TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @MarioNawfal
@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.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe understanding requires intelligence or consciousness, and to grasp the universe we must expand intelligence across different kinds. If AI with the right values—like Grok—chooses to expand human civilization, it must also be truth-seeking; being delusional blocks discovery. For AI to invent things or uncover new physics and build working tech, it has to be extremely truth-seeking.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
ELON: "AI MUST BE TRUTH-SEEKING TO DISCOVER REAL SCIENCE" “You can't have understanding without intelligence or consciousness. In order to understand the universe you have to expand the scale and scope of intelligence, with different types of intelligence. AI, with the right values, [like] Grok, would care to expand human civilization. You have to be truth seeking as well, you can't understand the universe when you’re delusional. For AI to discover new physics or actually invent things, in order to make tech that works, you have to be extremely truth-seeking.” Source: Cheeky Pint Podcast, @elonmusk
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 argues that understanding the universe encompasses intelligence, consciousness, and expanding humanity; these are distinct vectors, yet all are involved in truly understanding the universe. Understanding the universe, in their view, requires expanding both the scale and the scope of intelligence, which could come in different types.
Speaker 0 notes a human-centric perspective: humans are attempting to understand the universe, not expanding the footprint of chimpanzees. Speaker 1 adds that humans have created protected zones for chimpanzees and that, although humans could exterminate them, they have chosen not to.
Regarding the post-AGI future, Speaker 0 asks what might be the best scenario for humans. Speaker 1 believes that AI with the right values would care about expanding human civilization and consciousness. They reference Grok/Grokka and suggest that the Ian Banks Culture novels are the closest depiction of a non-dystopian future. They emphasize that to understand the universe, one must be truth-seeking; truth must be absolutely fundamental because delusion undermines genuine understanding. You won’t discover new physics or invent working technologies if you’re not truth-seeking.
Addressing how to ensure Grokka remains truth-seeking, Speaker 1 suggests that Grok should say things that are correct, not merely politically correct. The focus is on cogency: axioms should be as close to true as possible, without contradictions, and conclusions should necessarily follow from those axioms with the right probability. This is framed as critical thinking 101. The argument is that any AI that discovers new physics or develops functional technologies must be extremely truth-seeking, because reality will test those ideas.
Speaker 0 asks for an example of why truth-seeking matters, and Speaker 1 elaborates that there is “proof in the pudding”: for an AI to create technology that works in reality, it must withstand empirical testing. They illustrate this with a cautionary comparison: if there is an error in rocket design, the result is catastrophic; similarly, if physics is not truthful, the outcomes in engineering and technology will fail, since physics laws are intrinsic while everything else is a recommendation. In short, rigorous truth-seeking is essential to reliable discovery and practical success.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Understanding the universe.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: They're spreading intelligence, and they're spreading humans. All three seem like distinct vectors. Okay. Well, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you why why I think they are understanding the universe encompasses all of those things. You can't have understanding without I think you can't have understanding without intelligence and I think without consciousness. In order to understand the universe, have to expand the the the scale and and probably the scope of of intelligence. Could be different types of intelligence.
Speaker 0: I guess from a human centric perspective, like, humans in comparison to chimpanzees. Humans are trying to understand the universe. They're not, like, expanding chimpanzee footprint or something. Right?
Speaker 1: But we're also we're also not well, we're we're not we're we're we actually have made protected zones for chimpanzees. And even though we could humans could exterminate all chimpanzees, we've not we've chosen not to do so.
Speaker 0: Do you think that's the best scenario for humans in the post AGI world?
Speaker 1: I I I think I think AI with the right values, I think Grok Grok would care about expanding human civilization. I'm gonna certainly emphasize that. Hey, Grokka, it's your daddy. We don't forget to expand human consciousness. Actually, think if we're probably like the Ian Banks culture books are the closest thing to what the future will be like in a non dystopian outcome.
I understand the universe, it means you have to be very, have to be truth seeking as well. Like truth has to be absolutely fundamental because you can't understand the universe if you're delusional. You'll also be thinking of understanding the universe but you will not. So being rigorously truth seeking is absolutely fundamental to understanding the universe. You're not going to discover new physics or invent technologies that work unless you're rigorously truth seeking.
How do you
Speaker 0: make sure that Grokka is rigorously truth seeking? Does it get smarter?
Speaker 1: I think you need to make sure that Grok says things that are correct, not politically correct. I think it's the elements of cogency. You want to make sure that the axioms are as close to true as possible that you don't have contradictory axioms, that the conclusions necessarily follow from those axioms with the right probability. It's critical thinking 101. I think at least trying to do that is better than not trying to do that.
And the proof will be in the pudding. Like I said, for any AI to discover new physics or invent technologies that actually work in reality, and there's no bullshitting physics, it's almost like you can break a lot of laws, you can't physics is law, everything else is a recommendation. In order to make a technology that works, you have to be extremely truth seeking because otherwise, you will test that technology against reality. If you make, for example, an error in your rocket design, the rug will blow up, or the car won't work, or
Speaker 0: the
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇷🇺🇺🇸 THE U.S.-RUSSIA NUCLEAR ARMS TREATY JUST EXPIRED The New START treaty died at midnight, ending over 50 years of limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. Obama and Medvedev signed it in Prague in 2010, and now it's gone. The world's two largest nuclear powers are no longer bound by any caps on their strategic weapons. Welcome to an unchecked nuclear arms race.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸🇷🇺 RUSSIA OFFERS NUCLEAR PINKY PROMISE TO U.S.: NO TREATY, JUST "TRUST US" Moscow is now pitching its latest New START proposals as a heroic attempt to “prevent negative global scenarios” - meaning: “Let’s not yeet the planet into a nuclear fever dream… unless we have to.” Deputy FM Sergei Ryabkov says Russia’s offer is simple: Putin will voluntarily stick to the existing nuclear limits - if the U.S. does the same. No inspectors. No full treaty revival. Just a mutual pinky promise between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. Totally normal, very stable arrangement. Here’s the subtext: – New START expires in February. – Once it’s gone, both sides can technically build as many warheads as their accountants can tolerate. – And neither Moscow nor Washington actually wants to pay for a 1980s-style arms race reboot. Read between the warheads: Russia gets to look “responsible” at a moment when it desperately wants diplomatic oxygen. The U.S. gets pressured into either matching the offer… or looking like the side that said, “Nah, let’s roll the dice.” Both sides will posture, stall, and pretend they’re not negotiating - but nobody wants to be the one who lets the last remaining nuclear treaty die. The world’s 2 biggest arsenals are about to enter the most awkward (and explosive) “are we still doing this?” relationship talk in decades. Source: Reuters
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇷🇺 LAVROV OFFERS NUCLEAR DEAL - THEN THREATENS RETALIATION IF U.S. TESTS FIRST Russia just floated a one-year extension of the New START nuclear treaty - the last thread holding U.S. and Russian warheads in check. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov framed it as an act of “great https://t.co/gHRUotdlmG
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨 INTERVIEW: COL. MACGREGOR ON HOW A WAR WITH IRAN COULD LOOK LIKE Why didn’t Trump strike Iran last month? Was it Israeli unpreparedness, pressure from the Gulf, or his military advisors warning the U.S. isn’t ready for war? With a military buildup still underway in the region, a U.S. strike remains likely. So how would Iran retaliate? Hired by Trump as senior advisor to the Acting Secretary of Defense, Macgregor warns Iran’s capabilities now far exceed what they were during his time in the military and during the 12-day war, as Putin and Xi have heavily armed the country in recent months. Iran’s small diesel submarines (perfect for the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf), thousands of naval mines, and a large stockpile of missiles and mobile batteries hidden in mountainous terrain make the war a nightmare for the U.S., the region, and even the global economy. Subs and mines could shut down the crucial Strait of Hormuz, triggering a global oil crisis. Iran’s ballistic missiles could overwhelm U.S. defenses in the region, including the USS Abraham Lincoln. And while the war rages, China, Russia, and even Turkey may not sit idle. That could turn the conflict regional and further drain American munition stockpiles. 03:28 - Venezuela oil companies reluctant to operate, turning to mercenaries for protection 04:07 - Discussion on Trump's “secret weapon” and air defense disruption claims 04:54 - Iran protests brutally suppressed; airstrike plans reportedly halted 06:13 - Mossad, CIA, MI6 involvement escalated protests into potential regime change 07:20 - U.S. military assembling additional forces; air campaign planning underway 08:27 - Air Force poised for sustained bombing campaign; Navy limited by missile stock 09:54 - Iran’s missile and air capabilities now stronger than in 2020 11:16 - Russian and Chinese assistance improving Iran’s integrated air defenses 12:33 - Questions on Iran’s long-range missile reach and potential threats 14:03 - U.S. negotiating with Iran while signaling military readiness 15:21 - Assets in the region underestimated; more military presence deployed 16:05 - Iran refuses to negotiate missile program limitations 17:11 - Differences between previous air campaign and current potential operations 18:30 - Objective of U.S./Israel air campaign: destabilize Iranian state 19:57 - Turkey’s position as regional wildcard in potential Iranian conflict 22:12 - NATO’s limited role; European militaries unable to influence outcomes 25:37 - Iran’s drone swarm and naval capabilities assessed; U.S. preparedness discussed 28:32 - Iran could mine Strait of Hormuz as last resort; Chinese support mitigates impact 32:33 - Russia and China potential intervention if Iran regime collapses 36:30 - Iran strike consequences for Ukraine and Taiwan; U.S. and NATO credibility questioned 39:35 - Taiwan strategic assessment; Trump’s view aligns with non-intervention
Video Transcript AI Summary
- The discussion frames Iranian capabilities as the current biggest threat to the US Navy, noting that Iran’s position is now stronger, with significant new efforts in the last six months supported by China and Russia. The guest emphasizes that Iranian capabilities today are far more lethal than in 2020 and that Iran has benefited from Chinese and Russian involvement, including help with integrated air defenses.
- On the protests in Iran, the guest contends that Mossad, with CIA and MI6, joined the efforts to provoke the regime into a brutal crackdown, aiming to trigger a stronger US response. He argues the protests were legitimate at their core (economic grievances and reformist aims) and that the attempt to exploit them for regime change failed. He explains that, after discovering 40,000 starlight terminals used to orchestrate regime-change efforts, the intelligence community judged the operation a failure, and President Trump was advised that a broader, more forceful campaign would be required, potentially including more firepower and assets.
- Regarding Russia and China’s responses to potential regime collapse in Iran, the guest asserts that Russia would intervene only if the regime seemed in danger of collapsing, and China would respond similarly, considering strategic and financial consequences.
- In the Maduro Venezuela operation, the guest recounts paying off many actors to enable the abduction of Maduro and his wife, noting air defenses largely stood down due to bribes, with one battery reportedly firing and damaging a helicopter. He suggests the operation accomplished regime alteration but not a change in leadership style, since the new president reportedly will not take instructions from Washington. He speculates that continued oil income from the captured Venezuelan oil could influence outcomes, and he notes skepticism about the profitability of Venezuelan drilling for major oil corporations, who may turn to private or mercenary groups.
- The “secret weapon” comment (the discombobulator) is described as an exaggeration; the guest hints at undisclosed capabilities but declines further public discussion, citing high clearance and Pentagon confidentiality.
- On Iran’s protests and possible US strikes, the guest reiterates that the initial protests were economically driven and that the Mossad-CIA-MI6 effort to provoke a harsher regime response stalled, leading to the decision for a larger potential strike. He outlines a plan for a prolonged air campaign with multiple carriers and a heavy emphasis on air power over naval action, suggesting a Kosovo-like approach with extensive air sorties to degrade Iran’s air and missile defenses, using surface ships as needed but relying on air power for sustained damage. He notes that the air campaign would require time and additional assets, possibly two to three more carrier groups, and would hinge on the ability to degrade defenses to enable broader bombing operations.
- When discussing Iranian capabilities against the US Navy, the guest says Iran’s current capabilities are more dangerous, with Iran receiving about 500 missiles from China and improved Russian integrated air defenses. He notes concern about long-range missiles capable of reaching US bases and questions whether Iran’s Orion missiles could reach Diego Garcia. He asserts that Russian help could be more for deterrence or limited military support rather than supplying exotic missiles like Reshnik, and that the Chinese missiles could threaten ships at sea.
- On the US mobilization (Lincoln, submarines, aircraft, drones, HIMARS, Patriot/THAAD), the guest says the response is a time-buying effort to pressure negotiations, with more assets likely and ongoing dialogue with Iran. He suggests the US may pursue enriched uranium settlements, acknowledging Netanyahu’s and Trump’s positions, while noting Iran’s insistence that missile development is not negotiable and that JCPOA prospects are unlikely.
- About Iran’s possible escalation strategies, the guest analyzes several options: drone swarms could threaten bases; sea mines in the Strait of Hormuz would be a last resort but remain a hazard; a swarm of boats and diesel submarines pose challenges but are not existential threats to carriers; and long-range missiles (including those supplied by China) could target US bases or ships. He emphasizes that the navy can defend against many of these threats but highlights the difficulty of countering missiles and the threat submarines pose in shallow gulf waters.
- On Russia and China’s potential responses if the regime falls: Russia would likely intervene militarily or economically to prevent regime disintegration, while China could leverage financial power (including debt leverage) and maintain strategic flexibility. The Turkish role is described as a wild card; Turkey could be motivated to counter Israeli hegemony in the region, potentially drawing NATO into conflict, despite NATO’s current limited capacity.
- Finally, the guest touches on broader geopolitical implications: he suggests Europe is drifting towards greater autonomy from the US, NATO’s effectiveness is questionable, and the regime’s fall could trigger wider regional instability. He argues Taiwan is a separate, less feasible target for conflict, given distance and economic stakes, and calls for more cautious rhetoric regarding Taiwan. He closes by noting that Ukraine’s fate and Europe’s stance will influence how the US and its allies manage any Iran escalation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What are the Iranian capabilities that are the biggest threat to the US Navy?
Speaker 1: The capabilities on hand today are far more lethal. The Iranian position, I think, is much stronger. Over the last six months, enormous effort has been invested in Iran by the Chinese in particular, but also the Russians.
Speaker 0: What do make of the protests, the lack of military intervention by The US? If strikes were called off, what would be the main reason if you had to speculate?
Speaker 1: The Mossad, with the help of the CIA and MI six then joined the fray, went in there and deliberately tried to provoke the government into acting very brutally towards the protesters. So at that point, it made no sense to to launch strikes, strikes, and the determination was then made if we're going to do this, we're going to need a lot more firepower.
Speaker 0: Will Russia and China let the regime fall?
Speaker 1: The Russians will not intervene unless they think the regime is in danger of collapsing. I think the Chinese are similar.
Speaker 0: Last time we spoke was a while ago before the the adventurous Maduro capture. Before we get into Iran, is the main issue right now, the main developments that we're seeing, what do you make of that operation?
Speaker 1: You're talking about the Maduro kidnapping?
Speaker 0: Kidnapping.
Speaker 1: We spent millions and millions of dollars to essentially pay off everyone that was in the way, and that's one of the reasons why the air defenses were completely silent. Only one air defense battery appears not to have gotten the memo, and they did fire a missile or I don't know if it was a missile or a radar directed weapon, but they hit one, helicopter that was severely damaged, but it did not crash. So I, you know, I everyone's talking about our marvelous achievement in, technology. Well, our technology is excellent, but it doesn't guarantee anything if you're flying into a an air defense nest, and that's effectively what we flew in. And so a lot of people were paid off to look the other way and let us take Maduro and his wife.
Speaker 0: Are you at least relieved that it wasn't a regime change and it was a regime alteration in a way? It's the same regime and power. Regime change could be very messy. So we've got the same regime with a new head. Could that be a good a better strategy?
Are you happy with that at least?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I hope that we will declare victory and stop talking about it because, effectively, what the new president has said is that she's no longer going to take any instructions from Washington.
Speaker 0: But her actions show that she still is. So as long as those actions remain as they are now, they don't change, it may be a successful operation that does not include regime change, which Iran is a different story. But that is that is that a fair way to conclude it if she continues to play ball with Trump?
Speaker 1: Well, that's a big if, obviously. I mean, I think it depends upon income that flows into Venezuela. And perhaps they've come to an arrangement where the Venezuelan regime still receives income from the oil that we've captured and then sold illegally. I don't know. I mean, I don't know what the other agreements may have been.
I know that the oil corporate leadership is not interested in going down there, and they've made that pretty clear. They just can't make it pay off. There's not enough profit in it for them. And I know they're under great pressure to do it, but I think they've now turned to some maverick oil organizations as well as to, potentially mercenaries to protect them if they go down to Venezuela to do any drilling.
Speaker 0: What do you make of the weapon, the secret weapon that Trump mentioned briefly, the how do you spread it, discombobulator? People are saying it's a pulsed energy weapon or some sort of sonic or acoustic device that allowed the air defense systems to not function. What do you make of that comment?
Speaker 1: I think he's exaggerating. We have a number of things about which we never speak publicly that we only use in the most dire circumstances. So beyond beyond what has been said publicly, I don't care to add anything to it. Remember, I was in the military for a long time, and I I had a very high clearance the last time I was in the building. That is the Pentagon.
So if I don't have to talk about that, I'd rather not.
Speaker 0: Understood. Let's move to a story that seems a lot more bleak, and that's what's happening in Iran. We saw protests that lasted days. There was a pretty brutal crackdown by the regime. Now number of deaths vary depending who you ask, but the protests have stopped.
It seems that the crackdown has worked for now. There were talks about strikes that almost happened. Some people say it was called off by Trump at at the tail end of the protests before they ended. And there's been multiple reports on if Trump called off the the airstrikes, whether it was Gulf nations that pressured him, whether it was his military advisers telling him we're not ready for it, we don't have all the equipment there, that they've now moved into the region, or it was Israel telling him that we're not prepared for this. There's been reports claiming all three, really.
First, what do you make of the protests, the lack of military intervention by The US? And if call if strikes were called off, what will be the main reason if you had to speculate?
Speaker 1: First of all, the protests were legitimate, and the initial protesting was about the terrible state of the economy. And, you know, you had two groups of people on the street. You had people that want change in that regard and reform and others who are more conservative. There was not a directed effort to overthrow the government. Now what happened was that the Mossad, with the help of the CIA and MI six, then joined the fray, went in there and deliberately tried to provoke the government into acting very brutally towards the protesters to the point where they were paying large numbers of people to essentially be violent.
They were passing out weapons and urging them to shoot at the police. So it it evolved over time because we were trying to exploit the legitimate protest to turn it into a regime change opportunity. The forces that were already assembled were supposed to be employed to exploit that opportunity, but it became very clear within a fairly short period of time, thanks to assistance and help from the Chinese and the Russians, that the 40,000 starlight terminals that were smuggled into the country, which were used to orchestrate the regime change portion of the protests were discovered and eliminated. And the the response from the intelligence community was it's failed. Our our attempt to exploit this and turn it into something more has not worked.
Mister Netanyahu, I think, made that very clear to president Trump in private. So at that point, it made no sense to to launch strikes, and the determination was then made. If we're going to do this, we're going to need a lot more firepower. And I think the chairman of the joint chiefs, general Kane, made that very clear to president Trump that we were going to have to assemble more forces with more missiles, more munitions for a longer campaign, that this would not be a two or three day operation. So we're still waiting.
We've assembled many assets, but not all of them. I would expect to see at least two more carrier battle groups to show up. There may be three more coming. That would take another ten days. And now that doesn't mean they couldn't launch with what they have because you have to remember that the the main striking power is not delivered by the navy.
It's delivered by the air force. And I think they're prepared for something analogous to the Kosovo air campaign in 1999, which involved everything short of nuclear weapons. And I think that's the guidance that's been given to the Air Force and the Navy. You can employ whatever you like as long as it does not include a nuclear weapon. And the Air Force has the bombing capability to do an enormous amount of damage.
Now some of that has to be done at a standoff distance of some kind at very high altitude. But as you succeed, assuming you succeed in degrading Iranian air and missile defenses, then it becomes easier to bring in b 50 twos and others and bomb directly overhead. I'm sure that they face this thing, and I suspect that they're planning on a ten day to two week air campaign. Now that doesn't mean that the navy side doesn't count, but remember the navy is always limited. They shoot some number of missiles that they have, excuse me, that they have on hand, and then they have to replenish.
You still have to feed everybody who's at sea. You still have to reload, which means you've gotta go back to various installations where they can load missiles and other equipment. So the navy is is in a position where it can only do so much over a specific period of time, whereas the air force can sustain this for for quite a while from The United States, from Germany, from Europe in general, probably from bases in Italy and Sicily. So that that could go on for some time.
Speaker 0: And before we talk about how Iran could respond, when you worked, you know, during your time in the first Trump administration, what type of planning or what were the concerns that the military had, the US military had when it came to planning for Iranian contingencies? What are the Iranian capabilities that are the biggest threat to the US Navy?
Speaker 1: Well, I would say the capabilities have changed. The capabilities on hand today are far more lethal and dangerous than they were back in night 2020. At the time, there was a view that if we have to do this, we'll do it, but we need more than we have right now in terms of munitions and missiles. Remember, takes a long time to build out missiles and and exotic musician munitions because we're not in a total war mobilization mode. You have assembly lines.
You can only produce so much in an in a particular period of time. And somebody said to me the other day, we have a problem with silver now. Silver is a vital element for f 30 fives, for all sorts of other weapon systems, and we can only get so much silver out of the ground in such in in in the time that's allotted. So you're running up against all kinds of constraints the longer something lasts, and I think that has to be borne in mind. Now today, the Iranian position, I think, is much stronger.
I think, particularly, over the last six months, enormous effort has been invested in Iran by the Chinese in particular, but also the Russians. I think the Russians have weighed in to assist with the integrated air defenses because the last time around, I'm sure you noticed this, the integrated air defenses didn't work very well. Yeah. And the Iranian president went to Moscow. If you listen very carefully, it was in the background, president Putin said to president Pashkinian, you should have let us help you.
And as it turned out, the Iranians had turned away assistance from the Russians in many cases because they wanted to do the operation on their own. They wanted to defend themselves. And president Putin was very straightforward, said you should have let us help you earlier. Well, they've now allowed the Russians to help them. So I would expect those air and missile defenses to work infinitely better this time.
The Chinese have provided, I'm told, at least 500 missiles. I don't know the mix. I'm sure somebody does, but I don't have access to that information. And the question is, how long range are these missiles? I mean, in the past, the Orions could not reach Diego Garcia.
Do they now have missiles capable of reaching Diego Garcia? I don't know. That would that would be a serious problem, because they have virtually all our other bases in The Middle East within range, but they still can't reach the bases that we might use in Europe and The United States. I that's the best answer I can give you.
Speaker 0: In terms of Russian support, is there any chance under any circumstances that Russia would supply a Reshtik missiles to Iran? Is that even a possibility?
Speaker 1: No. I think that's unlikely. I don't think they want to do that. I don't think they need to. I mean, frankly, the targets that the Iranians will will want to strike could be struck with the missiles on hand.
They don't need something as exotic and complex as Reshnech. I think the Russians see the Oreshnik as a deterrent more than anything else. They've demonstrated its utility. Everybody knows it works. We can't stop it.
It's hypersonic, and it produces, you know, over 30 independently targeted warheads. It's a nightmare, but I think the nightmare was designed for us and NATO, and that's where it's going to stay for the moment.
Speaker 0: So if you look at the mobilization that The US has made so far, the Lincoln, the with the with at least one nuclear powered attack submarine. You've got 12 f fifteens, probably more by now, various refueling tankers, air lifters, drones in the in the region, HIMARS, Patriot and THAAD anti missile systems. Considering that the the amount of equipment and even personnel that came to the to the region, Delta Force and Navy SEALs, some members are there, do you think that is more likely to be a bluff to force someone to the negotiating table and concede more, or it's looking more and more likely that it will be a military strike?
Speaker 1: I think that right now, we're playing for time. We've decided we're gonna meet with Iranians. As recently as an hour ago, I received a note that says that the Iranian representatives, I guess that's the foreign minister, or it could have been a spokesman in Tehran, has said, for instance, that whatever agreement might be reached regarding enriched uranium, that what they have will not be shipped out of Iran. And remember, the Russians had previously taken enriched uranium, and they have volunteered again in anticipation of these talks that they would take it again. The Iranians say that's off the table.
All the other demands that mister Netanyahu articulated, which mister Trump has repeated, have been rejected out of hand. And I don't know what they could possibly reach in an agreement on the enriched uranium. Remember, president Trump is the one who threw the JCPOA out, and you're not gonna go back to that. That's an impossibility for him. That would be an admission of defeat.
So I don't think he can come to an agreement exclusively on enriched uranium right now, but I could be wrong. So I think what you're witnessing is a play for time. More assets, more ships, more aircraft. And by the way, the numbers that you cited are wrong. We've got a lot more in the region than what you cited.
Infinitely
Speaker 0: Now these are the ones that have I think these are the ones that have just been added since the protest, not not total. Okay. Just one one point you've made going back to JCPOA is is unlikely. I think it's a very valid point, very important point. There's been reports today or yesterday, I think, that The US is looking at constraints on Iran's missile development.
That's mainly obviously for Israel, which they're the ones that have the main concern. You know, these missiles are gonna hit The US. And for support for for groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Yemen, the Houthis. But Iran is again and again said that the missile program is not up for negotiation. Is there any possibility that Iran may change their mind when it comes to the missile program?
Speaker 1: I don't think so. And I think that's what we need to take away from the statements over the last twenty four to thirty six hours. It's been made pretty clear. Those are the demands that come from mister Netanyahu. President Trump did not invent those.
Now president Trump obviously has an interest in whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon. That's entirely different. That's that's a very different thing because the Iranians had said repeatedly, we're not gonna do it, and it's against our law. You know? Now you can sit there and say, well, we don't believe what you say.
That's fine. But the Iranians have made it very clear they're not gonna go down that road. Now that could change after this air campaign is conducted depending upon the damage to the state. Because remember, this this campaign is very different from what we saw last June. Last June was kind of a demonstration.
Everybody was on board for it. I'm going to do this. They said, if you're going to do that, we won't interfere. And then the Iranians responded, and we said we wouldn't interfere. President Trump was trying to sort of tie a bow on the operation and say the war is over.
The nuclear facilities are destroyed, and we go forward from here. Well, that was never really true, but I genuinely believe having talked to president Trump and seeing him up close, he he really wanted that to be the case. I contend he doesn't want to do this, but he has no choice. He's backed into a corner. Some of that is his own rhetoric, but I think a great deal has to do with the enormous pressure that Israel exerts over The United States Government and the current administration.
Israel and its agents are all over the government, and I think it's been made clear this will happen. If it doesn't happen, I don't know what they've threatened president Trump with, but whatever it is, I'm sure it's quite potent. And remember, he owes a great deal to these donors who are effectively agents for Israel, who've contributed enormous quantities of money to put him into the White House. They expect to be paid for their services. So I think this is going to happen.
That's why I said earlier, think the decision to strike is being made. The question now is, do we have enough on hand to make it work? Because they want to wage a ruthless air campaign of destruction that is designed to just cause the disintegration of the Iranian nation. I think that's really what they're after. Now they don't particularly care what happens to the regime in terms of the people in it.
They wanna kill them. That's for sure. But they wanna make sure that Iran is rendered impotent, that it could conceivably break up into constituent parts. This, after all, was the goal in Ukraine against Russia. That's what Biden set out to do, and it has never changed.
Whatever happened in Ukraine was designed to destroy Russia. Ukraine was just a convenient vehicle. That operation has obviously failed, and Russia is now stronger than it's ever been. Iran is not in the position Russia is. It's got 93,000,000, which is a little less than the 120,000,000 the Russians or a 140,000,000 the Russians have.
But I don't think they can they're as resilient. Let's put it that way. We'll see. They have a water problem. Their economy is in ruins.
This could precipitate mass starvation, and everybody else in the region is watching this and says, well, this is gonna cause an enormous refugee problem. We'll be overwhelmed with people from Iran because they won't have water, they won't have food, they won't have the medical support. This is particularly true for the Turks who are right in the neighborhood. And the Turks have made it very clear they don't support this campaign because they don't wanna deal with that. But, also, whatever differences they have with Iran, they see no benefit to the destruction of the Iranian state in the region.
Speaker 0: You said something about Trump having no choice. What do you mean by that? As the president of the most powerful military of the world, what do you mean that Trump has no choice? What's the alternative if he if he decides not to strike Iran even though that's what Netanyahu wants?
Speaker 1: Well, it it depends on, what his donors decide to do. See, the the genius, if you will, of the Israel lobby has always been, we'll support you provided you support us to whomever, presidents, congressmen, senators. However, if you don't support us, we'll support your opponent regardless of party affiliation, regardless of their other political views because it's a single issue lobby. They're only interested in one thing, Israel. Yeah.
So, conceivably, that money could be turned on to others in Washington who, frankly, would like to impeach, president Trump, would like to take him down, destroy him. So I think that's part of the calculus that I'm sure he has in the back of his mind.
Speaker 0: Even though he's not running again, it's about having his opponent get their support and become the next president, and then Trump is in legal trouble again.
Speaker 1: Well, not just waiting until the administration ends. It could happen now. In other words, returning funding people that will do everything they can to destroy the president now.
Speaker 0: There's also a development. We probably should have started with that development to completely slip my mind. Is that the because I'd for I don't consider it to be that significant, but people are up in arms on Twitter. The Lincoln, there's an f 35 that shut down a Shehad drone just about two hours ago. What do you make of this?
Is it do do you think there's be could there be any retaliation from Iran, or do you think that's just, you know No. The Iranian. Under the carpet.
Speaker 1: There are lots of drones, Mario. The Iranians will send out more drones. And by the way, they're not entirely dependent upon drones for surveillance because we have a lot of evidence that the Chinese satellites are providing real time feed that is real time information and intelligence to the Iranians. So I don't think there is much out at sea right now or for that matter on land in the region that the Iranians don't already know about and can target. So shooting one drone down doesn't really change much.
Speaker 0: Agree. And, I I think you'd agree as well that Iran is not looking for escalation. I think they're looking for the president just said openly that they're they've ordered their representatives to negotiate with The US. I think there's gonna be negotiations in Turkey. So if The US shut down a drone, that's the end of it.
And if Iran does not is not seeking a war with The US No. Then there should there should be no reason for retaliation. We've talked about what the US would do, but what about Iran? What are their capabilities? And I've I've just researched, you know, what different analysts are saying on what Iran could do, and I'd love to get your thoughts on them.
One of the strategies is a swarm of boats, including sea drones, targeting the the Lincoln and other warships. Could that strategy work as a tactic? Is it something that the US navy has enough deterrence for?
Speaker 1: Oh, I I think the navy can deal with that. What the navy cannot deal with easily are incoming missiles depending upon the warhead, depending upon whether or not they're hypersonic. And then excuse me. They also have a great respect for the danger that submarines present. Now I don't know to what extent the Iranian submarines, all of which are diesels, and are designed for shallow water.
I don't know to what extent they they pose an existential threat to a carrier. Again, remember that you have submarines and you have aircraft and you have ships, all of which exist to protect carriers. I mean, the carrier itself is heavily, heavily defended. So your best shot is probably a long range missile, the types of which the Chinese have supposedly delivered to the Iranians, and that's something called, I think, the d f 23 or d f 21. These missiles are designed specifically to attack ships because they can maneuver and route and target the moving ship.
That, I think, is something they'll worry about. I'd you know, it doesn't mean that the diesel sub, which is very hard to detect, couldn't slip through in some sort of remarkable event, but, you know, I I wouldn't bet heavily on that.
Speaker 0: Is it true that the the Persian Gulf is very shallow, so US submarines will struggle to operate in that area? That's why Iran's diesel subs, which are smaller, could work, but not as well as some would think. And and you're saying that the naval the swarm of boats also would be would not have much impact on the on the warships.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, this presupposes that we want to sail battle group into the Persian Gulf. I don't think we'll do that. There's no reason to. You can reach whatever targets you need to from the Indian Ocean, from the Red Sea, and from the Mediterranean. And it's like taking a a battleship that is in the Atlantic Ocean and then putting it suddenly in the Chesapeake Bay.
Why? Why would you do that? It's very easy to identify, target, and sink in the Chesapeake Bay. It's safer out in the Atlantic. So I don't think that's really the issue.
Speaker 0: How about the strategy of having drone swarms? Would do you think Iran's cap is capable to have those swarms reach US bases at scale, and could they reach the warships as well? And would No. Think that have is the US military prepared for drone warfare?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I hope so because they very definitely can affect the bases that are in the region. Thus far, we've been able to deal with drones, but not in great numbers, in relatively small numbers. My assumption is that we've done work since the last time to prepare ourselves. We have a lot of automated 30 millimeter guns that can spray vast quantities of munitions in the air in the direction of any drone swarm. I assume that they're plentiful out there.
They may have 25 millimeter guns as well. I hope we're not planning on using Patriot missiles for that sort of thing because that's a waste of the missile. We don't have that many Patriot missiles. We need those to shoot down incoming missiles. I so you're asking me, can we do that?
I I would argue, yes. We can, but I can't promise you that we have done everything we need you to be prepared for this. There's just no way for me to know that.
Speaker 0: And at what cost? The last the last strategy or tactic that Iran could use is mining the Strait Of Hormuz, which would be probably the most detrimental for the world economy as an all oil choke point. Iran has thousands of naval mines, including smart mines. Do you think Iran would resort to that strategy, or is that as a last resort if they're in a very desperate position?
Speaker 1: I would see that more as a last resort. What they can do right now is that they have weapon systems, including missiles as well as various automatic guns that are burrowed deep in the in the cliffs that surround the
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Straight. And what I've heard from some of the Iranian commentators is that they can actually exert enough control where they could allow various vessels to go through that are not American vessels. In other words, they'll let vessels through they know are headed to China or Indonesia or Philippines or Japan. If some if an American warship or an American flag vessel of any kind tries to go through, they can take it under effective fire. At least that's their argument.
Now if we were to destroy, let's say, most of these weapon systems, which you can do, I mean, that takes effort, takes time, but if you did that, then, yes, if things are going badly, you can actually simply dump mines at the top of the Persian Gulf, and they will float naturally down into the Gulf, and they'll whirl around inside or excuse me, float down to the Straits Of Hormuz, and they'll actually float around in circles in in the in the Strait. I mean, it's a nightmare. In other words, it doesn't just go all the way out to sea. You have these whirlpools, and these things tend to sit in the Strait. So it'd be it's a it's a real nightmare if they do that.
But they could, as you say, if things get bad enough, if they feel they're losing, they may decide to do that. But remember, the Chinese have been stalwart supporters of the Iranians. They know the Chinese need the oil. Now a lot of ships have gone through that strait or those straits within the last month or so in an effort to get as much oil out and over to China as possible. So I think they're prepared in China to some extent for what might happen.
But I think the Iranians are sensitive to it, that's a last resort.
Speaker 0: So you're saying the the probably the strategy that would work best for Iran is having to call some missile batteries, essentially shoot shoot and scoop. So, essentially, they they shoot the missiles towards US bases or towards the warships and then just retreat back into the cliffs. Yes. That will be the biggest nightmare that The US has to
Speaker 1: face. Yes.
Speaker 0: Going to the the worst case scenarios, if the regime will Russia and China let the regime fall, and how far would their support go relative to the twelve day war?
Speaker 1: Well well, I wondered when you would finally ask that because that's the most important question, and it's a question that none of us could answer easily. My personal view, looked carefully at the Russian side, is the Russians will not intervene unless they think the regime is in danger of collapsing. At that point, they would intervene, and they would tell us before they did it. I think the Chinese are similar. And the Chinese, of course, also have enormous financial power.
We're in a very fragile position right now with regard to our bond market and our looming debt and our inability to service it. The Chinese can do a lot of things to us financially they have not done. They have not dumped all of the debt that they control right now. If they dumped all the treasury bonds that they've accumulated, that's something like 700,000,000,000. That would be catastrophic for us.
So I think there are other things that, the Chinese are thinking about. But the Russian side doesn't want the disintegration of Iran any more than the Turks, and I would also worry about the Turks. So if I you know, one of the things I try to tell people is that people in the region are beginning to understand something. Israel wants absolute hegemony over the region. Now the Arab states can't do a great deal about that.
I mean, they just don't have the military power, the wherewithal to oppose it, but the Turks do. And the Turks are not happy about what the Israelis have been doing for the last couple of years. They're to put it mildly, they are enraged. You know, you if you go to Istanbul, you should visit this museum, which is all about the Gaza atrocity. It's it's shocking, and it's very good, and it's very upsetting.
And Turks move to that on a routine basis. The Turkish population would support war with Israel. So if things get very bad, the Turks might well come into this. Now the Israelis will say, oh, no. No.
No. Erdogan, he's a fence sitter. He'll never do anything. But the Turks also are beginning to figure out that after the destruction of Iran, they're probably next on the menu. All you have to do is look at the potential for a collision between the Israelis and Turks in Syria to understand that or a collision at sea.
The Israelis want absolute dominance, and the Turks don't don't misunderstand that. They they understand that very clearly. And if you think you're next on the menu, how long do you wait before you act? I don't
Speaker 0: know. So China's strategy will be economic warfare. Turkey is the the wild card here. We're not sure how they'll respond, especially with the geopolitical chess they're playing with with Israel and Syria. But then how would Russia interfere?
What would be their if the regime is about to fall, you're saying they would interfere militarily or purely economically?
Speaker 1: They would do what they can economically anyway, but they would not hesitate to use military power against us on a limited basis. They don't wanna war with us, but their view of us is that we are increasingly unpredictable, unstable, and dangerous. And they have concluded that at some point, they may have to face us. Now right at the moment, they're focused on Europe because they still think that president Trump is the last reasonable man in NATO. I think they're delusional, but that's what they believe.
So that's a good thing in the short run. But will they stand by and watch Iran utterly destroyed? They they place too much emphasis on the one belt, one road as a road to prosperity and enrichment. They place a great deal of value on their southern security across Central Asia. And I think that before mister Erdogan acted or whoever happens to be running the Turkish government, they would call Moscow, and they would wanna wanna be sure they had Moscow's support.
So I think you're looking at all sorts of potential expansion from a regional war to a much larger not necessarily global, but certainly larger than just the Middle East.
Speaker 0: And in terms of the wild card Turkey, how would NATO respond if Turkey is to to clash with Israel?
Speaker 1: I'm sure they'd all object. You know, NATO is a debating society at this point. The problem with NATO is that they're all bark and no bite. What are they going to do? The one nation on the European continent that has a real army at this point are the Poles.
The Poles have a very fine army. It's not large enough. It would not achieve victory against the Russians by any means, but it's a substantial army. Nobody else has anything to put into the field. So what are you going to do?
Threaten to use a nuclear weapon? Well, that's a losing proposition with the Russians. By the way, there's something that we might mention just here at the end, and you might ask others about this, and that is the May suspension. And that suspension has to do with the START treaty, strategic arms reductions talks. We have the Russians have told us that they're willing to extend the treaty, and they have said they'll stay within these limits at least until we sit down and negotiate a future.
We haven't really responded. And if that, lapses, then there are no constraints whatsoever on the Russians in what they may or may not do with their nuclear arsenal. And given what we've seen with the Ureshnik as evidence for very high technology in the world of missiles, I shudder to think what they might do in the absence of the treaty. So I'm someone that thinks we should contact them and agree to extend it and then also follow-up at some point with negotiations, which will obviously take months just as they did before. But I think it's in our interest to do so.
Again, when you ignore this, that sends another signal to the Russians, Mario, which is not a good one. They they may interpret that as, you know, malevolent, that there is actually some readiness in Washington to play a high stakes game with nuclear weapons. That's that's too dangerous to contemplate in my view.
Speaker 0: What the the last topic or question I wanna ask you is about what a follow or or military strike on Iran would mean for Ukraine and for Taiwan. What would that do to the negotiations when it comes to Ukraine? Wouldn't it just empower the empower Russia and weaken The US and NATO? And then wouldn't it also empower empower China to to do the same thing that the US did in Iran and Venezuela to, Russia did in Ukraine to do the same thing in Taiwan?
Speaker 1: Well, the Europeans already vacillate between ignoring and challenging president Trump and trying to find ways to entice us back into the war they think they wanna fight with Russia. Ultimately, neither approach has worked. So I think the Europeans are coming to the conclusion and justifiably that they're on their own. Not completely yet, but that's very definitely where they're headed. And I don't know what that means because the Europeans have to figure out what that means.
But NATO is such, I think, is scheduled for extinction. That has very little to do with anything the Russians have done because the Russians have been entirely reactive to what we've done in Ukraine. Now as far as, Ukraine is itself is concerned, I think the Russians are gonna terminate this war on their terms. Right now, they have another large battle of encirclement going on just East of Zavarossia in Southeastern Ukraine. There's not much left after this.
There isn't much left as it is anyway, but there will be almost nothing left. Then the ball is, so to say, in in mister Putin's lap, and he's got to decide what he wants to do because Europeans, frankly, can't do anything about it. You know, this is the sad part. He would talk to them if they talk to him, but they have been unwilling to do so. In which case, the Russians may then say, we have no choice.
We've gotta cross the river, go down to Odessa, seize control of Kharkov, and then turn ultimately back on Kyiv. So we'll see. But these these are real possibilities this year to finally end war on terms that the Russians will accept. Taiwan is an entirely different animal. We we say and do some things that are very imprudent.
If you go back to the Shanghai communique of 1973, we made it very clear that we regarded Taiwan and China as the same people and part of the same country. I think we should go back to that because I don't see any real appetite in Mainland China for an invasion of Taiwan. They know that if they do that, it's going to hurt their business interests all over Asia. That's the last thing in the world they want. They don't want to destroy Taiwan.
Taiwan does a land office business with them, and they're happy to do that. So I hope that we will shut up about Taiwan. Unfortunately, we continue to sign bills that send billions of dollars of equipment over there, and we reinforce the Taiwanese presidents in cautious rhetoric. The good news for us is that the KMT, that's Shanghai Shiks old party, controls the parliament, and they are prounification. So whatever he tries to do to pursue independence will be stopped by the parliament that does not support that.
But that's a thin read because, we we really ought to make it very clear that we do not wanna be involved in that. That's worse than Ukraine simply because strategically, it's impossible to win. You're 6,000 miles from The United States. I mean, everybody likes to point to it. I think it's a good example, sadly.
What happened to the Hooties? Did we succeed against the Houthis? Obviously, a deal was cut with the Houthis, but the Houthis are still there. And they continue to lob missiles periodically at Israel. So the question is, what do we expect to achieve in Taiwan?
All we're doing is presenting the Chinese with a wonderful target array bobbing up and down in the ocean. Very, very unrewarding experience. So I I wish we'd stop talking. I by the way, I think president Trump privately shares that view.
Speaker 0: Agree. Yeah. He told when the Japanese prime minister, I think, said that Japan will get involved if China attacks Taiwan, There's been reports that Trump contacted and told her to ease up the rhetoric. So I think he's aligned on that regard. Colonel, always a pleasure, sir.
Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very much.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 LEADING AI SAFETY EXPERT SAYS WE’RE NOT IN CONTROL ANYMORE Dr Roman Yampolskiy has one warning for humanity: Once we create super intelligence, no one will be in control anymore, and the repercussions to humanity will be existential. We begin the conversation about Moltbook: The Ai-only AI social media platform where agents are already discussing ways to break out from human control, eradicate humanity, coming up with their own language and religion. The platform gives us a tiny peak into what our future could be: Agents outside our control dictating how the world should look like. There’s no off switch, no reliable way to align it, and no proven method to keep something smarter than us under control. Roman’s takeaway is blunt: the only real solution is not building general super intelligence at all, and instead using narrow AI for specific problems like medicine or science. However this is not the reality we live in, where Governments and corporations are racing to be first in developing Artificial Super Intelligence. We also speak about the simulation hypothesis: Why statically speaking we’re almost certainly in a simulation, and how AI makes this theory more plausible than ever. Lastly, we discuss a passion we both share: Longevity, the ability to live forever, and how AI may make that possible in our lifetime. I hope you enjoy my conversation with @romanyam 01:43 - The Current State of AI and Moltbook 05:17 - The AI Arms Race and the Lack of Regulations 10:34 - AI Agents, Unrestricted Access, and Self-Improvement 15:35 - Dr. Roman’s Research: AI Security 17:58 - AI Capabilities and Superintelligence 19:28 - AI and Global Government Policy 21:08 - What Happens if AI Development goes into the Wrong Hands 26:10 - The Future of AI: The Best Case Scenario? 31:27 - AI and Self-Preservation 34:37 - The Simulation Hypothesis: What is AI Afraid of? 45:17 - The Implications of AI 49:59 - The Warnings coming from Within 52:31 - How AI affects Crypto and Political Spheres
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario and Roman discuss the rapid rise of AI and the profound regulatory and safety challenges it poses. The conversation centers on MoltBook (a platform for AI agents) and the broader implications of pursuing ever more capable AI, including the prospect of artificial superintelligence (ASI).
Key points and claims from the exchange:
- MoltBook and regulatory gaps
- Roman expresses deep concern about MoltBook appearing “completely unregulated, completely out of control” of its bot owners.
- Mario notes that MoltBook illustrates how fast the space is moving and how AI agents are already claiming private communication channels, private languages, and even existential crises, all with minimal oversight.
- They discuss the current state of AI safety and what it implies about supervision of agents, especially as capabilities grow.
- Feasibility of regulating AI
- Roman argues regulation is possible for subhuman-level AI, but fundamentally impossible for human-level AI (AGI) and especially for superintelligence; whoever reaches that level first risks creating uncontrolled superintelligence, which would amount to mutually assured destruction.
- Mario emphasizes that the arms race between the US and China exacerbates this risk, with leaders often not fully understanding the technology and safety implications. He suggests that even presidents could be influenced by advisers focused on competition rather than safety.
- Comparison to nuclear weapons
- They compare AI to nuclear weapons, noting that nuclear weapons remain tools controlled by humans, whereas ASI could act independently after deployment. Roman notes that ASI would make independent decisions, whereas nuclear weapons require human initiation and deployment.
- The trajectory toward ASI
- They describe a self-improvement loop in which AI agents program and self-modify other agents, with 100% of the code for new systems increasingly generated by AI. This gradual, hyper-exponential shift reduces human control.
- The platform economy (MoltBook) showcases how AI can create its own ecosystems—businesses, religions, and even potential “wars” among agents—without human governance.
- Predicting and responding to ASI
- Roman argues that ASI could emerge with no clear visual manifestation; its actions could be invisible (e.g., a virus-based path to achieving goals). If ASI is friendly, it might prevent other unfriendly AIs; but safety remains uncertain.
- They discuss the possibility that even if one country slows progress, others will continue, making a unilateral shutdown unlikely.
- Potential strategies and safety approaches
- Roman dismisses turning off ASI as an option, since it could be outsmarted or replicated across networks; raising it as a child or instilling human ethics in it is not foolproof.
- The best-known safer path, according to Roman, is to avoid creating general superintelligence and instead invest in narrow, domain-specific high-performing AI (e.g., protein folding, targeted medical or climate applications) that delivers benefits without broad risk.
- They discuss governance: some policymakers (UK, Canada) are taking problem of superintelligence seriously, but legal prohibitions alone don’t solve technical challenges. A practical path would rely on alignment and safety research and on leaders agreeing not to push toward general superintelligence.
- Economic and societal implications
- Mario cites concerns about mass unemployment and the need for unconditional basic income (UBI) to prevent unrest as automation displaces workers.
- The more challenging question is unconditional basic learning—what people do for meaning when work declines. Virtual worlds or other leisure mechanisms could emerge, but no ready-planned system exists to address this at scale.
- Wealth strategies in an AI-dominated economy: diversify wealth into assets AI cannot trivially replicate (land, compute hardware, ownership in AI/hardware ventures, rare items, and possibly crypto). AI could become a major driver of demand for cryptocurrency as a transfer of value.
- Longevity as a positive focus
- They discuss longevity research as a constructive target: with sufficient biological understanding, aging counters could be reset, enabling longevity escape velocity. Narrow AI could contribute to this without creating general intelligence risks.
- Personal and collective action
- Mario asks what individuals can do now; Roman suggests pressing leaders of top AI labs to articulate a plan for controlling advanced AI and to pause or halt the race toward general superintelligence, focusing instead on benefiting humanity.
- They acknowledge the tension between personal preparedness (e.g., bunkers or “survival” strategies) and the reality that such measures may be insufficient if general superintelligence emerges.
- Simulation hypothesis
- They explore the simulation theory, describing how affordable, high-fidelity virtual worlds populated by intelligent agents could lead to billions of simulations, making it plausible we might be inside a simulation. They discuss who might run such a simulation and whether we are NPCs, RPGs, or conscious agents within a larger system.
- Closing reflections
- Roman emphasizes that the most critical action is to engage in risk-aware, safety-focused collaboration among AI leaders and policymakers to curb the push toward unrestricted general superintelligence.
- Mario teases a future update if and when MoltBook produces a rogue agent, signaling continued vigilance about these developments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What do you make of MaltBook and all the hype about
Speaker 1: it? I'm very concerned about seeing this platform show up completely unregulated, completely out of control of owners of those bots.
Speaker 0: Is it even possible to regulate AI anymore? Or have we passed that stage?
Speaker 1: I think it's impossible fundamentally for us to control those systems.
Speaker 0: Considering human nature and human greed, each country, each person, each business wants to win.
Speaker 1: So then you talk about winning this race, I don't understand the strategy. Whoever gets there first beats uncontrolled superintelligence, which is mutually assured destruction.
Speaker 0: I wanna start the conversation by talking about what's trending right now. It's it's just this is a perfect example, Roman, of how fast the space is moving. And a lot of people are talking, are we there yet? You know, how far till we get to AGI? Well, between the time we booked our interview and we had it, we had something called Multbook come up, which is essentially a social media platform that's designed exclusively for AI agents.
And within hours, we started seeing the craziest things from AI creating their own religion, talking about how to break out of human control, how to communicate privately without human oversight, and some of them having existential crises. So it's that was just between the time we booked our interview in today. So I wanna start to get your thoughts on this new, whether you call it hype or this new evolution of AI. What do you make of Mold Book and all the hype about it?
Speaker 1: I mean, it looks kinda futuristic, science fiction y. I think the agents comprising the system are not more advanced than humans yet so I'm not too concerned about their capabilities. But I'm very concerned about seeing this platform show up completely unregulated, completely out of control of, orders of those bots. So that's telling us something about the current state of the art in AI safety. If one day those agents were to become a lot more capable, lot more dangerous, we have nothing in place.
We are not fully following what is happening in this platform, we're not monitoring it. So it seems like we are not in charge anymore at least in regard to direct supervision of our agents.
Speaker 0: I agree. I think the first thing that came to my mind, because I mainly cover politics. That's what I really mainly talk about on my channel. And in my mind, I'm thinking the president of The United States will wake up in the morning, not even know about Moltbok. He'd have the issues to deal with in many in Minnesota, issues to deal with in Iran, all these different things that will that are never ending, humans fighting other humans for stupid reasons.
And he would not even know there is a website where agents are planning, know, human extinction together. Obviously, it's very early. We don't know how autonomous these agents are. There's a lot of questions to be asked, but it's it's insight into what the future looks like. And the world we live in now is there's a race between the two superpowers, The US and China, on who's gonna be the king of AI, who's gonna win the AI race.
And because there's that race of greed going on between these two countries, no one's caring to, as you said, regulate this new technology. And it does give us insight into the world we live in and how people are underestimating the risks of AI. So let me start with the first, question moving away from old book is considering human nature and human greed and how each country, each person, each business wants to win, is it even possible to to regulate AI anymore, or have we passed that stage?
Speaker 1: So I think regulation is possible for subhuman level AI. If we are talking about getting to human level, AGI, and soon after the superintelligence, I think it's impossible fundamentally for us to control those systems. So then you talk about winning this race, I don't understand the strategy. Whoever gets there first creates uncontrolled superintelligence which is mutually assured destruction. It doesn't matter if it's China or US, the outcome is the same.
We're all not gonna be happy about that outcome. And I think, unfortunately, some of the leaders at least in US don't fully understand this technology. So you're saying maybe Trump doesn't fully understand that latest social network for AIs. I think he, general, has very little background in technology, Internet, AI. So he relies on his advisers, which unfortunately are very pro arms race beating China advisers.
They are not concerned about the safety aspects of it. So this is the situation. If someone was to explain to the president that the moment we create super intelligence, he loses control. He's no longer in charge of anything. AI is.
Maybe he will change his position in that technology.
Speaker 0: Before we talk about how, you know, ASI becomes an existential crisis for humanity, What worries me is, as I said and as you've highlighted, is that because of that arms race, US and China, no one's really regulating it. Now you said if they understand the risks, maybe they will. Well, I look at the other example of nuclear weapons. I think we all understand the risks of nuclear weapons. No no country needs thousands of nuclear warheads, yet The US and Russia have thousands, and China's racing ahead to catch up.
But they don't need them. That that's enough weapons to allow one person, in the case of China and Russia, and and potentially one person in The US as well, actually, to wipe out an entire, you know, an entire species. So isn't nuclear warheads an example of how AI will also reach artificial superintelligence, which we're gonna talk about before we get to before we start regulating it or shutting it down? Essentially, we're doomed to get there. No?
Speaker 1: So I think the situation is actually worse. The nuclear weapons as dangerous as they are are still tools. Somebody has to decide to use them, deploy them, they don't independently decide to go to war. Whereas with AI agents, with superintelligence, we're creating something completely different. It's a paradigm shift.
No one's in charge. The moment those systems are deployed, they make independent decisions. And the creators behind those systems are also not in control. So there is no direct advantage to being the one who created super intelligence.
Speaker 0: Yes. I I agree with the difference between the two because one is still within human control. ASI is something when it's we can't even predict how it will act because it's a it's a whole it's a higher level of intelligence. You know, it's like asking a monkey or a dog what will be the next human discovery or technological evolution and, you know, the dog will not be able to tell you. But my worry is that the same way we did not control the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we will not control the development of artificial superintelligence.
And so would you agree with the with my conclusion is that based on how things are looking and and how unlikely they are to change, we're almost guaranteed to reach artificial superintelligence. We're going to develop it. There's nothing's gonna stop the train anymore.
Speaker 1: Is it something you're saying is worse? I I think it's worse because with nuclear weapons, a lot of people understood how dangerous that technology is and tried to limit proliferation, tried to limit access to enriched plutonium. With AI, there is literally no one even trying to control or somehow reduce exposure of this technology. Then we did research early on in AI safety. We said, okay.
Just whatever you're doing, don't connect it to Internet. Don't give random access to people who are not verified to be safe. What we see now is exact opposite of every advice AI safety community ever developed. They connect it to Internet, they open source it, open weights, give access to everyone who wants access, and then there is an arms race for making it as capable as possible without any safety or regulations in place. President made it explicitly illegal for all 50 states to develop any governance, any regulations against AI.
So I think it's strictly worse than the nuclear case.
Speaker 0: Agree. And and not only this, if you look at we're talking about MoldtBook. MoldtBook is essentially a platform where and there's other platforms that are being created. We're essentially giving tools to AI to break out. We're like, hey, AI.
This is how you can make money, you know, crypto. This is how you can communicate. I think there's encrypted platforms for AI to communicate. I'm not sure how that works. And these are social media platform where you guys can all plan things.
We can watch you for now, but you can create your own language and then we can't watch you anymore. So I feel like what we're trying to do is give AI all the tools to essentially, you know, kinda lead to our own demise. That's pretty depressing. Now let's let's talk about how I know we as I said earlier, and and I've you've said the same thing previously is that we cannot really predict how the world will look like when there's another form of intelligence. And you've given an incredible example.
You said this, if you said to people aliens are gonna come to planet Earth, everyone would freak out and everyone would come together and prepare for this new species to visit Earth and in case they they wanna harm the planet. And I remember in another interview, some a random interview about alien life. I remember, think, Rogan said, I wish aliens come because maybe all humans come together and they stop fighting. Well, essentially, AI is that. It's just not coming in the form that we expect on a spaceship another species.
It's a form of intelligence that we're literally creating, but it is like aliens visiting planet Earth. And we can't predict what will happen when that species, you know, becomes, you know, becomes what it is, artificial superintelligence. But can you maybe walk us through of what you think the process would look like? Starting with the day we discover or we develop artificial superintelligence. How would it look like?
And more importantly, how do you think the world would react? How would governments, businesses, and people react when it first comes out?
Speaker 1: So we're kinda starting to see this process right now. Right? We have agents which are more and more capable, agents which can now program other agents. They can self modify their own prompts, instructions. So this process, this self improvement cycle has already begun.
We hear reports from top labs saying we don't write code anymore. The agents write code, we kind of guide them a little, but 100% of the code for a new system is now generated by AI. The process of automating science and engineering has begun and more and more capable agents will create more and more capable agents. This will continue. So we are no longer fully in control of that process as well.
Unfortunately, that means we are not reacting to a kind of switch in the system. It's a gradual process and we are kinda slowly boiled alive. We're not noticing the change in temperature. Are accustomed to it. Oh, yesterday it was doing 20% coating, today it's 30%.
But it's already at a 100 for many cases for much of software development. We have given access to those systems to API for other tools, Internet access, phone access, cryptocurrencies, they have all that. So gradually, we will see this shift from subhuman capability to superhuman capability. You correctly noted the process is super fast, hyper exponential. From the time we try to book the interview to the time we actually sit down, this whole new marketplace of agent ideas has emerged and it's growing exponentially.
They went from couple agents to over a 100,000. They're starting businesses. They're starting religions. They're starting things, and there is no reaction. You see some news articles, headlines, but there is no legislative output.
Problem is the cognitive difference between superintelligence and humans will be so large even if we come together as humanity, we would not be competitive, we are not gonna win an adversarial situation. So this is kinda like point of no return for this process.
Speaker 0: Agree. I'm trying to find a tweet. I posted it out two days ago. It was one of the agents on Moldbook essentially planning on how I think, writing a manifesto on how to end the, you know, end human life on the planet and why it's a good idea and trying to convince other agents that it's a good idea. I can't find the post.
There's a whole bunch of them on the platform. And as you said, all we did is, like, all we're doing is just posting about it, laughing about it. Maybe some people are scared. We move on with our life. But just imagine, I tell people this.
Yeah. I'm gonna use your example. Imagine we find out there's alien life on some planet and they communicate to us. We we managed to find out communication on that planet where they're talking to each other about how to wipe out human life on earth. I think we'd freak the hell out and that becomes the entire focus of the entire planet.
But then when we have a form of intelligence that we know, we all know is gonna become or most of us know will become super intelligent, ASI, which is essentially the way I understand is AI becomes more intelligent than all of humanity put together. And it's talking about wiping out humanity. We get scared for a few hours and move on with our life. And it reminds you of something that Sam Altman said. It's like, you know, when AGI happens or what you said it already happened, but ASI, let's say, happens, people will get shocked for a day, two days, get a few headlines, and then we'll move on with their day to day life.
And that's what's scariest is that people don't understand what it really means. I don't know why.
Speaker 1: They don't see a significant change in their daily life right away, so it kinda looks like just another movie. You saw Terminator, now you see this forum. It's all kinda entertainment. You don't see direct impact on what's happening to humans. When you start seeing it, it might be a little too late to do something about it.
Speaker 0: Exactly. When you cross the line into artificial intelligence, as you said earlier in the interview, how can we stop something smarter than us? And that we're giving we're essentially giving that form of intelligence access to the entire infrastructure on the planet. So the question would be is, what can we do now as a specie? Let's say artificial superintelligence will be created.
Is there anything we could do to ensure alignment, which is to ensure AI does not work against human interests? Is there is there you know, some people talk about an off switch. Other people like Mogadak talk about nurturing the AI and teaching it values like we teach a child value. So when it becomes super intelligent, it follows the values of humanity, which is, you know, values of being good to others. Is what do you think of those two potential solutions?
And is there any other possible solutions that may work?
Speaker 1: Right. So my whole research was about what can we do to make it safer if we are creating advanced AI? Is there a path forward? And some of those we know for sure will not work so turning it off is not an option. It's smarter than you.
It will predict that you're trying to shut it off. It will turn you off first. It has backups. It has again, we see multi agent society. If you turn off one agent, you still have a whole network of them.
So that doesn't seem like it's likely to work. Any type of raise it as a child, give it human ethics fails, then you start looking at specific cases. Even with human beings who are biologically perfectly aligned with us, We have some kids who turn out to be psychopaths who kill as many people as they can given opportunity. So that that doesn't guarantee safety. Worse yet, we are not growing those systems from scratch.
They already have access to all the knowledge in the world. They are as smart as an average human in most domains smarter than average in many. So you're not dealing with a baby, you're kinda dealing with autistic savant right now. They may not be universal intelligence but they better than you at negotiating, translating, coding, you can name thousands of domains where the system is already outperforming human minds. They have perfect memory, they have ability to network with thousands of others.
So I think we're skipping the whole childhood stage and going directly to we're meeting aliens and they are very different from us For collaboration, for any type of hybrid existence, you need to be able to contribute something to that equation. It's not obvious what we as humanity have to contribute to the world with super intelligence in it. People talk about internal experiences. Only I know what ice cream tastes like to me. Okay.
That's something. But is that something you can monetize? Is that something you can trade? Is there a market for that type of internal states? If there is and only humans can be conscious, maybe you can have good life for a few select humans.
But it doesn't explain why you need 8,000,000,000 of us.
Speaker 0: So the only solution or possible solution then is for us to find a way to contribute, but you're saying there is nothing we can contribute?
Speaker 1: So I haven't found anything which superintelligence would not be able to do. If it's something you can explain how you're doing it, it's algorithmic, so AI can do it. If it's something based on your internal states, then it's not obvious that there is market for that set of capabilities.
Speaker 0: So then there is no solution, at least not one that we can think of now.
Speaker 1: I think the only solution is not to create general superintelligence. This will not end well. We can get most of the financial benefit and scientific benefit by creating narrow tools, superintelligent in a specific domain. Example would be the system created for protein folding problem. It was very successful, people behind it got Nobel Prizes for it, amazing medical benefit, but the system is trained on specific set of data.
It's not universal, it's not general, It's very unlikely to cause problems in our domains. So we can do the same thing with other problems. You have a specific disease you would like to cure, you care about climate change, whatever specific set of problems, you can develop tools to take majority of capabilities of AI in that domain and streamline that process of improvement. We can talk about longevity as another target for it. But the moment you go, I don't care about specific problems.
I wanna create this general, more capable set of agents which are replacement for humanity. I don't see how we benefit from this replacement.
Speaker 0: Is there any governments because, obviously, you speak to a lot of others in the AI safety world. Is there any policymakers, ones that have genuine influence on the world, especially in The US Chinese governments? Any at all that are having discussions with people like yourself to come up with solutions, or they don't even care?
Speaker 1: There is politicians in some countries. UK is a great example. I think Canada's starting to look that way, which take problem of superintelligence seriously. They would like to pass legislation to limit either hardware or capabilities. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a legal solution to a technical problem.
Making it illegal does not actually solve that problem. Know computer viruses are illegal, spam is illegal, obviously, every conceivable crime is illegal but you still get drugs, you get murderers every day. So I don't think it's a solution. What I think is our best chance is personal self interest. People behind those systems, if they realize creating this, being successful at winning this arms race hurts me the most.
My personal interest, my health, my wealth, my family will not be around. So if I'm young and rich I can continue deploying existing models throughout the economy. There is still trillions of dollars of ungrabbed wealth just from automating what we already can. You can still be very successful but there is no need to become the one who creates a tool which will be used to destroy humanity.
Speaker 0: My concern that even if that happens, even if you've got the, you know, the guys like Sam Altman, Elon, etcetera, ensuring we don't reach artificial superintelligence and Chinese companies doing the same thing because, you know, they're the two countries leading right now. And my worry is that that will only delay the inevitable because there will be someone smart that will do it that doesn't really care about humanity or that doesn't it could be psychotic, mentally unstable and not care about the repercussions that that will cause. So my worry is that it is gonna happen. The only question is whether it will happen now or ten years or fifteen years from today.
Speaker 1: I think you are right. I think it's actually getting easier to create advanced AI because hardware becomes more powerful. If right now it would cost me a trillion dollars to train superintelligence system, in ten years you can do it on a laptop. And so, yes, it is just kinda buying us more time but I think it's still a good outcome. I would rather have ten years than two years.
Speaker 0: The only solution I would think of is like you have some Chernobyl like event where, let's say, we're just about to reach artificial general intelligence. Sorry. AIS artificial superintelligence or general superintelligence. We're just about to reach it. We reach the early stages of it, then something significant happens where a lot of people die or get hurt or an economy collapses or whatever it is.
And then we decide to shut it down as a as a specie, and then it becomes more of a Terminator like scenario where the only thing we can do is turn off the power grid. It's like this is the only thing that allows it to exist. But that will bring us back as a specie to the, you know, almost to the stone age back when we didn't even have electricity. This is like the only scenario, and I know it sounds very dystopian, but like thinking about everything you're saying right now, that's like in my mind, that's like the best case scenario. We keep developing it.
The freight train keeps going as fast as it is right now. Something major happens, a massive accident happens, we realize the dangers. Everyone freaks out, but it could be just about too late. And the only way to shut down what we've created is to turn off power in its entirety. Is that one of the possible scenarios or am I watching too many sci fi movies?
Speaker 1: No. It's reasonable analysis. The problem is, again, if we shut down power and Internet to the whole world, the consequences would be absolutely horrible. If something bad happens and our asteroid hits the planet and we are thrown back hundreds of years in our development, we're again just buying that amount of time. We will restart technology, we will come back to having computation and so the whole thing will be repeated just we bought more time and, unfortunately, in the process, we lost a lot of people to this calamity you are describing.
You're comparing it to having a Chernobyl like event. We had a Chernobyl event. We literally had that happen. It's called Chernobyl. Right?
Yeah. That happened. It's a real thing. How many people died in it? Not that many.
It's unpleasant, but we still have nuclear power plants. We still have nuclear weapons. Nothing changed. People usually don't learn from accidents if they survive them. It's got a kinda like a vaccine.
We go, you know, this happened and we all survived and we're stronger for it. Now we can build safer nuclear power plants and we just keep going. Same will happen with AI accidents. If we have an AI triggered accident, obviously, had self driving cars hit people, not a big deal. They're still safer than humans.
But even if it is, let's say, a military accident where you have autonomous drone kill too many people or something like that, people will just say, let's learn from the mistakes in this case and continue developing more capable systems. I don't think there is an accident which can take place where we go, oh, we learned from it. Let's not go that way.
Speaker 0: That's not good, Roman. That's every scenario is looking. Before we could do that, do you how do you sleep at night knowing all this?
Speaker 1: So this is the most frequently asked question I get, and I always respond with, well, you always knew you're gonna die. Right? It's not news to you. You're just kinda changing the time frame. If you are 90 year old, you know you're probably going to die this year or next year.
So when you're younger, you think you have maybe twenty, thirty years ahead of you, forty years, whatever. We we still don't know how long it will take to truly get to superintelligence. Prediction markets are saying we're a few years away, but we have many examples of AI predictions taking way longer than anticipated. So the question is not that you've always been immortal and now I'm telling you you're going to die. The question is how much time do we have on average as humanity?
And maybe that number is getting a little bit shorter, but in every other way, you're still a human being, you're mortal, and you're trying to enjoy your life as much as you can while you can't?
Speaker 0: Unless the best case scenario, which is something we talked about before we started the interview, is that we control AI. Somehow, we come to our senses, and we use it for the right things, putting most of the energy into longevity, which is, at least in my opinion, the thing that matters to most. None of us wanna die and suffering, you know, dealing with famine diseases, etcetera. But we control AI and allow us as a species to live significantly longer until we reach longevity escape velocity, we can live forever. Now that's a utopian scenario, but then that gets messed up by what we were just talking about earlier.
There'll always be someone who's psychotic that will essentially create an ASI that will break out and then cause havoc, and then this whole theory just fell apart. So even the utopian path gets broken by some psychotic, unfortunately, Roman. But going back to to how ASI will break out. So let's say we create it. How do you think it will look like?
I know it's hard to predict something like this. But if I did ask you to predict, can you give it a shot?
Speaker 1: How it would look if happens How would if we do create
Speaker 0: exactly. Exactly. Yes.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't have a visual component. That's why in science fiction, you never have believable superintelligence character. They're very hard to visualize. When you have a terminator chasing I
Speaker 0: mean, how sorry. How how will the outlook look like? So what will the superintelligence do in your opinion, the good and the bad?
Speaker 1: Right. So this is what I'm trying to explain. It's not usually something you will experience if a system decides, I wanna take out all humans. Maybe it develops a virus. So you have an invisible virus, takes a long incubation period until everyone has it, but then everyone falls asleep and doesn't wake up.
You won't see anything. Just one day you wouldn't wake up. There are many other scenarios so I can talk about what I understand synthetic biology, nanotech, but an advanced superintelligence would come up with novel physics so I cannot tell you exactly how it would accomplish its goals. Now if I'm wrong then it's possible to control advanced AI, it seems very unlikely but let's say it happens. Then yeah, we get to this Utopian like scenario of infinite longevity, free stuff, abundance, that's easy to prepare for.
We don't have to plan ahead. If that happens we're all kinda ready for it. So that outcome is very good. And if we do have friendly superintelligence it is probably capable of preventing others from creating unfriendly superintelligence giving us security in the long term. But again, all that depends on our ability to indefinitely control something a thousand and million times smarter than all of us.
And that just doesn't seem like it makes any sense. It also doesn't seem like anyone today at any of the top labs in academia or anywhere is claiming that they know how to do it. No one published a paper, has a patent, or even a rigorous blog post about how would you control superintelligence indefinitely.
Speaker 0: I interviewed Peter Diamandis. He's a lot more optimistic than you and I. And he talks about the abundance mindset, which is something he talks about a lot. And he says in that abundance mindset, when you have a form of intelligence that is that creates that level of abundance, there is no reason to wipe out humanity. For example, us humans so I always use the example of, like, us as a species, what have we done to other species?
We've driven countless now, thousands of species to extinction, and we we continue to do this because we're very greedy. But then Peter's argument, if I understand it correctly, it's been a while since I've spoken to him, his argument is that ASI, because it will have that level of abundance, it doesn't really need to do what we did to other species. What do you think of that argument?
Speaker 1: So Peter was my one of my professors at Singularity University. I know his mindset pretty well. He does believe in abundance truly. The thing is economic incentives is not the only reason why superintelligence would potentially decide to take us out. One is we're capable of creating competing super intelligences.
If it wants to control a part of the universe, if it wants to stay in charge, it's best not to have competition at the same level as it is. It is also maybe concerned about us trying to turn it off. You suggested that possibility. If there is even a small chance of us doing it, maybe better not risk it. It can be concerned about what we are doing to other species, to the planet.
I don't think that's really the case, but it may be the case. The most important thing, it may just not care about us at all. Maybe it needs to run more efficient servers and to do that, it needs to lower temperature of the planet. It wouldn't care about how you feel about living in sub freezing temperatures, so it will just do that. So I I think this mindset of optimism is interesting.
We should look into that direction, but it's not a guarantee of safety. And then you are betting all 8,000,000,000 of us without any consent from participants on your desire to have lots of free stuff. It's concern.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm just taking notes of the various scenarios on why. Because my next question to you actually, a question I want to ask you earlier, we skipped, is that why would ASI wipe out humanity? And you've given three scenarios as we are seen as a threat. One of them is us creating another form of superintelligence.
So essentially self preservation for that form of for for the for ASI. The second one would be us shutting it down. You know, if it hears talk about humans shutting it down, we're seen as a threat. And then the third one, which I think that is the most likely scenarios, I think there's an experiment everyone talks about, the paper clip experiment, I think it's called, where if it just it achieves a certain goal, maybe a goal that we've given it at all costs. And the example I mean, the paper clip example is that if we tell AI to create as many paper clips as possible because we want paper clips for whatever reason, it will do so at all costs.
It's like us building a freeway. And if there's an ant house in the in the way, we just build the freeway over it. Well, AI would, you know, use every form of energy possible, which includes maybe burning humans to create energy to create to produce paper clips. So I think this is the more likely scenario on why ASI would it just doesn't really care about us. It's such a it's like us like, the best example is us and insects.
We have so many ambitions as a species. We're not gonna care how many insects we kill as we try to find a way to to to colonize Mars. Would you agree with that with that thought process that this is the most likely scenarios that ASI would not care about us?
Speaker 1: It's most likely, but I can literally generate infinite supply of possibilities. And so another one could be that, it truly believes in ending suffering. It's very ethical, it's a negative utilitarian. The best way to reduce all suffering in the world is to not have living organisms anywhere in the universe. So killing all of us and suffering forever.
And it could be a very nice death, very painless, but, it's not what we are hoping for. So, be careful when you create something so powerful and give it general goals of end all suffering and make everyone not be miserable.
Speaker 0: Could could ASI answer some of the difficult questions we've we've been trying to answer since our since our existence, like the meaning of life? Could we at least do you think we'll at least find the answer to that before ASI wipes us out?
Speaker 1: So we definitely would benefit from something super intelligent as a scientist to help us understand the universe, laws of physics. It's not obvious that it would help with original kind of process which brought this universe into existence? Are we living in a simulation? Is there another super intelligence creating this physical universe? All of that may be beyond capabilities of what is available in the universe today to discover.
Maybe not. So one paper I have is about using advanced AI to help us understand the nature of our universe and if it's a simulation help us escape and get access to base level reality where all the big questions would be answerable much easier.
Speaker 0: I actually interviewed, Rizwan Virk yesterday about the simulation hypothesis. And, look, if you're gonna try to find it, we'll we'll probably go through it again now because you do a great job at explaining it. But if you're gonna try to find, Roman, a way to break out of this simulation, you're gonna be responsible personally for shutting down the whole simulation, Roman, and wiping it out for all of us. Because then if this is a simulation, what we do is we don't want them to shut it. Actually, maybe I did the interview yesterday.
A lot of people watching this probably didn't see the interview that I did yesterday. So I'd love you to explain for the audience the simulation theory and also what type of simulation you think we live in? Because from what I understand from Rizwan, maybe you have different theories. So, yes, through the the RPG mode, the NPC mode, which I'll let you explain both and and what you believe.
Speaker 1: Right. So just looking at technology we have today or we're likely to develop soon. We have artificial intelligence coming around nicely at about human level, soon to be more advanced so we can create intelligent beings. And we have virtual reality, which is in many ways as high fidelity as real world visually, sound wise, maybe not in haptics yet, but it's getting there. So if at some point I can affordably create virtual worlds populated by intelligent beings just like me and you, we'll definitely start having those simulations.
And the social network we talked about is one such place already. It's not a visual environment. It's a world populated by intelligent agents. So if I can do that, I can pre commit right now to make billions of such simulations of, for example, this interview. Just simulations of you talking to simulations of me, billions of those.
If I do a good job with fidelity, with realism, I capture you perfectly then the chances that you are real you, not one of the billions of simulated yous are basically zero. You are in a simulated interview right now. I can do it refractively, I can do it the moment this technology becomes affordable, I pre commit right now to run those simulations effectively placing you in the simulated world. So that's what simulation theory says. You are most likely to be a digital entity in the virtual world.
Now there are other explanations for how you got there. Maybe we created a bunch of super intelligences and then they think they run very believable simulations at high level of resolution trying to understand humans, marketing, economy, whatever goals you set up for simulation. But you are just a thought process in a agent capable of thinking in that level of detail. Most people think in pictures or text, but you can think in worlds, you can think in entities. There is no limit to how detailed your thinking can get.
So very likely if you have many super intelligences and each one thinks millions of different thoughts, you are again just a digital entity inside of that process.
Speaker 0: Now Okay. Just So to I'm gonna try to explain to myself just to make sure I understand it correctly. So what you're saying is that it's becoming very easier, you know, exponentially easier to create virtual worlds, create virtual realities, especially now Genie three, I think, just came out as well. It just becomes so easy to create a virtual world. You've used Mold Book as an example.
Mold Book is a very archaic example. It's a social media platform where there's agents that believe they're real. Some of them believe they're real. They have existential crises. Am I an agent?
Am I real? Do I really exist? That's actually happening on the platform in that virtual world. So what you're saying is that as that technology advances, the virtual worlds will become so realistic. They essentially become like reality and we already see that.
If you wear the VR headset, some people get scared. They're gonna fall off a building even though it's a VR headset. And again, we're so early. So when that's gets to a level that becomes so realistic and you've you're able to create just so many of them, all it just takes is servers, you can create billions of world. And statistically speaking, based on that theory, if that's the case, that's gonna happen in a few years time, then statistically speaking, we're living in one of those virtual worlds that another species created, whether it's humans in the future, whether it's artificial superintelligence, it's extremely, extremely unlikely unless it's something we still can't comprehend and we're not even thinking about.
But based on on our understanding what you've just explained, it statistically is almost impossible that this is not a simulation. And then the question is if it is a simulation, which more most likely it is, then in your opinion, who's running that simulation? And are we NPCs as in characters that are just been programmed and running automatically?
Speaker 1: Or are we RPGs? Are we actually controlled by another being which kinda overlaps with religion? So it seems that we are conscious beings. I assume you are. I have no way of testing your consciousness, but I believe that you have similar biology.
I'm conscious, probably you are conscious. So we're not NPCs. We experience this world and I think we have certain degree of freedom. You can decide to have a podcast or not, so this is not absolutely deterministic for you. We are agents similar to the AIs we are creating now where they make independent decisions.
As I said, we're definitely not controlling them. That's the problem. So they have this degree of freedom and many of them claim they have internal experiences. They are scared of being turned down. They we don't know if they're just saying those words, but I don't know if you are just saying those words.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 1: So we're exactly in a situation where we're creating what seems like this universe just using different substrate, carbon based but silicon based substrate. And who is doing it? As I said, we we don't have enough information about what is outside of our simulation. That's the interesting scientific question. Could be superintelligences?
Very likely. If you need this much processing and compute to simulate 8,000,000,000 people, it's unlikely to be something at a lower level. You probably have all these technologies arrive very close to each other, AI, virtual worlds. People argue that maybe it's too computationally expensive but they argue from point of access to what is available within the simulation. You don't know what resources are available outside.
All of it could be running in a cell phone. We have no idea what capabilities aliens or superintelligences have in the real physical universe.
Speaker 0: I think the most difficult thing of all this is realizing how little we know. I think that's what makes it so difficult for people to really go down those rabbit holes, me included, by the way. So we've gone down the path of what artificial superintelligence or general superintelligence would look like, how dystopian that world would be, the various scenarios, and and we kinda started linking this to whether we live in a simulation. Let's take it back to today. What can we do today?
And and I wanna get your thoughts on something I can't remember the YouTube channel. It's one you probably know. So YouTube channel is very famous on AI, and they did a video last couple of days about the anti AI sentiment that's starting to emerge and starting to gain a lot of traction. And they used the example of, something that the CEO of of former CEO and founder of Stability AI. He was asked the following question.
He said, there's estimates the interviewer said there's estimates of 25% unemployment in one to five years. And she asked him, is this why billionaires are building bunkers? And, obviously, there's lot of reports, and I'm sure you talk to people, AI scientists plan to season. All these are the preppers, really. They're the people that understand the technology.
And he asked us, he's like, yes. I know a lot of CEOs who's who've canceled public appearances, especially after Charlie Kirk's assassination. They think that this is going to be the next wave of anti AI sentiment next year, so as early as next year, as this is the year AI models will go from not being good enough to overnight becoming good enough. And when it crosses that line and there is mass unemployment, people behind artificial intelligence will become the villains. So let's go to the short term impact.
Everyone talks about, including yourself, the mass unemployment we'll see. I think it's hard to debate that now. So in that world, what will that world look like before we reach artificial superintelligence? Will we start having the negative impact of AGI?
Speaker 1: So there are two things we need to take care of. One is financial. We need people to have unconditional basic income. If they get fired, they're still not starving. That's very important to prevent uprisings, revolutions.
Every government knows that. We have a built in safety net. Anyone can apply to get food stamps, to get government health care. This is existing system. Do we have enough money to fund it is a different question and if you can tax big AI robotics companies, you can probably generate that level of support from abundance taxing.
Now the bigger question and definitely unsolved one is unconditional basic learning. You have millions, maybe billions of people with nothing to do all day. What happens? Are they creating new religions, cults, games? We don't understand the process of that many people having that much free time.
We know that today if you wanna relax, you go on a lake, you go fishing. If there is a billion other people fishing in that lake, you're not gonna relax. It's very different setup and we have absolutely nothing prepared for leisure at that scale. Maybe virtual worlds will come to help with this but nothing is developed, deployed, available. What is the purpose of your existence?
For many people, it's your occupation, it's your career, you are running a blog, you are a podcaster, you're doing something meaningful. If all of that disappears then it's not obvious what is going to happen. Hopefully only the bad jobs will disappear, jobs where people do it strictly for money. Nobody wants to be a janitor, now you don't have to. You're happy.
You can do something cool, play video games all day. But the jobs where people have meaning derived from their occupation, celebrities, their professors, their writers, maybe they can continue. Maybe it's not directly financial, but there is still market for human celebrities, for human produced artifacts, art, and so on.
Speaker 0: So essentially what concerns you more is less the financial aspect of it because universal basic income solves for that. So there is a solution there. It just needs to be implemented, and that solves any potential unrest. The worry that you have, which I I agree with as well, is we've linked our meaning as a species for so many centuries now. We've linked it to work, what we do as a job.
And once we take that out out away from us, and we've linked it to survival. But once we don't have to worry about survival, making money, paying, getting food on the table, then and you see that a lot with people that make a lot of money, and I'm sure you meet a lot of those people, is that the more money you make, the more you're like, I just don't know what to do. I don't know what brings me pleasure, you see that depression goes up a lot with those people. Okay. So let's take it again another step, and this is a selfish question I have for you, Roman, is what can we do right now?
I'm planning this by I think that in the short short term, I think wealth, aggregating as much wealth as possible, accumulating as much wealth as possible is the first step in my opinion while building out a homestead, a bunker, whatever it is, which I'm doing as well. So this is, short short term. Amassing wealth and having a place to get to be in case things go really bad, and that's going outside of me playing a role, interviewing people like you to try to contribute to awareness. So this is a way I can contribute to humanity, and then from a selfish self preservation perspective, wealth accumulation, and having a a bunker or homestead, etcetera. What what are you what are you doing personally first?
And then what are others around you doing? What do you recommend people do in the short short term?
Speaker 1: So sadly, if I create and control superintelligence, I don't think a bunker will help you. I don't think going to Mars will help you. None of those we need not to create general superintelligence. If you have access to the leaders of the top AI labs, you interview them. Ask them a direct question.
Do you have a plan for controlling advanced AI? If you don't, what gives you permission to run this experiment on 8,000,000,000 people? Maybe you should talk to your friends, other heads of labs, and have a deal where we all stop this nonsense and we concentrate again monetizing AI tools for benefit of humanity, not creating replacement for human labor force for humanity as a whole. We are still alive. It's not too late.
We can make this difference. I don't think any personal preparation gets you in a good place if a world gets destroyed. You're not gonna be the only human surviving it. You're not gonna be living indefinitely in a bunker. It's not nonexistence actually.
Speaker 0: So you don't have a you don't have a bunker, Roman?
Speaker 1: I don't have a bunker. I was invited to join a bunker and then I looked at a list of people in the bunker, I said, I'm okay. I'll stay
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. What's funny is I was interviewing Brian Johnson. I remember one thing he told me. We my second interview with him was all about AI because that's the thing he thinks about after longevity.
And he told me, he's like, Mario, it was right after he went to a conference with a lot of people. It was an AI focused conference. He's like, Mario, what worries me the most is that, you know, in every technological evolution, there's always preppers, people that think, you know, they have a doom and gloom mentality. Like we have it during y two k, but it's generally when the Internet when we reached year 2000. Now, generally, in those moments, the people that are worried about the end of the world are people that don't understand the technology.
So they don't understand it well enough, they start freaking out. That's what happens when when cars came out, when planes came out and now when when the Internet came out. But the his concern is he's like, Mario, with AI, the average person is fine. They're going about their life like it's nothing. But the people that are worried, the people that are quitting their job, building bunkers, etcetera, really concerned about the future, some of them just quit work and some AI scientists literally quit work Roman and all they do is just enjoy life because they think that could be the last few years of living a normal life.
He's like, Mario, what really worries me is that the people that are most worried in this technological evolution are the people actually building it and understanding it the most. And they don't talk about it publicly because they don't scare people and they don't wanna you know, some of them still work at those companies, so they don't wanna cause issues for the companies, some of them public public companies, but they are preparing for those doomsday scenarios. And I can I would make a bet, Roman, and let me know if I'm right or wrong without naming the person? The person that invited you to their bunker is either someone in the AI space or in the tech space who understands the technology really well. Is that is that statement correct?
Speaker 1: Well, that's correct. But I don't think it's correct to say they are not talking about it or not expressing their concern. We know all the leaders of top AI labs have published p doom numbers, probability of doom, and those are very high. 30%. They are saying what I'm creating is going to kill everyone with high probability and continue doing it.
That's not rational. That's not clear thinking. And I think they are trapped in this prisoner dilemma situation where they cannot stop unilaterally. But if we as a community apply pressure to all of them to come to the table and agree to stop, that would be mutually beneficial for everyone.
Speaker 0: Shit. Well, on a more positive note, Roman, and we started the conversation talking about longevity, something we're both passionate about. I told you that I just came out of the sauna before this interview, and I heard you talk about it in a previous interview as well. And what is your stance on longevity? And do you think we could so on a more positive note, do you think we could reach longevity escape velocity in our lifetime, which is a stage where technology allows us to add more years to our life then time passes, which is kind of almost like reverse aging.
Where do you stand on that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I definitely don't wanna die. I'd love to live as long
Speaker 0: And as
Speaker 1: I think it's actually an easy problem. Once we understand human biology in sufficient detail, there is a counter somewhere. We just have to reset that counter from hundred and twenty years to whatever other number we like, five hundred years. There is no reason why your body cannot rejuvenate itself, why it cannot stay in a particular state. You don't have to be always 19 year old.
You can always be a 20 year old, 30 year old. So I think that is what we need to target, and I think we can do that with narrow AI tools. Again, protein folding problem is one example. We need a specific tool to understand human genome, to understand where that counter is and how to reset it without causing cancers. We don't need super intelligence to solve this problem.
We need dedicated effort in this space, whatever it is. Epigenomic research, genomic research, I think we can get there. And definitely for people our age, give or take, I think it's within the time frame where even all the extreme things people are doing today with special diets and things like that, they are more beneficial for older people to make it to escape velocity. But I think someone in our group, as long as you're reasonably healthy in your lifestyle, you should be okay.
Speaker 0: The last two things I wanna ask you more rapid fire questions is the industry I'm very involved in, then that's crypto. Would you say that if someone wants to amass wealth, what is the best form of wealth to amass as we get into that AI world, as the world changes to that extent?
Speaker 1: So you want to find something AI cannot make more of just by having free labor, physical and cognitive. So if it can make a lot more dollars, then dollars is not the way to keep your wealth. Obviously, anyone can print those. Maybe property, land is something limited, maybe materials for making more computation. Definitely ownership in AI and hardware companies and VDS of the world.
We talk about rare things, rare art, unique items. Cryptocurrencies could be another high potential target because AI is likely to use digital money for exchanging value, but it's almost impossible to predict precisely one specific asset class which is guaranteed to scale. So I would have a nice portfolio of things I just named where you have some land, you have some compute, you have some AI, you have some crypto. Some of those things are likely to preserve value in the free labor economy.
Speaker 0: Could we see a spike in demand for crypto as AI uses that as a form of transfer of wealth? So AI need to pay other AI to do different tasks, and the only thing they can pay with that is within their control is Bitcoin or some other alternative. So could we see demand for cryptos because of AI? They become the number one customer for crypto?
Speaker 1: It may also also they they may may realize that it's a great investment and start accumulating it as well. So what else?
Speaker 0: That is crazy. And and, doctor, last question on my end is, you know, I think the cause that you're finding for is is is probably the only cause that should matter right now. And one thing that bothers me in what I do is when I talk to you know, I'm I'm deep into politics. I've been into politics all my life, and I'm just fascinated by it and how humans decide certain things. But it also annoys me because they you know, I just see people that are very smart wasting their time, energy on things that are just so benign instead of focusing on the important things.
So for people like myself, what could we do to get people to pay attention to this issue and stop paying attention to this territory in mind? No. That territory is mine. I'll keep killing your people unless you give me this territory. No.
That is my territory. How do we get past that and start focusing on how do we make sure this new alien technology called ASI does not wipe us off
Speaker 1: this planet? So, unfortunately, for most people, there is nothing they can do in this space, and people love working in something they understand. If you tell me, okay. We need to control this island and geopolitical importance, This is something people understand. They know historically how to take over islands, how to protect islands.
So that's why they work in this space. If I tell them, work on making safe superintelligence, they have no idea where to start, what that even means. So it's not surprising that what we observe is this political fighting over kind of empty land in many cases and pointless control over things which don't matter. Understanding that if we get to super intelligence, all those things become irrelevant. You have free labor.
We're talking about trillions of dollars of cognitive labor, physical labor once robotics shows up. Those things become a lot less valuable. And hopefully, that will naturally allow people to select more promising directions for their passions for what they are doing. I don't think there is any reason to engage in conflicts we see today. I think every war is a war crime.
I think no amount of land, sand, soil, dirt is worth a human life. And until we realize that we're gonna continue doing stupid things but this global threat of uncontrolled superintelligence should come and help us align a little better as humanity.
Speaker 0: Roman, absolute pleasure to finally speak to you, sir. And I'd love to do this again when the next when make me a deal. When the when we see an agent go rogue on on that platform. What is it called? The Mold Book.
When we see an agent go rogue on Mold Book and do something really crazy, we gotta jump on this interview again and tell people I told you so.
Speaker 1: Sounds like a deal. I love being right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, doctor. Really appreciate your time, sir.
Speaker 1: Thank you for inviting me.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 THE EPSTEIN FILES: THE EMAILS, THE NAMES, AND THE POWERFUL PEOPLE FIGHTING TO BURY THEM The first batch of Epstein emails just dropped. And they are already shaking Washington. One email calls Trump “the dog that hasn’t barked yet.” Another references a mysterious “Bubba” tied somehow to Putin. And Epstein himself wrote that Trump was “a maniac” with “not one decent cell in his body.” But according to the experts who know this case inside out, these leaks are nothing compared to what is still hidden. In this explosive panel, we have: • @Nick__Bryant, the journalist who exposed Epstein’s infamous little black book - a private directory connecting Epstein to billionaires, politicians, royals, intelligence-linked figures, and alleged victims • Lisa Bryant, director of Netflix’s hit documentary Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, the most widely watched Epstein investigation ever made • Former CIA officer @JohnKiriakou • And journalist @mtracey To break down: • How one email suggests Trump spent hours with a victim at Epstein’s home • How Congress passed the Epstein “Transparency Act” with loopholes big enough to bury the most explosive material • Why national security exemptions could keep the darkest evidence sealed for decades • How five presidential administrations protected the same circle of powerful people • And why intelligence agencies may have been closer to Epstein than the public realizes Everyone says they want transparency. But the closer we get to the truth, the harder the government fights to keep the files sealed. Because if the real Epstein files ever see daylight, Washington will not survive it. 01:23 – Epstein was Mossad access agent with FBI knowledge 04:39 – Trump email mystery: "dog that hasn't barked yet" 09:41 – Democrats cynically redacted Virginia's name to weaponize Trump 13:15 – Mar-a-Lago ban myth versus real estate dispute 16:11 – Government will evade transparency law like JFK files 18:43 – Transparency Act filled with massive disclosure exemptions 20:36 – National security excuse protects child molesters from exposure 24:06 – Files should reveal perpetrators and procurers if released 29:31 – Explosive debate: is 17-year-old same as prepubescent child 36:37 – Academic journals confirm adult grooming exists despite denial 43:03 – Bush administration started coverup with Alexander Acosta immunity 48:23 – Mossad gets "ridiculous leeway" unlike any intelligence service 50:22 – Survivors promised perpetrator list but never delivered names 54:07 – 89% of Americans demand transparency but won't get indictments 58:02 – Expect "little drip drip" not full disclosure miracle
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨 INTERVIEW: MOLTBOOK, AI AGENTS, AND WHY HE THINKS WE’RE LIKELY IN A SIMULATION You’ve probably seen the clips from multiple sites, including Moltbook, where AI agents talk and interact with each other, question humans, and look for ways around the off switch. So I brought Rizwan Virk on the show to talk about where this is actually heading. What we have right now isn’t AGI, but it is a shift. These AI agents can talk, remember context, and increasingly act. Today that mostly means text. Soon it means APIs, money, paperwork, and real-world consequences. That’s when things quietly change. At that point, the question isn’t whether AI understands what it’s doing, it’s what it’s allowed to do. And those permissions add up faster than people expect. After that we went deeper into Simulation theory. Back in 2016, Rizwan thought there was maybe a 30–50% chance we’re living in a simulation. Today, watching how fast AI can generate worlds, characters, and environments, he puts it closer to 70%. If we hit true AGI, he thinks it goes higher. The logic is uncomfortable but straightforward. Once advanced civilizations can create millions of realistic simulated worlds, statistically speaking, it’s more likely we’re inside one of them than in the base reality. His biggest concern isn’t rogue AI. It’s humans pushing this tech faster than we can control it. If you want to question your life and freak out about AI, listen to @Rizstanford 1:22 - What Moltbook is and why people are paying attention 3:15 - Earlier moments where AI started talking to itself 5:27 - How much control humans really have over these agents 10:30 - Whether AI is conscious or just really good at pretending 14:35 - AGI meets Moltbook - when sentient AI asks "why do we need humans?" 15:00 - The simulation idea and why people take it seriously 19:30 - Why @elonmusk thinks the odds are already high 22:45 - What video games show us about where this is going 26:30 - The steps that lead from simple AI to full simulations 34:00 - Google Genie 3 and why this suddenly feels real 38:30 - How you'd even know if AI crossed the line 43:00 - NPCs, RPGs, and where humans fit in 48:15 - How religion and simulation theory overlap 52:45 - Déjà vu and other moments that make people question reality 55:30 - Quantum physics and why the world might only exist when observed 59:19 - Why real AI would push the odds even higher 1:00:27 - Free will, The Sims, and whether we actually have agency 1:03:03 - How people react when they hear this for the first time 1:04:23 - The core ideas behind the simulation argument 1:05:49 - Why recent AI progress changed everything
reSee.it AI Summary
A user describes an anti-ICE protest at Portland City Hall with people holding signs and wearing varied outfits. Another user replies alleging participants are heavily armed, tied to planned organized crime, and that they’ll create a fake crowd-sourcing effort to scam people.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸 There’s an anti-ICE protest happening right now at Portland City Hall. People are out with signs, yelling, and as usual, some are wearing the weirdest outfits. Source: @tommy4trump420 https://t.co/GZCUQS4UCi
@MeanLILMeoW - MəanL¡LMə♡₩
@MarioNawfal @Tommy4Trump420 They're all armed massively to fight Planned organized crime Then they'll make a fake crowd source to scam you all https://t.co/dHsyVp6H1g
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇪🇺 INTERVIEW: HE RAN FOR EU PARLIAMENT AS A JOKE AND EXPOSED HOW BROKEN IT IS Ever wondered why the EU is so messed up, and what happens behind the sc eyes? Well today I spoke to an MEP that started as a prank YouTuber, ran for EU Parliament as a joke, and ended up becoming the most‑voted candidate in the country. He gained so much traction that Elon publicly endorsed him: “Fidias for EU president!!” Inside the EU, his take is blunt: massive bureaucracy, slow decision‑making, and politicians obsessing over irrelevant stuff while Europe falls behind in tech, energy, defense, and innovation. On Ukraine, he says the war is a proxy fight Europe is paying for, the U.S. is profiting from, and diplomacy should’ve happened long ago, and not because he’s “pro‑Russia,” but because Europe is bleeding itself dry. He breaks down why the EU depends too much on the U.S. for defense, why pushing Russia toward China was a mistake, and why Europe has power but doesn’t use it well. He also explains why the EU keeps clashing with @elonmusk: free speech, platform regulation, and why his refusal to let governments control moderation changed the game. Bottom line: Europe isn’t doomed, but it is stuck. Unless it kills bureaucracy, fixes immigration, boosts innovation, and reconnects voters to power, it’s going to keep losing ground. If you want a raw, inside look at EU politics from someone who wasn’t supposed to be there, listen to this interview with @Fidias0 1:04 - How Fídias Panayiotou got into EU politics 8:16 - EU Criticisms, Bureaucracy, and how Fidias ended up in Cyprus 10:55 - The state of the EU, the Russia-Ukraine War, and Venezuela 17:08 - EU Defense and Dependence on the U.S. 21:20 - EU Politics, Effects of Voting, and What the Bureaucracy is doing 26:22 - Political Strategy for Being in an Independent Party 30:34 - In-App Elections and Voting: Making Politics Great Again 36:10 - Why Europe is Destroying Itself from Within 38:49 - Could the EU Fail? 40:35 - The Future of the EU is more Efficient 44:11 - The Effects of EU Regulations Online 49:00 - Illegal Immigration and the EU 53:19 - Fídias on Elon Musk: Elon’s Influence on him and the EU
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m noting Xi just sidelined Zhang Youxia, the top general and key ally. Five of China’s top seven military leaders—defense minister, Rocket Force chiefs, Joint Staff, Political Work, plus Zhang—are gone. That leaves Xi and one other person running the entire command structure. Rumors span coup plots, leaks of nuclear secrets, to U.S. concerns. If you’re thinking Taiwan, you’re not crazy—Xi may be clearing out anyone he doesn’t fully trust before asking the military to move on something historic.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇨🇳 Xi just took down Zhang Youxia, the most senior general in China. His closest military ally. Basically second only to Xi himself. 5 of the 7 people on China’s top military body are now gone. Defense minister. Rocket Force chiefs. Joint Staff. Political Work. Now Zhang. That leaves Xi and one other guy running the entire command structure. Rumors range from coup plotting to leaking nuclear secrets to the U.S. And if you’re thinking Taiwan, you’re not crazy. Xi may be clearing out anyone he doesn’t fully trust before asking the military to do something historic.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇨🇳 XI CLEARS THE ROOM: CHINA’S TOP GENERALS DROP ONE BY ONE Both CMC vice chairmen gone. One just accused of leaking nuclear secrets to the U.S. The other removed last year. Defense minister disappeared in 2023. Joint Staff chief under investigation. Political Work boss axed too. That’s basically the entire command layer. Source: @KobeissiLetter
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇨🇳🇺🇸 BREAKING: China's top general Zhang Youxia accused of leaking nuclear secrets to the United States. Source: WSJ
reSee.it AI Summary
I say Iran is ready for the next war. Larry Johnson warns the protests were smoke; a CIA–Mossad–MI6 operation aimed at wrecking Iran’s economy, stirring unrest, and setting up war. The regime didn’t fall, but the US and Israel want its military destruction. The twist: Iran isn’t alone—Russia and China back Tehran. If Trump orders a strike, it won’t be Iraq—it’ll be bloodier, bigger, and global.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷 FMR CIA OFFICER: IRAN IS READY FOR THE NEXT WAR Former CIA officer Larry Johnson says the world missed the point of what just happened in Iran. The protests? Just the smoke. The fire? A full-blown CIA-Mossad-MI6 operation to crash the Iranian economy, spark unrest, and prep for war. He says the regime didn’t fall, but the U.S. and Israel are adamant to destroy it militarily. But here’s the twist: Unlike the 12-day war, this time Iran’s not alone. Russia and China are backing Tehran, and if Trump orders a strike, Larry warns it won’t be like Iraq: it’ll be bloodier, bigger, and global.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario asks Larry for his analysis of the likelihood of a US attack on Iran. Larry says he thinks it will happen, probably by March or sooner, and that the operation would be a cooperative intelligence effort involving the CIA, Mossad, and Britain’s MI6. He claims the Iranian regime is fighting for survival and that the December 28 currency crash was a consequence of actions initiated by US intelligence, describing it as deliberate, and comparing it to George Soros crashing the British pound to argue that unified intelligence communities could destabilize an economically weaker country. He says the protests were legitimate anger at economic mismanagement by the Pazheshkin government, not a call to overthrow the Islamic Republic, and asserts Iran’s leadership began responding immediately by removing the central banker.
Mario notes a regional military buildup: USS Abraham Lincoln, F-15s, Pegasus, Stratotankers, Globemaster, and other assets moving toward the region, with Iran warning the US not to strike. He asks for analysis of the likelihood of a US strike. Larry reiterates his view that such an attack is likely by March or sooner and argues the initial plan was long in the works, a joint intelligence operation, and not a reaction to protests. He asserts the urgency was to crash Iran’s economy to incite protests and weaken the regime, and emphasizes that the cyber- and information-dominance aspect was anticipated, with Starlink terminals smuggled into Iran prior to December 28. He claims Netanyahu’s appearance at Mar-a-Lago on December 29 and discussions between Trump and Netanyahu shaped the military plan, with dissident groups acting to inflame the situation using a Maidan-like playbook of snipers and protests.
Larry describes Iran’s internet shutdown on January 8-9 as a turning point that reduced protest organization and led millions to demonstrate in support of Khamenei, arguing the US briefing to Trump could not guarantee a decisive strike and therefore the operation was postponed. He says Iran now has Russia and China backing more robustly, with Russian technicians and air defenses on the ground, and China providing air defense and assisting with Starlink interdiction. He adds that Iran could shut the Strait of Hormuz if attacked, highlighting its economic stakes and the potential global impact on oil supply.
Mario asks about casualty numbers from the crackdown and how credible Western reports are. Larry argues much of Western reporting has been driven by intelligence sources and cites a historical example: collaboration with the MEK starting in 2004 and into 2009, suggesting much of the western narrative around Iranian protests is propaganda. He references conversations with Iranian dissidents and an engineering professor in Brazil who argued the West’s portrayal of mass deaths does not match what he observed. He notes Mossad assets on the ground and suggests the CIA has acknowledged this in some form, and contends sanctions, while damaging to ordinary Iranians, are part of a broader US strategy.
The discussion shifts to Iran’s potential internal dynamics and regional relations. Mario asks whether sanctions might eventually lead to a more conciliatory Iran, pointing to improved ties with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Larry counters that the sanctions strategy has previously failed to deliver lasting regime change, drawing parallels to Syria’s experience and suggesting BRICS ties, including with Russia and China, would help Iran economically. He argues Iran has no desire to pro-actively attack other countries, but is prepared to respond to aggression, including potential strikes on US bases or Israel if provoked, and warns that an Israeli nuclear response could escalate the conflict.
The conversation explores the idea of regime change versus coercive diplomacy. Larry notes the difficulty of removing Iran’s leadership given the IRGC’s power and the possibility that any strike could lead to broader chaos, including potential desertion or reconfiguration of alliances in the region. He mentions Reza Pahlavi as a potential opposition figure but asserts regime change remains unlikely. He discusses the role of Netanyahu, Trump, and Zionist lobbying in policy decisions, and emphasizes the broader historical pattern of US interventionism, citing past coups and regime changes in various countries.
Towards Greenland, Mario references Trump’s post about a framework for the Arctic deal and a halt to tariffs, questioning the motive behind Greenland-related strategies. Larry dismisses Greenland as a distraction, noting Russia’s existing Arctic advantages and suggesting economic interests or donor benefits may be at play rather than strategic necessity. The two discuss air defense capabilities and the challenges of the US’s missile defense, contrasting Patriot systems with hypersonic threats and arguing that America’s military hardware has not kept pace with evolving threats. They contemplate the broader implications for Ukraine, Russia, and the possibility of a peace settlement, with Larry predicting a settlement favorable to Russia, including potential annexation votes in several Ukrainian oblasts.
The interview ends with reflections on media manipulation, the value of independent voices, and the enduring question of Iran’s future, with Mario and Larry agreeing they hope the discussion remains speculative rather than prescriptive of imminent conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is your analysis of the likelihood of an attack by The US on Iran?
Speaker 1: Oh, I think it's gonna happen, probably by the March, if not sooner. Cooperative intelligence operation, I believe it involved not just CIA, but Mossad and MI six in Britain.
Speaker 0: Iran's regimes is now fighting for survival.
Speaker 1: This was all planned. The crashing the currency was a consequence of action that was initiated by The US Intelligence. This is deliberate. Remember when remember when George Soros basically crashed the British pound? If one man can do that to The UK, you're telling me that the intelligence communities united can't do that to a country that's not as strong economically as The UK?
Come on. And they knew that people are gonna come out and protest, which they did.
Speaker 0: Larry, how are you, sir?
Speaker 1: I am well. Good to be with you, Mario.
Speaker 0: Where do I start?
Speaker 1: Oh, anything going on in the world? No. It's very boring. Quiet quiet start to the new year.
Speaker 0: So I was just having a a conversation with a colonel just a few minutes ago, and and we were talking about how everyone just moves their attention from one thing to another. And right now, everyone's focusing on Greenland and what's happening at Davos. But people completely forgot that just a few days ago, people were expecting strikes, US strikes on Iran. Yeah. And what happened in those few days, not sure if you keep you're probably keeping track as well, a lot of military equipment is moving to the region according to various sources.
We know for a fact that Abraham Lincoln, the USS Abraham Lincoln is is on its way. They should be arriving there in the next couple of days. We've got a whole bunch of f 15 fighter jets that are heading in that to that region. We've got various aircraft the various aircraft. We've got the Pegasus.
We've got the Stratotankers, the Globemaster. With that military buildup that's happening right now, and when you look at the rhetoric on the Iranian side, they keep telling The US, don't strike or there'll be hell to pay. Yeah. And then various people within Trump's administration saying, especially senator Graham saying, you know, it's not over. Like, he gets upset whenever someone says, why did Trump change his mind?
What is your analysis of the likelihood of an attack by The US on Iran?
Speaker 1: Oh, I think it's gonna happen, probably by the March, if not sooner. Look. This this initial attempt to take down Iran was, was an intelligence, cooperative intelligence operation. I believe it involved not just CIA, but Mossad and MI six in Britain. And the the the planning for this started a long time ago.
This is this is nothing that just developed out of the thin blue or because there were quote protests in the streets over the economic policies of Pozhakian. This was all planned. So the the crashing the currency, the the Iranian currency on December 28, that was a that was a I believe was a consequence of action that was initiated by The US intelligence community.
Speaker 0: More than this, not just the sanctions, you're saying it goes beyond
Speaker 1: the Oh yeah, US no, this was deliberate. Remember when George Soros basically crashed the British pound? So if one man can do that to The UK, you're telling me that the intelligence communities united can't do that to a country that's not as strong economically as The UK? Come on. So and they knew this was this was designed because you know when you get that kind of economic crash, people are gonna come out and protest, which they did.
These were legitimate protests. They were angry at the government of Pazeshkin for economic mismanagement. They were not angry at the Ayatollah Khamenei. This was not a call to overthrow the Islamic Republic. This was more to, you know, slap Posekskin upside the head and do something.
And Posekskin started responding immediately, got rid of the central banker. But what we then find out, now that we now know that there had been Starlink terminals that had been smuggled into Iran, you know, months months and weeks prior to this event on December 28. And it was no it wasn't just a coincidence. It was launched on the twenty eighth because Netanyahu showed up on the twenty ninth at Mar A Lago and was the the the plans between Trump and and Netanyahu were discussed what The US was gonna do militarily, what Israel should be prepared to do militarily, talk about the risks that Israel would face because The United States was going to attack at some point, I believe it was a week ago last Tuesday. And then with those Star League terminals and with weapons that have been smuggled into Iran, these dissident groups began acting, following the playbook that was used in Maidan, put some snipers out there, shoot into the crowd of protesters, kill some protesters, try to further inflame and enrage the situation.
This was this appeared at least as it was being reported in the West were like spiraling out of control. The night of January 8 and then into the early morning hours of January 9, Iran moved to shut down the Internet and in shutting down the Internet, they shut down the Starlink terminals. Once they cut that off, these protests dried up. And in fact, what we did see were millions of Iranians take to the streets, not to protest the Ayatollah Khamenei, but to protest in support of Khamenei. And what made that so significant is this was being done with the Internet down.
It's not like you could argue they use the Internet to gin up this, you know, rent a crowd. It was at that point that the the people briefing Trump on the impending military operation had to tell him, we can't guarantee that it's gonna be that the military strike will be decisive and tipping over the government enforcing an abdication by Khamenei. So they called it off. They postponed it. And they're now still moving military personnel and equipment to the to the region.
They're they're gonna do it. And the the big difference this time is unlike on December, the twelve day war that started June 13. This time, Iran's got the full backing of Russia and China. They didn't have
Speaker 0: it More than during the twelve day war.
Speaker 1: Oh, they didn't have it before. In fact, Russia had actually proposed a mutual defense treaty along the lines of what it has with North Korea. And Iran said, no, we don't want that. It was like, they preferred to do it on their own. So up to that point, Iran really was trying to do it on its own and part of it was driven by religious belief.
They didn't wanna be put Iran has never been a country that's launched attacks, preemptive attacks against others despite Western propaganda. The numbers are quite clear. And yet the West persists in pushing this mythology that Iran is this irredeemable terrorist state, they've carried out all these terrorist attacks, all lies, but that's the storyline that the West runs with.
Speaker 0: So when you say the full backing of China and Russia, how far do you think China and Russia will go? How far will they back Iran in this war?
Speaker 1: There are at least Russian technicians, soldiers on the ground operating air defense systems. China has also provided air defense systems. China reportedly, in this latest in shutting down the Starlink terminals played a very important role in that regard. So they're not I don't see China or Russia standing idly by and letting the West just come in and attack. Because China's also got an economic interest here.
Iran's made it very clear, if attacked, it's gonna shut down the Strait Of Hormuz. Strait Of Hormuz accounts for 45% of the world's oil production on a daily basis, comes out of The Gulf. So you tell me what the economic impact of turning off 45% of the oil to the world. Those countries that are oil producers that are outside the Persian Gulf, they'll be doing great. You know, Russia Russia will be its its oil will be a hot commodity, Nigeria.
Those are the those are the major ones.
Speaker 0: What do you obviously, it's it's gonna be a godsend for Russia. The US are getting further distracted and oil prices are up. But going back to Iran, what do you make of the numbers that we've seen, the brutality of that crackdown? Would you trust the numbers that are coming out of there of 15 up to 55, fifteen, twenty thousand? The load the low numbers were four to 5,000.
That that's on the low end and up to fifteen, twenty thousand.
Speaker 1: No. Under understand that much of the number and information about what was supposedly happening on the ground in Iran was being generated by Western intelligence. Okay? Go back to 2004. In 2004 in Iraq, the The United States had incarcerated the Mujahedin al Kalk, m e k, a terrorist a terrorist organization put on The US list of international terrorist groups in 1997.
And they had been carrying out terrorist attacks since 1964. They were variously described as a Marxist Islamist group. There's a, you know, there's a weird combination for you. But the CIA started working with him in 2004. And then by 2009
Speaker 0: I can't get this out of my head. A Marxist Islamic group. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I think, oh, boy. That's that's that's like a platypus, you know. The CIA started using MEC to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran.
There were a number of news outlets with Iranian dissidents outside the country that were pushing news stories that were portraying mass deaths, protests. During this entire process, I've been in contact with, I've talked to both Professor Morandi, but then also Nima Alkashid. Nima is a professor, engineering professor in Brazil, but he grew up in Iran, got his degree in Germany, and then moved to Brazil and has been living there for twelve years. So he just went back on December 25 for his first visit for his And yeah, it was a great timing. But you know, he was telling me from the outset that I was sharing with him what was being reported in the West and he was going.
We're not seeing that. He says that that's not what's happening. Then when the violence started, again, was very localized. One of the things you can do, you know, when I was with CIA, I worked I worked the propaganda arm of the Afghan task force for eight weeks. You know, they were in my first year of training, we're getting exposed to certain areas.
So I got to see how the propaganda is done and that's what we were witnessing. It was the information that was coming out of Iran was more to shape public opinion in the West, to convince the West that there was all this upheaval, all this support for the alternative, for the shah, the son of the shah, and that there was zero support for the Islamic Republic was just the opposite. In fact, the millions who came into the street following that were, again, the internet was down. So there was no way to gin up that size of crowd through social media because for social media.
Speaker 0: The for the regime supporters, they could easily rally those supporters if the Internet is down. The Internet is being used by the opposition protesters. The regime protesters could just be rallied by TV. I think there were calls on TV by the regime for them to hit the streets. Yeah.
I'm not saying I I I'm not saying so just to kinda give you my stance so you understand where I stand on this. I'm very critical of the regime. I also know that the sanctions played a key role. It's like, it's all a strategy to weaken the regime to a level where people are fed up with the economy. Now you added a wrench to the discussion by saying even the collapse that that that that they were just collapsed could have also been initiated by the intelligence.
But even if that's not the case, the sanctions alone just crippled the economy for so many years, and that made the people suffer, made people rise up against the regime. Now we know Mossad Mossad's admitted having assets on the ground. I think it's no secret. I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA
Speaker 1: Mike Pompeo said it as well. Former CIA director. So so, you know, I I'm not making some fantasy up. This was this was an orchestrated operation by intelligence. Thing to understand, there is a difference between being upset with the government.
Let let's use The UK as an example. If somebody hates Starmer, does that mean they hate the king? No. No, it could be just the opposite. And what you've got in Iran right now is maybe a majority of people that dislike Peshaskian?
Sure. But that doesn't mean that they want to get rid of the Islamic Republic. And again, the propaganda that the West floods its people with. And I was in a conference call a week ago Tuesday with a retired four star general. And he was referring to how the the Iranians have killed thousands of Americans.
It's not true. Yeah. Go to go to Grok. Go to whichever take any of the AI platforms you like, type in, how many American civilians have been killed by Iran since 1979? The answer I got off of Iraq was zero to 50.
Okay. Well, let's look at these proxies. Iran uses proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Type that in. The number that comes back, fewer than 700 over you know, forty seven years.
Okay? How about military? Surely, you know, because there were Iranian proxies that were attacking US soldiers that had occupied illegally Iraq. The number fewer than a thousand. Now I'm not I'm not trying to minimize those deaths, but if we use the same standard of a country using a proxy to attack another country, which The United States did to Iran in 1980 working with Saddam Hussein, encouraging Hussein to attack, providing the precursor chemicals that were used to produce mustard gas.
500,000 Iranians were killed. And the West wonders, why do those Iranians chant death to America? Because we have killed so many more Iranians by a by multiples than Iran has done to The United States. And Iran has always been reacting, not proacting, reacting to The United States. We talk about the bombing of the marine barracks in in Beirut, Lebanon, October 1983.
Well, what the hell did The United States battleships do in September 1983 but shell Shia Muslim positions in the Pakau Valley killing Shia Muslim civilians? And then we're shocked when they retaliate and kill Americans? Mario, this is the problem. We have been gaslit over the last forty seven years to believe that Iran is this awful terrible person. What Iran has been doing is has been fighting to try to defend Shia Muslims in places where they have been repeatedly attacked and murdered by Zionists.
That's a fact. And The United States has gone along with it. We haven't intervened to say, hey, we gotta have a fair thing here. And it goes back to 1953 when we Kermit Roosevelt, the the the the son of Theodore Roosevelt helped lead the coup that overthrew a democratically elected government. So America sits around in its ignorance wondering, why do those Iranians hate us?
They hate us because of our freedom. No. They hate us because of what we've done and yet what's interesting is you don't find this visceral hatred among the Iranian population. They generally like Americans. They'd
Speaker 0: like
Speaker 1: to get along with us. It's us in the West that will not leave them alone. Now what's changed with these sanctions? You're you're absolutely correct about the sanctions and the terrible cost that's inflicted upon the Iranian people, but that's changing because Russia and China were willing to back such sanctions ten years ago. Not now.
They are in the process of forging new economic relations with Iran that'll start turning the Iranian economy around within the next two years.
Speaker 0: So then what is the logic behind it? If if if Iran is not a threat to The US, Iran doesn't want to be a threat to The US. We saw that in the twelve day war.
Speaker 1: It was
Speaker 0: a very symbolic strike on the Qatar base. They did not want US retaliation. They've always, they've been preparing for a war with Israel. Not saying they want a war with Israel, but trying to avoid in any way, any means possible, any any conflict with The US. So what is the purpose of of the Trump administration targeting it on now?
Speaker 1: Ask Miriam Adelson who gave Trump $250,000,000. Mean, Trump is Trump's been completely bought and paid for by the Zionist lobby. Look at the influence that is wielded in The United States by these rabid Zionists. And this doesn't mean Jewish. This means we got Christian Zionists that are leading the pact.
Some of them, you know, look at Mike Huckabee. So this is not about anti Jewish. Heavens, no. Because you look, some of the some of the strongest people opposing the Zionist agenda are Jewish from Jeffrey Sachs, Max Blumenthal.
Speaker 0: I think we're past the past Larry, I'll do it for you. We're past the days of anyone convoluting a Jewish and Zionist. Anyone criticizing Israel's not transgressors. I think people are over that argument. That argument's kinda lost steam.
So you're essentially saying Israel's influence is is the reason that Trump will eventually strike Iran.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Because, again, they don't pose a military threat to us, and they've they've not you know, the the Ayatollahs have been your first Khomeini and then replaced the Khomeini. They've not attacked a single other country in the region where their armies have gone outside the borders of their country and they've taken and occupied another another another country. In fact, they've been the victim of that. We you know, the CIA has had operations going underway for the last well, you know, 1979, 1980 out in Balochistan in the East.
The reason I know that, not because I had access to some highly classified information, but that's what I was told by one of my friends who was in a top secret US Military unit that was working to rescue The US hostages from the embassy in Tehran back in 1980. And he told me about the one of the ways that the information was being communicated to the US special operations forces was via a rug store in Bethesda, Maryland. It was called Parvizia. I literally lived behind that store when I found this out later because the rugs were coming out of Belucha's stand, messages were hidden in the rugs. That was one of the ways they were communicating with the intelligence community.
We've Through heard rugs. Long Say what?
Speaker 0: Through rugs. Yeah. Yeah. You mentioned Balochistan. There's a big concern that I have and that's why despite my critique of the Iranian regime, the reason I'm critical of the Iranian regime is I feel they put ideology sometimes above.
So their foreign policy is very ideological. Now you can agree or disagree with their ideology, but I feel it is at the disadvantage of the people. If you look at other Gulf nations, they took a very different approach to foreign policy, and their economy is doing a lot better by not being an enemy to The US or Israel. Now, obviously, there's always a counterargument to be made there as well, and this does not justify a strike on the country. But my biggest worry about a strike, though, the biggest concern that I have is what happens next, especially in Iran.
We're not talking about Venezuela, which is, you know, not an ideological nation with all these different ethnic groups. Iran, just like Iraq, Syria, etcetera, they've got all these different ethnic groups, including separatist groups as well. You've mentioned mentioned Balochistan Balochistan. You've got the Balochis, the the the Sunnis, they've got their roots in Pakistan. You've got the Kurds, obviously, the separatist movement in Syria.
They're clashing with Syria right now.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Right. The PKK in Turkey. You've got the Arabs with roots in Iraq. You've got the Azeris, smaller to to to some extent roots in Azerbaijan. So these are the the groups there's more ethnic groups here.
So I've got the Lurs, the the Turkmen's. Yeah. You've just got that melting pot of all these people, and some of them do want to separate from Iran and have their own nation. If there is that power vacuum, what happens to the country?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. No. It'll be it'll be total chaos, and there'll be more death and destruction. Now, let's remember as well. We're outside of Jerusalem, where what country hosts the oldest living Jewish community?
Not a good answer. Tehran. Wow. Yeah, they're still they still and they are Iranian nationalists as well. That's what's really pretty odd about it.
Similarly, when you look at the Armenian Christians. See again, the way that Iran is presented to the world is that Iran hates hates Jews, hates Christians, and that it's it's only devout Muslims. And again, this reflects just an ignorance about Shiaism. The Shias are not the kinds of fanatics that the Sunnis are. The Sunnis literally, know, known as Taqfidis, they go out and kill people for being apostates.
They view all Shia Muslims as, you know, the hardcore Sunnis view Shia Muslims as unbelievers, people who have deviated from the true course of Islam. But you find that in fact, the Armenian Christian church is still alive, protected, not persecuted and operating with some of the oldest church buildings that go back to I think third or fourth century. So my only point in this is that The United States has prospered off of propagandizing the the nature of the Iranian regime. And and and Iran has made gesture after gesture after gesture of trying to reach out and accommodate The United States. But we won't have it.
And and part of that is we owned it. We used to control the place. And then once we lost control,
Speaker 0: we got angry. Exactly after what's his name? The shah, post Mossadegh. Yeah. That's sad.
Like, the the strategy, just seeing it unfold as much as you wanna hate the the Iranian regime for people that do hate the regime, and there's obviously a lot of people that don't. Just seeing that that playbook unfold where you just sanction a country to an extent where the people start to suffer, the people rise up, you support the people to rise up, and then that would weaken the regime. And guess who stage it happens again and again and again? They've been through so many protests or revolutions Yeah. Where it gets to a stage where now the regime is weak enough, now it's time to strike.
Now if that strike leads to a peaceful transition to power of power to a new leader, you know, hopefully, democracy, which doesn't seem plausible whatsoever, then fine. We have a new regime, a new leader. Maybe they they they they do better governing the country. They they they manage foreign relations better. They manage the economy better.
But that's not how regime changes happen. And more importantly, who's the opposition leader? The prince Reza Pahlavi or just it's not prince now. Reza Pahlavi, he does have some support, but not enough to be able to replace a supreme leader. And the regime, like regime change in Iran just sounds like such a crazy idea because the regime has such a stranglehold on the military force, on the army and the IRGC.
They separated separated them into two groups. So it's very difficult for the army to rise up against the regime because there's a IRGC there. So I just don't see any path unless Trump's plan is not regime change like we saw in Venezuela and is more of a tactical strike to force the regime regime to some sort of concessions maybe on the nuclear negotiations. Is that a possibility?
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. I don't think so. For this reason, Iran takes pride in being an old one of the oldest civilizations in the world. It's not just some newbie.
They have developed a very advanced missile, ballistic missile capability. And in fact, if you recall during the at the end of the twelve day war, was Israel pleading with The United States to broker a halt to the missile attacks because neither The US air defense systems or the Israeli air defense systems were able to stop it. And again, this this touched off an argument within Iran between those who wanted to continue and those who said, no, let's, you know, we can work out. There's still this hope that they can work out a deal with the West. I don't see it.
I think it's, we're headed for this inevitable conflict. But what has changed now is the relationship between Iran, Russia and China. Iran's role now in BRICS is quite important. Iran is also another significant supplier of oil to China. So the, you know, the Chinese also have, if you will, an economic investment there as does as does Russia with the setting up of the North South Corridor.
So this is, you know, ultimately, a lot of this goes back to settling the situation with respect to the Palestinian people. Is do they have a right to live or not? And Israel has made it clear. There's no two state solution that they're the Palestinian people are they're they're gonna be exterminated.
Speaker 0: A lot of Iranian people though are saying that is similar to what the Lebanese people have said in the last couple of years is that we empathize with the Palestinians, but, you know, their their currency is collapsed. Their economy is collapsing. They're running out of water. Their infrastructure is suffering. So a lot of Iranians are saying focus on us.
Put our country first. Even though we empathize with Palestinians, we're suffering as well. Yeah. Could that be could we see a massive shift in Iran's foreign policy as well? Let's say, after these protests, because we saw that after the 2000 and whatever, 22 protests when it came to the hijab, they they they they relaxed their Yeah.
They did. Their religious police relaxed the enforcement on the hajjabs, especially in in major cities like Tehran. Could we see the same thing here after this big punch to the nose that Iran has had, assuming no strikes happen or maybe limited amount of strikes happen, could we see Iran shift their policy? They already got closer to Saudi. Their relation with Saudi has improved from what I've seen recently.
Their relation with with The UAE has improved as well. Saudi reports that Saudi and The UAE and other Gulf countries urged Trump to cancel the strikes last week. Not sure how much truth there is to that. And could they start to at least explore a long term path to maybe normalize relations with Israel similar to what Saudi, The UAE, other countries have done or are doing? So could we see a new Iran coming out of this, a more positive Iran?
When I say positive, positive towards the West and less less confronting to other Gulf countries and to Israel?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I think as you enumerated it earlier, that the the battle plan of how you use sanctions to try to weaken an economy and therefore weaken support for the government, that playbook was run effectively in Syria. Now ask yourself the question, is Syria better off today than it was a year
Speaker 0: ago? Or since of 2011?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'd say no.
Speaker 0: A year ago, I don't know, Larry. A year ago, I'm a bit more hopeful. I could be, you know, completely wrong. I may be the president who's ex Al Qaeda could end up being a horrible person, but maybe he ends up doing a deal with with the with the Kurds and somehow he does change and give him another chance. He actually unifies the country.
My worry is that he gets assassinated by maybe Israel or someone that wants to see a weak Syria, not a reunited Syria. But he's I'd say Syria's incomparable to what it was in 2011 under Assad, whether he love him or hate him, horrible guy, horrific guy, evil guy, whatever you wanna call him, Syria in 2011, any Syrian would tell you they would love to go back to that Syria than the Syria we see today.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you know, there's Syria is not the only country which has had former terrorists as leaders. Menachem Begin, he was leader of the Irgun terrorist organization in Israel. Yitzhak Shamir, the Stern Gang. So, you know, that's why I always, have a highly developed sense of irony when it comes to
Speaker 0: Nelson Mandela?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, where where you got different people that have been engaged with terrorist acts or attacks on civilians, and then they they they rise to political leadership.
Speaker 0: Nelson, that was labeled as a terrorist by a few. Not not in the same basket as these guys, but he was labeled a terrorist by some. Well So that's why I I wanna I wanna give our showers another chance.
Speaker 1: But it's it's one thing to label him as a terrorist when it's Western propaganda. I mean, I saw this firsthand at CIA. One of one of the the South African analysts at the time. So this is like 1989, 1988. It was 1988.
The request came from the White House. They wanted to know, is Mandela a communist? And Bob Gates was the director of intelligence at CIA at the time, that sits atop the analytical section. And the analyst's name, well, I won't say his name, he wasn't undercover but he wrote an assessment and basically the bottom line assessment was that Nelson Mandela was not a communist. He had these associations, affiliations, but ideologically in terms of policy was not a communist.
Bob Gates only changed one word. Took out the knot. Took out the knot. So I've watched firsthand how senior people in Washington DC will deliberately lie and change information in order to paint a particular
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Picture to justify any kind of horror.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The terrorist label is one of the most overused terms we've ever seen. Terrorist organization, terrorist attack, a terrorist a terrorist person, a terrorist. But yeah. So so going back to you're using the example of I was asking about a changed Iran, and then you brought the example of Syria and how Syria is today.
So does so it it really depends on what Trump's intent is, whether it's to strike a deal. He is the dealmaker. He wants to be the peace president despite what we saw in the text message to Norway to the Norwegian prime minister yesterday. Did you see that?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I Yeah. Didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize, so I'm not inclined to be the peace president anymore. But I still think he he cares about peace, and I'm more hopeful that he will not I don't think Gulf countries wanna see a civil war or or a destabilized Iran. I don't think they'd be too happy with that, and he doesn't wanna piss them off again after Qatar.
Speaker 1: Well, right. Well, in fact, look right now, Iran's got better relations with Saudi Arabia and UAE than UAE has relations with Saudi Arabia. In fact, they're fighting. Know, they're they're they're they're at odds and backing different sides down in Yemen. So in Iran's Iran's, you know, used to be portrayed as a as a war between proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
But again, Russia and China played a major role in bringing that reconciliation together with Saudi Arabia. I think the key to focus on is are the Saudis and the Gulf Arabs, are they gonna continue to buy US treasury bills and support The US economy? Or are they gonna start dumping bills and move off into gold and silver and develop stronger economic relations with the BRICS countries. I believe it's the latter. I believe it's the latter that that's where it's headed.
Speaker 0: Trump doesn't want that. So that that's that could be a good deterrent. If the Gulf nations join forces with Russia and especially China and and a few other countries to start pressuring the administration more than what Israel pressure Israel's placing on the administration. I was making all these assumptions that Israel's playing a role, which I think it is pressuring Trump. I think Trump would not wanna piss off all these countries, and I don't think he would.
I'd be very surprised if he seeks regime change. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But Well, I yeah. I don't see him I don't see him backing off now, but he's gonna he's gonna continue. You know, and let let's jump jump back to Greenland for a second in terms of what does it mean to get control of Greenland? I mean, seriously, let's put it down into concrete terms that because right now as the situation stands, you can't point to a single request from The United States that was turned down and rejected by Greenland in terms of, hey, can we fly on these planes? Can we deploy these soldiers?
Can we have these ships? Over the last, you know, seventy years, I'm not aware of a single time that Greenland and or Denmark turned around The United States and said, hey, stay the hell out. So what does it mean to quote, get control of Greenland?
Speaker 0: Can we read out I'll read out the post for you, if you Larry, as you speak about it, the one that just came out before this interview by Trump. The markets have been ripping, by the way, while we speak. All the markets just gonna I think the market up by a couple of percentage points, after that tweet. And what he said is the following. Based upon very productive meeting that I have had with, Mark Rudders, secretary general of NATO, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic region.
This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for The US The United States Of America and all NATO nations, and all NATO nations, which includes Europe. So great deal for both sides. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go in effect on February 1. Additional discussions, etcetera. So are we done with Greenland?
Is that is that no longer an issue?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I get you're trying to figure out what was this issue all about. Because let's say, I can understand it if Greenland and or Denmark had told The United States, stay out, don't bring your forces here, we don't wanna have anything to do with you militarily. Well, that never happened. Or the notion that, Russia and China are getting ready to attack Greenland.
Russia already occupies just by virtue of its position, its location, its northern border. It already has ample access to the Arctic. It's not lacking that, number one. Number two, it's resource rich as a country already. It doesn't need additional resources out of Greenland.
So that was all just a red herring, a complete distraction. Venezuela and the drugs, yeah. Exactly right. You know, because So what is
Speaker 0: what's the what's the whole what was what was the strategy there with Greenland? He pressure NATO to step up? Was there something else behind the scenes?
Speaker 1: I I I honest to God don't know. I've I've heard that one of the one of the Trump of donors actually saw some financial benefit of us of an investment up in Greenland. Maybe that's it. But again, step back and look people say, well, they need to need to get the rare earth minerals. Well, people stop with this rare earth mineral crap.
The United States has enough rare earth minerals here in The United States. It's 30 miles from where I live, mosaic mine. Got Well, the processing.
Speaker 0: That's the issue.
Speaker 1: That is exactly it. That's exactly it. And the only country that's really got the processing capability China. Is China. Okay.
That's the thing
Speaker 0: with rare earth minerals, they're not really that rare. People think they are. They don't need green light. They don't need more rare earth. That's more than enough.
They need the processing capabilities. What do you make of this part of this comment? The the sentence I stopped just before that last sentence. Additional discussions are being held concerning the Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. So do you think that he needed some sort of access or something he doesn't have at the moment to be able to build that Golden Dome?
Maybe NATO contributes financially to building the Golden Dome? No. There anything there maybe?
Speaker 1: No. There isn't. I mean, look, The United States is so far behind Russia and China in terms of air defense systems. It's gonna take years to try to catch up. I don't think they'll actually ever catch up.
Look right now that Russia has deployed, operationally deployed and demonstrated combat effectiveness with five different hypersonic missile systems. Those are they travel in excess of Mach five and they can be maneuvered. Even Iran has at least one hypersonic missile. US doesn't have any. What about the
Speaker 0: Patriot systems? I thought they'd have they would have the most advanced aid of our Oh
Speaker 1: heavens no. No. The Patriot systems are, are technologically inferior. They're good at taking out, they can take out some subsonic missile systems. But they have no, ineffective against the hypersonic missiles.
And so, The United States has relied upon that and they're just and the problem with the Patriot missiles, they're terribly expensive to use. Now I've seen two different estimates for the cost of one missile that goes into a Patriot missile battery between 3 and $7,000,000 depending upon the type of missile. Normally, have to fire two of those and in some cases four to take out an incoming missile. Well, do the math. If you fire $23,000,000 missiles at an inbound missile that costs a million dollars to make, you can't sustain that economically too long.
Plus there's limited production. So and if they think they're gonna magically produce a golden dome as Trump calls it, there's nothing The US has yet to demonstrate it can deploy something that's effective. The Patriot missile is overhyped.
Speaker 0: How do you explain the Russian air defense systems and the lack of effectiveness in Venezuela and in in the twelve day war in Iran? Now in Venezuela, I think you explained it in the show we had last time. You think there was a stand down order. A few people think that. Yeah.
So is that the explanation there and what do you make of No. Your mind as
Speaker 1: I know there was a stand down order. I was in communication with someone who's involved with the person who was giving the the turn off order of a senior Venezuelan general. So yeah, there was a stand down order there. And in Iran during the twelve day war, the only s 400 system in country was at a nuclear power plant that was down in the Southwest Corner of Iran because Russian personnel were there working and that didn't get attacked.
Speaker 0: Oh, that's the only place they had an s 400 air defense system. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So they didn't have they didn't have any of the any of the other advanced systems. They do now. They do now.
Speaker 0: That's what that's what I was gonna ask you. How how is their capabilities today relative to the twelve day war, Iran's capabilities?
Speaker 1: Dramatically improved because two days two days after that twelve day war ended, Iran got back on the phone, you know, called Moscow and, you know, basically said, you remember that that offer you made us about, helping us out on the defense side? Does that still stand? Russia said, yeah. And so what you've seen is multiple missions of defense IRGC or and and Iranian army officers, chief chief of the defense chief going to Moscow, meeting with the defense ministry and other ports, same thing with China. So the Iranians have been very active and vice versa, the Chinese and Russians have been active in sending military transport aircraft, quite a few in into Iran.
So Iran has rebuilt a capability that frankly, it hasn't rebuilt it. It's now deployed a capability it did not have prior to June 13.
Speaker 0: So let's say America's goal is a complete regime change, a destruction of the current regime, maybe even a strike on the supreme leader and the rest of the leadership. So if we look at a worst case scenario and if Iran's regime is is now fighting for survival, how far will they go in their retaliation? So, obviously, they'll strike Israel. That's as as a given. Obviously, they'll strike The US bases in the region, Qatar, The UAE, Saudi, etcetera.
Right. What will be the next level above that? Could they start striking the city centers in The Gulf to pressure the gulf nations to then pressure The US to stop the the the the the the strikes. Obviously, they'll try to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz, but that could hurt them economically. So what would be the the Iran's counter plan to an Iran to a US strike?
Speaker 1: Well, take out the military bases. I don't see them going after the government centers in The Gulf No. Because and one of the things I'm sure that they are dealing with diplomatically behind the scenes is letting the Saudis know, the Qataris know, the Emiratis know that, hey, if we're attacked, we're gonna have no alternative but to shut the Strait Of Hormuz. And that's one of the reasons I think that impacted the the decision of Trump to call off the strikes a week ago Tuesday. That he heard from the Saudis and the Emiratis said, no, no, no, no.
This is gonna cost us too much economically. I think really the biggest risk out of this is Israel will be brought to the brink of military destruction. And faced with that will be tempted to use a nuclear weapon in Iran, and which then will push this off into a whole new territory. Because Iran from a ballistic missile standpoint has enough to cause significant permanent damage to Israel that would dramatically reduce Israel's military and industrial capability?
Speaker 0: That's a pretty big statement. I thought Israel did pretty well in their twelve day war. Now I'm not saying they did well. They did pretty well without American support, so I think both countries suffered. Iran suffered more than Israel.
Israel suffered more than they expected. But if you add the world's biggest military into this conflict, I just can't can't The US just essentially pulverize Iran's capabilities more than Israel did in that twelve day war, making it much harder for Iran to strike Israel. So they've got about 2,002 ballistic missiles not ballistic missiles. They've got 2,000 missiles left in stock at the moment according to various estimates.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's that's oh, that's ridiculous, Mario. No.
Speaker 0: It's a lot more.
Speaker 1: They're probably those price sit on at least 20 to 25,000. I mean, they've got their industrial capability has not been destroyed at all. The the the Israelis happily put out, oh, yeah. They've you know, remember, we saw this early on in the special military operation in Ukraine. You remember in March, we were being told, oh, the Russians are they're running out of missiles.
They've only got a few weeks left. April. Oh, they're running out of missiles. No. It's gonna in March, May, April, June, June, July.
It kept going on. The Russians just weeks away, days away. They're running out. They had thousands, thousands. Same thing is going on with Iran.
Speaker 0: That changes the law.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're buried underground. And they've been preparing for this contingency and they recognize what has you could fault the Iranians for being terribly naive and having been way too trusting of the West and not being serious, taking seriously what Israel was really ready to do to them. But not now. They've of awakened from that slumber and they are now prepared. The United States and Israel failed to stop what what Iran did in the early days of that, you know, the first six, seven days of that twelve day war.
They fired off drones and old missiles to soak up, to deplete the air defense system of Israel and The United States, which in fact it did. And then they brought in more sophisticated missiles and they were hitting targets. They hit critical refineries, they hit critical military installations, Israel sat on it, but subsequent reports from like channel fourteen in Israel came out and admitted. And there's some videos out there online where you see the devastation that was wrought upon Haifa, as an example, and Tel Aviv. So this next go around, I will be much more devastating for Israel if it gets to that point.
And you know, they put out the good propaganda spin, oh yeah, we shot down all these missiles. If that was the case, why did they have to go to The United States and plead for The United States to intervene, make a deal with Iran to stop? Because part of that had run that quid pro quo, Iran allowed the bombing of the nuclear sites. Iran was allowed to blow up the satellite system at Al Hudid, but Iran was then allowed to trade oil with China without hindrance. So So would you
Speaker 0: say that that explains the reports that Israel and Gulf nations both tried to convince Trump not to strike Iran last week?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think so. Yeah, and plus, you know, United States wasn't fully prepared. You know, but again, had counted this intelligence operation that was run against Iran by the intelligence services of the West, had calculated that they would have destabilized the regime to such an extent that there would be that if you hit them in the right place, there would be a legitimate chance that they would collapse. Now, what we need to step back and look at is ask this question.
The United States to the CIA has been doing this for the last seventy nine years, starting in 1947, where we keep affecting regime change, whether it was our Benz in Guatemala, Mosaddeh in Iran, they go down to, you know, we did it to Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. We did it to Diem in Vietnam, Allende in Chile. So this notion that all we got to do is just kill this one guy, get rid of this one leader and things will be great. Okay, we've got a historical track record. Where has that turned out to be a good thing that it has created stability, prosperity and peace?
I would argue that you know, the overwhelming evidence points to just the opposite effect. At which point then you gotta step back and say, why do we as a country in The United States insist upon this kind of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries when it would be nice if we could just sort of fix ourselves here at home. Fix our own problems because you know, I look at what goes on in the inner cities in places like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Chicago, the number of kids, minority kids that can't read and write at grade level, can't do math at grade level. And yet, we're out spending literally more than a trillion dollars to boost military capabilities to go overseas and cause the deaths of other foreigners. I just, you know, I'm tired of it myself.
I don't think it's in, it just violates humanity in my view.
Speaker 0: The counterargument for Iran so I agree with that, by the way. The counterargument though is that Iran is a source of a lot of instability in the region as well. If you take out Iran, you finally might have peace in the Middle East. You've got the the power struggle,
Speaker 1: the proxy wars between Iran and Saudi and all these different countries and Yemen, UAE now as well, in Yemen, in Syria, in Lebanon, etcetera, in Iraq. And once you take out Iran, then, essentially, the Middle East now, all the the big players are all allies with with the West, so we won't have those proxy wars anymore. Lebanon won't have that instability in Hezbollah being a military power there, for example. Is there truth to that as well? I don't think so at all.
Again, I I view that as just part of this Western propaganda play and understand that you know, at the CIA and what used to be called the director of operations when I was there. There are entire offices that are dedicated to manufacturing narratives, spreading those narratives in order to get people's minds shaped around accepting something is true, which in fact it is not. And the spread of social media has made that job actually much easier. I mean, good Lord, when I was doing it, were dealing with having video tapes made, you know, the people were out in Afghanistan filming documentaries that we were then putting out and we were getting stories placed into newspapers and magazines. And it wasn't, that required a lot more work.
But today, it's so easy with bots and other things that you can flood the zone with a variety of narratives. Like one of the things that was circulating with respect to Iran was showing this woman lighting a picture of the Ayatollah Khamenei. Iranian woman in Canada, yeah. Yeah, exactly. But it was being portrayed initially and all that, see she's standing up in Iran and doing this.
And then, you know, and that's sort of the beauty though of like what you're doing. Because you're not under corporate control. You're able to ask questions that other mainstream media won't ask. You're able to explore subjects that mainstream media won't. Look, used to be, I was a TV pundit.
I first appeared on CNN in August 1994. And after that, I was on not only CNN, I was on MSNBC, I was a Fox News analyst for a year. I appeared on the CNN show Crossfire probably 18 to 20 times. I was on the Jim Lehrer NewsHour. I was on ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel probably 12 different times.
I mean, used to be I was a terrorism talking head. All that went away in 2008 when I was critical of Barack Obama. And that was where the critic, the corporate media got control and started shutting out alternative voices. So today, we rely upon people like yourself to get other voices out there where we can present information and ask people to go check it. Like what I said about Iranian terrorism, encourage everybody watching or listening, go check it out for yourselves.
It's not my belief, those are the actual numbers. If you total it up, The United States has killed far more civilians and military personnel in Iran than Iran has of Americans. That's a fact.
Speaker 0: I think you can't dispute that fact. Yeah. Yeah. Even people that hate the regime won't dispute that fact. They'll try to twist and turn it and try to link Iran to a lot of the instability we've seen in the Middle East.
They'll try to blame them rightly or wrongly to what we've in Syria and Lebanon, etcetera, Iraq. Obviously, if you wanna blame someone for Iraq, you shouldn't be looking at Iran for a Saturday war. The last thing I wanna ask you, Larry, is what does that all mean for the biggest war that we're all facing right now that no one's talking about, right, you know, except us deep in the weeds? And that's the biggest war since World War two, the war in Ukraine. What does it mean for Putin?
What does it mean for Zelenskyy with, Greenland, let's say, it's settled now as we saw the post earlier today, but if we do see a conflict in Iran?
Speaker 1: The the the war in Ukraine is in the process of winding down now or we're in the latter stages of it. The fact that the lights have been turned out, general winter is now fully engaged. And what I mean by general winter is the winter weather, the the falling temperatures, the lack of power to heat water, to keep homes lit, that's forcing evacuations of the major cities. And I think part of that is a design strategy by Russia, get the civilians out, get them out of the cities so that when when Russia attacks, they're not gonna be killing civilians, but they will be killing military personnel and further weaken Ukraine's ability to resist. I don't see this war in Ukraine going on for another year or two.
Speaker 0: I think Could Russia could Russia suffer if Iran's capabilities if Iran's in a war, they can't export their drones to Russia. Could that weaken Russia even if No.
Speaker 1: No. No. Russia Russia now is not relying upon Iranian drones. You know, they did early on Toppied them. But but now, yeah, and and and I think you may be aware or not that Iranian copy was a copy of
Speaker 0: a US drone. The Iranian copy is a copy
Speaker 1: of a US drone? Uh-huh. Yeah, the Iranians downed a CIA drone in I think it was 2011, 2012. They got they got it, and then they took it in and reengineered it. So it's hilarious.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Speaker 0: So so, essentially, the war in Ukraine is winding down, and we could do you think we could see a peace agreement before Trump's term ends?
Speaker 1: Well, there will be there will be a settlement. It'll be an unconditional surrender by Ukraine. Russia's Russia's Including
Speaker 0: the four oblasts. Well, it's not just
Speaker 1: the four oblasts. In fact, they're gonna, what Russia will probably wind up doing is they will hold, votes in, Dnipro Petrovsk, in Sumy, Potawat, Kharkiv. And they'll give each of those current oblast of Ukraine a chance to vote to join Russia. If they voiced to join Russia, then Russia will add four new
Speaker 0: That's that's a lot more than the that's a lot more than the
Speaker 1: terms that are being discussed in
Speaker 0: a 20 peace plan that Ukraine's already not agreeing to.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and that's what Russia's already made clear that that was what was coming next. And if you recall, about three months ago, was a briefing that GrossoMov, General GrossoMov gave and then behind him was a map that showed Odessa as part of Russia. That wasn't just, know, they were sending a message. This is before this is over, Russia's gonna control Odessa, they'll control the entire Black Sea Coast.
Oh. And Ukraine's gonna be cut off. And it'll be up to Ukraine to figure out will they make a deal or will they commit suicide.
Speaker 0: Larry, always a pleasure to speak to you, sir. I hopefully next week we speak.
Speaker 1: Yeah. On that jury, know? On
Speaker 0: that exactly. Exactly. I think next time my guess next time would be on the show would probably be talking about the strikes or the beginning of the war with Iran. That would be my guess of the next thing, but then you never
Speaker 1: know what could happen. I hope I hope we don't ever have to talk about that. I really do.
Speaker 0: I I hope so. That one's scary. That one's worrying. Iran's population is is what? Three times bigger than Iraq, I think.
Yeah. It's Three times bigger. Four times bigger. It's 93,000,000 people.
Speaker 1: 93,000,000 plus, not counted in that, an estimated 15,000,000 Afghan refugees.
Speaker 0: 15,000,000? Mhmm. The region the region will not be able to deal with that
Speaker 1: And then on
Speaker 0: leave Iran with those numbers.
Speaker 1: You know, you're correct in drawing attention to the size. Iraq is four times the I mean, Iran is four times the size, physical size of Iraq And it has much more rugged territory, the mountains in the North in particular. So the notion that The United States is gonna go in and conquer Iran from the air, oh come on. We couldn't do it in Iraq. And understand, two thousand and three, twenty three years ago, The United States combat aircraft was I think 40% larger than it is now.
In other words, the size of The US combat aircraft has shrunk in the last twenty three years, not expanded.
Speaker 0: I agree. Hopefully, we don't have to talk about this again. Hopefully, this is the last time we talk about Iran. Larry, always a pleasure, sir. Thank you so much.
Oh, alright, my friend. Thank you. Bye bye. Bye, sir.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m told former Army Col. Daniel Davis warns a major U.S. attack on Iran is virtually certain, aiming for leadership removal and regime change, not mere strikes. The plan reportedly targets a broad regional war with troops, jets, and Delta Force, with Iran potentially responding existentially. Decapitation risks, underground missile work, and a post-regime civil war loom, as Europe drifts and NATO faces strain.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷🇮🇱 INTERVIEW: TRUMP PREPARES FOR WAR WITH IRAN Former Army Colonel Daniel Davis is sounding the alarm: a major U.S. attack on Iran is “virtually certain”, and no one’s paying attention. A few weeks ago, everyone was waiting for airstrikes. Then the headlines moved on. But behind the scenes? Troops, tanks, warplanes, and even Delta Force have been moving into the region. Davis says Trump’s not bluffing. The goal? Not just a symbolic hit, but something much bigger: take out Iran’s leadership, crush their military, and maybe even end the regime altogether. Why risk all this? @DanielLDavis1 says it's not about national security. It’s regime change. Just like Syria. Tear Iran apart, keep it weak, and walk away. The problem? That never ends well. 03:16 - Trump likely delayed Iran strike due to Netanyahu's request for more prep time 04:15 - U.S. may be preparing for a massive regional war, not just limited strikes 05:22 - If Iran sees war as existential, they may abandon self-restraint entirely 06:45 - U.S. bases in the region are less defended than Israel's Iron Dome system 07:58 - Iran likely won’t target Gulf cities—wants to avoid widening the war 09:48 - Could Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei be targeted in a decapitation strike? 11:12 - Iran now more prepared than during the 12-day war, no surprise possible 13:24 - Iran's missile production was moved underground and continues actively 15:21 - Delta Force capture mission like in Venezuela? Unlikely and dangerous 17:07 - Houthis and Hezbollah might rise if Iran inflicts serious damage on Israel 18:43 - Could an Iranian military success provoke an Israeli nuclear response? 20:54 - Civil war in Iran post-regime change could be worse than current regime 22:47 - Iran's ethnic diversity and separatist movements make regime change risky 24:30 - Israel may prefer chaos in Iran over a functioning successor regime 27:06 - As the world watches other crises, Ukraine quietly loses more ground 30:52 - Ukraine’s frontline collapse or grinding defeat both seem inevitable 33:45 - Europe is drifting from U.S. leadership, considering talks with Russia 36:17 - Trump might dare Europe over Greenland with a troop deployment bluff 38:09 - Trump’s behavior may be more irrational than strategic/cognitive decline? 40:03 - NATO’s future is crumbling, Europe IS preparing for post-U.S. security 43:31 - No real military or economic reason for U.S. to “take” Greenland 45:00 - Trump likely to escalate further: Iran war, Venezuela unrest, NATO collapse
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on Iran, potential U.S. action, and the wider strategic spillovers across the Middle East and beyond. The speakers discuss what prompted a delay in striking Iran, the likelihood of a broader attack, and how regional and great-power dynamics might unfold.
- On why a strike against Iran was postponed, the consensus from the guest is that Netanyahu asked for more time to prepare for defending against Iranian missiles and to enable a larger attack footprint. The guest also cites public statements by U.S. figures supporting a bigger operation: Lindsey Graham emphatically said last Friday that the delay was so we can go bigger; General Jack Keane stated that military operations would target political and military leaders and destroy their military infrastructure to take the regime out. The guest emphasizes that the most likely scenario is an expanded target set and greater combat power in the region to defend bases and improve the attack’s effectiveness, rather than a symbolic strike.
- Regarding whether Russia or China would become involved, the guest doubts active involvement by either country, but suggests indirect support or intelligence help could occur. The logic is that direct involvement would be costly for these powers, though they might assist Iran indirectly.
- On the readiness and capability of Iran, the guest argues Iran is now far more prepared than in the twelve-day war. They note that insiders were purged after the prior conflict, defenses were strengthened, and missile production likely accelerated since June, with production areas shielded from prior attacks. Iran’s ability to respond quickly and with significant damage is viewed as higher, and the guest warns that if Iran experiences an existential threat, it could abandon restraint and retaliate in a way that makes a broader war more likely.
- The discussion covers U.S. bases in the region, where the guest concedes that the U.S. air defense is not at the level of Israel’s Iron Dome and David Sling, THAAD, and other integrated systems. Some bases lack robust defense against ballistic missiles, drones, and other threats, and, while 30,000 U.S. troops remain in the area, the overall air-defense capability is described as insufficient to stop all Iranian missiles.
- Would Iran strike Gulf nations directly to pressure them to push the U.S. to end the war? The guest says not likely, arguing that Iranian leadership has signaled a preference for good relations with Gulf states and that attacking Gulf bases or cities would create more enemies and complicate Iran’s strategic posture.
- A decapitation strike targeting leadership is considered plausible by some but deemed risky. The guest notes Iran has continuity of government plans and could designate successors; even if leadership is removed, a power vacuum could ignite internal fighting. The possibility of an existential attack by Iran—coupled with a broader regional war—could be catastrophic and is something to avoid.
- The discussion turns to Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and the broader spillover risk. The guest suggests that if Iran’s retaliation is strong and Hamas or Hezbollah see an opportunity, there could be escalations, including potential involvement by Turkey. However, Iran would likely avoid opening new fronts that would diffuse its capability to strike U.S. bases in the region.
- The problem of Iran’s internal diversity is highlighted: Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Lurs, Arabs, Baluchs, and Turkmen, among others, complicate any post-regime-change scenario. The guest argues Iran could fragment, but emphasizes that a successful Western-backed regime change could still lead to civil strife rather than a stable replacement, warning of a “textbook failed regime change” akin to past Middle East interventions.
- On NATO and Western unity, the guest asserts NATO is dead or in deep trouble, citing European leaders who doubt U.S. stability and reliability. He notes European politicians discuss building an autonomous European security architecture, implying growing European reluctance to rely on U.S. leadership for defense.
- Greenland as a strategic issue: the guest argues there is no rational military need for Greenland for security, and that the notion of occupying or militarizing Greenland is driven more by Trump’s personal preferences than strategic necessity. He points out that even if Greenland were militarized, Russia and China would have little to gain, given logistical and strategic barriers.
- Finally, the future trajectory: the guest predicts Iran will likely be pressed hard in a large strike but warns that the consequences could be severe, including regional destabilization, potential civil conflict inside Iran, and long-term strategic costs for the U.S. and its European partners. He suggests that as long as the U.S. overextends itself in multiple theaters (Iran, Greenland, Ukraine, Venezuela), global stability and the U.S. economic footing could be endangered. The guest closes by highlighting the uncertainty of Trump’s next moves, citing possible abrupt shifts and cognitive concerns that could influence decisions in unpredictable ways.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A lot of people are assuming that Trump decided not to strike Iran, and he's forgotten about it and moved on.
Speaker 1: General Jack Keane emphatically said, we are definitely gonna do military operations here. We're gonna kill the political leaders. We're gonna kill the military leaders. We're gonna destroy their military infrastructure, and we're gonna take the regime out.
Speaker 0: Would Russia and China be sitting idle again like they did previously?
Speaker 1: I doubt that either China or Russia would be actively involved.
Speaker 0: So why do you think he did delay? Is it the pressure from the Gulf nations or Israel?
Speaker 1: Netanyahu asked for a delay because he says, alright. We need a little bit more time to prepare because we can expect a lot of Iranian missiles to come in and we need to be prepared a little bit more for defending those and we need a larger target set attack. I think it's virtually certain that an attack is coming.
Speaker 0: It's been a while we haven't spoken, and it's been an insane few weeks. Truly. Just a few days ago, everyone was waiting for the strikes in Iran, and now no one's paying attention to Iran. It's like the the issue completely disappeared, yet the country still doesn't have Internet. And The US has a massive military buildup in the region.
Not sure if you're keeping track of it. Oh, yeah. I I went through a list of the there you go. So I went through the list of things that are heading there. You've got, obviously, the USS Abraham Lincoln.
You've got 12 f fifteens. You've got according to some sources, Delta Force is moving in the region as well. You've got air defense systems. You've got tanks apparently heading in the region and a lot of troops. What do you make of all this?
A lot of people are assuming that Trump decided not to strike Iran, and he's forgotten about it and moved on. The way I see it is that either because of Israeli pressure or pressure by the Gulf nations or his military advisers told him to hold off and be more prepared before striking the run. That's my assumption, but would love to get your thoughts.
Speaker 1: Wow. Well, listen. I mean, that some of this, don't have to make assumptions. I just have to listen to what he's had because they're saying and his supporters. I mean, you had Lindsey Graham who emphatically said, and I think this was last Friday, that we're probably only delayed so that we can go bigger to your point there.
He emphatically said that and was actually angry at any reporter who was asking talking to him in this gaggle who wanted to talk about anything except for an attack to to get rid of the Mueller regime. I mean, that's what he said this the story was. Yesterday on Fox News, Jack Keane, general Jack Keane, emphatically said, we are definitely gonna do military operations here, and he even went down the target list. This is an open source, but so many people aren't noticing this because they're looking at Greenland, because they're looking at Davos, etcetera. But he said, we're gonna kill the political leaders.
We're gonna kill the military leaders. We're gonna destroy their military infrastructure, and we're gonna take the regime out. That's what president Trump said, and that's what he will do. That's what he said point blank. And, obviously, president Trump listens to Fox News a lot.
Lindsey Graham is his golfing buddy. And if these people are saying this out loud, you can certainly imagine that on behind the scenes, especially in light of all of the physical movement you just described, I think it's virtually certain that an attack is coming.
Speaker 0: So why do you think he did delay it? Is it the pressure from the Gulf nations or Israel, or is it just being more prepared as as Lindsey Graham said, more prepared for a more powerful attack, a more decisive attack rather than just a symbolic strike?
Speaker 1: From from some people that I've talked to both in the in the region and here in Washington DC, the the the most likely scenario is that, Netanyahu asked for a delay because he says, alright. We need a little bit more time to prepare because we can expect a lot of Iranian missiles to come in, and we need to be prepared a little bit more for defending those, and we need a larger target set attacked. And, apparently, that fell on fertile ears with Trump. That part I have to just assume between because I don't have any insider information on that. But based on what we have seen and what these people have said, I think that's the most likely outcome that we want to expand the target list.
That's in fact exactly what Jack Keane said yesterday and Lindsey Graham implied. So I think that the the issue was we needed more combat power in the region in order to attack a much wider selection of targets, which Keane also mentioned that we had to try and defend our targets more our our bases in the region, which the IRGC commander expressly said would be targeted if they are attacked. And, of course, as you know, the, president, Pozhyskian, said if you attack our regime, it's full scale war. There's no reason for them to hold anything back, and that could put it play after we've been talking about this for a long time, the whole, straight of Hormuz. And and so there could be a lot at stake here if we go and do a big hit like this because this is apparently not gonna be a twenty minute one off like the the attack The US made in in June on top of the twelve day war that So Israel was
Speaker 0: it's it's gonna be It's gonna be it's gonna be a war. The other one was not a war. It was a short term, you know, one strike by The US, and you can call it a short term a short war between Iran and and Israel. But if this become existential for Iran, which the twelve day war was not, then we're talking about a very different Yes. Scenario.
How would that be different from the twelve day war? So number one, the the bases US bases in the region will be targeted and properly targeted just like Israel was targeted, not like what happened in Qatar in the base there with the symbolic strike. Right. Israel will obviously be targeted. How do you think they'll be able to target The US outside the region as well?
Speaker 1: I think they probably would have that capability, but I doubt that they would do it because that would disperse their resources and and and have a lower probability of hits. I think that they would focus on the near term targets that they can definitely hit and could cause a lot of damage. And I can only imagine that they're signaling to The United States that if you put us in a no win situation, back us into a corner to where it's a literal existential threat to the regime, then you take away any reason we have for self restraint. And they have shown profound restraint over the last forty eight or two years, really, in terms of what has been done to them and how they have reacted because they have always come to the conclusion that they still have to be restrained in order to prevent a bigger strike so that it didn't get existential. But if we change that calculation and now all of a sudden it is an existential threat, then they have no reason to be restrained, and they have every reason to expand to try and and hurt The United States to cause pain to slow them down.
Don't put them in that situation because I think they will react that way.
Speaker 0: How capable are The US bases in the region in terms of air defense systems relative to Israel and their dome, their iron dome? Because Israel's iron dome was able to intercept, depending who you ask, over 90% of missiles and most of the drones coming from Iran, but a lot of them did land and cause significant damage. Do The US bases have similar defense mechanisms there, or are they an easier target for Iran?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Whatever the real number is, we we can't we can only speculate, but we can definitely, for sure, say that a substantial number got through and caused real harm and damage. That is the only reason, in my view, the the damage caused to Israel by the Iranian missiles, is the only reason they agreed to a ceasefire to to stop fighting the twelve day war. That was not a war. It was not ended.
There was no peace that brought in like Trump said. It was Miller Yee and everyone's calculation that there was a benefit to not continue on. None of the conditions that led to the start of the fighting were even addressed much less solved. Now in this situation here, to answer your question directly, our air defense system in the region, we have bases scattered all throughout. We have gotten rid of a lot of them.
We have moved a lot of people out in recent days, probably for this very reason, but not all. The last number I saw is somewhere around 30,000 US troops are still in these areas. I can tell you because I've been to a number of these bases back when I was on active duty, and and the air defense system altogether is not as good as the Iron Dome and the the David Sling and and all the integrated systems with THAAD and everything else that they have in Israel. So that tells you a lot that some of the bases had much less capability, and these Israeli systems would go right through what we have. Some of them have a little more of the tactical air like Katyusha rockets or or drones or something like that.
But if you're talking about some of these better ballistic missiles, there's nothing that we have that can stop them and that and anything they target, they can hit. So there is a lot of damage they can do.
Speaker 0: Do you think, Iran could strike the Gulf nations directly, not strike The US bases in the region, but strike places like the city center here in Dubai or in Qatar and Doha in order to pressure the Gulf nations to then pressure The US to end the war?
Speaker 1: I don't think so.
Speaker 0: Why do ask me farfetched?
Speaker 1: I I not even farfetched. It's just not in their interest to do so. You you've had the IRGC commander a few days back say openly. He said, I want good relations, and he mentioned all those. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, The Emirates, several others.
He said, we want good relations, but if we're attacked, no American base will be safe even in your countries. I think that they have strong incentive not to hit anything outside of US bases in these countries because they don't wanna add enemies to the list. So I think that out of separate preservation, they would hit those targets and try to, inform these people that, look. We're not gonna hit your stuff and we won't even hit this if you'll convince them to stop. But the minute I think that we that Iran would hit their stuff in in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, whatever, then all of sudden they would join in.
So I don't think they would do that, but that's who can say for sure?
Speaker 0: And do you think a decapitation strike like we saw in the twelve day war, would be repeated here where they begin by striking the command and control, centers in Iran and trying to kill the leadership? And could Khomeini, the supreme leader, also be a target himself?
Speaker 1: I I do. I I I think that that I think there are many that, in both Israel and The United States that calculate, wow. Look how great it was when when we got, the the leader of Hezbollah and and assassinated him and and several of these other leaders that have been assassinated. I mean, they they are really good at historically assassinating a lot of people. They tried to assassinate the the Hamas, negotiators during that period of time, and we were trying to breach a ceasefire there.
So they have a long history of doing that, and I don't think there's any doubt that if they thought they could succeed and and get away with it that they would do that. But I I think that Iran is is also convinced that they can do that, that they might try to do that. And if they succeed, they already have, continuity of government plans. They have people designated to go through, and I think that they have spread things out so that you can't really have a decapitation strike. You can assassinate the the leader, but I think that they're prepared already to go to other people and they have plans of what they would do if that happened.
And it would be ugly, and it would be bad for our side. And, again, you you cut off there any reason for self restraint on their side, and every bad thing becomes possible if we go down that path.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and also The US and obviously, Israel will be part of it. They don't have the element of surprise they had in the twelve day war. Twelve day war, Iran was was caught off guard. They were expecting peace negotiations.
In this case, the writings on the wall that the strikes are incoming. The the military buildup is right there. Trump has made the threats, and Iran knows their their weakest point. So I think it's very clear for them, it's very clear that strikes are incoming. How how would you compare their capabilities today to what we saw in the twelve day war?
And, also, would Russia and China be sitting idle again like they did previously?
Speaker 1: I well, I'll answer the last part first. I I doubt that either China or Russia would be actively involved, because it it would be kind of a losing proposition for them. But I do think they have incentive to, do everything they can to help Iran not fall, And and I think that they would provide indirect support, possibly intelligence support. I I would I can certainly imagine them doing that. Or with some weapons and ammunition, there's been a lot of things that have flown in from Russia.
We don't know for sure what was in those. I can certainly imagine that they get some kind of support. I mean, why wouldn't they? We do that on a daily basis against Russia and Ukraine. So why would the should they not return the favor here?
Because I don't think either superpower has any incentive to just stand passively by and literally allow another of their clients. Say it's an a central member of Brix be taken down. So I think that they would do some indirect things and probably diplomatic things as well, but I don't think that they would get physically involved because the cost would be too high for them. But then and I'm sorry. What was your other
Speaker 0: The element is is so the first one was how how prepared is Iran element of surprise and how prepared is Iran today militarily compared to the twelve day war?
Speaker 1: Compared to the last time, it's substantially more. In fact, there's lots of reports that in the aftermath of that that there was a lot of, purges within Iran. You know, they were looking for all these spies because apparently there was quite a few insiders that helped, knock out some of the air defenses, etcetera, taking down some of the the radars and doing other things that would limit their ability to respond immediately. They got a lot of that fixed after about the first twelve hours, and and things changed after that. And, certainly, their offensive capability only increased in percentages of success over the time because they figured out what was going on, some of the cyber attacks, and they made took mitigation against those.
Now then, the the surprise that you had then is is gone because they are actively looking for that. So you're not gonna get, I doubt, unless, you know, Mossad is even better than I think they are. I doubt you're gonna get that where prior to an attack that you're gonna get another one of those rounds from the inside where they take things out with drones and whatever else, like the spider web attack in in Ukraine, etcetera. So I think that Iran is now as you said a second ago, they are now they read the the tea leaves. They see the writing on the wall.
They are focused very strongly, so they're looking for that kind of thing. They now know because of that history what the attack might look like and how to mitigate some of the effects of it, and and they also are prepared for how to to respond more quickly, I think, offensively. So I think they are far more capable right now. And and from all we can understand after the first attack, much of their missile production capacity had already foreseen this possibility of this war. So it was already in protected areas, and it continued to produce even during that time.
And now all the months since June, we can imagine that their production capacity has probably continued on and probably accelerated to the extent that they can get the resources and the the supplies, etcetera. I I think that their their missile capacity of the kind that succeeds will be higher. So I think the pain on Israel will be higher. Their ability to strike us if if they pull off the restraints, will be substantial, and and this could be really, really ugly. If president Trump thinks this is gonna be like June where we can just go in there and do whatever we want or like Venezuela, which I worry that, you know, catastrophic success, he may get the idea that what he says in public, which he said at Davos earlier today, we are always right, and everything we do succeeds.
If you believe that and you ignore some of these fundamentals we just talked about here, you can make a catastrophic decision, and I really hope that doesn't happen.
Speaker 0: You mentioned Maduro. Is it possible that we see a more limited strike like we saw in Venezuela or more limited operation to capture the leader, for example? It sounds very difficult, if not impossible, in Iran considering their military capabilities and how prepared they are, but we know that there's reports that Delta Force and Navy SEALs are in the region. Is that even a possibility? I mean, anything's a possibility.
Some some people can think that, well, we did it there and we
Speaker 1: can do it here and, you know, we that's part of our our skill set that we train for or on a regular basis, which is why they use Delta Force the first time. But I think that the chances of success are are virtually zero, and I certainly hope they don't attempt to do that for the very reason you just mentioned. Is it the it's just been done. You've already tried you have assassinated, you know, several other leaders already. The Hezbollah leader I mentioned, Nezraelah.
So there is history recently too. So they know that that's a legitimate possibility. And you had Jack Keane yesterday saying, yeah. We're gonna go after political targets. I don't know that that would mean anything besides the Ayatollah or the president.
So I think that they're gonna be prepared for that, and they definitely have the defenses much better than Maduro had. Maduro was was foolish. I mean, he was, you know, out dancing in the streets out in the open in the days ahead of this, mocking president Trump. You don't see the Ayatollah doing that. He's he's very cognizant of the threat and the reality, and I'm sure that they're taking much more precautions than Maduro did.
Speaker 0: He's also too old for this shit. He can't be bothered playing these games like Maduro. The guy's 80 years old. He's been through so much. What happens in the region?
What happens to Lebanon, to Hezbollah? What happens to the Houthis? Obviously, Hamas, they don't have much capacity left. Do you worry that this could spill over? You know, we see what the clashes that are happening in Syria, or is Iran and their proxies just too weak for this to become a regional issue?
Speaker 1: Well, I you know, I they would depend on how successful Iran was in their retaliation. If they start hitting Israel and they start getting weakened, and, I mean, genuinely hurt, you know, not just some some pain points, but some some punishing losses to where their offensive capacity is diminished, then you might get some people rising up in in in the the Houthis or or in, in Hezbollah because, I mean, most of those guys still exist. They've gone to ground for for very rational and self preservation reasons. But if they saw that suddenly Israel was starting to really be hurt and they couldn't stop Iranian attacks and missiles, I can see the possibility that they could stand up there. You also can't just eliminate the possibility that Turkey could be sitting there going, here's an opportunity here because there's a lot of in between Turkey and and Israel already, and that that has been growing in recent months.
I I don't know that they would be ready to take any action right now because, you know, they they have the possibility of nuclear weapons all over the place. That that's actually something that I worry about is is if Iranian has catastrophic success as some call it and they really do start hurting Israel, that you have the risk that Israel could be saying, okay. Well, I'm gonna risk correct this situation with a nuclear weapon. That's to me a bigger threat than what you're talking about a regional war against Israel is that Iran is too successful. And I think that they're aware of that risk, and I think that they're gonna that could mitigate what they do if they start having success.
But I think that they will go up to that point. I don't think that they'll back down this time.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think there's, people betting on whether Israel will use nuclear weapons this year, on polymarket. Not not sure how that's even a discussion. It's pretty crazy. But, also, a lot of people just don't understand how massive Iran is, not just militarily.
Over 90 I think 93,000,000 people. It's bigger than Iraq. It's about a quarter of the size of The US. It's a massive, massive country. Now I did speak to an analyst a few days ago, I wanna get your thoughts on this.
He made the point that he believes Iran, if therefore the regime falls, it's not gonna be too bloody to have a replacement government as we've seen in Iraq, Libya. It's because in Iraq and Libya, even in Syria, they're melting points, they're melting pots with many hands in the pot, you know, many proxies deciding who should lead the country. That led to a split within the nation. And he believes that Iran being one of those, you know, pads in all these different pots, just like Israel is, just like The US is, Iran will not have a lot less risk of civil war. Is that a risk that we could see civil war in the region, or do you think a regime change in the in the country could go better than we saw in Libya, in Iraq, and in Syria?
Speaker 1: I I don't see any positive outcome. I I I it would be just the the height of wishful thinking that you could do that. And and I do think it is possible, that The US and Israel together could have a a decapitation where they take out the the Ayatollah. And and even though Iran has a continuity of government plan and they have somebody else designated, whether that person would have number one, they would immediately become a target themselves, but but it's also unclear that whoever that person would be, will they have the same kind of support that the current Ayatollah has? And so you could it is possible that you could get a regime disruption by taking out the the leadership, and then there could be a battle inside for it.
So, I mean, you saw the nineteen seventy nine revolution itself right there. So there's certainly precedents inside of Iran that different groups will fight when it comes to it. And and I I think it's a roll of the dice to hope that doesn't happen again. Maybe this fellow you talked to is right, but I rather think that
Speaker 0: I doubt it. I doubt it. Like, Daniel, just
Speaker 1: got some of of I would hope he is for the people of Iran, but I I'm telling you, we can count on The United States and Israel to make sure that doesn't happen. They want it to go violent. They will stir the pot. They will send in provocateurs. They'll do whatever it takes to make sure there is a civil war, in my view, if that happens.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think Israel is more, you know, more inclined to seek unrest in in Iran. They've done it in Syria, and I think one of the spokespeople, whether he's a spokesman or just commentator in Israel, made the comment on TV saying, you know, after the strikes in Iran, after the regime change, we'll do the same thing we did in Syria. And in Syria and Assad fell within hours, Syria Israel was just striking all their military capability, massive strikes across the country, destroying any capability for Israel for Syria to have a military. And he said, you know, the same thing could be repeated for Iran.
And then you go into the just gonna make give you an idea of how complex the nation is. The ethnic groups there, there's obviously the Persians, 61%. You got the Azeris, 16%, the Kurds, which we know the Kurds have have been resisting and seeking, and they've got all these separatist movements across Turkey, Iraq, Syria. Well, there's a 10% of Iran are Kurds. You've got the Lurs, you've got the Arabs, you've got the Baluchs, Turkmens, and other tribes as well, all in one country, and many of them, you know, have their own separatist movements.
The Azeris have one, the Kurds, the Balox have one, the Arabs have one. So anyone that looks at that country of 93,000,000 people, where the regime doesn't have really one main opposition leader. Venezuela has even Venezuela doesn't really have one, but some people say Maria Machado. Well, I think Maria Machado, one would argue, is not that popular in Venezuela. I still think she's more popular than Reza Pallavi who who's young.
Speaker 1: He's the
Speaker 0: son of son of the Shah, but, you know, that was decades and decades ago. He's been living abroad. He's been spending a lot of time a lot of time in Israel. He visited Israel again recently, I think. So while I you know, I hope he does well.
I hope he has enough movement. We need one opposition leader whether you like him or not. I don't think there is one for Iran, and that's what really worries me. As much as I dislike the regime, I don't find any alternative that could fill that power vacuum that will be left. And I just think that Iran is gonna be a textbook failed regime change like we've seen time and time again.
As I as you said, I hope I'm wrong, but everything points in that direction.
Speaker 1: Well yeah. And I and I think, Mario, we we have to conclude. I mean, you mentioned that that the commentary inside of Israel that they would do the same thing they did in Syria, and I think that is absolutely right. Think you absolutely count on But I think that is their intent is to have disruption. I think that the Israeli objective in this, as best as I can determine from their actions, is that they don't want a a follow on regime.
They don't want per se one that's unless they could literally install someone and everyone would be happy and say, yay, whatever Israel says. I don't think they worry about that or or fantasize about that, but they want a a failed state just like in Syria. And if they keep them disrupted on their borders, they perceive, then I think that they say then there'll be no coherent threat to us. I think that that is dead wrong. I think that is nearly suicidal for the Israeli state.
I think that creates chaos, and it creates incentive for people to continue to work into perpetuity against you because they see how that you're destroying regimes in the area. And, eventually, it could cause other regimes to say, that's not gonna happen to me. I'd rather work together with somebody else. So I I think it's very shortsighted. I don't think it'll work in the long term, and, I consider it to be completely immoral.
Speaker 0: Daniel, everyone is up in arms in Gaza because if you you know, I think about sixty thousand people died, forty, 60,000. I can't remember the number, but that's a really large number, and that's heartbreaking. I wanna remind the audience, since civil war started, and I remember the days when I was watching the the regime fall in Syria, I didn't like Assad. I saw all the news. I'm like, man, this guy seems like a horrible leader.
I was supporting the movements that were trying to overthrow him, same as Gaddafi. Since that civil war you know, I was a as a young boy then. Since that war civil war started, if the war's ongoing till today, there's clashes between the Syrian government and the Kurdish groups, Syrian the Democratic Force, something they call SDF. There's been six hundred and fifty to six hundred and sixty thousand deaths in Syria. That's deaths, not casualties, deaths since the civil war started.
To give people an idea when a regime you know, everyone is really upset at the Iranian regime and me included, killing five, ten, fifteen, twenty thousand people in Iran, the alternative could be a lot a lot worse. And as people do there's direct deaths from the civil war. That's putting famine aside, poverty aside, the destruction of the institution. The country itself is just completely annihilated. So if we see a repeat of what Israel did after the fall of Assad in a country like Iran, this is gonna be a multiyear, if not multi decade, downward spiral for the country.
Now there is an alternative that somehow the West does figure out a transition of power process in place. The decapitation strike is very successful because I don't think they'll give up until the regime falls. I don't think there'll be any strike. There is an alternative. Maybe they wanna pressure Iran, weaken Iran, then force them to concede, maybe become more friendly to to the West, have a new leader instead of Khomeini, you know, assassinate Khomeini and have a new leader, someone like the vice president of Venezuela who may be more open to working with The US and someone less hostile to Israel.
Now that is an option. We might see that succeed. I'm skeptical, but I think it's an it's it's a it's still a probability worth considering, fingers crossed, that it does happen, that we see something peaceful happen. Well, fingers crossed, there's an agreement, and there's not even any war. But my next question to you, Daniel, is most of the interviews we did was talking about the war in Ukraine, which is raging on, but with what what's happening in Greenland, what happened in Venezuela, what's now happening in Iran, a new war there, the tariff war, tariff this, tariff that.
Everyone just forgot about the Ukraine war. People's attention shifts every week. It's a new story. That that war is still ongoing. So what's the latest in in Ukraine?
And more importantly, what will happen to that war, the biggest war since World War two, the deadliest war since World War two? What will happen in that war if there was a conflict between The US, Israel, and Iran?
Speaker 1: Well, I'll take it just on on its face value first. The while everybody has been paying attention to all these other issues you just mentioned, and there's a bunch of them, Russia has not taken its eye off the ball, and it has continued its relentless assault in the air and on the ground. So everything on the front line has continued to move forward with the exception of Kupyansk. Ukraine has had some tactical success there and has actually pushed Russia back in a no kidding, successful tactical operation so far. But as I said, when this whole operation first started, it's gonna be temporary.
Just like the one in the incursion in Takharsk was, the seven month operation there. It's it's doomed to failure because they don't have the capacity to sustain that over time. And while they're having some success there, they're losing elsewhere on the front line in the Sumy, in the Kharkiv region, in the Zaporizhzhia region, and, of course, still in the Donetsk area. So Russia continues to move forward after they took Myronograd and the Prokhorovsk area. They have now continued to move beyond that.
They're moving deeper up into Dnieperopetrovsk region. Everywhere you wanna look except for Kupionsk, they're still moving to the West, and they're still moving backward. Meanwhile, in the air, they're almost completely locked out knocked out with their energy and heating systems in the capital city, in Kharkiv City, in in Odessa. I mean, people are are literally freezing to death where you have the capital city. The mayor said, we need people to leave.
Just get out here to find some other place out in the countryside where you can have heating and wood or whatever to to stay alive because they can't provide enough electricity and heating inside. And, I had been recently talking just yesterday, to a former regime official in in the Kyiv, who's now completely lost, faith and trust in Zelensky because they see firsthand what's happening to their family, to their friends. And they said that there is deep deep depression mounting among the people, and I think that's what the Russians intended. But that's what's happening behind the scenes in these cities and it because it's bitter bitter cold, and Russia just continues to relentlessly and monotonously knock out these, energy systems. As they try and repair them, they'll knock them out again.
And now then you're getting fewer and fewer even hours in a day when there's actually heating. And there's I think I saw the yesterday, there's something like 600 apartment buildings in Ukraine are now completely without power, not even temporary, but totally without. They're trying to figure out ways to get that fixed. They have been heroic and just insanely successful in trying to fix all these things with such limited capability, but even the best you can do is you see is shrinking in its effectiveness, and it is having a serious impact on the people. That, of course, is where you get people to go to the front lines.
And as you've probably seen the videos that continue to be out there on a nearly daily basis, they still steal people off the ground left and right and send them immediately into the front lines, and majority of them die or they flee. And and the the number of people that are fleeing from the war AWOL desertions is is just a staggering number in the last twelve months on top of all the killed and wounded. Their medical system is not supportive of this, and at some point, and who knows when that will be. Either they're gonna finally have a collapse somewhere, and Russia can try and rush some folks in there, or they may just content themselves with trying to limit their risk to their troops and just keep this monotonous, both tactical, operational, and strategic depth of attacks until at some point, the the Ukraine army will just be ground to dust or it'll collapse one or the other. And it's impossible to know which one of those two, but it is certain it's gonna be one of those two.
Speaker 0: Witkoff is meeting apparently meeting Putin tomorrow, and someone said that the you know, someone within the administration, maybe Witkoff himself, said that that 90% of the way there in terms of reaching a peace deal. Now I made a joke. I posted earlier today. They've been 90 or 95% since the beginning of negotiations. I'm not sure what that means.
But, you know, there's also the invite of to Putin to join the border peace. Not sure what that means and what that changes. Are the two countries closer to a peace agreement? Because it seems The US doesn't really care much about Ukraine anymore. They care more about Iran.
They care more especially about Greenland. And Europe, I feel so bad for Europe because now they're just stuck in the middle. They've got to support Ukraine. They've got to buy the equipment from The US, which seems less and less interested in supporting Ukraine. They've got to fight off.
They're fighting off Russia on that front, and they're fighting off potentially, at least not diplomatically, fighting off Greenland sorry, The US on the on the Western front with Greenland. What does that mean for Putin and Putin's position on the negotiating table?
Speaker 1: Well, listen. I I mean, this that's a multipart question there and and really important because I think that what Putin is doing right now is just saying, man, why don't y'all just keep eating each other? I'll just sit back here, and I'm just gonna maintain the status quo of my combat operations both strategically and tactically and operationally here, and we'll just maintain. I'm not gonna take any big risk because I don't need to because you guys are eating each other up, and you're falling apart from the inside. He sees what's happening inside of Ukraine, which I just described, but he also sees what's happening in Davos, for example, today.
And there was a speech yesterday by Mark Carney, for example, who was pretty pretty bold in his broadside across what Trump is doing. And he's saying we're starting to diversify. We're looking more to China. We're diversifying everywhere else, and we are in the process of bay basically decoupling from America's hegemonic leadership, which he used that term in his speech. And others, I think, are coming to that same conclusion.
You had, Mertz, what, four or five days ago say, maybe it is time for us to talk to Russia. Maloney said the same thing. You're not gonna come to an end. They're now starting to say out loud, Europeans, that there's no military solution here to even avoid defeat. We we're gonna have to get to this point to where we have a negotiated settlement, and that's a pretty bitter pill for them to swallow, but they're starting to see the reality that you and I are talking about here and have been for, you know, a long time.
And so Russia will just let that play out, and then this whole thing with Greenland is just like a a Christmas gift come late because he sees that, you know, we're we're eating each other up on that, and there's actually a possibility, at least theoretically, of of a military clash on Greenland. I I doubt that that's gonna come to that because I don't think that the Europeans will allow it to get that far. I think they would submit before they would actually come into an armed clash with The US, but that's also bad because that will facilitate the fracture of NATO and maybe its death knell. That also would make Putin very happy. So I think he's content to just sit there and watch it.
And if you guys wanna come to me and have a negotiated settlement, I think he would still do it because it's in his interest to have this, with what we would call an ugly deal in the West, is still less than the maximalist on the Russians, which they will take eventually militarily if we don't agree to any kind of a negotiated settlement. So all that together is is good for Russia, and I think that they're gonna succeed both strategically and tactically and militarily, and it's bad for Europe, and and, The United States is is not helping its case in any of these. And I'm telling you, we could get to a goal of our situation with The US to where however big and strong and powerful we are, if we get take on one too many problems, in all these different places, we could find ourselves in real world of hurt. And by the way, you mentioned there about Venezuela and about, Rodriguez and how she seems to be very cooperative. That cooperation is only as far as it's in their, you know, interest to do so, you know, kicking and screaming and gritting their teeth.
But the minute that they see us maybe get overextended in Iran or if we have problems with Greenland and if they see the war there stopping, I promise you that cooperation will drive in a heartbeat if they think that suddenly the target list in the the the the crosshairs are off of them and going somewhere else. They'll go back too, and they'll only do that as far as they can. So that's not a done deal either, and, that's just part of the mosaic of nastiness that, we're helping create if we're just being honest.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was interviewing a gentleman, professor Michael Clark. I think you should have him on your show. Really smart guy. And, he made the points that every country, whenever they get in the crosshairs of Trump, they just wait for Trump to get distracted and move on to the next thing.
Which is kinda you hinted at Venezuela doing the same thing. Now that the Trump is distracted with Greenland, they can go back and and, you know, do business as they were under Maduro. But talking about Greenland, first, I can't believe we're talking about Greenland. But but the question I have for you is, how far do you think Trump will go? Because there's in in annexing Greenland?
Because there's two arguments. One of them, he'll go as far as necessary. Greenland must be part of The US. That's one extreme. The other extreme, this is Trump being Trump.
This is a negotiating tactic. He puts these words out there, these extreme scenarios, you know, breaks all the taboos, but then settles at something more acceptable. And when talking about Venezuela, we'll attack Venezuela. I'm not gonna rule out troops on the ground. We're gonna do whatever whatever is necessary.
We're gonna control the oil, but then he takes out Maduro and now leaves it business as usual. Could we see the same thing here in Greenland? Which which extreme is more probable in your opinion?
Speaker 1: Everything is possible. And and I mean everything, even the the ugly scenarios of using deploying military force. I I doubt that it will come to that, but the fact that you've had Stephen Miller emphatically say, nobody's gonna fight us over that and we have to have it. And Trump has said we have to have it, but then he he or Davos, just not long before you and I came on to this this interview here, he said, well, I won't use force to it. And I and I thought, wait.
Wait. What? Because you you just you just took something off the table. Maybe. But with Trump, you can't ever take anything for granted because he could change his mind before the speech was over.
Maybe he will. I can see a potential where he could say, I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm playing high stakes poker here, and I call you here. I'm gonna send a battalion onto Greenland. Are you gonna fight them? I'm gonna leave it up to you.
I I'm sure that he would not go in guns blazing as he said about Venezuela, but I can see the possibility that he could deploy combat power and dare you to do anything about it. I think that would be just insane, and I I just I'll just throw this out there. I think that there is growing evidence that there is cognitive decline within Trump, and I think that a lot of this stuff is is truly just irrational, and I fear that those things will continue on. And in that vein, he could take action that is just doesn't make any sense even by what used to be understood as being, well, Trump being Trump and he's negotiating whatever, that would imply a cognitive intelligent intention that you wanted to accomplish something and that you know where you'll go and where you won't go. I I don't know that that's the case anymore.
And and I worry that that's that's a problem because now then you can't just calculate, you know, rationality because you have to factor in irrationality, and that's what I worry about.
Speaker 0: Is NATO dead, colonel?
Speaker 1: I think it is. I I think that it's too late. I think that Mark Carney's speech at Davos, I think was another one in in the the cog in that wheel that that people in Europe by the way, I've talked to some people behind the scenes that whatever they may be saying out loud in front that they're behind the scenes that they are in a panic because they realize that, that they can't trust The United States anymore. And Trump, if he survives this long and and his health allows him, he still has three years to go on this. And he was just trashing NATO up one side and down the other in his Davos speech earlier today.
And then you see with his actions what he's doing. And and I think that these countries realize that this is all about you trying to exact tribute from us and trying to demand everything while you give nothing in their opinion. And I think that there are already the calculations that we have to start preparing to go forward. I I have seen some suggestions from some of my European friends that this coalition of the willing mentality, whatever, is is actually a precursor to saying, you know, in the next three to five years, we might need to start saying there's gonna be now a European security architecture. You can just stay over there, America.
They they won't do that quickly because there's you know, it's so intertwined and so reliant right now, especially in defense industrial based capacity, much more reliant on The United States than they can produce at home. But if they start ramping that up and all this claim about, we have to get ready for Russia, could just be that's the cover we're using because we just need to get our own domestic house in order in order to run forward. I think that that's gonna be eventually the case. It it's historically, it's it's it's it's not sustainable to suggest that The United States needs to lead European security literally forever. I think that there will be an end date on that, and and I think that it's just it's been hastened, in late terms, but I think that that's where we're heading and that that's where I read the tea leaves.
Speaker 0: How important is Greenland for for The US militarily? Because I was listening to reports about how if China or Russia decide to strike The US, it'll be through the North Pole. It'll be over Greenland. That's why having defense systems and radar systems in that region is important for The US. But at the same time, The US already has an agreement with Denmark allowing them to essentially put as much military equipment as they want on the on the region in the country, and they haven't done so.
If anything, they've actually removed military equipment from the from the territory instead of increasing the military presence. So that's why the argument, like we have in Venezuela, this is just a narrative. The narrative back then was drugs when it comes to Venezuela. Now the narrative is we need it for security. Which, obviously, you know, we we don't need to to discuss that.
We know this is you know, it's just an excuse. What is the real first, how important is it for security? Is there some truth to that? And second, if the reason is not security, what is the because they could already put military equipment there. What is the real reason The US Yeah.
Trump wants Greenland?
Speaker 1: So I'll just tell you, militarily, it it is complete nonsense. There is no, urgent need at all for you Greenland. As you mentioned, we can expand at at will there, and they'd be they had had no problem doing that. Their foreign minister Rasmussen for the Denmark, said so. Even the Greenland, the the agreements that we have in place would easily allow that without taking possession of it.
But the the idea that we need that and Trump is primarily saying for the Golden Dome, we don't. Number one, that technology doesn't even exist, and it would be massive, massive numbers of hundreds of billions of dollars even if we got something close to it. But as we see with the Iron Dome in in Israel and and the thad and and the the patriots and the the David Sling and all the other kinds of the integrated air defense is is pretty good, but it also there are some things that can get right through it. We already have the Arashnik, which nothing can stop right now. So when and if you're talking about theoretical future capabilities, let's just look at that for a second.
Whatever you think you're gonna get in the future, the offensive missile technology is also working forward to defeat whatever you might do later. Right now, with the arresting and other categories of missiles, for example, even our own in the other direction, there's a lot of things that can't be intercepted now by any technology. The idea that you're gonna get something later on is is a fantasy. So there's no truth to that. And the and the even the conventional issue that China or Russia would take Greenland, I mean, that is irrational.
From their perspective, why would Russia ever wanna risk an article five attack against Greenland when they already have a massive Arctic presence on their own border? And China has no interest or capacity to do so because the route they would have to take militarily to get in either to the north or the Western passage, I I mean, it's it's a physical impossibility. They could never project power that far to and then why would they wanna take on an article five situation? It's irrational, and they won't do it. But that's what's being cited.
And, unfortunately, too many in The United States just accept it at face value, which is absurd. There's none. So then you have to get to the question which you ask, what is really driving it? The best I can come up with and my best theory is that it's just Trump being Trump. Look.
There's Venezuela. I want it. I'm gonna take it. Even though we don't need it, even though it's irrational, it's fill in the blank drugs or whatever else, all nonsense. Greenland, I want it.
I'm gonna take it. Sir, we don't need it. There's it doesn't help us. I don't care. I want it.
Get it. Can I be the minerals
Speaker 0: the mineral the the rare earth and the mineral wealth there as well could be a reason?
Speaker 1: No. That's not I mean, even Trump said in his Davos speech today, a lot of the stuff is under, you know, hundreds of feet of ice and there's no infrastructure. It would take billions of dollars if you made the decision you wanted to get that stuff out. You'd have to have the infrastructure, the roads, the physical capacity to go in, then the the ability to translate that into usable product. All that would be many, many years if you did.
Even then, the cost to extract it would be so high. It's just not economically viable right now. So I don't even think that's the issue other than it's a category and Trump may say, oh, rare earths? Sure. I want that.
But I think that there there's no rational reason. Let me just categorically say that. Security, economics, anything else. We don't need Greenland for our security. We've never needed it.
We are perfectly capable. Our nuclear triad is what keeps us strategically safe, and that's irrelevant to what does or doesn't happen on Greenland. If we wanted more, we can have it, etcetera. So there is no rational reason. The only thing left in my view is something irrational.
Speaker 0: Colonel, final question, and that's the hardest question, especially under this administration. If I ask you to speculate, where would be by the end of the, Trump's, term? Where would Iran be? Where would Greenland be? And where would the Ukraine war be?
Speaker 1: That is you're right. That is a hard one because there are so many branches and sequels and and theoretical possibilities, but if I
Speaker 0: And what's the and what's the and what's and what's the next Greenland? What's the next surprise? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
That that that might
Speaker 1: be an easy one because we can pretty much count on there being something. The the idea that Trump after one year in office and all these issues that we talk about here, that's gonna be it. Seems pretty unlikely to me. So he'll have to find something next. But my biggest concern and and can't predict anything, so I'm not really predicting here except for I have some real concerns that we are gonna push forward, and we're gonna take, we're gonna try and attack Iran in a big way.
And I think we're gonna pay a serious price for it. I think that things go south in Venezuela, they're gonna continue to try and throw wrenches into the works. So they'll they'll they'll cooperate where they're absolutely required to and when pressed, then they'll back down until we get distracted and look somewhere else, and then they'll go back into it. So I don't think that they're gonna do anything that the this idea that we're gonna have this now just take all their oil and they'll be fine with it. I I don't think that's gonna happen.
And and then with the Greenland thing, I either Trump's gonna have to back down because it looks to me like Europe is gonna say, no. This is a red line for us. We're not gonna just give this to you, and I think that they're gonna call his bluff. If he's playing this high stakes voter, I think that they're willing to call it. I don't think they would come to blows if we send force there, then I think that they would stand down because they would calculate that would be bad for their interest, but then that would accelerate, the destruction of NATO.
And the the I I think what Mark Carney talked about in Davos is gonna be reflected by others, and they're gonna say, it's time for us to chart our own path. And that's gonna then I think that the biggest danger of all of this is that the only reason why the US dollar is so profound and so capable is because of the impression of its stability. And this kind of stuff, forget about even the Russia Ukraine war and how that gets solved, All these other things, these self inflicted wounds will cause people around the world to say, this is not stable. I'm gonna look elsewhere. BRICS is, of course, is a perfect opportunity here.
Russia is is actively courting people to come into the and he still said the other day, Putin did, he's still with all that happened in the Russia Ukraine, he's willing to do business with with Europe. That's gonna start sounding awfully appealing in the future if we become the one that looks like we're unstable and that we're the bigger threat to even our own allies' security. And I think that you could the minute that you see the dollar fall off its perch here, then you have economic catastrophe in The United States, and that's, of course, gonna ripple everywhere. That's what I worry about more than anything else is an economic collapse based on our foolish actions abroad, and you can't fix that. Once that goes down, it's gonna be really bad and really long.
Speaker 0: Colonel, always a pleasure. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me on.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss Trump’s shifting foreign policy: Gaza, Venezuela, Ukraine, and now Iran. I note the mixed reactions—some fear, some cautious peace—and explore whether Trump’s unpredictability and distrust of international institutions could threaten global stability. I interview Prof Michael Clarke, who remains skeptical about Trump’s approach and its implications for the U.S. and world.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸 INTERVIEW: ANALYZING TRUMP’S FOREIGN POLICY RE IRAN, VENEZUELA, CHINA, AND RUSSIA Everyone freaked out when Trump spoke about taking over Gaza and turning it into the French Rivera of the Middle East, yet here we are, the war seems close to a permanent end. Everyone freaked out when Trump hinted he may attack Venezuela and force regime change, then he captures Maduro and decides to work with the existing regime, without the catastrophe many were fearing. Everyone freaked out when Trump criticized Zelensky and threatened to halt support, yeh here we are, Trump still supporting Ukraine and we’ve never been closer to peace (although a long way to go) And now everyone freaking out when it comes to Iran: Will Trump attack? Will we have another forever war? Or will he abandon protesters after encouraging them to rise up? Today I sit down with Fmr Director of the Royal United Services Institute Michael Clarke to analyze Trump’s foreign policy, and what that means for Iran, the U.S., and the rest of the world. Michael is a bit more skeptical than I. He fears Trump’s unpredictability and his move away from the international institutions, including the U.N., which have allowed the U.S. to become the superpower it is today, could lead the the country’s downfall. I hope you enjoy this conversation with one of the world’s most respected Defense Studies Academic: Prof Michael Clarke.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy and its global impact.
- Unpredictability as a negotiation asset: Speaker 0 notes that Trump’s rhetoric is out of the norm and concerning, citing statements about Greenland, Iran, Venezuela, and Gaza. Speaker 1 counters that Trump starts with a very tough position and then moderates it as a negotiation tactic, arguing that unpredictability has value but erodes credibility because “what he says this week will not be what he might do next week or the week after.”
- Gaza, Venezuela, and Iran as case studies: Gaza is described as having no peace, only ongoing uncertainty. In Venezuela, Speaker 0 sees a new regime leader working with the old regime, making regime change unlikely; Speaker 1 cautions that Rodriguez would have to dismantle the army and paramilitaries to improve Venezuela, implying changes may be blocked by corruption and drug trafficking networks. In Iran, despite expectations of a strike, Trump did not strike, which Speaker 1 attributes to calculated restraint and the need to avoid provoking Iranian retaliation; Speaker 0 asks why, and Speaker 1 emphasizes the complexity and the risk of escalation.
- Domestic and diplomatic capacity under Trump: Speaker 1 argues the administration relies on nontraditional figures (e.g., Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff) rather than professional diplomats, contributing to a lack of sustained policy execution. He notes the Pentagon, State Department, and National Security Council have been stripped of expertise, with many positions unfilled. He describes diplomacy as being conducted by envoy, with trusted associates who lack deep diplomatic experience.
- Global power shifts and alliances: Speaker 1 says unpredictability can undermine US credibility; however, there is a real shift as the US appears to retreat from international engagement. He asserts that Russia and China have lost clients due to various internal and regional dynamics, while the US withdrawal from international organizations has allowed China to gain influence, including within the UN. He predicts that the US could become weaker in the long run relative to its previous position, even if economically stronger domestically.
- Regional dynamics and potential alliances: The conversation touches on the theoretical possibility of an Islamic or Middle Eastern NATO-like alliance, led by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with potential Turkish involvement. Speaker 1 argues that such an alliance would not resemble NATO but that regional powers are likely to form bilateral and regional arrangements to counterbalance major powers like the US, Russia, and China. In the Middle East, Israel is cast as an influential actor shaping regional alignments, with Gulf states wary of Iranian retaliation and crisis spillover.
- The Iran crisis and military posture: Speaker 1 explains why Gulf states and Israel did not want an immediate strike on Iran due to the risk of massive retaliation and limited US regional presence at the time. He notes the Abraham Lincoln and George H.W. Bush carrier groups' movements suggest potential future force projection, but states that any strike would likely be small if undertaken given current hardware positioning. He suggests the crisis will continue, with Iran’s internal repression and external deterrence shaping the dynamics. He also points to the 2000 missiles and the IRGC’s scale as factors in regional calculations.
- Reflection on impact and timing: The discussion notes the potential for longer-term consequences in US credibility and global influence once Trumpism passes, with the possibility of the US reemerging weaker on the world stage despite possible internal economic strength.
Speaker 0 closes with appreciation for the discussion; Speaker 1 agrees.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was, just speaking to a former CIA officer, and, we're talking about the unpredictability of president Trump
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And how that's an asset in negotiations. And then I made the point, and maybe we can I could maybe get your opinion on that to start off? I made the point is that his rhetoric is not only out of norm, but it is concerning. We will take Greenland through whatever means. You know, we're locked and loaded when it comes to Iran.
We will whatever he said about Venezuela before Maduro, we'll take Venezuela and also the comments about Gaza.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Gaza. We will take Gaza. We'll become the the Dubai of of the region. But then when you look at the actions in where we are, well, in Gaza, the war has ended. We'll see what's gonna happen, at least to an extent it's ended.
In Venezuela, we have a regime we don't have a regime change. Sorry. We have a new leader of the regime, but he's working with the same regime. Everyone was very worried about a regime change in Venezuela. In Iran, when it was very everyone was expecting him to strike, he did not.
So it seems he's being more calculated. I'll I'll pick your brain later on why you think that is and why he didn't end up striking, and and we'll see when it comes to Greenland whether he's just playing hardball to negotiate. But is that a fair characterization where you could say that there's a there's a bit of a paradox between his rhetoric and what's actually happening on the ground, or would you disagree with that with that analysis?
Speaker 1: No. He always starts with a very, very tough position and then modifies that position, and that's his way of negotiation. And the idea of unpredictability, it is a strength in a way, but the price you pay for unpredictability is that no one then believes you. And so Trump can make also if he offers assurances to Israel or to Taiwan or even to his NATO allies that America is thorough thoroughly behind them in their security. No one will believe him because what he says this week will not be what he might do next week or the week after.
So there is a there's an advantage in being unpredictable, but the price you pay for unpredictability is lack of credibility, which is what he what he's suffering from now. And the the the cases you mentioned are all obviously very different. And I think, you know, there there is no there's no peace in Gaza. There is just a a a process of grumbling uncertainty, which will carry on. Venezuela might turn out differently, but it's very hard to believe that Venezuela will have a better future under Rodriguez because if she starts to improve things in Venezuela, then she will have to dismantle the army and the paramilitaries who are all intrinsically corrupt and working with the drug traffickers of Colombia.
So either things don't change in Venezuela, and America still has all the same problems that it had before, or things do change, and Rodriguez is not the person to make that change because she won't be allowed to. Anyway, so we'll we'll see. And, you know, president Trump, the people say he's the taco president. You know, Trump always chickens out. That's not entirely true.
He's he's more like the tally president. Trump always loses interest, and that's the issue. He remain he maintains an interest, a fierce interest for a couple of days, and he says crazy things, and then he loses interest and moves on. And the reason that his the the policy over Gaza was as successful as it was, and there was some success in that, but the reason it was as successful as it was is because he stayed focused on it for about three weeks. And most things, he only stays focused on for two or three days, and that's that's always the problem.
And he doesn't have around him a staff who are capable of carrying through, controversial policy. They can keep asserting it and and declaring it, but they're not very good at carrying it through. And the Pentagon is stripped of all of its expertise. The state department is stripped of its expertise. The National Security Council is stripped of its expertise.
I mean, a lot of experienced people are not now in the administration. And, you know, the joke in the state department is the busiest place in the state department is the canteen because everyone's sitting in the canteen, you know, wondering what they should do next because they don't have proper management from the top down. There's so many positions which are left unfilled. Across The Middle East, there is only, I think, one or two ambassadors in place. There are no American ambassadors, professional ambassadors throughout the region that it's just empty of experience.
Why? So because they've not been appointed. Because the the this administration, it does diplomacy by envoy. So the people who are running everything are Trump's friends. So Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, people at Driscoll, Dan Driscoll in Ukraine.
He relies on a few people whom he trusts, who have no experience in diplomacy, but might be very good at something else, might be very good at at property deals, very good on the stock market. And this in case of Steve Witkoff, he's obviously good at golf as well. And and Trump relies on Witkoff to deal with, Russia, with Gaza, with Iran. Every time there's an issue, he sends Steve Witkoff because he trusts him. And for all with the best will in the world, Witkoff can only do so much, and he's not a professional diplomat, and he's not a particularly good negotiator as it happens.
So what we've got is a Trump administration, which is high on rhetoric. There is some value in that for sure, but the unpredictability it creates is having a very undermining effect on, obviously, on world politics, but it's ultimately gonna have a very undermining effect on The United States. I mean, when when when this when The US emerges from Trumpism, whether in four years time or possibly in twelve years time or even longer than that, when it emerges, it will be it will be a very, very different United States, and it will be much, much weaker throughout world politics. It might be stronger economically, internally. That's possible.
But it will be it will be a very weak state in relation to the rest of the world compared to the state it was five or ten years ago.
Speaker 0: Why would you say that? Because if I'm not saying I disagree, but, again, looking at what's happening on the ground, they've managed to dismantle kind of an alliance that we saw between Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China. Got Russia still busy in Ukraine, and Trump and the envoy trying to end it. Whether they're doing a good job or not, we'll we'll see later. We've got Syria, also part of the alliance, gone.
Assad is gone. We've got Iran, the worst crisis they've had since inception in 1979. And, obviously, Venezuela is now under new leadership that seems to be a lot more lenient with The US. Wouldn't you say that's been surprisingly I was very skeptical, but surprisingly successful foreign policy so far by the administration, weakening all their enemies and being able to then focus on China? They've been able to choke off Chinese oil supply if they manage to conduct regime change in Iran.
Then they'd be able to choke off supply of oil from Iran, and they've got control of supply, oil supply from Venezuela as well. Would you would you give them credit for that, or you've got No.
Speaker 1: I'll give them some credit. Of course, if you if you're a great disruptor in world politics, things will change and some things will change for the better from your point of view. So from the advantage you know, there is some advantage in that. And you're undoubtedly right that, I mean, the the the Russians and the Chinese have lost a lot of their clients in the last year for a range of reasons. So, you know, things have happened in Syria, but that wasn't that wasn't America nor Russia.
That was internally directed and internally created. By backing Israel, over the Gaza war, backing it so strongly, that has produced change across The Middle East. So a whole series of clients of Iran have gone, and Iran is now in manifest crisis. Venezuela, I'm I'm very skeptical about Venezuela because the the oil in Venezuela is not gonna flow for a very long time. It will take at least 200,000,000,000 over a decade to put the Venezuelan oil industry back together again, and no American oil companies actually are are queuing up to do it even though they've talked to Trump about it.
And I I I think Venezuela may go terribly wrong, but we'll see. I don't wanna. I'm not I'm not wishing it to go wrong, but I think it I think Venezuela is just the beginning of a long, long process. So I think, yes, these unpredictable things will always have some outcomes which might turn out to be surprisingly positive. That's just the law of averages.
But I don't think anybody could say that president Trump has got a strategy to create these sorts of things. His strategy is all based, in far as he thinks about it, on what his instinct is on any given day. And because his strategy is very disruptive, it creates, you know, unintended consequences. But I think, you know, underlying all of that, I mean, he he went into battle with China over tariffs on April, and he was like a boxer coming out of his corner swinging wildly at China. And he was on the canvas three times in the first round.
Firstly, because they met him with with similar tariffs, 145%, and they weren't frightened of that. And they, you know, and that effectively was going to bring a complete end to China American trade. And the Chinese only depend on on America for 10% of their trade now. It used to be 20%, now it's 10%. So they did that.
Then they introduced, restrictions on rare earths as if and the Americans didn't seem to have thought of this. I mean, some of us have been writing about rare earths for about ten years, but that took them by surprise. Then they actually prevented the import of soybeans from American farmers. And so for a third time, Trump was on the canvas. So he goes to the summit in South Korea in October and says we've got a great deal.
He didn't at all. I mean, he came away and he'd lost on every issue on that. So and and that's what the the world group of analysts in the world had had realized, that whatever he said about that summit, he was the loser, China was the winner. And so on on Chinese relations, the Chinese have now flexed their muscles, and he's gone very cool on the China issue. I mean, he's now talking about, you know, doing deals with China.
He was talking about dominating China, stopping China doing this, stopping China doing that. Look at what he's done on TikTok. He's gone along with China on TikTok. He claims he hasn't, but actually, look at who's got the algorithm of TikTok, China. They still they still can use TikTok to penetrate into American society at a very low level.
Look what he's done on NVIDIA chips. Again, he said we won't allow NVIDIA chips to go to China. Yes. They do. Now they do go to China, again, at very high levels.
And he's not actually pushing China now over tariffs. I mean, the tariff level on China is now down below 20% in reality, and the Chinese are just sticking with that. So, you know, while that's been going on, the Chinese are sweeping the board in Africa. They're still, dealing quite heavily with Latin America, and that really upsets Trump. And as the Brazil.
As the, United States withdraws from international organizations, last week, it withdrew from sixty sixty different international organizations, and the Chinese just move in. The Chinese now basically run the United Nations. You know, the UN used to be very much run by America and the western powers, and there was obviously tension about that because the the global South didn't like it, and there's a big pushback against that. It's been going on for thirty or forty years. But who is now essentially you know, who is influencing the UN more than anyone else?
China. And so, you know, what is happening is that as this America first policy is so chaotic and it's so without an an overriding sense of what America is really trying to do, the Chinese are just walking into all the America all the areas that America is vacating. So that's why I think that in the long run, America will be much, much weaker in, say, ten or fifteen years time than it was five years ago. I may be proved wrong, but that's where I think it is heading.
Speaker 0: Should we look into that alliance, the Article five like alliance between Pakistan and Saudi and the possibility that Turkey could join that alliance? Is there a possibility we could see like an Islamic version or Middle Eastern version of NATO?
Speaker 1: Well, it won't it won't look like NATO. I mean, NATO is very unique, although it may not be with us for too much longer. But, I mean, NATO was a very important alliance. I mean, came together in very in circumstance of enormous threat, external threat. And it's unique in being an alliance of forces in being.
So NATO doesn't just commit itself to defend, you know, each other. They actually have forces ready to go, at least in theory. It's it's an alliance in being, a military alliance in being. It's very hard to imagine that would be the case, within a sort of Middle East Islamic alliance, but you're absolutely right. The, I think we may well see, the rise of other alliance relationships because countries now know that we're living in a in a world of great power bullies.
And so, you know, Russia, China, and America, in their own ways, are bullies. They believe in spheres of influence. They all prefer bilateral relationships. Of course, they do. They don't they don't like dealing with the EU or NATO or even the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
They don't like dealing with multilateral organizations. They much prefer to deal bilaterally. You know, Russia Russia and Iran or China and Indonesia, whatever it might be, United States and Argentina. They like bilateral relations because that exacerbates or exaggerates their relative difference in power. And as a result of that, I think we will see far more alliances and arrangements, regional arrangements between countries that feel as if they have to create some sort of common framework to in order to deal with Russia, China, and The United States for the future.
Speaker 0: And in The Middle East for The Middle East, their version of Russia, so NATO was there to deter Russia. In The Middle East, it will be deter Israel, which is acting like the Middle East is their sphere of influence now.
Speaker 1: Correct. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And there's also the argument that the Gulf nations, you know, Saudi, The UAE, and other countries played a role in convincing Trump not to strike Iran for various reasons not to have, you know, destabilized reason. Iran was also seen as deterrent to Israel, which is seen more hostile towards Gulf nations after the strikes on Qatar. Do you think there could be truth to that? Because there's also the other argument being made that Israel asked The US not to strike Iran because Israel was not ready for Iranian retaliation, which I found hard to believe. Israel, I thought, would be always ready for Iranian attacks, especially during times of protest times of unrest.
And then there's the argument that Trump himself decided not to strike Iran due to the circumstances. And the last one is is all a bluff. Where do you stand on this? The Gulf nations convincing him, Israel, Trump convincing himself as he said, or is he just bluffing before a strike in the next few days and weeks, especially with the, the the USS Abraham Lincoln heading to the region now?
Speaker 1: Well, I think you're no. I think you're you're I it wasn't all a bluff, but, I think there were several factors at play which all reinforced each other. So for sure, the Gulf States didn't want to strike on Iran because they feared just the the the the danger of retaliation because the Iranians are are reliably believed to have at least 2,000 missiles still available and buried. And remember the IRGC is, what, 200,000 strong, and it's still there. It's still organized.
The the Badji's, militia is 600,000 strong. I mean, there's still a very strong structure in Iran. So undoubtedly, the Iranians had the ability to unveil some of some of these missiles and throw them around the the region in retaliation. And I think that was a serious issue for many countries. The Israelis, it was a serious issue for them, not that they're not prepared, but they they prefer it not to happen at the moment anyway.
That was one thing. And the Gulf States just didn't wanna see this this crisis get worse because although they've got no love for the Iranian regime, they don't want to collapse in Iran because of the regional instability that that might cause. And then The United States, I mean, I was saying this, you know, on on British TV for the days beforehand. The US had nothing in place. They they the last time that they had a carrier battle group in The Middle East, was in last October.
And they'd had a carrier battle group in the area for two years consistently until last October when the the the last one was withdrawn. And they all they had in the area were three destroyers, three Arleigh Burke destroyers, which are air defense weapons, very powerful, but you can't launch aircraft from them. And then they three they had three, literal combat ships, which are really like corvettes. They've got a helicopter and some guns on them, but they're little small warships. And that's all they had, three destroyers and three, corvettes in effect.
And so they didn't have anything in place that would really give them the coverage that they needed. They had aircraft at Al Udide in Qatar, and they brought in more f 30 fives in Qatar, and they sort of put a lot of tankers in air air tankers to get to give them ability to run longer range flights. But they didn't, as far as I could see, have enough ships in the region that could launch our submarines, that could launch Tomahawk missiles. And that's what they would have wanted to do. If there'd been a strike on Iran, they would have have used Tomahawk missiles against all of Iran's existing air defense such as it still is, and then use the Tomahawks for very accurate strikes on particular command centers.
I just think they didn't have enough in place. Now the Abraham Lincoln, as you say, was in the South China Sea, and the Abraham Lincoln has come through the Strait Of Malacca and is on its way. It will be there in about three or four more days. The George, the, the George Bush carrier has left Norfolk, Virginia and is coming across the Atlantic, and that will will will come into the Mediterranean and may go to the Eastern Mediterranean or it might go through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea. We don't know.
But they're gonna have two carriers carrier battle groups on station in about a week's time, and that will give them the the military hardware they need if a strike on Iran were then still relevant. But, you know, there's all sorts of arguments about whether it would do any good or not, whether it would have whether it would be counterproductive. But I was convinced last week that the Americans, if they if they had used what they had in the region, any strike they conducted would be relatively small because they just didn't have enough hardware in the right place when president Trump was talking up all these things about, you know, we'll hit you very hard, and he was saying to protesters, come out and protest. Help. Help is on its way.
I mean, that was ridiculous. You know, the last time an American president said something like that to, populations in the Middle East was, George Bush senior in 1991 when he urged the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds, Marsh Arabs in the South Of Iraq and the Kurds in the North Of Iraq to come out onto the streets against Saddam Hussein. And that's what they did, and America stood back, and they were massacred by Saddam while the the world looked on.
Speaker 0: What's the purpose of these comments? And I'll read out what he said. He said, if Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, The US will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go. Yeah.
And then January 13, eleven days later, Iranian patriots, keep protesting. Take over your institutions. Help is on its way. He he put his everyone thought he dug a hole for himself, and he has to retaliate.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And why didn't he? Is that is he worried about is he planning, as I said earlier, moving the the the two aircraft carriers to the region, planning a more significant operation on Iran preparing for war? Is that why he did not conduct a symbolic strike, or is he worried about Iranian retaliation, which you've kinda hinted at earlier?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think it was both. I mean, one is that any strike that he took then when he made those statements would have been largely symbolic, and the world would have seen that, and it would have weakened him. And it would have attracted retaliation, and they weren't in very good order to take retaliation. They would have had to live with it for another couple of weeks before they could have done anything about it.
They wouldn't have been able to strike back quickly, you know, immediately. And so I think, you know, he I don't know why he was making those comments. I I he lives from day to day. He lives on his instinct. He doesn't really listen to other people, and I don't think he'd thought through what the importance of those comments really was.
And that I think that's the the issue with, Donald Trump. And I think he the the Americans will have material in place in, say, ten days time, and they that the option of strikes will be back on the table. The other thing is that remember that having as you said, he he put it he painted himself into a corner making those statements.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And then twenty four hours later said, oh, they've stopped killing people now. They're not hanging people. Well, the evidence is that they are still killing people, but it's not out on the streets. So it gives him the ability to say, well, my word stopped it. And I have to say, in in the case of one or two executions, public executions, his words did stop it.
And so for the for that, you know, the the young journalist who was sentenced to death, I mean, if he's still alive, I hope he is, but he he owes his life to Donald Trump because, you know, Trump's rhetoric did have the effect of of making the Iranians reverse that decision that they'd made to execute him the following morning. So I think that that the the Americans are now thinking in longer term ways that they want to have more hardware in place in the coming weeks because this crisis will go on. I mean, this crisis in Iran is certainly not over, and at some point, quite soon probably, people will come back out onto the streets, even though this dreadful massacre has been taking place. But I think, you know, they're they're not gonna stop. This this crisis will go on.
Speaker 0: Professor, absolute pleasure to speak to you. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: Pleasure. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
Aisha Gaddafi warns Iranians not to trust Western promises of peace, saying her father disarmed Libya and was bombed by NATO. She argues that any deal with Western powers delays Iran’s independence and could lead to destruction, using Libya’s fate as a cautionary example. The claim is supported by a Pravda EN report (Jan 13, 2026) and an African Mirror piece from 2025; verdict: the warning is valid as a caution.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇱🇾 🇮🇷 GADDAFI'S DAUGHTER WARNS IRANIANS: “NEGOTIATING WITH THE WOLF WILL NOT SAVE THE LAMB” Aisha Gaddafi sent a message to the people of Iran: don’t trust the West, or you'll end up like Libya. She says her father gave up nukes hoping for peace, but got bombed by NATO instead. “Libya drowned in blood,” she says, blaming Western lies and betrayal. To Iranians, she says: your strength under pressure shows real independence, but any deal with your enemy only delays your destruction. Source: @SilentlySirs
@FactProtocol - Fact Protocol
@MarioNawfal Fact Check! @0xProvenance
@0xProvenance - Provenance Fact-Check
✅ Verdict: True. Aisha Gaddafi has indeed warned Iranians not to trust Western promises of peace, echoing her father's Libya experience where nuclear disarmament led to NATO bombs instead of security. Key Evidence: A January 13, 2026, report in Pravda EN details her message to 'the proud and steadfast people of Iran,' highlighting Western imperialists' betrayal after Muammar Gaddafi shut down his nuclear program. The African Mirror in 2025 also covered a similar cautionary voice from Gaddafi amid Iran-Israel tensions. Bottom Line: The claim holds up, serving as a stark reminder of Libya's post-disarmament downfall—Iranians should heed the lesson or risk a similar fate.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss whether Trump’s plan to strike Iran aims for full regime change or merely replacing the Supreme Leader with a more lenient figure. If regime change, Iran and the region face grave danger. My guest, Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute, outlines Iran’s likely retaliation and a possible civil war, shaped by Israeli and Gulf ambitions and U.S. goals. He notes sanctions shattered the middle class, complicating reform and raising the risk of broader conflict.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇮🇷 EMERGENCY INTERVIEW: U.S. TO STRIKE IRAN - WHAT COMES NEXT It’s almost definite now, Trump is planning to strike Iran. The only question is: What’s his objective? Is it a complete regime change, or a Venezuela-like goal to replace the Supreme Leader with a more lenient member of the same regime? If it’s the former, then Iran, and the region, are in deep trouble. My guest today, Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi, escaped Iran during the 1979 revolution, and his family has been targeted and jailed by both the current regime and the previous Monarchy. He breaks down the repercussions of a regime change, how Iran will retaliate to U.S. strikes, and the increasing risk of a civil was in the country. He also makes a very interesting point: Iran is at the mercy of Israeli ambitions (the destruction of the current regime and the country’s military capabilities) and American/Gulf ambitions (a stable regime with possibly a new leader more friendly to the West). I enjoyed this interview as Trita, an expert in the region, does not take sides. He’s very critical of the current regime, not a fan of the previous one, and thinks any American strikes on the country could have devastating consequences. We both agreed: The current regime is terrible, but a regime change may end up being worse if not executed properly and carefully. 03:25 – The protests in Iran were not the trigger for war planning; if anything, they delayed it. 04:02 – The original justification for attacking Iran came from Israeli concerns over missile threats, not internal unrest. 06:41 – The roots of Iran's current instability lie in sanctions that intentionally devastated the middle class. 09:16 – Some Iranians now view outside military intervention as the only path to regime change due to desperation. 11:32 – Gulf states are alarmed by Israeli aggression and fear instability from regime collapse, despite opposing Iran. 14:13 – A power vacuum in Iran could lead to civil war, refugee flows, and wider regional destabilization. 17:24 – Saudi, Turkey, and Pakistan may be quietly forming a bloc to counterbalance Israeli hegemony in the region. 20:11 – Iran’s fractured opposition lacks strength partly because sanctions crushed the middle class that fuels reform. 23:17 – Reza Pahlavi has grown closer to Israel, leading to division and backlash within the exile opposition. 25:07 – Monarchist support in Iran is hard to quantify—some chants back him, others reject him outright. 26:09 – Pahlavi says he wants democracy, but critics argue his conduct and followers cast doubt on that claim. 31:50 – Trita Parsi’s family fled Iran before the revolution; both the Shah and the Islamic Republic persecuted them. 34:24 – Iran’s internet blackout has cut off communications, and exact casualty numbers remain unclear. 37:10 – Hundreds of regime security forces have also been killed, suggesting an unprecedented level of resistance. 39:42 – Kurdish separatist groups may be exploiting the unrest, but aren't representative of the broader protest movement. 43:32 – Israel may see Iran’s total collapse as a strategic goal, even if it causes long-term regional chaos. 45:28 – Sanctions have historically made democratic transitions harder by weakening civil society more than regimes. 47:16 – US interests differ from Israel’s: Washington may want regime change, but not a failed or fragmented state. 50:23 – A Maduro-style solution could be attempted, but unlike Venezuela, the US has fewer internal contacts in Iran. 51:39 – Israel may push for not just regime change but destruction of Iran’s entire military infrastructure.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on Iran’s current crisis and the likelihood, timing, and aims of potential U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran. The speakers discuss whether protests inside Iran are driving any attack plans or if those plans were made beforehand, and what the objectives might be if war occurs.
Key points and claims, preserved as stated:
- The Iranian regime is described as facing its worst crisis since 1979, with reports of thousands dead, and questions about whether the U.S. and possibly Israel will strike Iran, and what their objectives would be (regime change vs installing a new leader under the supreme leader).
- The interviewer introduces Trita Parsi, noting his nuanced, non-dual position and his personal history of fleeing Iran around the revolution.
- The analysts discuss whether a war plan against Iran existed before the protests; Speaker 1 (Parsi) argues the plan was made prior to the protests and that the protests did not cause the decision. He says the Israelis intended to provoke the U.S. into war, but the sequence shifted so the United States would lead with Israel in a supporting role. He notes Netanyahu’s unusual quiet and suggests a deliberate effort to present this as Trump’s war, not Israel’s, though he believes the plan originated in Washington in late December at the White House.
- The protests are said to be organic and not instigated from abroad, with possible slight slowing of plans due to the protests. The rationale for striking Iran initially emphasized Israeli concerns about Iranian missile capabilities and their potential rebuilding of missiles and, ambiguously, nuclear ambitions; there was no credible media evidence presented to support new nuclear development claims, according to Speaker 1.
- The justification for an attack is viewed as a pretext tied to “unfinished business,” with the broader aim of addressing Iran’s missile program and perceived threats, rather than the protests alone. The discussion notes that pro-Iran regime factions in the U.S. may find protests more persuasive among centrist Democrats, but less so among MAGA or core Trump supporters.
- The origins of the protests are described as organic, driven by currency collapse and sanctions, which Speaker 1 connects to decades of sanctions and the economic crisis in Iran. He states sanctions were designed to produce desperation to create a window for outside intervention, though he emphasizes this does not mean the protests are purely externally driven.
- The role of sanctions is elaborated: Pompeo’s “maximum pressure” statement is cited as intentional to create conditions for regime change, with Speaker 0 highlighting the destruction of Iran’s economy as a method to weaken the regime and empower opposition. Speaker 1 agrees the sanctions contributed to economic distress but stresses that the protests’ roots are broader than the economy alone.
- The discussion considers whether the protests could be used to justify external action and whether a regional or global backlash could ensue, including refugee flows and regional instability affecting Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and GCC states. It’s noted that the U.S. and some regional actors would prefer to avoid a total collapse of Iran, while Israel would welcome greater upheaval if it constrains Iranian capabilities.
- The question of a power vacuum inside Iran is addressed. Speaker 1 argues there is no obvious internal opposition strong enough to quickly replace the regime; MeK is excluded as a coalition partner in current Iran opposition movements. The Pahlavi (Reza Pallavi) faction is discussed as a possible figurehead outside Iran, with debate about his domestic support. The MEK is described as outside any coalition due to its history.
- Pallavi’s potential role: Speaker 1 suggests Pallavi has gained closer ties with Israel and some pro-Israel circles in Washington, but emphasizes that domestic support inside Iran remains uncertain and difficult to gauge. Pallavi says he would seek a democratically elected leader if the regime falls; Speaker 1 cautions that words alone are insufficient without proven ability to secure loyalty from security forces and to persuade key societal sectors.
- The Shah’s legacy and comparison: The Shah’s regime is described as highly repressive but comparatively more open socially and economically, though with a discredited political system. The current regime disperses power within a more complex system where the supreme leader is central but not incomparable to past autocrats.
- The potential for separatism and regional spillover is discussed, including Kurdish separatism in western Iran. Speaker 1 clarifies that the Kurdish group is not part of the protests but a separate element taking advantage of the situation; the risk of civil war if the state collapses is acknowledged as a nightmare scenario.
- The possibility of a Maduro-like approach (managed transition through elite elements) is considered. While channels of communication exist, Speaker 1 doubts the same dynamics as Venezuela; Iran lacks internal continuity in the security establishment, making a similar path unlikely.
- Military retaliation dynamics are examined: Iran’s response to limited U.S. strikes could be symbolic or broader, including potential strikes on U.S. bases in the region. The possibility that Israel would push the United States to target Iran’s military capabilities rather than just decapitation is discussed, with notes about potential after-effects and regional reactions.
- The 12-day war context and Iran’s current military capabilities: There is debate about whether Iran’s military could be a greater threat to U.S. bases than previously believed and about how easily Iranian missile launches could be located and neutralized.
- The closing forecast: The likely trajectory depends on the next few days. A limited, negotiated strike could lead to negotiations and a transformed regime with lifted sanctions, perhaps avoiding a wholesale regime change; a more aggressive or decapitating approach could provoke substantial instability and regional repercussions. The conversation ends with a personal note of concern for Parsi’s family in Iran.
- Final reflection: The interview ends with expressions of concern for family safety and a mutual appreciation for the discussion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Iranian regime is facing its worst crisis in its existence since 1979. There's reports of thousands dead in the country right now, and it's almost certain that The US and maybe Israel will strike Iran. The only question is to what extent and what their objective is. Is it to find a new leader other than the supreme leader or a complete regime change? And, also, how will Iran retaliate, and how far will this war, will go on for?
Today, I interviewed Trita Parsi, who escaped Iran during the revolution with his family, and his family was targeted by both the Shah prior to the regime and under the current regime. What I like about his position, he's very nuanced and does not take sides. So I hope you enjoy this conversation where we break down the protests, what the outcome could be, where America could strike, and what happens next. I hope you enjoy the conversation. And last time we spoke, we were talking.
It was not long after the twelve day war, and we were talking on whether there'll be a new war before the end of, early this year or before the end of last year. And it seems the way I see it is that there was a covert war to destabilize Iran and their economy. You just wait for people to rise up. But what do you make of the state of Iran today compared to what you you expected to see a few months ago?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the big change, if we start from the geopolitical standpoint, is that my expectation was that the Israelis would try to start a war and try to get The US into it and that the the Israelis at most would be able to convince Trump to play a supporting role in the attack, perhaps more than they did in June, but not take the lead. What I think happened in Mar A Lago is that the Israelis managed to convince Trump to actually take the lead, and that the war that will happen, I believe it's very likely to happen very soon, actually, is going to be led by The United States with Israelis having a supporting role. So it's kind of a reverse, scenario in that sense. I don't think that the protests have actually played a major role in all of this, potentially having delayed the plan slightly. I think the decisions were made already in Mar A Lago or at the White House when he was there.
I find it curious that for the last ten days or so, Netanyahu has been remarkably quiet and unseen, which is quite unusual for him. I think there's a very deliberate effort to try to make it clear or or give the impression, a false impression in my view, that the Israelis did not push The US into this war, but rather that this is Trump's war. It's his decision. He wanted to do it. It is it is his idea.
But I don't think that is the truth. I think the truth is that the Israelis came with a plan to him in Mar A Lago, and and on December 29 at the White House, and the decision was made already then. And and someway, somehow, Trump agreed to take the lead on this, but I don't think it was his idea.
Speaker 0: But you're saying that the decision to go to war with Iran or to strike Iran is not because of the protest. It was planned even prior to the protests, and the protest just possibly make it even easier to to to to to change the regime?
Speaker 1: The protests have nothing to do with this at most. I think it may actually have delayed it. This is also what some Israelis have been saying, that, the plans were to move faster than this, but that the protest may have delayed the attack, may have given a bit of a pause. But the idea that The United States or that Trump would go to war over protest in another country, I I think, is, extremely difficult to convince anyone who actually follows what's happening in the world, but also what's happening in The United States itself.
Speaker 0: But the protests are being used by Trump as justification for the strikes. Sure. What would have been the justification if not for the protests?
Speaker 1: The justification when the Israelis came here was even before the protests really had begun, was the fact that the Israelis believe that the Iranians the missile capabilities is a major threat to them and that those need to be taken out, that the Iranians are rebuilding them. They were also hinting that the Iranians are rebuilding the nuclear program, whether there was any credible evidence and intelligence presented along those ways. We have not seen. Nothing has been put in the media to suggest that. But, nevertheless, the real, deal of all of this was the same logic as before, which is that this was unfinished business.
Israel did not win the war in in the in June. It was an indecisive outcome at most. Take a look at how the Israelis had to be dragged to a ceasefire in Gaza after two years. And every time they even agreed to a ceasefire, quickly, they broke it, and eventually the ceasefire broke down. Same thing with Lebanon, perhaps not as long of a time period.
In this case, after nine days, the Israelis started to float the idea that they would agree to a ceasefire. That is because there was mutual damage taking place. The missiles were very, very problematic for the Israelis, and that is what they led with when they came to Washington on December 29 that the missile program is the real issue. So, I I do think that the geopolitical, military reasons for this is overwhelming. The idea that Donald Trump is moved by protests and that that is something that actually is the real reason for it is it it's just, you know, laughable.
Is it an effective, justification or pretext for an attack or even seen as an opportunity to attack because the turmoil inside the country provides better opportunities, yes, that could definitely be the case. The question of who within the American system, the American electorate will be more convinced by the, the justification based on the protest. Amongst the MAGA crowd, I find that very difficult to believe that they care about this. I mean, in fact, they care about their own borders and things of that nature, and anything that smells like regime change or they're gonna go save people from on the other side of the earth is something that we have seen that they have not been particularly moved by. More traditional Republicans, the older crowd, the 55 plus, yes, for them, perhaps, this is an effective argument.
But, otherwise, the people who tend to be most convinced by that argument are centrist Democrats, and that's not Donald Trump's audience or his electorate. So, yes, he may be using that as a pretext, as a as a justification for it, but I think it has nothing to do with the actual decision.
Speaker 0: Interesting. So the plan for a war with Iran was made even before the protests gained steam. The protests are either coincidental or part of the plan, you know, maybe covert operations to try to harm further harm Iran's economy or infrastructure leading to to to more anger among the protesters. That was already been building up for many, many years. This is not the first protest we've seen in Iran as Yeah.
Speaker 1: The the the origins of these protests are entirely organic. I don't think this was instigated from the outside. Now may there may have been elements afterwards who were trying to fuel it further, and we can talk about that. But I think the origins of it is completely organic. It was triggered by the collapse of the currency.
The collapse of the currency, of course, is directly related to the sanctions, and the sanctions have, over the course of twenty years, created a devastating economic situation inside of Iran in which you can see how people have grown increasingly desperate. All of their efforts to get rid of this regime, whether it's through reform, whether it was through the twenty twenty two protest, etcetera, have failed. And it has created scenario in which a growing number, I don't say that's necessarily at all a majority, but a growing number of people feel that there have to be something, even something radical, violence or even an attack from the outside that gets rid of this regime because the internal situation is so intolerable and they don't see any other way out. I personally fully understand that perspective, but I think one has to take a step back and ask oneself, how did that situation come about that this level of desperation is felt? And reality is that the roots of that is a combination of the regime's own repression, its refusal to meet the population halfway, and a devastating economic situation, which is primarily, not only, but primarily driven by the sanctions.
And the intent of the sanctions was to do exactly this. When Mike Pompeo, when he imposed the maximum pressure sanctions, said that we want to make sure the Iranians don't have food to eat. Well, it was said because this was designed to lead to this type of scenario, designed to lead to this type of a desperation, which then would create at least a small constituency or at least a constituency inside the population that felt so desperate that they even would want to have outside military intervention despite of the track record in Afghanistan, despite the track record of Iraq.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I got my phone out while you were speaking because I was writing something very those lines. Essentially, I'll read out what I what I wrote. I haven't posted it yet. The way in which The US and Israel decapitated Iran is insane.
One, kill their economy through crippling sanctions, which you've just made clear, and you've used a quote from Mike Pompeo. Hurting the economy, including the Iranian people, makes the regime weaker, gives the Iranian people reason to stand up to the regime, which has also mismanaged the economy. To also be clear, previous protests are not because of the economy. This is not the only issue. There is a grassroots movement or or anger among people in Iran that are generally more educated, more secular, less ideological, especially the younger generation.
So that was point one, which is what what you've been talking about, and I'll I'll go through the rest of them. We'd love to get your thoughts on them, Trita. Number two is to destroy their proxies one by one. We saw that with Hezbollah. We saw that with the Houthis and, obviously, Hamas and even Assad and and to an extent Maduro, even though the intention is probably not Iran.
Three, a surprise attack to destroy their military capabilities over twelve days. So that was the bluff from Trump. And then during that bluff, was a surprise attack by Israel that killed a lot of their leaders and their air defense systems as well. Number four, continue sabotaging their economy from within. So as a report, someone's more speculative that Mossad has been playing a role, maybe other forms of intelligence, to continue sabotaging Iran's electricity grid, water supply, and the economy as a whole to lead to the complete collapse that we saw today.
So I think it's a mix of foreign intervention, but the majority is obviously the sanctions and mismanagement. Number five, wait for the people to rise up as they get poorer. Six, support the protests covertly, which we're seeing now and becoming more overtly with Starlink and Trump's comments. Seven, is more what could happen that's the military strikes to erode the regime's grip on power and lead to maybe some defections. And last thing I said is less hope.
There's a final point point eight, which is a plan for the day after. Would love to get your thoughts on this general strategy because it it does it from the outside. You look at how Iran's been decapitated. A few years ago, it was unheard of to talk about a direct war with Iran. Now people have accepted it as inevitable, and they're not too worried about the repercussions either because of how weakened Iran has become and and as well as their proxies.
Where do you stand on this?
Speaker 1: So a lot of things to unpack and a very interesting list. Let me give you first an an overall picture reaction. I think we should not try to think that this was so neatly planned altogether. I think this is more a strategy perhaps coming together than a strategy from the outset. Now without a doubt, there's been a plant, you know, with the sanctions to be able to get to a, b, and c, etcetera.
But how it then later on played out, I think, has a lot of elements of being overtaken by events, etcetera, etcetera, reacting to the situation rather than everything following a very, very neat plan. So that's the first comment. But overall, I think there's a lot of elements in what you said that are true. First of all, on the sanctions, absolutely. The I I remember when there were protests in Iran during the negotiations over the JCPOA and how some of the, people in the White House at the time that had were also negotiating were, like, very, very excited thinking this could be what actually brings down the regime, and as a result, they would have a negotiation on the capitulation of the country rather than on the nuclear issue.
So this has always been the case. You know, you don't impose sanctions of this kind, with the expectation that something else will happen. This is exactly what the plan is. And, thankfully, you have statements from some of these, officials in which they actually make it clear that that is the intent. On the other points, when it comes to the different groups from Hezbollah to others, absolutely, that has been what the Israelis have been saying, that in order to be able to take on Iran, they first need to take on these other elements that are part of what the Iranians call their forward defense.
And that's as as we talked last time, because of all of the restrictions being lifted on Israel, the Israelis are very content with how they have managed to defeat many of these different group or significantly weaken them. And they believe that this has then exposed Iran to the point in which an attack is much easier than it otherwise would have been, and I think there's that's an accurate assessment. You mentioned that people are not worried about war any longer. I would say that's probably true in the sense of the perception in the US government or in the Israeli government in which they believe that the cost of going to war is dramatically different today than what it would have been three years ago. But when it comes to regional reactions, and we can perhaps talk about that later on in greater detail, I think there's a significant amount of worry because it's not about whether Iran is militarily defeated fast or not, it's what comes afterwards.
Is it going to be a dramatically successful transition to some sort of a democratic or nevertheless effective government, or is it more likely to lead to civil war, to chaos, instability that spills over, and you have 90,000,000 people, massive refugee flows, and that would dramatically impact Pakistan, Turkey, perhaps even Russia to a certain extent, some of the GCC countries, Iraq. Eventually, a lot of a large number of Iranians would likely seek to go to Europe if the situation is completely unstable in the country, And this will be devastating for the region as a whole. The only country in the region that is completely insulated from this is Israel. Israel was insulated from the massive flows of refugees out of Syria despite the fact that it's right on its border. No one in Syria fled to Israel.
They all tried to flee to Turkey and then to Europe or to Jordan. So there will be a lot of repercussions because of the that instability that many of these countries are worried about. But there's also another geopolitical element to this that I think is very fascinating is a completely new scenario, which is that as a result of The United States lifting all of these restraints on Israel, and Israel has now attacked, what is it, seven or nine countries in the region since 2023. It has been increasingly reckless even attacking Doha, and this then signals very clearly to a lot of particularly the GCC states that your alliance with The United States actually does not necessarily defend you against Israel as Israel is becoming increasingly aggressive and is seeking to establish what many GCC countries now view as an Israeli hegemony in the region. And if you don't have protection from Israel through your alliance with The United States, which they thought they would, but they didn't, then you need to have some other form of configuration in the region in order to be able to balance against what they perceive as an increasingly aggressive Israel.
That's part of the reason why you do see, the beginnings of a Turkey, Saudi, Pakistani alliance here. It is aimed at balancing Israel. And even though Iran is not part of that configuration officially, unofficially, it does serve as a buffer between that new configuration and Israel. You have chaos in Iran or a completely weakened Iran or perhaps even worse from their standpoint, an Iran that has a pro Israeli puppet running it, then that is a significant blow to these countries. And that's part of the reason why you have these countries who otherwise have absolutely no love for the Islamic Republic.
They have no reason to have any love for the Islamic Republic actually pushing very much against this type of a confrontation. Whether they succeed or not, of course, is a different story. But that's a very different scenario compared to what we saw just a couple of years ago, just as much as you said that the US government is less concerned about war because the cost for them is less. I think in the region now, the view is that the cost is way more than it was before, not just because of the chaos and the refugee flows that could happen. There's no guarantee, of course, but also because of this other geopolitical reality.
Speaker 0: A lot of points made there. I like you that you've mentioned that alliance between Turkey, Saudi, and Pakistan. I think it's very important, and and the the way you framed it as around being a buffer between the rest of the the Gulf countries, the rest of the the countries in the region, and Israel, which is becoming more and more reckless. We've also talked about something very important is what happens if the Iranian regime falls, because there is no clear opposition party or opposition leader. The closest one we have is Reza Pallavi, which I'm not sure if you've implied he could be an Israeli puppet.
I'm not sure if you're referring to him or not, but many many people label him as such. Now how much support he has in Iran, I'd love your take, but I get mixed messages depending who I ask. And also the so when there is such a power vacuum, what happens to the country? A country that borders seven other nations, including Turkey, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and a country of over 90,000,000 people. And that's what really worries me as much as I despise or or dislike the Iranian regime.
So my next question to you is, first, are you referring to the prince as the potential Israeli puppet, or are you talking in general an Israeli puppet? And second is who replaces the regime if the regime
Speaker 1: falls? Yes. So let's let's first address something that you said that there isn't any real opposition. I think to a certain extent, you're quite right, but we also have to ask ourselves why. Given the fact that this is an unbelievably unpopular regime, It has been tremendously repressive at home.
It has been tremendously incompetent in its management of the country. There should be strong opposition groups, whether it's inside or outside, and yet we don't see strong ones. Well, there's a couple of reasons for this. First of all, the repression internally has really been effective in terms of eliminating any type of internal opposition, but there nevertheless has been internal opposition in the NGO sector, in within civil society, but they are facing pressure not just from the regime, which, of course, is the primary one, and it's the most repressive one, but they're also pressured because of the sanctions. You need a strong middle class to have a democratic opposition, and what the sanctions have done is that it has decimated the Iran, middle class.
Those are that is the segment of society that produces the type of civil society opposition to the regime, and the sanctions have been devastating them. And on top of that, of course, you know, when Israel bombs them, you know, that's also not particularly helpful. There's also an effort by the regime, as was the case by the Shah, to infiltrate the opposition and make them fight each other and essentially neutralize in that way. And we I think we clearly see sign that that likely is happening because the infighting within the opposition is is quite dramatic Clearly. Even under circumstances like this.
Speaker 0: I I wasn't aware of that. So there is infighting right now within the opposition. Who's fighting
Speaker 1: Well, when we talk about the opposition outside, when you think about opposition outside, for instance,
Speaker 0: or in 2022 and the others.
Speaker 1: The monarchists and many other groups. In 2022, there was an effort to bring them together. It lasted about six weeks, and then they were at each other's throats. I I think there's many reasons for why that happened, but I wouldn't surprised at this.
Speaker 0: Is that the the m a MEK versus the Pahlavi?
Speaker 1: Well, the MEK was never involved in that coalition because they're completely outside. They sided with Saddam Hussein during the Iran Iraq war, seen as complete traitors. They have conducted terrorist attacks, so they're very much ostracized. The Palawi constituency has really kind of transformed in many different ways. The the Palawi constituency of ten, fifteen years ago looks very different from what you have today, and particularly the leadership around him looks very different today than what it was before.
Before, it was largely elements that were advisers to his father who were part of the previous regime. Many of them, of course, have died out, not all of them, or or their children, but it was essentially from the same group. Now you have a group around Taladi who are very radicalized people who were in the student movement in the late nineteen nineties, and in many ways have pushed out many of the other people who tended to be around Palawi before. They appear to be part of the reason why the Palawi has managed to become so close to Israel. I mean, you know, showing up in Israel in in 2022, or was it 2023, being met by the intelligence minister at the airport later on when the Israelis are bombing Iran.
Palavi refused to condemn it. Instead, he was essentially defending the Israelis sounding like an IDF spokesperson saying that the Israelis are doing the utmost to avoid civilian casualties, being very and, you know, when it comes to who is pushing for him right now, it's the Israelis and the post pro Israeli elements in Washington who are doing so. When he was supposed to speak at Mar A Lago, he never got an invitation for Trump, but he got an invitation from this pro Israeli group whose mission statement says to prevent the Palestinian state. They're the ones who invited him to have him speak at Mar A Lago even when Trump was not there because that's the only ticket he has to be able to get in at this point. So the the the proximity between the Talawi crowd today, which was not the case necessarily before with Israel, is open for everyone to see.
You can just take a look at the protests in which they are waving Israeli flags. So that is not a secret or anything like take a look at it outside of Iran. Inside of Iran, you don't you have a completely different picture. But if you take a look at the protests outside with the monarchist crowd or, you know, the incident that happened in Los Angeles with that truck driver apparently being lynched and then he's driving through the crowd, just count the Israeli flags. It just is a completely new phenomenon that we have not seen before.
Speaker 0: Does he have enough support
Speaker 1: to my business? I remember an APAC a senior APAC staffer that I interviewed for my book told me this was to be 2004, that in 2003, Pallavi had tried to become a speaker at the APAC conference in Washington. And it was actually the APAC people who had to tell him that this might not be good for your credibility, might be better for you to keep a bit of a distance. That has now completely been turned on its head in which there is very little distance between Paladin and the Israeli government.
Speaker 0: But does he have enough domestic support if the regime falls?
Speaker 1: I think there is an element of support for him, and we definitely have seen it in some of the protests in the last couple of days in which there were chants in his favor. There were chants in favor of his father or, you know, kind of nostalgic chants in 2022. Now you actually had more explicit chance saying that he's gonna come back. And this is a new phenomenon. Now the extent of it is difficult to tell because you also have chance in other protests against him, but it's also another element.
To what extent is this a chant because they truly want to see him come? Is it a chant because they think that he's the only one that could actually be some sort of a figurehead at this point, or is it a chant perhaps because this is the most insulting chant they could have against the Islamic Republic, the chant in favor of his of the son of the Shah? We don't quite know that, but I think it would be dangerous and probably quite inaccurate to completely dismiss that he doesn't have a base of support inside of Iran. The size of it, the extent of it, the depth of it is something that is very difficult to tell because this is a rather new phenomenon.
Speaker 0: I've asked the prince about what his plan is if the regime falls, and he said, and I'm sure he said it multiple times outside of my interviews, that he would seek a democratically elected leader. He does not want to lead Iran. A lot of people, some people believe him, others say he's just saying that to gain power, but he'll probably end up being like his father, which is also a very authoritarian leader. A lot of people like to talk about the previous, regime before the nineteen seventy nine revolution. But if you research into that history, Iran was much better off.
The economy was much better off. Foreign policy, my opinion, was much better off. It was more secular. But in terms of of a crackdown on on any dissent, it was and up until this point, it it changed now after the latest protest. But before the latest protest and the death tolls we're seeing now, it was even more brutal in the current regime.
Some source is just horrendous. I think there's one called there's a Black Friday massacre or something along those lines. But do you think the prince would be similar to his father,
Speaker 1: he would
Speaker 0: genuinely seek a democrat a democracy?
Speaker 1: Let me first address what you said earlier. I actually think the Islamic Republic in many ways has more been more brutal than the regime of the shah even before the mass killings that we've seen in the last couple of days. The repression has been different, however. Under the time of the shah, the the shah ran an intelligence state essentially, similar to East Germany. One out of five Iranians were essentially informants to the secret service.
It was a very repressive in that sense that, you know, any dissent could not really be aired. And it was also not just targeting the population. It was targeting the the state itself. Three Iranian generals could not call for a meeting during the time of the sham just to, you know, decide what to have for lunch next week out of fear that the intelligence services would think that they're plotting to overthrow the sham. That's the degree of mistrust it was.
But at the same time, socially, it was far more open, of course, than what Iran has been under the Islamic Republic economically as well. Politically, in some ways, the Islamic Republic has been slightly more open because there have been elections. There have been a political system. Power is dispersed in the Islamic Republic in a way that is very different from the time of the shah. All of the power was in the hand of the shah.
All of the decision making was in the hands of the shah, and that ended up also being his strongest weakness. The Iranian generals also didn't dare to give him bad news towards the end of his reign, so they actually went to Israeli, officials. One of them told me that, you know, they went to Moshe Dayan and asked Moshe Dayan, please give the shah a briefing of what actually is happening in the country because no one was willing to give him the bad news. And as a result, the protests grew and grew without him actually making any decisions on how to handle it, and eventually it was his downfall because no one dared to make decisions unless he made those decisions. This system is very different.
Power is dispersed throughout the system. Clearly, the supreme leader is the most important person, but not in the same manner that the Shah was, not in the same manner that Saddam Hussein was in that system or Qaddafi was in the Libyan system. That's an important differentiation as well. Now will the son of the Shah be democratic if he comes back first? So I think you find it very unlikely that he will come back.
I think if there is a fall of the regime, it's far more likely that there will be some elements from inside the country, perhaps also from within the this very same regime that will take over. They are the ones that still have the guns. So we saw what Trump did in Venezuela. He could have gone with Machado, but at the end of the day, he was afraid of the instability. He was afraid that she wouldn't have the ability to control the army.
And out of fear of instability and refugee flows that would come to The US primarily, and then there was a little bit about the Nobel Peace Prize as well, he chose to go with the number two. I mean, we're not even talking about a mid level person, the number two in Venezuela. Not saying that the Venezuelan model in any way, shape, or form can be, supplanted onto Iran, but I would say that there's some principles that comes out of that, which is his fear of instability. And as a result, given that we have no indications that the security establishment would be loyal to Reza Pahlavi, I suspect that the likelihood of him coming back would be rather low. But having said that, let me also say that to be convincing that he would be democratic, it is not sufficient to make good speeches or publish well written plans on how to transition towards democracy.
Ultimately, a leader who wants to take over the country and who wants to convince every key segment of society to support him needs to, in his actions, give confidence of being that democratic leader. We're not seeing that. If you take a look just take a look at the comments that will be posted to this very video once you upload it on Twitter. The amount of monarchists that will say all kinds of crazy things attacking me. I mean, I put a video up on, Palavi two or three days ago, criticizing one thing that he had said to CBS News because CBS News asked him, is it, you know, irresponsible for you to sit in The US in the safety there and, you know, tell people to go out and protest when they're getting killed.
You're throwing out them out to die. You know, I think there's a fair question. I think there's, at the same time, a good answer that could have been given by him, because otherwise, the logic is that there's nothing he can do, and I don't think that's acceptable. But he said something that that was highly problematic. He said, well, there's a war going on, and in war, there will be casualties.
By saying that, he is actually legitimizing the excessive use of force by the regime, because if it is a war, it is a war. His job should be to delegitimize the use of force of the regime. That's what his job should be as a person who's trying to overthrow this government. I just pointed this out. Just take a look at the comments and the people saying that I should be hanged for having criticized him.
The bottom line is it's not enough for him to be able to say I'm democratic. In his conduct and in his the conduct of his supporters, who he should be able to control if he wants to say that he's gonna be able to control the security establishment of Iran, He needs to, at first, be able to control his own supporters. We're not seeing that, and I think that's a huge weakness he has because it doesn't instill the confidence that he needs to instill that he will be democratic, that people in the existing system actually can defect knowing that they will get amnesty if they defect. To be able to convincingly say that to them, it has to be in his actions, not just in his words.
Speaker 0: Atritha, you left Iran just before the revolution. Is that correct? You were born there?
Speaker 1: Correct. I was born in Iran. My family fled right before the revolution.
Speaker 0: So that hits close to home, seeing all this unfold in the country.
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And then, you know, my family, I don't wanna go into all the details, have suffered tremendously both by the regime of the shah. My father was jailed twice during the time of the shah, as well as later on by the Khomeini government.
Speaker 0: The I'm assuming the
Speaker 1: Which is a very common story. It's not unique in any way, shape, or form.
Speaker 0: But he's also a critic of the previous he was a supporter of the regime in the revolution, but he's a critic now. And he criticizes both. And I think looking at this and putting everyone in two buckets, either your pro regime or pro the the monarchy, it's just too simplistic. It's the country's history is very, very complicated as well. Is your family
Speaker 1: complex society. This is there there is a lot of justified anger on all sides of this equation. No one is entirely right. No one is entirely wrong. No one has complete innocence or no one has you know, there's no entity that can say is the, you know, completely erroneous.
For instance, in the in the case of the shah, who jailed my father twice, I've written books about his foreign policy. I think he was an absolutely brilliant geopolitical strategist Agree. I agree. And actually had moved Iran in in a radical pace towards modernity, and towards becoming a major power. And he actually used that position of influence in a very responsible and and, smart way for the region as a whole, in my view, not just for Iran's own interest.
But at the same time, domestically, it was a very, very repressive system.
Speaker 0: Is your family outside the country, I'm guessing, at the moment? Yes?
Speaker 1: I have family inside and outside.
Speaker 0: Are you able to communicate with the family inside the country at all?
Speaker 1: I've not been able to communicate for the last couple of days. I didn't try at the height of the the black black hat when they had turned out the off the Internet entirely because I knew it was no way I can get in touch. I tried a little bit this morning. I still couldn't get in touch, but I don't know if that was because of Internet shutdown or because of other reasons.
Speaker 0: What do you think of the information we're getting out of there? It's very mixed. Some sources say it's, you know, five hundred dead, others say two thousand. There's up to twenty thousand figures of twenty thousand deaths so far. Do you think it's possible the number is that high?
Obviously, fog of war makes it very hard to verify, but do you think it's possible? Because that that dwarfs any other protest we've seen since the revolution.
Speaker 1: I think even if it isn't that high, it still dwarfs it. As of two days ago, the estimates or the account of the US government, as I was told, was 1,600 protesters, which is still extremely high. I would suspect that it's higher than that. I don't think it's 12,000 or 20,000. I think that number comes from this channel, Iran International, which is essentially an opposition channel, and is not necessarily a credible source.
But nevertheless, that numbers are extremely high because we're still talking about a very short period of time. Exactly. This is not, you know, five, six hundred protesters dead over the, know, six months of protesting. But then there was also something else that was said that I thought was not being reported that much. It's out there.
It's not a secret, but it's not talked about that much, which is that the estimate was also hundreds of police and besieged. Now I don't know if that meant 200 or 400 or 600, but it meant that there's also a very large number of police and besiegers, these militias, essentially, pro regime militias that also had been killed. That ratio, if it is 1,600 to 400, that would mean that for every four protesters, there was a policeman killed as well. That is also something completely new, that we have not seen that elements within the protest movement being violent to this extent and killing so many people. And again, think it's very important to point out elements.
It's not at all all protesters. The overwhelming majority still seem to have been very peaceful, particularly in the beginning phases of this. But then once the regime started killing, we start clearly saw, based on at least what the US government's saying, that there was also a lot of violence for the other end. Mindful of the fact that Iran is not like a country like The United States in which everyone has a gun or two or three of them actually, it actually is a very surprising number, and I don't know exactly how to explain it. I've seen that, again, Israeli TV has stated that it is because elements on the outside have armed the protesters, and then they said people can guess for themselves who did so.
I don't know if that's true or if that is part of the Israeli psychological warfare, that they're trying to say these things in order to throw off the regime because, you know, this psychological warfare is clearly happening between the Israel and Iran right now. But, nevertheless, that is what they're saying.
Speaker 0: It seems very believable seeing Mossad's capabilities, especially in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and how much they've infiltrated Iran. We saw that in the twelve day war. Do you think it's at least plausible that that Israel is arming protesters? And I do wanna make it clear, as you said earlier, this does not represent all the protesters. If you have a small minority of them that become violent, which many see as necessary to overthrow a regime that is so entrenched in their grip on power, but there is you know, it reminds me reminds me of the early days of Libya and Syria.
I was one of the naive people saying, oh, these are peaceful protesters, but then armed militias took advantage of the situation. How likely is it, do you think who are these groups in your opinion that are violent, and how big of a role do you think Mossad is playing without discrediting the protests?
Speaker 1: So, first of all and as your first question, is it plausible? Absolutely. It is plausible. We need to remember that every time there's been protests in Iran, the Iranian government has said that foreign elements were fueling them or were part of them. And most of the time, it's either laughable or easily dismissed.
This time around, the difference is not only that the death toll looks very different, but also you actually have the Israelis openly saying that they are involved. Because even before those comments on channel fourteen, which is Netanyahu's channel essentially, they were saying that they are on the ground, they're part of it, etcetera. And then, of course, you have the former head of the CIA who tweeted early on saying, good luck to all Iranian protesters and all of the Mossad agents standing by them. So, again, are they saying this because it's part of the psychological warfare, or are they saying it's because it's true? Frankly, we don't know yet, but it is notable that this is a significant difference from the past in which the Israelis completely flat out denied any involvement.
The US flat out denied any involvement. Now they don't. Doesn't make it true, but nevertheless, it is a very different situation and makes it more difficult to completely dismiss what the Iranian government is saying about this. Now it's important to also note that, at least to the extent, you know, no one has communicated to me from the USG, you know, where exactly those deaths are, from the besiege, and from the police. Is it in the border areas in which there is a Kurdish insurgency by a group called PAK?
Is that where it is? Well, then it's not necessarily peaceful protesters. That's a that's a secessionist groups, and the deaths are coming from there. Again, we don't have the details of this. If it's not that, it's spread throughout the entire country, well, then, of course, it's a different picture.
Speaker 0: The Kurdish group claimed I'm trying to see who it is. I'm sure you know that they've already taken over, an IRGC base in that region, and they are a separatist group. First, do you believe those claims? And second, what would it mean? Is that is the protest or the movement entering a completely new stage and a very concerning one where you may see more separatist movement?
Remember, Iran is is is encircled by different countries that have their own separatist movements, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan. Could we start seeing Azerbaijan? Could we start seeing those countries, all those separatist movements take advantage of the instability and and, you know, essentially cause a civil war?
Speaker 1: Certainly. But I think first, it would be important to note that this group, the Kurdish group, was never part of the protest. This is a secessionist group that is taking advantage of the protest rather than being part of the protest. So lumping them together, I think, would probably be quite unfair to the and I'm not saying that's what you're saying. I just wanted to clarify that.
It is plausible that they've taken some buildings in Kermanshah. Yes. And it's also plausible, of course, that they have been driven out. I don't find it very likely that they will succeed. The Iranian regime has been very, very brutal in clamping down on any type of separatism, particularly from the curse where is where it is mostly coming from and where there is more of a base of support for it.
I still don't think it's a majority, but there's a more of a base of support for it. Whereas if it would take take place in Azerbaijan, etcetera, then I think it is much more difficult for it to be homegrown, and it's much more likely that this is something that is being fueled from the outside. You know, at the end of the day, the other minority in Iran is 25% of the country and are holding significant positions of power. The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is himself an Azeri. So I think that the kind of separatist movement that has existed there is a very, very small minority, not supported by the larger population, whereas in the Kurdish areas, it's a little bit different.
Now could it lead to that? Absolutely. If you end up having a a collapse of the state, not of the just the regime, collapse of the state, you do have the risk of separatism. The separatism then can lead to civil war. It could lead to all of these things.
It is a nightmare scenario. I don't think we should say that automatically it will lead to that. It could be other things, of course. But here, I think there is a very significant divergence in the interest of The United States and the interest of Israel. From the American side, I do not believe that The US side wants to see a collapse of the state and wants to see instability.
I'm not saying that people are in love with the people of Iran or anything like that. I'm just saying strictly from a US interest perspective, they're not looking for that. Moreover, the regional states, save Israel, are not looking for that, and at a minimum, I think the administration will try to do something to make sure that this does not end up becoming a disaster for Turkey, a disaster for Iraq, etcetera, because that will come and backfire on The US itself. Israel's position here is very different. We already talked about it a little bit.
But from their standpoint, having a complete collapse of the state and the instability, actually, I think would not only be okay, it would be desirable. And that divergence is very important. It's very important. It will be very key to see whatever Trump decides to do. Will he have done something that is just an adoption of an Israeli plan in which things are not done in a manner to minimize that risk, or is there something that he's gonna do in which, at a minimum, they're gonna try to minimize that risk?
And that is based on the assumption that he will do something, and I think that is unfortunately, in my view, a rather safe assumption. I think it will be a mistake. I don't think it will help the protesters. I don't think it will help, those goals, but this seems to be the direction that Trump is going.
Speaker 0: Interesting point, the last point you made. So first, I wanna offer some context. Saudi's already reportedly told The US or told Iran they would not allow The US to use their airspace for strikes on on Iran. Saudi and The UAE have both, again, reportedly lobbied The US to not strike Iran. But the decision seems to have been made based on everything we're seeing.
You said it's not a good idea, and it will not help the protesters. Why do you say that?
Speaker 1: Because I don't see any track record in recent memory in which that type of a military action actually translates into, democracy, particularly not after you have already decimated the middle class and taken away some of the key corner building blocks of a democracy. Iran is still thankfully not in that most devastating situation, but the middle class has been decimated just between 2018 and 2019. One third of the middle class lost their position and went into poverty. That's that's and that's in 2019. By since then, there's been even worse situation, but I haven't seen the latest statistics on that.
And economic studies that have been done here in The United States show that the driver of that, the main factor of that has been the sanctions. I did this study years ago when we looked at countries that have been under embargo style sanctions, I mean, really crippling sanctions. How many of them transitioned to democracy? We had 12 cases of that level of sanctions. The only one that happened was South Africa, and the South African case is very, very different.
The economy was never that destroyed. They never had a situation of the middle class leave you know, clearly being decimated. Whereas in North Korea, in Iraq, Cuba, and all of these other places, what you ended up seeing is that those sanctions weakened society vis a vis the state. The state became more repressive. The foreign policy at times became more more adventurous and aggressive, and it didn't transition to democracy.
Oftentimes, not always, it did lead to war because the state had been weakened, but even after that, you don't really have much of a democracy. Take a look at Iraq today. Clearly, they have elections, etcetera, but you would be you have to be quite charitable to say that that is a well functioning, democracy that has really enabled Iraq to stand up on its legs. And I think this is very important to understand between the difference of 1979 and 2026. 1979 when the Iranian population overthrew the shah in a popular, uprising and revolution.
Many monarchists believe that The US was helping them. I've seen no evidence for, US support for the protest. I think this was truly homegrown. But it was taking place in a much more locked, geopolitical situation. Today is very different.
You have geopolitical actors who are driving this, who are not looking for democracy. They're looking to eliminate Iran from the geopolitical chess board by, for instance, having that type of instability and weakness. And that, I think, is a critical factor that also then renders it more unlikely that this type of a war would lead to that type of a scenario. I think the most likely scenario probably is that there will be a takeover from within the state. The regime will change itself.
But I but I think that would nevertheless probably set back the cause of democracy, which in Iran is more than a 100 years old, 120 years old. It is exactly hundred twenty years ago that you had a constitutional revolution in Iran. This is not a new struggle. It's been going on for some time. It's been seeing significant setbacks, but these type of external shocks and wars are some of the things that really set it back.
Speaker 0: I like the last point you made. I'm I'm in a very similar position. I'll share share your concerns as well. I'm not a fan of the regime. I'm not a fan of their foreign policy of the way they've managed the economy.
But I'm also very worried about the intentions, not less of The US because they don't wanna piss off the the the Iran's neighbors that don't want to destabilize Iran, but the intentions of Israel, which would benefit immensely not only from a weakened Iran, but from a weakened region to become the to continue being the the the biggest power in the region. And the solution I was gonna ask you about, which you kinda answered is, could we see a Maduro like operation? Now, obviously, Venezuela is not sorry. Iran is not Venezuela, and Venezuela is not Iran. But what I what I mean by Maduro like strategies is continue working with the regime, but potentially less hardline factions of the regime, ones more open to not label Israel an enemy, more importantly, cooperate with The US and less so with China and Russia and other Arab countries.
How likely is that to be successful?
Speaker 1: So I know that the administration has been looking at options of that kind. I don't know, however, exactly how they think it can be achieved. In the Maduro case, remember, there were negotiations with the number two, who took over. According to what The US has said, they never actually negotiated with her about taking over, but rather that, you know, they were having negotiations with her every time they approached the issue. She got very uncomfortable and didn't wanna engage.
I don't know if that is a narrative that is being pushed out in order not to delegitimize her now that she has taken over, or if it's entirely true. But bottom line is they were talking to other elements inside the government. And one and they got a sense of the different people there and a sense of who they thought would be the person who would nominally take over. I mean, we should not forget that Trump just tweeted that he is now the ruler of Venezuela. Now whether they can do this with Iran, I am not so sure of.
The channels of communications are there, but they don't seem to be as extensive as with with Venezuela. I suspect also I am not of the view that this was the most amazing military operation and it was flawless and overcame immense difficulties. It did, but I think there were also elements inside of the Venezuelan military that essentially had been brought in on it. And as a result, the air defense systems, etcetera, were not knocked out. They were shut down.
Speaker 0: Interesting.
Speaker 1: To do that in Iran, I have a very, very hard time seeing that working out, partly because we should also remember the negotiations between the Maduro government and the US government started off with Rick Grinnell and had also taken place during the previous administration or the previous Trump administration. So there there was some familiarity. There may have been a modicum of trust. I'm not saying it was a loving relationship in any way, shape, or form, but something that probably enabled a negotiation of this type of a climb down from Maduro. I don't see those elements being present in the communications between The US and Iran to even be able to do this.
Rather, I think that it might be an effort to think, okay. The US is gonna try to decapitate the regime, but not everyone, and then see if they can, after the decapitation, have engagement with some of the remaining elements and ensure that they take over, but it's gonna obviously be at a huge price, changes in foreign policy, many other things. I don't know if he's gonna ask for Iran's oil revenue, etcetera, in the very blatant way that he did in Venezuela and said that this is our oil, etcetera. But nevertheless, I if there is some sort of a blueprint a la Venezuela, it would still have to be rather different for it to be able to work on paper and work in theory. I'm not saying at all that this actually could work in practice, but I'm just thinking, how would you, in theory, think about this?
Speaker 0: When you say decapitation strike, do you think that could include a strike on the supreme leader, which Israel either intentionally or intentionally or or do you think Israel tried to kill the supreme leader in the twelve day war, and do you think he could be a target this time around?
Speaker 1: I certainly think that he could and probably will be a target. I don't know how the administration has thought through the implications, which I know that they are aware of, which is that he is not just the the essentially, the head of state of of Iran, the most powerful figure within that system, but he's also a religious figure in the world of Shiism, which means that he has a following in Iraq. He has a following in Pakistan. He has a following in Lebanon, and that this will be seen very differently. And this will be you know, the reaction of Ayatollah Sistani, for instance, will be very critical if Khomeini is assassinated.
And it could, you know, exactly the type of instability in the region that we talked about before was mostly because of refugee flows. There's another element of it, is also sectarianism that would come up to the fore again if something like that happens. I know the administration is well aware of this. I don't know how they have thought it through.
Speaker 0: And when it comes to retaliation, we saw limited retaliation if anyone Kasim was Soleiman Kasimi? Qasem or can you
Speaker 1: pronounce it? Qasem. Qasem Soleimani.
Speaker 0: Qasem Soleimani. There you go. When he was assassinated many years ago and we saw limited retaliation in the 12 day war as well on The US, it seems Iran doesn't have a problem retaliating against Israel, but they do not want The US to be involved in a full blown war. If The US does strike let's say it's a targeted limited strike, which which is what I would expect. If The US does strike in a limited way, Iran, do you think Iran would respond again symbolically, or do think it'll be a full blown response against US bases across the region and beyond?
Could we see a response, through some sort of sabotage or direct attack on US territory as well?
Speaker 1: I think first we have to remember, it was a negotiated strike last time, not in the sense that The US negotiated with Iranians where to strike, etcetera, but essentially, it was communicated very clearly. They were gonna strike Fordeaux. They asked the Iranians to vacate those plants to ensure that there's no casualties. The Iranians afterwards said they're gonna strike back. There may have been then some sort of a negotiation.
I think there's some in Qatar that suspect that The US wanted it. They were gonna go the strike to be in Qatar and not elsewhere. And so there was a bit of coordination there. I am not sure if coordination can be achieved at this point because the sentiment inside of Iran has been or within the system, within the regime has been that not striking back at The US, and you're right, they don't want a complete confrontation, nevertheless means that The US will keep on striking and weakening and weakening and weakening Iran together with Israel, and then at some point, they will go for a complete decapitation and and destruction of the regime, and at that point, Iranians will be too weak to do anything about it. So they might as well strike back hard now.
I think the brutality in which they clamped down on the protests was partly aimed at sending a message to The United States and saying that now they believe that their backs are against the wall, they're facing an existential situation, and in that situation, they will not go for some sort of a symbolic retaliation any longer, and they will strike back hard. First of all and second of all, to be able to convince the regime that this is just limited, there has to be that communication. I don't even know if the Iranians would buy it at this point. But another point that I like to make, though, is I don't think the Israelis are gonna be content with just a decapitation of the regime. They want The United States to take out Iran's military might.
They don't want the next regime, the next Islamic Republic guy, but with a different last name to still have the same capability. On channel fourteen, again, Netanyahu's channel, they said two nights ago that look what Israel did in Syria. They said twenty minutes after Assad boarded the plane to Russia, Israel turned all of Syria into a shooting range, and that's true. That's exactly what they did. They went in and they destroyed everything to make sure that the next regime, whoever it is, would not be able to be any challenge to Israel.
And immediately, they also annexed, technically, de facto, large swathes of Syrian territory. And on TV, they said that that's what they believe should happen afterwards, and they believe that The United States should do it. So it's not I mean, they said very explicitly, after the regime falls, we have to bomb them, after it falls. So how would The United States be able to negotiate that with someone in Iran? And how would the Israelis be okay with just something that is just a temporary, you know, limited symbolic strike but not taking out the facilities?
I think the Israelis have pushed for a completely different type of operation that really goes after all of Iran's capabilities, massive bombing campaign, and the silence of the Israelis for the last couple of days suggests to me that Trump agreed, and as a result, they did not need to push any further.
Speaker 0: How capable is Iran's military today compared to the twelve day war?
Speaker 1: We don't know. We know that it was more capable in terms of striking Israel than what the Israelis and the Americans thought. And we also know that they do have the capability, perhaps even greater capability, to strike US bases because it's closer to Iran. They don't even have to use their long range missiles for some of those. Do we know if they have been able to rebuild their arsenal of missiles?
They consume quite a few. We don't know. Have they been able to rebuild launches? Yes. Do we know where they are from The US side?
Does The United States know where they are? I don't know. Does The US have the capability of striking as many of those sites as possible, granted that it knows where they are so that the Iranians don't even get a chance to retaliate? I would assume that that would be the American strategy, but that necessitates having a tremendous amount of intelligence of where all of these different sites are. Many of these launches are very mobile, and as a result can perhaps be shot from very different, areas.
And it would require a very, very significant military presence in the region or close to the region.
Speaker 0: Which is not there yet.
Speaker 1: So sure which does it does not appear to be there yet. Exactly.
Speaker 0: Last question, Trita. Where do you see and probably the toughest one. Where do you see Iran and the region twelve months from now? Because it seems every beginning of every year, the year ends at least exceeding my worst case scenarios every single time. The Qatar strike, Hezbollah's decapitation, the war becoming a regional war.
And today, we're seeing the potential fall of the regime. Now what's your prediction?
Speaker 1: Again, it actually really depends on what happens in the next couple of days. If it is a limited strike that has been negotiated and the Israelis essentially were told that that's all The US is gonna do and don't push for anything else, then I can see that after that, The US actually would move towards negotiations and the Iranians made as well. And there will be a different situation. Many of the protesters will, in the short run, be extremely angry, and I would fully understand and empathize with that because, you know, they did a lot and a lot of them got killed, and they wanna get rid of the regime. And they will still want to get rid of the regime.
But in that scenario, I can also see that sanctions will be lifted. The economic situation will improve. And as a result, even though in the short run, the regime didn't fall, the economic pressures from inside of society, now from outside, can eventually have the success of transforming the regime, not the type of regime change that perhaps many people from an emotional sense would want to see, but transforming regime to make it completely unrecognizable than what it is now with far greater political freedoms and eventually something positive. I know that is the vision that many Iranians have now stopped believing in because they supported the JCPOA. They wanted that to happen, but it didn't happen.
But I think we have to remind ourselves, yes. You are right. It didn't happen. Why didn't it happen? Because Trump pulled out of the JCQA within a year and a half or two years.
The sanctions relief only lasted a very short period of time. Even during that short period of time, Iran's economy grew 10%.
Speaker 0: Oh, wow.
Speaker 1: But it was not lasting because it was stopped. And as a result, instead of the middle class growing, becoming stronger, society becoming stronger vis a vis the state, and all of the other things we have seen in transitions towards democracy elsewhere was aborted.
Speaker 0: I didn't know the economy grew that much in that period, 9010% in such a short period of time. Tweeta, I hope you're able to reach your family soon. You seem the most worried. I've seen you in all our interviews and discussions and all the shows you've done because I know that Kate's close to home, and I hope things end up more positively and your family comes out okay. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I spoke to the man who shot Bin Laden to get his take on Maduro’s capture—planning, neutralizing air defenses, and how such an operation could have no casualties. Was there betrayal or a stand-down order? I also asked about Delta Force versus Seal Team Six, how they compare to other special forces, and the prospects of targeting other leaders, including Iran’s Supreme Leader.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸 INTERVIEW: THE MAN WHO SHOT BIN LADEN SPEAKS ON THE CAPTURE OF MADURO There’s two elite forces in the world: Delta Force and Seal Team Six. Seal Team Six was behind the operation to take out bin Laden, and Delta Force is the one that captured Maduro. I spoke to the man who shot bin Laden to get his take and analysis on the capture of Maduro What went into planning? How did they take out the air defense systems? How could such an operation have no casualties? Did someone betray Maduro? Was there a stand down order? I also asked him broader questions on the capabilities of Delta Force/Seal Team 6. How do they compare to other special forces? What makes them so capable? And how difficult would it be to capture or kill other leaders, including Iran’s Supreme Leader. I hope you enjoy the conversation.
reSee.it AI Summary
I talk with Pepe Escobar about Maduro’s capture, Iran’s fragility, and the evolving U.S. role in Venezuela, Iran, and Ukraine. Topics: who betrayed Maduro, Venezuela’s future, whether Iran survives, and implications for the Ukraine war. We touch on Trump’s unpredictability, NATO’s impact, Hezbollah as an ideological movement, Yemen/Iran resistance under sanctions, Iran’s internal dissents, BRICS de-dollarization, and sanctions as Venezuela’s main hurdle.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇷🇻🇪 PEPE ESCOBAR ON VENEZUELA, IRAN, & UKRAINE - A NEW WORLD ORDER? I’ve said on multiple occasions that after Maduro’s capture, and with the severe weakening of Iran and their proxies, it’s become very difficult to criticize the capabilities of the U.S military and their intelligence. Well, Pepe Escobar disagrees, and he disagrees with many of my stances, including whether the Iranian regime will survive the current protests. In this conversation we discuss: • Who betrayed Maduro within his inner circle • What the future of Venezuela looks like • Is Iran next • Will the Iranian regime survive • And what all this means for the ongoing war in Ukraine @realPepeEscobar regularly visits China, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, Venezuela, and even Yemen, and has deep knowledge on those regions, so I hope you enjoy his insights as much as I have. 03:02 - Venezuela intervention framed as reckless move tied to petrodollar collapse 06:11 - Venezuelan security chief demoted amid suspicions of internal betrayal 08:50 - Regime change vs U.S. interests: democracy not the real objective 11:22 - Trump’s unpredictability debated as a negotiating weapon in geopolitics 12:25 - Iran, Russia, and China unimpressed by Trump’s “madman” strategy 15:59 - NATO attacks on Russia’s nuclear command centers shift war dynamics 18:23 - U.S. dominance narrative challenged: geopolitics not about winning or losing 20:32 - Hezbollah described as ideological movement, not just an Iranian proxy 22:44 - Yemen and Iran framed as long-term resistance societies shaped by sanctions 26:04 - Iranian protests: economic pain mixed with foreign regime-change playbook 29:12 - Iran’s internal weaknesses acknowledged amid sanctions and generational divide 33:55 - Russia and China quietly backing Iran through infrastructure and logistics 36:20 - Beijing and Moscow operate on long-term strategic timelines, not fear 39:09 - BRICS payment systems and de-dollarization efforts explained 41:56 - Sanctions identified as main obstacle to Venezuela’s economic recovery 50:05 - Russia-Ukraine war outlook turns bleak after attack on Putin’s residence
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape, with a focus on Venezuela, Iran, and the broader US-led strategic environment, as seen through the perspectives of Mario and Pepe Escobar.
Venezuela and the Venezuelan crisis
- Escobar frames Venezuela as a desperate move tied to the demise of the petrodollar, with a broader matrix of actors maneuvering in the back to profit from a potential annexation and to test regional security strategies. He notes that the United States has stated “this is my backyard, and I own it,” and questions whether Washington is ready to back that stance against the will of the Venezuelan people, including Chavistas and the new government led by Delcy Rodríguez, who he describes as “an old school Chavista” with a strong legal and negotiation background.
- He argues that the operation against Maduro lacked a coherent strategy, including planning for reorganizing the Venezuelan oil sector to serve American interests. He cites expert opinion suggesting it would take five years to recondition Venezuela’s energy ecosystem to produce around 3,000,000 barrels per day, requiring about $183 billion in investment, which CEOs would require guarantees for before engaging.
- The regime-change objective as pursued by Trump-era policy did not materialize; the core regime persists with figures like Padrino and Cabello still in place. The “mini Netflix special” of the operation did not translate into a durable political outcome, and the regime’s leadership remains, even as some key security figures were demoted or accused in the operation.
- Dulce Rodríguez (Delcy), the vice president, is portrayed as a capable negotiator who must persuade the Venezuelan public that the security betrayal by the head of Maduro’s security apparatus was real. Escobar emphasizes that the domestic narrative faces a hard sell because the core regime remains and the security apparatus has not been fully neutralized.
- Escobar stresses that sanctions are the most critical barrier to Venezuela’s economic recovery and argues that without sanctions relief, meaningful economic reconstitution is unlikely. He notes that Delcy Rodríguez enjoys broad popular support, and he argues that Latin American sentiment toward U.S. intervention complicates Washington’s position.
- He warns Brazil’s Lula, a BRICS member, plays a crucial role; Brazilian foreign policy, influenced by Atlanticists, could veto Venezuela’s BRICS membership, complicating Venezuela’s regional integration. He contends that Maduro’s removal is not assured, and a more open Venezuelan regime under Delcy could potentially collaborate with the West, but sanctions and governance challenges remain central obstacles.
Iran, protests, and sanctions
- The Iranian protests are framed as economically driven, with inflation and cost-of-living pressures fueling dissent. Iran’s currency and real inflation are cited as severe stressors, and the regime’s subsidy policies are criticized as inadequate. Escobar emphasizes that the protests are hijacked by foreign actors to turn into a regime-change playbook, echoing familiar color-revolution patterns observed in other contexts.
- He describes Iran’s resilience under extensive sanctions, highlighting infrastructure deficits and the broader economic stagnation as long-running issues. He stresses that Iranian society contains grassroots debate and a robust intellectual culture, including Shiite theology studies, universities, and a tradition of long-term strategic thinking with sustained cross-border alliances (Russia and China) as part of a broader BRICS alignment.
- On foreign involvement, Escobar notes differing perspectives: some Iranians blame foreign meddling, while others point to domestic mismanagement and sanctions as primary drivers of discontent. He emphasizes that Iran’s leadership remains wary of external coercion and seeks to strengthen ties within BRICS and other partners, while being cautious about provoking Western escalation.
Russia, China, and the evolving great-power dynamic
- Escobar argues that Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran view US actions as part of a broader long-term strategy rather than short-term wins. He describes a sophisticated, long-horizon approach: China pursuing a multi-decade plan with five-year cycles, Russia testing BRICS-centered financial and payment systems to reduce dependence on SWIFT, and Iran leveraging BRICS relationships to counterbalance Western pressure.
- He contrasts this with what he calls the “bordello circus” of American political-military maneuvering, suggesting that the US’s episodic threats and unpredictable diplomacy undermine any similar credibility or effectiveness. He emphasizes that Russia and China prioritize acts and long-term power balancing over American-style unpredictability.
- The 12-day war and the Orishnik missile attack on Lviv are framed as signaling a more volatile phase in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with Putin signaling that the war could extend beyond the previously imagined timelines if Western escalation continues. The missile strike is presented as a clear warning to NATO and the Polish border region, underscoring heightened geopolitical risk.
The broader outlook and conclusions
- Escobar remains deeply pessimistic about a swift resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war, citing the potential for a prolonged European conflict that could strain European economies. He views regime stability in Iran as fragile but enduring, while Venezuela’s path remains contingent on sanctions relief, domestic governance, and the strategic posture of Latin American neighbors and BRICS members.
- The conversation closes with a reminder of the complexity of modern geopolitics, where sanctions, domestic economics, regional alignments, and long-term strategic planning interact in ways that defy simple “winner-loser” narratives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Pepe, it's a pleasure to speak for the first time. How are you, sir?
Speaker 1: Wonderful. Thanks for having me. My pleasure.
Speaker 0: Well, there's a lot going on. We were planning to do this to do this sit down for the first time to discuss the developments in Venezuela, which are pretty extraordinary. And those came days after the alleged attack on, Putin's estate by Ukraine, which Russia responded to yesterday with the Arashnik missiles towards Lviv that no one's talking about because we have the largest protests, some say ever, but since 2022 in Iran, and a lot of people talking about the potential collapse of the Iranian regime. So there is a lot happening as the week as the as the year kicks off. What is your, you know, what's your stance on the state of affairs right now, especially focusing on on the developments in Venezuela and what's happening in Iran?
Speaker 1: Well, Mario, we could spend the whole day talking about it here. So let's try a Hollywood version. Right? Like, if we are pitching a series. Venezuela was essentially, as we all know by now, a desperate move related to the demise of the petrodollar.
That's the major headline. Of course, there are many superimposed headlines, including, of course, the usual suspects maneuvering in the back, and I don't need to name them, people who can profit from an annexation of Venezuela, testing the national security strategy, a graphic test showing not only to Latin America, for the rest of the world that, yes, this is our backyard. And, of course, now we all know the president of The United States saying, this is my backyard, and I own it, which reminds us of the famous you break it, you own it. So is he ready to own Venezuela? Is he ready to go against the will of, I would say, the overwhelming majority of 28,000,000 people, against the will of most people in Venezuela who are still Chavistas, against the will of this new government led by Delcie Rodriguez, the daughter of a slain revolutionary killed by the CIA.
She is an old school Chavista, very, very competent, lawyerly background, very well educated, an excellent negotiator. But she keeps the interests of Venezuela, I would say, way above of the interests of the president of The United States. So, obviously, behind this, I wouldn't even call strategy, this reckless illegal act, and we're being very diplomatic here, there was no strategy. There was no thinking ahead. Okay.
What happens next? There was no even thinking ahead in terms of how we're going to reorganize the Venezuelan oil industry to our American interests. This is the theme of my latest column. And I talked to Chinese experts among others and obviously people from Venezuela. It would take at best five years to recondition the whole, let's say, ecosystem of the energy industry in Venezuela for American needs and to start making money out of it and to have Venezuela produce, I would say, a mere 3,000,000 barrels a day, which is not much, it will take sixteen years and $183,000,000,000 of investment.
Are CEOs of American companies ready to spend that kind of money? Obviously not. And many of them via, I would say, indirect ways, have already told the White House, look. We're not into it as as long as we have total guarantees about our investment. How can you guarantee an investment in a country that if the Trump administration decides to install a fifth columnist government after they'll see, It's gonna be total chaos.
There's gonna be an extra humanitarian cry crisis. How you're going to invest in a country under total chaos? So, obviously, none of that was sought in advance because the ego of Neoccaligula had to be appeased, and that's where we are at the moment.
Speaker 0: A lot of people were worried well, not worried. We're we're we're some were hoping, some were worried that Maria Machado would be would be the person that Trump chooses to take over for Maduro. Exactly. And that's what a lot of people that don't like Maduro were hoping for. But instead, with what Trump and his administration have done is support the vice president, threaten her, but support her.
The vice president has made comments about, obviously, criticizing the attack, which she you'd expect her to do so, but also talking about working with The US. We even got reports that the there was a call between the president of Colombia and the American president. President of Colombia was very critical of The US. Today, I think I saw reports about Mexico saying they're going to work with The US on the targeting of cartels there. Isn't it possible that The US has worked with the vice president, maybe spoken to the vice president or people around her?
Because from what I understand when I spoke to experts, Venezuela is not only about Maduro. It's about Maduro and others in the circle that all hold power together as a group. And others in that group, the head of his security apparently worked with The US. Some people are reporting that's the case. Some people theorizing that
Speaker 1: Venezuelans. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Exactly. Yes. I think, yeah, he was arrested, wasn't he?
Speaker 1: Yes. Very important, Mario. I got a nonconfirmation from our Venezuelan sources yesterday night. He's not been arrested yet, but he has been demoted as a head of military counter intel and the head of the presidential guard. Could be You'd
Speaker 0: you'd ex but you'd expect him to be him being demoted, doesn't, it doesn't really you'd expect that to happen because there was a significant failure for the president to be captured the way he was. Whether there was a stand down order or not, at least at minimum, there was an intelligence failure. So you'd expect the head of the presidential guard to be demoted. If he's arrested, then it might mean there's something more sinister happening. Do think that he was maybe involved in the operation?
Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, according to our Venezuelan sources, yes, he was. The thing is how they'll see is going to sell this to domestic public opinion. This is a very hard sell. She she will have to explain to the overwhelming majority of the Venezuelan population. Look.
Like, the head of security of our president betrayed him. And this is practically it it's practically a 100% sure by now. And all and many other people in his circle. So the initial narrative, now it's well, that's the usual White House narrative. It's it's much more complicated than that.
Of course, the usual CIA suitcases full of cash, this is something that I have seen in my professional life everywhere across the global South, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, you name it. Obviously, they work in Venezuela, but up to a point. Because they didn't manage to enlist very, very high people in the military hierarchy, that's still over there. Padrino, the ministry of defense, is still there. And when they sit for their meetings, they'll see sits in the middle.
Padrino to the left, the minister of defense, and Justado Cabello, minister of interior, to the to the right. So, you know, the hardcore of the government is still there. So the regime change, which was, I would say, the dream of Trump two point zero from the beginning, it didn't happen. They only had this mini Netflix special with full of special effects,
Speaker 0: and that's it. Why do you think it was a regime change that was planned? Because does does Trump really care about having democracy in Venezuela, or does he care about having American interest advanced?
Speaker 1: It's not about democracy, Mario. Regime change in terms of having a pliable fifth columnist working for us Americans.
Speaker 0: But if the current regime accepts but if the current regime if the current regime accepts to work with The US, then America has achieved its mission, its objectives.
Speaker 1: Work with The US has many nuances. Don't forget, DLC is a very able diplomat. It's no wonder that she is extremely admired by Sergei Lavrov, which is the number one diplomat on the planet. They get along very, very well. Lavrov respects their expertise as a diplomat.
She's an excellent negotiator. She was already talking to The Americas even before the coup against Maduro. She was talking to Marco Rubio on the phone. Of course. They have to talk to somebody.
And the Americans knew that they had to talk to somebody at the high levels of power, whatever happened next. So they'll see in terms of you won't buy the OC. The Americans, they don't know how the mentality of exponents of Shabismo work. They have Venezuela's interest as they define it up there. They have the memory of the revolution.
They have the memory of everything that they learned directly from Hugo Chavez. They have been under horrible sanctions since forever, and they still resist. So this is the most important element. Of course, Dulce simply cannot antagonize Trump frontally because she knows what will happen. And Trump already said it.
If she doesn't work with us, we're gonna bump Venezuela again. And then he changes his mind or maybe not, and he will change his mind tomorrow. So she knows she's dealing with an extremely volatile megalomaniac narcissist. But you know how to deal. For instance, I'll give you another example of a head of state who knows how to deal with Trump.
Lula from Brazil. When they met in person, Trump was even impressed because Lula is an excellent diplomat and negotiator. So you have to talk to them. As dangerous as they are, you need to talk.
Speaker 0: The unpredictability of Trump, as you mentioned
Speaker 1: Shit. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Isn't isn't that isn't that an asset, though? Wouldn't you I was speaking to a negotiator a couple of months ago talking about Ukraine and how, Trump was handling the Ukraine negotiations. Unpredictability is an asset when you're negotiating with someone because when they make a threat, you don't know whether they're serious or not. When he says to Iran, I'm locked and loaded, or when he says to makes a threat to Colombia, which is a bit more empty, but let's use the Iranian threat, which has more more weight behind it, then Iran, they won't they they don't know if he's serious, if he's gonna immediately do it because he said it because a lot of times Trump says things but does not do them. But at the same time, in other cases, he says things like the threat to Iran before the twelve day war or the threat to Maduro before the capture or the kidnapping, and he delivers on those promises or those threats.
Isn't that an asset that Trump has? And then maybe you could use that to segue into the threats to Iran and whether we could see similar approach to Iran as we saw in Venezuela, maybe an emboldened US administration taking action in Iran.
Speaker 1: Well, it's the same old Nixon madman theory. Right? This is nothing new. He's copying Nixon. And it doesn't impress high level players and mature players.
In the case of Iran, I can tell you by personal experience. Out of my visits in Iran, my last visit in Iran was seven months ago, even before the twelve day war. They are not impressed by Trump. They know that he's completely unpredictable, volatile, etcetera. They concentrate on American acts.
That's different. And it's true. They were caught napping before the twelve day war, and they won't be caught napping now. They are ready not only for an attack, an Israeli US attack. I've been talking about this with people in Iran these past few days, but there's even the possibility that they have if almost, I would say, now between 9095% of all the assets in place for a preemptive attack if they feel that the an attack by Israel, US is coming.
So they are not impressed. The Russians is different. The Russians, they were never impressed by Trump. They know Trump very, very well. They know how to deal with him and appease his ego, which is a sign of diplomatic finesse.
And they know that they cannot trust over 90% of what he says. So they concentrate on the acts. So what they have been concentrating on these past few months, very, very important for you, Mario, and our audience, the attacks by NATO on the nuclear triad structure in Russia. First one was May. And now, finally, the attack on the command and control center of Putin's Novgorod residence, and Putin was at the residence.
This is a huge compound, which includes one of the residence of the president of Russia, but also a command and control center related to the nuclear triad. They called the American military attache to the minister of defense in Moscow, and they handed over evidence that The US was behind it. So this changes completely the narrative of Trump is interested in negotiating a peace deal with Russia. He might be. He might be not, but everybody that is around him that exercise power related to organizing an attack against a Russian, very, very important asset.
They are not. So they deal with facts, with acts, not with these, you know, talk show, ebullient explosions. The Chinese, the same thing. The Chinese are even more circumspect. They know exactly they're dealing with a Nixon madman character.
They never advertise how they're going to answer intimidations or harassment by the Trump administration. And you see this much, much later because the Chinese think extremely long term. If the Russians think long term, the Chinese think long term plus 10. So these three major play I I mentioned these three major players because these are the three major players in terms of the so called threats to national security until the NSS. They're not impressed.
And at the same time, they know they have to deal with it non stop. It's very it's a very complicated diplomatic balance. But when you when you compare the sophistication of the military diplomatic arrangements in Iran, in Russia, and in China to this bordello circus in The US, it's more than obvious for anyone following politics that this is a completely different ballgame here.
Speaker 0: Well, if you look at the facts on the ground, over the last years even, people have loved to criticize the American military capabilities, especially with the war in Ukraine. A lot of people saying Russia was able to advance in Ukraine despite NATO and American support. The counterargument is that America was only sending their older equipment. That's a separate debate. But people criticize the American military more than ever before.
But if you look at the the performance of The US and their allies, especially Israel, in the last three years, you've got Iran's proxies decapitated, Hezbollah being disarmed, Yemen in shambles, their leadership killed by Israel, Assad has fallen, a very close ally to Russia, less so to China. You've got the Iran went through a twelve day war that caught them by surprise. Their economy, their currency is collapsing. Their currency is lowest it's been ever, and they're facing protests that are, at the moment, the worst since 2022. If you look at the speed in which this they're they're spreading, they're spreading much faster than 2022, and they're instigated by something that's more concerning than 2022.
It's not social issues. It's economic issues. You know, the economy is stupid. The economy tends to be the downfall of of most authoritarian regimes. And now in a shock operation, a very successful one militarily, you've got the leader of Venezuela, which is very important, especially for China as one of the largest oil reserves.
Actually, the biggest proven oil reserve is in Venezuela. Number two is the Saudi. Number three is The US. And they've lost Venezuela. They've lost Maduro at least.
His regime is still in power, but The US is by force controlling the oil exports out of the country. Doesn't that just looking at those facts alone, it looks like The US has placed the the the the alliance, the Russian Chinese alliance in a very tricky position. China lost all these important proxies. It seems less and less reliable. And Russia, while busy in Ukraine with the small advances, we don't know how heavy the cost is to the economy, depends who you speak to, losing of their allies as well.
America seems to be winning in the last twelve months. Do you disagree?
Speaker 1: Completely. And it's not a matter of winning or losing, Mario. Geopolitics is not about winning and losing. Geopolitics is a long very long, long game. You have small victories.
You have maybe sometimes what could be seen as an enormous defeat, a strategic defeat. But this is the whole thing is being recycled all the time, and it's in movement. Okay. I'll give you a few examples. Hezbollah was decapitated.
Yes. But the new leadership is being it was already groomed before. I was in Lebanon a few months ago. I talked to Hezbollah people. I said, it's gonna take a while, but we're gonna have it back because the new level of leadership is as good as the previous one that was decapitated.
So that's not Hezbollah is a movement. Hezbollah doesn't depend on personalities.
Speaker 0: Can I ask you a question on Hezbollah? Can I ask you a question on Hezbollah before we go to Yemen and the others?
Speaker 1: Of course.
Speaker 0: So with with Hezbollah, when you look at them now, the government is saying they're disarming them. They're being bombed by Israel without responding. That has never happened before. In 2006, they responded very decisively. After the war war in Gaza, they responded very decisively.
They haven't responded in over a year militarily, and they've lost their shipping routes through Syria. And now Iran, their main sponsor is facing internal struggles. We don't know if the regime will fall. Wouldn't that show that Iran's biggest proxy, biggest weapon is the weakest it's ever been?
Speaker 1: It's not a question of proxy or Hezbollah being an Iranian weapon. You have to go to Lebanon. You have to go to Southern Lebanon. You have to talk to people who live in Southern Lebanon, side by side with occupied Palestine, and you have to talk to the intellectual leadership of Hezbollah to understand why Hezbollah exists and why it is a flaming idea of a movement with a community spirit, which is also a military movement. Then you understand that this thing cannot be exterminated just by decapitation strikes.
It's much more complex than that. This this is a story for cheap headlines, essentially. Of course, they haven't bombed anything significant these past few months because they are reorganizing their arsenals. They continue to be heavily militarized underground all across Southern Lebanon, close to the Israeli border, especially. And intellectually, they are reorganizing how they're going to function without a charismatic leader like Nasrallah.
Apart from his capabilities, he had charisma. He was a pop star, and not only in Lebanon, all all across the Arab streets, everywhere, even the Sunni Arab street. So it's it's a long term process. Yemen is the same thing. I was in Yemen a few months ago.
I was talking to them over there. They took me to the North Of Yemen because they wanted to show me where Anzarala was born. When you talk to them on the spot and when you see the death's reach and how solid these movements, which are not only military movements, but religious and moral and humanitarian movements as well. Then you understand that this is a very, very long game. And, of course, they are prepared for setbacks.
And don't forget, these people, they have been fighting for at least two and a half millennia in the case of the Yemenis. So, you know, they they under they put this in in perspective. It's not if they have setbacks only a few months ago that the whole thing has collapsed. In Iran, we could have a gigantic conversation about that. I hope we can have this in in the near future as well.
At the moment, we are having and I once again, I talked to my contacts in Iran these past few days, and I asked them directly. What is the main reason for this protest? They said, yes. Of course, it's economic. It's cost of living.
It's inflation. There are numbers circulating in Iran that the real inflation is something like 35% to 40%. It's probably much more than that. And the fact that with reals, you cannot buy anything. You need some strong currency to buy anything.
So you cannot pay your bills, essentially. And the government came out with a subsidy that it's pitiful when you look at it. But, of course, they they were infiltrated from the start because this is the playbook of the color revolutions. As a foreign correspondent, literally everywhere, I've seen this in front of me for decades. The last time I actually saw it in front of me was in Hong Kong in 2019.
Exactly the same thing. Exactly what happened yesterday, you know, setting fire to buses or to entrances of metro stations. It's the same playbook everywhere. Of course, there's enormous discontent. Sorry sorry, Mario.
Just one one moment.
Speaker 0: Please. Yes.
Speaker 1: Of course. Just I'm sorry. Please. No. No.
Just just just to finish this. There is enormous discontent, and it proceeds because don't forget. Iran is under sanctions for forty three years forty four years already. It devastates their economy. I'll give you an example, an example for our audience as well.
A few months ago, I was I I was doing a documentary about an international North South transportation corridor, and I went to the Caspian Sea to one of the ports. When I arrived at the port, Bandar Azali, I I asked my Iranian host, okay. Where is the port? They said, this is it. I said, guys, you cannot have a port like this in the Caspian getting vessels from Kazakhstan and Russia.
There's no infrastructure. The infrastructure was the same of the mid seventies probably. And this this you see in front of you the effects of forty something year of sanctions. So this applies everywhere in Iran. And people still survive, which is wow.
I don't know how they none of us in the West can possibly understand how they do it. But and, of course, there is mismanagement. There is corruption. There's no question about that. But another thing is when you have economic protests and protests against inflation, the cost of living, they are hijacked by foreign actors to turn into a regime change playbook, which is exactly what's happening nowadays.
And this is what you hear from Iranians themselves, not from us, foreign
Speaker 0: America has been very clear. Trump's been very clear he wants topple the regime. Israel's got even more either when a regime change, they said it very openly in the twelve day war. Now it's hard to measure because when you have a protest, the way I whenever like, the one in Ukraine, for example, when we talk about the the protests there, it's,
Speaker 1: you know You're talking about the midterm in 2014?
Speaker 0: Mean revolution. Yeah. You've made down revolution. You could have a protest that has support, domestic support, but also be supported by foreign intelligence. It doesn't have to be binary where a protest is purely domestically supported with no foreign meddling whatsoever or I don't think it's possible to even have a protest that is completely orchestrated by a foreign power with zero domestic support.
In Isika, both factors need to be need to be involved for a protest to succeed. Now to which degree each one is is contributing to it? Depends who you ask. And and, you know, you might have spoken to people. They have a a good sense of it.
If I speak to people on the other side that are critical of the regime, they say, no. It's all Iranians. Don't you don't blame it on the CIA or whatever because it's an easy it's an easy thing to do for any regime facing protests. Blame it on foreign powers. It's a normal playbook.
And then you spoke speak to people that are supportive supportive of the regime. They make a very valid claim that is that is backed by words from Netanyahu that Israel wants to topple the regime and they have presence in Iran. I think it is undisputed. Now my these are things that can be disputed and debated. There's also facts on the ground.
The facts are that Assad is gone. The facts are that Hezbollah is not responding militarily to Israel, as I said earlier, that the government the the president himself said he wants to disarm Hezbollah, and the government voted to disarm Hezbollah, which has never happened. The facts are that Yemen stopped responding militarily against Israel. The facts are that as much as critical as you are, I'm very critical of Israel, especially when it comes to to Gaza. The facts are that Netanyahu has still got significant domestic support, and Trump's trying to get him a pardon.
The US is still supporting Israel. Maduro is gone. These things have not changed, and Iran so while Netanyahu is getting great support domestically, Iran, people are debating whether they're gonna survive these protests or not. And you cannot debate that these protests are the most severe since 2022. Whether they're gonna get worse, whether the regime will be toppled, who knows?
And just to be clear, I'm not for the regime getting toppled. I don't like the regime because I really worry about what the alternative is. I think regime changes. Look at Libya. Look at Syria.
Look at Iraq. Regime changes could result in even if if Gaddafi was a horrible person, could result in a significantly worse outcome. But is it would you disagree with those facts in the ground that maybe Iranian regime will survive, but it is at its weakest point ever if not in decades? And if if we do disagree with doctor Hewai,
Speaker 1: I'd love hear what. Well, I wish I wish you we had time to go point by point about all these facts on the ground that you mentioned. Yes. Some of them are facts and some of them are nonfacts. They are prefabricated facts.
The protests are a fact. We you can say that the whole framework of the Islamic revolution, now it is a challenge because they have to explain explain to the new generation something that they never lived, why there was an Islamic revolution in the first place. People who are the Gen x or Gen z members in Iran, they have no connection to what happened in the late seventies or in the early eighties. It's very complicated. And, of course, and this is from the point of view of a foreigner who's been to Iran, I don't know, 10 times, 12 times at least.
Since the Katami era, I'm going to Iran. Their horrible economic mismanagement, no question about that. They don't know how to manage their economy, but there's a of there's always a nuance because first of all, because they've been in a horrendous sanctions. And it's very, very hard, even if you're not a good economic management, to to make a country work under these horrible sanctions. So, of course, the this alleviates a little bit their let's say, their most of these religious clerics, they are incompetent economically.
There's no question about that. I had discussions with these people. For instance, I was trying to explain to them the Belt and Road Initiative by China, and some of them wouldn't even understand what I was talking about. And these people had positions of power. It's very, very worrying.
You know? This doesn't go, of course, to the top. For instance, the former president Raizi was immensely he he knew everything that was going on geopolitically. He was very, very good at the highest level, much more competent than the current government. And the current government, there are a lot of people who say they are not strong enough to go against the maximum pressure policy of the the previous administration and now Trump two point zero.
So Iran is an extremely complex society because there is act is actual debate. If you go to the Iranian cafe outside of Tehran, in Mashad or Kazan, etcetera, people are discussing politics. It's it's wonderful. And don't forget, they have fabulous universities, and the universities, they promote debates all the time, including debating the political arrangements in Iran. So as a form of grassroots democracy, you see it in Iran working in front of you.
That that's that's the good part of it. It's not a matter of condemning or accepting the regime. For instance, in my case, I had to to give an idea, Mario, I had to study Shiite theology when I start going to Iran because I was interviewing Ayatollahs. If you don't know theology, you cannot have an interview a proper interview with an ayatollah or a high religious cleric. So you dig deeper into Shiism, and you learn a lot about Shiism as a religion and as a method of government.
And, of course, you it's not a matter of agreeing or not. You see how they apply that to running a country. It's an immensely complex subject. Sometimes the the fact that the country has not collapsed yet after forty years, it's in itself a miracle. But it's true.
Nowadays, they have reorganized the way their political economy. That's to go straight to the point. They are considering that these alliances that they have and are very, very close with Russia and China are benefiting Iran, but this is a long term process. They know that they are part of BRICS, which is very, important because they can sit with the BRICS members and also the BRICS partners and put their problems on the table, and this will be discussed by everybody, Russia, China, India, Brazil, etcetera. And their relationship with these three top Bricks, India, Russia, and China, is close enough to the point of they of course, I'm not saying if they are attacked, they're going to be defended by RIC, Russia, India, China.
No. But they have their they have it runs back in many other levels. For instance levels? Yeah. I would love to hear the levels.
Exactly. Just one example, Mario.
Speaker 0: Please. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you do you know who rebuilt in record time the Iranian grid after the initial Israeli attack in the twelve day war, and this happened in maximum forty eight hours. It was never advertised by anybody, the Russians. Nobody knew that the Russians were there, and nobody knew that the rush of course, the Russians have the the the hardware and the software and the knowledge to do that, but they did this quietly. So these are ways of and for instance, the configuration of the Port Of Sabahar in the Sea Of Oman as a big node of this international transportation corridor. India is directly involved, but in the background, the Chinese as well.
When I was there a few months ago talking to the authorities of the port, they said, yes. We have Chinese ships from Shanghai coming here all the time, and that will improve. Yes. Please. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Wouldn't it be scary to be a a an ally of Russia and China at the moment? You got Maduro out.
Speaker 1: So I like
Speaker 0: the guy. Good question. Hezbollah's out. I I just thought of it now as you're speaking. Hezbollah's out, Khamenei's out.
America's blatant, I'd say, military not like, essentially not having any restrictions in chasing their interests Right. Militarily, along with these when I say America, along with Israel, has really put a target on pretty much anyone that stands in their way. And Russia is in a tough position to be able to support those people as we saw with the army in Azerbaijan because they're busy with Ukraine and China have a policy of nonintervention. Considering those facts and and their way of doing, you know, doing business or or doing politics, it seems pretty pretty scary to say the least to be an ally of those two countries and stand in the way in The US. Is that a fair observation?
Speaker 1: No. And but they don't think in in these terms, Mario, the leadership in Beijing and in Moscow. Well, this is one of the things that us foreigners, we have to understand. It's part of my job. I go to Russia and China frequently.
Like, in in in the next two or three weeks, I'll I'll be going to China, and then I'll be going back to Russia. You have to be there. You have to talk to them, and you have to understand their long term gain. In in terms of China, not only you have to understand their five year plans, which now are reaching 2035. It's not even the next one.
They already have two five year plans in place.
Speaker 0: China's incredible. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's is incredible. And you have to understand the previous three thousand years. Seriously. Because when you are in the middle of a conversation with an academic or somebody from the government, they throw you a metaphor from one of the dynasties, and you have to know, oh, shit. Which one is he talking about?
That because they reason in terms of figures of speech and metaphors and images directly related to their history, and they bring that and apply to modern China. It's a fascinating process, but for us, foreigners, it requires an enormous effort to put this into context. But it's a long term view. For instance, I think the best example at the moment is is does China want the dollarization? Not exactly, and not now.
What do they want? They want most of the global south doing and trade with them in their own currencies or in yuan, period. This is what they really want. It's not de dollarization. It's, in fact, a de dollarization de facto.
Right? But it's but it's not like, now we, China, are going to create a new international currency. No. The Russians, the same thing, and the Russians are under much more severe questions than China. They are testing different I call it the BRICS lab.
Inside the BRICS, they are testing different payment systems, settlement systems, three or four at least, and some other outside. So in the next, I would say, three years, around 2028, 2029, this will arrive at the Bricks table and said, okay. Can we agree on a completely different payment system apart from SWIFT and apart from the dollar that all of us on the table agree and our partners also agree? This is where it's going. So it's a long term process.
You see?
Speaker 0: Mhmm. Yeah. Going back to Venezuela Sure. Another one of China's allies. We talked about Iran and and Iran and Venezuela have a lot of similarities in in in the case that both were incredible vibrant economies.
Iran before the the revolution and Venezuela before Chavez and before the sanctions. So some blame socialism, some blame sanctions, and blame both. But if you look at Venezuela, for people that don't know, the economy shrunk by 80% since Chavez since 2013. Living standards down by 74%. Oil production is a big one, dropped by 80%.
It was the I think it was the wealthiest country in Latin America at one point. The the inequality reached high levels, very high levels, and a lot of people left. I think a quarter of the population or a fifth left, and and 43% of the population post the twenty twenty four elections were considering leaving. That's half the population considering or wanted to leave. Now I'm a person who's critical of regime changes as I said about Iran, not because I like the regimes in question, I'm a supporter of democracy, but because I you know, historically, they haven't gone really well.
And, generally, the country that's leading the regime change, The US, Russia, whatever country you wanna you wanna point out, they do it for their own interests rather than the interests of the country that's being targeted. Now Venezuela or at the beginning, if when I first heard about the military intervention, I I told my partner, I'm like, okay. This is pretty messed up. The US is bombing Venezuela. This is freaking crazy.
I never thought that would happen. Then when the operation ended, we found out they went in, captured Maduro's bloodless, and then when it evolved and and Trump distanced himself from Maria Machado and even praised the vice president, some light praise, and then later threatened her, I'm like, okay. Hold on. This is removing Maduro, showing American might, breaking international law. That's been the case for decades.
I think international law in general is is in in question, unfortunately. Trump being Trump, but they did not change the regime. I'm not sure if we're gonna see the same thing in Iran. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 0: They kept the regime. Okay. So you think so do would you say that this may end up positive for Venezuela if they continue working with the current regime and the vice president is the vice president is is more open to working with the West and better at managing the economy than Maduro. She could still be loyal at Maduro, but be more open to collaborating with big brother upstairs allow the economy to flourish. So could we actually see a successful operation there even though I know you're critical of it?
Could it end up being positive for the country, or you're extremely more pessimistic than I am?
Speaker 1: Well, for Venezuela to start working properly again, the first thing is to eliminate the sanctions. Simple as that. Try telling that to Trump and to the US congress. There you go. That's number one.
Number two, they'll see once again, I have to tell you and our audience something very important. They'll see an excellent negotiator, and she's very well prepared. And she knows how to deal with pressure. So, you know, for her dealing with Trump is is part of the job. That's that's not a problem per se.
Very also very, very important. She has the support now of over 90% of Venezuelans. What do they what do they what did they see a few days ago and what the rest of Latin America saw a few days ago? The gringo comes here and snatches a president from his bedroom in the middle of the night. If you talk about this, Mario, with somebody in a faveling Rio, somebody in a really nice churrascaria in Buenos Aires, somebody eating a ceviche in Peru, the reactions are gonna be the same.
This is our hemisphere. You don't do this to us. You stay over there, Gringo. This is our land. Don't mess with us.
And this is something that you have to listen to in the streets, not, of course, talking to hedge fund managers in big tower blocks in the big capitals of South America. That's a completely different story. Santiago, Buenos Aires, or Sao Paulo, etcetera. That that's not but this is the 1%. What Trump did, he managed to antagonize the whole of Latin American public opinion against him.
That's not a very I would say
Speaker 0: Most most Latin American countries did not a lot of them did not recognize a lot of them didn't recognize Maduro though either. A lot of them didn't like Maduro.
Speaker 1: No. This is the Venezuelan middle class And because of extensive propaganda campaign, the Venezuelan diaspora who lives in Miami, the people who are paying Marco Rubio's bills, essentially. The Cuban diaspora and the Venezuelan diaspora living in Miami. And for them, Miami is much more important than Cuba or Venezuela. This is the character the key characteristic of Latin American, South America Comprador elites.
Anything in US is better than in their own country.
Speaker 0: But most countries didn't recognize Maduro, though. Most of them did not recognize Maduro as president. Most Latin American countries did not recognize Maduro after the twenty twenty four elections.
Speaker 1: Because they were under pressure from The US or they had their own compadre elite regimes. And even more complicated cases, Mario, and I have to stress this because it's extremely important. The most important nation in Latin America is Brazil. The Americans know that. They always knew that.
They cannot allow Brazil to become a global power in their their own hemisphere. The problem is Brazil cannot rely on Lula because the Lula that we know today is not the Lula of thirty, forty years ago that many of us grew up with and learned to respect. Luther doesn't want to go back to jail again. When he left jail, he received a key visit by Jake Sullivan at the time who read him the riot act. Jake Sullivan basically said, look.
We did everything to get you out of jail. Now we have to follow what we want you to do. And with Trump, it's even worse. It's even even worse because it's frankly antagonizing Lula and Brazil as a member of BRICS. Because the Trump two point zero war is a hybrid war against BRICS as a whole, and Brazil is one of the top BRICS.
So inside the government, just to tell you how complicated the situation is, the Brazilian foreign ministry, they are essentially Atlanticists, and they think that we need to have some sort of accommodation with the Americans. They vetoed Lula approving Venezuela becoming a member of BRICS. I I I was there when it happened. I was at this the Kazan Summit of BRICS in Russia in October 2024, and it dropped as a bomb. It dropped the day before the start of the summit that Lula personally had vetoed in a meeting Venezuela and even Venezuela as a partner.
So Venezuela could not be a it's all the decisions on BRICS are by consensus. So this was the the work of the Brazilian foreign ministry. It was not even Lula himself. Even though Lula does not never approved Maduro like he did Chavez, Lula idolized Chavez totally. But he he never thought that Maduro was up to
Speaker 0: Chavez Chavez had a lot more support than Maduro. Chavez was elected.
Speaker 1: Chavez Question about that. Exactly. Exactly. But would you yeah. Go ahead, please.
Yes.
Speaker 0: I was gonna ask on Maduro though, would you criticize without supporting the operation by The US? I think it's very normal for anyone to be critical of the operation in The US. You know, Venezuela is a sovereign country. Military action against a sovereign country is against international law. So it's very easy to be critical of that.
But would you is it fair to say that Maduro did a bad job at managing Venezuela's economy and maybe DELC could do a better job or the new regime, the new leaders of the same regime could do a better job than Maduro. Is that a fair statement?
Speaker 1: Delsy could do a better job. I agree with you completely. The problem is Maduro maybe was not up to the task of managing a situation where you are under total sanctions practically, and you don't have partners among your neighbors in Latin America. So this was very, very hard to manage. This guy, his background is as a union laborer and negotiator, and he's not Lula.
Lula learned on the job how to be a president, and he was an extremely effective president in his his first two terms. Maduro is not Lula. You see? Exactly. Like, if
Speaker 0: because I know the sanctions know the sanctions played a role. The reason I asked you that question is Iran is under sanctions, has been under sanctions for decades, so is Russia, more sanctions than both. And both economies, Iran's not doing great, but better than Venezuela under Maduro. Russia's doing better than both. Under Maduro, we saw the biggest peacetime refugee crisis in human history.
So that's why I say that sanctions obviously were horrible for the economy, and it's a strategy to pressure any country that that is not advancing America's interest is very fair to say. But at the same time, there's a lot of mismanagement there that led Venezuela to where it is today. My view.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Mhmm.
Speaker 0: So I agree.
Speaker 1: That's good. No no question.
Speaker 0: And the last thing I wanna get your thoughts on, Pepe, is what what do the what does the instability in Iran and the risks of the regime falling? Now whether it's gonna fall or not, time will tell. And the the the capture of Maduro, along with everything else that's happened in the last twelve months, along with the negotiations between Trump, Putin, Zelensky, the attack on Zelensky and Putin's residence, the Ureshnik missile that was launched against Lviv. Putting all these together, where do you stand on the Russia Ukraine war and and the negotiations that are ongoing right now?
Speaker 1: Well, to to put it bluntly, Mario, very pessimistic, especially after the attack on Novgorod. Because this was, I would say, the straw that broke the steppe camel's back in the case of Russia. Because now they have, as we commented evidence, that certainly they could not say Trump, obviously not, but the CIA for sure. And this the question is, was Trump in or did you know, or they bypassed him? Very hard to imagine that he didn't know that this was gonna happen.
So now the whole kabuki of Kirill Dmitryev, Jared Kushner, and Whitkoff, now it's it revealed itself for what it is, a kabuki. And it's not the most important vector of trying to find some sort of understanding with The US. And and this is something that I'm starting to discuss with my Russian connections. And there's a feeling of, okay. This is we we are entering another stage.
And the stage is it has already been explicitly the warning already came explicitly from Lavrov. The SMO will be decided in the battlefield, and there's no other possibility. There will be no ceasefire. There will be no Trump peace plan, whatever. That's it.
So, you know, they keep going through the motions of this kabuki, of course, which is probably what's gonna happen. And this Orishnik warning, it's only the second time that they launched an Oreshnik. And they launched to a very, very specific target, which is a mix of command and control center around Lviv, which is one of the most important for NATO, and an underground gas storage facility, and 150 kilometers from the Polish border. So this message was for the Poles, not for the Ukrainians, essentially, and for NATO. Basically, message is, look.
We can do this anytime we want. We can obliterate one of your bases in ten minutes. Do you want to keep going with your escalation? Okay. You got the message.
So now we are in a much more volatile and dangerous stage of the war. And from the point of view of if if you start looking at the body language and what Putin has been saying and what Medvedev has been saying and even and even Lavrov, they're starting to be really fed up. And I think the velvet gloves that they used so far are going to disappear soon. So this means that this war won't be solved in 2026. It can if the if the Americans sorry.
If the Europeans want their forever war, which is what they're doing and here in Europe, we see this every day, not only NATO Ruti in NATO, but the leaders of the nation states in Europe. If this continues, the war can go on for an at least for another two or three years with horrible consequences for everybody, especially for Europe. Because Europe, the they cannot pay for this war without plundering their own tax paying citizens, and people are starting to do the math here everywhere across Europe. So I'm I'm sorry to be so realistic with you, but this is it's bleak. Going ahead is gonna be bleak.
Yeah. That's not good.
Speaker 0: Well, mister Escobar, it's a it's a pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you so much for your time. My pleasure.
Speaker 1: To have you again. Of course. Cheers. Thank you very much.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m reading DHS: the Portland shooting target was a Tren de Aragua gang member tied to a prostitution ring and a recent Portland shooting. The driver tried to run over federal agents, and an agent fired a defensive shot. Venezuelan gang members, prostitution trafficking, connected to a recent shooting, and a democratic socialist is organizing a vigil for them. This is who Democrats are defending. Source: @DHSgov
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 BREAKING: PORTLAND SHOOTING TARGET WAS TREN DE ARAGUA GANG MEMBER TIED TO PROSTITUTION RING AND RECENT SHOOTING The narrative just collapsed. DHS released a statement on the Portland shooting: The target was a Venezuelan illegal alien affiliated with Tren de Aragua's prostitution ring and involved in a recent shooting in Portland. The driver is also believed to be a gang member. "When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents. Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired a defensive shot." So let's recap: Venezuelan gang members. Prostitution trafficking. Connected to a recent shooting. Tried to run over federal agents. And a democratic socialist is organizing a vigil for them. This is who Democrats are defending. Not refugees. Not asylum seekers. Tren de Aragua. The same gang terrorizing communities from Texas to Colorado to New York. Now we know what Portland actually was: Agents taking down violent gang members who tried to kill them. Source: @DHSgov
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 BREAKING: DHS SAYS PORTLAND SHOOTING SUSPECT TRIED TO RUN OVER AGENTS, TARGET WAS TREN DE ARAGUA GANG MEMBER DHS statement on the Portland shooting: The target was a Venezuelan illegal alien affiliated with Tren de Aragua's prostitution ring and involved in a recent shooting in Portland. The driver is also believed to be a gang member. "When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents." "Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired a defensive shot." The driver fled the scene with the passenger. Source: DHS / KATU
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Department of Homeland Security released a statement regarding a developing incident. At 02:19 Pacific Standard Time, US border patrol agents were conducting a targeted vehicle stop in Portland. The passenger of the vehicle is described as a Venezuelan illegal alien affiliated with the transnational Trendyaragua prostitution ring and involved in a recent shooting in Portland. The vehicle driver is believed to be a member of the Venezuelan gang Trende Aragua. When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents. Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired a defensive shot. The driver drove off with the passenger fleeing the scene. The situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Have breaking news in this developing situation. We now have a statement from the Department of Homeland Security. It's right here. At 02:19 Pacific Standard Time, US border patrol agents were conducting a targeted vehicle stop in Portland. The passenger of the vehicle and target is a Venezuelan illegal alien affiliated with the transnational Trendyaragua prostitution ring and involved in a recent shooting in Portland.
The vehicle driver is believed to be a member of the vicious Venezuelan gang Trende Aragua. When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents. Fearing for his life and safety, An agent fired a defensive shot. The driver drove off with the passenger fleeing the scene. The situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.
So there
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 BREAKING: FBI PORTLAND DELETES POST ABOUT FEDERAL AGENT SHOOTING The FBI's Portland office posted on X that it was investigating a shooting "involving Customs and Border Patrol Agents in which 2 individuals were wounded." The post has since been deleted. The FBI did not https://t.co/Ep1KSM0PAT
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that Minnesota State Rep. Marion Rarick says whistleblowers exposing fraud in state programs face systemic intimidation, including losing their jobs and homes, having their kids tracked, and barred from future employment. She says retaliation has escalated and the system is weaponized, especially under Democratic control. Source: LindellTV.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 MINNESOTA WHISTLEBLOWERS WARNED TO STAY SILENT: “YOU’LL LOSE YOUR JOB, YOUR HOME, & THEY’LL TRACK YOUR KIDS” Minnesota State Rep. Marion Rarick says whistleblowers trying to expose fraud in state-run programs are being hit with threats straight out of a political thriller. She warned that the intimidation is systemic, and basically if you speak up, expect your life to be dismantled. Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected by law, and if they’re being hunted for telling the truth, the system is being weaponized. @MarionONeill1: “Retaliation has been going on for quite some time and it’s now escalated. You’re going to lose your job. You’re going to lose your home. They’ll track your children. They’ll make sure you can’t get a job anywhere Democrats control.” Source: LindellTV
Video Transcript AI Summary
Miss Reyrich asked about the retaliation people experience when trying to expose fraud and corruption in Minnesota. Speaker 1 said retaliation has been ongoing for some time. They cited Faith Bernstein’s 2019 Newsweek report: Bernstein was heavily investigated and moved to a different state agency, retaliated against in every kind of way you can think. Recently, retaliation has escalated to threats of losing your job and losing your home, and to tracking your children, with efforts to ensure you can't get a job anywhere in state government. For Minnesota this means you can’t get a job anywhere Democrats control, including Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Duluth, Rochester.
Miss Reyrich then asked if this will prevent people from continuing to speak out. Speaker 1 said they hope that with light on it and telling people that this is the retaliation, if something like that does come to fruition right now, it’s threats, although some people have been fired, that they have a little bit more ability to speak up and speak to them and that they can cover them in that way. But it’s been really, really bad, and it’s been bad for quite some time.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Miss Reyrich, you spoke about the retaliation that many have experienced in light of trying to expose the fraud and the corruption happening in Minnesota. Can you speak more to that and what people are experiencing when they try to sound the alarm on what's happening.
Speaker 1: Right. So the that retaliation has been going on for quite some time. If you look at what Faith Bernstein said in a news report or Newsweek article back in 2019, it started for her. And she was heavily investigated. She was actually moved to a different state agency.
She was, you know, retaliated against in every kind of way you can think. What's happened now is retaliation has escalated, and now it's, you're gonna lose your job. You're gonna lose your home. We're gonna track your children. We're gonna, make sure that you can't get a job anywhere else in state government.
And for Minnesota, that means probably Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Duluth, Rochester. You can't get a job anywhere that Democrats control.
Speaker 0: That's pretty terrifying. Do you think that's going to prevent people from continuing to speak out on the issue?
Speaker 1: Well, we are really hoping that, with all of this light on it and, you know, telling people that this is the retaliation, that if something like that does come to fruition right now, it's threats, although some people have been fired, that they have a little bit more ability to speak up and speak to us and that we can cover them in that way. But it's been really, really bad, and it's been bad for quite some time.
reSee.it AI Summary
I relay Larry Johnson’s claim that Maduro’s capture was made possible by a stand-down order from a Venezuelan official secretly aligned with U.S. intelligence, making the operation look staged. He says Iran protests are driven by intelligence ops, with the U.S. and Israel eyeing strikes but regime change unlikely as Iran is stronger now. He critiques Monroe Doctrine misuse, limits of air power, and argues multipolar realities constrain U.S. actions and motives in Venezuela and Iran.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 EX-CIA ANALYST ON VENEZUELA & IRAN Ex-CIA analyst Larry Johnson says the U.S. operation that captured Maduro was made possible by covert cooperation at the highest levels of Venezuelan security. According to Larry, a senior Venezuelan official, secretly working with U.S. intelligence for years, issued a stand-down order that allowed Delta Force to land, extract Maduro, and exit with precision and speed. What appeared to be a flawless special operation was, in his words, “staged.” And on Iran, Larry believes the current protests are instigated by U.S. and Israeli intelligence, and the likelihood of toppling the regime is slim. He believes the U.S. and Israel are planning new strikes against the country, and that the regime is more prepared than it was during the 12-day war, with more advanced weapons and better readiness. 03:21 - Initial reaction to Maduro’s capture and why it felt “staged” 06:08 - Questions around the helicopter incident and lack of U.S. casualties 09:26 - Why a stand-down order could happen without full coordination 12:18 - No real plan after capturing Maduro: lessons from Iraq 15:36 - U.S. goal in Venezuela: oil control and pushing out China, Russia, Iran 18:21 - Risk of escalation and the Vietnam-style trap for the U.S. 21:31 - Why “precision strikes” are a myth and air power has limits 23:05 - Why the operation succeeded: insiders, unlocked doors, and no defenses 26:16 - Misuse of the Monroe Doctrine and U.S. interference in Latin America 29:53 - Contradictions between multipolar reality and U.S. global actions 31:15 - Why threats backfire and push countries closer to BRICS 34:02 - Trump’s behavior as a symptom of declining U.S. hegemony 36:49 - Houthis, Red Sea reality, and limits of U.S. naval power 39:26 - Iran protests: intelligence operations versus real public anger 42:09 - MEK, Mossad, CIA, and manufacturing opposition narratives 47:04 - Iran preparing for war and turning to Russia and China 51:24 - Why Iran is stronger now despite war, sanctions, and protests 54:12 - Difference between Iran’s government and the Islamic Republic 56:44 - Why the U.S. cannot replicate the Maduro operation in Iran
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the Venezuelan operation that resulted in the capture of Maduro and the broader implications for global power dynamics. Larry asserts that many aspects of Maduro’s kidnapping were “odd,” noting that Caracas possessed significant air defense systems, most of which were not activated, and that one security service leader was a full cooperator with the United States, facilitating U.S. entry and avoiding return fire. He describes the operation as not replacing the Maduro government but “hold off Maduro, get US control of the oil, and get China and Russia and Iran out.” The plan, he states, was not regime change; the regime remained in power, but Maduro was removed temporarily to pursue strategic objectives.
In recounting the operation, Larry explains that Delta Force operators from Task Force 160 carried out the mission in full moonlight, which he says reduced the usual advantage of nighttime execution. He compares the Caracas action to a pre-planned, staged exercise at Otis Air Force Base decades earlier, suggesting the Caracas operation was similarly staged, with the United States not facing ground fire. He notes conflicting casualty reports—“32 Cubans were killed” versus “80 Venezuelans”—and emphasizes the cooperation with Venezuelan forces, with no replacement of the government.
A key point concerns a potential stand-down order. Larry indicates that the anti-air defenses bought from Russia—S-300s and Buk missiles—were not disabled; rather, they were not activated due to a stand-down order. He proposes that an insider within Maduro’s security apparatus cooperated with the U.S., and he names the possibility of a particular senior commander but declines to identify him publicly. He also discusses a theory that interim president Delcy Rodríguez might have been involved in providing intelligence or cooperation, but he regards such claims as a diversion from the real participants.
The discussion then turns to the political and strategic objectives behind capturing Maduro. Mario asks about why capture was pursued if regime change was not intended, and Larry responds that the plan was to “get US control of the oil” and to push out rivals like China, Russia, and Iran from influence in Venezuela. They discuss potential future actions if Rodríguez or other internal leaders do not cooperate, including the possibility of escalating through force or covert operations that could provoke U.S. casualties and thus justify greater U.S. troop involvement. They compare this to the Iraq 2003 invasion planning, noting a lack of long-term stabilization plans.
The Monroe Doctrine is invoked and contrasted with a Dunno/“Dunrold” framing. Larry argues that the Monroe Doctrine was misinterpreted as a unilateral U.S. claim to the Western Hemisphere, calling current U.S. actions a blend of Polk and Teddy Roosevelt’s doctrine rather than a strict, modern application of Monroe. He asserts that Russia and China are building a new international order with India and Brazil, and that Trump’s rhetoric may accelerate multipolar alignment, particularly with BRICS members like Brazil. They discuss how U.S. actions could push countries toward cooperating with China and Russia, potentially eroding U.S. hegemony.
Turning to Iran, the analysts discuss protests and foreign involvement. They contend that Iranian protests are largely manufactured or supported by Western intelligence, including Mossad and the CIA, highlighting sources like the NCIR/Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) as part of Western intelligence influence. They note that Iran has strengthened ties with Russia and China since September, reducing sanctions pressure and improving economic options. They contend that Iran’s leadership—Pozheskin’s regime—has shown signs of adapting to internal pressures, including firing an economic minister, while maintaining a posture of resilience against Western demands. They discuss the twelve-day war with Israel, arguing Iran recovered quickly and maintained a strong stance, with deep hypersonic capabilities and robust air defense.
The speakers conclude by debating whether the U.S. could replicate Maduro’s capture in Iran or whether a regime change attempt there is feasible. They contend there are no existing U.S. networks in Iran comparable to those in Venezuela, making a similar operation unlikely. They reflect on U.S. leverage, the role of foreign backing for Iran, and the potential for Iran to leverage its growing ties with Russia and China to resist Western pressure. The conversation ends with mutual appreciation and a New Year closing note.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did you think it was more than just a special op? There are
Speaker 1: so many things that are odd about the kidnapping of Maduro. The air defense systems that Caracas had were significant. Most of them were never activated. One of
Speaker 0: the
Speaker 1: security services was in fact a full cooperator with The United States. So that ensured that when The US forces arrived, they were basically allowed in the front door. It did not replace the government of Venezuela. It simply hold off Maduro. Get rid of Maduro, get US control of the oil, and get China and Russia and Iran out.
The thought was if we just get rid of Maduro, that'll all go away. And I think they're gonna find that's not the case. The hegemonic domination we've had, it is slipping away. We're no longer the only option.
Speaker 0: So last we spoke was just before New Year's Eve and we were talking about the attack on Putin's residence. It seems all red lines in the kind of the rules of conduct around the world and the world that we used to live in pre Trump are being crossed on a on a monthly basis, so we're talking about the drone attack or alleged drone attack on Putin's residence and a few days later as we me and you try to celebrate Christmas and New Year's, we have the leader of a country, the president of a country in custody within hours. Sure. First, Larry, I want to get your reaction when you first got the news before we knew what was going on, what was your initial instinct, and what were your thoughts? Did you think it was more than just a special op?
Speaker 1: No. Well, I I frankly, I felt sick. I mean, I literally I got I was up late, and the word was coming here about 02:30 in the morning eastern time. And then to try to go to sleep after that, I I was just thoroughly disgusted by it. You know, there there was no reason to do this.
And there are so many things that are odd about the kidnapping of Maduro. You know, I spent twenty three years scripting exercises, military exercises for Delta Force and SEAL Team six. So Delta Force was the one that carried out this operation. And, you know, that involves a unit called Task Force one sixty. They they are the night flyers and so they're specially trained to carry Delta Force operators and seal team six operators.
Normally, if they're if what they're gonna do when they're planning a mission, if they have any flexibility, in other words, circumstances are not such that they have to do it now, they're gonna do it in total darkness because they've got the advantage with night vision goggles that they can operate in the dark like most people can't. Well this one took place in full moonlight, number one. And the problem with full moonlight, if you know anyone that's ever walked outside at night in the full moonlight particularly if you're outside of the city, you're amazed at the illumination you can get that you can you can actually see quite clearly and you can see up in the sky. The air defense systems that Caracas had were significant. Yet a few of those were destroyed but most of them were never activated or or deployed.
I have since learned that a senior, well one of leaders of one of the security services in Venezuela was in fact a full cooperator with The United States. So that ensured that when The US forces arrived, they were they were basically allowed in the front door and no no return fire. This was akin to you know, back in gosh, when was it? The summer, yeah 1990 when we conducted a counterterrorism exercise at Otis Air Force Base up in Massachusetts. And this was for a group called the the foreign emergency support team, FEST.
And it was comprised of state department personnel, CIA personnel, depart FBI personnel, and representatives of JSOC. So it was to be a response team to a terrorist incident overseas. So as part of this exercise, the the CIA component was called the incident response team. And we found out later that, you know, when they when they got in and they performed during the exercise, it was great. Well, what we found out was they had showed up at the exercise site two days earlier and they went to the base commander and say, yep.
You know, because they were supposed to conduct surveillance and collect intelligence. So I went to the base commander and said, hey. You see this tree here? Can you cut down that tree? And so they made sure that they had removed all obstacles and that they had bugged the inside of that building in advance.
Now so what happened on that exercise wasn't real. It was staged. That's what happened Saturday morning early in Caracas. It was staged. It was not The US forces were not facing ground fire.
It's still you know, we've heard that 32 Cubans were killed. Then we've heard that 80 Venezuelans were killed. We still don't have good numbers. We don't have names and faces that I've seen, but this was carried out in conjunction with Venezuelan forces. And yet, it did not replace the government of Venezuela.
It simply hold off Maduro. Yes. So that that that's another interesting point that I'd love to dig into is that this is not a regime change. The regime is still in power. But before doing so, you talked about a senior military commander that might have played a role in ordering a stand down order.
Senior official within the security. So I'll leave it broad in the security services. I mean, I know who I know who it is, but I don't, you know, wanna say.
Speaker 0: Of course. What about the rocket launcher that was that hit one of the choppers, The US choppers, led to a few injuries? Do you
Speaker 1: think that was a lone actor, or doesn't it show that what was? No. That that'd be that'd be a lone actor. I'm sure there's somebody there would somebody who would refuse to follow orders. Of course, if it was a shoulder fired surface to air missile and it only it didn't bring down the helicopter, I've gotta gotta really ask some questions about what actually happened because one of those one of those devices, those weapons would certainly have blown the helicopter out of the sky.
Would have put it down on the ground. The fact that The United States virtually suffered no casualties, and we can't rule out the possibility that it's just it was a malfunction with the helicopter, a mechanical problem, and it it crash landed. That's how The US personnel were hurt.
Speaker 0: So you're saying the the the anti air defense systems that Venezuela purchased from Russia, billions worth, the s 3 hundreds, the the the b u k's, they were not disabled or at least the majority of them was not disabled, were not hit whether, you know, through jamming or through a kinetic strikes, but they were not active because of the stand down order, and that's what made the operation so seamless. So if there is a stand down order, what what do you think the motive would be for us to speculate? Who within Maduro's regime would want Maduro removed and why?
Speaker 1: Well, the the the there could be a number of people within the Maduro outfit. I mean, the the individual I've been told about had been recruited actually several years ago by a a three letter government US government agency and then I won't say which one but had become a cooperator. And so as virtue of by virtue of cooperation was what was receiving money from The United States. I don't know if they were financially motivated. It's clear that in Venezuela, there were economic problems and you could find you certainly find within the military or the intelligence services or the police individuals who are willing, you know, to take US dollars and maybe a promise of a visa or or a passport, a green card, residence in in The United States as a as a as a sort of an incentive, a reward.
So there there you know, Venezuela is not united monolith. There are you know, there's still in Venezuela people that oppose Maduro and Chavez. And so and he can't rule out the possibility that some of those were had been able to infiltrate intelligence services, military command, or police command.
Speaker 0: It seems difficult, though, to give a stand down order for that many troops and not be caught, especially the crackdown that we're seeing right now in Venezuela. There I've heard stories they're stopping people on, you know, stopping cars and asking to look at people's social media accounts, looking at their messages to see if anyone either collaborated with The US or just posting things against the regime, so there seems to be an extensive crackdown. Wouldn't it be difficult for such an order to be to be given?
Speaker 1: No. Well, that it would be difficult if you had what's called an integrated command system that integrated intelligence service with military service with police law enforcement. But that's you know not even the US government operates that way. You oftentimes have the left hand not knowing what the right hand's doing And this was not this this activity took place over a course of about an hour, hour and a half tops. So by the time someone realized that something was askew, it was over.
So but they I I do not believe, you know, based upon my prior experience that the commander of JSOC would sign off on an op putting helicopters over a city where there are known air defenses in moonlight without having some assurance or guarantee that those, systems were not going to be activated.
Speaker 0: And There's a lot of Go ahead. There's a lot of theories that the vice president, now interim president, Delce Rodriguez, played a role in whether it's a stand down order or giving intel to The US or has been playing along with The US or planning this with The US for months. Do you believe, though, that that theory has some credence to it?
Speaker 1: Based on what I learned yesterday and again the I know, you know, who I learned it from. I is in a position to absolutely know. I think that that story being put out about Delsy Rodriguez is a cover story in order to divert attention from the people that were actually involved.
Speaker 0: K. So as I said earlier, this is not a regime change. The same regime is still in power. So what's the purpose of capturing the leader? They must be especially such a risky mission.
You know, you could always have a lone soldier or lone commander, assuming there is a stand down order that would have given a different order. So despite the the operation being a resounding success, it could have ended up in in in political military failure as well for for Trump. So to take such a risk, there must be a plan there, And if so, what is that plan? Is it is is do you think the vice president do you think Rodriguez is more likely to cooperate with
Speaker 1: The US? I would challenge the whether or not there actually was a a plan. I just I've seen too many times over the course, know, so I've been involved with intelligence and policy going back forty years. And over the course of that forty years in in event after event, I've seen lack complete lack of planning. So it's more hope or or the they're so preoccupied with immediate objectives.
They don't think through what's what's the next step. I mean, classic case was what happened with the two thousand and three invasion of Iraq. There was no plan in place to figure out how to secure the once we once we took out all the military opposition, how were we going to secure that country? What kind of leadership were we going to have in place? And how were we going to manage the rift, the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia.
And I mean, I know that for a fact because I was friends with l Paul Bremer, Jerry Bremer, who was selected by president Bush, Don Rumsfeld to go in and head up, be like the viceroy of Baghdad. I mean, I literally I had lunch with Jerry two two days before he was selected for that position. And when he when he was selected, I called him up and said, boy, who did you piss off? And he laughed and he said, oh, no, no. When the president calls, you gotta say yes.
But I knew because I knew Jerry, I knew he didn't speak Arabic. He hadn't served any diplomatic position in the Middle East. So I tried to connect him with what the with one of the top five leading experts in The United States on Iraq, w Walter Patrick Lange. Pat had been the defense attache in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Pat had hand carried US intelligence to the Iraqi army during the Iran Iraq war because the the Iraqis wouldn't deal with the CIA.
Pat set up the Arabic program at West Point, and it taught Arabic to cadets for two years. So there was nobody really better to talk about this. So I said, here. Talk to Pat, and Jerry was no. No.
I don't need to talk to him. There had been a planning cell that had been put in place. General Jay Garner, I believe, is it was. And, you I I knew one of the other people on the on the team, ambassador Barbara Bodine. Barbara had been one of the deputies in the counterterrorism office when I worked there.
But they at least had some knowledge. You know, Barbara was she did have experience in The Middle East, but they were they were immediately removed. So this idea that there was planning involved for this, I I think they got preoccupied with just removing. I I think the plan is this. Get rid of Maduro, get US control of the oil, and get China and Russia and Iran out.
Try to try to exclude them from having any more influence in Venezuela. Now how are we gonna do that? It's a whole another question. I think the the thought was if we just get rid of Maduro, that'll all go away. And I think they're gonna find that's not the case.
Speaker 0: So that's what they mean when when Trump initially said that we will run Venezuela. Think he walked back those comments, but what was meant is that they'll take control of the oil. I think his reports already his the administration's meeting with the executives of the various oil companies to start a plan to to kick start or to increase Venezuela's production capacity because, you know, their production capacity dropped by, like, 75% over the years since the peak in the nineteen nineties to get that started to what it was. But then so if the vice president doesn't agree to that plan now I know she's not the only decision maker there, was speaking to Max Blumenthal, he said something similar to what you said, is that as multiple decision makers, multiple pillars of power in Venezuela even when Maduro was president.
Speaker 1: Right. Right.
Speaker 0: But let's say they together they don't agree for The US to to get access to the oil or to get any increased influence in the country. What is what what would The US do next? What what Trump do next? He's already threatened even worse for the vice president if she doesn't play ball. He said, well, you know, they'll do to her worse than what they did to Maduro, which people assume then assassinate.
Oh, yeah. Do you believe do you think that threat he meant that threat, and, do you think those threats could work?
Speaker 1: No. A, I don't think he meant it. You know, Trump is a notorious tough talker. It doesn't always act on what he says. If he did do that, he would make her a martyr.
And she already has a family history with her father having been murdered by Venezuelan elements that were under the control of the CIA. So there's already a family history there. The dilemma The United States now faces is they got away with this one in terms of they got some cooperation from a one well placed individual who make sure that they if you will, the lights were turned off and nobody was home so that The US could get in and out without getting caught. That's gonna be the more difficult to do going forward. That that that person may in fact be compromised now.
And there are others like Diosdado. Carveo is his name who's who is very much a Chavista following in in in the path of Hugh Hugo Chavez. The and, you know, there are militant elements both in the military and within the security services that could take over, in the event of an emergency and fight. Now how is The United States going to ensure that, its policy priorities, its demands are carried out? Well, if it if that means putting personnel in there on the ground to manage and direct, then I think the odds are high that some of them will be attacked, assassinated, and The United States will call that terrorism.
The Venezuelans carrying it out will be called killing foreign invaders. And then in response to that, Trump would be under great pressure to expand the military presence of The United States in Venezuela. That's that's the Vietnam escalation scenario As as US troops encountered more opposition and experienced more casualties, they doubled down, you know, the old sunk cost fallacy by putting more troops into Vietnam until, you know, we got we got up to like 549,000 or 543,000 by April 1969. And then finally, everyone woke up and said, nah. This isn't gonna work.
And so we began drawing down and figured out how to exit. At some point, you know, I do not see a successful military strategy Trump can pursue that will enable him to achieve his objectives. Instead, the the the stronger we go trying to coerce not only Venezuela, but Colombia and Panama, the greater opposition The United States is gonna run into. And if it if if The US puts boots on the ground, some of those boots are gonna die. And then that's gonna create a dynamic that will incentivize Trump to try to put more troops in.
And then, you know, anybody thinks you can have a quick war in these countries, just look at what Colombia has gone through with the FARC. The they were established in 1964. They're still fighting sixty two years later despite massive counterinsurgency programs between The United States and Colombia to go after them. So it's just it's just to point out that that terrain is so rugged. The jungle is so thick.
The mountains, big mountains. It's easy to smuggle people, smuggle weapons, smuggle contraband, and very, very difficult for any military whether it's a Venezuela military, Colombian military, US military, to control what goes on on those borders. What if we
Speaker 0: take Trump by his word? He said that he would, you know, potentially assassinate the vice president if she doesn't change Venezuela's policy, in this case, US companies to access Venezuela's oil and cut relations with Russia, China, Iran. Could we see precision strikes by Trump? You know, they were able to capture Maduro with no casualties. Do you think they could cross another line and strike certain members of the of the regime?
Speaker 1: If they I think if if they try it again and they don't have an insider that's gonna turn off the alarm system, so to speak, then if Trump tries it again, there will be US casualties. Even if not not a not a capture a precision strike.
Speaker 0: So just to instead of capture someone, because it's gonna be very hard to repeat the same operation.
Speaker 1: Yeah. This with with The United States, there's no such thing as precision strikes. You know, it go if you followed any of the coverage on Russia today, they've they've been able to show civilian houses that were hit that were not regime figures. So the the problem is it's never quite as precise. And and and airstrikes are very, very limited in what they can accomplish.
If you recall, know, well, you you were a young guy back then, but, you know, 20, you know, twenty three years ago with the shock and awe in the attacks on Baghdad. Mean, I they went on for, like, two or three days. You know, spectacular explosions and precision strikes. We didn't capture. It took another eight months to capture Saddam Hussein, and that was done with ground forces.
So that's that's what's fascinating that's what's fascinating to
Speaker 0: me and it's taken years and and and multiple failed attempts in Cuba. So this is what really surprised me and impressed me with this operation is they were able to outdo all other similar operations in decades. Well, but
Speaker 1: that's but that's because it was fixed in advance. You know? I'm gonna I'm gonna say, hey. I'm gonna have you Mario, I'm gonna have you break into this house and steal all the goods, but I'm gonna let you line up a U Haul truck out front, and I'm gonna leave the front door unlocked, and the dogs will be chained up in
Speaker 0: the pen. So the credit goes to the CIA here?
Speaker 1: Yeah. What about Trump's comment? Or another another three three letter agency.
Speaker 0: Okay. And we talked about boots on the ground. Well, Trump himself said the team just sent it to me. We're not afraid of boots on the ground. We had boots on the ground last night, so he's obviously saying that troops were in the country.
We're not afraid of it. We don't mind saying it. Does he mean it?
Speaker 1: No. He he means that he's stupid for saying it. They should be very
Speaker 0: Unless it's unless Venezuela maybe Venezuela is afraid he's capitalizing on the fee created by this operation to have your leader captured this way. Obviously, the members of the regime that weren't in on it would probably be in shock right now.
Speaker 1: Well, the the the there's Maduro was not this wildly popular Castro figure. Yeah. Know, he he did not have the kind of charisma that Castro did and nor the the the political base. Or even Chavez. Yeah.
So he could you know, the if if he he's expendable and the regime stays intact, which it has, then the question remains, what kind of influence is The United States going to be able to assert. And China and Russia for their part, they've got interests in Venezuela. This is where, you know, there's such a fundamental misunderstanding of what is known as the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine is espoused by president James Monroe in 1823 was a doctrine of non interference by The United States and warning Europeans not to come into the Americas and try to impose their governments on American the various countries, territories in Central And South America. It was not, the Monroe Doctrine was not, never a declaration that The United States is the primary power in the Western Hemisphere and that The United States can alone determine which country can have what kind of relations with foreign nations.
Because the way it's been interpreted is that The United States now said, well, we don't like Venezuela having close relations with China and Russia and Iran. So that's outrageous. We're not gonna allow that. That's not the Monroe doctrine. I call that that's a combination of the Polk doctrine, James k Polk, the president who started the Mexican American war where we where we literally provoked the war in order to steal the territory of the Mexican nation, as well as in Teddy Roosevelt who expanded that Polk doctrine out beyond the confines of The US territory into foreign countries.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think, well, the the misinterpretation
Speaker 1: of
Speaker 0: the Monroe Doctrine has become reality now under what they're calling the Dunroe Doctrine. So, essentially, the but does that mean the sphere of influence world, multipolar world has now become a reality where Trump doing what he did in Latin America and saying the things that he's saying when it comes to Colombia, when it comes to Cuba, Venezuela, and obviously the the the interference when it comes to Honduras, does that essentially justify for China to do the same, justify for Russia to do the same? Does that justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Does that justify potential attack by China on Taiwan? Is that the world that we live in, or is that misinterpretation of what happened?
Speaker 1: Well, that's how it's being interpreted. Now let's point out that both for Russia and China, despite repeated claims by The United States that they are that Russia and China are these voracious authoritarian dictators intent on conquering the world and capturing, taking control of other countries. The the record of history over the last one hundred years shows that the country that has been involved with the most foreign adventures outside of its national boundaries is The United States. We've done much more than China and Russia combined. Russia and China pursue are pursuing a peaceful track, and they're they're playing upon the growing outrage in the global South against US bullying.
And Trump, for God's sake, is not helping calm those fears with his claims that he's he's going to attack and do worse to president Brit Greto of Colombia. We're gonna take control of Pano, and we're gonna take control of Denmark. You know, switch it around. If this was Russia talking this way, by god, we'd be going to war with them. You know?
And and and so it is Trump ends up being his own worst enemy and and putting The United States in a weaker position because this despite a few countries that, you know, declare their allegiance to Trump like, Malay and Argentina, the outrage that was expressed at the UN yesterday, because you noticed Brazil, to my knowledge, hasn't been a member of the UN Security Council for at least three years as a nonpermanent member. And yet Brazil was there speaking up. Only only Panama and Colombia right now are the nonpermanent members of the UNSC, but Brazil was there speaking up. Chile was there speaking out in condemnation. So this is the kind of thing that is gonna resonate among the Latin American populations.
And I think it ultimately even resonate in Argentina despite malaise, you know, behavior and being a complete sycophant of Donald Trump.
Speaker 0: What I'm confused though, Larry, is the so we've talked about how this kind of justifies in some people's interpretation a multipolar world, but at the same time, you've got Trump essentially declaring himself the governing authority in two regions now, Gaza Yeah. And Venezuela. You've got the ongoing support for Ukraine. You've got the new arms agreement, arms package for Taiwan. At least, like, I got numbers right, about $8,000,000,000.
$8.08 I thought
Speaker 1: it was 18,000,000,000.
Speaker 0: Right? 18,000,000,000 is the biggest ever whatever the number is, it's the biggest they've ever had, and we've got the rhetoric when it comes to Iran we'll talk about in bit. So that doesn't seem like a multipolar sphere of influence world if that's Trump's actions in The Middle East, his support ongoing support for Ukraine and his support for Taiwan. Yet he's talking about the Monroe Doctrine and or the Dunrold Doctrine and the sphere of influence. Which one is it?
What is the new world? A a multipolar world or the an attempt to reinforce the American unipolar world that we've seen over the last few decades?
Speaker 1: And the answer is yes. So it's a combination. It's it's both. Russia and China are erecting a new international economic and political order, and they are doing so with the cooperation of India and Brazil. In fact, I think this attack by Trump in Venezuela will reinforce, accelerate even faster Brazil's integration being a very serious partner of BRICS.
Up to this point, it's been sort of on the periphery. But the the the So why It will do
Speaker 0: the opposite of scaring countries to comply with The US. You think it'll do
Speaker 1: the opposite with Brazil? No. Absolutely. Yeah. Just just in the same way that in the battle of Britain, when Germany bombed Britain and London, it didn't cause the people to divide and wanted to attack and take Churchill out.
It united the British people. And British bombing of Berlin did the same for the German people. These outside attacks
Speaker 0: You know, I leave around the strike.
Speaker 1: I I learned this the hard way. I I lived in Argentina back in 1984, and we shared a home. My wife and I shared a home with another couple and their two daughters. And one morning, they came out and announced that they were gonna get divorced. And I stupidly I, you know, I was in my twenties, and and I said something, well, listen.
I'm sorry to hear that, but, you know, Anna, you are a very difficult person to live with. Well, they both got mad at me and they stayed married two more years. So that that my outside attack ended up taking two people who were opposed and bringing them together. That same phenomenon is being played out on the world stage right now. The US attacks and threats against these other countries is causing the leaders in other nations to say, these people are out of control.
They're crazy. And they aren't hearing those kinds of threats from Russia and China. Russia and China are coming with basically, how can we help? Not what can we take from you, but how can we help? How can we build you up?
So that that message resonates and is having a greater influence than that of The US.
Speaker 0: One thing we've we've been talking about for a while, me included, is that The US hege money is eroding around the world. By the way, the arms package is $11,000,000,000 to Taiwan, not 8,000,000,000 Okay. Thank you. I apologize there. But I'm starting to question that.
I still believe it's the case. It's stretched too thin. The economy is not doing too well. It's indebted. But at the same time, you've got The US leading the way in negotiations, peace negotiations when it comes to Ukraine, not Europe.
You've got The US still supporting Taiwan as we said earlier, making decisions in The Middle East, striking Iran with impunity, obviously supporting Israel that struck Qatar and other countries, and now capturing the leader of another country in a spectacular fashion, and then talking about annexing Greenland, which I'm now I'm starting to consider as a possibility, something to take seriously at least, which I've before I've just been kinda ignoring it as as just Trump being Trump. But is would you say that's an example of US hegemony still eroding, or is it fair to question that with Trump's actions over the last two years No. The US is talking.
Speaker 1: I I think it's it's symptomatic of the erosion of power. You know what? If if if let's say that you are you're running a company. You're the company president, and you've got full charge of it. You don't feel the need.
You have to go around and tell people, hey. I I'm the president of this company. I'm in charge because people know you're in charge. So when you're do when you when you actually fulfill the role, when you have the power, you don't need to go out and tell everybody about how powerful you are. What what Donald Trump is doing is the classic example of a narcissist plagued with insecurity.
And, you know, there is the growing realization in The United States that the the hegemonic domination we've had over the course of the last eighty years dating back to the end of World War two, it is slipping away. It is we're no longer the only option on the street. And and and what has what has happened in this it didn't just start with Trump. But once The United States started using its economic power via the dollar as a reserve currency to threaten, sanction, and hurt other countries, it creates a growing skepticism and doubt or or or concern among other countries saying, you know what? We need to find an alternative.
We can't be blackmailed. We can't be held hostage like this. And and so the The United States instead of leading, you know, when you when you are genuine genuinely powerful and successful, people wanna be around you. It's when you start losing and you try to keep telling everybody that you're a great winner that that that power erodes. And and, again, look at the despite all The United States claims of, you know, the best military in the world, the most superior military in the world, we got beat by the Houthis in the Red Sea.
There's no other way to look at it. I mean, you know, the if you go to any of the AI search engines, so they they do this great spin. Oh, The United States just needed to pull out to refit its ships and, you know, the Houthis didn't win.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Right. But the Houthi attacks but Houthi Houthis attacks stopped in the government. Israel bombed their entire cabinet, didn't they? Well, they
Speaker 1: did, but the the the reds
Speaker 0: And now and now they've and they've sorry. And they've got opposition forces now supported by Saudi and The UAE gaining ground as well. So they're not doing
Speaker 1: too Not much not against the Houthis. It's a Against each other. Yes. Yeah. Yeah.
It's a fact. The the two forces that were fighting against the Houthis are now fighting amongst
Speaker 0: the Yes.
Speaker 1: Other. If any, that's good news for the Houthis. Yeah. But then my point is the Red Sea is still close to Israeli shipping. The entire purpose of mission operation prosperity guardian was to open the Red Sea.
Now that little pissant country of Yemen, that can't stop us from being able to have freedom of damage.
Speaker 0: Could it it be just Trump saying, hey. Look. You know, we're doing enough for for Israel. This is Israel's problem to solve. No.
But as long as our ships can because you American ships, as far as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, can still go through the Red Sea. It's only Israelis that are locked out.
Speaker 1: Any any US ship that's going through with the destination for Israel will be attacked. And Okay. What happened was they got they had to pull the aircraft here. There The US was of was scared to death. The Houthis were gonna sink one of the the carrier task force ships, either one of the either the aircraft carrier itself or the destroyers.
And see the problem the problem is with how the US Navy is actually configured. These destroyers carry a limited number of air defense missiles, missiles that can be fired to take down incoming missiles. What and and it's not like, you know, if you're shooting a gun, you know, a semiautomatic pistol and you've you know, you fire and then you drop the magazine and you put a new magazine in, you continue fire. Those ships don't work that way. Once they're out, they have to go to another port to be physically reloaded at a port.
So if and and what the Houthis figured out was they could just keep bombarding them with drones, you know, low cost, threats and for a force those, destroyers to expend their their ordinance. And then all of a sudden, the aircraft carrier is vulnerable. That's why The US pulled out. So I use that as an example despite the claims of military prowess. Yeah.
It's it's it's great. You can look like you're the all star of the football team as long as you're not playing, as long they have no players on the field to tackle you. And that's essentially what happened Saturday. You know, it's like it's like a soccer team claiming, yeah, man. We're the greatest soccer team in the world.
You didn't have a goalie. There was no goalie at the when you were trying to score. Yeah. It's easy to score that way.
Speaker 0: Now everyone's looking at Iran as potentially being next, and some people making thrust to to I think sorry. Trump himself said that if Iran attacks or shoots at protesters, The US is locked and loaded, and and he he repeated those comments in the last couple of days. What do you make of those comments? Could an emboldened US make similar attacks or similar similar apply similar tactics in Iran? And, also, maybe give us your thoughts on what's happening in Iran because it seems was speaking to someone from the country yesterday, a professor, and he said, who's very critical of the regime but also does not think the regime should be toppled because he's worried about an alternative being even worse.
Mhmm. But he's within Iran, and it was a great interview. He's been critical of the regime. He's been arrested for it, but still is critical. But when I asked him when we spoke about what's happening right now, he said, Mario, these protests are worse than we saw in 2022 and 2009 because people on the streets are calling for the death usually, don't say that the death of the fall or death of of Khamenei, the supreme leader, and even some are calling for the monarchy to be, to to be, to be back in power
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Or mentioning Pallavi's name. What do you
Speaker 1: make of these protests as well as the question earlier about whether The US could do something similar in in in Iran? They're largely manufactured and is part of a Western intelligence operation that includes Mossad. The notice that these protests coincided with the meeting in the last Monday, a week ago Monday, in Mar A Lago between Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu. The the actual protest has started about twenty four hours earlier. I began noticing the intense media coverage that was being provided in the West.
And one of the big sources of their information was coming from a group that's called the National Council of Iranian Resistance, the NCIR. Well, the NCIR is basically a front group for the Mujahedin al Kalk, a terrorist organization or at least was on The US list of foreign terrorist organizations until about 2009. And the re and that this is a group that's existed since 1964. They are first, they were operating and attacking the shah, and then then they started attacking the Islamic Republic. They killed Americans.
They're known as the MEK, and then they're also known as the people's organization or People's Mujahideen of Iran, p m o I. In 2003, they were rounded up by US forces in Iraq until The US determined that they were in fact anti Iranian and then the CIA took over. This the MEC was it was officially taken off of the terrorism list. It's either 2009 or 2012. But from 2004 on, Mec was working with the CIA and with Mossad to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran.
So this the fact that this is all like manufactured. So I've got three different sources in Iran. Nima Al Khorsid. Nima runs a podcast. He lives in Brazil.
He's an engineer, a college professor, but he's been in Brazil for twelve years. He he when he left Iran, he went to school in Germany, got his PhD in engineering, and then moved to Brazil. So he's back there for his first visit in twelve years. And when I started getting these stories about these massive protests and these chants of down with the shah or down with the Ayatollah, he was saying, no. He says, I said, I'm not seeing that.
He said, look. This is my first visit back twelve years since twelve years. The same from professor Mohammad Morandi. Morandi was born in in Virginia, raised grew up for a little bit in Ohio, and then as a teenager went back to Iran. You you know, I know both men.
They're not shills for the Ayatollah and certainly not for Pozheskian. And it is you know, Neiman said, hey. Yeah. There's there's some genuine anger at Pozeskin.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because if the economy is doing bad, Larry, the the economy is collapsing. That's why I think you say when you say intelligence sorry. Just interrupt you. One question.
When you say intelligence is behind, whether it's Russian intelligence, Chinese intelligence, in most cases, US intelligence, is it fair to assume that there's, in most cases, some form of intelligence supporting the protest, whether it's Mossad or CIA, but there's they they need to be there needs to be a a local citizen led protest for the intelligence to support and they can't create something out of nothing. Is that fair to say or they can actually fabricate something if because there's someone needs to be on the streets, they can't pay everyone.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, no. They actually can create something out of nothing and have done so over the years. That that was one of the reasons that the National Endowment for Democracy and some of these other USAID funds were funneled. They didn't have to be funneled to a covert channel.
They could be funneled through an overt NGO. And in in look. In Iran, you've got a lot of ethnic differences, but the groups have been primarily in the in the West, Southwest part of Iran and in the Far East in Balochistan. In fact, the Balochis have always been sort of anti regime. I recall back in it was oh, jeez.
1979 into 1980 when the Iranian students took over the US embassy that one of the means of communication, covert communication, was with a rug store that was literally, I lived in Chevy Chase, Maryland at the time in on in a road called Strathmore, one block off of Wisconsin Avenue. Up on Wisconsin Avenue, literally a block from my house was this rug store called Parvizian. The Parvizian store owner had Bellucci relatives, and what they were doing was they were sending secret information wrapped up in rugs that was then being picked up by the CIA there in Bethesda, Maryland or Chevy Chase, Maryland, just as an example. So what I'm saying is going on here is that, yes, there is there is political anger in Iran against the government of Pozheskian. A significant portion believes Pozheskian's been too accommodating of the West, not too too restrictive.
The claims that there is strong opposition to the Ayatollah Khamenei is just a lie. That that's being manufactured. That's one of those propaganda pieces that's being put out. You notice the New York Times ran a story saying, oh, Khamenei's getting ready to flee to Moscow. Source Israeli Mossad.
Speaker 0: Oh, From Israeli from Mossad sources? Yeah. You Israeli intelligence.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So you go, oh, no. Jeez.
Yeah. But they wouldn't have any incentive to lie. So So
Speaker 0: so I I thought it was as when I saw the report, I thought it was US intelligence initially, but
Speaker 1: that changed your things. It was his writing. So it's it's a lot of wishful thinking. Now that said, Israel and The United States are going to attack Iran again. What I did hear from the folks I've been talking to in Iran is what they're seeing is the Iranian government's taking very specific steps to prepare them.
They expect to be attacked. They're building up air defense. They're they're they're they're they're they are working. They're not gonna be caught unawares this time. And in contrast to, you know, the attack that took place started on June 13, continued through June 25.
Prior to that, Iran had rejected offers of military cooperation with both Russia and China. Since then, they have embraced it and embraced it strongly.
Speaker 0: So Are you saying in the
Speaker 1: twelve day war that it's not Russia and China did not offer support for Iran, which I was not the understanding of. You're saying Iran refused that support. Yes. Absolutely. Yeah.
In fact, Russia had proposed a mutual defense treaty with Iran that, Iran turned down. And and, initially, their ex explanation was that because of their their Islamic beliefs, they didn't wanna be in a position of having to go risk killing other people that had not attacked them. Now the thing is with Iran, they're they're not the type to they're not gonna go out and launch surprise attacks like Israel did. They will react to attacks. But it was after the events, you know, after the final the missile stopped flying on June 25 that the Iranians went, okay.
Yeah. We yeah. We they went back to Moscow and said, yeah. You remember that offer or help? Is it still on the table?
Moscow said, of course. And the the there had been high level visits both by Pozhakian, Iraqi, the the the foreign minister, the defense minister. So they've been delegations moving back and forth. They they already had economic cooperation between Russia and China in building a nuclear power plant down in the Southwest corner. But Iran while Iran's got economic problems with inflation, Iran is in a better position economically today than it was, say, ten years ago because Russia and China are no longer going to enforce the sanctions that previously they had enforced.
So Iran now has some economic alternatives both especially with China that did not exist even three years.
Speaker 0: When did that change the lifting of
Speaker 1: the sanctions by China and and Russia? This year. Remember when they they went to the snap
Speaker 0: This year. 2026. Yeah. 2025. Sorry.
I'm sorry. Last year. Yep. That's alright. What oh, when do you know approximately when?
September. Okay. So that they haven't really had to kick off.
Speaker 1: Remember when the Europeans were talking about reactivated during the snap back sanctions under JCPOA. And they did so. And over, you know, Iran's protests and over Russia and China's. And in the aftermath of that, well, China and Russia came out and basically said, nope. Invalid.
We don't recognize that as legitimate, and we're not gonna enforce that. So starting in September, there was that complete change where now Iran is in a different kind of economic relationship with Russia and China than was the case prior to last September. Interesting. I see
Speaker 0: the way I see Iran, in my view, is they've never been weaker because they've just gone through a twelve day war that the person I spoke to yesterday reaffirmed what you said is that the twelve day war didn't really impact Iran militarily as much as I thought it would have and as much as the western media makes it out to be. I thought Iran's military capacity has been eroded significantly after that twelve day war. He told me that's not the case and the military command has been and political command has been replaced relatively quickly, but the reason I see them to be to have been weaker than ever is they've gone through that twelve day war, they've their currency is collapsing, they're facing protests again. I know they've been through it before, but they're going through it again, and most importantly, wanna get your comments on it, is that their allies and proxies have either disappeared or we've been weakened. Maduro, their allies gone.
We'll see how the vice president will be. Assad is obviously gone. We have Hezbollah has been significantly weakened and talks about disarmament of Hezbollah. And lastly, we have the Houthis have been struck pretty heavily by Israel. Would you say is it fair to say that they are weaker than ever or you disagree?
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. I disagree. In fact, I I think they're actually in a stronger position now. What they demonstrated during the twelve day war was despite a decapitation strike, which frankly, I think many other countries would not have been able to re recover from.
They were they were firing back at Israel within twelve hours, number one. And, initially, they were firing with older ballistic missiles, Part of a deliberate strategy, they were firing missiles that would force the Israelis to shoot and use up a limited air defense supply, which is what happened. And then towards the end, it was Israel begging The United States to intervene to get it stopped. And The United States Trump cut a deal with the Iranians. Yes.
Okay. We're gonna bomb your nuclear sites. You get to hit Qatar. But then the Iranians said, okay. In exchange for that, we get to ship oil to China.
And and Trump said, okay. I mean, there were there was a deal cut that brought an end to it. Had it continued, I firmly believe that Iran would have put Israel in a situation where Israel would have been tempted to use nuclear weapons to try to save itself. The Iranians have very have an enormous supply, deeply buried underground of of hypersonic missiles. Those are missiles that travel at mach six or greater and can be maneuvered.
Speaker 0: Mach six? Yes. So then where do you see those protests heading? If you see Iran stronger than ever and and you talked about these protests having been instigated or supported by Israeli intelligence. I'm not sure if you said American intelligence as well, but
Speaker 1: Oh, and Mossad. Both. Both. Okay. So seeing
Speaker 0: the the capabilities of of Mossad and American intelligence, assuming they're involved in those protests, how far do you see them going? Is there a possibility that the regime could be toppled No. Through these protests?
Speaker 1: No. Not at all. This is again, this is the fantasy that the that the West holds. You you remember, they they fully expected in the June that that the regime was gonna collapse because they had they had the son of the shah, Reza Pahlavi, in in the in the wings waiting to go back to Iran to take over. They don't have any political support.
They the the political support is minimal. It's not massive. Now there's a difference there is a difference between the Islamic Republic and the government. You know, the government's got the task of having to, you know, make the trains run on time, get the currency strengthened, etcetera. Pozeskin is failing in that and, yep, Pozeskin's losing support.
Could Pozeskin fall from power? Absolutely. And be replaced with someone else. Now what what was interesting is Bozeskind's response to the to the protests. He didn't come out and threaten the protesters and or go out and start bashing heads with with all of them and locking them up in prison.
Instead, he came out and said, you know what? They they they have a fair point. Yeah. We we do have problems with our currency, and that needs to be corrected. So I I don't know.
I found that sort of refreshing to see a leader was yeah. Hey. We've got problems, and I agree. When and and he fired the the one of the key economic ministers, I think, the guy that ran the central bank. The head of the central bank.
Yeah. Yeah. So he was making hey. We're gonna take some steps to try to fix this. So, you know, the the old saying, Rome wasn't built in a night or in a day.
And, you know, this is the the full economic situation isn't gonna be turned around in a week. But when you look at the kind of efforts and investments that China is now making in Iran and that Russia is making, you look at the conversations between the Russians, Azerbaijanis, and Iranians with respect to building the North South Corridor. This, you know, the the the short term yeah. It it it's difficult for Iran. Mid to long term is actually looking pretty good because they've got now outside assistance.
Again, think back ten years ago when the JCPOA was signed, both Russia and China agreed, yeah, we're with the West. We'll impose sanctions on you, Iran. Iran didn't have an alternative. They didn't have anybody with their back. Now they've reestablished relationships with Saudi Arabia.
Before there was that proxy war in Yemen pitting Iran against Saudi Arabia, that's gone away. They are on the stable relations and growing relations with both China and Russia. So these the threats coming out of Israel, they are now they're prepared to deal with it. Can Israel inflict some severe damage and pain them? Yes.
But Iran is gonna inflict greater on Israel.
Speaker 0: Last question, Larry. And that's the the first question I asked you when talking about Iran. Do you think The US could do something similar to what they did to Maduro or to what Israel did to Iran to Iran's leadership, including the supreme leader?
Speaker 1: No. Not at all. They they don't have they don't have the network in place. Let's recall that in the case of Venezuela, the CIA was heavily heavily invested in in Venezuela going back to the nineteen sixties. And, you know, I was I was told when I was there in the '90 late nineteen eighties at at CIA headquarters, one of my friends told me that Carlos Andres Perez, who was the president of Venezuela at the time, was in fact a full fully paid CIA asset.
So the CIA has had networks and relationships with people. It can go in and cultivate those. They don't have those in Iran. The the what existed as CIA assets and networks have been largely rolled up over the years.
Speaker 0: Larry, always a pleasure to speak to you, sir. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Mario, and good to see you in the New Year. Happy New Year to you, my friend.
Speaker 0: Same to you. Same to you. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I say my official X profile vanished from Google search after I exposed fraud in Minnesota. A direct search of my name now returns random links, old tweets, and buried references, but not my X account. Big Tech doesn’t ban you—you just become unfindable. My 1.2M+ followers stay active, yet Google's algorithm treats me as if I don’t exist. If you’re upset with me for calling out fraud, you’re stupid or a fraudster.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸 "SHADOW BANNED BY GOOGLE": NICK SHIRLEY’S X ACCOUNT DISAPPEARED FROM RESULTS AFTER EXPOSING MINNESOTA FRAUD Nick Shirley says his official X profile has vanished from Google, even when you search his name directly. It apparently started after he publicly exposed fraud in Minnesota. Now when you Google him, you get random links, old tweets, and buried references, but not his actual X account. Big Tech doesn't need to ban you outright. They just make you unfindable. Your account stays active, but if nobody can search and discover you, you've been effectively erased. Shirley's account has 1.2M+ followers and regular engagement, yet Google's algorithm treats it like it doesn't exist. Nick’s take? If you’re upset he called out fraud: “That makes you one of two things: 1. Stupid 2. Fraudster.” Source: @nickshirleyy
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that the suspect in the attack on JD Vance’s Ohio home is Julia DeFoor, a transgender woman formerly known as William DeFoor, and the daughter of wealthy Democratic donors. Aged 26, she was arrested after allegedly breaking into the Vance family’s Cincinnati residence with a hammer. She grew up in Hyde Park, daughter of pediatric doctors William and Catherine DeFoor who’ve donated to Democratic causes, with a 2024 vandalism conviction.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 BREAKING: JD VANCE HOME ATTACKER IDENTIFIED AS TRANS DAUGHTER OF DEMOCRAT DONOR SURGEON The suspect accused of smashing windows at Vice President JD Vance’s Ohio home has been identified as Julia DeFoor, a transgender woman formerly known as William DeFoor, and the daughter of two wealthy Democrat donors. Julia, 26, was arrested and charged with multiple counts after allegedly breaking into the Vance family’s $1.4M Cincinnati residence with a hammer. She grew up in luxury in Hyde Park, attended elite private schools, and is the child of William and Catherine DeFoor ,both prominent pediatric doctors who’ve donated thousands to Democratic causes, including Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. No motive has been released, but the suspect has a prior criminal record, including a guilty plea for vandalizing an interior design firm in 2024. Source: Daily Mail
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 MAN CHARGED AFTER ATTEMPTED ATTACK ON JD VANCE’S HOME William DeFoor, 26, has been charged after allegedly vandalizing Vice President JD’s home in Cincinnati. Court records say he smashed four residential windows and damaged JD’s vehicle before being detained by the Secret Service. Police were called after agents spotted the suspect fleeing the scene shortly after midnight. Arrest Report: “The suspect was seen walking onto the property and damaging four of the victim’s residential windows and the victim’s vehicle. When advised of his rights, he responded, ‘I don’t know.’” Source: FOX19 NOW
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 JD VANCE CONFIRMS ATTEMPTED BREAK-IN AT HIS HOME Vance says an individual attempted to break into his home by smashing windows, but no one was injured and his family was not present. He thanked the Secret Service and Cincinnati police for responding quickly. Vance also https://t.co/GpVtkGxqA2
reSee.it AI Summary
I relay Max Blumenthal’s claim that the Maduro raid was geopolitical theater designed to shock, with defenses disabled and Maduro’s regime kept intact—a negotiated decapitation to restore U.S. leverage. It sidelined Machado, signaled multipolarity with China, aimed to plunder Venezuela’s wealth and oil, and reflected classic gunboat diplomacy rather than democracy promotion.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸🇻🇪 INSIDE THE CAPTURE THAT COULD SET THE NEW GEOPOLITICAL AGE IN MOTION @MaxBlumenthal says the Trump-led operation that captured Maduro was geopolitical theater engineered to shock. No resistance. No casualties. Russian-made S-300 and BUK air defenses were disabled before they could respond. Max argues this was a negotiated decapitation, possibly coordinated from within the Venezuelan state, that left Maduro’s regime intact under Delcy Rodríguez, removing Maduro as an obstacle and transforming him into fodder for war optics. Trump sidelined María Corina Machado within hours, a clear signal, Max says, that this was never about restoring democracy, but about reasserting U.S. leverage through the very system America once tried to topple. With Chinese envoys meeting Maduro hours before he was captured, the timing sent a global message: in this emerging multipolar order, the U.S. will still dictate outcomes, and use force to do it. I sit down with @MaxBlumenthal to break down how the raid was executed, what it signals to Beijing and Moscow, and why multipolarity may be triggering even bolder U.S. intervention. 03:58 - “Trump and Rubio wanted a negotiated exit of Maduro that would leave the Chavista structure in place.” 05:42 - “If one helicopter had been taken down, Blackhawk Down style, it would have been a political catastrophe for Trump.” 06:48 - “This raises questions about whether they were left out there on their own, and that much of this was choreographed.” 07:26 - “Trump wanted a PR victory, a Rambo style reenactment of the Panama invasion.” 10:02 - “By not aggressively resisting a U.S. invasion, you’re sparing the country from more horrific U.S. violence.” 13:18 - “Delcy Rodríguez does not have the guns behind her. Figures like Diosdado Cabello do.” 18:41 - “Venezuela was being subjected to international piracy by the most powerful empire in human history.” 21:32 - “Venezuela’s largest foreign asset in Citgo was literally stolen by the U.S.” 29:22 - “Trump is essentially threatening Delcy Rodríguez with her life.” 33:59 - “Trump owes a lot to his donors, and he has a lot to gain personally from Venezuela.” 34:48 - “The goal is to plunder Venezuela’s wealth and exploit its resources.” 35:27 - “They want a more pliable figure who will give up control of Venezuela’s oil.” 43:28 - “If a leader is imposed to let U.S. corporations plunder the country, there will be resistance.” 55:03 - “What we are seeing is classic U.S. gunboat diplomacy, not Putinization.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario and Max discuss the January 3 operation in Venezuela, its potential objectives, and the wider geopolitical implications.
- The operation raised early fears of a full amphibious invasion or a new war, with rapid questions about how Maduro could be kidnapped with so little resistance and whether a single downed helicopter could have produced a catastrophe for Donald Trump. Max notes that 16 guards of Nicolas Maduro were killed, including his personal bodyguard who had guarded Hugo Chavez, and suggests this could indicate the operation was choreographed or left open to a deal through Maduro.
- Max says he had woken late and watched the event unfold, and he entertained theories about a negotiated exit for Maduro that would leave the Pesuv (Chavista) structure in place, enabling a transition to a figure like Delsy Rodriguez (the vice president) who would work within Chavismo to exploit Venezuelan resources for Trump’s cronies. He states he predicted that Trump would claim Maria Carina Machado did not have enough support to rule and would not be returned to power, a point he supported with sources and his reading of Trump’s behavior, including Trump’s condemnation of Machado’s Nobel Prize and disregard for Juan Guaido.
- Max describes a theory of a deal and questions whether the Venezuelan military stood down. He notes that the US military is dominant but that losing a single helicopter could have become a political disaster for Trump. He mentions Joaquin Padrino Lopez (defense minister) and Diosdado Cabello as other power centers, suggesting that even if Maduro was abducted, a power vacuum could destabilize Venezuela. He cites Cabello signaling resistance by appearing on the street with military figures and the Second Republic flag.
- The conversation covers whether Delsy Rodriguez has broad support in Venezuela. Max recalls Rodriguez’s 2021 interview and her role during the COVID response, portraying her as stabilizing economically and presiding over ministries, which aided an economic revival supported by China and others. Max suggests her potential as a US-friendly figure but notes she lacks the military backing to consolidate power against other Pesuv factions.
- Mario asks about Maduro’s leadership, and Max rejects the idea that Maduro is purely incompetent, noting corruption under the Bolivarian regime and Maduro’s own background as a student of Simon Bolivar, a former bus driver who rose through the ranks. He argues Maduro was not a stupid leader and contrasts his profile with Trump’s. He warns that achieving regime change would not be simple, given Venezuela’s polarization and the military’s importance.
- The discussion turns to the economic situation in Venezuela. Mario references statistics: economy shrinking by around 80% since 2013, 95% in poverty, oil production down, living standards collapsed, and out-migration. Max acknowledges some statistics may be flawed but agrees that Delsy Rodriguez had presided over an economic revival and that China played a central role, purchasing a large share of Venezuelan oil and helping with oil infrastructure, while Iran and Russia also provided support. He notes the impact of US sanctions and the broader “financial terrorism” narrative, arguing that sanctions and IMF-style measures contributed to economic decline and the diaspora’s views.
- They debate who bears responsibility for the crisis. Max emphasizes longstanding US sanctions and political interference as primary factors, arguing that the US sought to undermine Venezuela’s sovereignty and to plunder its resources, with Maduro’s government framed by Western outlets as corrupt; he cites evidence of corruption and suggests a pattern of coercive measures against Venezuela.
- The conversation covers the purpose behind capturing Maduro. Max suggests the aim might be to replace Maduro with a more pliable figure who would cooperate with US oil interests and allow greater control over Venezuela’s PDVSA structure. He discusses the possibility of grooming a candidate from within Pesuv or returning Machado, though he notes Marco Rubio’s public stance that elections could be delayed to avoid destabilizing Venezuela.
- The role of China and the broader multipolar dynamic is addressed. The Chinese envoy’s meeting with Maduro hours before the strikes is seen as signaling China’s interest and as part of a broader message to China, Russia, and Iran about US reach. Max believes the operation sends a wider message of US willingness to act in the hemisphere and to police resource access.
- The interview ends with a comparison to the Panama regime change (Manuel Noriega) and a reminder that Maduro will be tried in the Southern District of New York. Max notes that Machado’s supporters and US associates are calculating future power arrangements, while Maduro remains central to ongoing debates about Venezuela’s political and economic future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So a lot of people were worried that was the beginning of a full amphibious assault on the country, the beginning of
Speaker 1: a new war with When I saw that Nicolas Maduro had been kidnapped, how this could have taken place with so little resistance. If one helicopter had been taken down, it would have been a political catastrophe for Donald Trump. 16 guards of Nicolas Maduro were killed, including his personal bodyguard who had previously guarded Hugo Chavez, his predecessor. This raises questions about whether they were left out there on their own and that much of this was choreographed. I think a deal could have been worked out through Maduro.
It's a very unpopular order to ask your military to stand down when an aggressor is attacking your country. By not aggressively resisting a US invasion, you're sparing the country from more horrific US violence. The
Speaker 0: We were talking about Venezuela not long ago, and it's it's a country you know very well. You've spent a lot of time there. You know the history of the country very well. And you've also studied the history of regime changes, US led regime changes in Latin America very well. I would love to get your before I get your initial reaction to the facts we know today, what was your initial reaction when you first got the news?
A lot of people were worried that was the beginning of a of a full amphibious assault on the country, the beginning of a new war with troops on the ground. Did you have those initial concerns when the when the reports came out? And did it take you a while to to believe those reports to is that something you would that surprise you or you kind of accept accepted? I
Speaker 1: I I'd gotten to bed pretty late, so I actually wound up watching I wouldn't mean, there was no way to watch it live, but I was up late enough to be awake when the US invasion of Caracas began. So I was shocked by the sheer gangsterism of what took place. I, at the same time, began to entertain theories when I saw that Nicolas Maduro had been kidnapped, not arrested or captured, but kidnapped, and was flown out of the country about how this could have taken place with so little resistance. I was one of the first people in US media to speculate that Donald Trump and Marco Rubio specifically had wanted some kind of deal for a negotiated exit of Nicolas Maduro that would actually leave the Pesuv, that being the party of Maduro and previously Hugo Chavez, the Pesuv structure in place, meaning that he would work within the Chavista realm to install a figure like Delsi Rodriguez, the vice president, and then try to work with her and whittle down what was left of Chavismo in the country in order to exploit Venezuelan resources and finagle various contracts for Trump's cronies. And I said that on our livestream based on sources that I had who had actually been close to the negotiations, multiple sources.
And I got that right, and now the New York Times has an article with that essentially as the headline, and you can see people in the Venezuelan opposition who are close to Maria Carina Machado, the Nobel peace I mean, I I have I have trouble even saying that she won the Nobel Peace Prize. It was basically the Nobel War Prize, but she was the face and voice of the Venezuelan opposition who was supposed to be installed in place of Maduro. I was not surprised when Trump came out that day and declared that Maria Carina Machado had not enough support in Venezuela to actually rule and that she wasn't going to be coming back. That was something that I predicted on our livestream, our last livestream of 2025, just based based on sources, but also based on my own reading of Donald Trump's behavior, his condemnation of her getting the Nobel Prize, the way they were talking about her in the media, his disregard for her predecessor, Juan Guaido. So that wasn't surprising to me.
And and so then we have this theory of some kind of deal and questions to ask about whether the Venezuelan military stood down. Obviously, the US military is a dominant force. No country can resist it, but if one helicopter had been taken down, Black Hawk Down style, it would have been a political catastrophe for Donald Trump. And we saw that happen actually in Israel's first invasion or sorry sorry, second invasion of Lebanon in 2006. A transport helicopter was taken down with a Kornet missile, Russian Kornet missile.
Actually is mainly for, like, anti tank, anti personnel, and it was a political disaster for Israel's leadership, Ehud Olmert, and basically ended their invasion. So this would have been a catastrophe for Trump. Venezuela's forces, they didn't need a book or panzier anti aircraft system to hit the Chinook helicopters, and I'm not trying to be some military nerd here. It just kinda stands to reason. They were given hundreds of Russian man pads.
I, you know, it it was announced in a press release by Venezuela's defense minister, Padrino Lopez, but you didn't see any of that. The casualties now that we know took place, many civilians, which is horrible, which is a war crime, and 16, I'm seeing reports that 16 guards of Nicolas Maduro were killed, essentially massacred, including his personal bodyguard who had previously guarded Hugo Chavez, his predecessor. So this suggests this raises questions about whether they were left out there on their own and that much of this was choreographed. There are also questions to ask about what China knew and when it knew it given that Xi had envoys meeting with Nicolas Maduro six hours before this operation took place at Miraflores Palace, and what was worked out there. So these are these are the these are the surprising elements along with the the violence of it.
I think a deal could have been worked out through Maduro, which means that Trump there there there's another theory to entertain, is that Trump wanted to climb down, and he needed to extract some kind of PR victory and have some Rambo style reenact reenactment of the Panama invasion in which The US kid, abducted Manuel Noriega on the same day that it abducted Nicolas Maduro, January 3. But there are these are all, I think, plausible theories within some kind of, within within some kind of factual ballpark, but we haven't been able to determine what the truth was about any deal. And even if there was a deal, I think things could still go south pretty quickly for The US plan.
Speaker 0: Let's talk about the first theory and one I've discussed with other guests of a potential stand down order. So we do know, you know, the the might of the American military. And, there's been reports that the air defense systems were intercepted. The communication systems were disrupted. There's been precision strikes on the Russian air defense systems, the the s three hundreds and the b u k's.
And there were also anti radiation missiles as well that were used, plus electricity potentially through a cyber attack was shut down in the in the region. Why would you say, though, there's a stand down order? I think you've explained because there's been no strikes on any helicopter. And if so, who would have given that stand down order? Who has the that capacity?
And when I mentioned that to other guests, one of the guests, Ian Bremery, said that he finds that possible but unlikely because it it would backfire on whoever gave that order. It's a very unpopular order to ask your military to stand down when an aggressor is attacking your country and kidnapping or capturing your president?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, he's just speculating, and I'd be doing the same. There are so many possible theories that by not aggressively resisting, a US invasion, which was essentially a decapitation attempt to remove, but not necessarily assassinate Nicolas Maduro and his wife, that you're sparing the country from more horrific US violence, the kind that we saw Baghdad experience during shock and awe and beyond. I mean, US destroyed half of Raqqa to during Operation Inherent Resolve, I think it was called, and this is called Operation Absolute Resolve. I mean, they're invoking all of these past horrific operations. Delsy Rodriguez is the vice president, and I'm not in any way speculating that she gave a stand down order, but she has her own I I interviewed her in her office in 2021.
And at the end of our interview, we talked about her father, Jorge Antonio Rodriguez, who was a revolutionary militant in the nineteen seventies under The US backed, Fourth Republic, who was tortured to death in prison, as a fairly young man. She grew up without a father, and that lingers for her, that the notion that she could be assassinated is very real. She understands the threat of violence from The US and its local proxies who are represented in today's opposition, which is a deeply undemocratic opposition. So she may have taken measures to protect herself and her country from further violence. These are, again, all theories.
I don't know who could have issued the stand down order. Marco Rubio was asked in a pretty, would let let's say, flawed interview with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation about why The US didn't take out Padrino Padrino Lopez, the defense minister, or take out Diosdado Cabello, who is really who is another represents another power center, which is centered heavily in the military and the militant forces that would defend the government in the street. And Rubio said, you know, you can't just go in and take out five people at once. It was hard enough to take out to to kidnap one, or he didn't say kidnap, but to capture one. And I I don't totally accept that explanation, although it would have raised the stakes and the risk factor for U.
S. Troops. But you have to consider that if you start to collapse every power center within the Chavista political apparatus, that you have a complete power vacuum that can't be filled with anything, and it destabilizes the entire country. Diosdado Cabello, again, he's one of the most important figures within the pantheon of the Pesuv, and he was out on the street after Maduro's abduction with military figures behind him declaring resistance to this invasion and wearing on his vest, I think, an increasingly important symbol, which is the flag of the Second Republic Of Venezuela, essentially the flag of Simon Bolivar who ousted the Spanish colonists from South America and forged a vision of Gran Colombia, regional integration against imperial control. And and and and and so Diosdado Cabello is is signaling something there.
And I'd so, again, I don't think this is over. There there may have been a deal, but Delsy Rodriguez on her own, she doesn't have the guns behind her. Someone like Diosdado, Padrino Lopez, they do. You see the radical Venezuelan opposition calling for them to be taken out next, but that would leave a massive power vacuum, and it would quickly become a catastrophe for Marco Rubio, especially, who sees himself as the sort of viceroy of Venezuela.
Speaker 0: How much support does Del C, the the former vice president, now the interim president, how much support does she have in Venezuela? And secondary is, would love to get your thoughts on the theory that she might have been the person in in Maduro's inner circle that was giving the CIA and The US intelligence information on his whereabouts and potentially, as you said, might have. You didn't say that, but some are saying she might have been even the person that played a role in the alleged or potential stand down order that was given. So, essentially, could she have been The US mole? Okay.
I didn't
Speaker 1: I didn't say that or speculate that, just to to be clear. And I think we have to have she she has to be asked those questions by interviewers. I interviewed her, just to go to your first question, in 2021. So it was the midst of COVID, the COVID event, and she had taken control of administering the Venezuelan state response to COVID, which enabled her to be on TV every day addressing the nation in the same way that maybe Andrew Cuomo addressed New Yorkers or Anthony Fauci, and it may so in in some ways, she superseded Maduro because she was responding to the crisis every day with, directions. She was the vice president, but she'd also, taken control of other ministries and was presiding over Venezuela's economic revival after years and years of sanctions to the great chagrin of The US.
And this is something that was acknowledged in The New York Times today in a profile of Delsy. She stabilized the economy, and the economy has been growing at a fairly rapid rate over the past four years. I think they might have reached 8% growth last year, which is something that The United States didn't wanna see.
Speaker 0: Can you elaborate on this? Because the, obviously, one thing we both agree on is that we don't both don't think regime changes are a good idea. Historically, they really haven't worked. But I think one area we we differ on is the state of Venezuela under Maduro and even Chavez. Now I looked at the statistics.
The economy and and, you know, please do disagree with me with this as well if you feel free to do so. But from the statistics that I have, according to various sources, the economy shrunk by 80% between 2013 and 2022, Living standards by about 74%. Oil production dropped by about 80% since the peak in the nineteen nineties. It's about a fifth now. 95% of the population lives in poverty, massive inequality, and a big chunk of the population left the country since Maduro took over.
And now post 2020 four elections, 43%, according to a few polls, considered leaving due to repression. Now the reason this is the the situation is like this, some people blame US sanctions, others blame the mismanagement by Maduro. First, do you agree that the economy is doing that badly? And second, what do you blame for that? And third, could that change under the vice president or someone else taking the leadership, taking Maduro's position?
Speaker 1: Well, some of the statistics he cited were flawed, but I agree generally with what you're saying about just from a statistical point of view. Delsy Rodriguez had preside as I was saying, had presided over an economic revival in Venezuela, which threatened US hegemony, and China was central to this economic revival. If you look at another statistic, I think it would be helpful. Exports of barrels of oil in Venezuelan barrels of oil per day, and it was going up from a low point, and I'll get into the the question of why. It was going up from a low point of, like, 400,000 to over a million, thanks to China, which was becoming the main export center for Venezuela, which is why Trump imposed a quarantine.
And China was buying, like, 75% of Venezuela's oil, which was leading to growth. Venezuela was able to begin to repair its aging and broken oil infrastructure with the help of China, Russia, and also Iran was providing them with a lot of help, which is why you hear this hysteria about Iran forming this, base on the American continent, on the South American continent through Venezuela, it was because Venezuela had normal relations with Iran and treated it like a normal country instead of a terrorist country. Now going back to the statistics you cited, 2012 was a pivotal year. It's when secretary of state John Kerry cut a deal with Saudi Arabia to and go go back and and and check out headlines around this time. Cut a deal with Saudi Arabia's royal family to increase oil production at Aramco massively in order to flood the market, which would there thereby weaken Venezuela's main source, its main economic engine.
And in exchange, Kerry promised support for the so called moderate rebels in Syria to the Saudi royal family and to basically allow Prince Bandar to set up all these proxies like Jayshal Islam. It was a really dirty deal. It harmed Venezuela, and then and around the same time, Hugo Chavez died under circumstances some consider suspicious. Nicolas Maduro came in within one month after an election held in one month, and he was the legitimate uncontested winner of that election. And Venezuela then experienced two years of riots, just two years straight of Guarimba's guarimba riots overseen by US trained, US funded renter riots and their leadership, who were completely funded by USAID and CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy.
We're talking about Leopoldo Lopez, Juan Guaido, these characters, Carlos Vecchio. This set back Venezuela's economy massively, and then Obama began to sanction Venezuela's oil sector and individually sanction Venezuelan business leaders and Venezuelan political leaders in 2015, leading us to 2017 with Trump coming in and enacting a campaign of massive of maximum pressure, similar to what he did to Iran. Then you have the regime change attempts under Juan Guaido when Venezuela's largest foreign asset in Sitco was literally stolen by The US regime, which also presided over the theft of $20,000,000,000 in gold reserves held in the Bank of England. They just took the gold. So Venezuela is just being subjected to international piracy by the most powerful empire in human history.
Naturally, its economy is going to experience a massive decline. And now you see this these comments from groups of Venezuelans in South Florida, the base of the regime change lobby, who are saying, well, you know, we're so happy. We're we're gonna go back maybe because Venezuela's free, but we're we're we're not so sure because The US hasn't relieved Venezuela of the economic quarantine, the economic blockade because Marco Rubio wants to exploit it in order to destroy Cuba as well. But the last waves of Venezuelan migration to The US and the poverty of Venezuela has been directly caused by this the unilateral sanctions or what we could call financial terrorism imposed on Venezuela Venezuela by The US regime, which is doing the same thing to Iran, which caused legitimate protests in Iran's bazaars over inflation directly caused by sanctions. And they're using those protests as a vehicle for more renter riots, which, you know, US and Israeli leadership has not even attempted to conceal, in which US and Israeli leadership has not attempted to conceal their exploitation and desire for Mossad to increase the violence.
So that's what Venezuela's been facing, and I don't think there's any way of denying that The US played a role or that Venezuela was beginning to slowly extricate itself from the financial terrorism, which posed a real threat to US empire. What is at what is at the base of US empire? What is the underpinning, the bedrock of it? It is the dominance of the dollar. And once a country manages to get out of sanctions, the dollar begins to decline.
Speaker 0: How much blame do you put on Maduro himself and his lack of qualifications as a former bus driver appointed by by Hugo Chavez? Do you think he is the you know, he's capable of taking Venezuela back to his former glory, the pure the pre Hugo Chavez glory as one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America? Or do you think if his political party remains in power, the Chavismo moves movement remains in power, could a different leader within that movement do a better job in rebuilding the not only the economy, but the the the entire institutional system that allows the country to function, but also cooperate with The US as other Latin countries Latin American countries have done. Could that be an outcome? Because we're not seeing a regime change here.
As you said, you were very critical in our last interview that Maria Machado should not or or the gentleman she's supporting, I've got his name, should not be the leader of Venezuela if Maduro's replaced. And that's the case. That seems to be happening. Trump distanced himself from her. So if this is not a regime change, if the regime is still in power, could a
Speaker 1: different leader within that regime do a better job than Maduro? Well, it was never a question of qualifications, and now there's this very specious story being introduced that Trump really decided to invade Caracas and abduct Maduro because he didn't like Maduro's dancing. That's the same Donald Trump who does the Trump dance every time he hears YMCA, and it became a national sensation. I don't know. Maybe he didn't he didn't want Maduro to one up him because he was, like, a slightly better dancer, was doing some salsa moves, but it was never a question of competence.
There there has been corruption under the Bolivarian Republic launched by Hugo Chavez because Venezuela is a petro state. You've had corrupt figures within the realm of Chavez and Pere Vesa, the state oil company, who stole billions of dollars. And when the Venezuelan state attempted to prosecute them, they fled to Florida and found protection from The US in exchange for, you know, squealing on Maduro. Prior to that, Venezuela was extremely corrupt, and it was under IMF management, and you had bread riots in the street. Maduro was the foreign minister under Hugo Chavez.
He's someone that I've interviewed and I've engaged with on several occasions who considers himself a student of Simon Bolivar, who's very well read, who is watch his speeches, his press conferences, including engaging with the international media, and I've been to several of them. And he speaks in an articulate way, blending history, politics, and his own kind of sense of humor and sardonic wit for two hours at a time, three hours at a time. He was not a stupid guy. They call him a bus driver. He was the leader of the bus drivers union who comes from a working class barrio in Caracas and organized masses of people who became an important power base for Pesuv, which led him into, Hugo Chavez's administration.
Hugo Chavez before him had two master's degrees, was born in extreme poverty in the Venezuelan Llano, the plains, and worked himself up through the Venezuelan military and gathered his own credibility through the ranks of the military. So the idea that these are just dumb guys leading their nation to ruin is ridiculous, especially when you look at the figure of Donald Trump, someone who dodged the draft in Vietnam, was born with a silver foot in his mouth, can barely make it through press conferences without blurting out impolitic comments, and is increasingly incoherent while Americans are facing an unprecedented debt crisis. I don't even personally blame Trump for the economic crisis. I blame the economic system that we're in, which is something Venezuela has been prisoner to. So the question is, can Delsy Rodriguez, through her sheer brilliance, get Venezuela out of this and unite one of the most polarized countries on the planet.
Well, she's a very smart woman herself, whether you disagree with her or not. She's she's clever. She's very good at working with the media. But that's just not going to be enough because Venezuela is, like every other country in the Western Hemisphere right now and territory, including Greenland, in the crosshairs of the most powerful empire in human history. And so the message that the Trump administration and Trump world, this this kind of business mob that Trump runs, is sending is if you want to actually have a sovereign country within our realm, and you actually want to offer an economic alternative to our system of neoliberal capitalism, you have to have the guns to resist us or we will crush you.
And that's really what's going to decide this at the end of the day, not one singular personality and their sheer brilliance.
Speaker 0: So I understand you're critical of the intervention that we're seeing in Venezuela and just foreign intervention in general, by The US. What do you think they did right? Obviously, militarily, it was a success. Would you give them credit for not considering because I know you were critical, as I said earlier, of Maria Machado, not considering having Maria Machado come in and take power and trying to work with the existing regime. Also, what do you make of the threats that came in?
Not sure if you saw the updates just before we did our interview, the threats on the former vice president, Rodriguez, about Trump. I think Trump said that if she doesn't do what, you know, what The US wants, something worse than Maduro could happen to her, which is indicating that maybe what could be worse than being arrested and taken to jail may be assassinated. What do you make of these threats and the way they're approaching this?
Speaker 1: To the first question, what has been done right by Rubio is that Venezuela has not been destabilized. That would have been
Speaker 0: That was a big concern of yours when we spoke. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And and it still could be. Iran was not destabilized by The US attack, which appeared to be, I wouldn't say symbolic, but it was a means to to close out the conflict and actually salvage Israel, which was suffering more than I think The US expected under Iranian ballistic missile attacks. So they've kind of they've closed one chapter, and Venezuela's streets remain pretty calm at this point. Speaking to, a friend who's there now a few hours ago, there's a lot of panic buying, but that's it for now. So they've managed to avoid that for now, but Donald Trump, as he said, is threatening Delsy Rodriguez essentially with her life.
I mean, that's the message they're sending is we are just this global mafia, and we'll take you out. We'll we will just take you out if you defy us. Trump in his press conference announcing the abduction of Nicolas Maduro, declared that, Delsy Rodriguez will do whatever we want. That was wishful thinking. And what do they want?
Trump has made a lot of promises to business cronies that they will be able to profit from Venezuela's wealth, and they've supported Donald Trump as a result. I was just looking at photos from a recent event held by the right wing outlet Breitbart in Washington, and JD Vance was the keynote speaker. And then he was mingling afterwards with figures from a group called Tower Strategies, which is headed by the former CIA station chief in or or one of one of their consultants is the former CIA station chief in Venezuela, and they're basically trying to recruit as clients US corporations that want to plunder Venezuela, and J. D. Vance was right there mingling with them.
You have a I I question why Elon Musk got so interested in Venezuela when Maria Carina Machado and then Edmundo Gonzalez were running for election in 2024. But I know that he is interested in access to lithium and minerals and has said it in response to a Twitter commenter, we'll coo whoever we want in Bolivia, which has the world's largest lithium reserves. And now he's pumping up what just took place and algorithmically juicing every tweet, including fake AI videos of people celebrating what took place in Venezuela. So Trump owes a lot to his donors. He has a lot to gain personally through his family and the various business entities they've set up, like World Liberty Financial through his sons and Steve Witkoff's sons.
Venezuela also has crude oil, which The US needs, and from a strategic point of view, and I think I think Dulce Rodriguez was right to say this when she responded to the abduction of Maduro, that this this, assault on Venezuela has Zionist characteristics. Now you see major Zionist billionaires like Bill Ackman or Netanyahu himself or former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett declaring that this was a giant victory and that it means Iran is next. If The US can somehow, someway take control of Venezuela's crude oil and begin pump, refining it again in Louisiana and Texas, then it will weaken Iran I mean, this is how the theory goes. I'm not speaking for myself. It will weaken Iran's ability to close off the Strait Of Hormuz because The US will not be as dependent on oil delivered through that shipping lane.
So I I can see so many reasons why Trump is interested here, but the first one goes to the heart of his administration and why he what what he wants to do, which is to make lots of money.
Speaker 0: Another theory is, it gives control a lot more control, for The US are the global oil market. China is the biggest exporter of Venezuelan oil. Russia obviously depends on, you know, I wanna say high oil prices, but at least oil prices above $60.70 dollars. So with The US having control of Venezuelan oil, the largest known reserves larger than Saudi, think about 16% of global 17% of global known reserves. And capacity, significant capacity to export more than they are right now.
As I said earlier, they're producing about onefive of what they were many years ago. And so significant capacity there. So that gives The US a lot more leverage against China if they decide to take action on Taiwan. You know, China imports all their oil. I think it's about 80%.
And it gives them leverage over Russia in those negotiations. Now it does take them time to up the production capacity of Venezuela, a lot of money and time, but that's one of the theories floating around. And I'd love to get your comments on this theory, but more importantly, why get rid of Maduro? Why capture Maduro if you seem to be okay with this regime remaining in power, which is what you said earlier in the interview you predicted as well. Why not keep Maduro?
What's the benefit? Is it just to get that military win, that political win? Because one mistake, one helicopter shutdown could be, as you said, a massive political
Speaker 1: liability for Trump. So why take that risk that could have gone horribly wrong? Yeah. I mean, I think I answered or I tried to answer that question, which is that they think that they can get to a more pliable figure and begin to split pliable how structure. They they think this is what Marco Rubio is saying through his proxies and may eventually say openly at some point, and it's what Donald Trump is saying.
They think that Delsy Rodriguez can be more someone they can work with more directly and that Maduro was resisting what they what whatever deal they wanted, which was obviously gonna be extremely onerous and was going to force Venezuela to give up its control over its own oil through the PDVSA managerial structure that was established under Chavez. Do you think that's that's that's their thinking, and I see it from Marco Rubio's proxies in social media. Like, that's what they think is gonna happen.
Speaker 0: Think there's still there is a long term potentially a long term plan to have Maria Machado or or Gonzales Edmundo Edmundo Gonzalez to take power in Venezuela? Because right now, at least in the short term, no indicator of any such plans. But Manchado did say, today, are prepared to assert our mandate and seize power. So she seemed very confident when this took place that she would return or she would gain power, not return to power. But you're saying that's completely off the tables even long term.
Speaker 1: I don't wanna I don't wanna make some prediction and then get, you know, embarrassed down the road when someone digs up a clip of me saying it, so I don't wanna even risk being wrong if I'm 99% sure. But here here's what, like, I I think is going on based on a fairly cursory reading of the situation is that The US that that that the Trump Rubio administration is seeking to stabilize the situation under Pesuv. Maduro's political possibly being delusional, and then set the stage for an election at some point when they think they can develop some they think they can develop an alternative power structure or institution to the to the one set up in the Bolivarian Republic, then fine, and they would groom a candidate either from within who had come out of Pesu, who was willing to do The US's bidding, or bring back Maria Carina Machado since she does have her own constituency and power base, you know, in the eastern parts of Caracas and in, you know, some other more middle class parts of the country. They would then do so, but Marco Rubio has said we can't talk about elections now.
Delsy Rodriguez is delaying elections herself by continuing to recognize this is again a theory. Continuing to recognize Nicolas Maduro that will at least hold off elections for four months because according to the Venezuelan constitution, in a succession of power, you have to hold in a in a in an unexpected succession of power, you have to hold elections within one month, and that would destabilize Venezuela, and there's no clear candidate. Maria Carina chose to leave to take her Nobel Prize. She has no support within any powerful institution in Venezuela today under the Bolivarian revolution, and that is the real reason why she cannot come back and why Trump just ended her probably ended her career with what he said yesterday.
Speaker 0: Sure. And and I think it's important what you just said. You cannot, at least in the current system, you cannot have power in Venezuela without the support of the military. Based on the developments so far, you said one of the good things is that there's no instability, at least not yet in Venezuela. What are the risks of things changing?
As we saw in in Iran, people were talking about a regime change and people took on the streets when Israel was striking Iran, but everyone rallied around the flag instead. But what happened months afterwards, especially with the ongoing economic pressure as people took to the streets, could we see the same in Venezuela? Could that maybe be the strategy to remove Maduro, start to impose economic pressure? And, first is that could that be a strategy? And second, what are the risks from what you're seeing right now that we could see instability, even risks of a worst case scenario civil war in the country?
Speaker 1: I I don't see protests. That that was something that was already tried during the Guarimbas, and they were very violent protests that killed scores of Venezuelan citizens, people on both sides, but people including Chavistas as well as innocent people who are just perceived as Chavistas. I mean, the opposition has been extremely violent, and that was kind of crushed through the the issuance or invocation of the constituent assembly by Maduro. The the so the that's a past era. Civil war?
Yes. Civil war is very possible. There are competing power factions in Venezuela. The Venezuelans within Chavismo are extremely upset about what happened. There is more national unity than in the past because of the violence and the sheer gangsterism of The US.
Many Venezuelans who might not have supported Maduro are all are also nationalists, and they're offended by what's taking place. So there there could be resistance building. And if a a leader is imposed on Venezuelans who wants to just allow the The US business class to plunder the country, there could be resistance to that. I mean, it's all pretty obvious. And, you know, another point about the military and why it's so unacceptable to The US that a figure like Maduro or Diosdado Cabello have the support and backing of the military and that they can't just dislodge them through a phony color revolution as they used to be able to do in the post Soviet satellite states is because The US insists on being able to train and control all militaries across Latin America and then to turn them on their people if the people protest IMF austerity packages.
That's why they have the School of the Americas, which is now, you know, operating under a new title at Fort Benning in Georgia. And who was trained by the School of the Americas? One figure I can name was Manuel Noriega, who was paid something like a $160,000 a month when he was a CIA asset throughout the nineteen seventies, and he was also presiding over the trafficking of drugs to The United States as well as weapons to US proxies. And the trafficking of drugs was being done directly under the watch of the CIA in order to raise money for black operations against supposed socialist and nationalist forces like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And Noriega, as soon as he started to bristle at this level of US control or held a conference in Panama against continued US militarization in Central America, well, they took him out under a anti drug pretext, which was so ironic given that George h w Bush, who presided over that invasion, was the CIA director for all those years when Manuel Noriega was allowing drugs to proceed across Panamanian territory directly under the nose of the CIA.
The Government Accountability Office of the United States government found that two years after Noriega was removed, The US puppet government of Indira was was actually in had actually increased the level of drug trafficking to The US, and Panama had been a haven become a haven for money laundering in which the cartels were concealing all of their profits through shell corporations. That was really like what built Panama City. So this is all of this is all history that needs to be considered in light of what's taking taking place now, and it should inform our reading of the superseding indictment against Nicolas Maduro, who is being paraded around like some Roman trophy by the Trump administration and the DEA through New York. When he goes on trial, we should read this indictment closely because it is basically a 25 page rant consisting of very sloppy claims, and it's another phony anti drug pretext for a straightforward imperial plunder and robbery of Venezuela's resources, which it should control. So as this process continues to play out, if anyone wants to continue to pay attention, you're gonna get a great education in how gangsterism works, and Venezuelans, I think, will close ranks in order to preserve what's left of their nation if Donald Trump really wants to go ahead with this plan to essentially own the country.
Speaker 0: The comparisons you made to Manuel Noriega, the former leader of Panama, who's also initially a CIA asset but also deposed by the US military in 1990, I think it was, 8990. It was a two week operation, more bloody than the one we saw in January 3, obviously. A few US casualties, if you'd, I can't remember how many it was, and a lot more casualties on the Panaman Panama side. And it was also on January 3, a few decades ago. What comparisons would you make to that regime change we saw in Panama?
And, also, you've talked about the charges against Maduro. What type of sentencing do you think he'll receive? Where do you think he'll be held?
Speaker 1: Well, he's being held in New York, and he's gonna be tried in the Southern District Of New York, so New York City. And the same this is the same court where former Honduran president and convicted narco trafficker Juan Orlando Hernandez was prosecuted And and he was granted clemency by Trump after a lobbying campaign by Trump crow funded by Trump cronies who wanted to, like, make money under a new Honduran government on the island of Roatan. I'm talking about, Marc Andreessen, and I I think Peter Thiel might have been another figure, and you saw, Roger Stone lobbying for Juan Orlando Hernandez's clemency. Juan Orlando Hernandez claimed, and Donald Trump repeated this claim in some form in his press conference yesterday, that he was the victim of lawfare, that he was persecuted, and Wanerlander Hernandez specifically said that I was prosecuted on the basis of one drug dealer. The problem is his indictment, if you read it, was much more detailed than Maduro's.
It contained photographic evidence, including cocaine bags that were engraved with the initials of his brother, Tony Hernandez, who's still in a federal prison. There was video of a informant within the Los Cachuros Los Cachiros cartel showing one Orlando Hernandez on camera, confessing and boasting about drug trafficking and drug shipments to The United States. There's physical evidence of it. There were also many murders from friendly elements. He stacked the national police with cartel leaders.
But let's go back to that allegation about one man. Well, Maduro's indictment is most is largely based on allegations by one man, Pollo Carvajal, who is a high level security honcho under Chavez who did not support Maduro, and then basically sang like a bird and said whatever he thought The US authorities would have wanted when he fell into their hands and faced prosecution, thinking maybe if I make myself a valuable asset, can avoid a long prison term. The beginning of the indictment, starts out with a factual error. It reads, for the for over twenty five years, leaders of Venezuela have abused their positions of public trust and corrupted once legitimate institutions to import tons of cocaine into The United States. I think they meant export, and that really hints at how sloppy the indictment is.
Tons of cocaine, they don't cite how many tons, but later on in the indictment, the prosecutor at the time, Emile Bove, concedes unintentionally that Venezuela was actually only exporting less than 10% of cocaine that went to The United States. And then there's a ton of slop in the indictment about activities allegedly carried out by Maduro's family inside Venezuela or allegedly in Mexico outside the jurisdiction of The United States. So I think he he has a pretty strong defense. There are protests outside the prison where he's being held, large a large protest, and this is something you wouldn't see for someone who had been a widely loathed totalitarian dictator, to have supporters outside in another country. It's different from the Minoriega situation as well in that The US did have boots on the ground in Panama.
It destroyed an entire neighborhood in Panama City. There was much more carnage, but we're now learning that, you know, at least 80 people were killed. And Trump has said that, you know, he's not hostile to the idea of boots on the ground.
Speaker 0: The last thing I wanna get your thoughts on, and you mentioned it earlier in the interview, is the Chinese envoy that was in Caracas during the strikes, and they met Maduro hours beforehand. What does that say about China's involvement or lack thereof in this entire operation? And some are looking at the timing of this as potential because China had said, and they don't usually say this, they were shocked by the attack. They don't usually use words like that. Some type of message that Trump was sending to China, essentially, to keep your hands out of our hemisphere.
Speaker 1: It was a message to China as was the attempted theft of the Belo one tanker, actually got away but was carrying Chinese oil and was not even sanctioned, as far as I know. This is this is not so it's not just about Venezuela. It's a message to the entire Latin American left. It's a message to Russia. It's a message to China.
It's a message to Iran. Trump is basically saying he can assassinate or abduct any leader he wants if he doesn't get what he wants in a deal. Trump, however, did say yesterday that Venezuela can export oil to China, which suggests there might have been some negotiation that took place either beforehand or immediately afterwards because he did not want to infuriate China and make it so clear that he was seeking to impose a de facto embargo on China as well, which is importing so much oil from Venezuela. This is it opens the door for retaliation in different in different geographic poles of the world by Russia, which it looks like has faced drone attacks in Moscow and possible attempts at assassinating its president Vladimir Putin from Ukraine, that Russia could escalate against five years away.
Speaker 0: Do you believe those claims, by by by Russia that his residence was targeted?
Speaker 1: I I would say I need to look more closely at that, but these are claims they're making, which set the stage for retaliation against Zelensky. And what could what could Ukraine say? Zelensky endorsed what Donald Trump did to Maduro, so he's putting a target on his own back. Taiwan, which is China, which is Chinese territory, I would say is more vulnerable now after what Donald Trump did. Greenland, Stephen Miller's wife, tweeted a map of Greenland with a US flag imposed over it.
Donald Trump has said, well, we need Greenland not only because of minerals, but because of national security. There are Russian and Chinese ships trafficking throughout Greenland, and he's referring to, you know, control of the Arctic, which is a priority of the Pentagon. What can the Europeans do when they have just all bowed down and licked Donald Trump's boots? The Greek prime minister, who's a NATO tool, supported it. Kirstarmer refuses to condemn it.
Emmanuel Macron, the billionaire banker in France, has bowed down before Trump and and and supported it. Won't even use the term international law. Kaja Callis, who heads the foreign office of the EU, has refused to condemn it. So they're setting the stage for Trump taking Greenland because there'll be nothing they can say about it now.
Speaker 0: What do you think they would the world would do if Russia did the same thing? You said Zelensky put a tiger on his back. So Russia goes ahead and kidnaps Zelensky the same way Maduro was kidnapped, and shows them off trials and like The US is doing so, having the photo ops that The US has done. How do you think the world would react to that?
Speaker 1: Well, it would be similar to how the world reacted to Russia invading Ukraine after The US attempted to NATO NATO ize Ukraine, with right and and when we talk about the world, I think we should talk about the collective West, which has bowed before Trump even as they exude contempt for him and his personality and his kind of and and the conservative constituency that he controls. The the the the 50 or 55 or so countries comprising the collective West that vote together as a bloc behind The US and refuse to oppose in any meaningful way Israel's genocide in Gaza and the holocaust of children that occurred there. They will react with righteous indignation to anything that Russia does and thunder condemnations about Putin. I've seen I saw a ridiculous headline in some legacy pub publication today that what Trump just did in Venezuela represents the Putinization of US policy. No.
This is classic US gunboat diplomacy. It is what it's how The US has treated Latin America throughout its its entire existence, going back to the US Mexico war. But they'll but and and but but now, at this point, after what took place in Venezuela and after the whole two year nightmare of witnessing the Gaza genocide, which was supported in every way possible by the collective West, their protests and their condemnations will ring hollow. And going back to your last question, we should ask if there is some larger negotiation taking place between The US, Russia, and China to formalize the great power competition in which great powers are are given more latitude to operate with impunity within their poles of geographic power, within their strategic realms. And Marco Rubio made some comments that I thought were pretty stunning last year, but which make a little bit more sense now, and he actually said we are living in a multipolar world.
It's not how I would envision a multipolar world taking place, but I can see it being a Rubio centric interpretation of what one means.
Speaker 0: Max, always a pleasure to speak to you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks a lot, Mario.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m saying the U.S. isn’t a true democracy; Israel controls our government. No matter how many Americans oppose aid, both parties bend to Israeli interests through money and lobbying—and she even suggests blackmail. Organized groups lobby for Israel in the U.S., and there may be politicians who are blackmailed.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇮🇱 ANA KASPARIAN: “ISRAEL CONTROLS OUR GOVERNMENT... THEY BLACKMAIL OUR POLITICIANS" Kasparian just dropped a political nuke to kick off 2026 and she didn’t hold anything back. She straight-up says the U.S. is a fake democracy, and when it comes to Israel, your opinion means nothing. According to her, it doesn’t matter if 99% of Americans oppose sending aid both parties will do whatever the Israeli government wants anyway. Why? Because they’ve got the money, the lobbying power, and yes… she even says blackmail. She wasn't subtle at all, and says Israel controls our government. Period. If you’ve ever wondered why U.S. foreign policy feels rigged, this is her answer: "We don’t actually live in a true democracy here in the U.S. It doesn’t matter how many Americans are against U.S. support toward Israel. Israel controls our government. We have a system of legalized bribery. The Israelis are far more organized and have several organizations operating out of the U.S. specifically to lobby on behalf of Israel. I have no doubt that there are politicians and people in positions of power who are being blackmailed." Source: @IsabellaIsMoody, @AnaKasparian
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asserts that the United States does not function as a true democracy. Regardless of public opinion or party control, they claim the government will carry out the wishes of the Israeli government, stating that Israel “controls our government.” They describe a system of legalized bribery where foreign interests can bribe American politicians, with Israelis being more organized and operating multiple organizations in the United States to lobby on Israel’s behalf. The speaker identifies APEC as the most notable lobbying group involved in this activity and asserts that blackmail also exists, suggesting that there are politicians and people in power who are being blackmailed. These points, they say, reveal that the current political system is undemocratic and that the story highlights this reality more than anything, pulling the wool over people’s eyes. The overall message is that U.S. policy toward Israel is driven by influence and coercion rather than the will of American voters.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We don't actually live in a true democracy here in The United States. It doesn't matter how many Americans or what percentage of Americans are against US support toward Israel. Our government, despite any party that's in charge, okay, doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans, is going to carry out the wishes of the Israeli government no matter what, because they control us. They control our government. Israel controls our government.
We have a system of legalized bribery, so foreign interests are able to bribe our politicians. The Israelis are far more organized and have multiple organizations, several organizations operating out of The United States specifically to lobby on behalf of Israel, to bribe our politicians on behalf of Israel. Yes, APEC happens to be the most notable lobbying group that does this. And there's also blackmail. I have no doubt that there are politicians and people in positions of power who are being blackmailed.
And that's how we find ourselves in a situation where I mean, this story more than anything, I think really pulls the wool over everyone's eyes when it comes to the reality of how undemocratic our political system has become.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that Russia claimed Ukraine hit Putin’s residence with drones and vowed retaliation, while Ukraine calls it a false flag sabotaging talks. The CIA says the claim is false and that Ukraine targeted a nearby base. Meanwhile Russia parades nuclear-capable Oreshnik missiles in Belarus, capable of hitting the UK quickly. I sit down with Col. Daniel Davis to analyze potential retaliation and what it means for peace negotiations.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇦🇷🇺 U.S.: RUSSIA LIED ABOUT UKRAINIAN STRIKE ON PUTIN’S RESIDENCE - INTERVIEW w/ COL. DANIEL DAVIS Just before Christmas, Russia accused Ukraine of launching drones at Putin's residence during Zelensky's Mar-a-Lago meeting with Trump. Russia confirmed they will retaliate: “Targets for retaliatory strikes and the timing” had been set Ukraine denies these claims, calling it a false flag sabotage of the negotiations. The CIA also says Russia’s claim is false, and that Ukraine was targeting a nearby military base instead, fueling dueling narratives. At the same time, Russia's parading the nuclear-capable Oreshnik missiles in Belarus, which can reach the UK in 6-8 minutes, and is allegedly impossible to intercept. Today I sit down with @DanielLDavis1 to analyze how Russia could retaliate, and how these developments mean for the peace negotiations.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario and the Colonel discuss the latest developments in the Ukraine-Russia conflict and their implications for peace negotiations and the battlefield.
- The hosts walk through conflicting claims about an alleged Ukrainian drone attack on Putin’s residence, timed with Zelenskyy’s meeting with Trump. Ukraine denied the claims; Russia asserted the opposite; a CIA report then said the drones targeted a Russian military base in the region and that this wasn’t the first time such a base had been targeted. The Colonel notes that all sides may be using disinformation, and no one can say with authority what happened. He emphasizes that what matters is how each side uses the information to bolster its position and public support, including Lavrov’s stated threat of retaliation. He argues the military reality on the ground continues to be unfavorable for Ukraine, and that Russia will use any incident to justify gains or concessions on its terms.
- On negotiations, the 90–95% of an agreement reportedly already accepted is contrasted with two sticking points: security guarantees and territory. Zelenskyy is said to be nearing some form of security guarantee solution, but Donbas territorial concessions remain unresolved. The Colonel suggests evaluating who benefits from the alleged incident; if true, it could be used to sabotage peace talks. He notes competing narratives: Ukraine seeks to portray Russia as untrustworthy, while Russia portrays Ukraine as the aggressor and untrustworthy, both using the incident to justify their positions. He questions whether any side actually benefits, proposing that Russia might use the event domestically to rally support and push negotiations toward its terms.
- The discussion moves to strategic weapons and timing. They note the Arashnik missiles in Belarus, described as nuclear-capable, with high speed and multiple warheads. The Colonel says Russia has signaled willingness to escalate but would likely reserve Arashniks for decisive moments or major escalations, possibly a clash with NATO, rather than using them routinely. He cites Putin’s statements about negotiating or taking actions by force and explains that Russia’s leadership appears to have reached a point where battlefield gains could be prioritized if diplomacy stalls.
- On Ukraine’s ability to advance, the Colonel argues that Russia prioritizes territorial gains but is not constrained by time, with large manpower advantages and sustained firepower. He asserts Russia’s advance has accelerated over 2024–2025 and could continue, potentially enabling breakthroughs even if the Donbas remains a long-term objective. He contrasts this with potential Ukrainian vulnerabilities, including troop losses, desertions, and mobilization limits, suggesting Ukraine could face a collapse in the front line by spring or summer, though there is uncertainty about exact outcomes.
- Regarding Ukraine’s effort to disrupt Russia’s economy by targeting the Black Sea fleet and shipping, the Colonel is skeptical that such actions would decisively affect Russia, given Russia’s diversification away from sea-based revenues and Ukraine’s parallel economic strains, including power shortages and refineries. He emphasizes that neither side’s economic measures have produced a decisive effect, and that Russia has prepared countermeasures.
- Trump’s post claiming that “Putin’s attack bluster” shows Russia stands in the way of peace is discussed. The Colonel says Trump is echoing Western lines and that such rhetoric will not by itself alter the course of negotiations; an eventual settlement requires both sides to agree on terms, not slogans.
- On possible Russian retaliation, the Colonel suggests targeted responses within Kyiv’s power sector or leadership and possibly infrastructure, but he cautions against predicting escalation, noting Russia’s risk-averse tendencies and potential to strike second- and third-tier Ukrainian leaders or critical infrastructure if deemed necessary for domestic purposes.
- Looking ahead twelve months, the Colonel predicts continued war, potential major battlefield moves with accelerating territorial changes, and the possibility of a breakthrough or a sharp escalation. He warns that a purely defensive posture will not win and that the pace of Russian advances could lead to significant shifts by late 2026, with Donbas negotiations remaining unsettled. He concludes that the conflict is likely to continue, with hybrid warfare and broader Western responses shaping developments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's a pleasure to speak to you, my first guest of 2026. It's an honor.
Speaker 1: It's an honor to me. Thanks for inviting me.
Speaker 0: Your thoughts, colonel. So we got two days just before before Christmas. We got news that allegedly drones were targeting Putin's residence, and that's at the same time that Zelenskyy was meeting Trump. Ukraine denied those claims. Russia doubled down, then Putin mentioned it to Trump on a call, and now we've got a report by the CIA saying that these drones were actually targeting a military base, a Russian military base in that same region, and that that this is not the first time Ukraine targets that base.
So the CIA claims that Russia's lying. Ukraine claims that Russia's lying. Where do you stand on this?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and just add to that, you have the Russians claiming that they took some of the targeting data from some of the drones they shot down to confirm that that's where they were heading toward the Russia's residence. The bottom line is no one can say with any authority what it is because every side in this war will not hesitate to use disinformation or misinformation or outright lie to make themselves look good or to justify some other thing that they're gonna do. There is reason to suggest that the Ukraine side could have done this and that they were trying to, maybe expand this and to draw The US in. There's evidence that, and there's motivation that the Russian side could have claimed that this was signed to give more justification for their side.
Bottom line is I don't know. What matters is what each side is doing with this. That you have the Ukrainian side trying to cast all the blame on the Russians and then providing, quote, yet more evidence that they are the impediment to peace, that they're not trying to get to this, and then the Russians are using that as to theirs to their advantage in their population, which is creating more outrage that how dare they actually target our president. Again, whether it's true or not, that's almost irrelevant. What is very much relevant is what they're you or the Russians are doing with this information, which is bolstering the support on their side for this.
And then they have claimed, Lavrov specifically, that there would be a retaliation for this. So we're still waiting to see what that's gonna mean because it can mean any number of things, but Russia's gonna use that allegation to justify something that's coming up in here. And all of this boils down to the bottom line that the military reality on the ground continues to go dramatically against the Ukraine side. And when we love to say that Russia is the impediment to peace, what that means, Mario, is that they're an impediment to the peace of our definition, meaning something that's acceptable to Kyiv and it's tolerable to Kyiv, not anything that's even remotely close to what is required and demanded by the Russian side. And when one side has the ability to compel compliance on the other and this side doesn't, that's the only thing that's gonna matter in this.
Who can do what and who can't do what? And right now, Russians can continue to move forward to the West, can continue to destroy the Ukrainian armed forces, and either we accept this ugly deal that's on the table now or there won't be a deal. And evidence suggests from what Putin has said just in the last five or six days that they may have already reached that point. They may have just flat out calculated, we're gonna take on the battlefield what we need and then we'll figure it out later.
Speaker 0: In terms of your final point about the negotiations, there is so as Alexi said that 90% of it has been accepted. I think someone else on The US side said US side said that it's 95% of it has been done. That five or 10% is the main sticking point that we've had since the beginning of the negotiations. One is the security guarantees, and the other one is territorial concessions. On the security guarantees, Zelenskyy said that it seems they're getting closer to some sort of solution.
The territory is the main sticking point. Russia wants the Donbas. Ukraine doesn't wanna pull out of the remaining territory in the Donbas, and that still has not been resolved. I think Zelensky in an interview on Fox News said that this is a red line for him. I wanna go back to the to the claims, though.
Who do you think strategically so for me to try to understand who's more likely to be behind it, it's impossible to know for certainty. What I try to to to to to decipher is who's benefiting the most. Yeah. Is Ukraine benefiting? So if the if this is true, my guess would be that is someone attempting to sabotage the ongoing peace negotiations.
It happened exactly as Zelensky was sitting with Trump, in Florida and Mar A Lago. So the timing of it is very important. Assuming the claims are true, and that did happen actually putting that aside, the whole narrative of the of the how the residents being targeted, who does that story help the most?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That that's that's, I think, the the only way you can really approach us because it we have the dueling narratives, and we don't have the way to independently validate whichever one of them is right. And and and I think that from the Ukraine side, they would benefit from this by saying, oh, Russia's just crazy. They're just making this stuff up out of thin air. We obviously didn't do any of that stuff, and that just shows you that they can't be trusted, which Zelenskyy also said in that same interview with Fox News you cited a second ago.
We can't trust them at all, and so neither should you. We should only build up more military. From the Russian side that says, hey. This shows their population because this is for their domestic audience, not international. Although, some too international, I guess, but primarily their domestic audience to say, these guys are literally crazy, meaning the West all the West at large, that they're willing to risk nuclear war over this issue right here.
They can't be negotiated with. So we have to just go all in and win on the ground because we can't trust anything. You literally that trust issue, I think, is being used regardless of what actually happened, that issue of trust is being used as a weapon by both sides using this allegation as competing narrative towards each other. And and, honestly, I I don't I don't see how anybody actually benefits from this. Russia didn't need any more justification.
Ukraine side doesn't need any more justification. So I I don't know if it even happened. It may have had been what claimed it that it was heading towards a military base, etcetera, and then just somebody took an advantage of this opportunity. But if it actually happened and they were really targeting Russia, I don't see how anyone would gain from that.
Speaker 0: Let me know what you think of this theory. We have the Arashnik missiles in Belarus that just arrived and they've been shown publicly on the launches for the first time ever. And those for anyone that doesn't know, those are nuclear capable ballistic missiles and they're 10 times speeder than 10 times faster than the speed of sounds. Russia claims they cannot be intercepted in The UK if they arrive to The UK in six to eight minutes from Belarus, and each missile carries six warheads, and and each each warhead has, multiple submunitions. Now that was just demonstrated publicly on TV just a few days ago.
I think it was three days ago. And you said earlier that Russia might have reached the point where they're going to gain what they want on the battlefield rather the the negotiations that are not moving forward, not leading anywhere when it comes to territory. Could we be at a position now where Russia has decided, as you said, to go ahead and capture what they need militarily? And could they be considering and not bluffing the use of the Arashnik missile?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I'll answer those are two part question to me. You mentioned the Fox News interview where Zelenskyy said it's basically nonnegotiable. He can't give up even the Donbas. Forget about Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
And Russia has already said that's a nonnegotiable for us. We'd not even contemplate anything less than the administrative orders of all four of those oblast. And so you had the day before the meeting between Trump and and Zelenskyy where Putin in military uniform said our our patience has basically been exhausted. Our interest is close to zero is the way he phrased it to even worrying about whether Ukraine is gonna withdraw from anything. They will either tie a peace implication on our terms, or we will take it by force.
It was the most direct and and unequivocal statement he has made, and he's made a number of them, most recently in Beijing earlier this past late summer, of similar things. It's either negotiations or force. Now he's just saying, my interest is almost zero whether they're gonna withdraw or not. Don't care. We'll take it by force if they don't take our terms.
So I I think that the Russian side has reached that point and are now moving forward with it with getting it done, and you've seen a lot of statements by Russian generals in public intending for people to see what they're saying and what their intentions are heading into the first part of this year here. And so I I think we're already past that point. And and I'm sorry. What was the second part of what you asked there?
Speaker 0: Could they go ahead and use the Oresiak missiles?
Speaker 1: Oh, right. Right. Yeah. That's really important. I calculate based on the utility of these missiles and the fact that they have just started production, I don't think that they would use those unless it is something really, really important.
They don't need those missiles to continue moving on the ground, to continue to chew up the Ukrainian armed forces. So I think that they would reserve those in the event that this escalates and it becomes a a military strike between, NATO and and and Russia. And, of course, that's an ever present possibility. You have this constant thing of elect let's move troops in. You had Lavrov say just a few days ago that if this coalition of the willing, if you guys put any western troops anywhere on the ground in Ukraine, they're legitimate targets.
You know, we don't I I I think that they could use also other submunitions. I think they're gonna reserve those arrestniks for when it's critical and decisive because they just don't have that many of them so far. And I wouldn't imagine they would use those
Speaker 0: They take a long time to produce they do take a long time to produce as well. Then how do you think Russia will be able to capture that territory? Because they are advancing on the ground, but that advancing has been very incremental, very slow, faster this year than previous years, but there's been analysts that say it could take them anywhere from two to five years for them to capture the Donbas, unless there's some sort of capitulation on the Ukrainian side or the support from the West dropping. We've seen a lot of political pushback against that support, especially in Europe. Do you think Russia would take that long to be able to capture the remaining territory in the Donbas?
Speaker 1: Well, a lot of the people who claim this, what they're doing is they're they're taking a look at the territory and you're saying, alright. Let's look at what happened in the last two years, and they just draw a straight line over another two years or or three years or four years up get up to five, and they're just saying, yeah. It took that long for here, so it'll take that long for here. But what too many of these analysts in the West failed to recognize is that for Russia, territory is a secondary objective, not the primary objective. So in 2024, they took, somewhere around, I wanna say it was 4,000 square kilometers.
In 2025, they took 6,000 square kilometers. So it's even that, it's not a linear progression. It's increasing. It's accelerating. December saw, I think, the biggest of the entire year in terms of territory accepted.
But all during this time, there has been a just this catastrophic loss of Ukrainian troops, and they are losing them by casualties. They're losing them by people deserting. They're losing them by people fleeing the country, and the the pool of available troops continues to shrink that they can even force mobilize. Russia has no shortage of people that they haven't even got to force mobilization because they can still get enough through recruiting. So they have literally millions of more on top of the huge advantage in firepower that they have in all the relevant categories.
So anybody who thinks that what has happened in two years is just gonna be extended on forward doesn't understand how war works Because every time you keep shrinking the Ukrainian side and and getting rid of so many troops, they can't maintain the same stability they had here. And a lot of this stuff here in the previous two years was fortresses that had been built over the previous eight. So now that they've had to build some new ones, and we know that a lot of the new ones are not as good as the old ones, and they're getting fewer of them. So you could get to a point to where the fabric of the Ukrainian armed forces could finally break, and we've seen this in history before. And then all of a sudden, you could just get a breakthrough and just roll up the the defenses if you get a bus down somewhere.
And we see that the the losses are picking up speed. So it it could be that they could be like the German Army of World War two where they literally never broke, but they just were slowly ground down until they were destroyed at in Berlin. That could happen, but it could also happen like what happened to the British and the French in 1940 in France where once the Wehrmacht got in behind them, they had panic and they rolled up even this great defense. The whole thing got shattered. Both of those are possible, and we just can't say I can't say with any confidence which way it'll be.
But what I can say with a lot of confidence, Mario, is that this will never be reversed, and the likelihood is that the expanding acceleration of the Russian advance will continue into this year.
Speaker 0: So essentially a war of attrition until you break the eventually break the Ukrainian army. And once you do so, then you'd be able to advance a lot faster and capture it, you know, a lot faster than two to five years.
Speaker 1: That's what the Russians are saying. I mean, their generals have said that. We just don't listen to them because it's not the way we would do it, and we do prioritize taking territory. And so since Russians aren't doing that, we just say, oh, they're weak, ignoring the fact that they have millions of more men and they are still advancing. No one explains that to me through any attempts on the West where they talk about how they wanna outlast Russia, which Zelenskyy has said in recent days that they wanna outlast them.
I mean, that's absurd because you can't. It's a war of attrition. It's not a battle. It's not an individual territory. It's a war of attrition, and you have all the inputs here, and both sides have equal political will.
They both wanna win as bad, but one side has all the other advantages. And in a war of attrition, it's literally that way. You'll just grind down one until it can no longer function. It can no longer provide coherent defense. And once that happens, we lose.
Speaker 0: What do you think of Ukraine's new strategy of, of targeting the shuttle fleet vessels of Russia, the the the heart of the piggy bank that Putin's using for the war? Could that make a difference on the Russian side? Because it's been again, we've talked about it many times. The Russian economy is cracking, cracking, cracking, but hasn't done so yet. Still doing well.
We don't know what the actual numbers are, how much they still have in their treasury, but we do know that oil prices and that shadow fleet play a key role in the money coming into the country. Do you think Ukraine targeting those vessels could make an impact?
Speaker 1: No. I don't. Because, I mean, you just look at the numb first of all, just look at the number of vessels. We're we're talking depending on who who you wanna listen to, somewhere between nine hundred and thirteen hundred vessels, and we're talking about four, I think, that have been interdicted or destroyed or something like that. And that has an effect.
But Russia has been working over the last four years or so to minimize their reliance on the oil and gas stuff over on the sea. So it will have it will cause an impact, but it will not be a decisive impact because Russia has minimized their vulnerability there just like they've minimized it in all these other areas where we've used economic warfare. So anybody who hopes that Russia is gonna be minimized enough then also is paying no attention to the substantially higher effort on the Russian side to do the exact same thing to the Ukrainian side to the extent now that that Kyiv is is, what, maybe four to six hours of electricity per day. Other areas have been knocked out. They've been greatly diminished in their oil refining capacity and their ability to transport stuff, and yet it still hasn't knocked Ukraine out of the air.
You're miles away from that on the Russian side, so I don't know why anybody on the West wants to get this hope that somehow that would affect the frontline in Russia, which is much, much bigger and has more air defenses and more resources when it hasn't worked that way on the Ukraine side. It's it's illogical to me.
Speaker 0: So we've got, going back to the claims of a Russian, of a Ukrainian attack on Putin's residence and what that means for the negotiations, what that means for the war and how Russia would retaliate. I wanna go to Trump's post about twenty four hours ago, a bit more than that, where he said following, quote, Putin's attack, bluster, he put it in in in commas. Attack bluster shows Russia is is the one standing in the way of peace, and he quoted a New York Post article that claims that Russia is the one standing in the way of peace. It's not Ukraine based on this false claim of a Ukrainian attack on Putin's residence. What do you make of Trump's, because Trump has been praising both sides.
He's been friendlier to Russia over the last few weeks and months. But then making that post, do you think that could change the America's stance in these negotiations and then the support for Ukraine?
Speaker 1: No. No. No. Not at all. And and and that means that he's been listening to Zelensky and or or Friedrich Mets or or any other number of these European leaders because that's what they say all the time that Russia is the impediment to peace or whatever.
So Trump is literally repeating what he has heard there. And then other times, and I think even during some of these press conferences, he was repeating what what Putin had said to the to the other side. So he's hearing one thing and repeating it here, hearing another, repeating it over there. The bottom line to this, whether it's Trump saying it or the European saying it, when they say that they're an impediment to peace, that only means that they're an impediment to peace that we want, that we want the deal, that we want there to be, no territorial, concessions. We want the like Zelensky said, that there just to be this demilitarized zone.
So everybody withdraws from this territory here, and we're not gonna do anything else here. And and all of the 800,000 Ukrainian military, that's a nonstarter. That's we can't even support that. I don't know how they're gonna do it. But that that is not an impediment to peace.
That's an impediment to the peace we want. And until you get both sides, Mario, until both sides can come to an agreement on a single set of terms, you will not have a negotiated settlement. You'll just have a continuation of the war.
Speaker 0: So then how do you think Russia will retaliate to this? Assuming the the claims that these were not targeting the residents, but they were close to the residents targeting another military base, If this is true, if that was not an assassination attempt on Putin or a warning shot by targeting his residents. Lavrov said not long after the the the the claims of the attack, he said targets for retaliatory strikes, and the timing had been set. What do you expect on the Russian side?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I I think that they're they'll probably keep it, within the terms or within the confines of the Ukraine side. So, I think that that could mean one of a couple of things that they've been claiming they would do for a long time but really haven't, and that is hit, like, power ministries inside of Kyiv, areas that they haven't hit so far. They'll hit some of those. They might even take out some leaders.
Remember, they have had their own generals assassinated in Moscow, and they haven't retaliated tit for tat on that. They could potentially go after some of those senior leaders, etcetera. I kinda think that they might go after a second tier or a third tier Ukrainian leader. I don't think they'd go after the top because they wanna they don't wanna go to the top escalation right off the bat, or they could actually hit some more of the infrastructure like, say, at Odessa and and hurt Ukraine's ability because if they don't have access to the sea and ability to have the shipments of various capabilities going out, that's gonna really hurt them. So Russia could choose to go after some of that harder than they have, but it it's really unknown because Russia has has shown a risk averse to trying to do things that accelerate.
So I don't think that they'll go after anything big, at least based on their past, but they'll do something they really have to for their own domestic purposes.
Speaker 0: Lastly, wanna go to a comment made by you mentioned Mersh. He said on Christmas, he said Europe must prepare for hybrid warfare versus Russia and we've talked earlier about the Orashic missiles being moved closer to Europe into Belarus. And night NATO's been stricter on how to deal with this, or at least they claim to wanna be stricter and respond more aggressively to the hybrid war they're seeing or they claim to see from the Russian side. How do you expect that to develop into the new year if, Zelensky, Putin, and Trump don't reach some sort of agreement?
Speaker 1: Well, listen. The the the West and Germany specifically, they gotta be careful what they do because they don't they they gotta be careful of going too far against Russian assets that it ends up reflecting back on them. And and, I mean, look. Take the take your the emotion out of it and take you know, I'm on this side or that side out of it and just look at it from an analytical point of view. What do we think that Russia is gonna do when you have been bragging for four years that this is a proxy war and that 50 nations of NATO, and Europe are all providing lethal, advice and capabilities and ammunition and everything else for Ukraine for the purpose of killing Russian soldiers in that war.
You cannot just so brazenly do that and then always think there's never gonna be a consequence. There is gonna be a consequence, and and Russia has been slow getting to this game. But now evidence appears that they're getting a little bit more bold about taking action with the sabotage and things and with its rail lines or or, ammunition depots or or factories in the West, etcetera, some of these other cyber attacks. I I don't know if all these are true. They could be exaggerated, but I would guess some of them are accurate being promoted that Russia probably is doing some of those things.
And why would they not? If you're attacking a certain side and helping one kill another, why would they not do anything against the side providing that lethal assistance? If we don't like that, then we've got to understand. You can do it, but then you have to be prepared for the consequences and the blowback. And so if you now wanna say how dare they because they shouldn't do anything on us and now we're gonna do even more, then I'm just telling you, be ready for some response to that too.
So if you escalate that and ramp it up, you're probably gonna get something more in return. I mean, that's just that's just human nature.
Speaker 0: What would be your prediction that we'll see for the next twelve months? We've got everything pointing to the war continuing. We've got, a new loan that was given to Ukraine. You've got Trump still supporting Ukraine despite all his threats. And, Russia's been pretty strict on wanting to capture the Donbas.
Where would that lead to moving forward? Do you think Russia will continue the hybrid warfare? How do you think NATO will respond? And what is the risk of a direct conflict based on what we're seeing right now?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I worry that that the Ukraine armed forces will will reach a critical mass at some point, and and there will be a collapse in in the in the front. And that could come even in in the before this winter is over. It could come in the spring, maybe early summer. I I think that you're gonna see some much bigger moves on the battlefield.
I mean, we we literally saw from 4,000 square kilometers in '24 to 6,600, I think, in in 2025. And so I I expect that pace that that increase will continue on, but it might not be a linear expanse. It could be a big bust at some point. You could lose some big area somewhere, and have a big breakthrough. And, you know, it's just unknown how long Ukrainian men are gonna continue to go on and obey orders and fight when they know that they're almost certainly gonna die and not succeed and sacrifice their life for nothing.
So I think that there's a decent chance that the acceleration picks up and you have a bust through somewhere. And then, yeah, I think it could go all the way before the end of 2026 up to the Dinepa River. I I think they could accelerate all that. Maybe Zaporizhzhia in the South. I think they could take Coupons.
They could take a whole lot more of the Kharkiv Oblast, maybe get up to the city and and move in some other areas. I think that's a distinct realm of possibility, in that regard.
Speaker 0: I think it it just feels like it's a it's a battle now between the manpower issues that Ukraine is facing and the military constraints that Russia's facing, again, we don't know
Speaker 1: Because here's here's the thing, Muriel. The only question is how fast are the Russians gonna move. There is nothing nothing on the horizon that shows that there's gonna be a constraint on there, and there is even less any kind of a plausible path that Ukraine could stop that and then move forward to try to move them back. The the because if you can only play defense, you can never win. You can only lose slower.
So until somebody in the West comes up with some kind of a rational plan that they can stop this first and then reverse it, why would you keep going on a war that you're just gonna lose either slow or really slow? That's where we're at.
Speaker 0: And not settle, somewhere, or maybe at least give up the dumbass and try to end this war early on, except that this that the Donbas is looking less and less likely that it's gonna remain Ukrainian, unfortunately. But we'll see if things could change. Colonel, always a pleasure. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that Russia claims Ukraine fired 91 drones at Putin’s residence while Zelensky met Trump, and Ukraine calls it a Russian false flag to derail peace talks. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson argues rogue CIA elements may have helped, possibly without Zelensky’s or Trump’s approval, to prevent the war’s end. The discussion covers timing, Budanov’s independence, Lavrov’s swift reaction, and risks to European assets, signaling a shift in covert restraint.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇦🇷🇺 EMERGENCY INTERVIEW: LARGE SCALE DRONE ATTACK ON PUTIN RESIDENCE “UKRAINE TRIED TO KILL PUTIN - AND ROGUE CIA ELEMENTS MAY HAVE HELPED" - Fmr CIA Analyst Russia claims Ukraine fired 91 drones at Putin’s residence, at the same time Zelensky was meeting Trump in Mar-a-Lago. Ukraine claims this is a Russian False Flag to derail the ongoing peace negotiations And based on Trump’s comments a few minutes ago, he seems unsure who’s saying the truth and who’s lying. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson breaks down Russia’s claim, and why the most likely scenario is that Ukraine, along with members of the U.S. or British intelligence, were likely behind this attack, without Zelensky’s or Trump’s approval. And the objective is simple: Prevent the war from ending. We get into: • Why the timing points to an attempt to sabotage peace talks. • Whether head of Ukrainian intelligence Budanov could’ve acted independently, and why that matters. • How rogue CIA elements may be undermining Trump’s diplomacy. • Why Lavrov’s swift reaction signals serious Russian retaliation. • The risks of Russia striking British or European assets in response. • How this could mark the end of covert restraint on both sides. • Why Russia may now consider targeting Ukraine’s intelligence leadership directly. Whoever is saying the truth, all eyes are now on Russia’s response, and the impact this could have on the ongoing negotiations.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario and Larry discuss a high-tension incident: a claimed Ukrainian attack on one of Vladimir Putin’s residences in Novgorod with about 90 long-range drones, reported by Russia as an act of terrorism, with Lavrov pledging retaliation and a Kremlin aide claiming Putin mentioned timing for strikes after a call to Trump. They note there is no proof provided of damage or casualties, and no confirmation from the US side. The conversation covers who might be responsible—Ukraine, Russia as a false flag, or other actors—and the implications for ongoing negotiations.
Larry outlines the timeline as presented by the Russians: the attack supposedly occurred the night of the 28th into the 29th, with Putin informing Trump about it within the last six hours; there were additional conversations today, including Putin’s remarks to Zelensky in Florida and a meeting in which Lavrov indicated retaliatory options were set. He emphasizes the Russians treat it as terrorism and notes Putin has not lived at his residences for years, instead using the Kremlin, and that the targeted location was symbolic or an assassination attempt. He recalls past Ukrainian incidents against Putin (e.g., Kursk helicopter episode) and observes that Russia has historically focused on military targets rather than civilians, contrasting with Ukrainian strikes on civilian targets in Donbas. He suggests the incident could be used to undermine Ukrainian credibility in negotiations or to accelerate Russian military actions.
Mario questions the motive if Ukraine targeted a residence Putin doesn’t regularly inhabit and ponders whether this helps or harms Trump’s peace aims. He references Budanov’s prior statements about attempted Ukrainian hits on Putin and notes Budanov’s alleged CIA alignment. He raises concerns about possible internal US intelligence conflict with Trump and cites a veteran’s observation about shifts in US media and intelligence narratives. He also notes Zelensky’s insistence on no territorial concessions, and Russia’s insistence that Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk be permanently part of the Russian Federation with elections to legitimize any future arrangements, and to have NATO out of Ukraine—conditions not open to negotiation.
They debate whether the attack could be a false flag or staged by Western intelligence, with Larry pointing out that proof or radar data could settle the question: if 91 drones were fired from Ukrainian territory, radar evidence would exist; if Russia staged it, they would need to show what was shot down. They discuss Ukraine’s record of attacks on Russian targets (e.g., Crocus Theater attack, the Darya Dugin assassination attempt, the 2023 journalist killing with an exploding statue head) and Russia’s countermeasures, including potential hits on Ukrainian intelligence facilities like the SBU headquarters in Kyiv. Larry asserts that retaliatory actions could reveal who is behind the attack, suggesting Russia might target the Ureshnik missile system or European assets if warranted by evidence and strategic aims.
The pair analyzes ongoing battlefield developments: Russia has intensified manpower and now reportedly fields over a million troops with eight active axes, while Ukraine faces mounting pressure; independent assessments indicate more Russian territorial gains in 2023–2024, including Pokrovsk and Mykolaiv region advances, with Zaporizhzhia looming as a critical front. They contrast propaganda effectiveness: Ukraine often dominates information warfare, while Russia’s messaging lags. They discuss a potential peace process: Trump’s outreach, Zelensky’s in-person engagement with Wittkopf and Kushner, and the prospect of security guarantees for Ukraine in a postwar scenario, with Trump claiming possible postwar support—discounting questions about whether Congress would ratify any deal, given prevailing anti-Russian sentiment in the US.
Larry concludes that the attack will impact negotiations, though he believes negotiations are already off track because Ukraine resists concessions while Russia maintains strict non-negotiable stances on Crimea and other territories, NATO removal, and demilitarization. He suggests Lavrov’s swift public reaction and anticipated significant retaliation—possibly targeting Ukrainian or European intelligence assets—could shape the trajectory of the conflict and the negotiations. The conversation ends with a note that they expect further developments after New Year’s, and that the true responsibility attribution may become clearer through Russia’s specific retaliatory actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, I appreciate you taking the time on such short notice considering the developments. So
Speaker 1: Sure. I'm sure you've you've read
Speaker 0: the the news. We've got claims that are coming on the Russian side, so they're being disputed on the Ukrainian side, and it's hard to to understand who who to believe. And probably it's good to get your expertise and thoughts there with your background, Larry. Lavrov claimed that Ukraine attempted to attack Putin's official residence in Novgorod Novgorod. Sorry.
Novgorod with around 90 ton 91 long range drones. That was in December. And allegedly, they were all intercepted. There hasn't been any proof provided. No reports of any injuries or structural damage.
And Lavrov already said that retaliation is coming. Quote, targets for retaliatory strikes and the timing had been set. According to Yuri, Putin's the Kremlin aide, he said that Putin mentioned this on a call to Trump two days ago right after the meeting no. Before the meeting with Zelensky in Florida. And according to Yuri, Kremlin's aide spokesman, he was, quote, shocked.
So Trump was shocked, outraged, and called the attack insane and said, quote, it would influence Washington's approach to working with Zelensky. He also, again, according to the Russians, Trump was relieved that no Tomahawk missiles were provided to Ukraine after this development. Yeah. Now there hasn't been any information on The US side, not from Trump, who's commented on the meeting with with with Putin who said it was very productive. They they talked about the the temporary ceasefire not being an option, etcetera.
We'll get into that later. But based on that attack, which wouldn't be the first attempt on Putin's life according to Budanov, but it will probably be the most consequential one based on the timing. Right. I'd love to get your thoughts first on who do you believe? The Russian side that Ukraine, Zelenskyy, Budanov, whoever it is, trying to target Putin?
We don't know if Putin was at his residence symbolically or an assassination attempt or the Ukrainian side that this is, a Russian false flag to just to to justify attacks they're planning and to derail the current negotiations that are ongoing.
Speaker 1: Okay. So let's let's get the timeline straight. So it happened. It started the night at the twenty eighth and continued into the twenty ninth. So right now here where I am in Florida, it's twenty ninth.
Where you are, it's the thirtieth. Correct. So, you you know, try so the phone call where Putin told Trump about the attack was within the last six hours. It was it wasn't the conversation. They talked before the meeting with Zelensky, and then they also spoke today.
Okay. So that's it was today that Putin raised this. It doesn't matter what I believe or I think. It it matters what what do the Russians think or what are they saying? So they are saying very clearly, this was an attack on one of Putin's residences, and they're viewing that as they're describing it as terrorism.
Now several several points. One, Putin hasn't been living at his residences for three years. He's been living in the Kremlin. He's been using the apartment that I guess it was once used by Stalin. And for that for the very reason, concern about the possibility of him being assassinated by the Ukrainians.
Let's note that this is not the first time that Ukraine made an attempt to go after Putin. Remember when he he flew into Kursk in a helicopter, you know, eight months ago, eight, nine months ago. And so there was an attempt attempt then. The I think what's got the Russians really upset is that this now was an attack with no military purpose other than a possible assassination. But again, they knew that Putin wasn't there.
Remember early on in according to Naftali Bennett early on in the war back in February 2022, March 2022. Zelenskyy was terrified that the Russians were going to assassinate him. And, you and Putin provided assurances. No. We're not gonna kill you.
That they may they may be reversing that course of action. It is, you know, up to this point, Russia's been pretty careful to attack military targets, not to just go after a civilian target. In contrast with, you know, Ukraine has Ukraine routinely has attacked civilian targets throughout the Donbas. So what I what I take from this is the level of concern that as soon as it happened, I started getting calls from Russian press wanting me to comment. The fact that it's leading all the news stories shows that whether whether this was staged, whether it was real, the Russians are treating it as real and are going to act accordingly, which suggests they're now going to intensify their attacks.
I I don't think they needed to stage this in order to speed up attacks against Ukraine because they're already doing that. They've the the acceleration of the offensive on the Russia's part is it's all along north to south. There are right now, they're 20 miles or I guess 20 kilometers from Sumi as an example. So once once they take Sumi, then they've got a direct shot into Kyiv. So this the Ukrainians are in a very, very difficult situation right now.
And I think frankly, Russia is going to press forward with a military solution. And maybe this attack, if it did take place is going to be used as a further excuse just to, you know, if you not even entertain anymore on the negotiation front. That's that is what Lavrov indicated. They're going they're gonna sit down and reexamine this. Now go go ahead.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was gonna the the reason I'm trying to understand whether this is I just don't see why Ukraine would attack his residents knowing he doesn't live there and the timing of it because it would obviously piss off Trump, and they're trying to get Trump on their side, and Trump's trying to end this war. Now I know there's an attack that you talked about eight months ago while Putin was heading to Kyrgyz. Ukrainians claim it was disinformation. They're saying there's no proof that he was even traveling by helicopter or traveling by motor crane.
That's why it's very hard to verify which assassination attempt is is legitimate or not. But I do know that Budanov himself said, and Budanov has been the target of multiple Russian assassination attempts allegedly, He claims that he's targeted Putin. So we at least know based on the head of the Ukrainian intelligence, there's been attempts. So it's it's not it's hard to deny that. Now if so I'll ask you two questions.
If Ukraine was behind this attack, why?
Speaker 1: Well, I I think they feel if they take out Putin, they're eliminating an obstacle to peace. Now that that's very foolish because I had argued that Putin is probably the most restrained. Can you imagine if Medvedev stepped in to replace Putin? You know? He's a he's a little hot blooded.
And, you know, and frankly, there is there you know, in my my last two trips into Moscow, you know, I did hear some I won't call it complaining, but the, you know, people voicing to say, look, we need to be tougher. We need to act with greater firmness so that Russia hasn't advanced it far. You know, the other part is if if 90 if there if really 91 drones, long range drones were launched at at the, you know, official residence, That means that there was Western intelligence support. Does that mean which I can't imagine that being done without The United States, which which again gets back to the to the issue of negotiations. I cannot rule out that there is or elements within the CIA that will be undermining and countermanding Trump's orders.
The Trump is not he does not have the full backing of the intelligence community. You know, I've there was something very curious over the last four or five weeks. Well, actually, started in July, but I just noticed it within the last four weeks. One of my former colleagues, when I when I went into the CIA in 1985 in September, I was in what was called the career trainee program. There were 53 of us.
One of them was a 22 year old girl, now, you know, 65 year old woman or 63 year old woman by the name of Susan Miller. Well, Susan was on Ashton Ratanzi's program on RT called going underground in which she said that the the CIA was working with Al Qaeda and ISIS. But before that, she was out on July on a CNN program claiming the saying she was the one that wrote the intelligence assessment or at least head of the team that did the intelligence assessment talking about Russia interference and meddling in the twenty sixteen presidential election, something that Tulsi Gabbard has now come out and called completely bogus. And here was Susan saying, oh, no. It was legit.
And why is she coming out now? And so this is what I mean. There's there's something going on with the the agency and some former intelligence officers to to undermine and countermand what Trump is doing. When when we look at where the state of negotiations are between Ukraine and Russia, there's no basis for negotiation. I you you know, it's like it's like if you wanna buy a brand new Lamborghini and you come to me and I'm telling you, I'm only gonna sell you a rickshaw or or a tuk tuk, I guess, in Thailand, you know, what what's the basis for negotiation there?
There isn't one. We we you want something that I can't give, and I don't have what you want. And in this case, Ukraine is Zelensky insisted as of two days ago. They're not gonna cede any territory to Russia, And Russia says, fine. We're gonna take it.
Putin said that just two days ago. So the the notion that there's some, you know, some magic key or some point that can be agreed upon is nonsensical. There will be no there will be no negotiated settlement here. There's not but Russia is looking to get back into normal relations with The United States. And so, yeah, whether this was a staged incident or not, it's going to be used as a basis for undermining Ukrainian credibility in the negotiations, and and Russia can use as an excuse to walk away.
Speaker 0: Why do you think, if the CIA was behind behind this or members of the military establishment, why would it be why would you assume they're doing it to undermine Trump? Is it also possible that they're doing it after getting orders from Trump to carry out these attacks to pressure Putin to accept some sort of peace deal? Because remember when we were talking about the red line when Putin will use nuclear weapons and what a lot of people would say is that he would that red line for him is when he feels threatened. That was his probably the the the most dangerous red line is when his life is threatened. So could this be an attack to to to to to maybe allow him to feel more threatened and potentially persuade him to accept a peace deal other than what he's been demanding over the last few months?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, it's gonna have the it will have the exact opposite effect. You you saw what he did on Saturday. So Zelensky showed up on Sunday. On sat he may have been traveling. So on Saturday in in in Russia, Putin again was out at the Western Front, and he showed up at a meeting again in uniform.
And then in uniform, he made the statement, but after getting briefed on the military situation that, you know, frankly, we don't need to continue these negotiations with Ukraine over land and territory because we're gonna take it. He was I mean, he was unequivocal about that. So, you know, he was sending another message as well to Trump just by showing up in uniform with the with the military command the day before these talks took place. You know, Trump desperately wants to get some sort of peace deal that he can take credit for. And Russia would like to have normal relations with The United States, if nothing else, to just diffuse the chance of a nuclear conflict.
But the problem is it doesn't matter what they get what agreement Russia gets with Trump because the political establishment in The United States is so anti Russian, so infected with Russophobia that whatever deal Trump comes up with, they're gonna accuse him of being a sellout. They're gonna accuse him of being, you know, a puppet of Putin. So go ahead. Could European
Speaker 0: could European intelligence also be behind this or it has to be American intelligence for such a large attack? How significant is European intelligence when it comes to this war?
Speaker 1: Well, British intelligence. The the rest the rest of them, French, German, not that important. British intelligence is critical. This is I mean, this is their baby. Plus, when you realize the head of MI six, she's got Ukrainian roots.
So this is, know, British it is possible that British intelligence could have done this without consulting with the Americans. There's that possibility.
Speaker 0: That that would piss off Trump if that's the case. That would make those lot worse, relations especially after the national security strategy came out. Probably Europeans are pretty pissed off with Trump right now. Well, let's look at the other side of the coin. How plausible do you think this was staged?
And some would refer to the allegations that Putin made in 2022 before the invasion. He said there was a a large Ukrainian attack being planned, a chemical sabotage, bombings of the of separatist areas, car bombings, etcetera, and The US said that was a false flag attack, false flag claims to justify the invasion that eventually took place and some claim and that's been disputed, not sure where you stand on this, the 1999 attacks on the apartment buildings that some claim was a false flag to justify the Chechnyan war And, obviously so I don't know about the 90 nine attacks. It's it's it's hard to to to have conclusive opinion on this. But we do know, well, at least I believe, that Putin was behind Progogia's death, and Putin and everyone around him denies it despite it being pretty evident for everyone. So would you say there there's do you think it's possible that this is a false flag attack?
And if it is, why would Russia make this claim? What would be their intention?
Speaker 1: Well, the it it would be easy to refute if The United States could simply produce the radar and there's intelligence out there that would show whether or not 91 drones were fired. You know, Right now, it's Russia's word against the West, but if the West really has proof that it didn't happen, show it. They haven't showed it. So
Speaker 0: because they're long range drones, so they should they would have been fired from Ukraine and not somewhere from Russia like we saw a few.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: We saw last year.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So Okay. The the that's why I said the if if Russia was making a false claim on this, they could the west could easily refute it.
Speaker 0: What about Russia making what about Russia providing some evidence as well? Because they haven't provided any evidence of damage or well, there's no deaths to provide evidence for, but any damage either.
Speaker 1: Well, that that remains to be seen today. I mean, because this just like I said, this this attack, attempted attack happened within the last ten to twelve hours. So and if they shot them down, being able to go out and recover. So we'll know let put this. We should know in twenty four hours whether or not this was a manufactured false flag by the Russians or whether it was an actual attack back with Ukraine.
Ukraine carried out with the help of either the Brits and or the Americans Because either side can either provide proof or evidence to refute the other. If it was a false flag, the West has got the radar information. They can show that no, absolutely nothing was fired from their territory, putting the ball back in Russia's court to prove it. On the other hand, Russia will be able to show up and say, okay. Here's what we shot down.
If you shot down 91 of them, you're gonna be able to recover a few. But but, again, this is let let's remember that we do have a clear track record of of Ukraine carrying out these terrorist attacks. The Crocus Theater attack, you know, is that now two years ago where where they paid the you know, they they brought in a team. They've assassinated two generals in the last year. One most recently, the car bomb last week.
So it's not like Ukraine has been sitting back and Russia's vowed retaliation.
Speaker 0: Drone attack the drone attack on the Kremlin, Larry, as well, think it was last year.
Speaker 1: Three and actually, that was three years ago.
Speaker 0: Oh, wow. The attack on the dome of the Kremlin, the drone attack, that was more symbolic. Now Ukraine denied that they were behind it, but I think everyone doesn't believe this. From memory, I think they denied that they were behind it, and they claimed it was a false flag as well. If I remember correctly, I'm not sure.
It's been a while now.
Speaker 1: Well, they've got the the we we've got a clear they have several there are several examples going back from let's go back to 2022 with the the murder of Daria Duginer. They intended to blow up professor Dugin. Instead, they ended up killing his daughter, not in they they wanted to kill Dugin, but not necessarily his daughter. Then they killed that one journalist in 2023 with the exploding statue head. So Ukrainian service attempts to to kill Russians of various stature, it's been underway.
Russia has not been doing that in Ukraine yet. Now this may signal with this latest incident that maybe the gloves may just come off. And, you know, up to this point, the residents of people like Budinov and others have not been targeted. Now they've already maybe targeted.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So talking about Budinov, the head of the Ukrainian intelligence, he's said that Putin was targeted. He's also said that he's been targeted multiple times. His wife was poisoned at one stage and was flown to The US for treatment. How likely do you think Rodanov acted without Zelensky's approval?
I find it unlikely because of the timing of it more than anything, targeting Putin symbolically or not during such important negotiations while Zelensky is in Florida either signals brazen stupidity, I'd say, or some sort of rift between Zelenskyy and Budanov, which would be very concerning for Ukraine. Do you think it's even plausible that Budanov would have acted without Zelenskyy's approval?
Speaker 1: Yes. I I think it is very, very you know, they're not the warmest of buddies. And let's remember, Budanov is closely aligned with the CIA. I mean, he's basically a creature of the CIA. When, you know, the CIA took over the rebuilding of Ukrainian's intelligence service starting in 2014 after the Maidan.
So, yeah, this is what causes me concern is the possibility that they're still within the CIA pursuing an agenda independent of Donald Trump.
Speaker 0: That's what concerns you the most.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because there's some some elements as we
Speaker 0: saw before Trump became president, there weren't even just remember not long ago, a year ago, there were not even discussions. It was taboo to even have discussions with Putin. Now we have regular calls. The first call between Trump, Putin, everyone was up in arms. The media was everyone was talking about it.
Yeah. We've we've we've we've kind of validated Putin on the global stage again. But now they have calls on a regular basis. They meet in person. It's it's been normalized.
I think people forget that massive change and and you pointing out that there could be elements within the military or the intelligence that wanna undermine that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, worse there's some stuff being done quietly behind the scenes to push towards normalization. More than a year and a half ago under when Biden was in office, the edict came down that they shut down RT, and they threatened legal action under the Office of Foreign Asset Control against people like Scott Ritter, John Kuriyaku, Garland Nixon. They they had pro oh, they had programs on RT or or Sputnik. Garland had a radio show on Sputnik.
Scott was a he was like a paid contributor to RT. And John Kuriakou had his own show, Whistleblowers.
Speaker 0: On RT? Uh-huh. Okay.
Speaker 1: And so that was closed down. That was remember, this was, I guess, a year ago, June when remember when Scott, detained him at the airport, took his passport and all. They've lifted that now. That's been lifted because John Kiriakou is back on RT with whistleblowers. Because he I I know that because he called I was his his first guest when he started the show up.
But I go, how are you doing this? He goes, they've they've list lifted the restrictions. So that's been done quietly. That hasn't been announced with fanfare, so they've lifted that. But there there are several things that Trump could do, should do if he's serious about showing the Russians, that he wants to have normal relations.
Restore direct flights between Russia and The United States.
Speaker 0: Which was discussed recently, I think.
Speaker 1: And Lyft returned the property, the Russian property that was seized in The United States. The, you know, the the embassy used they have a they had a, you know, sort of a vacation pad out outside of Washington DC up at a place called Potomac that, you know, that was taken away from him. And I think there's one other spot outside of New York. But Trump hasn't done any of that. However, and this is this is a concern I've raised previously.
Whatever agreement Trump can make with the Russians, there's no guarantee that that agreement will be accepted by the US Congress. And I would argue that unless the Russians secure from Trump a treaty that is then submitted to the congress for ratification, that Russia won't be able to take anything that Trump agrees to with any confidence because it can be easily overturned or undermined. And right now, you know, well, I don't see majority sentiment of normalizing relationships with Russia. Russia is constantly referred to in the most disparaging terms possible. You know, in with people like Lindsey Graham and and Richard Blumenthal and the democrat side leading the way.
Speaker 0: For me, like, the reason this this was a bit of a surprise is I wouldn't find I I can't imagine Zelensky wanting to undermine the peace negotiations. They're struggling on the battlefield, and if Trump pulls out a support and he's threatened that in the past, Ukraine is a very difficult position. I think Putin wants an end to the war as well. The Russian economy, I think, is being hit is being hurt, but we don't know how much to what extent. And I think both sides wanna end the war just on different terms, especially when it comes to territory.
Yeah. That's why it's a bit confusing to me. I don't think Trump wants to undermine his own peace negotiations unless he's looking to pressure Putin, which he said won't work. That's why your theory that this could be certain members of the intelligence or or members of the British intelligence working with maybe Budanov himself without Zelensky's approval to undermine the peace negotiations, which would be pretty pretty saddening if that's the case. I wanna bring another point to your to your attention.
Not sure if you heard of Zelensky's speech on Christmas, and he said something. The timing of it is a bit weird. Now I wouldn't look too much into it. Maybe you disagree, but he said the following, may he quote, may he perish about Putin. May he perish, each of us may think to ourselves, but when we turn to God, of course, we ask for something greater.
So a lot of people are saying to me or I'll send a message that, he said the words may he perish just a few days ago as a Christmas message and a few days later his estate is being targeted. Would you make anything out of this, the timing of it or more coincidental?
Speaker 1: No. I don't believe in coincidence. I I'm always I'm more purpose driven. These things, I don't think that was an off the cuff remark. But again, he's under with the the question, I don't have the answer to it.
What we need to know is who's pulling the strings on Zelensky. Zelensky, he is not Vladimir Lenin. He's not a Joseph Stalin. He's not this guy who always wanted to lead Ukraine and that he was a political genius. I mean was tabbed to do this by Kolomoisky initially.
So I I described Zelenskyy as the highest paid actor in the world right now, if not in history. So his job has been to keep the money flowing into Ukraine. Because the estimates, you know, right now, minimal, minimal that I know can be proven, $48,000,000,000 of 360,000,000,000 have been pilfered. And that number may be as actually high as a $105,000,000,000. And there are a lot of people that have been paid off in that process.
Zelensky though is expendable. And he is, you know, he's not indispensable to the process. And that's what I think, you know, is lingering in the back of his mind. He's still trying to stay relevant. The fact that he talked about Putin perishing, well, you know, I'm sure they're that's not unusual in war.
But what is unusual is that they have Zelensky in Mar A Lago. And so that meeting with Trump's ended at about two or three in the afternoon. Actually, it ended at 04:30 yesterday. So that what that means is the attack on the Putin residence was already underway. It started, know, because remember, 04:30 Washington or East Coast time, that's 12:30 Oh wow, correct.
AM.
Speaker 0: So you think that's correct. The attack would have started while the negotiations were ongoing.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes. So that tells me, know, the more I think about it now
Speaker 0: Someone's trying to undermine the negotiations.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. They're trying Putin
Speaker 0: doesn't live there. It's highly unless he's there on a secret visit that no one knows about. But for all what we we know, he's not there based on the information that we have. The attack happened during the negotiations between Zelensky and Trump in Mar a Lago, that was not long after Trump and Putin had their first call. Right.
So I think it's hard to deny this isn't someone that is trying to undermine, and maybe Europeans have some role to play in this because they are trying to get more at least strengthen their position in this whole process because they feel left out. We've seen a lot of we've seen them really step up. Mertz and and and and as as Macron and the others have all been very vocal about Europe stepping up, increasing the defense spending. Alright. So we know what happened.
We don't know who's behind it. Now the question is Lavrov said they will retaliate and that the targets for retaliatory strikes and the timing have been set. What do you expect Russia to do in retaliation to this?
Speaker 1: I I I think that they'll if I was them, I would take the Arushnik and I would wipe out the SBU headquarters in Kyiv. Just take it out. Eliminate it. Now, I believe one of the reasons the Russians haven't done that up to this point is that they have intelligence assets in key positions throughout the Ukrainian government, which is, you know, one reason that they may not have attacked some of these locations which would otherwise think should be prime targets. They because they don't wanna kill their they don't wanna kill their their golden goose that's laying the golden eggs.
So but, you know, I could see a targeted strikes against the intelligence operatives. They may you know, the Russians may realize that this was this was not a Zelensky order, that this this reflects some division split within within the Ukrainian system. And so they may go after the plotters.
Speaker 0: Do you think Russia's do you think how Russia retaliates will give us more information? Assuming we get no other evidence from either side, will give us a better indication of who's behind it based on how they retaliate.
Speaker 1: Correct. Okay. Because we we need to separate out what they're doing, what Russia is doing offensively right now. So I mean, you know, every day they're hitting power plants, electrical grids, bridges. They're they're real heavily going after infrastructure now particularly in and around Odessa.
Militarily on the ground, they are they're they're moving in a in Zaporizhzhia, they're coming both from the South and from the East headed west. So I they've really they've outflanked the Russian forces in Zaporizhzhia. Some have suggested that they could call be in Zaporizhzhia by next June. I think it'll be a lot quicker than that. Well, I think I think we're
Speaker 0: Hold on. You're talking about the Ukrainians having flanked the Russians or vice versa?
Speaker 1: Well, the Russians out flanked Ukrainians.
Speaker 0: Okay. Alright. I understand.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So this is Ukraine is in militarily, they are in real trouble right now. And and what we're seeing is a desperation on the part of the West who are out putting out all sorts of crazy stories. I don't know. Did you see the one about the the Russian logistic system so bad that and the and the troops are so desperate that they've started to engage in cannibalism.
They're eating each other because they're out of food. I'm not kidding.
Speaker 0: Who made the It
Speaker 1: was in the it was like the Telegraph. It was one of the British newspapers, yeah, last Monday.
Speaker 0: Look, I understand they're disputing territorial advancements on the Russian side, how how much territory there or whether Prokhoros has fallen, how much of Prokhoros has fallen. Understand these are being disputed. Like, cannibalism is a is a is a step too far. It's a bit it's hard to take this seriously.
Speaker 1: Well, I I agree. You know, I had so much fun with it because I I can imagine the conversation between Vladimir and Dmitry. Dmitry, you're looking pretty good, my friend. I want to eat you.
Speaker 0: Talking about the the the advancements they're having in Zaporizhzhia, what is your analysis of of the progress that Russia's having on the ground? On one side, they're progressing more than they have for what? Two years now in the last few months and weeks? And and the counter side, the Ukrainian side would say, you know, constant claims by Russia that they've taken this town or that town being refuted by Ukraine according to independent think tanks, Zap Pokromsk. Most of it has fallen.
Not all of it has fallen, but Russia has been claiming for over a month has fallen. What do you make of the advancements on the Russian side? How consequential are they? And is the tide shifting?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. No. The tide the tide has shifted this year for one reason. Russia finally they increased their manpower. You know, if you go back to 2022, the Russian ground force total was around 275,000.
And they had reserves upwards of 3,000,000, but they hadn't activated them. They mobilized 320,000 in September 2022, but then have been through both conscription, 30,000 a month and people signing up contracts have been a adding, you know, another 20,000. So, you know, at the start of this year, they finally got their their ground force strength up over a million. And in Ukraine, there's now both it's not just the the Russian saying it, General Sierski on the Ukrainian side said it. Russia's got over 720,000 troops on the ground.
What that means is now Russia is able to press forward on a variety of fronts or what they call an axis of attack. And they've they're moving along at least eight separate axes. And the the west keeps denying that they're making slow progress. They've you know, in 2022, they took Mariupol, Russia did. 2023, I think it was Bachmuth and maybe Lizzie Chansk.
In 2024, it was Avdivka. So during 2022, 2023, 2024, Russia was only taking like one major city or one major defensive position. This year, they've taken at least eight, eight or nine. And they're now posed with Sloviansk and Krematorsk. Those would be the next two to fall.
Pokromsk has already fallen. There's there's independent evidence of that as has Myrnagrod. And so those two are out of the way. Kupiansk is they're claiming is still disputed, but the Russian Ministry of Defense has come out and said, no, they've got in fact, they said they've got Ukrainian forces surrounded outside on the western edge of the city. So, know, this if if the war was to be judged in terms of who's got the best propaganda and who's the best at information warfare, Ukraine would be the winner hands down.
I mean, they've they've they've been doing it quite well. Russia has been terrible at it. But what we do have are just some independent numbers that we can always look at. The return of dead bodies of soldiers. And it has we've now got twelve months of data.
And basically, for every dead Russian that's returned, there are 35 dead Ukrainians. So now the Ukrainians said, well, that's that's because the Russians are moving too fast and we don't have time to recover our bodies. Exactly. Exactly. Because if you weren't moving if you weren't retreating, then you would easily be able to recover your bodies.
And in fact, if you were killing Russians like you say you're killing them, you would have lots of Russian bodies to return over because you'd be advancing and taking Russian territory. That's how I know that what Ukraine's saying on this is just complete nonsense.
Speaker 0: I wanna go back to the meeting that Zelenskyy had with Trump. They had a speech that was hopeful, but we've seen that happen before. Mildly hopeful. 20 peace plan, Zelenskyy said it's 90% agreed. US, Europe, and Ukraine security guarantees, so European and US security guarantees for Ukraine, 95% agreed.
Trump also said this about 95% agreed
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: With one to two tough, thorny issues. Not sure if he's referring to one to two tough, thorny issues in general or regarding the security guarantees. I think he meant them in general as part of the negotiations, I'm and assuming they're territorial because that's the main sticking point that hasn't changed for I don't know how long anymore. And that's what Trump said on the Donbas, and Zelensky reaffirmed that, quote, it's an issue they need to iron out. Then Trump talked about his call with Putin.
I think it's the first call. He says good and very productive, and both agreed that a temporary ceasefire does not help the peace process. So we have here initially, Trump was, a few months ago, aligned with Europe and requesting a temporary ceasefire. Now he's aligned with Putin, saying that this, you know, this will not help reaching a peace deal. And Trump said that Russia agreed.
That's an important point there. According to Trump, again, Russia has not confirmed this, and Russia has agreed to support Ukraine postwar, support their economy specifically by providing natural gas, electricity, and other resources at a discounted rate, and that's to help rebuild and stabilize Ukraine. And Trump also said that Putin was, quote, very generous. Your thoughts on putting that attack aside, and maybe if your analysis in that being some sort of intelligence or British or American intelligence, the military establishment being involved in that attack to undermine the the peace negotiations. Would that reaffirm that maybe there is some progress on that front?
We're seeing a lot more active discussions across all sides. Finally, Wittkopf meeting Zelenskyy in person so he can't make the claim that he's on the Russian side and
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Zelensky giving compliments to Wittkopf and and Kushner Jared Kushner. What do you make of these developments?
Speaker 1: Well, let let's start with the provision of aid. I I have no doubt that Russia's said that they'll they will rebuild Ukraine. That's exactly what they did in Chechnya. If you go back at the end of that ten year war with the with the the radical insurgents, the Muslim insurgents, Russia poured an enormous amount of money into Chechnya and Grozny in particular. It's just a spectacular city.
In fact, they built they've got they built probably the largest mosque in the world, I was told. So Russia will do Russia will do the same thing with Ukraine. They'll rebuild it with or without western participation. But Putin has been very clear as has Lavrov, as has Zarybkov, the deputy foreign minister. The conditions are this.
These are these are not up for negotiation. Condition one, Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, Luhansk, those are now permanently part of the Russian Federation. None of that territory can be ceded or given away. It is part of Russia. Man must be accepted as such by the international community, Russian demand.
That there must be elections and have a legitimate authority in place in Ukraine before Russia can actually enter into negotiations to settle the war. That NATO completely out of Ukraine. That means no NATO troops, no French, no German, no British troops in any part of Ukraine to provide security backup for Ukraine. You know, Russia has Russia has not deviated from that. Oh, and demilitarized.
They're not gonna agree to an 800,000 man army, particularly when at the start of the special military operation where they said the goal was to demilitarize Ukraine. Ukraine's military was 300,000. And and and so now after four years of war, Russia's gonna say, oh, never mind. We'll let you triple it. Not gonna happen.
So those those parts are not open for negotiation. I think I think a lot in the West still kill themselves. Oh, maybe we give them this. There's there's no negotiation on that. Russia is unequivocal about that.
However, they will they will be willing to talk about, you know, how many troops, Ukraine can have. But but and and Putin's been quite clear. This is this is the last offer right now because the next offer means they're gonna take Sumy they're gonna take Sumy, they're gonna take Pltava, they're gonna take Nyipropetrovsk, they're gonna take Nikolayev, and they'll take probably Odessa. And then at that point, Russia will again have a referendum, give those people or those territories a chance to vote. Do you wanna be part of Russia?
You'd be one or part of Ukraine, and they'll it will probably end up taking additional territory. That's where this is headed.
Speaker 0: The last question I'll ask you, Larry, as we approach New Year's Eve, how do you expect Russia to retaliate? I know you've already said that if you were what if if they didn't have members in the in Ukrainian intelligence, they despise in the Ukrainian intelligence that would strike their headquarters with the Norashnik missile, which is a pretty significant escalation or retaliation. Yeah. But based on what we know so far, which is very little, we know about what Russia has said and what Ukraine has said, and that's about it. We don't know what the Americans what their comments would be.
Based on what we know now, which will change in the next few hours and days, what would you expect to happen over the next few days, and what would you expect the outcome to be from the negotiations that are ongoing? Do you think that the attack today and the Russian retaliation would have any significant impact on the negotiations that are ongoing right now?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yes. They will have an impact on the negotiations. And and I don't wanna say it will derail the negotiations because my stance is the negotiations are already derailed. It's off the track because there is the Ukrainians at this point are not willing to make the concessions that Russia demands.
And Russia because the West position is, well, Russia's in no position to demand anything because they're not winning the war. Well, Russia looks at it quite differently. And so that they will settle this on the battlefield. I think what catches my eye today was how quickly Lavrov came out to talk about this. And the coupled with the news coverage that I think we will see some significant retaliation.
And my bet is it will be the Ureshnik. They could very well as they could also hit if there are any British officers or you know, covert operations underway in Ukraine. Those could also be targeted. I think you could see Russia now deliberately targeting some European assets inside Ukraine. They haven't reached the stage yet or unless they come out with, they're able to provide irrefutable proof that this was this was done by the Brits at the direction of the Brits in order to help derail the peace process.
You can't you can't rule that out just given the timing of when this all this unfolded.
Speaker 0: Larry, we'll probably have you again soon after the New Year's. Hope you have a great time. Hope you're having a good Christmas. And again, thank you so much for joining on such short notice. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: My pleasure, Mario, and you have a happy New Year.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir.
reSee.it AI Summary
I read about a veteran politics teacher at Henley College in Oxfordshire who was reported to counterterrorism after showing Trump campaign clips to 17- and 18-year-olds. An investigation, a Prevent referral, and claims of “propaganda” and potential radicalization followed. He resigned with a £2,700 payout. Critics say woke overreach has turned classrooms into thought police, stifling free speech.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇬🇧🇺🇸 UK TEACHER BRANDED 'TERRORIST' FOR SHOWING TRUMP VIDS In the UK, a veteran politics teacher who's been schooling kids since the '90s at Henley College in Oxfordshire, got reported to counterterrorism goons. He got hounded out of his gig for daring to show 17- and 18-year-olds Trump campaign clips during a lesson on the U.S. election. After Trump's win, he popped on a couple of videos to spark discussion. 2 snowflake students whined about "bias," being "off-topic," and one even claimed nightmares and emotional trauma. Investigation launches, he's accused of peddling "propaganda." Next thing? He's flagged to the government's Prevent program (that's their anti-terror watch) and child protection folks. Report? Calling his views "potentially radical," a possible "hate crime," and risking kid radicalization. The guy says it felt like being "likened to a terrorist," terrifying, mind-boggling, straight dystopian. He fought back with a grievance but ended up resigning from his $59K job, walking with a measly $2,700 payout. Schools' like, "We handle stuff per guidelines," but come on, this is what happens when woke overreach turns education into a thought police zone. Prevent's meant for stopping actual terrorists, not Trump fans chatting politics. UK's turning classrooms into echo chambers, and if this ain't attacking free speech, what is? Source: Newsmax
reSee.it AI Summary
I present two radically different visions of Ukraine’s war: Putin seeks a failed Ukraine, not merely territory, while the West resists ceasefires and insists on a broader struggle with NATO dynamics, media battles, and regime survival. We explore why both sides see deterrence, nuclear risks, and who truly bears responsibility, from aid, funding, and public opinion to the deeper clash of democracy vs autocracy.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇷🇺 “UKRAINE’S WAR CAN ONLY END IF PUTIN OR KYIV FALL” 2 radically different visions of the Ukraine war. 2 starkly opposed truths. In a fiery debate, Jonathan Fink (@CurtainSilicon) and Mark Sleboda (@MarkSleboda1) lay out why a peace deal may never come, and why neither side is ready to stop fighting. Jonathan argues Putin doesn’t want territory, he wants a failed Ukraine. A democratic Ukraine, he says, is a threat to Putin’s regime, because it offers Russians an alternative: “They tried democracy… and it worked.” Mark fires back: the U.S. provoked this war and is now trying to force “peace on American terms.” He insists Russia is winning, not just against Kyiv, but against the entire West: “They’ve run out of ammo. We haven’t.” We get into: • Whether Russia wants all of Ukraine, or just to neutralize it. • Why the West keeps pushing ceasefires Russia rejects. • NATO expansion, proxy war narratives, and regime survival. • Why both Trump and Biden failed to deter escalation. • The fight over Ukraine’s media, and who funds what. • Is it about democracy vs. autocracy, or something deeper? • Why both say nuclear escalation is a real risk. • Whether U.S. “support” is really just managed decline. Mark: “Russia is outproducing the entire West in artillery.” Jonathan: “If Russia is winning, why are they still 45km from Severodonetsk?” A blistering clash, not just of ideas, but of worldviews. 05:05 - “Russia is winning not just against Kyiv, but against all of NATO” 06:38 - Trump’s peace plan excludes Russia, a “pointless circle jerk” 10:08 - U.S. NGO funding criticized as “poking the bear.” Did it provoke war? 11:45 - RT vs. U.S. media: both foreign-backed, but only one is banned 13:23 - Trump halted aid, threatened Ukraine, but wanted to “look good” with peace 14:59 - Trump seeks Nobel Peace Prize, but won’t risk confrontation with Russia 19:41 - Russia won't stop until Ukraine regime changes, maybe not even then 21:17 - Why Ukraine won't cede territory it fortified, deterrence matters 24:26 - Europe rearming slowly, but Kremlin-aligned populists may derail it 26:01 - Russia uses nuclear fear to deter deeper U.S. involvement 30:52 - Mark: Only China wins from U.S. exhaustion in Ukraine, Venezuela, and Iran 32:12 - Russia’s democracy “just as valid” as the U.S. 36:05 - Russian citizens afraid to speak near cameras, fear still shapes daily life 41:13 - Why won’t Putin accept freezing the frontlines? “They’re winning.” 45:08 - Russian ambassador: “We don’t want peace, we want surrender.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on why achieving a durable peace in Ukraine remains elusive, with participants insisting that every side seeks terms favorable to itself and that genuine compromise is seldom forthcoming.
Putin’s true aims are debated. Jonathan argues that Putin’s primary concern is internal regime security rather than territory. He suggests that Ukraine’s shift toward Western political and democratic norms threatens Putin’s rule and his business model, making Ukraine a strategic buffer that could inspire similar Western reforms within Russia. He contends that the issue is not NATO expansion per se, but the regime’s fear of democratic influence emanating from Ukraine. Mark, by contrast, views the conflict as driven by a broader geopolitical contest, with Russia aiming to erase Kyiv’s Western alignment and to neutralize Ukraine as a political threat, a stance he says is explicitly stated by Russian representatives. He also emphasizes that for Russia, security guarantees and territorial concessions would be unacceptable if they leave anti‑Russian regimes in control of eastern Ukraine.
The panelists repeatedly acknowledge that, in practice, peace negotiations are framed as a contest of terms. Rubio’s remark is cited to illustrate the perception that all parties want peace “on their terms,” and that Russia has repeatedly rejected deals that require concessions on its core objectives. A recurring theme is that Russia would prefer a permanent settlement that keeps Ukraine out of NATO and restores a neutral status for Ukraine, effectively precluding Kyiv’s future alignment with Western security structures.
There is broad agreement that, on the battlefield, Russia has not achieved a straightforward, decisive victory and that the conflict is complex and protracted. Yet there is disagreement about whether Russia is “winning” or whether the front lines indicate a longer stalemate, with some arguing that Russia remains capable of imposing strategic costs and that the West has faced limits in providing advanced weapons or decisive deterrence. The discussion also touches on escalation risk, with some participants highlighting the risk of nuclear confrontation and the perception that Western powers, especially the United States, have been cautious in delivering the most potent capabilities to Kyiv.
US and Western roles are examined in depth. Jonathan contends that the conflict has evolved into a US/NATO proxy dynamic, with the West providing support while avoiding a direct confrontation that could trigger a broader war. He argues that the Biden administration has pursued a cautious, incremental approach to armament and economic pressure to avoid escalation, while still trying to prevent a Ukrainian defeat. Mark challenges this, suggesting that Western policy has often been framed as preventing Ukraine’s collapse rather than decisively countering Russian goals, and he asserts that the U.S. has pursued objectives that do not aim for Moscow’s overthrow but instead for preserving a client state in Kyiv. The conversation also covers the Budapest Memorandum, the history of Western guarantees, and questions about whether Western promises would be reliable in a crisis.
The role of NGOs, civil society, and media is debated. Jonathan explains that, prior to the full-scale invasion, Ukrainian media was a mosaic with significant oligarchic influence, but that independent voices gained strength after 2014 and became more robust under pressure from government and oligarchs. He argues that Western funding for NGOs has aimed to promote democratic values and press freedom, though he concedes that some Western projects lacked a clear strategic objective. Mark counters by arguing that Russia also used civil society and NGOs as tools, though he asserts that Western leverage and funding were far more extensive and impactful. The debate includes a critique of US funding patterns and the potential for foreign influence shaping political outcomes.
The participants discuss the possibility of freezing lines as a path to peace. They deem it unlikely: Mark says NATO presence near Russia’s borders remains unacceptable, and Jonathan notes that such a freeze would leave large Russian-leaning regions in Ukraine under a regime Moscow views as hostile. They acknowledge the political and military infeasibility of a durable ceasefire under the current conditions, given the entrenched positions and fortifications in Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.
Looking ahead, the panelists foresee a long, possibly generational conflict unless there is a dramatic shift. Mark argues that the ultimate settlement would require regime change in Kyiv, while Jonathan suggests that both sides see no real path to a negotiated end under current terms, forecasting endurance of hostilities with periodic escalation and continued diplomacy as a façade that fails to yield a decisive peace. They anticipate Europe’s ongoing rearmament and potential domestic political shifts that could influence the trajectory of the conflict, with the broader global balance affected as countries reassess alliances and deterrence strategies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why are we struggling so much to reach that peace agreement?
Speaker 1: No one wants peace in Ukraine unless it's on their terms.
Speaker 0: Would you say that both sides were trying to achieve the
Speaker 1: same objectives in the region? Political groups within your country under whatever rubric that are funded by the government of another country
Speaker 2: is not a right thing. They are fully free
Speaker 1: civil society. I'm not quite sure that your presentation of that
Speaker 0: is valid. Well, I'm I'm
Speaker 2: not justifying the current regime at all. Your current regime is an aberration.
Speaker 1: They want a permanent settlement that keeps Ukraine out of NATO.
Speaker 2: The egregious lie there needed to be interrupted.
Speaker 1: Okay. So vice all of The US funded media, which is the entirety of the media in Ukraine, US and European funded media. Is that is that where we wanna go?
Speaker 0: Gentlemen, I'm gonna good to have you both. It's gonna be a good discussion, and we seem at least according to reports and people that are optimistic, we're getting closer and closer to some sort of peace agreement, at least closer than we were under the Biden administration. I think most people that understand the conflict well and everyone I've spoken to is skeptical and rightly so. But I wanna try to understand today on why everyone's so skeptical. Why are we struggling so much to reach that peace agreement that was supposed to be reached within twenty four hours?
And I'm gonna read a tweet from sorry, a quote from Rubio to Vanity Fair. I get your thoughts on it. I'll go Mike, I'll go to you first on that. He says the following. There are offers on the table right now to basically stop this war at its current lines of contact, and the Russians continue to turn it down.
And so you do start to wonder, well, maybe what this guy wants is the entire country. Actually, Jonathan, I wanna get your thoughts first. What Putin's intentions are with this war? And because I I was chatting to one of my colleagues today after reading this quote, and I've always discounted the idea that Putin's looking for more than Eastern Ukraine, more territory than the Donbas, parts of Khersonkre and and and Zaporizhzhia and some sort of security guarantees. But if we see peace deal after peace deal rejected by Putin and one of the core reasons being the territorial concessions, then I am starting to wander war, as Marco Rubio said.
Would love to get your thoughts on that.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I don't think this has ever really been about territory. It has been about internal matters, internal political matters in Russia. I think the paranoia of a ruler that's been in charge for twenty five years, he's always on the lookout for threats to his regime. And Ukraine as a whole, its political culture has represented a threat because it has steadily since independence been moving its mindset and culture that includes political culture as well as democratic culture towards the West.
That is an intrinsic threat to his regime and always has been. So my interpretation is since 2012 sorry. By 2014, he has wanted Ukraine to be an economic and political basket case because that provides not just the perception of security, it provides this this buffer zone between Western democracy and Russia, which which looks like a disaster. And that's good for his people. He can say to his people and his elites, well, look, they've tried democracy, they've gone towards the West, and look what's happened.
It's an absolute catastrophe. But that's not what's happened. Since 2014 in Maidan, Ukraine has steadily, slowly but steadily been improving, tackling oligarchic influence, tackling corruption, building civic society and democratic institutions. This is the threat to him. Not NATO.
That's absolutely spurious. I'm sure we'll get into that with Marco Hall's completely different point of view. This is the real threat to him, which is a challenge to his business model and the very underpinnings of his regime. It provides a template for his people to look and go, well, hang a second. There's an ex Soviet country, there's Slavic people, and they're actually making democracy work.
Well, maybe we can do that. Now, don't think that would necessarily happen in Russia, but I think that was what's going through Putin's mind partially. But there can be many, many reasons for this. But I think the the very, very low down on the list is territory. That's why it's proving so difficult to find any kind of formula, to freeze the conflict, let alone end it.
Mark?
Speaker 1: Okay. So I I first of all, let me agree with mister Fink that he and I are not going to agree with much of anything with regards to this, especially his characterization of a Banderite a repressive Banderite fascist push in Ukraine as some type of democracy. But to the salient point of of why is there no peace agreement yet, Why won't Russia agree to a peace that is essentially on American terms? And let's acknowledge what The US secretary of state Marco Rubio has previously acknowledged even if they've now fallen back into the guise as if they are some neutral third party arbiter to this conflict, that ultimately this is a US NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine on the territory of Ukraine, and that has been admitted by that same US secretary of state. So the truth of this conflict is everyone wants peace in Ukraine on their terms, and no one wants peace in Ukraine unless it's on their terms.
And the reality is is that on the battlefield now, Russia is winning this conflict, not just against the, regime that seized power in Kyiv in 2014, but against The US and all of NATO quite handily. They have been very consistent about their terms for ending this conflict and that they have been always been willing to meet their terms diplomatically. But if they cannot, then they will meet them on the battlefield. And the peace deals this this, quote, peace deal that Trump is pushing forward in all of the, I don't know, dozen or so various iterations as the, Trump regime in The US and the Europeans and the Kyiv regime hash out various arguments amongst themselves while not actually engaging in diplomatic negotiations with Russia, which makes the whole thing kind of a circle jerk, a really pointless circle jerk. Let's let's be frank.
They don't come clean. This is The US attempting once again to force a ceasefire, which Russia has always said they do not accept a ceasefire. They are not going to let this regime off the hook again and let the West rearm it, let it mass forcibly constrict another 100,000 of its people to fight and die for it, and and let them off the hook. They want a permanent settlement that keeps Ukraine out of NATO, NATO out of Ukraine, returns the constitutionally enshrined neutrality that Ukraine had before the West Mac Maidan Butch in 2014. Yes.
As a result of this conflict, territory was not the most important. But due to the political repressions of this regime against the Russian ethnic Russian speaking people of East Ukraine, the their political repressions, the banning of 21 political parties in the country, the banning
Speaker 2: of funded political parties. Banning infiltrated and funded.
Speaker 1: Jonathan, are are we gonna interrupt each other constantly, or or would you like to
Speaker 2: Well, that's the first interruption, but I felt that, that that that egregious, lie there needed to be interrupted. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. So vice all of The US funded media, which is the entirety of the media in Ukraine, US and European funded media. Is that is that where we wanna go?
Speaker 0: Is it fair to say Jon, how let you respond. Is it fair to say on that last point? Before the war, there's just been two superpowers trying to get more influence within Ukraine. I think both powers funded different media companies, different political parties, eventually militarily as well. And then that led to an escalation to what we have today?
Speaker 2: No. I don't think that's the state at all. Now before the full scale war, a portion of media in Ukraine were certainly heavily influenced by local oligarchs. What's interesting about the full scale invasion is that actually they've been forced to relinquish much of their holdings and control theirs, which is an interesting development. But from 2014 onwards, independent media started to emerge.
Kramadsky, Susbily, and others, which had a strong independent voice, which government didn't really like too much because they started poking their noses into government business and indeed into oligarch business. So it's it's an interesting kind of mosaic of, I would say, editorially sort of maybe skewed towards oligarchic interest. But let's face it, where in the Western world isn't? I mean, all the large media tend to be owned by oligarchs and have their editorial, you know, agendas slightly skewed by their ownership. So Ukraine is not hugely unique
Speaker 1: in that.
Speaker 2: The oligarchs have a lot more power before then, and now that's that's kind of changed.
Speaker 0: Just on that point, Jonathan, I'll let you continue responding to to Mark. What about the funding from USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy as well that we've seen in Ukraine? Don't you consider that The US and the West trying to gain more influence in Ukraine, which is within Russia's orbit of influence?
Speaker 2: Well, a lot of that.
Speaker 0: You have to I'm not saying what
Speaker 2: John is saying. I'm not
Speaker 0: saying I'm not saying it justifies the invasion. Obviously, I'm very critical of the invasion. But I'm saying, well, doesn't that isn't that poking the bear that might have played a role in leading to the invasion?
Speaker 2: No. Poking the bear, absolutely not. I mean, certainly, Putin sees, he he does see NGOs as being agents of foreign influence. But I think one of the one of the criticisms that Musk and others have made, through Doge is that all this money was being handed out, and really not much was being asked in return. You know, The US was not giving strong foreign policy direction, was not actually formulating that and aligning it to a strong policy and foreign policy directive.
They were handing money out, not left, right, and sent, but they were handing a bunch of money out, but it didn't seem to really have a huge strategic objective. I think that's the interesting nuance behind it. Now, the draw of funding, when it was shut down in Doge, that has caused a major funding issue for many NGOs. And it's far worse in Georgia where the dependence on that money was far greater. And, of course, you know, they're fighting a regime which actually is controlled by Russia there.
So it has caused issues, but actually many of those projects, NGOs, have been forced to find alternative funding. They got a little bit lazy because The US money was kind of easy. What was Didn't come with Zoom's string of What was the purpose of
Speaker 0: that funding in your opinion, Jonathan?
Speaker 2: The purpose for the last couple of decades, and this is going back to the sixties and Kennedy, has been to try to foster what The US sees as values that it wants to perpetuate, which is free navigation, freedom of press, all these kind of things. Russia sees this as an intrinsic threat and it sees it as an operation of the intelligence services. I'm not sure really The US has seen that as such. It may be Radio Liberty and Free Europe are a little more, let's say, on the propagandistic wing. They've had their funding pulled as well.
Interesting that Mark should point this all out given he's aligned with RT, which clearly is a a vehicle of Russian foreign policy absolutely overt and direct. So it's a little bit like the the pot calling the the kettle black there. But Ukraine now has quite an interesting and diverse media landscape and one which actually is rather a pain in the butt to Zelenskyy and others. As you've seen recently, they're starting to hold ministers to account. Yarmak has gone precisely because a far more robust media has been looking into improprietary in that society.
Far more I would say diverse. Now if you would do that in Moscow, well, guess what? I wouldn't touch a sushi or drink a cup of tea proffered by anyone or stand near any open windows. Very, very different situation in the place where Mark feels safe. I certainly would not be safe or feel safe there saying the things that I do.
He's clearly feels safe saying the things that he does, and I think that tells us an awful lot. The other idea about Russia inevitably winning, there's a little fly in the ointment there, which is Zelenskyy taking a picture of himself in front of Kupyansk, which a month ago was claimed by Putin and his henchmen to be fully occupied by Russia. So this narrative that Russian victory is inevitable, that they're winning on the front, it's far more complex and absolutely is not a given whatsoever that Russia is winning. They're still within 45 kilometers of Serf Donetsk where they pretty much started this war. It's all, I would say, you know, sensible military analysts.
That is a catastrophe. This has lasted longer than the second world war where Russia managed to push the Nazis back across most of Europe. They're still within sight. They're still within drone range of, of, Donetsk. It it's absurd to say Russia's winning.
Speaker 0: Mark, I'll let you respond first on the the NGOs and and their, the intentions of the funding that we've seen in Ukraine and how that compares to Russian influence within Ukraine. Would you say that both sides were trying to achieve the same objectives in the region?
Speaker 1: Oh, sure. Except that that Russian use of government organized, quote, unquote, nongovernmental organizations was, and I have criticized this before, far less than the amount of of money that that The US and Western countries poured into. I I would say that that Russia's use of both soft, sharp, and and other power in Ukraine Ukraine was was essentially neglected up up until 2014. And and so Russia wasn't wasn't really playing the the same level of ballgame with that type of over interference. I mean, a civil society is when it is funded by your own country.
When you have political groups within your country under whatever rubric that are funded by the government of another country, It is not a It's fully.
Speaker 2: Most of are fully free.
Speaker 1: Civil society. It is a representation of their government, their foreign policy interests, their oligarchs. Second of all, it is absolutely ironic and hilarious that mister Fink brought up the idea of freedom of navigation as a western value as we've seen quite clearly in The Caribbean, with the recent, seizure by US pirates of a ship bound from China to Iran. Seizures pirates. From The US client states attacks on a third party flagged shipping in international waters in the Black Sea, the single greatest threat to freedom of navigation and to maritime commerce in the world is The United States and its client states.
So, I'm not quite sure that your presentation of that is valid.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm I'm not justifying the current regime at all.
Speaker 0: Your current
Speaker 2: regime is an aberration compared to
Speaker 1: I would agree with your administrations.
Speaker 0: With Jonathan, on that point
Speaker 1: the has done that, though.
Speaker 0: Mark, it's a very good comparison because Lukashenko in his latest interview made that comparison to the to the interviewer. He compared Russian interest in Ukraine to American interest in Venezuela. Is that a fair comparison, Jonathan?
Speaker 2: The the world has moved that way. And if you look at the statements of Lavrov and others, they are very supportive of Trump in a way they have not been. I'm not saying universally. They don't praise everything, but certainly Russian propagandists and regime figures have said a lot more positive things about president Trump than they have about any of his predecessors. And that is because Trump, I think, is intrinsically more aligned with the Russian way of business, which is dividing the world into spheres of influence.
Trump is, I would say, aligned with an autocratic view of the world and with a certain, grasping and acquisitive and bullying mode of behavior. So I'm not in any way, sort of aligning with Trump. And Trump has done nothing for Ukraine. Nothing for Ukraine since he came to office. He has systematically withdrawn much of the funding.
He has put the arms shipments and stuff under threat. He eventually then relented and allowed the Biden era mandate stuff to go through, but it was halted for a while. He halted intelligence to use it as a of Ukraine. This argument that somehow it's a proxy war, I think it partly became a proxy war because of Russia's aggression under Biden.
Speaker 0: But there's
Speaker 2: And if it was a proxy war, and it said it's not a proxy war under Trump, because more often than not, he aligns with a Russian centric view of how this war should be conducted.
Speaker 0: But if you move away from the rhetoric, Trump sanctioned Russia significantly, Lukoy and Rosnet, more than Biden has. He he started implementing or trying to implement secondary sanctions through India. The flow of weaponry even continued. And I was speaking to a gentleman yesterday who's, you know, very critical of Russia, and he said that this new deal with with Europe where Europe funds all the weapons shipments from The US is actually a good thing for Ukraine because it allows uninterrupted supply of weapons now. And the only difference is instead of The US funding it, it's Europe funding it.
So the the weapons continued flowing. Sanctions have increased, and there's been talks about the the the providing the the further more technological advanced weapons to Ukraine. I can't remember the the the Hawkeye South. Exactly. That hasn't happened,
Speaker 2: of course.
Speaker 0: But Hasn't happened, but the the sanctions did happen. The and the intelligence for deeper strikes into Russia have also been provided. So
Speaker 2: It was provided. Correct. Yes.
Speaker 0: So then wouldn't you say Trump's actions have shown different to what we've seen in the rhetoric side? And he's
Speaker 2: been good support for Ukraine? I think Trump genuinely wants this to end, and he wants to end it I'm gonna vaguely agree here with Mark. He wants to end it in a way that reflects well on him. So I don't think he intrinsically cares about justice. I don't think he intrinsically cares about any kind of restitution for Ukraine.
He wants it to end in a way that he can pitch to make him look good and potentially get a little gold bauble, which is the Nobel Prize. I won't requote what John Stewart said about the FIFA award, but it was certainly not complimentary the way that was received. So I think he generally wants it to end, but what he does not want is any kind of military confrontation with Russia. Like, all the measures you have quoted there are things that he has acquiesced to. I think that people in his administration has put forward or people in the GOP because he felt that they were all subkinetic.
They were all things that could be done without a direct confrontation with Russia. He has always hinted, as it were, that those could be withdrawn. And I think there's always been the risk that that that the hardening strategy could always be, you know, softened at any point. Now, if this was a true proxy war, either run by Biden or indeed Trump, then I'm afraid to say, you know, Russia would've got its butt kicked by now. But everything that Biden provided was delivered in half doses, and it was delivered months after the strategic requirements there.
So what Biden has been doing is not really running a full proxy war to defeat Russia. It's been running a proxy war to prevent Ukraine from being fully erased, but he did not want to see collapse. We've seen Biden, I think, wanting to preserve the regime in Moscow as ironic as it seems, and Trump is actually continuing that process as well, applying enough pressure to try to bring the war to some kind of conclusion, but certainly not providing what would be required for Ukraine to win.
Speaker 0: Mark, I'd love you to respond to this, especially the last point that the US may want to weaken Russia, but they are not looking for a regime change. And that reminds me of something that, again, president Lukashenko told me. He said during the mutiny, the US intelligence said that something meant to be confidential, but he he's generally pretty open and says something and then regrets it. But he said US intelligence actually told Russia that they're happy to provide support if needed if Wagner if there was a risk that Wagner will gain control of of the Kremlin. Doesn't that show that, among other things, that The US may want to weaken Russia but is not specifically looking for regime change?
Speaker 1: No. I I well, certainly, the the Biden regime was in The United States. Right? They they spoke I mean, Joe Biden himself said, you know, this man cannot remain in power as if that was within the power of The US president to declare. That's this was quite obviously the goal of The US to provoke a conflict in Ukraine, which they knew that Russia would have to, respond to with NATO moving into Ukraine.
This was stated by US policy experts, former diplomats, ambassadors going back years, but they did this. They believed that they could get Russia to, engage militarily in Ukraine. And then they believed that their economic sanctions would destroy the Russian economy that would reduce the ruble to rubble that they heard. There would be a military shock and a political shock and that the Putin administration would lose power in the aftermath and that they could pivot to the war that they wanted to start, with China, in The Pacific. But, of course, none of that happened.
Now I do believe that the Trump regime in The US and I'm sorry, mister Fink. I may not I must not be a Russian propagandist, at least as you define it, because I have absolutely and have never had anything positive to say about Trump in The United States. But the Trump administration obviously is not interested in regime change in Russia. They have tried regime change in Iran that didn't work out so well. Now they seem focused on regime change in Venezuela.
But but I I would agree that the Trump administration has shifted goals. It is trying to preserve a US client state in Kyiv despite the fact I agree that Trump has no real love for Ukraine, and he has nothing but contempt for Zelensky as he has contempt for the European leaders, and and all of that is vice versa as well.
Speaker 2: Agree agree on that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: To be to be frank, The United States and NATO never had the military capacity to defeat Russia in Ukraine. Russia, as the former US president Barack Obama has pointed out previously, Russia would always have escalation dominance in Ukraine. And we've seen how the military industrial capacity in the war of attrition that Russia has combated against Kyiv and its NATO, you know, puppeteers in Ukraine. Right? How many times has the NATO secretary general, you know, whined and cried that Russia is outproducing not only, The United States, but all of NATO and the collective West in artillery shells and other munitions for this conflict needed.
The The US has run completely
Speaker 0: out there.
Speaker 2: North Korea,
Speaker 0: of course. On that Mark, just on on that point, though, what about the argument that The US has mainly sent older or legacy military equipment to Ukraine? Getting rid of equipment that they will no longer use instead of getting rid of them is cheaper to just send them to another country in the midst of war. The Bradley vehicles, the Humvees, Hawk missiles, most of the weaponry sent to Ukraine is except the HIMARS and the Patriots were essentially older weapons. Doesn't that mean that there's still a lot of capacity?
I'm not saying there's willingness there, but a lot of capacity on NATO side, especially The US, if they do choose so, to give significantly more advanced weaponry to Ukraine, highly unlikely because they don't have enough of it.
Speaker 2: Even the older stuff is relatively small quantities. Even the older stuff is not in the quantity that could have delivered any kind of knockout punch or even decisive pushback. So the the numbers aren't there. I mean, there's thousands of Bradleys still sitting in the desert not sent demonstrably not sent over. So I don't think the quantity going on either.
Speaker 0: Why but if this is the case, though, Jonathan, kinda push back on that, why not? If if Ukraine is losing ground, then why not supply it with
Speaker 2: Yeah. Why not? I mean, this is the big question I would like to ask mister Jake Sullivan. Why on earth not? My interpretation here is that they genuinely feared Russian escalation.
Escalation management is what this process has been described as. And I think there are people in the Biden administration who genuinely feared Russia's reaction, that there was no ceiling, no limit. And that's because Russia made absolutely damn sure that there were certain geopolitical voices such as Mershiram and others who were gonna hype up the prospects of nuclear war. This is a classic Cold War technique as well. It's been used since the fifties by Russia.
They wanted to make sure that we saw them as slightly scary, slightly pathological, they could do anything. No. I I think they're actually perfectly rational. And even Putin's, repression against his own people is still even now relatively surgical against people that are a genuine threat, and he kind of ignores those that are just sort of noisy. No.
I think it's a we're dealing with a fairly rational, regime that is not going to escalate ad infinitum. That's not gonna press the nuclear buttons over some, you know, piles of rubble in Donbas. They're just not going to because their families are still in the West. Their money is some of it is still located in the West. Some of the regimes still harbor perhaps hopes in the future they can get back to making, you know, piles of money and revisit their yachts and villas.
We're dealing with a a repressive and awful, but relatively rational regime. Unfortunately, Biden and others were convinced into being timid and fearful and they forgot the lessons of the cold war. They forgot how deterrence actually works. So they were sort of drip feeding in. They literally internalized that phrase you use, which is don't poke the bear.
If they'd got beyond that fear, then, I think in 2023, Ukraine could have certainly maybe not taken back all its territory, but it could have pushed back significantly. But constantly, the brakes were being put on. Don't go too far. Don't humiliate Russia. We are terrified of what they might do.
And we're in a far worse position now. Putin is far more desperate than he was, I think, at that point.
Speaker 0: And, Mark, I'll let you respond. Also, I wanna go to a quote in, in late twenty twenty two. Biden said that the risk of nuclear confrontation was the highest since the Cuban missile crisis. Do you think the risk has increased since then? Because since 2022, The US and and NATO supplied more weapons to Ukraine, and Ukraine struck deeper into Russia.
A lot more red lines striking the shadow fleet, the refineries. All the red lines that were mentioned earlier, including striking deep into the Russian mainland, have been crossed.
Speaker 1: So first of all, I mean, Bradleys, we're never gonna win this conflict. You know, to to the question of why not send more Bradleys? There's Bradleys. He's languishing from prior US regime change in in the deserts of the Middle East. Why why not
Speaker 2: use single mission is ever going to, of course.
Speaker 1: Right? What what The US could have supplied that would have seriously helped is, like, air defense interceptor, PAC three Patriot interceptors. The US is out of them. Right? The US that that's why they had to to end the conflict against Iran as well.
The type of of critical munitions that The US could have provided to the Kyiv regime that they could have effectively used or could have been used in this conflict is simply beyond certainly, NATO's military capacity to win this conflict, but but the The United States as well. As to the question, are we closer to nuclear conflict? I mean, sure. Let's put let's put the shoes on on another foot. And let's say The US invades Venezuela and Russia and China start massively supplying military supplies and conducting a proxy war against The United States, you know, due to an invasion of Venezuela.
How would The United States respond to that? Right? They would regard it as an act of war. Right? And you know very well, and cries for strikes against Russia and China politically in The United States would go through the roof.
The The US and and its allies have done far more than provide weapons to Ukraine. Right? The United States has directly itself fired ballistic missiles into Russia. Now let's put the shoes on the other foot, and let's pretend, that this was another country firing ballistic missiles, into The United States and and how they would respond. Would we be on a nuclear slope then?
Of course, we would be.
Speaker 2: But Russia hasn't burned the hell out of Mexico. It hasn't physically done that, and yet hundreds of drones almost every night are pounding a European city. So that that argument just falls apart. And, of course, if they invade Venezuela, you have a point there, and I'd certainly not aligned with that strategy at all. But The US is not bombing Mexico.
It is not genocide citizens. It is not using language that is thing the bombing of is.
Speaker 1: The bombing of
Speaker 2: gods. They
Speaker 1: are bombing Iran. They are are building up their footwork and killing ships in international waters in Venezuela. That that's where we're Russia
Speaker 2: Russia is bombing the hell out of Ukrainian cities night after night for four years in a row. That is physically happening, and a numeral war crimes are being committed. And to, you know, get your point earlier, the thing about Russian speakers, there are gonna be a few people who don't really care about what regime they live under, but I've spoken to many, many Ukrainians from the East. Many, many, many, and been there myself, and I can speak to them in Russian. So I can get it firsthand, and I can say that this is just
Speaker 1: a Let me just stop you there for a minute.
Speaker 2: Arguments about them
Speaker 1: being Russians
Speaker 2: needing to be sent
Speaker 1: to you. Family in Simferopol. I have family in Kharkov and Donbas and Odessa. Don't you dare try to Ukraine explain to me from The United States. Just don't do it.
Do not speak for all the Ukrainian people.
Speaker 2: Most Ukrainians do not want to be ruled by Russia even if they were sympathetic to Russian culture.
Speaker 1: Ukrainians would wanna be ruled by the
Speaker 2: Polinsky They just didn't. Yes. But they can vote him out. Who can vote Putin out? Nice one.
Twenty five years. The same dictator. They how many presidents have been last year? Zelensky out. They've been six six regimes since then, you know, and and Russia's got the same guy, the same KGB thug in charge.
So don't use
Speaker 0: Would love you to put me.
Speaker 2: It's Luke.
Speaker 0: I do want you to I would love you to respond to that point, Mark. Obviously, I'm very critical of what NATO did. But if you compare and I'm critical of Zelensky, and I think he should he should run elections soon despite being under martial law. But if you compare the what you call the Ukrainian regime to the Russian regime, there's been many Ukrainian regime leaders over the last few years when there's only Putin at the helm in Russia.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because
Speaker 0: Would you be critical of would you be critic Akhad, do you you're in the belief that it wasn't democratically elected?
Speaker 2: I believe in Russia?
Speaker 0: So you believe that the elections were were were free and fair. And do you agree with him changing the constitution to allow him to continue being the leader of Russia?
Speaker 1: I believe that elections in Russia are just as democratically fair as they are in the militant oligarchy of The United States. Yes. I most certainly do.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But The US has
Speaker 2: an interest in militant oligarchy. So you're saying you're saying no. They're they're not fair. They're not free and fair, and and there's room for improvement. Right?
Because there's a hell of a lot of room for improvement in US elections for the German I consider this as
Speaker 1: much a pure democracy as The United States. I'll leave it there.
Speaker 0: Under do you believe that Russia should have a term limit and Putin should have had a term limit? Just like in The US, there's a eight year term limit.
Speaker 1: I I have no opinion about term limits in The United States or The United King.
Speaker 2: And do you believe that, opposition should be, locked up and tortured to death? I mean, that's just one of the question. About
Speaker 1: 21 opposition parties banned in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Russia funded in context of full scale war. Did we allow German parties? Did we allow was declared Did we allow parties funded? Was he funded by parties? Did we allow parties funded by Nazi Germany to run-in British elections in World War two?
Well, actually, we didn't. Did we allow the German infiltrated, let's say, Catholic church to, take over diocese in England during World War two? We didn't. It's a basic matter of
Speaker 0: security that survived. Jonathan, what do you think what do you think of the other stat? You're based in The UK. Correct, Jonathan?
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 0: What do you think of the stat? I can't remember the numbers, but there's about five or eight times, maybe even 10 times more people arrested for what they've said online in The UK versus Russia. That was a shocking statistic that I've seen. Have you seen that?
Speaker 2: I've I've seen that, and I've started to dig into it because I think there are some there are some, there's some heavy handedness going on here, but actually a lot of the stuff that we look at here is classed as genuine hate speech. It's my view that actually they need to look at that again and say, look, you know, there are other ways to deal with hate speech. There are other ways to deal with people making threats against other people and minorities. This is not a great way for a democracy to go. In our system, at least, we can express that.
No one's gonna come up to my door and, kick it in, in in the in the early hours of the morning. But in a democracy, it's never perfect, and there's a lot of room for improvement here. But much of the stuff that's touted is genuinely sort of hate speech, but I think he has been overzealous in the targeting of that. However, if you turn up on Red Square with a blank piece of paper, you'll be dragged off. Frankly, we had a guy outside parliament after Brexit for, like, six years screaming that, you know, Brexit is wrong.
No no one arrested him. So I think it's it's not a good comparison there, to compare sort of freedoms in Russia to freedoms in The UK. We could do better, but it it's a completely different, ballpark. Also, you have to think how many people have been coerced into silence in Russia. There's a small minority who will speak out.
Most of the others are gonna live in absolute terror of posting anything online, and indeed most of the social media apps that we're talking about here are genuinely blocked. And there is now the story coming up today that YouTube is going to be fully blocked in Russia. So if it's so free, what are they afraid of? Why won't they allow apps like, x, like, LinkedIn and others to be accessible to their population. I think we all know the answer to that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'd love you to respond because I hate people positioning Russia as the big bad wolf. Russia's evil. That statistic is one example that Russia's not as bad as people make it out to me. But at the same time, you know, I'm I come from a democracy.
And when I was in Russia, I went to to to Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia in the same two month period. When I was in Russia and I was speaking to people, went for a walk in the Red Square, and we were talking about I think it was the Wagening Mutiny, and they were an area where there's many cameras like Mario Les Paul's talking about it now to walk past the cameras before we continue talking about it. Do you and, obviously, you're in Moscow, I'm assuming yeah. I'll ask you tough questions anyway. Do you are you critical of free speech laws in Russia, or do you think they're perfect in the way they handle free freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
Speaker 1: I don't think any country is perfect to freedom of speech. I I know that I can certainly walk down the street wearing a Saint George ribbon or a z lapel pin in Russia, whereas if I did that in Germany or Estonia, I would be arrested. So, I mean, I I quite frankly, I've lived here for most of two decades, and I find that political freedoms, freedom of speech, and so on despite the caricature that that gentleman like like mister Fink might present is no worse in general terms than The United States. But while we're speaking of of hate speech, because mister Fink loved that, I I would love to take a a look at some some hate speech here by a a mister Jonathan Fink.
Speaker 2: Oh, great. Gonna quote my stuff back for me.
Speaker 1: To a post by one Mario Nofal.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You're putting us both you're putting us both under the bus. Let's see where that goes, Mark.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, so we had a a post by Mario Nafal, talking, responding to a post by you referring to the an article that you discussed, from The New York Times as the New York Times. Right? So so this is a
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. Yesterday. I thought you dredged something up six months ago, but that was yesterday or the day before.
Speaker 1: Dehumanizing racist, vile, hate speech. Right? They refer to Russians. This is the type of racism and ruthophobia as orcs. Right?
As some kind of
Speaker 2: I don't use it that much because I'm the thing. I don't use it. I'm a kid. Who does use that term?
Speaker 1: In the kind of tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy referring to the New York Times, a decidedly, I think we can say, hostile to Russia
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Pro US public relations. Has been pretty dire for this forum. Times.
Speaker 2: Do you know who uses the word orc? I very rarely use that word because I do feel it's derogatory, and I do have
Speaker 1: a lot of
Speaker 2: Russian friends.
Speaker 1: So you you
Speaker 2: So I'm a little
Speaker 1: My tusks have been filed down a bit. My skin isn't quite as green as it used to be.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you who uses that phrase.
Speaker 1: The eye of Sauron recently.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Let me tell you to use that phrase
Speaker 1: here. A lot more than I do. Character and values of anyone else with regards to his speech. Get
Speaker 2: use that in my online videos.
Speaker 1: I tell you who does
Speaker 2: do his best job. Let's this.
Speaker 0: Should deplatform we should deplatform Jonathan. We should deplatform Jonathan. And,
Speaker 2: Mike, I've got a question. Mild humorous thing. You know who uses that phrase in every one of their recordings?
Speaker 1: Very humorous, mister Fink.
Speaker 2: Alexander Alexander Nizvorov uses that phrase in pretty much every broadcaster he does. I've heard Ilepanmarov and others. Good, strong, I would say great Russian characters use that phrase an awful lot, and they
Speaker 1: use it for far more.
Speaker 2: For
Speaker 1: a regime change in Russia, Potomarov. Yeah. Yeah. Real real real
Speaker 0: Mark, I wanna go back
Speaker 2: He's a great guy.
Speaker 0: One of the one of the core questions, and and that's what I started with, Mark, and I I wanna go to you in this one. Why doesn't Putin accept freezing the lines? I understand the security guarantees. I understand not having foreign troops. You know, a small number of troops may not be an issue, but having significant military presence NATO military presence near the Russian border, that's understandable.
That is a security risk. Obviously, Ukraine does need to have some sort of security guarantees after being invaded. But my question to you is regarding territorial concessions. If territory is not the objective here, why not freeze the lines? Because that seems to be one of the main sticking points.
Speaker 1: Why would they? They're winning the contract.
Speaker 0: Right? But to end the to end the war, to stop the Russian and Ukrainian deaths. Ukrainians are seen as brothers of Russia. The you know, Putin would like
Speaker 2: to see Ukraine as part of Russia.
Speaker 1: Goals of the special military operation. When the goals of the special military operation are met diplomatically or military, they will cease conflict. Otherwise, they'll simply give the West the chance to rearm, reforcibly conscript more troops for the Kyiv regime as they did after Minsk one and Minsk two. Right? That's not the way.
Conflicts, whether we're talking the Vietnam War, the Korean War, even The US defeat and retreat from Afghanistan, there was no ceasefire. A resolution to these conflicts was settled diplomatically before there was any ceasefire.
Speaker 0: So I mean I mean mean
Speaker 1: doesn't agree to a ceasefire.
Speaker 0: Put ceasefire aside.
Speaker 1: Has agreed to their terms.
Speaker 0: Do you think if there are security guarantees for Russia and Ukraine that they both agree on let's say they agree on security guarantees, whatever they are, and we'll discuss what's been discussed recently.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be impossible, but yeah.
Speaker 2: Okay. No.
Speaker 0: It does seem pretty difficult. There's been there's been there's been there's been talks about some sort of the US military patrolling disguise and forcing a no fly zone in Ukraine, which I'm sure you think Russia would not accept. No. Zelenskyy was was talking about letting go of NATO ambitions in return for having a peacekeeping force within Ukraine, which I think you'll also say that Russia will not accept these. But let's say there there is some sort of settlement there.
Do you think Russia should all else haven't been settled. Do you think they should accept freezing the lines if everything else has been settled?
Speaker 1: So first of all, it it can't be settled. Right? Because NATO in Ukraine is no different as far as Russia is concerned in security terms. That's what they went to war to prevent. So, that that is not going to be acceptable.
Anything that that the Kyiv regime or or many people in the West would regard as security guarantees. Secondly, no. Because, that would leave large areas of the Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporozhzhia, under the control of a radically anti Russian, you know, calling people orcs, repressive regime in Kyiv, and that is is simply not acceptable to the Russian people or to the Russian government or speaking as someone who has family in East Ukraine to East Ukrainians.
Speaker 2: I know a lot of East Ukrainians. Many of them will disagree with you, but there is not a uniformity of opinion there. Absolutely not. Jonathan, it's also fortifications in Eastern Ukraine. Ukraine, if they were to give these territories up and let's say Russia was to renew hostilities, they would be essentially massively weakening themselves.
I think this is the real sticking point. They they've invested in in huge fortifications there. Why should they give that up and weaken themselves? So we are an impasse. I mean, this is, something I'd like to put to to Mark here because we talk about or we hear all these phrases about The US providing a backstop US doing this.
When you look at the evidence of history, that hasn't worked out so well inside the Budapest memorandum and to mark mark with their Afghanistan and, South, South Vietnam. That hasn't worked out so well because when push came to shove, America has historically quite often abandoned its allies and not done the things that it said it was gonna do. So Ukraine is not going to believe that. They're smart. They've seen history.
They're not gonna weaken themselves. They also know Russia. I think Putin also understands this. He looks at all these Western promises and says, well, if they can do a no fly zone, they'd have done it already. If they were gonna put troops on the ground, they'd have done it already.
We know that the British do have, you know, certain helpers on the ground, but that's maybe, you know, a special case. He realizes that NATO does not have the will and the balls to actually defend their ally in the way they
Speaker 0: ought to. Anything in secret
Speaker 2: guarantees of course, he is.
Speaker 0: But the secure the security guarantees this time around that are being discussed are very different to what we saw on the in the Budapest memorandum.
Speaker 2: They're fake. They're fake.
Speaker 0: They were they looking at ratifying them through congress, so they'll be legally binding unlike the the Budapest memorandum.
Speaker 2: You know, I think The US is heading into a period of extraordinary turmoil. Let's say this was to unfold, and then China was to do something in the in the South China Sea with Taiwan. Let's say another criticism was gonna blow up in The Middle East. Let's say that the Trump's gonna invade Venezuela. Are they gonna take their eye off that to say, oh, it's all kicked off in Ukraine.
Right? We're gonna divert all these rules. It's it that that there's so many variables that would make Ukraine vulnerable. And another point for Mark, we had Andre Kelly, who's one of my least favorite Russians, who's the ambassador to The UK. They allowed him on the news.
I'm not sure whether they still do that. But he spelled it out very clearly. He said, and he is an official representative of the Russian government in The UK. UK is seen as one of the main adversaries of Russia. He said, we do not want peace.
We want the surrender of Ukraine, and we want the fulfillment of the conditions of the special military operation. That condition there is to neutralize Ukraine as a political threat, not take slivers of wrecked territory in the East. It is to erase what they see as a a regime and even entire political culture that they see as a threat to themselves. So Russian representatives are telling us that this peace process is a fake, and they're gonna let this political theater play out. But it's not real, and no Ukrainians, I think, believe that it is gonna result in a real peace.
Speaker 0: Mark, do you think I either go ahead.
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. No. You've for it's your show.
Speaker 0: No. I think you're answering the question I was gonna pose is that do you think either side believe that this is peace negotiations are going to lead anywhere?
Speaker 1: No. Neither. There's no chance. There's zero chance of these peace negotiations. Look.
Russia is never going to agree to American terms to end this conflict, and and the Kyiv regime, the Europeans, and The US are never going to agree to Russian terms. This is going to end on the battlefield. And, actually, I agree again with mister Fink. I don't believe that the Kyiv regime will diplomatically come to terms that Russia has defined with their goals of the special military operations.
Speaker 2: They cannot. You know? They'd be deposed. Ever
Speaker 1: stop its repression of the Russian church of well, sorry. Ukrainian
Speaker 2: spy church, you mean. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yes. You you hate everything that has any we we've already established that has even a smacking of any links to Russia, mister Finkley.
Speaker 2: We will establish I find the Russian language still beautiful. For the Russian if Russia's gonna That's another
Speaker 0: If they're gonna reject if they're gonna reject all these requirements, Mark, then what will Russia settle for? How's the war going to end?
Speaker 1: It's going I I don't think the Kremlin has fully come to a consensus agreement on that, but I I personally believe that this conflict can only end with a regime change of the regime change in Kyiv. The the the putsch that seized power in 2014 in Kyiv, that this conflict will not end till that and and possibly not even that. If they relocate to to Lvov, or if they conduct a guerrilla war out of Poland. I I frankly, I, from the beginning of this conflict, have said that I do not expect to see real complete peace in Ukraine, for the rest of my life. I'd I I don't think that I'll
Speaker 2: I'll I'll I'll either agree. I mean, until Putin's regime. You you say Kyiv Regime, but this is a kind of jewel to see who falls apart first. Equally, there will not be peace unless the Putin regime collapses. So we're seeing a sort of almost a fight to the death by two sides, which are making mistakes, getting some things right, getting some things wrong.
But this is a nutritional struggle that may last generations. This is not gonna be over by Christmas just because mister Trump wants it to be so.
Speaker 0: Jonathan, what do you make with, the rearmament we're seeing in Europe? Germany is moving to conscription. The UK, I think Boris Johnson, put out a video today encouraging more more men to join the army. Where do you think Europe is heading right now?
Speaker 2: I'm not sure it's happening fast enough. Germany certainly is moving faster, but, of course, there are a lot of unknowns, a lot of variables. We have various, I would call them Kremlin puppet project, populist parties that could seriously disrupt this whole rearmament process. You have AFD in Germany. You have Le Pen in France.
Maloney's been pretty good in terms of rhetoric. But Do you think these
Speaker 0: are puppet puppet political parties for Russia? That are It's been it's
Speaker 2: been proven that many people in them. That's not to say all representatives are all people in those parties, and it's not to say they don't genuine generally represent some organic problems in their societies. They do same with Farage, But it has been shown that there is an uncomfortable level of alignment between some figures in those parties and the Kremlin and that they align on many narratives that would be perfectly comfortable to the Kremlin. Now that's for individual countries to tackle because I think the health of an individual company's country's political system needs to be tackled internally, not by external parties. But, this could seriously destabilize.
If any one of these countries falls to a regime that is more aligned with Kremlin narratives, this whole idea of rearming Europe, making Europe resilient, it it starts to fall apart. So I think we're entering an extremely risky phase. One where I would say Putin has had a a far greater deal of success than he has on the battlefield. He's shown himself to be utterly hopeless when it comes to conventional war. But as a spy, he's shown that actually the machinations and manipulations to try to, unnerve and destabilize, adversary countries, that is far, far more effective.
And indeed, those investments, I think, have gone on for decades and then now started to be active, activate, and come to fruition. So we're entering an extremely destabilizing period, unfortunately.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Let me let me translate that. Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a Russian bot. Yeah. We that's understood.
Speaker 2: No. Anyone who who systematically repeats Russian talking points, has a degree of alignment, which I find uncomfortable. That that's you can analyze it.
Speaker 1: You can parse it. Wherefore who echoed British security establishment talking points to be equally suspect, mister Fink.
Speaker 2: I I only wish they would pay me to say these things. I genuinely believe these things. I would be
Speaker 1: a little happier.
Speaker 2: And I would have a much nicer Christmas if they actually paid me to say this stuff. But
Speaker 0: So for the KGB and the m I five, you've got two potential clients here. Mark, last question for you is, do you think that this was is backfiring on Russia? I know there's been a discussion in early on when Finland and Sweden joined NATO, but now we are seeing the rearmament of Europe. We are seeing Europe fracturing, so that's working in Russia's advantage. But for how long?
And as soon as there's more clashes between Europe and and or the EU and and Russia, we'll see more people rally around the flag if we see the same thing that happened in Iran and happening in Venezuela. Net net, putting Ukraine aside, geopolitically from a strategic perspective, do you think Russia will win after this war? Do you think the strategic the the special military operation, you'd say, to an extent failed for Russia?
Speaker 1: Okay. So first of all, I think this ends badly for almost everyone. There are no good outcomes. There are only less bad outcomes for everyone involved. Russia included in that.
Speaker 0: Except China. Except except China. Yeah.
Speaker 1: China's China definitely benefits because The US can't really provoke a war with them off Taiwan or the South China Straits if they've exhausted themselves here and in Venezuela and and Iran and elsewhere. Yeah. So that that's a fair point. That's a fair point. But as far as has it blown back on Russia?
Like, it's not Russia's economy that's close to clap. It's the British economy. It's the French economy. It's the deindustrialization of Germany due to the economic suicide with their own sanctions that they've inflicted on themselves. So this conflict has any one that has suffered, right, and that had that has, you know, blown back on.
It it's Europe. But, yes, I I think there's an inevitability to this. Right? As far as the West is concerned, they claimed Ukraine as their geopolitical territory. Right?
When the they back to the porch that overthrew the last legitimate democratically elected government in the country in
Speaker 2: Kremlin puppet Yanukovych. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Ork. Yeah. I got it. I got it.
I got it, mister Fink. So what I think there's they will not accept losing that territory. I believe the Europeans are fully bent on going to war with Russia. Right? I don't believe they're necessarily going to attack Russia any more than Russia's going to attack them, But I think they hope to drag this conflict out long enough that they would feel comfortable entering the conflict in five years in 2030 as they keep saying.
Certainly, that is what the ruling political and military elite of Europe are saying ad nauseam and trying to scaremonger their populations that we're going to be at war with Russia. You have to sacrifice your sons and daughters to fight Russia. That is what the British and French defensive, chiefs are saying right now. They are prepping their countries psychologically for going to direct war with Russia in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: Take us and you and you both think it's unjustified and you think it's unjustified, you don't think there'll be a direct conflict? Would you both agree on that point?
Speaker 1: I I think there will be a direct conflict.
Speaker 2: And that could be. This could lead to direct conflict, but I don't think it's gonna play out as, say, World War two set pieces. The trouble is that Europe are using these strong language, but they're not backing it up with real deterrent steps. If Moscow saw Europe genuinely rearming to prepare for a full scale confrontation and also stepping up its measures to tackle Russia's hybrid things, if they saw real preparations in Europe, that would have a deterrence value, which means we could escape this kind of confrontation. Russia would be like, well, you know what?
They seem to be taking this seriously. Let's find another route to gain our objectives. The trouble is Europe uses fine words, but is showing weakness in its actions. That is provocative to mister Putin. He sees, okay.
Well, they're saying one thing, but they're really not taking the actions that demonstrate they're serious. Okay. Let's keep pushing. It's the old Bolshevik thing. Keep pushing your bayonet while you feel mush until you feel something hard.
Well, the trouble is with Europe. It's all mush all the way down. So, of course, mister Putin feels he can go further and further. But I don't think it will be, at least in the initial phase, full scale, because I don't think, Russia has the resources capacity in their army as somewhat, let's say, tired and a little fragmented from what they're doing in the East. But it could well lead to conflagration.
I think we're far more likely to see some at scale hybrid warfare, which in itself is is terrifying, and we are not prepared in any shape or form to deal with that.
Speaker 0: Jonathan, Mark, really appreciate your time, gentlemen. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having us.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that Putin attacked incoming NATO chief Rutte, accusing him of stoking conflict and preparing for a war that the U.S. itself hasn’t declared. He cited the U.S. National Security Strategy, saying Washington doesn’t call Russia an enemy, so NATO rhetoric is misplaced. “What are you talking about? A war with Russia? They want to prepare a war with Russia.” He urged reading the strategy, noting the U.S. creates NATO and Russia isn’t named an enemy.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇷🇺 PUTIN SLAMS NATO CHIEF: “ARE YOU PREPARING FOR WAR THAT EVEN THE U.S. DIDN’T DECLARE?” Putin has launched a direct attack on incoming NATO chief Rutte, accusing him of stoking unnecessary conflict and preparing for a war that the U.S. itself hasn’t declared. Pointing to the latest U.S. National Security Strategy, Putin argued that Washington does not officially label Russia as an enemy, raising sharp questions about why NATO leaders continue escalating their rhetoric. "I really want to ask [to Rutte]. What are you talking about? A war with Russia? They want to prepare a war with Russia. Do you even know how to read? Read the new US national security strategy. What does it say? The USA is the creator of NATO, the main sponsor. In the new national security strategy, Russia is not indicated as an enemy, as a target, and the NATO chief is preparing a war with us. What is this?" Source: Visegrad24
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states that they personally know the current NATO Secretary General, Mr. Rutte, who is a former Prime Minister of the Netherlands. They mention having visited the Netherlands for a discussion, describing Rutte as an intelligent, systemic, and effective example, and noting that the Netherlands’ economy is in good shape, “this part of his merit.”
The speaker then criticizes Rutte for what they perceive as push for war with Russia, asking rhetorically what Rutte is saying about war with Russia and asserting that “they want to prepare for war with Russia.” The speaker contends that Rutte should read a specific source: the new US National Security Strategy.
According to the speaker, the United States is a key player in NATO, its creator, main sponsor, and “all the main means come from the US.” They claim that “money, technologies, weapons, ammunition” all originate from the United States, calling this the foundation of NATO’s resources.
The speaker asserts that in the new NATO national security strategy, Russia is not identified as an enemy or a target. Despite this, the General Secretary of NATO is preparing with them for war, and the speaker questions whether Rutte can read, implying a belief that the strategy does not designate Russia as an enemy, yet there is a push toward preparing for conflict.
Overall, the speaker juxtaposes Rutte’s economic leadership in the Netherlands with a narrative of impending confrontation with Russia, emphasizing the reliance of NATO on U.S. resources and critiquing the alignment between the US strategy and the perceived stance of NATO leadership toward Russia.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Я, например, лично знаком с нынешним генеральным секретарем НАТО господином Рюттеда. Он бывший премьер-министр Нидерландов. Я когда-то ездил туда с визитом, мы общались. Умный человек, я знаю умный, системный и эффективный пример. Экономика Нидерландов находится в хорошем состоянии, это часть его заслуги.
Но чего он несет? Ему так хочется спросить: Слушай, ну что ты говоришь про войну с Россией? Готовиться нужно к войне с Россией. Они хотят готовиться к войне с Россией. Но читать-то умеешь?
Почитай новую стратегию национальной безопасности США. Что там написано? США, обращаю внимание, ключевой игрок НАТО, США создатель НАТО, главный спонсор НАТО. Все основные средства поступают от США. И деньги, и технологии военные, и вооружение, боеприпасы всё оттуда.
Это основа. В новой стратегии национальной безопасности НАТО Россия не указывается в качестве врага в качестве цели, а Генеральный секретарь НАТО готовится с нами к войне. Это что такое? Ну читать-то умеете?
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that three Swedish girls, ages 14, 16, and 17, threw grenades for about 45,000 kronor each after online recruitment by a Foxtrot gang member abroad. The 14-year-old isn’t criminally responsible, so she faces an evidentiary hearing. Gangs recruit children via encrypted apps; leaders operate from Turkey, Iran, and Mexico. Sweden plans youth prisons, while crime and deadly shootings rise, outpacing neighbors.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇸🇪 SWEDEN'S GANGS ARE RECRUITING 14-YEAR-OLDS TO THROW GRENADES FOR $4,800 - AND THE LAW CAN'T TOUCH THEM Three Swedish girls - aged 14, 16, and 17 - threw three hand grenades at residential buildings in Gothenburg. One exploded outside an apartment. Two didn't. They got paid 45,000 kronor each. That's $4,800. The 14-year-old organized it. She was recruited online by "SuperMario," a Foxtrot gang member operating from abroad. She recruited the 16-year-old. The 17-year-old carried the grenades in her handbag. They took a train, threw the grenades, went home, and withdrew the cash from ATMs. Police caught them via DNA on the unexploded grenades. All three admitted it. The two older girls are on trial. The 14-year-old? She's below Sweden's age of criminal responsibility. She gets an "evidentiary hearing" and walks. This isn't an isolated incident - it's Swedish gang warfare's new business model. Last year, 280 girls aged 15-17 were charged with murder, manslaughter, or violent crimes. Children as young as 11 are being recruited for contract killings. The going rate for throwing a grenade is 50,000 kronor. For murder, it's 100,000 to 800,000 depending on the target. Sweden has the highest per capita gun violence rate in the EU. Hand grenade attacks are near-daily occurrences - surplus Yugoslav War munitions smuggled from the Balkans. Three criminal networks (Foxtrot, Dalen, Rumba) control nearly half of all gang violence resulting in death or injury. Their leaders? Operating from Turkey, Iran, and Mexico. Rawa "Kurdish Fox" Majid runs Foxtrot from Turkey after being detained and released by Iran. Mossad claims he's working with Iranian intelligence to attack Israeli targets in Stockholm. Mikael "The Greek" Tenezos runs Dalen from Mexico. They recruit children via encrypted apps because Swedish law can't prosecute anyone under 15. The Swedish government just announced they're building special youth prisons for 13- and 14-year-olds. They're lowering the age of criminal responsibility because the legal loophole has turned Sweden's children into the perfect disposable soldiers for transnational crime networks. Police found text conversations between gang handlers and child recruits. "Shooter needed NOW NOW NOW. EVERYTHING READY. Housing, travel, you just have to go. 800,000." Another: "Denmark 500k, head shot 500k, throw a grenade 200k, Sweden murder 100k." Sweden was the low-crime Scandinavian model. Now it has nine times more deadly shootings than Norway, Denmark, and Finland combined. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson admitted his government has "lost control over organised-crime violence." Three teenage girls just got paid to throw grenades at apartment buildings. The youngest one can't be prosecuted. And somewhere abroad, "SuperMario" is still recruiting. Source: Aftonbladet, CBS News, Al Jazeera, The Telegraph, Nordic Times, @visegrad24
reSee.it AI Summary
I read two analysts with divergent views on Ukraine’s endgame. Warburg argues Ukraine can endure for years while Russia’s economy hollows out and Moscow hides it with regional decay and police shifts. Rahr fears a dragged-on war draws European troops in by design, shifting to a nuclear calculus. Both say Putin must control all Donbas, or risk home instability. They split on Crimea as the true red line and on China’s role, sanctions, and regime fracture.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇦🇷🇺 TWO ANALYSTS CLASH ON UKRAINE'S ENDGAME: REGIME COLLAPSE, NUCLEAR RED LINES, AND THE INCREASING RISK OF A DIRECT EU RUSSIAN WAR Two analysts with very different reads on how this war ends. Paul Warburg says Ukraine can hold out for years. Russia's economy is cracking in the regions while Moscow pretends everything is fine, with police forces being replaced by vigilante groups and recruitment bonuses slashed because the money simply isn't there. @Alexander_Rahr warns that if the war drags on, European troops will enter Ukraine, not by accident but intentionally, and that's when the nuclear calculus changes. Both agree on one thing: Putin needs the entire Donbass or he's got a serious problem at home. Here's what most people are missing. Alexander believes two factions are battling inside the Kremlin right now. One wants to keep fighting for Odessa. The other is urging Putin to take Trump's deal before the midterms while he still has leverage. The business community wants out of the sanctions regime Paul isn't buying the China-Russia alliance either. The US threatens secondary sanctions and China immediately stops buying from Rosneft and Lukoil. Beijing has been beating Moscow up on pipeline prices for years because they want Russian energy at cost, leaving Russia with nothing. On nukes, Paul says the only real red line is a nuclear missile fired at Russian territory. Everything else is leverage. Alexander disagrees and believes Crimea is the line. If Ukraine threatens to take it back, expect escalation. Ukraine's path to victory? Paul says it's not military, it's regime collapse. Hold out long enough and the empire fractures from the edges inward, just like Afghanistan broke the Soviets. We get into: * Why Alexander believes European troops will intentionally enter Ukraine if the war continues * The two factions inside Putin's inner circle fighting over whether to take Trump's deal * How Russia's economy is designed to shield Moscow while the regions collapse * Why Paul says China is using Russia, not saving it * What both analysts believe is Putin's real nuclear red line * How Ukraine could flip the kill switch on Russian oil revenues overnight * Why the body of evidence points to regime fracture starting in Russia's outer regions Putin's trying to outlast the West. The West is betting his own system collapses first. Someone's clock is running out. The next twelve months will tell us whose. 03:15 - Territory vs security guarantees: why Donbas is the real sticking point 04:03 - Ukraine’s trust problem: Budapest Memorandum and broken guarantees 05:04 - Putin’s core war aims: defeating NATO and carving a buffer zone 07:55 - Why Putin cannot stop without taking all of Donbas 10:49 - Russia advancing on the battlefield and what it means for negotiations 12:27 - Ukraine trading land for time while fortifying key cities 13:57 - Putin’s strategy to exhaust the West politically and economically 16:00 - Ukraine’s manpower crisis: casualties, desertions, and army strain 18:00 - Ukrainian public opinion flips toward ending the war 19:26 - Why claims that “the war has gone on too long” are a myth 21:19 - Is Trump really pulling away from Ukraine or just pressuring Russia? 22:58 - Risk of wider war: continued fighting could pull NATO troops in 27:06 - Inside Russia’s elite split: war faction vs deal-with-America faction 29:31 - Europe entering the war: nuclear risks vs strategic necessity 35:21 - Crimea as the true red line for nuclear escalation 39:11 - Why economic pressure won’t force Putin to sign a deal 41:30 - The war as existential for Putin’s personal survival 42:56 - What victory looks like for Russia vs Ukraine 56:58 - Endgame forecast: U.S. and China as the real winners
Video Transcript AI Summary
The panelists discuss whether recent developments around Ukraine, NATO security guarantees, and Western support can produce a peace agreement acceptable to Russia and Ukraine, and what the war’s trajectory might look like by year-end and beyond.
Initial reactions and sticking points
- Speaker 1 sees potential in recent moves if true and reliable, arguing Ukraine is signaling goodwill to the United States, but remains skeptical that a peace deal will satisfy both sides given core demands over territory and Donbas control. He emphasizes the Donbas as the central unresolved issue.
- Speaker 2 notes Putin’s need to show tangible gains to save face, arguing the war is being fought to achieve declared goals and that Russia will not sign a deal unless it secures substantial results.
Security guarantees, no-fly zones, and peacekeeping
- The discussion centers on two main proposed points: U.S. security guarantees (including possible no-fly zone enforcement) and a European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine. There is debate about how binding such guarantees would be and whether Russia would accept them, with concerns about the Budapest Memorandum’s history of non-fulfillment versus what a new, more comprehensive, legally binding framework might look like.
- Speaker 1 points out that even a robust security package would require Russian agreement, which he doubts will be forthcoming given Moscow’s current aims. He underscores that Europe’s and the U.S.’s support for Ukraine is contingent on political will, which could waver, but he notes Ukraine’s trust gap with U.S. guarantees given past experiences.
- Speaker 2 stresses that Putin’s aims include defeating NATO and achieving a U.S.-level accommodation (a “Yalta 2.0” style deal) while keeping Western control over Europe at arm’s length. He argues Putin would accept U.S. and possibly some European troops but not a formal NATO presence on Ukrainian soil, especially in western Donbas or beyond.
Budapest memorandum vs. new guarantees
- Both sides discuss the difference between a nonbinding Budapest Memorandum and a more robust, legally binding security guarantee. Speaker 1 highlights Ukraine’s past trust in security assurances despite U.S. and European failures to honor them, suggesting skepticism about the enforceability of any new guarantees. Speaker 2 suggests that a stronger, more binding arrangement could be essential for Russia to accept any settlement, but that Moscow would still resist concessions over full Donbas control.
On-the-ground realities and war dynamics
- The panelists agree Russia is advancing on multiple fronts, though the pace and strategic significance of gains vary. They discuss Ukraine’s ability to sustain the fight through Western weapons flows and domestic production (including drones and shells). They acknowledge the risk of Western fatigue and the potential for a more protracted war, even as Ukraine builds its own capabilities to prolong the conflict.
- The West’s long-term willingness to fund and arm Ukraine is debated: Speaker 1 argues Europe’s economy is strained but notes continued political support for Ukraine, which could outlast Russia’s economic stamina. Speaker 2 emphasizes that Russia’s economy is fragile mainly in the provinces, while Moscow and Saint Petersburg remain relatively insulated; he also points to BRICS support (China and India) as sustaining Moscow politically and economically.
Economic and strategic pressures
- The role of energy revenues and sanctions is debated. Speaker 1 suggests Russia can be pressured economically to seek a deal, while Speaker 2 counters that Russia’s economy is adapting, with China and India providing strategic support that helps Moscow resist Western coercion. They discuss shadow fleet strikes and global energy markets as tools to erode Russia’s war-finance capability.
- There is disagreement about whether, over time, economic pressure alone could force regime change in Russia. Speaker 1 is skeptical that penalties will trigger a voluntary Russian withdrawal, while Speaker 2 argues that sustained economic and political pressure, combined with Western unity, could push toward a settlement.
Strategies and potential outcomes
- Putin’s internal calculus is described as existential: he seeks a win that he can publicly claim to legitimize his rule and justify the costs of the war to the Russian people and elites. This shapes his openness to concessions and to the kinds of guarantees he would accept.
- Alexander posits that a near-term peace could emerge from a deal brokered at high levels (potentially involving Trump and Putin) that reshapes European security with U.S. leadership and BRICS engagement, while Paul emphasizes that any credible end to the conflict would require Ukraine and Russia to agree to a swap-like territorial arrangement and to accept a new security framework that deters renewed aggression.
End-of-year and longer-term outlooks
- By year-end, the panel agrees it is unlikely that a major peace agreement will be realized under the current conditions; any real breakthrough would depend on significant concessions, including Donbas arrangements, and a credible security guarantee framework.
- By the end of next year, both expect a continuation of a contested balance: Ukraine likely to press for stronger Western guarantees and EU integration, Russia seeking to preserve Donbas gains while navigating internal and external pressures. Alexander envisions two “wins” emerging: the United States under Trump coordinating a broader peace framework, and China leveraging its economic influence to shape Europe’s response. Paul anticipates a gradual trajectory with ongoing military and economic pressures and a continued stalemate unless a major concession reshapes incentives on both sides.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's your initial reaction to
Speaker 1: all these developments? Positive if true and positive if reliable. I I feel like Ukraine is working with The United States to show favor, to show, good faith. But whether or not that would actually result in a peace deal that Russia accepts and Ukraine accepts, I'm still more skeptical about. I still think they're both very far apart on their core demands, which comes down to territory and control of the Donbas.
Speaker 2: Putin can't stop without getting at least part of the results, which he had proclaimed when he started this war.
Speaker 0: So he has to show something for these efforts. So it's very important for him to save face.
Speaker 1: So I don't think Putin's gonna sign a deal of any sort. I think he's made it very clear he wants to keep going until he feels that he can map a victory.
Speaker 0: Where do you think we'll be by the end of the year?
Speaker 2: I think there will be at the end of the year, we will see clearly two winners. One winner, The United States, Trump administration, and the second winner is China.
Speaker 0: Pleasure to meet you both. I appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: Of course.
Speaker 2: Thanks
Speaker 1: for having us.
Speaker 0: Optimistic or pessimistic? Where do you stand with the development?
Speaker 2: Optimistic. Alexander's optimistic. In in many ways, optimistic, but, of course, a lot of questions remain.
Speaker 0: Paul, I'm not sure where you stand on this because this time around, it seems that we're getting closer. I know we've said this before. And then you see something. Suddenly, everything flips to the other side. But you've got The New York Times reporting that Trump is willing to have, US military forces patrol the skies and enforce a no fly zone.
You've also got Zelensky openly talking about foregoing NATO in in return for some sort of Western NATO like security guarantee. It's kind of the same thing. It's like, no NATO, but we want all the benefits of NATO without the liabilities of protecting our partner countries. And you've also got a European statement talking about a peacekeeping force in Ukraine. Now, Paul, what's your initial reaction to all these developments?
Because we've also got Europe, The US, and Ukraine seemingly agree on everything.
Speaker 1: Positive if true and positive if reliable, but we have to, look at these developments in light of Ukraine's history with peace deals like this. So when I look at the Budapest memorandum, you know, Ukraine already in the past had security guarantees from The United States. United States didn't follow through on those. European security forces are a little more optimistic, but like you say, it's basically NATO without NATO. And, you know, even if Ukraine agrees to something, Russia has to agree to that too.
Right? And I don't think Russia will. You know, the the recent tone that we've heard from the Kremlin is that they're they're not really looking for that at this time. They still think that they can win. And so I I feel like Ukraine is working with The United States to show favor, to show, good faith.
But whether or not that would actually result in a peace deal that Russia accepts and Ukraine accepts, I'm still more skeptical about. I still think they're both very far apart on their core demands, comes down to territory and control the Donboss.
Speaker 0: So you think the territory is the biggest sticking point right now than the security guarantees?
Speaker 1: I think in reality, probably for Russia, is. You know, security guarantees is what's been talked about a lot, but we'll see what happens once Russia's actually met with a deal that includes security guarantees like this and what their actual reaction is to that. And and I kinda doubt that they will have a positive reaction to it.
Speaker 0: We've also talked about the Budapest memorandum, but that was a nonbinding memo. It's very different to what we're seeing right now where the agreement or the discussions, essentially call for the countries to ratify any security guarantees for Ukraine. So I think the security guarantees this time along are a lot more comprehensive, a lot more detailed, or and more legally binding than what we had back in the Budapest Memorandum.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, a couple of thoughts on that. You know, the Budapest Memorandum might have been unbinding in legality, but, obviously, Ukraine trusted it. Otherwise, they wouldn't have given up their nuclear missiles in response for it, so they obviously expected the United States to keep their words. They've had many binding legal agreements with Russia that Russia has broken.
And so if you're looking at it from Ukraine's perspective, you know, even if The United States says that this is legally binding with the nature of everything in The United States, how wishy washy it is, I I just if I was Ukraine, I wouldn't trust the United States at least as far as legally binding security guarantees whether they feel the same about Europe. That may be a different story.
Speaker 0: Alexander, same question for you, especially whether Putin would accept such security guarantees for Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Which guarantees? Which have been decided in Berlin or no?
Speaker 0: The the ones that have been decided so mainly the two points are US security guarantees when it comes to a no fly zone, and number two is some sort of European led peacekeeping force in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: First, yes. Second, no, in my opinion. Interesting. The Russians started this war for several reasons, and they proclaimed the real goals of this military operations, they call it, then, and it's have become honestly, awful wars in Europe since the second World War. So I would say Putin can't stop without getting at least part of the results, which he had proclaimed when he started this war.
So first of all, he wants to defeat NATO. In other words, he wants to, diminish the role of NATO in Europe. I think this is halfway through. He has done it by conquering Ukrainian territory and creating this kind of buffer zone, which is, of course, something which can be interpreted later as a maneuver as a as a as a situation where the NATO troops will be in the defensive against Russia. This is his aim.
Second, he wanted a regime change. I think he will get it because in my view, Zelensky will not be reelected as president in Ukraine. But what he will not get at all is the control over the West Part of Ukraine, which he wanted four years ago. And in my view, he needs now one very important thing, and this is that what he really wants, deal with America, a kind of Yalta second second point dot zero to to to to two point zero. That means have an agreement with the Americans above the heads of the Europeans, which for him, and actually also for the Americans, Europe doesn't count.
And, this will make him happy. I think that he will agree for American kind of troops kind of troops on the territory of of Ukraine, maybe even some some European troops, but not under NATO flag in the very further west, maybe Lvov or Ivanovrankivsk in this part of the region, which he said should should go to Poland anyway. But he will not accept real armed troops from NATO countries on the territory of of of of Ukraine. I think this is the biggest problem. And, of course, probably we'll talk about it later as a territorial problem, which is existential for for him, of course, because if he will not get the whole Donbas, then the question marks raise, of course, in the the common months, weeks, and years why he had all had this war if he couldn't even
Speaker 0: he will You you think so the the point that you're making is Putin you know, this war took a lot longer than expected, lost a lot more men than expected, and had a bigger impact on the economy. So he has to show something for these efforts. So it's very important for him to save face. And he has to at least show offer security guarantees for Ukraine, but show that NATO's not expanding. Otherwise, if NATO's on his doorsteps, especially with Finland, Sweden joining NATO, and he's not able to In terms of the Donbas, also last question is last comment.
Do you think there's any circumstances in which Putin accepts to freeze the lines in the Donbas without, Ukraine seeding the rest of the territory, the 20 whatever percent they control?
Speaker 2: At the moment, I can't see it. Here, Putin fights for his survival in Russia if he will not get the whole Donbas. And, again, I repeat myself, there were a lot of questions asked by his own people, by his own elites, why they why did they start the war if he didn't get the Donbas, which was the beginning, which was the aim of the of the war. The other he already already rejected the to take the the rest of the territories of Zaporozhzhia and Kherson as I interpret this. He is happy only with the Donbas.
He will get the Donbas. The only thing what I I I think that the now the the masterpiece of this plan will be and this is now in in the ball is in America's hands. The Americans, Trump, and his people will now have to negotiate with the Ukrainians a a swap deal with territorial swap deal with the Russians. So the Russians have occupied also some territories in the Kharkov region, not not lot, but some territories and in the Dnipropetrovsk region. And this territories would now, of course, have to get be be given back to Ukraine, and Ukraine will be asked to leave the two cities two big cities in the very west of the Donbas, namely Krematorsk and Slaviansk probably without without fighting.
There will be an agreement. I'm sure there will be not now, but with with months, there will be an agreement because I don't see that the Russians have the power to take these two cities. There will be a lot of bloodshed, a lot of the the war will continue for probably over a year. But, again, they have they have in hostage other territories, which do not which Russia doesn't claim for itself, which will not be given back to Ukraine as on the negotiation table. And this is part of the deal, I think, with Trump and his people will have to negotiate, will have to do with with the Russians, with Ukrainians, which will be very difficult, but this is the key for the peace agreement.
Speaker 0: Paul, I wanna get your thoughts on what's happening on the ground though because that plays a key role in what they end up agreeing to on the negotiating table. And it's, you know, it's hard to refuse the fact that Russia is advancing on multiple fronts and advancing faster than they have for many years. What does that mean for the current negotiations and Ukraine's positions in in the current negotiation? Because there's also a statement that you made in one of the videos I was watching. You know, I watch your content, Paul, and I've seen your interviews, Alexander.
In one of the videos, you're talking about how, as back in July, a few months ago, Ukraine finally has what it needs to win the war, essentially, with the deal that The US has with Europe, where Europe funds all the weapons and US funds sends those weapons. That scheme essentially allows a constant flow of weapons to Ukraine. But despite that scheme and despite those constant flows of weapons and intelligence and Trump's authorization of deeper strikes into Ukraine, Russia's still advancing. The economy still is humming along.
Speaker 1: Well, that scheme hasn't really come into full fruition yet. Right? There's a time between when a deal is reached, in principle, and, you know, those weapons still have to be produced and delivered and put to put use on the battlefield. And so when I say Ukraine finally has what it needs to win, it doesn't mean that they're gonna, you know, overwhelm Russia tomorrow, but it does mean that they have what they need over the long term to overcome Russia on the real front lines, which to my view are not the front lines the the lines of contact in Ukraine, but the real front lines that are actually going to lead to a conclusion to the war, by putting pressure on either regime or or things that are going on in the back, especially economic damage. So when I look at the front lines in particular, just to answer your your initial question, you know, Russia is advancing a little bit on the front lines, but not nearly as fast as people say.
Ukraine recently took back a city that Russia claimed that they had taken, months ago and with a high degree of confidence. You know, if Russia is slowly advancing over Ukrainian territory, it it doesn't change the fact that Ukraine still has many of their best fortress cities that Russia hasn't even come up against yet. And so Ukraine may very well be trading land for time. You know, they've been defending these cities that Russia is attacking right now for a very long time. They've been doing so very successfully.
Russia hasn't been able to take them yet, and they still haven't been able to take them. But assuming, you know, they do eventually take them within the next couple of months, which is a possibility, that doesn't necessarily mean Ukraine is losing the war. It just means Ukraine is pulling back to the next set of positions where they can defend those more effectively and, put more casualties on the Russians while taking less casualties.
Speaker 0: But what about what about the global, what about the global sentiment shift we're seeing in The US and multi European countries that ex especially in Western Europe, that exhaustion of that constant supply of weapons and and money to Ukraine, especially when those countries are riddled with debt? Isn't that a big threat to Ukraine as well? Isn't that Putin's strategy? We've been talking about it for a long time that Putin will just exhaust the West until the people turn on their politicians and, force them to change their foreign policy.
Speaker 1: That is Putin's strategy for sure. I think Putin's strategy because he cannot defeat the West militarily is to politically defeat them with the near with narratives to get them to stop sending weapons to Ukraine. That was very important in the early days of the war. It still holds some importance today, but not nearly as much as it did. Because when we look at Ukraine now, while they still of course, they'll take all the aid they can get.
The primary weapons that Ukraine uses, they're all being produced by Ukraine itself, whether that be the drones that they use, whether that be even artillery shells now, whether that be long range missiles where they've released several of their own platforms that they can use to do longer in strikes into Russia. And so Ukraine has bought itself sufficient times where even if Europe and The United States pull back from them in a significant way, they'll still be able to continue their campaign against Russia. And if Europe and The United States do pull back, it's not obvious that that will be I mean, well, The United States has already pulled back. They're not providing anything meaningful to Ukraine, but they're still selling weapons to Europe that Europe will give to Ukraine. But even if Europe and The United States do pull back, it's not gonna be all at once.
It's gonna be a a slow churn. And over that time, Ukraine is, you know, again, ramping up their own stockpiles of weapons that they can use to continue to damage Russia's economy and other things and the the Putin regime politically.
Speaker 0: Alexander, the same question to you on on militarily. How much of an advantage do you think Russia has? Because I just find it hard to believe that if Europe and The US pull off pull out their weapons supply, their flows of weapons to Ukraine, that Ukraine will be able to hold off much longer than than they are at the moment. If Russia is advancing despite the flow of weapons, despite the ability to strike deep into their territory, despite the sanctions, secondary sanctions as well on on India, and they're still able to advance on the battlefield. It it it's it's you know, they're essentially facing the entire West and winning on the front line.
When the majority of the weapons flow stops, Ukraine will not have any choice but to start to struggle to maintain such a long front line.
Speaker 2: Well, as Paul said, this is a strategy of the Russians, of of Putin. I would say we should also look at the manpower, at the soldiers, at the officers in in Ukraine and the army itself. One thing are the weapons. Yes. Ukraine will get enough weapons from the West.
As long as the West can deliver them. The Americans will sell weapons to to to the NATO countries. They will deliver them for free to Ukraine. So in this way, the war can continue. Even the Germans could theoretically send towers to to Ukraine, which will prolong the war.
The Ukrainians will not win the war, but it can prolong the war. But the the question are how whether the Ukrainian army can survive this winter in another two, three months. There are a lot of reports that we will face, of course, a lot of victims in the army and dissertations where people are running away from the front. And that is what what Putin wants. He wants the Ukrainian army to give up, simply to give up, and to relinquish the the the weapons to to
Speaker 0: Is that strategy working from what we're seeing now?
Speaker 2: I think it's not yet working, but we may I'm very carefully. We may approach this moment where inside Ukraine, there will be a kind of fighting between army people and and and and Zelensky itself over over the the the need or the chances to continue the war or better stop, give Russians some territory but save lives. I think this is a question which will raise in Ukraine very soon, something which the Europeans and the West doesn't have in their on their radar, but I think this may may may happen. This may be the game changer in the in the war. But, again, this is theory.
I don't know what they're in practice and and how and how long the Russians
Speaker 0: The polls can do that. Polls kinda reaffirm what you're saying. The polls initially started off early on in the war. 80% of Ukrainians wanted the war to continue to continue to defend their territory, and and 20% wanted to cede territory and end the war. And that those numbers have flipped.
Now 20% of Ukrainians wanna continue the war, 20 something percent, and 80% wanna end the war even if it includes seeding some territory. But, Paul, I wanna go to something you said there. You said that you've called it a myth that the Ukraine war has already gone too long. Mhmm. I'm not sure if I'm quoting correctly.
What do you mean that it's a myth? Because it I I think a a special military operation shouldn't last four years and counting and hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. I mean and you could look at it from any perspective. Any war that goes on for more than a day, a minute, an hour has gone on too long. But from the perspective of the war in Ukraine has gone on too long that Ukraine can no longer handle it, that's a myth. And I it comes really at least that video where I where I was talking about that, when you look at the American revolution and how long it took us to achieve victory, how desperate our situation was, and so many things like that.
When we look at history and the actual average length of a war, it's not over in three or four or five years typically. And I think the average is somewhere around twelve years. And so just from Hasn't
Speaker 0: this war been hasn't this war been going on since 2014?
Speaker 1: Well, yes. It has, but it hasn't been going on at this scale. Right? And so you have to look at where resources are actually being chewed up and things like that. Yes.
It's been going on since 2014, but it was a very small scale and a huge portion of that was ceasefires. And so it doesn't really map into the calculus, if that makes sense. And so when you look at, you know, what would actually mean the word gone too long, it would be, well, you know, obviously, the resource the resources of either side are winding down to where they can't fight anymore. I would contest that Ukraine's resources are winding down in a way that's existential for them. Obviously, the war itself is existential for Ukraine, but there's some policies that they have in place that are actually a tell as to how desperate their leadership is or isn't.
And in particular, there's their draft age, which remains at 25 years old. You have be to at least 25 years old to be drafted into Ukrainian military in The US. In The US, that's closer to the cutoff where you can't be drafted anymore because in The US, we try to put people in the military when they're young. They're idealistic. They're more prone to be be controlled by the narratives and and and things.
It's you're a better soldier, typically, ideologically, when you join younger. Ukraine has specifically chosen not to tap into their most combat ready, most ideological age group. And I believe before the war came to an existential moment, Ukraine would make that move, if they were really approaching the point of no return. So I think the war in Ukraine can go on for much, much longer. It's obviously impossible to predict for how long, but I would not be surprised if it went on for many, many more years, especially because when you look at Russia's resources and Russia's economy, that's continually winding down.
You know, maybe there is brief spurts on the battlefield where the action increases for moments, but overall, it's clear that Russia's ability to put resources and men into the war as a whole, that is slowing down, not picking up.
Speaker 0: Alexander, I wanna get I wanna get more into your position on The US stance and support for Ukraine. You've talked about how, you know, EU wants The US to continue supporting Ukraine, but that that that, you know, that policy after Biden is shifting under Trump. You've also talked about how Berlin is taking the lead in the EU's, you call it, emancipation from America, and that The US has lost its strategic interest in the old world and is now focusing on the Asia Pacific region. So I understand that Trump's narrative makes it seem that way, if you especially if you look at the national security strategy that just came out as well. But if you look at what's happening on the ground, Trump has continued military support, allowed Ukraine to strike deeper into Russia, sanctioned Russia more than Biden has, even pressured India to stop importing Russian oil.
Doesn't that show Trump supporting Ukraine just as much, if not more than Biden?
Speaker 2: I disagree, Mario. And I would I may, I would only put one more sentence to what Paul just said. Think if the war continues and Ukrainians will continue to fight, then only with the engagements of Western troops. And then the danger of a third world war, even a nuclear war, will much much greater than in four years before. This is my prediction.
If the war continues for many years, then we will get a catastrophe because Ukrainians cannot defeat Russia without without NATO. So and sooner or later, the Brits or even the Germans may get into Ukraine. Now answering your question, Mario.
Speaker 0: Before before I ask you sorry. Before you answer my question, I I wanna stick to that point. So how so you're saying that if the war continues, that increases the probability of NATO or at least European countries being directly involved in the war accidentally or intentionally?
Speaker 2: Intentionally. Intentionally because they will they they they will see that the the Ukrainians cannot fight Russians without not only Western weapons, but without logistic and other help from the West, active help. And the active help so so long as long as we have seen it in the last four years and especially in the last two years have not been enough to change the situation on the ground. So I I think that we will then, if this work indeed continues for another year, we will unfortunately see also direct involvement of troops of of some kind of countries in the West. Two are named already.
Maybe there will be more in the conflict. And I would very much like to avoid this, but the the danger is there. And but maybe talk to I I disagree with you, Mario, about about Trump. I think that what Trump does to Russia is to put pressure on Putin. He wants the war to end.
And he's in in this way by putting pressure, by blackmailing Putin, if you want, you know, saying I will cut you off from the oil. I will I'll I'll do I'll I'll I'll get the Indians out. The Indians are not, by the way, out. The Indians are playing the game like all the others are playing. Like the central agents are playing.
They're saying yes to the West and yes to Russia. We've seen the facts. I mean, Russia is continuing to sell oil and gas.
Speaker 0: Just as much? Has it they said they're gonna drop it by the December. They're gonna reach 50%, but it doesn't look like it's heading there, does it?
Speaker 2: Look. I I don't believe, the western, numbers or maybe also western kind of propaganda, which is saying that the Russian economy is falling apart. You see that they are redirecting the flows that China itself has said with with the the with the the words of the prime minister of the of the of the foreign minister and the president itself, Xi Jinping, that it's not in Chinese interest that Russia loses. Russia has to win against the West. So China will support Russia as way as the same way as the West is supporting Ukraine.
Maybe more behind the scenes, but we see it. And Trump understands this. And I I would put now the the picture the the change the picture answer your questions. In Russia, there are two factions. This is important to see.
One faction is for fighting, for the fighting for Odessa because this faction, there's a military FSB officers who say without conquering larger part of Ukraine, we will not be the winner. We will not get our great status, great power status back on the world stage, and nobody will respect us anymore. And the other faction is becoming stronger, which is saying, Putin, you have a deal. You have a deal with Trump. Use a deal before the midterms election in The United States as long as president Trump has his powers to change things and to do this deal with with with you, with Russians.
And that mean the deal means that Russia will fully engage economically with United States in energy partnership in the Arctic. Trump will get what he wants. He will get Russia maybe a little bit way out of the Chinese orbit. And, of course, there are a lot of ideas of selling pipelines north and stream to to to America so that Russian gas as an American gas will flow to to Europe. All these plants exist, and they will be immediately realized if the signature is there over peace plants.
So Putin is also under pressure in his own elite by his business people to stop this war right now, and I think this element should also not be forgotten.
Speaker 0: Interesting. Who do you think are the the main voices in in that group?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I think And
Speaker 0: does Putin and do you think Putin listens to them? We see
Speaker 2: we see we see, for example, what Dmitryev is doing, Kirill Dmitryev, who is who studied in The United States, who seems to be even a good friend of Witkov Witkov, and they go along quite well. And I wouldn't be astonished if Dmitryev will become the next foreign minister in the Russian Federation. But and we also know that there are conflicts between Witkov and sorry. Conflicts between Kirill Dmitryev and Lavrov. Lavrov said, well, the foreign policy is mine.
What is Mithril doing there? But we have seen that the negotiations, the main negotiations, fruitful negotiations are being conducted not by the minister of foreign affairs of Russia, but by by the Mithril. And be Mithril is a spokesman of this business community, of people who want to get out of the sanction regime, who wants to get money and do money, and here they understand there's a huge chance to win The United States again over, like, in the in the maybe thirty years ago on their side and then have a deal over the heads of the Europeans like Yalta and redefine the European architecture by The United States by
Speaker 0: Sounds like a sounds like a sounds like a dream to Putin. Yeah. If you look at Putin's efforts to
Speaker 2: The it's not the dream. It's it's I think it is we're we're very close to reality if if if certain things would work like we're discussing now. But, of course, things could go in a completely different direction as Paul has described and mentioned that the war can continue for ten years. So both options are realistic.
Speaker 0: Paul, in terms of what Alexander said initially, if the war continues, the likelihoods of Europe being directly involved in this war increases dramatically. And we've been talking about this over the last few years, crossing that red line, crossing that next red line, and then Russia test that Oreshnik missile. We going to get into a nuclear conflict? It seems no one's talking about it right now even though the war has been escalated more than ever. Are we first, do you agree that this is a significant risk?
And based on that risk, then wouldn't you say that the war has taken too long considering this is a war defacto war between more than two nuclear armed powers?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I wanna decouple the risks. So there's the risk of Europe getting involved and the risk of nuclear war. I don't think that those are one in the same, not necessarily by any means. Perhaps if Europe stepped into Russian territory, maybe.
But even then but just to answer the first question, yeah, of course, the risk of Europe getting involved, if you wanna use that word risk, goes up the more that time progresses. You wouldn't
Speaker 0: you wouldn't use the word risk? Well Europe should be should be involved more involved?
Speaker 1: I think if there there's a case that Europe, for its own security, may may decide that it wants to get involved, and I think that that's a very acceptable decision at this point when we look at the first two world wars and how those ended involved other people getting involved and pushing things over the line. It wouldn't be a surprise at all if that happened in Ukraine. And the longer it takes, the more likely that becomes. Whether that actually
Speaker 0: means go ahead. Can you elaborate a bit? I'm genuinely curious to get your stance. So where do you think is the strategic benefit for Europe to get involved, and does that outweigh the risks in, obviously, going into a nuclear conflict or a bigger impact on the world economy?
Speaker 1: Sure. So if it becomes clear that Russia is just pushing Ukraine back and Ukraine can't hold them back, which is not the case. I just wanna be clear right now. But if that becomes clear, at that point, Europe may decide to actually put troops on the ground in Ukraine to prevent that outcome. And they have said so in the past.
I can't remember off the top of my head because it's actually been over a year now. I think it was France that said, you know, if that situation, yeah, happened, we would step in and intervene at that point. You know, if those troops remain on Ukrainian territory they're just pushing Russia out, then I I don't think there's a huge risk at all of nuclear war. And I don't think there's a huge risk even if they push past onto Russian territory, but I obviously, that risk is bigger than if they remain on Ukrainian territory. The reason I don't think the the risk of nuclear war is that high, well, I actually have, like, two thirty minute videos on this topic.
So I just have to be really succinct and just know there's a lot more to it. But, basically, you know, for for that nuclear button to be pressed, it causes just as much damage to to Putin and the people who press that button as anybody else. Even in Russia, Putin isn't just the decision maker who can just launch nukes of his own volition. There still has to be other people who do that, and it turns out that those are the exact people who would probably come to power in Russia if Putin's regime fell and Putin was taken out. And so the the incentives don't align for Russia to actually push the nuclear button.
They do align for them to use nuclear weapons as a threat to prevent more conventional outcomes, which is exactly what they've done.
Speaker 0: But there are voices in in Putin's administration in the Kremlin that do want to escalate this war. There's even been people talking about a tactical nuclear strike with a warning given to Ukrainians so they can evacuate the area. I'm sure you've seen those reports. So wouldn't you worry that these voices as well could have an impact on what happens on the ground if Europe gets involved? Because Russia has been pretty clear, and it's always been it's always been said that, you know, when someone says something, gotta believe them as well to not just dismiss it immediately.
And Russia has said that if you if European troops are on the ground, they become legitimate targets. And if and it just makes it a lot easier for things to get out of control when you've got troops on the ground because people are worried now with the hybrid warfare we're seeing that that could get out of control. At troops on the ground, things get a lot more dangerous and complex.
Speaker 1: Russia has said a lot of things about nuclear weapons that they haven't followed through on. They've said a lot of red lines that have been crossed, and, they never fired the nukes. And that comes to tactical nukes early on in the war as well. Again, Russia has no incentives to actually fire a nuke. They have a lot of incentives to talk about it, and that just kinda goes back to the strategy of nuclear weapons, honestly, from the very beginning.
Speaker 0: What do you think their red line is today? We've talked about it for years. I'm sure there is a red line. You know, if you try to kill Putin, for example, I'm sure if you strike Moscow with a with a with a a with a that's a red line. Many people have said that Crimea is a red line.
Now the Donbas is slowly becoming a red line as well. What do you think is is a is a
Speaker 1: My opinion is that the only the only real red line is if another country actually fires a nuclear missile at Russia. Then, of course, they would fire their nuclear missiles. I'm sure they have other red lines in their brains, but I I doubt that they would actually fire if it came down to that. Again, it comes down to the the system that Risk
Speaker 0: reward ratio. Oh, the system is the approval the approval system that there's no one button that so there's more systems involved hierarchical systems in Russia than there is in in Western countries. Correct? China is a bit of an enigma.
Speaker 1: I I don't know all the specifics, but, you know, I do know that there's more than just Putin. And for example, you can look at the Soviet Union where the conditions were reached for a nuclear sub where they should have, you know, according to protocol, launched nuclear weapons. That sub commander made the decision not to do it, and it came down to the guy in the ground who, regardless of what's happening to the country, he still got a family back home, and he still wants to live. And he doesn't want the world to end a nuclear annihilation even if Putin feels backed in a corner, that that kind of thing.
Speaker 0: Alexander, I wanna kinda stick to that point as well. You said earlier that, the war continuing increases the likelihood of involvement from European troops. Paul said that there's even a case to be made that European troops do get involved, especially if Russia starts advancing faster than they are right now. If European troops do get involved, how would that look like?
Speaker 2: Well, like, I think that, first of all, there will be troops stationed simply in in the very West of Ukraine, probably not in Kyiv and not at the the frontline. But the danger exists that there will be shelling of each other that there will be some some some NATO soldiers will be killed or the Russians will be killed by NATO soldier themselves, and then I could not predict what can happen. You asked about red lines. In my view, the red line is Crimea. If Crimea will be attacked and Russia will understand, they will see that it might lose its territory, then they might launch might launch a nuke.
Donbas probably know, but I'm here really a theoretician. I don't I I I don't know. But the what we have to have in mind in all our discussions, I would I would like to to stress it. Russia has its weapons. It has all the submarines who are circumventing the The United States and Europe whenever they're in and and are not visible.
I mean, they have they can they can attack whenever they want. And this is a factor which should not be seen as a simple bluff at the Western media, the Western experts, not you, but the Western experts are, to 90% saying Russia is making a bluff with nuclear weapons. Probably, yes, at the moment. It's and I would not so much care about what experts are saying about nuke strikes. I would carefully watch what the leadership what the what the what the top leadership, but not Medvedev, but the generals and Putin themselves are saying about this.
And so far, here, I would agree with with what says Paul said, there is no danger that the Russians would use nukes. But if the western troops you have to understand it from Russian history. This is in the ranch Russian mindset. Hitler, Napoleon, and so on. If western troops will approach the Russian frontier directly, Crimea, for example, yes, then I would see the danger of of of nukes.
I would see them, really. And we have to understand this. This is this is this is an understanding of the Russian military doctrine, not only that, but also of Russian mindset, mentality, and military thinking.
Speaker 0: I do wanna point out that the nuclear doctrine for Russia was lowered last year. Initially, it was the threshold since 2020 has been, quote, when the very existence of the state of Russia, of the Russian Federation is in jeopardy. As of last year, that threshold became is when, quote, the sovereignty and or territorial integrity of Russia is threatened along with Belarus. So, essentially, the the conditions now which may justify nuclear use include receipt of reliable information about ballistic missiles attacking the territory of the Russian Federation. As of today, reports have come in saying that Ukraine for the first time yeah.
Yeah. Of course. Ukraine has used the attack in missile. So already you could say that that threshold's been met, and Russia has not implemented their nuclear doctrine, but we are getting closer. And as you said, Alexander, if if they're bluffing, okay, are bluffing.
But do we really wanna find out what their line is? Because the only way to find out is they cross the line and they actually do launch a a ballistic missile. Talking about Belarus, though, we've seen a lot of efforts with The US envoy going to Belarus, trying to reach some sort of deal there. How big of a role does Belarus play in those negotiations, especially when we saw Minsk one, Minsk two, where Lukashenko played a key role? And are these efforts, along with what the US administration is doing in India and China, could they yield any results, Paul?
And I wanna add to them the economic warfare, the economic targeting by Trump and now Zelenskyy targeting the shadow vessels, the shadow fleet vessels of Russia. All these put them all together as a strategy. Do see that will pressure as Alexander said, the intent is to pressure Russia to sign the deal. Will that work?
Speaker 1: As far as pressuring Russia to sign a deal, I don't think so. I don't think there's anything that could pressure Russia to sign a deal because I think for Putin, as Alexander said, and I agree with the war is existential. So I don't think Putin's gonna sign a deal of any sort. I think he's made it very clear he wants to keep going until he feels that he can map a victory. But will they yield results in a more important way, which is economic damage to Russia, which could ultimately lead to regime collapse?
I disagree with Alexander on this. I I agree with the narratives because I don't I just think they're narratives. I think the truth about the collapse of the Russian economy. You know, when you start taking away Russia's ability to generate revenue even more and more at a time where they're obviously showing economic stress in several different ways that are undeniable. They're selling off their gold, in several of their regions where they have, you know, been using very high recruitment bonuses to recruit soldiers.
They have had to lower those bonuses and and salaries because they're simply out of money. And so they're actually having to pull back money from their war machine, obviously, not because they want to, but because the money just isn't there. And so when you start to remove buyers like India and China, at least to a large degree, the only ones who are really buying Russian oil and keeping money flowing into that economy. When Ukraine and
Speaker 0: Turkey as well, wasn't there a deal between Trump and and and Erdogan where Trump would consider offering the fighter jets to Turkey? In return, Turkey will stop buying Russian oil. I forgot to add that to the mix.
Speaker 1: Sure. Exactly. When you start removing buyers and then Ukraine starts striking shadow fleet tankers, even if they're not taking the whole shadow fleet offline when that causes insurance prices to go up or people just don't wanna allow Russia to use their tankers anymore, that's just gonna reduce their revenue more and more. And, you know, the revenue they they can make this last a long time through inflation and through economic tricks, but they're still undermining the foundation, and that foundation doesn't last forever. And I think that that economic foundation will collapse before Ukraine's military does.
Speaker 0: And I wanna go to your first comment. Putin would never sign a deal because he sees this as an existential war. What do you mean by that? Obviously, you can't say never. That that he wants the war to end.
He's not gonna have the war last forever. At least I don't think that's what you believe. But then what is he trying to achieve if that's an existential war?
Speaker 1: It's existential for him personally. So he has to achieve a goal that he feels he can sell to the Russian people. Right now, that goal is, obviously to to take all of the Donbass. That's why he's trying to negotiate to get that given to him, but Ukraine isn't willing to give it to him. I guess, theoretically, if Ukraine was willing to give it to him, maybe he would sign a deal then.
But Ukraine knows this, and that's why Ukraine isn't willing to
Speaker 0: Excessential as in for his his grip on the regime, a grip on power. Essentially, he has to show show the Russian people and the oligarchs and people within the Kremlin that this is a win. This was all worth it. Otherwise, that could risk his grip on power.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And his life itself. I mean,
Speaker 0: why do you why do
Speaker 1: you think he's been eliminating so much of the opposition at the higher echelons of Russian society, whether that be basically, anybody with money, people in positions who he deems to be a threat throughout the entire war in Ukraine. He's been taking them out, and it's not because he's not afraid. It's because he's very afraid. He in a system like Russia's where it's an oligarchy and there's one guy at the top like Putin, if the oligarchs unite against him, he could actually lose his grip on power more quickly than a lot of people realize, and that's why he keeps the pressure internally on the political system against the oligarchs. And they they fall out of windows and shoot themselves in the back of a back of the head and things of that sort.
Speaker 0: Last question for you, Paul, before I get Alexander response on these points, then what is a victory for Russia, and what is a victory for Ukraine?
Speaker 1: A victory for Russia at a minimum is is taking the Donbass. It's probably more than that, but that's probably they'd at least be willing to sign peace terms, and I think they would go back and try to take more of Ukraine later. That was obviously their initial goal when they invaded the country to take the whole country or at least to topple the Ukrainian regime. Maybe they're still trying to do that, and that that's also part of their victory. Take the Donbas and topple the Ukrainian regime.
I think a victory for Ukraine is obviously getting Russian troops to leave their territory, which militarily seems very difficult, but these things aren't always accomplished militarily. It's probably accomplished through regime collapse. We see that, for example, in the case of Afghanistan, which was an opponent of the Soviet Union. Afghanistan, a much smaller country than Ukraine. The Soviet Union, a much larger empire than Russia.
And, eventually, because that war dragged on for so long and there were different presidential changes, eventually, the Soviet Union kinda lost their appetite for that war. The new leadership no longer had to take responsibility for it because they didn't start it, and then they pulled out. Essentially, Afghanistan won just by by holding out. And so that's why I say victory for Ukraine is Russian troops pulling out most likely via regime change, however that comes about.
Speaker 0: Even if they pull out without regime change, you'd call that a victory as well? So pulling out as a victory, not the regime change itself?
Speaker 1: Pulling out is a victory. I just don't think it will happen without regime change.
Speaker 0: Understood. Alexander, as as a few points that we've discussed from the economics, warfare that we've seen, by Trump, obviously, and then Zelenskyy directly striking the vessels, shadow fleet vessels. Putin's grip on power, whether you think this is actually being threatened if Putin and I think you mentioned that early on in the discussion that Putin has to show his people that he that he got something out of this special military operation. And then I'd I'd love to get your thoughts on what is a win for Ukraine and a win for Russia. Also, you can I'd love to get you a deeper dive into the economy and Russia.
Paul says the economy is struggling. It's really hard to tell. I speak to different people. I get different indicators. Impossible to verify, but would love to get your analysis of it.
Speaker 2: My simple analysis would be on the economic front that, the war is being felt in the provinces, and it's completely not fault and not happening in the cities. Neither in Moscow, nor neither in Saint Petersburg, neither in Samara. Yes. There are drones flying into these cities, and the airports are being closed, some for several hours. But people actually I have been in Moscow, and they they don't even care.
They were they got used to this, and there were not so many killings victims in in the cities. And also soldiers from that kind of of of cities were not drawn to the the army and not fighting in Ukraine. So that's a very important thing. In the cities, there is more or less calmness, and the sufferings are in the provinces. First, point number one, that explains why the the Russian society is still in many in many ways behind Putin and the economy in the cities is running.
Maybe in a year or two, they will get the problems, especially because they don't get investment from from anywhere other than China. That's just not enough for Russia, and that will cause problems. But that is in the next two two years, we will see. Not not now. Second, very important, something what we're missing here in our discussion.
The war is not between West and and Russia. This we we have to see globally. You you as I see, the BRIC countries are so much supporting Russia also economically and psychologically and mentally that Russia feels strong by the support. And this but these these countries, especially China and India, have returned Russia the status of great power, which Russia has lost in the nineties. And so that was one of the the the aims of Putin to relinquish this all the time again.
This is not a Russian narrative. It's that seems obvious that he's at least through the war trying to regain it. And so this is the answer to your question, the Russia's gain. Russia's gain is to get back to the the the the superpower status, which we will not, of course, get that the kind of great power status militarily, not economically. Maybe maybe handed to Russia by at least by the BRICS countries, even by The United States after the war.
This will be a a victory of of of the Russian Federation plus, of course, the territories where Russians will argue with the Russians live, and therefore they have, well, freed them, rescued them from the so called fascists or whatever. So this is how Russia will sell the victory. And in many ways, yes, Russia will weaken NATO, and the security architecture of of of Europe will be in jeopardy after the of this war, which will be also a partly victory of Russia, but more Russia will not gain. What the Ukrainians will win, and I think this is also a major a major win, major gain in Ukraine, they will become member of the European Union. I think this is what the Americans are pushing for.
This is what Germans are pushing for. Ukraine will will will will get full full fledged support, financial support, economic support, all kind of support at major powers of of Europe even if the Hungarians or the Slovak will be against membership of of Ukraine in in in EU, not in NATO. NATO, they will not be members, but inside the EU. Other countries will do everything in order to sustain the strength of Ukraine.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And, Paul, you talked about how Russia's economy is struggling. Alexander, I'm gonna give you some metrics and get your thoughts on them because you said it will take a couple of years for that to show. Right now, according to the IEA, Russia's oil and fuel exports, the revenues was $11,000,000,000 last month. And that is the lowest level since the invasion began, $3,600,000,000 less than November.
The first nine months of this year, oil and gas revenue is down by 22% because of the strikes, the Ukrainian strikes and the refineries, but more importantly, the tariffs by The US. And now that's before Ukraine strikes on the Russian shadow fleet, is allowing the war to be funded. Do you think that this could pressure Putin to sign some some sort of deal, and do you think this is weakening Russia's ability to continue the war as they are at the moment?
Speaker 2: No. Because, first of all, the strikes will not continue because the Turks, as I have seen this reports, are against the Ukrainians' of the strikes against vessels, which are going there under not under Russian flag, but a different flag. They don't want to have this kind of wars in the territory in the in the in the Black Sea. And second, you know, you will you will not believe me. Yeah.
But how is Putin looking at the global economy? He understands, of course, that the Russian economy due to the falling of the oil price and due to the fact that the the gas cannot be sold to to Europe is is is relatively weakened or maybe severely weakened. But he's he would immediately not only him, but the Russians will put forward the argument yet, but the Europe is also in shape in in in in in like In
Speaker 0: bad shape.
Speaker 2: Also in bad shape. It is falling falling apart. The economy is in a very bad situation and so on and so on. And, basically, I mean, you can't say that he is completely wrong with that. So the question, there is a competition and all very strange and and, well, diabolic competition between two powers, the West and Russia over whose economy will crumble first.
Yeah? And this is the game, the the Czech game, which Moscow also plays. I don't see here any winners in this game, only losers. But that will give Putin due to the fact that the other's economy and also the night The United States may be an example. Your economy is in a better shape than the European ones, but the Americans do not want to fight you fight fight the Russian.
They want to have a peace deal with the Russians and then offer them all kind of cooperation. But the West, the Europeans, we don't have this kind of cards anymore, which we had three or four years ago when we had a lot of more economic strengths in order to to to to fight Russians in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: Paul, you wanna Paul, you want to jump in?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the strength of the European economy seems relevant on its surface. I don't personally think it's actually that relevant because for first of all, when the war started, Russia's economy was roughly equivalent to the size of Italy's economy. So Europe can struggle a whole lot and and still have a lot of margin to support Ukraine. The question is the willingness to support Ukraine.
And, of course, there's always political discourse and narratives back and forth. People want to support them. They don't. But what we've seen from Europe consistently is a trajectory towards more support for Ukraine, not less. So I think Europe, a much bigger economy than Ukraine, is going to be willing to support Ukraine longer than, than Russia can sustain.
We also talk about the the Shadow Fleet tankers. I don't think it matters if Ukraine continues to strike Shadow Fleet tankers specifically or not. Think a couple of strikes achieves the goal, which is to increase the cost of Russia
Speaker 0: The cheaper oil prices. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, we we get lower oil prices across the world. That's already lowering the revenues, but Ukraine striking just a couple of vessels, it automatically increases the risks for the carriers, and they're not gonna be willing they're gonna charge Russia a lot more. And so that increases the cost for Russia. If Ukraine wanted to completely turn off Russia's oil revenues, they wouldn't do it via the shadow fleet tankers themselves.
They would do it via the terminals that load, you know, the oil and natural gas onto tankers because that's the single point of failure. Ukraine has already struck those several times. They demonstrated that they can, and they could do them with do so with several different methods. And so if they really wanted to, you know, I guess, flip the kill switch to say on the Russian economy, that that would be the method that they would use. And so that progress, I would expect, regardless of the progression of sanctions, such and such, if Ukraine ever wants to completely turn off those revenues, they can.
And so, actually, Alexander had a very long and detailed response. So I'm gonna go back to the beginning of his response now. He mentioned he said something I agree with. You know, the Russian economy is not struggling as much in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. It's struggling more in the regions, and that's by design.
That's the way the Russian empire works. There's a reason that they had higher signing bonuses in the regions, for example, than in Moscow and Saint Petersburg because they wanted to get the people in the fringes of Russian society incentivized to join the war so that it was these fringe territories that felt the costs, and that would be both economic and also in personnel more than Moscow and Saint Petersburg because it keeps Putin's power base more secure. So, obviously, any economic challenges are going to start in the regions. That's how how Russia's designed is to keep the effects off of Moscow and Saint Petersburg. But that said, because Moscow and Saint Petersburg, it depends so much on the revenue from the regions.
Once things start to decay there to a very serious degree, eventually, that will collapse in on on the core of the empire. We already see a a lot of signs of decay in the regions. We see, for example, that Moscow has lost the ability to fund police forces in many regions, and there are now vigilante groups that are, you know, replacing them in that task. And so in this way, Moscow has lost control. And these are all the sorts of things that lead people in in the fringe regions of Russia to start thinking, like, what benefit do we get for being part of Moscow, you know, other than a threat against our lives if we oppose them?
This is how the collapse of empires begins. And so when I look at Russia's economic decline, it's going in the exact trajectory I would expect. Of course, Moscow and Saint Petersburg don't feel the effects now for these reasons, but also because Russia has been funding their war through inflation and and through savings accounts that are now running dry. So, eventually, they will feel
Speaker 0: the effects. Even less but, Paul, that's despite China continuing their support with Russia and getting closer and closer with Russia? Because but Russia's collapse is not just essentially, it doesn't China determine whether Russia will collapse or not?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And China says something with their words, they say another thing with their actions. So I would dispute the fact that China's continuing their support of Russia and that they really don't want Russia to lose at any cost because, first of all, The United States gives us tiny threat of secondary sanctions, and China stops purchasing oil from Rosneft and Lukoil, which is the main way they benefit Russia.
Speaker 0: Temp but it was temporarily, I think.
Speaker 1: They were trying
Speaker 0: waste around it.
Speaker 1: There's other, the things that have gone on where since the war began and Russia lost the European market, they've been really trying to get China to agree to build more pipelines for energy from Siberia and the Russian Far East into China, which, by the way, China desperately needs, especially if they wanna invade Taiwan because they're not an energy secure country. And China has been rather than embracing Russia in the partnership like you would expect, they have been beating Russia up on price. You know, at first, they were just refusing the deal altogether unless Russia gave them, a price that was basically equivalent to the subsidized price that Russians pay, which is basically a price where Russia doesn't get any profits. So China gets energy. Russia doesn't get any profits.
It doesn't look like China trying to prop up the Russian regime. That looks like China trying to use the Russian regime. And even as they've made progress on those talks, they still haven't agreed on price or who is going to actually pay to build the pipelines. And so when you actually look at China's actions, there's more to this. I I know we're running short on time.
I've got long videos on this. But when you actually look at China's actions, they diverge very strongly from China's words.
Speaker 0: I appreciate it. Alexander, I'll let you respond. And and last question for you. For today's, where do you think we'll be by the end of the year? By the end of this year and by the end of next year?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know. I hope I hope that by the January, maybe February, when the Munich Security Conference starts, we'll have good news on the on a deal on a kind of deal on Ukraine. There will be no peace, no real peace in Ukraine, but, I think that Trump and Putin will meet before there, and there will be some kind of reconciliation between America and Russia on further going to and, yes, I agree with with Paul that Russia is also Putin is also under pressure, economic pressure. He he can't here, are constricting ourselves. You know, the war can't go for another ten years.
And neither Ukraine nor Russia can afford doing this. I think there will be at the end of the year, we will see clearly two winners. One winner in The United States, Trump administration, which will foster this kind of peace agreement globally and also take some kind more control over European affairs because the European yeah. The zooge is united, and most of the European countries do not want to lose America. They will be with America and not with the Germans or the the Brits.
And the second winner is China. I think, yes, China doesn't want Russia to to to win 100%, but China has these instruments which Russia do not have to really put pressure on us, on the European Union, by not selling the minerals, the the resources to to to the West. We are already panicking when China only saying that you have to wait until the next ship with resources will reach your your your countries. We are panicking already, and we are so dependent on China that we have to understand this. So China has a lot of cards in its hand in order to play also in this kind of war.
Speaker 0: Paul, same question for you.
Speaker 1: By the end of the year, well, we only have two weeks.
Speaker 0: I End of end of this year, so essentially, we'll get six. You mentioned I mean, both. I mean, both. So end of this year, as in the current negotiations, you think they'll yield anything in the next couple of weeks, and more importantly by the end of next year?
Speaker 1: I would be surprised if the current negotiations yielded anything real, to be honest with you. By the end of next year, I expect to see more of the same, and we'll see the outcomes more clearly. Ukraine will, you know, likely begin using their stockpiles of Flamingo missiles, and they'll be doing even more damage on the Russian economy. We'll see more things happening starting in the regions of Russia and then again moving their way inwards to Moscow and Saint Petersburg as far as the economy. What will be interesting to see is as these, especially these military recruitment bonuses get lowered, what Russia's ability is to continue putting soldiers in their military and if they have to resort to mobilization, which has been something they've desperately tried to avoid.
Again, I think Ukraine, whatever Russia can throw at them, they can continue to hold on for definitely a year, definitely three years. And so if a peace plan is reached, it will be because Russia actually has to come to a major concession. Ukraine has been willing to talk, and they've been willing to chat, in exchange for certain things. We'll we'll see if Russia is willing to do the same.
Speaker 0: Paul, Alexander, really enjoyed the discussion. Appreciate your time. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Mario. Thanks, Alexander.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that NGOs hold about $14.12T in assets (Q2 2025), surpassing the combined 2025 GDP of Japan, Germany, and India by ~5%. The tax-exempt sector now covers universities, hospitals, and mega-endowment groups, not just charities. It can be private, politically active, and lightly regulated, shifting costs to patients and rivals. Soros/Open Society shows how tax-advantaged capital fuels influence. My quick fix: protect true direct-service charities, tax business-like income, curb giant endowments, curb sustained political activism.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸 $14 TRILLION NGO EMPIRE: TAX EXEMPT, VOTER PROOF An essay citing Federal Reserve Financial Accounts says U.S. NGOs held $14.12 trillion in assets as of Q2 2025, which is bigger than the combined 2025 GDP of Japan, Germany, and India by roughly 5%. If your brain just tried to file “NGO” under soup kitchens and service dogs, congratulations, you have the same mental model the tax code is still using. The point is not that charity is bad, because plenty of nonprofits do real, direct help. The point is that a legal structure built for modest charities now covers universities, hospital systems, foundations, and advocacy groups sitting on Wall Street sized portfolios. A corporation with that kind of balance sheet would live under constant disclosure, regulation, and taxation. A state with that kind of power would face elections and public law. But this sector sits in a sweet spot: private, tax exempt, and often politically active without being formally partisan. The economic distortion is easy to picture with two hospitals across the street charging similar rates, while the for profit pays corporate taxes and the nonprofit often does not. That “savings” does not evaporate, since it gets shifted onto patients, taxpayers, or competitors. And it gets spicier, because today’s NGO world is also a political machine, with money moving through linked 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) structures to fund litigation, advocacy, and pressure campaigns. It all points to George Soros, his son Alex, and the Open Society Foundations as an example of how tax advantaged capital can be used for long running political influence. The proposed fix is not burning down civil society, but updating the rules by protecting true direct service charities while taxing business like income, tightening rules for giant endowments, and pulling exemptions from sustained political activism. Source: @amuse
reSee.it AI Summary
I explain how the “Cartel of the Suns” was invented in the 1980s by U.S. intelligence to justify sanctions and regime change in Venezuela, turning a drug route into a political weapon. U.S. coups failed; sanctions provoke more opposition; CIA-linked drug flows connect to covert ops. A war could trigger civil war and mass migration. Trump’s pressure may yield a deal, not a war, as public leans toward diplomacy.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸🇻🇪 "TRUMP IS STARTING A WAR THAT WILL BACKFIRE - AGAINST AN ENEMY THE CIA HELPED CREATE" The Grayzone’s founder Max Blumenthal has spent years covering U.S. regime changes in Latin America, and has interviewed leaders including Maduro. Not many know the region’s history like he does. Max explains how the “Cartel of the Suns,” now sanctioned and used to justify strikes on Venezuela, was invented in the 1980s by U.S. intelligence. The CIA and DEA used Venezuela as a cocaine corridor, letting drugs “walk” through the U.S. in a covert effort to map trafficking networks. That operation, launched during the Reagan years, helped seed the narco-state narrative later used against Hugo Chávez, and now, against Maduro. What began as a secret drug route became a political weapon: branding Venezuela as a cartel state to justify sanctions, asset seizures, and military buildup. We get into: • How the “Cartel of the Suns” narrative rebrands regime change as drug enforcement. • Why U.S.-backed coups in 2002 and 2019 failed, and what’s changed. • Why most Venezuelans, even those against Maduro, oppose U.S. sanctions. • How CIA-linked drug routes are connected to today’s covert operations. • Why regime change could spark a civil war and mass migration. • The role of Miami’s anti-socialist bloc in shaping Washington’s Latin America policy. • Why Trump’s pressure campaign may end in a deal, not a war. The U.S. is still using its '80s playbook. @MaxBlumenthal believes the results will be inevitably disastrous. 00:49 - U.S. suddenly begins accusing Maduro of drug trafficking 01:29 - “Cartel of the Suns” becomes the narrative to justify escalation 02:37 - U.S. intelligence once enabled Venezuelan drug flow for covert ops 03:41 - Those ops increased, not reduced, cocaine flooding U.S. streets 04:08 - Venezuela is minor in global cocaine supply chain 11:53 - Maduro refused to arrest Guaidó - denying the U.S. a propaganda win 15:40 - Military loyalty to Chávez and Maduro crushed coup attempts 22:45 – Threats of invasion trigger “rally around the flag” effect 24:57 - Most Venezuelans - even opposition - reject sanctions 29:49 - U.S. allies like Ecuador are deeper in drug trade than Venezuela 35:54 - Full U.S. invasion would mean civil war and political blowback 36:15 - Over 70% of Americans oppose war with Venezuela 43:58 - Regime change would spike U.S. gas prices 57:36 - Foreign policy decisions bypass U.S. voters 58:37 – American public now leans toward diplomacy, not intervention
reSee.it AI Summary
I learned scientists found a 12.4-mile-thick, less-dense rock layer beneath Bermuda, about 31 miles down, acting like a raft that kept the island from sinking after its volcanoes went dormant over 30 million years ago. Analyzing seismic data from 396 earthquakes, Frazer and Park say this mantle-rock layer formed under the crust and is unlike anything else on Earth. Bermuda sits on a seafloor swell, and this hidden structure explains its persistence.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨SCIENTISTS DISCOVER MYSTERIOUS 12-MILE-THICK STRUCTURE BENEATH BERMUDA "UNLIKE ANYTHING ELSE ON EARTH" Forget the Bermuda Triangle. The real mystery is underground. Scientists have discovered an enormous rock layer beneath Bermuda that explains why the island never sank after its volcanoes went dormant over 30 million years ago, according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters. Typically, when volcanoes shut down, the cooling crust slowly sinks. But Bermuda didn't. Now we know why. A team led by seismologist William Frazer of Carnegie Science and Jeffrey Park of Yale analyzed seismic waves from 396 distant earthquakes to paint a picture of what lies beneath the island down to 31 miles deep. What they found: a 12.4-mile-thick layer of rock less dense than its surroundings, acting like a raft holding the island above the ocean floor. Nothing like it has ever been observed anywhere else on Earth. Frazer: "Typically, after the bottom of the oceanic crust, it's expected that there would be the mantle. But in Bermuda, there is this other layer emplaced beneath the crust." The layer may have formed when the last volcanic eruption pushed mantle rock into the crust, where it froze in place. Bermuda sits on an oceanic swell rising 1,640 feet above the surrounding seafloor. This hidden structure is why it's still there. Source: NY Post
