Original subtitles

We are about to enter the eight most

dangerous weeks in our lives cuz the US

midterms [music] will determine the fate

of President Trump's administration and

the most dangerous time is the

transition of power and we saw this with

January 6th. And so what happens in this

transition period could also easily

dovetail in the Iran War because

President Trump has promised over and

over again that he will escalate after

the elections. Well, now we're after the

elections. So let me show you what's

really going to happen. But first I've

studied political violence around the

world for 30 years and I've advised

every White House since 9/11.

>> What what do you think is going to

happen then over these eight weeks?

>> So let's start with the beginning. Will

President Trump accept [music] the

election results? But also the plan

that's on his desk is a plan to hit

targets [music] in Iran over a three-day

period. And as the Iran war is

escalating, now we have the issue of

this is a likely possible time when

Putin is going to start to realize he

can't [music] get Ukrainian territory

from Trump. So he moves to his next plan

and I'll show you what that might look

[music] like.

>> What happens next?

>> There's going to be enormous pressure on

Europe to retaliate [music] and when

Europe does that, that's what World War

III looks like. President Trump will be

able to start declaring [music] more and

more emergency powers and this will lead

into a devastating 2027.

>> What can we do? And what about [music]

the general public? And do you think we

should be stockpiling?

>> Number one, incredibly important, which

is

>> Before this episode starts, I have a

small favor to ask you. Two months ago,

61% of the people that watched this

channel weren't subscribed. We're now

down to 58%. My goal is 50%. So if

you've ever liked any of the videos

we've made on this channel, if you like

this channel, can you do me a small

quick favor and hit the subscribe

button? It helps this channel more than

you know and the bigger the channel

gets, the more we can invest in the

guests and the production. you, and

enjoy this episode.

[music]

[singing]

Robert Pope, every time I speak to you,

I feel like I

start with the same question, but it is

the question that is front of mind for

me, which is

what the hell is going on in the world

at the moment?

>> What's going on is we are getting deeper

and deeper into an escalation trap, and

we are moving up rungs in escalation

where risk is growing, and we are about

to enter the eight most dangerous weeks

since this war began, and they may

become the eight most dangerous weeks in

our lives. We are going to see the

coming together of three fundamentally

dangerous issues.

We're about to see the US midterms

where the voting has now stopped, but we

are now in the process of counting the

vote,

certifying the vote, and in two months,

and it will take two months, seating the

victors. That's the transfer of power

where the real danger zone of political

violence, what I call violent populism,

is starting now. It began the moment the

voting stopped and the counting began

because that's the transfer of power.

>> Okay, so most of my audiences around the

world probably won't know, including

myself, what a midterm is.

>> In the presidential system in the United

States,

we have four-year terms for our US

presidents.

Then for our Congress, we hold an

election every two years,

>> Mhm.

>> and we have two houses in our Congress.

Sometimes it uh dovetails with the

election of the president, in which case

we just call it the general election.

But when the president is not up for

re-election, we call it a midterm,

meaning midterm of the president's term.

>> So let me explain this

>> to you and you tell me if I've got this.

There is this house of representatives

and then there's the Senate.

>> That's right.

>> And both of them work to vote laws into

power.

>> That's right.

>> And as we stand here right now, the

Republicans, Trump's party,

has a majority in both, so it's quite

easy for them to pass new laws.

What you're saying is in these midterms

that are coming up, there's a prospect

that

Trump might lose his power in the Senate

and in the house, which would mean he

wouldn't be able to get his laws passed

very easily.

>> It's not just about passing laws,

Steven.

It's about a system of check and

balance. The way the Constitution was

set up is that the Congress and the

president and then also the Supreme

Court, which does not which is not an

elected body, they check each other. So,

what's supposed to moderate the policies

in the United States where we don't go

to the extremes is when different

parties control the Congress

and the president. When you have the

same party controlling both houses of

Congress and the president,

by definition, there's very little check

and balance on the president. The

president can pretty much do what the

president wants, especially in

international affairs, but also very

heavily in domestic. That's why the

president's power is going to be

severely checked if Republicans no

longer control the house and the Senate.

>> So, why is this the eight most dangerous

weeks in your view?

>> most dangerous weeks because political

violence,

uh especially in the era of violent

populism when tens of millions of

Americans support political violence on

both sides of the aisle,

the most dangerous time is the

transition of power. And we saw this

six years ago with January 6th. It's

important to remember that in November

2020, President Biden was elected.

However, that did not prevent President

Trump from taking steps to

prevent that transfer of power. We saw

it come to a head on January 6 and that

occurred over a two-month process. It

was when the voting stopped and the

counting began and then the

certification of the votes began and

then the transfer of power. That was the

most dangerous moment that we have seen

in American domestic politics since the

Civil War.

We are heading to a very similar

situation again

and it's worse now.

>> How do you know?

>> For 30 years, I've studied political

violence around the world,

but for the last five years, Steven, I

have devoted myself to understanding

what's happened in the United States. We

are seeing a transition of power in the

context of literally

this fact.

>> What does that fact say?

>> That fact is that

today,

as of a month ago,

over 40 million Americans support the

use of the US military to suppress

democratic protesters

against the Trump agenda. Think of this

as 40 million Americans who support

political violence for Trump

and 60 million Americans, over 60

million,

support the use of force to prevent

Trump from being president. I've been

doing these national representative

surveys for five years.

These numbers are double what they were

in September 2024,

two years ago.

And two years ago, you'll recall we had

multiple assassination attempts against

President Trump. You remember a year ago

we had the assassination of Charlie

Kirk. So these numbers are worse than

that.

And we are coming into the most volatile

election in our lifetimes really because

this really will determine the fate of

President Trump's administration for the

final two years. If it turns out that at

the end of these two months that the

Democrats control one or especially if

they control both the House and the

Senate,

this is going to mean the virtual

political destruction of the Trump

presidency.

The Democrats in control of both houses

of Congress, they will not only have the

power of subpoenas to be able to compel

on penalty of going to jail and prison

testimony from members of the Trump

administration. They will have the power

of impeachment. And it's not just

impeaching President Trump, it's

impeaching the members of his cabinet.

Think Secretary Hegseth.

Think the Attorney General. Think the

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary.

And if in fact they also control the

Senate,

now with just a few more Republican

votes, and there are many disgruntled

Republicans already and many Republicans

that have moved away from President

Trump in recent months, they have the

possibility of literally removing them

from office. That would create a spiral

down.

There's no political bottom there,

Steven. This is not like, oh, it's just

once you get rid of one cabinet

secretary, everybody calms down. What we

are witnessing is a true watershed

period for the political power of

President Trump.

And that means also the power of the

maga agenda,

whether or not there will be mass

deportations in the country.

>> How would that be impacted by the

midterms?

>> If starting in January there are months

and months of turmoil in the Trump

administration where literally the heads

of the cabinet offices, including the

Department of Homeland Security, are on

the block to be removed.

The idea that you're going to have

consistent

operations within the departments

very, very, very difficult, Steven.

>> What do you think is going to happen

then over these eight weeks?

>> It starts with the midterms. It starts

with the issue of violent populism. It

starts with the issue of the

consequences of President Trump's

presidency. But it doesn't stop there

because you see this is not happening in

isolation. It's happening during the

Iran war. And so what happens in this

midterm transition period could also

easily dovetail with more escalation in

the Iran war. And in fact, President

Trump has promised over and over and

over again that he will escalate after

the

elections. Well, now we're now we're

after the elections. And at the same

time, as if that was not dangerous

enough, we have a third issue, which is

that President Putin in Russia is

threatening to escalate strongly

against civilian infrastructure in

Ukraine, to target electric power in

Kyiv, in Kharkiv, and in Odessa in a

dramatic way.

>> I thought they were doing a deal.

>> President Putin has done nothing say

that this is off the table.

And there's every sign, and in fact

growing signs by European governments

that they're extremely worried about

what's coming in the Ukraine war, that

there will be as the phrasing is now

called a dark winter in Ukraine.

>> So these eight weeks

>> Yes.

>> took me through them week by week.

>> Let's start with the beginning,

which is the election results.

And now the question is, will President

Trump accept the election results or if

they ultimately go against the

Democrats, will the Democrats,

who are built up this giant set of

hopes, expectations

of victory, would they accept not taking

control of Congress? This is really step

one.

And this is coming right on the heels of

another step. President Trump has

promised that the United States and

Israel

will conduct strikes against Iran, heavy

strikes

right after the midterms.

>> When did he say that? I was looking for

his quotes on this and he he seems to be

pretty cryptic in saying that

um Trump described it as decision time,

stating he faces a choice between

reaching a deal or taking action to

finish them off.

>> Yes.

>> And asked directly by reporters whether

strikes would resume, he remarked that

anything is possible and declined to

take options off the table.

>> As he is

putting on the table the distinct

possibility of him deciding to do these

strikes, he's taking serious steps with

his administration to literally prepare

for the strikes. Step number one that's

that's a costly step is to remove

embassy personnel, the families of the

embassy from the region. This is

happened in Saudi Arabia. This is

happened in multiple of the front line

Gulf states. The second big thing that's

happened is he has asked the military

for a detailed set of attack plans.

These detailed plans, we have the leaks

of them.

He has not just had the plans drawn up,

but he's given the orders for CENTCOM

that within a maximum 96 hours of his go

code, they are to execute the plan.

>> So you I've got your book here, Bombing

to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War,

and you actually spend a long time

modeling what would happen if the US

decided to bomb Iran before they did.

>> That's right. 20 years.

>> And what you said to me in these

previous conversations we've had has

played out in a really, you know, very

interesting but very accurate way.

Actually, when we first met and you

first told me about this idea of an

escalation trap and that the US might be

stuck, I didn't really understand that

idea. Like

the US military is so big. Of course

they would just go in there and they

would win.

But you were right. And so I ask you

now, we're now, you know, I don't know,

five, six months into the war,

what is what is going How does this end?

>> An escalation trap, Steven, is when a

strong country, like the United States

and Israel, attacks a weaker country and

they have tactical success. The bombs

hit targets, the bombs kill leaders, but

the weaker country gains power. And in

this case, that happened almost

immediately as Iran gained heavy control

of the Strait of Hormuz and with it

heavy control of 20% of the world's oil.

>> What happens next?

>> What happens next is humiliation

for the the side that started that

attack.

Uh this might be a good time, Steven, to

let me explain what a lot of people

think is strategy.

And a lot of people think

that what strategy is, Stephen, is a

chess game.

But let's play that out and show you

what the escalation trap looks like in a

chess game. So this is white, and white

plays an opening move.

>> Is that America in this analogy?

>> This is America. This is President

Trump. White plays an opening move, and

red then makes a move. And what does

white do? Takes a pawn.

Now it looks like white is ahead. Now

red makes another move, and let's just

say red brings out a knight, of course

threatening the pawn. And now white

makes another move putting the bishop

here,

thinking threatening the queen. But as

we know in chess, the queen, the red

queen can now just simply take

the bishop.

The opening has opened. There was an

initial gain, but what happened very

quickly is red is now

more powerful

than it was before.

At this point in a chess game, Stephen,

what happens is white offers red a draw.

Trump and Israel started this.

Iran got ahead, and so everybody's been

saying for months and months and months,

President Trump, just take a deal. Well,

that would make perfect sense if what we

were doing is we were playing a chess

game.

International politics, especially when

a strong power is ahead, is not a chess

game. Let me explain what I mean by

that.

A better analogy for international

politics is roulette.

You see what happens in a game of

roulette, and anybody who's been to the

casino will will know this. You can go

and you see that, oh my goodness

gracious, the odds of me winning here if

I bet on a number, they're not very

good. But the odds if I just decide I'm

going to bet on say red, I'm just going

to put a bet down. And what happens is

um it's not quite 50/50. The house still

has an advantage, but nonetheless, a lot

of roulette players think, well, I'm

going to start out there.

And what happens, Stephen, when they

lose? Now you're the house. You've just

won there.

Now what happens is a lot of gamblers

will suddenly dig in deeper.

I'm going to double down, or in this

case, I'm even more than doubling down,

and I'm going to bet even more on red

because since I lost on red before,

surely it'll come up red again.

But now the the wheel spins, and guess

what happens? It comes up black again.

Now the house has taken even more chips.

Now I'm way behind. And you know what I

also did here, and a lot of gamblers do

that,

they made a deal with the bookie.

And they said, you know what, let me

borrow some of the chips here cuz I'm

going to get it back. And what are they

going to do? They're going to bet

an even bigger pile of chips.

They're going to bet all those chips on

red 36 because see now the odds are

riskier, but if they win, and again,

they're betting on red. They're hoping

they're finally their numbers finally

come in due, they're going to make back

the money they lost and even more money.

At each rung, President Trump has uh has

made a bet. He's bet that if he uh

attacks uh the supreme leader, kills the

supreme leader, this will weaken Iran.

It didn't work. He lost the chips. So he

bet on a six-week air campaign.

And then he thought, okay, well, I'm

going to increase I'm going to go not

just for two or three days of bombing,

I'm going to go for six weeks of

bombing. He lost on red again.

>> How did he lose that?

>> As Iran did not concede and kept control

of the Strait of Hormuz, that is what is

wrecking and putting the gas prices up

high. So as time has gone on, it's

literally the chips that he is risking

here are American gas prices. And so in

the beginning

>> lives.

>> and American lives and American interest

rates, all of that is the equivalent of

the chips that we are losing. But now

he's bet again on the blockade. And

guess what? It's been six solid months,

Stephen.

And

he's lost again because what's happened

after six months? Iran has not caved.

It's not collapsed. Those gas prices are

going up. This is why he's in so much

pressure in the midterms. But it gets

worse than that.

So now, Stephen, he's lost again. Take

these. Now you're the house. You've got

all those chips.

Now he's way behind.

And he's got a deadline

because in the gambler's deadline, all

these chips that I've just been playing

with,

I've borrowed them.

I borrowed them from the bookies.

>> Are you saying that he's borrowed

the chips from somewhere?

>> He's borrowing um uh the chips. And in

this case, the chips are the political

support of his party,

MAGA, and the control of the party in

order to win back everything because

come January 3rd, there's going to be a

new Congress.

That's the equivalent of the bookies

wanting all those chips back in your

hands.

>> So you're saying with with this last bet

that he's making, because he started the

war in Iran,

>> That's right.

>> sentiment towards the Republicans and

Trump

has gone down as we've seen.

>> down. Lost all those chips in your hand.

>> And now senators and

Congress people are going to potentially

lose their jobs on the Republican side

to Democrats.

>> right. And they're going to lose their

jobs. And as they lose their jobs, um

they're not going to want to support him

in the future. They're pulling they will

pull away from him more and more and

more.

>> Why doesn't he just He's got two years

then. Is it not conceivable that he just

decides to

relax for two years? Okay, I can't get

laws passed and I can't get things done,

but you know, I could just I'll chill at

the White House.

>> Yes. So there's two big problems with

that idea, Stephen.

Um problem number one is, um, presidents

don't just abandon their party, their

agenda, and their legacy. We see this

not just with President Trump and MAGA,

but we saw this with Lyndon Johnson in

the Vietnam War.

Johnson went through a very similar game

of roulette where he kept doubling down

as each rung of the escalation ladder

cost him more and more support. As the

American people were turning against the

war, he kept going up the ladder.

>> Chasing his losses.

>> He's chasing his losses, hoping, even

though each risk is riskier, each bet is

riskier, he sees it as the only way to

dig out of this doom loop that he that

he is in. And there are deadlines. The

equivalent of the bookie wanting their

money back in two weeks is the election.

And it's not just the day of the

election, it's the election's mean

transfer of power where the whole legacy

comes unglued. And the legacy of the

losing president is the worst of all.

And so this would mean President Trump,

when you say shouldn't he just go to St.

Andrews to play golf, he becomes Jimmy

Carter and Lyndon Johnson combined, the

worst president that we've ever had in

in anything any of our lifetimes. This

is a huge problem for any president to

just simply absorb.

>> So that was the first point?

>> The second point is the crypto.

So President Trump has made enormous uh

money for him himself and his family on

various investments and a lot of it is

in crypto. And crypto is

ultimate confidence investment.

So that what you have with crypto, the

final gold piece here

is this can go up poof when President

Trump's power goes up. So the problem

with crypto and his money in crypto is

that this is heavily dependent on

President Trump's power. And when

President Trump's power goes poof, a lot

of crypto, not all of it, but a lot of

it will go poof. And that will be true

not just for him personally, he's 80

years old, but for his family, for his

friends, those people that have made

enormous fortunes on this. So when when

President Trump looks at this, this

isn't just ego

humiliation. This is massive

loss in history.

And this is also massive personal

financial loss for his family.

>> His family are quite involved in the

gambling laws and prediction markets in

the United States as well. I think his

son is actually on the board of two of

the big prediction market companies and

as they sort of like held back the laws

and regulations so that prediction

markets can exist.

So I I understand it from that

perspective as well that they do have

financial interests that could be at

risk.

>> And what happens with the gambler here?

They keep going until what? They lose it

all. So they lose it all.

>> in Iran?

>> So let's go back to the board. Now that

we understand the escalation trap that

President Trump is in, what we can see

is there's reality to why he wants to

escalate and double down again because

he is looking for a way to turn around

this pessimistic view of President Trump

as he can't win the war. This is now

critical because if he doesn't find a

way to hold on to the final set of chips

of MAGA support, which depends on him

being the winner,

he's going to lose those chips going

forward. So this is the big pressure,

the pressure I call the pressure of

humiliation for the loser to keep

doubling down. And this is why this step

is a serious, is a serious risk as we go

forward. He hasn't given the go code yet

to actually strike Iran.

And we're going to play out the rest of

this because once we see where this

could all head,

it's important to understand that I've

advised every White House since 9/11.

And I've seen that in the White Houses,

even though there are heavy commitments

to policies,

until the final go order is given, it is

possible to reverse course.

>> Like I'm pretty sure he's learned that

now that just dropping more bombs

doesn't work.

>> This is the mistake that many folks are

making in the media because they have

become gone from being white belts to

green belts with their strategy, but

they haven't gone to brown belt and and

black belt. So the weeks that are coming

out about the three-day plan

are consistent. The three-day plan is

what President Trump is describing here.

The plan that's on his desk is a plan to

hit targets in Iran over a three-day

period.

And as soon as the media, I believe, saw

the word three in the three-day, oh,

this can't be anything. This must be a

truly minor issue.

But

what we're talking about in the target

sets that are coming out are a whole new

level of leadership targeting,

a level of economic targeting hitting

refineries, economic power, and bridges.

And this looks to me an an awful lot

like what was Instant Thunder. The

three-day was supposed to only be a

three-day plan that opened the war

against Iraq in 1991

that was targeting 84

leadership and infrastructure targets

where it was meant to paralyze

Saddam Hussein's regime.

This is exactly

the air campaign that has been at the

heart of many um air strategists since

the 1991 war. This is when I am debating

air strategy. I am literally debating

the uh people who came up with that plan

originally and are still pushing that

plan.

>> It says the three-day plan is a Pentagon

military contingency for a rapid

high-intensity aerial campaign against

Iran if post-election negotiations break

down, presumably the mid-term elections.

It is designed to hit missile sites,

drone launch hubs, IRGC command centers,

and energy infrastructure over 72 hours

to force capitulation without triggering

a prolonged ground war. Trump paused

major strikes until after the November

3rd midterms, but he has explicitly

characterized the post-election window

as a final choice to either strike a

diplomatic deal with him or initiate

these strikes to finish

it off.

>> That's right. This is much more than the

word three days would communicate.

What you just read there is exactly

the full set of Instant Thunder uh

target sets.

>> If if he does this three-day plan thing,

does it fail? And if it fails, what

happens?

>> Yeah. becomes a much longer bombing

campaign. So the three-day bombing

campaign drags on.

This is exactly what happened with

Instant Thunder. It was planned as three

days with an extra three days of backup

strikes, but it went on for 43 days.

Never did succeed in paralyzing the

military of Iraq.

>> And the hope here, the success as far as

Trump would see it, would be that they

come to the table to make a deal to

reopen the Strait of Hormuz and to vouch

never to have nuclear weapons.

>> Uh no, not only that. That's part of the

deal. But see, once do this, there's

nobody to come to the table. You are

destroying so much of the leadership

stratum

that the idea of coming to the table we

President Trump has occasionally said

he's not sure who to negotiate with now.

Once you're in day six or seven of this,

you're really not going to know who to

negotiate with because this is the the

whole point of this plan, Stephen, is to

paralyze the government so it cannot

function.

Their goal of the plan is not to tilt

the balance of hawks and doves inside of

the government the way a lot of people

again who have just kind of generally

know about bombing but don't know the

full details of the way the strategies

work. This is a plan, Stephen, that is

meant to completely paralyze the body of

the military.

And then the problem here is because

you've paralyzed it,

who you going to negotiate with?

Now, that's not likely the next set of

steps. You see, once you do this, now

if you haven't fully paralyzed the

military,

and that's what I'm telling you is very

likely what's going to happen is the

Iranian military that is left, and

there's going to be quite a bit of it

left with a lot of power to strike back,

they're going to start lashing back, and

they can lash back in a whole variety of

ways including attacks against airports

in the region. This is the real This is

the time when Saddam Hussein after we

did this, this is when he bombed our

sites in Riyadh. So this is when US

personnel were killed in Riyadh and in

fact we could never stop the Scud

missiles of Iraq. And so what happened

is so we've seen the breaking of this

threshold. This is why this is credible.

It's because we've seen the beginning of

this with Iran's ally, the Houthis,

which is the group in Yemen. So what

happened is as the escalation between

Saudi Arabia and the group in Yemen

called the Houthis was escalating, the

Houthis directly

with missiles struck terminals three and

terminals four on separate days in the

Riyadh International Airport, killing

over a dozen people and wounding over

300 people.

And this is the first time in this war

that we saw the direct targeting of

civilians, intentional targeting of

civilians.

And it wasn't just one day. It was

multiple days.

And what I'm pointing out is this is the

pattern that you would expect as this

progresses. So that what you're doing is

you're getting deeper in. And who are

you going to communicate with to tell

them to stop?

>> What's number six?

>> Number six. Now we need to understand

that what's happened, Steven, is look

how deep we've gone in. We started with

what was supposed to be just another

limited strike. This time, however, it's

building its own momentum.

And as it builds its own momentum, it is

now now we have that decentralized

structure in Iran striking back in ways

it decides on its own.

But there's another problem. That other

problem is these attacks, Steven, are

likely going to kill thousands and

thousands of civilians in Iran.

>> Which attacks?

>> The three day and the six day and the

continued attacks here on these Instant

Thunder style airplane is exactly the

airplane we executed against Saddam

Hussein in 91, but it was against

regime. It was against the economic

infrastructure. We hit his oil

refineries. We hit his electric power,

and we killed somewhere between five and

15,000 civilians

in doing this plan. This is not a

a plan where no civilians die. This is a

plan

>> of people are going to die through this

period. Lots of people are going to die

here which is going to inspire

>> leads to inspired attacks.

What an inspired attack is is a

terrorist attack

that is not command directed by a

government. It is not coming from the

supreme leader. The supreme leader may

even be dead as a result of all this. An

inspired attack is what we saw in the

Tel Aviv plane incident.

So we just literally saw the last time I

was on your show, I was warning you that

there will be we will likely see uh

civilian attacks. It could well be

inspired attacks. It's because in the

aftermath of the tens of the 10 million

plus who came out uh to support the

supreme leader, they called for revenge.

That is exactly the pool of sentiments

that is likely to inspire individuals on

their own. I don't mean command directed

by Iran on their own to carry out

terrorist attacks or suicide terrorist

attacks. Well, what happened in the Tel

Aviv incident, this was the co-pilot who

the plane took off from the airport in

Dubai and it had about 170 civilians on

the airplane. About a hundred of those

civilians were Israelis.

And after two and a half hours, that

co-pilot took an hatchet that was in the

cockpit. Most people didn't even know

there was a hatchet in the cockpit.

And he tried to take control of the

plane. He tried to kill the pilot. And

he was only 30 minutes from

Tel Aviv.

So

I've studied 8,000 suicide attacks in

detail.

>> You've written a book about it.

>> Two. You've got two two there.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah, cutting the fuse as well.

And so studying all those attacks, once

I saw

exactly the location of where the

co-pilot tried to take control of the

plane, that told me very heavily this

was likely a suicide attack. Because if

he just wanted to kill himself, the

co-pilot, he likely would have done that

almost immediately after the plane had

taken off. He wouldn't wait to just get

so close to Tel Aviv that then he could

have the possibility of driving it into

a target in Tel Aviv, killing people on

the plane and people on the ground in

Tel Aviv.

>> And looking at some of the reports here

from CBS News, they say

various sort of Israeli officials have

linked it to Iran, but Trump also said

based on what I'm hearing, the co-pilot

had direct links to Iran, warning that

any state actor behind the incident

would face devastation.

>> Well,

so we don't know for sure it wasn't

command directed, Steven. I'm telling

you that it wouldn't need to be command

directed. Some of the best information

we have has come from the pilot himself.

So now that he's healing, he's giving

interviews here, and he is describing a

situation where everything is fine in

the flight. There's no sign whatsoever

that he's sitting with a mentally

disturbed individual looking to somehow

off himself or so forth. And then

suddenly he feels a club on his head.

Then he realizes and starts to put two

and two together. And that's when he

makes every effort to keep the door

open. And essentially what you saw here

was we're not we can't say it's 100%

certain it was a suicide terrorist

attack, but my estimate is that it's

gone from being, say, 75% certain to 90%

certain that this is an individual who

wanted to not just kill himself, but to

kill everybody on that plane and to take

control of the plane just in time to be

able to ram it into Tel Aviv.

>> The pilot said the morning started very

normally.

>> Yep.

>> The first officer asked to pray,

then struck him from behind with the

clash axe.

>> Yep. And notice the pray, so this is a

very common

religious suicide attacker. They

commonly will go through a certain

ritual before they do their suicide

attack.

>> The pilot thought that a heavy piece of

equipment had fallen on his head before

realizing he was under assault. As his

vision tunneled from blood loss, his

sole focus was releasing his seat belt

and crawling towards the cockpit door

release. He explained that each burst of

physical effort caused him to fade in

and out of consciousness. He noted the

terrifying sensation of feeling the

aircraft plunge violently nose down

while he was on the floor. Believing he

would not survive, he pushed through to

unlock the reinforced door before

collapsing face down, which allowed

other passengers to see him and rush in.

And then I think from what I heard in

the reports, passengers rushed through

the door, restrained the

co-pilot, and I can't I don't know who

landed the plane. Was the pilot

>> No, there was actually somebody on board

who was a pilot, had the knowledge to

land the plane. This was an

unintentional backup pilot that just

happened to be there. And that was

extremely fortuitous. But what you see

here, Steven, are are the telltale signs

because if it was suicide, then you

would have expected it to happen right

away. And if it was a suicide attacker,

the first thing that that would come to

their mind is if they took control of

the plane two and a half hours from Tel

Aviv. Remember, it's a three-hour flight

to Tel Aviv from Dubai. If they took

control of the plane too far out, well

then that would create the opportunity

for Israel to scramble jets to prevent

it from striking Tel Aviv. So

>> So you thought you think that they were

trying to crash the plane into Israel?

>> Yes. I think it's very and this is what

what I mean by inspired attacks. We saw

the first command-directed attack.

That's the Houthis on civilians. We've

seen an actual inspired terrorist attack

that has already happened.

>> What comes next?

>> Well, let's keep going.

>> The biggest unfair advantage in business

right now is having people who genuinely

understand AI. And big businesses are

hiring them very, very quickly. AI job

postings in the US have roughly doubled

since 2023, while postings for VP of AI

roles are around 600%

up. If you're running a small business,

you can't just build an entire AI team,

but you still want the same advantage

that these big businesses have. This is

where our sponsor Fiverr comes in. It

lets you plug into top-tier AI

specialists for the strategic work that

usually requires serious in-house

expertise. That could mean building

custom AI tools, it could be automating

complex workflows, or creating something

that off-the-shelf software simply

cannot do. Because at the end of the

day, it still comes down to human

judgment, knowing what's worth building

and what good actually looks like. So if

you want that kind of leverage in your

business, check out fiverr.com. That's

Fiverr with two Rs .com.

This has had probably the single biggest

impact on my office. Of all the products

that I've tried that have given me

productivity gains or cognitive boosts,

I would say that exogenous ketones are

in the top three most pivotal things

that have given me a massive

productivity gain. It's some Stanford

graduates that have been able to

basically bottle up the effect you get

from being on a ketogenic diet in a

small shot that you can take that makes

you feel incredibly focused and gives

your brain an incredible source of

energy. And the clinical studies that

have been done on exogenous ketones have

absolutely blown my mind. I reached out

to them, I became a co-owner in the

company, I became an investor in the

company, and so it's with great pride

that I can tell you that this exists. If

you haven't tried these shots, go to

ketone.com/steven

for 30% off your subscription order, and

you'll also get a free gift with your

second shipment. I still buy my ketone

shots predominantly online, but

thankfully I can now grab them at Target

whenever I drive past them here in the

United States as well because we're now

stocked in Target where your first shot

is completely free.

So why did you jump up to the other

London?

>> we need to see the interactions of this

is a crisis that's unfolding.

>> Okay.

>> See what you are seeing here is that the

election results are creating incentives

to go down this road, but this doesn't

just stay on its own path. It starts to

play a role and come back up and start

to affect events here because as this is

occurring, we need to expect gas prices

are going up.

We need to expect diesel prices are

going up. We need to expect the housing

market, which is already frozen up, is

going to freeze up even more. So as we

start to see the interaction here are

the the the effects, the effects are not

simply what's happening in Iran or even

what's happening in the economy, and

this will be in the world economy. It's

going to be what people think. And we

just got a big lesson in what people

think in France. And what happened in

France wasn't just a one day problem and

it wasn't just a one off. It's starting

it's started to spread to other parts of

Europe.

The riots. And a big part of the riots,

not the only reason for the riots. So we

have some actual opinion poll data on

this, so I'm not just speaking

generally. But a big part of the reason

for the riots are the rising prices due

to the Iran war. Well, this is exactly

recreating and making those dynamics

worse. So now we're back over to the

possibility here of protesters and

federal agents starting to clash. This

is a moment when they're still counting

ballots. So now there's more and more

protests occurring, but it's also at a

point where the ballots have not been

certified yet. So notice where we are.

We have moved through November and we

have nowhere near come to the end of

transfer of power to the new Congress.

So we have this whole very contentious

election. We have the process here where

we still have the counting and the

certification of the ballots. We have

that occurring not in isolation, but in

addition to an international set of

events that are just

>> And also the Russia

>> and also the Russia. So we we've skipped

over Putin. And so what's happened here

also

um

in week Well, roughly week four. This

would be around Thanksgiving possibly.

Just can't really poly market it to the

day, Steven, but we're just giving the

sequence. So as the Iran war is

escalating, now we have the the issue of

will there be an actual deal with Trump

and Putin that prevents Putin from

escalating on Ukraine? Putin isn't just

interested in some sort of, you know, uh

photo op with President Trump. What he

wants out of President Trump is he wants

there to be real pressure on Ukraine to

cave to Putin's demands.

>> What do you think Putin wants from

Ukraine?

What do you think he wants generally?

>> Well, let's uh let's look at some of the

maps.

>> I've got a map.

>> Yeah. So a really good way to understand

this.

What you see is in this map, which is

August of 2022, 4 months after Putin

invaded Ukraine, you can see that the

lines here have settled down into

eastern Ukraine. You can see there's no

longer Russian forces around Kyiv. It's

all on the edges of the south of Ukraine

and the east of Ukraine. And what you

can see is this is Donetsk. Uh these are

some of the areas that Putin has already

annexed. He's officially annexed them.

And also this is Crimea.

What you see is that Putin is still

wanting to gain at least the rest of

this territory right around here. These

are the pieces of these four oblasts

that he has not conquered yet. He

[snorts] has officially annexed them in

into Russia. He's he's actually passed

laws in Russia, but he has not

physically taken control of them. So at

a minimum, he's interested in

controlling this bit of white around

here and here. And notice at this point

he's he's pretty far away from that. Now

he may also, and he's talked about an

area called Novorossiya, Russia, which

is this would be the next set of oblasts

just behind the first four. And that is

this area called Novorossiya, which is

also where vast numbers of Russian

speakers also live in Ukraine. So the

debate here is whether Putin only wants

this white territory around here, or

does he also want this? But let's look

where he is four years later.

After four solid years and the loss at a

minimum of 250,000

dead Russians, this is the minimum,

Steven. There's counts that go far

higher than that, but these are the

counts based on obituary, so that we're

really sure by name that at least that

number of Russians have died. Look at

how far he is away. Look at the white.

He's gained a little bit of territory,

about 1% of Ukraine territory. But look

how far away he still is from that white

area I just pointed out. And this is

July 2026,

and he of course is nowhere near the

second force. So he is we so when we say

that Putin wants a deal, this is not

Putin settling for some sort of a signed

piece of paper where he's just going to

have a photo op with Trump. What he

wants Trump to do is deliver the

territory that he wants in Ukraine.

>> What do you think is going to happen?

>> I don't think Putin is going

>> to get Trump is not going to be able to

deliver. Trump can say that he'll

deliver it, but he can't do that on his

own. Only Ukraine could deliver that

territory.

For Zelensky to truly surrender that

territory, there's a good chance he'll

be killed by his own people, his own

military, his own because

>> Who would kill him if he gave it up?

>> Oh my gosh, yes, yes, yes. So what what

people don't know about international

politics, I mean smart people don't

know, people who even know a lot of

history,

is leaders take dramatic risks when

they're losers. I just explained to you

the risks that Trump was taking here

with it.

For someone in Putin's position or

Zelensky's position where they're

literally talking about whether or not

they will gain or surrender pieces of

territory. For Zelensky to actually

surrender not just the territory Putin

currently has, but even more,

this is taking his life in his hands and

his family's life in his hands.

>> What's number seven?

>> Uh so let's

keep looking. This is when Putin because

he doesn't get the territory, this is

when Putin escalates. This is the most

likely time after Putin assured that

Trump can't deliver any more territory.

This is right around Thanksgiving. This

is a likely possible time when Putin is

going to start to realize he can't get

territory from Trump, Ukrainian

territory from Trump. So he moves to his

next plan, which is the winter attacking

the electric power stations in Kyiv,

Kharkiv, Odessa. That is the capital

city of Ukraine and two of the major

cities in Ukraine near the areas he

wants to control.

And by attacking those electric power

areas, he's not looking to just cause a

couple of days of blackout where you

don't have your air conditioning or your

heating for a couple of days. The plan

is to knock out 90% of the power in

those cities, and that would keep that

out. If you truly knock that out for

that that that amount, this is probably

going to last a month or two.

>> This is very much his own escalation

trap.

>> Very much. Putin is in an escalation

trap because Putin started this by

launching almost 200,000 Russian troops

in order to not just take the southern

part of Ukraine and eastern part of

Ukraine. Remember, they were surrounding

Kiev. The idea here was to take Kiev.

So this was to take almost half of the

country.

And he lost. So he is in his own

escalation trap Putin is because if he

accepts surrender, if he accepts

capitulation, now

he has his own military to deal with.

And he faces in an not just humiliation

and a horrible legacy in history, but he

really faces the fate of a lot of

authoritarian leaders do when they lose

major wars, which is being killed.

>> What do you think is going to happen

with both of these wars?

>> I think they're going to happen at the

same time. What this what this chart is

doing, what we're really showing here on

this chart is all three of these

dynamics are occurring at literally this

over literally the same eight weeks.

>> And what happens next?

>> happens next is they start to interact

with each other. So now, as we see that

we're starting to see the escalation

here of violent populism starting in a

small way for real

>> And when you say violent populism, what

does violent populism mean?

>> Violent populism is when

political violence moves from the fringe

to the mainstream,

where you have not just small numbers of

violent actors, but large numbers of

violent actors. You don' just have an

isolated political assassination

attempt. You have strings of them over a

period of years. And you don't just have

a protest that's a localized protest

over, say, a police beating. Rodney King

would be the classic example of of of a

localized protest where in LA there were

four days of riots, but only in LA. That

was in the early 1990s. With violent

populism, this starts to spread. It

starts to spread and become much, much

more significant.

>> Was that kind of like the Black Lives

Matter protest protests which spread

across the world?

>> Exactly. What happened was a single

focal point event. And I'm going to show

you how these actually

occur in just a moment

can spread like wildfire

because with violent populism,

political violence takes on a whole new

dimension, Stephen. Let me explain what

I mean. I like to use the analogy for

violent populism of a wildfire.

And the part of the reason for that is

because a lot of people know about

wildfires and they know that in why we

have a wildfire is we have this

combustible material.

It's often dry wood that's been sitting

there and maybe with global warming it's

got we've gotten more of it. And this is

predictable. We can actually predict the

size of the combustible material in a

wildfire season.

But what we can't do in wildfire season

is predict the spark. What is the spark

that's going to set this off? These are

always unpredictable. And the sparks can

be a cigarette butt that's thrown in. So

let me just show you what that might

look like.

>> So just in this analogy, what is the

combustible material?

>> In this

>> the combustible material um with violent

populism are the millions of Americans

on both sides of the political spectrum

who support political violence for their

goals.

And today, we have over 40 million

Americans who support political violence

for Trump's goals.

We have over 60 million Americans who

support political violence against

Trump's goals. They are the combustible

material that can be set off.

>> So you're saying with that

pretext, with the sort of anger and with

people being more supportive of violence

to achieve their political goals, all

it's going to take is a spark.

>> All it's going to take is a spark.

And imagine let's use also cuz we

already mentioned George Floyd, let's

use January 6th as an example. What

happened on on January 6th is President

Trump used his rhetoric, a tweet on

December 19th, 2020 to call

a MAGA to Washington to listen to him at

the Ellipse.

Then when they were there at the

Ellipse, he told them to march on the

capital, still kind of channeling where

the all the dry combustible material

were.

Then what happened is there was the true

spark. And what was that true spark that

set off January 6th? It was another

tweet by Trump where he told them Mike

Pence had let them down.

At that moment, that's when the crowd

burst through into the capital in

multiple places

in response to that tweet. And that's

when you can hear the chants, hang Mike

Pence, hang Mike Pence.

That's violent populism in action.

And notice what we need is just what you

did, which is we need a fire break,

and we don't want to wait until the next

fire, because the if we wait until the

next wildfires to occur,

we may not it may happen and spread so

quickly, Stephen, that we may be in a

situation like France. So notice in

France that this wasn't just a localized

event where there was a protest that got

out of hand against one government

building.

This was a series of protests that got

out of hand, and they got out of hand

not just in Paris, but in multiple

cities in in in France. And then a week

later,

they happened again, and wasn't just

limited to Paris and cities in France.

It spread beyond France itself.

So this is what I mean by violent

populism starting to emerge, and these

clashes between the federal agents and

protesters over say possibly ballot

counting. This is what I mean by a focal

point of that. It's literally an event

here that can act as a spark, and it can

touch off those sentiments, and that is

violent populism in action.

So now we have notice we have actual

major problems starting to happen inside

the United States. We have major

problems in Iran that are just getting

worse, and these are feeding each other.

We have major problems that are

happening in the Russian-Ukraine war,

and this too is going to increase energy

prices. This is going to these are these

are not disconnected events anymore,

Stephen.

>> is that why

I think it was where streeting that said

we in the UK need to stock up on

on this stuff?

>> That is exactly why I think they are

stocking they are asking the public to

stock up on batteries so that in case

the internet goes down. Why would you

stock up on batteries? Because there's

more problems down the road here.

>> You're the one that told me he said

this. I actually missed that piece of

news.

>> Yes.

>> You're saying the UK government has

asked people in the UK to stock up on

batteries and

>> batteries, beans, flashlights, water

because what can happen as this pattern,

as this escalation

gets worse and worse is you can start to

see that Ukraine will will start to lash

back here against Russia and then Russia

may start to punish the supporters of

Ukraine in Europe including right here

in London, right here in Britain. And

that's why the defense minister is

calling for preparations. Not saying

there's a tactical intelligence that

there is a threat coming tomorrow,

but I believe looking at something like

this board that we are

outlining, Steven, and looking at this

and saying, well, wait a second, wait a

second, the risk here of this starting

to get out of control starting to become

real and rather than wait for a panic to

ensue after there would be a cyber

attack that would say knock out the

internet for several days or knock out

electric power in Britain for several

for several days.

Go ahead, stock up on some stuff now so

you can ride out some of those issues.

>> So the UK government has officially told

households to prepare for national

emergencies launching the Be Ready

campaign which advises every family to

stockpile at least three days worth of

essential supplies to survive potential

hostile state attacks, cyber warfare or

major infrastructure collapse. Britons

are being asked to store three liters of

bottled water per person per day, a

three-day cache of non-perishable

tinned food alongside battery powered

wind-up torches,

radios. That's why this

>> Yep.

>> Little Britney Spears radio.

>> powered radios.

>> Power banks, first aid kits, and

physical

physical cash.

>> And the reason for physical cash,

Stephen, is because ATMs won't work.

>> Pointing directly to the reality of

modern conflict and state-sponsored

sabotage, the stark question being put

to the public is how ordinary people

would cope in a moment where electronic

payment systems or local supermarket

supply chains suddenly collapsed. A

warning that has already driven panic

buying, stripping supermarket shelves of

bottled water and canned goods while

sparking a massive run on emergency

supplies across the entire country. That

is crazy.

>> It is. And And it's showing, Stephen,

that governments are are already paying

attention to the risks that we're laying

out here.

So when we see the United States pulling

back its personnel and families from

embassies around the Middle East, when

we see the British government

initiating a be ready three-day

preparation campaign, what you are

seeing is governments are understanding

the risks that are that are starting to

emerge.

>> What I'm about to say is an ad, but

there's something quite different about

this particular ad. Grokbot now sponsors

this show, and I've already invested in

SpaceX, which is the company that owns

Grokbot. Grokbot is an app on my phone,

but it's also on my computer. And

basically, I have all of these different

agents. You can think of them like team

members that are working with me to do

work right now. And unlike other AI's,

they all have their own computer, which

means that if I turn off my phone, if I

close my laptop, they continue working

seven days a week, 24/7 on tasks that

I've given them. I've got one that comes

up with new creative ideas based on

things that I've said on the podcast. It

is absolutely insane. This only came out

in August. It's freed me up again to do

the things that only I should be doing

as a creative, as an entrepreneur, as an

investor, which is the sort of higher

level things around taste, creativity,

judgment. You will get more done with

Crop Bot today and you can get 50% off

your first month by heading to x

.ai/doac

x .ai/doac

>> So what happens next?

>> So as we keep going,

now

>> The US water system is forced to manual.

>> Yeah, so this is where the real danger

starts to come in. Once we see cyber

attacks,

we we need to understand that this

summer

in Minnesota and in a number of other

states in the United States in July,

the power

and the water went out.

So we had a water problem.

And the New York Times was the only

paper to cover this.

And the New York Times quoted directly

from US intelligence that said this was

most likely Iran doing a cyber attack

inside the United States.

That story was never followed up again.

That story was not repeated by other

agencies. That has all the hallmarks of

US intelligence telling the papers not

to cover the story.

Now, what happened in the case is we

know as a fact

>> you think that's what happened?

>> Well,

I've spent a lot of time with US

intelligence community.

So in the '90s, I had a clearance, but

in the last 20 30 years, I've spent an

enormous amount of time with our

intelligence community.

And the quotes, the language in that

article, if people will go back to the

article,

you'll see that the article is quoting

specific people and saying that it has

Iran's fingerprints for cyber attack.

Now, that's important. That phrasing is

very important, Steven, because

that's exactly the phrasing, the

unclassified phrasing that is used to

understand the cyber capabilities of

different actors, China, Russia, Iran,

North Korea.

>> Do you do you think the water went out

in Minnesota because Iran didn't attack

and then

>> I think it's most likely Iran. Yes, I do

think I we can't say for certain, but I

do I would not put it forward if I

didn't think that was a credible report.

>> And then you think the US government

might have had a word with some

journalists and said, listen

>> take it off the table. Don't talk about

it.

>> Do they do that?

>> They do. They do. I in the Gulf War in

1991, there was a big effort by um the

uh Pentagon to work with CNN, ABC,

others in the news to in fact control

some of the news that was coming out.

And in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War,

um this continued. And one of the times

I was on the set. So I was on the set. I

won't I don't want to embarrass the

journalist, but I was on the set in CNN.

And they flew me into New York and I was

literally on a set similar like your

team. I was just talking about how great

your team is compared to theirs. And we

were sitting around the table and the

reporter who was a famous reporter had

me on with certain generals. And before

the cameras rolled, she said, so let's

let's start with the ground rules. What

should we not say? What should we not

ask you? What should we not talk about

with the public?

Just imagine that, Steven. Imagine that.

>> So they would ask you

to tell them

what they can't share with the public.

>> They asked the people from the

administration who were This was the

Bush administration, where the normal

role of the journalist is to do the

opposite. In fact, CNN very very

famously got started by interviewing

Saddam Hussein in the 19 or not got

started, but one of the big things that

they got a lot of prominence was

interviewing Saddam Hussein when the US

military went apoplectic when they did.

So this is what I mean by when you asked

me would it be possible for the US for

intelligence US government to ask the

media to for the good they would say for

the good of national security

to cool it on a story and the fact is

I've seen it myself.

>> Wow.

>> So now this is the big problem we worry

about.

I can't tell you this is certain to

come. Would not want to do that. I'm

telling you this is the pathway.

And if we get all the way down to this

part of the pathway and that's an if

then we have to worry about real troops

in the streets when

in the weeks just before the Congress

would be seated.

>> So American troops in American streets?

>> American troops in American streets.

>> Has that happened before?

>> Not since the the '50s and the '60s when

in the '50s this was in a completely

different environment.

So President Trump just to say why this

is even credible at all on October 1st

in Time Magazine he was interviewed

about would he declare the insurrection

act.

And he said specifically that he might

and he wouldn't take it off the table.

Well the insurrection act would be the

use of US military or it could be the

National Guard or the Reserves. It

wouldn't have to be exactly the serving

military.

But the use of the military in American

cities.

And that is a huge step that's rarely

been used

and that's a step which under the

circumstances of the environment I am

explaining you can see that first of all

there would be an ongoing escalation in

not just one war but we now have two

wars and with this could be building and

building at this point in time. That

would create the environment in which

there is an

international emergency that's

occurring. So the Insurrection Act is

meant.

>> does that mean, the Insurrection Act?

>> The Insurrection Act is where the

president has emergency powers to use

the US military or as I said the

National Guard or the reserves within

the borders of the United States against

the citizens of the United States. So

normally we have a policy called

where the president is not using the US

military inside of our own borders. It's

for obvious reasons, Steven, which is

anybody just takes a moment in history

knows that authoritarian states have

routinely used their military to

suppress their own population. So the

United States, the leading democracy in

the world, has gone way out of its way

to not go down that road.

That's why it's particularly striking

when President Trump will not take that

option off the table. And if there was

not a war,

one could look at the courts and one

could think, well, if President Trump

tried to invoke the Insurrection Act,

he could be taken to court and the

courts would oppose that act and it

wouldn't come into being.

>> What happens next in in Iran?

>> What happens next is

now we've pushed all the way to look at

how much danger there is that's

occurring here, how much economic

pressure that's occurring. But also

notice that the Iranian military,

although it's still able to do some

strikes, they probably are pretty

significantly paralyzed. They're not

100% paralyzed by any stretch. They're

able to still launch drone strikes,

probably missile strikes, probably even

cyber attacks. But that doesn't mean

it's the same military as exists today

before the the

war, the three-day air war.

>> there'll be US ground troops in Iran?

>> I think there's Yes, I think this is why

the Marines are moving. Because under

the circumstances of the sequence I've

just laid out for you, a lot of people

think that um when President Trump is

talking about moving US Marines into uh

in for limited ground operations, this

would be necessarily a suicide mission.

Now it could be a suicide mission, but

this is very unlikely. Much more likely

would be the way this played out with

Instant Thunder, which is you would

paralyze as much as you could of the

Iranian military.

The Iranian military would still have

remnants that are able to attack us

pretty severely.

Now you have the ground force option to

go in to try to deal with localized

areas of those remnants, and you have a

real reason to do it. And once we go

down this road, Stephen, in fact, I'm

quite concerned that once we start the

three-day bombing campaign,

this sequence is going to be almost

impossible to stop. Because once you

start the three-day bombing campaign,

this is going to unleash responses by

the uh remaining elements of the Iran

military that can fire at us, and they

will be maximally incentivized to fire

at uh the Gulf States, infrastructure in

the Gulf States. But once you go all the

way down this this far, now you're in

the true forever war. Now you're in the

forever war that we can't really get out

of. And we are now into a world where

this is a true emergency. President

Trump will be able to start declaring

more and more emergency powers because

this will be a true emergency, and it

won't be over by Christmas. These eight

weeks are the most dangerous eight

weeks. But if we go all the way through

this trajectory, Stephen, this will lead

into a devastating

2027.

>> And lastly.

>> Lastly, this

>> in Russia?

>> Russia,

we see that if in fact

what the defense minister in London is

worried about happens, if those cyber

attacks happen, there's going to be

enormous pressure on Europe to retaliate

directly against Moscow.

This is not a situation where cyber

attacks See, people haven't really

experienced cyber warfare. They've heard

about it. They've read books about it.

There's science fiction books written

about it, but they haven't experienced

it. So what they what I think many

people think is, well, the internet goes

out for 30 minutes and it just pops

right back in, right? So what's the big

deal?

The This isn't the real set of cyber

attacks our government has been worrying

about for decades. The real set of cyber

attacks

are much much more costly on the

publics, the American public, the

European public.

And under those circumstances, those

publics are going to demand payback. And

that's when you actually have Europe

retaliating against Moscow. And you know

what that means? You know what that word

the word is for that when Europe does

that, Steven?

World War III.

That's what World War III looks like.

Many people

for months have been discussing, are we

in World War III?

The answer is no. We're not in World War

III. We have war happening around the

world and in major parts of the world.

What World War III means is when the

world's largest powers

attack each other's homelands

and their militaries

kill each other, directly engage each

other.

That is not the situation today,

and we've been nowhere near that, even

with all of the escalations that have

happened in the Ukraine war.

>> But aren't we doing that by proxy? I.

Britain just announced yesterday they're

going to give another 10 billion to the

Ukraine. Presumably that money is going

to be spent on killing Russians

indirectly or directly.

So aren't we in these proxy wars

already?

>> We were in proxy wars during the Cold

War almost every year from 1947 until

1989. We were in proxy wars in Africa.

We were in proxy wars in Latin America.

We were in proxy wars in Afghanistan. So

remember the Soviets went into

Afghanistan. We sent in the Mujahideen.

>> The difference is when they attack each

other directly.

>> Exactly. So proxy wars we we have we

have faced proxy wars almost every year

during the Cold War since 1947 and after

the Cold War.

That is not a world war. If we're going

to use the phrase we're in World War III

then it should have some semblance to

World War I and World War II and what

the real

>> Do you think that's likely?

>> I hope everything we're doing here,

Stephen, will prevent it. So I believe

that what we're starting down now, I

don't mean eight weeks from now, I mean

literally from today forward,

we are living through the eight most

dangerous weeks in our lives.

I believe that if we allow this momentum

to carry on on its own

that it's going to lead to very very bad

outcomes at this part of the calendar.

And we can do a lot

>> What can we do?

>> Number one is

every member of Congress who's still in

the lame duck Congress now and who's

just been elected to Congress can say

one thing.

No escalation by the by the Trump

administration in Iran until the new

Congress is seated unless Iran strikes

first.

Very simple declaration.

This is the core firebreak.

The core fire break is no escalation on

Iran

by the Trump administration, called for

by every member of Congress sitting now,

who's in the lame duck Congress and

who's just won election to the new

Congress. That's step one.

Step number two

is

now that we're actually in counting

season and certification season,

there should be every governor and every

mayor should call on President Trump to

hold a two-month moratorium on all

federally armed agents in their cities

unless the governors and mayors call for

it.

A two-month moratorium so we take off

the table

the possibility

of violent populism getting out of

control. The key sparks. We can't take

every spark off, but we can take the key

sparks off.

>> Is there a third one?

>> The third one, incredibly [snorts]

important, which is that

in all of the conflicts we have just

laid out,

we have the United States in the middle

of them. We have Iran in the middle of

them. We have Putin, Russia in the

middle of them. We have Iran very

central, of course. We now have Saudi

Arabia.

We should have the core countries that

are calling themselves mediators. And

who are those countries?

Pakistan, Qatar, and increasingly India.

India has been playing a quiet role

behind the scenes with Russia and uh and

and Ukraine.

Those three countries that have played

this role as mediator should call on all

of the countries to do one thing.

Hands off civilians.

Hands off civilians.

No direct targeting of civilian

or civilian residential areas by states.

Those are the three if we do those three

things, what we're doing is we are

establishing firebricks

on those that momentum of the eight most

dangerous weeks in our lives and we have

we do not have to simply watch as those

eight weeks unfold, Stephen.

>> What about the general public? What

should they be doing? Do you take the

advice of West Streeting? Do you think

we should be stockpiling?

>> No, I'm personally not doing that

because um what will happen is Can you

just bring that back up for a moment?

Let me show you what's really going to

happen. So now we're at day one and

let's say day one we still have a lot of

water in our bodies. So day one we use

one bottle of water.

>> Mhm.

>> Now we go through day two.

Day two of the outage we have to go

through both bottles of water because

we're now starting to run out of water.

Now we're at day three. That's what he's

told us to do. Now we're at day three

and we're definitely going through our

bottles of water.

Here's the fundamental problem, Stephen.

The attacks can happen again.

>> So you're saying there's no point?

>> What I'm saying is there's no point and

what I'm saying is everybody will come

to that realization on day one

that this is not

going to prevent the panic. This is not

going to truly buy time those three

days.

The way the governments can buy time are

those three firebricks and what can

every ordinary person do?

They can email, they can text, and they

can call their favorite political

leader, whoever that is,

and tell them to adopt those three

firebricks. That is how we can navigate

this journey and do something about it.

Otherwise, we're just letting the events

control us.

>> I was going to ask you the question in

the book, and the question in the book

is basically what can people do now to

prepare for the next five years?

But I think you might have just answered

it.

>> I think I did.

>> Um, you have this wonderful book that's

out now, Our Own Worst Enemies: America

in the Age of Violent Populism. You're

someone that's so incredibly well read,

decades and decades and decades of the

most interesting experience. So if

anybody is interested in these subjects

that we've talked about today, this is

the definitive book on the subject

matter. It is evidence-based. There's

lots of stats and graphs and figures in

here, but also

it's so deeply read on history as you

are, Robert.

Thank you for coming here, and thank you

for continually keep keeping the lights

on for me cuz, you know, I remember the

first time you came and I thought,

what's he talking about escalation trap?

There's no chance.

But it's completely changed my mind on

how on what's going on in the world, and

it's actually helped me to understand

the reality and the complex, messy

reality of war and incentives and ego

and humans and the human cost on the

other end of it. And, you know, again,

we always talk about Ukraine and Iran,

but I think it's worth also remembering

that there are millions, tens and tens

and tens of millions of people, probably

what, 130 million people combined, 40

million in Ukraine, 90 million in Iran

>> Absolutely.

>> that are right in the heart of all of

this. And, you know, it's all well and

good me sat here in our big office and

studio lamenting about

what's going to happen to them, but

there are very real people that are

living there, trying to live their lives

amidst all of this absolute craziness

and chaos, and my heart goes out to

them.

>> And And Stephen, I just want to say one

of the most important things that's

happening is social media. Is not just a

problem, but you're seeing with your

show social media can be a tremendous

help.

On the times I've come on your show, we

have really laid out some pretty dark

scenarios,

and after the show, because of so many

people, what happens

the questions come to the key leaders.

One of the key things when I was on just

the last time in July, we talked about

we were just about to unleash a whole

series of attacks with CENTCOM to go

after Iran's drone network. This would

have been a disaster. This would not

have ended in improving matters here.

And there was tremendous momentum

building for that. And this was with

generals, others in the military,

ex-military. And I know because what

happened after our show is this changed.

And suddenly

what was the reality, the real issues

came to the fore. And that's one of the

big reasons I believe we didn't go down

that dark road.

>> Do you think it's because of

>> I think it's because of the diary. I

think it's because of the diary. And I

think it's not just the diary. I think

it's because on social media, what we're

able to do today that we could not do 20

years ago when we went into Iraq and

Afghanistan, is we're able to have

serious, substantive conversations where

we lay out the actual risks and

consequences, the true worst cases that

could come.

>> Have you been contacted by anybody at

the White House?

>> I've advised every White House since

I've advised every White House since

I've advised every White House since

>> you been contacted by the White House?

>> I've advised every White House since

9/11. And if there's any any contact I

have

>> letting you off the hook.

>> Any contact I have I can't I could never

ever And And let me just simply Let me

just simply

>> here all day, Robert. Have you been

contacted by the White House? You can

You don't have to tell me who. But since

you've come on this show, have they

contacted you for advice?

>> So I've been

I've advised Chief of Staff of the Air

Force and I've advised every White House

since 9/11. I'm incredibly proud of

that. And the fact of the matter is your

show

and your show among other shows, but

your show is a leading show,

raises the profile of the consequences.

And that is incredibly important as we

go forward.

>> going to ask you about the White House,

but have people contacted you in

positions of power?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Cuz I remember last time you were

on the show, I remember I asked you, I

said has this what would you advise this

White House? Have they Have they reached

out? And you said no to me when we first

met.

So subsequently, you've been contacted

by people in positions of power?

>> Anytime somebody in a position of power

reaches out

and that can be in America and outside

of America, it is an incredible honor

for me to give the best advice I

possibly can

and I will continue to do that

every day.

>> the White House?

>> I'm just telling you, Steven, that I um

um

I'm I'm I'm No, I'm not telling you I'm

doing that. I'm telling you that what um

I am

uh incredibly honored when people of

power reach out. And the fact of the

matter is um Steven, that the best way

to the best way the best way to

influence the world is not always behind

closed doors. It does happen sometimes.

I'm really trying to tell you that what

happens when we explain

the actual consequences or the danger

zone we're moving into.

This is how it raises

>> I'm saying. So are you advising people

in power in the United States?

>> I'm advising I'm just telling you people

in power have contacted me. It's been a

tremendous honor and I'm very glad that

to do that.

>> I'm glad that I'm glad they're

listening.

Are they listening?

These people in power?

>> Um Steven, um at some at some point at

some point at some point at some point

we're going to be able to look back on

this. We're going to be able to um say

how did we get through this period of

time? And we're going to have those

conversations. But the way we're going

to way we're going to do this is yes.

>> Listen.

I'm asking, are they listening?

Are the people you're, I'm not asking

who they are, what they're asking about.

I'm just saying, are they listening?

>> I'm telling, so the people in power who

have um contacted me, I do believe um

are listening, whether they're in the

United States or around the world. And I

do believe that again, I just want to

point out that one of the big issues

here is communicating

the true risks that we're running in

powerful ways.

>> Robert, thank you. Thank you for turning

the lights on for so many of us and

bringing and simplifying complexity.

It's also complex cuz there's so much

rhetoric and propaganda and stuff, so

it's nice to sit with lots of different

people that have lots of different

perspectives and have the wealth of

experience that you have and have it

laid out to me in a way that I can

really comprehend. So

hopefully we avoid

this escalation.

>> I believe this is how if we're going to

avoid it. I'm an optimist and that's why

I'm excited to be on your show, not

because I want to see the doom loop, but

because I want to see us come to a

better world.

>> I'm glad the White House reached out.

Thank you, Robert.

>> [laughter]

>> You tried. You did good.

>> YouTube have this new crazy algorithm

where they know exactly what video you

would like to watch next based on AI and

all of your viewing behavior. And the

algorithm says that this video is the

perfect video for you. It's different

for everybody looking right now. Check

this video out and I bet you you might

love it.