Nat Towsen

And do we just get used to higher gas prices?

But I'm hoping maybe we could start talking about the military situation first.

You don't need to read that.

We know that.

I just, if Matt, if you want to interject, absolutely throw out whatever you feel or, or Nat, but I'm listening and I'm hearing, you know, obviously you're saying number one, not obviously, but if I can recap number one, you're saying essentially restore our standing among allies and,

Come back to NATO hand in hand and say, hey, we actually recognize that we need your help, which does sound a very non-Trumpian thing, but that is the caveat of this discussion, which is how could this be done, not will Trump do it?

And then secondarily, I'm a little confused about this because I do feel like the administration, while they're talking about Iran's nuclear concerns and all these things, have been pretty focused on the Strait and have been delivering a lot of misinformation about the Strait.

Are you saying that they need to be actually solving it and that the focus has been...

Yeah, it's what they're doing.

Because they do seem focused on it to me from a news perspective.

So early on, it feels like a lot of the messaging, even from democratic electives was like,

not necessarily muddied, but they were all doing this sort of rhetorical, Trump is going about this the wrong way, but Iran's leaders are evil.

Iran is bad to their civilians.

And obviously, there are other countries where that's true, that we didn't suddenly invade, that we're not focusing on.

So that standard seems false to me.

But I would agree with you that, you know,

We also can't ignore those humanitarian concerns like we do need to address those humanitarian issues, in my opinion, also higher priority than nuclear proliferation.

I think that's a higher priority, perhaps, than Iran's nuclear program.

But we don't need to be, as we discussed this, you know, there's no endorsement of Iran's regime.

But I think if anything, we have really...