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 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: 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 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 1: for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal?
Speaker 2: We have two absolute giants booked to join us in
Speaker 2: this show. So I am extremely excited to speak with
Speaker 2: Scott Horton about the reality of the Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Speaker 4: He can do some debunking.
Speaker 2: For us there, so very excited to speak with him,
Speaker 2: and we are also going to be talking to Professor
Speaker 2: John Meerscheimer about the geostrategic implications of all of this
Speaker 2: and how we got to this place in the first
Speaker 2: place that really super psyched to talk to them. Before
Speaker 2: we get into that, we're going to break down all
Speaker 2: of the latest news with regard to our war in
Speaker 2: Israel's war with Iran. Trump has now gone from saying,
Speaker 2: you know, we destroyed all the nuclear sites.
Speaker 4: To now the indications are we aren't.
Speaker 2: And all the administration officials went out on the Sunday
Speaker 2: shows and said there's no regime change here, and then
Speaker 2: Trump goes ahead and tweets on maybe we are going
Speaker 2: to do a regime change. So there is a whole
Speaker 2: lot to get into, a lot of moving parts. Also,
Speaker 2: as we watch what Iran's potential retaliation could be, We're
Speaker 2: also going to spend some time taking a hard look
Speaker 2: at all of the intense media propaganda, wild wild stuff
Speaker 2: going on, especially on Fox News and CNN, so that
Speaker 2: is where we are going to focus. We're also going
Speaker 2: to take a look at the oftentimes utterly pathetic democratic
Speaker 2: reaction and what is going on with the quote unquote
Speaker 2: opposition party, and then later today for premium subscriber, Soccer
Speaker 2: and I will be doing that AMA Live. So if
Speaker 2: you want to be able to participate in those, make
Speaker 2: sure you sign up at Breakingpoints dot Com. Thank you
Speaker 2: so much to everyone who's been supporting the show. One
Speaker 2: cool thing that we are going to get to do
Speaker 2: this week, Sager is Griffin and Ryan are going to
Speaker 2: New York. We're going to be doing a live stream
Speaker 2: Tuesday night. That New York City Democratic primary mayoral race
Speaker 2: with the top two being Andrew Cuomo versus Zoron Mamdanni,
Speaker 2: is going down this Tuesday, so we are going to
Speaker 2: be covering that live and Newpole actually just came out
Speaker 2: this morning that has this from Emerson that has Zoron leading.
Speaker 2: After you go through all the right choice rounds and whatever,
Speaker 2: fifty two, forty eight and now the polymarket betting odds
Speaker 2: which were wildly Inquoma's favor yesterday I have now completely
Speaker 2: flipped in favor of Zoron. So it's going to be
Speaker 2: a nail bider. Very interesting to see how this race
Speaker 2: goes down as sort of a canary in the coal
Speaker 2: mine of where the Democratic face is now.
Speaker 3: That's right, but thank you to our premium describers. That's
Speaker 3: where we're able to afward. We have them both on
Speaker 3: the ground, They're going to be there in New York City.
Speaker 3: Hopefully we're able to get some interviews with soor On
Speaker 3: Mamdani as well as possibly Mahmoud Khalil, you know.
Speaker 1: Maybe working on that media. We're working on the stor.
Speaker 4: More accurately, Ryan is working.
Speaker 1: Ryan is working because Ryan.
Speaker 2: Knows someone who knows someone.
Speaker 1: Always he's the goat. What can we say? He is
Speaker 1: the greatest to ever do it.
Speaker 3: Thank you seriously to everybody who has been signing up
Speaker 3: Breakingpoints dot com. If you're able to join us, we
Speaker 3: have a massive influx of new listeners and of new viewers,
Speaker 3: which we deeply appreciate. Guys, if you can't afford a
Speaker 3: membership right now, it's totally fine.
Speaker 1: Just do us a favor.
Speaker 3: Hit the subscribe button on YouTube, or if you're listening
Speaker 3: to this on a podcast, just go ahead and take
Speaker 3: your favorite episode.
Speaker 1: I heard a lot of people really enjoyed our episode.
Speaker 3: Immediately after the strikes that happened on around Just text
Speaker 3: it to a friend if somebody's asking, hey, what is
Speaker 3: actually going on here? And hopefully we can help people
Speaker 3: sort throughout all. So with that could transition to what
Speaker 3: the hell is going on? Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Well, I have a feeling with Scott Horden and Meerscheimer
Speaker 2: in the show today Today might be one of those
Speaker 2: favorite shows. That's one I'm certainly really excited to hear
Speaker 2: from both of those individuals. So let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: put a one up on the screen here, guys, you
Speaker 2: just can't make the shit up. This is Donald Trump
Speaker 2: on True Social yesterday. It's not politically correct to use
Speaker 2: the term regime change, But if the current Iranian regime
Speaker 2: is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there
Speaker 2: be a regime change?
Speaker 1: Question?
Speaker 4: Question? Question?
Speaker 2: And then he says, myga, make Iran great again instead
Speaker 2: of naga.
Speaker 4: You get that.
Speaker 2: That's sure, that's my that's my great, my best gas here,
Speaker 2: So saga before I even play all of the administration
Speaker 2: students who were sent out to say, oh, there's no
Speaker 2: regime change here, before Trump completely undercuts them.
Speaker 4: I mean, how quickly have they moved the goalposts?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 2: Right, it's it's just extraordinary. Like first, oh, we're doing diplomacy,
Speaker 2: No way, we don't want war, we just want diplomacy.
Speaker 2: Then oh, this is great, that Israel striking, and oh
Speaker 2: we were not involved at all. And then the next
Speaker 2: day after Trump sees the Fox News coverage and how
Speaker 2: glowing it is.
Speaker 4: Oh, of course it was all us. We were totally involved.
Speaker 2: But then we actually, what we really want is diplomatic negotiation.
Speaker 2: So you know, it's great Israel's doing their thing with us,
Speaker 2: but we really want diplomacy. And then you know, very
Speaker 2: quickly that diplomacy obviously because some of the lead negotiators
Speaker 2: were murdered, falls apart. And then it's off to the races.
Speaker 2: So now we've gone from oh, we're just going to
Speaker 2: drop a bomb on four Toho two. Well, actually, you
Speaker 2: can't destroy the nuclear program just with bombing. So looky, looky,
Speaker 2: I guess we're going to have to do regime change.
Speaker 2: And your two hosts here called.
Speaker 1: It all along.
Speaker 4: I would have loved to be wrong, but that's where
Speaker 4: we are.
Speaker 1: I wanted to be wrong, I really did, you know.
Speaker 3: I wanted to see something that really challenge all of
Speaker 3: my priors about US intervention in the Middle East. But
Speaker 3: cynicism is ultimately the only thing that can be rewarded.
Speaker 6: Here.
Speaker 1: We started with Israel has got it. All America has.
Speaker 3: To do is give them the bombs, and then we're like, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: we just got to do one strike on these three
Speaker 3: facilities and then it's over. And now as we're going
Speaker 3: to get into for the rest of the show, actually
Speaker 3: turns out, yes, the strikes were quote successful possibly in
Speaker 3: knocking out some of those facilities, but oh, the nuclear
Speaker 3: material itself is not there. It's going to go through
Speaker 3: a lot with Scott, which means what, oh, maybe we're
Speaker 3: going to have to go back and continue this this morning.
Speaker 3: The IDF has removed all pretenses of this being about
Speaker 3: the nuclear program. They're bombing regime targets, including you know,
Speaker 3: political prisons or whatever from the Iranians or apparently Iran
Speaker 3: had some doomsday clock about when Israel was going to
Speaker 3: be destroyed and they bombed that just in case you're
Speaker 3: all aware of like what this is all really about.
Speaker 3: But with Trump, I mean, this really is a massive
Speaker 3: indictment of a lot of these MAGA influencers, because the
Speaker 3: MAGA line for the last week has been trust President Trump.
Speaker 3: He's got this, He's not going to do regime change.
Speaker 1: He tweeted it out. He just tweeted it out.
Speaker 3: Not only did he just tweet it out, he actually
Speaker 3: humiliated all three of his major you know, national security
Speaker 3: officials who went on television all day to assure the
Speaker 3: American public and the Iranians listen, we are not trying
Speaker 3: to do regime change here, and we look if you
Speaker 3: want the evidence, I'm talking hours beforehand. Vice President jad Vance,
Speaker 3: National Security Advisor, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Sectef, Pete Hexeth.
Speaker 3: They all said it over and over again, this is
Speaker 3: not about regime change, even though Trump literally said it
Speaker 3: is about regime change.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: Our view has been very clear that we don't want
Speaker 7: a regime change. We do not want to protract this
Speaker 7: or build this out anymore than it's already been built out.
Speaker 7: We want to end their nuclear program, and then we
Speaker 7: want to talk to the Iranians about a long term
Speaker 7: settlement here.
Speaker 8: So this mission was a very precise mission. It had
Speaker 8: three objectives, three nuclear sites. It was not attack on Iran.
Speaker 8: It was not an attack on the Iranian people. This
Speaker 8: wasn't a regime change move. This was designed to degrade
Speaker 8: and or destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear
Speaker 8: weaponization ambitions.
Speaker 9: So is regime change off the table, mister Secretary. And
Speaker 9: to the chairman, you know you said the battle damage
Speaker 9: assessment is still ongoing, But do you believe that some
Speaker 9: nuclear capability in Iran remains.
Speaker 7: This mission was not has not been about regime change.
Speaker 3: It's not about regime change. Not doing regime change, don't
Speaker 3: worry about it. And the reason why is because they're like,
Speaker 3: maybe we can come to some agreement with the Iranians.
Speaker 3: So the Iranians now have look whether it's true or not.
Speaker 3: At this point, the narrative is diplomacy was a ruse,
Speaker 3: and then it was listen, we have nothing to do
Speaker 3: with this.
Speaker 1: This was only Israel.
Speaker 3: Now, actually we did bomb you, but this is just
Speaker 3: about the nuclear sites. It's not about anything else. To
Speaker 3: now Trump is saying, so, why would you want to
Speaker 3: negotiate with like at this point, let's put yourself in
Speaker 3: the strategic empathy. Okay, you don't have to like Iran,
Speaker 3: you don't have to like the regime. Put yourself in
Speaker 3: their shoes.
Speaker 1: What would you do? What would you do? And will continue?
Speaker 3: You know, with these statements from US policymakers, it's just preposterous.
Speaker 3: And also I mean, I know we're going to get
Speaker 3: to this, but I want to preview this. The Trump
Speaker 3: speech is one of the most It will live in
Speaker 3: history as one of the most extraordinary speeches in the
Speaker 3: US Israel relationship of all time. I mean he literally
Speaker 3: taught the United States of America and Israel together. He
Speaker 3: thanked Prime Minister net and Yahoo before he thanked the
Speaker 3: US Air Force service members who dropped the bombs on Iran.
Speaker 3: He said, God bless Israel, before God bless America. This
Speaker 3: is the game is up in terms of what this
Speaker 3: is all about. I mean, this is Israel's war, this
Speaker 3: is America's war. Donald Trump, our president, has chosen to
Speaker 3: fuse those two things together, and he is betting his
Speaker 3: entire presidency on this. You know, will it work out
Speaker 3: for him? I mean, he's got better political instincts than me,
Speaker 3: but at the very least, like for a lot of
Speaker 3: other people out there, if you deluded yourself, you know,
Speaker 3: into thinking that there was some independence or whatever, maybe
Speaker 3: that was true at one point. I do not believe
Speaker 3: it to be true at all anymore. Donald Trump has
Speaker 3: made his choice to die is absolutely cast.
Speaker 4: You know, Socger I was thinking about this, and.
Speaker 2: I have especially for people who you know, we're looking
Speaker 2: at the genocide and Gosam were like, I can't vote
Speaker 2: for a ticket that was part of this, and so
Speaker 2: they wanted to believe that maybe Trump would be different.
Speaker 2: And one of the analyzes that was offered is Biden
Speaker 2: is a die the Wolf Zionist, like he's actually ideologically
Speaker 2: committed to the project, whereas Trump is purely transactional. But
Speaker 2: you know what, that should have been a red flag
Speaker 2: for us, because no one's going to play the transactional
Speaker 2: game better than the Israel lobby, right, And.
Speaker 3: That's you know, that's a very insightful thing. And that's
Speaker 3: actually really one day we'll do like a full retrospective
Speaker 3: on how we got here. And there's a big, big
Speaker 3: reason why this is all happening.
Speaker 1: It's a big part of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because if you actually have some sort of principle,
Speaker 2: even if your principle is like I love Israel and
Speaker 2: I want what's best for Israel, this is not in
Speaker 2: the long run going to be best for Israel. I mean,
Speaker 2: people around the world hate this country now, right. You
Speaker 2: cannot bomb your way to safety and security. So there
Speaker 2: is even if you have any sort of ideological principle
Speaker 2: you're willing to stick to, you there is some sort
Speaker 2: of limits that you may eventually put. As we've seen
Speaker 2: with other American presidents. By the way, who have it
Speaker 2: the end of the day said, you know what, it's
Speaker 2: too far, it's too much. We're done here. But with Trump,
Speaker 2: because he's just for sale of eye is better. Then
Speaker 2: you don't have any sort of a limiting principle, and
Speaker 2: that's how you end up.
Speaker 4: You know, this is John McCain's fondest wish. Like people
Speaker 4: are sharing this meme of him.
Speaker 3: This former advisors are saying that I'm not joking. His
Speaker 3: son in law Ben Dominic literally is like this is history.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, yeah, I take it from his family.
Speaker 4: All right, listen, absolutely true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Lindsay Graham's the John McCain's, the John Boltons. They
Speaker 2: are getting the Bill crystals. Yes, they are getting their
Speaker 2: fondest wish right now through this president who dared both
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen, in twenty twenty four, who dared to
Speaker 2: posture as being anti war, and is now already like
Speaker 2: put us into a regime change war in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: the exact thing that he would have had us believe
Speaker 2: he would never do, even as he spoke down to
Speaker 2: both sides of his mouth like he'd say that, and
Speaker 2: then he'd also say we should bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities.
Speaker 2: So you know, people heard what they wanted to hear ultimately,
Speaker 2: and the record spoke for itself from the first term
Speaker 2: where he was extremely hawkish and also risked direct hot
Speaker 2: war with the Run after assassinating costm sool of money.
Speaker 2: But we're going to spend some more time tomorrow, probably
Speaker 2: on all of the MAGA influencer cope, because you could
Speaker 2: spend a long time talking about the way that these
Speaker 2: people have shifted and the mental gymnastics that are going
Speaker 2: on here. But let me just give you one example,
Speaker 2: because it fits with what Zager was saying about the
Speaker 2: evolution here of their talking points and the evolution here
Speaker 2: of what the administration has been trying to sell us.
Speaker 2: So Charlie Kirk originally starts off with like, we shouldn't
Speaker 2: be in war with Iran, and then once it's clear
Speaker 2: that we are, then it's what we shouldn't directly bomb
Speaker 2: a Run, and then once it's once we do that,
Speaker 2: then it's what we shouldn't do regime change and have
Speaker 2: boots in the ground. Now once Trump comes out and says, hey,
Speaker 2: why not regime change, Let's make a Run great again.
Speaker 2: Now we get this from Charlie Kirk parsing of the
Speaker 2: different varieties of regime change. A bottom up revolution rises
Speaker 2: from the will of the people, a top down regime
Speaker 2: change is engineered by elites and the intel community. One
Speaker 2: is organic, the other is orchestrated and forced. The line
Speaker 2: is very thin, and we must proceed extremely carefully before
Speaker 2: you know what we could be. In a situation like Libya,
Speaker 2: President Trump is talking about an organic uprising?
Speaker 4: Oh is he as.
Speaker 2: He's bombing Iran? He's talking about this is all just organic.
Speaker 2: America cannot get involved in a forceful decapitation effort in Persia.
Speaker 2: So the number of times he has already shifted the
Speaker 2: goalposts here to now we're parsing the nuances of which
Speaker 2: type of regime change he thinks Trump ultimately means is
Speaker 2: just absolutely incredible to see this speech from Trump. Honestly,
Speaker 2: I was shocked because I thought he would be on
Speaker 2: his game with regard to this messaging. It's not hard
Speaker 2: to convince them. Sadly, it's not hard to convince the
Speaker 2: American people to bomb someplace that they've never been to. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's just the sad fact of the matter, based on
Speaker 2: my entire life experience. So if you say Iran has nuke.
Speaker 2: We had to go in there and stop it. We
Speaker 2: dropped the bombs. It's done, it's over. God bless America.
Speaker 2: We preserved our American interests. You know what, I'm sorry
Speaker 2: to say, there's a large amount of American set at
Speaker 2: least that the jump would be like you know what,
Speaker 2: I get it, Okay, we had to tell there was
Speaker 2: a dangerous situation. They were going to bomb Zuri or
Speaker 2: New York was gonna be next to whatever the hell
Speaker 2: they had been sold on Fox News primarily in CNN
Speaker 2: as well. That's really not what he said, and he
Speaker 2: also threatened more belicosity and really made it clear this
Speaker 2: wasn't really about our interests, about Israel's interest I mean,
Speaker 2: he really didn't even try to hide that in this speech.
Speaker 2: The other piece, optically is he's got Rubio, Hegseth and JD.
Speaker 2: Vance behind him, you know, which was a way of
Speaker 2: sort of projecting that he's brought the you know.
Speaker 4: JD.
Speaker 2: Vance was supposedly the highest level like non interventionist in
Speaker 2: the administration. Heg Seth was also supposedly had learned his
Speaker 2: lesson blah blah blah. Rubio has always been a Neocon,
Speaker 2: but we had also been sold some like, oh, maybe
Speaker 2: he's changed his ways here too. By having them there
Speaker 2: behind him while he's announcing this, it's basically a way
Speaker 2: of sort of like publicly humiliating and demonstrating that they've
Speaker 2: all been brought to heal. In any case, let's go
Speaker 2: ahead and take a listen to a sampling of what
Speaker 2: he had to say in that speech.
Speaker 10: A short time ago, the US military carried out massive
Speaker 10: precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the
Speaker 10: Iranian regime for Doe, Natanz, and Esfahan. Tonight, I can
Speaker 10: report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular
Speaker 10: military success. Iran's key nuclear and Richmond facilities have been
Speaker 10: completely and totally obliterated around the bully of the Middle
Speaker 10: East must now make peace. If they do not, future
Speaker 10: attacks would be far greater and a lot easier. I
Speaker 10: want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister bb netn Yahoo.
Speaker 10: We worked as a team like perhaps no team has
Speaker 10: ever worked before, and we've gone a long way to
Speaker 10: erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank
Speaker 10: the Israeli military for the wonderful job they've done with
Speaker 10: all of that being said, this cannot continue. There will
Speaker 10: be either peace or there will be tragedy. For I
Speaker 10: ran far greater than we have witnessed over the last
Speaker 10: eight days. Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight's was
Speaker 10: the most difficult of them all by far, and perhaps
Speaker 10: the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly,
Speaker 10: we will go after those other targets with precision, speed
Speaker 10: and skill. Most of them can be taken out in
Speaker 10: a matter of minutes.
Speaker 2: So he threatens additional action, and he says something there Soger.
Speaker 2: He says Iran's key nuclear facilities were completely and totally obliterated.
Speaker 2: That is not the case. The administration is no longer
Speaker 2: even claiming that that is the case. You can put
Speaker 2: this next satellite images up here on the screen. This
Speaker 2: is beh I mean, you can see certainly damage which
Speaker 2: has occurred here. But the big question too was Fodeau,
Speaker 2: which is the nuclear facility buried under the mountain that
Speaker 2: there was a lot of discussion of prior to this bombings.
Speaker 2: Put the next one up on the screen and you
Speaker 2: can see the before and the after here. You know,
Speaker 2: it's actually a little bit difficult to tell exactly where
Speaker 2: the bombs dropped and what happened. But all the indications
Speaker 2: that we're getting from the Israelis and from the Americans
Speaker 2: at this point is yes, there was significant damage, but
Speaker 2: these nuclear facilities are not completely and totally obliterated. As
Speaker 2: he said, not to mention. Now we're getting these pieces
Speaker 2: of like, oh and there, but did you know there's
Speaker 2: other really even more important nuclear facilities and oh, by
Speaker 2: the way, and here's natons. You can see the before
Speaker 2: and after there and oh, by the way, they because
Speaker 2: there was so much projection of like we're going to
Speaker 2: do this, or maybe we're going to do this, or
Speaker 2: maybe we're not going to do this, the Iranians moved
Speaker 2: their stockpile of enriched uranium to some secret site that
Speaker 2: you know, I don't think we have awareness of. Maybe
Speaker 2: we have awareness of where it is. But the you know,
Speaker 2: ostensible goal here of making it impossible for them, at
Speaker 2: least in the medium term to race towards a bomb
Speaker 2: has been a failure. Now, reminder, our intelligence community and
Speaker 2: the IAEA say they were not trying to develop a
Speaker 2: nuclear weapon, that that wasn't something that they had in mind.
Speaker 2: That if they didn't decide to it would take years
Speaker 2: for them to develop not only that weapon, but the
Speaker 2: capability to deliver it. But you know, now we've changed
Speaker 2: the calculus where because of the aggressive actions of the
Speaker 2: Israelis and of now ourselves as well, there is a
Speaker 2: lot of logic and well, I'm sure talk to Mehershima
Speaker 2: about this later. There's a lot of logic in place
Speaker 2: for Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 4: So that's where we are.
Speaker 3: The Trump administration is defining terms in complete stupidity because
Speaker 3: they're like, the sites have been obliterated, and it's like, okay, well,
Speaker 3: it's not really about the sites, right, It's about the
Speaker 3: ability to weaponize a nuclear bomb, right, And that means
Speaker 3: it's about the uranium stockpile. Let's go and put the
Speaker 3: next punt up there on the screen. And there's also
Speaker 3: some further stuff that gets into it. It says the
Speaker 3: Iranian photo site looks to be severely damaged, but not destroyed.
Speaker 1: But furthermore, this is the most important thing.
Speaker 3: Basically, US officials now concede they do not know the
Speaker 3: fate of the Iranian uranium stockpile, and that the current
Speaker 3: assessment is that almost all of it, and especially according
Speaker 3: to the Uranians, was moved out of these places before.
Speaker 3: In fact, there is an arms control expert who I
Speaker 3: religiously followed I have for ten years on the North
Speaker 3: Korea nuclear program and more, and his current analysis is
Speaker 3: that not only does Iran not have access to this
Speaker 3: uranium stockpile, but there are several other facilities which are
Speaker 3: more recently built, of which the IAA has not ever
Speaker 3: been inspected. They don't even know where they are secret
Speaker 3: facilities and more where they fully have the capacity to
Speaker 3: take this sixty percent uranium and enrich it to ninety
Speaker 3: percent if they wish to do so. As you just said,
Speaker 3: and we'll talk to Meerscheimer about, there has never been
Speaker 3: more strategic logic to have that happen. And in fact,
Speaker 3: there's already satellite imagery showing trucks and other Iranian facilities
Speaker 3: that were going there before the strikes, maybe two or
Speaker 3: three days beforehand.
Speaker 1: And moving it out of there. Now, you may ask why.
Speaker 3: The world's most moral, incredible military, Israel, while they're bombing
Speaker 3: doomsday clocks, doesn't have the capacity apparently to bomb those
Speaker 3: trucks or to say, hey, why are these big trucks
Speaker 3: capable of using nuclear material there? Yeah, you may want
Speaker 3: to question that, including with the United States. This is
Speaker 3: the problem is that now the stage is set for
Speaker 3: what more strikes, because like, oh, well, we didn't get
Speaker 3: it here, so actually we got to go back and
Speaker 3: we got to go get this quote nuclear material. And look,
Speaker 3: it's going to be the same logic. Israel doesn't have
Speaker 3: the bunker busters, they don't have the capacity. They actually
Speaker 3: hit fourdough again this morning, similarly trying to take out
Speaker 3: other things on the side, and again begs the questions like, well,
Speaker 3: if we destroyed it, then why do they have to
Speaker 3: go back and hit it again. Look to the actions,
Speaker 3: not to the words, and because the actions tell us
Speaker 3: the entire story, and the story is clear. Also, I
Speaker 3: would show why the Iran that made the quote Miga
Speaker 3: tweet is so damaging.
Speaker 1: What did JD say in there? He said, we're not
Speaker 1: at war with Iran? Bullsh whatever. All right, let's move
Speaker 1: past that.
Speaker 3: We're not at war with Iraq, not war with your
Speaker 3: we're at war with their nuclear program.
Speaker 1: Then we want to come to an agreement.
Speaker 3: Now that agreement would be about this uranium stockpile, but
Speaker 3: we don't even know where that is. This is I'm
Speaker 3: telling you this is leak US intelligence officials, other officials. Iaea,
Speaker 3: they're saying, we have no clue, we don't know where
Speaker 3: it all went. Well, how do you get that? This
Speaker 3: is basically like the same Iraq playbook. The whole reason
Speaker 3: why boots on the ground and all that had to happen,
Speaker 3: not just for a regime change. It was sold to
Speaker 3: the American public as we have to go and secure
Speaker 3: it ourselves.
Speaker 1: What Israel's going to go and secure it? The great
Speaker 1: geniuses and the IDF.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm sure that you know some nineteen year old
Speaker 3: reservists who have now spent two years just like happy
Speaker 3: shooting around named Gaza are very proficient at being able
Speaker 3: to No. Of course, it's be only the US military,
Speaker 3: and we haven't even gotten into Iranian retaliation. But I
Speaker 3: actually realized we hadn't even played that JD thing. So
Speaker 3: just so you guys can take a listen and to
Speaker 3: show how damaging the Make Iran Great Again Regime change
Speaker 3: declaration was from Donald Trump. It directly undermines his alleged
Speaker 3: policy and actually makes it clear what the real policy is.
Speaker 1: Take a listen.
Speaker 4: Is the United States now at war with Iran?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 7: Kristen we're not at war with Iran. We're at war
Speaker 7: with Iran's nuclear program. And let me just say Kristin
Speaker 7: that we're incredibly grateful and proud of the American Air
Speaker 7: Force pilots who did an incredible job last night. The
Speaker 7: operation was really extraordinary. I certainly empathize with Americans who
Speaker 7: are exhausted after twenty five years of foreign entanglements in
Speaker 7: the Middle East. I understand the concern. But the difference
Speaker 7: is that back then we had dumb presidents, and now
Speaker 7: we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish
Speaker 7: America's national security objectives. So this is not going to
Speaker 7: be some long drawn out thing we've got in. We've
Speaker 7: done the job of setting their nuclear program back. We're
Speaker 7: going to now work to permanently dismantle that nuclear program
Speaker 7: over the coming years. And that is what the President
Speaker 7: has set out to do.
Speaker 3: You could see clear he said that's what the president.
Speaker 3: And also you know, oh, we had dumb presidents or
Speaker 3: whatever in the past. I mean, if that's the level
Speaker 3: of argumentation that we've been reduced to, it again comes
Speaker 3: back to trust Trump. You should not trust Trump, by
Speaker 3: the way, And this is the other thing. The neogons
Speaker 3: didn't trust Trump when when Steve wickcoff and it looked
Speaker 3: like negotiations and all of that would happened. What were
Speaker 3: they doing? They were like, he's a Katari trader, you
Speaker 3: know all this. Mark Levin was on TV. He say,
Speaker 3: mister President, you got to abandon this policy. They didn't
Speaker 3: trust him. They were thorn in his side and they won.
Speaker 3: That's why because it was an overwhelming pressure campaign. Now
Speaker 3: look again, Trump's intentions will never truly know what all
Speaker 3: of this is. But at a certain point it really
Speaker 3: doesn't matter again because of the actions. So where things
Speaker 3: stand as of some what thirty six hours post strike
Speaker 3: are very clear is the four Dah facility. In others
Speaker 3: they appear to be quote severely damaged. We do not
Speaker 3: yet know where the stockpile is. We do have current
Speaker 3: indications that the Israelis continue their regime change operations. We
Speaker 3: have Donald Trump himself who has declared regime change is
Speaker 3: a possibility that he'd be very okay with, if not
Speaker 3: wanting to affect. And we have all of the all
Speaker 3: of the pieces in place to continue more air strikes
Speaker 3: on Iran, if not a call for some sort of
Speaker 3: US intervention and all of this is before the Uranians
Speaker 3: have even responded to the United States, which of course
Speaker 3: is an open possibility, a dangerous one, and looks all
Speaker 3: the more.
Speaker 6: Likely right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's exactly right. So let's move to the indications there.
Speaker 2: We just got word this morning from Katar. Let's go
Speaker 2: ahead and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 4: Guys.
Speaker 2: This is from the State Department. They say, out of
Speaker 2: an abundance of caution, we recommend American citizens shelter in
Speaker 2: place until further notice. So some dire indications there are
Speaker 2: coming out of the State Department. Let's go and put
Speaker 2: this next piece up on the screen there. This is
Speaker 2: a seven guys coming out of the Times of Israel.
Speaker 2: So they're claiming Yahoo has some interesting intel on the
Speaker 2: whereabouts of iron sixty percent enriched uranium. What do you
Speaker 2: make of this piece, sager A, you buy this?
Speaker 3: No, of course I don't buy it, because look, I mean,
Speaker 3: they can claim whatever they would like. It's clear that
Speaker 3: their military didn't actually be up to the job, and
Speaker 3: they knew it from the very beginning. They knew from
Speaker 3: day one they would never actually be able to destroy
Speaker 3: the nuclear program. And that's part of the reason why again,
Speaker 3: look at the actions, guys. This is all out in
Speaker 3: the open. They're openly striking regime targets and oil and
Speaker 3: gas facilities.
Speaker 2: And by the way, have been from day one. Yes,
Speaker 2: that's why all the strikes in Tehran. Those are not
Speaker 2: nuclear facilities. So this has been and it's so important
Speaker 2: to emphasize the point Sager is making because they want
Speaker 2: to sell you this is about Iran's nuclear program, and
Speaker 2: that's the way they'll keep dragging. Oh, we actually didn't
Speaker 2: completely obliterate fourto Oh yeah, there's this new site. Oh
Speaker 2: they moved in rich uranium. Now we got to do more.
Speaker 2: Now we've got to do more, and now we got.
Speaker 4: To do more.
Speaker 2: And you just keep inching forward. And I mean Trump
Speaker 2: at this point is just like completely said, all right,
Speaker 2: well we need regime change, I guess. And that's the
Speaker 2: truth of the matter is even if you keep it
Speaker 2: at we have to make sure that they can't get
Speaker 2: a nuclear weapon, you can't ensure that. There's literally no
Speaker 2: way to actually guarantee that. The best path they were
Speaker 2: on was the diplomatic one back with the JCPOA and
Speaker 2: the negotiations that are going on the beginning of this
Speaker 2: Trump administration where it's like, Okay, we're going to give
Speaker 2: you sanctions relief, and you're going to agree not to
Speaker 2: pursue a weapon, and we're going to have, you know,
Speaker 2: an inspection regime that can give us some sort of
Speaker 2: comfort that that's not happening. But what the Hawks are
Speaker 2: going to say is, well, you really can't guarantee it
Speaker 2: until we have some sort of puppet regime in there
Speaker 2: that we can just control. So that's the way that
Speaker 2: this logic ultimately works.
Speaker 3: Let's put AA please up on the screen. This is
Speaker 3: arguably the most important indication that's you come out of Iran.
Speaker 3: We'll contextualized for you. The Iranian parliament has reportedly backed
Speaker 3: closing the strace of our moves obviously, which could spike
Speaker 3: the price of oil where what is its thirty forty
Speaker 3: percent of the world's oil moves through, very very important for.
Speaker 1: The Chinese economy.
Speaker 3: Now again, just to explain here what the Iranian parliament did,
Speaker 3: and there are several different parts of the government. It's
Speaker 3: not exactly a parliamentary democracy, okay, there are many different bodies.
Speaker 1: They all report up to the Ayatola.
Speaker 3: Effectively, what they said is they have approved the closing
Speaker 3: of the straits of our moves if the Ayatola and
Speaker 3: the National Security Council of Iran decide to do so.
Speaker 3: So they're not saying that they're going to do it. It's
Speaker 3: effectively like a declaration of war from Congress saying, hey,
Speaker 3: if you want to declare war, you can and then
Speaker 3: it's up to the discretionary authority of the executive So
Speaker 3: in a way, they actually followed the process more than
Speaker 3: our own president did whenever he launched a war. Kind
Speaker 3: of ironic conviously, but what it does tell you is
Speaker 3: that is the nightmare scenario. It's one that US officials
Speaker 3: have said would be suicidal. It almost certainly would. It
Speaker 3: would lead to the massive basically a massive involvement of
Speaker 3: the United States Navy. It would obviously shock the world's
Speaker 3: oil prices. It would be a devastating blow to the
Speaker 3: Chinese economy. It would just be absolute mass chaos. It's
Speaker 3: something that they have the ability to do, to mine
Speaker 3: if they want to, and to close along with the
Speaker 3: who these as well, to try and put more pressure,
Speaker 3: you know, on US and other shipping assets that are
Speaker 3: all throughout the region. But the point really stands is
Speaker 3: that they have a lot of optionality right now.
Speaker 1: They're looking all across the world.
Speaker 3: By the way, another reason why that Qatar thing is
Speaker 3: so significant is it's not about US citizens, guitar. It's
Speaker 3: about the fact we have a massive air base in Qatar.
Speaker 3: Now reportedly a lot of the US assets were taken
Speaker 3: out of that at the beginning. But this was always
Speaker 3: a big nightmare is that that airbase is very strategic.
Speaker 3: It was a key staging point for US troops for
Speaker 3: logistics wise, during the war in Iraq. There's thousands of
Speaker 3: American service members that are not just there, but also
Speaker 3: in the region Bahrain. You have the fifth Fleet and
Speaker 3: you have US two carrier strike groups that are there
Speaker 3: as well. Put that together, I mean with Iraq and
Speaker 3: with Syria, there are so many different vectors through which
Speaker 3: they could attack the United States, US assets, American citizens
Speaker 3: if they wanted to. That is the danger. Now are
Speaker 3: they going to decide to do that? You know, the
Speaker 3: Americans have basically said that's going to be suicidal. Again,
Speaker 3: I asked for strategic empathy. If somebody said that diplomacy
Speaker 3: with you is a ruse, and if somebody said, will
Speaker 3: we strike your facilities?
Speaker 1: But that's it no more.
Speaker 3: And then the president, the chief decider, comes out and says, actually,
Speaker 3: it's about regime change.
Speaker 1: What would you do?
Speaker 3: And also, we're not dealing with the most rational actors
Speaker 3: here because the Ayatola is eighty six years old. I've
Speaker 3: been reading a lot about the Ayatola, and this is
Speaker 3: a guy who basically staked his entire security doctrine on
Speaker 3: nuclear ambitions as a deterrent that has collapsed literally around him.
Speaker 3: The country is more precarious today than at any point
Speaker 3: since nineteen seventy nine, and in his vision, at any
Speaker 3: points since than fifties during the restoration of the Shah.
Speaker 3: So he doesn't have anything to live for anymore except
Speaker 3: for his own legacy. It's not that hard, even at
Speaker 3: a rational level, take religion and all this other stuff
Speaker 3: out of it, to say we're going to fight to
Speaker 3: the death. He's a decider, he's the person who makes
Speaker 3: these decisions, and they're all kinds of people inside the
Speaker 3: Iranian regime who want to fight.
Speaker 1: At this point feel humiliated.
Speaker 3: There has been a massive rally around the flag in
Speaker 3: Tehran and all across the country. And in fact, if
Speaker 3: there is a regime change, you know, he said and
Speaker 3: already designated his successor. But let's say the Mullas are
Speaker 3: thrown out of power. The most likely, from what I
Speaker 3: can tell and have read, it would not be democratic.
Speaker 3: It would be some secular nationalist IRGC type figure who
Speaker 3: would sprint towards a bomb to say, we will never
Speaker 3: let this happen to our country again. This is a
Speaker 3: bad scenario. And of course they have access to chemical,
Speaker 3: biological weapons. They got the ballistic missiles program.
Speaker 1: We don't know.
Speaker 3: Israel claims to have destroyed half of it. We'll see,
Speaker 3: doesn't look like that from Tel Aviv, I can tell.
Speaker 1: You that right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's you know, this is why you know,
Speaker 3: the triumphalists are like, it's just about the strike.
Speaker 1: They're like, how why are you guys bedwetting so much?
Speaker 3: I mean, how have you not learned about the fortieth
Speaker 3: consequences at this point?
Speaker 1: And it's not at the one.
Speaker 3: Look, the US strikes on Libya were successful, right, It
Speaker 3: took seven months for that country to go to shit.
Speaker 1: Gaddafi was killed in October.
Speaker 3: We started seven months before that, and actually the country
Speaker 3: didn't really collapse until twenty fourteen. The Iraqi Civil War
Speaker 3: didn't start really hot until two thousand and five, two
Speaker 3: thousand and six Afghanistan, the Taliban didn't rise for two
Speaker 3: to three years. Everybody had their mission accomplished moment. And
Speaker 3: it happens every time the West wins the opening because
Speaker 3: it's about sheer military strength, and then the strategic and
Speaker 3: the political question, which we never think about from the beginning,
Speaker 3: collapses and then what happens.
Speaker 1: We have to get more involved.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, Iranians are fighting an existential battle for
Speaker 2: their country. Like that is a difficult Like we couldn't
Speaker 2: even defeat the Houfies, Like let's be.
Speaker 1: From the air. We can do it on the ground. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if we want to want that, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So in any case, let's put this this as unbelievable.
Speaker 2: This next piece, but the sub one is screened from CNBC.
Speaker 2: So the US is apparently calling on China to prevent
Speaker 2: a run from closing the strait of hormones and disrupting
Speaker 2: global oil flows. So we're like, you know, have created
Speaker 2: this likely consequence or potential consequence, and now we're begging
Speaker 2: the Chinese to rescue us from the potential implications of
Speaker 2: our own actions. You know, this is something I want
Speaker 2: to talk more to Meerscheimer about because Chinese get more
Speaker 2: a much larger percentage of their oil comes through the
Speaker 2: straight up hormoes than ours. However, there are some other
Speaker 2: possible ways to ship oil other than through the straight
Speaker 2: of war moves from Iran. So I'm just like, I'm
Speaker 2: just very skeptical at this point. You know, we heard
Speaker 2: all these economic projections about how the sanctions on Russia
Speaker 2: would just be utterly devastating to their economy and they
Speaker 2: couldn't possibly survive, and that turned out not to be
Speaker 2: the case. So at this point, I'm just all of
Speaker 2: the like economic fallout predictions of how this will be
Speaker 2: completely devastating to Chinese, the Chinese economy. I just want
Speaker 2: to learn more and I want to see more before
Speaker 2: I take people at their word that that would actually
Speaker 2: be the case. We also had the Foreign Minister of
Speaker 2: Iran making comments saying that the US has blown through
Speaker 2: every red line, which I think is a pretty reasonable
Speaker 2: thing frankly to say at this point, Let's go ahead
Speaker 2: and take a listen to a little bit of what
Speaker 2: he had to say.
Speaker 1: In the wake of these strikes, the.
Speaker 11: United States showed that they have no respect to United
Speaker 11: Nations Charter. They have no respect to international law. They
Speaker 11: have no respect to any international law regarding you know,
Speaker 11: managing the board and facing challenges of the bold. There
Speaker 11: is no red line that they have not crossed. And
Speaker 11: the last one and the most dangerous one, was happened
Speaker 11: only last night when they crossed a very big red
Speaker 11: line by attacking nuclear facilities. I don't know how much
Speaker 11: room is left for diplomacy. We are now calculating the damages.
Speaker 11: And as I said, the damages are not only for
Speaker 11: our nuclear facilities. The damages are or the United Nations Charter.
Speaker 11: It was not only Iran's facilities which was bombed, It
Speaker 11: was also the United Nations Charter. It was also non
Speaker 11: prolifashion regime and NPT which was bombed last the Americans,
Speaker 11: And it was the rule of law and international law
Speaker 11: which was bombed.
Speaker 2: That part about how we you know, figuratively bombed the
Speaker 2: Nonplar River Proliferation Treaty is actually really accurate because many countries,
Speaker 2: not just to run, many countries are going to look
Speaker 2: at our actions and be like, oh, well, they're not
Speaker 2: messing with North Korea. But I see what happened to Olivia.
Speaker 2: I see what happened to Iran. So what kind of
Speaker 2: logic does that create around the world. There's just no
Speaker 2: doubt about that at this point. Put a thirteen up
Speaker 2: on the screen just in terms of, you know, potential
Speaker 2: retaliation that we're watching.
Speaker 4: This was an Iranian.
Speaker 2: State TV broadcaster who was showing on the map all
Speaker 2: the location of US bases throughout the region, of which
Speaker 2: there are many. And what sager is some fifty thousand
Speaker 2: US troops stationed throughout the region, all of them at risk,
Speaker 2: all of them in danger. Now they don't have an
Speaker 2: iron dome or David's Sling or an aerosystem to protect
Speaker 2: them on those bases in the nearby region. And lastly,
Speaker 2: put a fourteen up on the screen. We're going to
Speaker 2: talk more about this, all this sleeper cell talk in
Speaker 2: the media block, but the US Environment of State issued
Speaker 2: an urgent warning to all American citizens to exercise caution
Speaker 2: due to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. And
Speaker 2: they really are pushing this idea here domestic lea sager
Speaker 2: that there's these you know, Iranian sleeper cells that may
Speaker 2: leap into action at any moment, and I would just be.
Speaker 4: Highly skeptical, highly skeptical.
Speaker 2: Of those claims because I mean, this is the way
Speaker 2: that they want to bring the war home and create
Speaker 2: some sort of a justification. So people feel like.
Speaker 4: Oh, you know, maybe we don't want war, but we
Speaker 4: got to act.
Speaker 2: There's these sleeper cells here, and I'm terrified that we're
Speaker 2: going to be next. So that's kind of where we
Speaker 2: are as we're waiting to see Ballaz and Aran's court
Speaker 2: of what they're going to do next.
Speaker 3: Yeah, if you're old enough, you can remember the terror
Speaker 3: levels already. We're at security threat level red. So yeah,
Speaker 3: I feel like I'm twelve years old all over.
Speaker 2: I feel so old watching this all unfold again, I
Speaker 2: feel so old.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 3: All right, let's get to Scott Horton and he's standing by.
Speaker 3: We're very excited now to be joined by Scott Horton.
Speaker 3: He is the director of the Libertarian Institute, author of Provoked,
Speaker 3: a fantastic book, and a great friend of the show.
Speaker 1: Scott, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Man.
Speaker 6: Thank you both very much for having.
Speaker 3: Me absolutely, I mean, such an expert. Here is particularly
Speaker 3: what we wanted to talk about with you, Scott is
Speaker 3: uranium enrichment the claims of the United States, where things
Speaker 3: stand now, in particular, where things may go, you know,
Speaker 3: with these US strikes on Iran, let's start here with JD.
Speaker 3: Vans asked specifically about the Iranian stockpile of uranium, effectively
Speaker 3: admitting that the stockpile itself was not hit and what
Speaker 3: that means for the future.
Speaker 1: We're gonna play it. We're gonna get your reaction. Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen.
Speaker 7: We feel very confident that the four Dau nuclear site
Speaker 7: was substantially set back, and that.
Speaker 6: Was our goal.
Speaker 7: The UN's Atomic Energy watchdog said that Iran had nine
Speaker 7: hundred pounds of highly enriched uranium.
Speaker 6: What do we know what has become of that? Was
Speaker 6: it destroyed in this attack? Do we know.
Speaker 7: That's a big star work in the coming weeks. Yeah, John,
Speaker 7: We're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure
Speaker 7: that we do something with that fuel, and that's one
Speaker 7: of the things that we're going to have conversations with
Speaker 7: the Uranians about. But what we know, John, is they
Speaker 7: no longer have the capacity to turn that stockpile of
Speaker 7: highly enriched uranium to weapons grade uranium. That was really
Speaker 7: the goal here. Uranium is not that difficult to come by, John,
Speaker 7: But enriching uranium up to the point of a nuclear weapon,
Speaker 7: that is what the President put a stop to last night.
Speaker 1: Scott.
Speaker 3: Can you just react to that, because now the claim
Speaker 3: is is that the stockpile itself was not destroyed, possibly
Speaker 3: for a further pretext of US involvement, but maybe even
Speaker 3: take the audience back a bit further as to what
Speaker 3: all of this enriched uranium stuff even means and why
Speaker 3: it really was a pretext and not a real reason
Speaker 3: for the US to strike them right.
Speaker 6: Now, Yeah, well that's absolutely right.
Speaker 5: So to start with the latest, they are more likely
Speaker 5: to break out toward a nuclear weapon now, which is
Speaker 5: what those of us on the anti warst side have
Speaker 5: been saying for twenty years. Here, what Iran has is
Speaker 5: a latent nuclear deterrent. They mastered the fuel cycle back
Speaker 5: in two thousand and five. That is, they proved that
Speaker 5: they knew how to enrich uranium to whatever percent. Now
Speaker 5: they need three point six percent for their electricity program,
Speaker 5: and they need a little bit of twenty percent for
Speaker 5: their isotope reactors. But otherwise, the war Party is as
Speaker 5: a kernel of truth when they say, and you know,
Speaker 5: how they do it.
Speaker 6: They always make it.
Speaker 5: A rhetorical question, Well, what do they need with all
Speaker 5: that sixty percent enriched uranium.
Speaker 6: Well there's a.
Speaker 5: Real answer to that, other than they're on their way
Speaker 5: to making nuclear weapons. Of course, they could have enriched
Speaker 5: up to ninety plus percent all along. They enriched up
Speaker 5: to sixty percent as a bargaining chit to negotiate away
Speaker 5: in order to try to get the sanctions lifted and
Speaker 5: try to get the United States back in the deal.
Speaker 5: It's the same thing they did in the Obama years,
Speaker 5: And of course it was in response to Israeli assassinations
Speaker 5: of their nuclear scientists and attacks on their personnel in
Speaker 5: Syria and things that caused them to go ahead after
Speaker 5: Trump withdrew from the deal in twenty eighteen, and go
Speaker 5: ahead and start enriching up to twenty again and then
Speaker 5: eventually up to sixty percent. Now you'll hear every hawk
Speaker 5: on every show say, oh my god, sixty percent uranium.
Speaker 5: And then what they're betting on is that the audience
Speaker 5: doesn't know anything about it. What you're telling them is
Speaker 5: nuclear scary, be afraid, and we stop the thing. Brump
Speaker 5: was asked, but Tulca Gabbert says they weren't breaking out
Speaker 5: toward a nuclear weapon, and he said, well, I don't
Speaker 5: care what she said. They were getting close to one
Speaker 5: or something. He said, Kookie Tucker Carlson needs to understand
Speaker 5: that Iran can't have a bomb.
Speaker 6: So what's implied there, heavily, of course, is.
Speaker 5: That Iran was making a bomb and that we stop
Speaker 5: them from making a bomb.
Speaker 6: But that's just not true at all.
Speaker 5: And you know, I'm not trying to be you know,
Speaker 5: convince anyone that to be naive. As I said, it
Speaker 5: already was a latent nuclear weapons to turn in a sense.
Speaker 5: But what it also is is their civilian energy program.
Speaker 5: And you know, any economists could explain why it might
Speaker 5: make sense for Ron to burn their domestic supply of
Speaker 5: uranium and sell their oil on the world market if
Speaker 5: they can, And so this is, you know, the main
Speaker 5: part of it. On the other hand, it also is
Speaker 5: just like Brazil and Germany and Japan, where they've proven
Speaker 5: they mastered the fuel cycle and they could make atomic
Speaker 5: bombs if pushed to it.
Speaker 6: So it's sort of like saying.
Speaker 5: I have a revolver in one pocket and some bullets
Speaker 5: in the other. Lets you and me not get into
Speaker 5: a fistfight, and then that way this thing won't escalate.
Speaker 5: That's essentially been their stance our whole twenty first century long.
Speaker 6: Here to go back to w. Bush, he put them
Speaker 6: in the axis of evil.
Speaker 5: Just think about what a cynical lie this is that
Speaker 5: the Ayatola, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Kim Jong
Speaker 5: il are all in on it together, working against you
Speaker 5: right as absolute total hoax. Well Saddam said, my books
Speaker 5: are wide open, here's my twelve thousand page dossier.
Speaker 6: I'm not doing anything.
Speaker 5: And they just buffaloed right in there based on a
Speaker 5: bunch of lies and got it done anyway. The neo
Speaker 5: conservatives got it done in North Korea. Bush and Bolton
Speaker 5: bullied them out of the no obroliferation Treaty.
Speaker 6: They went ahead and made nuclear weapons. Nobody's messed with
Speaker 6: them since.
Speaker 5: But what the Supreme Leader did was the Supreme Leader
Speaker 5: in Iran, the Ayahtola, said here's what we're going to do.
Speaker 5: We're going to open our books. It's wide open. We're
Speaker 5: going to stay in the NPT. We have a safeguards
Speaker 5: agreement with the IAEA, and they can verify the non
Speaker 5: diversion of any nuclear material from our civilian program to
Speaker 5: any military purpose, which is exactly what they've done. And
Speaker 5: the only reason Obama even needed to do the deal
Speaker 5: in twenty fifteen was because essentially, the world led by Israel,
Speaker 5: or the West led by Israel, we're essentially just pretending
Speaker 5: the MPT didn't exist, pretending that Iran didn't already have
Speaker 5: a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and the Israelis were
Speaker 5: threatening an aggressive war then, and Obama felt it was necessary.
Speaker 5: And I'm not taking Obama's side for people who don't
Speaker 5: know me. I hate the Democrats more than anyone hates
Speaker 5: the Democrats. If I'm just telling you, this is the
Speaker 5: true history of the world here is Obama made a
Speaker 5: deal where they would severely restrict their program, they would
Speaker 5: expand the inspections regime, and in exchange, we would lift
Speaker 5: sanctions and give them some of their own money back.
Speaker 5: That Palada cash was money that Jimmy Carter had stolen
Speaker 5: from them during the revolution in nineteen seventy nine. John
Speaker 5: Carey has just given some of that back in exchange.
Speaker 5: They poured concrete into their rock. That's aarak a rock,
Speaker 5: heavy water reactor. They severely restricted the number of centrifuges
Speaker 5: spinning at the tense by I think two thirds. They
Speaker 5: converted the Florido facility to research only rather than uranium
Speaker 5: and enrich uranium production. And they expanded the inspections regime
Speaker 5: where America and our allies on the UN Security Council
Speaker 5: we have the majority. It's America, Britain in France versus
Speaker 5: Russian China. Unlike a normal Security Council resolution, Russian China
Speaker 5: couldn't veto it.
Speaker 6: It was majority rules. Under this deal.
Speaker 5: If we want to inspect even non nuclear sites, we can,
Speaker 5: as long as we have some plausible reason to do so,
Speaker 5: and submit the request in a reasonable amount of time
Speaker 5: and so forth. There's no way that they can have
Speaker 5: a secret nuclear weapons program and then smuggle it out
Speaker 5: the back door before inspectors arrive, or whatever this.
Speaker 6: Kind of thing. So the.
Speaker 5: Deal of twenty fifteen was engineered so that Iran, if
Speaker 5: they withdrew from the NPT, and if they kicked the
Speaker 5: inspectors out of the country and beat their chests and
Speaker 5: said now we're making nukes, it would take them a
Speaker 5: year to make one. And by the way, as long
Speaker 5: as you're let me ramble on here. Let me explain
Speaker 5: real quick too, that you cannot miniatureize a uranium bomb. Yes,
Speaker 5: uranium bombs are virtually always a gun type nuke like
Speaker 5: fat Man that they dropped on Hiroshima, which is essentially
Speaker 5: a giant shotgun inside that bomb, firing a highly enriched
Speaker 5: weapons grade enriched uranium slug into a target of the
Speaker 5: same that causes the supercritical reaction. They didn't even test
Speaker 5: that bomb. It's nineteen forties technology, simple stuff. They didn't
Speaker 5: test that. The Trinity test was of the Nagasaki bomb,
Speaker 5: which was a plutonium implosion bomb. That's the kind of
Speaker 5: bomb that can be miniaturized and married to a missile. However,
Speaker 5: Uranians have no plutonium root to the bomb because even
Speaker 5: though they still do have one heavy water reactor at
Speaker 5: Boucher and it produces plutonium waste, they do not have
Speaker 5: the facility required to reprocess that waste get the impurities
Speaker 5: out to make it possible to use for weapons fuel.
Speaker 6: And under the JCPOA, which they're still in.
Speaker 5: This part of it with the Russians is that every
Speaker 5: two or three years or so, this shut down the
Speaker 5: reactor and the Russians will come and get all the
Speaker 5: plutonium waste and take it away. So their plutonium route
Speaker 5: to the bomb did not exist at all, and their
Speaker 5: uranium route to the bomb was delayed for at least
Speaker 5: one year, and then as I say, at the end
Speaker 5: of that year, they would have had enough to make
Speaker 5: one bomb with, but then no way to deliver it
Speaker 5: other than slapping on the back of a flatbed truck
Speaker 5: or something like that. Still would essentially be you know,
Speaker 5: the most base, the most minimum of nuclear deterrent. And
Speaker 5: it's you know, and I'll wrap up with this is
Speaker 5: that it's clear from all of the reporting here nothing changed.
Speaker 5: The only one in opposition that is Israeli intelligence claims
Speaker 5: that something changed, but American intelligence has not verified that
Speaker 5: at all. The only thing that changed was Trump made
Speaker 5: up a sixty day deadline and then the Iranians went
Speaker 5: past it, and he was on this absolute redline, deal
Speaker 5: killer that they can have no enrichment in the country
Speaker 5: at all whatsoever. Back to what Jadie Vance was saying there,
Speaker 5: essentially equating them having the capability to enrich with progress
Speaker 5: toward a nuclear weapon and claiming that that was what
Speaker 5: we stopped. But it's just it's no more sincere than
Speaker 5: Bill Clinton and Kosovo, or George Bush in a rock
Speaker 5: or Afghanistan, or Barack Obama in Libya or Syria or
Speaker 5: any of the US or Yemen, any of these things.
Speaker 5: It's always just hoax after hoax with these people and
Speaker 5: their worst.
Speaker 2: Well, let's talk a little bit more about that, because
Speaker 2: they've got a little bit of a propaganda issue, given
Speaker 2: the fact that Tulca Gabbard was at the end of
Speaker 2: March came out saying very clearly, the American intelligence community
Speaker 2: does not believe that Iron is pursuing a weapon, and
Speaker 2: so now we're supposed to believe, just some months later
Speaker 2: that this has suddenly completely changed, and so much so
Speaker 2: that we need to get involved in what Trump is
Speaker 2: now admitting maybe a regime change operation. Of course, we've
Speaker 2: all seen from the beginning that the nukes were pretexts
Speaker 2: and this was in fact a regime change operation. Let
Speaker 2: me get your reaction to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, say,
Speaker 2: being pressed on this, you know this question of okay,
Speaker 2: well are they pursuing a nuclear bombs? Since that is
Speaker 2: your pretext, Let's go ahead and take a listen to
Speaker 2: how he.
Speaker 12: Responds on a phrase you just word weaponization ambitions. Are
Speaker 12: you saying there that the United States did not see
Speaker 12: intelligence that the Supreme Leader had ordered weaponization.
Speaker 8: That's irrelevant. I think that question being asked in the media.
Speaker 8: That's an irrelevant question.
Speaker 12: That is point in US intelligence assessment. You know that's
Speaker 12: not yes, it was, that's the political decision.
Speaker 8: Well I know that better than you know that, and
Speaker 8: I know that that's not the case.
Speaker 4: But whether the order was given.
Speaker 8: And the people who say that it doesn't matter if
Speaker 8: the order was given, they have everything they need to
Speaker 8: build nuclear weapons. Why would you bury Why would you
Speaker 8: bury things in a mountain three hundred feet under the ground.
Speaker 8: Why would you bury six Why do they have sixty
Speaker 8: percent in enrich uranium? You need sixty percent and rich.
Speaker 8: You are the only countries in the world that have
Speaker 8: uranium at sixty percent? Are countries that have nuclear weapons
Speaker 8: because it can quickly make it ninety They have all
Speaker 8: the elements they have. Why why do they have a
Speaker 8: space program? Is a ron going to go to the moon? No,
Speaker 8: they're trying to build an ICBM.
Speaker 4: No, But that's a question.
Speaker 12: That's a question, that's a question of intent. And you
Speaker 12: know in the intelligence assessment that it was that Iran
Speaker 12: wanted to.
Speaker 1: Be a threshold.
Speaker 4: See you use thos.
Speaker 12: I'm talking on what the intelligence is, March assessment, and
Speaker 12: that's why I was asking you if you know something
Speaker 12: more from it.
Speaker 8: That's also an inaccurate representation of it. That's inaccurate representation
Speaker 8: of it. That's not how intelligence is read. That's now
Speaker 8: how intelligence is used. Here's what the whole world knows.
Speaker 8: Forget about intelligence, what the IAEA knows. They are enriching
Speaker 8: uranium well beyond anything you need.
Speaker 6: For a for a for a civil nuclear program.
Speaker 2: Scott, your your reaction to that propaganda effort, I.
Speaker 5: Mean, anyone ought to be able to just see right
Speaker 5: through that the only countries that have sixty percent uranium
Speaker 5: are countries that have nuclear bombs. Really is he's saying
Speaker 5: you can make a bomb out of sixty percent uranium.
Speaker 5: Is he's saying that any nuclear weapons stay in the
Speaker 5: world as they're arsenal made out of uranium bombs rather
Speaker 5: than plutonium implosion bombs.
Speaker 6: And he's simply bluffing.
Speaker 5: And Marco Ruby, I'm glad he hired Marco Little Marco
Speaker 5: for the job actually, because you could see right through
Speaker 5: the guy.
Speaker 6: He's just as transparent as could be.
Speaker 5: He's got Miriam Adelson's hand right up his rear and
Speaker 5: moving his lips for him. He's not really a human man, right,
Speaker 5: He's like a corporate mascot, like Tony the Tiger or
Speaker 5: you know, Ronald McDonald or something.
Speaker 6: He's sitting there.
Speaker 5: His job is to lie to you so that you'll
Speaker 5: be confused and let him commit horrific sins on behalf
Speaker 5: of a foreign power.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, but then one of the things that
Speaker 3: really scott there is about what you said about the
Speaker 3: capability is confusing capability with intention, and that intention, again,
Speaker 3: according to US intelligence, did not exist. I can back
Speaker 3: you up as well. You know, I reported over the weekend.
Speaker 3: I spoke with senior US intelligence official, people with the
Speaker 3: highest level who saw it, and they said, no, there
Speaker 3: has been no change whatsoever in the iatola or the
Speaker 3: Iranian higher commands decision making on whether to build a
Speaker 3: nuclear bomb or not. And so I really want to
Speaker 3: just end on that note with you. Here is specifically
Speaker 3: about how the logic of nuclearization has never made more
Speaker 3: sense than today because what has happened is that Israel,
Speaker 3: with impunity, is allowed to just come in and bomb
Speaker 3: the shit out of your entire regime, basically target your
Speaker 3: oil and gas facilities. The United States has the ability
Speaker 3: to come in and to blow up all.
Speaker 1: Your nuclear enrichment.
Speaker 3: It has never made more sense for them to have
Speaker 3: a nuclear detern than right now instead of trying to
Speaker 3: pursue some sort of deal. When the President himself also says, actually,
Speaker 3: regime change, that's totally cool and fine with me.
Speaker 1: Why would they want to do anything else?
Speaker 5: I mean, and looka this very well could be the
Speaker 5: absolute death of the Non Proliferation Treaty.
Speaker 6: The nuclear weapons.
Speaker 5: States have never lived up to their promise to disarm
Speaker 5: signed in there, of course, although America and Russia did
Speaker 5: come way down from tens of thousands of nukes each,
Speaker 5: but still, and then here's you have a nuclear weapons
Speaker 5: state Israel that's not a member of the Nonpoliferation Treaty
Speaker 5: acting in concert with the United States the world Empire.
Speaker 6: That's a total violation of it.
Speaker 5: Attacking a non nuclear weapon state signatory to the NPT
Speaker 5: over their civilian program. That again, you hear Vanka Rubio
Speaker 5: ben and over backwards trying to figure out how to
Speaker 5: get you to conflate it with something scary that again
Speaker 5: was nothing but a latent program. At the time, we
Speaker 5: had the perfect basis for a standoff. I'm not saying
Speaker 5: I endorsed this. I'm a total non interventionist here. But
Speaker 5: they were saying if you attack us, or they were
Speaker 5: heavily implying, if you attack us, we might just make
Speaker 5: a nuke, and our side was saying, don't make a nuke,
Speaker 5: or we'll attack you.
Speaker 6: Okay, well great.
Speaker 5: They could have just left it at that for Trump
Speaker 5: to have, you know, bowed down essentially to pressure. There
Speaker 5: were you might remember some wiggle words a couple few
Speaker 5: weeks ago about well, maybe we could allow some enrichment
Speaker 5: on some limited basis under some sort of compromise, maybe
Speaker 5: even do a consortium with the Saudi's and enriched together
Speaker 5: some kind of thing. They were trying to be flexible
Speaker 5: for a minute there, and then the lobby came down
Speaker 5: hard and said no enrichment at all, which, of course
Speaker 5: the ayah Tola was never going to give into.
Speaker 6: So they were just setting us up for this war.
Speaker 5: But I'll encourage your audience to pay very close attention
Speaker 5: to people like Marco Rubio and for that matter, of
Speaker 5: the rest of the pundits and whatever out echoing the
Speaker 5: war party talking points. And you'll notice this distinct lack
Speaker 5: of clarity when it comes down to exactly what was
Speaker 5: going on here. There's a lot of implication that's essentially
Speaker 5: relying on people's ignorance that if they say nuclear this exactly.
Speaker 6: You know, it was the focus groups that learned this
Speaker 6: in nineteen ninety.
Speaker 5: People didn't really want to go liberate the weight and
Speaker 5: reinstall His Highness the King al Jaber to the throne
Speaker 5: there until they did. They got people at the mall
Speaker 5: and they sat them down in focus groups. As soon
Speaker 5: as they said nuclear, people said, okay, I guess we
Speaker 5: got to go. And then they use that same lesson
Speaker 5: for Rockward two. And of course they're doing the same
Speaker 5: thing here because they know that most people didn't study
Speaker 5: hard sciences in college and stuff. We don't know about
Speaker 5: uranium this and that, and so they can try to
Speaker 5: just make it sound scary and say, listen, we can't wait.
Speaker 5: Remember this was the line Colly's, Rice, George Bush, and
Speaker 5: Colon Powell all three said, we can't wait for the
Speaker 5: proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Speaker 6: So you and your Mama better just stay scared and
Speaker 6: let us do what we want.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, that is all so absolutely correct, And I mean,
Speaker 2: in a way I appreciate Trump setting out that true
Speaker 2: socials saying like, eh, maybe it is regime change, so
Speaker 2: we can all drop the pretense here, because I've never
Speaker 2: seen polling that is so wildly apart depending on how
Speaker 2: you frame the question, because you're absolutely right. If you
Speaker 2: say to people like Iran's pursuing a nuclear weapon, should we,
Speaker 2: you know, go in surgical strike their nuclear facilities to
Speaker 2: prevent them? Guess what you get a lot of people
Speaker 2: will say yeah, sure, because that also feels costless and limited,
Speaker 2: and like, oh, there's this big scary threat and we
Speaker 2: can just take it out easily if you're going too right.
Speaker 2: If you ask people, I know, one of the questions
Speaker 2: asked should we get involved in the war between Iran
Speaker 2: and Israel?
Speaker 4: And people like, hell no, why would we do that?
Speaker 2: And I've yet to even see the question asked should
Speaker 2: we get involved in a regime change war with Iran,
Speaker 2: which is of course what we are in at this point,
Speaker 2: But I have no doubt the polling on that would
Speaker 2: be absolutely abysmal, which is why to your point, Scott,
Speaker 2: it matters so much how you frame these questions and
Speaker 2: how you clarify for the American people what is actually
Speaker 2: happening here and what the President has actually put us into,
Speaker 2: which is a regime change war.
Speaker 4: It is already underway. It is happening right now.
Speaker 6: Agree, and look, even in regards to we don't know.
Speaker 5: The secret councils of these people, but just on the
Speaker 5: most basic level, this is what Harry Brown said is
Speaker 5: government doesn't work. They fail upwards. The worst things are,
Speaker 5: the better it is for them. And so everything, by
Speaker 5: their logic is always escalation. Look, all we're gonna do
Speaker 5: is we're gonna take out a few nuclear sites. What
Speaker 5: you're saying now.
Speaker 6: They're gonna break out toward a nuclear weapon? Oh boy,
Speaker 6: I best.
Speaker 5: I guess we need to get the Americans in there,
Speaker 5: because only they can get the Fhoidos site.
Speaker 6: Now, got America in there, and then.
Speaker 5: No, they're saying, I saw a report today the Iranians
Speaker 5: are claiming they have a new secret base that they
Speaker 5: built under a bigger deeper.
Speaker 2: On the screenwire talking, yeah, we have that report, like, oh,
Speaker 2: there's another one.
Speaker 4: It's ei there it is I guess.
Speaker 5: We're gonna have to send in the eighty second Airborne
Speaker 5: to go in there and destroy it by hand then
Speaker 5: this time, or we're gonna have to use nuclear weapons.
Speaker 5: Probably not, but they're talking about that might be what
Speaker 5: it would take. Or you know what, I guess we're
Speaker 5: just gonna have to go ahead and kill the Supreme Leader.
Speaker 5: I saw Benjamin Etna who said that would solve everything
Speaker 5: if we just killed the ayah Toola comedy and can't
Speaker 5: get picture George W. Bud, I mean Donald Trump say
Speaker 5: to it's buying in to that one and and going
Speaker 5: along with that and then what now you got to
Speaker 5: kill every last cleric in the country to prevent one
Speaker 5: from claiming to be the Supreme Leader? Are you going
Speaker 5: to prop up the Azeries or the Blue Kye Binladenites
Speaker 5: in order to keep the she Hees out?
Speaker 6: Or who's going to take charge? They're talking in the
Speaker 6: Shaw's Sun. Oh my god, how in the world.
Speaker 2: Is according to Fox News?
Speaker 3: You know what's also follow It's not it's his Imperial Highness.
Speaker 3: Just for those of us who care the shot shot,
Speaker 3: I'm just saying, if we want we want to be correct,
Speaker 3: let's be correct.
Speaker 6: Should be calling him my lord.
Speaker 5: She is.
Speaker 1: Can't get over Scott.
Speaker 2: I said to you, I'm sorry that your expertise still
Speaker 2: continues to be so incredibly relevant, but we appreciate you
Speaker 2: taking the time to talk to us and help explain
Speaker 2: these things.
Speaker 4: No one better, no one does it better than you do.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much, both of you. Great to be
Speaker 6: with you.
Speaker 5: People would to British