Oil, Iran & 2028: Mark Halperin on Trump’s Biggest Gamble

When a trip to the hospital or pharmacy leads to a bill no one saw coming.

We're here to help. Your health insurance provider is working every day with hospitals and drug

companies so families can get the care they need at prices they can afford. That's why we're

investing in new technologies that make care easier to access, more predictable, and more affordable,

and helping bring down high hospital and prescription drug prices. There's more to do,

and we'll continue fighting for you. Courage, I learned it from my adoptive mom.

Learn about adopting a team from foster care at adoptuskids.org. You can't imagine the reward.

Brought to you by Adopt US Kids, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Add Counts.

Ditch the clowns on the left and the jokers on the right and join Michael Smirconish right here

in the middle. This is the Smirconish podcast for independent minds.

Mark Alpeners, my guest in the third hour, third hour of every Wednesday's program,

eager to hear his thought on today's poll result thus far so lopsided. 24,131 have voted.

Mark, on this question, if the war in Iran were to end today, would the US have been

victorious? 82.42% are saying, no, we've had a robust conversation about that preceding your

arrival here today. I don't think it warrants an 80-20 answer. I think that there's an argument to

be made that a certain number of things have been achieved, not the least of which was taking out

the supreme leader and doing what we've done so far without boots on the ground. I think baked

into that poll result so far are a certain number of voters who are never going to vote in a

way that gives credit to Donald Trump in any respect. Just curious as to your reaction. If it

ended today, could the US rightfully proclaim victory? I don't like to hedge because when I host,

I don't like when my guest hedge. I would say yes with the asterix that there's a good chance

that the victory would be short-lived because we don't know what Iran would do.

We don't know. In the last 24 hours, I think there have been a couple of big revelations.

One is, the regime is not decapitated. There's some measure of command control. There's

some measure of capacity to strike, not just Israel and not just ships in the straight of

four moves, but other countries in the region, including American assets in Iraq. If it stopped

today, it would stop with an Iran that was not defamed. At the same time, how Iran would react

to that, whether they would try to rebuild things or whether they would be set with domestic

problems, I think is an open question. There would be a lot of accomplishment. There would be

a lot that had been done to degrade the Iranian capability, but I think the asterix is the US

might have to start with Israel, might have to start right back up if the Iranians became aggressive

in the aftermath of an end by the US. You said similar things in the wide world of news news

letter this morning, which is why I wanted to raise this subject with you, which, by the way,

I heard Joe Scarborough read aloud during the course of his television program, quote,

despite questions about the health and viability of the new supreme leader, Iran, you say, is not

acting like a decapitated regime with massive Wednesday strikes at the Tel Aviv, threats to mind,

the straight of four moves, a big hit on a US facility in Iran and attacked commercial ships on

Wednesday across the Persian Gulf. There's more to it, and then you cite to the APs reporting.

They're still showing fight is what you're saying. I mean, they are. And now, while this is a

multi theater, multi venue conflict, the conflict in the state of Hormuz is great for them in the

sense that most of the rest of the battlefield is not all, but a lot of it is asymmetrically

advantage the United States and Israel. So, for instance, the airspace over to Iran, the United

States and Israel, I think are saying correctly, they can attack with impunity. The reason why

the straight of Hormuz is asymmetrically advantageous for Iran is they just have to get one.

The US could try, and its allies could try to defend 100 ships that going through. And if Iran,

and 99 go through and Iran destroys or wounds, one of the 100, that's going to create a big problem

because ships are not going to be willing to go back through. So, Iran has now created this

red line that they drew, and now the president of the United States is driven or

driven in a red line. Don't put mines in the water. Let us open up back up the straight to move,

a very large percentage of the world's oil through. If Iran refuses, and so far they seem to be

refusing, having attacked three ships overnight, including one that seems to have been destroyed

largely. If that face-off continues, that's really going to be a challenge for the United States,

because at this point, the president who I think has skillfully put himself in a place

where he could back down, I think he could end the war today and get away with it from a

geopolitical point of view, and a credibility point of view. But not if Iran continues to say,

well, we don't care that you're back down, we're not going to let ships go through the straight.

Then the president has a real credibility issue, I think, and it's not clear how he solves that.

Let's pursue that a little bit further and talk about the domestic politics of what's going on

in Iran. I've looked at all the polling data. I'm sure you have as well. You could take your pick,

Ipsos, Quinnipiac, WashPow, CNN. They all tell a similar story where Democrats are steadfast

in their opposition, somewhere in the 80 percent range. Republicans are supportive, maybe slightly

less than Democrats are in opposition, but Republicans are standing with the president,

clearly relative to Iran. The independence are the tie-breakers, and that's why the net net is

that the mission is underwater. How do you see the political ramifications? And please,

with an eye toward the midterms, if you think that appropriate. You know,

polls of independence are a little misleading because independence, mostly, not entirely,

are not really independents. They're Democrats who call themselves.

You know, I don't like that. You know, I don't like hearing that. That's not true. I disagree.

I am one, and I mean it, but go ahead. It's not that there aren't any, but if you ask people

who are independents, for instance, they're voting history, you're mixed. You're an exception.

That's why you have the unusual and powerful, you know, a perch that you do.

If you ask most people who say they're independents or Republicans and they're voting history,

you'll find that they vote almost entirely for one party. And so that makes them de facto

members of that party. But that's a side note. Sorry to get the side tracked.

All right. If you took the name of the president off of it, and you just created a focus group

of everyone in America, and you said, let's have a conversation. There's a country in the middle

least. We'll call it Whoville that has tried to develop a nuclear weapon. It's got ballistic

missiles. It's threatening one of our allies. If we don't do anything, our intelligence experts

say it'll eventually destroy, and be able to destroy the United States. It's the leading sponsor

of state terror around the world. Presidents of both parties for decades have really been worried

about them. And they're read by religious zealots who say death to America and then America's Satan.

If you did a focus group of Americans said, should the United States consider using military

force to try to deal with that threat? I suspect a lot of Americans would say yes, even in this

age where the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, the Trump wing of the Republican Party,

tends to be pretty isolationist and against using the military. But you can't take the names

off of it, and the facts off of it. And so it depends on how you ask it. I think it is true

that the White House, by using multiple arguments to justify what's been done, has left ambiguity

in the minds of people, what is this about? If you make a concerted argument to say they're going

to get a nuclear weapon and not exaggerated at some administrations, including this one seems

to have done, then I think there'd be much more support, particularly from independence and some

Democrats. But I don't think it matters the midterms now, because I'm pretty sure the circumstances

will be different by the time the voting starts. By the time the voting for the midterms start,

I think there'll be a resolution to this, and either it will be seen as a success or a failure

probably, at least by some people, but more clearly in sharper relief, what it all meant.

And then I think it's possible it could help the Republicans, but more likely it will hurt

the Republicans, because it will be a drag on the economy and chances are not zero that the

thing ends poorly, and the Republicans are paying a price for that. So I think it's proof the

president didn't do this for political reasons. This is not a great political move. It could work out

to be one, but more likely than not, it won't be. You remember what Woody Hayes said about why at

the Ohio State, you ran the football rather than pass, because when you pass, three things can

happen, and two of them are bad. Same with this, this war, there's more likely to be bad things that

happen politically for the president, but he still felt it was the right thing to do.

Which metric is he most paying attention to?

This is the Smirconish podcast from SiriusXM.

When a trip to the hospital or pharmacy leads to a bill no one saw coming.

We're here to help. Your health insurance provider is working every day with hospitals and

drug companies, so families can get the care they need at prices they can afford.

That's why we're investing in new technologies that make care easier to access, more predictable,

and more affordable, and helping bring down high hospital and prescription drug prices.

There's more to do, and we'll continue fighting for you.

Sling, it's the live TV service that puts viewers in charge of their entertainment

at an unmatched value. Streaming live sports shows and movies starts at just 499, and everything

works instantly across your favorite devices. The best part, total control over the channel lineup.

No paying for tons of channels that never get watched or local channels that are already free.

There's also no long-term contract. Live TV is available only when it's wanted with flexible

options like monthly subscriptions or one day three day or seven day passes. Subscriptions

can be paused anytime and entertainment doesn't stop. Over 600 free channels stay available

even after pausing. I love it because I can be anywhere and my Sling TV puts me back in my

home seat in my living room at home. Choose and customize your channel lineup or pause and watch

for free. Sling lets you do that. Visit sling.com to learn more. Here. Oh, okay, great.

Quince, what is it? Well, it's a thoughtfully built wardrobe. It comes down to pieces that

mix really well and last really long. And that's where Quince shines. Premium fabrics consider design

everyday essentials that feel effortless to wear and dependable even as the seasons change.

Quince has the everyday essentials you'll love with quality that lasts. Lightweight cashmere

sweaters, short sleeve Mongolian cashmere polos, linen bottoms and shorts. They're all versatile

and they make a wardrobe actually work season to season. I wear quince, I give quince,

I'm partial to the sweaters and the hoodies. They're terrific. Right now, go to quince.com slash

smirconish and get free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to wear it and love it

and you will. And now available in Canada too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last.

Go to Q U I N C E dot com slash smirconish for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince dot com slash

smirconish. The Michael smirconish program, listen weekdays at 90 M East on POTUS,

Syrias XM channel 124 and any time on the Syrias XMF. Mark Halperness here every Wednesday,

which metric is he most paying attention to? The stock market, the gas prices, his approval rating

and how much are they impacting his decision making on when it ends?

It could change, of course, but right now it's it's the price of oil and the price of gas.

Not just because that's such an important metric for people in the financial world and it impacts

the entire economy and people see gas prices, you know, every time they leave the house,

unless they live on the upper side of Manhattan where there are no gas stations.

But because it's a it's a flashpoint in the conflict, as I said, because because the price

of gas is up primarily because Iran is being belligerent about the straight-up or moves. And so

they can't they cannot sort of the view of many of the view of some, I should say,

is it oil will go to $200 a barrel if this isn't resolved in a couple weeks and that would be

politically and geopolitically untenable, not just the United States, but other countries around

the world. And so he's got to figure out how to solve the straight-up or moves. And again,

it's because the price of oil and the price of gas.

To what extent has Marco Rubio's star risen by virtue of this and other foreign policy matters

in the last couple of months? I've talked about this subject here and noted that on some of the

predictive markets, the likelihood of Rubio, still not that at which you could wager on JD

Vance, but there's definitely been a shift, a shift of about 15, 20 points in the last three months.

Yeah. It's so interesting. I've got a bunch of reporting that I need to I need to expand on and

then write it up. And there've already been stories in the Wall Street Journal and NBC news about

this phenomena. It's such an interesting story. Rubio is so well-liked within the White House by

the President, by a lot of people, the foreign policy community. Remember, he's the only Trump

cabinet nominee who got a lot of Democratic votes. Now, a lot of them say that Democrats in the

Senate now say they regret it, but he's got the potential to be a dominating figure in American

politics, truly does. And people are seeing that skill set and that likeability different than

they saw Vance. A lot of people do like Vance, the Vice President, and a lot of people think he's

impressive, but he rubbed some people the wrong way. And so I don't really know how this is

going to end up. I need to do more reporting, but there's no doubt that that someone's happening

here and what it is ain't exactly clear. I still think the base case the most likely outcome is

is a Vance Rubio ticket with Vance at the top. I do continue to think that Rubio would never run

against Vance, but could I now see a scenario where the polling data is such that Vance says,

hey, I just had my fourth kid. I'm young, you know, I can I can do something else now. People

doubt he'd be Vice President again, but I wouldn't rule that out. I wouldn't rule the ticket flipping

and I wouldn't rule out that he says, you know, I'll pass on this. I'll go do something else and

let Marco run. I don't think that's what will happen, but I don't rule it out anymore. And in

large part, that's because of the extraordinary trajectory Rubio has been on for a couple months,

as you said. And I am increasingly disbelieving of a simple coronation where Trump

annoys Vance. It's too boring. It's too boring for Trump and he wants to play celebrity apprentice

for those stakes. Could be, although this is not boring, Trump endorses a Vance Rubio ticket

announced in January of 27 and they raise $2 billion before the New Hampshire primary and spend

it on, you know, amongst other things, a lot of a lot of festivals and honor of Donald Trump

in the early voting states. I have you are ranking because you just released a new one for the

Democratic side of the aisle. And I want to talk about it. Am I right that because you believe

that in all likelihood, it's Vance for the reasons you've just articulated, you're not ranking GOP

candidates. And if I'm right, will that now change? I'm working on changing it. Whoa, I need

breaking news. There needs to be a, there need to be a few more developments because if I'm

going to do eight for 28, I got to get eight people who I think might run. And right now, I'm only

at about four in the widest possible configuration. So, but I am headed towards doing it. And I

suspect if it stays in the trajectory, I will. One of my best sources who really pushed me towards

this said, very familiar with the fact that for several months now, I've done the eight for 28

ranks of the Democrats said, and I think Michael, this will appeal to your overall view of this.

He said, he said, we've gone from the Republican side being a coronation to the Republican side,

now shaping up to potentially be significantly more interesting than the Democratic side.

Because if it is not a coronation for Vance, as your questions and tone suggest,

it's really interesting. And the Democrats might not be, might not be that interesting. There's

a number of ways it could go where it wouldn't be that interesting. My view for what it's worth is

that in the end, Trump makes the decision. He holds this way and he will determine who the GOP

nominee is. It's just not entirely clear to me that it's going to be Vance. And to the extent

that Vance is not on the same Iran page as Trump, I only know what he has said publicly. I get it.

But I think there's something there. Can I, before we run out of time, can we talk about the Democrats?

Yeah, just say one quick thing. I think that if Charlie Kirk were still alive, Vance would have

a much better chance of being the nominee. I think his absence takes away Don Jr. likes Vance,

and so that's a pretty big recommendation. But I think Charlie, both direct appeal to Trump

and maneuvering the apparatus would have really given Vance a much better chance at this point

than, than he otherwise will have. Let's do this in ascending order coming at number eight for the

D's. Again, the eight for 28. That's what Mark Halpern is referring to this as AOC in the eighth

position. Rom hanging steady at seven, Mark Kelly at six, Kamala Harris down, downward arrow,

but she's at five, boot a judge at four, and then here are your top three. Number three,

JB Pritzker, number two, Josh Shapiro, number one, Gavin Newsom. I agree with one and two.

Is there much of a difference between numbers three through eight? Could you very easily have

shifted one to a different position, or like is Pritzker really the third guy?

No, and in fact, your point is correct. I still have my top tier as the top two are above the

others, and as you see in the list, if you look at the February rankings versus the March ones,

the list stayed the same. It's the same eight names, but almost everybody, half of them, four of the

six, four of the eight switch positions, booted judge moved up, Harris moved down, Kelly moved up,

Ocasio, Cortez moved down. The way I do this is I take the previous month's list. I think about

where I think things are, I move things around, and then I share the list with about 30 people,

mostly Democrats, but some Republicans, and I ask them, who's not on here, who should be,

who would you move up? I would make it for, I just up to me, and not my sources, I would make

booted judge number three. Every one of these candidates has a weakness, but he's the only one on

the list who's won a primary or caucus, and he finished first in Iowa and second in New Hampshire

in 2024, and 2020, rather. And I'd move them up, and I moved them up to four, but I would move

them to three. Harris and Kelly and booted judge, it's interesting. Some people thought they

shouldn't be on the list at all. I literally had people who said those three shouldn't be on the

list, and I had people who thought they should be higher. A couple people thought Harris

should be number one. Ocasio, Cortez, I just don't think she's going to run. And again,

part of what I factor in is, are you going to run? Because if Michelle Obama ran, I'd put her

number one, but I know she's not going to run. So your question's correct, and it's the sort of

sifting the answers, not just where my 30 sources rank, the eight people, but what they say about why

that causes me to move people up and to move people down. So I'm comfortable. I have a follow-up

one exception. Yeah, go ahead. And maybe you've just answered it, but if you were firmly of the

belief that Harris is running, would she be higher than number five? In other words, is this a

reflection of doubt on your part as to whether she's really getting in? Great question, not my part,

my sources part. A lot of people don't think she's going to run. But if she does run, she's got name

ID, she's got the ability to raise money. She's in support from the, from the constituencies can do

well, potentially in early states, but she's never won a primary caucus. If you told me she was

definitely going to run, not knowing if other people on the list would definitely run, I'd probably

move her up one slot. Is there anybody else top of mind who if one of these drops off Halperns

eight for 28 that you could see standing in line and taking that position? This is the Smirconnish

podcast from Sirius X. When a trip to the hospital or pharmacy leads to a bill, no one saw coming.

We're here to help. Your health insurance provider is working every day with hospitals and drug

companies so families can get the care they need at prices they can afford. That's why we're

investing in new technologies that make care easier to access, more predictable and more affordable

and helping bring down high hospital and prescription drug prices. There's more to do and we'll

continue fighting for you. Could this vintage store be any cuter? Right? And the best part?

They accept discover. Accept discover? In a little place like this? I don't think so, Jennifer.

Oh yeah, huh. Discover's accepted where I'd like to shop. Come on, baby, get with the times.

Right, so we shouldn't get the parachute pants? These are making a comeback.

I think. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide.

Based on the February 2025 Nilsen report. Courage, I learned it from my adoptive mom.

Hold my hand. You hold my hand. Learn about adopting a team from foster care at adoptuskids.org.

You can't imagine the reward brought to you by adoptuskids, the US Department of Health and Human

Services and the accounts. The Michael Smirconis program. Listen weekdays at 90M East on

POTUS, Sirius XM Channel 124 and anytime on the Sirius XM app. Is there anybody else top of mind who

if one of these drops off Halperns 8 for 28 that you could see standing in line and taking that

position? Rokana. Okay. Governor Beshear. Someone has to be put the list back up. Governor Beshear

very supported by some of my sources but not others to be on the list. The thing about the list

is there's only one true progressive on the list. AOC. And I don't think she's going to run. And

that lane is a real lane. Sometimes I think people over focus on the concept of lanes. But the

progressive movement needs a place to vote. Now they could vote for Gavin Newsom. They could vote

for Governor Pritzker. There's other places to be associated with. But someone's going to be

in the progressive lane. Someone's going to be just a full-throated single-payer health care,

green new deal, no foreign wars, arrest net and Yahoo. Someone's going to be in that lane.

And if it's not AOC, if she doesn't run, I think Rokana, who was an early supporter of Bernie

Sanders, maybe it'll be him. So he's probably the one who, you know, some of my sources said,

put Kana on and take AOC off. But most of them said no. AOC still got a better chance.

I have no, I have no feel for whether Markelli desires to run for the presidency. I'm sure he'd

like to be president, but I have no idea whether I just had, I had residual questions from

how close he did or did not come to being Kamala Harris's running mate. So having said that,

I just see a problem for Josh Shapiro in having Rahm a manual there because I do believe they're

in the same lane. Well, look, let's, let's be frank. How many people on that list are straight,

white Christian men? How many people on the list are straight?

Gavin Newsom and Gavin Newsom and Markelli.

Correct. So there's, there's a, there's a lot of you in the party that not worth the risk to

nominate anything else. And so I think that Governor Shapiro has some things Rahm doesn't have.

They're both Jewish men on the short side. You might put all in there too as another thing that

some Democrats might shy away from. I think, I think that it's too facile to say they're in the

exact same lane. I think there are differences between them. And, and the primary difference I

would say is one is an outsider and one is not. And, and there's going to be an appetite for an

outsider. If there's a single trait that people cite that say, this is what we need, it's, we need,

we need someone with a record of accomplishment as a governor who's an outsider. And I think that,

that means Governor Shapiro, it doesn't have to see his vote or his fundraising balkanized by Rahm

a manual. I wasn't, I wasn't even considering religion. I was just thinking straight shooter,

each is trying to market himself Shapiro and Rahm as straight no BS, you know, get shit done is

what Josh loves to say. And Rahm is that kind of a guy. And I just don't think the Democratic party,

I don't know if the Democratic party, frankly, is big enough to nominate anybody of that type.

I would like to think that they would. But two of them, I think it's a problem.

Well thought. The chances that they both run and they both catch on, I think, are pretty limited.

But even if they do, there's other, there's other variables, right? Who, who has better ideas?

Who, who, who better on TV? Who gives a better speech? Who does Barack Obama support? You know,

there's, who can appeal to black vote? There's all sorts of variables that I think it's too soon to

say which one would do better in. But I would be surprised if, if, if, but this way, I'd be surprised

if the reason Josh Shapiro was not the nominee was because of Rahm. I think, I think I could think

of 10 other reasons that are more likely to keep him from being the nominee, including whether he

runs or not. Yeah, that's fair. Meaning, Rahm or meaning Josh? Josh, but both of them,

but I'm focused on Josh Shapiro. I just, I just think, I just think his, his, his, the thing you

and I've talked about in the past is ability to handle controversy. I still put his number one

as the biggest reason I think he might not. Some people would say his positions on Israel would

be high up on the list. Some people would say the fact that he's, he's not, you know, not,

as a capacity to be an it candidate. I think he's more compelling as a speaker and performer

than some people say, but he has a lot of appearances that are duds and that, you know, that's,

that's a, that's a problem for a guy who's going to have to get better known and convince people

he's got the pizzazz to do this. Mark, that was excellent. What a great briefing. I thank you for

all of it. Thank you for letting me come on and park on your show for a bit. Have a great day.

It's, it's all good stuff. Mark Halperness here every Wednesday in the third hour of the program,

third hour of the program. There's a lot of good fodder there for us to pick up on,

but I'm going to go back to Whoville because it's so neatly tethers with today's poll question

at SpurConnish.com where I'm asking you, if the war in Iran were to end today, would the US

have been victorious? Yes, I want to do one more round on this because Mark frames it as a hypothetical

and says, forget Trump. Forget Trump. And instead you, you've got, you've got a country and they're

in the Middle East and they have a nuclear capability or they want one and they've made threats.

And they say that they, they wish to destroy us. We've tried negotiation. They think we're ruled

by Satan and they've threatened to take action. Should we use force? If we framed it as that kind

of a hypothetical, what is your answer as to whether we should use force? Are we going to war

against Whoville? Ready for this? It's a lightning round of sorts. Jim, you're in Chesterfield,

Virginia. Tell me that one thing you wanted to say. Yeah, did you get rid of all things or equal

no names? You have Obamacare in place or you have a health care in place and you say we're

getting rid of this health care, but I don't have a plan for it. Why did John McCain both know?

I'm, wait a minute, I'm confusing me. Why are we talking about, why are we talking about health care?

No, because it's the same premise. You take out the name, Trump saying, hey, I have, I want to get rid of

something. Well, wait, you have to, you have to go back on that though. You have to go back and

you have to say originally when it was Obamacare, if it hadn't been Obama and the idea had been,

we're going to set up health care exchanges and you're going to go and buy your private insurance

on that exchange and everybody is going to have to get insurance. We're going to help those who

can't. We're going to make everybody get insurance so that then people with pre-existing conditions

will all be insured. That's what came out of a conservative think tank and that was the

origin of the idea and it's the same thing that Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, but of course

because it was Obama and he has that funny middle name and he must be a socialist or worse,

you know, it got derided and misunderstood. Your point is well taken, but the same fact

supply to him and to Trump. Yeah, I mean, I don't, I'm not for us going in. I don't think the

circumstance show the threat. And I think a lot of people have the Iraq hangover of show me the

mess of the weapons of mass destruction. It's understandable. There was no effort here to

convince us of the imminence of a threat from Iraq, big Iran, pardon me, because there was none.

Tom, you're in Ohio. Maybe a threat down the road, but not imminent. Hi, Tom.

Hey, I've got one. I just want to say I love your independence and love your patience.

Thank you. Hey, I've got one paradigm to add to your question about who will.

Okay. Yeah, if who will was still in negotiations with the president, I would say no,

but if who will had called out that out of the negotiations, I'd be a solid yes.

And that's where I stand on that. Now, in this case, you know, that that Jared and Steve

Whitcoff, they said that the negotiations were bearing no fruit in the Iranians were treating

them like it was a joke. I'm not asking you to accept that, but that's, that's what they said.

Yeah, I was still like who will to say we're done with this. Right. You want who will to walk

away from the, the table is what you're saying. Vinnie, hello to you in New York. Your turn.

Hey, how you doing? Can you hear me? Yes, sir, I can. I was taking a sip of water. Go ahead.

All right. No problem. So basically the way that you framed it, I would say that yeah, most people

would be supportive of going in. But this is, this is nothing new. We've been battling and fighting

against these Islamist extremists for 225 years. This goes back to Jefferson and the Tripoli pirates.

Okay. And therefore. And therefore, I think if more people knew about the actual history of it,

they would be a little bit more supportive of us going in there.

Oh, okay. That's your point. Your point is that it's, it's a, an age-old problem. It shouldn't

be evaluated simply in the bubble of what's going on here and now. Correct. I mean, 1801,

we had started, basically, even earlier, early, late 1700s, with the, with the Barbarian pirates,

taken our people and enslaving us and we were. I'm appreciative, I'm appreciative of the history,

listen, listen, don't get me wrong. I, but I don't want us acting in 2026 because of something that

happened with the Barbarian pirates. But that's what's gone wrong in Israel with the Palestinians,

because they, they keep fighting battles that are thousands of years old.

Michael Smirconish for independent mind.

Listen weekdays on Sirius XM's POTUS, channel 124, and anytime on the Sirius XM app.

When a trip to the hospital or pharmacy leads to a bill no one saw coming. We're here to help.

Your health insurance provider is working every day with hospitals and drug companies,

so families can get the care they need at prices they can afford. That's why we're investing in new

technologies that make care easier to access, more predictable, and more affordable, and helping

bring down high hospital and prescription drug prices. There's more to do, and we'll continue

fighting for you. Courage, I learned it from my adoptive mom.

Learn about adopting a team from foster care at adoptuskids.org.

You can't imagine the reward brought to you by adopt US kids, the US Department of Health and

Human Services and the Ad Council.