Tangle - Suspension of the rules. - Isaac, Ari and Kmele chat about the ceasefire in Iran and NASA's Artemis II mission.

Episode Date: April 10, 2026

On todays episode of Suspension of the Rules, Isaac, Ari and Kmele talk about Iran's 10 point ceasefire plan and their thoughts on the war to date. Isaac challenges Ari and Kmele's knowledge of the Artemis II mission with a fun new game. Last but not least, a very solid grievance section. It's a good one!Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was hosted by: Isaac Saul and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Jon Lall.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Coming up, a ceasefire or maybe not, we talk about the latest in the Iran War plus the Artemis Moon orbit space mission. I don't know what we're calling it, but it's awesome. And we're going to talk a lot about it. Plus some grievances. It's a good one. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the suspension of the rules podcast. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, here with Tangle Managing Editor Ari Weidsman. at large, Camille Foster.

Gentlemen, we had a ceasefire. We prepared for the show. I think the ceasefire maybe never started. It might be over. I'm not totally sure. We had a ceasefire this morning. We talked a bunch about it offline. We decided, okay, we'll open the show with the ceasefire.

As I'm preparing to open the show, seems like bombs are dropping. The Strait of Hormuz does not seem particularly open to me. J.D. Vance, the vice president, is claiming that it's open, but basically every maritime tracking account on Twitter and all the people who track the shipping routes as OSINT masters seem to be saying, no, actually, there's nothing moving through the straight right now. And we have the head of Iran's parliament who's come out and said that all these stipulations of the ceasefire have already been violated.

It does not seem particularly strong to me. So here we are. are, I guess ceasefire, but in name only is basically my perspective. How's that for a cold open? Are you guys okay? Is everybody doing well? I don't want a fun way to kick things off. Yeah. I think we had a ceasefire there for a bit. I think you can only violate a ceasefire if it was enacted. So at least logically, there must have been one. I'm wondering, okay, let's get into it. I think that the president, I just to talk about what actually happened from what I'm watching,

the president announced a ceasefire on Twitter, on truth social, which then got blasted across Twitter, picked up by all these news organizations. He calls the Wall Street Journal. He calls Fox News. He says, ceasefire deal.

The Pakistani, I think, I don't want to misspeak here, maybe prime ministerial, a leader from Pakistan who is at the center of the negotiation, post something on Twitter about the ceasefire agreement and accidentally forgets to delete the part of it that indicates it was written not by him but by the United States.

So then he has to quickly edit the tweet or someone else, but probably us. Then he has to remove that part and then, you know, share the post announcing this deal. And then Iran sort of says, yes, they've agreed to the deal. Trump says the 10-point plan is a good negotiation. starting point. Then Israel starts bombing Lebanon, and then Iran starts bombing the UAE and Kuwait and some oil depots maybe in Saudi Arabia. And we're being told that there's shipping movement happening in the Strait of Hormuz by our administration, but all these reporters and, you know, intelligence

specialists who cover this area, this region for living are saying, no, actually, nothing's moving through the strait. And then this post comes out from the Speaker of Iran's parliament, basically saying, and I'm just going to read here, the deep historical distrust we hold toward the United States stems from its repeated violations of all forms of commitments, a pattern that has regrettably been repeated once again. As the President of the United States has clearly stated, the Islamic Republic of Iran's 10-point proposal is a workable basis on which to negotiate and the main framework for these talks. however, three clauses of this proposal have already been violated, noncompliance with the first clause, which is regarding a ceasefire in Lebanon,

violation of Iran's airspace, and a denial of Iran's right to enrichment. So what do we have? I don't really know what we have. And I'm not trying to be negative Nancy here, just saying the people involved don't seem to think we have a ceasefire except for our administration saying that there's a ceasefire. and I'm not really sure what to make of any of this. And we're recording this at 4 o'clock in the afternoon on Wednesday. So, you know, the situation is evolving rapidly, I would say.

Maybe I could put this to Camille, but one of the frameworks that I've developed for trying to understand this current administration is that they like appointment viewing. And I think right now I would say they're trying to get their ducks in a row in terms of messaging so that coming into the weekend will have a good thing to discuss. So they don't want to, like, respond. I mean, 4 o'clock on Wednesday.

It's not prime viewing time. So I think we'll hear more from that maybe Thursday afternoon, Thursday evening, when more of us are tuned in. Maybe that's super cynical, but I think it has been pretty dependable as a pattern. Well, as we discussed yesterday, Ari, forecasting with this particular administration has become impossible, and perhaps it always was impossible, but at this point it certainly feels very impossible. So I don't know what's going to happen later.

I know that they like to blow up weekends by making grand announcements and proclamations and ones that are just plain confusing on Fridays that go into the weekend and leave us confused. So yeah, in that respect, I agree. But the question you asked the moment ago, Isaac, was what do we have? And I think rightly we're focused on the administration.

The only thing that I can say for sure is we have an administration that desperately, wants to have a deal so the things at least seem resolved. As of yesterday, once we got that 10-point plan, and we got the details of it from the Iranians, what was clear was this is not really a great 10 points for the United States, at least in terms of its stated ambitions at the beginning of this conflict, or even just a couple of weeks ago, or days ago, quite frankly. So we know that they desperately want a deal. We know that they're looking for anything that they can qualify as a victory at this point. And it doesn't seem like they have

any of their priorities completely straight. It certainly seems like they're fully aligned with the Israelis. As of yesterday, you certainly had the sense that Lebanon was a part of this deal. Now there are some questions as to whether or not Lebanon was ever supposed to be included. I don't know that the administration ever had a formal opinion on that or even discussed it. The entire thing is utterly confusing, deeply frustrating. And I think for anyone who was optimistic about this conflict going in a way that is charitable and good for the United States, I think your hopes have to be at least a little bit degraded at this point. But I do suspect and I've talked to and have been reading some of my friends who are a little bit more optimistic about the conflict.

So we can perhaps get into some of those details, at least just in terms of where this stands right now. Yeah, I think we will. I just want to say on the Lebanon thing. I'm looking at my computer here because unlike many times when we record this podcast, this is rapidly developing as we're on the air here. And I want to be sure I'm monitoring what's going on. J.D. Vance, this was just a few minutes ago, is interviewed. It looks like he's in Budapest still.

You know, the backdrop is Air Force too. He says, I think this comes from a legitimate misunderstanding. I think the Iranians thought the ceasefire. included Lebanon, and it just didn't. We never made that promise. We never indicated that was going to be the case. Is that acceptable? There was a misunderstanding that you couldn't bomb this country with tens of millions of people inside it. Sorry about that. We were, you know, when we said ceasefire with the parties involved in this conflict, we didn't mean the country that's on the border of Israel, which has been a centerpiece of Iran's, you know, terrorism in the region and Israel's sense that it needs to go destroy Iran.

Like, Lebanon is a massive peace in all of this. Southern Lebanon is home to these Hezbollah fighters who are often firing rockets in Israel. And Israel is constantly, you know, making incursions into Lebanese territory. They've been leveling Beirut, which is, you know, this huge city with millions of people. Like, that's not something that we could, like, that, for me, It seems like if you were laying out a ceasefire plan, you would have some clarity about whether a country involved in the conflict was or was not involved in the ceasefire.

And having a misunderstanding there, quote unquote, legitimate misunderstanding, it's a hard pill for me to swallow. I just have to say that. Like, it feels a little bit crazy that that's the response. It's like, oh, we just, that detail slipped up in the convo that we had about, you know, an escalating regional war. I don't know. I have a hard time with that.

Either way, it's a massive diplomatic failure. Those are the details that you get right. You ensure that you have clarity on this sort of thing. Is it on brand for the administration to screw something like that up? Sure. Is that a simple misunderstanding? No, it is actually a huge, enormous deal. A tremendous failure on your part that you did not communicate clearly what the details are.

To the extent that is the case. What seems more likely, perhaps, is just that there. there's yet more schizophrenia and uncertainty about precisely what the goals are in the short term, the medium term, and the long term, beyond, we have to bring an end to this now. This is at least not working out for us politically, even if there's a narrative about how it is kind of been militarily successful and perhaps has helped to better align the U.S. interests in the region. I mean, isn't there an easy read of this that it's like the negotiations aren't going well right now? there is a huge threat referenced over the weekend from Trump,

which I don't think we've really even mentioned yet. It's like background context for all of us now, but it feels like it's old news, but this was between our last two podcasts, was Trump's threat that he would wipe out the civilization of Iran if there weren't actual movements and surrenders or negotiations of some kind by Monday at 8. And when negotiations weren't really proceeding to a way

that was to our liking for what might end the war. I think it makes sense that it was just, all right, well, there's a huge negative reaction to the possibility of us using force that matches this language, so we have to have something, agree with something quick, and get it out there just to buy time

so we can move on and gather up, like the next round of negotiations. I think maybe that's like an easy thing to say, but just to go out and say it, I think that clearly looks like what happened. Maybe I'm wrong. but I don't know. It seems like that's kind of what you're both scratching at a little bit.

I think maybe it's worth just reading in the 10 points here, the 10 point piece plan for the record for a little bit of discussion. Because, I mean, Ari, to your point, yeah, I guess we don't really know. I want to be able to answer your question, but honestly, it's impossible to know what actually happened here. But there was a 10-point plan that got released. It was in writing. the Trump administration said they agreed to it.

Trump tweeted it out in truth social posts. So there's a basis for negotiations. Yes, yeah. And I want to be clear. They said this was a good jumping off point for negotiations, not that they would just agree to these 10 points. And negotiators from, you know, Pakistan, Iran, they seem to endorse this.

So the 10-point plan reads as follows, the U.S. must fundamentally commit to guaranteeing non-aggression, continuation of Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance that Iran can enrich uranium for its nuclear program, removal of all primary sanctions on Iran, removal of all secondary sanctions against foreign entities that do business with Iranian institutions, end of all United Security Council resolutions targeting Iran, end of all international atomic energy agency resolutions on Iran's nuclear program, compensation payment to Iran for war damage, withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region, and ceasefire on all fronts,

including Israel's conflict with Hezbollah. in Lebanon. C-spire on all fronts, including Israel's conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, number 10. Just throwing that out there. Kind of hard to imagine.

Yeah, it doesn't seem like Marco Rubio wrote that. It feels as though most of those things are in Iran's interest, not the United States. Right. But I know that, Isaac, you key that up for a reason. So we have those 10 points.

They don't look particularly strong for the U.S. if we started a war saying, like, here are the objectives. We just achieved them. Clearly not. But we're still trying to respond to what's happening right now. I think is an understatement. A month ago, a month ago, Trump's...

I mean, if the Iranian nuclear deal was bad, this is... Right. First of all, a month ago, Trump said nothing less than unconditional surrender from Iran. His words is how the war ends. and that we're going to pummel them until that. They're saying they want to continue control of the street and form of news. Now, I'll throw out there. Trump said, tweeted some, posted something on social media diplomacy,

so we all have to live there, but said, actually, we're going to split the money that they're raising. We're going to take some of the cash, which, like. That is the craziest thing that's happened in the last couple days. Yeah, I can understand some people are going to see that and be like, oh, good idea. No. A fundamental principle of the kind of law that actually America has been really integral in setting is that these international waters are free and open.

And the fact that people can pass through them without having to pay tolls or without being attacked by people is something that the United States Navy has been. It's one of those understated goods that America has been responsible for in the global world order that for the most part all these shipping outfits and these shipping. huge oil tankers and people generally can just traverse international waters without worrying about being bombed or having to pay somebody money to pass through. So setting the precedent that we're going to start doing that and like, oh, we're just going to split the funds with that regime we've been telling you for the last six months needs to be wiped off the face of the planet. Like that is not good. So no, bad, bad, bad, bad. Please know. The acceptance that they're going enriched uranium for its nuclear program, how that would be an acceptable term as a basis for

negotiation. Even as a basis for negotiations. Yeah, given the reason we started the war, like, doesn't make sense to me. And then compensation to Iran for war damage we're going to pay, that's something we're negotiating. I mean, if we're not negotiating that, then let's not accept it as a potential point. I mean, you go through these, like, the U.S. must fundamentally commit to guarantee non-aggression. No, actually, we shouldn't commit to that. We should say the point of this, if I'm going to buy into this war, which I've not bought into, obviously, but like the whole point of exerting all of this military might is to stand over them and say, do as we say, or we're going to hit you again. So agreeing to guarantee non-aggression removes the very leverage we've sacrificed all these lives to gain.

I don't understand why we would ever consider or agree to anything based even remotely on that. I mean, the whole list seems absurd to me. So I don't know. And then everybody's doing the victory lap. The media always doubts Trump. And I'm just like, I don't think so. I think this felt like some sort of panic back down from the threats to wipe out all this civilian infrastructure and commit what would have been war crimes if he followed through on the threats. I don't know.

And again, and this will, and Camille, I think, you know, you mentioned some of the, I know, folks like Eli Lake who we had on the show recently and Elliot Cohen have been writing some, I think much more positively tinted framing of this, which I want to talk about. Because I don't want to misstate all of this and say, like, you know, I'm seeing people, some people on the left framing this and Trump critic people on the right framing this. is like a massive win for Iran. I've seen a lot of Israeli opinion writers and, you know, kind of people in like the Zionist space who are very upset about this deal and saying, like, the U.S. blinked and Iran has won the war and all this stuff. And I also temper that. They have incurred an incredible amount of damage. Their entire leadership structure was killed. There's a whole new group that's going to have to come up. It's going to be incredibly destabilizing. the United States has proven that in a matter of days,

they can take over the Iranian skies and destroy most of its Navy. I mean, like, this isn't, they have not just won the war, but they've learned, I think, that the Strait of Pormuz is a really good leverage point, and they can now control it, that they can create leverage by attacking their neighbors in the Gulf, which is dangerous, and that with enough, you know, tolerance for accepting damage that they're, you know, and Curring, they can then continue to strike places like Israel, where they're still firing rockets. And I think those are all dangerous lessons for them to have learned and is a bad outcome for the West in this framing.

So I don't know. I mean, Camille, maybe you want to talk a little bit about some of the writing that you found compelling about, you know, where we are now and maybe a little bit more of a positive outlook. And I know it's not necessarily your personal viewpoint, but I'm... Yeah. just having a little trouble getting there, I think. Yeah, one, I certainly wouldn't call it myself kind of compelled by the writing. I think I can understand the argument that they're making. And in large part, it is about the degradation of their kind of war-fighting capabilities,

the more sophisticated armaments that they had at their disposal gone. The accounts about their kind of nuclear capabilities and the state of their program certainly seems that it had been set back before. It is more set back now. That also seems like a good thing. And I think in general, one of the recurring themes also seems to be that there's perhaps been a lot of overstatement about the state of U.S. alliances, about the state that the U.S.'s commitment to NATO and how this particular conflict factors into it, I am certainly of the opinion

that at least from the outside looking in, it definitely seems like there is more strain on those relationships, despite the fact that, yes, most European powers have long said repeatedly that Israel is kind of doing our dirty work. They are taking care of an important problem for us with respect to Iran. I suspect that they still feel that way. At the same time, I think that they have very real concerns about whether or not this was the right way to go about taking care of that problem. I think a lot of those statements were made before. The statements that have been made much more recently certainly indicate that there is a great deal of frustration with the way that this has created so much turmoil for the global economy. But I do want to go back to something you said

a moment ago. I mean, just in terms of the resolution of things, especially with respect to what I can only describe as this kind of open suggestion that the United States will engage in piracy alongside their new Iranian partners. I just, it's really hard to overstate just how. exhausting it is to try and track the various utterances that are coming out of the Trump administration and the way that they're kind of posturing and blustering. The statements that were made on truth social, they got everyone so animated, and I think appropriately so, about wiping out a civilization, they followed prior statements on Easter Sunday that were similarly inflammatory. And I suspect most of this is Trump attempting to do his art of the deal thing,

where you go really big, you try to be intimidating. But none of it is particularly credible at this point. I think we were all, even yesterday, we were in our pre-production meeting, like, it's hard to know what's going to happen here. Maybe he tries to do something to look tough. I didn't suspect that they would try to wipe Iran off the map, but one couldn't really know what it's. exactly that meant. But more and more, the number of data points that we have here all suggest

that the United States is unwilling to get more deeply embroiled here and desperately wants it out. And Iran certainly seems to be aware of that and is doing whatever they can to extract as good a deal as possible out of the circumstance. We'll be right back after this quick break. I think the general premise that we've degreate. Iran, that their military is going to be in the long term less capable of inflicting damage in the region, that there's going to be tons of destabilization among the regime, which we should and do talk about separately from the 90 million Iranian people who live there. And that we've, I think, I think we've done serious, serious damage to their nuclear capacity,

their facilities, or even if we haven't destroyed them permanently, which I never felt like was a realistic goal. We've set them back for years, which is a good thing, I think. All the criticisms about the Trump administration aside, Iran's response has also proved the very point that they are not a partner in the Middle East that we can trust. And you don't have to take that from like the white Western colonial view or however you want to frame it in negative turns. It's just like, go ask Saudi Arabia, go ask Kuwait, go ask Lamont, people in Dubai. I mean, it's a very unstable, bad situation that we certainly participated in creating, but that Iran also made a conscious choice of like, we're going to wreak havoc in the region

to make everybody else pay the price for this. I accept all of that. And I think that's a good argument for the cost that we've had to take on, you know, the 40 plus billion dollars we've spent, the high gas prices, the damage to the civilian infrastructure, the death. If you're worried about Iran, that is all a reasonable framework. But then it all comes back to the beginning. You know, the stuff that I was writing in early March, which was what now? Like, what happens after the regime is gone? Which we are there.

They're being supplanted, it seems. by similarly minded people. It's very unclear to me, whether Hamé's grandson is alive or in a coma. There's all this reporting about him being incapacitated in some fashion. But we've got no signals yet that there's anybody rising to power in Iran that is more in the mold of some sort of pro-democracy,

tolerable of the West-type leader that we want to work with. If all we're going to do is create all this destruction, incur this short-term cost, for us on the American side. And then in a few years, this new regime's going to come into focus that's just as extreme and way less trustful of the United States and Israel.

That's not a win. That's not, we haven't solved anything. There's no peace there. Trump keeps talking about long-term peace in the region and some deal coming that's going to... And I just like, I'm not trying to be narrow-minded, but I just still don't really see the path toward that. So that's the hard part for me

where we are now is even if you accept all these arguments about the degradation of the military and all these things, it's like, okay, maybe we've bought some time for Israel and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and these countries that surround Iran that they're going to be under less persistent threat. Maybe we've proved that we can, you know, bully and beat up Iran anytime we want. And there is some value in that, I suppose. But the goal was supposed to be this sort of, not even regime change, quote unquote, but just lasting stability and peace in the region. That was the thing that we were trying to do. Core tenants of that were destroying their Navy and their Air Force and reducing their nuclear capacity. But like, if all that stuff is just temporary, then what is what was all this for?

Why does it matter? And even worse, if we're setting up a deal where we're going to make a run super, super rich by having a stranglehold on this important shipping lane, that seems also very bad. So I'm back to the what now, what now? question. And I haven't really heard a good answer, which by the way, I think is why a lot of people were skeptical about this war, including people in the Trump administration, which is the story that I want to pivot to here. I mean, we're staying on Iran, but just a slight shift in focus, which is this massive New York Times feature that came out, which for like, I don't know, 12 hours felt like it was going to be the story of the week. And then Trump started tweeting about,

you know, wiping civilizations off the face of the planet. But the New York Times released this very deep investigative report. Camille and I were texting about, you know, who was leaking to the administration. Was it everybody? I kind of think it was maybe just J.D. Vance and his team because he comes out looking very, very good in the story. But, and by the way, that's pure speculation. I have no idea how the New York Times got this story.

But just sometimes you sort of read the tea leaves. But it certainly seemed like the tenor. of the people around Trump, according to this Newark Times report, which I haven't seen the administration deny, was a mix of, it's your choice, Mr. President, and we'll follow you into the darkness,

no matter what you choose. And I think this is a bad idea. And here are some really, really big risks about the plan. And Israel is lying to you about how successful this mission is going to be and we probably shouldn't do it, which was Marco Rubio.

And we did it. And now we're sort of living in the world where some of those advisors were, I think, seemingly right, but didn't really have the Cajones to kind of stand up to Trump and tell them not to do it. That's the takeaway I have from the story.

I'm curious to hear what you guys think, what stuck out to you about this piece? Because it is really important framing for what we've just witnessed over the last six weeks. I mean, it was a direct behind these things look at how this happened. I was surprised at how many people were skeptical of it.

I thought maybe Trump was just getting green lights and thumbs up, and that's why he did it. But it seems like maybe he was the one who was really compelled to do it, and the people around him were not so sure is the takeaway from the New York Times story for me, I guess. I mean, doesn't it seem like this is a thing that we talked about immediately afterwards was it seems like this is the negative effects of surrounding yourself with people who are going to support you as well as creating a culture, not necessarily composed 100% of sycophants, but a culture of sycophancy where I can't imagine a world where it's just a February day.

And Marco Rubio comes up to Trump and says, let's go get Iran and handsome like a five-page bullet-pointed list of reasons why we need to do it. But I can't imagine a world where Trump takes a meaning with Netanyahu like this piece of describing is considering things, asks questions, seems to be suggesting this might be. a good idea and Rubio is lukewarm with how he pushes back. I think that indicates that I can imagine if there were more of an open dialogue that maybe the better responses would have won out. It is interesting to me as well to be reading the responses from Kane, General Kane, or at least how he's characterized in this piece of trying to give sort of professional militaristic responses of saying, like if we wanted to go and establish air supremacist, in Iran, this is how we would do it.

And then give, kind of couch that with reasons of, these are risks. This is the reason why we wouldn't do it. If we were to do it, this is how. And the way that the authors of this piece are presenting Trump's response was either as, depending on how you want to read it, either as Kane was confusing and not really forceful in how he was giving his response, or Trump wasn't understanding that, Kane was in a sort of professional, understated way saying,

don't do this. If you want to do this, this is how, but don't do this. And it indicates sort of the way that at the top level, any small group of people is just a group of people, and there's personality dynamics at play. And leadership styles are super important for how these things get done. And for that reason, it was a really, really engaging look into the administration because we see that Trump's cabinet or his inner circle

people he wants to go to for any advice on anything, are going to be speaking to him sort of with these messages that are like, hey, there are two ways to look at it. What do you want to do? Okay, if that's what you want to do, sure, we can do this. Like Susie Wiles also saying, not my place. Marco Rubio is saying, I think we can do part of this plan, not all of it. And then only J.D. Vance, even him in a way.

Because he's saying, I don't support this. But he's also, I don't agree with it. But saying ultimately, if you do it, I'll support you. and that is as stern as like direct of a disagreement as you get, which is, I don't know, I find that interesting. Maybe everyone within the administration, within this top circle, are people who think there could be benefits to this, that make this worth doing, that could be.

But I think it's probably likely that there are a lot of people who fit that description. And some people who are opposed to it, but don't think it's worth whatever personal risks they would incur to take a stand on it and say, no, we shouldn't go to war. We shouldn't do this because we didn't run on it, which again was Rubio's response, but he didn't make a moral stand. He was saying, like, this is what the response will be, but we can't do it. And if we do it, we could get something out of it. It just seems all really equivocal. And in that sense, it casts a pretty bad Paul on what it would, like, the way that they discuss these major events. I mean, Isaac, as you mentioned, we were texting back and forth.

I am still of the opinion that pretty much everyone is leaking, and they're probably doing it individually. And in the moment now, I think that they are probably taking advantage of an opportunity to distance themselves from something that is deeply unpopular and hasn't gone as well as perhaps they hoped it had. my suspicion is that the casting of kind of even Rubio's perspective, I can imagine he's probably even subtler than the reporting suggests. And to the extent the conversation that they were having was as robust with pretty much everyone dissenting, but Donald Trump still believing in himself so much so that he's kind of telling Tucker Carlson, it'll be okay because it always works out.

Like that would surprise me, actually. My expectation is probably something more along the lines of everyone is not nodding along and saying, yes, sir, absolutely, sir, in the way that they do in the cabinet meetings. Where they're not just deferential, they are obsequious. That's actually what I expect. And it's weird to read a representation of it in the Times that's a lot more like, yeah, no, don't do this. Don't trust the Israelis. They're overstating things they always do.

I think I don't think that I read one line that was that explicit, though. that was don't do this. It was, here's a reason not to do this, or we should entrust bullet point three and four. And I think that's an important clarification to make. I don't see anything here that was like, people stood up to Trump and said don't. He went ahead.

It was more like, yeah, I don't know, sir. I mean, Rubio called it bullshit and said to Israelis. He called Israel and it's bullshit, but he didn't say the plan to go to war was ultimately not worth our time. Yeah. I think that's, yeah, I think that's right. But to your point, Camille, I do, I do suspect that there's more of an open dialogue behind closed door in this administration than people actually understand or believe.

I will say, having spoken to people who have been with Trump in meetings like this, what I've always heard is that he does ask a lot of. questions. Like he, you know, there's, I think it's a hard thing to hold with some of his other personality traits, but he's, he's curious and he's open-minded. Like, oftentimes that curiosity might be tied to how is this thing good for me or like what nice things you have to say about the president. But there are also these scenarios where I think the representation the New York Times has here is actually a fair representation of, you know, a lot of what I heard, which is that in these kinds of conversations, Trump will do this kind of thing. He will go around the room and say, give me your pitch and listen to everybody's thoughts. And maybe he's got his mind

made up from the start. But he certainly exposes himself to this kind of, you know, dialogue and conversation. I think in public, when there's an audience and their eyes on him, he understands the power of having everybody be very submissive and, you know, sort of do the whole kind of North Korea dance, which we've gotten used to, to me is still totally insane every time I see it. But I think this is not, this part of him as a leader is not something I would characterize as some sort of flaw in his character. I think this is something that he's been known to do that he does. That is a thing that good leaders do.

I think it's unfortunate that nobody could convince him that this was a bad idea. and to Ari's point, maybe there was nobody in the room who was saying explicitly, this is a really bad idea. Of course, to go back to my theory, J.D. Vance just so happened to not be there for the meeting where everybody got the opportunity to say whether we should do it or not. He expresses displeasure, but they held this meeting and did the thing with the Israelis while Vance was on some foreign excursion or something.

So, you know, I don't know what to make of who was behind the leaks and maybe Camilla, you're right. It's everybody leaking. but it did seem like a really interesting behind the scenes look. It seemed believable to me. And I think it just shows that there are people in the administration who in their public-facing roles are obviously concealing their real true feelings about what's happening. I mean, Stephen Chung, the spokesperson for Trump,

who's notoriously combative with everybody, said, you know, how are they going to explain eight months of insisting the arresting the Iranian nuclear facilities had been totally obliterated. And now that we have to go into war with Iran, which of course is one of the central criticisms of so many journalists and people out there was like, we're doing this war after you just said. So they understood how hard of a cell this was going to be. But Trump made his mind up. So they had to kind of follow him on it, which that dynamic is a really tough part about working for the president, I think. Right. And that kind of directly undermines this whole thing of ask questions and get answers. It's like you also

have this undercurrent of, is the president going to keep you around if you're giving him the answers he doesn't like? He has a track record of not exactly being open and doing that. So you want to make sure the answer you're given is something that's like, okay, that's an interesting point, but also you're going to go along with what we want. So you're trying to in the room.

I'm just trying to think if I worked at an org, like if Isaac were a person who asked questions in editorial meetings and then remembered, if you said something that he disagreed with and then brought it up later as a bludgeon, that would make me less likely. to share my mind openly and probably push back forcefully when I have a disagreement that feels

forceful. And I mean, that's what I'm saying at the start is like small group dynamics or small group dynamics anywhere. And whatever Tony set up as a leader is going to prevail all of these kinds of interactions. Yeah, I will say that it does seem like in just one dimension of this we haven't talked about yet, reading the reporting, a lot of the conversation early on in the conflict is, well, we don't know what the administration knew at the time. Maybe they've got Intel that's telling them something really important.

about Iran perhaps being able to take a next step and maybe they've got new. I think even on the podcast, I asked whether or not they were getting a shipment of hypersonic missiles or something. I don't know exactly what was going on, but what seems clearer is they had intelligence that told them there was an opportunity to take out a huge contingent of the leadership. And that is exactly what happened in the opening salvo. And if that was all that pushed them to move right away, that suggests that regime change was the thing that they were really hoping for here, that this was Donald Trump kind of buying into the narrative

that was handed to him, that this was this, you know, with our intelligence, with precise strikes, with the degree to which we've kind of got ears all over the place in Iran, here's what could happen. And that could happen, did not materialize quickly. And it's not clear that they had a really great plan

for what to do beyond at some point, getting out of it as quickly as possible. So I think that having some clarity around that is actually useful. And it does, again, to the extent we're talking about just the judgment of the administration and deciding to do this at all. And perhaps, again, based on the reporting, the judgment of the president in particular, it just does not seem like in retrospect, like a choice that makes a great deal of sense. And even in the long run, again, maybe it turns out that the rebalancing,

of alliances and relationships and Iran being perhaps ostracized by its local community is profoundly valuable and maybe this is the last straw to make them sufficiently vulnerable that there is some sort of domestic uprising that takes them out.

Perhaps those things happen. But in the short run, it certainly seems like a situation where there could be a resolution that actually gives them despite not having the military infrastructure that they had before a lot more control than they had before.

Yeah, just to put a pin on that, I think every promise Netanyahu made, according to this New York Times story, failed to materialize. He said the ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a matter of weeks, that the regime could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz after the strikes were done,

that Iran would not attack U.S. interests in the region, that street protests would overthrow the regime with help from Israel. spies and that Kurdish troops would cross into the northwest of Iran if armed. And it seems like none of those things happen. So, you know, this is the kind of stuff. I think that the isolationists will latch on to is there's always these grand promises of how clean and decisive conflicts like this are going to be. And then the real thing happens and it never looks that way, which is, you know, the cost of this sort of thing.

Of course, Trump did the Venezuela thing, which kind of went perfectly in a lot of ways. And, you know, I think that created a mindset that maybe we could replicate this across the globe, which I didn't think was going to happen, and I think clearly is something that's really difficult. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right.

There is some good news. in the world these days, fellows. We've been talking about this war so much, so much. And I thought it was be important today to maybe spend a little time with some cheerfulness. So I want to talk about the Artemis Space Mission, which is an American story, for the most part. It is one Canadian up there.

Yeah, one Canadian out there. But it is an American story. That's good. So it's good you guys know that for what I'm about to do. So I wanted to introduce a, a segment today Isaac quizzes the boys I'm going to ask you guys some questions

about the Artemis 2 mission and see who knows their space stuff both you guys are weirdly interested in this so maybe my questions will be too basic and too easy I guess we'll find out John play some custom quiz music let's get the party started

all right let's start here very simple what makes the Artemis 2 mission historically significant? You both know this. I'm sure. Yeah, we're pausing out of politeness because we know the other.

It's the farthest that humanity has traveled from Earth. All right, quick follow up on that. Do either of you know the date off the top of your head that the mission launched? Camillo, do you have that? Is it the fourth? I don't know the date. Fourth?

Yeah. Sounds right, but I don't know the date right off the hand. April 1st. They were scrored with all the mainland propaganda, you know, the fake moon landing people out there. Is that true? Is that intentional? Is that the reason? No, I'm just kidding.

No. There's so many things. No, there's so many things that have to line up for those launch days. Yeah. Yeah. You got to have the weather. Maybe we'll do this. They're quirky.

Maybe we'll do this. I'm going to ask a question. And if you think you know the answer, Jeopardy style, you raise your hand. And then I'll call on whoever's hand goes up first. and see if you can actually deliver the real answer. We'll do that. Okay. All right.

Question number two. I've got five to six of these. Okay. Can you name or partially name the four crew members of the Artemis II mission? No. Maybe one of them's name is Glover. I'm pretty sure. That's good.

Maybe combined you guys. Do you have a single name out there, Camille? No. No, not rattling around in my head. No. Commander Reed, We should say their names. Commander Reid Weissman.

My name, too. I should know that. Pilot Victor Glover. Mission specialist Christina Koch. Koch. I think she's related to the... Is she related? To the Coke brothers?

I don't know. The Koch family? She's pretty well-known. I mean, she spent a tremendous amount of time up on the space station as well. Okay. All from NASA plus mission specialist, Jeremy Henson. who's the one Kinnock up there, respect to him. All right, question number three.

Artemis II broke a longstanding distance record. How far did they travel? 285,000 miles, something like that? 280. Sorry, hand up. Didn't raise your hand and also wrong. Camille. Well, I know the average distance from Earth to the Moon is about a quarter of a million miles.

So that is what I know, but I don't know how much further. this traveled. All right. The correct answer is 452,756 miles from Earth. More than 4,000 miles further than any humans had previously traveled. That's according to CNN that I could find.

Okay. Wow. You think that's wrong? I'll accept it. No, I don't. I know the moon phases are like the moon works differently in three-dimensional space than we can imagine when we think about it.

But also, we tend to launch that we tend to launch when it's a little closer. So I'm not sure that they would do it just for the benefit of the additional distance. So I'm a little skeptical, but I'm just going to leave that. We would launch when we're closer, but I think, you know, at one point in the mission, they would be far away as the means like what they're going on to its maximum distance. I don't know. A 400?

I'm going to fact check this. I don't disbelieve you, but I'm just going to trust but verify. It does look like this was a suspected distance, not what they actually executed. so maybe it was wrong. The Artemis 2 mission set a new human spaceflight record by reaching a maximum distance of approximately 252,000 miles, 406,000 kilometers. Oh, there we go.

Yeah, we're using those fake miles. Yeah. Freedom Unix. I still overestimated. See, quarter of a minute. I'll be impressed if either of you can explain this or get this one right. Don't forget to raise your hand

if you think you know. What is a free return trajectory and why does it matter for Artemis 2? Ari's hand is up. One where they aren't using any propulsion. It's just based on the gravity from orbiting around the moon and exing to orbit and returning to Earth.

And it matters. Slinghotting, Ari. Yeah. Okay, it's called free return. We just got the term. I don't know why it would particularly matter to the onomous mission compared to any other.

both of you contributed really well to that answer. I am impressed. It is essentially a gravitational slingshot because of orbital dynamics and the moon's gravity. Even if Oriented never fired its engine again, the capsule would have swung around the moon and headed back to Earth on its own. It's a crucial safety feature.

That's why it matters to Artemis, too. They didn't say anything about whether it was particularly novel. My understanding is that the commander of that mission who's piloting the vessel, like has to do a particularly good job to make certain that they've got it on the right angle so they don't have to fire the rockets to kind of reposition. So if he's doing everything exactly right and they get that slingshot, you don't even have to fire the retro rockets to reposition. You just coast on home, like, then that's, you know, kind of job well done. Have either of you seen Project Hail Mary yet? Yes. No.

Or read the book? Yeah. I've seen it. I've not read the book. Well, it's a really good representation of the book. They did the book almost exactly, which is very rare in sci-fi. I was super impressed. But, yeah, this reminded me there was- More common in sci-fi than any other genre, to be honest. I think they missed them on a lot. But maybe that's a separate podcast that we have that discussion.

All right, yeah, I won't go down there. I'm going to resist there. Just go down the rabbit hole. It's a great movie, though. It's worth your time. It's a great movie. I highly recommend, yeah. Question number five, what did the crew spot that no human had

ever seen before during a lunar flyby. An eclipse. That actually sounds right to me, but it's not the answer that I have here. Oh, I'll pose a possible answer. No, I think. Yeah, go ahead. No, what were you going to say? This says, I pulled a lot of these from the CNN. Oh, wait, I get to answer. Okay, I'll answer. The Oriental crater splitting the distance between.

That's right. Yeah. During their closest approach to the moon, the astronauts became the first humans to see the Oriental Basin, a massive impact crater on the lunar's far side that's never been visible from Earth, which is pretty cool. Though, Camille, I think that answer also, I don't know what would happen in Jeopardy, because they must have also been the first ones to experience an eclipse, right? Maybe they were only the first ones to photograph it. I don't know. And maybe it doesn't technically count if you witness it.

He stayed on board one of the Apollo missions who would have witnessed an eclipse having passed around the moon at one point during the orbit while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the moon. I think that's part of what... Michael Collins? Sorry? Michael Collins was up in the ship

when they were on the moon. Yeah, I don't know. I don't remember. All right. Last question. This is a good one. And this is one of the ones where I'm certain that neither of you know the answer, but it will be fun to hear you guess. Okay. There, there is. is the space launch system rocket that is, you know, the liftoff that sends Dardomus, you know, proposes it into the sky.

How much do you think that rocket weighs? Oh, man. When it's filled with fuel at the moment, it's taking off. This is from NASA, and this blew my mind, so I had to put it on here. I know that, like, the amount of fuel that they have. is mind-blowing and more, I think, many times than the actual, the weight of the rocket when it's empty. But I will struggle. Do you want to try to embarrass yourself? Yeah, I mean, I can't even guess. I don't even, I have no idea. That's not the sort of number

that sticks in my head. 10,000 tons. So that's 200,000 pounds, right? Yeah. The twin solid rocket boosters ignited first, delivering more than 75% of the thrust needed to lift the 5.75 million pound rocket off the path. Wow. That absolutely blew my mind. Wow. I didn't even know there was a man-made thing that existed that weighed more than like 100,000 pounds.

And this is a rocket that weighed 5.75 million pounds. And it's nearly all fuel pretty much. Yeah. And I lift off the twin solid rocket boosters and four RS 25 engines together had to generate 8.8 million pounds of force to get it off the ground to start. This is the coolest stuff ever, man. We should have a whole podcast about it. I didn't, you know, sometimes this like this kind of stuff doesn't really get my job. juice is flowing, but this particular thing, I'm like, this is, this is pretty, you guys geek out

about this kind of stuff, but I've been totally, I'm a newcomer to the, to the genre, and I was just reading about, I mean, a part of me is, there's the cynical part of me, it's like, we went to the moon 50 years ago, why didn't it take it so long ago back? And like, they're not even going to walk on it, like, what, you know? But then I read about this kind of stuff, and I'm like, wow, this is mind-blown. I mean, that statistic alone, like, we built something that could lift 5.75 billion pounds off the ground. Humans are badass, man. This is why we're the apex predators and we rule the world. It's great when we use this to go to the moon and not destroy each other in wars.

I prefer it much this way. Any other- Rule the moon as well. Any other faves from the Artemis II story you guys would like to share? I would have gotten zero of those questions right, by the way. So I'm impressed by the ones you guys did get. I think. Yeah, go ahead.

No, go for it. No, I was just going to say that going back to a couple years ago when we experienced the total eclipse that passed through a lot of the United States, that one of the facts that that eclipse proves that it's empirical, observable fact, that still blows my mind. I think about this weekly is that the Earth is the moon is the same size in the scale. guy as the sun, even though one is 250,000 miles away and the other's 93 million miles away and massively different sizes, they appear as the same size. And I don't know. It makes you think.

It makes you think. Does it? Yeah. That's a heck of a coincidence. But there's a heck of a coincidence. Yeah, plenty of those strange coincidences about being here. I mean, honestly, for me, it's the photos. I mean, certainly the personal stories and the bravery. And I would even say, a heroism of the people who do this kind of work is extraordinary to think about. They are effectively in a closet with a bathroom, like hurtling through space, further away from Earth than any human imaginable. Any human has really ever been. And, you know, they leave their families behind. We haven't lost anyone in space just yet, which makes all of the work that's being done up there, like all the more remarkable and extraordinary.

And I think it's interesting and sad on one level, but also it makes what's happening now even more incredible. The fact that it's taken us 50 years to get back again, that it is such an extraordinary and difficult endeavor. I mean, dark ages do occur. And the fact that we went before and walked on the moon and are now like marshalling the resources to do it again and doing it in ways that are more sophisticated than we did before.

It's not like we've made zero. progress in that time, certainly the work that Blue Origin and SpaceX have done in terms of these reusable ships, it's just extraordinary. But it is the photos for me, like just those images of Earth from the moon, cast in darkness, the dark side of the moon, since the moon is tidily locked to us, so we only ever see the one side of it. It is impossible to see those things and not be reminded of just how strange and miraculous and wonderful it is to be here on the three. It is to be here on planet Earth for even a little bit. And I do think it infects

a lot of people, not enough people, perhaps not even most people, but a lot of people with the same sort of, yeah, like we are pretty great. It is pretty extraordinary that we've gone from like cave paintings to this. Like, that's cool. And in the grand scheme, Earth is pretty special.

And, you know, how lucky are we to have a moon? The moon's so cool. We can very easily not have a moon, but it's there all the time. And you can see it. Yeah. I'll share my reflection on this, which R.E. prompted me to in our pre-production meeting, which is I, when I am, you know, laying on the ground, staring at the stars, looking at the moon,

and generally trying to take in the cosmos in space, I always have this one unbelievably, like, hard to shake overarching feeling, which is that it just feels like I'm wearing. the earth as a backpack and we're just like, oh my God, and I'm like walking through blackness and infinite galaxies, which it just trips me out every single time because if you like actually lie down and sit there long enough, you realize like, oh shit, we are floating and we're just like spinning through this whole thing. And I am being like totally thrown against the ground by the forces of that trajectory and travel, which, yeah, is kind of hard to really wrap your head around.

And then we build stuff that weighs... Yeah, promotes humility. Yeah, then we build stuff that weighs hundreds of millions of pounds and we managed to defeat that gravitational force, which is awesome. I will say, just as a point of note, I... For a moment, you know, I had that brief glimmer. I remember, I think it was probably 2018,

sometime early in Trump's first term. By the way, Trump is mostly responsible for Artemis. He was the one who launched this project. And I remember him bringing it up, and I had this sort of conspiratorial, like, voice in my head of like, why haven't we gone back to the moon? And was it real? Maybe the moon that you think guys are on to something.

And then I remember distinctly. And I looked it up again before the show today. I remember distinctly looking it up and reading a bunch of articles about how it's all... It's basically just all funding. And, you know, the reason we haven't been back is because we did it and we put somebody there and we were racing with Russia and China

and we won and there was kind of nothing else to do. But this stuck in my mind and I pulled it up for this, which is in today's U.S. dollars, sending somebody to go walk on the moon, would have cost $250 to $300 billion. That's how expensive Apollo was, and there were 400,000 people

who were accredited, you know, as being responsible for getting a man on the moon. So it's like to just have the guy go out there and do the moonwalk, it's kind of hard to justify a quarter trillion dollar investment when we've done it already once before, which is actually a pretty good answer for why we haven't been back.

But that number blew my mind. And I have no idea. how much this mission is costing or whatever, but I think it's worth it. It's a good thing that's been mostly a unifying experience, it seems like. All right, on that note, we might as well pivot into complaining about the really small things in our lives that are bothering us. A beautiful uplifting session.

We have to wash it out with some good old-fashioned whining. We're going to move on to our grievances section before we say bye to you guys. John, cue the music, my friend. The airing of grievances. Between you and me, I think your country is placing a lot of importance on shoe removal. All right, gentlemen, anybody want to take the lead this week and share what's been stuck in your craw? Hmm. I miss the moon.

The gibbis is waning. Come back full moon. I think for me, it's pretty simple one, just that like springtime in Vermont is easily the worst season in Vermont. my opinion, don't at me, but I'm right. It snowed yesterday, and we got like two and a half inches, which, like, that's tough. Springs, I don't have anything against snow in general. And last year when it snowed, it was enough that we could like, I got to do the very rare cross-country ski in T-shirt and shorts, which is fun.

But it's not enough to ski on. It's like slushy and bad, and most of it's gone. And I would rather just be out of this and into summer. But I know that we've got the dreaded week or two of mud season coming up. And it's just like, if you want to come visit Vermont, just wait a little bit. It's beautiful in the summer. It's beautiful in the winter. It's gorgeous in the fall.

And April here is like the time that I look out my window. It's beautiful right now. Like the sun's out and shining. But I'm like, man, this is a tough week to be up here. Just trudging through the snow when I'm looking at pictures from people from break. and the photos that I took when we're in Georgia two weeks ago, like, that was nice. Man, look at those beautiful trees that are blooming. And we'll get flowers here eventually.

I'm pretty sure. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, that's tough, man. I'm sorry to hear. For what it's worth, it's been, it's stayed cold in New Jersey. We have not really seen two consecutive warm days yet. What does cold mean for you right now in New Jersey? I mean, lows in the 30s at 19.

time to me, which I would like that to end. You know, high 40s, low 50s, just like chilly enough that it doesn't feel warm and nice and springy yet. I haven't planted anything in the garden. Let's put it that way. I don't trust that we're past the final freeze. So, yeah, I'm annoyed too. But snow, that sounds terrible.

I'm sorry to hear that. I love me some lows in the 30s. Tell you that. Oh. Yeah. See, I don't even really have a complaint. I actually have to make something up because I'm in one of my favorite places on earth. I'm in Sea Ranch, California.

I'm actually at Sea Ranch Lodge now. And I've been trying to persuade my wife for years now. And I think I'm actually making progress this trip. This is where we should live in maybe 15 odd years. When the kids are done with high school, they go off to college. Like, this is it. They just move out here. It's like two hours north of New York.

I'm not New York, San Francisco. I think it is very much in the running for most beautiful places on Earth. But one of the challenges with Sea Ranch is that there's just no parking anywhere at the places that actually give you access to the park. And it is because this place, it's actually part of what makes it so splendid, was very carefully planned and has a board that makes all of the decisions with respect to what you can do to your home aesthetically. They even have some weird policy by which if you're part. parking your car in front of your house, it has to be kind of shielded from view so that it doesn't screw up the aesthetics of the area, which all contributes to making this place in Northern California right on the coast, absolutely the most stunning, possible place that you can visit. But if you want to

drive up on the weekend, you better pray that you're the first person at the beach because there's like five parking spots to get access to the beach if you do not. fact, live here. I would drive up every week, if possible, because it is that amazing. And as soon as I get off with you guys, I'm going to go back down to the beach with my children and sit and watch them build sand castles. I suppose I could complain about the sand as well and that we don't have a better technology to get it off of you at the beach. But even that, even that, I'm willing to endure it. It's fine. I like that complaint, actually. We haven't solved sand yet. Sand's like sand's awesome when you're in it and terrible when you want to get it off you.

I feel it in my shoes right now, Isaac. Yeah. We haven't been in the good old beach shower with a little water nozzle that you spray on yourself. That works too. Yeah, but it never totally does the job. It doesn't. But it's kind of nice to live in a beach area and have sand. Yeah.

Like a little bit of sand around. I feel like that's like a little bit. But then you get in the bed at night and you're like, there's still a few kernels down there that I'm going to roll in now for the rest of the time. Always. Always. Yeah. But even that, I'm like, yeah, it was fun.

It was a great day. All right. Well, don't worry, guys. I'll carry your mediocre grievances with a good one of my own. I have a good one this week. I think. It's mostly because it's a solid story, which is I moved recently.

You guys know. So when I moved into this apartment that I was in in Philadelphia, my landlord told me that, I don't want to share too many details, but let's just say we were in an emergency situation. We had to get out of the place we were in, and they were in an emergency situation.

They had to get out of the place they were in. And we found each other via Zillow, and it was very serendipitous, and we were like, oh, my God, we both need to move, like, fast in the next two weeks. And we made it all happen. And part of the early craziness was, this guy and his wife were like,

and I don't think they listen to this show, I hope they don't. This guy and his wife were like, they were like, we need, we have all these plants in the house and we're moving out of the country and like if you guys can take them great, if not, my dad will come by

and we'll just like trash them or get rid of them or whatever. And I was like, no, no, I'm a huge plant guy. Like, we'd love them. Thank you. Like, you just saved us, you know, some trips to the home. Depot to decorate the house with some plants or whatever. So we lived there for a couple of years, take care of the plants. You know, it's like, the plants are solid. Like one really nice ivy and then

a couple just like average, you know, house plants. But I tended to them. I love them. And then we move from Philadelphia. We buy this house. We move. And we're out of the house for a few days. And then I get a text message from this guy and his wife like, hey, where are all of our plants? And I'm like, I took them. Like, we moved, you know? And they're like, they, those, those are our plants. Like, we want those back. And I was like, what? Like, you guys, you asked me to take care. You said you were leaving the country and you were going to throw them out. It's like this whole thing. Like I had these. And they're like, yeah, but we've left these plants with tenants in the past and we expected to come back and get them back from you. And I was like, wait, first of all, if you guys just pass these plants on from tenant to tenant, who are renting your house, like, they're not really your plants anymore. Second of all, like, that was not the circumstances of this arrangement. The circumstances of the arrangement were like, you had this emergency thing, we had this emergency thing, you were going to empty the whole apartment and throw them out, or we could take

them. We chose to take them. So I took them. And I was like, look, take your fucking plants. Like, I don't know, no beef. But like, this is not going to be an inconvenience for me. You guys can come get them because I think the miscommunication was. on your end. And of course, this is all very civil and we're all being very nice. The text messages

are like kind of awkward but not really like combative or aggressive. I'm being very polite. And then they, they said we're going to, all right, we're actually driving from Philadelphia to New York City. And the place that I moved to is between those two places. So they're like, we'll come to your house and we'll pick up the plants. And I was like, okay, this is extraordinarily weird, but that's fine. Like, well, I'll have the five plants ready for you, and you can come get them putting your car. And then the day that they're supposed to come get them,

like, they ask us the address, they give us an ETA, whatever, and then they text us a couple hours later, and they're like, hey, we're not going to be there. We're not going to make, we don't have enough time to make the trip so we can't pick them up. And so I text them back like, okay, hey, no problem. But, like, you're claiming these plants is yours, and we're moving and unpacking

and trying to settle in the house. so like, just let me know what you want me to do. And no response. I'm like, all right, I gave it like three or four days. I text them. Like, hey, I'm going to Philadelphia to record the podcast. My studio's still there. I can load the plants of my car and drop them with old tenants if you guys want.

No response. Like a week and a half goes by. I text them again, hey, let me know what you guys want to do. And now I've been in this house for over two weeks, and they have gone totally dark. And I am just living with and taking care of these plants that I'm yours. don't feel like belong to me anymore because of this weird. Yeah. So like how long, you know?

Like what's the threshold? How many messages do I have to send before I start hanging these? You know, one of the ivies came with like a chain and like a ceiling set. And I'm like, I want to hang this thing. I took such good care of it. It's grown like 10 feet. I'm ready to put it up. But they're like, these are our plants.

And yeah, so it's a very bizarre situation. And now my grievance is like, my house. is fully unpacked. My wife and I are basically totally settled in. We have like 10 pictures we have to find a spot for. And then on this beautiful bay window we have in our house, there's just six giant plants that don't belong to me that are just sitting there getting sunshine that I can't like strategically place or decorate in the house because my bizarre landlords claim that they belong to them. Former. Former landlord. Yeah. Yeah, former landlord. Did you get your deposit back already?

Very good question, Camille. Did I get my deposit back already? Actually, no. In fact, I accidentally didn't turn off auto pay on the thing. So I paid him an extra thing a month. And I also texted him about that. And he responded not in the message, the group chat with his wife, but separately.

And then has been sending me weirdly installments of the rent and not the full thing in full. So I'm getting repaid in kind of pieces. It's a weird deal. I don't know what's going on. That's interesting context. They have some leverage still, so you want to tread carefully

until you know your money back. But it sounds like if he's responding to you pretty quickly in one private message, but not in that group chat with his wife, it sounds like they have a disagreement and they're not like speaking. They're not on the same page about something. That's a good.

I like that read. Maybe she's like you screwed up the comms on this plan and I want the plants back. And he's like, just let them keep the plants. I don't care. Yeah. All right. Well, if I don't get a clear directive by May 1st, I'm, you know, that's like squatters rights on the plants.

They're mine. I think that's more than enough time. That's basically two months. And I'm moving on and carrying on as if the plants are mine. So I don't know. That's the situation I'm in. Taking all advice and I'll keep you guys posting on what I hear. But I'll only like one more offer to bring the plant.

somewhere and then I'm done. I think like absent the money thing, what I would probably have said was like, just send them one more thing that's like, hey, last time, like I just want to let you know of this and then otherwise I'm just going to keep them. Just like giving that shot.

I've been pretty decent, but I'm putting them up in a week. I mean, I'm hanging these plans up. I think just in terms of the storytelling there, Isaac, just A plus. So great. I was at the edge of my seat, waiting for something else. I am astonished to discover you haven't gotten all your money back yet.

Like that is actually the detail for me. Now you guys have gotten a tremendous. Yeah. Like that's crazy. But also, yeah, I'm so sorry that this is happening to you. And I mean it. That's craziness. Utter craziness. Maybe you shouldn't release this. Maybe they, maybe they shouldn't find out about this on the podcast. I hope they do. That'd be great. This is a bigger evidence for me than the mice that we've been catching in the house right now. So that's how much it's kind of reaching at my, pitching at me. Welcome to Homeownership, brother. Yeah. Gentlemen, thanks for sitting here and listen to my story.

Appreciate you guys being here. Artemis, too. We'll leave on those vibes. On the Artemis vibes. Appreciate you both. Camille, my friend, enjoy Sea Ranch. That's what it's called? Yes, yes. We have to get out here. It's not convenient, but it is amazing. I'm in. That video you sent looked like. something out of Dune. It was like insanely beautiful. AI generated. Totally fake. I'm ready. All right. I'll see you guys soon. Later. Peace.

Our executive editor and founder is me. Isaac Saul and our executive producer is John Wohl. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canaanth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com.