ole opinion because I want you to see how clear it is. Right? You don't have to agree with it. It just has to be clear. Just watch how well expressed it is. And then later I'm going to compare it to something else. Right? So you don't have to focus too much on the argument. Just see how clear it is and then we're going to compare that to something later.

All right. So David Sacks says it feels good in the moment for hotheads to call for retaliation. Talk about Iran because Iran proxies killed some Americans in Syria, which I didn't even know we had any there, but I should have. So retaliation. We have to think through the second order consequences. Right? So here's what we need to think through. If we were to attack Iran, the US only has about 4,000 Tomahawk missiles in its inventory. We can do about a week of shock and awe. Then what? Are we going to send in ground troops? Iran's territory is vast. Its forces are decentralized and enough of its infrastructure is underground by now. It will also be supplied by China and Russia in retaliation. Our highly exposed bases in Syria and Iraq, which neocons refuse to remove, leading to the strategy will likely come under heavy fire. In fact our troops there are sitting ducks. Our carrier groups could even be targets. America will take meaningful casualties. Meanwhile the Strait of Hormuz could be closed, compounding the situation in the Red Sea, causing a global oil shock. Assuming Iran wants to continue the war, we'll have no exit strategy. Regime change will fail. We will be stuck in a new forever war. In fact there's a decent chance that we get run out of the Middle East.

Now you could disagree with that. You know, there's always room for disagreement in these big international affairs because a lot of it is conjecture and assumptions and stuff like that. But would you agree with my statement that this is really clear? Will you give me that even if you disagree with it, it's very clear?

All right. Later we're going to talk about something that makes less sense. That's why I like to put this up as contrast. So the contrast is that there's a founding member of PayPal but geniuses basically, you know, with the Musk and Thiel etc. And sure enough they act like really smart people. All right. So just hold that in your mind for a while. I'm not going to give you an opinion except that, well I will give you an opinion. I don't know of any wars we get into and then we win and then we leave. It's like that's not a thing anymore. So whatever we do about Iran, we're going to have to find something else. We're just going to have to find some other way.

Now you could argue maybe Trump had it right. Just starving them economically would make them concentrate on survival over getting cocky. Maybe. I'm not sure there's any good result here.

All right. Here's your persuasion lesson for the day. Here's your payoff for watching me. I like to make sure there's at least one thing you hear on my show that you won't hear anywhere else. So here's your one thing you're not going to hear anywhere else. If you're new to me, I'm a trained hypnotist. And so when I talk about persuasion, I'm not guessing.

You've heard in the news the Democrats refer to Trump as the chaos candidate. And the word chaos they try to work into every opinion. So if they have an opinion about Ukraine they'll say, oh Trump this or that and chaos. And his opinion on this is chaos. And they just insert chaos everywhere. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not an organic word. Do you remember any other candidate who was accused of chaos? I don't. Chaos is like dark. Do you remember in 2016 the first time all the Democrats in unison, they all started saying that Trump's speech at the convention was dark? And it was obvious that the memo had gone out.

Now at the time, if