Defense & Aerospace Report Podcast [Mar 20, ’26 Washington Roundtable]

0:00Welcome to the defense and aerospace report watching to an around table, I'm your host Vagomaradian. The U.S.-Israel war on Iran is entering its third week as energy markets are being reordered in the wake of strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure and a backup of ships unwilling to brave the straight of four moves. The administration is asking Congress for a $200 billion supplemental to cover war costs, as it also prepares a $1.5 trillion 2027 spending request. A rift emerges between Washington and Jerusalem after President Trump said that Israel was responsible for the attack on Iran's carg island, prompting Tehran to strike Gulf energy facilities, including Qatar's massive Rosalafan facility that's lost 17% of its production capacity driving a spike in gas prices. Israeli jets are also reportedly striking Iran from Azerbaijan. The administration has dispatched the USS Tripoli and its accompanying ships with more than 2,000 Marines aboard from Japan to the Gulf where they are expected to play an

1:03important role in the multi-step process of resuming traffic through the strait. A week after saying no to participation in a mission to reopen the strait, leaders from Europe and Japan are now saying maybe. The scramble for energy a week after Washington lifted sanctions on Russian oil has some European leaders arguing it's time to resume energy trade with Moscow, rising energy prices and lifted sanctions are already replenishing Moscow's coffers as the rate of U.S. and Israeli weapons use has raised concerns in Kiev and across the alliance. Israel is also pressing ahead with its Lebanon campaign against Hezbollah that has displaced 1 million people about a fifth of the country's population. Japanese Prime Minister Sunny Tekkiychi visits the White House as U.S. intelligence officials testify on Iran, China and Taiwan. Joining us today to discuss all this and more are Dr. Patrick Kronin, the Asia-Pacific Security Chair at the Hudson Institute of Think Tank, Michael Herson, the President

2:04of American Defense International, one of Washington's top defense and aerospace lobbying firms, former Pentagon-Europe chief Jim Townsend who is now at the center for a new American security and a co-host of the Brussels-Rats podcast, a must for anybody interested in the transatlantic alliance, and former Pentagon comptroller Dr. Dov Zachime, who counts the Center for Strategic and International Studies among his many affiliations, and before we get started, a quick word from today's sponsor, L3 Harris. L3 Harris is the trusted disruptor in defense tech, with customers' mission critical needs, always in mind, L3 Harris delivers end-to-end technology solutions, connecting the space, air, land, sea and cyber domains in the interest of national security. Learn more at L3Harris.com. Everybody, thanks very much for joining us. As always, Michael, start us off. This war is now heading into its third week and likely to spend many more weeks as energy prices continue to spike. We've seen the latest and the long-stream of failed efforts to stop the war by, you know,

3:09somehow naively assuming that the Congress would impose its war powers capacities against the administration. The administration is asking for $200 billion in supplemental spending to cover war cost, which administration officials, as well as Republican leaders, see as an excellent opportunity to paint Democrats as unpatriotically undermining troops in combat, unless they vote for this big spending package. Anyway, walk us through how much support there is for this supplemental request. And what are the politics of this going to be as they unfold, right, unless anybody's missed it? We're, you know, in election season, we've just had primaries to determine who's going to go for what jobs and who they're going to be a couple more of them coming along the line. What are the dynamics up there on this? So look, the supplemental is going to be very complicated when, you know, finally does come to the hill. I mean, look, we talked about this last week. The numbers are still a bit unclear, right?

4:10We thought last week, it would be somewhere around 41 billion to 50 billion. Now the number is as high as 200 billion. And now we're told that that number will also not include replacing things like the three F-15s that were accidentally shot down other damage that has been done. So the war costs are going to be even much higher. But you know, the problem, the president for Republicans is also to figure out how to get this done. So there's a big part of the Republican party that wants to get this done through reconciliation. I've said repeatedly that I think that they're going to spend their wheels on reconciliation by I think reconciliation is doomed to failure and I think that would doom the supplemental to failure. I think the only way to get it done is to regular order. And that also right now seems to be extremely difficult because you won't, don't even have a majority of Republicans that are going to support this right now because many of them are going to want to find spending offsets and administration is really doing nothing to try and get Democrats to come on board to support this. And you were going to need them to get this passed. Now, there is some talk about adding some sweeteners to the supplemental, like adding some farm aid. You know, farmers have been hurt already by the tariffs, but now they're also getting

5:13affected by the closure of the straight-of-hardmoose because a lot of fertilizer comes through the straight-of-hardmoose and those prices are skyrocketing as well. There's also talk about adding some California wildfire money to that. But either way, right now, Democrats seem firmly opposed. For example, Congressman Smith, who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, came up very strong against this yesterday, and he actually mocked House Republicans for actually putting a balanced budget amendment, trying to put a balanced budget amendment on the floor yesterday. Right. He mocked them for the tax cuts that were in the big, beautiful bill. And then, you know, he also said he was opposed to a $1.5 trillion defense budget. Now, you want to put $200 billion on top of this while you're cutting Medicaid or cutting food stamps. Since you want to have a conversation about raising taxes to pay for it, then he'd be willing to talk about that. Now, he's encouraging Democrats to be opposed to this. Now, at the same time, look, the ministry is going to have to change their messaging on this. They're going to have to engage Congress Republicans and Democrats. And, you know, right now, they're doing the opposite.

6:15Pete Teig says had a press conference yesterday where he said the objectives have been clear from the beginning. No, they have not. Like, we talked about this yesterday last week, where Rubio came out with objectives, March 9th, which were different than the objectives that the White House sent in their memo to Capitol Hill. And Hex said that the same thing yesterday, he listed three objectives, destroy their missiles and their ability to make them annihilate the Navy and make sure that they can never get a nuclear weapon. Those are three. Like I mentioned, the White House memo to the Hill had four. It also said that they would ensure that the regime's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region of the world. So what happened to that? And, of course, Hex has met a lot of its time with criticized. In the media, he attacked previous presidents like George W. Bush, Obama. He attacked Biden. He attacked Biden for depleting U.S. missile stocks and that he gave too much to Ukraine that he thought that those munitions would be better spent in our own interests at this point. I would argue that a lot of people in Capitol Hill would argue that supporting Ukraine is in our interests and is actually talking about adding money for Ukraine to the supplemental package to help get it done.

7:17And, of course, you know, Hex says once everybody to say thank you to President Trump. He said that the world, the Middle East, and our grateful allies and segments of our press should just say one thing to President Trump, thank you. Well, that's not going to get them support on Capitol Hill from Democrats and even some Republicans. And the same goes for the president. I mean, the president came out last week saying that the war was started by Barack who's saying Obama and Joe Biden. And we've been fighting it for 47 years and he's the one who's going to put it into it because he's the peace president, right? And then, of course, he went on to say that he predicted the trade of our moves would be used as a weapon. And he predicted that 9-11 would happen that Obama, that some of it would knock down the World Trade Center. I mean, just nonsense, which again, and on top of that, saying that he didn't predict the fact that the Iranians would strike the Gulf States and they were shocked that they fought back. I mean, this is not in still a lot of confidence on Capitol Hill. And lastly, he continues to attack Zelensky, you know, who is trying to help us in this effort. And Zelensky is sending experts to us and now it's been reported that the administration

8:18wants to forge closer ties with Putin and Russia as a hedge against China, which is not going to go over well on Capitol Hill. I mean, I don't want to give a history lesson. But the Russians have never been our friends. They weren't even our friends World War II. They're Hitler's allies, you know, first. And, you know, these are people that committing mass rape in Ukraine. They're kidnapping children. They are castrating POWs and cutting their ears off. These are not the people that we want to be close to. And America is better than this. I appreciate that. And the Ukrainians have sent some 200 specialists to try to advise us, as well as said, with the help with technology, the President already is on record saying that, you know, nobody could have expected that the campaign would unfold this way or they would attack the state of Hormuz. Even though this is stuff on the record, the President says whatever he's going to say. And the, you know, folks on the hill go along with it. So what indication do we have that they wouldn't go along with this?

9:18Because when I talk to Republicans, they tell us the brilliance of this integrated strategy that Venezuela is part of the China strategy that it's time for reverse Kissinger. You know, it's sooner we rip the bandaid off the better off we are. So I mean, you know, and if you have an opportunity like this, this allows you to hit the button. I'm going to ask Jim about this, Bart DeVaver, the Belgian Prime Minister, who, you know, was restricting Russian assets that have been in Belgian banks from being released or somehow used in order to help Ukraine, right? He's one of the loudest voices saying, hey, it's time for us to sort of turn a page and go back to relying on cheap Russian energy at the end of the day, right? And it, which, you know, makes just nonsensical because Russia is still is going to be your adversary. So I mean, I understand you're saying this is going to be difficult. Why would it be difficult? Republicans have shown themselves to do pretty much whatever the White House and this President

10:24has asked them to do. And if they don't, you get primary instantly as is happening in real time now. It is, but the primaries are coming to an end. Number one, although there will be primaries through in some states through August. But look, the dynamics are different here, right? I agree with you. I am frankly disappointed in a lot of the discussions I've been having with Republicans on Capitol Hill about this conflict, right? That they really are not questioning, you know, what the reasons for going in and the shifting goals and objectives and the fact that the President has not tried to unify the American people, let alone unify the Congress. But that being said, you know, he would get the vast majority of Republican support. That is still not enough to pass this either through regular order or through reconciliation. If you talk about last week and reconciliation, he can only afford to lose one vote. And he's going to lose that in Thomas Massey. So all it takes is one more Republican, the vote no, and that's easy, right? Because there are plenty of Republicans who are not running for election who are free agents and plenty who probably wouldn't support other things that would be in this reconciliation

11:24bill like some of the spending cuts that would be required as offsets for the spending increases. And then through regular order, not their Democrats will go along with it, like a Federman. No, not not not for reconciliation, right? And also, look, Federman wouldn't be enough in the Senate, right? I mean, you would need in the Senate through regular order, you need 60 and you're just not going to get that in the Senate and you're not going to get a majority in the House through regular order right now because some of the conservative Republicans would want this 200 billion paid for. They would want offsets and who are hearing that from some, for example, chip royals to be the head of the Freedom Caucus who's now running for Attorney General in Texas. He's a free agent and he wants to see what the offsets would be. So I think they're the only way, in my opinion, to get this done is for the administration to come to the Hill to make the case, to get Democrats on board and figure out how we lock arms to get this done because it's going to be essential that we replace our stockpiles. I would, I would, I would also like to inherit a unicorn pony who can grant me all of my wishes. But the last side, I don't see, I don't see that happening either, but hope

12:29springs eternal. I'm going to, I'm going to come back to you in just a second. I understand where you're coming for this. By the way, there should be regular order now that the president hasn't endorsed either a cornon or packs them. It's going to be interesting to see whether John Cornon goes back to being a traditional Republican senator that wants to maintain regular order and preserve the filibuster as well, right? It'll be, it'll be interesting since the president has not yet decided. And, you know, I suppose you could decide. I mean, the primary is next week or the, or the runoff is next week. Excuse me, or the, or the deadline is expiring. Sorry for, for one or the other to drop out. Dov, let me bring you into this and Jim and Patrick can come to you pretty quickly as well. You were a comptroller on 9-11 and you were in the comptroller chair when the Iraq war not only began, but the mission also changed. The lesson appears that you always in a supplemental should be asking for more money than you think you need because pretty,

13:30pretty much you come back pretty quickly to ask for more money. We know that the first few days of the war and Elaine McCusker totally nailed this 11.5 billion in the very, you know, first few days of the conflict that it's been running at about a billion dollars a day as well. What do you, what do you make of the supplemental request? Why such a large number? And doesn't it suggest that this war is going to last, is going to be a much longer war than a shorter war? Well, absolutely. Look, if you're, if you ran 11.6 billion in six days, then you are roughly about a billion a day. And if you ask for $200 billion, what does that tell you? And so if you're thinking 200 days, that's six months, more than six months. So even if it's two billion a day, that's three months. So this is going to be a much longer war than than people realize, but there is another little catch to it. Very

14:30often, a supplemental also includes stuff that should have been in the base budget in the first place. And so if there are things that are not being funded to the level that maybe the services want, they always have an, a priority list, an unfunded priority list, you'll bury it in the supplemental. Because obviously, if we're talking a billion a day and the lanes of McCusker is, is pretty smart. And the number is just back her up, then you're really talking 200 days. And I cannot believe it's going to run that long. I think if it did, that oil prices would remain through the roof. Mr. Putin would do well out of it. And nobody else, maybe later on in this podcast, I can talk about why the Israelis don't mind that. But we certainly will. And the rest of the world certainly will. It's just not going to

15:32happen. And so I suspect that either that number is going to come down or it's covering for a lot of other programs that for whatever reason might not be as part of the base budget or might not be getting as much support on the hill as the, as the war department would like. Jim, you're joining us from Paris and last week French officials and other European officials. And that this was Washington's war that they wouldn't be participating in it. After Donald Trump said that their lack of participation wouldn't bode well for NATO. It appears that opinions have changed, right? The EU has released a statement as saying it would support reopening the strait. Okay. You know, and everybody was touting this. This is how Europe says no to Trump. Okay. So which is it? Are Europeans supporting reopening the strait? If so, what does that mean? Right? I mean, the president has gone both ways on this. He wants folks to participate. Has said the future of NATO depends on that

16:36participation. He's brought Japan into this. And Patrick, I'm going to come to you in just a second. On the other hand, you know, he says we can do this without their participation as well. And pretty much every analyst said the United States could do this by itself. It just runs a higher risk of stretching a very stretch Navy, which is very busy. I mean, we've got a lot of destroyers. Well, we don't have that many destroyers, but we have more destroyers than anybody else, but China. Anyway, what is it? What is it that Europeans are signing up to do and what not? And what does it mean? Well, there's a lot of wheels within wheels working here. And this is kind of a sequencing thing. But so make it a little simple. Let's take NATO out of the picture. The whole NATO gambit in there was a just a Trump misunderstanding as usual about how NATO works, et cetera. This is not something NATO was going to do. It's not going to be a non-article five operation like Afghanistan. It was this is not what's going to happen for the with this situation. But what he's

17:39really referring to are the NATO allies themselves as nations and IE a coalition. That's what he really wants is a coalition that could that could help out. And so the end it, but you know, the initial response by the allies were all over the place because they hadn't really consulted as much as they normally do. So the first words from capitals were, well, this is in our war, this Berlin said that, you know, Starmer was all over the place. You can't use our bases. Spain said no bases. The French, I mean, it was a it was just a dog's breakfast of responses. But I think as they began to consult with one another and particularly with the EU, and they began to watch the flalax going on with Trump trying to figure out what to do and realizing, I guess, two things. One is the Europeans do have a bit of a palsy here where they don't want to totally alienate the United States. What they're not going to do though is go kiss his butt the way they've been doing in the past.

18:43That's something they have decided is they're not going to do. But at the end of the day, the goal is still to keep the US alongside the Alliance one way or another, both in NATO, but also having a working relationship with the allies. So that is has been a goal. The second thing that they've realized is that if Trump really screws this up and loses control and they feel there's already a loss of control here, that the straits will not be opened and then we're going to have a big economic fallout in Europe too. It's already here. Gas prices and that type of thing. And then the third thing I think over the past 2448 hours has been the Iranian strikes back in the Gulf. These retaliatory strikes that against the energy facilities up and down the Gulf in the various Gulf states, which really accelerated and showed that there's plenty of fight left in these Iranians and that this could really go south if allies don't jump in and try to help out. And so I think what we saw yesterday

19:49in the statement that was released by some of the core allies was that the doors open. They couched it. They couched it in all the diplomatic terms that they need to have at home. The legalities of this, the multinationality of this, trying to clope this in things that Trump should have been doing to get them along. But they did it themselves in this note. And so the doors open, but they're saying we don't want to do this until there's a ceasefire. We'll see about that. I think that might have been their opening gambit. I'm not sure there's a ceasefire in any time soon in the future. But anyway, the doors open and we'll just have to see what Trump says in return. And if Trump returns to bashing them, this could turn them around in the opposite direction. So for God's sake, if I could talk to Marco Rubio just for a second, please take Trump out of this and please have the US Navy take it over in terms

20:55of a maritime operation like we do counter-piracy where the Navy puts together a pretty big maritime operation against the pirates. They could do something similar in the Gulf. But let's try to take the US politics out of this and get practical. Okay, I believe there's zero chance of that happening. And if Marco Rubio could have figured out a way to control Donald Trump, I think that that might already have happened. I don't believe there's any doing that. Even if it's a welcome or understandable sentiment. The White House also lifted energy sanctions temporarily and has said that, hey, we'll reimpose them. Although there are those who say it's time for us to really hit the reset button, right? No time like the present. We have European leaders saying it's time for Europe to go back to buying Russian energy. And leading that charge is a man who helped stymie the use of Russian funds. As I mentioned, to try to help Ukraine, Belgian Prime Minister, Barclay Vavir, Hungary and other nations are also very eager to resume energy trade with Russian. Indeed,

22:00some nations are on Ukraine for not repairing a destroyed Russian pipeline. A pipeline that was destroyed by the Russians, I would note. And somehow holding a key of libel, the weapons stocks are running low. We're pulling weapons stocks or might even be diverting new production weapons to this conflict that allies and partners are supposed to get. Anyway, I mean, how is this going to play out? And our nation is going to go along with normalizing energy trade with Russia, even though Russia constitutes a threat. And how many people in Europe believe the administration strategy that somehow they're going to manage to turn Russia against China in the course of doing this? That this is a reverse Kissinger moment? Well, I don't think there's a lot of reverse Kissinger talk right now. I think there is this talk about impact on Ukraine of the Russians having all this money all of a sudden. Number one, and then number two, a double whammy, that the patriot missiles and

23:04this type of thing are going to be a really short supply. And so the Ukrainians are going to have to stand in line with others, with the US at the head of the line to replenish our stocks. So I think I think what nations are more worried about is Ukraine. In Europe, Ukraine is number one, particularly with the larger allies and those along the frontier. Ukraine is number one. They want to help Ukraine get there. I mean, the Belgians aside, and that's a Belgian thing. But I think they're more worried about making sure that Ukraine stays strong and is continuing. It's offensive right now. You know, they're gaining ground. It seems every week that the Russians are in other parts of the line, but the Ukrainians are not standing still. So I think that just to respond to your specific question in terms of energy, this type of thing, I think maybe in their fantasy world here in Europe going back to the old days of cheap gas and oil sounds great. But I think

24:06cooler heads are going to say not if it's going to enrich Putin because he's the existential threat to us. And we're not going to do something like that. You know, we're not going to save the world at our expense. So I think they're more focused on Ukraine's impact than anything else. Patrick, thanks very much, Jim. And I'm going to come back to you in just a little bit. Patrick, how is all this impacting Asia? Right? I mean, when it comes to gas and energy flows, the biggest customers obviously are in Asia. It appears that the Iranians are allowing Chinese ships, for example, to go through in a couple of weeks ago, we discussed whether or not there's going to be a confluence of interest between China and European nations to get their oil through the strait without being targeted. Last week, Sunny Takiichi was saying that she did not plan any time soon to participate in a mission. She visited the White House. And it's not still clear

25:07whether Japan is going to be sending ships or not, right? Even though she has drawn kudos for sort of expertly managing the president. Anyway, how is this all? What are the dynamics that are playing out? As energy prices continue to go up, gas prices are up, as I mentioned, the Qatar fields have been impacted, which are very important gas producers. These facilities are not known to be easily able to surge. And once you shut them down, it takes a long time to restart them. And the same goes is true for broader energy production. Anyway, I mean, what are the dynamics as they're playing out here? And how badly are they impacting China? Because again, when you listen to folks and what they're saying from the administration, their message is this is somehow hurting China. And that's a net positive. Well, moving from the general to the Pacific, the Asian economies that are driving the global economy are dependent on oil and energy through the Gulf. They are deeply exposed. They were ill

26:12prepared for this shutdown. And if this is a protracted shutdown, they're all in trouble, and so is the global economy. If you want to know about inflation, I mean, just try to book a flight to Asia for next week. The prices have doubled on everything just instantly. So if that endures, it's going to be a huge shock. Nobody was prepared. And Japan is more exposed than any country, 90 percent of its energies coming through the Gulf. So of course, Prime Minister Takichi is doubling down on the alliance and making sure that she is satisfying the President who didn't make any formal request from her for sending ships, because he understands the constraints. And also she just tallied up more than now $100 billion of investment this year. So far, in American energy projects, both small modular reactors and also in natural gas plants that will help fuel AI data centers. So that's not nothing. But they still have to have a longer term plan for securing energy in every country we can think of in Asia that produces

27:15for the global economy, China, Japan, Korea, for starters, Taiwan, highly dependent on this Gulf oil. So they need energy strategies. They need to contribute. And how they contribute remains to be seen, because that partly depends on what scenario we're dealing with. Even if Japan wanted to send destroyers to, you know, and mineswapers to the Gulf, it would take weeks to get there. So we're talking about about the time of the Shangri-La dialogue in one June this year. And people in the defense officials are sitting in Singapore presumably. What will they be saying about the escorting or the flow of energy projects from the Gulf through the Strait of Malacca? Because that'll be at the front and center of the strategic thinking and the industrial and energy and economic policies of these countries. We're also worried, they're also very worried by the way about our debt. I mean, America's now racked up $39 trillion of debt. As much as we're talking about adding $200 billion in seeking this from Congress, most of this debt is money is going

28:17to be added to the American debt. Who's going to pay that debt? You know, so there are some longer term repercussions that are of great concern. And let me just offset that though, but if you're in China's position, you're still very deeply worried. You've just exposed the fact that it's the United States Navy, not the PLA Navy, that ultimately controls the choke points and that the energy flows are absolutely essential for China and China cannot guarantee a security of them. And also China's partners around the world, Venezuela, Iran, maybe Cuba, there's nothing that China's doing effectively to follow up their words in their economic development with hard power. So China's not feeling secure and they're still hoping to get President Trump to a summit sometime in the next couple of months, so they can preserve stability, make sure they've got the economic growth at least stable enough that they can keep modernizing their military and avoid some kind of domestic revolt.

29:18How significant is the delay of the summit just briefly? I mean, did is it a big deal? Not a big deal heck up. Well, yeah, well, I mean, there's no guarantee the summit will happen, right? I mean, because you know, one thing after another, on the other hand, eventually the Chinese and American leaders will meet, they still need each other for some kind of semblance of economic stability. And indeed, Nvidia has been ramping up production of the H200 chips in the expectation, they'll be that'll be part of this economic package that eventually Trump and Xi will sign. But nobody's expecting a grand bargain or break through. This is why the Taiwan discussion we can come back to is still very important because China does still hope to come out with a better strategic position from that summit, but not necessarily a big change in the economics. And again, I mean, one of one of the things that is stressed over and over again is the president has said this himself, there will be no conflict between the United States and China,

30:22at least not on my watch. And then the question is why there wouldn't be. And I want to get into a military capability question in a little bit because I think that we still have reserves, but we are using up things, including the US military at a rate that, as we've discussed, could allow for some significant vulnerabilities if we cannot refill our stocks as quickly as everybody anticipates doing so. Dov, let me come back to you and a question that I should have asked you a little bit earlier was this seeming divergence between the US and Israel in this campaign. Let's get real. The US and Israeli war planners are sitting elbow to elbow either literally or figuratively in operation centers in order to be able to coordinate military operations. This significant defense secretary hex set said 7,000 strikes. And yet, the Israelis are the ones that

31:28hit the Carg Island facility. And as a consequence, Iran retaliated against Qatar and a number of other countries, Saudi Arabia as well. And UAE obviously getting hit. Ali Larjani, the national security adviser also was killed and I believe it was an Israeli air strike. And the Israelis have made it clear we're just going to kill our way through the list until we get a crop of, I guess, somewhat more malleable leaders, even though Larjani was seen as one of those sort of more, one of the leaders that could have helped bridge this transition depending on who you talk to. Anyway, how significant is this rift between Israel and the United States? It looks like one of the reasons we're bringing in USS Tripoli and those Marines is maybe to take Carg Island and hold it as a ransom and effectively, right? You don't want to blow up those facilities because it looks like the administration is trying to structure this campaign actually to end up as it did in Venezuela

32:31to be, you know, and as it might do in Cuba to sort of control the resources, right? This isn't to allow democracy, I don't think, which might be a complexity in this, might be a fly in this ointment, an orderly transition and to be able to control Iran's oil appears like it might also be a priority in order to be able to steer outcomes through that. Anyway, what's talked to us a little bit about the split between the two and whether the strategic goals are actually like that, that's actually the strategic goal because the administration has made it clear whether in Ukraine or Venezuela or Cuba and here in Iran, we just want to regime that's aligned with us and, you know, has opportunity for American industry and if you look at Iran, you know, depending on what leadership you have in there and what levers you can pull, right? I mean, one of the reasons we're interested in lifting all sanctions and normalizing relations with Moscow is they're going to spend $12 trillion or more to revitalize Russia with US industry. Anyway, what's your sense on both of those?

33:38Well, the rift has been reported by Steve Erlangur, who's a pretty damn good reporter. There are a couple of things here that you need to unpack. The first is the fact of a rift is very real because Israel's a regional power with regional objectives. They want to get rid of the regime. We're in a world power. We care about the fact that Japan doesn't have oil. We may even care about the fact that China doesn't have oil. And so there's already an inbuilt split and this, I think, goes to the heart of why Joe Kent is so wrong about saying that Israel started this for a very simple reason. Netanyahu has been wanting this and I've spoken about this ever since I've been on this podcast. He's been wanting this for years to basically wag the dog. Trump in his first term said no. The reason Trump said yes now was simply because the Biden administration told Trump that the Iranians were trying to kill him. And so we know Mr. Trump thinks about Mr.

34:43Trump and he wanted revenge. And that's why he tipped off the Israelis. And then he decided, look, there's a lot more I can do. I can be the hero that stops the nuclear program. Now Netanyahu has already given a press briefing, public briefing that said they've pretty much stopped the program. They've pretty much taken out so many of the launchers. He's not that worried about that. But he's also not worried about the Strait of Hormuz. And the reason is he's actually said we'd like to see a pipeline through Israel and avoid the Strait of Hormuz. Well, that's not an American position. Maybe not even an Israeli position. That's an Netanyahu position. So he wants to get rid of the regime where that is not the strategic priority of the White House. Okay. He's not uptight about the Strait of Hormuz, which is a strategic priority of the White House. And so you can see where Erlanger has said what he said. Namely, there is a split. And it seems to me that the one night mayor,

35:48yes, they're working next to each other because we're still doing the same stuff. But remember, Mr. Trump was not happy about the bombing of any Iranian oil facility. And look, it from an Israeli point of view, that necessarily wasn't a good thing either because it risked alienating not just the Qataris who aren't friends with Israel, but all the other producers who either were close like the UAE or almost close like Saudi Arabia. But again, if you're thinking, well, I can get a pipeline that'll go through Israel, you're thinking in a very different way from President Donald Trump. So I do think that there is some kind of split. And just wait, when Mr. Trump decides, I cannot tolerate $119 per barrel. And oh, by the way, yes, the allies are now saying, they're going to, and I'm going to quote here, we express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts. Boy, is that diplo speak? Then I'm going to do a damn thing

36:54until there's a ceasefire. And the Germans and Italians have already said so explicitly. One possibility, that Mr. Trump, I would advise Mr. Trump. And I've written that in my piece in the hill today. You know what? Turn around to these countries and say, if you play with me in the straight of Hormuz, I'll lower your tariffs that I've imposed on you. It's going to be very tough for them to say no. And I should point out that it was also Israel that struck the storage tanks, oil storage tanks, which Iran has then used as justification, right? So I mean, that's precisely my point. Trump did not like that at all, because that was totally counterproductive to what he is trying to achieve. It's not at all clear. I know the president has said he like regime change, but I think what you said earlier is absolutely right. It's not so much regime change as a change in regime attitude to the United States. That's very different. That is not Israel's

37:55objective. It is not. And, you know, I mean, in the 35 or so years that I've covered international security, I would point out, right, this corner of Israeli thought, indeed, among some in the United States, about or against Iran, you know, that they, you know, that we're not starting a war, we're finishing a war that began and noting, for example, the Marines that were killed in Lebanon and many, many other people. I think there's plenty of iron to go around for Iran. I mean, the question is how you actually execute this without causing the lid to come off. Let me just ask one follow-up question of you, Dev. So at first, some voices in the Middle East or in the Arab Middle East or in the Gulf were saying, hey, don't do this, even if Israel was sort of saying do it. And now the reporting is that now that you've started this, you have to finish it, right? And

38:58that's whether that's coming from the UAE or the Saudis. I don't know if the Ahmadis and Qataris agree because they're sort of getting zonked also. Anyway, where do we stand? Because depending on the footage you see, right? It suggests that, you know, there are some munitions that have been fired from the UAE that have ended up in Iran, which the Iranians are not happy with, right? I mean, they maintain that there's missile fire that they've taken from there and they're responding to it. And there are green e-videos of jets that could be in the service of nations other than the United States and Israel that are also involved in this. I should say full disclosure that, you know, some of these aircraft are on defensive patrols and the French have, I think 24 refalls in the region now to, you know, help support defensive operations purely. Anyway, so at what, I mean, do the Gulf nations more overtly get involved in this? And if so, what does that mean?

39:58I don't know that they'll get overtly involved, but there's no, let's start. Any more overtly involved than they already are, right? I mean, please. Yeah, look, there are reasons for this. Let's start with the UAE. They've never forgiven the Iranians and it was under the Shah for taking those islands, the tombs and the third island, which immediately escapes me, it'll come back, Abu Musa. And so there's a bitterness there, particularly in Abu Dhabi, not in Dubai. And there is friction between the leaders of Dubai, the Machtums. And I think I mentioned this last week and the Nions, because the Nions have this resentment, the Machtums, they did business with Iran. So this friction there, but you can see why the UAE is doing what it's doing. In the case of the Saudis, it's a different equation. The Saudis are the leaders of, and not just Sunni Islam, they see themselves as the leader of Islam. I mean, what's the formal name

41:01of the king of Saudi Arabia, the protector of the two holy mosques? That is not how the Iranians see it. So there's a religious element there that is quite different from the UAE. So yeah, you could see where both of those countries would like the Israelis to finish the job. They'll hide behind the Israelis and behind us to the extent that we're going to do it. But as I say, we're not into finishing the job the way the Israelis are. So in a certain respect, those two countries in particular, and Bahrain, I would add, as well, because Bahrain doesn't do very much that the Saudis don't do. Those three countries would be delighted if Israel did what it did, and they are more close to Israel on that particular issue, I would argue, then they are to the United States. I would note that after midnight hammer, having talked to Dobson Mutual, uh, uh, senior, uh, former, uh, uh, or former senior Israeli leaders, uh, was it was great except

42:08we don't know where the 400 to 500 kilos of 60 percent are in their H.D. Uranium are, right? If it's buried great, if it's not, it's problematic, and it looks like the Iranian, and there may or may not be a shell game. I mean, it is extraordinary how effective U.S. targeting and intelligences to figure out where folks are. I think there are a lot of folks inside. There's been a lot of very good Israeli reporting on how, um, you know, the Israeli secret services have worked in harnessing, um, uh, you know, getting, getting help in, in, in this entire operation. But it was two, two quick points then. First, again, BB announced yesterday that they've taken care of the nuclear problem. He wants more. Uh, the second point is the Israelis are going after all the, uh, internal, the leadership that deals with internal security. And the reason for that is they want chaos there because they still would like to see some kind of overthrow of the regime.

43:13Again, not necessarily an American priority. Uh, Indy, then, uh, that striking, uh, police departments and also, uh, Basige, uh, which is, uh, the militia that sees that that kind of stuff. Um, Jim, uh, just, uh, very briefly, right? Um, European contribution to this, right? I mean, it's interesting. The French, uh, have put forces there in order to be able to operate in a defensive, uh, capacity, you know, France again showing that it's got some elasticity, 15 ship task force, the aircraft carrier deployed 24 aircraft forward, uh, along with support personnel and like. Anyway, I mean, what, what is it that folks should know about what the Europeans are doing? Sort of somewhat behind the scenes, if you will, uh, to protect their, uh, citizens at the end of this very, very briefly. And then Patrick going to come to you. Uh, and then we've, we've got to go to Michael, uh, because there's a whole bunch of domestic stuff that we've got to talk about as well before we part. Well, uh, very quickly. So, uh, the, uh, the, the navies of,

44:16many of the allies have sortied, uh, into the area over the past week or so, not to support Trump, not to be offensive and part of this, uh, effort, but to protect their own interests and to show that they are able and willing to protect their own interests in the region. So, uh, they're protecting their people that are there and the French have a lot of people that are in the Middle East, uh, but they've also, uh, want to show that they've got the military capability and that they're not, uh, you know, they're not hollow forces. And so, there was a, there was a, uh, prestige effort here. And the French have really shown that. I mean, they've really sortied, uh, their navy out there and, uh, and the Brits have shown that they have, they're in real trouble with the Royal Navy. They were able to get one ship out, uh, out of the yard working night and day to get it out and they were able to do that. And it's heading to the Middle East now. But that's just the one ship from the Royal Navy, the rest have not been able to go. So, uh, so, but I think the point that those got to be made that a lot of the French ships are,

45:18are part of the carrier task group. So as long as that carrier is out there, these ships are going to have to be, uh, nursing her. They're not going to be able to go out and separate to go to the Gulf. So, so if there's going to have to be some planning logistics done for everyone, I think that, there's an Italian ship that is part of an EU task force against the Houthis. Uh, and so, uh, I think, I think we are weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks away from any kind of multinational naval show, uh, in the Gulf area. Uh, they've got logistics to worry about. And I know the planners have gotten together. I read somewhere where the planners have already are working on what's needed and how are they going to replenish the ships and what the mission is for crying out loud. We have Marines coming in and, and I guess they kind of figure out what they're going to do. So, they're in the early, early days of putting something together. And I think there'll be other navies that will be joining as well. Uh, so we'll have to see about that. But, uh, but they're on the move. Uh, and as, and I want to say that what Dove said is exactly

46:20right, uh, in terms of the Diplo speak in that note that the only thing, the strongest thing I took out, it is that the door is open to this. But, but, but, but, but, but, but at the end of the day, they do want to seize fire. And I just don't see that even on the horizon. So, so those things are moving. But even if they had a seize fire and we're trying to move quickly, it's going to take a while before those ships are going to be on station. Uh, thanks, uh, very much for that, Jim. Uh, Patrick, uh, let's, uh, talk a little bit about, uh, the intelligence briefing and what it is, uh, we learned, uh, given everything that's going on in the Indo-Pacific. I thought it was interesting that, uh, senior intelligence leaders either danced around it or, uh, you know, indicated that they did brief, uh, senior leadership on threats. Uh, anybody, I think, who knows, um, you know, senior military leaders would, would have been clear and conveying, uh, the, uh, you know, both option sets as well as risks. Anyway, what were the important

47:20Indo-Pacific related headlines, uh, that came, uh, from those intelligence briefings and, and anything else, uh, very, very briefly because we're going to go to Michael next, uh, because he too is as perishable as everybody else is on this call. Well, I think the main intelligence assessment on China is something I agree with that as of right now, China's posturing still for eventual unification of Taiwan, shorter conflict, but it has no intention of invading Taiwan in 2027 and it doesn't have a fixed timeline for that kind of approach either. It doesn't have the amphibious capabilities to undertake that at any acceptable risk. And you could add the extent of the purges of senior leaders has really meant that the PLA, uh, is not ready for prime time in terms of a conflict and that may await even on the White House's assessment as well in terms of this is the right time to be able to take some risk in the Gulf when, uh, China's not really prepared to act with hard power in East Asia. Uh, it, at the same time, uh, did some damage to the US-Japan

48:24relationship by, uh, making a politicized assessment that Prime Minister Taki Ichi's formulation on Taiwan as an existential threat constituted a, quote, significant change of policy on the part of Japan. That's China's perception. It's not the reality and it, it wrankled, uh, with the Prime Minister, but, uh, it, it'll be short-lived. Um, I think, uh, beyond the DNI's assessment and all the intelligence, um, there are a lot of other countries that are moving on different actions. Uh, Korea is one of them. It's interesting to think about how the, uh, the surface to air missile defense interception rate for the South Korean system in the UAE is judged to be about 96%. And so now this is set Korea, which has become such a big arm supplier, uh, into a political, uh, arena that it's not fully prepared for. Now, now what? I mean, what is the guarantee that it has to be providing enough systems for interceptions amid an ongoing conflict? Uh, and that's some of the questions that are

49:24being asked in Korea, which is a country where they've also had nice words of support, but they're essentially saying, Washington hasn't formally asked us for anything, uh, and we're not really prepared to do it. They send, by the way, one, uh, sejong class, uh, destroyer, uh, deep blue sea, uh, destroyer basically for counter-piracy. That's not really well suited for the, uh, the counter-mind mission. They probably want to send their, their other, uh, destroyers for that if they end up, uh, being part of an international convoy. Um, thanks, uh, very much, uh, Patrick, uh, and uh, hope you have a great weekend and a great week and, uh, see you next week. Um, Michael, let's, uh, quickly, uh, hit all, uh, the big political, uh, stuff that also, uh, is, uh, going, uh, to happen, uh, over the next week. Right? I mean, we have Department of Homeland Security funding that's still uncertain. We have Mark Wayne Mullen, uh, going through his confirmation hearings and, you know, everything in Washington is all interconnected at the end of the day anyway. Uh, walk us

50:26through the dynamic. Okay. So, um, uh, the DHS shutdown continues. Um, Democrats, earlier this week, uh, criticized the White House's latest, uh, counter-proposal, uh, and they said just falls short of addressing their concerns. Uh, the White House has had a counter-proposal shortly after Democrats had sent one to them. So there is conversations they are going back and forth and the negotiators have been, you know, keeping everything pretty close to their chest. But we do know that the White House agreed to expand the use of body cameras and to limit ICE operations around what they could sort of sensitive locations like schools and hospitals. And the Trump administration said it would increase oversight of DHS detention facilities and enforce the use of visible officer identification during operations and require officers to identify themselves and their agency when requested. Also, uh, during Mark Wayne Mullen's, uh, confirmation hearing, he actually indicated he reversed a controversial Trump administration decision, allowing ICE agents to enter homes with only an administrative warrant. Um, you know, that's a big sticking point

51:30for Democrats. But despite that, um, you know, Democratic leaderships, uh, continue to dismiss what Republicans are offering to just meet, uh, several of their, uh, key demands. Um, like, I think if anything's going to happen, it on a break here is going to happen this Senate. All right, now I talked to a senior member of the House Democratic leadership yesterday. They are in Transigent and they also feel that the Department of Homeland Security has a lot of reconciliation money and they can repurpose that money as they see fit. They could use it for TSA. Uh, and they feel that they can use it for Sissa. They feel the administration is purposely inflicting plain on the American people. And actually, uh, the Democrats are, uh, just unveiled the discharge petition to try force vote and legislation that would fund, uh, all of the department, you know, again, except for ICE and, and CBP. I do not believe that they're going to get the requisite signatures on that. I don't think any Republicans are going to cross over. Um, and then, uh, you know, as far as the Senate goes, you know, look, I mean, the White House borders are Tom Homan did meet with a group of Seniors Democrats to try and cut a deal. Uh, and, you know, they're trying to go around

52:30Schumer and work with the Democrats that broke, uh, previously to reopen the government. Uh, Homan, you know, as said, he's going to continue to negotiate with them. Uh, Thun is now threatening to keep, uh, the Senate in session during the upcoming, uh, two great, if recess. He's actually going to keep Seniors in session this weekend, uh, to work on Save America Act, which is destined for failure. And now he's saying that he may try to keep people in, uh, next week when they're scheduled on recess to try and, uh, figure out a way to reopen the government. So, I mean, to, to reopen the department. So we'll have to wait and see. And, uh, Michael, uh, talk to us about, uh, SBIR. Obviously, those are the small, uh, business, uh, instruments that allow, you know, innovative companies to grow. Unfortunately, you know, they, they help you get to a certain point, but, uh, Subbers, uh, won't allow you to, uh, get, uh, past a certain point, which has, uh, been a little bit of a frustration, uh, you know, it doesn't help entirely get you through the valley of death, uh, even though there is a robust debate about who should make it through the valley of death or not. Anyway, what, what's, what's next, uh, you know, where have we been with

53:35SBIRs? Where is it, we're going to end up with them, right? Because that legislation expired for a bit, didn't it? It expired for almost half a year, uh, right? Expired at the end of the fiscal year. So this is actually one piece of good news to end our, our, our podcast on, right? I mean, the House passed the reauthorization earlier this week, overwhelmingly three, five, uh, three, forty five, the forty one. This was after the Senate had also voted to reauthorize it. Um, you know, the question now is does the president sign it when it comes to his desk is where the president said he won't sign any legislation. Let's say that comes to him first. Regardless, it would still become law after seven days. Um, but, you know, under the bill, you know, federal agencies, you know, they have a large research budget, just like the department defense, but also healthy human services and, uh, the part of energy, they're required to set aside millions of dollars to award to small businesses. Uh, you know, the program also is called the America's seed fund, you know, so with the small business administration leaves it, it's designed to support innovation and distributes about two hundred million dollars each year at the start-up. So this is good news. Uh, for defense industry, it's good news for innovation and

54:38good news for small business. And, uh, Dove, there's one thing I know that you want to add, uh, go ahead and we should have talked about it higher up in the program, even though I had it in the introduction. Well, they seem to have attacked, uh, the Iran, the, the, the Israeli seem to have attacked the Iranians and the Caspian Sea. Uh, look like they're operating out of Azerbaijan. And the real question is, are these Israelis really spreading themselves far too thin? The Houthis haven't even jumped in yet. Now they're operating in the, in against Iran directly, uh, against in the Caspian Sea. Don't forget Gaza. Don't forget Lebanon. They are biting off an awful lot more than they possibly can shoot. Um, is there, so let me, uh, just quickly, then everybody gets 15 seconds about this and, and then we'll talk more about it next week. Patrick is the US military spreading itself too thin and raising some serious challenges. I mean, this force has been going for a year. It is consuming munitions and a large rate,

55:40keeping carriers and deploying carriers. I mean, the Ford is about to break USS Midway's 1973 record for longest deployment ever and that was during the Vietnam War. Um, and we have seen time and again, if, if you use your military hard and you put it away wet, you have readiness and a whole series of other problems that come with them. I mean, ships cannot easily be generated, especially nuclear carriers. I mean, thankfully, the Ford is a new ship and has more gas in the tank. Anyway, I mean, just really quickly, are, are we exposing ourselves to other potential headaches? If we, if we, you know, and especially if you're somebody who keeps talking about deterring in the Indo-Pacific, this would suggest the administration is not particularly worried about the Indo-Pacific, frankly. Resources are finite. Of course, we're raising the risk, else we're including in Asia, but we're making that maybe a calculated risk. We're firing faster than we can replace. The cost exchange ratio is bad, and we're spending faster than we can make money. So all of those things are adding costs, but they are bearable provided those risks don't materialize in the short to midterm. Great. Thanks. Dov, really quickly and then Michael,

56:48you get the last word. I totally agree that we're taking on a risk. I worry whether that risk is really great, because remember, so far, this war has open ended, and we're going through munitions like crazy. We are already creating a terrible problem for Ukraine. They're not getting, they're not going to be getting the munitions they need, while Putin gets more and more money for but then of course, as Patrick said, I mean, what happens if the Chinese do decide to move in the next couple of years, and we don't have the munitions or the forces to deal with it because we've been exhausting them? Michael, how are lawmakers thinking about this and what's your sense? All right, so look, there's been a concern on the Hill now for quite some time that even before this conflict that we have been short-changing missiles and munitions, that we didn't have enough to supply ourselves, the Ukrainians, the Israelis, and Taiwan. And then we go into this conflict, again, knowing that we probably would be stretched very, very thin. But I think it's been,

57:54it's a question of more than just munitions. We talked about stretching the force thin in these long deployments. The question is, at some point we decided, is the size of the force right to meet the challenges that we face global? I mean, remember, at the end of the Cold War, when we reduced the act of duty military from 2.1 million to 1.6, and created the base force that was to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously. That number was then arbitrarily cut by Bill Clinton to 1.4. So we have not had a force structure that could meet the national security strategy since then. And now our force structure is at 1.3 active duty. And the reason we're lower is that was the reason we made the military smaller just to make recruiting goals. So I think we need a whole fresh look throughout what is it the military is trying to achieve across the world and what size military and what equipment capabilities do we need in order to achieve those objectives? The fresh look. You had the new look. You now have the fresh look. I had that. Trump can have this. And we can talk about the budget in greater detail next week. And I know that there's going to be

58:55plenty to discuss next week. Guys, thanks very much. Have a great weekend and a great week. And we'll see you again next week. And thanks to all of you for joining us. We appreciate it very much. Tune in again over the weekend for the business round table. They're obviously going to be a lot of headlines that we're going to be taking a look at. And also take the opportunity to check out our award winning weekly podcasts. Cavist ships co-hosted by our own Chris Cavist and Chris Survello and sponsored by HIA and GE Aerospace. So clear the fog on Naval and Maritime Matters. The downlink with lower winter takes a thoughtful look at all things space sponsored also by L3 Harris and the air power podcasts that I co-host with our own JJ Gertler that sponsored by GE Aerospace. Thanks very much again. I hope everybody is a great weekend and we'll see you again soon.