Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Strategic Ambiguity Or Incoherence; Satellite Images Show Saudi Airbase Where Iran Strike Injured At Least 10 U.S. Troops; Rubio: U.S. Can Achieve Iran War Objectives Without Ground Troops. "No Kings" Protests Scheduled Across The Country; Well-Timed Iran War Bets Raise Questions. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired March 28, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:29]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: No end in sight. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs. We're now four weeks into this war with Iran, and in the last 24 hours, it has expanded again. For the first time since the war began, Iran backed Houthi forces in Yemen have fired a missile toward Israel, opening a new front in the conflict.

At the same time, at least 10 U.S. service members were wounded in an Iranian attack on a base in Saudi Arabia. And back here at home, markets are reacting in real time. The Dow falling again, down nearly 800 points in the latest session as oil prices continue to climb.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military presence in the region is growing. More than a thousand U.S. soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division are preparing to deploy to the Middle East, adding to two Marine Expeditionary Units now deploying or repositioning to the region, bringing thousands of Marines and sailors. Those moves suggest the Pentagon's contemplation of using ground troops in Iran. But just yesterday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there'd be no need to go beyond the airstrikes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: We can achieve all of our objectives with our ground troops, but we are always going to be prepared to give the president maximum optionality and maximum opportunity to adjust to contingencies should they emerge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So, one hand, the administration building military capacity in the region, on the other, insisting it does not need to put U.S. troops on the ground. And that gets to the bigger question here, because the timeline of this war keeps shifting. President Trump has repeatedly set deadlines for Iran to change course and then move them. The first deadline that he imposed was for 7:44 p.m. Eastern last Monday night for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face U.S. strikes on its energy infrastructure. But by Monday morning, before the markets open, he backed off that deadline and put five days on the clock, causing oil prices to slide and stocks to rise.

And then on Thursday, just minutes after the markets closed, following one of the worst days Wall Street has seen since the war began, President Trump announced his latest extension. He's done this before. Remember, back on February 19th, he issued a verbal ultimatum to Iran during the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace. He said the world would find out if a, quote, "meaningful deal was possible within probably 10 days." That set an informal deadline of March the first. But the U.S. and Israel strikes struck one day prior, on February 28th.

This is nothing new for President Trump setting deadlines, then moving them, sometimes acting earlier, sometimes later. But rarely on the timeline that he first lays out. So set a reminder for April 6 at 8:00 p.m. Eastern or not. You can call it incoherence or strategic ambiguity. The man marches to his own beat. Surely the Iranians get that by now.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website. It's smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question. Is President Trump bluffing with ground troops?

And joining me now, CNN senior military analyst, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis. Admiral, good to see you. We're four weeks in now. Yemen's Houthis struck Israel for the first time since the war began. Ten Americans just injured at a Saudi base. More troops headed to the Middle East. The market's down.

It's feeling like escalation. Despite the president's, despite this desire to limit it to four to six weeks, your thoughts?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: He can still limit it to four to six weeks, but the chances of doing so are getting harder and harder. I think the Houthis starting to strike. If you will, that's going to become the Western Front of this war. That's another significant choke point because it controls the Suez Canal. And so, if you put Suez Canal closed alongside Strait of Hormuz lows, you've got an enormous gun pointed at the head of the global economy. So extremely worrisome.

To the question of, is President Trump bluffing or not? Are ground troops inevitable or not? I think the point to be made is that the chances of using them, the option to use them that Secretary Rubio is talking about is increasing. Is it inevitable that he'll use them? No. Is he bluffing? I don't think so.

If we know one thing about President Trump is that he's unpredictable. So, if I'm in Tehran, I'm concerned as I watch the level of ground force increase moving toward and in the region.

[09:05:02]

SMERCONISH: There's a perception, I think, in the media that we're putting tremendous troop concentrations in the Middle East. I read something online from a guy who writes provocatively, admittedly, Ken. His name is Ken Klippenstein. Just one quote.

"If you squint, an invasion seems inevitable. But look closer at the actual state of each force being cited and a very different picture emerges." Your reaction?

STAVRIDIS: It's not inevitable, obviously. Again, we know President Trump is unpredictable. He's also impatient. And ultimately, will he use those troops if he decides to? I think he will. I don't think it's a good idea from everything I see right now. But the point for Tehran is not to try and assess is it inevitable or not. It's is it possible?

And so, I think that troop increase that you're seeing is extremely significant. Inevitable, no. Possible, yes. More likely than it was three weeks ago? Yes.

SMERCONISH: You wrote for Bloomberg this week and focused on Kharg Island. What's the value to the United States if we can control Kharg Island?

STAVRIDIS: Quite simply, we can strangle the Iranian economy. 90 percent of their oil transships through that kind of seven square mile patch in the northern reach of the Persian Gulf. So, if you can control it, you can inevitably throttle the Iranian economy. That's a good thing.

The question I think the Pentagon is wrestling with and trying to give the President the right set of options is do you have to actually seize it and hold it? That's a significant military challenge, frankly. Or should you blockade it? Or could you go in and simply destroy it?

You really have all three of those options. Which is the best is something the Pentagon's wrestling with and the President will decide soon.

SMERCONISH: You are a former supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He here's something that the President said via Truth Social this week relative to NATO. "NATO nations have done absolutely nothing to help with the lunatic nation now military decimated of Iran. The USA needs nothing from NATO. But never forget this very important point in time. President Donald J. Trump."

If a NAITO member initiates an attack, Admiral. And then draws return fire, is Article 5 kicking in?

STAVRIDIS: It is. If the initial attack is based on imminent threat hostilities that that nation believes are about to break out, which is the narrative the administration has used here, then it would have to go to the North Atlantic Council. All the NATO countries come together and evaluate it. And if there's a collective decision that the initial round of strikes were done preemptively in the face of a standing threat, then I think there's a legal basis.

I want to make a point about NATO that's important for people to remember. It is this. After 9/11, NATO responded. European NATO responded. They sent 50,000 troops ultimately to Afghanistan. They were under my command for four years. Hundreds of them died there. NATO has stood and delivered for the United States.

I think in this crisis, you'll see them come at some point, perhaps from the sea in order to reopen this Strait of Hormuz.

SMERCONISH: What can our allies do? Not NATO, our European allies, shy of NATO's full participation. What can the allies do relative to Iran?

STAVRIDIS: Quite a bit. And in particular, two things I draw a line under. One, are the minesweeping capabilities. Minesweepers, minehunters. The Europeans are very good at this. Why? Because they have enclosed seas. They have to deal with Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean.

There are standing NATO mine countermeasure groups that could be brought into this to help clear the strait. And then secondly, Michael, NATO maintains standing maritime forces. These are guided missile frigates, guided missile destroyers. They're an international force representing all of the nations of NATO. Those could also be brought in.

It could be done under the NATO flag if it went through the process I described, or it could be done individually by the European nations. I think ultimately the Europeans will decide to participate in a straight clearing operation. We need their help.

[09:10:04]

SMERCONISH: Admiral James Stavridis, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. We appreciate you, Admiral. Thank you.

STAVRIDIS: You bet.

SMERCONISH: New York Times White House and national security correspondent David Sanger has covered five U.S. presidents. He's also CNN's political and national security analyst. And his bestselling book, New Cold wars, comes out in paperback on April 7th. David joins me now.

David, simple question, complex answer, I'm sure. Why hasn't Iran capitulated?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Michael, I think the main reason is right now the Iranians think they're winning just by surviving, right? I mean, we've had four weeks as of today of attack on Iran by the most powerful force that the world has ever seen. The U.S. military and their regime fundamentally still stands with different leaders, and much of their leadership killed, much of their missile capability down.

But just yesterday, as you indicated at the opening, they managed to do a strike on Saudi Arabia, get through air defenses, wipe out two or three. We're still trying to figure it out. Major American aircraft and injure 10 to a dozen Americans who we hope and pray we'll be okay. And that's pretty remarkable four weeks in. But I think both sides are living in something of a sense of unreality here. I don't think the Iranians understand how long the U.S. staying power could be or the possibilities if they take Kharg Island, as you were discussing with Admiral Stravidis and so forth. And I don't think that the U.S. understands that it would take a much larger effort in order to actually change the government of 92 million people and bring about that revolution that the president talked about on day one and hasn't mentioned much since.

SMERCONISH: You and I have spoken previously about the precision with which the U.S. military has operated. They've been able to hit their targets. Does that make it more or less likely that Iran is willing to relinquish its nuclear stockpile?

SANGER: It's a really interesting question because so far the U.S. has not gone after that nuclear stockpile. Yesterday, Friday, we actually saw the Israelis begin to strike some nuclear targets, not the one where the uranium is buried deep underground, the one that we're most concerned about, but they have begun to take out other parts of the nuclear infrastructure.

I think the Iranians have to consider the possibility that the longer this goes on, the more likely it is they're going to lose that entire stockpile. The question is, can there be a negotiation led, it seems, by Vice President Vance, if this could come together in which the Iranians would give up that stockpile voluntarily, either all of it or enough of it, that the U.S. Would know they wouldn't have enough around for one bomb.

Remember, that's what happened in 2016 -- 2015, in the agreement with the Obama administration. You may like that agreement. You may think it's full of loopholes. It is full of loopholes. But at the end of the day, the Iranians agreed to give away 97 percent of all of the nuclear material they had. And if we could win an agreement like that, I'd say take it.

SMERCONISH: In my prior segment, I think that the Kyron on the screen said incoherence or strategic ambiguity. From the perspective of the Iranians, they have no idea what they're going to get from President Trump relative to these deadlines, on again, off again, and so forth. It puts them in a precarious position of not being able to. And it puts know we try and read the tea leaves here of our president, but from their standpoint in war, they have no idea what he'll do next.

SANGER: They don't. And that certainly plays to President Trump's advantage. And I think he views this clearly as great strategic ambiguity. But I think the Iranians sense something else, that in the changing objectives that the president has articulated, starting with regime change, then it's not regime change, starting with degrading their missile capability and their military capability and then saying the other day that they're desperate for a deal of some kind, which he seems willing to negotiate. I think they believe they have some more time and time on their side, that the more the markets decline, that the closer you get to the midterm elections, that the more painful this seems for the United States, that the president's interest in getting to that complete victory that he was talking about two weeks ago is probably going to diminish. [09:15:14]

Remember, it was March 7th now, three weeks ago that the president declared, we've already won. And, you know, here we are about to go into April.

SMERCONISH: David Sanger, thank you as always for your contribution. And what are your thoughts at home? Hit me up on Truth Social. Hit me up on Truth Social. On X, you can hit me up on YouTube. Find me any way you can find me. And perhaps I'll be reading your comment on air.

"Bluffing? We finally have a real president again. So, Mr. Trump is capable of evolving his position as new data emerge."

I agree with Admiral Stavridis, Janette. I think it's a fair question to be asking as to whether the amassing of troops and the things that he said really are indicative of putting U.S. boots on the ground. But I -- I agree with the way in which Admiral Stavridis articulated it just a couple of moments ago, which is to say the odds are increasing. And he's not a guy who's bluffing in this instance.

I want to know what everybody else thinks. Go to my website. It's smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. Is President Trump bluffing relative to ground troops?

Up ahead, metal wealth versus mental health. What does that recent verdict in the lawsuit against social media mean for the rest of us? And sign up for my newsletter at smerconish.com when you're voting on today's poll question for which Steve Breen sketch this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:50]

SMERCONISH: California, a prophet on the burning shore. Hat tip to Bobby Weir and John Perry Barlow for that great Grateful Dead lyric.

Well, Merriam Webster defines a prophet as one who foretells future events. California has long served that role when it comes to social, cultural and legal trends. Hula hoops went national from California in 1958. The first no fault divorce law enacted there in 1969.

Property tax reform. You remember Howard Jarvis that arrived via Prop 13 in 1978. It's a long list of firsts. Medical marijuana, gig economy, labor laws. Think Uber drivers. Skateboarding and surfing. The summer of love, the hippie movement.

This is the state that has often led the way in personal computing and same sex marriage in venture capital, organic foods, mindfulness, plastic bag bans. Many ideas first mocked in the so-called flyover states. They often then migrate east.

California, for better or worse, is a proven trendsetter. And now another list, the ford Pinto, the 1971 model with a rear mounted fuel tank known to ignite in crashes where executives declined an $11 fix despite internal tests. Firestone tires, Takata airbags, Fen phen diet drugs, the GM ignition switch, Monsanto's roundup. What's the common denominator in this list? When regulators and legislators failed to protect the public, trial lawyers sought civil justice.

Well, this week those two traditions, California innovation and litigation merged. A Los Angeles jury returned a landmark verdict against Big Tech, Meta and Google found liable for damages claimed by a now 20-year-old woman who said that their social media design features were addictive and harmed her mental health. Plaintiff lawyers introduced evidence that showed tech execs were aware of the negative impact of their products on kids.

They argued that features like Infinite scroll and Autoplay and algorithms were designed to hook young users. The jury awarded 3 million in compensatory damages, another 3 million in punitive damages, 2.1 mil from Meta, 900,000 from Google, TikTok and Snap, they'd settled before trial.

In his closing argument on damages, plaintiff lawyer Mark Lanier held up a jar of M and Ms. And told jurors that each piece represented $1 billion of the company's value. He said, you can take out a handful and it will not make a difference. You can take out two handfuls and not make a difference. The $6 million verdict, that's not going to put a hurt on Meta or Google. They're too big, too rich.

However, there are many more cases like this across the country that are being readied for trial, and the California verdict follows a separate ruling by a New Mexico jury brought by the state attorney general there, which found that Meta violated a state law by failing to safeguard users of its apps from child predators. In that case, a jury said that Meta should pay 375 million.

Since 1996, social media companies have been shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects the platforms from liability for user generated content. Section 230 that was a gift from Congress to the fledgling Internet industry, which enabled Big Tech to operate without concern for a jury's oversight. The California case that reached a jury because theory there was different, they alleged defective product design.

It's worth recalling that a Wall Street Journal editorial dismissed the suit before the trial as a shakedown. Accusing plaintiff lawyers of never letting a cultural panic go to waste. Yet now the verdict fits another familiar pattern the civil bar acting where government and regulators had not or would not.

Also worth remembering is the work of Jean Twenge, the San Diego state psychologist who studies generational behavior and has been a frequent guest on this program. In her 2017 book, iGen, Twenge highlighted a marked increase in youth mental health issues beginning around 2012, the very moment smartphones became universal. At the time, she spoke only of correlation, not causation. But as data accumulated and studies multiplied, Dr. Twenge spoke of the causal connection between screen time and mental health and became an effective advocate for the need for reform.

[09:25:28] As Gerald Posner observed in his Substack analysis this week, Big Tech's Big Tobacco moment has now arrived.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. Plus, the Iran war isn't just playing out on the battlefield, it's playing out in the betting markets. Millions of dollars ride on who knows what and when. Is that a threat to fairness and national security or a window into the truth? I'll speak with the godfather of prediction markets.

Don't forget to answer this week's poll question at smerconish.com. Is President Trump bluffing with ground troops? And be sure to sign up for my newsletter while you're there. You'll get the work of illustrators including Jack Oman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:40]

SMERCONISH: More than 3,100 No Kings rallies taking place today and expecting to attract millions of protesters. Those rallies will be in locations all across the United States. The last time that they did this -- there you go. There's the map that shows exactly where they are. From the islands of Hawaii to the Arctic Circle, organizers putting together these events, describing them as a rallying point for -- pardon me, the notes just don't match what I'm saying. So, take that off the screen and let me just tell you what's going on.

A lot of people are getting together today all across the 50 states for No Kings rallies. The last time that they did this, they had, I think, 3,000 rallies and more than 700 -- and more than 7 million attendees. And that was without the war in Iran, which I can only imagine is going to add to the attendance at all of these events today. And we'll keep our eye on it.

Here's some of what you thought so far relative to this week's program. What do we have from social media? Expensive bluff, says Trish.

I love it when you can just down and dirty say, here's what I think. I don't know if it's a bluff. We're all going to find out if it's a bluff. I hope the ground troops aren't needed. I'd love to see Iran come to its senses and capitulate to the president's demands.

Here's more reaction to today's program so far. Is the Meta ruling going to survive appeal? I doubt it. Maybe these people were screwed up before they started using Instagram.

By the way, I'll tell you, Miwingman, there's a doctrine in the law called the eggshell plaintiff, meaning you take them as you find them. So, if they were made worse by social media because of those design defects, that is not a reason to overturn the verdict. Wait, I had -- I hadn't finished the second part of that. Put it back on the screen. Come on, let's go.

Every product is designed to be addictive. They -- read some of the trial testimony in this case, and you'll see exactly what the tech platforms knew and continue to expand upon as they design those products. The jury had to sit and listen as to whether they were defective and whether there was an appropriate warning.

I think it's the first of many verdicts. Don't forget some of the parties settled even before it went to the verdict. So, it was Meta and Google who were left standing at the end. More social media reaction. What do we have?

Do parents still play a role in teens lives? Can't they see that there's an issue and shut off the phone?

Easier said than done would be my answer to that. Yes, of course there's a parental oversight role that's important in all of these social media instances. What's necessary is a collective community response, right? You don't want your son or your daughter, your niece or nephew, grandson or granddaughter to be the odd person out in terms of social relationships.

So what's necessary is the communities get together. And the parents say, here's what we're all going to do relative to our kids. And then nobody is the outlier. I've always thought that that made the most sense. And for goodness sakes, no phone access when they're at school. Put them in those bags.

Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smeconish.com. Is President Trump bluffing with ground troops? And still to come, what if you could bet on war and win? New reporting shows, well-timed trades and wagers just before President Trump's Iran moves. Coincidence or a system that rewards inside information? I'll put that question to one of the leading minds behind prediction markets.

When you're voting on the poll question today, sign up for the newsletter at Smerconish.com, for which Eric Allie sketched this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:38:31]

SMERCONISH: A new question about the Iraq war, not just about strategy, but about who knew what and when. In the hours and even days before some of President Trump's most consequential announcements on Iran, money was moving. On prediction market sites like Polymarket, where users can bet on real world events, hundreds of accounts placed wagers correctly predicting a U.S. strike on Iran before that strike was publicly known.

In one case, a "New York Post" case found that a single user operating dozens of accounts, winning nearly every time and clearing more than $2 million in profits. "The Post" also pointed to another case, writing, quote, "before President Donald Trump announced on Monday very good and productive conversations regarding an end to the war with Iran, 10 brand new Polymarket accounts had wagered a combined $160,000 on a U.S. against Iran ceasefire, betting that it would happen by March 31st or April 15th. They stand to gain over $1 million collectively if the war comes to a halt by the end of the month." And it's not just the betting markets. There were also large, well- timed trades in oil and equities. Check out this Axios' graph showing a spike in futures trading. Just minutes before President Trump announced a shift in strategy on Iran, and the moves that sent prices surging, the result is a pattern that has raised questions on Capitol Hill and prompted new legislation to ban betting on military actions and government decisions altogether. Importantly, we should mention that there's no direct evidence that any of these trades were illegal or that inside government information was used, but the timing and the precision are hard to ignore.

[09:40:09]

Flashback to Venezuela in early January. On January 2nd, a trader turned roughly $32,000 into more than 400,000 by betting on the capture of Nicolas Maduro right before it was announced the very next morning. All of this points to a much bigger question in a world where you can bet on a military operation, where information moves instantly and where markets reward those who are right, are these platforms exposing a problem or simply revealing how information already flows?

I should point out that CNN has a partnership with prediction market platform Kalshi, and uses its data to cover major events, but editorial employees are prohibited from participating in prediction markets.

Joining me now is Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University. He's often called the godfather of the modern prediction markets. Even getting a shout out on X by Polymarket founder CEO Shayne Coplan, who reflected on turning our guest's academic work into a real world application. Dr. Hanson joins me now.

So, you've said that using insider information is necessary for the predictive markets to work a, quote, "feature, not a bug," but is that good for the markets but at the same time bad for society?

ROBIN HANSON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: Some organizations want to keep secrets like the U.S. government, and they have laws already saying that their employees and agents are not allowed to reveal that information, either through trading or through journalism. So, we already have laws on that.

As you already mentioned, our major financial markets like oils and stocks are also venues by which people can reveal information. So, the point of these systems is to reveal information and to collect it. But we might want to restrict that sometimes in some ways, as we might do with those sorts of, you know, employee revealing secrets.

But they're doing a good job from what they're supposed to do. And they're supposed to collect and reveal information, and that's what they're doing.

SMERCONISH: So, Congress is now contemplating whether they should preclude betting, wagering on, you know, world events writ large. If not Congress, then how should this be policed? Or would you say it doesn't need any policing just let the market continue to handle it? HANSON: Again, this is already illegal, so there's already laws on the books. If those laws aren't being enforced, that's a law enforcement problem, not a market problem. The world needs more information. More information is good.

That's what you are. You are a journalist and you are giving the world information. We appreciate you for doing that. But that's what these markets also do. They are competing with you journalists, a different way to collect and share information. But just like you report on the war, they report on the war.

SMERCONISH: OK. So, if someone in the private sector has inside information and they act on it, then the private sector ought to deal with that person. But for the rest of us, we get the benefit of that accurate information. It actually impacts the markets in a positive way. Is that what you're saying?

HANSON: Yes. As you may know, journalists sometimes induce people to reveal information they weren't supposed to reveal. We've had many cases over the decades of journalists revealing information that was supposed to be kept secret. And we mostly allow that and think it's OK, because it's important enough that journalism be able to reveal information.

The same is true for these markets. They are an important source of information. We should prosecute as we can the laws that we have. But you have to know that most insider trading is never caught.

I don't think most people quite realize that when a company makes an announcement and the price moves, a third of that movement happens before the announcement, and about half of that is insider trading. And that's vastly more than the amount of insider trading ever prosecuted.

So, we just know the world is full of insider trading that doesn't get caught. That's the fact in most financial markets.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Hanson, you and I are having this conversation on a day when millions are going to gather in so-called No Kings protests. They have a right to protest. They have a right enshrined in the constitution to protest. Would you go as far as to say that there's actually a speech right inherent in what you and I are talking about, wagering in predictive markets?

HANSON: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that protest is a constitutional free speech right because there are things you can say with protest you can't say in words, or letters to the editor. There are things you can say in betting markets that you also can't say in protests or letters to the editor. It's a channel of communication that just isn't possible to say the same things through other channels.

So, this information that you're talking about was revealed through markets and not through other channels first. And that's showing that there are some kinds of information that you can really only say effectively through this channel.

SMERCONISH: Which should be more fearful about the increased reliance on predictive markets pollsters or media outlets?

HANSON: Pollsters are generating information that's an input to the markets.

[09:45:02]

But journalism is taking those inputs and summarizing them. So, the journalists should be a little more afraid actually. It's more competing with people who take information and summarize it than people who generate information that's the source of other summaries.

SMERCONISH: And by the way, the pollsters are integral to the predictive markets because theoretically, if I'm wagering on, let's say, a political race, I want to take into account what those polls say. It's a symbiotic relationship.

HANSON: And in the last presidential election, apparently, some of the people who did really well in the markets commissioned their own special polls that gave better information than the publicly available polls. And that's how they had an advantage.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Robin Hanson, the so-called godfather of predictive markets, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate your contribution.

HANSON: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Checking in on your social media reaction. Follow me on X. Follow me on YouTube. Maybe I'll read yours.

I guess betting on blood is a rational thing for some people. It just makes people look disgusting and inhumane.

But I think he also, my guest, makes a point about the value of information that we can glean from these markets. And when people have skin in the game, they have accurate information on which they're wagering, which is to the benefit of the rest of us.

I know -- I know superficially you say, well, that's -- that's repulsive and shouldn't be permitted. But I think as he just explained in four or five minutes, there's some public good that actually comes from the wagering as well.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Please go there and cast a ballot. Is President Trump bluffing relative to ground troops?

Subscribe to my newsletter while you're there. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons from the likes of Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:51:07]

SMERCONISH: OK. There's the poll results so far on today's poll question at Smerconish.com, 31,065. Yes, I'm in the majority for the first time in a while.

Is President Trump bluffing with regard to ground troops? And 68 percent of us, more than two thirds say no. Included in that 68 percent, yours truly. And also Admiral Stavridis, who was a guest earlier on the program and said that he doesn't think that President Trump is bluffing, and nor do I.

The Iranians have a difficult assessment on their hands in trying to decide what will be his next move, because he's imposed these deadlines in the past and he's acted before they've run out, he's acted after they've run out. So, imagine being in their position and trying to anticipate his next move.

Here's some social media reaction. You can follow me on X. You can follow me on YouTube. You can follow me on all the usual places.

Bluffing is too methodical for Trump. His approach is to say different stuff at different times to cloud and confuse. And then he makes an impulse decision based on his gut.

Well, I referenced earlier in the program some regard this as incoherence. Others see strategic ambiguity to it, that there's advantage that comes from his methodology of doing business. I know that it's frustrating for everybody here in the states when we're talking about domestic issues. Perhaps, it's actually an advantage in a time of war when the opponent doesn't know what's coming. But hopefully he does.

More social media reaction from those during the course of today's program. No, Trump does what he says, meaning it's not a bluff. Although he promised no forever wars. Let's hope he keeps that promise.

Kelly Ann, in the 68 percent category who believe that he means what he says, particularly in this instance, I do as well. I think that we're in too deep. And that even those, frankly, of us, I'll put myself in this category, who question whether it was necessary at the time that it was initiated now find myself saying, OK, but we're there.

It's that David Boies mindset. He, the noted trial lawyer, wrote that piece in the "Wall Street Journal" was then a guest of mine that says, we're in it and we have to finish it. Because if we don't finish it, then President Trump leaves it for his successor, and you'll have President JD Vance or President AOC having to, again, deal with the erratic Iranians.

More social media reaction from today's program. What do we have?

It should be allowed. However -- oh, OK. So, this is now the issue of insider money and predictive markets. It should be allowed. However, betting by government insiders should be punished by life in prison. It's totally sick to make money on this suffering.

I think RPalderton is talking about wagering relative to war. I thought that Dr. Robin Hanson, the so-called godfather of predictive markets, made a number of salient points. A, being the value that comes from smart wagering. Yes, including people who have inside information. That's not to condone it, but it's to say that that's where these markets get their accuracy.

The second point that I thought that he made is that to the extent it needs policing, we've already got rules and laws in place, and it ought to be policed by whoever's information was misappropriated. The answer is not for Congress to say, well, you can't wager. There can't be predictive markets. We're not going to allow money to be taken in these particular areas, but rather for enforcement to come from whoever's data has now been put into the marketplace.

And yes, those people ought to be punished. But that's not an argument to shut down the entire marketplace. More social media reaction from today's program. I like this. Finally, I've got a lot of time to get some things off my chest.

[09:55:00]

Where are the parents? Should kids be addicted to school? The verdict was cow manure. I like to watch you on Saturday mornings. Should I sue CNN?

Well, you should sue CNN if we've manipulated the devices by which you're receiving this telecast so that there's an addictive quotient to it. And that then leads to the mental health problems of you and your kids.

I mean, if we -- here's the standard. The standard is whether a designed product was put into the marketplace. And in this case, the finding of the jury is that it was. That's how they got around Section 230.

Section 230 provided too much immunity, in my opinion, for all of these platforms. And consequently, they could do whatever they wanted to do without any fear that a jury was ever going to look over their shoulder. In this instance, the approach was creative, and they said, guess what? They put a defective design into the marketplace, and it's hurt people. And in so doing, I think the trial lawyers and the civil bar have done something that the government and regulators, Congress and regulators should have done.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. We thank you for watching, and we'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)