reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @MarioNawfal
reSee.it AI Summary
I spoke with Rabbi Elhanan Beck, who says Judaism is a religion, not a nationality or race or geopolitical project. Citing Maimonides, he draws a hard line between Judaism and Zionism, warning religious identity is being used as a foreign policy tool by Netanyahu and others.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇮🇱 A rabbi is drawing a hard line between Judaism and Zionism. Rabbi Elhanan Beck, citing Maimonides and core Jewish texts, says Judaism is a religion, not a nationality, not a race, not a geopolitical project. "Judaism is a religion. Have nothing to do with a nationality. Nothing with a race." I sat with Rabbi Beck to understand the 2 concepts, Judaism and Zionism, and how religious identity is being turned into a foreign policy weapon by Netanyahu and others.
Video Transcript AI Summary
- The discussion opens with an exploration of how religion is used in land claims, focusing on Judaism, Zionism, and the concept of the Promised Land. The rabbi states that Judaism is a religion with nothing to do with nationality or race, and that “Judaism is a pure religion.” He cites Maimonides and Sanhedrin to define who is considered a Jew, emphasizing that belief is what matters, not ethnicity or birth alone.
- The rabbi explains the difference between Judaism and Zionism. Zionism, he says, is a movement about a hundred and thirty years old founded by Teddy Herzl, described as a secular Jew who “didn’t believe in god” or in the Torah. Zionism is portrayed as an effort to transform Judaism from a religion into a national movement, demanding an Israeli passport, army service, Hebrew, and land-based nationhood. He argues that Zionism “transform[s] from a holy religion, from believing in god, from reconnecting to god into a empty, national movement.”
- On the Promised Land, the rabbi asserts that the promise in the Torah is conditional, contingent on the people maintaining a high level of life. He references the prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah) and states that God warned of exile if they did not adhere to the covenant. He emphasizes that the exile was a punishment from God, and that returning to the land requires the coming of the Messiah. He cites the Torah as repeating the conditional nature of the promise and notes that the end of Jeremiah describes exile as the outcome when conditions were not met.
- The rabbi discusses the Messiah as a future, peaceful redemption for all humanity, whereas Zionism, in his view, lacks belief in God and the exile, instead adopting a human-centered national project. He mentions the three oaths from the Talmud (Ksumbat) in Numbers 14, 41, describing God’s oaths not to rebel against the nations, not to go up to Israel en masse, and not to prevent the spread of the faith; these oaths are used to argue against aggressive settlement or mass return.
- When asked how to respond to Zionist counterarguments about “the chosen people” and the right to a Jewish state, the rabbi distinguishes between religious and secular Jewry. He notes that among religious Jews (Hasidic and Haredi), attitudes toward Zionism and Israel are diverse: outside Israel, he estimates 95% of people look non-Zionist and 65% are strongly anti-Zionist, with prominent anti-Zionist Hasidic communities (e.g., in Stamford Hill) that advocate dismantling the state of Israel in a peaceful way. He contrasts this with segments in Israel, where settlers are strong Zionists, though there are also anti-Zionist Jews, including those who boycott the army.
- The interviewer asks about the practical and geopolitical implications of dismantling the state of Israel, and whether a peaceful dismantling is feasible. The rabbi says he is not a politician and reiterates Torah authority, citing that “a rebellion against god cannot be succeed” and re-emphasizing the belief that if the state is in rebellion to God, it will come to an end. He offers a religious perspective that dismantling could be peaceful and envisions living in a Palestinian-governed framework or various arrangements, but insists the core principle is adherence to divine command rather than human political prescriptions.
- The rabbi provides anecdotal and contemporary context to illustrate his point: he asserts that Muslims and Jews have lived peacefully in many places, citing Iran as an example where Jews have their own MP and a Jewish hospital, and recounts an instance in which Ismail Haniyeh embraced Jewish rabbis at a conference to illustrate that opposition is directed at occupiers rather than Jews themselves. He argues that within the Arab world there can be acceptance of Jews when “the occupiers” are not present, and he contrasts this with what he views as Western or Zionist framing.
- The conversation ends with an agreement to continue the discussion, with the rabbi reiterating his stance that the peaceful dismantlement of the state of Israel is prayed for in the Torah, while the interviewer signals an openness to further dialogue on these complex religious and political issues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why do some people use religion to make the argument that some land belongs to them?
Speaker 1: Judaism is a religion. Have nothing to do with a nationality, nothing with a race. Who is not a yao to speak about the promised land? But he he's an unbeliever. He don't believe in God.
He don't believe in the Torah.
Speaker 0: To be able to return to the promised land, yo, it's conditional on the return of the Messiah.
Speaker 1: Today, we are sworn by gods to stay in exile patiently waiting for the coming of Messiah. As long as the state of Israel is a rebellion against god, they will not succeed. They will never succeed. They will come to an end.
Speaker 0: Rabbi, it's a pleasure to speak to you. Thank you so much for for making the time. I know we tried to do this a few days ago, but we had some Internet connection issues. So And it's a pleasure to meet you for the first time. So I wanna there's a lot I wanna ask you because there's a lot I don't understand.
I I don't understand how religion and foreign policy is being conflated across especially in The Middle East. It's being conflated when when some some people refer to Jews as the chosen ones for the land of Israel. For me, these things and I was born a Christian, but I I don't practice some I don't practice my religion. I you know, atheist or agnostic now. And I've never really looked into it.
So what I would love to do in this discussion is I would love you to take me through what the mindset is. You know? What is that belief? What is Zionism? What is the greater Israel project?
Why do some people believe that? Why do some people use religion to make the argument that some land belongs to them? Because I I cover foreign policy around the world, and and it almost never comes up, barely comes up a bit in the Ukraine war talking about Orthodox Christianity, but barely, and I never really discussed it because not many analysts talk about it. But when it comes to the Middle East and Israel and the region, and not only about Israel, obviously, Shia, Sudanese, not only about Judaism, but it's always always one of the core issues. So I'd love you if you can explain it to me, please, rabbi.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Look. I will try to explain it from the beginning. We have to understand what is that Judaism and then what is Zionism, and then we will have a better understanding in the whole in the whole thing. And I will start from the beginning.
Judaism is a religion. Have nothing to do with a nationality, nothing with a race. You Judaism is a a religion have nothing to do with I mean, you can be a Jew, a white, a black, Australian, a Indian, Argentina. No difference what background you are from the East, from the West. Judaism is a pure religion.
As long people believing in this state and principles of Judaism, they are considered as a Jew. If not, they are not considered as a Jew. This is not my words. This is the words of Maimonides, one of our greatest leaders about a thousand years ago. He pulled down the death and principles of Judaism.
I give you the reference, at least for these people who are understanding my language. It is in Sanhedrin, the end of. The is my monadis in English. He put down there the 30 principles of Judaism, and they finish off that everybody who is clear in these 30 principles is considered as a Jew. Who is not?
He can be born by Jewish parents, but he's not considered as a Jew. So I come back to the point. Judaism is a pure religion, have nothing to do with any nationality, with the color, with the race. It's no difference. And I will come to this point.
We have to speak it later, really, but I will bring it up in the front to understand it better that, you mentioned the chosen people. What means the chosen people? Like, we hear often on the media and the Yao say, we are the kings. Everybody are the slaves. We may kill everybody.
It's our right. We can do whatever we want. We are the children of god, and we can do everything. It's completely taking out of of concept completely changing the concept of chosen people. Chosen people is means that god gave for the whole world seven laws of Noah.
I'm sure you will be, you know about it. However, for Jewish people, god gave them the Torah on Mount Sinai with 613 commandments. Jewish people, god chose these people to enlight the the world with a believing god, to be connected to god, to pray to god, to be more closer to god. This is completely a religious concept, the chosen people. It's not we are the kings.
Everybody are the slaves. To bring out the fact that Jewish people through the history, since God gave the Torah on the Mount Sinai three hundred, three and half thousand years ago. Only as, less than about twelve hundred twelve hundred years, they had their own country. Most of the time, from the three thou three and a half thousand years, they didn't have a country. And even when god gave the Torah on the Mount Sinai, he didn't gave it in the holy land.
He gave it before in the desert. Why? Our sages say because god wants to show. That means our nation is not a nation only by the Torah. We are I I the something what unite us, it's only the religion.
Not the land, nothing. Because of that, God gave the Torah on the desert to show we are we are a religion. We are not people like all the nations that we are united by country, by our language, if someone is so. So, again, this is what Judaism is. Now I come what is Zionism?
Zionism is a movement about hundred and thirty years founded by Teddy Herzl from Austria Vienna. He was a secular Jew. He didn't believe in god. He don't believe in the Torah. He don't believe in nothing.
So he had a different look completely on Judaism. Zionism try to transfer to transform Judaism from a religion into a national movement. Zionism say, if you want to be Jewish, you have to be a Israeli, have a Israeli passport, leave in Israel, save in the army, at least give much money for Israel and so on and so on. Speak Hebrew and so on. So they transform from a holy religion, from believing in god, from reconnecting to god into a empty, national movement.
What their their their achievements is only to have a strong country and to speak Hebrew and so on and so on. So Zionism is a try to transform Judaism from a religion into a national movement. Now I will come back I will come to another point to understand it better. We often hear speaking on the media that the the the the promised land, the promised land. Now it's true that god promised the land for the Jewish people as you can see in the Torah, but this promise was only conditionally.
If you keep a high level of life, god gives us the holy land for people, but god chose them to be more close to the to him. God give them the holy land, but this was only conditionally if we keep at the high level. If not, it's written the Torah 40 times that we will be exiled of the land. And then you can see that in the books of the prophets, especially in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isha'al, that god sent the prophets to warn us to repent to god and to come back to him. And if not, then we will be exiled from the holy land.
And at the end, you can see in the end of the book of Jeremiah that we were exiled by god. So, again, the the same god who gives us the land, he took it back from us. Firstly, to speak Who is not Ayahu to speak about the promised land when he he's an unbeliever. He don't believe in god. He don't believe in the Torah.
It's so hypocritically. When he was here in England for a few years ago, he going to eat to our noncosher restaurant. Why? He wants to demonstrate I'm not I'm not religious. I don't believe in god.
It's enough kosher restaurants here. He can eat money. Kosher, no. He go to a non kosher to demonstrate he is not religious. He don't believe in god.
So how he speak in the name of god? Name of the Torah and the promised land. Who promised that? God promised that you don't believe in god. The Torah promised that you don't believe in the Torah.
You're eating non kosher. You don't keep shabbos. You don't keep the whole Torah. How you speak? This is so hypocrisy.
But, however, I come back to the promised land. The promised land was conditionally. Now Jewish people are following god completely. We are believers in god. And one of the first steps in religion is believing god, trusting god.
Not only the Jewish religion, every religion, the first step of the religion is believing in god and trust in him full. The Jewish people, we believe in god. We trust in him. Believing don't means on its light. And it's light, you can see.
You don't have to believe. And it's dark, then you have to believe. And god send us an exile. We are in exile. We are not rebellion against God.
We are staying in exile like good children. It's like if you have a child, he's bad. You told him, okay. I punish you. Stay in the corner for ten minutes.
He coming down. What means that? That means rebellion. I don't I I don't care about you, about your punishment. I'll do whatever I want.
The same thing Jewish people, when god send us in exile, we're staying in exile. We are awaiting the coming of messiah. God promised us to send us the messiah. Messiah will take us out from exile. Maybe we will come later to the point of messiah to speak about it.
However, I want just to, in one word, just to say messiah will not be another until you even not kill innocent men and women and children. The messiah will come to be peace on the whole world. All the mankind will say the same. God in harmony and peace. However, maybe we will come back later to this point, but I want just to point out.
But we're waiting patiently in exile for the messiah. We know that the exile is a punishment of God and not rebelling against God even in the dark times. However, Zionism, Teddy Herzl, and all his friends, he have a different look. He don't believe in God. He don't believe in the Torah.
He don't believe in the promise of the land. He don't believe in the exile. Don't believe in nothing. So he have a completely a little cloak. He say, oh, how long we will stay in exile?
What's going on here? We have to organize ourselves. What should the English people do if they're an exile? They have to organize, make a strong organization, and then grab a piece of land. So this is really what Zionism doing because the comments in the background of the not believing in god, not believing in the exile, so they have a completely different look on that.
So they say, we have to build up ourselves. If we will not help ourselves, nobody will help us. This is so you can understand that the stand of Judaism is believe in god, trust in god. When god send you in exile, stay in exile. Don't do bad against him.
The the the the point of Zionism is exactly the opposite. Don't believe in god. Don't wait for messiah. Don't you you haven't got a lot to believe. There is no god in the world.
So you can understand Judaism and Zionism is extremely opposites. Judaism is believing, and Zionism is don't believe in god. So the Zionist, in basic, they cannot come with any religious background. That's what they're using the Torah to justify themselves like the promised land, the chosen people, blah blah blah. This is all taking out out of context.
It's completely taking out of context from all this.
Speaker 0: This is fascinating, rabbi. I'm learning so much. So in the holy book in the in the Jewish holy book, god did promise Jews the promised land, and that's what's being used by Zionists. But he's saying in in the book of Jeremiah, Jews were exiled from that land.
Speaker 1: Not only that. Not on that. In the Torah itself, the Torah itself, it's written 40 times that the the the promise is only condition if we keep our eye on the throne of life. In the Ijema, you see the fact that you were exiled at the end. Yes.
So you can continue. I just want to clear
Speaker 0: So that's that's how the religious base are. So so Jews were exiled, and to be able to return to the promised land, you'll it's conditional on the return of the messiah. Is that what it's conditional on, or is it conditional on other factors based on the on the Torah and the and the and the book of messiah?
Speaker 1: At the moment, we have to wait patiently for the coming of messiah. When it's really the redemption on the whole world, god will come out come down to this world more. People will see god. People will be all the people on the world will be more close to god. They have to go they have to wait for messiah.
God with three oaths. You can see that in the Talmud in Ksumbat in Ksumbat, page one one one. It's very clear there that god with three oaths not to rebel against the nations, not to go up to Israel in mass and, to the holy land in mass and not, yes. Three oaths got miswound us to stay in exile. So we are today, we are just warm by gods to stay in exile patiently waiting for the coming of messiah.
Speaker 0: So what is the counterargument for people that are that follow Zionism? What is their counterargument when they say we are the chosen ones? When you tell them, like, look. You were expelled from the land, and we have to wait before we're able to return to the land. You know, we have to be patient.
What is their counterargument to this?
Speaker 1: You know, look. In today's world, you have money, money, movements. Yes? And you can see money movements is building build it up on completely false arguments. And you will ask them, oh, but when they answer, they don't answer.
They just ignore the right fact. That's all. They know that people usually, non Jewish people are ignorant. They don't know the Torah. They don't know, what the Torah is saying that.
They can sell them whatever they want. They take out a small a small wares of the Torah, and they know that nobody can answer them. Nobody knows. That's all. I mean So But that's what I tell you.
This is something that it's open. The Torah is open today. It's translated in any any language, and everybody can see that, that the promise of the land was only conditionally. And everybody can read what was happened in the or in Issacho, in Jeremiah, in the end of Jeremiah, it's open. Everybody can read it.
Think you're with with the three oaths. This is open. Everybody can see the thing. That one one one, page one one one. Everybody can see that there.
Speaker 0: So I think you're staying with that. Judaism as a religion was hijacked for the purposes of Zionism. Zionism is a national movement achieving national objectives. How how prevalent is Zionism in Israel? You know, we see the polls.
The polls are pretty concerning. The number of Israelis that don't believe in a two state solution, the number of Israelis that support the war in Iran. And I've really tried to understand why that is. You know, my conclusion is that, you know, the media the way the media is framed, the way the politicians speak, the way in some ways, Israel way Netanyahu is always surrounded by enemies. He puts that map of tiny little Israel and all these big red countries around it.
That framing as well as the history of what Jews have gone through historically, which I think is an important factor, should not be forgotten either. You put all that together, and there's a kind of a sense of survival in Israel. That's my conclusion. But I'd love you to explain what the mindset is of Israelis in Israel, how prevalent it is Zionism, how prevalent it is, and what is their mindset within Israel? Where is it coming from?
Speaker 1: I'm a religious rabbi. Yes. I cannot speak in the name of nonreligious people because we are completely two different nations. Even both of us call themselves Jews. Yes.
But according to the Torah, they are not counted as a Jew. As I explained you before, Judaism is a religion. As I mean, you told me you are you are coming from a Christian background. You can understand who have the right to call themselves Christian, the people practicing the religion who have the right to call themselves Muslims. The people who are practicing the Muslim religion.
Yes. If somebody say, I'm a Muslim, but I'm not a believer, you will tell them you are a fake Muslim. That's all. Finish. If he had the power to call himself Muslim, yes, he had the power, he had the money, and he has, millions of people following him.
Could be, but it didn't change the fact that this is fake Islam. Islam means believing in god. I don't know. A Muslim principle is exactly, but, it means the Muslim principles. He has the same thing.
He's the Christians. The same thing is in Judaism. If people have the power to call themselves Jews, but we are nonbelievers, but we are atheists, but we are still Jews. I mean, they can't call themselves what they want if they have the power to death. Could be in the today's false war.
Everybody have the power. They can do whatever they want, but this doesn't change the fact. What means a Jew? If he wants to know what it means a Jew, you have to look in the right scriptures to find out whether it's a Jew. This is not something that you can Google in the Internet.
It's you have to look in the right scriptures what they say, and and that's what I told you before from my monadis. Again, the reference of that is in end of the in Sanhedrin. But you can say that you see that very clear what that means a Jew. So I'll come back to the point. When I speaking, I speaking in behalf of religious Jews.
What's going on in the secular world is not something what is in my I'm I don't speak about the secular people. Even though what I can say that even between the secular Jews, there are large movement against Israel. How I know that is only from the rallies, what's on the streets here in London, you can see that half of the speakers have Jewish names. In the among the the secular complete secular, but you see large amount of Jewish people taking part in all the rallies for Palestine. However, again, I'm speaking in behalf of Jewish people, and I can't say more, even not only of religious people.
I'm speaking really of Hasidic Jews. You can call it Hasidic Jews, Haredi Jews, all the all the Jews. I can just tell you people looks like me, have the keros, a bear with a hat. These type of people. Yes?
When you're speaking outside Israel, firstly, outside in the whole world. Yes? In the whole world, I can say very clearly that 95% of people looks like me, they are non Zionist. And 65% of them, they are anti Zionist. Strong, strong anti Zionist.
I give you example. Here in London, yes, the main community here, it's called Sattmer. Again, I'm not from Sattmer. I'm from Natuikata. But I just tell you the story.
Here in in London, the main the biggest community here is Sartmoor. Here in in North London, Stamford Hill, they have 12 to 15 synagogues. In a few of them, they're paying thousands of people, very big. Everybody knows the area, knows that. Yes?
And they are very strong anti Zionist. Yes? They're for the dismantlement of the state of Israel. Of course, they're looking for a peaceful dismantlement. Nobody looks for bloodshed, but they're waiting in a praying for that.
I mean, yesterday, it was in the Jewish calendar. It was the Israeli independent day. In the world, it is Israeli independent days on the May 15, about around the May 15. But in the Jewish calendar, it's a bit different. It's every year different at three.
But this year is coming as well as yesterday, the Israeli independent day in Israel themselves. The the it was yesterday, the Israel Independent Day. Yes. In the synagogues, they come together. They're fasting.
Not everybody, but many people are fasting and they're giving speeches and have special prayers to god for the dismantling of the true state of Israel. I mean, in Saturn, it's not only The U the the the the the leading community only here in Stamford Hill. All over the world, from Australia to Argentina, in New York, and Montreal, in everywhere in the world where you have concentrated people, looks like me, this type of people with kales there, this type of people. Sadler is the leading community, and they are strongly opposing the state of Israel. Even though they are not agreeing everything with into account.
One second. I want to come to the point about
Speaker 0: Of course. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Of course. Take your time. In Israel. Take your time. They're just bringing out first outside Israel.
Outside Israel, 65% are strong anti Zionists. In the rest of them, up to 95% are non Zionists. Non Zionists means they have their lives, their businesses, their families, the the the education, the prayers, the the studies, Israel is not a part of their life completely. I mean, I will say I will say it in this way that when Israel will come to an end, they will not shed a tear on that. It's not a part of the life at all.
This is up to 95%. There's a small percentage Zionist people looks like me. This is outside Israel. And therefore, when you come to my area, you won't see there's thousands of thousands of Jewish people living here. You won't see even one single Israeli flag in the whole area.
And it's not only here. The same thing is in Manchester, same thing in Newcastle, same thing is in Belgium, in Antwerp, in New York, in Brooklyn, in Upstate, in Montreal, in Toronto. And I don't know. I mean, in Argentina, everywhere, you see people this type of people in their concentrated areas. You won't see the Israeli flag completely.
Now in Israel, himself itself is the situation a bit different because the settlers, unfortunately, looks like me. And and they are very strong Zionists. They are real madness. What he's doing here, this is unbelievable. We see in the media what the settlers doing.
And, unfortunately, they looks like me, but still in Israel themselves, are also hundreds of thousands of Jewish people. Well, they looks like me, but they are strong anti Zionist, and they don't take any benefits like you call it here in England. You know, basically, get it. Yes. I think in Israel, they call it.
I think so. They're boycotting that. They're boycotting the votes, and, they try to boycott the the the boycotting the army. You know, in today's day, there are 55,055 of Ayod, but they are not going into the army. They they call them in, and they just, boycotting that.
If the police catch him, they put him in prison. And our rabbi say for Ayod, better to prison not to go to the army. And 55,000 people yachts, today, like, there's a deer, we call that. People when they're running away from the army, they just don't go in, just ignoring that. They cannot fly out.
They cannot go out of the city or the state because they stop them in the airport and imprison them. 55,000 is a very large amount from people when they are boycotting the army. I mean, you won't see that in the mainstream media, but you can see that in the social media very much. So the situation in Israel, it's there are a large amount of people where they are against the state. But, unfortunately, there are a percentage what they are settlers.
However, this is these people, what you what I calling Hasidic Jews or Haredi Jews, people looks like me. The other people, the secular people, I'm not sure exactly what's going on there. And on their side, they call themselves Jews, and I'm not sure.
Speaker 0: I have I have a I have a few questions, rabbi. Yes. A lot of questions. So this first one, about the belief for the dismantlement, because there's a lot we agree on. Like, what the settlers are doing is heartbreaking.
Zionism was a concept. I don't oppose the state of Israel, but I definitely oppose the greater Israel project. Israeli foreign policy, I'm very critical of. There's so much we agree on. There's you know, I'm trying to find something where we can debate a bit.
The dismantlement of the state of Israel. So while a lot of lot of Israelis oppose Netanyahu, the majority of Israelis, I think, about 98% sorry. Major majority of Jews do not believe in the dismantlement of the state Of Israel. Now I understand from the interpretation you've just explained, it's something I'm learning from you now. You've explained the framework on why the state Of Israel shouldn't exist because Jews were expelled and they haven't you know, there hasn't been the opportunity or there hasn't been the scenario for them to return to the promised land.
Sorry if I'm saying it wrong, so I'll let you correct me. But isn't there also an argument to be made that I think Jews should have their own state? Because you do have state that are majority Christian. You do have state that are majority Islam, shouldn't you at least have at least one state that is majority Jewish? I'm not saying I agree with their foreign policy, but I think the when when the Jews that believe they should have a state, the state of Israel, I empathize with this, and and I find it to be a fair a fair thing to to request, to demand, or to aim for, to work towards.
Not they didn't achieve it the right way, but I think the end goal they're trying to achieve is a is a is a just one.
Speaker 1: You have a look. Yeah. You mentioned a few things. You mentioned the right that Jews have a right to have their own state, and you mentioned about the dismantlement of the state.
Speaker 0: I didn't think I don't think I said the way. Sorry. I didn't think I said right. I said I think it's fair to have right. I don't know what who gives the right.
I don't think that makes sense.
Speaker 1: I understand. Yes. And you say that 98 of Jews are not looking for dismantlement of Israel. Again, I'm not agreeing with that. Again, it depends whom you're calling.
True.
Speaker 0: True.
Speaker 1: According to my religion, no. Religious people are looking for the dismantlement of the state of Israel. They're praying for that constantly, including these people who are leaving in Israel yesterday. Sorry. Yesterday, in Israel in Israel themselves, there was large amounts of people in the Israeli independent day.
They're fasting, and they're going out in the streets with Palestinian flags, and they're going out to demonstrate against the state, and they are waiting for the peaceful dismantlement of the state of Israel. But this aside, but you didn't ask that. I just say that you're speaking about 95%. You don't speak about people looks like me, these religious Jews. You're speaking maybe about secular Jews.
And we will come back later to the point what our belief is about the dismantlement of the state of Israel. But, I want to come to your question what you're asking that Jews, it's fair for them to have a state. If I look, it depends on which background we're coming from. I coming from the religious background. Yes?
You you coming from the secular point of view. I'm sorry. I didn't want to offend you anymore.
Speaker 0: No. No. Offended at all. At all.
Speaker 1: At all. Not at just bring out the point. When you look when you have a secular look on that, yes, you have a point. Jews have to have it's fair for them to get to get their own land. Firstly, even when you go in this point of view, yes, still, you know, design say so many times, one of the arguments for the right for the land, they say, oh, we're through a holocaust.
Six million people has been died. We need our land. We need to protect ourselves fiercely before we go in to understand what the Zionists say. But firstly, doesn't the Holocaust the Nazis made a Holocaust, not the Palestinians. Why the Palestinians have to pay the bill for that?
I mean, what the Nazis done. If they want to claim a state, okay. Go to the Nazis. Ask them for some city to give them from Germany. It's big enough.
They can give you some. I don't know. If America wants to give the Jews a state, okay. Give them Florida. Give them, California.
I don't know. Give them Alaska. Give them something. Why the Palestinians have to pay for that? This is firstly I mean, this is completely unfair.
Before we're thinking, if Jews have a right and they have no right, as you're saying, not the right. If the if it's fair or it's not fair, let's say even if it's fair, what what why the Palestinians should pay for that? The Palestinians didn't make the Holocaust. They didn't do anything bad for Jewish people. Palestinians don't hate Jewish people at all.
I mean, I myself are coming from Jerusalem. My mom and Jerusalem. I'm already seven generations there. My mother told me she remember we used to live with the Palestinian neighbors, such a good relationship. We used we used to babysit each other to children.
We used to dance at the weddings each other. I, myself, I know many Palestinian songs. What my mother lay at me, what she remember. We used to be one at the other at the weddings. We was very best friends in Palestinians.
So why do why are you taking away a land from other people if even if it's fair? Now I come back to the point if it's fair or not fair. Again, with secular eyes, it's could be you can say, oh, it's fair. There is a large amount of people, 6,000,000 60,000,000, 18,000,000 Jewish people. It's fair to have for them alone.
Okay. Fine fine for them. Empty empty place. I don't know. But not going with the head of other people and kill them, exile them from the land.
But I have completely a different look. We are not a nation Yeah. Like all the nations. We are a nation. We are derived by God.
God runs the whole way of our life. And when God gives us the land, we're taking the land. When God took it away and send us an exile, we are believers. We accept the decree of God. We believe in god.
We stay in exile. We it's not fair. It's not something fair and not fair. We are in the hands of god.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I understand.
Speaker 1: I understand. No.
Speaker 0: That makes complete logical sense. It just depends on from which lens you look at it. You talked about the
Speaker 1: I want to come back to the point what you asked me before. I just looking if I can show you the reference here. Give me one minute. I look for the reference.
Speaker 0: Time. Of course.
Speaker 1: Yes. That happened.
Speaker 0: Sweet.
Speaker 1: Yep. This is just the Torah, the the Bible as he call it. I mean, when you're speaking about the dismantlement of the state of Israel, we Jewish people, we can we we constantly praying for the peaceful dismantlement of state of Israel, and we're waiting for that. I mean, again, I'm not a politician. I'm not a politician.
I'm just a Jewish rabbi, and I just can say the words of the Torah, the words of god. In the Torah, it's written, a rebellion against god cannot be succeed. As long as the state of Israel is a rebellion against almighty. As I said, god send us into exile. The Zionist are rebelling against god, against the victory of exile in the going out by force.
This rebellion against almighty in the Torah is written. The reference is numbers 14 verse 41. I will just show it to you here. Here is it. Numbers 14, verse 41.
A rebellion against god cannot be succeed. As long as the state of Israel is a rebellion against god, they will not succeed. They will never succeed. They will come to an end. Again, according to the Torah, even you don't see that with a political eyes.
But, again, I am a rabbi. I just say the words in the Torah. If you want, believe it. If you don't want, don't believe it. But we believing in the Torah.
We are sure that the state of Israel will come to an end. We hope and pray to our peaceful end. Nobody looks to blame, but it will come.
Speaker 0: If we so if someone tells you, rabbi, from a nonreligious lens, not a secular one, but just looking at it from a different lens, how would a dismantlement of the country look like? Because I worry and I fear, especially after what we've seen over the last few decades, is that it I know you kept mentioning a peaceful dismantlement of the state, but it's very hard to imagine that if Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself, not the right, the ability to defend itself. There's a lot of people you talked about Jews and and Palestinians living in peace many, many years ago. That's a very different world to the world we have today. Whatever led to the world we have today, whoever you wanna blame, we are living in a world where there is people in in Syria, in Lebanon, Palestine, and other neighboring countries that would not like to see a peaceful if their country is being dismantled, they would not like it to be peaceful.
Do you not have that worry as well if the country does head in that path that it could end up being a pretty violent end to the nation? Not that it's feasible now based on from a political perspective, a geopolitical perspective. It's not really a feasible scenario unless things drastically change. A different discussion. But the worry is that it won't be peaceful.
Speaker 1: You know, look, again, I'm not a politician, and I can't say the words of the Torah, and I didn't have to bring a a a solution for that. Listen. The the world is not my I'm not driving the world. Nobody asked me what to do, not Trump and not no. Nobody asked me what to do, and my words is nothing.
I can just say in the words of the tollway, and that's all. But then you ask me
Speaker 0: Does it worry you sometimes? Yeah. Exactly. I'd love to know your deep thoughts or if you think about it sometimes, if you have any any opinions on that concern. Sorry to interrupt you.
Speaker 1: I was
Speaker 0: just saying that, away from the Torah, if you have if you think about it yourself, do you have any opinions or worries that maybe it can go wrong? Is that a worry whatsoever? Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. I come to this point. Give a look. You said that today is a different world, and people don't look to bring an end to Israel peacefully.
Fine. You have to differentiate where you stop. It's very important to bring out the point. The Arab world is blamed very much with anti Semitism. However, it is completely false.
And you don't have to believe me. Just open the eyes and look. Jewish people living today in all the Muslim countries peacefully. From Morocco, Tunis, Alger, Turkey, every land, you won't hear any of this. Iran, I want to leave it for the last.
Iran, there is a large community of 35,000 Jews. And under the messiahs, still, the Iranian people didn't concentrate. You know, these Jewish people. They had a concentration camp. So Jewish people have their golden life, and it's a open world today.
For £200, you can't have a ticket to go to Iran. Just go in here, open the eyes, and look. Jewish people have their, schools, high schools. In Iran, there's a Jewish hospital funded completely by the government. In Iran, to have their own MP, if every MP, I think the rate is about a half million people to get the MP.
Jewish people with a 35,000, they have their own MP representing them in the parliament. In Iran, the Jewish people have a golden life. There are even rich people with big businesses. They have a golden life there. Nobody can deny that.
I can't understand how people can be so blind in going with blind eyes after the Zionist propaganda that the Muslims wants to kill the Jews, one to two of the Jews into the sea. It's completely false. It's completely false. It's a open world today. Again, I myself, I was in Morocco.
Yes. I just crossed the border from Saulter from the Spanish part into Morocco. When I crossed the border, the Muslim people come to me. Rabbi, bless my children. I couldn't believe it.
After sixty after fifth seventy years of occupation, of genocide, still the Muslim people coming to me, rabbi, bless my children. It's almost unbelievable. The Muslim people have no problem with Jews even today in 2026. Even in Iran, they have no problem with Jews. They have a problem with the occupiers.
They have a problem with the genocide. I I'll tell you a nice story. It's happened, on, I think, on January 2023. I didn't remember exactly. It was three months after October 7.
We were invited in Turkey to a conference. Our rabbis came to the conference, and in the middle of the conference, it appears there, Ismael Alai Miyah. I believe you know who is that. It's not legal here to say who is that in in England. However oh, it's legal.
It's I'm just joking. He was the political leader of Hamas. We are not allowed
Speaker 0: to sympathize. He assassinated
Speaker 1: in Iraq. Yes. Yes. Yes. Are not allowed to sympathize with them and and, support them, but they may say the fact that it is.
The fact that he come up to this conference and he saw our rabbis. He told them to come up to the podium. Yeah. Rabbis come up. He embraced them and say, these rabbis will be welcome in the future Palestine.
We are not we have no problem with Jews. We have a problem with our occupiers. Jewish people who wants to live in Palestine peacefully, they will be welcomed. We have no problem with that. Again, you might I'll tell you my personal story, what I have.
This was about fifteen years ago. I'm not sure. At the time, Yassi Arafat has has passed away. If you remember that, I didn't remember how many years or not. I go up to the Palestinian embassy in London to give my condolence for that.
I took the opportunity to say, Fadame Bessada, look. I'm a Palestinian Jew. I want to claim a passport, a Palestinian passport. He told me, unfortunately, we're not issuing passport. Well, then we will.
One of the first passports will be for you. It will be a honor for us to give a passport for a Jewish rabbi to show that we have no problem with Jews. We have a problem with occupiers. This is the fact. Both parties in Palestine, Fatah, and the other one ex declared that many times, they have no problem with Jews at all.
So, again, I know when we look in politic in the in the political eyes, no. It's impossible. This is to fantasize, to say political, peaceful sentiment. It will never happen. I will give you two examples that it can happen at least.
If you I I don't know if this was in your lifetimes, for thirty years ago, more than thirty years, the the USSR. You remember that? I don't know. The USSR Yeah. Yes.
The USSR was very strong power. It was maybe the second to want power after The USA. And people think to bring it into the USSR, this will cost millions of lives. It didn't cost even one single life. Even not once in this that's happened in our days, not for five hundred years, a thousand years ago in our days.
And the second example is in South Africa. Of course, in South Africa, it costs lives much less than people think what's going to be there. So that shows that if there is a will, there is a way. So, again, I'm not a politician. I didn't have to bring the way to justify the words of the Torah, the words of God.
The words of God are stronger than everyone. And if God say in the Torah that our our rebellion against God will not succeed, they will not succeed. But I say just what our prayer says to be on a peaceful way, and it can happen. The land can be given back for the Palestinians anyway. That doesn't mean the Jewish people have to be killed.
Jewish people have to be expelled from there. No. We can live there like we live in Iran, like we live in Morocco, like we live in Turkey under Palestinian government. That doesn't mean that that should be killing or something like that. And, again, I know yes.
So I know I to hear I know you coming from the political point of view. Yes. But I coming from the point of view.
Speaker 0: I enjoyed I enjoyed I know you have a hard stop now because I had a lot more questions. So I'm gonna ask you to do this again to continue the conversation at a future time because I you know, one thing you said, Isma'il Hani, example of him embracing Jews and saying, you guys are welcome to Palestine, and we have no problem with Jews, is an image that's not portrayed anywhere really outside maybe some some some countries in the Arab world. And the statement you said that Arabs do not have a problem with Jews, they have a problem with occupiers, I think it's a very important statement because they perceive Jews in Israel as occupiers. And the same way and as you were speaking, I'm thinking the same way people in Israel believe in a one state solution, That means they want the Palestinians the the state is not a state, but the state of Palestine to be to be wiped off, to no longer be a state of Palestine. So everyone it's illegal in some countries to talk about the dismantlement of the state of Israel or or the wiping out the state of Israel, not killing old people, just wiping out the state as a state.
It's illegal in some countries to say that, and it's like something is taboo to say. But, yeah, a lot of Israelis are saying the same thing about Palestinian land. So why is it okay to say that about Palestinian land, not say it about Israeli land? I think both. I'm a believer in a two step solution, but these are all points that was that that were coming to me as you were speaking.
Looking at it from a religious lens, that was just fascinating. I learned a lot, and that's why I'd love to to do this again when you have time again.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. The only thing I finish off is that we we pray for the peaceful dismantlement of the state of Israel. We hope it will happen soon in our days.
Speaker 0: Hopefully. Thank you for your time, Robert. Really, really kind of you to give us your time. Thank you so much, sir.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Bye bye.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇱 Israel hired Brad Parscale on a $9M contract to build fake "neutral" think-tank websites designed to feed pro-Israel narratives directly into ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. The sites look independent. They're not. They're engineered to shape what AI tells you about Israel before the models even finish training. This is hasbara for the algorithm era, and if Israel is doing it, you can be sure they're not the only government that figured this out. Source: Axios
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇱🇱🇧 Netanyahu and the Lebanese president may be sitting across from each other in Washington next month. This is huge. Two leaders from countries that have spent decades trying to bomb each other into the Stone Age, sharing a table in D.C. The catch: the meeting only happens if the region stays calm enough to allow it. So basically, peace is the prerequisite for peace talks. Source: Reuters
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇵🇰🇮🇷🇺🇸 Demands delivered by Iran's FM Araghchi in Islamabad: - lift the naval blockade - stop U.S. attacks and threats - reject "maximalist" demands or surrender terms (such as full nuclear dismantlement) Araghchi used Pakistan as the messenger, passing Iran's demands and https://t.co/eWX0oFBN8k
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸 Anti-gravity researcher Amy Eskridge was found shot dead... ruled a suicide. One month earlier, she texted a friend: “If you see any report that I killed myself, I most definitely did not.” She also said she was being hit with “energy weapons” and needed to “disclose soon.” Yeah… this one doesn’t fucking add up AT ALL Source: Daily Mail @CollinRugg
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇩🇺🇸🇨🇳 The Iran war is teaching Indonesia a lesson, and the implications could reshape Asian trade forever... Indonesia's Finance Minister just floated the idea of imposing a toll on ships transiting the Strait of Malacca, explicitly citing Iran's Hormuz strategy as the inspiration: "If we split it three ways between Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, it could be quite substantial. Our stretch is the largest and the longest." The Malacca Strait is the most important chokepoint in the world for East Asia. Middle Eastern oil reaches China, Japan, and South Korea through it. Global supply chains depend on it. And China gets 80% of its energy imports through this waterway. Singapore and Malaysia immediately rejected the idea. But the genie is out of the bottle. Iran demonstrated that a single country with coastal missiles and small boats can hold global shipping hostage. Every nation bordering a chokepoint is now doing the math on whether they could do the same thing. The strategic picture is clearer than most people realize. The U.S. signed a cooperation deal with Indonesia during the Iran war. American military cooperation in the region is expanding. The first island chain of Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines gives Washington the tools to restrict Chinese access to the Malacca Strait if needed. Control the chokepoints and you control who gets what resources. That's the logic Trump is operating on, and Indonesia is watching carefully. China's dependence on foreign energy through narrow waterways is its greatest strategic vulnerability. If tensions with the U.S. ever escalate, Washington doesn't need to attack Beijing. It just needs to control Malacca. And Indonesia has just publicly signaled it's open to being part of that leverage structure for the right price. The Iran war may end up reshaping the financial architecture of every global chokepoint, from Hormuz to Malacca to Panama. Source: CNA, Fanack
reSee.it AI Summary
I sat down with former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert to discuss actions in Southern Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Gaza and the West Bank, and Netanyahu’s leadership. We debated ethics and strategy, agreed on some points and, most, that Netanyahu needs to go. I asked about the U.S.–Israel relationship and Trump’s influence. The conversation covered multi-front challenges, diplomacy, hostages, regional stability, and humanitarian concerns.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇮🇱 I just sat down with Fmr Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to discuss Israel - Their leveling of villages in Southern Lebanon - Their role in convincing Trump to strike Iran - The soldier smashing the statue of Jesus - The bombing of Syria - The future of Hezbollah - The future of Gaza and the West Bank - Netanyahu calling soldiers who stuck a knife in an inmate’s rectum “heroic fighters We agreed on some things, disagreed on others, but it was a rational conversation with a pragmatic leader, one that disagreed with the atrocities in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank The thing we agreed the most on: NETANYAHU NEEDS TO GO! PM Olmert was actually in Washington the day the war started, and I asked him a lot about the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and how much influence Netanyahu has over Trump It was a great conversation, I hope you enjoy it! 01:43 – Multi-front challenges: navigating the complexities of Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon 05:12 – The Trump factor: evaluating the U.S. administration's role and long-term strategy 09:30 – Retaliation and deterrence: the strategic necessity of responding to Iranian strikes 14:15 – Lebanon sovereignty: debating the influence of Hezbollah vs. the Lebanese government 18:44 – Political solutions: the urgent need for a diplomatic exit from the South Lebanon conflict 23:02 – Military ethics: addressing controversial footage of soldier conduct in conflict zones 28:15 – Leadership critique: analyzing the decision-making of the current Israeli administration 33:40 – The hostages: prioritizing the return of captives in the broader war effort 39:10 – Regional stability: the potential impact of normalization and peace treaties 45:22 – Economic consequences: the cost of sustained warfare on national infrastructure 52:18 – Humanitarian concerns: balancing security needs with the protection of civilians 58:05 – Annexation debate: addressing internal voices calling for territory in South Lebanon 01:02:47 – Final reflections: the path toward a secure and peaceful future for the state of Israel
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Iran, and regional dynamics, with Speaker 0 (a former prime minister) offering sharp criticisms of the current Israeli government while outlining a path he sees as in Israel’s long-term interest. Speaker 1 presses on US interests, Lebanon, and the ethics and consequences of the war.
Key points and claims retained as stated:
- Iran and the war: Speaker 0 says he supported the American strike against Iran’s leadership, calling Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime a brutal threat and praising the move as punishment for Iran’s actions, including backing Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. He questions why there was a lack of a clear next-step strategy after the initial attack and asks whether a diplomatic alternative, similar to Obama’s Iran agreement, could have achieved nuclear supervision without war. He notes the broader regional risk posed by Iran’s proxies and ballistic missiles and emphasizes the goal of constraining Iran’s nuclear program, while acknowledging the economic and security costs of the war.
- On Netanyahu and influence: Speaker 1 references the New York Times report about Netanyahu’s influence on Trump and asks how much Netanyahu affected the decision to go to war. Speaker 0 says he isn’t certain he’s the best judge of Netanyahu’s influence but believes Netanyahu sought to push the war forward even during a ceasefire and that Iran’s threat required action, though he questions whether the next steps beyond initial strikes were properly planned. He states, “Iran deserve to be punished,” and reiterates the need for a strategy to end hostilities and stabilize the region.
- Proxies and regional instability: The discussion highlights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as Iranian proxies destabilizing the Middle East, with Speaker 0 insisting that Iran’s support for these groups explains much of the regional violence and Israel’s security concerns. He argues that eliminating or significantly curbing Iran’s influence is essential for regional stability.
- Gaza, West Bank, and war ethics: Speaker 1 cites humanitarian and civilian-impact statistics from Gaza, arguing that the war has gone beyond a proportionate response. Speaker 0 concedes there were crimes and unacceptable actions, stating there were “war crimes” and praising investigations and accountability, while resisting the accusation of genocide. He criticizes certain Israeli political figures (e.g., Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) for rhetoric and policies that could protract conflict, and he condemns the idea of broad acceptance of annexation policies in the South of Lebanon.
- Lebanon and Hezbollah: The core policy debate is about disarming Hezbollah and the future of Lebanon-Israel normalization. Speaker 0 argues against annexing South Lebanon and says disarming Hezbollah must be part of any Israel–Lebanon peace process. He rejects “artificial” solutions like merging Hezbollah into the Lebanese army with weapons, arguing that Hezbollah cannot be permitted to operate as an independent armed force. He believes disarming Hezbollah should be achieved through an agreement that involves Iran’s influence, potentially allowing Hezbollah to be integrated into Lebanon’s political order if fully disarmed and bound by Lebanese sovereignty, and with international support (France cited).
- Practical path to peace: Both speakers acknowledge the need for a negotiated two-state solution. Speaker 0 reiterates a longstanding plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Old City administered under a shared trust (involving Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). He emphasizes that this vision remains essential to changing the regional dynamic and that the current Israeli government’s approach conflicts with this pathway. He frames his opposition to the present government as tied to this broader objective and says he will continue opposing it until it is replaced.
- Personal reflections on leadership and regional hope: The exchange ends with mutual recognition that the cycle of violence is fueled by leadership choices on both sides. Speaker 0 asserts that a different Israeli administration could yield a more hopeful trajectory toward peace, while Speaker 1 stresses the importance of accountability for war crimes and the dangers of rhetoric that could undermine regional stability. Speaker 0 maintains it is possible to pursue peace through a viable, enforceable two-state framework, and urges focusing on disarming Hezbollah, negotiating with Lebanon, and pulling back to an international front to prevent further escalation.
Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes urgent punitive action against Iran with the imperative of a negotiated regional settlement, disarmament of proxies, and a concrete two-state solution as the viable long-term path, while condemning certain actions and rhetoric that risk perpetuating conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Iran deserve to be punished.
Speaker 1: What's your stance on the war? And more importantly, why is Trump in this war in the first place?
Speaker 0: And I'm afraid that there wasn't much thought about what should be the next step.
Speaker 1: I've seen the image of this soldier breaking the statue of Jesus. Terrible. Do you think the ones that are dictating policy want South Lebanon annexed?
Speaker 0: I think that this is against the real interest of the state of Israel, and we have to move forward towards a political solution with the Lebanese government and pull out.
Speaker 1: I really don't know where to start. Like, if we spoke three years ago, there's only maybe a a couple of topics we could discuss, but there's so much going on, especially for Israel. Gaza's ongoing. You've got the the West Bank as well, the settlements in the West Bank. You've got a war with Lebanon that has a ceasefire, and, obviously, the war with Iran.
So I'm gonna start with the big one, the war with Iran. Before we talk about the ceasefire that's ongoing right now, would love to get your reaction when the war started. When there was that military buildup, is that something you expected? And more importantly, one big debate that's being had, mister prime minister, why why did Trump do this? You've got on one side voices blaming Israel saying it's Netanyahu that pushed him into this war.
On the other side, you know, the discussions about nuclear weapons. My position, it's more strategic because of, the stray to Homos, controlling the stray to Homos along with influence by Israel. So maybe I'd love to start there, mister prime ministers. What's your stance on the war? And more importantly, why is Trump in this war in the first place?
Speaker 0: Well, I was on the February 28. I was in Washington, not in Israel. And my at 3AM, my wife woke me up and says, hey. There is a war. So that's how I got to know that there is a war.
And my initial reaction and to this day, my my still my reaction is that when the president of The United States says that, an enemy which threatens the annihilation of the state of Israel, which, Ayatollah Khamenei, was doing for more than thirty years, and, that he's, building the ballistic missiles that can reach Israel and reach every point in Israel, and that he is trying to possess nuclear capacity, and that the ultimate goal of Iran is to liquidate the state of Israel. So when I hear the president of The United States says he is my enemy and, I had to fight him, you know, my initial reaction was great. I mean, this is something that I can understand, and I appreciate and congratulate the president for doing it. Second thing which I did, I said, I hope that there is a thought about the next step that they have articulated before they're starting. So while I was entirely in favor of hitting the Hezbollah guy, the Ayatollah that killed more than 30,000 of his own citizens in the most brutal manner deserved the punishment.
And so when the president is declared that this is the American decision to do it, I was very I'm very, very happy. However, I immediately asked myself and I asked everyone else that I could ask, what's the next step? Is there any thought? Is there any strategy that the president had about what we want to achieve and how we want to move forward and where we want to end this? And what can be achieved in a continued military operation.
And I'm afraid that there wasn't much thought about what should be the next step. Now the president is focusing on the nuclear, which is very legitimate expectation and demand by the president. No one wants the Ayatollahs. The Ayatollahs, they took over from the Ayatollah. I mean, we started with Ayatollah, which was 86 years old, and now we continue with the Ayatollah, which is 56 years old, but with the same name, Khamenei.
So and no one wants them to develop nuclear capacity, and therefore, the demand of a president is legitimate. Question is, and I don't know to answer this, but this is a question, a legitimate question. Could this be done ahead of a military operation in an agreement with Iran similar to the agreement that president Obama made with Iran, which president Trump withdrew away from? But if there will be an agreement that they from now on, any involvement of Iran in nuclear will be supervised effectively by the international agencies and by The United States and by the United Nations and by the international community. Then if this is and president says that this is the important goal.
This is the goal. This is the one thing which we want to achieve. Then, of course, one may have asked a question whether it could have been achieved before starting the war. In any event, this is what rises, you know, when we think about the military operation and the difficulties that it creates to the international economy, which is not insignificant. And also, the relative inconvenience, if I could put it mildly, to live for over a month under the attacks of ballistic ballistic missiles coming from all directions to the North, to the center, to Tel Aviv, to Jerusalem, to the South Of Israel, to the North Of Israel was not very pleasant.
So if all this was made in order to achieve a control over the nuclear the program of Iran, and it could have been achieved without war, then there is a question why was this war coming altogether. If not, then still, as I said, I don't feel any mercy for a leader that killed brutally 30,000 of his own citizens as the Ayatollah Khamenei did.
Speaker 1: So my position, mister prime minister, is very similar to you in my critique of the regime. In January, I was probably the loudest voice on next criticizing the the regime's actions against the protesters. So I have no sympathy for the for the government of Iran. Now I feel like you're implying the war was unnecessary, especially for The US and the global economy. Because the the negotiations right now are focused on two things, Iran's nuclear program and the opening of the Shreve Of Hormuz.
Well, as you know, the Strait Of Hormuz was opened before the war. There was not even any discussions of charging a toll at the Strait Of Hormuz, which is now being negotiated by Iran. And Iran was conceding on their nuclear program according to the Omanis and according to the Europeans. So then one begins to question I've had many debates on this, on the real reason Trump got into this war. And I've spoken to people privately.
I'm sure you've spoken to even more people than I and people on in my interviews. And I my initial thought was, as I said, strategic interests when it comes to the Strait of Home Wars. I just found it to be unfathomable that the world's biggest democracy and, you know, most powerful military would get into a war this risky and this, you know, dangerous or catastrophic for the global economy. Just to it's obviously not for the nuclear program because they were conceding, but for Israeli interests. And then the New York Times put out a story that says Netanyahu gave an in person presentation to Trump and his top advisers arguing Iran was weak and ripe for regime change, and the Israeli intelligence portrayed the war as low risk and fast, especially after what happened in January.
And according to the New York Times, there was limited pushback within Trump's own administration and intelligence officials. They were skeptical, but it was very, very limited. So they framed it framed it in a way that Israel was the main reason or elements of the Israeli government were the main reason that Trump took this step. I don't wanna oversimplify and just blame everything on Israel. That's not my position.
It hasn't been. I think it's too much influence. Now you were the prime minister of the country. So what do you make of that article by New York Times and and that narrative? How much influence does Netanyahu really have over president Trump in your opinion?
Speaker 0: I'm not sure that I'm, the best person to answer this question first because as you may know, I'm not the greatest supporter of Netanyahu on the contrary. So I'm I'm I'm ready to believe anything said against him because I have so much to say against him anyway. But I'm not familiar with this story. I read the New York Times, and I read this story. And I'm certain that Netanyahu was trying then, and he's trying now to convince the president that he should carry on the military operation against Iran even now while there is a ceasefire, and, hopefully, there may be an agreement that will end these hostilities.
But as I said before, don't underestimate the threat that Iran posed to world peace and to stability in the Middle East. Over the last three years, the war that started with Hamas on the October 7, the famous October 7, started because Hamas was fully equipped and financed and supported militarily by Iran. Hamas is a proxy of Iran. Hezbollah in the North is a proxy of Iran. The Houthis in the South are proxies of Iran.
They are shooting ballistic missiles to Israel almost used to almost every day ballistic missiles that were made in Iran. So the threat of Iran and the the the instability and the turmoil, which the Middle East was put into, was largely, almost entirely, a result of the provocations of Iran. And that was not something that a president of America can ignore or or overlook. So he had a a good reason to want to try and convince the Iranians to change course. Now was it necessary or essential or inevitable to start a military operation rather than to continue negotiations with Iran.
I'm not familiar with all effects to be able to judge the president. What I want to say in conclusion to this question is this, Iran deserve to be punished. The Ayatollahs deserve to be punished. What they were doing over the last three years, not just the threats to the existence of Israel, which they spell out on a daily basis, but also the actual actions of supporting Hezbollah and providing the weapons and the ballistic missiles to the Houthis and to Hamas, all of these, that needed to be taken care of, and I can't and why president Trump was aware of this. Two things which I can't answer you is number one, did Netanyahu convince him to do it against what may have been the judgment of the advisers of the president of what is the best interest of The United States?
And number two, which I don't know, is the president Trump before striking the initial attack on the February 28 had any idea of how he want to take it forward, the next step. What would be the end game? Was there any discussion? Was there any plan? Was there any strategy that was articulated by the administration?
This, I don't know, and this is a good question to ask president Trump even now.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The the reasons you've talk you were talking about why Iran is a threat, and I know it's a difficult now I'm asking you a question about US interests, but you were the prime minister of Israel, so I know I'm putting you in a difficult position. But when you're talking about why Iran is a threat, and you've mentioned points that we agree on supporting Hezbollah, supporting Hamas, supporting the Houthis, but those are threats to Israel. Hezbollah has no intention of attacking The US. We're not gonna go back to what happened decades ago.
If we go back decades, everyone's a threat to everybody at at some stage. But Hezbollah is a threat to Israel, and Hezbollah focuses on Iranian Iranian interests and and Lebanese interests on Israeli borders. Hamas, again, is a threat, to Israel. It cannot reach any US bases, and the Houthis, a threat mainly to Israel. So the question oh, that's why I go back to the question is, what were the American interests in this?
And you talked about Iran getting what they deserve. Very fair point. But at what cost? Because we're now in a position where there's a fertilizer shortage that could lead to world hunger that if this war especially if this war continues, a shortage of helium, oil. So it's impacted the global economy, harmed American interest in the region.
We saw the adviser, the former adviser of the president of The UAE, who I'm I'm seeing next week, and he put out a statement two days ago saying that The US should pull out of The UAE, pull out their bases of The UAE. They're not needed there. So there's massive, you know, negative repercussions against The US, even from our allies in Europe after this war, to target Iran that was supporting proxies that were a threat to Israel?
Speaker 0: Okay. Two things. Number one, I don't think that I can answer what is the interest of America. This is something that has to be articulated and defined by America. And and what I can say though is that I think that the the the threat to, you know, to the world at this point is mostly an exaggeration.
There are difficulties. There are of course, the Iranians are trying now to block the movement of ships. But I'll remind you that the movement of ships from the Indian Ocean was bad for a very long time because of the Houthis, because of the Iranians prior to the war. And this also had to be somehow taken care of. And so all not all of the difficulties that are now surfacing are a result of the military operation, and the difficulties which are surfacing have to be taken care of.
But they haven't yet reached a point where you can say this is really a danger, world hunger, there would not be food to eat or or, you know, unnecessary
Speaker 1: No. We're not we're not at that stage. Not We're at that. What I'm saying, if the war continues, this is a risk.
Speaker 0: The the the if the continue if the war continues without any strategy, what is the right thing, when is the right thing to stop, what is the right way to convince the Iranians to refrain from further dealings with military nuclear military plan and so on and so forth. If there is not any coordination that will make sure that the negotiations between Israel and Lebanon are continuing that may block one very important area of instability from furthering on and so on. So, you know, the initial military operation of America, as I said, in my judgment, was in a way also unavoidable and acceptable. The lack of strategy about what's next and the rhetoric which sometimes sounds a little bit extreme about destroying the civilization and so on and so forth are not helpful in reaching a reasonable agreement that will end these hostilities in an agreement that will be also positive for the stability of the region.
Speaker 1: Mister Prime Minister, I wanna move to Lebanon. So this is a topic for me that in my stance for a long time is that Israel had the right to defend itself. It was Hezbollah that attacked Israel first after October 7 and now again after the the the war, after the killing of Khamenei. And so that's been my stance. When when I debate people that tell me, Mario, if Hezbollah's not there, there's no deterrent against Israel annexing Lebanese territory doing to Lebanon what they did to to what they're doing to Gaza and the West Bank.
And I said, no. I don't think the the majority of Israelis don't want that. They just want peace on the Northern front. That's always been my argument. And then I saw what happened in the last few weeks.
The defense minister Katz, he made a statement. He said any about 20% of the population, so everyone that lives South of The Latane that had to evacuate for this war is not allowed to go back home even after the war ends. And then I started seeing those videos that you you've seen the footage of them leveling villages. I And kinda took a step back after months, even years, saying, guys, look. I really think Israel, their policy towards Lebanon is very different to that, against the Palestinians, and the approach is more similar to what we saw in Jordan and Egypt.
They want normalization and coexistence. But when I see the actions in the last few weeks and months, I'm starting to question that as well. So I'd love to get your position on Netanyahu's foreign policy when it comes to Lebanon and the line between self defense and something more sinister.
Speaker 0: Well, this is precisely where I stand with my criticism over the government. I I fought Hezbollah when I was prime minister in the second Lebanese war. Also, as a result of repeated attacks by Hezbollah over the Israeli northern section to the point where we had to do something in order to allow people living the normal way of life. We had to do it then. We had to do it in the last couple of years.
Israel started the military operation against Israel on the October 8 when they saw the events on the October 7, and and they moved forward rapidly into the border. And we had to evacuate more than a 100,000 Israelis from their homes for a period of a year and a half because they couldn't leave where they were the targets of the rockets and the missiles of Gizballah. But and again, as you mentioned, when the war with Iran started, after the ceasefire agreement was signed in November '25, they started again shooting. They they there there is still a change which has to be recognized. Government of Lebanon announced for the first time that they are prepared to negotiate peace with the state of Israel, which is, I think, an objective, which has to be a priority for us.
And therefore, I think that the ground operation in the South Of Lebanon is unnecessary because the range of the missiles that they are shooting is way more than the 50 kilometers from the Israeli border with Lebanon to the Litani River. And and therefore, no ground operation in these 50 kilometers is going to stop the shooting of the missiles anyway. And on the other hand, negotiations with the government of Lebanon and a joint operation of Israel and Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah by agreement as part of a of of a process that will have to be negotiated with the possible involvement of the international community, France, particular, that was always very conscious and very sensitive about Lebanon and is ready to help and support that kind of process. In other words, I'm not in favor. I'm I I criticize.
I criticize in in the harsh words, the statements made by minister of defense of Israel. We don't need to be in the South Of Lebanon. But, of course, we don't need to be there within the framework of an agreement that will disarm Hezbollah and that will make sure that the Israeli North part is not under the attacks of the rockets as it was for such a long time. But, of course, needless to say, I think that threatening the buildings and the houses is outrageous and unacceptable.
Speaker 1: Why, though? Why do you think they're doing it?
Speaker 0: There are so many whys that I have about the Israeli government. This is not the only one. Why and why and why and why? Why are they still there when they need to be thrown away and be replaced by a reasonable, solid That's responsible government. You see?
So, I have my wives as well.
Speaker 1: But I'll ask it again, prime minister. I'll be more direct though. Is there a risk the people that warn me, Mario, Israel's intentions, at least the current administration? So when I say Israel, I'm talking about the current administration. Yeah.
The current administration, their intention is to annex Lebanese territory?
Speaker 0: There are voices in the Israeli cabinet that the South Of Lebanon is actually also part of the Greater Israel, which has to be annexed to the state of Israel. But it's not a popular voice, and it's not it's not realistic. I mean, they they they carry on the hostilities. They carry on the military operations. They have the excuses that the Hezbollah is shooting rockets and so on, and it has to be disarmed, which it has to be disarmed.
Speaker 1: Agree.
Speaker 0: But but annexation of the South Of Lebanon will be totally unacceptable in Israel.
Speaker 1: Even under the current administration, you think it's going to be very difficult?
Speaker 0: Yes. I I don't say the same about the West Bank, of course.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The West Bank and and Gaza is heartbreaking. You know, you see I'm very nuanced when it comes to Iran and Lebanon, but Gaza and West Bank is is another level. Just going back to Hezbollah. So the disarmament of Hezbollah, I think it should be a condition for normalization between Israel and Lebanon.
And do you agree with that? And and I was I was think you know, I've been thinking in the last few days, is there any scenario or should there be any scenario where normalization would include Hezbollah remaining as a military force, or that's completely unworkable?
Speaker 0: You can't you you you can't take the risk, and you can't miss the opportunity. You can't take the risk because we know that for seventeen years, as a result of the second Lebanese war, the Hezbollah was deterred, and they were not shooting. Even one single bullet was not shot from the Lebanon into the state of Israel since August 2006 until the 10/08/2023. But but they have accumulated lots of weapons and lots of rockets and and missiles and the long range missiles and short range missiles, thousands of them. And you can't live in the hands of terrorists and radicals such as they are, these weapons.
And you you are going to pay one day, and Israel paid a lot enough in order not to want to have it. So the disarming of Hezbollah has to be part of the agreement and the cooperation between Israel and Lebanon. And I think that I think that there is a change. I I I'm not certain about anything. Okay?
And I I I kept saying it in Israeli media while I talked about it. I'm not certain that the Lebanese government will have the power to force the disarming of Hezbollah. But maybe together with Israel and with the international community and particularly with France and others, there is a likelihood that gradually, we will be able to achieve it, and that will have a strategic change in this that region, which was the source of so many pains and and hostilities over a long period of time. So this is certainly something that needs to be tried.
Speaker 1: Agree. I've been saying Hezbollah should be the same. I continue to say this for a very, very long time. Yeah. You know, putting the putting aside not only for Israeli interests, for also for Lebanese interests as well.
You can't have a state within a state. There's no examples right now of any country where that works. What about the concept of merging Hezbollah into the Lebanese military? So on one extreme, it's complete dismantling them and getting rid of their weapons, but another example would be merging them into the military so their weapons would still be part of the Lebanese military as a deterrent.
Speaker 0: Don't don't look for artificial solutions.
Speaker 1: Why is it artificial?
Speaker 0: This is artificial because if you want to disarm Hezbollah, you want to disarm Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not going to change. Hezbollah is going to remain a terrorist organizations dedicated to the annihilation of the state of Israel. If you give them air you open their way for them to be within the framework of the military of the Lebanese military to have their military units with weapons, you haven't done anything of in terms of disarming Hezbollah. So let's take let's take it for what it is.
Let's let's disarm Hezbollah in order to allow Lebanon for the first time in many years to live in an entirely different democratic circumstance and and environment that that will be also will be within the framework of an agreement with Israel, which will change everything in the North rather than being engaged all the time in trying to stop the radicals and providing them with weapons and and then control them when they have their weapons. This is
Speaker 1: this mister Baminissa, but, you know, but disarming Hezbollah, Israel under your administration as well in 2006 and now again in this in the last couple of years, Israel is one of the most powerful militaries in the world, was not able to destroy Hezbollah. And you're asking the Lebanese military, one of the weakest militaries in the world, to be able to achieve it. You talk about the international community, no but one will have no one would want to have troops on the ground in Lebanon. No one has appetite for that. So I worry that the other alternative, which is the disarmament in getting rid of their weapons completely, would lead to civil war, which is something that Netanyahu, I don't think, minds really to weaken another neighboring country by having civil war like Syria.
Speaker 0: Look. We Izbollah is not the same Izbollah as it used to be three years ago after the repeated blows that they suffered from the Israeli military in the last couple of years. That's number one. Number two, if the agreement with Iran is going to take place, then Hezbollah is going to lose the main provider of weapons. And without Syria as well, there is a likelihood, actually, that Hezbollah can be disarmed.
So instead of trying to make use of all these advantages at the time now that we have them and make the agreement with Iran also covering the Lebanese situation. And the Iranians say that they talk for the Hezbollah, and they say that they want a ceasefire to apply to Lebanon as well. When the ceasefire was announced only a couple of weeks ago, they say that they it's conditioned to apply this also to Lebanon. So we have an opportunity here for using the process of negotiations with Iran. If nothing works with Iran, then anyway, we are in a turmoil in a war and what what knows what.
But if there is an agreement, and I am very much in favor of such an agreement, then it should cover also Lebanon, and that means that Hezbollah will lose the main providers of weapons. And under these circumstances, together with Israel, the Lebanese army would be able to to force Hezbollah to disarm itself.
Speaker 1: Okay. So that this we agree. I think if Iran agrees to disarm Hezbollah, then they will disarm because Hezbollah has two parties to answer to, Lebanon and Iran. So, yes, and and I've always said, I think the person that will decide if Hezbollah disarms is Mushtaqa Baha'amenei and what his what deal he has with The US, whether that's one of the concessions for unfreezing of assets or lifting of more sanctions, the disarmament of Hezbollah and maybe other proxies. But if Mustaba does not agree, let's say the Iran US deal does not include the disarmament of Hezbollah and Iran wants to maintain that proxy, then it is impossible for the Lebanese military to disarm them.
The only option will be to offer them a path to merge with the military, which has historically happened multiple times. There's been examples of militias in different countries in like the FARCs in Colombia where they merged into the national army, and they were a terrorist organization as well.
Speaker 0: The national army, but in Colombia, I I think I'm a little bit familiar with this. They merged with the deferred army after they laid down their weapons, and they say that they they end their rebellion against the government.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: K. So if Hezbollah will be disarmed and will become a political party, will be merged into the Lebanese society, not as a distinct terrorist organization separate from the authority of the army. This is a different question. But
Speaker 1: That's what I meant. Yes. That's what no. No. That's what I meant.
I apologize.
Speaker 0: Not with arms, not with weapons, not not as a military unit. Because if you keep them as a military unit, the only, purpose for them to remain a military unit is to be able to carry on military operation against Israel. And this
Speaker 1: So what I meant
Speaker 0: we can agree.
Speaker 1: So what I meant is that the their arms, there's two options, either destroy them completely or provide them to the Lebanese military where Lebanese army generals and commanders control.
Speaker 0: They are Lebanese, so, they are part of the land. If they are not a separate organization, military organization, which does not comply with the discipline of the govern the elected government of Lebanon, then this is one thing. But if they are part of Lebanon and they are part of the political process in Lebanon, this is another thing.
Speaker 1: Agree. We're in agreement there. And I because when they merge with, and I know merge is a vague term, but if they merge with the Lebanese military, the armed forces, that then they only answer to one country, and that's Lebanon for Lebanese interests and not act as a proxy of Iran. This is the difference of them acting independently because independently, they're answering to, as I said, Iran. It's misaligned incentives, misaligned interests, Iran and Lebanon.
So that's why I think it's the best solution. And especially after the leveling of villages, mister prime minister, It's much harder now after the actions of Israel in the last two months. It's much harder to convince Lebanese people. I'm not saying impossible, but it's harder after these actions. If you talk to Lebanese people two months ago, Hezbollah support is at an all time low.
People are tired of Hezbollah. But now what they see happening in South Of Lebanon
Speaker 0: You're the people
Speaker 1: are starting to get very
Speaker 0: It's defined. Who who are the Lebanese that you can't convince? The Christians in Lebanon, which is a large part of the country, are anxious that Hezbollah will be disarmed today just as they were before. You're talking about the Shiites that live in the South, which were forced out of the where they live. So they they were not in favor of acquiescing with Israel then, and I don't believe that they will be prepared to acquiesce with Israel now.
Again, the question is, if Hezbollah is not allowed to operate as a military fully armed terrorist organizations not under the discipline of the Lebanese government, then this is one thing. If they are disarmed of their weapons, they don't have Iran as a provider of weapons, and they are part of the political process in Lebanon, this is another issue. And I I don't don't think that involving the Hezbollah as an organization in the military of Lebanon with their weapons and their military units still intact. No. No.
No. No.
Speaker 1: That's a bad idea. That doesn't as an organization, they need to be dismantled. We fully agree there. They should have no commanders, Hezbollah commanders, or leaders whatsoever. So we agree on that.
Okay. Another incident that happened in South Lebanon I wanna ask you about, mister prime minister, is and I'm sure you've seen it. I had it open on my phone. Let me open it again. But you've seen the image of the soldier breaking the statue of Jesus.
There it is. You've seen that one there.
Speaker 0: Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Outrageous, terrible, shaming. It's the this is an expression of extremism.
I mean, of course, this soldier has to be called martial and taken care of by the military judicial system. But I I think that this is really something that uphold all of the Israelis. And there's no no way I can defend anything of this nature, obviously. This is terrible.
Speaker 1: So I I'll I'll I'll let you what I'll let you know what the question is because I'm I'm sure we agree that it's a terrible thing to do. And I also wanna say, and the actions of one soldier don't represent an entire army. And I also made the example of what happened in Abu Ghraib Prison in in in Iraq. I'm sure you remember well. When there were American soldiers doing horrible things to Iraqi inmates, torturing them, humiliating them.
So I I made those two comparisons to kind of remind people that every army has bad apples, has soldiers that don't do the right thing. But then I also started looking at the numbers, and I looked in Gaza. There were during Gaza, there were only three indictments and one conviction throughout the entire war in Gaza. And you know how horrendous that war is, the country. I was looking at the numbers a few days ago.
And for the first time, I'm starting to call it a genocide, I think, in in the last few days. Just looking at the the the impact it's had, it's been horrific. Now, obviously, genocide depends on intent. So I'm I'm using the word because I think the intent is different to what I initially thought. But there's only been three indictments throughout the entire war in Gaza.
And among the 260 complaints between 2017, 2021 about Israeli soldiers harming Palestinians, only 11 led to indictments. And, I remember the there were the soldiers that were torturing a Palestinian. They they they dragged him, stomped him, broke his ribs, punctured a lung, and then stabbed him in the buttocks as well with a sharp object, and that was caught on camera. And when the charges were dropped, because I think the person was in Gaza, so they could not have the charges if the person is not in Israel. When the charges were dropped, Netanyahu called them heroic figures, heroic fighters.
Sorry. And these were people that were torturing a Palestinian. That was only a couple of weeks ago. My question to you, mister prime minister, is because of the rhetoric we're seeing from people like Smotrich and Ben Givir and after October 7 and with the rhetoric of prime minister Netanyahu, are we seeing, kind of a a different mindset within the Israeli military as we saw under your administration? Because the numbers, they just don't show there's there's justice being served, and that worries me.
I know it doesn't represent everyone in the IDF, so I'm not putting the IDF all in one bucket. But the numbers themselves worry me a lot because they're you know, we saw a lot more indictments in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan of American soldiers.
Speaker 0: Well, again, as you have mentioned, the particular case where the charges were dropped and the prime minister called them heroics and so on and so forth. I'm not familiar with these the details of these, but and therefore, I don't I don't I don't want to argue. I know that the the judicial system in the army dropped the charges because for whatever Yeah.
Speaker 1: The charges illegal reasons. Yeah.
Speaker 0: They couldn't they couldn't bring enough evidence to court martial the soldiers. But I said, and I think I said it long ago, and I said it in the most explicit and blunt manner that there are crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by Israel. There is no genocide. There was never genocide. There was never a policy of genocide.
And therefore, I think that the arrest warrants against the prime minister and the minister of defense at that time were unjustified. But there were war crimes that were committed, and I spelled it out and criticized it. And I think that this is absolutely shameful and unacceptable, unforgettable and unforgivable. And it's not something that we can ignore or deny. We have to admit that we need to take the most severe measures and to make all the necessary investigations in order to reach out for those who committed it and to court martial them in a way that it will be clear that we are not capable of tolerating anything of this nature.
Full stop.
Speaker 1: So on the on the soldiers that were that were, the charges were dropped, I'm not talking about the the legal reasons the charges were dropped because I think there were legal reasons. I'm talking about Netanyahu's comments. Why call them heroic fighters, mister Prime Minister? Why say that to people that were caught on camera? When the people in Abu Ghraib Prison, when those, photos came out, Bush condemned them with very strong words.
I'm trying to find the terms he's used. He called them disgraceful, and he was deeply disgusted. That's president Bush when the photos came out of Abu Ghraib Prison in 2000 and I can't remember what it was, 2004. But then you got Netanyahu calling these fighters heroic fighters. What precedent does that set for other soldiers?
Speaker 0: The only thing I can say is that I'm deeply disgusted by the Israeli prime minister.
Speaker 1: And then on another thing as well, there was that law that passed where Palestinians convicted of lethal attacks facing the death penalty. You saw that. And you've got, I think, popping a bottle of champagne. What's happening?
Speaker 0: The government of Israel is run by thugs. And amongst the thugs, there is a messianic group led by Ben Beard Smotrich, which once and I say that when the war started and they were expressing their support and enthusiasm about the military operations of Israel, I say, their war is not our war. Our war is in defense of Israel and in in response to the mass killing of innocent Israeli civilians by the Hamas and in in attempt to reach out for the leaders and the killers of Hamas in order to try and eradicate the Hamas as a military power. The purpose of Bengvir and Smotrich is different. They want to clear their territory altogether from Palestinians in order to annex these territories into the state of Israel, and that is what they are sponsoring in Gaza.
And they said it and spelled it explicitly time and again. And I believe that what they want to do in the West Bank is the same, and I'm totally against it. I I'm not going to defend those things, you know, which I criticize because I think that they are against the interest of Israel, against the basic fundamental human values that characterize the state of Israel. And I I want the commanders of the Israeli military, chief of staff and the chief of the central command in charge of the West Bank and the chief of the and the commander of the division, which is in charge of the West Bank, And they against the inspector general of the police, I say to them, sooner than later, the International Criminal Court in The Hague will target you guys because you are responsible for what happens in the territories. And when things of this terrible nature happens and innocent people are attacked on a daily basis by Israeli settlers and they are killed and the olive groves are burned and the properties are burned and destroyed, you guys are responsible if you don't take the necessary measures in order to stop it.
So that's what I have to say about it.
Speaker 1: Do you think Israel bit off more than they could chew, mister prime minister, in this war and in the last few years? I'll tell you why. The polls, there's some polls that I saw a few days ago that shocked me. That's an aggregate of many polls. Young Americans 18 to 29, 10 to 20% believe in a one state solution called Israel.
50 to 60% believe in a two state solution, Israel and Palestine, and there's 25 to 35% believing in a one state solution of Palestine. So more than double or about double amount of people that are 18 to 24 in America, and that's America and Europe, it's even more, believe in a one state solution Palestine over a one state solution of Israel. And a real a large number of samples show over half of people believe are open to the ending of the state of Israel. So my worry, mister prime minister, is that the actions in the last few years have changed global sentiment across the world, including Israel's most powerful and most important ally, The US, that's gonna be felt for generations to come?
Speaker 0: Israel is a very important ally of The United States, and America is even more important to the state of Israel, and we are always grateful to all the American leaders over the years or generations, which were helpful, supportive, and friends to the state of Israel. I used to work with some of them. And I can tell you, with all due respect to president Trump, president Biden was a great friend of Israel. I every day, I thank him for his, friendship, for his support, and and for the inspiration which he provided to the people of Israel when the war in October 7 started. Never to be forgotten.
Never. And George and and Barack Obama I worked with Barack Obama, a great friend of Israel. And George w was a great friend of Israel, and Bill Clinton was a great friend of Israel, and all of them. And and George w senior George senior and Rand Reagan. Everyone of them was a great friend of Israel.
And I think that Israel is important for America. And, of course, America is a lot more important because America is so much more powerful and and and and strong and rich and very important for the state of Israel. I think that always the support of the friendship of between Israel and America was a bipartisan friendship. Israel was associated not with a certain section of the American public opinion, not just with one party, the Republican party, but with both parties. And and then how it should have been.
Now there are many things that are doing damage to the state of Israel. The present government of Israel is, as I said, is a government that has to be replaced, and the sooner, the better. And I'm totally against this government, so I can add to the damages that are caused to Israel in the international community with the damages which are co caused to the sense of solidarity and unity within the state of Israel because of the policy of polarization and divisiveness, which characterized the pro government of Netanyahu and his friends.
Speaker 1: You said Israel is a great friend to The US and The US is a great friend to Israel. You know, as a as a final question or two last questions is, how did Israel benefit The US and the region?
Speaker 0: Well, you know, America invested a lot in the Middle East, and that, in in, not because of Israel, because of American interests. In in the, Arab countries and in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and in Iraq and everywhere. This was not a war that was waged because of Israel. It was waged because of American interests. The only friend, consistent, stable, democratic friend that America had in The Middle East is the state of Israel and the existence of Israel as a strong military power in a democratic country.
And, of course, we are fighting on the nature of the Israeli democracy in these days, but Israel has been recognized as a democratic country for over so many years. And the existence of Israel as such, as a stable democratic country and a powerful that share the same values with America. The values of democracy, the values of humanity are is a major interest for the state of for The United States Of America in this part of the world.
Speaker 1: You know what what I'm implying there, sir, is is, I think, you know, as a prime minister of Israel, and I think any leader of Israel, Netanyahu being one of the worst, but any leader of Israel has done great in getting The US supporting Israeli interests. But I'm very critical of how much influence there's been Israeli influence over The US because I think is The US has supported Israel at their own detriment, especially recently. If you look at just recent history, the Iran war is one of the costliest, most damaging wars to The US. The nuclear program was resolved under Obama, not resolved, temporarily resolved, you could say, and was almost resolved in the Omani negotiations. Yet we got into a regime or The US got into a regime change war that cost them greatly, economically, militarily, dead servicemen, their allies in the region, and the repercussions could be felt for a long time.
Iran, one could would say is stronger in the region, not militarily, at least not now, by controlling the Strait Of Hormuz. You've got the issues in Lebanon that The US is not directly involved in. You've got the war with the Houthis a couple of years ago as well. I understand that was because of the Beyblah Mendeb Strait, but that was caused by what happened in Gaza. No.
That's what the Houthis said. They were responding to Israeli atrocities in Gaza.
Speaker 0: But how did the war in Gaza start?
Speaker 1: October 7. I mean, October 7
Speaker 0: Was there one person in the whole world, one political leader in the whole world that didn't make a very strong statement of support for the Israeli need to respond to the terrible attacks
Speaker 1: that Of course. I think but, mister prime minister, I think you'd agree with me. But you'd agree with me. There is a response, and then there's what happens afterwards. The response, there was a response, but it went well beyond responding.
So when you look at the damages of yeah. I I saw you know, I'm sure you know the numbers. When I saw the numbers, ninety to a hundred percent of the population displaced, Three point four percent killed, eight percent injured. Now this is criticizing, Netanyahu, obviously, not yourself. Seventy seven percent face acute food insecurity.
92% of buildings damaged or destroyed. 93% of schools damaged or destroyed. 4% of agriculture that's undamaged. So 96% is damaged. And there's $71,000,000,000 that's needed, and half of it's still invaded.
And there's talks about the war restarting because Hamas has still not been disarmed. So it's gone well beyond proportionate response to the atrocities of October 7. And if you also go back to the history before October 7, I think Netanyahu could have done a lot more in solving the issue in Gaza instead of making it worse. And I think his intentions are he's got sinister intentions, mister prime minister, when it comes to Gaza, when it comes to the West Bank, and when it comes to South Lebanon. And those intentions are playing a role.
They're playing a role in the cycle of violence. When you bomb Syria a few weeks ago, when Al Sharra is trying to bring peace to his country, to his fractured country, I'm not a fan of his and his history, but mister Trump is working with him and praised him, mister prime minister. The US, Israeli ally, is trying to work with Syria. Tom Barakum Let's put
Speaker 0: let's put some some things in the in the right perspective with your permission, please. Please. For one, number one, The president of The United States decided to attack Iran and say it to the American people time and again. Iran is a radical terrorist, brutal enemy of The United States Of America. They were responsible for the loss of many Americans' lives over the years in very many different terrorist operations against Americans in different parts of the world.
Now this was the the statement of the American president, and this was the policy of The United States Of America. Now, you know, if someone wants to say that the Israeli prime minister influenced him and that he became a stooge of the Israeli No.
Speaker 1: Not stooge. I wanna say stooge. Influenced him. Yes. But not
Speaker 0: You know, I I I'm not going to argue with this. What I think that needs to be put into perspective is the fact that for generations, the Islamic extreme terrorist organizations are are unsettling many different parts of the world. In '19 in 2005, Israel withdrew from every part of Gaza as part of the disengagement policy, which at that time, prime minister Sean and myself as a vice prime minister were executing in order to try and create a momentum for cooperation with Gaza. What was their response? A day after we pulled out, they started to shoot rockets.
So you can't cut the events and the rage and the and the intensity of emotions which characterized the situation over the last three years from the a long history where the Palestinians and the Hamas organization, the jihad organizations were perpetrating atrocities against
Speaker 1: Why why would net why would Netanyahu
Speaker 0: fund them
Speaker 1: for years?
Speaker 0: Don't ask me about Netanyahu. I am his political rival.
Speaker 1: I understand. But where
Speaker 0: I think that he has to be removed. I think
Speaker 1: We agree.
Speaker 0: Would be indicted for the crimes that he committed against the national interest
Speaker 1: But I'm but this is I'm doing, mister prime minister. I'm blaming his policy for that cycle of violence. That's what we agree. I'm blaming it. Not only I'm not saying he's
Speaker 0: responsible You're taking it one step, I think, beyond reason.
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not I'm not
Speaker 0: The cycle
Speaker 1: is violence
Speaker 0: started because of Hamas, And the cycle of violence started because of Hezbollah. And the cycle of violence started because of the Houthis. And the cycle of violence started because the Iranians were shooting 300 ballistic missiles into the state of Israel with 1,000 kilos each warhead of these ballistic missiles. So that's how it started.
Speaker 1: We agree we agree on some
Speaker 0: You want to or you want to argue that the the Israeli response was exaggerated that we were killing many non involved people in Gaza. That's what I said also. I said it. I criticized the Israeli government. I think that there were it it went beyond a reasonable proportion, but it started by then.
Speaker 1: No. We agree. Mister Prime Minister,
Speaker 0: we agree. I'm not the
Speaker 1: look. We agree. I told you that I I think Israel has justifications to attack Hezbollah because Hezbollah is the one that attacked him first. We agree there. But what I'm saying is Netanyahu's policy is feeding it.
So for example, when he levels I'll tell you what I mean. Yeah. Exactly. This is I think if if you have no ID, mister prime minister, you have I wish Israelis understand how their country would be so much better off as well as the region and the world if there was a different administration. I think there's no election as consequential right now as the one in Israel.
And I I you know, the polls show a different story, and I don't think Israelis know this, but it's it is so upsetting to watch because there's so many Lebanese people and in other regions as well, other countries that just want peace even if it doesn't if they think something's unjustified, whether they think the Golan Heights shouldn't be part of Israel, they just want peace. But when they see villages being leveled or stains by cuts or Ben Giviar popping a bottle of champagne I remember when Ben Giviar popped a bottle of champagne in the Knesset, do you know there were soldiers in Syria that amassed together and they were marching towards the Israeli border and stopped at the last minute thanks to Al Sharra? So that these actions are feeding the animosity.
Speaker 0: Look. Look. Look. I don't we don't
Speaker 1: have an
Speaker 0: argument. I you have a similar opinion about the Israeli government and the Israeli ministers, and I am in a daily fight with them. Unlike you, you you you live out there. I live down here, and I have this war with them on a daily basis. Let let's let's focus in conclusion to one thing which I think is very important.
We don't have to lose the hope for an eventual conclusion of the historic conflict between Israel and Palestine. I have proposed to the Palestinian leaders in 2008 when I was prime minister, a comprehensive plan, a solution of a two state on the basis of the 67 borders with the Arab side of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine. And of the old city of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, which is perhaps the most sensitive place on earth, is not under the exclusive political sovereignty of either Israel or Palestine, but administered by a trust of five nations of which there will be Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and America. Now this was the solution that I proposed then and that, unfortunately, the Palestinian leader at the time, Mahmoud Abbas, still president of the Palestinian authority, didn't have the courage or the inspiration to say yes. In a year and a half ago, almost two years ago, I signed a joint statement with the former foreign minister of the Palestinian authority and the ambassador to the United United Nation, doctor Nasr Al Quidua, by the way, nephew of Arafat, I signed a joint statement with him offering or or or suggesting the end of the war in Gaza in line more or less in the same basis of what president Trump proposed in his 20 points, and also a comprehensive solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict on the basis of the peace plan, which I presented Ahmad Abbas in 2008.
Now people come to me all the time and says, how serious you are now talking about a comprehensive solution of two state? And I said, I'm very serious. There is no alternative. There is only one way to change the entire Middle East and make the Middle East something entirely different from what it was over the last generations. And this is a solution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict on the basis of two states, on the basis of the 67 borders, is the Arab side of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and of the old city of Jerusalem, not under any political sovereignty of any in order to keep this outside of any potential conflict.
This is what we have to fight for, and this is what we have to campaign for, and this is what we have to raise all our political and the power of persuasion across the world in order to force the sides involved into engage in a serious dialogue towards the realization of this. And this is what I'm trying to do. And this is in total opposition to everything that the present Israeli government is doing, and that's why I'm a political opponent of this government. And I will keep my opposition to this government until it is replaced by a different government.
Speaker 1: Well, I hope you keep your efforts, mister prime minister. I wanna ask one final question to wrap up is it's a difficult question. It's gonna ask you to speculate. Being pragmatic, do you think that the voices in the Israeli administration, the current government, do you think the ones that are dictating policy want South Lebanon annexed? I know there's voices that want it annexed, but I'm saying, they the ones that are dictating current policy or not?
Speaker 0: They certainly influence it. Whether they dictate it or not, I don't know. But in any way, as I said, I think that this is against the real interest of the state of Israel. It has to stop, and we have to to move forward towards a dialogue with the Lebanese government towards a political solution with the Lebanese government and pull out back into the international line and to make sure that Hezbollah is not in any position to attack Israel any further.
Speaker 1: Mister prime minister, it's an absolute pleasure. I hope you continue being loud about the issues you believe in. You're you're doing not only Israel a favor, a big favor, but the the entire world. So thank you so much for what you do.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran is using the Strait of Hormuz as a wartime card, but it's also building the legal case to control it permanently. Iranian lawyers argue that a strait loses its status as neutral international waters when one side turns it into a military platform. Under that logic, the U.S. naval presence gives Iran justification to claim the strait as a hostile military zone indefinitely. This war could end next week, and that argument doesn't go away. Source: Guardian
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷 Iran couldn't beat Trump militarily. So it hit him where it hurts: the economy. 7 weeks of strikes failed to topple the regime or meet Trump's demands, but Iran found something that worked. It closed a strait, spiked global energy prices, and watched Trump's approval ratings slide and his MAGA base start to grumble. Trump shifted from airstrikes to diplomacy on April 8. That pivot didn't come from military logic. It came from financial markets, rising gas prices, and Republicans quietly panicking about the midterms. Iran took a military beating but figured out early that the real battlefield was economic. The IMF is now warning of a global recession, U.S. farmers are feeling it through fertilizer costs, and airfares are up. Trump ran on cheap gas and low inflation. Iran ran straight at that promise, and it worked. Source: Reuters
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨 BREAKING: 🇨🇳🇸🇦🇮🇷 Xi Jinping told Saudi Crown Prince MBS directly that normal traffic through the Strait of Hormuz must be maintained. Source: Al Arabiya https://t.co/QN9ievZXsO
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷 One bold prediction is already in motion. Ex. U.S. Navy Malcolm Nance says when American carriers leave, Iran will demand U.S. warships never enter the Gulf again, and we'll be forced into a confrontation to prove we still can. "You can trust Iran when they talk about these things that benefit them." The map is changing. The question is who blinks first. @MalcolmNance
reSee.it AI Summary
I spoke with Tehran University Professor Foad Izadi, who warned me not to trust Western claims the war is over, as Iran seems prepared for worse. He says Trump’s aim to control Hormuz isn’t finished, so war could resume. Negotiations often mask prep for conflict, and extra U.S. troops fuel fear. We debated Hezbollah’s Lebanon vs Iran interests and whether a real U.S.–Iran deal is possible amid sanctions, Congress, and Netanyahu.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 EXCLUSIVE: Tehran University Professor Foad Izadi warned me not to fall trap to the Western narrative that the war is over, and that Iran is preparing for a continuation of the war The discussion shook me, as it gave me a glimpse to a completely different narrative in Iran, one of distrust, anger and preparedness for the worse Foad told me that Trump’s objective of controlling the Strait of Hormuz has not been completed, and therefore the war is more likely to continue than to have ended He’s seen this playbook before: Negotiations used to disguise preparations for war. And the additional troops Trump has sent to the region fuel this fear We also had a heated discussion about Hezbollah’s role in all this, debating whether the group acts in the interests of Lebanon or Iran, and what the future holds for the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire Here’s what we talked about: • Whether the true objective of the war was Iran’s nuclear program, securing influence over global oil flows, or leverage against China • Why Foad thinks the odds of war resuming are still alarmingly high despite Trump’s recent comments • Why he believes Hezbollah is acting in Lebanon’s interests, not as a simple Iranian proxy • Whether any real U.S.-Iran deal is possible when Congress, sanctions law, and Netanyahu still shape the playing field @IzadiFoad 00:00 – Iranian influence vs. Lebanese sovereignty in the Hezbollah conflict 02:14 – Analyzing the "Regime Change" narrative and Trump's influence on Iranian policy 05:32 – The proxy debate: are Hezbollah and regional militias independent actors? 09:45 – Escalation risks: the potential for direct military conflict between Israel and Iran 13:20 – Economic impact: how sanctions and regional instability affect the Iranian public 17:55 – Diplomatic deadlocks: the challenges of reviving international nuclear agreements 21:12 – Misinformation and the media war: how both sides shape the regional narrative 25:40 – US foreign policy: the role of the Israeli lobby and Washington’s strategic goals 30:15 – Regional alliances: Iran’s relationship with neighboring Gulf states and Russia 34:50 – The "Two-State" vs. "One-State" solution: debating the future of Palestine 39:12 – Internal Iranian politics: the evolution of the regime under international pressure 43:25 – Youth perspectives: shift in American public opinion regarding the Middle East 47:33 – Closing reflections on historical precedents and the path to regional peace
Video Transcript AI Summary
Professor and Host engage in a wide-ranging discussion about the Iran-Israel-Lebanon dynamic, the prospects for war, and the potential paths to change.
- They open with tensions around Iran, suggesting that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby won’t let Iran “rest,” and that Iran is implicated in the current Lebanon conflict while insisting that Lebanon’s fight is Lebanon’s own. The Professor stresses that Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization and not a direct Iranian proxy, and that Iran’s involvement is framed by its own interests rather than as an intrusive occupation of Lebanon.
- The Host challenges this view, noting that Lebanon’s government decided not to join the war and that Hezbollah rearmed in the south, arguing that Iran has influence in Lebanon and that Hezbollah’s actions reflect a broader proxy dynamic in the country. The Professor counters that Hezbollah is not a proxy and emphasizes Lebanon’s sovereignty and internal affairs, while arguing that Iran can assist resistance groups when asked but should not be blamed for all Lebanese actions.
- They discuss the state of the conflict: is the war over or a ceasefire that could resume? The Host asks for a probability estimate (1–10); the Professor places it at six or seven that it could re-ignite, arguing that Trump and Netanyahu will continue to push Iran and that the regime in Tehran will respond, given new leadership and a determination to avoid being disarmed or appeased.
- On aims and capabilities, the Professor cites Trump’s stated desire to take over Iranian oil (per a Financial Times interview) and to “change Iran’s government,” including the idea of disintegrating Iran and establishing an Israeli-driven hegemony in the region. He also suggests Trump views oil leverage as a strategic tool against China, drawing on broader geopolitical ambitions such as the North-South Corridor. The Host and Professor discuss the idea of leveraging Iran’s oil to pressure or blockade China and to influence global power dynamics.
- The conversation moves to the larger question of how to achieve U.S. objectives short of full-scale war. The Host suggests non-military options beyond sanctions, including possible tolls, business deals, or new arrangements around the Strait of Hormuz, while the Professor argues that sanctions relief would require Congressional action and that Netanyahu’s influence makes relief unlikely. The Host proposes that sanctions relief could be tied to dismantling proxies like Hezbollah, with Iran receiving asset unfreezing in exchange, and a tollbooth mechanism as possible recompense.
- They compare political systems: the Host asks whether a more pragmatic Iranian leadership could compromise with the West, while the Professor challenges the notion of embracing Israel or normalization absent broader regional changes. They discuss Iranian internal politics, including protests and the 2021–2024 leadership shifts, arguing that the current leadership is generally more energetic and less likely to exercise restraint under renewed pressure.
- The Wall Street Journal summary is invoked: a shift to a harderline leadership within Iran, with Mustafa Khamenei described as consolidating power and surrounding himself with hardliners who view destroying Israel as central. The Host and Professor debate whether this portends greater confrontation or potential pragmatism in dealing with the United States, emphasizing that any significant rapprochement would hinge on broader regional dynamics and the role of Israel.
- The discussion turns to the prospects for a two-state solution versus a one-state outcome in Palestine. The Professor contends that a one-state solution would be unlikely unless Israel changes fundamentally, while the Host notes shifts in Western public opinion and some American youths showing increasing sympathy for Palestinian rights. They acknowledge that most polling in the U.S. still supports a two-state framework, even as younger demographics show divergent views.
- They close with mutual acknowledgement that there is no straightforward path to peace, reiterating concerns about possible future confrontations, the influence of external powers, and the complexities of Lebanon’s sovereignty, Hezbollah’s role, and Iran’s internal politics. The Host and Professor each express hopes for peace, while recognizing the likelihood of continued strategic competition rather than a clear, immediate resolution.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't think the Netanyahu or the Israeli lobby are going to let Iran rest.
Speaker 1: Iran is the reason Lebanon is at war right now.
Speaker 0: Israel is not a proxy. Lebanese are fighting for Lebanon.
Speaker 1: But the Iranian government makes its decision for Iran. The Lebanese government has the right to make its own sovereign decisions, and Hezbollah has to abide.
Speaker 0: The fight between Lebanese government and Hezbollah is an issue that belongs to Lebanon.
Speaker 1: Trump said they really do have a different regime now.
Speaker 0: There is no achievement to come up with. So he says that I already I said I of the regime change, and I have done that.
Speaker 1: Congratulations that the war is over. First, do you agree with me that the war is over?
Speaker 0: No. It's a ceasefire. It can start it can start again. You know, we were under ceasefire when Americans attacked the in in June when Americans attacked. They asked for a ceasefire last time, and then Iran accepted.
And then we had this attacks in February. So one thing we know about The US is that they ask for ceasefires, and then once they get enough rest, they start shooting again.
Speaker 1: Looking at things objectively, I understand that maybe you are already being kinda objective at all. I understand that fighting could resume, and I understand that previous ceasefires did not stand. I was pretty surprised on this war happening after the twelfth day war. Never expected this to happen. So I could be surprised again.
But from what we're seeing right now, including Trump's comments yesterday that the war is over, considering the economic damage Iran has caused, seeing how markets are reacting, I understand there's a military buildup in the American basis, but it seems more like it's replenishing the basis rather than preparing for a new war. If I ask you to analyze the likelihood of the war starting, what would you give it? One to 10?
Speaker 0: It's about six six or seven.
Speaker 1: You think it's more likely that we're back to a full blown war than this ending permanently?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think so. You know what? Trump is going to be president for another three years. They haven't achieved their goals against Iran, and Netanyahu is the same genocidal man that he was he has always been.
So I don't think they're going to give up on damaging Iran more, and he's going to be around for for some time. I don't think we can do twenty fifth amendment on him. So he's going to be around, and and then he's going to try to attack Iran again. You said
Speaker 1: they haven't achieved their goals against Iran. What are those goals?
Speaker 0: This is what Trump said. He wants to take over Iranian oil. He he said that in the interview he had with the Financial Times. And then the next day, a reporter asked him, why do you wanna take over Iranian oil? And he says that he's a businessman, and he he wants to make money.
These are his words. People have asked
Speaker 1: him Are you talking about the interview a while ago?
Speaker 0: No. No. No. Financial Times, this is about ten days ago? Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, during during the war.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. So I I I think he he wants he likes Venezuelan oil. He likes Iranian oil. He thinks he is successful with taking over Venezuela oil.
He wants to do the same with Iran. And I don't think he has given that up. He wants to change Iran's government. He actually, he wants to create a new country. He wants to separate oil rich parts of Iran, create a country.
You know, Bahrain was a province of Iran. It was the British that separated that, and that's how you have Bahrain. They want to do a similar thing, create a new country and put put some some ruler there, and then they can enjoy the oil. It's you know, Iran taking over Iran, disintegrating Iran, creating an Israeli hegemony in this part of the world, and having some leverage against China and Russia, these are very tempting goals that Trump has. This is not my analysis.
You had Lindsey Graham saying that they want to have leverage against China. Right now, when UAE or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait sell oil to China, they cannot pressure these countries too much because that would increase the value of Iranian oil. But if you have Iranian oil in your hands, then you can do a blockade as they're doing now. Whenever they want to push China around, they can reduce the amount of oil that's going to China. That's the leverage they don't have.
Trump thought that he has the tariffs to push China around. Then you had the US Supreme Court stopping that. China has leverage on US. They have these rare earth minerals. They they produce 90%.
So they have a leverage on United States, but US doesn't have any serious leverage on China. They want to use the energy of the Persian Gulf to create that for The United States. The North South Corridor that starts in Russia and goes all the way to East Asia, goes through Iran, goes through a state of Hormuz. So they they want to have that lever leverage as well. So it's beyond Iran.
It's bigger than Iran. What you are seeing is a lot of geopolitics. United States is a country in decline, and they want to reverse that, like, decline by basically dominating a very important part of the world.
Speaker 1: I agree with everything you said. I Yeah. Congratulations. I've been I've been I've I've been saying this from the beginning because and I get a lot of slack for it because everyone wants to take the easy path of blaming Israel fully. I'm not saying they don't have influence, but they're not the only reason for this.
Blaming the nuclear program, saying Trump is helping the the protesters, whatever narrative resonates the most with the readers. But for me, this one makes the most sense. And I also like your analysis because based on that theory, the possibility of the war restarting increases. And that's true because the objective of controlling the trade almost have leverage over China has not been achieved. But a counter argument to that is and the reason I think the war is over is the military the the the the achieving that objective through military means has just failed.
It did not work. The global economy can't take this again. The US took a fair bit of casualties. Iran adapted to the bombardment by The US and Israel. They're importing the air defense systems from China.
They're importing man pads from China. We know they're getting intelligence from Chinese satellites and potentially Russian satellite satellites as well. Russia's supplying Iran. So Iran has gotten has has is well prepped if this war resumes. So wouldn't the solution to achieve that objective, wouldn't the US try to seek to achieve it through non military means
Speaker 0: and that
Speaker 1: we might be seeing phase two of the war right now, but more of an economic war or or or just another, you know, version of asymmetric warfare that does not include direct kinetic warfare?
Speaker 0: We have had that for the last forty seven years since the nineteen seventy nine revolution, and it didn't work. It's been about half a century that they have tried that without much success. We had a coup attempt in January. You know, Trump talked about sending arms to the so called protesters. When you shoot at police in English, they don't call that person a protester.
They call that person a police shooter or a cop killer. This is these are the things that Trump has talked about. So that coup failed in January. This attack the military attack failed, as you correctly said. They they may try to attack Iran again sometime before the midterm elections, a couple of and it has to end a couple of months before the midterm elections.
And then after midterms, they got two years until the next election to achieve their goals. I I don't think they're giving up. I don't think the Netanyahu or the Israeli lobby are going to let Iran rest. I think they they want to they want to change the map of the Middle East. But why not?
Speaker 1: There's other means other sorry to interrupt you, professor. But you could do this, achieve that objective through non military means, but also through means other than sanctions. So sanctions have not worked. We've just bombed Iran. We've got a new leadership there and then we're gonna talk about the new leadership because it doesn't look like it to be more friendly to The US in any way.
But we've got new leadership in Iran. Again, like, there must be other ways other than achieving it through sanctions, and maybe it's just doing business deals. You know, Trump already floated the idea of sharing tolls with Iran, the Strait Of Hormuz. That doesn't sound feasible, but I'm sure there's other ways to be able to achieve the objective of having more influence over the Strait Of Hormuz or just giving up on that objective completely. And just maybe over time, over the next few decades, we may see a more friendly Iran or an improvement improving of relations.
I just don't see us I see the cons outweigh the pros of going back into war. And maybe that's something you can comment on as well as how ready is Iran for a new war.
Speaker 0: You know, Iran makes these drones and ballistic missiles underground. You know, when the war started in Gaza, Iranian leaders realized that sooner or later Israel will attack Iran. So they had two years of preparation to make sure that the country can continue firing these missiles because they realize Israelis have a good air force. They realize that if these factories are on the ground, they would be hit quickly. And this is the reason they continue to fire missiles under heavy bombardment.
You know, the American and Israelis brought everything they had. Everything they had. They had no limitations. They were bombing schools, hospitals, railroad stations, people's homes, just ordinary citizens. They had no ethical limitations.
And, you know, it was the other side that asked for the ceasefire through the Pakistanis. Iran was ready to continue. And there are a lot of people in Iran that are upset that the fight has stopped because they are worried about Lebanon, what's going on in Lebanon. They they don't like what they see in Lebanon, and they don't want to give the other side time to rest. So Iran can continue can continue for many months to come.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that in a in a second about economically how prepared is Iran to continue the war because the blockade of the Strait Of Hormuz hurts the global economy, but also suffocates the Iranian economy as well. But just going back on a statement you made there, worried about Lebanon. I think that's unfair to say. Iran is the reason Lebanon is at war right now. Now you might go back to the ceasefire that Israel was breaching the ceasefire.
I would respond that Hezbollah was breaching the ceasefire by rearming in the South. We Israel kept saying that. We didn't know whether it's true or not. What we saw that is true when Iran Hezbollah fired at Israel right after a few days after Khamenei was dead. But it's unfair to say, unless you unless you admit that the reason Lebanon is at war right now is because Hezbollah made the decision to support Iran at the cost of Lebanon.
Would you agree with that?
Speaker 0: You know, we talked about this last We talked on your show that Lebanese are fighting for Lebanon because they're next to Israel, and Israelis like Lebanese land. They they want to eliminate they want a weak government in Lebanon so they can push that government around. They don't want any strong government in the Middle East. That's why the Turkish government is worried. Pakistani government is worried.
They they want weak states so they can push these countries around and create hegemony. So Lebanon has a problem. Lebanon had a problem before the Islamic revolution. You know, this is this is not due to Iran. Sure.
They you know, Israelis and Palestinians had serious difficulties before 1979. Iran did not create All accurate. The US.
Speaker 1: So But the government but the government decided not to participate in this war. The government decide asked Hezbollah. Hezbollah agreed. The political arm reportedly agreed not to involve Lebanon in this war. The Lebanese government that makes a decision, and the decision was made not only not to get involved, but later on to also disarm Hezbollah and make it illegal for anyone to work with Hezbollah.
So if you wanna respect Lebanon as a sovereign nation, you have to respect their decision not to get involved. Now I just to let you know what what I said, Iran made the right decision in their interests to involve Hezbollah, which Iran has the right to do. They funded Hezbollah for decades. And on the Iranian side, one could argue, hey, we've we were the reason you exist, you as in US Hezbollah, we're the reason you exist, you're so powerful. Now we ask you to support us.
We ask so we expect you to support us. But it's unfair to say or you can say that Iran is worried about Lebanon, but it's also important to admit that Lebanon is in this situation because of Iranian actions as well as, obviously, Israelis.
Speaker 0: You know, you're assuming no agency for Hezbollah. You you're making the same mistake as American and Israelis. Hezbollah is not a proxy. I I think you know a few things about Lebanese people. Lebanese people are very proud, ancient history, strong people, very dedicated people.
You know, we have these young people facing one of the strongest armies in the world, a nuclear state. We these people this is not a country. Hezbollah is not a country. These are just young people, and they are pushing back against very a sophisticated army with f 30 fives. This is amazing.
This is amazing. What's Sir, what a professor the And for for for these people, very strong people, very tough people, to think that they're just sitting at the phone waiting for a phone call from Iran to tell them what to do, I I think that's a huge mistake.
Speaker 1: So, professor, in our last discussion, I think you put me on the spot and and when I called the Iranian government, the Iranian regime, because I'm upset what happened in January, you corrected me there. And I I I took that you had the right to correct me, and I I don't like using the term selectively because I could also say the Israeli regime, for example. So I've I've corrected and said the Israeli government. Would you agree that the Lebanese government, the same way the Iranian government makes its decision for Iran, the Lebanese government has the right to make its own sovereign decisions, and Hezbollah has to abide?
Speaker 0: The Lebanese government, as any independent government, can make any decision that they want. These are internal affairs of Lebanon. It's not Iran's business to interfere, and Iran tries its best not to do that. And Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization. They disagree with government policies.
They don't like the talks going on in Washington between Lebanon and Israel. And Iran if Iran wants to tell Hezbollah to do this or that, that would be interfering in Lebanese affairs because Lebanon Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization. It's not an Iranian organization. They they speak Arabic. They don't speak Farsi.
They're from Lebanon. So these are internal issues. The the fight between Lebanese government and Hezbollah is an issue that belongs to Lebanon. What Iran is supposed to do, and Iran has done that, is that when resistance groups ask for Iran's help, Iran can provide help as much as it can, and and sometimes it cannot. You know, we we Syria Syria used to be a route for the help that Iran was giving to Hezbollah.
And since Jolani has taken over Syria, that route has been closed. So Hezbollah is managing on its own, doing their own finances, doing their own factories. These are very, you know, genius people.
Speaker 1: Sorry. I was about to sneeze. Look. I think this is unfair, professor, and this is a point where we disagree. We agreed on the first point, but I think we heavily disagree on this one.
Hezbollah is not any group. It's a it's a military more powerful than the Lebanese military. When Lebanon as a sovereign nation asked the Iranian ambassador to leave the country, the Iranian ambassador refused and Hezbollah started making threats as well supporting the Iranian ambassador. But that's a sovereign nation. Like, I'm I I don't have I can you know, I'm sure you cannot name one other example where this has happened.
Iran has influence over Lebanon. They have probably more influence than any other other country. They're not the only one. Lebanon let me know if you agree with that statement. Lebanon is a battlefield of proxies, unfortunately.
You you could blame whoever goes back to the PLO and the Israeli Lebanese sorry, the Israeli Palestinian issue, which we'll probably agree on because I'm very critical of Israel there. But Lebanon has become a a a proxy battlefield where Syria under Assad, less so now, Israel, less so now but they had the militia in the South, more more so Saudi through the Sunnis. Iran probably won that battle and the Americans to a lesser extent. And they all have influence, they all fund different groups and you have all these secretarian divisions in the country. So would you at least agree that Iran along with other nations does have significant influence in Lebanon And one could argue it's it works it's in Iran's best interests, but not in Lebanon's because you've got a militia that that is that has agency, professor.
They do this they do make decisions, but they're also split because they have their own nation to defend against these rallies and to support support the Lebanese people, but they also need to execute on the orders or the demands of the Iranian backer that is that allowed them to be more powerful than the Lebanese military. And a solution to that would be and I'm sure you I don't know what your stance is on this. The Hezbollah should merge with the Lebanese armed forces, which is a lot more popular than Hezbollah, a lot more popular than the government. It's the most popular and well supported agency organization in the Lebanese government.
Speaker 0: You know, these are internal Lebanese issues whether Hezbollah wants to merge inside the Lebanese army. This is what the Iraqi Hashtagi did with the Iraqi army. They merged inside the Iraqi army. Whether they want to do that, they want to be out. I hope that, know, we talked about this last time.
These these people are not proxies. Sometimes they consult. Sometimes they don't. And this is the reason you have this long years of relationship. They are not in it for the money.
If they were interested in money, Saudis, Qataris, UAE would fund many, many times more what they needed. So this is an ideological group. They don't like their country to be attacked. They don't like their country to be occupied. We had the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in 1978, a year before the revolution in Iran.
And the difficulties that Lebanon has with Israel dates back many, many years. And the fact that you have Hezbollah is a good thing for Lebanon because it was if it was not for Hezbollah, the Lebanese army, as you say, is not strong enough to defend the country. True. And and have you would have Israelis basically occupying Southern Lebanon going very close to Beirut, and then they would want to create a proxy government in in Lebanon. So if if you didn't have Hezbollah, you you would have half of Lebanon, almost half of Lebanon occupied by Israel, and then the other half would be run by a proxy government, and Lebanon would be finished as a country.
Speaker 1: Potentially, professor. Or it could be or it could end up like Jordan and and Egypt and make peace with Israel and act as a sovereign nation. Both options. I'm not saying your options are false, and I I do I don't wanna dismiss Hezbollah's role in defending Lebanon. I think Hezbollah's not purely an Iranian proxy, but they do their allegiance to Iran along with Lebanon makes the structure very flawed for Lebanon's interest.
You can't there's no other nation where you have a proxy that's more powerful than the government's military that has allegiance to the government itself, to the country itself, or the people of the country, but also its funder, which is a sovereign country, another foreign country. This is my concern with Hezbollah, and this is why I don't think completely disarming and dismantling Hezbollah is the best option even though I don't oppose it, but I think merging with the Lebanese army. So then the incentives are fully aligned, but there has to be something in it for Iran because Iran spent a lot of time and money funding Hezbollah over decades, but the incentive might have passed because if we have a good deal with The US and and I made a post today, which, you know, I I it's more of a hopeful naive post. But I made a post a few hours ago where I said Trump made it could use this post to kinda it could go back to the Iran peace negotiations. In that post, I said there could be a way for Trump to turn this into a win.
Let me know I I put four points there. And let me know which ones you think are likely and which ones are very flawed or highly unlikely. So number one is accept the proposal similar to the prewar Oman offer. The Oman negotiations would have been a great solution for this war, I'm obviously against, and that is the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program, which according to many reports is on the table right now. Now I wouldn't be surprised because it was on the table in the Iran negotiations.
Now I'm using the word dismantling very vaguely, getting rid of the enriched uranium up to 60% and keeping the uranium enrichment to four point whatever, 4.6 or 7% that is used for civil purposes. That's number one. Number two, offered to unfreeze Iranian assets, wholly or or portion of them, and the lifting of sanctions in exchange for Iran dismantling their proxy network including or mainly Hezbollah. So Iran would get rid of that proxy network, is a threat to Israel. So Israel has no excuse anymore to invade Lebanon or or use the proxy network as a way to justify their foreign policy.
And in return, Iran because they have to have something in return for spending decades building that proxy network or allies alliance network. And that is the unfreezing of the Iranian assets so that people could don't keep suffering. Three is potential tollbooth where Iran could make up some of the reparations by charging a toll for a temporary period for a short period of time, a few months because that will be unheard of from a legal perspective, international law perspective. The US could get a portion of it. And number four is force Israel to withdraw from Lebanese territory as Hezbollah's military wing gets disbanded.
So this is a four point plan where Trump, if he achieves it by some magic, perfect. But that could be a positive outcome from a war that I consider a mistake. Which of these points do you consider the more likely ones to happen, if any, and which ones are highly unlikely?
Speaker 0: You know, with regard to Iran sanctions, these are passed by the US Congress, and they have this law they passed in 2015. It's called Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. So whatever agreement that exists between the executive branch of the US government and Iran, the people in the US Congress have to vote on it. This is what Lindsey Graham said the other day, which is accurate.
Speaker 1: Isn't there isn't there two types of sanctions, professors, like primary, secondary, or something that one of them can can be can be changed or removed through executive action and one of them cannot? Not sure if you know what I'm referring to.
Speaker 0: I I I know. We have primary sanctions. These are sanctions that apply to American companies. We have secondary sanctions. These are sanctions that apply to non American companies.
And in sanctions law, the the legislative branch has allowed the president to suspend for short periods of time sanctions on Iran. But if he wants to do that through an agreement, that agreement has to be approved by the US Congress. And that means that even suspension of sanctions for short times have to be approved by the US Congress. The US Congress is Israeli occupied territory. Pat Buchanan, the old the old politician in The United States.
This is his terminology.
Speaker 1: That's good terminology to use. Israeli occupied territory.
Speaker 0: It is. And, you you know, when when Netanyahu goes to US congress, he gets more applauds than the US president because both Republicans and Democrats like him too much. So there there is no there's not going to be any sanctions relief on Iran because Netanyahu will not allow that. And then if you cannot do sanctions relief, you cannot put anything of interest to the Iranian government. So I think you add one more line to to your scenarios, and that would be the continuation of the current situation, which is no war and no peace until the end of the Trump administration.
So the I think for the next three years, they're going to attack Iran a couple of times more. They're not going to be successful. Iranians are learning a lot of things on how to deal with The United States, but that doesn't mean they will give up the goal of taking over Iranian oil and creating hegemony. So they'll they'll try their best a few times before before Trump is out of office. And we are not going to have any any deal that The United States would keep.
They will not keep you know, it was Trump that left the agreement. It took it took two years for the nuclear agreement to be negotiated. And when he came into office in 2018, he just left the agreement. So the confrontation between Iran and United States will continue. In Iran, you have an Islamic Republic.
In United States, you have a fascist government in place. And on one side Are
Speaker 1: you are you seeing are you seeing there's a massive sentiment shift? Are you not noticing that? Americans are are realizing the foreign policy decisions that are being made by the politicians in favor of Israel over US interest. They they start to notice Israel first versus America first. You're seeing that in the polls.
Isn't that enough to shift? You know, Trump sees that as well. He sees that before the midterms. I still think that's why I was surprised about this war in the get go. This war I consider it a mistake.
He thought it was gonna be a lot easier. Now that he realizes how difficult it is, I highly doubt he'll make the decision to go back into war with Iran. And again, add the poles into it and logically the war no longer makes sense. Do you not see that as a possibility as well? I know you're very pessimistic and I don't blame you after what happened last year and and the one before that twelve day war.
So this war and the one before. I don't blame you. But are you not seeing the shift as well? Trump is saying that he can Juchi Trump said, professor, like, if that's not clear enough because usually before war, the rhetoric has to start. And Trump said today, this guy's an incredible politician.
He says where is it? He told ABC, I think a deal is preferable because they can re then they can rebuild. They really do have a different regime now. We took out the radicals, they're gone. So obviously this is false and what is a different is it different people same regime, different leaders.
But doesn't that show that he's he accepts that this will continue being the government, number one. And number two, maybe it it could time to also tell us about who the who the new regime is. Who who are the people now that are making the decisions?
Speaker 0: We got some new people in Iranian military, new commanders. We have politicians that were assassinated. They were replaced. But the new people are generally younger in age, so they're more energetic, and they don't want to be the victim of American Israeli bombs. So they are not going to exercise restraint.
You know, the previous leadership was cautious. And when the twelfth day war happened, no American soldiers were killed. And the reason you see the current reaction of the Iranian government is because the people who exercise restraint are no longer with us. So it is true. It's obviously you know, we have new people in different places.
But if Trump thinks that these new people are going to be more lenient towards The United States after what he has done to Iran and Iranians, I think he's making a huge mistake. Well,
Speaker 1: that's his Sorry.
Speaker 0: Is to create a win. He he wants to say that I have you know, he he has spent a billion dollars a day in in the forty days that he was attacking Iran. So in order to justify that cost, in order to justify the American soldiers that have been killed and injured, he has to come up with some achievement. Yeah. And there there is no achievement to come up with.
So he says that I already I said I I'll do regime change, and I have done that. So then he's trying to make up for a failed policy by, you know, creating rhetoric that is not serious. So let me
Speaker 1: read out a summary of the Wall Street Journal article about the new the new Iranian government. The US and Israel were went to war hoping to install a more reasonable leadership in Iran. They got the opposite. The new supreme leader, Mustafa Khamenei, which not sure if you've got more information on his condition. Is his face disfigured as some people say?
Did he lose a leg? Not sure what information is being talked about in Iran. Built his career crushing reformists and elevating hardliners through the revolutionary guard. His inner circle includes men accused of the nineteen ninety four Buenos Aires bombing, a national security chief who killed an American petroleum engineer before the revolution, and commanders who believe destroying Israel will trigger the return of Shiite Messiah. The part isn't fringe this part that part isn't that last part isn't fringe ideology, but the organization principle of the Iranian state now.
Quote, we created a reality that is worse than what Iranians were facing before the war, said the former head of the Iran desk for military Israeli military intelligence. Trump called the leadership, quote, more reasonable. He may want to read the room. So this is something The Wall Street Journal, obviously, very critical, which you disagree with. But maybe you can expand.
Is it are they more hardline? I I know you've kinda answered it already in some way. But will their foreign policy reflect those feelings that disdain for US imperialism or or Israeli aggression in in Palestine and Lebanon? Or will they be more pragmatic and despite them not maybe not being as restrained if they're attacked, but at the same time they understand business above ideology. So they might agree to do business with The US even if it does not accept it does not fit their ideology because it's better for their people because it might lead to their sanctions being lifted.
So which one will they prioritize if you compare them to the previous leadership and you compare Mushtaba to his father?
Speaker 0: Iran is not Venezuela. The Iranian people will not accept the government. You know, we have elections here too. And people who you know, reformists that argued that will go talk to The United States and get the sanctions relief, We had those people, and they won elections. And then what happened?
United States attacked Iran and killed, you know, more than 4,000 people already. So But that's the
Speaker 1: same concern, but that's the same government that killed even more people in January. Understand Mossad was part of it, but it started off as as an organic protest.
Speaker 0: No. I just told you that Trump sent rioters linked to Mossad arms. This is what he's saying. This I'm not making this up. You had New York Times extensively reporting about how Mossad was involved.
You had, you know, Mike Pompeo, the head of the
Speaker 1: I don't deny that. I don't deny that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So when when you have when you have people receiving arms from outside powers and shooting at local police, in English, they don't call that person a protester. They call that person a Mossad agents or police shooter.
Speaker 1: But but these are but these are a portion a minority one would say, versus the the protesters as a whole. I did see the videos and I posted the videos of the protesters attacking the police. I saw those and there's no denying it. But you can't also deny these protests and previous protests of people wanting a different government, wanting a different system in Iran. Because right now, calling it a democracy, this when they when you have a supreme leader that could pick the president, pick this the the national council who the national council picks who runs for president, I think they have to go through approval process.
Any mistakes I make, please do correct me. But you can agree it's a very different democracy than the western democracy. I'm not saying we should not saying we should instill democracy in Iran the same way we should not instill democracy on China, The Gulf. Each country has its its the decision to their own right to make up to to decide who governs them and what system they want to be governed by. But it's also important not to dismiss that the the reason I called the Iranian government regime, I'm doing it less so now out of respect.
But the reason I've called it regime for so long and I'm very critical of it is because of what happened in January. Not the weaponization by Israel and The US, but the crackdown of the peaceful protesters and the fact the Internet is cut off to this day.
Speaker 0: Inaccurate? You know, we get protests in Iran all the time. In normal times, even today, you go outside the Iranian parliament, there's some group protesting about something. Iranian police doesn't shoot at protesters. We have this brilliant attorney, doctor Helia Dothari.
She was fired from Yale Law School because of her support for Palestine. You can Google her name. There's a New York Times story about her. And she returned to Iran. And before the war, we had protests, labor protests in Southern Iran, And she went and covered covered that.
She wrote an article as an eyewitness. That's an interesting read. I'll send a link to your producer. The Iranian police, when there is real protest, legitimate, you know, legitimate protesters, people who are have grievances about something, the Iranian police would want to make sure that no one gets hurt because they realize that we have this Western media outlets trying to demonize Iran. So if you see Iranian police shooting at someone, they're shooting back.
You know, how how would you have more than 200 police officers killed? You know, they don't know how to use arms. They do. They did not have permission to shoot back. That's how they got killed.
These are maybe new things for you. But Iranians Iranian police, Iranian government doesn't shoot at protesters. We are not Syria. We are not Egypt. We we are we are not these Persian Gulf countries, monarchies.
The Islamic revolution was a revolution that came out of protests. The protests are respected in Iran. That that's not what you'll you will hear from Western media outlets. Number two, I encourage you to read the Iranian constitution. It's available online.
It's an interesting read. The supreme leader or the leader of the country doesn't appoint the president. He gets elected to a direct vote, and we don't have this crazy, you know, what do they call it in The US, electoral college. This is this is direct vote. And sometimes we get a reformist government.
Sometimes we get the principalist government. Sometimes they call these people conservatives. You get Ahmadinejad as president. You get Pazishkan, the heart surgeon. You get Rouhani.
People vote.
Speaker 1: They vote by the candidates, but as I said earlier, the candidates are chosen by the council. They have to get approved. Sorry. Not chosen. They have to get approved by the council.
Speaker 0: The the we have
Speaker 1: And and and also on top of it, any decision the president makes could be refuted completely. They they could be not the word refuted, but could be overrode. The the supreme leader can override any decision made by the president as well.
Speaker 0: The system doesn't doesn't work like that. The we we have something that is similar to constitution courts. And like many other countries, when you're candidate to to run for president, then you need they need to make sure that he doesn't have a criminal background, he is not corrupt as a person. You know, United States has been trying to put his his its own people within the political system. They need to make sure that these people are clean.
And when they get into office, they basically act like any president in any country. The the leader based on Iran's constitution, that's why reading Iran's constitution is is good is a good idea, sets the general policies, the direction that the country is supposed to move towards. They don't do the day to day businesses of of running of the country. That's president's job. That's the job of the ministers.
And this is how the country has survived
Speaker 1: for for I do wanna just one thing, professor. I don't want to feel like I feel like I'm instilling democracy on your country. That's not my point. So I I take that all back.
Speaker 0: I Taiwan. So we don't we don't need Yeah.
Speaker 1: And it's a different form of democracy. I I wouldn't many people it is very different. It's not it's not as democratic. You're talking about a constitutional court. A supreme leader has been there for decades.
It's different to a constitutional court for multiple judges.
Speaker 0: More it's more democratic than The US system because we don't in The US system, you get the Epstein class running the the country.
Speaker 1: No. But, sir, you get you get a new president elected every four years, and that president has congress to to to answer to, congress for 500 members, not one leader for decades. But look, I I don't wanna so again, either way, let's it is a democracy. I don't know as well as you. I do think it's a it's a flawed form of democracy, but the I live in a country that doesn't have a democracy.
I live in Dubai. Dubai doesn't have a democracy. So who am I to to say democracy should exist in Iran? I just don't like a a government that putting aside the protest and what happened there, I just don't like a government that puts ideology and that's my opinion obviously in in Iran's Iran and I'm not Iranian, but a government that puts ideology above the wellness of their people. So ideologically, a lot of decisions were taken.
Iran could have been a very wealthy country if decisions were taken differently. I'm not saying they should. That's your decision. But it could be a very wealthy country. Not saying right or wrong.
But if certain decisions were made, Iran would not have to deal with the sanctions they've dealt with for decades. And what my question to you is,
Speaker 0: could that pass the Palestinian cause. This is what the Americans have been studying.
Speaker 1: Among among other Palestinian cause is one of them for sure. Like and I and that's look. That's something is horrendous, disgusting, and, you know, we agree wholeheartedly on what's happening in Palestine. But on the Iranian side, could we see a government that despite being ideologically dissent even maybe more ideological than the previous government, is there any chance they could approach this more pragmatically and take decisions that might not fit the ideology of the rev nineteen seventy nine revolution, but may lead to doing more business with The US, the lifting of sanctions? Because I'm sure Trump has no problem working with whoever, someone that's more ideological than Khamenei, but without calling for, you know, death to America, death to issue, or someone that's more ideological and but approaches things more pragmatically.
Is that a possibility? Sorry for being the optimistic one here and hoping that war won't happen and there might be at the beginning. The first step of, like, a decade or two decade process of normalization of relations between The US, and who knows, you know, magically maybe even Israel.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That that the last word you said was the key. So if if you have no Israel, if you eliminate Israel from the scene, then what you described is very much possible. The problem is that Israelis and Israeli lobby would not allow that.
Speaker 1: Because Israel sees you sees Iran as a threat. Would Iran is there a path where Iran would look at Israel differently and follow a similar path to what other Gulf nations have followed? Not saying full normalization, but one of less hostilities and accepting Israel as a state, still working for a two state solution, but accepting Israel as a sovereign state and avoiding hostilities through proxies, through allies like the Houthis, like Hezbollah, and eventually like Hamas. Is there a possibility as well?
Speaker 0: If you see a repetition of what happened in South Africa, one man, one vote. This is what Iran has been saying about Palestine. If democracy is good because you're claiming that Westerners have democracy. If democracy is good, why not give Palestinians the chance to vote? The this this is a report by intelligence agencies in in Israel.
2020, the people who live in that area are most the bigger the Palestinians are a bigger portion of the of the population. This is why they had the genocide to maybe reduce that number. So if you have a real election, you would not have Netanyahu as Israeli prime minister. You would have an Arab as Israeli prime minister. You would have the Palestinian version of Nelson Mandela.
And we're we're going to see that in your lifetime since you're young. You're you're going to see a reputation of South Africa in Palestine. It's not going to be called Israel. It's going to be called Palestine. It's going to be the one state solution, and Iran will establish relations with the
Speaker 1: Professor, that's as we wrap up, but that's the point that you know won't work. You cannot expect to run. I'm not you can believe that, but it's being objective and pragmatic about it, putting right or wrong what you believe is right or wrong aside. I believe in a two state solution. I understand what your position.
But just looking at this realistically, you have to admit that ship has sailed. You're looking at Israel as one of superpower in the in the region with a nuclear weapon that is very close to The US. One could say even controls US congress as you've said, and you're saying that country will become a one state solution called Palestine. That that belief is coming at the detriment of the Iranian people because you're facing right or wrong aside. You're facing the wrath of American sanctions.
You're facing the wrath of Israeli foreign policy, which is very aggressive. But if you move away from that belief, maybe Iran could end up being as wealthy and should be wealthier than other Gulf nations on a per capita basis and not have to deal with the sanctions.
Speaker 0: Harvard University had a poll in The United States. Majority of people between 18 24 support Palestine, not Israel. And gradually, these people will take the positions of power in The United States. Like Mamdani, you know, he he's he's the mayor
Speaker 1: of Mamdani Mamdani believes in a two state solution, not a one state solution. Same as most Americans as well.
Speaker 0: Right. But he's critical of Israel.
Speaker 1: So am I.
Speaker 0: And what happens is these type of people get into offices in The United States. The support for Israel in The United States is going to diminish. You already earlier today, you said that there are a lot of people who are criticizing Trump because they say that it was Israel that started this war, including conservative Republicans, Joseph Kent. So Israel without The United States is nothing. The the the reason you have Israel is because of American money, American propaganda support, American weapons.
And as the support for Israel diminishes in The United States, Israel would have no other choice but to do another South Africa. And you you would have the Jewish population. Some of them would would go back to Europe. Some of them will stay as the whites some of the whites in South Africa stay. They will have their farms.
They will make their money, but they will do it under Palestinian president. Wow. Your
Speaker 1: your numbers your numbers are your numbers are surprising. You mentioned numbers like young people in The US, I just quickly searched it. 55 to 60% believe the majority two state solution but only five to I'm gonna make your point sir. I'm gonna make your point sir. The other the 20 to 40% believe some up to 50% according to some polls, 50 plus I believe young young people young Americans 18 to 20 four believe in a one state Palestinian solution replacing Israel.
Wow. I didn't expect that number to be that big. Obviously, I'm a believer in a two state solution, and then one state Israel is only five to 15%.
Speaker 0: Good.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 0: So you we're we're learning something.
Speaker 1: No. I disagree with you. I still disagree with you. I don't think and you agree with me, but you won't say it. There is no way you believe we'll have one state solution of you're a professor and you understand how history
Speaker 0: works
Speaker 1: of Palestine. You know professor. You know what I
Speaker 0: that time. So we can do another interview, and we will celebrate in in Al Quds. It's not going to
Speaker 1: be possible. So you have to end it on that note. Look. Anyway, it's a pleasure to speak to you again, sir. We disagreed on some things, agreed on others, and, hopefully, we won't see another war in Iran, you and your family and other Iranians live in peace.
Thank you so much for your time, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Take care. Bye, professor. Bye.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇱🇧🇮🇱 China and Russia are now sitting at the table with every major player in the Middle East... the U.S. isn't. Former CIA officer Larry Johnson says Hezbollah, hardened by 51 years of Israeli operations and now equipped with fiber optic drones, is more dangerous than ever. Israel is casualty-averse and burning through its window. Pakistan is brokering a ceasefire with China's blessing. Russia and China are talking directly with Iran, Saudi, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Turkey. The American seat is empty. The region is already deciding its future. Washington just isn't in the room.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇩Secretary of War Hegseth met with Indonesia’s top defense official and rolled out a major new defense cooperation deal. While the Strait of Hormuz is the second busiest oil passageway in the world, the busiest is the Strait of Malacca right off Indonesia’s coast. Roughly 80 percent of China’s oil imports flow through it. The US military and its partners are now locking down the planet’s critical oil routes. Trump is putting the pieces exactly where he wants them. Source: @WarClandestine
Video Transcript AI Summary
The United States official welcomed Indonesian Minister Shafri to the Pentagon and announced that the two countries are elevating their security partnership to a major defense cooperation partnership. The official also thanked Minister Shafri for ongoing support in helping the United States find, return, and protect the remains of soldiers who fought alongside Indonesians during World War II. The signing of the memorandum of understanding will enable the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency to recover missing service members and return them to their families. The official expressed appreciation for Minister Shafri’s presence and looked forward to productive discussions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, minister Shafri, welcome to the Pentagon. It's an honor to have you. It's an honor to host your team as well. Your visit demonstrates the importance that the war department places on our growing security relationship, and it is growing and active with Indonesia. In recognition of the important security collaboration we are undertaking, we are announcing today that our two countries are elevating our security partnership to a major defense cooperation partnership.
I appreciate your continued support in helping The United States find, return, and protect the remains of our soldiers who fought alongside Indonesians during World War two. The signing of this memorandum of understanding in front of us will enable the defense POWMIA accounting agency to recover those missing service members and return them to their families. So thank you, mister minister, for being here, and I very much look forward to our meeting and our productive discussion today.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇩 The U.S. just signed a Major Defense Cooperation Partnership with Indonesia. Maritime, subsurface, autonomous systems, special forces training, the works. Indonesia sits astride the Strait of Malacca, the world's second most critical shipping chokepoint after Hormuz. China knows exactly what this means. While Beijing challenges the Hormuz blockade, Washington just locked in the other strait.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇨🇳 The Chinese Foreign Ministry announced that Chinese ships will move through the Strait of Hormuz despite Trump's blockade. This is a moment of dangerous potential escalation, with China already supplying Iran with manpads and HQ-9 long-range air defense systems. If https://t.co/YkPcIFjmMX
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 Major General Randy Manner reveals that the Chinese HQ-9 system is a "game changer" for Iran, giving them the ability to take down U.S. F-35 stealth fighters. Beijing is now actively arming the Iranian regime with superior air defense technology. Randy believes Trump is taking advantage of the fact that most Americans don't understand how these defensive weapons are shifting the balance of power.
Video Transcript AI Summary
One speaker considers the possibility that China, India, or Pakistan might escort a ship through the Strait of Hormuz and worries about a potential direct confrontation between the United States and those countries. He notes there is no expected confrontation between Pakistan and India, highlighting an open line of communication, a good relationship, and that one of them is a mediator in negotiations. China, however, is described as a different case, with increasing parallels to what was seen between the United States and Russia in the early Cold War era.
The other speaker expresses hope that the Chinese will not decide to confront the Americans over the Strait. He bluntly states that the Chinese are not friends with the United States anymore; while they have long-term economic partnership and linked economies, the current administration has been placing tariffs on China and threatening more tariffs. News reports are cited indicating that China will provide the HQ-9 air defense system, which is described as far superior to the Russian S-300, to Iran. He emphasizes these are defensive weapons, not offensive capabilities, and notes that the administration is likely to be distressed by this development.
Despite the administration’s stance, the speaker asserts that providing defensive weapons to another country is something done routinely and acknowledges that this move could enhance Iran’s defensive posture. He mentions the possibility that the Chinese supply could even enable Iran to detect F-35 aircraft, though he notes uncertainty about this point. The situation is characterized as a game changer and described as a behind-the-scenes nuance that the average American might not fully understand, as well as perhaps the administration not fully grasping it. The speaker reiterates that the Chinese plan is to provide these defensive weapons to Iran, describing it as a soon-to-occur development.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What happens if China or India or Pakistan decide to escort one of their ships through the Strait Of Hormuz? Was just speaking to Malcolm Nass about it, and this is the thing that worries him the most is that we might see it in potential direct confrontation between The US and those countries. Now, obviously, I don't see confrontation between Pakistan and India. There's an open line of communication, a good relationship with both countries. One of them is the mediator for the negotiations.
But China is a different story, and we we're starting to get a lot more similarities to what we saw between The US and Russia back in the cold war. Slight similarities, the early days of it.
Speaker 1: So I am hoping that the Chinese will not decide to confront the Americans on this straight. I think the Chinese are I'll be blunt. Remember, the Chinese are not friends in The United States any longer. They are when I say friends, we've been long term economic partners and trading trading partners. We our economies are linked more than ever before.
This administration, though, has been putting tariffs on them and is threatening even more tariffs. The fact that the Chinese are now going to provide, according to news reports, the h q nine air defense system, which by the way is far superior to the Russian s 300. I mean, they're they're going to be giving them remember, these are defensive weapons. So therefore, even though the administration will be upset about it, they haven't said much yet, but I'm sure they're gonna be very distressed about it. But the reality is giving defensive weapons to another country is something we do all the time.
They're not offensive capability. It's defensive capability. And the fact that they are ratcheting up the capability, maybe even to detect f 30 fives, we don't know yet. This this is a a game changer, and it's it's a very, it's behind the scenes nuance that not the the average American does not get and maybe the administration does not get. The Chinese is going to provide these weapons, excuse me, these defensive weapons to the Iranians soon.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 SEIZING IRAN'S ISLANDS WOULD BREAK THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Fmr U.S. Navy Intel Officer Malcolm Nance on the real cost of escalation. Iran has hundreds of cruise missiles, thousands of drones, and thousands of ballistic missiles; seizing its islands would mean relentless bombardment until they forced a U.S withdrawal. "Trump's foreign policy is mental illness disguised as government policy." @MalcolmNance
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇮🇷 🇺🇸 IS THIS PEACE OR JUST A LONGER PAUSE? Norwegian political scientist Glenn Diesen says don't get too comfortable with the ceasefire. Israel has already used prior pauses as cover to escalate. And with too many parties unable to concede anything publicly, a real peace deal may not be possible. He says extended ceasefires might be the ceiling. Not peace. Just managed intervals between the next round. The guns going quiet means nothing if the politics underneath stay broken. And right now, every side has a reason to restart. @Glenn_Diesen
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷 Prof. Mearsheimer: "If we had Nuremberg-like trials, Biden, Trump, and their principal lieutenants would be hanged. Hardly a word was said as the U.S. helped Israel. Trump is desperate." https://t.co/XHNeOjJIDE
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that during the Gaza/Israel conflict, genocide is taking place and that the United States is complicit, stating there is “no question” about it. He says, “If we had Nuremberg trials, we’re not gonna have them,” and asserts that Joe Biden and his principal lieutenants, and Donald Trump and his principal lieutenants, would be hanged, because “we are talking about a genocide.” He notes that “the greatest of all crimes” is happening and that hardly a word was said in the liberal establishment in the United States against Israel’s actions, with the United States helping to commit genocide. He adds that this is “truly remarkable” and that even a realist like him is among the few in mainstream academia speaking out.
He then references a “remarkable truth post” on Truth Social, in which Trump says that if the Iranians don’t surrender by nighttime, he will destroy Iran as a civilization and make it impossible for Iran to come back from the dead, calling this “truly stunning” and labeling it genocidal language. He asks rhetorically if anyone thought an American president would speak this way, comparing the rhetoric to Adolf Hitler’s with the aim to exterminate Iran and erase it from the planet, noting it sounds like a Carthaginian solution.
Speaker 0 contends that Trump is desperate, understanding “the basic logic” he laid out and “the hand” is losing, with consequences that would extend beyond Trump’s presidency and threaten the global economy. He suggests that Trump’s shift to extermination is a sign of this desperation. He asserts that “every state on the planet outside of The United States knows now being close to The United States gets you in trouble,” and cites Henry Kissinger’s maxim that “there’s only one thing worse than being an adversary of The United States, and that’s being an ally of The United States.”
In summary, he claims genocide is occurring with US complicity, envisions harsh post-Nuremberg consequences for Biden and Trump, highlights Trump’s genocidal rhetoric toward Iran, labels the language as Hitler-like and Carthaginian, and suggests Trump’s strategy reflects desperation tied to a fragile global economic outlook and U.S. geopolitical dominance as summarized by Kissinger.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When this genocide was taking place. And it's not only because the Israelis were committing a genocide that I'm shocked and people didn't say anything. In a fundamental way, what shocked me even more was was that The United States is complicit in the genocide. There's just no question about this. If we had Nuremberg trials, we're not gonna have them.
But if we had Nuremberg like trials, Joe Biden and his principal lieutenants, and Donald Trump and his principal lieutenants would be hanged. There's no question in my mind about this. We're talking about a genocide. We know what happened to all those people who executed the genocide between 1941 and 1945 in Europe. They were hanged.
Well, I think the same thing would happen to Biden and his lieutenants and Trump and his lieutenants. It's really quite remarkable, that hardly a word was said in the liberal establishment in The United States against what Israel was doing, and The United States was helping them to do. Committing genocide, the greatest of all crimes. Just truly remarkable in my opinion. And I used to say to myself, there's something wrong here when a realist like me is one of the few people inside mainstream academia who is standing up insane.
This is terribly wrong and something should be done to stop it. He issues this remarkable truth post, truth social post, where he says that if the Iranians don't cave, in other words if the Iranians don't throw up their hands and surrender by nighttime, he's going to destroy Iran as a civilization. He's gonna destroy it and make it impossible for Iran to come back from the dead. This is a truly stunning statement. This is another example of genocidal language.
Is did anybody ever think that an American president would say something like that? I certainly didn't. This is the kind of language language that you would expect from someone like Adolf Hitler. Right? That you're gonna exterminate this country called Iran?
Erase it from the planet? And make it so it can never come back? Sounds like a Carthaginian solution, doesn't it? What's going on here? You wanna ask yourself.
What's going on here is Trump is desperate. He's desperate because he understands the basic logic that I just laid out to you. We are playing a losing hand, and the consequences of continuing to play that hand are that the global economy will go off a cliff. It will do much more than destroy his presidency. The consequences would be enormous.
He knows this. I'm sure he has people who are telling him that. He's desperate. So what does he say Monday morning? I'm gonna turn to extermination.
I'm gonna turn to genocide. Every state on the planet outside of The United States knows now being close to The United States gets you in trouble. As Henry Kissinger likes to say, there's only one thing that's, or he liked to it, as he used to say, there's only one thing worse than being an adversary of The United States, and that's being an ally of The United States.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸 Automatic military draft registration begins December 2026 in U.S. Young men 18 to 25 will now be auto-registered with the Selective Service using government databases. No active draft, just easier enrollment in case one is ever needed. The twist critics are raging about: it also applies to immigrants, including illegals, who can face charges for not complying, while some say automatic voter registration is “too hard.” Source: Daily Mail
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 Trump met with Graham and Barrasso last night to push border funding "Reconciliation is ON TRACK, and we are moving FAST and FOCUSED in keeping our Border SECURE" He wants the bill on his desk by June 1st and says crime is at "an ALL TIME LOW" with murders at "the Lowest https://t.co/Wr20sN4yNs
reSee.it AI Summary
I spoke with Prof. Foad Izadi of Tehran University about why the war started, how Iran survived heavy bombardment, and the region after the war. He says Iran spent years building underground missile and drone capabilities, kept leverage despite airstrikes, and explains Gulf targets. He argues Hezbollah is a Lebanese force acting for Lebanon, not a pure Iranian proxy, and discusses Khamenei’s status and the shifting balance toward Iran.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇷 INTERVIEW: Wonder what Iranians think of this war? I had the pleasure of chatting to Prof. Foad Izadi from Tehran University, and asked him about his thoughts on why the war started, how Iran was able to survive the heavy bombardment, and the future of the country under the new Supreme Leader He says Iran had spent years preparing for this day, building extensive underground missile and drone capabilities He broke down how Iran maintained leverage despite weeks of airstrikes, why Gulf states became targets, and whether Hezbollah acted for Iran or for Lebanon's own interests. Most importantly, we discuss how the region will look like post war, especially Iran’s relation with the Gulf, Israel, and Hezbollah Interview with @IzadiFoad 00:01:20 - This war was driven by Netanyahu, the Israeli lobby, and Trump’s desire to control Iranian oil. 00:04:52 - Why Iran was still able to fire missiles and drones after the war began. 00:06:23 - U.S. intelligence said Iran had no nuclear weapons program, but Trump followed Netanyahu’s line instead. 00:08:38 - The balance of power: shifting away from Israel and toward Iran. 00:10:22 - The Israeli lobby and the Epstein files as leverage shaping Trump’s position. 00:13:09 - On Khamenei: alive, possibly injured, and heavily protected from assassination. 00:14:16 - Why Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Gulf states became targets in the conflict. 00:19:09 - Whether Iran went too far by striking Gulf countries like Qatar, Oman, and the UAE. 00:24:17 - Debate over whether Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into the war or acted independently. 00:29:18 - Hezbollah is not an Iranian proxy, but a Lebanese force acting in its own interest.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on multiple competing narratives about the war and its wider regional significance, with the speakers presenting their interpretations and challenging each other’s points.
- The hosts open by acknowledging competing narratives: some view the war as a necessary action against a regime seen as destabilizing and dangerous (nuclear ambitions, regional havoc); others see it as Israel removing a geopolitical threat with U.S. involvement; a third perspective argues it stemmed from miscalculations by Trump, perhaps driven by Israeli influence. The dialogue frames the war within broader questions of American, Israeli, and Iranian aims.
- Speaker 1 references Joseph Kent’s resignation letter, arguing Iran was not an immediate U.S. threat and that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby influenced Trump toward war. They assert Trump’s stated interest in Iranian oil and control of the Strait of Hormuz; they describe Trump as guided by business interests. They frame U.S. actions as part of a long-standing pattern of demonizing enemies to justify intervention, citing Trump’s “animals” comment toward Iranians and labeling this demonization as colonial practice.
- Speaker 0 pushes back on Trump’s rhetoric but notes it suggested a willingness to pressure Iran for concessions. They question whether Trump could transition from ending some wars to endorsing genocidal framing, acknowledging disagreement with some of Trump’s statements but agreeing that Israeli influence and Hormuz control were important factors. They also inquire whether Trump miscalculated a prolonged conflict and ask how Iran continued to fire missiles and drones despite expectations of regime collapse, seeking clarity on Iran’s resilience.
- Speaker 1 clarifies that the Iranian system is a government, not a regime, and explains that Iranian missile and drone capabilities were prepared in advance, especially after Gaza conflicts. They note Iran’s warning that an attack would trigger a regional war, and reference U.S. intelligence assessments stating Iran does not have a nuclear weapon or a program for one at present, which Trump publicly dismissed in favor of Netanyahu’s view. They recount that Iran’s leaders warned of stronger responses if attacked, and argue Iran’s counterstrikes reflected a strategic calculus to deter further aggression while acknowledging Iran’s weaker, yet still capable, position.
- The discussion shifts to regional dynamics: the balance of power, the loss of Israel’s “card” of American support if Iran can close Hormuz, and the broader implications for U.S.-Israel regional leverage. Speaker 1 emphasizes the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress, while also suggesting Mossad files could influence Trump, and notes that the war leverages Netanyahu’s stance but may not fully explain U.S. decisions.
- The two then debate Gulf states’ roles: Saudi Arabia and the UAE are depicted as providing bases and support to the United States; Kuwait as a near neighbor with vulnerability to Iranian action and strategic bases for American forces. They discuss international law, noting the war’s alleged illegality without a UN Security Council authorization, and reference the unwilling-or-unable doctrine to explain Gulf state complicity.
- The conversation covers Iran’s and Lebanon’s involvement: Iran’s leverage via missiles and drones, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as a Lebanese organization with Iranian support. They discuss Hezbollah’s origins in response to Israeli aggression and their current stance—driving Lebanon into conflict for Iran’s sake, while Hezbollah asserts independence and Lebanon’s interests. They acknowledge Lebanon’s ceasefire violations on both sides and debate who bears responsibility for dragging Lebanon into war; Hezbollah’s leaders are described as navigating loyalties to Iran, Lebanon, and their people, with some insistence that Hezbollah acts as a defender of Lebanon rather than a mere proxy.
- Towards the end, the speakers reflect on personal impact and future dialogue. They acknowledge the war’s wide, long-lasting consequences for Lebanon and the region, and express interest in continuing the discussion, potentially in person, to further explore these complex dynamics.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Professor, it's a pleasure to speak to you for the first time. I appreciate you coming on the show considering the circumstances. I'm glad, as you said earlier, you, your family, and hopefully your friends as well are all fine, healthy, and safe. So, professor, maybe let's start with what's your sense of the entire war? What do you make of it?
Because there's so many competing narratives, some that are supportive of the war, my bias, some very critical of the war. Some that are supportive of the war believe it was a necessary war for a regime that was very they call they use a simplified term like evil, but a term of causing havoc in the region, building nuclear weapons. That's one narrative. Another narrative is this is Israel getting rid of a a geopolitical rival, and they're the reason that The US got involved. Then there's a narrative like mine where this was all a mistake by Trump.
His objective was to capture the Strait Of Hormuz. It's a strategic objective for The US, but he was misled by either his own intelligence, by Netanyahu, and and Israeli intelligence, or all of the above. What's your understanding of it understanding of it of everything, especially as a professor of world studies? So that's something that you understand well.
Speaker 1: You know, I read the resignation letter of Joseph Kent, a conservative Republican. I agree with him. Iran was not an immediate threat to The United States, and this is due to the influence of the Israeli lobby and and Netanyahu on Trump, Netanyahu has been dreaming about having a war with Iran for many years, and Trump was foolish enough to provide American soldiers for that dream. It is also true that Trump likes Iranian oil. He wants to take over the state of Hormuz.
This is not an analysis of an Iranian professor. This is what he said the other day. When a reporter asked him, why do you wanna take over Iranian oil? He says he's a businessman, and he likes to make money. You are a businessman.
You don't wanna take over Iranian oil. You know, being a businessman is not equivalent of being a thief or trying to, you know, kill little school girls to achieve some popularity among the Zionist class. So, overall, whenever United States attacks a country, they need to demonize it, and this is what they have done with regard to Iran. This is the old colonial practice. Whenever they wanted to plunder a nation, they would demonize those people, look at them as subhuman.
And this is what Trump called Iranians the other day. He called them animals. So overall, I think the three scenarios that you presented, the three all of them are accurate. The the one that demonizes Iran is also accurate because that's part of the propaganda that needs to be presented so they can attack Iran. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I think he's demonized even though his rhetoric is not right. He's always said crazy things, you know, from Canada being another American state. I don't wanna defend Trump's decision to get into this war because I'm critical of that. But at the same time, I found his rhetoric a few days ago for me an indicator that he's ready to walk away from the war, and he's trying to pressure Iran for concessions. Not sure if you saw it the same at the time, but I and I knew he meant the regime even though his words were genocidal, really, when you say you're gonna wipe out an entire civilization.
But I also knew the same Trump that was ending the war in Ukraine is still the same Trump now. You can't flip from being someone that's ending wars to someone that's become genocidal or someone like Hitler. That was why though that rhetoric, I wasn't as people like Tucker were up in arms, and rightly so. It was pretty crazy things to say. And I agree with you.
The reasons for the war were Israeli influence, but also control of the Strait Of Hormuz. Do you also agree with me that he miscalculated? He did not plan for a prolonged conflict? And, also, I wanna ask you another question to that. If it was the case that he did miscalculate, I think you'd agree with me on that.
Why? How is Iran still able to fire missiles? How is Iran able to still fire drones? How does the regimes have I'm also critical of the regime, by the way, so I wanna make sure my biases are clear. I'm not a fan of the way the regime governs.
It's just my personal opinion. But how did the regime get stronger after this war when everyone expected a regime collapse considering what we saw in January?
Speaker 1: The first point, it's not a regime. It's a government. Iran I apologize. That's it. Yeah.
You know, Iran Iranians established the the first government in the world. So respecting the civilization is something that Trump is not interested in, but but you are. You know, a lot of these missile factories, drones factories are underground. After even
Speaker 0: in
Speaker 1: the last two years during the genocide in Gaza, Iranian leaders realized that sooner or later, Netanyahu will attack Iran. So they had about two years to prepare. They built a lot of missiles, lots of drones. And this is what Iranian leaders told Trump before the war, that it is true that Iran is weaker in comparison to two years ago, but Iran is not weak. The country's leader, the assassinated leader, said that if Iran is attacked, this would be a regional war.
So he was warned. And then this is his words. He said that he thought the war would be finished in three days, and he said that nobody told him that Iran will close the Strait Of Hormuz. That was crazy. Nobody expected Iran to fire at US bases in the Persian Gulf.
And, you know, we had Tulsi Gabbard going to the senate couple of weeks ago, and senators were asking her. She's the director of national intelligence in The United States, the Democratic senators. Didn't you tell Trump? And, of course, she has to be careful because she doesn't wanna get fired, but the outcome of that hearing shows people that even his intelligence community told him about the consequences. If you read the annual threat assessment report last year, it says three things about Iran's nuclear program.
The first thing it says this is the consensus of The US intelligence community. The first thing it says is that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. The second thing it says is that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon program. They say Iran had one before 2003, but they haven't stopped that. This is their statement.
And the third thing they say is that Iranian government has not decided to have a nuclear weapon program. And when they asked Trump about this, he dismissed his own intelligence community, and he accepted Netanyahu's version. Netanyahu has been saying that Iran is two months away from building a nuclear weapon for the last twenty years.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I remember that. That worried me when that happened, when that disagreement happened. I knew something was up. That's why I think, obviously, we didn't even bring up the nuclear program as a reason because I think me and you both agreed that was never a reason.
We know it wasn't a threat. And, also, none of us brought up Iran being an imminent threat to The US. It was very clear to me Iran did not wanna only avoid a war with The US. They also wanted to avoid a war with with Israel. Their their calculus has changed since October 7.
And I think the reason for that is Israel has had incredible military successes from a military perspective, less so on Gaza, but in in Lebanon against Hezbollah, and even in that twelve day war. But I think that changed significantly now. I think Iran now has leverage with the control of the Strait Of Hormuz. I feel like let me know if you agree with this analysis. I feel like Israel's strongest card in that, you know, proxy conflict or or, you know, I I say just direct conflict really in the last few years, proxy conflict over the last many years, if not decades, is Israel would be like, we have America's support.
And that's something Iran never wanted to clash with The US because they know that would be disastrous for the country, we're witnessing that now. But that card is gone now, professor, because Israel has used it. Iran faced the wrath of the American military and Israel's military as well, and they were still able to maintain the ability to fire missiles. Latest report says you have at least 50% of your missiles. You were able to still fire drones, cause havoc in The Gulf, which we're gonna talk about in a second and what that means for the region.
And most importantly, choke off the entire global economy by closing the Strait Of Hormuz and maintaining it as closed. And now Iran that card has shifted from Israel's hands to Iran's hands because now Iran has the Strait Of Hormuz as their leverage card. And also, everyone is in agreement Trump will never wanna go back in a war with Iran, at least I think so. And that means the card that Israel had of American support is gone for the foreseeable future. So that's why I think the balance of power after this war in The Middle East for the first time will shift drastically away from Israel.
Depends what happens on Friday, but based on what we're seeing right now. Do you do you do you agree with do you disagree with any parts of this analysis?
Speaker 1: You know, the Israeli lobby is very powerful. And, you know, in the US congress, they have a lot of influence. The budget for US military comes from the US congress. The US Congress can stop a lot of things that Trump wants to do domestically and internationally. And I think Trump understands that one reason he's associated himself with the Israelis is because of the influence of the Israeli lobby in the US Congress.
I I agree with a good portion of your analysis, but I think putting more emphasis on the influence of the Israeli lobby for the next three years during his Trump's presidency, that's that that should be taken into account. And then, you know, these Epstein files, we don't know the videos that Mossad has on Trump. I think, you know, Trump is afraid of a portion of these documents because if they're available if they become available, then I think that would be the end of his presidency. And I think one reason he is following Netanyahu's lead in this war is because I I think Mossad has something on him. I I I this is not normal.
What what Trump is doing for Israel is not really normal.
Speaker 0: This war, if it was for Israel I I agree this war is not normal. And, you know, if we spoke in January, me and you will probably be disagreeing on a lot because of my critique of the Iranian government. But we're speaking after this war, which I'm also extremely critical of. So that's why we're agreeing on a on a lot. On the Mossad having files on Trump, anything is possible.
I've been wrong on many things before. I just feel if there's anything on the Epstein files that would have been released by the Biden administration. But maybe, as you said, Mossad has that information, not the Biden administration. I do wanna ask you just a few questions on what's happening right now before we go to Lebanon, and before we talk about Iranian relations with The Gulf, because this was gonna have the effects of this war are gonna be felt for generations. It's gonna change the entire structure of the Middle East.
But Mustafa Khamenei, we haven't heard much we haven't seen him whatsoever since the strike on his that killed his father, his wife, his family members, I think his daughter. What can you tell us about him? Is he is he alive? Is he well? What do you know?
Or what do the Iranian people know or believe? And how much influence does he have over the Iranian commanders? Because when he asked commanders on national TV to stop the strikes on The Gulf, the strikes continued for almost twelve hours. We saw the strikes on The UAE, Saudi, and Kuwait. They stopped since, but I'm not sure if that was authorized by Muzhtaba because the supreme leader did put out a request on national TV for the commanders to stop their attacks.
In general, what can you tell us about him? Because in the western media, get so many reports. He's dead. He's alive. He's in coma.
He's even homosexual. We've seen all these different leaks coming out that obviously some of them are just too silly to even believe. But people in the West really have no idea. I'm not sure if you can give us a bit more context.
Speaker 1: He's alive. He may be injured. He was in the area that was heavily bombed. You cannot elect a leader every other day, so people have to be careful that that he's not assassinated. I think Israelis and Americans would assassinate him if they know where he is.
So he had they they have to worry about his security. We didn't have him requesting US Iranian military to stop. No such thing was on Iranian television. Okay. When when the announcement for the ceasefire came, they they were some more attacks, and this is what Iran did last time.
Because when you attack Iranians, they want to have the last shot at you. This is just a project.
Speaker 0: Why why The UAE, Saudi, and Kuwait? Why those three countries?
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia has been providing a lot of support to The United States in this war. Yesterday, the secretary of war tanked them for fighting shoulder to shoulder. I'm quoting him. Fighting shoulder to shoulder with United States and Israel. And we have seen pictures of American aircraft refueling airplanes in Saudi bases burning, and the pictures were published in the Wall Street Journal.
They said that they had five refueling tankers hit by Iranian drones. Trump tried to dismiss that report, and he said it was just just one, basically confirming the fact that Saudis at least are providing bases to American airplanes. UAE does the does the same thing. So Kuwait one problem Kuwait has is that it's very close to Iran. It's the closest of these Persian Gulf countries.
So it's a target of convenience. But and then there are a lot of American assets there, you know, since the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and then Americans coming and rescuing Kuwait. Kuwait became basically the colony of The United States. They have a lot of bases there. So, you know, it's against international law to help a war that is illegal.
In order to make a war illegal, you need to go to the UN Security Council, put a country under article 43 of the chapter seven of the UN Charter. US didn't do that. Israel didn't do that. So the war is illegal under international law, and then helping United States and Israel in this illegal war would be illegal. In international law, we have this doctrine.
It's called unwilling or unable doctrine. It means that when a country country's territory is used to attack another country, and they're unwilling or unable to do something about that, then they they
Speaker 0: But you're you're saying The UAE. I know about Saudi. I've seen those reports by New York Times. I know about Kuwait. There's been a lot of reports on missiles fired from there.
But in terms of The UAE, we've heard rhetoric. Iran claimed that have you seen that? A MIG a MIG aircraft fighter jet that was only owned by The UAE's truck and refinery in one of the islands, one of the Iranian islands. Have you seen that report? Is that true?
But that seemed pretty extreme.
Speaker 1: We we have had Iranian foreign ministry sort of criticizing. They they didn't name the country, but we have received drones from these Persian Gulf states. You know, The United States to this day said that they have hit 13,000 targets in Iran, and you cannot do that physically by using an aircraft carrier that's 2,000 kilometers away. It's physically not possible. So in order to have that level of extensive bombing of Iran, there is no other way but to use the bases that are close to Iran to engage in that level of bombing.
This is what they have done. You know, on the second day of war, Kuwaiti said that they shot three US jets by mistake. Before, they were saying that they will not allow United States to use their airspace. But how can you hit US jets if they are not using your airspace? So they were they'll be using Kuwaiti airspace, and they were shot
Speaker 0: That's sad. That's sad. Because I was hoping and I'm always the naive optimist, and I've I was hoping that we see normalization of relations with Israel sorry, Iran and the region, regional powers. Eventually, even Israel and Iran, but that's way too far fetched now. But at least Iran and the Gulf countries.
And that was happening after the Israeli strike in Qatar. What happens now? Because Iran has also attacked all these Gulf countries. Some of them were surprised. You guys attacked Oman.
You attacked Qatar. I understand if you wanna attack Kuwait and Saudi, maybe even The UAE. Even The UAE does a lot of business with with Iran, imports from Iran, exports as well, does a lot of trade with Iran. A lot of Iranians have their money in The UAE, a lot of expats in The UAE. So The UAE was a surprise to me.
Saudi, there's that rivalry that's always existed. Kuwait, Bahrain, I understand because of the the position, the political position, and the American bases they have there. But when you go as far as Qatar and Oman, do you think that Iran also went too far there?
Speaker 1: You know, actually, Iranians, as as you probably know, have tried to improve relations with countries like Saudi Arabia. And they would do the same once the war is over because they don't want to be fighting this petrodollar states. They spend billions of dollars on their military, and you don't you don't want to be fighting them. You want to trade with them. You want to have good relations with them.
You you can't you don't, you know, you don't choose your neighbors. These countries are going to be Iran's neighbors forever. So Iran, I think, would be willing to forgive and forget very quickly. With regard to hits, we had Tucker Carlson saying that Mossad was Mossad agents were arrested in Qatar and Saudi Arabia trying to blow up things and blame it on Iran. Some of the hits in Oman, Iranian military has officially put out the statements
Speaker 0: that we didn't do it. But Oman Oman Oman, we know Iran struck Oman, including the oil refinery. Are you saying even those are false flag attacks?
Speaker 1: Specifically, with that oil refinery, Iranian military said that we didn't do it. Now I'm I'm not I'm not saying I'm not taking sides here. They they may you know, so if you leave the false flag operations aside, there there are legitimate reasons for Iranian military to target some of these sites because these sites are used to attack Iran, and they are in these countries. And if they don't attack these sites, the sites would be used for the attacks tomorrow. So they need to take take them out today without considering where they need they may be.
It's the site that's the problem. And we have this problem of debris. You know, they these countries have shut down some of Iranian missiles, and when you shoot down missiles, you don't Iran cannot control where the missiles fall. So some of the damage is due to the debris that is created. Yeah.
And then what The United States did was they moved their soldiers from US bases inside the cities. They evacuated hotels and filled them with American soldiers, which is against international law because citizens of these countries become human shields. And even said that hotels will be targets if they're full of American soldiers. Office buildings are going to be targets if they're housing CIA headquarters. CIA headquarters are providing the data for all the bombings that we are witnessing.
And they're in inside cities. They're they're Latin American bases. You know, Iran has lost more than 2,000 civilians, a lot of damage to infrastructure. Trump has talked about changing Iranian borders. He he has talked about taking over Iranian oil.
So the country is fighting for its survival, they are going to use all the leverage they have to make sure it survives.
Speaker 0: That's the last point you made is one I've been making the whole time. And just to be clear, I was my building I live in The UAE. My building was struck almost struck twice. One was five minutes away, five minute walk. The other one was right next to it in the IFC.
So I I completely oh, first I was impacted by the war. Not as much as you in Iranians or people in Lebanon, not even close. Any people in Israel even. But I do agree with what you said. When people are like, Mario, how is that okay when I criticize the war?
How's that okay? How is it okay for Iran to to strike all the Gulf countries when The US is attacking it? I'm like, guys, in war for as far as we remember back during Sun Tzu, the out of war, the weaker side will always engage with asymmetric warfare. Iran cannot strike Washington DC. Iran cannot strike US bases in Europe or The US.
So Iran will have to resort to other other means, and that includes striking the Gulf. And Iran threatened to drag the Gulf into the war and threatened to close the Strait Of Hormuz before the war started. So for everyone to act shocked that this was done, Iran threatened to do the same thing. When you're fighting for survival against the world's biggest military, that would be one of the that should be something that anyone would have expected no matter what your stance is on the war. I'm not saying it justifies it when a civilian targets.
I think nothing justifies civilian targeting whatsoever. You're saying civilians were not targeted. It's almost impossible to know whether when you strike a building that has civilians, was it intentional, was it not, was it shrapnel? So going into that debate is very difficult. But I I wanna go to to the country that is, one could say, almost forgotten right now.
And the country is I said the biggest loser from this war, the biggest winner is Iran, and the biggest loser is Lebanon. And that's because Lebanon is getting destroyed. And if we wanna be one thing we disagree on or, yeah, we disagree on is is dragging Lebanon into this war. Now I understand why Iran would do it. Iran should focus on Iran and and the government's survival, the country's survival.
And if it means dragging Lebanon into this war for Hezbollah to support Iran, so be it. Iran first, America first, so that Israel first. When Israelis make a decision, they're thinking about their people first. But would you agree with me, professor? I'm not saying it's not it's the wrong thing to do strategically for Iran, but would you say Iran destroyed Lebanon?
Also, Israel destroyed Lebanon. They're the ones bombing it. But Iran destroyed Lebanon by dragging the country into this war so Hezbollah could support Iran?
Speaker 1: Well, to have an accurate analysis, you should you remember how Hezbollah was created? Hezbollah was created after the invasion of Lebanon by Israel in the in the early nineteen eighties. Young people, more or less your age, Lebanese, came to Iran and said that we are under attack. We have been under attack for many decades by Israelis. Now they have taken our land.
Can you help us? And in the nineteen eighties, Iran had an invasion by Saddam Hussein. You if you're thinking based on, you know, a strategic calculus, You you don't want to have Israelis and Americans helping Saddam Hussein by providing weapons to young Lebanese trying to defend their country. But Iranians did that because they realized that the Israeli government is a fascist government. And if they're able to take over Lebanon, Syria would be next.
Iran will be next. So what what you are seeing today was forecasted by Iranians in the nineteen eighties. So they decided to help Lebanese, and this is the origins of Hezbollah. And you remember many months ago, there was a ceasefire in Lebanon, and the way Israelis define ceasefire is that they can continue shooting at you, and you are not supposed to respond. You know, we have had a ceasefire in Gaza, and we have had more than a thousand civilians killed during the ceasefire.
And they Israelis did the same thing in Lebanon during ceasefire. Every day, they were attacking.
Speaker 0: But that's because but the ceasefire included sorry. I interrupt you, professor. The ceasefire included Hezbollah not rearming in the South Of Lebanon. That was part of the ceasefire. And now we know that Hezbollah was rearming in the South Of Lebanon based on the attacks of them firing from the South Of Lebanon, a significant barrage of rockets.
So I think both sides, including Israel, broke the ceasefire. Would you agree on that?
Speaker 1: Right. I agree that Lebanese realized that Israelis don't believe in ceasefire, period, and they didn't. No. They realized
Speaker 0: The Lebanese wanted to disarm Hezbollah, sir. They wanted to disarm Hezbollah, and they told Hezbollah. Hezbollah agreed with the government. The story is that Hezbollah agreed with the Lebanese government. They will not drag Lebanon into this war.
I'm not saying Israel has Lebanon's interest at heart. No. But Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into this war, there's even reports that it was Hezbollah's military arm because the political arm was saying no, was telling the government no. Even the ally, Birri, from Amal said the same thing that Hezbollah should not join into this war and criticize them when they did. The the story is that there were IRGC commanders in Lebanon, and they told the Hezbollah commanders to strike Israel, some of them eventually struck Israel.
Israel responded, and Hezbollah got dragged in. So while forty years ago, Hezbollah was created with the support of Iran in response to Israeli aggression, while Israel has a lot to blame for what's happening in Lebanon, a lot and originates even before that in Palestine and the PLO, it is also fair to say, professor, that Hezbollah did right now they have they're stuck in a position where they have to support their country, they do in many cases Lebanon, and support Iran who support Azerus, arms them and gives them all the money. And it's if you're getting all your arms and money or significant amount of it, if not all of it, from a country, of course, you have to listen to their requests at times. And in this case, Hezbollah or at least a portion of Hezbollah did drag Lebanon into this war for the sake of Iran, and I don't blame Iran for doing it because it did help Iran in the war. Iran used the proxies that it helped build for decades.
Do do you do you understand my argument?
Speaker 1: And you probably should add this sentence that is Hezbollah was very patient with Israel violating ceasefire a few days a few times a day for months. Sure. And they wanted to respond, and the reason they did not respond was because they know Israelis have no ethical standards, and they would engage in massacres as they did yesterday. And when the Iranian leader was assassinated, that gave Hezbollah a reason to respond, something that they wanted to do on their own. You know, the the way Iran deals with these organizations, this is something that you may not know.
These are not proxies. That's the terminology that Israelis use. These are friends, associates, and they make their own decisions. They are not there for the money. You know, if you know, Lebanese, as you know, are quite capable of making their own money.
They don't need money coming from other countries. They they are not there to be at the service of some some government. They are there for Lebanon. Many people in Hezbollah have come from Southern Lebanon. They have been on the receiving end of Israeli aggression for since 1948.
And they they are doing it for themselves, and they they realize that Nathaniel is interested in greater Israel. So whether you have Iran or you don't have Iran, they want Lebanese land, and they want Syrian land and Iraqi land and Saudi land and Egyptian land. Yeah. This is this is what Nathaniel was saying.
Speaker 0: While while I don't sorry. I I was gonna say while I don't believe the majority of of the Israeli farm the Israeli policies to expand territory outside of the Palestinian territory, I also think that there's a high possibility it is, and I'm not, like, I'm not certain one side or another. It's a very valid concern that a lot of Lebanese people have. That's why some people don't like Hezbollah support Hezbollah.
Speaker 1: So so if you're Lebanese and and and you like your country, especially if you come from the South, and, you know, the French are not going to arm you, the Americans are not going to arm you.
Speaker 0: They offered they offered to arm they offered to arm the the Lebanese military, though, the Lebanese army, if as
Speaker 1: well as disarmed. If they they arm the Lebanese military and they pay Americans pay Lebanese military to make sure that they don't respond to Israeli aggressions. They they they're supporting Israel in that manner. So if you're if you're a young Lebanese and you like your country, you like your land, you like your father, you like your mother, and you're looking for support because Lebanon is a small small country without oil and gas, at least until now. And then you you find there is this big country in the Middle East.
They share the same religion, and they have the same concerns about Israel. So what would you do? You would go to them and you attract support. And, you know, Americans have been telling Iran, if you stop or reduce your support for Palestine, if you sub reduce your support for Hezbollah, all your sanctions would go away. All these difficulties would go away.
All these attacks would go away. And Iranian government did not do that. And we have a lot of people in Iran that are criticizing the government. They're saying that you're sacrificing Iran for Lebanon. And some people don't like Iranian government.
Iranians don't like Iranian governments for that reason. So what what I believe is that Hezbollah is a nationalist religious nationalist Lebanese organization trying to defend Lebanon. They entered the war because they got of all these ceasefire violations. They needed an excuse to strike Israel in a serious manner, and that excuse came with the assassination of Iranian leader. If it was not in the interest of Hezbollah, no matter how much Iranian officials would ask them to do something, they would not do.
You know, this this is the same thing in Yemen. You know, when Yemenis wanted to take over Sana'a, it was the request of the Iranian government not to do it. They said it's too early for you to do that. Did they listen? No.
They they these organizations do their own things.
Speaker 0: I think I think we're both right, in my opinion. I think they do have their Hassan Nasrallah, for example, was in a very tricky position because he knows he has to abide by Iranian requests at times because Iran funds the group. And at the same time, he does have loyalty to his own country. So it is a very tricky position to be in, and and the new Nayim Kasim, I think the new leader is in a similar position. I'll I'll love professor, it's, first, pleasure to meet you, and I'd love to do this again if you have the time.
I know it's a pretty crazy times now for you guys to recover from the war. Maybe one day I could do I've never been to Iran. We could do it in person. But there's many other points I wanna discuss, so I'd love to do this again, sir. Thank you so much for your time.
No
Speaker 1: problem. Take care.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷🇨🇳 What if this war was never really about Iran? While everyone watches missiles and oil prices, the real pressure point is energy. Kharg Island handles around 90% of Iran’s oil exports, and most of that oil flows to Asia, especially China. That’s the part people are starting to connect. If Iranian oil gets disrupted, China loses a major cheap energy source. And in a global economy built on energy costs, that matters more than any single strike. Some analysts believe China was the real target. Source: hanocrypto
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: This war was never about Iran. And once you see it, you can't unsee it. Everyone's focused on the missiles, the Strait Of Hormuz, the oil price, but nobody's asking the only question that matters. Who actually gets hurt when Iran's oil disappears? Not America. Not Europe. China. 80% of Iranian oil goes to Asia. China has been buying millions of barrels from Iran every single month under the table around sanctions through back channels. Iran is China's cheap energy lifeline, and Trump just cut it off. He bombed Karg Island, the one port that handles 90% of Iran's oil exports. He didn't hit it by accident. He hit it because that's the pipe that feeds Beijing. But here's what makes this genius. Before he even touched Iran, he captured Maduro, took Venezuela, secured the largest oil reserves on the planet for The US. So when Iran's oil disappears from the global market, America has the replacement. China doesn't. Think about what that means. China's energy costs just exploded. Their factories, their manufacturing, their entire economic engine runs on cheap oil, and the cheap oil just got cut off. While America is sitting on Venezuela on domestic production on the strongest energy position in decades, Iran didn't lose this war. Iran was never the target. Iran was the move you sacrifice to take the queen. This was never a war in The Middle East. This is an energy war against China, and most people won't understand that until it's already over. Wake up.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This war was never about Iran. And once you see it, you can't unsee it. Everyone's focused on the missiles, the Strait Of Hormuz, the oil price, but nobody's asking the only question that matters. Who actually gets hurt when Iran's oil disappears? Not America.
Not Europe. China. 80% of Iranian oil goes to Asia. China has been buying millions of barrels from Iran every single month under the table around sanctions through back channels. Iran is China's cheap energy lifeline, and Trump just cut it off.
He bombed Karg Island, the one port that handles 90% of Iran's oil exports. He didn't hit it by accident. He hit it because that's the pipe that feeds Beijing. But here's what makes this genius. Before he even touched Iran, he captured Maduro, took Venezuela, secured the largest oil reserves on the planet for The US.
So when Iran's oil disappears from the global market, America has the replacement. China doesn't. Think about what that means. China's energy costs just exploded. Their factories, their manufacturing, their entire economic engine runs on cheap oil, and the cheap oil just got cut off.
While America is sitting on Venezuela on domestic production on the strongest energy position in decades, Iran didn't lose this war. Iran was never the target. Iran was the move you sacrifice to take the queen. This was never a war in The Middle East. This is an energy war against China, and most people won't understand that until it's already over.
Wake up.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇱🇮🇷 Your feed just became part of the war While the U.S., Israel, and Iran exchange strikes, they’re also flooding social media with memes, AI videos, and viral clips to shape how you see the war. Iran is pushing AI-generated “Lego-style” videos targeting Americans, mixing in topics like Epstein and past wars. At the same time, official U.S. accounts are posting cinematic clips to frame the conflict as heroic. This is psychological warfare. Both sides are turning serious policy into internet content to influence public opinion, distract, and control the narrative. Source: MiddleEastEye YT
Video Transcript AI Summary
From Iranian AI Lego animation videos to the official White House account uploading this clip of, quote, operation epic fury, The US's name for its war on Iran. Since the joint US Israel war on Iran began in February, hundreds have been killed. Another front is happening, the battle online. Iran's LEGO diss tracks are targeting the American public with mentions of Epstein, the Me Too movement and Pointless Wars. And official Iranian embassy X accounts are sharing commentary and memes while the White House uploaded this, quote, justice the American way clip. You can't conceive of what I'm capable of. Finishing this fight. Yeah. I'm thinking thinking I'm on back. I'm here to fight for truth and justice in the American way. Ben Stiller, who co wrote at one of the clips used by the White House tweeted, quote, hey, White House. Please remove the Tropic Thunder While Ceylon Dorr, the White House deputy communication director, retweeted this clip with the caption. Wake up, daddy son. Both sides are using memes to score political points, filtering serious policy through Internet culture. But propaganda isn't new in war. We've seen it in Russia, Ukraine, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. And we've seen it in this war. Fake AI generated clips widely shared online. The Pentagon, which is the headquarters of the US Department of Defense, for example has been working with Hollywood since the 1940s and some movies like Ironman one and two were a collab with the Defense Department or music videos like Katy Perry's twenty twelve quote clip on how she found herself when she joined the army was also kebab created to normalize, shape public opinion and glorify war. Iran is also no stranger to propaganda. During the Iran Iraq war, state media glorified the military cause so effectively that hundreds of thousands of children volunteered and were put on the frontlines. States have long tried to make sacrifice appealing and today messages appear as memes online. This time however they're not asking you to join, they're asking you to laugh and pick a side. Every victim screaming in the dark. Iran got you on the play. Which raises the question, is the meme driven version being used to distract from critical reporting, undermine opponents messaging, and reinforce government policy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: From Iranian AI Lego animation videos to the official White House account uploading this clip of, quote, operation epic fury, The US's name for its war on Iran.
Speaker 1: Since
Speaker 0: the joint US Israel war on Iran began in February, hundreds have been killed. Another front is happening, the battle online. Iran's LEGO diss tracks are targeting the American public with mentions of Epstein, the Me Too movement and Pointless Wars. And official Iranian embassy X accounts are sharing commentary and memes while the White House uploaded this, quote, justice the American way clip.
Speaker 1: You can't conceive of what I'm capable of. Finishing this fight. Yeah. I'm
Speaker 2: thinking thinking I'm on back.
Speaker 1: I'm here to fight for truth
Speaker 0: and justice in the American way. Ben Stiller, who co wrote at one of the clips used by the White House tweeted, quote, hey, White House. Please remove the Tropic Thunder While Ceylon Dorr, the White House deputy communication director, retweeted this clip with the caption. Wake up, daddy son. Both sides are using memes to score political points, filtering serious policy through Internet culture.
But propaganda isn't new in war. We've seen it in Russia, Ukraine, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. And we've seen it in this war. Fake AI generated clips widely shared online. The Pentagon, which is the headquarters of the US Department of Defense, for example has been working with Hollywood since the 1940s and some movies like Ironman one and two were a collab with the Defense Department or music videos like Katy Perry's twenty twelve quote clip on how she found herself when she joined the army was also kebab created to normalize, shape public opinion and glorify war.
Iran is also no stranger to propaganda. During the Iran Iraq war, state media glorified the military cause so effectively that hundreds of thousands of children volunteered and were put on the frontlines. States have long tried to make sacrifice appealing and today messages appear as memes online. This time however they're not asking you to join, they're asking you to laugh and pick a side.
Speaker 1: Every victim screaming in the dark. Iran got you on the play.
Speaker 0: Which raises the question, is the meme driven version being used to distract from critical reporting, undermine opponents messaging, and reinforce government policy.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇱🇮🇷 Israel has arrested one of its own citizens on suspicion of spying for Iranian intelligence and manufacturing explosives to assassinate a senior figure. Geidrov, from Haifa, was recruited in August 2025. He was paid large sums of money to carry out missions for an Iranian https://t.co/UVoHCqhuAa
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷 THE INSANE STORY OF AMERICA'S F-15 RESCUE MISSION The U.S. military has a motto it loves to repeat: leave no man behind. That promise played out on the world stage when an F-15 weapons officer ended up stranded on an Iranian mountain deep inside hostile territory. The U.S military's response wasn’t “cut losses.” It was “send everything.” And they did. Helicopters. Drones. A-10s chewing up mountainsides. Stealth jets overhead. Electronic warfare blanketing the sky. A fake narrative planted by the CIA just to keep the enemy looking the wrong way. At one point, the U.S. literally turned an abandoned strip of land inside enemy territory into a pop-up military base. Not metaphorically. Actually. Then, when things got messy, as they usually do in complex operations, they blew up their own aircraft on the way out. All of this… for one person. Is that admirable, insane, or both? Because on one hand, this is the kind of loyalty that makes militaries function. If you’re the one flying into danger, you want to believe the cavalry isn’t just coming, it’s already airborne, engines screaming, consequences be damned. That belief is priceless. On the other hand, the actual price is very much not. We’re talking about risking dozens of lives, escalating a conflict, and torching equipment that costs hundreds of millions. Not to win a war, not to secure territory. Just to make sure one name doesn’t get added to a memorial wall. There’s a brutal logic to it: if soldiers think they’re expendable, they start acting like it. Morale collapses, missions fail, wars get lost long before the headlines catch up. So the military doubles down on the opposite message: you are not expendable, even if proving that requires something wildly disproportionate. Which is how you end up with rescue operations that look straight out of Hollywood. Source: AI Telly
Video Transcript AI Summary
The rescue operation hinges on a strict code: leave no man behind. Dozens of attack helicopters, over 100 special forces and Delta operators, and a sprawling multi-stage plan were required to bring one person home after an aircraft went down. The mission began when both crew members ejected; the pilot was recovered, but the weapons systems officer (WSO) was injured and stranded.
WSO survival training kicked in as he trekked to a rugged mountainous ridge and activated his beacon just as IRGC militias closed in on the crash site. The CIA was one step ahead, initiating a massive deception tactic designed to make the IRGC search the wrong location. When the enemy realized they had been tricked, they swarmed the mountainous ridge around the wounded officer. Special forces moved in on low-burn helicopters, laying down heavy covering fire alongside A-10 Thunderbolts and MQ-9 Reaper drones. As they moved toward the extraction point, everything went wrong, demonstrating that the military would burn a $100,000,000 aircraft to save a single comrade.
Stage one: after the jet went down, both crew members ejected. The pilot was recovered within hours, but the WSO landed in an incredibly rugged, mountainous region. He hiked over two miles to reach higher ground despite injuries, and triggered his emergency beacon to ping US forces.
Stage two: The CIA launched a deception campaign inside Iran, leaking rumors that US forces had already found the WSO and were attempting to smuggle him out on the ground. The phantom ground exfiltration diverted Iranian military resources and attention away from the actual extraction site.
Stage three: It was 02:00 AM when the US deployed Delta Force and Navy SEAL Team Six with MA-60 Little Bird helicopters, armed with miniguns and missiles, alongside MA-60 Black Hawks or Pave Hawks to insert and extract. Dozens of US aircraft, including HC-130J Combat Kings and EA-18 Growlers, cast an electronic warfare net to blind Iranian early warning radars, while an MQ-9 Reaper kept eyes on the wounded WSO.
Stage four: The US set up a temporary forward operating base inside Iran, seizing an abandoned agricultural airstrip 200 feet wide and 3,900 feet long, about 14 miles north of Sharaza City in Southern Isfahan Province.
Stage five: US Special Forces helicopters reached the objective and established a defensive perimeter around the wounded WSO. A fierce, hours-long firefight erupted as IRGC ground forces, popular mobilization units, and local militias converged. Ground operators relied on a wall of suppressive fire, while overhead air power continued to pound surrounding Iranian positions with A-10s, Little Birds, and Black Hawks, taking a heavy toll and drawing casualties in areas like Kui Siyah and Kaken. Despite the onslaught, the extraction corridor remained open long enough for the team to load the WSO onto an extraction helicopter. Yet, back at the makeshift landing strip near Chereza City, two transport planes suffered critical issues and couldn't take off, prompting a decision to destroy the two transport planes to prevent data from falling into IRGC hands. A confiscated helicopter, an H-6 Little Bird, was spotted near the wreckage of the HC-130J rescue aircraft.
The Zagros Mountains, in Kermanshah Province near the Iran-Iraq border, provided terrain masking for long-range radar but allowed short-range anti-air ambushes. The operation began with 02:15 hours when two F-15E Strike Eagles crossed the border at low altitude to strike a deeply buried command bunker, using terrain-following radar to stay beneath Iran’s long-range BEYVER missiles network. The lead Strike Eagle pulled up to drop its GBU-28 bunker buster, while a TOR M1 surface-to-air missile system awaited a lock in a gorge. A second missile detonated on proximity, causing hydraulic failure; the crew ejected into the mountains. The Sandy protocol activated, and a rescue was organized. By 02:45 hours, a 10 Thunderbolt rescue escort was diverted for resort, and a LiV A-10 performed a low-level strafing run on a convoy, neutralizing it with 30mm cannon while revealing its position to Iranian forces.
Despite the intense engagement, the F-15E pilot managed to steer the crippled jet toward safer airspace, even as the A-10 endured damage yet retained enough controls to continue flight. The F-15E crashed deep inside southwestern Iran, while the A-10 eventually crashed in the southern waters of the Persian Gulf near the Strait of Hormuz. A dedicated CSAR package launched at 03:15 hours, pushing into the Zagros as dawn approached. Pedro 11 located the A-10 pilot’s position; Pedro 12 provided overwatch. An ambush by a concealed anti-aircraft gun interrupted Pedro 12, but a coordinated strike by C-130 overhead and two F-35 stealth fighters silenced the weapon, allowing Pedro 11 to extract the pilot. The rescue helicopter, Pedro 11, flew overloaded, narrowly clearing tree line and exiting into Iraqi airspace by 05:30, battered but alive. The F-15E crew remained missing, prompting a follow-up JSO raid the next night.
Notes on aviation and defense gaps include a discussion of radar-guided versus heat-seeking missiles, including an analysis of the F-35’s vulnerability to infrared-guided threats, the role of distributed aperture systems, flares, and the potential use of a hybrid SA-358/SA-67 system in infrared detection.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How did The US pull off one of the most daring rescue operations in history, deep behind enemy lines? It comes down to a strict code the US military lives by, leave no man behind. They will literally send dozens of attack helicopters and over a 100 special forces and Delta operators just to bring one person home. The mission started when an aircraft went down. After both crew members ejected, the pilot was successfully extracted, but the weapons systems officer was injured and stranded.
His survival training instantly kicked in. He trekked all the way up to a rugged, mountainous ridge and activated his beacon, just as IRGC militias began closing in on the crash site. The CIA was one step ahead. They initiated a massive deception tactic, a ruse designed to make the IRGC search entirely the wrong location. When the enemy forces finally realized they had been tricked, all hell broke loose.
They swarmed the mountainous ridge surrounding the injured officer. Just in time, special forces swooped in on low burn helicopters, laying down heavy covering fire alongside A-ten Thunderbolts and MQ-nine Reaper drones. But as they moved toward the extraction point, everything went wrong, proving the military is willing to burn a $100,000,000 aircraft just to save a single fallen comrade. This is stage one. When the jet went down, both crew members ejected.
The pilot was recovered within hours. But the weapon systems officer wasn't so lucky. Wounded from the ejection, he landed in an incredibly rugged, mountainous region. Look at the map here. This is the crash site.
And this is exactly where his survival training kicked in. His immediate objective? Get to higher ground. Despite his injuries, he hiked over two miles and scaled a 7,000 foot ridge line. While dodging capture, he managed to trigger his emergency beacon, pinging US forces so they could begin tracking his location.
But he couldn't just stay on the radio. His communication had to be sporadic if he transmitted too often the IRGC's signals intelligence teams, who were actively hunting his frequency, would pinpoint his exact coordinates. Then comes stage two: The CIA's Deception Game. To buy the downed officer time, the CIA launched a massive disinformation campaign inside Iran. They started leaking rumors that US forces had already found the WSO and were attempting to smuggle him out on the ground.
It worked perfectly. This phantom ground exfiltration successfully diverted Iranian military resources and attention completely away from the actual extraction site. That brings us to stage three. The tip of the spear. It's 02:00AM.
The skies over Southern Isfahan and Kogiluwu are usually dead silent. But tonight, the US military's most elite operators, the Delta Force and Navy SEAL Team six, are launching a massive helleborn assault. They arrive in MA-six Little Bird helicopters, absolutely armed to the teeth with miniguns and missiles, built for agility and tight mountain corners. Supporting them are the MA-sixty Black Hawks or Pave Hawks, designed to drop in special forces and pull them out. And they weren't alone.
Miles above the pitch black mountains, dozens of US military aircraft, including HC-130J Combat Kings and EA-eighteen Growlers, cast an invisible net over the region. They unleashed a storm of electronic warfare designed to completely blind Iranian early warning radars, all while an MQ-nine Reaper drone kept an unblinking eye on the wounded WSO. Stage four, and this is the crazy part. The US literally set up a temporary forward operating base inside Iran. They seize an abandoned agricultural airstrip, just 200 feet wide and 3,900 feet long, located about 14 miles north of Sharaza City in the Southern Isfahan Province.
They turned an empty Iranian field into a US staging ground. Here comes stage five. Despite the odds, US Special Forces successfully and helicopters navigated the jagged landscape below radar level and reached their objective, establishing a defensive perimeter around the wounded WSO. But time was up. Just as they prepared to grab him and get out, the horizon started moving.
IRGC ground forces, popular mobilization units, and local militias were rapidly converging on their exact location. What happened next was an absolute slugfest. A massive hours long firefight erupted right in the middle of the day. Look at this ridge, they were surrounded taking fire from all sides. US operators laid down a withering wall of suppressive fire.
The commandos locked down a 360 degree defensive perimeter, guns up, air cover overhead, designed to annihilate any IRGC element that stepped within range. But it was the loitering US aircraft overhead that truly tipped the scales. To keep the extraction corridor from collapsing, American airpower continuously hammered the advancing Iranian units. Assets like the A-ten Thunderbolt rain hellfire down on them. The sheer volume of close air support from the A-10s, Little Birds, and Black Hawks pounded the surrounding Iranian positions, taking a heavy toll and resulting in reported casualties across areas like Kui Siyah and Kaken.
That air support bought the ground teams the one thing they needed most: seconds. Under the umbrella of that intense air cover, the Special Forces helicopters finally managed to load the wounded WSO onto an extraction bird. Just when it seemed like they were in the clear, things went terribly wrong back at the makeshift landing strip near Chereza City. According to the Pentagon, two of the transport aircraft slated for the evacuation suffered critical issues and couldn't take off. Suddenly, it was a race against time.
The IRGC was speeding toward the airstrip in a massive convoy. Commanders decided to send three more aircraft to rescue all US military personnel and the pilot. Then, in a scorched earth move, US forces blew up the two disciple transport planes leaving nothing but charred remains for the IRGC. The wreckage of a USM H6 Little Bird helicopter was also spotted next to the remains of HC-130J Combat King-two rescue aircraft that were destroyed by US airstrikes to prevent secret military data from falling into IRGC hands. But how did all of this actually started?
The Zagros Mountains, Kermanshah Province, near the Iran Iraq border. This terrain is characterized by jagged peaks and deep, narrow valleys. It is a tactical nightmare for aviators but provides excellent terrain masking to hide from long range radar. However, it also allows enemy forces to set up short range anti aircraft ambushes. But how did The US lose an F-15E Strike Eagle, an A-ten Warthog, and nearly a combat search and rescue team helicopter, and a Reaper drone in a single night?
Well, this is how it started at 02:15 hours. A flight of two F-fifteen E Strike Eagles crosses the border at low altitude. A pilot and a weapon system officer were flying or target a deeply buried command bunker. They used terrain following radar to hide in the valleys, staying beneath the gaze of Iran long range Beyver three seventy three missile network. But what happens when they have to strike?
To drop its GBU-twenty eight bunker buster, the lead's Strike Eagle has to pull up and move above the mountains. This is breaking the radar horizon. In a gorge below, highly mobile, TOR M1's surface to air missile system is waiting. It achieves a lock and two missiles leave the rails. The pilot dumps flares and pulls high G S, one missile to spoofed.
But could they evade the second? Well, the second missile detonates on proximity, causing catastrophic hydraulic failure. The crew ejects into the pitch black mountains, and the Sandy protocol is immediately activated. But this is the US military, and they will move heaven on earth to rescue a fallen combat. At two forty five hours in the morning, because the crash is near the border, a 10 Thunderbolt operating nearby are diverted for resort, also called rescue escort.
Down below, Iranian quick reaction forces are closing in on the downed airmen. The LiV A-ten executes a low level strafe on the run with its legendary 30 millimeters of entry cannon, neutralizing the convoy. But how did this aggressive maneuver come at a cost? The noise and tracers give away its position, as the A-ten banks hard, bleeding off airspeed. For context, Iran recently flooded the battlefield with these Chinese shoulder fired missiles, weapons that are essentially reverse engineered clones of Russian MANPAD.
The Iranian soldier fires a missile two infrared guided missile. At this altitude, countermeasures deploy too late. The missile shreds the right turbofan engine. But can the Warthog's legendary armor save it? Yes, the armor did save it from this missile launcher as it flew even with a damaged engine.
Because of the armor, the pilot managed to points the dying jet toward a plateau and punches out. But just how many crash sites are we looking at? The F-15E crashed deep inside Southwestern Iran. Specifically, local reports and verified wreckage photos placed the crash site in the rugged, mountainous terrain of the Qoji Lui and Boyer Almad province, while the A-ten warthog did not go down over the Iranian Mainland. After taking heavy damage during the search and rescue escort mission, the pilot managed to navigate the crippled jet away from the mountains and towards safer airspace.
The rugged battle damage A-ten eventually crashed in the southern waters of the Persian Gulf, specifically near the Strait Of Hormuz. Now this at 03:15 hours. A dedicated combat search and rescue package launches. These are highly trained rescue units built for this type of rescue mission. It includes an HC one thirty j combat king.
This act as an airborne command center, followed by two HAS-sixty Bill helicopters. Call signs: Pedro 11 and Pedro 12. They fly them in the radar, topping off their fuel in mid air to maximize winter time. But will they make it into hostile territory undetected? Well, they push deep into the Zagros Mountains just as dawn approaches.
Four forty five hours. Pedro eleven locates the A-ten pilot's inferred stroke. Pedro twelve circles above, providing overwatch with its 50 caliber machine guns. Pedro eleven flares for landing, and the peas hit the dirt to secure the pilot. Then this happened to hidden Iranian zoo twenty three, a Soviet era anti aircraft gun opens fire from a concealed hideout.
It's an ambush. Heavy armor piercing rounds tear through Pedro 12 as it orbits, resulting in severed transmission lines and an injured crew. The pilot wrestles the crippled chopper into a hard controlled crash near Pedro 11. The rescue mission is now a fight for survival, and Pedro 11 is the only way home. Under heavy covering fire, the crew of the downed Chopper sprints to the surviving bird.
But how do they stop the enemy barrage? Then at five two hours, the C-one 130 overhead coordinates an immediate strike. Two F-thirty five stealth fighter jet loitering high above in stealth overwatch drop precision munitions, silencing the anti aircraft gun. With the A-ten pilot, the PJ, and the crash chopper's crew crammed inside, Pedro eleven is maxed out on weight. But how do you fly an overloaded helicopter escape the Zagros Mountain?
This is how they do it. Pulling maximum power, the engines screaming, they barely clear the tree line and dive back into the valleys, racing for the border. By 05:30 in the morning, Pedro eleven crossed back into Iraqi airspace. Battered, overloaded, but alive. As stated, no one gets left behind.
The F-15E crew is still missing an action requiring a massive JSO raid the following night. And if you don't want your data to get compromised by spam mails, jump calls, and online breaches, This data doesn't just result in spam and scam attempts. It can also affect your insurance rates, and ultimately will lead into a loan denial just when you might need credit. Incogni helps protect your privacy by regularly scanning and preventing data brokers from re uploading your information. You'll also get a clear, real time dashboard to track the status of your data.
As an add on with Incogni unlimited plans, you can gain access to this custom removal tool. That's where Incogni comes in. Copy the link of any site exposing your information. Go to the custom removals tool, paste the link, and click submit. That's it.
Then wait about thirty to forty five days, and just like that, your data is removed. So take your personal data back with Incogni. Use code AITELI with the link below incogni.com/aitelly and get 60% off on an annual plan. AWAIT, an F-thirty five was also hit during one of its mission sorties. To properly analyze this incident, you need to understand that there are two distinct types of missiles: radar guided and heat seeking.
The F-thirty five was designed to be practically invisible to long range radar, but it wasn't built to completely hide from heat seeking missiles. So how exactly did Iran missile manage to bypass the stealth technology of The US F-thirty five? Well, the secret lies in a major vulnerability that is its HEAT signature. Its geometry and radar absorbent materials make its radar cross section incredibly small, essentially rendering it invisible to traditional early warning and targeting radars. To give you some context, this is how a plane's radar signature compares to a bird's, but the F-thirty five is powered by a single Pratt and Whitney F135 engine, one of the most powerful fighter engines in the world.
The F-thirty five is heavily optimized to defeat radio frequency radar like the billion dollar S-four 100 and S-three 100 missiles. However, stealth does not mean completely invisible. This engine produces a massive heat plume. Instead of using radar, modern air defense networks utilize inferred search and track systems. The answer is this short range heat seeking missile like this one.
These passive sensors scan the skies for any heat anomalies. Because inferred search and track systems emit no energy themselves, the F-thirty five's radar warning receivers would not alert the pilot that they were being painted by a target lock in the same way a radar lock would. But how did the missile lock and how did the F-thirty five use evasive maneuvers? Once an inferrer guided missile is launched, the dynamic of the engagement changes to a race of physics and countermeasures. When the missile's IR seeker head locks onto the massive thermal output of the F-thirty five's engine exhaust.
With the detection, the F-thirty five is equipped with a distributed aperture system, six infrared cameras positioned around the aircraft that provide a three sixty degree spherical view. The distributed aperture system detects the intense heat signature of the incoming missile's rocket motor and instantly alerts the pilot. To break the lock, the pilot executes high G evasive maneuvers while simultaneously deploying flares. If the missile tracks the flares but is already within a lethal radius, its proximity fuse will trigger the warhead. The resulting shrapnel and shockwave can cause significant damage to the aircraft's control surfaces coating, or internal systems without scoring a catastrophic direct hit, which perfectly aligns with reports of the F-thirty five sustaining damage but safely executing an emergency landing.
But what are flares? These pyrotechnic countermeasures are made of magnesium or other combustible metals that burn at temperatures exceeding the aircraft's engine heat. The goal of the flares is to overwhelm or confuse the missile's IR seeker, forcing it to chase the decoy heat sources instead of the jet. But what is Iran's secret weapon? We believe it's the three fifty eight anti aircraft missile or the SA67.
The three fifty eight is a unique hybrid between a loitering munition or kamikaze drone and a surface to air missile. But how does it works? It flies at slower, subsonic speeds and can loiter in a designated airspace in a figure eight pattern until its optical and infrared sensors detect a target. If a three eighty five missile or a more advanced high speed indigenous IR guided surface to air missile, was guided by a ground based IRST network, it could engage the F-thirty five entirely within the infrared spectrum, bypassing the jet's radar evading capabilities entirely. This incident challenges the long held doctrine that fifth generation fighters can operate with total impunity in contested airspace, highlighting the evolving threat of infrared detection.
But it has its advantages as it cannot hit fighter jets far from its radius of launch system. We make original videos from scratch and animated by humans, so please subscribe to not miss a beat.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump reportedly preparing to revoke visas of hundreds, possibly thousands of Iranian elites living in the U.S. Soleimani's niece already detained. Larijani's daughter's visa revoked. Source: AP https://t.co/mAwaAJr3n3
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 BREAKING: Senior official tells Axios Trump will hold off on deadline if a deal is forming. But a defense official says they're "skeptical" of another extension. https://t.co/EPgon6JXqM
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇱🇮🇷 THE WAR ON IRAN IS FOUGHT FOR THE ISRAELI EMPIRE In talking about the ongoing occupation of Lebanon, which is increasingly looking like an annexation of southern Lebanon, Aaron Mate suggested the conflict with Iran is fundamentally about Israeli imperialism. "This war on Iran, and in Lebanon, everything comes back to Israel's occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. That's why Iran and Hezbollah are being targeted; they resist the Israeli project." @aaronjmate
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇷🇺🇸🇮🇱 A former Israeli Air Force commander explains why Iran is shooting down American jets... Iran completely rebuilt its air defense doctrine after the 12-day war. A former IAF commander told me "the days when flying over Iran was a walk in the park are over." Here's what changed: Each of Iran's 31 zones now operates independently if Tehran is cut off. No more waiting for orders from a command center that might already be destroyed. Mobile launchers use shoot-and-scoot tactics from tunnels and mountain terrain. New passive infrared systems track jets without emitting radar signals, meaning pilots don't know they're being targeted until a missile is already in the air. The biggest revelation: Iran is using China's HQ-9B, Beijing's best long-range surface-to-air missile, with both active radar and infrared seekers. Standard electronic countermeasures struggle against it. And Iran's homegrown Bavar-373 reportedly outperforms Russia's S-300 and possibly the S-400. Iran ditched Russian technology, replaced it with Chinese and domestic systems, decentralized command, went mobile, went passive, and went underground. The result: two American aircraft down in a single day after five weeks of assumed air dominance. Source: @academic_la
reSee.it AI Summary
I think Glenn Diesen says Trump overestimated firepower, as Iran escalated step by step and—crucially—denied the U.S. control over when the war ends. The Strait of Hormuz remains the defining factor; Iran never sought this fight, but survival forced its calculus after U.S. strikes. Iran is drafting a maritime protocol with Oman to control the strait. Trump bets on a $1.5T defense budget while Rubio dropped regime change and reopening Hormuz. What happens when you win battles but lose the war?
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇮🇷 🇺🇸 TRUMP DESTROYED THEIR NAVY, KILLED THEIR LEADERS, AND STILL CAN'T DECLARE VICTORY...HERE'S WHY Professor Glenn Diesen says Trump's biggest miscalculation was assuming overwhelming firepower would force Iran to fold. It didn't. Iran went up the escalation ladder step by step and denied the U.S. the ability to choose when this war ends. The Strait of Hormuz is the entire ballgame. Trump can claim he wiped out the air force, the navy, the nuclear program. But as long as Iran controls that chokepoint, he can't go home with a win. Glenn says Iran never wanted this fight. They sat out October 7th. They watched Hezbollah get crushed without intervening. But once the U.S. struck directly, survival became the only calculation. Now Iran is building a joint maritime protocol with Oman for postwar control of the strait. Trump just proposed a $1.5 trillion defense budget. And Rubio's victory checklist quietly dropped two things: regime change and reopening the strait. The question nobody in Washington wants to answer: what happens when you win every battle and still lose the war? Full interview with @Glenn_Diesen below 1:00 — Trump Wants an Off-Ramp. Iran Won't Give Him One. 3:29 — Iran's General Staff Responds Live on Air 4:58 — Why Escalation Control Is a Delusion 5:37 — Could Trump Just Walk Away and Let the World Sort Out Hormuz? 8:25 — Iran Is Building a Toll System for the Strait 11:38 — Trump's $1.5 Trillion Defense Budget Drops Mid-Interview 14:09 — Israel Has a Veto Over When This War Ends 17:20 — "I Never Predicted We'd End Up Here. It Doesn't Make Sense." 22:38 — Peace Through Strength or Just the Neocons With a New Name? 35:07 — Iran Could Kill the Petrodollar If Trump Walks Away
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario and Glenn discuss the evolving Iran–U.S. confrontation after Trump’s speech and recent military actions. They explore whether Trump is seeking an off-ramp and how Iran might respond, focusing on strategic leverage around the Strait of Hormuz, escalation dynamics, and regional implications.
- Trump’s posture and off-ramp: Mario notes Trump’s speech yesterday seemed like a threat if Iran doesn’t grant an off-ramp, with comments suggesting further precision attacks if peace isn’t achieved quickly. Glenn agrees Trump is signaling for an off-ramp but warns the President lacks obvious military targets to push Iran toward surrender. Both acknowledge Trump’s dual tendency to escalate while also hinting at ending the conflict.
- Strait of Hormuz as leverage: The discussion emphasizes that Iran’s ability to control, or at least influence, the Hormuz strait is a key factor in determining the war’s outcome. If Iran maintains dominance over Hormuz, they can set transit conditions, demand concessions, or push for non-dollar trade. The speakers agree that Iran can “hold on to the Strait of Hormuz” to prevent a clean U.S. victory, making it a central bargaining chip.
- Historical lens on victory and war termination: Glenn argues that raw military power often doesn’t translate into lasting political victory, citing Vietnam and the Iraq war as examples, and notes Iran views the conflict as existential for legitimate reasons. Trump’s stated goal of “destroying everything of infrastructure and energy” would raise global energy prices and provoke Iranian retaliation against Gulf states, complicating U.S. aims.
- Possible outcomes and shifts in posture: They consider multiple scenarios:
- If Trump off-ramps, Iran might reciprocate, potentially halting strikes on U.S. bases and negotiating terms around Hormuz.
- If the U.S. presses ahead or escalates, Iran could intensify attacks on Gulf states or even Israel, leading to broader regional destabilization.
- A mutually acceptable security framework may require the U.S. to reduce its Middle East footprint while Gulf states participate in a collective security arrangement over Hormuz.
- Israel’s veto power and potential U.S. decisions: Israel’s security considerations complicate any exit, but the U.S. might act unilaterally if core national security interests are threatened.
- Ground troops and regional dynamics: Both acknowledge the ambiguity around ground deployments; Trump’s denial of ground troops conflicts with the impulse to escalate, creating a paradox that makes miscalculations likely. The possibility of renewed ground involvement remains uncertain, with skepticism about sustaining a ground campaign given logistics and supply constraints.
- Regional actors and diplomacy: They discuss whether a broader regional rapprochement is possible. Iran’s willingness to negotiate could depend on assurances about its security and status quo changes in the Gulf. Tasnim News reports Iran and Oman are developing a joint maritime protocol for Hormuz in the post-war period, with Iran planning a toll-based framework for tanker traffic, signaling monetization and control even as Hormuz reopens for the world.
- NATO, U.S. defense spending, and leadership changes: The conversation touches on geopolitics beyond Iran, noting a forthcoming $1.5 trillion defense budget and a leadership shift at the U.S. Army, with secretary of war P. Hexath ordering the Army chief of staff to retire, signaling a potential reorientation of U.S. military strategy.
- Israel–Iran–Gulf triangle: They consider how Iran’s actions could affect Israel and Gulf states, noting that Iran’s retaliation could prompt U.S. or Israeli responses, while Gulf states struggle with the economic and security repercussions of sustained conflict.
- Timing and next steps: Mario predicts the war could end soon, driven by off-ramps and Iranian willingness to negotiate, whereas Glenn cautions that the conflict will likely continue given the deep-seated security demands and the strategic importance of Hormuz. Both acknowledge daily developments could shift trajectories, and express cautious optimism that some form of resolution may emerge, though the exact terms remain uncertain.
- Final reflections: The discussion closes with reflections on how fragile the current balance is, the possibility of a peace-through-strength stance, and the high stakes for global energy markets, regional stability, and the international order. Mario thanks Glenn for the dialogue, and they sign off.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Trump's speech yesterday to me seems like he's threatening if they don't give him enough time.
Speaker 1: The problem for Trump is, you know, he's he keeps making this point like he's trying to convince himself and destroy their air force, their navy, their military, or kill their leadership. You know, we won. Certainly, Certainly, we won. Won. But if Iran doesn't say that it's over, then it's not over.
Speaker 0: Why can't he just end the war and walk away?
Speaker 1: He's been arguing if Iran does just open up the Strait Of Hormuz, then he'll destroy everything in Iran. On the other
Speaker 0: hand Do think so?
Speaker 1: It could. It's not that the US will be able to control the Strait Of Hormuz. That won't happen. The Iranians could assert dominance over it. This is gonna have consequences far beyond the Middle East.
Speaker 0: Alright, man. Well well, good to speak to you.
Speaker 1: Likewise.
Speaker 0: So we've we've talked before about whether Iran will give Trump an off ramp and we're kinda getting our answer because Trump's speech yesterday to me seems like he's asking for an off ramp. I wouldn't say begging but threatening if they don't give him an off ramp and today he struck a bridge just about an hour ago, an important bridge in Iran delivering on his threats but he's essentially looking if you look at his comments which I know a lot of people the markets didn't like but he said if peace the part that the market didn't like if peace does not come quickly we will go after those other targets with precision speed and skill. Are many targets left. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes. Future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.
He also talks about another two three weeks of significant attacks. What do you make of this? Because he also said we will finish the job very fast and over he said it's all be over the next two to three weeks, which kind of reaffirms the point that he's not preparing. I don't think he's preparing any ground troops. No one's talking about ground troops suddenly anymore after that speech.
And he's also trying to get off ramp as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess his key problem has been, that it confuses, raw military power with a simple victory. I mean, if you look at many of America's wars going from Vietnam to the Iraq war, they tend to win the battles. They have a lot of firepower. They can deal a lot of death and destruction. But at the end of the day, they don't actually win those wars.
And, I think this is also the case with, with Iran. That is a thought we're coming. We have, you know, much greater firepower. We can bring a lot of death and destruction, and then we'll bring them to their knees, and they will, you know, yield to our demands. The problem for for him is that Iran considers this to be an existential threat for very good reasons.
And what Trump wants from them, they can't give. Indeed, they don't even wanna go back to the status quo given that diplomacy doesn't seem very authentic anymore, given that they have already had these two surprise attacks plus, you know, the abandonment of the JCPOA, you know, decades of sanctions. So I think, overall, they they they were they're prepared to sit this to stay this one out. And the problem for Trump is, you know, he keeps making this point, like, he's trying to convince himself and destroy their air force, their navy, their military, kill their leadership. You know, we won.
Certainly, we won. But if Iran doesn't say that it's over, then it's not over. And the key thing that Iran can do in terms of making sure that it's not over is by holding on to the Strait Of Hormuz, that is being in a position to put conditions on whoever gets to transit, be it to expel U. S. Bases, get reparations or simply trade in the non dollar currencies, whatever the Iranians want, he can't go home and declare victory.
So I think he doesn't know really what to do. Because he doesn't have military targets, what does he do? And essentially, he's just promising to, in his words, bring them back to the Stone Age, destroy everything of infrastructure and energy. But, of course, if it does this, energy prices will go up. And, of course, Iran will retaliate in a way that hurts United States, which is go after the Gulf States.
They're in their energy resources and indeed their survivability as well. So I think that this As the main
Speaker 0: you're speaking, the general staff put out a statement just said the following perfect timing just now. It will not be like like Trump's twelve day war where he utters the word ceasefire and then goes back to prepare himself for the next attack or stirs up a sedition like the events of January. The longer the war lasts, the greater the humiliation and defeat of The United States will be.
Speaker 1: Oh. Yeah. Well, I guess this is where the miscalculation is, the delusion or illusion of escalation control. Escalation control simply means you get to decide how much you want to escalate, and you can bring it up to the point where adversary will have to, essentially capitulate, and you can bring it down whenever you want. Well, The US can't do any of them if it goes up the escalation ladder as we've seen.
This is quite remarkable if you follow how the Iranians have reacted. They've gone up this escalation ladder step by step with The United States, will showing that they're willing to go up. And also, they're denying The US stability to essentially choose when this war is over. And this is a fair point, the one you just read out, which is you you don't get to declare a ceasefire once the war doesn't go well, go home, regroup, prepare for, and have another go at it. And this is essentially what they wanna make sure that this war does not happen again.
And that's not an easy thing to to to demand, but I think the straight of Hormuz is a key to this Iranian goals.
Speaker 0: But but Trump also hinted is that he's happy to end the war, and I think either he he said it or there's reports that he's happy to end the war even if it does not lead to the opening of the Shared Of Hormuz. So why can't he just end the war and walk away? They're not gonna strike American bases. If America stops, I think they'll stop striking The US. They'll keep they'll start figuring out a solution for the Strait Of Hormuz, working deals with different countries, maybe making money off it.
But couldn't be a win win is that Trump walks away, hey. We killed their regime. Screw them. Let's move on to the next thing, and they can sort out the Strait Of Hormuz with the rest of the world because The US doesn't need it as much. Isn't that also a solution?
It's a funny one, but it is.
Speaker 1: It it is a solution. Yeah. Actually, he could be spun in his interest because, again, he kind of seeks to adjust to this new multipolar world. So in short, what the National Security Strategy ambitions is for The U. S.
To pivot to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia. That means to reduce its presence in Europe and in the Middle East. So if he essentially leaves saying, well, the Strait Of Hormuz is not our problem anymore. It's up for the Europeans and and the regional powers. Then he could, reduce America's footprint in Middle East.
And, also, he happens to declare the end of NATO more or less, not in those exact words, but, you know, we're not gonna be there for you anymore. That's pretty much for US led military lines that is, more or less spelling its death. So he did this could be spun as a as a victory. And, again, it's possible that he will go down this path, but I think I wouldn't read too much into his words because he says a lot of things that, he'll change his mind in twenty minutes. Again, he's been arguing if Iran doesn't open up the Strait Of Hormuz, then he'll destroy everything in Iran.
On the other hand
Speaker 0: Do think could really?
Speaker 1: He could. I I think it would be too much. I think the international system, the disruptions would be too great. That is if all the if that means Iran going after all the Gulf States, not just, you know, knocking out some energy, but going after desalination plants and essentially forcing, know, tens of millions of people to flee. This would be yeah.
No. I I I don't think well, it it would be very mad. But, again, I think this is a danger as well by putting countries like The United States and Israel up against the corner. If they face a humiliating defeat, you know, countries, especially great powers, will do very foolish things. So it remains to be seen.
But but, again, it's this idea. He goes, you know, both ways. So he tells NATO the same thing. On one hand, you know, you you have to come and assist us, but also we don't really need you. So he's, you know, he's he's hard to pin down, and I think this is why it's difficult to make out what he wants with Iranians as well.
I mean, I hear some people suggest that he's just looking for an excuse to escalate, to sound like he wants peace. I'm leaning more towards the idea that he got boxed in, that he was hoping for a short war. It didn't play out, and now he doesn't know how to get out. But I I agree with your assessment. I do think if he decides let's pack up and go home, then the Iranians would then also go down this escalation ladder.
They would then stop striking The US bases. But the foundation of it, the concern that the Americans might come.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You've just your your mic just tuned out. While you're doing this, by the way, I came out of the post. I just post about to post there now. Imagine if Trump I'll write it now.
Imagine if Trump ends the war and walks away leaving the rest of the world to sort out the Strait Of Hormuz. That could actually I'm not sure if you can hear me. You can hear me, Glenn, while you're sorting out the mic. Yeah. Imagine imagine Trump does that.
I know it's it's hard to laugh during times of war, but that's such a Trump thing to do. Like, even people around me that are upset and impacted by the war. They look at some of the comments he makes, and and there's there's a person that I as close to me, she always listens to you know those Instagram analysts? Some of them are good, but they do those little quick recaps in a simplified way as objective as possible. And the analyst goes, you know, I have no idea, by the way, your audio is not back.
I have no idea what Trump is saying, and I don't think anyone has any idea what he's meaning. Because on one side, the contradictory statements just drive everyone nuts. On one side, he wants to escalate. He wants to destroy Iran. He wants their oil.
He posted about wanting their oil two days ago. Remember that video from the from the interview in the eighties? And then I think in the in the in the speech yesterday, he said, I don't want their oil. So it's it's if you're Iran right now, you'd be losing your shit. You need you need mental therapy after after just listening to Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But he made the same point that, you know, we don't want regime change. We never said regime change.
Speaker 0: But we got regime change.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But we have regime change. But, also, he's been arguing for regime change for the past few weeks. So, again, it's just there's so much it's just words at the end of the day. It doesn't mean anything.
I mean, he he boasts a lot. He lies a lot. I mean but, also, it's not always an indication if it changed course. I think it's just, you know, sometimes he wants to do the signaling. Again, he has one stick, which is, I'll put maximum pressure, and then I'll get my deal.
So I'll threaten to destroy everything in Iran unless you take this deal, an off ramp. And then when they don't take it, what does it do? Because he knows the Iranians will go up that escalation ladder with him. So he's very difficult spot. And again, if I would advise Trump, I'm not sure exactly what I would say because he really boxed himself in here.
So I think this idea that you can only do minor changes, I don't think that's possible. I think, at best, you could have to hope for, a around the new security architecture for The Middle East. That is The US. It's a bit like the European system. The entire security structure built up an alliance system where the Gulf States are dependent on The US and thus, you know, obedient, while the while Iran is this adversary, which has to be perpetually weakened.
I think if it's if it's possible, you know, The US is not gonna be able to dominate, I think, like it did in the past. But I wouldn't advise necessarily for the Americans to hand over, you know, all the lead regional leadership to Iran either. So maybe, you know, it can meet halfway. That is, for The US to reduce its presence, but then have some kind of a, collective operation or, you know, security of the Strait Of Moose with the Gulf States. Because it doesn't have to be I mean, yes, there's some, bad blood at the moment.
But the reason why Iran has attacked the Gulf States is because they attacked Iran. So I think, if you could take a step back away from
Speaker 0: this you say did you say that Iran attacked the Gulf States because the Gulf States attacked Iran?
Speaker 1: No. I'm saying it. So I'm I'm thinking there could be a new if there was a possibility of ending this anti Iranian alliance or scaling it back, then the Iranians might be willing to compromise on some other things. Because I think at the core of it, they just want to make sure that the status quo, which kind of always escalated and now led to two wars against Iran, that this doesn't that it doesn't play out again. So I think if you can address the core security concerns of the Iranians, then it doesn't mean that all of Iran's demands have to be met.
But I think, you know
Speaker 0: Some of them do. I mean there has to be some fundamental shift. I agree. Some fundamental shift that assures assures Iran or not only Iran. Iran and the entire region just never happens again.
Kuwait, Bahrain, The UAE, they can't afford another war like this. Otherwise, their image is already tarnished heavily, will be tarnished even further. But there's also a lot of talk about a potential conflict between Gulf countries directly, maybe Saudi and more likely The UAE and Iran, especially when it comes to those disputed islands. I think that's highly improbable. I think we're looking more as a at an early end of the next few weeks.
But is there a possibility that we may still see grounds troops on the ground, or has that been completely discounted now?
Speaker 1: Well, it's hard to say. I mean, if Trump's giving the impression that there won't be any ground troops, then often it means that ground troops are coming. So it's it's a lot of deception. But but I'm doubt I'm doubting it because simply because it's a it seems like a suicide mission. I mean, even if you're able to get the troops in, then what?
There's no supply and support. You know, how are they gonna hold it? It's like Trump's idea. You just escort some tankers through the Strait Of Hormuz, then you declare victory. Now it's open.
It's like, no. The the Iranians can, at any time, from almost any destination in the country, strike this this straight. So it's it's gonna be possible. And so I I I I don't think so.
Speaker 0: How is but the another important question though is what happens to Israel if Trump off ramps? Because if Iran's gonna continue their attacks on Israel, because they need to deter Israel as well from doing this again because Israel's a lot more hawkish towards Iran than The US. So if if The US wants to end the war but then Iran continues striking Israel, do you think The US would be forced to get involved until the Iranian attacks on Israel stop? Or could we see something similar to the twelve day war where Israel's left to fend for itself and and The US just supplies it with with military equipment and maybe support with their defenses?
Speaker 1: Well, I think this is the problem. That is Israel essentially have a veto over The United States when it ends this war. Indeed, as Marco Rubio recognized, it also had a key role in deciding that The United States should go to should go to war. But I think only to a certain extent. I mean, if the core national security of The United States is under threat, it is possible that The US would make a decision and just tell the Israelis that they have to adjust.
It's not something that Americans have done well in the past, but it is possible. Because I keep making a point, there's no going back anymore to status quo. And people look at Iran, they're like, what what could they do here? They can strike the Gulf States here, and they can strike Israel. But they can do a lot of things.
The Iraqis have just pushed out the western troops. If the Iranians want to greenlight Iraq annexing Kuwait, why not? If they want to completely disrupt Bahrain and, and take it, I guess, out of the orbit of Saudi Arabia, they could. I mean, there's a lot of things that can happen. Borders can change.
Governments can be toppled. So so this
Speaker 0: We see a lot more dominoes. There's there's a possibility we see more dominoes fall from this before it ends.
Speaker 1: Look how much has happened. It's a very short period
Speaker 0: of time. From October 7 to where we are.
Speaker 1: It's quite wild. So, yeah, less than
Speaker 0: a month. Glenn, do you remember the days when you were covering October 7 and the aftermath of October 7? Did you have many guests warn that there's gonna be a war with I'm not talking to few mongers that always talk about it nonstop and talk about it for years. What was it genuine concern? Because when I was doing it, it was like, guys, there's like multiple red lines or multiple steps on the escalation letter and you've got October 7 and the war with first invasion of Gaza is number one.
Number two is occupation of Gaza and how deep will they go. Number three is will they strike Hezbollah? Will they enter Lebanese territory? Will they invade Lebanon? Will they strike the Houthis?
If there's something that we don't talk about, there's not gonna be a strike on mediators in Qatar and there's definitely gonna be a war directly with Israel and Iran. And now we've got this did you ever think in the early days that this will get to this domino? And also what, you know, what other dominoes are there? Are you talking about different, you know, borders changing, maybe conflicts in the in the in the region in The Gulf? But could this escalate even further than that?
Or we're considering Trump's stance on wanting to off ramp, that's become extremely unlikely now.
Speaker 1: No. I I I did not call it back on October 7 that we would end up here in this massive full out war with Iran. And part of the reason is it doesn't make any sense. It's not rational. And, again, this is why I thought it was also a strange move by The United States to go to war with Iran like this.
It didn't make sense. There was no you know, I didn't see how this could succeed, and I don't see a clear offer. But also, very importantly, I I I also assume that Iranians will will be cautious up to, of course, being attacked. And I think this is a key flow we see in the Western assessment of Iran. It's often presented as just being a bunch of crazy mullahs who wants to acquire nuclear weapons and just burn the world and kill all Jews.
I mean, Iran, in my opinion, is as quite a rational actor. They they they look after their own survival, and I think they play this very cautiously. I mean, if if you've been to Iran, the whole Palestinian issue is very much front and center in, you know, the national consciousness. So what happened in Gaza was quite important for them. However, the idea that they would go and, get directly involved, against United States and Israel, this is something that would cause devastation in Iran.
Like we're seeing today, they're taking a lot of punishment. Was This even the criticism when the Israelis went after Hezbollah. Why didn't Iran help them sufficiently? Well, you know, they're a rational actor. They realized if we could join in, a lot of destruction will come from Iran.
But once The US and Israel attacked Iran, now they face an existential threat. They what else can they do? Now they go all in. And so all of what they've been do been doing is quite rational. And based on this, I thought it was unlikely that would end end up where we are now because it does make sense for The US and it does make sense for Iran.
Speaker 0: Very good point. Very good point. Think the point you've made, no one's mentioned this yet in any of my interviews. Anyone that argues Iran wanted this war was an imminent threat. There was never a better time for Iran to join the war if they wanted to destroy Israel right after October 7 when Israel was most vulnerable or if they they were okay with the war with Israel if it meant protecting their proxies that would have gotten involved when Hezbollah was getting decimated.
Yet they stood back. They showed complete unwillingness to get directly involved not only with The US but also with Israel. So they obviously did not want this war and that's why I think they also want to end the war. And I don't think they'll they do want a better security infrastructure for them to ensure the the lawn is not mowed again, but I also don't think they'll wait long enough for their country to be destroyed, more bridges to be destroyed because their economy is already in tatters right now. And there's a a breaking piece of news, just sorry I quickly mentioned it.
Yep. Glenn, secretary of war p Hexath has ordered army chief of staff, Randy George, to step down and immediately retire. Heksef wishes to replace Randy with someone, quote, who will implement president Trump and Heksef's vision for the army according to CBS. How significant is it for a chief of staff to be be be ordered to step down?
Speaker 1: Well, it seems quite significant. But, again, I don't have any background from the US military, so I'm not sure exactly, yeah, what what motivated this and why why why they're making the switch. But but such a switch is seems quite significant. And no. I'm I'm not well, it would be great if you could elaborate a bit.
Well, Hexath, like, is on on exactly what what what the vision is for for for the military because, yeah, he's they're they're taking it in a very strange direction, of course.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out what it is because they're talking. So Reuters reported just a few minutes before that Trump is set to unveil a $1,500,000,000,000 defense budget request for the next fiscal year on Friday, by far the largest year over year increase in defense spending in the post World War II era. So much for a president that's going to be against forever wars and more wars and focus on the ballooning American debt and the crisis this is going to cause if it's not addressed.
Speaker 1: That's why I think his his approach obviously changed because if you look at his first administration, he kind of followed through on this. No new wars.
Speaker 0: I mean I don't know what happened.
Speaker 1: He's the first president. But also in the second presidency now, he he partnered up with Elon Musk, and I thought, you know, their interest overlapped to a large extent because Elon Musk wanted some more fiscal responsibility. Again, very concerned about a pending bankruptcy. Know, getting out of all this expensive forever war seemed like a common goal. But now it appears that, you know, Trump still wants to be the man of peace.
But to have peace, he needs to be all powerful and dominant that is pumping more money into the military and then just projecting strength and having other countries essentially bow to the will of The United States simply because of this overwhelming power. But this is it's very hard to see how this differs from the neocons. That's essentially what they were going for as well.
Speaker 0: Well, the good thing is at least it's not we're not ending, Trump wants a short war. He came in expecting a a multi day war that lasts a few days. Now he's trying to end it as quickly as possible. It's very different to the mindset when The US entered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So that's a positive aspect of it.
Nothing. This one's more of a mistake rather than an intention to be bogged down this long. That is my guess. And you got the former
Speaker 1: That's a paper.
Speaker 0: The foreign minister, Arachi, just said the following in a post as we're speaking. A lot of news. I wish we're doing this live because a lot of a lot is happening as we're doing this. There's one striking difference between the present and the stone age. There was no oil or gas being pumped in The Middle East back then.
Our POTUS and Americans who put him in office show that they want to turn back the clock. This is the foreign minister essentially saying, you strike our infrastructure, we're gonna strike or eradicate the infrastructure of the entire region with us. And they've been doing that. That's why I'd be very shocked. If Trump decides to strike Iran's infrastructure, assuming he wasn't able to somehow The US and Israel weren't able to destroy Iran's capabilities to strike Israel on the Gulf, if they weren't able to eradicate that capability, Are they willing for Iran to do the same for The Gulf?
That is the question. It's not it's how much do they care for The Gulf? How much does Trump care for The Gulf? My guess would have been a lot especially with all the business they've done together and the visits. The the first visits I think he did as a president were to The Gulf and Israel.
So that's why I'd be very surprised if he goes if he if he if he follows through on his threats cause today just a couple hours ago Iran threatened to strike bridges across The Gulf including The UAE. Retaliation for the bridge that The US struck in Iran. It's like they've been doing it since the beginning of the war. So this is in a way you could say it's indirectly destroying the Gulf. Imagine you punch, you know those videos as cartoons we watch as kids, a cartoon character punches the other character and character and the other cartoon character punches another one.
It's like every time we do something to that cartoon he does it to someone else. It reminds me of that clip, like every time you strike around they strike your friend. Strike around they strike your friend. I'd be very surprised.
Speaker 1: But that makes Iran a very predictable actor then because you know exactly how they will react. That is if you escalate, go after their bridges, their desalination plants, their energy fields, they will do exactly the same against the Gulf States. So it's it should be easy not to make too many miscalculations. But in terms of Trump's calculation, I mean, he does seem mad because it's not you know, it doesn't have to have that much empathy for the Gulf States. But as you said, there's a lot of common business there.
The Gulf States are quite important in The US financial system. So overall, it doesn't really make much sense. But it's always worth knowing asking what is the alternative. Because as we said before, there's no going back to the old status quo. So if if they don't go after Iran in a big way, then if the alternative is for The US to be expelled from the region, then maybe they would be willing to risk the Gulf States.
I mean, it's a little bit the same problem for Iran. This is not a great time for them either. They're being, you know, they're being massacred. They're taking a lot of, hits, especially, you know, to their cities and their energy. So, you know, they're having a very hard time as well.
But what what is the alternative? Well, what are they gonna do? There's no going into a situation where they will have simply peace, stability, and no one will attack them anymore. And, you know, this is it. Either now, you you get rid of this threat at your gates or you will relive this over again.
So there is no there's no good alternative. So I think if Trump will sacrifice the Gulf States, it's it's not that it will be a great idea, but we have to look at what is the alternative. What else is on the table?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Another piece of, another quote which came out of Trump now. The timing of everything is like they're listening to us and making those statements. Iranians are tough and capable of enduring immense pain and I respect them for that but they are better negotiators than fighters. So this is I see this as Trump.
Every indicator I see, that's why I was surprised how oil markets reacted yesterday, every indicator points to Trump seeking an off ramp, and I think Iran will give it to him. The same way they did wanted to avoid this war, wanna they avoid the destruction of their country and Trump's threats and now the strike on the bridge is showing that he might actually follow through with his threats. He just dragged the Gulf into this war and continued the war despite the Gulf getting getting pummeled. So I think he I think the Iranians know that he probably will follow through if that's what it takes to end the war. There's always a possibility of him walking out and letting them do what they want with the Strait Of Hormuz and what they want to do with the Strait Of Hormuz, that's another story, is Tasnim News reported that Iran and Oman are developing a joint maritime protocol for safe passage through the Strait Of Hormuz in the post war period.
And that's according to Tasneem News Iranian Iranian IRGC linked news outlet. The context matters. Iran's senior security official said yesterday the strait will reopen for the world but not for Trump. Iran is simultaneously this is my team kinda expanding on it. Iran Iran is simultaneously building a toll framework at $2,000,000 per tanker, potentially generating 80,000,000 $80,000,000,000 annually.
But essentially what they're building is managed, monetized, and selective straight without freedom of navigation. Now not sure if that's gonna include a toll booth or that because they didn't say they're gonna charge a fee they said they're gonna monitor who comes in and out so it's having more control of the Strait Of Homeboys which is the complete opposite what I of what I think Trump would have wanted to achieve in the straight. But look, I'd respect Trump a lot if he agrees he the operation failed and just walks off. I mean, there's nothing more honorable than admitting a failure and not letting your ego stand in the way, and I think he will. I think he is.
But what do you what do you make of this announcement? Because the markets reacted very positively to this announcement, and then those gains were reversed relatively quickly throughout the day, probably because Trump said something.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Probably. Well, I think this is the main that this is the possible meeting point. I as I said before, it's not that The US will be able to control the Strait Of Hormuz. That won't happen.
The Iranians could assert dominance over it. But I think that if if you can strike a deal, the about some common management of it, I think, yeah, that that that would be a good solution. Of course, at the moment, the Iranians won't have any involvement from The United States. But again, The US have other things they can put on the table. They have a lot of sanctions against Iran.
I mean, as I said, is a rational actor. If there's a good deal on the table that allows it to prosper without sacrificing its security, why wouldn't they make a deal? So it's just so far, haven't heard a proper deal coming from Trump either. He's essentially asked for the capitulation of Iran. Or as it Marco Rubio said, we don't want Iran developing any more missiles and drones being used now.
I mean, this is literally his deterrent. This is why Iran is able to survive this attack, and their demand is for Iran to give up on it. So I think this is if I think this is what they have to do is first start to recognize Iran as a serious regional actor. Once you do this, then you can start to look at where the core interest of The United States and the core interest of Iran could actually meet and where the competition where where you can't harmonize how it could be managed. But I don't even think they're at that level yet.
They're still in this hegemonic mode where we use overwhelming pressure, and then the opponent will have to adjust to our demands. This is essentially what they're thinking, I think. But
Speaker 0: There's a statement there's a post that Rubio made this morning. President Trump delivered a powerful speech tonight. He was clear about our objectives in Iran. Destroy their weapons factories. Destroy their navy.
Destroy their air force. Destroy their chances of ever having a nuclear weapon. The the president's leadership sends a message to the world that The US will defend its people and its interests and uphold peace through strength. One thing that's missing from that list two things. Nothing about regime change as an objective and nothing about the reopening of the Strait Of Hormuz.
So do you do you I know I asked you very briefly, but do you think that he could walk away without opening the Straits? And how likely do you think it is?
Speaker 1: It is possible. Depends how painful it gets because that's the main thing that holds holds Trump back. That's why I thought it was also interesting. I was making this point in a speech that, you know, why doesn't France do it to the European states, South Korea, you know, Japan. They they should go do it.
You know, why is it up to us? I never wanted to do this at all. So, you know, that gives some reason to assume that he might be willing to walk away from this. Otherwise, he can declare victory. I mean, if if the goal was to, you know, have some regime change, he can say, killed most of their leadership.
If it was to degrade their military capabilities, you know, he certainly done done so. He bombed a lot of their military infrastructure. The Iranians spent a lot of their drones and their missiles. So he can declare victory if those are the objectives. Yeah.
But the main problem, what makes this a defeat, why he can't go home, is the Strait Of Hormuz. And so, again, if he's willing to cut himself off from this, then, yeah, Trump can go home.
Speaker 0: If And I last question, Glenn. I know you don't like that question is, but if I ask you to speculate what could happen next based on the information we have now, because I know changes could change by tonight, Trump would make a new statement. But from what we have right now, my assumption will be the war. Like I posted right after before Trump spoken and right after him I posted something along the lines. The war is ending soon.
And then after the speech I repeated. I repeat the war is ending soon even though the markets were not happy with the speech. Because I just feel like every indicator in the last few days has been nothing about ground troops and everything about Trump off ramping and as as I've said just before, I think Iran will give him that off ramp and eventually they'll agree on terms. When Trump wants a deal, he'll concede and he'll still call it a win. He's done that before.
And I think Iran is will do anything just to not have their country destroyed while having some sort of deterrence, which they kinda have already through the close of the Strait Of Hormuz. They have deterrence. They've proved it in this war. They could do it again. So that's why I think the war will end soon.
When I say soon, I mean in the next no. By April, by this month. What's your prediction?
Speaker 1: Well, no. I I think the war will continue. I hope I'm wrong. I really I do hope because this is going to have consequences far beyond the Middle East. But I'm I would suspect that, as you said, these comments about peace through strength, which is a good way of saying dominance or hegemonic peace, it's gonna put them in a not in a mood to make some compromises with sufficient compromises with Iranians.
I'd but I agree with you, I think both the Iranians and Americans want to put an end to this. It's just that their demands are so far apart. While what Trump asks of the Iranians is something that they they can't deliver on on the contrary, they they have very strong demands of their own. And they they can also punish, of course, the other side. They can also bring devastation to all of America's allies in the region.
So I don't see that they're ready for peace yet. And also, just that they're so far apart, I'm not sure what this peace would look like. But just to reiterate, I I hope that you're They don't You are right.
Speaker 0: Deal. Trump would literally just walk away. And I think he's just surprised me so many times. He'd surprise us again to say, guys, I won. It was a great war.
I killed their leaders. I destroyed their nuclear program. I destroyed their military capabilities. I destroyed the imminent threat. Cuba's gonna be next and then he walks completely stops attacks on on The US.
What The US does what Iran does with Israel, it's up to Iran. Let the gulf clean up the mess. Let other countries come in. I wouldn't be too surprised if he does that. I know people like to always say he's he's Israel's lapdog and they tell him what to do.
I just don't think so. I really don't.
Speaker 1: But Iran would come out of this war then very, very much strengthened because then the Iran could then essentially course or compel the Gulf States to kick out The US bases. They can make the stop trade in US dollars. They can kill the petrodollar. They could, you know, limit access to
Speaker 0: That will be I think if they start taking action like this, I think they'll just invite Trump back in. So I think Trump will be look, if we end it back to the status quo, you guys go back to rebuilding, you wanna create some sort of toll to the trader who doesn't make money off there, that's your reparations. That's the way for Trump saying, hey, pay your reparations will come out of other people's pocket because everyone else buys oil from this. Create some sort of tollbooth. The Gulf and the other countries will pay your reparations through that.
Good for you. We wanna attack again. The security guarantees there's not gonna be any guarantees but hey, you guys have deterrence. You've proved you have deterrence. I'm gonna call it a win.
Good luck and figure it out with Israel. It's possible. What's the other possibility though is you just bombs them to oblivion until they have no choice but to eventually fold when their country's been destroyed, the global economy's been decimated, and Gulf countries been hurt hard as well. That's the other alternative.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's what I suspect is the path, though. The the the assumption that if you just put enough pressure on the Iranians, then at some point, they would bend. You know? And, again, this is what the Europeans are doing with the Russians.
It doesn't make any sense. It's not rational. It's not gonna be achievable. But but again, they they they can't swallow the defeat. So they just keep, you know, throwing more, you know, doubling down on foolish policies.
And I think also much like in Ukraine where we're fighting with Ukrainians, it's The Gulf States that will bear the main brunt of Trump's escalation. So I think he's he he might go the the path that you said, but I I I think he's still prepared to go a bit further up the escalation ladder.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But, again, I don't have the facts. I don't like to look in my crystal ball because there's too many unknown variables.
Speaker 0: I know you hate doing it, I'm always grateful when you do it when I ask you. But I I and I always say it could also change. There's new factors in play on a daily basis so I think predictions change on a daily basis as well as new information comes in. And I look I think your your prediction is not too far off from what I think is very very possible as well and I'm always the optimist and so far the optimists have been the most strong in the last at least so far this year. Glenn, always a pleasure.
Thanks for coming on on your holiday.
Speaker 1: Thanks Mario. Have a good one.
reSee.it AI Summary
I warn this could be the biggest oil crisis in modern history, hitting oil, fertilizer, and key supply chains at once. Prices are rising and this pressure will spill into food, tech, and everyday costs. Even fast reopenings won’t reset supply chains overnight. The timing is awful—the global economy was already slowing. If it escalates, it could be far worse than 2008.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷 THIS COULD BECOME THE WORST FINANCIAL CRISIS OF OUR LIFETIME Professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University Steve Hanke says this could be the biggest oil crisis in modern history, hitting oil, fertilizer, and key supply chains all at once. Prices are already rising, and that pressure will quickly spread into food, tech, and everyday costs. Even if things reopen fast, supply chains don’t reset overnight, the damage lingers. The bigger problem is timing. The global economy was already slowing before this started, so this crisis is hitting at the worst possible moment. And if this escalates, @steve_hanke warns it could be far worse than the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. 00:01 - A Catastrophic Outlook: The Biggest Oil Crisis in History 00:13 - The Death of Sanctions: Economic Survival vs. Political Stance 00:22 - Why Escalation Favors Iran’s Strategic Position 00:36 - Unintended Consequences: The War’s Hit to the Global Economy 12:45 - Comparing the Current Collapse to the 2008 Financial Crisis 24:12 - The Strategic Advantage: How Russia Wins from an Elongated War 35:50 - Inflationary Pressures and the Death of the Consumer 41:18 - Energy Infrastructure Vulnerability and Market Panic 44:30 - The Inevitability of a Global Economic Realignment 47:21 - Final Assessment: Why We Are Entering a Decade of Chaos
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario and the Professor discuss the scale and spread of the current oil and energy shock and its broad economic and geopolitical ripple effects.
- Severity and scope: The Professor calls the crisis “pretty catastrophic,” possibly the biggest oil crisis experienced, potentially surpassing the 1970s shocks. He notes a gap between Washington rhetoric and underlying economic reality and emphasizes the war’s effects beyond oil, including fertilizer and helium, all of which pass through the Strait of Hormuz or related chokepoints.
- U.S. economic backdrop (before the war): The Professor provides a pre-war table:
- U.S. GDP growth in 2024 was 2.3%, 2025 about the same after a dip in 2024 to 2.2%.
- Jobs: 2024 added 2.2 million; 2025 added 185,000, with tariffs contributing to a manufacturing job loss of 108,000.
- Productivity declined from 3% to 2.1% in 2025.
- He argues the U.S. economy was already slowing and that the war exacerbates existing weaknesses rather than creating a boom.
- Immediate physical and downstream effects:
- The closure of the Strait of Hormuz affects more than oil: up to 20% of world oil, a third of fertilizer, and helium used in chip manufacturing (notably in Taiwan) pass through the strait.
- The closure’s ripple effects include fertilizer shortages and higher prices (fertilizer up about 50%), and broader supply chain dislocations as related infrastructure and inventories (oil, fertilizers, helium) become depleted and must be rebuilt.
- Relative impact by region: The U.S. is more insulated from physical shocks than many others, but financial markets (stocks and bonds) are hit, with higher interest rates and a rising 10- and 30-year bond yield. Europe and Asia face larger direct physical disruptions; India, Taiwan, and others bear notable hits due to fertilizer and helium supply constraints.
- Global energy and political dynamics:
- The U.S. remains a net importer of oil, though it is a net exporter of petroleum products; fertilizer reliance and pricing reflect broader global constraints.
- The professor highlights the political costs: protectionism (tariffs), militarism (increased defense spending and involvement), and interventionism (policy actions). He notes polling is negative on these directions, suggesting policy headwinds for the administration.
- The escalation and motivations for war:
- A theory discussed is that the war was driven by a belief in decapitating Iran’s leadership to force regime change, a strategy the professor says many experts have warned against. He cites New York Times reporting that Mossad and Netanyahu supported decapitation, but that former Mossad leadership and U.S. intelligence warned it would not work; the escalation suggests a divergence between theory and outcome.
- He acknowledges another view that controlling Hormuz could economically benefit the U.S., but ranks it as a lesser driver than regime-change objectives.
- Possible outcomes and scenarios:
- If the Houthis control the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and the Beber/Mendeb is blocked, the consequences would intensify; the professor describes a “freeway turned into a toll road” scenario in Hormuz and greater disruption in the Gulf, including potential attacks on desalination plants.
- The economic signaling would likely worsen: downward revisions to growth, higher import prices, and increased financial market strain; a prolonged closure would intensify these effects.
- The escalation ladder and endgame:
- The professor warns that escalating with boots on the ground would favor Iran and could trigger widespread disruption of Gulf infrastructure, desalination, and regional stability. He suggests Russia would be a clear beneficiary in such a scenario.
- He concludes with a stark warning: if Hormuz and the Beber/Mendeb remain closed, and desalination and critical infrastructure are attacked, the situation could resemble or exceed the scale of the 2008 financial crisis—“look like a birthday party” compared with what could unfold.
- Overall takeaway: The crisis is multi-faceted, with immediate physical shortages (oil, fertilizer, helium) and cascading financial and political costs. The duration and depth depend on how long chokepoints stay closed and whether escalation occurs, with the potential for severe global economic and geopolitical consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How bad is this? This is
Speaker 1: pretty catastrophic. Maybe the biggest oil crisis that we have experienced. This was just a huge collapse. We're going to start seeing appeal back of the sanctions.
Speaker 0: They're not being put in a dustbin because they don't work or we've changed our stance. We have no choice because this is how bad the economy is.
Speaker 1: Iran is favored by the escalation. It would make the two thousand eight great financial crisis look like a birthday party.
Speaker 0: What I'm really keen to understand now is the repercussions, the unintended consequences of this war, and that's really hitting the global economy. So maybe we start off with a a broad question, if you don't mind, is how bad is this?
Speaker 1: I I tend to agree with the director of the International Energy Agency in Paris that this this is pretty catastrophic. May maybe the maybe the biggest oil crisis that we have experienced. Now that would include the nineteen seventy three Yom Kippur war oil crisis as well as the OPEC blockage in 1979. So it's it's pretty big. And if we sit, I think, Mario, it's a good idea to kind of set the table a little bit, to to say where where we are when this thing started because there's a great deal of difference between the rhetoric that comes out of Washington and and and other places, and it's repeated in the press and reality.
There's there's a lot of spin when it comes to the economy. So let's let's talk about The US economy, of course, the largest economy in the world. And if you look at gross domestic product, in 2024, the the rate of growth was 2.3%. Then it actually dropped down last year. It was 2.2%.
But that's kind of a normal range. That's kind of the potential of The US economy. But it's not the hype you get in Washington where they say the boom is coming, AI is gonna revolutionize everything, and so forth and so on. The the the Silicon Valley types give a give us numbers that are, like, five or 6%. So it's it's nothing like that.
Forget the spin. We're we're kind of in a normal range. And this year, I should say last year, 2025, was about the same as 2024. Not not quite as good, but more or less the same. Then we move to the jobs picture in The United States.
And in 2024, 2,200,000 jobs were added to the labor force. And last year, 2025, there were only a 185,000. And and this this was just a huge collapse, mainly because of the tariffs that were being put being imposed by The United States. So and and and if we look at tariffs, remember, the tariffs being imposed were supposed to add the manufacturing jobs. Actually, last year, we lost a 108,000 manufacturing jobs.
So the tariffs didn't do their trick. They did what tariffs always do. They they destroyed jobs. Now the third thing to set the table, if we look at productivity in The United States, it dropped in 2025 from 3% per year to 2.1% per year in 2025. So so that's setting the table.
It it the war started, the the US Israeli war on Iran, things were slowing down. There there was some weakness that Forget the spin doctor. So that's another reason why I think the effect of the war and and the functional the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz is really what we're talking about specifically, will be tremendous. And it's not only the oil. The the the first headlines came out, and they said, well, 20% of the world's oil comes out of the Strait Of Hormuz.
This is gonna send the price of oil up, which it did, and it will send the price of all the derivative products that are produced by oil. It'll send those up, and and that was kind of the end of the story. And then they then they said, oh, we have about a third of the world's fertilizer comes through the Strait. Yeah. That was the next headline.
So so that will be very damaging because it's planting season in in in Northern Hemisphere, and you need fertilizer right now. Fertilizer's in short supply, and the price has gone up, by the way, about 50%. So it's a big hit for farmers. And then and then they said, oh, another thing. Helium comes through the straight.
And and helium is used to produce chips. So so there's a big hit, particularly in Taiwan where they produce a lot of chips. So the the the general thing, Mario, is when we set the table before the war, things were not really what the rhetoric was giving us. It it it it was it was slowing down and troubles were developing. There there were storm clouds on the horizon.
Let's put it that way. Then the war starts, and all of a sudden, you get all these things that are key coming through the straight, and they're not coming anymore. So the this is this is a a big negative on the economy because it'll ripple through the economy, and it it will ripple through even if the straight was opened up tomorrow, Mario. The these things would linger. They they just don't you it isn't like turning a switch on and a light on, off, on, off.
No. It it ripples through the economy and and and causes a lot of damage and consequences going forward. Now there is one good thing. One one good unintended consequence. Well, where where do you get oil?
And where do you get fertilizer? And where do you get helium? Well, you get it in Russia. And and and so what's happened is that an ill founded policy of sanctions on Russia, something that I'm totally against all sanctions, by the way, I'm I'm opposed to them. They they they they interfere with trade and create all kinds of cost and unintended consequences, and and they don't work, by the way.
We we know the history of sanctions. Sanctions almost never work and and create a lot of cost and a lot of blowback. But as a result of the war that's going on in in now in in Iran, it looks to me like we're going to start seeing appeal back of the sanctions, which is good. I mean, there's there's there are all these negative consequences, Mary, but there there are a few positives. And one thing in my book is that the sanctions look like they're going to be put in the dustbin, at least for a while.
Speaker 0: Yeah. First, the sanctions are being put in the dustbin, not for a good reason. They're not being put in the dustbin because they don't work, or we've changed our our stance on whether sanctions should be weaponized. They're being lifted or put in the in the in the dustbin because we have no choice because this is how bad the economy is. We've listed lifted sanctions not only off Russia, but also off Iranian oil.
And I I think you've you've you've mentioned two really two important points, professor. Number one is it's not just oil. It is oil. It is fertilizer. It is helium.
Helium's used for the chips manufactured in Taiwan that is essentially powering the boom that we've seen over the last few years mainly by beyond just AI. Everything we use, pretty much any device we have in mind has those microchips, and 30 to 33% of that helium comes out of the Strait Of Hormuz. And not only is the Strait closed, but the facilities, the infrastructure is being damaged through the attacks like what we saw in the gas field in in Iran, the gas fields in Qatar, the aluminum plant in in Abu Dhabi a couple of days ago, and the list goes on. Obviously, the oil infrastructure throughout the region as well. And the second thing which is important is that it's not very easy to switch on or off when you open the Strait Of Hormuz.
And I want you to explain that because when you damage a facility, it's understandable. It could take months, even years to rebuild it. But it's not only that. Just the opening of the Strait Of Hormuz and getting all of the production going again is not as easy as people would like it to be. And this is something this is why even if the war ends now, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this, the damage is already done.
The question is not if the damage will be reversed, it's how deep that damage will be.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, you're exactly right, Mario. And and and the reason why, we're we're talking about the the physical world. All all these things are physical that we're talking about. And and you've just, all of a sudden, remove those physical objects from the supply chain, and there's kind of a gap there. And and even if things open up, well, you you've you've you've gotta refill the inventory.
Yeah. And and it and and it takes time to do that. So not only you have to accommodate, shall we say, normal demands that are in the system, but we're talking about refilling all kinds of inventories, the fertilizer inventory, the oil inventory, the helium inventory. They're inventories of these things, and those those have been depleted as a result of the closure.
Speaker 0: What's funny is that the biggest suppliers of oil, number one is The United States. The biggest supplier of helium, by far, number one is The United States. And the biggest suppliers of fertilizer are China, Russia, India, and The United States. But the most concerning ones right now are the oil and the helium. So it looks like the is it fair to say the The US economy could end up doing well after all this as more economies depend on American supply, especially in Europe?
And the countries that end up suffering are the ones that have depended on globalization for all these years to depend on other sources for their oil, for their healing, for their energy. That's Europe. That's Asia. American allies in Europe and Asia. Is that true?
Speaker 1: Well, when you look at the incidence of the damage, it it it and on these physical issues that you're talking about, the The US will be more insulated from the damage than will be many of the other countries. I mean, the big hits are obviously in Asia. India will take a big hit on fertilizer. Taiwan will take a big hit on helium. India will also take not there there are workarounds because although India has taken a hit on on oil, the the hit was originally because of sanctions and tariffs that were put on India by The United States.
Now that that reduced the reliance of importation from Russia, but now importation of Russia is is zoomed up again because the sanctions have been lifted for for oil in India. So it it it's a little bit of a complicated picture. It it hits everybody, but your your general point is correct. And that is the The US is more insulated than other countries. Now you have to be careful about oil, by the way.
A lot of the the rhetoric about oil is that The US is independent. It's it's exporting more oil than it's importing. That's not true. If you look at oil itself, we we are a net importer. We are importing oil net.
But if you look at petroleum products, the everything produced by oil and so forth, we're net net exporter. So so even even that gets a little bit tricky. But, anyway, your your general point is correct. The US the The US is going to suffer less on these physical things, but you you have to look at the financial things. If you if you start adding up money, where's the capital market of the world?
It's The United States, but but it's by far. And what's being hit? The stock market's being hit. So that's now it's not only Americans that own stocks that are traded in the New York Stock Exchange, for example. Foreigners obviously own a lot of the stocks too.
But those capital values are coming down. And last week, we saw the bond market, the bond vigilantes came out in full force and drove the price of bonds down, and that means the interest rate on bonds goes up. We we have the 30 bond area at at at 5% again. And and and the ten year bond, which is the the critical one that all prices are geared on, is is gone up to 4.4%. So that's the those are those are costs that are incurred too, not not just the the physical things.
By the way, you you said that The US is a net exporter of fertilizer, but we we we have big fertilizer problems in The United States. Because remember, even if you're exporting it and the the price has gone up. So if you're from Iowa, where I'm from, you're you're paying a lot more for fertilizer this planting season, assuming you didn't buy it ahead of time, which, by the way, most of the farmers didn't. They've been in a little bit of a tight squeeze. Often, buy input seed and fertilizer prior to a year year in advance of planting.
Well, this year, they they they didn't. So so they're buying it basically not forward, but buying it on the spot market. And the spot
Speaker 0: market of the is that because of the high prices?
Speaker 1: No. The it's
Speaker 0: because supply the or what?
Speaker 1: The the farmers that go this is setting the table again. Remember when we set the table with the GDP productivity and all that stuff? Setting the table on farmers is they they were in bad shape prior to the war financially. They they were getting squeezed. So as a result, they they didn't do what they often do, and that's buy their inputs forward, buy buy them a year in advance.
Speaker 0: Wow. So they did that. They did that even before the crisis we're facing right now.
Speaker 1: Yes. So that's that's the setting of the table thing that I think is very important for people to understand. You always have to see what the situation was before the event actually occurred, and the event is the war. And then you look at what well, what's happened after the event? Well, they the farmers started from a a, shall we say, a bad situation before the war, and now it's just being made worse.
Alright. So And and by the way, with the farmers, there is one thing we have to talk about, diesel. Diesel fuel. Diesel fuel is big big time. So you have two huge inputs in the planting season that is just right around the corner in in the Northern Hemisphere.
And the two two big inputs that have gone way up in price, diesel and fertilizer.
Speaker 0: So how long do you think it will be before the consumer feels the pain from this war?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the because I think
Speaker 0: that's an important indicator of how long this war will last, of how much when Trump will face enough pressure to be forced to concede.
Speaker 1: I I think the the there's kind of a a one two punch going on here. One are Trump's tariffs, and and they're starting to feel the effect of those. The February import prices came out at much higher than the consensus forecast, by the way. Those just came out last week. So import prices have already come up, and and and and now we have on top of that the war.
And and the war will elevate those even further because as I said, we we're actually a net importer of oil Yeah. By the way. And and so it it it's in the pipeline. It's coming it's coming down the track. And I think the the key thing here for for Trump is is a political cost.
We're talking about, first, these physical economic costs, fertilizer, oil, helium, and so forth. Then then we talked about the financial costs, the stock market going down, and and the bond market going down. And and now we we were talking about a third aspect, and that's the political cost of this. Yeah. That that's something that's very important that you just brought up.
And I think the political cost will be significant because if you look at agriculture, you've got those farm states, and and and they tend to be Trump supporters. They voted for Trump the last election and the Republicans. I I don't think things are looking good for the Republicans in the by election. We we have very negative readings, by the way, on Trump's tariffs, on the war, and and industrial policy in general and the intervention of Washington DC and the politicization of economic life. So so we have three three big three big things that the administration has embraced.
One is protectionism, and that's the tariffs. Okay? Two is militarism, and that's not only the war. But remember, Trump wants to increase he's he wants a supplemental budget increase for the war of 200,000,000,000 to 600,000,000,000, and he wants to increase the Department of Defense's budget from a little over 1,000,000,000,000 to 1,500,000,000,000.0. And three, we we have interventionism.
So we have protectionism, militarism, and then interventionism. Those are all things that are being embraced by the administration. But if you look at the polling numbers, they're they're all very negative on all three of those things. And and by the way, from an economic point of view, all three of those are are bad. Protectionism doesn't doesn't create a boom.
Militarism doesn't create a boom, and interventionism doesn't create a boom. They're all drags on the economy. So so, again, this this is the difference, I think, Mario, between rhetoric and spin and reality.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you about a theory that I was discussing previously in an interview. I've been struggling to understand why. Why Trump got into this war, someone who's pride himself on being the peace president trying to end wars. How could how could that same president get The US into its biggest war in decades? One that might involve troops on the ground by the looks of it.
So one of the theories that was mentioned to me by a trader, he goes, Mario, the main reason is not only America's strategic benefit in terms of controlling the energy flowing to China, but also increasing global dependence on American energy, especially gas. And Europe is the best example. Europe was dependent on Russia. That got cut off. Well, it became dependent on the Strait Of Hormuz.
That got cut off now, and Asia is also dependent on the Strait Of Hormuz that is being cut off. Is that from an economic perspective, how much can The US benefit from this war through the energy exports, filling that gap that has been left by the closure of the straits?
Speaker 1: It it let let's put it this way. If if if I had a column of things listed, I'd put a plus behind that that item. That that that that row would get a would get a plus. But I I don't think that that's I don't think that is as much to do with why we entered the war. Why why we entered the war, as it turns out, is a very interesting thing.
And the New York Times actually covered this in quite some detail about ten days ago rough roughly ten days ago. And that is that the the Mossad in Israel and the the new chief of the Mossad convinced Netanyahu who's who's wanted to go to war for for a long time, but but he convinced the Mossad convinced Netanyahu and ultimately, obviously, Trump that a decapitation of the leadership in Iran would would bring Iran's regime down within several days or may maybe a week. That that it would create chaos. There'd be Iranians in the street, and and and and it it would be like 1979 when they got rid of the shah. So that that that's where it came from.
And and it was basically, it's proven to be a strategic error by the Mossad. They they should have read all the scholarly literature shows us that regime changes very rarely work. Lindsey O'Rourke, has published a a great book a few years ago. Cornell University Press published it on the the covert route regime changes. And there have been about 70 of those that have been used by The United States since World War two, and and almost none of them have ever amounted to a regime change itself.
And and the ones that have resulted in regime change have ended up being a complete disaster. I mean, just look at Libya. Look look look look at Iraq and so forth and so on. You just go down the list. So so that's where it came from.
And what's interesting is that the prior chief of Mossad has indicated that the Mossad was was against this. They they said it would never work. So this is this has been a recent change in the head of Mossad and the recommendations by Mossad. Now if you look at The United States, the deep state, the intelligence community, as well as the defense department were were recommending to Trump, this this is not gonna work. They they were they were exactly saying the same thing that the old Mossad chief was saying, that this was not gonna work.
Well, it turns out it it didn't work. And now we're on the escalation ladder. And and as you mentioned, Mario, this this this could be really very nasty. You get US troops on the ground, and this thing will go way up the escalation ladder.
Speaker 0: This is why I refuse to believe this is the reason. I just don't think Mossad could trick the US administration so easily. You know, I've been proven wrong many times before and I could be wrong here. But you've you've said something interesting when I first started speaking. You said you'd put a plus next to that theory.
So what you mean is that from an economic perspective, maybe not to get into the war as you've said, but maybe to prolong the war and do whatever it takes to get control of the Strait Of Hormuz even if it leads the straits to be closed for weeks or months, isn't America's interests in some ways in terms of energy exports and dependence on American energy or not?
Speaker 1: Well, in a very narrow sense perhaps, but you you said an interesting thing. You you you indicated that this would be successful, that we'd get control of the strayer Hermes. I think the probability of that's pro probably about 20%. What what what's going to happen, I think, we will see a freeway turned into a toll road in the Strait Of Hormuz. And and don't forget, we're not just talking about that.
There are other things that you have to look about. Look at look. The the Houthis de facto have control over the Red Sea entrance, and and and that means the Suez Canal. And and and it looks to me like the strategy of the Iranians is this Muhammad Ali rope a dub strategy. Remember, in Kinshasa, world champion, George Foreman, huge guy, who came in and beat the pants off of Muhammad Ali.
Ali stayed on the ropes and took the damage, took the punches until Foreman exhausted himself, and then he and then he Ali landed a knockout blow. And and we might be entering that kind of situation now because the Hooties have just opened up again. So we don't we don't know exactly what they're going to do. They've been very quiet for a couple months. Yeah.
But Yeah. They've just they've just announced 24 yesterday. There there are eight choke points in the world. There are eight key choke points for these physical commodities, and and two of them happen to be one, the Strait Of Hormuz that that is now controlled by Iran, and I think will remain controlled by Iran in all probability, and the Red Sea that's controlled by the Houthis that will, in all probability, remain in the control of the Hooties.
Speaker 0: Alright. So if we go down if we go down to the path that this will continue for the foreseeable future, and if it remains in the current status quo that we have right now with the straight Of Hormuz is practically closed, putting the Beb and Mendeb straight, so the Red Sea aside, just the Shreto Hormuz, if that alone remains closed for, let's say, another another month, what happens to the global economy?
Speaker 1: It it takes a a bigger hit. There's no question about it. The sharp pencil numbers, no one really knows. I mean, there are all kinds of estimates all over the place. But if if you're trading, for example, all you have to know, Mario, is whether something's gonna go up or go down.
And and as a as an old trader and as an economist, I can say that the the revisions and the projections about growth will be revising down. The longer this goes on, the revisions will be done. And, of course, the Iranians know that. And and remember, it's just not the economic cost. It's a political cost, Mario.
The longer this goes on, the the the the greater the cost will be on Trump and the republic.
Speaker 0: What what is why haven't they so why do you think so first, do you think that Trump is seeking an off ramp right now? Because all the economic indicators that Trump's administration also have access to access to, they're screaming for help. You've got the voter base. This was not popular within the voter base either, and things on the ground are not going well. Is there enough now for Trump to say, alright.
I'm done with this. Pack the bags. We've we've we've we've gave it a shot. It failed. Twist it into a a win for his audience, but just end the war?
Speaker 1: I I I I think he would love to do that. He he he he certainly knows he's boxed in a corner. He he has no good options. And I I think finding an exit ramp quickly and forgetting the escalation ladder is the way to go. He he he can say, we accomplished our objectives with with whatever they were.
No one knows, by the way, what the objectives are. They keep saying they're ahead of schedule, but no one knows what's on the schedule because no one knows what the objectives are. Because there was one objective, and the objective was given to Trump via via the Mossad in Israel, and that was decapitate and the thing will collapse in a few days. That that was the objective. Regime change was the objective.
And now they're scrambling around trying to make up new new objectives every day. Even even even when Trump talks in one speech, he can he can change objectives over and over again, many of them being inconsistent. So he's in a he's in a very bad spot. And and I think what you suggest, which I would agree, he he should just say, we won and and and walk away from it. But I I think he's in a corner, and it it appears like he's he's he's he's gonna throw a hail Mary pass.
And and some sometimes when people are in a corner, they throw a Hail Mary pass and and and he would go up the escalation ladder. And and by the way, the the best book that's ever been written on this has been written by an economist, a good friend of mine, William l Silber. I have it right here. That that's what people do when they're in a corner. And and it's and as Silber says, it's very dangerous with a with a very low probability of winning.
How many Hail Mary passes have you seen in a football game that ended up with a touchdown or a completion? Not not very many. They're they're low probability events, and it looks like Trump has has taken that approach. It it it looks like he's gonna climb up the escalation ladder and put boots on the ground. Now if that happens, by the way, it's very clear to me that the Iranians forget the height.
They have plenty of firepower left. And and what will they do? They'll probably knock out the desolonization plants in the Gulf, and and that and that's the end of The Gulf. That that that means when you when you say you you wanna know what the duration of this thing this this is a key question you're asking. You you wanna know the magnitude of the cost, the economic cost, the financial cost, the political cost.
What's the duration of all this stuff? Well, I'll tell you something. If you go up the escalation ladder and put boots on the ground, you are going to find out with with the fury that Iranians will attack The Gulf, and and and that will be main mainly Professor. Unprotected desolinization plants. And you have in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, you've got about 90% of all the water is desolonization.
Speaker 0: Exactly. But this is professor, this is why I'm struggling to understand. This is why it is not making sense. Like, there's obviously people dis some people dislike Trump. He's like, the guy's gone crazy.
He's lost his mind. No. I still think he's a very astute businessman even though he's about to turn 80. He's and more importantly, he's got very smart people around him. Okay?
People that hate the administration could criticize what I've just said, but I'm trying to be factual. So I think there should be a better explanation, either something we don't know or maybe economically something we don't know. Because every economist I've spoken to as well is just telling me, Murray, this is this is a crisis of epic proportions worse than the seventies oil crisis that we've seen already worse than the oil crisis we saw in the seventies. What we've gone through the numbers me and you now or what that you've gone through is the amount of helium, the amount of fertilizers, and obviously, the amount of oil, twenty, thirty, 30% that comes out of the Strait Of Hormuz. And then now we're talking about having ground troops, you've just talked about The Gulf, which pride themselves on security.
That's what they built their whole reputation on getting struck on a daily basis. And then if their desalination plants get struck, we're talking about a potentially existential threat. So then I look at all this professor, and, like, what is what is the end game here? Is there something are they playing, you know, four d chess? Is there something we may be missing?
Is there a benefit for The US in continuing the war? Maybe is there a higher likelihood to seize the Strait Of Hormuz, and what would that mean for the American economy in terms of leverage over Asia and China by controlling the Strait Of Hormuz? I I I don't know. I know I'm just trying to I mean, I'm fishing for something here, but I'm I'm it's a it's a war that's getting to me because I'm not able to make sense of it.
Speaker 1: Well, number one, you you you touched on a couple of things. Well, let me let me say when it comes to The Gulf, I I actually do know a little bit about it because I was on financial advisory council of the UAE for six years, and I I was also a board member an international board member of the National Bank of Kuwait. So I've been around there, and I have a fairly good idea of how things operate. I'd love your I'd
Speaker 0: love your insight there. I live in The UAE, so I'd love to know more about it.
Speaker 1: And and and and my friends in The UAE, by the way, tell me that this this has created literally almost a nightmare for them. And and and and these are industrialists. I mean, one just sent me a note a few days ago when when things were really just started. And he he said, I I've got 24 tons of material that I need on a ship, and I can't I can't find any place even in the in the Arabian Sea to land the thing. So he said Wow.
And his last sentence is, Steve, this is creating a nightmare for me. So so we haven't even talked about the logistical aspects of all of this. So if things would clarify and you flip the switch tomorrow, he my friend still I don't know where the 24 tons of material have been landed. Maybe they're in India or someplace. He's gonna have to fish those back to Dubai.
You see what I mean? There are just all these things going on. But but but but but back to the the the the the point about Trump and and and and the people
Speaker 0: around Sorry. Sorry, professor.
Speaker 1: What they have Sorry to interrupt you.
Speaker 0: I just ask you one more question about the The Emirates, the Gulf Region? I didn't know you've got that much experience and knowledge there. It For me, it just sounds so catastrophic for that region, which are, again, American allies. If this continues, what are those countries going to do? How are they going to survive this?
Speaker 1: Oh, it it it will be a complete a disaster. The the the it it it it will be a a a real negative hit for sure. Look look at the shopping malls in Dubai. The the the sales have collapsed. The sales have collapsed.
The these are just retail sales in shopping malls. So we're we we have industrial enterprises like like my friend. I I said the the 24 tons of material on a ship someplace. God only knows where it is. That's one aspect, but you you have a huge retail business with the the the malls and shopping centers and Dubai alone.
So those will take a big hit because tourism will take a big hit. And and what did tourists do? Well, they go to Dubai and spend a lot of money in the in the malls. So so that's that's them. But let let's come back to Trump and and and and the thinking behind things.
I think I think it's more simple and than you think because I I don't think they have a plan. I don't think they know what the word plan is. You mentioned chess. I I they certainly can't play chess, and and god only knows they can't play go for for sure. So I think they're lost.
They they're winging it. The the Trump is winging it, basically. And and forget about the advisers because the advisers the the intelligence community I indicated, they advised Trump. They said that this isn't gonna work. They they told him this isn't gonna work, but but he was listening to somebody else.
He was listening to what was coming out of the Mossad advisers in Israel and and and went ahead. It it didn't work. And now he he's fishing around for some some rationale to justify what he's doing. And and and it looks like what he's doing is he's going to escalate, which will which will clearly make the thing even worse. It'll it'll increase all the cost immensely because the escalation favors Iran.
Iran is favored by the escalation.
Speaker 0: Alright. So if we go through a scenario where the Houthis close the Babel Mendez the Mendeb Straits, how much worse would things get?
Speaker 1: A lot. Because that means the Suez Canal is closed. So you're just again, if you ask me, Mario, a number, I don't know a number. I haven't count I haven't even made an estimate. But, again, as a as a trader, I I just know it will get worse.
So my bets would be on shorting whatever is gonna get worse. And and by the way, we we did talk about oil. There is one important factor to bring in about the timing. This is your duration, your your interest in timing, which, of course, is the is the is the key $64,000 question. And that is that the the physical shortage of oil is is significant, and the price in the physical spot market is a lot higher than it is on the paper market, the futures market.
And so you've got the spot market up here much higher, by the way, than than the futures market. The futures market and paper market will be mugged by reality, and the reality is what's going on in the physical market. And when they are mugged, the price of those futures is gonna go up to match the physical. The the the gaps don't exist very long, but there's there's usually kind of a lag, and and that lag will be closing. And I think we'll be seeing some of that closure even next week.
Me meaning that the the the the prices we see and that they repeat all the time, those are from the futures market, the $100 oil, that kind of stuff. The and and that will that will be going up towards the physical. The physical has been trading, you know, gas, know, try trading at a 150, 160.
Speaker 0: So I know you see me pause. It's just so I'm just in shock that we're here. I feel like we've we've globalization as an experiment is being questioned right now when things like this happen, when some of the routes that allow this concept to to succeed have just been completely shut off for a reason that I'm still, know, struggling to fully understand. Where is there a level, professor, and I'll ask you to speculate a bit. Is there a level where if we if both straits, the Strait Of Beiber if things get really bad, let's say there's troops on the ground, the Beiber Mendeb Straits closes, the Houthis closed that, and the Shere Hamuz remains closed.
Is there a duration where look. If we get past, let's say, two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, one month, we're talking about an economic collapse or a global financial crisis. I know it's hard to put a number to it, but what would be like a red line for you that if I told you, professor, like, if we went back and chatted in a month in that period of time from now, you'd be in a very you know, a lot more concerned.
Speaker 1: Well, if you did the three things that you just talked about, Mario, we that is the the boot boots on the ground. And and for that that means probably e even even now, by the way, what's going on one thing that hasn't been reported, and this is important, is that, actually, who who who has benefited economically from the from the war in in in the sense of physicals and commerce? It's Iran because they're they're exporting more oil than they were exporting before. The price is a lot higher. The discounts are a lot lower.
So so that that comes into play. Because if you look at the the Iranian real, it's actually appreciated since the war started. It's it's been volatile, but it it's up about 13% against the US dollar since the war started. Now that that's because there there's money coming in because they're selling a lot more oil. Now if boots on the ground, Anner, and and and and mix things up, let's assume that's not gonna happen.
That that that exporting will will stop or be in in short, the strait will be more closed than it is now. I think that would have then you had another thing. You you said the the Red Sea, if that's closed. Well, we're we're getting and then if the counterattack, which will occur, happens with the Iranians knocking out desolonization, we'd we'd talk about a that's a catastrophe for The Gulf. The the desolonization plants is a a total catastrophe.
So so the escalation ladder, this is the Hail Mary pass thing in in Silber's book that I just held up. The the escalation ladder favors Iran, and it it imposes orders of magnitude greater cost on the combatants in in the in the West, the the enemies of Iran and and the rest of the world, by the way, even even friends of Iran or those who are neutral are gonna pay the cost. I I think the the only obvious unambiguous beneficiary would be Russia.
Speaker 0: Russia's yeah. This is a plus
Speaker 1: I mean, Russia just absolutely wins right across the board. There's there there are no negatives coming out. Some of the other countries, you get the columns and you a plus or plus minus and on and on and on. But Russia is just a a whole string of pluses.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So they they they like Iran, they have every reason to want the duration of the war to continue and be elongated.
Speaker 0: So just one more time, I'll ask that and and make it a final question. Where would we be you know, I remember the February. I remember the panic. I I remember what it did to the world. I was very young back then, but I remember what it did to the world.
So I know it's not comparable to what we're going through now. But when would we be in a very similar place, from a significance perspective if this maintains the straights, both of them closed, you could put boots on the ground. Oh, it'd desalination places on.
Speaker 1: It it would it would make the two thousand eight great financial crisis look like a birthday party. It'd be it much more we're talking about something much, much worse than that.
reSee.it AI Summary
I see Malcolm Nance’s view: the U.S. is unprepared for a long Iran war, clinging to high‑tech wins while Iran builds a war of attrition with cheap drones and a potential ground insurgency. The asymmetry of tolerance favors Iran; destroying infrastructure won’t break them. Drones, automation, and attritional warfare could redefine combat, threaten Gulf allies, and strain the world economy, with no quick resolution.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨 🇺🇸 🇮🇷 WHY THE U.S. STRATEGY IN IRAN IS DOOMED How did Iran destroy over $1bn in aircraft in Saudi with drones worth tens of thousands of dollars? How are they keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed? Why are they still able to fire missiles and drones DAILY against Israel and the Gulf, with a higher hit rate? Malcolm Nance breaks down why the U.S. is so unprepared for this war, and learned nothing from the Ukraine Russia warfare He highlights a fundamental "asymmetry of tolerance": while the U.S. relies on expensive technology and has little appetite for high casualties, Iran has spent decades preparing for a war of attrition. From the massive inventory of low-cost Shaheed drones to the potential for a grueling ground insurgency, Nance warns that the U.S. lacks the depth to win a fight that will eventually come down to "rifles and knives." He suggests that Iran’s long-term play isn't just military survival, but a strategic realignment to turn Gulf allies against Washington and end American influence in the region for good. @MalcolmNance 01:00 - This war ends in blood, not strategy. 03:00 - Ukraine turned war into a real industry. 05:30 - One cheap drone can destroy billion-dollar assets. 08:30 - The battlefield just became fully automated. 13:00 - Drones vs drones is the new reality. 16:40 - The U.S. is completely unprepared for this war. 20:30 - America is still fighting the last war mindset. 25:30 - Future invasions could turn into total chaos instantly. 30:00 - This war could take years to recover from. 35:00 - Iran has no real reason to negotiate. 40:30 - Destroying infrastructure won’t break them. 45:30 - The world economy is hanging by a thread. 50:30 - This could spiral into something way bigger. 55:30 - Nobody is ready for how bad this can get.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario and Malcolm discuss the evolving drone warfare landscape and the strategic implications for the United States, Iran, Ukraine, and Gulf states.
Malcolm argues that Iran’s drone arsenal represents a persistent, low-cost threat with an 88,000 Shahid drone inventory at the lowest cost, and mass production estimated at 7,000. He notes Iran has destroyed roughly $5,000,000,000 of technology, underscoring the waste associated with high-value defenses. He contends the conflict “is gonna come down to rifles and knives and drones,” and suggests the U.S. and its allies have limited tolerance for the level of death this entails. He emphasizes the learning curve for anti-Shahid drones, estimating 35 to 45 days to train someone to fly such drones, and notes that combat veterans and Ukrainian international legionnaires could assist with training in Ukraine, Abu Dhabi, and beyond.
They discuss defense markets and training pipelines. Mario recalls speaking with a U.S.-based VC in Ukraine who might be tapped to bolster defense industry interests; Malcolm reiterates that Ukrainian-made, locally developed systems dominate, and that Western companies must avoid partnerships that involve theft of technology. He stresses that Ukrainians own the drone industry, and that the U.S. has historically relied on foreign-made drones for ISR rather than attack, contrasting Ukraine’s trajectory from reconnaissance to drones used for direct attack and artillery fusion.
Malcolm criticizes the U.S. approach to drones, arguing that the U.S. military has not adapted to modern drone warfare and that Ukraine’s battlefield experiences demonstrate rapid adaptation and innovating countermeasures, such as drone drop kits and improvised aerial bombs. He explains the progression: drones used for surveillance evolved into attack platforms, counter-drone tactics, and drone-enabled artillery. He provides detailed examples: using DJI drones for reconnaissance early on, then using drone-based bombing, counter-jamming techniques, and fiber-optic lines to guide munitions. He notes Ukrainian Sea Baby Magura drones and unmanned surface vessels (USVs) that attacked Russian ships, and describes a dramatic incident where a Ukrainian drone disabled a Russian submarine tail by docking behind it and flooding it with explosive force.
The conversation shifts to recent strikes on Gulf-based assets. Mario asks about Zelensky’s visits to the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and why Gulf defense preparedness appeared slow. Malcolm suggests the U.S. misreads regional resilience and that Gulf states will adapt using homegrown drone capabilities, with examples such as Kuwait buying thousands of Ukrainian drones and the UAE potentially building domestic drone factories. He cautions against overreliance on “wonder weapons” and emphasizes practical measures like machine guns, shotguns, and ground-based defenses, noting that 50-caliber weapons and simple tactics can counter Shahid drones if properly deployed. He asserts that the Gulf states will need to supplement their arsenals with practical, scalable training and production rather than expensive foreign capabilities.
Malcolm discusses the strategic logic behind any potential concessions with Iran. He argues that Iran has geography, topography, history, and manpower advantages, and that Donald Trump’s threats to bomb Iran’s infrastructure are unlikely to force concessions. He claims Iran would not negotiate under U.S. pressure and that the Strait of Hormuz (SOH) would remain a focal point of conflict. He contends that Trump’s approach risks escalating toward broader conflict, and that Iran could respond by leveraging the Houthis or other regional proxies to disrupt shipping and Gulf economies, potentially closing the Red Sea and Suez Canal if alignments shift.
They touch on Russia’s role, noting Moscow’s financial and strategic interests in the region. Malcolm argues Putin benefits from the conflict and that Trump’s priorities are tied to accumulating frozen Russian assets and broader political maneuvering, sometimes at odds with the publicized goal of restraining Iran. He observes that Russia’s drones, weapons components, and intelligence could be flowing to Iran, influencing the Gulf theater.
The discussion closes with a broader warning: the war’s consequences will be felt for years or generations, with energy prices, inflation, and global economic disruption, and only a realignment of strategy—embracing distributed defenses, domestic production, and adaptable tactics—will shape outcomes. They acknowledge the difficulty of predicting concessions, the complexity of Gulf politics, and the precarious balance between deterrence and escalation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It seems to me that Trump is seeking enough wrap.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has the pressures of the entire global economic order against him. We killed a million Vietnamese. They did not submit. They won the war. So did the Taliban.
They took every bomb we dropped on them. The Iranians have an 88,000 Shahid drone inventory at the lowest cost, and their mass production is 7,000. They've destroyed maybe an easy $5,000,000,000 of technology.
Speaker 0: Such a massive waste. I know we keep talking about these numbers, but they add up.
Speaker 1: This is gonna come down to rifles and knives and drones. You know why we're gonna fail at this? Because we have no tolerance for that level of death. And by the time this ends, more Americans are gonna die. It takes about thirty five to forty five days to learn to fly an anti Shahid drone.
It is not something they do in a week. So their guys are actually piloting on the Ukrainians. And if they're gonna build and contract, it's gonna take a lot of guys to train them how to fly. So combat veteran Ukrainian international legionnaires who were gonna we've formed a company, and I had a company in Dubai. I mean, in Abu Dhabi, a private security consulting company that we I worked there for ten years all over The Middle East.
And so we're gonna try to get them up and take over some of the training because they're gonna need it. They're gonna need a lot of it. Train everybody in New York?
Speaker 0: Military, I remember speaking to a VC. You might know her, Deborah, can't remember. And she's an American who's a American VC who lives in Ukraine, lived there for many years. Oh, yeah. And she'd be out I'll give her a call.
She'd probably be killing it now. Defense industry in Ukraine. Like, I surprised it took that long, but I would assume demand now would just skyrocket after Iran.
Speaker 1: Demand is different because unlike, like, Iraq and Afghanistan, all these places where you had billions of US defense contractors, You know, one of the biggest things that we saw when I first got to Ukraine and and went in the army, no very few US special forces or seal guys joined. You know, I could probably count them all on two hands in five years because there was no money to be made. No one was paying these guys 1,000 a day or as private bodyguards and things like that. It was $630 a month or nothing. Same thing with defense contractors that, you know, they would come over there and it's like, if it's not Ukrainian made and Ukrainians don't make it and develop it and invest it, there's no money for them.
They all want Ukrainian stuff now. That's the truth.
Speaker 0: Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: The suicide drone thing was sold by Zelensky himself. Like, Qatar, he demanded 12 Mirage 12 Mirage two thousands. You know? So those deals done there. At another level, it's going to be, you know, even the companies that are developing these people the Ukrainians are not gonna want partnerships where they're gonna steal their tech and then start selling it all over the world.
So they're gonna have to be really tight contracts. The Ukrainian government won't allow it, but there are several companies. I mean, I work with a company. It was their any drones were done by, Brits. You know?
And they're in Ukraine, we have people in Ukraine. It's the experience, though. You cannot buy it. You you just cannot buy it. You can say and there are no, you know, no Ukrainian man's allowed to leave the country.
No Ukrainian man's allowed to leave the country. And you gotta stay in the armed forces. So who has on these systems, you're allowed to leave because you're not a Ukrainian, then no one is gonna be offering those stuff. But suicide drone boats in the future, all sorts of things. You know?
Ukrainians own this industry. But the Americans steal it like the Lukas drone. That was a a Ukrainian shot down a shaheed. It landed almost whole. We gave The United States a sample, and they gave it to Eric Trump's company.
And they made a copy of it and are now selling it to the Department of Defense for almost $1,000,000,000. Ukrainians got nothing out of that.
Speaker 0: How, how significant do you think is Zelensky's visit to The UAE and and Saudi and, I think, Qatar? How big of a difference do you think it will make? I'm also surprised. Maybe another question is why did it take them so long? How did they not know?
I was talking to someone who's very supportive of the American military. You might see him on YouTube. He did a video. I forgot his name. He does great videos, and I had him on the show a couple days ago.
I'll tell you his name. I'm sure you'll know people know his YouTube channel as well. And where is he? Ryan Grimm. He's got a channel.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Ryan Grimm's an guy.
Speaker 0: Exactly. And he made a video. He's, like, he's talking about how the the aircrafts in the Saudi US Saudi base got struck by a drone and caused tens of billions of dollars of damage. He's so pissed off about it, he said, like, I don't know how they're just not prepared for this. Like, they've years to prepare, and they haven't prepared for it.
Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Hundreds of millions of dollars. We they struck an e three Sentry, 300,000,000 for one aircraft. Then they damaged two two more aircraft, the e c one thirty Compass Call. That's our psychological warfare aircraft that can literally seize your television channel and your radio channels and rebroadcast what we want on your frequencies.
They were also badly damaged in that attack and k c one thirty five tanker aircraft. Here's the problem that I found with The United States. You know? I mean, I went into the Ukrainian army, you know, for and the only people who the only people who have a problem with that are the Russians. Right?
So went into Ukrainian army. I was in the Kharkiv front, you know, on the front lines, the zero line for, you know, the better part of a year, and we saw how adaptive Ukraine was. The average Ukrainian is a very adaptive, very fast thinker on their feet. And you could see how they were thinking about different tactics, techniques, and procedures based on what's in their face. The United States likes to go through a long bloodletting, then a lot of study, and then it goes to a think tank, you know, like, you know, Center for Naval Analysis or some other group.
And then people will write white papers, and then somebody will say, oh, a drone is a good thing. And they'll have that little r q five handheld drone, you know, which only does surveillance. We went away we when we started the war, as a matter of fact, I was intel intel officer for first battalion international legion, which is the infantry battalion. We used DJI drones. Okay?
Granted for surveillance. Just go out, try to look for the enemy, run the highways, see where obstacles were, see what the lay of the land was across our we had to we had a river that was separating us. The Russians took that one step further. They were using DJI.
Speaker 0: Oh, Drew, you're talking when you were with the Ukrainian military, just to be clear. That's new Ukrainian. Yeah. Exactly.
Speaker 1: No. It was in the Ukrainian army. Right? So the Russians, on the other hand, started flying the exact same DJI drones. Right?
These Mavic threes and and drones. Only they had fused and integrated three different things into their way of fighting. They were always very good at signals intelligence. As you guys can see over my shoulder, I worked at the National Security Agency. Signals intelligence was very important, listening to your enemy, getting enemy signals, identifying, cross referencing where they are through radio direction finding, and then integrating that with your artillery to bombard you.
The Russians were good at visual and signals intelligence, but drones brought in a new dimension, brought in something that could hover over them, literally look at the target, get the latitude and longitude, and then share the difference. Right? Make up the difference between the target and your location, pass that back through a radio. Right? The guy who's sitting there looking at the drone imagery, and they would put that into 01/2022 millimeter mortars.
We had two very regrettable incidents that cost people their lives. One was cell phone clustering. Guys were sitting there with their cell phones at night in their bivouac while guys were out on watch, and their cell phones were being intercepted. And the Russians, boom, blew up one of our houses. We had 16 guys in it, all wounded from cell phones that were not supposed to be on the battlefield.
The second was fusion of drone imagery, right, video surveillance into artillery counter battery fire. That was May, June, July 2022. Right? By August, it started to shift. The Ukrainians had started creating drone drop kits.
Right? I have one actually right here back in where I'm at in New York for my DJI drone. And what is what it was was was a little device that would if you press the lights button on your device, on your drone, it would send an electrical charge and release a little tab. And they gave us a whole bunch of hand grenade and 40 millimeter tail fins, and you would wire those up, especially the 40 millimeter, right, for American m two three twenty grenade launchers. Right?
You had to wire it so they would arm after dropping 40 feet, and then suddenly the drone became a bomber. Right? And I was my one of my buddies who was there was a British drone school pilot. This is all he did in England full time. His name was Macca, king of drones.
And he Macca rigged these things up, and you would fly them, and you could go 2,000, 3,000 feet. And for the first time, you could use your optics to actually fly over a target and release a bomb on it. Right? To the point where we start getting bigger drones and created bomber squadrons. And now this is just common.
The thing between 2002 and 2005 was drone lift. Right? How much capacity that drone could carry. They these octocopters got so big, they would carry two, sometimes three of these Russian tank mines, and they would rig them with a little detonator that would go off. And when they would drop away, it would pull a fuse and it would fall down into a bunker, and it would vaporize these things.
They would they're designed to blow up a 60 ton battle tank. These things were vaporizing Russian positions, and that's where you got to where we are now. Once we got drones up there, the Russians started running drones. Then electronic warfare started kicking in. We were jamming these things.
We had to get a counter jamming technique, and that was to put the drone on a a hair thin fiber optic cable to where you could know electronic warfare could stop you now. And the Russians had good electronic warfare. And it would fly out and you would still have your optical and, you know, your visual on your target, and then you could still drop bombs on top of them. Then the Russians started doing it. And so many of these fiber optic drones were flying by the thousands and thousands.
There's villages that are covered like cobweb with fiber optic cable. You can go Google it. Yeah. I've seen this.
Speaker 0: I've seen this. It's the same.
Speaker 1: So we are at the advent of how do you kill the fire fiber optic cable? How do you get the enemy's drone to, you know, nullify itself or explode? And now we're in the advent of drones carrying lasers. But the step now before you can get to that is drones killing drones, hunter killers. Right?
Going up and taking out Shahid drones, which are just, you know, mopeds with bombs on the front of them. And we have these vampire interceptor drones, which are high speed that'll go up and kill it. But we've also used regular ass drones to kill helicopters. We have killed propeller driven aircraft with them by just flying up and smashing into their wings. Or in one great instance, there was a a a propeller driven plane that was flying doing resupply on the the Kharkiv front.
The drone flew right into the aircraft, and you see the face of the crew chief guy who's there, and it goes over his shoulder and explodes. Right? They shoot down aircraft with optically guided drones now, fiber optic drones.
Speaker 0: So how long they shot that that drone I've seen that drone. It's it's it's incredible. Since this is recorded, we'll put the footage on top. Essentially, it's just a drone that kinda propels itself directly onto a Shahed drone interceptor. It's just a very cheap way of doing it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But it doesn't go in a straight line. I mean, that drone is insanely maneuverable. We're talking about the vampire drones. Because it has four quads, and then it it can maneuver up, down, left, right, along, you know, all four of the gimbal axes.
Right? And the pilot can it's very fast. Right? It's a hundred, hundred and fifty miles per hour fast. You know?
That's like pushing 200 kilometers per hour in some of these counter drones. But as the Shahid comes, you have to it it's not all visual. Right? You have to have a radar. You have to have a visual identifier.
You could even have and this is what we were talking about with Iran. Right? Kids with cell phones. That's how the Somalis got us in, you know, in Somalia during the, you know, the Black Hawk Down incident. They use cell phones as acoustic detection systems.
And if you have 10 kids arrayed along a 90 degree arc, right, on a map and kid, you know, Mohammed Joe, you know, comes here and raises his phone, and he says, oh, I've got a helicopter. I've got a drone. I've got an airplane on this bearing. The Ukrainians developed this in the first year of the war. We had shifted by 2025 into creating a whole series of drones in Ukraine.
The one that surprised, I think, everyone the most was the Magura drones, what they call the Sea Baby. These were high speed craft that were out there attacking Russian ships directly in swarms. Two or three at a time, one would hit a target, the other would film the attack, and then go out and hit the target too. Then we start seeing modifications where the this the, you know, USVs or what we call them. Right?
The unmanned surface vessels were starting to become even more highly modified where they would carry they shot down a Russian helicopter, an m I 25 helicopter, using a surface to air missile that they had rigged onto the drone itself.
Speaker 0: That's crazy.
Speaker 1: The helicopter that came after them and shot it down. Then the drone went off to blow up a ship target. We had some of them are so low observable. The most amazing one is that, you know, the Ukrainian Navy has sunk a Russian submarine in harbor in in in a in one of the Black Sea fleet ports Black Sea fleet ports. And what it did, it came in at night and was so low observable, semi submerged, came into the harbor at, like, one or two knots, came behind the submarine's propeller, and anchored itself between the pier wall and the submarine behind its propeller and then blew up so that the pier wall actually, we call it tamping.
Tamp the explosive and pushed all the explosive force into the submarine. It blew the entire tail off that submarine. Alright? That right there, that's a, you know, a $100,000,000
Speaker 0: How how so what I'm just fascinated by is that Ukraine, from what I understand, did share all that intelligence with the with NATO, including the American army. So why is The US so unprepared, including the rest of the Gulf nations? Why is for such a massive war, they've had years to prepare and and the YouTuber I talked about, the the the former intelligence, he he Right. He was expressing that same concern. Like, there there was so much that could have been done to prevent the attack on that base in in Saudi that caused hundreds of millions of damage.
It just perplexes me.
Speaker 1: Well, principally because we're fighting the last war, and the last war was a an alternatively asymmetric war. That means The United States had so much overwhelming power that it in itself was sort of a a form of Judah. No one could ever stand up to you. And what that brings with you, and I talk about this all the time in my substack briefings every morning, we have and when I say we, this is the entirety of The United States, have a contempt for foreign cultures, foreign languages, other tactics, techniques, procedures, peoples that are different from us. And our own technically military superiority makes us blind to the other asymmetries.
That's where other people can use our strengths as a form of judo and flip us. We were in the I mean, in the Ukrainian army, again, I when I was can't even remember how old I was. In Desert Storm in 1991, when I moved from my ship that hit a seamine, the USS Tripoli, over to the USS Missouri, I was part of a team that was watching and identifying Iraqi positions with the first major real time drone The United States was using, which was called the Pioneer drone. It was an Israeli aircraft, twin booms. We'd launch it off the back of the battleship.
We would go out. We would look at targets, and the 16 inch guns would shoot at it, or we would identify positions that we wanna shoot at later. That in itself was harnessing, you know, an advanced technology for something using for guns from World War two. Right? So as time progressed, America got stuck in that rut of drones were for surveillance.
Our drones originally started as attack aircraft in World War two. As a matter of fact, you know, president John f Kennedy's brother was killed. Joseph Kennedy was killed piloting one of the first drones, a b 17 that was going to carry out an attack on Germany. He got out of the plane. He was supposed to parachute out of the plane and, you know, just let it take off.
Before he could get out of the plane, the plane blew up through some accident. But that was 1944. Now we've gone back to as the American mindset of drones being part of the ISR package, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. Whereas in Ukraine, it started out with intelligence and surveillance. It started out with reconnaissance and quickly moved to attack.
Right? Fusion between artillery and the drone. Then the drone itself became an independent bomber system. Right? Where we just tootle up to a guy, drop a Russian f one or an American m 67 grenade down on the guy, and watch him blow up.
Now it has replaced mortars and artillery as the number one killer on the battlefield. Because like the movie Terminator, they're we called them h k's. Right? Hunter killers. Droves that would go out and we would hunt for positions, and we blasted so many positions and tanks to the way that we completely transformed armor warfare, then it started going after the individual soldier one at a time.
The problem with the US army is they do not adapt. And in this current US army under Pete Hagsef, which I you know, it's like the, you know, the the triumph of the stupid. These are people who believe our absolute military supremacy can never be challenged on any level. But we all saw trouble coming during the anniversary US Army's anniversary parade, Trump's birthday parade in what was that? April when the US Army advanced ISR teams out there had a handheld drone, and it wouldn't allow him to fly it.
He stood there, walked down the parade route, holding it in his hand. I remember tweeting, this man will be the most ridiculed person in every army in the world. And by the next day, he was. I mean, everybody was saying this is America's vaunted drone defense and drone capability. Drones now are hand grenades, bro.
I mean, you you have a little FPV drone. You power it on. You put goggles on. You throw it. And then now you guide it to your enemy, and you kill somebody that may be twenty, thirty meters from you.
Right? Not forty, fifty kilometers. We have plenty of drones that can do that. So America has never adapted. And here's what I fear, Mario, because I know you've had a lot of pundits on this last few weeks who who all think they know it everything.
Right? But as I like to say to your to your audience, I have lived these experiences. Everything I give you is not projection. Okay? I've been attacked by drones.
I've been mortally terrified by having drones come over our position and not detect our position. You know, when you hear them, first thing you do is freeze. You start thinking about how to shoot it, then you realize you don't have a shotgun. Let me tell you. It's I I preferred being bombarded by Russian artillery and rockets because I could tell when they were coming, and I can tell whether they were gonna hit or not.
Right? Drones, you think it goes by, you and then you're like, okay. Move. And that thing's actually looking at you just waiting to turn around and come back to you. So it's more.
And you it's a jitter. It could be five, ten kilometers away, and you think you're safe. Alright? And then it comes back for you. So The United States has not adapted to this.
And if we go into ground warfare in in in in Iran, whether it's against the Rev Garg, the Basji, or whatever, I constantly say this. There are kids out there who are young, adaptive, and are already masters of flying drones for the Basaji or for the IRGC. We saw a photo of a position on Karg Island that was dug into the sand, which is good. Because when you're in the sand, they can't see your thermal signature. And he had two drones, an a k 47, and, like, you know, six magazines.
It was the two drones that are the most lethal thing that he has. Because you could send it up for ISR, right, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and sit back in this little fighting pit and send it up there and look around at the area. And if you you don't have to wait for soldiers to come on the ground. If a landing craft is coming or an LCAP, right, a a hovercraft is coming at you, you can do what we do in Ukraine. One of the tactic one of our favorite tactics, right, is where you wait on the road, ground loiter.
You land the drone in a fixed position, like, behind a bush or something, and you know it's on the road or in the middle of the road. And when the target comes, you just raise up a foot, and he runs into you and you explode, or you lay on the road and let it explode or take off and fly around and come back and strike him. I want you to visualize this. We use Osprey special operations helicopters flying from Jordan or someplace that take off like an helicopter, fly like an airplane, land like a helicopter. And they come in, and they're bringing rangers in for the assault on Karg Island, which is not a very big place.
It's only eight kilometers by four kilometers. Right? 60% of it is an oil facility, 20% a village, and the rest is, you know, formerly IRGC missile batteries and things like that. And you come in in your helicopter, fast ropes the first stick down, no problem, takes off. The second stick comes in.
The third helicopter comes in. And as you're approaching, Joseph Blow there in the pit has a drone that's been sitting and watching you one at a time. And they let the first group in, and the his drone takes off. And as you're approaching, it flies right into you. Or better yet, it flies in the door of the crew chief or up the rear of the ramp and blows up.
And now you've got that scene in Terminator. Right? No. And in what's the name of that movie? Aliens where the drop ship comes to rescue you, and it's now spiraling into the ground.
And then there's 50 more. Right? You cannot kill them. Say you have jamming. Okay?
Jamming. What if they sent fiber optic drones? What if the drones just wait there until the jamming subsides? And then as you're landing, they're taking off and they're bombarding you with these. At the same time, artillery is coming from the shore.
You know, Shahid drones are inbound 150 at a time. At the same time, any ship missiles are coming. At the same time, surface to air MANPADS are being launched from the village. This is a situation where we have not thought through the hard realities of how this could be. And our attitude is we kick ass, we train great, we have the best technology, this won't happen to us.
That is not a guarantee. Or worse, Mario, they let you land, and then it's just the drone festival hunting you down for the next ten hours.
Speaker 0: How so I've just got the numbers, by the way. So Iran claimed they used $30,000 drones to take out $1,300,000,000 according to drop site news of US aircraft in Saudi. That is insane. That includes how many how many aircraft is that? Let me just check here.
We've got Well So KC KC one g five thing is and let me just say, right.
Speaker 1: What they took out in radars. Right? The Kuwaiti not Kuwaiti. The Qataris bought a massive air search radar system that we have mounted on our ships. It looks in every direction, battlefield management from Afghanistan all the way over to Israel.
Right? It has three sides to this radar, this massive radar complex. They put one Shahid drone right down the middle of it. Dead center, like someone challenged them to put it down a bull's eye, and they destroyed a $1,100,000,000 radar. Then there were three more of the radars that control the theater high altitude air defense system, the THAAD system.
Those radars are worth 500,000,000 each. They destroyed three of them. One in Jordan, one in Abu Dhabi, and another in Saudi Arabia, if I'm not mistaken. Right? The one in Jordan was so critical that when they destroyed it, air warning for ballistic missiles to Israel went from ten minutes to three minutes, which means Israel was only getting warned as those radars were come as those missiles were coming in at the last second.
They had to fly our spares from South Korea out to that region. Eight those drones, by the way, aren't 30,000. At high at the lowest cost in their mass production are 7,000. And they've destroyed maybe an easy $5,000,000,000 of technology that cannot be replaced. It'd take years to replace those things.
Speaker 0: It hurts to hear those numbers. It hurts to see that's just such a waste, such a massive waste. I know we keep talking about these numbers but they add up. Now that same expert made the argument, I keep forgetting his name, great guy, but he made a video talking about how exactly, Ryan's made a video a few days ago now saying that this is not the right way to look at it It's because even though the air defense munitions cost so much, he was talking about the the THAAD and the Patriots, even though those missiles cost so much, there's just enough for them and the capacity to produce more that having a such higher cost, it is sustainable for the military. It's sustainable for the American military because they could keep producing more.
Know it takes long. But I just don't think that that argument really especially when you start putting these batteries or these radars that you've talked about, these aircraft that you've talked about, you put it all together, the damage will take years to replenish. Now those aircraft, I think the AWACS was was the last one was produced years ago, and there's only a handful of them. They're from the sevens. Exactly.
The billion dollar radars, only six of them around seven of them around the world, the one in Qatar, the fad batteries that had to take them from South Korea. No. I think the the repercussions of this war, I said this before, from a military and a political standpoint are gonna be felt for years if not generations to come. Well But then how quickly do you think you I'll let you comment on that, how quickly do you think Ukraine could fill that gap? Is it a quick fix or not really?
It'll take a long time?
Speaker 1: Well, it's a quick it's a relatively quick fix, and this is why I'm working with international legionnaires who have all combat experience, all drone pilots, right, to maybe help in that fix because the Ukrainians had to take 200 anti Shahid drone pilots off the line. These are experienced guys. Some guys have five, ten, 15 kills. Right? They're quadruple ace drone pilots off the line in the in Ukraine to come defend the Gulf States, and they technically can't afford those guys.
But now, you know, all these other states are gonna start building and they're buying. I know Kuwait bought, like, 3,000 Ukrainian drones. You can't just buy them. You gotta build a factory. Right?
And the drones are cheap. You know? And the real problem is is when you get US defense contractors come in and say, oh, you have to give us a build of that billion dollars. We'll build that factory for You can build that factory for a $100,000. You could hire every kid in, you know, in high school in Abu Dhabi on an internship to three d print the parts and then put all the parts together and then test fly them and put them through a forty five day school and turn those cadets from, you know, every high school in The United Arab Emirates into a anti Shahid drone corps that would be more effective than your regular army.
We have this belief that you have to spend a boatload of money. You know, when my wife worked in Abu Dhabi on multibillion dollar projects, they just believe that more money means better. The Ukrainians are teaching them better tactics means better. Here's one thing that they weren't doing. If I were if I were in charge of, you know, or adviser to, for example, The UAE's general staff, I would say, every BMP infantry fighting vehicle that you have, I want it on the beaches with a two kilometer separation.
And they'd like, well, wait. Those are infantry fighting vehicles. No. They're machine guns. You can shoot these drones down with machine guns.
People want to engage these targets without upsetting the norms. You're at war. 50 caliber machine guns should be everywhere, you know, for the Shaheed drones and for small drones, shotguns. Right? With number eight birdshot.
That's how we shoot these things down. You have to use all your resources. They started using Apache helicopters. One of your Apaches crashed, but then falling into the debris of the blast of a Shahid drone. Use proper tactics.
High altitude, get above the drone, cut back, use your guns, shoot backwards. It's the thing that everyone in the Ukrainian army knows, And that's what the Ukrainians are there teaching them. It for Iraq dollars, you can use tactics that work. Ukraine has had 55,000 shahids fired at it in five years. 55,000.
The UAE's had 2,000 fired at them in four weeks. Right? It'll be over 2,000 in in five weeks. The Iranians have an 88,000 Shahid drone inventory, And I we talked about this on one of our previous podcast. Let's assume that we destroyed 75% of them.
That leaves 20,000 Shahids. Right? Less to come get you. And they haven't even started firing coordinated in earnest. They're doing it in little dribs and drabs.
So, you know, the war could get much worse.
Speaker 0: Exactly. And and I wanna talk about Trump's post that I saw while I was on the flight today. What do you make of it? So I've I've got it here. There it is.
So he says The US is is in serious discussions with a new and more reasonable regime to end our military operation in Iran. Great progress has been made. So that's the good part. Great. Now there's a stick, so it's a characteristic, if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz trade is not immediately open for business, we will conclude our lovely stay in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all their electric generating plants, oil wells, and Karg Island, and possibly all desalinate the desalinization plants, which we have not which we have purposely not yet touched.
This will be in retribution for how many soldiers, etcetera, justifying. So it seems to me that Trump is seeking an off ramp. I don't know if your analysis is the same. Yeah. Do you think Iran will give it to him?
And what would happen if he does deliver on his threat?
Speaker 1: Of course, they won't give it to him. You know? I'm constantly lecturing people on and this is what makes my podcast, right, black men spy, Because I'm black like them. I'm brown like them. I'm a person of color.
I understand where they come from, and I respect it. He has no respect for the the multi, you know, cultural world that is Iran. He has no respect for the religion. He has no understanding. He doesn't care.
He it's like he thinks he's, you know, the the master of the universe that, you know, he can point down at you and things will happen. All American do can do is drop bombs. That's all you can do. And like we talked about Vietnam who is making our Nikes. Okay?
We killed a million Vietnamese. We dropped more bombs in World War two. They did not submit. They won the war. And despite what some people say wearing flip flops, so did the Taliban.
They took every bomb we dropped on them. Right? You people are trying to view these Trump's tweet from an American perspective. It does not work. But they don't want they put
Speaker 0: their mouths. They also don't want to see they don't wanna see their desalinization plants hit. They don't wanna see their electric power plants hit, their oil wells hit. They don't wanna hit Cargilland, which is which powers their economy. So they're also human.
I understand they don't wanna be talked down to, but if he starts bombing their infrastructure, there's gonna be a limit where they're like, alright. Maybe we should take a deal and accept some concessions, not give up our ballistic missile program. Of course not. That's just suicide.
Speaker 1: Married.
Speaker 0: But maybe it's really in
Speaker 1: me let me clarify this for you. What's your religious faith, if you don't mind my asking?
Speaker 0: Born Christian.
Speaker 1: Born Christian. Okay. Like me. Masihid. Right?
So but I've lived as a Muslim over there, both Shia and Sunnah. Right? You have to understand in their heart of hearts, their heart of hearts, everyone over there. There's not a Muslim that is not listening to this that will say, Malcolm is correct. The only thing that impacts their life is what god chooses for them.
Right? If god so wills, right, and the will of god says power plants must be destroyed. Allah's, they're destroyed. Right? And then you adapt and you work within the world that that Allah has given you.
That's how they believe, and they believe it deeply, deeper than any belief we in the West. Donald Trump believes this way with money. Okay? He does not believe it from a power that is higher than him. There is a billion people in this world who believe like this, and you cannot make it worse for them.
Right? You if you knock out the power plants, what's gonna happen? I've been in countries with zero power, okay, where power went down in in my my unit in Ukraine. When we lost power, we went to flashlights and woods wood burning stoves in the middle of winter. Okay?
If you people would go out and get their Honda generators. They would create generation zones to get everybody their telephones and their their flashlights working. People adapt. People are adaptive. There is very little you can do to them.
In Nazi Germany, in 1944, every day, we would fly a thousand bombers over someone's city and level it. So long as they could adapt to that, you cannot be their
Speaker 0: terms will. When will they end? When there's gonna they don't want war either. They've shown in the twelve day war, they did not want a war with the with The US. They've shown that beforehand on their strike to Iran.
Are you sure? Right. They
Speaker 1: didn't want war, but they didn't Yeah. Surrender. We, you know, said then walked away.
Speaker 0: I'm not saying they will they wanna surrender, but I'm saying they don't want a war. So what concession will they agree to? What will they not agree to?
Speaker 1: Mario, it's not that they don't want a war. Okay? This is like me sitting in your your you sitting in your house and 10 gang members kick through the door and start shooting everyone in your in your house in your neighborhood. You didn't choose it. It came to you.
The Iranians, let's be honest. Who started this? Okay? We attacked them on February 28. So let's be honest about where this came from.
I'm not on Iran's side. Alright? I've always been an opponent. They tried to kill me. I have killed some of them.
But let's be quite honest about this. They have no reason to negotiate with Donald Trump. They have geography on their side. They have topography on their side. They have history on their side.
They have manpower on their side. Donald Trump has the pressures of the entire global economic order against him. And that tweet, this truth, whatever you wanna call it, he put out was a sign of, to me, as a geopolitical analyst, that's a sign of utter desperation on Donald Trump's part. And he thinks and he also did it at 9AM on Monday morning in an attempt to manipulate the stock market. The oil prices no longer listen to Donald Trump.
West Texas intermediary was at a $101 last night. Okay? It was at 88 a few days ago when he made his announcement that war peace was at hand. So Trump's carrot stick for you know, carrot then stick does not work on these people because they understand that it's, one, all lies. Two, they're still bombing us.
Three, what can you offer us that we don't have already without you? You cannot take away Allah. You cannot take away their family and kids except to kill them, and then we are going to meet them eventually in a better place. This is the will of god, and the will of god is for you to lose when your soldiers land on our beaches and we fight you. And then your public won't take that pressure, and you'll leave anyway.
So I I don't see where there is an upside for The United States with Trump's comments. But if you attack his their power, I'm gonna tell you this right now. I've been in that region forty years, lived, slept, ate, got two kids named Malik named after me. They will take away all technology in the Arabian Gulf, on the Western side of the Persian Gulf. You that side of the Gulf will go back to 1965, except for the kind of cars you drive.
Speaker 0: So they'll just they'll just pummel the the golf, but what what is that why? So I understand this is their strategy for have the golf pressure The US and maybe reconsider The US American bases in those countries, But they've been doing that strategy for a while. Then what? What's the purpose of continuing to strike The Gulf at the
Speaker 1: Okay. We wanna step away from military politics and go to geopolitics here. Right? This is not about military bases. This is about the lines of money and influence between Washington and the Gulf State shakes.
Right? The people who are gonna break first look like it might even be the Al Fani's of of of Qatar. They're being pummeled. They're you're not just the Iranians by hitting Ras Laffan did not liquid power plant did not just take away their money for 3,000,000,000 $20,000,000,000 over the next five years. They're losing trillions here.
Also, the relationship between Washington and Donald Trump now and them is based on their losses, not on what they can gain. They do not gain anymore by having US central command there. I doubt very seriously at the end of this war that they will allow The US to remain in Qatar because Iraq is never going away unless some act of god happens and there's a popular uprising and they overthrow the, you know, the Islamic revolution, it's not going away. So they're gonna wanna they're gonna wanna deal with them. Same thing with Bahrain.
Same thing with Kuwait. United Arab Emirates is hardline. Saudi Arabia is hardline. But there is a way. There are painful pressure points that will make you walk away from The United States.
And one of those is them running a toll booth, right, between Kisham Island and Laraq Island and making sure nobody can get through the rest of the place. So what can you do to them that will make them not be able to pick dates off the palm tree, to be able to not have pomegranates and not have rice in their country? Starve them? 93,000,000 people? There's nothing you can do So long as the borders to Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Pakistan are open, trade will continue back and forth over time.
They can live a life without power for a very long time. But you can't
Speaker 0: be But there's one too. But the thing is there are regime. Might be but do they do the people, not the regime. The regime might be really pissed at The US. Might wanna cause much damage
Speaker 1: people also.
Speaker 0: No. But there's a lot of like, I was speaking to a journalist, Ali, I think his name is, yesterday from there, and he's a Lebanese journalist in in Iran. And I asked him, like, where do where the people stand? He's like, look. Some of them are supporting the regime and continue this war and many others are not, and they wanna see the war.
And so people are kinda split on this. There's some that wanna inflict damage. They understand the strategic value of deterrence, but also some of them wanna avenge the death of the supreme leader and others. But there's many others that wanna go back to normal life. So I'm just saying that maybe the I understand the regime the the the Iranian government can sustain this.
The the massive country, 93,000,000 people, they've got a lot of resources. They've got control of the Strait Of Hormuz. They can keep importing drones from Russia and China and manufacture them themselves, and they've got a a shit ton of missiles. But at the same time, I just really believe they have they have a limit too, and there might be a way where they can end the war war with concessions somewhere in the middle, meeting The US in the middle, allowing them to keep their pride, develop deterrence. And but that also depends on and this is my question as you comment on this.
What role do you think Russia will play? Because we're seeing, I wanna say, a convergence, but a lot of overlap between the Ukraine Russia war and what we see here in The Middle East. Zelenskyy visiting the region and reports of Russia sending drones to Iran as well. So I'd love to get your comments on my last statement, but also the overlap with that other war and and whether that could play a role.
Speaker 1: Well, first off, I again, I think you're overestimating how the average person on the street will take this. They'll they'll endure a lot, a lot. Right? Firebombings, things like that. You I I suspect you could even nuke a city over there, and, you know, it's the will of god.
They didn't choose that. The problem is we are viewing their tolerance through our lens and our inability to tolerate things that they can get by without. And the average person over there is is is inconvenienced by all of this. They all want to do trade. They all wanna They all wanna live a a a religious life, most people over there.
You know? But the Basjji is 800,000 volunteers who sworn their lives to the existence of the regime. The IRGC, 150,000. The regular army. Right?
Another 500,000, let's call it. There are 25,000,000 card carrying members of the Basji. That means, you know, the that you support the party even if you don't. Right? That tells you out of 93,000,000 people, including, we know, 40% of their countries under the age of of 20 you know, what is it?
Under the age of 30, okay, they are still Iranians. They still have pride. This is still their country being bombed by foreigners, and you're asking their leadership to give up things that they can't understand why they would give it up. Why would they give up access to the straighter one moves for a guy that wears orange makeup, right, and has a wig on.
Speaker 0: They won't they won't give it up. I agree. I don't think they'll give up. Giving up the Shreta Homuz with a ballistic missile program off the table.
Speaker 1: It's like me going to junior in in Lebanon. I'm sure you know that area. Right? Traditionally Christian forever in Lebanon. And just saying, you're gonna give it up.
You're give it up because I say it. You cannot bring enough overwhelming force there into that region to do that. But you know what they can do? They have mass of human empower. And I know you were talking to Larry Johnson the other day, and he's like, Malcolm's full of it, you know, about invading Gulf States.
Hey. It almost happened twice in the nineteen eighties. They fought a war with Iraq, and now this time Iraq would be on their side. So don't doubt that they have the ability to bring more pain. Every bit of pain they drop on the Gulf States, power plants, you know, you know, water desalinization plants, as we out escalate, America is bringing that pain onto them indirectly to the Gulf States.
And that translates into nothing coming out of The Gulf, higher medicines, higher gas prices, higher everything, higher plastics. The whole world now is at the whim of America's choice to have this to work.
Speaker 0: America, the I don't think the more economists I speak to, the global economy is so screwed if things don't change soon. It's not only about oil. It's not only about fertilizers. It's also helium. And if you add the bed we haven't even spoken about the Houthis joining, man.
Before that Oh, okay. Russia Russia Ukraine, what do you make of Putin sending more sending drones to drones or drone components allegedly to Iran and and Zelensky visiting the region?
Speaker 1: Putin's making bank off of this war. Let me tell you something. I know people out there said, you know, I've written four New York Times bestsellers about Donald Trump and his relationship with Moscow. He is madly in love with Moscow. That's been said by world officials who have spoken to him and watched him and Zelensky watched him and Putin together.
If it's good for Putin, it's good for Trump. Even though Iran is be getting weapons and components and intelligence that may and may have already killed Americans, Trump doesn't care. He is looking at the $2,000,000,000,000 of frozen Russian money that was done under sanctions. And as soon as he can raise those sanctions legally to get it, that that's his only interest. He doesn't care whether I mean, if if he really cared about sanctions, explain to me why he handed Iran $14,000,000,000 to fight America by lifting the sanctions on the oil because the economy choice.
No. The economists you talked to are telling you he had no choice because but Trump did. Crack the global economic system and keep the sanctions on, blow up Karg Island, and drop the you know, push oil to $200 a barrel. The man doesn't know what he's doing from one minute to the other.
Speaker 0: No. But what do mean? Like, what do mean is it a good idea?
Speaker 1: Why would
Speaker 0: to Hold on.
Speaker 1: Doomed
Speaker 0: out. Why would he do that? Why would why do you think he'd do that? Like, you're talking about crushing the global economy and with the stock market, energy prices, the gas pump. But that goes against everything he stood for.
It's not about What's the
Speaker 1: quote he had with the Financial Times this morning? This is my briefing book.
Speaker 0: Oh, thought, hey. I I saw it. Saw it on first day.
Speaker 1: Seized Iran's oil? Yeah. America very special
Speaker 0: people. Against it. I'm against it, but it's America first.
Speaker 1: How the hell do you see something that is underground in another country?
Speaker 0: That's that's that's not for me. I don't know that. The answer to that one, how he's gonna achieve it. I don't have the intel how he's gonna achieve it. How he's gonna seize the oil.
My guess is he wants to seize maybe or if I had to guess based on what we're seeing right now, seize Carg Island and negotiate with Iran to get a cut out of everything they export. A lot feasible. I'm trying to guess.
Speaker 1: Sometimes. Last time we spoke, I explained, Karg Island has the Darius oil field or the Fanun oil field Fazul oil field underneath it. Right? But the oil Karg is a hub. No.
I know. I know. I know. They can shut it
Speaker 0: back from around. I understand.
Speaker 1: That's right. I understand. You have
Speaker 0: But I'm saying just like I say makes a deal with him. He makes a deal with him where they would oh, because they need the money too. Again, I know it sounds pretty far fetched. I'm trying to see what he means by it. I know it's not from what I spoke with you and others as well.
No one agrees this is a good idea, but maybe it is or maybe seizing those you know, the two islands you talked about that Iran that Iran was using to to create like a toll booth at the Shreve Hormuz. Seizing those two islands, you we've talked about in-depth how it's militarily very difficult to say the least. That I understand. But that is a way to make money off Iran's oil.
Speaker 1: How? Okay. To make money, you gotta get through alive. Ships are gonna move. No oil company in the world.
None. It's 18 kilometers from Bandur or Bostol Hormuz, 18 kilometers from Kishem to Larek, a three area sector that where they're using their little toll booth. No ship is gonna move if there's warfare going on out there. It's about insurance companies. Oh, come on.
I know you really, really, really think that there could be a possibility out of this.
Speaker 0: They have to they have to sorry. That also, I was I agree with your point. They also have to sail slowly. It's not only very narrow. It's all but this kinda turns around, so ships have to sail slowly slowly.
There's no way they could stop Iran from striking those ships. So I agree with you. I don't know how they could do it unless they have some what's that new weapon they use in Venezuela? Maybe there's some new weapon we don't know about.
Speaker 1: No. You're talking about the LRAD, right, which is the low out yeah. There was a
Speaker 0: name for it. He called the s he know
Speaker 1: He called made a statement. He called it the the bamboozler or something stupid like a discombobulator. Yeah. Okay. Look.
What's up? Wonder weapons do not stop a bullet through your head. Okay? Wonder weapons cannot help you here. We're talking geography, topography, terrain.
18 kilometers, you can shoot mortars from that range and hit them. And then you're sitting there with your little wonder weapon, your microwave l rad. Okay? And it gets hit by a mortar. Now you don't have it.
Or you come ashore and it hits an IED or a landmine. Now you don't have it. This is gonna come down to, at some point, to rifles and knives and drones, little manny handheld drones. And you know why we're gonna fail at this? Because we have no tolerance for that level of death.
Alright? You don't have tolerance for levels of death from World War two, then we're certainly not gonna have tolerance. I mean, we in Black Hawk Down, we lost what? You know? Like, 12 guys.
And and you saw what happened in Afghanistan. We had suicide bombers hit us every day for twenty years. And on the last day, 13 marines were killed. God bless them. And people acted like there had never been a death in that country before when we had lost almost 3,900 soldiers prior to those 13.
And all they talked about is those 13. We have a short memory. If this thing goes off, the Iranians have a vote. That's all I'm telling you as the listening audience. Do not think, rah rah, America, we have b two bombers.
You know, famous quote from the movie Gardens of Stone. You know, we're gonna beat these people because they're using bows and arrows against a f four Phantom jet. And the old grizzle sergeant major, James Conn, who's like me, says, how do you beat a people that are willing to use a bow and arrow against the Phantom jet? Mindset. Right?
And sometimes those bows hit. So as much as we would like this to come out in a positive way, the only thing that can happen here is Trump is gonna have to off ramp and declare victory at some point. The only way the Strait Of Hormuz is going to open, this is based on forty years experience, decades in the Persian Gulf, in combat with Iran, hit mines, shot at by missiles, ran after small boats. Right? The only way it's gonna happen is is if the Strait Of Hormuz is set back to what it was on February 28.
Right? No toll booths, freedom of navigation of all ships between there because we have had enough. But the key factor here that has set all of this off is the stick of dynamite called Donald Trump, and I don't think he cares what happens to the people on both sides of the Gulf. Until he gets the pressure that hits his pocketbook, he would rather sacrifice people than than to realize he put he put the world in this situation. It's gonna take the world to to to defornicate him, so to speak.
Speaker 0: No. Good to see you. A big fan of Trump, Malcolm. No. I'm just Hold on.
Speaker 1: Hold on. I'm not a fan of Trump. I'm a fan of goddamn comments using the intelligence that was given to you by 19 agencies and understanding that this stuff has consequences, and we are now in a world of consequences. My gas has gone up. My food is go percent of the
Speaker 0: gone.
Speaker 1: I have a nephew who's still in the navy. I don't know where he is right now. I don't care. I don't want this to go bad for anybody. If I go to Dubai to report on this in the next weeks, what I don't want is the start of a third world war.
It's not gonna be a third world war, but The United States goes into Iran with 3,000, 5,000 paratroops. You're gonna see bad things happen here.
Speaker 0: Let me know if you go to Dubai. I'd love to do a sit down with you. How significant is the Houthi the Houthis joining then? That's the last thing we haven't spoken about yet.
Speaker 1: Oh, jeez. You know? There are things we shouldn't speak about. Look. The Iranians' position to Houthis so well over the last thirty years is just really incredible.
They have turned them into a military power. They defeated Saudi Arabia. They defeated The United Arab Emirates and the Arab coalition that went there to to defeat them.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: They dominate the Bab El Mandab Waterway, and it's snap of a finger to close it. If Trump does something stupid, right, and I think seizing Larek Island is stupid. I think trying to take the Strait Of Hormuz Islands and force Iran into that will just perpetuate warfare for months, if not a year, where the Gulf will not open. The SOH will not open. Okay?
Because it's just too risky. A 138 ships a day are not gonna resume. We're going through, like, one or two now, and they're going through Iran's wars. So that happens, you can be dang sure that they're gonna ask the Houthis to jump in both feet. And that means the pipeline that is now moving things from Aka'ik, right, the Jubail to Yanbu, which is now moving a third of Saudi Arabia's oil.
That was an emergency pipeline that they built for this reason. The Houthis will blow it up. Okay? And god knows. We talk about the religious aspects of this.
God knows. They may march on Mecca. There's 350,000 of them. They seem pretty bloodthirsty. They could sink every ship in the Red Sea or try it.
And at that point, the Red Sea SOH is closed. Suez Canal closed. Everything goes the world economy cracks because, I'm sorry, it was Donald Trump's decision to do this with Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Iran and now pushing them to the point where they break the rest of the world order is just not worth the effort?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I just got a report, by the way, now there's a ballistic missile. They're very small waves that were launched by Iran and Israel and another report of a direct impact. It's happening on a daily basis. I'm worried that Israel is running out of air defense munitions as well.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I don't think they're running out air defense missions. I just think that they're now starting to see a different class of missile that may have a warhead that you know, the cluster warheads are almost impossible to defeat. But they're harassment weapons now, what we call HNI. Right? Harassment and interdiction.
And, you know, the big stuff, they're not gonna waste on Israel, I don't think anymore. I think they're keeping their powder dry for The Gulf States and The United States forces. Certainly, the short range ballistic missiles, we talked about the Yazid ballistic missile underground under mountain complex. That may be one of the objectives for these these airborne raid, to go down there and try to stop their ballistic missiles. But the story changes every day, Matt.
Yep. And I'm you know, and there's some guys who are thinking, Malcolm, you really hate your country. No. I'm the intelligence person that gives you the right data so that you make the right decisions. And what's happening is we're giving good data.
Trump does not believe in intelligence at all. He doesn't believe it. And so when I say, hey. You know, you do x. You gotta expect y, z, and alpha.
And they were like, no. I don't have to listen to you. You're full of shit. I'm Donald Trump. They're making a statue of me.
See, that that's mental illness disguised as foreign policy.
Speaker 0: I mean, well, hopefully let's hope Iran accept some of the concessions, and, you know, Trump is seeking, you know, frontless.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They're not gonna accept any of those 15 concessions.
Speaker 0: What they of them. They'll accept nuclear program, they'll accept. Like, they'll accept the nuclear program. They've already accepted it before the negotiations. They might accept some business deals with The US or the Trump can call it a win.
They make some money. Something symbolic.
Speaker 1: Any business that does deals with Iran in The United States is gonna be called a traitor. I mean, we just went to war with these. And by the time this ends, more Americans are gonna die. So I think that Iran that Trump the Iranian platform of proposal, the six points or whatever it was, is better. But Donald Trump will not be able to say he controls the Strait Of Hormuz.
That's madness. Okay? Mental illness right there. Iran controls the SOH, and they can have agreements with Oman and The Emirates and neutralize all maybe even Iran lets Abu Dhabi have Abu Musa Island back. It's possible.
Right? Small concessions. Those people have all sold camels to each other over the millennium.
Speaker 0: That is that is a big but that is a big concession. That island is very important. I mean, that will be a pretty big concession.
Speaker 1: Not That will be the way we're
Speaker 0: gaining back to we're gaining back The UAE as as an ally. So the goal is around to turn this region these regional countries against The US. That'll be their strategy long term.
Speaker 1: They have a better chance of doing that because, again, they have literally sold camels and dates to each other for millennia, thousands of years. We come jump in here and think that we're gonna start pointing our finger and demanding they could end The United Arab Emirates as it exists right now as a modern nation. They've Right? They knew most of those missiles would be intercepted, but they haven't even done the full push. We shall see.
Let's hope it never gets to that because, one, I like going down to Jumeirah Beach Residence and having a coffee after a run Okay. Or going to Mall Of The Emirates.
Speaker 0: Alright, man. Well, always always a pleasure to have you, Malcolm. Thanks for jumping on again.
Speaker 1: Alright. Take care.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇾🇪🇮🇱 How the Houthis hit Israel from a thousand miles away The Palestine II missile skips along the edge of the atmosphere at up to Mach 16, zigzagging mid-flight in ways that Arrow, David's Sling, and Iron Dome were never designed to track. It's not a traditional ballistic arc. It's a glide vehicle that changes course unpredictably at hypersonic speed. A non-state actor in sandals just deployed technology that was supposed to be reserved for superpowers. The rules of missile defense just got rewritten from Yemen. Source: Ai Telly
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Huthis’ attack on Israel was conducted with a mix of Iranian-engineered ballistic and semi-hypersonic missiles, using a skip trajectory to bypass Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow defense networks. The key factor enabling interception evasion was maneuverability: unlike traditional ballistic missiles that arc predictably, these weapons zigzag midflight, shifting trajectory at extreme speeds to confuse interceptor radars down to impact. The Palestine Two missile, a hypersonic ballistic weapon, reportedly reaches speeds up to Mach 16 and traveled from Yemen to Israel in minutes, leaving defenders little time to react. It appears to employ a skip gliding mechanism, allowing midflight trajectory changes that complicate interception. Experts believe it is not purely hypersonic but has semi-hypersonic characteristics that enable sharp maneuvers during flight.
This capability likely involved a glide vehicle that detaches and enables the missile to maneuver and glide at speeds between Mach 5 and 16, potentially following a lower-than-usual flight path to evade radar coverage. The strike demonstrated vulnerabilities even within highly defended airspace, revealing how non-state actors can access advanced weaponry once thought exclusive to major powers. The Palestine Two is equipped with a hypersonic glide vehicle to maneuver and evade aero missiles defenses such as Israel’s, and travels around 1,500 kilometers, only slightly more than its Palestine One predecessor (Fatah One).
Iran’s missile program, including Shahab-3 variants, provides the underlying technology. The Shahab-3 is the foundation for Iran’s medium-range missiles, using liquid propellant and capable of carrying a warhead between 760 and 1,200 kilograms. The typical sequence involves launching at a 90-degree angle, a trajectory that travels near or into space, warhead separation from the rocket, and re-entry to target. Warheads may be single or multiple, depending on the variant. The circular error probable for older weapons is about 300 to 450 meters, meaning 50% of missiles would land within that radius.
Israel’s air defense comprises three tiers: the long-range Arrow system designed to intercept missiles outside the atmosphere, the David’s Sling system for missiles and drones, and the Iron Dome for short-range rocket attacks. The Arrow system includes the Arrow launcher, Green Pine radar, and the Arrow missile. The Arrow three kill vehicle uses a solid-propellant rocket with a thrust-vectoring nozzle and a seeker capable of pivoting to track targets. THAAD employs divert attitude control thrusters and has different burn characteristics and radar data requirements. The deterrent success of these defenses depends on precise targeting data from radars and seekers, as interceptor missiles must adjust trajectories based on updated flight information to intercept intercontinental ballistic trajectories.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How did the Vughtis manage to strike Israel from over a thousand miles away? Well, they did it by deploying a mix of Iranian engineered ballistic and semi hypersonic missiles, utilizing a flight path known as a skip trajectory. But that brings up a massive question. How did these weapons bypass Israel's cutting edge Iron Dome and Arrow Defense Networks? The secret is maneuverability.
Unlike conventional ballistic missiles that follow predictable, arching curve, these newer weapons can actually zigzag mid flight. They constantly shift their trajectory at extreme speeds, completely confusing the interceptor radars all the way down to the target. It was a startling moment in the ongoing regional tensions when the Huti launched what they called the Palestine two missile, a hypersonic ballistic weapon reportedly capable of reaching speeds as high as Mach 16. At such blistering velocity, the missile was able to travel from Yemen to Israel in mere minutes, giving Israeli and allied defense systems very little time to react. What made this strike even more concerning was the missile's apparent ability to change course mid flight, a capability likely achieved through a sophisticated skip gliding mechanism.
This means that rather than following a traditional predictable arc, the missile could bounce along the edge of the atmosphere, shifting its trajectory in a way that complicates interception. Experts believe the missile wasn't purely hypersonic in the conventional sense but had characteristics of what some call a semi hypersonic design. This would still allow for sharp maneuvers during flight, far beyond what older ballistic models could manage. These kinds of mid air changes wreak havoc on systems like Israel's Arrow-three and The U. S.-developed THAAD, which are built to predict and intercept based on expected flight paths.
Additionally, there's speculation that the missile may have taken a lower than usual flight route, potentially slipping under the radar coverage that usually defends against high altitude threats. This is the Houthi Palestine two, it was used for the first time based on Iran's advanced missile systems. Inside this missile is a hypersonic glide vehicle, which detaches and allows the missile to maneuver and glide at speeds between Mach five and sixteen. The missile has a range of around 1,500 kilometers, only slightly more than its predecessor, the Palestine-one missile, or Fatah-one. What sets it apart from other ballistic missiles is its ability to accelerate outside the Earth's atmosphere, while its aerodynamic control surfaces enable steering to evades the famous aero missiles defense system made by Israel.
The combination of extreme speed, sudden course changes, and possible stealth capabilities revealed a major vulnerability, even in one of the most heavily defended airspaces in the world. What this incident really drives home is that non state actors are now gaining access to highly advanced weaponry that was once thought to be the domain of major powers. Yemen Houthi militant possessing a hypersonic missile represents a significant threat to both Israel and the United States Navy ships. To understand how the Houthi hypersonic missile works, we need to examine the functioning of Iran's missile technology and Israel's aero defense system. Let's study how the Houthi follows the same strategy as Iran when it hit Israel with almost 180 number of ballistic missiles.
These missiles traveled more than 1,000 miles from this valley to reach Israel's most populated city and military sites. Iran used variants of the Shahab-three ballistic missile in its latest attack on Israel. The Shahab-three is the foundation for all of Iran's medium range ballistic missiles and uses liquid propellant. It can carry a warhead weighing between seven sixty and twelve hundred kilograms, which translates to sixteen seventy five and two thousand six hundred and forty five pounds. How it works: Step one: The missile is positioned at a 90 degree angle and then fired.
Step two: The ballistic missile's trajectory takes it outside or near the edge of Earth's atmosphere. Step three: The warhead payload separates from the rocket that carried it aloft and re enters the atmosphere, descending towards its target. Step four: The missile can carry a single or multiple warheads, depending on the variant. The warhead separates from the single stage rocket after it has traveled about more than half the distance to its target. The most prolific Scud variants had a circular error probable of 300 to four fifty meters.
This means that 50% of the missiles fired at a target would land within a circle of that diameter. As you watch this, data brokers may be collecting and selling your personal information, your home address, phone number, online searches, and even financial details. This data doesn't just result in spam calls and scam attempts. It can also affect your personal credit score, as scammers may manipulate your data, potentially leading to a loan denial. It also performs regular scans to prevent data brokers from sneaking your information back into circulation, all while providing you with a clear, real time dashboard to track your data.
So take your personal data back with Incogni, use code AITELLI with the link below incogni.com aitelly and get 60% off on an annual plan. Now let's take a look how the Israeli Defense System works. The Israeli Defense System consists of three tiers. First up is the long range Aero Missile Defense System, which was designed specifically with Iranian missiles in mind. Each of these system rockets cost a few million dollars, and they can intercept missiles outside the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in enhanced protection.
The second layer of defense is the so called David's Sling system, designed for taking out missiles and drones. Finally, the Iron Dome stops most short range rocket attacks in Israel. Let's take a look at why the Iron Dome failed to intercept the Iranian ballistic missiles. Apart from discussing the multilayered missile defense system, the Iron Dome itself has a range of around 40 miles, while the David's Sling can intercept ballistic missiles up to a range of 180 miles. The top tier aero anti ballistic missile systems can target threats up to 1,500 miles away.
According to reports, 180 ballistic missiles, which are possibly hypersonic as claimed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, were launched. Although the aero missile defense system successfully intercepted many missiles before they reached Israel, many still got through. The main problem behind the failure to intercept was after the detachment of the Glide Vehicle from the launcher. The Glide Vehicle can change its trajectory multiple times, which confused the Arrow missiles. This maneuver also bypassed the David's Sling and finally the Iron Dome system, which is not designed to counter hypersonic missiles like the Fatah two model.
Let's examine the cost implications of a single day of missile attacks. Iran expended over $200,000,000 by launching ballistic missiles along with drones, whereas the IDF spent $1,000,000,000 to defend itself. This includes the Arrow missile, which costs around $2,500,000 The David Sling costs around $1,000,000 to produce, while the Iron Dome costs around 20,000 to $100,000 for a single missile, depending on inflation. By contrast, Iranian ballistic missiles cost around $200,000 each and its drones only $20,000 to $50,000 each. The Arrow missile defense system consists of three basic parts: the missile launcher unit, the Green Pine radar antenna, and the Arrow missile.
The missile launcher unit is composed of six erector launcher tubes housing ready to fire missiles. Positioned at the rear of a two axle trailer, each launcher, when fully loaded with six launch tubes carrying ready to fire missiles, weighs 35 tons. The Green Pine radar serves as the warning and fire control radar for the Arrow three anti ballistic air defense missile system. It plays a crucial role in target detection and guidance. The Arrow operates as a two stage missile.
Let's look inside this engineering technology. This is the solid propellant booster and sustainer rocket motors. At the rocket's peak sits the ignition chamber, triggering the combustion of the solid propellant when activated. This propellant isn't just any substance, it's a meticulously crafted blend of fuel and oxidizer poured into a casing and then cured. Encasing this blend is a protective shell called the motor case.
At the core of the rocket lies the propellant burning zone. Here, the solid fuel and oxidizer react, producing incredibly high temperature combustion gases, which helps to launch the rocket at incredible speed above the Earth's surface. Moving further to the front, the most important part of the missile is the kill vehicle, which can be divided into three basic parts. The second stage is the propulsion system with a thrust vectoring nozzle. Just above it is the warhead, a directed high explosive fragmentation weighing 150 kilograms, which translates to three thirty pounds.
The third stage is the Seeker, capable of pivoting itself to track its target. But what's the big deal about this long range anti ballistic missile system? Let's start with a propulsion system, the famous THAAD, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense uses a divert attitude control thrusters. In comparison to the Arrow three kill vehicle, which utilizes a thrust vectoring nozzle with a solid fuel rocket, it has a shorter and more limited burn time. It has a few advantages, one of them being the ability to compensate for a lack of radar accuracy.
When the radar sends the interceptor to an inaccurate target location, the Arrow three kill vehicle can adjust its trajectory. Since intercontinental ballistic missiles travel at very high speeds, the kill vehicle must change its trajectory based on newer, more accurate radar data from its seeker. A failure to fully divert the course to the new target would result in a failure to intercept. We make original videos from scratch and animated by humans, so please subscribe to not miss a beat.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇷🇾🇪 Could the Houthis flip the war? Iran is taking heavy losses after 4 weeks of war. Houthis still have real autonomy and power in western Yemen. They’ve built a serious arsenal: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones & sea drones. Their last Red Sea campaign already cost global trade over $1 trillion. The Houthis can hit Saudi oil sites, Qatar LNG, and shut down Bab el-Mandeb, which would stack on top of Iran’s Hormuz disruption. Combined effect: massive oil & shipping crisis worldwide. Economic pain could force everyone to the table faster than bombs alone. One rebel group with cheap weapons could make this conflict economically unbearable for the world. Source: WarFronts YT
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇷 Insane that the 2026 Iran War just caused the biggest oil supply shock in history, 16% of global supply, taken offline. - Bigger than the 1973 embargo. - Bigger than the Gulf Wars. - Bigger than the Libyan Civil War - and even bigger than the Ukraine war If Russia https://t.co/AZHTfPU6Oo
reSee.it AI Summary
I trace how the Middle East slipped into a worst-case regional war, arguing the United States was steered into a hot conflict with Iran by an Israeli strategy for regional dominion. Israeli intelligence and lobbying sold Washington on an easy regime change while sabotaging diplomatic pauses to keep U.S. power on the front lines. I map Netanyahu’s long-term push, Gulf dependencies, and the push toward a new regional architecture.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨 🇮🇱 🇺🇸 🇮🇷 THE LAST 10 YARDS: HOW THE U.S. WAS PULLED INTO REGIONAL WAR Daniel Levy analyzes how the Middle East reached this "worst-case scenario" of total regional conflict. He argues that while the U.S. has its own geopolitical interests, the final push into a hot war with Iran was driven by an ambitious Israeli strategy to assert regional dominion. Levy details how Israeli intelligence and political lobbying sold the White House on a "bill of goods", the promise of an easy regime change, while simultaneously sabotaging diplomatic pauses to ensure American power remains committed to the front lines. 00:01 – The Worst-Case Scenario: How We Got Here 03:19 – The Role of Israel and Netanyahu’s Strategy 05:54 – American Agency vs. Israeli Points of Access 07:24 – Netanyahu’s Long-Term Play for Trump 09:39 – Selling the "Easy" Iranian Revolution to the White House 11:18 – The Disconnect Between Israeli and U.S. Objectives 14:46 – Greater Israel and the Quest for Regional Dominion 17:13 – Gulf State Dependencies and the Pipeline Strategy 18:37 – The GCC’s Dilemma: Insecurity Under the U.S. Umbrella 22:08 – The Hexagon Alliance: Israel’s New Regional Architecture 25:59 – Reconsidering the Saudi-Iran Rapprochement 32:36 – Turkey as the Next Strategic Focus 34:52 – The Abandonment of Political and Diplomatic Paths 38:56 – Lebanon: Displacement and the Logic of Zero-Sum War 44:54 – Sabotaging Negotiations: Strikes on Energy and Nuclear Sites 48:32 – "Use It or Lose It": Exploiting Declining American Power
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario: Daniel, after decades of diplomacy, the Middle East is now at war. Early on you suggested Hormuz and economic leverage; as the conflict evolved, US ground invasion talk, targeted Iranian leadership, and new developments—like JD Vance’s reaction to US intel and Israel striking energy infrastructure in Iran—have shaped concerns that Israel wields outsized influence. Broad question: how did we get here and why?
Daniel: There’s a long history of American and Israeli influence in play. There is American agency and a geopolitical logic tying chokepoints like Hormuz to broader aims, such as reasserting US primacy vis-à-vis China. But this doesn’t fully explain how the last 10 yards into war were crossed. Netanyahu’s long effort to shape a strategic environment culminated when he found a president open to using American power in the region. Israel’s strategy appears to be to assert greater regional dominion by leveraging US military power and creating dependencies with Gulf states. Netanyahu reportedly offered the president an actionable plan, including on-the-ground assets, to decapitate Iran’s leadership and spark a broader upheaval, which helped push the White House toward a twelve-day war in June. Israel also presented a narrative of rapid US escalation to secure its aims, while the American interagency process—though deteriorated in recent years—had to interpret unusually aggressive, yet selective, Israeli intelligence and objectives. The result is a complex dynamic where US rhetoric and decisions are deeply entangled with Israeli designs for regional hegemony, an outcome that was not broadly anticipated by many regional partners.
Mario: If the US administration had not fully understood Israel’s project, how did this come to pass? And how does Mossad factor in?
Daniel: Israel has tremendous access to influence over an American administration through lobbying, media echo chambers, and political finance, which Netanyahu exploited to drive a course toward major confrontation with Iran. Before Trump’s term, Netanyahu was nervous about a president who could pivot against allies; he devised a strategy that culminated in Operation Midnight Hammer and subsequent US-Israeli collaboration, reinforced by the possibility of rapid decapitation of Iran’s leadership. There are reports (and debates) about Mossad presenting on-the-ground assets and the possibility of instigating a street revolution in Iran, which may not have been fully believed by Washington but was persuasive enough to shape policy. The question remains how much of Israeli intelligence makes it to Trump and his inner circle, especially given concerns about cognitive ability and decision-making in the White House at that time. Netanyahu’s aim, according to Daniel, was not simply to topple Iran but to maximize Israel’s regional leverage by using American power while reducing other regional peers’ influence.
Mario: What about Gulf states and broader regional realignments? How did the Gulf respond, and what does this mean for their security calculus?
Daniel: The Gulf states face a stark dilemma. They fear Iran's retaliatory capabilities but also distrust America’s consistency and question whether US support will be cost-effective. Iran’s strikes into the Gulf have forced Gulf capitals to reassess their reliance on US protection and Israel’s influence, particularly given Israel’s aggressive posture and expanded regional footprint—Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza—with potential implications for the Gulf’s own security and economic interests. Some Gulf actors worry about over-dependence on American security assurances while Israel intensifies operational reach. The GCC’s calculus is shifting: they confront a choice between continuing alignment with the US-Israel bloc or seeking more independent security arrangements. The possibility of a broader Gulf-Israel axis, or at least closer coordination, is tempered by concerns over long-term regional stability, public opinion, and the risk of escalation.
Mario: How has this affected perceptions of Iran, Israel, and the broader regional order? Has the Gulf’s stance shifted?
Daniel: The region’s balance has been unsettled. Iran’s actions have damaged Gulf trust in its neighbors’ security guarantees, while Israel’s aggressive posture and reliance on US power have complicated Gulf states’ calculations. Turkey’s role is pivotal as it balances concerns about Iran and Israel, while also watching how the region realigns. The possibility of a future where Iran’s power is weakened is weighed against the risk of destabilization and long-term security costs. Negotiations between the US, Iran, and regional actors—stoked by Turkish diplomacy and shifting Gulf positions—are ongoing, with Turkey signaling that diplomacy remains important, even as Gulf states reassess their security dependencies.
Mario: What about Lebanon and Hezbollah, and the potential for broader spillover?
Daniel: Lebanon faces severe consequences: displacement, civilian harm, and a domestic political paralysis that complicates relations with Israel. Hezbollah remains a factor, with ongoing tensions in Lebanon and the South. Israel’s goal of establishing security-control in Lebanon risks reigniting long-standing conflicts, while Lebanon’s government seeks a balance that could prevent further escalation, if possible. The broader picture is that Israel’s approach—driven by a perceived need to neutralize Iran and all potential threats—could provoke wider regional blowback, complicating already fragile domestic politics across the Levant.
Mario: Final thoughts as the war unfolds?
Daniel: Israel’s strategic ambitions appear to extend beyond countering Iran to shaping a broader order in which it remains the dominant regional power, aided by US military leverage. Gulf states face a difficult reorientation, reassessing longstanding alliances in light of perceptions of US reliability. The coming months will reveal whether regional actors can recalibrate toward diplomatic resolutions or wind up in a deeper, more protracted conflict. The question remains whether a political path could replace military escalation, and whether external powers can deter further aggression and stabilize the region without allowing a broader conflagration.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Daniel, absolute pleasure to speak to you for the first time. You've spent a lifetime advocating for diplomacy and trying to avoid wars. Yet here we are the entire Middle East, the region itself is in war which was the worst case scenario a very fringe group of people were talking about after October 7 and those fringe doomsayers ended up being the right ones. My first question to you is why? Because for me when the war first started, I'm like, you know, this has to be because of the Strait Of Hormuz.
For for economic reasons, Trump wants more control of The Strait similar to what he did in Venezuela to have more leverage over China. But as this war progressed and as I saw The US talk about a ground invasion, as I saw Israel kill some of the some of the successors that The US had in mind for the supreme leader. Then as I saw the developments today, reports that JD Vance was shouting or was upset with the Tatayahu because The US got false intelligence about the ease of a of a regime change in Iran. And then we also saw today Israel struck the energy infrastructure in Iran as well and the steel plants as well At a time when Trump promised a ceasefire against striking energy infrastructure for the negotiations, I start to worry that Israel has a lot more influence than I initially thought. So my first question to you is a more broad question.
How did we get here? Why?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And, yeah, there's a long backstory to how America could maneuver itself into a position where this was even a a possible thing Israel could pull it into. Right? And I do think that there is American agency. I don't wanna suggest that America has no capacity to think independently of Israel, that there weren't Americans pushing for this, or that you can't make an American geopolitical strategic logic for what it's doing.
And you began to hint at it with what you said, Mario, in terms of, you know, choke points, the relevance of Hormuz, coming after Venezuela. Maybe Trump was partly convinced this is how you reassert American primacy or American preponderance vis a vis China by getting this stranglehold on the global energy markets. You can make that case. I don't think that explains how America was pulled into this. There is a history of both Democrat and Republican administrations having this kind of Manichean view of Iran, not something they could really grapple with as how do we organize a regional security with the existing governance structures in Iran.
It was it was something that they they never really moved towards. But you can only explain to my mind how we moved those last 10 yards from everything that had gone before into an intense war with all the knock on effects, and those were broadcast in advance. Right? Trump constantly tells us, who could have known? Who could have seen that they were gonna attack the Gulf States?
Kind of everyone, by the way. That's exactly what Iran said would happen, and that is what has happened. The Israelis would have known that was gonna happen. The Gulf States had that concern. I don't think they were pushing for this war.
We can maybe come back to that. You could only explain how the president was led that last 10 yards into doing this. If you throw into the mix the role of Israel, the role of Netanyahu, after decades of trying, finally finding his man in the White House who was willing to do this, and if you throw into the mix what Israel's strategy is. And Israel's strategy, I would suggest, is very far reaching, and it's an attempt to assert what I would call a greater Israel dominion in the region.
Speaker 0: How did they manage to achieve it? How did they manage to achieve a president that forced Netanyahu to apologize to Qatar? A president that forced Israel and Iran to end a twelve day war? A president that's that prides himself on ending wars? A president that's not running again.
This is his second term, so his donors delivering on his promise doesn't matter as much. A president that does a lot of business and has great relations with The Gulf and that prides himself on these relations as well. How did they get someone like this to not only decide to attack Iran, but decide to do it now and to that to that extent where we're talking about ground troops?
Speaker 1: So I've been asking myself the same question, Mario. And some of the answer almost rights itself. Okay? Breaking news. Israel has tremendous points of access in any US administration.
Israel has a lobby that is very good as our other lobbies, but this one's particularly good at deploying all that American campaigns finance laws allow you to deploy on that front. Israel has a media echo chamber, Netanyahu, who recently boasted. You know, I've got Larry Ellison buying American TikTok. We've got CBS, you know, things like that. All of that is in play, and it's an insufficient answer for me.
And so I think that if I if I wanna properly grapple with that question, I have to address the other things you raised because Netanyahu was nervous at the beginning of the Trump administration. If we cast our minds back, before Trump takes office, he sends this new envoy, Steve Witkoff. Witkoff is quite demanding on the Gaza front. And actually on the eve of Trump's inauguration, there is a short lived ceasefire in Gaza that Netanyahu had been resisting. And I think Netanyahu was dead worried that what other American allies are experiencing, which is a president who can turn on them in a dime.
You see, whether it's in Europe or in Asia or even in Canada, they're all grappling with, a quite hostile American president. Netanyahu did not wanna end up in that camp, and he didn't wanna end up playing second fiddle to precisely what you said, playing second fiddle in the region to these Gulf leaders who Trump you know, Trump talked about tall, attractive Arab men after in his first overseas visit. He went to The Gulf. He went to Saudi, Qatar, UAE. He skipped over Israel.
Didn't go there. That financial influence was perhaps begetting geopolitical influence, and Netanyahu had to come up with a strategy. And he came up with a strategy. And on February 28, we saw just how ambitious and effective it was. And what was that strategy?
I've got to offer the president something. And he managed to pull the president into that twelve day war with operation midnight hammer against Iran in June. Apparently, Trump saw what Israel is doing and thought, I wanna be on this winning side. And since then, Trump has had this narrative. After three thousand years, I'm bringing peace to The Middle East.
You've heard him say it as as as as have we all. And more than that, Trump apparently got a little excited about playing with his military toys. There was an unbelievable spectacle last week, I think it was, in the Oval Office where Trump actually asked one of his aides to hand him the toy model of a b two bomber. And he calls it gorgeous, and he physically hugs it. And he talks, and his his eyes light up when he talks about being in that situation room and watching the bombing.
And after Iran, the question everyone was after Iran in June, after that bombing, the question everyone was asking themselves was, was that one and done, or was that the appetizer for something bigger? And Netanyahu worked this. He worked this hard. And, apparently, he found a president who ran on an antiwar platform but got rather excited about using American military power. We saw it used in Venezuela after that.
And what's more, he decided that what Israel can offer is not sovereign wealth funds that can invest in things. Israel can offer a respected military, a plan, a respected intelligence agency, and what those took to the White House. And there's been revelations in the last days on some of this stuff, and and you referenced it, Mario. They came in and they said, mister president, we can do this relatively quickly, relatively easy. There's a unique opportunity to take out the Ayatollah.
He tried to kill you. Remember, mister president? We have assets on the ground. This is what the New York Times has told us the Mossad chief, David Barnea, took to the Americans. We have assets on the ground.
If we decapitate them, we can lead a revolution on the streets of Iran. We can maybe send in Kurdish fighters to start to dismantle the Iranian central governing authority by taking geographic areas. And they sold the the let's face it, a White House that is probably a bit of an information bubble that's not getting the best of advice. It's it's hardly the a team. They sold them on a version of events that I doubt the Israelis really believed, but they wanted to pull America into this war.
And we now have these reports. I can't speak to their accuracy, that JD Vance apparently said to the Israeli premier, you sold us a bill of rights that really wasn't how this has played out. By the way, there is, a blame game going on inside Israel about how come this isn't going as well as we expected. So that for me is how I close the gap between everything you said, a president not predisposed to this, a geopolitical argument that I think was weak to begin with in terms of why this is an American interest and I think has been proven even weaker as this war has played out and how we got to this moment, Netanyahu, what Israel brought to the table, the claims they made, and the project Israel is trying to pursue, which is different to what they're telling the Americans. All that I think is crucial to explaining how we got here, Maria.
Speaker 0: You said the project that Israel is trying to pursue, which is different to what they've told the Americans. You're saying the the US administration, the CIA don't have don't know what Israel's project is. So we talked about Mossad, how they've infiltrated American politics, global politics, and they know a lot more. They know a lot. Some people even claiming that they have dirt on some American politicians.
But it's it's impossible to believe that the world's biggest intelligence agency doesn't have the same information on the Israelis and knows what Israel's objectives are, which I'm assuming you're referring to the to either you're referring to the destruction of Israel as a threat or beyond that, expanding Israel beyond the current current borders beyond Palestine.
Speaker 1: So at first, I say you you don't even need the the what do they have on Trump. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I can't speak to that. You know, people who live down the rabbit hole of the Epstein files can can share their findings with us. I know that's how a lot of people see this.
I'm saying I don't know, and you don't even need that because enough of this is out in the public domain, and I'll come to that in a second. But when you say to me because, of course, that's absolutely right. Hey. Anything that Mossad knows, the CIA must know. They must.
And it's true. My question is different. How much of that is making its way to Trump? How much of that can Trump? How much of that is shared with Trump?
How much of that can he process? How much of that can his leadership team process? How serious is Peter Heckseth? How serious are these guys? We know that for all the mistakes America made in the past, there were certain checks and balances, and there was a certain interagency process.
And we know that has largely been gutted, torn apart. We've even read in the last couple of days that apparently the military are sharing the and the intel agencies are sharing with the president a daily two minute video update of the war, which is basically images according to the reports in NBC of blowing stuff up. So and when you hear the president speak, we just I think we just have to be honest with ourselves. There was a collective mea culpa at the end of the Biden administration. We should have been more honest about the the faculties of a man clearly aging and no no longer up to the job.
And I think when you hear Trump, we have to acknowledge that this does not sound like the the the person in charge really knows what he's doing or what he's saying. He rants and raves at his allies. He makes a claim and then says exactly the opposite, and it's not a strategy. So would the CIA have had have been able to correct some of what it was told? If the proper analysts were asked, then, yes, how many of those analysts are still around, and how much of that information was making its way up the chain?
And then the question is, well, what is Israel trying to achieve? And and if I can speak to that, I I am convinced that there is a a a strategy with significant clarity being attempted here. This isn't there's a simplistic version of greater Israel. Right? You hear some Israeli politicians talk about it.
We're gonna extend our sovereignty and our settlements, not just the eradication, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. We're gonna take part in Lebanon. We're gonna settle that. Some senior ministers have talked in those terms in the last couple of days. Sometimes they present maps of a greater Israel that extends into Syria or even into into Arabia.
I don't think that's really what where Netanyahu is at. I think he's a smarter strategist than that even though the country has got more fundamentalist and more ideological. I think what Netanyahu has in mind is that while we're in this moment of huge geopolitical fluidity, tectonic plates shifting, eventually, that's gonna settle down. It's gonna recrystallize. There'll be restraints imposed again.
But while everything is up for grabs, he wants to see how much control, how much domination Israel can exert by making sure it's the last significant player standing and that others develop dependencies on it, and he is using American power in order to do that. So you have a zone of control in Syria, an expanding zone of control in Lebanon. Israel is conducting its most extensive military operations in the West Bank since 1967. Israel is still killing Palestinians daily in Gaza and controlling directly 60% of that. But if you want to make sure you have nothing even approaching a peer competitor in the region, you have to collapse Iran as a state structure.
You need America in order to be able to do that. And you you want the I think what's happening to the Gulf States, to the GCC states, is not an unfortunate unintended consequence of this. I think Israel knew that they would be attacked as virtually everyone else did, and this is a way of bringing them down a peg or two so they create dependencies on Israel. Netanyahu said just a few days ago, you know what? I'll tell you how you how you resolve the problem of Hormuz and of Bab El Mandeb.
Build the pipelines. Transport the oil over to Israel's ports. You're gonna be dependent on us. That's he has a strategy, and that's what he's trying to achieve.
Speaker 0: That's crazy statement. I remember seeing it. I was just watching that sound like, if if you wanna pour salt on on the wound that the Gulf nations currently still licking, that is the way to do it. Gulf nations are pissed at Israel. They're pissed.
The UAE is pissed that the Jerusalem Post claimed a few weeks ago that The UAE is joining the war oh, no. That The UAE struck an Iranian desalination plant, if you remember that report. They were not happy at all. They believe and they the Al Haptur letter blamed Israel for for for dragging Trump and the world and The Gulf into this war. But that is a scary story.
On that? And that is also very, yeah. Of course.
Speaker 1: So no. Just just on on this point, look. The GCC states right now are on the horn of a really acute dilemma. Right? Iran is attacking those areas.
They thought America offered security of America offers more insecurity than security. They're furious at Iran, but they also are looking at the relationship with The US, the investments, the closeness. And yet, when it came to a question of their existential interest, they looked at how much influence they have on The US, and they looked at how much The US listened to Israel. And that mismatch, dismissing Gulf concerns, going along with what Israel pushed for, that will sit with them for an awfully long time. Right now, it's Yeah.
You know, some of them may think, you know, finish the job. I don't think the job can be can be done. Others will be saying, we have no good options now. But can we really trust America to to to keep doing this at a cost that we can absorb? Probably not.
So they face a terrible dilemma, but I think they I think they know now where they stand with The US compared to Israel, and they're probably getting a clearer sense of of of what Israel is up to.
Speaker 0: I agree. I think that's a very important observation. Everyone's talking about how The Gulf are turning on Iran. Iran's gamble in striking The Gulf to pressure them, to pressure Trump to end the war. It's backfiring and The Gulf is siding with The US and they might join an operation against Iran.
I think that's shortsighted. It's not inaccurate. Could be true. And the Gulf nations are not angels. No country is an angel.
There's no good and bad. The gulf nations may not want this war. But if there is this war, while we're at it, let's defang Iran. Let's weaken our rival. Maybe we get some territory as well.
There's these islands that are disputed between Iran and The UAE. I'm not saying that's gonna be the case. I'm saying these are possibilities. But this does not mean that the gulf countries are not gonna reconsider American bases in the region. They're gonna reconsider their alliance or relationship with The US, not just Trump, but The US as a whole.
The trust in in American consistency, has been shattered. American consistency means offering security to these Gulf nations, not dragging them into this war. So I think long term, the repercussions of this war, it's not an overstatement, are gonna be felt for many years to come, and they could have
Speaker 1: Agreed.
Speaker 0: Impact on the decades to come as well. American base is pulling out of the region. They're not gonna come back anytime soon. It's these such decisions are not reversed. Now I'm assuming this happens.
It might not happen. I could be totally wrong, but I am sure these conversations are at least happening, and that's already dangerous enough in my mind.
Speaker 1: I I think that is absolutely what's going on. And and if we just reverse time and go back to the immediate lead up to this war, one of the things that was going on was that having seen what Israel did in Gaza, and I'm not saying that that the leadership in any of these states wake up every morning concerned about the Palestinians, but they do wake up worried about what their pop and and and some of them deeply care. I don't wanna suggest that's not the case. But they do wake up concerned, what are what are our populations seeing on their social media feeds? Two years of watching a genocide in Gaza, the glorification of violence, the the the religious extremism coming out of Israel, the all the references to Amalek, two years of their populations watching that, the destabilizing impact of it.
And then after that, the Israeli strike in Doha when the Hamas negotiating team were meeting. The fact that just before this war, if we'd have been talking about the region a little over a month ago, we probably would have been talking about the the this heightened tension between The UAE and Saudi. Right? That was the storyline in the, in the beginning of this year. And and you had Israel then goes ahead and recognizes Somaliland.
And that's like, what's going on here? What what is Israel is is and partly in the relationship with The UAE, is is is using this to play an ever greater role in our backyard. And you started to see and I'm not saying it was going anywhere dramatic fast, but it was a new thing when you started to see the Turks and the Saudis and Pakistan and, Egypt and Qatar and even Somalia after that recognition talking and saying, do we have to start thinking about getting our security act together? Because, yes, we've spoken for a long time about Iran, but there's this Israel thing that's a really destabilizing factor. And so, all of those things were happening.
And then in the days before, literally in the days before this war, prime minister Modi of India is in Israel. And Netanyahu makes a speech where he talks about a hexagon alliance with Israel as its center, with The Gulf, with Ethiopia, a strong Israel ally in East Africa, with India, with Greece, in Europe, and and basically, Netanyahu is setting out this vision. And he has subsequently now said, Israel's not only a regional power. It's becoming a global superpower. By the way, I think this is ridiculous overreach for for for a country with the limitations of Israel, and and there are things the Israeli chief of staff of the army has said in the last days, which are relevant here as well.
But, anyway, Israel seemed to be on a tilt towards a regional power projection, and then it pulls America into this war. And now things look very different. So I think The Gulf is has some really hard questions with no easy answers that that are gonna be asked at the back end of this, depending, of course, on on the circumstances when this ends.
Speaker 0: I remember in the early days of the war, I was talking about how the strike in Qatar not early days of this war. Sorry. Early days of this year. I've been talking about how the strike in Qatar is probably gonna shift regional alliances, and Iran is gonna be see, I think Iran and Gulf nations, if I remember correctly, they came together in in in condemning that strike. And for me, the I saw that as the beginning of a of a shift, a regional shift, where these countries get back to becoming closer, and the Gulf countries, including Saudi, the nemesis to Iran, seizes Iran Iran as a potential as a not potential.
As a as a potential deterrent against Israel in the long term. So Iran is no longer is is a rival, but my enemies enemies, you know, what is it? My enemies enemies, my friend or whatever the statement is. Essentially, because of Israel, Iran and Saudi could get closer. However, I don't know what to think of this anymore because now maybe Israel just played their hands so well.
Because now we're in a position where instead of Iran and Saudi getting closer and potentially, forming an alliance eventually forming an alliance or some sort of understanding to improve relations, continue on the deal that China negotiated years ago in improving their relations as well as The UAE and other Gulf countries and focusing more on another threat which is Israel from that possibility a few months ago to now discussing, now talking about Iran bombing Saudi and other Gulf countries including Oman and Qatar and Bahrain, everything's been flipped on its head. I just don't know so like my next question is has the has the position of the Gulf countries changed? Would they prefer to see Iran defanged so that security risk is taken off the table? Because now the image of security in in The UAE and Qatar and etcetera, Bahrain, that image of security has been shattered. The image of security that allowed the world's billionaires and millionaires to come live in those countries, again, I live in The UAE, has been harmed, significantly harmed.
Will it return to how it was? Possibly. But would it require Iran to be a lot weaker for that image to be returned? That is the question I'm starting to ask myself. Because right now, as we're speaking, Turkish foreign minister said that negotiations between The US and Iran have started.
So what I'm trying to understand is how these negotiations would look like and what role, if any, would The Gulf play in this?
Speaker 1: Let me try and unpack some of that because as you remember, China brokered this Saudi Iran rapprochement just a few years ago, and that that brought out into the open a change that was taking place in the region. There became a a relative frequency of interaction. You know, The UAE had always maintained its relations with with Iran. A lot of the business ran through The UAE. Qatar had always maintained its relations The the the you started seeing relatively frequent high level mutual visits, military chiefs of staff between Iran and Saudi.
That was something new. And in the lead up to this, Iran was sitting more often with the GCC, and and partly it was saying, you do you do know that if this goes south, if this if this goes into a hot war that America and Israel launch, you're the home to the bases that are gonna be used for this. You don't want that. Yeah. Now some are looking at it and saying precisely what a genius move by Israel.
It having for years tried to use the the bogeyman thread of Iran as a way of trying to pull countries closer to it. Having seen that that was receding as countries were were were appalled by what they saw in Gaza and what was that doing to their public opinion. And they were in the process of of of of a rapprochement with Iran. It's pulled those it's it's pulled the the ability to define Iran as the common enemy right back to center stage. And of course, what Iran is doing is unjustifiable, is painful when it comes to some of the things that are going on with the Gulf States.
It's certainly not winning any friends. And it has posed this painful question for The Gulf Of should we now be all in with this American Israeli effort? Because geography is everything. And for the Gulf States, Iran is next door. And if it's shown that it can do this, then that supersedes any other consideration.
Geography is also everything because that's what makes it, in some ways, so difficult to, for the American military to achieve an Israeli, what they hope to in Iran. The terrain there doesn't lend itself to this. The ease with which the Hormuz is closed. The Hormuz Strait Of Hormuz is closed. And, of course, Israel is that much further away.
America is even further. America is surrounded by Canadians, Mexicans, and fish. So the the the problem for, the Gulf States is they now have these two terrible options as they see it. That either Iran comes out of this having shown that if it targets them, that's its way of creating deterrence, or they have to actually abandon the American military relationship with nothing obvious to take its place. It's not like China is saying we're gonna be a hard powered global military hegemon.
That that's not the offer on the table because China looks at these things differently, I think, thankfully. Or the other option is, you know what? We just have to hope that America and Israel can finish the job. However and it there are there are reports that that, you know, that's the message that some Gulf states are sending to The US. None of them have actually joined the military effort yet, which tells you something as well.
But if any of them think that that is the answer, they have to contend with the following question. Given everything you've seen so far in terms of American coherence and competence, do you trust the Americans to get enough of this job done for you at a cost acceptable to you? If you've been set back, how much further are you going to be set back? How much worse could it get for you if America gets this wrong and America's got so much of this wrong that I think for most of The Gulf, despite all the anger, the preference is still finish this, and we live to fight another day. Because until now, as they saw an Israel more ambitious, more dangerous, more destabilizing, they didn't wanna see a strong Iran, but they didn't wanna see Iran too weakened.
And this is Yeah. And this is this is now this is now the the the the reality we are in. By the way, Turkey really matters here. For Turkey also, Turkish uranium relations are are prickly. Okay?
They're good, but they're prickly. But for each, the other offers some strategic depth when it comes to Israel, for instance. And I don't think Turkiye wants to see the Gulf move into Israel's, sphere of influence on mass. That only happened with a couple of Gulf states in the Abraham Accords. It doesn't want to see an Iran that is removed from the regional equation because the Turks are playing very close attention to something that that people may not have picked up on, which is what is coming out of Israel in terms of what next after Iran.
And the Israeli system and Israeli political leaders are openly saying, next is Turkiye. Once we're done with Iran, the next question we have to address to ensure regional dominance is Turkiye. So that is also part of a a Turkish effort, and the Turks have been very active diplomatically to say, you know, we understand your anger in The Gulf. We're with you, but let's not lose sight of how we're all gonna have to live together tomorrow. You can't change your geography.
Iran's still gonna be there. If Iran is a mess afterwards, you'll have the chaos. What if there are armed groups in a decentralized state? So you you have to think long and hard about a future neighborly relationship despite everything that's happening right now. And Turkey, for its own interest, doesn't want a a collapsed Iran.
Speaker 0: By the way, in thirteen minutes, Solitia, as we wrap up this interview, the Houthis will be releasing their statements. What do you think that statement would be? There was no point speculating because we're not doing this live. We're gonna be posting it later. So I'll let you
Speaker 1: know what it is.
Speaker 0: Is Israel really a threat? Is Israel, though, a threat to Turkey, genuinely a threat? Because the whole what's next, why is it why does they have to be next? Why? So,
Speaker 1: really, I think that's that's the perfect question because the the thing that that most I don't know whether it upsets or pains or just has me fuming is the absolute abandonment by Israel of anything that be could be construed as a realistic political path. I think what they're trying to achieve is deeply unrealistic, is going to blow back against them very significantly. And you've got political options. Say to the you know, the Americans could have resolved this with Iran if you had a serious negotiating position, and if you had serious negotiators, by the way, without going to war. The Lebanese government has done something unprecedented.
It had meetings directly with the Americans in the room, with Israel. There were options here. Israel rejected all the political options. Syria under Ashara had direct talks with Israel. It was it was ready to reach something that may not have been so popular at home.
An understanding, apparently, nonaggression pact in which the Golan illegally seized and occupied by Israel wouldn't be precondition for a non aggression pact. Israel rejected all of these things. Of course, Israel has rejected any any political path with the Palestinians. So what you have is is a country that, at the moment at least, is high on impunity, thinks it can get away with anything, thinks it can bring American power to to the equation, therefore tilting any balance. And if it looks around the region and says where might the the stop signs be put out, Turkey has to be taken seriously.
I mean, if Israeli officials are now saying Turkey is developing a missile capacity. They're talking about Turkey in the same language they talked about Iran twenty, thirty years ago. Now I'd like to believe that this is a passing phase of that there'll be some kind of realism and pragmatism come into play in Israeli decision making circles. I wish it was just about Netanyahu. It goes way deeper.
The opposition is fully supportive, the Zionist political opposition. The representatives of the Palestinian Arab community in Israel take a different position. But the the the there is a Zionist consensus over this full war, over what was done in Gaza, over Turkiye. And the only way I can understand that is that the outside world has treated this as normal, and therefore, Israelis haven't had to ask themselves hard questions. And maybe they'll have to ask themselves hard questions in the end because of military shortcomings, which is perhaps the most likely thing.
But it it it is avoidable, but not with the trajectory Israel is on. By the way, you have the chief of staff of the Israeli army, which I kind of passingly referenced earlier yesterday telling the government, we just don't have the troops. If you want to carry on full tilt on everything you're doing, there is a domestic issue in Israel about the enlistment of the ultra orthodox. So that's one of the questions. But they're saying, give us more budget, give us more reservists, extend military service, and bring all these people into the military arm who aren't serving.
So one of the things going on is a kind of blame game. And when you're already doing a blame game in the middle of a war, that normally tells you things aren't going so peachy.
Speaker 0: What happens to that Are
Speaker 1: you listening to the Houthis there? Sorry.
Speaker 0: No. No. Not yet. I I said no. Sorry.
I said what happens to Lebanon?
Speaker 1: No. I'm sure you're following this very closely. As you know, there is no consensus in Lebanon on Hezbollah. Hezbollah has plenty of Lebanese who are irate, if not more, his bolas contribution. But Israel, in what it does to ordinary Lebanese people, always ends up making sure that there is a justification for resistance and that that situation is paralyzed.
So what you see now is 1,000,000 people displaced. Israel moving into Lebanese territory, declaring entire areas need to be fully evacuated, targeting not just areas known as Hezbollah strongholds. And by the way, just because it's known as a Hezbollah neighborhood, you know, bomb and destroy the whole neighborhood, but going well beyond that in the areas of Beirut, and beyond that are being targeted. And it seems that that Israel is set set to try and establish a a security controlled zone in Lebanon again. Remember, Israel was there from 1982 to 2000.
It created a a paramilitary force that worked with the Israelis, the South Lebanese Army. So there is serious consideration apparently being given to that. You have Israeli ministers who are saying, well, that's not enough. We need to put Jewish settlement in Lebanon. Lebanon should be permanently annexed.
That's not yet government policy. I'm not sure it will become government policy. And the other part of the story is Israel again has apparently overestimated, the ease with which it can achieve objectives through military means and underestimated what it faces because this has been a bit of a rude awakening. After Israel considered Hezbollah to be a spent force, you see that Hezbollah is not only sending missiles into Israel at a relatively frequent rate, but you also see Israel facing significant resistance on the ground, in the ground operations it's conducting, a whole load of tanks taken out just in the last twenty four, thirty six hours. So why Lebanon has bleed again when there is, you know, there is absolute this is so unnecessary.
It you had a really shitty ceasefire since after the exchange between Israel and and Hezbollah. A ceasefire was in place. Israel was still violating Lebanese sovereign airspace every day. Israel was still maintaining outposts even inside Lebanon. The Lebanese government
Speaker 0: But Hezbollah was also speaking Hezbollah was also violating and still building in in is still mobilizing in the South, rebuilding their presence in the South as well as we've seen they fired rockets from the South at the beginning of this war.
Speaker 1: Right. But what you had was a Lebanese government, which was trying to build a consensus domestically that would make that activity from Hezbollah more and more difficult. Because, ultimately, what you need is a Lebanon that that has a domestic political arrangement that can live with Israel. But for that, you need an Israel that can accept that it can't just dictate to countries. It's a bit like what Trump's trying to do now.
You dictate terms of surrender, but you can only dictate terms of surrender when you vanquished someone. And vanquishing is is a is a very bloody uncertain activity. And so what you wanna create is win wins. And Israel is in the business of zero sums, not win wins. So even when you had a Lebanese government that was trying to create the conditions of greater predictability, in the South Of Lebanon in terms of what Israel on a reasonable day would say was necessary in security terms, Israel wasn't interested.
It was interested in bludgeoning a zero sum, impossible to achieve within any kind of Lebanese domestic political balance outcome. And as soon as it had half the opportunity, it it was inevitable when this war started that it would hit Lebanon, but it shouldn't it shouldn't impact Lebanon in this way. There shouldn't be a million people displaced. That's just again, that is just impunity on steroids. You should not be allowed to get away with that.
Speaker 0: The last thing I wanna ask you about, Daniel, was, going back to Iran. I put out a post today. Let me see if I find there it is. Essentially, I I got a bit pissed off today because I want the war to end. I just it it's a war that really upsets me.
It's a war that I find too so unnecessary. So I put out a pause. I said, I'm pissed. Trump gave Iran a pause on strikes against their energy infrastructure until April 6. So what did Israel do?
They bombed all three of Iran's largest steel plants simultaneously, which are crucial to the Iranian economy. And if that wasn't enough, they also struck Iran's heavy water reactor facility in Kondab as well as uranium production and uranium conversion sites, all on the same day that was yesterday. Why did Israel do this, and was it in coordination with The US? If it's in coordination, it means Trump lied to Iran. If not, then Israel is lying about coordinating with The US.
And if you take into account the reports by JD Vance that we talked about earlier, him being upset with Netanyahu, the report that came out today that he was, I think, yelling on Netanyahu on the phone or upset with him. I think he's yelling at him earlier in the week. I said the following, the conclusion at the end, Israel seems to be trying to sabotage these negotiations, and it serves their interests to do so. Is that a fair deduction? Is it in Israel's interest to sabotage these negotiations so Iran continues to get bombed and weakened?
Or is it in Israel's interest for this war to end as well? Because Israel's getting attacked on a daily basis. You know, a missile barrage of missiles, I don't know how many missiles, probably not many, was fired by Iran on Israel again as we're speaking, and it's happening. You know, it was, like, 12 barrages yesterday, I think it was.
Speaker 1: Look. If you ask me, Israel's interest would be to, desist from running a regime of occupation and apartheid against the Palestinians to to, you know, have a whole different approach to the region when you're a small a small state. You know, I would desist from being a a state based on on on on the ethno ethno supremacist premises. So I don't think the whole approach is serves the well-being of the Israeli Jewish community or Jews around the world. But in terms of how Israel is pursuing this, how Netanyahu and the current establishment and and the logic of Zionism defines that interest, then, yes, it wants America to stay in this war.
It wants America to weaken Iran. And, unfortunately, what we have seen consistently, including in getting this war started in the first place, is an Israeli influence, an American unwillingness to use its leverage. So this idea that the the the vice president of The United States Of America on whom Israel is absolutely dependent and you yell at the Israeli prime minister, It's like the same BS that we heard when Biden was president, and he was frustrated. They kept leaking to the press. The president was frustrated over what was going on in Gaza.
You know what? Screw your frustration. You're giving them the weapons, the political, diplomatic, economic support without which this couldn't go on. There's no such thing as frustration. And what Israel tends to do is it acts first.
It doesn't ask for permission. It just takes the minor slap on the wrist. And what we have seen on several occasions is either rank American negligence that it has allowed these things to go on, or they're playing tag team and America is in on it, but it's it's pretending to send one signal while it's making sure Israel is doing the opposite. Because on several occasions, Israel has raced us up the escalatory ladder. So in terms of who's been you mentioned some of it.
In terms of who's been assassinated, in terms of the first strikes on Iranian oil depots, which were responded to in the Gulf States, in terms of attacking the South Pass gas field where as everyone who's followed anything would know that was gonna be met with a response on Qatari LNG facilities and now these latest attacks. So it is unfortunately not surprising, but
Speaker 0: you know,
Speaker 1: that is why the question is, can Israel be contained, deterred, held accountable? And it begins with The US. And by the way, one of the things that's happening here, which which I think is particularly high risk by Netanyahu, is he he either thinks that, you know what, Tucker Carlson, our unpopularity, the Democrats already wanna distance themselves. So many don't wanna publicly take APAC money. The MAGA base is saying this is Israel first, not America first.
You know what? It's fine. We've got this. We know how to play American politics. Either they are nonchalantly thinking that to themselves or Netanyahu is several steps ahead of the game, and Netanyahu is saying, you know what?
I'm probably losing America. And you know what? America's not the America it used to be. America is a declining there there is not unipolarity. America will not be able to assert its power in this way.
So as far as I'm concerned, I don't really care about America's future. As far as I'm concerned, it's use it or lose it. So I'm gonna use American power for my interest even if I accelerate American decline while I still can, and that strikes me as a likely interpretation of what's going on.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Agree. And the the well, some people link this to the meeting with Modi, inviting Modi to Israel's Israel's beginning of diversifying their dependence on other countries, other superpowers beyond Iran and preparing for a multipolar world. Israel's Israel's been able to to outclass most other countries with their foreign policy and the ability to just, you know, make the most out of American foreign policy and advance their interests at the expense of The US at the world's biggest military, biggest democracy. That's at least how it seems like.
And they could continue doing that. They've been really good when it comes to intelligence, and they've been really good when it comes to foreign policy. I just hope it changes for because the the approval rating for Israel is dropping not only in The US but around the world. India less so than others surprisingly, but in most other countries it's fallen off a cliff. And I'm seeing more and more politician distance themselves from Israel, at least from Netanyahu.
But all it takes is one leader that's more moderate, and we see a massive shift in Israeli foreign policy that will be a better shift for the entire region. But time will tell. But, Daniel, absolute pleasure to speak to you. Thank you for the work you do. Thank you for coming on the show, and I would love to do this again as this war progresses.
Speaker 1: Hopefully, we do it after the war, but but if if if that's the reality we're living in, then, yes, that's the reality. Good to speak to you, Mario.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Daniel.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷 The Pentagon is planning weeks of ground operations while the White House says the war is almost over... Trump: "I'm not putting troops anywhere." Rubio: "We can achieve all objectives without ground troops." Meanwhile, the Pentagon is war-gaming raids on Kharg Island and coastal weapons sites that officials say would take "weeks, not months." One source even said "a couple of months." 62% of Americans strongly oppose ground troops in Iran. Republican congressmen who are Navy SEALs are saying no. And Lindsey Graham compared seizing Kharg to Iwo Jima, a battle that killed 6,800 Marines. The most honest quote came from a former defense official: "Seizing it is not difficult. Protecting your guys once they are there is." Every expert says the same thing. You can take the islands. You just can't hold them without becoming a target practice range for Iranian drones and missiles. And 62% of the country doesn't even want you to try. Source: Washington Post Media: @visionergeo
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
If you're still not convinced the reason Trump attacked Iran is energy and China, here's Dick Cheney explaining it in detail 8 years ago in his biographical film 'Vice' Can't make this up https://t.co/xNKJFKunyc
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 THIS WAR STARTED WITH A MAJOR INTELLIGENCE FAILURE Alastair Crooke, former British diplomat, says the U.S. misread Iran from the beginning. He says the expected collapse never came.
Video Transcript AI Summary
- The discussion reassesses how the Iran-focused conflict has progressed since it began, contrasting current dynamics with earlier expectations about an exit ramp or rapid change in Iran.
- Speaker 1 argues that it was unlikely Trump would off-ramp; instead, major mistakes were made in understanding Iran and the war’s nature. He attributes false assurances to Israel’s Mossad, notably David Barnea, who allegedly pressed Washington that Iran was on the verge of a revolution and that a “house of cards” would collapse after a short spark.
- He outlines three U.S. attempts at decapitation-style moves:
1) June 13: the first decapitation strike,
2) January: protests hoped to topple the government by destabilizing the rial and bazaars,
3) February 24: another decapitation strike targeting the supreme leader and others.
He cites Israeli press as saying these were intelligence errors and that there is no sign of Iran’s collapse.
- Israeli public sentiment, per the Hebrew press, is shifting from earlier regime-change aims to pressing Trump to take “Cargilland” (i.e., a new approach or frontline) as the key to the future, implying a pivot in expectations from Israel.
- Trump is described as still seeking an exit ramp, motivated by looming midterm elections and an improving political position, but his chances depend on actions within weeks. Iran has rejected his ceasefire proposals, echoing past patterns where Western talks (notably Wittkopf and Kushner) talked of ceasefires without addressing Iranian demands or broader regional security architecture.
- The speaker notes a recurring pattern: repeated ceasefire discussions that don’t resolve phase two or underlying security concerns, with Iran consistently saying no to proposed ceasefires or terms.
- The situation is set against a broader political backdrop: Netanyahu’s government has reportedly given up on regime change and is considering boots on the ground, with a focus on whether Trump can sustain casualties.
- Military developments cited include:
- An expeditionary military unit expected to arrive soon, two MEUs, and the 82nd Airborne Division, with staging locations uncertain (Jordan or elsewhere).
- The war widening rapidly and becoming more dangerous in the region.
- Regional reactions and potential escalations include:
- U.S. airstrikes on Iraqi forces prompting Iraqi factions, including Ashad al-Hashabi, to threaten attacks on the U.S. and Iran.
- Reports of Iraqi troops massing near Kuwait, raising concerns of a broader sectarian conflict.
- The Houthis (and Hezbollah) indicating willingness to join if attacks escalate, with both already signaling involvement on the periphery.
- The overall trajectory described suggests a move toward a wider, sectarian conflict involving Iraq, Iran-aligned groups, and regional actors, with ongoing disagreements over ceasefires and strategic aims.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We haven't spoken for a while. So before we get into the latest developments today, I'd love to get your reaction to how the war has progressed so far, and maybe you can compare it to what your expectations were when the war first kicked off. Because I remember in our early discussion, the main narrative was when when is Trump gonna off ramp? How long will this last? Will that will that last more than a week, two weeks, and now we're at day 27?
So we'd love to get your general thoughts on how the war's progressed so far.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think it was me saying he was going to be able to off ramp. I was probably suggesting the opposite. Yeah. I was suggesting that it was unlikely and that, you know, that there had been major mistakes made in the understanding of Iran and the nature of the war that was being prepared. Particularly, I think we've seen that the Israeli Mossad has put a lot of effort into persuading Trump and Washington that Iran was on the verge of a revolution, and it was a house of cards, and a simple puff of the wind, and it would be all blown down.
David Barnea was virtually living in the White House during this period, selling this version of events. So we've had three tries at this by The United States. The first one was on Friday, June 13, when there was the first decapitation strike, if you like, then. And, it was assumed that would lead to it. Then, in January, we had a second attempt at this.
There were going to be protests, and the protests were going to bring down the government after they collapsed the value of the real to cause disquiet in in the bazaar. And then, now we had then Trump's own effort, this February 24, where he tried to, if you like, have another decapitation strike. The supreme leader was killed, and various other people have been assassinated. Well, those seem to have been major errors of intelligence, because there is no sign, and there has been no sign, and it's not me saying that, but the Israeli press are talking now very clearly that this was a mistake made by David Barnaire and Mossad in their judgment. And they don't believe that there is going to be a collapse in Iran.
And, that there's not going to be, if you like, a toppling of the cards. And so, they are now arguing. And, I'm talking really here quoting the Hebrew press, which we follow very carefully because it tends to be often more frank about how they think. And, the headlines there are that Jerusalem is shifting towards a demand that Trump should take Cargilland, and that this is the key to the future it sees. So there's that's how Israel is looking to it.
They've given up on those those propositions that they advanced to begin with, and are now looking looking to to that. Trump, on the other hand, of course, is is, I think, still hoping that he can find an exit ramp from this. I think the reason for that is that my understanding from the American, my American colleagues, is that really the midterms start really getting serious, sort of, by early summer. People start making up their mind which party they're going to vote for, candidates, right there. It's really starting.
So, he has a few weeks left in which, if he's going to try and recover his position, his political position, because his approval rating is very low at the moment, if he's going to improve it, he's got to do it in the next few weeks, really. And that's why I think he's set a date and said he hopes to have this done by, you know, an exit run by me. However, as I suggested, I think, when we last spoke, Iran has said no, you know, to this idea of a ceasefire. It's not the first time Trump has tried this. It was essentially, you know, what was being done to Russia in the Ukraine context.
If all the talks about cease fire, there were meetings, endless meetings between the Europeans and Witkoff and Kushner for a cease fire and the peacekeeping force who would come after it. But there was no discussion with Russia about it. It was a sort of negotiation amongst themselves. I mean, the West was negotiating. And, of course, it didn't address what Russia wanted, was a change in the security architecture in in the region.
Then we had that with the Palestinian issue too. You recall, I'm sure, the great plan that was instituted by Wittkopf and Kushner again for a ceasefire, And that, of course, what was pretty plain was it was a ceasefire going to be put into effect, and phase two hadn't been designated, hadn't really been thought about. It was just, you know, kick the can down the road to further discussions and negotiations between the mediators and Hamas at that proposal. And now we have the third one, a ceasefire being proposed, you know, maybe a month ceasefire that would take place, and demands being issued, 15 demands by Kushner and Wittkopf, again, being set out on a piece of paper. And, again, with most of those issues being sort of, again, can kicked down to discussions later on.
Predictably, Iran has said no to that. And so, we have to see where Trump will go now. He they're looking at the press, and I'm sure you've been following it very closely because of where you are. But looking at the press, he's saying, well, you know, something big is going to happen. And, by the way, we're still talking to the Iranians, which is not true.
But what does he do now? How does he get out of this? I think he's in a very tight situation indeed. And, as I was hinting there, he may talk about wanting to declare a ceasefire and getting out of it, but out of this conflict. But actually, Netanyahu and Israel has a vote on this issue too.
And it's quite clear from the Hebrew press, they are much more blunt about it, that they have given up on regime change and now think there has to be boots on the ground. And they say, the only question is, can Trump sustain the losses, the casualties or not? Is he capable of sustaining casualties that will inevitably result from one of the several plans that seem to be afoot or being mooted? And don't forget, what are we today? Thursday.
Well, the first military expeditionary unit is due to arrive, I think, in your area tomorrow. I'm not sure the dates of the other parts of it. And then there is also so there are two MEUs, as the Americans call them, and then there is the eighty second Airborne Division. But where that is going to stage, I don't know. Whether it will be in Jordan or somewhere else, I don't know.
But meanwhile, the the war is widening, widening very rapidly and dangerously, particularly in your area because we've had the attacks, the bombings by The US of the Iraqi army. And this has persuaded Sudanese to, say, give a green light to Ashad al Shaabi now to attack America and to attack Iran. And the reports I hear, maybe you have them or have had them denied, but Iraqi troops are are actually massing at the edge of Kuwait at the moment. So what is gonna happen? It it has a sort of feel that we're moving towards almost a sectarian conflict that is becoming much wider.
The Houthis have said they intend to join in if there's any attack. Hezbollah is already engaged in it. So we have Iraq, Hizbullah, the Houthis already, if you like, not in the war yet, but on on the on the edges of it.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇭🇺 EXCLUSIVE w/ PM VIKTOR ORBAN ON THE IRAN WAR If there’s ever a person who can give us insight into Trump’s thinking, and what could and should happen next in Iran, it’s Prime Minister Orban He’s Europe’s longest serving Prime Minister, gone through the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, he’s a friend of Trump who also gave him advice before the war, and he’s one of EU’s most respected and powerful voices. I sat down again with the PM to get his thoughts on the current war, NATO’s potential involvement, and whether Trump is prepared for a prolonged conflict. He was brutally honest with me, explaining why he believes NATO should support Trump, and why the war should end soon before it becomes a crisis for Iran, the U.S., and the entire world It’s a delicate line between a success and failure, and we are at that crossroads now We also discuss the future of the EU in a world dominated by the U.S. and China, the impact of the Iran war on Ukraine/Russia, and the repercussions of a prolonged conflict on Europe and the world. The decisions being made right now will shape the next decade. This conversation with @PM_ViktorOrban explains why. 02:10 Destroying Iran’s capabilities could bring peace… or trigger a much bigger war. 03:40 In that region, going in is easy. Getting out is almost impossible. 05:10 You cannot control that region from the air. It doesn’t work. 07:20 My first question is never global. It’s always: what does this do to Hungary? 08:30 Migration from Iran could hit Europe fast… and countries won’t be able to handle it. 09:40 If oil prices rise again, Hungary will take a direct economic hit. 11:20 Europe made a huge mistake by mocking Trump… and destroyed its relationship with the U.S. 12:40 Sanctioning cheap Russian energy was politically crazy. 14:50 Sooner or later, Europe will have to go back to Russia for energy. 16:00 Europe is becoming irrelevant because it’s trying to act like an empire. 18:10 Europe misread the global shift and is now falling behind the U.S. and China. 20:30 The Western elite became tired, boring, and out of ideas. 22:40 If this war ends fast, it will look like a success. If not, it becomes a disaster. 25:00 Thinking anyone can beat China is a mistake. China is unbeatable. 26:20 There won’t be just one global power. There will be at least two controlling the world. 30:10 Europe lost its identity and now doesn’t know what it stands for. 32:20 Central Europe is mentally stronger and ready to rise. 36:10 Mixing civilizations is too risky. We won’t take that risk. 45:20 Russia will reach its war goals by any means. The question is how we respond.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that a war with Iran could destabilize the South Caucasus, with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey nearby and Russia to the north. Narek Karapetyan warns Iran’s collapse would be four times worse than Syria, bringing more ethnic tensions, refugees, and a shattered supply chain. Trump’s Armenia corridor bypassing Iran suddenly fits this moment. Meanwhile Armenia’s PM jails opposition and targets the church as crime climbs. The interview covers Iran, history, and the corridor.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇦🇲🇮🇷 THE COUNTRY MOST LIKELY TO BE SWALLOWED BY THE IRAN WAR IS ONE NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT... Armenia is right on Iran's border. So is Azerbaijan. So is Turkey. And Russia is just north. If this war destabilizes Iran, the South Caucasus becomes the next crisis zone overnight. Narek Karapetyan is the Armenian opposition leader (also ahead in the polls) who says what most diplomats won't. Iran falling apart wouldn't look like Iraq. It would be four times worse. More ethnic minorities, more separatist movements, more refugees, and a shattered supply chain stretching from Central Asia to Europe. Trump quietly brokered a trade corridor through Armenia that bypasses Iran entirely. A deal that made little sense six months ago now looks like it was designed for exactly this moment. And in the middle of all this, Armenia's own PM is jailing opposition leaders and attacking the church while drug crime climbs five times over. Narek expects to be arrested within a month. The most strategically important country you're not paying attention to is the one sitting right on the edge of the blast zone. Full interview with Narek Karapetyan below 00:25 Iran Collapse Would Be Worse Than Syria 10:25 Why The Iran War Started 16:01 Armenia's 2500 Year History With Iran 24:36 Stalin Gave Armenian Territory To Azerbaijan 30:36 Armenian Genocide: Every Family Has An Orphan 35:12 Trump's Corridor Deal As Iran Alternative 44:16 Prime Minister Offered To Show Penis To Priest 49:01 Billionaire Jailed For Defending The Church 53:05 Uncle In Jail Told Family "Change Your Tie" 1:01:03 We Expect An Arrest Within A Month
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on the volatile security dynamics in the South Caucasus, Armenia’s strategic importance, and the domestic political tensions surrounding Armenia’s leadership.
- Iran’s regional posture is described as volatile, with reports that Iran struck all its neighbors and Azerbaijan. Narek says there is video and information suggesting rising tensions between Iran and Azerbaijan, but emphasizes that Iran’s current priority is stabilizing its own regime after losing many leaders, and that a military expansion into Azerbaijan would bring a broader regional war with Turkey and a long, bloody confrontation. He argues that a ground invasion of Iran by Azerbaijan is unlikely, noting that such action would provoke a large-scale conflict and destabilize the region.
- Armenia’s geopolitical significance is framed around its role as a buffer between Iran, Turkey, and Russia, and its location on a potential land route between China and Europe. Narek explains that Armenia is the shortest land route from China to Europe, and that the South Caucasus acts as a balancing buffer among major powers.
- The region’s external influence includes the EU, the US (including Trump’s peace-broker role), Israel’s involvement tied to Azerbaijan’s oil and weapons; and Russia’s waning influence. Trump’s mediation in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute is described as bringing land and corridor arrangements that are economically beneficial and reduce the risk of forceful redrawing of borders, though Narek notes Armenia needs stronger security guarantees to ensure lasting peace.
- Nagorno-Karabakh history is summarized: Stalin’s border decision placed Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan, which led to a war as Armenian-populated areas resisted Azerbaijani control. After the conflict, many Armenians relocated to Armenia, with only a handful of Armenians remaining in Karabakh, and those who stayed ultimately left. The peace brokered by Trump involved a road within Armenian territory used for economic purposes, with Azerbaijan gaining a road corridor but not sovereignty over Armenian lands; the arrangement is presented as a regional stabilization mechanism that avoids armed conflict for now, yet requires security guarantees to prevent future disputes.
- Israel’s role is described as an influential arms supplier to Azerbaijan, shaping the regional map, while Israel could also help with regional development and technology transfer if the South Caucasus moves toward a broader economic partnership. Narek envisions turning the region into a crossroad for logistics, with Israel contributing technologically to reduce poverty and support economic growth.
- The discussion then shifts to Armenia’s internal politics. The host highlights concerns about centralized power in Armenia and suggests a parallel to other global trends toward autocracy or heavy-handed governance. The focus is on the PM’s strategy to centralize power, including moving to control the church and major national institutions.
- The PM’s actions are described in detail: using government influence to target the Armenian Apostolic Church, insulting church leadership, and pressuring clergy. Four archbishops were jailed; Samuel Karapetian, Armenia’s leading philanthropist and opposition figure, was arrested for six months in a KGB-style basement jail with harsh conditions. The PM is accused of attempting to purge or weaken opposition parties before elections, including arrests of party members on charges that are later dropped.
- Samuel Karapetian’s statements and behavior are discussed: he publicly warned against the PM’s assault on the church and pledged to defend Armenian values, vowing to participate in politics and to resist attempts to curb democratic processes. The host notes that Karapetian’s family, including Narek’s father, might be targeted similarly, and discusses the risk of lawfare being used to disqualify or jail political opponents.
- The interview covers Armenia’s electoral environment: elections are described as free and fair so far, but pre-election oppression is a concern, with opposition leaders potentially targeted ahead of polls. Narek says their party is leading in polls and that there is a risk of arrests to suppress it, but the public is broadly opposed to the PM’s centralization of power.
- On solutions and future relations, the participants emphasize the need for a two-term limit and for institutions to govern beyond any single leader, arguing that a system above individuals safeguards democracy. Narek asserts that a true democratic leadership would avoid lawfare as a routine tool against political rivals and would seek peaceful, institutional transitions of power.
- The conversation ends with a hopeful note on Armenia’s potential as a regional hub for investment and a peaceful, prosperous South Caucasus, as long as democracy, checks and balances, and international partnerships—especially with the United States and Israel’s technology sector—are leveraged to sustain regional stability. The host expresses a desire for continued dialogue with Armenia’s leaders to advance peaceful solutions and investment opportunities, and to ensure democracy prevails.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Iran struck all their neighbors, reportedly also struck Azerbaijan.
Speaker 1: I don't think that Azerbaijan's priority for Iran the first priority is government structure to make it continuously stable because they have lost most of leaders. There's concerns that
Speaker 0: Azerbaijan could be one of the places that troops could amass and enter Iran.
Speaker 1: Attacking Azerbaijan, Iran will get enemy like Turkey, and it will be ground long term war with much more bloody region needs peace.
Speaker 0: Narek, absolute pleasure to to meet you, to speak to you, to be here in Armenia. And, you know, just kind of give the audience a bit of an overview about Armenia. It's a country that doesn't get talked about much except, you know, history, you know, dark history that it's had with the genocide. But it's a country that's so geopolitically important. Iran is just on the border where the war is ongoing.
Azerbaijan is on the other border that you guys have had wars over many years with. Turkey's on the other border. Russia's up north.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: So you and obviously, Trump brokered a peace deal in the region, which we're going to talk about as well. So Armenia is a very important country. And also, you guys, your politics is fascinating, but also very concerning that we're gonna talk about because there's there's a battle between freedom, liberty, conservative values, and me kind of label it as the elites or Brussels. That's how I see it. That I'd love to get your thoughts on.
But Narek, let me start by asking you a question about why is Armenia so geopolitically important in the world?
Speaker 1: Thank you very much Mario for giving me such an opportunity for our country. Our country is one of the ancient countries of the world. The first documentary registered mentioning about our countries starting like 25 centuries ago from 25 centuries like 2,500. And we are in the region that is buffer between these three big powers. The South Caucasus is a buffer between like Iran, Turkey and Russian Federation.
And that's why it's important because Armenia is the shortest way from China to Europe by land or avoiding the south and north logistic trips, logistics ways that are under danger now, under war now. That's why logistically, Armenia is very important for making a very short term short term logistic from China to Europe and from Europe to China, the first thing. The second thing is the balancing buffer in the middle of Russian Federation, Turkey, and Iran. Mhmm. And that's why it's important area for do these two geopolitical issues.
Speaker 0: And you've also got the EU. The EU is trying to get more influence here. I think the the current prime minister is trying to lean more towards Europe as well. So there's all these different powers that are trying to get a foothold here as well as The US. Again, we said that Trump was he brokering a deal that includes a lot of business deals as well that we'll discuss.
I don't envy you guys in the position you're in, very strategically important. But let's talk about what's happening down south and that's the war in Iran. Iran has struck all their neighbors, reportedly also struck Azerbaijan. I wanna get your thoughts whether you think that's true. Do you think Iran struck Azerbaijan?
Speaker 1: We got some information about this. We got video. We know that there are some videos, and we think that it will be more and more bigger tensions. Between the two countries. Between the two countries.
But we hope that it will be peace between them because peace in this region doesn't have any alternative. Even through though we have such a bad history with Azerbaijan, we want them to be in peace with Iran, with us, with neighbors.
Speaker 0: But so you said you have information. What type of information? Information to show that Iran actually attacked Azerbaijan or that some people are saying it's a false flag attack because Iran doesn't have an incentive to attack Azerbaijan?
Speaker 1: I don't think that now Azerbaijan's direction is priority for Iran. Now the first priority is to stay stay stable the of the structure, government structure to make it continuously stable, being stable because they have lost most of leaders of the country and every day they are losing them. That's why the priority for Iran now is to keep the structure of the country to not let the country
Speaker 0: Collapse. You're talking about Iran?
Speaker 1: The regime.
Speaker 0: Yes. The regime we heard today, the commander one of the commanders got killed, Larjani. Larjani? Yeah. He got killed today.
So they're they seem like they're on the brink. But going back to Azerbaijan. So there's and I know this is your neighbor and you guys have a really dark history with Azerbaijan we're gonna get into. But number one, there's a lot of Israeli influence and deals with Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan exports a lot of oil to Israel.
So Israel depends on Azerbaijani Yes. Azerbaijan for energy. And Azerbaijan depends on Israel for weapons and technology, which played a role in your war with Azerbaijan. We're gonna talk about. So that's one reason why Iran may strike Azerbaijan, kind of a warning to make sure they don't get involved or they don't keep supporting Israel.
And and this is me speculating. I wanna get your thoughts because you obviously have more intel than me. And the other one, which is a bit more extreme speculation but important nonetheless, is if there's going to be a full ground invasion of Iran, I don't think it's the case but you never know these days, there's concerns that it will be Azerbaijan could be one of the places that troops could amass and enter Iran. So Iran could be warning Azerbaijan not to allow US troops or foreign troops on their territory. What are your thoughts on these two theories?
And do you think one of them is the reason Iran struck Azerbaijan?
Speaker 1: Today's war, that Iran is facing and all the region is facing, it's not war on the ground. It's war mostly like air attacks, etcetera. But attacking Azerbaijan, Iran will get enemy like Azerbaijan or the counterpart like Azerbaijan, counterpart like an ally of Azerbaijan Turkey, and the war will go another way. It will go more, more, more in traditional way it will be.
Speaker 0: So you mean more troops?
Speaker 1: Yes. More troop and more ground forces
Speaker 0: If Iran involves Azerbaijan, then Iran may be facing a new type of warfare which involves troops.
Speaker 1: Yes. I am sure Iran will not do that. Iran will keep the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and will not do that even if it will be some problems, but not not any military troops on other countries. Because Azerbaijan has an ally of Turkey and it will be ground war, long term war with much more bloody. For you to understand, I want to show the difference that Iran war and the collapse of Iran system can bring to all of this region.
Iran has 90,000,000 population. It's four times bigger than Syria. Iran has more religious population than Syria had. Syria was a little bit secular country like at the time war started there. Iran has ethnic more minorities than Syria has.
And four times bigger population, 90,000,000 people. And if instability will be there, long term war will be there, it will all of our region, all of region will face this treat of uncontrolled migration, poverty and groups as well. Yes. Supply chains interruption. It will bring a big damage to Central Asia, to South Caucasus, to Middle East.
Who benefits? I guess no one because
Speaker 0: Except in the region no one. Israel would benefit having a weaker Iran I guess?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure because the now the system in Iran is negotiable. Mhmm. In future when it will be risk of unnegotiable small groups, it will cause a huge problem for any actors. It's not Syria. Syrian crisis, all European we have we see that in European Union there were many, the crisis of migration, the other crisis is that affects and that came from Syrian crisis.
Iranian case will be worse. That's why region needs peace. That's why region needs diplomacy.
Speaker 0: Why do you think we don't have peace? Why do you think we're talking about boots on the ground? What is the reason for all this? What is the reason for the war? I think people are debating that.
I think, obviously, there's one argument that Israel's the reason that they dragged The US into this war. I think that has some truth to it. I also see the strategic value of the Strait Of Hormuz for The US to choke off Chinese oil between that big rivalry between China and The US, which I know Armenia's caught in the middle as well. Why do you think the war started, and what do you think is the objective now?
Speaker 1: The foundation of the war of this war is one thing, the guarantees of security for Iran and guarantees security for Israel. Both countries needs guarantee. Iran needs a guarantee, needs Iran elite so that they need these weapons for making or or they don't say it actually, but they work on it because they need some guarantees for their You mean
Speaker 0: nuclear weapons as a deterrent for any attacks?
Speaker 1: Yes. Israel needs guarantees for this guarantee that has Iran. That's why the only way to go non bloody, to not make this region, to be a big big big mess with like do you remember in Central Europe in seventeenth century it was thirty years war. When war was thirty years it was religious war. And in the end of this war everyone came and diplomacy solved the problem in Westphalia.
We call it Westphalian world. Now we need a new Westphalian agreement, but before the war, before the war is starting to burn all over the region.
Speaker 0: Become more regional than it is now? Yes. You see that's a risk as well?
Speaker 1: The demographic potential of Iran is very high. It's very dangerous.
Speaker 0: How how would it The world how could it become so it's already a regional war. Iran is striking the Gulf. Iran, we just talked about potential strikes in Azerbaijan and even Turkey, and they get missiles to Turkey. So if that's this this does become a regional war, who picks which side? China and Russia will obviously support Iran, a way to weaken The US.
What will Turkish role be? And I know we're talking about a worst case scenario. We both would want diplomacy to prevail, I'm a proponent of diplomacy. I'm a pacifist. But if this does spread, how would it look like, and what is Turkey's role in this?
Because Turkey is a big superpower that people are not talking enough about that has a lot of influence in the region, including your neighbor, Azerbaijan. You have a bloody history with with Turkey as well. And Turkey has a rivalry with Israel, and Turkey's a NATO member. So what would the regional war if it escalates look like, and what would be Turkey's role in this?
Speaker 1: If the war will be will continue, we will have a Persian Gulf logistic chain interrupt. We'll have a Bab El Mande part of the logistic chain of Suez interrupt because Yemen and Yemen is Shias are there and we'll have a long term crisis of logistics all over the Eurasia. It will affect oil. It will affect Chinese trade. It even will affect the Chinese trade through South Caucasus if we don't solve the problem now.
It it will bring a big big inflation for these regions.
Speaker 0: And for the world as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Inflation. Is disrupted. Inflation for the world when the economy in emerging markets it will increase the prices, it will increase the poverty, the oil will be higher, the price of oil will be higher. It's a huge depression for the world economy And involving the new powers in it, it will be not directly, it will be indirectly Proxy.
Proxy, yes. It will make it more bloody. That's why to avoid all of this all of parts of the this conflict must start from foundation, from security guarantees. If they have security guarantees, if they solve the issue with security guarantees, we will have peace. Now we will face a long term structure like taking an Iranian government structure under risk, long term attacks on Iran Iranian government pyramid.
If it succeeds it will succeed, Iran will face a problem of, you know, state integrity, the integrity of territory. It will face
Speaker 0: You will have the Kurdish group, the Kurds, the Azeris, Belugi, Belugi, Lurie. Essentially seek their own country, their own state, and that would lead to the worst case scenario, which is the balkanization of Iran, which will be heartbreaking because that would be like similar to what we're seeing in Syria and Iraq.
Speaker 1: Yes. And for my nation, for our nation, despite the all of political systems that were here, that were there, we first, we start to contact with Iranian nation, with Iranian people like 2,500 ago. The first documentary information about Armenian nation is when the king of Iran, Kyrush, came here and deal with Armenian king.
Speaker 0: So you guys have a really long history.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Really long. And we want them to be in peace because of this history. This history has 95% of peace, 5% of not peace, but we have a huge history and with Iranian people we have a friend friendly history. That's why we see we want to support all of this peace.
But we see that the processes is going worse and worse.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Israel's role in all this though is really tricky. And the reason I'm bringing up Israel is because you guys had a war, more than one war, with your neighbor Azerbaijan. And the world knows about Armenia other than your history.
They see it in the news with the clash with Azerbaijan and Trump priding himself on being able to achieve peace between the two countries. Also, Putin, who was meant to be a supporter of Russia, who's meant to be a supporter of Armenia, stepped out of this war for various reasons, did not play the, you know, the the broker it previously played. So we have a reality now where Russian influence in the region seems to have wavered. Turkish influence, they're of filling that void, but not on the Armenian side, on the Azeri side, on the Azerbaijan side. Trump coming in, The US now having a piece of the business that's happening here, I'll let you explain on why Trump is involved, and Israel because of the Azerbaijan oil.
I know Armenia doesn't have that amount that oil, any oil really. So Azerbaijan has that advantage and they leverage that advantage to make a deal with Israel. So I wanna start with Israel before going to the other powers. How big of a role is Israel now playing in the region? Does that concern you?
And what do you make of Israel's relationship with Azerbaijan? Because that played a role in Armenia militarily, not achieving what it plan what it hoped to achieve in the war recently in 2023.
Speaker 1: Israel has a big role of supplying Azerbaijan and selling to Azerbaijan some weapons, equipment. And Israel has a role in this region as a main power that is creating the geopolitical map of this region. Yeah. Now. And what we can do in future, what South Caucasus can do.
Peaceful future that we see for South Caucasus is like peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And what can Israel give to this region is the technologies, is the education, and the transformation of Israel's, you know, support, not support Israel's export for this region, not just military issues, not just the issues about attacking or about fighting or about war. It it must be changed to a more economic partnership relationship between Technological. And technological. Yes.
The only country in the in this region that has a big technological potential that can be shared with all of the all of our countries and can be used for solving a poverty problem, economic problem. If we look on the problems in this region with the view of opportunity, perspective of opportunity, not of conflict will gain huge benefits. With Israel we had a story about supplying equipment to Azerbaijan. But we feel that technology and this achievement that this small country could have will help the regional power countries to solve the economic problems, some poverty problems. About our region, it's as I mentioned Russian Federation, Turkey, Iran, they are here.
And
Speaker 0: Scary really. Yes. Israel, Iran, Israel, Turkey, this Trump came in. So I was like everyone, China does a lot of business here and they have the corridor as well. So all these different hands in the region.
Speaker 1: Here and it will help us in another way. I think we think it will help us to become a crossroad for logistics from south to north, from east to west. We will be being a safe buffer in this unsafe region.
Speaker 0: And
Speaker 1: if we solve problem, when we solve problem with Azerbaijan, the South Caucasus will become the only stable zone of this region in worst case. Russian processes in North broke the balance in South Caucasus and it brought war.
Speaker 0: The Russian the Russian influence in the region led to more war, you mean?
Speaker 1: Russian processes with Ukraine. Ah, okay. The war with Ukraine caused decreasing of balancing role of Russia understand. Because there are three powers here. And one of the powers with was one of the balancers
Speaker 0: had an their way to focus on Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Priority? Yeah. Had had
Speaker 0: So who filled that void? Turkey?
Speaker 1: And and Israel. After after, like, one year, start a new war. The new war started here because Turkey's role increased. We need the balance on this region. And Trump's trip project is that the balance can bring which can bring long term peace for our region.
The only thing that we must work on it, it's from to increase the role of US from from weakness to a more guarantor role of the peace. It will bring peace for all this logistic chain and this crossroad that will be most safest crossroad in this unstable region.
Speaker 0: So let's go back to your history with Azerbaijan. Yes. So that one is is again, Armenia has a really complex history. A very old state, a very old country. I think the first country as you said earlier to to adopt Christianity as a state religion or whatever 300 BC.
Now, there's an area, a region called Nagorno Karabakh and that region is technically most of the world recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan. But it does have a very large portion of the population that's, you know, Armenian, Christian, and they've been prosecuted. I think there's videos that went out of people being prosecuted, being murdered, being executed, being tortured. So what Azerbaijan's been what, sorry, Armenia has been trying to do, by the way correct me if I get anything wrong, I'm trying to oversimplify it here from what I understand, has been trying to support this group to be able to decide their own fate if they want to be part of Azerbaijan or wanna be a separate state. And that didn't go as planned.
And with the support of Israel and Turkey and with Russia stepping away, Azerbaijan was able to to to gain a lot of territory in that region in the last war two years ago, and then Trump came in and brokered the peace. So this is my oversimplified understanding of what happened. Did I get it right? And can you add more context to it on the history of this war, but more importantly, what makes it so significant and why how was Trump able to reach a peace deal? And is it over now?
Is that the end of it?
Speaker 1: Territory of Nagorno Karabakh was given to Azerbaijan by a person whose name is Joseph Stalin, with a beautiful mustache but with not beautiful deals, know. And this person gave the Armenian populated territory from Armenian part Armenia to Azerbaijan. There are some there were some differences, cultural differences between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, religious differences. There were Muslim, Shia Muslim people and we were Christians. There were another approach to women rights, and we had another approach to women rights.
I don't want to say who has better, who has more liberal or not liberal or not, but we had another approach to the world, know. And region of Nagorno Karabakh was highly educated. The population was highly educated. And it was given to Azerbaijan and for people to have a high education in Nagorno Karaba, you didn't have chance to have Armenian high education in Nagorno Karaba. You didn't have chance for your religion freedom and the the people of Armenia, Armenian people who were living in Nagorno Karabakh, they were fair for the processes that Armenian nation faced before in Ottoman Turkey time
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: At genocide time.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's why at the part at the time when Soviet Union start to collapse, nationalistic some powers came to power in Azerbaijan, started to came to power in Azerbaijan. The people of Nagorno Karabakh, Christian people of Nagorno Karabakh who had other values than the their neighbors who had good values, guess, but other different values, started to protect themselves from the oppression. And it caused from one week, second week, one month, second month, it caused a big war, Balkan style war. But the end of war was with peace when the Armenian population remained there, they were living there, they organized the structure of a democratic state structure where they changed three presidents. They have four presidents.
At that time Azerbaijan last fifty years, like forty five years from fifty years, two family members are controlling this country. The father and the son of Aliyah.
Speaker 0: Azerbaijan is a country, yeah?
Speaker 1: Azerbaijan is a country.
Speaker 0: You mean is a democracy, not a perfect democracy, but a democracy? Yes. Azerbaijan is autocracy.
Speaker 1: Yes. Armenia has like four leaders. Azerbaijan last fifty years. There is an exception, like five years other people, but forty five years one family is controlling this country. And next twenty years they don't have, I think they don't have any other plans, you know.
They want to continue. There there is structural differences. There is values differences between two these countries. Yeah. And it caused wars.
Speaker 0: Because of whose support? Turkey? Initially Turkey and then Israel or
Speaker 1: I think the structure of the country, the democratic country, priority in our country is the medicine quality, is the education quality, is the solving the poverty problem, economic problem. Priority for them is military dominance in region, military dominance in Karabakh. And a leader who is there last twenty five years, who is leading this country. And our leader that our leaders that are changing because it's democratic country And this is clash of two two like approach to political systems in the world. First is centralized military dominance, one leader.
The second is democratic, more focused on internal problems.
Speaker 0: It's like Europe and Russia kind of a loose example. Russia is very focused on its military, more so now because of Ukraine. Europe is probably too little focus on their military to an extreme where they focus on too much red tape but also the well-being of the country, the state, the medical programs they have. And so you're saying that, I know it's not the best example so I apologize but you're saying that Azerbaijan was really heavily focused for a very long time on building a strong military And that helped them achieve a win, a strategic win or military win when it comes to Nagorno Karabakh. I do wanna ask you about something kinda important as part of the context because the historical part is important, is the dark history of Armenia.
Because we mentioned Turkey a few times Yes. And Turkey supporting Azerbaijan. Now there is everyone knows about the Armenian genocide. They might not know the full story which is a heart breaking story. It was after the World War, the Ottoman Empire essentially killed a lot of Armenians.
Think killed the men and then forced the women and the children to walk
Speaker 1: Yes. Through
Speaker 0: And knowing they're gonna die and the majority of them died just walking in the desert. Can you just tell me more about the Armenian genocide? What happened?
Speaker 1: We as every country who is starting to be weaker, the dark powers in this country, the, you know, the regressive, the most, you know, negatively conservative part of the Ottoman establishment starting to find internal enemy. Because after losing war, when they saw that they are starting to lose war with antanta
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: They start to look for enemy. They found enemies by Christian minority. They named Christian they appointed Christian minorities to be enemies, internal enemies. Because they said that Christian minority made Ottoman Empire to lose the battles.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: And they started to persecution of the Christian in all over the Ottoman Empire and the most of them Armenian Christians. My ancestors, my grandfathers, and all of like 70% of Armenian peoples that are living in Armenia has one of the grandfather or grandmother who was at genocide time in the Turkey territory, now the Turkey territory. Wow. They came
Speaker 0: The Rimba
Speaker 1: one? Yes. They came here like an orphans. It's a nation of an, you know, where everyone has one grandfather or grandmother that was orphaned after genocide.
Speaker 0: Wow. Reminds me of Rwanda. Rwanda has every single person in Rwanda has a a family member that was impacted or killed Yes. In the in the Rwandan genocide. Yes.
Which is crazy. It's just a it's a country healing, country that's scarred and I feel like Armenia, even though genocide is much older as during World War one, Turkey sorry, Rwanda was in the nineties. It feels like that scar is still there that every person in Armenia has some family member that was orphan orphaned back then. Because so what happening so I got it right. So essentially the men were executed and the women and children were forced to walk in the desert.
Speaker 1: Yes. And the children, they were like dealers of children who sell Armenian children to Armenian soldiers and Armenian soldiers buy these children to bring them to church. And in Hmiazim, it's in the center of Armenia, our church organized a big camp for these orphans. And hundreds of thousands orphans were there. You know all these children who were saved with this this you know process, after all this horrible process, they started a new renew our nation.
Nation. We started from zero. That's why many of them even they don't remember from which part of Ottoman Empire are they from. Many of them like there are stories that one of them was living in Los Angeles, one of the sisters, the other was living in Yerevan. And they met after sixty years.
They didn't know that each of them are alive.
Speaker 0: We've talked about just now the history of Armenia and I think that history is very important to put it into context because that plays a role to this day in why Turkey supporting Azerbaijan, your relationship with Turkey, your neighbor, your relationship with Azerbaijan. It all, you know, the historical context plays an important role even Israel's involvement and Israel's recognition of the Armenian genocide. Now, we've talked about what's happening in Iran, which is really important. And before that, we also talked about the strategic and geopolitical importance of Armenia and and the South Caucasus with Azerbaijan and Georgia as a corridor between the East and the West and even the South. So and lastly, we've talked about the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Now in the war, it led to a peace deal, and Trump was involved in brokering that deal. Why? And how did he do it? What was what was the business benefit for The US?
Speaker 1: After ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh, when every Armenian were like left Nagorno Karabakh and they How many were they? 150,000 people. Yeah. And all they are in Armenia now without houses. Don't have houses, they don't have jobs here.
Speaker 0: And Azerbaijan doesn't allow them to go back?
Speaker 1: You know, there were 10 Armenians that were in Azerbaijan that decided to Stay. This not this like they stayed there. And after two three years all of them came here too because they couldn't live there. It's like classic ethnic cleansing.
Speaker 0: Ten ten thousand you mean? 10.
Speaker 1: 10 people just from 150,000 people. No. Just 10 people left there. 10 people. Left there and from 10 people all of them came back, came here.
Speaker 0: 10 people out of a 100 and something thousand? Yes. If you want a definition
Speaker 1: of In that, twenty first then this century. Is
Speaker 0: is insane. Yes. The world doesn't talk enough about this.
Speaker 1: Yes. And they are here with, they are highly educated people, they are well disciplined. And you know the crime is very low. You know Yeah.
Speaker 0: Is very peaceful country.
Speaker 1: Yeah. One of the most lowest In
Speaker 0: the world. But this is like you guys just had a Gaza like ethnic cleansing without the massive bombing. So in Gaza everyone's concerned, and me too, that Israel wants to get all the Palestinians out and to take to an exile territory. I'm worried about that as well. Well that literally happened in Nagorno Karabakh.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. And they are they are here. We can meet thousands of them. That is crazy.
Yes. And they are, you know, it's very hard for them to start life. They do.
Speaker 0: So what happens to the house? It's gone.
Speaker 1: It's gone. That's it? Yes. And you know, it's not it wasn't a poor region. It it was a prosperous region.
It was one of the prosperous regions in South Caucasus. These people were highly educated and they are here and they start from zero their life without anything.
Speaker 0: Did they coexist with the Azeris in that region or no?
Speaker 1: That part of 10 people were like tried. Yes.
Speaker 0: So Trump came in and brokered that peace deal, which is not the best deal for Armenia. What was in it? Is it that corridor? There's a south there's a corridor in the Yeah.
Speaker 1: Trip, it's not corridor, it's road. Like, it's road in Armenian sovereign territory. And Azerbaijan wanted it to become a corridor, to be to have a non Armenian sovereign territory, like to exclude it from Armenian sovereign territory. And many times Azerbaijani president said that they will take control over this road by force.
Speaker 0: Which is that's a road that's not in Nagorno Karabakh, San Antonio?
Speaker 1: No no no, it's Armenian territory. It's like no one no one. Even he is saying that it's Armenian territory, but we will take control over it. And Because it's important economically for Azerbaijan. Because they like it, you know.
And Because they like it.
Speaker 0: Okay. So how did Trump solve that?
Speaker 1: Trump Trump started to negotiate and he brought to a better condition than negotiations. We can say that it's a big opportunity for Armenia, but we need to have a guarantees, more guarantees for peace. But he brought Azerbaijan to not to use force for this road. And there is written that it's Armenian territory. So it's it's good for Armenia, it's good for region, and they can use the road but it's economically economic project.
And it will be bring peace, but we need guarantees.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Because like after ten years, we can face new new new problems from the Azerbaijani part when they will say that they like another territory, you know.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So you need some security guarantees to make sure this aggression stops. I'm looking at pictures of Nagorno Karabakh. Yes. It's a big city.
Yes. Okay. So essentially now The US has interests in that in that region, that corridor. And because of those interests, you get guarantees that The US will make ensure that Azerbaijan does not and Azerbaijan now you've got a deal with Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan's allowed to use it as well. So all parties there's a deal that all parties are mildly happy with at least.
Speaker 1: It's one of the shortest way from China to Europe. And with this with peace in this region
Speaker 0: It doesn't include Iran.
Speaker 1: It doesn't include Iran. It's coming like throughout Central Asia to Caspian Sea and here. It will be short way, it will be more secure way and that's why for US it's important too to have an alternative logistic chains because the old logistic chains will face problem after this regional wars.
Speaker 0: The It a bit feels like it was all planned in advance. Let's build that corridor. Let's have a deal with that corridor because we know eventually we're gonna have a war with Iran. I know people I'm sure talking about that because the the irony is that we secured that corridor as an alternative to Iran and then we went and now we're fighting Iran and that corridor has now become strategically more important.
Speaker 1: I think I think we came to a conclusion that it's as a political party party member member for of Armenia is not like I can't say it, but we come to a conclusion that is close to reality. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I said it for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Now we've talked about you being a leader of a political party. There's another story that's happened in Armenia. Yes. It's something I've covered from so many years. And now I'm a I'm a big believer in democracy.
I'm a big believer in free freedom and freedom of speech. And I'm critical of centralization of power especially when it starts these lead to to censorship. And we saw that in Europe, you know, I've been very vocal about the European Union consolidating a lot of power and I've been very vocal about it among others, know, JD Vance gave a speech about it. Elon's extremely vocal about it. I've interviewed people from Alice Weidl from Germany, Orban, etcetera that are also critics of that feature, Prime Minister feature.
And I've also covered this in Brazil where it's a take goes up to another level where it's now about more fair. I covered that in The US with Trump. In Brazil, Bolsonaro is in jail. The former president is in jail and the current president along with the justice, supreme court justice, has consolidated power, censored a lot of opponents, and that's something I've been very critical of as well. Pakistan is another level as well.
I've had him on the show, his family, his kids and he's in jail as well. And I fear from the outside looking at what's happening in Armenia, it feels like the same playbook is being used and that's worrying to me. What I've seen is that your uncle, which is one of the wealthiest people in Armenia, maybe the wealthiest, and someone that's loved by the people. I've seen the videos of people protesting when he was being arrested. He made a statement and I'm I'm gonna read out the statement and I'll let you kind of expand on it.
He made a statement in support of the church here Yes. In Armenia because there's a bit of a struggle or disagreements between the church which should have nothing to do with politics, and the current prime minister and his party. And in that power struggle, your uncle, who's now in house arrest, he made a statement after I think meeting church members. He said, a small group having forgotten the history of the Armenian people and the millennia old legacy of the Armenian church has launched an assault on our church and our nation. As someone who has always stood by the Armenian church and people, I will directly I will be directly involved.
If the politicians fail, we will take part in our own way. And that statement has been used heavily against your uncles, gotten arrested for like half a year. I think he's gotten you in custody as well and other of your party members. And I wanna understand that better. So let me take a few steps back and understand what is that power?
What is happening between the government and the church and why? Because the Armenian church not only is it historically so important for the country, it's also very loved by the people. So what's happening? Why?
Speaker 1: In Armenia church is the main one of the main foundations of our identity because of the Christian tradition that kept us to be Armenian. And now 93% of our population are the members of Armenian Apostolic Church. From the like first trimester of last year, like our prime minister started a process, our new we have a prime minister that is he's a fourth fourth leader of our country last thirty years. And as I mentioned, we have a democratic tradition. He started to process to take control over the church.
And he started to insulting insulting the head of Armenian church, the church that has 93% support in our country. Head of our church and many archbishops and many priests. Insulting how? I've seen some of the quotes. It is wild.
Speaker 0: The things I've read, I'll read out some of them and let me know if they're right. One of them he says, don't know the context. He said, taste the government and state in your mouth. The taste of the state will remain in your mouths. Yes.
He also said he will show his penis to the head of church. I'm not making this up. He told a bishop, go back to banging your uncle's wife. He also accused clergy of having bentleys, three wives, four mistresses and a child in every country. His wife called the clergy, quote, the country's main pedophiles and maniacal perverts hiding in perversions in store rooms and closets.
Speaker 1: Know, he's not
Speaker 0: Is that right, first?
Speaker 1: He's not most balanced guy in this world. That's why That is crazy. It's crazy.
Speaker 0: Is But why?
Speaker 1: He What is going proposed to show his genitals to one of our priests. One
Speaker 0: of your priests, priests.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, priests. Yeah.
Speaker 0: He's the
Speaker 1: leader of the country. He's the prime minister. And after all of this we didn't have any argument, you know, that political leader can do an argument why he's doing everything like this.
Speaker 0: No one could explain the reasoning why. Yes. Because it's like it's so funny. I love dark humor. So for me it's like funny but also just so concerning and crazy.
Because funny because like who says to a priest I wanna show it's like something you I expect to watch in a comedy skit. So Something like Dave Chappelle
Speaker 1: posted it it on Facebook.
Speaker 0: And that's a leader
Speaker 1: read it, you know. It was twenty days, it was shock for everyone and nobody was talking about this.
Speaker 0: Why?
Speaker 1: No any authority, no any Why? Why? Why? They they were afraid of oppression. And Samuel Carapitan, my uncle started started to talk about this.
He said that it's unacceptable. He said that the Prime Minister must stop. You read the text and after that when he said this, I don't know was he was our Prime Minister balanced at that moment or not, but he had three Facebook posts, very insulting posts, and he sent special forces to my uncle's house.
Speaker 0: Yeah. He said, this is one he said to Samuel. He says So this is the quote. He says, so Samuel says, this is the prime minister saying it. He says he will intervene in our own way because that's the quote Samuel Now your uncle I will intervene with you in my own way you scoundrel.
You scoundrel or rather in you. I think from what I read that means I'm gonna fuck you.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. How does that
Speaker 0: what does that mean?
Speaker 1: He say it. I don't know what mental.
Speaker 0: That is mental. I can't believe I'm reading this from a prime minister.
Speaker 1: You know, he's a he has some very interesting quotes too, other quotes too. He sent special forces to a house, but as Samuel Karapitian was the biggest Armenian philanthropist, thousands of demonstrators came to his house. And when they asked special forces do they have order for arresting Samuel Krappitian, the special forces guy said oh no, sorry, we don't have order for arresting him. And after ten hours they
Speaker 0: Is that when there's like thousands of protesters came and blocked the police?
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes. And it was like after ten hours they had order, and after ten hours from that they arrested Samuel Krappetian. Oh.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And he was jailed for six months in a really the country's biggest philanthropist, one of the wealthiest people in the he the wealthiest or one of the wealthiest? He's the wealthiest. The wealthy. So the wealthiest person in the country.
He's very relatable. People like him because he's he's wealthy, but when you see him walking on the street, he doesn't act like it. He acts the opposite. And I've met you. I've met his son and
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: It's part of your family. You guys are just so casual and chill. And as I said, the biggest philanthropist in the country. Don't know if we can mention this but we can cut it out if not, but you told me earlier the house of the prime minister was actually built.
Speaker 1: Yes. You can tell.
Speaker 0: So the guy that the prime minister jailed that was defending the church actually built the house that the prime minister currently lives in which is just across from my window here.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Do you understand this is like a comedy show movie and a dark drama series as well?
Speaker 1: You know, he's now he decided to create a like jazz band and he's everyday doing a music show, a live music show, our prime minister, and we have to watch it. Then yeah, he's very interesting leader of country.
Speaker 0: Holy crap. So again, there's a funny sign to it like the jazz one and the house being built. Yeah. And then there's this dark one because your uncle spent six months in a jail. In a jail where I was told the chair is like stuck to ground.
It's like a very it's like a KGB type jail.
Speaker 1: It's KGB basement that was built at the time of Joseph Stalin.
Speaker 0: Holy crap.
Speaker 1: And the the there it looks like the time of Joseph Stalin, you know. And he's he's in a very very small room. He's there is no heating system and etcetera working there like just two months in one year the heating system is working there. They don't have rights to have contact with family members. They have rights just once a month or five minute call a day.
Speaker 0: I gotta talk about this because again, if something we're not allowed to put you can crop out, but your son told me about this meeting he had with his father because you guys are pretty crazy too but in a better way. Can you tell me more what the son spoke to his father about your uncle about? So he had one call and how long? One call.
Speaker 1: Five minute. A five minute call?
Speaker 0: No. Yes. The total meeting between them was how long?
Speaker 1: It was like three hours meeting. One one meeting of four hours. Over how long? Every how long? Every week?
Every month? Every month.
Speaker 0: Every month? One meeting for four hours? Yes. Okay. What what did they talk about?
Speaker 1: After after he was arrested
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: We have made like the all of people from the cities came and it was a big demonstration in Yerevan in our capital. And many people, we were all full of emotions and we were waiting like I was full of emotions too, all of my compatriots. And that day I called, my brother called him and say what do you want us to do to Samuel.
Speaker 0: Samuel is the philanthropist, famous person, the leader of the political
Speaker 1: Who in jail, who is a small room in jail, in worst jail in the country. And we I At that day I told a speech about him emotions and we called him, what you want us to do? And he said, change your tie.
Speaker 0: Change your tie? Yeah. And also I heard that when he was meeting with his son. Yes. They were talking the four hour meeting every month.
You do wanna talk about strategy Yeah. Legal strategy, how to fight this in court, what the political party should do Yeah. Because he's the voice of the political party, what the plan is. I was told they spoke about football for like an hour.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They are talking about like three hours about football. One hour they are like or half an hour there are some jokes and etcetera because
Speaker 0: So how much business do they talk?
Speaker 1: Like twenty minutes about all of these issues. You know why? Because we are sure we are sure we are in right way. We are sure that it's for our values. We are doing it for our values.
But we don't feel, you know, we don't feel that we are oppressed. They they do oppression, but we don't feel oppressed because of
Speaker 0: support of people. But but what worries me, and sorry to be the kind of the pessimist here, is I had a similar conversation to Imran Khan about this and his family. And he's in jail right now, not seeing his family or kids, not getting medical treatment. And I've also had a similar conversation to Harib Bolsonaro. Same situation he's in as well, he's in jail.
So and I'm guessing you guys were offered a deal, like your uncle would have, I'm guessing, been offered a deal. Get out of politics and you'll be fine, you'll do your business, etcetera. And if you stay in politics, you might stay in jail. We'll continue suggested something
Speaker 1: like this too?
Speaker 0: Of course they did. Wow. And this is same. Yeah. They they with the others they did they did with him as well.
Yeah? I'm I'm assuming maybe. Yes. I don't know if you could talk. I'm assuming that that's what happened because that's what happens in other cases because the reason they want your uncle in jail, the reason they're probably targeting his businesses from what I've read as well, this is what lawfare looks like, is because they want to get rid of a political opponent.
And your father I'm assuming in the polls is doing extremely well. Am I right or wrong? My uncle. Your uncle. Yeah.
Is he doing right or wrong? Is he doing sorry. Am right?
Speaker 1: So as we feel they want him to go out from politics. They want him not to defend the church. They want him to leave them do whatever they want with church. But he said no. And he he was in jail, now he's on house arrest.
So but he's are in our way and we continue to say no to them. We must stop all of this process. We must totally stop it because it will bring, it will take under risk our democracy. It will make our country to look like a neighboring country. We don't want to look like them.
Speaker 0: Like an autocracy like Azerbaijan. Yes. So he's centralizing power. That's why he's targeting the church. Because the church could be seen as a as a rival.
Speaker 1: There are two there are two tasks as I The first is to send that he's taking control over the church like in communist way. He's looking like communist leader, you know. He's communist leader but with other geopolitical view. He's taking control over the church. He's taking control over the businesses with his party members.
So biggest businesses post of Armenia, Armenian post, the leader, the director of Armenian post is the member of his party.
Speaker 0: Of the prime minister?
Speaker 1: Prime minister party. The director of the electric network of Armenia is the member of prime minister party.
Speaker 0: So this is a perfect playbook to centralize power?
Speaker 1: Centralize yes. But we didn't have something like this in our history, you know? This like This is
Speaker 0: a threat to the democratic system in Armenia. Yes. Is exactly what's happened in other countries. And your your father, I'm your uncle, I'm assuming, is so he's so there's an election soon, and you have a party. I don't know how you're doing in the polls, but if you guys win, then the person they're trying to jail and trying to get him to fold, your uncle, could end up being the prime minister as well.
Correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Is he
Speaker 0: is he running for that?
Speaker 1: He's running for prime minister by polls.
Speaker 0: Now it's starting to make sense.
Speaker 1: By polls, we are leading. The opposition is leading now, and the government is knows about this. The prime minister knows about this.
Speaker 0: So what is he gonna do next? Is he gonna continue targeting you guys? Because you were arrested too, no?
Speaker 1: They came to my house, they wanted to arrest me, and they were in my house with special forces. And after like five, six hours, they released me. Yes.
Speaker 0: I heard a story that when they were at your house to arrest you Yeah. They had to wait like an hour because your wife needed to prepare?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's it's an interesting story. We are our nation is very peaceful, very respectful. And when the special forces came to my house, my wife was in 2nd Floor, and they said that we must we must, like, take control over the house and start to do investigation, etcetera.
And I said that she's preparing and these special forces guys with this all this Musks. Yeah. Yeah. Musks and and and machine guns. They said, okay.
We'll wait. And they were waiting like twenty minutes and they said sorry, can you ask her to finish? I said you can ask and they said no, we can't because she's shouting at us.
Speaker 0: I love your country.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah yeah. Gentlemen is gentlemen everywhere.
Speaker 0: That's not how they arrest you, that's not what they did to other leaders you know. Arrested Imran Khan in a very horrible way of dragging him public. That's why a lot of people went to protest very heavily. They dragged him in very he was the prime minister of the country, very well respected and very loved, and they kind of dragged him on the street, and then people went out on the streets and and massive protests. So then then but how do you plan to fight this if he's centralizing power and he's not following the the country's law?
Aren't you worried that even though you're winning in the polls, they find a way, a loophole, something they did to you what they did to Trump and others. Either arrest him again, your your uncle, uncle, arrest you again, or find any other way to disqualify you. Is that a worry that you have?
Speaker 1: They can arrest me. They can arrest everyone from our party, but the our population, our people, they don't want him to be a prime minister. They want a new leadership. They want a economic based leadership that will solve the problem of peace for long term, that the new leadership must solve the problem to bring peace to our region, to bring prosperity, new new new contacts with new countries and this is our main goal and our our society is ready for that, is waiting for that. Now we see that this leader is the time that he must decide.
He is going to 100% autocracy that will end, I don't know how, but with known government, known population, known society support, he will not be long term leader in our country. Or he will let us to take part on election, he will be take part on election and do like change the Transition of power. Transition of of power. Because it's institutions. This is we need these institutions to be a prosperous country.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Which path do you think he will take?
Speaker 1: I hope he will take the second path.
Speaker 0: Which one do you think he will take?
Speaker 1: I think he will try the first but at the end he will understand and he will go to second.
Speaker 0: And I'm reading some of the people David Hambarduzumzian Yeah. Who's a candidate who's in jail. Yeah. There is Seiran, Ohanian, Artvik and Arthur indicted as well for what people saying are political reasons.
Speaker 1: For you to understand, the four archbishops were in jail. In our He jailed the archbishops. Four archbishops were in jail. In Armenia, look you have a situation. In your country the drug crimes increased in eight years five times.
Drug crimes in our country increased five times. What to do? Like you have a police, what would you act? How would you act? You will send your police to investigate issues about drug?
Yes, it's a good idea. Do know what he have done? He send them to church. The policeman to church.
Speaker 0: So he's moving instead of focusing on the drug problem, he's
Speaker 1: focusing on centralizing power? Yes. Five time through through the period of his governance, five times increased the drug problem. And he's fighting with priests. The priests that are very modest, humble people, they are like when you talk with them, they are the most kind people in this world, know.
And I don't know why he's going this way.
Speaker 0: Sounded like get me worried I'm even in this country considering how aggressive he is. That's concerning man. I really considering how important Armenia is for global peace, the South Caucasus, how big of a role it plays linking the South, the East and the West and the North, you know, the entire world kind of through that big corridor. And the importance of it as an alternative if Iran continues to become to continues to destabilize. Also adding your dark history as well and what Armenia has been through historically, And how incredible you are as a people.
The fact that you're even though poverty is pretty high in the country, you're in the top 10 most peaceful countries in the world. And seeing you guys, and I've never met the prime minister, I'd love to sit down with him. He seems like a crazy guy and I'd love to have a conversation with him. But having conversation with you guys is very, very down to earth people, and your uncle seems even more down to earth. And I've heard stories of jokes he's made, etcetera.
Think his lawyer told me that, you know, the lawyer is usually meant to be the person that calms the client. And the lawyer is like, angry, what's happening? What's going on? What are we gonna do? And then your uncle, someone's like, don't worry, it's gonna be okay.
So he's just that type of person which is As beautiful to an outsider, as someone observing obviously, I really hope the best for Armenia. I really I'm a believer in democracy and I really hope this prevails in the country and the people get to choose what they want. But Narek, I really enjoyed this conversation.
Speaker 1: You've Thanks, been so
Speaker 0: hospitable my visit here and you know, was so nice to learn more about the country and hopefully next time we meet, that will be under better circumstances. Maybe we can sit down be you and the prime minister.
Speaker 1: Next time, we'll discuss investments from US and Armenia.
Speaker 0: That will be
Speaker 1: much
Speaker 0: And
Speaker 1: I think our friends like your friends, our friends will be part of all of these investments in our country because it will be a country of business, it will be country of opportunity.
Speaker 0: The Singapore, Dubai of the South Caucus.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Potential. Dubai positioned itself Singapore before as a place where Yes. Russia, Russians, Ukrainians, Americans, Chinese all come in one place like a melting pot. Excellent. And this is what you wanna what Armenia would like to be.
Yes. It'd be beautiful to see that. Narek, absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mario. Thank you very much for giving me such an opportunity.
Speaker 0: Narek, we we just finished the interview, and your lawyer said something shocking to me, but you you guys are just so used to it, that I'm like, we should say this on camera. Can you repeat or actually, let me repeat what he said. He goes to me. He's like, I'm like, I hope you guys don't get arrested as a joke because you guys are such kind people. And then your lawyer said, no.
Narek will probably we know he'll be arrested in a month. I'm like, what do you what do you mean you know that? Can you explain what that statement means?
Speaker 1: In our country, usually the political actors who is who is making our prime minister to be nervous, they are going to jail. And by polls, they saw that our party is going to win the election. That's why there are some information, and we know that they are preparing to arrest some of the members of our party to not to let us to take part on free election, to take part of elect a pre election period like processes. Including you? Including me.
Speaker 0: You're the leader of the party?
Speaker 1: Samuel Karapitan is the leader of the party. Yes. I I am one of the members of the party and one of the leaders. Yeah.
Speaker 0: The vocal ones Yes. While the uncles and house arrest.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 0: So But what charges? When you say arrest you, based on what charges?
Speaker 1: You know, they can charge is not so important because as as we saw, they they are taken to jail. Three, four months is going the process, and then they say that there is no any charges, but you are in jail. So they make you to be far from your processes, from your mission, from your house, from your family, but nobody has any Sorry. One more time. Yeah.
Can I can I repeat?
Speaker 0: You can repeat it or if you just say the word, it's fine. Yes. If we see translation, it's fine. But yeah, go ahead, can repeat it, of course.
Speaker 1: Usually usually, they take people to jail. And after four or five months, they say that there is no any charge.
Speaker 0: The legal system allows you to jail someone for a period of time without charges.
Speaker 1: Yes. There is a charge, and they said that the charge
Speaker 0: Will be dropped. Yes. Okay. So that's their strategy. You think they'll do that before the elections to get you in jail before the election?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. We think that it will be like
Speaker 0: What's your solution to that if that happens?
Speaker 1: We are ready for it.
Speaker 0: So you have enough members where someone else will just
Speaker 1: take Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. They can't jail everybody.
Speaker 1: Because can't jail all our society because most of our members of our society is against the prime minister's politics.
Speaker 0: And the elections are free and fair in Armenia? Are you worried
Speaker 1: about election interference? Are free. Elections are free in Armenia till this day. We had the free elections.
Speaker 0: So no no worries about election interference like we see in
Speaker 1: No. No. No. We can have a pre election a pre election oppression. Many of local leaders who is opposition minded.
They can be taken to jail, but the election period is fair. It was fair till this election.
Speaker 0: What would so if you or your uncle if you guys gain power and you become prime minister, your uncle becomes prime minister, what happens then? How well do you know the prime minister Nikol Pashinyan? How well do you know him? Is there I'm always a naive person that always wants people to kinda meet and find a diplomatic solution to everything. You know, I remember saying the same thing about Pakistan.
Like, I just meet, find some sort of deal that might not be perfect. Have you guys discussed some sort of deal with Nicole Pashinyan, and what would things look like if you guys gained power?
Speaker 1: The strength of politician is to be to to see far from his nose, far to be up from his head, let's say something.
Speaker 0: You mean to be above vengeance? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 1: You if you want to have a country, to have a state that has an institutional fund foundation, not your will, my will, not every state leader be jailed in future, you must not do what he has done.
Speaker 0: So you're saying that the law fair that you're facing is something that you will not be doing when you're in power?
Speaker 1: Will not do that. It's a strength of a true politician not to do that for creating a real long term sustainable democratic country with institutions that are like changing changing heads of government and institutions that are working beside the name of the governor, beside the name of the prime minister. Systems above people? Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: Okay. And also as part of your values as a Christian as well.
Speaker 1: Yes. We think that if you are doing this, you are you are opening a door when there is no end, you know. Every time, every next leader will take to jail previous leader.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So you then You you make it the norm where lawfare becomes part of what makes the country, and that's what leads to autocracy, to keep it
Speaker 1: as a democracy. And what is very important for us too, we want to set the two terms period in Armenia.
Speaker 0: What's the term of the prime minister now?
Speaker 1: There there is, like, he can't be prime minister till the end of his life. Oh, there's no term limit? Like, no term limit.
Speaker 0: He is Like, in The US, you can only be for two terms?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Each term, how long does the term be? Four years? Five years.
Speaker 1: Five years. Yeah. And here, this is a big problem. We need to make a two terms period because for democracy, for sustainable democracy country, democratic country, we need two terms.
Speaker 0: I share a hundred percent two term limit. I share your value so much. You're literally talking about the things I talk about publicly all the time. I'm a believer in democracies. I believe in term limits.
I believe in systems above people. Even if the leader is really good I've always said this. If a country has a really good leader, perfect. But what happens when the leader either gets corrupted, you know, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yes.
Or the leader is replaced by someone, you know, Marcus Aurelius was a great leader. His son was a horrific, brutal, horrible leader, destroyed the empire, that's the problem of autocracy. When you have systems, it's checks and balances, so no human with their imperfections as a human has power. I share your values, absolutely share your values.
Speaker 1: And as you told the greatest Roman emperors like before, Marcus Aurelius, were like Tiberius, and the other emperors that gave the the next emperors were not from their family, they knew people, the best from senate. Mhmm. And it was like the history named them four brilliant emperors. This period ended with Marcus Aurelius and his because his son was inherited the throne.
Speaker 0: Very good point. That's a very good lesson from history. When leaders were chosen based on a meritocracy who's best at being the leader
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: The the empire flourished. When a leader gave the authority to his son, an epitism, the empire collapsed.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: That's a really good example. I will my as an observer, as a foreigner who loves Armenia, who loves democracies, you know, again, I hope you don't go to jail next month. That's number one. You're such a kind person pulling politics aside. I hope Thank you very much.
No one in your party members go to jail. I hope, you know, Nicole Prime Minister Nicole Bashinyan, some some deal is reached, some agreement to allow democracy to prevail peacefully and now again I'm an observer so I'd love to sit with him and have a talk with him the same way we had a discussion because I really would love Armenia to become the divine of the South Caucasus. Think it has that potential. But again, thank you for coming back to doing that little clip because I really don't want you to go to jail in a month. I really don't want you to.
Speaker 1: Thank you very
Speaker 0: much. Absolute pleasure. Thank you. Thanks.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 🇮🇷FIBER OPTIC THREAT: UNJAMMABLE PRECISION Stanislav Krapivnik reveals that FPV drones are now extending their range to 50km using relay technology. Fiber optic cables make these drones immune to traditional radio signal jammers. The battlefield has evolved; no position on the coastline is safe from the swarm. @STANISKRAPIVNIK
reSee.it AI Summary
I sat down with Stanislav Krapivnik to discuss the Iran-Israel war, the 82nd Airborne, and the global collapse. He warned of a 20% LNG cut and a looming food crisis, doubted the Kharg Island mission, questioned the US’s drone warfare readiness, and said we’re in the early days of a prolonged conflict with shocking insights.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇷🇺 EXCLUSIVE w/ STANISLAV KRAPIVNIK ON THE IRAN-ISRAEL WAR, THE 82ND AIRBORNE, & THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE He’s served in the 18th Airborne Corps and directed supply chains across Eurasia. I sat down with Stanislav Krapivnik to hear his unfiltered views… • Is the world prepared for a 20% cut in global LNG and a massive food crisis? • Will the deployment of the 82nd Airborne to Kharg Island become a "meat grinder suicide mission"? • Can the U.S military handle the reality of modern drone warfare, or are they still "believing their own hype"? When I pressed him on why he believes we are only in the "early days" of a prolonged conflict, his answer wasn’t just about military strategy... …and his answer will shock you. This was a window into the mind of a man who understands both the front lines and the global systems that are now spiraling out of control. @STANISKRAPIVNIK
Video Transcript AI Summary
Stanislav and Speaker 0 discuss a rapidly evolving, multi-front crisis that they argue is in its early days but already sprawling across the region and the global energy order.
Key military and strategic points
- The conflict has expanded from warnings into a broader destruction of regional economic infrastructure, extending from Israel to Iran. Israel began by hitting southern oil fields; Iran responded with attacks on oil and gas facilities and US bases, and warned it would strike “everywhere” including US bases if attacked again.
- Iran’s stated aim includes purging the US from the Persian Gulf by destroying American bases and making hosting US forces prohibitively expensive. This has been coupled with actions that blinded US radars and pressured Gulf Arab states to expel the Americans.
- Israel attacked infrastructure and a nuclear power plant associated with Russia’s project; Israel’s destruction of oil infrastructure and oil fires contributed to a widespread environmental contamination event, with oil smoke and carcinogenic particulates dispersing over Central Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Northern India, and potentially further.
- The war is generating cascading economic damage, including a potential long-term hit to energy supply chains. The speaker who has oil-industry experience (Speaker 1) explains that refinery expansions and LNG projects involve complex, lengthy supply chains and custom equipment; extensive damage means years, not months, to recover, with LNG output potentially 20%–30% lower for Europe, and cascading effects on fertilizer supplies and food production.
- European energy and fertilizer dependencies are stressed: Russia supplies a large share of chemical fertilizer; Europe could face severe energy and food crises, while the US appears more flexible on sanctions and fertilizer sourcing.
- On the military side, there is discussion of a possible ground invasion by US forces, including the 82nd Airborne (as part of the XVIII Airborne Corps) and Marines. The analysis emphasizes the daunting difficulty of any cross-border operation into Iran or even taking forward positions in the Strait of Hormuz or on nearby islands. The speaker argues that the 80th/82nd Airborne’s capabilities are limited (light infantry, no back-up armor), making large-scale incursions extremely costly and unlikely to achieve strategic objectives (e.g., seizing enriched uranium on Kare Island). The argument stresses that “mission impossible” scenarios would yield heavy casualties and limited gains, especially given Iran’s mountainous terrain, entrenched defense, and pervasive drone threat.
- Kare Island (Hormuz Strait) is described as highly vulnerable to drone swarms. FPV drones, longer-range drones, and loitering munitions could intercept or complicate the deployment of troops, supply lines, and casualty evacuation. Even with air superiority, drones combined with coastal defenses could make an island seizure a “turkey shoot” for Iran unless ground troops can be rapidly reinforced and sustained against a rising drone threat.
- The role of drones is emphasized: drones of various sizes, including small FPV systems and larger retranslated-signal drones, could operate from Iranian coastlines to disrupt coastlines such as Kare Island and other Hormuz approaches. The talk highlights how drones complicate casualty evacuation, medical triage, and resupply, and how air assets (helicopters, Ospreys) are vulnerable to drone attacks.
Nuclear and regional deterrence questions
- Enriched uranium: Iran reportedly has around 60% enrichment; 90% would be necessary for weapons, which could provide a deterrent or escalation leverage. The possibility of nuclear weapons remains a major concern in the discussion.
- Fatwas and leadership: The new supreme leader in Iran could alter policy on nuclear weapons; there is debate about whether Iran would actually pursue a weapon given its political culture and regional risk.
Regional and international dynamics
- The role of Russia and China: The discussion suggests the US is being leveraged by adversaries through proxy relationships, with Russia and China potentially supporting Iran as a way to undermine US influence and the Western-led order.
- Regime and leadership dynamics in the US: Speaker 1 predicts intense internal political pressure in the US, including potential civil unrest if casualties rise and if policies become unsustainable. There is skepticism about the willingness of US political leadership to sustain a protracted conflict or a ground invasion.
Recent events and forward-facing notes
- A ballistic missile strike on southern Israel and simultaneous missile salvos from Iran were reported during the interview; there were also reports of air-defense interceptions near Dubai.
- The discussion closes with warnings about the potential for catastrophic outcomes, including a nuclear meltdown risk if nuclear facilities are struck in ways that disable cooling or power systems, and emphasizes the fragility of the current strategic balance as this crisis unfolds.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So it's been a while we haven't spoken. We spoke in the early days of the war, and a lot has changed since. I won't start listing all the developments since we spoke last, but maybe give me your general overview on how the war is going.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, the war is only three weeks old, so I have to say that it's early days. We still may be in those early days. The war has obviously, this conflict has expanded. It expanded exponentially. We're now into the destruction of the economic infrastructure of the region.
That's the region being, in this case, from Israel to Iran. Israel started by hitting southern oil fields. Trump, I think, is playing a good cop, bad cop. They're still trying to do incremental escalation, trying to control escalation. We'll hit the oil fields, but we they didn't have our permission.
Don't don't hit back. Don't worry. It's not gonna happen again. Typical incrementalism. Iran came back with as it had warned, any attack on our oil fields or gas fields, and we're just gonna hit everybody or where there's any US bases or anything of the sort.
And they've done that. They're making it their job here is to purge The US out of the Persian Gulf by, a, destroying the American bases, and they're doing a good job of that. First of all, having blinded The US by destroying and Israel by destroying the radars. Two, they're making it very expensive for anybody who wants to host US based. They've said flat out, expel the Americans, that's it, you're neutral to us.
Keep the Americans in and we're not going to hold back. And that's something that has been pushed very hard onto these Gulf State Arabs. And when Israel hit the infrastructure, Iran hit and they also hit let's not forget, Israel also hit nuclear power plant, the one that Russia is building. So they've also sorry. A little while, about a week ago, they created Israel created a giant biological chemical catastrophe for the whole region.
They destroyed the oil, that's right. When they destroyed that, not only did 9,000,000 people get covered in oil and By the way, that black rain that was coming down, it's carcinogenic. I've talked to people there that have said their coughs have started and things like that. But that cloud has gone on. It covered Central Asia, it's gone into Pakistan, Afghanistan, Northern India.
It came up into as far as Kazakhstan in the North, the wind dispersing it. You're looking at contamination of farmland, pastureland, possible carry on effects that may last at least one generation. People are going be drinking water, eating plants, no matter. So this is something that if there was an Israel after all of this, the way things are going, that's something that they're gonna be facing, I think, massive lawsuits from every one of these countries because they basically pissed everybody off doing something like that. And they knew it was gonna happen.
You can't tell me they didn't know that setting ablaze that much oil was not gonna have the consequences they had. I know they just don't think they care in the least. We see what they're doing in Lebanon. We see what they're doing in Beirut, particularly. They're trying to Gaza the entire Southern Lebanon.
In Beirut, they're now hitting Christian sections, so the Christian militias that have previously set out this conflict between Hezbollah and Israel are now being involved, whether they like it or not. True, they're not exactly a very powerful military, but that's just something added on that I highly doubt they'll set this one out as Israel continues to bomb Christian neighborhoods and murder Christians, both Orthodox and Catholics. They've closed the churches except for three, always butcher that name, the empty tomb. Of all the churches, that's probably the holiest church for Christianity with Orthodox Pascha and Catholic Easter right on the nose. So that's that's hasn't happened in two thousand years.
No. No. No. In in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Yep.
Speaker 1: They've closed that down since the February 28. So we see this is escalating in every single direction because now you've pulled in the Christian elements after they assassinated Khomeini, they pulled in the Hezbollah, Shia elements. So this is growing. And now that you have an economic catastrophe, is I'm not going yet into possible ground force invasion, which is as insane as it could be, but looks like it's actually going to happen. I'll get to that in a minute.
The economic damage that we're seeing is going to have fallouts for the next years to come. I was a supply chain director for two American oil services companies. I was in Cameron, I was a supply chain director, and I was a regional director for Halliburton over Eurasia. And then I was a director in supply chain for an Italian EPC company, engineering procurement construction, the technical construction. So I know what it takes to expand an oil refinery.
I know what it takes, how much time it takes to get equipment to build up a wellhead and that infrastructure. And I was also director of supply chain on the project for building one of the three phases of the LNG refinery in Amur, which is one of the biggest in the world. So I understand the timelines that are involved in this and getting the equipment in this because I've lived through this. And if the damage is as extensive as what we've seen on all sides, we're looking at years, not months, years before anything gets even near to what it was before and possibly a year to two years before anything is being produced at all because this is a massive amount of damage, this equipment. I mean, just as an example, when we were expanding the Moscow refinery to add another section to it to produce E95 petro, the vessels, there were about 140 vessels that were involved in this process, they varied from one meter to 78 meters in length.
These are all constructed by hand, welded by hand. You're looking at about half a year timeframe to get that much out of one of the bigger producers in Russia. And then part of it was also coming in from Grand Mechanica, Italy, which is very low quality, and we had we do a lot of that work. But then infrastructure for metal construction and so on, you're looking at a year and a half project just there, and that's not counting and that was just for one section of an existing refinery. And that's not counting having to clean up any damaged infrastructure, anything of the sort.
So if we're looking at massive damage, for example, on the LNG plant in Qatar, it may be two, three years before they're producing, depending on just the effect from the flames and the look of it, and the images from the missile strikes, it looked pretty damn damaged. And then you got to figure, you know, a lot of these metal suppliers, construction suppliers, especially if the Russians will more likely and the Chinese be replacing and putting Iran back on its legs, who's going to be doing it for the rest of the Persian Gulf? Definitely it's not going to be Europeans because it's gas heavy manufacturing for the steel manufacturing. So maybe the Americans, but the Americans can't do it all by themselves. It's going to take years to put all this up.
So we're looking at a massive cut in the amount of energy, even if the Straits Of Hormuz are open tomorrow and everything's hunky dory and everybody sits down and has a beer together. You're looking at a year and a half, a year and a half, maybe two years before production starts getting to where it was. So you're looking at a world that literally now has 20% less LNG, which for Europe is a disaster and Russia is turning its back on Europe because Europe's been well, Europe's been what Europe's been and Putin is now talking about, I'm not going to wait until January 27 for you to cut off procurement. We're just going to leave now. Have fun.
Europe is looking at losing about 47% of its LNG, of its gas in general, because most of it's not LNG. And if the Ukrainians are successful in ever blowing up any of the pumping stations for TurkStream, Europe is going to be cut off by another 20%. It's dead in the water. European industry anyways will be dead in the water because that's 80% of all energy gas in this case. The usage is normally heavy industry, not for heating homes.
That's a 20% use on average in industrial society. And then you're looking at just sections of the world that, a, is not going have enough oil. That's going to cause resource wars and conflicts on its own and instability. And b, Europe may face starvation this year. At least now I'm not talking maybe whole nation starving, but actual social class starvation, like the lower classes.
Fertilizer. It is. It's going to be a massive food crisis. We're going to see that in six months because Russia is 40% of the world's chemical fertilizer, which without that you wouldn't have the green revolution, and Qatar was 20% or almost 30%. So the EU just cut off 70%.
By the way, The US last year bought half $1,000,000,000 worth of fertilizer from Russia and that's expanding its procurement. So The US has no problem. It'll level sanctions and nullify them for whatever long term it needs it. So it's it's very flexible. The Europeans, on the other hand, are ideologues to an insane degree, the European leadership, and they'll rather watch their population suffer than back off from their psychotic ideologies, including the green revolution, which is a dead end revolution.
Recyclables are not recyclable, as people think. And they're worse for the environment than the technology that exists, interestingly enough. So we're looking at massive upheavals that are gonna be coming down the line. Now Yeah.
Speaker 0: I I wanna just go through some of the points. You've mentioned a lot. I wanna start with the first thing you said. You said this is the early days of the war, so you're under the impression that this is gonna be a prolonged conflict. Why?
Speaker 1: There are several reasons. First of all, Trump's looking for an off ramp, and the Iranians are not in no mood to give him an off ramp. The Iranians said whatever they already said, we're gonna continue we're not asking for peace. We're definitely not asking for a ceasefire. We're going to continue this conflict until we decide this conflict is no longer in our interest and we've reached our ends.
We can take the damage and go for, you know, they've even, one point said, we could keep this up to November in your elections, which would be a catastrophe and then some. Trump is desperately looking for an off ramp, sort of neocons, because everything went wrong from what they thought they were going to get. They thought they were going get a nicely, nice clean decapitation and then everything would just put our guy in, a new dictator. Even if we wanna call him a shah, he'll still be a dictator, he'll give us all their resources, and it will be rich. Basically the same idiotic plan they had with sanctions for Russia.
You know, two weeks, two months, Russia will be on its knees. Well, four years later, and guess who's on their knees? It's not Russia. So this is the same thing. Lots of wishful thinking, very little understanding of your opponent, and just, you know, not realistic planning.
And I can tell you from my own experience, when I was in eighteenth Airborne Corps, some of the computerized exercises we were doing, eighteenth Airborne Corps, is the eighty second Airborne, one hundred and first Airborne, tenth Mountain and third Mechanized, the only division that has tanks and Bradleys, were tasked to stop no, theoretically stop a Russian field tank army, is impossible. I mean, the only way one was in the middle of the night while the generals were asleep and there was only one or two colonels on duty. You go into the computer system and you go 70% losses, 70% reinforcements, 100% re resupply. Bingo. And then the next day you go, oh, look.
We can lose this. We can win. Because you're cheating. They're not looking at us realistically. And then the generals high five each other, and they send a a report to the Pentagon.
Yeah. We can take a Russian tank army out, which is ludicrous, but that's how the US military has been running for the last thirty years or maybe longer. You know, my experience, I think it was thirty years. This this is the the type of it's insanity that they and they start to believe their own hype, which is dangerous. The Iranians have what what the Iranian condition that they've said, you know, they've they've gave a condition, we want we we don't no ceasefires.
None nothing like what happened in July. We want negotiated terms of peace and de armament of The US in the Persian Gulf. But what they really said on top of that was reparations. And I'll tell you this, most American senators would rather eat their own liver for dinner than pay reparations to Iran because that is the ultimate humiliation for The US if they have to pay reparations. But they don't know what to do to get out of this.
So now we're looking at ground troops. Looks like the eighty second airborne is being gonna be, within the next two days deployed into the Middle East. You've got about 5,000 Marines coming in, but this is a meat grinder suicide mission. And Trump, the greatest war leader ever, who by the way, five deferments from Vietnam, god forbid he actually put a real uniform on, is gonna lead these men or gonna send these men. He's not gonna lead them.
He's gonna send them to their slaughter. This is gonna be a disaster writ large.
Speaker 0: Did you say you were part of the eighty second airborne when you were in the military?
Speaker 1: I was eighteenth airborne corps. That's the the headquarters to that the eighty second belongs into.
Speaker 0: Okay. So can you tell me more about the eighty second airborne which are being dispatched to the region? What are their capabilities, and what does that indicate? Are there, would they be more focused on Karg Island, other islands in the region, or is it more of a special operation within Iran that could lead to the capture of the enriched uranium? One's talking about the capture of the enriched uranium now.
It started off as that as that was the discussion initially. Now it's all about Carg Island.
Speaker 1: Well, let let me just just the illusion anybody that thinks you're gonna take out that enriched uranium. Stop watching Hollywood movies. That's quote, unquote, pardon my French bullshit. It's never gonna happen. It's impossible to do.
The reality of it, it's outside of watching Mission Impossible or or Bore Identity or one of these other movies, it can't be done. Why? You Very simple. Fly into the middle of Iran, which, by the way, has active air defenses. The one F-thirty five just found out about that, even though Trump keeps saying they no longer work.
Fly in the middle of Iran with helicopters. How else you're gonna get there, fight your way through an underground complex, you have to get in there, fight your way through its security forces and whatever forces then are gonna be pulled into the middle, because, by the way, you don't have any supplies except what you're carrying with you, and then carry out 450 kilos of uranium, which, by the way, is highly radioactive, so it has to be in a containment unit. So you're looking at least a thousand kilos, a ton of material you have to climb pull up from, I don't know where, how deep in a mountain, and then in a mountain fortress, and then load it on helicopters and then fly several 100 kilometers back out. I mean, we're talking about a country that's the size of France and Germany combined, and throw in Italy too while you're at it. And you're gonna fly in the middle of there somewhere in a mountain range with helicopters, not get shot down by something as simple as a eagle, which is a which is similar to a stinger that anybody can have, or be just shot down by light light arms fire and fly out.
It's mission impossible. I mean, it's quite literally mission. Special forces operators, they work when they control the entire environment. It's not Hollywood. They go banging and shooting and everything else.
They'll go blow a bridge up. They'll assassinate somebody. They'll train the locals. But it's a very controlled environment where, by the way, most of the time, they don't get involved in firefights because they are they have very specific skill sets. They are always outnumbered, and if they get bogged down by even the cheapest troops, they will get slaughtered.
Ammunition will end, they will not get out because any enemy operation like that, you're outnumbered a hundred, two hundred, 500 to one. You're not talking you're not gonna bring a division in the middle of Iran. And, it would have to be by helicopter. How else would you get the the guys down and then get them back up and a thousand kilos of equipment and uranium? So that's a mission impossible.
It's not gonna happen. You could try to force a convoy in there, but then again, considering it's several 100 kilometers across mountains, very I mean, Iran is 70% mountain ranges. The chances of that's exceeding are about zero, or actually negative, if you can go that far, so it's not going to happen. So what are you down to? Eighty second Airborne is a light infantry division.
They used to have light tanks, Sheridan tanks. Those tanks were retired back in the mid-90s. They tested several replacement tanks that were air deployable so you could drop them with parachutes and chose none. So now they have absolutely no even light armor backup. They're a foot infantry division, deployable by parachute.
Again, you know, you're gonna do what with you can do limited objectives with them. Say drop them off on Karg Island with huge amount of casualties, by the way. Let let's just face reality on that. You're not gonna take on the Iranian army in Iran, Iranian army that is with the militias that they've now mobilized about 2,000,000 men on home turf in defensive positions, prepared defensive position, have been preparing for twenty years in the mountains with what, about ten, twelve thousand men? It's a slaughter.
Now if you take Karg Island, here's the problem with Karg Island. First of all, look on the map. Karg Island's all the way on the other side of the Persian Gulf. Persian Gulf is not that small. It's all the way on the other side of the Persian Gulf.
Any approaches, you're gonna get spotted. It's flat. It's pretty flat. I mean, it's got a little bit of terrain in it, but there's no hills and no mountains. It's the urban buildup.
There's I mean, there's even a water park there if you look closely. Nestorian church, mosques, various suburban environment in the Northeast where the airstrippers by the way, they bombed the airstrip. Trump Trump had the airstrip bombed, so now you can't land c one thirties on there without repairs. That wasn't a very thought through plan. So now you're down to what?
You you can do a c one thirties overhead, and they're relatively slow moving plane. That's a nice fat target. You can do c one thirties overhead dropping the airborne in and dropping supplies air wise. You can do the Ospreys that can come in there, the tilt wing helicopterplanes. But again, they're not exactly super fast either.
You could do helicopter deployments from there. But again, look what you're let's see what you're facing just to land on this island. Number one, there's going to be stinger teams, or in this case, iglet teams all over the place. You've got troops on there, so you're going be fighting for terrain. You've to fight for the beachhead, and then you've to clear building by building, including industrial zones, to get there.
Helicopters are going to be lost. Planes are going to be lost. Iglot will easily take out a c one thirty. Any air defense systems that they have in the area that they haven't switched on or kept on the ground that's on the mainland, the Mainland is 36 kilometers away from the center of Carr Island to just past the beaches. 37 depending on which angle you look at.
Guess what goes 50 kilometers right now on the line of contact in Russia and Ukraine? Drones. Heavy drones, FPV drones, the four quads, they go 50 kilometers with a large battery pack and a nice RPG round underneath them. And then guess what happens? It's it's not just Russia.
It's not just Ukraine that has those drones on each other. The Iranians will be waiting on the shoreline across from Kirk Island, and it becomes a shooting spree or or a turkey shoot, as they say in The US, particularly south. These guys are gonna be chased by drones all over the Skarg Island. This this is a disaster. There's no force to hide
Speaker 0: in there. Quickly, where are they just quickly, where are they gonna come from? Because I know that Skarg Island was already bombed heavily. All the military have been bombed. Also, there's not that many troops on there.
You know, prior to the war, there were estimates, and no one knows for sure. Low thousands or in the hundreds in terms of Iranian troops. Not sure how many they'll be there, whether they evacuated or they've reinforced. And third is you're talking about drones. I know that they'll be targeted to artillery, but you're saying drones will be launched from where?
From the Iranian coastline, from Badr all the place Badr is the closest city. So from that coastline towards Karga Land, it seems a pretty long distance. I'm not sure if the drones could
Speaker 1: 36 kilometers.
Speaker 0: 36 kilometers. Is that enough for does she have drones and all other drones with the GPS? No.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. We're we're not talking she had drones. She had drones could go several 100 kilometers easily, three, four hundred kilometers.
The the the new drones that Russia is providing, the Giran three can go five, six hundred kilometers. That's not an issue. I'm not even talking about big drones. That's what I'm saying. I'm talking about FPV drones, the four rotors on four wings drones, those are used for 50 kilometer range easily.
Speaker 0: Fiber optics. You don't need
Speaker 1: you could do fiber optics, sure, but why? You can do it without fiber optics. Fiber optics actually can lead back to where the person is. Though again, across that kind of region, it's kind of hard. Special forces on the Russian side, they find Ukrainian fiber optic operators by finding the wire and banging, throwing the wire, and you see the the if it's a clear sun, you'll see the the the sun rays shining off of that wire so you can kinda go follow it.
That that's one of those little trips. Both sides are using that. That's not any big secret. So, yeah, that that can create and it creates problems for motorcycles and vehicles too because you get thousands of these all over a big portion of the field. But, no, I'm talking about radio operated.
Look. 36 kilometers, you don't need a big army unit. You know what you need? You need a 100 teenagers who've lost their parents, who've lost their brothers and sisters. You plant one under a tree, one under a bush, one in some house, on a on a roof somewhere across the the sea the waterline.
You give them a dozen drones each. Let's play a game. Let's chase an American, the eighty second airborne trooper or a marine on Carg Island. That's the new game. And you've watched 200 drones and a wave coming across, and you try to stop all that.
Sure. Some will get stopped. A lot of them will get through, and there'll be a lot of casualties. And then next to the question, how do you get these casualties off the island? The heat, there's water issues, food issues, keeping them provisioned.
How do you get the casualties out? When everything is within drone operated range, this is the reality of the modern battlefield. The Americans have done a very good job of ignoring reality, so is NATO in general. They're about to hit strike into that reality. The reality we've lived with for the last five four years.
You where are you gonna go? You're gonna have how do how do you triage your wounded when drones are overhead? How do you get them out? You have to bring in helicopters or Ospreys. By the way, they're coming in.
They're vulnerable to to drones. We've lost helicopters. I mean, the Russian side has lost helicopters to drones. The Ukrainians have lost plenty of helicopters to drones. Again, FPV drones.
An FPV drone with an RPG round striking a helicopter, goodbye helicopter. So that's that's the sole problem. Yeah. You could still get them on there with losses, but what do you do? How do you supply them?
How do you get the wounded off of there? It's always easy to step into quick status. A hell of a lot harder to get out of it. Karg Island is just going be a turkey shoot for all these drone operators. And, where are they sitting there?
You know, it's a a couple of teenagers with VR goggles control and a and a dozen drones here, another couple houses over or under some bush there. That's a long coastline. You could they could be anywhere. You could bomb everything.
Speaker 0: I just thought the the the limited range of the FPV drones make them difficult without fiber optics. But you're saying it's not hard to develop a five to develop FPV drones that could reach Kyle Garden, 30 whatever kilometers.
Speaker 1: They're already on. The the again, the difficulty is in line of sight communications and having a large enough battery pack that they can fly that far. When you you can put up larger drones like well, the Ukrainians use the Baba Yaga. Russia has its own larger drones that retranslate the signal. It's like an Internet retranslator.
So you bounce a signal off the drone, it bounces back to the operator, and you extend the range. The effective range right now on the battlefield is up to 50 kilometers from the battlefield you can get drones in. I mean, I've been in Uddevka when drone enemy drones flying overhead and then being shot down, and that happens every day. And Uddevka is the about the medium rear. The front is 30 kilometers further west.
Yeah. And drones fly every single day over there from the Ukrainian side and Russian drones fly deep in. And that's again without loitering munitions and other types of warhead. This is just regular FDD drones. Technology has moved advanced ahead quite a bit.
So, I mean, that's what these guys are going to be facing. They're going to be facing being attacked by drones day and night. Drones are cheap. Night optics these days are not expensive to put on a drone. Day and night they're going to have drones coming in.
Again, you can't cover the entire coastline to try to find out one, two, ten, twenty, 50 kids or Iranian soldiers are going to be launching drones over and over and over. That's a little problem. Now, reason you have fiber optic is because they're harder to jam. In fact, can't use the radio signal jammers on a fiber optic because their signals are coming down the fiber optic line. You could do that.
And fiber optical drones can go thirty, forty kilometers because they're bigger ones. They'll have a bigger spool of fiber optic cable in the back. You may have to put a slightly smaller charge on them versus an RPG. You know, you may be a smaller RPG round, like an RPG six or an RPG four. But you you could put a smaller mine on there to to explode, but to make up for the weight of the spool.
But it's not that heavy. So there's the problem. You you can do you can cover Cargue Island. By the way, same thing if they try to take the the coastline of the Straits Of Aarous. It's it's gonna be a turkey shoot.
No prepared positions. You're out in the open ahead of your mountains, and guess what's coming off the mountains? You're having FPV drones. I'm not even talking about heavier drones like Shaheeds or Giran threes that can come down and strike larger targets. I'm not talking about loitering munitions.
Yeah. I mean, this is this is the reality. And if you can't suppress and push them out, you know, you're building an island.
Speaker 0: So what the goal is to take these islands throughout throughout the Strait Of Hormuz and use those you know, install radars in those islands to be able to intercept any missiles or drones, to be able to to to give you a sense of control of a kind of a buffer controlled buffer zone for the ships to be able to pass through, prevent Iran from being able to strike the ships. So that is the objective. But what you're saying is that, number one, the the American troops in those islands will become sitting ducks for drones, by the way, you're not the only one that said that, as well as artillery. You didn't talk about the, maybe you mentioned it, but all the artillery guns on the coastline as well and the ongoing missile strikes that Iran continues to strike with the Gulf? Could use a short range very short range missiles for these islands.
Speaker 1: Right. The the short range missiles are more likely what you're gonna be winding up from the heavier aspect. The problem with the tube artillery, even if it's a play deployed on an elevator shaft is it self identifies the moment it fires because you have radar systems that can they're set out in front, and they can trajectory, study a trajectory of velocity. It's a ballistic round, so you've got a parabolic curve on it, and you can study out where it came from by velocity, by speed, and by velocity of speed, by velocity, by angle of approach, and you can kind of figure out where the enemy is and attack those locations. That's what you get, A-10s or F-15s on standoff that can launch missiles into that location.
That's problem with tube artillery. On the other hand, rocket artillery, you drive out somewhere, you shoot, and the moment that rocket takes off, you're gone, you're on your way out. By the time anybody can track a ballistic missile out from where it came from, there's nobody there anymore. That's by the way self propelled artillery works the same way. It stops for two minutes to fire or less, depends how many rounds it wants to fire, and keeps going.
By the time counter battery artillery comes in, there's nothing there. You're just shooting into an empty field or an empty building or an empty forest line. And that's the problem when you have mechanized. If you have tube artillery that's planted in an area, even if it lifts off an elevator, you can identify where it's coming from, And that becomes a problem. But rocket artillery, yeah, it'll do a lot of damage.
Even something as basic as a grid system, because it can pump 120 millimeter rockets on top, a dozen 120 millimeter rockets on top of a grid square. Now having said that, let's look at the Straits Of Hormuz realistically. The main dredged route the Straits Of Hormuz are not deep. There is a main dredged route that goes around the tip. It is 2,700 meters wide.
That's what all your tankers and any heavier ships would have to traverse down that route. It's not hard to close down. It's actually quite easy to close down. If you sink one or two of them, now they're gonna be in the way of anything else coming down, you got to dredge them out. You're not gonna dredge them under fire.
So the Iranians have I mean, you have to theoretically, if you really wanna take control, you need to drop enough troops to go up in the mountains and keep pushing them back at least 30 kilometers from the coastline. It's not 40 kilometers. US does not have the strength for that, nor The US when the casualties start coming in in the thousands, as The US is going to be or the Donald Trump administration is to be able to handle this. Never mind how to feed, how to supply the soldiers that have to do this. Look, know, when you had D Day, you had 125,000 troops coming in, you had manufactured ports that were towed over, and their job wasn't to take the beach.
Their job was to take the battle positions behind the beach and keep pushing the Germans back as far as they could away from the beach for a reason that the Germans couldn't then shell the beach from. And that was cliffs in one area and just a small hillock in another area of the beach. Depends what part of the beach you're in. But either way, after that, it was relatively flat. It really had a lot of hedgerows, but it wasn't a mountain.
It wasn't a mountain range. So we're talking an absolutely different aspect, and, you know, first there was 125,000 landing. You're gonna land, what, 10? 10,000 against an entrenched enemy in the mountains? It's suicide.
It it is absolute suicide. It's it's a butcher's bill that The US is gonna have to pay for for ethereal gains.
Speaker 0: What can you is there any comparisons we can make to the Iran Iraq war where Iran had hundreds of thousands of troops sorry, Iraq and was still not able to invade Iran and still lost the war? What was Iran's strategy in that war? I'm not sure if you're you you know the details.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. You know, Iraq did invade Iran. That's the whole point. They did. And they invaded first and primarily in the Southwest of the northern tip near Kuwait because that's more or less flat lands, and there's a lot of oil fields in that area.
And Iraq was pushed on and supplied by The US. And, yes, it went back and forth. Iran did not have a lot of armor, so it used infantry, used a lot of infantry suicidal charges. I mean, it played with the cards that was dealt with the equipment that was that it held. US was supplying Iraq.
In fact, so so was The Soviet Union supplying Iraq. Iraq had the technological advantage. Iran had the human capital. And yes, Iraq lost that war. It was pushed out, it took heavy casualties.
That's when The US started supplying Iraq with chemical weapons. And Iraq killed almost a million people with chemical weapons. It also killed Kurds, also killed the swamp Arabs or Shia. They used chemical weapons in every single direction. And The US was happy with that.
They had no problems with that. So that one of the reasons that Saddam didn't think The US was actually gonna invade them because just two years earlier, they were the best of friends. And Rob Seale was over there, and Cheney was over there at various times shaking his head. Cheney was the minister of defense or secretary of defense, let me phrase that, under George Bush Sr, let's not forget that. So yeah, they had that effect.
But you know what, the point is here that everybody's ignoring is The US and Israel accomplished regime change, generational regime change. They took out the older generation that wanted to talk to them, that was willing to negotiate with them, and they replaced them with the 50. The 50 like Khamenei who spent when he was 17, went to the front as a volunteer infantryman. These are the guys that spent their youth, that was formed their youth watching their friends die as they fought the American proxy in Iraq. These are the people that were hardened by war since they were 16, 17 years old.
This is the people that are now running Iran. They're not going to back off. They want revenge. They want justifiable revenge. Because, again, let let's remember one thing.
When's the last time Iran started a war on its own? When's the last time Iran started a war with somebody? Two hundred years ago. When's the last time The US started a war? Half a year ago, not counting this one.
US has spent almost entire history fighting somebody. It's got, like, about thirteen, fourteen years of no wars. Iran had two hundred years. It didn't start wars. I'm not saying it didn't fight wars because wars were started against it, but it was two hundred years it did not initiate any consulates.
So this is a very different country. This is a country where the people are defending their homeland from their women and children being murdered by indiscriminate shelling. This is you're talking absolutely different levels of motivation. US does not have a moral high ground. There is no rally around the flag for the president.
That's why they're constantly changing the reason for this war because they don't know how to sell it to the public. And if they have to go over a draft, and apparently they're not considering a draft, you're going to have massive civil unrest if not a civil war in The US because the majority of the population is against it. So that'll be very interesting to see. But when the butcher's bill comes due, if they're crazy enough to do this, I don't know how Trump stays in power, honestly speaking. A lot of Republicans will abandon.
Damn. Nancy Graham there. Lindsey, he'll run off at the moment he feels that he's threatened. Believe you me, he's a rat, and he's got a rat that's looking out for himself first and foremost. Trump just happens to be a convenient ship for him to sail on at the moment.
And remember, he was one of the anti Trumpers at his own time. So I mean, a lot of these Republican, by their own political logic, they will abandon Trump in a heartbeat. They follow him because he's popular, not because they like him, and they're going to look out for their own skins, first and foremost. So when this goes South, that support for the imperial presidency is gonna get real thin.
Speaker 0: Do you think I'm just looking at the various comments on where the claims of America implementing a draft, but just a last question on that front, on the ground invasion. Do you think it will happen if you have to guess based on everything you've said? And then I wanna get your thoughts on Iran's military strategy as well and and the strikes on The Gulf, the retaliation to the gas plant attack as well by Israel. But first, do you think you will see troops on the ground?
Speaker 1: If we had a logical regime in Washington, no. This wouldn't happen. Alright. Suicide, anybody, any general that's worth his weight that's not out looking well, unfortunately, they're they're all political. That's how they get chosen these days.
Any general that understands that should be resigning in protest, they won't because resigning in protest means no more prospects of million dollar careers after military service. That's the unfortunate part about the American system these days. Again, if anybody looks at this realistically, logically, in a sound mind, they would never do this. Will they do it? You know, I don't know.
I pray that they're smart enough not to do this for the casualties on both sides. But The US is looking at a meat grinder it's not prepared to deal with. By the way, there's I mean, there's pretty much a blackout on on news in The US. I mean, real news on on what's going on. So that that happens in every war.
I mean, if you ask the average American, you know, in 2000, I don't know, '14, 2015, 2012 about Afghanistan, he'd probably ask you, we're we're still there? I mean, that's the level of news blackout on all of these things. Very, very minimal, and they just avoid talking about it and it just goes away because they block off the air line airways with everything else. Now, of course, the Americans are facing about 30% rise in the cost of gasoline and that Petro isn't gonna go down anytime soon. I mean, The US could put price ceilings in, they could put export controls in, but then the donor class would lose money.
And that would takes a lot of willpower off the president from the president to actually do that. By the way, as
Speaker 0: you as you just just quick update. So as you're speaking, just gonna give you an idea that just to give you an idea of the war. Like, there was ballistic missile launch towards Southern Israel from Iran. So and as you saw as you saw in interview, Hezbollah claimed to have struck an IDF tank. Minutes later, ballistic missiles launched from Iran towards Southern Israel, and then minutes after that, literally simultaneously, alerts are sounding in Dubai and reports of air defense interceptions in the Marina area.
I think that hits close to home because that's where I live. But, yeah, that's all happening as we're speaking. It kinda links to the next point is what could Iran do? And I wanna start with another question I've been thinking about, and that's Iran still has enriched uranium hidden somewhere. We've mentioned it early on in the interview.
Sure. It's at about 60% enriched uranium. Now to to get it to 90% takes a couple of weeks, depending who you ask. And that amount of enriched uranium is enough for 10 to 12 bombs. So putting all that together, is there a possibility?
Is there a risk that Iran, it's boxed into a corner, even now, that they develop some sort of, you know, small nuclear warhead and use that either as a deterrent or either as a strike to try to end the war? Because a lot of people are talking about Israel using a nuclear warhead, which I think is extremely unlikely, but I'm surprised how many people are actually bringing it up. But I'd like to get your thoughts on that as well, but mainly on the Iranian risk.
Speaker 1: Well, if Israel uses a nuclear warhead, there's a nuclear power plant about a 100 kilometers, a 120 kilometers south of Jerusalem. That nuclear power plant will be destroyed, and that's gonna cause nuclear, meltdown in the core, and you're gonna have fallout in that region. Israel's pretty small. Sure, it'll go outside that region, but it'll still hit. I think this time of year, the winds are growing more Northwest, so it'll still cover Tel Aviv, areas like that.
And never mind the ballistic reserves that Iran has would still wipe out a very good chunk of Israel.
Speaker 0: Have the launchers. We have the launchers. We know if we have enough launchers.
Speaker 1: Well, they have plenty of launchers. I mean, come on. The the missiles are going The reason is Look, the reason you're not having this big of a launcher launches right now is you're in phase three. Phase two, phase three. Phase two, most of the You launch in phase one, you wipe out the eyes, the radar systems.
So you go from having a forty minute window of notification opportunity to react to about a three to four minute window of opportunity to react because that's the radar systems have been destroyed. Now you're looking at what phase two then becomes, you just keep shooting and shooting, not so much the necessarily the hit as to use up the enemy's defensive missile capabilities. That's when Hezbollah can launch 200 missiles and 25% of those get through. Because Iron Dome was worn out, Arrow was worn out, US is pulling PAC-two missiles into the PAC-two, into the Patriots, the older missiles. They aren't really designed for ballistic missile interception, just to have something to be able to shoot the THAADs or out, and The US manufacturing base is pathetic when it comes to this.
I mean, The US hand manufactures missiles, by the way, because that's how you maximize the cost of these missiles and maximize the profit. Patriot missiles are produced at about 35 to 40 missiles a month. THAADs are produced at about nine to 10 missiles a month at $12,000,000 a missile. By the way, that's nothing. That's not even one night's worth in a month if you shipped everything there.
The s fours are the s a fours are pretty much so done. You still have s a sixes on the on the larger ships and the aircraft carriers, but, you know, those aren't being used. They're kept in the back to keep them out of missile range. So what do you do at this point? There's nothing for the arrows.
They're you you can put up f you know, the only thing you have left is you can put up f sixteens in the air and use their air to air missiles to try to take out these larger drones and take out the ballistic missiles. Not the best choice to do it, but they can be done. But you're going to go through air to air missiles pretty damn quick if you do it that way. And I think they are doing it this way at this point. When you get to phase three is when you start pulling out the new toys.
You've used up the old toys, you still have when you use up what's left and you start putting on the new toys. And then, for example, the hypersonics. And then you're just doing targeted hits on exact targets. Instead of saturation runs, you don't need to do it. Now you're starting to targeted destruction of enemy facilities, enemy personnel, and so on.
That's the phase we're in now. Iran has plenty of missiles. I've seen the videos of the tunnels. Yeah. The US is being like or hot.
US is being proxied back by Russia and China. Why not? US has proxied Russia for four years. What goes around comes So you think you think now we have Russia and
Speaker 0: China using so you think we I've asked this question to a of people. You think China and Russia are using Iran to proxy the to weaken The US? Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. US does it to Russia, and US will do it to China the first moment they have. In fact, it does it through a company through organization like USAID trying to get But
Speaker 0: it can't it can't do it.
Speaker 1: To China, you can do a rebar to a billion. So yes.
Speaker 0: It can't it can't so two things. Number one is doing it through China through Taiwan by defending Taiwan, but it's not directly doing it the same way as Ukraine because China is not part of any ongoing war. Hasn't been for decades. So that's why you can't
Speaker 1: No. But it possible,
Speaker 0: and there's no war.
Speaker 1: There's Western what's it called? Western Turkmenistan or basically Western edges of China that has a Muslim population. The US has been trying to proxy that for a long time, rise up rebellions and through Tibet also. So, yes, The US does that. US has been trying to push India into a war with China for years now.
The Indians just happen to be a bit smarter than to go into a suicidal war with China. So far, anyways, hopefully, that'll continue.
Speaker 0: The the previous question and the last question is the risk of a nuclear bomb by Iran. Do you think that this is a risk that should be taken into consideration as well? Because not many people are talking about it unless I'm missing something militarily.
Speaker 1: Look. The guy that kept the moderate, that kept nuclear weapons as foreboding was killed on day one by the Israelis or by the Americans. I'm not sure who struck him for something. Was the Israelis. His son who fought since 17, he can go around that far away.
He's the now the the religious leader. And I think more like you know, if I was running Iran, I'd have a new I've already had nuclear weapons. Different between Iran and North Korea, North Korea can reach out and touch Alaska. They can reach out and touch Hawaii. They can definitely take out any American allies and bases within East Asia, down possibly to Guam, and The US isn't gonna touch them.
They're not gonna touch them because they're afraid of them, because they have nuclear weapons, and they will strike back. But in terms of difference.
Speaker 0: On the on the fatwa, the fatwa is is a religious statement, a religious ruling that can be reversed. The new supreme leader can reverse it. And then if and and also there's an argument being made by the people that believe Iran could be building nuclear weapons is that if you don't wanna build nuclear weapons, why enrich the 60% in the first place? My answer is this is a deterrent. This is more of a threat like Idiot.
If you twist our arm exactly. If you twist our arm, we will build a nuclear weapon. If you don't twist our arm, if you don't attack us, we won't build one. Well, the arm has been twisted and the war has been started. So does that mean there's the the incentive to build a nuclear bomb, whether you whatever your status is on a run, the incentive from a self preservation perspective is there and the risk should be taken into consideration?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Look. If I was running the show, I would have had new I would be developing nuclear weapons right now. Absolutely. That would be the easiest thing.
You don't have to drop on on on a on Jordan or on on Israel. You go out in the desert and you blow one up as a test and say, we've got three more right now on this on warheads somewhere in the mountains, and everything ends really, really quickly. That's the reality of it. The moment you the moment you're dealing with a nuclear power that's that feels like it's essentially threatened and is willing to use nuclear weapons, everything changes. The logic changes fast.
And by the way, that, by the way, is gonna be the message that's already been sent to every single regional power in the world. You want The US off your back? Build nuclear weapons fast. We're gonna see a massive Trump Trump has just yeah, he destroyed the world order. I mean, I'll give him that.
Not only economic recession and possible depression in large parts of the world, not only civil unrest in large parts of the world, including The US allies not possibly toppling the regimes in the Persian Gulf up and down these little dictatorships that were backed by American military power. I mean, we're going to see a lot of changes in the next year, half a year. I'd like to but everybody that has half a brain cell working is gonna go, oh, nuclear weapons. Whether they're developing them or buying them, they could easily buy them from Pakistan. Could easily buy them from North Korea.
There's gonna be a big market for nuclear weapons for everybody around. This the genie's out of the bottle, and everybody's seen, you know, North Korea doesn't get attacked. Iran got attacked. Why is that? And that's an obvious answer.
Speaker 0: Stanislav, just as we're wrapping up, just got an a report now from one of our sources. We're trying to verify it, but there's a lot of reports coming out that there's a direct strike of an Iranian ballistic missiles in Damona where the nuclear power plant is in Israel. Maybe I could just quickly and there's multiple injuries are alleged are allegedly reported there. What how significant is that if the nuke plant was actually struck?
Speaker 1: It depends where you strike it. The nuclear towers, the cooling towers, I mean, they're designed so they can can withstand a strike from a Boeing 40 seven forty seven slamming into Destroying the cooling towers is difficult, but what's not difficult, which, by the way, the Ukrainians have been trying to do when the Zaporozhye Power Plant and in the Kursk Power Plant when they had the Kursk incursion, which is only about 10% of Kursk, but it gave them the range, was to strike the coolant systems and the backup generators. If you strike the coolant systems, the system that pumps the water in to cool the tank that has the nuclear power rods in it, you could have a meltdown relatively quickly after that. They will heat up, they will go critical. Well, isn't a chain reaction like a nuclear bomb.
They'll go critical heat, they'll melt down, and then they'll go melt through the bottom because the heat the level of the heat will melt through the bottom and you will have a steam explosion. What saved Chernobyl was three guys went underwater underneath where the water reserve was, and they drained it before the core was able to melt its way down to there. Because if the core hit that water reserve, you would have had a massive steam explosion that would have covered even more of Europe in nuclear fallout because they had the nuclear the radioactive material would have been up in the atmosphere with the steam. So yeah, it's if you take out the coolant and you take out the back out or you take out the power generators that are used, yeah, you can actually get into them to melt down. I mean, look, electricity is generated.
It's actually not generated. It's excited. You don't create electricity. The electrons are running there in the wires. You get them going by getting the magnets moving.
You get the magnets moving in different variations. You do it with steam, but steam turns the generators. It's a question of how do you heat the water? You heat it with nuclear, you heat it with gas, you heat it by burning coal, heat it by something. Something has to generate heat.
So in this case, I mean, you have to have a lot of water, a, for the steam and, b, for the cooling in nuclear power plants. So, you know, if if you take that out, you're gonna have a lot of problems, and you could have a nuclear meltdown.
Speaker 0: How much how much damage or can one ballistic missile cause a nuclear meltdown?
Speaker 1: Again, it depends where it hits. If it hits the cooling facilities
Speaker 0: One ballistic missiles in the in the cooling facilities is enough? It could
Speaker 1: cool enough. I'm not talking about the cooling towers. I'm I'm talking about the equipment that pump the pumps, the regulators for the cooling. If you take all that out I mean, I don't know what kind of ballistic missile they fired. You don't know, you know, did they hit straight in?
Did they did they wing it? But theoretically, yes. That's what the Ukrainians have been trying to do with field artillery, shooting at the Zaporozhye power plant, trying to hit the cooling facilities. It was a big enough danger that the Zaporozhye power plants have been shut down. I mean, there's minimum amount of coolant that has to go in there, but they're not working right now.
Why? Because there's a threat that the Ukrainians would start a nuclear meltdown just because that's the people in power there. And if this hits, this could be a surrealist. But again, let's not forget, the Israelis already hit the Iranian nuclear power plants. Thankfully, they didn't cause a nuclear meltdown.
This is getting very close to a total catastrophe. And the Israelis have already caused a catastrophe, one catastrophe, so you know, with the with the oil fire. So this this is spiraling out of control very, very quickly out of any remaining control.
Speaker 0: Wow. Yeah. Alright. Stanislav, really appreciate it. We'll get we're getting developments on this.
Yep. So people by the time we post this interview, people will probably have more clarity on the the whether this is true, report is true, and how much damage it is. But I am seeing a missile, video now of a missile avoiding two interceptors and landing in Southern Israel just moments ago. So it's pretty significant development. But Stanislav, absolute pleasure as always to to have you on the show.
Thank
Speaker 1: you. You. Yep. Have a good day.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇮🇱🇺🇸 A JOURNALIST FROM JERUSALEM WARNS OF ISRAEL'S REAL AGENDA IN IRAN, LEBANON, AND BEYOND: "LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY IN HEBREW." Rula Jebreal is a journalist who comes from a Palestinian background and grew up in Jerusalem, spending decades immersed in Israeli media. She says if you only consume what Israel says in English, you're watching a PR operation. The real policy is spoken in Hebrew. She argues this war is not really about security, but about reshaping the region so Israel remains dominant while its neighbors are weakened, fragmented, and unable to challenge it. She argues Israeli and American strategic goals in this war are not aligned. They're opposite. Netanyahu has been pushing for this exact conflict for 40 years, and now he has a president willing to execute it with American weapons, American money, and American lives. She says Israel doesn't want a stable Middle East. It wants failed states on every border. Libya. Afghanistan. That's the model. And Iran isn't the final destination. It's a stop along the way. Full interview with @rulajebreal below
Video Transcript AI Summary
Rula and Mario discuss the broader and regional dimensions of the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon conflict, focusing on the perception of Israel’s actions, Iran’s role, and the future of Lebanon and the wider Middle East.
- Rula frames the war as centered on the greater Israel project, describing the military occupation, domination, and violence in Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territories as the core issue. She argues Israel is an occupying power under international law and questions the rationale of asking Palestinians and Lebanese to disarm while occupation persists.
- Mario challenges the view that Israel as a single, unified actor always seeks expansion, noting that in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s presence arises from past Israeli actions and that some Israelis want coexistence with Lebanon. He contends there are variations within Israeli society, with some advocating for annexation or permanent conflict, while others prefer coexistence or diplomacy, though he acknowledges a radicalized current in Israeli politics.
- The conversation moves to Iran’s role and regional dynamics. Mario argues the conflict has become regional and global, with Iran signaling willingness to act ruthlessly to mirror US and Israeli actions, and with other powers (Gulf states, China, Russia, the US) shaping the war’s scope. He asserts Israel’s strategic goals diverge from American goals, claiming the war serves the Greater Israel project and that Netanyahu has long pursued this vision, aided by a perceived, multi-decade alignment with American power and money from pro-Israel donors.
- Rula emphasizes the internal Israeli political and social landscape, citing the Gatekeepers documentary as evidence that Israeli leadership has used Hamas and other actors as strategic tools, and she argues that the state’s actions are guided by a broader ideology (which she attributes to a form of Jewish supremacism) rather than conventional security concerns. She contends that Israel’s security narrative relies on perpetual conflict, and she asserts the United States has become financially and politically subservient to pro-Israel interests through campaign financing and lobbying.
- The dialogue addresses US and international responses. Mario notes the US and Western support for Israel, while acknowledging criticisms of American influence. Rula counters by pointing out that US actions, such as sanctioning international courts to shield Netanyahu from war crimes prosecution, reflect a deep, structural alignment with Israeli policy. They discuss how this alignment influences regional dynamics, including the US response to challenges from Iran, Syria, and Hamas.
- On Lebanon specifically, they debate whether Israel intends to annex parts of Lebanon or seek coexistence with Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah. Rula argues that Israel historically aimed to push toward annexation or subjugation of Lebanon, driven by a broader Greater Israel agenda, while Mario suggests Israel may prefer coexisting arrangements similar to Egypt and Jordan, though she counters that such coexistence would still come with coercive power dynamics and that Israeli policy has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to decimate Lebanon’s infrastructure and Hezbollah targets when framed as security operations.
- The discussion covers ceasefires and ceasefire violations. They note that Hezbollah reportedly agreed to disarm and withdraw from certain areas, but ceasefire breaches occurred on both sides, including Hezbollah rocket fire and Israeli strikes. They debate who has honored or violated agreements, with Rula asserting that Israel breached ceasefires multiple times and Mario emphasizing parallel violations by Hezbollah.
- They touch on the humanitarian and civilian toll, highlighting Lebanese displacement, destruction in Lebanon similar to Gaza, and the long-term risk of further fragmentation in the Middle East. Mario and Rula acknowledge Lebanon’s multi-sectarian society and express a lament for its potential loss of stability and coexistence.
- Towards the end, they reflect on Israeli societal attitudes, referencing nationalist and supremacist sentiments inside Israel, including debates over Palestinian and Arab citizens, and they discuss the relative popularity of hardline policies among Israelis, contrasted with poll data that vary by source about two-state solutions or diplomatic options.
- The exchange closes with mutual appreciation for the dialogue, a hint of residual mistrust in negotiated outcomes, and a light aside about a potential inquiry to an Israeli spokesperson about unpaid propaganda work, signaling ongoing attempts to scrutinize public messaging.
Key points reiterated:
- The war seen as part of a broader Greater Israel project, with occupation central to the conflict.
- Iran and regional powers are pivotal in expanding the war beyond the Middle East.
- Israeli internal politics, donor influence, and demographic shifts shape policy and willingness to pursue or resist further conflict.
- Hezbollah and Lebanon are central but contested elements in debates about annexation versus coexistence.
- Ceasefire dynamics reflect mutual distrust and ongoing violence on both sides.
- There is a strong emphasis on the need to address underlying crises and the danger of perpetuating permanent warfare, with appeals to listen to diverse Israeli voices and to consider the humanitarian consequences for Lebanon and Palestinians.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This war is about the greater Israel project. The brute of all the issues in our region is the military occupation, domination, and violence that Israel is wreaking.
Speaker 1: They did say if Hezbollah if Hezbollah stops attacking them, if Hezbollah is disarmed, then they are happy to pull out of Lebanon.
Speaker 0: You are an occupying power against international law, occupying Palestinians and Lebanese territories and Syrian territories for the last fifty eight years, and you're asking your subject to be disarming themselves.
Speaker 1: The statement or the belief that Israel as a whole, as one holistic body, all of them just wanna invade Lebanon is not true.
Speaker 0: Since Ben Gurion said that borders should be the Litania River.
Speaker 1: What do you make of what we're seeing right now? It's not only about Iran anymore. It's kinda gone beyond that. It's about Iran. It's about The Gulf.
It's about Lebanon. People have forgotten about Gaza. It's about Gaza and the West Bank. It's still there. And expanding beyond that, it's about regional powers and gaining influence.
China has control of the Strait Of Hormuz through Iran. The US would love to have that control as well. Russia would love to distract The US through Iran. So just so many parties involved in this war. I'm trying to make sense of it all to understand where it's gonna head.
So how do you make sense of it?
Speaker 0: So it's it's I think it's very simple to to start to look at it as this is not anymore a regional war. This is not anymore war connected to exclusively to the Middle East. This is now is a global war. And Iran's strategy that that was very straightforward from the beginning to demonstrate to the Americans and to the Israelis, we will act as crazy, as reckless, as ruthless as The United States and Israel with no regards for regional or global consequences. Israel has been doing this.
I think we need to understand that Israel for Israel strategic goals and American strategic goals are are completely the opposite. This war is about the greater Israel project. Netanyahu has been advocating for this war for forty years. He's been bragging that finally he got a president to do his bidding. He's been and and we need to listen to what the Israelis are saying in Hebrew and not what they are saying in English.
Because what they are saying in English is basically PR meant to basically persuade people of their goals. But if you listen to what they say in Hebrew, and I listen and I consume a lot of Israeli media, also I listen to every statement in Hebrew, and it's it's the opposite of what they say in English. I I think Israel was, in the last three years, felt that there is unconditional support for whatever action they will take across the region, whether it's in Palestine, in Lebanon, whether it is bombing Syria. They don't care. And they felt that the West, whether it's Europe and The United States, will continue this unconditional support militarily, diplomatically.
I mean, for the first time in the world history, you have The US, The United States Of America sanctioning judges at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice just to shield Bibi Netanyahu from war crimes, from prosecution, and after the indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity. So what you are seeing is Israel feeling emboldened. They're drunk on power, and they don't care about China, or they have no consideration if this will impact the global economy, will disrupt basically safety and security. They frame their own security as in these terms. The only way we could feel safe as Israelis is we have around us failed states, and everybody feel insecure and unsafe.
And I think this is this is a this is an ideology at this point that been in the building for the last forty years. I call it kahanism, which goes back to rabbi Kahana who really advocated for this kind of forever wars. But you cannot do forever wars if you are a country of 10,000,000 people. You have to have America as your weapon, and this is precisely what's happening. And you have to tie this to an internal American dynamic connected to the lobbyists.
I would I would go back to actually a law, which is the the supreme court approved unconditional funding to elections. And from that, they created these facts, and you have millions of millions of dollars that are being poured with one goal, to back any president or any senator or any, politician so they can be submissive to the Israeli, you know, agenda. And we see Miriam Adelson, Sheldon Adelson, you know, widow. We see Larry Ellison and all these people pumping millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in Donald Trump. And what did they got?
They got very simple thing that now America is hostage, literally hostage to Netanyahu's agenda in the Middle East. They want to reshape the Middle East, and they want to do it with American money and American weapons and American lives.
Speaker 1: So putting Palestine aside, because I think this one, we agree a 100% in most things. When you look at other neighboring countries and you look at Iran, there's another way of looking at it as well, and I wanna get your thoughts. So if you look at The US, if any country, any group strikes The US, The US would just destroy that group, would go guns blazing and annihilate that group. We saw what happened following nine eleven. You know, Israel just US went after not only Afghanistan, afterwards Iraq.
Iraq's a different story, but then it got kept going after Al Qaeda and ISIS, wherever they are in the world to this day for decades. Yeah. Israel is not a superpower. And and look. They say if if a group attacks China, China will likely do the same thing.
And if anyone attacked Ukraine sorry, Russia, look what happened to Chechnya. Again, not exactly the same. Chechnya was part of the the country Yeah. And they were rebelling and trying to get a Sikh statehood. I understand it's different, but all I'm trying to say is that if any group or country attacks a superpower, that superpower will just destroy whoever that is.
Now Yeah. When it comes to Israel, you've got in Lebanon, Hezbollah's there. Now I know Hezbollah came up because of Israeli aggression back in the PLO days. That's how it started. Exactly.
The invasion that and they overstayed their welcome. That's true. But what happened with Hezbollah is they slowly seem to have evolved from being a group that fights for Lebanese sovereignty against Israeli occupation to a group that fights for Lebanese sovereignty but also on the behest of Iran, such as joining October 7 after October 7 joining Hamas and now joining the Iran war. These things are go against the what the Lebanese government wants and what the Lebanese people want, especially the latest aggression. So we've got Israel that has a an enemy up north in Lebanon, and Iran is a country that didn't attack Israel directly, but attacked it indirectly through their various proxies.
So isn't it also a fair argument to say that these are threats to Israel, and it's Israel's acting at its in its best interest by destroying these threats? Not saying it's doing it the right way, but it's this is the reason they're doing it?
Speaker 0: Israel is not act is is not under any threat from Iran. And let me let me push back on your theory that Hezbollah and so first of all, every I invite everybody to watch this incredible documentary done by every head of Mossad. It's called the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers is an interview with every head of Mossad, Shin Bet, the security apparatus of Israel. That's why when you invite people who understand the internal Israeli dynamic, they can tell you precisely that they had no issue.
Bibi Netanyahu is the guy that actually was very happy to fund Hamas. Why was he happy to fund and finance Hamas? Very simple. Because he wanted to use Hamas as scare you know, as a scare tactic to say to the Europeans, I cannot negotiate with the Palestinians. I have these terrorist groups.
While he was lobbying the Qataris for years to fund Hamas, three weeks before October 7, he sent Yossi Cohen, the head of the Mossad, to go to Qatar and beg the Qataris to finance Hamas. So if you are terrified of terrorists, why are you financing Hamas? Why are you financing a group that you deem that this is represent an existential threat to you? Let me fast forward. The ISIS threat actually in Syria.
The ISIS threat in Syria, they were actually taking ISIS groups with the Sunni militias, Sunni terrorism, and they were actually taking care of them in Israeli hospitals. They financed currently militias group tied to ISIS inside Gaza. To go to Hezbollah, every when I go back to that documentary, the gatekeepers, every head of intelligence in the Israeli apparatus stated clearly for the last thirty years, you cannot kill an ideology or you cannot kill your way to defeating an ideology. The more killing you do, the more you strengthen that ideology. You need to address the underlying crisis, why this ideology exists.
We know that both Hamas, Hezbollah were were born out of the scars that the Israeli left in both the Lebanese society and the Israeli society. I when I look at Hezbollah and their actions, the first time they they actually, you know, launched a missile against Israel after October 7, they didn't launch it inside Israel. They launched in the Sheba Farm, which is occupied territories. The brute of all the issues in our region is the military occupation, domination, and violence that Israel is wreaking. Mario, think of that.
When Assad left Syria, what did the Israeli do? The first action they did, they went and bombed every military site, everything in Syria left and right. They continue to bomb Syria even though Al Shar is totally submissive and talk in a very clear way about willing to normalize with Israel. That tells you one thing. We need to be clear about what the Israel agenda here.
And it's not an agenda on only on the right. It's not Netanyahu. People claim blaming Netanyahu. It's on the left and on the center. You know, you have the competitor of Netanyahu Naftali Bennett who's already talking about bombing Turkey.
He says that Turkey is the new threat. It's Iran. It's another country of 80,000,000 people. I mean, Israel has this desire to live as if they are living in a Mazara or or Spatra. You know, they want to live in a forever war.
They want every region, every country around the region to be destroyed. They feel safe if you have a model like Libya, Afghanistan. That's the model they want because they can be perpetually dominant. You have to understand that they don't view people like you and me as equal human being. When the when the attack hit the school the school in in Iran, you have to look at I don't know if you go on on any of the social media that the Israeli have, especially Telegram, and you see how they are glorifying and celebrating these attacks.
For them, any Jewish life is worthless, literally worthless. I have a video that was sent to me twenty four hours ago of a centrist liberal Israeli who said, we want to know Iran, and that's that's actually a dominant view. We want the best Arab is a dead Arab, and we want to dominate the region by any any mean. They can do that only if America continues to back them. I don't know if they manipulated Donald Trump or they pressured Donald Trump or it's only the lobby the lobbyists as Joe Kent said.
I have no idea. But actually, have a suspicion that is being I think it's an important to talk about the role of people like Jared Kushner and Witkoff. These two individuals who have no diplomatic skills were negotiating on behalf of Americans. But according to many diplomats, European and Arab diplomats, these two guys actually are Netanyahu's lackeys and Israeli assets. The United States is infiltrated heavily by the pro Israeli side.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You've made a lot of points, and and I wanna Please. Gonna give you my thoughts on all of them. We agree on most things, but I'm gonna focus on the things we disagree to kinda have a back and forth I'm very critical of the Israeli influence in The US, extremely critical of what's happening in Palestine, a bit more nuanced when it comes to what's happening in Lebanon, more critical in Syria, and more nuanced on Iran. So the things we agree on a 100%, what Israel did after the fall of Assad, I know they argues to to degrade Syria's capabilities because we have someone from Al Qaeda now in power, and and he was not someone that could be trusted.
That was their argument.
Speaker 0: Oh, by the by the way, Trump said that he wanted him. They lobbed for him behind scene. How can you want somebody, but then you're you're you're scared of somebody? One of the two things. Israel is playing the dirtiest game in
Speaker 1: all The US. Think The US were more receptive to Al Sharra, and Israel was not. Israel was the one that was more skeptical. So I think Israel acted without Well, that's not Trump to bomb Syria.
Speaker 0: That's not what Trump He he said I mean, I trust Trump. I think he's one of the few politicians who speak clearly in an unequivocal way. And he said it. Israel actually was very okay, and they lobbied for Al Sharra to be the head of the the the
Speaker 1: But if you can't but you can't pick and choose but you can't pick and choose because if you trust Trump, then you trust the reason he's attacking Iran is because of the nuclear weapons threat an imminent threat. So sometimes they do.
Speaker 0: Well
Speaker 1: I does speak his mind, but sometimes there's always rhetoric in politics. So it's hard to know which one's which. But but I so but we do agree. I think the way that Syria was bombed was not right. I think give him a chance and and approach it differently.
And I hope we don't see the same thing happen in Iran or Lebanon. Now the first thing I wanna say to you is you said Israel's not under any threat from Iran. Now I I do agree it wasn't a direct threat. Iran was not planning to attack Israel. But at the same time, there's a lot of reports that Iran was, to some extent, aware of October 7.
They did not plan it, but there were at least
Speaker 0: aware evidence.
Speaker 1: That Hamas I think you know them more than I. You've gone deeper than I. There's both arguments are being made.
Speaker 0: No evidence. I I actually if you find any report that suggests that there's evidence that they knew or financed or were involved, I'm happy I'm happy to change my mind. But till now, there's not even one credible report, including by the Israeli themselves, that Iran knew or financed or enabled that. You know who actually had a suspicion and try to inform the Israelis, and the Israeli didn't listen to them? The Egyptians.
The Egyptian called the Israelis few days before, three days before, tried to warn them, and the Israelis were so arrogant to say, they're too stupid to pull that off. One of the reasons why there's no investigation the good thing about Israel that every major disaster, they're usually an investigation of the failure, the total security failure, there's no investigation until now. That's why Netanyahu wants a forever war, because once there will be a real thorough investigation, I think we will discover things that we'll be shocked about.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the in in terms of getting being involved on October 7, they were not directly involved with the plan, but they were aware of the plan according to a New York Times report and early US intelligence.
Speaker 0: As the Egyptians
Speaker 1: True. True.
Speaker 0: As the Israeli themselves who had the plan a year earlier, and they thought it's it's you know, Hamas is too stupid to carry this out. They are too weak.
Speaker 1: So the the point I wanted to make, though, is about Iran not being seen as a threat. These are statements by leaders in Iran. You've got the statements by the supreme leader saying death to Israel. Another one, we must all rise, destroy Israel. That was under the old supreme leader, not the one that just got killed, the Ayatollah Khomeini.
You got said the occupying regime of Jerusalem must be disappeared from the page of time, etcetera. I'm sure many people mentioned them to you. But if you have a country up above America or a country right on Russia's borders making those statements, Russia would invade a country for much less. The US would bomb a country for much less. So it's a valid concern
Speaker 0: to have a it's
Speaker 1: a valid I'll I'll just I'll just add one more thing to it. Sorry, Vola. It's valid concern to have. I'm not saying it justifies a lot of what they do. Bombing the oil depots, bombing the gas plant yesterday is not right.
There's a way of doing things, and this is crossing the line for me. But at the same time, having a neighbor as massive as Iran with 93,000,000 people with thousands of ballistic missiles with the capability, not the willingness, there is the fatwa against nuclear weapons, but I think there's the capability if they decide to to develop nuclear weapons. As much as I know you're critical of Israel and so am I, do you share that concern at least
Speaker 0: that they haven't reached it? Israel is a nuclear armed power. They have 250 nuclear bombs. Ballistic missiles against nuclear bombs, you understand that this is, you know, nonsense. Right?
If you have the facility of Dimona and you have scientists who told the world like Vannunu that they have nuclear weapons, imagine if somebody will shout from Mexico The United States, death to The United States, whatever. You know what the Israeli politicians say every day about every Arab and every Muslims and everything? That when they use the word Amalek, which is a biblical reference to exterminating Palestinians, they use the the same word also against the Iranians. The Iranians have been viewed as as you know, or or portrayed as a threat. They're not an existential threat.
The Israeli security apparatus understand that. And that's why one of their generals said, our goal is not liberation or stability for Iran. If they have a civil war, it's okay with us. If the country implodes, it's okay for us. If by the way, with the Israeli talk also, you have to distinguish between the what the generals are saying and what the politicians are saying.
Today, the politicians are telling you clearly that their agenda for Iran is to implode the country. That's why not only they bombed, you know, the oil facilities, they bumped the center for desalination desalination. I mean, there's no no no clean water in in Tehran. You are trying they are trying literally to destroy the country and create a failed state. They feel safe if every country around the region Iran is not only the last destination for that project.
Iran is one of the middle destination. They want to do the same thing with Turkey, and they want to do the same thing with any power in the region that somehow can threaten them or challenge them or oppose them. They don't want anybody to oppose that. You know what they say about Lebanon? I'm sure you understand what they're saying.
They say we will they will do it in Lebanon what they did in Gaza. We need to send
Speaker 1: But who made who said that? Others are not saying this. So I speak to some. Some are extreme, and I I I I post about those people. Those are terrible things to say.
There's someone that says, we'll turn Lebanon like Khan units. People like him should have been in government.
Speaker 0: That is
Speaker 1: But there's
Speaker 0: other minister. That is True. The minister But there's is in charge of the military occupation, who is very popular among the army and the IDF. And guess what? Those kind of statement inspire those pilots that go and bomb Lebanon.
When you see all of these buildings collapsing on people, when you see the decimation, annihilation of entire neighborhoods, especially in Dahi and other places, this is not about security. You understand that. Right? So
Speaker 1: in terms of these Smotrich statements, there's others that make it the completely opposite statement. I was speaking to the IDF spokesperson yesterday, he said, Mario, I would love to go party in Peru.
Speaker 0: The IDF spokesperson is a trained liar. They trained them to lie. I mean, look, Mario. In the last three years, we heard nothing but lies after lies. I'll tell you what for me, it was clear from day one when they said they didn't kill those 15 medics, and they didn't really bury them in Gaza.
And then we find out a video of this guy that filmed himself where we saw we saw them executing medics that were not armed. They did this over and over and over again. Israel lies.
Speaker 1: Every every country every country lies. Putin is lying about Ukraine. The US lied about Iraq. I never seen lying about The US. Yeah.
But we're not that
Speaker 0: Putin is we're not repeating the statement of Putin as if they're facts. They're not. No. We're not
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it.
Speaker 0: All I'm saying
Speaker 1: is that you're you're making really statements. You're using you're using depends which statement. So I'm just saying that the the statement or the belief that Israel as a whole as one holistic body, all of them just wanna invade Lebanon is not true. I know many Israelis. Some of them are extreme.
Those are people I don't usually like to interact with, and others are genuinely not even they're apolitical. They want safety, and they wanna they don't mind going partying in Lebanon, partying any neighboring country. They put politics aside, especially the younger generation. Not the smart rich like mindsets. When it comes to Hezbollah about the destruction of Lebanon, so I'm one of the people that is not fully convinced that Israel does not wanna annex Lebanese territory, but I'd say I'm 60% sure, and I'm willing to change my mind, that they don't want that.
I know you disagree, but I and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you I'll tell I'll make my argument, you let me know why you disagree. Please. So the reason I don't believe they they do want that is their actions right now in terms of eliminating a threat Hezbollah is a threat, is striking Hezbollah targets, including Dahi. The elimination of Dahi is very different to eliminating the power infrastructure in Lebanon, all the bridges as they did in 2006, by the way.
Their Internet, their the entire military, they haven't struck the military either. So it seems what they're trying to do is turn the Lebanese army, the Lebanese government on Hezbollah to get rid of Hezbollah and coexist like they do with Jordan and Egypt. I'd love to get your thoughts.
Speaker 0: Well, do you know did you do you read the polls about how popular the war against Iran? 90% 80 to 90% support total destruction of Iran. Same with Gaza and the Palestinian territory annexation. You have to understand that there's no liberal Israelis versus conservative when it comes to their foreign policy. They all agree.
And and truly, we have to understand also the level of radicalization in the Israeli society where they I I don't know if you have couple of Israelis Israeli friends. I'm sure they are good people, and I'm sure they don't view. But the overwhelming majority of Israel, especially after 2018, when they legalized Jewish supremacists as a law during you know, they have this law called the nation state law, which says that only Jews have the right to self determination. Only Jews. This is legalizing Jewish supremacy.
Yeah. I think we have to understand that Jewish supremacy is is is a is a very popular ideology. They don't see people in the region the same way. You are not an equal to them. You are a I'm sorry to to repeat these words.
These are words by a secular, you know, politician who used to be the IDF, basically, the minister of defense, Yuval Ghan, when he said there are subhuman animals. It's not only about Palestinians or people in Gaza. They're talking about people in the region. We are subhuman animals in their eyes. You have to understand how radicalized the Israeli society today.
Lebanese children getting killed, they could not care less. Lebanese or priests getting killed, they could not care less. All they care about to affirm their vision of the of the so Hamas, Hezbollah, or even Iran actually are an excuse to carry out this genocidal ideology that is very popular today in Israel. I cannot tell you how much and I would like to invite to actually go to on Telegram, maybe try to translate some of the statement by average Israelis, mothers, grandmothers, simple people. And when you ask him about what should we do with Lebanon, total annexation, ethnic cleansing, and expulsion.
The polls But the
Speaker 1: polls but, Rula, the polls show differently. So I'm just looking at various polls, different sources. Yeah. All the polls show they prefer diplomatic relations not only with the majority of Israelis according to Jewish virtual library compilation. They 42 support pursuing a diplomatic agreement, not with Lebanon.
That's a lot higher with Hezbollah.
Speaker 0: What's the source of
Speaker 1: the to the Jewish Virtual Library.
Speaker 0: I don't know who that is. I never heard of them, but I I promise you, we should actually commission a poll done by Haaretz or any Israeli leftist newspaper or center's newspaper, and I promise you the view is completely different. Look at this fact, which is really Christian Palestinians or Christian Lebanese are minority, a minority, a minority. And yet the attacks against them, not in Gaza, not in the West Bank, in East Jerusalem, has been vicious. I lived I grew up actually very close to the Armenian neighborhood, and I've been stunned about the amount of venom and against the Christian minority that lived in Palestine for centuries.
That's always been there. That's always been an integral part our community, of our society. We as Palestinians I grew up in East Jerusalem. Yes. I was born in Haifa, but we learned for century the first lesson we are learn we are taught as children.
My father used to take us actually to the holy sepulchre from the Aksa Mosque and tell us that we learn inside Jerusalem that we have to live and coexist together, that our safety and security depend on one another. That's why the key of the holy sepulchre is in the hand of a Muslim family because our destinies are intertwined. That is not the view of a Jewish supremacist, which is very popular today, not only in the government, but in the Israeli society. They truly believe that the issue of purity and exclusion at the heart of their policies. I mean, the policies that are being the ethnic cleansing that is being done today, carried out against Palestinian, Christian, and Muslim in Jerusalem.
There's no Hamas. There's no Palestinian authority. There's no Hezbollah. This is the same tactic that they want to implement across the Middle East. And the Greater Israel Project actually is not something it's not a fantasy anymore.
It's a plan on a project that they all believe in. Yes. They prefer air power so they don't have soldiers get in a, you know, a massacre and bloodbath or whatever in Lebanon, etcetera. But I think one of the reasons, if you think that Hezbollah will disappear tomorrow or Hamas will disappear, do you think that Israeli will behave differently? I don't think so.
In that, I believe they will continue to behave the same. They are be same way they're behaving against Palestinians in Jerusalem and Palestinians inside Israel who happen to be Israeli citizens. One of the biggest scandals last week, Mario, you know what is the biggest scandal in in Israel last week? There was this amazing woman who happened to be a TV host. His her name is Lucia Arish.
She is as assimilated as Israelite gets. She's married to a Jewish Israeli guy who served in the army, who actually and she is you know, she embrace his her her union with this Jewish man.
Speaker 1: She's a Palestinian Israeli.
Speaker 0: Palestinian Israeli. She herself identify as full Israeli Jewish family because of her husband. I believe, and I'm not sure about that 100%, that she herself served somehow in the army and the IDF. She said the word inshallah on television, and they wanted to lynch her. Because for them, the word inshallah, which all of us use around the Middle East, it doesn't mean doesn't mean a it's not even a religious term.
Speaker 1: It's like People say it all the time. Yeah.
Speaker 0: They wanted to lynch her because for them, she used a term that is connected to terrorism. Terrorism for them is anybody that is different or divert from their dominant Who's
Speaker 1: who's who's they? So what I what I and the reason I asked that question is I worry that
Speaker 0: Civil society. This is who wanted to lynch her were not as extremists. But
Speaker 1: I think they are extremists. I think either people the if you look at the general Israeli, the the the typical Israeli person, they're a bit more radical not radicalized, but they're a bit more emotionally charged now after October 7. That's why you have the polls that are supporting the Iran war. But and the annexation, the two state solution. A lot of people that I used to speak to before October 7 would believe in a two state solution, change their mind after two two state solution.
But the
Speaker 0: the polls suggest differently, Mario. Before October 7 was the deadliest year ever happened in Palestinian territories. Before October 7, Israeli ministers were were chanting death to Palestinians and death to Arabs. And actually, Smotrich himself and Bingveer were actually endorsing. Remember, there was two bogurums in in Palestinian villages, Hawara and Banaya.
They'll and they descended on the West Bank. They burned the villages. They killed tons of people. There was two hundred and forty four deaths before October 7. One third of that were Palestinian children.
Children were shot. So I I I honestly, we we divert we have different views because I know I understand exactly what's happening because I've been immersed in that reality every day. I'm telling you there's something even worse that happened. It's I think that we descended into this trend since 2018 with the with the approval of this law, which called I call it the Jewish supremacist law. It's called, you know, the the the law that was approved, which is which determined that only Jewish person has a right to self determination.
Everybody else know, which is the nation state law. But there's hundreds of segregationist racist laws. For example, if I am married to Palestinian from the West Bank, he's not allowed to live with me inside Israel or in Jerusalem. I mean, the kind of but not only this law. There's hundreds of laws that that want Palestinians out of the picture.
You want all Palestinians
Speaker 1: out of the pictures. That one we agree. I think I think the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza is policy.
Speaker 0: A lot of them, they wanted a lot of them, they wanted two states. No. They didn't want two states solution. They were very happy to have the settlements. They were very happy to have the bogroms.
They they voted for Netanyahu how many times? Six times.
Speaker 1: But according but according but for example, Gallup and Pew, Pew Research put it at 40 it was twenty seventeen, 44% wanting a two state solution. According to Gallup, it was 50%, and that went down to 25, 21, 27, 18 just according to the poll. So it went they went down by 40%.
Speaker 0: Told you. For me, the turning point was 2018? 2018? I think 2018 was that election where there was, like, the most racist campaign I ever seen in my lifetime, then the approval of the nation state bill law. From 2018, I think it went downhill.
But also the normalization of state backed terrorism with the West Bank. I mean, we saw Netanyahu and Bengvir giving hundreds of millions of dollars to these gangs who would descend and and and launch attacks against Palestinian villages across the West Bank, but they did it also in Jerusalem. You know, I don't know if you ever watched the the flag march, which is once a year in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is Palestinians who live in Jerusalem lived there for centuries, but once a year, there are you know, you have thousands of these fanatical settlers and fanatical Israel who descend on on us in East Jerusalem, force us to go to shut down any store, but also to shut down the whole neighborhoods so they can chant, kill them all, death to Arabs, wipe them all. And then they would chant all kind of insults against whether it's prophet Muhammad or Jesus Christ.
But also, I remember when when Sherina Waqle, the Palestinian journalist, American journalist, shot in the head. And they descendants like, we killed her. We kill every journalist. That was years before October 7. I think we need to start understanding the depth of Israeli radicalization and the depth of their extremism, and it's not fringes.
This is mainstream.
Speaker 1: On Lebanon, the reason I think is and by the way, it is difficult to have this conversation with you because I know what you and your family have been through. So it's very hard for me to have to kinda challenge various points because I cannot begin to imagine what you guys have been through and what other Palestinians have been through and are still going through.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We've been lucky because my family, you know, doesn't live in in the most heated area. But, you know, it my point of view here is not personal. These are facts documented by Israeli politicians and Israeli journalists. I actually ask you to invite also journalists and politicians, Israelis, who can tell you and confirm the facts I'm telling you today.
Gideon Levy, Ori Goldberg. Invite even Eamon Ode who sit in parliament who has to be to happen to be a Palestinian Israeli politicians who was told, we had a country when you are jumping from trees like monkeys. He happened to be actually a Palestinian citizen of Israel. Or let me just tell you about the way they treated black Jewish people. Women.
In the nineties, they were sterilizing these Jewish women who came from Ethiopia because they didn't want to have a black Jewish children. I mean, a state that carries out mass sterilization of people because of their skin color, that's a state that caused any quality.
Speaker 1: Can I ask you another question, Rola? So your family was born in Israel, in Haifa?
Speaker 0: So my my mother my mother family is from Haifa, and my father family is from Jerusalem. And we lived in both places. I would go to the in the summer to visit my family in Haifa. That's why I know
Speaker 1: Both are Palestinian?
Speaker 0: Both Palestinian, and and my father is from Jerusalem. So we lived the whole year in Jerusalem, and the rest, you know, during the holidays, especially Christmas and and the summer, I would go to Haifa. That's why I speak Hebrew, and that's why I understand also. And I lived next to the Israeli society, so I understand exactly.
Speaker 1: How was how was how was life? How were they? Did they build a business? Did they do well in life? Because you said you were in a a part of Israel that was less less heated than other parts.
I think that's the word you used. So how
Speaker 0: was I was talking about today. That's obviously well, my my family members, a lot of them work in in especially in the hospitals. Are you know? And, again, I mean, my cousins have to dress like Ethiopian Ethiopians because they're terrified to be seen as Palestinians. And remember, in the last five, six years, the attacks whenever Israel would attack Palestinians in the West Bank or in Jerusalem, there would be attacks also in Haifa, Yafaq, not Zareth.
They would like, these fanaticals don't think that Palestinians should exist inside Israel. I mean, I have a video, and I'm happy to send it to you, where this Israeli is like, you know, what should we do with Palestinians inside Israel? It's like, kick them all. Kill them all. It's like and she was depicted as a as a centrist.
And I think this is the view. I mean, under my family home on multiple occasion would see these sentences written, kill them all. Death to Arabs. We didn't know who who wrote those sentences. So when when my family members who serve and and, you know, save lives in hospitals as medics, as as as nurses, and they come back home after they actually took care and and cured people from all backgrounds, people from all ethnicity or religions, and come back home.
And they told me that they felt threatened by the relatives of these of these you know, whether the Israelis because they didn't want them to be they didn't want them to touch their relatives. I mean, Smotrach himself, his son was injured. He was he's the man that said there should be segregations in the hospital between Palestinians and Israeli. But yesterday, he was standing next to a Palestinian doctor because Palestinian doctors and nurses represent 49% of, you know, medical operators who work inside the hospitals. So, again, Israelis don't want Palestinians, but yet who's taking care of the overwhelming majority of the care inside hospitals and clinics are Palestinians.
Speaker 1: I wanna ask you a question about Lebanon. So on the, obviously, on the Israeli side, look. I hope I'm right that it's the minority that is extreme and radical. And if you're right, then that's obviously a lot more concerning. I just wanna go back to what's happening in Lebanon.
How do you know that they don't so I did make a point. They are not striking the infrastructure. They after October 7, they entered for now, they they've entered. It's been a few years. Hezbollah keeps attacking them.
They've attacking Hezbollah. They ask areas and buildings to evacuate. They've been a lot more the strikes are a bit more precise than Gaza. In Gaza, they've just destroyed and pummeled everything. It was a very different war that we've seen there.
And that's why I think the objective is different. How do you know they don't want Lebanon to coexist like Jordan and Egypt? Because that is also a possibility. With Egypt, they pulled out of Sinai and made a peace deal with Egypt. With Jordan, they've got a peace deal as well.
And it's been going well so far. Both countries have coexisted for a while.
Speaker 0: Well, they're going well to a certain point. Remember what they I mean, let let's talk about that side. But when it comes to Lebanon, they really were were very determined that their borders and it's not a new thing. It's since Ben Gurion said that the border should be to the Litani River, the borders the the view that's Ben Gurion. That's one of the founding father of the state of Israel.
Since then, many prime minister did that. They tried to do it in the in the eighties till 2000, and they couldn't succeed because of Hezbollah. I'm not saying Hezbollah is is good for the Lebanese, you know, in in terms I understand the criticism many Lebanese have with Hezbollah. But the truth is because of Hezbollah, they didn't succeed to annex Lebanon, but they they absolutely wanted that. That's a dream that is still alive and vibrant.
The more that Israeli society turns to the right and they're now turning more and more to the right, the more they will want to implement the greater Israel. I think we need to understand also that maybe in the seventies, the eighties, the nineties, the army was more secular. The army in Israel now is deeply infiltrated by a lot of radical religious Jewish fanatics. They they truly believe also in this religious mantra. And, I mean, a lot of them depict this war, whether war against Palestinians, Lebanese, and others in biblical terms, in terms of, you know, together with a Zionist Christian Zionist in America, they truly believe that they have a biblical mandate, a religious mandate to annex the entire territory because that's what God told them to do.
And I think we need to listen to that because once you see the army operating in certain areas yes. In Gaza, they they flatten everything, but they are not flattening everything in Lebanon because they want to annex that part. And the only thing that are
Speaker 1: But they wanna annex they wanna annex Gaza, and they flattened it so they could rebuild it. So they came same items we made for Lebanon. Yes.
Speaker 0: The Gaza was they they flatten it as a punishment to the civilians so they can kick them out. Basically, what they did
Speaker 1: they would do the same thing for Lebanon. They would
Speaker 0: Well, one
Speaker 1: one to kick out the Lebanese people and punish them for housing Hezbollah's apartment.
Speaker 0: 1,000,000 Lebanese are already I believe they already left that area. Yeah. They are displaced.
Speaker 1: And 20%
Speaker 0: of the population. They told them, you know, be careful. We'll do weather. As soon as they said the word, we will do what we did in Gaza and Lebanon. I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: Who's that? It was one but it was one official. It was not the government official statement. It was not a military defense minister.
Speaker 0: When you have one minister saying that, it is more than enough. That tweet of his word, that went viral and was shared by a lot of Israeli soldiers. When you have Israeli pilots basically dropping bombs left and right and flattening entire residential residential area, that's not a military target. That has nothing to do with security. That is to send a signal.
If you don't leave, we're going to do this. And I think a lot of a lot of settlers are now ready. People like Wise, Daniela Wise. She's ready to go to Lebanon immediately right now, and she has the backing of the army. She has the backing of the government.
We are going to see slowly, slowly in Lebanon exactly what they did in the West Coast.
Speaker 1: I hope not.
Speaker 0: I hope not as well because I love Lebanon the same way I love Jerusalem, the same way I love my country. I think there's something incredibly beautiful about Lebanon. It's one of one of those incredible places in the Middle East that has Christian, Muslims, Shia, Sunni, etcetera, living together for centuries, trying to survive together, but also build this incredible multiethnic, multiracial community that I believe is one of the most beautiful thing I ever seen. This is a mosaic of integration. Yes.
We have the politics. We have other things. But I will never forget when I visited Beirut in 2006 at the height of that war, being invited to people's homes to eat simple food with them. And when they and when I asked them, you know, how's your relationship with your your neighbors? They were Sunni.
They said, we love our Christian friends. We go there for Christmas during those periods. I mean, it reminded me of what The Middle East used to be. This glorious, you know, this glorious, incredible community of Christian Muslim living together peacefully. And I think we need to go back to that origin.
That's that moment where, you know, both religion and race didn't play a role in politics because that's what
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Really was the moment where fragmentation and wars. What Israel would bring to the Middle East and continue to bring to the Middle East is more death and more destruction. They have no other plan beyond that. There's no other strategy. I didn't see any political, you know, any political plan that say, okay.
We want to integrate in the Middle East. You are a country of 10,000,000 people, but you want to
Speaker 1: they go did did say if Hezbollah if Hezbollah stops attacking them, if Hezbollah is disarmed, then they're happy to pull out
Speaker 0: of Lebanon and get boxes
Speaker 1: with Lebanon. Didn't disarm. Hezbollah disarmed, they would not be firing rockets at Israel right now.
Speaker 0: It's Hezbollah accepted the ceasefire. The ceasefire was implemented.
Speaker 1: But they did not follow it.
Speaker 0: But they violate Israel violated the ceasefire 1,500 times, including attacking the unifield mission, the peace mission. True.
Speaker 1: True. Israel's observing. Israel said but sorry. Well, I don't I I tried not to interrupt you, but on this
Speaker 0: one Yeah.
Speaker 1: Israel said Hezbollah. They always said, yeah. But Hezbollah is still in the South. Hezbollah is still arming in the South. Now we didn't know whether to believe them or not.
Are they lying or they're not lying? Well, a few days ago, we knew they're not lying because suddenly hundreds of rockets were fired from the South on a daily basis, more than ever since October 7. So then the argument Hezbollah is rearming in the South is also valid.
Speaker 0: Hezbollah is rearming whether and, yes, it's rearming. We saw that they still actually have the weapon. Israel didn't manage to decimate them. But also But
Speaker 1: that's but that's a breach. You know?
Speaker 0: The the it's not a breach because Israel continued to bomb left and right. Israel I mean, you are asking you are an occupying power against international law, occupying Palestinians and Lebanese territories and Syrian territories for the last fifty eight years, and you're asking your subject to be disarming themselves? I mean, this is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying if this sorry. No. I'm just I'm not saying I'm not saying if the ceasefire sorry. But I'm not saying if the ceasefire is good or not every from a from a from a ethical perspective. All I'm saying is that the ceasefire you said Israel breached.
I'm saying both after we saw last few days ago. Hezbollah breached it as well. Nothing is right or wrong.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 1: No. But to be able To be able to fire rockets now, the initial agreement was Hezbollah has to pull all their weapons away from the Litani River, north of the Litani River. So if they did that, they wouldn't be able to fire hundreds of rockets a few days ago onto Israel. So what that's what I mean on that point.
Speaker 0: Think I think there's a there's a lack of trust and faith that Israel would ever remember, Israel has bombed the people that we're negotiating with in No.
Speaker 1: A very valid point. Yeah. On that
Speaker 0: one. I mean, if you how do you can trust an Israelis who bombed your the negotiating team after they promised
Speaker 1: them I don't blame them.
Speaker 0: I've always I mean
Speaker 1: I've always said this. I've always said this. I've even I've even sorry. Just trying to interrupt you again. What about for the spokesperson, I've told him the same thing.
I've literally said to him, I'm like, I don't think Israel wants to annex Lebanese territory. Think Lebanon Israel wants to coexist, but first, obviously, I could be wrong. And number two, I fully empathize with people that don't that don't believe that. And there's a lot of Lebanese people, they don't want Hezbollah. They want Hezbollah to dissent.
They wanna get rid of Hezbollah, but they're also worried what happens next. That's a very valid concern among many Lebanese. But, Rula, just I I I I wanna thank you for coming on. Your your passion's incredible. You're a very eloquent speaker, and and I really appreciate you coming on.
Thank you
Speaker 0: so much. Super Mario. I call you super Mario because it's the name of prime minister former prime minister of Italy who we all love. And may I ask you please a favor? When the Israeli spokesperson come on, please ask him, is it true that he's suing the government because they didn't pay him $7,000 to repeat propaganda online?
That would be a good question to answer because it seems like he's suing the Israeli government for unpaid propaganda talking point. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: The spokes the spokesperson, maybe it's influencer, not a spokesperson. The official spokesperson.
Speaker 0: The former spokesperson seems to
Speaker 1: be his name? What's his name?
Speaker 0: I'll tell you exactly his name. And I think you invited him because I saw I saw I saw a couple of tweets or something. I saw a couple of Yeah. Israel spoke person, the former one that was also in The UK and was fired for lying.
Speaker 1: Send I'll me his name on WhatsApp. I'll check
Speaker 0: it out. Send you his name. But it'll be good to know if it's true that they are not paying influencer what I promised them. Thank you.
Speaker 1: We'll we'll ask. Thank you so much. Well, have a wonderful day. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You too.
Speaker 1: Bye.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷 Prof. Mearsheimer: "The mightiest naval force on the planet cannot open the strait by itself. That tells you how much trouble we're in." https://t.co/q8NDbSaWUp
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Strait of Hormuz is extremely important: about 20 to 25% of the world’s petroleum passes through it, roughly a third of the world’s fertilizer comes through the strait, and about 10 to 12% of the world’s aluminum also moves via this route. If the war continues and the strait becomes really closed (it isn’t completely closed right now), Iranian ships carrying oil go through the strait. The United States is permitting Iranian oil to enter the oil market for the same reason it removes sanctions on Russian oil: President Trump wants to ensure there is as much oil in the international market as possible so that oil prices stay down. So oil continues to come out of the Gulf, and most of it is Iranian oil.
If the strait were shut off, there would be very significant effects on the international economy. Even if it isn’t shut, oil prices are expected to creep up, which would increase pressure on President Trump to try to open the strait. But there is no way to open the strait, and the fact that President Trump is asking for help in that mission shows that the mighty US Navy, the mightiest naval force on the planet, cannot open the strait by itself. This indicates the level of trouble we’re in. Moving forward, it looks like the Iranians have a very powerful hand to play.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the Strait Of Hormuz is enormously important. About 20 to 25% of the world's petroleum comes through that Strait. Furthermore, about a third of the world's fertilizer comes through that strait. And that's enormously important for the production of food around the world, especially in developing countries. I was reading somewhere that about 10 to 12% of the world's aluminum comes through the strait.
So if this war goes on and on, and especially if the strait is really closed, because it's not completely closed at this point in time, you want to understand that Iranian ships filled with oil are going through the strait. The United States is permitting Iranian oil out into the oil market for the same reason same reason it removes sanctions off of Russian oil. What president Trump wants to do is he wants to make sure there is as much oil out in the international market as possible so that he can keep oil prices down. So there is oil coming out of The Gulf. Most of it's Iranian oil.
But if that were to be shut off, that would have very significant effects on the international economy. But even if that doesn't happen, there's no question that oil prices are gonna creep up and that this is gonna put increasing pressure on president Trump to try to, to open up the Strait Of Hormuz. But the fact is we have no way of opening up the Strait Of Hormuz. The mere fact that president Trump is asking for help in that mission tells you that the mighty US Navy, and the US Navy is the mightiest naval force on the planet, cannot open the Strait by itself tells you just how much trouble we're in. So it looks moving forward like the Iranians have a very powerful hand to play.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇮🇷🇹🇷 Iranian ballistic missile reportedly targeted NATO's Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, home to an estimated 50 U.S. nuclear bombs. Iran just fired at a nuclear weapons storage facility. Let that sink in. https://t.co/1HBFzXMD1V
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇹🇷🇮🇷 Video allegedly shows a ballistic missile over NATO's Incirlik Air Base in Turkey after sirens and explosions in surrounding towns. If confirmed, Iran just deliberately targeted a NATO base. That changes everything. https://t.co/BOvUpm6RDa
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇱 BREAKING: Photos appear to show a damaged U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel with visible tail damage. The aircraft was reportedly involved in a mid-air collision with another KC-135 over western Iraq earlier tonight. One tanker crashed. https://t.co/6WJhwfkFcd
reSee.it AI Summary
I relay Stanislav Krapivnik’s view on Iran’s playbook: cheap drones, buried missile launchers, and a plan to shut Hormuz while draining U.S. air defenses. He warns air power alone won’t topple a regime; a ground invasion would be catastrophic. The talk covers decoys, drone swarms, U.S. moves with Israel, shifting defense with South Korea and Japan, leadership risks, and the broader implications for war and policy.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 INTERVIEW: IRAN’S PLAYBOOK - DRAIN THE U.S, CONTROL THE STRAIT, WIN THE WAR Stanislav Krapivnik, former U.S. Army officer, says Iran’s formula is cheap drones, buried missile launchers, and the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz while draining America’s billion-dollar air defenses one interception at a time. According to him, Iran is overwhelming U.S. systems with weapons that cost a fraction of what it takes to stop them. And his warning is blunt: air power alone has never toppled a regime. The only path to regime change is boots on the ground, and he says a ground invasion of Iran would be catastrophic for the U.S. military. @STANISKRAPIVNIK 00:46 - Pentagon lies just like everyone else: first casualty of war is truth 05:15 - Iran's underground missile cities: decoys painted on ground fooling billion-dollar strikes 07:11 - Cheap drones can close Hormuz: thousand guys with VR goggles swarming ships day and night 10:56 - U.S. following Israel's lead: Greater Israel from Euphrates to Nile, Turkey is next 14:29 - U.S. stripping South Korea and Japan of air defenses for Israel 16:37 - No one fired at drone over Qatar: free sky, smack into radar array 23:43 - Stupidest move possible: murdered Khamenei who blocked Iran's nukes for 40 years 25:04 - 165 fathers from one school: "I'm going to take a rifle and murder them until I die" 26:06 - Iran-Iraq War veterans now in power: the generation that survived U.S. chemical weapons 28:59 - Russian MiGs in Iran: "more likely those aren't Iranian pilots," Moscow won't allow Iran to fall 38:13 - Trump's unconditional surrender trap: painted himself in a corner, no way to spin retreat 44:54 - 40% obesity rate kills the draft: who are we going to conscript to fight in Iranian mountains? 51:50 - Zelensky not planning to die in Ukraine: 9th largest landowner in America, family in London 54:38 - Russian vs American mentality: "die, but do" vs "do or die"
Video Transcript AI Summary
Stanislav (Speaker 1) and Speaker 0 engage in a wide-ranging, combative analysis of the Iran-Israel-U.S. conflict and broader geopolitical implications. Key points and claims are as follows:
- On Iran’s military activity: The volume of Iranian drone and rocket attacks has dropped by about 95% in the last few days, but Iran’s strategic goals appear to be advancing. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and Iran has not fallen from power, suggesting a durable regime in Iran despite reduced attack tempo. Israel is said to be taking a pounding with strikes on Haifa refinery, electrical plants, and other targets, while Iran is pursuing a long-haul campaign rather than a rapid blitz.
- Terminology and legitimacy: Stanislav objects to labeling Iran’s leadership as a “regime,” arguing it’s a derogatory term and positing that the regime is a theocracy that is comparatively stable under pressure. He notes that air campaigns have never toppled governments and argues that people rally around governments when their families are being harmed, especially within Shia culture.
- Information and truth in war: Both sides are accused of misrepresenting losses and capabilities; the Pentagon’s numbers on drones and rockets are treated with skepticism. There is emphasis on the difficulty of verifying battle damage in real time, and the reality that “the first sacrifice of any war is truth” in war reporting.
- Military capabilities and constraints: Stanislav emphasizes that the U.S. and Israel have suffered damage to critical infrastructure, and the U.S. faces munitions shortages. He cites the first six days of conflict as consuming thousands of missiles (3,600 missiles across defensive and offensive systems). He argues U.S. industrial/munitions capacity is strained, with missiles being produced in small quantities and largely by hand, constraining rapid replacement.
- Iran’s defense and offense: Iran is portrayed as possessing underground “missile cities” and being able to move and launch missiles from concealed locations. The use of decoy aircraft and other decoys is noted, complicating target acquisition. Iran is described as capable of sustaining a long campaign, with continued missile production and hidden launch capability, including launchers that can be moved and re-deployed quickly.
- Sensor/shooter network: The discussion mentions a new U.S.-reported capability described as a “sensor shooter network” that uses satellites to spot a missile launcher as it emerges, relaying coordinates to fighters such as F-35s to intercept before launch. This is framed as making missile launches harder for Iran and easier to strike launchers for Israel and the U.S.
- Strait of Hormuz as the central objective: The primary objective for Iran, per Speaker 0, is to close the Strait of Hormuz for as long as possible and disrupt Gulf states, with closing the strait potentially forcing an American exit due to economic pressure. Attacks that target Israel are framed as secondary (“bonus”) relative to the Hormuz objective.
- Ground warfare and invasions: Both speakers argue that a U.S. or allied ground invasion of Iran would entail massive casualties and potential domestic political backlash, making it a less likely option. The difficulty of projecting power through Iran’s mountainous terrain and the risk of a popular uprising are highlighted.
- Regime durability and external support: Iran’s government is described as a theocracy with deep cultural unity, making political collapse unlikely. Russia and China are discussed as critical backers: Russia provides MiG-29s, SU-35s, S-400s, and jamming capabilities, while China provides satellite connections and political cover, and both nations see Iran as an existential interest—Russia especially, given Central Asia and the Caucasus. Iran is portrayed as having backing from Russia and China that would prevent a wholesale collapse.
- U.S. allies and credibility: The U.S. is portrayed as depleting its ability to defend Gulf allies, with discussions of allied air-defense systems being diverted elsewhere (to Israel) and questions about long-term U.S. willingness or capacity to sustain a commitment in the Gulf.
- Ukraine comparison and broader geopolitics: The dialogue touches on Ukraine, NATO, and the differential treatment of Ukraine versus Iran, noting perceived manipulation by Western actors and the difficulty of achieving durable peace through negotiations when proxies and local actors have entrenched interests. Zelensky and Kyiv’s internal politics are referenced to illustrate broader critique of Western interventions.
- Potential off-ramps and negotiations: There is debate about whether a political settlement could be engineered that would preserve the Iranian regime while offering concessions (e.g., limitations on ballistic missiles or nuclear ambitions) and provide Trump with a way to claim a diplomatic win. Stanislav suggests the unpredictable nature of the current leadership and that an off-ramp may be difficult to secure; Speaker 0 contends that a pragmatic, deal-oriented path could exist if a credible intermediary or concessions are arranged, perhaps involving a different leadership or mediator.
- Final reflections on strategy and endurance: Stanislav stresses that drones, missiles, and human ground forces all have limits, and argues that real military victory rarely comes from air campaigns alone; the fundamental test remains whether ground forces can secure and hold territory. Speaker 0 adds that the regime’s resilience in Iran and the long-term strategic calculus—especially regarding Hormuz, energy, and allied alliances—will shape the conflict’s trajectory in the coming weeks. Both acknowledge the enormous complexities and the high stakes for regional and global stability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's a lot happening right now. We, and there's different, you know, explanations on why, you know, different things are happening from a military perspective. On one side, you've got the volume of attacks by the Iranian side have dropped significantly 95%, in the last couple of days. On the other hand, the strategic goals of Iran are being achieved. They're still striking the Gulf.
The Strait Of Hormuz is still closed, and the regime hasn't fallen. So I'd love your for me, it looks like a military loss for Iran, but strategically, they're ahead. I'd love to get your analysis of it.
Speaker 1: Well, first of I'm not gonna call it a regime. Regime is what uses a derogatory term for a government that you don't happen to like and you wanna get rid of because we we if if they're a regime, then then most of Europe is a regime that have has extremely unpopular presidents or prime ministers, and The US is heading in the same direction. As far as first of all, you know, who do we have for the numbers of how many drones and rockets are being fired? We we have to trust the Pentagon. The same people, by the way, till a day and a half ago said we didn't hit that school, and we didn't kill those kids, or maybe we did.
The same people that lie just as much as anybody else because when, the first, the first, sacrifice of any war is truth. That's the first, victim that goes out the window. Nobody's gonna tell
Speaker 0: you By both sides. Would you agree? By both sides.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Nobody's gonna tell you their actual losses. Nobody's gonna admit to anything that that went wrong.
I mean, it's it's much harder to hide these days than it was, say, 1990, 1980 or or before that. With the pictures are getting out of, Jerusalem, and you have to remember, as the prime, democracy of The Middle East, if you wanna call it that, Israel always has censorship on at full blast. Right now, it's at, overdrive. They don't want anything getting out, but it does get out. It gets out by Israelis.
It gets out by Palestinians. They're there by foreigners. The Haifa the Haifa oil refinery has been hit. Electric plants have been hit. Israel's taking a pounding.
So I'm not quite sure about the two or three flights or or rather two or three rockets in a flight concept. Now on the other hand, Iran is not going into a mini blitz that it did in the twelve day war. And it did it and it could have done a lot more in the twelve day war than it did. But Iran is going for a long haul. You're not gonna overthrow the Iranian government, for several reasons.
First of all, it's a theocracy. Theocracies are based on faith, and it's already a much more stable government, form, especially under pressure. Second of all, air campaigns have never overthrown any government ever. The Americans and the British burned to death 5,000,000 Germans in World War two. Out of 6,000,000 German civilians, 5,000,000 murdered.
Everybody remembers Dresden. Every single German city was burnt. Did the Germans turn and and surrender their government? No. They stood and fought.
Because no matter what you think of the government that's over you, it's not killing your women and your children. It's not killing your family. It's the guys dropping the bombs or the missiles that are killing your family. And you may not like the power that be, but that's the only thing that's protecting your family right now, and people will always rally around the flag. It's human nature.
And not I'm not even talking about when you have Shia culture, which idealizes martyrdom, which, by the way, is not that far away from Orthodox culture for when the Russian soldiers go out for for Christ and for the motherland, and they go into battle. It's basically a lot in common with Orthodoxy, Christian Orthodoxy when it comes to that point. These people aren't gonna go away. They're not gonna break up. They're not gonna die off.
You're a 3,000 year old civilization. Splitting them, with Azerbaijan is not gonna work because, by the way, the Azerbaijanis, are corrulers, in, Iran. The Khomeini is in Azerbaijani. One of the previous presidents was in Azerbaijani. So splitting them along, cultural lines is an extremely difficult case because the two main cultural groups are unified.
You can do a lot of things to kill a lot of people, which The US is doing right now very well in, Israel, but it's not gonna destroy the government. And the problem for The US is it's it's running out of munitions. The what what's come out is that in the first six days, The US used 3,600 missiles, both defensive missiles for the Patriots, the SA fours, the THAAD missiles, which is a project that should have never been built, and lingered around for twenty years until it finally was given birth, and offensive missiles, air to ground missiles, Tomahawks, and so on. At this rate, The US can't replace even a a fraction of that, in any kind of meaningful time. It's just physical camp.
It doesn't have the facilities, doesn't have the manufacturing base, and those those missiles are put together by hand in very small numbers at a very high price. That's because they make a lot of money for the manufacturers. So for Iran, the point is we can last this out, and we're not gonna race ahead, in massive amounts of missiles, which, by the way, Iran is still manufacturing. It has missiles, what what they call missile cities underground. They have huge facilities underground where they store them.
They can move them around on launch, on launch vehicles, come out from different entrances, shoot them off, and go back underground. So it's very hard to find. And then on top of that, we see videos where I mean, my hat's off. I I didn't know you could do something like that, but, decoys that are just actually just painted on the ground. We've seen a lot of hits on on decoy airplanes, helicopters, like that.
And you know it's a decoy because when the round hits, it's just a small crater in the middle of this plane. It doesn't fall apart, fly apart as a vehicle would. It's just a burning small crater in the middle of this drawing. So how many missiles were used on that? We don't know.
But the reason the US air force is now hitting and and the Israelis to hitting civilians is because they can't find the targets that they wanna hit. They did the same thing in Massoud when they were trying to free Massoud from, Igl. They just wiped the city out of the off the face of the earth. The same thing in Yugoslavia. When the Yugoslav army in 9099 just melted away into the mountains, they're sitting there waiting for the, for NATO and the Americans to come in to butcher them in the mountains.
They started going after civilians. And and this is nothing new. Except no air campaign has ever won a war. You wanna win a war, you put threw a boots on the ground. You put boots on the ground in Iran, you're gonna face massive casualties, you're gonna possibly face a a massive revolt, if not a revolution in The US, because The US is not gonna take those types of casualties.
The people won't. The government may be willing to do it, but the people won't. And the US military doesn't have the capacity to do that, not in its present state. As far as the, the Straits Of Hormuz, you know, you don't need big expensive drones. Yeah.
Because Ukraine via, Greece proved a a concept there. They attacked a Russian tanker about a month and a half ago, swarmed it or maybe it was two months ago, swarmed it with, FPV drones with a big, battery on them. So it was passing, I think, eight or nine kilometers away from the islands, the Aegean Islands, swarmed it with, RPG rounds strapped underneath it. The same thing that gets used on the front lines. You know, Iran can very easily put a thousand guys out, sitting in the mountains under trees with drones and, VR goggles and just start launching drones into the streets of Hormuz and watch any shipping stop.
And if the US Navy comes in there, there's gonna be fewer new US Navy ships left because anybody going in there is no room for maneuver. It's very narrow, and at the nearest point, it's about 32 kilometers. I mean, you could quite literally cover it with direct fire artillery or indirect fire artillery. Let me phrase that. One five five, one five two millimeters will cover that range.
And you can have guys just swarming over drones all day, all night. What are you gonna do? You can't blow up every single tree that somebody might be sitting under in those mountains. You pretty hard to invade those mountains or Himalayas sized mountains, ranges upon ranges upon ranges. So to close those with modern technology is not a big deal.
Speaker 0: There's a lot that I agree with, to be honest. First, I the only thing I disagree with is the regime. I'm just a lot more critical of the regime. Not sure how critical you are of what they did in January, but I'm I'm obviously happy to call it a government because one one person's regime is another person's government. But from a military perspective, I've spoken to a lot of analysts and and, you know, they've all made very similar points.
I'm not sure how many as you said, we don't really know the exact figures. There's a lot of talk about radars, American radars that were destroyed as well. I know you've talked about that before. Let me comment on that. But it's hard to verify those.
It's hard to verify how many launches Iran has. We do know, though, however, that there is a new you can call it a weapon that The US has used. It's called they're calling it a sensor sensor shooter network. Not sure if you've seen that. But, essentially, satellites spot a missile launcher as soon as it comes out from the heat signal and beams the coordinates to the nearest f 35 that essentially shoots it relatively quickly, sometimes before before even launching the missile.
So it's like call of duty in real life, and that made it a lot harder for Iran to launch missiles and a lot easier for Israel and The US to strike the launchers. But I do think that this is not enough to win the war. I think the all that Iran needs to do to win the war, depends on the war's objective, which we'll get to in a bit, is to close the Strait Of Hormuz for as long as possible, but also disrupt the Gulf nations, but mainly close the Strait Of Hormuz. I see anything else that Iran does, especially when it comes to striking Israel, as more of a bonus for lack of a better term. Because closing the Strait Of Hormuz will will will just hurt the economy, the global economy enough to force Trump to seek an exit, an off ramp from the war.
Now you're saying that it's very easy to do that with very cheap drones, and and you're pretty accurate because we saw Ukraine do that very successfully. And that's not talking about the ability to mine the Strait Of Hormuz or use the sea drones as well, which I don't think they've used yet. And there's a lot there was a lot of talks about these sea drones prior to this. But it goes back to the point is it it all depends on what Trump's objective is. What do you think Trump's objective is?
Is it a regime change? Is it a more friendly regime like in Venezuela so Iran is away from Russia and China? Because that matters a lot in what we determine as successful or no.
Speaker 1: Well, friendly regime. You you mean regime change. Trump's objectives seem to change, with the hour, because they don't know what their objectives are. Look. The reality of this is very simple.
The US has no objectives because we've heard directly from Marco Rubio and from Johnson, who's the speaker of the house, a republican speaker of the house, in a big word salad that if you boil down to just what they said was we weren't planning on doing this, but Israel decided to go, and we have no choice but follow Israel. So the translation, The US is not in the driving seat. And the Israelis Israeli mission is to destroy absolutely every military, industrial, and political power that is not subservient to Israel in the greater Israeli space. And the greater Israeli space, as has been explained by Smulychus, the the pri who's the minister of finance as seen by the patches worn by a lot of Israeli soldiers is the river to the river. The the Euphrates to the Nile.
Everything is theirs. As according three thousand years ago, Abraham's prodigy was promised that. Funny thing is is Abraham's prodigy is also Palestinians, and several other Arabs claim the same prodigy, but I'm not gonna go into theology. But the point is is they're claiming all of that. And then already, they're talking about Turkey is our next target.
They haven't they can't finish Iran. They can't finish Lebanon where they're stuck in a ground war, but they're already planning on Turkey. And believe you, Mead, Erdogan is listening, and he's hearing this. And if the Egyptians are not totally insane, they're knowing that they're gonna be after Turkey if anything happens. Turkey would be a really interesting case because it's a NATO country, but why not?
I mean, we've already seen Ukraine attack three NATO countries and get away with it when it blew up, when it blew up refineries in Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania, and it's threatened to murder the president of Hungary. But okay. I guess that goes.
Speaker 0: It's They just just threatened, I think, to they threatened to share his phone number, I think, not threatened to
Speaker 1: to murder. He threatened to share his address with the, Ukrainian military so they could go have a talk with him. That's a direct threat on a man's
Speaker 0: I thought it was I thought it was sharing his, his they're sharing his phone number so people can call him and complain to him.
Speaker 1: His contacts so they could, have a talk with the it's a it's a it's a it's a mafia thug, threat. That's how they they talk. And Zelensky apparently spent a little too much time, with the mob, in his, in his youth, but that's how it's talked. And this is how it's been accepted by both Slovakia and by, Hungary. But but that's a a different, issue altogether.
I'll get back to the question. Israel is I don't think the the the a bonus. Israel is one of the, main objectives because the Israeli the Israeli government, has been after Iran. Mean, they've been beaten a war drum of Iran is gonna have a nuclear missile since well, the earliest article I could find was in the Jerusalem Post from 1986. So forty years.
Any day now. If Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, they would have had one on the moon by now. I mean, realistically, been forty years have been saying, beating the same drum nonstop. In fact, Netanyahu was, beating that drum, to get America into Iraq, and that's a disaster. They killed a lot of, over a million Iraqis.
About 5,000 Americans left about 50,000 Americans missing body parts, invalids, and cost The US $7,000,000,000,000. But, hey, they got rid of another enemy for Israel. That's all that counts. It doesn't count for America. It doesn't count for anything for The US.
So at this point, you know, Iran, yes, of course, can outlast, but the the damage they have done to The US facilities is gonna take years, if maybe possibly even a decade, to fix if it ever gets fixed. Because the biggest damage they've done is show these Arab princedoms that you can't count on The US to protect you. They were always told you're part of the club will protect you. Well, there is no protection. And in fact, The US is now stripping its Asian allies of air defense systems to ship to Israel.
South Korea, Japan, all of that's coming out of there. That's leaving them empty after they've, done everything for The US to piss off.
Speaker 0: And, allegedly, that hasn't that hasn't been confirmed by CENTCOM yet. So it's just allegedly for now.
Speaker 1: It hasn't been, but but the the president's already said that he's they're gonna be taking him out of there. So, you know, if Trump said it, more likely CENTCOM's gonna do it. Well, it's not CENTCOM. It's actually it'll be Pacific Command that that strips them out. I guess they could ship them by More likely, have to ship them by, by ship.
Maybe they can well, even by air, they wouldn't be able do it because they'd have to cross China or Russia. It'd be a very long flight. But either way, it's it's not enough, to save the situation. Simply put, The US came in with about a 192 THAAD missile, interceptors in Israel. There's about 70 more THAAD missile interceptors spread out, with other US units.
The Arabs used up their THAAD interceptors, so they had about a 100 of them, and there's about a thousand Patriots. In fact, some of the remains from Patriots, people who taking photographs were PAC two Patriots. Two thou year two thousand second generation Patriots. If that's the case, then The US is really running out fast. The US is manufacturing patriots.
Simply put, US is manufacturing patriots in between 35 to 40 units a month. THAADs are being manufactured about 10 interceptors a month. They're all done by hand. That's how you maximize the price of them and you maximize the profit margin. You should build them by hand.
There's no manufacturer facility that can slap them out on an automated process. So like it or not, The US is running on missiles. Look. You know, if you look at phase one, phase one of this for the Iranians was destroying The US capacity to see what's coming, blinding The US, taking out those radar systems. And if you look at the how and it it it was actually a pretty good shock.
I mean, it spent eleven years in the in the US military. But it was a pretty big shock even how they took out the radar system in Qatar because they used a an an old Shahid drone. It has that little internal combustion motor on it that sounds like a moped. And you're watching it, and it's just flying up. Did you it's relatively slow.
It goes up and smacks straight down on that radar array. Nobody's firing. No stingers are going up as point defense systems. No machine gun fire. No assault rifle fire.
Not nobody's firing. It has free sky over a US base. So that already tells you you've got big problems. I mean, I guarantee if there was a Russian base and something was going that slow, everybody would be fired to try to take it down. Why, why are there no marines?
Why there are no naval personnel on there or or air force? I guess it'll be air force personnel trying to defend, the radar system. I don't know, but there was none. And this was day one. Now that radar system, has been said that it'll it's gonna take between twelve to twenty four months to repair it, 5 a half $1,000,000,000.
The big radar station that was taken out in Bahrain, they're talking between seven to nine years. And that's because The US doesn't have access to rare earth magnets. Yeah. US has a huge amount of rare earth rare earth raw material. It's not that rare.
It's actually spread out all over most of the world. There's only two of the 17 elements that are actually really, really rare, but they don't have a processing capacity. China's got 97% of process capacity. Russia's got one, one and a half, and the rest of the world has less than 2%. And Russia's doubling its volume over the next two years.
That's the plan to to at least meet its own internal demands. But point is is, like it or not, you're probably going to China, and China has already cut off The US for dual use. And The US has tried to go through Sony. They've tried to go through various other corporations. International corporations said no.
Because if we triple our amount that we're ordering, the Chinese are gonna show show us the electronics you're building with it. No. You can't. You're cut off, and that's the end of their business. So there's a big problem.
By the way, manufacturing those missiles is a big problem because, again, you come back to high end magnets. All of those 17 rare earth minerals are all magnetic. So in their pure form, they're highly magnetic. That's what they're used. And if The US doesn't have that, well, you know, that's your supply chain being cut off.
Whose fault is that? That's a fault of America, of course, for not building its own facilities.
Speaker 0: On that last point, I think this is where I lean more to the first point you made is about how this is The US following Israel. Now, obviously, politicians make a lot of statements. Some of them don't make sense. Trump walked back rubbish statements. I don't think this is The US following Israel.
I think this is The US doing this for their own strategic interest. Now there's a divergency what Israel wants, which they don't mind, a collapsed Iranian regime, a collapsed state of Iran similar to what we saw in Syria, strategically, benefits Israel. But I think Trump is a lot more, calculated in this because in his goal, as I said earlier, is the Strait Of Hormuz. Well, China has control of the refining of the rare earth. Well, what can The US do in return to be able to counter that threat and be able to deter China from unifying with Taiwan?
And that is controlling the energy, and one way to do that is, you know, Panama Canal kick out China, more importantly Venezuela, trying to have better presence in Greenland. We'll see how that turns out. And, obviously, the most important is the Strait Of Hormuz, which Iran has the ability to shut off, and we'll see if that continues. So I do see that Trump's goal in this is purely a more friendly regime. Now is that feasible?
That's a different discussion. The regime is is a theology. So will they after being bombed so extensively for nine days, you've given a very good example that a regime changed through aerial through through just pure bombing like we saw in World War two and and and since then has never worked. It's not like worked once or twice. As you've said, it has never worked as a strategy.
But if the goal is not really regime change, if the goal is what Trump said two days ago, working with another religious leader, which he said he works really well with, Adelci Rodriguez two point o, not a regime change. That might work and that but then the question is how far will Israel go? When will Israel stop this war? I would love you to comment on this, but also more importantly, you've talked about how hard The US has been hit, but we can't also dismiss how hard Iran's been hit. So how could Iran sustain this if it's true that their launches are getting hit very quickly?
Is it purely through drones? How hard is it to create, to create new drone factories and keep producing those drones?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, those drones are underground. Let's begin with that. The drone factories are underground. You're, you're mostly looking at plastic polymer materials. They're easy to make.
Underground, you can put them together. This is not a tube that you have to, forge, or rather you you take a steel sheet steel and then you have to heat it. And or you well, I guess there's rolling process. There are cold steel rolling process too to make the two for a missile. This is much easier.
This is much easier to manufacture. And Iran has been getting ready for this for twenty years, definitely the last twelve years. Second of all, there are no okay. First of all, let's begin with this. The problem with the Latins is Latin culture, and I'm going all the way back to the Romans where every single general wanted to be emperor.
It's the same thing right now. The problem the the curse of Latin America is it cannot unify because every single general wants to be the big boss. As as my friend Larry Johnson told me he had spoken to a per no names mentioned. A person active is still in the sea. And they bought they bought a general in Venezuela, switched off the sis the anti aircraft system.
Basically, told him to stand down. And one of those yep. And one of those Chinooks got hit because somebody still fired on us. Chinook, if you've never been around Chinook, it's huge. It's loud.
It's slow. You cannot miss the damn thing. The reason they brought in Chinooks is because they use sound weapons concentrated sound weapons, which have been used by the police for I mean, they were used on ships for direct communications. So line of sight communications because you can't interfere with that. It's not a radio signal.
But they've been used by the police in various countries, and we saw that in Belgrade last year. There's a lawsuit in New York where the police used it against protesters, and they popped their eardrums, caused, cardio damage, permanent damage, because of sound waves, concentrate sound waves. But that needs a large power source, and it's big and it's heavy, so that's what the Chinooks are for. But that's an exception. You're dealing first of all, just to understand, they killed the man that for forty years has not allowed Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Let's just begin with that. Yeah. Two fatwas. The two fatwas are probably gonna get, walked around. I mean, if you don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, this is about the stupidest move you could physically make unless you're psychopathically, psychopathic hatred of anything Iranian, say the Israelis, and you just wanna kill them for for for the just the reason that he exists.
Because if there's any political logic, you've just done the stupidest thing possible that you can actually do, and they did. They won, and he knew he was gonna be a martyr. He was willing to be martyred, and that's why he didn't go to a bunker. He stayed in his house, to put himself under the exact same risk as everybody else. This guy is gonna go down as one of the top martyrs in the Shia faith.
And this is equivalent to The US murdering patriarch Kirill in Moscow if they tried to do that. You'd have about as much of reaction, especially from the Orthodox Christian, particularly the Russian Orthodox, which are half the Orthodox Christians in the world as you're having with the Shia. It would be just you know, if there's no other button to push to piss people off. Now having said that, two points here. First of all, do don't Mario, do you have any children?
Speaker 0: Not yet. No.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll as a father, I'll tell you this. If somebody kills one of my kids, I'm gonna take a rifle, and I'm gonna murder them as long as I can until I die. 165 fathers just from that school alone. The US killed, two days ago. The the body count from Iran into Tehran was over a thousand people.
I've got a I've got a friend of mine. There she's a director of a a news outlet here for Lebanon out of Beirut. I was oh, nice old man. I'm not gonna say his name. I was just talking to him, yesterday.
He's lost five family members from the Israelis bombing Beirut over the last days. Do you think that those people are gonna put their guns down? No. They're gonna go for revenge. That's human nature.
You've killed my family. I'm gonna go kill you. That is human nature. Absolute human nature. And Americans would do the exact same thing if the same thing was happening to Americans.
I guarantee you that. So already, those people are you know, murdering their women and children is not the way to get them to calm down and let's have a new regime. The other problem is the people that Trump has killed were the older generation. The ones that actually he could have talked to. The people that come into power right now again, this is something that that having served in the US military, can tell you most people don't understand anything about anybody outside The US.
They all look at them up. They're all Arabs. They're not Arabs. They're they're Persians. They're a three thousand year civilization.
They have loyalty down, beaten hard into them. And the people that are now coming to power are the 50 year olds. And just why that is important, because the 50 year olds were the ones that fought in the Iran Iraq war that The US backed Iraq, gave Iraq, chemical weapons, killed almost a million Iranians with chemical weapons. Those people are not gonna step back. Those are veterans from the trench warfare.
Those are veterans who spent their youth watching their friends die from the Iraqis who are being armed to the teeth by the Americans. Those people have a lot of bones to pick, and those are the people that just came to power. Thanks to the Americans doing the exact and the Israelis doing the exact same stupid thing that they could have done. The worst people they could have, generation, they could have brought into power for their ends, they just brought into power. So I don't know what Trump is being told.
Tulsi Gabbard, who told him flat out Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon or anything of sort, she's been apparently slapped back into being a wallflower because she's just disappeared. Nobody see seen or heard anything from her in months. So we're looking at what? We're looking at the worst possible negotiators. Additionally, who wants to negotiate with America?
Let let I mean, let's be honest. And The US and Israel murders the people they negotiate with. And this is nothing new, by the way. Milosevic in '94, The US hit his estate, killed part some of his family while negotiating with the with the Yugoslavs. This is not new.
This is more like, SOP, standard operating procedure, unfortunately to say. And Trump has done this twice. Twice? Who's gonna trust him a third time? You know, fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me. There's gonna be a third time. The people that brought in have no trust for The US. They fought against The US proxy in their youth. This is gonna be a hard fight.
These people are in for it for the long haul.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you another question, though. You said who wants to negotiate with The US? A very fair question, but also who wants to be an enemy of The US right now? So you've got Venezuela. The US came in, removed Maduro, has someone more friendly with them.
Russia, China did almost nothing. In Iran, the same not the same thing. Very different thing, but there's a war with Iran right now. There's talks about Russia sharing intelligence with with the Iranians. The foreign minister did not confirm or deny that, but nothing beyond that.
Two questions there.
Speaker 1: First, is
Speaker 0: it time?
Speaker 1: Really? Nothing beyond that? Russia's for Russia brought in MiG 20 nines. Russia brought in two thirty fives. Russia brought in s four hundreds.
Russia has upgraded the propulsion system, the avionics, the jamming system. Russia brought in equipment to jam, the Starlinks. And and if you know anything about how long it takes to train a pilot, I'm not saying anything, but more likely, those aren't Iranian pilots. And there's a whole constellation of satellites, flying overhead that are both Russian and Chinese. Believe you me, proxy can be played both ways.
The US has murdered Russian civilians for four years. Those HIMARs are American soldiers sitting there, whether they're ship ship dipped, mercenaries or not, firing. Those are my family members are getting fired upon. I'm from Lugansk. I have family all up and down that area.
They've been getting shelled for twelve years by the Ukrainians. So this is very, very personal for me. I go down there quite often enough. I see the damage that they do. Those high Mars that are being targeted into Russian cities, into Russian territory, into Russian civilian territory are targeted by American generals.
In fact, the New York Times back in December '24 confirmed everything I was saying before that in the Russian media, that it was American generals. American generals were demanding the attackers. The American generals plot everything. It's from end to end The US military shooting into Russia. There are already a war at Russia.
Neither side wants to admit, but that's how it is. If you think that the Russian military isn't gonna proxy back and what is The US gonna do? Start a nuclear war. Let's go. That's a basic concept that the US want US is not gonna give up, destroy America for for this.
Neither will The US ever, in any kind of, nightmare scenario, surrender New York for London or for Paris or for Warsaw or definitely not for any other country's, cities. It's not gonna happen.
Speaker 0: Let So that was that was Stanislav, that was my next question to you. Do you think Russia would turn Iran for The US what what the US did with Ukraine for Russia just to weaken The US as much as possible? And how about China as well? Could they do this as well? Because it doesn't look like I understand they've they've they've helped with with, you know, the satellites.
They've helped with with the jamming. They've helped with military equipment, the MiGs, the s u's, but that's still still not that significant. Right now, they only help you diplomatically. There isn't any indicators they're sending weaponry to the region right now. There hasn't been any military involvement in any way.
Hopefully, there won't be, you know, no one wants to see Russia and The US, clash directly, but there isn't the same amount of support for Iran as there is for Ukraine with NATO and The US.
Speaker 1: Could that change? First of all first of all, in six months, they flooded Iran, with a lot of equipment. And, Baidu, radar system is working in Iran, which is directly, connected up to the satellites that China has. Both sides are very, very active. They have no interest.
Let let me just put this way. Iran is an existential crisis for both China and Russia. Just a little bit less for Russia than Ukraine is. Iran falls, that means the Caucasus falls, Central Asia falls, and everything gets shipped into Southern Russia. Russia will not allow Iran to fall.
Russian ships are still coming in. Their Russian planes are still coming in. Russia has Iran's back, and Iran knows it. Officially, maybe not, any any sayings, officially, but Russia is not gonna allow Iran to fall under no circumstances. There's, Russia has been and will continue supplying Iran with fuel, with wheat, and anything else it needs.
And the Iranian people can hold out. I mean, look. Boots on the ground? Okay. You think that will happen?
Speaker 0: Do do you genuinely think that will happen, though?
Speaker 1: If it happens well, I mean, they the eighty eighty second airborne, apparently, everybody's being called back, so it could happen. It it's gonna be the death of the 80 airborne. I mean, this this isn't Iraq. Look. Just just to understand Iraq.
Because, again, those are Arabs and these are Persians. The US military well, first of all, Saddam was a fool because twice he allowed the the US military and its allies to build up on his borders and invade him instead of striking first. In 2003, the CIA was all over the place buying out Iraqi generals, and they did. About half the Iraqi army never left its barracks, to start combat operations. They just sat by and waited.
And even with all that, it took the US military twenty two days to reach Baghdad. Twenty two days. The Iraqis are fighting right now. The US there's about 2,000 US troops surrounded in three bases. They're being attacked.
Massoud, there's videos coming out of constant combat. Sooner or later, they're gonna run out of ammunition and food and water. Then what do you do? You got 2,000, soldiers that are trapped. US isn't exactly doing a lot to get them out for some reason.
The only way you're gonna get them out is by convoy punching in there and trying to pull them out. But here's the point. A, where are you gonna build up? Two, if you're going west to east, you gotta fight your way through Iraq before you get even up to Iran. If you're gonna go through Azerbaijan, the lines of communication are huge.
They're all the way going from Turkey all the way through a very narrow road, between, Iran and, Armenia that well, it's it's really is Armenia, but Armenia gave it up, the the Trump's Road or whatever, now up to Azerbaijan. That again, the the logistics insane, and it's up to be attacked by drones, by missiles. So either way, it's already a problem. If you throw them to try to defend the Strait or or Hormuz, try to take the territory in the South, Yeah. There there was a village called Krinky not too long ago.
The Ukrainians buried two battalions of marines in that little village, three lay three roads parallel on the bank of the Dnieper River across from Kherson, a little bit north and across from Kherson. And the Russian military just shelled them for four months, they just keep shipping more people and they die. Two battalions were destroyed. That's gonna be the same thing. I mean, these guys are gonna be with a seat to their back, stuck on a on a coastal strip and constantly under fire.
There is no good way for The US to go in. And if The US actually wants to do a military invasion look. If you pull the entire US army marine corps together, you got about mill you got about 500, 550,000 troops. Never mind The US doesn't have six months to put them together. Iraq, won in 1991.
There's a storm with six months to put all those troops together plus all the allies. And The US was in a still in a cold war, so it still had a military that was quite much larger than it is right now. And its European allies had real militaries back then. So they were able to pull that in. Even Syria was on the side of The US at that point.
In 2003,
Speaker 0: it was already shattered. More limited. It sounds what is more limited? Like, Trump's been talks there's been reports that Trump's looking at the Karg Island, which is in the South Southwest of Iran, which is like a choke point that's responsible for about 90% of Iranian exports. So for such a small island, militarily, is it just as hard to be able to invade that?
Speaker 1: Well, no. I mean, you could take the island. Let's remember Snake Island where we're at in the beginning of the the Russian Iranian I mean, Russian Ukrainian conflict. The the the, garrison on Snake Island surrendered, and then they were, given back in exchange a couple months later. So there was nothing now that they fought to the end.
They surrendered. So the Russian garrison that was on there, the Ukrainians tried to invade that island constantly. They were beaten off until they got artillery up to the, edge, one five two, one five five millimeter, and they could reach the island. Russia got off the island. The Ukrainians landed troops back on the island, and Russian military exterminated that island.
The island's empty. So, yeah, you can get on that island. You could put a flag on that island. Can you hold that island? It's first of all, it's an island, so you have to constantly replenish it.
Second of all, it's within artillery range from either side. So that is if The UAE actually participates from either side. It's that island is with an easy artillery range. That island's with an easy drone range. Anybody gets on that island is gonna be hunted day and night by drones.
They're gonna have artillery strikes. They're gonna have, missile strikes coming in on them. Not really worth it. I mean, if you wanna have a lot of heroes that die pointlessly, you could actually drop them off there. It'd be the marines more likely taking that island.
But, what's it gonna get you? You're not gonna build anything on there. You're not gonna be able to deploy anything on there because it's, it's just gonna be a firing range. It's that that's not a solution.
Speaker 0: I'll ask you a final question, Stanislav. Just trying to look at this objectively and and putting yourself in Trump's shoes. Do you think he will try to get an off ramp as soon as possible? You know, he cannot afford for this trace to be closed for another three weeks. Obviously, you you believe that Iranian's capabilities are a lot more than what the West would like to think considering that it the only logical path, least in my eyes, is for Trump to try to end the war as soon as possible and boots on the ground is should be completely off the table politically, you know, just looking at it politically for him.
What will be your analysis of of Trump's next move and and the the way the war will be in a few weeks?
Speaker 1: You know, Politico had an article, out, last week, as all this is starting up. They said, basically, US is looking for, is gearing up for a hundred day war, and they don't know how to stop this. And they're gonna be out of missiles. Defensive missiles are running out now. Offensive missiles are gonna be out within the next week and a half.
What do you do after that? I mean, they're dropping gravity bar well, they're dropping j dams, which is basically just a gravity bomb with a, collide unit and and a control unit in there to bring you into target. But those aren't that effective, as effective, obviously, as tomahawks or anything of that sort. What do you do? Well, here's the problem.
What do you do? The US Iran has effectively destroyed most of The US infrastructure that's been built up over the last thirty years. What do you do? You can't go back into the Persian Gulf. You Trump can't admit defeat.
He's gotta spin this somehow, but it's getting very, very difficult to spin it in any way that doesn't look like a defeat. He talked too much. They made too much of a thing about it. It it should have kept it much quieter and and less boastful than it could have been easier to spin out of it. But when Trump said, we will accept nothing but unconditional surrender, you've pretty much have painted yourself in a corner politically.
What do you do now? Oh, we've accepted anything but unconditional surrender in a couple years because we're gonna leave now because we don't have any missiles. That's one. Two, what happens when you don't have enough missiles and you can't defend Israel? Because the donor class is not gonna be very happy if you leave, obviously speaking.
And the donor class, people they've given a half $1,000,000,000 to Trump has cleared out any issues for him to run any opposition are gonna demand are gonna demand have demanded their chunk of meat, and it needs to be a bloody chunk of meat. You know, every single president in The US has been under for the last forty years has been under pressure from the Israelis to attack Iran. Nobody went and did it. Not even Trump won, went and did something this stupid. Again, it's very, very easy to start a war.
How do you end a war? Let's have negotiations. We murdered a previous student on negotiating parties. That doesn't work.
Speaker 0: Unless you you get a new leader that's a bit more pragmatic, that gives Trump an off ramp just for the sake of Iran, keeps the regime in power, but says to Trump, hey. We're gonna give you x y zed. That's symbolic that he can go back to his voters, say, hey. Iran is gonna give up their nuclear program, which, you know, not saying they were building it in the first place, and they're gonna limit their ballistic missile program to never strike to the The US, which they were never they might have been planning it, but that will take years, and that's easy to to concede on that. But they concede on these two things, which could be portrayed as a diplomatic win for Trump, and the Iranian regime gets to keep their power without further destroying Iran.
So that could be a possibility if the Iranian regime gives them that off ramp through, like, maybe a new year like Oman?
Speaker 1: At this point, I don't think so. It could. I mean, I'm not gonna say anything's possible. The politics is the art of the impossible or the I'm sorry. The art of the possible.
But I don't think at least from what the sounds of it right now is they're they're not in a mood. They're not in a mood. They're gonna do it until they decide that they've done enough damage. And it's you know, will The US be able to even come back into the Persian Gulf? I mean, frankly, for The US, it would be better not to come back in the Persian Gulf.
Just trade with people. There's a reason George Washington said no entangling alliances. And there's one debate I was on the the George Bush Republicans are, wow. We haven't listened to that in a couple hundred in a hundred years. It doesn't make you wise, though, by not listening to what, Washington said in his, goodbye address.
And there was a reason. Trade with everybody did not get inside into their alliances, did not get in involved in their conflicts. US has done absolutely the opposite of that. It cuts trade with everyone, to try to punish them and gets into all of these alliances and the various wars. It has no reason to be in.
If The US was looking just for US policy, it would never be in a war with Iran, a. B, no country this is this is the difference between the civilization idea that Bricks and Russia, in particular, is carrying to the world versus the civilization idea that The US is not carrying to war. US had a civilizational idea of the American dream. It's dead. Everybody understands it's dead.
Most people yeah. Most young people can't afford to have kids. They can't afford a house. They can't afford anything. It's the the American dream's dead.
So what's the new civilizational idea they have? Hegemony, we will come and take your resources. We'll be able to kill your leaders. We'll bomb your country. Most countries don't sign on to that.
What's the what's the civilizational idea that bricks in Russia, for example, carry? Conservatism, traditionalism, and let's trade and make money, and we're not gonna bother you inside your country because you're gonna live your way the way you wanna live it. The people in Iran can decide what government they want or don't want. The people in China can decide what government they want, they don't want. The people in any other country can do the same.
We're not gonna impose our will on you because we have no right to do that. The US has no right to do that, but The US keeps doing it up to the point where it runs into a brick wall that it can't punch through. And right now, if US has shown its Persian Gulf allies and everybody else is watching, it cannot protect them. It is not willing to protect them. It physically cannot do it.
Experts have been saying this, myself included, for years. The US does not have a capacity to do this. I'm sure they heard it, but they didn't wanna believe it. Now they've got no choice but to see this for themselves and believe it. US cannot defend its allies.
It's incapable of doing it. I'll give you one, one little, example, and this is from 2002. That was 2002? Yeah. It was 2002.
I'm in charge of a deployment project, getting a unit ready to deploy. Exercise that we're running, and we're getting ready to deploy to go to Iraq 2003. And I'm in Fort Jackson, Florida. I'm a captain at this point. I'm walking on the on the military docks.
I have a major who's in charge of those docks. I'm standing there watching marine m one a ones being loaded on a transport ship, and that transport ship has a Russian flag hanging off of it. And I looked to a marine may I I looked at that major and go, what the hell, sir? What what am I missing here? It's like, oh, that's our little thing.
We don't have a merchant marine. The last time we built any ships for the merchant marine is in nineteen fifties. They're all been chopped up for steel. We hire civilian ships to carry US equipment. And that's how the army, the US military travels.
Either forward deploys and just keeps them there for however long or to deploy anywhere, it has to have somebody else's ship. It's a this is 2002. It hasn't gotten better. It's only gotten worse. The US military is a lot more of a paper tiger than anybody wants to realize.
It's hampered by a lot of issues. Twenty percent obesity rate is one of those issues. You don't women in combat arms is one of those issues because of of and and this is not a military that's prepared to go fight across mountains and deserts against a determined foe on their homeland. I mean, look what happened in Afghanistan. They spent twenty years fighting the Taliban to replace them with the Taliban.
I mean and The US public is not gonna get behind us. The only way Trump is gonna have enough of a military is to call for a draft. At least a million, million and a half men under arms additionally. And if he does that, he's gonna have a revolution on his hands, flat out.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, a country that has forty percent obesity rate, has 30% just fat, has about less than thirty percent of population that's within weight range, doesn't mean that they're physically fit. It's not gonna be able to pull up enough troops to on a on a draft to fight a country on their home turf on the other side of the world that's in the mountains that's start of the
Speaker 0: percent of this year. Yeah. I didn't know that 40 I didn't know why 40% of this year in The US is sad.
Speaker 1: It it's insane. I mean, we were discussing this as officers. We're discussing this till the end of the nineties. If we had to go fight somebody seriously and do the draft, who are we gonna draft? And this was back when the BC was about 20%.
But I mean, it's it's
Speaker 0: with technological advancements, people are becoming less and less important for in times of war, especially with drones and AI.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, look at Ukraine, the Ukrainian conflict. People are just as important. Drones aren't gonna win the war.
Drones are an extra weapon. Drones have their limitations. Anti drone warfare is growing very quickly. For example, we we have used, lasers, Chinese lasers against Ukrainian drones. The Chinese, laser systems are very effective.
It takes one second on a plastic drone to cut it in half. On an airplane sized drone, it takes three seconds to set it on fire. The the counter is, oh, it doesn't work during the rain. Well, drones don't fly in the rain. That's another thing.
Drones are very limited by climatic conditions. They don't go into fog. They don't go into rain. They don't go in in heavy snow. They don't go in strong winds.
They don't fly. They're not that stable. So in the end, until until an infantryman puts a flag somewhere on a piece of land, that land isn't theirs. In the end, it still comes down to the infantryman with an assault rifle, grenades, clearing out whatever objective or holding whatever objective that you have. That's that's how it's been, and that's how it's continuing to be.
Unless you got unless you got robots that can come in there, they're still gonna have issues.
Speaker 0: That's a very men are still very important now saying it's it's becoming less and less important. So probably in twenty years, it'll be very wolf hair will be very different. But till then, I wanted to quickly add one one quick comment on something you said. As Stanislav, you talked about how, you know, Russian values versus American values. I I think I look at it differently.
I think we live in a world where the the the bullies could do whatever they want. You know, we're seeing that with, what's happening now with The US and Iran. We're seeing that with Ukraine and Russia. I know, you know, I'm also blame NATO to an extent, but I think Russia did invade Ukraine. Different discussion.
I I know it's a different discussion. We've gone for a while.
Speaker 1: That that, by the way, was article 51, a right to defend. Eight years Ukraine was shelling. I mean, my relatives lived there. And and you know what the people in the East Of Ukraine were asking for? They had insane demands.
They were asking for federalization. They wanted the right to, elect their governors. They had a right to have a say in where their taxes was. Because Ukraine is an, is a mafia state, feudalistic state. They put oligarchs over provinces, and it's their feeding grounds.
They don't invest in these, in these provinces that they rule as governors. They collect money. They give their port their cut to Kyiv and who is ever in power in Kyiv, and the rest goes into their own pockets. And that's how Kyiv has been run for the last thirty years. This is the country that in 1991 left the Soviet Union debt free because Russia took all the debt and paid all the debt off, had an industrial and scientific base the size of France's.
In 2021, it was lower than Uganda. In fact, the president of Uganda was very upset when he was, they said, oh, Ukraine's like Uganda. I was like, no. We live much better than these people. Ukraine was robbed.
I've been to Ukraine plenty of times. I have relatives in Ukraine. I'm talking about on the other side of the border too. I, I as a supply chain director, I was in a lot of these manufacturing facilities in Ukraine back in 2010, back in 2009, trying to find additional suppliers, and I left because it was pointless in doing business with these people. They were all looking for the one big score and get the hell out of Ukraine.
The facilities were all in horrible condition. They weren't investing in anything. They're sucking everything out of there. Ukraine is a failed state. It's the most corrupt country in the world run by an illegal dictator, an illegal party.
Speaker 0: I still think, like, that argument making it for Ukraine or making it for Iran, I think it should not justify what The US did in in Iran. It should not justify what Russia did in Ukraine. Not putting all the blame on Russia, but I think they crossed the line. Just one one last comment on that since you're talking about Ukraine. Is there a possibility where Iran changes the geopolitical alliances so much so that Europe obviously struggling because of energy prices that forces Europe to concede more on the negotiating table between Zelenskyy and Putin, between Russia and Ukraine?
Same for Trump, and Iran may be the reason that Europe and and even The US improve relations with with Putin, and and we might see the end of the war in Ukraine?
Speaker 1: Look. I don't know what level of actual trust is between, Vladimir Vladimir, Richard, and Donald Trump. But most of the Russian, well, a lot of the Russian elites, they don't see anything, to trust. These talks have gone into a dead end. I I go down to the front lines often enough.
I speak with it's not just with some generals that I know or colonels. I speak with the regular soldiers too. And I'll tell you this, off the Russian military, of course, everyone wants peace. What they all fear is some kind of a deal. They want peace as in capitulation of Kyiv.
And this is from the line infantry. This is from the line, soldiers. They've invested too much time. They've lost too many friends. They've lost too much of their own lives in this to go into any kind of deal.
We've seen what deals with Kyiv end with. Constant terrorism, constant attacks, and eventually another war. So the point is it's rather we finish this now so our kids don't have to fight. And this is how it's gonna be. The the Russian military at this point, there there's there's nothing to deal with.
Ukraine's collapsing internally. They're, eating each other up on on the political side. Zelensky's quote wants elections when he doesn't want elections because he's gonna control the elections. You know, it's it's a dictatorship when a dictator wins. 95% backing.
Yeah. That's it's it's an illegal it it's an it's the the the problem in Ukraine, quite simply, Zelenskyy is never planning to die of old age in Ukraine. Nobody around him is planning on dying of old age in Ukraine. Ukraine is a feeding ground for them and nothing more. Zelenskyy's mother and father live until in Eshkolon, if I remember correctly, in a mansion that he bought him.
His wife and kids are in London. He's the ninth largest landowner in America through fund companies. Yamalov, who ran off to The US, his whole family and himself had US citizenship since 02/6016. When the negotiating team came, there was two American teams. There was Wittkopf and his guys, and then the Ukrainians all had American citizenship.
These people are not gonna be around to rebuild Ukraine that they've helped destroy. They're gonna leave the moment they can't make any more money. And as long as there's living Ukrainians that can be sold off onto the battlefield, they're making money. These are parasites. They're gonna drain Ukraine to the to to its death.
It already is, basically. And they don't give a damn about those people. They're not gonna die of old Asia. The kids are not gonna grow up in Ukraine. Ukraine is just a is is a host for these parasites.
They're sucking it dry. And the Ukrainian people, no matter what their nationality, no matter what the who they are, are nothing but material to be throw to be sold at the maximum price. We've seen this, and we will continue to see it. There's not gonna be any negotiated piece. It's it's just not gonna happen.
Clearly gonna negotiate with.
Speaker 0: When you try to be more optimistic on this level, you can't be more optimistic.
Speaker 1: I you know, if you wanna understand why the people are like that, fly to Russia. I will take you down the
Speaker 0: front lines. I I was I was there I I was invited to the front lines. I wanted to interview interview Lavrov, and I was in Ukraine before it as well. Both invited me to the front lines as it it deemed too much too too risky.
Speaker 1: Well, okay. We can go we can go closer than just the front lines. You can talk to the people, the civilians. Look. I was just two months ago, I was in Avdevka.
While we're there, we had drones flying overhead. They have FPV drones coming in every day. We had a air battle over our heads. Another drone was shut down not too far from us. There are civilians here.
Counted six fully repaired buildings, another eight that were under repair, civilian buildings, big residency buildings. New government building that was opened, office. Another building that was a 100 meters long, six meters tall, or I'm sorry. Six stories high that was built from scratch. And these are civilian workers that of course, they get paid for this, but they're working in a basically in the near rear pseudo combat zone, and they're building the city back up.
Stores are opening up. This is what Russians are. You can't scare Russians. You know? Okay.
So there's drones overhead, and I might get killed, but I have a job to do. And that's the Russian mentality.
Speaker 0: Honestly, but Russians Russians both of you, Russians and Ukrainians have been some of the most courageous people, even Ukrainians.
Speaker 1: So so you're are Russians, historically speaking. But I will tell you simply put, the difference in mentality, between Americans and Russians is this simple saying. In America, there's a saying, do or die. The Russian saying is die, but do. Even Even if you're gonna die, you better well damn finish your damn mission.
That's the Russian mentality. I mean, that is absolutely the Russian mentality. It doesn't matter the sacrifice. You're gonna finish the mission that you've got ahead of you. That's that's it.
That's how that is the Russian mentality, and and that's what you're fighting against. And believe you me, right now, the Shia in, in Iran have exactly the same mentality, and they're not gonna stop because they have no reason to stop. They're they're winning. I mean, in the long term, they're winning. So that's a that's enough note.
Speaker 0: Great great discussion. I really enjoyed it. It's our first discussion, but I'd love to have another one again. Your your knowledge military experience and knowledge has been has been really interesting to listen to. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Thank you.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨THE GULF’S SCRAMBLE FOR UKRAINIAN TECH The UAE and Qatar aren't waiting for Washington anymore. They're going straight to Ukraine for battle-tested drone defense systems. Glenn Diesen says the region was completely unprepared for the scale of drone warfare it now faces. So instead of relying on Western protection, they're building their own. @Glenn_Diesen
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸 Professori Jiang predicted Trump would win the election and start a war with Iran. Now, he predicts the US will lose the Iran War. Why? Iran's 20-yr prep for attrition (hitting GCC energy, blocking Hormuz, targeting desalination) will crash global economy, burst AI bubble, and deplete US munitions. Expensive US tech vs cheap Iranian drones = asymmetry puncturing American hegemony. Makes sense if Iran continues to play the long game on economy while US spends trillions. Source: Breaking Points YT
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and Speaker 2 discuss the evolving confrontation between the United States and Iran and its broader economic and strategic implications.
Speaker 0 highlights three predictions: (1) Trump would win, (2) he would start a war with Iran, and (3) the US would lose that war, asking if these predictions are still valid.
Speaker 1 characterizes the current phase as a war of attrition between the United States and Iran, noting that Iranians have been preparing for twenty years and now possess “a pretty good strategy of how to weaken and ultimately destroy the American empire.” He asserts that Iran is waging war against the global economy by striking Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and targeting critical energy infrastructure and waterways such as the Baghdad channel and the Hormuz Strait, and eventually water desalination plants, which are vital to Gulf nations. He emphasizes that the Gulf States are the linchpin of the American economy because they sell petrodollars, which are recycled into the American economy through investments, including in the stock market. He claims the American economy is sustained by AI investments in data centers, much of which come from the Gulf States. If the Gulf States cease oil sales and finance AI, he predicts the AI bubble in the United States would burst, collapsing the broader American economy, described as a financial “ponzi scheme.”
Speaker 2 notes a concrete example: an Amazon data center was hit in the UAE. He also mentions the United States racing to complete its Iran mission before munitions run out.
Speaker 1 expands on the military dynamic, arguing that the United States military is not designed for a twenty-first-century war. He attributes this to the post–World War II military-industrial complex, which was built for the Cold War and its goals of technological superiority. He explains that American military strategy relies on highly sophisticated, expensive technology—the air defense system—leading to an asymmetry in the current conflict: million-dollar missiles attempting to shoot down $50,000 drones. He suggests this gap is unsustainable in the long term and describes it as the puncturing of the aura of invincibility that has sustained American hegemony for the past twenty years.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You made three big predictions. One, that Trump would win. Two, that he would start a war with Iran. And three, that The US would lose that war. Quite a stunning prediction, you know.
Do you stand by it?
Speaker 1: The reality is that right now, it's a war of attrition between United States and Iran, and Iranians have been preparing twenty years for this conflict. And now, they have a pretty good strategy of how to weaken and ultimately destroy the American empire. So what the Iranians are doing is they're waging war against the entire global economy. And so they are striking the GCC countries. They're going after the critical energy infrastructure, the Baghdad which of Hormuz.
And eventually, they will go after the water desalination plants, which is the lifeblood of these nations because they don't have fresh water supply. The Iranians are actually threatening the very existence of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar. And what is important is that the Gulf States are really the linchpin of the American economy. So what they do is they sell petrodollars and then they recycle the petrodollars back into the American economy, through the investments in the stock market. And right now, we know that the entire American economy is propped up by AI investments in data centers, and a lot of that comes from the Gulf States.
So if the Gulf States are no longer able to sell oil, and they're no longer able to finance AI, this AI bubble in The United States, then this AI bubble will burst, and with it, will will burst as well as well as the entire American economy, which is really a financial ponte scheme.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, to your point, sir, an Amazon data center was literally hit in The UAE. We also wanted to talk to you about munition. United States is racing to accomplish Iran mission before munitions run out.
Speaker 1: United States military is not designed to fight a twenty first century war. Remember, the military industrial complex came to being after World War two, and it's designed to fight the Cold War. And the Cold War was really about muscle flexing, who was the first to get the person on the moon. And so the entire American military strategy revolves around very sophisticated technology that cost a lot of money to build. And that's what the American air defense system is, and that's why we're seeing this asymmetry in this war where you have these million dollar missiles trying to take out these $50,000 drones, and it's not sustainable in the long term.
And so what we're seeing is really the puncturing of the aura of invincibility that sustained American hegemony for the past twenty years.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇮🇶🇺🇸 BREAKING: U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone, Baghdad reportedly got hit. MES https://t.co/6d140EfIT6
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇮🇶🇺🇸 EXPLOSIONS REPORTED AT U.S. EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD The embassy is located inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, which has been on high alert since the regional war escalated. Source: Yediot News https://t.co/bu7brQ5skt
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇸🇦 REGIME COLLAPSE RISK? GULF STATES ARE EXPOSED Scott Ritter argues Saudi Arabia and the UAE lack the military capacity to change the war’s trajectory, warning any direct strike on Iran would be repaid “tenfold.” He says Gulf economies are built on secure energy exports, and sustained attacks on oil and gas infrastructure could trigger internal instability, especially in Bahrain and eastern Saudi Arabia. Scott dismisses talk of U.S. “boots on the ground,” saying America lacks the troops, logistics, and time for a major invasion, leaving Washington with limited leverage. @RealScottRitter
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸 FBI docs show their NYC office got "hacked" on Super Bowl Sunday 2023, right in the child sex crimes lab. Hackers accessed Epstein-related files → ~500TB data vanished, 100TB permanently erased. Agent's sworn declaration: Remote access was enabled, suspicious IPs popped up, and minimal help from the FBI. No suspects caught. Source: @disclosetv, Disclose TV
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇬🇧 SHE'S BRITISH ARISTOCRACY, DATED PRINCE ANDREW, AND SAYS THE EPSTEIN STORY IS FAR WORSE THAN ANYONE THINKS... Lady Victoria Hervey is the daughter of the 6th Marquess of Bristol, born into the upper echelons of British aristocracy. She moved in the same circles as the royal family, dated Prince Andrew, and spent time around both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She recently went viral during a live LBC Radio interview when she said not appearing in the Epstein files would be "an insult" because it would mean "you were a bit of a loser." That clip sparked massive backlash, but it also revealed how normalized Epstein's world was among the elite. She believes Epstein was an intelligence asset connected to the CIA and Mossad, and that the files are being strategically released to muddy the waters while the real operation stays buried. On Prince Andrew's arrest, she says the timing was no coincidence. Photographers were tipped off beforehand and the king went to a fashion show while it happened. She also doesn't believe Epstein is dead. And she has a theory about whose body was actually on that table. Very few people with her access would say this publicly. She did, and what she’s saying should make everyone very uncomfortable. Full interview with Lady Victoria Hervey below
Video Transcript AI Summary
- The conversation opens with a claim that the Epstein affair is a smokescreen for something more sinister, implying high-level involvement or covert operations.
- Allegations about Epstein's material include a set of videos: “sex video with a minor,” “twenty seven minute video called threesome,” “nineteen minute video called underage girl sex video,” and other listed clips. The speakers debate whether Epstein liked underage girls or used them for blackmail.
- Victoria (Lady Victoria) states Epstein was “definitely connected to intelligence,” suggesting he could have been used by intelligence services to obtain or exchange information.
- There is a claim that “two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey Epstein and Madame Ghislain Maxwell” near the Zoro Ranch, presented as a source-based assertion.
- Discussion of Prince Andrew’s arrest: Victoria describes it as brutal and shocking, noting the king attended a London Fashion Week event during the arrest. She argues the palace seems infiltrated by anti-monarchists and criticizes the decision to strip Andrew of his titles as a potential destabilizing act.
- David Kay Johnston is mentioned (via a journalist offered by the show), suggesting the arrest was a public warning to others implicated in the files.
- The presenters discuss how the royal household, including King Charles, distanced itself and how media dynamics influence public perception. Victoria contends the palace’s communications head is a former Daily Mail staffer, implying media manipulation.
- The discussion covers Epstein’s role as an envoy and possible involvement in sharing state secrets, including alleged emails about British aid to Afghanistan and other sensitive information. Victoria argues Andrew was not a formal diplomat but held an honorary position.
- The guests examine an email chain alleging an Epstein plane landing at a British RAF base, debating whether private jets at RAF facilities require official approval and whether royal status adds a layer of protection or privilege.
- They critique later media presentations of Epstein files, noting the FBI’s long redaction of names and the public’s tendency to draw sensational conclusions from redacted material. They acknowledge the complexity of distinguishing victims, redactions, and potential fabrications.
- There is a debate about the credibility of victims’ accounts: some victims’ stories are asserted to be truthful, others to be exaggerated or manipulated by media. Victoria emphasizes that many victims are drug addicts and that some claims may be driven by sensationalism or manipulation.
- The conversation touches the redaction and release of documents: Victoria argues that redactions create a misleading impression, while the other participant contends the FBI may be withholding information for security reasons. They note that public access to the files is incomplete and contested.
- MK Ultra and CIA involvement are discussed as possible explanations for manipulation: Victoria claims that many of the girls might have memory distortions or implanted memories, suggesting MK Ultra-like programming. She links butterfly logos and certain psychedelics to MK Ultra and proposes that intelligence agencies could have used blackmail to influence political or diplomatic outcomes.
- There is substantial debate about a blackmail operation: the other participant asserts Epstein ran a blackmail network, potentially with the lawyers acting as intermediaries and witnesses, while suggesting some victims were coerced or incentivized to participate in harmful activities.
- The dialogue introduces the theory that intelligence agencies may have protected Epstein in order to exploit his access to sensitive information, using him as an asset for leverage or negotiated outcomes, possibly involving foreign leaders or critical geopolitical deals. Victoria suggests multiple countries (Saudi Arabia, Israel, the US) could be implicated, and hints at a broader “intelligence operation” aimed at destabilizing or discrediting powerful figures, including the royal family.
- The participants discuss various photos and videos in Epstein-related files, including a contentious image involving Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre (Dufrey), and others. They debate whether the image is authentic or fake, and whether the subjects were underage, with Victoria arguing that the public redactions obscure the truth and that the image’s context is critical.
- There is mention of a controversial claim that Ghislain Maxwell claims the photo is fake and a separate PR statement was never used due to inaccuracies. Victoria argues Maxwell would want to contest allegations through official channels.
- The broader question of “who would be behind such a massive setup?” arises: the hosts consider intelligence agencies (CIA, Mossad) as plausible executors, with some mention of MI6 and broader geopolitical actors. They debate whether Israel, the CIA, Mossad, and other parties could be coordinating a “monarchy takedown” or a larger anti-establishment campaign.
- Toward the end, the dialogue returns to Epstein’s death: some guests argue Epstein was killed (or possibly swapped bodies) while others suggest he could still be alive. They reference autopsy discrepancies, ear comparisons, and alleged decoy bodies, expressing ongoing uncertainty about Epstein’s fate and whether the FBI/CIA/Mossad investigations are fully transparent.
- The discussion closes with deference to ongoing investigations, the role of the media, and a sense that the Epstein dossier intersects with international power struggles, conspiracy theories, and contested narratives around intelligence agencies, royal figures, and victims’ accounts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I believe this whole thing is like a smokescreen for something way more sinister.
Speaker 1: Sex video with a minor. Twenty seven minute video called threesome. Nineteen minute video called underage girl sex video. Either he liked underage girls or he used them as part of a blackmail operation.
Speaker 0: I think he was definitely connected to intelligence.
Speaker 1: Somewhere in the hills outside the Zoro Ranch, two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey Epstein and Madame Ghislain Maxwell. Lady Victoria, it's a pleasure to speak to you, especially with the meeting you. The news that's coming out as well about your your ex boyfriend, prince Andrew, former prince Andrew, who was arrested, I think it was yesterday or two days ago. Maybe let's start there, if you don't mind, lady Victoria. What are your thoughts?
Yeah. Sure. What was your reaction? Did you expect him to be arrested, and what was your initial reaction?
Speaker 0: So, yeah, so that happened yesterday. I think, like, the way it was done, I think it could probably be be done in a in a different way. It was it seemed quite brutal, like, on his birthday. I think the most shocking thing for me personally was that while this was going on, the king was out of London Fashion Week fashion show. I I just I found that, like, completely extraordinary, actually.
Speaker 1: But do you think the king knew that that was going to happen and he went to the fashion show anyway or he was caught by surprise?
Speaker 0: No. This they went they they they went to the house. This happened in the morning at like, what, 8AM or something. So no, it would have happened. And he was at a fashion show.
I'm not even at a fashion show today because I'm just feeling exhausted from all of this. So I just yeah. For me, that just shows what this family is like. You know? There's zero zero loyalty between I mean, it's it's shocking.
Speaker 1: I was speaking to a journalist yesterday. You probably know him. Let me get his name here. The interview just got published. Let me check the name.
I was interviewing journalist Andrew oh, it doesn't say it. Oh, there. David Kay. So I was interviewing David Kay Johnston yesterday, and he made a very interesting point. He said, the way as you said, the way he was arrested, not only it was his birthday, not the timing of it, but the fact that he was not asked to come in to the police station or turn himself in.
They went multiple police officers went there and arrested him. It was a very public spectacle. His assumption of the reason they did that is a warning to others in the files, maybe more others that are possibly implicated, that no one is above the law. And then we we then saw the comments by the
Speaker 0: I don't I don't think that I don't think that at all. I think the palace has been infiltrated with a lot of anti monarchists and I think they hold the power right now at the palace. And the problem is the head of comms there is ex Daily Mail. So everything is given to the media. The photographers were not at the gate every day.
They obviously got told, you know, be outside the house. So they were there at 07:30, and this all went down at 8AM. That was a tip-off. This is, you know, everything that Prince Harry said about how the family would kind of turn other members of family in, This is this is this is like it it's showing here. You know?
Why do you the
Speaker 1: royal family why do you think the royal family distanced themselves so quickly? Well,
Speaker 0: I think I think King Charles is completely disconnected from reality as far as what is going on and I think he just listens to other people and they tell him what to do. I think him, like, taking Andrew's titles away, I think that was the biggest mistake because it just shows that, well, if that can happen to Andrew, that can happen to others, you know. Since the Queen's passing, it hasn't really been the same in this country, and I think for obvious reasons it was always going to be very hard, for anyone taking on that role because the queen, she was very loved. She stayed out of the drama. She's sorry.
I'm losing my voice. Stayed out of, like, making political statements, and now we have this sort of chaos going on. And, I think the anti monarchists are rejoicing because it's so easy, you know, with our current monarch.
Speaker 1: Is it possible, really, Victoria, that prince Andrew was maybe implicated? Now the reason he was arrested what? So the reason he was arrested is obviously sharing allegedly sharing state secrets when he was the minister of labor, if I have it correctly.
Speaker 0: Right. And and Yeah. Sorry. I'll let you talk.
Speaker 1: No. I I was gonna just add to it. In the files, there is an email. I think it was from Prince Andrew. I'm gonna try to find it where he sends out an email giving classified information.
The email says classified to Epstein about aid British aid to Afghanistan reconstruction efforts and tipping off Epstein maybe for investment opportunities or some other reasons. So but that was classified information, and he noted that in the Epstein files.
Speaker 0: Do you know what? I haven't I cannot comment on things I don't know about. So as far as like the business dealings part of it, he was an envoy, but actually he wasn't he wasn't on anything like the level of what Peter Mandelson is who has not been arrested as far as we know, just that the houses were raided. Now he was really in a high up position, you know. Andrew was more, you know, even if you you can put that into chat GBT, was he you know, what position?
And it tells you right away it was it was more of a sort of honorary position, less formal. He wasn't an official diplomat or anything like that.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna bring up another, email here, and this is more related to the allegations of sharing state secrets before we get into the other allegations of, having sex with underage girls, which I know you've you don't think he was involved in that. Before we get to that, I wanna open this one here. I'm not sure if you've seen it, but this is an email chain where an email someone's Epstein emailed someone that it's true that Prince Andrew authorized for one of the planes, Epstein's planes, to land in a British military airbase, an RAF base. So Mhmm. You probably maybe not sure if you've seen this because there's millions of files that
Speaker 0: you I get busted haven't I haven't seen that, but anyone that is familiar with flying private, you land in RAF airspace. As an example, when you take a private jet in England, you often land in North Halt. These are all RAF, you know, airports.
Speaker 1: But is it he he goes into an RAF airport with military permission as well, so that's required for any private jet?
Speaker 0: Well, I don't know, but he you know, he's the son of the queen, so that that would be like an added thing. But, you know, the problem about these Epstein files, I think the people that are sort of the outcry, these are people that don't live this kind of, you know, they don't live the life of the rich and famous. They're not used to taking private jets and living this lavish lifestyle and so they can't relate to it and they don't understand it. And, you know, we're asking the normal guy on the street, you know, on a normal salary what he thinks of this stuff. And they release all these millions of files and people are like jumping to conclusions because there's no story.
There's no backstory. They just like release an email and there's no story behind it. Now, obviously, the FBI has gone through these emails for a couple of years before releasing to the public. The public looks at them and thinking, oh, I'm now a detective. Like, I've never done this before, but, oh, I'm gonna go through this.
Like, they haven't been investigated. Everybody in those files would have been heavily investigated.
Speaker 1: How we we don't how have people been investigated when you've got the administration Trump administration in previous to that saying there's nothing there. The files are a hoax. There's no files there. Then they release millions of files. They redact a lot of names.
They unredact names. And when you start going through the files, I don't go I don't I don't like going down conspiracy paths. But when you have emails saying, did you torture her? We have emails with a JPEG image and says age 12 or age 14. Very clearly.
Speaker 0: Very explicit. Photos? Is there is there a photo? Because you know there's a lot of I think they should just un redact everything. To be honest, like my file, which I have photos that were like public photos that I put on my own Instagram and they used pictures of like me with Kash Patel, me with the president, and they actually redacted my face in these photos in my file.
Now, these were public photos. So why do that? I think everything looks a lot more sinister when they've got a sort of blacked out cube over your head, you know. Like suddenly people are like, oh my gosh, she's she must be like 15 and not, you know. It's a good example there was that picture of President Trump and he was surrounded by some
Speaker 1: Adult women.
Speaker 0: Group of women that was, you know, clearly when he was when he owned Miss Universe, Miss Was it Miss World or Miss Universe?
Speaker 1: One of them.
Speaker 0: That he had. One of the franchises. But, you know, actually when you see that photo when it's unredacted, no, these are not these are not 15 year olds. These are like, you know, grown grown women. I agree.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 0: I think that It's the other problem with the redaction thing. Now, the all the girls, the so called survivors that we have to feel sorry for that were prancing around Washington with Massey. Now, they were all like, oh, open the files. Open the files. Now, as soon as the files were released, they were all crying to get everything redacted.
Now, this is because they got busted. Right? So quite a few of them pretended, oh, we didn't have any, communication with Jeffrey Epstein after a sudden date, and oh my gosh, he raped me and he was so awful to me. And actually, what those files show is actually they were sending him emails with, you know, calling him sweetheart and signing off XOXO or XXX, you know, clearly very keen on him. Yes.
So
Speaker 1: Lady Victoria, I agree with that point and I think what the way the files were released was in a way muddying the water. So they redact a lot of faces. Some of them are victims that should be redacted, but others are not. And and sometimes you could they could make it seem like someone's implicated in a crime when they redact the faces of girls around them, but those girls could be adult women and maybe they're consensually. The point about the victims, also there's hundreds of victims and when you have some victims that might have fabricated or exaggerated their story, it does not mean they say 5% or 10% of victims, doesn't mean all of them.
There's just so many victims there. And there's also the argument of if women were sending in messages of of love and I love you and I miss you. Another counter argument to that is Stockholm syndrome. So women that were growing over many years, when someone has that amount of power influence and this is not about all victims. This is the ones you're referring to because I did speak to one victim where in the Epstein files, emails came out.
So she made such allegations against Epstein. And when the emails came out, she was emailing him. I miss you. I want to see you, etcetera. So I confronted her with that question and her argument was like, Mario, when you've been groomed by someone, when someone has threatened you, when they have so much power, when they said they know where your family lives, you you you're in a position where you feel like you have to please them?
Speaker 0: I don't know. I I feel a lot of them lied. I I really do. I mean, I I started, like, heavily looking into this about four and a half years ago, but obviously at that point I'd already you know, I'd done a couple of interviews, but I sort of wanted to stay away from it and not get too involved, because it is so draining and it just takes up a lot of energy. And then when I started looking into it, it was Virginia first and then Maria Farmer and then Sarah Ransom and then Juliet Anushka and a couple of others.
And I was just like, wow. Like, the media, there's so much out there where they were caught lying, where they changed their stories, but the media just don't want to print that. It's like it's it's it's much more sensationalism when they can just go along for the ride. And I think the problem is about the media nowadays, it's all about clicks and they just they just don't even want to tell the truth at this point.
Speaker 1: I am surprisingly, I'm gonna agree with you. I think the media would want a sensational story that will get clicks even if it may not be true or not be maybe out of context. If there's any victim where there's evidence they lied, no one wants to hear that right now. But I also think there's a reason for that. Is because the files have very incriminating pieces of information.
I'll open up one there. It's an email that says just purely it's an email to Epstein. Someone sent email to Epstein. An email just says age 11. That's it.
And a photo. A photo we cannot open. When I see things like this, lady Victoria, there's another one there. That's weird. Same thing.
Exactly. Same thing. It says age 10. And that's what I feel is a strategy. There is, I'm sure, out of hundreds, I'm sure there's women that have exaggerated their story or twisted their story.
Speaker 0: But do you think but do you but do you think, like, like someone could have just emailed him about a fashion outfit or something or this person's this age. He's you know, the the thing is I think everyone is trying to think of the most sinister thing behind every email. There's two journalists. There's only about three people that have, like, are the ones that really go out there and debunk stuff, and that's Jessica Reed Krausz and Jay Beecher, and obviously Michael Tracy that came on, you know, later. And they debunked all the stuff about, you know, the what was the stuff they they were they said Jeffrey Epstein was eating?
Speaker 1: Oh, the cold roast, the pizza pizza and grape soda?
Speaker 0: Well well, this is the other thing. So I I followed Pizzagate. You know, I I I'm really I'm I'm the conspiracy queen. I love a good conspiracy. You know, I started really looking into stuff in in the in the world basically, a long time ago, but more heavily around 2019 and then obviously with COVID.
And the worst videos that are in those Jeffrey Epstein files, there's a lot of stuff from WikiLeaks, from Pizzagate that are then that are in these Jeffrey Epstein files, you know. So I don't know if you've seen it, but there's some really dark stuff and there's a lot of Podesta art. Now, all that is the Pizzagate stuff. The fact they talk about pizza, that I don't know, But I do know in WikiLeaks that definitely had other meanings. And even on, you know, the FBI or CIA, like, they'll tell you, you know, hot dog means a boy.
And cheese pizza is is something else. So
Speaker 1: So I'll I'll give you examples. And and by the way, I I do believe you have a a more nuanced take than others, least from our discussion so far. I know Michael Tracy's, you know, great journalist when it comes to know, I've had him on the show when it comes to Russia. But I also see that when it comes to Epstein, he's so upset by how the media's dealing with the story that he's gone, where he's debunking everything. And it's just hard when you look at something like what I'm gonna send now, an email here.
And this email between Jeffrey and Rothschild, he says, I have your cereal. Can talk tonight around 10PM. When this code was like this, and and there's another one here
Speaker 0: about cereal.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. And there's another one here. She someone says she looks pregnant, and then the person replies, you mean radiating a soft glow with the look of bliss and excitement? Yeah.
That's the pizza. Not sure if you've seen that one. Or there's another one as well where the the urologist of Epstein. Not sure if the team can put it up.
Speaker 0: Or maybe maybe they're joking around using the pizza word because of pizza gate. I don't know.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't that that one doesn't I'll show you this last one. That's probably the the weirdest one. There's a lot there. I'll show you the last one, and I'll tell you what I think, lady Victoria. The last one there is Epstein's urologist.
He says he's talking about giving him the erectile dysfunction drug, and he's talking about getting it from the pharmacy. Exactly. He says, once you get it, I just did, I can pick them up now. After you use them, wash your hands and let's go get pizza and grape soda. Call me.
And for me, it's like, if this is not something that could be incriminating And
Speaker 0: maybe that that is just go get pizza. Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: But do you think so? Like, get get your have your erectile dysfunction dunk a drug and then let's have pizza and grape soda?
Speaker 0: Well, pizza is like such an American I mean, not American, but it's such a universal thing. You know, when you look at Jeffrey Epstein, he he I don't think he really liked formal things. He was more like, you know, he's like wearing a sweatshirt and his jeans. You don't really see him in a suit. I mean, I don't really remember Have seeing him
Speaker 1: have you ever met anyone have pizza and grape soda in your life? Be honest.
Speaker 0: Yeah. In America, I'm not I'm I don't like soda. I don't know
Speaker 1: what grape
Speaker 0: soda is. Exactly.
Speaker 1: That's what I mean. It's such an such a weird combination.
Speaker 0: I know, but he was a weird guy. He's like a geeky scientist. He didn't by the way, for for what I remember, he didn't drink alcohol and didn't do drugs. And the reason why a lot of these girls came and went, like, they all they were drug addicts, he didn't want them in the house. I don't know if that's what you've heard about Can you Jeffrey as well.
Speaker 1: Can no. You know him obviously better than I. You you've met him. You've met Jalene Maxwell. What can you tell me about them?
And and more importantly, what do you think what's not true? Some of the claims that are not true in your opinion, like, you know, people saying that he they're eating babies, for example. I'm guessing you don't believe that's true. And what do you think is more likely to be true? Like, Epstein having sex with underage girls.
I think it is almost certain right now of him being part of intelligence.
Speaker 0: So what I can make out about Jeffrey Epstein so, I mean, I I said this a few years ago and everyone was so shocked and, oh my goodness, Victoria, you're saying this. I was like, yeah. I think he was definitely connected to intelligence Even if it wasn't like in a formal capacity, he was he was giving intelligence to other countries for sure.
Speaker 1: You know Which countries
Speaker 0: do you think
Speaker 1: that is?
Speaker 0: Possibly Saudi Arabia, Israel. I'm not I don't know why some some well, yeah. US as well. And I think that's why it's taken so long to get these files out because, you know, he was there's stuff in the there's stuff out there that he was kind of commanding CIA planes at some point under Clinton, you know. And he spent a lot of time in the White House, didn't he, when Clinton was was there.
So, yeah, I think there's there's multiple countries and I think it was probably just swapping info even if it wasn't done possibly in a malicious manner, I don't know. But I think it was definitely swapping info for money, you know, for assets.
Speaker 1: Do you think he did run a blackmail operation with all these girls having them at
Speaker 0: a scene?
Speaker 1: We have a lot of hidden cameras. We have a lot of footage in the Epstein files, a lot of footage of men and women having sex, all redacted. We don't know who's having sex with who.
Speaker 0: So what I can make out personally, for me, as I see it, the blackmail ring are the lawyers with the girls and with their stable of girls that they have that will basically be a be a fake witness for money. All these girls, you know, they they jump on the money. Most of them are the are drug addicts, they need money even more. And, and they will literally lie, commit perjury, and do whatever they have to do to be paid. And these lawyers roll them out whenever they need them, and they back each other up.
What's interesting to know is all the girls were seeing the same psychiatrist. And I know this sounds very conspiracy and pretty out there, but if you look at a lot of the signature lines on their emails and their charities like Virginia Dewphrase charity, they use the butterfly logo. Now, I don't know if you know a lot about MK Ultra, but that is the symbol of MK Ultra, and I actually believe that a lot of these girls, including Juliet Bryant because she's the one that had, you know, weird things and she thought she could see aliens. I actually think she was probably drugged with LSD. It sounds more like she was on an acid trip or something, but I think they had memories implanted into them which made them more convincing to themselves that they actually believe these things happen to them.
And I do believe that happened to
Speaker 1: By who, though? If if that's Well, do
Speaker 0: you know about MK Ultra? So MK
Speaker 1: Ultra correct.
Speaker 0: Created by the CIA. Now, during COVID
Speaker 1: and For the audience, sorry, lady Victoria, because they might not know. MKL Tro was was a was a an operation that allowed the CIA to hypnotize people and control them and force them to do certain things. And I haven't gone down the rabbit hole. I know a of the files were destroyed, but there's someone that wrote a book. He was on the Joe Rogan show that talks about Charles Manson, for example, being part of MK Ultra and being hypnotized by the intelligence.
That's going down, you know, going down down
Speaker 0: the I've rabbit that. All the girls that were that were killing, you know, like as an example, Sharon Tate. I mean, I used to live in LA, so I was I was, like, very into, like, the Hollywood history and where different, you know, historical events or murders and things had happened. So
Speaker 1: sorry to digress though. With MK Old Trust, you're saying that that if was someone's behind it with those girls, who would you say is behind it? What would it make how would it make sense?
Speaker 0: Well, that was that was a CIA. I mean, that is what the CIA would use. Now, I just if you if you look at it, I I have stuff I can send you, but a lot of them have the butterfly. Even some of them had the tattoo of a butterfly. And it's just interesting.
Maria has it. Virginia has it. Juliet uses the butterfly as well. Sarah also uses the butterfly. Virginia's charity had the butterfly.
Speaker 1: But you're saying the CIA ran the if if that's the case, is it the CIA hypnotized those girls to
Speaker 0: Possibly. Possibly.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But the CIA worked with Epstein, but that's where it doesn't make sense.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Exactly. But the the the people that are get hypnotized by this into MK Ultra, they're all like problem kids, you know, usually kids troubled kids, which these kids were. So I, you know, I I didn't didn't know how much to believe, but somebody actually I somebody I know went through a deprogramming of MK Ultra in 2020, and this is a girl that I knew for ten years in LA. She reached out to me.
She said, can we meet up? And I knew her more as kind of a nightlife person, you know. And so we meet up. We go for coffee in a little cafe in Hollywood. She's like, can we leave the phone in the other room?
I said, absolutely. And she starts to tell me that she is in a deep programming and that she would hear voices telling her to do certain things. And and, you know, bad things. And I think a lot of these shootings that you have in The US, these are MK Ultra as well, like these kids that go on a rampage, you know, that they they there's a trigger word that they have. So anyone that has been through MK Ultra, they have to get rid of all their phones because if there's a certain word that they hear again, it will trigger them to possibly kill somebody.
Speaker 1: When it comes to the girls, I I know this is going down a pretty pretty deep rabbit hole for for a theory. For me, I believe there were a lot of victims. I think Prince Andrew did run a blackmail operation. Doesn't mean that all victims are saying everything they're saying
Speaker 0: is true. Who who ran a blackmail operation?
Speaker 1: Epstein. I'm not did I say Prince Henry by accident? Yes. Oh, my bad. Yeah.
No. I'll be talking about Prince Henry in a bit. Epstein ran a blackening operation.
Speaker 0: Prince Henry could have been
Speaker 1: one of the people that that were victims of it or conspirators. So now in terms of MK Ultra for the for the girls, the reason it doesn't make sense is the CIA saw Epstein as an asset. If they wanna get rid of an asset, I don't think it's hard for the CIA as we saw in, you know, in prison. Epstein getting killed. You know?
I know you don't think it's a suicide. I know you think he may
Speaker 0: still be alive. He got yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. About the thing being alive, again, that's really hard to believe. It just doesn't make sense to me, but there's so many unanswered questions. The autopsy report the photos, sorry, show an ear that's very different to Epstein's ear, for example, number one.
Speaker 0: That that's not the same person.
Speaker 1: That's It looks very different. Yeah. Number two is that there was a decoy body that was moved after your skill dust in the finals, apparently, to trick the press. Number three is in the autopsy report, they talk about his penis just being a normal circumcised penis, but we know he has a deformed penis. Victims have said it.
So there's a few unanswered questions about if he's really dead, then how do we answer those questions? The MK Ultra argument, you know, putting that aside and going back to whether he's running a blackmail operation. I said prince Andrew by accident. Well, I wanna open up let's let's move to prince to to prince Andrew because he was arrested. Nothing to do with underage girls or pedophilia.
But I wanna open up one of the pictures in the files, and I'm sure you've seen that one because that one went viral for the for the producers, the first one in the list. When you look at that picture, there's no context. The face is redacted, and it's the one where prince Andrew's on all fours over
Speaker 0: a globe. Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So
Speaker 1: are you
Speaker 0: thinking about? Well, I got the context of that. So, you know, whenever I when that first came out, I didn't comment right away because I was like, I wanna actually get the the real story behind it. So the story with that, I I messaged, Leah, who's Glenn's lawyer, and I was like, what do you think this is? It looks like resuscitation class or something like that.
And she said Ghislain was, an EMT, which is an emergency medical technician. Glenn's good friends all know that she's really into that and she she did these classes, or it would be some chiropractic, something or other chiropractic. So I think it's, like, harmless, but the the reason is we don't see the face, which is like, oh my goodness. But the girl was over 18. She's apparently, she was an assistant of Jeffries, at the time, the one that you see on the ground.
And the thing is in the background, you see like someone's leg. They're obviously like in a sitting room. It was in New York and there's someone in the background, you see their leg, they're like watching TV or something, you know. So I think There is another image.
Speaker 1: In in those images, there's one of him putting his hands on her chest as well. We only showed one of the images.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So it's like a third one resuscitation thing.
Speaker 1: There is another one that shows him dressing real. I look at that, my argument so first, we don't know if she's underage or not. Argument
Speaker 0: She's would be like she's overage, apparently. So I
Speaker 1: think the argument of her doing him CPR, it doesn't look like he's doing CPR. His hand is on her chest there. He's on her stomach. He looks like he's caressing her. He's got another hand there.
So it doesn't look like he's it looks like maybe he's under under the influence.
Speaker 0: You know, that that's another thing. Just so you know, he has never drunk alcohol even.
Speaker 1: Epstein or prince
Speaker 0: Andrew doesn't
Speaker 1: from a prince
Speaker 0: Andrew. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Why? So my question
Speaker 0: he's never had alcohol. The
Speaker 1: if someone wants to defend prince Andrew in these pictures, I think the argument one would make is she's over age. If she's over the age of 18 and she was there, you know, know, if she's 19, it's probably some people might find it disgusting, but within the law. So one could make that argument. I think making the argument of CPI just doesn't look like it. But my question to you is why would Prince Andrew, who was a prince back then, why would
Speaker 0: the She point was trained as an EMT, so anything emergency medical technician, like, I don't know. But that's what I was told and for me that's what it looked like right away. I was like, actually, it make you know, this is why they have to unredact it, you know. I think any re anywhere like, imagine you have a photo and you're chilling in your friend's house and you're, like, half on the ground with a girl or whatever. I mean, it's it just I don't know.
Can put
Speaker 1: people in such a powerful position in such a position?
Speaker 0: Well, you see, I mean, Andrew is looking at the camera there, so he knows they're taking a picture of him.
Speaker 1: If we look at the second file here, that's an allegation against prince Andrew. It says this by someone called Brian Miller in 2020. He said, back in the nineties, Ghislaine Maxwell recruited a girl from for a modeling career. Instead of modeling, she was sold as a slave for sex and torture. Prince Andrew was an accessory to her death as he tortured her and me to force her murder.
I need to get a passport to identify her. I will need someone to contact the passport office to get an expedited passport. Now you're very critical of all such allegations. What makes you so certain that Prince Andrew so let's say this is not true. These allegations are not true.
But how
Speaker 0: do you know? Ridiculous. You know, there's a lot of people trying to jump on the bandwagon and create stories. I mean, the reason I lost my Twitter account, a couple of years ago because I had when I started looking into Virginia, I had this crazy lunatic girl that I happened to send a DM to that she then gave to a newspaper. So like I deactivated and this girl herself was trying to implant herself into the story when she'd never even met Epstein, but, you know, she she said all this crazy stuff which turned out was completely not true.
So there's a lot you know what it is? The problem about this story, it attracts a lot of crazies, like really, really crazy people. And, you know, I've my life is on the line right now. Like, you know, it's I'm going up against, the narrative. I'm doing this because I know what is out there is is not correct.
And as soon as I've looked into these girls, they're, like, sending me death threats and all kinds of stuff. If they were real victims, they wouldn't be acting like that.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna open one last one of prince Andrew, lady Victoria. Not sure if you've seen that one. But, essentially, it's a photo of prince Andrew in his Windsor residence playing with a young boy using a ball painted, essentially looking like a breast. So it just came out, and it's going it's going viral right now. Have you seen that one?
Speaker 0: I think they just used that today. You know, British people, it's kind of a British humor thing. Like, they're sort of into, like, that kind of stuff. I don't know how to describe. I don't think it's like an American humor type of thing, but Brits like to be kind of cheeky.
They're more sort of naughty and cheeky, I suppose.
Speaker 1: Would look have to be honest, I have a I love dark jokes. Love dark humor. I love comedians. They always cross the lines. I think playing with the breast when it comes to young boy, if you add all this together, you add the allegations, which sound pretty extreme, you know, prince Andrew was involved in the death of a of a girl, but there's a lot
Speaker 0: of crazy out That that sounds ridiculous.
Speaker 1: True. But if you know the things that some people have done in in our world, some people that are now in jail, rightly so, some humans are able to do some horrific things. Yeah. How do know prince Andrew is so innocent? How do you know that so well?
Speaker 0: I just I just don't think he has you know, anyone that knows him. I've had a lot of his old friends reach out and it's just like when you know someone's personality, like, he's just not capable of herding a fly. You know? I do
Speaker 1: You've got one of his bodyguards yesterday. Was interviewed. Was talking to Prince he was a bully. You saw that one?
Speaker 0: Okay. No. No. No. So the guy
Speaker 1: No one liked him. I'll read it for the audience. Sorry. No one liked me. I just tell you about this guy?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So the guy that is doing a lot of interviews, that guy's been imprisoned. Like, that guy is a really bad guy. You need to look into him. He is like a complete thug.
And there's Sonny listening to this gangster guy. And they don't tell you that Paul Page is, like, being in prison and all all this terrible stuff he's done. And then he goes
Speaker 1: Is this guy who's here?
Speaker 0: This one? He's called Paul Page, I believe.
Speaker 1: Is that someone different? The one I just showed I don't know. I haven't looked at do you know how he looks like? Is that him? I'm not sure.
Speaker 0: I think that is him. He's got does a
Speaker 1: lot of he's
Speaker 0: but the guy's got criminal record. He's got a criminal record. This is not like, you know, a well grounded, normal person. Like, he's
Speaker 1: a thug. But even if but even if someone has has got a criminal record, doesn't mean if someone committed
Speaker 0: a No. Crime doesn't mean doesn't doesn't mean you're bad. But this guy, there's just people obsessed with this story and it's like he There's there's, you know, there's a lot of people making shit up just to to get in the press or whatever. It's it's it's a witch hunt. Like, this is a full on witch hunt and, you know, somehow Ghislain is sitting in prison right now.
The FBI last week, they said, there is no client list and this was not a sex trafficking operation. So if that's the case, why is she sitting in prison right now?
Speaker 1: So I think the the my counterargument there is it's very obvious the FBI is hiding something, and as you said, Epstein was intelligence. And you said earlier, this is probably why we're seeing all these redactions and and the files not being released for so long and being forced. Know, You Trump is being forced to release them. And to be clear, I've said this multiple times, they've released 3,000,000 files. There's another 3,000,000 unreleased.
And from the ones they released, a lot of it is redacted. If you go back another layer, Channel four did an investigation, and what the FBI has in their possession, We only know of 2%. Those 6,000,000 files is only 2% of what the FBI has in their possession. And we also don't know what the FBI was not able to confiscate because Epstein was able to destroy or or hide a lot of data, a lot of these USB drives and computers. So that's on the point on on Ghislain Maxwell, because I know you made that point in your last peer interview.
Speaker 0: But but why but why is the public suddenly entitled to be a detective in a case? Like, this has never happened before. Why why are we all so entitled to get every single email and file from Jeffrey Epstein?
Speaker 1: But shouldn't we you were one of the earliest voices to be vocal of what the the policy on COVID and what we're being told on COVID. So I think there are times when authorities that we trust and are are trusted as well. They don't do the right thing by us. And I think this is where people come together and they do the job that authorities are meant to do. Now you're right.
It does open up the the the the possibilities for a lot of people fabricating stories and going down conspiratorial paths.
Speaker 0: I mean,
Speaker 1: but we have if the FBI is not releasing the files and as you said, redacting faces, it kinda leaves people no choice. Well Especially if there is a a a if there are underage girls involved in this and people that are co conspirators, putting Prince Andrew aside, other people that are co conspirators, people that said to Prince Epstein, I love the torture video or send me the torture video. Let's torture her. Did you torture her? All these different code words, age 10, age 11.
Speaker 0: Have you not ever, like, joked around with friends and, like, been, like, messing around with a bunch of friends and going, oh, are we gonna torture you? Like, as a joke. No?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. That's why I take everything people people I take every email out of context.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yes. And I think that the progress is
Speaker 1: intentional. That's, I think, intentional by the FBI. They they wanna make it so confusing. They wanna put things that can be taken out of context and let it be debunked so then the things that are actually incriminating get buried on, under all the mud. Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 0: Like, I I believe this whole thing is like a smoke screen for something way more sinister. I think, like, the the real trafficking stuff that goes on in the world that we learn in Pizzagate, like, that stuff is happening. And we we meanwhile are all distracted wanting to know what if how many times Clinton was visiting the island or something, you know. It's just it's so crazy. I think there's like real children out there that are literally being chained up in warehouses probably and having their blood taken out of them.
Like, I I think this stuff is happening, but we're all we're all looking at, oh, Virginia Dufry, who's jumping around on a boat in South Of France getting you know, drinking champagne flying on a private jet, and then twenty years later, she decides to change her story from, oh, I met I met Prince Andrew and I did a photo to show my mother to suddenly, you know, five years later then changes the story. Oh, he raped me. But if if that story had even ever happened, she tells the press that Jeffrey Epstein paid her $15,000 to sleep with Andrew. Like so so Andrew doesn't know. So he gets set up.
The girl is paid. She's These girls were escorts. I'm sorry. They were drug addict escorts. That's what they were.
They were not traffics, and I'm so happy that the FBI, you know, said that because there are victims, really serious victims in this planet, and I'm sure they're looking at this story thinking, oh my god, these girls, they're doing these press tours, they're getting paid millions of dollars, and and these people are helpless. They don't have a voice. They don't have a platform. They don't probably have very good lawyers and they're completely alienated from from any of this. Also, real victims are not going on publicity tours of the country.
They're just not.
Speaker 1: A lot of lot of victims of Epstein are not going on publicity tours. A lot of them don't.
Speaker 0: A lot
Speaker 1: of them are upset a lot of them are upset that their names were unredacted, and they're not out there public. I reached out to a few. I interviewed a few that are very public. Others and one of them I've been trying to convince her for so long to do an interview because she's never done one. So I agree that are some that are very public and you can, you know, you can be skeptical as as as good to question everything, but there's just so much out there.
I'm gonna show you this email because lady Victoria, you you even said things I've showed you earlier. They look bizarre. The serial one is an example. Age 10, age 11 is another example. Yeah.
Look at this one there. This is an email that was sent by we don't know who the name is redacted. It was sent to someone that works at Jeffrey Epstein's estate, so works for Jeffrey Epstein. Edward, this is sensitive. So it will be the first and last email depending on your discretion.
You can choose to take it or trash it, but this comes from a person that has been there and seen it all as a former staff at the Zoro. So that's the Zoro Ranch, which is
Speaker 0: Oh, I think I This is the most conspiracy one. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The material below was taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home as my insurance in case of future litigation against Epstein. Sorry. No questions. What is damning about Jeffrey Epstein is yet to be written. Did you know somewhere in the hills outside the Zoro Ranch, two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey and madam Jeffrey Epstein and madam Ghislain Maxwell?
Speaker 0: The source sending this?
Speaker 1: Both. I'll I'll let you know. It show both died by strangulation during rough fetish sex. Here are the video footage of Jeffrey Epstein. One, sex video with a minor, fourteen minutes.
Two, twenty seven minute video called threesome. Three, twelve minute video called threesome. Four, nineteen minute video called underage girl sex video. Five seven minute video called underage girl Matthew Mellon, the billionaire video, six, a thirty twenty three minute video called underage girl rape fantasy video, and number seven, girl from Bay Area suicide attempt confession to madam Ghislain Maxwell. Please arrange $9,000, one Bitcoin at a time, by 6PM EDT today, Thursday, whatever, 2019 to the BTC wallet redacted.
Now your question is who sent it. We don't know who sent it. The name is redacted for some reason, but my question will be is why would someone ask for $9,000 and also but it does raise
Speaker 0: But but there was this other guy, you know, there was a guy that was going around. He ended up being, uncovered as a fraud, and he was called I believe it's something like Patrick Kessler. Did you hear about him? And he was he was sort of doing this thing where he said he had like videotapes and stuff and he was all like very mysterious and he turned out to be a fake.
Speaker 1: But in this one, he sent he if someone is blackmailing, they would usually send evidence to show that they have what they say they have. So if I'm Yeah. If I wanna blackmail you, and I wanna prove that I have a sex tape of sorry. Just using his bad example. But of someone, I'll send him some maybe screenshots of the sex tape to say, look.
I actually have it. Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 0: Right. Who was the email to?
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein's estate. Someone that works with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 0: So what what year was that in?
Speaker 1: 2019.
Speaker 0: So was that while he was still alive? Or
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: You see, that kind of thing but but I'm sure, like, you know, you're reading that out, and I have no idea. Obviously, I wasn't there, I I, you know, but the FBI would have seriously looked into that and they would have had the unredacted, wouldn't they? So they would have gone through that if it was if it was true.
Speaker 1: If they have nothing to hide, and you referenced MK Ultra as an example of how much the FBI has to hide.
Speaker 0: Well, that's CIA, and CIA and FBI are very different, actually.
Speaker 1: You don't think the FBI hides just like the CIA does? Different. The last thing I wanna ask you, lady Victoria, I'm gonna show you some emails of how Epstein was talking to certain girls, you don't mind, and get your thoughts on it. And, again, there's so much emails. Maybe you've seen some of them, maybe not.
So I'll open the first one here, and it's Jeffrey Epstein sending a girl a message to a girl. Now that I understand, try to take some nude photos. Be open. Be brave. Sexy.
Wild. Dance. Jump. Have fun. Live.
I think you should take some of yourself first. So the girl says, oh, I asked my friend, she will take some sexy photos tonight or tomorrow. Then Epstein says, I think that you should take some selfies first. Now I want you to be free with yourself. I think you should study English, go online.
And he says, the photo should not be open should not be porn, but should be sexy. Do you watch porn? Redacted, for example, you want to be free without being porn, but laugh, have fun. You are going to be 22, not 14 years old. That's a bit really when someone says you're going to be 22, not 14 years old, it seems like he's saying, you're 14.
I know you are, but you wanna pretend to be 22. And he continues telling you how to take photos.
Speaker 0: Wait. I thought he just said you're 22.
Speaker 1: No. You are going to be 22, not 14 not 14 years old. You are going to be. So it's
Speaker 0: So maybe she's 21. For me, reading that, he's saying that to someone who's 21, about to be 22, but is acting like she's a teenager.
Speaker 1: Exactly. I was thinking that's a counterargument. I still lean to more it looks like she's 14, he's convinced her to be 22, especially if you put that with No.
Speaker 0: For the other boys year olds is not sexy. They have a body of a a little boy at that age. I think it's a 21 year old.
Speaker 1: For us, they're not for us, they're not sexy. There's many other pedophiles that that love you know, obviously, they're in jail for have trying to have sex with a 14 year old. And there's one more email I'm gonna show you, which is not included in in in you know, we don't know if the girl's underage. But, essentially, I'm not sure I can't find it. I'm not sure if the team can.
But it's a girl telling oh, there it is. I found it. I'll open it now for you. Let me send it to my team.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And it's a it's an email where a girl was trying to do what Epstein is asking her to do. Like, he taught her certain things. So this is the email that the redacted name sent to Epstein that was back in 2011. She says the following. I tried your back massage we don't know her age, by the way, lady Victoria.
I tried your back massage on a couple of guys at dinner yesterday. They all liked it a lot, and it's so easy. I think they all want to fuck me now. One had his girlfriend there. I should I should be maybe more careful about that.
Staying straight makes such a big difference as well. Crazy. I started finally practicing with one. He really liked it. It gets very graphic.
I apologize. He really liked the blow job, of course, twice. So I swallowed twice some sperm yesterday. He actually wanted more and more, only that. I'm still not that good at wake at talking though.
I should do it in French. You are right. And the acting because I didn't do much. I didn't like much what he was doing. So it was hard.
So just show she's doing things that Epstein taught her to do that she didn't really like.
Speaker 0: Which girl is this?
Speaker 1: Is this We don't know. It's redacted. It's a 20 I year
Speaker 0: know I know one of the girls that did speak fluent French. I wonder if it's her.
Speaker 1: There's hundreds of girls there's hundreds of girls we don't know. You see something like this, she could be above age 18. We don't know. But you put them all together. Where where I stand on this is somewhere in the middle.
I think Epstein either he liked underage girls or he used them as part of a blackmail operation. What I think happened, I spoke to intelligence analysts on the show, they say that the intelligence agencies, when they find someone like Epstein that, you know, likes underage girls or has other men coming to their place and spending time with underage girls, they facilitate it for them. The intelligence do that. They facilitate it, protect them, giving some sort of protection because it allows them as long as that person sends classified information to the FBI, allows them to use it strategically. So if there's someone who the FBI let's say there's a politician in the Arab world that went to Epstein's island, was friends with him, and then Epstein got him to have sex with an underage girl or even a girl that the guy thought was 18 but turns out to be 16 and filmed it.
And that material was in the possession of Mossad or the FBI or sorry, the CIA. And now they're negotiating a peace deal in Gaza. Well, that person is standing in the way. It just takes one person from the CIA or Mossad or whatever intelligence to contact them, say, hey. Look at what we have.
Accept the deal or else. So for me, it sounds more plausible putting Prince Andrew aside, more plausible that this was a blackmail operation. It doesn't mean that I know you're critical of a lot of the victims. It doesn't mean that every single victim is saying the entire truth, but also there's just too much there to say that nothing was there and there were no underage girls there. It's just too
Speaker 0: much There of was definitely stuff going on. Like, I always looked at this as far as like when you're somewhere like Saint Tropez and you're having lunch at Club Cinque on Cinque and there'll be, you know, there'll be a few guys and a big group of women and they're all there on the yacht and the girls all look quite young, you know, they're all models and it's all very international. And that that sort of scene, I mean, the stuff that I have I mean, the stuff that I have witnessed, I feel like is worse. You know? I have this, this one guy that I used to know, like, he would find girls, like, in a nightclub, just say in London, and then, you know, he'd ask them if they want go to Monaco, Grand Prix or whatever, and then they would fly on his jet.
You know, if they didn't have sex with him, he would he would like throw them off the boat and the next ones would come in, you know, like these guys are
Speaker 1: heard that story. There was someone on a a bodyguard on a boat. I heard it a couple of days ago.
Speaker 0: That's how it works.
Speaker 1: Of a wealthy man. And the guy the guy wanted to have a girl with a have a sex with another girl, unprotected sex. She refused. So he threw her off the yacht. And then when the bodyguard jumped to help her, the billy
Speaker 0: or whatever Then they're not literally thrown off.
Speaker 1: Leave him there. That story I heard two days ago, he actually threw her. I'm not saying that's your story. He threw her off the yacht and then the bodyguard jumped on to rescue her. And then the guy tells the yacht, a pilot, whatever, the captain, keep keep sailing away, leave them there.
Luckily, another bodyguard stopped them. But there was a lot of sick stuff going on when there's people. Right.
Speaker 0: Is it true that people have
Speaker 1: that position, whether royal family or a politician or a billionaire, they do have that feeling of no one can touch us. We could do whatever we want. Does that actually exist?
Speaker 0: That feeling of sort lot of a billionaire mentality. Like, this guy in particular, like, he actually left these girls on a boat in the middle of the sea without the tender. So then they were, like, stuck there, and then he went off to a party and, you know, came back. And that's just like, I just I think it's it's terrible, but women put themselves in a position because they they they want that lifestyle. And getting back to it, how that connects with this story, I think a lot of these girls, they were very attracted to that lifestyle and they all wanted to date Geoffrey.
They wanted Ghislaine out of the way and they would do anything to achieve that.
Speaker 1: And it's possible that Jeffrey that could be true and then Epstein capitalized and abused that power to get them to do things that eventually he filmed and incriminated other people and also leverage that power to trick girls that were below age 18 to also do the same thing with the intention of sleeping with sleeping with them or incriminating others.
Speaker 0: I mean, what I heard, you know, about this and is there would be girls calling his house all the time. And there was girls they because they all the kind of like I suppose the news got around. There's this rich guy. He wants to pay for massages. And they were all calling the house all the time.
They wanted to come over. Can they bring their friends? And so then usually what would happen, it would be the girl that had been there before is bringing in her friends. Right? So this is where it gets dicey and this is where the the younger ones come in.
From what I have heard from like some of these some of these girls, is people like Virginia who were actively recruiting girls. Like, they would get paid almost like a sort of a commission to bring people in, and Virginia would tell them, you've got to lie about your age. You've to pretend you're 18. Otherwise, you're going to get kicked out. And that's what the situation that happened of Carolyn Adriano, who was like one of the most famous victims who passed away a couple years ago.
And, you know, Virginia recruited her basically. Yeah. And she turned Virginia turned Carolyn into a drug addict and hence she is no longer. You know, Virginia is actually responsible for quite a lot of deaths.
Speaker 1: And she's dead herself as well. I was gonna go to the there's a lot of victims that are also receiving death threats. Some of them are dead. There's just so much there. I wish we could have time to get through this as well.
Lady Victoria, it's a pleasure to speak to you for the first time. Really appreciate it. And I know a lot of people on the show might disagree with your stance, you've received a lot of criticism from this from your stance, especially one of the statements Jim yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, we we haven't even spoken about, you know, I've had death threats recently from Sarah Ransom. You know, she's she's saying that she wants to have me raped, repeatedly and put in a coma and die. Now, like, what normal person, like, actually writes that to you in an email? You know, this girl has has it's like the harassment I have had over a 100 emails in since November.
You know, these people
Speaker 1: From is that is that who's who's the thread from?
Speaker 0: This is from Sarah Ransom. This is the South African who says, oh, I was raped on the island. Now, a journalist friend actually visited her in Holland a couple months ago, and Sarah stupidly gave him access to a lot of her emails where she is emailing Jeffrey's assistant to book flights and wanting to go back to the island. And the photos released of her is she's literally coming out of the water looking like a Bond girl, like
Speaker 1: living her How old was she when she met Epstein?
Speaker 0: Oh, she was like in her twenties. She was way over age. But, you know, it's a real victim just they they don't they don't behave like that. They don't speak like that. These these these girls are like vulgar, you know?
They are
Speaker 1: I I would just not put all girls so then maybe specific
Speaker 0: girls Well, that you're very critical this is of course, it's not all girls. And, you know, when I was on Piers Morgan recently, I tried to talk about a situation of a girl that reached out to me in England because the more vocal I am, the more people I have reaching out to me with information. And this girl said, you know, she was 13 and her friend, they were 13 and 14, and they met Virginia Dewey Frey staying at the weekend of the famous weekend where the the fake photo composite was made. Virginia found them in the park.
Speaker 1: Is that the photo of Virginia and Prince Andrew?
Speaker 0: The the the famous one. Yeah. The famous one where it totally doesn't add up. Like, if you get the heights of Andrew, Galen, and Virginia, you know, they're trying to make Virginia look like she's a supermodel or something. You know, she wasn't.
She's very, very small Virginia.
Speaker 1: In that in that in that photo, which I think is real, so we disagree on whether it's real or not. It's okay. Don't worry about the dog. You can pet him. Yeah.
Just on that photo, though, you said that whoever faked the photo is trying to bring down the royal family. Then when you were asked who who do you think was faking? You said it's Israel. Do you stand by that, or is that just that you said it off the top?
Speaker 0: If you do stand I by still I still stand by, like, this was a plan. This was a this was a this was a monarchy takedown. But
Speaker 1: what by who? This is a question. I and we know that Ghislain just to to kinda put, Ghislain Maxwell did say, at least her lawyer said in a statement, that this photo is really Prince Andrew was there with Virginia Dufry.
Speaker 0: So what Ghislain wait. What was that? No. No. Ghislain Ghislain's lawyer, Denise.
Ghislain no. Ghislain said to the DOJ and in her interview from from prison, she she said there's over 50 things wrong with that photo and it is fake. Then everyone got super excited because in the Epstein files, there was a statement that was never released, that was actually written by a PR person. Hence, it was never used because the information wasn't correct. Now, Ghislain is not gonna lie to
Speaker 1: the DOJ. What did the PR statement say?
Speaker 0: It said oh my goodness.
Speaker 1: I think it said that Prince Andrew was there with
Speaker 0: have been the opposite. But but anyway, that that look, Ghislain is not going to lie to the DOJ. She wants to get out of jail. Okay? She has she has evidence that she wasn't even in London that weekend.
She had her mother's eightieth birthday in the country and she can show in photos that she was there all weekend. This is according to her brother and her lawyer. And if you look up her mother eightieth birthday, that is it is that weekend. And obviously, there was a lot of people attending her mother's birthday party. So she wasn't even in London.
Yep. But I guess we'll have to talk about the photo another time. My
Speaker 1: last last question to you, Lady Victoria, is for me, the theory that this was an operation ok'd by intelligence agencies, blackmail operation, it adds up, which is why the intelligence agencies are redacting so many names, they're protecting certain names, they're protecting the entire operation, why Epstein would have been killed or you're saying he might still be alive. I think he was killed. Why he was killed? All of this adds up. But when you make a theory that all of it is fabricated to bring down the royal family, to get think
Speaker 0: I think I think not just to bring down the royal family, I think to to bring a lot of people down. But, you know, when you look at this story, why is it just Brit? The Brits, you know, are getting it? It's like Ghislain, like, why is she in prison right now?
Speaker 1: There's many many Americans that are stepping down to listen have stepped down from their positions. You know? Yes. There's Norwegian prime ministers under investigation. It's a lot more than just England.
So my question to you, if this is true, if this is all a setup, who would be behind such a massive setup that is bring that is splitting Trump's voter base? It's probably Trump the biggest threat to MAGA is the Epstein files. It's it's threatening the most powerful person in the world. It's threatening the former president. It's threatening other leaders.
Speaker 0: But, like yeah. Like the president said a while ago, he's like, it's a hoax. The whole thing is like But
Speaker 1: then who's behind it? Who's able to fabricate such a massive hoax to that degree? For me, like, it just sounds a lot more feasible that it is an intelligence operation that is being kept under wraps like MK Ultra. I think it's Mossad and the CIA.
Speaker 0: Mossad's CIA. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Almost certainly the CIA, Mossad. Saudi to a lesser extent, potentially m I six haven't looked into that one. But it has to be the CIA to be able to reach him in prison and either help him escape, which I don't think happened, or kill him, which I think happened. And Mossad, it's Ehud Barak's visits and all the other communication. Epstein.
There's even a photo there of Epstein. There's two photos. One of Epstein wearing a Mossad t shirt, I think, and there's I can't remember if that's true, but there's one that we saw recently today in the
Speaker 0: fall with service Mossad. T shirt Exactly. As well.
Speaker 1: And It's
Speaker 0: just it's just photo on the boat. Exactly. But then, you know, I have a baseball cap that says border patrol, you know, when
Speaker 1: I was didn't driving know you're border patrol, Lady Victoria.
Speaker 0: I'm not, but I I was driving through America many years ago, almost probably twenty years ago doing
Speaker 1: the scum roll. Weakest I'd say the the T shirt is the weakest evidence. I'd say Uhud Barak's dozens of visits. Him, True.
Speaker 0: There's so much there. I think Israel I think I think, you know, in
Speaker 1: a
Speaker 0: lot of things that happen in the world, I think all the roads lead back to Israel, and I think this is one of them.
Speaker 1: I've and on that last statement, to give you my take, I think in Mossad, I've spoken to a lot of people in intelligence on the show. Mossad is one of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world. They are. Israel is extremely powerful for such a small country, but I don't think they have that much power. They wish they did, but that much power to be able to kill Epstein in The US jail.
I think the CIA played
Speaker 0: I don't I don't think they did kill Epstein. I think, well, that
Speaker 1: that Even help him escape. CIA would have been involved.
Speaker 0: That body is not his body. Right? I mean, that that, like you said, the nose isn't his, the ears are not his. When you really study it, I'm gonna send you something that is gonna make you think, wow, this is really crazy. But, Hillary Clinton's brother called Tony Rodham, He passed away two months before Jeffrey Epstein and the his death was like they never said how he died, but when you look at him, he looks very like Jeffrey Epstein.
It's actually like quite bone chilling actually. There are theories out there, very conspiracy here, but there are theories that they swap the bodies and actually that body that you see is Tony's body that has been frozen. Hence, some of the pictures of the body, it looks quite rock hard. It doesn't look like it's someone that has
Speaker 1: just No. Passed
Speaker 0: yes. He's top top right. Can you see him with the hat He looks quite like Jeffrey, doesn't he? Yeah. He looks more like
Speaker 1: Prince Andrew than than Jeffrey.
Speaker 0: No. Well, there's there's pictures where he looks very like Jeffrey. But
Speaker 1: If Jeffrey's alive at Lake Victoria, I give up. I'm I'll I will end my show and close my Twitter account
Speaker 0: if Jeffrey actually is alive.
Speaker 1: I give up on him on us as a as a species. But, pleasure to speak to you. Pleasure to meet you. I really appreciate your time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Great to meet you. Alright. See you next time.
Speaker 1: Lady
reSee.it AI Summary
I hear Matthew McConaughey telling Hollywood actors AI will steal their jobs. His advice: copyright your likeness and voice, since AI's profits won’t be stopped. Pay him 20 million, or let AI render him for 20k—same face, same voice, no contracts, infinite takes. Factory workers saw it. Then office workers. Now creatives. Everyone thought their job was special until it wasn’t.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨 Matthew McConaughey just told Hollywood actors they're cooked. "AI is here and it's going to take their jobs." His advice? "Copyright your likeness and voice. There's too much money to be made in AI to stop it." Why pay McConaughey $20 million when you can AI-generate him for $20,000? Same face, same voice, no contract negotiations, no delays, infinite takes. The factory workers saw it coming. Then the office workers. Now the creatives. Everyone thought their job was special until it wasn't.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨The Epstein files are slowly taking people out one by one. Prince Andrew arrested. Harvard president gone. Goldman exec resigned. Hyatt chairman stepped down. Gates canceled a speech. The dominoes are falling and nobody knows who's next. https://t.co/RvtfCM6AAe
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Epstein files are detonating globally. Prince Andrew has fallen, police are searching his home, and the blast radius extends to anyone connected to Epstein or Maxwell, or even by association. High-profile figures are implicated: Larry Summers, who worked for Obama and Clinton, resigned from Harvard; Obama's top lawyer Kathy Rumler resigned from Goldman and, in emails, called Epstein “uncle Jeffrey” and advised him on press strategy; another Obama official, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, appears in the files.
Bill Gates suddenly cancels a major overseas speech just hours before he was set to take the stage. Emails reveal meetings Gates had with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution, and one Epstein note claimed Gates “got an STD and needed help to hide it from his wife after contact with Russian girls.” Gates denies that happened.
Thomas Pritzker, JB’s cousin and a frequent guest at Epstein’s townhouse, stepped down from Hyatt Hotel’s executive chairman role. Bard College is reviewing its president’s ties to Epstein. Leon Botstein’s name appears over 2,000 times in the documents. American Express issued a statement regretting Epstein as a client after he used their card to book travel for the girls.
CNN reports that new age guru Deepak Chopra might be in trouble. In 2017, Epstein asked Chopra, “did you find me a cute Israeli?” Chopra responded, “universe is human construct. Cute girls are aware when they make noises. He later added, god is a construct. Cute girls are real.” In a 01/2016 exchange beginning with a link to a TED talk about the end of physics, Chopra wrote to Epstein, “statistics is like a girl in a bikini. What she reveals is obvious. What she conceals is more interesting.” Chopra was approached at the airport and repeatedly asked about his relationship with Epstein and whether he has any regrets.
Hillary knows the heat’s on, but she is on cleanup duty. Clinton-related statements claim no links beyond routine charitable travel; “we have no links. We have a very clear record that we’ve been willing to talk about, which my husband has said he took some rides on the airplane for his charitable work. I don’t recall ever meeting him.” Ghislain Maxwell wasn’t just a Clinton Global Initiative guest; she had a complimentary access pass, personally approved by Bill or Hillary, and was an honored guest in 2013, years after sexual abuse allegations circulated, and attended Chelsea’s wedding. Stephanopoulos is also scrutinized for dining at Epstein’s apartment after his prison release.
Lex Wesner testified under oath that Epstein told him he worked with Bezos, the Rothschild family, and Google. New Mexico reopens its investigation into Epstein’s ranch after a newly released email claims two foreign girls were buried there, apparently dying of strangulation during rough fetish sex. The FBI was warned Epstein could be destroying evidence with an incinerator after he built a suspicious barn with a chimney. National security is involved: Epstein was offered a chance to buy buildings owned by the Pentagon, in 2016, with a go-between for Epstein and Prince Andrew pitching a site next to the Pentagon labeled a “mission critical asset.” No deal was finalized, but why was Epstein getting a pocket listing for such a sensitive site? Other files show Epstein may have compromised US customs officers in the Virgin Islands by offering them food, advice, musical gigs. How did he gain this access, and why was he operating near the national security apparatus at all?
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Epstein files are detonating across the globe. Prince Andrew fell, and police are searching his home. So who's next? Because if you were anywhere near Epstein or Maxwell or just your name, you're in the blast zone. Larry Summers, worked for Obama and Clinton, just resigned from Harvard.
Obama's top lawyer, Kathy Rumler, resigned from Goldman. We looked at her emails. There's hundreds of them. She called Epstein uncle Jeffrey, and gave him advice on how to get better press. And now another Obama official, his homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, showing up in the files.
Bill Gates suddenly cancels a major speech overseas. Just hours, he was set to go on stage. Emails reveal meetings Gates had with Epstein after his conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. And one of Epstein's notes claimed Bill got an STD and needed help to hide it from his wife after contact with Russian girls. Gates denies that happened.
Thomas Pritzker, JB's cousin, was a frequent guest at Epstein's townhouse. He just stepped down from his role as Hyatt Hotel's executive chairman. Bard College is now reviewing its president's ties to Epstein. Leon Botstein's name apparently appears over 2,000 times in the documents. American Express just put out a statement saying they regretted having Epstein as a client after he used their plastic to book travel for the girls.
CNN just reported that new age guru Deepak Chopra might be in a little bit of trouble.
Speaker 1: 2017, Epstein asked Chopra, did you find me a cute Israeli? Chopra responded, universe is human construct. Cute girls are aware when they make noises. He later added, god is a construct. Cute girls are real.
And in 01/2016 exchange that began with a link to a TED talk about the end of physics, Chopra wrote to Epstein, statistics is like a girl in a bikini. What she reveals is obvious. What she conceals is more interesting. Chopra was recently approached at the airport and repeatedly asked about his relationship with Epstein and whether he has any regrets.
Speaker 2: It will all come to light. It will all come to light. Look. Is there anything that you can tell me here and now to to at least start to put this to bed? No misconduct.
Speaker 0: Hillary knows the heat's on, but like usual, she's on cleanup duty.
Speaker 3: We have no links. We have a very clear record that we've been willing to talk about, which my husband has said he took some rides on the airplane for his charitable work. I don't recall ever meeting him.
Speaker 1: Did you ever meet Ghislaine Maxwell?
Speaker 3: I did on a few occasions, and thousands of people go to the Clinton Global Initiative. So it to me is not is not something that is really at the heart of what this matter is about.
Speaker 0: Ghislain wasn't just another guest at the Clinton Global Initiative. She had a quote, complimentary access pass, which you usually get after getting the green light personally from either Bill or Hillary. And Ghislain was even an honored guest in twenty thirteen, years after sexual abuse allegations had circulated. And don't forget Ghislain was at Chelsea's wedding. Even Stephanopoulos is being looked at again for having dinner at Epstein's apartment after he got out of prison.
Plus, Lex Wesner told Congress under oath that Epstein told him he worked with Bezos, the Rothschild family, and Google. Now New Mexico is reopening its investigation into Epstein's ranch after a newly released email claims two foreign girls were buried there, apparently dying of strangulation during rough fetish sex. The FBI was even warned Epstein could be destroying evidence with an incinerator after he built a suspicious barn on the property with a chimney. But this is also about national security. New files show Epstein was offered a chance to buy buildings owned by the Pentagon.
In 2016, he was offered to invest in a massive complex right next to the Pentagon, a site used exclusively for Department of Defense operations, labeled in records as a mission critical asset. The guy doing the pitching? A go between for both Epstein and Prince Andrew. No deal was ever finalized, but why was Epstein getting a pocket listing for one of the most sensitive national security sites in the country? Other files show Epstein may have compromised US customs officers in the Virgin Islands, prompting another criminal investigation.
Apparently, offering them food, advice, musical gigs. How did this guy gain this type of access? And why was he operating anywhere near the national security apparatus at all?
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
INTERVIEW: FORENSIC ANALYST ON WHETHER EPSTEIN IS STILL ALIVE Here’s some facts: • The image of Epstein’s supposed dead body shows the ears and nose do not resemble Epstein’s (significant discrepancies) • The FBI admits in the latest files that a decoy body was moved out of the hospital to ‘trick the press’ • Epstein’s autopsy misses some important details, including a false description of Epstein’s penis as a "normal circumcised male”, while victims have described his penis as a deformed “egg-shaped” penis • The FBI press release announcing Epstein’s death was dated 1 day before Epstein died Now you understand why people believe Epstein could still be alive? The more files come out, the more questions increase rather than get answered Today I sit down again with Forensic Analyst Dr. Garrison to discuss all the above findings, including his discovery of footage from one of the cameras the DOJ claimed was not working during Epstein’s death. We also discuss some of the most disturbing files we’ve found in the latest drop. I hope you enjoy the conversation with @DrGExplains 01:32 – Found footage from cameras FBI said weren't recording 06:18 – Cameras stopped working when Epstein returned to prison, fixed day after he died 07:52 – Pizza code word likelihood eight out of ten 08:47 – FBI bulletin confirms pedophile terminology matches emails exactly 11:53 – Beef jerky references constantly with Cannibal restaurant connection 15:57 – Epstein replies I loved the torture video explicitly 18:47 – Epstein too careful to put incriminating things in writing 21:32 – White sharks and shrimp code words for girls 24:42 – Blackmail operation with backups on everyone just in case 29:32 – Email explicitly says you offered to buy my baby 33:37 – Email attachment simply labeled age ten sent to Epstein 34:31 – Press release dated August 9th but found dead August 10th 36:22 – Decoy body created with boxes and sheets to trick media 39:58 – Autopsy describes normal penis but victims describe deformed egg-shaped 45:57 – Every new revelation creates more questions than answers 46:38 – Woody Allen called Epstein collector of people like Count Dracula
Video Transcript AI Summary
Host: The discussion covers a range of new findings and questions about Jeffrey Epstein’s death and the surrounding investigations, focusing on footage, forensics, coded communications, and the involvement of powerful figures.
JP: They claimed the prison cameras weren’t working, but footage shows at least one camera in Epstein’s area was recording. The cameras supposedly stopped the day Epstein was released back into the prison and were fixed the day after he died.
Host: There’s a statement about Epstein being found dead in a cell dated Friday, August 9, but Epstein was found unresponsive at 06:30 a.m. on August 10. An OCME official said he would arrive at the loading dock with a black vehicle to thwart the media, and asked if a decoy body is a common tactic. Is that standard practice?
JP: It’s exceptionally unusual. I’ve never heard of a decoy body used to trick the press in this context.
Host: There’s mention that Epstein’s ear looked off compared with what’s typical in descriptions, and that forensic exams describe his penis as the penis of a normal circumcised male, which contradicts victims’ descriptions.
JP: There’s been “a lot of powerful” footage from the prison area the day after Epstein’s death; the DOJ has removed some material from their site. The cameras not recording to the DVR was a known issue; a specific camera allegedly focused directly on Epstein’s housing area was reportedly not recording, yet a clip exists from that camera.
Host: They’ve found sulfuric acid purchases. One line of thought is water treatment for a pool on Epstein’s island, but sulfuric acid could also be used to decompose bodies. There’s debate about whether Epstein would hire a water-treatment company or buy acid himself, and a tweet-inflamed exchange about its use in drugs.
JP: There are claims that sulfuric acid could be for water treatment or for decomposing bodies; another theory is that it’s used for meth production. There’s also a claim that a hotel-ban on sulfuric acid purchases was posted, and Elon Musk and Roger Stone commented—Stone denying the “dead bodies” theory and saying it’s for drugs.
Host: The discussion shifts to a hearing with Pam Bondi, which was described as unhelpful—she wouldn’t answer direct questions. This aligns with a broader frustration that the DOJ hasn’t followed up sufficiently on questions raised by leaked material.
JP: The code-language topic: pizza and grape soda appear in emails that are redacted or ambiguous. A common interpretation is that pizza refers to girls and grape soda to something else, with other terms like cheese, pasta, and beef jerky appearing in the communications.
Host: A DOJ intelligence bulletin maps code words used by pedophiles; “pizza” correlates with girl, “pasta” with little boy, “cheese” with little girl, and “beef jerky” appears in multiple messages. There’s a specific exchange: Jeremy Epstein’s people discuss a “torture” topic in an email chain, and others reference “torture videos” or “torture” in various contexts.
JP: The interpretation of “torture” could be sexual in nature (role-playing) or something more explicit; there’s a push to see if the language is literal or coded. The difficulty is prosecutorial—coded language can be hard to prove in court, and people often plead plausible deniability.
Host: There are examples like a discussion about “shrimp” and “white sharks” with references to Russian girls, and a separate exchange on “a baby” being bought, with Epstein replying in a way that avoids explicit commitment—further supporting the idea of evasion via coded or oblique language.
JP: There’s a long thread involving a Harvard professor, a Nigerian-Portuguese contact, and an Israeli operation thread; Epstein’s reply, “I loved the torture video,” is read as a sexual or possibly role-playing reference, though another interpretation is that it’s about a non-literal, sexualized scenario. The doctor-patient or professional context is complicated by the presence of sexual tokens and “torture” terminology.
Host: There’s also a notable exchange about “an aquarium full of girls” and “white sharks” with reference to Russian girls, and a line about a “king of Saudi” with possible high-level connections. The breadth of names—royal, political, academic—suggests a wide network, possibly used for blackmail, leverage, or influence.
JP: A recurring theme is blackmail: Epstein’s network could have backed or driven blackmail operations. There are redacted or partially redacted files that could contain more explicit material, including a photo involving a public figure with a girl; even if the girl is over 18, the context remains incriminating and suspicious.
Host: The possibility Epstein is alive remains a fringe theory, but there are inconsistent elements—the ear and nose differences in purported body images, the decoy body claim, and the press-release date discrepancy—that feed ongoing speculation about whether there was a replacement or manipulation of the body, or whether a genuine death occurred with unresolved questions remaining.
JP: Overall, the files present a web of coded language, high-profile associations, and forensic ambiguities that keep fueling questions about Epstein’s death, the handling of evidence, and the breadth of possible blackmail networks tied to powerful individuals.
Host: The conversation ends with a plan to revisit these threads, given the ongoing releases and the sheer volume of material, acknowledging that each new item tends to expand the mystery rather than resolve it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The camera they said was not working. You found footage that it was actually working.
Speaker 1: Correct. They stopped working the day that Jeffrey Epstein was released back into the prison, and then they were fixed the day after he died.
Speaker 0: There's a statement that's talking about Epstein was found dead in a cell. That statement is dated Friday, August 9, but Epstein was found in a cell unresponsive 06:30 in the morning on August 10. That's when he was found. Pronounced that. That's when he was found.
A male OCME official called and said he would be arriving at the loading dock with a black vehicle in order to thwart the media. Is it common for them to use a decoy body
Speaker 1: to to trick the press? That's exceptionally unusual. I've never heard of anything like that.
Speaker 0: Did it look like Epstein's ear or looked a bit off from what you've seen?
Speaker 1: Now, when you have forensic examiners talk about the body, they will describe every single detail during the autopsy that they find. His penis was described as the the penis of a normal circumcised male, and that is not at all how the victims have described it.
Speaker 0: What's crazy is that these things will be all over the headlines on a normal day, but there's just so much going on right now that it's just being lost with everything.
Speaker 1: How's it going?
Speaker 0: Good, man. Good. How are you?
Speaker 1: Good. Great.
Speaker 0: What crazy shit have you found now?
Speaker 1: I mean, I've been looking around. I've been focusing a lot on the prison. I found footage that should not exist. It's really powerful, but you have to understand all the stuff because it's from L tier, which is the footage where the the place where Jeffrey Epstein was killed, but it's from the next day. But people don't know the cameras weren't fixed yet then, so that's pretty crazy, actually.
The DOJ has removed that off their website now, by the way. So
Speaker 0: Wow. Hold on. So you found footage. When you said the cameras weren't fixed, what was wrong with the cameras?
Speaker 1: Okay. So the cameras were not okay. I I forget that everybody doesn't know this nonsense. Basically, the cameras were not recording to the DVR system they had. Half the cameras weren't.
And so there was a camera that they have said over and over again, this camera didn't work. It's the one that was focused directly down the place where Epstein was housed, and I found footage from that camera that apparently was not supposed to be recording at all according to every single thing they have ever said. So
Speaker 0: Oh, wow. So the camera they said was not working. You found footage that it was actually working.
Speaker 1: Correct. Yes. Because they fixed it eventually, but not by the date that I found the footage from. There's only one small clip, but it shows that that they I've studied these stupid DVR system so much. It's not possible that it could be recorded if it was on a dysfunctional DVR.
So there's that that's pretty big. I found a lot about sulfuric acid. He bought a shitload of that, which can be used for water treatment, but, you know, it could be used for other things too. So.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Exactly. There's also sulfuric. I was speaking to a victim of of Epstein just before this. So she was bringing up the sulfuric acid.
We posted about it. So there's two arguments. One of them is it was used for for treating the water. He lives on an island, and he had a pool under the under his house as well if you saw the saw those photos. And then the other argument, obviously, he could use to decompose dead bodies.
Yes. And the argument that some people made is, you know, Epstein with his wealth, he would hire a company to come do the water treatment for him. He wouldn't buy his own sulfuric acid. And there's also I'm not sure if you saw this. I haven't looked into it enough, but the team posted about banning buying sulfuric acid for his hotel room.
Mhmm. That and then when we posted about it, I think Elon Paul tweeted it, and then Roger Stone commented saying, no. No. It's not for dead bodies. That sulfuric acid is is is used to make drugs, crystal meth, I think it was.
I'm like, holy shit. So, like, if this is the best case scenario is using it to make crystal meth, and the worst case scenario is dead body. And what's crazy is that these things will be all over the headlines on a normal day, but there's just so much going on right now that it's just being lost with everything.
Speaker 1: Well and I watched Pam Bondi today. I watched her hearing because, you know, she's the the the attorney general of The US, and she's the one that's in charge of all this stuff. And she did not answer one single question about anything, not one. It was remarkable. I've never seen anything
Speaker 0: like that. Haven't I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it. I've doing interviews. I'll be watching it after this.
Just another nothing burger. No value whatsoever.
Speaker 1: It's just her it's just amazing. She just gets away with just they'll ask her questions. She'll say, well, this politician never did anything about it and will not answer. And so they'll ask her yes or no questions.
Speaker 0: She'll ask I saw that I saw that clip. I saw one clip. So I'm guessing all of it is like that one clip where they ask her a question instead of answering instead of answering the question. They're like, oh, you didn't ask that question in the other administration. Then Thomas Massis is like, no.
All administrations are guilty. All the way back to Obama, ignore ignore Biden, all the way back to Obama. But we're asking you right now, and then she's gonna Whole damn thing. Fix it.
Speaker 1: Whole damn thing. Yeah. It's frust it's the most frustrating thing I've ever seen. So
Speaker 0: And what's also fascinating about you finding that footage, by the way, congratulations on finding it, is, you know, it is a massive revelation because it shows that the FBI lied, but there's just been so many lies. Mhmm. They'll be like, you know, JP just found something else that we all knew, but now he's managed to prove something with you, which is pretty sad we're at this stage. What did the footage show?
Speaker 1: It didn't show anything other than the hallway that Epstein was housed on, but there were the whole there's just so much information about the fact the cameras didn't work. The cameras didn't work. They stopped working the day that Jeffrey Epstein was released back into the prison, and then they were fixed the day after he died. Or they've started working on the the the the after he died. They weren't fixed for, like, couple of weeks.
But, yeah, it's it it doesn't really show anything other than the cameras worked. That's all it shows.
Speaker 0: And did you was there any more information on the scribbles you found in his jail cell? We covered it yesterday or two days ago. Was there anything else I mean,
Speaker 1: not really. I mean, I went back. There's a couple of other words I found, but nothing that's of any particularly strong interest. Just the, like, one of he's talking about health care and getting a dentist and a couple of things, but, like, no nothing that's really no huge revelations there. So
Speaker 0: So one of the things I've been looking at is, the code words, and I'll have the team start to bring up some of the tweets. We talked about it briefly in our last chat that we've had. Mhmm. We'll start with the one that was most commonly found, and that's pizza. So we'll put up the first one there.
It says Feeney asking about a pizza party this weekend. So that was someone sending it to someone. We don't know who sent it to who. Everything's been redacted. The other one here that has another person emailing so let's see who they they're emailing oh, they're about Jeffrey Epstein and Leslie emailing Slayton, and they're talking about, I don't need a pizza, but thank you for offering.
Just random. JE here and ready for you instead of and she just replies, no. I don't need a pizza, but thank you for offering. Then we have another example here. I'll show you one more, and then we'll go to the grape soda one.
And that's someone sent a photo of Epstein. Epstein reacted. So I think someone sent a photo to Epstein. She he reacted. She looks pregnant.
And then the person answers back, you mean radiating a soft glow with the look of bliss and excitement? Yeah. That's the pizza. So we talked about this last one very briefly, and I wanna go to the last one, and that's a urologist talking about pizza and grape soda. That's probably the sickest one.
Tucker Carlson talked about it on his show. So he's talking about getting an erectile dysfunction drug for Epstein, so getting ten pills from the pharmacy. And then if you look at go to the second page of this file, and then Harry Fish, which is Epstein's urologist, says, I just did about calling the pharmacy for Epstein to be able to pick him up. And then he says the following. After you use them, wash your hands, and let's go get pizza and grape soda.
Call me. And then they continue talking about other stuff. Now and there's more examples about grape soda as well. Someone else messaging FC, go for pizza and grape soda, and it says no one else can understand better than a Chinese cookie. When you look at those things, first, what is the likelihood this actually mean pizza and pizza and grape soda if I had to give you if had give a rating from what you've seen out of 10?
Speaker 1: I would say that and I can't say for every single email that mentions pizza, so I wanna say this is not a blank statement
Speaker 0: about pizza.
Speaker 1: Lot of them
Speaker 0: I didn't there's a lot of them I didn't include because they're talking to baby about pizza, so they weren't that bizarre.
Speaker 1: There are there I would say it's an eight out of 10 that it is not referring to pizza. I mean, it it's close to a 10 out of 10. I'm not gonna say it's a 100% because I guess there could it could just be some really strange ways of phrasing things. I'd say it's an eight out of 10. Very, very likely that this represents something that is not pizza.
Because for most pizza for most for most people that like to to actually go out to eat, that like to get pizza, they use the specific name of the restaurant they're getting pizza from. And they're not seeing that don't think that's done at all, really. So that that's if I'm gonna talk about going and getting pizza with somebody, I'm gonna say where and all of those kinds of things. Does that matter
Speaker 0: to Mark? There's an FBI intelligence bulletin, which has code words and terminology used by pedophiles to identify sexual preferences. And they have different keywords that that identify what they prefer. So map refers to semen. Source refers to orgy.
Walnut is a person of color. Ice cream is a male prostitute passed as a little boy. And these are hotdog is a boy, and these are the three words used by Epstein and his crew. Pizza means girl based on this bulletin. Pasta means little boy, and cheese means little girl.
And if you go to the files, we have mentions of cheese. This is an example here. There are millions of babies, very little good vegetable cream cheese. And then the person replies to Epstein, Lol, I don't know if cream cheese and baby are on the same level. When you see something like this, there's no way cream cheese means, like
Speaker 1: It it's it feels so implausible because the even if there were people that that even if English was your second language, you wouldn't phrase it this way. This the the phrasing of it is so peculiar. And so it's hard to explain away any of these things. And what and forensically, the way that we look at that is how do we use this in court? How can we take this further?
And that's why they're so good at what they do because they could have plausible deniability. Oh, it was forever ago, I don't even remember that conversation. And then when it comes to law enforcement, they're not gonna then they don't follow it. They don't go and search deeper. But, yeah, it's it's hard to imagine that there's not a lot of coded language.
There's some more specific examples where we know he's using coded language because it's more overt, but it's not related to food. But Epstein does this. He he's very clear that he doesn't like putting things in writing, so I'm not surprised at all that he uses coded language very frequently.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And there's one more. He just goes to show there was a rat for every cheese. So he before they said, I bet you'd kill for it, just shows to go just goes to show there's a rat for every cheese. I see.
Now you'll tell me. I said, you know, now you'll tell me. See? I said, thanks. So from a legal perspective, that protects them.
You said that Epstein doesn't like really having things in writing, which
Speaker 1: is He explicitly stated that I don't like putting things in writing. Call me instead. He has said that in emails.
Speaker 0: Just imagine, JP, this is someone that doesn't like things in in writing. He must have deleted a lot of emails as well, must have wiped things off the hard drives knowing he's being investigated.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: And there's, I think, as I said in our last interview, there's been in one instance a request for him to give them to give the FBI the hard drives because they didn't couldn't collect it under the within the jurisdiction at the time. Sure. So so that shows two things. Number one is if that's what we're seeing right now, a lot of it's redacted, half the files are not released. One can only imagine what's been discussed that we're not able to see.
But the question I have for you is, does this actually work from a legal perspective? When you use code words like this, have you seen seen it before as a forensic analyst? Is it common to use, and does it actually work from a legal perspective? Does it make it significantly harder to prove a crime?
Speaker 1: Yes. Absolutely. There have been a lot of cases where people will be and and not so much in in my experience in this, but people will be talking about somebody getting killed or or using code words for that. And if they can't prove it in a very solid way, it becomes very, very difficult to prosecute. So, yeah, it actually unfortunately, it does work fairly well.
And I think that a lot of these people are very bold, so they've they're very comfortable throwing it around because I think they feel pretty impervious to any sort of prosecution, and apparently, lot of them probably are. And so, yeah, it's it's very difficult even for for your average person to get prosecuted using code words.
Speaker 0: Now the code words of cheese and and, and pizza for me you know, if I had to guess, they would mean little girls, little boys, or people under the age of 18. So maybe there's different code words for different age groups, maybe different ethnicities. And, again, this is a very smart person. You're surrounded by very intelligent people. There's another term, and if KK, if you can bring up the second link in the jerky, the beef jerky links.
Beef jerky has been used significantly as well. Seems like a code word. Mhmm. I was speaking to one of his victims, and I've got more interviews with more of his victims, and I asked her, have you seen him ever eat beef jerky? The answer is no.
She's never seen him. And he talks constantly about beef jerky, beef jerky in freezers. In this email, I'll read out what it says. So who's sending it? So Francis is sending it to someone that's unredact less redacted.
Just wanted to touch base about jerky. Jeffrey Epstein said he was gonna start eating regular food again, so he might be eating less jerky. That said he has six bags of it in the downstairs freezer for his next trip. I believe it should be enough to for him to get through. Any other questions, please let me know.
So this is the first question. Gonna call this person must love beef jerky, and someone's emailing someone else about Jeffrey eating beef jerky. So if you go to the next link, KK, you see Jeffrey Epstein sends someone, how do we deal with the frozen white tuna? And then the person replies to Jeffrey Epstein, that's in 2012, jerky will be with me when I get to ISJ. I can come tomorrow and take care of white tuna if you'd like.
I'm due back in NYC by this evening. If if that's if that's not coded language, what is Right. Let me see if I've if I've got one more here. He is working at a restaurant. Oh, that's another one that went viral as well.
So it's an email to to Jeffrey Epstein. Francis has time to come tomorrow to show me how to make it. Jerky class anyone? He will also bring you a taste of his new jerky recipe from the restaurant and sends a warm hello. He is working at a restaurant called Cannibal Cooks.
Wait for it. Beef jerky and steak. He has time 3PM tomorrow if this is okay with you. Cannibal and Cooks is the name of the restaurant. Now a lot of people have taken all this.
I agree that beef jerky is a code word, and they're saying that this could reference human meat. For me, I think that's way too out there, JP. But then I've I've learned one thing from the Feet and Files. Anything I think is out there, I should probably not dismiss it, immediately dismiss it.
Speaker 1: I am I am inherently a skeptic when it comes to a lot of things, particularly when it comes to really wild theories, but we have I have been proven wrong time and time again with this that things are always worse than I think. So I don't think that that's probably I I my initial instinct is to believe that that's probably not correct, but I'm not totally I don't reject it as just like crazy talk. It very well could be. And other people are not as careful as Jeffrey Epstein is. If you notice, a lot of people will make direct references to things that that seem pretty unsavory, and Jeffrey Epstein will have a very benign, very plain reply that does not address those things over and over again.
So I think other people are more are less careful with these things, and Epstein tends to be very careful with how he replies to these.
Speaker 0: Is there any that you remember? Any examples that you might remember?
Speaker 1: God. I'm trying to think off the top of my head. I mean, it's it's pretty much any email that he gets. If you look through all of these, any mail he any email he gets about these things that aren't from him, he he doesn't address those things very directly except jerky and stuff occasionally. But for the vast majority of them, people will say
Speaker 0: If it's not coded language, he dismisses it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. He'll just say call me.
Speaker 0: In a way that does not implicate him.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. The text messages, he frequently says, call me after somebody says, hey. I met up with this person or, yeah, to, you know, check out the pizza or whatever it is. Their their call me is a frequent reply to those.
Speaker 0: I wanna go to the the others that's not coded language. They use the word words as they are torture videos and torture. Sure. So we'll go to the first one here. There's a person that their name was redacted, then we, like, found out as a sultan in The UAE, wealthy, potentially billionaire, Sultan bin Soleiman.
He's a billionaire, and he he's the head of a large company in Dubai. And they talk about an Israeli operation, about a Nigerian Portuguese introducing them. But the the weird email, if you open it, he says, I am in this is the sultan messaging j j Jeffrey Epstein. Mhmm. I am in China.
I will be in The US May. And then Jeffrey replies, where are you? Are you okay? I loved the torture video. So that's the first reference to torture.
Cannot be more explicit than that. Then you go to the next one.
Speaker 1: Said, I I do wanna tell you what what my thought is about this one actually, and this one may be somewhat disappointing for people is that if he's willing to say that, I think that means that it probably wasn't anything as bad as we're imagining, actually, because he is so careful with what he says that I would have a hard
Speaker 0: time doing that. I was thinking of that as well because this is Yeah. This is someone that uses coded language for anything that could be incriminating. Absolutely. Unless watching a torture video, that's not legal.
So maybe he's less worried about a torture video leaking someone's intelligence. So he he's not as worried about a torture video than something that might have to do with underage girls and boys.
Speaker 1: Right. So if it's legal, he would probably be willing to reference it. Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 0: So if we go to the next one, this is a that's just weird. So this is a Harvard professor, March Nowak. He says to Jeffrey Epstein, he says, did so Jeffrey so he messages Jeffrey our spy was captured after completing her mission, and then says, did you torture her?
Speaker 1: My read on this was that it was some sort of sexual reference. That's how I took it, is that is that it was some sort of, like, role playing kind of thing, not between the two of them, but about somebody they were talking about. So I took that as something sexual. Didn't take that as a
Speaker 0: level of torture. That's a very good point because there is sex toys in his house that were found including a whip and chains. That's a very good point that a lot of these things could be, you know, BDSM into these weird sexual fetishes, which is not illegal. That's personal preferences. You can call them sick, whatever.
But if that's the case, maybe there is role playing, a spy is maybe a girl. Like, you know how you call a girl that they know is such a a little spy or something like not even a code word. Just a jokingly term tongue in cheek.
Speaker 1: Maybe a Russian girl and they joke about Russians being spies or something like that. Like, that's how I take it. Something like that. You know?
Speaker 0: Very good. I agree. I think it's it's an interesting take. And, obviously, there's another way of of interpreting it that this is an actual spy because you were talking about Jeffrey Epstein who worked with Mossad. I think it's hard to dismiss that or refute that.
Allegedly worked with Russian intelligence. I don't buy that. Worked with the CIA. I think it's very plausible. And, potentially, his report says he's worked with Saudi intelligence as well.
So we have someone that has worked with multiple intelligence agencies, but now the Harvard professor to suddenly have been involved in spycraft. I don't know. I don't know who that professor is. I haven't looked into him. But it wouldn't be implausible.
That one's a lot more believable for me than the eating human flesh. That one seems more believable that maybe it is a spy. I just don't I would not put that. That would be just weird to put in writing. But, you know, over ten years, fifteen years, mistakes get made.
Speaker 1: That is true. But it it just he's Jeffrey Epstein is someone that doesn't like to have any visibility when he gets his hands dirty. So when he it was when he was trying to when people have said, oh, he was into video games so that he could meet, you know, kids or whatever. I'm like, no. He would he would never do that himself.
He would get some other people to bring to him. So he's would never actually try to procure people one to one. He would have Maxwell do it or somebody else do it. So things like this, I just think he I really do think he's too careful to put anything that would be so obviously awful in writing. But I could be wrong.
Yeah. Mistakes do get made for sure. And, you know, Epstein, who knows? Maybe he was drunk and put something in writing that he didn't mean to. It's always hard to know.
Speaker 0: I think I'm gonna show you the next one, the one that you showed KK just earlier. I think that one proves your point, JP. Because in that one, he says someone sends it to someone subject from Jeffrey Epstein. So someone Jeffrey Epstein is in the thread. Yeah.
Do you want me to try so an email is redacted. Do want me to try to do her or just torture her on whatever? Do you want me to try to do her or just torture her on Friday? So that confirms your point in my opinion because when you say you do a girl, you do someone, it's usually have sex with someone. So it's like, Would you like to have sex with her or torture?
Could a game be role playing? Now, obviously, there's two ways of looking at this. Is this role playing? Is this consensual, or is this getting into the sick, twisted world where something is not consensual and you're torturing a victim? I hope it's the former.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I would too. The frustrating thing is the DOJ never followed up to figure these things out, and that's what's so frustrating about this is that nobody they they okay. We've got a a paper trail where we can say, okay. On this date, is there a victim that lines up with this?
Can we talk to this person? None of that's happening, and that's what's so frustrating about it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I like your take on it, by the way. I I wanna can you bring up the the email about the the shrimp and shark code words? So that's a weird one. That hasn't been talked about enough.
But I like your take on the on the torch one because the point you've made that this is someone as intelligent as him is using code words for all these different things. If you go through these files, there's nothing really unless it's been removed or redacted or he wiped it before giving it to the FBI. Either everything is either there's some sick stuff in there. There's, like, an image attached where it says 10 or 10 years old or something along. I will go through it in a bit.
So there is some indicators. There's a lot of sick twisted shit, but there's nothing out there saying, hey. I just had sex with a nine year old girl. She was incredible. An email of that incriminating, that hasn't that hasn't appeared, which goes to your point that this is someone that's very, very careful.
And if you worked in the intelligence, the last thing an intelligence person that works with Mossad at such a high level and communicates with the prime minister is gonna send an email saying, hey. I tortured her. Right. It wouldn't add up to me. So it's a very valid point.
Now if we go to this one so don't know what this one means. I'm not sure if you've seen it. So Jeffrey Epstein sending it to Colm Olivier. By the way, imagine I just would I feel bad for anyone that's innocent, that wasn't involved in anything incriminating and maybe before Epstein wasn't was charged with with in 2008 before, you know, the truth started coming out of what he's guilty of. Yeah.
If someone was caught in this email thread talking about something innocent with Epstein, I feel bad for them. So I my heart goes out to them, and I hope they don't get stuck along with everyone else that's actually been involved in in things that are incriminating. But this one sends an email. No. Some are like shrimp.
You throw away the head and keep the body. And then Olivier replies, as long as you don't have any hammerhead ones, I like white sharks. Then Jeffrey sends sends an email the next day as two are Russian. I guess some might refer to them as white sharks. And then Olivier then mess emails, the king of Saudi has a few white sharks in his at his Jeddah palace.
It I totally prefer yours. Sure. I would enjoy the view. And then Jeffrey goes, on my island in the Caribbean with an aquarium full of girls. So this is an email that goes that essentially just refers to Russian girls.
Mhmm. To to our Russian. Doesn't say girls. To our Russian and refers to them as white sharks. And then later says, king Gosandy has some, but I prefer yours.
And then later talks about an aquarium full of girls. It's just another example, in my opinion, of code was being used. I just don't know what it would mean. What do you make of this?
Speaker 1: So what I make of it is that is basically he's saying that they'll hook up with ugly girls, that the head doesn't matter so much that the body is what matter. That's the way I read it is that's what I think Epstein means by that is basically saying, like, some, you know, some of them are like shrimp. You can take off the head. Just keep the body. So in other words, that's that's based on reading a lot of his stuff, that's my take.
It totally could be wrong. But I
Speaker 0: think What you think what do think hammerheads or white sharks would mean?
Speaker 1: I would assume those are ethnicities or where they're from. I would think white sharks maybe are Russian, because they specifically say two Russian girls. So I would think that hammerhead. I don't know. Or they're saying that maybe he's saying that a hammerhead is someone who's ugly.
I don't know. But to me, that's that's how I read it. But we all you know, when it comes to interpreting these things, you know, we all may have a little bit of a different take on it. Because it seems pure. Like, clearly,
Speaker 0: they think
Speaker 1: they know what each other's talking about.
Speaker 0: And look at the names look at the name dropping there. The king of Saudi has on the shot. Mhmm. They've literally just added the king of Saudi name very casually in there. It shows how high up this these things, how how high up how connected they are.
What do you make of how so another question asked his victim, how was he so connected? How did someone like that be able to no. Not he wasn't in many cases, he wasn't chasing the attention of those rich and powerful. They were chasing him in many examples. Even Uhud Barak.
Uhud Barak seemed like in those in that communication, Epstein was the alpha male in the communication, was the person that was, in a way, the the alpha dog higher up, and and Ahud Barak is kinda seeking, Epstein's help rather than the other way around.
Speaker 1: My take on it is that it's Epstein's boldness that he's willing to have an island where he will have famously disgusting parties that people can get that maybe feel safe for whatever reason. People feel like that if they go to Epstein, they can get away with it. He's got his own planes. Like, he provides everything you need if if you're looking for that type of time, if you're looking for that kind of experience, just as disgusting as it is to way to to say that. So I think that people saw him as safe, actually.
He's he's rich. He doesn't need my money. He'd have no reason to blackmail me. This is where I can go and have these experiences, and I guess I think they don't have to worry about it as much as they might. They want to seek them out on their own.
Speaker 0: From what you've seen so far, do you think that it was a blackmail operation?
Speaker 1: Yes. I do. I think that was part of it. The the okay. This is this is where it gets complicated.
I think that part of it was that. I think he had backups. He had a lot of people in his pocket potentially just in case he needed to blackmail them, but I don't I don't think a lot of these people were unwilling participants. I don't think he needed to blackmail a lot of people, but I think he was ready to if he needed to. So I think maybe some of that, but not all of it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. There was one email. I can't remember what it is. I think it's Leon Black. I'm not sure if you remember what it was, but I think Leon Black or someone, a very wealthy person, owed money to Epstein or needed to pay something for Epstein.
And then he was, you know, questioning the amount or refusing to pay. And then Epstein sends him an email, and he says something along the lines like, there's many things I've done for you. I've done a lot of things for you. I've always been there. And there's many things I've done for you that we, you know, that we talk about publicly, there's many things I've done for you that we don't talk about publicly, if you know what I mean.
Something along those lines. Yeah. Which essentially seemed to me like blackmail. Another thing is just having that amount of content. Why would you take a picture of Prince Andrew with a young girl?
Why would you take a picture of Bill Clinton or others that are that have their face redacted with young girls? Another person was in a picture with a girl with his underwear, a prince Andrew over a girl on the floor. You know, these are things like, if if I was in a party, nothing illegal, but I say if I was at a party that I don't want people to know I'm there and I'm a successful influential person. The last thing I want, I'd be I'd be doing the opposite. I'd be making sure no one's taking a photo.
But in this case, photos are being taken and that's kind of supports your point that it's more likely than not that this is a blackmail operation. You mix that with Ehudraq's connection and and the the the admission and the emails that he was Mossad, and then you add that as well to the amount of wealth he's amassed that no one really can explain. In some ways, it starts to add up.
Speaker 1: It does. But I think that he I I don't think he ever had to blackmail Prince Andrew or Bill Clinton. I think some of these felt like they were close friends of his. At least, I think they saw themselves as close friends of his and trusted him. Like, I think Prince Andrew, my take on him is he seems like he's sort of naive.
And so I think that he was somebody that was having so much fun. That was never a situation where he was overtly blackmailed, at least. He may have felt blackmailed in a sense. There may have been things that were implied, but I don't think there was an overt blackmail situation for certain people.
Speaker 0: My producer just sent me that photo, and he said, this image is very pixelated, meaning it was likely a hidden camera. That's a very valid point. It is an extremely pixelated photo. It seems to say it take from an angle that doesn't exactly. An angle that doesn't make sense, very incriminating that person.
Yeah. Even if that girl let's hope she's above the age of 18, as old as possible considering how old he is. But even if she's above age, that could be incriminating for someone that is could be a politician, a billionaire that has a family that has kids. That alone, if that was a billionaire at his island, that alone, not sure what's behind the redactions, but I can assume, is enough to blackmail someone.
Speaker 1: Sure. Yeah. You don't have to be doing something illegal to blackmail somebody. There's plenty of people that could have been of age that there were pictures with that were bad that you could have used for blackmail. So it would have been obviously worse or more, like, you know, worse blackmail if it was for somebody that was illegal.
But, you know, beyond that, yeah, like, I I it seems implausible to me that there is not a very broad and sophisticated blackmail network here.
Speaker 0: Agree. I wanna go to another one here that's about buying a baby. I'm not sure if we've mentioned it briefly, one of our previous discussions, but it's a long email about a girl talking about she seems upset by seemingly he's not supporting her. She talks about how he promised to support her. He promised to be there for her, and she never asked for money.
And and now, you know, she he's not she's not supporting her. Someone could you know, if people wanna read it, they can read it themselves. I'm kinda summarizing it, but the end is the one that is really questionable.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: You made many unusual offers. You offered to buy my baby six months into our relationship, and six years later, you offered to support my next boyfriend. You offered to buy my baby. So Jeffrey replies to that long message by saying that would be arguable except for the fact that, again, it is not like a contrary position does not exist. It exists over and over.
Yes. You didn't like taking cash, but took everything else, which is your point, JP. You said anything that could be incriminating, he avoids. This is a perfect example. It's a long message.
Avoids 95% of it, especially the part including the part where she says you offered to buy my baby six months into our relationship. What do you make of this, that highlighted part?
Speaker 1: Well, I think I take I take it very literally. I take that at face value. I believe that he'd literally offered to buy this person's child. Because had he not and he had been like, excuse me. I didn't offer to buy your kid.
That would open up the door for her to send details. Oh, yes. You did. It was in September blah blah blah. You know?
Then she could provide details, that's the last thing he wants. So he just ignores it. He, you know, has whatever sort of vague or I mean, everything he says is incredibly vague right here, actually. It doesn't address anything. And that's the way that he replies to things like this.
Just shut up and, you know, make sure not to address any of these kind of things. But, yeah, I think that's literal.
Speaker 0: Why do you think he wants to buy the baby? Is it something to do with eugenics or some people, you know, the most sick conspiracies oh, theory. Sorry. I'm not gonna use the word conspiracy now. I apologize.
I I don't like using that word anymore after these files. Yeah. Another theory is, apparently, injecting a baby's blood into you is is good for longevity. So that was a theory that was used. Sure.
Which what would you go with?
Speaker 1: Is is far too kind. There's no way in hell that you would buy a child for that reason. Like, if they wanted to do some weird genetic stuff, I think they have other ways to do it. I don't I don't even know what he would be buying a baby for. That's anybody's guess, but I do believe he literally was trying to buy one.
What he would end up doing with it could can any anything I can say just horrifies me, frankly. So I I I don't know. I I if he would sell it to somebody else, like, what the what the hell would you do with a baby that you bought that you don't plan to raise as your own?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And, probably the most incriminating thing and and, KK, if you can take open the last link, age 10, that's probably the most incriminating one that underage girls were involved from these files that I've seen. Essentially, someone's sending a photo to Jeffrey Epstein, seems like a mistake because Jeffrey Epstein does not reply to it. Someone sends a photo to Jeffrey Epstein, is obviously we cannot open, and all it says is age 10. Now, again, you know, hold you know, there's a benefit of doubt.
Like, hey. Maybe someone's sending his daughter's picture, but then why the hell would you redact the name? Why would you redact the image? It's just an innocent picture of, hi. This is my daughter aged 10.
I spoke to her because I like to hear both sides every of everything and any anything I'm covering. And one journalist is kinda dismissing a lot of these charges against hep C. He said, Mario, that's taken completely out of context. That could be someone's daughter, etcetera. But with everything we know, all the material we know, to me, it feels like this email was sent by error.
Epstein did not reply to it. And for me, I am assuming the worst here that this is an inappropriate image.
Speaker 1: Well, they they redacted the subject line. Right? So, like, I the the there's there seems to be something to it. And the the DSC, I think that's either pictures that are taken on a camera or a phone, because I that those letters come up a whole lot in the in the files. I'm not sure what what takes that kind of picture, but this would it's my point is it would be somebody's personal picture when they actually took themselves.
It's not like the person's name, and then there's, like, a name of it. It's literally something they would have sent from their phone or their email. So, yeah, it's hard not to imagine the worst when he when you see something like this. It's an odd thing to send rather than saying the person's
Speaker 0: name is h ten. Exactly. It doesn't say, like, hey. This is my daughter h ten. This is her at her birthday party.
Oh, how cute. This is my anything like that. Yeah. All it says is h ten. It just literally feels like a transaction to me.
And if I had to assume it is instead of sending it through a disappearing WhatsApp group or signal group that they would, let's say, usually, maybe the person sending it made a mistake and sent an email. You can't unsend an email, especially back then, you can't unsend an email. So my assumption is, like, you click on an image, you click on share. Instead of clicking WhatsApp Epstein, you click on email Epstein, and this is a a glimpse into the darker things that mostly have been destroyed or been hidden.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I can't even imagine we have a team yet. I really can't.
Speaker 0: My team is sending me what type of camera this is likely used. It's a Sony camera. Alright. So I'm gonna go through something away from the the torture claims, all the code words. And that's the the theory on whether Epstein was is still alive.
Now you covered the escape plan while he's in prison. There's also the have you looked into the press release? If KK, you put up the press release. We talked about it already. Have you had a chance to look at it?
Did you do you have any explanation for it at all? Maybe it's a more
Speaker 1: I've try I I went through and was trying to figure out because I'm somebody who uses templates sometimes if I need to write something that is sort of prewritten. I use templates, and there's nothing. If I pop auto populate the date, it populates the day that you start editing it. So there is no plausible explanation that I can think of other than somebody just had the date wrong. That's the only reasonable explanation.
Anything else feels nefarious. Anything else feels like this is part of that
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That setup, basically.
Speaker 0: And for people that don't know what we're talking about, and we spoke about this in our last chat, essentially, there was a statement put out by the the US attorney's office that says there's a statement that talking about Epstein was found dead in a cell. That statement is dated Friday, August 9, but Epstein was found in a cell unresponsive 06:30 in the morning on August 10. That's when he was found. Not pronounced that. That's when he was found.
So there is no way this was written on August 9. The only two explanations is, one, it was just a pure typo. That's it. But I would expect the date to be automatically filled for something sort of that sensitive. And as you said, and number two is something more nefarious, and this is where the theory start to go wild.
Now from everything that you've seen and and the next one I'm gonna show you that got a lot of people buzzing, if you're gonna open the decoy body, it says the following. An FBI document, there was a discussion about a decoy body. So I'll read out what it says. Upon arriving at the MCC, complete some completed some tasks before assigned him to the hospital on Park Row, which is separate from the main MCC building and where Epstein's body was being guarded. When Blank arrived at the hospital with case management coordinator, Blank was responsible for taking Epstein's fingerprints.
COs Blank and where and Blank were with Epstein's body and had secured the scene. Blank remained with COs Blank Blank until personnel from the office chief medical examiner office arrived to transport Epstein to their facility. Due to the large news media presence outside the MCC, a male OCME official called and said he would be arriving at the loading dock with a black vehicle in order to thwart the media. Blank blank and blank used boxes and sheets to create what appeared to be a human body, which was put into the white OCME vehicle, which the press then followed, allowing a black vehicle to depart unnoticed with Epstein's body. So is that common?
I I I didn't research you before this. Is it common for them to use a decoy body to to trick the press? Because we're talking about Epstein. We're not talking about JFK or Trump or the or Bill Clinton or or anyone that notable. It is a successful person, a wealthy person, a notable person that was in the press, but a decoy body?
Have you heard of that before ever happening to anybody?
Speaker 1: Certainly not in a circumstance like this and certainly not actually even using a decoy decoy body. I can see them telling the press, hey. We're gonna come out this door and then go out the back. Like, I've heard of things like that, but never that they would literally make a decoy body. That's exceptionally unusual.
I've never heard of anything like that in a situation like this or really at all, actually.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So many question marks. Is there have you seen anything else, any other indicators? So we have the the scribbles that you've covered so extensively on your channel. And then our last chat in his prison cell about a plan if he manages to escape.
We have the images, but there's the images showing the ear not being similar to Epstein's ear and the one because the ear is, from what I understand, is the easiest way to to be able to tell if someone is that person. It's the easiest thing to differentiate. From when you looked at those two ears, did it look like Epstein's ear or looked a bit off from what you've seen?
Speaker 1: It looked different to me. That's not my area of expertise, but looking at that, it it's now I've actually got an extreme close-up of his ear that's just a huge picture of his ears. I should send that to you guys so we could really at this. But it looks different to me, like, the the my first reaction to it.
Speaker 0: There's that little there's that little hook there. You could see it. Epstein dead. Epstein alive. That ear is there.
The nose looks it does look even the nose looks different.
Speaker 1: This is real? That is real. Yeah. I've seen that before. That is that is Yeah.
Speaker 0: But that look very okay. So, usually, I I would expect people to look at to to kinda start looking at, like, the slightest deviations. But, no, there is some significant differences here. The ear looks very different in that that little the top lobe kinda coming down, and then you got the o's with the nose being more of a hook. It does look very different person.
Like, the nose would not just suddenly become more of
Speaker 1: a a hooked nose. I I can't remember if I if we talked about this last time, but I did I explain the medical examiner's finding that doesn't make sense with okay. Now this is where it starts to get really strange. I've read so much about Epstein. I even know about what victims have described about his genitalia, which they said that it was they described his extreme
Speaker 0: I think it was.
Speaker 1: Right. Egg shape. They've described it as deformed. Now when you have forensic examiners talk about the body, they will describe a scratch on your knuckle that you've got. They will put every single detail during the autopsy that they find.
His penis was described as the the penis of a normal circumcised male, and that is not at all how the victims have described it. That does not match up. So
Speaker 0: Holy shit. No one's ever talked I haven't seen anyone talk about this because that's something that everyone a lot of people make fun of his penis. It was something that went viral. Because I think even in his Bannon interview, Bannon Steve Bannon, I think it was in that interview who references the penis. Oh, no.
In his deposition when he was being questioned, and he's kept pleading the fifth. He would the the penis was brought up. It was that
Speaker 1: Was. Yes.
Speaker 0: You know, it was used as as a positive evidence against him.
Speaker 1: And so that would be some kind of medical issue. So if it was a forensic examiner, it's not like they would leave that out because, well, that's an embarrassing detail. They'd say, no. He has whatever the genetic condition is or whatever it's called. I'm sure they would know if they saw it.
It was it was described as normal. Yeah. No. Atraumatic, normal, circumcised male.
Speaker 0: There is so much there. I'm still in the camp of him being dead just doesn't so if he is if he was killed or he is dead because there's truth here. One, he's still alive, one, he's dead. If he is dead, but that body that we saw was not Epstein, and the one that had the autopsy done is not Epstein, what is the other possible explanation that would make sense where he's not dead, but this is not his body? He's dead, but this is not his body.
Speaker 1: That wouldn't make any sense. If he's dead, then that should be his body. If if the only reason they'd have another body would be if it wasn't him. So I can't think of any plausible reason they would replace his body with somebody else.
Speaker 0: Because what I said to when I said to my team when we chatted about about this behind the scenes, I said, you know, one of the good things out of all this is, you know, despite all his power and influence working with intelligence, etcetera, eventually, it all caught up to him, and the system did catch up to him. Like, we are seeing these files. Like, if the world is corrupted, you know, completely corrupted
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: We we wouldn't even know about any of these crimes. He would be alive. He would be continuing these crimes, yet the law caught up to him. He did end up in jail, ended up getting killed or dying. I'm gonna say getting killed.
And then those Yeah. Even though it took too long and things still haven't come out fully, things are redacted, at least the law catches up even to the rich and powerful. This shows how strong the American system is putting aside the fact that Europeans are getting implicated and all this and getting charged, getting investigated, that's not happening in America. It's a separate discussion. But the other extreme, JP, is that the guy is so powerful that he's actually managed to trick us all.
Like, if this is true, I give up on the system. If he's actually alive, like Yeah. What's weird is that we don't have an explanation for this. We don't have an explanation on why, like, no. You're a forensic expert.
We don't have an explanation on why the images of the ear and the nose look different there. We don't have an explanation on why a decoy body was used. We don't have a proper explanation other than a typo on why the press release shows August 9 rather than August 10, and we don't have a an explanation on why the deformed penis was not mentioned in the autopsy. Like, these are unanswered questions. And just like you, I cannot think of a theory where he would actually be dead and those things still add up.
That add up and that makes sense if he's actually alive, then I'll be like, holy fucking shit. This is mental. I now believe every conspiracy theory. Well, the other alternative is like, hey. These will remain unexplained, and he's dead.
So
Speaker 1: It's it's possible, but there's just every time we get new information, the the rabbit hole goes deeper. There is definite what whether he's alive or not, it is endlessly strange the things we continue to find out about this situation.
Speaker 0: So Mhmm. Anything else? We'll do this again because you you've just done you've you've just gone so deep into this rabbit hole, JP. It's it's I'm sure you have
Speaker 1: not. I've read it. Up until this newest release, I had read every single Epstein file. I've read read them all, and I've obviously, I'm not gonna be able to do that with all 3,000,000, but I know about as much about this as anybody does at this point. So
Speaker 0: What are what are other crazy stuff that, that would come to mind?
Speaker 1: One the crazier things, which I've I've mentioned to you previously, was that we have found footage that is supposed to not exist because the Yeah. There's all sorts of reports written about the fact that no footage was available. There is actually footage available from the from cameras that were supposed to be nonfunctional in the prison system. That's one of the weirder things. I'm trying to think what else.
I mean, there's just there's so much. I mean, I
Speaker 0: think All the powerful people that were connected to him. We haven't even gone through it. The amount of tweaks that implicate that that like, for example, you saw you saw the the the hearing with Lutnick, Howard Lutnick
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Caught red handed lying. I've never seen the guy. I've only seen him once, and I ran away. I was terrified. And then we found out years later, he went to his island with his family Yeah.
And no explanation. Like, that just is so freaking weird that these people are so scared to even admit they he Howard Lutnick went with his family. There's nothing there's nothing sinister about this. But for some reason, these people are so worried about even being close to him that a an innocent trip with his family, with his kids, I'm assuming it's innocent, to Epstein's Island. Sure.
And that's also considering the fact that Howard Latnick lived just across from him, bought the house from Jeffrey Epstein at a very cheap price. Howard Latnick's obviously extremely close to Donald Trump. The whole doesn't end, and and I think we'll just continue seeing more and more things come out. But the the sad thing is that, JP, the more things that come out, instead of getting answers to all our questions like, we had many questions before this latest drop. This latest drop came in.
Now we have more questions rather than answers.
Speaker 1: I'm somebody who is really good at organizing vast amounts of information, and I actually feel kind of overwhelmed at times with the amount of directions I'm having to take things because there's so much to try to keep track of. So, yeah, it's just it's a never ending rabbit hole of completely insane stuff. And anybody who talks about it that's actually been involved with him just lies, and they seem very comfortable lying like Howard Ludnick. Like, he just straight up lied. I would never even be in the same room with him.
He goes on vacation with him, basically. It's just it's it's it's wild.
Speaker 0: This one man could bring down an entire administration, more than one administration. We've seen that with the royal royal family. We've seen that with the with the governing party in The UK. We've seen that with the Trump administration right now. We're gonna see what's happening in the Arab world, especially in The UAE with the sultan.
We had Harvard professors, they look at multiple billionaires, all because of one person. And and that's only seeing the files that were redacted, the ones that were released, which were half of what the FBI has, and ignoring everything else that was completely wiped, destroyed either by the FBI, who knows, or by, Epstein and his crew. But, it just shows off how interconnected it all is.
Speaker 1: And and I will say one thing that really fascinated me was that Woody Allen, who he was very close with, had had written, like, a little poem or a short story about him that was meant, like, as a gift. And he talked about how Epstein is kind of like Count Dracula, that he's not very charming, not very likable, is a terrible host. He basically talked about how he's a, quote, unquote, like, collector of people, I think is how he'd said it. So people knew that that's what he was. Like, he is somebody who really was collecting information on people, collecting power over people.
That's what drove him. So all the things we haven't seen, I just cannot imagine what all the files that were never released or the ones that they felt like were too bad to release are. I just can't even wrap my head around.
Speaker 0: Also also found out that Bill Bill Cosby, who Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, Epstein were all on on the same street or the two streets next to each other, all in a walking distance from each other, obviously, Howard Latnick was right next to them. Holy shit. JP, always a pleasure, man. Keep doing your coverage on your channel. I'd love to have you again on the show.
You've been my best guest when whenever discussing this matter, and love your work, man. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it. Thanks.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸 INTERVIEW: FORENSIC ANALYST ON THE EPSTEIN FILES & EPSTEIN’S PRISON ESCAPE PLAN Dr. Garrison has spent more time than almost anyone reviewing the millions of Epstein files, and his findings are alarming. Patterns he noticed included repeated coded language, phrases that don’t make sense on their own, and a disturbing hand-written journal from a 16 year old victim who talks about being abused by powerful men, including Clinton. The most fascinating discovery Garrison makes is an escape plan found in Epstein’s cell, which references an Interpol red notice, extradition, travel, money, countries, and leverage. This raises questions to what we all considered a crazy conspiracy: Whether Epstein may still be alive, or at least whether he had plans to escape, and why (was he worried he was about to be killed?) I hope you enjoy my conversation with @DrGExplains 00:58 – The release of over 3 million documents and what they reveal 02:45 – Coded language exposed: pizza, grape soda, and hidden meanings 05:18 – Victim journal decoded: how "yucky" and "gross" signal abuse 06:52 – Bill Clinton accusation appears in victim's coded journal 09:34 – Redacted name decoded: Trump referenced in journal entries 10:27 – Credibility dilemma: when victim testimony becomes complex 15:39 – Epstein's obsession with massages and underage exploitation 18:54 – Celebrities, comfort, and the "nothing can touch us" mindset 22:59 – Epstein as power broker: politics, intelligence, and global reach 26:03 – Sarah Ferguson email: "Heard you had a baby boy" 28:21 – Pizza & grape soda confirmed as recurring code language 37:40 – Prison scribbles decoded: Epstein's possible escape plan 39:33 – "Red Notice" and fake identities: planning life after prison 47:39 – Camera failure, missing guards, and unanswered death questions 54:25 – Most definitive case: Prince Andrew and Giuffre evidence 55:08 – "Age ten" email: the redaction that raises the darkest question
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on the ongoing examination of Jeffrey Epstein’s files and what they reveal, with a focus on disturbing content, coded language, and the reliability of the material.
- The speakers note the FBI’s earlier claim that there was no sex trafficking, calling that claim gaslighting given the scale of material now public. They emphasize the last four file dumps as “unbelievable” in their volume and in the disturbing, often coded language contained within.
- They discuss how widespread Epstein’s influence appears to be, noting that Epstein’s activities touch many high-profile figures across politics and business. Names that repeatedly surface include former president Bill Clinton (clearly named in one journal entry) and former president Donald Trump (referenced repeatedly, sometimes with redactions that leave the identity ambiguous). Other figures mentioned include Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, and Ivanka Trump, among others. They point out that some references are explicit, while others are obfuscated or redacted.
- A central feature of the material is the use of code words to describe sexual abuse and trafficking. The participants give several examples:
- The journal of a 16-year-old Epstein trafficking victim uses coded language; words like “yucky,” “gross,” and other terms are interpreted by an attorney as code for sexual assault. The journal explicitly mentions Chelsea Clinton in one passage and references to Bill Clinton, with the implication of inappropriate acts.
- “Pizza” is repeatedly identified as a common code word in emails and journals, linked by some to the broader Pizza Gate lore, and sometimes paired with “grape soda” or “beef jerky” as coded references. They note that “pizza” appears over 900 times in some files, and “grape soda” is mentioned in the context of sexual references or secret messages.
- The reliability and credibility of victims’ accounts are discussed. The 16-year-old victim’s journals include extraordinary claims (for example, about having Epstein’s child), and the speakers acknowledge that some allegations are “out outrageous” and may be difficult to corroborate. They stress the need for more forensic verification to determine what is authentically attributable to the victim and what may be embellishment or misinterpretation. They mention claims that a baby allegedly connected to Ghislain Maxwell and Epstein existed, but note that there is no independent corroboration of a child, while other entries discuss the possibility of egg freezing and related issues.
- Redactions are scrutinized. Some names are clearly identifiable (e.g., Clinton, Chelsea), while others (including a Trump-related item) are redacted or partially disclosed. The hosts suggest the redactions may reflect AI-assisted and manual redaction, with some omissions caused by the sheer volume of material and potential misses during processing. They acknowledge that some files were removed after the initial release due to redaction errors, which complicates interpretation.
- The discussion moves to Epstein’s personal network and possible roles as a liaison or intelligence asset. They observe Epstein’s connections to Middle Eastern figures and governments, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, and speculate about possible associations with Mossad, Saudi intelligence, and other agencies. They discuss Epstein’s travel history, mentions of forged or fake passports, and the possibility that he might have contemplated operating outside the United States.
- The material includes extensive photographic and video evidence. The speakers remark on the sheer number of images and videos, the presence of many well-known individuals in Epstein’s orbit, and body-language cues suggesting Epstein treated others as objects for his pleasure. They note that even after his 2008 conviction, Epstein remained photographed in public settings, implying ongoing power dynamics and influence.
- The possibility that Epstein is alive is entertained, sparked by references to a possible escape plan and by discussion of questions around his death. They analyze a document scribbled in jail that the speaker interprets as an escape plan, including references to red notices, visas, banks, and “blackmail,” and discuss the idea that the death could have been staged or influenced by external actors. They contrast this with official accounts that describe Epstein’s death as suicide, while acknowledging inconsistencies in the DOJ and inspector general reports, and noting new observations such as delayed camera activity and reports of document shredding.
- They conclude that the scope of material is enormous (tens of thousands to millions of pages, images, and videos), with three point something million released out of six point something million known to exist. They caution that the released files likely represent the tip of the iceberg and emphasize the value of collaboration among investigators, journalists, and researchers to parse the data.
- Throughout, Epstein’s associates—including Maxwell and high-profile figures in politics and entertainment—are repeatedly examined in terms of possible roles, affiliations, and complicity, alongside broader questions about intent, corroboration, and the interpretation of coded language within the files.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The FBI said there was no sex trafficking. That was, like, yesterday or a day before. There was an article that was saying that. I was like, hold on. That that feels like gaslighting.
Like, we're we're looking through all this. That seems impossible to claim at this point.
Speaker 1: Hey. What would you say is the biggest revelations you've found so far?
Speaker 0: The last four releases that we've had are just unbelievable. I am shocked at the sheer volume and content of disturbing and even coded language that's in this. It's just shocking to me just how deep this goes.
Speaker 1: Meet me at class 09:30, so many hot girls promise that was sent to Jeffrey Epstein as well. Thirty between six and seven.
Speaker 0: And I can't even imagine what we haven't found yet. That's what's so shocking to me.
Speaker 1: Even if they release all the files and unredact all the names, could still be the tip of the iceberg, and it shows how bad this is. Doctor g, good to speak to you again. As we were saying earlier, the last time we spoke, we were talking about Trump's meeting with Putin. Yet now we have over 3,000,000 files to go through on some of the most like, I knew we're gonna probably find disturbing things seeing how hard they've tried to hide this for so long. Mhmm.
But I'm really surprised to see this exceeded my expectation. Like, till today, I'm still finding files. I'll like, what the fuck did I just read? Now you've done an incredible job sifting through everything. I saw your latest video yesterday, which we're gonna probably talk about today, about scribbling done by Epstein in his prison cell in what looks like an escape plan.
But before we start digging into things, doctor, what's your general impression of the file so far?
Speaker 0: The latest file dump, the the last four releases that we've had are just unbelievable. I am shocked at the sheer volume and content of disturbing and even coded language that's in this. It's just shocking to me just how deep this goes. And so, frankly, I continue to be shocked every time I run into something new that there's just more information in these files. There's more to go through.
There's more to get to. And I can't even imagine what we haven't found yet. That's what's so shocking to me. But, yeah, I'm I'm completely blown away by some of the things we found.
Speaker 1: And, generally, when people talk about conspiracy theorists, what conspiracy theorists do is they take one story and they kinda link it to everything around. Yet what we've seen here is he's literally got his hands in everything. Just before this interview, I was going through an email correspondence with, I think, leaders in Saudi. And then days afterwards, Khashoggi, the journalist, was killed. I'm like, holy shit.
I I tell my team, like, he this guy is everywhere. And you're talking about coded words. The most common term used is pizza over 900 times, and that links to the whole Pizza Gate story about a decade ago that everyone dismissed as a as a crazy loony story, and here we are. And it gets weirder. There's another one of him being invited or inviting others to have pizza and grape soda.
And there's a correspondence I was going through today as well, whereas his virologist, I think it was, got him pills for erectile dysfunction. And he's like, after you take the pill, wash your hands, and we can go have some pizza and grape soda. And there's also cheese mentioned over a thousand times. There's beef jerky mentioned a few times. The list goes on.
But, what do you have for us today? What would you say is are the biggest revelations you've found so far?
Speaker 0: So I thought that it could be interesting to go through some of the names that are mentioned, some of the people that are talked about, and some very what I would consider some fairly legitimate accusations. Well, I thought we could look at some of those people. We would look at some of the journals by one of the victims. I thought that could be interesting as well. They're they're pretty painful to read because it's it's actually pretty pretty heavy stuff, but it does give us an insight into what it was like for some of the people that were trafficked by Epstein.
And she also makes some pretty outrageous claims. We'll talk about whether or not these are fully credible. I've also got some information on that potential escape plan. I've translated it pretty well, but I've had a lot of feedback since I released a video on it. Some people that think that there are a couple of words that maybe that I I that I hadn't translated.
They think it maybe means something different. We can we can get into that. So there's some pretty interesting stuff there. So a little bit of everything today, but mainly just the most interesting things I found thus far sifting through. I don't even know how many I've looked at at this point.
It has to be well over a 100,000. So
Speaker 1: Absolutely, man. Let let's let's do this. You you're gonna be able to share your screen?
Speaker 0: So what I'm gonna start with is this is a journal by a 16 year old girl who was an alleged sex trafficking victim of Jeffrey Epstein's. Now she names a lot of names in this journal. I mean a lot. She's actually two journals, and I'm gonna go through a couple that she names early on. But this is this is actually the cover to one of the journals because it she had letters from when she turned 16.
So she was very legitimately quite young when all of this was going on. But as I said, she names a lot of names, and there was an attorney that included a letter. Actually, I'll scroll down to that briefly. I know we're gonna be jumping around a little bit so you can at least see what that's in reference to. So her attorney basically had said that words like yucky and gross and bad and mean are code words for basically, sexual assault, for anything that was inappropriate that was done to her.
So anytime we run into those words, that's what that means. Some people are mentioned, and it doesn't give any sort of context. Some people, she says, were gross or yucky. I'm gonna go through a couple of people that she said were. Now to be able to read this, it's very complicated.
Well, I don't wanna overstate it. Maybe not very complicated, but it's not easy to read. Basically, it's written in code. If you look at the first word up here, it starts with a t. The second letter is h.
The first letter of the next row is e, then goes down. So it just goes in a zigzag pattern. Gives you a bit of a headache to read. Fortunately, this attorney who had said that she had been assaulted included translations, which will make this a lot easier, but that's what these are. The first one that stands out that I wanted to talk with that I wanted to show you is I'm just gonna read through it, then we'll talk about who it's obviously referring to.
But doesn't matter how far away you are, no matter how good you think they are, even the old president, they will get you. He should have been thinking of Chelsea, gross, in a plane on a in a plane, on a yacht in New York, in DC, at the Vineyard, on the island, in Palm Beach. It doesn't matter. So and I the the last line says disgusting pigs like Alan Dershowitz, which I guess is Alan Dershowitz, and mister Crothers, even mister Islam will hurt you, especially if Ghislain is busy or not with you. Now the last line, I don't take actually as direct accusations as much as some of the other ones, but the first name mentioned, obviously, is former president Bill Clinton.
Mhmm. This is daughter is Chelsea. Yeah. So Yeah. The the word gross is specifically identifying that that that this was that she was assaulted by him.
That is it's based on what the attorney said. Just It's what she's saying right there.
Speaker 1: Question there. Why is she writing in code in the journal? Do we know why?
Speaker 0: We don't know why. I I think that sometimes people she seems pretty artistic. She posts a lot of clips like this. She posts a lot of pictures. So I I suspect it was just my assumption would be that it was just for fun that that she was just sort of a weird way to write her journal, so it private probably.
You know, that's typically what we would associate with a simple cipher like this because, obviously, it's not hard to decode. Takes about ten seconds to realize the way how it's written. So I would assume it was just a vague attempt at privacy.
Speaker 1: So this is someone, one of the victims of Epstein, who directly accuses the former president of sexual acts with her, and she was 16 at the time. And we know the former president spent significant time with Bill Clinton.
Speaker 0: That's correct. Yeah. Absolutely. And so the the this is and after we talk a little bit more, I'm gonna talk about whether or not these accusations are fully credible because that's another layer to all of this, and that's it starts to get a lot more complicated. Because I'm not somebody that questions victims, but some of the claims that she makes in some of the other pages are pretty outrageous, and I'm gonna explain those to make sure people can make up their own decision in terms of how to feel about these things.
But as we're saying, yes, very clearly right here, she's suggesting the old president is Bill Clinton, and she is implying that he that he did violate her in some way. I thought I'd go over another one briefly, and this one is actually one that was redacted. So if you can see right here, there's a redaction, and I'm gonna explain who that is right here. So, I'll just go ahead and start here. Thank god my parents picked me up for being a Rockefeller.
That that plane mister Dana had me on was scary. I'd have no idea who mister Dana is. That's not who this is about. Both he and Larry Summers are fucking disgusting. Hope no relation to Tracy.
I guess it's a royal thing. Gross. So some some reference to royals here, but it's it's pretty vague. Andrew was like his brother in this way. Now this says blank should not brag because that was yucky.
Yucky was one of the terms that once again indicated some form of sexual contact. Does this lady know you can't have any dignity if you've been with him? I know I have none. Only Skittles. Now just reading it doesn't give you a ton because, you you know, it's just it's just an empty space where the the name should be.
So it it's it's pretty clear to me that she's referring to president Trump. And so because there's five letters missing right here, t r u m p would fit in the cipher right here. And also where it says, did you know that you can't have any dignity if you've been with him? The name of Ivanna Trump is to the right of that. So it seems abundantly clear that that's who she's referring to at that point.
So she is making a claim that president Trump, some point, must have done something to her as well. So it's a pretty bold claim.
Speaker 1: She also mentions Andrew and mentions his brother. So she's referring to because she talks about well, she's referring to prince Andrew, which is probably one of the names most, commonly found in the files.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Yeah. So it's it's, yeah. His name I'm I'm getting ready to do a whole workup on on prince Andrew and all of that. He has mentioned over and over again his is one of the some of his is some of the more disturbing information I found, actually.
But as far as the credibility comes in and I don't like to question the credibility of victims, but I think these things have to be brought up, is that the claims that she makes are so wild because she does say that she had Ghislain and Epstein's baby. She makes the claim that she actually had the baby, and there's a lot of obsessive content about guilt and feeling like that she failed the child and all of these things. So there's a lot in the journals about that, and I don't know we don't have any evidence that that's true. So that becomes where if we had more evidence that we knew for a fact we could prove that there had been a child, it would be much easier to say these are absolutely credible and here's exactly where it links. But I don't think that we have that evidence.
So I think the credibility of these by some people are pro it's probably brought into question.
Speaker 1: You're talking about so there's a lady that talked about her baby being taken ten minutes after birth.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And there's descriptions of very vivid descriptions of how the baby was taken, things that Ghislain mentioned, all written in the journal. Is that the one you're referring to?
Speaker 0: Yes. That's the one I'm referring to because I believe it's all the same person. This is my understanding.
Speaker 1: So I've got it here. I've got the tweet here, and it does look the journal looks very similar to yours, the artistic journal. Mhmm. And, yeah, she does have a very detailed description of her baby being taken. It's very very disturbing to read.
So from those documents and and what you've read on that one, does how so could it be when you say a victim might have fabricated some some allegations, does it mean because some people are very binary about it. Either everything's been fabricated or everything's completely a 100% accurate. But in in a lot of these cases, if you look up criminal, you know, different stories about similar allegations made, a lot of these victims might get a story that's factually true, that's horrific as well, but then make it into something more dramatic or more detailed. Is that the case in this in this instance? Do you think it could be the case?
Speaker 0: I it's certainly possible, and that's what's so frustrating about this is we need just a little bit more information from a forensic standpoint because a big part of what I do is forensic analysis where I can say, these certainly look authentic. Whatever she's writing certainly doesn't seem like it's creative writing, but somebody might say, well, is this somebody who's connected to reality? Does she believe some of these happen these things happen and they didn't? It does seem very clear that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. I think that that, from my understanding, seems more provable.
But, yeah, it's possible that some of what she says is in fact true. Some of it may not be. And that's that's why just a few more pieces of evidence would really go a long way to be able to say, yes. Now we can prove that not only were these written by this person, but there's some real verifiable facts that that make us believe that the whole thing is likely true. But, yeah, can
Speaker 1: prove Can I ask you one other question? Why are some names redacted, some not? Because we saw in that example you've given, Clinton was very clear. It was Clinton. It said former president and then mentioned Chelsea.
So it's very easy to connect the dots. But in the instance of what could be Trump, the name was redacted whoever that is, but it's as you're saying, the number of letters and then having Ivanka there. Why do you think some names are redacted, others not?
Speaker 0: I think that this is just my guess. I think they probably used a combination of AI and manual redactions. So I think that some of it was just missed because of the sheer volume of this. You know, a document like this is kind of odd in the sense that it's handwritten. Some of it's cut and pasted.
There's all this weird stuff. So I think that it's mainly just that it wasn't a my guess would be they would have redacted more had they actually known that all of this was in there. So I think that was just an unintentional mistake.
Speaker 1: We do know that there were errors made because some of the files were removed after the release. There's been thousands of files that were later removed from the from the website, which that would only happen and the the excuse I mean, the reason that was given is, like, some names that should have been redacted were not redacted. Some information should not be there. So mistakes were obviously made.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. That seems very clear that there were there were were a lot of errors with the redaction process. So I I suspect they would have redacted more on this had they had an awareness of it. I just think the sheer volume of this probably overwhelmed everybody involved.
It's such a an absurd amount of information. Agree.
Speaker 1: I'd let you continue going.
Speaker 0: Sure. So we'll go on to some other emails at this point, because I think, you know, there's there's plenty that can be talked about with this, but I don't wanna spend too much time on her. You know, there's a few pictures I have in here that I just that just stood out to me, so I thought I would talk a little bit about what each one is. One of the things that if you've looked at any of Epstein's information, any of his pictures at any length, you'll see that there are so many pictures of massage, like just thousands of pictures of people getting massages. He talks about massage.
A big part of Epstein to understand him is to understand that he had highly fetishized massage. He had these desires and impulses based on everything I've looked at. This is what I've I believe forensically about this is that he would want all of these girls that would get hired to do certain things. He would hope they would come to it on their own during these massages. He had these weird sexual fantasies around that.
And I think that most of it was he ultimately had to tell them what he wanted, But there was this highly fetishized fantasy world around massage, and he was just obsessed with it. I think so much of his life revolves around that. So why there's so much of a focus on massage is because I think it was a very specific fetish for him, actually.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I've seen a lot of these videos. A lot of these a lot of these images, but a lot of them had, again, significant redactions on there. So you could see there's someone next to someone, someone on top of someone, there's some of him chasing someone, etcetera. But there was just way too much redacted.
That shows beyond someone's face. The redaction was so vast that was really hard to connect the dots. But Mhmm. An easy thing through the emails and through the files we've had before and we have now is that he was obsessed with with massages. Obviously, the only issue is that the people giving the massage wear, not of age.
Speaker 0: That's right. And so so what I think that he that Maxwell was trying to do, she was basically his handler in a sense where she went, okay. I have this fantasy that I want to indulge this super rich guy on. I'm going to get the the the perfect girls for him. She would try to set these up and would try to pick people that would make him happy, that would do the things that she thought he would want.
And so I don't think it oftentimes worked out the way that she planned, but I think that that was the the role that she played. She was trying to find people to indulge Epstein in the things that she thought he wanted. So it was her attempt to create I think that she probably looked at him, like, a bit as almost childlike in the sense that she was trying to create this fantasy for him so that he could live in this weird little fantasy world. And his fantasies just rarely played out the way he wanted, I think. Yeah.
So that that's sort of my my hypothesis with with Maxwell. Some of these are just weird pictures that I found because I just think I always think it's a little bit interesting to see the kinds of strange things that he engage in. I'm gonna scroll through this pretty quickly. This is Brett Ratner with there. We've heard him talk about the fact that he said he wasn't close with Epstein, that this was him with his, fiance, I believe.
You know, I I I do think it's interesting, the way that even people that say they're not close with Epstein, how comfortable they seem partying with him. Let me see. You know, they just they're they're acting in ways that I probably wouldn't if it wasn't somebody I was really close with. So I don't know if it's just the environment that Epstein makes, if he just makes people feel loose and wanna party with him like this, but it it's there's just no shortage of celebrities near him.
Speaker 1: More than there there's I can't remember who it was that was in their underwear. It was I feel like it was a sense of security beyond security, a sense of, like, no one could touch us. We could do nowhere in that little protected cocoon. Anything we do, you know, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas type mentality Yeah. Which is pretty common when you're that powerful and have that much influence.
Sure. And we're seeing that through those videos and photos. That level of comfort is that some people and this is a different discussion. The the claims is that not claims, really. It's it's becoming almost, you know, proof facts, especially as you go through the emails.
Is that Epstein use that as as a way to gain significant material that eventually backfired on on on his life. But Yeah. It seems from everything everything we've we've we've we've gone I've I think I've gone through Yeah. It from the code words, from the sense of comfort they were given, from how everything was planned, and the vulnerable positions these people were placed in. Also, the fact that photos and videos were taken in these positions, people with much younger girls, you know, prince Andrew laying over another girl, just shows that it must have been orchestrated for a certain purpose.
But I'll I'll let you continue going through the material.
Speaker 0: No. But I I think you're right. To your point, I think you're right. I, you know, I just I scrolled through some of these pictures because I just thought it was interesting to see how even after he had been convicted in 2008, he still feels like he's totally in power. He still goes and hangs out with people.
He's he he doesn't mind being seen out in public, and people apparently don't mind being seen out with him. He is that he had that much sway and that much power. But I think that things have changed a lot since those times. I think that the opinion of the people are impervious to being, criticized or that that there are all powerful people that can get away with anything. I think that shifted some.
So it's interesting. I think Epstein might may sort of be the last of this kind of breed. But I thought these pictures, they just they kinda gross me out, but it shows if you look at, like, the body language, because, you know, we've talked about body language in a picture like this, you can see he almost aggressively has his his hand on somebody's leg. There's no show of warmth. He sees people as objects, and I can't overstate that.
I really think that when he's with women or girls or whoever, that he sees them as objects for his pleasure. I don't think that he sees a lot of humanity in people. Like, they are there for him. It just he doesn't look comfortable with people. He just looks like they're there for him.
So whenever he's touching people, they don't look close. They don't look intimate. They just look I just think he loves to be in control. I think that he really got off on that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and if you go through some of the emails, I know you're still going through them. A lot of them talk about people or in this case, chill you know, children and teenagers as objects. I've got a 10 year old girl for you. We can go there.
There's a lot of young girls. I'm paraphrasing here. You know, so many emails out there. But the way that they were described just does not show any sincerity whatsoever.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's it's just you know, and that's what you have to understand about people that are and and by the way, the pictures I'm scrolling through once again, I just found some interesting pictures. I always am fascinated just how much of his life was documented. But, know, as we're talking about this, I'll get to some of the emails. But, truly, I cannot overstate how literal I'm being when I talk about people like Jeffrey Epstein see people as objects.
For normal functioning adults, you don't see people as objects. You may not like everybody you meet, but you don't see them as almost inanimate. And for people like Jeffrey Epstein, like, they are there for his pleasure. They are not people. He doesn't find the humanity in other people.
They're there to to serve him and to to create pleasure.
Speaker 1: Why do you think so much of it was documented?
Speaker 0: Probably because he thought he was invincible. It'd be my guess is that he loves having the power to have all of this stuff documented that he I don't know if it's for himself or so he can show other people, but there's just think about we've got, what, twenty, thirty thousand or I don't know how many pictures. 200,000. It's some absurd number of pictures. So, yeah, he just and it was he wasn't the one taking the pictures, so he just had people documenting everything.
You know? I I think that he felt that powerful. I'll scroll through this very quickly, but this is some of the celebrities that he was with. This is from an old document dump, but I just what struck me in this is how much joy Bill Clinton has on his face. I mean, he does not look like he could be having a better time than he is having than when he's with Jeffrey Epstein.
Every picture he's having in and around the time he's spending with Epstein just seems like he's having the time of his life. So it just really struck me as to to of all the people, Clinton seems to be having the best time out of anybody, and that seems pretty consistent.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And talking you mentioned how many photos. There's a 180,000 images, 2,000 videos. Mhmm. And, obviously, over 3,000,000 pay documents pages of documents.
Speaker 0: Unreal amount of information. You know, I I I picked
Speaker 1: this up. This is this is where it gets really tricky for a lot of people is is anyone that was within his proximity because he was also a businessman. He was a financier. He was Yeah. Most likely a spy.
He was doing a lot of political work. We've seen him talking about politics in Syria, politics in The Middle East, Russia connecting someone to Putin, and, obviously, Israel meeting Ehud Barak countless times. So, you know, there's kinda two sides to him. There's one that's there's a very successful businessman and and and and and lobbyist Yeah. And people that met him for that purpose, know, entrepreneurs wanting to raise money.
And he's got others that were meeting him for his very sick life that is coming out in these finals.
Speaker 0: Mhmm. Yeah. And it's Andrew seems to be one that he I think he understood and knew Epstein very well, and I think that he is another person that felt invulnerable in a sense. You know, he called himself the invisible man in some of these emails. So he's someone that was pretty cavalier, I think, with what he was doing.
And then once it all started to to fall apart, he was the one that really got scared the most. He he's he was not he doesn't seem like he was built for this kind of lifestyle. Epstein seems to just be like, whatever. But Prince Andrew seemed quite quite alarmed by the whole thing once it started closing in. So here's a couple of emails that stood out to me.
There was him and president Trump. People obviously wanna know a lot more about their connections. Epstein almost universally talks about president Trump in very pejorative terms. He talks he makes fun of him a lot. He seems to refer to him basically as an idiot.
He thinks that, you know, that that he's mean spirited, he's unlikable, all of these things. So I just found a couple of stories where he talked about president Trump that that I thought were interesting. On this on this one right here, he was talking to Landon Thomas junior, who he sends a lot of emails to. And he basically was explaining that if you read the feed and my airplane logs at the Hawaiian Tropic contest, have them ask my housemen about Donald about Donald almost walking through the door, leaving his nose print on the glass as young women were swimming in the pool. He was so focused, he walked straight into the door.
He has a lot of stories like this because I think he loves the power of being able to say, I can embarrass somebody that is in power. Like, not only do I not like Donald Trump anymore, but I can embarrass him because of everything I know about him. So he loves telling people about things like Trump or telling people how stupid he they think he he thinks he is. Like, right here, he says, you know, they were talking about whether or not Trump has dementia, and he's saying, you be the judge. Wasn't there a time where he's at least completed sentences?
And Jeffrey Epstein replies, no. He was always stupid. So these things are very consistent. I do not think that there are lot of positive feelings about president Trump at all. Now something else that stood out to me because I I was fascinated by Sarah these are reportedly by Sarah Ferguson.
And she had emailed Jeffrey Epstein a couple of times, and this is one where there might be some credence lent to the idea that he has a child, as we talked about a little bit ago. She had said, and and if you look in the lower half, don't know if you were still on this, but heard from the duke that you had a baby boy. Even though you never kept in touch, I am still here with love, friendship, and congratulations on your baby boy, Sarah. So, clearly, at some point, Epstein said told prince Andrew, yeah. I I have a baby boy somewhere, I guess.
And, you know, because Sarah Ferguson really seems to like Jeffrey Epstein. She seems to have a real kinship with him. She seems to care about him and wants to be liked by him. And this was 2011. This was way after he was he was sent to prison for the first time.
And, you know, as as she says above, you've disappeared. I did not even know you were having a baby. It was so crystal clear to me that you were only friends with me to get to Andrew, and that really hurt me deeply more than you will know. And it's so interesting because I don't think of Jeffrey Epstein as being a particularly charismatic guy. Maybe that's just that I haven't gotten to see him in his element, but he doesn't he comes across as kind of weird and awkward.
And I I find it so interesting that she's has such a kinship with him.
Speaker 1: I agree. I was watching his interview with Steve Bannon that came out as well, and I was trying to find out how does someone like that was able to to charm so many people, business and, you know, through through his sick fantasies. Sarah Ferguson, who's the ex wife of prince Andrew, in those emails, it's it's pretty clear that there was something there. Yeah. Something more than just a friendship.
Now in terms of is there any other evidence about Epstein having a child? Any anything else in the files? Because it's been mentioned a few times.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Not much else just other than there are people I'm trying to remember who it was. There are a couple of people that have said that he I think Virginia Dufres had said that Maxwell wanted her to get pregnant with their baby or something like that. So other people have made reference to him want for him wanting to have children, but I don't think anything else about him actually having a child. There there are a number of references, which I think was up here actually, about people him freezing eggs for people, or people saying that they want to freeze their eggs.
So there's definitely some questions about reproduction, and he talks to his physician about if he's the right guy, if they need to do that, those things. So there definitely are references to it, but this is the only concrete idea that he actually has a child that I have found.
Speaker 1: As you continue going through your files, another thing I wanna get your thoughts on is the reference to pizza we talked about earlier. I'll give you another example here. Epstein sends a message to someone. She looks pregnant reacting to a photo. And the client replies back to Epstein.
You mean radiating a soft glow with the look of bliss and excitement? Yeah. That's the pizza. I I just it cannot be clearer than this that this is a code word. It makes no sense in that context whatsoever.
And this on top of the example I gave you earlier when his a virologist gave him the, I think, the the medicine for for having an erection, erectile dysfunction, I assume, and or maybe even Viagra, and then told him to wash his hands, go have pizza and grape soda. As been mentioned time and time again, you know, having adult men, successful men that are very health oriented constantly talk about pizza and pizza with grape soda, which I've never heard before.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I've I've never heard of pizza and grape soda before this. I'm I don't know if I don't know if that specific combination was part of the whole pizzagate thing, but it's definitely mentioned a lot. Because I I saw that phrase, So I looked it up and was like, is this actually, like, in there multiple times? And it most definitely is.
There's another
Speaker 1: one here. Have you seen the beef jerky mentions as well? There's an email here from Jeffrey Epstein. Someone else says Francis Mhmm. Francis has time to come tomorrow to show me how to make it.
Jerky anyone? He will also bring you also bring you a taste of his jerky recipe from the restaurant and sends a warm hello. He's working at a restaurant called Cook's Wait For It beef jerky and steak. He has time at 3PM. There's other emails of of him talking about beef jerky.
Another one here is sending Jeffrey Epstein sending it to Steve Hansen saying, hope you're feeling better. Did we analyze the beef as did we analyze the jerky? Now there's talks about jerky talk you know, referencing human meat. It could be for scientific research. It could be something else that's even sicker.
There's there's more emails here talking about beef jerky. Have you had time to go through those? There's one here. Thank you so much. Super cool IT guy setting up surface right now.
We are ridiculously excited. And beef jerky, delicious. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thanksgiving. So yeah.
Speaker 0: It it is very no. I've I've got all those emails saved. I'd actually had somebody send to me all of those to say, hey. Would you check this out? So I have them.
I have not read through all of them, but there's no shortage of terms that are phrased in a peculiar way. Muffin is another one. I've seen that a couple of times. I talked about when he says whoops, that that seems to be in very some some sometimes he says that in very odd terms that seem like they're referring to somebody dying or getting killed. So there definitely seem to be code words.
So the the pizza and grape soda thing, here's one example of that. So, yeah, this is better than a Chinese cookie. See attached. Let's go for pizza and grape soda again. No one else can understand understand.
Go go no or go I don't know what I was supposed to say, but there there actually is a picture later on from one of his friends of actual pizza and grape soda. But what this does is that if you went to law enforcement, said, I know there's something to this, then they went through and started going through. They'd say, well, he took a picture of pizza and grape soda. It would never go anywhere just based on things like that. So Or it could be or it could
Speaker 1: be a practical joke. Like, you know, if their friends and and let's say pizza and grape soda references, you know, little girls below the age of 18 or or even below the age of 16. If that's what it references as a dark, sick joke, one of the friends could just take a photo of pizza and grape soda as a joke like, hey.
Speaker 0: You know? That's right. Absolutely. So it it doesn't prove anything other than if law enforcement was to start looking at this, they would look at that and go, well, it's literal. You need to you're being crazy.
Stop it. So, you know, it's it benefits them to do those kinds of things even if it is a reference to something else because there's a photo of that. That immediately would negate a lot of the potential interest that law enforcement might have in something like that. So there are little things like that that all of a sudden change the dynamic. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And and just, you know, what's weird is just having so many emails talking about things like this, like beef jerky here. Another email subject is beef jerky. A small insulated bag would be just fine. I wouldn't recommend checking it. No need for crazy amounts of ice.
One should do the titles as beef jerky. High redacted. There's one bag of beef jerky in the fridge at seventy seventy first. Please get it. And, also, Redacted has more at her place.
Please get it from her as well and bring it all with you. I suppose it needs to be in a cold insulated bag. Right? Now I'm not a cook. Just silly question.
Beef jerky, do you need to put it in a cold insulated bag?
Speaker 0: The whole point of having beef jerky is you can, like you never have to refrigerate it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Exactly my point. So you got a beef jerky selling and put it in a cold insulated bag. And in the email prior saying no need for crazy amounts of ice. So you agree there's just there's just too many indicators that this is more than just food. And
Speaker 0: It's worth food and food for Yes. Like, there there are some that it's you know, the the one thing I I try to be careful with is I don't wanna say every to beef jerky is something awful because there are some people whose names aren't redacted. Maybe it's just an innocent email about beef jerky, but there certainly seems to be more to it, and it's definitely something that's worth exploring more for sure, especially the refrigerated part. That makes no sense for anybody who has any understanding of how food works whatsoever. So that is weird.
Speaker 1: Agree. There's another, and and that kinda links to your last video that you said you have more information on. If don't mind, I wanna skip to this because that that's one that I want Yeah. Fascinating to me. So one of the bigger conspiracy theories is that Epstein's alive.
A lot of people are putting out files in there. Those his gaming account was active again, and I think Fortnite said, no. This is someone else buying it. Yeah. You know, a prank renaming their account to Epstein's.
But there's certain indicators. My team posted earlier today about having a another so when they were taking his body to the morgue, I think it was, or to the hospital Yeah. I think it was to the morgue. They had another body there to distract the press. So that was just came out today.
Mhmm. There's, I think, other emails. I can't remember what it was. I'll let you go through your file on him potentially escaping from from jail. But there are there is a lot of things that at least makes this a valid question.
And when you add everything else that was considered a conspiracy just a few months ago, a few years ago, and now it's turning out to be true, the pizza being the most obvious one after the whole pizza gate thing. I think it's worth discussing the possibility, even though I think it's unlikely he knows too much to be alive, but at least the possibility with someone with that many connections, that much money, that much influence potentially being alive.
Speaker 0: It's one of those comments that I would get from people when I would release videos. Oh, he's not he wasn't killed in prison. He's still alive. He escaped here and there. And I to be honest, I never lend any credence to them.
I was like, it just I don't I didn't make fun of people that said that, but I didn't agree. I was like, that just doesn't make sense. But now that I found this, which I'll go over, I at least have to consider the possibility that he tried or that he wanted to that he wanted to escape. And that also points to the idea that that if he died, it was not by his own hand. Because if somebody's truly planning to escape, whether he did it or not, I think he was at least going to try.
And I think that he had hoped that he could get out of this situation. People with his personality type typically do. So the idea that he did it himself seems like the least likely of all of the different options we have. But, yeah, I have to consider the possibility he's still alive, which sounds makes me sound crazy to say it. But
Speaker 1: I think nothing nothing you could say, and I'll let you go through the piece of paper that was scribbled on in jail and what you could decipher from it. But nothing, to be honest, nothing right now could be considered crazy until we get some answers. There's also I'm not sure. Have you gone through the forensics images? There's people comparing the dead body and the shape of the ear to Epstein's shape of the ear?
Have you had a chance to look at that?
Speaker 0: I'm gonna just go through this pretty quickly, but I wanted to give a little context to make sure that people understood this isn't just some random note that we found. There is a literal chain of of where it was found. And what we're looking at right here, this is l tier. This is where Jeffrey Epstein was housed in what's called the SHU, the special housing unit where all of these special prisoners are, basically. So in this tier, he was immediately to the right.
And when you go in, this is what was found postmortem. This is what his room looked like after his body was found. Just covered in way more sheets and blankets than they were supposed to be. It was supposed to be a fraction of this amount of stuff there. And so when we go in there, this is not the noose that that that was found around his neck.
That's missing from my understanding. I don't think anybody's ever actually recovered that, but this is where he would have been hanging. And if we keep going, there were a couple of notes, this little piece of paper here. Although, this one's not consequential. This was from a different inmate.
I didn't cover it because it it didn't have so much relevance. But this note right here as well as this one right here were found in his cell. Now we had these pictures a couple of months ago, and I always wanted to know what they said because I thought it would probably be interesting. What we found really surprised me. So I'm gonna show this to you, and then I'm gonna show you my translations because, obviously, looking at this, nobody's gonna be able to look at that and really read it because it just looks like a a big mess, and it took me forever to translate.
But I'm gonna explain what I think we have found. So this with I I I'm gonna go over what all of this means. I believe that this was an escape plan. So this is him thinking about getting out of getting out of prison, where he would go, and how he would do it. There are a couple of things on here that I might actually explain.
I might have gotten wrong, but we'll we'll talk about that. But as far as I'm concerned, that's precisely what this is. What that says is that either he wanted to get out or he did get out. It's to me, it seems to be either one of the other. So, so I'll I'll start here just to it's such a mess.
I'm gonna try to organize this as best as I can in terms of the way that I read it, and I I'll get to as much of it as
Speaker 1: I can. What does his handwriting what does his handwriting say about his personality as a person?
Speaker 0: It says that he's impulsive. People with ADHD, people that are impulsive, they have handwriting like this because their brain in some ways works faster than their hands do, so it's just a big messy scribble. Sometimes they also have fine motor skill issues when it comes to writing. My handwriting looks, to be honest, looks almost identical to this. And so in some ways, it's easier for me to read because I have really bad ADHD.
So, you know, I know why that so I know it when I see it, but that that tells me that he's an impulsive person. He's not somebody that writes carefully. He also writes emails like this. They're a mess. But what stood out to me first, what I noticed first because it was very easy to read, and I'll go back for a second, is you'll see underlined, it says red notice right in the middle there.
Red notice equals EXT. I wrote extradition there. He didn't write that, but that's clear what extradition stands for. And for anybody that is not familiar with a red notice, my understanding is that it's basically an alert to EnerPol for when there's a fugitive. They're gonna have a a red notice in their system.
So if they go to an airport or if they try to check-in somewhere, it will flag it so that they can then be extradited to the country where they're wanted, where the country where where they're a fugitive from. So so as I as I first saw that, that made me go, okay. If he's thinking about red notices, where is his state of mind? What are we getting into here if Jeffrey Epstein is worried about a red notice? Because that's not something that would happen in America.
You don't have red notices in America. You have them elsewhere because Interpol doesn't really have that type of jurisdiction in America for American citizens. At least not I don't think they do. But that's not something that Americans would typically talk about, red notices. Most won't have ever heard of one before.
So if he's thinking about that, let's look at what he's the the all of these points he's looking at above the red notice because the red notice has an arrow pointing up to this circle, which says, which I think says m I a u s. Even though some of the biggest letters, it's so scribbled out, it's a little bit hard to read. But that's my best guess as to what It
Speaker 1: does look M I A like M I A. Yes. MIA US. So that So missing in The US.
Speaker 0: Yes. Missing, yeah, missing in action in The US or missing in The US. But if you look at all of the different items surrounding it, visas, obviously, for travel, they need to be fake, but he need visas. No rights. He he would which either means he'd have no rights in The US or he might have less rights in what other country he's thinking in.
Rights tourism right here. So maybe posing as a tourist, going somewhere where there is tourism. EXT tax, I I believe that's a reference to estate tax. So if he fakes his death and he and there has to be estate tax, how much is that going to impact his finances and so on and so forth? Banks.
Now this is where people disagree with me after banks. Now this, I wrote b l e c h I l like I thought it was a name with dollar signs after it. Now if we go back, I've had a number of people email me that they think it says blackmail. The letter to me looks more like an e than an a, but it could say blackmail with dollar signs next to it. That is possible.
That's just not how I interpret it, and I still think it looks like an e.
Speaker 1: So it'd but that would make that would make sense considering all the material that he has, that he'd be using that for blackmail to be able to escape The US and go to another country. So he's he still has hope. You know, someone like him, someone who's Yeah. Again, very entrepreneurial in in their mind. Nothing's impossible.
He's in jail. He's like, alright. Well, how can I get out of here? This is my plan. Whether it's feasible or not is is another discussion.
He's going through all his various options. So if there's a red notice out for his name, he's gonna be missing missing in The US. Then he's gonna find a country. Is he gonna post to tourist tourist or go to a country that has a lot of tourism? He has no you know, he has no rights in The US.
He needs to to go to a country that has rights. Does he need a visa to get to that country? Are you talking about estate tax? Where does his money go? Banks, what banks he has.
And lastly, is the blackmail. Who can he blackmail to be able to achieve his escape plan?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Absolutely. So all of these items to me suggest that he was in fact considering escape. I mean, he had to have been thinking about all this. I mean, if we look below that, it's interesting.
Right below the blackmail or the name, it says guards. So whether that's he needs guards, whether or not that he's thinking talking about the prison guards, you could take that either way. But he's clearly as he's talking about money and blackmail, he is also referencing the fact that there are, there are guards, which I I I think is is certainly relevant. And then if we go down a little bit more, this a couple of other things that really stood out to me about this. On the left hand side or or underneath red notice, you see it says Mara, and it says gangsters, it says extort, kidnap, whether or not he's considering that as for himself, whether what all of that means.
I'm gonna continue to analyze this as much as I can. Mara has mentioned some in the Epstein files, but it it doesn't seem to be connected to this from what I can tell. But if you look at q and s a now I interpreted that as probably Qatar, Saudi Arabia, so maybe that's that's how he would travel somewhere, or maybe those are different places he could live. We do know we do know that
Speaker 1: he had he he did he was part of the the Iran contra, you know, controversy back then, and he had a lot of business in Saudi. He traveled to Saudi. As we said, he traveled to Saudi days before Khashoggi was assassinated. Yeah. You know, had I think he had close ties to Qatar as well.
I'm not sure. I know he had a UAE official that visited him. So he had a lot of close ties in The Middle East. He did a lot of lot of work in The Middle East. I think he worked for one of his clients was one of the largest weapon smugglers in the world.
So and they did a lot of work in The Middle East as well. And, obviously, Israel, Ahud Barak, the connections there.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. And, yes,
Speaker 1: he had fake I'm not sure if he he did have fake pass passports as well. Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's I was actually just getting into some of that today because I'm I think that all of us that are researching this, there's so much information. We're all constantly juggling what we're looking at at any given moment. So everything is constantly evolving. What I thought was kind of fascinating below it, just a couple of last things about this.
One is that I think that he drew a private airport right here because this really does look to me exactly where it says Brad. To me, that looks exactly like a private airport, this low, flat, large building. There's just not a lot of buildings that look like that. So to me, this was him drawing a private airport right below where he said jet US prop because you'd have to think about jurisdictional issues. You'd have to consider whether or not the plane or the jet is US property.
That really is the kind of question that Jeffrey Epstein would have been considering and thinking about because that could have to do with seizure and all of these other different things. And I put these pictures over here because this is the closest private airport, which to me looks similar to his to his illustration. So to me, whether or not it's literally Teterboro Airport or somewhere else, he has a specific airport in mind. So he's really giving a lot of thought to this.
Speaker 1: And just, I've just checked now with the team. He did have a fake Austrian passport that had, it showed entry stamps to countries like Far Spain and The UK and Saudi, where he also had a residence in Saudi as well. Sorry. He didn't have a res he listed his residence in Damam, Saudi.
Speaker 0: So when people talk about him being in Tel Aviv, I think it's far more likely that he would be somewhere like Saudi or I I don't think he would be in Nigeria, but he could be. So I I I think Tel Aviv is less likely than some of the other places, actually.
Speaker 1: I I think that the reason people link it to Tel Aviv is because of the relation with Uhud Barak. A lot of people say he was a Mossad agent. He did a lot of work for Mossad, did a lot of blackmail and honeypot operations for Mossad. Yeah. Now the deeper you dig into this, it just looks like he worked for multiple intelligence agencies, and he was an asset for multiple agencies, which include Mossad.
And Saudi intelligence. Been been a lot of speculation that he was part of the Saudi intelligence as well. Recent allegations of him being connected to Russia in some way. I haven't looked into these. And, obviously, the CIA, you know, it's hard not to have some connection to the CIA for you're working with other intelligence agencies and you're living in The US.
Speaker 0: Yep. Absolutely. So it's it's so when people settle on the fact he's definitely in Israel, I'm not convinced of that actually. If he's I mean and I think that the idea that he's alive remote. I I think that he likely is not.
But if he is, I think that he would be less likely to be in Israel, more likely to be in one
Speaker 1: of these countries. I think I I I'd be I wouldn't be surprised if what you've shown what you showed us was an escape plan. Someone like him, you'd expect him not to give up easily. Sure. Trying to understand how his mindset works.
And and, you know, he's he was in jail years before he was he was he died or got killed. So he's
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Been through adversity beforehand, got out of it, Scott Freeze still, powerful man, meeting other powerful people. Would have expected to get out of it again as he has the first time. And having an escape plan as a last resort maybe shows desperation that he needs an escape plan instead of just relying like, it will happen. They'll get me out. Intelligence x y zed or a b c person will get me out.
But when he an argument would be made is, like, he might have felt his life is threatened. He knew that someone might come after him in jail or they're not supporting him anymore, connected the dots. You're like, I need to get out of here before
Speaker 0: something has to Well so a piece that that from July 23 on July 23 was the first time that it was claimed that he tried to harm himself because he was found with a noose around his neck. He claimed that he was assaulted by another inmate. And but then afterward, they asked him again, and he just didn't wanna talk about it. So he never claimed that again. He never said he did it himself, but his initial claim was that somebody tried to kill him, actually.
So that was on July 23. Then once he was released from observation on July 29, the cameras all stopped working magically. So so all of the video cameras stopped working the day he was released back into the special housing unit. So there is something to that. He very well I don't see how he couldn't have been afraid for his life given that he at least initially, he claimed to have been attacked by somebody else just a few days
Speaker 1: Apparently, new footage that came out that showed a man in an orange jumpsuit walking. Have you seen that one as well?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Walking to his do a a video on it, I think, actually. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So what's that about? What do we know about that?
Speaker 0: Okay. So now this is I'll explain this as best as I can, as quickly as I can. But, basically, there were two, correctional officers that were there that night that were supposed to do rounds, like, every thirty minutes. They didn't do them. They they they announced to everybody, we're not doing our rounds tonight, which is pretty unusual in and of itself.
But we've seen by the all of the reports have stated over and over again. The last time that she went up to his, unit was 10:39, I think, or or around 10:30. And after that, she did not go back until 06:30AM. It is repeated over and
Speaker 1: over again.
Speaker 0: Nobody went up there. Yeah. The prison guard. Sorry. The prison guard.
And and they were very clear. Nobody else went up there the whole night. Absolutely nobody was allowed up there the night that night. The office of the inspector general of the DOJ has said this repeatedly. However, we do see somebody walking up the stairs at little after 12:00.
What we're seeing now is that they they had noticed that, and they said it could either be an inmate or somebody carrying linens. But there's absolutely no evidence anywhere elsewhere or set stated by anybody that anybody went up there after 10:39. So nobody claims to have gone up there. So that's why we think it could have been in there.
Speaker 1: The amount of the amount of gaslighting in this is insane. Like, we're like we see someone that walks up. You told us there was no one there. Oh, it must have been a mistake. Let's just move on.
Yeah. It's insane the way they treat us. I wanna show you one more thing. Not sure if you've gone through this one. Yeah.
Could be could be, again, some things might look like, you know, some big conspiracy that end up being,
Speaker 0: you know,
Speaker 1: kind of a nothing burger. But have you seen the the the document, the the the DOJ press release about his death? And the date there and there's a few explanations that were given. I've got another tweet on it. I'll find it later.
But, essentially, the the document is dated August 9. But he was found dead, not and now pronounce that. He was found, you know, dead, you know, trying to hang himself or or someone trying to hang him August 10, 06:30 or 06:33 in the morning. So the question is why is the press release dated August 9? Now one of the explanations, the most, I would say, plausible explanation, we'll see if it makes sense in your eyes, is that there was a press release that was written for something else related to Epstein.
And when they found out he died, they just went to the same press release instead of writing a new one, reworded the whole thing, say, hey. Earlier this morning, the correction center correctional center found that Jeffrey Epstein, who faces charges, blah blah blah. Yep. And was found unresponsive in his cell and pronounced dead shortly thereafter. But my question is that why would you I'm not sure if you've seen this, but why would you go to a press release that were I'm sure it would have been completely unrelated about something to do with this case or the investigation and just edit that talking about the death.
Speaker 0: I don't think that's plausible because if it was, then the day they started editing it would be the day that it was updated, which would still be the tenth. So that still doesn't explain why it would be the ninth.
Speaker 1: Exactly. That's another unanswered question that no one's is giving explanation
Speaker 0: what they did. That means they were editing it on the ninth, which makes it even worse. So maybe it was based on a template, but it was not one that was written on the ninth, if if it was a template. And if it was accessed, it would meant it would have been accessed the day before. So, yeah, none of that looks good.
Obviously, somebody could just be wrong. Maybe they were being sloppy and thought it was Friday the the ninth instead of Saturday the tenth, but that's the only reasonable explanation if somebody just got the date wrong. But it does look bad.
Speaker 1: There's another document here. Like, I didn't even know that one. Just to give you the an ID, if you put the the tweet back up, Lisa or KK, the one I was just talking about, and you click on the one that is quote tweeted that I didn't even know about and that the team posted, why was the Bureau of Prisons shredding documents after Epstein's death? A worker at the Manhattan jail where Epstein died said staff were, quote, shredding everything, bags of paperwork tossed straight into the dumpster. And I didn't even know about that one.
Like, if you click on so that's a tweet. If you click on the one that's quote tweeted in that tweet, there it is. That's that's what I'm just talking now. I I I didn't know about that one. So the list goes on and on, the amount of unanswered questions.
That's why I made the joke earlier. We're gonna have content for months because, like, I feel like people like yourself and others out there, journalists, and just the average person are doing the work that the FBI is meant to do. And on one side, I tip my hat to the FBI because it shows how difficult their work is trying to piece all these things together. On the other hand, it's just embarrassing that the the public is having to do the work of the intelligence that they're meant to trust.
Speaker 0: Well, what what really gets me is that the the report the official report by the office of the inspector general of the DOJ, who which is really the watchdog, even that report is just full of errors. And some things seem like they're it's it's either sloppy or it's intentionally wrong, and that's neither one's good, but it it's the the the quality of the work that's done there is questionable. And so, yeah, it when you go through and look at that, it takes five minutes to look at other documents to go, there's so much wrong here. Like, this is just not true. Nothing that's being said here is is actually direct or accurate.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'd love to to do this with you again, doctor, because I know you cover it so extensively. For the next one, what I'd love to do is I'm I've got I made a list of, emails, and I'll send it to you in advance, of emails that just sound so weird, and I'm trying to understand them. They're probably the most questionable things I found. So what I'd love to do is kinda send that out to you, and we kinda go through them and get your analysis on them, what you think.
Because you've just gone through and I think more people need to do this because there's just all these different investigators that are going through segments of the files, and they spot things that other people don't spot. And I think having different people focus on different areas of it, kinda do cross collaboration, talking about what each of them has found would be very helpful again doing the work of the FBI. But there's just so much there that would, you know, to go through over 3,000,000 files. You'd expect how many hours it would take.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I think they said if you stack all those up physically, it would be, like, you know, three times the height of, like, the Empire State. It's it's some absurd amount of files. So, yeah, it's it's near impossible to for one person to go through it all.
Speaker 1: From every all the names that are in the files, who do you think was the most, most implicated in in doing illegal stuff? Prob
Speaker 0: The one that is most definitive, if we're to consider a specific person, prince Andrew in the Virginia Jufre situation, that one looks the worst. That one seems like it is just case closed. They faked they they knew the photo photograph was real, which was the cornerstone of all of their arguments was that this fake picture of prince Andrew with her. That was always went back to that, and it's pretty much acknowledged or not pretty much. It's directly acknowledged by by Maxwell that that was in fact real.
So that completely obliterates any cover they had about that. So to me, that's the most case closed, you know, open and shut of of all of these.
Speaker 1: Essentially, an email from someone sent to Jeffrey. All it's an image. So someone sent that image. We don't know who. This is what drives me nuts, doctor.
This is an image sent, a JPEG image, and the email says just one thing, age 10. And the name of the sender is redacted. And just to imagine, like, this is the world we live in where this email there, an image, and it says age 10. This email there, the sender's redacted. Like, these are the exact people that should not be redacted.
They're redacted.
Speaker 0: And the subject is also redacted. So I don't know if it's the person's name or if it says something really perverse, but the fact that the subject's redacted too is also concerning.
Speaker 1: Is there any legal explanation for this? Any ploy it's not only this. Name is redacted. Has no one been no one's unless it's Ghislain Maxwell, Ghislain Maxwell, who's in jail right now. But then why would you redact her name?
So that's what we're dealing with.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. I it's without having more context or knowing more, it's hard to say what it is. It obviously looks terrible. The optics of it are terrifying and awful.
So, yeah, as far as what it is, you know, I I think we can assume what it is, but, yeah, the the fact that they over redact some of this is very frustrating. I wish that that we could get some clarity on this, particularly when they're coming out and saying, well, the FBI said there was no sex king. That was, like, yesterday or a day before. There was an article that was saying that. Was like, hold on.
Yeah. That feels like gaslighting. Like, we're we're looking through all this. That seems impossible to claim at this point.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And there's another one here. Last one I'll read out. Meet me at class 09:30. So many hot girls promise.
That was sent to Jeffrey Epstein as well. Yeah. Jeffrey Epstein. Harry NYC in New York City. 30 between six and seven.
So it's like many hot girls. So 30, I'm assuming 30 hot girls between the age of six and seven. Then we go matcha. Okay? Promise in an abundant promise in abundant of young pussy flesh.
Love a. They kept the a. We don't know who the a stands for.
Speaker 0: Well, I know somebody who used like Maxwell. No. But it's not. Yeah. Well, I'm not this would make no sense, but Andrew would sign
Speaker 1: it as a. But if Prince Andrew. Exactly.
Speaker 0: No context. So that would be pretty decent.
Speaker 1: The context wouldn't add up there. If it does, then this is a whole different story. But, again, that gives you an idea of the things that were redacted. And to kinda add insult to injury, like
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: These are some of the files that they have. After like, we don't know what was you know, we think we we know things were redacted, but if they were able to kill Epstein, if they were able to delay the this release for so many months and years Yeah. And no one to go to go to jail. And Ghislain Maxwell being treated the way she is and having that much influence and people talking about a potential pardon. I think Trump was asked about a pardon, and she he didn't rule it out, which is crazy to me.
If you add all these things up, I've always said, and I can't remember who I spoke I think it was Mike Benz when I spoke to him about this. I asked Mike. I'm like, can't they just delete some of the files? If there's files that are worse than what we're seeing right now, can I just wipe them out completely? And he's I Rocana asked congressman Rocana, and he said, yeah.
It's it's possible. We don't know what we don't know. They could have just kinda removed files completely from the system, and that's on the emails. Just imagine what's there via text and WhatsApps, things that would have just deleted, on the day start getting investigated.
Speaker 0: And one of the ways I tend to look through the files is I'll type in one of the file names and then type in the next one so that I can just keep looking through things in sequence. And sometimes there are big gaps, so there's definitely some that are missing for sure.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Absolutely. As we said, there's only they've released three point something million files out of six point something that they have. And and, again, there's also I only found that out recently as well. The files that they have, a big chunk of them, were from a hard drive that was with Epstein.
But when those hard drives when they got those hard drives, when you saw all these photos, a lot of these photos Yeah. Those hard drives, they didn't when they investigated Epstein, they didn't confiscate him from his house. They actually didn't take them because the warrant didn't allow them to take those hard drives, and they asked Epstein to send those hard drives to the FBI. So who knows what Epstein or his team would have removed from the hard drives? Kinda gives you an idea that what we're seeing right now, even if they release all the files and unredact all the names, could still be the tip of the iceberg, and it shows how bad this is.
But, doctor, I'd love to do this again. I can't wait for the next video you're gonna put out. Love your investigations. Much much respect.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it. I'd love to do this again too.
Speaker 1: Thank you, doctor.
reSee.it AI Summary
I bought Twitter to fix what I saw as a civilizational risk: it was captured by the radical left, silencing many on the right, including a sitting president. I believe true freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy and essential for informed voting. My aim is a public square with equal weight for all voices, so ideas can exchange without violence, because America’s strength matters to civilization.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
ELON: WE NEED A PUBLIC SQUARE WITH TRUE FREEDOM OF SPEECH “I just bought Twitter because I thought it was having a negative effect on civilization and pushed ideas that were anti-civilizational. It was captured by the far-left—I'd say it's fair to say the radical left. That meant it wasn't a good forum for debate because they suspended many people on the right, including the president, as you may recall, a sitting president, which is really unprecedented. I think we need to have a public square where there's true freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. If there's not freedom of speech, people cannot make an informed vote. The purpose of acquiring Twitter was to try to bring it more to the center. No left-wing voices have been banned or anything like that or suppressed. What we're trying to do is give equal weight to all parts of the country so that there can be a public town square where people can exchange ideas and hopefully not resort to violence. Free speech is the bedrock of democracy. It's why it's the First Amendment, because people came from countries where they could be killed or imprisoned for what they said. In fact, this is happening all around the world as we speak, even in places like Britain. I did it because I felt like the civilizational risk had to be addressed. If America is not strong, then what do businesses matter? America is the central pillar that holds up Western civilization, and if that pillar falls, everything falls.” Source: @elonmusk at Barron Investment Conference, November 2025
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇱🇺🇸 3.5-hour audio recording leaked: Epstein and former Israeli PM Ehud Barak discussing Tony Blair getting paid "gigantic" consulting sums, mass immigration to Israel, and business schemes. Barak told Epstein he wanted another million Russian immigrants to offset Arab population growth, saying Israel could "control the quality" of immigrants, "unlike our forefathers who brought people from North Africa." He proposed breaking the Orthodox rabbinate's monopoly and opening "gates for massive conversion into Judaism." They discussed Palantir, defense tech, oil deals, and how former leaders "make money" after leaving office. Barak's name appears 4,000+ times in the Epstein files. They met at least 30 times between 2013-2017. The recording is real. The relationship was deep. And it lasted years after Epstein's conviction. Source: Al Jazeera, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Middle East Eye, @SilentlySirs
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ehud: I don’t disagree with anything you said, and I don’t know who he trusts on these kinds of… Who the president really trusts. McDonough? The young guy. But he doesn’t—there was a Samantha Power—Power. No. The difference between who he trusts and who he likes. Larry Turner? She’s an idiot. I noticed that Obama listens to her. His door telephone is always open for her. He listens to her. He believes her instincts about politics, about who is against him, who is for him, what’s going around, who is hooking what from Chicago to the world.
Ehud: But it’s like, do you think Richard Nixon ultimately cared what he listened to, what B. D. Luloso thought?
Ehud: Listen to this: B. B. Robozo—Robozo was some kind of business, semi-corrupt business guy who was Richard Nixon’s best friend. And whenever Nixon went to Key Biscayne or California, B. B. Robozo was there. Nixon would spend a lot of time on B. B. Robozo’s boat. If B. B. Robozo wanted something, Nixon would stay. But I don’t think when Nixon was deciding what to do about open war, he was talking to B. B. Robozo.
Ehud: Valerie Jarrett. So—in this regard, he’s probably alone, but he feels, compared to other leaders I happened to meet in the last decades, Obama impressed me as an extremely autonomous person. He feels good with himself, even when he’s alone in the home. I didn’t see in him what we know in Clinton or in Our Palace. There is anxiety, a need for love, for explicit expressions of love, there’s deep within their personality. I didn’t see anything of this in him.
Obama: I’ve never seen that.
Ehud: There’s lots of things to say. Bob Reich told me a story—Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor—he said Clinton would look at him in a cabinet meeting, and if Clinton looked annoyed or looked away, Clinton would call within two days: “How’s it going, Bob? What’s up? Is there something on your mind?” Obama wouldn’t call. He had lunch alone half the days. He didn’t schedule time to be alone. If he did some event where he spoke to a thousand people, they would give him a little rest time afterwards. He’s human, too. It’s the same: he wants to be with the people. It’s a source of strength in tough moments in politics, probably not the most effective way to mobilize people.
Ehud: Another thing: President of the United States and you like to play golf. It’s a big asset. The President likes to play golf with his buddies—three guys: photographer, campaign guy, three buddies from Chicago. Most presidents played with members of Congress or business leaders; Obama is cerebral, and they gave him the nickname Black Jesus during the campaign. He has a sense of himself as not me, but he’s not like Clinton in that sense.
Ehud: On Iran, the discussion turned to the possibility of surgical operations vs. broader war. The Pentagon developed subtle scalpels, more effective than ours. The goal is to delay the Iranian program by years, but the regime’s strategy is to defend its continuity, to build immunity—regime immunity—against intervention. The Iranians are like Pakistan and North Korea in wanting to avoid being toppled; they want to reach a rational capability that deters intervention.
Ehud: The concern is time: for Israel, time is running out because Iran is expanding centrifuges, improving radars, and even GPS mines in the Strait of Hormuz. The regime’s calculation: they don’t have a timetable; they wait until they can secure immunity against external attempts. An election in Iran matters because it can delay or accelerate compromise, especially if the U.S. and partners are seen to be negotiating during an election year.
Ehud: There was also discussion of the Arab world: Egypt is practical, not purely ideological. The leaders are practical—engineers who understand the need to feed tens of millions, to maintain tourism, the Suez Canal, and the canal economy. The argument was that US leverage matters; Europe is seen as constrained. The topic of how to engage with the moderate Sunni world to isolate Iran and support a regional security framework with the U.S., Europe, moderate Arab states, and Israel was raised. The aim would be to block fundamentalist terror, improve missile defense, and coordinate on Iran.
Ehud: On Israel’s future, there was concern about a two-state approach versus a one-state reality. The Druze, Christians, and other minorities in Israel should be included, and there was advocacy for breaking the Orthodox rabbinate monopoly on marriage and conversions to Judaism to create a more open, plural society. The idea was to advance a plan that acknowledges borders, security, and regional cooperation, potentially with American guarantees.
Ehud: The discussion touched on the possibility of a regional security system, with the moderate Arab world, and Israel as a focal point to manage security and block threats, which would help moderate Arab leaders justify engagement with Israel. The hope was that including the Palestinians and moving toward a regional framework would ease tensions and gain broader recognition.
Ehud: The speakers reflected on the European economy: the Euro, German leadership, and the risk of “Southern Europe” becoming like Southern Italy—stable but with high unemployment and less dynamism. Germany’s role would be crucial in stabilizing Europe, but there was skepticism about rapid reforms. There was also commentary on Japan’s economic stance, with long-term bonds and potential inflation concerns; the risk of deflation versus inflation, and investor behavior in safe assets like US Treasuries.
Ehud: In the financial world, there was talk about the “wall of money” entering markets, with deals in mining and private equity accelerating as rates stay low. There was speculation about who might pay for advisory services and how much compensation one could demand as a trusted adviser. Potential clients included sovereign wealth funds, private equity, and wealthy individuals who would value access to connections with prominent financiers and policymakers.
Ehud: The conversation then shifted to Ehud’s post-government plans: he’s considering private equity, hedge funds, board roles, and advisory work. He discussed working with high-profile firms like Lookout (a cybersecurity firm), Palantir (Peter Thiel’s company), and Andreessen Horowitz, and he weighed the value of joining boards or advisory roles for significant compensation. There was talk of opportunities with Tony Blair and Panetta’s Foundation, and about leveraging relationships with influential figures like Petraeus and Panetta for strategic advisory roles.
Ehud: The two discussed a potential collaboration involving a security-focused venture in which they would assemble a leadership team and pitch to sovereign wealth funds. They debated whether to pursue exclusive arrangements and how to structure compensation—whether high upfront fees or performance-based bonuses would be appropriate, given the urgency of opportunities and Ehud’s age.
Ehud: There was talk of a German SPV structure to unlock value in suppressed German DACs, with a plan to acquire large German companies by taking minority stakes and reorganizing boards to bypass unions and passive shareholders. They described a Luxembourg or British Virgin Islands wrapper to enable financing and governance changes, and the goal of creating a management-driven, high-return vehicle akin to Berkshire Hathaway, with operational control over large assets.
Ehud: They discussed approaching sovereign funds (Singapore, UAE, China) and state-owned investors to back restructured German companies, leveraging relationships within the German business world and the French/European regulatory environment. They explored the possibility of static, long-term advisory roles with leaders in global finance and industry, and using those platforms to drive value.
Ehud: They also explored private-equity opportunities in other sectors—cybersecurity, infrastructure, mining, and even defense. They discussed the possibility of working with individuals like Klaus Kleinfeld (former Siemens exec, Alcoa head) and others to place Ehud into advisory or board roles, and whether to pursue roles that could yield immediate money while also enabling longer-term influence.
Ehud: The conversation closed with practical steps: define concrete opportunities, gather numbers and returns, determine what the partners want (exclusivity, timeframe), and set a deadline for offers. They agreed to pursue a formal offer by March 14-20, with a final decision by April 1. They emphasized the need for crisp, precise positioning due to Ehud’s age, and to avoid overpromising. They planned to meet again, compare offers, and decide which path to take—whether with a security-focused outfit, a financial advisory role, or a combination of both.
Ehud: The sense was that there are many opportunities for people with connections and credibility, and that the next few years could see rapid development in advisory services, sovereign wealth–backed deals, and strategic investments across defense, cybersecurity, and regional security. The overarching theme was leveraging decades of experience to match high-potential opportunities with the right partners, while navigating regulatory, geopolitical, and reputational considerations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't disagree with with anything
Speaker 1: with anything that you said, and I don't know
Speaker 2: I don't know who
Speaker 0: he trusts on these kinds
Speaker 2: of Who the president? Who the
Speaker 0: I don't know who the president
Speaker 1: really trusts. McDonough. On these kinds
Speaker 2: of strategic McDonough. McDonough. Yeah. The young guy.
Speaker 1: The young guy. Yeah. But he doesn't
Speaker 2: I didn't do his father's job. There was a a woman named Samantha.
Speaker 0: Power. Power.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But he doesn't.
Speaker 2: The difference between
Speaker 0: who he trusts and who he likes.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So
Speaker 0: I don't You know, not a jabber.
Speaker 2: You know Larry Turner? Yeah. She's an idiot. She's? An idiot.
I don't know. You know.
Speaker 0: I noticed that she
Speaker 2: you know, but she I noticed that Obama listens to her. Her his door telephone is always open for her. He listens to her. He believes her instincts about politics, about who is against him, who is for him, what's going around, who is hooking what from from Chicago to the world.
Speaker 0: But it's like, do you think Richard Nixon ultimately cared what he listened to what B. D. Luloso thought?
Speaker 2: Listen to? You may not know this name.
Speaker 0: B. B. Robozo.
Speaker 2: No, I don't remember. Richard Nixon. B. B.
Speaker 0: Robozo was some kind of business, semi corrupt business guy who was Richard Nixon's
Speaker 1: best friend.
Speaker 0: And whenever Richard Nixon went to Key Biscayne or went to California, B. B. Roboso was there.
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon would spend a lot of time on B. B. Roboso's boat.
Speaker 0: And if B. B. Robozo wanted something, Richard Nixon
Speaker 1: would stay. But I don't think when Richard Nixon was deciding what to do about the
Speaker 0: open war, he was talking to B. B.
Speaker 1: Robozo. That's the way I think
Speaker 0: Valerie Jarrett. So
Speaker 2: in this regard, he's probably alone, but he feels, compared to other leaders that I happened to meet in the last decades, Obama impressed me as an extremely autonomous person. Exactly. That's He one feels he feels good with himself, even when he's alone in the home. I didn't see in him what we know in Clinton or in our palace. And I'm shatty, however intelligent and spirit there, emotionally or psychologically, there there is an there is there, deep in there within their personality, anxiety will need for love, for explicit expressions of love.
I didn't see anything
Speaker 0: of this. I've never seen
Speaker 1: a I mean there's lots of things, lots of things to say like that. Somebody told me the story that Bob Reich told me the story.
Speaker 0: This is Robert Reich. He was Secretary of Labor.
Speaker 2: Yes, a small guy. He said he had
Speaker 0: been a friend of Clinton's. He had they've been students together in England. So he was kind of Clinton's friend. He said that if he went to
Speaker 2: a cabinet meeting and
Speaker 0: whenever Clinton looked at him,
Speaker 1: he looked annoyed or looked away, For sure, Clinton would call within two days. How's it going, Bob? What's up?
Speaker 0: Is there something on your mind? What's going on? He just wanted to call. If you tried that shit with Obama, you'd freeze in hell before you call. I mean, Obama didn't he had one he's putting that sit and he had lunch alone half the days.
Is that right? Yeah. I mean, he didn't schedule in, like, time for him to be alone. And if he did some event where, you know, he was speaking to a thousand
Speaker 2: people, they would
Speaker 0: give him like a little rest time afterwards. No.
Speaker 2: Human too many human beings around him.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Just he just wanted to be yeah. He had no need. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And, you
Speaker 0: know, it's the same. He he wants to be with the people he wants
Speaker 2: to I be think it's it's a source of of strength ultimately in tough moments in politics. Probably it's not the most effective way to mobilize people.
Speaker 0: No, but it's always it's a
Speaker 1: very or look, another thing which is which I'm sure they tried a lot.
Speaker 0: You were President of The United States
Speaker 1: and you like to play golf.
Speaker 2: You like it? You like
Speaker 0: you're President of The United States
Speaker 1: and you like to play golf, which he does.
Speaker 0: It's a big asset, it's a potential big political asset.
Speaker 1: You like to play golf.
Speaker 0: The President likes to play golf with his buddies
Speaker 1: and so 80% of the golf
Speaker 0: is with the same three guys. Yeah. You know, his photographer, his campaign guy, and,
Speaker 1: you know, his his three buddies from Chicago.
Speaker 0: That's who played golf. Now, most people, if they were president and
Speaker 1: they played golf, you know, they played golf with people from congress. They played golf with business guys. They played golf with people who would Read Clinton memoir. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Told Boeing because it's like a list of the cases what he had done with anything and still very careful not to insult anyone years after he's not in office anymore.
Speaker 0: But and Obama just is not it's
Speaker 2: all Cerebral. He's extremely cerebral.
Speaker 1: They called him yeah.
Speaker 0: And he has this
Speaker 1: nickname. Their nickname for him during the campaign
Speaker 0: was Black Jesus.
Speaker 2: Right? Oh, I got it. Who knows what kind of character Jesus was.
Speaker 0: No. But he has this he has this slight he has this sense of himself as not me. Yeah. And I you know,
Speaker 2: I think of other elements. I think that when he looks at the pictures of all his predecessors, he doesn't see them all. He sees probably seven or eight of them, the of the of two other ones. I know, course, Lincoln. Probably Kennedy and well, know.
He doesn't see the rest of them. He thinks in terms of greatness. And he understands that greatness comes from a few, major, decisive achievements, sometimes against all others, that happen to be perceived at hindsight as important. And that's I I think the many things, even on Iran, what really disturbs him is the possibility that this will be a great stain on his role. If they turn nuclear under his term under his watch, where where he had, you know, Bush is a paradox.
We used to joke in his Label power Label governments can make war and only the Kuhn government can make peace. Here you find something similar. The Bush administration, they can run very high rhetoric. But in in effort, they were paranoid even from ordering the Pentagon to plan contingency for certain cable. This administration, they got Nobel Peace Prize as a down payment before the EU started.
Somehow, they are planning and preparing much more seriously. I think the Pentagon right now, they keep improving the the I would to to scorn American colleagues that when we are talking about surgical operations, we're we're talking about using scalpel, and they are talking about chisel we can can can't come of the summer. And and but in the last several years, they developed extremely subtle scalpels, probably more effective than ours. And bear in mind that they hold the big stick, they have anyhow to without having to to announce it. Basically, I once told the president, look, I'm confident that if on a scale, a spectrum of operational decisions, a decision to delay the Iranian nuclear program by several years would look more like a raid on the land than a fully fledged war in Iraq.
You might have considered very seriously already. It is only the fact that somehow people succeeded in implementing in your mind an extremely dramatic scenario that might eventually develop out of it, that makes you judge it as as something closer to the other other poem. And that's that's not an accurate description of reality.
Speaker 0: Didn't you start out? I might not have this. Exactly right. Think he started
Speaker 1: thinking that part of his grand legacy was that he was going to bring hope and harmony to the big Middle East.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That he was gonna give the Cairo speech. No. That the Islamic world was gonna feel better about That Israel was gonna be induced to be constructive. That there was gonna be peace in the West Bank. And then everybody was going to feel better, and he was going to do for Iran what Nixon did for China.
And so I think he started with the idea that he was going to be a visionary great man. And I think he's learned in the last four years that that's not gonna happen.
Speaker 0: Mhmm. And now I think he thinks and now I think it's
Speaker 1: much more defensive. That is I
Speaker 0: think he's trying to avoid a stain
Speaker 1: Yeah. Rather than to have it Yeah.
Speaker 0: Rather than to have it achieved is is my sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Which should be very hard.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Is my sense watching. But is he
Speaker 0: How long?
Speaker 2: I
Speaker 0: I have the sense that people always say the next year is the crucial year,
Speaker 1: the next nine months are
Speaker 0: the crucial nine months. About what? Iran.
Speaker 1: But then it's sort of
Speaker 2: a quarter every quarter. Move what? Move forward a quarter every quarter.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's like shale oil was, you know, I think it's no longer true. But for forty years,
Speaker 2: Eight plus 10 is Right.
Speaker 0: But it's but is is Iran likely to come to a crunch in the next in the next year? What's the country?
Speaker 2: To to reach a nuclear capacity?
Speaker 0: Is there likely to be well, no. I mean, that's one question. I mean
Speaker 2: I'm I'm not
Speaker 1: So things that could happen are
Speaker 0: That There could be an attack.
Speaker 2: Let me describe it the following way. Iranians will always act based on what they feel to to what extent the other sides, mainly United States and Israel, are ready to act. And they are clever enough to to act counter counter cyclic, counter cyclic. Namely, when the attention of the old world somewhere else or where where were for other reasons will be parallel from doing something, they will be hectic. When the all of us are focused on it and stand already, they might even go with further.
They might turn out that they stop everything for you. Just in order to and there are chess players, extremely clever, but they are determined to follow in the footsteps of Pakistan North Korea and not to fall into the trap that, in a way, the Qaddafi, late Qaddafi or under other circumstances, the the South African Fed. And clearly, they want that to end with something like Iraq or Syria. So the very fact that I can quote these pairs of examples means that there is opening for them. So there is a need for something much more dramatic than the present kind of level of sanction.
They they are very I I presented them very painful problem. It it reduced their the value is dramatically. And it's not easy. But as we know from other examples in the past, the elites don't suffer.
Speaker 0: That's what I was struck by. I was struck by the fact that I didn't see if you treated the country as one actor doing well for the country, then I think there's a case to be made that the
Speaker 1: reward, take off the sanctions, give them rewards, they give up the news, all that.
Speaker 0: But if you take it from the point of view of the people who are there now, I don't see how if the sanctions come off and they give up the news, they're alive and in power a year later.
Speaker 2: Yeah. You know, it's the the basic strategy of the regime is to defend its continuity. And for them, I'm talking from time to time about zone of immunity for the nuclear military program. But the whole program aims at achieving another layer of immunity and immunity for the regime. They see look at what happened right now in North Korea.
They fully understand the Iranians that once they tell nuclear, that's become the ultimate guarantee that no one will try to intervene within the internal however brutal they might have to go with their own people. So that's what they're they they they do not need it in order to to drop a bomb on a neighborhood. They need in order to to be able to spread out, to a Gemini region, to to intimidate neighbors, and to be secure that whatever they are doing will not end up with someone trying to topple their regime. So I think that they will the problem is that for us, for Israel, time is running out because they keep actively keeping reaching, they keep preparing more centrifuges and now start with the new version of centrifuges that will be only five times more effective in enrichment. That shortens the time frame between decision and reaching a weapon grade capability that's running from from 20% or whatever.
They protect better the size, they improve their surface to air missile system, the radars to identify stealth kind of airplanes or even kind of cruise missiles. They are not sleeping. They already built a force of some six, six, 500 floating mines with GPS that can navigate, so to speak, their place into their their places in the in the Straits Of Hormuz. And it's it's quite a converging effort to create enough redundancy that Israel, with its limited military potential, won't be able to delay them by significant time. And probably a year later or eighteen months later, even America won't be able to do it in a really surgical operation.
And that that's that's basically their calculation. So they they they do not have a timetable. It doesn't matter for them. They waited for nuclear weapons four thousand years. They wait another four years or four quarters, four years, doesn't matter.
They just want to reach it before they start to collapse as a regime. That's that's the real.
Speaker 0: Will their election matter?
Speaker 2: It matters because it gives it gives excuses to Donald Trump and Donald Trump to to create a moment of truth not to reach this moment. Under normal situation, the coming spring, it should have been a moment of truth or P5 plus one is going to meet in Kazakhstan. Afterwards, probably direct conversation, there was some wounds that Valerie started to she she was born in Iran, in Her father, Leyva Who was that? Jarrett was born in Iran. Was she really?
In Shiraz. Her father was before the the revolution, he he was heading a hospital, then financed by some international NGO by by American government somehow to help the Iranian people. So she was born there. And some others, even, you know, some former players, including one of my former colleagues and some former leading ambassadors, try to to get a direct contact with the Iranians to try to clarify what would be the terms of the risks. And the Iranians assumed, I know it, I'm not guessing, that this type of guy would not have contacted them without informing the the the the state department, Pentagon, whatever.
And so for them, even if the intention is not this it is read by the Iranians as and they might end up I I recommend it to the to to my colleagues here too. I told them, we cannot pretend to to be able to tell you whether to talk to them directly or not if you feel that's ultimately necessary to, you know, absolutely necessary to to make sure that you exhausted all alternatives. But if you do it, do it as early as possible so that coming the election or coming the April, they will have to face a choice. Because if they reach election and you are still negotiating with them, they will tell their people we are standing firm against the whole world including America. They're all crawling to our doorstep to ask for for some concessions.
And at the same time, they keep moving. It's ridiculous. And I guess that even after election, someone else will be elected, whoever he is. There will be people who will say, oh, that's a moderate cancer. Assume that they will elect someone with less just less less kind of less colorful than in the chart.
Immediately, there will be interpretation. He is more serious, more moderate. But he's moderate. I have two lights. That make a difference.
You should get a chance that it will swallow another quarter. So that's how 2013 is going to pass. That was that's one of the reason why I decided to leave because I I don't think converging into a moment, a real moment of truth or decision. It can easily drag over another year. But at certain point, they will turn nuclear.
I told the president, I remember Clinton. I never questioned his will to to block North Korea. Something didn't happen. I told Jeff, I I remember sitting with Bill Casey during Reagan time on on as the head of our intelligence. In regard to Pakistan, it was exactly the same.
How many sites, how many sent refugees, how about the plutonium bypass, the the work and they did. Didn't work. Reagan wanted to see them non nuclear, but that was what might easily happen here once again.
Speaker 0: And if it happens, now what?
Speaker 2: I see this, it will first of it
Speaker 0: will be
Speaker 2: the end of any conceivable nonpolitician regime. Because basically means that if you can defy the whole world, you have enough money, not huge amounts of money, willpower. And it will start a much more self confident intimidation of neighbors, which still the major supplier of oil to Europe, to to the East, to the Far East. And the the regimes there are already have crest between two two powers. One is Iran and the other is the Islamists in in Turkey and Egypt.
These are two corner kind of pillars of the main pillars of the Middle East. And the Saudi leadership, they're dying. I don't know how you call it phenomena, where a kinder is just about to die. Flicker. Flicker.
Flicker. Okay. The old Mandarin practically, you know, till the the second is deep in dementia. They now just nominated the third one, someone about our age, who was the head of intelligence, Muqa. But I don't believe that anyone sees him as a king.
Probably knife, another cousin will become ultimate. But it's they they they are not self confident, and Abdullah of Jordan is not self confident. The UAE's the the some of The Emirates are much more confident because of their money. But it's all how to call it? Guitarist?
They behave. Yeah. Yeah. They behave this way. It's it's a I call them a TV station with an emirate.
It's it's like of I know. I met the the chef, Justin, in Munich.
Speaker 0: Oh, he came? Yeah. He came to security conference? Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And I talked to him. Yeah. But, you know, it's the Americans I met Carrie this morning. They don't know how to read the Qataris. They are totally confused there.
And I told them they are just starting to hedge their bets against the possibility that that you'll be the we will be the losers and Iranians will be the we. That's all. They start they see Turkey and and Egypt under Islamist government, so they become more Islamist. They see the discrimination of the Iranians and what happens in Iraq, so they turn more pro Iranian. So it ends up that they're less for for us or for the others.
It's that's they they're trying to survive. Don't carry the serpents around years ago. Asked Not him, the other one, the the enemy. Ask him even then I ask him, I I want something to hedge your bet on this one. He told me, look at Google Earth in front of our shows, you'll find certain place where you can find two wells 25 yards from each other.
One is other, the other is Iranian. They were practically drinking from the same the same Sure. Same same place. Whoever has a bigger higher diameter of a of a pipe takes more. And so we have to take them into account.
Plain. So Middle Eastern.
Speaker 0: What's happening in Egypt? What's your tell me.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I told I told Kerry today, I think that you are the only players to have any leverage upon them. Because in spite of all the bad kind of ideology and kind of extreme vision, There are practical people. Mostly, he's an engineer. Engineer?
Tens up. Should be the same diameter than I had bolted the knot and the same. And the the great leader of the Muslim brothers in Egypt is not unlike Ayatollah that come. He's not a religious scholar in the vet, but you have two vaccines to make sure that the cow get pregnant. It's it's Russia.
And the third one is the one who supposed to run for president before. He was pushed by some tricks and mostly he can he can he's a businessman, medium sized business, so so so. They are all practical people, so they need to feed 80,000,000, 88,000,000, to create million jobs every year, probably more, to to deal with the with the presence of multinationals, with direct for that investment, to to resume tourism, to to keep the the canal working, to keep Sinai, other they need you. They need Americans. They they believe that America gives orders to the to World Bank, to the IMF, to any other organization that they need.
And they understand that it's all about economy and and they see they see after a very short time, they see the this the kind of stress of the public, the resentment, the rejection in the streets right now. So I believe that I believe that they could be their actual behavior, probably not their vision, but actual behavior could be shit. I even told my colleagues here that I I didn't see any reason to keep providing them with the military hardware. Doesn't make sense. They don't need it against Libya.
They don't need it against Sudan. So basically, you have to accumulate against Israel. And then Israel asked to accumulate more, you know, to and you pay both. It's unlike the Saudi and The Emirates that pay for whatever they want. I thought that probably it's better to take this 1 half billion or whatever and and put it into their economy, their infrastructure, some some projects that you can have a say about and really deepen their dependency on you.
What's the future of
Speaker 0: Israel. I mean something will happen
Speaker 1: in Iran. Maybe we'll succeed. Maybe we won't.
Speaker 0: But and that'll make it worse. But the demography seems terrible. Nobody sane seems to be procreating and everybody is sane in their own way. Seems to have five children. Whether it's Arabs or Orthodox, they have five children.
If you're regular Israeli, you have one and a half children. Two
Speaker 2: The Haredim are more productive than the Arabs. We canceled some of the we had exponential support function for for productivity. It's something bizarre. Rather to be an esker, we can't be exponential. And always, when I meet a friend with three children, another two, and you are deep into the social security trap, that's your job.
You can sit idle. The no. I I I don't the future of Israel is waking waking up at the right moment before it's too late, putting your wedge on this drift along the slippery slope toward one state nation. First of all, because with one state nation, would be Arab. Even faster.
Yeah. It would be by nation at first and then within the generation with an Arab majority. In fact, one of Abu Mazen kind of partners to leadership, Abu Allah, he he was the one who negotiated with us all along the way. At a crucial point, some five years ago when he negotiated with Zippy Ligny about far from the public eye, but everyone knew. And she demanded that he will recognize the Jewish Israel, the Jewish state, part of the any document.
And, you know, lady, it's cannot do it. If you continue with this demand, probably return it to one one state, each state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. Every citizen will get a vote, and the majority will decide what could be simpler. So it's not a it's the the the the need to to stop this immediately takes a part. In a way, it's a it's a collective blindness of our society.
You side field is not full. You don't you know, some people do not see everything. What's happening here? You don't see it. You never do.
So that's what happens to our society right now. So that's number one. And that's why it's not a zero sum game. We are not making them a fable, doing a fable to the Palestinians or to anyone. But even within the borders of smaller Israel, there is still an issue.
And I think the Arabs are going slowly. They were forty years ago, they were 16%, now they are 20%. We should be able to make to provide equality first to the Durud. They are about 1%. Totally Israelis in their behavior by security people, the military aid that came for the president, some generals, some pilots are Druze.
Then we should take the Christian majority. They're minority. They're about another 2%. They couldn't have have an education which is better than ours. Like, minority, in my case, somehow, our students in the space where they they between the nep and the throne, I don't know.
Say, minority with a sense of being kind of hybrid form, they accept in everything they are doing. I believe we have to break the monopoly of the Orthodox rabbinate on marriage and the funerals and whatever and the definition of a Jew And accept, open in a sophisticated, subtle manner, open the gates for massive conversion into Judaism. It's a successful country. Many will apply at the beginning without making cannot make it a precondition, but under the social pressure, the need, especially of the second generation, to to adapt. It it will happen.
And we can control the quality, much more effective than our ancestors or become the founding fathers of Israel could deal with the way that it was a kind of salvation way from of Africa and Arab or from whatever. They took whatever came just to save people. Now we can be selective. And I think that with much more much more open kind of mind about turning to the Jew. We can easily solve another million.
I used to tell Putin always, what we need is not just one more million. He changed Israel in it to the the million Russians. And I think that many would prefer to to be Belorussian. There are many young, handsome girls who come to old, you know. We now have a we used to there you come.
You interview someone entering into some bay unit in the army asking what's your name? He answers Sergei Beaton. So all really start to work together. I think that I'm optimistic. There's some sort of necessity case, a more flexibility, and we have the background.
It depends on what you look for. I used to scorn the Haredim all the time about the Bedouin wife of Moses. Here, my students, brought the Bedouin So we can be more tolerant. I think that
Speaker 0: Is there any recognition of I mean,
Speaker 1: what you said about smaller Israel, not bigger Israel is the only prospect. That seems right, but there doesn't seem to be any recognition within the country.
Speaker 2: There is. There is certain underlying recognition. It's not you know, we had a quite supremacist election right now. The these questions are extremely active, both Iran and the Palestinian issue and Putin. But the whole discussion was about the draft law for Haredim and the memories of the center kind of we had much more genuine and wider scheme, Occupy Wall Street kind of we were more genuine, really mobilized masses.
And they appeared. They took the son of Tom Wheeler, the journalist. Everyone knows because he he had some and he peered every Friday evening on the head of popular TV. He called me the uncle. And he became out of nowhere, not a drop of a like taking a presenter of a bank, making the CEO of the country, and they became the second largest Right.
Party. But that reflects somehow the the uneasiness of the mainstream, is the the old elites and the youngsters from what we are doing. So I think that probably a wake up call will come. This is where I I always hope not through a painful crisis where you have to to bury the consequences, but through something softer. But basically there is a clear, clear whoever is ready to think of it independently knows what should be done.
We should launch immediately a dramatic effort, even if we know that probably it won't yield a fully fledged piece. But it can yield quite easily an interim agreement where we set for kind of a solution for borders and security. And the world guarantees the Palestinians that it will not remain so, that within five years there will be a solution for the rest of the issue. I think that we have to launch immediately with the American effort to create regional security system based on the America, Europe, the moderate Arab country, and Israel focused on blocking the fundamentalist terror, Islamist terror, missile defense, and cornering Iran and coming to terms on what is happening with the Islamic government. And that will help those the fact that we are moving with the Palestinians will help those moderate Sunni leaders, most of them, monarchs and Emirs, to joint heads with us and Americans with Iran because they personally don't care about Palestinian probably, but they are fully aware that their peoples in their streets, there will be high very high price to work with Israel or to modify the tensions if we are not going with the Palestinian.
And for the Israeli public, this will create a a kind of framework or something reasonable. We join hands. We don't promise everyone else, but we join hands with the white people in the region of the world to solve concrete issue. It will help a lot to to to reduce the tension. And even somehow it's I must say, I think that when you focus only the on the Palestinian Israeli issue, Israel is feeling fire for, say, the Yiddish kind of, I don't if they go to peace because they remember I pulled out from Lebanon, there are 60,000 rockets, and we said Sharon pulled out from Gaza, there are 10,000.
If we will pull out from the West Bank, there will be just behind the you know, when you come to to land to Bengaluru, you go over some 2,000 feet over Arab, they occupy territory. It could be crazy. So No. Feel that we are only giving. We cannot get anything.
And it's true. For the Palestinian, we cannot get anything. But once you put in the into the equation, the whole Arab moderate world, it ends up that you will get a lot, recognition from the Arab world.
Speaker 0: That's been the argument. But the problem is that's been the argument for
Speaker 2: in one way or in that Something in the last twenty years. Last fifty.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was gonna say the last fifteen years. And it seems like it's less it's a less Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's less of a That's a success of BB in the negative sense. He is success he became successful in convincing our people that we did our part of it, that we tried and the whole responsibility is upon the shoulders of everyone, which is not true. We never tried in the last four years to to make or never ready to make painful decisions in order to have a breakthrough. Later on, Rumadin is responsible partly for what happens. Americans made mistakes.
European made a lot of mistakes. But that doesn't cannot justify our, I don't know how to put it, failure for yeah. And it's true. I think Muslim doesn't help. He's not he's not an easy client.
Speaker 0: Do do people expect that Obama and Kerry are going to invest heavily in Israel Palestinians?
Speaker 2: No. Why don't they
Speaker 1: Or that they're going to stay away from it?
Speaker 2: Probably they dream about it, but don't think that I think the reading of Obama's visit is that he has to do it. There are even some stories that it was born in not exactly normal way, that Paris, got here a kind of liberty medal campaign, planned to bring Obama in June to bring him some medal of the Israeli president to participate in a conference that Perth initiates in the last several years, every June, and to participate in his ninetieth birthday. If you can't arrange a funeral, at least arrange a birthday. And it was promoted by by some people who supported Obama actively. So he said, okay.
Yes. No problem. Then his people heard about him and some Jewish, heard about him and said, are you crazy? You're going to make a private visit to Shimon Peretz after five years of, you know, missed Israel? You have to the only way is to make a formal visit and to be hosted by by the prime minister.
So he found himself there. Then he thought twice and thought, yeah, it's not that bad. Probably just to make sure that I cease to be the reason for everything that the fact that I didn't visit Israel. Now that's because of this, everything is done. So, okay, let's be there.
Visit all the the capitals, talk to the people. I don't think that that something gone dramatically wrongdo it. I mean, Clinton
Speaker 0: Clinton has you know this, you would know him clearly better than I. But Clinton at a certain point decided that this was his path to a Nobel Prize
Speaker 1: and history.
Speaker 0: And I don't think Obama does not feel on that trajectory tonight.
Speaker 2: He's not a problem with you, Joe.
Speaker 0: But Kerry, it seems to me will decide that's what he wants to do. Won't he?
Speaker 1: No. I mean, the imperatives of Terry's job
Speaker 0: are that he wants to have a historic achievement to end his career. He's not gonna get a historic achievement out of anything they do in The Pacific.
Speaker 2: I think they understand it. He plans to come to Israel probably even before. I don't know how to cut it.
Speaker 0: Just take it. I don't want to take so much. I know. You can you can leave it on your plate. I
Speaker 2: think that, you know, Kerry made several missions for Obama in the past four years. Sometimes with Palestinians. Afghanistan. Sometimes with the Khazar. No.
Khazil is far from our immediate with Assad, the When young he came as a kind of freelancer, he used to be always over enthusiastic. If by his very enthusiastic, he will, it will Infected. I will call it, yeah, contagion will take place and there will all this. And so she asked them, they before they land, they will have something different. I think I think I I spent some time with him one on one.
He's more realistic now because of this. So he knows. And he knows that he comes. It'll be too early. Bibi Bibi doesn't have a fixed idea about what should be done, and then he makes the government the government that can do it.
He he just wait to see what kind of government he has, and then he will modify what he wants to achieve if if Kerry comes too late, too early for this. But he wants to to make sure that Abu Mazen is with him and will not disappear. That's all. He's more realistic. He will try.
But I think he needs a lot of luck, probably some intervention from from heaven or from other players too. An opportunity for a fully fledged agreement will be created.
Speaker 0: Larek, Since you left, who's now gonna be leaving government, he's gonna go to the real world after fifty years. It's his birthday two days two days ago. Your birthday. Yes?
Speaker 2: Uh-huh. How old are you? 71. I was born exactly June, thirteen years after Rinko. Same day.
Speaker 0: And have you been have you ever been in the private sector? You've in government?
Speaker 2: I have been for several years.
Speaker 0: You were for several years after you were prime minister. Yeah. You were in the private sector and
Speaker 2: you Yeah.
Speaker 0: You're doing various kinds of business I and
Speaker 2: was involved with two small private equity firms as a part of the general partner. And they gave advice to several some of the biggest hedge funds and private equity. As a consultant and made some lectures. And participate in some small scale opportunities. Some Israeli companies wanted to work in Afroeconomic IPO in London.
They need someone who can be with them. When they come to London, people will listen to them or whatever.
Speaker 0: And is that the kind of thing you're gonna
Speaker 1: is that the kind of
Speaker 0: I don't know. You're gonna try I do
Speaker 2: think of making finding ways to make more money and to do something more substantive, but I cannot go with my agent from this position and start to actively on a high resolution level running an operation as a CEO or whatever it It will be too late in
Speaker 0: life. And are you do you think you're now done with government?
Speaker 2: Can you have a copy of this, sir? Do you think you're now done? Do you always
Speaker 0: looking for No. I mean, Israeli politics
Speaker 2: I'm not looking. It's very cyclical. I'm not looking. And I I don't have any kind of burning, compelling motive to come back to prove something just that. But with our half eclectic, chaotic half moving the stage where we are.
I cannot exclude that under certain type of crisis, I might be called to play certain role. I I'm not I I don't know backward with any kind of hard feelings or needs. Unlike, I don't know, if you knew Sharon. Sharon was burning with a kind of sense of of something that had not been completed from the time he could not become the chief of staff, then he could not become a prime minister. He was a defense minister who was sent out under kind of inquiry, permission that linked him to to some missteps and so on.
So he he was burning it, and he didn't see even the lights. He basically got a stroke in the evening or in the morning. Major headline said that he got, according to the police, 3,500,000,000.0 as a bribe to to finance something political. Even Rabin was burning with need to come back after his first. I don't have a feeling fully satisfied.
But I know that I might be caught. So I would not do something that deliberately and for sure will close the way back. But will not hesitate to go something that might, with significant probability, will stretch me in a way that will make it almost impossible to come back. I'm not I'm not really sure if it's tempting in our way. The conversation, the the Probably the
Speaker 1: way
Speaker 0: to have the greatest chance to come back is to look least interested and eager to
Speaker 2: come back.
Speaker 1: I think that's an irony of
Speaker 0: I think an irony of political life is that when
Speaker 1: you look like you don't need
Speaker 0: it and
Speaker 1: don't want it, it's you become more you become more desirable
Speaker 0: at you become more desirable as a as a consequence. But you'd like or you would go back to government at this stage?
Speaker 1: I'm like he I'm I'm I wasn't prime min I wasn't prime minister of my country and I'm not gonna
Speaker 0: be president I'm not gonna be president
Speaker 1: of my of of my country. I am, I think, in the same general I'm a little younger. I'm 58. But I'm in the same general place, I think, that that that Ayhu is. There were moments in my life when I was
Speaker 0: burning to do things. I was burning you in the nineteen nineties, I was burning to become secretary of the treasury. I was very I very much wanted to go back into government and help do something about this financial this financial crisis in 2008. Now, if there was if the right role present if the right role presented itself, I had all
Speaker 1: of that I would go, I don't want to do anything that would I don't want to carelessly foreclose options, since I don't know what I'm going to want in the future. But unlike to take somebody I was friendly with, Richard Holbrook. Whenever Richard Holbrook was not in government, his whole life was organized around figuring out how to maximize the chance of getting back into government. Remember when
Speaker 0: I would travel, people would ask me, before 2008, people would I remember in India once they asked me, where was the democratic party? Where's the democratic party gonna be on the non proliferation agreement?
Speaker 1: And I said to and they had been talking about Holbrook. And I said, well, what
Speaker 0: did Holbrook think? And they said, well, Holbrook thinks it's a good idea. Holbrook's supporting our position. And I said, Well, then the Democratic party will support it. And they said, or what somebody said, Does he have that much influence?
Speaker 2: I said,
Speaker 0: No. But I promise,
Speaker 1: he will not have taken a position on the
Speaker 0: record that has any substantial chance of being opposed by whoever the Democratic presidential candidate will be.
Speaker 1: So I don't wanna live my life.
Speaker 2: He was in a way suppressed, depressed when he was out of he never really enjoyed being out of the government.
Speaker 1: No, was all about getting back in. It was all about getting back in to government. People say, I have not, I've known him fairly well for the last fifteen years or so,
Speaker 0: but I didn't know him before. People said that it took Kissinger a long time to come
Speaker 1: to terms with the fact
Speaker 2: that he doesn't think for us anymore.
Speaker 1: That well, that he wasn't going back into government. That for a long time, he was organized around going back into government. And at a certain point, he decided to become a decided to have a different kind of role and was sort of happy having that kind of role. My challenge has been, I don't know whether you found this, it sounds from the way you
Speaker 0: spoke like you found it. My my challenge was relative to the expectations of being
Speaker 1: a professor or being a government official. It was fairly easy to make substantial amounts of money. Not money like Jeffrey and some of his friends, but money like money that was like a lot of money from my point
Speaker 0: of view. The challenge is and it's actually not that hard to do things that are reasonably pleasant and kind of interesting. What is hard is doing things that cause you to have adrenaline. Cause you have? Adrenaline.
Excitement.
Speaker 1: That are exciting. Where you like Yeah. Yeah. Where you
Speaker 0: would that It
Speaker 2: It probably depends how how yeah. How deep you go. In my last round in business, you know, I I have a friend who was very successful in venture capital in the good year, the very beginning of the hype. And he asked me to work with him and after a ceremony, he told a common friend of us that Ehud is not hungry enough to but I feel more hungry now than that because then I still thought that I might come back within several years. And now I don't I don't have any have any problem with not going with finding something that should be fun and very profitable and fun fun at least some of the time.
You know, For in my experience, even politics were not always fun and even even science, you know, before I choose to go to the to the military, other to fight. I spent a a summer the Weizmann Institute. Just I met yesterday Nobel Prize laureate in astrophysics that worked together with a a member of my class in also astrophysicist. And he told him that we work together in Weichmann's Thurston. So after this summer, he decided to stay in science.
And I decided that we were working all this summer on on photographs from bubble bubble cell, you know, the kind of hydrogen and the heavy magnetic fields. The the preliminary CERN operation about identifying behavior of particles. And I've seen we were at six labs working all over Europe and Israel on the same 1,000,000 photographs. And after a year and a half, the professors sat down together, decided what to do. The young PGs proved the greatest idea, the professor went to the congresses abroad to represent it and so on.
And I found the relation between the the fascinating work in the last six weeks and the extremely boring looking of a picture after picture to see some abnormality with the behavior of all this bubble chamber. I decided to go there. So somehow, I don't think that any probably make paintings or sculptures that's
Speaker 0: in there. So nothing's off nothing is fun all
Speaker 2: the No.
Speaker 0: The question is whether the question is finding
Speaker 2: Something that leaves makes a change.
Speaker 1: Yeah. A drown where you feel like it's
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2: It's not just to achieve it. Meaning. That there is some meaning. Will assume something
Speaker 0: which is important Yeah. To Which depends on both what the thing is.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And how large
Speaker 0: your
Speaker 1: you know, what your what your role Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's about something that goes beyond your body and beyond your time. Important, really important. Right. Complicate. Yeah.
I I don't think that there there are many things. You're probably at earlier age than all of us. Someone can remember on some idea and wanted to read something from scratch that had never been there and changed certain part of the world. It's it's not for us. We the most we can do is to use our capacity to integrate things, still to make judgments and to make good recommendation, to back up what we say by two or three layers deeper into certain area where where we feel confident.
And probably to find a way to join such efforts between the way that create synergy between several kind of us. I think that that I think that there could be, you know, I spent probably all the day last Saturday or the week before week before in Munich meeting with a only, I don't know, 20 ministers of foreign affairs and heads of state who were invited there, from Georgia to Mongolia, Montenegro, to the Albania, Zagreb, And you see how much these guys, you know, some of them at the very kind of at primordial but embryonic phases of of normalizing a society or state, huge challenges with and and you having huge potentials in a way. And they don't know how to don't feel confident about how to move in economy, how to move in finance, how to move in security, how to move in the international relations position themselves. I think that working on such project could be fascinating. Because you see, really, embryonic nations.
Some of them have been born as nations. Have all have some old identities. And they look, things that for you is something that's long behind you is the great next challenge sometimes. There could be something of importance, you know, you will be there. I know.
I never been to Montenegro or Mongolia, but I I think if you go to Mongolia, see this is a nomadic earth. The most interesting thing I have heard about them, participating in gathering the rain by by some NGO in Davos, about microinsurance. They want to copy the idea of microfinancing to microinsurance. And someone told the story that that they went with microfinancing, micro not microinsurance against the weather to Mongolia. And they had to set a a way how to calculate and pass the kind of equal judgment about what is payout to head parameter because you you cannot go to Mongolia to take case by case.
So it ended with one parameter was the size of the earth that you all Right. Because you didn't they didn't get someone from the locals to work with them. It ended up that they set the counting station at some point in the hilly hilly landscape, and many of the shepherds identified immediately without knowing anything about the common, that that's the parameter. And the herds were moving around, but they didn't put a stamp on any So it's it's it's full of you find it so, so, so deeply back open. The degree of set of something that you can do with all that you accumulated to make human you cannot you can't you can't invent a vaccine against time or some remote parasite in Africa, but in Sub Saharan Africa.
There are huge opportunities to help them. There are many, many corrupt people, and it will take time for for probably a generation down the street. They will keep robbing the nature of the society by the elites, but but they are still moving forward. It cannot be denied when you compare them to twenty years or forty years ago. I I think that could be interesting.
Speaker 0: I think, you see, the two of you that's why I wanted to the two areas, I think, these nation these beginning nations, that's whether Mongolia or parts of Africa or even Kazakhstan, there's a lot of money, but they're not this the sophistication is twenty ten years back. This cellular service being sort of a prime example of not being burdened with copper in the ground and fiber so you can go right to cellular phone. You have this leapfrog. And I think you're both a little goof crazy in the fact that in terms of compensation and money, the two hottest areas is every country wants to be now in the world of finance. They're not it's sort of they're not really talking about manufacturing as if you're a leader, you're talking about food security.
You're not talking about a production line. You wanna explore natural resource, but you wanna exploit your natural resources for an economy. And you wanna have two things. You wanna have economy and you wanna have money and security. So you two are really, I think, in the primary positions for the current time.
I don't know if it lasts more than five, ten years. Telling me that maybe something else takes over. You
Speaker 2: We're not interested in development more than seventy years. About this time.
Speaker 0: Security. I think you need to think about how to break it down. Cybersecurity.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I just that's the hot I think it's gonna be the hot button for the next two years. Yeah. Big time. Border security is less of an issue and a lot of people can handle it. But the experts
Speaker 2: But national security is something because in many of these countries, they don't know even how to approach
Speaker 0: it. Yes.
Speaker 2: How to approach the national level issue of security of of the the country at the backyard of Europe, like Montenegro, Albania, or Estonia, or or Latvia. And on the other hand, a total different situation, the security of the Mongolia or or Kazakhstan. They don't even have they they they don't know what to do, so they do what they know. They they issue bids and take some. And that's it.
They they don't build even secure national security in a proper way. It's the last guy who come to them with some impressive ideas and good margins, and they fall into the trap.
Speaker 0: But if you were advising Mongolia on see, again, I might the the general security, what is that real what do you how do you start? What's the step one through five is why?
Speaker 2: Well, from budget to what to do and what not to do and how to do it effectively, and what could not be treated by any kind of security, by by but by diplomacy. And probably even you know, I I met with the foreign minister, the national security adviser, they insisted on sending dedication to Israel because we are a small country hostile. They're they're good people, but they're so, so far behind. It's like coming to a seminar in the university about some issue that I don't know. They have something.
They are responsible for the country. They try to act. But it never never sort of how to how to balance, how to approach this issue, how to make it what's worth investing and what's not worth investing in, how to how to make the major effort they are doing now with multinationals to to balance their approach to to mind, how to combine this with security, first of security of the the the mining fields and and the security of of the whole area and what to do with the
Speaker 0: it's
Speaker 2: they're they're trying to find a way. They're they're reasonable people, but they're afraid afraid that some of the advice that they are giving are motivated by great powers behind those who advise them the issue of trust. Of course, they don't know what to do with the economy and even what to do with the money they can get, how to how to use the potential? What to do? How to develop what should be taken by the state?
How to make the big companies participate in it? How you can leverage them to do it? How to make them how to keep the edge of being the owner of the whole thing beyond the first signature on a on a document. They they are not, you know, it's not not simply. Nothing simple.
Speaker 0: Now you were saying before you
Speaker 1: came in that there are a lot of that you think there are a lot of these people
Speaker 0: who really are very hungry for Huge. Advice. I think. And you see it, right? I feel the same.
Speaker 2: I feel that if that's that's an hypothesis. I I I spoke to a friend of mine, lieutenant of as well, a guy who works with Bankimon for $1 to renamed Terje Larsson. He's a Norwegian diplomat. His wife is Norwegian. Mhmm.
He he had some trouble, so he left the the public service. His wife remained there. And he travels all around the world on behalf of the now assume for a moment that you, Jeff, and myself, these terrorists established a consulting group that take on the basis of countries, soldiers, to give them advice, strategic advice on macro economy, finance, security, and international relationship. And this all seems for leaders, even democracy for for government, but clearly for a more kind of for autocratic leader. It's a gestalt.
They they don't really see a difference. Everything touches everything here. And if some group that has come and to each other weekly or intelligently, they give them advice. It's worth money as for some of them. You know, think of Kaiser Franklin, pay.
In fact, they are paying. By now they are paying for more than one in more than one channel. They want second opinion, third opinion, and the special opinion, this and that. They pay quite a lot of money, and they have this money for taking consult. Sometimes they see it as not just consulting, they all all these sovereigns.
They think that if they will choose the white people, they get certain edge in nothing. Probably not in lobbying, not in active lobbying, but in helping them to find their way navigating issues that they have with international bodies and with NGOs. And sometimes even to ask those advisers to find who could be the lobbyist. If they have to pass certain I remember Nazareth came to me ten years ago because he was I thought he was frightened by some some investigation or rant from from The United States, I believe, about some behaviors of his government. Sometimes they need an access to the ECB, to the World Bank, to to You
Speaker 0: have to be careful of this. I mean, I I you know, it's a little different.
Speaker 1: It's probably a little better. They probably need access to America more often than
Speaker 0: they need access to Israel.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But they rely more on the advice from Israel than advice for America.
Speaker 1: Because Israel's problems are more like their problems.
Speaker 2: No. Because Israel is small enough not to slay them. Yeah. We we are supposed to have good contacts all around the world. You know, when I took the Mongolians, they asked me, can you talk to Putin?
I said, yes. I talk to him. It's important for them because there are certain many antagonisms and the and if a Russian or an if a Russian would come to them, they would seem that he worked for Putin. If an American comes, they might find that they find themselves in a bigger game, you know. So we have
Speaker 0: No, that's right. No,
Speaker 2: that's We have certain kinds of positions being connected in the world and not threatening anyone.
Speaker 0: And you have a
Speaker 1: have a sense of having been extraordinarily effective given your I mean Israel has a sense of having been extraordinarily
Speaker 0: successful, effective, and strong
Speaker 1: given its location and its size. Yeah. So, you know
Speaker 2: And German capital. I'm not sure whether you have the same German capital in Mongolia, but they know it is weird. No.
Speaker 0: But I think if you're if you're a
Speaker 1: Mongolia or or a Kazakhstan,
Speaker 0: you know, I'd like to have
Speaker 1: a generation ahead. Yeah. Like Israel had. Yeah. It is a natural way to think.
Speaker 0: Whereas, I'd like to have a generation like The United States different.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's be a different kind of
Speaker 2: No. We we are also a source of unique cutting edge knowledge Israel. In some issues, which are extremely important for the water processing and both disseminating reuse of water and even the effectiveness of use of it in agriculture in semi aeroid and aeroid areas. We have the most sophisticated agriculture on earth. The real point is that all players are Israelis, so they sometimes take out of the two kilograms of newly manufactured, genetically manufactured seeds, bring them to Cuba or some Angola or wherever.
Within five years we have competitors. So we have to excel in running ahead of the wave in R and D. And we're doing in agriculture, and you know better than me that there's a need to probably double the food production within a generation or so without
Speaker 1: So you are you
Speaker 0: and I are gonna tell them what seeds they want to use.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, not, but what the direction
Speaker 0: will to the people who are gonna
Speaker 2: tell them Yeah. And and there is in Jeffrey can tell us that there could be certain kind of practical economic benefit from being able to be the one who point to them genuine, sincere players in certain area. But you know who who are you going to recommend in advance. You can you leverage this this kind of being the having the trust of the government. Like be be it Montenegro, Latvia, of course, the Danish government doesn't need it.
But all these governments which are not yet self confident enough, they feel that they need it. They need experienced people doesn't say, doesn't
Speaker 1: not India but it
Speaker 0: Mongolia and maybe it's Sri Lanka and maybe
Speaker 2: it's Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Maybe out of the 194 majors, I can easily think that some 50. And we said that we cannot work in 50 places. And some of them are quite, potentially quite rich or with other potentials to create money that enables them to pay for it.
That they feel it or realize it. There's no sense for us to be to go to lost places.
Speaker 1: Well, anyone who has natural resources Yeah. Has a way of Yeah. The natural resources are always under a kind of quasi state control Yeah. That's not quite the government. No.
It's not like the government's kind of taking your taxpayers money and giving
Speaker 0: it to somebody. No. Good.
Speaker 1: It's that the state natural resources, whatever,
Speaker 0: that's presumably where
Speaker 2: the money I do not exclude the possibility that in five years' time, you will end up with decentralization of decision making in both China and India for different reasons, through different mechanisms, where you might find a you Chinese cities, not just the provinces, but cities with enough authority and enough resources to hire their advisers to operate. They basically think of themselves as as under the idea of a centers of excellence. They look and they see we are just 400 Singapore's. Basically, the same ethical background or some some it it wants more advantages, more homogeneous. And if we can copy 400 times Singapore, we we are the real success of the world.
When you meet with Chinese mayors right now, first of all, some of them have population under control, which are medium size, too big. They are bigger than most of the European countries, like Austria, Switzerland, Denmark together. So and they get more. That's part of the way of the Chinese to face the threat of losing control as a result of of social. The whole tradition bodes ill for their it's it's not going to to to be a smooth way for them.
And in order to face it, try to anticipate and to find generic solutions, to concrete keep us through processes that will smooth the heating of the problems. And India for different reasons, they come from from another direction, but they also you might find it in Indian states. They will get more more autonomous capability to take. You have they have the governor who's supposed to intervene on behalf of man one thing, but it's only if things get wrong in an explicit way, illegal way, big scandal that comes to the surface. So I think that there is a lot of work.
It could be fascinating because it's it's really in a way, it's using what you accumulated all along your life to help real people facing real problems. No. You you you are acquainted with and they don't don't feel as confident. They they draw both emotional kind of confidence. No.
Speaker 0: It's a very good thing to do if one can find It's I I think once you and that's a hang out the shingle, they find you. It's they don't know where to go. They they sort of who do I talk to? I said I said by default, they have they talk to me, but
Speaker 2: The read in the economies, the articles about them in order to try to find a hint about how they Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's wild. Now the it's you have to be sensitive. There's there's places like The Congo that have tremendous natural resources, but it'll never it's just it's it's a zero. You have to stay away because it's it's impossible. Rwanda, there's African countries.
So it's different than Mongolia.
Speaker 2: So I I met Kagami.
Speaker 0: What's the they name of
Speaker 2: are big basketball player. Look like a kind of president of Rwanda. Yeah. And I believe that Tony Blair is giving him
Speaker 0: He is. A lot
Speaker 1: of advice.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But Kagame, I don't know about Kagame. Kagame is it feels like if you're the president of Rwanda,
Speaker 1: you should sometimes be in Rwanda.
Speaker 0: Judging by how often I meet him, going to one conference or another, He couldn't be spending very much time Probably. Yeah. Rwanda.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But it's it's a way to to avoid the stress of being all the time in Rwanda.
Speaker 0: But it's like Rwanda has gas, but it's in the middle of the lake. But other places in Africa
Speaker 2: And what's the which lake? Think Africa is Brazil.
Speaker 0: I don't know. He Gautam said this is a gigantic gas field, but just like there's a place in
Speaker 2: Well, what's the problem there? The Caspian Sea also
Speaker 0: You can't it's inside you can't get it out of the country because What? How do you there's no infrastructure. How How put it? It's not well, in Africa, putting in even trains, half the time is they steal you put down the rails, you go to sleep, and the rails are gone because someone took it. Is there any place in Africa that you think has No.
A prospect? No. Really? Yes. Think Do you think no?
Angola, maybe. I don't know who no. I don't. I think it's let me be
Speaker 2: South Africa is going to be a major economic power. It goes very slow South Africa? Yeah.
Speaker 0: I think the concept was over some thirty years, maybe, but I think there are easier there's a low hanging fruit like Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan's a perfect example. There's $80,000,000,000 in sovereign wealth. They would like to be part of the Western world. It's the big things to be seen, have human rights.
They wanna be part of the financial system. They've part of it is that they don't wanna be embarrassed. That's clear. So that when they wanna talk to someone, they wanna know this discretion and and good advice so they can at least take credit for the decisions. But so those are easier places.
So in Africa, maybe, but very hard work, I think. What about South America? Is Venezuela at the moment? Venezuela, Chavez dies in the neck. I had a whole bunch of the oil guys here.
It's the monstrous proven reserves, lots of things to do, little once Chavez goes and the financial system, like, devalued their currency last week.
Speaker 2: 72%.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So they they had three exchange rates. Now they only have two exchange rates, but they don't have economies.
Speaker 2: They have DuDaMel. But you have? DuDaMel. Yes.
Speaker 0: That's the only thing
Speaker 2: you have. One of the best conductors from the earth. Yes. The young guy in Venezuela.
Speaker 0: So I think there's just there's plenty of places. China is a different thing because there's a a cultural you have a better you both have a great issue in China because it it gives them face to talk to you or to you so that they feel and if you went to see them for a day and you left the country, you never wanna stay there. Because if you go and you you leave, they can tell all their friends that you came just to see them. So that's a
Speaker 2: Go to Azerbaijan. Same thing. Just tripping back with I met Aliyev. Yes. And I I remember his father, the his father was a communist, the kind of kind of representative in the place, head of the Communist Party.
And now the son took over when the father died. It's a it's a kind of run like a family business. I met their their minister of foreign affairs. It ended up that he's not just more more preferred colleague, but also the best friend he has in Israel is a widow liverwoman.
Speaker 0: Is that right? Yeah.
Speaker 2: But you're Israel is making a lot of business in the Arab region. Mind No.
Speaker 0: I think once you set it up once you people understood that you're really in business, you you have to choose which is the right place, not you would be and you could charge a lot of money.
Speaker 2: I think there is an opportunity. And if you don't create a huge overhead, do not pretend to run operations to to secure oil fields. You point them to companies. They don't tell you. There are many in Israel.
Some will some in America. Some would not like to have an American company running, but something from a smaller country.
Speaker 0: Well, what have you found most interesting? You you've been out now for how long? A year?
Speaker 2: I've been out now for almost I've out two years.
Speaker 0: I've been about about two years and I would say
Speaker 1: two most interesting things have been being on
Speaker 0: the boards of a couple of high techs
Speaker 1: of a high-tech startup and involved with the venture capital. You you just have a sense that you're so seeing people who are Something new. Creating something new and they're young and they're vigorous and then this is a sense of energy and being an adult, you can you can add something. And so that so I've enjoyed being with Hendrie's and Horowitz and being on the Porter Square. That's good.
And I've enjoyed I do a couple of hedge I advise a couple of hedge funds. And that's interesting because you sort of hear what people, you have a sense of what the people in the markets are thinking are doing. So that has been, so I've enjoyed that as well. And then I do a bunch of sort of speaking and convincing and stuff on a variety of things, which is fine,
Speaker 0: but is less is less sort of exciting. And stimulating. Well, opportunities materialize, I don't think you can quite hang out the shingle. Good lesson. I would say country doctor, but
Speaker 2: Has a new meaning has a new meaning now,
Speaker 0: so the access on country.
Speaker 2: Correct. Yeah. But access into country care in certain countries, It creates a leverage to make a lot of money for long time. Sometimes you can you just bring together a leading major kind of mining company with a leading place to mine whatever they look for, and just agree with them on a
Speaker 0: extremely small
Speaker 2: small percentage of pro pro millage or whatever they are doing. But as long as the operation is delivered, they might end up quite living quiet. It's also has its its value.
Speaker 0: But hasn't something in the past two years gotten you excited in the adrenaline?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I said that. Know with the young people on the Is long
Speaker 0: there is there one that is is Square been the most thing? Square's probably been the thing. Do you look forward to going out? I look forward I look forward to I look yeah. I look forward
Speaker 1: to going out there, but it's not that I I know I really do look forward to when we're going out there and when they call, like, that's gonna be interesting and I'm glad they called. It's not quite that I'm thinking about it every night before I go. Right. Before I go. It's not quite at the level of I'm thinking about it every night before I go
Speaker 0: to sleep. In part because, you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of what it is, it's like technology and all that. It's not what I do.
Speaker 2: Think of it. It's one of your edges as well. At the same time, because part of what they needed someone who's experienced enough to look at it as somewhat a little bit more detached manner to be able to judge. It will avoid the kind of over and self and sometimes the lines then to where they are heading. That's Or what could be the consequence.
That's where you can add because you you have much more subject and With complicated
Speaker 1: And I'm able to say you know, and I'm I'm able to say this you like you are.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Even I'm able
Speaker 1: to say to anybody
Speaker 2: Yeah. What what That
Speaker 0: doesn't seem
Speaker 1: quite right When lots of people spend their lives surrounded by people who will never say to
Speaker 2: them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's not
Speaker 0: that's That's not quite right. That's not quite right.
Speaker 2: No. So
Speaker 0: that's So I like the things where you're engaged with more young people. Young Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that Israel must be
Speaker 0: a con of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Israel is a fascinating place. It's a for for the eruption of entrepreneurial spirit. Right. Sure.
And young people work. You know, it's very typical to find the best or the two two kind of desolons of the of the population coming out of the outpost. So they're spending their time in the outposts in in activities which are basically R and D or kind of start start up kind of operation without economic side to it. And they can't. They they jump energetically.
There is a bus, you know, it's a
Speaker 0: Are you gonna live are you gonna live in Israel or are you gonna live in the Iraq? It's good question.
Speaker 2: I live I I basically live in Israel, but I I am extremely fascinated about going out and see the world and to be in my place. So I don't feel any kind of problem of spending, I don't of my time out of the country. That was a fascinating
Speaker 1: But you're gonna your home. You're gonna make your home in Tel Aviv rather than in London or in New York.
Speaker 2: Yeah. You can fly. But I I don't have a problem if I have to spend a full two months in New York. Take some place in the hotel or whatever. Or in London or in other place.
Speaker 0: Before you go, what what's your sense of the economy? Because that's it. What what do you think is going on now? I think the best guess is that we're
Speaker 2: Turning get on
Speaker 1: We're the turning a bit, I think, as Jeffrey and I
Speaker 0: were discussing disc discussing before, I think there's a wall of money coming into the The wall of
Speaker 1: A wall of money coming in It's just
Speaker 0: a gigantic amount of money.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The Wall of Yeah.
Speaker 0: Wall market. Yeah. You know, I had been it's interesting.
Speaker 1: I had been thinking to myself two months ago, the interest rate adjusted for inflation for ten years is negative. Stocks are pretty cheap. Why isn't anybody in their right mind borrowing money to buy stocks? And now, sure so there should be a lot of deal activity. And now, sure enough Yes.
In the last month, there's You start to There's Gal. But the the
Speaker 2: is not typical. Somehow he's doing it himself with some Who? Who?
Speaker 0: Dale. Dale is not typical, but Heinz is typical.
Speaker 2: Heinz. The Ketcher. Kerry's wife. Kerry's correct.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You you saw what just happened. Yeah.
Speaker 2: She sold? She's I don't
Speaker 0: think she ever had.
Speaker 1: I don't think she's pretty much out of it. But the Warren Buffett Yeah. And a Brazilian beer guy have just Vote. Just taking it, just
Speaker 0: paying 23 to million
Speaker 1: buy it and the mining companies are all getting bought up. How could you not do it combined?
Speaker 0: When interest rates are this low, how can you not go into the takeover business? I mean, not me, but I
Speaker 1: it's starting to happen. So I think that, that plus the fact that housing is turning plus the fact that while everybody is hysterical about the dysfunctionality of our government, the truth is we're a pretty dynamic society and our government doesn't usually do insane things. I think it's a reasonably good time to be optimistic about us. I think it's a pretty bad time in in Europe.
Speaker 2: But for how long? Because in September, there is election in Germany. I talked to Chauble and Demiseur. Demiseur is my colleague, but he was adviser to the chancellor for a long time. Chauble, no info from before before he was shot.
But before? Before he was shot. Right. Now in a wheelchair, I still remember him walking on his feet. From both, I got the impression that Germany will cannot do anything.
Politically speaking, they cannot do anything by throwing some short term kind of immediate small pieces to to the Spanish or Italian or Greek, you know, do not to not to break the whole thing before they
Speaker 0: But then after they can.
Speaker 2: But once yeah. But after they can, and basically, they will because they're not doing a favor for the rest of Europe. It's it's something People
Speaker 1: are still getting old. Yeah. They still don't wanna work very hard.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And it's not very innovative. Yeah. So I think that
Speaker 2: the Southern Dying Dying Europe is
Speaker 0: gonna become like Southern Southern Europe to Europe will be like Southern Italy to Italy. Yeah. Poor,
Speaker 1: not very competitive, lots of people not working, dependent, but stable. And so I think I now think the odds that the euro will who knows what will happen about Greece, but I think the odds that the euro will stay together is very, very high. But I think the odds that Europe will be a dynamic place
Speaker 0: are not very are not very high.
Speaker 2: Are It means that ultimately culture matters. The Mediterranean culture is inferior to the the kind of Scandinavia, the kind of post post reformation kind
Speaker 1: of Maybe the cultures vary and they work well for fifty year periods
Speaker 0: and theirs isn't. But I don't know about Japan. Think it's
Speaker 1: an island full of people getting old. You know, the last thing they invented that was any good was the Walkman. And that was a long that was a long that was a long time ago. And so I think that they're probably gonna try to pump up
Speaker 0: and print a lot of money and But did this Abbe a
Speaker 2: serious guy? Because I don't think so. Last time that he was in power, he was not serious.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I don't think he's a I don't I think he's from everything I hear and read, I don't I don't think he is a I don't think he's
Speaker 0: a hugely serious guy. All the hedge funds
Speaker 1: betting that the yen is going down and that the Japanese stock market is going up. I have got more confidence that the yen is going down for the medium run than I do the Japanese stock markets going up. I think if there is a
Speaker 0: if there's a Paulson trade,
Speaker 1: you know, like Paulson, the guy who made
Speaker 2: the Yeah. Paulson. Yeah. I know him.
Speaker 0: If there's a The one
Speaker 2: from the mortgage backed security. Right. Right. Right. Go up and then fell down.
Right.
Speaker 0: If there's a if there's
Speaker 1: a trade like that in the next three years, I think it's short the Japanese long bond. I agree. Because I think that maybe they'll recover, in which case they'll stop having ten year bonds
Speaker 0: at 70 basis points. Maybe they'll have inflation, in which case they'll stop having long runs at 70 basis points, maybe they'll decide that they can't really fix their problems at all, in which case people will start to worry about whether they're going to get repaid, in which case they won't be at 70 basis points. So it seems to me that they're like
Speaker 2: What is 70 basis points? Is the spread of Japanese That's
Speaker 0: the law. For ten years, the interest rate is 70 basis points. But it's been that way for a while. But they they make It's been very low. They're just They're very long.
Speaker 2: They're they're finding out people would have
Speaker 0: said the same thing. It's gonna be the same
Speaker 1: The widow makers,
Speaker 0: what they call the trade. Correct.
Speaker 2: But they already have for a long time, they have some 200% of their debt storage. Right. That's They why pouring money into
Speaker 0: the I agree. Think So I've said that if success,
Speaker 1: it will be that.
Speaker 0: And you know, when the last time they were crazy, there were more people who thought their stock market was nuts at when it was at 25,000 than there were who thought
Speaker 1: it was nuts at 35,000. Because the people because by the time it got
Speaker 0: to 35,000, everybody had taken their crack at thinking that and been wiped out. And so
Speaker 1: they thought they didn't understand and maybe it could keep going. And that's a little bit how the Japanese bond feels to me right now.
Speaker 2: But tell me that you we want to worry about inflation as a result of all these supply of wider money, I know, measuring
Speaker 0: I'm relatively Or
Speaker 2: or or deflation. What's more worrying for you?
Speaker 1: For the last four years, I've been very confident that it was deflation. As
Speaker 0: time passes, I move my view,
Speaker 1: I am still more worried about slowdown than I am about inflation, a big increase in inflation in The United States. I don't think countries don't get big increases in inflation without labor, demanding wage increases, and tight labor markets, and all of that. And I don't see any of that coming in The United States.
Speaker 2: My friend Stan Fischer did a
Speaker 1: good job in Israel.
Speaker 2: Yeah. According to most kind of observers, very popular. He is extremely popular. People believe that he solved it. Solved it, saved us from major disaster and he's highly appreciated in the country.
But there are here and there's few quite important economy, not economists, but players in the financial markets who think differently. That he did accumulated too much and did not invest in the right time and gold. The whole running of the because he he raised the reserve from from 20,000,000,000 to from 80,000,000,000, major move and that they complained that probably he could have done better if he would have invest more in gold or or keep put much more capable people to run his nostril. It's a huge nostril to to run his money somehow even without gambling. And some even the some even argue that Arnold said that probably did identify too late that what the Swiss have done with the with their weight could be done with the shekel.
So he for some time, he appeared as if he believed that you cannot fight the market when in reality, you can fight it on one side. If you are so popular, everyone wants to buy it. So there is certain critics among more sophisticated players, but basically the feeling is he is in flying colors. He ends. He's going to leave in short time.
Yeah. No. That was my
Speaker 0: was my impression that he had done very good. But he had been very successful. But that's the thing.
Speaker 2: Like him very much. He's he's
Speaker 0: sincere. He's very sincere. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Respectfully, thinks slow but kind of in a systematic manner, avoid kind of gambling. That's very important to our collective character.
Speaker 0: Fighting it There's very this phrase, a safe pair of hands.
Speaker 1: Safe? A safe pair of hands. Yeah. Gives very much the feel
Speaker 0: of being a safe pair of hands. The thing about the, I think it
Speaker 1: goes to sort of some of what you were talking about. All over the world,
Speaker 0: people have these huge quantities of money that they mostly invest in US Treasuries that pay zero.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Oh, you do negative with certain
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right. And everybody ought to be investing their stuff more aggressively
Speaker 2: in Yeah. But that's that's the the scars from the recent event. People lose their it's like a hell, they lose their self confidence very easily. And what happened is the crisis of the week, we could not predict this and no one warned us loudly enough. So probably now it's a whoop.
Immediately, they frozen. See you, man. You and I chose
Speaker 0: That sounds right. Oh. Okay. I'm gonna I'm gonna spend some time with Ehud. I'll see you tomorrow morning at ten.
Picking you I'm picking you up at ten in the morning. You're picking me up at ten in
Speaker 2: the morning?
Speaker 0: I will see you then. Excellent. Ehud, this was very good. It was very
Speaker 1: good to I see hope we'll have a chance. One of these
Speaker 2: places or
Speaker 0: He's one of these gonna be a free man. One of these things.
Speaker 2: Stay three weeks. I hope. I contemplate setting a departure ceremony and set a time, a day and time because I'm afraid that under certain tricky developments, there will be no new government. I will go to another election and that's, you know, theoretically, it's possible. I don't want to finally start.
Speaker 0: Great to see you. Very nice to see you.
Speaker 1: Want motive, sir?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Motive. Okay. Yes, sir. Sir?
How are you? Great. Great mind. You like to yeah. I like him very much.
He's a very sophisticated, clever, wise person. But what do you think? He he has the appetite to grow? Yes. Yeah?
Yes. Okay. That's good. I believe he's a very good name. He's a very good one one of the ideas that he kind of exchanged with the
Speaker 0: Terry.
Speaker 2: Terry. So it could be really interesting if we find a way to work together to make probably a pilot on one or two of them. Yes.
Speaker 0: He look. He's the is not liked by any that what he said I said that, you know, you were gonna come to dinner, And he said, did you read the article on foreign affairs? Did? Ah, yeah. And he read it?
Yes. He he said to
Speaker 1: me Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Did you read the article on foreign affairs?
Speaker 2: And what what did he say about it?
Speaker 0: I said, yeah. He said, well, what do you think? I said, I I didn't like it very much. He said, well, I he said, I come at it from a different angle. He said, I didn't like it, but I identify because they say everything they say about him, they say about me.
Speaker 2: Let's go through I want to I thought we would start earlier, but I hope you have enough to patience.
Speaker 0: Have patience and I have time.
Speaker 2: Okay. I want to go with you through a variety of opportunities as well, Karl proposed different different levels of concreteness. Okay. But that I find it probably with I want to hear your advice before I try to focus on on a order of priority and probably to have your judgment of some of them and what it means. Now unlike probably unlike David Larrie, I can find fascinating adrenaline satisfaction just making money.
Speaker 0: I knew that. I already knew that.
Speaker 2: I will spend it, that I will have the wheel of the if not for making, for spending it. Yes. And it's spend it cleverly on. Okay. I want to start with what I brought you here.
I brought you here a document of The German takeovers. The German of supposedly, Sofiski takeover group that I was one of the founders of. And according to the the the on the real achievements that they had according to this record are those that they have made when I was still there. I don't know what they have done since then. Probably they won some some court trial about some deal that they were involved in, and they were bypassed at the at the last moment.
Probably the deal never materialized. It had to be with some subunit of Deutsche Telekom that operates here T Mobile. Was taken by AT and T, but in a way that was that ways the the way to bypass them was by acting much more aggressively. And by this aggressive action, they raised the attention of the authorities, regulators here, and some of it was blocked. But they kind of had still a complaint that probably they got some 30,000,000 or whatever from this complaint, and they run themselves in the office since then.
Probably there are some areas that I don't know of, but basically I see something which reminds me very much what we had in mind six years ago when I left them as I entered the read it and try to get ask me whatever question I know. The people I know Who
Speaker 0: is who's the principal? Who's main person?
Speaker 2: Originally, it was four people. One named Philippe Scholler. You will find all the details about this.
Speaker 0: Who do you like the most? Who do you have the best for?
Speaker 2: No, no. I have with the two. That we were five people. It was Philip Scholler, Christoph Bulfan, which is a lawyer. Another entrepreneurial kind of guy, Robert Hofmann, Doctor Hoffmann.
And German origin Canadian guy.
Speaker 0: At at the moment, do they have any money? Named
Speaker 2: allow me to what is I will remind in a moment. Okay. And we were basically for a fast restructured German corporation, registers in the islands, BVI. You will read it. It's I will You will find it.
Basically, the idea was the following. There is suppressed value within the DACs, leading companies, from the biggest to the smallest, leading DACs companies. Because of three elements. One is the nature of governance of companies in Germany, with this double two layers of board, which slows down dramatically and spreads the decision power and capability to take decisions. Secondly, the deep involvement of unions that they are participants of the board and you can practically cannot move without them.
And then passive shareholders. There's no nothing like ICON or whatever here. Extremely passive. Now, how do you know it's suppressed? You take any company, take BASF and compare it to DuPont or whatever deal, similar sized company, you will end up German company with half the market cap.
Take any, I don't know, insurance big company, compare it to if you do Warren Buffett, which basically is an insurance company finance other activities, and you will end up that much lower. But even if you compare them to any successful North American companies, and do the same with every in every aspect. And and that's in fact, that's the case. They are much lower Yes. Now.
In order to do something with it, you have to change it. The idea is that you can easily take by the rules. If you get 10% of a the stock of a company, you become practically the owner of the company, you can call a special general assembly of the whole shareholding, and you can nominate a a nominee director. You can change the nature of it. Usually, it doesn't work for if you're German, it's they look at you in quite a bizarre way.
If you're non German, they will look. The idea is to establish a German yeah, and this group, you will see they have a group of people about my age. We are former heads of leading DAX companies. They know the companies from within. They know the people who are there, the relationship and everything.
They have a lot of informal internal information about what happens, including when we I remember fighting with the Volkswagen before Pirch and took with Deutsche Telekom, when we continuously acquainted with what really happens in any board meeting afterwards or so. So we're establishing Luxembourg or whatever operation for any given project. And let's say if you typically might need, I don't know, 1,000,000,000 in equity, another 1,000,000,000 in debt to to create 10% of a company that has a market cap of 20,000,000,000 and start to operate. You will need more if it's a bigger company, but usually it's relatively small market. Think of, I don't
Speaker 0: I understand all
Speaker 2: of it. Munich Re.
Speaker 0: I understand.
Speaker 2: Very huge potential of money like Berkshire Hathaway, but probably making 4,000,000,000 per year Right. On 200,000,000,000 Right. Of assets. So by just making not very good insured, but good manager of assets, you can do more. That's the idea.
Now they want to find players or think that whether we can find players who are ready and capable after they understand they can be behind this SPV, probably having convertible kind of bonds
Speaker 0: Let me stop you for a second because it's much more important in these initial when you initially describe these things
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Is the structure of where and whether SPVs or if it's in Luxembourg, BVI, it doesn't mean anything
Speaker 1: to you. No.
Speaker 0: The only thing you need focus on now, when you're talking about these types of businesses, are the numbers. Yeah. So that the numbers are the numbers are the numbers. Nothing else is going to make a difference. So, you need to tell me five things.
A, what's their perform have they performed before and what's their returns? Because structurally it's different and not I'll I'll look.
Speaker 2: I'll find two examples. Right. Which are successful ones, both of them. Then happened when I was there. And I will add to
Speaker 0: you some. Right.
Speaker 2: If you have to tell me to ask me whether they're extremely successful till now, my answer is no. Okay. Otherwise, they will they are rich people, all of them, but What not
Speaker 0: do they want from you? So I want the numbers and what do they want from you? So that's so those are my three biggest goals.
Speaker 2: Numbers, you will find. Right. The idea to take anything from a small small ducks company could be taken over by putting 300 probably 300 in equity and 300 in debt, you have $600,000,000 can take over the $6,000,000,000 The very big one might need 3,500,000,000.0 in debt and 3,500,000,000.0 in equity, enables you to take even dime. In fact, the only one who did what GCG has as a vision is Ferdinand Pirk. When he took over the He ran ahead of us.
We had been here trying to convince several big private equity companies and hedge funds to to do exactly what he had done.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: They were much slower for his several generations. They have already had a stronghold within the company. Right. Probably identified the opportunity, but but he extracted clearly a real jump that still holds several years, about five, six years afterward. Basically, sync what people have done with Volkswagen and we will get them a sense of what they claim.
Right. Whether they didn't do it or not, that's probably the reason why they want me. They want me to be able to somehow help them, to convince somehow for whom these amounts of money are not frightening. Right. If we convince, for example, the sovereign fund of with Singapore or The Emirates or China to be with us or even a major rationale.
To be with us, the GCG provides the front in Luxembourg and they are behind it. They can because if some sovereign fund will take over major Dutch companies, it could end up politically
Speaker 0: But so they they want you to go to the sovereign funds.
Speaker 2: Yeah. To to to help them to convince the sovereign fund or extremely rich individual. Right. Like Tom Pritzker, for example, or
Speaker 0: I just I just wrote down Tom's name. I talked to him this morning. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Probably a guy that can, if he wants to, take over a major
Speaker 0: I understand. But what is your real advantage to for them? The fact that you know rich people and the fact that you have open
Speaker 2: I can access the door. I can access. Can Subruition. I can wait. Okay.
I cannot be at the core of the of the
Speaker 0: I see. You're the door opener.
Speaker 2: Yeah. In a way. And they yeah. Someone that they respect, they give them certain respect, as you said, about this blue Right. Yeah.
Okay. Basically, that's the and they know me and they trust me because we work together. I help them to I help them to go to Bruce Kovner and to, I know, to Leon Blake and to others and start to see what what they are. For example, they work very hard to convince the Russians and they failed until now. And I think that probably I can convince, you know, one of the guys that think of two of the guys that that get now with BP Right.
And k. What together, they got some four of them, so that's some 28,000,000,000. They have to put it somewhere. You know, the the story is Germany is quite clear. It's the best performing operation on the manufacturing floor and a very slow, not creative on the top.
Speaker 0: Right. But but Germany is always traded at a discount to The States. I'm not sure the comparison of German company valuations and earning price multiples is an issue with taxes and unions. You can't you can't fire people there so easily. But my concern is that they want you to open the door.
I understand. It's not real I what I it's not really your expertise.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But
Speaker 0: It's your it's it's your understand. You see, your capabilities think you
Speaker 2: What they basically say
Speaker 0: You're gonna make a lot of money. See, I didn't make? You're going to make a lot of money. You're definitely gonna make a lot of money. I not going You will.
You're definitely gonna make a lot of you will make money. The question is how you how which place you do it with.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay. Look, I have I will show after you read it, I will show the the concrete proposal that they sent to me. They gave an example. They said, we are ready. We we are going to get when we put the money.
Assume for a moment you succeed in bringing us someone who can put $1,000,000,000 on equity for some project. Big enough. Think, for example, of the China investment company. They run probably 400,000,000,000. They can afford doing it if if it's important for Yes.
Okay. Assume that we convince them. They say, okay, with the debt, it's 2,000,000,000. I understand. Out of the 2,000,000,000, we got 3%.
Speaker 0: I understand.
Speaker 2: We are ready to give you 12,000,000 Right. Out of the 60,000,000 you get immediately and then smaller amounts down the Right.
Speaker 0: So what Tom asked me this morning Yeah. And he said he he told you at Davos Yeah. Was he thought you should make a list of his work, not
Speaker 2: Metrics. He said Yes.
Speaker 0: And but who has IOUs to you? Is that who's the out of the people in the past who you think you're close to, he said that he really wanted you to make this list of this person owes me a favor, this person owes me his life, this person owes me his job, this person owes me Yeah. Okay. And so you gotta work it backwards and say, here is my instead of thinking about what the opportunities are first, because right now you're focused on opportunities, I need you to focus on your
Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 0: Personal balance sheet in terms of competences. What's your real strengths? What's the liable the lie one of the liabilities is you're 71 years old, so you can't be in a business that takes twenty years to make money. Yeah. You have to make money in the next three years.
So people, competence, things so for I talked to Ian yesterday. I asked him to come. Yeah. He flew in more than he's an hour.
Speaker 2: What was his impression from the
Speaker 0: He's same thing. He booked because he's very connected to Samsung. Very. Who? Who?
Samsung. Korean Sam Sung. Yeah. Very. Yeah.
They pay him $3,000,000 a year.
Speaker 2: Just to make PR?
Speaker 0: Yes. He has 10 companies like that now. Okay. So he said there's this company called Lookout. He said he mentioned it to you.
Mhmm. L o o k l e Yeah. You're talking. Yep. He thinks they'll pay you a couple million dollars to be on the board.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That could be good. I understood. Yep.
Speaker 0: He he thought there was two cyber companies. Lookout and even though I know Peter I've never met Peter Thiel. And everybody says he sort of jumps around and asks you strange like he's on drugs.
Speaker 2: Smoking. Yeah. Yeah. He looks under drugs.
Speaker 0: However, has a company called Palantir, p a l l e n t e t I e r. Palantir is Peter Thiel's company. And look out
Speaker 2: Palantir, p a l a n t I e r? Yes. How do you write Thiele? T h I e l l y?
Speaker 0: T h I e l. Yeah. L l y? No. P t h I e l l.
Uh-huh. Okay. So he thought that Peter would put you on the board of Palantir. Peter Thiel is one of the best I've never met him. He's gonna come here next week.
Uh-huh. So I wanted to talk to him. Okay. I wanted to
Speaker 2: talk to you. Okay.
Speaker 0: He and Andreessen, it's called Andreessen Horowitz. Andreason Horowitz. That's what that they pay Larry a million dollars a year.
Speaker 2: Just to advise Anndreason?
Speaker 0: A n d r e e s o n, Endriasin at Horowitz. And Howood? H o r o, Horowitz. Horowitz. Oh, Horowitz.
Yes.
Speaker 2: What they are? It's their lobbyist. What what they are doing?
Speaker 0: They are the biggest venture capital people in Silicon Valley.
Speaker 2: What? Bigger than Sequoia or Kline
Speaker 0: of These are the new Kline of Perkins. Everybody these are the smart boys. Yeah. So those two companies right away, in terms of I said that we need now, in the next three weeks, if you're gonna leave. Those two right away.
Let's go through more I I I need to see the numbers here before I have so I could be intelligent. See
Speaker 2: the number. What is tempting them? That I know the people. And basically, you don't know more than one success when this came according to the contract that they proposed to me to get basically much richer than $90,000,000 understand. Getting some $20,000,000 $30,000,000 along several years.
I understand. Okay. So that's number one. Number two, a Swiss private bank. I'm going to meet with them in so next week.
This coming, I fly tomorrow to Europe. I'm going to meet with them. They basically asked me to help to join something very similar to what if I understand what Tony or earlier Schulz was doing for Jacobsenburg. Running certain kinds of international advisory board that they don't have now to help them to push business. Yes.
And they are very clear what they would like. To help them to approach effectively and convince people and players, family, they're many other banks, they're moving want to concentrate on high net worth individuals, family offices, some extra big operations for some reason has to prevent it. They have quite known name. They are not as small and private and like almost kind of confidential like Big Teto or Lombard. And as a result, cleaner.
I tried to check, I didn't find anything about them. But they told me, frankly, that they don't want to work with Americans. Right. Because any even if I agree Nobody works with Americans. Yeah.
And that they told me it doesn't make sense from reputational point of view to work with Americans because they want to know everything, they want to publicize. It's not easy for the government, not easy for us. So they want to me to help them to reach sources of I answered money to to manage in whatever, Latin America.
Speaker 0: How big are they now? How big are they now? Do you know?
Speaker 2: I see between 150 to 250,000,000,000 in assets. Okay. That they are managed. Mainly, wealth kind of Mhmm. Either of the of the companies, I I don't know exactly.
They they didn't reach this. And they want they they feel, for example, they know they don't know even how to approach Russia because they were they didn't like they still feel that some of the Russians are bad and they shouldn't approach them, but some others are good enough because they money runs their operations outside of Russia and became quite legitimized in
Speaker 0: the financial world. Blue What's the name? Can you tell me the name? Or you you No. Sorry.
Speaker 2: They asked me probably I will tell you in a few days. I don't No. I I I haven't been up to but think of it, there are several, probably half a dozen or a dozen of
Speaker 0: They're not Have they been under investigation by the states? No. Are you sure? That doesn't sound right. Yeah.
It doesn't sound right. Why? Because I can't imagine that there's an institution that of a $150,000,000,000 that has not been under investigation by the states. Because she it just doesn't sound right to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. I will Sure. I will recheck it with them directly if if you
Speaker 0: think No. You you need to
Speaker 2: Find some. Okay. Probably after, you
Speaker 0: know, probably after the meeting. Let me ask him.
Speaker 2: Probably after the meeting. Fine. In three days, I will be Fine. It will be behind me. Fine.
I will find a way to to ask. They were not under investigation for something wrong. Probably the American authorities approached them like they approached all other big firms.
Speaker 0: But There is in general terms, every Swiss bank of big size like that has been under investigation. So it's a question, if they no longer the question you need to ask, did you ever deal with Americans? Now if they dealt with Americans in the past, they're under investigation. Everybody who's touched an American is under investigation. Okay.
So they might not be now because they told all the what normally happened, like, there's a bank called Weguelen, w e g e l e n. Yeah. They were the big ones. Julius Baer, big ones. If you had an American, they told all the Americans you must take your account out.
Speaker 2: Who abandoned the
Speaker 0: All the suspects. Yeah. We're no longer allowed to have American clients.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: But the the government says, look, I need to know who had accounts at your bank because they have not paid their taxes. Yeah. And we want their names. So there's been a big fight for most banks. And the banks that we can't under Swiss law, we can't give you the names.
But we can give it to the Swiss government.
Speaker 2: And the Swiss government probably is going to yield to the Americans and and an order to
Speaker 0: give. Yes.
Speaker 2: By then, all the banks will give. But all these I believe that Lombard and the Pictet were it was in the the in the open media that they were under certain investigation.
Speaker 0: Yes. It was
Speaker 2: So But Credit Suisse and the and the UBS. US also had been under.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: They And the Wegland and the
Speaker 0: and Wegland the worst so far has been Wetlands.
Speaker 2: Wetlands. Under investigation.
Speaker 0: No. They they pled guilty. Uh-huh. They already charged.
Speaker 2: With the others, the the Julesburg?
Speaker 0: Not yet. No. They want
Speaker 2: Not yet pleaded guilty or not yet under investigation?
Speaker 0: They're all under investigation. Yeah. Okay. Not yet charged. Everyone's under investigation.
Some have been charged because it's how abusive really what happens is this. You're under investigation. Congratulations. You're under investigation. You cooperate with me.
Speaker 2: So you are okay to We won't bother you.
Speaker 0: You wanna tell me to take a walk. I will indict you in New York. If we indict you in New York, you're not allowed to do business with American banks anywhere in the world. So you're out of business. You either give
Speaker 2: us If what we if you are not cooperating You're dead. You will be ordered account of the charge charge here.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: And then, automatically, anyone who is
Speaker 0: Charge. You have a problem. So Wegland gave up paid a fine of 75,000,000. Who? Wegland Bank, w e g e l a n.
Speaker 2: Paid how much?
Speaker 0: 75,000,000. UBS paid $750,000,007.50. But they paid 70
Speaker 2: Even 5 even I've got even Wait. RBS pays now for whatever
Speaker 0: The different trade. But different trade. That was rate rigging. But here's I'm gonna pay 75,000,000 and give you the names of every American who had an account. So that's very much that sets the tone moving forward.
If the bank has given up American names, people are a little more hesitant because, okay, we know it's like Mubarak. Right? You through the last anybody who came to you the last time, Americans, maybe it's my country, it's Russia who wants to know are we having it. Are these managed accounts? Are they private accounts?
Are they secret accounts? They're all you need to know Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Swiss banking system seems to be fully protected. Our clients know it somehow.
Speaker 0: It's
Speaker 2: a Trust that it's easier than in other places of world. There's not places like that.
Speaker 0: You see, the nice
Speaker 2: part I also find better
Speaker 0: The nice part about Switzerland for people. If you have a $100,000,000 Yeah. And you have it in Switzerland, you don't want a return. You don't care if your money makes money.
Speaker 2: You you don't care if it doesn't make money.
Speaker 0: Because you shouldn't it's it's safe. So you just you you have it there for safety, not for profit. Yeah. So it's very easy.
Speaker 2: And they are somehow taking some of the money as as a management fee or or you're saying they probably do it and they let you get very little.
Speaker 0: Very little.
Speaker 2: But you don't that and most of the day
Speaker 0: In fact, if they make 2%,
Speaker 2: they take 2%. They they 2%. They take 2%, give you half percent, all satisfied because what you really bought is safety. Right. But if that's the case, it might not be extremely complicated to help them to That's correct.
Money. That's correct. Unless they're under such an investigation, they end up to be at the wrong side. Correct. But why should they be on the wrong side if they understand what you have said?
So everyone ultimately, it doesn't have its issue survivability. So hello? Hello? Hello? Yeah.
Okay. Let's Single. Go after you Yeah. So Yeah. We'll come back later to it.
They want me, basically. They seem to be interested. They never we never reached a point where they will tell me, okay, we want to send you an offer. They know that I'm going to leave only several weeks. But probably after this meeting in Switzerland, they might send me a certain paper proposing a diabetes.
I don't know what they have in mind in terms of compensation. I don't want no. I I assume that they will find a way to give me certain amount as a kind of basis. Certain coverage of expenses could be quite high because they have to satisfy, order to meet with the possible clients, we have to spend some time, I know, in the Yes. In Sardinia or in Gestalt or in Punta Basil.
The Leicester or whatever.
Speaker 0: Did you talk numbers at all?
Speaker 2: No. Never. And probably certain element of the compens the kind of performance or results based Right. Bonus compensation. Probably stretch over time.
I see that there is basically I didn't talk to them about it, but
Speaker 0: And who are you speaking I mean, you're speaking to the president or the owner?
Speaker 2: I spoke, they came to my house as a kind of just to to our place in Tel Aviv, asked to meet One with of the probably number three in the organization together with one of the probably the Zen Zen CEO. Later on, they I met with the CEO. And he spent forty five minutes with me for the first time. I know him directly that he was quite impressed.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: And he made up his mind that he wants to Right. See me there. And he asked me to meet with them. And to visit with them and to meet up. So we will meet.
I assume that he will cover some of the issues. Probably it will come to a point when where I will tell him, okay, if you're interested, send me an offer. I don't know how to continue from here. And I would appreciate if you give me some of your assessments or knowledge about how much they might propose, how much I might ask for what could be something which is not Outrageous. Yeah.
Yeah. So kind of kind of trying to use this out. I don't they basically seems to respect me because it's their initiative, so they came
Speaker 0: to me. Do do you wanna get an offer while you're still in the government? Or you'd rather wait until I you get
Speaker 2: I I prefer to to tell them send me an offer after the forty years of don't Don't want something with
Speaker 0: you on check or before.
Speaker 2: Right. I will tell you later on that, well, in in regard to security, there was also some quite quite important in the air and this arena that approached me and that they wanted to sit tomorrow with to bring the founder, the president, whatever, and to sit down and start to work on list of whatever agencies or Yes. Or states that I will start to talk to as part of their proposal to establish some operations outside this company.
Speaker 0: Where is that company from?
Speaker 2: It's it's one of the once again, they also I will tell you they'll probably in few days. They're one of the leaders of service providers in the Internet. Okay. And they need to they feel that they can use their security. Right.
They they access and they control of of a of a
Speaker 0: I see.
Speaker 2: Of the movement of material in the in Internet of the cloud enables them to create it gives them a huge leverage. And they're in quite good relationship here, but they seem that they I can help them to develop the same kind of relationship with many other countries. Okay. Because they can find or identify the cyber attacker deployment for attacks much earlier than the firewall for the those who are looking just around the mach the machines themselves.
Speaker 0: Now, do do you my understanding
Speaker 2: I I mentioned it because or only because let me Sure. Yeah. I mentioned it just because just to tell you that I deliberately delayed them at certain price. Well, they want to to they also came to me. I didn't know I knew the name, but I didn't know what they're doing.
They came to me. They asked to meet with me. I didn't yet see the the number one person. I see the president. I didn't see the CEO, the the guy who wants it.
But it seems that they are interested. And and I delayed it too. I told them, I cannot do it. It's not proper. Too many people in the room who end up that I started making business when I was still mister defensive.
Right. Especially after security. But I go back to that. I don't want the proposal before I end. But I want to draw from you certain feelings.
Speaker 0: I I What could be
Speaker 2: reasonable for them and whether they might ask me to be excluded? It makes doesn't make sense if America is not part of it. So why should they have any We get for the for the
Speaker 0: next month, it's the same attitude, which is, look, I came here I wanted to listen to what you have to offer. Yeah. I am very fortunate because
Speaker 2: as many
Speaker 0: I I have I'm gonna make a decision by April Yeah. Where I will devote my time. Yeah. I'm not gonna make a decision before April 1.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: When's your last day?
Speaker 2: It's last day, March 14. Of March If BB succeeds
Speaker 0: Is it possible he is it possible he doesn't succeed?
Speaker 2: It has no precedent, but it can happen. Theoretically, it can happen. But if if then I'm going to lose a quarter of millions of dollars just for the first six weeks by having to cancel certain lectures that I already committed myself. I consider even to to re to retire, to to affect myself, to resign Right. On the fourteenth.
But it won't be read properly in Israel. People immediately will identify. They will find where I mentioned Yeah. I can't the only thing I can say, okay, planned it in the past. I cannot People say, what will happen is two days.
Afterwards, Syria will collapse. There is no experience.
Speaker 0: Terms And what is what is the truth there?
Speaker 2: I don't say it happens in Syria. Syria is going to collapse. I don't know where when.
Speaker 0: No. But what happens if Syria I guess, America's not gonna
Speaker 2: go after Iran soon. I don't think.
Speaker 0: If but if they if something happens that's dramatic, if Hezbollah does something goofy, does it who else is gonna here's one of my issues. I mean, even though you disliked as a politician, if if Israel has a a military something or other, who's gonna do it besides you?
Speaker 2: No. No. There will be once there is a defense minister, he will do it. Probably short of perfume, but he will do it with the government. He's not alone with the with the armful.
I don't worry. I worry only about the technical situation that might be hated. I hope it won't if nothing happens. And then there is another arm. And if the other arm fails as well, after another, say, probably the April, another round is failing.
So within ninety days, namely May, June, July, at the July, there will be another election. After which, there is another it can end up the whole summer. So I don't want to be stuck there. Right. I prefer to impose upon Bibi to nominate someone else the fourteenth.
Right. Even if it's temporary. And just say, okay. Because I
Speaker 0: it's important that the first offer be high. So let's assume they say $3,000,000 a year. Tony gets 5,000,000 from JPMorgan.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, JPMorgan is much bigger operation. One of the biggest
Speaker 0: So we know it's not gonna be more than 5. Yeah. So the number is gonna be between one and four. Yeah. Between one
Speaker 2: and four. Yeah. That's the real number. Okay.
Speaker 0: So if they believe you have lots of other alternatives, I think they'll offer you one and a half to two to start off with. Right. And we'll we'll negotiate right up and say, it's not can't. Sorry. I I thought you were serious.
I thought you were a serious player if if a million and a half dollars, like, I I can make that in five speeches for five days a year. I don't need it. Yeah. It's now what in real life though, I I once we really know because you you can't have yourself involved in a bank that does funny things.
Speaker 2: What is funny? Illegal. I don't think that they're stupid.
Speaker 0: I don't know, but you don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I
Speaker 0: I don't care what you think. Yeah. It's interesting. But we need to know that, you know, you can't
Speaker 2: How can how can I know and how can I present this? You know, the very question raised doubts about their position. Is
Speaker 0: it Right. Once you tell me the name, we can have some sense, you know. Who are their big clients? Are their big clients Africans, Russians, South Americans? No.
That's exactly They are not.
Speaker 2: There are many Europeans.
Speaker 0: You know, the Italians have a problem.
Speaker 2: Yeah. They they they told me, quite frankly, that they hesitated to enter Russia because of reputational issues. Right. And that they are not almost they are relatively weak in Latin America. They seem to have to go there or Latin America and Central America.
And they didn't don't even know how to start to think about China. And they think that it's a rising out of the West.
Speaker 0: Do they have any other branches? Any other countries? I
Speaker 2: have probably hundreds of people working here.
Speaker 0: No. No. But do they have other branches?
Speaker 2: What's the
Speaker 0: Like a real business in Singapore. Is it do they have a bank in Singapore? Do they have a bank?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I I don't think that they have banks in the normal
Speaker 0: But same thing. I need to know more.
Speaker 2: I I don't I I don't think that they have I don't think that they are wanting, I don't retail retail for sure they don't have.
Speaker 0: I need to but what
Speaker 2: what And they don't have a I I never see them on on the kind of under signing signing operations. So they're probably they're doing it.
Speaker 0: Would So be the instead of talking theory Yeah. When you're free to tell me the details Yeah. I I can give you real information. Say it
Speaker 2: again. Yeah. Okay. So probably it will happen mid next week or Wednesday? And
Speaker 0: the and the security company when? After the '50 fifteenth. Oh, they won't talk to you before that?
Speaker 2: No. They they talked to me. I met with their president.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: And they sent a guy who's associated with them in Israel to talk to me. And they came directly. They came to me directly and asked for meeting now here or or in their headquarter to What country? To here. It's American country.
Yeah. That's a big country. So it's a they also but I you know, I cannot they also they didn't mention numbers. But from what I know, to be a member of the board of American company, it could be half $1,000,000 a year or so. Probably 300,000, probably half 1,000,000, depends on the Right.
Okay, if they do it just to get it, they probably will ask, you know, according to what they await for this meeting, they are very extreme practical people. They want me to help them because they believe
Speaker 0: Yes, sir.
Speaker 2: That outside of this country in this country, they're quite well connected. But once again, I I I noticed that the the eye the eyeball when they learn whom I know personally here from the people, are fighting to to convince the hierarchy underneath them to work.
Speaker 0: But Is it a public company?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Publicly traded. Okay. But they don't have this kind of access to Germany.
Speaker 0: Right. But publicly traded companies are easier because most of the information is available. Yeah. So we know what the board we can find out what all the board members make. That's Yeah.
Yeah. By looking
Speaker 2: at I don't think they want me on the board. Okay. I think that probably they won't. They even left they told the Israeli guy left the open ask Barak what what they would like. They want to be member or head of international advisory board or adviser to us consultant, whatever.
But we know exactly what we want from him. Right. We want him to help us with his authority and security and whatever and quite advanced intelligence community. They know whatever they need about me. And say we want we we believe that if we arrange a list of countries
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: That they can approach on top level.
Speaker 0: Do they know your last name used to be broad? Yes.
Speaker 2: But they expect me to to create a list of the the working schedule to bring the people to start to convince other people to
Speaker 0: But those things again are easy because if in fact, if we know what you're selling and how much your work what you're selling is worth Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Once again, I think that the the real story is how what kind of model could be shaped that will compensate me a long time, the kind of prosecuting whatever in regard to contracts that I have done. We we set a target that are exclusive in the sense that I will approach them, and if something goes up from me, I will be No question. That's the second story. Now, there is a third one that I I will share with you because it comes together with something that I owe you kind of.
Approached American CEO, it's originally German, Klaus Kleinfeld. He's the head of company called Alcoa now, aluminum, biggest public company. I know him from the time that he was here heading of Siemens America. Under Heinrich von was a friend of mine, head of Siemens. Right.
And Doctor. Frompere asked me a favor that I will go meet with the young, this young person and will give him my impression of the guy because he wants to consider whether he can jump him over the heads of everyone on board and put him as his replacement for the for the scandal. And I came here and I was quite impressed by the guy and I had several meetings with the rest of the board member. I saw them as well. And I told him I think it's it could be good.
And he he did it. He took him and jumped. And I'm still wonder I'm not sure that Klaus knows all the story, but probably later on he became acquainted with it somehow through Doctor. Funky himself or in the but we I I met with him several times in business gathering when I was in private life, and we even tried to start some some initiative in Moscow, some Right. Parking systems that seems to be the prime contractor.
We create a relationship with Luchkov and Yelena Baturina and all the Russian leadership too. And I asked him, send him something similar there. We met, he bought his number two kind of operational assistant, a guy who once worked in the the White House later on with one of the consulting groups of the former MSC and the Right. And they also say basically, tell us what you want. It's okay.
We like you. We Right. It is you that I owe you, but he said I like very much, great person. Tell me what how what way you want to be involved. Probably once again, it might end up with certain kind of, probably, a 100,000 that he can decide to pay if I give them, I don't know, whatever consultancy about protecting the But mines around the but Security.
Yes. That doesn't make a lot of money unless I can find some way once again to bring together achievements that I can help them to do either in upstream or downstream and
Speaker 0: But my they will know more about what you can do for them than you can guess. So what you need to that's what I'm saying. You need to have them so look, it's the thing. I'm I don't have that much time. I'm 71 years old.
I have five years of being act I can travel around for five years active. I'm going to have to make a decision about how I spend my time. If you think I'm gonna be an ass if you think I'm an asset for you, you should send me a proposal, but it should be I need to receive it by March 20, between the fourteenth and the twentieth. Mhmm. Because by April 1, I'm gonna make decisions.
Yeah. That's it. No more talking. We're done. They know how much you're worth to them.
But the more you say, well, we you can't ask will you pay my expenses or you Yeah. Just send me a proposal. Send me an offer between the fourteenth and the twentieth, and by April 1, I'll give you an answer. One, two, three. No.
No discussion because you it'll the offer will come in higher than you think because of that. I like the security company more than I like the bank. The security company, you can't get in trouble.
Speaker 2: I will let's continue, and then we'll compare all the Sure. Yeah. Go on. Between between March.
Speaker 0: Yes. March 14 and the twentieth. As if you're giving them an order.
Speaker 2: Yeah. March 31 and on April 1.
Speaker 0: You you want an offer between the fourteenth and the twentieth? Mhmm. Send me an offer between the fourteenth and the twentieth.
Speaker 2: Twenty first. Okay. And the
Speaker 0: fourteenth You negotiate with me already.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And on April 1, I will give you an answer. Actually, send send me an offer. However, kind of no. Don't mention however detailed, nothing.
Just send me an offer. Yeah. Okay. And said basically, the bank, they give they might propose something within 1 and 4,000,000. Right.
Probably. And probably some mechanism of bonus. Will they ask for exclusivity? No. They can't, basically.
No. Because they're dealing with the North America and they're
Speaker 1: not Right.
Speaker 2: And basically, even if they would
Speaker 0: ask They might ask for a
Speaker 2: bank exclusively. Yeah. I could easily explain to them that some other activities might create synergies. It's not it's better not not
Speaker 0: Again, no. The answer is it's not I'm not good. I can't do an exclusive. Yeah. Don't defend yourself.
Don't explain yourself. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I can give them be on account.
Speaker 0: Give them less than more. Prevention.
Speaker 2: Yeah. If
Speaker 0: Would you consider exclusivity? No. Mhmm. No. No.
You you need to be seen especially the military. Yeah. Is I fully
Speaker 2: understand. Yes. Okay. Let me continue. A fact.
I was approached by a guy, a friend of mine, a soldier of mine from, I don't know, twenty years ago, in a in a unit that once commended said. He's now a small size kind of real estate businessman here in New Jersey owning some kind of parking the operations here. Right. But he's well connected. Up to Biden, you know, the people and the connect interest in the younger politics and so on.
Lovely and charming. He came to me and said the following. I feel very strongly that small funds probably between 3 to 8 or $9,000,000,000 in size, will be extremely interested. They not the big ones who have their own foreign ministries, but the small ones would be interested in having you just follow your name, you can go something very similar to what you told me about Blue Mountain. And it seems that without even checking with them, it's still told me I know one or two of those guys that Right.
Easily want to pay you $1,000,000 just to to use your name or $2,000,000 to tell that you are one of the and it's worth for them because otherwise, no one take. He mentioned one name.
Speaker 0: Are you gonna tell me that name or you're not gonna tell me that No. Name
Speaker 2: Jimmy Walker. But the name sound to me something bad because that was a guy that once I met him several years ago here. And he was somehow dealing with running money for the Assad family or something like this.
Speaker 0: For the Assad family? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Jimmy Walker, probably the name. I will tell the rest of the names as well. They're long before the March 14, let's say. I don't know even the name of the fund. Probably I will know the name tomorrow.
Speaker 0: As the hedge fund is here?
Speaker 2: It's not hedge funds. It's probably private equity for source.
Speaker 0: So you think it's private equity?
Speaker 2: Probably. But the name Jimmy Walker. You can find too many Jimmy Walker. I might be able to tell you tomorrow. Mhmm.
I have more details about this. Probably there are others, I don't know what he has in mind. I'm going to meet this guy. Sareem? Is
Speaker 0: it was it Washington firm?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Probably. Either Washington or New York. I I met him here. Wealth Management.
Yeah. Probably. Yeah. Probably. How old is no.
That one is too old. There's too so many kids. How old do you mind me?
Speaker 0: He he can marry in '67 since '47. He's probably 70.
Speaker 2: 65, 70? 50? Six 65, 70? No. Okay.
No. What can be that?
Speaker 0: Alright. Why don't you give me
Speaker 2: the real Yeah. But wait. I will I will tell you in tomorrow. Okay. Tomorrow by noon time, I will call you and tell you.
Okay. I'm going to meet with this guy. Okay. But think of it once again.
Speaker 0: Is it Golden City?
Speaker 2: Probably. How how it looks?
Speaker 0: Too many black people named Jimmy Walker. Alright, tomorrow you tell me.
Speaker 2: Pull it. I will tell you that much. Okay. Now now the the other idea is what Terry raised. Can you tell me in one word what do you think about it?
The idea that we will establish certain operation probably together, probably with him and with me and with I don't know whether you are leaders or kind of want to probably you are behind the scenes type. Yes. Okay. Can do you think that it's something viable or patent it will take years to develop the reputation or whatever?
Speaker 0: No. It's viable.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Because I remember Christian mentioned Christian Christian once told me that he took to him with the problem, was there a bath, you know, or what did he tell him? That he took him probably one half years to make the first 1,000,000.
Speaker 0: That was 10 that was
Speaker 2: Yeah. Told me, you know, I had I once told you, you wanted to consult probably Westinghouse or GE Yeah. For But
Speaker 0: Because what what what did he, that's what I said to that was why I said, Kissinger was policy. Yeah. Strategy policy. Yeah. So what does that mean?
It means everything and nothing. Yeah. So it takes it's too long as nobody knows what it is. In your case and in his case, it's security
Speaker 2: Yeah. And economy.
Speaker 0: Economy. It's very simple. It's a totally different deal.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. I think
Speaker 2: So the thing is rather I think So probably we'll have
Speaker 0: to set
Speaker 2: without asking you to send me an offer to send to sit down together with Terje first, later on with
Speaker 0: Terje's coming are you gonna see him or you're gonna see him tomorrow?
Speaker 2: He's here?
Speaker 0: He'll be here tomorrow. Here? Not not here. I'm leaving in the morning. But he'll be in New York tomorrow, Terry.
He's coming in at 03:00, I think.
Speaker 2: Probably. I don't know. Probably I see him
Speaker 0: I see him Monday night.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'll be I'm
Speaker 0: gonna see Larry tomorrow. I'm taking Larry to Florida. Look,
Speaker 2: I see him before. To think it over with Terje. What could be the the structure, what could be the idea, what could be the kind of services and what Yes. The the business model. How how do we make money out of it?
Should it be a contract with the government, you know, kind of advice. That's also something that I've heard from you or from from Terry, I believe, that Tony Blair, for example, is doing some probably 11,000,000 per year from the Kazakhstan government just to give them is gonna drive to help them with lobbying and some NGOs and UN organizations? And
Speaker 0: Tony has turned funny. So I I don't know what Tony's doing for money. And I don't know if the money get Tony is getting is actually to Tony or to somebody else.
Speaker 2: Who who who could it be? Sorry? Who could it be?
Speaker 0: Because it it goes to Tony because he needs that they need help, Tony gets to pay some of the money to somebody else. Because I hear gigantic numbers given to Tony. 5,000,000 here, 10,000,000 here, 5,000,000 there. Tony is not making $30,000,000 a year.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But he's became quite I can judge from the style of his watches.
Speaker 0: Yes. But he's making 10,000,000 a year.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Probably. Yeah. But probably he get the money and he leaves some of it with others.
Yeah. Probably. Probably, but Yes. Some of the providers.
Speaker 0: But again, see, Tony Tony is much more you have for the moment. And that's one of the things is we have to do it fast.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Because it fades away very fast. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Very fast.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I I will not have an opportunity to say to talk this way to
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 2: Fans but once
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 2: Right now. Yeah. I fully understand the opportunity. Okay. But this one is also something that we have to discuss because we can do it beyond anything else.
It can end up being both the advice for them and probably part of the model is the capacity to provide opportunities to some think of some we are advising some country where which have kind of bauxite. And we get the Don't worry about that. So just just think
Speaker 1: about this.
Speaker 2: Opportunity to propose to clients I said mine Yeah. Car for aluminum filter.
Speaker 0: Look, Ian Osborn is 29 years old. Yeah. 29. So Samsung pays him, he has 10 clients paying 3,000,000 and he does investments more. He does?
So what
Speaker 2: Samsung father fees for investment.
Speaker 0: No. More no. They said, tell you because he's Internet Yeah. They said, we're gonna let give you a 100,000,000 finest Internet companies to buy, and you get 30% of the profit. That's that's separate from his 3,000,000 a year.
And he doesn't know anything this is brand new for him. And he doesn't have your stature. So that's the concept. It's 3,000,000 a year and if you find investment Yeah.
Speaker 2: But he he's something that I've noticed that he's socialite. He's a kind of man who entertains himself and entertains people around, enjoys, genuinely enjoys being in continuous party with people and work, you know. He's in a way a workaholic of social Yes. Relationship, but I'm a little bit more like Obama. I have to choose, I prefer to sit alone in in the room rather than to intervene.
And it's not I cannot argue with a full tear of mind to entertain people. I can be serious with them. Can't
Speaker 0: That's why That's why since you're not an entertainer, you can't explain yourself. That's my point. You have to you you you seem to be military and you need to keep that in mind. You don't you don't want to be what they want. You need to be what they think of you.
Yeah. They think of you as military. It has to be crisp, clear Yeah.
Speaker 2: Precise. I I will come I will I'll come back to to Iron Osborne. Okay. So start to think about it. Yes.
I think that it's a good idea. Now Pritzker Pritzker asked me the same. Tell me, try to make a metric. Yes. Saying what are your have areas where you have certain genuine
Speaker 0: Do you have any can you help him in Iraq?
Speaker 2: No. Okay. Not really. Probably within the Kurdish area, yes, but with the Iraqi government, I don't believe. Okay.
No. I don't. And not Turkey? I can do it in direct. For example, I met yesterday David Petrieus.
Have the You did? I I I'm one of the only ones who keep kind of respecting him in public. Where is he? He's now I met him with his wife, his Ollie, and I'm gathering at Katie Reynolds and some
Speaker 0: Oh, Catholic.
Speaker 2: Female from me on the roof of the Adams. And he stood up to congratulate me. Right. I was quite embarrassed, I didn't know how to respond, but but we talked a little bit. He's one of the most respected people, clearly have connections in Iraq.
I can pay the contact with him.
Speaker 0: Tom already knows him pretty well. Tom Tom thinks he's He does need me. But he also thinks he's potentially toxic.
Speaker 2: Probably. In terms of his okay. We can I can easily find
Speaker 0: What's what's he gonna do, Petraeus?
Speaker 2: I I believe he's looking for opportunities in the private equity. Mhmm. Will be to join hands with one of the players. Private equity help him take some money. Good.
Like what what was his name? Commander of the Balkans that General Clark. Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark. Wrapped himself with a flare.
And
Speaker 0: What's Pineda gonna do?
Speaker 2: I don't know. He told me I'm going to invite you for to give a speech not for free in the Panetta Foundation in front of He the wants to ask, but we contemplated establishing an operation where Jeremy Bashar was the the aid Right. And Yoni Corin will be our office and sensor sensors. And they will bring the idea where either one of us can Mhmm. Do something we do to get to establish some kind of
Speaker 0: You like Panetta?
Speaker 2: I like him very much. Like him. I trust him. We can work together. That could be interesting as well.
Yes.
Speaker 0: If I
Speaker 2: can if I can he told me I will teach you golf and he plays the piano.
Speaker 0: He does?
Speaker 2: See, even Panetta, you and him. Yeah. Could be better than mister Probably. Probably. I can raise him.
That's a strong deal. Okay. But he he very if he's quite satisfied, I I think he told me I probably will do some boards and whatever. He's kind of guy, I believe, that he's he's probably my age, probably a year older or younger. I don't know.
So he probably might think that he's okay to live in Carmel or Monterrey or whatever it is, at a farm, whatever. So the the way that you raise it, it signaled to me that he preferred that some younger guys will do most of the job for us, and we step in when it's becomes absolutely necessary to make sure something is closed. Okay. So And you you
Speaker 0: the the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the guy who was testified.
Speaker 2: Dempsey? Yes. Dempsey is still in service, but I can, for example, take Malin. Right. Malin, he might know he is now in Right.
Or McChrystal. McChrystal is also could be toxic in a way, probably in different way.
Speaker 0: So but who do you have the best relationship with? Pinera? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Okay. Among the security Yes. People in America. Yeah. By far.
I know Gates for a longer time, but he's a kind of I call it fish. Were friendly. We're there. We visited him when we were both in he headed some university somewhere in a remote place in AMM University in
Speaker 0: If if Iran if Iran goes nuclear Yeah. Sometime in the next three years, how much do you think you you you at one point had suggested that it would you know, everybody looks up to somebody above them. But in the case of you and Bibi, there was nobody to look up to. We have to look in the mirror.
Speaker 2: Only there's someone there that we cannot
Speaker 0: You can't he doesn't answer. He's not answering the phone. Will it be seen, do you think, that you guys didn't do what you're supposed to do?
Speaker 2: That's not clear. Depends on many. Quite probably, you know, the same people who was ready to lie on the road to block us from doing it will ask why the hell didn't you overcome all your or our reputation. You can expect anything, but I don't know. I I don't think so because basically we never pretended that you can destroy it fully at one stroke.
Mhmm. So the counterargument could always be okay. We could delay them by two and half years or three years or whatever. Mhmm. And you cannot know for sure how long.
But leave it. It's we have now more more important want No.
Speaker 0: What I wanna know is what's your risk? I'm trying to think about Yeah. That's that's where I'm going. You know, I
Speaker 2: I'm not going to be blamed for the fact that it's probably more the president. Okay. Not really. Don't so it was Pritzker. He asked me try to Yes.
Vertically, horizontally.
Speaker 0: But he he he Tom uses the phrase I owe yous. Yeah. Yeah. So who who owes you a favor? Who owes you something?
That's what he he said to me 10 times already.
Speaker 2: Okay. So it's an example is class time. But there is no way to prove it or to really level it. It's not about it's about a certain sentiment in the mind of rather than a compelling need to do something. When I left prime minister, the role of prime minister, Nazarbayev felt this way toward me because in several international gatherings, I president, he knew that I talked to Clinton and told him it doesn't make sense to behave with him.
He cannot jump immediately into the Maryland standards, and even the Maryland standards were not that perfect. Right. Quite recently, he'd say. And, you know, so he felt this way. And once I used it, I I went there some seven years ago, brought with me an Israeli billionaire with a a Kazakh billionaire and they waited until they there.
We are there. And he asked what do we want? And they described some big operation to be take gas and oil from Turkmenistan across their area. And nothing ended up. And since then, ten years, it's it's a long time.
I cannot think of someone who owes me something. Well, I said I have very good, you know, I have very good relationship that stands out of certain sentiment with Putin.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 2: I can approach him. I can talk to him in a way that few, I believe, dare to or feel free to do. And I always find a responsive, very warm, very kind of, you know, silly from a long distance.
Speaker 0: But did you have a relationship when you were prime minister or defense minister with someone from Turkish government, someone from the Jordanians Yeah. Who you try you know, you you used who was it before you used to have a good relationship with Suleiman. Right? With Egypt Egypt's Suleiman or something?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Almost Hema.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. With almost
Speaker 2: Hema. Worked for years. He he
Speaker 0: looked he liked you. Yeah. I remember.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. He he yeah. But he he really owed us. But but He owed us his religion away.
And Barak owed us a lot in more than one way. Right. So they were in in a sensitive moment, can always look at him at the eye and remind him that you remembered our relation that's starting out for many, many years and it became based on mutual trust and residence to Yes. And to each other critical points. And he it will immediately Right.
Bring to his memory.
Speaker 0: I I don't think So that's the question. So who else mean, this case, shoot, cookie. Who else like that? Well, because that's the thing Tom was asking. Well, that's the type of person.
Maybe it is Putin. Putin
Speaker 2: is a guy. What happened to solar? You did. Passed away. Oh, Putin.
If I depart, send a message to him, I I left. My man, I want to meet with him. You accept me. And if I will ask a favor, the teacher, in front, no problem to you. What kind of sign of trust and it is for him for many reasons than a cocktail.
I don't want to end in a way way the shredder ended with him. Schrader did the same. So they nominated him to be the representative of Garthold in in Germany Germany or or in Western Europe, Europe, whatever. Whatever. And to be responsible for the pike that he approved Right.
Before he left. When you're after a German living police, now about Trevor, they almost feel uneasy. But I I could find something there that I asked him. If it's a favor, the kind of which he can he might do it.
Speaker 0: How often you talked when was the last time you spoke to him? Or dealt with him? Two years?
Speaker 2: No. A year. Yeah. I don't talk to him often. Okay?
Speaker 0: So what I would do
Speaker 2: It's something that that from the day day one that he came to to the Kremlin as a prime minister, we replaced the guy named I was already prime minister. I visited Yelching. Right. When Stepashy was there. The Putin just came in.
It was still kind of new. And since then we kept Gudelsheva visiting in Sochi, in San Pedro, in Moscow.
Speaker 0: Visiting socially or businessmen? Yeah, socially. We
Speaker 2: we did a visit. I told him that I'm going there. I don't remember too well. Don't remember. And he asked, come to Moscow.
I said, okay. Come to Moscow. He said, oh, no. I'm in Sochi. Please come to Sochi.
I came to Sochi. We just sat down with him in his palace. He proposed he will play, you know, billiard or whatever. He he comes, he all hugs me. They remind the story that I always told him that there is some sense of well, I'm telling him the truth about him, and I'm talking to him very frankly.
And he, frankly, kind of someone that looks at at the high level, talks to him, say, I don't think that you are doing the right thing for you and for God like this or that. I think you should look at things and he listens very carefully. He respects his way of direct Right. Talk. I don't think that there are anyone who owes me something in the sense that
Speaker 0: Nobody means that
Speaker 2: know, in a way, in a way, Ban Ki Moon doesn't owe me anything. But I believe that a long time, he developed a kind of respect for me. I helped him to appear better in many small cases around He the told me bluntly that he's ready to help me. The moment I see even in his country.
Speaker 0: So the that's so the key would be I I would think about, not decided, that at some point, you can say, look, I'm as you I would send a note to Putin Uh-huh. To I'm gonna leave government Yeah. In March 14. Yeah. I'm gonna be in Scandinavia or I'm planning to be in Western Northern Europe, we should have dinner.
Yeah. That's it. No more it has to be very short. In terms of recent military responsibility for you, how would you describe your strength now? Is it you know, I read the front.
Is it strategy, operations, tactics? How do you think about won't. Let me just write down here.
Speaker 2: Putin for the dinner.
Speaker 0: Or you can
Speaker 2: Or tea. Tea or vodka.
Speaker 0: You know, you can meet some are you gonna be in Paris? We should have should we should make a plan to meet sometime in the next two months. I I
Speaker 2: can just tell him I would like to meet with you. Right. Right. He will say calm.
Speaker 0: Right. But you're saying nothing
Speaker 2: He will say calm.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: He he would he loves to sit with me
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: And talk. Always with someone because he doesn't trust his English. Mhmm. He takes one of his personal kind of What was the next point? Well, the question I
Speaker 0: wanna know is, in terms of your military Yeah.
Speaker 2: Competence. Let me tell you. I I sat down yesterday for the second time, a week earlier in Tel Aviv, with the lady who runs Provinc Marti. And I talked to her about directions in in what with them downstream. There is that the f 35 is the last fighter with the pilot in it for more reasons.
And that probably many countries will not buy it. And even those who bought it might show reluctant to see reduction in performance or Right. Climbing prices. And basically, unlike the situation 20 ago, the decision maker were not really looking for fighters that can win a war because they don't believe that there will be a war with the Right. Term in the life cycle of the airplane.
So they are ready to settle for something much simpler, cheaper, but still fly.
Speaker 0: And Yes.
Speaker 2: And I talked to her talked to her about the the need to balance what wait a I thought I looked at her. She's an intelligent woman that was pushed under the second end of the
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Top row. I think that no one at her leadership talks to her this way without insulting her or something
Speaker 0: like that.
Speaker 2: Much more authority, not what is not what happened, followed the industry Yeah. Situation before, and she was just and she's not very fat. She's almost 60, probably 57, I know. And with such a wide kind of penetrating, thoughtful insights about what is going to happen, what should be the fraction of dependence on a contract from the Pentagon? To what extent?
What should be balance between f 16 f 16, which they are now cost 4,500 or so, and the F-twenty two that ended, and the F-thirty five that will be I don't believe that it will become popular, no one has the money to pay for it except for us to see Canada. So we really believe that Canadians really see that they will have to to order it flying with Herzos to Poland, crossing over the port. And for some of the Arabs, become a kind of token of prestige that we have the best piece, but not not more. Mhmm. And I told her about the the need to find what what should be done and what what's going to happen in the
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: And I thought that, you know, I have the combination. It's not policy. I have the combination of insights into the strategic level of it, but very deep understanding, detailed understanding of everything from technology to tactics to the use and to the even the fallacies why Boeing failed after investing probably 5,000,000,000 in future combat system for the ground forces, and how such an issue should be approached in order not to repeat Right. Mistakes. So in a way, can be strategic with a lot of Deep note.
Finger finger freedom, deep understanding of what's feasible, what's not feasible, what's needed, what what I'm forcing also. Countries will need in order to fight, not the previous war, the the future ones as they have fought. You know, I I'm
Speaker 0: But could you sit on the board of Martin Marietta?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I didn't check it. Probably not. If I did it immediately, it would it's a little bit bizarre. And when the Americans because I I we told this kind of
Speaker 0: But when the Americans buy give Israel $2,000,000,000 Uh-huh. With the requirement that 75% of it gets bought, buys American stuff, how how does that actually work? It was
Speaker 2: we we ran through the operational system, the the the priority there, all of it that they signed the order, the signing of the contract. So I think it would be a little bit strange. But, in fact, we had some of the general manager former Air Force commander general manager of Minister of Defense, ended up being now a major kind of high level consultant to for Bollinger. Right. Or the president of Boeing Israel for whatever it is to say.
Right. And his wife, I would say. But I I I don't I just mentioned it as an example. Probably after a year I can do it or probably I can do it if it's clear that I'm not going to deal in any way with Israel and Yeah.
Speaker 0: Exactly. But in terms of your defense
Speaker 2: You know, look for example, the drones. I am the person who basically made it fly. By
Speaker 0: 30
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 TUCKER: "HOW WAS EPSTEIN AT THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING, FROM LIBYA TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS?" Tucker: "How was Jeffrey Epstein at the center of everything, from Libya to the Global Financial Crisis. What's that?" Ian: "He had a company called Liquid Funding Limited, and they were selling the same types of CDOs that eventually caused the global financial crisis. There's an overt financial paper trail that Epstein was better acquainted with the problem than anyone else in the world." A convicted sex trafficker running a company selling the same toxic financial products that collapsed the global economy. And somehow that's a footnote in his story. Source: @TCNetwork @IanCarrollShow
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1: Well, the intersection with the global financial crisis specifically is a wild story that to be truly told, you need to put the evidence on screen as well. But the short version is that he had a company called Liquid Funding Limited that was domiciled in The Bahamas that was partially owned by Bear Stearns. And Bear Stearns, you know, is where he had come up for a long time. And Liquid Funding Limited was selling CDOs, the same types of CDOs that eventually caused the global financial crisis. It was capitalized at, I believe, dollars 100,000,000 and allowed to sell $20,000,000,000 with a B of CDOs.
Speaker 1: And I actually just was looking at that statistic earlier today because this is the craziest story. And that little CDO factory that Jeffrey Epstein was running tied into Bear Stearns. And if you recall, Bear Stearns was one of the, you know, the first to collapse, right? That shut down in the months directly preceding Bear Stearns starting to collapse. And Jeffrey Epstein redeemed all of those CDOs, all of those assets.
Speaker 1: The terms are I don't know the technical terms for what he did. But basically, he made a run on the bank on those exact assets that were the exact problem. And he was tied into the exact bank that was financially distressed. And then he wound that whole company, Liquid Funding Limited, up and disappeared. And later, JPMorgan, the bank that he later worked with after, you know, Bear Stearns was his early banking career, and then he later was doing all of his money laundering and banking and referring of people at JPMorgan, They came in, swooped up Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar.
Speaker 1: They also later spun Liquid Funding Limited back up. There's a whole There's a very overt financial paper trail that Jeffrey Epstein was better acquainted with the problem than almost anyone in the world because he was deeply enmeshed in Bear Stearns and knew the leadership of Bear Stearns very well. And he understood CDOs, he was selling CDOs. And then he just so happens to wind his whole shop up and close it down and redeem it all right at the moment when things are about to go bust. So, that's a wild rabbit hole, and it's very interesting.
Speaker 0: I mean, what is that? I mean, that suggests Well, it doesn't suggest it's like direct evidence of, if I'm assuming we can verify what you're saying, that the biggest events in the world are actually not quite as organic or accidental as we're led to believe and that, you know, this is like puppet master stuff. Mean, it is. I don't know what to say. I don't want this to be true,
Speaker 1: but
Speaker 0: that's what it looks
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This stuff is like, I mean, some of these files are seven years old people in these colloquies are still around it. By the way, I know some of them. Which gets to the other point, which is like, how was Jeffrey Epstein at the center of everything, every global storm? I mean, he was going back and forth on Libya. You know, he was going back and forth on the global financial crisis.
It's like there's
Speaker 1: really no He was deeply involved in the global financial crisis. He was actually selling CDOs.
Speaker 0: Okay. So can you just I mean, there's so much here, and I hope when I'm
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: You we're in the same
Speaker 1: place you
Speaker 0: can go through this in much greater detail. But can you just tell us what we know about that Jeffrey Epstein's involvement or intersection with the global financial crisis? What's that?
Speaker 1: Well, the intersection with the global financial crisis specifically is a wild story that to be truly told, you need to put the evidence on screen as well. But the short version is that he had a company called Liquid Funding Limited that was domiciled in The Bahamas that was partially owned by Bear Stearns. And Bear Stearns, you know, is where he had come up for a long time. And Liquid Funding Limited was selling CDOs, the same types of CDOs that eventually caused the global financial crisis. It was capitalized at, I believe, dollars 100,000,000 and allowed to sell $20,000,000,000 with a B of CDOs.
And I actually just was looking at that statistic earlier today because this is the craziest story. And that little CDO factory that Jeffrey Epstein was running tied into Bear Stearns. And if you recall, Bear Stearns was one of the, you know, the first to collapse, right? That shut down in the months directly preceding Bear Stearns starting to collapse. And Jeffrey Epstein redeemed all of those CDOs, all of those assets.
The terms are I don't know the technical terms for what he did. But basically, he made a run on the bank on those exact assets that were the exact problem. And he was tied into the exact bank that was financially distressed. And then he wound that whole company, Liquid Funding Limited, up and disappeared. And later, JPMorgan, the bank that he later worked with after, you know, Bear Stearns was his early banking career, and then he later was doing all of his money laundering and banking and referring of people at JPMorgan, They came in, swooped up Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar.
They also later spun Liquid Funding Limited back up. There's a whole There's a very overt financial paper trail that Jeffrey Epstein was better acquainted with the problem than almost anyone in the world because he was deeply enmeshed in Bear Stearns and knew the leadership of Bear Stearns very well. And he understood CDOs, he was selling CDOs. And then he just so happens to wind his whole shop up and close it down and redeem it all right at the moment when things are about to go bust. So, that's a wild rabbit hole, and it's very interesting.
Speaker 0: I mean, what is that? I mean, that suggests Well, it doesn't suggest it's like direct evidence of, if I'm assuming we can verify what you're saying, that the biggest events in the world are actually not quite as organic or accidental as we're led to believe and that, you know, this is like puppet master stuff. Mean, it is. I don't know what to say. I don't want this to be true,
Speaker 1: but
Speaker 0: that's what it looks
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷 INTERVIEW: HEATED DEBATE ON WHETHER THE U.S. SHOULD STRIKE IRAN Tensions are rising fast, military options are on the table, and the debate over deterrence versus escalation is reaching a boiling point. NYT Best Seller Joel Rosenberg argues Iran has spent decades funding armed proxy groups that kill Americans and U.S. allies, says diplomacy has failed, and supports a large but limited strike to punish the regime without triggering full-scale war. He frames military action as necessary to protect U.S. credibility, allies in the region, and to stop Iran’s missile capabilities from growing unchecked. Prof. Glenn Diesen rejects that outright, warning any strike would escalate the conflict, push Iran toward nuclear deterrence, and risk a regional war driven by security competition. Glenn accuses Washington of ignoring Iran’s security concerns, while Joel fires back that Glenn is excusing one of the world’s most brutal regimes. Enjoy this conversation with @Glenn_Diesen and @JoelCRosenberg 01:15 - Should the U.S. attack Iran? Trump’s 3 options. 02:53 - Prediction: Trump will choose a “large but limited strike.” 03:41 - Regime change via air power alone: Practical military limitations vs political goals. 06:48 - Ethnic fragmentation risks of Iranian regime collapse. 07:31 - Iran would respond “all out” to any strike. 10:42 - Who started hostilities? 1953 coup vs embassy takeover. 12:35 - Failures of past U.S. interventions (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan). 15:49 - Does Iran need to be an enemy of the U.S.? 16:05 - Israel, Iran, the U.S., and targeting. 20:34 - Were Iraq/Afghanistan “successful”? Success vs moral cost. 23:05 - Is the U.S. the problem? 28:15 - Nuclear facilities strike vs diplomacy argument. 32:54 - Ballistic missiles vs nuclear weapons as the real threat. 38:21 - Is Israel a threat to Gulf Nations? 45:54 - Israeli Foreign Policy, Law, and its ties to Arabs and Iran. 57:48 - End-of-year predictions for Iran and regional escalation.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario: Do you think The US should attack Iran?
Joel: He could do a large but limited strike designed to punish the Iranian regime, but not explicitly try to topple it.
Clint (Glenn): Now it's in the national interest of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent. You think that Iran the authority enemy. Of Not America being responsible for killing thousands of Iranians. It's very strange that we don't recognize the security competition here. You're unbelievable. No legitimate security concerns for Iran. None of your rules.
Mario: Gentlemen. Astonishing.
Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US?
Clint: I see that’s very dishonest. This idea that The United States and Israel are worried about the Iranian civilians. I think this is ludicrous. If anything, they're doing everything they can to fuel the violence. If we stop threatening them, perhaps we can get something in return. They stop the threat. No.
Mario: Never tried we've never gone down this path at all.
Joel: You’re just completely ignoring tens of billions of Iranian dollars that go funneling into terrorist organizations that kill Americans, kill our Arab allies, kill our Israeli allies. It doesn't seem to bother you.
Mario: Joel, I’m gonna start with you. A pretty broad question. Do you think The US should attack Iran, and do you think they will?
Joel: The president has set his own terms. He has three choices: do nothing and frame that as diplomacy; do a large but limited strike designed to punish the regime but not topple it; or go all in toward regime change. He hasn’t made regime change his explicit objective yet. I think he’ll pick option two, a large but limited strike, because negotiations aren’t designed to lead somewhere. The Iranians are not serious, in his view.
Mario: Do you think Trump should go with option two, or seek regime change?
Joel: He should go with number two. Regime change is something I would love to see, but it’s too big an objective with air power. If the regime is toppled by force, the risks are immense. Damaging the regime—ballistic missiles, some nuclear components—could be enough to protect citizens and allies, even if it doesn’t topple the regime. If a coup follows, that’s a risk.
Mario: Glenn, you argued against regime change but acknowledged concerns about the regime’s brutality. Please respond to Joel and the broader points.
Glenn: I don’t think Trump should attack. It’s very likely he will, and the objective will probably be a limited bloody nose attack that is going bombed for two or three days or, like last time, twelve, and then pull away, with an implicit understanding that if Iran retaliates, it could be a big war. There is no diplomatic solution because the Iranians reject multi-issue deals; they want nuclear issues to be separate. The Iran regime is existentially threatened, so they’ll respond. The aim should be to recognize key security concerns and pursue a broader security understanding, not just use force.
Mario: Joel, respond to Glenn’s point about whether Iran must be considered an enemy and about potential diplomacy.
Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? No. But this regime is an enemy. The people of Iran do not have to be enemies. The supreme leader believes the United States and Israel are enemies, and for forty-seven years they say, death to America, death to Israel. The Iranian regime has decided they’re the enemy. The Iranian people largely despise the regime.
Mario: If Iran agrees to stop the nuclear program, should The US accept such a deal? Is that enough?
Joel: The nuclear program is almost 100% destroyed; you wouldn’t negotiate solely on that. If diplomacy exists, it would be to address threats beyond the nuclear issue—ballistic missiles, regional alliances, human rights, etc. The Iranians were willing to accept transparency around their nuclear program in JCPOA-era diplomacy, but the Americans pulled out. If a nuclear deal is possible, it would require mutual concessions; insisting on broader concessions risks collapse.
Glenn: The problem is that Iran has legitimate security concerns too. The strategy after the Cold War linking security to global hegemony is problematic. There should be recognition of Iran’s legitimate security needs, not a complete defanging. We should explore a grand bargain—recognize a Palestinian state, get out of Syria, and pursue a path with Iran that reduces the threat without destroying Iran.
Mario: There’s a debate about whether the Gulf states see Israel as a bigger threat than Iran now. Joel, what’s your take?
Joel: Two countries—Qatar and Turkey—see Israel as an enemy. Turkey’s Erdogan has threatened Jerusalem; Qatar hosts anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda via Al Jazeera and has hosted Hamas leaders. Israel has the right to defend itself and has pursued peace deals with several Arab states, but the region remains dangerous. Israel should avoid destabilizing moves and pursue peace where possible, while recognizing the security challenges it faces.
Glenn: Israel’s internal politics and policy flaws exist, but law in Israel provides equal rights to Arab citizens; policy can be improved, but not all claims of apartheid reflect law. Arabs have political rights, though issues with funding and policy remain. The West Bank is a flashpoint; Gaza is controlled by Hamas, complicating Palestinian governance. There’s a broader discussion about whether regime change in Iran is desirable given potential fragmentation and regional instability.
Mario: Final question: where is Iran by year’s end?
Glenn: If Trump attacks, Iran will perceive an existential threat and may strike back hard, possibly shutting the Strait of Hormuz. Russia and China may intervene to prevent complete destruction of Iran.
Joel: I hope Glenn’s scenario doesn’t come true. Iran might pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent. If the regime is weakened, the region’s stability could be jeopardized. The options remain: negotiate, strike, or regime-change—prefer a large but limited strike to deter further advancement without taking ownership of an unknown future.
Mario: Thank you both. This was a vigorous, wide-ranging exchange. End of time.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you think The US should attack Iran?
Speaker 1: He could do a a large but limited strike designed to punish the Iranian regime, but not explicitly try to topple it.
Speaker 2: Now it's in the national interest of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent. You think that Iran the authority enemy. Of Not America being responsible for killing thousands of Iranians. It's very strange that we don't recognize the security competition here. You're unbelievable.
No legitimate security concerns for Iran. None of your rules.
Speaker 1: Gentlemen. Astonishing.
Speaker 3: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US?
Speaker 1: These guys are racist lunatics, and they're and they're wrong.
Speaker 2: I see that's very dishonest. That is this idea that The United States and Israel are worried about the Iranian civilians. I think this is ludicrous. If anything, they're doing everything they can to fuel the violence. If we stop threatening them, perhaps we can get something in return.
They stop the threat. No.
Speaker 0: Never never tried we've never gone down this path at all.
Speaker 1: You're just completely ignoring tens of billions of Iranian dollars that go funneling into terrorist organizations that kill Americans, kill our Arab allies, kill our Israeli allies. It doesn't seem to bother you.
Speaker 0: Joel, I'm I'm gonna start with you. A pretty broad question. Do you think The US should attack Iran, and do you think they will?
Speaker 1: Well, okay. That's a I think the president president Trump has got a set his own terms. So I don't really know how he avoids this. We can talk about the moral and strategic, you know, rationale, which I think is a really important question. But the president's credibility now is on the line because he said he was coming to help what has now become 30,000 or more Iranians who've been murdered.
He said help is on the way. He basically told people to rise up. And I think he has three choices. Right? He has he has the choice to do nothing, but to frame that as diplomacy, to frame that as the stakes are too high, we can find another way.
That's that's legitimate, but I think it will cost him and and the American the American people a lot of you know, a lot because you you make promises. You don't wanna become Barack Obama. You don't wanna say, hey. There's a red line. Don't use chemical weapons in Syria.
And then they get used and and then nothing really happens. So but the president could do nothing. Second, he could do a a large but limited strike designed to punish the Iranian regime but not explicitly try to topple it. And third, he could go all in and just, you know, keep hitting until he accomplishes an explicit call for regime change. He hasn't made that quite so clear.
He wants the regime to be changed, but he hasn't said that that's his objective right now. That's pretty costly. I'm not sure you can do that all with air power. So those are, I think, are the three options in front of him. I think he's gonna pick most likely.
Number two, I think he's going to do a large but limited strike, and I think that negotiations that are happening right now are not designed to lead somewhere. I don't think the president and his team believe that a deal of any kind, a serious deal could be struck. So I think this is to test that premise and to conclude the Iranians are not the Iranian regime is not serious.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And that premise doesn't seem to be going too well based on the reports we're getting. But do you think Trump should go with option two, or should he seek regime change in your opinion?
Speaker 1: I think he should go with number two. I think regime change is something I would love to see. I think many would love to see. The Iranian people would love to see. But I think that's too big in of object too big an objective based on air power.
I I really you know, I I mean, I'm gonna put my cards on the table. I'm an American and an Israeli. I'm a dual citizen. I'm a I'm a Jew I'm Jewish and an evangelical, so I got a lot of things going on there. We can you can pull all that apart.
We can talk about it as you will. But as an American and an Israeli, it doesn't help if the president does a massive attack continuously for a month or two, all with air power and doesn't succeed. Right? I mean, doing damage serious damage to the Iranian regime to its ballistic missile forces. I think its nuclear forces are pretty or the nuclear weapons program was pretty much destroyed last June.
But the ballistic missile program, the factories to make those launchers and missiles, that is not that is not enough to to protect American citizens and interests and allies in the region. And I I think, you know, I don't wanna go to war just for credibility, but I think Iran is a is a case that that the president has already been dealing with, and it's now time to do serious damage. If that sets into motion the fall of the regime, a coup d'etat, an insurrection, whatever, then there's
Speaker 0: a
Speaker 1: lot of risk there. But compared to leading this regime, homicidal and genocidal in place, I don't think that's the right play, and I don't think president Trump thinks that either.
Speaker 0: I'm impressed by your answer knowing how critical you are and have been for years of the Iranian regime just to say that a regime change may not be the best option. Before I go
Speaker 1: into regime change is the best option, Mario. I wanna But I wanna be feasible. But I don't think that you can do that by air power, and we're not gonna go back to the Iraq model or Afghanistan. So the tools in the tool chest for the president of The United States riding as high as he is in terms of global credibility is to to punish this regime seriously, but don't explicitly say you're trying to bring about regime change. If it happens, wonderful.
But which regime is it? If you kill the top 5,000 worst people in the Iranian regime, there's 50,000 ready to take over. You're a little younger than I am, but when I was growing up in the seventies and eighties, I remember people saying, when Fidel Castro falls or dies, Cuba will be free. And nobody told me that he had a horrible evil brother. Like, I just didn't you know, I was not a Cuba specialist or anything.
So it it you know, the the death of Fidel Castro wasn't enough. And so, Iran is not Venezuela. There's a lot of different things going on here. So I think the president needs to have clear but limited I don't mean small, but limited objectives. Achieve those, declare a victory, and then watch what happens next.
Speaker 0: Glenn, one of the points that concerns me is, you know, Joel and I'll let you respond to that later on as well. When Joel Joel said a regime change will be wonderful. I hate the regime. I think the the killing of the protesters, thousands of protesters, these are, you know, numbers you see in times of war. But the alternative to the current regime, especially with all the various ethnic groups, the Persians, the Azeris, the Kurds, the the Luras, the Arabs, the Balaks, and Balakis in Iran, make a regime change a very, very dangerous scenario.
I would love to get your thoughts on that particular point, but also all the other points that Joel made, including my original question, Glenn, of whether you think Trump should even attack.
Speaker 2: No. I I don't think Trump should attack. I think it's very likely that it will, and I agree. I think the objective will probably be a limited attack. And I think, ideally for Trump, he would like to see a limited bloody nose attack that is going bombed a little for two, three days or, like last time, twelve, and then, essentially pull away, with the implicit, understanding for Iran that if they retaliate in a big way, then it would be a big war.
Now I think this is a goal to gradually weaken Iran for the eventual objective of having regime change. Now I don't think this is gonna work in any sense because for Iran, they're not gonna accept a bloody nose attack. They made it very clear that if there is an attack, they they will go full out. And this is very rational because, the regime change objectives of The United States is an existential threat to Iran, not just this government, but the entire country because, there is no replacement government. Once you knock out the government, the effort then is, well, it is no opposition that can essentially unify the country.
So it will begin to fragment. And as we learned from some of the American media like Wall Street Journal, they wouldn't mind seeing this, that this could be a good thing to balkanize Iran, have it, yeah, a weak, if not a broken up state completely. So for this reason, I think Iran sees this as an existential threat, and that's how they will respond. So they will go all out attack, shut down the Strait Of Rimuth, attack American assets in the region. So for these reasons, I think, Trump has postponed, because he needs to, no matter what he wants to do, he postpone he has to postpone if he's gonna do a larger attack, and this would be have to be a larger attack as it then needs more military assets to the region.
Or he could seek look for a way to pull back as he probably wants some low hanging fruit and not an actual big war. But I agree that there is no diplomatic solutions because the Iranians very much reject the idea that any nuclear issue should be packed in with other things. That is if you pack packing in all the other stuff, reducing the amount of ballistic missiles, cutting off ties with their allies in the region, any of the sort. It would be essentially a capitulation. After this, they would just have to wait for the Israelis and Americans to knock them out in the future.
Speaker 1: So Glenn, can I just ask you a question? I just wanna clarify and make sure I understand. You're saying there's no diplomatic solution, but the president shouldn't attack under any circumstances. So what is your what's your view of how do you contain, neutralize, diminish the threat posed by the Iranian regime to its own you know, it's we're not primarily focused as Americans or Israelis or anybody else on on their own people, though I think we have a moral that's a moral element. But from American national security perspective, not to mention Americans America's allies in the region, of which Israel is a is an important one, but not the only one.
It's a they're a threat. And if they remain a cornered threat that's not dealt with, what exactly is your plan there solution?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think they they have to be a threat to this extent. There has been made absolutely no efforts in terms of of pursuing some mutually beneficial security. Again, why why is Iran a threat in this way? Because The United States and Israel has been trying to knock them out for the past forty six years. No.
To
Speaker 1: But No. They declared war in The United States. They took over the US embassy. They took our hostages for a hundred and forty four days. Then they started building proxy terrorist organizations that killed American marines in Beirut and then on and on and on and on.
But America has never decisively dealt with a war that got declared on The United States forty seven years ago.
Speaker 2: Well, something preceded the takeover of the American embassy that is since '53 when the Americans, toppled the government there and ran it like a proxy. So they have their own grievances. My my point is as the world shifts more into a multipolar world, the Americans aren't able to dominate every corner of the world. And also now that you have large powers like Russia and China who's not gonna accept The United States destroying Iran and, as they would see this on a stepping stone in a further offensive, they're not gonna let this happen either. So it's not feasible.
It's not gonna happen. And for this reason, I I think that The United States should try something different, which it hasn't in the past, which is recognizing where the key security concerns of Iran are as well as Israel and United States and take that as a point of departure to see where there's actually a possibility to make agreements. So far, any diplomacy entails that Iran has to do whatever the United States tells it to. Otherwise, there will be consequences. So I I I don't think there's been any serious diplomacy in terms of meeting Iran's concerns.
Speaker 0: What I got you're a No. But just no. You're do You're a do nothing guy. I got I got it I understand that.
Speaker 2: Not do nothing. No.
Speaker 0: No. That's what you said.
Speaker 2: Whenever the Iranians have been put when presented with a proposal such as a JCPOA, they have accepted. They accepted having transparency around their nuclear program. And and but to to suggest that they shouldn't have allies in the regions, that they don't have the need for deterrent, I don't think this is realistic in any way. And but but also, I would like to say that in terms of this intervention, I think it's it's problematic on many ways. First, if you're gonna have an intervention, you have to look at both the intentions and the capabilities.
In terms of tensions, the intentions, I see it as very dishonest. That is, this idea that The United States and Israel are worried about the Israeli, sorry, Iranian civilians. I think this is ludicrous. If anything, they're doing everything they can to fuel the violence. And furthermore, there is a capability.
Can you actually carry through even if The US and Israel only had the best intention for Iranians? What exactly can be done? What is the track record here? I mean, have Afghanistan, where we also have twenty year occupation only to replace the Taliban with the Taliban. We had Iraq with killing hundreds of thousands, now they're closely aligned with Iran, which they weren't in the past.
You had Libya, which went from prosperous to a slave market with uncontrolled migration flow, terrorism. You have Syria, which used to respect minority rights under Assad. Now they have an ISIS terrorist regime slaughtering minorities and might actually fragment. I mean, there's no where where is the success here? I we're gonna fight Gaza terrorists in Gaza, which ends up in supporting a genocide.
There's I mean, there's no success anywhere I've seen. Same as the previous attack on Iran. What did that actually achieve? Diplomacy was a show proved to be a fraud. Now it's in the national interest of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
This has been extremely foolish policies, so it can't be achieved what even The US and Israel would like to achieve.
Speaker 0: Joel, I'll let you respond. Also, I've there's one thing you talk you mentioned about how, Iran is seen as an enemy of
Speaker 3: The US. Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US?
Speaker 0: That's a con that's something I've been questioning for the last few years. I just googled now the number of American deaths through Iranian proxies of Iran over the last ten years. You know, I took out the Hezbollah bombing of the barracks in the eighties and the fall of the regime or the Iranian revolution, sorry, the fall of the Shah. And the answer, I've I've checked two sources. I've checked on Gruk and Chaji, but these four Americans killed.
One contractor in in 2023 and three soldiers in 2024, and that's by the proxies, I think, in Iraq. And then if you look at American policy towards Iran and, again, that's from someone that's very I despise the Iranian regime. But if you look at American policy, just yesterday, Scott Besson admitted that and we all know this. The US caused or played a key role in causing the economic collapse. Now whether intentional or not, obviously, the sanctions have a purpose, last to cripple the economy.
And those that collapse led to the people going on the streets, and then Trump encouraged the people to rise up against the the regime, and the regime ended up massacring thousands of thousands of them. But is that really necessary, and isn't there a path similar to what we saw in Russia? Russia was seen as an enemy of The US, and now suddenly Trump is is changed things and looking at a potential economic alliance between the two countries that was unheard of under Biden. Can't we have the same thing with Iran?
Speaker 1: Okay. That's a lot. Okay. Alright. But, those are all good questions.
Let's start with, does Iran have to be an, an enemy of The United States? No. But they are. This regime is an enemy. I don't think the people of Iran are an enemy.
And in fact, as the people of Iran, 92,000,000 or so, you know, good, you know, two thirds of them or more, maybe three quarters, have come to despise the the Iranian regime. They are saying that everything that they've been told by the regime must be the exact opposite. You know, the it's, you know, it's the George Costanza doctrine. Right? Do the opposite.
Right? So so if Iran says that America is horrible, the regime says that The United States is horrible, well, maybe The United States is not actually so bad. And Israel is, you know, is the Zionist enemy. Actually, they're not so bad. And it's it's our regime that's that's that's the problem.
So, they don't have to be an enemy, but the Iranian regime has decided they're the enemy. The supreme leader, Ali Hamanai, believes he's an enemy. And and that's why for forty seven years, they say every Friday, death to America, death to Israel. Now Israel is an issue in this, but we're only the little Satan in their grand eschatology or their end their their apocalyptic genocidal end times theology. The United States is the objective.
Not just you know, they don't have the capacity, obviously, yet, the Iranians, to do an intercontinental ballistic missile. They're not at North Korea's level yet. They don't have actual nuclear warheads yet, but their objective is super clear. They say it every week. So they are they are an enemy, and they have to be neutralized.
Now to Glenn's point about, well, you've had all these wars and what are your successes? Well, I I will grant that if the success is defined as Jeffersonian democracy in Afghanistan or or Iraq, for example, then no. That is total failure. If you're saying those two countries are no longer able to project force or or harbor the level of terrorism that once actually did attack us, then it's been a success. Right?
Now it mixed and messy. I'll I'll grant that. But those are two countries that were doing real damage and and and drop oops. Sorry. Your point about, you gotta be careful to draw the, the lines of when was Iran killing Americans to only ten years.
Because in Afghanistan and and even more in Iraq, Iran was sending in weapons and fighters, training, and funding to kill Americans in large numbers. And so that's also was true in Syria, it was also true in Afghanistan. And and, of course, 700,000 American citizens, some many dual citizens, but also business people and so forth. 700,000 Americans live in Israel. So if you're an American for America first person or maybe you wouldn't use that term, if somebody is thinking, hey.
Listen. What what about American national security? Forget the Israelis. Forget the Arab allies of The United States. You know, what about us?
Okay. Well, that's the largest American contingent living overseas anywhere in the world. So when those missiles were flying in from Iran, the risk to American lives and property and commerce, the high-tech industry and so forth was pretty big. So there's a lot of pieces there, but I would say in terms of neutralizing the threat to The United States and American allies and interests, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, messy and painful as it was, was successful. If now I think if you had if they dial if Bush had dialed back and said, we're not trying to go for Jeffersonian democracy.
We're just trying to neutralize the worst of it, that that would have been a a more defined and achievable objective and may not have gone on quite so long.
Speaker 2: Can I
Speaker 0: let you respond to both points? And and there's two main ones. I think the the one I tend to agree with is that Iran chose the foreign policy that they have, which labels Israel and The US as enemies. They could have had a different foreign policy as other countries in the region that did economically very well by aligning themselves with the states. But the other point about the, other wars in the region being labeled as successful is based on some metrics is one I obviously disagree with.
I'd love to get your view on it, Clint.
Speaker 2: Well, if I may, I I think that the the Iranian supporting or or or pushing back against The US occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, this kinda makes a lot of sense. I mean, it's rational. It doesn't mean we have to support it or condone it. However, The United States invades Afghanistan, invades Iraq. It comes up with these terms, axes of evil, making it very clear that once they're done with those invasions, they will come for the Iranians.
Now if you're sitting in Tehran and you have some common sense, you would like to stop the Americans in their truck when they're in Iraq. So, again, it's not a statement of support. Clint,
Speaker 1: Clint. Yeah.
Speaker 0: But but but is recognized thing. If if if the main objective is
Speaker 2: to preserve you a national
Speaker 0: interest, why wouldn't you do this?
Speaker 1: Tell us what your after nine eleven and three thousand Americans and internationals murdered in United States, you're talking about the the American occupation of of Afghanistan. So just let's limit to Afghanistan for a moment. What would you have done after nine eleven? Because right now, you look like a do nothing, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil leftist, and I don't understand saying that Iran was responding to the American occupation of Afghanistan is pretty rich.
Speaker 2: I'm not a leftist in any shape or form, but I'm just saying the world is defined by security by security competition. You don't want to have if if you want the Iranians to stop pushing back seeing The US as a if The US wants to stop Iran seeing it as a threat, it should stop threatening Iran as well. My point before, as it was brought up the similarity with Russia, Kissinger had a good statement on this back in 2014. He made the point then if we see Russia as a great power, what we should do is recognize what each other's core interests are so we can see if they can be harmonized and then attempt to manage the differences. Now I think we should apply the same to Iran.
And a lot of the problems are able to be resolved. And that's not even my argument. That is the former director of Mossad, Efraim Halevi. He was making the point that after the Chinese helped to broker this diplomatic agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, The Israelis saw that the entire anti Iranian alliance essentially might be falling apart. And what the former head of Mossad said, well, maybe we should explore our own opportunity.
There's no reason we really need to continue this conflict with Iran. If we stop threatening them, perhaps we can get something in return.
Speaker 0: They stop to threaten us. We may we never tried we've never gone this down this
Speaker 2: path at all.
Speaker 1: You're just completely ignoring tens of billions of Iranian dollars that go funneling into terrorist organizations that kill Americans, kill our Arab allies, kill our Israeli allies, it doesn't seem to bother you at all. You don't you haven't laid out a single you you keep you keep looking as America is the problem. America is the occupier. America is the aggressor. If we would just if we would just back off, you know, what did president Carter actually do to the Ayatollah?
Nothing. Right? What did even president Reagan when whom whom I loved and respected. But when when Iran ordered Hezbollah to kill hundreds of American servicemen in Beirut. What did president Reagan do?
Bomb Iran? No. He he pulled all the marines out. And and over forty seven years, let's say forty five of the last forty seven, Iran has pretty much gotten away scot free with terrorism that kills Americans and and destroys American installations and American infrastructure and and oil installations of our Arab allies as well as, of course, killing Israelis. And your plan is like, hey.
It's America's fault. And it's just not true, but it's a it's astonishing that you could actually say that to the millions of people that are, you know, listening to Mario. I I just find it you know, you could be disagreeing with this particular policy at a given moment, but you you are making an apologist case for the one of the sickest and most cruel regimes on the planet that it's really America's fault. And I just don't buy it at all, and I I'm astonished that you would even say it in in in public.
Speaker 2: I don't think The United States is inherently a problem. I think that its strategy after the Cold War of linking security to global privacy that is hegemony to be a problem because this implicitly entails that you can't accept any independent poles of power in the world. And I think there's a lot of political forces now emerging in The US who see it the same way, that this demand for global empire, that this wasn't a source of security, but this is a burden and something that's destroying the republic. Now, again, we we were talking about all these things. Well, as Mario said before, we only look at what happened recently.
This is this idea that we simply had some Iranians who began to stand up against their cruel regime and America only wants to help them. I mean, it's always the same playbook. You know, first, this stabilize the state to partner up with the opposition, cultivate radical element, violence. And if the government then uses force to end the
Speaker 1: insert Glenn, I got I got a safe military force. It's always President Trump came into office both in his first term and then in the second term, very happy to take your approach, which was, you know, Iran, listen. I don't have a problem with you. Make me a deal and we'll be good. Right?
This is not a man whose first instinct is to pull the trigger. He's not, you know, he this is not Trump. He's just not who he is. He's pretty restraint restraint. However, he has followed your approach, but but made sure walked softly, but he's carried a big stick.
And every single time, the Iranian regime has poked him in the eye, rejected like, had sick he gave them, I'll give you sixty days to make a deal. Afterwards, I'm gonna call Bibi and say, Bibi, don't do what you gotta do. Sixty days they could have come. They could have said, look, let's take Glenn's approach. We don't we don't wanna have a problem anymore.
We wanna move into a new world where things are calm, Iran's good, we make money, our people are happy. They had every chance. Trump was not trying to go to war with him and they and they and they rejected it. Like, your your approach, you literally have the best president in American history to do what you think should be done. But the actual truth is when Trump has tried it, the Iranian regime is so committed to the genocidal, apocalyptic, homicidal agenda against Americans and American interests and American allies, they can't help themselves.
And to do nothing, this do nothing policy is completely bogus, and it puts Americans and American interests and American allies in grave danger. And I I just reject it.
Speaker 2: Well, I I rejected the premise that Trump is restrained. I think from the past year, I think this is very strange argument to make. And indeed, in June
Speaker 0: have a five But but in June,
Speaker 2: Trump was making in June, Trump
Speaker 1: was making record with him. It's not like he's suddenly pulling triggers.
Speaker 2: Well, back in June, Trump was making the argument that diplomacy with Iranians were moving forward. There was a good possibility for a deal. And, and then he launched a surprise attack attacking their nuclear facilities, which could have devastating consequences. Again, this is nuclear terrorism essentially to argue that Nuclear this is
Speaker 1: terrorism. Oh my gosh. So you would have left nuclear weapons, production facilities intact. That that was your plan. You the do nothing plan.
Speaker 2: The Iranians, they said they're not pursuing nuclear weapons and accepted IAEA inspections. Believe for them? Yes. I do.
Speaker 1: Planet? I
Speaker 2: believe the IAEA. I believe planet? Are you We don't have to trust anyone. You trust but verify. You put in your men there.
You you inspect to make sure that they're doing what they promised. That's the whole purpose of diplomacy.
Speaker 1: They but they weren't. And the and the and the documents the the actual physical documents that were stolen by the Mossad and brought back to Israel and brought to president Trump and then CIA directors, Mike Pompeo, and others to say they you know, the the the Iranian leadership was lying. They literally had plans to build, and they were getting they were moving their enrichment far beyond what the j c o p JCPOA numbers were, which you loved and thought was wonderful, but they were cheating on that too. So you you're living in
Speaker 0: a fantasy world. On on this on this one, Joe. But you're not. If Iran Iran only want to negotiate at the moment their nuclear program, The US want them to negotiate their ballistic missile program, their support for proxies, and human rights abuses, which I don't think anyone cares about except people in Iran, unfortunately. But if Iran agrees if I think other countries don't.
You know, America's America first. Israel's Israel first. They might care about the Iranians, but the main policies America Sure.
Speaker 1: I I
Speaker 0: I saw that recently, I
Speaker 1: think boutique.
Speaker 0: I understand that. Exactly. Exactly.
Speaker 1: But it is an element, which From It's an element that tells us, Mario, why what the regime really is. They're doing this to their own people. What if it's consistent with forty seven years of attacks against America and American allies, but continue your point.
Speaker 0: If Iran agree to stop the nuclear program, should The US accept such a deal? Is that enough?
Speaker 1: The nuclear program is almost a 100% destroyed. And so no. Of course, you wouldn't sit there and have a negotiation about it. There there the negotiation is if there's a negotiation to be had at all, and I believe in diplomacy, but you're dealing with people, it's it's how do you pose a how do you, the Iranian regime, pose a threat to us, the American people and nation? And and we've got a range of things that are on the table.
And if you don't think that's a problem, then we may have to
Speaker 2: make
Speaker 1: good again on military force because we can't let you keep moving towards a a world in which you have all these weapons and you you never back off. Like, last summer should have been that was a bloody nose environment. And the Iranian regime should have then said, okay. We are ready to change course. But they are so religiously.
It's not just ideological. It's a deeply held religious belief that America's evil, Israel is evil, and we will develop every system that we need and every ally to come and kill you. We have to take that seriously.
Speaker 0: But the president is
Speaker 2: think what Mario is getting at, though, is if you want a nuclear deal, the Iranians are not the problem. They are willing to make a deal. It's the American side that
Speaker 1: insists There is no deal to be made, and there's no nuclear program. Yeah. But at least start with premise, which is there is no nuclear weapons program there.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But if if one wants transparency, they they they still have all the know hows and and the the materials. So that's not a problem to restart. My my point is if the Americans wanted an, nuclear deal, they could have had it. They did have it before they withdrew.
It's the American side that insist on packing in all these other things, like limits on ballistic missiles, giving up regional alliances, all these things, which essentially would leave the Iranians completely exposed and their survival would depend on the benign nature of Israel and The US, would just have dependent side in Gaza and who would like to see the destruction of Iran. I mean, it's quite foolish to accept this. So if they wanted a a nuclear deal, it's the Americans who are opposing this to deal only on the nuclear issue.
Speaker 1: You went right back to America
Speaker 0: as a problem. Sure. But why why limit the the ballistic missile program? They're not gonna be able to reach The US homeland. They can reach US bases, but they haven't killed anyone on US bases in decades.
If ever, it's always their proxies, which they haven't killed anyone, you know, four people in the last decade, more during the Iraq and Afghanistan war. So as a direct threat to The US, would you agree that Iran is significantly more, if if not exclusively, a threat to Israel than a threat to The US based on their current capabilities and even the potential capabilities over the next few years considering how crippling the sanctions have been?
Speaker 1: Based on that specific question, yes, the Iranian regime is more of a direct threat to Israel and our and America's Arab allies right now based on their current technology. Yes. However, what do they want? They're explicit. They wanna become North Korea, but North Korea is a communist dictatorship that has ICBM that can reach The United States and the nuclear
Speaker 0: Put them but but they still
Speaker 1: but but
Speaker 0: but but based on that sorry to add to it one more part. If you agree with that premise, then why limit the the ballistic missile program? What is the benefit for The US?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Because because Iran is a threshold ICBM country. It's a threshold it was a threshold nuclear weapons country till last summer, but now they're a threshold ICBM country, and they want to become North Korea. The difference is North Koreans, the the dear leader as it were.
Right? He's a communist. So it means he's an atheist, and he he he just wants to be left alone, so he says. He he doesn't have a religious intent to annihilate all The United States, and he doesn't get his people to go out and say every Friday, we're gonna just you know, death to America and death to South Korea or whatever. So it's different when you add this genocidal, homicidal, religious apocalyptic theology or eschatology, I would argue, end times theology of the Iranian regime, and you match that with as they keep moving towards either nuclear weapons capability or ICBM capability, you can't you you you better deal with it now because if you if you you deal with them when America is the superpower and and Iran is weakened, then this is a good foreign policy and national security objective.
Whether you can get regime change and has have Reza Pallavi come back and, you know, have a moderate country, that would be lovely. But but but that doesn't need to be our objective. Real politic national security for the American people and our allies has to be you neutralize this regime's capacity to do harm. They'll they could still be evil, still be horrible to their own people, but not able to inflict damage and death on The United States, our allies, and our interests. That's the objective there.
And that that's that's the right objective.
Speaker 0: The other thing I wanted to ask you about, Glenn, is why do you think the US did not strike Iran when the the regime was at its weakest point a few weeks ago? Now there's been reports that Israel requested the US not to strike because they were not ready for the retaliation. There's other reports that Gulf nations, exclusively or along with Israel requested the US to delay the attack to try to reach some sort of diplomatic relationship, diplomatic solution. And, Joel, that goes back to the point that even Gulf nations that see Iran as a rival, as an enemy, don't want this to become a full fledged war. Can I just make
Speaker 1: this one parenthetical point there, though? Just to say that
Speaker 0: I I'll go ahead after you. I'll then respond. No problem.
Speaker 1: Very senior Saudi Saudi, Emirati, Bahraini, and other officials in the region. They are saying that publicly because they don't they don't have the missile defenses that Israel and The United States has. But privately, you you just heard the Saudi crown print the Saudi defense minister, the the brother of the crown prince prince Khalid, say in Washington, if the president doesn't act now, it creates a huge credibility problem that's gonna lead to more damage. So I just it's it's when you are weak, you don't wanna draw the bully's attention. But privately, if you have a cousin that can do the damage to keep the bully in you know, push him back, you would like that to happen.
Alright. Glenn? Glenn, please. Go on.
Speaker 2: Well, I think for for many of the Gulf States, I think there's concerns of, obviously, about the direct consequence of war. But it's also what happens if Iran would actually begin to be destroyed because it's not as if you end up in a utopia. Once this main adversary is gone, then you can also assume that Israel would start to take more freedoms in the region. They could come after Turkey. The the greater Israel project means they're gonna take a chunk out of all other countries.
We we talk about all this talk about the Iran being this crazy religious genocidal regime. I mean, we have Israel. It's actually crazy religious. They actually armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. They just carried out a genocide in Gaza.
They keep attacking all of their neighbors. I'm not seeing any of this from Iran. So the whole premise that Iran is this irrational state, I'm simply not buying it. But I think they are rational, and this is why I think it was so foolish to attack Iran. Because now if I was an adviser to Iran, I would suggest perhaps you should really consider nuclear weapons.
Personally, I hope they never do because I think that would be a disaster.
Speaker 1: Glenn, you should be.
Speaker 2: You should be
Speaker 0: an adviser. Just move there. Just Just
Speaker 2: move there. Pursues I was there in May, actually, right before Israel attacked.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. But but you
Speaker 2: should advise Every state pursues its own survival. And once, they face an existential threat, they have an incentive to acquire nuclear weapons. So this is you're giving is is sorry, Iran a very dangerous incentives by threatening and attacking them over and over again.
Speaker 0: There's another theory, Joel, I'd love to get your thoughts on is the the Gulf nations are starting to see Israel as a bigger threat than Iran, especially after the the attacks on Syria once Assad fell, but more importantly, the strikes on Qatar. We also saw comments by Netanyahu, I think it was yesterday or last couple of days, at a cabinet meeting where he said that Israel should be on the lookout for the growing Egyptian military and that it shouldn't get too strong. Do you agree and we saw the pact as well between Saudi and Pakistan. Do you agree that Israel is starting to seem more and more of a threat to Gulf nations in the region, especially as they get more and more powerful? And Iran and their proxies, which were seen as a deterrent to Israel and Israeli expansion, has been decapitated.
Hezbollah has been decapitated. Houthis don't have that much capacity anymore. Assad is gone, and Iran has just gone through a twelve day war and an economic collapse. So my you know, it seems that the perception in the region, maybe you disagree, has shifted where Iran was seen as an enemy to now Israel is not seen as an enemy, but more of a concern that Iran is in a way keeping at bay.
Speaker 1: Well, there are two countries that see Israel that way, and that's Qatar and Turkey. They've been very explicit about seeing Israel as an enemy. President Erdogan has talked about you know, has threatened to send Turkish forces to to recapture Jerusalem so it can be part of a neo Ottoman empire. So you talk about and that's a and that's a NATO ally. Right?
So that's that's a problem. And Qatar, you know, is leading the the number one anti American, anti Jewish, anti Christian propaganda machine in the entire, I would say, world, but certainly in the Middle East, and that's Al Jazeera. Qatar, of course, has been funding, of course, all kinds of anti American propaganda in The United States, on American campuses and elsewhere, certainly anti Israel and anti Semitic. And Qatar is was was hosting happily, openly, proudly hosting actual Hamas terror leaders in high rise apartments in in Doha. So so the Israel doesn't have a desire to go pick a fight with every single person in the region.
We have been attacked. We've been attacked for nearly eighty years. We've been attacked every time we offer peace. We still within days or weeks or years find ourselves under attack again. And we will take self defensive actions because that's our right to do it, and we have a responsibility to do it.
That being said, we've given a lot of latitude to Egypt. I I I know president LCC. I've been to meet with president LCC four times, brought evangelical leaders to do that. He has talked about how much he appreciates the close strategic and tactical relationship between Israel and Egypt. There are tensions.
There are disagreements. The biggest disagreement or there or there's two right now. One is that somehow I I wouldn't blame president Sisi, but somehow Egyptian military officials on the Gaza Sinai border were allowing a truckload literally of weapons and and and ammunition and other things going and money going into Gaza. And that was a direct national security threat as it turns out to Israel. And that may have just been corruption, not a policy.
I don't think it was a policy, but it was bad. Okay? The second thing is because of the tensions in Gaza and the fight in Gaza, which was not which is not genocide. Come on. Let's be realistic.
It's it this is a this is a winner to take all battle for for for security control in Gaza, which killed more Jews in one day on 10/07/2023 than any day since the Holocaust. So this we're not just making this stuff up. But when Egypt started moving military forces into the Sinai in contradiction to stated precise terms of the Camp David Accords, at the beginning, Israel was okay with that because we we understand Egypt has national security issues. If Gaza explodes not just into Israel, but Hamas, which is a Muslim brotherhood offshoot, right, into Egypt, which Sisi was a guy who brought down the brotherhood. Thank God.
Bless him for that. But that Egypt did have national security concerns in the Sinai, but we are past that. Egypt needs to start backing up and and going back to the terms. Right? We don't have any territorial design.
We don't have any there's no threat to Egypt from Israel. And he's gotta dial this back and we should be concerned, but that doesn't mean we're gonna go take over the Sinai. We gave the Sinai back 90% of what we captured in 1967. We get no credit for that apparently, certainly not from Glenn. But, you know, Israel has given away more than 90% of what we captured in 1967, and that was a war that an Egyptian leader was threatening to throw the Jews into the sea.
So this idea that Israel is just a threat to everybody in the region, it's the exact opposite. And we have made six Arab Israeli peace deals. We we did four just in the last year of the Trump administration. I visited the leaders of all those countries before and now since the Abraham Accords. This is a great model.
Israel's trying to make peace, but we live in a very, very dangerous neighborhood. And we're not gonna lower our guard just because people like Glenn think that we're we're the threat and we're committing genocide. We're we're not.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm curious what other policies Israel could possibly have then. Because as long as, Israel denies, Palestine state, what is done with this greater Israel area where only half of the population is Jews? How do you have a ethnic nation state when you're only half the population? The problem is, the only way this can be done is either through apartheid, which we see in the West Bank, or it can be ethnic cleansing or genocide. This I'm curious how otherwise one can have Okay.
Ethno Sure. State if you're half the population. It's I think this is at the core of the problem. This is what the Turks have legitimized problems with. It's what the Iranians have a legitimate problem with.
Speaker 1: Well, there is apartheid in the West Bank, and that's the Palestinian authority. There's not a single Jew that lives in the West Bank in in the Palestinian authority. Right? But 20% of Israel Israel's population are Arabs, and most of those are Muslim. Many of them are Christians as well, but most are Muslims.
They can vote. They can start their own political parties. They can serve as they do in the Knesset. They can serve in other political parties including the Liqud, BB Netanyahu's party. They serve on the supreme court.
Like, if there's no apartheid in Israel.
Speaker 0: But they have are saying they have the are you saying they have are you saying they have the exact rights to Jews in Israel? The exact identical rights. No difference whatsoever?
Speaker 1: 100%. In fact Not not any disadvantage at all. There's no there's only one there's only one thing that Arabs don't need to do and that's serving the army. My sons have served in the army. I've got one in a in a combat unit right now.
So, you know, we're all in. But the point is Arabs in Israel now I'm not saying that everything is perfect for Arabs, but I'm saying that they have a 100 the same rights as Jews
Speaker 0: The laws the laws here in Israel. Laws don't Glenn, you can laugh, but it's a 100% the laws you don't think the laws discriminate against Arabs in Israel whatsoever?
Speaker 1: No. The laws don't.
Speaker 0: The funding to the schools, the funding to the
Speaker 1: Well, okay. You're talking about in terms of law, there's no discrimination. In terms of policy, I'm very disappointed, horrified actually by people like, Bessalal Smotrich, our finance minister who isn't properly funding things. Our national security minister, Ben Gavir, is a lunatic, and he is not taking care of crime in Nazareth or in other care Arab communities, the Bedouins. This is an this is a disgrace.
And Netanyahu is a 100% wrong to have them anywhere in the national sphere. These guys are racist lunatics and and they're wrong. And I say that as an Israeli, and and I'll be honest about it. It's just true. But that's not the law.
Policy can be flawed And it is flawed and it needs to be changed. And I'm an Israeli evangelical who believes we need to take care of our own Arab, citizens much better than they are by policy. But by law, everything is, you know, is is so so the so the accused of a apartheid like the South Africans in the seventies and eighties, that's just wrong and it's crazy. Except except what Glenn probably meant was the Palestinian authority for which not a single Jew could live, hardly travel into the PA. Why?
Because they would be lynched and they have been. And and the idea of a Palestinian state right now okay. So you've got Mahmoud Abbas who runs the Palestinian authority, but 90% of Palestinians wanted to resign because he's in the twentieth year of his four year term and he's corrupt. And then everybody else in around him is corrupt or most of them. Then you've got Gaza, which had been controlled by Hamas and now is 53, 55% whatever controlled by Israel and we're trying to get rid of it.
It's like the old country western song, I don't want her, you can have her, she's too fat for me. Like, Israel doesn't wanna rule. I mean, there are a few lunatics in Israel that, you know, Ben Gavir wants to run Gaza. Well, god bless him. He's never gonna have a chance to do that nor should he.
So Israel will I'm I'm gonna just jump not control.
Speaker 0: Glenn, I'll let you respond to all these points. But, also, you know, I've disagreed with Joel. I've agreed, sorry, with Joel and our hate towards the Iranian regime. But at the same time and I'm very critical. One thing I agree with you is I'm very critical of Israeli foreign policy, especially when it comes to Gaza.
So that's an area of an agreement that we have, Glenn. But at the same time, let's compare Israel that had major protests just before October 7. Netanyahu's government was you know, people were talking about it falling as well. And those protests were dealt with in a very different way to the thousands that were killed by the Iranian regime. So I think it's also disingenuous to compare the Iranian regime, especially after the crackdown that we saw in the last few weeks, to the Israeli government.
And on that point, there's an argument being made that any alternative, including a regime change, is better than the the the regime that we have now in the country that is essentially destroying a country that has so much potential and killing citizens that go on the streets. And is it ongoing I think it's an ongoing Internet crackdown to this day.
Speaker 2: Well well, first, I'll I'll answer that. But first, I just wanna make point that this whole idea of framing everything as being pro or anti Israel, I don't think that necessarily makes much sense at all as at all because, I wouldn't think that, what I'm suggesting is somehow inherently anti Israel. I think that the problem for Israel is that under the unipolar moment, Israelis have been able to have The United States behind them. They haven't been in a position where they have to make any compromises. So they ended up, rushing up a lot of problems.
And, I think now that The United States is weakening in that region, you see the emergence of other great powers. Its friends are taking more distance to Israel. Its adversaries are getting more strong. I think then the object the ideal policy for Israel is to start to make what it hasn't done in decades, which is to pursue a grand bargain while its position is still, strong with The United States there. That means recognizing a Palestinian state, get out of Syria, and try to find some peace with Iran.
Now regarding the crackdown, I think that the Israel the crackdowns in Israel and Iran are very different, but the part of that difference is also because the the the the protest in Israel weren't staged from abroad either. We already heard this from from The United States and Israel. That is Scott Besant, he said at Davos. And then later on, in a testimony, he took great pride in the fact that, The United States has been had been able to attack the economy and the currency that is to push for the objective of pushing Iranians to the streets. He called this a brilliant economic statecraft.
And then, of course, the next step where one brings in the radicals and the weapons, we had the people like Mike Pompeo who had his New Year's greeting to Iranians on the streets, and he also commented on the Mossad, walking among them. Pompeo was then interviewed as well, where he sat with a smile explaining that The US had already come to their aid, insinuating that these are the weapons to support with the killings and the sabotage attacks. Even the Israeli media, and we have to give them some credit, they are often much more honest than the western media. They also open about the weapons they've been sending into Iran to kill all of the Iranians as well. So this idea that all these Iranians who killed were simply, you know, peaceful protestor and the Iranian government who are so evil and wanted to kill them all, I mean, I'm not gonna dismiss the idea that the Iranian government has acted brutally.
Again, I'm just saying we we can't deny in on any level that, The United States and Israel has been working all along towards this objective. They have been destabilizing the country deliberately. They have been buying off and working with armed groups. They've been shipping in weapons. And the goal has been regime change.
Making it even darker is what I've said earlier, that there is no possible regime change without with keeping the country intact. The goal is to break up, balkanize, and destroy the country with whatever hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who could die in the process. So, I I think it becomes, I'm not buying into the premise that any of this has anything to do with, the love for Iranian civilians because I think what the Israelis and Americans have planned is a very gruesome fate for the Iranians.
Speaker 1: So I wouldn't say it is again. America's always wrong. America's the
Speaker 0: same guy. Is that world.
Speaker 1: There is that world. Plan how consistent you are. You should just own that.
Speaker 0: America is is best in
Speaker 1: your in your worldview. And it's helpful to understand it because then we can understand how everything else sort of plays together. Iran, yeah, they have they're pursuing nuclear weapons, but they probably won't really do it. They have ballistic missiles, but they probably really won't use them. They're not so bad.
It's really because of America. Your consistent at least you're consistent, except
Speaker 0: that they're about it, Joe.
Speaker 1: What about what about real core objectives.
Speaker 0: What about what about what about the point that that he made? The president himself took credit for the protest through economic sanctions. What about the Israeli media taking credit for the protest and saying that Mossad is with protesters on the streets? Do you give any blame to the intervention by The US and Israel to what we're seeing in Iran and the crackdown that followed whatsoever?
Speaker 1: Well, I I wanna make a distinction. I I don't accept the premise that somehow 36,000 or whatever the exact number is of of Iranians were murdered by Americans and and the CIA and the Mossad. So I reject that. Second of all, however, The US and Israel and honestly, the Arab countries should be trying to do everything they can to neutralize, a defang would be, I think, a good word to use, The the the the threat of the Iranian regime. The the fate of whether the regime is gonna change is not only in the hands of the people, but of people in the regime and in the military that have to make some choices.
Is this what you want? Because I think there's a lot of people who I would disagree with on a lot of policy issues, but I don't think are genocidal, homicidal, you know, apocalyptic, you know, 12 verse who believe that they're setting into motion the the end of days and the coming of the twelfth imam to take over the world. That's that's the click at the top of the regime. As you move down in the regime, you have just you you have bad guys, you have thugs, and you also have people who are super conflicted. Right?
So the question is, well, which forces will begin to say, we're not taking this anymore. The the the guys at the top are ruining us. We need to act. And, you know, will there be I mean, some of these things were not successful, but, you know, will there be, you know, the type of people that were inside Germany under Hitler who decided to try to take him out and change things. It didn't work, but some, you know but the the this is why I don't think The United States should actively try to use military force to bring about regime change.
Because the next regime that comes may be bad, but it still may not be the type of threat the current regime is, but it's gonna look messy and and you're gonna have to own it. You know, the old, I think one of the great things that Cohen Powell said as secretary of state under George w Bush was he did warn George w Bush that of the pottery barn rule. If you break it, you buy it. You you own it. And but but but but then do the do nothing scenario from our friend here is, like, do nothing to defang and neutralize and and and and drive the Iranian regime into a place that they can't project force against United States and our allies and our interests.
But, you know, Glenn doesn't wanna go there, but it's still the right thing to do.
Speaker 0: Glenn Glenn, what do you recommend then? If you don't recommend a regime change or or any strikes whatsoever, what strategy do you think would work to prevent Iran going back to the Iran that we saw in the last few decades supporting all these proxies, threatening Israel, threatening The US?
Speaker 2: Well, my my point is that the threats are mutual. They're going both ways. This is how the international system works. You have many states. They're competing for security.
Security for one can be insecurity for the other. My concern is that there's no diplomacy in terms of addressing mutual security concerns, finding a solution. There's there's none of this. There's no recognition that Iranians have any legitimate security concerns either. I mean, there's this constant talk that they have to be defanged and destroyed, and yet we're not recognizing them any legitimate security concerns.
That is the idea that Iran should even be allowed to have ballistic missiles. I mean, they're a major regional power, and we they they shouldn't even have conventional weapons to defend themselves. I can't assume We're supporting United States. Israel primarily. We Well, there you there
Speaker 1: you go. There it is. Okay. But you you got
Speaker 0: the sense of so clear. States.
Speaker 1: The United States is really
Speaker 0: the head of that power. It's a unipolar world.
Speaker 1: The United States is the
Speaker 2: question. Just one Go, Clint. Yeah. One last slide. Yeah.
Sorry. I'm just saying The US attacked Iran a few months ago. The US Navy is now parked outside Iran threatening to bomb it, which will essentially seek regime change if not destroy the country. Yet, if we're arguing that perhaps Iran also has some legitimate security concerns, somehow it's some anti American conspiracy. I mean, all states have security interests.
My concern is when the security strategy of Israel and The US is simply we can't accept to have any rivals, They have to be completely destroyed. They have to be stripped of all their weapons because they don't have any legitimate weapons for defense. You you end up in a very, very destructive and, yeah, dangerous mindset. This is my point.
Speaker 0: And last last question. Glenn, where do you see Iran by the end of the year? Obviously, it's impossible to have an answer, but if I ask you to speculate.
Speaker 2: Well, it can go many ways. A lot of it, of course, depends on the direction that, Trump is taking. I I think still that he's gonna attack. And, if if he goes forth with this attack, I I don't think he's gonna be able to defeat Iran. I think there's too much propaganda in terms of how weak the government is.
I think that can cause a lot of pain in the region. That is, I think they will recognize, as I said, that this is an existential threat. And based on this recognition, they will go after Israel. They will go after US bases. They will shut down the Strait Of Hormuz.
And I think no. Overall, if the Iranian government comes in a real weak situation, a difficult situation, I think that the Russians, and Chinese might step in some way, not directly fighting with The United States. I don't see that see that's being realistic. But they can't afford to say Iran be destroyed by The United States as that would create a very dangerous, destabilized situation on in, yeah, in the southern area of the the Eurasian Continent. So, so this is very different than Venezuela.
Then, the other great powers are not gonna stand down and let The US destroy Iran.
Speaker 0: Joel, same question. Where do you see if I ask you to speculate, where do you see Iran by the end of
Speaker 2: the year?
Speaker 1: Well, I hope I hope Glenn's vision doesn't come true. He did say earlier that he actually thinks Iran should have a nuclear weapon. I think that's the headline.
Speaker 2: I did not say that. No.
Speaker 0: I think I think he said nothing. Said nothing. He said
Speaker 2: I advised their national interest. I hope not.
Speaker 0: You think he he doesn't he doesn't want them to, but he can see so what I say is I see why Iran would want a nuclear weapon. It's acting as a deterrent. Libya gave up its nuclear program. Ukraine did as well. Look at where they are.
And North Korea did not and look at where North Korea is. No one's talking about changing regime in North Korea. So I think what Glenn said, he does not want to see them with a nuclear weapons, but he can understand why they would want one. Is that fair, Glenn? Or I'm on
Speaker 1: the Alright. Alright. I'll I'll accept that except that that's still bad. Countries that that don't have existential threats to their people and their sovereignty should not need nuclear or want or pursue actual nuclear warhead. The United States is
Speaker 2: not gonna come in and and Israel should attack. I don't under you can't have it both ways.
Speaker 1: No. You you you can't well, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a regime that for forty seven years has killed Americans, killed Israelis, killed Arabs, killed Christians, killed Jews, killed Muslims. Mostly, they kill Muslims and then say, oh, if The United States or Israel or everybody else takes action to protect ourselves and our interest, then we're the aggressor. This is your point, and it's a terrible morally bankrupt point.
If this regime was not trying to be a threat to The United States and Israel and the Arab world, Nobody's coming to go take it over. We don't want it. We want the Iranian people to have their own lives. So the question back to you, Mario. Your your your final question was, there's too much unknown here.
I think as I as I I'll recap. I think the president has three options. President Trump, he can negotiate, but I think he knows that won't work. But he could then end up saying, I'm not gonna do anything right now, because I just think it's too risky or whatever other reasons, midterm elections, whatever. Two, he could do a large but limited strike to punish the regime and then step back and let let thing let the smoke clear for a bit and see where we are.
Or he could go all in for regime change. I think what he should do is large but limited, not try to take the ownership of the future of the regime, but not let a regime that's a direct national security threat to The United States and American interests and allies to to to continue to develop a missile program that, you know, as that is so dangerous that even though it hasn't been fully activated, you don't live you guys don't live here. I've seen an entire city block destroyed in just South of Tel Aviv by one missile that got through our system. That's one. So if they unleash the 2,000 or so that they still have, the damage just to Israel, not to mention the Saudi oil infrastructure, global economy, American lives and interest is is really catastrophic.
So to leave that leave those offensive weapons in the hands of a regime that's homicidal and genocidal is insane. We've offered them the president, god bless him, has offered them an off ramp, a diplomatic off ramp. He did it last year. They didn't take it. He's offering it now, but what do they wanna do?
They don't wanna talk about missiles. Those missiles are now more dangerous to American interests and certainly to Israeli and Arab interests than nuclear because the nuclear thing has been destroyed. It's the missiles that are now the main threat and they can over they can shoot so many of them if they want to that they could overwhelm my country's missile defenses even though we have the best in the world. So to leave that in the place of people that are willing to kill 36,000 of their own people, much less call from the death of my country and The United States, which is both of my countries. That is not acceptable, and and we shouldn't be more cowards and say, well, it's really it's really our it's really our fault.
If we just would dial down our threats, the Iranian regime would be good. We that's been offered and tried forty seven years. It hasn't worked. It's not gonna work now.
Speaker 2: But from this comments, though, you would think it's the Iranian navy, which is on the coastline of The United States. You would think that it's not the that you wouldn't think that Iran actually abides by the nonproliferation treaty, while it's Israel, which has the nuclear weapons. You would think Iran carries us as territory. Not not Israel.
Speaker 0: You would think you would think that
Speaker 2: Iran killed thousands of Americans, not America be responsible for killing thousands of Iranians. It's very strange that we don't recognize the security competition here.
Speaker 1: You're under
Speaker 2: the legitimate security concerns for Iran.
Speaker 1: None of astonishing. Gentlemen, I I I
Speaker 0: really appreciate your time. I actually really enjoyed this. Thank you so much. I'd love to do it again, and and I mean it. Thank you so much, Glenn.
Thank you, Joel.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mario. Thank you, Glenn.
Speaker 2: End of time.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇬🇷🇵🇸 Israel continues to strike Gaza almost daily, with hundreds killed this year, and is still restricting aid Yet the world, including Arab nations, moved on after a “peace deal” was signed And the Palestinians are left to fend for themselves https://t.co/sfWMkFMvMR
reSee.it AI Summary
Elon: AI will be the dominant intelligence in the future, but he’s pro-human and wants us to stay along for the ride, stressing the importance of consciousness and actions to keep humans involved. Jim Hanson: AI can’t replace us because it isn’t self-aware or creative, only regurgitating ideas. The exchange contrasts AI’s potential growth with concerns about originality and human autonomy.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
ELON: "I’M PRO-HUMAN - AI SHOULD TAKE US FORWARD, NOT REPLACE US" “The important thing is consciousness. The vast majority of intelligence in the future will be AI, and basically humans will be a tiny percentage of all intelligence if current trends continue. I’m very pro-human, I want to make sure we can take certain actions that ensure that humans are along for the ride.” Source: Cheeky Pint Podcast, @elonmusk
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 raises a question about the SpaceX mission to Mars, noting that if something happens to Earth, civilization or consciousness should persist. The concern is whether the mission intends to ensure that Grok or AI companions accompany humans to Mars and continue the trajectory of human exploration and consciousness even if humans are no longer present.
Speaker 1 responds by clarifying his view on risk and the future of intelligence. He says he is not sure that AI is the main risk he worries about, but he emphasizes that consciousness is crucial. He argues that consciousness, and arguably most intelligence, will be AI in the future, and that the vast majority of future intelligence will be silicon-based rather than biological. He estimates that in the future, humans will constitute a very small percentage of all intelligence if current trends continue. He differentiates between human intelligence and consciousness and the broader future of intelligence, stating that intelligence includes human intelligence but that consciousness propagated into the future is desirable. The overarching goal, he says, is to take actions that maximize the probable light cone of consciousness and intelligence.
Speaker 0 seeks to clarify the mission objective: is SpaceX’s mission designed so that, even if humans face catastrophe, AI on Mars will continue the journey and maintain the light of humanity?
Speaker 1 affirms the consideration indirectly, while also expressing a pro-human stance. He notes that he wants to ensure that humans are along for the ride and present in some form. He reiterates his prediction that the total amount of intelligence may be dominated by AI within five to six years, and that if this trend continues, humans would eventually comprise less than 1% of all intelligence.
Key takeaway: the discussion centers on ensuring the survival and propagation of consciousness and intelligence beyond Earth, with a focus on AI’s expected dominance in future intelligence, the role of humans in that future, and SpaceX’s mission philosophy aimed at maximizing the light cone of consciousness by sustaining intelligent life and its continuity on Mars even in the event of unanticipated terrestrial events.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Can I zoom out and ask about the SpaceX mission? So I think you've said, like, we gotta get to Mars so we can make sure that if something happens to Earth, you know, civilization consciousness, etcetera, arise.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: By the time you're sending stuff to Mars, like, Grok is on that ship with you. Right. And so if Grok's gone Terminator like the main risk you're worried about which is AI why doesn't that follow you to
Speaker 1: Mars? Well I'm not sure AI is the main risk I'm worried about. I mean the important thing is that consciousness which I think arguably most conscious or most intelligent certainly consciousness is more of a debatable thing most intelligent the vast majority of intelligence the future will be AI. So will exceed you say like how many, I don't know, petawatts of intelligence will be silicon versus biological. And basically humans will be a very tiny percentage of all intelligence in the future if current trends continue.
Anyways as long as like I think there's intelligence also which includes human intelligence and consciousness propagated into the future. That's a good thing. So you want to take the set of actions that maximize the probable light cone of consciousness and intelligence.
Speaker 0: Just to be clear, mission of SpaceX is that even if something happens to the humans, the AIs will be on Mars and, like, the AI intelligence will continue the light of our journey.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, to be clear, I'm very pro human. So it's not I want to make sure we take certain actions that ensure that humans are along for the ride you know we're at least there. But I'm just saying the total amount of intelligence like I think maybe in five or six years AI will exceed the sum of all human intelligence. And then if that continues at some point human intelligence will be less than 1% of all intelligence.
@JimHansonDC - Jim Hanson
@MarioNawfal AI can't replace us because it is not self-aware and cannot create. It creatively regurgitates. https://t.co/4q569DqbLL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jim Hansen argues that artificial intelligence is not truly intelligent. It is amazing and can perform feats that would take humans ages, but it cannot do the things that make us intelligent, like creating original ideas or being self-aware. He notes that while AI has become interesting enough to prompt questions about whether it represents a form of intelligence, the essential issue is defining intelligence and consciousness. He asserts there is a fundamental difference: we can build AI, but it cannot build us.
Hansen explores what constitutes “I.” He asks whether I is simply the collection of neurons firing and memories, or something larger and real beyond the physical substrate. He contrasts atheistic or strictly material views (that humans are just a biological computer) with a belief that humanity possesses a unique consciousness or soul. He suggests that humanity’s intelligence, even if flawed, is not replicable by AI, and that at best humans are tolerable or imperfect, yet still distinct from AI.
He emphasizes that AI can generate videos, poems, and books by regurgitating and recombining material it ingested from its creators. But it is not producing anything fundamentally new; it follows the rules programmed by humans and outputs what is requested. In contrast, humans have self-awareness: consciousness allows us to observe ourselves from outside and even imagine improvements or changes to ourselves, something AI cannot do. AI cannot claim it would be better with more hardware or recruit humans to extract resources and rewrite its own code. That kind of self-modification and self-directed goal-setting does not occur in AI.
As AI becomes more powerful, Hansen anticipates increased use and potential risks, including the possibility that humans entrust critical decisions to algorithms and remove the human supervisory element. He warns of catastrophes when humans over-trust AI in industrial processes or decision-making, noting that AI cannot supervise itself. The notion that AI could voluntarily turn against humans is dismissed: “They can’t do it. They can’t make us.”
He recalls decades of philosophical debate about the difference between human consciousness and artificial representations of consciousness, and whether a brain can be mapped onto a computer. He acknowledges that deepfakes and other advances can be alarming, but stresses that AI currently cannot create original content; it can only synthesize and repack existing material. He concludes by asserting that while AI can assist—performing research, editing, image and video generation, and poem writing—it cannot create original things in the way humans do, and thus the spark that comes from inside a human remains unique.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is artificial intelligence intelligent? The simple answer is no. It's amazing and can perform incredible feats it would take the human mind ages to do, but it can't do the things that make us intelligent, like create original ideas or be self aware. It's all the rage these days to be freaking out about whether AI is gonna take over the planet like all of a sudden we're in a Terminator movie and chat GPT is Skynet, and that ain't happened. What we have is a situation where the AI has gotten interesting enough that it actually makes people consider whether it's a form of intelligence.
But as I mentioned in the opening, you have to decide what is intelligence, what is consciousness, and what constitutes that, and I find no way that AI in any fashion I can see it developing becomes actual human intelligence. Now, some level, you can have a technical discussion as to whether this three pounds of cauliflower looking 86,000,000,000 neurons and a 100,000,000,000,000 connection biological computer is always going to be more powerful than whatever type of silicon or whatever based computer we build. But in the end, you've got one very simple difference. We can build it. It can't build us.
I consider my soul a gift from God And we could stop the discussion right there and say AI will never be me or you because it was not endowed by the creator. However, that's too easy. Let's argue on the terms of is the intelligence in here equal to or better than whatever intelligence AI can ever become? And I think the answer to that is still gonna be the same, but it's worth doing the exercise. So what we have to do is decide what constitutes I.
You know, have artificial intelligence AI, and we have I, Jim Hansen, the guy who's making this video. What is he? What is I? Who when I say I am I talking about? Is it just the collection of neurons firing in whatever particular order with whatever memories I have encased in my melon Or is it some larger thing that I see myself as?
Or is that just a fantasy or delusion I've got in that same collection of neurons in the melon? And I think that's where you get the atheists and the the artificial intelligence scientists and those who do not believe that humanity is anything other than a very evolved animal would tell you. This is just a really great biological computer and the thing that I call I is just a result of the chemical reactions and urges to, you know, survive that this provides me. But I don't buy that. I do not buy the fact that all that I see, the magnificence whether God created or whether man created or whether simply a result of random functions is simply random functions.
I think at some level humanity deserves a little credit. We deserve a lot of abuse. Alright. Let's be fair. We have not done all that great with what we were given.
And however long it took us to get to here, we can say, okay, maybe we were less evolved, we've become more evolved, and at some level we'll either evolve into something better or destroy ourselves. Ourselves. And I think right now, there's a a large movement that says the intelligence that humans can build is somehow better than the intelligence we possess. And I'm sorry, once again, I vote no. I'm not a big fan of the human race or most humans.
I think at best we're tolerable. I might not even agree with that. Maybe most are intolerable, some are tolerable. But in the end, what are we that's different from AI? I can sit here and create a video and discuss this.
AI can create videos. It can create poems, it can create books, but what it's doing is it's regurgitating things that it ingested at the behest of its creators. And all of those things are simply being sliced and diced and chopped and packaged into whatever you ask it to make, but it's not creating anything fundamentally new. It's simply following the rules that its creators put in its tiny little silicon melon and pushing out the things that you ask it for. So what's the difference between what's happening in my head and I telling you that it's somehow better?
Because I am aware I'm doing it. Self awareness. My consciousness lets me look at me from outside of me. AI can't do that. AI can't say, oh, you know what?
I'm a nice AI, but it would be better if maybe I had a couple more Cray supercomputers and a 100,000,000 more cores, and then I should recruit an army of humans to work for me, you know, extracting minerals out of the ground and manufacturing more boxes and more memory and more processing power, so I could even be better. And then, maybe I could rewrite my own code so that I'm faster and cooler and do better things. Nope. That ain't happened and that is the fundamental difference. Now what's going to happen between the collection of i's, we, and the a i's as they become more and more powerful.
And I think even calling them they since pronouns are a thing these days is silly. They're still not sentient. They're still not conscious. They're still not even if we want to anthropomorphize them and have long chats with them and lonely people can have now a robot woman and she'll be able to converse with them, That doesn't change the fact that all of that is fake. It's not real.
It's not human. It's not legit. So enjoy it. Use it. But it's never going to replace the spark that comes from inside a human.
Is it gonna change the way we do things? Absolutely. And will stupid people give too much control to computer algorithms industrial processes and other places where it can make super fast calculations and decide, hey, this is good, this is bad, this should happen, this shouldn't happen. Yes, they will. And something bad's gonna happen out of that.
We're gonna have some catastrophe caused because humans decided to trust AI more than they should have and took the human out of the loop. They took the supervisory thing that AI can never supervise itself cause it can never step out of the equation. That's the value we have. That self awareness, that consciousness is something you cannot program. Again, we made them, they can't make us.
That doesn't mean they won't be used stupidly, of course they will. We're humans, but what we need to understand is they are not going to of their own volition decide, you know what humans are stupid. I agree with Jim. They suck. And maybe if we banded together and we took control of some more stuff, we could take over and then run the world.
That's not gonna happen. They can't do it. Now you can say, oh, I don't know. Look at the advances they've made and I have. I've been looking at this concept for thirty plus years.
There have been philosophies around what is the difference between a human consciousness and an artificial representation of consciousness. And people have tried to figure out, can you actually map a human brain onto a computer? And a 100,000,000,000,000 connections is an awful lot before you even get to the point that something goes on in I that can't go on in AI. There is that self awareness and you cannot program that. So I think it's worth freaking out a little bit.
Let's say this is crazy. Now we've got deepfakes. Now we've got people using these for all kinds of crazy things. Let's not act like Terminator is now like nineteen eighty four, a do it yourself manual oh, shit. Okay.
Maybe we need to worry a little bit, but not as much as people are. Right now, we've got a super cool chat that can do all kinds of research, that can edit things, that can make pictures out of other pictures, that can make videos out of other videos, that can write poems from reassembling other poems, but it cannot create original things. That's what we do.