Intelligence Community Frustrations and Outlook

How does a banana trigger a CIA backed coup Do AirPods herald the arrival of a new global order What do LED lights say about the future of humanity I'mt Conway, and in each episode of my new podcast, Stuff Matters, I take an object, crack it open, and reveal the world shaping forces hidden inside. This is economics told through the things we think we understand. Search Stuff Matters on your podcast app to listen and follow Sky News, the full story first I'm Richard Engel in Israel and welcome to the World podcast And they told Trump very categorically not to attack Iran We didn't change the regime, we changed the leadership, and this is a much worse version They can take the amount of pain they're suffering right now longer than President Trump is willing to take the pain he is suffering. Yldda is off this week, taking a break, but we'll be back together next week as usual. So no deal between the United States and Iran. It's Waiting for Got with bombs. Both sides are still trading drones and missiles, and Israel is once again ramping up its campaign in Lebanon, triggering Iran to suspend negotiations with Washington Today, we'll be talking all things Iran, Lebanon, the wars in the Middle East And one question I'll be asking is, how did the Trump administration not see any of this coming? And the person I'll be asking that and where it's all going is my guest for today, Ken Pollk author of ten books on the Middle East and a former senior analyst at the CIA. And as always, please subscribe and you can watch us on YouTube And joining us now at Long Last is Ken Pollk. It is a great pleasure to speak to you I can't remember a time when I haven't known your name. I've read many of your books, I've read your analysis. It's a great pleasure to finally be speaking directly to you Thanks so much for having me on Richard. I am a great fan of your work as well. and so I'm delighted to be doing this with you So why don't we start a little big picture becausecause people ask me this question all the time Is the US. winning? Is Israel winning? What are they hoping to accomplish? Where is this going? I mean, I know that was like eight questions in one, but it really is one question. And the question is What the hell is going on Sure. So I'm going to start in the middle because I've got a phrase that I've been using that you kind of alluded to there, which is that Um we're winning But I'm not sure we're going to win R? I think that's the great problem And we should recognize We got into this with a set of ideas, and let's also recognize the United States and Israel had different incentives to get into this. Our interests are not identical On the American side, very clear, President Trump was hoping to overturn the Iranian regime, thought that there was an opportunity to do so, decided to take the shot, maybe get another Venezuela. He thought it would be quick and easy. You agree with that assessment? Yep, abbsolutely. quQuick, cheap, easy. And let's recognize that's President Trump's foreign policy structure has looked like most in his second term. He's looking for quick, cheap, easy wins For the United States, it was let's try to get rid of this regime if we could Could that be fabulous? if we could, Big win for President Trump, and frankly, big win for the United States, big win for the Middle East, Israel, the world, right? G rid of this odious regime in Tehran. But that was always going to be a long shot. And there clearly was a sense that, okay, even if we didn't get that, we'd fall back on, well, we would destroy a lot of the Iranians' ballistic missile capability, their navy, their air Force, do a whole bunch of other things in the expectation that we could walk away That we could walk away whenever we wanted to do so. So whatever damage we did to the Iranians was a win, right? It was going to be a win That was the that was Trump's perspective on it. And who do you think convinced Trump that this was would play out? Do you think it was Netanyahu, do you think it was Hegseth, is this Trump himself? Is he advisable So these are all great questions, Richard. of course, none of us really knows the answer. My sense is that yes, Netanyahu was a part of it, did convince him at the very least that it was going to be possible to kill Ayatollah Hamine, the supreme leader of Iran, and much of its leadership, and that this could bring down the regime, and that even if it didn't, that it would accomplish all these other goals. But again, let's recognize at the end of the day, it was Trump who was the principal mover here He is the one who believed this. He is the one who made all this happen. You know, it's worth pointing out, you, Bibbe has more or less been singing this same song. every American president since George W. Bush. R He's been saying the same thing for twenty five years. The variable here is not BBbe. It's Trump. So if this is something, I asked Prime Minister Netanyahu about this, I throw a question at him anyway. that you've been pushing for this for so long He finally Got it. Is this the parable, this's not how I asked the P prime Mister, is this the parable that the dog that finally catches train, you know the old expression, you know, you're chasing, the dog, chases the train, then finally it catches it and gets run over. Is that what happened here? He finally got the war that he wanted and now he's stuck with it So I think from the Israeli perspective, and again, let's recognize they had a different perspective. They certainly wanted regime change and recognize for them, any regime change is good, right? For the United States, overthrowing this regime getting you could know chaos civil war, that'd be worse for the United States or just as bad. That'd be fine for the Israelis. And for the Israelis any damage to the Iranian military ballistic missiles, that's all good for them. And they get to you think that is? Do you think that's the case? I mean, you worked in the CIA for many years, analyzed the Middle East, written, as I said, extensively about it An regime change fromrom Israel's perspective is better than what they had even chaos and nuclear material around in a more hardline regime or civil war or etera etcer potentially better I think that's what they believed. I'm not going to agree with that because I think you're right that there are, you know, there're always worse. It's a Middle East. right? One of our expressions for people work on the Middle East is don't assume that they've scraped the bottom of the barrel They can always scrape deeper Right? There's always another bottom. there's always worse out there. But I do think that that's what Netanyahu believed. That's why he got into it, right. But again, a somewhat different set of motives than Trump's And you know right now, where are we? Well, we've got a really big problem And you know, give me a second or to unpack some stuff because it's important, please. Iran always had the capability to interfere with traffic in the Strait of Hormuz they never actually tried to shut it down. They never did because they were always terrified that if they did, the United States would come for regime change. We would decide this regime is beyond the pale We've got to get rid of them because what they're doing is interfering with the global economy. So we got to take out the regime And for that reason, they would never touch the strait of Hormmuz. Think about what Trump did He kills Ayatollah Khamane. He kills most of the military and internal security leadership the first night. He proclaims regime change. He says, we want a new regime. He says, I'm going to be the one choosing the new suupreme leader of Irq. It remember he said that we don't want regime change, but the regime has changed, I think was how he phrased it. all kinds of stuff. But he makes it very, very clear that he's cing for regime change So the Iranians then flip to their contingency. Their contingency is if the Americans ever do try to change the regime, then we close down the Strait of Hormuz,? And at that moment, what they learn is that shutting down the Strait of Hormuz is not going to cause the United States to try to overthrow the regime. It's going to cause the United States to back off from trying to change the regime. Trump is not talking about regime change at all He has no interest in it, right? That's the signal he has sent to the Iranian leadership And we should also recognize this is a much worse version of this regime We didn't change the regime, we changed the leadership, and this is a much worse version And why would you say it's worse because it's More hardline, less inclined to democracy or all of the above. This is the hardest of the hardliners. And again, there clearly is some dissonance there. It's Iran, there's factions, there's always factions in Iran. These are the people who always wanted a nuclear weapon. These are people who really don't care very much about Iran's economy and certainly don't care very much about the Iranian people ? They're going to be much more difficult to deal with. Would you say that this was a war though of misconception that Israel thought it would be easier, Trump thought it would be easier, that these two personalities came together and got into an adventure that they can't get out of Or do you think it's more corrupt more dirty than that. Is it about money? Is it about backroom deals Maybe he's been convicted as an international war criminal. He's facing trials at home. You have Trump, who's a unique brand of American Leader. He's running his businesses openly, tremendous investments in the Gulf Nations, It seems much murkier and less clean. and I think that's the pololitest way I can put it What do you think about that What I can say is like first, We should recognize The Iranian regime has defined United States and Israel. as its enemies for forty seven years There's no reason for this. Every American president, since Jimmy Carter, has tried to reconcile with the Iranian regime. We've done all kinds of things. You know, I worked for Bill Clinton. I was his Persian Glf director. We did all kinds of things to try to bring about a rapprochemment. The Iranians were not interested They did everything in their power to hurt us. They've killed at least a thousand Americans over the years. So this is not a good regime. And there has always been kind of an argument out there that going to war with Iran would pay dividends, would be beneficial to the United States, was something that was worth doing, that needed to happen under the right circumstances As to corruption,, honestly, Richard, I'm just a dumb Middle East analyst. I can also as an American, look at the way that President Trump has handled his time in office, especially in the second term. I too have all kinds of questions about things going on there. But I try to stick to my area of expertise when I'm getting interviewed in public. And I just can't speak to any of that stuff It certainly could happen. It's the Middle East. But I think the more important points are there was always a b you know an underlying foundation of strategic logic of some kind of a war against Iran under the right circumstances. But I do think that really what you had here was a real misunderstanding of what those circumstances were at this moment And before we get to this very interesting War game that predicted a lot of what we're seeing right now that you were involved in system. very clear Do you think that Iran was building a nuclear weapon Iran's nuclear program was always a nuclear weapons program However In twenty fifteen, when they signed the original nuclear agreement with President Obama As a number of other people pointed out, they were complying with the agreement. and they were in fact, much farther away from having a nuclear weapon in twenty eighteen when Trump pulled us out of the deal than they were either in twenty fifteen when Obama signed it or In twenty twenty five, when the US and Israel began bombing Irq All right, so pulling the US out of the twenty fifteen nuclear deal, that was the thing that really brought Iran close to having some kind of a nuclear capability. even then They were enriching uranium. There was no evidence that they were really making tremendous progress to getting the bomb, right? Remember, you got to have both the fissile material and the working bomb to actually have a nuclear weapon. So the only detonator, which is not an easy thing to build, which they didn't have And you need a way to deliver that bomb by an intercontinental ballistic missile, which they also didn't have. Right. So yes, they were and especially after the strikes in June of twenty twenty five, where President Trump calls the twelve day war I had seen nothing to indicate And in fact, President Trump used to say that their nuclear material was buried deep, right? In fact, that's one of the problems we have now is people have talked about,, we need to get that material. They've talked about commando operations to go in and retrieve the highly enriched terrain. Well, those are impossible. They're ridiculous because it's all buried deep underground by these you super penetrator munitions that we used to destroy the sites. And again, there was no evidence that the Iranians were excavating those sites, were trying to reach that material. This was always something I worried about There was no evidence of that. So before this began in February, february twenty eighth There was no indication that the Iranians were anywhere near close to having a nuclear weapon So how do you think Trump got pushed over the line Was it Persal was this Yes Prime Minter Netyahu being particularly persuasive. You are an expert in the Gulf and the Gulf is a big part of this. there are a huge rivalries between , Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, there's the Abraham accccords floating around. There's data centers, there's billions and billions that have being invested in this NRon stake, the entire oil market. There's a lot of money behind this conflict. No question. All right. Let's start there, though, because I think this's an important point that has been badly misunderstood. There's been some really bad media coverage of this The Saudis, the Emiratis, the Kuwaitis Caries did not want this war And they told Trump very categorically not to attack Iran Okay Some may remember, even before the war began, they told the United States they would not allow us to use their bases. for attacks against Iran. They did not want this to happen because they were afraid of something just like this happening. So point number one, they did not want this war what might have pushed Trump into it, what probably as best I can tell, I do think that it was this combination of he always wanted to do something about the Iranian nuclear program. Remember, as I said, he pulls us out of the twenty fifteen nuclear deal because he promises to get a better deal But he hadn't gotten a better deal. The Iranians absolutely refused to agree to a better deal in large part because as I said before, their hardliners felt like the original twenty fifteen deal was too generous to the United States of America. So he hadn't been able to deliver on that. I think he was hoping that this war would help him deliver on that, would force the Iranians to come to a better deal. and because it I think it's very clear and here I think that the media reporting has been good that he did believe that You know, with Israel's help U S. could take down this regime And then it would be another big win just like Venezuela And that's what he was looking for. So some hubris in there are, which is an old lesson of war and life So let's get to this, let's get to this war game, which I've teased enough So if you could tell people a little bit about What that means And which side did you play What was the war game and How did it play out Sure. So I actually ran the war game This is back when I was at the Brookings Institution and we used to kind of regularly do these war games looking at different aspects of conflict with Iran. We actually played out an Israeli strike on Iran any number of times as well. In this game, the game started with the Israelis continuing to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists before the twenty fifteen nuclear deal, and the Iranians retaliated And they decide to retaliate against both the Israelis and the Americans. And the strike against the American goes wrong It's a it's attack with bomb. So it goes wrong and which what is what does that mean It goes wrong because the Iranians kill far more people than they had meant to They really just were trying to kill this one American nuclear scientist to retaliate. So suddenly things escalate in your scenario dramatically. Right. Exactly. And what happens from there is the United States decides to, and it's it was an interesting dynamic because the American team was actually initially very cautious and conservative and decided to do something that the United States thought was not a big deal. which was lob a bunch of cruise missiles at the Iranian Revolutionary guard headquarters in Tehran. The Iranians look at this and say, they just hit on Iranian territory. We can't let that stand, right? And so what they do is they decide to try to signal to the United States, and this is a really important thing to think about. They're going to try to signal to the United States We really don't like the fact that you hit a target in Iran. We want you to stop doing that. So we're going to sink some ships in the Strait of Hormuz. And again, they think they're just the Americans think they're signaling, the Iranians think they're signaling. The Iranians sink these ships in the Strait of Hormuz and the American team goes nuts and says, we cannot allow any kind of a threat to the Strait of Hormuz and we escalate to all out war with the Iranians. And again, what was so interesting about it was how impossible it was for these two groups of people to signal to each other across a war, even though it was nothing but a simulation, nothing but a war game with two groups of people in separate rooms divided by what a twelve inch wall And again, people who understood each other much better than the U.S government actually understands the Iranian government or vice versa So how long did it take these two teams to arrive at a war in Strait of Hormuz. How long did it take for the Tit for Tat and the back and forth to happen before suddenly The Strait of Hormo is in the conflict. Was it Day one, day two five. So I mean, yeah in real time, it was a matter of hours. I think in game time it was about a week where these things played out. so very fast So what do you make of the assessment President Trump said numerous times that no one could possibly imagine that or could have predicted that Iran was going to move to the Strait of Hormuz when you and your experts did it. Immediately came to the conclusion that's how it would play out. There is literally nothing that has happened in this war on the Iranian side, Richard. I wouldn't have predicted that a thousand other experts on Iran would have predicted. The first time I participated in a war game that was about the Iranianss closing the Strait of Hormuz, I think was in nineteen ninety two And the U.S. government does it over and over and over again. We plan, we prepare, the US military is all over this. They've thought it through in every possible respect. What the Iranians did was not unexpected at all. It was completely expected. It's what the United States did. That was completelyexpected Well when you say the United States, you mean President Trump, particularly I could do do you think there's any way, shape or form that your former colleagues at the CIA Miss this one. No, I cannot imagine that they did in the little bits of reports that we're getting is that they had in fact predicted this. I said, all the evidence is that this is whatever the opposite of an intelligence failure is, this is that, right? This was every single step was called every step of the way. But again, you had a president who believed what he wanted to believe which was that regime change was easasy, cheap and eminently doable, likely to happen But again, the US government, forget about my war game. The US government has been studying this for thirty years, right over thirty years, understood this, completely, understood exactly what was going to happen. I was able to predict everything that happened because I had been part of that community. And I know that other folks had as well That was not the variable here. That was not the unknown here I did reports on television that said the Iranians were going to close the Strait of Hormuz said this was hardly hidden information on network news, big audience, not secret intelligence reports that may or may not have been read So let's use your analytical u brain Where do you think this is going? What do you think their next steps are? And I know that's hard because there's a lot of wild factors, but I'm as you know, hard is good. so I'm asking a hard question. Yes. And we analysts like to be given hard questions. But you recognize hard questions rarely admit for easy answers. Right now There is some kind of a debate within Iran But the group that seems to be winning are the hardest of the hardliners who seem to believe that they are winning the war with the United States. and that if they can hold on They will force Trump to make all kinds of concessions to them reggarding money and their control over the Strait of Hormuz. And we should recognize that is enormously valuable to them. Again, because that lesson that I pointed out beforehand, that their control of the Strait of Hormuz not only brings monetary value to them, but it also will cause the United States to refrain from chang trying to change the regime, that's actually probably more useful to them than a nuclear weapon That's another one of the things that's most dangerous right now is they may actually be willing to make some concessions on the nuclear front because they've now suddenly got something that's more useful to them and just as important in guaranteeing the perseverance of the regime. You know they are taking damage. They are hurting economically from this. But as I said before, this is a group that tends not to care very much about the economy. They tend to believe that they can kill themselves into power, remain in power simply by killing as many people as they need to do so. I think they probably are nervous that if the war were to restart The U.S. might and Israel might be able to kill some of them. There probably is some element of self preservation there. But again, what we're seeing from them is a willingness to kind of stick this out based on the assumption that they can take the amount of pain they're suffering right now longer than President Trump is willing to take the pain he is suffering So it sounds like you're saying with great tragic irony. that among the biggest losers are people on the streets of Tehran President Trump claimed he was going to be helping. The people who went out to demand change, to demand more rights, to demand democracy They were met by the besiege forces and a terrible crackdown President Trump said Hope is coming We're doing this in your name. if they newew government is more powerful more emboldened and more entrenched, It seems like people who are hoping for a Tehran Spring. ultimately get caught holding the backag. So certainly in the short term I think that exactly what you described is the most likely outcome for the Iranian people. And I agree with you, I think that that is an absolute tragedy We can all be helpopeful in the long term I think that the conduct of this war, the outcome of this war and the callousness of this version of the regime are going to further antagonize the Iranian people against their leadership. And perhaps at some point in the future, they will be able, they will be in a position to once again revolt against it. I know you know this because I know you've covered this any number of occasions, but pretty much every two or three years, the Iranian people tries to rise up and overthrow its government and that's been going on for almost twenty years now, arguably for thirty years now Perhaps at some point in the future, that will change. But yeah, in the short term, I think that they once again are going to get the short end of the stick. How does a banana trigger a CIA backed cp? two AirPods herald the arrival of a new global order LED lights say about the future of humanity I'm Et Conway. and in each episode of my new podcast, Stuff Matters, I take an object, crack it open, and reveal the world shaping forces hidden inside This is economics told through the things we think we understand Search Stuff Matters on your podcast app to listen and follow I would love to change subjects a little bit, although it's not a new subject because as Iran has made abundantly clear, it sees them as absolutely linked. In fact, Iran has suspended negotiations with the United States because of the ongoing war in Lebanon. Where do you think this war? is going. There are some in Israel who I've spoken to believes that this could be another Vietnam for Israel. You know, this is not a Gaza situation. Israel doesn't have Lebanon completely surrounded Hezbollah has weapons, it has terrain, it has access to foreign borders in Syria They have lengthy experience fighting against Israel and already the Israelis are suffering many more casualties in Lebanon than they ever did in Gaza or any of these other conflicts.. How do you see this war expanding? Was this another miscalculation? And I recognize there were multiple questions in that. Yeah. There's a lot about that. It's okay. So here's where I'd like to start. Where I'd like to start is to say There is an incredible opportunity in Lebanon And this is another one where I find myself frustrated with the Trump administration because boy, if you were looking for a win be looking for it in Lebanon. That's the place. You now have a circumstance where Iszbola was badly weakened by the Israeli attacks of twenty twenty four. The Lebanese population has turned dramatically against Hezbollah, including large segments of Lebanon's Shia community. I mean, always hard to come by numbers, but it looks like about eighty percent of the Lebanese population now wants to see Heizbollah disarmed You've got a president, a prime mininister, a chief Sab, all of whom are committed to disarming Hezbollah. The Lebanese Parliament has demanded that Hezbollah disarm, has said that its military actions are illegal. I mean, this is incredible Israel cannot help Lebanon achieve that or take advantage of that opportunity. Only the United States can And leaving it to the Israelis It will not solve this problem To me, again, it is so frustrating that the United States will not recognize we need to provide the assistance to the Lebanese government and the Lebanese armed forces. If we do, if we ramp up our support, there is every indication that the Lebanese themselves will disarm Hezbollah and transform Lebanon. They leave it to the Israelis we are seeing happen is inevitably going to happen Israel can't transform things. They can't help the Lebanese armed forces because they are still seen by the vast majority of Lebanese as the enemy. R? They don't want them there. How were your former colleagues in the intelligence community feeling Are they feeling excluded, not listened to? Are they pulling their hair out? Are they quitting? What's the mood over there Yeah. So obviously, I haven't done a survey of everyone, but my own contacts, my conversations with former colleagues, there's a lot of frustration. I recognize People in the U.S intelligence community tend to be really patriotic Americans. They want their country, whether they're, you know, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, whatever, they tend to be very patriotic. They want the United States of America to do well. And they bring their expertise. That's what they have to offer the country is their expertise We all know they sometimes get it wrong much less than people actually think, but when they do, it can be pretty spectacular. But this is another one of those instances where they actually know the right answers. and they just wish that the administration were listening to them. Again, I know very, very few people the administration sorry, in the intelligence committee who You know want to spite this president somehow. They all want this president to do well because at the end of the day, he is the commander in chief of the United States of America want him to do well for that reason and they're just very frustrated that they don't get listened to. So if you're saying they're not. planning a deep state overthrow, as President Trump has somehow suggested, or as at times suggested, quite directly Aside from their frustration, what are they doing? Are they being more vocal? A they resigning? A they What can you do if you're at the top levels of an American intelligence agency, the CIA and the boss isn't listen Yeah, so it's very difficult. First, you know, remember, I know you know some of these stories, you try to find ways. to get the boss to listen. I mean famously, right with President Reagan, the CIA adopted comics as a way of kind of you delivering messages to him because they knew he would read them. That's a little bit of an extreme, but you know you do what you can. Tell me more about this comics, so they made this was during the Cold War, so they would have what cartoon version of Gorbachev Eectively, Pident's daily brief that they would you know, insert comics in there that they knew that the president would want to read, and that would get him to read their analysis along with it. So they weren't literally drawing comics for Reagan But they would include comics in it because they knew that Reagan was taken with the comics. And once he was reading the comics, he'd read the rest of the piece that they wrote as well But again, you're looking for ways to get a president interested And again, I know with President Trump, they've been trying hard to think about, okay, well what would catch this president's imagination, right? You know, what does he glumom onto? what interests him? And, you know, we can we structure the way that we report in ways that are going to catch his imagination Some who get the most frustrated, yeah, are leaving. and there certainly are people who are resigning. veryery hard to know what the numbers are, but you know I know of some people who Fs of mine, longtim analysts who just decided that you know they were too frustrated. they parted ways Others more or less kind of suffer in silence. you know, they look for the opportunity, they hope. that at some point the administration will realize that what it's doing isn't working And therefore, maybe we should see what the experts have to say because maybe what the experts say will actually work given that what they're doing isn't Are they using flattery? you know, I assume you saw that analysis in the New York Times that went through all of the public cabinet meetings and they found that one out of every six sentences was either a direct compliment or an indirect compliment, insulting the Biden administration, insulting his predecessor and saying how much much better he was Yeah. Are they using Flattery? and if so Is that helpful? You know, okay, slipping a cartoon because you know it'll catch Reagan's eye is one thing. using much Osequiousness Is that effective? Could that backfire? How How are they doing it? How were they trying to appeal to him So you know I have to plead ignorance on that one. I literally just I've never hadard someone say to me, you know, yeah, we flly to the president to get him to pay attention. Again, what my understanding is that what they're trying to do is to try is trying to show him that they are on his team they're there to support him absolutely not his adversaries, quite the opposite, but they want him to do well. and that what they're trying to do is to explain to him what they believe would be in his best interest in the country's best interest would allow him to get wins And look, you know again, that's a perfectly reasonable way of approaching the subject, assuming that is what they're doing. But that's mostly what we've heard from what I've heard from them is this frustration that, you know, we try to make it clear to him that this is the way to get what you want to get, right? We're here to help you, sir. and Sometimes he doesn't listen even then Yeah, I was going to say it doesn't sound like it's working going back to all that we've been talking about U We could talk all day, all night. I look forward to more conversations, but one more impossible question. Sal, I've got you How was how do you see this ending Are they're going to get a deal? It feels like like a mirage You see it there. We know what it looks like the closer you get to it, It recedes ever further into the distance and may not even be there at all So is this a mirage? Is there a real deal? How is this going to end, do you think So this is lovely because it lets us come full circle to my very first answer to you, which is that we're winning, but I don't think I'm very concerned that we're going to win I mean, we're winning in the sense of we've done a lot of damage to Iran. And if somehow you could just end this and tote up the military scorecard, we've done a heck of a lot more damage to them than they have done to us, or they've not done no damage to us The problem is the strait of Hormuz And the problem is the way that the Iranians have also, we haven't really talked about this, but we need to put this on the table. The way that the Iranians have also demonstrated to all of our allies in the Gulf that they can threaten them whenever they choose to do so And while it's certainly true, I mean the Gulf States, with our help have been doing a remarkable job shooting down Iranian drones and missiles, you know, the Gulf built itself as this paradise, right for money and people and goods and, you know No one is going to want to invest in the Gulf. No one is going to want to trade in the Gulf. No one's going to want to take vacations in the Gulf. If you know, every other day an Iranian drone comes over, a ballistic missile, even if it's shot down That's not exactly the kind of place where you want to B your life, bet your fortune, right? So all of this has me very concerned that when this ends We're going to wind up making significant concessions to the Iranians paying them a lot of money either directly or indirectly. and we should remember, the Iranians are already going to our Gulf allies and saying, we can do this to you whenever we want to The Americans have demonstrated they can't stop us. So if you want us to not do it You're going to pay us you're going to pay us tens of billions of dollars, which of course, the Gulf can afford, they won't like it. But imagine this Iranian regime, right, this version of the Iranian regime, by worse the hardest of the hardliners with access to additional hundreds of billions of dollars That is not going to be a good Middle East And my fear is that's where we're headed Well, it has been a great pleasure talking to you. I understand you have a new book coming out. Anything you can tell us about that that won't be too revealing and get your publisher sending you NAST emails It's not out for a while yet. It'll be out in February of next year. And it is God help me, It is a history of the United States and Iraq The whole relationship