Support for the show comes from Odu. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce and more. And the best part? Odu replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odu for free at odu.com. That's odo.com. Support for the show comes from Odu. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce and more. And the best part? Odu replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odu for free at odu.com. That's odo.com. Support for the show comes from Diel. Let's be honest, most HR platforms are stitched together. That's why AI barely helps. Diel's different. It's a single AI native system for HR, IT and payroll built from the ground up. That's why AI and side Diel can actually run real work, onboarding, compliance, payroll, approvals, all under your rules, whether you're five people or 50,000. Diel scales with you. See it in action at Diel.com slash audio. That's D-E-E-L dot com slash audio. Do you anticipate ground forces entering Iran soon? It's clearly not off the table. We have about 6,000 troops in transit. More starting to come. My gut is and I have no intelligence on this. That's a tough net to crack. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway. My co-host, Jess Tarlov, is off today. But we're fortunate to be joined by Senator Mark Warner, who has represented this state of Virginia since 2009 and serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Warner, really appreciate you taking the time to be with us. And what must be a very intense time for you. Well, Scott, thank you so much for having me. Yeah, it's pretty freaking intense. All right, so let's bust into it. Obviously, we're following the latest in Iran. Reports are coming this morning that Iran has used drones and missiles on a U.S. base in Kuwait while Israel is claiming to have killed a key IRGC naval commander who had been instrumental in shutting down the Straits of Homoes. Trump is trying to put pressure on Tehran publicly to accept a U.S. authored 15-point peace plan, which Iran seems to have squarely rejected, claiming through their foreign minister that no negotiations are underway. And now we're hearing that many of your colleagues in Congress are growing increasingly frustrated with the administration's handling of the war, including Republicans who had previously given Trump lots of leeway. Senator, how do you feel about how the war in Iran is being prosecuted? And what can you tell us about the latest you're hearing? Well, first of all, let's all acknowledge that the Iranian regime had been bad guys for 47 years. But when President Trump decided to start this war, this is a war of choice. There was no imminent threat to America. You'd have thought he would have, like, put the right kind of plan together. You know, he acts like he was surprised that Iran closed the strait of Homoes. We act like he was surprised that they were hitting our Gulf allies. That was totally predictable. And he started this war of choice without coming to Congress, without going to the American people. And he, you know, took him a week to say his goals. First goal was going to be regime change. Second was get rid of the enriched uranium. Third was get rid of their missile capability. Fourth was getting rid of their navy. None of those have been accomplished. We've actually got a worse, more hard-line regime than before. In terms of the enriched uranium, the only way you get that out would be boots on the ground, minimum of 10,000 folks to guard the perimeter, go down into these bunkers, get this highly volatile enriched uranium, and take it out all while the Iranians reshoot at us. We have gotten rid of some of their missiles. They've still got more, but why the hell didn't we process that we should have taken the offer from the Ukrainians way back in December that said, hey, we'll give you all our drone technology, which is very effective. Instead, we've spent the first four weeks using generally $2.4 million missiles to shoot down $50,000 Iranian drones. And now we're running out of interceptors. If you start a war, shouldn't you think that through? And then on the navy, we sunk a lot of the Iranian navy, but they got still 500 little speedboats. Literally, you put a mine on them or a bomb. They can keep the straights of the Hormuz, the straight of Hormuz close, almost for as long as they want with that fleet of speedboats, since we've not really got even a strategy yet on how to take out. So, we're a month in, 13 service members killed, billions of cost. The Iranians, I think, have got this strategy, which again would be predictable, that they don't need to beat America and Israel. They just need to hold on, and they can dribble out their supply of missiles. And since we so overshot our number of interceptors, ultimately our bases, like in Kuwait, or cities in Israel, are going to become vulnerable because we've used up all our anti-missile defense. If the president had come to Congress and the Senate Intelligence Committee and said, I think there's real justification for trying to further neuter their proxies, diminish their munitions' manufacturing capability, destroy their navy, potentially push what appears to be a weak regime over the edge. Do you think there would have been any justification for limited military action? Would you and potentially other members of Congress have been more supportive or just supportive? I would have been open to that. I would have been particularly open to it. If they'd explained how we're going to execute, but also if Trump had chosen to do this in January, when literally millions of Iranians were on the street protesting the regime, the reason we couldn't do it in January is because the aircraft carrier, the Ford, that we normally had in theater was off the coast of Venezuela. And the ability for us to rally any kind of allied support, like the Europeans, and they've been mixed so far, but if we'd done it in January when he was threatening Greenland, we wouldn't even have a flyover rights we've got now. So I think he could have made the case. We would have asked the hard questions. And I think they would have been required to explain munitions supply. Are we going to make sure we get our Americans out of the region safely? Not sure we'd have got the majority, but it would have been the idea that the Iranians are bad guys. I think we would all agree. And somehow being able to lessen their influence in the region, I think he could make that case. But it would have been easier in January when the Iranians were on the streets. It would have still been hard in March, but it would have been easier if he'd actually answered some of these basic questions. So combat troops en route or arriving amphibious craft being moved to the region. Do you anticipate ground forces entering Iran soon? It's clearly not off the table. We have about 6,000 troops in transit. We're starting to come. You know, my gut is, and I have no intelligence on this, is that it would probably not be about Karg Island, where the Iranian energy infrastructure is. It would probably be trying to go into get out the thousand pounds of enriched uranium. But the military planning for that requires at least 10,000 troops to hold the perimeter, as well as to go into these caves where the enriched uranium is. And this stuff is really volatile. The idea that you're going to be carrying out these volatile canisters of enriched uranium. Well, if we did that, I would expect the Iranians to go ahead and shoot their own missiles at these bunkers. And we can end up with a lot of troops literally buried alive. You know, they execute the extraction of the enriched uranium during a war. And that is a tough nut to crack. We have a tendency, I think, in the U.S. to amorphously blob the Gulf into one entity. But obviously there's different nations with a different viewpoint, different relationship with Iran and with the U.S. And my understanding is the kingdom is actually quite supportive of continuing to engage in this war. Give us a sense for the players there and what their complexion and viewpoint is about where we are now with this war. Well, the kingdom, obviously, in MBS is kind of the keeper of the holy, holy shrines in the Muslim faith. They've obviously had part of this kind of historic Sunni-Shia rivalry for more than a thousand years now. But the kingdom is not as directly exposed as Kuwait, Ukraine, Qatar, the Emiratis, who are really just next door to Iran, who have gotten a dish—they have been hit much harder by both short-range missiles and by drones than either the Saudis or the Israelis have even been hit. So they had different interests. But what has happened, Scott, and this is the part that I don't think we have processed yet. Americans are rightfully upset that we're getting close to $4 a gallon gasoline now because 20% of the world's oil goes through the straight-up hermose. That's not going to go away even if the president, because he feels it in his bones, his words, can declare victory and leave. That's with us for months to come. And if it was just gas prices, that would be bad enough. But now 20% of the world's natural gas goes through the straight as well. That's been all cut off. And matter of fact, the major natural gas facilities in the region have been completely drained of the gas because if it was there and a bomb hits, an Iranian bomb hits, if they would turn into fireballs. So even tomorrow if they stop, that'll be up for months and months and months before we get that flow back. Diesel fuels at $7 a gallon. All the trucks or most of the trucks in America ride on diesel. That costs 15% to 20% will come through and consumer prices going up. Fertilizer, which comes from the region as well, is going to go up 40% already, at least in farms in Virginia. I've heard from aluminum. Half the world's aluminum comes from the region. Two of the world's biggest smelters are shut down. So aluminum costs are already at an all-time high. We have helium. We're the biggest producer of helium. Middle East is the second. And that helium is used in chips for all of our data centers. And there is no reserve of helium. So those have gone to record highs. And then since this is a world crisis, we're sitting here at four bucks a gallon of gas. It's double that in Asian countries because they get 80% of their oil from the street. And you have many Asian countries that we buy a lot of stuff from, shutting down their economy one day a week because they just can't afford to get people to work. That will again mean prices up. So when the International Energy Association says, worst energy crisis in our lifetime, much worse than the 1970s, gas shock in America because it hit so many other domains. That's what we're looking at. And again, for the president to say he was kind of surprised by this. It indicates he just did not read the intelligence. There is a reason why presidents as bad as Iran has been and been hesitant to start this kind of open-ended war with this country that has a lot of resources. We have to acknowledge and can shut down a lot of other resources that come from the region. Given where we are, where we are, if the president or the secretary of war came to the Senate Intelligence Committee and said, okay, in addition to yourself as vice chair, who is this is not your first rodeo in terms of overseeing or being briefed on conflict, given that there's several veterans, Tom Cotton, US Army officer, served in Iraq and Afghanistan, Markelle, US Navy captain, Jack Reed, US Army, West Point grad, Ranger qualified. If there was a consensus among the Senate Intelligence Committee around what the president should do right now, are you comfortable saying what that advice would be? Scott, that's a great question. And I'm not sure there is a consensus. And one of the things that is making that consensus harder is the House, I believe, Armed Services Committee had the Pentagon and DOD up to say, hey, what are these troops going to do? And even though it was a classified briefing, they didn't tell them anything. And the House Republican chair came out madder in hell rightfully saying, hey, you guys are not even going to share what the five, six, seven thousand troops that are moving into the region are going to be asked to do. You know, pretty outrageous. And there is a, you know, challenges I think the war needs to end because of the energy and costs and exponentially increasing economic shock that's going to have to the world's economy. But there is also an argument, and I think like the Saudis are making this, that hey, you've started this. If you come out of this with Iran bloodied, but not defeated and the Iranians can say to the world, hey, we just took on America and Israel and played them to a tie. You know, a wounded Iran with the amount of capabilities it still has is extraordinarily dangerous. But getting to the point of any of the four goals that the president administration laid out, you know, those are tough nuts to crack too. So I'd love to have that discussion. I'd love to have it in an open way with Secretary Hedgstaff and others. But I don't have, I don't think I could give you what the consensus would be at this point, even when we counter military veterans who were on the committee. When you say played to a tie, I wonder if we were to try and, or if the president, let me be clear, there's no weed. American people don't support this, did not get congressional authority. It doesn't even feel like even briefed allies or the Senate Intelligence Committee for that matter. But I would argue right now, if they were to attempt to declare victory and leave, did it actually the IRGC could could post a W on the board and say they attacked us, we stared them down. And then after we left, why wouldn't they decide that, okay, we now control the Straits of Hormuz and you, you ask our permission to come through there and Chinese ships can go through. But the kingdom who was not supportive of us and supported and allied with the US. No, your, your ships cannot come through. I mean, wouldn't this, I mean, this is, it feels like we're on the precipice of the definition of the word quagmire. And that is we might hear and now, to the kingdom's point, if we don't identify some objectives and actually achieve those objectives, that leaving now would actually make us less than zero, worse off than when this whole thing started. Your thoughts? Your train of thought is got a lot of truth in it. And it wouldn't just be the kingdom. Listen, they have walloped the Emiratis more than any other nation. So I'm not going to let them get out. Cutter, you know, has got the world's biggest natural gas field. They wouldn't let them out. Ukraine, other places, Kuwait, where we've got bases and forces. So your argument has a lot of validity that, you know, I'm trying to give us the benefit of the doubt and said we played to a tie because we obviously care old a series of their leadership and we have taken out a lot of military assets they have. But as, you know, people said at the beginning of this, there's never been a successful, air only campaign that is really decapitated and moved to regime. And I think the president kind of got over his skis saying, hey, gosh, we took out Majuro. That was really easy. We bombed their nuclear facility. He said it was obliterated. Obviously, it was not. And but that was relatively easy. And getting into this war without thinking through all the implications is a real mess. And your point that a the IRGC could say, no, it's not a tie. We actually defeated both Israel and America is a real threat. I've read reports that the president of Finland has proposed kind of a grand bargain where Europe is willing to engage in convoys to secure safe passage to the Straits of Hormuz in exchange for the U.S. increasing its support of Ukraine. Has there been any formal proposal and what is your take on that type of agreement? Listen, I think I've heard those rumors. Nothing has been formally presented to us. But this second Trump administration, first Trump administration, I didn't agree with the president, but I worked really well with his team, which we set Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary. Second Trump administration does not share anything with Congress, not just the Democrats, but blows off the Republicans. And that's an interesting item, although would also, and I'm a strong supporter of Ukraine, but boy, boy. You know, the idea we don't really have to ship with you, European blessed vessels. Does that give the facto control of the straight to the Europeans? And one of the things that I didn't mention that should have been fricking thought through this administration's choice to relieve Russian oil sanctions has provided $10 billion to Russia's war machine. The Ukrainians were actually starting to turn that they've been pretty successful with some recent counter offenses. They've been grinding down the Russian forces. You put $10 billion into Putin's pocket and much more to come. He's got a lot more juice to go. And the other one that's just I am just amazed people's heads haven't exploded exploded is in the middle of this war. The fact that the administration has taken the sanctions off of Iranian oil. 140 million barrels, I think it was, that were already in transit. That gets sold. That's $14 billion. The Iranian regime, the very folks who are bombing us right now, we're now funding their efforts to take out American troops, Israel and our Gulf allies. I mean, we kind of live in an Alice in Wonderland up is down and down is up, but literally funding Iran and Russia. Somebody should have thought of that before we went into this war. There's a lack of clarity around the relationship. Obviously, this is a US Israel led operational operation long term. It's now full blown war. But the president has said or intimated that Israel on certain instances is acting alone. What is your sense of the how tightly the operation is coordinated with Israel and what in your view does this do for the relationship between the US and Israel? Again, hard tough question. I heard those claims by the president about the Israeli strike on some of that Iranian energy infrastructure. But then I hear others say there's no way they could have done that without help of American targeting. So I don't know. Two, I do think, you know, at least in starting timing that the president kind of and Marco Rubio acknowledge this that, you know, the timing decision of when was left to Israel and the whole notion he put before us and then to say publicly, hey, we had to go and start because Israel is going to strike and then Iran with his backs. We struck first. But again, I think that I'm a strong supporter of Israel. I have been consistent on that. I think it's an extraordinarily important ally. Boy, oh, boy, you know, the undercurrents that somehow we were outsourcing some of the timing of this war to our Israeli allies. That's not going to play well. And then I don't think there's any indication that I've heard that if the president again, he's used the term he'll fill it in his bones when it's the right time to declare victory. If he declares victory tomorrow, I don't think there's any assurance that Israel won't continue or that the Iranians won't continue. But Israel, I may not agree, but they are clear to their public what the goal is. The goal is regime change. And anything in complete decapitation of Iran's military capabilities, anything short of that, I think they would back into the position that you are. You know, as said a couple of minutes ago, a wounded Iran with all these military capabilities might be a worse outcome than what the status quo was. Now, they clearly have been degraded, but there's still got a lot of assets. And one of the things that is kind of at a macro level, more mind blowing to me is that our Pentagon has said repeatedly we have shortage of munitions, but we are running so low on the interceptors and long range attack missiles. I won't give you the numbers because it's classified, but we are in a really tough position and Israel is as well right now. So if Iran can keep bleeding our munition stock pile down, very soon I think you'll see the American bases in Israeli cities vulnerable to the Iranian attacks because we don't have the number of interceptors we need. If you're not already, please make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to stay in the loop on all news politics. Okay, let's take a quick break. Stay with us. Support for the show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to you? Businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's odoo.com. Support for the show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce and more. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's odoo.com. Support for the show comes from Hostinger. Ever had an idea for a business or side hustle but never actually launched it? With Hostinger you can turn that idea into something real in minutes instead of weeks. Hostinger is an all in one platform that brings everything into one place. Your domain, website, email marketing, AI tools and AI agents. You can create websites, online stores and custom apps with simple prompts. Then use AI agents to automate tedious tasks and grow your business. Go to hostinger.com slash vox to bring your idea online for under $3 a month. Plus get an extra 20% off with promo code VOX. Welcome back. Anyone who's listened to this podcast knows that we have a bias against the president and that we're not impressed with the president. And I have been shocked at the level of, with a lack of credibility, qualifications, expertise of some of his appointments. And it feels as if the chickens of incompetence are coming to roost here. But I don't know how much of that is my emotion getting in the way. When you hear or when you do get briefings from our top, you know, from the secretary of war, do you share our concerns around just a general, I mean, typically this position is a civilian position such that as the fear was if the generals were in charge we'd still be in Vietnam. What is your general take on the competence of the people overseeing this effort? I have a huge lack of confidence. I mean, I have confidence in the number two guy at DOD, Steve Feinberg, but he's more on internal operations. But except making these decisions and not just about this war, but, you know, he recently declared anthropic a supply chain risk, which is a basically a death sentence to America's at this moment in time, he could switch in a month leading AI company. And he did that on his own without any process, because he wanted to have absolute control and appears over the ability to use AI to surveil all Americans or to create an offensive AI driven weapon without a human in the loop. Those are policy decisions and this designation of which has never been used before against an American company of a supply chain risk. I don't have confidence that this is a thought loop process. And then I moved to the intelligence side, where it is clear intelligence professionals, I know they're intimidated because people are getting fired for telling the truth. But the idea it was pathetic when Tulsi Gabbard's director of national intelligence was basically saying the only person that could decide what is imminent or not is the president. And that is a totally ridiculous statement since the job of the intelligence community is say, is this risk imminent tomorrow? Is it imminent in six months, six years? So it is obvious reflection that they totally blew off the professional opinions of the intelligence community as well. So I don't have confidence there as well. So speaking of Tulsi Gabbard, last week you heard testimony from director Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe in the annual worldwide threats hearing. What can you tell us if anything was learned by the committee in that hearing? Or more specifically, senator, what threat do you think we're not thinking enough about? The threat we face right now is at least some people in this administration's willingness to interfere in this year's midterm elections in a radical way. You take the president's own words of, you know, we ought to federalize elections, but Republicans in charge, something that's totally counter to traditional Republican belief that elections ought to be state and local. You take Kristi Noem's own comments saying we ought to have voting so we can have the right people vote for the right people. We had Tulsi Gabbard literally showing up on a domestic warrant looking at grabbing the voting machines in Fulton County, Georgia, and she grabbed machines in Puerto Rico. I believe this could be a warm up for what's next, and I am hugely fearful that some piece of intelligence, accurate or not, will be used as an excuse to send in the troops, change election days, federalize elections. I have been spending a ton of my time talking to retired military, retired intel, retired law enforcement to be willing to stand up if an action like this happens and try to pre-bunk the misinformation, disinformation that may be used as an excuse to take over elections issue. I never thought I'd say that in America, but I am terrified and go back to the World Right threat hearing. Every year since 2017, last nine years, including the first year of Trump too last year, there's been a major section talking about foreign interference in our elections. There was no section even on that threat, and I can promise you, Russia, China, Iran have not disarmed about their ability to use misinformation, disinformation to try to screw with our elections as well. Do you think ICE's presence in airports is an attempt to normalize ICE being in public venues, including polling booths? Yeah, I think this idea of making ICE, I don't think would operate with the same professionalism that our military does. Many of these folks are brand new hires who seem to be really loyal to this president. I'm not saying it's a dry run, but as we've heard, and there's been public reporting, the TSA agents, God knows we've got to get them paid and fully back to work, but the TSA agents have been saying, hey, these guys are not helping if anything, they're putting us all on edge. They're not doing anything. So even the possibility that this is a dry run ought to concern us. We just saw a verdict come in yesterday in what could be a landmark trial in New Mexico. A jury found that Metta and YouTube harmed a young user merely by featuring things, including infinite scroll and algorithmic content recommendations. Many are comparing the legal strategy or the verdict to the kind of big tobacco moment in the 90s. Do you think this will spark significant changes from these tech platforms and more lawsuits, or will this get undone on appeal? I'm glad the court ruled the way it did. I think the tech platforms who've lived under this protection of what's called Section 230 is long overdue for review. And I've spoken, we've had a flurry of AI summits this week in DC, and I am very optimistic about AI over the next 10 years and the benefits can bring. I am terrified about the amount of short term job loss it's going to create. Exponentially more terrified today than I was even three months ago when you see products like Anthropics Clawed rock the software industry, rock the HR industry, and that's just the current version. And I think the tech community writ large because both the social media companies have mostly morphed into the AI big hyperscalers. If they don't recognize that they have not only a moral obligation to our kids, but also an economic obligation to help people get through this AI transition. I think you're going to have populism from the left and right come in and, and, you know, frankly, try to stop this innovation, which would also be a mistake because this is truly a case where we don't want China to win the AI struggle. Senator Mark Warner has represented the state of Virginia since 2009 and serves amongst other things as the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Warner, you're always a voice of reason, measured, thoughtful, very much appreciate your service in these difficult times. Thank you, Scott. And thanks for having me on. It's, it's, I very much appreciate it as well. It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier CRM accounting inventory e-commerce and more. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for free at Odoo.com. That's Odoo.com. Or choose from more than 2000 templates. Get built in solutions tailored to your business and enjoy easy, fuss free domain registration. Web hosting included. Wix powers more than 280 million businesses around the world. Because with Wix, you can own your individuality, create freely and scale fearlessly. Ready to create your website? Go to Wix.com. That's Wix.com. AI is moving fast across the enterprise. But without visibility, it's just chaos. Different tools, different models, different teams using AI in completely different ways. ServiceNow turns that chaos into control. With the AI control tower, you see all your AI across the business in one place. What it's doing, what it's done and what it's about to do. So you stay in control. To put AI to work for people, visit ServiceNow.com.
