Sagar

It's a joke compared to their actual economic importance, especially in the future when we transition generally away from fossil fuels.

That actually would be a great thing.

You know, I know you guys cover this, but C4, I cannot emphasize enough how ass backwards this whole thing is.

From John Hudson, the U.S.

bore the brunt of Israel's missile defense, which means that while Iran was shooting at Israel, the United States military expended far more of its own interceptors to protect Israel than Israeli forces did.

Let me sink that in as deep as we possibly can.

We have a very limited amount of these advanced interceptors, as I've emphasized over and over and over and over again on the show.

They take years to rebuild, they're highly, you know, high precision, they're ridiculously, multi-million dollars expensive.

One of the reasons we give money to Israel is so that they can have the weapons to defend themselves.

This is the logic.

Then when it came time to defend themselves, the United States stepped in and we defended them.

We expended many of the stocks that we have

so that Israel could conserve theirs.

Why?

Oh, because, oh, but Israel might need them in the future.

Then why did we do it in the first place?

And so we are now dramatically less safe because we protected Israel from Iranian missiles in a war, by the way, which they got us into and which they started.

Remember, day one of the war,

United States Secretary of State, one of the most historic statements ever uttered by a chief diplomat.

We had to do it because Israel was going to attack them and that we knew Iran would attack back.