Tangle - The U.S. attacks Iran.

Episode Date: March 2, 2026

On Saturday morning, the United States and Israel carried out airstrikes against Iran, killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other leaders. President Donald Trump said the ongoing mission, called Operation Epic Fury, will target Iran’s nuclear facilities, military capabilities and regime leaders, adding that Iranian citizens should prepare to take over the government. The attack marks the Trump administration’s second operation against Iran, following airstrikes targeting the country’s nuclear facilities in June 2025. Upcoming livestream.At 8:00pm ET tonight, Executive Editor Isaac Saul is going live on YouTube with updates on the situation in Iran and to answer questions from the Tangle community about the conflict. You can submit your questions ahead of time here, or tune in to the livestream at 8:00pm and ask in the chat. Join us at 8:00pm here.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 read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think about going to war with Iran? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.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.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast. A place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. It is Monday, March 2nd. There's a lot going on, obviously. We have begun a war in Iran. I think some people are calling it an operation. I don't think that's fair. I don't think this is a strike. I think we are in this probably for a few weeks

based on what the president's saying. Maybe it'll end up being shorter. I don't know. But U.S. service members are dying. Iranians are dying. People in Israel, Iran, UAE, Kuwait, they're dying. There's a regional war breaking out that we, along with Israel, started in many respects. I mean, this is a war of aggression. Preemptive aggression, maybe,

but a war of aggression. So we're going to talk about what's going on there. Tonight, at 8 p.m. Eastern, I'm going to host a YouTube live stream to just chat about this situation. We've been getting inundated with questions from audience members. I figure this would be a fun way to answer them during a moment where things are not fun. So I'm going to come back down to the office I'm going to turn the camera on and probably pour myself a tall glass of bourbon and chat with you guys

and we might try and bring a guest or two on we're trying to work on that now just to spice things up a little bit but mostly it's an opportunity for us to spend some time together and experiment a bit with the YouTube platform so I'm looking forward to that. Also I want to give you a heads up

I'm hoping at some point in the future, near future to do a YouTube video about this or to do a podcast about it. I might do more than one is about what's happening in the Big Ben region of West Texas, where President Donald Trump has resurrected his plans for a border wall. I wrote a piece about this that came out. It's up on our website. We just linked out to it in the Sunday edition of our newsletter. Again, I might try and do a podcast version of it so you guys can hear it. But for now, we'll drop it in the episode description a link to it. I encourage you guys to go read it. It's really, really personal. It's a story very close to my heart.

I obviously, I think, am a pretty fair analyst on Trump's immigration policies. Many people get upset with me for complimenting them at various times. Many people get upset with me for criticizing them at various times. I really do feel like I strike on that issue in particular. I am like pretty middle of the road. This border wall in the Big Ben region is a terrible idea. It's not just a bad idea because I live there sometimes and because the wall is going to dramatically impact my family and the property that I own. It's a bad idea for all kinds of other reasons. Walls are bad idea all along the border,

which I've long been an advocate for. I wrote about this when Biden was building border wall and Arizona and other parts of Texas in 2023. I've always been opposed to a border wall because there's better options than a border wall. But in this region in particular, where I have a home and where I've been going for 20 years, it is an incredibly dumb idea

because there's very few border crossings there. Extremely, extremely low border crossings because there's a beautiful Big Ben region of West Texas with national and state parks that's home to hundreds of thousands of, tourists every year that generates tens and millions of dollars of revenue for the local economy every year. All of that's going to be destroyed if the border wall happens. Trump will effectively be handing Mexico, the Rio Grande River, literally fencing Americans off from the most important

natural resource in West Texas and handing it over to Mexico. Very, very bad idea. I'm writing about why, and I think a really thorough fashion in this article on our website in the episode description, encourage you to go read it. Probably going to do a podcast. and maybe a YouTube video or two about it as well because it's an issue I know really well and I want to stay on top of it. So keep your eyes out for that. All right, that is a very lengthy introduction for today's show.

I'm going to hand it over to John for today's main topic and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. Hope y'all had a wonderful weekend. We've got a lot to get into today, so I'm going to jump right into it with today's quick hits. First up, a gunman killed two people and wounded 14 others at a bar in Austin, Texas.

The suspect was shot and killed by police, and he was identified as a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Senegal. He was reportedly wearing clothes with an Iranian flag design and a sweatshirt that read Property of Allah during the shooting. Number two, Artificial Intelligence Company OpenAI announced a deal to allow the Pentagon to use its AI models with restrictions on domestic mass surveillance and full autonomous weapons. The announcement followed President Trump's Friday directive to federal agencies to immediately cease use. using AI company Anthropics products after the company refused to accept the Pentagon's terms for use of its models. Number three, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a case centering on if and when illegal drug users may possess firearms.

Number four, a top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in recent trilateral talks, Russia agreed to accept U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a peace deal to end the war. And number five, the Department of Justice charged 30 people in case. connection with a protest against immigration and customs enforcement at a Minnesota church in January. Nine others, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon, were previously charged. A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime,

a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. It's menacing activities directly in danger. The United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world. On Saturday morning, the United States and Israel carried out air strikes against Iran, killing Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini and other leaders. President Donald Trump said the ongoing mission called Operation Epic Fury will target Iran's nuclear facilities military capabilities and regime leaders, adding that Iranian citizens should prepare to take over the government.

The attack marks the Trump administration's second operation against Iran, following airstrikes targeting the country's nuclear facilities in June 2025. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have been arising in recent months. In December 2025, protests broke out across Iran in response to declining economic conditions in the country, leading to a violent crackdown by the Iranian regime. President Trump vowed to aid protesters but held off on military action. In the week since, U.S. and Iranian negotiators have met for several discussions regarding Iran's nuclear program but failed to reach any agreements. During that time, the U.S. built up a significant military presence in the Middle East in anticipation of an attack.

In a statement on Saturday, President Trump said, for 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted death to America and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops, and the innocent people in many, many countries. The United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. The Israeli military said it struck approximately 500 targets in Iran as of Saturday evening, with many targeting missile launchers and aerial defense systems. In a national address, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, together with the United States, we will strike hard at the terror regime and create conditions that

will allow the brave Iranian people to cast off the yoke of this murderous regime. On Sunday, the U.S. military said three service members were killed and five seriously wounded in an Iranian attack at a base in Kuwait, the first deaths of U.S. troops in the conflict. On Monday, U.S. Central Command said that one of the wounded service members had passed away, bringing the death total to four. Separately, Iranian strikes have killed at least nine people in Israel. Iran also carried out strikes in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman, killing at least four people and injuring over 100 more. The strikes targeted U.S. military bases in the Persian Gulf countries. Those civilian structures were also hit. The foreign ministers

of those countries met virtually on Sunday to coordinate a response to the strikes. Meanwhile, Iranian state television said that over 200 people had been killed and approximately 750 injured in U.S. and Israeli assaults. Ayatollah Khomeini's death prompted celebrations and public mourning in Iranian cities. Hamini had served as supreme leader since 1989 and positioned the country as an adversary to the United States and Israel while trying to establish Iran as a nuclear power. On Sunday, the regime named Ayatollah Alirsa-Arafi in its interim leadership council,

which will lead the country until a permanent leader is chosen. The council also includes Iran's president and head of judiciary. In the U.S., many Republican law make sense. praised President Trump's decision to launch strikes, while a smaller number of Republicans and most Democrats suggested that the president should not have attacked without congressional authorization.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats will attempt to force a vote on a war power's resolution, authored by representatives Thomas Massey and Rokana to limit Trump's ability to carry out further military action. Today, we'll share views from the right, left, and writers in the Middle East on the strikes, and then Isaac's take.

We'll be right back after. this quick break. All right. First let's start with what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the strikes, but many support Trump's decision to attack. Some questioned the rationale for launching a war. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote, Trump enforces his red line on Iran. The U.S. Israeli attack on Iran that began Saturday morning is a necessary active deterrence

against a regime that is the world's foremost promoter of terrorism. It carries risks, as all wars do, but it also has the potential to reshape. the Middle East for the better and lead to a safer world, the board said. Mr. Trump is enforcing the red lines he drew when the regime slaughtered its people as they protested in January. He said that he'd come to their aid, and now he has. He also gave Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Hamini, ample chance to strike a deal on nuclear weapons and its missile force, but the Ayatollah refused and he was killed in the attack. Mr. Trump has unduly criticized his predecessors for forever wars in the Middle East, but he understands, determined.

In Yemen, Iran in June, Venezuela, and now Iran again, he has taken action against manifest threats in his second term that Barack Obama and Joe Biden refused to take, the board wrote. The larger gamble is regime change, and no one knows if this will happen. Air campaigns alone rarely topple a dictatorship. But if the U.S. and Israel take long enough to kill enough regime leaders, besiege militia and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the chance for an internal coup or popular revolt might open up. In the Federalist, John Daniel Davidson said,

the administration's justifications for action against Iran keeps shifting. If we totally obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities just eight months ago, then why are we about to go to war with Iran? After all, the justification for U.S. strikes on Iran has always been that we cannot allow the regime in Tehran to obtain a nuclear weapon, but we were assured over and over for months that Iran's nuclear program had been totally destroyed, Davidson wrote. During his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, President Trump accused Iran of restarting its nuclear program

and working to build missiles that would soon be able to reach the United States. Really? How is that possible if we utterly destroyed their nuclear program in June of last year? What we're getting from Trump is inconsistent. Last month, when Iran was killing protesters, Trump threatened military action against Tehran, suggesting that targeting protesters was a red line. But today, the issue seems to be Iran's supposedly obliterate. nuclear program, which is inexplicably once again a major threat to American interests, Davidson said. At a certain point, it begins to look like the Trump administration is fishing for a reason to strike Iran. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what

the left is saying. Many on the left say Trump's rationale for war is lacking. Others criticized the decision as short-sighted and baseless. In the Wall Street Journal, Senator Tim Kane, the Democrat from Virginia, criticized the strikes as unwise and unconstitutional. There was no imminent threat from Iran to America sufficient to warrant committing our sons and daughters to another war in the Middle East, especially without the congressional debate and vote that the Constitution requires. The American people don't want to be dragged into another forever war under false pretenses, Kane said. The U.S. and Iran have both constructed narratives whereby the other is the aggressor in this long-standing conflict. More war isn't the answer.

If it were, the past 70 years would have produced a better outcome. than what we see today. Mr. Trump suggests that the war is to aid Iranian protesters. This claim is hard to accept from a president who, at the same time, is deporting refugees back to Iran, where they are likely to suffer the persecution he pretends to care about. Mr. Trump suggests the war is about regime change, but he promised to avoid wars for that reason, given the history of U.S. disasters in attempting regime change in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, Cain, wrote. Finally, he suggests that Iran faces war because it interfered in the 2020 presidential election,

which he still can't admit he lost. Is this a reason to force our sons and daughters into war? In Jacobin, Branco-Marcetti called Trump the warmonger in chief. Of all the dumb, pointless wars the United States has waged in the Middle East, the one it launched today against Iran may go down as the dumbest and most pointless. This is a war that didn't need to have. happen. Even the man waging it doesn't seem to know why he launched it, Marquette wrote. mere hours before Trump launched it, the foreign minister of Oman, revealed the enormous concessions

the Iranians had made in negotiations, not just agreeing to not stockpile uranium, making it impossible to build bomb, but diluting the uranium it currently holds and agreeing to full verification by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Didn't matter. Trump spent the last week lying that the Iranians were refusing to make that promise, and in one of his his last public statements before launching the war, lamented how they had supposedly failed to move far enough in negotiations. Trump had a deal if he wanted it, and when he could have spent the rest of his life bragging was better than Obama's. But he didn't want it, Mark Hedek said. So whose interest does this serve? The obvious answer is a war-hungry Israeli leadership increasingly under the

sway of a deranged neo-biblical fantasy of using the United States to burn the Middle East to the ground and annex whatever's left. All right, that is it for what the right and the left are saying, which brings us to what writers in the Middle East are saying. Some Middle Eastern writers suggest Khomeini's killing could galvanize an anti-Western movement within Iran. Others criticize Iran's decision to strike within Gulf countries. In Al Jazeera, Mohamed Reza Farzanagan wrote about Iran after Ayatollah Ali Hamini. The regime in Iran is different in many ways from the ones that collapsed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The assassination of leader Ayatollah Khomeini may have

a profound impact that does not result in state collapse, Farzanigan said. Within the symbolic universe of Shia Islam, to which the majority of Iranians belong, Hamini's death can be interpreted as the fulfillment of a martyrological script. Death at the hands of perceived enemies of Islam can be framed as redemptive passage rather than defeat. It is not a bitter collapse, as is the case with other Middle Eastern rulers who were once ousted or killed. It is instead an idealized closure, the sacralization of police. political life through sacrificial death. This martyrological framing has the potential to rally a significant portion of the population,

including those who were previously critical of the leadership, around a narrative of national defense, Farzanigan wrote. By transforming a fallen leader into a martyr of foreign aggression, the state can trigger a surge of nationalist cohesion and deep-seated resentment towards external intervention, potentially unifying the security forces and traditionalist sectors of society in a way the proponents of regime change did not anticipate. In Arab news, Faisal J. Abbas explored how Tehran lost the Gulf.

Iran has unfortunately lost any sympathy or solidarity it could have garnered through its indiscriminate response to the weekend's attacks carried out by Israel and the U.S., Abbas said. Even Tehran's closest regional friends, the Omanis, who until a few days ago were negotiating on its behalf and trying to spare a fatal blow, were attacked by Iran. Needless to say, Oman does not have a U.S. military base. This is a serious escalation that undermines the role of mediators worldwide. It is a shame that it had to come to this, after we all believed that the kingdom and Iran could have worked together to stabilize the region of Osrad.

This indiscriminate Iranian aggression against Gulf countries is a major own goal, resulting only in the increased isolation of Tehran at a critical moment. Tehran's escalation does nothing but confirm the fears of those that see Iran as the main source of danger to the region and its missile program as a permanent symbol of instability. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for the left and the right and some writers from the Middle East are saying, which brings us to my take. Talking about war is easy when it's hypothetical, but it is a lot harder when the real thing

arrives. For weeks, the Trump administration has been sending significant military resources to the Middle East. Speculation about the president's plans run rampant. But as with Trump's build-up outside Venezuela, the outcome was the obvious option. In an eight-minute video addressed to the nation, President Trump justified the decision to dive headfirst into this conflict by declaring that Iran could not be allowed to build a nuclear weapon. This raised the eyebrows of anyone paying attention over the last eight months.

In June, the president said the United States utterly destroyed their nuclear capability. The White House website still has a paper. Hague declaring that Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated and suggestions otherwise are fake news. Trump has repeated this claim a half dozen times in recent months. So why are we going to war to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb they supposedly cannot build? Trump also warned Americans in his address that troops may die. Tragically, that prediction did not take long to come to fruition. So far, four American troops are confirmed dead, and Trump is warning that more strikes are coming and that more troops may die.

The United States is not the only place facing casualties. In Israel, at least nine people have been confirmed killed. Four more people were killed across the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman. And in Iran, hundreds have been confirmed dead, including at least 153 who died from a strike near a naval base that hit an elementary school, according to Iranian state media. The cost of war is already adding up in other ways, too. shipping in and out of the Persian Gulf has shut down. The Red Sea routes are being disrupted. In Dubai, the business capital of the Middle East buildings have been struck by the Iranian response,

and airports are overcrowded as people try to evacuate. U.S. bases in Iran and Iraq have both been hit, and a U.S. consulate in Pakistan was stormed by protesters. At least 22 people were killed. Hezbollah has announced it was joining the fight for Iran and began firing missiles into Haifa Israel from Lebanon and then said 31 people were killed by Israeli strikes south of Beirut. Rockets are breaking through air defense systems in Tel Aviv and landing perilously close to the old city in Jerusalem. A friendly fire incident in Kuwait brought down three U.S. F-15 fighter jets, though the airmen survived.

In short, the out-of-control regional war many of us feared last summer when Trump struck Iran's nuclear facilities appears to have arrived in earnest. For how long will the president tolerate all this? Major military actions during this administration have conspicuously fallen on days when the markets were closed. These strikes began on a Saturday. The capture of Maduro happened on a Saturday. The June strikes in Iran happened on a Saturday, and the strikes in Nigeria happened on Christmas. Trump is notoriously reactive to market movements and the price of crude oil rose 7% on Sunday. Will market pressure, combined with the deaths of American troops and the potential for more move him to de-escalate? What if the markets stumble, or if U.S. forces are hit by a particularly deadly attack?

Among conservatives, a philosophical war bubbled to the surface again this weekend. The divide touches all corners of the conservative movement. On one side are those cheering Trump on. Stallwork right-wing publications like National Review and the Wall Street Journal are cautiously making the case that the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamane is a major victory for the West and celebrating Trump's gumption to do the brave and difficult thing. Other, less reasonable people like Mark Levin are urging no off-ramps and calling for Trump to destroy the subhuman barbarians in Iran.

On the other side is an anti-war isolationist wing who feels betrayed. It consists of mainstream conservatives from center-right moderates like Saga and Jetti, who called this the most profound campaign betrayal in modern United States history, to more MAGA right-wing voices like Tucker Carlson, who have been warning about this conflict for months. Less credible, but still influential, figures like Nick Fuentes are now urging people to vote for Democrats in the midterms. Democrats, obviously, are criticizing Trump, but their reasons for doing so seem to differ.

Some attack him for not seeking congressional authority, but avoid criticizing the effort to take out Iran's regime. Others view the whole thing as a major mishap, both the what and the how. Since protests broke out in December, there has been a robust debate that we participated in about whether or not we should or would strike Iran. But that debate, is now in the past. We did it. So now what? Of course, I'm happy to see Ayatollah Ali Khomeini go. Iran's regime is despotic and oppressive, and I support efforts to free the Iranian people. But that thought leaves out a lot of detail. The U.S.-Israel military alliance will at some point overwhelm and overpower Iran, and I'm once again shocked and morbidly impressed by the capabilities

of the U.S. and Israeli militaries. We will win, quote-unquote, obviously. But this is all the easy stuff to say. It's easy to say, I'm glad the Ayatollah is dead. It's easy to say at some point we'll win this war. It's dunking on a toddler. It's close to meaningless. The harder and more important question is,

what happens now? What will the war costs and what will rise in the vacuum? A debate about congressional war powers feels archaic, if not borderline parity at this point. Congress has surrendered those. powers the executive branch over and over for years on end, showing no interest in reclaiming them. The Middle East has already been thrown into turmoil from Iraq, Kuwait, and Bahrain to Israel, the UAE, and even Oman. Hundreds of thousands of armed personnel operate in Iran and soon may be

untethered from any central command structure. Pro-democracy and pro-Islamist camps, each divided among themselves and their own rights will be fighting it out in the streets. In the West, we imagine every single living Iranian hating this regime, but that's a delusion Many celebrated the death of the Ayatollah, yes, but thousands poured into the streets to mourn Chaminé's death. All of this is ripe for long-term sectarian violence in Iran and long-term destabilization in the region. Like Senator Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia, under what the left is saying, I have a hard time stepping back and looking at the history of U.S.-Iran relations and imagining that this action will somehow bring peace. For decades, we've been attacking

each other in sporadic proxy wars, each framing the other as the aggressor, each setting off a new round of violence. The Trump administration says it wants to bring about a new regime, but who, when, how? They don't seem to know. Trump seems to be stress testing arguments, giving different explanations to different news organizations about what will happen next. He told the Washington Post, we were aiming for freedom for the people of Iran. Axios was told the war could end in two or three days. The New York Times was told four to five weeks with three very good choices who may take control. That was on Sunday. This morning, I started my day reading a stunning interview with ABC's John Carl, where Trump conceded that all three of the people he thought might succeed, Chalmane,

had actually been killed in the initial strike. Meanwhile, U.S. air defense stockpiles are being stressed to defend against the barrage of cheap drones Iran is firing across the region, just as joint chiefs chairman, General Dan Cain, warned the White House last week. Iran seems to have miscalculated by attacking other Arab nations in the region, hoping that would inflict a cost that would stop the United States-Israeli barrage, but is instead turning their neighbors against them. After cutting funding for Voice of America, the U.S. is now having a harder time reaching the Iranian people with the messages they want to disseminate. And everyone who warned that killing the Iran nuclear deal would inevitably lead to war feels vindicated right now.

In April of last year, I said I was getting nervous about a war with Iran. In June, I said I was not optimistic but hopeful for peace in the region after the joint U.S. Israel strikes. In January, I expressed outright concern and predicted Trump would attack Iran, and in February, senior editor Will Keback began sharing that concern with me. It's surreal to actually be here now with all-out fighting dead U.S. soldiers and an entire region in turmoil. One would hope we have a plan, an off-ramp, a future for Iran, a way out. But the honest truth is that it's not clear at all to me that we do. Now we wait and pray for the best. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take. We're skipping today's reader question because

there's a lot going on in the world and a lot of stuff to cover. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the radar story for today, folks. On Friday, a federal emergency management agency spokesperson said that the agency dispersed roughly half of its disaster relief fund, $5 billion over the past week, warning of dire consequences if the Department of Homeland Security shutdown continues. While DHS Secretary Kristy Knoem previously said that FEMA would scale back to only bare minimum life-saving operations during the shutdown, FEMA is an agency within DHS. The funds sent out last week went toward a range of recovery projects, some for disasters

that occurred over 15 years ago. Some Democrats have proposed funding FEMA and other non-immigration agencies within DHS amid the shutdown, but those negotiations have so far stalled. Politico has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. As part of Florida's celebration of the 250th anniversary of the U.S., the state is erecting statues of the founding fathers and other prominent figures in American history. On February 25th, Governor Ron DeSantis unveiled a statue and plaque in St. Augustine's Plaza de Constitussion, commemorating a speech prominent abolitionist Frederick Douglass gave in 1889. At the ceremony, DeSantis said, his speech here was very impactful

on the community at the time, and obviously he was fighting for liberty. He was fighting for the principles that were celebrating on July 4th, 250 years later. News 4th has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership they get you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all.

Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Keeback and associate editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canuth, 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.