Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an
Speaker 1: amazing show for everybody today, a very consequent show, possibly
Speaker 1: our last show before the outbreak of full blown US involvement.
Speaker 1: So what do we have?
Speaker 3: But really, who the hell knows?
Speaker 2: Yeah, at this point we were both uplate monitoring what
Speaker 2: the hell was going down? So many contradictory signals. It
Speaker 2: seemed very ominous what was developing. I would say, it
Speaker 2: still seems very ominous. So we'll just take you through
Speaker 2: everything we know at this point. We'll also track some
Speaker 2: of the additional news from yesterday, the Israelis targeted runny
Speaker 2: and state broadcasters. Shocking and extraordinary scenes playing out live
Speaker 2: on TV.
Speaker 3: Will bring you that.
Speaker 2: Also, Israel's implemented a policy to block their own citizens,
Speaker 2: and apparently there was a heated conversation between our own
Speaker 2: ambassador trying to block US citizens from fleeing that country
Speaker 2: that is, of course now under attack. We've got a
Speaker 2: bunch of Tucker and Steve Bannon clips to show you
Speaker 2: their take on what's going on here.
Speaker 3: As Trump spent.
Speaker 2: Some portion of yesterday also sniping at Tucker, jabbing him
Speaker 2: with the most trumpion of insults. You don't even have
Speaker 2: a TV show anymore, was like really.
Speaker 1: Hitting where I heard a man who went on podcasts?
Speaker 2: Okay, yes, indeed, So anyway, interesting to see what the
Speaker 2: conversation is unfolding there. Glenn Greenwald is going to join us.
Speaker 2: He's going to talk about the role of media disinformation,
Speaker 2: both right now so that you can help parse through
Speaker 2: all of this flood of information that is coming at you,
Speaker 2: and also drawing out some of the parallels with how
Speaker 2: the media was weaponized in the build up to the
Speaker 2: a Rock War. So that's going to be a really
Speaker 2: important conversation. There are other things happening in the world, though.
Speaker 2: We have some really wild updates out of the Minnesota
Speaker 2: after those attempted assassination of two lawmakers, one of them
Speaker 2: you know, actually killed and murdered by this madiac who
Speaker 2: apparently went to the doors of two other lawmakers as well.
Speaker 3: Anyway, I'll save.
Speaker 2: All the details for that story, but really crazy details
Speaker 2: that we're learning now. We also California Attorney General reached
Speaker 2: out to us and said, hey, I want to come
Speaker 2: on the show and talk about this lawsuit we've filed
Speaker 2: against the Trump administration with reguard to federalizing the National Guard.
Speaker 2: Extremely timely conversation because there are hearings with regard to
Speaker 2: that lawsuit in court today. So looking forward to speaking
Speaker 2: with him as well, and.
Speaker 3: Probably going to get to the AMA Live.
Speaker 2: There's a little bit of scheduling question mark, so if
Speaker 2: not today, we may kick it to the Counterpoints crew tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Anyway, so we will see.
Speaker 2: But Sager, we wanted to really make sure to thank
Speaker 2: everybody who's been supporting the show because it really has
Speaker 2: been quite extraordinary over the past several weeks.
Speaker 1: That's right, Yesterday was one of our biggest days ever
Speaker 1: in terms of the history of Breaking Points, which is
Speaker 1: very you know, I mean, it's very gratifying in terms
Speaker 1: of both the amount of work we put in, but
Speaker 1: really the entire team. So thank you to everybody's been
Speaker 1: supporting us. You can do so at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 1: We're really I mean, this is a special moment for
Speaker 1: the history of the show, not even really in terms
Speaker 1: of our numbers, but I think in terms of being
Speaker 1: able to have a place where you can both get
Speaker 1: the news and viewpoints which are just not available in
Speaker 1: the mainstream. As we hurdle towards you know, another catastrophic war.
Speaker 1: So with that, Crystal, why don't we go ahead and
Speaker 1: get into it.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, as I was saying all kinds of things unfolding
Speaker 2: yesterday and sorry you can jump in if I forget
Speaker 2: any of the key details here, but we started to
Speaker 2: get reports, specifically on of Israeli media, that Trump was
Speaker 2: hours away from signing an executive order that would get
Speaker 2: us directly involved. Now, of course, we are already involved
Speaker 2: in Israel's war with Iran. It's our weapons. We are
Speaker 2: providing defensive support a run to Israel. There are indications
Speaker 2: as well that we may have been involved with the targeting.
Speaker 2: Trump was involved in the Sun Refuge leading up to this,
Speaker 2: so we are already involved. But the next step forward
Speaker 2: were backward, dramatically backward, in my opinion, would be for
Speaker 2: us to get directly involved in the actual bombing of Iran.
Speaker 2: So these reports start to emerge in Israeli media specifically.
Speaker 2: Then we start to see all this information about all
Speaker 2: of these military assets being moved rapidly into the region.
Speaker 2: Then we get word that number one, Trump is not
Speaker 2: going He's he's in Canada at the G seven meetings.
Speaker 2: Number One, he's not going to sign on to the
Speaker 2: joint statement that they're putting out calling for de escalation.
Speaker 2: He later backtracked on that by the way they changed
Speaker 2: in the language. He did sign on, but this was
Speaker 2: the indication we were getting he wasn't going to sign
Speaker 2: on to that, and he was going to leave those
Speaker 2: meetings early, come back to DC, and he wanted all
Speaker 2: of the relevant players to join him in the situation
Speaker 2: room at two three am whatever it was that he
Speaker 2: was getting back. So everyone's looking of this and going,
Speaker 2: holy shit, this looks really bad. All the indications are
Speaker 2: there that we are joining this thing directly, and it's
Speaker 2: happening imminently. In addition, Trump puts out this truth. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up on the screen.
Speaker 3: This is a two.
Speaker 2: He says, Iran should have signed the deal. I told
Speaker 2: them to sign. What a shame and waste of human life.
Speaker 2: Simply stated, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I said
Speaker 2: it over and over again. Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran. Tehran,
Speaker 2: of course, being the largest city in Iran, home to
Speaker 2: some ten million people directly in the city sixteen million
Speaker 2: if you talk about the surrounding areas, just you know,
Speaker 2: absolute insanity here and seems like a direct threat coming.
Speaker 2: As I said at the time when we had these reports,
Speaker 2: and he's leaving the G seven early and he's going
Speaker 2: to the situation room, saga, and so we were all,
Speaker 2: you know, just calling everyone we could get any information from,
Speaker 2: glued to our screens, dune scrolling, trying to figure.
Speaker 3: Out what the hell was going to happen.
Speaker 1: I spent a lot of last night on the phone,
Speaker 1: and basically here's what I could gather is that what
Speaker 1: we are in the most critical period of the next
Speaker 1: forty eight hours. The situation room meeting in the White
Speaker 1: House is narrowed down to basically two separate options. A
Speaker 1: lot of what I've heard has now been backed up
Speaker 1: by the New York Times the Situation Room meeting. There
Speaker 1: are two separate options now effectively before the President. One
Speaker 1: is to drop these bunker busting bombs, these thirty thousand
Speaker 1: pound munitions from American B twos. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: why this odd necessitates only in pure US offensive involvement
Speaker 1: is that these munitions are so large is that they
Speaker 1: can only be carried by the B two platform, so
Speaker 1: it must be dropped by the United States of America.
Speaker 1: Part of the reason why some US Central Command requested
Speaker 1: so many of those assets. Much of these is not
Speaker 1: only the Carrier Strike Group which is now left in
Speaker 1: the Indo Pacific and heading on its way to the
Speaker 1: Middle East, but a lot of it is actually carrier
Speaker 1: refueling tanks that are being spread all across from the
Speaker 1: United States heading over to the Middle East. So what
Speaker 1: what it would require is just to explain the military
Speaker 1: operation is it's not a single bunker busting bomb in
Speaker 1: the foid Oh facility because it's so deep underground. This
Speaker 1: munition was developed in two thousand and four by George W.
Speaker 1: Bush specifically to go after both Iran and North Korean facilities,
Speaker 1: which are underground. It requires dropping a thirty thousand pound
Speaker 1: bomb and then multiple drops over and over and over again,
Speaker 1: effectively making a hold and dropping a bomb another one
Speaker 1: in the hole, over and over. This would be one
Speaker 1: of the most honestly one of the most shocking bombing
Speaker 1: missions which will be captured on camera. Since Hiroshima people
Speaker 1: are really not even really prepared for what it will
Speaker 1: look like. We have tested the munition that was I
Speaker 1: think it was under Trump's first term. That's the one
Speaker 1: option on the table. The other option on the table
Speaker 1: is Jade Vance Section and Steve Wickhoff basically fly to
Speaker 1: the Middle East and meet directly face to face with
Speaker 1: Iranian officials. This was an option that was relatively on
Speaker 1: the table as of last night. However, the President is
Speaker 1: really pouring cold water all over this cause we put
Speaker 1: a two B please up on the screen. President Trump
Speaker 1: says he has not reached out to Iran for peace
Speaker 1: talks in any way, shape or form. Trump calls dozens
Speaker 1: of reports suggesting otherwise, quote highly fabricated fake news. Let's
Speaker 1: also go to the next one, please, because this is
Speaker 1: very very important. These are comments aboard Air Force One
Speaker 1: roughly around two thirty am Eastern time. Quote. Trump wants
Speaker 1: a real end to the nuclear problem with Iran. This morning,
Speaker 1: it will find him in the White House situation room. Quote.
Speaker 1: I didn't say I was looking for a ceasefire. This
Speaker 1: is in reaction to some comments by Emmanuel Macron, he said,
Speaker 1: quote he wants a real end with Iran giving up
Speaker 1: entirely on nukes, effectively unconditional surrender from the Iranians on
Speaker 1: their nuclear program. The Israelis are quote aren't selling up
Speaker 1: their barrage on Iran. He predicted. You are going to
Speaker 1: find out over the next two days. You're going to
Speaker 1: find out. Nobody slowed up so far. Asked his thinking
Speaker 1: for calling for Tehran to evacuate, he says, I just
Speaker 1: want people to be safe. He says he needs to
Speaker 1: be present at the White House so that he can
Speaker 1: be well versed and not to rely on phones to
Speaker 1: know what's happening. And he said he quitted undecided about
Speaker 1: sending Wickcoffer advance to meet with Iran. Quote. I may,
Speaker 1: but it depends what happens when I get back. So
Speaker 1: we had a diplomatic option which is on the table. However,
Speaker 1: almost all US public communications at this point from Donald
Speaker 1: Trump saying I'm not interested in the ceasefire, i haven't
Speaker 1: reached out to Iran, I'm not involved in direct talks
Speaker 1: with them, do not indicate that those are going to
Speaker 1: be successful. All of this could be a ruse. Keep
Speaker 1: that in mind. That's basically what a Trump administration'smo on
Speaker 1: all of this is. However, I mean, just from reading
Speaker 1: the tea leaves as to where they are, we could
Speaker 1: all be, you know, very pleasantly and shockingly surprised. But
Speaker 1: I am extremely not optimistic. The go or a no
Speaker 1: go order will come in the next forty eight hours.
Speaker 1: The assets are now mostly in place. You've got the
Speaker 1: Carrier Strike Group on its way. We already have huge
Speaker 1: amounts of US military assets. But the real sign of
Speaker 1: what is to come, if it were to happen, are
Speaker 1: the movement of those refueling tankers. That is exact exactly
Speaker 1: what you would see in a offensive scenario. So things,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is as bad as against this is
Speaker 1: March two thousand and three. I mean, this is it.
Speaker 1: The go or the no go order is coming soon.
Speaker 1: And I think what's so shocking has been the span
Speaker 1: of less than a week. Let's really take a step back.
Speaker 1: This Director of National Intelligence, Tulsey Gabbard. Maybe she was lying.
Speaker 1: I don't think she was. In March she said and
Speaker 1: signed that Iran is not anywhere close to a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1: In fact, the latest intelligence estimates that it would take
Speaker 1: them nearly three years to build some sort of nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1: All of this is a crisis manufactured by Israel and
Speaker 1: now Donald Trump effectively to force this issue. What's also crazy,
Speaker 1: You know, I was almost thinking about this, and it
Speaker 1: sounds insane to say the Iraq war was more legitimate
Speaker 1: than this one, in that George W. Bush had a
Speaker 1: year's long propaganda campaign against the American people. They faked
Speaker 1: the National Intelligence estimate around WMD in Iraq. They've made
Speaker 1: their case to the United Nations by Colin Powell. It
Speaker 1: was all lies, don't get me wrong. Yeah, And they
Speaker 1: sought a bipartisan congressional authorization from for the war in Iran.
Speaker 1: You can say, and part of the reason Bush survived
Speaker 1: to know for is Kerry voted for the war two
Speaker 1: and so did Hillary. Then all the Democrats supported, I mean,
Speaker 1: the vast majority of the Democrats supported, the vast majority
Speaker 1: of the entire country supported it. This is a unilateral
Speaker 1: action by Trump and Israel, basically saying our own Western
Speaker 1: intelligence is bullshit. And so on top of that, the
Speaker 1: crisis right now. I mean, look, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: people are hyperventilating, et cetera. The consequences on this are immense,
Speaker 1: and I mean we're going to spend probably the entire
Speaker 1: show talking about this, but just to you know, give
Speaker 1: people the immediate picture that we will have probably a
Speaker 1: go or no go order in the next forty eight hours.
Speaker 1: I would love to see Steve Wickcoff and Jadvance get
Speaker 1: on a plane to the Middle East and meet with
Speaker 1: the Iranians, you know, face to face. That would be
Speaker 1: a benefit, of course, but there's big questions about what
Speaker 1: can actually happen on the Iranian side as well. Their
Speaker 1: entire you know, top military echelon is dead. They may
Speaker 1: be in a position like the Germans or the Japanese
Speaker 1: being asked for unconditional surrender, seeing regime change and saying
Speaker 1: screw it, We're going to fight it out to the end,
Speaker 1: to the death, you know. I mean, this is not
Speaker 1: an uncommon situation for people who are forced into that.
Speaker 1: I hope they don't choose that course, but it's very possible.
Speaker 2: As Trump was bragging about some of the negotiators, some
Speaker 2: of the top negotiators he's working with, we're also assassinated,
Speaker 2: you know, which is very intentional on the part of Israel.
Speaker 2: And you know a playbook that they've used time and
Speaker 2: time again to Sober's point about how just at the
Speaker 2: end of March, So just a few months ago, Toulsey
Speaker 2: Gabbard was testifying that no Iran is nowhere close to
Speaker 2: a nuclear whether they're not trying to pursue one, it
Speaker 2: would take three years if they didn't begin to try
Speaker 2: to pursue one. Trump was asked about that on Air
Speaker 2: Force one last night, and he said, I don't care
Speaker 2: what she said. I think they were very close to
Speaker 2: having them. Don't care about the assessment of his own
Speaker 2: intelligence agencies. He'll just take Bob's word for it, apparently.
Speaker 2: And so here's the logic that the Israelis will be
Speaker 2: pushing and the many hawks within this administration will be
Speaker 2: pushing as well. Okay, now that they have not come
Speaker 2: anywhere close yet to destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, nor can
Speaker 2: they without our assistance, but they have increased the likelihood
Speaker 2: and the logic of Iran actually now rushing to develop
Speaker 2: a nuclear weapon, because even people who were previously moderate
Speaker 2: are going to look at the State Affairs and say,
Speaker 2: we were fools to trust the US. They were lying
Speaker 2: to us, they were using these diplomatic negotiations as a
Speaker 2: ruse to create a distraction while Israel comes in and
Speaker 2: attacks and assassinates of our top political military leadership. So
Speaker 2: we have no other choice at this point in order
Speaker 2: to have some sort of deterrent effect in order for
Speaker 2: this government to have a shot at surviving, now we
Speaker 2: do need to rush forward and develop nuclear weapons, something
Speaker 2: that again our own intelligence community said they were not
Speaker 2: doing previously. So Israel will say, you know, and they're
Speaker 2: not wrong about this. Now Iran will rush to develop
Speaker 2: a bomb unless you come in the United States of
Speaker 2: America and basically rescue our asses and not only destroy
Speaker 2: their nuclear capabilities. Because I think it's also really important
Speaker 2: to keep in mind that in a lot of I mean,
Speaker 2: that is just basically a pretext to enable this long
Speaker 2: desired war against is against Iran that Israel has been
Speaker 2: pushing for for years and years bbing done now who
Speaker 2: specifically many of the bipartisan foreign policy blob here in
Speaker 2: the United States as well. So the nuclear capabilities are
Speaker 2: in a lot of ways a pretext. But in any case,
Speaker 2: that's what they will be selling to Trump, and you know,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of indications here that he may
Speaker 2: well be receptive to that logic. Certainly, the idea that
Speaker 2: so what was floated in the press that he's objecting
Speaker 2: to was this idea.
Speaker 3: That they're going to put forward.
Speaker 2: The Trump administration is going to put forward sort of
Speaker 2: one final deal offer on the table, and he's who knows,
Speaker 2: because he's now admitted to lying to us and lying
Speaker 2: to the Iranians and lying to the whole world about
Speaker 2: his intent to move forward with the diplomatic negotiation, So
Speaker 2: who knows what he's really thinking. You certainly can't take
Speaker 2: his word for literally anything. You also can't take these
Speaker 2: news reports at face value either, because they're perfectly willing
Speaker 2: to leak lies in order to shape the information space
Speaker 2: as well. So that's why it's so difficult to discern
Speaker 2: what is going on here. But he's pushing back on
Speaker 2: the idea that he has any interest in offering any
Speaker 2: sort of a deal, and even if there was some hey,
Speaker 2: we're going to put one final deal on the table.
Speaker 2: The content of that deal matters a lot because if
Speaker 2: it contains, if it's effectively the quote unquote Libya option,
Speaker 2: then that is a poison pill, directly pushed again by
Speaker 2: the Israelis and oother neocons in this administration to try
Speaker 2: to guarantee that it is something that the Iranians could
Speaker 2: never ever accept. Go ahead and put a two D
Speaker 2: up on the screen. This speaks again to what Trump
Speaker 2: has been saying about the possibility of, you know, a
Speaker 2: ceasefire or some sort of diplomatic solution.
Speaker 3: He says.
Speaker 2: Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron of France mistakenly said that
Speaker 2: I left the G seven summit in Canada to go
Speaker 2: back to DC to work on a ceasefire between Israel
Speaker 2: and Iran.
Speaker 3: Wrong.
Speaker 2: He has no idea why I am now on my
Speaker 2: way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do
Speaker 2: with a ceasefire much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not,
Speaker 2: Emmanuel always gets it wrong.
Speaker 3: Stay tuned now, Sager.
Speaker 2: My brain is a little adult at this point, but
Speaker 2: correct me if I'm wrong. Earlier yesterday, Trump said he
Speaker 2: wanted to see Iran in.
Speaker 3: Israel get to a ceasefire.
Speaker 2: So you know, this is just all over the place
Speaker 2: in terms of what he's saying, and I think intentionally, So.
Speaker 3: Real quick, here, we could put a four up on
Speaker 3: the screen.
Speaker 2: After Trump said everyone needs to evacuate to Ran, you
Speaker 2: can see miles and miles.
Speaker 3: Of backed up by the way. There's huge fuel shortages.
Speaker 2: Apparently there's no gas at the gas stations in this
Speaker 2: area at this point, and so people are trying to flee.
Speaker 2: But this is a city again of ten million people.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a larger metro area than New York City.
Speaker 2: To give you a sense of the size and scope.
Speaker 2: Just imagine for a moment that Iran told us New
Speaker 2: York residents you have to evacuate, and the waste of
Speaker 2: human lives, I mean, in just this direct threat. And
Speaker 2: it's much more horrifying coming from US because Iran doesn't
Speaker 2: really have the capability to back that up, but we do.
Speaker 3: So Michael Tracy called it, I.
Speaker 2: Think the most irresponsible statement that has ever been made
Speaker 2: in the history of the presidency. And it's hard to
Speaker 2: think of what could compete with it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know if I'd have to think
Speaker 1: about that one, but it'll rank up there just because
Speaker 1: of the glibness of the fact that it is not
Speaker 1: one where we're in a declared war. This is not
Speaker 1: Tokyo in nineteen forty five, Like, we're not engaged in
Speaker 1: an existential battle to the death. This is a war
Speaker 1: of choice and a war of preemption more than anything.
Speaker 1: And look, it's not only insane to just say everyone
Speaker 1: should evacuate or Tehran, but it's also buying into this
Speaker 1: is really framework about the existentialism of Iran At the
Speaker 1: end of the day. Look, existential is a word that
Speaker 1: has meaning. I'm speaking directly to Bill Ackman and too
Speaker 1: many of the other neocons here. Existential means life or death. Okay, Iran,
Speaker 1: even with their shoddy ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and
Speaker 1: all of that, it's a regional threat. So is it
Speaker 1: existential to Israel? I mean, we could debate that. I
Speaker 1: could make a case for it. Is it existential to
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia? Yeah, you could debate that, and you could
Speaker 1: make a case for it. Is it existential to New
Speaker 1: York City? No, there's actually one nuclear power or quote
Speaker 1: rogue nuclear power capable of reaching the mainland United States.
Speaker 1: That's called North Korea. That's actually an existential threat. And
Speaker 1: that's why the North Korean regime lives to fight another day,
Speaker 1: because they've developed that capability. Even if Iron had a
Speaker 1: nuclear up when it would not be an existential threat
Speaker 1: to the United States in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: That implies the ability literally to hit the US homeland
Speaker 1: with a nuclear weapon. And yet the bb net and
Speaker 1: Yahoo and Trump now framework is that this is literally
Speaker 1: an existential threat enough so that it requires the full
Speaker 1: force of the United States military. And here's bbe. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is straight out of O two, straight out of three.
Speaker 1: America first should not mean America dead FIRSTUS tel Aviv
Speaker 1: Now it's New York. According to him, Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: So are you going to target the Supreme Leader.
Speaker 4: Look, we're doing what we need to do. I'm not
Speaker 4: going to get into the details, but we've targeted their
Speaker 4: top nuclear scientists. It's basically Hitler's nuclear team. You know,
Speaker 4: we got them. We still have work to do on
Speaker 4: other sites. We have targeted their ballistic missile manufacturing facilities.
Speaker 4: Understand this. You see these bombs. You saw a single bomb.
Speaker 4: It's one ton bomb, John dropping on Tel Aviv and
Speaker 4: other places, causing killing men, women and children. They're deliberately
Speaker 4: targeting our population. We're not doing that. We're targeting their
Speaker 4: military sites, their nuclear sites, their ballistic missile sites, so
Speaker 4: they don't have twenty thousands of these that no country
Speaker 4: could survive. What I'm saying is that we're not merely
Speaker 4: protecting ourselves. We're protecting everybody. We're protecting our Arab neighbors
Speaker 4: with whom we want to expand the peace as we
Speaker 4: did under President Trump's leadership in the Abraham Accords. That
Speaker 4: will be possible if Iran is defanged. We're also protecting
Speaker 4: the world. They have ballistic missiles that can now reach
Speaker 4: deep into Europe and soon could reach the United States.
Speaker 4: And imagine what this regime that caused death to America
Speaker 4: every time that bombed your American embassies, that murdered two
Speaker 4: hundred forty one Marines in Beirut, that killed and injured
Speaker 4: thousands of American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, that try
Speaker 4: to blow up a restaurant in Washington, that burns the
Speaker 4: American flag. You want these people to have nuclear weapons
Speaker 4: and the means to deliver them to your cities. Today.
Speaker 4: It's tell Aviv Tomorrow's New York. Look, I understand America first,
Speaker 4: I don't understand America dead. That's what these people.
Speaker 1: Want, America dead. We're nobody in America is going to
Speaker 1: die because of Iran. It's just preposterous. But that's Look,
Speaker 1: this is straight out of two thousand and two. We
Speaker 1: don't want the smoking gun to be mushroom cloud. You
Speaker 1: might as well put you know, Condoleeza Rice's face right
Speaker 1: all over this. And now these also giving away the
Speaker 1: game because it's not just about the nuclear weapons program. Look,
Speaker 1: this is obvious from day one. This is a regime
Speaker 1: decapitoation operation with a nuclear sideshow. The nuclear aspect is
Speaker 1: just a pretext basically to incite regime change. But they're
Speaker 1: really giving it away here, I mean basically talking about
Speaker 1: making the Middle East great again. BB gave an interview
Speaker 1: yesterday to Iranian opposition. He says, if the US helps
Speaker 1: Israel assassinate the Ayatola, it will quote help end the conflict.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Officials tell us that the President flatly rejected a plan
Speaker 5: an opportunity that the EU that the Israelis had to
Speaker 5: take out the Supreme leader. Do you understand his concern?
Speaker 5: My My understanding is his concern is that this would
Speaker 5: escalate the conflict beyond where it is already.
Speaker 4: It's not going to escalate the conflict. It's going to
Speaker 4: end the conflicts. Imagine what will happen if they had
Speaker 4: nuclear weapons and the ICBMs, the intercontinental ballistic missiles to
Speaker 4: deliver it to every place on Earth. We're preventing the
Speaker 4: most terrific war imaginable, and we're bringing peace to the
Speaker 4: Middle East. And I believe that after our action, we're
Speaker 4: going to be able to bring the Middle East to
Speaker 4: new heights that nobody even imagined, you know, make the
Speaker 4: Middle East great again, make it truly.
Speaker 1: Great, make the Middle East great again. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: it's insaneosteris It's the same thing. I mean, it's literally
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty three all over again. We've got the Shah's
Speaker 1: son here, he knows everything about Iran, put him in power.
Speaker 1: He got Israeli government ministers, you know, putting out photos
Speaker 1: with the sha son. I wish I was making this
Speaker 1: shit up. It's insane. I mean two thousand, you know,
Speaker 1: I realized this is probably a massive segment of our audience.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really remember a lot of the details of
Speaker 1: the war in Iraq. But the war in Iraq had
Speaker 1: their own, you know, Shah. His name was Akment Chalabi
Speaker 1: and he was a guy rolling around here in Washington,
Speaker 1: and he was friends and he convinced Bush and a
Speaker 1: lot of other neo kons here in DC that he
Speaker 1: was representative of the real Iraqi people. The reason you
Speaker 1: guys have never heard of him is because about six
Speaker 1: months into the war, they're like, yeah, this ain't gonna work.
Speaker 1: And you know who they ended up elected, people who
Speaker 1: ended up igniting a massive civil war in their country,
Speaker 1: which killed you know, thousands of American soldiers, millions of
Speaker 1: Iraqi citizens, and to this day it remains basically an
Speaker 1: Iranian outpost. Ironically, if you really think about it, so
Speaker 1: all together, like everything that is old is new again,
Speaker 1: and you know, the rhetoric is exactly the same. But
Speaker 1: what's so dismaying is that people are not looking and
Speaker 1: learning the lessons of all of those And it's just
Speaker 1: so dismaying to me because the downside risk of all
Speaker 1: of this is so immense. Look, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: sit here and say World War three. But at this
Speaker 1: point I genuinely think the best case, the best case
Speaker 1: scenario for this is Libya. How did that work out?
Speaker 1: I mean, look at Benghazi, look at those cities. I
Speaker 1: mean they collapsed into disaster. Look at the Syrian Civil War.
Speaker 1: How many millions of people were affected and hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands are dead. Look at the fallout, Look at the
Speaker 1: American intervention we end up backing aside. There's civil and
Speaker 1: then this is a country ninety million people, almost one
Speaker 1: third the size of the United States. They have sizable
Speaker 1: ethnic minority populations. They have chemical and biological weapon stocks,
Speaker 1: likely you know, stash in different places, easily could come
Speaker 1: under control of this or that and the next thing,
Speaker 1: you know, what's going to happen, the same thing. We
Speaker 1: had US troops in Libya doing special operations rates fighting isis.
Speaker 1: We had to bomb Syria, I mean everybody, and we
Speaker 1: still have troops in Syria to this day. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: that happened in two thousand and fourteen. It will be
Speaker 1: a disaster and it will have ramifications for years to
Speaker 1: come and keep us embroiled in the Middle East. I mean,
Speaker 1: in the nightmare scenario, it's not World War three. I
Speaker 1: don't think, you know, Russia and China and all that
Speaker 1: were going to happen. But the nightmare scenario to me
Speaker 1: is hundreds of thousands of American troops who have to
Speaker 1: secure US interests in the Straits of Hormuz or to
Speaker 1: protect you know, oh, protect this asset, or protect that
Speaker 1: it doesn't happen, you know, all at once. Remember Vietnam. Oh,
Speaker 1: just a few advisors, that's it. All that, and then
Speaker 1: it scales up and it up and up. We went
Speaker 1: into Afghanistan with the promise that we would be put
Speaker 1: putting out the Taliban, then we would be out. We
Speaker 1: went into Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld's plan to go into Iraq
Speaker 1: as we would knock the regime over, we would replace it,
Speaker 1: would be out within two years. They literally called it
Speaker 1: a cakewalk on national television. We were there for over
Speaker 1: a decade. And so we are watching this all play
Speaker 1: out in the same way. The people, the civilians are
Speaker 1: going to suffer that a lot of American service members,
Speaker 1: you could suffer too.
Speaker 2: And everything that BB says is like the polar opposite
Speaker 2: of the truth. The idea that this aggressive, illegal war
Speaker 2: of choice would protect Americans is insane. To Soccer's point,
Speaker 2: it would put Americans at risk. It would immediately put
Speaker 2: at risk the Americans, the thousands of Americans who are.
Speaker 3: Already serving in the region.
Speaker 2: So it would and think of the catastrophic blowback and
Speaker 2: fallout from our misadventures in Iraq that spurred more terrorism
Speaker 2: that you know, they talk about Iran as like the
Speaker 2: number one sponsor of terror in the world. Like the
Speaker 2: amount of terrorism that we fomented through our disastrous you know,
Speaker 2: decision to go into a rock is unbelievable. So you
Speaker 2: talk about, you know, Libya, Okay, let's imagine they get
Speaker 2: their wish and they turn Iran into a fail state
Speaker 2: in the way that Libya is. Libya is a population
Speaker 2: of seven million people, exactly. Syria is a population of
Speaker 2: about twenty four million people.
Speaker 3: Iran is ninety million people.
Speaker 2: You think having a failed state of ninety million people
Speaker 2: is going to make the Middle East great again? Like insanity,
Speaker 2: psychopathic insanity, the amount of human misery that we would
Speaker 2: watch unfold. I mean, it's just you can't you can't
Speaker 2: wrap your head around it. And so everything that BB
Speaker 2: says is the polar opposite of reality and flies in
Speaker 2: the face of all of the lessons that we should
Speaker 2: have learned over these many years of mis adventure in
Speaker 2: the Middle East, and not even just the recent.
Speaker 3: History that we've been around and cognizant for. I mean,
Speaker 3: the reason we have this.
Speaker 2: Iranian government to start with is because US intervention in
Speaker 2: the Middle East.
Speaker 3: So you know, the fact that we're back to.
Speaker 2: The well and even contemplating this, and look, maybe he's
Speaker 2: going to decide to the last you know what, we're
Speaker 2: going to take the diplomatic option, if that's even if
Speaker 2: the space for that is even still open, because there's
Speaker 2: no doubt the space has been narrowed by the fact
Speaker 2: that they admitted and bragged about lying to the Iranians
Speaker 2: about their interest in a diplomatic resolution, not to mention
Speaker 2: the fact that the previous deal that the Iranians had
Speaker 2: agreed to under the Obama administration had immediately been you know,
Speaker 2: pulled back, and we got out of it under the
Speaker 2: first Trump administration. So it's not like we have a
Speaker 2: lot of credibility. But maybe they decide to pursue that
Speaker 2: last ditch diplomatic effort. Maybe there's enough space remaining for
Speaker 2: the Iranians to come to some sort of a deal
Speaker 2: with the US.
Speaker 3: But the fact that this is.
Speaker 2: Even being contemplated is so outrageous and unconscionable.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I mean that we could get it to
Speaker 1: that in the immediate term. I you know, I'm like you,
Speaker 1: I just hope that there is at least some off
Speaker 1: ram But I gotta tell you, I don't see it.
Speaker 1: I don't see I really really hope that I am wrong.
Speaker 1: But I have not spoken really with any person who
Speaker 1: is actually very optimistic about that possibility. You know, let's see.
Speaker 2: The Israeli yesterday started putting out threats against Iranian journalists
Speaker 2: and specifically the Iranian state broadcasters, and then let's go
Speaker 2: to a eleven guys.
Speaker 3: We can put these just.
Speaker 2: Horrifying and extraordinary images up on the screen while this
Speaker 2: woman is broadcasting live. You can see her here talking,
Speaker 2: they attack the building that she's in, and shortly thereafter,
Speaker 2: actually incredibly is she and her colleague there come come
Speaker 2: back on air and are able to you know, talk
Speaker 2: presumably about what unfolded. But I mean, this is the
Speaker 2: sort of thing soccer that's just like normalize. I mean,
Speaker 2: the number of journalists that they murdered in Gaza with
Speaker 2: scarcely a word, by the way, outside of trey yinst
Speaker 2: of Fox News from Western media about the targeting, targeted
Speaker 2: assassinations of journalists inside of Gaza.
Speaker 3: And now you have this.
Speaker 2: You know, they announced that they were going to attack
Speaker 2: this broadcaster.
Speaker 3: They did it.
Speaker 2: While they're live on air, and again silence from any
Speaker 2: sort of you know, the Western media supposedly care so
Speaker 2: much about journalism. We have to put a twelve up
Speaker 2: on the screen so you can see what I'm talking
Speaker 2: about here in terms of the threat. They say, well,
Speaker 2: the Iranian regimes television stations be attacked soon. Defense Minister
Speaker 2: cats the mouthpiece of Iranian propaganda and incitement is on
Speaker 2: its way to disappearing. So they don't even feel the
Speaker 2: need to like pretend that this was an accident or
Speaker 2: they were going after military targets. They're just happy to
Speaker 2: announce it directly blatant war crime and put the next
Speaker 2: piece up on the screen. Afterwards they confirmed they said
Speaker 2: the same. Defense Minister says, the Iranian Regimes propaganda incitement
Speaker 2: broadcasting authority was attacked by the IDF, so just out
Speaker 2: and out admitting it was them. After this all unfolded,
Speaker 2: the Iranians decided that they would go ahead and then
Speaker 2: threaten some of the Israeli propaganda channels. We could put
Speaker 2: this up on the screen channel twelve and channel thirteen,
Speaker 2: or it says evacuate the headquarters of channel twelve and fourteen.
Speaker 2: Sorry Israeli channels twelve and fourteen. Immediately this was Iran
Speaker 2: in Arabic account on Platform X issuing this warning message.
Speaker 2: As far as I know, nothing happened at those stations,
Speaker 2: But just unbelievable the impunity that the Israelis act with
Speaker 2: at this point. I mean, there's just no like previous
Speaker 2: norm or law of war that they respect whatsoever. They've
Speaker 2: detonated car bombs in Tehran, brag about that as well,
Speaker 2: the pager attack which maimed and killed innocent people who
Speaker 2: happened to be nearby. You know, people were going about there,
Speaker 2: they were at the market or whatever when these things
Speaker 2: blew up. There was all sorts of collateral damage. And they,
Speaker 2: you know, they bribed about that. They're super proud of it.
Speaker 2: They killed a bunch of the assassinations that they were
Speaker 2: able to accomplish here in this war that they started
Speaker 2: to begin with. Those things they were assassinated like in
Speaker 2: their beds at their homes, which means that their wives,
Speaker 2: their children, their neighbors were also killed. The civilian death
Speaker 2: toll is that some ninety percent is the estimate right now.
Speaker 2: And so there's just no limit because they've been allowed
Speaker 2: to act with so such impunity and with zero accountability
Speaker 2: from the world.
Speaker 1: Right and you know, okay, you could the justification is, oh,
Speaker 1: it's state broadcasting. It's part of the propaganda. And it's like, well, okay,
Speaker 1: anybody who has ever studied a regime change operation or coup,
Speaker 1: you know in Africa, this is one of those classic things.
Speaker 1: What is the first thing that the rebels always want
Speaker 1: to do? You see state broadcasting and the ability of
Speaker 1: the regime to be able to get its message out there.
Speaker 1: So even let's just stay purely on strategic grounds, what
Speaker 1: does this indicate I must saying about no nuclear weapons program?
Speaker 3: This is about Lady was like a nuclear scientist.
Speaker 1: About nuclear weapons. Yeah, this is about regime change. This
Speaker 1: is about degrading the ability to get the message out.
Speaker 1: This is about reducing their state capacity to trying to
Speaker 1: foment chaos. There's also there's so much Israeli cope online
Speaker 1: about how these Iranians are just you know, screaming out
Speaker 1: for freedom and for lack of repression. Now, not going
Speaker 1: to doubt that there are a lot of Iranians who
Speaker 1: are upset with the regime. But you know, even today
Speaker 1: I was looking were some of the most prominent Iranian
Speaker 1: activists against the regime are like you, Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: Bebie not only you know, killing civilians whatever and causing
Speaker 1: chaos in Tehran, but you know, this whole evacuate Tehran
Speaker 1: order is one of the most like unhuman things that
Speaker 1: we've ever seen in terms of chaos, in terms of
Speaker 1: just think about if somebody told you you need to
Speaker 1: That message was posted two thirty am Tehran time. We
Speaker 1: have what the inevitable. We were told repeatedly, Israel will
Speaker 1: finish the job on its own. We're not asking anything
Speaker 1: from the United States. Then slowly it was okay, well,
Speaker 1: we just need you to defend us. We we'll keep going offensively.
Speaker 1: And now here we have Yoev Golan. He's the former
Speaker 1: Minister of Defense for bb Net and Yahoo, presided over
Speaker 1: much of the Gaza war goes on CNN. Of course,
Speaker 1: these guys never know how to do an interview with
Speaker 1: their own television networks, and what does he say. He says,
Speaker 1: America has an obligation to actually enter the war offensively
Speaker 1: and to take out I run, let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: I believe that the United States of America and the
Speaker 6: President of the United States evan obligation to make sure
Speaker 6: that the region is going to a positive way and
Speaker 6: that the world is free from Iran that possessed nuclear
Speaker 6: weapon in the the middle of the richest place in
Speaker 6: oil and gas in the world. This could be a
Speaker 6: disaster for the world. And I believe that the termination
Speaker 6: of the American president that have been shown recently will
Speaker 6: pave the way to America to enter into this very
Speaker 6: important operation. The President of the United States have the
Speaker 6: option to change the Middle East and influence the war
Speaker 6: and influence the world, not only the war, in order
Speaker 6: to do something that will create a better future of.
Speaker 1: All of us. America has an obligation. So there you
Speaker 1: have it. I mean, these people are shameless. They will
Speaker 1: say that they're doing it all themselves. And now they've
Speaker 1: basically spent the last five days just begging for US involvement,
Speaker 1: and in a sense, as you said, they actually created
Speaker 1: the crisis which would necessitate quote unquote US intervention because
Speaker 1: if the Aranians are like, screw it, Okay, let's sprint
Speaker 1: to the bomb, then what there's only one force in
Speaker 1: the world that can take them out. They went into
Speaker 1: the operation knowing from day one they would never be
Speaker 1: able to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities. They could degrade it.
Speaker 1: That's not the same thing. And at this point, also
Speaker 1: if the US position is basically zero nuclear weapons, again
Speaker 1: it's very difficult to square if you're the Uranians, and
Speaker 1: this is where you need strategic empathy. I'm not, you know,
Speaker 1: in any way sympathetic or whatever to the Iranian regime.
Speaker 1: I'm going to try and put myself in their shoes.
Speaker 1: If you have the entire higher echelon of military command assassinated,
Speaker 1: if you negotiated and thought they were serious and then
Speaker 1: they bombed, they used that as cover to bomb you,
Speaker 1: why would you look, what would you do? And in
Speaker 1: a sense too, for from this point forward, as we
Speaker 1: learned with Libya, if you give up your nukes, they
Speaker 1: may still take you out a decade from now, So
Speaker 1: why would you do it? You would not do it.
Speaker 1: I would say, sprint to a nuke and let's fight
Speaker 1: to the death. I mean, look, it's grim, don't get
Speaker 1: me wrong, but you know this is where also people
Speaker 1: talk about the ideology and that well there's ideology baked
Speaker 1: into that as well, right, and be like, look, this
Speaker 1: is a final face off between us and the evil West,
Speaker 1: and so be it. You know, millions will die. Look
Speaker 1: at the Hitler and Bunker theory or the way that
Speaker 1: the Japanese high command is willing to sacrifice their own civilians.
Speaker 1: And by the way, you didn't see mass rise up
Speaker 1: against them because the uncomfortable and truth is that unconditional
Speaker 1: surrender set the conditions in which the people accepted their
Speaker 1: own death trap, and they themselves said, okay, this is it.
Speaker 1: We will join the regime even though we hate them
Speaker 1: on these various things, to fight them. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that's necessarily going to happen, but it's very, very very possible.
Speaker 1: That's the biggest problem with all.
Speaker 2: I mean, true to Parsi says that there has been
Speaker 2: a real rally around the flag effect.
Speaker 1: In a run, somebody bombs you. What are you going
Speaker 1: to do if somebody bombs us, I'd be like.
Speaker 2: Okay, threatens Well, you know, however, many million people in
Speaker 2: New York City, Like, of course you're going to think
Speaker 2: of the for those of you who are old enough
Speaker 2: to remember the patriotic fervor after nine to eleven, right,
Speaker 2: I mean the country really did you know the number
Speaker 2: of people signed up for the military and bought into
Speaker 2: the propaganda about why we have to go into or
Speaker 2: I mean, it was off the charts, and so yes,
Speaker 2: of course there's going to be a rally around the
Speaker 2: flag effect as you have the Israelis bombing them and
Speaker 2: the US threatening them and involved in the bombing, and
Speaker 2: so you are actually forging a much more cohesive nation
Speaker 2: and much more support for a you know, government that
Speaker 2: by all accounts, was pretty unpopular at this point. And
Speaker 2: you know, in terms of the logic with regard to
Speaker 2: to nukes, they have to be thinking like, shit, we
Speaker 2: should never have even negotiated with Obama. We should have
Speaker 2: just gone for we should have just gone ahead because
Speaker 2: they we wouldn't feel so comfortable messing with them now,
Speaker 2: and the Israelis would not feel so comfortable messing with
Speaker 2: them now. Those I that is the logic that our
Speaker 2: foreign policy has created, and it was entirely predictable, and
Speaker 2: in fact, I know the Israelis understood this going in
Speaker 2: that counter to their narrative that their attacks and their
Speaker 2: degrading of Iranian nuclear facilities and also you know, like
Speaker 2: going after military and political leadership and their attacks now
Speaker 2: on oil and energy infrastructure and all the rest, far
Speaker 2: from limiting their nuclear capacity or degrading the calculus or
Speaker 2: the desire to rush towards the nuclear weapon, they knew
Speaker 2: going in that the logic would be, all right, well,
Speaker 2: now we have to go after a nuke. And that's
Speaker 2: exactly why they did it, because they knew that they
Speaker 2: had to block this diplomacy that was ongoing before it
Speaker 2: actually succeeded. And this is their big chance to create,
Speaker 2: to create a dynamic where they have leverage with us
Speaker 2: to try to pressure us into this war. And it
Speaker 2: looks very grim in terms of Trump buying into that
Speaker 2: logic and getting played and going all along with them.
Speaker 3: And that is not to, by.
Speaker 2: The way, take away his agency, because nothing drives me
Speaker 2: more crazy than all of this cope about like always
Speaker 2: being misled by the neocons. No, he's a big boy.
Speaker 2: It's very clear him making these decisions, and he is
Speaker 2: the reason why we are in the position that we
Speaker 2: are in right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and if you want the blackest of all pills,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and put a ten up there on
Speaker 1: the screen. Quote. This is the latest poll just came
Speaker 1: out yesterday from Grayhouse. By the way, we don't know
Speaker 1: a ton about this, but this is the only polling
Speaker 1: that we really have this organization. Do you support the
Speaker 1: US support attacking Iran if necessary? Now? I think if
Speaker 1: necessary is important. But this is amongst Trump twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four voters yes, seventy two nineteen.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, it'll be overwhelmed on the Republican base, it will
Speaker 2: be overwhelming and overwhelming support.
Speaker 1: It will be I will I question whether there will
Speaker 1: be some Democrats too, because this is one where I
Speaker 1: think that the Democratic base will be against it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but there's no democratic leadership against the war right now.
Speaker 1: In a way, there's silence is nothing. Yeah, silence speaks volume.
Speaker 3: They've been pathetic.
Speaker 2: I mean, listen, I thought the thing that happened with
Speaker 2: Alex Padilla was bad. Going to freaking war with Iran
Speaker 2: is way worse. And they were so much more exercise
Speaker 2: over you know, him being wrestled to the ground after
Speaker 2: he tried to, you know, ask a question of Christy.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm at a conference again.
Speaker 3: That was bad.
Speaker 2: Potential World War three is worse, Okay, vastly worse, and
Speaker 2: the silence is absolutely deafening. I do want the one
Speaker 2: little glimmer of positivity here. You have some bipartisan effort
Speaker 2: to put forward a War Powers resolution to say basically like, hey,
Speaker 2: you can't do this, you can't enter a war with
Speaker 2: Iran without getting the backing of Congress. And so you
Speaker 2: had Tim Kaine in the Senate along with here's the
Speaker 2: full list.
Speaker 3: This is as of.
Speaker 2: Ten thirty pm last night. You have Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Berkley, Chris van Holland, Ed Markey, Tammy Baldwin,
Speaker 2: and Tina Smith. So all Democrats only in the Senate.
Speaker 2: In the House, you do have Thomas Massey, the lone
Speaker 2: Republican who was signed on for a similar War Powers
Speaker 2: resolution along with Rokana Rashidah to leave AOC.
Speaker 3: That's all we got so.
Speaker 2: Far, So pretty slim pickings. You know, there are a
Speaker 2: handful of Democrats. Tim Kane was pretty early to come
Speaker 2: out and say this unacceptable. Bernie Sanders has been probably
Speaker 2: the most vocal AOC signing on.
Speaker 3: But you're absolutely right that it's so like, it's so.
Speaker 2: Enraging that you have this moment when the president is
Speaker 2: contemplating dragging us in to this horrifying war at great
Speaker 2: cost and risk to our people, to regional stability, to
Speaker 2: civilians and human life in and around Iran, and there
Speaker 2: is just very little opposition being mounted from the supposed
Speaker 2: opposition party.
Speaker 3: It is utterly pathetic.
Speaker 1: Look, and I'm going to say something unpopular, but I
Speaker 1: think it's just basically true. At this point MAGA they're
Speaker 1: going to support Trump no matter what. If he supported
Speaker 1: a deal, they would say, Look, he's the greatest genius
Speaker 1: of all time. If he goes to war, they'd be like, oh,
Speaker 1: they had to come in and Trump. Trump is the preeminent.
Speaker 1: He is the force. It's the only thing that matters.
Speaker 1: There is no policy behind it. I made my peace
Speaker 1: with that long ago. And for many people talking about
Speaker 1: the MAGA base wants this or that is honestly bullshit. Okay, like, look,
Speaker 1: we've had ten years now at this point. But but
Speaker 1: and this is where maybe this is very elitist to me.
Speaker 1: This is why I almost think it doesn't matter. This
Speaker 1: isn't about popular will. This is alt. At the end
Speaker 1: of the day, foreign policy is the most elite of
Speaker 1: elite concerns. It's very rarely ranks in the highest of
Speaker 1: the priorities unless a war actually starts. Let's look at
Speaker 1: the past. The vast majority of the American people supported Iraq.
Speaker 1: They said later that they didn't, but they did. That's why, though,
Speaker 1: this is an intra elite war over foreign policy theory
Speaker 1: basically to affect the White House. And unfortunately that's actually
Speaker 1: where Israel has the highest strategic advantage because so much
Speaker 1: of Washington is basically influenced by Israel and or they had,
Speaker 1: you know, the ideology. It's not even just money, it's
Speaker 1: really it's about like affinity, like the ability to you know,
Speaker 1: they have all these free pre junkets over there, people
Speaker 1: spend time over there. They get to know that there's
Speaker 1: this great influence campaign and a soft and a hard
Speaker 1: level that's been going on for I don't know eighty
Speaker 1: years now, basically since its existence. So you have that, and.
Speaker 2: There's an ideological belief that Israel is an important strategic interest.
Speaker 1: For US, so you have that right that pervades Washington.
Speaker 1: So all of this what's happening right now. I actually
Speaker 1: don't think it has anything to do with MAGA. I
Speaker 1: really don't. This is not really a democratic question, small d.
Speaker 1: This is really a question at the foreign policy elite level,
Speaker 1: especially because Trump is such a cult of personality, that is,
Speaker 1: people will back him no matter what. That's part of
Speaker 1: this whole like, oh, the MAGA base and all of
Speaker 1: that will fracture. I think all of those arguments are specious. Really,
Speaker 1: the way that we should argue about this is this
Speaker 1: a good idea or a bad idea. That's it. That's
Speaker 1: purely all that matters, especially when we know that we
Speaker 1: have this group of voters which will go with him
Speaker 1: no matter what this does. Though, and we'll talk about
Speaker 1: this in the Tucker segment. Put a lot of the
Speaker 1: people who have an audience, who are almost solely based,
Speaker 1: sickly comprised of MAGA, in a very very tough position
Speaker 1: because a lot of them actually do have genuine beliefs
Speaker 1: and or principles or philosophies about the way things should
Speaker 1: be done. And then when they go against an or
Speaker 1: counter to Donald Trump, you're going to find yourself in
Speaker 1: a very very difficult position. This is the difficulty in
Speaker 1: the conundrum of anybody who is complete, like really totally
Speaker 1: tied to Donald Trump as an identity and as part
Speaker 1: of why when you do have a differing opinion, you
Speaker 1: at the end of the day will always lose. You
Speaker 1: will lose to Trump and you will lose to the
Speaker 1: Maga base, which is really really unfortunate. Now there are
Speaker 1: alternative power centers here. And this is again the lesson
Speaker 1: from the war in Iraq, Barbara Jordan and the people
Speaker 1: who voted against the war in Iraq and three were villains.
Speaker 1: They called them treason. They wanted to throw them in jail.
Speaker 1: They were vindicated in a span of just three years.
Speaker 1: So if you believe what you believe, stand up and
Speaker 1: say it now, you could be wrong. I listen, the
Speaker 1: shot Stun could be in power, the Israelis could be
Speaker 1: totally successful. I'll eat it. I'd be happy, honestly, I
Speaker 1: would be happy if this all ended up well, because
Speaker 1: they would mean Americans are dead and the Iranian people
Speaker 1: are happy. I just don't think it's going to happen.
Speaker 1: I think I have a lot of evidence to back
Speaker 1: that up. I don't think they have very much evidence
Speaker 1: on their side. Yeah, to be able to say that.
Speaker 1: And so when the time comes and the bill can come,
Speaker 1: do you know, eventually things will come around and so America, look,
Speaker 1: I think they will support this war. Unfortunately, I'm just
Speaker 1: telling the truth. Most people don't spend their days reading
Speaker 1: books or they don't know anything about Libya or Syria.
Speaker 1: They're like, eh, something happened there or whatever. But you know,
Speaker 1: at the end you'll come to find that it was
Speaker 1: a big mistake in the long run.
Speaker 2: Last thing, and then we can move on to this
Speaker 2: bit about the Israelis blocking their own systems from leaving
Speaker 2: the country and trying to block our citistens from leaving
Speaker 2: their country as well. This was actually one of the
Speaker 2: pieces that was very ominous yesterday. Put eight three up
Speaker 2: on the screen and we'll talk more about Tucker and
Speaker 2: the Tucker block. But Trunk yesterday we had covered, had
Speaker 2: said that he was sing sniping at Tucker and was like, listen,
Speaker 2: I say what America first is. And unfortunately he's right
Speaker 2: about that, and so he went more aggressively at Tucker yesterday.
Speaker 2: He said, somebody please explain to Kookie Tucker Carlson that
Speaker 2: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3: And like that.
Speaker 2: I mean the number of Magavo people like Laura Lumer
Speaker 2: that I've been seeing attacking Tucker, you know, because Trump says, Okay,
Speaker 2: he's in the out group.
Speaker 3: Now, that's it. And Tucker has barely.
Speaker 2: Even like hasn't really actually even criticized Trump. He's just
Speaker 2: been mostly doing the whole like, oh, there's these forces
Speaker 2: inside the administration that you're trying to convince Trump blah
Speaker 2: blah blah.
Speaker 3: But the fact that Trump felt.
Speaker 2: The need to effectively like excize him from the coalition
Speaker 2: I think was also very troubling.
Speaker 1: Will I don't know, but yeah, I mean that is
Speaker 1: a great lesson in terms of how the relationship with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump works.
Speaker 2: And yeah, that's where we're sitting there next to him
Speaker 2: at the RNC. They were the best buddies not very
Speaker 2: long ago.
Speaker 1: Yeah, look, a relationship only runs one way. At the
Speaker 1: same time, within Israel, there is an extraordinary development. Let's
Speaker 1: go and put this up there on the screen. There's
Speaker 1: a new report here from a New Policy which is
Speaker 1: an American lobbying organization for US policy towards the Middle East,
Speaker 1: actually advancing national interests. Here's what they say. Quote sources
Speaker 1: tell US At a meeting yesterday between US Ambassador Mike
Speaker 1: Huckabee and Israeli Prime Minister net Yahoo devolved into a
Speaker 1: shouting match over Netanyahu's objections to US plans to evacuate
Speaker 1: citizens from Israel and the wider region. US officials believe
Speaker 1: that the net Yahoo objection was predicated on his desire
Speaker 1: to hold US citizens at risk in order to increase
Speaker 1: the likelihood of US entry into Israel's conflict with Iran.
Speaker 1: So let's sit on that for a little bit, shall we.
Speaker 1: First of all, there are seven hundred thousand Americans. This
Speaker 1: is the current belief within Israel, seven hundred thousand. I
Speaker 1: believe they have the largest outside American citizen population then Mexico,
Speaker 1: which tells you quite a bit. However, there is a
Speaker 1: little bit of a difference is that many of these
Speaker 1: people are dual citizens according to the data that we have.
Speaker 1: But it also is being used as a pretext for
Speaker 1: why the United States has such a quote obligation to
Speaker 1: defend Israel. Now, let's just say Mexico, all right, So
Speaker 1: if Mexico, who do they share a border with Guatemala.
Speaker 1: So if Guatemala was bombing Mexico, would we intervene to
Speaker 1: protect Americans in Mexico. Yeah, I don't think so. I
Speaker 1: don't think that that logic works all that well. There's
Speaker 1: a secondary element to this, which is that it currently
Speaker 1: at least a lot of these US citizens don't seem
Speaker 1: to be allowed to leave. You know, we haven't seen
Speaker 1: yet some of the reports there, and obviously the flight
Speaker 1: situation there is pretty crazy. But almost every one of
Speaker 1: the other great powers has told their citizens to evacuate immediately. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued his statements that all Chinese
Speaker 1: citizens should leave Israel immediately. The Russian Foreign Ministry came
Speaker 1: out and said all Russian citizens should leave immediately. There's
Speaker 1: actually a huge Russian population in Israel. A lot of
Speaker 1: people don't know that. But the point is is that
Speaker 1: those countries seem to be have the ability to tell
Speaker 1: their citizens to leave right now. I believe we do
Speaker 1: have travel advisories and all of that, but the question
Speaker 1: is about their ability to do so. And this pairs
Speaker 1: and this is already confirmed. This isn't even based on
Speaker 1: a report. Put this up there on the screen from Haretz,
Speaker 1: which is an Israeli news organization. Israel Tail's Airlines do
Speaker 1: not let Israeli citizens leave, even once repatriation flights are
Speaker 1: able to continue. Quote estimates suggest rescue flights for Israelately
Speaker 1: stranded abroad won't begin before Thursday, and even then only
Speaker 1: two flights per hour be allowed during daylight. And the
Speaker 1: plan does not match the scale of the crisis. So
Speaker 1: I mean, effectively, what you're seeing is that they are
Speaker 1: locking their people basically in their borders in the same
Speaker 1: way that Ukraine tried to do so in order to
Speaker 1: force everybody to fight in the draft. And they're afraid.
Speaker 1: I guess of the you know, the number of Israelis
Speaker 1: that do have dual citizenship all around the world, who
Speaker 1: could take advantage of that and say I'm getting the
Speaker 1: hell out of here, I don't want to fight in
Speaker 1: this war, or you know, hiding a bomb shelter every
Speaker 1: other day raises some profound questions about human shields and
Speaker 1: locking people basically in a death trap and forcing them
Speaker 1: of their own defeat. I'm not going to deny, and
Speaker 1: there's probably a lot of Israelis. I would say that
Speaker 1: vasherajority of Israelis probably support this war based on all
Speaker 1: the polling. Yeah, we seen agreed. Let's be honest, but
Speaker 1: at least some of them want to leave, and the
Speaker 1: I think that the action by the Israeli government speaks volumes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they don't want so first of all, to go
Speaker 2: back to US citizens.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a big being.
Speaker 3: Blocked from leaving.
Speaker 2: We don't know if they were able to actually, you know,
Speaker 2: like Convince how could be in the US administration.
Speaker 3: Of that policy.
Speaker 2: But what they're saying here they want to use American
Speaker 2: citizens as human shields, Like that is what that means.
Speaker 2: And they want to use American citizens as pawns in
Speaker 2: their game to try to force an escalation and force
Speaker 2: US to come in on their side. I guarantee you
Speaker 2: they are praying for the Iranians to hit some US
Speaker 2: military base and to kill some American service members so
Speaker 2: that the war fever picks up here in the US
Speaker 2: and this administration feels even more pressure, is even more
Speaker 2: likely to directly join the fight on Israel's behalf. That's
Speaker 2: how sick they are, Like, that's what they're cheering for,
Speaker 2: Which is why you shouldn't put like some you know,
Speaker 2: false flag, fake attack past them either, because they've done
Speaker 2: such things in the past. So I mean, this is
Speaker 2: not to be conspiratorial. This is to be a student
Speaker 2: of history and understand their logic and what they are
Speaker 2: capable of. You can't put anything past these people at
Speaker 2: this point. So their stated policy goal, their desire that
Speaker 2: they're a arguing with our completely psycho by the way
Speaker 2: US Ambassador to Israel micagobi Abilis and all this end
Speaker 2: times nonsense. Their stated policy objective is to trap American
Speaker 2: citizens in Israel, to use them as human shields to
Speaker 2: try to foment and escalate a further, even larger scale war.
Speaker 3: That's where we are.
Speaker 2: And with regard to their own citizens, I think sober
Speaker 2: is exactly right.
Speaker 3: Number one.
Speaker 2: They don't want images of thousands or tens of thousands
Speaker 2: of Israelis fleeing the country.
Speaker 3: They don't want that.
Speaker 2: They also, i think, are concerned because this is the
Speaker 2: country that you know, was really overstretched militarily. You know,
Speaker 2: you've got the uh Gaza genocide occupation, you have a
Speaker 2: siege that was implemented in the West Bank and increasingly
Speaker 2: aggressive actions there. You've had bombing campaigns in numerous regional
Speaker 2: neighbor neighbors, and you have you know, a reserve corp
Speaker 2: that's been called up again and again and again. So
Speaker 2: they're worried also on just like a tactical level of
Speaker 2: losing additional amount of their manpower of people you know,
Speaker 2: who flee overseas and don't want to be part of this,
Speaker 2: who may support the war broadly but may not exactly
Speaker 2: want to be the ones who are fighting it. So
Speaker 2: that's you know, that's the calculation their ageation, which is
Speaker 2: pretty grotesque.
Speaker 1: It's I mean, look, it's like I said, it speaks volumes.
Speaker 1: They don't want their own citizens to leave. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, again, let's not say that the vast
Speaker 1: majority of the people don't support this war and at
Speaker 1: least at least the political establishment does. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up there on the screen. This is from the Times
Speaker 1: of Israel, but the op position has actually rallied around
Speaker 1: the Iran campaign quote despite long opposing PM's leadership. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're lapede, the primary opposition leader says, not now who
Speaker 1: must go, but not during the existential fight right in
Speaker 1: a while.
Speaker 3: This is happening right now and now.
Speaker 1: Tali Bennett, the former Prime minister, says there is no left,
Speaker 1: no opposition and no coalition when it comes to preventing
Speaker 1: Iranian nuclears all.
Speaker 2: So fucking fake, like just down of nowhere, they just
Speaker 2: make up, Oh, Iran's about to have nukes. They haven't
Speaker 2: offered any evidence of this. Our own intelligence community says
Speaker 2: that is not the case. They aren't pursuing nukes, that
Speaker 2: it would take three years. We've been hearing for decades
Speaker 2: now that Iran is days away, weeks away, months away,
Speaker 2: whatever I mean. Even Bebe himself isn't saying they're like
Speaker 2: weeks away from an Iranian nuke. So this is all
Speaker 2: about a political calculation by Bibnata Yahoo that number one,
Speaker 2: he does not want the diplomatic negotiations that the Trump
Speaker 2: administration was engaged in to succeed. Number two, he is
Speaker 2: still very on very tenuous political footing himself.
Speaker 3: And so this is a way to you know, in
Speaker 3: the same way there's.
Speaker 2: A rally around the flag effect in Iran, there's a
Speaker 2: rally around the flag effect in Israel that you can
Speaker 2: see here as evidenced by the opposition basically saying like
Speaker 2: this is our guy for as long as this war continues,
Speaker 2: We'll guess what that incentivizes war continuing forever. So that's
Speaker 2: why this is happening right now. It has nothing to
Speaker 2: do with any Iranian activities regarding developing a nuke. That
Speaker 2: is the pretext and the goal here very clearly is
Speaker 2: to collapse this government and foment either a failed state
Speaker 2: or some sort of direct regime change. That is the
Speaker 2: true aim of what they're doing. And so do not
Speaker 2: believe all this, like don't get caught up in all
Speaker 2: this nonsense, Trump tweeting out, oh, Iran cannot have a
Speaker 2: new Okay, then keep going with your negotiations, which had
Speaker 2: a genuine shot at success until you lied about them
Speaker 2: to trick the Iranians and help to you know, close
Speaker 2: the possibility of any sort of a diplomatic solution.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, especially what we're looking at right now
Speaker 1: from Donald Trump. I mean what we see is just
Speaker 1: you know, like not only a backing of the campaign,
Speaker 1: but what you're also watching or just accepting a lot
Speaker 1: of these implicit assumptions like that this is a war
Speaker 1: of necessity, that the Israeli intelligence is somehow better than
Speaker 1: our intelligence. I don't believe that. I mean, look, Telsea
Speaker 1: Gabbard signed it and testified before Congress under oath. If
Speaker 1: she lied, go ahead and tell us, show us the proof. Right,
Speaker 1: This is what I mean about Iraq. They actually did try.
Speaker 1: I mean, they made up all of this bullshit about
Speaker 1: yellow Cake and Curveball and niche Are. I mean, I
Speaker 1: can tell you the whole story.
Speaker 3: A lot to propaganda.
Speaker 1: It took a while build up, Colan Powell, and you know,
Speaker 1: there's no question that they're on their path to a WMD.
Speaker 1: I was actually going back and reading the exact TikTok
Speaker 1: of all of it. In a way, it's impressive the
Speaker 1: amount of bs that they were able to make sound legitimate.
Speaker 1: They don't even try this time. It's all out here
Speaker 1: in the open. They're just like, no our intelligence assessment.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with her. That's what Trump said today.
Speaker 1: And in terms of the Israeli society and government, it's
Speaker 1: pretty clear they're united around this. Put B four up
Speaker 1: here on the screen. We have Neftali Bennett, the former
Speaker 1: Prime minister. What a peculiar country Israel. When Iranian missiles
Speaker 1: rained down on US, two hundred thousand are scrambling to
Speaker 1: come home, not away from danger, but towards it. I
Speaker 1: love my nation of lions. It'd be interesting I'd see
Speaker 1: what that number would be if they did actually allow
Speaker 1: outbound flights, but Israel finding it.
Speaker 3: Away from danger, you're not letting them. I did say.
Speaker 2: I don't know if this is confirmed or not, but
Speaker 2: apparently some Israelis are taking like.
Speaker 3: Yachts to Cyprus really too. Yeah, to get around the
Speaker 3: error ban.
Speaker 2: One last thing and then we can move on to
Speaker 2: this Tucker and Steve Bannon conversation, which is interesting. We
Speaker 2: got a number of pieces of it to share with you,
Speaker 2: But did you follow Tulsi put out that like weird
Speaker 2: ass nuclear review last week, and it was very ominous
Speaker 2: and she's talking about like the nuclear attacks, you know,
Speaker 2: are dropping the bombs in World War two and all
Speaker 2: the carnage from that, and sounding is very ominous warning.
Speaker 3: And at the time, first I was like, what is this?
Speaker 2: And then also it felt like it was more And
Speaker 2: maybe it was in the contract text of like Ukraine
Speaker 2: Russia and the possibility of a nuclear conflagration there, But
Speaker 2: I don't know. Now with the outbreak of you know,
Speaker 2: US joining this war with a r I don't know
Speaker 2: if it was like more about that, I'm not sure,
Speaker 2: but it was interesting to me.
Speaker 3: Now looking back in.
Speaker 2: Retrospect, I'm like, was she trying to send a message
Speaker 2: as some sort of a plea for help.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Yeah, look at this point, look we're
Speaker 1: not there yet. But you know, for Tulsi, this is
Speaker 1: the person who staked her into and look, she's compromised.
Speaker 1: I think many things that she said in the past,
Speaker 1: but I don't think she has compromised herself on Iran
Speaker 1: and really on Iraq war, right, which is the central
Speaker 1: reason according to her. Just you know, when we spoke
Speaker 1: to her as to why she wanted to get into politics,
Speaker 1: it's like, if they do launch a war, you have
Speaker 1: to resign if you have any integrity whatsoever. I mean,
Speaker 1: but I don't think it'll happen, but I think she should.
Speaker 1: There are a few other people in the administration. RFK
Speaker 1: Junior is one of them as well. This is a
Speaker 1: person who, look, he may be very very pro Israel,
Speaker 1: but he has spoken repeatedly about the war in Iraq
Speaker 1: with a disasters neo conservative intervention. I mean, it's a
Speaker 1: separate question entirely if it involves like fully bombing, and
Speaker 1: it's something by his admission, he said it was some
Speaker 1: of the most disastrous choices in US history. It's like, okay,
Speaker 1: the same thing, you need to resign. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of people in the administration who have literally forged
Speaker 1: their way to you know, to Donald Trump and two
Speaker 1: working in their positions right now because of their opposition
Speaker 1: to forever Wars and other things. And so look, if
Speaker 1: somebody's going to do such an about face, then you
Speaker 1: kind of do have at least some you know, there's
Speaker 1: there's an integrity question here when it comes to that.
Speaker 1: And if they don't, I mean they're going to be
Speaker 1: scarred for all times.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Look, we'll see in terms of how this works.
Speaker 2: But I think you see is the one that really
Speaker 2: comes top of mind to Yeah, because she's just her
Speaker 2: whole thing is against the warmonds forever wars. That's our
Speaker 2: whole thing, right, And so if you and you have
Speaker 2: Trump throwing you under directly under the bus now quite literally,
Speaker 2: I don't care what she.
Speaker 1: Said, you in front of the eyes of the world.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you think about it, you know, the
Speaker 1: ODE and I the Office of the Director of National
Speaker 1: Intelligence supposed to be the boss of the entire US
Speaker 1: intelligence community. So she goes abroad and she's meeting with
Speaker 1: let's say, our five eyes people and said this is
Speaker 1: the US intelligence assessment. They're gonna be like, why should
Speaker 1: we believe you? You know that Donald Trump says he
Speaker 1: doesn't even trust you. Easy. He kicked your legs out
Speaker 1: from under you completely and neutered. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: honestly embarrassing. It's humiliating. I quote, I don't care what
Speaker 1: she said, right, I mean, this is one where it
Speaker 1: really is, uh, it really is just it's astounding and
Speaker 1: it is sad. Let's get to the Tucker segment because
Speaker 1: it's important here as well. You know, this gives you
Speaker 1: some preview into the elements of the people who quote
Speaker 1: MAGA or MAGA leaders who are trying to push back
Speaker 1: and some of the futility which that has and perhaps
Speaker 1: though could preview, you know, some break in the coalition
Speaker 1: or at the very least at a leadership political level.
Speaker 1: So we'll see how this works. But Tucker Carlson actually
Speaker 1: flew to Washington yesterday, something that he rarely does, specifically
Speaker 1: just to sit down with Steve Bannon live in the
Speaker 1: studio and basically the campaign against US intervention in this war.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to what he and Steve Bannon
Speaker 1: had to say.
Speaker 8: The platform of Fox, though, it's just not Mars. But
Speaker 8: why is Fox like all weekend? It's just cheerly, it's
Speaker 8: the same. It's exactly you can play side by side
Speaker 8: Iraq in two thousand and three. Oh I was there
Speaker 8: and here and what's happening today? Why is it? Why
Speaker 8: is this apparatus? Well, Evince the funniest because he's terrible
Speaker 8: on TV. And again I never had any problems with
Speaker 8: him at Fox. He kind of controls Hannity in this
Speaker 8: weird way. I never understood what that was about. I
Speaker 8: never really cared to learn.
Speaker 9: Sean was great to me, always nice, and so was Levin,
Speaker 9: so I just like kind of stayed away. But they
Speaker 9: didn't want to put him on TV because he's like
Speaker 9: screechy and he's just not a coming president. Like I'm look,
Speaker 9: su're literally floating in and out of consciousness and the
Speaker 9: attendant has taken the remote to go have a cigarette.
Speaker 9: You're gonna flip the channel when.
Speaker 1: Gets on TV.
Speaker 9: It's like listened to your ex wife scream about alimony payments.
Speaker 9: That's like not appealing.
Speaker 1: So they wouldn't put them on TV.
Speaker 9: And then you know, Sean push and they gave him
Speaker 9: some kind of weekend show that nobody watched. Now I
Speaker 9: don't have a TV, but someone was just who owns
Speaker 9: the TV was just telling me that he's like all
Speaker 9: over prime Time.
Speaker 1: So what is that.
Speaker 9: That's not by popular acclaim, that's not like their viewer surveys, like,
Speaker 9: you know, we need a lot more Mark Levin, less
Speaker 9: Jesse Waters, more Mark Levin. What they're doing is what
Speaker 9: they always do, which is just turning up the propaganda
Speaker 9: hose to full blast and just trying to, you know,
Speaker 9: knock elderly Fox viewers off their feet and make them submit.
Speaker 8: This is this is where they're.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, that's as good as it gets in
Speaker 1: terms of calling out Fox News at least. And I
Speaker 1: will tell you I because Secretary of Defense Pete Hagsath
Speaker 1: was appearing live on Fox yesterday. I unfortunately was watching
Speaker 1: some just to make sure, you know, we weren't having
Speaker 1: an announcement of war. And by the way, Secretary of
Speaker 1: Defense was on for two minutes. Do you want to
Speaker 1: know the first question that they asked him about two minutes?
Speaker 3: Well, I know the answer is here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was about the military preak. Yeah, they were like,
Speaker 1: why don't you just tell us about how great that.
Speaker 1: I was like, are you fucking kidding me? You're literally
Speaker 1: in the middle of a crisis in Jesse Waters is
Speaker 1: asking about the military parade.
Speaker 3: Of course it was Jesse Waters.
Speaker 1: I couldn't believe it. I mean, it's like, you don't
Speaker 1: even pretend do you have any news organization? Okay, but whatever,
Speaker 1: let's put that to the side. Tucker is correct. I mean,
Speaker 1: just yesterday apparently Fox broadcast a report about secret Iranian
Speaker 1: nuclear sites that have recently been found. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: out of three all over again. But this is also
Speaker 1: why there is a generational divide on the issue. In fact,
Speaker 1: there was some polling that came out yesterday which showed
Speaker 1: that people who primarily got their news from cable are
Speaker 1: dramatically more pro Israel. People who got their news and
Speaker 1: this includes right wingers. Actually, people who got their news
Speaker 1: from the internet and or podcast or do a mix
Speaker 1: of both are dramatically less trustful of a lot of
Speaker 1: mainstream institutions. But look, here's the truth. These are the
Speaker 1: people who vote. These are the people who really have,
Speaker 1: you know, the ear of some of the people involved.
Speaker 1: And with Trump, it's obvious that he respects television more
Speaker 1: than anything so before we play even more Tucker stuff,
Speaker 1: it's actually important to say that even Tucker's mild criticism there,
Speaker 1: did you guys hear what he said? He said, I
Speaker 1: love Trump. I think he's a deeply humane person that
Speaker 1: is as couched as it gets. I mean, can we
Speaker 1: let's be honest here, right? Yeah, well, even that just
Speaker 1: the temerity to say something about Trump not needing to
Speaker 1: go to war with Iran. Here's what Trump had to
Speaker 1: say in response. Guys, let's go ahead and play CE four.
Speaker 7: They've been talking about this deal for six years, which
Speaker 7: is and he's done what they haven't been able to do.
Speaker 7: So he's done really a very good jet. I don't
Speaker 7: know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get
Speaker 7: a television network and say it so that people listen.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Let go get a television network. I mean again, this
Speaker 1: is preposterous for a number of reasons. One, Trump actually
Speaker 1: eschewed television for the podcast. There was the whole narrative
Speaker 1: about the podcast election, and he got millions and millions
Speaker 1: of views online. The Tucker Carlson Show is probably far
Speaker 1: bigger than it ever was on Fox News in terms
Speaker 1: of the number of views I mean, it's always number one,
Speaker 1: number two, two to five on the top podcast in
Speaker 1: the entire United States, gets millions of views on YouTube.
Speaker 1: It's just empirically, you know, true that you've had far more.
Speaker 1: He's had far more reach. I don't know about influence,
Speaker 1: but reach, yeah, on an independent sphere something. His White
Speaker 1: House has an alternative media seat for So I don't
Speaker 1: know what that's all about if he only cares about television.
Speaker 1: But the point is is that in his head, foxes
Speaker 1: all that matters. And what Tucker is calling out there
Speaker 1: is Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and the entire Fox Primetime
Speaker 1: is just geared up for World War War. And the
Speaker 1: crazy thing is it's the same people General Jack Keane, right,
Speaker 1: the same guy on TV and O three or sorry
Speaker 1: in seven and potion for the Surge is now here
Speaker 1: back on television, Pump in the war in with Iran,
Speaker 1: he says, it's a critical a core national interest of
Speaker 1: the United States are died in the wool neo cons
Speaker 1: there's no getting around it whatsoever. And yet it's being
Speaker 1: mainlined into the boomer mind at every level. And look,
Speaker 1: this just is about Fox, because it's about the right wing.
Speaker 1: This is every network. Yeah, I mean it's insanity out there,
Speaker 1: it really is. CNN's got IDF spokespeople freaking Scott Jennings
Speaker 1: from a bunker in Jerusalem telling Trump to finish the job.
Speaker 1: News Nation is somehow even more unhinged with Cuomo and
Speaker 1: Leland Viddter on the Iran question to watch.
Speaker 2: Oh by the way, Scott Horton taken Leland for her
Speaker 2: part if you want some enjoyable viewing, but I actually
Speaker 2: need to watch MSNBC.
Speaker 3: I'm curious.
Speaker 1: I think the line that I've not yet seen a
Speaker 1: single clip tells me what I need to know, which
Speaker 1: is that there we don't just like the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: They've got nothing. And you know, this is actually a
Speaker 1: big test for Chris Hayes. Some of us have been
Speaker 1: around long enough. You know that Chris is origin stories
Speaker 1: about the war in Iraq too. So Chris, where are
Speaker 1: you man? Like You've got a primetime network, make yourself
Speaker 1: the central you know, rally the base, do something we need.
Speaker 1: We need Keith, you know for you know, it didn't
Speaker 1: turn out so well for Keith, but at the time,
Speaker 1: at the time, it was important, it was important.
Speaker 3: Did you see this comment from Miss McConnell.
Speaker 1: What was it?
Speaker 2: He was asked Manu Rajuo asked him about Iran and Israel,
Speaker 2: and he said, quote, what's happening here is some of
Speaker 2: the isolation isolationist movement led by Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon,
Speaker 2: are distressed. We may be helping the Israelis defeat the Iranians.
Speaker 2: I would say it's been kind of a bad week
Speaker 2: for the isolationists. So, you know, Mitch McConnell here taking
Speaker 2: a victory lap. Yes, but you know, ultimately, like you said,
Speaker 2: Tucker has broad a reach, but perhaps less influence, and unfortunately,
Speaker 2: I think that is the case. Unfortunately, cable news still
Speaker 2: has some purchase on our society and in terms of
Speaker 2: like elite conversations, and to your point, when you're talking
Speaker 2: about foreign policy, the elite conversation really matters a lot. So,
Speaker 2: you know, and the vast majority of MAGA core MAGA
Speaker 2: voters he had independence who voted for Trump, who I
Speaker 2: think will be disgusted with this decision and we'll say
Speaker 2: this isn't what I voted for and will be unhappy
Speaker 2: and move away from him. I think his approval rating
Speaker 2: may go down as a result. If he gets as
Speaker 2: directly involved in a run. But I think his approval
Speaker 2: ratings the Republican Party will continue to be sky high.
Speaker 2: They will continue to, you know, do whatever mental gymnastics
Speaker 2: they need to do to say this is totally different
Speaker 2: than a rock and this is totally in line with,
Speaker 2: you know, with what I wanted and what I voted for.
Speaker 2: And listen, in fairness, Trump on the campaign trail was
Speaker 2: talking about how Israel should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. So
Speaker 2: the White House posted this long thread of all the
Speaker 2: times that Trump said Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,
Speaker 2: and look he did. He said, now you know, he
Speaker 2: also trotted out Tulci Gabbard, R F K Junior to
Speaker 2: posture like they were going to be the pro peace
Speaker 2: ticket and that they were going to be against the
Speaker 2: warmongers and they were opposed all as shady, et cetera.
Speaker 2: But he also said the thing that you know, some
Speaker 2: of us picked up on and paired with his first
Speaker 2: term record indicated that no, he's not going to be
Speaker 2: some dove. He's not going to be committed to a
Speaker 2: completely different foreign policy orientation. He's not going to be
Speaker 2: committed to extricating us from this region. He was the
Speaker 2: most pro Israel president we've probably ever had in his
Speaker 2: first term.
Speaker 3: So you know, that's that's what it is.
Speaker 2: And the Magabase found a way to reconcile that at
Speaker 2: the time, and they will continue to do so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, look as you said, and I think it's very
Speaker 1: obvious Maga and all of them will go along and
Speaker 1: the line will probably be the Libya line. I still
Speaker 1: believe to this day. I don't think Trump is dumb
Speaker 1: enough initially to commit to some full blown regime change
Speaker 1: operation which requires boots on the ground. I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be a Libya style situation. And remember Obama
Speaker 1: and Susan Rice were all saying, what about Libya. It
Speaker 1: was a tremendous success. We committed, just a few American
Speaker 1: jets shot them down, and then the Libyan people rose
Speaker 1: up and they seized their destiny for themselves. And then
Speaker 1: our ambassador was a literally dying and smoldering ruins. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Eight months later and Isis took over.
Speaker 1: Bengazi turned into a slave market and a footpath and
Speaker 1: a boat path to Europe for one of the world's
Speaker 1: worst demographic crises in modern history. Oh, just you know,
Speaker 1: only took a couple of years for that to work out,
Speaker 1: So that will be the line, is that no Americans
Speaker 1: died while doing it. And it's like, Okay, no Americans
Speaker 1: died in the Syrian Civil War? Do we think it
Speaker 1: was a disaster? I do? Uh, you know, because guess
Speaker 1: what French people died in the Bata Khan when Isis
Speaker 1: massacred all of them and it was planned in Syria. Actually,
Speaker 1: a lot of Americans were killed fighting ISIS in twenty
Speaker 1: seventeen in Iraq, which was bled over from Syria. Same
Speaker 1: in Libya. Sure did a lot of Americans die as
Speaker 1: a result of Libya. No, not directly, except for you know,
Speaker 1: the people in Benghazi. But let's also think about all
Speaker 1: of the weapons in the civil war and all of
Speaker 1: the fallout from that in the region, the chaos that
Speaker 1: it's wrought on Europe. Just because you know, the bar
Speaker 1: cannot be one person die an American dies or not.
Speaker 1: That's not the issue that is at hand here. The
Speaker 1: issue is destabilize the regime. Does it cost us the
Speaker 1: cost the United States more blood, more treasure, more attention
Speaker 1: being paid to this region. And that's really what he
Speaker 1: has committed himself. To within this and it's going to
Speaker 1: be a disaster. To this point, here you have Tucker
Speaker 1: and Steve Bannon going off on this. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9: I actually really love Trump. He's a deeply humane, kind person.
Speaker 9: And I am saying this because I'm really afraid that
Speaker 9: my country is going to be further weakened by this.
Speaker 9: I think we're going to see the end of American empire.
Speaker 9: Obviously other nations would like to see that, and this
Speaker 9: is a perfect way to scuttle the USS America, the
Speaker 9: shoals of Iran. But it's also going to end I
Speaker 9: believe Trump's presidency and effectively end it. And and so
Speaker 9: that's why I'm saying, what do.
Speaker 4: You mean by that?
Speaker 8: That's that's coming for you that you get.
Speaker 9: Look, I knew Bush. I knew George W. Bush with
Speaker 9: you know, family connections to Bush. I knew Bush personally.
Speaker 9: I still see Bush sometimes and you know, of course
Speaker 9: he hates me, and he does because I criticized him
Speaker 9: on a rock and that war is the sum total
Speaker 9: from historical perspective of his administration. But I knew him,
Speaker 9: and he had all kinds of plans for the things
Speaker 9: that he wanted to do, but one domestically, domestically to
Speaker 9: improve the country. And you may agree or disagree, but
Speaker 9: like in his mind, he wasn't just about the invasion
Speaker 9: of Iraq in March.
Speaker 8: Of Oh No, No, he was going to redo social security typody.
Speaker 8: He was going to take care of the entitlements issue.
Speaker 1: And he really thought it was going to work.
Speaker 9: And you could laugh at that or whatever, but the
Speaker 9: point is, the second you get himmeshed in a real war,
Speaker 9: not a fake, let's go bomb the villagers and declare success.
Speaker 9: Though we don't even have a good track record, like Whyle,
Speaker 9: the Hoothy's still there. I mean this a whole other question,
Speaker 9: which is how prepared is the US military for real conflict?
Speaker 9: And the answer is totally unprepared, scary unprepared. I don't
Speaker 9: think people understand that.
Speaker 1: End of the American empire. I mean, we had talked
Speaker 1: about this with Dave yesterday, but I think it bears,
Speaker 1: you know, reiterating is Look, there's a reason like this
Speaker 1: is it When you get in messin of war, it
Speaker 1: will kill your entire presidency. It becomes this singular issue.
Speaker 1: Everything else it gets dragged down. I said yesterday, the
Speaker 1: evangelicals a lot of them believe that Bush Iraq is
Speaker 1: what killed their entire movement. I mean, like I said,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's one hundred percent true, but there's
Speaker 1: probably some truth to it if you believed in social
Speaker 1: security reform. I don't, but they believe it. That's what
Speaker 1: killed it. It was Iraq. It was Iraq, and it
Speaker 1: was a Hurricane Katrina. Those two things nuked the entire
Speaker 1: Bush project. They became in messing at the entire White House,
Speaker 1: became in Iraq project. They never did a single piece
Speaker 1: of major mestic legislation ever. Again, that will similarly happen here,
Speaker 1: except Trump is somehow beating Bush on the timeline. It's
Speaker 1: only been six months into his presidency. This will define
Speaker 1: for the next three and a half years if things
Speaker 1: go poorly. I mean, they're really just banking on the
Speaker 1: ability to land the plane. But there's just no evidence
Speaker 1: of that, you know, And what he points out is
Speaker 1: a bigger question as well. Even if Americans don't get
Speaker 1: deployed to hundreds of thousands or any of that, the
Speaker 1: spotlight in the attention that we'll have to have on
Speaker 1: the country of Iran as a result of this operation
Speaker 1: is years decades to come. Think about Iran is not
Speaker 1: only a country of ninety million. Let's say the regime
Speaker 1: collapses and it goes Libya, civil war, Iraq. You'll have Katar, Saudi, Turkey,
Speaker 1: all these other people. They are all going to pick
Speaker 1: sides Israel, everyone's going to pick there. They're all going
Speaker 1: to fight each other. There will be mass death. You
Speaker 1: have a direct footpath. They can walk to Europe literally
Speaker 1: by foot if they wanted to. So you're going to
Speaker 1: have a mass demographic crisis in Europe. And then on
Speaker 1: top of that, all of these different subregional issues surrounding it,
Speaker 1: like Syria and the Iraqi government, they themselves be destabilized
Speaker 1: because Iran was so in mesh in their politics. And
Speaker 1: so then what happens if we have a civil war
Speaker 1: there and then they bleed into each other and all
Speaker 1: of this is when that's exactly when the John mccains
Speaker 1: and Lindsay Graham's of the world say, we got to
Speaker 1: go in and we got to pick a side, just
Speaker 1: like we did with Syria, just like we did with Libya,
Speaker 1: and guess what, we're not very good at it. And
Speaker 1: all the while it requires more US munitions, more carrier
Speaker 1: strike groups, more Israeli defense, and what's going on in
Speaker 1: East Asia? Fifty percent of global GDP laughing at the
Speaker 1: United States of America. I mean, already we've probably depleted
Speaker 1: an entire year's worth of FAD interceptors in five days.
Speaker 1: Five days. I mean, it would require the World War
Speaker 1: II level mobilization of the US economy to come back
Speaker 1: and to actually produce the level of munitions just to
Speaker 1: be able to support an offensive in an ongoing war
Speaker 1: against Iran. Forget about some of the theater. It's not
Speaker 1: going to happen. This is not two thousand and three
Speaker 1: in the unipolar moment. And you know, I didn't even
Speaker 1: talk about all of the underlying social decay and problems
Speaker 1: that we have here at home. So I think he's
Speaker 1: exactly right. I mean, I don't know if it would
Speaker 1: be the end of the American Empire, but it would
Speaker 1: be a step in them.
Speaker 3: Anyway.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean, think of all the costs that
Speaker 2: just the Hoothies and Yemen were able to exactly exactly
Speaker 2: against us, like with the you know, when they're relatively
Speaker 2: like minor operation which wasn't even really directed at us.
Speaker 2: And then think about you know, the cost out a
Speaker 2: country like Iran could exact. You know, I personally would
Speaker 2: like this administration to fail, but not at the cost
Speaker 2: of going to war in Iran. That is, you know,
Speaker 2: not a cost that it should be or is acceptable.
Speaker 3: In any way. And I think your point about the.
Speaker 2: Escalation of our the acceleration of our decline is incredibly apt.
Speaker 2: Let's go and play this last sad that we have
Speaker 2: from Tucker and Steve Bannon. This is c three guys
Speaker 2: where you can see how careful they are about avoiding
Speaker 2: any direct criticism of Trump. And I think this is
Speaker 2: a preview of the justifications to come that you already see.
Speaker 2: You know, I saw Charles Kirk last night on Fox News. Oh,
Speaker 2: I trust Trump, and we have to trust in Trump.
Speaker 2: And he was made for this moment, and thank god
Speaker 2: we elected him to be here during this point in time.
Speaker 2: Like the rationalization that we've seen in the past from
Speaker 2: many of these figures is anything Trump does that they
Speaker 2: don't like, it's never his fault. It's like the people
Speaker 2: around him, or he got tricked, he got pulled into something.
Speaker 2: The deep stay blah blah blah. And so Tucker and
Speaker 2: Bannon in an effort to maintain apparently failed effort to
Speaker 2: maintain some sort of credibility and influence within the Trump
Speaker 2: administration also cocked this, you know, elaborate imaginary scheme in
Speaker 2: which Trump is really dedicated to peace, and it's just
Speaker 2: all of these unseen forces around him that are effectuating
Speaker 2: the outcome that we all see.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 9: And the incentives to pull the US in are so profound.
Speaker 9: I guess if I could just say one political thing,
Speaker 9: the watching Donald Trump, who, of course you know very
Speaker 9: well who I think at core is sincere about peace time. Yeah,
Speaker 9: big time, big time. I mean that's that's real, watching
Speaker 9: him done so wrong. The lies, Oh he knew all along.
Speaker 9: You know that the peace process was faked. Steve Wikoff
Speaker 9: was playing a long That is a lie. That's a lot,
Speaker 9: I know, that's a lot. Those guys meant it.
Speaker 1: It's a total lie.
Speaker 9: And all these people that that Mark Levin and all
Speaker 9: of the minions who are running cover for a foreign government,
Speaker 9: they're all telling that same why And I just I
Speaker 9: feel for President Trump and I think I don't know this,
Speaker 9: I'm just guessing, but at this point I feel like
Speaker 9: he just has to kind of roll with it. You know,
Speaker 9: what do you say you can't you want to get
Speaker 9: an argument about that right in the middle of a war.
Speaker 8: I think he reiterated last night that we got to
Speaker 8: get back to the peace part.
Speaker 4: The guy laid down.
Speaker 1: They're lying about him.
Speaker 9: He's sincerely even now, he sincerely believes. Whether he's writer
Speaker 9: or not, I can't say, but that this could be
Speaker 9: a predicate to a peace deal. What we're seeing now,
Speaker 9: he really thinks that and wants that.
Speaker 2: So he's holding onto the idea this was all This
Speaker 2: is all an effort to get to a piece deal.
Speaker 1: I mean there's a duality of Trump. I think both
Speaker 1: of those things can be true. I think when Trump
Speaker 1: is on the phone with Tucker and them, he probably
Speaker 1: is saying things like that, He's probably got hours of
Speaker 1: conversation with a lot of people. Actually, I know this
Speaker 1: literally to be the case, talking about how he wants
Speaker 1: a deal with Iron. He's also a deeply impressionable boomer
Speaker 1: who watches a lot of Fox News, and when he
Speaker 1: has dinner with Mark Levin is like, yeah, maybe it
Speaker 1: is a good idea to go at. And this is
Speaker 1: the problem with somebody who doesn't think that deeply about
Speaker 1: any of this. I mean, it also shows you really
Speaker 1: the downside of somebody who basically could promise all things
Speaker 1: to all people. But part of the clarifying part of
Speaker 1: the presidency is that you do actually make a decision,
Speaker 1: and when you make that decision, you actually come into power.
Speaker 1: You find out who what heal, somebody really thinks, or
Speaker 1: who has really been swayed or not. Part of the
Speaker 1: reason they have to frame this stuff is this happened
Speaker 1: yesterday with Dave. I love Dave, and Dave doesn't care
Speaker 1: about this, But Dave actually was kind of a real
Speaker 1: figure in Maga write I would say in terms of
Speaker 1: his audience. People look to him for guidance and just
Speaker 1: you know his position.
Speaker 2: He had real antiope to solidify libertarians voting for Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that was really important. And so when he
Speaker 1: was on our show and he was like, impeached Trump
Speaker 1: and I'm done with Trump, I was like, oh man,
Speaker 1: because what I know is that for them Trump is
Speaker 1: the ultimate question. Trump can never fail, He can only
Speaker 1: be failed. Now that's a very convenient narrative for Donald J. Trump.
Speaker 1: It's obviously bullshit. And those of us who talk like
Speaker 1: Dave or who say these things like that's bs or
Speaker 1: you actually have agency, you get shut out real quickly.
Speaker 1: Like I just am being honest in terms of the
Speaker 1: way that this all works for political influence. And that's
Speaker 1: part of why Bannon and Tucker, like they both are
Speaker 1: doing shows and they're trying to give their opinion, but
Speaker 1: they're political actors as well, trying to push in actual agenda.
Speaker 1: And what you're all watching is how that works in
Speaker 1: practice and also how difficult and honestly humiliate it can be.
Speaker 1: I mean, especially Bannon's case, because Bannon, you know, constantly
Speaker 1: like he's he'll hit them on elon, he'll hit them
Speaker 1: on this and all, and then Trump will just be
Speaker 1: like I don't agree with that at all, and he'll
Speaker 1: elevate them and Bannon's like, I'm speaking for the magabase
Speaker 1: and it's like, well, are you really. He's like, that's
Speaker 1: why that whole mantle of I'm speaking for the MAGA
Speaker 1: base or any of that. I think everyone needs to
Speaker 1: drop it and we should just argue on the merits.
Speaker 1: Let's just argue on the actual thing and say, look,
Speaker 1: this isn't this we can talk about politics. I mean,
Speaker 1: you want me to give the real anti political case
Speaker 1: for Trump. I said it earlier in the show Bush.
Speaker 1: The reason he survived is because he got the whole
Speaker 1: country to agree with men and co opt to the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. If you do this, if Donald Trump does this,
Speaker 1: he will own the decision entirely. No Democrats going to
Speaker 1: vote for this war. They're not stupid enough, you know,
Speaker 1: to a lot of Republicans won't even necessarily vote because
Speaker 1: it won't come up for that, and he and his
Speaker 1: national security team will own it for all time. There's
Speaker 1: none of that protection for them political establishment or the media,
Speaker 1: even in the media, to be honest, because they're not
Speaker 1: as complicit in this one. Like you can't spread the
Speaker 1: blame around you were going to own it one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: That's about as a political reason as ever not to
Speaker 1: do the course that you're currently taking.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, and Tucker is a much more I mean no
Speaker 2: disrespect for Todave who I think you're right as an
Speaker 2: influential figure on the right ones important pulling together you know,
Speaker 2: the Trump winning Trump coalition, bringing Libertarians into the ten
Speaker 2: et cetera. But Tucker is a much larger and more
Speaker 2: influential figure. And even with him being so careful. Trump
Speaker 2: still hit him, hit him multiple times and just completely
Speaker 2: you know, brushes him aside. Kookie Tucker Carlson thinks that
Speaker 2: it's fine for Ron to have nuclear weapon, you know,
Speaker 2: and so and it are politics. This is the worst
Speaker 2: thing about the Trump era. It's all about Trump. He
Speaker 2: is the central dividing line. If you are you know
Speaker 2: how you feel about him and his every single decision
Speaker 2: and your willingness to go along with it no matter
Speaker 2: what it is, that defines where you are in the
Speaker 2: political spectrum. I mean, it's easy to forget now. Liz
Speaker 2: Cheney was a big Trump supporter. Liz Cheney campaigned with Trump,
Speaker 2: okay in twenty twenty. She was on the Trump train,
Speaker 2: and then the minute it has nothing to do with
Speaker 2: her being in ne O'Connor whatever. I know, that's what
Speaker 2: they claim. It had nothing to do with that. She
Speaker 2: criticized Trump after January sixth, that was it. That was
Speaker 2: what killed her. And same thing with all this, you know,
Speaker 2: antipathy towards Mitch McConnell, who now is apparently like you know,
Speaker 2: riding high because he's getting his way in terms of
Speaker 2: foreign policy, has nothing to do with him being corrupt
Speaker 2: or in ne O'Connor any of the rest. It had
Speaker 2: everything to do with again, he was critical of Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: and you can't do that, and they will, you know,
Speaker 2: trash you and destroy you, and the base will go
Speaker 2: along with whatever you say about who is on the
Speaker 2: good side and who is on the bad side. So
Speaker 2: you know, that's that's the landscape as it exists now.