的青春期孩子冲着父母大喊“我恨你”一样，家长根本无需为此动摇或将其逐出家门。布斯塔曼特进一步强调了全球最强军队的绝对优势：虽然像“科尔号”驱逐舰（USS Cole）爆炸案这样的袭击偶有发生，但在现实中，美军每挫败25次袭击才可能漏掉1次。伊朗伊斯兰共和国自1979年掌权至今尚不足50年，建国经验极其稚嫩。拉德随即反驳称，不能简单以“叛逆期”来轻视其危害，这个残酷的政权强迫妇女戴头巾、摧毁了拥有数千年历史的波斯文明，其对内对外的极端暴行早已超出正常的国家行为准则。 - **反恐攻防对比**：布斯塔曼特指出，美军及情报机构庞大的防御能力足以确保绝大多数潜在袭击在萌芽状态即被粉碎，每1起成功的袭击背后是至少25起被成功阻截的图谋。 - **政权体量对比**：美国建国近250年，而德黑兰现行政权自1979年革命至今不到半个世纪，双方在全球战略博弈中的抗风险维度完全不对等。 ### [51:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3105s) 谁扣动了扳机：战斗员定义与以色列暗杀链条围绕摧毁伊朗最高统帅部的具体袭击，嘉宾们厘清了关键的行动分工：虽然战果与情报往往与美国绑定，但实际“按下按钮、扣动扳机”直接发射导弹实施致命打击的实体是以色列，美国则提供了核心情报与关键武器支持。拉德抛出一个核心法理问题：作为全球唯一公开对10月7日袭击叫好、并在10月8日直接指使真主党加入战局的外国元首，哈梅内伊究竟能否被以色列视作合法的“交战人员”（combatant）进而实施自卫反击？布斯塔曼特展开了激烈的交锋。他提出，如果将资助、鼓励、下达命令的最高元帅或三军统帅直接界定为可定点清除的战斗人员，那么国际法中保护国家元首的条款便形同虚设；更严峻的危机在于“附带损伤”与非战斗人员的模糊边界。以色列长期以在全球实施暗杀闻名，但这恰恰使其国际盟友陷入道德泥潭——因为以色列定点暗杀的目标往往并非处于热战中的现役军人，而是核科学家、工业主管或技术专家。拉德认为中东地区国家体制下“平民与军工科研人员的界线本就高度模糊”，但布斯塔曼特坚决反驳称，强制受命或效力于军用项目的科学家依然属于平民，一旦以“自卫”为名彻底撕碎国际法保护网，现代战争将彻底沦为无底线的暗杀丛林。 ### [54:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3261s) 2026斩首日程表：谁是名单上的下一位？安妮·雅各布森（Annie Jacobsen）转换了切入视角，引入了社交网络在战时心理战中的投射。在哈梅内伊遭定点清除后，一张在社交网络上迅速疯传的“2026年斩首日历”引起了她的注意： - **1月**：委内瑞拉总统马杜罗（Nicolás Maduro） - **2月**：墨西哥贩毒集团头目 - **3月**：伊朗最高领袖哈梅内伊 - **后续月份**：填满了引人遐想的问号雅各布森推测，这种极速传播的宣传品是否代表白宫正在向普京释放强烈信号，迫使其在乌克兰问题上尽快与特朗普达成妥协。布斯塔曼特断然否定了这一猜想，直言“普京是完全不同量级的庞然大物”。在他看来，这张日历针对的真正受众是古巴领导人。按照美国官方认定的四大“支持恐怖主义国家”名单，一旦伊朗高层被端掉，古巴将面临前所未有的生存危机，而在古巴之后，名单上仅剩的最后一环便是朝鲜。 ### [55:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3333s) 商业赞助插播在硬核的地缘政治对谈间隙，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特穿插介绍了两款由其投资并亲身体验的高效能辅助工具： - **Ketone-IQ**：一款专注于提升大脑对焦、稳定日间能量水平与提升工作效率的外源酮饮料（ketone.com/steven）。巴特利特透露团队内已有约35%的成员将其视为改变日常状态的关键工具，目前该产品已在全美 Target 门店同步上架。 - **Wispr Flow**：一款支持在电脑、手机等多端运行的语音交互工具，主打通过语音与软硬件自然沟通，打破键盘输入的生产力瓶颈。 ### [56:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3405s) 智能效率工具 Wispr Flow 的商业赞助与生产力变革主持人 Steven Bartlett 分享了他日常办公流程中的颠覆性变化：以往需要手动逐字敲击的电子邮件，如今只需在手机上按下一个按键，通过口述即可直接生成。背后的核心是 Wispr Flow 这款结合了 AI 技术的智能语音输入工具。它不仅能自动纠正口语表达中的语法和冗余，还会根据不同的通讯场景自适应匹配语调——例如在 WhatsApp 等即时通讯软件中保持随和自然的风格，而在电子邮件中自动切换为严谨专业的商务口吻。更具革命性的是其个性化快捷指令功能，用户只需简单说出“Jack 的 LinkedIn”，系统就能根据用户的生活人际关系网，自动检索并精准粘贴 Jack 的 LinkedIn 个人主页链接。由于深感该产品带来的巨大效率提升及其井喷式的增长势头，Steven 不仅成为了该公司的投资人，更将其引入播客作为主赞助商。 --- ### [57:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3459s) 美国对古巴的地缘关切与“友好接管”言论话题切入国际地缘政治，讨论聚焦于美国为何长期对古巴保持高度戒备。古巴在地理位置上距离佛罗里达州海岸仅约 90 英里，是西半球少数完全脱离美国势力范围的国家之一。回顾冷战历史，苏联曾在古巴部署中程核弹道导弹，将肯尼迪政府乃至整个美国推向了全面核战争的悬崖边缘（即古巴导弹危机）。就在对谈录制的前两天，特朗普公开提到古巴政府正面临空前的危机，国家陷入严重的财政枯竭与物资匮乏境地，并透露古巴正在与美方展开接触。特朗普甚至直言不讳地宣称“也许我们会对古巴进行一场友好接管（friendly takeover）”。这一言论将古巴再次推到了可能面临政权更迭的地缘政治风口浪尖。 --- ### [58:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3528s) 核门槛作为终极威慑：朝核教训与伊核末日神学争议针对“是否一旦拥有核武器，美国就不敢轻易动手”的疑问，嘉宾们达成了基本共识：核武器确实是国际关系中最顶级的终极威慑（ultimate deterrent）。克林顿执政时期的对朝政策被视作美国外交史上的关键转折点。当年朝鲜领导人声称放弃核武器计划，而克林顿政府经过内部智囊与国会的反复评估，最终选择不发起军事打击，结果导致朝鲜成功迈过核门槛，如今不仅手握核弹头，更具备打击美国本土的弹道导弹载具与发射系统。这种历史教训让美国决策层彻底认定：绝不能让任何新的敌对国家跨过这道核红线，而伊朗首当其冲。但与朝鲜不同，伊朗政权背后潜藏着什叶派末世论意识形态——即为了迎接隐遁马赫迪（Mahdi）重临而准备承受大灾难的末日信仰。尽管有人担忧这可能诱发自杀式冲突，但 Benjamin Radd 指出，伊朗现政权从根本上并非自杀式的。哈梅内伊虽然愿意为信仰而死，但他绝不会以整个国家的彻底毁灭为赌注去发动核战争。随着第一代革命元老（以哈梅内伊为最后代表）的陨落，伊朗伊斯兰共和国的性质已经发生了根本变化。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 霍弗社会运动三阶段模型与伊朗政权演变 accDescr: 展示埃里克·霍弗提出的运动演变理论，对应伊朗伊斯兰政权从哈梅内伊革命到伊斯兰革命卫队垄断寻租的过程。 subgraph Theory["埃里克·霍弗 (Eric Hoffer) 演变理论"] M["伟大的运动 (Movements)"] --> B["庞大的商业 (Businesses)"] --> R["分赃的敲诈集团 (Rackets)"] end subgraph IranReality["伊朗伊斯兰共和国的现实演变"] I1["70年代伊斯兰革命 精神领袖与意识形态驱动"] --> I2["两伊战争后制度化 革命卫队 (IRGC) 掌控经济命脉"] --> I3["哈梅内伊去世后的当下 失去宗教光环的寡头寻租分赃"] end Theory -. 映射.-> IranReality ``` 哲学家埃里克·霍弗（Eric Hoffer）曾精辟断言：“伟大的事业始于运动，继而变成商业，最终沦为敲诈集团（rackets）。”从 1979 年由哈梅内伊等人发起的意识形态运动，到后来伊斯兰革命卫队（IRGC）垄断经济利益的庞大企业，如今的伊朗政权早已堕落为彻头彻尾的寻租与分赃集团。随着精神领袖的死亡，政权内部仅剩下追逐私利的集团寡头，未来局势完全进入了不可测的未知领域。 --- ### [01:01:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3719s) 武器级核能力差距与赫格塞斯的“负担分摊”军事学说针对伊朗的核能力评估，Andrew Bustamante 指出，拥有浓缩度达到 60% 的铀虽然足以制作造成大范围辐射污染的“脏弹”或者卡车炸弹，但这与制造出达到武器级（90%及以上）、能够稳定搭载于弹道导弹顶端并安全穿越大气层击中目标的实战化核武库之间，仍存在质的鸿沟。朝鲜目前已经具备相当成熟的弹道载具打击能力，但这也表明，如果美国有意向具备实战核能力的对手秀肌肉，其针对目标可能不仅限于常规对手。更引人瞩目的是赫格塞斯（Pete Hegseth）执掌国防部（被戏称为“战争部”）后推行的新型军事学说——**“负担分摊（Burden Sharing）”**： - **战略意图与操作模式**：美国一改以往大包大揽的作风，仅派出精干且有限的先遣军事力量（例如小型海军编队）深入战区实施突袭打击。 - **倒逼盟友卷入**：美方明知伊朗遭受打击后必然会向周边海湾盟友宣泄报复火力，而这正是战略预设的一部分。通过将冲突的痛苦分摊至中东盟友身上，强行逼迫盟友下场承担国家安全成本。 - **全球同质复制**：这一逻辑在俄乌冲突中同样体现得淋漓尽致——欧洲各国若想抵御俄罗斯威胁，就必须承担起自身安全的主要开销，而非单纯依赖美国。 - **地缘战略洗牌**：此举赋予了美军极大的行动自由度，能够以极小兵力“捅马蜂窝”，随后抽身由区域盟友买单。而在中东，伊朗在遭袭 48 小时内对周边多达六个国家实施反击，不仅没有瓦解敌对阵营，反而激怒了海湾阿拉伯国家。海湾国家发表了前所未有的严厉谴责声明，彻底粉碎了近年来双方艰难达成的和解假象，给伊朗的外交处境造成了毁灭性打击。 - **粮食与地缘矛盾**：与普遍的石油认知相反，中东许多高度依赖石油出口的国家本土极度缺乏农业生产能力，粮食命脉长期依赖伊朗的农业供应。这使得海湾诸国与伊朗之间在激烈的军事冲突与深度的生存物资依赖之间，陷入了极端扭曲的地缘纠葛。 ### [01:05:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3926s) 核威慑演习还是战争边缘：法俄博弈与伊朗局势的核风险争辩现场围绕美国对伊朗采取军事行动是否将世界推向核战争边缘爆发了激烈争论。安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）斩钉截铁地表示，发生核战争的几率“绝对增加了100%”，并援引最新国际动态指出，法国正在全欧范围内分散部署可由战机挂载的空射核弹头，这种战术核武器的扩散无疑放大了误判与擦枪走火的致命风险。然而，国家安全记者安妮·雅各布森（Annie Jacobsen）对此持强烈反对意见。她反驳称，法国的核力量调动完全是为了威慑乌克兰战场上的俄罗斯，与伊朗根本毫无瓜葛。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 核风险与战略威慑认知分歧 accDescr: 对比安德鲁与安妮关于战术核部署与美俄博弈的不同视角 subgraph AndrewView["安德鲁的观点：核风险剧增"] A1["战术核武器部署扩散 （如法国空射核弹头）"] --> A2["战场误判与升级门槛降低"] A2 --> A3["逼近核冲突边缘"] end subgraph AnnieView["安德鲁与安妮的交锋：战略威慑与强人博弈"] B1["常规军事调动与表态 （核潜艇巡航、近海试探）"] --> B2["战略威慑与心理施压"] B2 --> B3["普京对特朗普不可预测性的忌惮"] B3 --> B4["大国强硬制衡，而非直接爆发核战"] end ``` 雅各布森强调，国际政治中必须严格区分“武器机动部署（Deployment）”与“实际使用核武器（Nuclear Use）”。真正具备毁灭性核打击能力的超级大国是俄罗斯，其装备的如“榛树”（Oreshnik）等高超音速与洲际弹道导弹根本无法被现有反导系统拦截，俄方绝不会把飞机挂载的战术战区核弹头放在眼里；更关键的是，伊朗本身根本没有核武器。在她看来，无论是普京派核潜艇在挪威近海浮出水面进行极限施压，还是特朗普宣称调动核潜艇，本质上都是大国强人之间的心理战和强权展示。特朗普难以捉摸的行事风格反而让普京意识到碰上了旗鼓相当的对手，而非软弱可欺的对象，因此这次行动绝不会促使普京贸然动用核武。 - **美俄空间合作例外**：美国在绝大多数领域对俄罗斯实施全面制裁，但对太空探索项目保留了豁免，双方至今仍在航天领域保持必要合作。 - **战术核部署分歧**：布斯塔曼特认为将空射核弹头分散到盟国就意味着迈向核战争门槛；雅各布森则坚持这只是常规的防御调动与威慑姿态，不能等同于核打击。 - **强人心理机制**：雅各布森直言，这种对抗模式虽称不上优秀的外交手段，纯粹是“相互展示铁腕”，但它客观上抑制了对手轻举妄动的野心。 --- ### [01:09:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4156s) 消耗战陷阱：不对称拦截成本与军工复合体的狂欢本杰明·拉德（Benjamin Radd）对雅各布森的判断表示赞同，指出单看孤立的伊朗局势确实没有直接触发核战的可能，但真正的战略隐患在于全球大棋局的连锁反应。当美国在中东不断消耗昂贵的防空反导拦截弹和常规精确弹药时，中国正在南海加紧军演并积极囤积战略资源。华盛顿若在中东泥潭中过度耗损弹药储备，一旦印太地区爆发突发事态，美军将面临弹药短缺的巨大劣势，届时被动局势反而更容易将局势推向难以预料的核升级危险中。这场冲突最直接的受益者毫无疑问是军工复合体与国防承包商。中东战场的消耗战呈现出极度残酷的经济不对称性：伊朗大规模发射廉价的“见证者”（Shahed）自杀式无人机和各型弹道导弹，而以色列、科威特及阿联酋为了实施拦截，往往需要发射成本高出10到15倍的防空拦截弹。有数据显示，面对来袭导弹，防空系统所需的拦截弹配比甚至达到了惊人的25比1。面对这种狂轰滥炸式的廉价弹药消耗，防守方的财政与军火库承受着不成比例的重压。雅各布森同时透露，美军实际上也从中吸取了教训，已经开始仿制类似“见证者”的廉价巡飞打击系统（如 LUCAS 计划），以期在未来战场上以其人之道还治其人之身。 - **拦截成本悬殊**：拦截弹的单价通常比伊朗来袭的弹道导弹或自杀无人机贵10至15倍，反导体系在经济上面临持续放血。 - **弹药拦截比率**：战场评估显示，防空部队在应对饱和打击时，往往需要多枚甚至数十枚拦截单元协同防守同一批目标。 - **战术逆向采用**：美军打破过去一味追求高精尖的惯例，开发并部署了廉价、可大量消耗的自杀式无人机系统用于战术突防。 --- ### [01:11:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4266s) 伊朗军事双轨制：国防军与伊斯兰革命卫队的分立主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）拿出用装满豆子的玻璃罐所制作的兵力对比道具，对伊朗在中东名列前茅的军队人数规模表达了吃惊。本杰明·拉德随即指出了外界观察伊朗军力时最常犯的一个根本性错误：绝不能将伊朗军队视为一个单一的整体，而必须严格区分“伊朗伊斯兰共和国军队”（国防军，Artesh）与“伊斯兰革命卫队”（IRGC）。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 伊朗双轨军事体制对比 accDescr: 展示伊朗国防军与伊斯兰革命卫队的职责与指挥权属差异 subgraph Artesh["伊朗国防军 (Artesh)"] direction TB A["受政府及总统系统管理"] --> B["核心职责：保卫国家主权与法定边境"] end subgraph IRGC["伊斯兰革命卫队 (IRGC)"] direction TB C["直接且仅向最高领袖负责"] --> D["核心职责：捍卫伊斯兰革命意识形态"] D --> E["掌控海外代理人网络与进攻性战略武器"] end ``` 拉德详细解释道，这两支武装力量分属完全不同的职能与权力架构。国防军主要听命于国家行政体系和总统办公室，核心使命是常规意义上的保家卫国、防御领土边界不受侵犯；而伊斯兰革命卫队（IRGC）中的“I”代表的是“伊斯兰”而非“伊朗”，它是一支凌驾于世俗权力结构之上的纯粹意识形态武装，仅仅对最高领袖一人效忠。革命卫队的任务是保卫1979年伊斯兰革命的成果、输出意识形态，并牢牢掌控着遍布中东的抵抗之弧代理人网络、弹道导弹部队以及无人机武库。如果从伊朗庞大的兵员总数中剥离掉专事国土防御的国防军，剩下的核心威慑力量正是这支意志坚决的意识形态近卫军。 - **意识形态军种**：伊斯兰革命卫队完全脱离常规政府架构，拥有独立的陆海空特种部队、庞大的经济实体以及海外行动机构“圣城旅”。 - **区域最大武库**：即便常规海空军装备老化，伊朗依然维系着全中东规模最为庞大的无人机、弹道导弹及防空武器储备。 --- ### [01:12:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4364s) 导弹耗尽之后：地下“导弹城”与 B-2 隐形轰炸机的致命猎杀讨论转入对战局持续时间的实质性推演。伊朗在刚刚过去的周末向以色列等目标倾泻了数百枚弹道导弹，但在持续的高强度对轰中，这种打击节奏注定无法持久。拉德引述情报与战损评估指出，在去年夏季的军事冲突中，以色列国防军已经宣称摧毁了伊朗近半数的导弹库存、发射架及防空雷达阵地；以目前弹药消耗与被摧毁的速率推算，伊朗现存的战略弹药最多只能支撑两到三周的高烈度对抗，届时其主要远程打击能力将面临事实上的枯竭。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 伊朗深埋阵地与美军B-2精确打击对比 accDescr: 分析伊朗地下导弹城的隐蔽机制与美军战略轰炸机的穿透反制 subgraph IranDefense["伊朗导弹防护机制"] I1["公路机动发射车（隐蔽转移防锁定）"] I2["深埋地下数百米的‘导弹城’"] end subgraph USAirStrike["美军B-2战略轰炸机打击"] U1["本土起飞隐身突防"] U2["搭载超大型钻地弹（如GBU-57）"] end USA strike --> IranDefense U1 & U2 -->|"穿透加固掩体摧毁发射井"| I2 ``` 雅各布森紧接着揭示了美军在此次军事行动中扮演的关键角色。美国空军直接动用了本土起飞的 B-2“幽灵”隐形轰炸机，对伊朗深藏于地底的所谓“地下导弹城”实施了外科手术式精确打击。她分析称，类似伊朗和朝鲜这类受到严密空中监控的国家，主要依靠两种手段保全远程导弹：一是使用公路机动发射车不断转移隐蔽，防止被卫星实时锁定；二是将整个导弹发射井、储存库和组装车间整体深埋在山体地下极深处。而美军派遣的 B-2 轰炸机是当今世界上极少数能够携带重型钻地弹、彻底摧毁深埋坚固地下设施的战略平台。这一打击对伊朗的深层军事资产造成了不可逆的重创。然而，随着伊朗导弹储备步入倒计时，且美方绝无派地面部队入侵的意图，这场冲突在武器耗尽后将以何种形态收场，依然是摆在所有人面前的巨大未知数。 - **地下导弹城**：伊朗将弹道导弹系统深埋于地下复杂坑道网中，具备快速升降发射能力，此前被视为不可穿透的防御堡垒。 - **B-2 远程突袭**：美军战略隐形轰炸机具备全球远程奔袭能力，其携带的超大型钻地弹药专为摧毁坚固地下工事而设计。 - **战争周期预测**：分析认为在美以联手压制与持续拦截下，伊朗高强度发射战役级导弹的窗口期仅剩两到三周。 ### [01:14:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4455s) 战略误判与持久战：时间站在伊朗这一边面对冲突究竟会如何收场以及将持续多久的追问，安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）直言，对伊朗发动军事打击是美方犯下的重大战略错误之一，因为在这场博弈中，“拥有时间红利的是他们，而不是我们”。伊朗完全可以自主选择反击的时机、方式与反应烈度。美方根本无法预料，伊朗是否正在某处地下掩体里拼装脏弹，静待美军地面部队踏上其领土。安德鲁指出，如果认为当前的核力量部署与伊朗局势毫无干系，虽然他尊重这种看法，但这恰恰暴露了对真实军事经验以及“致死战略意图”的极度匮乏。军事情报人员受训的思维框架是“制造最大化杀伤”（maximum damage），而此刻伊朗也是以完全相同的逻辑在进行推演。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 冲突演变与消耗战逻辑 accDescr: 展示伊朗在面临外部打击时采取的不对称消耗战策略及其连锁反应 subgraph Strike ["外部常规军事打击"] A["高层斩首 / 关键设施空袭"] --> B["战术威慑与戏剧化打击"] end subgraph IranianStrategy ["伊朗的不对称反制"] B --> C["启动低烈度消耗战 (千刀万剐模式)"] C --> D["依托时间优势与长期潜伏"] C --> E["真主党等海外网络与休眠细胞"] end subgraph GlobalRisk ["长期连锁风险"] D --> F["大国填补真空 (中俄介入与势力重构)"] E --> G["本土不对称报复 (数月甚至数年后发难)"] end ``` 安德鲁以阿富汗战争作为惨痛的历史对照：美军在2011年击毙了基地组织的精神图腾奥萨马·本·拉登，然而战事却并未因此终结，美军深陷泥潭整整又打了11年，直到2022年才不得不黯然撤军。虽然哈梅内伊在地位上与拉登存在差异，但刺杀领袖绝不等于战事的终结。若伊朗产生新领导层，他们是会对美以俯首称臣？还是沦为类似巴列维国王那样的影子政权？倘若出现权力真空，中俄等全球对手势必会顺势介入，最终反而造就一个由美国最大对手全面武装与支持的更强伊朗。即使伊朗在未来两周内打光所有火箭弹，也并不代表战争结束；也许半年后某个真主党休眠细胞在纽约点燃大火，届时这种反扑在敌方逻辑中甚至被视作理所应当。本杰明·拉德（Benjamin Radd）补充强调，伊朗极有可能且完全有能力发起一场“千刀万剐”式的长期消耗战（war of attrition）。与美方习惯的大规模报复和戏剧化精准打击不同，消耗战是通过旷日持久的低烈度缠斗来不断削弱、动摇并拖垮对手，这也是伊朗眼下能够维系自身生存的唯一途径。俄罗斯正是凭借消耗战熬过了漫长的博弈。尽管国家安全委员会的前官员认为海外细胞既可能被激活也可能随时间自行瓦解，但事态的发展正悬在公众舆论的刀刃之上，未来充满巨大的未知数。 --- ### [01:17:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4663s) 80/20的人口鸿沟：群众运动、集结效应与政权更迭的幻象讨论转入对历史教训的反思时，现场一致叹息历史总在不断重演，人类最大的教训就是“极度拙劣的历史学习者”。针对失去了最高领袖后运动是否还能维系的问题，本杰明援引了哲学家埃里克·霍弗（Eric Hoffer）的名言：“群众运动不需要神，但他们确实需要魔鬼。”只要美国与西方世界继续被塑造成共同的敌人，即便缺乏极具个人魅力的精神领袖，反美意识形态也足以维系长期的敌对与消耗。关于哈梅内伊其人，安德鲁指出他在宗教外衣之下本质上更像一个操弄政商勾结的“敲诈勒索者”（racketeer），而且伊朗国内大多数民众心知肚明。然而，在多伦多的公共广场上，仍有成千上万的人聚集公开为他的死痛哭哀悼。伊朗目前约9000万人口中，大约有20%属于该政权的狂热意识形态拥护者。 | 人口群体 | 估算规模 | 时代背景与政治倾向 | 战后潜在走向与心理特征 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **强硬派 / 意识形态拥护者** | 约 20%（约1800万人） | 体制既得利益者、宗教保守势力与忠诚支持者 | 若战乱与贫困加剧，反美情绪可能再度激化；但在政权无力兑现救赎时也面临边缘化 | | **年轻世代 / 改革世俗派** | 约 80%（约7200万人） | 全部出生于1979年伊斯兰革命之后，仅经历过神权统治 | 长期承受经济凋敝与社会压迫；普遍归咎于德黑兰当局，对西方世俗自由充满向往 | 围绕空袭是否会触发“聚旗效应”（rally around the flag），本杰明与安德鲁爆发了激烈交锋： - **本杰明·拉德的观点**：外界原先担忧轰炸会导致世俗派民众转向支持政府、重创民主自由进程，但这种集结效应并未发生。饱受苦难的伊朗人很清楚苦难的根源是本国政权，所谓“救赎并不在头巾与长袍的末端，而在于政权无法赋予的自由”。因此这20%的支持者比例只会被进一步压缩，80%的年轻一代只渴望彻底告别神权体制。 - **安德鲁·布斯塔曼特的强烈反驳**：这种推演充斥着脱离现实的过度理想主义。美军当年扳倒萨达姆·侯赛因未能成功转化伊拉克，消灭塔利班政权同样未能转化阿富汗。自上而下的政权更迭根本无法自动给基层民众带来福祉，美军此次既没有“国家重建”（nation-building）方案，也不打算为其建立宪法。 --- ### [01:20:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4832s) 精英出逃还是国家重建？战时迷雾中的信任与偏见安德鲁进一步质疑由下而上发生转机的可能性：过去四五十年间生活在严密压制之下、教育被扭曲、长期边缘化的人群，怎么可能突然懂得如何自主组织起一个全新的现代化政府？对此，本杰明据理力争，强调伊朗是全球人口受教育水平最高的国家之一，非政权支持者在思维上高度西方化，这在其文化作品、海外发声中展露无遗；民众的意愿、能力与组织基础完全具备，他们唯一欠缺的只是“不再面对指向脑门的枪口”。安德鲁尖锐地指出，眼下的现实是：在一个经济崩溃、饱受贫困蹂躏的国家里，这批受过良好教育的精英阶层是否真的会留在废墟上冒险重建？更有可能的是发生严重的人才外流（brain drain），高智商人群会带着资本与机会迅速逃向海外。虽然海外伊朗侨民群体（diaspora）群情激昂、声称迫不及待想要回国重建家园，但安德鲁提醒必须警惕这种片面叙事。当主持人提到本杰明自身在伊朗就有家人、因此所获信息可能更为直接时，安德鲁当即警告：“在情报分析中，你最不能全盘相信的就是与你存在个人亲属关系的人，因为他们是你能交谈到的最缺乏客观性的一群人。”面对战时动荡的信息迷雾，安德鲁直言如今任何未经核实的新闻与传言都充斥着误导，保持绝对的审慎是专业本能而非偏执。本杰明则回应道，将所有声音都打成虚假信息才是真正的偏执，人必须依靠理性思维去甄别真伪并随时准备修正认知，但最危险的莫过于在战局中先入为主地站队、陷入狂热的部落主义盲区。 ### [01:22:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4934s) 战争迷雾中的信源争论：情感直觉还是交叉验证 Annie Jacobsen 与 Andrew Bustamante 就战时信息的可靠性展开了针锋相对的辩论。Annie 强调自己作为调查记者的视角，认为听取伊朗当地民众、尤其是 Benjamin 亲属的直接反馈具有极高价值，因为这种发自肺腑的声音更真实，并非官方宣传；但 Andrew 坚决反驳，指出情感、主观信念和家庭叙事缺乏客观性，而诸多历史上的动荡与革命恰恰建立在狂热的情感之上，导致了政权的最终崩塌。面对主持人的追问——作为前 CIA 卧底特工，这种极端怀疑论究竟源自何处？Andrew 坦言自己在情报一线受过专业训练，深谙舆论引导与认知作战的运作方式。他强调，普通人本能地信任自己所偏好的人，但这只是循环论证。在面对像伊朗这样的“黑箱”时，唯一可靠的方法是从意识形态完全对立的两端汲取信息（例如将伊朗官方媒体与亲美西方阵营的信息进行重合比对）；只有当死敌双方在某一事实点上（比如某位核心领导人的死讯）达成一致时，该情报才具备可信度。眼下围绕伊朗的大量资讯充斥着“循环报告”（circular reporting）——某一个单一信源发出消息，随后被无数媒体层层洗稿、几何级放大，而白宫驱逐大量传统主流媒体记者的行为更加剧了这种信息失真。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 情报黑箱中的信源验证机制对比 accDescr: 对比主观情感信源与情报学中的对立交叉验证方法 subgraph Emotion["主观情感视角 (容易落入回音室)"] A["当地民众/亲属感性表态"] --> B["情感共鸣与单向信任"] B --> C["循环报告放大 (单一信源反复洗稿)"] end subgraph Intelligence["情报验证视角 (Andrew 的评估逻辑)"] D["亲伊朗/官方宣传信源"] --> F{"寻找交集 (Venn Diagram)"} E["亲美/反伊西方信源"] --> F F --> G["重合事实 (如特定领导人阵亡名单)"] F -->|无重合| H["维持动态评估，拒绝草率下结论"] end ``` - **循环报告（Circular Reporting）**：单一源头未经核实的消息在媒体生态圈内互相引述，形成貌似多方佐证的虚假共识。 - **信息核实标准**：只有当敌对双方的叙事出现不可避免的交集时，才能被判定为客观事实。 --- ### [01:24:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5096s) 社交媒体操纵与针对大 V 的“僵尸网络”围猎主持人 Steven Bartlett 分享了一段令他毛骨悚然的亲身经历。作为拥有 15 年社交媒体运营经验的从业者，他本能地排斥各种阴谋论，甚至熟知以往人们所谓的“水军/机器人”大多只是算法波动或偏见误判。然而，当他在社交平台上发布关于此轮冲突的动态后，私信收件箱（DMs）瞬间被成千上万条私信淹没。通过后台行为模式和发帖记录比对，大约 1,700 多个高度同质化的虚假账户使用极其相似的话术，对他进行轮番轰炸，质问他“为什么不站出来为我们说话”，并极力诱导他利用自己的巨大影响力去推动某种特定叙事。这一遭遇引发了现场的热烈讨论。Andrew 直言，无论这股操纵力量来自西方还是伊朗本土，其战略意图都极其精准：如果背后是亲美网络力量，那就是典型的西方认知作战；如果是伊朗黑客网络，则证明伊朗拥有尚未被广泛认知的海外网络舆论渗透能力。Annie 指出，社交媒体的算法机制强化了“模因效应”（memetics），甚至可能直接影响真主党休眠组织（sleeper cells）等武装实体的行动抉择——他们同样在通过网络舆论观察自身行为究竟会被欢迎还是被彻底妖魔化。Andrew 进一步总结道，科技让每个人深陷信息茧房（echo chamber），算法只推荐用户偏好的内容以实现商业变现，导致大众丧失了识别真实的能力；如果无法在相互对立的信息源之间找到交叉证据，分析者就只能维持“动态评估”（living assessment），绝不能过早妄下定论。 - **社交操控规模**：约 1,700 个模式统一的机器人账号向主持人大体量定向发送私信施压。 - **回音室放大效应**：推荐算法精准捕获用户停顿与喜好，单语种人群与同温层用户几乎完全丧失对全局信息的感知。 --- ### [01:29:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5370s) 决策者的困境：在证据盲区中用“时间”换取胜算争论随后上升到国家安全与外交政策制定的核心矛盾。针对 Andrew 提出的“信息未重叠便无法得出结论”，现场专家提出反问：身为一国总统、国家安全顾问或核心决策层，必须履行提供建议并采取行动的职责，他们不可能以“缺乏证据或缺乏交集”为由坐在原地等待。 Andrew 对此给出了明确的情报哲学解答：当面临情报不足时，“时间本身就是最重要的工具”（time as a tool）。最高决策者的艺术应当是用时间来换取更多情报的沉淀与验证，而盲目发动空袭实际上是白白放弃了时间优势。他犀利地指出，本轮军事打击似乎仅仅是为了配合某种政治日程表的推进（1 月、2 月、3 月的选举与国内考量），美国在这场突袭中究竟获得了什么切实的国家利益？面对“如果 4 个月后的国会中期选举前，伊朗确实实现了彻底的政权更迭，你是否会承认总统的战略胜利并改变观点”的质问，对话进入了对战争终局与政治豪赌的深度拷问。 ### [01:30:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5435s) 伊朗空袭的战略成效与历史周期的争论现场对特朗普下令空袭伊朗的最终收益展开了激烈交锋。有观点指出，评估这类行动是一个动态过程（living assessment），目前的成效看似不明朗，或许四个月后才见分晓；但 Andrew Bustamante 随即提出反驳，指出事情同样可能滑向灾难性深渊——不仅不是四个月，更可能是长达四年的赤贫、干旱以及平民在缺粮断水中惨死的漫长动荡。 Benjamin Radd 拿历史经验进行了纵向对比，指出 1979 年的伊朗伊斯兰革命实际上酝酿了两年之久（始于 1977 年底），并在 80 年代初经历了类似于法国大革命“热月政动与罗伯斯庇尔统治”的恐怖清洗期，整个政局尘埃落定足足耗费了四到五年。面对“战果何在”的质问，他认为在行动仅仅发生两天时就要求立竿见影是不现实的。随后，讨论核心转向了最本质的疑点：美国摧毁伊朗最高领导层（斩首行动），究竟自认为能换取什么？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 斩首行动成效评估与历史对照 accDescr: 对比伊朗空袭行动预期的短期效果与1979年革命的历史周期 subgraph HistoricCycle ["历史经验对照（1979 伊朗革命）"] A["1977年底动荡萌芽"] --> B["1979 爆发全面革命"] B --> C["1980年代初恐怖清洗与权力巩固"] C --> D["耗时 4-5 年局势才真正尘埃落定"] end subgraph PresentDispute ["当前空袭收益评估争议"] E["美国斩首伊朗领导层"] --> F{"收益兑现周期？"} F -->|"乐观假设"| G["4个月内见效：核设施摧毁与政权更迭"] F -->|"悲观预期"| H["4年人道灾难：干旱、赤贫与持续混乱"] end ``` --- ### [01:31:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5484s) 官方叙事裂痕：核威胁、情报评估与卫星证据 Benjamin Radd 解释总统授权该行动的官方诉求极其直白：一是彻底终结伊朗核计划，二是促成政权更迭。对此，Andrew 敏锐地指出了叙事自相矛盾之处——按照总统此前的公开口径，伊朗的核设施早在去年六月就已被彻底摧毁（obliterated）。Benjamin 补充称，美方监测到伊朗试图在伊斯法罕（Esfahan）或纳坦兹（Natanz）重建这些设施，卫星图像拍到了卡车运输与建筑施工的活跃迹象；但 Andrew 质疑这种情报选择性曝光的真实动机，质问为何要随意推翻先前的叙事来迁就当前的说辞。随后，关于伊朗核意图的本质爆发了更深入的论战。Benjamin 强调，坚称伊朗只是想发展民用核电而非核武器是脱离现实的，因为伊朗已经将铀浓缩丰度推进到远超 20% 的民用需求门槛。主持人 Steven Bartlett 展示了关键时间线： - 2021 年：伊朗将铀浓缩纯度提升至 60%，距离 90% 武器级丰度仅一步之遥。 - 2023 至 2025 年：外界被告知伊朗在理论上距离造出核弹仅差“数周时间”，这构成了特朗普采取行动的直接导火索。然而 Andrew 指出，美国国家情报总监办公室（ODNI）发布的官方评估报告却曾认定伊朗并没有推进核武制造。现任国家情报总监图尔西·加巴德（Tulsi Gabbard）身为特朗普的支持者，其机构官方口径与总统公开声明之间存在巨大的事实断层，暴露出叙事掌控（narrative control）的严重失败。 Annie Jacobsen 随后以朝鲜的历史教训打破僵局。她提到自己曾专访前国防部长威廉·佩里（Bill Perry），当年佩里亲赴朝鲜并得到了朝鲜最高领导人绝不制造核武的亲口保证；但对方转过身就造出了热核武器。Annie 与 Benjamin 一致认为，无论公开情报口径如何，任何一届美国政府若认为伊朗不会复制朝鲜的核威慑路径，都将是极其愚蠢的误判。 --- ### [01:34:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5692s) 迈向“强人多极世界”与对内监控帝国的隐秘推手面对美国为何执意动手的深层追问，Andrew 给出了尖锐分析：这暴露了本届政府在面临经济衰退、盟友疏离以及全球权力博弈失败时，因“缺乏治理能力”而试图用强权军事行动挽回政绩的慌乱姿态。国际格局正从二战后习惯的单极秩序，加速蜕变为由威权主导的“强人多极世界”（strongman multipolar world）。在此机制下，国家间依赖强人独裁式的展示来获取表面威慑与服从，彻底丧失了合作与沟通基础，这将急剧推高国家间战争（interstate war）的全面爆发风险。 Annie Jacobsen 提出了一个更具警示意味的冷峻视角：除了外部地缘政治，此类军事冒险还可能深刻重塑美国本土的权力结构。她指出该届政府对监控系统与控制系统具有超前的执念，这已经在移民与海关执法局（ICE）及国土安全部（DHS）的运作中显露无遗。 Annie 警告称，在安全部门的“红队推演”（red-teaming）中，外部报复（例如真主党休眠组织在美境内引爆脏弹）往往不会被纯粹视为灾难，反而会被部分权力机制视作顺水推舟的绝佳“机遇”（opportunity）： - **武器系统迭代**：核武器是过去的武器，无人机与监控网络是当下的武器，而前沿 AI 技术的军用结合正是未来的核心（例如行动前夕国防部与 Anthropic 及 OpenAI 发生的动态）。 - **国内监控合法化**：一旦本土遭遇报复威胁，政府将顺理成章地将用于军事侦察的 ISR 平台（情报、监视与侦察系统）及高精度生物识别监控系统全面对准本国公民，以维护国家安全之名构建更严密的监控国家。 - **历史前车之鉴**：正如国土安全部（DHS）与 ICE 完全是“9·11”恐怖袭击催生出的副产物一样，当前的伊朗冲突可能再次为美国内部扩大对公民的跟踪与监控提供不可动摇的合法化借口。 ### [01:39:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5940s) 安全与自由的伪命题：袭击伊朗对全球生命与资源的代价讨论首先切入了武器研发商与行政权力之间隐秘而强大的利益纽带。现场谈到，军工复合体这只“隐形推手”常给公众制造一种二元对立的虚假选择：“你只能在安全与自由之间二选一，绝无可能兼得。”安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）对此深表认同，并直言自己内心充满了极大的焦虑与愤慨。他指出，美国本有机会不让全球安全局势急剧恶化，只要克制住不对伊朗发动空袭即可——原本那是伊朗内部关于自身政权命运的挣扎，而如今美方的军事行动将几十个国家直接拖入了迫在眉睫的现实危险之中。爆炸不仅摧毁了基础设施、扰乱了全球市场、剥夺了无数普通人的生计，更造成了原本根本不会发生的伤亡。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 军事干预的连锁反应与资源错配 accDescr: 展示美国打击伊朗后引发的全球风险外溢与国内安全资源被抽离的逻辑链条 subgraph ForeignConflict ["对外决策与全球外溢"] A["美国对伊朗发动空袭"] --> B["波及数十个盟国与周边城市"] B --> C["能源市场动荡 / 资产破坏 / 额外伤亡"] end subgraph ResourceDilemma ["国内矛盾与资源错配"] D["联邦财政与军工资源外流"] --> E["本土公共安全治理资源不足"] E --> F["枪击暴力等本土危机被边缘化"] end A -.->|"催生安全危机借口"| D ``` 紧接着，现场爆发了一场关于生命价值与公民优先级的激烈交锋。布斯塔曼特坦率表示，作为一名前情报官员和美国公民，他必然优先捍卫美国人的生命：“你永远不会听到我说一个伊朗人的命能和一个美国人的命等同，这不是我的处事方式，我的首要责任是我的国家与同胞。”其他嘉宾随即反问，这种死伤统计是否也涵盖了中东各阿拉伯城市的无辜平民，甚至包括加沙丧生的数万巴勒斯坦人，亦或是前一天在得克萨斯州奥斯汀枪击案中遇害的四名美国人？布斯塔曼特承认，失去任何人的生命都是悲剧，但国家政治终究要在残酷的现实中排定优先级；而更深层的荒谬在于，美国为了海外冲突挥霍巨额资源，却连保护本土美国人免受枪支暴力侵害的基本预算都在被抽空。 - **地缘冲击的外溢效应**：打击伊朗直接打破了中东脆弱的均势，使数十个周边国家即刻暴露在导弹还击和报复风险之下。 - **生命优先级的伦理争议**：讨论触及从伊朗平民、加沙死难者到驻外美军，再到美国奥斯汀枪击案本土死难者的价值权衡。 - **国内治理资源的抽离**：嘉宾批评联邦政府将过量资源投向海外扩张，导致国内针对本土枪支暴力与公共安全的干预机制长期失血。 --- ### [01:41:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6080s) 大规模监控与五角大楼的 AI 争端：Anthropic 与核危机推演话题顺势转移到国内安全的终极形态——全民大规模监控。布斯塔曼特断言，美国的大规模监控早已是既成事实，未来只会变得更加普遍、合法与庞大，政府现在无非是通过向苹果等科技巨头购买手机数据，来绕过某些直接抓取的法律限制。史蒂文借此引入了 2025 至 2026 年间轰动科技界与军方的“Anthropic 与五角大楼冲突事件”：Anthropic 于 2025 年 7 月签署了价值 2 亿美元的美国国家安全 AI 工具合同，但在 2026 年 1 月美军使用其大模型 Claude 策划抓捕委内瑞拉总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗（Nicolás Maduro）的突袭行动后，Anthropic 提出抗议并拒绝将其 AI 用于自主武器或对美国公民进行大规模监控。为此，美国国防部长皮特·海格塞斯（Pete Hegseth）发出最后通牒，威胁取消合同并将 Anthropic 列入“供应链安全风险名单”。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Anthropic与五角大楼的AI军事化争议 accDescr: 展现国防部与AI企业围绕自主武器、委内瑞拉行动及大规模监控的对抗逻辑 subgraph DefenseDept ["美国国防部（五角大楼）"] P1["2亿美元国家安全AI合同"] P2["执行马杜罗抓捕突袭行动"] P3["国防部长皮特·海格塞斯施压：要求无限制军用"] end subgraph AICompany ["Anthropic (Claude)"] A1["签署军方技术支持"] A2["谴责突袭违反使用条款"] A3["划定红线：严禁自主武器与大规模监控"] end P1 --> A1 A1 --> P2 P2 --> A2 P3 -->|"威胁列入供应链风险名单"| A3 ``` 针对科技巨头塑造的“崇高道德形象”，现场嘉宾打破了这种滤镜。安妮·雅各布森（Annie Jacobsen）直言，将 Anthropic 包装成勇敢反抗国防部的道德楷模十分虚伪，因为这家公司本身就深涉马杜罗抓捕行动的军事情报分析，“没有任何一家 AI 巨头会抱着悲天悯人的情怀真正关心美国人的隐私”。她更引用了伦敦国王学院（King's College London）一项冷战推演研究：研究人员让 ChatGPT、Claude 和 Gemini 扮演拥有核武的超级大国领袖，在每一次模拟中，都至少有一个大模型通过威胁使用核武来升级危机；其中 Anthropic 的 Claude 在高达 64% 的推演局中建议发动核打击，为所有测试模型中最高。这一结论令全场惊呼，这宛如 1980 年代科幻经典《战争游戏》（WarGames）与《终结者》中天网（Skynet）的现实再现，而如今大量前国家安全局（NSA）与网络战高级将领正坐镇这些 AI 企业的董事会，人类已然被推到了失控悬崖的边缘。 - **Anthropic 军用合同危机**：涉及 2 亿美元军工订单，因拒绝五角大楼将其模型用于自主杀伤武器及监控公民，遭国防部长皮特·海格塞斯撤约威胁。 - **伦敦国王学院兵棋推演**：在测试的多家大语言模型中，AI 均表现出极强的冲突升级倾向，Claude 在 64% 的情况下主动建议实施核打击。 - **政军商利益捆绑**：多名前美军网络司令部与 NSA 将领退役后直接进入顶级 AI 公司董事会，使得技术安全防护栏的实质有效性备受质疑。 --- ### [01:44:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6271s) 中场赞助与产品推荐：Cometeer 冷冻咖啡与 CEO 日记对话卡在严肃沉重的核阴云讨论间隙，节目穿插了一段轻松的主持人赞助口播。史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）走到一旁演示从冷冻库拿出一颗冰冻胶囊制作咖啡。他向观众介绍了自己投资并代言的冷冻萃取咖啡品牌 Cometeer：该技术将咖啡以常规浓缩咖啡 10 倍的浓度精密萃取，随后立即采用液氮深冷闪冻（flash freeze）锁住最原始的风味与新鲜度，并通过干冰将其包裹在 100% 可回收铝胶囊中配送到家。饮用时只需将这枚“小冰块”倒入杯中，加入热水或冷水牛奶即可瞬间化作优质咖啡，并为听众提供了首单 30 美元的专属优惠码。随后，史蒂文还推荐了《CEO 日记》播客团队推出的联合产品——将长期畅销的“1% 习惯养成日记”（The 1% Diary）与播客独家沉淀的“对话卡牌”（Conversation Cards）进行捆绑发售。他介绍道，每一位做客播客的重量级嘉宾都会在离场前于日记中留下一个直击灵魂的私密问题留给下一位客人，这些问题此前从未公开，如今全部收录于该卡牌中，成为大企业团队破冰、亲密关系沟通及家庭深度交流的强力纽带。 --- ### [01:46:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6386s) 走向核战的最危险路径：朝鲜、普京的榛树导弹与 AI 升级陷阱回到主线后，史蒂文向畅销书《核战争：一种推演》（Nuclear War: A Scenario）的作者安妮·雅各布森抛出核心疑问：在当今世界错综复杂的地缘博弈中，哪一条路径最可能触发灭世级核战争？安妮开门见山地指出，朝鲜始终处于极度危险的不可控状态，而俄罗斯总统普京的战略算计也发生了实质蜕变。安妮承认，如果在五年前，她会坚信普京作为受过系统历史与情报训练的资深特工，拥有足够的战略克制与理性；但时至今日，她的判断彻底逆转，普京如今在俄乌战场及与北约博弈中展现出的冒险倾向令人极度不安。安妮特别提到了俄罗斯发射“榛树”（Oreshnik）中程弹道导弹的标志性事件。尽管普京在此次发射前 30 分钟通过核风险降低渠道照会了美国国务院，且弹头搭载的是常规载荷而非真实核弹头，但这型导弹本身就是一款标准的可搭载核弹头的战略投送工具。在核预警卫星与雷达屏幕上，防空系统在升空初期根本无法百分之百辨别其搭载的是核弹还是常规炸药，这种踩在核门槛边缘的试探将误判概率推向了极限。安妮总结道，任何拥核国家的边缘政策都充满致命危机，而当这种极度紧绷的战略对峙再叠加 AI 系统的决策介入时，大国博弈将不可避免地滑向人类无法踩刹车的全面毁灭深渊。 - **普京战略认知的转变**：安妮指出普京近年的行为模式打破了过去冷酷理性的情报官定势，核威慑语言与行动日趋激进。 - **“榛树”中程弹道导弹（Oreshnik）事件**：俄方虽在发射前 30 分钟履行通报程序，但该型核常兼备导弹的实战发射极大压缩了大国防空预警的反应与研判时间。 - **双重风险叠加**：现实中的核边缘试探与具备高升级倾向的军用 AI 决策系统相结合，构成了当前人类社会最易引发意外核大战的致命组合。 ### [01:47:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6469s) 规则打破与权力傲慢：AI赋能下的军事斩首本段对话由对当前美国政府行事风格的震惊展开。座谈嘉宾坦言，原本以为政府在军事与技术应用上会有更多自我克制，但现实展现出的却是赤裸裸的权力炫耀（bravado）——特别是通过人工智能（AI）高调实施精准的“斩首行动”，这彻底超出了许多人的预期。唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）的行事作风一贯伴随着所谓的“打破既有规则（shattering of norms）”，他过去常做出令公众惊骇的举动，但如今大众已逐渐麻木、脱敏。嘉宾们回顾了特朗普在外交与军事立场上的自相矛盾。他在2011年曾公开发布视频抨击贝拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama），警告其不要因政治考量打击伊朗；2013年更是在推特上直言：“对伊朗发起攻击，恰恰证明你在外交谈判上彻底失败。”然而如今，身为三军统帅的他却走向了完全相反的极端。主持人指出，一般人改变想法或许值得称道，但若是美国总统在战争与和平问题上反复无常，则极其危险。从自主武器到AI规划军事打击，地缘政治正滑向一条无人知晓终点的危险斜坡。在外交层面，这种强权姿态同样淋漓尽致。在达沃斯论坛等国际场合，美国代表直白地训斥欧洲盟友软弱，要求其自行解决能源与防务问题，并宣告“不再需要你们，接下来由我们说了算”。传统的英美“特殊关系”与跨大西洋盟约几乎名存实亡。美军及其领导层表现得空前大胆甚至专横：一旦盟国不愿开放领空供美军调遣，便以摧毁该国企业、取消数亿美元商业合同或将其剔除出供应链作为威胁。这种持续升高的单边霸凌，正在悄然重塑国际秩序。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 战略与安全决策链的演变 accDescr: 展示从AI与单边军事行动到传统规范瓦解及区域反弹的连锁机制 subgraph Tech_Military ["技术与军事单边化"] A["AI目标规划与斩首行动"] --> B["打破传统外交与战争规范"] B --> C["对盟友极限施压 (能源独立/领空权/制裁恐吓)"] end subgraph Retaliation ["战略反冲与博弈"] C --> D["传统领导地位退化 (转向模仿威权模式)"] D --> E["对手下调痛阈 (伊朗向海湾区域扩散打击)"] end ``` --- ### [01:50:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6608s) 中美AI军备竞赛与美国全球领导力的退化话题随后转向驱动这套军事逻辑的核心力量——AI技术博弈。座谈指出，科技公司的创始人和CEO们在研发AI时，初衷多带有硅谷式乌托邦的美好愿景，希望促进人类互联与繁荣，绝非为了充当战争贩子。但这正如马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）创办Facebook并非为了诱发青少年的心理危机一样，技术总是会产生难以预料的严重附带后果（unintended consequences）。安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）分析指出，不论科技界初衷为何，美国国家安全系统都必须以极其激进的姿态推进AI研发，其根本驱动力来自于对中国的深度焦虑。在所有公开与机密战略文件中，中国始终是美国的第一战略要务。中国在军事AI及自动化系统上的推进速度远超美国，并且早已毫无顾忌地将AI应用于大规模监控和自主武器研发中。美方军方担忧，如果对手率先在通用人工智能（AGI）或“递归自我改进（recursive self-improvement）”领域实现质的突破，将形成对美国的指数级代差优势。因此，美国哪怕面临严重的伦理争议与政策反复——前一天借助AI斩首委内瑞拉高官，后一天又将其列为供应链风险——也只能硬着头皮全力加速。这种狂热引发了更深层的政治反思：美国曾经自诩为“自由世界的领袖”，如今不仅不再领导世界，反而在行事风格上全面效仿威权主义。欧洲成了唯一坚守传统民主价值的孤岛，却正被美国弃之不顾。嘉宾们总结道，美国如今的对外政策充满情绪化与任性反弹，是“盲从与模仿，而非引领”。 - **AGI与自我演进威胁**：军方核心顾虑在于中国若率先突破通用人工智能或递归自我改进技术，将造成不可逆的绝对战略失衡。 - **政策荒谬怪圈**：前脚依靠前沿商业AI算法执行地缘暗杀，后脚又因合规或数据供应链风险制裁相关供应链，显示出决策机制的混乱。 --- ### [01:52:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6739s) 迟暮强人的“末日豪赌”与制度约束的失效座谈随后探讨了独裁者与高龄政治领袖在面对人生终局时的极端心理。面对安妮·雅各布森（Annie Jacobsen）之前提出的“弗拉基米尔·普京（Vladimir Putin）在临终病榻上按下核按钮”的末日假设，嘉宾们坦言，在当今一切规则都被打碎的背景下，这种设想不再是天方夜谭。这正如同《白鲸记》中亚哈船长的毁灭性独白——“从地狱的心脏我刺向你（From hell's heart I stab at thee）”。现代人类在应对认知失调（cognitive dissonance）——即同时接纳两种对立观点——的能力上正变得越来越差，而政客与国家领导人尤甚。分析政客行为的核心逻辑在于评估其“得失底线（what to lose and what to gain）”。对于一个已走到生命尽头或执政末期的独裁领袖而言，他们几乎没有任何顾忌： 1. **年龄与任期上限**：特朗普若完成本届任期将年满83岁左右，受制于宪法无法连任第三任期；普京同样面临年老体衰与历史遗产的最终清算。一个行将就木且自认毫无失去之物的人，对按下毁灭按钮毫无畏惧。 2. **非常规权力的诱惑**：特朗普近期曾公开半开玩笑地赞扬弗拉基米尔·泽连斯基（Volodymyr Zelenskyy），称乌克兰因处于战争状态而无法举行大选，戏谑称“自己可能也会喜欢这样”。嘉宾们警示，特朗普过去的许多惊人言论最初都看似玩笑，但最终往往化为了残酷的政治现实。 --- ### [01:53:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6837s) 伊朗区域导弹打击：下调痛阈与全员拖下水对谈切入即时的中东战况。针对伊朗向中东全境倾泻导弹的态势，现场展示了一张伊朗导弹射程覆盖地图。令人震惊的是，轰炸与无人机袭击不仅席卷了沙特阿拉伯、巴林和卡塔尔，甚至直接落在了长期被视为避风港的迪拜国际机场。主持人分享了身处迪拜的好友连续两晚被迫躲入地下掩体的亲身经历，这种战火向非交战盟友的急速蔓延引发了对伊朗真实战略意图的深入剖析。布斯塔曼特解释道，这完全符合伊朗的“痛阈下调（lowering the pain threshold）”战略。面对美以毁灭性的定点清除与空袭，伊朗深知自身无法直接打击美国本土，甚至在正面战场也难以招架。正如伊朗副外交部长公开表态所言：伊朗无法打到美洲大陆，但可以打击驻扎在阿拉伯国家的美军基地，以及收留、协助美军行动的阿拉伯国家。在伊朗眼中，这些接纳美国驻军、承包商及平民的海湾国家全部是“共犯”。伊朗的逻辑在于打破局部受虐的被动局面，制造区域性的人道与经济灾难。面对即将到来的政权倾覆，伊朗已退无可退——“反正自身已注定面临毁灭，不如将整个中东全部拖入深渊”。只有当炸弹在迪拜、多哈和利雅得爆炸，使整个海湾陷入瘫痪与恐慌时，承受巨大盟友压力的美国才会被迫停手，重新坐回外交谈判桌前。这场通过制造全员痛苦来倒逼停火的绝望赌局，正在将整个中东推向全面战争的边缘。 ### [01:55:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6949s) 战火外溢至周边国家的连锁反应与经济打击随着冲突的演变，伊朗为了应对美军的打击，开始对周边并未直接卷入核心冲突的邻国施加痛感。嘉宾们指出，伊朗很清楚自己的火箭弹若全数射向部署在阿曼海岸附近的美军舰队，绝大部分都会被美军防空系统拦截；因此，伊朗最有效的还击策略就是“分摊痛苦”（share the pain），对周边海湾国家进行袭击，以此迫使周边国家向美国施压，要求其停止军事行动。这种策略正在生效，许多非核心国家因此遭受附带损害。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 伊朗外溢打击策略与地缘经济连锁效应 accDescr: 展示伊朗通过打击周边海湾国家分摊痛苦并引发经济声誉受损的传导路径 subgraph IRAN_STRATEGY ["伊朗反制策略"] A["美军直接打击伊朗"] --> B["规避直接硬碰美军舰队 （拦截率过高）"] B --> C["向周边邻国施加痛感 （分摊痛苦策略）"] end subgraph REGIONAL_IMPACT ["周边区域冲击"] C --> D["阿联酋/迪拜/阿布扎比 安全叙事破灭"] D --> E["外媒展现恐慌： 游客被困与撤离意愿"] end subgraph ECONOMIC_FALLOUT ["经济与国际反响"] E --> F["数十亿美元建设的 旅游与营商声誉受损"] F --> G["富豪与投资资金观望 回流西方（如英国税收/房产）"] E --> H["国际社会向美国施压停火"] end ``` 这种战火外溢在西方媒体上迅速形成了巨大的负面叙事。主持人提到，如果打开英国的 Sky News，屏幕上充斥着关于迪拜、阿布扎比等城市变得“极不安全”的报道，记者在街头采访带着孩子的家庭，得到的回答都是“我们被困住了，只想回家”。阿联酋等海湾国家在过去几十年中耗费巨资打造的旅游天堂、安全港湾与营商胜地的声誉，顷刻间遭遇沉重打击。即便战事立即停歇，也必然会有一大批人决定不再前往度假或定居。主持人甚至调侃，这种中东不安全的舆论其实反而符合英国的利益，因为此前大量英国纳税人和百万富翁移民该地区，如今局势动荡可能会促使财富回流，进而推高英国的房产价值和税收收入。Andrew Bustamante 虽不认为西方国家蓄意乐见中东的破坏，但他指出决策层在做战略规划时必然会将反冲（blowback）效应计算在内，并试图从中捕捉利益。 - 伊朗不对阿曼海岸的美军航母打击群进行硬碰硬的饱和攻击，是因为对方拦截成功率极高，转而打击周边目标制造国际抵制阻力。 - 海湾国家数十年打造的“安全避风港”与高端旅游、低税移民叙事在新闻报道冲击下面临严峻考验。 --- ### [01:57:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7072s) 冲突会持续多久？从几周的高烈度空袭到数年的地缘余震关于这场热战究竟会持续多久，Andrew Bustamante 给出了清晰的阶段性判断：高烈度的正面常规冲突（hot conflict）预计将持续数周时间。在这几周内，公众每天醒来都会看到新的导弹发射、空袭架次和交火战报。然而，这场打击带来的地缘政治余波——来自真主党（Hezbollah）、哈马斯（Hamas）、也门胡塞武装（Houthis）以及伊朗境内死忠势力的游击式反扑——可能会持续数年之久。更令人担忧的是权力真空所引发的深层危机。大家虽期盼伊朗在动荡后能够建立更好的秩序，但“希望并不等于现实”（hope is not the same thing as reality）。回顾历史，当阿富汗出现政权真空时，美国的各路劲敌蜂拥而入填补空缺；未来极有可能重演这一幕，美国的战略对手们会涌入伊朗提供支持，最终导致美国在整个中东地区的影响力甚至不如冲突爆发前。这场冲突也对全球其他战区产生了牵制。当国际社会的注意力被完全吸走后，乌克兰前线等既有热点便失去了原有的焦点覆盖，这客观上为俄罗斯总统普京提供了采取更大胆攻势的掩护。此外，这场行动向全球强权释放了双重极其矛盾的信号： 1. **威权统治者受到鼓舞**：如果美国总统可以完全绕过国际规则进行领导层“斩首”与定点轰杀，那么在普京、非洲军阀等强人眼里，规则便彻底失效，强者通吃成为常态。 2. **产生极端威慑效应**：它以最血腥的方式警告其他政权，一旦越过红线，美军将毫不犹豫地直接消灭其整个领导层。嘉宾们探讨认为，这两种极端反应很可能同时发生。例如，中国可能认为国际视线分散是处理台湾问题的良机；而像古巴这样的政权在看到委内瑞拉和伊朗的下场后，可能会选择彻底收敛与退让。 - 高烈度战火预计持续 3 到 4 周，每天充斥导弹打击与空袭出动。 - 代理人网络（真主党、哈马斯、胡塞武装）的反弹和内部权力真空将引发长达数年的动荡。 - 全球强人面临两极分化的认知：既可能借机在乌克兰或台湾海峡冒险，也可能因畏惧美军斩首而选择顺从。 --- ### [01:59:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7190s) 斩首马杜罗的旧闻震荡与特朗普任期的宪政猜想嘉宾们回顾了此前 1 月份美方特种部队针对委内瑞拉总统马杜罗的行动，感叹国际局势剧变的节奏之快令人麻木。当时仅出动约 150 名准军事人员、军方及情报官员，就直接攻入戒备森严的重兵基地，击毙其古巴籍卫士，生擒主权国家元首及其夫人。如此惊心动魄、值得反复剖析的震撼行动，在短短几个月后居然就已经成了被公众遗忘的“旧闻”。这反映出当前全球地缘政治发生的剧烈震颤已经让外界应接不暇。面对主持人关于“特朗普是否会在任期结束时和平离开白宫”的尖锐提问，现场一度出现笑声。嘉宾们指出，宪法虽然白纸黑字写明了任期限制，但在当前强人政治的氛围下，人们确实会产生怀疑。不过，Benjamin Radd 表达了一定程度的审慎乐观。他提到就在前一周，最高法院在有关贸易关税的判决中（涉及特朗普第二任期的标志性政策），由特朗普亲自任命的两名保守派大法官罕见地投出了反对票，明确裁定总统不具备单方面滥用该权力的资格。这表明美国的权力分立（separation of powers）和制度护栏仍在运转，这让人们对宪政交接保留了一定信心。 --- ### [02:01:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7314s) 伊朗政权的末路、内部叛变与普通人的未来代价就伊朗局势的下一步演变，Benjamin Radd 与 Andrew Bustamante 持相同看法，认为正面高烈度打击将在 3 到 4 周内基本收尾。然而，之后留下的任何伊朗领导人——无论是接管权力的军政府将领，还是象征性的新最高领袖——都已成为“被标记的人”（marked men），他们将随时成为以色列等各方势力的定点暗杀目标。 Benjamin Radd 深入分析了伊朗政权面临的不可逆崩溃： - **国内合法性彻底归零**：政权在国内普通民众心中早已没有任何威信可言。 - **违背区域默契失去外援**：伊朗直接对海湾阿拉伯邻国发动打击，打破了彼此间长久以来不直接兵戎相见的默契；而其名义上的大国盟友此时也并未出兵施救。 - **伊斯兰革命卫队面临瓦解叛逃**：当政权失去一切、再无利益可言时，军官和士兵将失去作战动力。未来几个月到一年内，可能会出现类似于 1979 年伊斯兰革命期间的大规模叛逃潮，伊斯兰革命卫队（IRGC）成员将纷纷认定“这根本不值得继续卖命”。最后，在总结本场讨论最核心却最容易被忽视的盲点时，嘉宾们不约而同地指向了**美国普通人的未来**。美国政府在委内瑞拉展示了强权，在伊朗展示了毁灭性力量，古巴政权更迭的传闻也甚嚣尘上，但这接二连三的军事行动究竟能否改善普通美国人的日常生活？答案充满疑虑。过去几天没有看到改善，接下来的几周乃至几年也未必能带来福祉。相反，随着现存世界秩序被彻底打碎、陷入剧烈混沌，接下来的烂摊子将不得不留给未来的继任者去收拾。 ### [02:04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7448s) 威权主义阴影与“最黑暗的十年”：谁将在特朗普之后掌权？安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）指出，外界常常过度聚焦于唐纳德·特朗普个人，但他真正担忧的不是特朗普本人，而是“特朗普卸任之后谁会接掌大权”。在安德鲁看来，如果特朗普为其任期内的威权化转向铺平了道路，并且在执政末期依然保有稳固的基本盘，那么未来的继任者就会获得更强大的“合法性”，从上任第一天起便以铁腕手段统治国家。世界可能会滑向一个只有威权手段才能奏效的境地，从而将所有人推入持续痛苦的深渊。安德鲁直言，自己在过去三年里反复警告：世界尤其是美国，正在步入有史以来最黑暗的十年之一——这是一个告别单极格局、充斥着不可预测的 AI 战争技术、突发性地缘冲突、全面大规模监控以及国际规则彻底崩塌的严峻世界，而下一代乃至再下一代人将不得不生活并继承这个支离破碎的烂摊子。面对史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）略带调侃的反问——“但现在的世界难道不比过去动辄在荒野中死于痢疾要好吗？”，安德鲁并未认同这种简单的进步论。他坦言，即便现代医学大幅降低了婴儿夭折率和极端贫困，但从一名美国人的视角来看，过去那个由美国维系统治秩序的单极世界，远比当下动荡的多极乱局更加安全、有利。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 威权主义权力交接与国际秩序崩塌链条 accDescr: 展示从强人执政到继任者威权合法化，再到全球制度恶化的推演逻辑 subgraph 国内权力演变 A["特朗普铺平威权转向道路"] --> B["继任者获得更强铁腕合法性"] B --> C["威权手段成为唯一治理范式"] end subgraph 全球地缘现实 D["单极霸权秩序终结"] --> E["进入不可预测的多极对抗"] E --> F["AI新型战争与无约束冲突爆发"] end C --> G["人类步入'最黑暗的十年'"] F --> G ``` - **单极衰落与多极动荡**：美国主导的国际安全架构正在解体，取而代之的是缺乏国际准则约束的强权争霸。 - **不可预测的新型威胁**：颠覆性 AI 军事应用、无处不在的数字监控网络与不可预见的高频区域冲突交织，构成未来十年的核心特征。 --- ### [02:06:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7581s) “领袖”还是“铁腕”？椭圆形办公室首次机密简报的魔咒史蒂芬随即提出一个现实困境：如果特朗普之后接任的是一个软弱的领导人，局势会不会更加凶险？毕竟普京依然大权在握，其他大国虎视眈眈，而拜登在外界看来显然算不上“世界上最强悍的硬汉”。面对这一疑问，安德鲁深刻剖析了“坚强领袖”（Strong Leader）与“铁腕强人”（Strong Arm）的本质差异：一个真正的坚强领袖能够制定清晰的愿景蓝图、权衡各项优先级并做出艰难决定；而铁腕强人的全部执政逻辑只有一个目的——那就是“赢”（out to win）。特朗普在其整个商业与政治生涯中都是一个不惜代价追求胜利的人，而他在大选中的胜利，正是当时许多美国人“渴望赢一把”心态的具象化体现。然而四年任期过半后，选民才意识到强硬手腕背后伴随着未曾预料的次生灾害，这也是其支持率大幅滑坡、支持阵营迅速分化的根本原因。知名国家安全调查记者安妮·雅各布森（Annie Jacobsen）对此深有感触。她指出，许多总统在竞选期间都怀揣着乐观宏大的变革蓝图，誓言废除危险的核战略或推行温和外交，但一旦正式入主白宫、听完那场“神秘的第一次绝密安全简报”后，他们的世界观往往发生颠覆性的剧变。从来没有哪位总统对外公开过那份简报的真实内容，但自那一刻起，他们便从试图成为一名“坚强领袖”被迫蜕变成依赖暴力的“铁腕强人”。史蒂芬推测，或许是因为理论上的潜在毁灭威胁在那一瞬间变成了血淋淋的现实；安妮则幽默地打趣道：“那绝对不是因为外星人”，但在这种密不透风的国家最高机密叙事面前，制度与强人逻辑对领导者心智的绑架令人感到深深的沉重。 - **核心概念界定**： - **坚强领袖（Strong Leader）**：具备战略远见，在多元诉求间平衡取舍，凭借凝聚力与决策力引导国家渡过难关。 - **铁腕强人（Strong Arm）**：以零和博弈与征服胜负为唯一导向，习惯绕过制衡机构诉诸单边强制手段。 - **首次简报效应**：候任总统接触到国家安全最底层未公开危机（如核战推演、毁灭性情报细节）后，政策往往大幅向强硬与安全化收缩。 --- ### [02:09:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7750s) 房间里的大象：台海芯片封锁危机与西方的脆弱命脉当史蒂芬询问全场讨论中“最重要却尚未涉及的话题”时，加州大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）国际法与中东问题专家本杰明·拉德（Benjamin Radd）毫不犹豫地将焦点转向了台海局势。拉德透露，他近期正参与一项针对台海危机的兵棋推演（War Game）。推演的核心发现极为震撼：中国根本不需要发动全面的两栖登陆攻台作战，只需实施高强度的**海上全面封锁**，切断向西方出口的芯片与微处理器，就足以对西方文明造成毁灭性打击。当前西方世界支撑 AI 时代、高级计算和尖端武器所需的芯片有高达 90% 依赖台湾。拉德将台海封锁与霍尔木兹海峡危机进行了严峻的对比：虽然霍尔木兹海峡封锁会掐断全球 20% 的石油运输，但石油输出国组织（OPEC）仍有闲置产能可在数周内增产来平抑市场；然而在尖端半导体领域，西方**完全没有任何缓冲余地**。即使美国试图通过法案将芯片制造迁回本土，这也需要耗费数年甚至数十年的时间去攻克极为严苛的环境审批、巨额基建投入、严重匮乏的技术熟练工人和极低的生产良率。尽管知识产权（IP）大多源自美国，但真正的代工制造重器始终牢牢扎根在台湾。一旦遭遇封锁，西方的通信基础设施、汽车制造甚至整个下一代军工与经济体系都将面临瞬间瘫痪的厄运。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 霍尔木兹海峡石油危机与台海芯片封锁危机应对机制对比 accDescr: 对比海峡石油被封锁与台湾芯片被封锁后，国际市场的缓冲与恢复能力差异 subgraph 霍尔木兹海峡石油危机 A1["掐断全球20%原油航道"] --> B1["OPEC启动富余产能"] B1 --> C1["数周内补充供应稳定市场"] end subgraph 台海半导体封锁危机 A2["掐断西方90%高级芯片供应"] --> B2["本土产能缺位与回迁周期漫长"] B2 --> C2["汽车/通信/AI体系面临即时断崖停摆"] end ``` - **霍尔木兹海峡 vs. 台海危机**： - **石油断供**：波及全球 20% 原油，但供给具备高替代弹性，多国战略储备与 OPEC 增产机制可阶段性对冲。 - **芯片断供**：西方约 90% 的先进微处理器由台湾制造，替代弹性极低，回迁受阻于环保审查、劳工成本、高良率技术工人短缺等客观瓶颈。 - **系统性连锁影响**：汽车芯片断供、民用及军用通信链路瘫痪、下一代 AI 计算中心硬件停滞。 --- ### [02:11:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7871s) 普通人的应对之道与安德鲁的抉择：“我们正在举家离开美国” 在节目的尾声，史蒂芬提出了最后一个面向大众的切身问题：在宏大且令人窒息的地缘政治棋局面前，坐在家中的普通人既无力扭转国际博弈，又该如何保护自己的家庭、工作与未来？安德鲁对此给出了坚定的回答：“我们并非无能为力。”他强调，民众不应放弃掌控权，美国的政治体制赋予了公众每两年一次在中期选举中投票的权利；如果民众行使这一宪法权力，促成一个由民主党控制的参议院或众议院（Blue Congress），就能从立法层面上实质性地遏制总统单方面任性妄为的行政权力。遗憾的是，大众往往缺乏等待数月以履行民主程序的耐心，常常陷入无助的焦虑或盲目的即时冲动之中。当史蒂芬追问安德鲁自己为家庭做出了什么具体选择时，安德鲁给出了一个出人意料且坦率决绝的答复：“我们正在举家离开美国。”安德鲁解释道，当下的美国社会正驶向一个与他的育儿理念完全背道而驰的方向。作为一名前中央情报局情报官，他不希望自己的孩子在一个充斥着“恐惧与愤怒”的国度里长大，不希望看到下一代在不断妥协自身民主原则的制度中生活，更无法接受一个“将资本主义利益置于一切原则之上”的社会土壤；他渴望将孩子们培养成具有开阔视野的真正世界公民，而不是在撕裂的帝国衰退阴影中被迫随波逐流。 - **行使宪政制衡机制**：强调中期选举对行政单边行动的准否决功能，警惕公众因政治急躁而产生的习得性无助。 - **个人现实退出策略**： - 拒绝让下一代在弥漫着政治愤怒与生存恐惧的环境中生活； - 远离过度资本主义化、以利益最大化牺牲社会基本底线的发展范式； - 主动寻求海外移居，将子女培育为不受单一意识形态与国家危机绑架的全球化公民。 ### [02:12:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7970s) 跨越立场的同理心：打破回音室与拥抱认知失调对谈临近尾声，安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）分享了关乎个人价值观的沉重反思。他坦言，以自己的背景和经历，他原本完全可以理直气壮地坐在镜头前宣扬“美国人的生命高于一切”，但他绝不想把这种狭隘的优越感灌输给下一代。他希望孩子们能把世界上每一个个体的生命都视作平等、独立且宝贵的恩赐，哪怕现实中社会向孩子们灌输的往往是截然相反的信息。当被问及若现实不尽如人意他打算搬去哪里时，安德鲁打趣道：“那是我心中的秘密，哥斯达黎加吧”，引发全场一阵笑声。接续安德鲁的观点，安妮·雅各布森（Annie Jacobsen）向观众提出了强有力的行动建议：尽可能广泛地阅读各种谱系的观点，并主动与不同立场的人展开深层对话。她特别指出，不要害怕讨论中出现摩擦与冲突，“这恰恰是思维保持流动和弹性的方式，唯有如此，你才能在摩擦中意识到自己其实也会犯错”。主持人斯蒂芬对此深表赞同，感叹在虚假信息与算法裹挟的时代，保持开放心态变得极其珍贵却又日益罕见。当今的算法和社交舆论不断逼迫每个人选边站队——要么站左，要么站右——即便是播客创作者也常被这种非黑即白的压力推着走。他呼吁听众勇于克服自然的“认知失调”（cognitive dissonance），即使面对观点不合的嘉宾，也要愿意倾听碰撞，从而得出真正属于自己的独立思考。本杰明·拉德（Benjamin Radd）随后呼应了安妮的倡议，强调必须“保持好奇心”（stay curious）。他指出，认知失调固然令人极度不适，但这种不适感恰恰是宝贵的思维驱动力，迫使人们去审视原本绝不会考虑的视角。他在大学授课时始终致力于向学生传授“同理心”（empathy）的力量：拥有同理心并不意味着你必须喜欢对方，你甚至可以完全憎恨对手，但关键在于“在你下定论之前，试着站在他们的视角去看待一次这个世界”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 思维破局与同理心构建路径 accDescr: 展示从克服算法偏见、接纳认知失调到通过同理心建立独立思考的过程。 subgraph Trap["当下认知困境"] A["算法信息茧房 / 极化站队"] B["将本群体利益与生命凌驾于他人之上"] end subgraph Process["认知破局机制"] C["广泛跨领域阅读与多方对话"] D["直面摩擦与认知失调 (Cognitive Dissonance)"] E["践行同理心：以对手视角审视世界"] end subgraph Outcome["终极目标"] F["保持心智弹性与自我纠错能力"] G["认同全人类生命的平等与普遍价值"] end Trap --> Process Process --> Outcome ``` ### [02:15:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=8113s) 嘉宾阵营与结语：在战争迷雾中追寻真相在节目的最后致谢环节，主持人向三位嘉宾询问了观众如何能够追踪他们的最新动态与研究成果。本杰明·拉德表示，自己目前主要活跃于社交平台 X 和 Instagram，并在受邀时发表演讲；他正在潜心设计一套国际关系模拟对抗平台系统，虽暂未面向公众开放，但这将是他接下来的核心成果。谈到安妮·雅各布森，主持人盛赞其作品的深度。安妮幽默地表示观众可以在任何售书平台找到自己的作品，无论是“从第一本顺着读”，还是“从最新作倒着读”皆可；主持人也承诺会将这位普利策奖入围作家的经典著作（涵盖核战争、生化危机等调查题材）悉数附在节目简介中供大众深度研读。前中央情报局（CIA）卧底官员安德鲁·布斯塔曼特则介绍了自己的平台 Everydayspy.com、个人社交媒体与 YouTube 频道。主持人着重提到了安德鲁登上《纽约时报》畅销榜的重磅纪实著作《暗影细胞》（*Shadow Cell*），并回顾了这本书历经中情局漫长严苛的解密审查程序才得以获准出版的幕后故事，该书极富戏剧性地还原了一场揪出 CIA 内部潜伏“内鬼”的真实反间谍行动。在由衷感谢三位专家驱散战争迷雾、为复杂国际局势提供多维研判之后，主持人与嘉宾相约在局势明朗后再次相聚，并在片尾向观众推介了平台算法精选的关联深度内容。 - **本杰明·拉德（Benjamin Radd）关注渠道**：活跃于 X 与 Instagram，持续输出中东与地缘政治洞察，正在研发高精度的地缘推演模拟平台。 - **安妮·雅各布森（Annie Jacobsen）精选著作**：著有多部全景式深度调查纪实作品（包括《核战争：一种设想》及前瞻作品《生物战：一种设想》等）。 - **安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）关注渠道**：运营 EverydaySpy 平台，著有揭秘反间谍内幕的《纽约时报》畅销书《暗影细胞》（*Shadow Cell: An Insider Account of America's New Spy War*）。 ## Notable quotes > [19:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1173s) 这个故事我们以前听过，就像当年拿着WMD当借口去打伊拉克一样。 — 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特 > [25:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1507s) 这就像一条疯狗在咬完人、造成所有破坏之后，本身就快病死了，你却非要在它咽气前冲上去再开一枪把死狗毙了。 — 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特 > [25:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=1507s) 那是他们自己的国家，是他们自己的人民，必须由他们自己来决定命运，这是民族自决权！ — 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特 > [46:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=2786s) 我相信乌克兰总统泽连斯基至今没有被俄罗斯暗杀的一个核心原因，就是暗杀国家领导人属于不可逾越的绝对红线，这会彻底激怒美欧。而我们刚刚亲手把这个‘行动许可’发给了全世界。 — 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特 > [58:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3528s) 伟大的事业始于运动，继而变成商业，最终沦为敲诈集团。 — 埃里克·霍弗 > [01:14:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4455s) 拥有时间红利的是他们，而不是我们。 — 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特 > [01:17:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4663s) 群众运动不需要神，但他们确实需要魔鬼。 — 埃里克·霍弗 > [01:20:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=4832s) 在情报分析中，你最不能全盘相信的就是与你存在个人亲属关系的人，因为他们是你能交谈到的最缺乏客观性的一群人。 — 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特 > [01:39:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=5940s) 你永远不会听到我说一个伊朗人的命能和一个美国人的命等同，这不是我的处事方式，我的首要责任是我的国家与同胞。 — 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特 > [01:47:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=6469s) 对伊朗发起攻击，恰恰证明你在外交谈判上彻底失败。 — 唐纳德·特朗普 > [02:11:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7871s) 我们正在举家离开美国。 — 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特 > [02:12:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=7970s) 在你下定论之前，试着站在他们的视角去看待一次这个世界。 — 本杰明·拉德 ## Mentioned 史蒂芬·巴特利特, 唐纳德·特朗普, 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特, 安妮·雅各布森, 本杰明·拉德, 阿亚图拉·霍梅尼, 阿亚图拉·阿里·哈梅内伊, 穆罕默德·礼萨·巴列维, 穆罕默德·摩萨台, 克米特·罗斯福, 艾伦·杜勒斯, 马可·卢比奥, 皮特·海格塞斯, 尼古拉斯·马杜罗, 基尔·斯塔默, 约翰·拉特克利夫, 弗拉基米尔·泽连斯基, 弗拉基米尔·普京, 埃里克·霍弗, 图尔西·加巴德, 威廉·佩里, 贝拉克·奥巴马, The Diary Of A CEO, Everyday Spy, CIA（中央情报局）, MI6（英国军情六处）, 摩萨德, 伊斯兰革命卫队 (IRGC), 伊朗国防军 (Artesh), 国家情报总监办公室 (ODNI), 美国国防部 (五角大楼), 美国国家安全局 (NSA), 国防情报局 (DIA), 国家地理空间情报局 (NGA), 国际原子能机构 (IAEA), 国土安全部 (DHS), 移民与海关执法局 (ICE), OPEC（石油输出国组织）, 真主党, 哈马斯, 胡塞武装, Anthropic, OpenAI, Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Ketone-IQ, Wispr Flow, Cometeer, B-2“幽灵”轰炸机, “见证者”无人机 (Shahed), “榛树”中程弹道导弹 (Oreshnik), 《核战争：一种推演》, 《暗影细胞：美国新型间谍战的内幕纪实》, 《生物战：一种设想》 ## Video description EMERGENCY ROUNDTABLE: How long will this conflict last? Ex-CIA spy Andrew Bustamante, national security journalist Annie Jacobsen, and Iran expert Benjamin Radd break down Trump’s strikes, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s death, nuclear risks, AI warfare, and what could happen next. Andrew Bustamante is a former CIA covert intelligence officer and founder of Everyday Spy, and co-author of the memoir ‘Shadow Cell: An Insider Account of America’s New Spy War’. Annie Jacobsen is a renowned nuclear war expert and Pulitzer Prize finalist and author of her bestselling book ‘Nuclear War: A Scenario’. Benjamin Radd is a Senior Fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, and Lecturer in Law and Politics at UCLA School of Law. They explain: ◼️Who really carried out the strike on Iran ◼️How long this conflict could actually last ◼️Who takes control of Iran now ◼️Why the Strait of Hormuz closure could collapse the global economy ◼️The role of AI in planning military targets 00:00 Intro 00:01:40 What Is Really Happening With Iran And Why It’s Bigger Than It Looks 00:08:24 What This War Is Really About And Who Actually Benefits 00:15:39 Why Attack Iran Now? The Timing That Changes Everything 00:28:48 Was This the Right Moment Or a Dangerous Miscalculation? 00:32:45 Is This About Legacy? The Real Political Stakes Behind the Decision 00:34:59 Is the World Order Collapsing? What Replaces It If It Does 00:47:17 Which Other Regimes Could Be Next And Why That Matters 00:57:39 Why the U.S. Still Cares About Cuba What Most People Miss 00:58:48 Do Nuclear Weapons Guarantee Safety Or Invite Bigger Risks? 01:05:47 Are We Closer to Nuclear War Than We Think? 01:11:12 Military Manpower: Who Actually Has the Advantage? 01:12:49 How Long Can Israel Sustain This Fight And At What Cost? 01:14:09 How Does This End? The Scenarios That Could Shape the Future 01:21:26 What Sources Can You Trust in a Fog of War? 01:31:18 What Does the U.S. Think It Gains From Bombing Iran? 01:35:28 Are We Entering a Strongman, Multipolar World? What This Means 01:41:20 The Rise of Mass Surveillance Crisis or Control Strategy? 01:46:26 The Most Likely Path to Nuclear War And How It Could Happen 01:54:29 Why Is Iran Launching Missiles Everywhere, Strategy or Signal? 01:57:52 How Long Can This Conflict Drag On? 02:01:11 Will Trump Leave Office Or Does This Escalate Further? 02:03:13 What the Future Looks Like for the Average American If This Continues Enjoyed the episode? Share this link and earn points for every referral - redeem them for exclusive prizes: https://doac-perks.com Follow Andrew: Find your Spy Superpower: https://yt.everydayspy.com/4s4dXOt YouTube - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/8Tv0QP1 EverydaySpy: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/2CJoYJD You can purchase ‘Shadow Cell: An Insider Account of America’s New Spy War’, here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/4T3ZTlT Follow Annie: Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/ErFnd8L Website - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/D7QkSEH You can pre-order ‘Biological War: A Scenario’, here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/1nvHDU9 Follow Benjamin: Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/GsFWbA9 X - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/9mF9KFp The Diary Of A CEO: ◼️Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼️Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ◼️The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ◼️The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb ◼️Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ◼️Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Ketone - https://ketone.com/STEVEN for 30% off your subscription order Wispr - Get 14 days of Wispr Flow for free at https://wisprflow.ai/steven Cometeer - https://cometeer.com/steven for $30 off your first order [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk)

Source quotes

[19:33] 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特: 这个故事我们以前听过，就像当年拿着WMD当借口去打伊拉克一样。 [25:07] 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特: 这就像一条疯狗在咬完人、造成所有破坏之后，本身就快病死了，你却非要在它咽气前冲上去再开一枪把死狗毙了。 [25:07] 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特: 那是他们自己的国家，是他们自己的人民，必须由他们自己来决定命运，这是民族自决权！ [46:26] 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特: 我相信乌克兰总统泽连斯基至今没有被俄罗斯暗杀的一个核心原因，就是暗杀国家领导人属于不可逾越的绝对红线，这会彻底激怒美欧。而我们刚刚亲手把这个‘行动许可’发给了全世界。 [58:48] 埃里克·霍弗: 伟大的事业始于运动，继而变成商业，最终沦为敲诈集团。 [74:15] 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特: 拥有时间红利的是他们，而不是我们。 [77:43] 埃里克·霍弗: 群众运动不需要神，但他们确实需要魔鬼。 [80:32] 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特: 在情报分析中，你最不能全盘相信的就是与你存在个人亲属关系的人，因为他们是你能交谈到的最缺乏客观性的一群人。 [99:00] 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特: 你永远不会听到我说一个伊朗人的命能和一个美国人的命等同，这不是我的处事方式，我的首要责任是我的国家与同胞。 [107:49] 唐纳德·特朗普: 对伊朗发起攻击，恰恰证明你在外交谈判上彻底失败。 [131:11] 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特: 我们正在举家离开美国。 [132:50] 本杰明·拉德: 在你下定论之前，试着站在他们的视角去看待一次这个世界。

Source quotes

[0:00] Andrew Bustamante: There is a domino effect that happens with every decision that the United States makes. [4:50] Annie Jacobsen: gives the president authority under classified presidential directive to change any rule he wants that suits him for an operation at hand [20:21] Andrew Bustamante: When you read the Department of War's national security strategy, what you hear more than any other word is Donald Trump... It's not around a personality usually. So it's a very interesting situation because if there's so much of a person at stake here... [24:45] Andrew Bustamante: It's like putting down the dead dog after it's done all of its damage. [31:48] Benjamin Radd: We choose to do what we choose to do, we choose to support what we choose to support, and we choose to abandon what we choose to abandon. [90:35] Andrew Bustamante: Why are you disregarding previous narratives to adopt the current narrative? [90:35] Annie Jacobsen: I interviewed Bill Perry, the Secretary of Defense, who went there and got the guarantee and the promise from the dear leader... Fingers crossed behind the back, thermonuclear weapon, and look where we are now. [95:28] Andrew Bustamante: We are seeing a transition to a strongman multipolar world. When we've only ever lived in a unipolar world. [99:20] Andrew Bustamante: You're never going to hear me say that I really care that much about an Iranian life compared to an American life. That's just not how I roll. [99:20] Andrew Bustamante: Surveillance in the United States is 100% a guaranteed future. Mass surveillance has already happened. It will just get exacerbated, expanded, and legalized. [101:46] Annie Jacobsen: Claude, which is owned by Anthropic, recommended nuclear strikes in 64% of games... Wasn't that the plot of the movie WarGames in the 1980s? Bingo. I mean, that's Skynet. [106:59] Annie Jacobsen: we are shitty learners of history. [114:29] Andrew Bustamante: They are lowering the pain threshold... If you make it miserable for everybody, then the United States is pressured to bring this to an end. [131:11] Andrew Bustamante: We're leaving the United States... I don't want my children to grow up in a country that is either afraid or angry. I don't want my children to grow up in a country that's constantly compromising its own democratic principles... I want my children to grow up as global citizens, to recognize that we're all interconnected, to value every human life. [134:40] Benjamin Radd: see the world as they see it

Original transcript

[0:00] What does the United States think it's [0:01] going to gain from decapitating the [0:03] Iranian leadership? [0:04] >> that's kind of obvious based on what the [0:06] president has said. It's that [0:07] >> On what the president has said? [0:08] >> I'm I'm just saying based on what the [0:09] president says. You can't trust anything [0:11] that you're hearing right now. You can't [0:12] trust anything that you're reading right [0:13] now. Two to most Who would you trust if [0:16] you had to trust somebody, right? [0:17] >> not paranoia. That is absolutely It is [0:19] absolutely paranoia to suggest that [0:21] everything is misinformation. Iran [0:23] doesn't have a nuclear weapon. So, it's [0:25] not a nuclear threat. You speak a [0:27] different nuclear language than I do. [0:29] This regime is at its lowest lowest [0:31] point. Why not strike it now? [0:32] >> I can give lots of reasons why you [0:34] wouldn't strike it if they didn't have [0:35] the ability to create their own What are [0:37] you concerned about? And what are the [0:38] unintended consequences that you're [0:40] foreseeing? [0:40] >> There is a domino effect that happens [0:43] with every decision that the United [0:44] States makes. So, [0:48] Guys, I've got a quick favor to ask you. [0:50] We're approaching a significant [0:51] subscriber milestone on this show, and [0:53] roughly 69% of you that listen and love [0:56] this show haven't yet subscribed for [0:57] whatever reason. If there was ever a [0:59] time for you to do us a favor, if we've [1:01] ever done anything for you, given you [1:03] value in any way, it is simply hitting [1:05] that subscribe button. And it means so [1:07] much to myself, but also to my team, cuz [1:08] when we hit these milestones, we go away [1:10] as a team and celebrate. And it's the [1:11] thing, the simple, free, easy thing you [1:13] can do to help make this show a little [1:14] bit better every single week. So, that's [1:17] a favor I would ask you. And um if you [1:19] do hit [clears throat] the subscribe [1:20] button, I won't let you down, and we'll [1:22] continue to find small ways to make this [1:24] whole production better. Thank you so [1:26] much for being part of this journey. [1:27] Means the world. And uh yeah, let's do [1:29] this. [1:32] >> [music] [1:34] >> Benjamin, Annie, Andrew, first and [1:36] foremost, thank you for being here [1:38] today. I I have to start with the [1:40] question that's been on my mind as [1:41] somebody that doesn't know a huge amount [1:43] about geopolitics, which is [1:45] what the hell is going on? [1:47] And I And I say that because that's [1:49] exactly what I mean. What is going on? [1:50] And what context do I need to understand [1:53] this sort of historical context of the [1:55] actions we're seeing in Iran with this [1:58] war right now. Benjamin, [2:00] I know you've got a a personal [2:02] connection to Iran because your family [2:03] fled Iran, I believe. [2:04] >> Yeah, I was uh I was 2 years old when we [2:06] left in March of 1979. Um uh [2:09] a few months after the Shah had left and [2:11] uh just after Khomeini had arrived. What [2:13] is the Shah and what is Khomeini? Yeah, [2:16] so the Shah uh the former monarch of [2:19] Iran um the Pahlavi dynasty which came [2:21] into power in the 1930s deposing a [2:23] previous dynasty that had been around [2:25] for a couple hundred years. And um the [2:29] he his father brought in that dynasty [2:31] and then it was eventually he was [2:32] deposed by the British and the Americans [2:35] who felt he was getting too close to the [2:36] Nazis during World War II. [2:38] Concerned about supply routes for the [2:39] Nazis oil and his son was installed on [2:42] the throne at a very young age, I [2:43] believe 18 or 19. And um [2:46] he ruled Iran from uh from that period [2:49] 1941 [2:51] 1942 around that time all the way [2:52] through '79. A great ally of the United [2:55] States over over time eventually um and [2:58] uh was deposed was was um overthrown in [3:00] a revolution and uh by Khomeini who was [3:02] a senior cleric who had been a thorn in [3:04] the Shah's side since the '60s, was [3:06] exiled first to Turkey, then Iraq, then [3:10] ultimately to France right outside Paris [3:12] actually. From there he basically led [3:15] the revolution that led to the Shah's uh [3:17] removal um after in '79. And how was [3:20] Iran different when the Shah was in [3:21] power versus when Khomeini was in power? [3:23] That depends on who you ask. Um it was a [3:26] constitutional monarchy. The Shah had [3:28] powers that exceeded beyond what we [3:30] think a constitutional monarchy has [3:31] today like in Great Britain. Um he was [3:34] he ruled with an iron fist when he [3:36] needed to. He was an authoritarian but [3:37] he also was one that was rapidly [3:40] modernizing Iranian society. Wanted to [3:42] make it more like the West using Iran's [3:44] immense oil resources and wealth to [3:45] really accelerate development, building [3:48] of social institutions, health care, uh [3:50] literacy, modernization, all of those [3:53] things. That was his focus, make you run [3:54] more like the West. And uh in that sense [3:57] he succeeded, but it came at the expense [3:59] often times of civil liberties for many [4:01] people. It came at the expense of [4:03] freedom for those who wanted to [4:05] essentially practice religion, Islam, [4:07] Shia Islam in their own way. The Shah [4:09] was not hostile to religion, but he he [4:12] his policies were inconsistent with [4:14] where the traditional religious Iranians [4:16] wanted to go. And it sort of created a [4:18] schism in society. And you also had um [4:20] uh a wealth gap and income disparity. [4:23] Immense wealth poured into the country, [4:25] but it didn't trickle its way downward [4:27] into the sort of the village and rural [4:29] poor. And so there was a lot of [4:31] frustration, a lot of disenchantment [4:33] with his policies. And that led to sort [4:34] of this populist backlash of wanting [4:37] something that was more democratic, more [4:39] accountable, uh more like the West, uh [4:42] ironically. And uh and that sort of was [4:44] the beginning of of where that cycle [4:46] led. [4:47] And so how did Khomeini take power of [4:50] Iran? He [4:52] led a movement, a mass populist [4:54] movement, not a religious one, but it [4:56] meant to [4:57] um go across multiple socioeconomic and [5:00] political divides and unified the [5:02] opposition under this idea of removing [5:05] the monarchy, removing dependence on the [5:07] West. He specifically said Iran uh the [5:09] United States was to large part to blame [5:11] for Iran being in the state that it was, [5:13] for people not having the the the the [5:16] things they needed to live, the [5:17] freedoms, the liberties. He blamed the [5:19] Shah's um uses of the secret police and [5:21] torture methods on the United States and [5:24] on Israel, who he claimed, you know, [5:26] taught the secret police how to do these [5:28] things. Um there's a complicated sort of [5:30] history to that. And he basically [5:32] promised them salvation from a what he [5:34] did what he [5:36] portrayed as a puppet tyrant of the [5:37] United States. And the masses bought [5:40] into this, but both the left and the [5:42] right. The really the right consisted of [5:44] the the black, the Islamist. So you had [5:46] the red, which were sort of the the [5:48] Marxist socialist uh uh followers, you [5:50] had the black, and then you had sort of [5:52] that middle in in between, and they all [5:54] coalesced around this one charismatic [5:56] religious figure, a very um austere man, [5:59] um one who didn't really have a lot of [6:01] luxuries himself, led a simple life, but [6:04] was consistent with his opposition to [6:06] what he saw uh tyranny and despotism. [6:09] And people bought into it. [6:12] And the Americans didn't like this. [6:14] The Americans didn't know what to make [6:16] of it, and there was a failure, and I [6:17] think Andrew can talk about this as [6:19] well, over a failure by the State [6:20] Department and the CIA in the '70s to [6:22] see where the threat was. They saw the [6:23] threat coming from the Soviet Union. [6:24] They They were still afraid of Soviet [6:26] encroachment in the Middle East, [6:28] particularly through Iran. Their [6:29] concerns were with the Marxists, the [6:31] Communist parties. [6:33] They did not carefully look at the [6:34] black. They didn't look at the [6:35] Islamists. They didn't see them as a [6:37] threat until it was too late. The Shah [6:39] himself blocked or really didn't give [6:42] the CIA full access to Iran. There was a [6:44] limited information that was coming out. [6:47] He relied on his own um intelligence, [6:49] which fed him information he wanted to [6:51] hear, which is that everything is going [6:52] great. The country's doing well. The [6:54] people love you. They're all happy. [6:56] Until the discontent and the the protest [6:59] became they reached a threshold, and it [7:01] was too late to do anything about it. [7:03] Yeah, the United States was kind of at [7:04] their peak period of meddling in foreign [7:07] governments at the time. Um kind of [7:10] uh in a strange way that we've come full [7:11] circle, this idea of of controlling an [7:14] entire country by controlling the [7:15] figurehead of the country. That's where [7:17] we were in the uh late '70s, at the kind [7:20] of brink of the Cold War, right? Nobody [7:22] knew that the Berlin Wall was going to [7:24] fall. Uh we were all concerned with the [7:25] spread of communism. Nobody was paying [7:27] attention to the Islamist threat. Nobody [7:29] was paying attention to really any other [7:31] kind of threat at all. It was very much [7:33] the the [7:35] unfettered, uncontrolled, [7:37] unsupervised CIA running around with no [7:40] oversight and with very deep pockets. [7:43] And that changed at some point. That [7:44] changed in 2001 when Al-Qaeda [7:47] successfully carried out the 9/11 [7:48] attacks in New York and all of a sudden [7:50] the threat that we had all been ignoring [7:53] was on our doorstep and had grown so [7:55] wealthy and had spread so vast across [7:57] the world that Islamic extremism became [8:00] almost overnight a household term. Now, [8:03] there's still a difference between [8:05] Al-Qaeda Islamic Shia extremism and what [8:08] is practiced in the Shia faith and with [8:12] the outcomes that the Shia militants are [8:15] trying to pursue [8:16] in support of Iran, but [8:19] it's hard to differentiate that in the [8:20] United States where we don't understand [8:22] the difference between Sunni and Shia. [8:24] Annie, what do you think this war is [8:25] really about? [8:28] Very interesting what you both said and [8:29] I think what I would add to that [8:32] to that which very much speaks to today [8:34] is [8:35] that the CIA in fact had many ups and [8:38] downs over the decades from its creation [8:41] right after World War II until this [8:43] moment in time and then on 9/11. And so [8:46] it's been like an accordion experience [8:49] of power being taken away from the CIA [8:52] and then being grabbed back because the [8:54] CIA has always historically been the [8:58] president's hidden hand. It has been the [9:01] way in which the White House can execute [9:04] executive power [9:06] without having to follow the laws of war [9:08] that the military does. So, military is [9:11] a code called Title 10, CIA is a code [9:14] called Title 50. And while that may [9:17] sound a bit wonkish, it is important to [9:19] understand because Title 50 essentially, [9:22] as Andrew can speak to, gives the [9:24] president authority under classified [9:27] presidential directive to change any [9:30] rule he wants that suits him for an [9:34] operation at hand, which gets us [9:36] precisely to where we are today. So, as [9:38] far as I understand, there was the Shah, [9:40] the sort of royal leader, who was in [9:41] power. He was overthrown in the late [9:43] 1970s by Khomeini. Khomeini galvanized [9:47] people to believe in his way, and he's [9:48] been in power ever since. It gets [9:50] complicated because Khamenei, with an O, [9:54] was the original leader of the [9:55] revolution and was later replaced by [9:57] Khamenei, Oh. Okay, that's two. And but [9:59] no, that's that that is a 100% [10:02] >> leader. Yes. The, you know, and this [10:04] speaks to the revolutionary nature of [10:07] Iran, which has been, you know, taking [10:10] place since 1979. [10:12] You know, in the news today, people hear [10:14] the um IR, you know, the [10:17] Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And it's so [10:20] important to understand that word [10:22] revolution because [10:24] and you can speak to this better than [10:25] any of us, but Iran has been holding [10:27] onto this idea that or rather the regime [10:30] has that we are the revolutionary force [10:33] against America. That is why the chant [10:36] is always death to America. The wound of [10:39] 19 of pre-1975, [10:41] the wound of America meddling and having [10:44] the Shah as its puppet is as inflamed or [10:49] was as inflamed two days ago [10:52] as it was the day after the revolution [10:55] in 1979. I think that's probably [10:56] important context we missed missed, [10:58] which is the US got involved in the Shah [11:01] and how he governed Iran. [11:04] It's a fascinating period in 1951. So, [11:07] basically, under the Iranian [11:08] constitution, the Shah, the king, has [11:10] the authority to select the prime [11:11] minister with the consent of parliament. [11:13] The consent part is really nominal. And [11:16] so, Mosaddegh, who is a senior member of [11:18] parliament and also a member of the [11:20] previous royal dynasty, is distantly [11:23] related, this [11:25] um elderly statesman who the Shah, out [11:27] of sort of courtesy, after having gone [11:28] through a successive list of prime [11:30] ministers, says, "Okay, I'm going to [11:32] appoint him Prime Minister. So, he [11:34] wasn't democratically elected. He was [11:35] that he was elected to Parliament, but [11:37] from there the Shah selected him to be [11:39] Prime Minister. Mossadegh nationalized [11:42] the oil company, the Anglo-American Oil [11:44] Company, which was owned primarily by [11:45] the British. This angered the British [11:47] who in turn blockaded Iran's ports and [11:49] basically shut down its oil industry and [11:53] creating a national crisis. Um and [11:55] Mossadegh was sort of amassing [11:57] additional powers within himself uh for [11:59] himself. Basically, overstepping the [12:01] authority that he had, even though he [12:03] had the support of a good deal of the [12:04] public as it became obvious that this [12:06] was a a bad move, especially in the eyes [12:09] of um Iran's international trading [12:11] partners, and it was causing Iran to be [12:14] um isolated. There was pushback towards [12:17] him. And then he was removed. The [12:19] British had wanted MI6 had wanted to [12:21] overthrow him, basically get him [12:23] removed, and they um [12:25] tried to recruit the United States to [12:26] help. Um President Truman refused to uh [12:29] engage in this earlier. Eisenhower comes [12:31] in, is more receptive under CIA CIA [12:34] Director Allen Dulles to actually engage [12:36] in this called Operation TPAJAX, led by [12:39] Kermit Roosevelt, who is the CIA agent [12:42] uh officer tasked with this. And then [12:44] the Americans and the British basically [12:46] help foment a crowd that is a part of [12:49] the movement that removes Mossadegh. [12:51] Now, whether it's a common I think a [12:53] misconception that the US CIA was behind [12:55] it. The British had a bigger role in in [12:57] this. The um Americans were more of the [12:59] junior partner, but they became sort of [13:01] the public face of it. But Mossadegh was [13:04] not this overwhelmingly popular [13:06] democratically elected figure either. [13:07] The history is more complicated. And [13:10] regardless, um there've been many Prime [13:12] Ministers There were many Prime [13:12] Ministers after him. Um and so he was [13:15] known as a nationalist cuz he believed [13:17] that Iran's oil should be nationalized [13:18] and not really beholden to British [13:20] interests. And that created a lot of uh [13:23] resentment and animosity. But that began [13:26] the US-Iranian relationship really [13:28] solidified when the Shah returned. He [13:30] didn't leave really, he just sort of [13:32] took himself out of the country for a [13:33] bit, but he never stepped down. [13:35] And while this was all being resolved, [13:36] then he comes back and then the the US [13:38] Iranian relationship continues all the [13:40] way through '79. So the UK and the US [13:43] have been meddling in Iran for a long [13:44] time and kind of, you know, [13:46] exerting their will. The UK since the [13:48] 19th century, by far. The UK has been [13:51] the dominant colonial force in in modern [13:54] Iranian history. And they lose that [13:56] power in the sort of 1980s, early 1980s, [13:58] because the Khomeini comes in. The [14:01] British lose that power with the fall of [14:03] pretty much the fall of the empire in [14:04] the 1940s after World War II. And the [14:06] United States in '79, exactly. And then [14:08] since then [14:09] the UK and the US haven't been able to [14:11] sort of exert control and their will [14:12] over Iran. Zero. Zero. There's not even [14:15] an embassy there, because of course they [14:16] took our embassy, or they took over the [14:18] embassy. I mean, it's been and it's been [14:20] like ground zero of nothing for the [14:22] CIA's power, for any American power, [14:25] really for any Western power. [14:26] >> We call it a black box. [14:27] >> Yeah. It's a rogue nation. It's a black [14:29] box of information. A rogue nation is a [14:31] is one of a handful of countries around [14:32] the world that follow no international [14:34] norms. [14:36] North Korea is a rogue nation. Belarus [14:38] is a rogue nation. Cuba is a rogue [14:40] nation. Venezuela was a rogue nation. [14:42] These countries that completely [14:45] stand separate from the the norms of an [14:48] international society. [14:50] And in Iran's case, it also became this [14:52] black box where it did not allow [14:54] foreigners in, especially not [14:55] Westerners. It closed down its embassy. [14:58] The traditional methods for collecting [14:59] intelligence were very difficult. And [15:01] geographically, it's so far away and so [15:03] far outside of the the sphere of [15:06] influence for the United States that in [15:09] terms of intelligence and military [15:11] prioritization, [15:13] it just fell to the bottom of the list. [15:14] >> And yet, look exactly where it is. It's [15:16] right in the middle of the East. And to [15:18] Benjamin's point, oil, oil, oil. It's [15:21] always about oil. There's always a [15:22] component of oil. And there are so many [15:24] other oil options in that region besides [15:26] Iran, right? Saudi Arabia, UAE, [15:30] uh Bahrain, Qatar. They've they've [15:31] they've got The United States could [15:33] partner with other [15:36] Arab countries to get what they wanted [15:38] without having to deal with Iran. So, [15:39] explain to me in simple terms why Trump [15:42] right now has decided that this is the [15:45] best time to attack Iran. I want to [15:48] start with you, Andrew. What's your [15:50] point of view on that? The full picture [15:51] of what his motivations are. I think the [15:53] question that you just asked [15:55] is the most prescient question that we [15:57] will talk about today. Why? Why now? Why [16:01] is it being communicated the way it's [16:02] being communicated? Why was it executed [16:03] the way it was executed? So, why is now [16:06] the very the best of all times? [16:08] I frankly don't think it is. I think [16:10] that's the narrative that's being [16:12] communicated to the world and to the [16:14] public. [16:15] Um what Donald Trump did in attacking [16:18] Iran goes against what the ODNI report [16:22] assessed for the the most likely threats [16:24] against the United States in her 2000 in [16:26] the ODNI's 2005 threat assessment. It [16:28] goes against the uh Department of War's [16:32] 2026 [16:33] National Defense Strategy and it goes [16:35] against the White House's National [16:36] Security Strategy. These massive [16:39] doctrinal annual assessments for how the [16:42] United States will will protect national [16:43] security, the attack against Iran goes [16:46] contrary to all three of those in terms [16:48] of priority and action. So, why [16:50] now? Why the way that we've done it? [16:54] I can't answer it in any kind of logical [16:56] way. What's the non-logical answer? It's [16:59] a distraction. It's international [17:02] pressure with Israel. [17:04] It's a cheap win after a series of [17:07] losses. [17:08] It's uh a last-ditch effort before he [17:11] understands he that Donald Trump and and [17:13] his party will lose control of the House [17:16] in the midterms this year. [17:19] I I have a little bit of a different [17:21] take, shall I? Mhm. Um [17:23] >> [snorts] [17:24] >> I believe the current administration is [17:28] led as a completely top-down situation. [17:31] In other words, [17:33] like sole presidential authority. This [17:35] current president [17:37] is very enraptured with power and with [17:41] um prowess, with effectiveness, and [17:45] on the heels of Maduro and maybe even [17:48] the cartel leader in Mexico. [17:51] I believe that the current president saw [17:54] a moment of of intense weakness that had [17:57] been building, [17:59] no doubt, and in warring in general, [18:03] when when looking at it theoretically [18:04] like someone like myself, [18:06] the decapitation strike is the ultimate [18:10] strike. It's literally like it sounds [18:12] when you can It comes from cut off the [18:14] head of the snake. [18:15] And that is exactly what has happened. [18:18] Why Why though? Why Why did he do that? [18:20] Well, I cannot tell you why, but I can [18:22] tell you what what we all know that this [18:24] happened. So, if you reverse engineer [18:27] what happened, [18:29] I think it become There's only one [18:31] conclusion, which is that [18:33] I would think the current president [18:35] wanted to do this [18:37] and was waiting [18:40] till he had the intelligent the good the [18:42] intel and the intelligence part of it is [18:44] beyond remarkable. Like how they how the [18:47] CIA and NSA and you know, probably DIA [18:51] and NGA, all of these intelligence [18:54] agencies, of which there are many, not [18:56] just the CIA, were able to get that [18:59] information to the president in that [19:01] exact moment and make that strike and [19:03] decapitate the leadership that has been [19:06] in power since 1979. When they talk [19:08] about the motives here, Trump would [19:10] often cite nuclear weapons as the motive [19:13] saying he didn't want [19:15] Iran to get nuclear weapons. Is is that [19:17] what's going on here in your point of [19:19] view? The 2025 [19:20] national threat assessment that was [19:22] produced by the ODNI in March, so less [19:24] than a year old, specifically says that [19:28] Iran was unlikely to pursue the [19:30] development of nuclear enrichment or [19:31] nuclear weapons. That was the assessment [19:33] of the the ODNI. And that instead their [19:36] primary concern was that Iran was going [19:37] to focus resources into the research of [19:39] biological and chemical weapons. So the [19:41] fact that in March of 2025, the ODNI, [19:44] the assessment of all intelligence [19:46] agencies, said Iran is not working on a [19:48] nuclear weapon. And then, after the [19:51] strike in June of the same year, where [19:53] we dropped bunker busters in in Fordow, [19:56] further obliterating their nuclear [19:58] enrichment capability and obliterating [20:00] their program, we have two documents [20:02] that say they're not developing it. We [20:03] have another series of attacks that says [20:05] it's obliterated, and yet we're still [20:07] saying [20:08] that we need to attack Iran because of [20:10] WMD. We've heard that story before. [20:13] We've heard that WMD is a justice that [20:15] the concern of WMD is a just cause for [20:17] war, and that was when we invaded Iraq [20:19] in 1992. So what do you think the real [20:21] motivation there is therefore is? It's [20:23] very similar to what Annie is saying [20:24] that that we have a current [20:25] administration that is President down. [20:27] It's fascinating if you read the [20:29] official documentation because when you [20:31] read the Department of War's national [20:33] security strategy, what you hear more [20:35] than any other word [20:37] is Donald Trump. Our President Donald [20:39] Trump is leading America through our [20:41] President Donald Trump, the great Donald [20:42] Trump, like the it's incredible. When [20:43] you hear the speeches that come out of [20:45] Marco Rubio's mouth, of Pete Hegseth's [20:46] mouth, what do you hear more than any [20:47] other term? You hear the name of the [20:49] president. [20:51] Usually you hear we or the government or [20:54] this administration. It's not around a [20:56] personality. So it's a very interesting [20:58] situation because if there's so much of [21:01] a person at stake here, [21:03] and everybody surrounding the office of [21:06] the president is only there because they [21:09] are respecting, kissing the ring of the [21:10] personality in the center. Benjamin [21:12] Netanyahu [21:12] >> I'm going to add to that further just [21:14] for a moment if I may because [21:16] on that point, the button on that is [21:18] that if you I watch the president the [21:20] current president's speeches to sort of, [21:23] you know, discern things. And you can [21:26] often see get your answer right there. [21:28] And in one of the speeches either this [21:30] morning or yesterday, he mentioned that [21:32] the Ayatollah tried to kill him. [21:36] And it's to me, it's like, oh, that's [21:40] the tit-for-tat. [21:42] You know, again, top-down or you could [21:45] say schoolboy sandbox. I say that as the [21:48] mother of two boys. You know, this human [21:50] behavior that is way outside the norm [21:53] of, you know, intelligence reports and [21:56] assessments and these long monographs [21:58] that may or may not actually be [22:00] effective. I mean, you know, the biggest [22:02] surprises of the past 40 years, the [22:04] Berlin Wall falling and 9/11 were [22:07] completely unseen by any intelligence [22:10] report. So, there is an argument that [22:12] those intelligence reports [22:14] are as good as a coin toss. So, I want [22:17] to come to that point because the very [22:18] fact that we have an Islamic Republic is [22:20] a direct result of the failure of [22:22] American intelligence to see that threat [22:25] as early as 1976-77, [22:27] a failure to inform then President [22:30] Carter to do the necessary take the [22:31] necessary steps to support the Shah and [22:34] to neutralize that threat. So, the [22:36] United States track record in Iran for [22:38] the last 40 or 50 years is abysmal when [22:41] it comes to intelligence [22:43] and when it comes to statecraft. And so, [22:45] there's that legacy, number one. Number [22:47] two, [22:48] October 7th, 2023, the Hamas attack [22:50] against Israel changed the dynamic [22:52] entirely. That attack surprised Israeli [22:55] intelligence, it surprised Americans, it [22:57] surprised almost anybody watching. [22:58] Nobody thought Hamas was is to do that [23:01] when they did it and the means in which [23:02] they did it. So, all of a sudden that [23:04] forced a recalibration, a recalculation [23:06] of what's at stake, what could happen. [23:08] If we wait for an imminent threat, till [23:10] we see actually the sign outside the [23:12] door, it's too late. So, from the [23:14] president's perspective, to answer your [23:16] original question, why now, why do this? [23:18] I believe the October 7th attacks, and [23:21] it's not at the behest of Israel [23:22] necessarily, it's the idea that Iran, we [23:24] know finances Hamas, subsidizes Hamas, [23:27] trains Hamas, equips Hamas, provides um [23:30] logistical support of [23:32] on on many levels, so that Hamas can be [23:34] what it was, and Hezbollah also. So, you [23:36] have these destabilizing non-state [23:38] groups in the Middle East wreaking [23:40] havoc, destabilizing, causing causing [23:43] chaos. You're the United States, you're [23:45] also dealing with a nuclear threshold [23:47] state. So, Iran may or may not have a [23:49] nuclear weapons program, but they [23:50] exceeded the 20% enrichment that they [23:52] were allowed to do under the non-nuclear [23:55] non-proliferation treaty. They they [23:56] violated IAEA safeguards. They they [23:59] lied. So, you take all of this together. [24:02] This is a regime that can't be trusted, [24:03] that chants death to America, which is [24:05] more than Saddam Hussein ever did, [24:07] and is funding groups that had that up [24:10] until 9/11, Iran was behind more acts of [24:12] terror that cost American lives than any [24:14] other state or non-state group in the [24:17] world. 9/11 changed that, but up until [24:19] that, the Marine barracks bombing [24:21] in in the 1980s, terrorist attacks [24:24] throughout Europe, South America, US [24:26] Embassy, absolutely. The USS Cole, all [24:28] right? So, [24:30] this is a we've we've been at war from [24:32] the president's perspective with Iran [24:33] since they took our hostages, for which [24:35] they've never atoned for. They've never [24:37] been held to account for. So, if you [24:38] take that calculus, and then now we're [24:40] in a post-October 7th world [24:42] with a nuclear threshold state, [24:45] what happened that changed was last [24:47] year's six-day a 12-day war in June [24:49] created an opportunity, weakened Iran [24:51] enough in its proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, [24:53] weakened. If there's an opportunity to [24:56] finally address this 47-year-old [24:58] conflict, this was the window to do it. [25:00] That is why I believe, rightly or [25:03] wrongly, the president took the action [25:05] when he did. [25:07] That doesn't make it the best window. [25:09] And that's what we're being told is it [25:10] was the last best window. I don't think [25:12] it was the last best window, but it was [25:13] a window or at least from their [25:15] perspective it was it was a window. [25:16] You've got everyone weekend, you've got [25:18] the the regime less popular than it's [25:20] ever been. I mean, we saw the protests [25:21] in January that led to the the, you [25:23] know, the the bloodbath that, you know, [25:26] upwards of 30,000 people killed on [25:28] January 8th and 9th. This was, you know, [25:31] this this regime is at its lowest lowest [25:33] point both in terms of domestic [25:35] credibility and soft power and ability [25:37] to to use proxies to carry out its will. [25:40] Why not strike it now would be the [25:42] logic. [25:43] I mean, I can give lots of reasons why [25:45] you wouldn't strike it. It's it's it's [25:46] violating international law. It sets a [25:48] dangerous precedent. It creates [25:50] instability. There are Americans dead, [25:52] and Moradi's dead, [25:54] Saudis dead. [25:56] For what? For for for something that was [25:58] already on the precipice of dying [25:59] itself. It's been dying for 40 years, [26:02] though. [26:03] >> let it run its course? [26:04] >> Because because what more damage is it [26:06] going to do? What more October 7th can [26:09] we see? Arguably less than anything [26:11] that's already been done. So, it's like [26:12] taking action on it's like putting down [26:15] the dead dog after it's done all of its [26:17] damage. It was Well, you I don't think [26:19] that you could say to the families of [26:20] the 30,000 some people who were murdered [26:23] by the regime just earlier, you know, in [26:25] January that it's a dead dog. I don't I [26:27] think they would disagree. [26:28] >> That's it's their country. It's their [26:31] people. [26:32] It's their [26:33] it's their decision. It's their right to [26:35] self-determination. [26:36] >> done. I'm I'm just simply telling saying [26:37] the facts of that which I agree with, [26:38] you know, unilaterally that the the [26:39] weekend situation was perceived by this [26:40] administration as the moment to strike. [26:41] And what is done is done. And so, I [26:41] think what's more interesting to me is [26:51] Agreed. [26:51] >> And so, I think what's more interesting [26:53] to me is [26:55] you know, [26:56] observing how America is dealing with [26:58] this. I mean, we are in our own crisis, [27:00] America, our own serious crisis. And [27:04] there are crises around the world, [27:06] particularly in this area, and without [27:09] having a crystal ball, none of us know. [27:11] And I think that [27:12] what will happen in the next 2 weeks [27:14] will be profoundly telling. [27:17] Interestingly, people will say, "This [27:19] was a good move." Or this will was a bad [27:21] move, which in and of itself is a [27:23] bizarre theater because [27:25] your point is correct. You've got, you [27:28] know, America taking action in a place [27:30] that's not it's not it's backyard. [27:33] >> country. [27:33] >> Yes. And to your point, you've got, [27:36] you know, decades of a menace that is [27:39] now off the table. [27:41] I would disagree with that. Exactly. We [27:43] don't know. And And the worst part is [27:45] that in the lead-up to this, Iran's [27:47] relationship with the with Russia and [27:50] China and and other countries that are [27:52] successfully countering American [27:54] influence worldwide had grown closer [27:56] than ever before. I think they're [27:57] fair-weather friends. They'd just turn [27:59] on them in a second. [28:00] >> What are you concerned about, aren't [28:02] you? So, so there's a number of things [28:04] here. So, first of all, with the removal [28:06] of Maduro in Venezuela, which happened [28:07] less than 60 days ago, and now the [28:10] killing, the assassination of a of a [28:13] leader [28:13] >> The decapitation of the regime. Which [28:15] was the same thing you did here when you [28:16] rendered Maduro, right? It's a [28:17] decapitation of a regime. [28:19] >> different. I'm I am would say if you're [28:20] going to, you know, extract someone, [28:24] you haven't killed them. So, that's not [28:25] decapitation. [28:26] >> That's basically swapping out the CEO. [28:28] This is completely reforming the [28:29] company, or at least trying to. Because [28:31] because they were different countries, [28:32] they operated in different ways. But [28:34] when you attack the leadership, [28:36] when you attack the head of state, [28:38] that is protected under international [28:40] law. Because because when you do that, [28:42] you open the gates for everyone. [28:44] >> Of course. What is it What is it the [28:45] heart of your concern? Because it sounds [28:47] like you're saying that this wasn't the [28:48] right time to do this. And and so what [28:50] are the unintended consequences that [28:52] you're foreseeing? So, there is a domino [28:55] effect that happens with every decision [28:57] that the United States makes. And now [28:59] that we have essentially taken this [29:02] military action against a sovereign [29:04] country, it opens the door for all sorts [29:07] of other countries to just unilaterally [29:09] choose when they're going to take action [29:11] against another sovereign. Independent [29:13] We have created more opportunity for [29:15] more rogue nations, which is a greater [29:17] abandonment of an international [29:18] community, which destabilizes our global [29:22] trade, our economics, our sense of [29:24] personal security. The [29:26] Americans are less secure now than they [29:29] were 4 days ago. They're targeted now [29:32] more than they were 4 days ago. And if [29:35] we if we are coming to the conclusion [29:37] that we need to make things worse before [29:38] we can make things better, [29:40] that's a conversation I guess we can [29:41] have, the debate we can have. But with [29:44] with the crisis that we have here at [29:45] home, [29:46] with the concerns that exist, with the [29:48] stated priority [29:50] >> here at home? We have an economic crisis [29:52] here at home, an immigration crisis here [29:53] at home. We have a crisis of politics [29:56] here at home. Like the United States is [29:58] I would just say it's tribal warfare [29:59] here at home. I mean I watch it and it's [30:01] just very very very dangerous. Keep [30:03] going. No, no, no, it's just Now we have [30:05] just exacerbated that even more. And [30:06] we've exacerbated that more [30:08] with an ally in the Middle East [30:11] that [30:12] just got done carrying out one of the [30:14] most destructive [30:16] attacks in history against Gaza. You you [30:19] brought up something. You talked about [30:20] sovereignty uh with regards to the [30:23] January 8th [30:25] um [30:26] the violence committed against the [30:27] protesters. You said that that basically [30:29] it's their own people's [30:30] self-determination. [30:31] How do How does the international [30:33] community deal with acts of state [30:35] violence against its own people? That's [30:37] So, we have a a word for that and it's [30:39] called intrastate conflicts. Conflict [30:41] inside of a state, a civil war. [30:42] >> Right. Mhm. The international community [30:44] has no responsibility for stepping into [30:46] a civil war. So, that was the This is a [30:47] great point. This is the debate that the [30:51] that the four allied powers had at the [30:53] end of World War when they were [30:54] convening the Nuremberg trials. You had [30:56] this idea that we don't have laws to [30:58] account for how a country or state [31:01] treats people within its own sovereign [31:03] borders. The idea is that Germany could [31:04] do what Germany did within Germany [31:07] proper, forget about occupied Germany, [31:09] within its own borders. They could [31:10] mistreat anybody because that was German [31:12] law. And the push was that that's not [31:14] the world we want to live in anymore. We [31:15] want to live in a world where basically [31:17] nations cannot do that to people. And [31:19] that's where the basis of the Nuremberg [31:21] tribunals came and that's where we got [31:23] international law of war crimes, crimes [31:25] of aggression, genocide, so on and so [31:26] forth. So, the idea is that just because [31:29] Iran is sovereign, we we sit back and [31:31] allow them to do that. It's It wasn't a [31:33] civil war because one side was fighting [31:35] with with with knives, machetes, assault [31:36] rifles. The other side had spoons, [31:38] wooden spoons, you know, I mean, that [31:39] kind of thing, right? It was so [31:41] lopsided. It was such an abuse and a [31:44] asymmetric battle. Under the Clinton [31:45] administration, we chose to not be part [31:48] of the International Criminal Court. We [31:49] pulled ourselves out of the very same [31:52] conclusion that you're talking about. [31:54] >> Yeah, but Nuremberg was not but but [31:55] there's also the ICJ. There's a UN [31:57] framework that's independent from the [31:58] ICC and the Rome treaty. So, all I'm [32:00] saying is we do have international law [32:02] that addresses what nations can do to [32:04] their own people. And we violated [32:05] international law by by run by attacking [32:09] a head of state. So, what what is the [32:11] There's no continuity. There's no [32:13] consistency. We choose to do what we [32:14] choose to do, we choose to support what [32:16] we choose to support, and we choose to [32:17] abandon what we choose to abandon. And [32:19] how how do you make sense in a world [32:21] like that? How do you predict the [32:23] future? How do you manage even raising a [32:25] family? How do you know where you can [32:26] travel? How do you decide on [32:28] investments? How do you can't That is a [32:30] great point and I think that's the [32:31] that's a you know, that's a point to be [32:33] made here is that there's an absence of [32:35] the enforcement of law internationally [32:37] and it's victor's justice. And the [32:39] dominant will essentially exercise [32:41] whatever will they want, the law be [32:42] damned. [32:44] Do you think this is part of Trump's [32:47] what his motivations are linked his [32:49] personal legacy? And I say this a lot [32:51] cuz I think sometimes you got to kind of [32:52] follow the incentive structure, [32:54] especially with a president that can't [32:55] be reelected, who has talked a lot about [32:57] wanting to win the Nobel Peace Prize, [32:58] although he's probably never said it [32:59] directly. And you It almost looks like a [33:01] Trump that's thinking about his legacy [33:04] ahead of time. And one's legacy is going [33:06] to be determined by like the wars you [33:07] you start, the people you take out, the [33:09] Venezuela situation, the economies seems [33:11] to be really important to him. Do you [33:13] think this is he he's motivated more so [33:15] by his legacy than say someone else? I [33:17] do believe that we are in a position [33:18] where this is the first president we've [33:19] ever had. [33:21] And I would love to be wrong. Please [33:23] disagree with me on this, but I think [33:24] this is the first president we've ever [33:25] had that's more focused on personal [33:27] legacy [33:28] than professional or political legacy. I [33:31] think he's thinking about Donald Trump [33:33] and the name Trump and the Trump fortune [33:36] and the Trump future more than he's [33:38] thinking about the image of him on [33:41] children's bookmarks as a as a president [33:43] of the United States for the rest of the [33:44] existence of the United States. I hope [33:46] I'm wrong, but I don't feel like he's [33:48] motivated by [33:50] country, by [33:52] service. He is supposed to be a public [33:55] servant. [33:55] >> country over part or party over country, [33:57] it's brand over country, the Trump [33:59] brand. I would agree with that, yeah. [34:02] I've never had a president talking about [34:03] I might take Greenland, might might go [34:05] to Venezuela. Um He He fancies himself a [34:08] deal maker. He wants a Nobel Peace [34:09] Prize. He He prides himself on the [34:11] number of wars that he's he's he's he's [34:14] um ended, um conflicts that he's solved. [34:16] I think ideally he would have wanted [34:18] Iran to end up with a diplomatic [34:19] solution. He came with terms. I don't [34:22] think war was a preferred option. I [34:23] think he would be much happier if there [34:24] was an agreement that, you know, allowed [34:26] everything to kind of stay in place. [34:28] Iran would abide by nuclear [34:29] restrictions, missile restrictions, [34:31] proxy restrictions, and then a Trump [34:33] casino gets built in, you know, Tehran. [34:35] That would have made him happy. Because [34:37] yeah, that is about the personal. That [34:38] is about the brand. That And it's also [34:39] he sees that as benefiting the United [34:41] States, benefiting the US's global [34:43] partners in the region. So, but but I [34:45] think a lot of this is personally [34:46] driven. I would I I would agree. [34:49] I also find it quite fascinating that [34:50] our Prime Minister in the UK, Keir [34:52] Starmer, is not being asked about any of [34:54] this stuff ahead of time. I think if we [34:56] go back a couple of decades, the UK and [34:58] the US were allies. Now it seems like [35:00] the US is kind of acting as a lone force [35:03] in the world. And it's funny because, [35:05] you know, I watched Keir Starmer come [35:06] out after the attacks have happened, and [35:07] he clearly had no idea what was going to [35:08] happen. Same in Venezuela. Once upon a [35:11] time you would have briefed us. [35:12] The president did go to the Prime [35:14] Minister about, I think, using Diego [35:16] Garcia and other bases, um, and was [35:18] turned down, if I'm not mistaken, right? [35:20] That That So, there was some awareness [35:22] that something was being planned, and [35:24] and the Prime Minister said that the [35:25] that the UK government would have no [35:26] part in any of that. What's going on [35:29] here? What's the the macro picture of in [35:31] terms of the declining world order that [35:33] we once knew, where we had where it [35:35] wasn't just United States running around [35:37] doing whatever they liked, and other [35:38] people might be briefed or asked? [35:41] I mean, I'm interested in looking at [35:44] outcome, you know, and then kind of [35:46] looking backwards at how we got there. [35:48] And I'm also very interested in how [35:50] divided America is, because I really do [35:53] see it as the greatest weakness. So, you [35:55] can show strength in what just happened, [35:57] but if you are extremely vulnerable at [36:01] home, that And I'm not talking [36:03] necessarily about Hezbollah terrorist [36:05] cells being, you know, activated, which [36:08] may or may not happen. I'm just talking [36:11] about the the clash of political parties [36:15] in the United States. [36:17] And [36:18] to that end, I often look at [36:21] the past. And like so, we're talking [36:24] about You mentioned, you know, being [36:26] friendly and having our allies and our [36:29] and I can't help but look at the [36:31] reaction of the opposing party right now [36:34] at this action for better for worse, but [36:37] bringing up the Iraq war. [36:40] And talking about how we [36:42] got our allies involved, we went to [36:45] Congress. [36:46] And I [36:47] as a historian [36:50] can't help but think, but wait a minute, [36:52] the Iraq war was built on faulty [36:55] intelligence. The Iraq war led us into a [37:00] 20-year [37:03] absolute misery with so many people in [37:06] this area killed and so many more [37:09] problems metastasizing as a result. And [37:13] so to to be selective about what works [37:18] and what what what doesn't work is to me [37:21] as dangerous as a situation as we are in [37:23] now. And I know that's a little bit [37:25] skirting away from [37:28] you know, giving you an answer as to why [37:30] what was done was done or whether it's a [37:32] good idea or bad idea. It just simply is [37:35] very interesting to me because I can't [37:37] help but see, [37:38] you know, being a subject matter expert [37:40] on the history of the CIA in particular. [37:44] I see these actions [37:47] where it is presidential authority [37:49] driven [37:50] since the end of World War II. And to [37:52] me, that's what this action looks like. [37:54] So we're in the new era where we are in, [37:57] which I find interesting, is where [37:59] the president of the United States can [38:00] essentially take what would historically [38:03] be a covert action operation. You [38:07] wouldn't even know about it. That would [38:08] be the idea. [38:10] Instead [38:11] announcing it as a military program. So [38:14] he's merging the legal authorities of [38:16] title 10 and title 50. [38:19] And of course the average person in the [38:20] United States doesn't like, "Oh, wait a [38:22] minute. He's merging those authorities [38:23] because [38:24] >> is a thumb What are the Title 10 and [38:25] Title 50? Well, Title 10 is the military [38:28] must follow certain laws of war. Okay. [38:30] >> Okay? And Title 50 says, if the [38:32] president decides it is a national [38:34] security threat, he can use the CIA's [38:38] paramilitary [38:40] that is an actual mili- military force. [38:42] They sheep dip Tier 1 operators over [38:45] from the military and take the patches [38:47] off their shoulders, put them in [38:50] non-military clothing, and send them out [38:52] to do military type work. So, he's using [38:56] the military how he wants to use them. [38:57] >> Yes, and that's [38:58] >> that right. As the commander in chief, [39:01] as the chief executive of the United [39:04] States, the DOD, or now the DOW, and CIA [39:08] fall under the executive branch. They [39:09] don't fall under the legislative branch. [39:10] They don't fall under the the judicial [39:12] branch. So, the president has and always [39:14] has had the ability to take these types [39:18] of actions and write executive orders. [39:20] What's so different here is that while [39:23] we're talking about CIA and CIA being [39:26] used [39:27] um by the president in his exercise of [39:29] authority, [39:30] what we're all not talking about, what [39:32] we're missing, is that CIA has been [39:35] gutted. This is the same president that [39:37] went to a war with CIA in his first [39:39] term. CIA has gone through massive [39:42] attrition since then. They were defunded [39:45] under his first presidency. So, [39:47] Director Ratcliffe is the least used [39:50] director, the least referenced director. [39:51] You never hear about him. Is he the head [39:53] of the CIA? [39:53] >> He is the head of the CIA. And And [39:56] what I am concerned about is that the [39:58] CIA I left [40:00] in 2014 [40:03] was already missing intelligence on [40:06] Venezuela and and Iran. Since then, it's [40:10] gotten smaller, it's gotten marginalized [40:12] more, it went to it's been treated [40:14] hostilely by the by the US president, [40:16] and the CIA that I [40:19] had started hearing rumors about in the [40:21] early 2020s, 65% of the intelligence [40:24] that they were producing was coming from [40:26] foreign allies. [40:27] They didn't have the ability to create [40:29] their own intelligence or sit and [40:30] outsource it. [40:31] >> is that every CIA, sadly, you know, has [40:34] nostalgia for the former CIA if you look [40:37] at history, and believes that their CIA [40:40] was better than the current CIA. That's [40:42] just the nature of [40:43] >> saying it was better or worse. I'm just [40:45] saying the intelligence that the CIA is [40:47] using now, I I would argue [40:50] that we keep talking about CIA and you [40:52] keep seeing CIA in the headlines, and [40:54] it's actually not But but hang on. But [40:57] hang on. ODNI didn't or at least [40:59] according to, shall we say, The New York [41:01] Times, which must have come from the [41:02] White House, CIA provided the [41:05] intelligence [41:05] >> Exactly. That's [41:07] fake. I don't think that's real. I don't [41:09] think that is a shield. [41:10] Here's the thing. CIA is [41:13] CIA is the Central Intelligence Agency, [41:15] which is by design. It means that every [41:18] other intelligence that comes from every [41:19] other agency inside the DOG, inside of [41:22] the National Security infrastructure, [41:24] has to come through CIA. Only CIA [41:26] produces the final product to the [41:27] president. So, therefore, everything is [41:30] CIA. [41:32] And CIA contain and CIA is the one [41:34] that's in charge of maintaining foreign [41:36] relationships with foreign intelligence [41:37] services. So, when Israel has an [41:39] intelligence report that they share with [41:40] the US president, it goes through the [41:42] CIA. So, all credit and all blame always [41:46] goes to CIA. That doesn't mean CIA [41:49] actually had the intelligence [41:50] themselves. [41:51] >> who do you think had the intelligence, [41:52] and why does this matter? The number one [41:55] most informed country in the world on [41:57] the goings-on in Iran is Israel. Tell me [42:00] if I'm wrong. [42:00] >> No, I would agree with that. [42:01] >> There's no way the United States would [42:03] have been able to launch against Iran [42:04] without close coordination and [42:06] incredible intelligence support from [42:08] Israel. [42:08] >> And I'm going to disagree a little bit. [42:10] >> why does it matter? Because it means [42:12] that Israel could be directing the [42:14] activities of the US military by the [42:16] intelligence they select to give to the [42:18] press. So, I wouldn't take that step. [42:21] >> Yeah. [42:22] >> [laughter] [42:22] >> I don't think Israel has a monopoly on [42:24] intelligence provided. Um we know that [42:26] uh MI6 has also historically been very [42:29] active and very capable, probably more [42:31] so than CIA has been and in large part [42:33] because the British government has a [42:34] embassy, has diplomatic ties, um has [42:37] trade and economic ties with Iran. Um [42:40] and it's and the Islamic regime has seen [42:43] the UK as a effective sort of pipeline [42:45] or conduit to the United States and has [42:47] used that in the past. Um sometimes [42:50] you know, to to better effect than [42:51] before, but I I think that there's a I [42:54] think there's sources of intelligence [42:55] that the United States gets and Israel [42:58] is influential, but I don't think it is [43:00] the sole influencer or the one that [43:01] pushes it over the edge one way or the [43:03] other. [43:03] >> I wasn't saying that they're the sole, [43:04] but but when it came to Iran, and I [43:06] think we're saying the same thing, they [43:08] are they don't have the monopoly, but [43:11] they have the they're the biggest game [43:12] in town exactly when it comes to [43:13] understanding what's happening in Iran. [43:15] I mean, I'm going to disagree because I [43:18] think that it Okay, look at past [43:20] situations where [43:22] the United States attempted to do a [43:23] decapitation strike and then have a [43:26] regime change. You can look at Iraq. We [43:28] tried to kill Saddam Hussein, failed, [43:31] and then a disaster blows up. Libya, [43:34] tried to kill Gaddafi, fails, a disaster [43:38] blows up. [43:39] Iran [43:41] tries to kill [43:43] the regime or take decapitate the regime [43:45] and succeeds. [43:47] So, [43:49] you are you saying that you believe [43:50] that's because in the other situations [43:53] the intelligence was coming from the CIA [43:56] who didn't have such great intelligence [43:59] and in this situation the intelligence [44:01] was coming from Israel who did? No. I'm [44:05] saying that [44:07] that [44:09] a big piece of the opportunity of Iran [44:11] is tied to the opportunity that was [44:13] presented to us by our allies in the [44:15] region. I don't think it's just Israel. [44:17] Saudi Arabia wants to see the end of [44:19] Iran, UAE wants to see the end of Iran, [44:20] Jordan wants to see the end of Iran. [44:21] There's multiple allies in the region [44:23] that want to see the end of Iran. But [44:25] when it came to who had the longest, [44:28] most reliable human intelligence source [44:31] network inside Iran, [44:34] I don't think anybody came even close to [44:36] comparing with [44:37] with Israel. [44:38] >> And you're saying that was used [44:39] selectively, meaning [44:40] >> Because all intelligence that's shared [44:42] with an ally is selective. [44:43] >> Of course. I have 10 pieces. Do I give [44:45] all 10 pieces to my ally or do I give [44:47] just the three pieces that I think will [44:49] move them off the X? [44:50] >> Well, you had to They had to have those [44:52] 20 individuals tagged to do their find, [44:55] fix, and finishing. Period, end of [44:57] story. It couldn't have happened without [44:59] it. And I believe that the United [45:01] States, the CIA, aggregates all that [45:04] intelligence, you know, sigint, I mean, [45:06] all the ints [45:08] to know that. I can't imagine how Israel [45:11] knew that more than the United States. [45:13] >> [gasps] [45:14] >> I just I've I That's my That's where I [45:17] was betting my horse. [45:18] >> give you a very quick example, right? [45:19] You're 100% right. The people have to be [45:21] tagged. When you tag a cell phone, let's [45:23] just say we're talking about cell [45:24] phones. Cell phones give you a geo a [45:25] geolocation. Every cell phone signal [45:28] sends a geo tag. [45:29] But only on the service network that [45:32] controls that phone. United States [45:34] doesn't have access to most of the [45:35] service providers in the Middle East. [45:37] So, you already have to have someone to [45:40] interlocute the Middle Eastern service [45:42] provider with the West. And then on top [45:44] of that, you then have to be able to [45:46] identify that that selector, that cell [45:48] phone, belongs to that person. Again, if [45:50] you think that the United States is so [45:52] powerful it has every cell phone of [45:53] every person around the country, around [45:55] the world, [45:57] they're I think there's biometric [45:58] tagging that [46:00] is not necessarily electronic based. So, [46:03] you're saying that it [46:06] I I appreciate your point of view. [46:08] The point is that Iran, [46:11] according to every prioritized list that [46:13] we have, is on the low end of our [46:16] priorities. Russia's above them, China's [46:18] above them. [46:20] Uh the cartels across Mexico are above [46:22] them. So, somehow we had such refined [46:26] intelligence on [46:28] What's your conclusion here, Andrew? Cuz [46:29] I feel like there's a there's a second [46:31] half of your point that's missing, like [46:33] a conclusion that you're [46:34] you're pointing towards but not saying. [46:36] >> Isn't it just the lowest of the hanging [46:37] fruits of all the ones you mentioned [46:39] also? Correct. It doesn't So, what I'm [46:40] saying is I it doesn't make sense [46:44] that we would take this action unless [46:46] we are really just acting on the behest [46:50] of our allies [46:52] for some other kind of gain. A personal [46:54] gain for the Trump brand, if you will. [46:57] Some sort of uh hegemony that the United [46:59] States is desperately grasping for, cuz [47:01] we realize we don't have that power and [47:03] influence anymore. And as a result of [47:05] these actions and actions like what we [47:07] took in Venezuela, we have now empowered [47:10] and validated some of the worst regimes [47:13] in the world that we've always held [47:14] accountable for taking the same kind of [47:16] actions that we take. [47:16] >> And who are you concerned about as it [47:18] relates to other regimes? [47:19] >> China, Russia. This Russia [47:22] I believe that a big part of the reason [47:23] that that Zelenskyy hasn't been [47:25] assassinated by Russia is because that [47:27] would be crossing a red line. That would [47:30] That would infuriate Europe and the [47:31] United States because you don't attack [47:33] world leaders. We just gave them [47:34] permission to do so. The same thing in [47:36] Taiwan. We can Now China has free reign [47:39] to just assassinate one person in [47:40] Taiwan. And And that's just them. We're [47:43] not even talking about Pakistan and [47:44] India. We're not talking about any of [47:46] the border disputes that are happening [47:47] anywhere else across Asia or warlords in [47:49] Africa. We just validated [47:51] these these illegal, inhumane, [47:56] extrajudicial processes all over the [47:58] world. So, unlike these other world [48:00] leaders, Khomeini was his his his his [48:04] philosophy, his entire ideology was [48:07] is built on death to America among death [48:11] to other things. You don't have other [48:12] world leaders, you don't have the [48:14] president of Taiwan saying death to [48:16] China, you don't have Zelensky even [48:17] saying death to Russia. He might want [48:19] Putin dead, but he's not sort of he [48:21] doesn't want the demise of the entire [48:22] Russian Republic. Uh [48:24] so, I think this is where Khomeini [48:26] stands apart where it is it is a [48:29] a movement which became a system of [48:31] government predicated on the demise and [48:34] the destruction of of the United States. [48:37] >> What's interesting with How do you [48:38] counter that? Yeah. [48:39] >> With interesting with the term stands [48:40] apart is I was imagining therefore a [48:42] spectrum. [48:43] And the minute it becomes a spectrum, it [48:45] becomes somewhat subjective. [48:47] So, you know, one might say, well, we [48:48] think they wanted to hurt us. Whereas [48:49] before in my head when you when I grew [48:51] up, I always used to see these wars and [48:52] go, why don't they just they know what [48:53] the guy lives like. I know that sounds [48:55] like a simplified way, but they know [48:56] where he is. Why don't they just take [48:57] him out? And and it was always it always [48:59] felt to me that that was off the table [49:01] in what you can't just assassinate a [49:03] leader cuz you don't like them or you're [49:04] having a sort of geopolitical [49:05] disagreement. [clears throat] [49:06] And it's actually only in the last sort [49:08] of year or two that I've thought, okay, [49:10] maybe it is free reign to just fly in [49:11] and snatch someone out of bed with their [49:13] wife, which is what happened in [49:14] Venezuela. And then seeing this that you [49:16] can just drop a bomb on them wherever [49:17] they are. It does kind of make you [49:20] you know, wonder, maybe this is now on [49:21] the table. [49:22] I've never really seen that in my [49:23] lifetime. I mean, I know there were some [49:24] things that went on in Libya and in Iraq [49:26] and so on, but to snatch a prime [49:28] minister out of bed with his wife and [49:30] fly him over and with photos of it, I [49:31] go, wow, this is [49:34] this is a new type of uh geopolitical [49:37] action. [49:38] >> the Yes, what our Secretary of State is [49:40] calling the golden era of the United [49:43] States. [49:44] The old world is gone. Like these are [49:47] the this is the narrative coming out and [49:50] and being spread by the representation [49:53] of the free world. France, their Macron [49:57] just this morning stated that to be free [49:59] you must be feared. [50:02] This is the world that we're creating? [50:04] Death to America? [50:06] Guess how much I care about that. Guess [50:07] how much I care that a poor broke ass [50:09] far away piddly dink country [50:12] says death to America. Guess how afraid [50:14] I am of that. Zero. And guess how afraid [50:17] multiple people who have led the United [50:19] States have been afraid of that. They [50:20] They're not. You can say it all you [50:22] want. Doesn't matter. And when you do [50:24] when you do carry out an attack Right. [50:26] against the USS Cole [50:29] for every one attack that's successful, [50:30] 25 of them are thwarted. That's the [50:33] That's the benefit of being the most [50:35] powerful military in the world. You [50:37] don't have to [50:39] worry about everybody who chants in the [50:40] streets. [50:41] How many people disown their kids cuz [50:43] they say I hate you when they're [50:44] teenagers? You don't care You're like, [50:46] give it time, they'll grow up, they'll [50:48] be fine. They've got to go through their [50:50] before they realize what it's like [50:51] to be grown-ups. That's what we say [50:53] about our children. [50:54] You can say You can say the same thing [50:55] about a country that just came to power [50:58] in 1979? [51:00] They're less than a hundred years old. [51:03] What do What do they know about how to [51:04] actually be a country? What do we know? [51:06] We're only 250 years old. [51:11] Um I mean, it's hard it's hard to [51:12] swallow that like, you know, it's okay [51:14] if you have like a horrible, you know, [51:16] murderous, brutal regime making women [51:18] run around in hijabs and ruining entire [51:21] thousands of years old Persian [51:23] civilization. [51:24] >> been to this part of the world? I have [51:26] not been to that part. [51:27] >> they That's normal life there. That's [51:30] What do you think is happening in the in [51:31] the Hermit Kingdom in North Korea? [51:34] I mean, shoot, look, Afghanistan. We [51:35] left Afghanistan and knew that that's [51:37] what exactly what the Taliban was going [51:39] to do. [51:39] >> Right, but what's happening what's [51:40] happening here is not since '79 is not [51:43] normal. But But just to go back to one [51:45] step for a second, who do we know [51:46] launched the missiles that killed the [51:48] supreme leader and all the other [51:49] um in the hierarchy? The I think the [51:52] credit is going to the United States. [51:54] No. No. No. No. The credit is going to [51:56] Israel. [51:57] >> So so so Israel is the one that [51:59] essentially pushed the button, pulled [52:00] the trigger, what have you. The US [52:02] provided [52:03] Exactly. In which case then does does [52:05] Israel have the prerogative to take out [52:08] a head of state that was [52:10] you know essentially the only nation [52:11] state might I remind you that came out [52:13] in support of the October 7th attacks. [52:16] It was only Iran. Not even North Korea [52:17] came out and said anything. No one else [52:19] said. Khamenei absolutely said this was [52:21] Not only that, on October 8th he [52:22] directed Hezbollah to join the war. [52:26] >> is he a fair is he a fair target for [52:28] Israel? [52:28] >> It's a great question. Is he a [52:29] combatant? Yeah. [52:32] If a if a [52:32] >> Can you answer that? authorizes, funds, [52:35] motivates, endorses, and basically [52:37] encourages, and shoves out the door your [52:39] attacker, do you then have a right to go [52:41] after them? That's I think that's maybe [52:43] that's the $10,000 question here. Okay. [52:46] >> Because because if you are will if [52:48] you're willing to see the the leader of [52:49] every country as an as a combatant, they [52:52] are the heads of the military. The [52:53] president is the the commander-in-chief [52:56] of the military. If they are combatant, [52:58] they are a legal [52:59] target. So if they're a legal target, [53:00] why is it against international law to [53:02] attack head of state? [53:03] And even more, what's the acceptable [53:05] collateral damage? Because Israel is [53:07] notorious for assassinations around the [53:08] world. It's it's what makes them so [53:11] difficult for other people to ally with [53:13] because we don't support assassinations. [53:15] And most assassinations are not legal [53:18] combatants. They're scientists. That's a [53:20] civilian. They're experts. That's a [53:23] civilian. They're heads of industry. [53:25] That's a civilian. They're generals, but [53:27] not in a hot conflict. That makes them a [53:28] non-combatant. [53:29] >> The space is you're talking about the [53:31] line between civilian and someone who [53:33] works for the government or is on a [53:35] government-funded weapons program or [53:37] something of that nature. Those lines [53:39] are blurred in the Middle East. We know [53:40] that. [53:40] >> Those lines are blurred everywhere. A [53:42] civilian who works for a company that's [53:44] hired by the US military, is that person [53:46] a combatant? [53:46] >> Okay, but it but those distinctions are [53:49] are are far more subtle in the Middle [53:51] East and especially when you're a [53:52] scientist working for a state nuclear [53:55] program. [53:56] >> That you're being forced to work for [53:58] because you're one of the few scientists [53:59] that can do it. I I don't know. Are they [54:01] forced to work for? I mean I mean there [54:03] are there are defectors. There are those [54:05] who who who opt and then there are those [54:07] who double down and become religious [54:09] cheerleaders supporting what the [54:10] government's doing. I mean the point I'm [54:12] making is that you saying it doesn't [54:14] give you the international under [54:16] international law the right to take out [54:17] a head of state. What if it was [54:18] self-defense? [54:19] That's not what it was. [54:21] >> a counter narrative here. Just to throw [54:23] it out and kind of switch up the the [54:24] discussion here. [54:26] You know, this administration is very [54:27] interested in in social media. And for [54:31] that reason I am too. And I look at I [54:35] saw a meme that was going around [54:37] immediately after this [54:40] um decapitation event. [54:42] So quickly in fact it made me wonder [54:44] like who pushed that out that quickly. [54:47] And it's a white sheet of paper with all [54:50] the months of the year of 2026. And [54:53] January there's a picture of Maduro. [54:56] February there's a picture of the [54:58] Mexican cartel leader. March, one day [55:00] off, there's a picture of the supreme [55:03] leader of Iran. And then there's a [55:04] question mark in the other months. And [55:07] it made me think and sort of wonder [55:09] speculate. [55:11] Is this messaging to Putin [55:15] that he better start negotiating with [55:17] Trump? No, Putin's a whole different [55:19] beast. What What that's a message to is [55:21] the leader of Cuba. Yeah, Cuba I was [55:23] going to say is next. [55:23] >> And if you follow what the United States [55:27] considers to be the four state sponsors [55:28] of terrorism [55:30] the only one that remains after Cuba is [55:32] North Korea. [55:33] You know, every once in a while you come [55:34] across a product that has such a huge [55:37] impact on your life that you'd probably [55:39] describe it as a game-changer. And I [55:42] would say [55:43] for about 35% [55:46] of my team, they would currently [55:48] describe this product that I have in [55:49] front of me called Ketone-IQ, which you [55:52] can get at ketone.com [55:54] as a game-changer. But the reason I [55:56] became a co-owner of this company and [55:57] the reason why they they now are sponsor [55:58] of this podcast is because one day when [56:01] I came to work, there was a box of this [56:02] stuff sat on my desk. I had no idea what [56:04] it was. Lily in my team says that this [56:06] company have been in touch. So I went [56:08] upstairs, tried it, and quite frankly, [56:10] the rest is history. In terms of my [56:12] focus, my energy levels, how I feel, how [56:15] I work, how productive I am, [56:17] game-changer. So if you want to give it [56:18] a try, visit ketone.com/steven for 30% [56:21] off. You'll also get a free gift with [56:23] your second shipment. And now, you can [56:26] find Ketone-IQ at Target stores across [56:27] the United States, where your first shot [56:31] is completely free of charge. [56:32] This company that I've just invested in [56:34] is growing like crazy. I want to be the [56:35] one to tell you about it because I think [56:36] it's going to create such a huge [56:37] productivity advantage for you. [56:39] WhisperFlow is an app that you can get [56:40] on your computer and on your phone, on [56:42] all your devices, and it allows you to [56:44] speak to your technology. So instead of [56:45] me writing out an email, I click one [56:47] button on my phone, and I can just speak [56:49] the email into existence. And it uses AI [56:51] to clean up what I was saying. And then [56:53] when I'm done, I just hit this one [56:55] button here, and the whole email is [56:56] written for me, and it's saving me so [56:59] much time in a day because Whisper [57:01] learns how I write. So on WhatsApp, it [57:03] knows how I am, a little bit more [57:04] casual. On email, a little bit more [57:06] professional. And also, there's this [57:07] really interesting thing they've just [57:08] done. I can create little phrases to [57:10] automatically do the work for me. I can [57:12] just say Jack's LinkedIn, and it copies [57:14] Jack's LinkedIn profile for me because [57:16] it knows who Jack is in my life. This is [57:17] saving me a huge amount of time. This [57:18] company is growing like absolute crazy. [57:21] And this is why I invested in the [57:22] business and why they now are sponsor of [57:23] this show. And WhisperFlow is frankly [57:25] becoming the worst-kept secret in [57:27] business, productivity, and [57:28] entrepreneurship. Check it out now at [57:30] whisperflow, spelled w i s p r f l o w [57:35] dot a i {slash} Steven. It will be a [57:37] game changer for you. [57:39] Why does the US care about Cuba? What's [57:41] the context there? What What does the US [57:42] want with Cuba? [57:44] Well, Cuba's 90 mi off the coast of [57:47] Florida for starters. So, [57:48] geographically, it's very dangerous. [57:52] Cuba was where the Soviet Union [57:56] put nuclear missiles. [57:58] They're, you know, almost bringing the [58:00] United States to the brink of nuclear [58:02] war during the Kennedy administration. [58:04] It's one of the only countries in the [58:05] Western Hemisphere that does not fall [58:07] under the United States' sphere of [58:08] influence. [58:09] >> I actually saw this yesterday. [58:11] The Cuban government is talking with us [58:14] and they're in a big deal of trouble as [58:16] you know. They have [58:18] no money, they have no anything right [58:20] now, but they're talking with us. [58:23] And maybe we'll have a friendly takeover [58:25] of Cuba. [58:28] Exactly. So, Trump says that. [58:29] >> Precisely. Maybe we'll have a friendly [58:30] takeover of Cuba. And he said that 2 [58:33] days ago. [58:33] >> Mhm. [58:35] So, Cuba's next and then North Korea? Do [58:37] you They wouldn't North Korea have [58:39] nuclear weapons though, don't they? I [58:40] mean, so [58:40] >> Yes, they do. I I always wonder that. [58:43] Actually, does getting to a point where [58:44] you have nuclear weapons kind of mean [58:46] the US will leave you alone? Absolutely. [58:48] I think that part of all of this is the [58:50] the sort of elephant in the room is that [58:54] you cannot, you know, the United States [58:56] will not let anyone else join the [58:59] nuclear line. [59:01] North Korea was the last example of that [59:05] mistake during the Clinton [59:06] administration [59:08] being told by the leader of North Korea, [59:10] "Oh, no, no, we're not going to have a [59:11] nuclear program." And then him not, you [59:14] know, deciding by sort of committee and [59:16] all his sage advisers and following and [59:19] talking to Congress and all of that, [59:20] "We're not going to attack North Korea. [59:22] That would be unacceptable." That was [59:24] the Democratic President Clinton's [59:26] position. And as a result, North Korea [59:30] developed nuclear weapons and now has [59:32] nuclear weapons and the nuclear weapons [59:34] systems to strike the United States. And [59:37] has demonstrated, you know, a desire, if [59:41] provoked, or actually has said, if [59:43] provoked, it would do so. And so, you [59:46] know, you [59:48] that was not going to happen with Iran. [59:50] Certainly not on this watch and probably [59:52] not on any watch. Is there a bit of an [59:54] unspoken rule geopolitically where if [59:56] you get to nuclear weapons you can do [59:58] whatever the hell you want? It's It's [59:59] the ultimate deterrent. [60:00] >> Yeah, absolutely. You can't mess with [60:02] somebody who has a nuclear weapon. And [60:04] you And you what And you don't. One of [60:05] my friends was asking me this morning [60:07] how the situation with Iran getting [60:09] nuclear weapons is any different from [60:11] the situation with North Korea having [60:13] nuclear weapons or is it the same? Well, [60:15] it's the same thing. It's only perhaps [60:16] worse. Well, now this regime is [60:18] is it is up We don't know what will [60:20] happen with it, but having, you know, an [60:23] ash [60:24] Correct me on this pronunciation. [60:26] The idea that the Shia idea that [60:30] the sort of apocalyptic end is not [60:32] necessarily a bad thing. Uh the arrival [60:35] of the Mahdi and and and and that whole [60:37] thing, right? Sort of creating the [60:38] conditions for that to come about. [60:39] >> Yes. There's a There's kind of a [60:41] undergirding the Islamic regime's [60:45] thinking is this idea. And that's very [60:47] dangerous to the idea that we don't want [60:49] to have a nuclear war. [60:50] >> Though that regime is not suicidal. [60:53] I I I will sort of state that Khomeini [60:55] was was prepared to die for his cause, [60:57] but he was not suicidal in the sense [60:59] that he would go out and sort of, you [61:00] know, um if you could, I don't think, [61:03] start a nuclear war that he knew his his [61:05] country was going to [61:06] get destroyed fighting. Uh that is, I [61:08] think, you know, one distinction. And [61:10] I'm not saying North Korea is suicidal, [61:11] but definitely what remains of the [61:13] government there is not is not suicidal. [61:15] Um I don't think there is ideological [61:17] diehards, as we saw in the founding [61:19] fathers, of which Khomeini was the last [61:20] one. So, that changes it a little bit. [61:23] Now that he's dead, you know, um there's [61:26] uh the um [61:27] a philosopher, Eric Hoffer, he sort of [61:29] wrote that great causes start as [61:31] movements, then they become businesses, [61:32] then they become rackets. Okay? So, [61:35] Khomeini moves Khomeini's movement that [61:37] started in the '70s, that was the [61:38] movement. It became a business, a [61:40] enterprise of which the Islamic [61:42] Revolutionary Guard Corps profited [61:43] immensely till it became a racket. And [61:46] now we're at the racket phase of it, and [61:47] the only one really left are the [61:48] racketeering leaders. You know, and and [61:51] because the the the spiritual leaders [61:52] are now gone. [61:53] Um what happens next, I think, is sort [61:55] of and you know, we're now right much in [61:57] unknown territory with that. Andrew, to [61:59] that point of nuclear weapons, if Iran [62:01] had already violated um many of the [62:03] things they'd said around nuclear [62:04] weapons, and they had I think they'd [62:05] have enriched uranium to 60% roughly, [62:08] they would have theoretically continued [62:09] to go because they know that if you want [62:11] the US and other people in the region to [62:12] stay away from you, [62:14] you've got to get nuclear weapons. And [62:15] once you get back to that point, then [62:17] you you no one's going to mess with you. [62:19] So, I think the assumption is that no [62:20] one will mess with you with nuclear [62:21] weapons. I don't think that that is [62:23] going to be the assumption for much [62:24] longer. [62:25] I think that that Iran recognized that [62:28] if it could get a path to a deployable [62:31] nuclear capability, whether it's a [62:33] rocket or whether it's a missile or even [62:35] if it's a truck with a nuke in the [62:37] trunk, they had options. [62:39] 60% enrichment, they have op- I mean, [62:41] that's a dirty bomb. They have options [62:43] there. I mean, with just nuclear waste, [62:45] they have options to cause real damage. [62:47] But, enriched military grade sustainable [62:52] kind of permanent state nuclear [62:54] capability is a much higher level of [62:55] enrichment than that. [62:57] And that's arguably what they have in [62:59] North Korea. Their deployability, their [63:02] capability for actually putting it on a [63:03] rocket and having the rocket hit where [63:05] it's supposed to hit and not blow up on [63:06] the launchpad is a little bit different. [63:08] And for that reason, I think we have to [63:10] take seriously the fact that if the [63:11] United States wanted to demonstrate [63:13] their power against the nuclear capable [63:15] country, [63:17] they could do it against North Korea. [63:18] There's also this concept that our [63:20] current military doctrine under Heggseth [63:22] has applied that no other president has [63:24] ever applied and no other Department of [63:26] Defense, Department of War has applied. [63:27] And that's this idea called burden [63:29] sharing. [63:30] According to Department of War, [63:33] their doctrine now is a doctrine of [63:34] burden sharing, which means they will [63:36] force the burden of a national security [63:39] interest on American allies. [63:42] An example is they go into Iran with a [63:45] small naval force. [63:47] They bomb Iran knowing very well that [63:50] Iran is going to spread the pain across [63:52] our allies in the Middle East. [63:54] To the United States Department of War, [63:55] that is us, that is our allies sharing [63:58] the burden. If they want to be our [64:00] allies, they have to do this. Same thing [64:02] is happening with Ukraine and with [64:04] Russia. If you want if Europe, if you [64:07] want to counter Russia, you must share [64:09] the burden with the United States. It [64:11] also gives the the United States now [64:13] carte blanche to go anywhere it wants [64:15] with a limited force, stir up a hornet's [64:17] nest, and then let everybody else pay [64:19] the price. [64:20] >> Well, in terms of the Middle East, it [64:21] certainly was an effective move because, [64:25] you know, all of these [64:27] six countries that Iran has now bomb, [64:30] you know, attacked in the past 48 hours [64:34] are now very angry with Iran. So, the [64:37] burden sharing has gone from kind of [64:40] like, this is a fight that you were not [64:42] in to this is a fight we are in. [64:45] I don't think that anybody has taken any [64:47] offensive actions against Iran except [64:50] the United States and Israel. [64:51] >> But they're not happy with them. [64:52] >> happy before. No, they've but the the [64:54] statements they've put out are some of [64:55] the strongest that we've seen. I mean, [64:57] you know, we've never even seen anything [64:59] like [64:59] >> seen the Gulf states put out what they [65:01] basically, you know, condemning Iran and [65:03] holding it responsible. It It's now any [65:05] pretense that there was a rapprochement, [65:06] there was some sort of a coming together [65:08] is is now shattered. And And that's a [65:10] setback for whatever's left of the [65:12] Islamic Republic. A huge setback. The [65:13] the the power that Iran has over the [65:16] Middle East is a power of agriculture. [65:18] All of the countries that we look at, [65:20] all the oil colluding countries can't [65:21] make their own food. Iran makes their [65:23] food. So, they've always had this weird [65:26] relationship where they disagree with [65:28] them politically, they disagree with [65:29] them religiously, they disagree with [65:30] them militarily, but they're still [65:33] allies because of food. The United [65:35] States has sanctions all over Russia [65:37] except in one area, space. We still [65:40] cooperate with Russia. It's a carve out [65:43] because we don't want to lose their [65:44] access to the space program. Do you [65:47] think we're closer to nuclear war now [65:49] because of this action? [65:50] >> 100%. So, you do you think this has [65:52] moved us closer to that? [65:53] >> 100%. And and I've got like there's [65:55] proof of that all over the headlines [65:56] today because France is deploying [65:59] air-launched nuclear warheads. [66:01] Air-launched nuclear warheads. That [66:03] means small warheads that fit on the [66:06] ends of airplane rockets. They're [66:08] deploying them all over Europe. [66:10] That means France is now taking its [66:12] nuclear arsenal and spreading it across [66:14] its European allies. The more nuclear [66:16] proliferation, the more risk of nuclear [66:18] >> have been That's just as much about [66:20] Ukraine as it is about [66:21] That has nothing to do with Iran. [66:22] >> What? Yeah. That has nothing to do with [66:24] Iran. It happened 2 days after It has it [66:27] The threat of nuclear war comes from the [66:30] conflict, in my opinion, comes from the [66:33] conflict in Iran from the war in Ukraine [66:35] and comes from Russia. [66:37] Because you have an actual superpower [66:40] president who has threatened the use of [66:43] nuclear weapons. [66:45] Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. So, [66:47] it's it's not a nuclear threat. You [66:50] speak a different nuclear language than [66:51] I do. [66:52] Russia is launching intercontinental [66:54] ballistic missiles that can't be [66:55] intercepted. It's got the Aresnic. What [66:57] the hell is it going to be afraid of a [67:00] warhead on the tip of an airplane? [67:02] It's not. That's a tactical nuke. That's [67:04] a battlefield nuke. [67:05] >> is your point? My point is that we the [67:07] deployment of a nuclear weapon is [67:10] nuclear war. The deployment of a nuclear [67:12] weapon. If you're talking about [67:14] >> on. mutually assured destruction [67:16] >> about the use of a nuclear weapon or are [67:18] you talking about putting a warhead on a [67:20] aircraft? [67:21] >> No, that's that's been technology for a [67:23] long time. Using it in the battlefield [67:27] >> You didn't think it's been You think it [67:28] is being used in the [67:29] >> No, I'm saying it's being deployed. Is [67:30] that getting us closer to nuclear war? [67:32] Yes. Yes, but but it's not but it's not [67:35] is of Iran. It has nothing to do with [67:36] Iran. And what are you talking about [67:37] being deployed because into you're [67:39] talking about France maneuvering where [67:42] its weaponry is. [67:44] >> definition of a deployment. [67:45] >> That is well, then we're talking about [67:46] it. I'm talking about nuclear use. I [67:49] mean [67:51] the United States deploys its nuclear [67:54] forces all the time by President Trump [67:57] saying I'm moving our submarines [68:00] which is just talk because they're [68:02] moving anyways. It's it's the same as [68:06] it's threatening when Putin says I'm [68:08] moving at my nuclear or when he tests, [68:11] you know, Norway by [68:13] popping up right offside outside of [68:16] their shores. [68:17] Those are maneuvers that are very [68:19] dangerous. I I absolutely agree. [68:21] >> but in this particular case, has the [68:24] even from a Russian perspective, has [68:26] this war in Iran increased the [68:27] probability that a Putin would use a [68:30] nuclear weapon? [68:30] >> opinion, absolutely not. No. In my [68:32] opinion, no. In my opinion, what it does [68:35] to Putin is it makes him say [68:39] "Wow, this president [68:42] is unpredictable. And to some to an [68:46] authoritarian [68:48] person like Putin, [68:50] that's a match for him, not someone for [68:53] him [68:54] to walk on. [68:56] And I think that [68:57] I'm not I'm not saying that's a great [68:59] way for world diplomacy whatsoever. It's [69:01] not diplomacy, it's just you know, [69:04] it's just strong-arming one another. But [69:08] but we are not I do not feel at all that [69:10] this situation makes us closer to a [69:13] nuclear threat whatsoever. [69:16] I agree. I think it's a combination of [69:18] Ukraine and China's um military [69:20] exercises and action in the South China [69:22] Sea, and the whole sort of what you [69:24] know, what we're not seeing. There's [69:25] this argument that China's watching [69:27] what's going on with the US and Iran. [69:29] Here we are depleting our interceptors, [69:31] our munitions. China's meanwhile [69:32] stockpiling you know, its resources. And [69:36] is it Does this put us at a disadvantage [69:38] if and when the day comes where China [69:39] decides to take proactive aggressive [69:41] action vis-a-vis Iran? That's something [69:43] to think about, and I think that then [69:46] I'm worried about the risk of nuclear [69:47] war in that instance. I don't think Iran [69:49] by itself in a vacuum is is moving the [69:52] needle on that sort of nuclear [69:54] risk meter. To your point, what this is [69:56] a boon for is the defense contractor [69:59] world. It's the military industrial [70:00] complex because [70:01] for example, part of or well, Iran is so [70:04] weak is because they've used up so many [70:07] ballistic missiles [70:09] in their conflict with Israel. I I read [70:12] today the interceptor to missile ratio, [70:14] something like 25 to 1. That the [70:16] interceptors needed to to to catch these [70:18] ballistic missiles that Kuwait, the UAE, [70:20] Israel is using. They're like upwards of [70:23] of 10 15 times more expensive. Yes. Um [70:26] and and these drones are relatively [70:28] cheaply made, these Shahed drones that [70:29] they're using. So, you know, there is [70:31] that aspect of it, too, that Iran can [70:32] just fire like a madman all these sort [70:35] of [70:36] expendable [70:37] um munitions, and meanwhile we're [70:39] spending three, four, five, 10 times as [70:41] much to intercept them. Yes, although [70:43] you do see in any kind of conflict like [70:45] this, you always see new weapons on the [70:46] battle. And and that's what happened [70:48] now, and [70:49] America actually has been copying the [70:52] Shahed drones, these cheap we call them [70:54] the Lucas, these cheap systems that can [70:57] just go in and you know, cause havoc [71:00] without precision and we deployed them. [71:03] So, I think this was a I think this is a [71:05] long time coming. [71:06] >> going to interrupt you, Stephen. I I [71:08] think this is one of the big questions a [71:09] lot of people are asking, which is how [71:10] long can Iran fight for in this war? Um [71:13] and what does that fight look like? Um [71:16] here in these jars, you have I think [71:18] it's the relative amount of soldiers [71:20] that each country has. Now, obviously [71:22] soldiers are just goes back to what [71:23] Obama said about horses and bayonets are [71:25] one form of [71:26] um combat, but I was quite surprised at [71:29] how big Iran's military is relative to [71:33] even the US, but other um countries in [71:36] the region. I think they have the [71:37] biggest military in the region. Is that [71:38] correct? [71:39] >> have to separate between the IRGC and [71:41] the national army. They serve two [71:43] different functions. [71:44] >> What are those two things? [71:45] >> The IRGC, uh which Andy brought up [71:47] earlier, so the I stands for Islamic [71:49] Revolutionary Guard Corps, not Iranian. [71:51] What does that mean? It's protecting the [71:53] Islamic Revolution. It is an ideological [71:55] army that sits outside of the main [71:57] structures of power, accountable only to [71:59] the supreme leader. [72:00] The national army really goes through [72:02] the office of the presidency and others [72:04] and you know, even though the supreme [72:05] leader has a say in it, but the the [72:07] army's job is to protect Iran's borders. [72:10] The IRGC's job is to protect the [72:12] revolution and the ideology and the [72:14] proxies and everything else that we have [72:16] come to know about Iran. So, if we look [72:18] at the if we look at those if we look at [72:20] what's in the jar, we have to separate [72:22] what the national army, which is only [72:24] its job is to defend the borders versus [72:26] the ideological army. I'm curious what [72:28] that would look like if we took out the [72:30] national army and are left with the [72:31] ideological force. Iran have the largest [72:34] stockpile in the Middle East of [72:35] missiles, drones and air defenses, [72:37] possessing thousands of ballistic cruise [72:39] missiles and kamikaze drones. This is [72:41] their primary offensive strength. [72:44] Um and they have quite a significant [72:45] defense budget as well. I guess the [72:47] question I'm trying to get at is like [72:48] how long can they fight for and how does [72:50] that fight look over time? Cuz I know [72:52] they shot they shot hundreds and [72:53] hundreds of ballistic missiles over the [72:54] weekend. [72:55] >> Yeah. Israel claims that in the in the [72:57] July in the June war of last year it it [72:59] eliminated about half of Iran what it [73:01] believes Iran stockpiles but also [73:03] batteries, launchers, basically [73:04] capability. So if you whatever it was [73:06] let's say they have half of that left. [73:09] I I've seen a statistic saying that [73:11] really they can't go at this rate [73:14] Iran for more than two to three weeks [73:15] before they're completely depleted. [73:17] Well, there's also an interesting move [73:18] that the United States did well we [73:19] didn't kill the supreme leader. What we [73:22] did do was send our B-2s [73:25] to take out missile underground missile [73:28] systems which Iran has. [73:29] >> Which are the aircrafts, right? No, [73:31] they're underground. They actually call [73:32] them missile cities. [73:33] Yeah, they came they came from the [73:35] United States. [73:36] And this is a considerable considerable [73:39] damage because [73:41] the [73:42] two ways in which these sort of rogue [73:44] nations whether it's North Korea or Iran [73:46] work their missiles is they have them on [73:48] what are called road mobile launchers so [73:50] that they cannot be tracked and targeted [73:53] or they bury them deeply underground. [73:56] And one of the only things that can take [73:57] out those deeply buried missile sites is [74:00] a B-2 and that's what the United States [74:02] sent. Sanjay, how how do you think this [74:05] plays out over the coming weeks and [74:06] months? Because at some point yeah, they [74:08] might run out of missiles but that [74:09] doesn't necessarily mean the war is [74:10] over. I'm presuming that the US don't [74:11] want to throw soldiers on the ground [74:15] in Iran either. So what how like how [74:17] does this play play out and how long? [74:19] >> And and that's one of the major [74:20] strategic errors that we made in [74:22] attacking Iran. They have the benefit of [74:24] time not us. [74:26] They can choose how to react, when to [74:28] react, in what way to react. We don't [74:30] know if they have a dirty bomb that [74:32] they're finishing up in some underground [74:33] bunker right now that's just going to [74:34] sit there and wait until American boots [74:36] on the ground show up. The fact that you [74:38] guys think that that current nuclear [74:40] deployments have nothing to do with [74:42] what's going on Iran it it's I I [74:45] want to respect that opinion, [74:48] but to me it shows just a lack of [74:50] military experience and actual strategic [74:54] intent to kill. Like when you look at [74:57] how [74:58] military and intelligence operators are [75:00] trained to think, we are trained to [75:01] think through a lens of maximum damage. [75:03] >> Mhm. [75:04] Iran is thinking through the same window [75:06] right now. And they're watching what we [75:07] just did in Afghanistan. Don't forget we [75:09] killed Osama bin Laden, who was an [75:12] ideological figurehead of Al-Qaeda in [75:14] 2011 and didn't leave Afghanistan until [75:17] 2022, when we were when we gave up. [75:21] That's another 11 years of war after the [75:24] guy that we were supposed to kill to end [75:26] the war. How is [75:28] Khamenei is different. Khamenei is [75:30] different. But how different? I don't [75:32] know yet. And what are we going to do? [75:35] The the new leadership in Iran, what's [75:37] it going to be? Is it going to be a [75:38] leadership that that kowtows to the [75:40] United States? That kowtows to to [75:42] Israel? Is it going to be another shadow [75:43] government like the Shah? Are we going [75:44] to place somebody else and the Iranian [75:46] people are going to love it? Or are we [75:47] leaving a vacuum that China and Russia [75:49] are going to step into? And now we're [75:50] going to we're going to see a [75:51] strengthened Iran that's strengthened by [75:54] our largest adversaries in the world. [75:56] This is the reality of what we've got to [75:58] figure out because because the whether [76:00] they launch all their rockets in the [76:01] next 2 weeks, that doesn't mean that's [76:03] the end of the fight. For all we know [76:05] it's going to come back and bite us in 6 [76:07] months when some Hezbollah cell lights [76:10] New York on fire. We don't know. But [76:12] when it happens, [76:14] arguably it's going to be justified. [76:16] To Andrew's point, Iran can wage a war [76:18] of attrition. It's harder A war of [76:20] attrition is basically low-level [76:22] warfare. Think of like death by a [76:24] thousand cuts, right? I'll just keep [76:25] poking at you enough to eventually wear [76:28] you down, destabilize you, weaken you. [76:30] Whereas what you can do is massive [76:32] retaliation and these big sort of, you [76:34] know, theatrical strikes. War of [76:36] attrition is basically grinding for the [76:38] long haul and wearing you down. This is [76:40] something that to to his point, Iran is [76:42] capable of doing and is probably willing [76:44] to do and sees as the only way that it [76:46] can survive this is a war of attrition. [76:48] The war it's it's it's whatever remnant [76:50] is left. [76:51] >> That's how Russia has survived so long. [76:53] It's a war of attrition. But but like [76:54] I'm like who's the leader? Do you need a [76:55] leader? Or is it just lots of different [76:57] pockets of people? Time will tell and [76:59] you know, Hezbollah's sort of cells [77:02] around the world will tell us what [77:04] happens, but I think another way of [77:06] looking at it, I saw a [77:07] a [77:08] former member of the National Security [77:10] Council commenting that like yes, cells [77:14] could be activated in America or they [77:17] could just fade away. And this is where [77:19] I don't have a crystal ball and I'm just [77:23] observing what's happening, but I do [77:25] think that the that all of this hangs on [77:28] the razor's edge of public opinion. [77:31] Because [77:32] you know, we time will tell whether or [77:34] not this regime falls, whether what [77:37] you're say if it's either or, but I [77:39] don't I don't think that we I don't [77:42] think that we can know. I just [77:43] >> Haven't we been here before to some [77:44] degree? Too many times. Too many times. [77:46] What is the lesson from history that [77:47] everyone seems to have forgotten? That [77:49] we are shitty learners of history. [77:51] That's that's [laughter] what the lesson [77:52] is. To to your point of you know, who [77:53] the leadership would be, something else [77:55] that that philosopher I quoted, Eric [77:56] Hoffer had said that you know, mass [77:57] movements, they don't need a god, but [78:00] they do need a devil. So, to that [78:02] effect, the leader doesn't matter as [78:03] much as having an enemy does. That is [78:06] the so so basically so long as we, the [78:09] United States or the Western world is [78:10] framed as the enemy, that is enough to [78:13] keep a war of attrition going absent any [78:15] figurehead or a charismatic leader. And [78:17] he was a religious figure [78:19] versus just a political figure. He was a [78:22] religious figure. He's But to your [78:24] point, he was a racketeer at the end. [78:25] Yeah. Yeah. I mean he was running I mean [78:27] effectively. Yeah. [78:28] >> And everyone in most people in the [78:30] country knew that. Yeah. Absolutely. [78:31] Thousands of people have gathered in [78:33] public squares in Toronto openly weep [78:34] and mourn his death. Roughly 20% of the [78:36] population are staunch ideological [78:38] supporters of him. Yeah, 20% of 90 [78:40] million. Yeah. [78:41] >> And it's interesting because you you one [78:42] can imagine that that 20% might grow, [78:46] especially if the the coming months make [78:48] their lives worse in some way. They [78:49] experience, I don't know, poverty or [78:51] whatever else and and then, you know, [78:54] friends die because of this war. It [78:55] doesn't take long for narrative to turn [78:57] and So, that's what everyone's been [78:59] warning about. That you strike Iran, [79:01] this was the warning last June. You [79:02] strike Iran, you're going to get rally [79:03] around the flag. The people that are [79:04] secularists now are going to turn and [79:06] they're going to start supporting the [79:07] regime and we're going to set back the [79:09] cause of, let's say, freedom or [79:10] democracy. It didn't happen. It turns [79:12] out that, basically, the people in Iran [79:14] blamed the regime for their own for the [79:17] misery that was that was um put upon [79:19] them. And so, I think that 20% will get [79:21] even smaller as a result. Not just of [79:23] this. It would have gotten smaller [79:24] anyway. As a result of this, I think [79:26] it'll get even smaller still because [79:28] their salvation is not at the end, you [79:30] know, of a of a of a turban or a robe. [79:32] It basically comes with liberty and [79:34] freedom that this government, this [79:35] regime won't give them. And so, that is, [79:38] I think, evident now to the 80% of [79:40] Iranians, all of whom of that mean that, [79:42] you know, 80 80% of the population is [79:44] born after '79. They don't know the old [79:46] regime. All they know is this one. And [79:48] what they know is they don't like it. [79:49] They don't like living under it. And [79:51] they want anything other than what this [79:52] is. You feel differently? I think that [79:54] that's an overly idealistic way of [79:56] thinking about it. We failed to convert [79:58] Iraq when we took out Saddam Hussein. We [80:00] failed to to convert Afghanistan when we [80:02] took out the Taliban. [80:03] >> Iran is not Iraq and Afghanistan, [80:05] though. It is not. I'm not saying it's [80:07] the same. I'm saying that when you when [80:08] you change a government from the top [80:11] down, that doesn't do anything for the [80:13] people. No one's changing it. There's no [80:15] nation building. We're not going in and [80:16] doing what we did in Iraq. We're not [80:17] We're not trying to build a [80:18] constitution. [80:18] >> going to build it? What's going to [80:19] change it? The people? The people that [80:21] have been slaves for basically the last, [80:23] what, 40, 50 years? The people who have [80:25] had no education? The people who have [80:27] been marginalized? You think they're [80:28] just going to understand how to how to [80:30] organize themselves? [80:32] >> Very, very highly. I mean, it's it's one [80:33] of the most educated populaces in the [80:35] world, and I have and and they are very [80:38] the the people that are not regime [80:39] supporters are very Western-thinking. I [80:41] mean, we see this. We see this in in the [80:43] culture they produce, the media they [80:44] produce, when they go and they speak [80:46] around the world. So, the populace is [80:48] there, the capability is there, the will [80:50] is there. All they need is basically not [80:53] to be you know, not to be facing the [80:54] barrel of a gun. [80:55] >> We're about to find out if that's true. [80:57] And that is what that is what we are all [80:59] writing on right now is whether this [81:01] this intellectual minority [81:03] in a poverty-stricken, economically [81:05] defunct country is going to even [81:07] stay there. [81:08] Or whether they're going to take their [81:10] brains and their success and their [81:11] opportunities somewhere else. The the [81:13] diaspora and everything we're hearing [81:15] says they are the people are cannot [81:17] cannot wait to help rebuild the country. [81:19] >> trust what you're hearing? Well, his [81:21] family's there. So, he's probably [81:23] he's probably a [81:24] >> worse, the worst thing you can do is [81:25] trust the people that you have a [81:26] personal relationship with. They're the [81:28] least objective people that you can talk [81:31] to. [81:31] >> So, who are their 80% of the population? [81:33] >> you talk to? Exactly. Who do you trust? [81:35] You can't trust anything that you're [81:36] hearing right now. You can't trust [81:38] anything that you're reading right now. [81:39] The information landscape is too [81:41] tumultuous. So, who do you trust? You [81:43] have to trust somebody, right? It's not [81:44] paranoia. It's healthy. It is absolutely [81:47] paranoia to suggest that everything is [81:50] misinformation. One would believe, at [81:53] least I certainly believe that I have a [81:54] faculty up here to be able to take [81:57] information and try and discern what [82:00] might be [82:02] misinformation and what isn't. And then [82:04] also be willing to stand corrected. [82:06] That's a very important part of it. And [82:08] that goes back to my tribal problem is [82:10] once you have a horse in the race, and [82:12] you become convinced, [82:14] and I am hearing a little convinced-ness [82:17] from you, that you know, then I believe [82:19] you lose your ability to be able to go, [82:22] "Oh, wow, maybe I was wrong. Maybe this" [82:24] And again, I'm not condoning what the [82:27] administration did whatsoever. I'm just [82:29] listening to Benjamin and saying that is [82:33] to my eye a much better source. I'm a [82:36] journalist. I'm going to listen to what [82:38] people on the ground are saying there. [82:41] Certainly family members because their [82:44] opinion is going to be legitimately, [82:47] you know, [82:48] heartfelt and not propaganda. [82:50] >> Again, we speak a completely different [82:52] language. When you talk to me about [82:53] opinion, heartfelt, and family, [82:58] and belief, [82:59] none of those are objective. None of [83:01] those are rebellions are born on those [83:03] things by the way. [83:04] >> And and that that doesn't make it [83:06] objectively correct. It was a rebellion [83:09] that ended up in the Iran that we just [83:10] saw fall apart. That was a revolution. [83:13] That was a rebellion. Andrew, where does [83:15] your skepticism come from? What's it [83:17] rooted in? Because you did spend almost [83:19] a decade as an undercover spy for the [83:20] United States in the CIA. Where where is [83:23] the skepticism coming from? Why [83:24] shouldn't we believe people on the [83:26] ground who are saying what they're [83:26] saying? I have seen this stuff [83:28] firsthand. I've been trained in how this [83:29] stuff works. I've had to deploy this in [83:32] in pursuit of American goals and [83:34] ambitions in the past. And and what [83:36] you're saying isn't inaccurate [83:40] as to how people react. People we just [83:43] trust the opinion of the people that we [83:45] we trust the opinion of the people we [83:47] trust more than we trust the opinion of [83:50] others only because it's our opinion [83:53] that they're trustworthy at all. So, who [83:54] do you trust to get your information [83:56] from? I want to take my information from [83:59] as as far opposite sources as possible [84:02] and then see where the information [84:05] confirms itself, where it correlates. [84:07] Because if you if you see anti-American [84:09] people saying the same thing as [84:11] anti-Iranian people, where their [84:12] messages are the same, has [84:14] corroboration. [84:15] The number of dead leaders as an [84:16] example. This that's a corroborative [84:18] point because you're hearing both the [84:20] Iranian state media say that and pro-US [84:23] Western forces talk about. [84:24] >> if it's your point a black box and you [84:26] can't get information from the sources [84:28] you're used to getting from? [84:29] >> Well, that's it's that's exactly right. [84:30] It is a black box. So, [84:33] if we know it's a black box, we have to [84:34] question every source that comes out, [84:36] every piece of information that comes [84:37] out. What we're seeing a lot of right [84:38] now with Iran is called circular [84:39] reporting. It's one single source of [84:42] information that comes out that gets [84:44] multiplied over and over again. We're [84:46] seeing it happen in the White House, [84:47] too, because the White House has kicked [84:48] out so many journalistic legacy media [84:51] outlets. So, now one story gets [84:52] multiplied over and over again, and [84:54] we're seeing stuff that's that's [84:55] repeated. [84:56] >> I have to say something. I am I am a [84:58] little bit skeptical about what is true. [85:00] I'm like the furthest from ever being a [85:01] conspiracy theorist, but a little bit [85:03] skeptical of what's true because [85:05] I did a post about this subject. And [85:08] obviously I spent 15 years in social [85:09] media, so our whole business was [85:10] building scaling huge social media [85:12] audiences. And what I received in my DMs [85:15] was like I've never seen before. About [85:17] what? [85:18] I've heard people talking about bots for [85:21] decades, and most of the time that [85:22] they're actually they're wrong. It's [85:24] something else going on with the [85:25] algorithm, or maybe something they don't [85:27] like they saw, so they call it a bot. I [85:29] received thousands and thousands and [85:32] thousands of DMs when I posted about [85:35] this subject matter, and some of those [85:37] accounts, when you go on the page and [85:38] you look at their posting history, their [85:39] engagement, you look at certain [85:41] patterns, which we've built tools before [85:42] to kind of um spot. [85:44] Some of these accounts aren't real. [85:46] And I I said to my friends, I was like, [85:47] "What the I posted about this [85:48] issue." And then I had thousands and [85:50] thousands and thousands and thousands of [85:52] these accounts DM me encouraging me to [85:54] post more about certain things. First [85:57] time in my life ever I go, "Oh, that was [85:58] definitely It was so atypical." [86:01] >> operation. Okay, so what were they What [86:03] were these bots pushing you to post it [86:05] on? [86:06] I'm conscious whether I should say or [86:08] not because I don't want to infer By [86:10] doing so, you're I'm like inferring that [86:13] a particular But I'm just saying I've [86:15] never felt [86:17] what I experienced then. And I have But [86:18] every this trailer will come out, we'll [86:19] see loads of bots, we have systems but [86:21] this was in my DMs. It was encouraging [86:23] someone like me who has a big platform [86:25] to push a certain narrative. And the the [86:26] the only reason I noticed is because of [86:28] the sheer volume and then the narrative [86:30] was almost identical. [86:32] And I think what? 1,700 different [86:35] accounts have all all asking me to do [86:37] the same thing. [86:37] >> So you have final control over the edit [86:39] of this. Yeah. So there's no if you [86:41] don't if you don't want what you say to [86:42] get edited to get to get aired then [86:44] it'll get cut but one way or the other. [86:46] Whatever you say like I I want you to [86:48] say what you saw because if the [86:50] narrative was anti-Iran [86:52] then you were attacked by Western [86:53] forces. Western bots attacking a known [86:55] Westerner. Mhm. If [clears throat] you [86:57] were if you were propped up by [87:00] pro-Iranian [87:02] cyber bots then now you're talking about [87:03] a cyber capacity a cyber capability in [87:05] Iran that nobody's talking about. So one [87:07] way or the other you can see [87:08] >> or someone else or whatever it might be [87:09] I don't know. But I just it made what [87:11] it's My point was that it's made me [87:13] skeptical about my own information [87:15] chamber. [87:16] And I'll be honest before I realized [87:19] what was going on very persuasive. [87:21] Mhm. Very persuasive. You were persuaded [87:24] by the bots before you realized they [87:25] were bots. [87:26] >> things to you and then they're [87:26] encouraging you to continue to to push a [87:29] certain narrative and it just took took [87:31] me a second to pause and thought [87:32] actually maybe wouldn't that be a [87:33] perfect strategy in these moments to get [87:35] people who have big platforms to just [87:37] bomb bomb their DMs and tell them that [87:39] you know like why aren't you standing up [87:41] for us and please use your voice to [87:44] um to speak on this particular issue. [87:46] And I thought actually maybe I need a I [87:47] need my information from somewhere else. [87:50] Well, I think the point that you're [87:51] making which is very important it has to [87:53] do with you know memetics or popularity. [87:57] In other words [87:58] what we don't know the outcome of the [88:01] situation yet. We don't know if the [88:02] Hezbollah sleeper cells will be [88:04] activated. [88:05] Are they waiting to see whether what [88:08] they do will be [88:09] welcomed or will be demonized? And I [88:13] think that [88:14] there's an a profound influence in [88:17] social media. [88:19] And that isn't true in this [88:20] administration and and previous [88:22] administrations about the rise of [88:25] pushing public opinion. I mean that to [88:27] your point, that's what you worked on at [88:29] the agency or you at least saw happen. [88:31] The fact is I'm I'm glad that you're [88:34] seeing it for yourself. You can't trust [88:36] what you see. [88:38] First of all, if you're a single [88:39] language person, you only see what's in [88:41] your language. You don't see what's in a [88:42] different language. And then we all have [88:44] an echo chamber around us and the the [88:47] the fact that we have so much technology [88:49] just amplifies our echo chamber. Our our [88:51] algorithm sees what we see, it sees what [88:53] we like, it sees what we pause longer on [88:55] than something else and it gives us more [88:57] of that. And people become very wealthy [89:00] and very successful understanding the [89:02] behavior that people prefer and you give [89:04] people more of what they already prefer [89:06] and then it makes them happier and they [89:08] don't even realize they're sitting [89:09] inside of an echo chamber. So for all of [89:11] these reasons, [89:13] I don't trust the information I see. I [89:14] don't trust information unless multiple [89:15] sources of conflicting values and [89:18] conflicting priorities and conflicting [89:20] goals where they say the same thing, [89:22] I'll give that more credence. And if you [89:23] can't get those sources because [89:24] information doesn't overlap [89:26] >> Then you can't have a conclusion. So you [89:28] can have a living assessment but you [89:29] can't have a conclusion. [89:30] >> operate if you're a foreign policy [89:32] decision maker, if you're a president, [89:34] if you're a national security advisor? [89:36] You have to give advice and consent. You [89:37] have to figure out something. You can't [89:39] say I have a lack of evidence or have a [89:41] lack of opinion or lack of information [89:43] and therefore because I can't cooperate [89:45] or verify, there's no Venn diagram of [89:48] overlapping views That's when you have [89:50] you have to use time as a tool. You have [89:52] to use time to to be the tool that you [89:55] use to collect more information. [89:57] If you if you give up time, you give up [89:59] one of your most important tools which [90:00] is what we're giving up with this [90:02] attack. We're giving up time so that we [90:04] can potentially just fit a a calendar. [90:07] January, February, March. Like that's [90:10] why what what did we actually gain? What [90:13] How did the United States actually [90:15] tangibly benefit [90:17] from what just happened in Iran? If the [90:19] United States, how did we [90:21] >> If in 4 months from now, before the [90:22] midterm elections, there is new [90:24] leadership in Iran, entirely new. If [90:27] there is regime change, in other words, [90:29] if there is by the president's own [90:30] metrics victory, Okay. will you change [90:33] your tune on this this quote of what did [90:35] we gain? What if it's not evident right [90:37] now? What if it is in 4 months? I know. [90:39] Yeah, I it's a living assessment. So of [90:41] course if for all for all we know the [90:43] president's decision is going to work [90:44] out. But for all we know it's going to [90:45] get worse. For all we know it won't be 4 [90:47] months, it'll be 4 years of of of a of a [90:51] drought and poverty-stricken and [90:52] Iranians dying, civilians dying because [90:54] they can't find food and water. [90:55] >> The '79 revolution took 2 years to [90:57] happen, really began late '77, and then [90:59] you had a sort of reign of terror, [91:01] almost like the you know Thermidorian [91:02] Robespierre period in early Iranian uh [91:05] in the uh early '80s, where it took [91:07] really 4 or 5 years for all the dust to [91:09] settle. But but uh so the question is do [91:11] you want where are my results, right? [91:14] It's only been 2 days. [91:15] >> are my What What are we gaining? What do [91:16] we even think we're going to gain? What [91:18] does What does the United States think [91:19] it's going to gain [91:21] from from decapitating the Iranian [91:24] leadership? [91:24] >> that's kind of obvious based on what the [91:26] president has said. It's that On what [91:27] the president has said? [91:28] >> I'm I'm I'm just saying based on what [91:29] the president says. I'm not But if you [91:31] ask what the point was according to the [91:33] president cuz he's the one who [91:35] authorized the op- operation, it was [91:39] putting an end to Iran's nuclear program [91:42] and regime change. I mean [91:44] >> base it off of what the president said, [91:45] the nuclear program was obliterated in [91:48] June of last year. [91:49] >> But there's an attempt to reconstitute [91:50] it. They were looking to rebuild these [91:52] facilities. They have satellite footage [91:53] of this. [91:54] >> Why are you Why are you disregarding [91:56] previous narratives to adopt the current [91:58] narrative? [91:59] >> Because if If learned nothing from '79 [92:01] is that the previous narratives were [92:02] wrong. The assessments were wrong. So, I [92:05] don't trust the assessments either. But, [92:07] there's satellite imagery that shows, [92:08] oh, there's reconstruction happening at [92:11] um Esfahan or Natanz or wherever. We can [92:13] see trucks moving. We can see buildings [92:15] coming up, right? [92:15] >> somebody who chose to share that [92:17] satellite imagery. [92:18] Hang on. [92:22] >> [clears throat] [92:22] >> It's impossible [92:24] to to practically say, [92:27] "No, no, no. Iran didn't want a nuclear [92:29] weapon. They just wanted to [92:31] have electric power." I mean, nuclear [92:32] power. [92:33] You know, for [92:35] That's That's not That's not really not [92:36] a plausible [92:40] assessment. [92:41] >> That's what the ODNI put into their [92:42] official report. [92:43] >> explain that they're going beyond 20% [92:45] enrichment? Then, why are they doing [92:46] that? [92:46] >> And what they don't need more than 20%. [92:48] So, why So, how And it's a racket. It [92:50] was a racket. It is a racket. And we're [92:52] talking about Tulsi Gabbard as a head of [92:53] DNI. Which Exactly. Exactly. Which is a [92:55] great point. Because she is a Trump [92:57] supporter. [92:58] >> Well, you have not heard from her. Are [93:00] you Are you not [93:01] >> Tulsi Gabbard has been a lot of things [93:02] in her career. [93:03] Yeah. [93:04] But, you Do you do you think there was [93:05] any risk of Iran developing ura- uranium [93:08] to the point that they could use it as a [93:09] nuclear weapon? Because if you look at [93:10] the timeline here, Of course. um which [93:12] I'll throw up on screen, which is just a [93:13] screenshot, by 2021, they were at a [93:16] dangerous threshold. Iran begins [93:17] enriching uranium to 60% purity, which [93:20] is a short technical step away from the [93:21] 90% needed for a weapon. And by 2023 to [93:24] 2025, we were told that they were [93:25] theoretically weeks away from being able [93:28] to create a weapon, which is when Trump [93:31] decided to attack. You think that's [93:33] false? We only know what we're being [93:34] told. [93:35] And what we're being told isn't even [93:37] consistent between what's publicly being [93:39] released by our own government and what [93:41] we're being told in mainstream media. [93:43] But, everybody just [93:44] There's clearly Is it Is it [93:46] false? Is it Is it false? I don't know. [93:49] I don't know if it's false. [93:49] >> Well, just look at North Korea if you [93:50] want to know if it's false. I mean, I [93:51] interviewed Bill Perry, the Secretary of [93:53] Defense, who went there and got the [93:55] guarantee and the promise from the dear [93:57] leader there was no chance they were [93:59] going to develop a nuclear weapon. [94:01] Fingers crossed behind the back, [94:03] thermonuclear weapon, and look where we [94:05] are now. And so, I think it would be [94:08] foolhardy for this administration or any [94:11] former administration to think that that [94:13] Iran wasn't doing the same thing. [94:15] >> It has every incentive to do it. If I [94:17] were Iran, I would absolutely do you [94:18] know, absolutely build one. [94:20] Because look what it did for North [94:22] Korea. We're we're getting lost in the [94:23] wrong question. [94:25] I'm not trying to say that Iran wasn't [94:27] creating nuclear weapons. I'm saying [94:29] that the official stance of the ODNI was [94:31] that it was not. The official stance [94:33] they want you to see. Yeah, to go to [94:34] right. Now we're getting Now we're [94:36] getting [94:37] Now we're getting closer to the same [94:38] point. Why would the president say [94:40] something different than what the ODNI [94:42] is saying to the public? That is a [94:44] failure in narrative control. There's an [94:46] inconsistency there, and that's the [94:48] question. [94:48] >> on that. We absolutely agree on that, [94:50] yeah. So, what do you think is actually [94:52] going on? I asked you this at the top, [94:53] but clearly you're pointing at some some [94:55] sort of ulterior motive. [94:57] So, [94:58] I think what's happening here is that we [94:59] are seeing an administration that [95:03] doesn't actually know how to [95:05] govern. [95:06] And they're they're trying to find a way [95:08] to grapple back some sense of success in [95:12] the face of [95:13] overwhelming [95:15] contributing failures, economic [95:16] failures, alliance failures, power [95:19] struggles all over the world. We are we [95:22] are seeing a transition to a strongman [95:24] multipolar world. When we've only ever [95:27] lived in a unipolar world. What's a [95:28] strongman multipolar world? It's what [95:30] she was just talking about with Putin [95:32] and Russia, right? You When you act in [95:34] strong authoritarian ways, and people [95:37] respect your authoritarian behaviors by [95:39] giving you safety and giving you [95:40] security, then that's strongman [95:43] diplomacy. [95:43] >> And why does that matter? What happens [95:44] next? Because that's not cooperative. [95:46] That creates conflict. That creates more [95:48] opportunities for conflict, less [95:49] opportunities for communication, less [95:52] shared common interest, which is a [95:53] pathway to more what we call interstate [95:56] war, which is conflict between states. [95:59] Because they're not communicating, [96:00] they're not sharing, they're not even [96:01] reliant on each other. Therefore, it's [96:03] easier for war to break out. I have a [96:05] sort of pessimistic thought here. [96:09] Which is an alternative to the what was [96:12] you know, what was hap- what is [96:13] happening in Iran right now, which is [96:15] what would happen, what could happen, [96:17] and what might happen in the United [96:18] States. [96:20] And to your point that where you said [96:22] this administration doesn't know how to [96:23] govern, [96:24] I would, separate from that, whether [96:26] that's true or not, I would say this [96:27] administration thinks very [96:31] futuristically about [96:34] surveillance systems and systems of [96:36] control. And you can see that with ICE [96:38] and with Homeland Security. [96:40] >> [snorts] [96:40] >> And my concern would be that [96:43] red teaming or round tabling all the [96:46] different blow possible blowback, well, [96:48] what if we have Hezbollah that sleeper [96:50] cells, [96:51] you know, set off a dirty bomb in the [96:53] United States or do something. That that [96:55] is [96:56] in the eyes of some, a perfect [96:58] opportunity to create more of a [97:02] surveillance state in the United States, [97:04] to use [97:06] biometric surveillance platforms, ISR, [97:09] against United States citizens because [97:11] it's the only way to control [97:15] people and to to really know where the [97:17] bad guys are. And that is a concern of [97:19] mine. [97:20] >> So, you Can you Can you be a bit more [97:21] explicitly clear that? So, you're saying [97:23] that [97:24] Well, that you you you In other words, [97:27] bio sort of I always just look at things [97:29] because I [97:30] consider weapon systems a lot and [97:32] understand where we have come from, you [97:34] know, nuclear weapons are the weapons of [97:36] the past. [97:37] Um [97:38] surveillance systems are the weapons of [97:40] the present and drones. What's the [97:42] weapon systems of the future? I mean, [97:44] you're there's a with motivation. You [97:46] can just look at what happened with [97:47] Anthropic and Open AI in the Defense [97:49] Department the day before all of this [97:51] went down. So, you're saying they're [97:52] using this as a way to introduce [97:55] surveillance mechanisms potentially on [97:57] United States? And I'm I'm not saying [97:59] that per se, I'm saying one hypothetical [98:02] scenario that I can see is [98:04] red teaming a bad outcome is not [98:06] necessarily a bad outcome. Like if there [98:08] were a problem in the United States as a [98:10] result of this, we could counter that [98:13] with [98:15] legitimate reasons for more surveillance [98:17] systems. Do you think people sit around [98:19] and say that kind of thing? [98:20] >> they do. Really? I mean, I don't think [98:22] you can ever forget that the Department [98:24] of Homeland Security, which by the way [98:25] was like the big issue in the United [98:27] States, you know, just a couple weeks [98:29] ago. ICE, DHS, Department of Homeland [98:32] Security for those of the younger [98:33] generation did not exist before 9/11. It [98:37] was an absolute [98:39] byproduct of America being attacked. So, [98:43] you're thinking that this Iranian [98:44] situation could give them cover to [98:47] track and surveil US citizens more. It [98:49] would create a justification. I would [98:51] change the word from cover to [98:52] opportunity. [98:54] Because I do think that's the way the [98:56] systems work inside the [99:00] you know, executive branch. And I think [99:02] that there is a [99:03] always [99:05] an extremely powerful [99:08] hidden hand that has to do with [99:11] weapons developers. [99:13] And this sets us up for a false [99:14] dichotomy. It's basically you can have [99:16] security or liberty, you can't have [99:17] both. [99:20] So, which one do you want? [99:22] You're biting your tongue there a little [99:23] bit. No, he's 100% right. And and the [99:26] the [99:27] the consternation that I'm feeling about [99:28] this whole situation is really tied to [99:30] the fact that we had a chance to not [99:34] exacerbate [99:36] the security situation of our planet [99:39] by just not attacking Iran. We could [99:41] have not exacerbated the security [99:43] conflict for every other country. Only [99:45] Iran was struggling with their own [99:47] decision about what they were going to [99:48] do with themselves. Now, [99:51] we have put dozens of countries at risk, [99:53] active current risk, near-term risk. [99:56] There are people dead today that would [99:58] not have been dead had we not sent bombs [100:00] into Iran. There has been property [100:02] damage. There are markets damaged. There [100:04] are life height like livelihoods are [100:06] being damaged. There are 30,000 dead [100:08] today who wouldn't have been dead if [100:09] we'd done this in 1980. [100:11] >> You're never going to hear me say that I [100:13] really care that much about an Iranian [100:14] life compared to an American life. [100:17] That's just not how I roll. This is my [100:19] priority. This is my citizenship. I [100:21] don't I don't begrudge you that, by the [100:23] way. I I totally And it's not that my [100:24] loyalty is elsewhere, but I'm saying [100:26] you're now saying there are people that [100:27] are dead. You're talking about the four [100:29] Americans. You're talking about uh Arab [100:31] citizens of the various cities around [100:32] the [100:32] >> Absolutely the four Americans, but also [100:34] the Arab cities, right? And And if we [100:35] want to like the [100:37] when we start counting death toll, Mhm. [100:39] we start to lose sight of the fact that [100:41] we all have to live in a prioritized [100:43] world. It's like we talk about the [100:45] 30,000 dead Iranians. We We haven't said [100:47] anything about the Palestinians that [100:48] died in Gaza, right? There's a life A [100:50] life is a life. Practically speaking, a [100:52] life is equal. A life is a life. It's a [100:54] tragedy to lose any human being, but you [100:56] still have to prioritize that on top of [100:58] another [100:58] >> So, can we interchange them with the [101:00] four potential lives that were lost as a [101:02] result of the Austin shooting that [101:03] happened yesterday? [101:05] Sure. [101:06] Uh an American life that's lost is an [101:08] American life that's lost. And the [101:09] priority should be on protecting [101:10] American life. [101:11] >> Including protecting Americans from [101:12] themselves? Absolutely. That's one thing [101:14] that we're not resourcing right now [101:16] because our resources are going [101:17] somewhere else. [101:18] Which is my point about, I think, [101:21] you know, the real place to look at this [101:23] is is is surveillance in the United [101:25] States. [101:25] >> Surveillance in the United States is is [101:27] 100% a guaranteed future. Mass [101:30] surveillance has already happened. It [101:32] will It will just get exacerbated, [101:34] expanded, and legalized. It's already [101:36] there. [101:37] It's just the government has to buy [101:39] their data from your Apple phone. They [101:40] can't just pull it on their own. [101:42] >> it's probably worth introducing the [101:43] Anthropic piece here just because some [101:45] people won't have context. Um in July [101:47] 2025, Anthropic, who are a big AI [101:49] company, one of the biggest in the [101:50] world, the most exciting in the world, [101:51] and one of the most advanced in the [101:52] world, signed a $200 million deal to [101:54] build AI tools for US national security. [101:57] Um in February 2026, which was last [102:00] month, the Pentagon demanded Anthropic's [102:02] AI be available for all military [102:04] purposes, but Anthropic refused to allow [102:06] autonomous weapons or mass surveillance [102:08] of American citizens. This dispute [102:10] started after the US military used [102:12] Claude [102:13] um in its raid to capture Claude, which [102:16] is a tool made by Anthropic, an AI tool [102:18] made by Anthropic. They used Claude in a [102:21] raid to capture Venezuelan President [102:22] Nicola Nicolas Maduro in January, [102:25] um which Anthropic said violated its [102:27] terms of use. The Defense Secretary Pete [102:30] Hegseth threatened to cancel the [102:31] contract and brand Anthropic a supply [102:33] chain risk unless it dropped its safety [102:35] restrictions and stopped telling the US [102:37] how to use Anthropic's AI. And that [102:40] started a big conversation which is [102:42] raging raging online around mass [102:44] surveillance, which is one of the things [102:45] Anthropic said it didn't want America [102:47] using with its AI. [102:51] I mean, I think [102:52] it's a convenient narrative to position [102:55] one giant AI company as somehow moral [102:59] because it went up against the Defense [103:00] Department and another one not because [103:03] it didn't because like you said in [103:05] there, Anthropic was part and parcel to [103:08] the Maduro raid. So, I don't I don't [103:11] believe that corporations, certainly AI [103:13] corporations, [103:15] you know, are sitting around with a [103:16] violin for Americans surveillance. I [103:18] just don't I mean, Americans sort of [103:21] general well-being. I think that [103:23] >> altruistic. [103:23] >> No, of course not. And I think that [103:25] narrative is dangerous. I think there [103:27] was a research piece done by King's [103:28] College in London where they ran [103:30] simulations on Cold War style war games [103:32] using chat GPT, Claude, and Gemini, [103:34] which are three AI tools. Each played [103:36] the leader of a nuclear armed [103:37] superpower, and in every single [103:39] simulation, at least one of the AI [103:42] models escalated the crisis by [103:43] threatening to use nuclear weapons. [103:45] Claude, which is owned by Anthropic, [103:46] recommended nuclear strikes in 64% of [103:49] games, which was the highest rate among [103:51] all three of those AI models, but [103:54] stopped short of advocating for a full [103:56] strategic nuclear exchange or nuclear [103:57] war. [103:58] Bingo. Wasn't that the plot of the work [104:00] movie WarGames in the 1980s? [104:02] Bingo. I mean, that's Skynet. And so, [104:04] these are major concerns. Um many of our [104:08] former generals who were heads of [104:11] um you know, cyber and NSA are on the [104:14] boards of these companies. I've had [104:17] conversations with a number of them [104:19] about this. I think smart people are [104:22] and and and learned people are on are [104:25] aware of like this is a absolute [104:28] cliffhanger precipice. [104:31] Hey, one day. [104:33] Uh just making myself a delicious [104:35] coffee. From the freezer? [104:37] From the freezer. You have not heard [104:38] about Cometeer? No. [104:39] Oh my gosh. This is going to change your [104:41] life. I invested in this company called [104:43] Cometeer last year, and then they're one [104:45] of the sponsors of this podcast because [104:46] they've taken a pretty revolutionary [104:48] approach to making coffee. Every coffee [104:50] is precision brewed at 10 times the [104:53] strength, and then they flash freeze it [104:56] with liquid nitrogen to lock in the [104:58] flavor and freshness. And then it's [105:00] delivered to you on dry ice in these [105:02] recyclable aluminum capsules still [105:06] frozen, like a little ice cube. All you [105:07] have to do is pop the capsule out, add [105:11] some hot water, [105:13] and then you stir it, and you are good [105:16] to go. You can also make delicious iced [105:18] coffee drinks as well. Just pour it in, [105:22] stir it up. [105:24] And for anyone that hasn't tried it, you [105:26] can get $30 off your first order of [105:29] Cometeer Coffee if you go to [105:31] cometeer.com/steven. [105:34] We have finally caved in. So many of you [105:36] have asked us if we could bundle the [105:39] conversation cards with the 1% diary. [105:41] For those of you that don't know, every [105:42] single time a guest sits here with me in [105:44] the chair, they leave a question in the [105:45] Diary of a CEO, and then I ask that [105:47] question to the next guest. We don't [105:49] release those questions in any [105:51] environment other than on these [105:52] incredible conversation cards. These [105:54] have become a fantastic tool for people [105:56] in relationships, people in teams, in [105:58] big corporations, and also family [106:00] members to connect with each other. With [106:02] that, we also have the 1% diary, which [106:04] is this incredible tool to change habits [106:06] in your life. So many of you have asked [106:08] if it was possible to buy both at the [106:10] same time, especially people in big [106:12] companies. So what we've done is we've [106:14] bundled them together, and you can buy [106:16] both at the same time. And if you want [106:18] to drive connection and instill habit [106:20] change in your company, head to the [106:21] diary.com to inquire, and our team will [106:23] be in touch. What is your most likely [106:26] scenario that would lead to [106:28] a nuclear war? Like cuz you you wrote [106:30] the book on this stuff that, you know, [106:31] you're you're you're the person [106:32] everybody thinks of when we think about [106:34] the scenario that nuclear war could [106:36] break out. Of all the potential routes [106:38] there, which one do you think is the [106:40] most likely? [106:41] I do think that North Korea is very [106:43] dangerous. I think [106:45] Putin is I would have told you 5 years [106:47] ago that Putin would, you know, he's an [106:50] former intelligence officer. He's [106:52] familiar with history. He He knows [106:55] better, and now I would I have a changed [106:57] opinion about that. I think it's very [106:59] dangerous, and I think that [107:01] he, you know, his use of the Arashnik [107:03] was sort of like a [107:04] like that that was a ballistic missile [107:06] that is capable of carrying a nuclear [107:08] warhead. There wasn't a nuclear warhead [107:10] in it. He did notify the State [107:12] Department prior to the launch of that, [107:15] you know, 30 minutes prior. But that's [107:17] like incredibly dangerous. So [107:19] everything is dangerous. Any [107:20] nuclear-armed nation that [107:23] that, know, threatens nuclear weapons is [107:25] dangerous. But AI is its own [107:27] extraordinary [107:29] level of danger and the article that you [107:32] wrote speaks to that. Now, my [107:34] understanding is [107:35] currently everybody knows that, you [107:38] know, air quotes, and then when you [107:40] learn, when I learned about the [107:43] Department of War Anthropic AI late at [107:46] night battle over using AI in these [107:49] systems, I was I was surprised. [107:52] >> Why? [107:53] Because I thought there was more [107:56] restraint on that and what I see in this [107:58] administration [107:59] >> Yes. [108:00] And to see sort of the the same bravado [108:03] that we do agree on is coming out of [108:05] this administration [108:07] about exerting power, about um just [108:12] being able to do a decapitation strike [108:14] effectively [108:15] using AI, I I go, "Wow, that is not what [108:20] I expected." The interesting thing with [108:21] Trump generally is that [108:24] he has a reputation of saying and doing [108:27] things that at one point we would have [108:28] all gone, "Oh my god." But we've almost [108:30] become so used to these things that [108:32] there's almost a desensitization to some [108:34] degree. [108:34] >> Shattering of norms, they call it, [108:36] right? [108:36] >> He also contradicts himself. I mean, [108:38] that's not even a I mean, he's spoken on [108:40] the record about how I mean, I think he [108:43] put out a video in 2011. I might be [108:46] wrong on the date, like attacking Obama [108:49] for, you know, and saying that he was [108:50] going to attack Iran. [108:52] >> 20 In 2013, there's there's a there's a [108:54] tweet that he posted saying "Attacking [108:56] Iran is showing that you failed at [108:58] negotiations" and, you know, something [109:00] to that effect, right? [109:00] >> here we are talking about how important [109:01] it is to change your mind. Maybe if [109:03] you're not the Maybe not if you're the [109:05] president of the United States. I think [109:07] the slippery slope is is so gradual that [109:09] sometimes you don't see where you're [109:10] you're heading towards. And in terms of [109:12] sort of military action and the use of [109:14] AI and all these things and autonomous [109:15] weapons, it we feel like we're going [109:17] down a slippery slope here. [109:18] >> Yes. In a way that I haven't felt for [109:19] the other 33 years of my life as it [109:21] relates to geopolitics and war. And also [109:23] generally, when you think about some of [109:24] the actions that and speeches at Davos [109:26] where the [109:28] US leaders were saying to the Europeans, [109:29] "Listen, you guys are weak now. And we [109:31] It was sounded to me saying like you [109:32] guys are weak. Get your together. [109:34] Figure out your energy situation. We [109:35] don't need you anymore. Listen, we're [109:36] not going to We're going to run this [109:38] now." And this whole idea of special [109:40] relationship, blah blah blah, it seems [109:41] to have gone out the window. So, you've [109:43] got an emboldened United States military [109:45] and leadership who seem to be able to do [109:47] what the they want. If you don't [109:48] let us use your air how we wish, we'll [109:50] smash your company. We'll take away that [109:51] $200 million contract and we'll cut you [109:53] off from the rest of the supply chain. [109:55] And we get used to it. You know, we hear [109:56] the head and go, "Oh, that's crazy." [109:57] Then and then we kind of get [109:58] desensitized again as humans do. [110:01] But the direction of travel is something [110:03] sometimes what you want to look at. Mhm. [110:05] Yeah. Versus just this this sort of [110:06] static state of where we are. That's the [110:08] concern. I think you have hit the nail [110:10] on the head with that. I agree. I think [110:12] you've got I think you've got a much [110:14] clearer picture than most, Stephen, on [110:16] what's going on here. The United States [110:19] it has to pursue AI far more [110:23] aggressively than what [110:25] what the what the CEOs of these [110:28] companies want. I actually do believe [110:29] there's quite a bit of altruism in the [110:31] CEOs and the founders of these AIs. They [110:32] didn't create these AIs so they could be [110:35] warmongers. They created these AIs for [110:36] some [110:37] techy, beautiful vision of some utopian [110:39] future. [110:40] >> That's like saying Zuckerberg didn't [110:41] create Facebook for to to to cause teens [110:44] to feel better [110:45] >> about themselves. He created it for [110:46] people to connect. [110:47] >> else, exactly. [110:47] >> Right. [110:48] >> But look what happens. That's Yeah, [110:50] unintended consequences. [110:51] >> Yeah. [110:53] So, regardless of what the United [110:55] States' opinion is about AI, [110:57] it also has to very realistically look [110:59] at how China is developing AI. And China [111:01] is already 10 x more aggressive than the [111:03] United States is. And if they crack the [111:05] code on certain types of AI like like [111:08] artificial general intelligence or [111:10] recursive [111:12] uh self-improvement, if it breaks the [111:14] code on these first, [111:15] it's an exponential head start over the [111:19] United States. And all of their AI, [111:21] everything that we have some sort of [111:23] reticence about using automated or [111:25] autonomous weapons, mass surveillance, [111:26] China's already using. So, [111:28] the the number one strategic priority [111:31] consistently in all documentation is [111:33] China. So, the United States has to [111:35] aggressively pursue AI. It I I [111:37] understand that mindset. It is [111:40] absolutely ludicrous to think that one [111:42] day an AI helps us take that leader of [111:45] Venezuela, and then the next day we [111:46] claim it's a supply chain risk. That's [111:48] just That's the kind of lunacy that we [111:50] live in every day. [111:51] >> good point. But But the my my bottom [111:54] line concern here is that the United [111:55] States used to be the leader of the free [111:57] world. We're not a leader of the world [111:59] at all. We're adopting more autocratic [112:02] behaviors because we're seeing other [112:03] countries succeed with autocratic [112:05] behaviors. And we're abandoning Europe, [112:07] which is the only place left trying to [112:09] say that democracy still counts. Like we [112:11] are We are not leading anymore. We are [112:14] mimicking. We are reacting. We are [112:17] petulant, but we are not leading. I'm [112:19] still thinking about your doomsday [112:20] scenario with a deathbed Vladimir Putin [112:22] and what he might do. [112:24] Is that like realistic? [112:26] Is it realistic? You know, it's like [112:28] from hell's heart I stabbed at thee. I [112:30] mean, it it it [112:33] I don't know what's realistic anymore. I [112:35] Again, these these norms that are [112:36] shattered, these restraints, these these [112:38] guardrails that we think No, a leader [112:40] wouldn't do this or someone wouldn't do [112:42] that. I'm beginning to question all of [112:44] it, too. Um I don't know anymore what [112:46] what someone is or isn't capable of. And [112:48] I think [112:49] human have a discomfort with cognitive [112:51] dissonance where, you know, holding two [112:53] opposing viewpoints at once. We've [112:55] gotten, I think, worse at it [112:57] evolutionary over over time. And our [112:58] politicians are the worst yet or our [113:00] world leaders are are the worst at it [113:02] yet. And so, that's a cause of concern [113:04] for me. I always think like what has [113:05] someone got to lose and what have they [113:06] got to gain? And if you've got a couple [113:08] of days left of your life or couple of [113:09] days left in office and you're I don't [113:11] know, Trump's going to be what, 83 by [113:12] the time he gets out of office or [113:13] something? Yeah, why does he care if he [113:15] pushes a button and does whatever? At [113:17] which point [113:19] Yeah, you know. And the same with Putin, [113:21] at some point he's going to be old and [113:22] he's going to have a couple of, you [113:23] know, couple of weeks left in his life [113:25] and he's going to be reflecting on his [113:26] legacy and he's got nothing to lose. [113:28] Trump's got nothing to lose with he [113:29] there's no second term. Well, [113:32] >> [laughter] [113:34] >> Well, he he I was watching the other day [113:35] taking great admiration to the fact that [113:38] Zelenskyy can't be they can't be [113:40] elections in Ukraine because there's a [113:42] war going on and I think he cracked a [113:43] joke saying that he would kind of like [113:45] that but if there was a US war going on [113:47] then they wouldn't be elections. [113:50] And I [113:50] it sounded like a joke. [113:52] But a lot of things have sounded like [113:54] jokes before [113:55] >> [laughter] [113:55] >> that he said, so. [113:57] What is your um what do you think [113:58] happens next? And also I I wanted to get [114:00] your take on you know, we've got this [114:02] map here which shows where Iran can [114:04] strike with their missiles. I've got [114:05] friends in Dubai. [114:07] Never in my life did I think bombs would [114:09] be dropping on Dubai or any strikes or [114:10] drones would be happening in Dubai. And [114:12] one of my best friends was in a in the [114:14] basement in a bunker the two nights ago [114:16] because of what's going on. That whole [114:17] region has been hit. The Dubai airport [114:19] has been hit. Saudi Arabia has been hit. [114:21] Um Bahrain's been hit. [114:23] What does this do? Qatar's been hit. [114:25] What does this do to the region and why [114:27] are Iran hitting these places? [114:30] So, this is part of the burden sharing [114:33] strategy that the United States military [114:35] doctrine isn't put put in place. And I [114:37] think to a certain extent all of the [114:39] region already knew they were on Iran's [114:41] radar. They they've all had this weird [114:43] hostile [114:45] collaborative relationship with Iran out [114:46] of necessity because Iran is the [114:48] breadbasket [clears throat] of the [114:49] Middle East. So, they've known that [114:51] there's always the risk. But I don't [114:53] think they ever took that that [114:55] particular risk seriously. [114:57] >> Why are Iran Iran doing it? Yeah. Why do [114:59] they care about [115:00] messing up Dubai or making people in [115:02] Dubai scared. [115:02] >> They are lowering the pain threshold. [115:04] The deputy foreign minister said, "We [115:06] can't strike Americans in America. [115:09] We can maybe strike Americans at their [115:10] bases in these Arab states, and we can [115:12] also strike the states that are that are [115:14] hosting Americans, American civilians, [115:17] American military, American contractors, [115:19] you name it. They're all complicit, and [115:21] it's lashing out. Because what happens [115:24] is if you make it miserable for [115:25] everybody, then United States is [115:27] pressured to bring this to an end." [115:29] Okay. [clears throat] So, they can [115:30] >> What does Iran have to lose? To to back [115:31] to your sort of doomsday scenario, [115:33] they're about to be destroyed anyway. [115:35] What do they have to lose? They're going [115:36] to take everyone down with them, because [115:38] only if that threat is real, will the [115:40] United States say, "Okay, you know what? [115:41] We're going to pause and see if we can [115:42] get back to diplomacy." And it might [115:44] work. Mhm. [115:45] Mhm. If the Arab states, you know, [115:48] decide that okay, we're not going to [115:49] sustain this, we're not going to fight [115:50] back, we need this to end. United [115:52] States, you have to stop what you're [115:53] doing. So, we could see a lot of the [115:54] conflict actually taking place in some [115:56] of these neighboring countries, [115:57] terrorist attacks, et cetera. It's [115:58] working. [116:00] It's working. It's causing pain to these [116:02] sort of peripheral countries that are [116:03] not central to this conflict. And look [116:06] what the United States has done, [116:07] arguably, right? [116:08] >> Yeah. And one of the unintended, well, [116:10] maybe intended consequences is, if I [116:12] turn on the news in the UK right now, [116:14] the narrative is that this region, [116:17] Dubai, all of these places, Abu Dhabi, [116:18] it's all unsafe. And what that means is [116:20] they're showing that Sky News are going [116:22] up to families in Dubai and going, "How [116:24] are you feeling?" And they're going, [116:25] "I'm stuck. I just want to get home." [116:27] And this region has spent a lot of money [116:29] building their reputation over the last [116:30] couple of decades. Their tourist [116:32] economy. And this is going to even if [116:35] the war was to stop today, there'll be a [116:36] big cohort of people that choose not to [116:38] go there on holiday and choose not to go [116:40] and relocate there. [116:41] And that will reverberate. Um [116:44] one could argue that it's actually in, [116:46] you know, this narrative that the Middle [116:48] East is unsafe, one could argue that [116:49] that's actually in the interest of [116:52] the UK and It's going to drive [116:53] [clears throat] down the price of real [116:54] estate. Yeah. [116:56] Yeah, and drive up our tax receipts. [116:58] Because we have a lot of I think it's [117:00] the biggest place that UK taxpayers have [117:01] gone to and millionaires have gone to is [117:03] this region. [117:04] So, did you have any thoughts on that? [117:06] >> No, you're not I don't think you're [117:07] wrong. I think that there's whether or [117:09] not [117:10] I I don't believe that Western countries [117:14] want to see death and destruction in the [117:16] Middle East. I don't believe that. Um I [117:18] do think that when they plan for [117:21] blowback, they account for that and they [117:23] try to make the best opportunity out of [117:25] the blowback that they already expect. [117:27] And that does make sense. [117:29] Um but at the at the end of the day, [117:31] Iran has to do something to react. And [117:34] it knows it can't just send all of its [117:35] rockets at the fleet that's off the [117:37] coast of Oman because the fleet that's [117:39] off the coast of Oman is going to be [117:39] able to intercept most of those rockets. [117:41] So, if they want some kind of effective [117:42] response, [117:44] the most effective response they can [117:45] have is to share the pain and create [117:47] some sort of international resistance [117:49] against what the United States has done. [117:52] >> How long do you think this goes on for, [117:53] Andrew, if you had to guess? If I had to [117:55] guess, I would say that there's going to [117:56] be an active hot conflict with Iran that [117:58] lasts a few weeks. Hot conflict meaning [118:01] every day we wake up and we see new [118:03] rockets being launched and new new [118:05] attacks, new new air sorties being [118:06] launched. But but the actual [118:10] reverberations of this from Hezbollah, [118:13] from Hamas, from the Houthis, from [118:15] whatever loyal stanchion still exists in [118:18] Iran, we could see that for years. There [118:21] There's no guarantee that Iran's going [118:22] to bounce back from this in a better [118:23] place. I hope it will, but hope is not [118:26] the same thing as reality. Hope is just [118:29] hope. I hope that it will, but in the [118:31] vacuum, we could see the biggest [118:33] adversaries to the United States flood [118:35] in and support Iran like the biggest [118:36] adversaries in the world flooded in and [118:37] support Afghanistan. We might see that [118:39] we have even less influence over the [118:41] region in the future than we do now. Is [118:43] there some an issue of the destruction [118:45] this is causing to what's going on in [118:47] Ukraine and in other parts of the world [118:48] where there was already conflict and [118:50] there was already turmoil? Like are [118:51] people now not going to pay attention to [118:53] Ukraine? So that that gives Putin some [118:54] cover to be more aggressive there and It [118:57] absolutely emboldens every authoritarian [118:59] ruler out there. Because now they've [119:01] it's been it's validating to them that [119:03] they're not actually doing anything [119:04] wrong. If the president of the United [119:06] States can do it, then certainly the [119:08] Putin can do it and Xi Jinping can do it [119:09] and and any warlord in Africa can do it. [119:12] It's certainly it's allowed. Or on the [119:14] flip side, it's showing that if you act [119:16] outside of international norms [119:18] that the United States president will [119:20] not hesitate to decapitate your entire [119:22] leadership, which is something maybe we [119:24] didn't think was conceivable a couple [119:25] weeks ago. So there's that inverse [119:27] message. [119:27] >> Is it conceivable that both might occur? [119:29] Yeah. Yes, both can be true. [119:31] >> absolutely. It sounds to me like that [119:32] might be the most likely outcome that [119:33] you're probably going to go one of [119:34] either ways. You know, China might just [119:36] say now's a good time to get Taiwan [119:37] because I mean I mean, objectively [119:39] speaking, people are distracted. [119:41] >> And it's a perfect time for someone to [119:42] try to assassinate the president. But [119:44] then Cuba might say, you know, if I can [119:46] get away with it, I'll behave. [119:47] >> exactly. Because look what happens if we [119:48] don't. What do you think I mean in this [119:50] subjective, what happens next and what's [119:51] likely? I mean, I'm [119:54] To that end, I would say how fascinating [119:57] is it that what happened with Maduro in [119:59] January still shocks me. 150 [120:04] paramilitary or military and [120:06] intelligence officers go in, [120:08] grab [120:10] the sovereign leader and his wife in a [120:12] heavily fortified military base, [120:16] take out his [120:18] you know, guardsmen who are actually [120:20] Cuban. I mean, there's just so many [120:24] things to unpack in what I just said [120:26] about what just happened. And yet [120:29] that's just old news. [120:31] That and that to me is [120:35] more interesting than what might happen [120:37] in the future. [120:39] Not be because I'll I'm [120:41] I can I can try and wrap my head around [120:45] the past, but I can't predict the [120:48] future. But I am I do believe they they [120:51] correlate with one another and only [120:52] after time, you know, it's the old [120:55] hindsight is is is 20/20. It will makes [120:58] how [121:00] Iran unfolds, [121:02] you know, maybe we'll get the band back [121:03] together in 5 months and have a [121:05] discussion and we'll all be wrong. I I [121:08] don't know. [121:09] Separate question, but do you think [121:10] Trump's going to leave office? [121:14] I mean, the Constitution says he is. Do [121:16] you think he will? The Constitution says [121:18] he is. But do you think he will? [121:20] >> [laughter] [121:20] >> I don't have a crystal ball. Do you [121:22] think he'll leave office? I do. Do you [121:24] think he'll leave office? [121:24] >> I do. You do. I have more confidence [121:26] after last week's um [121:28] learning resources Supreme Court opinion [121:30] that we saw two justices who Trump [121:32] appointed who basically defied a policy [121:35] that was the signature of his of his [121:37] second term, you know, his campaign, his [121:39] his tariffs and saying that you don't [121:40] have that power. [121:42] I was emboldened. I I would have been [121:43] more pessimistic, but after seeing that, [121:46] I it gave me a little bit more hope that [121:48] that that there is still sort of [121:50] guardrails and separation of powers is [121:52] still a thing. What do you think happens [121:54] next in the region? I'm with Andrew. I [121:55] think 3 to 4 weeks is the timeline I see [121:58] for the actual kinetic war and then [122:00] after that um [122:01] every one of these Iranian leaders, [122:03] whoever's left, whoever steps in and [122:04] fills the role of a whether it's a [122:05] military junta that takes over, whether [122:07] it's a symbolic supreme leader, these [122:09] are all marked men. They're all going to [122:10] be targeted for assassination. By who? [122:13] By who? By Israel, by prime minister, by [122:15] pretty much anybody that considers um [122:18] them enemies. Even maybe not some of the [122:20] Arab states for that matter. At the end [122:21] of the day, [122:22] uh it doesn't pay to be uh a political [122:26] or religious figure in Iran. So, at this [122:28] point I think what we're going to see in [122:30] the months to come is a slow fracturing [122:32] of that support and I not surprised if [122:34] we start seeing defections from the IRGC [122:37] and people just like we saw during 1979 [122:39] saying, you know what? It's not worth [122:40] it. There's nothing There's no there's [122:42] no long-term gain here. [122:44] Because this regime has lost any [122:46] credibility domestically. There's none [122:47] left, zero. And it's losing credibility [122:50] in the region. It violated an unspoken [122:52] agreement with its Arab neighbors that [122:53] they don't directly fight each other in [122:54] this way. And its allies, so-called [122:57] allies, have abandoned it. [122:59] It has nothing left. So, when you have [123:01] nothing left, what is there to fight [123:02] for? That's why, but that's going to [123:04] take a few months, up to a year, to play [123:06] out. [123:07] What is the most important thing that we [123:08] should have talked about that we didn't [123:09] talk about around [123:11] as it relates to all of the stuff we [123:12] talked about today? [123:14] I think for me [123:16] what I'm always, what I always come back [123:17] to, is what is the future for the [123:20] average American. What does it look like [123:22] for us? [123:23] I'm not sure how this plays out. I'm not [123:26] sure that we improve the state of the [123:29] average American very much in the last [123:31] few days. I don't know that we will see [123:33] much improvement in the next few weeks. [123:35] I don't know that we will see much [123:36] improvement in the next few years. Um, [123:38] because of what actions we took in Iran, [123:40] but I do confirm, I agree with what the [123:42] other two have said, like the United [123:43] States administration has shown it's [123:45] powerful in Venezuela, it's powerful in [123:48] uh, in Iran. [123:50] Cuba's already being more than whispered [123:53] about as the next [123:55] the next transition in government. [123:58] How, how much chaos are we going to see [124:02] to the existing world establishment [124:04] before Trump then leaves office and [124:06] somebody else has to come in and pick up [124:08] the mess. And I've always been concerned [124:10] not about Donald Trump, but about who [124:12] comes after Donald Trump. Why? Because [124:14] if Donald Trump paves the way for this [124:16] authoritarian type of shift, and if he [124:19] has support through his final days in [124:20] office, then whoever comes next will [124:22] have even more legitimacy to come in [124:24] with a strong hand from the beginning. [124:27] And potentially a world where only [124:29] authoritarian actions [124:31] work. And that just continues to take us [124:34] down a road of pain. I've been talking [124:35] to you about this for the better part of [124:36] 3 years, that I believe the United I [124:38] believe the world and especially the [124:40] United States is is coming into one of [124:43] its darkest decades ever. [124:45] This is the world that we live in now. A [124:47] world where it's not unipolar, a world [124:49] of AI technologies we can't predict, of [124:51] conflict that we can't anticipate, of [124:54] mass surveillance, of of [124:57] the breaking of international norms. [124:59] This is the world we are coming into [125:01] now. It's the world that our children [125:02] are going to be developed in. It's the [125:04] world that one day they will have to [125:05] create their own future in and and our [125:07] grandchildren will inherit whatever is [125:08] left of it after that. [125:10] It's it's sad to me to see that this is [125:13] where we are and unless we take some [125:15] sort of responsibility for our own [125:17] future, we will keep following this [125:19] authoritarian trend. But isn't this [125:21] better than the past? I would say no. [125:24] A unipolar world where the United States [125:26] is the supreme power, as an American, [125:28] that is a better world. But at least you [125:30] won't die of dysentery out in the [125:31] wilderness, right? Yeah, I mean, that's [125:33] kind of what people say, right? They [125:34] say, well, babies aren't dying anymore [125:37] at childbirth and you know, people less [125:39] people are struggling with poverty, so [125:42] so it's a better depends what metric [125:44] you're measuring, I guess, but [125:47] on [125:48] on that point of the transition after [125:50] Trump leaves, would it be worse if a [125:53] weak leader came in? [125:55] Because I'm I'm wondering, look, we know [125:57] Putin's still going to be there. We know [125:58] a lot of these other powers are still [125:59] going to be there. [126:01] Biden didn't strike me as the [126:03] the scariest guy in the world. [126:05] The most the the toughest guy in the [126:07] world. Didn't strike me as the toughest [126:08] guy in the world. So, if another figure [126:10] like Biden came into power after Trump, [126:12] once with that war raging over there and [126:15] with, you know, China um [126:17] thinking about Taiwan, etc., is that not [126:19] even more dangerous? [126:21] I think there's a difference between a [126:22] strong leader and a strong arm. [126:24] A strong leader can chart a path, keep a [126:26] vision, make hard decisions, balance [126:29] priorities, keep people focused. Where a [126:31] strong arm is out to win. [126:34] And Donald Trump [126:36] his entire career, he's been the man [126:38] who's out to win. [126:39] Again, I don't think this is a Trump [126:41] issue. I don't think this is a Trump [126:42] problem. I don't think Donald Trump is [126:44] some villain of the world. I just think [126:47] Donald Trump is the manifestation of how [126:49] most Americans felt at the time that [126:51] they elected him, which was like, we [126:53] want to win. [126:54] And now [126:56] we're realizing that 2 years after the [126:58] second time that we wanted to win, there [127:00] are other secondary consequences that we [127:02] hadn't considered. And that's why so [127:04] many of the kind of groups that [127:06] supported Donald Trump have changed [127:08] flavor about him. It's why his approval [127:10] rating is so low, because he's found a [127:11] way to ostracize so many of the groups [127:13] that used to support him because they [127:15] didn't realize that he was more complex [127:17] than what they had originally thought [127:19] back in that November booth. [127:22] Annie, most important thing we should [127:23] have talked about that we didn't? [127:25] I'm going to pick up on Andrew's [127:28] thought about a strong leader versus a [127:30] strong arm, because it's so important to [127:32] think about moving forward. And is that [127:35] even possible, you know? Yes, we [127:37] absolutely cannot have a weak leader. I [127:39] mean, look what happened with Putin [127:42] moving into Ukraine, taking Ukraine, [127:44] attacking Ukraine. [127:45] And I I [127:47] I think that, you know, who wants to be [127:49] president? There's also this idea of you [127:53] you know, you look at the records of how [127:55] people [127:56] say come into office, how they how they [127:58] campaign saying what they are I'm going [128:00] to get rid of these dangerous nuclear [128:02] policies. I'm going They have all kinds [128:04] of optimistic ideas about things. And [128:06] then something happens in that first [128:09] briefing. Something none of us know. [128:12] It's so mysterious. And they never talk [128:15] about. And then their policies and their [128:18] their perspective deeply changes. And I [128:21] think people move from an idea that they [128:24] can be a strong leader to the idea that [128:26] they have to be a strong arm. And I [128:28] think that's [128:29] that's deeply depressing to me. And I am [128:32] an eternal optimist, so I want to see [128:34] that change. For some people, like being [128:35] made aware of the real threats that they [128:38] face, that the US faces, and suddenly [128:40] what was, I don't know, theoretical [128:42] becomes [128:43] very real. [128:45] Perhaps. And so the I who loves [128:47] narrative, the question is what is that [128:49] narrative? And anything that is kept [128:52] absolutely secret, I want to know about. [128:55] And I I no one knows that answer. No [128:57] president has ever spoken of it. [129:00] So what is that narrative? What are they [129:01] told? It's definitely not aliens. [129:05] >> [laughter] [129:06] >> It's a conversation for another time. [129:08] Benjamin? [129:10] Um here, right here. [129:13] Taiwan. So I've been working on a [129:16] simulation, a war game, that looks at [129:19] something that's come up in the news [129:20] now. What happens if we don't need China [129:21] to invade Taiwan, we need China to just [129:23] blockade and completely cut off 90% of [129:26] the chips and microprocessors and and um [129:29] all the things we need in this AI age [129:31] into the West. What the hell do we do [129:33] under that scenario? We don't have the [129:35] infrastructure, the capacity, the [129:36] resources to bring everything back [129:38] online that we need to to fabricate and [129:41] make these chips. Um we talked about [129:43] China a bit, but I'm really worried [129:44] about this. What happens here? Is so [129:47] because we rely so much on that little [129:48] island. [129:49] Um and we don't need it invaded, we just [129:51] need it blockaded. Kind of So what we [129:53] see in the Straits of Hormuz happening [129:54] right now, 20% of the world's oil, [129:56] OPEC can increase production, it'll take [129:58] a few weeks to bring it offline, [129:59] stabilize the markets. We don't have [130:01] that luxury here. [130:02] Not when it comes to the very things [130:04] that powers the next generation of [130:06] warfare and diplomacy and [130:09] economic development. [130:10] >> I don't think the average person [130:10] realizes how much the West relies on [130:13] that little island. [130:14] >> 90% of our at least here in the United [130:16] States, 90% as I understand it, that [130:19] comes from [130:20] from the from that one island. All the [130:22] chips that are in all are the electrical [130:23] devices. [130:24] >> Mhm. [130:25] Why don't they just move it over here? [130:26] They're trying. [130:27] >> They're trying. They're trying, right? [130:29] >> It takes years. [130:30] >> It takes years to get it cleared. It's [130:31] very environmentally damaging. The [130:33] infrastructure takes time. The expertise [130:35] isn't here. All the IP that's on that [130:37] island comes from the United States. But [130:40] the actual factories have been there and [130:41] will be there. [130:42] >> I guess there'll be a big labor cost [130:44] impact as well. Absolutely. Regulations, [130:46] all kinds of things we have to work our [130:47] way around and figure out how And then, [130:48] you know, training the workers to be [130:50] able to fabricate them, do it as [130:51] efficiently, [130:52] yield um you know, results that are that [130:54] are high enough. [130:58] So, that's your [130:59] concern. Huge concern. I I I mean, our [131:02] communications could shut down. Our cars [131:04] could I mean, so many things can go [131:05] wrong if we lose the capacity to power [131:09] the devices that we need. [131:11] What advice would you guys give? This is [131:12] my last question, I promise. What advice [131:13] would you give to the average person? [131:15] You know, cuz we we've talked [131:16] theoretically about geopolitics. And the [131:17] average person sat at home can't do a [131:19] lot about that. But if you were to give [131:21] advice to the average person who's [131:22] thinking about their family, about their [131:23] future, about their work, [131:26] what would you say? [131:27] We are not helpless. [131:29] It's not out of our control. [131:31] But we do have to assert our control. [131:34] There is a midterm election that could [131:36] effectively [131:39] quasi effectively block the decisions [131:40] that the president can make [131:41] unilaterally. [131:43] If [131:45] if we exercise our right to vote, we [131:48] create either a blue Senate or a blue [131:51] House of Representatives. [131:53] Arguably, we have demonstrated our [131:55] ability to exercise our right to vote [131:57] and taken back some semblance of control [131:59] in our country. [132:01] >> [snorts] [132:01] >> But unfortunately, I think people don't [132:03] like waiting. They don't like taking [132:06] 7 months before they can take an action. [132:07] They want to do something right now. And [132:09] And we live in a country in a democratic [132:12] process where we get a chance to [132:14] exercise our power [132:17] every 2 years. So, we have to actually [132:19] show up and exercise that power. [132:20] >> What are you doing for you and your [132:21] family? [132:22] We're leaving the United States. Why? [132:24] Because the United States is not going [132:27] in the direction [132:28] that I believe is the most conducive to [132:30] the kind of citizen that I want to build [132:32] in my children. [132:35] I don't want my children to grow up in a [132:37] country that is either afraid or angry. [132:40] I don't want my children to grow up in a [132:41] country that's constantly compromising [132:42] its own democratic principles. I don't [132:44] want to raise my kids in a country that [132:45] puts capitalism before all other things. [132:49] I want my children to grow up as global [132:50] citizens, to recognize that we're all [132:52] interconnected, to value every human [132:54] life. I wasn't given the privilege. I [132:56] was the perfect candidate to sit here [132:58] and tell you that American lives are [133:00] more valuable than everybody else. [133:01] That's not what I want to pass to my [133:02] children. I want my children to look at [133:04] lives around the world as valuable, [133:07] independent individual blessings. And I [133:09] can try to teach them that, but that's [133:10] not the message that they get. So, where [133:12] are you going to go? [133:13] That's for me to know and Costa Rica. [133:16] >> [laughter] [133:19] >> Absolutely, read as much as you can [133:23] across [clears throat] the broadest [133:25] spectrum that you can find. And have [133:28] conversations about what you think you [133:31] know and what you want to know with as [133:33] many people as you can across the [133:36] broadest spectrum you can. And don't be [133:38] afraid to have a little bit of friction [133:41] like we had here today. Mhm. There's [133:44] that that's the way it works and that's [133:46] how the mind stays fluid and flexible [133:49] and you can always realize that you're [133:51] wrong. [133:53] Amen. I think that's increasingly [133:54] important in an age of um [133:55] misinformation, disinformation is to be [133:57] able to have conversations like we had [133:59] today where you have an opinion, but [134:00] you're open-minded to listen. And um [134:03] something that I I think is increasingly [134:04] important, but in increasingly rare. [134:07] Um even as a podcaster, you're kind of [134:08] forced to fit somewhere. You're pushed [134:10] to be on the right or pushed to be on [134:12] the left, or pushed to believe this, or [134:13] pushed to believe that. And it takes, [134:15] especially in the modern world with [134:16] algorithms hitting you every day, it [134:17] takes some restraint and thoughtfulness [134:19] to try and remain open. [134:22] Um so, I I love that message, and I hope [134:24] for our audience that are listening, I [134:25] hope that that's what they do as well. [134:27] Like, even if they don't like the guest [134:28] we have on the show, or they have a [134:29] different of opinion, I hope you can at [134:30] least bring yourself to listen and fight [134:32] the the cognitive dissonance, which is [134:34] very natural in human instinct, [134:35] >> Yeah. to to hear them out and to allow [134:37] those ideas to clash with your own to [134:39] arrive at your own conclusions. [134:40] Benjamin. I'm going to echo a lot of [134:42] what Annie said. Um stay curious. Mhm. [134:45] >> podcasts like yours, and I think others [134:47] do a great job of exposing people to [134:48] different things they didn't think of. [134:50] So, continue to feed that curiosity. Um [134:53] and cognitive dissonance is [134:55] uncomfortable, but it is a good thing [134:57] cuz it forces us to think of opinions [134:58] that we wouldn't otherwise. And I try to [135:01] teach my students the power of uh [135:03] empathy, which basically means you don't [135:05] have to like the other side, you can [135:06] hate the other side, but just see the [135:08] world as they see it for a moment before [135:10] you do. [135:11] Mhm. So, I think empathy's [135:12] [clears throat] [135:12] critical. Where do we find more of you [135:14] about, Benjamin? Someone's Um I mean, um [135:17] for me, it's it's I'm building out ways [135:19] to be able to find more of it, but um on [135:21] on socials, on X and on Instagram, I try [135:23] to post as often as I can, and I give [135:26] talks when I can. You You haven't [135:27] written a book yet? Not yet. I'm I'm [135:28] designing a simulation platform, that's [135:30] sort of my work product, but it's not [135:32] available to the masses yet. [135:34] And Annie? [135:36] Where books are sold. I mean, you've got [135:38] a lot of them. [135:38] >> Mhm. But you write fantastic books. Um [135:41] any particular one you would like people [135:42] to read? Start at the beginning. Okay. [135:45] I'm going to Or start at the end. The [135:47] Annie anthology. I'll [clears throat] [135:48] link them all below in the description [135:49] so people can find them. Um and Andrew? [135:52] You can find me at everydayspy.com, the [135:54] business that I own. You can find me [135:55] everywhere at uh as my name, Andrew [135:57] Bustamante, and uh and yeah. YouTube, [136:00] and you've written this great book, [136:00] Shadow Cell, [136:02] which has been a smash hit. New York [136:04] Times best seller, wasn't it? [136:04] >> Yes, sir. It was. Uh and this is I mean, [136:06] we talked about this in our last [136:07] episode, but uh [136:09] took a long time to get this book [136:10] declassified, I believe, and get [136:11] permission from the CIA to release it. [136:12] And it's a fascinating story of um [136:14] uncovering a mole within [136:17] the CIA, which is fascinating. So, thank [136:19] you again of all of you for getting [136:20] together and demystifying a lot of this [136:22] stuff for me. It's helped me to build my [136:23] own perspective on what's going on in [136:24] the world. And um [136:26] I uh I hope we can have you all back [136:28] again soon once we figure out what [136:29] actually happens. So, [136:31] thank you so much. I appreciate it a [136:32] lot. Thank you. [136:34] >> YouTube have this new crazy algorithm [136:35] where they know exactly what video you [136:38] would like to watch next based on AI and [136:40] all of your viewing behavior. And the [136:42] algorithm says that this video is the [136:45] perfect video for you. It's different [136:47] for everybody looking right now. Check [136:48] this video out. I bet you you might love [136:50] it.