Bill Kristol: A Madman's Way of War

Hello, and welcome to the Bullwark Podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller. It is Monday, so we

are back with Editor-at-large Bill Kristol, author of the Morning Shots newsletter.

A lot's happened since Friday's podcast with Amanda Carpenter, which should be a reminder

to you all to, you know, do you check it out? The Bullwark takes feet on the weekends as

news happens because we're at war with Iran now. And Bill, I just want to kind of start

with a state of play for people. If that's okay with you, you can edit or amend any of

my assessment. I will be happy to. And also we, you and JBL and Sarah and Mark Kirtling

did an excellent early Saturday, Saturday morning at 9, kind of first snapshot of where

things were. And then you and I and Mark Kirtling did something at noon yesterday, Sunday.

And I have got to say both of them were, I thought, informative and luckily General

Hurtling's there. So the rest of us can talk. And he can actually explain and analyze.

And no, I think both of you know, our analysis of what was happening on the ground and he

or at home for that matter domestically, which you particularly focused on yesterday was

good. Look, it's a very impressive military operation. You know, we took out a huge number

for Indian assets that they were working with Israel. Very close collaboration with Israel.

I mean, I may be a little surprised by that. Usually that some attempt to maintain distance.

It seems like it was a genuinely, you know, coordinated effort wiped out a large percentage

of the Iranian leadership and really a nationwide campaign against military assets way

beyond degrading, you know, key nodes of the nuclear program or taking out some missile

sites. You know, that was what happened last summer in June. This was a real attempt

to go after the regime in many aspects, I'd say. And if you look at the map of the places

we've hit, some of them were not nuclear or many most of them are not nuclear. Some of

them were, you know, ballistic missile sites. They were other forms of regime places.

The regime had assets and weapons and coordinating structures. And so the military campaign

is consistent with regime change as a goal. That's clearly it's been Israel's goal. It's

the goal of Trump articulated Blade Friday night early Saturday morning in his little

eight minute address. He's waived it back and forth on that goal since obviously. And

in terms of the military effort, finally, it's gone well, but, you know, war is a war,

right? So we've lost four soldiers sadly and some planes and others, you know, Iran is

not disabled. Let me just give a quick rundown on that. So before we get to what exactly

the goal is here, you know, as you mentioned, like a total annihilation decapitation

of Iranian leadership. I told a community, dead, Akhmadina Jad was not involved in this

government, but was I think kind of plotting a more radical coup type government. He's

also dead among familiar names, to listeners, total domination of Iranian airspace. Obviously

Israel has a ton of assets inside Iranian military leadership. So impressive in that sense.

But, you know, as wars go, you know, it's not just us bombing them. They're four American

soldiers dead. At the time of this taping, we don't know the details on that yet. There

was initially, they didn't know it's three had died of another one added this morning.

Three US F-15 strike eagles went down and Kuwait in a friendly fire incident. The pilot

survived there. The headquarters of the US Navy's fifth fleet in Bahrain has been hit.

US embassies have been attacked in Pakistan, Iraq, Kuwait. There was a mass shooting in

Austin that maybe in response to this, the guy the shooter was, you know, wearing sweatshirts

at Allah. I think it's shirt underneath that had the Iranian flag on it. Among factions

that we took, in addition to all the things you laid out, Bill, there was a tragic bombing

of a girl's school in southern Iran. Many dead there. Just really a couple of the things

geopolitically, Hezbollah's entered the war bombing Israel from inside Lebanon, Israel

responded, Lebanese leadership's not trying to expel Hezbollah. So there's kind of a second

engagement there. Trump to tap her this morning, Jake Tapper. He said, we haven't even started

hitting them hard. The big one is coming soon. And then Pete Hexath and Dan Kane had a

press conference this morning. We are coming to about get into. So that seems to be the

state of affairs. And as you kind of let us there, I think the most important question

remaining here is what exactly is the goal of what we're doing? Like what is the objective?

Was it safety? Safety for us, safety for Israel, long term safety, short term safety.

Is it regime change? Human rights in Iran, Trump's legacy, pay back for them trying to

assassinate Trump, nuclear weapons only. Like it's not really clear. And interestingly this

morning, the daily caller was originally Tucker Carlson's outlet, a very pro Trump outlet.

They got the second question to Pete Hexath and Dan Kane, because depending on press

corps has been totally eviscerated. We don't have any real journalists. But I guess Kudos

to Regan Rees, daily caller reporter who asked the question, what are our objectives? I

want to play you Pete Hexath's answer for that.

President said yesterday in his video message that we will leave Iran when we complete

all of our objectives. What are our objectives? And can you share more information on how the

soldiers who were killed were killed?

Well, I laid out the objectives as did the chairman. They're completely nested. I mean,

Iran has an ability to project power against us and our allies in a ways that we can't tolerate.

So whether that's ballistic missiles and drones, so offensive capabilities, effectively

they're Navy, which would attempt to set other terms and impose different costs, drone

capabilities, which we laid out there. And ultimately, though, this tying it back to

midnight hammer, the president has been willing to make a deal. You can't have a nuclear

bomb. Radical Islamists can't have a nuclear bomb that they wield against the world. He

gave them every single opportunity. Then we precisely took it away. And even even then

after that, they didn't have that. They didn't come to the table with a willingness to give

it away. So ultimately, that those nuclear ambitions, which never ceased, are something

that had to be addressed as well. So that's a discrete sense of what's being addressed,

you're to ensure that they can't use that conventional umbrella to continue a pursuit

of nuclear ambitions. Didn't seem to clear a lot up for me. Iran has an ability to project

power in a way we can't tolerate. That's pretty amorphous. He mentioned their Navy and drone

capabilities. A lot of countries have that. They're nuclear ambitions. In the end, saying

this is a discrete sense of what's being addressed here, did you feel like you got a sense

of what's being addressed here? Before I address that one foot down on your exit update

out of the state of the world, I would say that one thing that's been a little striking

to some friends of mine who follow the stuff with more expertise than I do is we have

not decimated Iran's counter-strike capability in the sense that they're lobbying lots of

missiles and drones at various allies at our own bases and at the UAE and many of the

Arab nations nearby. So I hope they're all decimated in another day or two, but they

may not be. And that does raise the spectre of a wider war, obviously. I thought the

Hexat Press conference this morning, it was really telling. Refuse was to be clear about

to even entertain the questions really about the goals, but to the degree he entertained

them, he was hard over on no regime change, no long-term strategy, frankly. Just we're

there to beat them up so badly they don't think about messing with us again, I guess.

I don't think they were messing with us. I heck them a lot. Honestly, in the last few

years, you know, when they were pretty badly beat up in June, so there was no imminent

threat from Iran. There wasn't even much of a medium threat from Iran at this point.

Yeah, no, if you're Israel, there were even there, incidentally, they had done a awful

lot of damage. So there was a plausibly coherent regime change strategy still shouldn't

have been done without congressional authorization, really in problems with it, but it was plausible.

I actually, the Hexat thing really hit me because I think he's sort of a totally undercut

that. And I don't really see what the coherent strategy is or the coherent rationale for

the war or the defensible rationale for the war. And I hate to say this is someone who

who's, you know, supports an internationalist and even sometimes interventionist foreign

policy and the use of force were necessary. What are our servicemen and women doing over

there? I mean, really, I don't mean that in a silly way. I mean, I honestly feel this

like personally, what, what do you, would you tell someone whose son or daughter or spouse

was serving over there? What national interest or American values are they serving?

Yeah. Well, the families of the four that have died so far. What are you telling them?

Or what? Like in the literal sense, again, not in kind of a rhetorical, you know, political

pick code pink sense, like, what is the literal reason why they are there? The administration

can't enunciate it and it changes minute by minute. So I just want to go through a couple

of the things you mentioned on the point of this being freedom in Iran, freedom for the

Iranian people or regime change in Iran brings stability to the regime. Initially Saturday

morning, Trump told the Washington Post that was the goal. And he sounded like 1999 Bill

Kristall for freedom in the Middle East was important. That's what Trump said in Saturday

morning. It offers a totally different story to the Atlantic. He talked to Michael Scherer.

He said, Trump said he's planning to start talks with the new Iranian regime, whoever

that is, and he waffles on whether he provides support for a popular stop rising. Says

you'd have to see how it turns out. Then on the regime change front, he told the New

York Times over the weekend, we have three very good choices for who will take over Iran.

Have some bad news on that. Late last night, he told John Carl that the candidates that

they had to take over Iran were killed in the initial attack. Trump, the attack was so successful

at knocked out most of the candidates. It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking

of because they're all dead. Second or third place is dead. Then hegs up this morning,

to your point, says, we're not doing nation building quagmires. No democracy building

exercise. I don't know. I mean, Trump and other people have said that they want regime

change or that they want freedom for the people of Iran. But simultaneously, they don't seem

to have any idea under what auspices that would come and minute by minute, they're going

back and forth on whether they're even interested in that or being involved in that.

One point on the media strategy you had Sarah discussed this very well. Yesterday also

on a video take, I mean, Trump's good at like giving random interviews to a zillion

different reporters and advancing his culture war, you know, agenda, whatever it is, a particular

day. This is a real war. And the president of the United States should not be randomly

calling up reporters having three or five or six minute conversations with them, giving

differing and confusing rationals for the war and then sort of signing off without it

with no clarification, no apparent coordination within the administration about what they really

want to be saying today, what they want to tell the American public who do deserve some

clarity about this. The whole public and particularly, of course, those who's loved ones

are serving over there, but everyone deserves clarity and our allies and people around

the world. It's so irresponsible. I mean, this is like a little thing in the big scheme

of things, but it is worth noting, I think, as you and Sarah did. I mean, just it's not

just silly, but it's it's damaging, right? I mean, yeah, I mean, to my point, there's

been no presidential address. And it's totally insane. Like on Tuesday, three days before

they started the war, it was the biggest address that a president gives every year at the

state of the union, like what gave one paragraph on this, then has not given a novel office

address since then has like randomly called up John Carl and Jake Tepper. That is crazy.

It's it's the biggest military operation that we've been involved in and in a generation.

The president should be telling people what the point is.

He's boasting Tepper. The big one is really coming. I don't know what that means, but if

you accept a excess account of the goals of the war, it could end now, basically. I don't

think it's any danger around doing anything to us. They'll take them so long to recover

from the decapitation of their leadership and the decimation of so many of their military

assets. Why are we continuing to fight? Now, I think there are reasons if you really want

to try to help get a better regime in place there. There may be reasons I don't know about

in terms of some assets they still have that we haven't hit yet, but we could do that

pretty quickly at this point. The whole thing is, yeah, incoherent. This might turn out

okay. It might wars are unpredictable. You can get lucky. The whole regime could collapse

even though we don't want. We're not even trying to make it collapse as it could collapse.

Right. Anything could turn out okay. Look at what happened in Syria. We don't know if long-term

Syria turns out okay, but the Turkish rebels weren't trying to even really take out Assad.

All of a sudden, the House of Cards just collapsed. Assad has gone. It's replaced with this

old al-Qaeda guy. Is he going to be better than Assad? I agree. I don't want to

preclude that, but I'd say to the degree that we are talking about a serious war by far the

largest of Trump's presidency. No congressional authorization, which by itself makes it much more

of a gamble than it's Trump's own risk-taking and then no precise goal. Very hard to defend.

I really do not believe that. Here's Pete Hanks at this morning in case this clears it up for you.

This is not a regime change war, but the regime did change. I don't know how we would

splice that. Why is the Secretary of Defense saying that? I mean, he's supposed to be talking

about the military side of it. If there's a Secretary of State, it might have a few views on what

the broader, you know, conception of the war is. It's nothing of the president. The vice president

has gone into hiding, I guess, so I don't know. The whole thing is. And he had Dan Kane next

to him who was doing the military update, which was useful. But again, they took 13 minutes of

questions. Given the scale and scope of this operation, I'm not nearly up to, you know, what

would be called for, as far as responsiveness to a free people who want to know what's happening.

There's literally a January 6th insurrectionist that was in the room. Today, we're in a

stockout. I don't know if you got a question. Some other of these buffoonish kind of state media

organizations that were asking them, like, how did it make you feel to kill communists?

And Kane was really being just, like, brass tax about, like, what has happened? It was

basically all he did. And then you have Hegseth up there, like, doing a Saturday Night Live

performance on the Department of Defense Secretary, attacking media outlets, calling people stupid,

you know, lethality. It's like, it's crazy. Just one more thing on the regime change will kind of

get through a couple of these other plausible explanations for what they're trying to do.

Maybe Trump was revealing something to the New York Times. And Michael shared, maybe Trump really

did want this to be a Venezuela-type thing where you bring in the Iranian-Delci Rodriguez.

And then we're kind of the junior partner, at least, in some of the military operations. And

Israel is out there with a little different objective. And they're taking out people left and

right. And I think that, you know, Israel might be okay with a period of uncertainty and

like regime collapse. And that could be a sign that while the operations are cohesive together,

the like mission might not be.

Are you one of those people that actually doesn't want to waste money, you know, or was

listening to Scott Galloway the other day and looked at your subscriptions and realized

you could save some money if you're unsubscribing to the terrible tech oligarchs that are ruining

our society. Here's another thing you can do to save your money. Big wireless carriers are taking

too much of it. So if you're tired of spending hundreds on crazy high wireless bills, bogus fees,

and free perks to cause you more in the long run than a premium wireless plan from Mitt Mobile for

15 bucks a month might be right for you. Stop overpaying for wireless just because that's how

it's always been. Mitt exists purely to fix that. Mitt Mobile is here to rescue you with premium

wireless plans starting at 15 bucks a month. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited

talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. You bring your own phone and number,

you can activate it in minutes and start saving immediately no long-term contracts or hassle.

Then just before this is, you know, especially if you're getting into the kids' families,

we're looking into a wireless program for them. You know, this is something that's affordable.

Not quite there yet, but that we're all discussing it and the moms and dads group chat.

So we're starting to think about when the right time is for kids and, you know, at 15 bucks a

month, it's not breaking the bank as much as some of these other plans would. If you like your

money, Mitt Mobile is for use. Shop plans at MittMobile.com slash bulwark. That's MittMobile.com slash

bulwark. Up front payment of 45 bucks for a three month five gigabyte plan is required,

equivalent to 50 bucks a month. New customer offer for first three months only.

Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees, extra C Mitt Mobile for details.

Other potential theories I want to put forth for what the real mission is here. Revenge.

Trump to Jonathan Carl last night. I got him before he got me on the Iatola. They tried twice.

Well, I got him first. So maybe that's all this is. Maybe it's just Trump wanted revenge.

We can surround on the threat scale. Scott Jennings of CNN had said that there was an immediate

imminent threat coming that he had friends inside the administration that we had to act because

it could have been a quote mass casualty event. That turns out to be wrong. DoD briefers,

did go to Congress over the weekend and they said that Iran was not planning to strike the US

forces or bases the Middle East unless Israel attacked Iran first. Long term threat,

hegs of today saying that Iran was building powerful missiles and drones that could help

with their nuclear umbrella. In that initial clip, I put at the top, I guess that's what he's

trying to say. I guess that's the safety and security case that he's making. Yeah, I mean,

the missiles are are a danger to the region. Certainly the Israel. I don't think many people

think they're much of a danger to us here. I guess they were danger to our troops in the region

exceedingly. But Iran is being pretty well deterred from attacking US troops, right? I mean, there's

a reason they presumably haven't done it much in the last few years. And especially in the last

six, eight months, I mean, we could clobber them if they do that. And so there was no need to go in.

And again, I, it's such a horrible regime. I know so many people have been involved, honestly,

in Iranian dissident circles at Iranians who left there and friends and family have suffered.

I was moved by all the celebrations and the streets of terror and Saturday and Sunday. I so

much want to believe that this may have been the right thing to do and could work out. But I've

got to say, I've found with Trump's, you know, particular series of interviews, but they were

ridiculous, but they all tended, wouldn't you say, in the direction in scaling back the hope of

freedom. I mean, the first one, as you said, was a Saturday warning, perhaps, I think, with

the folks, Washington Post, Saturday of a day. And that was a little war. Yeah, freedom. And then

by Sunday, it's all just, you know, his personal revenge. And then I want to work it out with the

IRGC. Maybe they can cut a deal with some of the other people. We have a list of three people we

want to put into charge, as you said, but a couple of them, they're all dead. And I mean,

it's so demoralizing, really, the idea that we've, we moved unbelievable number of assets there.

American servicemen and women are at risk, four of died. I mean, others are wounded and others

are now going into combat, returning to combat for more missions. It's so demoralizing that we

don't have a serious subjective war. And sadly, it doesn't have to be, you can have much more

limited objective. And that could be serious. But that would then imply a more limited war plan.

And there's no evidence, Mark Rantling's made this point that the actual planning, which is very

impressive, is linked up to any sense of a broader strategic objective. Yeah. And the supporters

are trying to have it all the way. You know, I mean, to your point about like how I want freedom

for the Iranian people, I was also moved by some of the images. But last night, our friend

of Congress Nancy Mace posts, like if you're angry that Iranian women may finally be free,

you need to seriously examine your values and yourself. That's like, is that what we're doing?

Like is the effort here to free Iranian women? You know, because I don't know, like,

you know, I would not have been totally hostile to that mission if there was a plan and there were

allies. And we had a competent people in charge. And the case was made to Congress and American

people, right? That's not an illegitimate thing to hope for. But like, the supporters of this are

just trying to backfill any possible rationale they can. And, and you know, some of them are talking

as if, you know, this is a part of the freedom agenda. And like others are talking completely

differently. And the president is saying different things are different seconds. So anyway,

one other thing that they have put forth, according to the Atlantic, Trump told confidence that he

believes his legacy could be defined by his overthrow of the regimes in Venezuela, Iran, and

potentially Cuba. I think that there's a madman Trump element to this too. And I think I,

don't you think, obviously, a huge being high in your own supply sort of situation in terms of

his personal ability to run these things of the US military's ability, which is very great,

don't get me wrong, but it's not infinite and not, you know, can do everything everywhere.

There will be casualties and setbacks too. There's a kind of megalomaniac now, I think,

that's very dangerous, actually. We're saying like the hot guy on the crap's table, you know,

it's like this Venezuela thing worked. Yeah, you know, let's keep real let's let's keep pressing

not really a way to run a country. We hear a lot from folks in the lab and people opposed to

Trump is that everything we just talked about is all just kind of window dressing on the more

true rationale, which is advancing the domestic authoritarianism agenda, Tim Snyder, you know,

for one example, it's basically saying that the case that Trump wants us to rally to a war

because it turns everyone as opposed to the war into a traitor. And that also, you know, maybe

provides rationale for putting certain conditions or limits on the midterm elections. This

old quote of Trump, he's kind of joking, was Lensky, but you know, a lot of times Trump's jokes

have a tinge of truth to them where, you know, back in the Oval Office, where he's like, oh, you

cancel the elections during a war. Maybe that's something I should look into. You know,

and then you have kind of the Epstein distraction sub bullet to that. I don't really think that's

what's happening, but I think we should at least chew it over. Yeah, and he did say something about

the elections around messing with the 2020-2024 elections. Friday, maybe that was. Yeah, that's good.

Yes, he posted on truth social about how Iran was, you know, trying to oppose him in the 2020

election, and that was part of the steel. And the excuse of foreign interference or dealing

with foreign interference is, I think, one of the obvious excuses they could try to use for

federal intervention or partial takeover apart to the 2026 and 2028 elections. So I don't think

we're going to war for those reasons. It's temps not to write, though, that authoritarian

governments want to succeed in bullying at home and some bullying abroad. You try to do more

bullying abroad. Maybe you think it rallies people to you. It's sort of big stuff in your own,

but I'm not sure the distinction almost to domestic and foreign policy at some point almost

exist in his mind. So all about him being on top of everything, you know, in charge of

bullying everyone, right? And showing he's on top, but if he's on top of fraud, you think he'll

remain on top at home and get away with doing things on the elections, or maybe

just people will be so oppressed they'll vote for him. Yeah, I tend to discount the kind of war,

you know, it's to distract him from the Epstein false thing. I hadn't really focused on

the war until you added about the personal, so, you know, comedy you wanted to get me. And so I've

got him. It wasn't wanted to kill the American president or what it's, or either, you know,

or the US had to make clear this is unacceptable. It's all personal, right? Yeah. He wanted to get

me. I got him. He got got that is much more in my mental model of Trump's mega-lomania

and how he decides things than, you know, some of the more four-dimensional chess theories of like

what nefarious activities he has in mind. I don't mean to say that, of course, you'd like to talk about

other things besides Epstein. And of course, if there are ways for them to metal in the midterms,

they'd like to do it. I just think that the other explanations for what got him to this point

make more sense to me. And to that point, let's talk about the geopolitics, because I think this

is huge. It seems like he has pushed into this in a big way by a BB and MBS. I mean, BB said yesterday

time to flat circle said sometimes this weekend that, you know, bluntly, like that was happy that

the Americans are here to do this with us. But this has been something we need to do for 40 years.

Like BB is not really hiding the ball on that, like on what his objective is here. And there's

reporting that, you know, a lot of us started back on one of his visits to the lighthouse in December

where they're talking about this and talking about how degraded Iran is and, you know, how,

you know, how confident Israel is that, like, this is a moment to go after a weekend regime,

other reporting that MBS, I guess, was calling Trump last week saying he's for this,

pushing him for this. There's, of course, a Saudi, Iranian, Shia Sunni, you know, kind of

proxy fight happening for a Germany in the Middle East. So what do you make of that part of this

story? As you say, I don't think this has made much of a secret about his desire to

deal more comprehensively with the Iran threat than he's done at the best. He's been Prime Minister

a long, long, long time and has never been able to felt he could, I suppose, deal with Iran on

the way he hoped and maybe both the military capabilities and the stuff he did to Hasbala,

which took away that threat mostly, you know, after October 7th and then getting a American

president who's willing to take the third of our fleet and move them all to the region and use

up on awful lot of munitions, he thought, okay, this is his moment. So I think that's quite possible,

as you say, he's not really, he's candid about it. What is really done if the US hadn't moved

all those ships there, I don't know, honestly, I don't know, maybe they've done a more limited thing.

But obviously, it's Trump's decision, but I think going back to your early point,

I mean, somehow Venezuela was very important, right? He did that one day in June in Iran at the end

of 12 days, he was really pounding ever on and that went okay. Then he was, he talked like Greenland,

nothing came of that so far at least Panama, but Venezuela, he, they gave him a good plan and he

did the special operations thing. I don't know the Venezuela is that much better off, honestly,

now that it was two months ago and I don't know there's going to be much better off four months

from now and I don't know a lot of oil is going to come out of there and I don't know a lot more

freedom is going to be there. But whatever, it was a victory, I mean, and then that went to his head

and I do think he now looks at the world and where can I move all the U.S. troops and beat up

someone. And in this case, it's a regime that really is awful. So people like me want to at least

be instinctively for it and Venezuela is very bad too, actually, but there are actual trade-offs

here, right? In terms of, we haven't done anything to help Ukraine, which is actually fighting in

Europe against an awful invasion. Well, because he doesn't want to fight a great power.

Right. So that's the key point I think. Yeah. That's right. I think that's key. In China,

God knows if all the China hawks in the administration, they are all lying about the Middle East.

This is they hated people like me who thought that at least it was important because we get it's

all a diversion. It's all ridiculous. We need to have all our forces ready to fight China. Now,

all our forces are busy fighting Iran, which is sort of an ally, sort of China,

out of Russia. So it weakens Russia a little bit probably, which is good for Ukraine. But

also maybe distracts us and resources that could be given to fighting Russia.

Honestly. So yeah, so maybe it helps a little bit actually. It doesn't weaken Russia.

No, it helps in terms of, I think, yeah, so much we're using things we can't help you. I mean,

we're going to move a lot of troops around and use a lot of air power and stuff. You know,

maybe we should use some of it to help Ukraine directly, honestly. They were invaded by Russia.

Iran is a very horrible regime of what they did at home over the last two months is really terrible.

And for me, it would be a ground for intervention just because it's their domestic slaughter of

their opponents. But if you are on a more strict, Pete Hegseth, the America first JD

vans, you only get to deal with countries when they cross borders. If that you can't deal with

anything domestically, isn't Russia the example of this? And the Iran hasn't invaded anyone very

recently, you know? Yeah. Also, if you're talking about, you know, defending democracy and freedom,

it's like, well, there's a free Ukrainian government that we could help, right? It's still not

even clear who those people would be in Iran. You know, and pay over the weekend, especially

MEK, which like has a more support in Rosalind than it does in Iran as best I can tell. And it's like,

okay, I'm for it. But what's the plan? And like, Ukraine, there's a clear plan. You could move

this type of assets there and have actually helped them. There's one more item on this like

the geopolitics and the incentive structures in the Middle East. This also ties directly

to the corruption story in America, right? It's like, how can you just entangle it? Is the fact that

Saudi, you know, put in a billion dollars to Trump's son-in-law? Did that give them more sway here?

You have to say maybe, right? Is the fact that Qatar is giving Trump a plane and the UAE and

Qatar investing in these media companies that Trump is, you know, encouraging to be taken over by

allies in America? Is that part of it? Is the fact that the UAE is in a crypto deal with Trump?

Is that part of it? I mean, Trump is like mobbed up from a business standpoint with Saudi UAE

and Qatar in a major way. And, you know, obviously, BB has big influence with him. We have the

acute story of like the war, what's happening in the war and that crisis. But it's, I think it's

an interesting subplot that like, it seems like we're being walked around the dog track by Arab

and Israeli interests, actually, right now. Yeah, and by Trump's own wish to bully people,

he can get away with bullying and trying away from confronting Russia and China, the two great

powers, which incidentally is her link, Mark General, her own pointed out in our conversation

Saturday and Sunday with him. In the actual defense strategy, this administration produced

just two or three months ago. It's all about China and not about the Middle East. They kind of,

they're shunning the Middle East a little bit. So if Iran was such a threat, when did it suddenly

become such a threat? I mean, again, I don't want to be pedantic. I mean, who cares if they

mentioned in a strategy, maybe there are things would have changed and there are reasons you've

got to do what you've got to do militarily. I mean, they're not a threat. They're not a threat

toss, right? Like it's just, it's not even worth. Yeah. Like, right. You know, giving them any sort of

credence on that and throwing your weight around all over the world. If it's against a

noxious regime, obviously, people give you more room to do that. But it's not cost-free. I mean,

it's literally not cost-free in terms of lives and money and material and resources. It's also not

cost-free in terms of just attention and what other countries can do elsewhere and the lessons

that people learn from this. The lesson people learn from this is not that we're unfortunately,

and I say this genuinely with the terrible, with the threat is not that we're on the side of freedom.

I'd say at this point, it looks to me like the lesson they're likely to learn from this is,

you know, we have a very capable military and we're willing to go in and use it against regimes

that are kind of flat on their back like Venezuela or Iran and that already have been terribly

weakened. But we're not willing to help Ukraine fight Russia and God knows what we're willing to do

in Asia against China. I mean, maybe it's mercantilist also. It's what people take away. You know,

you can do whatever you want, actually, domestically. Because again, nobody believes that Trump did

this because of the killing of protesters in Iran. It was a heinous killing of protesters in Iran,

but we've killed protesters in America this year and we are not letting Iranian refugees come to

America. In fact, we've been sending Iranian refugees back to Iran and some of the countries that

we're dealing with in the Middle East have terrible human rights records themselves, right? And so

obviously, you know, to me, if you're around the world, the lesson is that at least as long as Trump

is around, this is like a pay for play thing. Get in, get in with Trump and you know, who didn't get

in with Trump on his corrupt BS, Maduro and Kameni. One more thing on the Arab stuff, because this

is going to be interesting to watch. It's pretty clear at this point, and obviously Saudi

is for it. We have the reporting. It's pretty clear that UAE and Qatar folks are on board with us

at least some degree. That said, the Saudi official to Al Jazeera this morning says America is a

band in us and folks has defense systems on protecting Israel, leaving the Gulf states that

host its military bases at the mercy of Iranian missiles and drones. Something to watch. Not

unprecedented that Saudi would be behind the scenes talking about how they're for America and then

to the public audience talking about how they don't trust America. So we'll see kind of how that

shakes out. But there have been serious hits. The iconic hotel in Dubai, you've kind of seen

the picture there of the airport. That got hit. There are people fleeing Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

There's a great sound for a story about how it's like charging $300,000 a pop for people to take

a 10 hour black car from Dubai and Abu Dhabi to Riyadh and then a private jet from Riyadh to Europe

to get out of the Middle East. So again, that's this kind of thing. When you go into something like

this, maybe they're on board at the start, but the case wasn't made to their populations either,

like the Emirates and Qataris and Saudis, as just who knows, right? Like how

especially this escalates, how that ends up shaking out.

And energy prices look like they might be short term. I will see what happens, obviously.

But they could, I've been so, so many, they would settle down, but maybe they'll go up. I mean,

look, you start a war, things start to happen, right? And it's almost to go bully these guys

and they bully those guys. But I also should stipulate that that has second and third order

of effects of its own as we're seeing here, right? And the Saudis may be sort of spinning for now

and just trying to pretend that they're very unhappy. But at some point, maybe they really will

be unhappy or maybe other allies really will get hit in ways that we don't retaliate. And suddenly,

they're like, what the hell is happening here? We encourage Trump to do this. We thought they

had a real plan. And now we're paying a price. And what are we getting out of it, right?

Well, there's uprising among the people. People get pissed.

Right. Like, why are we doing it? You know what I mean? Who the hell? I got it. You know,

right? You know, could there be protests and Kuwait, a UAE against us?

Possibly. Yeah, TBD on how that all shakes out. I just want more geopolitics thing was

Iran also attacked British targets. Kure Starrmer just came out and said that we can use their

bases so again, kind of how this thing trickles out remains to be seen. Too much in the energy

crisis. This is I think about what the domestic impact is on the politics. And this is part of

the reason why I just, I just think that the idea that this is a distraction for Epstein,

there'll be a rally around the flag as part of an old construct. You know, it's like the wag

the dog was a movie in the 1990s, 1990s. People really did rally around the flag. And I just don't,

I don't know that that's true anymore. We live in deep, we polarize times and we weren't attacked.

You know, maybe they'd rally around the flag if there was, you know, all the conspiracy theorists

always talk about how there's a false flag. You know, this attack wasn't real. We did it to ourselves.

Maybe there was a false flag attack on America. Then maybe that would change, maybe not.

But I just don't see it in the polls. We right now, Ipsos is the first pull out, 27% support,

43 oppose means a bunch of staunch sure. So events will matter. Independent said that this was

noteworthy, 19 support, 44 oppose a bunch, I'm sure a lot of times people think about independence

wrong. A lot of independence are kind of these, you know, folks that don't pay a lot of attention,

aren't big fans of war, aren't reading foreign affairs, magazine, you know, and don't like

have deep thoughts and all that. So I thought it was pretty noteworthy how that among independence,

it was less popular, only 7% of Democrats for. And you mentioned the energy prices.

It's just guess there's only up about 10% here, but 50% in Europe this morning. Again,

we'll see how that all plays out. But I just think even if this goes well, at home, it feels like

something that's going to be a political problem for Trump. I mean, yeah, I just say events matter

so much. You said this yesterday too. Wars are real. And events, things are very event dependent.

And we'll see what we learn that in Iraq, obviously, look right, mission accomplished.

Whoops, that's so good for Bush, you know, and but I agree. I mean, this could be bigger

than F.C. in actually in terms of its actual effect. I mean, this could be a defining moment

of the Trump presidency. He deserves to pay price for it in a story politically on the other hand.

I hope it's not in a sense that I hope we don't suffer some horrible defeats. And that becomes

what's defining, but we could obviously in terms of our geo-strategic position as well as in terms

of just, you know, obviously, actual losses there in the region. I think the Democrats are pretty

safe ground. You said this yesterday in just opposing the war, right?

I think so. And you saw some blowback to Mark Kelly who was kind of waffling on this a little bit

yesterday. I think that Democrats, if they want to be on the more hawkish edge of the party,

and they want to be on the more, you know, flag-weighting patriotic freedom end of the party,

I think taking the Bill Crystal position for this podcast would be totally fine, right? Like,

that I have no love for the Iatola. This regime is horrible. Like, if we are working with allies

and had a legitimate plan to help support the people in the streets, I would be for that. But

like, that's not what this is. This is a shit show. They don't have a plan. They have an offer to

plan for people who are dead. They haven't come to Congress for support. They haven't made a case

to the American people under this administration with the way they've behaved and how they've

lied and how corrupt they are. I'm a no. No war with a run. I just, to me, like, I feel like

that's a totally appropriate place to be that's not really going to alienate anybody except for,

you know, small niche groups that have, you know, various interests. Now, when I think, I think

the actual vote they'll have in Congress or votes, I guess, in each house are basically

on some versions of war power resolutions, which require Trump to come back and get authorization

within 60 days or something like that. It's a little confusing, 90 days, I'm not too sure. But

the normal charge that would make me hesitate of four days into a war, you shouldn't

demoralize our troops and how to cut them by voting to get out or something like that or cutting

off funding. That's not what the vote is. The vote is a kind of Trump has to do what he should have

done before and come to Congress. That sometimes be little on the left and understand why. That's

just process. They've got to be war, you know, ferociously anti-war. They can, but it's, I think

it's not just process. A, it really is the constitution. It is like we're in a constitutional crisis

that he's gone to a major war without Congress, different from a one-day strike and or killing

Soleimani. There's no justification. There's no authorization for this. They have to use, if they

use one at all, it'll be the 2001 Cairo authorization and Iran's, but it's a terror sponsor. But

man, that's 25 years later. That's a bit of a stretch. And again, it's a stretch for the kind of war

we're fighting. If you're knocking off the head of the IOTC, who has genuinely sponsored terror

all around the region, most of which is killed Americans, Hasbola, that's one thing. A major war

like this, you need to go to Congress. So, you didn't go to Congress. So, I think Congress has a

very sound ground and say we need to speak up now and insist that he come back to Congress.

And that's defending the Constitution. That's not a tax problem, necessarily. It's not even being

anti-war. People can say if they wish. I didn't see where Kelly's comments, but I might say if I

were there, look, I can see we could vote, could have voted for this, you know, if we're properly

explained and defended. And we had to go here at strategy to authorize certain use of force. It's

not like you're necessarily fully 100% anti-war. Most of them would have been and probably certainly

would be at this point. Maybe I would be too. But so, I think the Congress argument isn't just a

process argument. It has to be a constitutional argument. I agree with that. I mean, I just look,

I think that to be blunt, the politics of this are going to be better just being against it

all the way down. But that said, putting them on the record matters. Like the Rock War vote

matters. You know, like this war vote would matter. And I think it's a tough vote for

honor Republicans, by the way, which we can get into next. But I don't know if you have a more

thing on the Democrat side of this. I think as you said, the Iraq vote, I guess you were thinking

I was thinking too of the original authorizing vote. But then there was a whole bunch of other

votes, you know, funding and so forth as we went forward. And it's not like this thing just goes

away. I mean, maybe it'll end in a week and everyone will forget about it in two months. And

it's a kind of Venezuela. That would be Venezuela, right? Sort of a slightly better maybe

government takes over. It's not too much chaos spilling up beyond its borders. It's not a huge

refugee flow. It's just kind of not great, but not terrible. And everyone kind of moves on. I think

that's possible. In that case, it won't help Trump. I don't know, hurt him that much. But I mean,

most of the other outcomes that I can think of are much more problematic, obviously. And so I

don't know would it be crazy for the Democrats six months for now to say we end the war? End it,

you know, right? No, three months. I mean, maybe that would be a 90 day authorization. I

revisit 90 days in the war. To the point about how it would be a tough vote, I think,

even for Maga, Sager and Gentie, who is over breaking points. I just thought this was blunt

in how he put it on Twitter. Because this is the most profound campaign betrayal in modern U.S.

history. He's more on the Maga isolationist right. We've seen David Sen out of Ohio already

starting to put out statements kind of hedging. Massey would be against this presumably,

Rand. So, you know, how far that extends out into Maga world, the House, TBD, the Lauren

Boberts of the world. I don't know. But I think it's a real potential problem for them. And it is

highlighted by the fact that the person that is the biggest avatar for isolationist,

Maga politics right now is the vice president, JD Vance. He's missing. He's not sent to tweet

since the war started. He loves to tweet. He sent a picture of him at like the kids table.

And like a backup situation room with Tulsi next to him. It was like JD Vance and the

Cuck chair. I just want to play a couple of clips from JD Vance. One was from the campaign,

an interview with Tim Dillon, and the other one was from Meet the Press a couple of months ago.

Our interest, I think, very much is in not going to war with Iran, right? It would be huge

distraction of resources. It would be massively expensive to our country.

I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements

in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb

presidents. And now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national

security objectives. So this is not going to be some long drawn out thing.

You can see why JD is an out there today and he was saying this is not going to be some long

drawn out thing. So it was months ago after the first attack on Iran and now very much is,

I mean, even if it isn't a long drawn out thing in the Iraq war sense, it's drawn out a lot longer

than he said it was when he was on Meet the Press a few months ago. And so I think this is real,

he's in a real pickle. And Trump has said three or four weeks, just kind of the plans,

of course, that was a plan with Israel. And again, that is just even leaving aside.

What about Ryan hits neighboring countries and they ask for a protection? What about if our troops

are not safe in Bahrain because Iran still has missile capabilities and we haven't changed the

regime. And some IRGC thugs taken over and decided he's going to try to make us pay a price.

So we just, we're going to need to beef up support there. We'll have to be maybe continued

raids to try to take out their missiles beforehand. I mean, again, this is where the dynamics of war

become so unpredictable and problematic and why, you know, you shouldn't start down this

road unless you've thought through different options, but also unless you're willing to stay

the course. I mean, it's to some degree or other, right? I mean, and that's where I think,

I don't, I kind of assume, well, where are you on this? I kind of assume Trump deep down

is where JD is and says that he wants to, he'll want to get out at some point and he'll pull

the plug and hope that the world won't quite notice how much disarray he's leaving behind.

Well, will he get sucked in? I mean, those are sort of two. I think that Trump is

a little bit jekyll and hide on it. You know, I think that, I think I do think I'll want to get out.

I mean, you could tell that already in some of these phone calls that that was his instinct.

Another phone call since we've been on, I just got sent was I talked to Brett Bayer.

Has it called you yet, Bill? You know, phone line is open.

We talked to Brett Bayer, he told him he was the Venezuelan models that they're going for.

But the Delci Rodriguez of Iran is dead. So, okay, we'll see how that goes.

Also, the Delci Rodriguez of Iran, I mean, whatever you think of, God knows I have nothing to

use for Maduro and they did a huge amount of damage to that country.

Iran is a theocratic state, but it's a Delci Rodriguez of Iran is not like the Delci Rodriguez

of Venezuela, who could be bought off to some degree and knew the whole security structures,

a bunch of thugs and corrupt people. Iran is plenty of thugs and corrupt people, but I don't know.

You can't leave me that regime in place is going to be not quite like leaving the Venezuelan

regime in place. No, for sure. I mean, look, I'm not, I'm no expert on the internal politics of Iran,

but I've been doing a lot of reading and it's like, yeah, and there's just a lot more different

contingencies and groups and, you know, it's a very complex situation. Like, yeah, I do think

his instinct would want to be like JD wine to leave after, you know, like he's got his scalp,

you know, demonstrate U.S. strong and now we're out. But like, as we've been talking about this

whole 50 minutes, like events can get out of control, things can get out of hand. And, you know,

Trump is also, you know, driven by kind of like the masculine, you know, small dick. I need to

respond. I need to push back. If they hit us, I need to hit you harder kind of elements. So,

right? Like, you know, he might want to get out in three weeks, but we have four Americans dead.

Don't want to minimize that, but what if Iran has a much more successful attack than that?

Like, what if there's an attack where dozens die? There's a terrorist attack somewhere.

This is, you know, like the oldest story in the book, World History of, you know,

been getting into pissing matches where it's just escalation, escalation, escalation. So,

I think that's also possible. Just back to the political part of the JD thing.

It's not as easy as like, oh, there's this maggot crack up where there's this isolationist wing

and there's this, you know, more interventionist wing. It's more complicated than that, right?

Because like the Republican electorate, I think instinctively is more America first, right?

Like in a pure vote, like, you know, outside of context of everything else, would you want

America to be entangled in foreign wars or not? It would be like 70-30 on the isolationist side,

I think. I think that there, but there remains a strong pro-military interventionist wing

in the party that those people still exist. There's not a majority anymore. So, that's like a quarter

of a third of a party, let's say that they'll be on board for Trump. Then you have another

third basically that's like in a cult. And so, whatever Trump says, they'll be four, basically.

So, that takes you up to about 60% of the party. And right now, if you look at polls on that,

episode's poll I met, I read it, it was like 13% that was against. The big risk for Trump is

when you get into Bush territory where like 40% of the party is like, no, this is crazy. And

that will be event dependent, et cetera. But I think you can see the seeds of that in the

mega right wing media. Fox will be cheerleading for this. Fox couldn't be more excited,

but the more alternative media side, you know, from the Nick Flintes racist young right,

all the way towards the comedians who have been for them, towards even like the Megan Kelly's world.

I think that there's a tucker. There's going to be a lot of ranging from skepticism to hostility,

depending on how things go. Developable for what you made earlier in this context,

like it's very, very important, which is this war is a dynamic and things can spiral,

so far, which is where the downside for Trump here is greater, I would say, than the downside,

even on maybe the economy or Epstein or all the obvious ways in which we've talked about.

Trump has lost popularity and could continue to drift down from 40 to 38 to 36,

a little bit of recession, a little, he's mentioned more prominently in the Epstein

fossil, a million different things like that, obviously, more ice outrageous. But those really

probably are incremental as they have been, they can add up. This is the one thing that could

really catastrophically capsize his work, right? And what if things go badly? We went through this

with Bush. I mean, your ratings don't go down. What are two points? If you get casualties and a failed

war and a war spilling out further and further commitments, then as we did in Iraq to try to save

the situation after we've screwed it up, and suddenly, you know, you're at just a whole different

political universe. So I think you're right. I think this is the one issue where Trump could go

from 14% defections to 40% defections in six months among his voters for sure. And I think I

like this, getting into a prolonged entanglement here where there are a lot of deaths and economic

collapse are basically the two things that could cause that. I think basically the cultists will

be the bulwark keeping Trump from 40% negative among his voters in any other scenario. You know,

who knows, alien attack or something. It's who the hell knows what could happen. But yeah,

no, the risks are great. Anything to find on that? I want to get to the Texas primary tomorrow.

The only thing I said is that will affect the long hoped for. Hey, we're Republicans in Congress

ever defect. We'll will candidates ever defect. This is the one thing that really could lead to it, I

think. All right. So there is election tomorrow in Texas. We're going to Texas March 18th and 19th

Dallas sold out. We still get tickets in Austin coming out with those March 19th, the bulwark.com

slash events. There are two Senate primaries, Senate primary and both sides. Cornens, the incumbent

Republican, Ken Paxton, the corrupt, just disgusting on a personal level. All of the

vices of Maga encapsulated into a single man and to a single vessel that's Ken Paxton,

Attorney General, he's primary. Cornen, another Maga guy, Wesley Hunt got in hoping to offer

more of a clean cut Maga alternative to Cornen. That hasn't worked out. He's in the teens and the

polls. It seems like it's going to be Paxton or Cornen on the Republican side. The Democratic side,

we have Crockett versus Talleriko. I've talked about this race. I had Namaziam. I do not particularly

think this primary has served the Democratic interests that well in winning the seat, which I do think

is win a ball of Paxton wins. The new interesting poll came out over the weekend that has Talleriko

barely beating Crockett. It's really a coin flip. Crockett's winning with non-college voters,

older voters, black voters, and let to a lesser growth women. Talleriko's winning with younger,

college educated voter, to lesser degree with men, slight edge to Talleriko,

Latino voters. That might be the battleground. Any thoughts on either side of the Texas

center race tomorrow? I assume Paxton, Cornen, or assuming Hunt doesn't surge unexpectedly,

goes to Rada off, but some will take enough votes, presumably if it's close,

presumably more of those Hunt voters are Paxton inclined, I should think. You've got a

slightly favor Paxton for the actual nomination. Do you think you have for sure?

I have a friend that's still in Republican politics that is suffering through the

whole place. That's just a little suspicious. I know. I asked about that race, and they felt very

strongly that Paxton was in pole position there without a Trump. Unless Trump comes in and saves

Cora. Yeah. Which he didn't do this week, and he went to Texas, we can some people were thinking

to endorse it. If it goes to Rada off, I guess I would extend the timeline for Trump to.

Then he won't do it. If he thinks he's going to lose, he's going to lose.

And I'm like totally uninformed, got instinct. I'm not if I were there. I'd vote for Talleriko,

but I think Rocket beats him. I just feel like the momentum seems greater on her side,

and I could be totally wrong, could be very close, much less likely to be a runoff.

Yeah. Look, Talleriko is at least presenting a case to Trump voters. I'm not sure if it's a

winning case, but at least he has a theory of the case. And to me, that's what separates him from

Rocket. Rocket has no message for Trump voters. Rocket's message is that she will

energize non-voters to vote. And like that just that might work in Georgia. I think that'd be

an interesting race, an interesting political science case in Georgia. That is there aren't

enough non-voting Democrats to win a Texas Senate race. Maybe if the economy tanks and gets in

the Iran, where I sure like accidents happen all the time, people accidentally win races when

there's wave elections. So that could happen for Rocket, but she hasn't presented one. That's

right. I fall on the Talleriko side of this, but this primary is her Talleriko. He's going to need

turnout with Black voters. I think that'll be, you know, I think that'll be an ad to the challenge

for him in the general now, because of the nature of how this race has gone. It's gotten really

personal, particularly on the Crockett side aiming at Talleriko in a way that I don't think

it was very helpful. Just a little subplot when the Texas races tomorrow, Dan Crenshaw,

not a friend of the pod. Yeah, you're friend. Tony Gonzalez, the congressman who has six kids

in a marriage had an affair with his staffer, the staffer set herself on fire, killed herself.

Tony Gonzalez got congratulated by Trump at the rally this weekend. I'm clear what the

congratulations was for, but both of them are in primaries. And I don't know that it serves

the pro-democracy mission at all for either of them to lose their primaries, but we would enjoy it.

It's nice to enjoy the pain of people that deserve it. And Dan Crenshaw has been the

most the biggest condescending prick and like the biggest disappointment possible of all of the

quote unquote, normie Republicans. And I don't know if you happen to be living in Dan Crenshaw's

district and don't have a don't have a horse in the Talleriko Crockett race, consider pulling

that Republican ballot tomorrow and voting against him. Just a thought, one idea, but I don't

know if you had anything there. I like the idea of Tim Miller doing in Crenshaw, he's

been such a pain. But you know, on Guantal is not to get too high in mighty and moralistic. I mean,

he bullied the staffer, it seems like right into this affair in a really horrible way. And sadly,

she committed suicide, it seems. He shows up Friday at this Trump rally. It was Friday,

Texas, yeah. And they're all there, cornering these guys. Trump explicitly welcomes him right

from the stage. Congratulations. The others are all fine with being with him. I mean,

it's nauseating really. I mean, this guy, he's fine. The Republican party's fine with

them. Speaker Johnson's fine with them. John Corning, the establishment Republican, who's a,

is it in my dealings with him in the past in the before times? Is it a nice guy at a decent guy?

He's fine with just being up there. I don't know if he's literally on stage with Gonzalez,

but being in the group, let's say with Gonzalez. None of them has said a word. It has a

single Texas Republican that we know of said a word that, you know, this guy should resign.

It's a disgrace that he's, I hope you, I mean, it really would be good for the country, if you

lost, honestly. Yeah. No, nobody said any of that. I mean, in part because the Republican

House majority is so narrow now that if Gonzalez resigns like Nazi as like a controlling vote on

a lot of stuff. So that's the reason. And also just that they, it's just depraved. And the Trump

era has removed, you know, any sort of moral red line from consideration. If you're in Republican

politics, like there's literally nothing that you can do to cross the line now.

And Republican politics pretty, pretty dark stuff. Bill Crystal, thank you. Another Monday

in the books. We'll see you next week, hopefully. You know, it's what's happening in this world.

Tomorrow, I think we'll have a double header. We got a good one for you tomorrow. So everybody,

we'll see you back here then.

The board podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason

Brett. The board podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason