Transcription
This past weekend saw the culmination of a number of days of mourning for the Ayatollah Ali Kami, which the United States, uh, assassinated in the opening round of this current war back on February 28th. And there was a lot of drama that was going on, a lot of emotion. There was crying from some of the senior leaders, crying from a lot of the people, and also a lot of anger as well.
Uh, we're, we're gonna, uh, having some issues trying to get Patrick Henderson on. Hopefully, we're going to get that solved here pretty soon. Uh, but we want to go ahead and talk, and actually, we're going to show you something from some of his previous reporting from Iran, from Thyron specifically. Uh, and he's been had a front-row seat for a lot of this. Hopefully, we'll bring him in. But there's a lot of stuff that we're going to show you.
Uh, one of the biggest one that's something I had not seen. Uh, and that is, you may recall that there were, uh, bounties placed on the head of, of many on the Iranian side. Uh, there was assassination scores to be done, not just Ali Ham, but also Ali Larijani, and then a number of generals, etc. Well, one of my concerns has always been that, uh, people could do some things in return. And, uh, this is from yesterday, and, and you can see there, there's a picture of Trump. You may not be able to tell, but the people that are massing, millions of them in Tyrron, are throwing items at the face of Trump as they are continuing to be complained. And then you see this banner here. Um, there is "Kill Trump, 100 million Iranian bounty" on that.
And, uh, that is something that you just, you don't see every day. And, and listen, uh, obviously, I hope this is just a formation of anger and, uh, just something that they're upset about. But the fact is, coming at the, uh, funeral, at the procession for the leader of Iran that we assassinated. Listen, we have to recognize that, that whether we want there to be consequences to our actions or not, it is the real world that we're involved in here.
And of course, this goes back to when President Trump assassinated their version of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff there, uh, General Solomony in 2020, which he continues to brag about frequently. Uh, and you know, you cannot, I mean, the, that biblical adage, uh, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." And you can't keep using this assassination tool and think that there's never going to be any consequences.
Recall that, uh, just barely a little over a month ago, there was some concern that one of President Trump's daughters may have been the target of an Iranian assassination retaliation. We don't know if that was true or not. There was some, uh, evidence that says that there were, and they certainly took some preventative measures. Um, but look, this is something that's going to be going on a long time, and they're going to have to be very vigilant, really, the rest of their lives. And whether they're going to do anything about this or not. Uh, we're certainly going to, we'll wait to find out. But this is some of the problems that we have.
And I'm sorry. Let's see. All right. I just wanted to check if that was something from Patrick. We're trying to get connection with him right now. But, uh, I want to go ahead and get into some of the details that we have. Anyway, um, one of the things that I was going to ask him about is what is the, obviously, we know the mood. We can see that in those images there. Uh, but what is their pro, their thought process going forward as we still have to negotiate all this stuff? Don't forget, we are just in this, this memorandum of understanding wasn't an end of the war. It was basically a ceasefire to do negotiations to get all the issues resolved. And just like I was telling you in the weeks and then actually the months leading into that, until you get to the day where both sides sign a single document and they both agree to the same thing, you won't even have, uh, a ceasefire. We finally got there. That was hard, and it took many weeks, uh, actually a couple of months from, I think, April 8th to the 8th until this was finally signed. That we finally got in, just to get to the entry point. Now, all the hard work has to be done because we have to agree on solidified terms that everybody is going to agree to, everybody is going to abide by, and they're, they're going to do. It's going to require both sides to do various things, and we both have to agree to that. So, we're a lot longer away from this. We set 60 days. I doubt very seriously you're going to actually get this done in 60 days. I've already seen a lot of experts say, "Yeah, we're probably going to move this, uh, back."
I, I think that's an understatement because the, the differences between where the two sides are, and even especially after this funeral ceremony, because the anger on the Ukrainian, on the Iranian side is, is very high, and their thought process of, of giving in and submitting to something the United States is pretty low, maybe non-existent. Uh, as a matter of fact, uh, this is one thing that, uh, uh, that Patrick has released, uh, on his Sunday wire show yesterday. He talked a little bit about that. Okay, Gary, if you can go ahead and roll that tape. Apparently, we're having some difficulty with that. We'll get back to it in a minute. Uh, but, uh, we're going to continue on here. Um, by the way, okay, see if we got it now.
This is really a, a nation in mourning, but also a nation as well in defiance. If you look at the slogans on the banners and the flags in red and black saying, "We will rise." It has a lot of different meanings blended in there, woven in there. But it's a very powerful statement politically and in terms of the global, um, as well, and Iran taking a kind of, well, leadership role really with respect to the war that's still underway. Technically, they're still at war with the US, uh, and Israel. So you have a lot of different dimensions to this geopolitically, but also religiously, globally, in terms of Islam, uh, and then, uh, in the region. This is a major shift in the region. You can feel it. Those slogans of defiance and that "we must rise." I think there's also an aspect of a type of, uh, call for humanity to rise up against injustice and oppression.
>> That's a good enough, Gary, right there. If you could just pause that for a second. Um, I, I think that really gets to, uh, one of the underlying themes that is not, that's not something that's a spreadsheet. You can't measure that. Uh, but I think that, that we fail to consider that to our peril, especially as we're trying to figure out some kind of a negotiated settlement to end this conflict. So it's not just a ceasefire, but an actual end of war. And that is, that is not just with Iran, but how the region, and then even the world, is viewing this. Because understand this, President Trump launched this war on February 28th and said and told the IRGC that you had to lay down your arms or face certain death. Remember that? And then he came out, uh, a couple of days later and said, "We basically won. War is basically over." Um, I think that they were completely decimated. Then for months, he just kept this nonsense about, you know, "I've destroyed their navy, I've destroyed their their missiles," and blah, blah, blah, all this stuff. He also said about the one-week mark, he said, "Unconditional surrender, that's the only terms that we're going to allow here." So that's what we said, and we had all this expansive list of things to destroy their navy, destroy their missiles, uh, destroy their ability to ever have a nuclear weapon, uh, retake control of the Strait of Hormuz. Originally, it was going to be regime change and all this, and none of those things happened.
Now, what do you suppose that the people of Iran are thinking? We'll look at that first, because they're going, "Hang on. We had always been, Ali Hami had always been very risk-averse because they always wanted to avoid having a conflict and a war with the United States because they looked at the spreadsheet, same as you and I did, and they saw that it's off the charts. US is way more powerful, like a trillion-dollar defense budget. They have 11 or 12 billion dollars. I mean, just a fraction of what we have, and obviously, we have all the technology and the, the power projections that Iran doesn't have. The only thing they had was their missile forces and drone forces primarily, but, you know, those were two relatively small things. They didn't have the ability to project power anywhere. So, they didn't want to get into a fight. And so, they were always willing, like when their embassy got hit. I've said this before, uh, but for those who may have missed it, if an American embassy gets hit, we're at war with somebody that day, probably that afternoon, we're going to be firing missiles off at somebody because how dare that happen to any of our allies. But when Iran had their embassy compound destroyed by a missile because Israel decided that somebody who was in the compound is somebody they didn't like and was on their hit list. So they just took the building down. That violated every norm of international relations that has existed for centuries. But whatever, we'll set that aside. Just remember, though, the re-action by Iran came much later, and it was pretty tepid. Uh, they basically fired some missiles that were coordinated with the United States so that it wasn't going to go anything further because they wanted to tamp things down. They did not want to escalate into a full war. So they, they just answered because they have to answer it in some way, but they, like, "We'll just tepidly do it so that it doesn't spawn a bigger response from the US or Israel, and then we get into a war." So they always avoided that.
Well, now then, when this war started, they didn't get that chance. The 12-day war. They were able to inflict enough damage, but they, they went ahead and accepted the ceasefire that the US and Israel were seeking in 2025 at the 12-day mark because they didn't want to catch any more missiles, but they were seeing that our missiles are getting through their defenses. Uh, and so they have some leverage, but they still didn't want to go all the way. Ali said, "No, we're still going to hold short here. We're going to see if we can, this will deter the West from any future adventurism." That cost him his life because he realized that that didn't, didn't deter us. And so now then, when we have his son in the aftermath of his funeral, and, and Ali Larani, uh, who was one of their former foreign ministers and one of their big diplomats, uh, one of their most pro-western diplomats, to to be even more pointed. Now then they're saying, "Okay, we tried it Ali Hamse's way. He tried to be a decent person in their telling of things. He tried to say, 'Let's, let's resolve things short of war. Let's try diplomacy.' Uh, it failed, and it cost him his life." And so now then, what do you suppose the odds are that his son is going to say, "I'm gonna just do the same thing that my dad did and kind of take the lowest possible outcome and hope to avoid war?" Or did they say, "We see now that we have endured everything that they brought to us, 40 days and 40 nights, basically of war, all the offensive missiles that the US and Israel could throw." Um, and they tried to defend against our missiles with all that they had, whether it's the, the Iron Dome, THAAD, the Aerrol 2, Aerrol 3, Patriots, you name it. All of those things, and they didn't work. So now all of a sudden, Iran is going, "You know what? We can be a little bit more risk-taking here and a little bit more bold and a little bit higher demands because we can see that all of a sudden this giant is not so tough after all." Because the impression has always been, "Don't go to war with you because you can't survive it." Well, now all of a sudden, Iran did survive it and met out a lot of punishment of their own. And so now then, they're not in a forgiving mood. And just in that part of the world, that history, the tradition, the religion, they want what they call justice, what we might call revenge, what some do, whatever title you want to put on it. There is an action and a counteraction. When we take action against them and kill their people, they want blood for blood, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. It's been at play in that part of the world for a long time. We don't want that to be the case. We don't want there to be. We want there to be, "We'll do what we want, and you'll do nothing in return," because that's kind of how it's been for 47 years. Those days seem to be passing us by.
That memo is not gotten to everybody though. Not in the West, because as we're still trying to figure this out. Understand, the Strait of Hormuz is about a third, uh, open from what it was. The Iranian side has still, uh, said, "You're going to follow our rules, or they're not going to go out." And they have risk, they have taken some additional risk by attacking ships that went through portions of the strait without their permission. Now, remember, they agreed that no fees would be or tolls would be assessed during the 60 days, and so far, my understanding is that that's largely held. But they did say that fees or no fees, you have to go through with our rules. And I, I think I've even shown you one of the, uh, recorded spots that one of the ships showed that from the IRGC Navy, they said, "If you go through without our permission, though, you're still going to be brought under fire," and then they've done it. Now, the US has responded back. It's kind of tit for tat, but it's not a matter of what the, you, the militaries can do. They, they kind of know that it's a matter of what the impact it's going to have on the shipping. And so far, by the numbers, most of the stuff that's gone out has been from the Iranian side, or stuff that was friendly to the Iranian side, or stuff that was going to China or some of their, their people as well. And it's about a third of the traffic so far. And if we want that to get up to 50% and then maybe two-thirds and then eventually back to completely open up, it's going to require some condescension on our part. We're going to have to do what President Trump has never done in office, and that is to get something. You're going to have to give something. Trump only knows, "I will take what I want, and I'll kill you if you don't do what I want." And that has largely worked up until now.
And so now then, and if you didn't catch our show early today with Chris Martinson, you must go and watch that as soon as this show is over because he talks there a lot about a looming real problem that we're going to have. And I'm talking like within a week or two weeks at max. You can maybe stretch that a little bit farther than that, but not much more. And that is, Yeah, that's, thanks, Gary. That's the one that's the, that's what you should look for on our, on our live tab. You can go back and watch that. And in, in it, he points out that there is some real problem. Despite his claims that there's, you know, oil gushing out of the Middle East, etc. There is some oil coming. It's about a third, but we have been moderating that with our strategic petroleum reserve, and we're still using it. Even though that the, uh, was signed and the, uh, the Strait of Hormuz was allegedly opened up, we're still using it at about 8 million barrels per day. Now, that's, that's down from 1.3 million barrels that it was, but that's still a substantial number. And we're getting into this, and he explains it on that video. We're getting down to the point to where we're not going to have enough to maintain the price where it is. Otherwise, either we're going to have to start raising the price because there's just not going to be enough oil to go around because we can't sell anymore out of our strategic petroleum reserve, or we're going to have to tell the Department of War that the, the portion that's been set aside for how many barrels of oil we have to keep for a national security emergency, you're going to have to start getting into that. Now, I fear that President Trump will take the least path of least resistance today and will mortgage our potential security in the future, and he'll probably get into that. So, we may bypass that, but you're going to be setting up additional risk for the future. That's where we're at right now. Iran is very well aware of that. They know they have that leverage over us. So, they're in no kind of mood, emotionally or geostrategically or financially, to give us what we want. So the likelihood is that we're going to stay at this about third point opened up, and it's going to be stuff that that is helping the Iranian side. So they're going to continue to make money, but it's going to keep the global supply at a limited pace and keep us having to drain our SPR, and this has some real negative consequences.
Now, that memo, the first memorandum of understanding, apparently everybody got a lot, didn't lack. But the memo of the reality I just talked about hasn't seemed to gotten through to what is passed for elite thinking in the United States. Let me just show you a couple of things here. U, this one is from Andrew McCarthy, and I think this, this, yeah, this is the 5th, so it was yesterday. He put this out on, uh, on his X account, and that refers back to an article in the National Review that he wrote, uh, which says, "US power, not international law, determines when the Strait of Hormuz is open." In it, he writes, "Thyron's hegemonic ambitions and endemic anti-Americanism make negotiating with it pointless. Regime operatives are indoctrinated in the jihadist conception of war as deception."
And I'm just going to stop there for a second. Are you kidding me? You want to talk about Thrron's hegemonic ambitions? What is it? What has Iran ever done hegemonically in its region? It, it's stayed within its borders. It never attacked anyone until we hit it for the second time here, uh, since 2024 with Israel. They never attacked anyone from their country. They had these proxy forces, what we call proxies, they call allies in the region, and their, uh, axis of resistance against the attacks that Israel and the US had been doing against them for a long time. And again, they didn't do anything, any, anything of substance after the 2020 strike. They didn't kill any Americans after their guy was assassinated. No American lost their life. There were some that were harmed and wounded in some concussions in some missile strikes, but no one was killed after that one. Now then, they're not in that kind of mood anymore. So they're not going to do that. This guy, though, seems to think that it's us that is the victims here, which is crazy. So you talk about hegemonic ambitions, we are the literal definition of that. And then it's the regime operatives that are indoctrinated in the jihadist conception of war is deception. Are you freaking kidding me? And I wanted to use a different word that starts with an "a" fox right there. Who is it that lied and claimed we were in negotiations only to go to war in 2025? Who was it that lied and claimed they were in negotiations to avoid war in 2026 and then went to war? I think you know the answer to that one. It's not Iran.
He wasn't finished though. Uh, therefore, uh, nothing regime operatives say, negotiations is trustworthy, and nothing to which they agree to in writing, he puts in quotes for some reason, such as Trump's memorandum of understanding, is worth the paper it's written on. Is he talking about Iran, or is he talking about President Trump's signature? Talk about something that's not worth the paper it's written on. This is just twisted, weird, bizarre logic, and it passes as elite thinking in the Western world, and specifically in the United States. This guy has broad, uh, reputation and credibility, and, and he is like almost like black and white, 180 degrees out of his, of reality. There is no truth in what he said. The truth is nearly the mirror opposite of that. In fact, I would argue that it is. And yet he says that with a straight face. A lot of people read it, and that's the only thing they read because they don't get any information like Patrick Kennson. They don't get it from any other places. All they get is stuff like this, which is nonsense. And then that leads to bad policy because he sets up by saying, "You can't trust anything they believe, anything that they say or agree to." Well, what does that leave then? Well, he answers that question. He said, "America's stark alternative is to escalate and foresee the regime's surrender on our terms, or capitulate and accept a new reality that would have been understood as intolerable just four months ago. That is why I continue to believe the president should seek congressional authorization to use force to open the straits."
So, let's see if I got this right. Um, you're arguing that 40 days and 40 nights of strikes against Iran, which did not dent their control of the strait, which led to the United States having to seek a ceasefire, which led to the United States signing a memorandum of understanding to to hopefully have a negotiated end to get the strait back open up, which it was before we chose foolishly to start a war. All of that, you're saying, um, we should go back to that and try again. Even though you have graphic physical evidence that we can't compel the opening, it's not a m. See, this, this is the problem with the so-called elite today. They're twisted, man. And they are screwing us all because they're in charge of the actions that follow. If President Trump ever listens to this insanity, he's going to have to say, "Okay, Mr. President. Everything that didn't work before, and that burned through like 45% of some of our most important categories of weapons, both offensive and defensive, didn't work. And the same targets are still inaccessible as they were in the first 40 days, which we knew about before, by the way. I just thought I'd throw that in there. But we're going to listen to the likes of this author here and try it again anyway and expect a different outcome." I mean, that, see, the thing that irks me, and I read through that article, he doesn't explain that. He doesn't answer, "Okay, I know it didn't work in the first 40 days, but because we didn't do enough of it, or we should have gone down to 5% of our missiles instead of just using 45, we should have used 95%." I don't know how he would then explain why the granite mountains that didn't even, I mean, that basically these missiles bounced off of. I don't know why a doubling or a tripling of that number is going to change the mountain. But he didn't even go through the trouble to to say that. He just said, "Force is the only way, and we can't allow the work. We have to get their surrender." Trump said that already, dude. And now then, here you're saying again, "We have to get that, and if not, we'll use force." We've already done it. I mean, are these people stupid? I mean, honestly, I have to ask. You know, I don't normally talk about people like that, but gracious, when you have physical evidence, not just from this one, but from 2025, which is why I said we shouldn't have done this one, because we already knew from 2025 what would happen with both the offensive and defensive exchanges, and it was just graphically played out just like we said it would, because we actually look at what's happening on the ground. But that's, that's not the way it is. Okay, fine. That's one guy here, National Review, that's one thing. Um, that guy, by the way, is is a National Review, uh, correspondent, or not correspondent, but, uh, columnist, uh, and also a Fox News guy. So he's on, uh, contributor to Fox News. So that's the kind of thing that mainstream media, at least people who follow Fox News, that's the only thing they're getting, and they may think that's a good idea.
Well, that's not the only guy that's on Fox News. As you see, brother Jack Keane is on there a lot, and he also didn't get the memo, as he released this gem yesterday. "Iran really still wants to maintain control of those straits in terms of when a ship can leave and where a ship will go, and also pay some form of insurance. We have got to stop that. And if they continue to attack shipping that doesn't abide by the rules that they're trying to impose, that would likely over time bring us back into, I think, a graduated step, limited attacks, possibly reimpose the naval blockade, possibly take force, forcefully take control of the straits. And of course, the other major event would be just full-out return to major combat operations out of frustration that Iran is never going to make a deal that's consequential and meeting the objectives of the Trump administration."
So, that was yesterday. That was Jack Keane saying, you know what, President Trump has historically low, uh, patience. Can't wait on anything. Doesn't want, like the reflecting pool. Didn't want to do it the right way. Didn't want to elect, give it the, the time for the paint to dry and all that stuff. I mean, that's a silly example, but that just shows you, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about war or paint. He just cannot wait for anything. He wants everything right now, and he wants it his way. And you heard Jack Keane yesterday saying, "Maybe we need to go back to all-out war. Maybe we need to do that." Echoing the same thing that the National Review, uh, author said the same thing. Okay. Well, you'd say, "All right. Well, th, those are just some of the warhog dudes. They can say whatever they want, but the only thing that matters is what President Trump says." And as Gary just found while we've been on the air here, uh, President Trump himself just moments ago from the White House had this to say.
>> Look, we're going to win one way or the other. We're either going to make a deal, or we're going to finish the job. Okay? And it won't be tough to finish the job. Uh, I'd rather make a deal because I don't want to affect 91 million people. We can knock down their bridges in one hour. We can knock out their energy supply. All of those big plants that they built, big beautiful modern plants, they had a lot of money. They don't have any money now. We haven't given them any money. But we can knock out their electricity and power generating plants, and I would say, small part of an afternoon, every plant will be gone, and they know that. Look, we're going to win one way.
Wow. I didn't get a chance to preview that one because Gary just found it while we were on the air here, and I'm, I'm dumbfounded. If, if a guy writes something on the National Review, he's a columnist, whatever. He can say what he wants. He's a TV talking head. Jack Keane, a little bit more because he's got the imprimatur of a four-star general. A lot of people pay a lot of attention to him for a long time, but still, he's a TV guy. But when President Trump echoes what both of them wrote and said, what is going on? Does he believe that that that he can strike? Remember that that's what he said back during the active phase of the war that we could go after their their energy system and their oil facilities, etc. Remember that he was talking about that then. And what did Iran say back then? If you hit those targets, here, very kindly, they have provided the target list of what they're going to go after. And it's all the GCC countries, uh, it's our allies throughout the region, it's their oil facilities, and they can hit them because we can't defend them. They can't protect them. So when President Trump says, "They," meaning Iran, "they know that if we go back and hit all these things that we can," he's largely right. President Trump is right. We can hit those things. They can't defend on these surface-level targets when you're talking about energy infrastructure, uh, oil facilities, etc. I mean, ask the Russians and the Ukrainians how that works. You just can't defend everything. And that's, that's with, you know, some of the stuff that they have, but our stuff is, our offensive stuff is quite good hitting surface targets. And President's right. We can knock all those things out. But does he not remember what they can do and have said they will do in retaliation? Whatever he thinks he has gained by getting even a third of the Strait of Hormuz opened up is going to be destroyed in, as he put it, an afternoon if he goes after those targets because you can imagine that the Iranian side almost surely has pre-programmed target lists in their facilities everywhere, and the minute those bombs and missiles start falling on their stuff, there's going to be a return fire. The missiles may even pass each other in the air for all I know. They're not going to, why, why would they wait? Why would they withhold their fire? It's an existential fight for the Iranian side. It would be the height of stupidity. The height of stupidity. Stupidity. There's, there's no kinder word to put to do that.
Now, either President Trump is still going to his old playbook of thinking that this is still prior to 2025 when his threats alone could result in action. Those days are over. I mean, you, you saw that that first video that Gary was showing you here, um, that they're like throwing rocks and stuff at his picture. They're putting this stuff that they're a big bounty is on his head, etc. Uh, they're extremely angry about all the things that we have done to them. They weathered the storm. They know, they know that they can endure what we would bring, and they know it would be more hardship. But as I've been telling you since before, and especially Alistair Crook on our show, who's an expert on on the Iranian side and on their religion and on their culture and their history, he told you before that they are built for suffering, and they have a long experience, even in the current environment here, back in the the 1980s, in the eight years of war we supported through Iraq against them. They endured tremendous amounts of suffering. They're used to it. They hate it, but they know they can do it. And they also know that unlike other times in the past, unlike during the eight years of that Iran-Iraq war, they can now meet out severe pain on us. Severe pain. And, and, you know, I think we've, we've told you, there's an element inside the Iranian, uh, camp that was against reigning agreeing to the MOU because they wanted to continue fighting because they believe that they could outsuffer us and out-attack us, and the cost and the pain to us would be much more than we could handle than what they could, and they would eventually militarily win as well as strategically win. They've already strategically won, and, and you see that they have demonstrated physically that even during the MOU period, they're not just going to give President Trump what he wants. They're going to get something, or they're not going to give something. That's just, that's just what they do. And they're, they're showing it with action all the time. So either President Trump is just bluffing and just claiming it to try to get them to give something they're not going to do it, or he's crazy and he may actually do it.
Now, a lot of our military power has already been redeployed. It's already been sent back. So we have a lot less now than we did at the start of this conflict. We still have a lot in the Middle East, unfortunately. I think that's a disaster, and we should get them all out of there because it's nothing but a strategic vulnerability. It gains nothing for us. Having these bases has now been conclusively, absolutely proven to be pointless. It did not defend and protect our allies. It did not defend and protect us. It did not provide a decisive impact to even go after our opponent in Iran. All it did was get a lot of our guys killed and a bunch of our bases blown up. So, we should just leave. But if you press a bad situation further, there are other targets on our bases that can be blown up, too. And there are other of our people that are within striking range of Iran. And believe me, they know where they are. They have intelligence sources, too. Probably get some information from both China and Russia, just like Ukraine gets targeting data from us and our European allies. I imagine the same thing's going on up there. So, if you think that President Trump can do that cost-free, that ain't going to happen. It's, I mean, and plus, our, our GCC countries, our allies there, they can't go anywhere. They can't redeploy anywhere. They're stuck. They're stuck right in the crosshairs of the Iranian missile batteries, and they'll, they'll get hit, and we can't stop it.
So, wow. I, I just have to hope President Trump, uh, shuts that down and doesn't go any further with that. I hope it is just a bluff, but we're, time is not on our side, and something's going to have to give pretty quickly, uh, or stuff's going to start, uh, falling apart. And the longer this goes with the Strait of Hormuz marginally open, even manipulating the market like he's been exquisitely at, immorally, unethically, but he's been good at it. That paper market is not going to help when there's just physically not enough supply. We'll see how that's going to work out, too. Uh, but, uh, that's, that's kind of where we are right now. We'll keep a track on this, uh, and, uh, we will be back with you tomorrow. And anything that happens in the afternoon, uh, come back and, uh, we'll, we'll show you that again, especially if President Trump makes any more comments like the one he just did. But bottom line here, folks, this ain't 2025 anymore. Forget about even older than that. There are new rules at play here, and we haven't learned them yet. The National Review guys learned it. Jack hasn't learned it. President Trump hasn't learned it. We just have to hope that they figure out reality pretty quick because if we take any more policy actions on flawed, uh, deeply flawed premises, we are going to be even worse hurt than we already have been before. We'll continue to monitor that for you. We appreciate you guys a lot, and we will see you on the next episode of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive. You know, we don't have sponsors because we hate to hit you over the head with ads. I don't like them. So, show a little love back. Subscribe, like, and send this to somebody you care about.