Iran is stronger today than it was before the [music] war started. And this is literally the nightmare scenario that we've been worrying about. And the reason you're having me here is because in the next few months, the world economic crisis is going to grow.

And it does appear that you've been largely correct about what you said would happen.

It's because I've been modeling the bombing of Iran for 20 years. And I've advised every White House from 2001 to 2024 on different issues related to conflict. And right now we're coming into the stage three prediction. We're like on the Titanic [music] and we're about to hit the iceberg. And when the iceberg hits, there's not enough lifeboats for everybody. So we are knocking on the door of the world literally running out of oil. And then on top of that, Stephen, we have another set of problems. For example, and Iran is attacking our base in Jordan, and we're in our ninth day of bombing in a row. And the scale of eliminating the drone [music] and missile threat is much bigger than people realize because they hide those drones everywhere.

So, how real is the risk that the US will [music] do some kind of limited ground operation with boots on the ground in Iran?

It's bordering on 70% now, probably [music] by the end of this week. But I'm concerned about terrorist attack because controlling pieces of homeland territory is the biggest risk factor [music] for suicide terrorism. So the choice is do we have a global economic crisis, possibly a recession, possibly worse, or do we let Iran control the straight of hormones?

This is not a good place to be. So what is the most probable next thing that you think happens? [music]

I think that question, Stephen, is the most important question in the world. And I think the answer is This is super interesting to me. My team given me this report to show me how many of you that watch this show subscribe. And some of you have told us according to this that you are unsubscribed from the channel randomly. So favor to ask all of you. Please could you check right now if you've hit the subscribe button. If you are a regular viewer of the show and you like what we do here, we're approaching quite a significant landmark on this show in terms of a subscriber number. So, if there was one simple free thing that you could do to help us, my team, everyone here, to keep this show free, to keep it improving year over year and week over week, it is just to hit that subscribe button and to double check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll ever ask of you. Do we have a deal? If you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll make sure every single week, every single month, we fight harder and harder and harder and harder to bring you the guests and conversations that you want to hear. I've stayed true to that promise since the very beginning of the D of Sio, and I will not let you down. Please help us. Really appreciate it. Let's get on with the show. [music]

Robert Pap, with everything that's going on with Iran at the moment, the US Iran war, and everything that I've learned from you in the two previous conversations we've had on the D of CEO, I'm guessing that you're not really surprised by what we're seeing now. No, I'm not. I've been modeling the bombing of Iran for 20 years. The uh the fact is the modeling has held up and literally month by month by month uh when we were first here the big surprise for most people was that we bombed the regime in Iran and it still stood. It survived even though uh we killed the supreme leader and something like 137 of their top leaders. Think about that. So that would be like if somebody killed our president, his wife, the first lady, members of the first family, half of the cabinet, all of the leaders in the Pentagon, all of the leaders in the CIA, and about a third of the Congress. That is what we did to Iran in those opening weeks in March. And nonetheless, that regime survived. And that was something that modeling showed for that 20 years that was based on uh substantial um patterns in history where air power alone had never toppled a regime going all the way back to World War I. Most people had not really heard that before. Many people even in the military did not fully know how much President Trump went up against the weight of history. Then we shifted. We shifted to uh six weeks of a bombing campaign. And then what did we do? we shifted over to a two-month blockade. Well, that was another version of punishment. So, the US said that they were going to block the straight of Hormuz, basically trying to take control of it themselves and therefore kind of punishing the rest of the world.

U well, they they didn't want to punish the world. What they were that did happen, but what they wanted to do was punish Iran. So, they were trying to coers Iran to get the government to surrender control of Hormuz. So keep in mind what happened is on February 28th that regime change bombing happened and it went on for a few days but by March 2nd March 3rd Iran controlled Hormuz literally within a few days the ships stopped cold and they basically have not reopened except for teenytiny periods of time in a small in a modest way and then you're stuck. How do you get Iran to give up control of Hormuz? Or do you let Iran continue to uh control Hormuz for as far as the eye can see? That's been the dilemma we've been in, Stephen, since really the first week in March. And now it's become clearer to the world that has the core dilemma. We're at a fork in the road. Either we physically take Hormuz back all those other tactics didn't work.

the memorandum of understanding >> which was the I sat here with JD Vance and he told me that they were about to sign an agreement with Iran to ultimately end the war and they had that agreement. >> Yeah. >> JD told me that it was about to be signed. Couple weeks later here we are. They're back to bombing each other. >> Yeah. There's really two big issues with this Stephen with the memorandum of understanding. Um, I do believe that uh uh Vice President Vance sincerely thought it was going to uh had a good chance of ending the war. Uh, but there's a big problem here, Stephen, which is when you listen to Vice President Vance, he approached this as a business deal. So, he kept talking about all the benefits that were going to come to Iran if they performed a fee for service. We want the straight open and we're going to offer you money in different ways if you will open the straight. Well, this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of international politics. This may work great in real estate. I'm not saying it doesn't, but in a major war like this, what's at stake is the balance of power. The balance of power. Now, I want to explain that before the war, before the war started, there was a balance of power where America was ascended. Israel was the rising power and Iran was actually the declining power in the region. What happened almost within again two weeks of the war starting is the balance of power was shifting dramatically when Iran became in control of form. This represents tremendous power in the future. that wealth, all of the potential that uh even though it hadn't been realized yet, equates to not just money to put in coffers, but it equates to military power. It equates to the ability to influence other states in the region to build a sphere of influence. This is power in terms of major power politics that was shifting here. And so with thou as uh you look at thou JD Vance appears we could just look at it he appears to have thought this was a business deal. So he appears to have thought we're going to hold up the promise of say $300 billion it will eventually fall on you if you will just to agree to do what we want and behave. Those aren't the clauses that matter to Iran. The clauses that mattered to Iran were the clauses which directly relate to the balance of power in solidifying Iran uh its control of Hormuz and essentially thisou is fundamentally a road map to Iran becoming the regional hegemon.

Hegimon what does that mean? >> The most dominant state in the Persian Gulf in the Middle East. Wait, so you're saying that this

Absolutely.

They did. They did. Iran sign. In fact, most of these points were exactly the points that President Trump said he would never sign in April when Iran presented the initial 14-point plan in April. And the key at war then? Well, well, let me just explain the key the key things that happened here is that number one, notice in article five, it says that Iran will make the arrangements uh with Hormuz, that is the ships with Hormuz. And it will not charge for 60 days. It doesn't say will never charge. It says only 60 days. So, think about that. That this is already written into the agreement that President Trump is signing. And then if you say, well, what's going to happen down the road? It's going to be Iran and Oman who are going to determine the future fees. There's no mention here of the United States. There's no clause to even let the United States wiggle itself in. This is a perfectly clearly written clause. And this is basically gives Iran control of the straight of Hormuz and also of the the discretion to set the fees for as far as I can see with no constraint whatsoever.

How do we know that this is the actual document?

So, when you say article, this document contains 10, is it 10? 14?

And when you say 14 different points and there are three points that are really the critical action points that matter here. this promise of $300 billion dollars down the road, this is so far, you know, this is like holding out um uh funny money to the Iranians. These are the things that are actually short-term because this is happening now.

So, point one, you're saying point one I want to come back to, Stephen, because I want to explain this is Iran's strategic base.

Point number five, point number five. But what happens to become the dominant power in the region? You need more than a strategic base. You want a sphere of influence. You want a sphere of influence here. And can I just can we so I'll hold this up here. Is that

But many of the different countries including Saudi Arabia. You have already started to have pipelines to bypass the straight of hormones. There were plans to do this for years. They were too expensive. But almost immediately uh they started to do that. So the Saud Saudi Arabia started to put out four to five million barrels of oil a day starting in mid-March uh into the Red Sea on a pipeline that had already been built and hadn't been used. There's a a little area here called Fujyra which is where the UAE had a pipeline that's almost 2 million barrels a day. So 20 million barrels a day were going through Hormuz almost immediately 7 million were being bypassed. Then there's all this discussion that Iraq might build some pipelines. There might be other pipelines here going through Syria. So what if you're Iran, you now control this. But notice it's a declining asset that way. If you only control Hormuz within 5 years, good chance your power is going to be whittled away. What you want to do is you want a sphere of influence. So what Iran started to talk about is their security resistance belt where they wanted to control and they said from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea to the Gulf. This was the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard. And why would you do that? Because you want to prevent all of those bypasses to Hormuz. And they're already happening.

And where's the key one? You don't. You already have the Houthies down here. You have Hezbollah here. But you want to make sure the Houthies are pretty secure right here. It was So just again for the people that can't see. Yeah. So you're saying the Houthies are pretty secure where the Houthies are pretty secure down here in Yemen. They've been fighting uh with the Saudis for quite some time. They've held their own. Uh we fought a war with the uh the Houthies in May 2025 to try to get them to uh pull back from a temporary shutdown of the Red Sea. And we lost essentially. [laughter] Um so we couldn't beat them. But the big one that was at issue was uh Lebanon. And it's and my point is it's not so much that they love Hezbollah. They do of course they've had long time uh decades of relationships with Hezbollah ideologically. There's there uh there's good reasons for that, but there's something else that's a power reason that's being ignored uh here, which is you want Hezbollah to have drones right here in Lebanon. So if there's a pipeline that comes out here through Syria, if you've got some other pipelines that are coming out here, you've got Hezbollah here that can act as your Houthies. They can actually attack the shipping. So now you have a you're you're Iran. You're a major power. You're the dominant power in the region. You don't just control this area here and the straight of >> the straight of Formuz and Iran itself. You have an arc, a security arc here that in uh is a sphere of influence, but it's an operational sphere of influence. This is not just a piece of paper or something to talk about. This is what's guaranteeing you. You control all of that oil whether it the oil from the Persian Gulf comes out through Hormuz, whether it comes out through Syria or whether it comes out through the Red Sea. And that's what article one is about.

So how come that's what I'm saying is not when I listen to Vice President Vance, which I've listened to your interview and other interviews, a super smart guy. Okay, this is not a matter of that. Okay. Uh but he's thinking of it as a business deal. We want Hormuz open. what's it going to take to pay? They're not looking at that. They're looking at they want to be a regional hegemon. This is their roadmap and that's why they stuck to those goals. But they signed this document, but then the war has kicked off anyway again because what happened is President Trump signed the document. He owned the document for it for a day. He explained that he signed the document because this was literally four weeks ago because the world was going to run out of oil in four weeks and he wanted to open Hormuz. So, President Trump saw this as a way to try to uh open hormuse. But what happened immediately after President Trump signed the document, literally starting in the next 48 hours is uh President Trump started to and his administration started to undermine the document, violate the clauses in that document. So issue number one was Secretary Rubio establishing a framework accord agreement in Lebanon which essentially would lock in Israel's military presence in Lebanon as far as the eye could see. Whereas article one in the document says that uh the United States would guarantee the territorial integrity of Lebanon which everybody [clears throat] would realize would mean Israel is is violating the territorial integrity of Lebanon. It's not ensuring it. So that would mean Israel can't be locked in there and still be faithful to article one. So the framework agreement immediately violates article one. The second thing that happened and this happened shortly after the framework accord started to encourage uh passage through the straight of formos uh through the southern uh there's three routes through the straight of hormos. The central route which used to be in existence the main route before the war now that's where

Speaker A: 80 mines are so nobody's using the centra. They're either passing through the southern avenue, which is the one close to uh Oman, or they're passing through the Iranian passage, which is of course near the coast of Iran. And what President Trump did is he started to encourage this passageway ships to um bypass or pass through Hormuz on the southern passageway, but with no coordination with Iran, with no um even um often with their transponders turned off. In fact, President Trump was bragging about this as his secret way to sort of uh bypass Iran's control of the straight of form. He literally bragged about this on multiple posts on true social. Well, that directly uh contravenes article 5.

Speaker A: Stephen. And that's how we're back at war. Because the big miscalculation that happened in this period was assuming that if President Trump didn't restart the war, the war would be over. The mis what? Who started the war? Who started to shoot the ships in the straight of Formos? It was the Iranians. Why did they do that? Because we were violating their control of the straight of Hormuz. And that means preventing Iran from becoming the regional power, the rising regional power, ultimately the regional hegeimon. So this is why they violated. It wasn't so much a legal understanding. This is great power politics. Stephen, Iran wants to be the dominant state in the region. The United States does not want Iran to be the dominant state in the region. That has what is what this war has been about since the first week in March and now it's 5 months later and we're still at that point. There should be a button just down below here and if it says subscribed, you're already subscribed. If it says subscriber, that means you're not yet. And if you're not subscribed, please could you do us a favor and hit that button? It helps the show more than you know. And according to the algorithm, you're someone that watches our show, but you haven't yet hit that button. Thank you so much.

Speaker B: Did Iran charge people to go through the straight of Hormuse before this?

Speaker A: No, never did. Did they control the straight of horses at all? Well, before uh the war started, not at all. Before the before February 28, Iran did not control the straight of hormones. What Iran did is it moved from survival to ambition. So Iran saw there was an opportunity with the bombing uh because the United States had no mil we didn't even have our navy here. There was no means whatsoever uh to sort of offset this this uh Iran's uh control of the straight of hormoons. Nothing at all. Iran took this as an opportunity and the opportunity was to seize power. So is it fair to hypothesize that actually this war might have strengthened Iran because now it has this control over energy on a global basis that it didn't have before.

Speaker B: Without a doubt. Without a doubt, Stephen. I don't say this with any happiness. There's really no question at this point that Iran is stronger today than it was before the war started on February 28th. And that's because it controls uh the Strait of Hormuz, meaning that it can threaten at will virtually any ship that goes through the Straight of Hormuz. It's demonstrated this over and over and over again. Even when the ships turn off their transponders, they are still able to threaten ships as they go through. And every time a ship tries to run the gauntlet, they run into a drone, a mine, they run into basically Iran's barrier, and that is Iran's power.

Speaker C: There was a tweet that went viral this week um about this. I'm going to read the tweet here. It says, "I'm confused. The US has the most powerful military on Earth. We've bombed the hell out of Iran for 4 months. Trump says their air force, navy, and nearly all of their missile capabilities are destroyed. So, how is Iran still capable of hitting US bases right now? Because only a small fraction of its drone arsenal is necessary uh and missile arsenal in order to inflict that damage. Iran entered this war with thousands, we think tens of thousands of drones, missile uh ballistic missiles, anti-shipping missiles, which are lower sea skimming cruise missiles. Um, and even though we have destroyed large fractions of their uh of their missiles, they have plenty left over to hit these uh these targets because they're doing saturation attacks. They're essentially doing swarms. They're saturating our uh our defensive capability and the the drones and missiles to get through plenty enough to damage it to the point we can barely use it if if if at all."

Speaker A: So is it is it mainly drones that they're using at the moment to conduct these attacks on the straight of Hammuz and on US bases? Uh, it's been a combination in the m in March. It was mostly intermediate range ballistic missiles and then drones since about the middle of March. Um until just quite recently, it's mostly been drones except for Israel when Israel's been attacked. It's it's been very heavily with ballistic missiles. Uh, but what you're seeing now that's just in the last week is you're starting to see the use of ballistic missiles. You're seeing the use of cruise missiles. These are these sea skimming missiles here and they're being used in against multiple targets. So the full arsenal that Iran has the full range of the arsenal it appears to be fully there full stocked very well and they're showing no signs of running out of ammo. If anybody's running out of ammo, it might be America running out of interceptors to shoot things down. Um, but we don't know that as a fact. And I think that what you're seeing is Iran has been highly intelligent intelligent about how it has deployed its its missiles. Trump said they have no navy. It's been knocked out. They have no air force that's been knocked out. They have no air detection that's been knocked out. Their radar has been knocked out. And just about everything's been knocked out. Virtually everything they have has been knocked out. He said that on Truth Social in May 2026. If everything has been knocked out,

Speaker B: Mhm. then how come there's no safe passage through the Straight of Hormoose? How come this weekend we saw more Americans tragically die um because of Iranian attacks?

Speaker A: Because what they have left we can't knock out and is plenty to do the damage. That's the fundamental problem. We took out the easy stuff to hit. they didn't need it in order to seize control of hormones and keep hormones and start to defend themselves against uh more aggressive pressure. And the bottom line is that it's it's very difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate that capability. We would do it in a heartbeat if we could right away.

Speaker B: Explain to me in just simple terms why it's so difficult to remove that capability. You know, I was looking at this picture here which shows the size of a drone relative to another object. So, I guess there was two questions which is like where do they hide these and how easy it is is it to make one of these drones? So, they hide those drones, Stephen, everywhere. Okay. They can they're in drone caverns. They're in warehouses. They're everywhere. They could be. So that drone, just to kind of give you a sense here, would easily fit in this room. But the reason this is so difficult is notice how small that is here. That that drone compared to

Speaker A: scale of where it could be. And this is what I really want to uh show you because this is I think the hardest part to explain to people as I'm talking in whatever format I'm talking is it's the scale of eliminating the drone and missile threat is much bigger than people realize because they're hearing measurements well we've destroyed x% and y% and that's why you're getting the question but if you look at this map this is what they where these drones these shah Heeds 136 could literally be anywhere in this radius, 500 mile area. And notice how huge this area is. This area, this area like this is bigger than California. It's one and a half times the size of California.

Speaker B: So I guess it's like trying to find a truck in California.

Speaker A: It's like trying to find a truck in California. These little things here are the Shahed drones. Yeah.

Speaker B: Okay. And what we're doing in this area, which is mountainous. So, this is why we have a a threedimensional, it's not just a two-dimensional problem. It's a threedimensional problem.

Speaker A: We'll show some of these uh visuals on screen now just to show what the train where they're hiding these drones might be like. They could be anywhere in these mountains. There's all kinds. And if we kind of imagine this as a visual. So this is the general problem here we have which is just this stuff could be anywhere. And now these are the drones and this is the terrain that the drones are going to hide in. And notice I've just sprinkled some here. But now I'm going to cover these up with more terrain. And notice you can't see those drones anymore. And now I'm going to put in some more drones somewhere else. And now we're going to put another layer in. And this is this is again it's the three-dimensional part of the problem. Meaning hard to find from the air. Now if I get my people out and I start going in now, I could start to dig them out. But let's just keep doing this for a while. So now I'm putting in another say 20 drones. And I'm going to cover it yet again. And then I'm going to put in uh another set of drones. And I'm covering it yet again.

Speaker B: I guess you could put all the drones in there and you you would still be able to cover them.

Speaker A: You would. Yes. But you wouldn't do it in You would do it in layers. So they're going to make it so that if you find one, you're going to have to work really hard. You have to get them drone by drone by drone or at least in clusters of them.

Speaker B: I guess also an important point of context is they're also making new ones this whole time.

Speaker A: Exactly. So our estimates that we have leaked from the Pentagon are in April. That's months ago. these drones, they're they were making u 55,000 a year and giving them to Russia. So just think about that. That's thousands every single month. Why haven't they made uh another 5 or 10,000 drones since April? If you want this to open, so let me just of

Speaker B: the straight of form. So now let me just explain. So this is our problem. If you want the straight of Formoose to open, it's not good enough to say, "Oh, look. I've found like dozens or hundreds of these drones." You've got to persuade the shipping companies that their ships are safe. They don't obey orders from the Pentagon. You can't order the shippers to go through

Speaker A: because the ships are expensive.

Speaker B: The ships are expensive and the crews don't want to Oh, in the many millions. millions and millions of dollars. I don't know the exact amount of these uh tankers, but each tanker will carry between 700,000 and over a million barrels of oil. And so they have quite a just and you can do the math right there to see how much each ship is worth carrying that much uh uh that much oil.

Speaker A: I was looking at the cost here. It says when you combine a brand new vessel with a full tank of oil, a sh single tank crossing the straight of Hamuz is a floating asset worth 300 million.

Speaker B: Oh wow. See, I didn't that I learned I [clears throat] learned something from you every time. Um, and that's not even the lives on board, which again are going to cause an insurance problem, but also no one wants to people to die. Well, and they don't want to die. So, you're going to have mutants. They're not going to. So, this is why you're seeing more ships leaving than you're seeing ships come in. And the ships that are coming in are very heavily coming to Iran's ports. That's one of the reasons President Trump put the blockade back on. It's because what happened here is theou this whole idea is not opening up the straight of hormones. It's not preventing what's going to come in the next few weeks maybe months which is the world economic crisis. We are knocking on the door of what President Trump told us he was trying to avoid which is the world literally running out of oil. And just today before we started the Houthis which big ally of Iran. So just to come back here and and reshow the map. Uh remember I said that once uh the straight of Hormuz became shut down, there was 2 million of barrels coming out every day through um for the UAE coming out through Fyra and then four to 5 million uh coming out from Saudi Arabian oil going out to the Red Sea. Uh and this is the the port there at the Red Sea. Well, the Houthies have just shut this down literally today. Oh, really?

Speaker A: Literally before we came on, uh happened about 6 hours ago. This has been escalating for several weeks. Iran's been asking for this. This is part of the general escalation that we're seeing. Okay. So, we've got the Straight of Hermoose closed. We've got the Houthis closing, the Red Sea. So, there's no oil flowing through there.

Speaker B: Yeah. So, are we on the verge of an economic crisis if things don't change quickly?

Speaker A: Yes. Yes. This is a this is literally the nightmare scenario that we've been worrying about and the reason is is this. Go back and let's let's think about this from the 20 million barrels of oil that was going through the straight of Hormuz. So when Iran gained control of the straight of Hormuz, what happened immediately is the uh Saudi Arabia and the UEE started to bypass Hormuz with 7 million barrels a day. So that means only 13 million at issue, right? That's a little that's helpful. The next is the strategic petroleum reserve the United States and we started to release about five or six million barrels a week through the through the strategic oil

Speaker B: when uh we started to do this. It's right around the middle of March. I can't remember the exact date, but notice that you put a big dent in that. And so that's one of the reasons the oil markets did not go crazy right away.

Speaker A: So I've got some data here. Then it says um President Trump authorized the emergency release of 172 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserve designed to be pumped out over roughly 120 days. This wasn't just a US issue or the US acting alone. The US draw down was part of a massive coordinated effort by 32 member nations of the international energy agency who collectively agreed to release 400 million barrels from their emergency stockpiles. Because these massive releases um were done to offset the Hormuz blockade, the US strategic reserve has been heavily depleted. And as of July 2026, the reserve has dropped down to roughly 300 million barrels, which marks the lowest level the reserve has since 1983, a more than 40year low.

Speaker B: They're being depleted. Once you spend your reserve, you don't get it refilled. And that's what I think President Trump was talking about when he said we're about to run out of oil in four weeks. That was exactly the date because we've just run to the date of uh that that quote what you just read is we're coming to about the 120th day. And so what that means is all of that cushion that we had in the system to protect the g the price of gas already went up. Now you have even more risk. And then on top of that, Stephen, we have another set of problems besides the oil itself, which is refining capacity in the world. So we we don't uh put crude oil in our cars. We put gasoline in our cars, diesel as well. Well, how do you get the gas and the diesel? You refine the crude. So that means the refineries need to work. Well, where are much of the world's

Speaker A: refineries? In the Persian Gulf. Not just oil comes through the Persian Gulf. Refined product, they're called distillates, they come through the Persian Gulf as well. Now, so that means you've shut down something like uh 25% or a third of the world's refining capacity. Now, let's marry this to what's happening with Russia and Ukraine's blasting Russia refineries in Russia. So what's happening Stephen is you are getting not just the decline of crude itself is about to run out but the refining capacity now has been heavily uh uh strained and and limited uh it might be down you know 40% I don't know the exact number but it's something on that order and what you're seeing then is what I think President Trump was seeing a month ago which is he wanted the straight of hormuz to open but He also didn't want to own the L. And what President Trump has decided is he'd rather take the risk with the world's economy than own the L. Own the loss. And maybe he'll change his mind.

Speaker B: He'd rather take the risk with the world's economy than just own the L. So what would owning the L in this scenario?

Speaker A: Owning the L would allow Iran to follow through with Article 5. So if we go back to article to control to control the strait to control the strait on its terms but they that would be set a pre presidents for all of these straits. Yes. Around the world that's exactly right and you can't have that.

Speaker B: Well these are the choices we have Stephen. So so the choice is do we have um a global economic crisis possibly recession possibly worse or do we let Iran control the straight of foremost?

Speaker A: So, we'll go through the stages and the escalation trap straight away after this after we move on from this point around oil because I think some of my audience might not know that this escalation trap is historically predictable and that you've been talking about this for a long time and it also allows us to understand exactly what happens next. Um, I was quite shocked when you just said that Trump said recently that the US would run out of oil within 4 weeks. So, I did I just looked down at some research here and it says that during a recent press conference at the G7 summit in June 2026, President Trump made a blunt admission about how dangerously low global energy oil stock piles have become due to the ongoing crisis in the straight of Hammoo. His direct quote was, "We run out of reserves at about 4 weeks." You know, there are reserves all over the world and we would run really, really low. But we would run out and there'll be a time when you wouldn't be able to get it. It would be bedum.

Speaker B: Yes. Why is he saying that? Isn't that because

Speaker A: It it makes him he's being I think forthright in why he signed thou which is to avoid that bedum the world economic crisis. However, the problem for President Trump is in order to avoid the bedum, he has to let Iran control the straight of Hormuz, establish that sphere of influence I was explaining and he almost immediately after he said that statement within 48 hours undermined thatou that would have avoided that. Had thou just been uh implemented as written, we may not be sitting here today talking about the impending world crisis. And I believe one of the reasons we're knocking on the door of more escalation right now is because President Trump is desperate to open the straight of foremost. I think he's taking lowrisk uh high risk military option mil. I think he's pursuing military options he likely knows are unlikely to work, but they're his best chance to open hormuz before the crisis literally hits.

Speaker B: But there's also another before, which is the midterm elections.

Speaker A: Yes. Am I right in thinking that this midterm election takes place in 3 months time and if his approval rating is low at that point because of what's going on with the war because when Americans go to the pump to fill up their cars they notice the prices are way high higher than usual that means those Americans in the election in the midterm elections will vote for the Democrats which means he will lose the Congress. So he basically needs to make sure Americans are happy in three months time. He he needs to take the best chance he can can to make that happen.

Speaker B: Okay. And I think that what happened here, Stephen, is he his quote, you just quoted him, I think it was June 17th.

Speaker A: He's saying that within a month those reserves are going to run out and we're heading to that bedum that economic crisis and that is already happening. His s four weeks later, we're right on that trajectory. That trajectory has not changed. Maybe we've bought an extra week or two of time because some oil did get out from the from the Persian Gulf. Not that much, but enough for a few weeks here. So maybe it's it's going to now not fall on August 1st. Maybe it'll be August say 15th or 17th. But it will hit. It's And that's what he was. And now I think he's he sees when it hits he's going to lose uh there's a good chance that the Republicans will lose more seats in the House and in the Senate. That will make him the lamest of lame ducks for his last two years. Uh it may not be that he would be removed from office. That's probably not going to happen. But it could be that he will be impeached again. He will be tied in knots by the uh by the Democratic controlled House or a Democratic controlled House and Senate. And um this is what he's trying to offset.

Speaker B: And but there's also another before, which is the midterm elections. Yes. Am I right in thinking that this midterm election takes place in 3 months time and if his approval rating is low at that point because of what's going on with the war because when Americans go to the pump to fill up their cars they notice the prices are way high higher than usual that means those Americans in the election in the midterm elections will vote for the Democrats which means he will lose the Congress. So he basically needs to make sure Americans are happy in three months time. He he needs to take the best chance he can can to make that happen. Okay. And I think that what happened here, Stephen, is he his quote, you just quoted him, I think it was June 17th.

Speaker A: think, for any president. This is what Lynden Johnson faced in Vietnam. Uh, we now have the tapes that Johnson was making in the White House in conversations. It wasn't just Nixon making tapes here. Johnson uh was making tapes. And we now have tapes of Johnson as he's making decisions to escalate the Vietnam War, explaining that he knows this is very unlikely to end the war. It's likely to make it worse. And why is he doing it? He's doing it because he's trying to uh hold on to his uh Great Society program just for another four or five months. And what he's hoping is that even though the escalation is likely not to work, there's some tiny chance it will. And in four or five months, he'll be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat. He became uh it failed domestically. Lyndon Johnson had to uh pull back from running for reelection because of the escalations in the Vietnam War. And President Trump is running the same risk that even though I believe that he's doing this because he's trying to give him him himself and the Republicans the best chance to win uh in November, uh it may not work. That's why I think President Trump already planted the seed of uh China meddling in the elections. He's already started the conversation uh that there's another possible stone election in our future. This time possibly uh by foreign country, possibly China.

Speaker B: One of the things you've heard me talk about quite a lot over the last couple of years, and this is something that's true in business and content, but also with everything in life, is that consistency is the thing that really, really compounds. The same is true in sales. When your team is small, consistency happens naturally. The team knows of every deal, so nothing gets missed. But as I've experienced, when you grow, this starts to break down, and deals start to slip. Follow-ups don't happen. Leads go cold that shouldn't have. And when this happens, a lot of leaders look at it and think they have a people problem. When actually, it's a systems problem. The businesses that I've watched scale well commercially all have a system their team uses every single day. And for my team, that system has been our sponsor, Pipe Drive. It's an easy-to-use intelligent CRM tool for growing sales teams that gives you visibility of every deal in your sales pipeline at every single stage. And it shows you what needs to happen for that deal to move forward all in real time. It's what keeps our commercial operation consistent when we're a team of five or when our commercial team was a team of 50. Over 100,000 companies are already running their sales on it. So, if you'd like to join them, sign up at piperive.com/ce where you'll get an exclusive 30-day free trial instead of the usual 14 days. And there's no credit card needed at all. Head to piperive.com/ceeo. I don't speak Vietnamese, but this show can because of AI video technology from our sponsor, Hey Jen. I get messages every single week from those of you listening to the dire all around the world, and you express how much impact it's had on you and your life. And if that's true, then those conversations shouldn't only reach people in English. Ken can take one recording of me and deliver it in any language while keeping my voice, timing, and expressions intact. But you don't need a studio like this to make it work for you. Record 15 seconds of yourself and get an AI avatar that delivers studio quality video in over 175 languages. We're up to 20 languages now. And we're not the only ones using it. Hey Jen is already used by 30 million people, including 85% of the Fortune 100. Whether you're building an audience on social media, launching an online course, or rolling out training across your team, check out HeyGen now. Your first three videos are totally free at heygen.com/dac. That's h e y g e n . com / doac. See you there.

Speaker A: On this point of the escalation trap, um, it has several stages to it, the escalation trap, as far as I understand.

Speaker B: Uh, yes, I think you have the picture. Do we have the picture? I have a I have the escalation ladder.

Speaker A: Yes. So, I made this I think it was uh something like March 2nd or March 3rd.

Speaker B: Okay. So, for people that can't see the visual, we'll also explain what we're showing here, but we will put it on the screen for those that can see.

Speaker A: Yeah. So, what I did um is I was um uh trying to find a way to um graphically show the escalation trap. And what this looks like for those who can't see is an upside down pyramid. So basically it starts small at the bottom and gets worse and worse and more and more red and more and more red as you get through more and more stages as you go to the top. In the beginning you start with limited strike. That's the bombing of leadership bomb. You kill the leader. You kill uh you try to topple the regime with leadership to uh and that leads to retaliation. Stage two. Stage two retaliation is Iran takes hormones and that then leads to us doing some retaliation. I would still call it in stage two by the way. Um that's why I kind of kept it the same color where we're doing the uh 6 weeks bombing. That's also where the blockade is. And notice then you get to this red stage here. Notice it's where economic crisis is. This is where stage three really starts. Okay. Now we were able to offset that economic crisis. So when we talked in March and April, it wasn't clear, especially China, they were still buying. So that economic crisis was a lot closer in um March and April than it became after the summit with she because she stopped buying 5 million barrels of oil a day. I want to underscore that. And what did she get for that? Uh President Trump last week just blamed him for uh meddling in our election. So, I'm not sure she has thought that was a good deal. But still, we're at this point now. And this is where stage three is or the choice is if you want to get off of the escalation trap, you then have to let Iran become uh the gain power, become the rising power in the region, the regional hegeimon and essentially the fourth center of world power because once it um gains power uh with Hormuz has a sphere of influence a year or two from now, Stephen, they're very likely to have nuclear weapons. So this is this this this is what it means to let Iran win. It's not Iran will win and be nice. Iran is going to become a very powerful state in the region. If we go further and this we actually do escalate and with the other map I'll explain what I think the real issues are going to be between now and the midterms. Then we're going to head into 2027 into the deep red which is the actual forever war. So many people this week and next they're going to I'm going to be on a lot of shows Stephen talking about are we in a forever war? Well, that's coming. Okay. Possibly. But right now we're coming into the stage three question which is are we going to physically use force for the first time for real to seize back control of at least part of hormuz and so forth and that is the big question because if we do that and that's why I think the real issue on the table right now is uh can the United States physically open hormos between Now, in the midterms, I think that question, Stephen, is the most important question in the world, for the world, for the world's economy, for international terrorism against Americans, uh, for whether or not we truly will be in a forever war. This is going to be decided between now and the midterms. And the and the and the key issue is can we physically open the straight of horn moves between now and the midterms and I think sadly the answer is almost surely not. It's funny cuz you mentioned LBJ. So I was looking at some of his quotes around the time to see how they link because everybody knows the Vietnam War as being a war that just lasted forever and really achieved nothing. I mean that's generally the consensus that you read about. Yeah. And LBJ said at the time, "I know we ought not be there, but I can't get out. I just can't be the architect of surrender." And by this, he knew that the current strategy was a mistake, but he felt politically paralyzed because backing down would be like a humiliating defeat, which again links to Trump's situation.

策略的轉變與戰爭的困境

Speaker A: Let's get somebody that wants to do something besides drop a bomb, but that can go in and take in after these damn fellas and run them back where they belong." And by that, he meant relying entirely on overwhelming American air power wasn't actually solving the unconventional ground level problem, which again links to Trump's situation as you've described.

Speaker B: That's the transition from air power, rolling thunder to the heavier use of ground forces. And both of those of course ultimately fail.

Speaker A: He also said, "I don't," this is again LBJ's comments as president during the Vietnam War. I don't think that we can fight them 10,000 miles away from home and get anywhere in that area. It's just the biggest damn mess that I ever saw. By this, he meant trying to project military power halfway across the globe against an enemy fighting in their own backyard is incredibly difficult and likely futile, which again links to the Orange situation. And lastly, LBJ said, "A man can fight if he can see daylight down the road somewhere, but there ain't no daylight in Vietnam. There's not a single bit." And by this he meant that there was no realistic achievable end point or path to victory for its military strategy. And that also links to how like when political pressures change. And you know, Trump's recent admission at the G7 that the world is about to run out of um their energy reserves is a stark realization that the current strategy is hard. It has a deadline and there's no clear solution in sight.

Speaker B: Yeah. It's so tragic. It's so tragic that we're essentially replaying the Vietnam War. Trump is replaying the decisions that Lyndon Johnson made and coming to very similar decisions, which is he believes, as Lyndon Johnson did, that even though the military escalation would be a likely loser on the battlefield, that loss would take months and months to play out. So, there was some chance he could pull a rabbit out of a hat. But if he accepted immediate abrupt defeat, that would totally undermine and destroy his domestic political agenda.

Speaker A: So, I've got I basically before you came, I looked at the top 20 questions that the internet currently wants to know about the Iran war.

Speaker B: Oh, great. And we've knocked off a few of them already. Okay. We've got a couple of them left.

Speaker A: Yeah, I love it. Um, one of them is can the United States actually force the straight of Hummus fully open with our current strategy or does Iran now hold lasting leverage over this critical choke point? The answer is um it the United States cannot do it and this would be an opportunity. Stephen, could I have that map back? Let me explain. Yeah, let me let me show you what I think is really in the offing here. So, a lot of people are wondering what are we going to do with 8,000 ground troops? So, we have somewhere around 4,500, 5,000 Marines, somewhere around 4,000 or so troops from the 82nd Airborne. What are these troops actually going to do? And I think that what President Trump is doing here, and I think you can really we can really see this if I kind of explain this is what we are doing is we are concentrating our forces, our naval forces here into the Gulf of Oman. We are not moving them through the straight of Formos. We're constant. Our carriers are in the Gulf of Oman and also our marine expeditionary unit is in the Gulf of Oman. Now, previously these had been further away, way off the board in the Indian Ocean. We moved them here closer. And this is important because these guns are are guns that have range to be able to hit the shore within about 12 miles. So what are you doing with these ships and what are you doing here is you are building a force that might be uh able to take a piece of territory at Charbahar or there's a um uh right in between Bandraas and Charbahar there is a little port town called Jas and this would be exactly the kind of armada you would build in order to take one of those objectives, either Charbahar or Jaskque. And the reason that you would do it politically for President Trump is because this could possibly be a symbolic victory. You could possibly take the territory and hold it for weeks. Now, why would you be able to take the territory and hold it for weeks? It's because this is Pakistan. We haven't even shown the rest of Iran here. Uh, Thran is is is over here. So maybe we want to Yeah, why don't we uh bring the other map here as well. So what we have done, Stephen, is we have concentrated our forces here in the Gulf of Oman. This is our carriers, our destroyers, our battleships, and they can provide some air cover here for ships that might pass through uh the southern part here. So, I'm not saying this is the only possible mission. Uh, but those Marines and the 82nd Airborne, they're not helping. They're not really there to help ships pass through the straight of Hormuz, but they're here. Okay. At least the Marines are here.

Speaker B: Where?

Speaker A: Uh, we don't they're somewhere in the straight of in the Gulf of Oman. We don't know exactly where they are. That would not be good.

Speaker B: I'm just saying that cuz some people can't hear.

Speaker A: Yeah, that's right. So, they're in the Gulf of Oman uh here, which is to the east of Hormuz. The Gulf, the Persian Gulf is to the west of Hormuz. So Hormuz is the true choke point between these two Gulfs. And the Gulf of Oman here is then what's north of it is the south-eastern coast of Iran, which is the least populated part of Iran. Iran's population is mostly up here around the word Iran. So, you're saying that the US might take a small part of Iran from here?

Speaker B: A small part of Iran? With ground troops?

Speaker A: With ground troops. That's right. And literally hold it here uh in order to get a symbolic victory. And in order for Iran to knock us out, they have to redirect all of their attention to this. Uh and this would be this is why I don't think it's going to work is ultimately they will do this. uh but in the short term in a period of say a few weeks or so this uh there's a there's a chance and I say it's a low chance I'm not trying to tell you I would advocate for this I would not advocate for this I'm trying to explain what these troop these forces are doing here because otherwise there's no point in having these forces here.

Speaker B: Okay, so some questions on this then if they if the US do I guess invade Iran from capture port one of these port towns?

Speaker A: From the sort of south-east here.

Speaker B: That's right. This would mean that Iran have a target to kill American soldiers.

Speaker A: That's right. And the cost of losing American soldiers, especially back home in America, would be tremendous.

Speaker B: You're talking about hundreds dead over a period of at least weeks.

Speaker A: And this would be just the terrible politically for boots to be on the ground and be dying in Iran.

Speaker B: Well, it will be divisive politically. So for people that are opposed to the war, this will make them even more opposed to the war. But for people that are supporting the war, and this is the part of the politics that I study, Stephen, uh it's important to understand that there's a large part of MAGA that is incredibly supportive of this war. In fact, the opinion polls uh uh tend to show that more MAGA supports regime change uh for Iran than oppose it. So this is not like MAGA has become Tucker Carlson country or something. This is still Trump country here and they want Trump to win. Well, what you are seeing here is that if there are if there are troops that are killed, you are likely going to see and you're seeing this on Fox News this morning after three more died over the weekend. You're seeing a tremendous amount of support for our troops and therefore the war. Okay, so I've got some numbers here about public support. Based on recent polling from mid 2026, the ongoing military conflict with Iran remains highly unpopular with the general American public, but support is sharply divided along political lines. Overall, [snorts] roughly 27 to 34% of Americans support the war, while a solid majority of 53 to 57% oppose it. But then when you look at MAGA, it says that 77% to 85% of MAGA support the war. There's a MAGA Republicans and only 5% to 14% of MAGA Republicans oppose the war.

战争对地区分裂的影响与军事风险评估

Speaker A: 我们国家多年来一直在建设的那些分裂，在这次战争中仍然存在，并且正在变得更加坚硬。而且如果死亡发生，这很可能会使这个分裂更加坚固，而不是让MAGA转向反战立场，至少不是转向太多。

Speaker B: 原因是，正如特朗普在拜登总统从阿富汗撤出时抱怨的那样，如果他撤军，这对特朗普来说不仅仅是损失。这将被视为对那些死去的民众的侮辱。所以人们会说：“如果我们离开，那些人是不是因为做错了事而死了？那是个错误吗？他们的死亡难道毫无价值吗？”这很艰难。这也是当部队在战争中战斗数月时，这种现象可以使支持战争变得更加坚固，甚至可能使其增长的原因之一。随着时间的推移，是的，它倾向于缩小，但在短期内，死亡实际上可以使对战争的支持更加坚定。这是大多数人还没有完全理解的一件事。

伊朗的军事行动与经济危机升级

Speaker A: 美国在伊朗进行某种有限的地面行动，比如在伊拉克的地面部队上部署步兵的风险有多大？嗯，超过50%。我认为现在接近70%。原因有几个：第一，特朗普总统试图阻止的经济危机已经开始固化了。因此，未来会给他带来经济成本的东西已经开始变得不可逆转了。你今天早上听到的关于胡塞武装封锁约旦河地区的管道，也就是红海中的那个港口城市，那里有4到5百万桶沙特原油正在涌出。你听到的那件事将使经济危机更加固化，除非它立即被扭转。即使明天立即扭转了，第二天之后也可能再次扭转。这正在失控地螺旋上升，因为它不仅仅是特朗普总统现在要把这个“精怪”放回瓶子里。特朗普总统实际上仍然可以撤军，但现在伊朗必须停止升级。它必须让红海的石油流动起来。它必须允许从霍尔木兹输油船只通行。伊朗不是为了报复而处于那种情绪中。伊朗的情绪正在流淌，但这并不会导致伊朗后退。它会导致伊朗想要报复。

伊朗的升级态势与对美国军事行动的担忧

Speaker A: 最高领导人几天前发表的声明，周六，两名美国士兵在约旦被悲剧性地杀害。他称最高领导人所做的是将要向美国传达不可磨灭的教训的措辞。不可磨灭的教训就是最高领导人在周末说的确切措辞。你在这里看到的，斯蒂芬，正如我们基本上伊朗开始向船只射击试图加强特朗普总统的立场一样。现在我们已经连续第九周、第九天进行轰炸了。现在伊朗正在升级攻击。伊朗正通过多种方式升级攻击。它正在攻击我们在约旦的基地，这自三月以来很少发生过。现在由于胡塞武装封锁了红海。而且我们还没有谈到科威特。我们应该谈谈周末在科威特发生的事情，因为这是即将到来的事情的前兆，因为它显示了伊朗愤怒的凶猛程度以及阻止这种升级螺旋上升有多困难。这就是导致特朗普总统认真考虑部署地面部队的原因之一，因为我们现在没有做出独立决定。

潜在的军事风险与恐怖主义威胁分析

Speaker B: 所以你说有70%的机会，是的。部队可能被部署到伊朗地面上。是的。我认为在下个月内，甚至可能比那更短的时间内。这甚至可能在本周末结束之前就发生。这是我为你做的东西。我意识到DVIO的受众是我们要实现的宏大目标。我学到的事情之一是，当你瞄准那个大大的大目标时，它会让人感到极其心理上的不适，因为它有点像站在珠穆朗玛峰脚下向上看。实现你的目标的途径是将它们分解成微小的步骤。我们在我们的团队中称之为1%。实际上，这种理念对我们这里的成功起到了极大的作用。所以我们所做的事情，这样你在家就可以实现你拥有的任何大目标，就是我们制定了这些1%的日记，并在去年发布了它们，而且它们都卖光了。所以我反复要求我的团队把日记带回来，但也要求他们引入一些新颜色，对日记进行一些小的调整。所以现在我们为你提供了更好的选择。所以，如果你心中有一个大目标，你需要一个框架、一个流程和一些动力，那么我强烈建议你在这些日记卖光之前就弄到其中一个。你可以在diary.com上买到你的。如果你想要链接，链接在下面的描述中。

Speaker A: 你在图表上向我展示了升级阶梯，你可以称之为，以及我们现在的位置。你认为这场战争接下来最可能发生的事情是什么？我最担心的是针对美军或美国平民的大规模伤亡袭击。

Speaker B: 哇。针对中东的美国部队，但我特别担心的是对我们在阿曼湾的军舰的弹道导弹轰炸。伊朗通过其目标选择显示了它已经一直在做的事情，而且它有非常精细的能力来精确打击，我们不确定他们是否能够追踪我们在阿曼湾的军舰的移动，或者他们是否得到了中国或俄罗斯的帮助来实现这一点。但我特别担心的是随着局势升级，他们刚刚封锁了红海。如果我们继续前进，我们会发现特朗普是否会撤退，但如果我们继续前进，我本周、下周最担心的事之一将是针对一艘船的袭击。我认为那将是一场炮击攻击。我担心的第二件事是因为我们现在实际上正在威胁地面占领。这是我在研究自杀袭击25年经验中最大的风险因素。我们还没有谈论过这个问题，斯蒂芬。我们没有谈论它的原因是我们离如何发起大规模自杀恐怖主义活动这个大风险因素还很远。这现在正在改变。我向我的子版块谈过这件事了。很高兴现在能和你谈谈。但我担心的是针对美国人的大规模伤亡袭击。这可能针对一架美国客机。它可能针对，我是说针对商业客机的美国人。这可能针对呃，比如在阿夸巴的商人。所以你可能会知道最近在阿夸巴发生过袭击，这是一个非常漂亮的度假胜地。我从未去过那里。而且事实是，现在有美国商界人士正在中东四处流动，以建造这些管道。所以我可以想象对那些住在德国和英国大使馆的酒店的恐怖袭击。美国国务院在上周末发布了针对美国人离开该地区的建议。但我担心的是恐怖袭击，因为威胁或实际上进行地面控制，控制国土的一部分是自杀恐怖主义最大的风险因素。这导致人们比任何其他事情都更愿意装上炸弹来杀死他人，而他们自己却在杀死自己。所以在我们详细解释之前，所以当你对我说斯蒂芬，我接下来的几周想看到什么时，

Speaker A: 我看到升级螺旋正在发生。这是一个双向螺旋。不只是特朗普总统。伊朗也在升级，如果不是更多的话。在这个升级的螺旋中，可能会有针对我们的部队或美国平民的大规模伤亡袭击。

对恐怖主义和战争的分析

civilian: 袭击可以发生在世界任何地方。它可能在印度尼西亚，也可能在伦敦。它可能在任何地方。如果发生那种大规模伤亡事件，我认为你将看到的是这很可能会导致我们在美国讨论的那个分裂——对战争的支持会更加坚定。你将获得强烈的支持，以继续战争，现在来阻止伊朗未来的大规模伤亡袭击。

civilian: 你在研究恐怖袭击，特别是自杀式恐怖袭击。是的。给我看看你做的那项研究的工作。你写了一本书关于这个。两本书。然后告诉我那与我们现在所处的时刻有什么关系。所以，在9/11之后不久，请记住，美国遭受了发生在纽约世界贸易中心、五角大楼的恐怖袭击。那天近3000名美国人丧生。我想了解原因，我想了解更多。我研究得越多，我注意到9/11是一次自杀式袭击。它不仅仅是一次恐怖袭击。所以我开始收集全球所有自杀袭击的第一套完整数据集。我在芝加哥大学做了这件事。我与几位研究助理一起做这个，基本上是研究学生。自杀式恐怖主义，我研究它的原因，斯蒂芬，是因为它是恐怖主义的“肺癌”。自杀式袭击在恐怖主义这一类别中杀死的人比所有其他不同类型的恐怖主义加起来都多。自杀式袭击是最大的杀手。它就像肺癌一样。我们有其他种癌症，但肺癌是最大的杀手。那么，自杀式恐怖主义的肺癌的关键风险因素是什么？是军事战斗存在于恐怖主义目标领土上。

civilian: 所以，对于自杀式恐怖主义来说，阻止它很难吗？因为你知道，我们似乎可以很好地拦截来袭的导弹，但自杀式恐怖主义似乎是一种完全不同的挑战。自杀式恐怖主义就像是精确制导武器一样，把一个人变成一种精确制导武器，因为字面上没有什么比在人群中、在一个建筑中找到最脆弱的点、设置爆炸装置的最佳时机更有效。

civilian: 那么美国，例如，你是在说两件事。你当时说那袭击可能在美国发生，但它不一定非要发生在那里。它可以在那些理论上人口密度高的美籍或西方人地区发生。对。因为你知道，美国人可能会说：“嗯，我们不会让来自那些地区的任何人进来。我们会更勤奋地进行护照检查，无论如何。”那会在战争之后发生。上帝禁止，我希望我错了，斯蒂芬，但如果第一次袭击发生，你将看到所有这些。你会看到什么？你会看到我们可以做什么的想法吗？我们可以做护照检查吗？我们可以做X或Y吗？911之后，类似的事情发生了。让我们希望不会发生那么大的事情。但让我进一步解释一下，当我编译那个数据库并做出一个具体的预测时，它预测如果我们要入侵和占领伊拉克，我们将触动现代最大的自杀式恐怖主义运动。这是什么？关于什么的？好吧，特别是在入侵他们的国家与轰炸他们的国家之间导致自杀式恐怖袭击的因素是什么？比如，从天空中轰炸他们杀死的人，这不重要。重要的是地面部队带来的政治控制部分。所以使用地面部队的原因是施加政治控制。

civilian: 所以，斯蒂芬，那不只是杀人。美国部署地面部队的原因是获得政治控制，而这种政治控制意味着被控制的群体不能控制他们生活的方方面面。这被视为一种更深层次的侵犯。这最终就是它吗？它是一种对当地人口不受控制的更深层次的侵犯。所以当我们把地面部队派到阿富汗后推翻塔利班时，我们是通过他们的力量推翻了塔利班，但直到我们开始向阿富汗投入地面部队之前，我们在阿富汗不会遭受太多自杀式袭击。那是在我们推翻塔利班之后几年才开始的。因为那时我们正在部署地面部队。所以唐纳德·特朗普最近在Truth Social上发帖说，每当伊朗杀死一名美国士兵时，他们就会为此付出很多次代价。这个指令已经传达给了国防部长皮特·赫克斯、联合参谋长和他的其他军事领导人。显然，这是对失去一个美国生命的反应。他正在我们谈论战争的时候非常积极地发推文，一推文接着一推文在Truth Social上。它……我只是不知道这里有没有一个可实现的终局或退路，可以恢复通过赫尔穆兹的直通航道，但同时允许美国撤退而不会显得遭受了战略上的失败。不，斯蒂芬，没有可行的退路。那个船是在你总统特朗普决定在三月份的第一周不宣布他可以宣布——我的建议是，在那一周三月第一周宣布胜利并走开——要对伊朗进行教训的时候航行了。你杀死了最高领导人，一群其他领导人。现在让我们回到谈判伊朗核计划的……我当时给你的建议是军事上遏制以色列。那个建议是保持一个封口。以色列正在进入黎巴嫩，做其他事情。在军事上对以色列保持封口。特朗普已经采纳了这些想法，我不是说因为我说过它们，但他把那些想法推迟了好几个月。如果你看看我认为特朗普现在试图用这种方式军事遏制以色列，我确实认为他曾试图宣布胜利并走开。但问题在于这里，斯蒂芬，是这些现在太晚了，而且钱不够了。它们还不够好。所以如果你想回到谈判轨道上来，你将向伊朗提供什么来让他们回到餐桌？同样的说法：“哦，当然。我们将继续我们已经签署的，然后我们一次又一次地违反。”这不可信。

关于中期选举、战争资金和政治格局的分析

Speaker A: 如果在中期选举中输掉，这意味着共和党将在国会失去一个或两个议院席位。如果这种情况发生，那么接管控制权的人将是民主党人。他们会非常反战。而且这里将会有巨大的努力来关闭战争，也就是关闭战争的资金。所以，这总是关乎金钱。

Speaker B: 我需要了解这个角色的作用。所以中期选举、金钱和战争之间的这种联系。

Speaker A: 所以中期选举将改变国会中谁在控制。

Speaker B: 是的。

Speaker A: 然后是控制它的人。

Speaker B: 国会里的那些人决定军队能得到多少钱。

Speaker A: 他们决定是否……嗯，他们能否通过法律，而这在1974年发生了，是为了防止资金被用于战争。

Speaker B: 但特朗普不能过度这样做。他可以尝试绕过它。嗯，然后可能会有最高法院的案件等等。

Speaker A: 所以，即使民主党赢得中期选举并试图阻止战争，特朗普也可以绕过他们，因为他作为总司令拥有巨大的宪法优势。他可以简单地否决国会通过的任何战争权力决议或资金限制，这将需要两院都以极其困难的2/3多数票才能推翻。此外，模仿自理查德·尼克松以来几乎每一位总统的论点，特朗普可以诉诸他的第二条宪法授权，声称他有权在不需要立法批准的情况下保卫美国的利益和军队。最后，即使国会拒绝授权新的资金，总统也可以使用紧急转移权力（emergency transfer authorities）和创造性会计（creative accounting）来重新分配现有的五角大楼预算资金，以短期内维持军事行动的运转。你刚刚定义了一个宪法危机。国会会认为它有权这样做。特朗普总统会认为他有权这样做。这就是宪法危机。这也是为什么这些中期选举，在我……嗯，不完全在这个背景下这么说，但你知道我有一本书即将出版，我们最可怕的敌人。前言被称为我们一生中最危险的选举之一。这就是为什么即将到来的这次选举将是我们一生中最危险的选举，因为现在的紧张局势正在加剧。除此之外，它们并没有平息那些水面上的平静。伊朗战争让一切变得更糟。而你刚刚读到的就是这里的紧张局势，这可能会……（哼了一声）因为民主党不想让它成为永久战争。而且一旦他们控制了一个或两个议院，他们很可能会非常努力地战斗。特朗普总统将为了他的遗产和他的国内议程——包括驱逐，包括移民及海关执法局（ICE）——而非常努力地战斗。所以，这一切都会汇集起来。在进入中期选举的过程中，这些不会被分割成孤立的问题。这就是我说的我们正走向中期选举，中期选举。我们不是走向一个只关心海外军事基地发生了什么未来的地方。它只是关于海外的船只发生了什么，霍尔木兹发生了什么。这些线，美国的国内政治暴力，我称之为暴力民粹主义时代，以及对伊朗战争日益增长的国家紧张局势。这两条线，国内危机和国际危机即将汇合。正如我在2024年夏天告诉我的研究团队和我刚在芝加哥发表的演讲中提到的那样，我的噩梦，他们问我的噩梦情景是什么。这是在2024年秋天。我说：“我的噩梦情景是我们在2024年秋天的选举和国际危机同时存在。我们真的没有那样的情况。现在我们有了。而这正将进入2026年秋天。”这一直是我噩梦的情景。

Speaker B: 为什么？那意味着什么？这两个东西碰撞会是什么样子？

Speaker A: 这两个东西的碰撞开始看起来像20世纪60年代。那在20世纪60年代发生了什么？我们有大规模示威活动。我们有反战暴力。我们有地下反战恐怖主义。发生了多次暗杀事件。马丁·路德·金，鲍勃·肯尼迪被暗杀了。芝加哥的会议上，只是大规模示威。芝加哥市长戴利下达了枪击命令。我已经告诉过你们地下反战运动。嗯，他们设置了一串炸弹。所以我们在20世纪60年代面临的是国内政治紧张局势与不受欢迎的战争之间的碰撞。这就是1960年的混乱是如何发生的。我在书中有一整章是关于20世纪60年代以及为什么它如此激烈。

Speaker B: 所以你认为在目前的局势下，特朗普很有可能会输掉中期选举吗？你认为共和党很有可能会输掉……这里是重点。如果……如果我们发生大规模伤亡袭击，这将增加特朗普和共和党赢得中期选举的几率。而且我认为如果我们经历一场没有大规模伤亡袭击的全球经济危机，那么我认为共和党很可能会在中期选举中输掉。

Speaker A: 好的。所以我想我们有我无法给你一个明确答案的原因，我知道人们想要这个答案，因为我们现在面临着多个具体问题，这些问题现在是螺旋式升级暴力的部分。而且三个月并不算很长。

Speaker B: 这很长，因为大规模伤亡袭击可能发生在十月，而且它不一定需要由伊朗指挥。它可以是……可以发生针对美国人的大规模伤亡袭击，因为它可能是受鼓舞的袭击。伊朗最高领导人发表的声明听起来几乎就像巴格达的领导人发布了旨在鼓励受鼓舞袭击的声明一样。那是在2015年11月巴黎发生的那些导致数百人死亡的自杀袭击。那是圣伯纳迪诺。所以我们……我们看到了领导人激发袭击之前，最高领导人的声明就几乎是同样的词汇。

Speaker A: 当前的美国空袭活动是可持续的吗？你之前暗示过这一点，实际上美国可能正在用尽一些武器。估计这场战争每天对美国的成本约为20亿美元。伊朗继续进行这种不对称袭击的能力并不像这样高昂的成本那样……从你之前关于碗的例子来看，似乎更可持续。

Speaker B: 所以这里真的存在美国会用完武器的风险吗？嗯，我认为我们有可能会用完拦截导弹来击落导弹的风险，但这相当低，因为真正发生在我们武器库中的情况是，史蒂芬，我们正在使用大量的拦截器，特别是像“先锋”导弹拦截器来击落来袭弹道导弹，但我们是从亚洲和欧洲的库存中调用的。这是扎林斯基无法获得“先锋”导弹的一个原因。至少不是很多。因为它现在将大部分库存转移到波斯湾这里了。所以，我认为我们可能会用完那些拦截器。但即使在那里，我也认为风险很低。

Speaker A: 但就炸弹而言，期望我们用完飞机上的炸弹是严重的夸大。有两个原因。为了制造精确炸弹，大多数人不知道需要什么，这是真的。我们可以花费大量金钱来制造一个精确炸弹，但我们可以把普通的、500磅的普通炸弹拿出来，给它们绑一个背包，让它连接到GPS上，并用小电缆连接到炸弹的尾翼，以便将一个普通炸弹变成一个精确炸弹。这些背包大约要2万块钱，也许是25块。所以我们可以比人们想象的更容易制造它们。

Speaker B: 所以，你认为美国/特朗普的在这个特定时间点的目标是什么？比如，目标是什么？真正的目标是什么？因为我看到很多新闻发布会，他们说它是核武器、这是这个，那是那个。

Speaker A: 我认为特朗普在现在到中期选举之间的目标非常简单。一个象征性的胜利。那会是什么样子？那将看起来像一次……（此处中断）