Hello and welcome to the political orphanage, a home for plucky misfits and problem solvers.

I'm your host, Andrew Heaton, possible Shaw replacement for the great Persian people. I'm throwing my hat in. I think I'd make

a fun Shaw. A possibility opened by the United States going to war with Iran recently,

begging the question, why now? The United States has been itching to oust the Ayatollah for 40 years. So why now? What changed?

You can make the argument that Iran was perilously close to obtaining nuclear weapons,

and thus Israel and the United States had a make or break moment in which to

intervene, and they did. But that presumed state of they're only two weeks away from having

nuclear weapons has been more or less constant for over a decade. Also, we bombed fordo to hell last July, crippling their nuclear

program. They're actually further from obtaining nuclear weapons now than they were a year ago.

So then why the invasion and why the timing on the invasion? What changed? My guest is going to make a compelling

argument that the situation in Iran did not change. We did. Or more specifically, our arsenal

did. Now, quick throat clearing before we dive into all of this, today's episode is more about

operations and military

technology than it is about aughts and shoulds. I have many strong thoughts about aughts and

shoulds, particularly when they come to regime change, constitutional law, and warmaking powers.

My cup runneth over with opinions on all of that. But for our purposes

today, we are focusing on military capacity more than we are on geopolitics or philosophy. So

nobody accused me of being a neocon because of how calm I am and discussing this situation. It's

just not that kind of episode. What it is

is an informative conversation about a side of the Iranian conflict that you probably have not

considered. Until now, right here on thephanage.

My guest today is Michael Tent.

...