Just One Thing: The end of the war?

I supported the war with Iran. Iran has been killing Americans (and others) for most of my lifetime. They were on a path toward a nuclear weapon and continued to terrorize the world through their proxies. They are the most evil regime in the world. But at this point the US has a serious problem: We appear to have started the war without a plan to control the Strait of Hormuz, which is Iran's only leverage. Now, despite all of Trump's moronic bluster, the US and Iran are functionally in a standoff. And when you're the world's superpower and you're fought to a draw by a much smaller (though not small) country, that sure looks and feels (including to our competitors and enemies) like a loss.

I continue to believe that Trump thought this operation would be just a little more difficult than taking out Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. He thought the regime would capitulate and negotiate a settlement that basically left the US in charge of who gets to buy oil and generally had the countries "playing nice" with each other. That was never going to be the case. I don't know if his advisors told him it would be a relatively easy mission or if they gave him good advice which he chose to ignore.

But at this point, the terms of a proposed deal as they're being reported so far seem, if not quite like American surrender, not like Iranian surrender either. Indeed, it seems clear that Iran thinks they've basically won. If it plays out that way, if it's the latest and biggest Trump TACO, where Iran gets significant sanctions relief and doesn't give up their nuclear material, even folks like me who supported the war will wonder, "what was all that for?" Yes, I understand that Iran is far weaker than they were before the war. Their Navy is mostly gone, many of their weapons systems are gone. But they can and will rebuild and anyway they fought us to a draw in the ways that matter without those things.

U.S. and Iran Have ‘Makings of a Deal,’ Bessent Says - WSJ

I have more to say about what this means about and for Trump, but will save it for another day...

.

Today's Guests

Mayor Mike Johnston joins the show at 7:34. The City Council just shared its 2027 budget goals with the mayor, and I want to get into where Denver's actually headed financially — and what the mayor makes of the broader downtown problem facing American cities. Jeana sent him the WSJ piece on the guy trying to repopulate America's emptiest downtown.

Denver City Council Shares 2027 Budget Goals with Mayor Johnston

Can This Guy Get People to Live in America's Emptiest Downtown?

Is Mike concerned about protecting the habitat of the Lizard People?: Denver airport's solution to train frustrations: $300 million of walkways through old baggage tunnels

.

Admiral James Stavridis joins the show at 8:04. He's the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, a best-selling author of both fiction and non-fiction, co-founder of the secretive but influential Two Dudes Consulting — and a connoisseur of fine whiskey. We're going to discuss his new novel, 2084, and what's going on with the Iran war. Is the tentative 60-day agreement a win? A surrender? Somewhere in between?

Home - Admiral James Stavridis

2084 (A Novel of Future War): Ackerman, Elliot, Stavridis USN, Admiral James

Live Updates: Tentative 60-day agreement reached on Iran, pending Trump's approval

.

Kyle Clark, news anchor and host of Next! on 9News, joins the show at 8:34. Yesterday he aired an interview with Republican gubernatorial candidate Victor Marx that may be the first thing to really hurt Marx among Republicans, even among his supporters. Some of my listeners aren't Kyle's biggest fans — I bet a few think there's a bit of a demon in him, maybe more figuratively than literally — but I've got questions. Not counting when you were a child but only as an adult, how many people have you killed? What did you make of being invited to Marx's "compound," as he calls it? Was that a condition of doing the interview? It's the sort of thing I'd expect from someone making a weak attempt at manipulation or psychological dominance. And as Marx responded, he very frequently looked away from you, often over your head. Maybe that's just my bias talking — I think he exaggerates or lies a lot — but I took it as evasiveness. Did you notice it, and if so, how did you take it?

My Substack on the interview: Victor Marx implodes - by Ross Kaminsky - The Ross Report

The interview: