and unrest there are in the United States, the better it is for China.

According to the New York Post, Mayor Adams of New York City—no relation—is going to deploy thousands of cops for the No Kings Day. He wants to make sure that the outside agitators are handled because he expects a lot of outside agitators.

Now I always wonder, if you're one of these groups that fund some big fake protest like this, are you thinking that there will always be outside agitators and you don't have to invite them? Or are they invited or are they known to be on your list of invitees so you don't have to do anything special? You're always going to get somebody who'll do something violent. I always wonder, do they plan the violent ones or do they just know that if you do a big event, violent people always show up? So kind of a mystery there.

Well, all the protests will be overshadowed by whatever happens in Israel and Iran. And as you know probably by now, Israel is still going after Iranian nuclear and military sites, missile sites in particular but military sites, still going after scientists. And I've got an open question because one of the stories about this war—which may or may not be 100 percent true—is that Mossad does this super clever trick. We don't know the details to get the generals to go to the same room and stay in that room long enough for a missile to go through the wall and kill all of them.

Now the part they're not telling us is how do they get them all to go to the same room when obviously they would know that might be dangerous. And did it involve AI? Because we're sort of at that place.

Imagine if you will that the first thing that Israel does is shuts down whatever private secure communication the generals had. So let's say that's the first thing they do, is just shut that down. But they don't turn off their cell phones. And yeah, I'm just speculating. This is just imaginary. But now imagine that Israel did a deepfake using AI of one of the generals saying our secure communications are down, meet me at this room. And they think, "Oh, I'm just meeting one general, so I better go." And let's say it's a voicemail so there's no interaction. So if you sent a message when you knew it would go to voicemail and it sounded exactly like your boss who happened to be a general and he said our secure communications have been taken down but meet me at that place we always go to, you know that room or whatever, would you go? Well, you might.

So I'm just going to make this an open question. Is this the first time that AI has been used to get people to do something they wouldn't have normally done—go to one room at the same time so that they could be attacked? I don't know. But Mossad is not telling us their secret trick for getting them all in the same room and keeping them there.

We're also seeing what I call the dumpification strategy, which I think works. Now the dumpification strategy is you keep taking out the top generals until you get down to a general who's not very good at being a general, and that's the last person in charge. Because it seems to me that it's rare to get some really gifted military genius aggressive general. And by the time you get to like the 20th best general, they're not that good, are they? You know, maybe they're more loyal than they are experienced. So I think part of Israel's strategy is to just get rid of all the smart ones. General Milley, be nice. If you get rid of all the smart ones, you don't have to get rid of the rest because they wouldn't be able to do much. So I think that's happening.

Some people are saying that Iran is the weakest it's been in however many decades. Do you think that's true? Do you think Iran is at its weakest? Its proxies have largely been decapitated, you know like Hezbollah, etc. So that part is true. Their air defense seems to be entirely gone. But they do still have a little bite. They've got an economy that at least for now Israel is allowing their oil industry to stay intact because obviously they could take it out if they want to and they might. You know, there's a point at which they might do that. We're not there yet.

So is Iran its weakest ever? Economy's probably a little bit shaken by it, but they still have their oil business, which is a lot of what they do. And they still have a gazillion missiles to send at Israel. And at the moment, I would imagine their best nuclear stuff is still intact because it's so far underground.

Now one of the mysteries is I saw a news report that said that America has these bunker buster bombs that Israel does not. But even if we gave them the bombs, they would have no aircraft to deliver them because they don't have the bombers. They have mostly fighters. But at the same time, I saw a report that said that Israel could take out those deeply buried underground facilities in Iran but they would use some different technique. Now do you believe that?

I asked Grok how Israel could do it if they didn't have the bunker busters and it basically gave a lot of suggestions but they were all low odds of success. So Grok doesn't know any way Israel could do that. And I'm even wondering if our bunker busters could do it because I may have read it wrong, but isn't their biggest remaining underground facility something like 50 meters underground? Like no matter how big your bunker buster was, there's still a limit, right? I mean you can't bunker bust absolutely everything that's underground, can you? Maybe you can. You know, maybe it causes such an earthquake that even the internal stuff collapses. I don't know.

So one of my questions is can Israel effectively take out these facilities? I would think that if they got rid of whatever Iranian military were guarding it because they could bomb anything that's external, that if they could get to the doorway and penetrate the doorway, there's probably a way to do that, right? Just penetrate the doorways. Seems like you could kind of kill everybody who's in there if there's anybody in there. I mean there might not be any people in there. Might only be assets. So bit of a mystery whether Israel could take care of the deeply buried stuff. I don't know.

Anyway, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, did I say that correctly? He's like 85 years old and he's the architect of everything that Iran is at the moment. Meaning he put together the proxies. I mean maybe he didn't start it but he was the person who formed Iran into the country it is right now.

Now imagine being that guy where you had all these big plans for Iran to be the big dog in the neighborhood and it looked like it was working. You know, you were getting all these proxies and Hezbollah was armed to the teeth and you had just all kinds of things going on that made you look like you were in charge. And then you're 85 and you watch Israel take all of that away from you like a little bit at a time. Well there goes Hezbollah. Well there goes the head of your military and the backup guy and the backup guy and the backup guy. Well there goes your international trade. At the moment they still have the oil facilities but who knows.

So imagine being in his head. Do you think there's any chance that that guy can say, "You know what? You've taken everything I've had and what I really want is revenge, but what's good for my country is if I just make peace"? No way. Right? So poor Iran is under attack but they really have the one person in the entire world who has no chance, no chance of making peace. So he's going to go down with the ship, don't you think? And the ship is this country. And Israel's not really going to have any choice. They're either going to have to take over and tip over the whole country or they're going to have to let it reform into the same risk it was before. And I don't think they're going to do that.

So it looks to me like the Supreme Leader will be circling the drain and taking his entire country with him because I doubt he can separate his country's well-being from his own. So that's a problem.

The Wall Street Journal points out that we don't know how successful Israel's raid is. You know, I mentioned that they haven't gotten through the blast doors yet of the big Fordow enrichment site. And if they don't do that, it will feel like they did not succeed. So one of the biggest goals is not accomplished. It might be later but at the moment, no.

There's also something called Pickaxe Mountain that apparently also hasn't been destroyed because that's underground. Also this is still from the Wall Street Journal. The top nuclear engineer is still alive. So apparently there's some MIT-educated nuclear engineer who is the head of it all who is successfully alive so far. So if Israel stopped today, there would be two nuclear facilities that we don't know much about because they're deep underground and the head of all of it would still be alive. So how long would it take them to reconstitute? Wouldn't be that long.

But on the plus side for Israel, Iran would know by now that its entire national security structure has been penetrated by Mossad. So if you were Iran, you couldn't trust anyone because I'm assuming that all the assets that Israel has that allow them to do all the internal stuff that they're doing in Iran like smuggling in missiles and stuff like that or smuggling in drones as part of their attack, those are Iranians, right? It's not like there are Jewish people pretending to be Iranian citizens. I doubt it. I assume it would be Iranian citizens who for whatever reason have decided to side with Israel instead of their own country. But there must be more than a few of them. And I assume that they oppose their own leadership. I guess I mean by definition.

So Israel has a number of cities under attack. I don't know the number but Tel Aviv is one of them and some say that Iran tried to attack the equivalent of Israel's Pentagon. I haven't heard if they got any of it. And apparently reportedly the US is aiding in shooting down some of the missiles. So doesn't that make us directly part of the war? Or do we say, "Oh no, no, shooting down missiles is not really part of the war. We're just on the sidelines watching and sometimes we shoot down a missile but we're not part of it." I don't know. I guess we're getting away with that sort of.

Meanwhile I told you this before but Senator John Fetterman, he's calling for the US to supply quote anything Israel needs for their attack or their war I guess. So Fetterman is more staunchly for Israel than just about anybody else. Now does that include bunker buster bombers? Would Fetterman be in favor of the US joining with not only our bunker busters but flying them because our own pilots would have to fly the bombers. Israel doesn't have the bombers. Would he be in favor of that? Because that would be, I think he would be by the way, but that would be a pretty radical position for a Democrat. Very pro-war.

And my question is this: who would be better off if America gets dragged further into that war? Is there anybody who would be better off? Would Iran be better off? No. Iran does not want America to be more involved in the war because we have more offensive weapons than Israel does. Does America want us to be more involved in the war? Well some do but I would think that by a majority Americans would not want to be involved or more involved because we're at the very least helping them to shoot down missiles. So I don't think America or Iran would like it.

But you're probably thinking to yourself, well Israel obviously would like it if America joined in a full force way. But I'm not sure because Israel has shown itself so capable that with the one exception of can they get to that underground stuff, you know do they really have a way to do it without our direct help? If they can, then wouldn't even Israel be better off if the United States stays out of it? Because if you're Israel, don't you want to send a credible threat to future threats? In other words there might be a future where Iran is once again a threat. Do you want them to think, "Oh America will stop them from attacking. They're America's little puppy. They can't put up an attack unless America says yes and America's backing it." I think Israel is better off if it looks like they can make their own decisions free of American constraints and if they have enough military might that they don't need any American help whatsoever. They can absolutely dominate Iran without any American direct help except shooting down a few missiles.

So I would argue that we're in a weird situation where there is no country on earth that benefits by the US getting more dragged into the war. Not either side. I think both sides would say, "Yeah, maybe stay out." Just again I'm speculating because I can't read the minds of the Israeli leadership but it kind of looks like if you had asked Israel before they started bombing do you want America involved they might have said yes because it looked like a stronger force. But now that they've been so successful without our direct allegedly direct involvement at this point I feel like they would say you know what we can take care of this. So it could be nobody wants us to be more involved which would be good.

However, Iranian officials according to Just the News they are saying that the US should be held quote fully accountable for the recent escalations because we're a quote backer of Israel. So we're going to get blamed either way. But will we be attacked? Which is the important thing. At the moment there's some kind of cyber attack that's making some shelves empty at Whole Foods but we don't know who the attacker is. It doesn't mean it's Iran. It could be just some blackmail attacker. So we're not seeing any obvious attack by Iran on American assets at the moment but that might happen because Iran has threatened to hit some military bases within reach.

Mossad allegedly smuggled in all these exploding drones into Iran ahead of the attack. So MSNBC is even sort of touting that success. And I told you before that whenever Israel does a military event of any kind that immediately there's some story of amazing competence like oh my god how did they pull that off and that took a lot of planning and that shows how smart they made those pagers explode or whatever it was. So the legend that's being formed now is that Mossad smuggled in a bunch of drones so that they were local when the shooting started so that the drones didn't have to go too far to destroy some I think the air defenses. I think that's what they went after.

But that's a kind of story that I don't fully trust because it's a little bit on the nose. It's like okay I get it. You're all military geniuses and your adversaries are not. And maybe it's true. It might be 100 percent true but either way it creates a feeling within Iran that they're totally penetrated. And that has got to be really a problem when you're trying to figure out how to respond because you wouldn't know who to trust.

These Mossad agents, are they Jewish? Were there a bunch of Israeli Mossad agents who were somehow within Iran and were doing all this stuff with these explosive drones and then they got away? Or were they Iranian citizens that had been co-opted to do this one way or the other? I don't know.

And then on X, DataRepublican is asking this question that others are asking too. The Post Millennial is asking it as well. After seeing what these Mossad agents did because they could get the drones right next to the assets that were going to attack, why are we allowing China to own farmland next to military bases in the United States? Because it seems like we're putting ourselves at the same risk that Iran was, which is if China has figured out how to get a bunch of drones that they're hiding on the farmland that's right next to our military bases, is that a risk that we could take?

Well there's a map that I see on X all the time that shows these fairly enormous Chinese land holdings in all the various states. And I wonder if that's the scale because if that's the scale it's really frightening. But if it's not it might be a totally illegitimate graph. I don't know. I don't trust it. But if it's real it does suggest that there's Chinese-owned farmland right next to a lot of our bases. And that's not no risk. That's definitely a greater risk. I don't know enough about this to know if the right answer is to deny China ownership of these places they bought. But it does seem like a pretty big risk.

Anyway, so apparently President Trump told Bash that the people the US was negotiating with with Iran are all dead. So my question is this. Wouldn't that be a big coincidence if all the negotiators were coincidentally dead? Because they're not generals, right?

Now all right. So here's the kind of up comment that you need to quit. Justin Account says, "Scott's rare blind spot is thinking everybody is basically American, just different language and food." Now that's obviously a dumb comment because you know that I don't think that. And you're talking about me instead of to me. Remember this is a two-way communication. If you think I missed something as in did you know this you could easily say that. But you sound like a Democrat. Have you noticed that the Democrats, if I'm debating with a Republican, a Republican will say you're not aware of this or maybe you should incorporate this into your model. When I deal with a Democrat they imagine I have character flaws and this is how they treat everybody. They treat Trump and everybody the same. They imagine a bunch of character flaws that they can somehow see that are invisible to other people and that those character flaws tell you everything you need to know about policy or opinion. That is so Democrat to imagine that you have some kind of weird insight into my internal thoughts and that my internal thoughts are all messed up. How would you know? You would know nothing.

But