Friday. The great Brian Fitzherbert. Good morning, Brian,
and welcome. How are you?
Good morning, Anne. I'm doing well. Thanks for
having me. Yeah. So,
how many of your closest
political friends have you been talking to about
what's happened over the last week,
and
what are your thoughts?
Well,
I'll refer to it as national political friends.
And, obviously, the developments with the
war in Iran
is is significant. And there's understandably a lot
of
emotions that are surrounding this,
confusion,
either misunderstanding
or
trying to follow along with what's going on.
So I'll I'll try my best to kinda
break this down because,
you know,
the communication is key with this stuff,
but people hate war. I hate war. I
build weapons for a living,
but I hope I never have to see
them
be used.
Very similar to, you know, what I've said
in the past where people have emergency savings,
they hope they never have to use it.
You know? People have a concealed carry license,
hope they never have to use their firearm.
America has military assets that we hope we
never have to use, but if there is,
reason to believe that we should, then we
do. And,
you know,
breaking this down, right, diplomacy is on one
end, Military action is on the other, and
the 80% in between
is intelligence, meaning what CIA and others are
able to obtain,
to avoid
war and then to try to go on
to the balance of diplomacy.
You know, obviously, in the lead up to
this, we saw president Trump and secretary Vor
Hegseth
move military assets into the reason,
to the region
more or less, more specifically, the USS Gerald
Ford, which is a you know, it's a
nuclear powered aircraft carrier, you know, warship.
And,
it was we were telegraphing this. But, you
know, the question is whether or not the
American people
want another foreign entanglement,
for for whatever reason that may be. You
know, we don't want endless wars. We don't
want boots on the ground. Obviously, with what
happened with Afghanistan where the geography is built
for defense just like Iran, Boots on the
ground wouldn't be helpful from military campaign standpoint.
And we really don't wanna
spill any more blood or treasure,
for a foreign war unless it directly impacts
United States Of America, which,
I would venture to argue,
and we'll discuss over the next hour that
this is actually paramount.
And I hope what we're doing you know,
we're on day seven now.
You know, digging back into history, you know,
when The United States
was just
declaring their independence,
let's say, 1781,
and the French showed up in Yorktown
while we were fighting the British
empire, but it was Americans that rose up
for their freedom and their independence.
Iranians need to rise up now. They need
to take their country back, not The United
States who is 8,000 miles away. We can
create the circumstances
of that.
And
a lot of this that's going on, you
know, not to repeat history, I'm sure most
of your listeners are very well founded,
that this war
more or less has been going on for
forty seven years. Iran declared this on The
United States back in '17
back 1979
rather.
And this all stemmed from that revolution, the
fall of the Shah
and this uprising
that led to the Ayatollah Khomeini.
And if you're most of us recall, 52
American hostages were held for four hundred and
forty four days that weren't released until the
day that Ronald Reagan took office.
In 1981,
you had,
241
marines that were killed. That was, what, 1983,
with the brute,
marine barracks bombing
from
over the course of the Iraqi war, 2003,
2011 in particular. Iran was responsible for a
lot of the IEDs, the, you know, the
improvised explosive devices that killed 603
troops.
And then, obviously, what happened on October 7
by Hamas, which is, again, a proxy of
Iran that killed 46 Americans in Israel, and
they've tried to assassinate
president Trump twice.
So this isn't anything new.
And as we've tried to see or other
presidents, I mean, for god's sakes, Barack Obama
sent them pallets of cash.
Trump is sending bombs.
And
after operation Midnight Hammer last June, which was
designed to decimate and obliterate their nuclear program
and their capabilities,
Trump has consistently said that Iran needs to
do three things.
Abandon the nuclear program. We already know that.
No more ballistic missile development
as well as
stop supporting
these terrorist proxies. We know that they're the
largest sponsor
of terrorism,
and that includes Hamas and Gaza. That includes
Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, etcetera.
All Shiite,
fundamentalists. So,
obviously,
operation Midnight Hammer did not send the message,
and the diplomacy that Trump was trying to
leverage and facilitate
was not getting anywhere.
So then the question was, why did we
do this? And everything that I just
kinda discussed and broke down, this stems not
from the
nuclear capabilities, but more so ballistic
missiles, which are another weapon that can have
very dangerous. We have all kinds of,
facilities, assets in The Gulf, in the in
the Middle East. And, you know, Israel
had intelligence
of imminent,
threats from Iran,
options to try and recreate their,
nuclear program based on what little they had
left, which obviously that still takes time. But
Israel was going to bomb Iran anyway. And
the the analogy that I can share with
you and the listeners is this is kinda
like
if a younger brother is going after a
bully
without an older brother as backup,
and the older brother knows what's going to
happen. Right? You're not gonna let the younger
brother
more or less get pummeled. The older brother
is gonna go in because he's either gonna
have to deal with this now, or he's
gonna have to deal with this later.
And I think The US chose to deal
with this now and to to join forces
with Israel
to do these bombing rights, to do everything
that's been done with Iran in the last
seven days.
And, again, you gotta remember, Iran
Iran is a is a funny country. They
don't have an independence day. Right? They haven't
been conquered since Alexander the Great hundreds of
years before Christ.
And it's not even Iranian. Right? It's a
mixed,
populous of the majority is ethnic Persians.
You know, you have the Azaris, you have
Akwadi, Afghans, Kurds, etcetera. It's 90,000,000 people, but
the state, Iran,
has mandated
key identity,
hence, hijabs, etcetera, and everything that you see
that's not westernized.
And that's where a lot of this,
frustration is. Before 1979,
you see pictures of women
obviously going to school, very westernized in their
attire, etcetera.
So you have all of this background, all
this stuff that's been going on
for everyone to try and digest in the
last seven days. And then the question is,
okay. Why do we do this? And then
what is the goal? Is it behavior change?
Is it,
regime change? Is it punishment?
Is it all the above? Is it a
strategic
attack
with regards to leverage ultimately dealing with China?
We could talk about that later. But, you
know, when you try to do
regime change, there's gotta be an opposition leader
or an organizational
movement
there,
and there isn't right now. And even
Raja Pahlavi, the son of you know, the
last job I ran from 1979. He's technically
the prince.
He's been living in The United States for
decades. Right? So he's not really
on the ground there.
But I suspect the CIA
will covertly take action,
not too
not too shortly,
with regards to opposition,
if not
the Kurds,
being an option.
So
what it what it actually happened seven days
ago, right, when we did this is we
killed the Ayatollah, who is the, quote, unquote,
supreme leader.
And the main reason is earlier this year,
he killed thousands and thousands of protesters that
went to the streets of Iran to protest
him and the way things are going in
Iran.
And,
obviously, killing protesters
is I mean, I don't think anyone agrees
with that, period. So we went in there.
We killed the Ayatollah. We killed all the
Badmaulas, the Guardian Council.
We even got the former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
you know, among these 40 leaders from the
initial strike.
And then we've carried this on by sinking,
truthfully, the Iranian navy to the bottom of
the ocean. They've got nothing left.
We wiped out the headquarters where the IRGC
is. That's the Iranian Revolution Guard Corps, and
then we destroyed significant military infrastructure and air
bases.
So I'm gonna stop there
as a kind of an intro, but that's
the why,
the how, and, you know, what were the
what are the goals going forward? And I
can get into the weapons that were used
because, obviously, that's more my because I build
them,
with regard to that. But that's kinda where
we are seven days in,
thus far. So I'll I'll
stop there.
Brian,
you as you said,
weapons are your,
and you know so much about the weapons
that have been used
coming from Iran,
weapons used by
The Middle East as well as The United
States and Israel
against Iran, and yet, they're still standing. They're
still
creating
chaos.
What's happening? What kind of weapons do they
still have left, and how are we fighting
them?
Yeah. Sure. So from a military campaign standpoint,
I suspect,
what secretary of war,
Pete Hakseth is doing is a strategic,
a strategic campaign for attrition,
meaning we're going to make Iran use as
many weapons as they possibly
can and exhaust them into oblivion among other
things of the bombing campaign. And and
from my last count, we're we're probably at
20 plus different weapons that the United States
military has used. Obviously, six months ago, seven
months ago, last year when we did the
initial,
bombing rate of the nuclear capabilities and and
locations, we used stealth bombers, you know, your
b two spirits that are built by Northrop
Grumman that bring in those GBUs,
or the massive ordinance penetrators, you know, those
mock bunker buster bombs that everyone started reading
about even though we've had them forever.
So those stealth bombers have been sent in
as
have been strategic bombers. Your b ones and
your b 52 bombers that have gone after
the military,
installations in Iran. So also Northrop Grumman makes
those. Then you have your stealth fighters for
air power. Right? You have your f 35
lightning and your f 22 Raptors, both, produced
by Lockheed Martin that are the top of
the line in terms of generational aircraft,
going along with the the Israeli,
air force as well. And this is what
mostly went after the leadership targets
and any of the other air defenses so
that you have complete air supremacy,
over Iran, which is part of any, you
know, initial,
military campaign.
Then you used your older generation
fighter jets, your your f 16 Fighting Falcons,
your f a 18 Super Hornets, you know,
your Lockheed Boeing,
Twitter jets that were launched from the aircraft
carrier I mentioned in the last segment, you
know, Gerald r Ford.
Those are attacker jets. Right? So those are
gonna do bombing raids as well. And then
you have other specialized aircraft that,
carry electronic warfare,
disruptors that that's your your c two stuff,
and I'll get to that in a minute
because that's a little more comprehensive. But so
you have air superiority to begin with. Then
you have missiles and long range munitions. Right?
Obviously, what everyone's talking about is the submarine
operations where,
you know, the United States Navy for the
first time since World War one,
sunk,
The solimani,
I guess the iranians called it,
and sunk it to the bottom of the
ocean using a torpedo
you know submarines in in our country are
built by general dynamics And obviously there's some
more major subcontract work among North Of Grommen
So we fired one torpedo
from a submarine
and sunk this Iranian aircraft carrier to the
bottom of the ocean.
So we have submarines. That means undersea. Right?
We have complete control of the sky
in the airspace through the air force and
and the fighter jets that I talked about.
And then we have undersea where we have
submarines in the region that are
monitoring that from from an undersea standpoint, then
I'll get to the surface, which is basically
on top of on top of the ocean.
But there's laser systems that, obviously, the naval,
capabilities are deployed. We're talking Helios and, you
know, for more lack of terms, the optical
dazzlers
that are on the destroyers that are targeting
everything. Disabling, creating as much
interference is the word I would use as
a capability from electronic warfare standpoint. Brian have
your comment. Excuse me. What is this laser
system like? I hear it used all the
time, but I'm not quite sure what it
does.
So it's very complicated, and the capability
is
I can't really talk about it. It's just
a high energy weapon that you and I
or anyone listening would refer to as a
laser that has an electronic disruption
to any and all avionics
or submarine
or surface vehicle
or boats
aircraft carriers, electronics
that immediately
disrupt
anything with regard to a guidance chip, meaning
missiles,
interceptors, that type of thing, that can create
a massive electronic warfare attack that disrupts it
from an electronic standpoint.
Are we the only country that has this
laser system, or does Israel and other of
our allies have it?
Can't comment. Okey dokey.
Keep going. Uh-huh. Sorry for the interruption.
No. No. It's fine. These are these are
good questions. I mean, like I said, we
talked about,
submarine operations. We talked about laser systems. We
talked about aircraft superiority
and basically controlling the skies, but then there's
the normal stuff that we always hear about.
Tomahawk missiles,
they're, you know, they're cruise missiles that are
launched from,
destroyers. We've seen this for years and years.
Raytheon makes those,
off the destroyers that are built by, Bath
Iron Works, which is actually owned by General
Dynamics now as well as hunting king engels
and then what has been the first thing
That we've seen in modern has well period
actually, but we've been building these weapons forever
We've just never seen them in combat with
your precision strike missiles,
that lockie martin,
Lockheed Martin develops.
And
these are, I mean,
these are exactly what they are. They're precision
strike missiles. They have a per a
specific,
design for a specific purpose,
more so from an interceptor standpoint, meaning to
interrupt
any missiles and rockets that might be coming
our way. And a lot of this has
to do with yes. You have your your
fighter jets
for,
air control, but guess what supports fighter jets?
Unmanned systems, IE drones. Right? So we have
all these combat
type drones, reapers,
etcetera. Reapers are done by, General Atomics,
and,
some of them are weaponized with hellfire missiles.
Some are not. And then we also have
something called Lucas drones.
You know, these are I mean, everything I'm
talking about, you know, the military and the
defense industry is heavy on acronyms
that actually means something. And Lucas is, you
know, your low cost unmanned combat attack system,
which is, as we say in the industry,
it's a one way,
drone, which means it can also be used
as a weapon, meaning kamikaze type,
effects. So those and reapers have been deployed,
to actually,
allow
multiple air support because, again, the whole point
of having a drone in the sky is
you have an eye in the sky.
You have a weapon system,
and that is for reconnaissance and surveillance. Right?
And then, ultimately, when the drone is no
longer used for that, you can use it
as a rocket and a a missile.
So all this stuff
is it is designed for a c five
systems
ISR approach. What does that mean? C five
systems. Command and control is what people know
you're you're seeing this in the news as
c two, command and control. But c five
is command and control communications, computers, and cyber,
meaning total electronic warfare,
attacks
to jam communications
to jam control of systems
to jam any kind of automatic commands
And do any and all attacks on computers
from a cyber standpoint and then the isr
aspect
of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance is to see
whether or not this actually took place.
And so this is a massive,
massive military campaign that the likes of which
you and me or anybody listening has ever
seen before.
It is. When you're talking about this command
control,
communication
computer and cyber,
I'm thinking to myself, there's no one
on
the wrong side of the war that we
might be in
who can control what's going on in their
own computer systems,
if that's the case. That
they don't know what's being sent out perhaps
by
the persons they're fighting against
because you have control of their computers. Is
that part and parcel of what actually happens
behind the scenes?
Yeah. It's it's part I mean, if you
wanna get down to the rudimentary fundamentals, it's
jamming communication so you can't talk with one
another or even worse, doing a simulator, meaning
you are simulating,
a command that they think that they're receiving
or they're simulating
that there's rockets coming their way when there
aren't or that there's things on radar that
are there but are not on their radar.
All kinds of things. You either see it
or you don't, or you make it up
and say that it's there so that they
react. Maybe they use their weapons supply, then
they're exhausted, and then they're sitting ducks and
and you take them out. And
all this
as as as just awesome is the only
thing where I can use in terms of
this military campaign. It does create,
it does create an inventory concern for weapons
and ammunition.
Brian,
continue.
I am am so impressed.
Of course, you've been in the this industry
forever,
but you know so much about what's happening
with these precision strike missiles, with the reapers,
with
so many of the things that we hear
about, but we know so little about. So
please continue.
Yeah. So, you know, we were kinda talking
about,
this from an inventory standpoint, and and really
this stems from, you know, two other weapons
that I didn't really talk about
much, but I can is is, you know,
what everyone's talking about, interceptors. Right? Defense and
interceptor systems. You see it on the news.
What are these? You know, most people are
familiar with the Patriot missiles. This is built
by r tx formerly raytheon
and the other,
interceptors
are what's known as terminal
high altitude area defense batteries. Again, the the
the acronym is thad t h a a
d.
And these are batteries that at in loki
martin ba systems,
build that are either ground based or you
know
For like redrawns native warship based that they
are launched,
to intercept any and all
rockets and missiles that are fired at facilities
in The Middle East. And when I say
that, I'm talking about embassies or other military
installations that we have in neighboring Gulf states
that are not in Iran, that Iran is
obviously,
just reacting all around. They have no friends
left. They are the bully with no friends
beyond reproach now seven days into this. And
these interceptors,
you know,
they're usually and typically used.
They take a while to make, to manufacture.
And this is where it creates this kind
of inventory concern from a weapon standpoint. For
example,
you know, during operation Midnight Hammer that, you
know, we call the twelve day war over
when we blew the nuclear capabilities out of
the water, obliterated,
you know, in the words of the president,
back in June '25, we burned through about
sixteen years' worth of interceptor production
over those twelve days after we did the
bombing raid when Iran did their retaliatory,
rockets and missiles. Oh my god. So that's
about the order of the stockpile
that we had in terms of, you know,
THAAD and Patriot missiles. So that's concerning.
And, again,
16 this is not something you can just
turn on. I mean, without an immense amount
of labor force
managing on the supply chain,
raw materials, all that kind of stuff. And
that was all taken from
a weapon supply,
in Indo PACOM, which, you know, is the
Indo Pacific command.
So that supply is meant for the Pacific,
from a weapons standpoint to protect and defend
US facilities in the Gulf,
anything else in the Pacific Theater and more
importantly the West Coast Of The United States,
which now obviously, when you use stockpiles, that
creates vulnerabilities.
And at the same time, you know, in
my world and in defense, this stuff costs
a lot of money. There is a supply
chain. That's why people have so many jobs
because it takes a while to manufacture this.
So it's like I said, it's not a
valve that turns on overnight and this creates
in in military,
warfare
reference,
asymmetric warfare
Meaning high payoff low cost on the part
of the iranians
or the Iranian government
rather.
And what do I mean by that?
So if Iran has a drone that it
costs $30,000
for them to build, but we have an
interceptor,
right, a Patriot missile or a THAAD that
costs $3,000,000,
And we use that $3,000,000
interceptor to take out that $30,000
drone. Wow. Do the math. Every time we
shoot that down, that's an asymmetric warfare,
design that does not work in our favor.
Right? So that that creates a problem. It
creates a problem, obviously,
for the sea lanes, for oil, which is
why we're seeing oil spike, obviously, gas at
the pump because guess what? The sea lanes
for oil,
from OPEC and the Gulf, etcetera, you know,
it comes out of the Persian Gulf, goes
through the Strait Of Hormuz, into the Gulf
Of Oman, the Arabian Sea, and into the
Indian Ocean, into the normal sea lanes. So
when you got all this military action going
on, that's creating an impact on the ability
for logistics and supply.
And all of this ties into,
again, an inventory
standpoint.
If we're exhausting
inventory,
guess what? And I suspect if Trump hasn't
already, he's probably summoned,
the CEOs of the major defense contractors like
Lockheed Martin, RTX, you know, formerly Raytheon, BA
systems, Northrop Grumman,
all these guys that build a lot of
these weapons, you know, General Dynamics thrown there
and and Boeing with the bombs
that, hey. What can you turn on? Can
you turn on a second and a third
shift? And can you expedite the supply chain?
How much what are we gonna do is
create RFPs that all these defense contracts will
then respond and then be awarded these contracts
to pick up the pace to not only
replace existing inventory,
but get to theater.
God forbid this this continues.
And, again, from my perspective, what I'm seeing,
again, you know, challenge it, whatever. This does
not look like an Iraqi or Afghanistan type
war. This looks like a
absolute
punishment and pull
as just full blown pummel
to exhaust Iranian of
the Iranian government of all their military
and mission capabilities rockets that exhaust it. So
there's nothing left. And then then there's nothing
but total surrender.
And we can do that, but we can't
do multifaceted. And then the the larger question
becomes
from a geopolitical
standpoint is,
this is obviously
two times now where the president has made,
in my estimation, a very strategic decision, among
other things, to keep the American people safe,
but to, at the same time,
rattle the cage of China. You saw this
with Venezuela. China obviously gets a lot of
their oil from Venezuela. They get a lot
of their oil from Iran. The only other
place to get a oil from is Russia.
So you've got the president of The United
States
completely obliterate
an issue that's been going on for nearly
fifty years with Iran.
Took out Maduro from a,
arrest criminal justice standpoint, but killed the the
Ayatollah
and everyone associated with him. So there could
be
a road that leads to China because, again,
all these oil
impacts
hurt China a whole lot more than it
hurts you, me, or anybody listening.
So whether or not that's part of the
calculus or not,
this is a very
interesting development
as a whole, and people are gonna have
questions. And that's and that's totally fine. But
I don't think for one second, president Trump
who hates war, who hates endless
entanglements and endless wars, forever wars, whatever you
wanna call them, or or spilling blood and
treasure, meaning American soldiers. I don't think he's
gonna I think what him and Hegseth
and the military commanders underneath that have designed
here
is a total domination
and a complete punishment
of the Ayatollah
and the Iranian revolution in GARCOR. So that's
Yeah. That's no small feat, and that changes
the future
forever. Yeah. Got the attention of our enemies
and,
probably should get the attention of those that
we consider allies at this particular stage.
The defense industries,
you talk about the fact that, no doubt,
Donald Trump is speaking to the CEOs of
all of these defense industries that are out
there producing the kinds of weapons we need.
But when you say that we've already used
up sixteen years' worth of weapons, a quarter
of our stockpile,
can defense industries
pick up the pace enough
to cover
the the cost
as well as the need for more of
these kinds of of weapons?
So what I'll clarify is in the reference
of sixteen years of production was for a
particular weapon system, and I'm talking about interceptors,
that could be worse or better with the
other weapons that I mentioned in terms of
aircraft, etcetera, and depending on,
if we lose aircraft or if we lose,
battleships
or destroyers
or, you know, aircraft carriers, etcetera, during the
course of this military campaign.
But,
to the point of how fast can you
get things going,
again, if we're going off the assumption of
production where there's only one shift, meaning your
normal six to two or seven to three
or whatever, and all of a sudden you're
adding a second shift, you're adding a third
shift to the manufacturing and the factory plan
to be able to speed up time as
well as managing the supply chain.
And I've personally experienced this because I'm actively
being recruited by, some of these defense contractors
on these very weapons that we talked about
to get program managers,
up to speed and get this stuff going
to have experience
to push the supply chain and to get
things
manufactured
very quickly so they can either
replenish stock
or be used in theater. And, again, it's
not a quick turnaround. You know, you can
probably improve this significantly if the assumption was
sixteen years of production was with one shift.
You could easily,
shave that down to potentially,
eighteen months to three years
for,
a lot of these weapons, and that's not
withstanding,
being strategic in other,
supplies and different command structures. Like, you know,
I talked about Indo Pacom. That's just one
of the many in terms of weapon supply.
So, again, this can't go on forever, and
that's where I think the strategy is is
Iran will eventually run out of the stuff
regardless of the asymmetric warfare from a cost
standpoint. We'll get to a point, but it
also creates,
yes, vulnerability, but it also indirectly,
is a major boost to the economy
and to jobs because guess what? If you're
gonna ramp up demand and production and the
supply chain for this, you're gonna have to
hire people to do this Yep. Very much
like during,
you know, World War two. So
there's a lot that can happen here. You
can add shifts.
You can expand,
from a buying power. If you're going from
buying, let's say, raw material of, you know,
fill in the blank x, and you're only
buying a thousand units and now you're getting
five to seven to 10,000 units, guess what?
Economies of scale comes in
because you've got volume on your side, which
isn't typical in defense. Right? In automotive, volume
is a main driver of manufacturing
that can drive the cost down in in
a lot of ways because you're doing volume.
Defense is not the same thing because you
don't have as many customers as you would
buying an automobile.
So I think that is very possible, is
very capable, but I would also argue
excuse me before I lose my voice again,
that ultimately,
all these defense contractors have to make a
very easy decision that you cut out the
fat and everything in your corporations. That means
DEI nonsense. You hire the best of the
best, not because of someone what they look
like or what their sex is or anything
else. You get the best person that can
do the damn job, and you make this
work. And you get rid of this nonsense
of all the other
fat that's in it, and you manufacture
and you deliver product, and you make sure
it meets the specifications and the quality of
the engineering drawn, and you deliver it. That's
what you gotta do.
Is technology
a big part of this where,
human hands are not needed in so many
of the more difficult ways that, defense weapons
are made?
And is anyone being trained for the jobs
that have to do both with the technology
and the hands on making of these weapons?
Yes. Because there's there's kind of a
industrialization
going on right now where there's a lot
of robotics and there's a lot of technology
that can replace,
humans to do things at a better spec,
at a better quality, at a faster pace,
at a cheaper cost.
However,
those
machines,
excuse me, and those robots do break down.
So you're gonna need people that know how
to repair that, get that back on That's
right. What the impacts are. So as much
as things that will be replaced, it's going
to be creative destruction because it's gonna generate
new demand for new types of jobs,
at the same time. Either way,
there's gonna be a massive review in terms
of what can we do. I mean, the
nice to have is the customization on some
of these weapons depending on,
design. Right? I'm a I'll venture to guess,
generally speaking,
that any designs that were meant for Afghanistan,
Iraqi took into consideration
sand.
Okay. Are you gonna take sand into consideration
dealing with Iran? Maybe. Maybe not. All these
other things where you can actually adjust the
design to get things through faster that don't
necessarily need as many human hands where robots
and machines
can do things
a lot quicker
You're gonna see that but in terms of
the integration I don't think we're we're at
that point And when I say integration I'm
talking about the wiring the electronics and all
that kind of stuff that you need a
human hand for.
Unless elon musk has his optimist robots but
it's enough, which I don't think he has
yet, or or the, you know, the finger
touch stuff.
We're getting there. I'm sure that will be
in the twenty thirties, but we're not there
yet. Oh, dear.
We're not there yet.
How do you see our stockpile,
that being resolved, the fact that we are
using up so many of our weapons? And
how is it? Where
where did the,
Iranians
make
all of the drones
that
Russia depended upon.
Have we destroyed
those plants? Have we destroyed their ability to
make more drones, which seems to be the
obvious way they are attacking all of these
other countries around them in The Middle East?
Yeah. So,
in the first
the first day of the seven days so
far,
that was one of the main targets. When
I refer to military installations
or or airfields or anything like that, I'm
also referring to defense factories
that produce this stuff. You're going after the
manufacturing
facilities
that produce drones and or weapons in Iran.
And that's what was targeted and a lot
of them were blown to bits.
You know,
to make it as a comparison,
if you happen to work at a Lockheed
Martin plant or a Boeing plant that does
the factory operations,
if we were, you know, open to actually
vulnerabilities,
that would be a target. And that's what
was targeted in Iran,
because it's not just the military,
you know, the formal military
aircraft and weapons that are sitting somewhere. It's
the actual factories that produce them. And that's
where, you know, kind of my earlier reference
of, you know, you have on one end,
you have diplomacy. You have on the other
end, you have military action. And in between
is the 80 intelligence that is, you know,
more or less provided by the CIA.
That's how you get that information.
Do we have to worry about the Middle
East countries
that, are now being attacked
by Iran, that we are giving them perhaps
more weapons,
that they can then,
sell to China perhaps somewhere down the line,
and,
all of these most wonderful weapons that help
protect us
will now be held,
by our enemies?
So it's very interesting because, again, my comments
earlier about Iran being
the bully in the neighborhood with no friends
is is paramount now. Even
the ones that you can't even trust a
double deal like Qatar,
I don't think are because they're being attacked.
Like, everyone is being attacked, whether it's US,
facilities or not in these countries, and they're
responding kind now. The Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia,
KSA is a very interesting one because we
do and the state department approves this. We
do something called,
NFS, foreign military sales, which congress and the
state department has to approve the sale of
any type of military weapons that we produce
here in The United States to a country
like KSA.
And they
would not be surprised in the not too
distant future who never wanna get involved in
any of this stuff because they're too busy
building an economic powerhouse.
I suspect they will start using some of
those weapons that we still graciously allowed to
be sold to them,
that have a specific purpose.
So I wouldn't be surprised
if, again,
China is not too far away in terms
of being a bully without friends. And granted,
this is not an open and shut thing,
but this is seriously regardless of anyone's viewpoint
on the the present now, my hand
now looking at Iran,
China is
severely being damaged
by this
as they were during the Maduro raid. So
I wouldn't be surprised
if there is further isolation, not met not
cut off, but probably further attempts at isolation
away from China as time goes on. Again,
this
this is,
you know, this has been a forty c
seven year issue.
Forty seven years, nearly, you know, fifty years
of
an itch or a frustration that has cost
over a thousand American lives. And we've never
had a president that said, you know what?
I'm not gonna carry this on to another
president. I'm not gonna let my children, my
grandchildren,
anyone else's children and grandchildren deal with this
ever again. And we are going to
not only punish Iran, which is clearly what
they're doing.
We're going to force regime change, which they
did by killing everybody,
as well as,
behavior change that sends a message to every
other country.
It's not just Iran that's receiving the message.
It's the other Gulf States as well as
China and Russia that if you mess with
The United States, if you do not convert
or at least respect western civilization
and the edicts of normal socialization,
we are going to deal with you, and
we are gonna leave nothing left. You could
try to do these things where you leave,
with left of the Iranian revolutionary guard corps,
you know,
a a holy city, you know, kinda like
the Vatican where, you know, they have
fundamentals GI,
implementation,
but that's kinda like a two state solution
that never works. If you want this behavior
to stop, you kill every single one of
them. And I don't think
that's a hesitation
for president Trump or secretary Vorhexa.
Although they have offered them,
immunity,
more or less for the job that they
were forced to do
but are continuing to do
despite,
what's happening in Iran
among the people.
Agreed. And remember, Trump will exhaust and facilitate
every peaceful avenue he can. He's proven that
time and time again.
But if you are being lied to and
it's not sincere,
Trump will offer that hand of friendship.
And if you bat away that hand of
friendship,
we will kill you. Brian, you have you
have
given us a a tremendous amount of information
having to do with the weapon systems that
are being used
and used up as well.
How long do you think Iran can go
with a stockpile of drones that they must
have somewhere as well as, you know, the
machinations
that it takes to get it to the
Middle East countries?
How long do you actually project this is
going to continue?
Or I give an open answer of not
long based on the daily updates from, joint
huisasf,
raising pain that the percentage
of usage of weapons
continues to drop significantly,
and that's usually a signal that they are
running out of supply,
which is a good thing. So this is
not going to be an endless forever war.
This is not gonna be anything
other than a military campaign
that is gonna be quite destructive,
in the short term that will will seed
a result,
rather quickly.
If if you're got a gun in my
head in terms of days, weeks, or months,
this might be in the avenue between weeks
and months.
Wow. I was hoping that it was going
to be more in the vicinity of days,
but I guess we'll see.
Not one of us knows, but you certainly
understand the weapons side of warfare.
And,
I don't know whether anyone actually knew how
many of these drones,
Iran was capable of making,
where they were stored, and whether or not
they can continue to go to this storage
area to use against the Middle East countries.
But what's your prognostication
with this?
Well, it's been significantly
damaged. And, again,
to my point earlier, they're very low cost.
If they are able to find the materials
to to do this,
this is outside of their normal channels, then
you have some issues with that. But
their command structure has been decimated.
Their entire communications
has been decimated. I mean, one of the
real quick. I mean, one of the
craziest things about this whole thing is when
we got the Ayatollah
and his his leadership council, they were above
ground
because they were either too stupid and too
confident
or they had they they're perceived intel that
we were gonna hit them during the night.
And instead,
we let them wake up the next morning.
Nothing gonna happen. They did their normal thing,
and we we knocked them out in broad
daylight.
So
all this stuff
will ultimately impact,
the inventory
at some point, but you can tell
by the usage
that they are being,
I would venture to say pragmatic
in the targets and what they're using because
they're running out. They're running out. They don't
know what to do.
It's, you know, it's one of those scenarios
where you are flustered.
There is no command structure.
There's a vacuum.
We'll see what happens.
Indeed, we will. Small favors,
but a huge favor, Brian Fitzherbert, being on,
every Friday on Fitzherbert Friday. Thank you so
much, sir, for being here with us. We
I am enlightened,
and I am also,
prayerful
that perhaps this will not last in the
months category, but that it will be over
shortly. Brian, thank you. Love to you and
the family.
Well, thanks for having me. I hope that
helped. Yeah. Have a good one.
Anyway,
Friday, last segment,
all I can say is I I hope
that you appreciate Brian's input as much as
I do. Incredible.