urism. Now, I get it because you don't want too much traffic and it interferes with your life. But I wouldn't mind living in a country where your biggest problem is too many people want to visit because it's so nice. That'd be a good problem. So Italy, Portugal, and Spain, I feel your pain, but not very much. You've got a pretty good problem there.

All right, let's talk about Trump and Iran. Today's goal is I'm going to teach you how hypnotists analyze people's speech. So I'm going to talk about all the things that Trump has said and done and signaled and then we're going to figure out what comes next because prediction is the closest you can get to reality if you're good at it.

Here are the things we know. We know that Trump left early from the G7. Some people are saying it was an excuse to get out of some awkward meetings at the G7, but I don't think that Trump would do that. So my guess is that the reason he left is exactly what they said it was, which is there's something that's going to go down in Iran and it's big and he needed to be fully engaged in that. So that's your first hint.

Second hint, Trump said the other day to evacuate Tehran. Now, is Tehran where the Ford nuclear facility is? No. How many of the nuclear facilities are in Tehran? Well, I don't know, but whatever happens in Tehran would not directly destroy the nuclear capacity of Iran. So what is it that would be happening in Tehran? All right, that's your second clue.

One clue: Trump left early, got all of his people together in the situation room. Something big is going down. And something about Tehran. And when asked why he was calling for the evacuation of Tehran, he gave his usual Trumpian answer. He wants people to be safe. Well, obviously Trump is filled in on some plans that Israel has for Tehran. So that much we know. He's not guessing. He didn't randomly pick a city and say you should evacuate. Obviously Trump has been filled in on some plans for Tehran.

According to Macron of France, and Trump says this is not true, Macron said that Trump left the G7 to work on a ceasefire agreement, a ceasefire. But Trump called out Macron and said that he doesn't want a ceasefire. He's going for something much bigger. Now, what would be bigger than a ceasefire? Well, he says over and over again, Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.

So here are the things we know. Something big is going to happen fairly soon. It involves Tehran, which would only indirectly be about the nuclear program because it's not like all the nuclear facilities are in Tehran. And it's not about a ceasefire, which you'd expect if he planned to have negotiations. And a reporter asked Trump on the plane, what are you looking for here? And Trump said, "An end." A real end. Not a ceasefire. An end. An end to what? An end to the regime. An end to the danger. An end to the nuclear program. Well, an end.

And we know that Trump has now taken an opposite position from Tulsi Gabbard who had recently said that according to the CIA that Iran was not that close to a nuclear weapon. But Trump has adopted the Netanyahu messaging that Iran was very close, very close. So that's a difference.

And then Trump said about Iran, who apparently has been trying to contact the United States via other indirect channels and wants to talk, but Trump says they'd like to talk, but they should have done that before. So is Trump saying very clearly that something's going to happen and it's going to happen with or without talking because the talking, it's too late? Looks like it.

So there's something going to happen and it looks like Iran's apparent willingness to talk is not going to affect Trump too much. And then Trump said that if there's any injury to our troops, we'll come down so hard. If they do anything to our people, I think they know not to touch our troops.

Now, as you know, there have been lots of wars that were started with fake provocations. So now that Trump has laid down this red line and said if you do anything to our troops then we would get involved in the war, is that a trick? Because we can always claim that they did something that endangered our troops. Doesn't it feel like there's enough fuzziness there that we could say, "Oh, this one missile came really close to this embassy or something."

So we're starting to put it all together, but there's more. According to Axios, having a meeting with the Iranians would be a make-or-break moment for whether the US will join the war against Iran. So Axios is suggesting there might be some kind of a meeting. But if Iran doesn't give up everything, as in its nuclear program, then that would be the go time for the US to join the war. Now, that's Axios. Do you think Axios knows that Trump has planned to join the war in a way that would pretty much require Iran to attack American interests? I don't know.

And what else? Trump sees the bunker buster decision as an inflection point. So Trump is still considering the question of providing bunker busters according to Axios. We don't know if that's true. And apparently Trump has asked VP Vance and the Middle East envoy to offer to meet with the Iranians next week for the New York Times. So do you think the offers to meet and to talk are real? Because he already said you better evacuate Tehran because it sounds like something's going to happen with or without those conversations and he's not going to wait till next week because remember Israel wanted to be done in two weeks. So they're not going to say, "Hey, how about next week we have a meeting?" I don't think that will change much action.

Well, Bill O'Reilly said that earlier today he had texted with Trump and he says Trump doesn't want to use American air power at this point and that would be the bunker busters because that would cause some problems with China and Putin, would it? And he'd rather have the Iranians surrender, which he believes they will. Surrender. Huh.

Now, surrender is not a word that I've heard before in this context. So here's a reframe. It seems like Trump is reframing it so that Iran gets to decide if the US enters the war, which might not be a big change to anybody's thinking, but it does kind of put Iran in the decision-making seat. So the current decision is the US is not in the war or at least in the most aggressive way that it could be. And now the decision kind of comes down to Iran if they don't give up their nuclear program like right away. It looks like Trump is willing, at least in terms of the messaging, we don't know what he's thinking, but in terms of the messaging, he would be willing to enter.

All right. So what would make Iran surrender that hasn't happened already? So if you put it all together, here's my prediction. I don't think Trump wants to use the bunker busters because that would look like we enter the war and you know that would be bad for his base. He would lose support in the US etc. But it does seem that Trump is willing to, let's say I don't want to say allow but not stop Israel from doing what Israel wants to do.

So how could Israel dismantle the Iranian nuclear program if they do not have access to the bunker buster bombs? And I can only think of one way and I think this is the key technique. The word that tells you what's happening is surrender. So my guess is that Israel is getting ready to pound Tehran and take out each pillar of the government's power until there's nothing left. And I think that might work because if he wants the administration to surrender, he's going to have to put pressure on them that's different from just bombing some things and then waiting to see what happens.

So my guess, and this is just my speculation at this point, my prediction is that the plan is not to do bunker busters, but it's to get the Iranian regime to surrender. Now, would the current regime surrender? Not likely. Not likely at all. So how could Israel get a surrender if the current regime is unwilling to surrender? Well, I would call it the chewing from below decapitation strike. If they go right to decapitation and they take out the leadership with the next set of bombs, that's going to look too aggressive and might set a precedent etc. But what Israel's been doing so far is getting rid of all the lower level people. Well the top level people in the military but in terms of the domestic non-military leadership I think they're just going to start chewing them up from the bottom up.

So you get rid of an institution. You'll get rid of a minor leader, another minor leader, another minor leader, and you just start working your way up to the top because apparently they know where everybody is somehow, and they know how to kill them all because they've assassinated a tremendous number of leaders. So my guess is that Tehran will become sort of a killing field for Iranian leadership, but it will start at the bottom of what they can get to and they'll just start slowly working their way up until either the top people are overthrown, which might happen, but I wouldn't bet on it, or the top people say, "All right, we're out. We surrender. We're going to give up all of our nuclear facilities." Not weapons. And so, I would argue that there's exactly one path. If you rule out the bunker busters, which I think would be a bad idea for Trump to use the bunker busters, but you don't rule out that under all conditions Israel will get rid of the nuclear threat, which I think is the case. What's that leave? All it leaves is decapitation. But like I said, starting from the top would be too big of a shock to the system. I think they'll start chewing them up from the bottom up. So you should see strategic hits in Tehran against government sources of power. And it will just keep going and there will be no end to it. And the entire time Trump will say, you know, you should negotiate. But if at any time the Iranian leadership says, "All right, all right. We agree in advance before we even sit down that we will dismantle our entire nuclear program." At that point, maybe the bombs will stop. Maybe. But I'm not even sure if Israel would trust them. It would just look like a delay tactic.

So that's my prediction. A chew them up from the bottom decapitation. Sort of a slow decapitation until they get a surrender. What else could it be? That's all that's left.

Apparently, according to some news, Iran has been urgently signaling that they want an end to the hostilities. Of course they do. But probably we assume they're just stalling. That's what Israel would say. And I think they're probably right based on history. So yeah. So that's what's going to happen.

According to a retired colonel, Lieutenant Colonel on Fox News, the Iranian missiles are overwhelming the US defense systems, you know, our Iron Dome. And it looks like the Iranians have a strategy that seems to be pretty good, which is they launch a whole bunch of missiles at the same time and some of them are the good kind and some of them are the cheap kind, but the defensive systems get kind of overwhelmed and then the good kind can sneak through. So the question would be, will Iran continue going as hard as they can with as many missiles as they can shoot until they run out, which would be pretty devastating? Or do they have to save them because they might be running low? Well, we don't know. It's fog of war and it's hard to know what's true. But I would guess that the more the Iranians send missiles into Israel, the more damage Israel can do to Tehran and to their leadership with something that looks like justification. So Iran doesn't have too many good options here.

All right, so that's enough on that. The Minnesota shooter, as you know, got caught. But if you don't mind, I'm not really going to talk about that Minnesota shooter guy because that looks like crazy guy. It does look like he might have been a little bit more right leaning than left, but he had a long list of people he wanted to get to and they weren't all Democrats and you know, so to me that's just crazy guy and that's the whole story there.

All right, but as you know, the pro-Trump supporters are having a tough time because the anti-war people and the let's go get them people are on different sides. So among the no war no way would be Steve Bannon. He would be the most prominent one. Doesn't want a war with Iran. Tucker Carlson who's going hard at Mark Levin. He's got a real problem with Mark Levin on Fox News. I guess Mark Levin is more pro-war. M. Gates wants to avoid further war with Iran. Marjorie Taylor Greene. And then of course Thomas Massie, you would not be surprised, wants a resolution to require Congress to approve the war. And he's already got three Democrats to sign up. Bernie, Ro Khanna, and AOC.

So whatever Trump does is either going to make one half of his coalition hate him or the other half hate him because his two choices are get involved in the war and then he loses half of his support or don't get involved in the war and then he loses half of his support. So if you're Trump, how do you play that? Well, that goes back to my prediction. If he simply says, "All we're doing is maybe helping Israel avoid some missiles, but Israel goes wild in Tehran and just keeps murdering and assassinating leaders." I feel like in the end that might be enough to keep his coalition together because it would not be the United States jumping into the war, but also it would not be avoiding the war. It would be standing back while Israel does what Israel thinks it needs to do.

So I feel like the only way he can wiggle out of this, you know, there's no way to win, is by letting Israel carry the entire load and just sort of being a bad cop. Somebody said you know is Israel being the bad cop and Trump is a good cop. Kind of. Trump is still the one who's saying you know you just have to negotiate and you just have to surrender and then everything's fine. So there's a little bit of a good cop bad cop thing going on which might be productive.

So here's my question for you. If Trump managed to pull this off, and pulling it off would be stepping back while Israel does what it needs to do. And there's no bunker buster, but they get Iran to say, "Look, we'll unlock Ford and we'll let you watch while we dismantle it." Would that be enough to keep Trump's coalition together? I think it would be because it would look like we got away with something we wanted strategically but we would get away with it on the cheap. So I feel like there's only one