War Update: Iran Gains the Upper Hand?

This episode follows up on our previous two, focusing on Iran. Where are we one month into this war? When and how is it likely to end? We also wonder about the U.S.’s strategic plans for this war. And does regime survival in Iran mean that it may be losing battles but ultimately winning the war?

Topics Discussed in this Episode

• 1-month In: What has the US and Israel accomplished?
• Iran’s Strategy to Survive: Target the Global Economy
• US strategy going forward and the prospects of a ground war

Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode

• The Revolutionary Guards are taking over Iran (The Economist)
• In an Asymmetrical War, Iran Seeks an Edge With Its Information War (NY Times)
• The Price of Strategic Incoherence in Iran (Foreign Affairs)
• Iran’s Long Game (Foreign Affairs)
• Even the best-case scenario for energy markets is disastrous (The Economist)
• Pentagon prepares for weeks of ground operations in Iran (WaPo)

Follow Us

• Show Website: www.kelloggsglobalpolitics.com
• Show Twitter: @GlobalKellogg
• Anita’s Twitter: @arkellogg
• Show YouTube

Transcript

Anita Kellogg: [00:00:00] Welcome to Kellogg's Global Politics. I'm Anita and I'm here with my co-host Ryan. 

Ryan Kellogg: Thanks and glad to be here. 

Anita Kellogg: Today's episode follows up on our previous two episodes with a focus on Iran. Where are we one month into this war? When and how is it likely to end? We also wonder about the US' strategic plans for this war, and does regime survival in Iran mean that it may be losing battles but ultimately winning the war?

Ryan Kellogg: So are you glad you didn't, didn't place that bet on poly market? 

Anita Kellogg: Sure. It was kind of a crazy bet to take. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And just, just to for listeners benefit, um, so we had discussed at the end of the last episode, um, I think the poly market had the chance of the Iranian regime falling at the end of March at like 20%.

And you very confidently said, yeah, I'll, I'll take that. 

Anita Kellogg: I don't think I said it was, it 

Ryan Kellogg: was good value for [00:01:00] money is what you're saying. Yeah, yeah, yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: But yeah, obviously that hasn't happened. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah. No, that hasn't happened. But 

Anita Kellogg: you're also wrong. 

Ryan Kellogg: I was also wrong. Um, the taco trade did not quite pan out.

I was, I was trying to think of like the analogy. 

Anita Kellogg: What do you mean? It didn't quite pan out? It didn't pan out at all? 

Ryan Kellogg: No, no. Because it seemed like it was gonna pan out, but it didn't. And I think it's, if Trump actually had control over the situation, it could pull out, he would've taco, you know, like two weeks ago.

What 

Anita Kellogg: do you mean he doesn't have control over the situation? 

Ryan Kellogg: Uh, that, that the economic leverage that we'll talk about, that Iran's been able to establish has now allowed him that he can't have a painless, um, pulling out of the region. We're not as painless as, as he was probably envisioning at the time.

So that's prevented him from, from toing even though every single action that he's done is kind of a typical taco thing, [00:02:00] but it's not, it's has increasingly less and less power in the marketplace, I think is what we've, what we've seen over time. That was a long way of saying I was also wrong that the taco trade has not worked out and that this, uh, this seems to be going well beyond, uh, a month, which really was kind of the, how it was framed at the beginning as a, well, first it was framed as a, a couple days and then, uh, it was expanded to four weeks and, um, it looks like it's going to extend well beyond that.

Anita Kellogg: Well, technically this is four to six weeks. 

Ryan Kellogg: Okay. So they have two weeks left. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: Okay. Who knows if we'll wrap up by then, it's probably better for the world. If it did wrap up by then. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, it would. But, you know, does it wrap up with, uh, us achieving our objectives is the big question. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And that's kind of what We'll, what we'll discuss.

Okay. So I think it's probably worthwhile just to give an overview of, of where we're [00:03:00] at, you know, a month in. Um, and you know, I'm gonna start off with kind of. This is all coming from a US perspective as we normally talk about, and the objectives of US foreign policy. So I'm starting off kind of with the good news, which has definitely been emphasized over and over in the daily briefings by, uh, by the White House and the Defense Department, um, on the, uh, the status of the military campaign.

So US and Israel, uh, since the campaign began on February 28th, have struck 15,000 targets. Um, and what they've achieved essentially is that both the Iranian drone and missile launches are down about 90% since the start of the war and US were Iranian naval forces and air. Air Force have largely been neutralized.

Uh, and as a result of that, US Israeli forces appear to have gained near complete, uh, air superiority and have actually switched over to more conventional ordinance and non stealth, um, [00:04:00] aircraft to carry out its bombing runs. So that being said, you know, the caveats are, Iran has still demonstrated the ability to conduct, um, both ballistic missile launches and um, drone strikes.

Uh, the Washington Post reported this week that the estimates that nearly a third of Iranian ballistic missiles still remain. This is despite, again. 15,000 targets mm-hmm. Being struck, including the underground bunkers in which a lot of these, these missiles, um, lie in. Mm-hmm. The other component is the fact that this is, you know, very much asymmetric, uh, warfare.

So, you know, even though the drone, um, the availability of, of making, uh, drone launches as well as speedboats have allowed Iran the ability to control, um, the Straits of Hormels, which have become the, the central point of the war and really reflects kind of Iran's ability to, um, to, uh, to have [00:05:00] leverage over the global economy.

But we'll get, we'll get into more details on that. Um, the Gulf States have, uh, have continued to be targeted as they were at the beginning of the campaign. I guess on the positive side, that the interception rates. Uh, of these drone attacks and ballistic missiles have been around 80 to 90%, um, which have increasingly targeted energy facilities within, uh, those countries.

But that 80 to 90%, again, from a tactical perspective, is impressive because of matches, kind of what Ukraine is able to do. 

Anita Kellogg: I would think that they would be able to do better than Ukraine. 

Ryan Kellogg: Ukraine's had a lot of experience though, and this includes, this includes mostly the vast majority of the sorties by Iran are drones.

And that's not something that the west, the US and Israel have a lot of experience in it, but Ukraine does. So if you're, you're intercepting like drones at the rate that Ukraine does, that means you're doing, you're doing pretty well. 

Anita Kellogg: [00:06:00] Okay. 

Ryan Kellogg: Um. That being said, so the interceptor stockpiles are running low for sure.

Uh, and definitely it's been reported in cases like Israel that they're being rationed. So if it looks like the missile's not gonna hit a strategic target, um, they'll let it go. And then, uh, you have seen some of the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, who actually reached a deal with Ukraine, um, to bring its, uh, drone interception capabilities and, and consulting to these 

Anita Kellogg: countries.

I always wonder how Ukraine has excess capacity. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it's, it's surprising that they do, but I actually watched a really cool video this morning from, uh, one, a Ukrainian company mm-hmm. And kind of the interceptors that they're using, so it's like a thousand dollar little drone. 

Anita Kellogg: Mm-hmm. 

Ryan Kellogg: Um, and the company's been around maybe like nine months.

Mm-hmm. But they're able to produce thousands of these. They can train a person as long as they're, you know, have some drone experience to fly it within like a couple days. Um, but yeah, I guess they're, they're churning it [00:07:00] out and represents a valuable revenue source. Mm-hmm. I'm sure you can mm-hmm. Charge the Gulf States and Saudis, whatever you want.

Yeah. But, yeah. Uh, you know, unlike probably the current administration, which has been, I think, dismissed the offers by Zelensky in Ukraine to help with the situation. Mm-hmm. The Gulf States are much more open-minded mm-hmm. Around taking, um, taking Ukrainian advice and expertise, which is, is positive. Hmm.

The other area, kind of, of, again, where Israel and the US administration have highlighted is the continued ability to, um, target top Iranian leadership. Uh, and I think what we've seen over the last month is, um, you know, continued success. I think last episode we had talked about, uh, Ali Ani, who was seen as a key member of the inner Circle, who's actually part of the original negotiations.

Mm-hmm. Between, um.  Kushner and Witkoff. Uh, he was targeted and killed by [00:08:00] Israel. Uh, there's also been a number of other individuals, you know, on the defense state mm-hmm. Um, that have been targeted and killed at will. That also being said. So I think probably two weeks into the campaign after the, uh, the death, uh, at the beginning of, uh, common Ali, uh, the 86-year-old Supreme leader of Iran, the, uh, the announcement that his son was appointed, which I think we had talked about originally as as unlikely because, at least from a Theocratic point of view, he was not favored by like the, uh, the Council of Experts and the Theocratic leadership.

But as we'll discuss later, the IRGC is in full control of the country. So it's really. The theocratic leadership seems like they've been fully sidelined and that it's basically a military junta that's running the country. Um, common a, uh, the sun 

Anita Kellogg: a quick 

Ryan Kellogg: is Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean, so if it's a [00:09:00] military junta running the country in some sense, isn't that regime change?

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. It, well, you could certainly frame it that way. I mean, they still have the, uh, symbolic head of state, which, you know, I was gonna mention. So the, the son has not been, there's no proof that he's alive, right At all. Uh, the rumors are that he's either in a coma or in a hospital in Moscow or dead already.

Uh, so it's also like, well, when we talk about negotiations with the US that are supposedly ongoing, who, who is the US negotiating with? Exactly. Uh, yeah. 'cause it's, it's pretty nebulous at this point if there is a central figure in control or represents the regime. And I think that's a real, a real question kind of at this point.

Anita Kellogg: I just think there 

Ryan Kellogg: is. So you think, oh wait a second. You're trying to win your best 

Anita Kellogg: is a case, 

Ryan Kellogg: does this [00:10:00] regime change, um, 

Anita Kellogg: that a military 

Ryan Kellogg: change? No, because the Constitution didn't change. It's still a theocratic head of government. It's only, I think it's only, I mean, only if somebody emerges within the IRGC that in the agreement that it results.

Yeah. No, I don't think this counts as reaching one. Poly market's. The determination of this and the chance of regime change currently for the end of March, it being March 28th, currently is like 1%. So I do not think they interpret this as a regime change, 

Anita Kellogg: but I think that you can make a case for it being a regime change.

Ryan Kellogg: Well take it up with poly market. 'cause that's, that's who we're judging on what a regime change is. 

Anita Kellogg: Well, whether I'm right or not, I think 

Ryan Kellogg: I like how you're trying to win off of a uh, 

Anita Kellogg: no, I just, if it's become a military genta, that's a different government. 

Ryan Kellogg: That was, that was the definition that the economist applied.

Anita Kellogg: Well, it's 

Ryan Kellogg: [00:11:00] probably up for debate on nobody really fully knows, but this is kind of what's being gleaned from internal sources. It seems 

Anita Kellogg: likely. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I I think so too, but 

Anita Kellogg: so that's what you changed 

Ryan Kellogg: does not count. Let's try though.

Um. So, so yeah, I think that that brings us into the idea of, yeah, who, who is running Iran currently and like I alluded to this article that economists put out on March 25th, all signs really point to the IR gc, which is a 190,000 strong, pure military force, um, that seems to have stepped into, into the void.

And if it is, then it really would represent a shift from, you know, more theocratic control to a, uh, uh, government that's more aligned with like an Algeria and Egypt or, or Pakistan. 

Anita Kellogg: The economists thinks that [00:12:00] there's regime change.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. We're defining this by poly market. Okay. 

Anita Kellogg: But economists thinks there has been. 

Ryan Kellogg: So the, the IRGC, um, has taken, took several actions. I think this really points to the difficulty of, uh, you know, what remaining hope there is around kind of true, true regime change in the sense of what Israel, where the US had in mind at the beginning of the war, what did they have in mind, which was a government that was favorable to the United States and Israel in place.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. But you know, we talked about regime change that was never the likeliest. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. But that was framed as the goal. 

Anita Kellogg: Well, you 

Ryan Kellogg: can't, at the beginning of it, 

Anita Kellogg: you can't do that, especially without boots on the ground. But even with boots on the ground, it would be really hard to dictate the type of government that succeeds.

The one you took out. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, no, I'm not [00:13:00] arguing against that. I'm 

Anita Kellogg: just saying that of 

Ryan Kellogg: course it was probably always unrealistic and that's why we were. Speculating on, well, if you're actually doing this, maybe Mossad and the ccia, just like anytime that this succeeded, like in the fifties and sixties, you have to have a force on the ground.

Mm-hmm. You have to have armed a significant part of the population, or you have had to, um, had an agreement with one of these IRGC generals mm-hmm. Uh, and his, his divisions that will break away mm-hmm. And kind of support whatever group. 

Anita Kellogg: It's true. 

Ryan Kellogg: Uh, and that's something, you know, the economists actually highlighted that there is different ideological, um, beliefs within the IRGC, um, that there's actual split between kind of hardcore radicals, uh, within the group and more moderates.

Um, but it's not clear. It not, there's no evidence at this stage that anything has been kind of set up or would be working towards that direction. Everything [00:14:00] that. There's very little reporting. Again, internet has been completely down within Iran since the start of the conflict. I don't think starlink, that there's been any successful, you know, dissemination of that or, or communication.

Um, so you're seeing, uh, just a consistent crackdown internally of any potential resistance, uh, within the regime. So it seems more hard line than it was previously and completely on a, on a war footing. Um, I thought the other interesting that this, um, article pointed out was that even though I swear, it didn't seem like they learned anything from the 12 day War 

Anita Kellogg: mm-hmm.

Ryan Kellogg: But the IRGC did. Make note of the targeting of leadership. Obviously not the top leadership, uh, but they decentralize their operations considerably and actually split into 31 different sub-districts. And then each sub-district within the country operates autonomously so that if communication is [00:15:00] lost with, you know, central command in Teran, that they have the ammunition, they have the ability to still kind of carry out strikes independently.

Mm-hmm. Um, from the center, uh, I think even more disturbingly is that the irg C'S internal Security forces, the, um, were split into tens of thousands of small cells. So it's like they're already positioning themselves for a insurgency campaign effectively, which is something. I mean, I was a little impressed by, I mean, I think both these actions just because everything that Iran is telegraphed prior to this was not learning any lessons, being completely compromised, telegraphing nothing but weakness.

But for a nation state that has a traditional army to then pivot, um, to kind of preparation for more an insurgency type campaign, um, really [00:16:00] says that they learned like the lessons of Iraq, um, and everything, you know, everything that's been successful. I mean, with the Taliban, that makes sense 'cause they were never a centralized state in the first place.

It makes sense that they would operate as insurgents and kind of have that ability down. But for them to kind of operationalize and turn into these, these kind of cells and then embed themselves within civilian infrastructure means that even though. Is Israel. I mean, 'cause that's a lot of these 15,000 strikes were against internal security forces.

But if they're so spread out and diffused and decentralized, um, it really points to, yeah, there's no, there's ultimately, there's no way that you can do this without ground forces and certainly not without, if you weren't prepping months beforehand with a proxy force or some sort of breakout. 

Anita Kellogg: Seems like they've made it where even boots on the ground would find themselves in [00:17:00] a pretty intractable situation.

If you're having to go after 31 groups, essentially acting autonomously, that's a pretty big order, let alone the infrastructure, the cells, uh, and the infrastructure. So yeah, it would make a. Ground invasion very, very painful and not easily extractable. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it seems that way. I mean, it goes back to what kind of the, the objectives are going forward.

But yeah, they've definitely, and maybe none of this should come in as a surprise. I mean, Iran has probably been, well, obviously it's been preparing for this for 47 years. Mm-hmm. Um, their last major engagement was like the Iran Iraq war. 

Anita Kellogg: Mm-hmm. 

Ryan Kellogg: You know, against a, a conventional army. Uh, I'm not learned enough to know kind of the, the lessons that they made, and there's may be so outdated anyway.

Um, but I was just, I was, um, yeah, strategically [00:18:00] it's been, uh, it's been interesting, yeah. Seeing kind of that they had prepared this pivot and then kind of how the IRGC has operated both from a propaganda. Standpoint and from their ability to leverage even it, because again, we, we talked about the interception rate, it only takes 10% just, or even only takes 1%.

It only takes one drone getting through, you know, striking a major oil facility or LNG facility, and that's enough. Or a tanker, which apparently I think they've struck 17 different, uh, shipping tankers during the course of the war, that that's enough to cripple the entire global economy. So it's a much lower standard tactical, the US and Israel can be brilliant.

Mm-hmm. Like stunningly brilliant, but all Iran has to do is occasionally get one through every so often and, um, and survive. [00:19:00] 

Anita Kellogg: Right. 

Ryan Kellogg: So much, much lower bar. 

Anita Kellogg: Right. I mean, that's the whole principle of asymmetrical warfare really is that. As I said up front, you can lose all these battles because you obviously don't have the firepower that is being thrown against you, but survival itself is kind of a win and being able to inflict pain.

I mean, I think what's really interesting that this war shows is that, you know, access goes on a lot about bringing war back into the war colleges and seeming seemingly, meaning military specifically, you know, hard power, but wars are now fought economically, like using that. They're inextricably linked and Iran is definitely using this, these smaller pinpricks that it can enact to [00:20:00] disrupt the economy and create pain that way.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah. And it's only. Um, recently that nations have had kind of were, you know, far weaker states have had that power, and it, it, it really points to what a game changer autonomous, you know, vehicles in these drones are. And the fact that, I mean, Iran was at the cutting edge of these drone technologies.

I mean, the proof of that is that the US copied this design. To put out, its its own similar drone, which is, has flown through, which is a little embarrassing, right? That, you know, we weren't at the, at the have rise, we're not at the edge of this. And then the Ukrainians are by far the experts on defense against these, and we've pushed them away.

So, but yeah, it's, it, uh, what's been stunning is I thi I think in my mind, my mental motto was like, well, Iran's like a rock was like maybe in [00:21:00] 1990. You know, it's a, it's an established nation state with a regular, conventional army and force. And the US going up against the conventional army in force beyond like China, it's gonna be just a slaughterhouse, right?

I mean, 

it's just, if you straight up fight the United States, right. Um, yeah, you're gonna lose. Um, but yeah, if Iran is then. Able to kind of, yeah, make this pivot. Even though as an established nation states to an insurgency, which I always think of more as like, well, once the nation is defeated, then you have to deal with an insurgency.

Not that the force can immediately pivot and fight more like an insurgency. Rather than a conventional nation state. 

Anita Kellogg: That seems like a modern adaptation for sure. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. So I think that's imp. I think the other, I don't know if you've picked up, this will be a little bit of a sidetrack, but still related. Um, have you come across any of the propaganda being put [00:22:00] out on social media by Iran?

Anita Kellogg: I haven't been on social media in such a long time, so No, 

Ryan Kellogg: that's probably good. 

Anita Kellogg: I used to do it regularly and then I got out of the habit of it. Uh, so now I'm here for on, 

Ryan Kellogg: so I, I've just been monitoring it mostly for kind of updates on energy markets and things, but, um, but x being the cesspool that it is, uh, well just, you know, BC anything but, so Iran has been creating, again, leveraging ai.

Mm-hmm. Um, been putting out pretty effective, targeted for Western audiences. 'cause again, Iran has no internet access. This is strictly targeted, but the interesting thing the New York Times put out is that it's, um, it's being amplified by both Russia and China, which of course famous for, you know, it's digital army of, uh, of meme warriors and message posters and trolls that put out things.

So they've been amplifying the message that essentially is coming directly from the IRGC as part of kind of this cyber [00:23:00] warfare. And they put out a series, probably some of the most effective videos. They're actually, you know, like the Lego movie. You know, that animation style, they've been putting out a series of Lego style and it sounds ridiculous, but you have to see it, uh, Lego style propaganda videos, um, that are surprisingly effective.

Just judging by looking at, again, the, the comments and the people, kind of how it's moving up within the algorithm, like on X and, and other sources. 

Anita Kellogg: So, I mean, what is the central message in these 

Ryan Kellogg: videos? Yeah, so the central, yeah, it does have a, a key central message, um, which they, they key in it. So the number one thing is always like Trump being tied to Epstein.

Trump is a pedophile. Um, Trump is raging this war because of, um, uh, to cover up right for the release of Epstein files. The other pivot is, of course, antisemitism, right? US is a puppet of Israel, who in turn is a puppet of [00:24:00] Satan that's usually always featured within these videos, and that the US is being humiliated on the battlefield as well, which of course, you know, we talked about.

The reality of it not true, but they emphasized the, the perception, I think, and you see that reflected definitely on, on online circles is that, um, Iran is a lot more effect. Just the fact that it's able to get off drones, that it, it has had the impact on the global economy and the Straits of Hormoz. So all of that is emphasized.

And then there's like shadows of the future too. So like the last videos have come out are showing, again, this is all Lego guys, but it's showing, you know, like US Marines and Lego form, you know, dying, uh, on car island, which of course is being theorized as, as where the US will likely intervene in the, uh, the coming days or weeks.

Anita Kellogg: Interesting. I mean, so, so do you think this actually has any penetration into American society? 

Ryan Kellogg: I think, well, given the fact [00:25:00] that this war is enormously unpopular. 'cause I think that's the other thing, unlike. Every previous war. 

Anita Kellogg: Mm-hmm. 

Ryan Kellogg: You know, especially recently, the ones that we've lived through Afghanistan and Iraq, which had, um, you know, nearly 80, 90% support at the beginning of these, these wars, this is enormously unpopular.

It's maybe, uh, 60% that are against the war. So I think it, it does resonate. I, I think what's impressive is normally foreign propaganda is so tone deaf, like they don't understand the culture, but this leg of, and you should watch it. I know I'm like encouraging people to watch Iranian propaganda, but I think it is interesting just from an intellectual point.

Uh, I mean, it featured, I thought a pretty, a pretty good rap tune with it. And then the animation is excellent. I mean, the, it is, well, it's well done. A, if it's called AI slop, I'd say it's very well done. AI LOP is, 

Anita Kellogg: oh, I guess I will have to look at it. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's, it's worth [00:26:00] seeing. So I would say, yeah, it probably is, is effective.

I don't know if it changes people's minds, but it certainly reinforces people that are against the war. Right. They'll see this and this will reinforce it. Uh, and they'll share it and maybe not even know that it's, I mean, it's pretty obvious it's comes from Iran. It's a reigning propaganda. It's not that subtle.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. That's an interesting take that, yeah. That their propaganda could, could be effective. I, yeah. It just seems like normally you'd be like, oh, the others. I guess that is why you have propaganda wars as part of any part of any war, but I guess in my head, that always seems so strange that anybody would take a foreign country's propaganda and take it to heart.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I think it's the, um, I think it's understanding the culture well enough. Touching on the points. I mean, there's another one, and some of it specifically is targeting [00:27:00] Trump's ego as well. I mean, they're all targeting Trump's ego, but there's one where the whole thing is like calling him a loser and just focusing on what a loser is.

Um, but even, even like the, the Lego, this attention to detail, the Lego guy actually has a, of, Trump has like a bruised hand at one point. 'cause there's been a lot of emphasis on the strange bruises that Trump has like on his hand. So it's just this focus on his physical and on his ego. And it's just, it's for a foreign government to produce that and have like enough insight into western media, which of course is out there, but that.

I mean, gosh, the garbage that was put out historically by like a China or the Soviet Union, right. It was never effective. Right. It's always so pathetic and poorly done. Yeah. That's what 

Anita Kellogg: I'm thinking historically. 

Ryan Kellogg: But this, this is, so, I don't know if this means like this is a new age of, of propaganda that's enabled by foreign governments.

I don't know. Um, but [00:28:00] I had to, I was, you know, fairly impressed by it. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. That sounds, uh, sounds interesting. And another aspect of adapting to modern warfare, like I said, historically, people have always used propaganda. But from what you say it seems, I mean, one, you have different outlets. You're not just dropping pamphlets, right.

Which is what, 

Ryan Kellogg: right. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Countries have had to do in the past, and so that you can have more penetration through social media. 

Ryan Kellogg: And I think it's also, it's, and again, you're seeing the emergence of this advanced ai. Um, developed by the West, that, but then is able to be used by anybody to create, you know, these enormously.

And of course this is Lego style, but there's plenty of other ones, including, I saw a pretty disturbing one that had like, um, Trump being tortured by an IRGC interrogator, not, I don't think as effective. Even people that dislike Trump, right? Don't think that's gonna resonate with you a foreign, you know, and that, that [00:29:00] sort of, uh, that sort of sense.

But, but yeah, I mean, I think it's this, uh, this, uh, AI technology allows you to create very targeted, very specific, you know, depending on the user realistic, you know, looking propaganda as well for no cost, right? That's the other thing. No cost and no, no real skill needed, 

Anita Kellogg: right? 

Ryan Kellogg: Maybe some editing skills, but that's it.

So, um, I think that obviously the, the biggest. Focus and where Iran's entire strategy at this point is, is around the targeting of the global economy. So I wanted to spend a little time just going through what has been the impact thus far on the economy. Um, so Iran has successfully shut down the movement of energy exports, um, via the straighter hors.

I think their exports get through, obviously. Uh, so those are reaching markets, but that represents a, a relatively small amount. They weren't exporting that much oil. 

Anita Kellogg: Can't wait till we talk more about their exports because I don't understand [00:30:00] why we no longer have sanctions on Iranian oil. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah. Well that, that goes back to, uh, I will say that the administration has done as much as they possibly could in a very rapid fashion to.

Ease the impact on energy markets as much as possible, given the size of the impact, which is the straits of her Moses. I'm sure everybody that's listening to this is familiar. It's a very long recognized choke point. Every, every, uh, military strategist, every IR scholar, every, everybody knew this for 50 years.

You know how critical this junction point was. But it, uh, you know, it has 20 million barrels of oil a day that used to pass through it, which represents 20% of global oil production. Um, in order to counter this, so the US together with the IEA, have done extraordinary measures and have released the [00:31:00] largest ever.

Release of strategic petroleum reserves worldwide of about 400 million barrels. Uh, the Saudis in turn have increased oil shipments via a pipeline that goes to the opposite coast to the Red Sea. Uh, so effectively between these two measures, it's kind of have the impact to just a loss of 10 million barrels per day.

We about 10% of global demand. 

Anita Kellogg: Well, how long will they be able to continue to release petroleum reserves? 

Ryan Kellogg: That's, that depends per country. Mm-hmm. Um, that being said, if you recall from our discussions during the beginning of the Ukraine Russia conflict, so the US released a significant portion of its reserves during that time, drew down.

I think over 50% of the reserves of which the Trump administration did, does not take advantage of the low oil prices, uh, last year to refill those. So we're already at a relatively [00:32:00] low point, um, from where we're at. The real winner in this, and who looks like a strategic genius may maybe on multiple fronts is, uh, China.

So China has been buying enormous amounts. Mm-hmm. Building enormous stockpile. All of this is not transparent on the Chinese. Nobody really knows exactly how muchs, but I've 

Anita Kellogg: heard this before. Right? Yeah. That they're very conscious of their vulnerabilities and one of their vulnerabilities is, is energy products.

And they, I mean, they must stockpile agricultural products too, because that's the other vulnerability they see in any kind of conflict. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. So they've enormously increased their strategic reserves over time, so they're seen as being pretty well positioned. Um, Japan and Korea are relatively well positioned.

It's really Southeast Asia is really filling the brunt of this. Um, places like including like places like, um, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Uh, a lot of these countries are already starting pretty severe [00:33:00] rationing, uh, campaigns, particularly around diesel, which is seen, um, based on the, the content of the crude that is being exported from, from the Middle East, uh, that it's production is likely to be, um, the most heavily impacted.

I think the other area that you've seen countries do, and I think part of this was, um. Russia, Ukraine was as was certainly, you know, a similar impact, uh, a, a larger impact in a lot of ways in terms of prices. But countries, um, are turning towards coal. So a lot of these countries and uh, obviously China, India have huge, huge coal reserves.

I say because the commitments around climate change, we're trying to draw down kind of those plants, but a lot of these were just mothballed so that they could be spun up on relatively short notice. And that's what you're seeing is, is those impacted, um, from lack of either fuel oil or natural gas deliveries are now turning those coal plants back on and seeing those as, as a way to buffer, you know, some of the, some of the, um, I think yeah, on that, that [00:34:00] pricing.

I thought one of the interesting things that was posted, um, by, uh, Javier Bias, who's one of the. Probably the leading guy, like on x slash Twitter, um, in the energy space. But he pointed out rightly, um, you know, we're still well short of the peaks that we saw. Mm-hmm. And the Russia, Ukraine conflict. Uh, Brent, for instance, this morning, it was like 107, the peak, it peaked at like 139 in 2022.

Uh, natural gas, um, for the eu, I think in particular. So I, I didn't realize they had gotten up to like 339. This is per megawatt hour right now it's at 55. So even Europe, who seemed like they would be the most impacted on the gas side, because one, you know, obviously they've quit Russian gas, but then two, they become increasingly dependent on.

Us LNG, which is, you know, good from a, a security standpoint. But they were also very dependent on Qatar and [00:35:00] Qatar's facilities were heavily damaged over the last month to the point where, um, Qatar Energy announced that they would be down 15 to 20% of their LNG capacity for the next three to five years.

Anita Kellogg: Right. 

Ryan Kellogg: So, very significant damage to that, that infrastructure. So there's been long-term damage being done to these, these infrastructure sites and that that's something I thought the economists did a good job of pointing out that even if this would end tomorrow, that the effects on the global economy and on price would linger for, for years potentially.

Right. Yeah. I did wanna pivot back to your point and did you wanna talk on the, um, on the sanction relief that was also part of kind of us strategy to keep, to bring additional energy reserves to the market? 

Anita Kellogg: Well, I think we announced that we were lifting sanctions on Russia first. 

Ryan Kellogg: Right. 

Anita Kellogg: Which in one hand didn't [00:36:00] surprise me to an extreme degree, but is disappointing.

Right? Right. Because those sanctions are important to, at least, to some extent, to making it, basically the sanctions make it hard for these companies or these, sorry, make it hard for these countries to have money for their economies. Right. Thus oiling their war machine. So the whole idea of these type of sanctions is to decrease, uh.

Capacity to wage a war, and all of a sudden you're giving them relief, which is why it's so crazy the lifting sanctions on a Iranian oil, because you want to decrease the capabilities of the country you're fighting against. So I just can't even fathom why you would, I mean, I understand why he is reducing it, because he's concerned about oil prices.

Ryan Kellogg: Yep. 

Anita Kellogg: But at the same time, then you're giving more money to the [00:37:00] Iranian economy to feed into their, to their war machine. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yep. Yep. Yeah. You remember how much, uh, Republicans went after Obama for the pallets of cash that Obama gave, right. To Iran. Um, yeah. This amount, this windfall that Iran got because of this action, it's like 10 times.

Wow. 10 or more times that amount. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Wow. So, yeah, it's so funny how they had went crazy over that and can now make decisions that are that far surpass it. It just doesn't make sense to me. I can't, I just don't know. I'm not a historian, but I don't know of any conflict where the other side increase the capability of the country that they're fighting against.

Ryan Kellogg: That's usually not done. I mean, I don't know from, because you studied World War I a lot and some of the, I mean, I was always surprised, like what trade was still happening during [00:38:00] the World Wars between for like critical supplies and, and things along those lines. I mean, I guess it falls, I mean, not that you're, I mean, get it 'cause you, you wanna make sure that those oil flows reach global markets.

'cause that's the only thing that's important is that the oil flows to the market. They, it reaches the market. But who's 

Anita Kellogg: the money going to? 

Ryan Kellogg: Well, okay, so to be fair, this is where like treasury, secretary descent, you know, says, well that money's gonna be, you know, 'cause it has to have whoever channels it passes through that the US will have some sort of leverage that it won't go back to the Iranian regime.

Anita Kellogg: It makes no sense. Makes sense. 

Ryan Kellogg: Sense. It's going back. Very makes sense. It's it for sure is going back, 

Anita Kellogg: no. What you had during war one is countries continue to trade despite the war. Yeah. But eventually they curtailed it. Right? So they may have traded, I Britain and Germany were still trading steel for a couple years, but then the British [00:39:00] were able to enact 

Ryan Kellogg: when like the supply chains can adapt and you can get other sources for it.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, that makes sense. 

Anita Kellogg: So that's very different than beginning war by not allowing your companies to buy any of those products and or having another country of access to those products. And then suddenly in the middle of war, release those and then giving them money or resources. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean, it's crazy.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. No, it's, it's, it's crazy. But I, again, this administration has done every single thing without even thinking through things like that in order to try to ease the, the economic impact on, on it. 

Anita Kellogg: I get it. But at the same time, I really have trouble wrapping my mind around it. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah. No, no, no. It definitely is.

Um, a little mine. [00:40:00] My pocket went around it a 

Anita Kellogg: little mine pocket. 

Ryan Kellogg: I mean, I was, I was outraged more by the, uh, the Russian. 'cause you had huge amounts of Russian oil floating at sea, 

Anita Kellogg: right? 

Ryan Kellogg: Uh, Russia was actually, I mean, they were really facing before this war. Uh, potential economic hardship, um, within, and, and definitely, um, you know, their ability to, to continue financing the war long term, because they were realizing, you know, the, the regular price was around 60, but in a lot of cases, Russian oil was only getting $25 a barrel, right?

'cause the market was so oversupplied now it seems like the most brilliant hedge ever. You had all this oil that you're gonna get any money for, and now you're able to sell it sanction free for a hundred dollars a barrel. So it's a gigantic windfall for, for Russia, who's, who's the clear winner, the hands down winner of this war period.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I agree. I think this surprises me less because [00:41:00] Trump doesn't have the strong feelings that certainly like Biden did about Ukraine not score. Right. 

Ryan Kellogg: Certainly not. 

Anita Kellogg: He seems 

Ryan Kellogg: one could argue the opposite, but 

Anita Kellogg: Right. He exactly. To the extent that he cares. I don't, just don't think he cares very much about the Ukraine, Russia war, especially since he couldn't bring it to a close.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Uh, I think he'd rather for like, to forget that it exists. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I think the other thing that, I don't know if you saw this morning, Europe's uh, pretty pissed about this. So they're all, because we have this arrangement with Europe, on Europe supplying Ukraine weapons. Right. But essentially we're selling them to the eu to nato.

Right. And so these EU countries have paid for all these weapons. 

Anita Kellogg: Mm-hmm. 

Ryan Kellogg: So you'd expect them to be like delivered. But instead of being delivered, they're now being shipped to the Middle East, to the Gulf States. So we're basically like bilking. We're taking a, a long term [00:42:00] loan. I don't know how it would be framed.

Um, but yeah, I've seen there's definitely a lot of commentary from European leaders that, you know, just another sign that you can't trust the US or this administration even on simple transactional deals. 'cause they don't make delivery on kind of what was what was promised. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. That's problematic. Yeah.

Again, not surprising to me in any form. And I think it goes to the lack of extra capacity in our industrial base. Mm-hmm. We simply cannot fulfill orders if we're also trying to use those in a conflict. Those same goods in a conflict. Uh, and the need, we'll talk a little bit to what extent, but knowing that Iran is also going after the Gulf States' infrastructure to some extent.

Ryan Kellogg: Mm-hmm. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: You know, needing assets, all the assets you can get in the Middle East, both from sort of protecting those assets. Which are gonna affect oil markets to actually raging the war. So we, [00:43:00] we simply don't have capacity for, for multiple engagements. 

Ryan Kellogg: Right, right. Yeah. Certainly not. 

Anita Kellogg: And as far as I can tell, there's no urgency to build that capacity in because conflicts are considered so short term that there's not necessarily seen to be a need to ramp up, like really improve our industrial base.

Now, h said, I think does want to see that happen, but there are a lot of, uh, structural elements including procurement and, you know, businesses. Is it, how lucrative is it for them to deal with the Pentagon and. You know, there's just a lot of issues with getting an industrial base to have excess capacity.

I mean, you have to pay for it. And I mean, maybe the US is increasingly willing to pay for it, possibly with these bigger [00:44:00] military budgets, but it's, it's a huge problem going forward because it also deteriorates our ability to take on future conflicts. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, for sure. And you, you have to think that, I mean, uh, China's taking these, uh, these lessons into account.

Um, I think the other things from kind of the Chinese perspective is there's been a lot of tension and pay to the two aircraft carriers that are in the region. I don't know how much you've read about this, but one of them, the, uh, the Gerald Ford, uh, actually has had to go back to Crete, uh, for repairs, uh, and is officially out of commission.

Not a lot on this has been transparent, but supposedly it's related to kind of a fire within the, uh, within the, the housing, within the, the bunks, you know, um, as well as like issues with the, uh, the toilet. Uh, treatment system, but effectively, you know, the Geral four is the newest, most powerful aircraft carrier 

Anita Kellogg: on, I was [00:45:00] saying, I was gonna to say, I haven't read the story.

I was gonna say, well, a lot of these ships are 

Ryan Kellogg: supposed to be, yeah. This, this is the newest, most expensive one and it's effectively outta commission. So the other one, the Abraham Lincoln, I think a lot's been placed that it started the conflict only like 250 kilometers away from Iran. So fi you know, effectively in the Persian Gulf.

Um, but it, it had to move away. And again, there's not a lot of transparency. Obviously DOD is not gonna be, you know, transparent around these things. There's a lot of the fog of war things, uh, but had to move 1100 kilometers away. A lot of people online are interpreting this as Iran, 'cause everybody's speculating.

Has Iran been able to attack? The US Navy, you know, through drones. Mm-hmm. Or through other, other means, which again, this is what we saw Ukraine do effectively to Russia, right? Like in the Black Sea. H is, is there some sort of coverup or lack of transparency around [00:46:00] Iranian effectiveness and attack targeting, um, US vessels?

Why are the aircraft, where's, why is Abraham Lincoln so far away from the theater battle? How will any of this work to open up if we're gonna escort 

Anita Kellogg: right 

Ryan Kellogg: vessels through the straits of her mos? If the carrier people are reading into this, like, oh, maybe Iran's a lot more effective again, through these cheap technologies that are surprisingly effective and neutralizing, um, what has been.

Probably the US' biggest advantage in projecting power is the carrier battle groups. Putting, moving those into a region and then being able to, to, you know, have hundreds of, of, uh, aircraft, uh, deployed. 

Anita Kellogg: Whether, whether around is successful or not. I think there's a lot of conventional wisdom in the military that aircraft carriers are gonna be less useful in a war with China because they definitely have the missiles and capacity to take out aircraft carriers.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. And I [00:47:00] think that was all, I mean, everything around Taiwan is like, yeah. How far US assets would have to be positioned away from the, uh, the theater. But that was based more on missile threats. This is just from drones, presumably, right? Yeah, 

Anita Kellogg: but 

Ryan Kellogg: I mean, they, maybe they have some anti-ship, but that's always been, that's been speculated not, there's no confirmations that ran, have launched anti-ship missiles.

Anita Kellogg: Right. I, I think it's just the case that China won't need drones to wreck the svo. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean they have drone too. That may 

Ryan Kellogg: be, yeah, 

Anita Kellogg: they have plenty of drones. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Obviously. 'cause most commercial off the shelf drones are Chinese, so it's not like they lack the drones to go after them, but it is probably more efficient for them just to use these missiles that they have.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean the, a war against China would be so different because it wouldn't be asymmetrical, it would be two major powers against each other, which you can see how difficult it is to fight an asymmetrical role [00:48:00] at war. You definitely do not wanna see a war between two, uh, nearly equal if not equal countries.

In terms of military power. 

Ryan Kellogg: Well, yeah, in terms of the destruction of capacity, but I mean, that's what these militaries, well both are designed to fight. They're not very well designed to fight asymmetric warfare. We're, we're certainly not, but, 

Anita Kellogg: but. If you have a country that can stand up to you. Toe to toe.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Well, you're talking more like a World War II where it is truly to nation states. Yeah. The destructive power and the deaths and casualties, orders of magnitude. Anything since, since World War ii 

Anita Kellogg: and just the complexity of, 

Ryan Kellogg: yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Uh, we'll talk a little bit about what strategy the US has, the complexity of actually educating, executing strategy once a war begins.

Of course, right now, some of the question is, [00:49:00] was there strategy before this war began and is there a strategy now? But 

Ryan Kellogg: yeah. So I think wrapping up the, the economic impact, I mean, the other thing I wanted to point to just because this is without a doubt, you know, the linchpin probably to Iranian strategy is also the impact on global stock markets.

'cause that is definitely a point for Trump and for Trump's closest supporters. Uh, so global stock markets, with the exception of Israel, which is kind of interesting, uh, are now in correction territories. So they're off 10%, um, since February 28th. Uh, again, much of that impact has been, it's been fairly, even actually across markets, I would say it's, it's impacted European and Asian markets a little bit more than the US but the s and p 500 is, is very close to being down 10%.

Uh, the other thing that's happened is that, uh, inflationary pressure has definitely hit 'cause [00:50:00] again, people are. Recognizing once again, oil inputs into almost every aspect of, of modern life. So most analysts are now expecting US inflation to top 4% this year, uh, when it was trending, you know, closer to like two point a half to 2%, 

Anita Kellogg: right.

Ryan Kellogg: Uh, yields on the 10 year and 20 year treasuries have increased significantly over the last three months, where over the last three weeks, uh, which have made a borrowing cost for, for all sectors, uh, including things like mortgages. Um, so US consumers are definitely feeling it. Uh, I mentioned energy prices weren't that impacted, but definitely at the pump, um, you know, it has moved up.

The US is now averaging about $4 per gallon, uh, for gasoline compared to where it was at before, which is in the, in the twos. Um, right. Just really big was bragging at the State of the Union about being like a buck 80 somewhere. In Texas or something. So it's considerably above that currently. Uh, which has definitely not helped the, uh, the general support [00:51:00] or his approval ratings, uh, during, during this whole, whole conflict.

Um, so yeah, global economy is under a lot of pressure. It could be much, much worse, and it may end up being much worse depending on kind of where the conflict goes from here. Um, but for now, like I said, the US administration has pulled every single lever that it can in order to try to ease the impact on, on energy prices and, and thus inflation.

But it's, it's beginning to break down. I think we saw that within, um, global stock markets last week where the, the toline, um, was not getting traction anymore. Mm-hmm. That it was just seen as bluster that, that Trump was putting out there. 

Anita Kellogg: Right. So what do you mean that it could get worse depending on where the war is headed?

Ryan Kellogg: I think, well, the, the longer it goes on and the longer the straits of her moles are cut off, um, the greater impact it has. 'cause obviously you only have so much strategic [00:52:00] reserves you can release. There's only so much seaborne vessels that were out there. So then you run up against hard physical shortfalls of oil, particularly in Asia, 'cause that's where most of the Middle East oil went.

Um, so you create bidding. Um, Asia's gonna bid up the price of oil as they get increasingly desperate. Um. Uh, there could be wider financial implications too. Within these Asian countries, which run significant debts, they often for regime stability, you know, particularly in in Southeast Asia, offer significant fuel subsidies to the population.

And as that becomes less and less affordable, it begins to track credit where, um, trigger, um, issues with creditors and credit ratings. And then you could have like a full blown kind of financial crisis within some of these, these countries. But yeah, as, as it goes on, that physical gap between global demand for oil and the supply, uh, begins to really catch up because it physically, [00:53:00] it's just not being, I mean, they've shut down wells, um, in huge amounts in Iraq, huge amounts in Kuwait, a fairly significant amount in Saudi Arabia.

Um, so that represents this real physical loss of oil to the market. So you're gonna begin to see real demand destruction coming up. 

Anita Kellogg: Okay, that answers my question. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: So I wanna talk a little bit about US strategy and there was this, uh, article that came out in Foreign Affairs recently with, uh, Columbian Professor Leo Schiffrin and, uh, Columbia Professor Steven Biddle.

And they define strategy as simply a means, a plan by which military power will produce the desired political results. I'm not sure how that holds up to generally what military studies, uh, consider strategy because I've never taken or taught one of those classes. But I think it's a useful definition to talk about in a [00:54:00] practical matter US strategy.

Ryan Kellogg: Mm-hmm. Yeah, no, I think, uh, yeah, I think it's always important to remember that, um, that war and kind of military campaigns is just an extension of politics. 

Anita Kellogg: Always very important to remember. Yeah. Right. Uh, so I think war is politics by other means or 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: That's how the provost, 

Ryan Kellogg: yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: So, uh, so what are the goals if you, if you want, what are your desired political results?

And they argue that the purpose of initiating the war seemed to be the vi to eliminate the violent threat to US interests posed by the Islamic Republic. And this, this can mean a lot of things. So they argue that the maximum outcome would be to solve the, this problem more or less by completely regime change.

And I think it's important to have a sense of what. It's not just regime change, it's a particular type of regime. They want [00:55:00] to replace it. We, we keep saying regime change, it can be regime change and it's a more hard line government toward, toward the us. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. And clearly, I mean, the US or Israel certainly didn't come in here with any sort of like pro-democracy 

Anita Kellogg: right.

Ryan Kellogg: Sort of vision. I think the vision, and this has been confirmed with everything that I've heard, is they wanted to do a Venezuela, right? Us Trump wanted to go in, didn't care whether it was like the same regime. I think there was, and I mentioned this last time, there was this strong emphasis. They did not like the crats, but I think the idea was, yeah, if they could get A-I-R-G-C dude that was reasonable and would be more pro US Israel.

That's, that's, that's what they wanted. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. I I, 

Ryan Kellogg: he could be brutal to the people internally. They'd care less about that, but yeah, if he was willing to deal 

Anita Kellogg: right. Then 

Ryan Kellogg: that was success. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: They want a re regime change is regime that 

Ryan Kellogg: favorable to us and Israeli [00:56:00] interest. Yeah. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: So that has to be clarified.

Uh, the minimum objective was to cripple around for a while and periodically revive the war to tamp down whatever threats generated. Uh, so this fallback option of interally, reviewing, renewing war is known as mowing the lawn. This is new to me. I've never heard of this concept. 

Ryan Kellogg: No, but it has been getting Yeah.

Tracks in the idea of, of mowing the lawn that you have to periodically go back and bomb them in order to, I mean, essentially, well that's, I guess if they were able to end the war now you could say this is the first lawn mowing that was needed. 'cause the initial lawn mowing. What about 

Anita Kellogg: the 12 day war?

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. That was when the weeds are totally outta control. You needed to mow that lawn initially and obliterate. 'cause we did, we obliterated their nuclear program. But now, boom, you know, it's grown back up. So we had to go mow the lawn, 

Anita Kellogg: but that was like less than a year. [00:57:00] And this time it 

Ryan Kellogg: a fast growing lawn.

Anita Kellogg: I mean, how often, if you were taking the strategy, I don't think this is a real strategy necessarily. Like, oh, we planned, because I think that this would've been a much shorter operation if we were just going to say, oh, well, we'll have some sort of, we'll bomb them every time, you know, every once in a while to, to make sure their capacity is staying crippled.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. That, that's certainly not, um, it would be a, uh, uh, a reframing of the operation if we were able to end it like within the next couple of weeks. It would be kind of this pivot to, well, we've deteriorated successfully. The, both the nuclear program and the ballistic missile and drone factories, and if we have to go back again, we'll we'll do that.

But mission accomplished. Yeah. But they could have said that 

Anita Kellogg: two weeks ago. 

Ryan Kellogg: Right? Because that's not what they originally, originally they were like, [00:58:00] this regime is so weak, empathetic, and, uh, signaled such weakness based on the size of the protest that occurred in January. We think we can just like, push a little bit and they're gonna topple over.

Anita Kellogg: Right. 

Ryan Kellogg: That was, uh, that was devastatingly wrong. 

Anita Kellogg: Right? Yeah. So I guess that would mean a shift in strategy because if you'd wanted to pursue that strategy from the beginning, I think you would have something more similar to the 12 day war. You'd just keep repeating that. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it would, it would have much, um, much fewer, uh, objectives and and extent.

Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: So they write that the Iranian threat or the real exaggerated has not, has been reduced, those 15,000 strikes. Right. It's definitely reduced, but it's not eliminated. And you know, we talked about the asymmetrical warfare, right? That Iran is able to, um, so obviously there drones and missiles reduced by [00:59:00] 90%, but that doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to strike targets because they are still striking targets.

Um, and the problem is that it's fueling its incentives to actually use this weaker but dangerous forces for retaliation and revenge. So, you know, strategy should, if you're talking about we want to deteriorate the capabilities, that's one thing, but, but without regime change to more favorable government, you're just making the regime.

More intent to, to use what it has left to damage your interests. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So I think it, yeah, it's, it is made it more hard line. Um, and I think the most devastating thing is around, like always threatened, you know, around the streets of hormonals and attacking like Gulf energy infrastructure. But now that they've demonstrated it and demonstrated that you can't [01:00:00] really a hundred percent defend against it, that you have like this permanent threat premium on energy coming out of that, out of the region now, which is like a permanent damage on the global economy, 

Anita Kellogg: right?

I mean, I, I think, 

Ryan Kellogg: and the cost of that is trillions of dollars. Yeah. Compared to where we were before the war. 

Anita Kellogg: Exactly. So I think if you can't get a willing partner in Iran to negotiate with you, uh, you can, the problem is you can call an end to this, but that's not gonna necessarily reopen the straight of hermo and, uh, create all kinds of just structural problems for the global economy.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, not only, I mean, so Iran is talking about implementing a toll system so that they're charging like $2 million per tanker, which I, I didn't bother. Like, well, what percentage does that like add to? Probably didn't add that much, but still you're, you, I mean, one, [01:01:00] it's a, a huge blow on US reputation.

I mean, half of the purpose of the US Navy and kind of its force within the world is like the insurance of free trade and, and protected trade routes, um, throughout the world. So now you have a toll system that's being implemented by this regime, um, that demonstrates it can, and the US can't stop it. So you have like kind of that, that loss.

Um, and then, uh, and then yeah, it's just the, the fact that, yeah, even if you make this agreement, the world knows traitors, know that Iran at any moment can. Send out his drones and make a credible strike on these tankers, which again, these things are the size of like skyscrapers, 

Anita Kellogg: right? 

Ryan Kellogg: Laid out. I mean, these are the biggest vessels that humans have ever made.

Anita Kellogg: Right. 

Ryan Kellogg: These are gigantic vessels, so enormously hard to protect against something like a drone. Mm-hmm. Um, but filled with, you know, and, and it's not that they would sink, but it's just, um, yeah, just the [01:02:00] insurers, you know, don't want to deal with that. So you've had like this permanent premium on it, um, which, uh, which right there just really, you know, questions the, the, the worth of, uh, of doing this, that yeah, you degraded Iran, but you did, you degrade them that much more than what they were after the 12 day war.

And, and clearly they were targeting regime because half of the strikes are targeting. Um, the leadership, right. We certainly wouldn't have done the leadership if this was mowing the lawn, right. Or not, not at the level of like the supreme leader 

Anita Kellogg: that 

Ryan Kellogg: Israel did. 

Anita Kellogg: But I think the toll system in the straight news is uh, that's the number one reason Trump hasn't taco out.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. 'cause he can't fix that. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. That's, that's kind of the point was like, so you're like, 

Anita Kellogg: he 

Ryan Kellogg: would taco like 

Anita Kellogg: you were all like, well said stuff, which is ridiculous, but, uh, but I think he's, because of what they've effectively done in the straight home, I think that's why [01:03:00] he has been unable just to like, okay, we met our objective of this war.

He 

Ryan Kellogg: would, he would for sure. And I think the other thing is, um, I think both the Saudis and the UAE are encouraging the US to continue this war until the regime's broken. They know this isn't, I mean, this is a horrible for them, this outcome, 

Anita Kellogg: right? 

Ryan Kellogg: Especially for like the UAE build itself up as like, oh, this luxury place trying to pivot away from energy.

But their whole economy is still depended on it. If your place is, can never be seen as safe, 

Anita Kellogg: right? 

Ryan Kellogg: And you can always be, um, manipulated by a more aggressive Iranian regime, this is a horrible deal for you. Not, and I mean, a lot of people are starting to, to think, um, yeah, what is the security arrangement that the Gulf states have agreed upon?

 They've just made themselves targets and the US hasn't effectively defended them or their economies from the, 

Anita Kellogg: [01:04:00] so that's a point that Naga Baja Lee makes in this other article that, that she makes in foreign affairs that one of the wins for Iran in this war is this. Putting some separation between the United States and its golf allies, and not that they're gonna break away from the US but you know, the US not defending them and not seeming to do anything about its security arrangements that this creates some, uh, some distance between them.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. I think definitely long term when they look at it, I mean, I think in, in the short term, um. I think as we mentioned before, the, the calls by like the UAE and Saudi Arabia to, um, to actually continue this because the, the current arrangement isn't sustainable for them, uh, economically because they've, uh, with the straits of Hormo shut down.

You [01:05:00] have quite a few of these countries that have shut in, um, almost the entirety. I'm, I'm thinking of like Kuwait in particular, but also the, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, um, where this, uh, situation where Iran has, uh, defacto control over the streets of Hormels or some sort of toll campaign, that that's not something that their desire.

So for like the short term, it seems to put them more in the US camp, but then the long term, they have to think. Hey, is this arrangement actually working out for us? 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, exactly. I mean, what's kind of interesting is, you know, this conflict you've made, this comment shows that the Chinese has no influence in the region, but this might give them an opening to some extent because it wants to have security guarantees with these countries.

I mean, it's mostly focused on economics, but it has had talks about security arrangements. So at least that kind of opens the door a little bit for them. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it, it would be interesting to [01:06:00] see long term kind of what their position where if there is a, a void, um, left by the US and that situation. 

Anita Kellogg: I think another thing that she points out is around preparation, uh, for economic warfare and, and certainly the things that they've learned from the 12 day war, but also from their war with, with Iraq, is that.

The way that they, obviously, they're never gonna be as militarily strong as the US and Israel. Right. That's obviously apparent. But just the thought of aggression. They've been planning to use an economic war, which they've been very effective at. In some sense, they're, they face so many sanctions from the US that it gives the US less leverage economically.

But by closing the strait of ous and tactics like that, they have affected the, the economy in a way that, you know, just the price of oil leading to gasoline prices. It's certainly something [01:07:00] that bothers Trump very much. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yep. Yeah, and I think that that really raises a question. I think that's a good pivot point to kind of, well, what, what's gonna happen in the coming weeks?

And, um, so the Washington Post just reported, uh, yesterday, um, and then exclusive that it looks like, yeah, very much that the Pentagon is preparing for up to two months of a ground war. Um, so that's, that's one piece of evidence. Uh, the second was Trump. I 

Anita Kellogg: take back my bet. 

Ryan Kellogg: What's that? 

Anita Kellogg: I take back my bet.

Ryan Kellogg: You take back your bet. Um, the second piece of evidence was truth, or sorry, Trump, uh, truth on truth, social, whatever that's called. Um, that to watch Mark Levine. Now Mark Levine. I don't know if you're familiar or listeners are familiar long term, uh, right wing, uh, radio host who now has his own show, I don't know on what, probably on Fox.

Um, uh, so on his [01:08:00] show, he makes a hour long case of why it's necessary for the US to invade Iran in order to seize the highly rich uranium. So it's almost like Trump, instead of doing this himself as the, uh, commander in chief and talking to the country, has kind of spawned this off to, uh, or handed this off to Mark Levine is there to make the case for why we need to sink ground troops.

I think between those two pieces of evidence, it seems very likely that. Assuming that the negotiations don't go well, which are currently these informal negotiations that are being, um, uh, via the intermediary of Pakistan. Uh, if those do not go well, and Iran does not agree to the 15 points, um, that have been kind of laid out by the Trump administration, it seems like a very high likelihood that the 17,000 ground troops and special [01:09:00] forces will be deployed over the next month or so for, according to the Washington Post report, a pretty extended campaign.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Two months would definitely be extended because it, it would probably last more than two months. Whatever you're planning for, you should also just know it lasts longer. I think the one piece of counter evidence, and this is just Trump always sending these mixed messages, is that of all people, they're sending JD Vance to negotiate and obviously he said, you know, the war will end soon, and we know that he wants award to end.

Personally, I wonder if if he could just, if Trump could just get the straight of her moves open again, if that would be enough for him. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. But that's a big question. And how do you do that without taking control, essentially of, of both Car Island and the near shore, uh, part of Iran where you can launch, like drone, drone strikes, 

Anita Kellogg: you negotiate with Iran [01:10:00] 

Ryan Kellogg: and not insist Yeah, they don't, they don't seem willing to negotiate.

And I would say, I don't know if that's really a sign. Maybe. I mean, isn't that caving in? I mean, Iran wanted JD Vance 'cause they view him as the most, I mean, he's been nearly silent on this entire campaign. Yeah. And it's been reported that Yeah, internally he's expressed, um, deep reservations representing, again, he's trying to position himself for 2028.

He knows that there is a, probably at least. Maybe a quarter of MAGA that is hardcore isolationists that are strongly against this. This is the Tucker Carlson, this is the Candace Owens. This is that part of the MAGA movement that seems very close to breaking away the Marjorie Taylor Greens, that whole, that whole group.

Um, so I don't know if I would read too much into like JD Vance being, uh, you know, a pacifist sign as much as this is the one thing we can give to Appease. And I don't even know, maybe he's even throwing JD Vance under the bus [01:11:00] because he didn't wanna own this. And now that you get him deeply involved in the process, he has to own it as retribution.

Who knows? I mean, who knows what's going on internally. Yeah. The CPA was held like last week, pretty low attendance, uh, strong. 

Anita Kellogg: Did not attend for the first time in 10 years. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. Very low energy. Um, but, um. Vance did finish at at the top of the straw pole. But Rubio has been surging. Rubio's another one who's kind of 

Anita Kellogg: a little surprising at cpac, right?

I mean, 

Ryan Kellogg: yeah, 

Anita Kellogg: in the Republican party in general, I would, was not surprised to see like 35%, but at cpac, which is the most conservative element. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it is fully magnified. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. You would think that they still would not want Rubio, but also some of the tension because I think if you're for Rubio, you're kind of for the war, aren't you?

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. But even here, I mean, I think Rubio has been more skilled with it and his framing, uh, but he hasn't been like, the only one that's [01:12:00] been truly out there is Hex Seth. Hex Seth, and he's also being positioned, if this does go poorly, it's very likely he'll be thrown under the bus. I mean, Trump made the comment during.

One of the briefings this past week where it was like, yeah, he, Seth really wants to go, you know, I, I'm, I'm, you know, for negotiating and I know he, Seth is gonna be disappointed if this wraps up too early. Uh, and it was, he's idea, you know, around doing these. Yeah. I mean it was a very much like positioning him for, oh, okay, if this goes south, I have a dude I can throw under the bus.

Anita Kellogg: Right. Yeah. I mean, that makes sense. That seems very Trumpian. I mean, maybe we should just consider like the ramifications of sending in ground troops. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And I, I, so I think based on this evidence, based on the fact Trump himself is pointing people towards Levin, seems like the mission maybe isn't gonna be so much Car Island, which I.

I think [01:13:00] one of the things I wanted to frame was that it's, it would not be very effective as economic leverage on Iran. 'cause Iran's already one, you know, the regime's been under 47 years of, of sanctions of various forms. But over the last like 20 years, pretty extreme sanctions to the point where they've gone periods of like five, 10 years where their exports to the oil markets are very little.

Mm-hmm. So shutting off their oil revenue, uh, isn't really much of a threat to a regime that sees us as existential threat and is very used to surviving under horrible economic conditions. I don't think it's any leverage at all. So then that puts it at the much more difficult, I mean, car Island is hard to defend, probably easy to take, but hard to defend, uh, but not much leverage versus going in hundreds of miles into the interior, potentially multiple locations having to secure.

Pretty wide perimeter around heavily defended [01:14:00] installations and then having to extract probably from rubble, uh, the highly enriched uranium at these nuclear sites that have now been hit three or four times, you know, over the past six months since, since the 12 day war. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. It seems like you need more than 17,000 troops.

Ryan Kellogg: It just seems like, yeah, you're deploying the full 82nd Airborne, um, it feels like you need specialist, like engineering core. 

Anita Kellogg: Mm-hmm. 

Ryan Kellogg: Uh, which didn't really, I don't, I'm, I'm sure they're capable. Um, but yeah, it does seem like a very high number of troops to secure the perimeter. You obviously, you have complete air superiority mm-hmm.

But you're gonna be harassed constantly by, by drones. Um, 

Anita Kellogg: and we talked about the sort of insurgency planning as well. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. So, I mean, we know the IRGC is, is already split into the kind of the 31 different subdivisions, uh, each armed. Um, so, and at least what they're [01:15:00] in their bravado of their online propaganda, you know, they're kind of spoiling for a fight on the ground.

Mm-hmm. Um. So, I don't know. Yeah. It seems very difficult. I have not watched Mark Levine and how he frames, uh, the, the difficulty potentially of this death. 'cause you have to assume maybe half of it is buried underground. 

Anita Kellogg: Mm-hmm. 

Ryan Kellogg: But you have to assume they got out a significant amount of enriched uranium, how much do you need for a dirty bomb?

Mm-hmm. Uh, and the addition are probably not that huge a quantity. Uh, and that's, that's the, the big concern is just, just them making a single dirty bomb. I don't know if that buys them a lot of security, but maybe a regime that really has nothing left to lose would be willing to, uh, to take out Tel Aviv.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: Knowing that they would then in turn honestly, I don't think it, we know Israel wouldn't hold back and that they would likely be a nuclear holocaust in Iran, which is a disa obviously then a complete [01:16:00] disaster for the world. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, that's really terrifying. I just think that, well, I think this sounds like a horrible idea.

I mean, the war against Iran sounded bad, but ground troops sounds horrible and I don't see how we easily, I mean, we always think, okay, we'll be in and out, but that's really ever true. Yeah. This is not 

Ryan Kellogg: this, this is not this operation for sure. 

Anita Kellogg: And so it sounds like something that would be easy to get bogged down in some sort of quagmire, which is, you know, if anything, you would think Trump would be very nervous about doing that.

And I think it's kind of a shame that like the recent military adventurism, such as in Venezuela, gave him so much confidence to let somebody like he, Seth persuade him to engage in this. And then if he's being persuaded to put GR troops on the ground for something like getting the enriched uranium, like you said, a much comp, a very complicated operation.[01:17:00] 

I mean, it's, to me, it's just surprising and really not in keeping with what I would've at all expected from Trump. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, and that's what's led to the, the split within the MAGA movement. I mean, this, the, the core of. His movement versus the establishment Republicans that existed before under Bush.

Um, is this, this isolation list? No more forever wars. No more wars in the Middle East. So it's a very core component, I think together with immigration. Those are the two core components of Trumpism. Mm-hmm. And he's betrayed. Yeah. That, that central one. And people are actually getting mad because he is backed off of the, the mass deportations.

Mm-hmm. So there's like two, it feels like the two core components of Trumpism are, are being attacked. Uh, that's why, I mean, there's a lot of speculation on like, oh, is this, is this the final end of, of the MAGA movement? And I think yeah, putting ground troops and then if it goes south, [01:18:00] yeah, we may be seen.

Seen it crumble. 

Anita Kellogg: I think even two months of ground troops is, is definitely a challenge to the maga isolationist side, even though I think they're also very, very reluctant to completely break with Trump. Uh, so I think it will take something pretty extreme. If it's more than two months, I think it would have to take, I think two months would stream it.

But if it's something that lasts, you know, if you see heavy casualties or something that lasts, you know, for like six months, I think that's gonna be pretty devastating to the movement. 

Ryan Kellogg: Oh, well for sure. I mean, at six months the global economy's wrecked. 

Anita Kellogg: That's true. 

Ryan Kellogg: Global economy is absolutely wrecked.

This, this, we did not have a long runway at all. And you know, I think everything that's built into the markets currently, you know, seems a pretty quick resolution where stuff, you know, obviously it's gonna take months for the damage done already to work through the system that's built in, but it's not as, it's assuming.[01:19:00] 

Stuff gets flowing again within the next couple of weeks. Yeah. If it goes beyond that, then without it things, uh, things could get bad. 

Anita Kellogg: Well, I think a, a two months ground operation definitely means that if it's like something, like you said for uranium enrichment, getting that out of the country, then I think yeah, it's gonna hit the economy.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. So it could be, it could be very rough times, uh, ahead potentially, 

Anita Kellogg: but what I, you know, would also the Republicans are gonna struggle with is how much dependent. So the Macca will be very reluctant to actually break from Trump, even the ones who feel betrayed. But the independents especially feel very portrayed.

I mean, Joe Rogan has been very, very vocal about 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah. There is a lot. Yeah. He has lost the, the bro. Vote largely. He had already, um, I, I mean, polls for months have been showing the, the swing from Latino males, from black [01:20:00] males, uh, have all kind of swung back, um, to how they were prior to the 2024 election.

Uh, yeah, I mean, everything is, is building up to a complete, uh, blue tsunami, uh, in November in regards to midterms. Um, you know, we'll see whether or not the, the Senate swings, but it, everything's in play currently. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I fully expect the blue tsunami wave thing to happen midterms, but what will be interesting is to see if they can keep that momentum going into the next presidential election.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I mean, it depends on kind of who, who they put up as a candidate, but I think the, the anger will be there. And again, it all depends. How does this go? What are the economic implications? How long do those implications last? Um, it's a long time till 2028. 

Anita Kellogg: Right. I mean, so, but yeah, it's gonna be pretty, I will be shocked if it's not pretty disastrous for Republicans in the midterms.

Yeah. I'll all signs point to that and 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, [01:21:00] absolutely. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: As long, you know, if there are more casualties, which you would definitely probably see with a ground invasion, I mean, all these things will just deepen, uh, the problems for Republicans. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. So, we'll, we'll see. Um, again, every time that he's positioned forces and, and, uh.

The vicinity of an area, he's used them. Uh, and just everything kind of coming out between these two pieces of evidence, it seems to be pointing more and more. I have not looked at kind of where the poly market is currently at in regards to US forces pulling that up now. So I think yesterday it was at 56% is now up to 66%.

So definitely these, these two pieces of evidence have moved the markets. Yeah. Where people think it's, uh, it's more likely. 

Anita Kellogg: Well, it's moved my mind too. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Like I wanted to bet against ground troops, but the more and more you keep reading about it, the more [01:22:00] it sounds likely. It just, it's hard for me to wrap my mind around it.

I mean, nothing seems more tical to Trump, Trump than actually sending in ground troops to war in the Middle East. 

Ryan Kellogg: Well, I'm, I'm sure it's being framed a certain way. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I know, but, 

Ryan Kellogg: and, um, obviously we don't, we don't have, uh, you know, nobody publicly has the full picture of, of what the situation is on the ground.

But definitely, I mean, every expert, every analysis, uh, that I've read is, um, that, uh, yeah, this will be extraordinarily difficult and the chance of, of success as, as defined by, you know, some of the articles that we read of, you know, truly eliminating, like the nuclear capacity of Iran or its ability to threaten the straits of hormoz, um, seems pretty low that you're gonna get this from 17,000 troops in the region, which is not, not much, 

Anita Kellogg: it's really not for that type of [01:23:00] invasion.

So I'm having trouble m how they would think that they're gonna execute that particular strategy. For Car Island 17,000. Yeah, I see that. But I don't see how you even think about going into for the uranium with just 17,000. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I mean, a lot of that special forces. Um, but yeah, it's the extraction part.

It's the main sites where I, I think the majority of people think is a, a good volume of the highway at uranium. But yeah, the extraction process alone, I mean, this is a couple weeks just to get on the ground, defend the perimeter, and then extract it. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: And then, and then get it outta the country.

I mean, you definitely have to have full air superiority 'cause you're pretty vulnerable that couple hundred miles flying in. 

Anita Kellogg: It's not easy to transport enriched uranium either. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, no, 

Anita Kellogg: you can't just put it in a box. 

Ryan Kellogg: No, no. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's, this is a specialized operation for sure. Yeah. [01:24:00] 

Anita Kellogg: Well, it sounds really, really disturbing to me.

Uh. I, I don't think there is a win at all without getting a favorable government. And I don't know if there's a way to change to accomplish that. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Not, not with our, our footprint currently and not with what's known on the ground. Um, especially, I mean, we talked about before kind of the, which was dropped I think within a couple days.

The idea of the Kurds, uh, using the Northern Iraqi Kurds is kind of like a, a proxy ground force, um, or some of the other minority groups within Iran. Um, but that must have been a non-start. E either they were like not biting on that at all because of probably smarter of them. Probably smarter of them. Um, but yeah, without having certainly around regime change unless, yeah, again, you needed to have done the human level intelligence and groundwork and, um.

Arrangements with the more moderate components of the IRGC [01:25:00] to have those generals, those divisions break off, that you could fracture it and then really, you know, have a, a decent proxy force combined with the air support that you as in Israel can bring. And yeah, you, you do have a really good chance of at least putting a moderate US friendly IRGC member at the head of the government.

But without that, I mean, I don't see it happening. 

Anita Kellogg: I think if it hasn't happened by now, it's not gonna happen. 

Ryan Kellogg: It doesn't seem that way. Uh, the other things I've read is, um, I guess there've been some good reports coming out on just the nature of the intelligence. 'cause we've talked a lot about that between Mossad and the CIA and I think it's, it's not so much human intelligence.

This is just that they've penetrated every electronic think about every camera, every traffic light, everything that, that has been so thoroughly penetrated by Israel that they're able to monitor movements of people electronically. So this isn't about, oh, they've, they're masters at kind of the old spy [01:26:00] craft of building up human relations and having kind of this cloak and dagger thing.

It's the modern, uh, superiority of, of digital tactical informations maybe 

Anita Kellogg: needed them more old fashioned 

Ryan Kellogg: building relations. Well, yeah, that's what I, I just assumed it was kind of a combination that you had people that were just turn coats, that the regime was so unpopular that you had kind of, that I'm sure there's that going on.

But everything I've read also implies the success has been really driven by, they penetrated every electronic 

Anita Kellogg: right 

Ryan Kellogg: device that can monitor 

Anita Kellogg: knowing where people are human. So you can take out people that way. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: You can't necessarily build the relationship, you're 

Ryan Kellogg: not gonna build a coalition of Yeah.

To actually overthrow the regime. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Which is what they needed. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: To have success in this. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yep. 

Anita Kellogg: So, well, as always, we're leaving on a positive note. 

Ryan Kellogg: It's fun times. 

Anita Kellogg: Always, 

Ryan Kellogg: always, 

Anita Kellogg: always. Well, let's hope there's a [01:27:00] better outcome than what we have predicted. But it seems, um, for right now, things do look pretty cloudy.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I would think, uh, yeah. Next, next month or so, buckle up. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, 

Ryan Kellogg: buckle up. 

Anita Kellogg: Well, I think that brings us to the end of this episode of Kellogg's Global Politics. You can visit our website at www kellogg's global politics.com and follow us on X at Global Kellogg, or me ar Kellogg. 

Ryan Kellogg: You can also reach us by email, so media at kellogg's global politics.com.

Myself, Ryan at kellogg's global politics.com. As always, please see the show notes for the articles we discussed in this episode. 

Anita Kellogg: Thanks. 

Ryan Kellogg: Thanks. Bye bye.