UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (6/23/25): SPECIAL REPORT: Everything You Should Know About the U.S./Iran Conflict

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode, we're covering everything you should know about the U.S./Iran conflict. On June 21st, the U.S. dropped bombs on three of Iran's nuclear facilities. On June 23rd, Iran attempted to retaliate. Here's what you should know. How We Got Here/What's At Issue (1:30) Listener Q&A; Answering Your Questions (10:08) Addressing a Viral Social Media Post (52:14) Rapid Fire Q&A; Quick Questions, Quick Answers (58:28) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

FanDuel Casino's exclusive live dealer studio has your chance at the number one feeling. Winning. Which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling. Winning. In an exciting live dealer studio. Exclusively on FanDuel Casino. Where winning is undefeated.

19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit kinexontario.ca. Please play responsibly. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Let's talk about some news. Today's episode is going to be a bit different than what you're used to because rather than covering a bunch of different stories, we're only going to be talking about what's going on in Iran. I don't know the last time I did a special report like this. I feel like it's been quite a while, but basically how I will structure this is I will first do a quick recap of the last few months and

how we got here. I will recap the general gist of why we got here and then I'll do a Q&A where I'll be answering a lot of your questions and going into a lot more detail. Per usual, when I do these special reports, just note that the situation in this case between the US and Iran is just constantly changing. So everything that you are about to hear is up to date as of Monday afternoon, but things could very well change by the minute.

As a quick reminder, I have a new edition of my newsletter going out tomorrow morning. It'll hit inboxes at 6 a.m. Eastern Time and it covers all the top headlines in politics, pop culture, business, health, and international news. So definitely be sure to subscribe to that if you're not already. I always include a sign up link in the show notes of each episode. It's totally free. All you need is an email address. The 20,000 people that are subscribed

are absolutely loving it. And I know you will too. Now, without further ado, let's talk about Iran. Let's first back up to March, which was a couple of months after President Trump took office. And don't worry, I will go way further back than this when we do the Q&A portion of the episode. But for purposes of talking about what has transpired recently, that's where I want to start.

So in March, President Trump sent a letter to Iran's supreme leader proposing negotiations for a new nuclear deal. And that letter basically said that the US wanted to negotiate a new deal and that if Iran were to reject the negotiations and move forward with its nuclear program, there would be consequences. The letter gave Iran 60 days to reach a deal. At the time, Iran's supreme leader called the letter a deception and he said that it was meant to create the illusion that Iran was unwilling to negotiate but that that was not the truth. So the first round of negotiations ended up taking place a month after that letter was sent. The first round of talks was on April 12th. Keep in mind that the

purpose of these negotiations is to get Iran to stop enriching uranium or to stop developing nuclear weapons. And again, we'll get into the details of uranium enrichment later on in the episode. This is just a quick recap of what is taking place. So once that first round of negotiation started on April 12th, that's when the 60-day clock started ticking. And that meant that Iran had until June 11th to make a deal. The second round of talks happened a week later on April 19th. The third round took place another week later on April 26th. A fourth round took place on May 11th. And a fifth round of talks took place on May 23rd. The country of Oman, which had been hosting most

of these talks, said that in that fifth round of talks, had been made but it wasn't conclusive progress. On May 27th, four days after the fifth round of talks, Trump said that both sides were close to finalizing talks but Iran was simultaneously saying that Trump's desire to control Iran's nuclear activity was a fantasy. Then on May 31st, a few days later, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, which you will hear me reference many, many times throughout this episode, so just note that when I say the IAEA, I am referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. That agency reported that Iran had amassed a record amount of military-grade enriched uranium. Less than two weeks after that, on June 11th, is when that 60-day period expired. The

U.S. and Iran had still not reached an agreement, and this is when the U.S. began evacuating its embassies in Iraq and other Arab states. One day later, on June 12th, the IAEA declared Iran in breach of its nonproliferation obligations and said that it had found undeclared nuclear activities, a lack of transparency and cooperation, and a failure to abide by safeguards. One day after that, on June 13, is when Israel launched its first attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, nuclear scientists, top military leaders, and Iran's supreme leaders advisor who had been the one overseeing the nuclear negotiations with the

U.S. That is when Iran pulled out and suspended nuclear talks indefinitely. We know that on June 16th, which is three days after Israel's initial attacks on Iran, Trump left the G7 summit early, citing the situation in the Middle East, and told the National Security Council to be ready in the situation room when he got back to DC. June 19th is when Trump said he would make a decision

on Iran within two weeks, and two days later on June 21st is when the US dropped its bombs. So that's the brief timeline of what has taken place over the last few months. Now, before we get into the Q&A, I just want to briefly summarize what the issue is between the US and Iran. And really, the US are allies and Iran because it's not just the US that has an issue with Iran. But I'll start by saying there was a time when the US was not at such odds with Iran. Back in 1957, the US actually launched Iran's nuclear program.

Notably, it was for civilian use, not for nuclear weapons, but it was part of this Adams for Peace initiative, which was a program where the US was helping developing countries receive nuclear education and technology. Keep in mind, back then, Iran was a very different place than it is today. Prior to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran was ruled by what was considered to be a fairly Western-friendly monarch. And what I mean by that is women could wear the clothing they wanted to, women were encouraged to get an education, there were protections against child marriage. It was much more progressive than what it is today. Today, women's testimony and legal

proceedings carries half the weight of a man's testimony. Mandatory dress code requirements require women to cover their hair, neck, arms, and legs in public. The legal age to marry in Iran is nine years old and homosexuality is a capital offense, meaning you can be put to death. You will be put to death if you are a homosexual. But it wasn't just these laws affecting women and children. It was also the fact that after the Iranian Revolution, Iran started investing in its militant groups and proxies and calling for the death of America, calling for the death

of Israel, supporting Shiite and Islamist movements across the Middle East to challenge Western influence and rival governments like the American government. So when the new regime took over in 1979 after the Iranian revolution, a lot changed. And I want to note too that the Iranian Revolution could be a whole episode in and of itself. It was an incredibly complex event that had a lot of foreign influence, including by the United States. Some even say that the revolution was all America's fault. So what I will say for, and others by the way say it was not America's fault at all, it's just it's a very, yeah, very complex event, like I said.

So what I will say for the purpose of this episode is that the Iranian Revolution changed the country of Iran and after the Iranian Revolution is when the US pulled its support for Iran's nuclear development. Since 1979, the US and other Western nations have grown increasingly more worried that Iran could use its nuclear program to produce nuclear weapons. And these countries have tried to basically do everything that they can to avoid that. And we'll talk more about why these countries don't trust Iran later on in the episode. But the idea of not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons is a nonpartisan idea.

People on both sides of the aisle and from various Western countries do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. And that is why Obama negotiated this deal with six other countries to curb Iran's nuclear development. That's why Trump is wanting to reopen negotiations despite pulling out of the deal that Obama negotiated in 2018. So when Trump pulled out of that deal that was negotiated by Obama and six other countries, Trump said that he would negotiate a new deal, but that was never negotiated.

In 2021, when Biden took office, talks were held in Vienna between the signers of the original agreement, but both Iran and the US insisted that each side be the first to resume its obligations under the deal. Meaning, the US insisted that Iran stop enriching its uranium and Iran insisted that the US lift its sanctions against Iran. And nothing really came of these talks. Iran ends up electing a new president, which caused the talks to stall even further, and when talks did resume again, Iran came to the table with a more hard-line stance than what it came with before. So it made it even more difficult to negotiate. All the while, Iran is continuing to enrich its uranium. So these

countries that are worried about it are getting increasingly more worried. In 2023, the war between Israel and Hamas breaks out. Hamas is backed by Iran. Israel is backed by the US. And I'm not going to get into the relations between Israel and Iran because that too could be a whole episode in and of itself. But long story short, the US never finalized negotiations when Biden was in office. So when Trump took office in January, he proposed new negotiations. And that is when those talks started in April, and now we're here. So all of this is over the fact that Iran is not to be trusted with nuclear

weapons, and the US and its allies are trying to stop it. Those are the basics. Like, if I were to sum this up into two sentences, that's what I would say. Now I want to answer your questions, because that's where we're really going to dive in and learn a lot more. I want to start with the most basic question I received, which was what is uranium enrichment? So uranium is a metal, okay? It has a few different uses, but most uranium today goes towards nuclear energy and or nuclear weapons. The uranium actually acts as a fuel for these things, but not all uranium atoms are the same.

Most natural uranium is made up of a type of atom called U-238 and then another type of atom called U-235. U-238 makes up the majority of natural uranium. It cannot be easily used for nuclear reactions. However, U-235 makes up less than 1% of natural uranium and can be used to produce energy in nuclear power plants or nuclear bombs. Uranium enrichment is the process of increasing the amount of U-235 in a sample of uranium. Because there is so little of it in naturally occurring uranium, you have to enrich it for it to be used for nuclear purposes. Low enriched uranium, which has about 3 to 5% U235,

is used for nuclear power plants, which are generally safe, they're not meant to cause harm, they're meant to provide a clean and safe source of energy and power. Highly enriched uranium, however, which has more than 90% U235, is used for nuclear weapons. So to recap, uranium enrichment is the step in the nuclear fuel cycle where you are increasing

the concentration of U235. And like I said, slight uranium enrichment, not bad. It's when uranium becomes highly enriched that there's really no good use for it other than for nuclear weapons, and that is what Iran has been doing. Next question. Do all countries enrich uranium? What is the issue with Iran enriching uranium? Most countries don't enrich uranium.

It is a highly sensitive, technically complex, and heavily regulated process because of its connection to nuclear weapons. The countries that do enrich uranium are very closely monitored, like agencies like the IAEA. And these countries that do include the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, Iran, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Now we know that of those countries, all of them, except Iran, admit to enriching uranium for their nuclear weapons.

Iran claims it only enriches uranium for civilian energy. But the IAEI and other Western intelligence have disputed that and that is why we are here. To speak to the second part of the question though, which is what's the issue with Iran enriching uranium, we have to talk about the power dynamics of the globe. Countries do not trust Iran's leadership with nuclear weapons. Iran has been secretive in the past and has made some pretty serious threats against other countries like the United States and Israel. And Iran supports terrorist groups in other countries like Hamas and Hezbollah, which, you know, makes people nervous about what they might do if they had access to nuclear weapons.

Now you might ask, but don't other countries like Russia and China have nuclear weapons too? What's the difference? Yes, Russia and China do have nuclear weapons, but they've had them for a long time and The world has kind of learned how to deal with them even when things are somewhat tense between these countries It's just part of the established global order if Iran got nuclear weapons It would shake up that balance and it could cause other nearby countries to try to get nukes too, which could make the whole region more dangerous and unstable. You might also ask, well, doesn't North Korea have nuclear weapons? Isn't its leadership dangerous?

Why are we worried about Iran and not North Korea? The short answer is that North Korea is isolated and its nuclear program is seen more as a defensive tool to keep its regime in power. Sure North Korea threatens the United States and South Korea, but it has limited global reach. Iran, on the other hand, has major global oil influence. It has active military reach through its proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, and it sits near

critical international shipping lanes like the Strait of Hormuz. So its influence is way broader than North Korea, and nuclear capability would expand that influence even more. So in short, the fear behind nuclear weapons, it's not just about the weapon itself, it's about who has it, how they might use it, and the possible effects of that use. The next question is, has the US always been opposed to Iran's nuclear enrichment? So as I said in the beginning of the episode, the US and Iran have an incredibly complex relationship, but the short answer is no. The

United States has not always been opposed to nuclear, to Iran's slight nuclear enrichment, right? But that's again because Iran wasn't always the Iran that it is today. We had joined that Adams for Peace agreement with Iran in the 50s, and then in the early 70s, Iran agreed to forego the development of nuclear weapons as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a treaty signed by about 190 states. It's meant to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Under that agreement, signatories allow the IAEA to inspect their nuclear facilities for the purpose of ensuring that countries are complying with their obligations. But in 1979, when the Iranian Revolution happened, and over the years, since 1979, Iran started funding these militant groups

and proxies around the world and started the process of acquiring the technology that is necessary to develop its nuclear weapons. And that is when the concerns started to rise. Notably, according to US intelligence, Iran stopped its work on nuclear weapons in 2003, but continued to acquire the technology necessary to do so. Prior to the nuclear deal under Obama, the countries that were ultimately a part of the JCPOA, which is the agreement that Obama ultimately negotiated, had been negotiating with Iran

for years over its uranium enrichment because there was this widespread concern. But it wasn't until 2013 when a new Iranian president was elected that the parties were actually able to come to a preliminary agreement that then guided the negotiations for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the terms of the JCPOA, why President Trump ultimately pulled out of it, and much, much more. No Frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express.

Shop online and get $15 in PC optimum points on your first five orders. Shop now at nofrills.ca. The Chevrolet employee pricing event is on now. Get a big cash purchase discount of up to $11,300 on the 2025 Chevrolet Silverado LDZR2 and Silverado HDZR2. With a factory installed lift kit and Multimatic DSSV dampers on both the Silverado LD and HDZR2, you'll have all the capability you need to leave the asphalt behind. Hurry in! Employee pricing is on for a limited time. Welcome back. Just before we took our break, we had gotten to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or the JCPOA. What was the JCPOA?

This was an agreement that was reached in 2015 between Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the US. So that's the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, and then of course Iran. Basically, under the agreement, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program and open its facilities to inspections in exchange for the lifting of billions of billions of dollars in international sanctions against it. So the goal of these six countries was to unwind Iran's nuclear program to the point that if it decided

to pursue a nuclear weapon, it would take at least a year for them to do so. Heading into negotiations, US.S. intelligence officials estimated that Iran could produce enough nuclear material for a weapon in just a few months without an agreement in place. So under the terms of the deal, Iran's operating centrifuges had to be reduced for 10 years.

And centrifuges, by the way, are the machines that separate the U-238 from the U-235 and then enrich that U-235. Excess centrifuges had to be dismantled and stored under IAEA monitoring. Uranium enrichment had to be capped at 3.6% for 15 years. So keep in mind that 3.6% number, remember for civilian purposes, for nuclear energy purposes, uranium enrichment is between 3 and 5%. It's not until it gets to close to 90% that uranium can be used for these nuclear weapons. So under this deal, Iran had to cap its enrichment at

3.6% for 15 years. Also, enrichment could only take place at Iran's Natanz facility. For the next 15 years, Iran's stockpile had to be kept under 300 kilograms of 3.6% enriched uranium, and excess enriched uranium had to be sold, shipped abroad for storage, or diluted. The fertile facility had to be converted, shipped abroad for storage, or diluted. The fertile facility had to be converted to a research facility. There could be no uranium introduced at that facility for the

next 15 years, and all of Iran's facilities would be monitored for the next 20 to 25 years, depending on the facility and what it was doing. So under the terms of that agreement, a lot of the limits on Iran's nuclear program actually expired between 2025 and 2030. Now that is not an exhaustive list of the terms, okay? There were far more terms than that, but those are just the main points just to give you an idea

of how this agreement was structured. And like I said, in exchange, the UN, the US and the EU would lift billions of dollars worth of sanctions that they had imposed on Iran. So the next question is, did Iran comply with the deal? In 2016, which was one year after the JCPOA was signed, the IAEA certified that Iran had met its preliminary pledges and in response, those international sanctions against Iran were lifted. President Obama also dropped secondary sanctions on the oil sector, which

allowed Iran to increase its oil exports almost to the level that it was exporting before the sanctions. And the US and EU also unfroze about $100 billion worth of Iranian assets. Now that prompted mixed reactions. Supporters argued that the unfrozen assets combined with lifted sanctions were critical for rebuilding Iran's economy and felt that the money would go to essential needs like infrastructure, jobs, and public welfare. Critics considered the unfreezing of assets to be this quote unquote signing bonus, right, which would allow Iran to fund militant groups and proxies. But regardless of the mixed reactions, we actually saw something similar more recently with President Biden, and we'll talk about that more later on in the episode.

Regardless of those mixed reactions, the funds were unfrozen. The nuclear deal continued until 2018. In 2018 is when President Trump withdrew the U.S US from the deal and reinstated the banking and oil sanctions that the US had on Iran and For about a year after that Trump did issue waivers which allowed other countries to continue importing Iranian oil despite the US's withdrawal But those waivers were actually ended about a year later some some waivers continued years and years in down the road But the oil waivers were a bit more limited. Interestingly, in the wake of this, France, Germany, and the UK launched a barter system known as INSTEX, which would allow these other countries

to still facilitate transactions with Iran outside of the US banking system. It was meant to be a workaround that allowed the nuclear deal to remain intact, but that system ended up only lasting a few years. It was dissolved in 2023 due to Iranian obstruction. Specifically, Iran failed to implement the corresponding financial mechanism on its side,

known as STFI. Insects was also limited to non-sanctioned goods like food and medicine, but Iran pushed for broader transactions that would violate US sanctions. That wasn't something European countries were willing to do. And then Iran was also reportedly unwilling to comply with international financial transparency standards and was continuing to breach terms of the nuclear deal. So slowly, once the U.S. pulled out, the deal fell apart. Iran went back to enriching

uranium without any regard for limits. That leads us to the next question, which is why did Trump pull out of the nuclear deal? Trump felt that the deal was not constructive and could have been better. He felt that the deal failed to address Iran's destabilizing influence in the Middle East, failed to address the development of Iran's ballistic missile system, felt it didn't include a strong enough mechanism for inspections and verification, and he didn't like the expiration dates or the sunset provisions that would allow Iran to pursue nuclear weapons in the future. Trump was quoted saying the Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. When

Trump pulled out of the deal, his administration cited Israeli intelligence that allegedly showed details of Iran's past secret efforts to develop nuclear weapons. So at the time, Trump was saying that Iran hadn't come clean about its nuclear weapons activity and therefore entered into the JCPOA in bad faith. And because of all of these reasons, he was taking the US out of it. Trump felt and still feels that in addition to Iran agreeing to never developing a nuclear weapon, Iran should also have to agree to never having an intercontinental ballistic missile, which is a long-range missile. Iran should cease developing any nuclear-capable missiles,

stop proliferating ballistic missiles to others, cease its support for terrorists, extremists, and regional proxies, end its publicly declared quest to destroy Israel, stop its threats to freedom of navigation, especially in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, cease escalating conflicts in the Middle East and destabilizing the region by proliferating weapons to the Houthis and other militant groups, end its cyber attacks against the United States and its allies, stop its grievous human rights abuses, and stop its unjust detention of foreigners, including United States citizens. So for all of those reasons, Trump pulled out of the deal, and once the US was out, the deal fell apart.

Iran, like I said, went back to unrestricted uranium enrichment. So the next question is, what has happened since President Trump pulled out of the deal? Well, starting in 2019, Iran started limiting the IAEA's ability to inspect its facilities and began exceeding the limits that were placed on its stockpile of enriched uranium. It also started developing new centrifuges which would allow it to accelerate its enrichment. In 2023, IAEA inspectors reported they found trace uranium particles at Fordow, which is Iran's main nuclear facility, that had been enriched to 83.7%. Remember, 90% is nuclear weapons status. Now, these were just trace particles, okay? They didn't find all of the enriched uranium to be 83%.

These were just trace particles. But this is what really prompted the international concern surrounding Iran's nuclear capabilities. Keep in mind too that between 2019 and today, other events have contributed to the tension we're seeing, right? In January 2020, the United States killed a top Iranian general named Qassam Soleimani who led Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Following the killing of Soleimani is when Iran said publicly it was no longer going to limit its uranium enrichment. In October 2020, Iran constructed a centrifuge production center

at Natanz to replace one that was destroyed months earlier in an attack which Iran blamed on Israel. Israel never claimed responsibility for. Similarly, in November 2020, a prominent Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated, which Iran again attributed to Israel, though Israel never formally claimed responsibility. Following that assassination, Iran passed a law mandating an increase in uranium enrichment and the installation of advanced centrifuges at its Fordow facility. As we talked about briefly earlier, the Biden administration tried to hold talks with Iran between 2021 and 2023, but nothing ever came of them. Then in 2023, the war between Israel and Hamas broke out.

Tensions between Israel and Iran continued to escalate. Negotiations, of course, were resumed earlier this year with the US giving Iran 60 days to agree to something, but the parties couldn't agree. The 60 days to agree to something, but the parties couldn't agree, the 60 days expired. The IAEA comes out with this report that Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. The next day Israel strikes Iran, a little over a week later, the US gets involved.

So that's the very short summary of what's taken place since 2019, but I say that to say that there have been other events that have taken place since Trump's pullout of the deal that have led to this tension that we're seeing with Iran. Next question, how was the operation carried out and what was Trump's purpose? Was it really because of nuclear power

or was the attack meant to prompt regime change? First, let's talk about the actual operation and then I'll get into the purpose of the operation. So we know that late Friday night around midnight, First, let's talk about the actual operation and then I'll get into the purpose of the operation. So we know that late Friday night around midnight, seven B-2 bomber flights with two crew members each took off from Missouri en route to Iran. Some B-2 bombers were sent west as a decoy, which is when you may have seen those reports that B-2 bombers were being sent to Guam.

That's what that was. The bombers en route to Iran did not stop once. They refueled once, but they did so while they were in the air, which is pretty crazy. The flight to Iran was 18 hours, which is the longest flight the aircraft have made since 2001. Once in Iran, it was a 25-minute operation. So three B-2 bombers dropped in total 14 what are called Massive Ordnance Penetrator Bombs, also known as MOPs or bunker busters, on the Fordow and Natanz nuclear sites. Fordow is, I think I mentioned this earlier,

but it's Iran's most secretive site. It sits deep into a mountainside and also very deep underground, which is why the bunker busters were used. Meanwhile, just before the planes entered Iranian airspace, some Marines that were at an undisclosed location off the coast, about 400 miles away, fired 30 Tomahawk missiles at the site of Isfahan, which is another nuclear site. And those missiles landed on the Isfahan site after the bombs were dropped on the other two sites,

because obviously those take a minute to, take a few minutes actually, to travel through the air. So while they were launched before the B-2 bombers dropped their bombs, the submarines had actually already launched their missiles at this other nuclear site. More than 125 US aircraft took part in the mission, including the B-2 bombers, multiple fighter jets, refueling planes, and surveillance aircraft.

To speak a little bit on those bunker busters, these are bombs that only the US has. And mind you, the US has never used them up until this past weekend. They are these 30,000 pound bombs that are encased in a high density steel, and they actually pick up speed as they drop from about seven and a half miles in the air. And due to that velocity and their design, they can actually penetrate through 200 feet of mountain rock before exploding underground. But these bombs can also be dropped one after the other to essentially drill deeper and

deeper with each successive explosion. Because of their unique ability to get so far underground, military analysts were saying that these bombs were really the only shot at getting through to this Fordow facility. Now as I briefly mentioned, the Fordow facility is buried specifically to avoid being targeted by bunker buster bombs. So it sits deep inside a mountainside and then about 250 to 300 feet below the ground. President Trump said the strikes obliterated

the nuclear sites, but we do not have an official assessment from the IAEA at this point. The IAEA said that there has been extensive additional damage to the Esfahan site, but gave no further information on Fordow or Natanz. We know that the sites were in fact hit and this was confirmed by the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization. We just don't know the extent of the damage or how

successful the strikes were. In other words, we don't know whether the uranium was moved beforehand like Iran has said it was. We don't know how much uranium was actually destroyed. We just don't really know anything yet. So there are still a lot of questions to be answered on that front. As far as why President Trump did this and what his purpose was, anything other than destroying the nuclear sites and protecting us and our allies from Iran having nuclear weapons would be speculative. What I can say is that in the beginning, Defense Secretary Hegseth and Vice President Vance were both saying that the strikes were strictly to prohibit Iran from possessing nuclear weapons and that the US is not seeking war with Iran and is

not trying to force a regime change. We also know that President Trump said a couple of weeks ago that he had vetoed a decision to assassinate Iran's supreme leader, which would seemingly speak to the idea that the US is not trying to force a regime change. But then yesterday, Trump wrote on Truth Social, quote, It's not politically correct to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change? Make Iran great again, end quote. Now it's true that it's harder to force a regime change when a country has nuclear weapons, right?

Just look at North Korea. The whole reason North Korea has nuclear weapons is to protect the regime. So removing Iran's nuclear power may be part of a bigger goal in keeping the regime removable, but for right now, the immediate goal is getting rid of Iran's nuclear power. Like my friend Moshe said, which if you don't follow him on social media, you should, his handle is Moshe. He also does nonpartisan reporting. He is great when it comes to international affairs.

He basically said that a regime change would just be icing on the cake for America, but it's not America's immediate goal. Okay, let's take our second break here. When we come back, we will talk about whether Iran was actually in possession of nuclear weapons, the constitutionality and legality of the strikes, and much more. Welcome back. Before we took a break, we talked about how the operation was carried out and what the administration's purpose was. The next question is, quote, to confirm the sites we bombed did or did not have nuclear weapons. Why bomb if they didn't? End quote. So Iran doesn't and didn't have actual nuclear weapons. The question was whether Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, because there's a difference between enriching uranium in pursuit of nuclear

weapons and actually building nuclear weapons. The building of nuclear weapons doesn't happen until the uranium is enriched to the point at which it needs to be enriched. And whether Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons through uranium enrichment is something that's been disputed by US intelligence and President Trump. US intelligence claimed that Iran is not building nuclear weapons, but Trump denied that assessment and referenced that January IAEA finding that detected traces of uranium particles enriched to 83.7% at Iran's Ferdow facility. Now I didn't say this earlier, but Iran attributes that 83.7% finding to an accidental fluctuation

during the startup of new centrifuge cascades that are designed to enrich uranium only up to 60%. The IAEA director seemingly confirmed that Iran does not have uranium enriched to 83.7%. He said most recently at a July 9th meeting that Iran had accumulated 400 kilograms or 880 pounds of enriched uranium of 60% purity, and at the same time accused Iran of violating nuclear safeguards,

given the fact that Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium at that level. The 60% purity level is undisputed. Iran has acknowledged that it maxes its enrichment at 60%. But keep in mind that uranium enriched to 60% purity is unnecessary for civilian energy purposes, which is what Iran has been saying it's doing this whole time.

Civilian energy only requires uranium enriched to three and a half to five percent. There is no use for uranium enriched to 60% purity outside of nuclear weapons. Once uranium is enriched to 60%, it only takes anywhere from a few days to a couple of weeks to enrich that uranium to 90% purity. And at that point, Iran would have a nuclear bombs worth of uranium. However, also keep in mind, even once that uranium enriches to 90%, Iran would have to actually weaponize the uranium, meaning it would have to turn it into an actual warhead that could be delivered by a missile. And that could take months, maybe even a year,

maybe even longer. So that's why I said there's a difference between actually possessing nuclear weapons and pursuing nuclear weapons through enrichment. To be clear, what we know for sure is that uranium enrichment was occurring at Iran's nuclear facilities. We just don't know if it was 60% purity, as Iran says, or if it was closer to 80% purity, like the particles indicated. Either way, it's very close to that 90% purity required for nuclear weapons. Keep in mind the US and our allies, there's no trust in Iran at all. So while Iran says its enrichment is being capped at 60%, Western countries are not buying that. One of the reasons for the distrust

is that Iran has been pretty secretive about what's really going down at their facilities over the years. In fact, Iran only disclosed its Fordow facility to the IAEA once Western intelligence found out about the site in 2009. Prior to that, the facility was not disclosed by Iran. So to wrap this up, no, Iran didn't

and doesn't have assembled nuclear weapons, but we bombed the sites because of the risks associated with Iran having highly enriched uranium, and the short amount of time it takes to actually turn that highly enriched uranium into a nuclear weapon. Why did Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, say in March that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and is she saying otherwise now? So what Tulsi Gabbard told members of Congress in March is that Iran had a stock of materials but was not actively building nuclear weapons. Specifically what she said is this, quote, Iran continues to seek expansion of its influence in the Middle East despite the degradation to its proxies and defenses during the Gaza conflict.

Iran has developed and maintains ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and UAVs, including systems capable of striking US targets and allies in the region. Tehran has shown a willingness to use those weapons, including during a 2020 attack on US forces in Iraq and in attacks against Israel in April, attacks against Israel in April and October, 2024. Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to US networks and data. And this is the important part. She goes on to say that IC, the intelligence community, continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear

weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program. In the past year, we have seen an erosion of decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons." In other words, she said Iran is not actively building nuclear weapons, but that Iran's stockpile of uranium is not normal for a state without nuclear weapons and that the Iranian

government is likely talking more about the development of nuclear weapons now that the taboo of talking about it has kind of broken down in recent years. Now once Trump launched these strikes on Iran, people questioned why the strikes were launched despite Gabbard saying that Iran was not currently building a nuclear weapon. Gabbard took to X to write, quote, the dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division. America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months if they decide to finalize the assembly.

President Trump has been clear that can't happen and I agree." End quote. So to be clear, what Gabbard said in March is that Iran is not actively building nuclear weapons, but it's important to realize that there is a difference between building nuclear weapons and enriching uranium for the purpose of pursuing nuclear weapons, which we talked about in the last question. It's undisputed, like I said, that Iran is enriching uranium. Even Iran acknowledges that. What Gabbard said is that Iran isn't building, actually assembling nuclear weapons, which is different, and it happens once that enriched uranium hits 90% purity or more. Alright, let's get to the question you've

all been waiting for, which is were these strikes constitutional? Isn't President Trump required to get congressional approval and can he be impeached because of this? The answer to this question is not straightforward and anyone telling you that it is, is lying to you. I have said it before, I will say it again, rarely is the law straightforward, rarely is the Constitution straightforward. So here's the thing, the Constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war, but that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military. So per the Constitution,

the president can use military force in limited situations without Congress's formal approval as commander-in-chief. And the reason that our founders set it up like this is because military action often requires quick, decisive action. Congress is the opposite of that. Okay? So Congress was created by our founding fathers to deliberate. The whole entire purpose of Congress is to have this big body of people, representative of the people in this country, to deliberate on laws. So the founders gave the president military powers as commander in chief, but gave the power to declare war, which is much more serious to Congress.

War has not been declared here, just to be clear. Now, as commander in chief, the president's implied powers, including gauging in military operations, which is different than declaring war. While controversial, since the year 2000, presidents have increasingly used their Article 2 Commander in Chief power to justify limited and defensive strikes without congressional approval. As examples, Clinton bombed Serbia in 99, Obama authorized strikes in Libya in 2011, Trump ordered the strike that killed Soleimani in 2020. Biden ordered strikes in Syria and Iraq in 2021, 2023, and 2024.

And of course, Trump just authorized these strikes in Iran over the weekend. Each of those instances that I just named were done without Congress's approval. Because Congress never officially and explicitly declared war during all of these military operations, the US doesn't consider them official wars, so the president in authorizing these strikes was not technically acting outside of his constitutional authority by merely authorizing military operations as commander-in-chief. So the main legal justification here is the president's authority under Article 2 of the

Constitution as commander-in-chief, which is meant to protect U.S. personnel and national interests from imminent threats. Was this an imminent threat though? That is the question. Now we'll talk about more, we'll talk about the imminent threat debate more in a minute. But a lot of you asked about the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was passed to limit presidential authority to direct military operations. And this was passed in response to the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations sending

US troops to Southeast Asia without congressional approval. That resolution requires the president to alert Congress that troops have been deployed within 48 hours of their deployment. And then if Congress doesn't grant an extension for their deployment deployment the president has to remove those troops after 60 days. Since that resolution was passed though Congress itself has actually weakened it to some extent so after 9-11 Congress passed the authorizations for use of military force against terrorists or AUMF which allowed the president to use all necessary force against nations or people associated with 9-11 without requiring congressional approval first.

The first AUMF was passed in 2001, the second was passed in 2002. And the thing with these is that they're still in effect today. They never expired, they won't expire unless Congress specifically repeals them or replaces them. But that probably won't happen because Congress wants to keep them around for flexibility when it comes to fighting terrorism. Some argue, though, that these congressional authorizations have been stretched beyond their original intent. Their original intent was to authorize force against those responsible for

9-11 and to fight Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. But they have been used by all presidents from President Bush to President Biden and now probably President Trump. So the answer is that it's complicated. Do not let anyone tell you it's straightforward because it's not. One thing I want to make clear because I think the media can be really deceptive about this, whenever a president launches

strikes without Congress, people are split on whether it is an unconstitutional act. When Biden launched the strikes in Syria and Iraq, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle said the strikes were unconstitutional and that he should have consulted with them first, whereas others were saying he was well within his power to do so. Same thing is happening here with Trump. What it comes down to is was Trump responding to an emergency or imminent threat? If he was the strikes were within his article to power if he wasn't the strikes may very well be considered unconstitutional and there are arguments on both sides of the debate of

Whether this is an imminent threat. Like I've said it comes down to at what stage was Iran's uranium enrichment and how close was Iran to building a nuclear weapon? How far out were they? That would answer the question of whether this is considered to be an imminent threat. And of course, imminent could be subjective too. So there's a lot of debate here of what the answer actually is. The second or third part of this question is can Trump be impeached for his actions? Maybe, but only if the strikes are seen as unconstitutional by a majority of the lawmakers and that probably won't happen. Some lawmakers in

the House may bring impeachment charges, but from there the House Judiciary Committee would have to find sufficient grounds for impeachment before the articles of impeachment are actually drafted and then eventually voted on by the full House. So I doubt it'll happen, but only time will tell. We will see. Next question, were the strikes illegal under international law or is there an international law that justifies them? If illegal, are there any repercussions under international law? The legality of the airstrikes under international law is very similar to that analysis under the Constitution. It depends on how the action is justified and interpreted. Under the UN Charter, the use of force by one state against another is generally prohibited unless it's in self-defense against an armed attack or authorized by the UN Security

Council. Now, the US justifies these strikes by citing the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, framing it as a preemptive self-defense measure. However, under international law, preemptive or anticipatory self-defense is only lawful if the threat is imminent, which again raises that same question. Is Iran's uranium enrichment program an imminent threat? If the strikes are deemed illegal, the primary repercussions would come through diplomatic and political channels rather than enforceable legal penalties. But I mean, nothing can be done that would really impact the United States. In theory, the UN Security Council could condemn the action, it could impose sanctions, it could, if the strikes were to rise to the level of a war

crime, it could refer the matter to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. But in reality, accountability is really limited, especially because the US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and can use its own veto power to block any formal action against it. So while the strikes could potentially be challenged as illegal under international law, enforcement is weak, especially when it comes to the United States. Let's take our third and final break of the episode. When I come back, we will talk about how we can expect Iran to retaliate.

I'll tell you the truth about a viral social media post, and then we'll finish with some rapid fire questions. Welcome back. Moving right along, how should we expect Iran to retaliate against the United States? Should we be scared that World War III is going to break out? Well, we know that Iran fired missiles at the largest US base in Qatar today,

which was their first act of retaliation against America. So far, there have been no injuries or deaths reported from that attack, and those missiles were intercepted. In fact, Iran sort of gave Qatar a heads-up. Qatar was able to close their airspace, redirect planes ahead of the attack, so it wasn't necessarily a total surprise. Remember that Qatar is Iran's friend, so Iran is not going to get on Qatar's bad side. Other things we could potentially see, cyber attacks, more targets against US military bases, potentially

some sleeper cell activations here in the United States, which is if you don't know what sleeper cells are, basically people that are living in the United States that are terrorists, for lack of a better word, that activate when they're needed. So if Iran were to activate a sleeper cell, for the best example I can think of off the top of my head, 9-11, right? So if these sleeper cells are activated to carry out some sort of retaliatory act here in the United States, that's what that would be.

It's also possible that the strikes on Qatar, that's gonna be the end of it. If you look at what's gone on between Iran and Israel over the last couple of weeks, Iran's retaliatory efforts have been incredibly weak. More than 75% of Iran's missile stockpile has been depleted. Every drone that's been sent to Israel has been shot down, and only about 10% of the 500 or so launched missiles have landed in Israel. That's as of Sunday. Keep in mind also that Iran does not have long-range missiles that can reach the United States. So you don't have to worry about

them sending any missiles towards us. They can't make it this far. Also keep in mind that if Iran does decide to launch some sort of large-scale attack on the United States, whether it's a cyber attack, sleeper cell activation, a large attack on a military base, that would almost certainly be seen as a declaration of war. And Iran just simply does not stand a chance against the United States if a war is declared. That doesn't mean it won't happen and Iran won't do something bigger. It just means it's less likely because Iran wouldn't necessarily want to put itself in that losing situation. Speaking of war though, should you be scared that World

War III is going to break out? No. Let me put your fears at ease. China and Russia, which would be Iran's two biggest allies, are not even close to coming to Iran's defense. Okay, even the militant groups that Iran backs like Hezbollah, they've said they're not getting involved in this. Now Putin did meet with Iran's foreign minister this morning and said that the unprovoked aggression against Iran has no basis and no justification and that Russia is making efforts to assist the Iranian people. But that doesn't mean with nuclear weapons or war equipment, okay? Remember that Russia is very much occupied with its war in Ukraine. They are not going to get into another war.

And everything that's going on in the Middle East is actually a great distraction for Russia. Eyes are off of Russia for right now. That is a good thing for them. They are not going to want to draw eyes back on them. Also, Russia's strategic partnership with Iran does not have a mutual defense clause, meaning they don't have to come to each other's defense. Russia's former president did say today that multiple countries were willing to directly supply Iran with nuclear warheads. Trump then responded to this saying that the N-word referring to nuclear shouldn't be used so casually and that prompted Russia's former president to clarify his words and say, quote, Russia has no intention of supplying nuclear weapons to Iran because unlike Israel, we are parties to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

I know quite well what this would entail, having overseen our nuclear forces as president, but other countries might. That's what was said, end quote. So Russia is not getting directly involved. As for China, China said that Iran was hurt in the attacks, that the United States credibility was damaged, and it called for an immediate ceasefire to prevent the situation from escalating and avoid the spillover of war. So China is also calling for de-escalation. We obviously can't say what China would do if the situation escalated, but they don't seem to be jumping at the opportunity to join it. So no, this is not World War III.

This is just military action. Military action like this has happened in the past. World War III has not broken out. The last thing I will just quickly address is the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which is a vital shipping canal where almost one-third of the world's oil is shipped through. It's been reported that Iran's Parliament voted to close the strait, but Iran's Supreme National Security Council makes the final decision on that and has not

said whether that will happen. Blocking that strait would significantly impact oil prices around the globe, However, it would also detrimentally impact Iran, which is why they probably won't proceed with that option. And if they do, it might only be short term. Iran has actually threatened to close that waterway and pass conflicts, but has never actually followed through on it. And if it did block the strait, itself and China would likely be the most impacted. Of course, the US would be impacted too, but not as much as China and Iran. So it would not make too much sense for Iran to close it off. And finally, this last question is something I would typically address in my Rumor Hazard segment, but I don't want to wait until

Thursday to answer it. So let's cover it now. So someone actually, a lot of you actually sent me the same screenshot and on it is a picture of, you may have seen it, on it is a picture of you you may have seen it on it is a picture of Hillary Clinton Barack Obama and Joe Biden and the text on the screen on the picture says remember how we got here Hillary Clinton supplied Iran with uranium to enrich their nuclear program Barack Obama gave Iran 1.7 billion dollars that they used to fund their nuclear program and Joe Biden unfroze over $16 billion of funds for Iran. So don't even blame this on Trump.

Okay, like I said, ton of you sent this to me. So let's talk about it. We'll take it one claim at a time, starting with the first one. Did Hillary Clinton supply Iran with uranium to enrich their nuclear program? No, but let's add some context. So this claim likely stems from some confusion over something

called the Uranium One deal, which happened while Clinton was Secretary of State. That deal involved a Canadian mining company that had operations in the United States being bought by a Russian company. Because it involved a foreign company buying part of a U.S.-based business, the deal had to be approved by a government panel that Clinton was a part of. Importantly, under that deal, the uranium mined in the US under that deal was not allowed to be exported to other countries like Iran. And Iran gets its uranium from its own mines, as well as from countries that are not part of this agreement. Now, at the same time, while Clinton was serving as Secretary of State,

concern over Iran's nuclear program was growing and consequently in 2012, Clinton's top foreign policy aide Jake Sullivan took part in these secret talks with Iranian diplomats in Oman, but no progress was made. And the goal of those talks, same thing to what we're seeing today, was to come to some sort of agreement with Iran limiting its uranium enrichment. At the time, Iran was continuing to enrich uranium in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. So as part of this evolving diplomatic strategy, US officials, including Clinton, began to accept that Iran might be allowed to enrich small amounts of uranium for peaceful purposes under strict international monitoring as part of a more final agreement. And that shift was seen as controversial at the time, but also seen as a necessary compromise to bring Iran to the table and have further discussions.

So these two events, the uranium one deal and the enrichment concession deal with Iran, seem to be the basis for this claim. But the claim is falsely conflating these two unrelated stories. The next claim is that former President Barack Obama gave 1.7 billion dollars that Iran used to fund its nuclear program. While it's true that Obama transferred 1.7 billion dollars to Iran in 2016, the claim as used in this context is a bit misleading. So the 1.7 billion dollar payment was part of a legal settlement between the US and Iran.

What happened was in the 70s, before the Iranian Revolution, Iran had paid the US $400 million for military equipment. After the resolution and the breakdown of diplomatic relations between the US and Iran, the US never delivered that equipment and instead froze the funds that Iran had paid it. Decades later, the United States and Iran settled the dispute through the Iran-US Claims Tribunal.

And that settlement was that the US would return the $400 million principle plus $1.3 billion in interest for a total of $1.7 billion. The money was sent in cash. This is largely because Iran was cut off from the international banking system due to sanctions. So it's true that Obama approved a $1.7 billion transfer to Iran as a result of a legal settlement, but whether that money was then used by Iran to support its nuclear development has not been confirmed. It very well could have been, we just don't know.

The last claim is that former President Joe Biden unfroze over $16 billion in funds for Iran. Like the claim that we just don't know. The last claim is that former president Joe Biden unfroze over $16 billion in funds for Iran. Like the claim that we just did, this one is technically true, but it's misleading without context. In 2023, two separate agreements allowed Iran to access up to $16 billion in previously frozen assets, but with strict restrictions.

So the funds were handed over on the condition that Iran used the money for limited humanitarian purposes like food, medicine, and other non-sanctioned goods. One of these agreements came in September 2023 as part of a U.S.-Iran prisoner swap. Five American citizens detained in Iran were released in exchange for five Iranians held in the U.S. and the deal also included the unfreezing of $6 billion in Iranian assets that had been held in South Korean banks due to U.S. sanctions. That money was transferred to Qatar, where under the terms of the deal, it was to remain under tight control and only be disbursed for humanitarian transactions approved by

the U.S. Treasury. The other portion, roughly $10 billion, was related to Iran's sale of electricity to Iraq. After the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions, the Trump administration, as we briefly talked about earlier, allowed waivers, which one of those waivers allowed Iraq to continue purchasing Iranian electricity to avoid regional energy shortages. These waivers were renewed consistently through both the Trump and Biden administrations. And as a result, Iraq owed Iran nearly $10 billion in payments that had been accumulating in escrow accounts, also subject to U.S. oversight and limited to humanitarian use.

So in short, while Biden did approve mechanisms that allowed Iran to access up to $16 billion in frozen assets, the money was supposed to remain restricted, monitored, and limited to non-military, non-nuclear purposes. Could they have used this money for impermissible purposes? Sure, but we don't have any evidence of that happening. In fact, we talked about the same claim back when the Israel Hamas war broke out and a lot of people were saying that the unfreezing of these assets for Iran allowed Hamas to do everything that it did because Iran funds Hamas. So we're seeing the same claim, but now for two different things. The first claim was that the funds were used to fund the militant groups like Hamas. Now the second claim is that the funds were used to develop its nuclear program.

Okay, a couple of quick questions with some quick answers. This will be sort of a rapid fire round. Can Trump face consequences for striking Iran without congressional approval? Not unless Congress impeaches him, but even with impeachment, there's little to no consequences without an actual conviction.

So the answer here is likely no. What's the difference between declaring war and what is happening here? Well, we haven't declared war and we likely won't. The main difference is that a declaration of war requires a declaration from Congress and insinuates that the conflict is ongoing. This was a one-time military operation,

unless of course Iran retaliates in a way that causes the US to keep going, but even then a war most likely will not be declared. Is travel now unsafe? I wanted to fly to Europe for a week. Travel to Europe is fine. The State Department did just issue a worldwide caution alert,

which you can find on state.gov, but the level of risk is going to depend on where you're going. If you're going to England, Italy, Greece, et cetera, you're probably fine. If you're going somewhere like Saudi know, England, Italy, Greece, etc. You're probably fine. If you're going somewhere like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, anywhere in the Middle East, those places are an entirely different story. With that said, I would just be extra cautious wherever you're going. Be aware of your surroundings. You know, that's always important, but especially

right now. Why did the U.S. get involved in the conflict? Because the president felt that he had to and because we are the only country with the right bombs that could actually target the one nuclear facility that the US and its allies felt that it was the most important to target. Were there any radioactive spills from the strikes? Not as far as we know, both the IAEA and Iranian authorities have said there have

been no increases in off-site traditional levels, but that could change as more assessments are done and the strikes continue. We know Israel hit the Isfahan site today again, so who knows? As far as why we haven't seen increases in radiation, it's either because the targets weren't hit the way the US thinks they were, or it's because the uranium was moved prior to the attacks as Iran said it was, or it's because it just buried so deep underground and into the mountainsides that it hasn't escaped. The real risk is the Boucher nuclear site, which is a nuclear plant on Iran's Gulf Coast. That is above ground.

If that was directly hit, that would cause a high release of radioactivity into the environment. Next question, are they going to reinstate the draft? No, the draft cannot be reinstated unless Congress passes a new law. It would have to either repeal or amend the Military Selective Service Act and authorize induction into the military. From there, the president would have to sign it into law and activate the selective service system. This would only happen in response to a major war where the volunteer military cannot meet the manpower needs. We're not even close to that. And finally, what are the pros and cons of bombing Iran? Well, the main pro is removing Iran's nuclear capabilities now rather than waiting until they actually develop a weapon.

And the main con is initiating a military act, which could prompt retaliation, did prompt retaliation, and that retaliation can harm Americans, especially American troops. That is what you should know about the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. I am sure we will find out more in the coming days and weeks and even months so I will keep you updated as we do. Thank you so much for being here. As always, my voice is almost done for the day. Don't forget to subscribe to my newsletter, which is going out tomorrow. I gotta go work on that once I get this episode edited and up. Please share this episode with someone you love and I will talk to you again on Thursday.