ving up your enrichment.

Related to that I was watching a podcast with Matt Gaetz. He was talking to the author of a book called Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West. And this was on Newsmax and this was Dr. Walid Phares. Would that be the way you say it? Anyway so Dr. Phares recommended that Trump give a televised speech directly to the Iranian people. And he compared it to Reagan with the Soviet Union. Now you know what I say whenever I see an analogy? As soon as you see the analogy it feels like there's a lack of argument because it's not really like Reagan and the Soviet Union. The big difference is that Trump is threatening to bomb Iran any minute now. I don't believe that when Reagan gave his speech you know tear down that wall I don't believe we were threatening to bomb the Soviet Union any minute now. So you can't really compare those two situations.

But I thought about it. My first thought was ah that's not going to make any difference. You know the Iranian people aren't going to buy that especially if you have a sword over their head. Because what would he say? I mean he probably would throw in the threat. And if he throws in the threat it's going to make things worse. Because if the Iranian public hears you need to do this or else you get bombed that's not going to make friends. You know if the idea is to get the public on your side that's not going to do it. So I don't know how he could do this in the context of threatening to bomb them at any minute.

But I do think there might be something to it if he can not mention the bombing because Trump does have a way of communicating that's unlike anybody else. And if he did say the right things at the right time he might find a way to connect. So I think as long as you don't mention we're going to bomb you if you don't give us what we want. Just don't mention that at all. Then you can use the documentary effect. The documentary effect is where there's one side of an argument presented over a long period of time and there's nobody on the other side. That can be very persuasive. So if he gave a speech directly to the Iranian people and he made it persuasive and there wouldn't be any counterargument. It would just be his speech. The odds of him having an upside surprisingly good result are pretty good. The downside risk probably nearly nothing as long as you don't put a threat in there. If he put a threat in there there's no way that's going to turn out well. So I guess I would be cauti