Peace, almost at hand in Iran, or is it? Plus, Ken Paxton, romps in Texas, and Spenceratt gets traction in LA. We'll discuss all this more on this edition of the editors. I'm Rich Larry. I'm joined as always by the right. Honorable Charles C.W. Cook, the good neighbor, Noah Rothman, and the sage of authenticity woods. Jim Garrity, you are, of course, listening to National Review Podcasts or sponsors. This episode are made in, Varian Catholic Charities. More about all of them in due course. For some reason, you're not already following us on a streaming service, by the way. You can find us everywhere from Spotify to Apple Podcast. If you like what you hear here, please consider giving us a glowing five-star review wherever you listen to your podcast. You don't like what you do. Please forget.

I said anything.

So Jim Garrity had peace almost at hand over the weekend.

But now people are like, well, maybe peace isn't so much at hand because there's a big gap between the U.S. and Iran here.

I think the basic dynamic still is that Trump obviously is very reluctant to start bombing again.

World wasn't popular at the outset. It's not anymore popular now, so the politics isn't great.

We're not in a crisis with their munitions, but we've used a lot of precision munitions. It's going to take a long time to replace.

And the Gulf states are very hesitant for him to start bombing again because they're worried that we won't be able to protect them from Iranian retaliation.

On the other hand, I don't think the Iranians particularly want to get bombed again either.

So I think both sides kind of circling around a deal, but neither side wants to overpay

for it. So what we're kind of talking about, it seems, is a trade of our blockade for Iran

freeing up in some form or other the straight oformuz, with some vague nuclear commitments that would

be worked out later.

I think a big problem for Trump is that the Iranians kind of sense that he seems more

desirous of a deal than they are, and that's never a great spot to be.

Rich, I think you summarized it pretty accurately there.

And if there's anything you can trust, it's a vague nuclear commitment from the Iranian mullahs.

It is deeply frustrating because we are in this status of not quite fully at war, certainly not at peace.

I've been characterizing it as the most violent ceasefire of all time.

Apparently it's a ceasefire where the Iranians will still, you know, put out new mines in the Gulf and they'll still shoot at our ships and we will still shoot back. Of course, the U.S. certainly has the right to respond and should respond when they are fired upon, but that does kind of, there's always an immediate announcement that the ceasefire is still in effect. and I've always kind of felt like, you know, what you're supposed to do in a ceasefire is right there in the name. So, you know, we're in this, you know, Schrodinger's conflict, where we're both in at war and not at war. I think the president did not think this through and really wants to get back to the status quo ante? I don't think that's an option anymore.

I'm sure no, we'll have more to say on this. And look, the world, the other things that,

you know, has the U.S. hammered Iran? Absolutely. Yes, their air force is destroyed. Yes, their

...