War with Iran + Pentagon vs Anthropic with Under Secretary of War Emil Michael
Jason Calacanis (host), Emil Michael (guest), Chamath Palihapitiya (host), David Friedberg (host), David Friedberg (host)
In this episode of All-In Podcast, featuring Jason Calacanis and Emil Michael, War with Iran + Pentagon vs Anthropic with Under Secretary of War Emil Michael explores iran war update and Pentagon clash with Anthropic over AI The hosts frame an “emergency pod” around the escalating U.S.-Israel operation against Iran, asking Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering Emil Michael about objectives, duration, and the likelihood of boots on the ground.
Iran war update and Pentagon clash with Anthropic over AI
The hosts frame an “emergency pod” around the escalating U.S.-Israel operation against Iran, asking Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering Emil Michael about objectives, duration, and the likelihood of boots on the ground.
Michael argues the campaign is intended to be “weeks not months,” focused on degrading Iran’s ability to fund/arm proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.), drones, missiles, and nuclear capabilities—while rejecting an Afghanistan/Iraq-style occupation.
The conversation pivots to how modern war is changing—especially drone swarms, autonomy, AI at the edge, and missile defense (e.g., Golden Dome concepts)—and how rules of engagement and operational experience affect outcomes.
A major segment covers the Pentagon’s break with Anthropic: Michael says Anthropic’s contract terms and governance posture created operational risk, prompting cancellation and a formal “supply chain risk” designation, while the panel debates broader implications for AI vendor power, deplatforming dynamics, and multi-model redundancy.
Key Takeaways
The administration’s stated Iran goal is capability degradation, not occupation.
Michael describes a “weeks not months” effort aimed at disarming Iran’s capacity to supply terror proxies and field drones/ballistic missiles, while dismissing a protracted Iraq/Afghanistan-style ground campaign.
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
Operational success is attributed to experience, planning, and relaxed rules of engagement.
Michael claims post–Global War on Terror leaders learned hard lessons, and that prior restrictive ROE hindered effectiveness; he argues updated ROE plus long-planned contingency “war games” improve speed and outcomes.
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
Drone warfare is now the central battlefield innovation—and autonomy is the next step.
The group cites Ukraine as evidence that drones drive a majority of casualties; Michael expects “drone swarms” with AI-enabled discrimination, decoys, and coordination (heterogeneous autonomy).
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
AI’s acceptability depends on scenario risk—missile defense is the strongest near-term case.
Michael argues humans can’t react fast enough for hypersonic threats (e. ...
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
The Strait of Hormuz insurance response is as consequential as the fighting.
Friedberg explains maritime insurance markets can freeze shipping; the U. ...
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
The Pentagon-Anthropic break centers on vendor governance power and operational continuity.
Michael says Anthropic contract terms restricted “kinetic” planning and other core DoD uses; he also alleges Anthropic sought to verify use in a raid, raising fears of shutdowns/guardrail refusals or model manipulation at critical moments.
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
“Supply chain risk” is positioned as preventing Anthropic from entering deeper defense workflows.
Michael argues it’s not punitive but protective: he doesn’t want primes (e. ...
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
Defense innovation is shifting toward low-cost, attritable systems—and procurement must change.
Michael advocates moving from rigid requirements and cost-plus contracting toward problem statements, commercial-like terms, faster awards, and more wins for startups to build a venture flywheel.
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
Reshoring defense inputs (minerals, batteries, components) is early but framed as strategic.
Michael highlights lending authority via the Office of Strategic Capital to finance domestic production; he calls batteries and critical minerals key vulnerabilities given China’s dominance.
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
Notable Quotes
““There’s no scenario where we have some protracted boots on the ground, Afghanistan, Iraq two-like scenario.””
— Emil Michael
““Drone-on-drone warfare, robot-on-robot warfare, those things are the future for sure.””
— Emil Michael
““Chinese hypersonic missile comes up, you’ve got ninety seconds… and a human can’t… have the reaction time.””
— Emil Michael
““All lawful use seems like a good thing… It’s our province to decide how we fight and win wars, so long as they’re lawful.””
— Emil Michael
““Just call me if you need another exception.””
— Emil Michael (describing Anthropic’s proposed approach)
Questions Answered in This Episode
On Iran: What specific metrics define “success” if the goal is capability degradation rather than regime change (e.g., missile inventory, drone production, proxy funding)?
The hosts frame an “emergency pod” around the escalating U. ...
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
Boots on the ground: What conditions would force a limited insertion (hostage rescue, securing WMD sites, protecting shipping lanes), even if a long occupation is off the table?
Michael argues the campaign is intended to be “weeks not months,” focused on degrading Iran’s ability to fund/arm proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. ...
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
China leverage thesis: How much did Iran/Venezuela oil-to-China dependence factor into strategic planning versus being a “second-order benefit,” as Michael suggests?
The conversation pivots to how modern war is changing—especially drone swarms, autonomy, AI at the edge, and missile defense (e. ...
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
Drone dominance program: What are the procurement targets for LUCAS-style one-way attack drones (unit cost, range, monthly production volume), and how quickly can industry scale?
A major segment covers the Pentagon’s break with Anthropic: Michael says Anthropic’s contract terms and governance posture created operational risk, prompting cancellation and a formal “supply chain risk” designation, while the panel debates broader implications for AI vendor power, deplatforming dynamics, and multi-model redundancy.
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
Autonomy red lines: What is the Pentagon’s current policy on human-in-the-loop vs human-on-the-loop for lethal force, and how might that evolve for missile defense vs urban targeting?
Get the full analysis with uListen AI
Transcript Preview
All right, everybody. Emergency podcast time, episode 263 of All-In. We have Emil Michael, the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering, working directly for Pete Hegseth. We had to get this out to you on Thursday night because it is an emergency pod. One of my old besties, Emil Michael, is here. Emil and I, uh, were part of Team Uber back in the day. He was Travis's right-hand man, some might say fixer, and Emil Michael is now the Under Secretary for War here in the United States, serving his country like our bestie, David Sacks. Welcome to the program for the first time, Emil Michael. How you doing, brother?
I'm doing good. Uh, I hope it was more than a fixer, but, you know-
Well, deal maker-
... raising twenty billion dollars is, uh, you know.
Fixer. I mean, you, you got it done.
Yeah.
You got it done. The hard- He would give you the hardest things. Yeah? Just to-
That's right. Fair enough.
If it was hard, and that's what a fixer is.
An operational ax. That's what they call them.
All right. Sure.
[laughs]
Uh, in Brooklyn, we call them fixers. With us again-
A rainmaker.
There's that, too. There's that, too. Making it happen. With us again, Chamath Palihapitiya. How are you, brother?
Great.
Yeah. Look at that smile. What do you got going on? [laughs] You got some pokers in the fire.
Local.
I'm not gonna say. In the coming weeks, I think some news is gonna drop. That's my prediction. I don't have any inside information.
Are you loving Chamath's tweet mogging that's been going on this week?
So good.
So good.
So good.
But he's, he's-
So good.
He's looks maxing-
It's just so good
... by default, but he's been mogging-
Yeah
... the gooners.
Yeah. So funny.
What was your favorite, Friedberg? [laughs]
The one I sent you this morning that you said. What did you say? [laughs]
It's so funny.
Are you collecting your [laughs] losses by tax harvesting?
What did you say?
Oh, my God.
Chamath said, uh... Oh, my God. It was just like-
Getting spicy out there, folks.
"Yes, I did. Yes, I did."
"Yes, I did."
[laughs]
Yes. Someone said something to Chamath. He's like, drops in, "Why is everyone so mad at Chamath? All he did was lose billions in retail investors' money by pro-
Oh
... promoting [laughs] one-page SPACs. It's not like he then told them to enjoy their capital losses or anything. Give the man a break. Chamath's response, 'Yes, I did.'" [laughs]
[laughs] All right. Piling on is your sultan of science.
Mm. So good.
Everybody's favorite. Had a great-
So good
... he had, um, some great science that he brought to the show last week. Friedberg, how are you doing?
Uh, yeah, I've been traveling this week. Back at home.
All right. Sacks is out today. He's very busy on Capitol Hill. We'll talk about what he's up to next week.
Install uListen to search the full transcript and get AI-powered insights
Get Full TranscriptGet more from every podcast
AI summaries, searchable transcripts, and fact-checking. Free forever.
Add to Chrome