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 the 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. Let's turn now to the most critical thing.
Speaker 3: The Strait of Horror moves. The White House is all
Speaker 3: over the.
Speaker 1: Place on the Straits of hornor moves.
Speaker 3: They are claiming that, as part of the Seasfire, that
Speaker 3: the strait would be free and open, and yet immediately
Speaker 3: after the Seasfire was implemented, Iran announced yao ships you
Speaker 3: can pass maybe only twelve to fifteen a day with
Speaker 3: the permission of the IRGC in coordination with Iranian military forces.
Speaker 3: You have to avoid the minds. Only we know where
Speaker 3: they are, so you're going to have to go exactly
Speaker 3: where or we tell you to go.
Speaker 1: Oh, and you're going to have to pay us.
Speaker 3: Here's what the White House how they reacted to some
Speaker 3: of this news that clearly the strait was not open.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4: Safe media is saying that Iran is now closed off
Speaker 4: the straight at four Moose today a response to really
Speaker 4: attacks on Lebanon. What's the White House response to that?
Speaker 5: With respect to the first reporting out of Iranian state media,
Speaker 5: the President was made aware of those reports before I
Speaker 5: came to the podium.
Speaker 6: That is completely unacceptable.
Speaker 5: And again this is a case of what they're saying
Speaker 5: publicly is different privately. We have seen an uptick of
Speaker 5: traffic in the strait today, and I will reiterate the
Speaker 5: President's expectation and demand that the strait of her Moose
Speaker 5: is reopened immediately, quickly and safely.
Speaker 6: That is his expectation.
Speaker 5: It has been relayed to him privately that that is
Speaker 5: what's taking place in These reports publicly.
Speaker 1: Are false, Yeah, these are false. Not so far.
Speaker 3: Actually, let's go and put C two up there on
Speaker 3: the screen.
Speaker 1: Don't believe us. Believe the oil industry.
Speaker 3: The oil industry has gone and lit up the White
Speaker 3: House switchboard, saying, hey, you can't have this happen. You
Speaker 3: can't just allow them to charge tolls. One of them
Speaker 3: even said, but you said you won the war, and
Speaker 3: here we are having to pay the Iranian government and
Speaker 3: potentially in crypto and or in one to circumvent the
Speaker 3: petro dollar and any sort of US sanctions regime. They say, quote,
Speaker 3: we didn't have to do that before. I thought we
Speaker 3: won the war. Any place you have access to the administration,
Speaker 3: you ask what are you guys thinking? The response administrations
Speaker 3: officials were giving is not a cold shoulder. It's more like, yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: we'll take note noted, Yeah, noted.
Speaker 1: But getting left on thumbed up.
Speaker 3: If you're the CEO of Exxon Mobile, it shows you
Speaker 3: who's got the power in this relationship, though, doesn't it?
Speaker 6: Not to mention? I mean, get used to it. This
Speaker 6: is the new reality.
Speaker 2: And as I was saying, Yannis Farah Fox, I think
Speaker 2: we know now how this will ultimately end. Now does
Speaker 2: it actually end now in some sort of agreement or
Speaker 2: does the US Is it too much for Jerome Trump
Speaker 2: to swallow right now? Does he need to go in
Speaker 2: and take more pain? Before ending up with effectively the
Speaker 2: same agreement that they would have to come to now,
Speaker 2: which includes incredible concessions to Iran. You know, it's just
Speaker 2: a question of when, because the Iranians have de facto
Speaker 2: effectively already won wars really reveal what an actual what
Speaker 2: the actual power dynamics are, and Iran has proven that
Speaker 2: there is effectively no military operation that could take back
Speaker 2: control of the straight of hormones. There is going to
Speaker 2: be a new reality there period end of story that
Speaker 2: is going to be consequential, not only in terms of.
Speaker 6: Iran becoming tremendously I mean quite.
Speaker 2: Wealthy, the toll that they're going to be able to charge,
Speaker 2: and having incredible power. Now they have effectively the ability
Speaker 2: to sanction countries and wield levers that they did not
Speaker 2: have before. So you have the rise of Iran as
Speaker 2: this new fourth World. But you're gonna have other countries
Speaker 2: around the world who are like, hey, we've got a
Speaker 2: key waterway here as well, why can't we do what
Speaker 2: the Irradiance do.
Speaker 6: Why can't we also charge it toll.
Speaker 2: If they're going to do it, we're going to take
Speaker 2: advantage of that too. So this is a whole new
Speaker 2: world and the oil industry executives can bitche moon all
Speaker 2: they want, but at the end of the day, I'm
Speaker 2: sure the Trump administration would love to figure out how to.
Speaker 6: Get the straight of hor.
Speaker 2: Moves back to the status quol that existed before they
Speaker 2: themselves started this incredibly stupid war.
Speaker 6: If they knew how to do that, they would have
Speaker 6: already done.
Speaker 3: Air. All the Zionists in like twenty twenty three were like,
Speaker 3: there was a sea spire on October sixth, there's tea spiring.
Speaker 3: It's like, well, there's free and open straight on February
Speaker 3: twenty seven. There was a free and open to straight
Speaker 3: of horn moves on February twenty seven. Now there's not. Okay, Well,
Speaker 3: they're the ones who get to set those terms. Let's
Speaker 3: put C three up there on the screen. Iran now
Speaker 3: demands crypto fees for ships passing horror moves through c SPAR.
Speaker 3: I'm going to read through this just to show you
Speaker 3: exactly how much control they have over the straits of
Speaker 3: Horror moves, so you can actually hear it out. Hamad Hosseini,
Speaker 3: he's a spokesperson for the Iranian Oil and Gas Exporters Union,
Speaker 3: told the Financial Times. Iran wanted to collect toll fees
Speaker 3: from any tank or passing and to assess each ship quote.
Speaker 3: Iran needs to monitor what goes in and out of
Speaker 3: the strait to ensure these two weeks aren't used for
Speaker 3: transferring weapons. Everything can pass through, but the procedure will
Speaker 3: take time for each vessel, and Iran is not in
Speaker 3: a rush. So this is not just charging a fee.
Speaker 3: This is like being boarded by the coast guard some
Speaker 3: sort of customs union. And we're not talking about you know,
Speaker 3: we're not talking about in their destinarily, just in their
Speaker 3: territorial waters. We're talking about in a previously free and
Speaker 3: open international shipping corridor where basically it's now like here
Speaker 3: in the Potomac River, where if you have a boat
Speaker 3: and this coast they're like, oh, where's your license?
Speaker 1: Can we see the cargo list? What do you have
Speaker 1: on board?
Speaker 7: Now?
Speaker 1: Let me continue.
Speaker 3: They also say that it is halting passage of the
Speaker 3: oil tankers in response into the Israeli strikes on Lebanon.
Speaker 3: But before that, any tank or passing must send exactly
Speaker 3: as I said, a cargo listening that it informs them
Speaker 3: of what is on board. Iran will then inform them
Speaker 3: of the toll to be paid. He said that the
Speaker 3: tariff is now one dollar per barrel of oil, adding
Speaker 3: that empty tankers may a lot be allowed to pass freely.
Speaker 3: Once the email arrives and Iran completes his assessment, vessels
Speaker 3: will be given a few seconds to pay in bitcoin,
Speaker 3: ensuring that they can't be traced or confiscated. Due to sanctions,
Speaker 3: The tankers on the golf have received a radio broadcast
Speaker 3: saying they will be targeted with military strikes unless they
Speaker 3: first gain approval from Iranian authority. That is total and
Speaker 3: complete control of the strait for mouse. It literally rivals
Speaker 3: like you know, any other choke point in the globe,
Speaker 3: like the Panama Canal or Egypt. As Yana said on
Speaker 3: our show, Panama only owns five or gets five billion
Speaker 3: from its transit through the Panama Canal. Egypt gets ten.
Speaker 3: Iran is on track if this were to hold, to
Speaker 3: get seventy to ninety billion dollars, it would make them
Speaker 3: one one of the wealthiest countries in the entire Middle East.
Speaker 3: So if they're able, let's say that even if we
Speaker 3: don't take sanctions, relieve off and yeah, you get bitcoin
Speaker 3: and wand I mean, this country will be filthy rich.
Speaker 3: They may be richer than Riot, than Qatar, than the UAE,
Speaker 3: because they have an intellectual base, they have natural resources
Speaker 3: like oil, they have water, they don't have to rely
Speaker 3: on the sunding. They have an industrial base. Now, I
Speaker 3: mean this is a very very educated country. With the
Speaker 3: maybe the diaspora will go back. I mean, who knows,
Speaker 3: Like you can envision a scenario where you got direct flights.
Speaker 1: Tehran to Beijing, new planes.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's an entire new ecosystem which is going
Speaker 3: to be happening here. Maybe you know these shah Head
Speaker 3: drones that will become one of the biggest exporters. They
Speaker 3: will be the biggest exporter to any American adversary across
Speaker 3: the world. And we're gonna pay for it literally with
Speaker 3: the oil. Like this is a nightmare of a strategic
Speaker 3: defeat for the United States.
Speaker 1: It's crazy.
Speaker 2: And imagine over in Yemen, the houthies look at this
Speaker 2: and they're like, oh, bob el mandebs, which is at
Speaker 2: least as important as the straight up form. It is
Speaker 2: also very critical choke point. Yemen has been a very
Speaker 2: poor country. Imagine they're like, Okay, we'll set up a
Speaker 2: toll and they've got you know, Irani and support and
Speaker 2: access to those shaw head drones and what they need.
Speaker 2: It's not doesn't take a lot to demonstrate your ability
Speaker 2: to control those choke points. And I mean that it's
Speaker 2: really really up ends the way the whole world has
Speaker 2: operated and the way you have to think about geopolitics. So,
Speaker 2: like I said, I think whether or not this happens
Speaker 2: in the next couple weeks, or whether Trump is not
Speaker 2: ready to swallow this level of a clear defeat and
Speaker 2: decides to go back in and try some crazy thing
Speaker 2: and see if you can bomb their electrical grid or
Speaker 2: whatever into submission, it's ultimately going to fail, and we're
Speaker 2: going to end up in something like this new world.
Speaker 2: The crypto part is obviously also really significant.
Speaker 6: What does that indicate?
Speaker 2: They are bypassing the US led global financial structure again,
Speaker 2: that makes it so it is on their own terms underdog.
Speaker 6: It doesn't mean that it's the.
Speaker 2: Total end of the petro dollar, the end of the
Speaker 2: US you know as the global reserve currency, or any
Speaker 2: of that, but it certainly does undermine it. It certainly
Speaker 2: does start to push the world more aggressively in that direction.
Speaker 2: And you know that is a massive, massive, complete change
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 3: Right, And I mean, let's think even bigger, shall we, Like,
Speaker 3: let's think just globally about the straits of horn Moves
Speaker 3: and what this level of destruction. You know, I'm really
Speaker 3: just thinking about what Yanna said, the law not the
Speaker 3: entire law the sea, because I don't think the US
Speaker 3: was even the signatory of it, even though we were
Speaker 3: like the guaranteur of the international Law of the Sea.
Speaker 3: It was based on the post World War two Blue
Speaker 3: Water Navy ethos of we control commerce on the high
Speaker 3: seas anywhere and everywhere. This goes back to like the
Speaker 3: Barbary pirates that Thomas Jefferson dispatched the US Marines to say, no,
Speaker 3: we will not allow a pirate veto. It's like, well,
Speaker 3: now we just did. Now what do we do? Like
Speaker 3: what do you do in this? And because we didn't
Speaker 3: envision a place where the American public, I mean, if
Speaker 3: you were to pull and ask ultimately, did America have
Speaker 3: the capability of actually taking over the straight storm, Yeah,
Speaker 3: we do. It would take you know, hundreds of thousands
Speaker 3: of troops, lives, endless amounts of money. It would take
Speaker 3: a literal almost a Pearl Harvard type event for somebody
Speaker 3: to really be able to support that, but we don't,
Speaker 3: and so in the interim you are actually left with
Speaker 3: trying to accomplish it from the air with these billions
Speaker 3: of dollars in weapons. The toll, the price that I
Speaker 3: have now seen was that the war cost hundreds of
Speaker 3: millions a day. The total cost was between thirty three
Speaker 3: and fifty three billion dollars just for the six or
Speaker 3: seven weeks of the war. The backlog in weapons will
Speaker 3: take probably five to ten years to completely replace, even
Speaker 3: with the one point five trillion defense budget that was
Speaker 3: It is a strategic disaster and for this to be
Speaker 3: now that the result.
Speaker 1: So what do we have left? We have left nukes.
Speaker 3: Or ground troops. We don't want to use either of
Speaker 3: those things. So we have to live with this reality.
Speaker 3: And also just to show you their control, can we
Speaker 3: put C five up there on the screen. Yesterday oil
Speaker 3: had the biggest drop since COVID, so it dropped all
Speaker 3: the way down to like ninety dollars a barrel. Well
Speaker 3: as of this morning, actually they've increased significantly. It's now
Speaker 3: some ninety eight dollars a barrel. Into terms of Brent crude,
Speaker 3: and from it's all time high, it's only down about
Speaker 3: seven percent, whereas it was actually down almost fifteen percent
Speaker 3: at one point. Same whenever it comes to the crude
Speaker 3: oil futures here in the United States, which means that
Speaker 3: those gas prices are really not coming all the way
Speaker 3: back down. Remember the national price of gas before the
Speaker 3: war was some two point eighty a gallon. That's phenomenal.
Speaker 3: That's great actually for trying to check inflation. Now if
Speaker 3: we're living around ninety I mean, if everybody's watched that
Speaker 3: Landman quote, you're living in a world of about a
Speaker 3: dollar more than where you were before, and it's not
Speaker 3: going to go down anytime soon. So there's punishment for
Speaker 3: the US economy, for the US military and majorly empowered
Speaker 3: Iran who, yes, they lost their eyetola. Maybe it's the
Speaker 3: best thing that ever happened to them. He was a
Speaker 3: doddering old man. Now they've got a much more hardcore,
Speaker 3: battle tested reality of the people who survived with much
Speaker 3: more cynical much where're willing to use hard power.
Speaker 1: They could emerge from this stronger than ever.
Speaker 3: In fact, if I think if all of this status
Speaker 3: quo stands twenty five years from now, I think they'll
Speaker 3: be filthy rich, and I think they'll be they'll either
Speaker 3: be a full blown nuclear power, or they'll have some
Speaker 3: sort of latent nuclear deterrent like they did before, maybe
Speaker 3: some North Korea style program which where they can switch
Speaker 3: on at any moment and sprint in six weeks if
Speaker 3: they need to. Twenty five years. That's what I would
Speaker 3: predict if the current status quo were Absolutely the logic
Speaker 3: is clear. The logic is as clear as it could be,
Speaker 3: just so you guys see what the current reality is.
Speaker 2: So since Israel has continue not just continued, but escalated
Speaker 2: them their bombardment and mass massacres in Lebanon, we can
Speaker 2: put see six up on the screen. So the number
Speaker 2: of ships in the straight offor moves has reduced directly.
Speaker 2: So this is some of the details about what they
Speaker 2: had indicated while these negotiations are going on. They told
Speaker 2: mediators they will be limiting the number of ships crossing
Speaker 2: to around twelve per day and imposed tolls. But now
Speaker 2: yesterday that should have been the first day where the
Speaker 2: you know, the new law of the land. Okay, twelve
Speaker 2: per day and we're going to assess tolls where that happened.
Speaker 2: Only four ships passed through, but reportedly none of those
Speaker 2: ships actually had oil on them, they did not have
Speaker 2: cargo on them, and so effectively zero tankers actually went
Speaker 2: through the street, and that was a dramatic reduction. There
Speaker 2: was the fewest ships passing through of any day in
Speaker 2: April so far.
Speaker 6: So this is their threat. Now they have not done.
Speaker 2: I do think they maybe shot some missiles towards Israel yesterday,
Speaker 2: but they have not re upped as much, you know,
Speaker 2: as much of the missile barrages and drone barrages as
Speaker 2: they'd been doing in the past. Instead, they're using their
Speaker 2: economic leverage, which is the thing that the US and
Speaker 2: Trump is most sensitive to. And we can see C
Speaker 2: seven as well. There was a tanker that was actually
Speaker 2: turned around that was headed toward the straight of horror
Speaker 2: moves Panama flagged tanker Aurora. In any case, they are
Speaker 2: you know, they are clamping down completely now, which will
Speaker 2: hurt them because that means they're not getting revenue either.
Speaker 2: But it is the reason why we're seeing oil prices
Speaker 2: go back up right now, both because of the realization
Speaker 2: there's going to be a new reality period, but also
Speaker 2: because of the realization that this thing is far from
Speaker 2: being completely settled and may be quite a while before
Speaker 2: you actually have any sort of traffic flowing through the
Speaker 2: Strait of Hormuz. So long as Israel continues to bomb
Speaker 2: and invade Lebanon.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, all right, skeets Israel, shall we yep?
Speaker 2: So neat Yahoo making planes in a speech yesterday, that
Speaker 2: he does not want the war to end, that he
Speaker 2: does not think the war is ending, and that he
Speaker 2: remains ready to go back in and accomplish their quote
Speaker 2: unquote objectives. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 4: And Israel is stronger than ever. This is the bottom
Speaker 4: line of this campaign up until now. Let me say
Speaker 4: there are still additional objectives for us to achieve, and
Speaker 4: we will achieve them either by agreement or by resumption
Speaker 4: of the fighting. And we are ready to resume the
Speaker 4: fighting at any moment. Our finger is on the trigger.
Speaker 4: As you know. Two weeks ceasefire has been announced between
Speaker 4: the US and Iran. No, we were not surprised in
Speaker 4: the last moment, and I want to emphasize this is
Speaker 4: not the end of the war.
Speaker 2: So he says there one thing that's interesting is he says,
Speaker 2: it's a ceasefire between the US and Iran does not
Speaker 2: include Israel and not at all. But we can put
Speaker 2: the next one up screen that just has the direct
Speaker 2: quote here he says the truth is quote not the
Speaker 2: end of the war, but a stop on the way
Speaker 2: to achieving all our goals. And of course Israel already
Speaker 2: doing what they can to destroy this quote unquote seas fire.
Speaker 2: They have long He of course, was very influential.
Speaker 6: We know he was in the.
Speaker 2: Situation room, apparently at the head of the table making
Speaker 2: the hard sell for this war, which Donald Trump chose
Speaker 2: to go along with, and has also reportedly been one
Speaker 2: of the most hawkish people in the administration in terms
Speaker 2: of wanting to pursue this absolute insanity. And that is
Speaker 2: not going to change. Israel is going to continue trying
Speaker 2: to destroy the ceasefire, trying to blow up any potential
Speaker 2: negotiations that could end the war, and even if there
Speaker 2: is some sort of agreement which is reached in the
Speaker 2: short term, they will never stop trying to undermine US
Speaker 2: it and try to go back to war. Because as
Speaker 2: much as this is a strategic defeat for US, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's a disaster for the Israelis, especially in their way
Speaker 2: of thinking, because they have no interest in coexistence and
Speaker 2: trying to live peaceably with their neighbors.
Speaker 3: Well, look, don't take our word for it, take the
Speaker 3: Israeli's word for it. Listen to the Israeli opposition. Put
Speaker 3: D three up there on the screen, shall we nef?
Speaker 3: Tally Bennett, the former Prime Minister, slams the government for
Speaker 3: leaving Israel exposed to avengeful Iran after truce. I mean,
Speaker 3: he's not wrong. Is kind of right, isn't he? The
Speaker 3: former Prime minister joins the chorus of opposition criticizing the
Speaker 3: government over the ceasefire, arguing in a live TV announcement
Speaker 3: that Netanyahu had failed to achieve the war's goals and
Speaker 3: this will leave Israel facing a vengeful Iran, which will
Speaker 3: be even more determined to go nuclear.
Speaker 1: True.
Speaker 3: The reason why so many people feel disappointed tonight is
Speaker 3: that the leadership sold us illusions. All their empty promises
Speaker 3: have exploded in our face. Unfortunately, each of us sees
Speaker 3: with our own eyes that Hamas is getting stronger, Hezbola
Speaker 3: and Iran are standing on their own t feet. This
Speaker 3: is happening because a government that dismantles Israel from within,
Speaker 3: cannot defeat the enemy from without. And then you have
Speaker 3: Yayer Lapede, the main opposition leader. Let's put his statement
Speaker 3: up there on the screen, translated from Hebrew. There has
Speaker 3: never been such a political disaster in all our history.
Speaker 3: Israel was not even at the table when decisions were
Speaker 3: made concerning the core of our national security. The military
Speaker 3: carried out everything that was asked of it, the public
Speaker 3: demonstrated amazing resilience. But Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and
Speaker 3: didn't meet a single one of the goals that he
Speaker 3: himself set. It will take years to repair the political
Speaker 3: strategic damage that NATANYAHUO wrought due to arrogance, negligence, and
Speaker 3: lack of strategic planning.
Speaker 1: More details here today.
Speaker 2: Important to keep in mind that all of these people
Speaker 2: supported this absolutely insane and stupid war, which was the
Speaker 2: original sin of you know how they end up in
Speaker 2: this situation. But yeah, think of it from their perspective.
Speaker 2: They were hoping to collapse the Iranian state into a
Speaker 2: failed state, some sort of civil war, you know, dramatically
Speaker 2: degrade their capabilities, maybe install some sort of a you know,
Speaker 2: US Israeli puppet leader but more likely just completely destroy
Speaker 2: this thing.
Speaker 6: They you know, less arm the curds.
Speaker 2: Let's get some sort of civil war going now, and
Speaker 2: so that they could be the undisputed hedgemon in the region.
Speaker 2: And nat Nyala at the beginning of this war was
Speaker 2: talking about them being a global superpower. That was their
Speaker 2: ambitions at the beginning of it. Now the Iranians are
Speaker 2: going to have much more power. They have demonstrated their
Speaker 2: military effectiveness. They have proven they can strike inside of
Speaker 2: Israel and cause significant damage. They approve in the holes
Speaker 2: and the you know, also the dwindling supplies in terms
Speaker 2: of the Israeli air defense. And now they're going to
Speaker 2: be wealthy with this toll that they're charging. You know,
Speaker 2: we'll be able to charge it this straight on the
Speaker 2: straight Offoe Mews. And again I'm not saying this is
Speaker 2: all coming to pass right now, because it is entirely
Speaker 2: possible we go back to some sort of a war
Speaker 2: and then it's a while before this all shakes out,
Speaker 2: but that is where things are heading. And not to mention,
Speaker 2: and this was mentioned by enough Tolly Bennett, Iran is
Speaker 2: far more likely to pursue a nuclear weapon now. They
Speaker 2: are far more hard line, more hardliners in control. They
Speaker 2: are far more likely to pursue a nuclear weapon. In fact,
Speaker 2: if they didn't, I would be it would be foolish
Speaker 2: of them, frankly. And their ballistic missile capacity has been
Speaker 2: degraded somewhat, but they have and they'll be wealthy.
Speaker 6: They can buy.
Speaker 2: However, many ballistic missiles manufacture. However, many ballistic missiles, their
Speaker 2: shaw headrones are incredibly inexpensive. They will be able to
Speaker 2: rebuild and in a relatively short.
Speaker 6: Period of time.
Speaker 2: So you have done nothing but strengthen them and absolutely
Speaker 2: weaken your own position in the region. And you've antagonized,
Speaker 2: once again, antagonized everybody in the whole region and the
Speaker 2: entire world. And your political horizon in the US is
Speaker 2: really dim. You know, if you look at young people
Speaker 2: under fifty Republican Democrats, forget about it, I mean, they're
Speaker 2: the sentiment is overwhelmingly against Israel. If you look at
Speaker 2: the entire population, Israel has something like sixty percent disapproval
Speaker 2: at this point. This is a sea change in American politics,
Speaker 2: and so you will no longer be able to assume
Speaker 2: that whether you get a Republican or a Democrat in
Speaker 2: the White House. You're going to have their full throated backing,
Speaker 2: and that is what has allowed Israel to behave in
Speaker 2: this absolutely brutish, barbaric rogue way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and let's put D five up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: You guys are going to love this, so APAC and
Speaker 3: its statement on the Sea spire. It says a historic
Speaker 3: Israeli campaign. We must end Iran's nuclear program, we must
Speaker 3: address what remains of Iran's missile and drone program, cut
Speaker 3: off support for militias, and all of this must be
Speaker 3: voted on by Congress. Love it now, How incredible is
Speaker 3: it that Lindsay Graham and APAX support a war illegally
Speaker 3: launched unilaterally by the president. But if you try to
Speaker 3: make peace, well that hold on, We've got to ratify
Speaker 3: that by congres. You can wage war as long as
Speaker 3: you want, but peace itself that must be approved by
Speaker 3: Congress must have review, and we itselves will have the
Speaker 3: up or down vote as to whether that happens. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's a literal backwards of the US Constitution, right, It's
Speaker 3: not a treaty, as we all learn with the Iran
Speaker 3: nuclear deal and all that.
Speaker 1: Trump himself, how many executive deals does he sign, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's fine with me. Peace cool.
Speaker 3: You can do that unilaterally, but war no. I mean,
Speaker 3: the Founders were very explicit whenever it came to the
Speaker 3: power of being able to launch war. So that is
Speaker 3: America under Israeli or a pac and Lindsey Graham's control,
Speaker 3: the President may launch a war. The peace must be
Speaker 3: approved by the Congress.
Speaker 2: Otherwise you were required, you are obligated, you're forced by
Speaker 2: the Congress to continue the war indefinitely until we decide
Speaker 2: that you know that we've had enough.
Speaker 6: It really is absolutely incredible.
Speaker 2: We can just go through a little bit just for
Speaker 2: our perusal year of there's a Zionist Twitter meltdown happening
Speaker 2: right now. We can go through a few of these.
Speaker 2: Griffin pulled a lot. You really went wild on the
Speaker 2: elements for this section. But let's go and put a
Speaker 2: few these up for d six. You see, the time
Speaker 2: has come. Instead of Israel and the US eliminating the regime,
Speaker 2: the regime is bombing Israel.
Speaker 6: Dear Trump, what did you do all this for? Eve Barlow?
Speaker 6: The CeaseFire's disappointing.
Speaker 2: The end of the day, the people of the West
Speaker 2: have prioritized their own needs over the liberation of the
Speaker 2: people of iron.
Speaker 6: I think of how twisted that is she is completing.
Speaker 2: She is saying that we need to keep bombing Iran,
Speaker 2: that that's really the good thing for the people of Iran.
Speaker 2: I have a feeling that people in Iran feel a
Speaker 2: little different about that. This guy says, don't know how
Speaker 2: I feel about this. Another one says, this makes me sick.
Speaker 2: Let's do one more page of these Twitter reactions. Doctor
Speaker 2: Eli David says, wtf Trump just shared Arachi's post that
Speaker 2: he accepted the regime's ten point proposal. As a reminder,
Speaker 2: here is the ten point proposal, which of course has
Speaker 2: you know, the new reality and straight up for moves,
Speaker 2: complete easing of sanctions, et cetera.
Speaker 6: And one more here.
Speaker 2: This, of course will be seen as weakness by the
Speaker 2: entire Middle East. CeaseFire's very bad idea. I don't like
Speaker 2: it at all. Iran has not conceded anything. Oh there
Speaker 2: you go a little bit of how it's being received
Speaker 2: on Zionist Twitter. And let's go ahead and take a
Speaker 2: listen to Mark Levin, who, unfortunately, you know, maybe people
Speaker 2: don't really listen to him that much in terms of
Speaker 2: the public but he is very influential, apparently in terms
Speaker 2: of the White House and certainly in terms of sharing
Speaker 2: the views of the most influential Zionists in the country.
Speaker 2: So let's take a listen to his reaction.
Speaker 8: We're not doing regime change. Everybody says, no regime change, okay,
Speaker 8: Then the regime survives in one form or another. The
Speaker 8: fundamental survive. And so the question is, how do we
Speaker 8: keep this enemy, this poison, this cant, these Islamist radicals,
Speaker 8: seventh century barbarians. How do we keep them in a box?
Speaker 8: And that's what we have to figure out if we're
Speaker 8: not going to completely take them out because of the
Speaker 8: huge isolationist strain the Democrat Party among the woke right.
Speaker 8: But again Maga, the Republicans are behind the president. But
Speaker 8: if we can't do it because of the political wins,
Speaker 8: if we can't do it because of other reasons, then
Speaker 8: how are we going to keep them in a box?
Speaker 8: He can't be just peace in our time. We have
Speaker 8: a ten point deal and they've agreed to this. This
Speaker 8: I just think it's going to be very very complicated,
Speaker 8: very very difficult. And I would say this to the
Speaker 8: President of the United States. I personally know that you
Speaker 8: will do the right thing, that you're going to try
Speaker 8: and make sure that it works for now and forever.
Speaker 8: And so I have complete faith in this man because
Speaker 8: he's brought us to this point where he's blown out
Speaker 8: their nuclear systems, where he's taking out or trying to
Speaker 8: take out all the enrichment, where he is not taking
Speaker 8: them at their word, where he has used our military
Speaker 8: in one of the most brilliant, spectacular military campaigns in
Speaker 8: American history. I'm glad he's there as president of the
Speaker 8: United States. There's some very complicated and difficult issues on
Speaker 8: the table, and I think if anyone can handle it,
Speaker 8: he can handle it. But this enemy, make no mistake,
Speaker 8: they are the enemy. They're not going to go away
Speaker 8: if there's not regime change, and we're going to have
Speaker 8: to figure out, and it's not going to be easy
Speaker 8: how to keep our foot on their throat.
Speaker 2: So you see the game he's playing here, very unhappy
Speaker 2: with the deal, still pushing for regime change, but of
Speaker 2: course has to frame it in like, of course I
Speaker 2: trust Trump, and of course he's brilliant and magnificent, and
Speaker 2: the military operation has been the best in history, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Yeah, also By the way, I literally just saw this
Speaker 3: come across the Israelly military just issued evacuation warnings for
Speaker 3: Beairroot southern suburbs and so still happening. Interesting, isn't it?
Speaker 3: Even though what did JD say? They're going to check itself?
Speaker 3: He said that he did, they're going to check those,
Speaker 3: So apparently that's what it looks like whenever Eternal Operation.
Speaker 6: Sure we can rely on them for that, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Operation Eternal Darkness will check itself. Got a great
Speaker 3: guest standing buying.
Speaker 1: Let's get to.
Speaker 2: It for more on the warner, We're joined this morning
Speaker 2: by Bayrus Gamari. He's a fellow at the Center for
Speaker 2: Place Culture in Politics at the Cuning Graduate Center and
Speaker 2: also author of the new book The Long War on Iran,
Speaker 2: New Events, Old Questions.
Speaker 6: Welcome, Great to see you.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 3: Good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course, so a lot of questions for you,
Speaker 2: but let's just start with you know, how do you
Speaker 2: view this war in terms of the sort of long
Speaker 2: history of the you know, the country of Iran, but
Speaker 2: also specifically with this particular Iranian government. Do you think
Speaker 2: that it has helped strengthen their position in the state.
Speaker 9: First, let me thank you for having me here. And
Speaker 9: this current war is part of a very long project.
Speaker 9: And as the title of my book suggests, this is.
Speaker 7: A long war on Iran.
Speaker 9: And we can basically go back to the time of
Speaker 9: the Iranian Revolution of the nineteen seventy nine that for
Speaker 9: the better for wars, the revolution changed the mahap of
Speaker 9: the Middle East because before the revolution, Iran's state under
Speaker 9: the Shah was one of the most important allies of
Speaker 9: the United States in the region, and some people refer
Speaker 9: to his reign as the policeman of the Middle East
Speaker 9: on behalf of the interests of the United States and
Speaker 9: by extension, the interest of Israel. So you can imagine
Speaker 9: how significant the revolution was in terms of the interests
Speaker 9: of the US and the allies of Israel in the region.
Speaker 9: And so this is a war pretty much designed as
Speaker 9: a project since the time of revolution.
Speaker 7: In Iran, and in one way or another.
Speaker 9: First the eight year war with Iraq and crippling sanctions
Speaker 9: that many people argue that sanctions actually are more brutal
Speaker 9: than any actual war. Recently, there was an estimate that
Speaker 9: in the past thirty years, around thirty million people have
Speaker 9: died as a result of sanctions around the world, not
Speaker 9: only in Iran, but of course Iran is under one
Speaker 9: of the most severe sanctions, the crippling sanctions that created
Speaker 9: a situation between the two countries that, as I very
Speaker 9: reluctantly predicted in my book, that eventually is going to
Speaker 9: be resolved by an actual war that just started a
Speaker 9: month ago.
Speaker 7: So that where we find our situation, right.
Speaker 3: So, what I'm very interested to hear from you, and
Speaker 3: you know, to the extent that you're able to, is
Speaker 3: what life is like in Iran. We hear so many
Speaker 3: caricatures from the United States. It's a theocracy, they beat people,
Speaker 3: they throw gay people off a building. But then I
Speaker 3: also see videos of people in a coffee shop that
Speaker 3: looks like it could be out of Brooklyn or New
Speaker 3: York City. Obviously maybe both of those things can coexist.
Speaker 3: We did see we put e one up here, which
Speaker 3: is this is some video of people in Iran who
Speaker 3: were celebrating the ceasefire. Clearly the regime has some level
Speaker 3: of control even in some of the more secular or
Speaker 3: maybe even secular is the wrong word. Can you describe
Speaker 3: to us what life is like in Iran and especially
Speaker 3: how the regime, how people feel about the regime now
Speaker 3: in the aftermath of this war.
Speaker 9: Yeah, let me start from the last part of your
Speaker 9: question that when a war starts, I think one of
Speaker 9: the most significant events that happens is the collapse of
Speaker 9: the distinction between the state and the nation. Yes, and
Speaker 9: this is what we witnessed today for the most part
Speaker 9: in Iran. All these people who are celebrating on the
Speaker 9: streets today are not necessarily supporters of this state, but
Speaker 9: they are part of a nation that finds itself on
Speaker 9: their brutal attack by Israel and the United States. But also,
Speaker 9: I think one of the reasons that this war became
Speaker 9: palatable to many people was that there is this kind
Speaker 9: of erasure of civil society in Iran, which has been
Speaker 9: quite vibrant in the past at least thirty years.
Speaker 7: And one of the.
Speaker 9: Reasons that people say that, Okay, the only solution now
Speaker 9: is an external intervention in Iranian affairs, because whatever we did,
Speaker 9: we could not change society, which is absolutely not true.
Speaker 9: A lot of things had changed in Iranian society in
Speaker 9: the past thirty five years, especially at the end of
Speaker 9: Iran Iraq War in nineteen eighty eight, and there is
Speaker 9: a vibrant civil society, a very vibrant publishing business. I mean,
Speaker 9: in Tehran alone, twenty eight daily newspapers come out, and
Speaker 9: many of them quite critical of the government. And there
Speaker 9: has always been a very strong women's movement in Iran,
Speaker 9: student movement, labor associations. And if you want to compare
Speaker 9: the Iranian society in twenty twenty, twenty one, twenty two
Speaker 9: to Iranian society of nineteen ninety, you see a huge
Speaker 9: and significant difference between these two societies. And so one
Speaker 9: of the reasons that we don't hear about this, we
Speaker 9: will always hear that Iran is a totalitarian state and
Speaker 9: people cannot breathe, people are afraid of voicing their dissent,
Speaker 9: which is absolutely not true. I'm not saying that, you know,
Speaker 9: it's not a rosy picture of Iran, but it's a
Speaker 9: picture that highlights all these efforts and struggles that people
Speaker 9: have been doing. And sometimes they gain some grounds, sometimes
Speaker 9: they lose some grounds. People are arrested, people are executed,
Speaker 9: people are exiled, But nevertheless, it doesn't mean that we
Speaker 9: are facing a very stagnant.
Speaker 7: And static society.
Speaker 9: And I think that's quite an important thing that it's
Speaker 9: usually erased from the mass media in the West, in
Speaker 9: Europe and in the US, and in my own scholarship,
Speaker 9: I always try to highlight that. But whenever you highlight that,
Speaker 9: then it sounds like you're defending.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like a college I just mentioned execution, right, yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean what about how does the protest movement fit
Speaker 3: into that? I'm sure that's going to be the most
Speaker 3: people will say, how can that be true if we
Speaker 3: just had this major protest?
Speaker 9: No, I mean the protests always happened in Iran, you know,
Speaker 9: it's not a new thing. And every two or three
Speaker 9: years since the end of Iran Iraq War, we have
Speaker 9: a major protest movement in Iran. Sometimes the government is
Speaker 9: flexible in to accommodate some of those demands. Sometimes if
Speaker 9: they feel an existential threat, they respond with brutality and
Speaker 9: violence and killing. And this most recent protests in December
Speaker 9: and January, for example, it was I mean, it started
Speaker 9: as a protest of economic grievances, and you know, tens
Speaker 9: of thousands of people demonstrated and the government actually was
Speaker 9: very open in opening a channel with a conversation with protesters,
Speaker 9: and the president himself met with many of them, and
Speaker 9: so long as these protests have demands that are realizable
Speaker 9: under the existing order, the government shows flexibility and.
Speaker 7: Tries to accommodate.
Speaker 9: But once this protests become a protest for regime change,
Speaker 9: of course, that suddenly turns into a national security issue
Speaker 9: you and the government reacts very violently, and of course,
Speaker 9: in the recent protests in January, now there are a
Speaker 9: lot of reports that coming out that these protests that
Speaker 9: were expressed through economic grievances and turned into a regime
Speaker 9: change demand, was also instrumentalized and exploited by the Israelis,
Speaker 9: by the CIA right and by you know, versident Trump
Speaker 9: admitted that we sent a protesters.
Speaker 2: Well, and how much does that because so Trump said
Speaker 2: at least that, you know, we sent arms to the Kurds,
Speaker 2: and the Curds were supposed to give them to the protesters,
Speaker 2: so I think they kept them to for themselves. Who
Speaker 2: knows what of that is true, but we have a
Speaker 2: lot of indications that there was certainly US and Israeli
Speaker 2: involvement and that the protest turned quite violent and were
Speaker 2: met with a violent assault. We don't know the number
Speaker 2: they throw numbers thirty thousand, forty, but that's.
Speaker 7: That's whether that project.
Speaker 9: You know, if the numbers are three thousand, just add
Speaker 9: and right, and then you know it justifies external intervention.
Speaker 2: I mean, how much does that meddling from the US
Speaker 2: and Israel, which is sort of omnipresident, how much does
Speaker 2: that undermine the reform movement within Iran?
Speaker 9: Oh? I mean, it undermines it greatly. I mean, and
Speaker 9: that's one of the issues that has always been part
Speaker 9: of the Iranian politics and its relations with American policies.
Speaker 9: That and if you remember, for example, after ninety eleven,
Speaker 9: in two thousand and one, when President Hotami was in
Speaker 9: office in Iran and Iranians actually the government decided to
Speaker 9: change gears and become part of this war on terror
Speaker 9: as the George W.
Speaker 7: Bush called it.
Speaker 9: And you know American delegations in bond conference in Germany
Speaker 9: after the collapse of the Taliban, they're very open about
Speaker 9: it that without Iranian help they could not topple the
Speaker 9: Taliban in Afghanistan. But then you know, right after that
Speaker 9: we have the access of evil speech at the State
Speaker 9: of Union two thousand and two. Right, But there you
Speaker 9: have a reform movement in Iran that is trying to
Speaker 9: change the context of its relation with the US, and
Speaker 9: it's met with an access of evil speech in the Congress. Yes,
Speaker 9: so that undermined. I think that's the point in two
Speaker 9: thousand and two that the US definitely undermined any possibility
Speaker 9: of reform in Iran, because if you say that, okay,
Speaker 9: we are accommodating, we are bending backward to define a
Speaker 9: new kind of relationship with you, and you're met with
Speaker 9: this kind of very hostile rhetoric. And indeed, some of
Speaker 9: the neocons in the White House and the Congress wrote
Speaker 9: a memo to George w And saying that you know,
Speaker 9: Iran supposed to be the target of war on terror.
Speaker 9: Ion cannot be a part of war on terror. So
Speaker 9: you have to change year, and you know Iran should
Speaker 9: be the target of this new policy, not a collaborated
Speaker 9: in the realized I want.
Speaker 3: To ask you about the new system in Iran. So
Speaker 3: my analysis that I gleamed from Treaty Parsi and others
Speaker 3: was that while the Ayatola, the old Ayatola, was cast
Speaker 3: in the US as this evil madman, is that he
Speaker 3: really was kind of a doddering, older gentleman who's actually
Speaker 3: incredibly risk averse, who didn't either want to go all
Speaker 3: in or also didn't want you both didn't want to
Speaker 3: go to war, but also didn't want to appear weak,
Speaker 3: and probably you know, put them on the path to
Speaker 3: where things are today by not making a real decision. Now,
Speaker 3: his son is the new Itol. We have E two.
Speaker 3: We can put it up there on the screen. And
Speaker 3: some of the reporting from the White House right now
Speaker 3: is that he actually reached the truce with Trump and
Speaker 3: instructed the Foreign Minister, the President, and the Speaker to
Speaker 3: pursue some sort of deal with Donald Trump. What do
Speaker 3: we know about the new iotol I've tried to read it.
Speaker 3: There's not a whole lot about him, and generally the
Speaker 3: new you know, the system that will be in power
Speaker 3: after this war, if it is indeed a real ceasefire.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean, we really don't know much about him.
Speaker 9: And there I read all these reports about him that
Speaker 9: the assumption is that it's more hawkash. She's close to
Speaker 9: the IRGC, the Revolutionary regards, and but you know, there
Speaker 9: are many people who were very close to the Revolutionary regards,
Speaker 9: and it turned out that they were actually very liberal
Speaker 9: minded and reform oriented. And the very fact that he
Speaker 9: was close to the Revolutionary Guards. I don't think says
Speaker 9: that he's more hawkish or more militant, and so we
Speaker 9: really don't know much. He's not written much. He doesn't
Speaker 9: have a high kind of religious credibility. He's not an iotola,
Speaker 9: and so it's a sort of a wild guess that
Speaker 9: what he would do after this and people around him.
Speaker 9: Now that that most of the old gods of the
Speaker 9: Revolutionary Guards are assassinated, the new younger generation, I mean
Speaker 9: the old Guard, they were all veterans of the Iran
Speaker 9: Iraq War, and they learned about strategy of war in
Speaker 9: the fields, and they're very sort of well trained in
Speaker 9: the field kind of revolutionary commanders. But the new generation
Speaker 9: has a different kind of experience. They are mostly veterans
Speaker 9: of war in Syria and in Iraq of post two
Speaker 9: thousand and three, and they have a different kind of
Speaker 9: understanding of warfighting and and so.
Speaker 1: They're used to more asymmetric warfare.
Speaker 10: The definitely, yes, that's exactly the point that the Old
Speaker 10: Guard was a symmetrical, i mean very command conventional kind.
Speaker 9: Of warfare, which was Iran Iraq War was the longest
Speaker 9: conventional warfare of twentieth century for eight years, with half
Speaker 9: a million people killed.
Speaker 7: But these are a.
Speaker 9: New generation of people who are basically coming out of
Speaker 9: that kind of asymmetrical warfare and very well versed, so
Speaker 9: to speak of designing and strategizing in that kind of war,
Speaker 9: and also very different kind of political framing of war.
Speaker 9: And so how they would behave how do they rethink
Speaker 9: their position that that they are now in the position
Speaker 9: of decision making in the revolutionary course is yet.
Speaker 7: To be seen.
Speaker 9: And I don't think we should run to sort of
Speaker 9: a judgment that they're more militant or more.
Speaker 2: Radical regardless of sort of who is in charge and
Speaker 2: who has the most way. Though, hasn't the argument of
Speaker 2: the hardline position been strengthened by what we've seen here?
Speaker 2: You know, for the reformers, they did the deal with Obama.
Speaker 2: Obviously Trump rips it up back sound of that deal. Biden,
Speaker 2: even though he's a Democrat, doesn't choose to get back in.
Speaker 2: Trump uses the pretext of diplomacy as ruse to start
Speaker 2: a new war. And now what it looks like is
Speaker 2: that Iran has been able to achieve much more in
Speaker 2: terms of their own security and their own wealth through
Speaker 2: this war through violent means and taking a harder stance
Speaker 2: than they were through the reformist posture. Do you think
Speaker 2: that logic will be a senate within the country.
Speaker 9: Yes, yes, absolutely, And I mean again that started from
Speaker 9: access of evil speech because the Supreme Leader, they all
Speaker 9: Supreme Leader older comedy always said that you know, we
Speaker 9: should not trust Americans, and whenever you try to do reform,
Speaker 9: they would stab you in the back. And everybody said that,
Speaker 9: you know, he's paranoid, is crazy, and this and that.
Speaker 9: But after twenty years of being stabbed in the back
Speaker 9: by the US, his wars had gained a lot of credibility,
Speaker 9: and with the negotiating in the middle of negotiation two
Speaker 9: of the war in June, in the middle of negotiation,
Speaker 9: this current attack, which according to the omanis to British,
Speaker 9: they were very very close to an agreement in Geneva,
Speaker 9: and in forty eight hours, instead of the instead of
Speaker 9: finalizing the agreement, the Supreme Leader is assassinated. So I
Speaker 9: think in general people are becoming more and more skeptical
Speaker 9: of the honesty and sincerity of the US in these
Speaker 9: negotiations and the US policy sees towards Iran. And I
Speaker 9: see that now in the past few weeks also that
Speaker 9: more and more people are joining forces. Two people who
Speaker 9: were in the public squares in the middle of the
Speaker 9: night on bridges and so on and so forth, to
Speaker 9: sort of say that that they see now that kind
Speaker 9: of mistrust of American policy and which led to undermining
Speaker 9: any kind of reform minded political trend in Iran and
Speaker 9: give more legitimacy and credibility to more militant and radical
Speaker 9: politics that comes out from the US. And you know,
Speaker 9: I always told him, I've had many conversations with the
Speaker 9: people in the policy circles that the US policies towards Iran,
Speaker 9: when the stated objective is to help democratizing Iran, actually
Speaker 9: constantly helps radicalizing the Islamic state Islamic Republic, I shouldn't
Speaker 9: say Islamic States Islamic republic. And this is such a
Speaker 9: fascinating thing that although all the people who come up
Speaker 9: with these policies in the US government see the results
Speaker 9: of their policies, but nevertheless they continue to perpetuate those
Speaker 9: policies and which really produces results exactly opposite of their
Speaker 9: stated objectives. Unless they said the objectives is to radicalize,
Speaker 9: that's a different kind of worms there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this might be provocative question how radical is Iran?
Speaker 3: So we're told that they're theocratic, that they want to
Speaker 3: kill us al kaieda Islamic state that basically analogized them.
Speaker 3: At the same time you have an Iatola, who was
Speaker 3: a Chia cleric who extremely cautious, you know, in my estimation,
Speaker 3: with bomb their nuclear side the only token attack back.
Speaker 3: Even here, the religious cleric, who supposedly radical, instructs his
Speaker 3: foreign minister to.
Speaker 1: Pursue a cease fire deal. It seems highly rational.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm curious, like, are they radical and radical
Speaker 3: in what sense whenever we use that word.
Speaker 9: I think it is true that they see themselves as
Speaker 9: an anti imperialist force, but that's nationalistic. But that's that's
Speaker 9: totally nationalistic. I mean, Henry Pratt, who was the director
Speaker 9: of Iran desk at the State Department in nineteen eighties,
Speaker 9: always used to say, and he wrote this piece in
Speaker 9: the Foreign Affairs that Iran is mostly concerned with security
Speaker 9: and independence domestically rather than dominion abroad. And the dominion
Speaker 9: abroad is a posture. It's a defensive posture for them,
Speaker 9: and because they know that the US and the US
Speaker 9: allies and Israel are determined to overthrow of this regime.
Speaker 9: And and it's true. I mean, it's not paranoia, it's
Speaker 9: not it's not really true. You know, there's this little
Speaker 9: book about the Supreme Leader that came out a few
Speaker 9: years back and said that Iranian Supreme Leader was so
Speaker 9: paranoid because he thought that the US wants to overthrow him.
Speaker 9: But you know, reality, you don't call that political realism,
Speaker 9: you know. And but they also, as you said, they
Speaker 9: also always followed a very pragmatic uh policies because their
Speaker 9: number one concern is to maintain their sovereignty and their
Speaker 9: national interests. And if you look at their policies in
Speaker 9: the region. For example, in the dispute between Azerbaijan and
Speaker 9: Armenia that Azerbaijohn is a Muslim country, Armenia Christian country,
Speaker 9: Iran always took the side of Armenia.
Speaker 1: And you think about that.
Speaker 9: I mean, that's even in disputes between Pakistan and India,
Speaker 9: for the most part, Iran always took.
Speaker 7: The side of India because oil.
Speaker 9: You know, it's it's true, a very rational, pragmatic understanding
Speaker 9: of foreign affairs. And they are not driven by that
Speaker 9: kind of radical ideology because Whenever people say that, you know,
Speaker 9: they're motivated by ideology, it means that they're irrational and
Speaker 9: they turn, like the entire Islamic Republic into like a
Speaker 9: suicide bomber, you know, like that they don't care about
Speaker 9: their own well being because they're motivated and moved by
Speaker 9: their ideology, and they disregard any kind of tangible gains
Speaker 9: for their own country, for their own people, and so
Speaker 9: on and so forth. So in that sense, I think
Speaker 9: they're very pragmatic, and they shown I mean, it's not
Speaker 9: a kind of a statement or analytical statement, but this
Speaker 9: is a sort of a historical fact that in the
Speaker 9: past thirty years they always followed a very pragmatic policy
Speaker 9: in the region. And all these things about Iran's allies,
Speaker 9: you know, in Heswala or in Iraq or in the Yemen,
Speaker 9: these are always understood in Iranian contexts from their standpoint
Speaker 9: as defensive postures. And I remember when Hillary Clinton was
Speaker 9: the Secretary of State and they were talking about overthrowing
Speaker 9: Bashara Assad in Syria, and she made this comment in Istanbul,
Speaker 9: she was in Islam. She said that we're going to
Speaker 9: clip the wings of the Islamic Republic, you know, so
Speaker 9: for them when they hear this, they completely understand. And
Speaker 9: today it has become quite clear. When they were saying that,
Speaker 9: you know, we are fighting in the Studi, Damascus and
Speaker 9: southern Lebanon and and in Palestine, we are doing that,
Speaker 9: so we won't be ending up fighting in the streets
Speaker 9: of Tehran. Now that statement has gained a lot of
Speaker 9: credibility because with the weakening of those allies in other
Speaker 9: parts of the region, now they're fighting in Tehran.
Speaker 7: I'm not saying that that.
Speaker 9: You know, it was a really good news for the
Speaker 9: people in Syria that Iran is there, or maybe it
Speaker 9: was for some, it wasn't for some others. But that
Speaker 9: was their rationale. It wasn't coming out of a blind
Speaker 9: ideological commitment. It was coming out of a very calculated, rational,
Speaker 9: pragmatic politics that they were fighting in Syria or in Lebanon.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Meanwhile, we've got a Secretary of War who's got a
Speaker 2: Crusader's cross tattooed on. I'm constantly talking about how God
Speaker 2: is protecting our bombing campaign.
Speaker 6: So I'm not sure we're in a position.
Speaker 2: To the lecture on theocracy at this particular one time,
Speaker 2: Bears Gomorrow, thank you so much, great time, Thank you.
Speaker 7: So much for having me.
Speaker 3: Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate it.
Speaker 3: We've got John meyer Scheimer on the Friday Show tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Don't want to miss that. See you then,