Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 3/23/26: Iran Rejects Trump Ceasefire Claim, Lindsey Graham Demands Boots On Ground, Massive Damage In Israel

Episode Date: March 23, 2026

Krystal and Saagar discuss Iran rejects Trump claim of ceasefire, Lindsey Graham demands boots on the ground, massive damage in Israel.   Trita Parsi: https://x.com/tparsi?s=20    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than No Grip, a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F1, including the story of the woman who last participated in a Formula One race weekend, the recent uptick in F1 romance novels,

and plenty of mishap scandals and sagas that have made Formula One a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Bailey Taylor, and this is It Girl. This podcast is all about going deeper with the women's shaping culture right now. Yes, we will talk about the style and the success, but we are also talking about the pressure, the expectations, and the real work behind it all. As a woman in the industry, you're always underestimated. So you have to work extra hard in a way that doesn't compromise who you are in your integrity.

You know, I like to say I was kind of like a silent ninja. Listen to It Girl with Bailey Taylor on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, it's Joe Interesting, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And today, I'm talking with my dear friend, Krista Williams. It can change you in the best way possible. Dance with the change. Dance with the breakdowns. the embodiment of Pisces intuition with Capricorn power moves.

So I'm like delusionally proud of my chart. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast starting on February 24th on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.

So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media,

and we hope to see you at breaking points.com. Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. We've got a taco alert from Trump this morning, and as you know, we are pro-taco on this show.

Very pro-taco. Yeah, so Trump is, Trying to back down from some of his threats against Iran, the Iranians, though, are disputing some of the claims that he is making. There is a lot to dig into there. Trita Parsi is going to join us to help to make sense of what the hell is going on this morning. At the same time, Lindsay Graham, of course, pushing for a ground invasion and making a jaw-dropping

comparison to what it could be like. There have been dueling strikes near nuclear facilities. That seems like a troubling development. The U.S. is rolling back sanctions on Iranian oil, as prices at the pump continue to to go up. B.B. claims Iran is targeting near Al-Aksa Mosque in a very ominous development there. And really excited to have this morning Lawrence Wilkerson joining us. I don't know if you guys know who he is, but very, very important figure, both currently but also throughout history. He was the chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. He became a prominent Iraq war critic

and is incredibly knowledgeable and very insightful about military affairs, about foreign affairs. So really looking forward to getting to speak with him. I mean, Wilkerson was like the Joe Kent, really, of his time. One of the earliest people who was in the administration after Colin Powell, I guess, left office, after W was elected right in 05 when it was not easy to speak out against Iraq. He came forward. I remember reading and listening to so many of his interviews. So it was a real honor to be able to. Someone I very much admire.

So looking forward to getting to say that. Thank you to everybody who's been supporting the show. We really appreciate it. We had that big interview with Joe Kent over the weekend. We used a lot of our premium subscriber questions. So seriously thank you. You guys submitted so many, so many important questions, which I used a ton of. So thank you all, seriously very much.

Breaking Points.com if you want to be able to support our show. And we, of course, doing our AMA live later on today. But with that, let's get to the Taco. Now, I'm a little bit biased, but I thought your interview was the best of the Jet interview. It's very kind of you. I'm much harder on myself. If one of our premiums had done it, I think they would have done a good job. It made some news, and I guess that's all you can do.

So I'm glad we were able to do it. It was very important and newsworthy, and I think you pressed him also in the right point. Tried my best. Joe will, I believe he's going to be on the Sean Ryan show today. So maybe something interesting will come out from there. But yeah, Taco. All right, let's get to the Taco. Let's put this up on the screen from Trump over on True Social. He says, I am pleased to report the United States of America and the country of Iran have had over the last two days very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East based on the tenor and tone of these

in-depth, detailed and constructive conversations. conversations, which he spelled it like a witch like on Halloween, but anyway, which will continue throughout the week. I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions. Thank you for your attention in this matter, President Donald J. Trump. All right, let's go ahead and put a zero B up on the screen if we have that. So Iran already coming out and saying, bullshit, we are not talking to him whatsoever. He said, this says from Iran now, a high-ranking source in the Iranian foreign ministry to Iran now.

We deny what U.S. President Donald Trump said regarding negotiations taking place between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran adheres firmly to its position rejecting any type of negotiations before achieving Iran's goals from the war. Trump's statements represent a retreat from his previous threats. But the Islamic Republic of Iran remains steadfast in all its declared positions. Iran's position on the Strait of Hormuz has not changed. And the street will remain closed to aggressors against the Islamic Republic and its people. So let's back up for a second and talk about how we got here. So Trump had previously threatened that Iran had 48 hours to open the Strait of Hormuz or else Trump was going to attack their electrical grid.

this is a war crime, not that anyone apparently cares about such things, but it is pretty wild to see president of the United States just like openly announcing their intention to commit war crimes. But in any case, that occurred. You then had, you know, Iran saying, all right, well, if you do that, in response, we are going to attack infrastructure throughout the region. Obviously, the Gulf Arab states are very vulnerable, both to attacks on their electrical grid. Israel is actually quite vulnerable to attacks on its electrical grid, not to mention if desalination plans get. involved, that is a whole other level of escalation. So mutual threats were made. The clock was ticking. And now you have, oh, and one more piece, Iran also said, hey, by the way, any financial institutions that are holding U.S. treasuries, we consider them to be targets as well. Market Sogher, of course,

we're looking very dire. Oil prices were going up. Bond yields were going up. That might even be more of a threat to the U.S. economy and the U.S. government than the oil prices. The market was crashing. the futures were down. And so between all of these combination of things, Trump felt the need to come out and say, ah, let's give it a few days. Let's hold back on this whole thing. Well, let's look at the timing of it. The timing of it was very important. Seven a.m. Eastern time on a Monday morning, which means what? The S&P futures are rocketing. Oil was down some 10 percenter. So on the initial news, we have no idea. It's gone up a little bit more after the Iranians rejected the idea that there were any sort of direct talks. But this five-day stretch, which conveniently is the entire time that the entire market is open,

is going to be one where he's trying to calm the waters. Initially, spot prices on gasoline, the way that things work, is that when oil prices come down, that means in about two to three days we should also begin to see some of the gas prices go down. He is looking for that billboard flashing all across America. He wants to see people see a reduction in the gas price. However, a couple of things before we bring in the, we bring in Treat to Parsi, which are very important to note. Their word Israel was not mentioned once in the entire Trump Taco Truth, right? Israel may continue to do strikes.

We have no idea what BB Netanyahu and others have agreed to. Who knows whether, you know, they've decided what strike packages they're going to move on forward. Don't forget, we're going to spend a significant time on this on the show. They took a beating over the last 72 hours. Their interceptors are failing. Their nuclear strikes, or nuclear facilities were struck. They had a mass casualty event in southern Israel. Israel is not doing well right now so far in this war. Also, there are thousands of U.S. forces that are still

converging on the Persian Gulf and in the Middle East. So all of the current signs, remember, none of that has yet been called off. All of the current roads still lead to a widening of the war. And then last and most importantly, before we get to treat a Parsi, which people really need to remember. And I've spoken and now confirmed this with multiple security sources. Or security sources. What the Iranians believe, more than anything, is that the Ayatollahs, made a grave mistake by agreeing to that ceasefire in the 12-day war. He was a very cautious, daughtering old man.

He's dead, we killed him, right, with the Israelis. The new Ayatollah and the existing security establishment, remember, the vast majority of their long existing heads, they're all dead. Everybody now is like, no, this is a fight to the death. We have to make sure that we survive. Most importantly, we will not give Israel and the United States time to rearm.

We are not going to engage in fake diplomacy, after you've bombed us twice in the middle of negotiations, we're not going to allow these U.S. forces to converge here while just allowing the U.S. off the hook in the interim. So diplomatic negotiations are going to have to be taken with a massive grain of salt inside of the country of Iran. We have to actually convince their security establishment that this time is different, which is why it was such a folly to bomb them twice under the cover of diplomatic negotiation in the first place. So all of those caveats, I think, are so, so important. here at the top. This is in no way over. I really don't know why the Iranians would agree to it.

I mean, listen, I hope they do. I really do. For all of our sakes, for their sakes and for the world. I just don't see the strategic logic. And this is where Robert Papes and all of the escalation ladder analysis, like at a certain point, you're locked in a system of incentives which you created. And without that, I mean, you know, absent a serious, a serious backdown and effective surrender from the president. And then control over our Israel? I don't see how this can end yet. Yeah, I mean, that's the thing we've been flagging for a while is that Trump probably wants to Taco at this point.

He's probably looking for an off-ramp thinking like, I don't know about this, the midterms are coming up, the gas prices are going up, this is not going great. He thought this would be over in four days, genuinely thought that the Iranian people would rise up and after he took out the Ayatollah, that would basically be it. That's what he was telling our allies, and I do think that is what he actually believed.

So now he's lost, and he doesn't know. know where to go. I have no doubt that he would look for an off-ramp and some way to taco in a way that will save some kind of face and declare mission accomplish. The Iranians get a say in that. And the Israelis, apparently because we give them a say, they also get a say in it. And so the last thing that I'll note before we get to Trita is that overnight, actually, the Israelis struck in Tehran and there were electrical outages. Now, there were blackouts reported. Now, we don't know whether they directly struck intentionally the electrical infrastructure or if the blackouts were just a side effect of strikes on other targets.

But when I saw that this morning, I thought, oh, boy, you know, this could really be on from Iran. And then the news that came in right after that was the Trump taco. So one possibility here, too, is that Trump is sending Israel out like our little attack dog to go out and do our dirty work. And then he can, oh, no, we want to ceasefire. We want to lessen the tensions here. We want to have productive negotiations, et cetera.

So that could be part of what's going on here. But to Saugra's point, the Iranians are, they are not going to trust this president ever. All of the outreach that they were trying to do, according to DropSight, reaching out by a Wittkopf, you know, and him not having his text messages or his calls or whatever returned. There's an obvious reason for that. There's two reasons. Number one, because the diplomacy has always been a ruse and, you know, given cover for future attacks, which I also think is something that could be going on here with this attempt. to Taco, too, to buy them some time and turn down the temperature until whatever the next phase is, which could potentially be a ground invasion and other, a lot of signals pointing in that direction.

So in any case, it could be a ruse. And the second point here is that the Iranians feel they must exact a lot of pain to make sure they do not end up here again. And I don't think that they feel they're anywhere close to getting the amount of pain in the American public and the global economy that would make them feel comfortable that it would be ineffective to turn in the event. All right. We have treats to Parsi standing by. Why don't we get to it? Canadian women are looking for more. More into themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women.

Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Why hasn't a woman formerly participated in a Formula One race weekend in over a decade? Think about how many skills they have to develop at such a young age. What can we learn from all of the new F1 romance novels suddenly popping up every year? He still smelled of podium champagne and expensive friction. And how did a 2023 event called Wagageddon change the paddock forever?

That day is just seared into my memory. I'm culture writer and F1 expert Lily Herman, and these are just a few of the questions I'm tackling on No Grip, a Formula One culture podcast that dives into the under-explored pockets of the sport. In each episode, a different guests and I will go deeper into the wacky mishap, scandals and sagas, both on the track and far away from it that have made F1 a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Bailey Taylor, and this is It Girl. You may know me from my It Girl series I've done on the streets of New York over the years. Well, I've got good news. I am bringing those interviews and many more to this podcast. Yes, we will talk about the style and the success, but we are also talking about the pressure,

the expectations, and the real work with the women shaping culture right now. As a woman in the industry, you're always underestimated. So you have to work extra hard, and you have to push the narrative in a way that doesn't compromise who you are, and your integrity. You know, I like to say

I was kind of like a silent ninja. Each week, I have unfiltered conversations with female founders, creatives, and leaders to talk about ambition, visibility, and what it really takes to build something meaningful in the public eye. Because being an it girl isn't about the spotlight, it's about owning it.

I think the negatives need to be discussed and they need to be told to people who maybe don't do this every day just so they know what's really going on. I feel like pulling the curtain back is important. Listen to It Girl with Bailey Taylor on the IHeart Radio app. Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

All right, guys, joining us now for more. We have Trita Parsi is executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible State Craft. Great to see you, Trita. Good to you, sir. Good to see you as well. Yeah, of course. So let's go ahead and put a zero up on the screen. This is the big news this morning.

A taco, or at least an attempted taco here from Trump. He says, I'm pleased to report the U.S. United States of America and the country of Iran have had over the last two days very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East. He then goes on to say that he is going to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period. What is your reaction to the president's truth here? What do you think is going on behind the scenes? Look, this is a sign of someone who lost control over this war already two and a half weeks ago.

You know, a lot of folks are saying, I think quite correctly, that he realizes that this is the terrible things for the markets. Yet he should have known that on Friday when he first issued that threat of bombing the Iranian power grid. I mean, if he's doing these things thinking the Iranians are going to back down, then he's learned absolutely nothing in the last three weeks. I've said it on this show before. Part of the reason why we're in this war is because he completely underestimated the resilience of the Islamic Republic. He believed that just a small push would cause them to either collapse or to surrender. None of those things have happened. None of those things are likely to happen.

Yet he keeps on issuing various kinds of threats and then backing down either fully or in a halfway. So for instance, at Harg Island, he struck the military installations but not the oil, reflecting again how clearly he signals that he is extremely sensitive to what happens in the markets and why the Iranians then have. such leverage over him because of the manner in which they can completely collapse all energy markets if he further escalates. He is someone who doesn't have any good escalatory options, but he's not willing yet to go down the path of truly exploring what some good off-ramps would be. And I hope that he does so very soon because I fear that we will end up in a situation perhaps in two weeks, perhaps in three weeks, in which those, the escalatory options,

will no longer be available to him because for him to be able to de-escalate, he needs to form a narrative that still claims that he won and that his base then believes that he's won. But if he goes on for too long and it becomes absolutely clear that this is a freaking disaster, then his ability to convince his base

that he actually walked out of this with the victory will start to rain. And at that point, unfortunately, his incentives to exit may actually decline compared to the incentives or the cost-benefit analysis of just continuing the war or actually escalating. So there's a very short window here in which he has to find that exit ramp. And that means that he's going to have to be willing,

not to just say that he talked to the Iranians, but actually put things on the table. And I think Joe Kent was absolutely right in saying there needs to be some sanctions relief in order to get out of this situation. And it can be done in a way that is actually quite good for the United States itself. Dr. Parsi, something you have hammered home here is that the Iranians truly believe they made a massive mistake at the 12-day war, that they should have just kept firing, they never should have done a ceasefire. I see no reason why that logic doesn't remain today. The Ayatollah is now dead. He was one of the more cautious figures. Many of the so-called moderates or people who are willing to talk are also all dead. So the remaining security establishment and perhaps the existing Ayatollah, they do not see this as a reasonable off-ramp. You keep talking.

about a possible one. But to me, it seems very unlikely because it would be effective surrender from a person who called for unconditional surrender. Sanctions relief at this point seems genuinely unthinkable from the Trump administration. But is that what it's actually going to take? What would it even look like? I think that is what it will take. Look at the things that the Iranis have said that they need in order to back down. And I think some of them are unlikely. So, for instance, they're asking for all of the U.S. bases in the region to be closed down. I don't think that's going to happen. I think we can see a situation in which some of them may not be rebuilt and some of them may be slowly commissioned out.

And some of these states may change their security approach in the sense that they will no longer ask for U.S. bases, but they will continue to buy a very large number of American weaponry. and that that may actually be a smarter way for them to deal with their security issues rather than actually hosting bases that end up becoming targets and magnets for attacks. They've asked for reparations. I find that also extremely unlikely to happen. The thing that I think is not completely inconceivable is actually that there will be a level of sanctions relief.

Now, I think the administration itself has already opened the door for this by claiming that they're unsanctioned the oil on the water. Now, we know that they've done it in a strange way, but nevertheless, that is opening up the pathway for entering into that territory. I do worry about another thing. And you pointed out that, you know, the Iranians think that they committed a mistake that they ended the war after 12 days, agreed to a ceasefire. When there were significant indications that these Israelis were running out of the arrow threes and that the Iranian missiles were just getting through at a higher and higher rate, even though they were shooting less of them. The problem, though, is the Iranians may very well end up doing the very same committing, the very same mistake that the United States has committed, which is to overplay their hands

in this war and not find the right moment to be able to strike a deal. And the objective has to be from their standpoint to create a new stable situation that is acceptable to them and it is acceptable to the GCC and ultimately to the United States as well. just going on and on because you're winning without recognizing that you need to find an end state that is acceptable is not a smart strategy and that's frankly what I believe the Trump administration is doing right now.

So the Iranis have to find that moment as well and again, as I said early Iran, that moment may be lost if they wait too long because if Trump cannot declare victory convincingly to his own base and he can't form that narrative, then his ability to exit this is going to become very, very difficult. Yeah, that's a great point. I also wanted to get your reaction. So the Iranians are saying, this is not true. There are no talks going on. You know, we also have all these reports we could put A10 up on the screen.

We've got more Marines being sent into the region, thousands more Marines being sent into the region. This was another report from an Israeli source that says senior American officials have told their counterparts in Israel and other countries in recent days. There will probably be no choice. The U.S. will be forced to launch a ground operation to capture the Iranian island of Karg, according to two. Two sources familiar. You know, we all know that at this point that 90% of the oil that's exported from Iran goes through Karg Island. Of course, there have been all kinds of reports in the U.S. press about potentially that or potentially an operation inside of mainland Iran to seize loose nuclear material. Is it possible that what Trump is doing here is not only a very obvious attempt to call them the markets, but is also another sort of ruse to get the Iranians to drop their

guard while he prepares for this next phase of escalation? It may very well be that that is his intent. I don't see the Iranians lowering their guard in any way, shape or form under these circumstances. I think they have now been burned so many times that they're not going to trust anything, this administration says. And again, this is actually why they're requesting sanctions relief. Let me just explain a part of this that I think is very important to understand why this, I think, is going to end up being non-negotiable from the Iranian. is as long as they have leverage. If they lose the leverage, different story, obviously.

From their standpoint, it is crucial, absolutely imperative that this is the last war. This cannot end in a way in which the U.S. attacks Iran together with Israel in another six to eight months. They're not going to accept or be able to survive if they end up becoming part of Israel's larger mowing the lawn strategy. The same thing they're doing against Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, but now on a much larger, scale vis-a-vis Iran. Now, how do you then get to a situation in which you have a degree of confidence that you're not going to get attacked again? Are promises from the United States going to be sufficient? It's going to, is a non-aggression pact in and of itself going to be worth the paper that it is written on? I very much doubt that. They will seek those different things, but that will not be

sufficient in order for them to believe that they have managed to prevent future attacks. Rather, it's to be two other things. One, they want this war to be as costly as possible so that it will simply be absolutely clear to the U.S. and to Israel that it is not worth restarting this. It was a mistake starting it. It will be a mistake restarting it. That's point number one. Point number two is that they need that sanctions relief to rebuild themselves. And rebuilding themselves is going to be essential in order to have the deterrence against the U.S. and Israel attacking again. if they don't have sanctions relief, after this war, they will be in a state of continuous weakening.

And it is precisely the perception of them being weak that created this false window of opportunity to attack Iran. So unless they get the sanctions relief so they can actually rebuild themselves and have a deterrence, they believe they will be attacked again. So I don't see them backing down from the point of asking for sanctions relief. It's not just because of economic reasons. It is because it is part of the thing that gives, and non-aggression pact, some actual bases and meat to it. And as a result, I just don't see them backing down from that point unless they lose their blood pressure. The other problems, sir,

we have not talked about Israel once in this entire equation. And they are a huge, you know, they precipitate much of the violence that's actually even been happening some of the most egregious strikes. So how can the Iranians, frankly, how can even the Americans at this point, the people, have any faith that our government would restrain belligerent? Israeli action in any sort of a deal. Like if you're Iran, you don't just have to worry about the United States bombing you. You have to worry about Israel. And for example, we have a list of some of the demands that we're circulating this weekend. Can we put, what is it, A7 please, up on the screen? So these are some of the demands that we're going around this weekend of what some Iranian

commitments they would have to agree to. No missile program for five years. I mean, that alone, imagine you're in a war and somebody says, hey, to end the war, you have to give up all your for five years. They're like, well, maybe I'd be better off just firing all my bullets. Number two, zero uranium enrichment, decommissioning of nuclear reactors, arms-controlled trees with regional countries, no financing for regional proxies, strict outside observation protocols around the creation and use of a centrifuge, notably no word of sanctions relief. I mean, do you see any world where this country whose only, like, reasonable deterrent is missiles, would be even willing to give up their

missiles for five years? What could we possibly give them to do that? This is absolutely not going to take place. And the intent behind these demands, I suspect that they actually originally come from Israel, is to make sure that there is no deal, just as much as zero enrichment and all of those different demands coming from the Israeli side were designed to make sure that they sabotaged Trump's previous diplomacy and guaranteed war. This is a list of demands, at least the first.

three points that are designed to make sure that there will be no ceasefire. There will be no end to the war. And the Israelis get what they are looking for, which is as prolonged war as possible in order to completely eliminate and destroy Iran's industrial base to ensure that the balance of power ships dramatically in Israel's direction and that Israel will not have to worry about Iran ever posing a challenge to Israel's designs for hegemony for the next three to four decades. And to have that achieved, regardless of what the cost is, to the global economy, to the energy markets, to regional stability, and to Trump's presidency. That is the Israeli goal.

And they will achieve that by putting forward demands that are completely non-starters. I just wanted to ask you directly about this. So there's obviously two competing claims here this morning, Trump is saying, oh, these talks are ongoing and they're very constructive. and the Iranians are saying, we have no idea what you're talking about. There are no talks. We don't want any talks. Do you have any insight or what would be your instinct of who is telling the truth there in that exchange? I know in previous instances in which the administration said that there were no talks,

and the Iranians said that there were no talks, that the administration was not being truthful. That there were actually no. Now, the administration may have sent messages. They never got any responses. They may define talks as them talking, but reality is that there were no responses from the Iranian side. And I don't believe that there have been any responses in this specific instance either. But I want to go back to what I said earlier on. I do worry, however, that the Iranians may also at some point overplay their hands

and not recognize the moment in which they need to cash in on whatever leverage they think they have in order to try to get to some sort of deal. I think it's very, very important to understand one thing. Neither side can pursue the humiliation of the other in this situation. If they do, they're just digging themselves deeper in a hole. Both sides need to be able to construct some sort of a narrative that allows them to exit this war. In that sense, however unlikely or, you know, frankly, lunacy may sound when I say this, but Iran and the United States are in some ways in the same boat.

They will either sink together or they will roll to shore together. And pursuing some sort of humiliation of the other side, which was exactly what the U.S. did in the beginning of this war and saw it to surrender Iran was a huge mistake. It will be a mistake if the Iranians do the same thing. I want to just say one thing. Remember that the Iranians humiliated the United States 47 years ago with a hostage crisis.

That was a huge mistake. It led to 47 years of San Francisco. tensions, tensions, and eventually war. It would be a huge, huge mistake at this point. If they also overplay their hand and don't recognize the right moment to go to the table, but to negotiate an actual good deal, not one of these things that are just aimed at, you know, calming down the markets and prepare the grounds for the next attack during the next weekend or something like that. Yeah, I mean, that's why it's so difficult to see how you reach that Goldilocks moment where the U.S. is not completely humiliated. Iran is not completely, but we're both sides basically can declare

mission accomplished in some way, because I have to imagine the Iranians don't feel that they've come close to exacting enough pain to serve as a deterrence. And yet if they, if they do that, then how is Trump going to convince a public that is already really opposed to this war, that this was, you know, a grand adventure and that he came out on top? And add one other element to it, which is even if you find a moment that looks right, you have to recognize that these talks are not going to be like the 16-hour talks that it took or so to get to the ceasefire in June. Because that was an unconditional ceasefire. This is going to be more complex.

So the actual time that that diplomacy may require maybe 10 to 14 days in the best case scenario. And during that period, the Goldilocks moment may be lost. Totally agree, sir. As always, thank you so much for your analysis. I'm not sure I feel better. I'm not sure I feel better, but it's always better. No one has said that after speaking to me. Thank you, sir.

Thanks, Trita. Thank you. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are at them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women.

Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on I Heart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Why hasn't a woman formally participated in a Formula One race weekend in over a decade? Think about how many skills they have to develop at such a young age. What can we learn from all of the new F1 romance novels suddenly popping up every year? He still smelled of podium champagne and expensive friction. And how did a 2023 event called Wag Ageddon change the paddock forever? That day is just seared into my memory.

I'm culture writer and F1 expert Lily Herman, and these are just a few of the questions I'm tackling on no grip, a Formula One culture podcast that dives into the under-explored pockets of the sport. In each episode, a different guests and I will go deeper into the wacky mishaps, scandals and sagas, both on the track and far away from it, that have made F1 a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to no grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Bailey Taylor, and this is It Girl.

You may know me from my It Girl series I've done on the streets of New York over the years. Well, I've got good news. I am bringing those interviews and many more to this podcast. Yes, we will talk about the style and the success, but we are also talking about the pressure, the expectations, and the real work with the women-shaping colds. right now. As a woman in the industry, you're always underestimated. So you have to work extra hard and you have to push the narrative in a way that doesn't compromise

who you are in your integrity. You know, I like to say I was kind of like a silent ninja. Each week, I have unfiltered conversations with female founders, creatives, and leaders to talk about ambition, visibility, and what it really takes to build something meaningful in the public eye. Because being a it girl isn't about the spotlight, it's about owning it. I think the negatives need to be discussed and they need to be told. to people who maybe don't do this every day,

just so they know what's really going on. I feel like pulling the curtain back is important. Listen to It Girl with Bailey Taylor on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Meanwhile, while we're on Taco Watch, we have to continue, of course, to pay attention to the thousands of U.S. ground troops that continue to move to the Middle East.

And we have Lindsey Graham trying to set expectations for everybody here taking to Fox News Sunday and saying not only should the United States take Carg Island, but comparing it to the back. of Iwo Jima. Let's take a listen. Here's what I tell President Trump, keep it up for a few more weeks, take Carg Island, where all of the resources they have to produce oil, control that island, let this regime down a vine. Is this going to, though, take Carg Island? Is it going to involve U.S. troops on the ground?

Let me just read you something from the Atlantic does an assessment on that. They say U.S. troops may well take Carg Island. We believe their ability to do so, but only to endure ballistic missile strikes, drone attacks, petrochemical smoke, all without a reliable means of obtaining logistical support. The result could be a grinding war of attrition. They talk about how far away they would be from resupply. I'm sort of tired of all this armchair

quarterback, and this has been amazing military operation. God bless the fallen. But it's a difference when we talk about troops on the ground. I trust the Marines. Not that guy. I trust DOD. We got two Marine Expeditionary units sailing to this island. We did

Iwo Jima. We can do this. We did Iwo Jima. We can do anybody want to tell me the casualties on Iwo Jima? We got about 7,000 killed and 19,000 wounded. Was that a, is that the similar stakes that are involved here in the middle of this expeditionary, you know, adventure, chosen excursion. Yes, not even a war, it's an excursion. That's what I mean, it's being fluid. I think this is the perfect clip to show you how these individual Marines are just ponds on a chess board to people in Washington. Yep.

That they use the mythology of the heroism of the past to whitewash all of the ways in the post-World War II era that their lives have just been carelessly thrown into these wars of choice and adventurism, which accomplished nothing to the benefit of the United States as bled us dry, blood and treasure. And meanwhile, the individual families who either lost somebody or have somebody wounded or whose family member was affected by PTSD, they have to deal with the wreckage. That's why this bothers me so much. Like this bravado, chest thumping, each one of those individual lives who was lost on

Iwo Jima is not fodder for you to then claim some of their glory in order to advance your regime change, war of choice, which has now been a total and a complete disaster. And I think it demonstrates how all of these service members have been treated now, the 13 killed, the 200, 300, who knows how many, who have been wounded now so far, the thousands that are already just being moved into the region for some sort of potential operation. But that is what, that's what they're now trying to prepare the American public for. And also, by the way, I should say this. You know, Iwo Jima had a huge backlash here in the United States.

A lot of people don't remember that time period. After there was, after clearly the war in Europe was either winding down or, you know, the armistice or whatever had been signed. Well, the American public started asking some serious questions. They're like, wait, why are we taking tens of thousands of casualties out here? Like, we need to wrap this up very quickly. And the Pentagon or I guess the war department or whatever at that time was having a lot of conversations.

How do we prepare the public for ground invasion of Japan? So like even in the conflict with the most bought-in U.S. public, whenever we were taking these level of casualties, they're like, whoa, we're like, we need to hold on. They're like, what's going on here? Are we sure this is necessary? Yeah. You know, the atomic bomb ends up happening, and so everybody conveniently forgets the Wojima's casualties and Okinawa, but it was not like that domestically. Yeah.

And so, and that, again, was a war where probably 90% of the public were on board. Really bought in on that war effort. And he wants to try and recreate this disastrous type of circumstance. We talked with Professor Pape about the parallels, Carg Island or the Straits of Hormuz. And we're talking about Gallipoli. These are like global changing events. The Aussies still remember Gallipoli. I mean, one of my tour guys

when I did a World War I Battled Field tour, like a hundred years later, the descendants still come to Gallipoli to see what their great, great grandfathers had to go through. I don't think we should be going about that. I think we should do everything in our power to avoid some sort of a nightmarish situation.

And this is the problem, is that they're so caught into this mythos, everything is always World War II. That's why, what do they say about the Iranians? What does Mark Levin? Oh, they're Nazis, right? Everybody's always a Nazi. It's always 1938.

It's always either Munich and our enemies are always Nazis. There's no in between, it's the only conflict that you're ever allowed to talk about. Reminds me, which Iranian official was it that posted on Len, like, Americans remember well when General Westmoreland came and said things were going, and we're like... It was Arachi, the foreign minister. He said, Americans remember well, General Westmoreland. I'm like, sir, I wish we did. You are vastly overestimating us.

I'm sorry to say, sir. I wish that were the case. A lot more Americans should know General Westmoreland's name, one of those villainous military figures in U.S. history. There's a handful of historical events that you could count on. Maybe most Americans remembering or having learned about that's definitely not one of them. They don't make saving private Ryan movies about General Westmoreland. Again, literally one of the biggest liars in U.S. military.

The most villainous military. Yeah, we like to sweep that one under those don't get approved by the Pentagon, you know, script. People who look at the scripts for Hollywood. Yeah, I mean, this is sick and it's disgusting. And it's also really important because this is. is not just some senator, unfortunately. This is a guy who was extremely influential in bringing us to this point of war. There was a, I believe Bloomberg did some digging into like, how the hell did this happen? And, you know, the Mark Levins of the world, the Ted Cruz came out and also said

he was really pushing in this direction. I don't know if that's true or not how influential he was, but he's like wanting to take credit for this right now for some reason. So you had a handful of voices, you know, here in the U.S. And then obviously the Israelis, very influential. influential as well. You had these media personalities too. And then, you know, you had Trump high in his own supply after Venezuela and all those things came together to create this horrific, horrific set of circumstances. So when Lindsay Graham is out there talking, you know he's saying these things directly to the president. The other thing that I'll say about, you know, the whole setup there is he's dismissing this analysis of like, oh, this is going to be really bad. And he's like,

I don't trust that. I trust the Marines. Well, and I trust the military. It's like, well, the military, the ones that tried to tell Trump that this was going to be a disaster. You know, I don't know how forcefully it was done, but they had wargamed this out, you know, years ago, especially the straight of Hormuz part and were like, this is not going to go well for us. They saw all of the peril on the horizon, but he thought he knew better and wanted to listen to Israeli intelligence instead of U.S. intelligence, wanted to listen to Israeli war planners instead of U.S. war planners. And now, here we are. The other thing I've been thinking a lot about Sager is, you know, I really was resistant to this idea that you had of like we should actually have age limits. But I am coming

around to it because when you have these old men, childless, old men who, not just childless, like Trump is not childless, talking about BB, I'm talking about Trump, I'm talking about the now the martyred Ayatollah. I'm talking about Lindsey Graham. They don't have to live in the world that they're authoring. And they're thinking about, I mean, Trump talks all the time about whether he's going to get into heaven or not. Like, clearly he's thinking about his own mortality. I think BB is too. Netanyahu is too. And so they're willing to take extraordinary risks with the entire world because their major concern is like, I want to be viewed as this, you know, great man of history as this, you know, historical figure. And I really think in Trump's case, I'm not sure

he cares whether it's like for good or for evil. He just wants to be remembered. He wants to leave his mark on the world. And he really doesn't have to give a shit what's going to come after because this man is not going to be on this planet for that much longer. It creates grave danger. It creates a risk landscape that is truly, truly unacceptable for all of the rest of us. So I do genuinely think it is a massive problem the way these old men are thinking about their legacy and how they want to leave their mark versus like how do I make sure that we are, you know, considering risks appropriately and not ending up in some sort of an insane nuclear escalation. There's a lot to be said.

When we were talking with treat to Parsy, he was talking, I mean, you could tell he is very concerned that the Iranians will make a similar mistake to the U.S. and that we will not try for some de-escalation, that they will not seize their moment, which will lead to their inevitable destruction. To your point, I don't think it's an accident that the youngest president in American history is the person who got us onto a diplomatic off-ramp,

which basically didn't exist during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And sorry for the history lecture, but it is important to think, this was a person who literally broke his back on PT 109 and had to swim in the ocean, carrying a wounded man, you know, whose lifejackets strap in his teeth to try and save him. Now, it was kind of his fault in the first place, but whatever. The point that remains is that while he's in the situation room, he was a guy who at that

time was, you know, a low level, I think he was like a lieutenant, and he's sitting across from these generals who successfully fought in the Second World War, and he's like, they don't understand the stakes of like what it actually means to fight and to die in combat. And so for him, it was so important to seek that diplomatic off-ramp and to at least gamble and to try in the Cuba Missile crisis, the famous responding to the first letter, not the second letter, and agreeing to some things which were anathema to the U.S. security establishment, the removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey. That is the most courageous act, I think, in the history of the American presidency.

It saved the world from Armageddon. I don't really think it's an accident that you had a very young person who is willing to reject the 67-year-old security establishment of the people who are around him. And you can see now very clearly, as it's repeated now, all throughout history. Yes, these older men, people like Lindsey Graham, people who are... Like, Lindsay wants his legacy to be total regime change in the Middle East. He has no children and he's in his 70s. Like, this is it for him.

He wants a Senate building named after him. By the way, unfortunately, the Senate buildings, two of them, Rayburn and Russell, are named after childless old men who their entire life was, you know, the Senate. And that's fine. But, like, of course, they didn't have anything to live for. They didn't have to live necessarily in the world of their making and of their consequence. Like, this is really important to the Ayatollah as well.

He was 86, whenever he was killed, you know? And, yeah, I mean, he's just clear. Although out of all of them, he showed a lot more caution. He showed a lot of caution. And then his younger replacement is likely to not follow in those steps. See, that's the problem. His caution, he was too cautious to start a war and not cautious enough to avoid one. I actually think he was the worst of all wars.

I mean, with old people, what do they do? They daughter, and they're, you know, they're indecisive. And I think that's really, ultimately, I really don't think he's. very blameless. I think he really made a lot of mistakes, especially in the last five years of his train. They should have pursued a nuclear weapon. He wouldn't be in this right now. I mean, that's the reality. And as much as I hate to say that, because I, you know, I bore nuclear weapons, I would love for proliferation to be rolled back. That's just not the reality we live in right now. Exactly. And last thing I do want to show everybody, too, is that before the taco, it's not like

the American establishment wasn't sounding very, very bellicose. Let's put A-9 here, Secretary Scott Besson, somehow the war defender on television this weekend saying sometimes you got to escalate to de-escalate. Take a listen. We are taking out their missiles, their missile systems, and the factories that build those missiles, and now are the General Kane, Secretary Hagsit, are leading a campaign to destroy all the fortifications along the Straits of Hermose. Just to put a fine point on this, though, is the president in the process of winding down this war or escalating the conflict? Again, they're not mutually exclusive. Sometimes you have to escalate to de-escalate crew.

Sometimes you've got to escalate to de-escalate. Do not forget, as they covered on the Friday show, A-10, put that up there on the screen, that you just had American officials telling their counterparts in Israel. There may be no choice in order to launch a ground operation to capture Karg Island. There could be various other schemes and plots that are afoot. There's another 2,500 Marines. Let's put that one up there on the screen that are currently on their way. They're not even going to arrive.

three weeks, so don't, you know, this really could be a delaying action. You've got two of these marine expeditionary forces that are on their way to the Middle East. The one that's coming from Asia, they said it would take two to three weeks. That was about a week ago, so it's still on track. And this one, I think, also has to sail from the West Coast all the way to the Persian Gulf, which is going to take a little while. So we are in no way out of the woods here just yet. I want to make sure that we take that with the great assault. All right, let's get on to the nuclear section. More out of themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them.

And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Why hasn't a woman formerly participated in a Formula One race weekend in over a decade?

Think about how many skills they have to develop at such a young age? What can we learn from all of the new F1 romance novels suddenly popping up every year? He still smelled of podium champagne and expensive friction. And how did a 2023 event called Wagageddon change the paddock forever? That day is just seared into my memory. I'm culture writer and F1 expert Lily Herman, and these are just a few of the questions I'm tackling on No Grip, a Formula One culture podcast that dives into the under-explored pockets of the sport. In each episode, a different guest and I will go deeper into the wacky mishap, scandals, and sagas,

both on the track and far away from it, that have made F1 a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Bailey Taylor, and this is Ick. You may know me from my It Girl series I've done on the streets of New York over the years. Well, I've got good news. I am bringing those interviews and many more to this podcast. Yes, we will talk about the style and the success, but we are also talking about the pressure, the expectations,

and the real work with the women's shaping culture right now. As a woman in the industry, you're always underestimated. So you have to work extra hard and you have to push the narrative in a way that doesn't compromise who you are in your integrity. You know, I like to say I was kind of like a silent ninja. Each week, I have unfiltered conversations with female founders, creatives, and leaders to talk about ambition, visibility, and what it really takes to build something meaningful in the public eye. Because being an it girl isn't about the spotlight, it's about owning it. I think the negatives need to be discussed and they need to be told to people who maybe don't do this every day just so they know what's really going on.

I feel like pulling the curtain back is important. Listen to It Girl with Bailey Taylor on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Turning now to some very troubling escalatory things that were happening before the so-called Trump Taco. Again, let's not forget that it may not be a real taco. Let's start with B1. Let's put this up here on the screen. A very strange situation with an alleged strike on Diego Garcia. Attempted strike.

Attempted strike. Yes, sorry. An attack on a base 2,500 miles away from Iran. The Wall Street Journal is saying it signals more aggressive military posture for the regime. Iran brings Europe into range with missiles that were fought. at Diego Garcia. We have a map just to show you all exactly how far away in the distance that it would be.

It would be the longest IRBM that has happened so far in the war. A lot of people were using it as evidence of why we had to attack Iran in the first place because it's like, oh my God, look at these madmen. They have long-range ballistic missiles. But there are still some very strange indications around the entire attack. Let's put B2 up there on the screen from the NATO. Secretary General. The NATO Secretary General Mark Rutt says, quote, the alliance cannot confirm Israel's claim that missiles targeted Diego Garcia

were Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles. The other thing to note is that you really are not exactly aware of the leak because you have Israel allegedly claiming the strike from Diego Garcia. The Brits have been very cagey about it. There's been some anonymous leakage that happened to Reuters and a few others and people are taking it as fact. Now, you could take that explanation a variety of ways. It could be the Iranians don't want to acknowledge the strike on Diego Garcia because, like what he said, it would show some of the powers that they not previously had said that, you know, had not previously indicated they have. I'm not really sure why that would be. I would want to claim it if I were them because it shows a credible amount of

deterrence, strength, ability to strike Europe if they wanted to, but maybe they don't want to yet open, you know, the box whenever it comes to that. The second part is somebody else did it, you can surmise who of who exactly would want. and all of that widening. And the third option is it wasn't a missile. It was a drone or some other sort of alleged attack. Or the fourth, I guess, is that absolutely nothing happened. Remember, there's still an information blackout.

We have no satellite imagery. We basically know nothing in the last like five days or so, unless it came out of Israel or Iran. In the Gulf and everywhere else, even though there's still been attacks, the video is dried up to a trickle. They're threatened to prosecute people for tweeting out videos. So that Diego Garcia one,

you might have heard it. Be very cautious with that claim. Yeah. Not any real evidence yet that has actually happened. So, yeah, that is really important to say. The only evidence we have is from the U.S. saying that this occurred. We have no other evidence. There was no strike that actually hit the base.

You had one, this is their claim, one that allegedly, like, failed halfway and another one that was intercepted. The Iranians are saying, this was not us. That's their claim. And the reason that there's a good cause to be skeptical is because, you know, This is immediately given a propaganda talking point to proponents of the war who say, see, the Iranians were lying about the limited range of their ballistic missiles. See, Europe is at risk.

Don't you see how we can't believe these people and we have to take them out because they pose a threat to all of the Western world? That's the, you know, what Bibi immediately began pushing all sorts of, you know, pro-war influencers in the U.S. They all began pushing that talking point. And when you have this, you know, this NATO dude who is a total Trump sycophant, even saying, like, well, we can't actually confirm that it came from Iran, that to me was the biggest red flag of like, I don't know that this really even went down at all, let alone went down the way that they're claiming it went down. So in any case, possibly Iran has this longer missile range. That would be a very significant development. or possibly this is all effectively a ruse to provide more justification for a war that is extremely unpopular and to help to cajole the European allies to get in the fight where they've been somewhat resistant thus far. So that's the reason to be really skeptical of these claims

until we have anything more approaching definitive proof. And the reason why is that things are not going well for Israel right now. And there's every reason in the world to actually want to continue to justify the propaganda effort against Iran. Let's go and put the next one up here on the screen. Let's put B3, please. This was a very significant development that happened over the weekend. Iran said that the U.S. and Israel had attacked the Natanz nuclear facility. There actually have been a very limited amount of strikes, ironically, on the nuclear facilities across Iran. They said that the Natanz enrichment complex was targeted this morning. We don't yet know what any of the actual, like, damage would be. They said,

quote, there was no leakage of radioactive material that was reported and no radiactivity material was released, previously had been targeted by Israel in the 12-day war. Now, the reason why this is very significant is because immediately what followed were massive Iranian strikes in Dimona, where Israel's secret nuclear program is alleged to be. Let's go and put some of the video up here on the screen. I mean, this is shocking stuff, right? Like, not only do you see a ballistic missile just striking deep inside, you also can see

multiple instances of interceptors that were failing, not nearly the number of interceptors that originally are launched at some of these ballistic missiles, and you can see the direct strike that happened that was able to penetrate the missile defense systems in Israel. It was immediately followed up by, and let's go to B5 here, where Trey Yings over at Fox News reported a mass casualty event in the city of Arad in Israel where at least 100 people were injured. Let's take a listen. Right now we're here in Arad, where last night an Iranian ballistic missile slammed into a residential area. You can see the amount of destruction here.

At least 100 people were injured according to first responders. You can see the buildings here that were on fire. There is destruction for blocks. right now first responders are still combing through the debris ensuring that there are no unexploded ordinances as Israeli officials arrive here at the scene to survey the damage. So there you go. That was the report there from Trey Yanks, who was on the ground. I think the two of these things we could take, first of all, the missile that allegedly struck in Demona, that missile appeared to show some evasive maneuver near the end.

This was according to some independent analysis that I saw. That would be some of the more advanced weaponry that the Iranians continue to have. And so what can we take away from that? So they have the ability to target a secret nuclear facility. It's exactly tit for tat you strike us, we strike you. We're able to penetrate your air defense. We're actually saving some of our more advanced missiles, which you claim 95 percent have all been wiped out. If you combine it with the alleged Diego Garcia attack, you actually would see a much stronger Iran from where we are in the last, let's say, two weeks before,

which would validate some of the analysis that we've heard here on the show about how they had sought to wipe out interceptor stockpiles and then reserve some of the drones and some of the ballistic missiles to target very selectively. And they have the ability to secret nuclear facilities, specific bases, Patriot missile batteries, Thad interceptors, like any of these places, which are very pinprick strikes, but designed to inflict maximum damage and to deliver a major strategic message. So that's why I think these are very important. Israel very clearly is in a hurt position right now. They do not want to be in a place where their nuclear facility

or their cities are taking strikes where they even had to issue an apology to the population in Iran, being like the interceptor didn't work, we're sorry. I mean, this is not what you saw in the opening days of the war. And it's clearly a sign of desperation. We know for them, I mean, the whole Jenghis Khan quote from BB and all that, like you only know which way

that that's going to go in terms of their own response. They're going to say, okay, we have to have a totally to war, try and drag the U.S. into a ground invasion. Yeah, that's exactly right, which is why it's important to keep in mind, even if Trump does want to taco, it's not only Iran that gets a saying that, it's also apparently Israel. Let's go ahead and put B6 up on the screen. This underscores your point about the messaging coming from the Iranians. They're claiming for the past three weeks our operations were maneuvers to explore the weaknesses of Israeli air defenses. Today, we control Israeli airspace. No one can intercept Iran's missiles. I mean, I think that's, you know,

obviously bluster and over the top, but it does appear that as their number of launches have kind of declined to a lower steady state, they're able to inflict more damage. So more of their missiles are finding their targets. Now, also important to underscore, they did not actually hit the nuclear facility in Demona. Was that intentional? Was it meant more to just send a message of, hey, this is something we could do if we want to. Look how close we're able to strike or did it miss its target, that's open question. But, you know, the other thing that I think is really significant here in terms of the Israeli saga is there has been locked down censorship in Israel about showing some of the damage and showing, you know, these missiles in the sky, et cetera. Now you have,

you had, you know, Trey Yinks there on the ground. You had Netanyahu touring some of the damage sites, talking openly about the level of casualties, et cetera. So there has been a shift in their propaganda approach, which I think is also really noteworthy. And you have to ask, why? What made them decide that they're going to acknowledge some of the damage that has been inflicted and acknowledge some of the civilian casualties? And we'll get to this later. We'll hear more from Netanyahu later about like, oh my God, the civilians, which is just, you know, to hear that man pretend to care about civilian life is just beyond disgusting. But I do think it's interesting to know. Some people are saying, well, what are they preparing for? You know, what are they trying to prep the ground

for by acknowledging these, you know, strikes that did, in fact, inflict civilian damage and inflict, you know, casualties on civilians there within Israel. So I think that's another important piece of this too. Yeah, I mean, we're setting the stage here for our eventual conversation about BB later on in the show because, obviously, he's making crazy claims. They're trying to widen the war. By the way, just came across the wire. Despite Trump's taco, the Israeli Air Force has began a wave of air strikes against Iranian infrastructure sites. Against Israeli infrastructure strikes? Israel has begun a wave of infrastructure targeting in Iran, literally, after the Trump

Taco. So almost an hour later, yeah, the Israeli Air Force is striking Iran. We know that. Because they had struck their infrastructure last night as well. I'm saying they're continuing again this morning. Just to keep everybody, sorry, you know, the show, everything is moving fluid. Well, and here's the thing. I mean, this is why, like, you know, Trump loves to play this game, and I do think it is the same

game is what Biden would play with Israel, too, of like, oh, I'm so mad at BB, blah, blah, blah. And over and over again, we get the same thing. And Trump plays the same game. And so, you know, I look, it's possible Israel's freelancing, but I think it's more likely that there's a coordination here where Trump wants to keep his hands clean, but still allow the damage to be inflicted on Iran to keep the, you know, to keep the pressure on and, you know, keep sort of manage the escalation by pretending that he's innocent of whatever the, you know, the bad is railies are doing and oh my gosh, I'm so mad at them for doing this. But, you know, I would be surprised if they didn't have some sort of green light or at least not a red light from the U.S.

in these type of attacks. Yeah, exactly. Who knows exactly what's going on. All right, let's get to oil. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than no grip, a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F-1, including the story of the woman who last participated in a Formula One race weekend, the recent uptick in F1 romance novels, and plenty of mishap scandals and sagas that have made Formula One a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Bailey Taylor, and this is It Girl.

This podcast is all about going deeper with the women's shaping culture right now. Yes, we will talk about the style and the success, but we are also talking about the pressure, the expectations, and the real work behind it all. women in the industry, you're always underestimated. So you have to work extra hard in a way that doesn't compromise who you are in your integrity. You know, I like to say I was kind of like a silent ninja. Listen to It Girl with Bailey Taylor on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, it's Joe Interesting, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And today I'm talking with my dear friend,

Krista Williams. It can change you in the best way possible. Dance with the change. Dance with the breakdowns. The embodiment of Pisces intuition with Capricorn power moves. So I'm like delusionally proud of my chart. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast starting on February 24th on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.