The Iran “Deal” Isn’t What It Seems

Ed Elson is joined by Karim Sadjadpour to discuss the new agreement between the U. S. and Iran and whether or not this war is permanently resolved. Then, Reed Albergotti joins the show to unpack why the White House put export restrictions on Anthropic’s Mythos models. Finally, Ed explains why he is cautiously optimistic for a real end to the war with Iran. Karim Sadjadpour is a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Reed Albergotti is a Tech Editor at Semafor. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [email protected] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  The new LinkedIn Hiring Pro can't undo your last hire. The no show. Who set you back because they didn't show up on day one? Or day two, or ever again? And now your product launch is delayed because you're talking to alien abduction podcasters to track them down. But LinkedIn Hiring Pro can help make sure your next hire sticks. In fact, businesses who use LinkedIn are 24% less likely to reopen a role in the next 12 months. Hire right the first time with LinkedIn Hiring Pro. Post a free job today at LinkedIn.com/quality.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  Energía baja. Falta de concentración? Nevra mental? You might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero Powders han sido diseñados científicamente para ayudarte a mejorar el balance de hidratación en el cuerpo. Hechos con la mezcla número uno de electrolitos, sin colores ni sabores artificiales. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Signos de dehidratación leve y moderada. Consulta a tu médico si los síntomas persisten.

• 1:00Speaker 02

  Welcome to Sephora.

• 1:01Speaker 03

  I'm looking for a perfume that's not too perfumey?

• 1:05Speaker 02

  I got you.

• 1:06Speaker 04

  Serum moisturizer or moisturizer syrup.

• 1:09Speaker 02

  Let's get into layering.

• 1:11Speaker 03

  My concealer is making me look worse?

• 1:14Speaker 02

  Sounds like the wrong shade. Let's get you matched.

• 1:18Speaker 00

  There's only one store that really gets what you're going for. Get beauty from people who get beauty. Only at Sephora.

• 1:24Speaker 02

  Hi, I...

• 1:26Speaker 03

  Let's get you a basket.

• 1:33Speaker 05

  Money markets mad. If money is evil, then that building is hell.

• 1:43Ed Elson?

  Welcome to Prof G Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is June 16th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices rallied on news that the U.S. and Iran have an agreement. More on that in a second. The Dow hit a fresh high. Brent crude fell below $80 on hopes that the straight will finally and truly reopen. Meanwhile, Treasury yields and the dollar fell. SpaceX shares soared 20% in their first full day of trading, and Fox tumbled 15% after announcing its acquisition of Roku for $22 billion.

• 2:23Ed Elson?

  Okay. What else is happening? The US and Iran have reached a deal again. After 107 days of war, the two sides agrees to a memorandum of understanding. It includes a 60-day ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and a halt to fighting in Lebanon. A formal signing is set to take place on Friday in Geneva, but the big negotiations, like Iran's nuclear program, sanctions relief, and frozen assets are all deferred to the next two months. Meanwhile, Israel says it is not bound by the deal, and its forces will stay in Lebanon indefinitely. Still, Brent crude fell more than 5% on the news of the pending peace deal.

• 3:06Ed Elson?

  Here to help us unpack what this deal actually means, we're speaking with Karim Sajipour, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Karim, thank you so much for joining us on the show today. This is really important news. I think the place I'd like to start is a place of skepticism. And that is, we've had deals with Iran before. Trump said we had a ceasefire back in April. Then he said we had a framework of a ceasefire. He said that the deal was in its final stages in May. He said it was all largely negotiated. We've had plenty of false alarms. And so the question on this news is, is this also a false alarm? Or is this different?

• 3:50Speaker 07

  I'm not going to try to disabuse you of your skepticism, because I share it. I think there's a couple of big questions. Number one is whether indeed we do have a memorandum of understanding. At the moment, you could call it a memorandum of misunderstanding, because the US version of this MOU is very different than the Iranian version of this MOU in terms of what kinds of economic relief are going to be provided, what are Iran's nuclear commitments going to be, the future of the Strait of Hormuz. Virtually every single major issue appears at the moment unresolved. So that's one of the big questions.

• 4:30Speaker 07

  The second is, if indeed the two sides can agree on a common memorandum of understanding, what happens next? The most difficult questions have been deferred for future negotiations. The two sides have given themselves 60 days to resolve those issues of tension, like most notably the nuclear issue. But there's very little chance that those issues are going to be resolved over 60 days. So, bottom line for me, this isn't a resolution of the US-Iran conflict. We may have temporarily paused a hot war and gone back to a cold war. But unfortunately, these two sides are going to remain adversaries.

• 5:15Speaker 07

  We haven't resolved the US-Iran conflict. And in fact, as President Trump alluded to today, there's even a possibility we could go back to conflict if he doesn't see any flexibility from Iran on the nuclear file.

• 5:28Ed Elson?

  It's really fascinating that you say that. The first thing I was gonna mention was that disagreement over these reconstruction costs because Iran says that the US is gonna pay $300 billion in reconstruction costs, that they were gonna release $24 billion in frozen assets, and then J.D. Vance goes and denies those claims. So memorandum of misunderstanding sounds accurate to me. And I guess the question then becomes, what actually is this deal? Like, we don't know yet because they've said it's happened. And to be fair to Trump, Iran has said they're gonna sign it on Friday. But I guess my question is like, what actually is it? What are we even agreeing to?

• 6:10Speaker 07

  Well, phase one of this deal is supposed to essentially be a lifting of the mutual blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. So, over the last almost four months, Iran has been strangling the global economy, trying to spike the price of oil with their blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Simultaneously, the US has been strangling Iran's economy with the naval blockade. And Iran has suffered as a result of that. It's losing as much as $450 million daily. It can't get its oil exports out of the country. So even though you hear a lot of bluster and bravado from the Iranian side,

• 6:50Speaker 07

  it's an economy which has been decimated, even more decimated than it was before the war. So what phase A of this deal is meant to be is to lift that blockade. And virtually the entire world wants to see the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz lifted, with one exception perhaps, which is Vladimir Putin's Russia, who's really experienced the cash windfall over the last several months. But then, as we talked about, the blockade is meant to facilitate a nuclear deal. And it actually could serve to do the opposite. Because once Iran gets some economic relief as a result of this lifting of the blockade,

• 7:32Speaker 07

  it may actually feel less inclined to make nuclear compromises. And likewise, President Trump may feel, I can actually go back to war now that oil prices have dropped.

• 7:41Ed Elson?

  This is exactly where my mind is going. Despite that, oil prices did fall 5%. So clearly traders and investors are more optimistic about the notion that the Strait will be unblocked. I guess my question to you, do you think it will be opened up? And if so, to what extent, for how long? I mean, how optimistic are you when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz specifically, which is the thing that impacts Americans the most in the form of inflation?

• 8:16Speaker 07

  The Iranian regime has been saying consistently that the Strait of Hormuz will not go back to status quo ante, to be what it was before the war, which was an international waterway. They want to figure out a way to establish a fixed revenue stream over the Strait. Whether that is tolling, perhaps that's too ambitious for them to toll individual ships, but perhaps some type of an administrative fee over the Strait. That's what they've been talking about. I haven't seen any statements from senior Iranian officials saying they're going to go back to status quo ante. The other way in which they want to use the strait is as a deterrent to essentially

• 9:00Speaker 07

  have this sort of Damocles hanging over it to send a signal to America, Israel and others that if we're attacked again, we're going to take this strait hostage. And we've done it once, we can do it again, and we can wreck the global economy. So it's my view that it is a major US priority, and it's obviously an enormous priority for our partners in the Persian Gulf to have this strait be an international waterway. But I don't take it for granted that Iran is going to accept that.

• 9:32Ed Elson?

  Do you think it would be an overstatement to say that Iran is strengthened coming out of this? I mean, of course, their economy has been damaged. Many of their military leaders have been taken out. But it sounds as though they now have a point of leverage that they have realized in a very big way that they perhaps didn't know they had before. And it sounds like potentially this could mean higher oil prices forever, or at least a suppression on demand that lasts for the foreseeable future. Do you think that they are coming out of this feeling, I guess, strengthened or optimistic?

• 10:11Speaker 07

  I think psychologically, they certainly feel that they have been strengthened. It's been a major psychological boost for this regime that they were able to defy the greatest military power in the world, the greatest military power in the Middle East, Israel and the United States, and survive. For them, the bar was set pretty low. They didn't need to thrive, they just needed to survive, and they achieved that. At the same time, it is a country, it's a deeply unpopular theocracy ruling over a society which very broadly dislikes it. They have a decimated economy, 70% inflation, triple-digit food inflation.

• 10:54Speaker 07

  So if you're looking at this from the outside... Iran isn't a country you envy. Few countries would want to be Iran. But by virtue of the fact that A, they've survived and they've discovered this newfound form of leverage in closing the Straits of Hormuz. I do think that they feel they've emerged from this stronger. What we know from history and from wars is that it oftentimes takes years, if not decades, to really understand the true impact of them. But certainly in the immediate term, Iran looks stronger than it did going into the war.

• 11:32Ed Elson?

  You mentioned that you thought that this was more of a temporary pause in the hot war, that we've gone back to sort of a Cold War state. But that implies that we might return to a hot war. And this is probably the most important question in the markets right now, arguably in the world. It is the multi-trillion dollar question, which is, will we go back to fighting? And if so, for how long? I know that we can't predict the future, but if you had to if you had to make an estimate, what would your estimate be on the probability that this is resolved permanently?

• 12:13Speaker 07

  In my view, the probability that this is resolved permanently, I'd put it at less than 20%.

• 12:22Speaker 07

  If we look at the probability of a return to conflict, there's a couple, there's a few triggers at least. One is that in negotiating phase two of this deal, which is to get Iran's highly enriched uranium out of the country and to get Iran to cease its enrichment of uranium, two big priorities for President Trump, that the regime shows no flexibility. In that case, he may feel, he being President Trump, may feel obliged to return to conflict. And remember, this is a president who, on two occasions, in the middle of negotiations with Iran, launched military strikes on them. Last June's 12-day war and then this year's war.

• 13:06Speaker 07

  So I think the Iranian regime certainly feels that President Trump is capable of returning to war. Another potential trigger could come from The back and forth missile and rocket volleys between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah. If Hezbollah continues its attack on Israel, or Israel continues its retaliations, at some point Iran may get in and launch attacks again on Israel. Israel may respond inside Iranian territory and that could again trigger another attack. I should say there's one additional trigger, but I don't think it's a near term trigger. And that is if we have any intelligence that Iran is making a mad dash for a nuclear weapon.

• 13:50Speaker 07

  I think that would likely trigger military action, but I don't think that's an immediate term possibility.

• 13:56Ed Elson?

  Just before we wrap up here, what do you expect the messaging will be from Trump? I mean, part of me is trying to understand why he appears to be trying to pull out of this, or at least say that we have a deal. I assume that it's related to inflation and the fact that his approval ratings are just tanking right now. But do you think that this is enough for him to go out there and claim victory? Do you think that that will be the strategy going forward?

• 14:26Speaker 07

  It already is his strategy. I saw his statement today in a press conference with President Macron in which he's declared victory. And his benchmark, his public benchmark for success is to say that this was better than Obama's 2015 nuclear deal. And if you compare the two objectively, in the 2015 deal, there was no war that was launched. So already this conflict has caused American taxpayers perhaps more than $100 billion. Second, in Obama's nuclear deal in 2015, the United States handed over about $1.7 billion in economic relief to Iran,

• 15:09Speaker 07

  which is why President Trump called that the worst deal in history. But what is being talked about now is to provide Iran perhaps tens of billions of dollars in economic relief. And then finally, the actual terms of the agreement between President Trump's potential deal and Obama's deal in 2015 are not that dramatically different. So in essence, it's, you know, will President Trump's potential deal vindicate the cost of this war? And in my view, the the answer to that is almost unequivocally no. The other concurrent approach he may take

• 15:46Speaker 07

  is to essentially transition accountability for this deal to to Vice President Vance. I saw it was Vice President Vance this morning who was trying to sell the deal. And, you know, last thing I'll say before I we part, Ed, is that what's interesting, if you look at the 47 year US-Iran conflict, Iran has played a major role in essentially sabotaging American presidencies since 1979. They ended Jimmy Carter's presidency with a hostage crisis. They tainted Ronald Reagan's presidency with with Iran contra. And then, you know, after that, you can count one by one, George Bush's efforts to bring democracy to Iraq were sabotaged

• 16:30Speaker 07

  by by Iran. The Iran nuclear deal consumed the latter part of Obama's presidency. October 7, the Hamas attacks, Hamas being an Iranian proxy, consumed Biden's presidency. So so this is another example of Iran consuming an American presidency and perhaps sabotaging the presidential campaign of J D Vance.

• 16:53Ed Elson?

  Blame it on Vance. That's the new strategy. Karim Sajipour is Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Karim, we really appreciate your time. Thank you.

• 17:03Speaker 07

  Thank you, Ed. My pleasure.

• 17:06Ed Elson?

  After the break, the White House anthropic feud returns. And for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter, Simply Put, at simplyput.profgmedia.com.

• 17:25Speaker 08

  Here's your report.

• 17:26Speaker 09

  Oh, thanks, Jane. I wish I could hire someone just like you.

• 17:29Speaker 08

  Try LinkedIn Hiring Pro. It's more than a job board. It's like the recruiter you always wished you had. Hiring Pro uses real-time insights to match your role to LinkedIn's unique network of professionals and delivers a shortlist of best-fit candidates. You'll spend less time sorting applicants and more time talking to the right people.

• 17:46Speaker 09

  Let's do it. You're irreplaceable, Jane, but another you would be great.

• 17:50Speaker 08

  Hire right the first time. Post your job for free on LinkedIn today at LinkedIn.com/quality.

• 17:57Speaker 10

  Low energy, unfocused, foggy? You might be dehydrated, whether it's hot yoga, over 100-degree weather, or too much sun. Gator Light, with a specialized blend of five electrolytes, was scientifically designed to help move fluids into the body faster for rapid rehydration. Shop now at retailers nationwide. Gator Light: Hydrates Faster Than Water. Is it in you? Symptoms noted are signs of mild to moderate dehydration. Consult a healthcare professional if symptoms persist.

• 18:26Speaker 02

  Welcome to Sephora.

• 18:27Speaker 03

  I'm looking for a perfume that's not too perfumey?

• 18:31Speaker 02

  I got you.

• 18:32Speaker 04

  Serum moisturizer, or moisturizer serum.

• 18:35Speaker 02

  Let's get into layering. My concealer is making me look worse? Sounds like the wrong shade. Let's get you matched.

• 18:44Speaker 11

  There's only one store that really gets what you're going for. Get beauty from people who get beauty, only at Sephora.

• 18:51Speaker 12

  Hi, I, uh...

• 18:52Speaker 02

  Let's get you a basket.

• 19:01Ed Elson?

  We're back with Prof G Markets. The feud between Anthropic and the White House has escalated yet again. Last week, Anthropic released its powerful Mythos V model to a small group of cyber defenders. It also rolled out Fable V, a more secure version of Mythos, to the general public. But on Friday, the Department of Commerce imposed export controls on both of those models, restricting access for foreign nationals, because the ban also applies to foreign nationals. Inside the US, Anthropic decided to pull the models offline altogether. Anthropic disagreed publicly with the administration's decision,

• 19:42Ed Elson?

  warning that restrictions like this could freeze AI development across the industry. Here to discuss the latest in this saga between Anthropic and the White House, we're speaking with Reid Albigotti, tech editor at Samafor. He's the one who broke news on this story. Reid, thank you for joining us on Prof G Markets. There's a lot of drama going on here between Anthropic and why there were these export controls and what was their actual reasoning? And what was going on in the White House and the administration? Could you just give us sort of this simplified version of what actually happened here? The sequence of events leading to Anthropic pulling these models offline?

• 20:24Speaker 13

  The simplified version, I think, is that Anthropic did a great job of marketing this model, that Mythos model, back in April when they announced it. And they said, this thing is a danger to the world because it is so good at finding software vulnerabilities and bugs that hackers will be able to use this thing. I mean, I was in DC in April, right after they announced it. I mean, people were genuinely scared. And I think when the White House started to get reports from companies like Amazon, which is a big investor in Anthropic, an important partner, saying people have been able to jailbreak Fable 5, I think it actually scared them. And then I think Anthropic saying, you know, we're not, we don't think these jailbreaks are that serious,

• 21:08Speaker 13

  not responding with enough urgency. You know, it just led to, I think, this kind of cascading series of events that led to the export control. And it didn't help that they have just had one conflict after another with the White House for the past year, which I've, I've been covering. I've been writing about this a lot.

• 21:27Ed Elson?

  It's really interesting that, as you mentioned, Amazon goes to the White House and says there's a problem over at Anthropic. They say that this model has a security issue. It can be jailbroken into is the term that is used, which looks a lot like Amazon is.

• 21:45Ed Elson?

  I don't know, trying to screw over Anthropic in some way, saying, hey, you guys, you can need to go figure this out. But as you point out, they're also a major investor in Anthropic. So maybe it's coming from a genuine place. What do you think? Is that, was that a sabotage move or something else?

• 22:03Speaker 13

  No, I don't think this is a sabotage move. But I, there were lots of companies. It wasn't just Amazon. And actually, I think there was, from what I hear, it was kind of outgoing, like the White House, they were going out to people. Obviously, Amazon is an important vendor for the US government. So whatever they, whatever is happening on AWS is going to be important for the, for the, for the government. So this, I think this is again, if you remember, Amazon was a little bit like in the middle of the Pentagon, Anthropic clash as well. They just find themselves in the middle of this thing. And it's, it's what's so strange about this whole situation. It just creates a very convoluted, you know,

• 22:44Speaker 13

  network of, of friends and foes and frenemies. And I mean, it's, it's fascinating and confusing.

• 22:49Ed Elson?

  On the one hand, I kind of understand the White House's argument, which is Anthropic is saying how dangerous their model is. People tell the White House, hey, there might be a secure, an issue in the security here. The White House then says, you need to go fix it, to which Anthropic says, it's not a big deal. And then the White House goes, well, three months ago, you told us this all was a big deal and that we should be figuring this out. And now you're saying, it's fine. Don't worry about it. At the same time, though, I was suddenly made skeptical of the administration, the White House's motives, when I saw a tweet that was posted by Pete Hegseth, Secretary of War. He said, quote, "Three months ago,

• 23:30Ed Elson?

  the Department of War kicked Anthropic out of our building forever. Every passing day proves why that was the right move." So I read that, and now I'm thinking, maybe they're targeting Anthropic because they've decided, we don't like them, we're going to go after them. Do you have a view on, on who might be in the right or the wrong?

• 23:49Speaker 13

  I wouldn't read too much into the Hegseth tweet. I mean, look, I, it doesn't help. For sure. It doesn't help that Anthropic has been on the other side of the White House when it comes to state preemption of AI regulation laws. You know, the, the, certainly the Pentagon fight. I think there's a lot of distrust that is built up between these two groups of people and that needs to be fixed, especially if you're Anthropic and you're trying to go public soon. I mean, they, they need the government for lots of different reasons. So, but I don't think this is like, oh, we're going to get back in Anthropic. I mean, this, this, this can't be a policy, right? Because what it, what it says is like,

• 24:31Speaker 13

  any AI company that builds something, there's now like a benchmark. If it's more powerful than Mythos, then, you know, we need to shut this down if there are jailbreaks, et cetera. There are always going to be jailbreaks. Like, that is just the nature of these things. So you're basically shutting down progress on advanced frontier AI models, which cannot be the policy of, of this White House. So, no, I mean, it's, I don't think they're sitting there going, like, let's wait for an opportunity to like snipe Anthropic. This is, you know, this is clearly like a one-off situation and it has to get worked out, too.

• 25:06Ed Elson?

  What do you make of the fact that Anthropic said, we don't think that there is a security risk here? Because on the one hand, you might say, well, figure it out and explain to us exactly why. But on the other hand, you might say, Anthropic knows best. They know their technology. They probably understand cybersecurity better than the White House does. It would be my guess when it comes to AI and their models specifically. I mean, why didn't that cut it for this administration?

• 25:39Speaker 13

  I think Anthropic is, is actually correct. Like, I, I don't think that, it doesn't sound, based on everything that I've heard and read, it doesn't sound like these jailbreaks were, were going to be some massive security threat on their own. I, I think, though, they, you know, this thing has been sort of overblown from the beginning. I don't think, you know, that these new models are going to come out and the world is going to have to adjust to them. Like, we're gonna have to figure out how to deal with cybersecurity in the in the age of AI writ large. But I don't think one new model coming out shifts the the threat landscape so dramatically that we need to take these these rash steps. But but if you go back to what Anthropic said,

• 26:24Speaker 13

  I also can understand why people who are not in technology, who are not cybersecurity experts, would go, wait a minute, like, I'm thinking of the worst case scenario here, where all of a sudden, cyber threats just just bring our economy to its knees. And I get it. I get the fear.

• 26:41Ed Elson?

  Before you go, does this dispute affect either, one, Anthropic's business, or two, its IPO timeline, which is, of course, what is on every investor's mind right now?

• 26:53Speaker 13

  Yeah, I mean, for sure, if it stands, it will affect their business, because now they can't sell their their most powerful model. Of course, I don't know what percentage, you know, Mythos and Fable Five are gonna sort of make up their for their revenue. It might be very small. I mean, Anthropic's also, you know, struggling with a lack of of tokens, token availability of compute power. So these things use up a ton of that. So I don't know if this immediately affects their bottom line in any way. I'm sure it does a little bit. But if it's a but if it's a longstanding thing, it would be catastrophic. So I think they have to get through this, especially if they want to IPO this year.

• 27:34Ed Elson?

  All right. Reed Albigati, tech editor at Semaphore. Reed, thank you for joining us. We appreciate it.

• 27:40Speaker 13

  Great to be here. Thanks.

• 27:45Ed Elson?

  So Iran and the US supposedly have a deal. If you're a regular listener, you know that I am incredibly skeptical of Trump's deals, especially when it comes to Iran. This was, in fact, the basis of my prediction on our previous episode. Before this news came out, my base case was that we would remain at war for many more months, and that, as a result, inflation would remain high for the foreseeable future. Well, my reaction to this deal is

• 28:17Ed Elson?

  Cautious optimism. Unlike previous announcements of deals, which I completely wrote off, and rightly so, this one does have a bit more credibility. Why? Because the counterparty, in this case, Iran, says, yes, we have a deal. Several Iranian officials have said publicly that they're ready to sign it, and Iran's deputy foreign minister said it will be signed on Friday. And that level of approval from Iran is new. At the same time, though, there are still plenty of reasons to be pessimistic. For example, Israel just bombed Lebanon again, and despite being a huge part of this war, they still have no part in this agreement. In addition, there appears to

• 29:01Ed Elson?

  be disagreement between Iran and the US over whether the US will pay for reconstruction. That is a huge problem as well. And finally, there's still just a lot that we don't know about this deal. We don't really know what it means for the nuclear program, or what it means for the Strait, or what it means for Iran's leadership. In sum, not much has actually changed. So my economic takeaway from this news is this: I'm less concerned about inflation than I was before the weekend, but not by much. There are still huge questions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and the war itself. So to say this thing is done, or complete, or over, would be a categorical misnomer.

• 29:48Ed Elson?

  Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams, our research team is Dan Shalon, Isabella Kinsel, Chris Nodden, and Mia Silverio, and our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from Prof G Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.

• 30:15Speaker 14

  Close your eyes, exhale, feel your body relax, and let go of whatever you're carrying today. Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-CONTACTS. Oh my gosh, they're so fast! And breathe. Oh, sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh, sorry. Namaste. Visit 1-800-CONTACTS.com today to save on your first order.

• 30:43Speaker 02

  1-800-CONTACTS.

• 30:46Speaker 15

  They're running a Cover 2 defense, but you're running to get game day deals on Uber Eats. Keep everyone at tonight's watch party fed with deals from your go-to restaurants. Or stock up with deals on your favorite snacks and groceries. Whatever the occasion, get game day deals on Uber Eats all season long. It's not football without food. Uber Eats. Order now. Terms apply. Product availability varies by region. See app for details.

• 31:16Speaker 16

  Now at McDonald's, you can bring two patties of meat, a special sauce, and a medium size and a 8- dollar drink. So bring a Big Mac Extra Value Meal. Only at McDonald's. Prices and participation can vary. The price of the promotion can be lower than the one of mine.