Speaker 1: Why from the Heart Blind and the Crossroads of America.
Speaker 1: It's Tony Katz today. So the only question is who
Speaker 1: controls the strait? Well, I guess maybe the only question
Speaker 1: is are we actually still at war with Iran?
Speaker 2: If nothing is happening?
Speaker 1: Well, maybe the only question is what is actually happening
Speaker 1: to begin with?
Speaker 2: Who's doing what? When we're why?
Speaker 1: And how can we get at least a straight and
Speaker 1: honest answer. Not what I want, not maybe what you want,
Speaker 1: and we could possibly be in conflicts. I love you
Speaker 1: either way, But what is actually happening? What is the goal?
Speaker 1: What is the objective of the United States, of the
Speaker 1: Iranians of the Middle East? And how do we get
Speaker 1: what we want? And does that mean somebody else has
Speaker 1: to get what they want? Tony Katz, Tony Katz today,
Speaker 1: Good to be with you. Stephen Yates joins us right now.
Speaker 1: You know his work over there at the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 1: Now his focus is China and China policy and China relations.
Speaker 2: But because of.
Speaker 1: That he has had a lifetime of understanding world relationships
Speaker 1: and how this geopolitics works, including from his time in
Speaker 1: the George Bush White House with Vice President Cheney. Let's
Speaker 1: break it down a little bit, Sir. I hear from
Speaker 1: President Trump that we control the Strait of our MOUs
Speaker 1: one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: There's no question about it. I hear from the Iranians.
Speaker 1: Or whomever it is speaking for the Iranians that they
Speaker 1: control the strait one hundred percent. I have got very
Speaker 1: little in terms of tankers going through the strait, and
Speaker 1: I have got oil that has been back above eighty
Speaker 1: dollars in some places eighty five dollars a barrel.
Speaker 2: Stephen Yates, who controls what well Tony?
Speaker 3: I think we've got a sort of perfect muddle to
Speaker 3: a degree, both sides telling the truth, especially from their
Speaker 3: point of view. And so the imperfect picture that we
Speaker 3: can put together is that there's more shipping traffic transiting
Speaker 3: the Strait of Hormus and oil and natural gas coming
Speaker 3: and going from the non Iran destinations than is being
Speaker 3: accounted for by private trackers. And that's partly due to
Speaker 3: signals being turned off on those vessels for security purposes
Speaker 3: and being escorted by the US military, And so the
Speaker 3: US government sources have higher numbers of the ships coming
Speaker 3: and going. In fact, over the last weekend, talking about
Speaker 3: at numbers that pre date the war and those the
Speaker 3: drop off that has held for several several months. So
Speaker 3: on the one hand, that's true. Militarily, we definitely have
Speaker 3: control of the Strait and we definitely have Iran pinned in.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, they are still completely capable of
Speaker 3: engaging in economic terrorism. And what I mean by that
Speaker 3: is all it takes is one off threats here or there,
Speaker 3: occasional attacks here or there, and it completely shapes the
Speaker 3: behavior of your adversary. Those adversary could be the insurance
Speaker 3: companies that jack rates so that ships don't want to move.
Speaker 3: That adversary could be regional actors that recoil and try
Speaker 3: to pressure the administration to engage in concessions and endless
Speaker 3: negotiations that by time for recovery. But this is the
Speaker 3: textbook definition of terrorism. You use the threat and reality
Speaker 3: of occasional force in order to get an outsized political, economic,
Speaker 3: or other strategic reaction out of your targets. And that's
Speaker 3: what leads to this stalemate.
Speaker 1: Let's take a step back in something you said, because
Speaker 1: I don't think people understand and I don't claim this
Speaker 1: is my area of expertise. We have more tankers that
Speaker 1: are going through because they're turning off the trackers.
Speaker 2: Walk me through how that works well.
Speaker 3: For though, there are apps you can go to on
Speaker 3: the internet, and they're certainly high priced commercial services that
Speaker 3: will give you very very clear data. And that's when
Speaker 3: everyone's sort of GPS signal is on and they can
Speaker 3: sort of like air traffic control, can see where every
Speaker 3: flying object is or seafaring object is. In this case,
Speaker 3: we're looking at the seafaring objects, and for both safety
Speaker 3: and the economics of scale of tracking things, they will
Speaker 3: have signals that you can be able to detect where
Speaker 3: these lumbering objects are that go on the sea. They're
Speaker 3: weighed down so heavily. I don't even understand the physics
Speaker 3: of how they float, much less move, but as they
Speaker 3: go they have signals on. So for security purposes sort
Speaker 3: of like going stealth, if you're in the air, you
Speaker 3: have all things turned off, and that's dangerous if you
Speaker 3: are at risk of bumping into things. But if you're
Speaker 3: being escorted by a military force, then you have less
Speaker 3: of that safety concern. So those international services are not
Speaker 3: in fact able to track where all of these vessels
Speaker 3: are when they are cloaked, or to have their signals
Speaker 3: turned off, and so some things are moving. Do I
Speaker 3: believe that they are moving at pre war levels? That's
Speaker 3: hard to fathom. You think that more of that would
Speaker 3: be seen and you would see more of that reflected
Speaker 3: in the markets. At the same time, as you noted
Speaker 3: the price of oil being in the eighties, that's way
Speaker 3: down from the one hundred plus of the panic rates.
Speaker 3: It's not down to sort of the fifty to seventy
Speaker 3: range that was sort of pre war, but it's ticklishly
Speaker 3: close to that, which tells me some things are moving.
Speaker 3: Whether it's the diverted fuels or whether it's the escorted ships.
Speaker 3: Some things are moving. So we're not seeing the picture,
Speaker 3: which fails the first rule of politics in my book,
Speaker 3: which I learned from TV. So it has to be true.
Speaker 3: It's not enough to do good. You have to be
Speaker 3: seen doing good. And it's hard for the war everyday
Speaker 3: Americans and even market analysts to see the good that's happening.
Speaker 1: You know how heavy that statement is, right, because you're
Speaker 1: talking perception versus reality. And this is where people who
Speaker 1: want to be all Trump all the time and people
Speaker 1: who want to be all against Trump all the time
Speaker 1: fail in the conversation talking to Stephen Yates to the
Speaker 1: Heritage Foundation. Because perception is reality. You're not wrong when
Speaker 1: you discuss where the oil prices are. We're not at
Speaker 1: one hundred and ten dollars a barrel, but when you
Speaker 1: tell me oil's got to be at seventy five dollars
Speaker 1: a barrel in order to be like, hey, look how oil.
Speaker 2: Prices are down. Gas prices are down. Everything's good, and
Speaker 2: we're at eighty five dollars a barrel.
Speaker 1: And we saw it go up because Iran is saying
Speaker 1: to the United States, forget you, We're going to do
Speaker 1: whatever we want.
Speaker 2: That is seen.
Speaker 1: That puts the president in a position I view of weakness,
Speaker 1: of perceived weakness. Never mind the idea of this back
Speaker 1: and forth. We control the straight, No, we control the straight.
Speaker 1: But go back again for a moment. You talk about
Speaker 1: it in insurance rates, and you talk about escorts. On the
Speaker 1: idea of escorts. This is I think where a lot
Speaker 1: of people have been. How is it possible that we
Speaker 1: don't have a series of destroyers just lined up on
Speaker 1: both sides of the strait. How have we not gotten
Speaker 1: the Saudis and others to line up some forces on
Speaker 1: both sides of the strait, and we just make sure
Speaker 1: that nothing gets through.
Speaker 2: We make sure.
Speaker 1: That the tankers get through, that the Iranians can't do nothing.
Speaker 1: They're finished, they're complete. We do it by force. So
Speaker 1: when you talk about escort, this is what people are asking,
Speaker 1: how is this not happening already?
Speaker 3: And mass It's a painfully clear and appropriate question for
Speaker 3: which I don't have a good answer, because it's exactly
Speaker 3: what I would have done months ago, and I think
Speaker 3: we have the capability to do so. I think we
Speaker 3: have been clear that our governing ethos is to press
Speaker 3: the free riders of the world that you are going
Speaker 3: to have skin in the game. You are going to
Speaker 3: put fuel in the tank. You are going to fight this.
Speaker 3: We are helping you, and you're going to pay for
Speaker 3: us helping you. And part of that is you're going
Speaker 3: to share some of the risk. We're not going to
Speaker 3: stand out here as the only targets. You're going to
Speaker 3: stand shoulder to shoulder in doing something that ensures freedom
Speaker 3: of navigation for you to thrive and your people to
Speaker 3: be safe. That is the way I understood that Trump
Speaker 3: Great Realignment was meant to be. It's something I am
Speaker 3: million percent agree with and strongly support. I think we
Speaker 3: have done some of those things, but we aren't doing
Speaker 3: enough of those things, and we aren't being seen doing
Speaker 3: enough of those things, and that, I think is the challenge.
Speaker 3: We have to move in that direction for this to
Speaker 3: be sustained. And I think that there is a way
Speaker 3: to not just spin a win, but for there to
Speaker 3: be a real transformation that people can be proud of
Speaker 3: and can hold and is worth it. But we aren't
Speaker 3: doing enough of what you just said that I completely
Speaker 3: agree with. Things should have been done long ago.
Speaker 1: Talking to Stephen Yates the Heritage Foundation Heritage dot org.
Speaker 1: His focus is China policy, but his history is that
Speaker 1: of full geopolitics in the region, whether it be the
Speaker 1: Far East or the Middle East. I am somebody who
Speaker 1: believes that we should have taken out the regime.
Speaker 2: And when this.
Speaker 1: First took place back in February, you were the first
Speaker 1: person I was texting with. You were the person I
Speaker 1: was reaching out to. I was preparing for a live event,
Speaker 1: and I was trying to get data from you to
Speaker 1: understand exactly what it was that I was seeing here.
Speaker 1: And I certainly believe then that taking out the regime
Speaker 1: is I think job number one. And when I talk
Speaker 1: about how the president is viewed here, and I know
Speaker 1: that the president does not like to be viewed as
Speaker 1: weak at any level in any place, there is a
Speaker 1: view here that he is. Because you can only talk
Speaker 1: about Iran can't get a nuclear weapons so much. In
Speaker 1: the end you have to end the regime that is
Speaker 1: trying to achieve this goal, and they may still be
Speaker 1: working at it if everything's possible. You know, right now,
Speaker 1: you can't say they can't have a nuclear weapon then
Speaker 1: leave and all of a sudden a centrifuge starts spinning up.
Speaker 1: Legacy is shattered. And this brought up a conversation that
Speaker 1: I had with Leland Vidder of News Nation. But the
Speaker 1: idea of will the IRGC the Iranians have the will
Speaker 1: to hold out and the United States doesn't have the will.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that in Toto because I haven't seen
Speaker 1: whether or not the president will or won'tes.
Speaker 2: All I know is he's not doing the bombings, but.
Speaker 1: He's still around, and he's still there, keeping to an
Speaker 1: extent his powder dry and waiting to see what happens.
Speaker 2: Is this a willpower fight? Is this about political wills.
Speaker 1: Is this about whether or not the president has the
Speaker 1: stomach for this, whether this is really in his desire
Speaker 1: in his wheelhouse? Where do you think the real battle
Speaker 1: is in terms of ideology between the GC and where
Speaker 1: President Trump is well.
Speaker 3: I think first there's a caveat for how to even
Speaker 3: talk about this. I think we have to be careful
Speaker 3: to fall into the traps of all or nothing kinds
Speaker 3: of lenses, because it's just not the way the world is.
Speaker 3: It's not the way warfare is, and it's not the
Speaker 3: way this mix of forces and pressures and other kinds
Speaker 3: of activities is going to play out. The war is
Speaker 3: always a bit about will and capability, and sometimes patients
Speaker 3: and patients can often be mistaken for weakness. It can
Speaker 3: be weakness, it can be appeasement. But it depends on
Speaker 3: what the ultimate aim is and are there measurable results
Speaker 3: in a reasonable period of time, And what is reasonable
Speaker 3: is subjective. That comes down to politics, domestic and international.
Speaker 3: So what I mean by all this gobbledegook I just
Speaker 3: sort of spewed out here is that the president has
Speaker 3: some very powerful things in place that we're not in
Speaker 3: place for the decade plus from the bogus Iran Deal
Speaker 3: to the present, we have maximum financial pressure in place.
Speaker 3: We've gone after bank accounts that matter in very serious,
Speaker 3: real and impactful ways. We have a blockade in place
Speaker 3: that has having a real and meaningful impact on the
Speaker 3: coffers of the theocratic regime in Tehran, and there is
Speaker 3: no indication any of that is coming off any time soon.
Speaker 3: And so that form of maximum pressure is greater than
Speaker 3: has ever been applied to this regime in the near
Speaker 3: half century of its existence. And is there a resolve
Speaker 3: to keep it in place indefinitely if necessary, to starve
Speaker 3: the regime of the resources and wait for them to
Speaker 3: be cannibalized by their people or among the power centers
Speaker 3: of themselves. That is not the timeline that we were
Speaker 3: led to believe at the beginning of this operation. But
Speaker 3: it is not appeasement, it is not weakness, it is
Speaker 3: not failure. It's just different and longer, and ultimately it
Speaker 3: might be what works. It isn't what I would have
Speaker 3: chosen in terms of the option set going forward. But
Speaker 3: it is not the sort of all or nothing kind
Speaker 3: of fork in the road that we instinctively go to
Speaker 3: when thinking about these things. There is more than one
Speaker 3: way to change this regime. There's more than one timeline
Speaker 3: on which to change this regime. The question is, can
Speaker 3: we hold allies, can we hold markets, can we hold
Speaker 3: our domestic politics? Do we have the resolve and the
Speaker 3: strategy to do those things to allow this longer, more
Speaker 3: patient path to work.
Speaker 1: And I would only argue that one of the things
Speaker 1: that the administration didn't do and should have done was
Speaker 1: explained why in much greater detail, made the full on
Speaker 1: appeal to America and said let's be in this together.
Speaker 1: But that is a political consideration I agree with, and
Speaker 1: I just they didn't do this because the president believes
Speaker 1: I'm doing this and everyone's gonna go with me and
Speaker 1: it'll get explained as we go. And that's just not
Speaker 1: how this works. But to the idea of the political
Speaker 1: concer iterations. Talking to Stephen Yates to the Heritage Foundation
Speaker 1: this story over at Fox News that you have Pakistan,
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia, and Turkey considering a pact to work together. Now,
Speaker 1: I have argued that the one thing that the president
Speaker 1: has done is he's rethought Middle East policy. He has
Speaker 1: forced the Middle East to rethink Middle East policy. Everything
Speaker 1: is now different. The Abraham Accords a huge part of
Speaker 1: this and getting rid of this regime, getting rid of
Speaker 1: this Iranian threat allows the Middle East to have a
Speaker 1: much more stable future. But if Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia are getting together, you could argue this is about
Speaker 1: trade and creating a world without an Iranian regime, or
Speaker 1: this is about creating a new power base to be
Speaker 1: able to deal with the fact that the United States
Speaker 1: might be the hegemonic power now in the Middle East
Speaker 1: once the Iranian regime is gone.
Speaker 2: What is your take on this alleged relationship.
Speaker 3: Well, Tony, if you'll allow a shameless plug and encourage
Speaker 3: people to listen to the latest Nation States with Yates
Speaker 3: and talks of about how the map of the Middle
Speaker 3: East was rewritten, we go into some of the deeper
Speaker 3: things that are behind the question. I think it's an
Speaker 3: important question you get at this, specifically this coalition Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan.
Speaker 3: Part of this is the peril of when you empower
Speaker 3: intermediaries to operate on your behalf, to try to come
Speaker 3: to what might be priest terms, whatever the status quo
Speaker 3: after major military operations are over, and we always have
Speaker 3: to be careful It's one thing to allow the good
Speaker 3: offices to convene conversations that otherwise wouldn't happen. But when
Speaker 3: you allow the intermediaries to drag your strategy, then I
Speaker 3: think you're putting a little bit of American strategy and
Speaker 3: interests at risk. And I think the administration is pulled
Speaker 3: back some from whether it was Oman, Pakistan or others.
Speaker 3: But they've been empowered and emboldened in some ways in
Speaker 3: recent months in ways they haven't for a long time.
Speaker 3: And of course American interests aren't going to be the
Speaker 3: same as Saudi Arabian interests, but Saudi has a big
Speaker 3: footprint in the Middle East, and we have to continue
Speaker 3: to kind of mind that garden, I think a longer
Speaker 3: term and it's better than putting our bets on the
Speaker 3: theocratic empire coming out of Tehran if that isn't stopped
Speaker 3: in the near future. So there is this mix. I
Speaker 3: don't like this alternative out there that they're floating. I
Speaker 3: think it is not a happy or friendly signal to Washington,
Speaker 3: which has reached out in good faith with all three
Speaker 3: of these governments, yes in the not too distant past,
Speaker 3: and has done some strategic things that very much benefit
Speaker 3: each of them and sort of float this idea that
Speaker 3: they are somehow the condominium that's going to shape the
Speaker 3: future of the Middle East that gets away from the
Speaker 3: Abraham Accords architecture and reason for being. And so I
Speaker 3: think some work needs to be, you know, to encourage
Speaker 3: some of these to put their horses back in the
Speaker 3: stable a little bit and let's finish what's right in
Speaker 3: front of us. And until that is resolved, then there's
Speaker 3: there's no point in you talking about these things. And
Speaker 3: we'd have to pull back on some of the friendly
Speaker 3: things we've offered to you if you're proving not to
Speaker 3: be helpful into doing something that matters to the United States.
Speaker 1: And I do absolutely believe that when we talk about
Speaker 1: a deal that has to be made, the deal that
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be made with a RAN, it has
Speaker 1: to be made with Saudi Arabia, Bakrain and the UAE,
Speaker 1: that they are going to be active participants in bringing
Speaker 1: an end to this regime and remembering who their friends are,
Speaker 1: they got to get some skin in the game. This
Speaker 1: is like the United States discussing how NATO nations have
Speaker 1: to pay for their own security against the Russians.
Speaker 2: Stephen Yates.
Speaker 1: Find them at Heritage dot Oregon. Of course, Nation States
Speaker 1: with the Yates. The podcast available on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2: Good to see us, sir, we'll talk soon. Keep it here.
Speaker 2: This is Tony Katz today