Theory 2 Action podcast: Why War? Why Now? and What's Going on with the Strait of Hormuz

A Berlin classroom TV in 1989 flickers back to life as we open with a personal “Liberty Line” on what happens when people lose their fear—and why that matters for the courage we see across Iran today. From that human spark, we move straight into the hard edges of policy: why the United States chose to act, why the timeline narrowed, and how nuclear math—not rhetoric—drove urgency.

We unpack Mark Halperin’s clear framing of continuity across administrations: every recent president drew the same red line against an Iranian nuclear weapon. Then we pressure-test the “why now” with Steve Witkoff’s firsthand accounts from Muscat and Geneva: opening claims of an “inalienable right” to enrich, a flat rejection of a decade of prepaid civilian fuel, pride in roughly 460 kilograms at 60% enrichment, and a refusal to share a take-home draft. With enrichment able to jump from 60% to weapons grade in about a week, listeners get a precise view of stockpiles, centrifuge capacity, and the shrinking window for peaceful outcomes.

Next, we cross to the Strait of Hormuz and bust a headline myth. A seasoned mariner and maritime scholar walks us through live AIS maps and anchorages to show why tankers paused: war risk insurance, not an impenetrable military blockade. We explain PI and hull coverage, additional war risk endorsements, premium spikes after strikes, and the knock-on effects for East Asia’s energy supply. We also weigh reports of U.S. insurance backstops and potential escorts—plus the massive liability questions that come with them.

Along the way, we highlight a deeper shift: niche digital experts on platforms like YouTube and podcasts are outpacing legacy media on speed, specificity, and verification. That matters when 20% of global oil depends on decisions made by shipowners, underwriters, and captains watching the same data you can pull on your phone.

Hit play to get a concise, sourced breakdown of why war and why now, what enrichment levels really signal, and how the world’s most vital oil lane can stall for financial reasons more than firepower. If this helped you see the story more clearly, please follow, rate, and share the show with a friend who loves straight facts and smart context. What part of the analysis changed how you see the crisis?

Key Points from the Episode:

• memory of the Berlin Wall and fear breaking
• rising courage among Iranians and regime fragility
• bipartisan U.S. red line against an Iranian nuclear weapon
• Halperin’s framing of why and why now
• Witkoff’s details on failed enrichment talks and timelines
• enrichment levels, breakout speed, and stockpile math
• digital media’s advantage over legacy outlets
• Strait of Hormuz traffic, insurance risk, and escorts
• practical resources for tracking marine traffic

Other resources: 

Want to leave a review? Click here, and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly!

Transcript

Opening And Housekeeping

SPEAKER_06 0:07

Welcome to the Theory to Action Podcast, where we examine the timeless treasures of wisdom from the great books in less time to help you take action immediately and ultimately to create and lead a flourishing life. Now, here's your host, David Kaiser.

SPEAKER_04 0:26

Hello, everybody, I'm David, and welcome back to the Theory to Action Podcast. Before we begin, a little housekeeping, this is a video and audio podcast. And today's show, we are going to be covering why this war and why now, and how and why the legacy media continues to fail the American people. And then we're going to zoom over to the Strait of Horror moves for an economic perspective with some unique insights from the digital media side, which I think you're going to like. But before we get into those topics,

Liberty Line: Berlin Wall Memory

SPEAKER_04 1:02

let's kick off the show with my Liberty Line. In 1989, I was a freshman in high school, sitting in German class when history cracked open before my eyes. The television flickered with images from the Berlin Wall, people climbing the wall, crying, laughing, clawing at the concrete like it was paper. My teacher, an authentic, liberty loving German, stood frozen, tears streaming down her face. She had family on both sides of the wall, one free, one imprisoned by communism, day after day. As history was changing the Berlin Wall was coming down. My teacher kept bringing in that television day after day for us to witness history. And in those quiet moments between her sobs, my class, me included, learned something powerful. When people lose their fear, the walls come down. Human beings yearn to breathe free air.

Freedom’s Echo In Iran

SPEAKER_04 2:16

That same spirit, that same unstoppable current is rising right now in Iran. We saw it a couple weeks ago, even a month ago. You hear you heard it in the chants of the crowd. In the women casting off the symbols of oppression and a generation done with the lies and the control, the tyranny. Forty-seven years after or for forty-seven years that Terran tyranny has finally met their match. The truth is coming out. Courage is increasing, and faith in something better is right around the corner. When the Iranian regime collapses, and it will it won't just change one nation. It will echo like the Berlin Wall coming down in 1989. It will shake the Middle East, it will silence the terror corridors throughout that whole region and around the world, and it will remind the world that freedom, no matter how long it's suppressed, always finds a crack in the wall. I saw freedom once, win once, and through the tears of that German teacher who knew what liberty cost. I believe that with every ounce of conviction that I have, someday soon there will be another teacher in another classroom who will watch her people step into that same light. Let us pray so. And that, my friends, is today's Liberty Line.

Framing Why War And Why Now

SPEAKER_04 3:53

Okay, folks, let's move on to topic number one and why this war, why now, what the legacy media gets wrong. I'm gonna pull some clips from Mark Halprin, who is a legacy journalist, but someone who's really, I have found uh in the last year, year and a half, has has redeemed himself as as a legacy journalist and has a podcast, next up, video podcast. We're gonna watch some clips from it. I think he calls balls and strikes pretty well. So let's jump over there.

SPEAKER_09 4:27

And there's so much for us to debate in America in the in the midst of this war with Iran.

SPEAKER_04 4:35

Like I said, this is next up his video podcast, and I think he's gonna set the yeah, he's gonna set the stage for us on how we want to frame this question, why war and why now, and what the legacy media gets wrong. Let's look check this out.

SPEAKER_09 4:56

America's relationship with Israel, whether the how this could end favorably for America, the world, the Iranian people, uh, how much it's gonna cost, whether the president should consider putting ground forces in Iran, what the role of uh America would be in regime change. There's a lot to debate. And what I'm here to tell you, based on talking to Democrats and Republicans

Halperin’s Case For Clarity

SPEAKER_09 5:18

this week and experts on uh modern American history, is there's one thing that I don't think needs to be debated. And that's why did the president do this and why now? I don't think that's ambiguous. It's cast as ambiguous. I even hear from some Republicans who support this effort. They need better answers to that. I don't think we do. And the reason I'm I'm focusing on this is the focus on that debate, why did he do it and why now obscures the conversations about these other issues. And these other issues, I think, are debatable. They are they are ripe for national conversation. The the question of why and why now has has been set back at times by the administration itself, by Secretary Rubio, for instance, saying, why now? Because Israel was going to attack Iran, which would have led Iran to attack the United States, and that meant the US had to strike first. That was kind of walked back. I don't think that answers the why why now question. So some of this unnecessary debate has been real quick, just want to interject this.

SPEAKER_04 6:22

Secretary of State Rubio did walk that back, but what I find even more compelling is there's some reporting that even the Saudis were pushing the president to strike Iran. Because I believe the speculation is, at least in the reporting, is the Saudis certainly want to do the Abraham Accords, and they were well on their way to doing the Abraham Accords until Hamas struck Israel on October 7, 2023. That set back the whole region. So it's one thing if Iran was going to strike the United States or strike, strike Israel, and then the United States would have had to respond. I think a more compelling storyline, it's probably going to take a while for it to unfold, is did the Saudis really influence the president to strike Iran because they did not want any nuclear armed Iran in the region? And we certainly haven't wanted one, and that's been the policy of numerous administrations brought on by the administration itself.

SPEAKER_09 7:32

And of course, the president himself, in his various pronouncements here, has not always been disciplined.

Four Stated U.S. Objectives

SPEAKER_09 7:38

And and so to the extent they're frustrated, as I am, that the debate about why and why now continues, they've brought some of it on themselves. But I don't think it requires much looking at both what's been said in the last few days since this began or recent history to understand the why and the why now. So let's talk about it. Most cleanly, Caroline Levitt at her daily briefing on Wednesday, read the list of why and why now. Here's Caroline Levitt from the White House briefing on Wednesday, S3, please.

SPEAKER_00 8:11

At the beginning of Operation Epic Fury, launched last weekend, President Trump laid out clear objectives to the American people on what the U.S. military seeks to accomplish through these major combat operations. Number one, destroy the regime's deadly ballistic missiles and completely raise their missile industry to the ground. Number two, annihilate the Iranian regime's Navy. And so far, we have destroyed more than 20 Iranian ships, including their top submarine last night, using a torpedo for the first time since World War II. There is not a single Iranian ship underway in the Arab Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormous, or the Gulf of Oman. Number three, Operation Epic Fury will ensure the regime's terrorist proxies in the region can no longer destabilize the region or the free world and attack our armed forces. And thus far, Iran's proxies are hardly putting up a fight. Number four, this mission will guarantee that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon.

SPEAKER_01 9:14

Best way to unclog your arteries, cut out salt, nope, take blood pressure meds, nope, follow the dash.

SPEAKER_04 9:21

Okay. Sorry for the commercials. That's the free version of YouTube. So yeah, White House Press Secretary Carolyn Levitt clearly explained four distinct reasons. They've been laid out by everyone in the administration repeatedly. I don't think there's any ambiguity why now and why war. I think Halprin let's listen a little bit more to Halperin.

SPEAKER_09 9:52

That laid out very clearly from this from the podium by the president's spokesperson.

Bipartisan Red Line On Iran Nukes

SPEAKER_02 10:57

As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

SPEAKER_12 11:06

Good morning.

SPEAKER_09 11:08

Okay, so that was Donald Trump's position. Since he's been on the national stage as a politician over 11 years now, Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. That's the why. But it's not a it's not a weird position of Donald Trump. Every one of the people who've been president uh preceding Donald Trump has had the exact same point of view. Here are Donald Trump's three predecessors, and and in the case of Joe Biden's predecessor and successor, talking about their view of whether Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. This is number S6, please.

SPEAKER_02 11:42

The idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.

SPEAKER_04 11:45

I strongly believe that our national security interest now depends upon preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

SPEAKER_10 11:54

Iran will never get a nuclear weapon on my watch, as they say.

SPEAKER_09 11:59

Okay, so Bush, Obama, Biden, same thing. They can't have nuclear weapons. Now, none of them, in an attempt to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons, did the did this kind of operation that we see now. They tried to sanction them. In the case of Barack Obama, they tried to negotiate a deal with them. So they had the same goal, but a different attitude about how to get it done. And they all failed. Okay? Now, some people are supporters of the Obama deal say it succeeded in the short term, but no, Iran still has nuclear weapons and not on a path to nuclear weapons, still state sponsor of terror, still a Navy, still ballistic missiles. Okay, still a threat to America, Americans and our allies around the world.

SPEAKER_04 12:43

But not every So again, that's the why. Why now? He I think he references I think he references the negotiation with Steve Whitkoff in this clip.

SPEAKER_09 13:04

Trying to negotiate. He was be he'd be happy to have these objectives achieved. Happier, of course, to have these objectives achieved through negotiation. But as I know

Negotiations Stalled And Timelines

SPEAKER_09 13:20

and have reported, that wasn't in the cards. The Iranians were not reliable negotiating parties. So the why now is negotiations weren't going to work. The why now is the Iranian people recently rose up and went into the streets. The president said, in the view of many rightfully, that the American America would have their back. The why now is his presidency's only got three more years to go. At some point, Donald Trump was determined to not leave this unfinished business. His predecessors all said Iran couldn't have nuclear weapons and they couldn't figure out how to get it done. This may not work. This may lead to a quagmar or a massive loss of life or an even worse Iranian regime. But if the question is why do you do this and why now, as I said, I think the answer is clear.

SPEAKER_04 14:12

Amen. Absolutely. Amen. I thought it was that was a wonderful clip, series of clips that Halperham put together, very powerful, very compelling, because it essentially answers the question why and why now. We're going to pull some more clips. I think the interview with Steve Witkoff on Hannity. He offers some compelling information. And then we're going to follow that on by Witkoff appearing on the Mark Levin show, where that's a half half-hour long podcast. We're just going to grab some very short clips. But this has been a very transparent series of negotiations, especially all the information that we have received in the public versus going back to the Obama administration, the JCPOA. We find out that really didn't wasn't effective. And certainly in in many other negotiations around the world, these big agreements. So my point is that all these countries and the Vatican as a as a head of its own country, they say they provide details, but boy, the Steve Witkoff, Jared

Witkoff’s Hannity Details

SPEAKER_04 16:02

Kushner's details and negotiations have been very clear, very detailed, and that came very fast after it all broke down. Okay, we answered the why in our question of why war. Now let's go to why now and answer that question because Steve Witkoff, like I said, just sheds a ton of light with a lot of details.

SPEAKER_08 16:34

We're Phoenix Energy, a family-owned oil company focused on unleashing American oil from North Dakota and Montana. We've already sold over 2.9 million. Here we go.

SPEAKER_10 16:44

All right, this is a Fox News alert. President Trump is back at the White House tonight after a historic weekend from his command center at Mar-a-Lago. You ought a lot of latitude in that room. Bring us inside that room.

SPEAKER_12 17:02

First of all, Sean, thanks. Good night, good evening, and thanks for having me. So just to give you a little bit of a taste for how these three three days of negotiations went three separate times, Jared and I opened up with the Iranian negotiators telling us they had the inalienable right to enrich all their nuclear fuel that they possessed. That's how they opened up. We, of course, responded.

SPEAKER_04 17:30

Since when did any country have the unalienable right to enrich uranium? Enrich any nuclear material. That's a bizarre notion. That's a radical notion.

SPEAKER_12 17:50

They then went on to say that beyond the inalienable right to enrich, that that was going to be their starting point. And Jared and I just sort of looked at ourselves flummoxed and said, Well, we're really in for it now.

SPEAKER_10 18:09

Well, let me let me let me get a little in the wheeze if we can. My understanding was you got to a point where you were discussing enriched uranium at much at very low levels for civilian purposes, although I don't think they really need it because they have all the energy they'd ever want. But did that come up? Was that offer made to them?

SPEAKER_12 18:31

We discussed with them 10 years of no enrichment whatsoever, and we would pay for the fuel. And it was flatly rejected. And the president said to have a good faith negotiation.

SPEAKER_10 18:44

Pardon me? You're saying that we would give it to them?

SPEAKER_12 18:49

And they rejected the We actually had that and they rejected that, which told us at that very moment that they had no notion of doing anything other than retaining enrichment for the purpose of weaponizing.

SPEAKER_04 19:04

Exactly right. Doesn't this similar negotiating tactic that Kushner and Wickoff applied, doesn't it go back to when Bill Clinton, essentially for the two-state solution, gave almost everything to Yasser Arafat and he turned it down because they never wanted a two-state solution. They wanted to wipe Israel off the map. And

Enrichment, Bomb Timelines, And Stockpiles

SPEAKER_04 19:31

I just found that so compelling that this is probably, or it sounds like, based on the reporting, if true, if Mr. Witkoff is true, what he's saying that they literally offered to pay for them non-enriched nuclear material that could be used for civilian purposes, even though they're sitting on the world's largest oil reserves, so they have plenty of energy, but they want to pursue the nuclear side. Wickoff and Kushner offer in the deal. Unbelievable, pay for it for 10 years, and we will deliver you non-enriched uranium to power your nuclear side that is just that is peaceful. There's no reason to ever go to weapons grade nuclear material. So again, the details coming out just weeks after this all took place, fascinating.

SPEAKER_10 20:32

You made a statement last week, and when I heard it, and I've known you for a long time, and you are a friend, and when you made the statement that in fact they may be a week away from possibly having capability, at that moment I interpreted that to mean it's go time, it's over. Was I wrong? Was that the moment that it was over?

SPEAKER_12 20:56

Well, I don't know if that exact moment it was over, but I know this. They have 10,000 roughly kilograms of fissionable material. That's broken up into roughly 460 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, another thousand kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, and the balance is at 3.67. They manufacture their own centrifuges to enrich this material. So there's almost no stopping them. They have an endless supply of it. The 60 percent material Sean can be brought to 90 percent, that's weapon grade, weapons grade, in roughly one week, maybe 10 days at the outside. The 20 percent can be brought to weapons grade inside of three to four weeks. And let me say this because I forgot this small little detail. In that first meeting, the both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly, with you know, no uh no shame, that they're not a very important thing. Controlled 460 kilograms of 60 percent, and they're aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance. So that's that's they were they were proud of it. They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place where they could deliver 11 nuclear bombs.

SPEAKER_04 22:23

That's bad, folks. Eleven nuclear bombs. That's mind-boggling.

SPEAKER_07 22:32

And actually, let's move on to let's move on to the Mark Levin show because that is where we lose 45 pounds and become unrecognizable by spring. Sorry, folks. On Monday, March 9th, starting the chair tai chi flow for beginners. Disappear for a month.

SPEAKER_11 22:50

Sorry.

SPEAKER_04 22:56

So in this interview, it's 30 minutes long. We're not gonna listen to all of it. I'm gonna grab some clips, but and I'll leave all the links to

Levin Interview: Deal Tells And Stalling

SPEAKER_04 23:05

all these videos so you can watch them if you want. But in this video with Mark Levin, Whitkoff goes into extreme detail. All three sessions of negotiations, exactly what they said, very similar to what he said on Hannity. And it clearly answers the why now. And what I find the theme through all this is that yes, Hannity is legacy media, but really Levin and Halperin are well Halperin's a legacy former legacy guy, but what I'm what you find is the the theme is the digital side of YouTube or podcast or the flow of information is coming more readily versus the old legacy media. I think the legacy media died in 2020 when they lied about many things through COVID, through a number of other avenues, from newspapers to the big networks to even some cable networks. They they died about five years ago. They're struggling to find it. Even Fox is trying to catch up. Our next segment is all about that. You you're finding that the digital media is getting way out in front of the information flow and providing good information, verified, not speculation, and getting closer to the truth. And frankly, that's what we all want.

SPEAKER_02 24:37

Very good, Mark. How are you doing?

SPEAKER_11 24:39

I'm doing great. And I wanted to have you on the program because you have some information. You that you touched on Hannity last night as well, about your experience, Jared Kushner's experience in dealing with this Iranian regime before the president decided it was time to pull the trigger. Can you fill us in on this?

SPEAKER_02 25:03

Well, first of all, Mark, uh, you know, the president sent me and Jared in because he wanted to really determine if it was possible to make a deal that they would sign. Right. Not not just agreed to, but that they would sign and that they and that could be enforced. And so we went back and we began the session in Oman. We were in Muscat. And, you know, we we had two other meetings with them in Geneva. And I would say that they wanted to record a lot of positivity. And Jared and I from almost the go were were suspect as to whether they would they would really they would do the type of deal that would be acceptable to President Trump. And we turned out, I think, to be right.

SPEAKER_11 25:51

So the first meeting, you never met face to face, I take it. Is that correct?

SPEAKER_02 25:57

No, we met face to face. You know, the the the bosses back in Tehran had said that they couldn't do it direct. The uh foreign minister from Oman, Badr Busadi, was the mediator. So we met at I want to say, I can't remember, it might have been his home, but we met at his home. And, you know, they were very gracious. Arachi and his team, his deputy and some other people were in another room. But they uh but they came and joined, you know, after they had some conversation directly with the Omani, they came and joined joined Jared and I in the room. And that's where we had direct conversation with him. I remember the first meeting mark that that that we had in Muscat. And at some point, very, very, very early in the conversation, Arachi laid down the marker by saying enrichment is considered to be, by his leadership, the Iran's inalienable right. That that that sort of that sort of uh um you know began it. At that point, we began discussing the material, you know, the all of the all of the uh enriched material that they have been stockpiling. It's close to 10,000 kilograms, by the way. And I'll at some point during this interview, I'll take

Takeaway: Why And Why Now Answered

SPEAKER_02 27:22

you through the breakdown of it all. But they began discussing it, and Jared was a witness to this. They were talking about the 60% enriched material, which is roughly 460 kilograms. And to get to weapons grade, which is 90 percent for a bomb, you're about a week, maybe 10 days away when you're at 60 percent. So they've got all this um all this material at 60 percent, that's and it's a you know, obvious concern to us. And and he knew it. And he said to us, you know, and I know, and the Europeans know because they attest to it, that that's 11 bombs. So that's why this material is so important to you. And and I've described that as them being proud that they held it, that this was you know, this was something of a of a trophy that they had. And there's no doubt in my mind that that's how they that's how they thought about it, about that material. But let me let me tell you one one last point about that first meeting, because it's sort of fascinating. As we were talking about all the material and the material includes um roughly 8,000 kilograms of enriched material at 3.67%, another thousand kilograms at 20%, which is the story in you know unto itself, and then roughly 460 kilograms at 60. We went talking about it.

SPEAKER_11 28:55

Let me just say this. Let me say this, Steve, for the audience. A

Pivot To Strait Of Hormuz

SPEAKER_11 28:58

kilogram, I just looked it out, is 2.2 pounds. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

SPEAKER_02 29:02

That's right. That's right. So they have in total around 10,000, around 10,000 kilograms, which is um 24,000 pounds of uh enriched iranium that was never intended to be used, Mark, for civil purposes, and that could only do one thing. It could only be stockpiled in a move towards weaponization is the only reason why you would have it. But but let me let me give you a telltale sign because a part of the reason we key point weaponized uranium is 20% or higher.

SPEAKER_04 29:42

It's on its way to weaponization of of a hundred percent. Commercial grade regular nuclear material is at three percent. There's no reason to ever go higher. So they were disingenuous in every negotiation and probably have been for the last twenty-five years

Digital Sources Beat Legacy Media

SPEAKER_04 30:05

since they've been on this hell-bent nuclear quest or quest to get nuclear material. We were there for the president was not just to negotiate.

SPEAKER_02 30:14

We were negotiating, but we were there to give the president an honest read on what we felt their motivations were and whether they would do a deal and do a deal that was enforceable. So I'm gonna I'm gonna read you what I wrote down at that at that first meeting as to what they said to us. Their lead negotiator, the foreign minister from Iran, said the following, talking about giving up the material. Why, why, why would um we will oh here it is, we will not give you at the negotiating table what you could not win militarily in Midnight Hammer.

SPEAKER_11 30:55

Jeez. So was it gonna give it up?

SPEAKER_02 30:59

He didn't say Midnight Hammer because that's that's our that's our work, you know. That's we named it. So he didn't say that. But he he basically said, we're just not gonna hand it over to you. Now here we were, you know, with ships in the region. We were posturing for all the right reasons. It's it's peace through strength. It's the only way you're gonna get them to the table. Without that, they were never gonna be at the table. And we're there, presumably, because they're in a tough spot and they're going to be compromising and elastic.

SPEAKER_04 31:32

And yet you so now we know the why now. The Iranian negotiating team at the direction of the Supreme Leader was never gonna give up the nuclear material. They knew if they could stall long enough they would be at weapons grade very, very fast. They admitted that and they were negotiating completely disingenuously. So let's just grab one more clip because I think this is fascinating towards the end. Here we go.

SPEAKER_06 32:09

Imagine never brushing your retainer again.

Marine Traffic And Risk Picture

SPEAKER_06 32:12

Just read YouTube and the touch of a button.

SPEAKER_02 32:14

Outdated cleaning physically couldn't be there at the time. You know, I'm I'm sure that Marco, who is sensible, grounded, by the way, knows this set of facts, because we report in religiously to the foreign policy team. I would imagine that they got a dose of it. And you know, there's and and there's plenty more. If if you had about another 10 segments for me tonight, then I could maybe get through 10 or 12 percent of it.

SPEAKER_11 32:44

Well, you've got you've given us a lot, and I think it's very important that this audience, which is quite massive, understands the extent to which the Iranian regime had no intention of making any deal, that they were deceiving you, they were hiding the ball, if you will, and that the concern, tell me if I'm right, was they could break out very quickly, and you couldn't you couldn't keep sitting around waiting for them to delay, they wouldn't even hand you a paper draft to look at, correct?

SPEAKER_04 33:15

So the interview gets into that. We skipped over it, but Witkoff and Kushner asked the Iranians provide to us what you would like the agreement to be. They asked this at the end of the first meeting. You know, they asked this in the beginning of the second meeting, they said they would give it, the Iranians would give it to them in five to six days. Five to six days went, no agreement. They got to the third meeting, they handed the agreement over and said, You can peruse that, you can read that, but you can't take it back. And Kushner and and Kushner and Wikoff said, Well, we have to take it back. We need our own people to analyze this and and you know, see all the details. They never gave it up. We never got an actual written copy. Now, maybe that's the way they do it in the Middle East, maybe that's the way the culture is. It's not the way that we're gonna work, and we have the power. So if you're if you're negotiating in good faith, you have to provide written documents, and everybody has to cross the T's and dot the I's. That's the way the world works.

SPEAKER_02 34:32

That's correct. They let us they let us read it, and we said to them, we said to them, look, we have nuclear experts back in Washington. We have something called the CIA and the Department of War, and we we need to assess these things. And they said, no, we can't give it to you. So think about it. You know, how earnest is someone who wants to make a deal and they don't want to give you the agreement to to read and to share with your decision-making team. It's there were tells. Mark, the tells were so obvious, and they were just so often. And the and the positivity they talk about was that they put down on a piece of paper, and we got it the first day we were there, two paragraphs of we profess that we do not want a weapon. We profess that we will not use nuclear for anything

War Risk Insurance Drives Decisions

SPEAKER_02 35:22

but simple purposes and the betterment of our society. It was two paragraphs of that. And look, if you're gonna stick with that, it's commendable, but then you've got to stand by the words. And none of their actions would have would lead you to believe that they were gonna stand by the words.

SPEAKER_11 35:40

Let me say this. I've been tough on you, not not lately, and you've been doing a hell of a job, actually. And you've been serving the president of the United States, you and Jarrett, you you follow his orders and his directives, and you try and deliver for him. I know that you've gone through health issues. I'm not going to get into it, I'm not gonna reveal it, but you have and yet then you go back and you're dealing with some of the world's, I'll say the scum of the earth. But and you're dealing with these particular people. One last question. We only have 36. Were these were these the worst to deal with than anybody you've dealt with so far?

SPEAKER_02 36:19

I I think they were the most, yeah. Look, there's there's a lot of difficulty out there, but these were the most these these were the most disingenuous. But I will tell you this. We kept on going back and trying Mark because the president asked us to. And he is the greatest president ever. And and and you know, we follow his lead. He is he is the commander of cheat in cheap for a reason. He he just you know, and by the way, it makes me proud to talk about him, and I know it makes you proud in the same way. We're lucky we're lucky to have him at the helm.

SPEAKER_04 36:54

All right, that they go on, I think another minute and a half or so. But anyhow, the point is that we have answered the question why this war and why now we were certainly in negotiating with not good partners and trying to resolve all this diplomatically. So let's move on to topic number two. Amen. I gotta I can sleep well at night. All right, moving on to topic number two. The Strait of Hormoes, the economic implications, and before we grab some clips from the digital media, I want to just talk about all the information we're able to get from digital media. There's there's many things out there. One that's going to be referenced is marine traffic. So especially in this digital world that we're all living in now, you can track almost all marine traffic just like you can track all aircraft through transponders or through the marine traffic through GPS. That provides a fascinating level of detail that we would have never been able to find in the past. So I have found some some pretty good folks. One in particular I want to share with you. So let's let's jump to him and I'll let him introduce himself to you. I just find this sky's very credible and provides a lot of insight. Well before legacy media was able to give us this information.

SPEAKER_03 38:30

This the March 1st, 2026 edition of What's Going On With Shipping is the Strait of Hormuz open?

SPEAKER_04 38:36

Sorry, that's the actual name of the of the channel. What's going

US Underwriting And Escort Limits

SPEAKER_04 38:40

on with shipping? I think he introduces himself in this clip or in the next clip.

SPEAKER_03 39:01

So this is a complex question. It is not a very clear-cut answer I'm going to give you, but I want you to understand what is happening right now. In the Strait of Hormuz, this channel does not talk about politics, doesn't talk about whether or not the U.S. should be striking along with Israel, Iran. We're not talking about that. We're talking about global shipping and commerce, in particular the flow of oil in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. So to do that, we're going to go over to marine traffic. Anyone who wants to follow this, go load marine traffic on your phone, pull it up on your computer. It is the best app, in my opinion. This is the Strait of Hormuz right now. And in particular, this area here is the strait. Up here in the north, this is Iran. Iran is all along this coast here, this northern coast. And then down here, you have the southern tip here, this is Oman, and then over here is the United Arab Emirates. And you'll notice that the strait is pretty denude of shipping right now. Green dots represent freighters, red represent tankers. Normally you would see a big flow going through here. That would give you the indication that the Strait of Hormuz is closed. But to me, closed means it's not open for business. A door is barred, you can't go through if you want to. That's not the case here. Ships have checked up on each side of the strait. You'll notice these large red dots here, this big, huge, massive anchorage just south of the Strait of Hormuz, another one here off Fujara, and then another one here in the UAE. Those anchorages are always there. Be clear, you go back in time and go look at this, they're always, always there. Ships are always kind of waiting to go into loading ports in and around the Persian Gulf and this region. What is happening right now is the ocean carriers, those who operate ships, largely tankers, but there's also other commercial ships that go in and out of here, have decided to basically sit back and wait a minute and let's see what happens between the US, Israel, and Iran. The other issue here, and the important one to understand, is war risk insurance. So everything in shipping is geared to insurance. I I can't say this enough. Money is what makes this industry go around. And without insurance, ships are not going to take the risk. Shipping is all about minimizing your risk. And right now, if a ship

Closing Thoughts And Resources

SPEAKER_03 41:20

sails through the Straits of Hormouth and gets hit by a missile, a drone, or something like that, you need War Risk. War risk does not cover, basically, if you get hit by a missile or drone, you are not covered if you just have your standard what's called PI protection and indemnity insurance, which covers the cargo, or your HM hull and machinery, which covers the ship. You need what's called AP, additional protection. Sorry for all the acronyms. It's just the way industries are. You need additional protection. Well, with the strikes by the US and Israel against Iran, all the insurers have said you need more insurance to sail through this. And so shipping firms are waiting. Either they won't pay the additional insurance and they're waiting for everything to subside, or they're going to have to pay the insurance to go through. No matter what, to see those little red dots start flowing back through here again, they will have to make a choice, either to get the insurance or take the risk. Understand, 20% of global oil comes out of this strait. And without those ships moving, large economies, particularly in East Asia, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, are going to run out of gas. And that's going to be a major problem. All right, let's go ahead and break down this for you in a little bit more detail. I want to give you that big, huge overview, but now let's look at the specific stories that have been transpiring over the past day. Okay.

SPEAKER_04 42:41

Part of his show is he gets in, he really gets into the weeds. So if you have a business or you need to know all the details of very in the weeds reporting, this guy is very, very good. I like his overviews because it gives you visibility to the Strait of Hormouth. You can see what's moving, what's not between freighters and tankers. I feel like you're getting a briefing at the at the White House and and it's a situation, you know, sit rep on what is actually taking place in that part of the world. We're gonna fast forward to another. Well, let me back up because this is an important point. So this video came out eight days ago, and just this morning on Fox News, they started talking about the reason the Strait of Hormuz is closed, quote unquote, is not because of the Iranian Navy, it's because of insurance rates. And I think you saw the White House put out a or the president put out a truth post or true social post that he's guaranteeing twenty billion in insurance. He's underwriting the insurance that this guy is speaking about. But literally seven days in front. of legacy media picking this up, actually getting us the information that came out today. This guy was out here saying the issue is it's an insurance issue, not a military or a a safety issue. They can certainly go through the straight. Right now, all those big carriers are saying, hold on, we want more insurance. So it was really an insurance and a transient issue, not a not a capability issue. But let's move on to one more clip from this guy. Very, very good. He gives some wonderful briefings.

SPEAKER_03 44:36

On this episode of What's Going On With Shipping, why are there no ships in the Strait of Hormuz? I'm your host, Sal McCogliano. Welcome to today's episode. So for those of you who are new to the show, real quick, I am a former merchant mariner, meaning I sailed ships for a living. I also worked ashore in shipping. Came ashore, swallowed the anchor, became an academic, do maritime history and maritime policy. We got to get and running this YouTube channel now for almost five years at anchor. Green are cargo ships, light blue are government craft, tugs and so the U.S. Navy is what we're told is not largely in the Persian Gulf right now. Almost all the U.S. naval presence has been pulled out of the Gulf prior to the strikes. All right I'm going to run marine traffic here in the background.

SPEAKER_04 45:23

This is the actual movement over the past three days sped up for you, showing you traffic if you want marine traffic yourself, if that's something that you desire you can actually go. It's I think it's 10 bucks a month or you can buy a year and get some discount but it is a paid service. I just use this guy to see what marine traffic does. He's been posting almost daily since the conflict started.

SPEAKER_03 45:51

Red dots and red triangles represent tankers dots are at anchor. Green are cargo ships, light blue are tugs and smaller craft also some government craft in and around the area. Take note there is a large anchorage piling up with ships just outside the Strait of Hormuz, another one down here off Fujiara, and then loaded ships inside the Persian Gulf here waiting to get out. I want to read for you reports that came in from the Joint Maritime Information Center. JITMIC as it's known is providing these assessments. So this is the latest JITMIC report as of March 4th the regional risk level remains critical. It is at the highest level industry coordination and maritime security planning update JITMIC acknowledges the recent public statements from U.S. leadership on 3 March this is referring to the U.S. providing war risk insurance and providing escorts. I will note something here the U.S. is saying they want to underwrite the insurance for the vessels in this region. They are also saying that they're going to provide escorts I think both of these are are difficult things for the U.S to do number one the liability issue for assuming the risk here is massive. This is a massive liability issue if the U.S. assumes the war risk I think there's a way to do it where the U.S. can provide assistance particularly for U.S. flag vessels same thing with escorts. Escorting is another issue one of the things we've seen in the Red Sea was the U.S. was not really akin to want to provide a lot of escorts during that period of time.

SPEAKER_04 47:26

We come over here to the UK MTO's report as of yesterday this is from okay so I wanted to give you guys that detail you can certainly check out his his YouTube channel what's going on with shipping. I'll put links into the show notes and that is the story on March 8th 2026. Wanted to help you guys guide through why this war why now and then provide an update on the Strait of Hour Moose why legacy media is failing to get the real story out.

SPEAKER_06 48:05

If you've we provided value for you from this podcast episode be sure to like and subscribe it helps out the algorithm as they tell me and as always keep fighting the good fight thank you for joining us we hope you enjoyed this theory to action podcast be sure to check out our show page at teammojoacademy.com where we have everything we discussed in this podcast as well as other great resources. Until next time keep getting your mojo up