there was no way that Israel would be done in two weeks. How am I doing so far? Well if Trump's two weeks, and he says that's a maximum. So there's some chance that Trump will act before the two weeks is over, but I think that's low. It'll at least be three weeks. But on top of that there is a military commander who says that difficult days still lie ahead and that Israel must be ready for a prolonged campaign. So that's coming from Israel. So Israel it looks like has already abandoned their two-week estimate.

So did you see anybody else say that the two weeks would probably be, I didn't. I did not see one expert say, I don't think this will be done in two weeks. It might take months. Only me. Now did I use my geopolitical expertise? No. I used the Dilbert filter. The Dilbert filter works whenever there's any big complicated human endeavor. And nobody ever got anything done in two weeks. Two weeks for a war. Come on. Who ever believed that that was going to get done in two weeks?

So here's an example where I don't have any geopolitical experience whatsoever, but that kind of stood out as a glaring obvious point that you could question. How many of you said the same thing? Said, all right, there's no way this is going to be done in two weeks. Because nothing is ever done in two weeks. No matter how sure you are that it can be, it just never is. So I got that one right.

Anyway, so Trump says he's going to give Iran a couple of weeks. Some say that's mostly so he can move some more assets into place, like naval assets, etc., in case we need to go hard. Apparently there's reports that several B-2 stealth bombers have already taken off. And they're going from Missouri to Guam. Now presumably that would get them closer to the theater that they might be used in. And this would be an indication that Trump has either decided he's going to attack or wants Iran to think that that's a strong possibility.

And some say that the two weeks that Trump is giving is just to see if anything changes in a favorable way. So for example if Israel had some unexpectedly big successes in the next two weeks that change the equation. Well then you're going to be glad that Trump waited because maybe we don't have to attack. So what could happen in those two weeks besides getting more military assets in place? Some people say that Iran might abandon its nuclear program. I don't think that's going to happen. So expecting them to tell the Europeans we don't want to talk to America or Israel but we'd be happy to abandon our enrichment program. That's not going to happen. I don't see Iran bending to the will of the West.

So we've got this two-week period and Trump in his usual way says it's a maximum so that it keeps them guessing. They won't get too comfortable for two weeks because maybe just maybe something will happen faster.

Now the big question is should the United States be involved in taking out the Fordow and maybe one other underground bunker facility under the belief that only America has the weapons that can do that and that would be the bunker busters that they say would have to be doubled up. So you would have to use one to make a big hole and then drop another one in the same hole to get deeper. And the American weapon makers and the military-industrial complex is telling us via the news, oh this will definitely work.

Now there's a question of whether we should do it, but the people who make the weapons and talk about the weapons and know the most about the weapons, which is not me, right? So again here here's another situation where I do not have any knowledge of the military-industrial complex. I do not know anything about bunker busters or anything about these B-2 stealth bombers. So coming from no knowledge whatsoever and being in the same conversation with people who are geopolitical military experts, let me put the Dilbert filter on this. Nobody knows if those bombs will work. Are you kidding me?

Let me take you to the real world for a moment. They've never tested dropping two bunker busters in the same hole. They do not know exactly what is inside that Fordow mountain and just exactly how things are protected in there. They might know a lot, but they don't know everything. When was the last time you saw somebody do this complicated thing that had never been done before and it worked out perfectly and they knew it in advance? That's not a function of the real world. In the real world you'd be really lucky if you got this to work on the first try. And I don't know if there'll be more than one try.

So the first thing I'm going to say without being any kind of a military expert is that probably everybody lies about how powerful their weapons are. Were you ever surprised when you heard that the Iron Dome or some version of the Iron Dome was not stopping all the missiles and somebody probably told you, oh yeah the anti-missile defense is going to get 98% of the missiles and then it turns out maybe it gets 90%. But 10% is a lot of missiles to let through. So I would say that whenever you hear somebody say that a weapon system will definitely work, really in the real world you've never used it in this way and but you're sure it's going to work.

All right. So we're not sure it's going to work and you should not imagine that anybody knows that with certainty whether it'll work. Now I don't know the odds. If you said well what are the odds that it doesn't work? I don't know. But nobody else knows either. The only thing I know for sure is it's not a definite. If it were definite, that might change the equation a little bit, but it's not. It's not definite.

And just to make things interesting, Netanyahu has said publicly that Israel can take care of the Iranian nuclear program without America's help if they have to. Now are you all aware of that? I'll take a fact check on that if I'm wrong, but correct me if I'm wrong. Netanyahu has recently publicly said that they don't need America's involvement. They could take care of it in a different way. They don't have these bunker busters, but there might be some way to do something on the ground or with special forces or something. Now would that put Israel in a position of taking losses? Yes of course. That's what military conflicts do. They put you in a position where people could be killed on your side.

But that does settle the question in my mind of whether Trump should authorize the B-2 bombers to drop the bunker busters. And the answer is no. If Israel says that they can handle it without us, why would we even consider it? Now you would consider it if our involvement made it a guarantee that it would work and Israel couldn't do it by itself, but that's not the case. Our bunker busters are anything but guaranteed. And Israel says they can do it. Why wouldn't we at least wait two weeks to see if they can do it?

Is it possible that Trump's two weeks is really waiting to see if Israel can make a dent at Fordow with some kind of different strategy? And you could imagine, I won't mention any that I could think of because I'm not smart enough, but there might be some way to get a hold of whoever it is who has the lock to open the front door. Don't you think there's probably more than one person in the world who knows how to open that door? Is it a combination lock? Is it a multi-step process where the people inside the facility have to be the ones to unlock it from the inside? Is that how it works? I'm just speculating. But don't you think there's some chance that Israel could get a hold of whoever has the key or the combination or the secret digital way to open that thing. Maybe there's just a way to open the front door that we don't know about. Maybe Israel knows more about that because they're pretty deeply into the pants of the Iranian everything. Maybe they know.

But anyway, so the alternative to Israel doing it themselves and believing that they can do it themselves is that Israel went into the war knowing that they could not succeed without American involvement in the war. Now that would be much worse, wouldn't you think? And when I asked that question online on X, I said, when did Israel know that they couldn't do this alone? Now of course they say that they can do it alone. So that would be new information from when I asked the question.

So isn't it way worse if Israel tried to trick the United States into getting involved by getting us a little bit pregnant than saying well we got to this point but the only way we can finish it is by getting America involved directly, more directly in the war? So I would say this made the decision for Trump kind of easy because if Israel says they can do it and then he authorizes the United States to be involved in the war and then Iran attacks our homeland, turns off our lights with cyber attacks and starts killing people in bases in the Middle East, Americans, that's going to look like a failure, right? So that would be somewhat of an unforgivable mistake. But more than that, it would be an admission that Israel is wagging Trump's tail. Meaning that it would suggest that the only way we got into this situation is that Israel knew that if they started the war, they could drag us in to finish it off.

Now I don't want to believe that about Netanyahu. So I'm going to take him at his word that I believe he said, and I'll take your fact check if I'm wrong about this, but if they think they have a way to do it, even if they don't know that it will work, they have to try that first. So to me the decision is already made. It's really hard for me to imagine that Trump would allow a situation where history would say Netanyahu tricked him into a war. Just think about Trump's personality. Think about his decades of being anti-war. And then think about the prospect of being treated by history as though you got tricked into a war by your own ally. There's no way he's going to allow that situation.

So as long as Netanyahu has said publicly we could probably take care of this ourselves, he has to let them. And I would say that any other decision would look like a mistake and history would judge him harshly for it. Now what would happen if Israel tried and they lost some troops and they did not succeed and then they gave up? Well then that's a separate decision. From that point you can say all right, new information. It turns out that Israel can't do it alone because they tried. But I'll tell you the one thing that we're not going to be able to live with. We're not going to be able to live with Netanyahu saying he can do it and not letting him see if he can. There's no way we're going to live with that. And there's no way that Trump's legacy could survive getting involved when it doesn't seem necessary according to Israel and they would know more about the situation than we would.

So I'm sure I will be called anti-Semitic for taking Netanyahu at his word that he can do this. But if I have that wrong, if I've misinterpreted what he said, let me know because that would change my opinion a little bit.

All right. Matt Gaetz floated a plan. Now I don't think this one has any chance of happening, but it's interesting nonetheless. So he suggests that both Iran and Israel give up their secret nuclear weapon programs. Now I don't think there's any chance that Israel is going to give up its secret nuclear weapon triad because it's probably pretty advanced and it would be insane to give it up, I guess. But it does make you wonder, is that one of the possibilities? What would Iran say if Israel offered to legitimately get rid of its nuclear program? Would Iran say, oh well I never thought that would happen. All right. If you're going to do it, we can do it too. Would they? I don't think that that topic can even be broached because even if Israel put it out there as a suggested idea, it would be an acknowledgement that they have the secret nuclear triad that we all assume that they have. So I don't think there's any way that could work, but it does make you wonder. Does make you think.

Anyway, Tulsi Gabbard is of course under attack by the people who say that she disagrees with Trump and Trump said that she was wrong if she said that Iran couldn't make a bomb. So I think my first take on this early on in the drama was right that when Tulsi Gabbard was talking about Iran, she was talking about a decision to make a bomb and she said that the intelligence people in the United States have not detected that the Ayatollah has decided to make a nuclear weapon. Whereas when Trump talks about it, he talks about the ability to make a nuclear weapon. So if they walk right up to the threshold and they are enriching uranium to the point where there's no other legitimate reason to do it other than your intention to make a weapon, well that would put Trump in the position of saying it almost doesn't matter what anybody has decided. If they've walked up to the line where they can do it in three weeks, you have to treat it like they're doing it. It's the same.

So I don't see any difference between what Tulsi Gabbard said and what Trump says. To me they look like they're completely compatible. They both would agree that Iran could do it fairly quickly. So they're agreed on that. And I don't think Trump has said that the Ayatollah has been detected as ordering it to be done. He's not saying that. He's just being a common sense person who says if they say death to America and they've been funding proxies and they go right up to the threshold, what else would they have in mind? You'd have to treat that like their intention is obvious. So even if you don't know their intention and you can't read their mind, Trump is right. You'd have to treat it as though you could read their mind and they do have the intention even if you don't know for sure.

Anyway, here's a correction that I got a story completely wrong and Glenn Greenwald is correcting people like me. The story was that the Washington Post has a reporter. He used to work for Al Jazeera, which is part of the smearing of his reputation. He used to work for Al Jazeera, but now he's on the Washington Post. And when he reports about the missile damage in Israel, he was giving actual coordinates, like GPS coordinates of where the damage was. And Bill Ackman and a number of other people and including me in my podcast were saying, why would you do that? Like what possible reason would you want Iran to have the GPS coordinates of the missile attack? Unless you were hoping they could improve their aim, because if you tell them where they landed, maybe they can adjust their process somehow.

Now that made sense to me when I said it, but let me tell you how stupid that was. All right, so here's a case where if I knew more, I would have done a better job. As Glenn Greenwald points out, here's the most important part of the story. I'm laughing at myself for what an idiot I am because this is really dumb. Where do you think the reporter got the GPS coordinates for the missile damage? Do you think he was over there? No, he's not over there. He's in the United States. So how did he get the missile coordinates of where the bombs hit? It's public. It's public. So Iran would obviously already know what this reporter knows because it's public. So he used a public source for the GPS coordinates which Iran has full access to. And if that's not enough for you, apparently the same reporter has been doing the same thing, reporting the GPS coordinates for prior wars. I think at least two prior wars. And the reason he does it is so that if you wanted to check basically it would allow you to have a way to check to see if the reporting is accurate. He gives us the GPS coordinates. So if somebody looked at it from let's say a satellite and they saw that that building was intact, they could say the reporting was wrong. So it's basically a way to let other people check his work.

So I would like to apologize for getting that story absolutely wrong. Just absolutely ass backwards. And the journalist is Evan Hill. So I will apologize to him directly. So Evan, sorry about that. I got taken by that hoax.

Anyway, this is why you want to listen to Greenwald. He always has the better take on stuff.

Apparently the Trump administration is making some big changes to Obamacare and they're ending coverage for Dreamers. So the Dreamers would be the children who are brought in by their parents and have grown up as Americans but they're not technically legal. So apparently they're going to lose their Obamacare coverage. And my question is this. Do you think that the Trump administration is using the cover of the Israel-Iran war to get away with some things that otherwise it would be too much public pushback for? Because this is in the area that a reasonable person could disagree because you're talking about people who did not make any decision to come here. They were brought here by their parents and they would be losing healthcare. Now there's an argument on both sides. I get it. I get it. You don't have to argue with me. I see the argument. But do you think Trump could get away with this without there being some big international story that dominates? I feel like the Stephen Millers have a little more flexibility because we're distracted by other things that seem like a bigger deal to us. So that's my only comment on that. I wonder if distraction is making a difference.

Well, Bill Maher had Wesley Hunt on who's a representative and Wesley Hunt did an unusually good job of slapping down Bill Maher's TDS. So the first thing that happened was Bill Maher was talking about Trump's military parade. And he mentioned that it was a fascist parade and Wesley Hunt said this. You know what I saw? This is what Hunt said. I saw the president salute the Corps of Cadets as they walked past him. I watched them salute the 75th Ranger Regiment. I watched the fireworks behind the Washington Monument. And you know what I thought? Damn, that's absolutely outstanding. And it's far better than Joe Biden checking his watch when bodies were being returned to Dover. And then he reminds us that he was in the military. He was an Apache pilot and he joined the military in part because of that type of patriotic treatment of the military.

Now that's a pretty darn good answer to it's a fascist military. And then the person who actually served, talking to Bill Maher who did not serve in the military, says no it wasn't fascist. It's the reason I joined the military. That is a really good answer.

Now but he had another chance to slap down Bill Maher because Bill Maher referred to January 6 as an insurrection and as his proof Bill Maher said it's not a coincidence that they were protesting at the exact time the votes were being, I think he said counted, but maybe certified was a better word.

Now Wesley Hunt said, how do you have an insurrection with no guns? There you go. How do you have an insurrection with no guns? Why di