← Boots on the Ground: TV Clips
Ignatius: Special Forces May Already Be in Iran
David Ignatius, foreign affairs columnist and associate editor, The Washington Post. Charlie Rose, March 6, 2026.
Charlie Rose · posted 2026-03-06 · 35:54
Added to this site: September 27, 2026 · Transcribed: September 27, 2026
Original: youtube.com/watch?v=yOEagdpGEcQ · IPFS QmeF1JFRKmQKm6qg4nF37meEzfKrM5Sm3UmRSj4Qe8Lmz9
What this video shows
David Ignatius is the longtime foreign affairs columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post and a novelist about spies, known in Washington for his access to intelligence officials. In this long interview on Charlie Rose, recorded about a week into the war, the host opens by listing the topics: "the decision of both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu to invade Iran" and "the possibility of boots on the ground" (about 2 minutes in).
When Rose asks directly about boots on the ground, "whether they're Kurds? Or Americans," Ignatius gives the official line and then, in the same breath, says American soldiers may already be inside Iran (about 11 minutes in):
"I think there's no appetite or willingness to have significant numbers of American boots on the ground, special forces. You can imagine them being in, they may already be in, for all we know."
He goes on to say the President appears to have embraced backing an Iranian Kurdish army, with American air cover for its operations in western Iran, a plan he calls "really a bad idea" because the United States has a history of using the Kurds and then abandoning them. Near the end (about 29 minutes in) he says a new Iran can only be made by Iranians, "even if we were willing to put boots on the ground." The point for the reader: even a well-connected, establishment columnist, while repeating "no significant numbers," tells a national audience that American special forces may already be on Iranian soil and that a ground force built on Kurdish fighters with American air support is under way.
Where this fits: this clip is one of the TV clips calling for American boots on the ground in Iran. For the full story, what the public was told next to what was happening, see American Soldiers on the Ground in Iran — Videos.
Transcript
Machine transcription (apple-speechanalyzer · Source duration: 00:35:54 · Transcript covers: 00:35:54 ✓ full) made with Large File Bridge on September 27, 2026. It can mishear names and words, so check exact wording against the video before quoting it.
I think the world is astonished by a Markham boldness, uh, recklessness, depending on how people look at it. Um, I think, um, some of our closest European allies, especially Britain, um, have been so disturbed by the lack of international support or legal authority for this that they've pulled back and Trump is furious. So I've never seen a break between the U.S.
and Britain quite like what we're seeing now. David Ignatius is the internationally admired Foreign Affairs columnist and associate editor for the Washington Post. He is also a popular novelist writing 12 successful books about the world he covers as a reporter and columnist. His latest Phantom Orbit is about space warfare in which a Russian scientist, educated in part in China, reconnects with an American woman.
He met in China, and she is now a CIA analyst. Ignatius's strength as a columnist and novelist is his extraordinary knowledge of and access to primary players in espionage and statecraft around the world, men and women who are on the front lines of the global struggle for power among nations to survive and dominate in peace and war, to understand their complicated maneuvers for power. David travels the globe from his Washington base to learn firsthand the power plays of the story he writes about. David Ignatius graduated from Harvard College, magna cum Laude, and studied at King's College, Cambridge.
He has, in a varied and distinguished career, worked as an editor and reporter at the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, and was executive editor of the International Hurl Tribune in Paris. Ignatius not only writes novels and a twice weekly column for the Washington Post. He is also a commentator for MS Now, appearing frequently on Morning Joe. This is a critical moment in the Iranian War of 2026 and the future of the Middle East.
We will talk about many subjects, including the decision of both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu to invade Iran, the factors that will determine its impact on the country and the Middle East, the possibility of boots on the ground. The economic consequences for oil prices and future actions by President Trump. This makes it a perfect time to talk with David Ignatius. David, thank you for joining us.
Pleasure, Charlie. You know the Middle East. Well. How is this for better or worse?
Gonna change it. Well, so 1st the better part. Um, the Iranian regime that was embodied, symbolized by supreme leader, Alekhamanei, um, is going to change. I mean, he, the figurehead, is gone.
That regime, in all the time I've covered the Middle East, starting in 1980, the year after the Iranian Revolution, has been a force, in my view, for instability, um, uh, turmoil, sometimes terrorism, uh, in in the Middle East, uh, I have a visceral personal memories of that from my time in Lebanon. But I've watched it everywhere else in the region. And if that regime is gone. There is an opening to something different and better.
Um, The fear is that, uh, this event will add another country to the list of regimes that were blown up and left nothing stable behind like Libya, like Syria. Iraq. And I think that's a really frightening prospect. Um, I've been writing and saying, talking with my friends about the importance, that the administration would think carefully about, about what kind of Iran is coming in the future, and works sensibly, uh, to try to enhance that.
Otherwise, uh, if you, we just create another pile of rubble in the Middle East. I think the problems that we see are so aware of will only be compounded. Speaking of rubble. What's the status on the ground now and their trajectory?
So my understanding is that we've entered that we're speaking on Friday in the last, uh, probably 2 days, a period of essentially unimpeded air activity by the U.S. and Israel over Iran, Iranian air defenses are gone, which means that the U.S.
and Israel don't have to be so carefully. US can use big, heavy bombers. B 52s, uh, B 2s that can drop the enormous ordinance. Uh, and, and, do a level of destruction in Iran that, uh, that they, that they couldn't before.
And so they're going after, they've gone after the leadership. They, they, they, uh, decompitated Iran. in terms of leadership as President Trump himself has said. There's nobody moved alive for him to talk to.
that he that he knows about. They're destroying Iranian missiles, the factories that produce missiles, the factories that produce drones, the places Iranians think they can hide, the underground, the caves that we've seen in some photographs where they have missiles stacked up on launchers. Those are vulnerable. The US knows exactly where they are.
In some ways. It's easier to strike them there than if they were mobile. Because our ordinance can penetrate those underground shelters. The Navy is basically gone.
So in military, strictly military terms, you'd have to say that the campaign is going well in political terms. Uh, I think it moves from uh, one kind of incoherence to another. It just that they're not forming clear definitions, explanations of what their goals are. Um, so, that, uh, Is, is that because they don't know?
Or is it because they, at this moment or inarticulate about, What might happen? So I think they don't, I think they don't, I think their goals are the ones that they've articulated, but those goals pretty much have been achieved and the war continues. I mean, if the war ended, this afternoon, The Iranian missile program would basically be destroyed. The Iranian nuclear program would basically be destroyed, the cliffs force in its, you know, um, high functioning capability to metal around the Middle East would be destroyed.
So in that sense, they're close to achieving their war goals, but they have a broader idea. President Trump said this morning before we begin our, our, our, our, podcast that his goal is unconditional surrender, like what the U.S. sought, um, in in World War 2, uh, when Franklin Roosevelt went to Winston Churchill in Morocco and said, I think we should go for unconditional surrender.
Churchill had no real idea he was going to propose that. It fundamentally changed the war. Uh, and that Trump's declaration may have that same, same effect. It means the kind of quick deal we'd all sort of expected he might do.
He might find a pragmatic Iranian and Ali Larajani. For example. And, and, and make him Dulcie Rodriguez, make him the leader with whom he could make a deal on the clear win. He seems not.
Oh, Arajani. You can tell the audience, you know, is someone who's been at the point of power in Iran. For a while. Oh, Larashati, among the Iranians who are still alive is, I would say, the leading survivor.
He was a clerical judge, he developed a reputation as the hanging judge because he gave such cruel punishments. in his in his role as a, uh, in his cases. Um, he has worked with many different, uh, Iranian presidents, uh, been adept at sort of moving from regime to regime. He is a hard liner.
He works very closely with a revolutionary guard. Nobody should mistake him for anything other than that, but he is, he is a clever, widely pragmatist. Uh, and has often been an interlocutor with with people in the West. There are others like that, um, Muhammad Bakr Khalibah, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament is somebody who goes to Davos, who meets Westerners, uh, is well known to a number of people through track 2 exercises.
So he's he's there at the top as well. There are a range of people. But when President Trump says, we want unconditional surrender, he's really pulling back from making a deal with one person like the people I just described. What do you think Iran's intent is?
knowing how bad the situation looks for them. I think the president has said they have reached out and want to negotiate. He has said that, but there's little evidence other than his claim that that that's so. Their public statements have been the opposite that they don't want to negotiate.
So Iran, obviously, it's back against the wall. The supreme leader has been killed along with, um, you know, um, the, several score of his top aides, the top ranks, the RGC have been killed. You know, they are absolutely an extremist. I'm told by people in the intelligence community watch this very carefully that.
There are not yet clear signs of fragmentation among the remaining members of the elite. In a situation like this, you might expect, you know, what the French call, so keep a, save yourself if you can. Uh, and people reaching out, trying to make deals, trying to make connections. There may be a little of that.
President Trump has referred to people being ready to lay down their arms, but the people that Intel professionals I talk to say they don't really see it yet. What do you hear about boots on the ground, whether they're Kurds? Or Americans. Or some other allies.
Let me distinguish between the two. I think there's no appetite or willingness to have significant numbers of American boots on the ground, special forces. You can imagine them being in, they may already be in, for all we know. Um, the president does seem to have embraced the idea of supporting a Kurd Iranian Kurdish army by providing air cover for their operations in the Kurdish area in the west of Iran.
Personally, I think that's really a bad idea. And the reason is, uh, 1st that it would have, uh, a fragmenting, uh, and to some extent, polarizing effect, among the opposition within Iran, and having separatist ethnic militias fighting for their rights, makes it harder to have a movement to transformer Iran as a whole. Uh, and some might be Israel's interest to have a fragment of Iran, uh, as they seem to have been content with a fragment of Lebanon for for decades. But I don't think it's in the regions or the United States, uh, interest.
Also, there's something fundamentally unrealistic from what I know about the idea that the Kerrs don't have tanks, don't have heavy weapons, being able to challenge the revolutionary guards, along the border strip between Iraq, where they have sanctuary in Iran. Um, that they just don't have the people or equipment to do it. And that leads to my 2nd point. The United States has a history of asking Kurds to do our dirty work.
And then abandoning them when the going gets tough. We did that when the shah was alive, when the Kurds were our useful ally against Saddam Hussein and Iraqis we didn't like. We did it again. Uh, uh, at various points during the post, uh, 2003 invasion period, we did it in Syria, just recently where we were backing the Syrian Kurds in Northeast Syria.
It's just, it's what we do. And I just, I don't want to see us do it again. Without a much clearer understanding of exactly what we are promising to do and can do and what the Kurds will do for us. Talk about Donald Trump.
Uh, we had a man who was against forever wars. Uh, who then went to Venezuela and brought home, brought back to America, the leader. We now have an invasion of Iran and the killing of a leader. Where is Donald Trump today?
Well, I think he is, um, overwhelmed with, um, uh, you know, roaring with the exhilaration of using military power. There can't be a more intoxicating drug, forgive that analogy. than being present and commanding, these incredible forces who couldn't, you know, arrive in Caracas. He is by definition, the most powerful man in the world.
And and has The armed forces to almost do what he wills. So he believes. I mean, so he believes. What we've learned is that military power is not sufficient to achieve political outcomes even for Donald Trump.
And he, I think he hasn't yet to learn that. I wrote a week ago that there ought to be a sign in the White House, um, uh, over a map of Iran that says, this is not Venezuela. You know, this is this is a big, crowd, well organized regime. Uh, Venezuela.
It was kind of ragtag dependent on Cuban mercenaries. That's not the case with Iran. And I think I think Trump seemed to believe that he could do a Venezuela, that he could, he could blow in with a lot of force, that he could find somebody who would be willing to negotiate with him. Take down Iranian power, make the deal, and be done with it.
It's not going to work that way. Does he think it's a rock? He would rebel again. No, I don't think he does think it's a rock, because it's, he's Donald Trump, and how could it possibly be a rock, a rock was a mistake, and this is, he's Donald Trump.
It's a success. No, what does he think it's like? I think he now thinks it's like Japan or Germany. But it's, it's a, it's a tough foe that he is going to vanquish totally using America's absolute military supremacy and force it on conditional surrender.
That's what he said this morning. He told Jonathan Carl of ABC, that he was the goat. He was the greatest of all time. Well, he's just, as I say, he's just, um, besotted with his power.
He's always been a, you know, an ecotist, but, but that ego is now fed from, you know, the richest stream there is, which is war, which is, you know, war with this incredible. He's riding, you know, imagine riding the most powerful horse that just exhilaration as you move from place to place. That's, that's in my view, where he is. Is it legal and constitutional to go around the world?
Uh, either capturing or knocking off leaders of other countries? So I wrote a column today about the way in which this war is helping to normalize assassination. As a, as a, a standard instrument of warfare. It is it is illegal in the United States.
For any American, or anyone employed by America, to conduct an assassination. And that's very nearly drawn. This was, uh, 1st adopted, uh, in 1976 by President Gerald Ford after the CIA investigations, known as the church investigations after Senator Frank Church. Um, and, and at that time, it only applied to political assassinations, and only applied to U.
S. citizens, but it was broadened, uh, in 1978 by President Carter, and then affirmed by President Reagan in 1981. And that's the version that we now operate under. People don't generally know this, but we're not the American persons or people we work with are not allowed under law to assassinate.
And yet we do. Every president since Reagan, including Reagan, has essentially violated this, this stricture, um, Reagan attacked the compound of, uh, Muamar Gaddafi in Libya, killing several members of his family. Um, George W. Bush tried to take out, uh, tried to kill Saddam Hussein in the opening moments of the 1991 Gulf 4.
Um, uh, President Obama, we think of as a, you know, very, um, Peaceful, or, or, President, uh, probably kill more people with drones during his years, commanding our war on terror than any other president, by the count of one Israeli strand, um, the number of assassination targeted killings rose from 48 Under George W. Bush to 353 under Barack Obama. I quoted this morning, former top national security official who said that these targeted killings during the war on terror had been a gateway drug to what we're seeing now, which is the wholesale decapitation assassination, let's be honest. of all the leadership of a regime.
So that's, that's where we've ended up, the American way of, That's because warfare has, in part, because warfare has changed. I just did a conversation with David Petraeus and who talked about this significant change in warfare because of drones. Yeah. So drones are part of it.
I think the precision precision targeting. So the ability, to, to, Locate the target and then have the very precise fires that can, that precision fires that can, can kill that person. Are the changes. not so much the autonomous vehicle as the ability to coordinate the operation.
I wouldn't want to disagree with David Tras, but I mean, about worry, obviously knows much more, but I think it's, um, it's an intelligence and targeting issue as much as anything. What's the public? Opinion of this war as far as you can tell? I think in comprehension.
People thought when they elected Donald Trump that they were electing a president who would get us out of forever wars in the Middle East, who would get some distance from Israel, who would avoid these kind of entangling worse. Yeah, and and Trump himself ran on, they repeated over and over again, everybody's found the quotes from him, and it turns out for the complicated reasons that we've been talking about this exhilarating, overwhelming sense of power, and desire to relieve a legacy of transformation. He's ended up, um, being, you know, the, the, the most avid uh, warrior in the Middle East that I've seen in all the time that I've, I've covered, covered it. You're well forced in the Middle East as well as in Europe and Asia.
What's the world think of this? Well, I think the world is astonished by American boldness, uh, recklessness, depending on how people look at it. Um, I think, um, some of our closest European allies, especially Britain, um, have been so disturbed by the lack of international support or legal authority for this that they've pulled back, and Trump is furious. I've never seen a break between the U.
S. and Britain quite like what we're seeing now. Interestingly, Iran made a bet that the Gulf Arabs, uh, who had been on a course for reconciliation, de-escalation with Iran, uh, over the last 2 or 3 years, uh, if hit in the early hours of the war would would pull back from the United States. The opposite happened.
The UAE has been hit with more drones and missiles than Israel has over a 1000 drones and missiles in this 1st week of war have fallen in the UAE. And rather than caving, the UAE amazingly has decided, uh, that it's going to freeze Iranian assets in Dubai, which in the, in the 10s of 100s of 1000000000s, uh, and is taking very tough steps, uh, the UAE sends me, uh, every day, a scorecard of how many Iranian drones and missiles, it, it knocked down it, the UAE, uh, with, with the help of American weapons. So they're they're in this. They're angry.
I think there's some of that in Saudi Arabia too. So the reaction from our golf partners, uh, has been has been very positive from Europe. No, not so much. What do you mean by not so much?
Well, I mean, Britain has refused to allow us to use some bases, friends. They've sent a couple of planes, didn't they? So they've since after Trump attacked them, they have allowed us to use their base in Cyprus. They have sent some planes, although there's some limits on what they can do.
The friendship sent an aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf. Although talking to the French ambassador this week, it will clear exactly what it's rules of engagement are. Um, You know, I think the Europeans recognize that it's a mistake to be entirely separate from this, but, but, but they're not. They don't look to me to be comfortable with the course of this war.
They want an answer to the question that you and I talked about at the beginning. Where's this going? What's going to be left after it's over? You know, their security is much more closely tied than ours to what kind of, uh, Iran, how stable.
Uh, who, who, who, who it's enemies in the future will be. What are the Chinese and the Russians saying? So, you know, they're, I think in part just standing back and hoping for the worst for the United States, as they usually do. Um, the, uh, there's a news report this morning, That the Russians have been supplying targeting information to Iran.
Uh, it's, it's, it's drones and missiles have had eerie precision. It hit the CI station in Riyad, for example, it hit a particular apartment in Bahrain last night. I mean, a very specific precise targeting. Where's that targeting information coming from?
According to the story. I have not confirmed it, but the Russians are doing that, and that's a significant step. If anything, we'll convince Donald Trump that Rushes and his friend. It's this.
Do the Chinese say, Will you please to see America distract it so that we can think about what we might do? So they haven't said anything like that. You can imagine that they're certainly thinking it. Um, you know, that part of, Chinese, um, doctrine now, as I read between the lines, is the idea that the United States is weakened and disoriented, that the election of Trump is evidence of that, that, um, you know, the, as, as communists, they believe that capitalism and its contradictions will inevitably lead to, well, inevitably undermine the governments of the West.
And I think they think that's happening now. They think America is is committing what, uh, Bill Burns, our former CI director called Great Power Suicide. They think that's what we're doing. People ask, how will this war end?
Uh, some people say, it'll be economic pressure. And they look at oil prices and they clearly have gone up because of maybe what's happening in the Strait of Hammuz. Um, Is that your judgment that this will end when economics get out of control? I would have said that at the beginning.
Oh, the Iranians moved quickly to close the Strait of Hormones. That's significant. Act, the effect on natural gas prices in particular was immediate and sharp. I mean, oil prices have been relatively stable.
I went up 10 +% but natural gas prices went up a lot more. Um, and the United States and its, its allies can't tolerate that indefinitely. The financial markets will begin to show more and more strain, and so that obviously will be pressure on Trump. But again, I, there, I often make the comparison to Captain Ahab and Moby Dick when he throws the sextant overboard.
You know, he does ear by... A novelist will go to novels. Anyway, there's an understanding of public events. Yeah.
But there is, there is something of that. I think I think Trump is just fixed and focused on this. It's very interesting to look at, so in this situation, Charlie, you'd ask, who's the person who would whisper in the president's here, sir, I think, I think we're, I think this is a time we need to think about some alternatives. Yeah, who is that?
And I'm not sure I know. It might be Rubio. Yeah, once upon a time, you would have thought it would have been J.D.
Vince, but he seems to be cut out of almost all the key decisions here. Uh, because he's had a uh, an animosity to foreign entanglements. He does he thinks this is a mistake. I'll just note, what I wrote this morning, and the New York Times had something similar.
Our intelligence analysts, as you'd expect and a lot, have studied scenarios. Uh, for a war like this now for, for some months, and they have, concluded that there's a low probability. I can't speak more precisely than that, that what we're doing, you know, bombing the regime to smithereens without having an alternative. There's a low probability that that will lead to a stable modernizing government of the kind that we'd like to see.
Not, it's not impossible, but, but a low, a low chance. So what we're doing is degrading the power of the old regime. Without having any clarity about what comes next. So you ask me what happens next.
And I don't think anybody knows. The president of the United States has called on the Iranian people. You know, we have changed the circumstances on the ground. Rise up.
Is that likely to happen because they don't have the kinds of weapons. And the government still has the weapons. So, in the end, a newer, a new and better Iran can only be made by Iranians. can't do it.
You know, even if we were willing to put boots on the ground. We've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, doesn't work. So, it has to be done by Iranians. Are they capable of it?
Do they want it? I mean, I look year after year at Iranians going into the streets to demand change. This regime is very unpopular. I've been in Iran twice, Charlie, and I've seen what that unpopularity looks like, you know, what it sounds like in private dining rooms, and, you know, so, um, people went into the streets in January of this year, by the 10s of 1000s courageously.
President Trump has said that more than 30,000 of them were killed, sometimes massacred. I've heard reports from Iranian friends who talk to friends and relatives in Iran, of just barbarous, uh, killing, people being shot in the eyes, deliberately in the eyeball with BB guns to blind them and intimidate everybody they know, but never do this again. So, uh, These are people who hate the regime, who surely hate it even more now. But, um, You know, the other thing that we know about warfare is that when you try to bomb people into submission, you often create the opposite outcome than what you want.
The meaning they even support a government they don't like because they're under attack. They know, people don't like to be, they don't like to be attacked. I mean, Hamas in Gaza. From what I know from little polling that's been done, you know, is isn't all that popular.
Gazan, Palestinians aren't stupid. They know that Hamas is oppressed and manipulated them. But when Hamas was under attack, people were just implacable. I think the Israelis were astounded.
Why don't these people give up? I mean, you know, they're getting pounded. There'd be 10s of 1000s of them are dead. Why don't they give up?
And and they didn't give up. Why? Well, you know, people who have feel they have nothing left but their pride and their dignity, tend to hold on to those those 2 all the more fiercely. And my fear is that if this war isn't managed correctly, sensibly, that there'll be a similar outcome.
I don't I'm not saying that that's happened yet. I think Iranian people still hate the regime, would love to see something different. It is sad, and I'm asking your opinion, that the Iranian people are some of the most enthusiastic supporters for America. In the Middle East.
Absolutely. You go, you, in Tehran, if you go up on rooftop, when I was there 2 times and look for the dish antennas that can bring in the Iranian satellite broadcasting for, you know, from Los Angeles and all over. Yeah, people, you know, and then every Iranian knows somebody who's been wildly successful in America. Everybody's got Uncle so-and-so, who's just living in San Fernando Valley.
And they living in Beverly Hills. Yeah, so that's they like America. They want some of that. How much influence does B.
B. Netanyahu have on Donald Trump? So before this war, I would have said, you know, uh, little, uh, that Trump loved to basically, you know, uh, uh, brush him off. I remember the Oval Office meeting where Trump went out of his way to say, and I'm going to negotiate with Iran.
You know, and and you can see Nanyaka, Swerm, go, oh, no, and then he said, assets for a good measure. And I really like uh, that President Turkey, uh, Airdwater, who was BB's 2nd biggest enemy after after Tehran. And, um, you know, there were other instances in which, you know, in in settling the war in Gaza, that the terms were imposed by Trump on that, you know, because Trump thought it was, it was time to end the war. So, um, in some instance, he's, he's displayed, uh, unusual distance from Israel, for an American president, not in this case.
Obviously, the U.S. and Israel have been, um, operating in incredible close coordination. Clearly, we will find out what the political implications are for, for both Donald Trump, uh, even though he can't run for president, again, and and BB Netanyahu.
Uh, finally, There's no question that we are witnessing Perhaps the most important historic moment in Iranian history. Since 1979. Yes. So this is the make or break moment for the for the Islamic revolution of 79 because I think that revolution has had a pernicious effect on Iran.
And on the region, I hope, um, in this showdown, that the regime gives way to something else, that allows the yearning, you can just heal, um, when you're in, in Tehran, to, to, to flower. I mean, the protest, just, I mean, am I close by remembering, the protests in which women, by the 10s of 1000s, just took off their head scars and said, basically, we want to live. We want to, we want to be pre-modern women in a country that looks forward, not backward. Protests were called women life freedom.
And that's that's really what they what they stood for. And that desire to be normal and modern. is everywhere in Iran. And, you know, if you're thinking, if you want something and it's terrible.
Um, you know, shooting gallery that we're in the middle of now, to feel hopeful about it. that that spirit's there. How do you nurture it? What's what are policies that will help, you know, that spirit, those people, which I'm convinced is the majority of Iranians, to be to be in power and not these, you know, thugs and tyrants.
That's, that's what we should want. Had to get there. I don't know, but I do, I want President Trump to be thinking more about it, now that he's embarked on this. He has an obligation, I think, morally, but but also strategically, to get that part of it right.
David, thank you for joining us. My pleasure. Thanks, Troy. Join me, become a subscriber to Charlie Rose global conversations, and make it a better experience.
Click this link to subscribe.
Last Updated: 2026-09-27