“Nothing Ever Happens”… Until It Does

This week, we discuss two fast-moving geopolitical stories: mass unrest in Iran and renewed U.S. rhetoric about acquiring Greenland. On Iran, we talk through what’s driving the protests, what the regime’s crackdown (and internet blackout) signals, and what—if anything—the U.S. should do. On Greenland, we break down why the “we need it for national security” argument doesn’t fully add up, what might actually be motivating the push, and why messing with Denmark over this could spell serious trouble for NATO.

Segment 1: Iran protests

We frame the protests as being sparked by economic pain (currency slide, rising prices, daily life instability), then compounded by a heavy crackdown—including mass arrests and a communications blackout that makes verification hard and signals the regime feels threatened.

Key points:

* We draw a sharp line between Iran’s regular military and the IRGC—and why the IRGC is the core instrument of internal repression and regional proxy violence.

* We talk about how shutting down the internet is both tactical (disrupting protest coordination) and strategic (limiting global visibility).

* We stress a reality that surprises many Americans: Iran’s population and its leadership are not the same thing—and the Iranian public can be far more open to the U.S. than the regime is.

* We talk about the role of a charismatic external figure in revolutions—and whether Reza Pahlavi (the former Shah’s son) could fill that role the way Khomeini did from exile in 1979. We don’t pretend to know—just that this variable matters if the country tips into chaos.

What should US involvement look like?

* Sandy is more open to limited action if the situation escalates and if there’s a credible legal and coalition-based case—not “Iraq/Afghanistan-style” regime change with ground forces. The idea is: deny the regime its ability to suppress protests (targeting command/control nodes and IRGC infrastructure) while also reducing Iran’s ability to retaliate against U.S. regional bases—then think hard about the downstream consequences.

* LJ leans toward restraint, mainly because:

* Direct U.S. (or Israeli) involvement could let the regime reframe protests as a foreign plot.

* If strikes don’t produce actual regime change, we may just deepen the hostility and then watch the situation “boil over and reset” later.

Segment 2: Greenland

We pivot to Greenland because the rhetoric has re-emerged—and we treat it as a real test of how the U.S. weighs geography, resources, alliance management, and presidential legacy.

Key points:

* Greenland is strategically located, and the Arctic is becoming more important as ice recedes and shipping/access changes.

* But we already have strong military access and cooperation pathways with Denmark/Greenland—so the “we must own it for national security” line feels incomplete.

* Legacy / real-estate psychology: the appeal of “adding” Greenland to the U.S. map is politically/psychologically powerful (even if the map distorts how big it looks).

* Greenland is resource-rich: rare earths, plus broader resource potential as conditions change.

Why we think this could backfire

* We underline how Denmark has been a “small but mighty” NATO ally, including in tough fights. Turning Greenland into a coercion issue risks real damage to alliance cohesion—something our competitors would love.

Notable moments (rough timestamps)

* 00:00–02:40 — Cold open/banter

* 02:40–03:00 — What we’re covering: Iran + Greenland

* 03:00–17:10 — Iran unrest, crackdown, IRGC vs military, intervention debate, outside leader question

* 18:40–21:40 — Personal Iran stories + a writing tangent (and a Naval Institute short story mention)

* 21:40–31:10 — Greenland: motives, rare earth reality check, NATO risk

* 31:10–end — Ukraine note + what we’re doing for paid subscribers

Further Reading

A quick fiction hit from Sandy: “Reunion” drops us onto the flight deck of the USS Ranger on a brutal January night when a routine launch near Iran turns into a cascading emergency with life-or-death decisions in seconds.