Plan C for Iran: Episode 32

This week on Alternate Shots, John Ellis and Richard Haass ask whether Washington has anything resembling a Plan C for Iran. Haass offers one: First, accept that previous U.S. plans (first bombing our way to regime change or Iranian capitulation followed by an effort to negotiate an end to the war on reasonable terms) have all failed. Then he suggests adopting a new strategy, one that includes maintaining sanctions rather than rewarding Tehran, building Gulf defenses against Iranian drones and missiles, accelerating measures to gradually reduce the Strait’s strategic importance, and returning focus to the nuclear issue to ensure that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon. It may mean accepting the uncomfortable reality of a privileged role for Iran in the Strait of Hormuz for a time if it is to stay open. The two co-hosts also discuss Ukraine’s new leverage, Russia’s temptations, America’s contested midterms, and the curse of Trump in sports.

Hosted by John Ellis and Richard Haass

News Items on Substack

Home and Away on Substack

Produced by Dale Eisinger 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hello and welcome back to America's fastest growing podcast. It's called Alternate Shots. I am one of the co-hosts. John Ellis is my name. I'm the founder and editor of two Substack newsletters. One is called News Items, the other is called Political News Items. You can find them both at news-items.com.

SPEAKER_01 0:20

I'm Richard Haas, listening to John. I'm sitting here thinking, is to say you're one of the co-hosts, redundant is implicit in co-host that you're one of them. I'll just put that aside. I'll let Mr. Ellis mull that all weekend.

SPEAKER_00 0:34

I'm going to need to think about that.

SPEAKER_01 0:36

When I'm uh not being uh a grammatical gotcha, channeling my inner Bill Sapphire, who I miss, I I write something called Home and Away uh once a week about uh things domestic and uh foreign and like news items, it's on it's on Substack.

SPEAKER_00 0:51

No one knows who William Sapphire is anymore, except for you and this really.

SPEAKER_01 0:55

Okay, see, that's depressing. Um for those of you who are listening, William Sapphire was actually a very clever uh speechwriter for uh Richard Nixon. He then was a great columnist for decades for the New York Times. And he was also one of the most loyal friends I ever had. So uh I do I do uh miss and plus he used to write a Sunday column for the New York Times magazine about language. I think it was called On Language.

SPEAKER_00 1:18

Yes, it was.

SPEAKER_01 1:19

And it was quite brilliant, often showing the origin of terms and words and so forth. So it was uh it was something of a a must-read for the gang that I guess plays Wordle now.

SPEAKER_00 1:29

So let's start with Iran. You are the author of one of the great phrases that's been used throughout this war, which is war of choice, and there certainly was and is a war of choice. And we have been through plan A, which was decapitation of the regime, plan B, which is essentially annihilation or demolition of the regime. Neither worked. And now we're, as David Sanger described it in today's New York Times, is there a plan C? He turned to you for some analysis of that in that story that he wrote. And I'm curious as to the second part that he he didn't include, which is what do you think plan C is, and is actually is there is there a plan C?

SPEAKER_01 2:15

I mean he David, who's the best at writing this sort of thing, yeah, took people through it. And yeah, it's he's right. We began with the goal of regime change. We got a little bit of it, just not the regime change we were angling for. We've got a a much harder line regime, maybe we'll talk about a more more controlled by the uh revolutionary guards. The clerical class seems to be something of uh a cover almost for for for for things, and the sec the more secular politicians seem to have no power. Then there was uh you know, bombing that we hope we could get bomb them into capitulation, and they would accept anything. Well, that didn't work so well either. Uh and indeed the agreement that was ultimately signed, what, about three or so weeks ago, John? Yep. The memorandum of understanding is a stunningly pro-Iranian document. We it's almost like we bombed them and then and then we capitulated. And what we're realizing also is the document is incredibly vague. It's uh uh you know the Swiss cheese metaphor would be that there's more holes than cheese. And you know, certain big issues like the nuclear issue were kicked down the road. Other issues like support for proxies and missile production were not even covered. The one thing that was largely covered was the Strait of uh Hormuz and some financial issues, and essentially the U.S. released all sorts of sanctions in the hope that we would uh get a strait that was open for all. And the Iranians read the language in the agreement and said, well, hold it. It says in 60 days we can start charging uh tolls. And it basically gives us a large role in the management and oversight of the strait, and they have assumed it. And as I expect most listeners know, in the last week, the Iranians were urging, shall we say, tankers and other ships to use the one of the channels that runs by their coast rather than by Oman's. And when several ships did not do that, they were attacked. And then in turn, the United States uh bombed all sorts of targets in uh Iran, which in turn then bombed U.S. bases in some of the neighboring countries. So that is where we are. And that was the background to David Sanger's piece that essentially we tried regime change, we tried to bomb them into capitulation, then we tried diplomacy. None of them seems to have worked right now, and the administration's flirting with more uh bombing. And I'll be honest with you, John. I don't see uh any likelihood that that gets us. Plus, you know, we talked about it in the article. The there's a real dilemma. The only kind of bombing that might make a real difference in Iran, say going after their energy industry, would be exactly the sort of bombing that would lead Iran to go after the energy infrastructure and water infrastructure of the entire region. So that's exactly what we want to avoid. As bad as this crisis has been, it's not been that bad. Energy prices are not all that high to say the least. They're what, 10, 15, at most 20% above where they were in the store when the war started. But if we were to trigger a much wider, more violent regional conflict, yeah, then we would have the crisis that a lot of people anticipated. So the administration's stuck. And the question is uh where we go from here. I've got some ideas. I I'm happy to uh do the dangerous thing of thinking out loud, but that's kind of where we are.

SPEAKER_00 5:17

Well, think out loud, because I'm I I it seems to me the the Trump administration has painted itself into a corner, and I'm not quite sure how they get out with getting a lot without getting a lot of paint on their shoes.

SPEAKER_01 5:30

Yeah. Well, I would say, you know, given what's happened militarily and diplomatically, they've got to accept an uncomfortable short-term reality. So I would say, let's get this straight open. If that means a lot of ships have to go by the channel closer to Iran, I don't like it, but we can live with it. If uh Iran collects some tolls after 60 days, implicitly that's in the uh agreement. What I would say, though, the administration ought to focus on a few things. And by the way, I wouldn't be easing sanctions. If that was the case, I don't see why we would ease sanctions. I would keep the sanctions in place to give Iran incentive to uh cooperate, but I would go on a crash course to build defenses of the regional states so they are not vulnerable to Iranian drones and missiles, which would be one thing I would uh I would do. I would secondly go on a crash course to reduce the strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz. And that would, you know, that's gonna take years. It's gonna take things like increasing uh energy production elsewhere, both oil and gas as well as alternatives. It's going to mean building pipelines, that's gonna mean reducing demand in some cases, which interestingly enough, China's taken the the lead on. And then I'd really be focusing on the nuclear issue. That that is uh, you know, if you will, uh a game changer. And I would be focusing on the diplomacy of that, or if need be the military aspects of that. So I would I would essentially you know accept the reality that in the short run, Iran's gonna have uh more influence over the strait than we would like. But our goal ought to be to reduce that over time, to reduce the salience or significance of the strait, to reduce Iran's ability to threaten the region, which in many ways ties our hands. And I would focus on the uh nuclear show, and I would keep the economic pressure on, because the let's go back to where this war began, John. It was the uh, you know, this was a regime in a bad way. And in a funny sort of way, we changed the narrative. But I would think if there's an Achilles heel for this regime, it is their mismanagement of the economy. And the war has made some of their economic problems more acute. So I would keep economic pressure on them. We're not getting anything for the diplomacy, so why are we being generous towards Iran?

SPEAKER_00 7:34

So senior military officials, retired and active, have said privately and off the record to reporters that the military has a plan that would bring the war to a successful conclusion, which strikes me as improbable. But is that just the military always believes that it has a military plan that will lead to a successful conclusion? Or is this or is this uh I'm surprised the military would say that.

SPEAKER_01 8:01

The military always has a plan. And they always can be in a position saying we can accomplish this, this, and that. We can break this, destroy that, block this. I am not familiar from my time working in the Pentagon and my time working with the military when I was elsewhere in the government, where the military would then say, and we can bring this to a certain closure. That's uh that's essentially a step too far. Because the military, more than most, under you know, they've read Clausewitz and they understand all the uh intrinsic uncertainty of war and how the other side gets a vote, and you know, the Mike Tyson idea that uh, you know, you have a plan until you get punched in the face. So, and to that I would add, if there's any lesson to be learned from what, the last four or so months, is the idea that there's a military quote unquote solution to the Iran to what Iran, the challenge Iran poses, I would think is uh what's the word you use, improbable. So you're a better diplomat than I am, John. I think it is beyond improbable. And again, the more effective we get, the more likely we trigger exactly what we want to avoid, which is a horrific, consequential Iranian attack against the energy and water infrastructure of regional countries. So no, I I I'll be honest with you. I dismiss the idea that there's uh an escalatory, a military solution to uh the predicament in which we've created for ourselves.

SPEAKER_00 9:19

I want to move along to Ukraine. There are two developments. One at the uh well, not developments, there are two things we I'd like to talk about. One is President Trump's blessing, I guess you would say, uh, of Ukrainian incursions into Russian territory, deep into Russian territory. He said that was fine with him, which struck me as a a major change in Trump's view of things. And then the second is two columnists that are reasonably well plugged in. My friend Jerry Baker said that he talked with NATO sources and that they are they are now of the view that it's entirely possible Putin will expand the Ukraine war to include NATO and NATO countries and and former Soviet states. And that was then the next day, David Ignatius talking to the former CIA director, William Burns. Burns said essentially the same thing, that it was no longer improbable or incredible that Russia might in fact expand the war. What think you?

SPEAKER_01 10:23

Well, take it both sides of what you raised. Um you know, the trip to Europe the president just took and returned from what somebody, one of the late night TV guys described as his emotional support plane, which I kind I admit I kind of liked. Look, the good news was Ukraine. After a year and a half of not just siding with Russia, limiting American assistance to Ukraine, to basically intelligence, taking this view that and trying to jam Ukraine with a pro-Russian quote unquote peace agreement. The president finally seems to have come around to the idea that just maybe Ukraine isn't losing this war, that it's now taking the war to Moscow, deep into Moscow, into Crimea, I mean to r into Russia. It's really hurting them in Crimea, what they gained in 2014. But it's now attacking energy infrastructure in Siberia. It's attacking targets all throughout Moscow. So I think the president has understood that if he wants his peace deal, that the way to get it is no longer to jam Ukraine. And he's giving them the ability to produce uh air defense systems, Patriots, under license. The bad news is it'll take quite some time. The good news is that it happened, both symbolically and actually. We don't have a hell of a lot left, I gather, in our inventory to give them anyhow, after we use so many in the Middle East, yet another cost of this war. But Ukraine's ingenious. My hunch is they will find they will be incomparably better, I would predict, that these large American defense contractors at producing large numbers of systems quickly and at less cost. Let me just sort of say that with zero knowledge but complete confidence. And my favorite position to take on just about any issue. And so it's all good. I mean, I think the position Ukraine, it's it was a really welcome change. What I'd love to see is the administration, if you will, can complete the circle and announce that our previous diplomatic proposals are null and void, and that now we want to go back to what we originally wanted was a ceasefire in place that doesn't prejudice anybody's long-term claims. That would be the simple, cleanest way to go. We wouldn't be pressuring Ukraine to give up any of its territorial claims. Putin wouldn't have to give up his fever dreams, but I think it's the best chance to get a deal, a ceasefire in place. Maybe you get some international forces between the two, some pullback at the front lines. But I actually think the possibility of that is better than it's ever been in the last, what, four and a half years.

SPEAKER_00 12:44

Four and a half years.

SPEAKER_01 12:45

Years. Yeah, of this phase of the war. What you allude to, uh, this idea that Russia might expand, uh a lot of people would say, well, why the hell would they do that? Their military has been shown to be inept in many ways. And what I assume Putin thought was going to be a cakewalk has proved to be anything uh but so why would they expand? But it's a little bit like the old diplomatic thing. If you're having trouble getting a deal, sometimes you add different dimensions to it in hopes of putting together the pieces of an agreement. And Putin may say, Well, look, I can't get what I want in Ukraine. This is potentially embarrassing and even threatening to my s my standing in Russia, so therefore I've got to get something else that I can point to, and that will allow me to compromise on Ukraine. So just maybe. So it may not be the end of the world if they do it. I don't think he's got a lot of mass to do in it, but I can imagine him doing something in Latvia or Estonia or something like that. I don't think he'd do something against the Poland or or something. And he might be able to expose some of the rifts in in NATO. I don't think it's axiomatic to say the least that Donald Trump would go to bat for NATO under Article V. So Putin may be tempted to do that. I think what limits him is just simply he doesn't have a whole lot of conventional, capable conventional military forces to throw out a new front. But is it possible he'd do something to uh almost pull the string in the NATO sweater and expose its its weaknesses? I think I think that's quite possible. I don't know what percentage odds to give it, John. So it's that's um, but Bill Burns, in addition to being the former head of the CIA, was U.S. ambassador to Russia, knows Putin probably as well as just about any American. And at the end of the day, think about it, what Putin cares the only thing he cares more about than Ukraine is himself and his and his position of power. And if he thought he could do something that would strengthen his hand, particularly if he needed a compromise on Ukraine, then I would think it's quite conceivable. And if I were working at the White House now, I would sure be preparing for all sorts of contingencies. I would really be pulsing the system, the intelligence community, defense, and so forth, about what what are his options and what might we do in response. And you know, this administration doesn't have much of an interagency process anymore. So my guess is if this were to take place anywhere, it would probably be on the joint chiefs of staff, because I don't trust the civilian side of the Pentagon, I don't trust the rest of the U.S. government. So I hope somewhere on the in the joint chiefs of staff on the military side of the five-sided building, that someone is doing some serious contingency planning.

SPEAKER_00 15:17

One thing that was interesting to me about my friend Tommy Valley used to had this expression, which was it's very important to be with the winner. And Trump is a a hundred percent in on that concept. So the fact that he U-turned a little bit on Ukraine is indicative that he thinks maybe the winner is Ukraine. And the second piece of data, which I thought was interesting, was the president of Belarus made it clear that he would not offer up uh his troops or his military capability to assist Mr. Putin in his war in Ukraine, which was I think a pretty a pretty bold thing for him to do. If you put those two together, uh you might say that both both Mr. Trump and Mr. whatever his name is, who's the president of Belarus. Mr.

SPEAKER_01 16:05

It's uh Mr. President.

SPEAKER_00 16:06

Mr. President, I think it's very important to be with the winner.

SPEAKER_01 16:10

Yeah? Quite possibly. And that's so interesting. The administration, the Trump administration for 18 months, has had an overwhelmingly pessimistic view of Ukraine's prospects. And yet, how many times has Trump said you had no cards? This is the best deal you're gonna get. If you if you don't take this deal, your situation's gonna get worse. Well, guess what? Just the opposite happened. And you're right, the fact that he seems to have flipped to some extent is it suggests to me that finally the uh a dose of reality has gotten through. And again, I just hope it affects the diplomacy of Messrs. Without and Kushner, who have been wrong from the get-go here.

SPEAKER_00 16:48

So let's uh switch to the domestic front, the home of Home and Away.

SPEAKER_01 16:54

Yes, sir.

SPEAKER_00 16:54

Today it was reported that the President had fired everybody on the Nonpartisan Election Commission, and this is part and parcel of a concerted attempt to make Democratic pro Democratic Party prospects in the midterm elections much more uh difficult, I guess you would say. Uh we know about the redistricting, uh unusual because it's not being conducted after the usual uh 10-year period. We know about the president's almost pathological insistence that the SAVE Act be passed. We know that the feds, including the Department of the uh what's it called, the DNI, Directorate of National Intelligence, have somehow fastened on to election results from Fulton County and Arizona and so on and so forth. And then we have the Postal Service, which have this weird language that says it shall not transmit mail-in absentee votes unless individuals are enrolled on state-specific mail participation lists, which is unusual to say the least. Uh needless to say, there are lawsuits that are being filed right and left to prevent this a number of these initiatives from the administration to go forward. But it points to an election that is contested before it's held, on the day that it's held, on the days after it's held, when absentee votes, you know, that have been postmarked prior to the election are collected. And in certain cases, they don't they don't have to be uh postmarked on the day of the election. And then the possibility of there being immigration raids conducted by ICE that suspiciously might be targeted at precincts where large numbers of Democrats vote, altogether it appears that we're going to have a, let's say, difficult midterm elections. And in a funny way, this election, because of the president's approval rating, because of inflation, all of the things that we read about every day, would point to a blue wave. But in fact, there are only 38 seats that are really up. The others are sort of predetermined, and you could have a major impact on ten of those races that would change the outcome of what would seem on paper to be uh the normal 26 vote uh 26 house seat switch. Is are how concerned are you about that? Do you do you think that's sort of press hysteria, or do you think it's a real deal?

SPEAKER_01 19:32

I'm sorry to say I think it's real. I wish I could say, John, you're being alarmist. John, you're being hysterical. But I don't. It's all the things you mentioned. I can I can imagine ballot box being impounded. I can imagine all sorts of ballots being discounted. You know, voter election integrity is a process of the the lead up, and that's what a lot of things you're talking about, the tilting of the playing field through redistricting and all that. Then I can imagine uh with ICE, possibly federal troops. I don't rule that out on on the streets. You know, you can bring out the troops to ensure order, quote unquote. I can imagine a lot of people will be intimidated. You mentioned all sorts of ways people will be discouraged from voting. I you know, you'll I can imagine in state in districts that are close, particularly where you have Republican governors, you'll have uh a shortage of polling stations or other things to slow down. And then when people people haven't voted, they'll say the fact that you're in line isn't good enough. Uh so yeah, I actually think you know the administration will go to enormous lengths to avoid an outcome where they are vulnerable to all sorts of subpoenas and investigations and the like, which would happen if the House went Democrat. I think I think it has less to do with policy, John, than I think it has to do with uh the legal power that would accrue to the Senate or the House if it were controlled by uh by uh Democrats. Also, what could possibly happen happen in certain states that could then undertake various redistricting efforts of their own in the aftermath if the state went democratic, have implications for 28. So yeah, so I think in a funny sort of way, it's almost like the corruption of this administration. Let me draw the parallel that it's all happening, it's enormous in scale, and it's almost like it's so big and so blatant, we just shrug. This is also beginning to happen in plain sight. And I I almost feel that these preparations are hiding or happening in in plain sight. So yeah, I think we ought to take them seriously. And then, you know, it you had a really interesting piece the other day by Jerry Seib you published in one of your 86 vehicles. He basically said, gotta get out and vote. We need really large numbers. I mean, it's harder to tip an outcome that has a wide disparity, say 55-45, than if it's 5149. So, you know, Jerry's argument, as I understood it, was register and vote in large numbers, and that's the best way to build a kind of bulwark against uh this attempt to tip the scales. And so that's one of the things we have to look at all the legal challenges and so forth. But I, you know, we're we're less than four months away. And you know, the Supreme Court has made it easy for them to take kick all these people off the election commission. So, yeah, I think this. This is happening in plain sight. Sorry to be so alarmist, but I've been saying this for some time, and then I I just see it gathering momentum. Hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not.

SPEAKER_00 22:08

The thing about this, you know, contesting the election before the res before the election is held, then inevitably contesting the results, and then, you know, and then on from there is that the sort of central tenet of democracy is that it requires the consent of the loser, right? So Al Gore arguably, you know, could you know could argue that this election was illegitimate, blah, blah, blah, but he did not do that. He accepted the result, and thus the consent of the loser enabled the process to go on. You have Nixon who did it in 1960, you had Ford who did it in 1976, etc. I d I don't I think the damage done by denying the result is is not just about the particular these particular midterms, but I think it has enormous implications down the road.

SPEAKER_01 23:07

Well look at what just happened with the California voting, the the the claims of it being rigged without with zero evidence. Uh and by the way, the Democratic, I mean the Republican leadership, including the Speaker of the House, all followed in lockstep, made the same claims with zero evidence whatsoever. Look, I think you point to a larger thing, because you know what you mentioned with Gore, Nixon, and others who lost. Democracies survive not simply by the law. Democracies survive because of norms. You can't, and the founders couldn't, imagine every contingency. You can't legislate away every possible problem that would threaten the democracy. And that's where character comes in, and that's where norms come in. And right now we've got a real problem. You know, people talk about the budget deficit. Well, we've got a character deficit. We've got a democracy deficit. We've got a civics deficit in our in our country. And we see it in the executive branch, and we see it in the legislative branch. And to some extent, I think the courts have been irresponsible and naive here in their position on redistricting, on these commissions and and so forth. So, yeah, uh here we are, John. Think about it. It's our 250th year. We just celebrated the Declaration, we shot off the fireworks, and we could well have the greatest uh test of American democracy since no exaggeration, the Civil War. And I think that is I'm not predicting it will happen, but it certainly could happen. And again, we're beginning to see some of the prerequisites.

SPEAKER_00 24:35

So we have to switch to the sports section. Good. Uh more a happier note. Um or perhaps not a happier note because it's been a rough time. And uh we talked before about the curse of Trump. Trump went to the, I believe it was the third game of the NBA championship. He went up to New York and uh and sat in the owner's box and the Knicks lost. And so there was considerable consternation about this. And then he intervened in the controversy about the uh red card for the American soccer player, the American football player, as they say internationally. And the U.S. team got smoked four to one by the Belgians. And it wasn't that close. And it it was it was worse than that, but there were only four goals on the Belgian side. So my question my question to you is, Richard, will Trump intervene in the open championship upcoming? And if he does, will the curse continue? Well, that's interesting.

SPEAKER_01 25:36

First of all, can we say one or two things about the World Cup before you want to start No no let's talk about I love the World Cup. That's but I hate the officials. I hate the officiating. The the discretion these officials have with red cards and with penalty kicks is I think a threat to the integrity of the game. There's such an unevenness, and uh, they're both so consequential. I think it's eighty percent of penalty kicks get made when it's during regulation. Throwing somebody out with a red card means his team has to play shorthanded the rest of the game, plus that individual normally can't play the next game. So it's so consequential, and you see the unevenness of what's called and what isn't. So I actually think some of the calls, and you know, Egypt lost the game, they never should have lost to Argentina. You can see why people hate FIFA, thinks the game is uh rigged. Yeah, I mean, Trump's intervention made a bad situation worse. And the U.S. team didn't even show up for that game. It was uh depressing. The good news, John, is there's still some great games that as bad as the officiating is, it can't ruin the sport as much as FIFA and the officials seem to be trying. In terms of yeah, we got the Scottish Open this week, next week we got the Open, formerly known when you and I were lads as the British Open. It's now just the Open. Less is more, I guess, for these uh these Brits. You know, uh two rounds have essentially finished in the Scottish Open as we're talking here. If you look at the leaderboard there and you look at the what's left at Wimbledon, I don't know if you remember Farid Zakaria's book of the post-American world, but it looks like his book is met is intersected with the sports world. I mean, almost the entire top ten of the uh Scottish Open is European. And there's no American left, I think, on on either side in the brackets in the uh in uh uh Wimbledon. So, yeah, take that uh as it may. And you know Roy McElroy's in the hunt in the Scottish Open, hitting some unbelievable shots. But who knows? I mean, you've got Fitzpatrick, you've got you know, the Europeans seem to do well in these courses. So they have more experience playing in lynx-light conditions, more experience with the weather. And Scotty Scheffler didn't even make the cut. World's number one didn't make the cut. What do you say about that, big guy? I mean, you and I played the other day, and let me just say, I don't think either one of us should maybe we should quit this podcast for podcasting revanches, but we shouldn't quit it for the for the idea that we're gonna go professional as golfers. But but the idea that Scotty Scheffler didn't make the cut is is quite stunning.

SPEAKER_00 27:57

Yeah, it is. But if you were betting uh on the open championship, you would be well advised to have him at the top of your list. So Really?

SPEAKER_01 28:06

Would you?

SPEAKER_00 28:06

Yeah. He's the world's number one golfer, and he is you know, he won the British Open or the Open Championship last year, so I think he has to be regarded as the favorite. Royal Burkdale is is a tricky course because you can get a bad bounce and end up in an impossible bunker and have you played it? Yes, it's uh it's a really difficult course. And from where they play it, it's wildly difficult in wind and weather and bad bounces, and so you know it's it's less predictable, I guess, than say the masters. But anyway, yeah, I think I think Scotty's a good bet, and I think Rory's always a good bet over there.

SPEAKER_01 28:45

I think I think one of the British golfers is just because it's a little bit of home court advantage. And I would think that uh there's a half dozen you know British golfers, some of these guys from Ireland and Northern Ireland or whatever. I think um Shane Lowry, Matt Fitzpatrick, whatever, I think they all have a shot. I also think you and I always we always have to put in a word for Cam Young.

SPEAKER_00 29:06

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 29:15

Uh wins a major because he's due.

SPEAKER_00 29:18

Yeah. And and it was uh people forget, but at St. Andrews, I guess three years ago, he eagled 18, and Cam Smith had to make a tricky little putt to beat him by one stroke. So Cam has been, you know, quote, in the final groupings and knows knows the pressure now of performing under that uh strain. So anyway. Last question who is going to win World Cup? And don't say France, because everybody will say France. So you have to say somebody other than France. Even though France will win.

SPEAKER_01 29:50

But France will win. Who's if it's not France? Well, the question is who do they I mean, I would say the winner of the England Norway game. I mean, I don't know who it's gonna be. I mean, it's hard to root against Norway because they're so much fun to watch, and their lead player is just a stunning.

SPEAKER_00 30:05

The Terminator.

SPEAKER_01 30:06

Yeah, he looks like a villain in a Bond movie. I kind of like him. But his sense of timing is is rare even among elite athletes. It's really he kind of sits around, smokes cigarettes all game. And once or twice in the middle of the game, he sees an opening and he sees what's about to happen, and he sees it sooner and then moves faster than anybody else on the field. It's quite it's just quite fascinating to watch in terms of even among elite athletes, the the differences. And Holland, if I'm pronouncing his name right, is uh is one of those uh Alex, yeah. I think England might be a stronger team overall, and the question is whether though Norway wins. So I think one of them has the probably got the best bet to give the French uh a run for their Euros.

SPEAKER_00 30:48

A run for their Euros. We'll leave it at that and thank our producer, Dale Eisenger, who does fantastic work for us on alternate shots, and we'll find out today if Spain makes it, which would set up one of the all-time great games, France, France versus Spain, that might actually some would say that is the World Cup game.

SPEAKER_01 31:07

But it would be the the the game of the romance languages. It would uh our high school teachers would be very happy with that.

SPEAKER_00 31:13

The kid, uh the 18-year-old guy Yaman is I think the next Mbappe, and he's just you cannot take your eyes off him.

SPEAKER_01 31:21

In the meantime, this Mbappe is again, there's certain there's like four or five players, you know, Messi, Mmbappe who are just it's just a joy to watch. Yeah. Again, even it's like a great golfer or you know, the Federers in tennis. Even uh it's so interesting, at the most elite level, there's still diff big differences. You know, Mike the Michael Jordan or how Dalen Brunson was playing in the NBA final. It's just amazing to watch the gr the greatest of the great. And and Mbappe has that again, that ability. It's just I always I asked how can you not love it?

SPEAKER_00 31:54

Yeah, you can't. Thank you all for listening, and we'll catch you next time.

SPEAKER_01 31:58

Take care, John.