The Bulwark Podcast - Jeffrey Goldberg and Joe Weisenthal: Pandora's Box Has Been Opened

Episode Date: March 24, 2026

A war of choice may evolve into a war of necessity because the brains at the White House apparently did not anticipate that Iran—in response to the bombing campaign—would shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which the global economy depends on being open. It's also not a good look for the U.S. to be got by a power like Iran because China is watching. Plus, how the war is impacting the supply chain, the markets may be underpricing oil because traders keep banking on Trump to do his usual TACO, and Israel acting like an illiberal Middle Eastern regime is creating a disconnect with American Jews.The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg and Bloomberg’s Joe Weisenthal join Tim Miller.show notes Where to catch Tim's Tuesday livestream at 8:30pm ET  Jeffrey on Signalgate and Hegseth one year later  The Atlantic's McKay Coppins on America's sports betting boom Joe's "Odd Lots" podcast Go to https://zbiotics.com/THEBULWARK and use THEBULWARK at checkout for 15% off any first time orders of ZBiotics probiotics. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/BULWARK and use promo code BULWARK at checkout.

Welcome to the Bullwark podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. We got a double header today, a double header tomorrow. A great guest Thursday. We said too many good guests. Okay. So we're just giving you just a bounty of content on the podcast this week. In addition to that tonight, Tuesday night on YouTube, I'll be live streaming and taking your questions around 8.30 Easter time. So go on to the Bullwark YouTube feed. In segment two, we got my man Joe Wisenthall, the stalwart, who, uh, is going to talk about the economics of the Iran War. But up first, he's the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic. You might have heard of that magazine. We have guests from there from time to time.

And he's moderator of Washington Week with the Atlantic. It's Jeffrey Goldberg. How you doing, Jeff? I'm good. How are you? I'm doing pretty well. What are you wearing? What does that say?

It says broadcast love. It's a patch at a woman, at a hippie woman at the Venice market. You know, what are the labs call this stuff? where you have, you know, farmers market. Yeah, the farmers market. Which one? The one in Venice, California.

Oh, Venice. I think she came out. In Washington. That's another good one. She came up to me and said that she had all her family used to be Republicans. She can't talk to them anymore. And I'm her only lifeline. And she wants to give me gifts.

And so she made me a patch and a little piece of art. And it was very nice. It was very sweet moment. We had embraced. Are you a Republican? I'm not. No, I haven't been since, what, 2020? I can't remember.

Yeah. What are you now? I mean, I am a podcaster now. I'm a content creator. Is that a party? Oh, is that a party? Well, kind of. I mean, we're growing. I mean, it is a party. We're growing in numbers. I mean, functionally a Democrat. I voted for one Republican since 2016. And it was a guy. What do you believe in? Like, are you a conservative Democrat?

I love having Jeffrey Goldberg on the show because it's like, immediately I get to be in the guest seat, which is way more fun than asking. What do you, yeah, but what do you believe in? Do you still have conservative ideals? You know, I talked about this at great length for like probably over an hour on an Atlantic sponsored podcast, the David from show. I missed that. I missed that. And he asked me about this just like a week ago. No, so it's fine. So if you want the long story, it's that. I listen to all our podcasts, Atlantic staff. I just sometimes it's, they stack up. Okay. Well, good. When you get to this one and you get to this one in the queue, you can get the long answer. The short answer is. I'm a small L liberal, and we only have one small L liberal party in the country anymore. And so for a while, I'm with them.

No, the Democrats, not the DSA. So for a while, I'm with them functionally. But you're willing to move back to a reformed Republican party. I don't think that's going to happen. No. But I'm not asking you whether you think it's going to happen. I'm asking you if it did happen, would you move back to a? I mean, sure.

I don't know. Like if the Democrats became illiberal and then. you know, classical liberalism reemerged in the spirit of free markets and free people reemerged in the Republican Party. Could I switch sometime in old age? Like, yeah, I guess, sure. Anything could happen. But I think more likely is the Republicans will start looking more like foreign conservative parties around the world, which are blood and soil nationalist parties. That's the right thing party in almost every country, except for in the Anglosphere. I don't see why that wouldn't be our trajectory. Okay, thanks. My guest has been Tim Miller. All right. Great. We'll come back. We'll come

back after our advertising from Budapest cruise lines. Do you have you been monitoring the Hungary-Arean elections coming up? Have I been monitoring though? I've been trying to influence them. In what manner? Brain waves. Brain waves. Just pure, pure

like, psych waves. I don't know. I'm feeling pretty good. I don't know. The vice president going there. I'm more interested in the Danish election. I'm worried that the vice presidents might as touch might help Orban. Besides that, I'm feeling pretty good that maybe we could get a win for a liberal democracy. Let's talk about your signal change. Do people still message you on signal? About one year ago was the last time you're on the podcast. I guess 324 days ago, technically, because it was the day after you were texting. I feel like I'm always on this. Why is that? It feels like it's technologically. Time flies, you know. But the Pete had. Why don't you have me? Why don't you have more, me on more? You're a challenging booking. You're busy. You got to do. Usually run a little late, have some tech problems.

That is, you are now speaking truth. So, you know, some of your colleagues are a little bit more amenable. That's been a year. You wrote, I guess, about the Pete Higgs-Seth exception about this text chain and how essentially, I think essentially, you didn't say it exactly explicitly, but essentially you believe that Pete Hegs says should have been court-martialed for the text that he was sending you. No, I'm not saying, no, he's a civilian, so he's not going to be court-martialed. I'm saying, all I'm arguing, which I think has the benefit of logic, all I'm arguing is, you know, is. is that if anyone else will be 3 million or so people who report to Pete Hegseth, uniform and civilian, had done what he did, they would have had to pay a price for it.

Like, you get punished for doing that. You get punished in the military for almost anything. You misplace your rifle. You can get court-martialed, you know. You know it's illegal to text a family member if you're in the armed services. It's against regs to, to, to, say, oh, my unit is moving on Tuesday from Fort Polk to Fort Bliss. Like, we're on the, where, you know, we're convoying.

You can't say that. That's, that's, that's operational movement. So if you can't do that without getting in trouble, how can you put into a commercial messaging app without knowing who's in the chain, who's in the, who's in the conversation? We're about to bomb Yemen. Stand by for more information on the bombing that's now starting. I mean, it just doesn't, it just, it just annoys me because I would like one standard for our highest officials and the people who also report to them. I just think it's fair.

It's just also very frustrating when people just don't tell you the obvious, obvious truth. It's crazy making when someone just lies to your face. And it's just like, hey, you know, hamburgers eat people. You know, the sun rises in the West. And it was not classified. It was not classified for me to send you the exact. timing and coordinates of a bombing campaign. Our pilots are leaving in a half hour to bomb a country that is protected by Iranian anti-aircraft

batteries. They'll be over the target in two hours. No, that's not sensitive. No. Not classified. No, that's not classified. I mean, technically, this is the thing. This is the way this goes to the much deeper problem, right?

technically it's not illegal if the defense secretary does it when you're the defense secretary they let you grab him by the classified information um it's not illegal because he has declassification authority he's an original classifier along with the president which the president called you up today and gave you the exact grid coordinates of the locations of every nuclear submarine in the United States Navy. He could say, I'm just declassifier, so I decided to share this. I mean, it would be egregious, terrible thing to do. But this, so this goes to, you can have rules and regulations and they should be enforced, but the deeper problem is you have to hire people with judgment, discretion, and smarts in order to be the, I mean, to be the declassifier is an

awesome responsibility. Yeah. And the fact is that Pete Hex said, obviously, he wasn't up to the task of taking his job, taking his role responsibly, taking his role seriously. Neither would, neither was Mike Waltz and your kind of article that was reflecting on this. This was a piece of information that we've gotten since we last podcasters about this. One of my favorite little nuggets was that Mike Waltz had said that you're, that he would never text you. You're a disgusting pig and you're horrible and fake news and you have a recess side profile and you're a subhuman. And like, so you would, he would never. And so your number must have just gotten sucked into his phone.

And then as if, like, it's almost too stupid to even be on VEP. Susie Wiles, like, asked Elon Musk to, like, look at the phone and assess whether it was possible. She got a genius bar appointment at the, at the Navy at the White House mess, you know. Meet me a two. And she took, she actually told Mike, well, it's give me your phone. Give me your phone. Give me your phone. I'm giving it to Elon and he's going to figure out what happened. He's going to look at it and be like, was it possible that the text message just got. Too good, right? The phone number just got sucked in there. Is that possible? Elon said no. Elon said, no, you've just added his phone number into the chat because he has my phone number. And I thought you were going to refer to something else, which is like three days after this whole thing started unfolding. Somebody found this picture of Mike. me at a French embassy. By the way, listening to Bernard Henri Levy, it's like, this is like

Washington Madlibs. You're listening to Baran and Henri Levy give a talk at the French embassy and Mike Walts and I are standing with each other. And it's like, yeah, I know him. I mean, I found it, you know, I know him. It's like it was. Maybe it was an air drop then. Actually, that might help Mike Walts's case because, you know, sometimes if you put your phone really close to someone else's phone. Yeah, that usually doesn't happen without without a little. intentionality. The whole point is that is that they could have made it a two-day story by going, whoops, we won't do that again. But instead, they decided to attack me. And more to the point, more relevant, they attacked the Atlantic as a lying institution. They said that we are lying

about, I don't know why. And then they goaded us into releasing the whole transcript of the signal chat. It was just kind of typical knee-jerk reaction. So let's talk about Hanks' performance then in the intervening year. Before we go to Iran, it's just first about how he's dealing with the press and how he dealt with this situation, but now going forward. Since then, he's kicked the press out of the Pentagon. He has these press conferences that are, like insane. You know, what you...

Why do you say there insane? I just think it's pretty strange to have a former weekend talk show co-host. Like, talk... I like that. Co-host. I like the way you nail the co there, yeah. Couldn't even be trusted to drive that truck alone. Alone up there, like, screaming about our lethality and how, you know, we have the righteous justice of the Lord on our side

and, like, not answering any questions and just, like, making fun of people and insulting the media members. It's an unusual type performance. That's how you usually would see in a thing. I don't even know. We live in some weird simulation now. I know it's so far, like we've had competent defense secretaries. We've had incompetent defense secretaries.

We've never had anything like this performance. Look, by the way, going back to Signalgate, what he was, he's a performer, right? He was performing in the chat for J.D. Vance and then the others, presumably. And like the grown-up, Marco Rubio, who, if you notice in the signal chat, doesn't really participate in the signal chat because he's probably sitting there going, why are we doing this on Signal? Right. Like, what is this BS? Also on the Secretary of State, I don't actually need to know that a 215, you know, we're dropping this particular package. Also, I already know if I want to, but I don't want to know. I have enough information. It's like, Mike, you know, Mike and Pete,

you drop the bombs. I'll try to, whatever. But, but, you know, the point is, is that, is that Hegset was performing in the, in that chat, in the same way that he performed. to the public. It's like, and I literally thought as I'm watching the thing unfold, if I talk to myself, which I don't, but if I did talk to myself, I would have been sitting there saying to my phone, Pete, you're the actual defense secretary. You don't have to play defense secretary. Like, you do have this power. We all recognize that you can bomb shit. You know what I mean? Like, and he was like showing off for JD Vance. So I got all the, listen to me using all my, you know, the bombing begins now, you know, kind of rhetoric.

And that's what you see. He only has like one performance mode, right? Which is like this kind of preemptive hyperaggression, which I think is so overcompensatory. Yeah. And like if you just look at the greatest military leaders, not just secretaries of defense, but if you just look at even Patton, sorry, I'm going down on one of those Moran things.

I feel like culturally I miss this as a gay man because I feel like this is like what straight guys do when they turn 40 they just kind of hang out and they start talking about Raj Patton Yeah, they just start talking about former military leaders, name dropping former military leaders in their great moments

so let's do it. I like this. Right, right, right. You know, gay people can read about Patton. I know. As a cultural item, it's not that I'm not familiar with who Patton is. It's culturally, I think that

it is just, it's kind of stereotypically like a straight dad's behavior to start like referencing. No, no, no, no. I'm the straight dad in the sense that is that book not about World War II? Then why would I read it for fun? Correct. Yeah, yeah. No, but the thing about the patent, this is the one aspect of hexest leadership that bothers me is his dismissal and insulting attitude about military education, right? Educating our officers to understand history, morality.

the role of a military in a democracy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. He thinks this leads to weakness, right? The truth is, General Patton believed, and he was the, you know, let's say of the the ones who are like the triumvirate in my mind, you know, Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Patton, three different types doing the same thing across Europe, you know, and winning back Europe from the Nazis. Eisenhower was obviously reflective. Omar Bradley was cerebral.

was the one we think of as, you know, kind of like blood and guts. And he was in many ways. But he believed that no military officer could be competent unless he understood, you know, the dynamics of the Peloponnesian War. He thought that constant education was the, you know, was, was a requirement for effective military leadership. And so when Hexeth comes out against education, it's almost, it's comical. I mean, it would be comical if it weren't so dangerous. And so, like, I can't, I don't understand.

And by the way, he's not a stupid person. He's pretty smart. You know, but he's like a smart person playing a stupid person, I think. I think he has brain capacity. I just think he's so, like, broken. I did just search his Twitter archive. He's never typed the word Peloponnesian.

Doesn't mean that he's not familiar with it. But maybe not quite as familiar. Are you spelling it correctly? I am. Yeah, I am. I've got that. By the way, by the way, I can send you a list of movies and books that we could call it the gay man's guy. I appreciate that.

No, sure. Thank you. Really? Well, I've ever watched. Have you ever watched Savin Private Ryan? Of course I've watched Saving Private Ryan. I do have kind of an informal book club with your colleague in Appleball where she comes on and suggests books to me. And I think that's sufficient.

Yeah, I've read all. I've read all of them. Oh, good. The most recent one. So, wait, just explained to me why you take her book recommendations, but you wouldn't take mine. Well, I just, I don't need to be gratuitous about it. Okay, like I need to, I need to kind of keep my reading fresh. Like I try to mix up, like here in Ann Applebaum book about somebody escaping the Nazis or about, you know, what happened in Poland, you know, when the Soviets came in.

Like, I'll read that and then I'll read like a gay coming of age novel. And that's kind of like putting you on the difference in the, you. What about a gay coming of age novel during Patton's Europe campaign? I've read a couple of those about World War I. For some reason, World War I is very popular for the gay books. That's interesting. What do you think about Pete Higgs? Neither you or I thought the conversation was going to go that way.

We did not. Alice Wins in Memorial is the most recent one. I'd recommend on that front if you're going to do a book exchange. Okay. You guys have been kicked out. The Secretary of War is cracking down on... I don't call him Secretary of War until Congress authorizes the name change. I do, but only in a mocking tone.

I would just do secretary of war. I just, I wouldn't put it in print. But if I can say it out loud and people can understand, I'm not doing it. I understand. I understand. We've been kicked out of the Pentagon. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I mean, everybody.

Everybody's been kicked out. Yeah, they keep putting new rules on that and just all real media organizations, including Fox, which has great defense reporters. You run a media organization that, you know, particularly has focused and done a lot of recording on military issues. I want non-journalists to understand something that. that our Pentagon correspondents know what's going on in the Pentagon, whether or not they're sitting in the Pentagon. It's more convenient to sit in the Pentagon and then the old dispensation

when you could leave the press room and go to the Secretary of the Army's office or the Secretary of Navy's office or sit in the mess and talk to people, sit in the cafeteria. You know, there is utility to that, but it's not as if Heg said there's going to be able to stop independent reporting on the United States military because he won't let reporters in the building. By the way, one other point about this

that needs to be made is that, and I feel very, very strongly about this. It's like we have writ large in the mainstream media, I believe, a patriotic press corps. And by that, I mean, let me explain, I mean that the people I know want as Americans

what's in the best interest of the serving men and women of the United States. And they are there to examine and bring to light the decision-making of military leaders, and they are there to be critical when those decisions are ill-advised, or if there's corruption, or there's this, that, and the other thing. But they start from a premise that the United States has a powerful military, and that's not a bad thing. I mean, in other words, what Pete Hegeseth would have you believe is that these are a bunch of DSA members or Cuban communists or something who are sitting there trying to undermine the very idea of national security.

These are national security walks, our traditional press corps. They know a lot. And they tell what you would say, let's call it in for short and good stories of the military. In other words, when somebody does something heroic or when. when they have a tactical achievement or when a new weapon system works, they will tell you. They're not, it just annoys me to no end that they are cast as enemies of the people, enemies of the state, enemies of the idea that America deserves security, and that the military is the means through which we preserve our national security

and therefore preserve our ability to be a constitutional democracy. Thank you. I'll be taking questions now. Well, here's a good question on that front. Because speaking of competence, I hear some commentators, particularly folks who have military expertise who are talking about this war. And they try to buy for Kate out, like the competent manner in which like the bomb packages have, you know, been delivered. What Admiral Cooper is doing at SENCOM versus what Secretary of War, can you see that? Yeah, or.

Yeah. Secretary of War is doing. Yeah. I understand. How do you assess that? Yeah. So I just at a macro level, how competent do you? you think the prosecution of this war has been?

On a strategic level or a tactical level? On a tactical level, it's somewhere between an A and A plus. On a strategic level, you can't grade it because they didn't hand in the homework, if you know what I mean. CENTCOM has plans on plans on plans, right? The White House said, Admiral Cooper, bring down the plan that destroys the missile ballistic capacity, Navy and Air Force and nuclear sites of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yes, sir.

Here's the plan. Okay, go do it. He does it. We're probably, I mean, I hear different things, and nobody knows nothing. Keep that in mind. I hear that from Kufor's perspective, he's the run running the war. You know, there are 50, 60, 65 percent through the target package, right? They've done a remarkable job of neutralizing the air defense.

is obviously they've done a great job so far of neutralizing the Navy. It gets harder because the Navy gets smaller and then it becomes little tiny boats, you know, harassing oil tankers and so on. But as a plan to defang Iran, it's working. But the thing you can't do from the air, obviously, and the thing that you can't do on the ground either is instigate the rising that I think all sober-minded people would like to see in Iran, like to see the good people of Iran take their country back. They're the majority. You can't do that because what you can't do, what CENTCOM can't do, is disarm the local besiege and revgard formations. You know, the eight guys with guns on motorcycles who will shoot anybody who looks like a protester. They killed anywhere between 7,000 and 30,000 protesters just this

last period, right? And so the Israelis are doing some of that. What is happening we see is that Iranians, average Iranians are through signal or however, whatever, whatever app they're using, telling the Israelis where these besiege checkpoints are. And the Israelis will have these loitering drones that are hovering above Tehran and other cities. They come in and they blow up that checkpoint that's from the perspective of the Iranian Democratic underground, that's great, but that's not going to achieve all the things that you want to achieve. The point is- They also haven't kept the straight open.

Which can be done, obviously, but at much greater. Of course, anything to be done. Yeah, sure. You know, the United States military is the most powerful, technically advanced military in the history of the planet. So that can be done. It's just about, is that what you were planning for? is that what the American people are ready for? Is that what your allies who now I'll hate you

want to do, want you to do? You know, I mean, there's, the point is it's like, it's not the job of the generals and the admirals to say to Donald Trump. So what's your long-term strategy for the Middle East? It's their job. It's their job to say, to answer the question, can you neutralize the ballistic missile sites at X, Y, and Z? Yeah. Yeah. I can do that. Yeah, this is kind of like, though, no offense to Cooper or other admirals and generals, but this is kind of to me like grading, saying, hey, you take my nine-year-old nephew, you give him a bat, and you say, hey, I want you to go into Grandma's house and break all of her China, you know,

and I want you to break all of her pictures on the wall and, you know, do a lot of damage because I'm mad at her, and I want to get back at her. And he says, okay, and he takes the bat and then goes in. there breaks everything. I don't know if that's, I don't know if that's like, okay. But then it's like, great. Now what, though? Now what?

Sweet. Grandma's, grandma's China is broken. Yeah, but let's be fair. I mean, it is hard. It's hard and dangerous work. I'm sure. No,

I'm not minimizing more work. I'm just saying, but it's pointless. If there is no point, if there is no point, it's pointless, I guess is my, is what I'm saying. Like, if there is no strategy, like, you're saying that they didn't end of the homework. But like, if there's no strategic objective, then what are you doing? Let me argue. I only argue a bit against myself and say that an Iran with 90%, let's say, that's what it ends up, 90% of its ballistic missile capacity neutralized is a better one from the perspective of all of the West, the Arabs and the Israelis, than in Iran with its full ballistic missile program.

But the problem is, in three weeks ago. In two years, in two years, do you have to go back and do this again? And three weeks ago, Iran wasn't hitting energy sites with their ballistic missiles. I mean, sure, they were doing bad stuff. This is not a friendly podcast for the home of the Iranians. But they're doing more damage than they were doing three weeks ago. Sure. But the latent passabilities were something that the West had to deal with sooner or later.

You know, you're not going to get me to go soft on the general question of was Iran, a revolution exporting anti-American theocracy, was Iran a problem for the security of the United States and its allies in the middle. East and beyond. Sure, it was. The question is, why now, why this way? Look, if there had been planning, you wouldn't have spent the last year alienating NATO. Sure. Right. I mean, if there had been any kind of planning, you would have said, let us secure the Strait of Hormuz before we do anything else. Let's not be surprised when the Iranians start trying to blow up stuff in the straight, right? And by the way, I'm now in the camp of people, a lot of people, a lot of people arguing this, that a war of choice is becoming a war of necessity in the following sense.

The global economy is going to be dependent on the straighter from who is being open. And the Chinese are watching a third tier power, Iran, let's say Russia is a second tier power, and China is a near peer adversary of the United States. They're watching a third tier power screw with the United States in a narrow waterway. Now, what are the Chinese? looking at 24 hours a day, a narrow waterway between Taiwan and China. And so are they getting the message that, oh, it turns out that America has a hard time mustering the will and capacity to secure and dominate a narrow body of water. We haven't to have a narrow body of water that's really important to us. And you don't want to come out of this Iran war with China thinking,

oh, Donald Trump is never going to defend Taiwan if we launch an invasion across the strait of Taiwan. I mean, that's not coming this year probably. Nobody knows, obviously, but we know generally that the intention on the Chinese long term is to seize Taiwan. So, like, we have now opened up a Pandora's box of challenges that were not there when we simply were monitoring the situation, as it were. You know, after a night out with drinks, I don't bounce back the next day like I used to. It's in the jeans. My father never bounced back to the next day like he used to either or his mother. So I have to make a choice.

One thing they didn't have that I have is pre-alcohol. Zeobotics, pre-alcohol, probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration. That's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down.

Just remember to make free alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly. And you'll feel your best tomorrow. When we were in Texas last week for our live shows, I know it's going to have a couple drinks. I've been behaving at the live shows, okay? I've been behaving. I've moved to non-hard alcohol and only have,

and I only have two for the shows. You want to, everyone wants to have fun there. You know, you want to be loose, okay, in the room, but afterwards people want to go out.

So you never know it's going to happen. And so we turned to our friends at pre-alcohol before the show started to ensure I could have a good time and still be 100% for the next day's content. So go to Zibiotics.com slash the bulwark to learn more and get 15% off your first order

when you use the bulwark at checkout. Zibiotics is backed with 100% money-back guarantee. If you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money. No questions asked. Remember to head to ZBiotics.com slash the bulwark and use the code the bulwark at checkout for 15% off. I came up with a better analogy with thinking about your grades. I was thinking about in college sophomore year.

I had a class. It was on Friday mornings. You had to show up to the class. That was like part of the rules to get the grade. I never showed up. I got an A on all the tests. And at the end of the semester, I received an F for not showing up to the class. And I had to file an arbitrary and capricious.

grade complaint with the administration. And now here I am. I am with the teacher. The teacher was correct. It doesn't matter if you get the test right. Yeah, yeah. You got to show up.

Anybody that comments on this, you know, you get some trolls. People that will comment on anything you do talking about Jeffrey Goldberg. The fact that like in the past in your youth, you did work in Israel.

And I was doing some research. I did my own research on this, actually, this morning. And I was surprised to see. You did an interview with the Washingtonian in 2013, and you said this, if Israel goes much further down the road, I think it's on and becomes more of a theocratic, totalitarian-style state, how could the liberal-minded American Jews support that? That was 2013, that's what you said. I'm just wondering. I wrote that in 2002. Was that in 2002? No, no, no, I wrote. I mean, I've been saying a similar point. By the way, one of the things that you learn about journalism as you get older, is that not to make too much of it, but I've been warning in my writing, in my reporting,

before I became management. I've been warning since the late 1990s about two threats to stability, peace, and happiness and the future of the Middle East. One is the rise of terrorist Muslim fundamentalism. I mean, I lived in 1999. I lived in a madrasa in Pakistan because I wanted to understand why,

everybody there was supporting this guy named Osama bin Laden, who nobody had really been talking about. The second issue that I've been writing about since that period was, is the growing illiberalism on the Israeli right. And I've been banging my head against the wall on those two things for 25, 30 years. And here we are. It doesn't mean you don't do the work. It just means that whatever, there are there are forces out there that are pretty powerful. So, I mean, I think everybody who supports the right of Israel to be a free and thriving Jewish majority homeland and haven for the oppressed Jews of the world, by the way, you know, all this European anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, Europe is the reason there has to be in Israel. You know, I mean, there's not a lot of introspection on their turn. You know what I mean?

But put that aside, that's part nine of our conversation. Point of personal privilege. Yeah, yeah. But the thing is, it's like, you never know when, you know, something's on a precipice. We think about this a lot, you and me about, is America an autocratic state? Is it bending toward autocracy? Is it bending the other way? You never know where you are.

And I don't know if Israel will be the Israel of my youth ever again, meaning it, you know. a liberal-minded democracy that is trying to come to some kind of equitable solution to the fundamental dilemma, right? I do know that there are plenty of opportunities in the past for the Palestinians to have some satisfaction in the form of a state in part of the land they claim. Yeah. Right. They rejected that, and that fed, obviously, the rise of the right. But what concerns me goes in this framework is that Netanyahu has. opened up, to go back to the Pandora's box idea, opened up Pandora's box by bringing in people into the government who never would have been allowed into a previous Israeli government.

And once they have gained power, I don't know how they're easily dislodged. So that's where, I mean, that's where we're at. I was interested in the second part of the question, though, just like this, you were asking this rhetorical, how could the liberal-minded American Jewish support that if Israel goes a totalitarian route? And like, there's a lot of conversation about that right now and a lot of accusations flying left and right. And I'm just wondering how you either kind of process that conversation and how a liberal-minded Jew can have that conversation without dipping over into more problematic territory. It's too difficult for this podcast. It's hard.

No, no, no, it is. It's like, it's too deep. I mean, there's there's a number of issues. Nobody wants to see a second Holocaust, obviously. Well, actually, I shouldn't say that. There are many members of the Faculty of Columbia that would like to see a Second Holocaust, apparently. But no one wants to see six, seven million Jews of Israel wiped out. First of all, it's a silly point because Israel has 150 nuclear weapons.

The Jews are not going to easily agree to die. And so I am concerned as a Jewish person and as a human being that we don't have mass death in the Middle East. And if you think we've had mass death now, you just wait. you want to see mass death, if trends continue, it's becoming very zero sum. I think about this phase is like a third intifada, the second intifada was much more violent than the first intipata. The fourth and fifth, I don't know. So obviously, the reason I believe despite the fact that reality is not leaning in my direction, despite the fact that this is impossible at the moment to imagine, the reason I believe that a two-state solution is the only

solution is that's the only one that could conceivably prevent mass death from happening in the Middle East. So there's that. The second point, the point that you were quoting from 2013 is really analytical at a certain point. It's like if the Israelis expect the, let's say the majority of American Jews to continue supporting them, they can have to model to some degree the mindset of American Jews. American Jews could probably have a better understanding of the unique pressures of being Israeli. Sure. Right.

There's a lot of discord, you know, in the relationship. And it's all like geography is destiny, right? And so you have that problem. But it's just a simple observation that the quote, I hate this expression. I'm sorry to use it. The lived experience of American Jews. Yeah. Tends to make the majority of them liberal-minded and outlook.

The lived experience of Israelis, especially today, makes them more Middle Eastern. Right? Israel is becoming a more Middle Eastern country every day, pure power politics, right? And so we're in a conversation that involves, you know, so much love and so much frustration and some contempt and a little bit of hope, but a lot of despair. And that's just reality. And I haven't, I mean, probably spend the rest of my life working through. But what I keep in my own mind is like the goal is to keep as many people across the board from dying as possible. I'm probably less quote unquote left than I was in 2013 or 2002 when I was writing against the settlements.

I think now it's like a tragic kind of realism or like a centrist realism, which is like until the Muslim world designs that the Jews have a right. right to a homeland of their own, at least part of their ancestral home, like, it's not really going to change. In the meantime, let's say that that happens, I don't see that happening anytime soon. I mean, the fundamental logic of Iranian foreign policy and national state policy is, why do you care so much about killing all the Jews? Like, go get some, like, food for your people. You know, like, what are you doing? Like, why is this such a crazy making obsession of yours that led to this moment? But let's just say that that happens. There's a cognitive. shift or theological shift.

I'm afraid that Israel is becoming so right-wing and fatalistic and insulated and insular that that's going to be more Hungary or Russia or Iran today or, let's say, a typical illiberal state in the Middle East as opposed to something where, yeah, I don't want to overstate it. Saudi. Saudi or something. Yeah, maybe non-revolutionary, not exporting whatever. But, you know, look, it's still a country where you have Arab members of Knesset and, you know, and 20% of the universities in Israel are Arab students and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And you have an independent judiciary that's under pressure, but you have an independent judiciary. Look, part of the story of Israel is that it's not unique and it's not immune to some global trends, obviously. So maybe if the general global trend shifts away from this, it carries a lot. I don't know. You didn't want the whole. Same here. We went long. No, we, well, we started where we ended, where you were assessing the Israeli right the same way that I was assessing the American, right?

Kind of, right? Where it's like everybody, there's like a global trend towards more blood and soil nationalism everywhere. Okay. Way long. And part it's your fault because you started the podcast with 10 minutes of questioning me. So instead of asking you, I'm just going to tell everyone to read the McKay Coppins piece that you assigned him. You assigned a pure young Mormon man to. to sully himself and go gamble and as an insight into the dangers of gambling in our phones

and prediction markets and all that. It's wonderful. You should be a little worried that the Mormon elders are going to come for you, but I hear that you got it. You're absolutely wrong. Absolutely wrong. I took McKay several years ago to meet the prophet of the Mormon, the president of the Mormon church.

And I vouched for McKay that he would be a good reporter on a story about the Mormon church. They, the Jews and the Mormons have a real thing. We have a little thing going on. Yeah, we have a thing. I love that. So everybody go read it. It was excellent. It was a great idea on your behalf, Jeffrey Goldberg.

And, you know, we won't maybe every March 24th now. I'll see you in a year. I'm happy to come and share my feelings whenever you want. All right. Thanks so much to Jeff Goldberg. We had to cut it short, but we got a date. We're going to do it again soon. It's not going to be March 24th next year.

So we'll have them back soon. But definitely stick around. Up next, Joe Wisenfall, it's good. Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Data brokers make a profit off your data because it's a commodity. Anyone on the web can buy your private details. This can lead to identity theft, fishing attempts, and harassment.

But now you can protect your privacy with Delete Me, The New York Times Wirecutter has named Delete Me their top pick for data removal services. and as I become a minor notable, get invited to a party this weekend for gay notables. Is that real? Is that a thing? Notable. I like that. I like being a notable. I don't really know what that entails. I feel like there's a broad range of people that could be a notable. I feel like I'm a minor notable. And as a minor notable, you have to be a little bit more concerned about your privacy. And delete me as helping me keep my family safe by keeping information out of the wrong hands. take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan. When you go to Join DeleteMe.com slash Bullwork and use promo code Bullwork at checkout,

the only way to get 20% off is to go to join delete me.com slash bulwark and enter promo code bulwark at checkout. That's join delete me.com slash bulwark code bulwark. He is the executive editor of news for Bloomberg's digital brands and co-host of the Business and Finance Podcast, Odd Lots, alongside an other. former pod guest, Tracy Allaway. He's at the stalwart on X. It's Joe Wisenthal. What's up, Joe?

What's up? Thank you so much for having me. So happy to do it. Odd Lots has been absolutely essential for me, especially, but I think for everybody. I want to explain folks why, if they aren't listeners yet, because you go over kind of niche subjects within the economics umbrella day to day. And there have been so many of those that have become relevant since the Iran war started. Here are some of your headlines since.

since March 10th. Rory Johnson on how oil could surge over 200 bucks a barrel. That was like on day one of the war. The next day, Warren Iran is creating a fertilizer crisis like never before. That's where I learned about Uria. March 13th. Me too. What war in Iran means for China's teapot oil refineries. March 16th, Warren Iran is chewing through America missile stockpiles. It's redrawing the map for national gas. March 18th, we could go on and on. So we've been, you know, you've been looking at all that in the micro. I kind of want to talk about each of those individually. But first, just at the macro, like, this war, like the market is tied so closely to the war strategy that it's kind of crazy. Like, Trump threatens on Saturday to obliterate Iran.

And then right before the market's open on Monday, he pulls back. And they've got a full, we're taping this Monday afternoon. We've got a full court press going on. I think Doug Bergam's on CNN, right? CNBC, excuse me, right now as we talk. It's really extraordinary. I mean, I think it's worth just zooming back, even a little bit, you know, going back to the last election, just thinking about how much the entire national mood was really about, things are very

expensive. Inflation is seemingly out of control to some extent that was the defining political topic. And it's been the defining policy, sort of or the defining characteristic of how people view the economy for the last few years. And I do think it's sort of startling the degree to which you could definitely say this administration simply has not taken that. seriously, even slightly, and actually just beyond that aggravated the situation, for better or worse. And when I say that, I mean, one could argue, just going back to last year, not far from around this time, one could say, well, I really think that we need to reorient our trade with the rest of the world, and therefore we have to do something different, change the trading relationship.

Nonetheless, tariffs make trade with the rest of the world more costly. They push up the price of consumer goods. You could see it in the data. Now, fast forward, obviously, to early 2026, one of the good things that the administration had going for it was that even as commodity prices generally, in many cases, were fairly high. oil was in fact pretty soft gas prices fairly low that was probably one of the good things that the white house had going for it and now of course we see this historic surge in the price of oil you hear that price so it's like okay the price of a brent crude which is what they trade in europe that's around a hundred dollars a barrel it's a bit cheaper right now the west texas intermediate

that we trade here the de facto price that the customer pays and especially jet fuel and other things. It's implicitly higher because the story that we've learned through these episodes is that the refineries that are taking in the crude and turning it into gasoline, taking it into jet fuel, turning it into diesel, et cetera. They cannot shut down. They cannot afford to shut down. It's too costly for them to ever run out of inputs, shut down, and then restart the whole thing. So they're slowing down their intake of crude and therefore they're operating at a slower pace that they would. And so the implied price that everyone is now paying, whether it's airlines, whether it's truckers, whether it's people just consuming gasoline, is even higher than what's implied by that price. And so we see this administration undercutting one of the one good things that it had going for economically, really across the world, across a range of sectors.

So in the one hand, you could think, well, they didn't have to do this to themselves. I mean, if they cared about it that much, but they have. And I guess what is obvious is the degree that they at least are sensitive to it and care about it. At some level, it seems like they're trying to do a PR campaign right now as we talk that makes things seem like they aren't as disrupted as they are. Who knows who to believe? But claiming that they're in negotiations with Iran while Iran saying this is fake news, they're manipulating the oil markets.

And Israel's also saying they're kind of manipulating the oil markets off the record to reporters, not on the record. And so it does seem like their whole strategy, at least today, PR-wise, has been around, you know, trying to. limit the spike. Yeah, I mean, I think there's two things to consider here, which is, you know, jawboning, PR, et cetera, these very sort of tactical things, talking about release of fuel from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, et cetera.

There is nothing that can physically be done by this administration to really ameliorate the price of oil that can really counteract the complete or the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz. There is no tool in the toolkit. There are things at the margin that might be able to ease things a little bit. Saudi Arabia has a pipeline that goes to its west coast that can allow some oil to be routed around that area. There are things at the margin. Right past the hoodies in Yemen.

That's right. Right, right. On the other side, that's what they have to deal with there. Right. You know, at the margins there are things, but not really. But the other thing to consider is that, you know, you talk to the oil. experts, and they say that if the market really took seriously that we are at a state of war and that the Strait of Hormuz is not going to be opened anytime soon, that actually the market

prices would be much higher than they are today, that actually the price of a barrel of crude is still lower than the fundamentals would suggest because there is this belief that Trump is going to quote Taco, that it can't be, because this is truly, as one of our guests, Roy Johnson put it, this is the type of scenario that people don't even take seriously as a scenario because it's too cataclysmic to contemplate. And so it's only almost discussed typically as a thought exercise. And so the question is like,

when will the, does the market even fully believe the reality that's happening now? So this jawboning, these PR attempts, it kind of seems like they don't. I mean, look, that's my biggest takeaway from listening to you guys and others over the past few weeks. It kind of seems like they're underpricing stuff right now.

because they're just like, this is too crazy. Trump is going to turn it around. But, like, how? Right. That there's going to have to be some sort of fold or something. You know, everyone's talking about the taco. I mean, the other thing, I always think about the tweet. You know, we'll see if all Donnie wriggles out of this one because it is true.

Like, that's the one that I always think about because it is true that, look, a lot of people have egg on their face from, I don't know, the last, I guess, 10 years of thinking like, oh, he's going, you know. The walls are closing in on Trump. I agree with this. And so people are hesitant right now to say, wait a minute, the walls are kind of closing in right now, actually. That's right. How many people have felt stupid from declaring that this is the moment is not going to be able to get out of it? And I still think more than anything else, there is probably, you know, again, I mean, you just go back to last year, like we're on the tariffs. And a lot of people probably felt in retrospect that they had gotten too bearish about the tariffs.

Now, it really should be noted that Trump himself walked back a lot of what was in now on Sun Liberation Day. And part of the reason it didn't turn into total cataclysm is because he was very sensitive to markets. There's very little evidence that there was actually any sort of conversations happening, et cetera. But the moment Trump indicated some desire for an off-round. And this creates in a market environment in which no one really wants to be fully on one side. You say if you knew that the war was really going to go on, you'd say the stock market is too high, et cetera. On the other hand, you get absolutely smoked the moment the tweet comes saying it's all over. Now, then there's a question, of course, of like, Iran also gets a say in when the war is over.

Iran also gets to say, in fact, they get these say when the Strait of Hormuz is open. And so that's everyone's trying to understand what's really going on. And I do think it's important that for as much as Trump is trying to, you know, there's a PR game at work. There's domestic Iranian politics that exists too. And I think it's important that we don't flatten Iran. And so when the prime, when the speaker of the Iranian parliament says, there is no talks at all, and we are not going to end this war until the aggressors are punished. That's also, we know that there's an element of domestic politics. There has to be, et cetera. So I don't think we fully understand the situation. And lots of games are being played. But again,

I think when you see how quickly the markets can move on the, the first sign of an off-ram, you understand why no one fully wants to take the other side of the bet. He has like a psychological hold on a lot of people, including the market. It feels like Trump because he has beaten their expectations so many times. It's kind of like, how do you bet against the guy that's so hot? I think that explains why things aren't quite as bad as you would think right now in the markets. I do wonder, what if I'm wrong, though? Because maybe I'm wrong too.

And maybe this, and Trump, while between the time we're taping this and we're publish it, Trump calls the Ayatollah, Humanei Jr. And he says, hey, do I got a great deal for you? We're going to put a toll booth in the straight. You know, people are going to charge Melania coin. 5% is going to go to you. 5% to me. And we'll just cease hostilities right now.

Like that could happen. Let's say that happens, right? How much damage is already done economically? It's a really good question. I think the oil experts think that real sustained damage lasting months has already been done. And the reason for that is because you have this situation in which they have run out of oil storage in the Gulf, basically, I believe in most places. And therefore, you have to cap wells, and it takes time to restart the wells. And so I think, look, there's already damage done.

I think there's another level of sort of cycle and sort of long-term damage. And this is the story of the last six years since COVID. It's really extraordinary when you think about it. But what we have since COVID, is repeated reminder to every country in the world that they need to stockpile things, right? Prior to COVID or maybe prior to Trump, one, going back to 2015 or whatever, you know, there was this relatively open or very open global trading system and was efficient. And we did not need multiple redundancies of stockpiles of commodities and stockpiles of redundant refineries, et cetera. The story of the last several years, one blow after another to the system, the trade war under the first Trump administration, COVID, which of course created this whole thing where countries needed to hoard various goods, the second trade war, the war in Ukraine. Then, of course, the AI phenomenon in which every country feels that it needs to have sovereign AI and needs its own chip production, etc.

And now you layer on to finally this war. And so you have one blow after another to this system where countries could feel that they could rely on trading partners. And so I think each time that happens, it's like you're moving the floor up. You're creating a higher bid under commodities because every country is like, we need to have oil. We need to have gas. We need to have our own refineries. We do not. We cannot depend on these commodities getting to the choke point.

There's like a hoarding and stockpiling. Horting and stockpiling. It's when a snowstorm comes and the shelves are empty. That's right. And every single event of the last several years has pushed nations in the same direction. And so when you talk about the lasting damage from this war, there's probably like the proximate version, which is, okay, it'll take several months perhaps for all the wells to get going once hostility is truly ceased. But then there's this second layer, I think, that probably lasts for years after this, which is a further impulse for every country to stockpile more good. and that pushes up the floor that everything can fall to. One of the other impacts that you talked about recently on a podcast is just this question about safe haven investments, particularly in the United States. Talk about that a little bit.

You know, save haven investments are, it's a moving target. And, you know, at various times, like the dollar is perceived as a safe haven because in a crisis, you know, like, worst couple stories, you got to pay your rent at the end of the month and so you need to acquire dollars, no matter how bad things are getting, you need to survive to the next month. So sometimes dollars act as a safe haven. Anything short of a zombie apocalypse, it's like you feel like you can get something for your dollar. Yeah, that probably. That's exactly right. Gold, you know, obviously historically has been a form of money for thousands of years. It's what people buy and hold when they're worried about sort of

national stability and sovereign stability. Good reasons to be worried about that over the last several years, but it's been going up a lot over the last several years. And so now you have the situation in which, okay, the markets are tumbling. Gold is surging. Like all these trades that you have on are going sideways, et cetera. You get a call from your broker. You're getting margin called. We need you to put up more cash because your oil is short. You're going to get stopped out. I got to sell something. I got to post cash for this margin. Well, the one thing I have that's been going up is gold. And so suddenly gold goes from being a thing that. that's doing very well to a thing that's doing very badly, et cetera.

Treasuries, classic save haven because the U.S. government will always be able to pay back debt that it's in its own currency and so forth. But there's a fixed coupon on treasuries. Maybe they pay 4%. If inflation starts to rise, that 4% doesn't look as good and so forth. And so suddenly you sell your treasuries, even though it had a safe haven characteristic. So the point that I think people should sort of understand is that, yes, there are many things around that we call safe havens.

Even I think it would be fairer at times to call Bitcoin as safe haven, because if your main concern was that you wanted to be able to move money across borders at a time when, you know, the banking system is out inaccessible. Maybe crypto is safe haven properties. But different environments, different things that we call safe havens don't act the same. So right now, treasuries aren't working because a war is inflationary and therefore the value of those coupon payments go down. Gold isn't working because people need to sell their winners to pay their margin calls and pay their bills. Basically, the only thing that's been working, weirdly enough, is just

the U.S. dollar because when you panic and you're just like, I want to get to the next month and the month after that, you know, the most liquid thing in the world and you pay your dollars, but it's a moving target and it's a sort of fascinating lens into these things that we call Save Havens do not always have the same properties in different times of the market. Let's talk about the dollar though for second. My colleague, Jonathan, last one of his, you know, big catastrophizing predictions about the Trump 2.0 is that the dollars statuses, world reserve currency is in threat. This crisis is another example of why that might be in the Iranian oil that we that we sanctioned and then desanctioned is now being sold using the one. Yeah. So anyway, talk about that on what experts are saying on that topic. Yeah, I think, you know, a fial currency is sort of, I see it, is like, why is the U.S. dollar perceived as a global safe haven? And I would say there's essentially two reasons. One is the U.S. government is just extremely strong and historically over the last couple of centuries, extremely stable. So that's good. And then the other is that the U.S. is this incredibly still productive economy that makes all kinds of things that are bought and sold in dollars. And so those are both two pretty good reasons to hold dollars. And I don't think like, you know, the U.S. economy is still going to be a productive one, I think, for a long time.

But there are reasons to think that, like, that this is getting chipped away at the edges. The fact that the civil aviation system in the United States continues to deteriorate these terrible lines that we see at airports, et cetera, the awful crash last night at LaGuardia, et cetera, all of these reasons to think that the U. economy, the crash between the plane and the fire truck on the tarmac, of course. All of these reasons to think that things are becoming a little bit unglued here. Here's a complex system, the civil aviation system, and it's breaking down. In and of itself, does that directly relate to the dollar? I mean, not necessarily. But what does it tell you?

It tells you that the great productive engine of the U.S. system, the private sector, the public sector, sort of working in concert to make this very complex. complicated machine work as breaking down. And so I think over the long term, like, that's the type of thing that really worries me. Does that matter as like a question vis-a-vis China? Yeah, I think it does. I think it does because, I mean, I think when people look at China right now, what they see is an economy that has extraordinary productive capacity, that if you hold Chinese yuan,

if you hold the Chinese currency, you can promise buy anything you want. the world right now. This is the interesting thing. There are very few things that an individual could want to buy that aren't made or aren't for sale, denominated, that aren't for sale for China. And so I think like for in the long term, I think there's probably very good reason to think that the Chinese UN will have safe haven properties. Now, like, does this happen overnight? No, there's no way. These are a deep network effects. And even for all of the anxiety that people have about American politics and so forth, these things are really hard to turn.

But like the long-term trends, yeah, on both the political stability front and also the productive capacity front, I do think there are probably reasons to think that the dollar won't be the only game in town forever. Just geopolitically, you talked about how the Gulf states right now

are experiencing a GDP catastrophe. Your last episode was about the people playing from Dubai. also, you know, Russia is benefiting from this financially. So maybe talk just briefly on those two topics. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting when you think about energy. There are a lot of oil countries right now where the price of what they sell has shot to the moon. But there is no way for them to ship it in volume, right?

And so that's a really big problem where that's really not great. And so typically you speak to these economies, particularly the Gulf economies. and they're in a very strange situation. It's almost unimaginable if you think about it, that there could be this condition in which the primary export product that they have is surging price, and yet everyone expects their economies to slide. Russia is in this position where the price of its main export oil is surging, for reasons that we all know.

There are no constraints geographically on its ability to sell its oil, and there aren't really any constraints politically on its ability to sell its oil. And the logic from the White House is pretty sound, which is that, you know, like, under that basically, this is not the time to be further constricting the world's supply of oil. That the surging price of oil is damaging to the U.S. economy. It's damaging to all kinds of economies. And if you want to ameliorate the damage, you can't be punishing the transaction of any oil that's available. And that's why, of course, we've removed the sanctions on Iranian oil. And people find it perverse, but I find it very intuitive, which is that, you know, like, dollars will only help so much.

So Iran will get money from selling oil. In this war, I imagine that dollars will only help Iran marginally, but the world will benefit from having Iranian oil and not having the shortage be quite so acute. So I get the logic, basically, of not sanctioning that oil. And if there's oil that is best instead, if it's on the water and someone wants to buy it, they're not going to slap them with secondary sanctions. But yes, we're at a very strange distributional moment where the winners from surging oil are not obviously the intuitive winners that one would normally think when they think higher oil prices. I mean, we're so early. So, you know, maybe this resolves itself if it's quickly, because it goes on for a while, Dubai, Abu Dhabi Doha, you know, losing their economic power has huge ripple. effects on like a bunch of other industries too.

I mean, like they're backing a lot of people's debt. You know, they're investing in a lot of the data centers. Like, what's your sense on all that? Completely correct. I mean, over the last decade, the degree to which the major sort of sovereign wealth, these pools of capital in the Gulf have been the investor of last resort into almost anything. And over the last several years, the data center, AI economy, probably is hard to overstate the

influence that they've built up. And so if you start to see some of that reverse, my gut, and again, what do I know? My gut is that it is probably too early to declare this trend over. I mean, I do think this is like one of the big macro trends of our time, particularly, you know, some in the U.S., but a lot in Europe, the sort of incredible flight of the high net worth, ultra high net worth, affluent households to these countries that market themselves is, delivering two things. Low taxes and safety,

which a lot of people feel like they're not getting in a lot of particular parts of the Western world these days. This is one of the huge... I think it would take time to turn that train around. It seems to have taken a hit to the second one. But it certainly is taking a hit. A missile's not hit in your apartment complex in London.

And the truth is we don't know the full extent of the damage. And I think I saw a post from one of the Abu Dhabi authorities talking about... Like, they're trying to control the flow of it. that's coming out. So the degree to, I mean, if you go to Instagram and you look at, you know, pictures from Dubai looks the same as it probably did about a month ago. I think it's information of like how bad it is.

I do not think we have great visibility into it right now. But yeah, I do not think, at least for the time being, I don't think the direction is in and abound in terms of the people in capital. Yeah, no. I had a friend who was telling me that they had a family member who lived there. And it's like, horror. about how to get home. It's like a 12-hour black car to Saudi Arabia,

and then you fly to Jordan, and then fly... Anyway, the other products, I mentioned at the top of the Uri, which is part of the fertilizer. One of my buddies was talking about helium, concerns about helium and the cooling. A helium episode coming up.

Oh, great. I was going to assign that to you. He started talking to me about that, and I was like, there hasn't been an odd lots on helium yet. So anyway, do you... No, but I mean, from what I... My early research,

I feel bad for the helium dealers because it's apparently this very important industrial commodity, particularly in semiconductors and a few other things. And evidently, it's just like people think it's the balloon and funny voice elements. Right. But it actually apparently is pretty serious. There are not many places where it exists richly in the world. But I believe, you know, the Gulf was one of them.

There's no obvious substitute for it for it, from what I understand. It's not a huge market. Someone I was talking to recently said it's like a $6 billion global market. So you have this sort of weird things. It's the same with the rare earth metals, which are not particularly big markets. But as part of the problem is that because of the dollar value is not particular high, you don't get a ton of new investment into helium mines and so forth. You know, you're probably not going to become a billion, a helium billionaire. Maybe.

I don't know. But these are niche markets that are crucial in certain industrial applications to not have many easy substitutes and so forth. And so, yeah, you get this situation in which a big part of the supply has been taken off the market. And I don't know. I think it hasn't hit yet. I mean, on the fertilizer side, it is hitting right now because it's planting season. I mean, even one of the Republican centers, Jim Justice from West Virginia was asked about this yesterday and was basically like, yeah, the farmers are getting hit hard. That's kind of what happens, like an S-O-L response from the Republican.

And that's going to hit to food. That's definitely, I saw a good chart today from one of the banks that there's a pretty, tight historical link between fertilizer inflation and food inflation. And so, yeah, that's definitely, it's definitely going to hit. And, you know, I think as these things compound, one of the things that we really learned in COVID is that the global economy is sort of a, it's a finely tuned machine. But you start knocking it around and suddenly you have huge gluts appear here and huge shortages appear here. And certain industrial processes just don't happen. and nothing is really broken yet,

but especially given the links to semiconductors, given the stakes of the semiconductor economy to AI and so forth, I think you've got to be on the lookout for like one of these headlines that pops up. And if, you know, some major manufacturer says it's going to have to reduce its output by X percent, the market, that's going to give a jolt. It'll be yet another jolt to the market.

And that's Joe Wisenthal. The Stall Award on X. I appreciate your time. Go check out Hodlath. We'll be talking to you soon. All right, brother? Anytime. All right, thanks to Jeffrey Goldberg and to Joe Wisenthal.

Appreciate you all so much. We'll see you back here tomorrow for another doubleheader. See you all then. Peace. I can afford the gas for my luxury limousine. The Borg podcast is brought to you thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, Associate producer Ansley Skipper, and with video editing by Katie Lutz,

and audio engineering and editing. by Jason Brown.