0:00 So the question is, does Iran have the missiles and insufficient quantities that could actually do harm to Israel more than what we saw in the last war? >> It can do very significant harm to Israel by damaging the civilian infrastructure in the big cities. Uh and and that's not minor. I mean uh the society has to function economically and services and goods have to be uh distributed and uh the level of damage will be high in general. I think the level of damage has already been high although we haven't seen it. >> The question is specifically is in this presentation you have and I think it's on starting on the very next slide I think 12 through like 17 you show a series of of increasing density of
0:47 missiles and I wonder if you'd explain what the risk is of those and and what city is this by the way? Yeah, this is uh uh Tel Aviv and um uh what I've postulated here is 100 missiles falling into Tel Aviv um with an accuracy of about a kilometer, which is about the accuracy we saw for the air base uh for the attack in October of 2024. So, one of the things that you'll note is the downtown area is hit with a significant number of warheads, but a lot of warheads are falling into the Mediterranean in this particular uh simulation. and uh and some are falling further east
1:33 where uh the density where the heart of the city where there's still a lot in the city but the heart of the city's activities are are are less central. If we go uh to the next slide uh I show uh what happens if the accuracy of the missiles improve by a factor of two to 500 meters. Now, going to a 500 meter precision is not hard. In other words, the Russians have already told the Iranians that they're going to help them uh with the uh uh improving the accuracy of their ballistic missiles. And what this means is as the Iranians u focus on
2:23 cities and continue to build large numbers of ballistic missiles um what's going to happen is the core of the economic function of Israel is going to disintegrate. This is Tel Aviv. You can have Hifa. You can have Beer Shiva. these cities can be essentially shut down in terms of their commercial activities. >> So do do you have any sense by the way for for how many uh of these type of missiles Iran even has to whether they they can launch a hundred in at a single target? Well the the answer is I don't know. What what what what is reported is that they have
3:09 a couple of thousand of these missiles still. Whether that's true or not, I have no way of knowing. I mean, I can only talk, but it's certainly true that they could have a couple of thousand in a in a year or two or a few years because now that uh they're receiving help from China and Russia, uh they will have a lot of the material help they need to get the materials to build these missiles. So my uh estimate, if I were uh if I were MSAD intelligence, I'd be screaming to Netanyahu, you got to stop this because our long range prospects are really in bad shape. >> So So hang on, let me see if I got this right. So from Gary, go back to that
3:56 that image you were showing there. This is if there was 100 missiles with the 500 meter Circular error probability >> and and if Iran only had half the number of these missiles, that's what's being reported. Or if they can only get half of them off, they could do this times 10 at different places. Is that right? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Or or they could do that to our air bases for for example in the in the region as well. The same thing would apply to any of our air bases. Is that correct? >> Yes. Yes. And the air bases would suffer damage. No question. But they probably would not suffer catastrophic damage. Of course, there would be people who would likely be killed because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. Uh but I would not guess that they will shut down
4:42 our bases. They will certainly do damage. And uh if I were Iranian, keeping in mind that this is a war of survival from the point of view of Iran. This is not just any old war. Uh I would focus my attacks on the cities. I would try to make it there's a moral question about whether you should be attacking civilians. We all understand that. Uh you in particular have shown a great regard for the problem of uh civilians being innocently targeted. I agree with your concern. But uh if you're in a war for survival and uh the only prospect is to try to the country commercially economically
5:28 uh this would be the best choice to make is just aim at the cities and do as much damage as you can possibly do. >> And so do you have any sense for how difficult it would be for Iran to get this number of missiles in the air? Let's just say let's say that the reports are correct and they do have 2,000 of them. Uh from according many reports that I have read these things are literally scattered to the four winds throughout Iran. So it would be very very difficult. A lot of them would have to be. Some of them are on fixed sites, others are on mobile launchers. How effective could the United States be and I'm sure it would be a priority target to get these things hit at the launch site. Well, the fixed sites are potentially vulnerable. U especially if you know where they are and we probably have a pretty good idea about where they
6:14 are. Although they could be in fixed sites that are tunnels. And if we go after the tunnels, the Iranians could just simply pull the missiles back from the uh from the opening of the tunnel. They can always clear the tunnels. You can't be there all the time. Uh, fighter jets have a notoriously short time overt target. They can consume most of their fuel going to the target and getting back. You always have to have a significant reserve. You don't want to be over the ocean looking for the carrier and uh and and be 10 minutes short of fuel. So, you're going to have So, the range of these, of course, we're bringing tankers in at a very large uh
7:00 rate now. Uh so the uh ability to stand over the targets and wait for something to get a to get a shot at it will not be great. It will be there but it won't be great. The mobile targets are very hard to find. Uh we uh uh our surveillance systems are very limited. Uh we have systems uh that can do ground search. um that are reasonably capable, but they can't operate over over Iran because they'll be shot down. They're on big 707 airframes. So, you're not going to have that kind of search capabilities. Satellites will not give you that kind
7:47 of wide area search capabilities of satellites is very limited. And uh and >> I'm sorry Ted, I forgot to ask an obvious question on that that previous screen there where it showed the 100 missiles firing in there. To what extent can the uh Israeli air defense systems uh take some of these missiles out so that they don't even get to the target? >> Uh I I think that for all intents of purposes uh there is no air defense there is no air defense against these ballistic missiles. They have a considerable capability against airplanes. Now, an airplane is is a difficult target, but it's a much less difficult target than a ballistic missile. And there's several reasons for
8:33 that. Uh, first of all, the airplane is traveling slowly. It's typically traveling at, you know, maybe near Mac one or Mach 1 or so. If it's over the target trying to do damage, it's going to be in that uh velocity range. The uh interceptor uh flies at a um uh a speed of maybe Mach five. So the interceptor has quite a speed advantage over the um over the airplane. Uh and um the the problem is that the um uh the um uh the airplane uh is a big
9:19 target and anywhere you hit it, you're going to cause damage to the wings, the surfaces, kill the pilot or whatever. And uh the the interceptor comes in at such a high speed that even a very skilled pilot will have a hard time seeing the interceptor early enough that they can take a maneuver. And the interceptors have such uh high maneuver capability these these days uh that there's a low chance that you can outmaneuver the interceptor. So, >> so, so the Iron Dome and the David Slang, the THAAD, all all these systems that they had in their integrated air defense from the June 2025 war. Uh, obviously they can also shoot down a lot of the the drones because they're also
10:05 moving very slow. Uh, but based on your analysis and your assessment, have you been able to determine how many of the ballistic missiles that Iran fired during that war were shot down? >> I would be surprised. It was more than a few uh percent. uh intercepts. Intercepts defined as a destruction of the warhead of the incoming ballistic missile, preventing it from going to the ground and detonating. If that's the definition of an intercept, there was probably not more than uh I I'd be surprised if it's that if it's as high as 5%. I doubt it was that high. >> Wow. Now, now, uh, a lot of warheads did not reach the ground or they fell in
10:52 places that didn't matter because the the there were a lot of older ballistic missiles that were being used in many of these attacks because you could see evidence of tumbling. For example, at high altitudes, you could, you know, if you know what you're looking for, you can see uh certain in you can make an you can infer that that the object at high altitude was tumbling. The more modern missiles won't tumble or or or only their or they'll only tumble if it's the back part of the motor uh after the warhead has been released. And there were a lot of older missiles that were fired by Iran at least in the telev into Tel Aviv where where we have some videos. So um if they start using more
11:41 modern missiles assuming they have them they may not I don't know but if they start using more modern missiles first of all their accuracy will be you know a kilometer or better whereas some of these missiles almost certainly had accuracies much worse than a kilometer. And so they were not able to concentrate their fire into into the downtown areas where they could do most you know most damage to the economic structure of of the society. uh but uh that will if it doesn't change in the short term it's certainly going to change in the long term unless their manufacturing facilities can be destroyed and I doubt that can be done because they will be underground they
12:26 will be hidden and they will be hard to destroy. >> So let let's look at the US side of that. So there has been reports over the last couple of weeks especially of a big surge of air defense capacity moved into these US bases. Uh the 20 some odd bases has been reported that they received a big plus up and in Patriots THAAD and other kinds of air defense systems. How effective can we defend our own assets in the region? >> Well, the Patriots uh really have really very little capability against the ballistic missiles. We we know that from every experience with them. Uh the Ukraine Ukraine uh you know they uh it was even admitted at one point that all of a sudden they claimed in November uh
13:12 they had a leading person involved in the air defense to say oh we're all of a sudden getting only five or 6% intercepts on the Patriot. That was surely not a fully true statement. they were probably getting less than five or six percent on the Patriots well before this guy made the statement. >> And they they ascribed it to uh uh to um changes in the behavior of of the uh of the Kinjal missiles that they were trying to shoot at. Um I don't know. Um Gary, can you pick out a slide that's misnumbered? Can you just it's not miss it if can you pick out just by purely choosing a slide number given by the
13:59 program you you show uh the program the the number the slide is in the deck >> given by the computer program you're using. >> I'll give it a shot. Yeah. Can you All right. So, let me uh I'm sorry. I was just uh let's let's go to um uh slide uh 48. Go there. Sorry. Go. Okay. If you look at the right, uh this is from the Gulf War of 1991. What we're seeing is a Scud 600 kilometer range Scud come into the atmosphere. So this Scud is traveling a little bit over 2 kilometers uh per
14:46 second. Um so let me put this again in perspective. Every every thousandth of a second. So every millisecond this Scud has moved 2 meters. 2 meters is a significant diff distance because the size of the warhead is maybe a meter or so a couple well maybe a couple of meters. So every millisecond the uh the warhead on this uh missile is uh has moved the meter. So, if you're going to arrive and hit that warhead, uh, you really have to you can't come in from the side because if you attack from the side, you not only have to hit the
15:31 right location in space, but you have to arrive at the right location in space within uh, fractions of a millisecond because you have to hit the warhead. If you don't hit the warhead, it's going to break off and go to the ground and explode. And if you're interested in just doing general damage, um you're you're you're going to find yourself in a situation where um uh you're not stuck. The intercepts are meaningless. So So the real problem you're facing is uh that you can't um you can't hit the target unless you take the following strategy. I take the strategy of here is the missile I'm trying to intercept and what
16:17 I do is I try to come directly at it. So my interceptor, in other words, my inter if you look at the Gulf War videos, I would could show them at some later, you know, other time. You see the interceptor, the the Patriots come up and then they start turning, they start they start turning so they can come at the incoming uh missile headon. And the reason for that is you only have to adjust the distance to the front, you know, the side lateral distance. You don't have to also arrive at exactly the right time. In other words, if you arrive at a millisecond earlier or a millisecond later, it doesn't matter. If you're on the right trajectory, you're going to
17:02 hit the the warhead and destroy it. That is why if you look at almost all engagements that have any chance of an intercept, you will always see the interceptor coming at the at the ballistic missile target from the front. They have to do that. They have no choice. So when you see when you see contrails when you see a ballistic missile coming in like this and you see a contrail of of a missile of an interceptor that passes sideways, you can be almost certainly sure with a probability of like uh.999 that they missed the warhead because they had to arrive not only at the right location, but they couldn't arrive a
17:47 millisecond too early or too soon. So you have to come from the front. And so if you if we go back to that uh slide, we'll see what happened. What happened here is at the bottom of that uh that um spiraling um uh trajectory. You see uh you see a bright bulb. That bright bulb was an accident of the Gulf War of 91. In the Gulf War of 91, the Iraqis wanted a 600 ka 600 kilometer range Scud for because they couldn't reach the targets of interest to them with a 300 km range missile. So they lightened the warhead on the Scud and
18:35 extended the Scud a little bit um to carry more fuel and the combination gave them a 600 km range. However, it was not aerodynamically sound. People would make fun of the Iraqis. That's they they understood this, but they didn't care. I mean, you know, people it's the people who were making fun of them didn't understand. So, so I have this missile. It's coming into the atmosphere and now the the front end of it is light. So, uh, imagine I have a hammer and I throw the hammer at you and the head of the hammer is heavy. So, it's pulling it's pulling the tail of the hammer uh along and I put a little little winglets on it so it stays
19:22 stable. It it just keeps going. If I make the hammer if I take the hammerhead off, it's going to wobble or it's going to just go end over end. And that was what was go that was what was going on here. And what happened here is the Scud disintegrated. In fact, the all the Scuds were breaking up at about 11 or 12 kilometers altitude. This uh You look impatient. Is there a >> Yeah. No. And and and what does this tell us about the our ability today to to intercept? >> Well, we have now uh things like Iskander missiles which are designed to maneuver. They are designed to evade uh the
20:08 interceptor. So the interceptor literally cannot match the accelerations of the Iscander. It's very easy to take a non-mmaneuvering missile. In other words, a missile that you just you didn't design it to maneuver. So to get more accuracy, you just design it so that it spirals. I just take one of the wings at the back. I bend it a bit. I intentionally make the wing a little just the tail wing, one of the tail wings or two of the tail wings, uh, bent slightly and this thing will spiral when it comes in. When it spirals, the interceptor will not be able to match the accelerations, the lateral accelerations. Now, let me explain that. Stop me if I'm going off track and you
20:55 don't want to hear this. Um, let's say I have a a a ballistic missile. I'm trying to intercept. Uh, the missile takes an angle. It's just it's not planned. It's just it's it's it's maneuvering not because it's intentionally maneuvered. It's designed to be unstable. So, it takes a slight turn. Now, it's traveling at Mach Five or higher. It's got a lot of body lift on it from aerodynamics. So when it wobbles a bit, it starts accelerating laterally. Now I have this interceptor. It wants to run into the front of it. Now in order to u uh to hit the front of it when if I
21:41 have perfect knowledge and it maneuvers, I can always maneuver and hit it. It's you know perfectly I have a probability of one of hitting it. However, when it maneuvers, I don't know it's maneuvering. can't see it with the radar. I can't see that it's it's it's turned. And when it's when it turns, it starts to accelerate. So once I start being able to see that it's accelerating, I say, "Oh my go good goodness, I want to accelerate." Well, the first thing I need to do is I have to out accelerate. I have to have more acceleration than it has because um uh be because um I have to overtake it because it's already started ahead of me. It's like the open field tackle.
22:29 But in order to get my acceleration, I have to turn the body of my interceptor because it also maneuvers uh by using aerodynamic lift. That takes time. >> And does do our interceptors have that capacity? Can can they don't have a cap? That's the bottom line. >> And so do the Iran, you were talking about a Kinszel, which is a Russian missile. As far as you know, do the Iranians have the same kind of capacity to move their missiles around so that it >> absolutely absolutely have the ability to intent. >> And and let me ask you a question. So if if the missile is intentionally wobbling, as you say, how how does it still hit the target on on the that it shoots at? Well, if if you only want 500 meters of accuracy, what does it matter if you you hit the point 50 meters away
23:15 or 550 meters or, >> you know, this is an area target. So, so what you're trying to do is is do general damage that will, you know, have serious overall consequences for the economy of the country you're having war with. And of course, if you do if you do uh uh general damage of this kind, uh you're going to have a population that's pretty angry at you. And uh I suspect that the uh I mean I it's hard for me to know because my Israeli friends were against what Netanyahu is doing and still are. So, it's hard for me to say because I don't have a sample of the Israeli population that that's reliably
24:01 tells me what the population thinks. But there's got to be a lot of people in Israel not so confident that they're they're defended at this point after the last few attacks on Tel Aviv and Hifa and and other places. >> And you know, and I think it's going to get a lot worse. >> That's one of the big puzzlements to me. I if if we know that a lot of these missiles did get through and and I who knows the exact number because that's obviously a state secret. All we have is anecdotal information, but we definitely know a lot of them did get through because we have photographic evidence of it. >> That is not going to be lost on the actual Iran uh Israeli leadership. And they also know that it is just damn near impossible to take out all the offensive launch points that are literally scattered throughout the country as you
24:48 mentioned a minute ago. So, it seems like it would not be a wise idea for the leadership to greenlight, if not outright, push for an attack against Iran because they know they're going to take a hit. Do you mind? >> Yeah, I think uh uh I I I found an article uh I forget where it was published. I I have it. I can send it to you by an Israeli uh intelligence officer. you know they these guys are are pretty independent in their thinking. I've dealt I I've I've through my through the years uh met some high level intelligence people uh from Israel uh you know through my academic activities and and they are uh whatever
25:36 one thinks of the morality of their organization things like that they are extremely intelligent they get very good people uh for reasons uh that are distinct from what we get in the west keep in mind that even if you if you if you don't let yourself get so angry at Israel as I am uh they did have they they do have a legitimate threat uh you know security problem and because they have been threatened for so long uh uh they they young people who are very capable are interested and willing to go into public service and do these things. We don't we don't have the same drive here. We get good people occasionally.
26:22 In my experience, the best people we get uh in national security issues are in the military because they come out of uh traditions uh you know these characters who come out of the south like you. They come from families with their long traditions of being in the military. And we get these per people who have a long tradition of of of national service. They're bright. They're well educated. We don't get that in the civilian side. We get these people who are more of opportunists. And so we don't have the best people in our intelligence community. We have some good ones. I've met some very good ones, but but the Israelis are very good. And this guy, he just led off on on
27:09 Netanyahu for attacking the Iranians, you know, was in a in a open publication. And it was and it's clear when you read carefully with knowledge like someone like you can do. He's basically saying, "You idiot, you opened up Pandora's box." That's that's what this guy is saying. >> And and that from last June's attack you're talking about. >> Yes. Yes. >> And so what does that pretend for potentially the one that could be coming as soon as this weekend? >> Well, uh it's going to be bad for the Israelis. I don't know how bad. I don't know if but but I think the important point is it's going to be worse and worse and worse as time goes on. In other words, the worst thing you can do is to get into an extended war with Iran
27:57 if you are Israel. You can't win it. I if it goes on for six months, it's going to be terrible. If it goes on for for six years, which you can't rule out, it's going to be far worse. This country has uh has technical resources. It's a giant country. They have a lot of educated people. And China and Russia have thrown the gauntlet down. I China and Russia are not going to go to war against Israel directly. Well, now let's take a look at the other half of the the other side of this equation. I mean, you were showing some of these and you may not have any of these things, any charts. That's fine. Just talk them. Um,
28:43 >> those kind of charts would likely also exist on the Iranian side. So, what US and Israeli offensive missiles, what can they do to devastate the Iranian side? And can they survive a long range war themselves? Well, I I I I think the uh uh the Israeli and American uh capability is mostly in the form of aircraft delivered bombs. The missiles, well, they could be used against air defense systems if the air defense systems are not operated effectively. You want to make sure the air defense systems are hard to locate, but it's it's also hard to hide them against a very skilled adversary, but uh it looks
29:30 like the air defense systems in Iran have so far not played a critical role, but they will increasingly. So, we're talking about the long term. We're talking about the battle on the ground that you would look at when you look at the Ukraine war. What's going to happen in the next round? And when you look at the next round, things are not good, not at all good for Israel. And >> why say that? >> Because the uh ability to deliver these ballistic missiles is going to increase unless you can literally bomb Iran into the Stone Age. And you don't have that ability. I mean, you just don't have it. you you you can't uh you you you can't
30:15 stop uh the Russians in in Ukraine. Uh you you you you can't bomb enough of of Iran to uh destroy the entire industrial infrastructure of the country. Uh air defenses are coming in over time. they will improve, which means the cost of of of an attack will get higher because sooner or later you're going to start losing airplanes. Or if you don't lose airplanes, you're going to have to dedicate a large part of your air def air attack to suppressing the air defenses. So you get a what's called a big virtual uh reduction in your strike
31:00 capability because you have to send planes in to jam uh the air defenses to try to destroy radars and that takes assets. So I think in the long term uh the situation for Israel is not good. It's just it's just going to get worse and worse and worse. In the beginning I think they will do some significant damage to Iran. No question. And uh Iran will do some significant damage damage to Israel. Whether it's a knockout blow, I doubt it will be, but it will be severe. And uh it it will continue and it will continue to get worse and worse and more and more unstoppable. And you know, it just it just seems to me from from a military perspective is that it
31:48 doesn't look like absent a ground component from either side, it doesn't look like either side can just destroy the other back into the bomb stone age as you mentioned. A lot of people use that terminology, but it seems to me that this would get in at some point into a war of attrition, a missile war of attrition to where at some point you run out of either interceptors or well interceptors probably doesn't matter that much, but you'll run out of offensive capacity. Uh, and if the other side has not capitulated, if you didn't destroy their their governing regime, then the war will just meander on forward and they'll both sides will try to figure out how to get it going. But then where does it ever end? I mean, that seems to be the big question. If you don't bomb somebody to the stone age, then how do you see this thing coming to an end? >> Well, it's not going to Well, it'll
32:35 Israel will cease to be a viable economic state. I mean, it'll be, you know, I, you know, I always tell my Israeli friends, uh, you're always welcome in my home. I'll never go to Israel again. I don't want to deal with this country at all. I've fed up with it. But these are still friends. They're decent people. They're always welcome in my home. and I'll do everything I can to make them comfortable. But, uh, Israel is not going to be a viable place to, uh, to live in. You know, it's going to it's going to suffer tremendously. >> And, and would the same be said for Iran? I mean, could the could the >> Iran is also going to suffer, but uh, uh, not as much as Israel. Not as much as it's a big country. It can absorb more damage.
33:22 uh it's going to have the help of of bricks uh particularly China and Russia. China and Russia have obviously decided that the United States is completely out of control and so is Israel and they are going to counterbalance uh against Israel and the United States. >> You know, I think that's a really good point that you bring up there. I mean, if it's one thing if you're talking about the city of Tel Aviv and the city of Thrron, for example, you could see a commensurate amount of damage done into each place, but the country of Israel and the country of Iran is massively larger. So, it it percentage-wise it would be nearly impossible for the Israeli and American side to commensurate match up how much damage
34:08 could be done to the much more consolidated and small uh Israeli government. Is that is that >> there only a few big cities and is you know when you finish with Tel Aviv and Hifa everything else is smaller they're not insignificant but uh you know you just you do you make it impossible for people to work in this let alone live in it. It can make it very difficult for people to live in it but you can make it impossible for people to work in it. And if it's impossible to work in it, the economy grinds to a halt. And that matters. And there's only so much uh uh free weaponry the United States can give Israel because we're running out of weaponry ourselves. We're
34:53 running >> everything, correct me if I'm wrong, everything would depend on how much how much harm could come to Israel will really depend on how many effective long range missiles Iran actually has in its inventory. If it's >> Yes, I think it will boil down to that. or if it's a or if it's 2,000 is being suggested, it could it could be absolutely devastating. >> Well, what we don't know uh I mean it's totally unpredictable. I I don't know whether it would happen or not, but I think you can't rule out that at some point China won't start manufacturing missiles and selling it to Iran or giving it to Iran. Why why wouldn't they? It's it's >> they certainly set that standard with Ukraine. Well, um, you know, the straits of Hormuz being closed is going to be a
35:39 big problem for China. They need that oil. Now, of course, what what closing the Straits of Hormuz is is going to do or is is going is doing or will do is it's going to drive Russia and China even closer together because uh Russia has the resources to give all the oil and and liquid natural gas that China needs. It's not yet set up to do it, but it certainly has the ability. And uh you have the ability to trade with each other because you have bricks. Now the uh uh the system that doesn't require they trade in dollars. So the United
36:25 States can't do anything about uh trade in in in fossil fuels between China and and Russia as well as between Russia and India. And the United States has maneuvered itself into an absolute corner. I mean, all these big strategic thinkers, you know, these American big strategic thinkers, my the only question I'd like to have, which I is hard to ask politely, is how dumb do you think you could be? How could you be so dumb? How could you be so dumb as to think you can uh have a war, start a war in Ukraine, which we did. Americans were really responsible for this Ukraine war,
37:12 and think you can bring the uh economy, cut the economy of Russia in half, which apparently Biden believed. This guy did not take the trouble to go and talk to a simple economist. You know, this is just a bunch of monkeys in a room in the White House saying, "Oh, we have so much economic power. Uh, we're going to, you know, we're going to, you know, cut their I mean, didn't they have didn't they have an e a set of economists do a review? There had to be people in the American system who knew enough about world economics to tell them that, you know, this is not likely an outcome. There had to be I I I
37:58 witnessed a seminar at Stanford just the other day and these idiots. Uh this woman Rose Godaml was there. She's a they misrepresented her as having negotiated New Start. In fact, Ellen Tasha negotiated New Start. didn't even know what what her role was. But but um uh she's talking about how uh the um the European powers I mean this is an example of American leadership. That's why it's important. She's talking about uh how um she's confident that uh uh NATO is going to step up to the 5% of their GDP to build weapons. Doesn't she know that
38:45 uh Western Europe that the three largest NATO powers are in are are in a spiral, an economic collapse that's going on. Uh Germany is de-industrializing at a at a horrific rate. France is in the toilet bowl and and and uh and the UK is in worse shape economically. and she's talking about 5% five half of the economies of these countries >> and and and if you can argue that that what were we thinking in the Russia Ukraine war then it looks to me like all these similar here are basically g counting on a first round knockout. If we don't have a first round knockout against Iran then we and
39:32 if we if it goes 15 rounds we're screwed. >> Yeah. But I mean if you're talking about let's just talk about NATO for the moment though this amazing claim of this supposedly know who's allowed to teach students incidentally. So uh this is what the students at Stanford are being taught. Um the um uh half of the economies of these countries are uh are spent on social programs. Roughly speaking, Europe is a very socialized uh uh you know uh entity. Uh if you take 5% out of an economy for um uh for for military purposes, that's 10% out of
40:18 your social programs because you got to get it from somewhere. Europeans are not I mean anyone who's been in and out of Europe knows that they won't stand for it and I I think properly so you know so so they're going to come up against the wall. Um uh Frederick Mertz the uh I don't know the chancellor or prime minister of >> chancellor of Germany his popularity rate is the highest of the three leaders. Uh it's 26%. Stalmer I don't know I think he's around 20% or below. I I don't know if he's reached that if he's at that much. I mron is you know there's a there's a
41:03 a a political catastrophe going on in Europe and these guys are talking about building up uh a military to face um uh to to face um uh Russia. Russia's got almost one and a half million soldiers under arms. If they're not there yet, they will be if they're working toward it. Uh Germany has 75,000. Uh Britain has 75,000. Maybe France has 100 110,000. What are these people talking about? The the US Marine Corps has 180,000 men under arms. US Marine Corps has more planes, ships, and and men under arms than those three countries than those three countries do. Maybe
41:51 maybe not quite as many men, but but fighting men. So >> So you know this is a joke. This is this is a joke. So um >> yeah, there you go. 21%, Macron at 16%, and Starmer at 23%. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Reading from the bottom. reading from the B. >> Yikes. >> Got him. So, so this is this is the great democracies. These are the you know the democ you know like Mike McFall has this book. He has what's it? Autocracy versus democracy. He doesn't know what a democracy is. I mean these are democracies where where the people in power are doing things that nobody in the population wants. >> Yeah. Not the way it was drawn up.
42:36 >> Yeah. So, so the situation we have now in Iran is is developing in the same direction and the details will be different for sure, but the outcome will be the same. And uh let me give you a number that you might find interesting. I just looked up the manufacturing rate of Patriot missiles at this time. It's about 550 per month. There's a seven-year program to bring it up to about 150 to 160 per month patriots. I think 160 patriots per month is going to be enough to deal with thousands and seven years from now. thousands and
43:23 thousands and thousands of ballistic missiles uh from Iran and it's all not going to go to you know there are other countries who are worried about these missile attacks >> and the intercept rates not going to improve >> right >> because the missiles are going to be harder to hit >> so I think the prospects are very very dim uh for a favorable military outcome >> you know this is just me thinking out loud it might be a really good time to start rediscovering diplomacy and finding ways to cooperate with people and not having to worry about intercepting a bunch of missiles uh and going down that path here. But we'll see where that's going to happen. I have been privileged and I I really mean this privileged to know a bunch of
44:10 American and actually English ambassadors, real ambassadors who were I mean these these guys if there is such a thing as a Renaissance person in in modern society these guys were examples of it. aryudite um unbelievably broadly knowledgeable and perfect for diplomacy. You can't compare them to the clowns we now have there. They're ignorant. They're they're not educated. They're they're they're Stanford graduates now, as it turns out, because that's what Stanford is educating. I mean, >> well, when you look who is our our number one diplomat, it's Marco Rubio, who's actually the acting national security adviser. And if you
44:56 listen to him talk, he sounds more like the Secretary of War than he does Secretary of State anyway. And then you have Mike Waltz, our ambassador to the UN, who also was and still acts like the National Security Adviser. So if that's the number one and number two at the top of the list, it's pretty >> Let's not for let's not forget our friend Jake Sullivan or >> Oh, no, no. Yeah, he's he's just on the back burner just because he wouldn't, but he was >> Yeah, but the point is that, you know, uh the Democrats have to clean their shop, too. Indeed. Yeah. >> I mean, if the Democrats are going to take control, which is the only hope we have, although it's not a big hope because they can't manage, they don't know how to manage a lemonade stand, let alone their own party. >> Guys, I think you're forgetting we got Jared Kushner spearheading everything
45:41 right now. >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. You corrected me. >> Okay. Just don't forget that. >> He's a Harvard graduate. >> He's a Harvard graduate, so that must >> Yeah. Yeah. That's >> not even a Stanford graduate. He's more worried about his back his back pocket than he is anything else. But listen, uh we really appreciate you coming on. I hope I hope I hope this change in the theoretical realm and that sanity can come in that enough of this gets through to the administration that it gets through to uh Jerusalem that they say, "Oh snap, we can't do this. This would be a bad idea." And then they back off of this. they take any kind of diplomatic offramp they can and then get around to figuring out how we don't get into the situation defer that is our best hope and you have clarified so
46:26 clearly why that needs to happen in >> well I I hope this has been helpful it's not you know I'm always a little uncomfortable I don't feel I was prepared for this as well as I would have liked to be >> well you you being so-called unprepared is better than the vast majority of guys who spend a lot of time so we're very grateful for that thank you very much >> well thank you byebye >> and we Appreciate you guys as well. Be sure and like and subscribe if you haven't. We're going to continue to keep our eye on this ball and anything that happens, you can come back here and see. We may have one more show this afternoon. I'm not sure if we're going to uh be able to pull that off. But in any case, anything that happens, believe me, come back to our channel because we will be on top of it for you. Thank you very much and we'll see you on the next episode of the Daniel Davis deep dive. >> You know, I don't try to talk you into buying gold or tell you how to run your
47:12 stock portfolio, but there is a way you can help us. Subscribe, hit that like button, and share this with somebody you love.
