Michael Knowles

To say nothing of petrochemicals, to say nothing of fertilizer.

They're in a geopolitically very important position.

And then there is honor.

And this gets to your point, Drew, when we're talking about China.

You know, the United States is the global hegemon.

American hegemony is predicated in no small part on the petrodollar.

If we were in a position where China has really strengthened its hand in Iran, where the Gulf states are starting to look more toward China than to the United States to protect them, we could be in a world in which

The petrodollar goes away.

We end up with the petroyuan.

China all of a sudden is running the show globally.

And America's stature would not just diminish a little bit.

We would lose our role as the global hegemon, which benefits us greatly.

So I think the answer is there were a billion reasons to go to war in Iran.

The regime change part of it would just be kind of a bonus, I guess, if we could have a regime that is favorable to the West in there.

But there were all these reasons.

This is why so many presidents had considered doing it.

So

I'm the guy, had I been on the NSC, I would have argued against these strikes, as I've said again and again.

To your point, Drew, can we trust the New York Times?

I certainly don't, reflexively.