4/29/26: Epstein Peter Thiel Plot Exposed, AOC Humiliates Trump Crony, Big Tech Israel Crackdown, Professor Pape On Iran War

This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human. On the Look Back At It podcast. 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me. I'm Sam Jay. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. With our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. 84 was a wild year. I mean, it was a wild year. Wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Listen to Look Back At It on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. In 2023, Bachelor star Clayton Eckerd was accused of fathering twins, but the pregnancy appeared to be a hoax. You doctored this particular test twice, Ms. Owens, correct? I doctored the test once. It took an army of internet detectives to uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. Greg Gillespie and Michael Mancini. My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young. This is Love Trapped. Laura, Scottsdale Police. As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Listen to Love Trapped podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. When a group of women discover they've all dated the same prolific con artist, they take matters into their own hands. I vowed I will be his last target. He is not going to get away with this. He's going to get what he deserves. We always say that, trust your girlfriends. Listen to the girlfriends. Trust me, babe. On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at BreakingPoints.com. We're joined now by Branko Marchteach. He is a staff writer at Jacobin. He's the author of Yesterday's Man, The Case Against Joe Biden, and is out with a truly fantastic deep dive into Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with Peter Thiel in Jacobin. Jacobin cannot recommend this piece highly enough. This is D-Wen. We can put the tear sheet up on the screen. You absolutely must go check it out over at Jacobin. The headline here, Jeffrey Epstein encouraged Peter Thiel's political journey. So, Branko, let's just start with the highlights. after spending so much time piecing together these emails between Peter Thiel and Jeffrey Epstein, of which there are many. What can you tell us about how close the relationship was and why, over what types of issues did they bond? Yeah, well, thanks for having me, first of all. They were extremely close. There's some people that I've written about in the context of Epstein, billionaires who knew him, who, you know, they say, well, just because they were mentioned in emails by Epstein doesn't mean that they actually had any kind of relationship with him. You can safely say that is not the case with Peter Thiel. Thiel is all over these emails. They are communicating very frequently over the course of years. They're having phone calls. They're having meetings face to face. Epstein is introducing him to people that he seems to think will be particularly useful and influential for Thiel to know. So, you know, Epstein is also showering him with all kinds of gifts. He's offering to fly him to his island in his helicopter. He's offering him at one point $50 million to $100 million to invest. He's giving him tax advice. He's in turn soliciting investment advice from Thiel. Thiel at one point introduces Epstein to some of his Vala co-founders. and he suggests to put in $10 million to $20 million into a new fund they're starting. At one point, Epstein even suggests, you know, Thiel can use one of his top sleep doctors in New York. He says, I want you to stay alive. So it was a very close relationship and the kinds of things they bonded over, I mean, there's a variety of things that they talked about, you know, but I think the most pertinent thing to me in looking through his emails is the way that Epstein seems to be very interested in Thiel's kind of budding involvement and interest in politics and geopolitics and how he seems to want to develop and encourage that by kind of introducing him to a wide variety of influential players around the world and in the context of the US. And what I think is so interesting about Epstein and who he was connected to and also Thiel, aside from the obvious, is both of these guys were kind of on the pioneer of where the kind of Davos world was, the more extreme weird wing of the Davos world almost was headed, particularly when it comes to kind of eugenics, when it comes to mass surveillance and deploying technologies like Palantir that he was developing to usher in kind of new worlds, also Bitcoin and AI. Like Epstein, Thiel, like they were both talking about that stuff so much earlier, you know, than, you know, either the public or even kind of other people in their set. So what do you make of that kind of ability that they had to see where their kind of social set was heading and also to kind of drive it in that direction a little bit? Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned cryptocurrency because that is a big theme, I think, in Epstein's emails in general, but particularly with his relationship with Thiel. Epstein kind of suggests in one early email when he's trying to get in touch with Thiel. And by the way, he is really, before they become friends, he is really trying to meet Thiel and to forge a connection with him. I think I counted something like 10 different times over the course of two years that he is emailing people trying to set up some kind of meeting with him. He says that one of the things that is interesting to him that he hopes that he can connect with Teal over is this idea of creating a new financial system, an alternative financial system. Some of that sounds a bit silly. He kind of envisions Facebook being the kind of basis for a new financial system where you trade favors instead of currency. But when you read through the emails, it's clear that Epstein's interest in cryptocurrency was a big part of this. And, you know, I think he hoped to use the Teal Connection to try and usher this new world into existence. I think there's another aspect where, you know, the fact that these guys are both incredibly wealthy and that they kind of feel themselves that are removed from the rest of humanity, I think both gives them the kind of impulse to embark on what might look to us like almost wacky schemes. but ones that they're very serious about and ones that obviously have very far-reaching implications in terms of the ideas of kind of extending lifespan and kind of going beyond the limits of normal human existence. I would also point to, this doesn't make it into the piece, but there's an exchange that they have where it's very brief. Epstein asks Thiel, as he does many times, whether he's going to come to New York, and Teal responds with something like, you know, I don't have any interest in coming to the zoo this week or something. And Epstein replies, you know, well, sometimes it's fun to look at animals. There's a, I think that exchange kind of betrays a certain way that these guys look at the rest of the world. You know, they're so far removed from everyone else that I think they kind of view the world and the rest of humanity as almost kind of a petri dish for themselves to kind of play around in and reforge in the vision that they see fit. Yeah, a couple of other things that stood out to me, I mean, there's a lot that stood out, but a couple of other things. They seem to be trying to, or Epstein seems to try to be brokering relationships between Teal and the intelligence community. Also people like ultra-wealthy businessmen like Tom Barak, if I'm remembering correctly, who's what, our current ambassador to the UAE? He was UAE. Now he's- Wasn't it Turkey? Turkey. Yeah. But he was Trump one UAE, right, Ryan? No, he was doing illegal lobbying for UAE. He was indicted for it. Right. So he was sort of an ambassador in one sense or the other. But he's trying to, I can't tell if you, I'm curious if you read it this way as well, Branko, that he's almost trying to like curry favor with Epstein by doing favors for him. It seems like he's going out of his way to try to help Thiel, that Epstein's going out of his way to try to help Thiel make all of these introductions. And then he's advising him on his speech at the RNC. It just knowing how much Epstein hates Trump and communicates how much he hates Trump to others. His relationship with Steve Bannon is much kind of more frank about that. Whereas with Thiel, it's almost like he's trying to imply to Teal that he's fully on board with Trump. There's just some weird undercurrents. My sense from looking at probably at this point thousands of these emails is that Epstein did have this falling out with Trump. He was very disdainful towards Trump. He did not think very highly of him. But I think he understood that Trump was obviously a very influential and increasingly powerful person. And could be bought in some ways. Yeah, yeah. And I think Epstein understood that it was probably in his interest to have some kind of in with Trump or at least his administration. And Thiel, I think, was his in. I mean, when Epstein finds out that Thiel is a Trump delegate, that's when he starts sending him these emails trying to help him kind of increase his influence within Trump's circles, trying to advise him on how to, you know, not piss off Trump, basically, and get himself kind of kicked out of the inner circle. I mean, you know, he tells him, hey, I heard that you met with Tom Barack. And he basically says to him, I can I can, you know, make that meeting happen. You should know him. If you if you can kind of have your advice listened to by him, you'll be able to increase your influence within Trump's Trump's world. Later on, yeah, he broke as a meeting between them. He reads a BuzzFeed article where Thiel is quoted saying some unflattering things about Trump, and he tells him, hey, be careful. You know, Trump is very vindictive. You don't want to anger him and kind of get kicked out of the clubhouse. And sure enough, from what I could see, after that email is sent, Thiel does not say anything negative about Trump after. He's very careful to always say positive things. So I think there was a realization by Epstein, similar to the interest he took in Steve Bannon, where he similarly tried to introduce him to many, many powerful and influential people. He gave him advice and so on and so forth. I think he realized these two guys are going to be important power players. They're going to be influential within the Trump presidency and whatever comes after it. And it's probably better for me to have a good relationship with them and to have a kind of in. And, you know, the intelligence side of things, some of the other people that he introduced him to, I think there's a similar thing going on. The names that come up when Epstein was trying to introduce Thiel to people includes Bill Burns, who became the CIA director under Biden. At the time, he was a State Department official. They include Kathy Rumler, who was the Obama White House counsel once upon a time. He says to her at one point when he's trying to get her to meet Thiel, you know, you should bring some of your spook friends. So Epstein seemed to have a particular interest in kind of connecting Thiel to the world of intelligence. And of course, you know, what has happened since then, Thiel is very much deep in the world of intelligence. You know, Epstein introduced Thiel to Ehud Barak. Thiel now has this major partnership with the Israeli military. At the same time, Thiel also, his companies have increasingly aligned themselves with this kind of interventionist pro-war side of the political spectrum in the United States. Whereas Thiel used to be, you know, at the time that he was, had first met Epstein, he was someone who described himself as a non-interventionist. and he was against the US fighting all these wars. So, you know, whether it's what role Epstein played in it, you know, we can only speculate, but Epstein's desire to kind of have a teal that's more politically involved and, you know, less averse to war, I think has worked out for him, even if he didn't live to see it happen. Yeah, well, Bronco, great reporting. Really appreciate you being here. Yeah, yeah, thanks for having me. I encourage everybody to check out his piece. Bronco March-Teach of Jackman Magazine. 2%. That is the number of people who take the stairs when there is also an escalator available. I'm Michael Easter, and on my podcast, 2%, I break down the science of mental toughness, fitness, and building resilience in our strange modern world. I'll be speaking with writers, researchers, and other health and fitness experts, and more to look past the impractical and way too complex pseudoscience that dominates the wellness industry. We really believe that seed oils were inherently inflammatory. We got it wrong. Many of the problems that we are freaked out about in the world are the result of stress. Put yourself through some hardships and you will come out on the other side a happier, more fulfilled, healthier person. Listen to 2%. That's T W O percent on the I heart radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Do you remember when Diana Ross double tapped little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people? I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George Bush got to do a little Kim? Well, you can find out on the look back at podcast. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84 is big to me not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack all day, but yeah, yeah. But just so y'all know. I mean, at this point, Mark, this is the second episode where we've discussed crack, so I'm starting to see that there's a through line. We also have AIDS on the table right now, so. Thank you for finishing that sentence. Yes. I don't think there's a more important year for Black people. Really? Yeah. For me, it's one of the most important years for Black people in American history. Listen to Look Back at It on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. In 2023, former Bachelor star Clayton Eckerd found himself at the center of a paternity scandal. The family court hearings that followed revealed glaring inconsistencies in her story. This began a years-long court battle to prove the truth. You doctored this particular test twice, Ms. Owens, correct? I doctored the test once. It took an army of internet detectives to crack the case. I wanted people to be able to see what their tax dollars were being used for. Sunlight's the greatest disinfectant. They would uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. Greg Gillespie and Michael Maricini. My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young. This is Love Trap. Laura, Scottsdale Police. As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Ladies and gentlemen, breaking news out of Maricopa County as Laura Owens has been indicted on fraud charges. This isn't over until justice is served in Arizona. Listen to the Love Trapped podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin came to Capitol Hill yesterday, appeared before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment, where he was grilled by AOC over glyphosate and exposing what is a kind of fascinating rift developing between Trump and the Maha movement. This is a longer exchange than we usually play from hearings like this. But I think after you watch it, you're going to agree that the entire thing was worth including. Let's roll that. Now, Secretary Kennedy was here a couple of weeks ago. And when he was asked about glyphosate and the rollbacks against protections against toxic chemicals, he said that we would, quote, have to ask Lee Zeldin about that. So you're here before us today. Administrator Zeldin, have you ever participated in a meeting with Bayer where you discussed the legal or litigation issues that the company was facing? No, I never did. Okay, I have some- My meeting with them was very brief and that topic did not come up. All right, I do- Are you aware of any outreach that they would have in your agency about this? I could say that I directly had a brief meeting. Okay. But it was a brief meet and greet and that topic did not come up. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'd like to submit EPA visitor logs from July 7th, 2025 to the committee. Without objection, so ordered. And you're certain they didn't bring up anything regarding your work? I'm telling you, 100%, absolutely. Maybe there was some brainstorming that was done beforehand of potential topics. Are you aware of anything brought up to any members of your staff or your team? I am not aware of that, no. In this internal email in your EPA, it says that Bayer was specifically seeking and discussing Supreme Court action. They will want an update on EPA's regulatory review. And that, interestingly, Bayer will provide a small thanks for updating the glyphosate webpage from the EPA and work on Maha. Do you have any idea what they might have been referring to in this email? Well, first off, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, it's possible that the team was doing brainstorming of potential topics. Okay. As somebody who actually attended the meeting. Thank you. I'm sorry. I just have 40 seconds. I'm not trying to be rude. This glyphosate update that they're referring to seems to be correlated to the EPA agency withdrawing its support for California's cancer warning on glyphosate. Now, this is important because five days after the EPO this year, Bayer filed their opening brief to the Supreme Court. Citing the Trump's executive order and hinging their case on the EPA's warnings or lack thereof of glyphosate. So we have internal emails from your agency saying that Bayer wanted to thank you and your agency for removing support for California's warning because their case before the Supreme Court right now hinges on you not warning the American people and withdrawing your support on glyphosate. Do you understand the conflict of interest that is before the American people right now, Mr. Secretary? I understand. The gentlelady's time has a chance. You might if I respond, Cameron? The gentleman may respond. Okay. So right now, EPA is completing an assessment due in 2026. And I understand this is a very important topic for many people in this country. This review that the EPA is being conducted, my guidance to dedicated career staffers, and then we have people who have been there for 20, 30 years, is that I don't want to pre- It's taking a while, Secretary Zeldin, because the Supreme Court is going to be making decisions this week and Congress is voting this week on legal immunity. You made your point. Now, I'm asking, do you mind if I answer? This is an important part of this, and I'm sure you also care. And I think the timing is also very important, Secretary Zeldin. The General's time has expired. Thank you. So before we break down that exchange, let's roll Thomas Massey, Republican congressman, giving a kind of Maha angle on this. One of the things in the farm bill, I'm still trying to get out of it, was successful in getting this out of prior bills, is immunity for a German company called Bayer that makes glyphosate. This is not to grant farmers immunity, this is to grant the corporation immunity if they give farmers, if farmers contract a form of cancer or non lymphoma from this chemical If this makes it into the Farm Bill you won be able to sue for that And I know they're dealing with some similar legislation at the state level. One of the things that I liked about that AOC-Zelman exchange is that she's been a pretty loyal kind of Democratic Party figure. Fairly and hasn't done a huge amount of kind of reach out to particularly to say MAGA or Maha. Even though there are a lot of positions that she has that can be very appealing to people in those coalitions. This is a perfect example of it. What did you make of the substance of the back and forth too? Yeah, I mean, this is Lee Zeldin in the, I mean, when he was picked for EPA, it was obvious there was going to be significant tension between him and Maha because he's in the position of being a Trump loyalist. And Republicans are totally in the pocket of these big ag companies. Like in the, both parties have their kind of big benefactors for Republicans. A lot of them they share. Yeah, they share a lot of them. But for Republicans, based on the states that they come from, of course, like one of them is ag. It's a huge, huge lobby. And so Zeldin's in this position of being a loyalist to Trump. Trump has all of these rich friends. In fact, it's why people believe he's not doing a lot of workforce immigration enforcement is that ag guys call up and be like, I can't afford to lose all of these workers if you start implementing E-Verify or the like. and they're very influential on Donald Trump. And Trump doesn't need to get reelected again, but he does like to keep people that he knows happy and basically is responsive to people who pick up the phone. And Zeldin is a pretty normie Republican who also now, because he's in EPA, has to be a Trump loyalist. It actually might've been interesting to see Bobby Kennedy at EPA and not at HHS. I don't know, Obama considered Bobby Kennedy for EPA and ultimately decided he was kind of too radical at the time. Someone posted this fascinating magazine cover from the late 2000s. I want to say it was like Vanity Fair with Julia Roberts, George Clooney, and Bobby Kennedy warning about climate change. It's just like. Yeah, he was a leading environmental attorney for decades. A far cry from Lee Zeldin, basically. Yeah, exactly. The substance of it is truly incredible. So effectively, Lee Zeldin went and changed the EPA's public positioning when it came to Roundup. The fact that he changed that public positioning was then extremely useful to them as they moved through the courts trying to fend off all of the various challenges from all the destruction that Roundup is causing. They then meet with him to thank him for doing that. and he denies that it remotely came up and AOC has him kind of caught red-handed. Yep. And I was a little angry. I'm like, hold on, this is, we're supposed to be doing the FOIAs and breaking this news. Excuse me. Excuse me. Actually, oversight is her job. That's the point of the committee. That's true. No, and also nothing stopping us from doing it, so it's on us. We failed. She got there first. kudos for kudos for the scoop um you can put up e4 um this is not a remotely a republican issue oh um the story is awesome yeah tell us about tell us about this one uh so you're sharing some of it yesterday yeah nate halverson uh went out into a bunch of uh california wilderness and discovered just mass use of roundup uh you know near i think also in national park space because they're using the space essentially as tree farms, right? You can log and grow trees faster if you use glyphosate and just, I was going to say napalm the National Park Service or National Parkland with glyphosate. And that's essentially what's happening. So check out that story. There's a video that goes along with it. Also a little note in the story, Gavin Newsom made it easier to do this in California. Glyphosate Gavin. Glyphosate Gavin. Sagar likes to call him Greasy Gavin, but I think Glyphosate Gavin maybe has a better punch to it. Yes. So another exchange that Zeldin had that was going viral on the right, I saw, was with Rosa DeLauro. Rosa came in hot. She's 80 plus, I believe, at this point. Oh. Yeah, she's been around forever. Look that up. Let's play a little bit of, this is not on the same issue. This is on the Clean Air Act. Yeah. So let's roll E3. Following the law, Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, where does it say anything about fighting global climate change? Loper Bright, Supreme Court case. You familiar with it? No. Maybe others are. I'm not. But let me ask. But that's really important. As a member of Congress, Loper Bright says that we as an agency don't have the authority to get creative if Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. No, but you don't have. Excuse me. You do not have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it's a hoax. And that's where this administration is coming from. I understand you're upset that you don't know what low probright is. Do you know what the major policies doctrine is? I'm upset because- Do you know what the major policies doctrine is? You're a member of Congress. You should know. You want me to tell you what the two biggest Supreme Court cases are of the last few years? This is what I want you to tell me. Michigan versus EPA? Whoa. West Virginia versus EPA? You know, you're here because you need money from us. So halt for the second and wait for the questions and answer the questions. I answered your question and you didn't like my answer because you don't know what Loperbrite is because you don't know what the major policies doctrine is. And what you want to do is to deny you want. No, I actually read the law. I do my homework. Really? You're just somebody who likes to have the microphone on. You know what I have to do? I read the law. I read the Supreme Court cases. And I would say. No, you what you do for your constituents is actually read statute. Our folks at the EPA is that you wanted to fund us. I don't have to listen to this BS. BS. You think I made up these cases? Deloreau there kind of gave it away when she acknowledged that she didn't know what that was. I'm surprised about that. But, you know, one, she's super old. But two, I'm sure she does. I'm sure she remembers it from the time. That's the case that we covered here that got rid of the quote-unquote Chevron Doctrine, which the Chevron Doctrine was if federal law is somewhat ambiguous, we will defer in a common-sense way to the administrative state. basically to the EPA or whoever is tasked with writing the rules. And as long as it's reasonable, then that's fine. Courts, the court, the Supreme Court, our right-wing Supreme Court, said, no, we're going to take that power. Like the judges are going to do that instead of them. And then the other ones that he's referring to said, well, basically you can't have carbon on, you know, They got rid of allowing carbon to apply underneath under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act was very clear that like we are the Drug Control Act did the same thing. Drug Control Act said these are the drugs that are illegal right now. But people are making new drugs constantly. You know, LSD will be tweaked. It will become a new thing. And if the if the scientists that work for the DEA determine that that drug is very similar to LSD, then that one is also then banned under the Controlled Substances Act as well. You don't have to go back to Congress and ban every little single variation of a new drug. The Clean Air Act was the exact same way that they would say, we want clean air and we want to protect clean air from pollutants. These are the known pollutants at the time. as new pollutants emerge through the industrial process. We're not asking the executive to come back to Congress every single time, just in coordination with the public and public comment periods and through your scientific expertise, just add new pollutants. And obviously, some things are pollutants, and all pollutants basically are safe at some level for the climate and for the world and unsafe at higher levels. And so the EPA, through its process, declared that it had the authority to regulate carbon, which was in place for many, many years. And then the Supreme Court came in and said, no, you don't have that authority. So what frustrated me about that clip is that he was trying to take what is really a political disagreement and refashion it as you just don't know what you're talking about. Yes. But I also think that, because again, we covered this at the time, Loper Bread is a really interesting case that gets to, I think, an issue. It's about fishermen or something, right? Lobstermen, if I'm remembering correctly, that it actually does get to an interesting issue that I think what Rosa Dolores, Connecticut, so I assume her district is some coastline. I would assume so. I don't know that for sure. But it was a lot of lobster rolls. Yes. Bureaucrats in D.C. basically making rules that were controlling like minute details of what these guys were doing off the coast of I want to say it was Maine in Loper Bright. So I also think that's something that like, first of all, Rosa DeLore should be prepared to make the argument that the Clean Air Act, which is at the center of Loper Bright, should be used differently. And like it absolutely needs to be guided by Washington for reasons X, Y, and Z. So like she should be. If I were a Connecticut voter, I'd be like, ma'am, like get back. Like let's go. Like this is a very obvious talking point against Zeldin. But I remember at the time, Ryan, we were talking about how part of the problem with Chevron, for example, is that you get these lobbyists coming through. or you get the revolving door where you have people who were then going to go lobby revolving through the door of the EPA. And then they're the ones that are empowered to make some of these decisions about minute things. And you could see somebody from, I mean, it's happened. You could see people from the industries working at EPA, making decisions that benefit the industries, then getting nice, big, fat paychecks. It's really like my dispute with it is that I think it's anti-democratic in some ways. So that's, to me, an interesting tension for Democrats. Right, but the judges aren't more democratic, leaving it up to judges. No, I'm not saying that they are. But it's also not a solution to just have people who have worked at the EPA and then are going over to – maybe it's Bayer. It's like we should actually look up and see how many people who have worked at Bayer work at the EPA now or have. But I don't think it's a good situation either way. Well, you have to have some mechanism to actually implement what Congress passes. And to me, if Congress says, and all right, so let's, when Democrats, if they come back into power, fine. Like maybe they need to, in every single bill. Enumerate. Say, we explicitly allow. Yeah. But that has been the assumption from Congress because that's been the settled law for decades. And the Supreme Court just got rid of it because they don't like it. So, okay, I guess if Democrats take control again, they can come back and say, okay, we want to be very clear here. Carbon is included. Yeah. On and on. I think that's good, actually. Um, but yeah, uh, anyway, uh, we thought it was useful to play both back to back cause it also, we looked at Delora's 83. Oh, wow. Um, AOC's what? 37. Good point. Um, and so we like people who are fighting, you know, for the environment, um, you know, we, we need people at their best. Like, come on. That's a really good point. And also I think it was useful to play clips back to back because as much as we probably disagree with Zeldin on a number of issues, like he's slippery. He's an effective defender. He's possibly one of the names for DOJ successor to Pam Bondi because Trump really likes Lee Zeldin exactly over clips like that. So the other thing I wanted to mention, Ryan, is this was from Politico last month. They had a little blurb in their influence newsletter, which is a great window into Washington, better than playbook. They wrote, behind Bayer's success, biotech company Bayer scored a massive win last month when President Donald Trump signed an executive order boosting domestic production of the active ingredient in Roundup weed killer. That was for national security purposes. Keep that in mind. Back in February. In a new report, Politico writes, our colleagues Marsha Brown and Cheyenne Hazlitt will pull back the curtain on how the company made its case in Washington. Bayer's CEO met with top White House officials last year and said the company could absorb billions of dollars in litigation costs from lawsuits alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, caused cancer. I think they've already paid $12 billion in settlements over that point. This is in the Mother Jones article we talked about earlier, but $12 billion in settlements. They always settle. They never let it go through court. They settle. So take that for what you will. But it couldn't also face down the regulatory uncertainty and what executives saw as the prospect of a government ban. ban. It might leave the U.S. market, Bayer told the White House, taking with it one of the most widely used products on U.S. farmland. The U.S. the president ultimately sided with the agriculture industry, taking Bayer's threat to leave seriously enough to sign an executive order that caused us a lot of political heartburn, said a White House official. They know that their own voters are not happy with this. The official, however, insisted that the administration was concerned with protecting the supply chain for all kinds of critical minerals, irrespective of Bayer's Lobbying the arguments the company made, the official said, were already being made inside the admin well before Bayer made any demands. They have also spent a truly incredible amount of money lobbying. I'm sure that's not surprising to anybody, but here I have the numbers in front of me. During 2025, they spent more than $9 million lobbying the federal government. So that's what $9 million buys you here in Washington, D.C. Up next, Liban Muhammad, a former TikTok official, joins us to talk about his several years of experience there dealing with congressional pressure, trying to get TikTok to stop letting the American and global public know what was going on in Gaza. 2%. That is the number of people who take the stairs when there is also an escalator available. I'm Michael Easter, and on my podcast, 2%, I break down the science of mental toughness, fitness, and building resilience in our strange modern world. I'll be speaking with writers, researchers, and other health and fitness experts, and more, to look past the impractical and way too complex pseudoscience that dominates the wellness industry. We really believe that seed oils were inherently inflammatory. We got it wrong. Many of the problems that we are freaked out about in the world are the result of stress. Put yourself through some hardships and you will come out on the other side a happier, more fulfilled, healthier person. Listen to 2%. That's T-W-O-percent on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Do you remember when Diana Ross double tapped Little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people. I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George Bush got to do with Little Kim? Well, you can find out on the Look Back at It podcast. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick it here, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84 was big to me, not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack all day, but yeah, yeah, literally. But just so y'all know. I mean, at this point, Mark, this is the second episode where we've discussed crack. So I'm starting to see that there's a through line. We also have AIDS on the table right now. Thank you for finishing that sentence. Yes. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Really? Yeah. For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history. Listen to Look Back At It on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. In 2023, former Bachelor star Clayton Eckerd found himself at the center of a paternity scandal. The family court hearings that followed revealed glaring inconsistencies in her story. This began a years-long court battle to prove the truth. You doctored this particular test twice in so-and-so, correct? I doctored the test once. It took an army of internet detectives to crack the case. I wanted people to be able to see what their tax dollars were being used for. Sunlight's the greatest disinfectant. They would uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. Greg Gillespie and Michael Marancini. My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young. This is Love Trap. Laura, Scottsdale Police. As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Ladies and gentlemen, breaking news out of Maricopa County as Laura Owens has been indicted on fraud charges. This isn't over until justice is served in Arizona. Listen to Love Trapped podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the weekend in a surprising upset in Utah's first congressional district, the Democratic Party there endorsed Liban Mohammed, a kind of newcomer to the race for the party's endorsement. Doesn't mean the primary is over. It's a kind of a weird system that they've got there. But interestingly, we had already booked Lieben to come on the show to talk about his previous experience serving on the congressional affairs team over at TikTok, which he quit in order to run for Congress. And apparently now, you know, a serious contender, not just a serious contender, but, you know, maybe with Nate Bluen and Brian McAdams, Ben McAdams. Is it Brian or Ben McAdams? Ben McAdams. Ben McAdams, a former member of Congress. We got a serious race on our hands. But so, Lieben, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you. This is one of my favorite shows. Congrats on getting 2 million subscribers. You're killing it. It's a testament to the great reporting work that you're all doing. and, you know, highlighting the opinions that need to be heard. No, we appreciate it. We're going to have Robert Pape on next. He always loves to glaze our audience. And I want to see for segment. It's like a Trump cabinet meeting here. It's a great way to start, no doubt about it. But first of all, if you would have told me when we were talking last week or the week before that, you're like, yeah, I think I'm going to actually win the Democratic Party endorsement. I would be like, okay, this guy's kind of losing it a little bit. How did you pull this off? Did you come in with an organized support base, or do you think that you swayed a lot of people at the convention? I think a little bit of both. We organized, but not in a typical way that politics is organized. We just organized with real community leaders who are on the ground. typically not in the political process, but are the true service providers doing the real implementation work, working with our homeless community, our displaced communities, working with our refugee communities. Something about the Salt Lake Valley in this district is the West Side is basically an area that consolidates a lot of our marginalized groups and has been long underrepresented, not only on the federal level, but across our government positions. in this new district flipped from plus 20 points Republican to plus 24 percentage points Democrat. And it presents a new opportunity to have leadership that reflects their perspective as well, the progressive perspective, the working class's perspective. So there was a lot of excitement on the ground for our candidacy. And the way that we got this done ultimately is showing up with the message that they want to hear, which is fighting for affordability and showing a character that they can trust and believe in. And so we'll cover this race more down the road. For now, I wanted to get a little bit of your story on TikTok. And so October 7th happens. You and I were talking about this before. So October 7th happens. You were actually, so you're working for TikTok at the time in their kind of congressional affairs office. And you're in Mecca. on a pilgrimage with Palestinian friends. So talk about what that experience was like while you're, and I assume that TikTok was like, yeah, you need to check in too now, because this is a major world shaping development. So what was that like That gotta be an experience that you going to forget Yeah absolutely It was one of the most pivotal moments in my life and in my perspective So quick background context. My promo role is I used to manage the businesses' responses to congressional investigations and political investigations at large. What that means is anytime they want to send a letter, there's a briefing request, testimony request for an executive. I was the one either providing the responses or preparing such an executive for those engagements. So I just answered her questions all the time. And I was in this new position as some colleagues of mine, one on maternity leave, another one left the team. And it was just kind of me. And I'm just learning. and after october 7th happened i was with a palestinian family who have known since i was just a small child and they were telling me in real time as things are unfolding their childhood home blown to pieces uh it was a father and a son that i was with particularly the son his wife's entire family killed and to experience something like that in real time as uh people that you love and care about are finding the news uh it was it was a moment that i truly internalized what the apartheid state of israel really is what they're capable of and what that means in the ordinary people's lives. I've always known what the issue is. I've always been pro-Palestinian, but it's different when it becomes real and you see it. And in my job at TikTok, we're getting all these inquiries from different elected officials, pro-Israeli lobbying organizations, you know, I think ADL and all of those. And I'm the person that has to respond. Quite frankly, how did they like that when you would show up at these meetings? Well, I was also going to ask what just like help us understand, you know, from the position that you were in, how quickly this was obviously a huge, maybe the biggest political challenge that TikTok faced in its entire existence after it happened. Probably no exaggeration to say that this is what led to ultimately the Trump administration selling TikTok to American companies. So talk to us about the pressure on the inside and then Ryan's question of how people reacted when you shared your vantage point at some of these meetings as well. Great question. So the pressure was unbelievable. Words cannot describe the amount of pressure that existed. And it became the number one headwind for the company that could result in the lack of its existence in the largest consumer market in the entire world. We were getting inbound inquiries, and this is public information. You could see a lot of these letters online. I mean, every few days, every other day, from pro-Israeli lobbying organizations, from pro-Israel perspective legislators, and the company was just being inundated. But what's really interesting is the lack of questions and investigations and inquiries coming from the pro-Palestinian perspective. And this experience actually made me understand exactly how this influence really works. It's more than money. It's persistence. It's the sophistication behind their lobbying efforts. And they make you feel like you're in a bubble, that their perspective is the only perspective that exists because of the volume that you're dealing with. And everybody knows in the company what it is, the pressure that exists. And you have to feel like you're walking on eggshells because you know at the end of the day that the ultimate purpose of this business, like any other business, is to make profit. And the biggest risk to risk profit at the current moment is the pro-Israel perspective threatening to participate in the efforts to ban the platform. So it was very difficult, but it was a fulfilling experience because we were honestly fighting back for a long time up until the bill passed, and even for a little while after that, and not capitulating. And the reason we didn't capitulate is because of polarity. I think people underestimate the benefit polarity has in our geopolitical environments when it comes to tech. Explain what you mean by that. Yes. I think it's an interesting point. What do you mean by polarity? Yes. So you have the United States of America, which is the largest consumer market in the world. And not only that, they also produce the most volume of content on the global scale. So the ability for the business to be able to generate profit even outside of the United States is reliant on the volume and quality of the content creators and the content that's being made here. at the same time, the parent company has a number of subsidiaries in China that are making an immense amount of money and doing really well. So if the company capitulates to the U.S. perspective, well, they're going to risk their interest in China. And if they capitulate to the Chinese perspective, well, they're going to risk their interest in the U.S. So the business for a long time was incentivized to do the only thing that was justifiable, which is the right thing. at the end of the day, they're not a nation state. And if a country's coming after you, it's quite difficult to defend yourself. And so for a while, I believe that's the reason why they were not capitulating and the pro-Palestine movement and progressive causes were able to be really successful on the platform. But now that polarity has been stripped with the acquisition. and it's part of the reason why I decided to leave the company and run for Congress because I just didn't feel comfortable anymore that the motives of the new ownership would be in the right place, not because of any evidence specifically, but just the rhetoric and the intentions that seem to be clear. And so back to my earlier question, let's say the ADL comes in for a meeting or you get told you got to go visit the ADL or one of these other groups. What was the reaction? I think they're ready to pressure TikTok into capitulating on whatever particular issue. What was the reaction when Lehman Mohammed walks into the room? I think the last thing they would want as a person like myself to be the one answering the questions. At the end of the day, the policies are the policies and I was answering things in an unbiased way. And ultimately the company was operating in an unbiased manner. The fundamental issue of their concern was the volume of content. And the volume of content, it has nothing to do with the business. It's a reflection of the people. TikTok and these other platforms, it's not only a TikTok issue. They're not putting a camera in front of your face saying, please make this piece of content. But these people wanted to address that. And the only way to do that is throttling. And the company was not willing to do that. And Ryan, can you set up this situation of what we know about Ryan, Crystal, and Saga on TikTok? Yeah, so this is kind of interesting. It is interesting. I think it's legitimately interesting. It's related a little bit to the way that the politics inside TikTok are evolving. Crystal and I started doing, and Saga too. Hunk got on TikTok. We started doing TikTok a little while ago. So, and then I, in particular, there's several accounts that started, like, impersonating me. And I'm like, okay, whatever. That's fine. Like, impersonating, just stripping the videos and, like, doing an account that's, like, very similar. To me, there's one up there now. It's, like, at Ryan W. Grimm underscore. Like, they throw an underscore at the end. And I started getting bothered when they started DMing people. Like, you want to, like, rip off my content? Fine. Like, whatever. But they started DMing people pretending to be me. I'm like, oh, this is actually not good. Like this could go in a very dark direction fast if like somebody wanted to do something, you know, gross or something and claim it was me. So I reached out to TikTok. And they're like, well, we can't do anything. And a bunch of people were reporting this account. And they're like, well, they're not impersonating anybody because this person's a nobody because they're not verified. So you can't impersonate nobody. I was like, oh, okay, so let me apply for verification. That's been a more than six-month process now at this point. Originally, they were telling me that the articles that I was submitting about me were not from reputable news outlets, even though they were like the New York Times and the Washington Post. I'm like, okay, that's kind of funny. TikTok doesn't find them credible. I don't either, but who then is credible if you don't think the Times and Post are? So then, Levon, you had talked to some colleagues internally and tried to help Crystal and me get going. Crystal, by the way, a former federal candidate for office, like there's a rule that basically any federal candidate is supposed to get verified. And they still are like, no, F you, we're not going to verify you. So just the imposters go. So like, as somebody who's been involved in this kind of verification process, like, why do they care? Why do they care so much? Like, it wasn't when I applied, it was like, not even a big deal. I'm just like trying to get these imposter accounts not to be doing these like fake accounts. but it seems like it's much more important to them that crystal and I not be verified than it is to us to get verified. I, I, I'm not even using the platform as much anymore. Like what, like what is, what is going on here? What's your sense of the politics internally? Yeah. Um, it's difficult for me to be able to speculate the rationale behind why you or crystal were not, uh, verified. I do believe that they're still reviewing your verification applications and hopefully they go well. I will say, in my opinion, it's quite obvious that you guys both and SAGAR included far beyond me the threshold of requirements that are necessary to be able to receive a verification. And you are correct. There is a policy. The acronym is GPPPA. But under that, there is a requirement for government and political accounts, including a federal congressional candidate to be verified. However, there's a gray area that's unclear if that applies retroactively since she's no longer a candidate. So I'm unsure there, but we'll see. I will say though, as you're somebody that was nominated for a, what was it, a Pulitzer, right? Yeah, well, we used to be in the mix for those. I'm sorry, we won the iHeartRadio Award. Does that mean nothing? That's true. iHeart Radio, best podcasts. I'll say this. If any of my old colleagues who are watching this, help them out. They deserve it. They're good people who are advocating for the right thing and ultimately definitely meet all of the requirements that are necessary. So I encourage you to do that. And I'm quite confident that they haven't violated any community guidelines. And if they have, you should be able to demonstrate that to them. And ultimately, what I really like to talk about as well this campaign. Before you go, I wanted to ask you one kind of a strategic question about the campaign. So Nate Bluen is kind of, well, there were two progressive candidates before you got in. One of them seems to have kind of torched her campaign over some wild sexual, like Me Too stuff. I don't know if she's still a serious candidate anymore, but Nate Bluen has the, you're backed by Ilhan Omar and also I saw that the minority leader, the Democratic state minority leader was at the convention also endorsing you. So that gives you an interesting kind of stretch of endorsements. Nate Bluen's got Bernie Sanders endorsement. So one thing I wanted to ask you, there's so much splitting of the vote among kind of progressive candidates that it often leads to the more centrist kind of corporate backed candidate winning. So I'm curious, would you commit if within, what should the threshold be? two weeks of the mail-in ballots dropping, if you're no longer kind of a seriously viable candidate, and I guess we'd have to figure out how to decide that, would you withdraw and endorse the kind of leading populist candidate? Yeah. My answer to that question is quite simple. I think I believe I proved that I am the viable candidate that is able to consolidate the support and beat Ben McAdams. Ben McAdams is backed by AIPAC. He is a centrist at that. I would say basically a Republican. And Nate Blumen didn't beat Ben McAdams. Ben beat Nate. Believe Ben beat Ben. So I think that is the answer to that question. There's some controversies around him. I'm not going to ridicule him for that. I believe in forgiveness and trying to see a path forward for him to come back from this. He's been doing a lot of great work since then, and I commend him on that. But what's also true is most voters are going to get that ballot in the mailbox, and they're going to do their little five-minute Google search. And it would be a shame that in the most progressive open seat in the entire nation that we lose a working class movement because we can't pass that Google search test because of a scandal. We need a person with a track record of both integrity and results that's advocating for the right things. And those are benchmarks that I believe I uniquely meet and I'm capable of doing even more than that, which is bringing new people into the process, which is going to be paramount to be able to be Ben McAdams. So the answer to your question is, yes, I do believe in consolidation of the progressive ideology and movement. But I believe that it needs to be behind the person that can survive a negative ad campaign. and we'll ask we'll end up we'll ask nate the same question if people are curious i think the thing you're referring to is there some old comments of his bashing mormons um well more than comments uh yeah he admitted to a hate crime uh defecating on the place of worship of the predominant faith and our state uh and a number of other things but i'm not going to that's a tough one to overcome yeah i don't know if that's going to be able to survive the google search test right We need somebody that's going to make sure that we have health care as a human right, housing for our own house and make sure that we can get that as a human right. Somebody that's going to fight to abolish ICE and build an immigration system that's rooted in our shared humanity. Somebody that's going to fight to stop funding endless wars and the genocide of our brothers and sisters and Gaza. Fundamentally, somebody that's going to focus on American diplomacy abroad and our own dignity at home. And that cannot be jeopardized simply because the character of the individual is not able to meet the mark to be elected. This is more than just a person. It's about the movement. And we need somebody that can create it and meet it. All right. Well, Lieben, appreciate you coming on. We'll be following this race. This is a really interesting one. Thanks for joining us. Thank you, Ryan. And thank you, Emily. This is an interesting conversation and I hope you guys get your verification. Not me, I'm not on TikTok. I'm one of the good ones. No, I'm kidding. All right. Thank you, Evan. You take care, bye. 2%, that is the number of people who take the stairs when there is also an escalator available. I'm Michael Easter and on my podcast, 2%, I break down the science of mental toughness, fitness and building resilience in our strange modern world. I'll be speaking with writers, researchers, and other health and fitness experts and more to look past the impractical and way too complex pseudoscience that dominates the wellness industry. We really believe that seed oils were inherently inflammatory. We got it wrong. Many of the problems that we are freaked out about in the world are the result of stress. Put yourself through some hardships and you will come out on the other side a happier, more fulfilled, healthier person. Listen to 2%. That's T-W-O percent on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Do you remember when Diana Ross double tapped Lil' Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people? I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George Bush got to do with Lil' Kim? Well, you can find out on the Look Back At It podcast. I'm Sam Jett. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick it here, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84 is big to me, not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack all day, but just so y'all know. I mean, at this point, Mark, this is the second episode where we've discussed crack, so I'm starting to see that there's a through line. We also have eggs on the table right now, so. Thank you for finishing that sentence. Yes. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Really? Yeah. For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history. Listen to Look Back at It on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. In 2023, former Bachelor star Clayton Eckerd found himself at the center of a paternity scandal. The family court hearings that followed revealed glaring inconsistencies in her story. This began a years-long court battle to prove the truth. You doctored this particular test twice in so-and-so, correct? I doctored the test once. It took an army of internet detectives to crack the case. I wanted people to be able to see what their tax dollars were being used for. Sunlight's the greatest disinfectant. They would uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. Greg Gillespie and Michael Marancini. My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young. This is Love Trap. Laura, Scottsdale Police. As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Ladies and gentlemen, breaking news at Americopa County as Laura Owens has been indicted on fraud charges. This isn't over until justice is served in Arizona. Listen to Love Trapped podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. We're joined once again by Professor Robert Pape over at the University of Chicago, also the author of the Escalation Trap Substack. It's just escalationtrap.substack.com, where he has been covering the Iraq War from his, the Iran War from his expert perspective, having spent years actually writing about a scenario such as this. So Professor Pape, welcome back to Breaking Points. Thank you very much for having me. And have no fear, we're soon going to forget about that minor thing called the Iraq War. Oh, it's so depressing. It's so very depressing to think about. Let's just start with the OPEC news, big news yesterday. OPEC, UAE out of OPEC by May 1. What did you make of that? And does it fit into the escalation? Yeah, absolutely. This is part of a larger picture that happened this week. this is the week that the United States has truly lost control of the Iran war. This has all happened. It's been building, and I've been talking about this, but you can now see it this week. Iran is negotiating without the United States. So Iran's going to Pakistan, It's going to Russia. It's about to go to Oman. But it's not about meeting with the United States. Our allies, at least maybe our former allies, our allies, say the German leader, is publicly saying that America is humiliated on the world stage. Just think about that for a moment. And the global system, the region and the global system is essentially moving on without the United States. And that's where the UAE comes in. So I definitely understand that it's a data point and it's thought of as a soda straw, but it's much more than that. So what I have been explaining on your show on the Substack for weeks now is that Iran is emerging as the fourth center of world power. In fact, you got the exclusive first, even before the New York Times. And that is going to have major consequences. And it doesn't unfold all at once. It unfolds over time. Now within the region and I said this in print and on your show what this is going to mean is that Iran as it gets powerful and as America loses control here and everybody sees that this is going to fragment the GCC countries They not going to all respond in a wave or in unison to these changes What you're going to see is each of them increasingly is going to act on their own. Think of them as they were part of a group and they had group interests. Well, now that America is not there to serve as a real anchor, and it's now all clear for everyone to see America's just lost control, not losing, but lost control, it's no surprise they're fragmenting. Earlier, a few weeks ago, Iraq started to move toward positions of Iran and started to become increasingly critical of American presence in Iraq. This was the beginning of this fragmentation. Now what you're seeing is the UAE, they're not moving toward Iran. That's not what they're doing because they're pretty terrified Iran's going to want to topple their government. What they're doing is they're fragmenting. They're not going to let OPEC or Saudi Arabia, who really is the main driver in OPEC, just run them into the ground. So that's why they are moving away. And what they're doing is moving away from a concerted, counterbalancing coalition that the United States has been trying to build for years now with the Abraham Accords, counterbalancing Iran. Well, this is all now just fragmenting. It's falling apart. And this is, you're only seeing the beginning of the fragmentation. This is likely going to get worse. And America can't stop it. Notice nobody's even bothering to consult President Trump here to say, well, do you think you could change the UAE's mind? What do you think about this? They don't care. And that's really devastating for America's interests, America's role in the world. And it's kind of hard, I think, for a lot of people to imagine, although I've been saying to expect this, I think now the reality is just kind of hard to accept here that it really is the case that this is all tragic, but it was predictable. And you got basically the decisions of one guy in the world, President Trump, has enormous power, and he's used that power to devastatingly negative consequences for America, the region, much of the world's economy, and to the growing power of America's leading rivals. It puts those reports that the Saudis were pushing for the Iran war behind the scenes in interesting context, too. Indeed. So when we started this program, Brent crude prices were at, I think, $114 a barrel. They're now, as we're getting towards the end of the show, up to $117 a barrel. That's despite an enormous amount of American pressure to keep the prices down, both through kind of deliberate attempts at kind of spreading nonsense about their Iranians are headed to Islamabad. They're about to capitulate. You know, they said they're collapsing. We won. They won to open this trade. Plus actual material manipulation using the power of the U.S. Treasury to actually get into the markets and play with the numbers. Um, what, as you do your kind of forecasting, what does $117 a barrel oil do to those calculations? And what does it say about what, what, uh, what room Trump has to maneuver? Well, well, what we are seeing, and I, I, we've talked about this before is there's a trajectory here with the Strait of Hormuz being closed down, and everybody now knows closed down 20% of the world's oil, 30% fertilizer, dot, dot, dot. But the trajectory is in the first 45 days, and we're now at day 60, the first 45 days, it was simply price rising and price rising notably, but in anticipation of stage two, which started about actually two weeks ago. It's this middle stage where shortages, actual shortages are appearing. And that has been recorded here, you know, the worry about the jet fuel, Europe, and this is just the beginning of all this. But that is what you are seeing now. And this is going to get worse because all the ships that were in transit over the last couple of months, it could possibly still have some oil in them. They've all hit dry dock. They've all been there. The storage areas, the storage bins that are full here have now started to be sucked dry. So what you are getting now is the true shortage period starting. And it actually started about 10 days ago. And we've talked a bit about this. And this is why now the price of oil is it's not like prices just went up once and then they stop. Once the shortage is actually hit, it's not a probability, it's a reality. And that's what you're seeing with the price of oil. And this is, unfortunately, something that's going to go on because as shortages occur, it's supply and demand. There's still demand for this, but there's less of it. So the price of what's left must go up. That's the only way to sort that out. And so that's why the price is going to go up. And this was fully predictable. This is not a, you know, the markets may have tried to pretend, Donald Trump may have tried to pretend, but, you know, reality has a way of coming in and showing its ugly head. And that's what you are seeing. And unfortunately, May is going to be this period where the real shortages and those effects are going to start to be felt. And then by the middle of May, probably the end of May, you will see actual contraction occurring. Lyft-Hansa announced, for example, a week ago it would lay off, or not lay off, it would have 20,000 flights canceled, these short-haul flights canceled. Well, this is probably then going to lead to, in a month, a few weeks later, layoffs. That is, you will start to see in the middle of May, end of May, you're going to start to see rising inflation. The prices going up equals inflation. And you'll see the beginning then side by side of rising unemployment. This is just, though, the beginning. This is the first 90 days now. as we get into 120 days, these things will simply get worse. That's what happened in the 1970s. It was called the misery index. We haven't used that term since I was a kid. I was a kid, and that term was really quite common because it went on for years, and it got worse well before it got better. It didn't just get better. It went on for years. Interest rates on homes went up to 16 percent. My grandparents had to pay to buy a home at one point. And so what you're seeing is that's the trajectory we're on, and it'll start to be called again, I suspect, the misery index, maybe the Trump misery index. And there were dueling reports in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal. They weren't really dueling. They're basically saying actually that what the rub is right now is Iran has said they will come to the table on the straight if Trump agrees to table the nuclear negotiations. Donald Trump just last night at the state dinner said we have defeated Iran militarily. So, Professor Pape, we're all trying to do our best here to learn to speak fluent Trumpese and understand what exactly he's saying and projecting or attempting to project. So what do you make of where these negotiations are right now? Because I could see someone saying, Professor Pape, Iran is willing to come to the table and reopen the strait. Does this not undermine your argument that we are headed to a potential catastrophe worse than Iraq? We just need to peel a little bit under that phrase, what does the word open mean? And by the way, I'm going to define it the way Secretary Rubio did just recently yesterday, where he explained that what Iran means by the word opening the strait is that ships can pass through the strait as long as they coordinate with the Iranian military in advance and as long as they pay the toll. which I believe is currently imagined to be about $2 million a ship to pass one time. So if you have, say, 100 ships, that's $200 million a day that Iran would be bringing in. That's $60 billion a year that would be also over and above that much or more that Iran would make on selling its own oil. So this is why Secretary Rubio just said this is not really an open, this is not open. So what Iran is doing is going through its 10 points that it delivered to Trump. Remember when we started the ceasefire, Trump agreed to the 10-point plan as a basis for negotiation. All Iran is doing is literally going through the 10 points. And the first point is they get to keep the straight. That is, they're going to keep a tight fist on the jugular of the world's economy, and they will extort costs here from the world, which is $2 million a ship. And then also, they want their own oil to be sold, and so they're perfectly going to be happy at manipulating the price of oil. So what also that means, just to be also what the implication here is, is that if Iran wants to keep the price of oil at 100 bucks a barrel, they know how to do that. They can regulate what happens across the strait. They can optimize, in other words, their financial earnings from controlling the strait. Now, the second point is the nuclear negotiation. So notice that before this war kicked off on February 28, Iran and the United States were in negotiations on the nuclear material. That's what was being discussed. What Iran is simply saying is that's off the table now. They're just not interested in that. Now, they're not saying at all when that will come back. So what that tells me is Iran is not giving up this power of the Strait of Hormuz anytime soon. And Iran is probably starting to lay the groundwork for developing nuclear weapons over the next maybe year or so. And that would also dovetail with why they're talking with Pakistan, a nuclear weapons state that helped Iran with centrifuges to start its program in the first place. And also Russia, another nuclear weapons state that's been a military ally of Iran. So if Iran is going to pursue this very aggressive agenda to truly emerge as the fourth center of world power with nuclear weapons, it needs allies. And it looks like it's working with its allies. And it's certainly working with its allies better than we're working with ours. Well, I think what Iran is saying here is that they're not going to discuss the nuclear issue until the naval blockade of the strait is lifted. But at that point, I think there is real willingness to discuss it. Now, whether... Well, I would just be, I guess we maybe have a slight difference of view here. They say they will not enter face-to-face negotiations with America at all unless America lifts the naval blockade. So I think that's my understanding of this. Now, you may be right. I want to not get into it. But it is the case that they've said that now multiple times. And again, this issue of postponing the nuclear negotiations here, I guess I just have the view, I'm reading it, that they really are working with others along the trajectory of gaining power. And also, I just want to point out that this is going to have global consequences even beyond the Iran war. So Russia here is going to want something from Iran, and that may be tighter coordination as Russia tries to gain power over Europe, not just in the battle space of Ukraine. and Iran and Russia together control now 30 percent of the world's oil. So we need to keep our eye on that. And then also we need to look over at Asia so we shouldn't forget that all the estimates now that are coming out of the Pentagon is we have spent 50 percent roughly of our Patriot arsenal, our THAAD arsenal, a number of our very important precision interceptor arsenals. And that means we're leaving Taiwan essentially naked here or virtually naked. And that opens all kinds of possibilities for President Xi to want some concessions, either tacitly or explicitly, vis-a-vis U.S. relations with Taiwan. So I just point out that this is a, when I say Trump, the United States has lost control of the Iran war and it's having global implications, It actually has global implications even beyond the price of what's happening to the world economy and the price of gasoline here at home. Yeah. And on the nuclear point, the trip that Raji took to Russia could also, you could imagine a world in which, well, to back up, as you know, in 2015, Russia was part of the Iran nuclear deal. And Iran, through that deal, agreed to ship and did in fact ship, and I don't think most people know this, 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium to Russia. Let me talk if it's OK. And they now have less than a thousand. But go ahead. Let me talk, if it's okay, just for a minute about the JCPOA and how it came about, because I'm pretty familiar with this. And a lot of your listeners may not know that part of the other area I've been studying for 30 years is economic pressure, economic sanctions, blockades, etc. Well, one of the things that's important to know is that the Obama administration had economic sanctions on Iran, and then we got the nuclear deal. Well, why did that economic pressure work? It worked because Russia and China, these are the military allies of Iran, joined in that America's coalition against Iran. In fact, Russia stopped selling their SA-300s, to give you a very specific point. But then let's back it up a little further. Why did Russia do this? Out of the goodness of its heart? Well, in 2008, I was part of Obama's primary teams, and I had an idea. And I was on one team, and a guy by the name of Sean Kay was on the NATO team. And I said to Sean on a phone call, you know, the number one issue here that we should really worry about for the Middle East, because I was on the Middle East team, was really a nuclear weapon by Iran. It would set off all kinds of issues. But in order to stop it, we need Russia, because if you could get the military ally of Iran on board. But how do you do that? We should trade missile defense, U.S. missile defense in Eastern Europe, to get Russia's concession to go along with Obama's plan to get a counterbalancing coalition against Iran. Well, that's exactly what Obama did. So Sean wrote that up, sent it up the chain on the NATO team. And well and behold, Obama wins. And what does he do? He trades directly with Putin, U.S. National Missile Defense, to get Putin's work, I mean, agreement to be part of the coalition against Iran. And that's how you got the JCPOA. That's actually, now, how would you recreate that? Well, that means the United States would have to really give major concessions here to Putin. What would those concessions look like? They would have to be much more than simply don't send aid to Ukraine, because that's already going way down. you're probably going to have to work to undermine European support for Ukraine in a direct way if you want Putin here to even think about the idea of joining the naval blockade. And what we would be talking about would be Putin sending a Russian ship to join the U.S. naval blockade. Now, that would change things. But this is the level at which we're talking about. We're not talking about minor cosmetic issues. that's not what brought Russia in with Obama, and that's not what's going to bring Russia in to help with this situation. They're simply not going to bail out the United States, because Russia, Leveroff just gave this big speech a few days ago, where he explained that from Russia's perspective, they're at war against the West. Well, what do you do when you're at war? You want to crush your opposition, and now you have Iran and Russia meeting. What are they talking about. I think they're talking about how to do things against their common enemy. Sounds right. Professor Pape, always a pleasure. Thank you. And I'm sorry I don't give you very many ways out of the escalation trap. It's the point. That's right. And the escalation trap is over on Substack. You can follow Professor Pape's work there. Thank you so much again, Professor. Yeah, thank you very much. Always a pleasure and very smart questions and interjections. Very smart. Ryan will take it. That's right. Thank you. Okay, bye-bye. Ryan, I think what we've learned today is that you run guest segments like a Trump cabinet meeting. As long as you start with a lot of praise and continue the praise throughout it, then the interview is going to go well. And the praise is its own escalation trap. That's right. Once you start, you have to keep pleasing Ryan. That's right. Well, you were an incredible interviewer and brilliant questions. Smart questions. Smart questions. I mean, I have to agree. Your questions are very smart. And we have the greatest comments. So our YouTube commenters, nobody's smarter. Greatest everything all around. Well, thank you, everyone, for tuning in today. As a reminder, Ryan's going to be live in a debate with Scott Jennings on the After Party Channel tonight at 9 p.m. It's on. Yeah. It's an interesting one. The students had great questions. Actually, it would have been great if the students just asked you guys questions for like two hours. That would have been wild. But anyway, breakingpoints.com is where you can go to get a premium subscription. Otherwise, Crystal and Sagar, we'll see you back here tomorrow. We'll see you Friday. On the Look Back At It podcast. 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me. I'm Sam Jay. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it with our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. 84 was a wild year. It was a wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Listen to Look Back At It on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. In 2023, Bachelor star Clayton Eckerd was accused of fathering twins, but the pregnancy appeared to be a hoax. You doctored this particular test twice, Ms. Owens, correct? I doctored the test once. It took an army of internet detectives to uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. Greg Gillespie and Michael Mancini. My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young. This is Love Trapped. Laura, Scottsdale Police. As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Listen to Love Trapped podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. When a group of women discover they've all dated the same prolific con artist, they take matters into their own hands. I vowed I will be his last target. He is not going to get away with this. He's going to get what he deserves. We always say that, trust your girlfriends. Listen to The Girlfriends, Trust Me Babe, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.