path and it's through the leadership of the Iranian people and I don't see any other path.

All right. I just want to give a compliment to comic Dave Smith. One of the things that's fascinating about this whole podcasting world is that some people have made a name for themselves and become relevant in these top level conversations simply by force of will, I guess. So why would we listen to comic Dave Smith's opinion about geopolitical stuff? And the answer is it doesn't make sense on the surface, but he did such a good job, comic Dave Smith did, of inserting himself in the conversation and debating people who wanted to debate and making his views known that he is actually relevant. And I have to admit I'm very impressed with that.

He's not the only one. I mean a number of podcasters and I'm one of them have through just hard work and showing up every day and trying to add something to the process have made themselves not the most important thing in the conversation but relevant. And I was wondering are there more humorists that are supporting Trump than there have been supporting Republicans in the past? Because I was thinking you've got Tim Dillon, you've got Roseanne, you've got me, comic Dave Smith. I feel like there are a whole bunch of people who are humorists first who have become relevant in the Trump era. And it feels like yeah. Joe Rogan, right? Obviously Joe Rogan and a number of the other comedians as well. Adam Carolla. Exactly. Yeah. I'm forgetting a few others, but is that new that there would be so many humorists who were sort of pro-Trump?

I guess comic Dave Smith has made a turn. He's not. Oh yeah. Shane Gillis. I guess he's not pro-Trump. He's asking for Trump's impeachment over the Israel stuff, I guess. But anyway, so I would give my compliments to all of the people I mentioned. Greg Gutfeld. Because they all made themselves relevant and they didn't do it by having terrible opinions. The Van, yeah, he's more in the gray area, but yes. So you know Theo is not in the category of a person who is trying to make serious geopolitical comments that change the world, but a number of us do. We're literally trying to make sure the country is steering in the right direction as best we can. So I'm very impressed at all the people who just carved out a space for themselves by being useful and having an opinion that people could either debate with or agree with. So very impressed.

According to Axios and some reporting by Barak Ravid, Netanyahu has, well this is Axios's take on it, effectively endorsed the idea of regime change in Iran in a string of media appearances. But Trump, they say, has remained unconvinced. But do we really know what Trump is convinced of or not? We don't, do we? It might be that Trump is going to act unconvinced while at the same time stepping aside and letting Israel do whatever it needs to do.

And I guess it was an Israeli air strike in Iran overnight that took out some Iranian military top base. I can't imagine that there would be any humans in the Iranian military who would be going to work in the office. Wouldn't all of the military structures be empty by now because they're such obvious targets? Now, the other thing I wonder about is I assume that Israel got on top of Iran's communication devices, meaning that the Iranians probably don't have a secure means of communicating even if they wanted to. Which would tell me that the Israelis know where everybody is all the time and they know what they're up to all the time. So I would get out of Tehran if I were in the military. I would run because it looks like it's just sitting ducks at this point.

Well, in related news, speaking of immigration, one of the questions people had is why are all the protesters over 65? And I had speculated it's because they're easier to scare you and especially if they're watching the mainstream media. So elderly people make up a lot of the protesters on the streets for the No Kings and the anti-ICE protests. But part of it is because they have a lot of time on their hands. Part of it is because they're ex-hippies. So they're reliving their exciting youth being protesters. Some of it is maybe because the elderly are on fixed incomes, so they feel more vulnerable, so they feel like there's more they have to protest about. But I would argue that we should see it as a mental disorder and that the elderly are just more prone to it, you know, just like Alzheimer's and other stuff.

And I saw a post by Megyn Kelly who was asking the question on X, when is Trump derangement syndrome going to be officially added to the DSM-5 to make it an official diagnosis? And I wondered if it was already there because I've heard lots of reports of therapists who treat it like it's real. Because it is and they've got a lot of clients who come in and say I've got some form of TDS or at least they exhibit it. And so I went to Grok to find out is it already in the literature because why wouldn't it be? Wouldn't you expect that by now Trump derangement syndrome would be a legitimate diagnosis? Because I'm pretty sure there are a lot of individual therapists who consider it a legitimate diagnosis. So I looked and apparently no. And Grok says that the reason it's not an official disorder is that there's a lack of clinical basis. There is no peer-reviewed studies or psychological research or professional mental health organizations recognizing it as a diagnosable condition. And then Grok says it lacks defined symptoms, diagnostic criteria, or empirical evidence required for a legitimate disorder.

To which I say, well, wait a minute. Isn't it a lot like addiction? If I said to you, you have a drinking problem, knowing that drinking is a legal activity for adults, how would you define it as a problem versus a hobby? And the answer is usually if it interferes with your life. So if your drinking has an impact on your life, as in you lose your job, you lose your relationships, you spend all your money, yo