I really can't tell what's true and what's not. But I'll tell you, his content is interesting from beginning to end. So you know, use your adult filters to put yourself in the head of nobody knows the future. Can we agree that nobody knows the future? But he says interesting things. I'm going to share a few with you.

And first of all, I need a fact check on this, because as Elon Musk says, the newspapers but also the regular news, they don't have regular news gathering assets, so they're trying to sell opinion as news. So when actual news drops, sometimes you can't find it anywhere because it's not opinion, it's actual news. But can you give me a confirmation? I haven't seen this in any news, so-called news, that we're working on a deal with Iran, and that is looking good. Have you heard that? I can't even tell if it was a new video, but why did I completely miss that in reading the news every single day, several times a day, and I never saw it? Well, I don't know why. I guess it's because, as Elon Musk says, the newspapers are not real news, and the regular news isn't real news.

And by the way, that was another thing that Peter Zeihan described. He described the evolution from having robust news bureaus in other countries to what we have now, which is people writing opinions, and then other people writing opinions about the other people's opinions. And we're selling it as news because it comes out on the legacy platforms that you used to think were news. So it makes you think that news is happening, but there hasn't been news in a long time, and news went away a long time ago. It's just opinions about opinions.

So anyway, but if Peter Zeihan is correct, it would look like the broad strokes of the deal would have something about the U.S. having, or the international community, the U.N. having more access to checking out Iran's nuclear situation. And apparently they're going to agree to that. And one of the surprises is — now this is from Peter Zeihan — one of the surprises is when Iran recently was reinspected, that uranium that they were processing up to nuclear grade, they actually started going in the other direction. They took half of what they had up to like 90 percent, and half of it they've already downgraded it to — is it enrichment is the right word? So they've unenriched it, if that's the thing. So it's less likely to become a weapon. So it's beginning to look like Iran either didn't need that much or maybe they weren't so dead set on building a nuclear weapon.

I guess part of the deal is they would allow more inspections. They would give six billion dollars of their own money back, or somebody else's money. It wasn't our money. But the background on this is that the Russian sanctions, in an indirect way that he can explain but I can't at the moment, in an indirect way it hurt Iran. So Iran apparently is just dying for cash. They're just broke. And so Biden may have accidentally done more harm to Iran's economy than Trump did, but not because he was trying, but because the Ukraine war had a side impact on Iran which is pretty devastating. So that made an opportunity for a deal because Iran was more desperate than they have been.

Now this is Peter Zeihan's take. I don't know. I'm not there, so I don't have any counterclaims to bounce against it. But the idea is that Iran might be flexible about nuclear stuff. And here's — and if Zeihan is right — Benjamin Netanyahu, head of Israel, says that they're looking at a deal that he can live with. So there might actually be something going on that's entirely positive for everybody, meaning that the Middle East would get back into some kind of balance.

I believe part of the deal is that Iran would stop funding attacks against Saudi Arabia and some of their neighbors. So you would get less funding of proxy attacks. We'd get some prisoners back, I guess. Some drug dealers were in prison. They would give six billion dollars of their own or somebody else's money that they had been held up, but it wasn't our money. And then we would get access to their nuclear inspections.

Now the fact that maybe Netanyahu could live with it — now put two things together. Two things. Start with the Abraham Accords. So the Abraham Accords got a lot of the players on the same team, at least economically and on paper. But Iran was specifically carved out as somebody you couldn't deal with at the moment. But that caused the problem because Iran is a funder of proxy wars, and they're the big problem over there.

So it looks like we're heading toward — don't get too excited, but yeah, the chatter is Saudi Arabia might be willing to recognize Israel, which I think might be a separate conversation, but I can easily see them folded together. So Saudi Arabia might get relief from the proxy wars. Is it the Houthis? And the whoever. So the Yemen thing might get some relief, at least in the funding sense. Relief meaning they're not funded to attack anybody anymore. And that would create the hope would be some balance in the Middle East sufficient that we don't need to be involved, we the United States. And that might be amazing.

We might be right on the cusp of two administrations doing the right thing. In one case maybe a little bit accidentally, but taking advantage of it. We might be seeing something like a gigantic two-administration achievement. That would be kind of amazing. Kind of amazing.

The Houthis are Rwanda's? Okay, I don't know. My assumption, everything I said about that area is wrong. So it's the Yemen. What are the two groups in Yemen? The two warring gr