Transcript

Iran War Expert: If This Escalation Continues, 2027 Will Be Devastating! | Prof Robert Pape

From The Diary Of A CEO · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 29 min · 13,919 words · 153 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Iran War Expert: If This Escalation Continues, 2027 Will Be Devastating! | Prof Robert Pape", an episode of The Diary Of A CEO published November 5, 2026 (1 h 29 min, about 13,919 words). It mentions 103 people, works and ideas, including Donald Trump, United States (states), Ukraine, Violent Populism, Iran.

What this episode is about

A political risk expert warns that escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran, amplified by a contentious post-election transition and potential European retaliation, could trigger broader war dynamics and a devastating trajectory into 2027. It outlines how election results, looming emergency powers, and geopolitical moves by Russia and Europe may intensify conflict opportunities.

Key takeaways

  • Transition weeks concentrate power struggles; misreadings empower violent actors—calm, transparent processes defend democracy.
  • Escalation risk isn’t symbolic—emergency powers and foreign adventures hinge on a fragile domestic consensus.
  • One party control can tame extremes; divided government acts as an internal brake against reckless foreign policy.
  • January 6 reverberates: historical echoes magnify present risks, but turnout and institutions determine whether echoes become detonation.
  • Public psychology matters: stockpiling and fear are leverage points for demagogues; informed skepticism weakens them.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: Donald Trump, United States (states), United States Senate, Political Violence
  2. – 20:00: Donald Trump, Stephen Bartlett, Escalation Trap, Midterm Election
  3. – 30:00: Donald Trump, Stephen Bartlett, Instant Thunder, Cryptocurrency
  4. – 40:00: Stephen Bartlett, Tel Aviv, Donald Trump, Instant Thunder
  5. – 50:00: Ukraine, Stephen Bartlett, Iran, Iran War
  6. – 1:00:00: Violent Populism, Ukraine, Political Violence, January 6th
  7. – 1:10:00: United States (states), Stephen Bartlett, Insurrection Act, Iran War
  8. – 1:20:00: Donald Trump, Stephen Bartlett, Russia, Europe
  9. – 1:29:24: Stephen Bartlett, Robert Pape, United States (states), Escalation Trap

Notable quotes from "Iran War Expert: If This Escalation Continues, 2027 Will Be Devastating! | Prof Robert Pape"

  • 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…
    about Donald Trump · at
  • 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…
    about Escalation Trap · at
  • 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.
    about Transfer of Power · at
  • It's the eight most dangerous weeks because political violence especially in the era of violent populism when tens of millions of Americans support political violence on both…
    about Political Violence · at
  • 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?
    about Iran · at
  • 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 Kev…
    about Ukraine · at
  • 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.
    about Violent Populism · at
  • 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 Trump.
    about Congress · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Donald Trump — Person · Referenced political actor · 33 mentions · first at
    Central actor in the episode's scenario: his potential post-midterm decisions (strikes on Iran, Insurrection Act, emergency powers) drive many escalation risks discussed.
  • Robert Pape — Person · Main guest · 7 mentions · first at
    Primary expert explaining escalation dynamics, violent populism, and risks across Iran, Ukraine, and U.S. politics.
    We are about to enter the eight most dangerous weeks in our lives cuz the US midterms will determine the fate of President Trump's administration. And the most dangerous time is the.
  • Stephen Bartlett — Person · Host · 39 mentions · first at
    Interviewer guiding the conversation, asking clarifying questions and prompting scenarios week-by-week.
    Robert Payne, 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.
  • Vladimir Putin — Person · Referenced foreign leader / escalation actor · 3 mentions · first at
    Actor whose decisions in the Russia–Ukraine war could interact with US/Iran dynamics; discussed as likely to escalate against Ukrainian infrastructure if unable to secure territorial gains through deals.
    This is when Putin escalates. This is the most likely time after Putin is sure that Trump can't deliver any more territory. This is right around Thanksgiving. This is a likely possible.
  • Jalani Hussein — Person · Historical reference · 4 mentions · first at
    Used as a case study for 'Instant Thunder' (1991 air campaign against Iraq) to explain how high-intensity air campaigns were intended to paralyze regimes but failed to fully incapacitate them.
    And this looks to me an awful lot like what was instant thunder. the 3-day, it was supposed to only be a three-day plan that opened the war against Iraq in 1991.
  • Volodymyr Zelensky — Person · Referenced leader · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced as the Ukrainian president whose willingness to cede territory is discussed in the context of Putin's goals and the Ukraine war.
    Deliver it, but he can't do that on his own. only Ukraine could deliver that territory. For Zalinski to truly surrender that territory, there's a good chance he'll be killed by his own people, his own military, his own because.
  • Ayatollah Khamenei — Person · Referenced Iranian leadership · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced indirectly as the supreme leader whose death/targeting could complicate negotiations and command structures in Iran.
    In the aftermath of the tens of the 10 million plus who came out to support the supreme leader, they called for revenge.
  • Vice President Mike Pence — Person · Referenced political figure · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as the vice president whom some rioters wanted to target during January 6; used as an example of a focal provocation that sparked political violence
    Transfer of power. We saw it come to a head on January 6th, and that occurred over a two-month process. It was when the voting stopped and the counting began and then the…
  • Lyndon B. Johnson — Person · Historical example · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced as a historical parallel (Vietnam escalation trap) to illustrate how presidents double down when losing wars to avoid legacy damage.
    President Trump and MAGA, but we saw this with Lynden Johnson in the Vietnam War. Lyndon Johnson went through a very similar game of roulette where he kept doubling down as…
  • Joe Biden — Person · Referenced political figure · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as the winner of the 2020 presidential election in a historical example (transfer of power/January 6 context)
    Aisle. The most dangerous time is the transition of power. And we saw this 6 years ago with January 6. It's important to remember that in November 2020, President Biden was…
  • George Floyd — Person · Illustrative recent spark example · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced as a focal incident whose aftermath (protests) demonstrate how a single spark can generate mass protests that spread widely
    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 6 as an example. What happened on January 6 is President Trump used his rhetoric, a tweet on December 19th,.
  • Wes Streeting — Person · Referenced politician / commentator · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced in relation to UK official advice (stockpiling) — host asks if the guest agrees with the preparedness messaging tied to Wes Streeting's comments.
    Going to increase energy prices. This is going to these are not disconnected events anymore. Is that why I think it was Wes Streeting that said we in the UK need to stock up on this stuff.
  • Charlie Kirk — Person · Referenced public figure (assassination example) · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as an assassination (transcript says 'the assassination of Charlie Kirk') to underline increased levels of targeted political violence in recent years
    Prevent Trump from being president. I've been doing these national representative surveys for 5 years. These numbers are double what they were in September 2024, two years ago.…
  • Pete Hegseth — Person · Referenced cabinet-level example · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned (misspelled in transcript as 'Hegsth') as an example of a cabinet/head figure whose position could be vulnerable to congressional action in the event of midterm changes and investigations
    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.
  • Jimmy Carter — Person · Referenced historical analogy · 1 mention · first at
    Used as an analogy for a president who would be weakened/ineffective (host suggests Trump could become 'Jimmy Carter and Lynden Johnson combined') to illustrate political consequences of defeat
    He becomes Jimmy Carter and Lynden Johnson combined, the worst president that we've ever had in anything like any of our lifetimes. This is a huge problem for any president to just simply.
  • Rodney King — Person · Historical reference · 1 mention · first at
    Used as an example of a localized triggering incident (police beating) that produced riots in a single city, contrasted with wider spread violent populism
    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…

Books & papers

  • Our Own Worst Enemies: America in the Age of Violent Populism — Book · Referenced work / author's book · 1 mention · first at
    Pape's recent book on violent populism, cited as authoritative background for his claims in the episode.
    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 of the.
  • Bombing to Win — Book · Referenced prior work · 1 mention · first at
    Pape's earlier book on air power and coercion that provided analytical foundation for discussion of bombing campaign effects and escalation.
    So you I've got your book here bombing to win air power and coercion in war and you actually spent a long time modeling what would happen if the US decided to bomb Iran before they did.

Companies & orgs

  • United States House of Representatives — Company · Legislative chamber · 7 mentions · first at
    Part of Congress whose control affects checks and balances; referenced in discussion of impeachment power and legislative oversight.
    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.
  • United States Senate — Company · Legislative chamber / check on presidency · 6 mentions · first at
    Senate control figures into the ability to remove executive branch officials and block or enable presidential actions; discussed in context of impeachment/removal.
    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…
  • YouTube — Company · Platform referenced · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced in the episode meta/context (host's channel/subscriber appeal) and at the end by host describing algorithmic recommendations — platform hosting the show and driving reach
    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…
  • Pentagon — Company · Referenced defense institution · 3 mentions · first at
    Referenced regarding the origin of the '3-day plan' (Pentagon contingency) and military planning for strikes on Iran.
    Come up with that plan originally and are still pushing that plan. It says, The 3-day plan is a Pentagon military contingency for a rapid, highintensity aerial campaign against…
  • Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — Company · Referenced Iranian military actor (IRGC) · 3 mentions · first at
    Named as one of the types of targets (IRGC command centers) in the discussed 3-day strike plan against Iran.
    Aerial campaign against Iran if post-election negotiations break down, presumably the midterm elections. It is designed to hit missile sites, drone launch hubs, IRGC command…
  • Central Command — Company · Referenced military actor (CENTCOM) · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in relation to military planning — described as having orders to execute strike plans within a set timeline if given a presidential 'go' code
    Happened in multiple of the frontline Gulf states. The second big thing that's happened is he has asked the military for a detailed set of attack plans.
  • The New York Times Magazine — Company · Referenced media source · 2 mentions · first at
    Cited as the outlet that reported on suspected Iranian-linked cyber attacks that caused domestic outages (Minnesota water/power incidents).
    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…
  • Supreme Court of the United States — Company · Referenced institutional check · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as part of the U.S. constitutional checks and balances that are not elected and would play a role in restraining executive power
    Very easily. It's not just about passing laws, Stephen. It's about a system of check and balance. The way the constitution was set up is that the congress and the president and…
  • Time Magazine — Company · Referenced media source · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as publishing an interview where President Trump said he might invoke the Insurrection Act; used as supporting evidence for domestic escalation credibility
    So, President Trump just to put 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.
  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security — Company · Referenced government department · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned indirectly as an example of cabinet-level positions that could be targets of congressional action or instability (heads could be impeached/removed), and generally part of domestic security apparatus discussed
    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…
  • CBS News — Company · Referenced media source · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as reporting that Israeli officials linked the Dubai/Tel Aviv flight incident to Iran (used as evidence in the discussion of inspired vs. command-directed attacks)
    Command directed. Some of the best information we have is come from the pilot himself. So now that he's healing, he's giving interviews here and he is describing a situation…
  • Poly Market — Company · Referenced example of prediction markets/crypto links · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned when discussing Trump's family's involvement with prediction markets and crypto, illustrating potential financial incentives behind escalation decisions
    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.
  • CNN — Company · Referenced media example · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in the context of historical media-management by the Pentagon and interactions between journalists and officials during wartime coverage.
    There was a big effort by the 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 up to the 2003 Iraq war, this.

Products & tech

  • Scud — Product · Referenced weapon type · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned historically (Iraq's Scud missiles) to illustrate limits of air campaigns and difficulty of stopping missile attacks following air strikes
    The time when Sodom Hussein after we did this is when he bombed sites in Riad. So this is when his personnel were killed in Riad. And in fact we could never stop the Scud missiles of Iraq.
  • Hendrick's Gin — Product · Mentioned consumer product (possible ad/context unclear) · 2 mentions · first at
    Detected as a product mention in the extraction hints but not substantively discussed in the transcript excerpt; appears incidental

Concepts & topics

  • Violent Populism — Concept · Core topic / explanatory framework · 12 mentions · first at
    Framework used to describe how large segments of the population support political violence and how that combustible material can be ignited by sparks during transitions of power and international crises.
  • Political Violence — Concept · Core topic · 8 mentions · first at
    Broad topic that includes violent populism, inspired attacks, and domestic unrest invoked to explain how political grievances manifest as mass violence.
  • Escalation Trap — Concept · Analytical framework · 8 mentions · first at
    Key explanatory concept Pape uses to show why incremental attacks by strong states against weaker ones can produce perverse incentives and deeper, harder-to-stop escalation.
  • Transfer of Power — Concept · Process / timing vulnerability · 6 mentions · first at
    The certification and seating period after elections identified as the highest-risk window for domestic political violence and attempts to block or influence outcomes.
  • Congress — Concept · Institutional actor · 10 mentions · first at
    Key governing body referenced as a political actor in the episode
  • Insurrection Act — Concept · Legal mechanism / risk factor · 4 mentions · first at
    Law that could enable use of federal troops domestically; discussed as a credible option Trump has not taken off the table and thus a source of concern about troops on US streets during transfer of power.
    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…
  • Midterm Election — Concept · Timing mechanism / political term · 8 mentions · first at
    Explains U.S. election timing and why the midterms create a two-month transfer-of-power window that is particularly risky for political violence and executive incentives to escalate.
    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.
  • Democratic Party — Concept · Opposing political faction · 5 mentions · first at
    Potential victor in midterms whose control of Congress would check the presidency and create incentives for President Trump to escalate to retain power.
    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…
  • Republican Party — Concept · Political faction · 4 mentions · first at
    Party of President Trump; control of Congress by Republicans impacts his ability to act and his incentives to escalate to retain power and influence.
    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.
  • Cyber Warfare — Concept · Core topic / threat vector · 3 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a major mode of escalation (power and water outages, attacks on infrastructure) that could drive public demand for retaliation and broaden conflict.
    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…
  • Air Power — Concept · Military strategy topic · 2 mentions · first at
    Subject of Pape's scholarship and used to analyze bombing campaign expectations and limitations (3-day plan, Instant Thunder analogies).
    So you I've got your book here bombing to win air power and coercion in war and you actually spent a long time modeling what would happen if the US decided to bomb Iran before they did.
  • Inspired Attack — Concept · Threat subtype · 1 mention · first at
    Describes attacks that are not command-directed by a state but are motivated by public calls for revenge or sentiment (e.g., alleged plane incident), key to predicting decentralized violence.
    What an inspired attack 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.
  • World War III — Concept · Hypothetical risk framing · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the worst-case scenario if major powers directly attack each other's homelands and militaries rather than fighting proxy wars; used to stress stakes of escalation.
    Not in World War II. We have war happening around the world and in major parts of the world. What World War III means, when the world's largest powers attack each other's homelands and their militaries kill each other, directly engage each.
  • MAGA — Concept · Political movement · 2 mentions · first at
    Movement underpinning Trump's political base; referenced as 'chips' he risks and as a driver of domestic support for potential use of force.
    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.
  • Suicide Terrorism — Concept · Threat type discussed · 2 mentions · first at
    Used to characterize inspired attacks (e.g., alleged attempt to crash plane into Tel Aviv) and to explain motivations and signs of such attacks.
    Yes, I think it's very strong and this is what I mean by inspired attacks.
  • Proxy war — Concept · Contextual historical comparison · 2 mentions · first at
    Explains how current conflicts (Iran, Ukraine) have elements of proxy warfare and how proxy wars differ from direct state-to-state wars (World War III scenario).
    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.e. Britain just announced…
  • Roulette — Concept · Analogy · 3 mentions · first at
    Pape's analogy to explain irrational escalation behavior (doubling down) contrasted with chess to illustrate escalation trap dynamics.
    At each rung, President Trump has made a bet. He's bet that if he attacks the Supreme Leader, kills the Supreme Leader, this will weaken Iran. It didn't work. He lost the chips. So he bet on a.
  • Posse Comitatus Act — Concept · Legal constraint referenced · 3 mentions · first at
    Referenced via the doctrine of Posse Comitatus and the general U.S. reluctance to use federal military forces for domestic law enforcement; contrasted with the Insurrection Act which would permit domestic troop use
    The insurrection act is where the president has emergency powers to use the US military or as I said national guard or the reserves within the borders of the United States against the.
  • Checks and Balances — Concept · Governance principle · 2 mentions · first at
    Explained as the constitutional mechanism limiting presidential power when different parties control branches of government.
    Wouldn't be able to get his laws passed very easily. It's not just about passing laws, Stephen. It's about a system of check and balance. The way the constitution was set up is…
  • Cryptocurrency — Concept · Economic factor · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced as part of Trump's and supporters' financial exposure; flagged as fragile to political fortunes and a factor motivating escalation.
    So that was the first point. The second point is the crypto. So, President Trump has made enormous money for himself and his family on various investments and a lot of it is in crypto and crypto.
  • Houthis — Concept · Referenced militant actor / proxy · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced as an Iran-aligned group that has directly targeted civilian infrastructure (e.g., strikes on Riyadh airport terminals), illustrating escalation and targeting of civilians.
    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…
  • Impeachment — Concept · Political mechanism referenced · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a tool Congress could use if Democrats take power, increasing pressure and instability for the presidency.
    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…
  • Chess — Concept · Analogy · 6 mentions · first at
    Used as a contrasting analogy to roulette to explain why viewing strategy as chess misleads decision-makers about escalation dynamics.
    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.

Places & events

  • United States (states) — Place · Primary national actor / setting · 22 mentions · first at
    Source of policy decisions, domestic political dynamics (midterms, transfer of power), and potential domestic deployment of military (Insurrection Act).
    We are about to enter the eight most dangerous weeks in our lives cuz the US midterms will determine the fate of President Trump's administration. And the most dangerous time is the.
  • Ukraine — Place · Theater of a second concurrent war · 15 mentions · first at
    Site of Russian attacks and threatened civilian infrastructure targeting; interaction with Iran/US politics is a source of global energy/cyber escalation risks.
  • Iran — Place · Primary adversary in discussed scenario · 9 mentions · first at
    Target of proposed US/Israel strikes, source of retaliation (Houthis, inspired attacks, cyber), and focal point for escalation dynamics affecting global energy and conflict spread.
  • 2026 United States midterm elections — Event · Catalyst / timing mechanism · 6 mentions · first at
    Timing of vote counting/transfer of power creates domestic incentives for escalation and is presented as one of three converging risks in the episode's eight-week danger window.
    We are about to enter the eight most dangerous weeks in our lives cuz the US midterms will determine the fate of President Trump's administration. And the most dangerous time is the.
  • Russia — Place · State actor / escalation source · 9 mentions · first at
    State whose military actions and cyber/campaigns are central to the episode's second major theater of conflict and global escalation risk.
    Lastly, what happens 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.
  • Iran War — Event · Core topic / geopolitical event · 8 mentions · first at
    Ongoing conflict used as a central example of escalation traps and source of cascading global risks (energy, cyber, inspired attacks).
    That are coming out about the 3-day plan are consistent. The 3-day plan is President Trump is describing here. The plan that's on his desk is a plan to hit targets in Iran over…
  • January 6th — Event · Historical precedent · 6 mentions · first at
    Used as a precedent to illustrate how transfer-of-power windows can spark large-scale domestic political violence and the dynamics of violent populism.
    Political violence on both sides of the aisle. The most dangerous time is the transition of power. And we saw this 6 years ago with January 6. It's important to remember that…
  • Russia-Ukraine War — Event · Concurrent conflict amplifying risks · 2 mentions · first at
    Ongoing war whose possible escalation (targeting power infrastructure, cyber) could interact with Iran/US dynamics and contribute to wider conflict or retaliation by Europe.
    Results, but also a plan that's on his desk is a plan to hit targets in Iran over a 3-day period. And as the Iran war is escalating, now we have the issue of this is a likely…
  • Instant Thunder — Event · Historical analogy / military plan referenced · 5 mentions · first at
    Used as a point of comparison to the 3-day plan; Instant Thunder (1991-style rapid aerial campaign) exemplifies how a short bombing plan can expand into a prolonged campaign and fail to paralyze an opponent.
    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…
  • Europe — Place · Regional actor / potential retaliator · 8 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a region that could be pressured to retaliate against Russia in response to cyber attacks, which could escalate into a major interstate war.
    Will start to back here against Russia and then Russia may start to punish the supporters of Ukraine and Europe including right here in London, right here in Britain. And…
  • Tel Aviv — Place · Target referenced in inspired attack example · 6 mentions · first at
    Location mentioned in the alleged attempted plane attack that is analyzed as likely an inspired suicide attack targeting Israel.
    Remember, it's a 3-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.
  • Israel — Place · Referenced state / conflict actor · 4 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as a potential target and as part of the US-Israel potential strikes on Iran; referenced in the Tel Aviv plane incident discussion.
    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…
  • Strait of Hormuz — Place · Strategic chokepoint referenced · 2 mentions · first at
    Control of the Strait invoked as leverage in Iran's retaliation and as explanation for effects on global oil and gas prices when Iran exerts control.
    The weaker country gains power. And in this case that happened almost immediately as Iran gained heavy control of the straight of form and with it heavy control of 20% of the world's oil.
  • Tel Aviv Plane Incident — Event · Illustrative inspired-attack example · 2 mentions · first at
    Used as a concrete recent example of an 'inspired attack' (co-pilot assault on flight from Dubai) showing how individuals may carry out terrorist attacks amid escalation.
    Yes, I think it's very strong and this is what I mean by inspired attacks.
  • World War II — Event · Historical analogy · 3 mentions · first at
    Used as a reference point to explain the scale of direct-state retaliation between major powers (if Europe retaliates against Moscow it would resemble World War II).
    Not in World War II. We have war happening around the world and in major parts of the world. What World War III means, when the world's largest powers attack each other's homelands and their militaries kill each other, directly engage each.
  • Saudi Arabia — Place · Regional actor / example of embassy evacuations / target area · 3 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as a frontline Gulf state where personnel/families have been removed and as a target area in regional escalation dynamics.
    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…
  • Iraq — Place · Historical theater / comparison · 3 mentions · first at
    Referenced regarding the 1991 Instant Thunder campaign and broader lessons about air campaigns and civilian casualties.
    Infrastructure targets where it was meant to paralyze Sodom Hussein's regime. This is exactly the air campaign that has been at the heart of many air strategists since the 1991…
  • Britain — Place · Referenced state actor / public preparing nation · 3 mentions · first at
    Referenced for its government advice (Be Ready campaign) urging citizens to stockpile supplies in anticipation of infrastructure/cyber threats; used as evidence governments are preparing for escalation-related disruptions
    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…
  • Odessa — Place · Geographic reference in Ukraine conflict · 2 mentions · first at
    Named as one of the Ukrainian cities Putin might target by attacking electric power infrastructure as part of an escalation strategy
    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…
  • Gulf states — Place · Regional actors / affected parties · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as potential targets of Iranian retaliation and as states where embassies/families have been evacuated, showing regional impact of escalation.
    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…
  • Capitol Building — Place · Illustrative site of political violence · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced as the locus of the January 6 insurrection; used to illustrate how a focal provocation can ignite violent populism
    January 6? It was another week 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…
  • Gulf War — Event · Historical precedent · 3 mentions · first at
    Referenced as background for air campaign thinking and as historical example of bombing plans that expanded beyond initial timelines.
    Like what was instant thunder. the 3-day, it 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 Sodom Hussein's.
  • France — Place · Illustrative example of unrest spread · 3 mentions · first at
    Used as an example where unrest (riots) spread beyond a single city, illustrating how violent populism can propagate.
    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…
  • London — Place · Referenced site of European concern/preparation · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as place where British officials (defense minister) and public preparedness are focused; used to illustrate European governments' response to escalation risks
    Punish the supporters of Ukraine and Europe including right here in London, right here in Britain. And that's why the defense minister is calling for preparations. Not saying…
  • Be Ready campaign — Event · Referenced government preparedness campaign · 2 mentions · first at
    Campaign referenced as government guidance in transcript
    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…
  • Minnesota — Place · Referenced site of suspected cyber incident · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as one of the U.S. states where water/power outages occurred in July and were reported (by NYT) as likely Iranian cyber activity — used to illustrate domestic vulnerability to foreign cyber operations
    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…
  • Yemen — Place · Referenced location of Houthi activity · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced as the base of the Houthi movement that has struck regional targets (e.g., Saudi airports) and as evidence of escalation patterns where allied non-state actors attack civilian infrastructure
    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…
  • Donetsk — Place · Geographic reference in Ukraine conflict · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned (misspelled as 'Donatka' in transcript) as one of the oblasts/regions contested/annexed by Russia in the discussion of territorial maps
    This you see is in this map which is August of 2022 4 months after invaded Ukraine. You can see that the lines here have settled down into eastern Ukraine.
  • Crimea — Place · Geographic reference in Ukraine conflict · 1 mention · first at
    Cited in maps and discussion of territory Russia has annexed in Ukraine and to illustrate Putin's territorial aims
    You see 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…
  • Black Lives Matter — Event · Referenced movement example · 1 mention · first at
    Used as an example of protests that spread widely beyond a localized incident, illustrating how movements can propagate and produce large-scale unrest
    Exactly. It 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,.
  • Dubai — Place · Origin point of cited flight incident · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the departure city for the flight involved in the Tel Aviv plane incident (flight from Dubai).
    Away. And if it was a suicide attacker, the first thing that would come to their mind is if they took control of the plane 2 and 1/2 hours from Tel Aviv.
  • Cold War — Event · Historical reference · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced to compare proxy wars (Cold War-era proxy conflicts) with current proxy conflicts in Ukraine and elsewhere.
    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…
  • Vietnam War — Event · Historical analogy · 1 mention · first at
    Historical event used as analogy in discussion
    President Trump and MAGA, but we saw this with Lynden Johnson in the Vietnam War. Lyndon Johnson went through a very similar game of roulette where he kept doubling down as…
  • Paris — Place · Illustrative example of unrest spreading · 1 mention · first at
    Used as an example of protests/riots that spread beyond one city in France to illustrate how unrest can propagate geographically
    And notice what we need is just like what you did, which is we need a fire break. And we don't want to wait until the next fire because that if we wait until the next wildfires to occur, we.
  • India — Place · Suggested mediator country · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as an increasingly important quiet mediator (has engaged with Russia and Ukraine) and candidate to join calls for protecting civilians.
    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…
  • Soviet Union — Place · Historical actor · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced as 'the Soviets' in the Cold War-era proxy war discussion.
    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…
  • Afghanistan War — Event · Historical proxy-war example · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced as part of the list of proxy conflicts during the Cold War / post-Cold War era to contrast with direct interstate war.
    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…
  • Los Angeles riots — Event · Historical example · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced as a localized riot (Rodney King) used to contrast with the broader spread of violent populism
    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…
  • Qatar — Place · Suggested mediator country · 1 mention · first at
    Listed among neutral mediators recommended to call for protection of civilians and to help de-escalate conflicts.
    Been playing a quiet role behind the scenes with Russia and Ukraine. Those three countries that have played this role as mediator should call on all of the countries to do one thing.
  • Pakistan — Place · Suggested mediator country · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as one of the countries (with Qatar and India) that could serve as mediators and call for 'hands off civilians'.
    Been playing a quiet role behind the scenes with Russia and Ukraine. Those three countries that have played this role as mediator should call on all of the countries to do one thing.

Media & podcasts

  • The Diary Of A CEO — Media · Podcast / show · 6 mentions · first at
    The program hosting the interview; the host uses the show's platform to surface analysis and appeal to its audience to subscribe/share
    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.…

Sponsors

  • Grokbot — Sponsor · Sponsor / digital product referenced in ad read · 2 mentions · first at
    Sponsor name mentioned in ad read
    What I'm about to say is an ad, but there's something quite different about this particular ad. Grockbot now sponsors this show, and I've already invested in SpaceX, which is…
  • Fiverr — Sponsor · Sponsor / ad read · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned in an ad read recommending Fiverr as a place to hire AI specialists and consultants for businesses; CTA to check out fiverr.com.
    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.
  • Ketone — Sponsor · Sponsor / product ad read · 2 mentions · first at
    Sponsor name used in ad read for an exogenous ketones product
    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…
  • Ketone — Product · Sponsor / promoted supplement · 1 mention · first at
    Product mentioned as a promoted supplement with discount and availability
    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/stephven for 30% off…
  • SpaceX — Company · Referenced investor holding / parent of sponsor mention · 1 mention · first at
    Host mentions investing in SpaceX and connects it to the Grockbot/Grok sponsorship (saying company that owns Grockbot).
    There's something quite different about this particular ad. Grockbot now sponsors this show, and I've already invested in SpaceX, which is the company that owns Grockbot.…
  • Target — Company · Retailer mentioned in ad read · 5 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the retailer where the host can now buy ketone shots in-store (Target stock example).
    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…

Full transcript with timestamps

We are about to enter the eight most dangerous weeks in our lives cuz the US midterms 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 6. 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's going to happen then over these eight weeks?

So, let's start with the beginning. Will President Trump accept the election results, but also a plan that's on his desk is a plan to hit targets in Iran over a 3-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 get Ukrainian territory from Trump. So, he moves to his next plan. And I'll show you what that might look like. What happens next? There's going to be enormous pressure on Europe to retaliate. And when Europe does that, that's what World War II looks like.

President Trump will be able to start declaring more and more emergency powers. And this will lead into a devastating 2027. What can we do? And what about the general public? 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. Thank you and enjoy this episode.

Robert Payne, 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 seeding 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.

And we have two houses in our Congress. Sometimes it uh dovetales with the election of the president, in which case we just call it the general election. But when the president is not up for reelection, 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, Stephen. 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 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 history?

It's the eight 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 6 years ago with January 6. 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 6th, 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 5 years, Stephen, 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 5 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 uh 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 Hegsth. think the attorney general, think uh 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, Stephen. 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 uh 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 um operations within the departments very very very difficult. Stephen,

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 uh elections. Well, now we're p 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 and Russia is threatening to escalate strongly against civilian infrastructure in Ukraine to target electric power in Kev, in Carke, and in Odessa in a dramatic way. I thought they were doing a deal.

President Putin has done nothing to say that this is off the table and there's uh every sign and in fact growing signs by European governments that they are 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 are eight weeks. Yes. talk 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 um 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 has happened in Saudi Arabia. This has happened in multiple of the frontline 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. Um he has not just had the plans drawn up but he's given the orders for sentcom that within 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 spent 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. Um, 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. Um, 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, Stephen, 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 straight of form and with it heavy control of 20% of the world's oil.

What happens next? What happens next is humiliation for this the side that started that attack. Uh, this might be a good time, Stephen, 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." Well, 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 h 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 a bookie and they said, "You know what? Let me borrow some of them 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 and do, 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 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 6 weeks of bombing he lost on red again.

How did he lose that? Because Iran did not concede and kept control of the straight of form moves. 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 American lives

in 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 6 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 midterm. 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 gamblers'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 hand. 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. Hugely 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.

That's right. 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 2 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 Lynden Johnson in the Vietnam War. Lyndon 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 elections 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 Lynden Johnson combined, the worst president that we've ever had in in anything like 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 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 uh enormous fortunes on this. So when when President Trump looks at this, this isn't just ego um 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 what happens? 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.

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 uh white belts to green belts with their strategy, but they haven't gone to brown belt and and black belt. So, the leaks that are coming out about the 3-day plan are uh consistent. The 3-day plan is uh President Trump is describing here. The plan that's on his desk is a plan to hit targets in Iran over a 3-day period. And as soon as the media, I believe, saw the word three in the 3-day, now 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 3-day, it 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 Sodom 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 come up with that plan originally and are still pushing that plan. It says, "The 3-day plan is a Pentagon military contingency for a rapid, highintensity aerial campaign against Iran if post-election negotiations break down, presumably the midterm 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, is does it fail? And if it fails,

it fails. And then what happens is we go to stage three, which is a three-day bombing campaign becomes a much longer bombing campaign. So the 3-day bombing campaign drags on, Stephen. 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 straight of Hmuz and to vouch never to have nuclear weapons.

Uh, no, not only that. That's part of the deal, Desi. Once you 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 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 are you going to negotiate with? No, 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 Sodom Hussein after we did this this is when he bombed sites in Riad. So this is when his personnel were killed in Riad. 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 Riad International Airport. killing over a dozen people and wounding over 300 people. And this is the first time in this war 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, Stephen, 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, Stephen, are likely going to kill thousands and thousands of civilians in Iran.

Which attacks? The 3-day and the six day and the continued attacks here on these instant thunder style airplane is exactly the airplane we executed against Sodom Hussein in 91. But it was against his 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 her a plan where no civilians die. So you're saying this is a plan lots of people are going to die through this period. Lots of people are going to die here which and that 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 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 a co-pilot who the plane took off from the airport in Dubai and it had about 170 civilians on the airplane. And about a hundred of those civilians were Israelis. And after 2 and 1/2 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, tried to kill the pilot, and he was only 30 minutes from Tel Aviv. So, I've studied 8,000 suicide attacks in detail.

I've read a book about it. Two. You've got two. Two there. Yeah. Yeah. Cutting the fuse as well. So, so studying all those attacks once I saw exactly the location of where the co-pilot tried to take uh 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 clo 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. Stephen, I'm telling you that it wouldn't need to be command directed. Some of the best information we have is 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 uh 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. Pilot said the morning started very normally.

Y 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 tunnneled 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 able to

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 um extremely fortuitous. But what you see here, Stephen, 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 2 and 1/2 hours from Tel Aviv. Remember, it's a 3-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 strong and this is what what I mean by inspired attacks. When I saw the first command directed attack, that's the Houthis on civilians. We've seen an actual inspired terrorist attack that has already happened. 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 mean 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 in 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 coer 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/stephven 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 line? Because 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 this as we start to see the interaction here or 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 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 tests 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. So what's happened here also in week four in week well roughly week four. This would be around Thanksgiving possibly. can't really polymarket it to the day, Stephen, 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 you see is in this map which is August of 2022 4 months after 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 Keev. uh all on the edges of the south of Ukraine and the east of Ukraine. And what you can see is this is Donatka. The these are some of the areas that Putin has already annexed. He's officially annexed them. And also this is Crimea.

You see 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 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 Nova Russia Rousia which is uh this would be the next set of oblas just behind the first four and that is this area called Nova Ria 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, Stephen. There's uh counts that go far higher than that. But these are the counts based on obituaries 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. 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 Zalinski to truly surrender that territory, there's a good chance he'll be killed by his own people, his own military, his own because

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 risk that Trump was taking here with the for someone in Putin's position or Zalinsk's position where they're literally talking about whether or not they will gain or surrender pieces of territory for Zalinsky 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? Ah, so let's keep looking. This is when Putin because doesn't get the territory. This is when Putin escalates. This is the most likely time after Putin is sure that Trump can't deliver any more territory. This is uh right around Thanksgiving. This is a likely possible time here when Putin is going to start to uh 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 Kev, Carke, 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 brown out where you don't have your air conditioning or your heating for a couple of days. a 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 Kev. The idea here was to take Kev. 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 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 uh 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 the over literally the same eight weeks.

And what happens next? What 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't 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 pro protest which spread across the world?

Exactly. It happened was a single focal point event and I'm going to show you how these uh 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. Uh 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 analogy, 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 6 as an example. What happened on on January 6 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 6? It was another week 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 chance, "Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence." That's violent populism in action.

And notice what we need is just like what you did, which is we need a fire break. And we don't want to wait until the next fire because that 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 it 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 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 itself. So this is what I mean by violent populism starting to emerge and these clashes.

this between uh the federal agents and protesters over say possibly u ballot counting. This is what I mean by a focal point event. 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. Is that is that why I think it was Wes 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're 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.

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

on 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 uh start to back here against Russia and then Russia may start to punish the supporters of Ukraine and Europe including right here in London, right here in Britain. And that's why the defense minister is um uh 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 uh outlining, Stephen, and looking at this and saying, well, wait a second, wait a second. The risk here of this starting to get out of control is 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 uh 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 3 days worth of essential supplies to survive potential hostile state attacks, cyber warfare, or major infrastructure collapse. Britons are being asked to store 3 L of bottled water per person per day, a 3-day cache of non-p perishable tinned food alongside battery powered windup torches, radios. That's why this

Y Britney Spears radio battery 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 it's showing Stephen that governments 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 3-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. Grockbot now sponsors this show, and I've already invested in SpaceX, which is the company that owns Grockbot. Grockbot 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 AIs, they all have their own computer, which means that if I turn off my phone, if I close my laptop, they continue working 7 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 Crockbot 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, US water systems forced to manual. Yes. 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. 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 it's

You think that's what happened? Well, I've spent a lot of time with US intelligence community. So, in the '9s, I had a clearance, but in the last 20, 30 years, I 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 spec quoting specific people and saying that it has Iran's fingerprints for cyber attack. Now, that's important. That phrasing is very important, Stephen, 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 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 I we can't say for certain. But I do I 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,

yeah, take it off the table. Don't talk about it." Do they do that? They do. They do. I 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 uh 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 u sitting around the table and the reporter who's 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 Stephen imagine

that okay they would ask you to tell them what they can't share with the public.

They ask 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 Sodom Hussein in the 19 or not got started but one of the big things that they got a lot of prominence was interviewing Sodom Hussein when the US military went apoplelectic when they did. So this is what I mean by when you ask me would it be possible for the US for intelligence uh US government to ask media to uh for the good they would say for the good of national security uh to cool it on a story and the fact is I've seen it myself.

Wow. What's next? 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? since the uh the 50s and the 60s when in the 50s this was a completely different environment. So, President Trump just to put 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 uh but the use of the military in uh American uh cities and that is a huge step. it's rarely been used. Uh 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 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 actual international emergency that's occurring. So the insurrection act is What 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 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 P commatatus where the president not using the US military inside of our own borders. for obvious reasons, Stephen, which is just takes a 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, gone way out of its way to not uh 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, 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 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 3-day war, the 3-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. If 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 3-day bombing campaign, this sequence is going to be

almost impossible to stop because once you start the 3-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. 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, what happens 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 publics, the American public, the European public. And under those circumstances, those publiclix are

going to demand payback. Then 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, Stephen? World War II. That's what World War II looks like. Many people for months have been discussing, are we in World War II? The answer is no. We're not in World War II. We have war happening around the world and in major parts of the world. What World War III means, 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.e. 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 uh wars in Afghanistan. So remember the Soviets went into Afghanistan. We sent in the muja.

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. We're going to use the phrase we're in World War three. then it should have some semblance to World War I and World War II and what the real pardon me

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 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. uh 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 on 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 moratorum on all federally armed agents in their cities unless the governors and mayors call for it. A two-month moratorum. 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? A third one incredibly 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 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 infrastructure or civilian residential areas by states. Those are the three. If we do those three things, what we're doing is we are establishing fire breaks on those that 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? I'm personally not doing that because um what will happen is uh bring that back up for a moment. Let me show you what's really going to happen. Now we're at day one and let's say day one we still have a lot of uh water in our bodies. So day one we use one bottle of water. 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. 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 fire breaks. 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 fire breaks. 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 5 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. Um, 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 um, 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 um completely changed my mind on how on what's going on in the world and it's actually helped me to understand 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 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 is 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 SenCom 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 uh uh generals uh others in the military ex-military and I know because what happened after our show is uh changed and suddenly what was the reality the real issues came to the four and that's one of the big reasons I believe we didn't go down that dark road.

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.

And have you been contacted by anybody at the White House? Advised every White House since Are you advising this one?

Uh, I've advised every White House, Robert. I've advised every White House since

Have you been contacted by the White House? I've advised every White House since 9/11. And if there's um any any contact I have been let you off the hook.

Any contact I have, I could never ever and and let me just simply let me just 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 um uh I've advised uh 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 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. Okay, I'm not 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're 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 uh the best advice I possibly can and I will continue to do that every

advising the White House. I'm just telling you, Stephen, that I um um 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 Stephen 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.

I get it. I get it, Robert. This is how it raises. I'm saying so are you advising people in power in the United States?

I'm advis I'm just telling you people in power have contacted me. It's been a tremendous honor and I'm very glad.

I'm glad I'm glad I'm glad they're I'm glad they're listening. Are they listening?

These people in power 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 and 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

listen listen I'm asking are they listening? Are the people you I'm not asking who they are what they're asking you about. I'm saying are they listening? I'm tell so the people in power who have um contacted me do believe um are listening whether they're in the United States or around the world and I do believe that u and 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. Thank you for turning the lights on for so many of us and bringing and simplifying complexity. It's all so 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 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 tell you, I'm glad the White House reached out. Thank you, Robert. I've done that.

You tried. You're doing 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.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Iran War Expert: If This Escalation Continues, 2027 Will Be Devastating! | Prof Robert Pape"?

Robert Payne (Guest), Stephen (Guest).

What is "Iran War Expert: If This Escalation Continues, 2027 Will Be Devastating! | Prof Robert Pape" about?

A political risk expert warns that escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran, amplified by a contentious post-election transition and potential European retaliation, could trigger broader war dynamics and a devastating trajectory into 2027. It outlines how election results, looming emergency powers, and geopolitical moves by Russia and Europe may intensify conflict opportunities.

What is mentioned in this The Diary Of A CEO episode?

103 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, United States (states), Ukraine, Violent Populism, Iran, Political Violence. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Iran War Expert: If This Escalation Continues, 2027 Will Be Devastating! | Prof Robert Pape"?

The episode runs 1 h 29 min; the transcript is about 13,919 words in 153 timestamped sections.

More from The Diary Of A CEO

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated November 5, 2026.