Capital Markets Day Transcript - PSQH 2025-09-25

Speaker 2

You're a pretty good analyst. If you ever want a different job, I think I could set you up with the CIA.

Speaker 1

Definitely not. Joe Kent gave me trauma. I was just talking to Joe. We had a conversation earlier. Man, the beast is so – I don't know what term to describe it. That conversation with Joe Kent earlier today, we started explaining like just so many perverse incentives. But it's worrying. Like we were talking about – like we're talking about he's part of the NCC, National Counterterrorism Center. And I asked him a question like how – when you talk about groups that are terrorist groups, considered designated terrorist groups, do you guys ever go down and peel the onion, try to understand why – how did they become what they are? What did we do as the United States to lead to this? i think we're talking about different groups in the middle east was it our is it just because we exist as a democracy or is it something more because there's many other democracies they're not targeting why us or is it because of our actions in syria of actions in iraq do you ever have those discussions and his answer was just kind of gave me his answer was the obvious but it's you know it more than anyone race it's it's a big well it's very clear i'm glad you asked me

Speaker 2

because they hate our freedoms. I mean, let's face it, they hate our freedoms. George Bush, I jest, of course, but I'm really glad you started out this way because that is the nub of the problem. Why do they hate us? Now, interestingly enough, after 9-11, there was one group in our Department of Defense in the Pentagon. It was the Defense Science Board. And they got so tired of hearing about, they hate our freedoms, they hate our democracy, that they put out a paper. I think I see it over there. Let me just grab it.

Speaker 1

Get it. And while you're getting it, oh, that was quick.

Speaker 2

OK, that's what they said. Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority object to what we what they see as one sided support of Israel against Palestinian rights and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies. Thus, last sentence, this is an excerpt, thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy." The Pentagon, a group appointed by Rumsfeld, but they're not the propaganda title policy. at the Defense Science Board, when I saw this, I said, whoa, what about that? This is really crazy. So what I did was look at how it was handled. Now, it wasn't handled. It was kept out of all the media until finally, I think it was two or three months later, the New York Times couldn't it couldn't avoid it anymore it was after the election by the way uh the second bush okay yeah and so the new york times said well there was this report um but they omitted i mean like they excised like it's not the first the preceding sentence is there and the second the receding sentence is there, okay? And what they omitted was the overwhelming people, Muslims, subject to what they see as one-sided support for Israel against Palestinian rights. Well, I mean, what could be more blatant than they would, you know, take that out? And of course, we see this all the time. This is no news to you, but this was one time when we had a sensible statement about why they hate us, and it ain't our democracy, it ain't our freedom. It's clearly what we were doing to the Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon and Syria and the West Bank and Gaza. And, you know, that's what's coming home to roost now. And what I've been awed by, Mario, is that there's one country that seems to be, well, principled with the world and principled enough to stand up for these guys, and that's Iran, not the Gulf East. Well, you know more about this area than I do, but the Gulf's tasting a rat's ass about the Palestinians. but by God, the Iranians do. So what has impressed me is that in the very first paragraph of that 50 memo of misunderstanding, memo of understanding, there was two sentences, okay? And one country was mentioned three times, okay? And who was that? That was Lebanon. So, here is Iran insisting, look, the art of resistance is real, okay, because we are a powerful nation. We make it real. We see Hezbollah as resistance. We see these other resistance movements as resistance. That's what we are, and we're entitled. We're entitled not only to resist politically, but with armed force. That's totally legal. That's good unto international law. We've been occupied since, many of us, since what? Since June 1967? That's a long time. Now we're resisting. And now, thanks to the Iranians, they have the power to resist. And the whole thing has come down crashing on israel and in the united states because of the foolhardy thing they did

Speaker 1

back on february 28th well that well that memorandum of misunderstanding as many people like to call it is already leading to a possible misunderstanding now um as we're going live defense minister katz's statement came out he said renewed actually i'll read out the exact quote it could talking about conflict between Israel and Iran, he said, it could happen even within two days. We have targets to strike in Iran, and the IDF is prepared on alert, but we will not interfere with the US president's course of action vis-a-vis the Iranians. But he talks about how they are expecting an imminent attack by Iran. I'll read out the other statement. If Iran attacks Israel with ballistic missiles in response to actions in Lebanon, the IDF will respond and preparing to operate independently. We have targets to strike in Iran and the IDF is prepared and on alert. So there's a defense minister saying that they're prepared for an Iranian attack because of what's happening in Lebanon and that could sabotage the entire deal instead of going there and addressing the issue in Lebanon. But then there is the question. The question is, okay, but what is Israel meant to do about the threat up north? That is Hezbollah. It's a very valid question when i speak to israel is they're like mario yes but we have that threat we want to get rid of it of course but the problem is that yeah look at every threat they want to get rid of violently everything has to be dealt with militarily in the last six hours there was a bombing in lebanon there was in the last 12 hours an attack in syria they advanced and they attacked a gunman in a village now i don't know whether the syrian gunman attacked first or not and a few minutes ago there was a bombing in gaza like there's anything left to bomb that's in the last 12 hours so that's when you go back the term is being overused the core issues the core problems what is it the causes what is the there's a term that's used a lot in the Ukraine war the something causes the you know which one I'm talking about I'll use another word for it the fundamental causes of the war the fundamental cause of all the instability right now if you peel all the layers is Gaza followed by just like if you if israel accepts to pull out of lebanon there is a diplomatic solution with hezbollah then the israelis be like yeah but how do we know hezbollah won't attack well if if israel does not attack first and there's the diplomatic solution to the iranian issue that would solve the lebanon issue syria has already thrown the white flag syria wants to settle the matter but then in the same statement the root causes my producer just sent me the root causes in the same statement the defense minister said this um during the same press conference, Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that Israel had attempted – no, this is not the one. Let me get the right

Speaker 2

This is Katz, right?

Speaker 1

Katz, our nice, neutral, pacifist, the Defense Minister Katz. There's a statement where he's talking that Israel is not willing to pull out of the territory. There it is. During the same press conference, he says the IDF has no intent to withdrawing from all areas. It has annexed during the past three years, including Syria, Gaza, and Lebanon. That's a summary of his statements. Scott stated that this position is supported by the United States and was agreed upon during the U.S. CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper's visit to Israel last week. So if Israel is saying, hey, that territory we invaded, we will not give it up, then how do you expect a solution with Hezbollah? How do you expect a solution with Syria? How do you expect a solution with Iran?

Speaker 2

There is none to expect, and that's what the Israelis want. Now, in our history, which is not a very good history of the United States, before we declared independence, we fought Indians, okay? They were native peoples there. We call them Indians because we thought we were in India. Anyhow, there was an expression, white man talk with forked tongue, okay? Well, that's the epitome of what Katz just said. we don't want to offend President Trump, but we're not leaving Lebanon, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So how do I see the more operative scenario here? Okay, Israel keeps doing what it's doing. Up to a point, the Iranians, who see a real advantage in this 15-point, whatever it is, memorandum of understanding, will reluctantly say, well, we'll take a little bit, and then they'll come back and they already have bombed northern Israel. So they'll come into the fray and they'll bomb Israel itself. And then what will happen? Well, they will have a decision as to whether to obliterate Israel. They can do that, okay? Israel has no more defenses that people speak of. So at that point, and this is what bothers me most, here Netanyahu will be faced in Israel itself and Katz and all these other guys with an existential threat. In other words, the Iranians are not going to leave Lebanon in the lurch. And so what happens? Well, after the Iranians do their damage in Israel, damage which is kept from us under great censorship, But Israel may end up with an existential choice as to whether to use nuclear weapons. Now, you tell me that a guy like Netanyahu, who does genocide and forced starvation and everything else, assassination, you tell me that he'll shy away from using what he has in extremis, okay? I think the chances are better than even that he would do that. And so what's the conclusion for policymakers? In Iran, as well as in the US and everywhere else, for God's sake, can't we get some kind of deal where we come short of that? And Iran, would you please not obliterate Israel just yet? Okay, because we got this deal going and you're still in control of the strait. So it's really very much in flux. But I think that's the ultimate worst outcome. And I hope that there's enough sensible people in Tehran and the other capitals of that area and in Washington to say, look, you know, nuclear weapons, no one wants to see that again. That would be the first time since Nagasaki, right? So I think the Russians and the Chinese are also very allergic to that notion whether Netanyahu can be dissuaded or well but where they can be dissuaded from using them in extremis I don't know I don't think the chances are better than even that he would relent and face the consequences not only for Israel and but for himself politically he'll end up in jail if he loses office right how long have you been

Speaker 1

watching the situation in the middle east since what year approximately because that links to my next question yeah have you started watching what the developments i was head of the soviet foreign

Speaker 2

policy branch at the office of current intelligence glorified newspaper people right reporting every day on something. Now, of course, Soviet foreign policy toward Egypt and Syria and that whole area was very important. So to the degree I watch that, it was the same way I watch China with Soviet relationship with China. But lately, I mean, the last couple of years, I've had to learn a hell of a lot about the Middle East. I listen to people like Alistair Crook and others, and I think I'm Okay. Test me.

Speaker 1

So the reason I ask you, no, the reason I ask you is, I'm still going to ask you a technical question. I want to ask him because it's very easy to get lost in the daily noise. But it's really difficult. You've got immense experience and you've been into politics for so long that it's sometimes hard to look at things with a bird's eye view and also historically as well, just looking at how now compares to five years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. For me, if I look at what's happened in the past, I wasn't involved in it, I wasn't watching it live, but just kind of revisiting the past in the region. And I've been watching the Middle East closely for, let's say, 20 years, me personally. I don't think it's an overstatement to say. We're going through probably the most dangerous phase in many, many decades. You've got nuclear weapons involved. You already have a regional war. You've got so many countries involved. You have the ability, because of drone warfare, to shut down the entire global economy. And I just don't want to be kind of an alarmist. Objectively speaking, I was thinking about this this morning, it really looks like one of the most dangerous phases we're going through.

Speaker 2

I would agree. and you haven't even mentioned one of the most volatile aspects here, and that is that Trump is not well. I mean, not only psychologically, but if anyone watched him try to put a little snap or tie a ribbon around that medal of honoree last week, it took him 52 seconds. I clocked it. okay it was terrible his dexterity was just so here's a guy who's kind of ill okay and he's unpredictable what's he going to do uh we know what formula poutine is using and that is for god's sake flatter him tell him his wife is doing a great job on the refugees telling me happy birthday and way to dodge the bullet and all that stuff so he doesn't do something stupid but you know how can you predict what he's going to do so that's the volatility that i would add to the situation you just described which i think is an accurate especially because of the nuclear

Speaker 1

weapons aspect yeah so let's look at what happens next you've got an mou and then you've got a framework or an agreement that was signed in lebanon the two contradict each other one of them the MOU requires Israel to pull out unconditionally. The framework in Lebanon has conditional withdrawal for Israel. Israel made their position very clear. They detached Lebanon, and it seems to have U.S. approval because the U.S. was party to that agreement that was signed, to detach Lebanon from the Iranian MOU. Now, I don't know if the Iranians are aware of that and whether they gave their go-ahead, whether there were talks behind the scenes between the Americans and the iranians and the iranians maybe wanted to discreetly give their go-ahead for that agreement a lot of things happen in politics behind closed doors and we only find out about them years ago years later so maybe the iranians are aware of that deal that was signed in lebanon they gave their okay and they like conceded that to get concessions on the on the strait of hummus i don't know what's happening behind the scenes but it looks messy as hell and then you've got the strait of hummus the americans and the iranians are trying to gain control of that energy choke point and then you've got movements in all these different proxy battlegrounds you've got bombings in lebanon struggle between the lebanese government hezbollah iran and and and israel and talks about syria joining lebanon to disarm or to fight hezbollah then you have um saber rattling between turkey and israel and then israel also jabbing at egypt and then you've got another battleground of proxies, and that's Yemen. And you've got forces that are backed by the Gulf countries, Saudi and the UAE, starting to mobilize to fight the Houthis because they understand the importance of the Bebel Mendeb Straits. So putting all these pieces together, I know Trump wants to get out. But the question is, do you think the US wants to get out of this war? Not sure if you know what I mean. I don't know. there's a difference here between the U.S. and Trump.

Speaker 2

Yeah, if Trump had his druthers, he'd be a freer man to face down Netanyahu. I'm thinking of Joe Kent, who you say you just... Now, when he retired, when he resigned, he said look after due consideration it's a matter of conscience the attack on Iran was not because of an imminent threat rather it was because of pressure from Israel and from Israel's lobby supporters in Washington period nothing more needs to be said what guts It's the first time that's happened in a long time, all right? So that's the basics there. Now, with respect to all the bases that the U.S. had surrounding Iran, you know, the old joke about why did Iran put its country right below all those U.S. bases, right?

Speaker 1

Well, they're there, except half of them are destroyed now.

Speaker 2

That's big.

Speaker 1

The U.S. bases, yeah.

Speaker 2

U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. There's no U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters now. They can't even fix their ships there. So that's the difference here. Nobody thought, at least nobody I talked to, really thought that the Iranians would hit after the U.S. just as they threatened to do, but they did. I thought they would close the strait, and they did that for some reason or other. The Mossad persuaded Trump that, no, they wouldn't do that. They'd never done that. So anyhow, it is a mess, but there are certain realities here where Iran has the upper hand, and Trump wants to get out. There's going to be a worldwide depression, not recession, but depression if they don't get that damn straight open right quick. And so, you know, that's the nuclear weapon that Iran has, and it's showed the willingness to use it and to protect itself from any challenge. Now, then you take Trump. Now, why does he put Marines and the 82nd Airborne in the area, okay? They can't even go close enough for fear of being struck by all East missiles that Iran had. So is he thinking I'll put them on Iranian soil, my God? I can't exclude it. Maybe that's why some of these generals have been fired, Donahue, for example. Maybe he said, Mr. President, that's really a dumb idea. I commanded these troops. They're really good troops. They don't deserve to be decimated if you put them in Iran, okay? Anyhow, there's all these pressures. And Trump is trying his best to get the Israelis to play ball. But whether or not he can is, in my view, the $64 question, because I am convinced that Iran is going to stand by the Muslim people in Lebanon, as well as in Syria and Gaza and where else, you know. And that's the big new item. They're not only going to do that, they have the power to do it. And if you're expecting the Gulfies to do it, forget about it, because they have been, many of them, obliterated. That's the new reality. So is that a stable reality? It all depends on whether Trump can work his will on Netanyahu, it seems to me.

Speaker 1

Ray, who's calling the shots in the U.S.?

Speaker 2

Well, we have the lobby. But we also have a sea change in public opinion toward Israel. In 2001, Netanyahu was caught in a living room with one of his supporters. Someone was doing, you know, maybe I'll repeat anyway. He says it's video camera, and he's bragging about all this. And he said, turn that camera off. Oh, didn't turn it off. So what does he say? Look, don't worry about it. a woman says, you know, we're going to be ostracized in the whole world if we keep on with the Palestinians. Don't worry about it. All that really matters is the Americans. The Americans can always be bent into doing what we want. Matter of fact, 80%, 80%, mind you, of the Americans will do whatever we want. And that is incredible or amazing, i think you say well it was amazing but i want to play yeah i want to play the clip i know exactly

Speaker 1

which one you're talking about we're going to play with audio now because people forget forget about that clip and then i want you to continue your analysis on how things change since if you could play with audio please the arabs are focusing on a war and they think it will break us the main thing first of all is to hit them you can mute it by the way not just one blow but blows that are so painful that the

Speaker 3

price will be too heavy to be born to bring them to a point of being afraid that everything is

Speaker 1

collapsing wait a moment when the world will say how can you go back to your sex sorry go back kk can you go back on this when the world the world won't say a thing wait a moment but when the world will say how come you're conquering again the world won't say a thing the world will say we're defending aren't you afraid of the world bb especially today with america i know what america is america is something that can easily be moved moved to the right direction they say they're for us they won't get in our way they won't get in our way on the other hand if we do something then so let's say there's something they said it 80 of americans support us it's absurd okay i'm paraphrasing badly i'd paraphrase it badly it's too fast what kind of support if you say what do we do with it doesn't matter all right you did a better job explaining it right instead of us playing yes in hebrew uh but essentially what you're saying he's saying that the U.S. could be moved, the U.S. could be influenced. And the 80% part, what does he say exactly? Absurd. This is absurd.

Speaker 2

Closing, you know. Oh, my God, you know, we got this 80%. Soto voce, it doesn't occur to the Americans what kind of a lever we have on them, but the whole thing is absurd. Well, the point is, of course, Mario, that it was that way. It was that way right up till, I would argue, till February the 28th, when after the Mossad guy came to the Situation Room in the White House and persuaded Trump, look, this would be a piece of cake, a cakewalk, a phrase used with respect to Iraq many years ago. Cakewalk, we'll take out the leadership, all these, just don't worry about it, we'll handle that, but we got to do it together. We'll go first, and we'll tell Rubio, and then you can join us, and you'll be paid. He persuaded them. Now, we have a really good New York Times account of what happened at that meeting, and for this, I think we can depend on these particular reporters. The next day, they're writing a book. One is Maggie Haberman, okay? They're writing a book on all this stuff that goes in the White House, and so they asked all these guys, what happened at that meeting? And John Ratcliffe and the others, they all said, well, we didn't think this was a good idea. We cautioned about this. The head of the joint chief, no, except Hicks. We thought that we ought to, well, yeah, but what did they say in the situation room, damn it? Nothing. That's the way it works at these top levels. Oh, Mr. President, you're very impressed by Netanyahu and the Mossad guy who just gave us a briefing there on the screen. Well, let's give it a try. So that's the kind of intelligence support. That's the kind of non-intelligent support that Trump has been getting. Whether he's learned any lessons,

Speaker 1

I don't know. After all, policy effort is now gone. Are you saying Trump calls the shots he's just influenced, but he, the president, still calls the shots? I think that Trump made that decision

Speaker 2

and that the people who should have restrained him didn't. And he made that decision because he was persuaded in his own naive way that what the Israelis were telling them worked. That's one reason why he's actually genuinely pissed off at the Israelis and calls them the afterword and stuff like that but whether that translates into the ability for him to to bend netanyahu away from continued warfare we haven't mentioned epstein but i i think chances are better than even that there is black brown material available to netanyahu probably well probably video of our president with underage girls and maybe even worse uh so i think that probably works into it and i'm not alone in saying that uh and israeli mossad agent named adi bin menashi who has a pretty good record in in our ken uh has pretty much said that he thinks this is a sure thing and that what Trump should do is just kind of get behind or just acknowledge, you know, just so they can stop the genocide, stop these other things. Menashe is one of these Mossad guys, retired, who retains some sort of conscience, which is rare in those circles.

Speaker 1

The reason I'm pressing you on that question is because Katz, as we said earlier, is threatening or israel's attacking three countries in the last 12 hours and he's threatening you know he's threatening his warning of an imminent strike by iran and they're ready to act independently independent from the u.s and the reason i'm asking you is who's calling the shots in the u.s and um you kind of started talking about israeli influence in the u.s the reason it matters now is what i'm curious about is if iran attacks israel israel retaliates and it blows up into a full blown war. The big question is, will the U.S. join? Because if the U.S. won't join, then the likelihood of a war between the two countries drops significantly. Israel would not get into a war with Iran without American support. If the U.S. would join, the likelihood, I'd say is

Speaker 2

50-50. I agree. Yeah. Well, I'm sorry. Yeah, that's the big deal. What Trump is saying to Netanyahu now is important. But whether Netanyahu will believe that those threats are credible or not, that's another issue. He's got people to his right, not only Kotz, but he's got Ben Gavir and Smutrich and all these people. There's an election coming up, has to be held before October. The Israeli populace are way out there supporting further violence, which is hard to believe, but apparently the polls show. So Netanyahu is in his own little bind, and the question would be, just as you post it, if our president says, look, don't do it, don't screw up this thing, then will he screw it up anyway? Yes, he will, in my view. Will the Iranians retaliate? Yes, they will, in my view. Will it reach such a pitch that Netanyahu will think of an extremist using nuclear weapons? Yes, he will, in my view. Will Trump then say, my God, Bibi, don't do that? He will, but will that have any effect? I don't think so. That's the real worry that I have. And, you know, I admire the Iranians in many respects because they're pursuing a gradual, principled approach. It not only has to do with Iran, but it has to do with other parts of the arc of resistance. And they have the strong card by having the straight. So Trump needs that. Is Trump going to countenance a worldwide depression, losing the midterms and everything else, just because Netanyahu won't play ball? Well, he may not have that action. Netanyahu probably, as cuts, threatened. They'll do their own thing. They have their own kind of independence as they see it. And probably they think when push comes to shove, Miriam Adelson and the rest of them will say, no, Mr. President, now Iran's going to be obliterated, pardon the word, you got to come to their aid. Then it will be too late, in my view.

Speaker 1

So what would you give it, if I asked you to put a number to it, what would you say is the likelihood of a full-blown war again between Iran and the U.S.? And separately, so I'll give you a few scenarios and you can give likelihood for each one. a war between the u.s and iran which will obviously include israel and the second one is a war between the u.s israel and iran sorry israel and iran no u.s involvement and then i'd go three one worst case scenario a full-blown regional war worst worst case scenario i know we've had that already but i mean a regional war where multiple countries are involved not just

Speaker 2

u.s iran and israel um i don't think the other countries have anything much in the way of military capability uh to enter the fray just now uh russia of course farther away china have interests here and that's always a possibility in the next couple of steps to answer your first question, Iran against Israel with no U.S. involvement. I think that's possible, at least in the beginning. I think that's what the Israelis really have to worry about, but will probably proceed on their own anyway. In other words, a lot is at stake for Israel now that they've got themselves in this pickle. It's an existential threat. And whether they can make the necessary compromises or not, I don't see any record of them coming to their senses and making the necessary compromises. So do I see an open conflict between Iran and Israel? Yes. Do I see the U.S. being drawn into that? Well, it all depends on Trump. If Trump tells Israel, we're not going to get into this if you get involved in the war, so be careful what you do in Lebanon, then I think Trump might be able to make that stick. And then we have a problem with Israel becoming, if not completely obliterated, then we're going to all see the pictures now of what the Iranians are able to do in firing these unstoppable hypersonic missiles into Israel as they have already shown the capabilities to do.

Speaker 1

Well, on that note, pleasure to speak to you, Ray. Any optimistic final note? What is the best case scenario? Actually, maybe we can wrap it up with this. What is the alternative best case scenario? and what would you give it as a likelihood? The best one would be… In the best case scenario, I mean, no… Okay, I'll paint the best one and tell me the likelihood. What is the likelihood of normalization of relations between Iran and Israel in the next 10 years? You know, it was normalized. They were allies in the 70s, so going back to similar to what they were in the 70s. The disarmament of Hezbollah and the merging them into the Lebanese military and the finalization of Israeli borders. I'm going to take Palestine out of this, which it's the biggest issue. It's the core of everything. But the only reason I'm taking it out is it's a whole discussion with it itself, even more complex and a more heartbreaking discussion. But if we talk about these issues without Palestine, and maybe you might tell me, Mario, you can never detach those issues because a lot of them are caused by the Palestinian issue. You solve Palestine, you solve the others, but you can't solve the others without Palestine. But if we can go with this hypothetical, what would you say, what would you give it as a likelihood?

Speaker 2

My horizon is one of the journalists, a current intelligence officer. So I look about three, five years ahead at most. Focusing on the first year, I think things are going to happen within this next year, which will put Israel in its place, unless, and the big unless is, if Israel decides an extremist it will employ nuclear weapons. That's the big lacuna in any argument here. They have them. Would they not use them? So the art of diplomacy needs to be exerted here by sensible people. if there are any in Washington. I don't know, but I hope. I know there are some in Iran that don't want to take this kind of chance. And the Russians and the Chinese will, I think, play a larger role in how this thing all comes out. But over the next year, the strait will be either open or closed. I think it will be open because of the calamity that exists with it closed. And I think even Trump might be able to squeeze the Israelis and say, look, let's do some sort of modus vivendi, if not deal, with Iran. Now, that sounds like a Pollyanna sort of thing, but if you look at the next couple of years and you think of the economic turmoil that's going to happen all over the world, or people starving to death because the fields are not being planted. I think there may be enough humanity left in some of these major politicos to work out a situation short of regional war, or worse still, a world war.

Speaker 1

Ray, it's an absolute pleasure as always. Thank you so much for joining.

Speaker 2

Well, thanks for having me, Mario. Good luck to you.

Speaker 1

Have a wonderful day, sir. if the best case scenario ends with world war guys the the mention of a world war we're pretty screwed um i'll see you guys in 10 minutes with brendan weiker to continue the conversation with the focus on what's happening in in the entire region syria gaza yemen lebanon and obviously iran israel and the u.s but all these countries have had something happen in the last 12 hours. So the battlefront is shifting. We'll talk to you guys in 10 minutes. Bye.