t want to have sex instead of working? Who would make that choice? Well, you know, I could be having some sex right now and getting paid for it, but I'd rather be working on these reports.

47% of young people say remote work has improved their sex lives, even without a partner. I don't know. One of the most let's say inconvenient things about all the remote work is that for some number of people it probably caused a massive masturbation problem as in they couldn't get any work done because they were looking at porn all day. You know that happened. I don't know with what percentage but probably a big percentage of remote workers found something else to do during the day during Zoom calls.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Gilead Sciences has got FDA approval for an HIV vaccination that you do twice a year that they claim is nearly 100% effective in preventing HIV transmission. Now, apparently there's already a pill that does the same thing, but people are not good at remembering to take pills, so it's not as effective. But if you remember to get your twice a year shot, if you believe in vaccinations, does anybody believe in vaccinations? Maybe it's the wrong audience. Maybe every one of you are like, we're not really sure vaccinations are even real.

But the thing that I thought was interesting is that the Wall Street Journal said the breakthrough cracks open the door to ending the HIV pandemic. To which I said, wait a minute, HIV was still a pandemic? When was the last time you had a friend or acquaintance or co-worker who got AIDS? I remember in the '80s or '90s that it happened all the time. So the person on the other side of my cubicle wall died of AIDS. People's relatives, their cousins, their friends, everybody seemed to be dying of AIDS, but I don't really hear about it anymore. Is that because the pills were good enough? But apparently the Wall Street Journal says it's still a pandemic.

All right. Well, let's talk about the bomb damage assessment. The BDA. I think the BDA and the TDS have merged. Have you noticed that Trump derangement syndrome and bomb damage assessment now sort of became the same topic?

Let me do bomb damage assessment the way the public and maybe even all of the intelligence people in the military are doing it too. Are you ready? Now I know what you're going to say. You're going to say, "Scott, you're no expert on military stuff." True. You might say, "Scott, you don't know anything about bomb damage assessment and you don't even have privy to all the private information." True. True.

But you want to watch something impressive. I'm going to give you the best, most accurate bomb damage assessment that you'll ever see. Better than the news, better than the military, better than Trump. Are you ready? Now, I know that's a high bar, but this will be the best bomb damage assessment. You ready?

If you like Donald Trump as your president, then the entire nuclear program was obliterated and they will not start up again for possibly decades and they would be crazy to even try. That's if you're a supporter of Trump. If you were not a supporter of Trump or maybe you were doubting him in the run-up to the ceasefire, then you would say there's no way to know if anything got destroyed. I suspect that they might be able to reconstitute their entire program in three to six months.

There you go. Do you think there will be anything on the news that is better than that? No, there will not be. Then the one thing that you could predict with complete certainty is that there would not be agreement on how effective the bombing was. Right? There was no chance, no chance that the Democrats were going to say, "Wow, you know, we don't like this authoritarian dictator Hitler guy, but I got to admit, he's really good at bombing away the risk of nuclear war with other countries." Was that going to happen in any reality? Were the Democrats going to say, "Yeah, you know, got to say he really nailed it with that limited bombing run. So precise, got everything obliterated. Totally obliterated."

So I remember when the bombing was being talked about and it first happened and I made some comments on social media about how in the world could you be sure that you got everything? Because how would you know if they had something hidden that you didn't know about? How would you know if maybe they had removed some stuff but did it cleverly so the removal could not be detected? How would you know what's under that mountain? If they start digging, are they going to find anything left? How would you know if maybe they had various equipment for enriching uranium that hadn't been connected to their setup yet but it's new and it was sitting there and they could just connect it. How would you know? You would not know.

So your belief in the bomb damage assessment and whether it worked or did not work is entirely based on guessing and political preference. If you think we're going to get to the point where we're going to know for sure if the bombing was a huge positive success or it was a big failure, we'll never know that. There will always be two stories. One will be that it was the best thing ever and the other will be that it didn't work. And that will never change and that was completely predictable before we got to this point.

So we've got and basically the Dilbert filter is what I like to put on these things. So you don't have to be an expert on the military or politics to know that big organizations operate in similar ways, which is people are going to disagree about what the data is. That's just built into everything from climate change to bomb damage assessment.

So CNN is saying predictably according to an early US intelligence assessment the US military strikes on the nuclear program did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program. Do you think they know that? That's based on one of what will be maybe more than a dozen different assessments that might change over time. But do you really think that CNN has a source that can tell them that the core components have been spared? You know, it's possible that somebody told them that, but how would anybody really know that? It doesn't seem knowable one way or the other at this point.

Iran says that their nuclear installations were badly damaged by the US according to the AP. So if Iran says badly damaged, does that mean that they can't reconstitute it in six months? Well, I don't know what badly damaged means in this context.

So anyway, Trump, here's what Trump said. He said that the attacks set them back decades because they had such a bad experience. So Trump's narrative now is not just there's nothing they can do because everything's destroyed, but he's modified his narrative a little bit to even if they could, they'd be insane to do it because it worked out so poorly. And Israel has also said that if they see any nuclear development, they'll be back to bomb more. And Trump says the sites that we hit in Iran were totally destroyed and everyone knows it. Do they? Does everyone know it?

He says they didn't have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast. Really? That there was no way to move that enriched uranium. They didn't have enough time. I'm not even sure we knew where it was in the first place, but okay. And Trump said it's very hard and very dangerous for them to remove that kind of material. Yeah, but they were in sort of a dangerous situation in general. So I don't know.

B. Exath says, quote, "Anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the president." So you know what I have to say to PB Exath? You. I can make up my own opinion about whether or not our government is lying or accurate about bomb damage assessment and it does not have anything to do with trying to undermine the president. And when I see somebody say something like that, that the facts if you disagree on the analysis that you're trying to undermine the president, you just shut the fuck up. We don't want to hear any of it. So no, you fail. That's a fail ex messaging.

And like I said, Netanyahu says, "If anyone in Iran thinks of rebuilding it, we will strike again." Then I was watching a video by Glenn Greenwald who was talking about the prior Obama agreement on Iran. And I don't know if I have the entire argument that I can summarize, but the summary is that Iran was already contained and that it was Trump's fault for removing an agreement that was working and then Iran responded and you know then war broke out. So one narrative is that they never intended to do anything but domestic development. And that would make sense because they wanted to sell their oil and they wanted to use cheap electricity at home through nuclear power. Now, that sort of makes sense, but then you switch the channel and listen to Jesse Waters talk about it on his show on Fox and he asked the following question. If it was only for peaceful domestic energy purposes, why did they have to hide it in a mountain? And I laughed when I heard that. Why do they have to hide it in a mountain? And I'm thinking, huh? Yeah. Does anyone else who uses nuclear only for domestic energy needs, does anybody else hide their program in a mountain? I don't think so.

And then on top of that, Israel has been, I think everyone agrees, funding proxies that would attack Israel. Now, if you're funding proxies to attack Israel, and you're also chanting death to Israel. And then the argument is that death to Israel, no, no, that doesn't mean kill all the people. It just means they would like to have a one-state solution. Do you buy that? Do you buy that? Chanting death to Israel, what it really means is a one-state solution. Okay, let's say you do believe that. Now explain death to America. Oh, it got a little harder, didn't it? Do they want a one-state solution that includes America, Israel, and the West Bank and Gaza? Is that what they want? Why did they throw America in the death category? If we're only talking about Israel as being a one-state solution, what's that got to do with America and us being put to death?

All right, so here's my take. If Iran genuinely had only domestic nuclear power ambitions, if that were real, how easy would it have been for them to avoid war? And the answer is really really easy. If they seriously did not plan to at least have the threshold capability, which would be a threat to the region or to actually make the bomb. If they didn't intend that, it would be the easiest thing in the world to talk the rest of the world out of attacking them. How hard would that be? Here's what you would do. You would first of all say, "All right, we're going to stop funding all these proxies." Next thing you would do is you would ask your own public to stop doing this chanting death to America, death to Israel thing because it's being misinterpreted, right? But you don't see that. And then you wouldn't put it hidden in a mountain. You wouldn't do anything that they did if you were just really just trying to get some innocent cheap electricity.

So I don't think Glenn Greenwald has got the entire picture there. Although it's worth listening to his narrative just so you've heard it.

Apparently Iran has reportedly, according to World Source News 24/7, they've arrested more than 700 Iranians and accused them of being agents for Israel over the past 12 days. So how much does Israel have them spooked that they arrested 700 of their own citizens and you know, who knows what's going to happen to them? Probably death. I don't know. But in just 12 days, they arrested 700 people. What is your guess of how many of those 700 people were actually spies for Israel? My best guess would be maybe some of them, maybe a few dozen, but out of 700, I've got a feeling they're arresting a lot of people who had nothing to do with anything. But if there really were 700 Iranian spies that they could catch, how many did they not catch? Are there 20,000 Iranian spies for Israel? I don't know.

I'm going to double down on something I predicted. I've got a feeling that the regime has already changed and here's my working hypothesis. So you've got an 86-year-old supreme leader and he has made decisions that have brought your country to the verge of complete destruction and you're an underling and you're no longer trusting his opinion because at 86, you know, he needs naps more than he needs anything. And he might be losing a step because 86 is different for different people. So there might be a Joe Biden situation where there are only a few advisors and trusted people who even talk to him. So it could be that it's not like he's having meetings with all of his people all the time.

So now imagine that he needed to be protected because the bombs are falling. If you took this 86-year-old and you locked him in a bunker underground for his own good, for his own safety, and then you took away from him his phone, so there was no phone with an advisor or anybody else in the same room. And then you would say, "No, you can't have a phone." Either because it doesn't work underground or it would be too easy for Israel to identify you via the phone. So now you've talked the Supreme Leader into being in an underground locked room with no form of communication.

Now, who would be in charge of protecting the Supreme Leader? Would it be political friends? No. It would be some part of the military force of Iran and whoever was most trusted. Now, if you were the head of that military and maybe you used to be not anywhere near the head of it, but all the people above you have already been assassinated. And you say to yourself, "Okay, I need to do something right now or I'm gonna get assassinated and my whole family will be wiped out, too." How hard would it be for you to just take over without people even knowing?

Well, you would need two guards. You would need one on the inside of the door in the same room as the ayatollah to say, "No, you can't go out and you can't have a phone and you can't talk to anybody." And then you would need one on the outside of the door to tell people that everything's fine, but the Ayatollah doesn't want to talk to you. If you have a question, we'll make sure that he hears the question and that he gets back to you with some instructions. So the military head, whoever was in charge of protecting him, could have taken over the country with two guards. One on the inside of the door where the supreme leader is and one on the outside and all they'd have to do is Joe Biden the situation because we watched it happen. As long as you didn't suspect there was something wrong, you would think, "Oh, well, obviously the Ayatollah is not going out in public and obviously the people who were protecting him are just passing along the messages and obviously he's still running things." If that was your belief, then whoever the top military person who's left is could have easily taken over the country.

So even if that didn't happen, just the way I explained it, he's still 86 and we don't know who he listens to. Does he have his own Jill Biden or Hunter Biden situation where there's somebody sketchy who's the only person he talks to? Maybe by the time you're 86, you just don't act the same. You don't trust the same. You've got less energy, everything else. So I'm going to put it out there that we might be not hearing from the Supreme Leader in a video and that it might be a long time before we know if the Supreme Leader is still in charge. He's probably still alive, but I suspect maybe other forces have emerge