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 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Welcome to Breaking Points. Just me in
Speaker 2: the studio today, but I do have some guests to
Speaker 2: help me out with the show. In particular, I've gotten
Speaker 2: Martaza Hossain joining us to talk about Tucker's interview with
Speaker 2: the President of Iran, going to share with you a
Speaker 2: few key moments there and get his reaction to all
Speaker 2: of that. And also bb naaniaho back at the White
Speaker 2: House third time. This time he is nominating President Trump
Speaker 2: for the Nobel Peace Prize. We've got other developments there
Speaker 2: as well that we'll get Martaza's reaction to Then we're
Speaker 2: going to also have Glenn Greenwald join. He has been
Speaker 2: closely following what is going on with Palanteer with Peter Teele,
Speaker 2: going to ask him if what he puts the odds
Speaker 2: at that Peter Teal is actually the anti Christ. So
Speaker 2: there's a lot to dig into there that is very
Speaker 2: consequent quenchol. I also want to get Glenn's view on
Speaker 2: the Epstein flop and the cope that is going on
Speaker 2: right now in Maga World, which I have to say
Speaker 2: is world historic.
Speaker 3: I'm actually going to.
Speaker 2: Start the show though with the newest tariff announcement, sort
Speaker 2: of like a Liberation Day two point zero. Trump is
Speaker 2: unilaterally announcing tariffs on a number of very significant countries.
Speaker 2: We'll get a little bit of sound from him, from
Speaker 2: Caroline Levitt and sort of parts through what is exactly
Speaker 2: going on there.
Speaker 3: We also have updates coming out.
Speaker 2: Of Texas as the death toll has surged even higher
Speaker 2: now over one hundred individuals dead because of those devastating floods.
Speaker 2: We have new information about the response or failures thereof,
Speaker 2: and also Ted Cruz once again you'll recall previously he
Speaker 2: was caught in can Kun during a natural disaster in Texas.
Speaker 2: This time he was in Greece sightseeing and was spotted
Speaker 2: as the floods ravaged the state and the response continue
Speaker 2: to pace. In addition, want to bring you some truly
Speaker 2: shocking images out of la as federal immigration agents performed
Speaker 2: a militarized sweep of the park. Ken Klippenstein, great friend
Speaker 2: of the show, was able to get leaked documents talking
Speaker 2: about the goals of this sweep, which indications are may
Speaker 2: not have actually picked up a single person. It was
Speaker 2: more a demonstration of a show of force that hey,
Speaker 2: these immigration agents armed to the teeth, looking like a
Speaker 2: military occupation. They can go anywhere and they can do anything,
Speaker 2: and there is nothing that the local government Karen Bass
Speaker 2: in this case, can do to stop them. So a
Speaker 2: lot to get to in this show. Before I jump
Speaker 2: in to the tariff's information, just want to thank you
Speaker 2: guys so much for supporting this show. If you are
Speaker 2: not premium member and you want to become one, you
Speaker 2: get the show in your inbox early no ads, you
Speaker 2: get access to the Premium amas. You also get access
Speaker 2: to the full Friday show. Go ahead and sign up
Speaker 2: at breakingpoints dot com. If that is not for you
Speaker 2: at this point, money's tight or you just don't feel
Speaker 2: like it.
Speaker 3: If you can share the clips and.
Speaker 2: Like and subscribe all that good stuff, that helps us
Speaker 2: out tremendously as well. All right, So let's go ahead
Speaker 2: and get to this tariff announcement. So yesterday, about halfway
Speaker 2: through the day, Trump posts these letters, sort of preposterously
Speaker 2: written letters to a couple of significant countries, announcing new
Speaker 2: twenty five percent tariffs on those nations. Specifically here we're
Speaker 2: talking about Japan and we're talking about South Korea. Now,
Speaker 2: these are both countries that are close allies of the US,
Speaker 2: so it shouldn't have been that difficult to get some
Speaker 2: sort of a trade deal with them. In fact, previously,
Speaker 2: Trump had negotiated a trade deal with them in his
Speaker 2: first administration. And yet because his demands have been so
Speaker 2: hard to pin down and unreasonable, they've actually been unable
Speaker 2: to come to terms. So he unilaterally announced this new
Speaker 2: tariff rate to go into effect, and then later on
Speaker 2: in the day we get an announcement there are additional
Speaker 2: countries that are also having these unilateral tariffs being placed
Speaker 2: on top of them. You guys, remember back in the
Speaker 2: early days after Liberation Day, and when we had the pause,
Speaker 2: we were told we're going to get ninety deals, and
Speaker 2: ninety days so far we've gotten two sort of outlines
Speaker 2: of a deal with two countries. So it certainly has
Speaker 2: not rolled out the way that it was originally portrayed.
Speaker 2: When Caroline Levitt was asked about all of this, what
Speaker 2: it means where we're going, let's take a listen to
Speaker 2: what she had to say.
Speaker 4: I have the signed letters that went out to both
Speaker 4: South Korea and Japan today, and there will be approximately
Speaker 4: twelve other countries that will receive notifications in letters directly
Speaker 4: from the President of the United States. And weeks ago
Speaker 4: I stood at this podium and I told all of
Speaker 4: you that the President was going to create tailor made
Speaker 4: trade plans for each and every country on this planet.
Speaker 4: And that's what this administration can continues to be focused on.
Speaker 4: The President will also sign an executive order today delaying
Speaker 4: the July ninth deadline to August first. So the reciprocal
Speaker 4: tariff rate or these new rates that will be provided
Speaker 4: in this correspondence to these foreign leaders will be going
Speaker 4: out the door within the next month or deals will
Speaker 4: be made and those countries continue to negotiate with the
Speaker 4: United States. We've seen a lot of positive developments in
Speaker 4: the right direction. But the administration, the President and his
Speaker 4: trade team want to cut the best deals for the
Speaker 4: American people and the American worker. That's what they're focused on.
Speaker 4: And in the effort of transparency, these letters will continue
Speaker 4: to be posted to true social They will take the
Speaker 4: letters seriously because they have taken the president seriously. And
Speaker 4: that's why the President's phone, i can tell you, brings
Speaker 4: off the hook from world leaders all the time who
Speaker 4: are begging him to come to a deal.
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 2: That is a little bit of what the official White
Speaker 2: House line was yesterday has gone with his next piece
Speaker 2: up on the screen, so you can get a little
Speaker 2: bit of a sense of these letters. So White House
Speaker 2: sent near identical letters to the leaders of Japan and
Speaker 2: South Korea announcing sweeping new twenty five percent tariffs on
Speaker 2: all their exports to the.
Speaker 3: US starting August first. This is significant because the previous.
Speaker 2: Deadline was tomorrow, July ninth, and so there had been
Speaker 2: some confusion about whether that was going to be a
Speaker 2: hard and fast deadline. They're now pushing that to August First,
Speaker 2: there is continued confusion about whether the new August first
Speaker 2: deadline is actually a hard and fast deadline, so we'll
Speaker 2: have to see what ultimately pans down there. But let
Speaker 2: me read you just a little bit of these letters,
Speaker 2: because it is certainly trademark Trumpian language and sort of
Speaker 2: preposterous that this is the way that the President of
Speaker 2: the United States communicates with significant nations around the world.
Speaker 2: In any case, one of them reads, this is the
Speaker 2: one to the Prime Minister of Japan. Dear mister Prime Minister,
Speaker 2: it is a great honor for me to send you
Speaker 2: this letter in that it demonstrates the strength and commitment
Speaker 2: of our trading relationship and the fact the US of
Speaker 2: A has agreed to continue working with Japan despite having
Speaker 2: a significant trade deficit with your great country. Nevertheless, we've
Speaker 2: decided to move forward with you, but only with more balanced.
Speaker 3: And fair trade in all gaps.
Speaker 2: Therefore, we invite you to participate in the extraordinary economy
Speaker 2: of the United States, the number one market in.
Speaker 3: The world, weirdly capitalized there.
Speaker 2: By far, We've had years to discuss our trading relationship
Speaker 2: with Japan, have concluded we must move away from these
Speaker 2: long term and very persistent trade deficits and caps for
Speaker 2: some reason engendered by Japan's tariff and non tariff policies
Speaker 2: and trade barriers. And then he goes on to describe
Speaker 2: how we will be unilaterally implementing these twenty five percent terrorists.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put the next piece up on the
Speaker 2: screen here to show you the rates that were announced
Speaker 2: yesterday on these countries to go into effect on August. First,
Speaker 2: you've got Cambodia thirty six percent, tinmely In thirty six percent,
Speaker 2: Bangladesh thirty five percent, Serbia thirty five, Indonesia thirty two,
Speaker 2: Bosnia thirty Tunisia twenty five, and then you've got Japan
Speaker 2: and South Korea at twenty five. In addition, he says
Speaker 2: that any retaliation will be met with increased tariffs. So
Speaker 2: he said, if any of those countries increase their tariff
Speaker 2: rates visa VI the United States, then that additional amount
Speaker 2: will be added on tops. So, needless to say, these
Speaker 2: are quite high rates. These are significant tariff rates. It's
Speaker 2: easy to become a little bit inured of this stuff
Speaker 2: at this point because we've had them on and off
Speaker 2: again and back on, and we're taking a pause and
Speaker 2: we've got a deadline, and we've got a new deadline
Speaker 2: coming in. But I think it's worth just wrapping our
Speaker 2: minds around the fact that if you're talking about twenty
Speaker 2: five percent tariffs on significant trading partners like South Korea
Speaker 2: and Japan, that is going to have a significant impact
Speaker 2: on the economy, and economists will tell you very likely
Speaker 2: to raise prices on those goods coming in from those countries.
Speaker 2: Not to mention what companies do when they have an
Speaker 2: excuse to hike prices, they hike prices, so very possible
Speaker 2: that all that comes down the pike, Not to mention
Speaker 2: the continue level of extreme uncertainty about what any of
Speaker 2: this is, what any of it's going to be, where
Speaker 2: we're ultimately going to end up.
Speaker 3: And as I said.
Speaker 2: Before, part of the reason why countries like Japan that
Speaker 2: have a very close relationship with the United States, why
Speaker 2: even they were unable to strike some sort of a
Speaker 2: deal with the Trump administration, is because they basically came
Speaker 2: and said effectively like okay, well what do you want
Speaker 2: from us? And no one could really answer them. Some
Speaker 2: of these nations have effectively zero tariffs on the US.
Speaker 2: But because Trump feels like we have a trade deficit
Speaker 2: with them, that that is just it's so facto an
Speaker 2: indication that something is unfair about the relationship, and so
Speaker 2: we has to put these tariffs in place. So that's
Speaker 2: kind of the top line of where we are. You know,
Speaker 2: I mentioned before that there continues to be questions about, Okay,
Speaker 2: we had the July ninths deadline, Well that's tomorrow, that's
Speaker 2: now being pushed down to August first. Is it going
Speaker 2: to be the August first deadline? Trump got asked a
Speaker 2: couple of days ago about these deadlin and how hard
Speaker 2: and fast they are and what they mean, and he
Speaker 2: was perplexingly confused himself. It really raised some questions about
Speaker 2: how much even in this area on terraff, the area
Speaker 2: where he seems to be sort of the most engaged
Speaker 2: and the most enthusiastic in terms of his administration, really
Speaker 2: raised some questions about how plugged in he is even
Speaker 2: to this sort of centerpiece of his economic agenda. Let's
Speaker 2: go ahead and take a listen now to a four,
Speaker 2: Your president, Do the.
Speaker 1: Tariff rates change at all on July ninth or do
Speaker 1: they change on August first?
Speaker 5: What are you talking about?
Speaker 6: Tariff rate?
Speaker 4: Do they change on July ninth or August first.
Speaker 5: They're going to be tariffs, they're going to be the terrifft.
Speaker 6: I think we have most countries done by July ninth, Yeah, either.
Speaker 3: A letter or a deal, but let they go into
Speaker 3: effect on August spurs.
Speaker 2: So you can see Trump They're saying, oh, I think
Speaker 2: most of the countries will be done by July ninth.
Speaker 2: This was just a couple of days ago that he
Speaker 2: got asked that, and he's said, oh, no, I say
Speaker 2: it'll be done by July ninth. Again, tomorrow is July ninth,
Speaker 2: and we now have this announcement that no, actually, in fact,
Speaker 2: we're pushing that deadline how off to August first. And
Speaker 2: you can see Howard Lutnik having to jump in to
Speaker 2: sort of try to clean things up and say, well, well,
Speaker 2: I mean July is sure, mister president, but actually they
Speaker 2: go into effect on August first. So you know, there
Speaker 2: seem to be significant parts of this administration that Trump
Speaker 2: is just checked out from. He seems completely checked out
Speaker 2: from the immigration piece, seems to have just been completely
Speaker 2: outsourced to Stephen Miller. As one example where he has
Speaker 2: become incredibly power powerful within this administration. He also appears
Speaker 2: to be Steven Miller very powerful even within foreign.
Speaker 3: Policy decision making.
Speaker 2: But I really thought that Terris were the one piece
Speaker 2: that Trump was really super engaged with. This is a
Speaker 2: guy that is, you know, playing golf on a lot
Speaker 2: of days, which is kind of extraordinary given that you
Speaker 2: would think that this would be a very busy job.
Speaker 2: And so it was just interesting to me to see
Speaker 2: him even so sort of perplexed by the question that
Speaker 2: was asked and so out of sorts on what the
Speaker 2: answer would be about when this deadline is which again
Speaker 2: is pretty significant question given that he was asked this
Speaker 2: just days before that deadline was due. So let's go
Speaker 2: and put the next piece up on the screen, because
Speaker 2: this is significant as well. You know, this was the
Speaker 2: market reaction yesterday, the Dallas slides more than four hundred points.
Speaker 2: That's a significant market drop. I haven't taken a look
Speaker 2: at the futures yet this morning to see where we are. Oh,
Speaker 2: it says SMP five hundred futures rebound from sell office
Speaker 2: investors bet that Trump tariffs will end up lower than
Speaker 2: what he announced. So Wall Street appears to be taking
Speaker 2: the taco bet again. And you know, given the ups
Speaker 2: and downs of this policy. It's hard to blame anyone
Speaker 2: for them, gay Like, Okay, sure, he's doing Liberation Day
Speaker 2: two point zero and announcing these very high rates that
Speaker 2: would be extraordinarily disruptive if they actually go through. But
Speaker 2: are they actually going to go through. Who the hell
Speaker 2: knows at this point. In addition, there was also a
Speaker 2: significant shot taken at the so called bricks Nations contained
Speaker 2: in this as well. Let's go ahead and put this
Speaker 2: next piece up on the screen. This is from the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal. So they say Trump steps up his
Speaker 2: fight with bricks Nations. China and Russia push back after
Speaker 2: US president threatened to place tariffs on countries embracing the
Speaker 2: policies of the group. I'll reach a little bit of
Speaker 2: this article from the Wall Street Journal. They say President
Speaker 2: Trump's threat to put new tariffs on countries embracing the
Speaker 2: policies of the Bricks Group has added fresh uncertainty to
Speaker 2: global trade, prompt to push back from Moscow and Beijing,
Speaker 2: Trump posted on social media that countries aligning themselves with
Speaker 2: the quote anti American policies of bricks will be charged
Speaker 2: an additional ten percent tariff on top of course of
Speaker 2: whatever he decided he was going to charge them. The
Speaker 2: threat appeared to be a response to a statement put
Speaker 2: out by the Group of Emerging Economies, whose members include Brazil, Russia, India, China,
Speaker 2: South Africa, and others, that took a swipe at Trump's policy.
Speaker 2: The threat comes as his administration faces a crucial week
Speaker 2: for reaching trade deals.
Speaker 3: The Bros.
Speaker 2: Group, it goes on to say, has long sought to
Speaker 2: present itself, sought to present itself as a multilateral counterweight
Speaker 2: to a US dominated world order, although internal divisions and
Speaker 2: differing political and financial frameworks have hobbled its quest for
Speaker 2: expanding its geopolitical influence. So they have actually all been
Speaker 2: meeting at a summit in Rio de Genera right now.
Speaker 2: They put out a joint declaration that said they had
Speaker 2: quote serious concerns about the rise of unilateral tariff and
Speaker 2: non tariff measures. So that may have been what prompted
Speaker 2: this exchange from Trump. But you know, there is a
Speaker 2: real concern that the world will move away from the
Speaker 2: United States of America and the dollar as the global
Speaker 2: reserve currency. That would be an incredible reckoning for this
Speaker 2: country and for this economy where we are used to
Speaker 2: having what's been called the exorbitant privilege of being having
Speaker 2: the dollar as the world's a currency that effectively means
Speaker 2: that the rest of the world is financing the debt
Speaker 2: and the deficit that we have accumulated now over years,
Speaker 2: in which the one big, beautiful bill will expand even further.
Speaker 2: You know, I am not someone who is a big
Speaker 2: I'm not a big deficit hawk. I'm not one of
Speaker 2: these how we pay for it kind of people, especially
Speaker 2: because we see the way that that rhetoric is always
Speaker 2: used just to take away social safety net programs that
Speaker 2: benefit the poor in the working class, and never to question,
Speaker 2: for example, the massive now trillion dollar defense budget that
Speaker 2: only ever goes up and up and up. Nor is
Speaker 2: it used to question how we're going to finance the extraordinary, giant,
Speaker 2: multi trillion dollar tax cuts that are being given to
Speaker 2: the wealthiest among us, the people who least need such assistance. However,
Speaker 2: if the world truly does move away from the dollar,
Speaker 2: and that is part of what the bricks have sort
Speaker 2: of set up to do, it's part of what Russia
Speaker 2: and China have been looking at alternatives. You can hardly
Speaker 2: blame them, given how chaotic and unreliable the United States
Speaker 2: is at this point. You know, if that actually does
Speaker 2: happening happen, it will be a significant reckoning in this country.
Speaker 2: So in any case, you know, the irony here of
Speaker 2: Trump protesting what the bricks nations are doing is that
Speaker 2: with his insane unilateral trade war on the entire world,
Speaker 2: he is only hastening the arrival and increasing the logic
Speaker 2: of those countries that would want to move away from
Speaker 2: the dollar as the world's reserve currency. So that, of
Speaker 2: course is the irony here. Last thing I've got for
Speaker 2: you is Peter Navarro got asked about the original promise
Speaker 2: of the ninety deals and ninety days that had been pledged.
Speaker 2: We were going to see deals being made at the
Speaker 2: pace we'd never seen before. There are going to be
Speaker 2: so many wins. We get sick of winning, I guess.
Speaker 2: And here's what he had to say about what happened
Speaker 2: with those ninety deals in ninety days.
Speaker 7: Ninety days and ninety days. I'm very happy. I'm very happy.
Speaker 7: I am very happy with where we're at. We have
Speaker 7: had a global baseline tariff in place of ten percent.
Speaker 7: We're collecting billions of dollars of tax revenue that are
Speaker 7: going better, going to pay down for tax cuts. We've
Speaker 7: got continuing no she negotiations and I think this is
Speaker 7: great days because the rest of the world has it
Speaker 7: so good that they're dragging their heels, but the President
Speaker 7: will not allow that. That's why the letters went out.
Speaker 7: That's all I'll say.
Speaker 2: So obviously just a bunch of nonsense spin and cope,
Speaker 2: there needless to say. But you know, I just to
Speaker 2: wrap this up. It all goes back to like, what
Speaker 2: are we even doing here? You know, there's never been
Speaker 2: any clear explanation of what the goal of these tariffs
Speaker 2: even is. Originally, I remember we were told when they
Speaker 2: were being put on Mexico and Canada that was about Sentinel.
Speaker 2: Then we were told at times, oh, this was about
Speaker 2: bringing back manufacturing jobs. Well, so far from what we've seen,
Speaker 2: this has been devastating actually to manufacturing, especially when coupled
Speaker 2: with the rollback of industrial policy that was actually put
Speaker 2: in place by the Biden administration. You're going in the
Speaker 2: wrong direction in terms of manufacturing jobs. At times, we've
Speaker 2: been told that this was about and Peter Navarro talks
Speaker 2: a little bit about that there, it's about increasing revenue
Speaker 2: into the United States treasury. Well, that goal is actually
Speaker 2: directly at odds with the goal of increasing manufacturing jobs,
Speaker 2: because if you're re shoring, then you're gonna have fewer
Speaker 2: goods coming in being imported, then you will be decreasing
Speaker 2: the tariff revenue over time.
Speaker 3: So those two things are at odds.
Speaker 2: Trump seems fixated on the idea of US having a
Speaker 2: trade deficit with any country, even though in some instances,
Speaker 2: and we talked about the nation of Lesotho, where it's
Speaker 2: like they're a poor country, so they just don't buy
Speaker 2: that much in terms of goods from US, and we
Speaker 2: buy diamonds and other sort of like natural reas sources
Speaker 2: from them. There's just naturally going to be an imbalance
Speaker 2: in that trade relationship. Doesn't mean they're ripping us off.
Speaker 2: So we continue to have this central question of like,
Speaker 2: what are you even trying to accomplish here?
Speaker 3: What even is the goal here? How could you.
Speaker 2: Even measure whether or not this policy is successful when
Speaker 2: we've never ever gotten any sort of consistent answer about
Speaker 2: what this thing ultimately is for. You know, in terms
Speaker 2: of his defenders, I feel like they've just sort of
Speaker 2: given up on trying to explain this, given up on
Speaker 2: trying to defend the ins and outs and the ups
Speaker 2: and downs. I'm sure you guys have seen that meme
Speaker 2: where it's like Trump puts the tariffs in place and
Speaker 2: they say this will bring back jobs, that he takes
Speaker 2: them off again, and they say this is the art
Speaker 2: of the deal. I think they've just given up on
Speaker 2: talking about it altogether, because any time you go in
Speaker 2: hard for whatever the current plan is, three days later
Speaker 2: there's some other new plan that you're having to turn
Speaker 2: around and now justify. So that's where things are. What
Speaker 2: is the goal of this policy?
Speaker 3: Who knows?
Speaker 2: What is it going to accomplish? Who knows is August
Speaker 2: one to headline? Now real we don't know. Are these
Speaker 2: new tariff rates, which again would be really significant extraordinarily
Speaker 2: hih and I don't want people to lose sight of
Speaker 2: how disruptive it would be economically if these actually get
Speaker 2: put in place on Japan, South Korea and other trading allies.
Speaker 3: We don't really know. So that's where things stand, all right.
Speaker 2: Very fortunate to be joined this morning by Martaza Hussein
Speaker 2: of drop site News. He's going to help me cover
Speaker 2: a couple of topics here. Great to see you, maas Hey,
Speaker 2: Thanks for having Yeah, of course, so we mentioned on
Speaker 2: the show yesterday, Tucker Carlson recorded an interview, a sit
Speaker 2: down interview with the President of Iran. There were a
Speaker 2: few different moments that I thought were interest I mean,
Speaker 2: first of all, I just I think it's important to
Speaker 2: hear the perspective of the Iranian government, how they're viewing
Speaker 2: all of this, and you know what their position is,
Speaker 2: which is something you very rarely hear in Western media.
Speaker 2: So I thought this was significant for that reason. But
Speaker 2: let me start off by getting your reaction to this
Speaker 2: particular clip. Tucker asked the President of Iran, do you
Speaker 2: plan to re enter diplomatic negotiations? And of course, previously,
Speaker 2: these negotiations that the Trump administration was engaged in, which
Speaker 2: seemed to have some possibility at least before they drew
Speaker 2: a hard line on zero Uranian enrichment, seem to have
Speaker 2: some possibility of coming to fruition. The Trump administration then
Speaker 2: comes out and admits or claims that they were using
Speaker 2: those negotiations as a ruse to create an element of
Speaker 2: surprise for Israeli attacks on Iran. So that's the backstory
Speaker 2: in the context. Let's go ahead and take a listen
Speaker 2: to a little bit of this exchange.
Speaker 8: Do you have plans to re enter negotiations with the
Speaker 8: United States with Envoy Steve Woitkof or anyone else, and
Speaker 8: if not, what do you think will happen.
Speaker 9: We see no problem in re entering the negotiations. Before that,
Speaker 9: I have to remind you that because of the atrocities
Speaker 9: by the Zionist regime by Israel, not just against my country,
Speaker 9: but in the whole region, we are now facing a crisis,
Speaker 9: that the people are facing a crisis that we need
Speaker 9: to put it behind ourselves. Our commanders were off duty,
Speaker 9: They were spending the night at their homes with their families,
Speaker 9: but they were killed and this is considered a war
Speaker 9: crime according to the international law because they were off duty.
Speaker 9: As I said, for our scientists were also killed and
Speaker 9: assassinated along with their families and their wives and their children.
Speaker 9: They were also killed, pregnant women, children. They were killed
Speaker 9: in the atrocities in the attacks of the Israeli regime.
Speaker 9: Because they wanted to kill one single person, they had
Speaker 9: to demolish and destroy a whole building and as a
Speaker 9: results of this, a lot of innocent people were killed.
Speaker 9: That there is a provision for the restarting the talks.
Speaker 9: How are we going to trust the United States again?
Speaker 9: How can we know for sure that in the middle
Speaker 9: of the talks the Israeli regime will not be given
Speaker 9: the permission again to attack US?
Speaker 2: So he says there, how are we going to trust
Speaker 2: the United States again?
Speaker 3: Which I think is.
Speaker 2: A pretty reasonable question, given not just this most immediate
Speaker 2: diplomatic rules, but the fact that previously we had a
Speaker 2: deal with the Iranians that the first Trump administration backed
Speaker 2: out of.
Speaker 10: Yeah, Unfortunately, it's been very difficult for the US to
Speaker 10: engage in diplomacy with Iran for one primary reason, which
Speaker 10: is Benjamin Netanyahu, And for over a decade now, mister
Speaker 10: Netanya who's been working to insert himself and sabotage effectively
Speaker 10: any sort of meaningful diplomacy between the US and Iran.
Speaker 10: He sabotaged the Iran nuclear deal, and he himself takes
Speaker 10: credit for doing that in twenty fifteen or later in
Speaker 10: the Trump administration deal they'll sign in twenty fifteen, and
Speaker 10: most recently, the US and Iran, by no means seem
Speaker 10: to have exhausted their diplomatic talks over the nuclear program.
Speaker 10: Under the second Trump administration. But in the middle of that,
Speaker 10: Netanyahho intervened. He launched a surprise attack on Iran. There's
Speaker 10: conflicting reporting about the level four knowledge that the US
Speaker 10: had about this attack, but you know, ultimately it was
Speaker 10: Israeli attacked and it's very difficult to continue negotiations after
Speaker 10: as the President said, there was this, The Iranian president said,
Speaker 10: there was this killings and very provocative attacks in the
Speaker 10: Iranian capital and Iranian nuclear sites, which affected the very
Speaker 10: subject that the talks had taken place between the US
Speaker 10: and Iran. So I think that he kind of has
Speaker 10: the understandable perception that if we the US engaged with
Speaker 10: the talks with Iran again, which is very plausible and
Speaker 10: the Irani seem to want to do it, who can
Speaker 10: guarantee that that Nia won't intervene again. He'll attack, escalate,
Speaker 10: maybe he'll kill Irani and political officials, and do whatever
Speaker 10: it takes to avoid any deal taking place with the
Speaker 10: US and Neuron. And I think Netanyahu's main issue is
Speaker 10: actually not Iran's nuclear program. I think he just doesn't
Speaker 10: want there to be a deal between the US and Neuron.
Speaker 10: He wants Iran and the US to remain enemies and
Speaker 10: the sanctions to stay on and things like that, because
Speaker 10: that makes it easier for him to achieve his goal
Speaker 10: of escalating gradually a direct confrontation militarily between Iran and
Speaker 10: the US, which ultimately leads to regime change or heavy
Speaker 10: destruction in Iran, even if it requires the US being
Speaker 10: a war in that country and some point in the future.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the nuclear program is largely a pre tax.
Speaker 2: Not to say they don't care about it at all,
Speaker 2: but mostly what Nanyahu's interest is in is in Iran
Speaker 2: being a weakened or even failed state because he doesn't
Speaker 2: want any sort of regional rival power to check his
Speaker 2: you know, significant at this point, regional ambitions. There was
Speaker 2: another section I wanted to get your reaction to that
Speaker 2: I thought was really interesting. You know, as the whole
Speaker 2: debate was unfolding about whether or not we should get
Speaker 2: involved in a hot war with Iran and what was
Speaker 2: the threat to US interests, et cetera, Routinely people who
Speaker 2: were in favor of US, you know, getting going all
Speaker 2: in for some regime change operation in Iran, they would
Speaker 2: talk about these death to America chants and say, how
Speaker 2: can you allow this regime to persist when they want
Speaker 2: all Americans to be killed when they're out there chanting
Speaker 2: death to America. So Tucker actually asked him about those chants,
Speaker 2: which I thought led to an interesting exchange.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 8: Americans are afraid of Iran and they believe that Iran
Speaker 8: would like to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 8: They see video of Iranians saying death to America, describing
Speaker 8: our country as great Satan. What is your opinion of
Speaker 8: that should we be afraid of Iran?
Speaker 9: I believe that this is a very wrong impression that
Speaker 9: anybody might have of Iran or the Iranians. I would
Speaker 9: like to remind you that Iran has never invaded another
Speaker 9: country in the last two hundred years. When they say
Speaker 9: death to the United States, it doesn't mean death to
Speaker 9: They don't mean death to the people of the United
Speaker 9: States or even to the officials of the United States.
Speaker 9: They mean death to crimes, death to killing and carnage,
Speaker 9: death to supporting killing others, death to insecurity and instability.
Speaker 9: Iranian killing an American have you ever heard that? Or
Speaker 9: a terrorist that was Iranian and he carried out a
Speaker 9: terrorist attack against the Americans. Know, it was it was
Speaker 9: your president who confessed that the Americans created the isis
Speaker 9: in our region and they were responsible for this wrong
Speaker 9: image that is portrayed of religion or the Muslims in
Speaker 9: the world. This is not death to the American people
Speaker 9: or to the officials. Death to crimes and atrocities, to
Speaker 9: to bullying, to to to the use of force and
Speaker 9: anybody who would like to become an accomplice in the
Speaker 9: in the crimes perpetrated by others.
Speaker 3: Maz what did you make of that response?
Speaker 10: Well, I mean to be clear, it's not a great slogan,
Speaker 10: to be honest, it's kind of lend itself, to lend
Speaker 10: itself to negative interpretations. Just space that said, you know,
Speaker 10: I think it's also important to be aware that in
Speaker 10: Iran in the past, this slogan of death to X
Speaker 10: thing has been used for many different purposes than Mahmood
Speaker 10: Amadinajad's political campaigns. Some years ago, I was talking about
Speaker 10: the price of potatoes and the slogan became death to
Speaker 10: potatoes because.
Speaker 5: Of the price has been very high.
Speaker 10: So, you know, it seems like there's some there could
Speaker 10: be some cultural misinterpretation. But yet you know, still the
Speaker 10: Iranian government since nineteen seventy nine, and I can go
Speaker 10: in a long history of the events before that, but
Speaker 10: it's has a defined itself as opposed to being American
Speaker 10: presence in the Middle East, and as a possession said,
Speaker 10: they associate that presence with oppression or war or sanctions
Speaker 10: and all these other negative things not just directed to them,
Speaker 10: but directing others as well too, So they defined themselves
Speaker 10: in opposition to that ideologically, and you know, it makes
Speaker 10: it difficult or harder than it would be otherwise to
Speaker 10: engage in diplomacy of the US, because you have, at
Speaker 10: least at a rhetorical level and the symbolic level, this
Speaker 10: opposition definitely against the US. And people have actually asked
Speaker 10: Iranian leaders about this before this slogan, and including the
Speaker 10: Supreme Leader Alikamani, even Iranians at Baptist and it has
Speaker 10: been discussed in Iranian television quite a bit, and they
Speaker 10: kind of get the same answer every time, and they
Speaker 10: kind of say it almost like, you know, of course,
Speaker 10: we don't mean possibility to Americans or to America as
Speaker 10: a country per se. We're talking about certain bad people
Speaker 10: in America or certain things that the US is doing
Speaker 10: in our region.
Speaker 5: Which we don't like.
Speaker 10: So you know that people can take that explanation on
Speaker 10: its face, I still would say that really probably not
Speaker 10: an advisable kind of slogan to use because for this reason,
Speaker 10: but that's what they mean. I think it's reasonable in
Speaker 10: the sense that there's no US security efficient who think
Speaker 10: that Iran's trying to destroy America or using nuclear weapons
Speaker 10: against America. It's not a serious sort of contention that
Speaker 10: anyone who follows the subject thinks. But you know, there
Speaker 10: is this historical and rhetorical tension between the two countries
Speaker 10: which has makes it difficult as well to overcome people
Speaker 10: like the Tanyahu were others who like to engineer direct
Speaker 10: confrontation militarily between the two.
Speaker 2: You know, there was another point, and I didn't pull
Speaker 2: this particular clip, but there was another point where Tucker
Speaker 2: was asking the President about their nuclear program and whether
Speaker 2: they were developing a nuclear weapon, whether they wanted to
Speaker 2: develop a nuclear weapon, and he indicated that this was
Speaker 2: all just an invention of net Yahoo effectively, and the
Speaker 2: Israelisi specifically pinned it on Netanya and said, like, listen,
Speaker 2: there's a actually religious prohibition against developing nuclear weapons. We
Speaker 2: have no interest in it. What did you make of
Speaker 2: that particular comment and that framing.
Speaker 10: So the current Supreme Leader if Ron has said before
Speaker 10: these issued a edict saying that nuclear weapons are against
Speaker 10: their values there against our religious beliefs. They are like
Speaker 10: evil weapons. We don't want to introduce them to the
Speaker 10: region or use them and so forth. So you know,
Speaker 10: that is a position that they've taken before and that
Speaker 10: they've continued to hold. We don't really know in a
Speaker 10: sense of what that means per se, but I think
Speaker 10: that's very clear if you look at Iran's behavior over
Speaker 10: the last twenty years, they haven't been rushing to get
Speaker 10: a nuclear weapon. They could have got a nuclear weapon
Speaker 10: many many times in the past. That North Korea got
Speaker 10: a nuclear weapons sometime in the last twenty years in
Speaker 10: the world too. The Iranians have not tried to develop
Speaker 10: a nuclear program for the purpose of getting weapons. They've
Speaker 10: done it for a different purpose. They've done it to
Speaker 10: give themselves a leverage for the removal of Western economic sanctions.
Speaker 10: They never enriched uranium up to weapons grade. They reached
Speaker 10: it past the grade which is used specifically for energy,
Speaker 10: but they kept it in like a gray zone. They
Speaker 10: never trieved this seriously of the weaponization program in a
Speaker 10: way that endangered them, Because if you are going to
Speaker 10: have a nuclear program at all and you're in batteroms
Speaker 10: with the US, you're opening yourself up to scrutiny. And
Speaker 10: you could either, in my opinion, I think most people
Speaker 10: would agree with this. You either go all the way
Speaker 10: and develop a nuclear weapon and get it deterned that
Speaker 10: protect you and then no one cant attack you, and
Speaker 10: then you're like North Korea and that people have to
Speaker 10: you will do if they don't like you.
Speaker 5: Or you can give it up entirely.
Speaker 10: Getting a nuclear latency, having a program, enriching it but
Speaker 10: not weaponizing it kind of gets you the worst of
Speaker 10: both worlds. Yeah, you cut attacked by the Israelis, you
Speaker 10: have sanctions, you have your Karia and what's mistreating you,
Speaker 10: but you don't actually have anyclear weapon, so they can't
Speaker 10: you actually defend yourself or deter people from attacking. I
Speaker 10: think most security experts have assess also that the Israeli
Speaker 10: attack that happened last month would not have happened had
Speaker 10: the Iranians developed a nuclear weapon, and they may or
Speaker 10: may not do that now, but their policy, I think
Speaker 10: the issue is true, they have inside a nuclear weapon today,
Speaker 10: but hasn't really gotten them much. Have they got them
Speaker 10: in a very bad situation? Whereas I said, they have
Speaker 10: the worst of both worlds.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, I'm sure they're looking at, for example,
Speaker 2: Libya and saying, well, when you give up even the
Speaker 2: latent threat of potentially developing a nuclear weapon, that's what
Speaker 2: ends up to you, you know, happening to you. So
Speaker 2: getting rid of it altogether, even if it gets rid
Speaker 2: of this you know, this particular pretext for getting bombed
Speaker 2: and attack, doesn't mean that Israel and the United States
Speaker 2: are going to ultimately leave you alone.
Speaker 10: Exactly giving up capitulating and doing what the US and
Speaker 10: wants right now, or what the Israel actually wants a
Speaker 10: but acceding to a full dismantling of any enrichment capacity.
Speaker 10: The nuclear program itself. The Libya option, as it's called,
Speaker 10: is not a very attractive option. It's very dangerous, very
Speaker 10: iran actually, because the what it could be interpreted as is, well,
Speaker 10: you're capitulating, you're weak, Let's keep pushing our advantage further
Speaker 10: and let's keep this right. Well, the blood in the
Speaker 10: water and take it.
Speaker 5: All the way.
Speaker 10: So I think that people who say that, well, you know,
Speaker 10: things can be fine, you give up and we can
Speaker 10: trade and things like that, it's a very very risky,
Speaker 10: contentious and dangerous position.
Speaker 5: I don't think that. I think the Iranians very much.
Speaker 10: I'm thinking of what happened to Libya and Walmart Kadaffi
Speaker 10: and so forth when they think of this option. So,
Speaker 10: you know, I think that ultimately nuclearizing also is not
Speaker 10: a very attractive option in some ways too.
Speaker 5: It's very dangerous, it's very expensive.
Speaker 10: You have to open yourself up to a whole do
Speaker 10: different range of problems as a result of that. But
Speaker 10: the Iranians have two very onerous options. It's not really
Speaker 10: a good option on the table right now. There was
Speaker 10: the possibility of a mutually beneficial agreement when they stayed
Speaker 10: and had limited enrichment under international monitoring. The US and
Speaker 10: the Trump administration initially suggested that they were okay with that,
Speaker 10: but again there was this Israeli veto. There was a
Speaker 10: Natannaho veto which took place, which said that no, no
Speaker 10: enrichment can happen. People in the US who were sort
Speaker 10: of aligned with the new Conservative Camp successfully inserted that
Speaker 10: condition into later rounds of negotiation, so they kind of
Speaker 10: closed off the ability if any enrichment happening at all,
Speaker 10: or any deal really happening at all.
Speaker 5: So now there's two options. Which is the Libya option,
Speaker 5: which would.
Speaker 10: Probably lead or could lead down the road to more
Speaker 10: war between the US and Iran, a regime change war,
Speaker 10: or this nuclearization, which could by a preemptive nuclear attack
Speaker 10: by Israel or the US to try to stop that,
Speaker 10: I could have attracted other forms of attack. And then
Speaker 10: if they do it successfully, you have to modernize the
Speaker 10: nuclear program. If they expanded, you have to develop it
Speaker 10: all throughout the country. Look, you're starting in marathon, you're
Speaker 10: not ending it, and that's very risky as well too
Speaker 10: and very costly. So I think that, as said, there's
Speaker 10: two very very onerous options. I think this is very
Speaker 10: unfortunate that diplomacy was killed in twenty fifteen by Netanyahu
Speaker 10: and then again more recently in the second Trump administration,
Speaker 10: because that would have been better for all sides, would
Speaker 10: have avoided the US war with Iran, and would have
Speaker 10: avoided Iran having to fight to the US and Israel
Speaker 10: and all the casualties that have taken place in both
Speaker 10: sides and the results of that. So, you know, I
Speaker 10: think that now we're in a much more dangerous and
Speaker 10: fraud stays in this conflict rendering.
Speaker 2: Let's go and turn to Naanyahu's visit to the White
Speaker 2: House yesterday. You know, obviously all that we're discussing with
Speaker 2: regards to Iran.
Speaker 3: That's part of the back drop here.
Speaker 2: Also the continued genocide in Gaza, these daily AID massacres ongoing,
Speaker 2: you know, ceasefire talks which don't seem to be developing
Speaker 2: very effectively at this point. That's some of the backdrop here.
Speaker 2: And let me go ahead and start with this clip
Speaker 2: of Natna who they're you know, sitting all sitting across
Speaker 2: from each other at the dinner table, and Netna who
Speaker 2: makes a big show of presenting Trump with these papers
Speaker 2: where he says he has nominated him for a Nobel
Speaker 2: Peace Prize.
Speaker 3: Let's go and take a listen to that.
Speaker 6: Express the appreciation and admiration not only of all Israelians,
Speaker 6: but of the Jewish people and many many admirers around
Speaker 6: the world for your leadership, your leadership of the free world,
Speaker 6: your leadership of a just cause, and the pursuit of
Speaker 6: peace and security in which you are leading in many lands,
Speaker 6: but now especially in the Middle East. He forged the
Speaker 6: Aram records. He's forging peace as we speak, and one
Speaker 6: country and one region after the other. So I want
Speaker 6: to present to you, mister President, the letter I sent
Speaker 6: to the Nobel Prize Committee. It's nominating you for the
Speaker 6: Peace Prize, which is well deserved and you should get it.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: This I didn't know.
Speaker 6: Wow, Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: All coming from you in particular, this is a very
Speaker 7: meaningful Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Baby, Thank you for everything you're doing. Thank you. It's
Speaker 6: a great honor.
Speaker 2: And if we can put B seven up on the screen,
Speaker 2: these are images. So basically, at roughly the same time
Speaker 2: that this whole you should get a Nobel Peace Prize
Speaker 2: conversation is going on. This is the aftermath of tents
Speaker 2: being bombed by Israel on the grounds of a school shelter.
Speaker 2: This was happening while Natan I was arriving at.
Speaker 3: The White House.
Speaker 2: Of course, it's Israel directly bombing these tenths of displaced
Speaker 2: palace Estinians, and it's the United States of America that
Speaker 2: is providing both the bombs and the diplomatic cover for
Speaker 2: these sorts of horrors to continue. So it's just it's
Speaker 2: so grotesque. I mean, you almost want to laugh at it.
Speaker 2: But it's such so grotesque that these two people who
Speaker 2: are perpetrating a genocide are patting each other on the
Speaker 2: back like they're these great peacemakers.
Speaker 10: Yeah, you know, I feel that the Nobel Prize kind
Speaker 10: of became a bit of a punch line ever since
Speaker 10: Henry Kissinger won it.
Speaker 5: But this is particularly grotesque. Sort of.
Speaker 10: The example crystal, as he pointed out, those taking place
Speaker 10: in guys that are right now is so horrifying. It
Speaker 10: really is a genocide, and we're seeing it live streamed
Speaker 10: in a way which had never seen any genocide in
Speaker 10: the past, depicted and shown to us in the real time.
Speaker 10: And I think that in Netanyahu's case, he's being he's
Speaker 10: being cynical and smart in a way. He's taking advantage
Speaker 10: of Trump's vanity. And you could see when Trump was
Speaker 10: given the envelope with the nomination almost responds, you know, auditory.
Speaker 2: Or create he is created up now he played it
Speaker 2: exactly right.
Speaker 10: Yeah, you liked it, So you know, ultimately this is
Speaker 10: an attempt to sort of it's almost depressing, to be honest,
Speaker 10: the way that personalities can actually individual personalities can drive
Speaker 10: politics in the sense, and that now knows how this
Speaker 10: game is played very very well.
Speaker 5: He's been around in Washington longer than Trump has.
Speaker 10: Really, he knows how to change manipulate the levers of power.
Speaker 5: He knows how to manipulate his interlocutors.
Speaker 10: He knows how to push Trump's buttons, so to speak.
Speaker 10: So you know, Trump that is not actually the first
Speaker 10: person to nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prizers. The
Speaker 10: Pakistani government nominated him for a peace for a few
Speaker 10: weeks ago, as well to knowing the same sort of
Speaker 10: vanity and the desire for this award that Trump has.
Speaker 10: And I hope, I'm not very optimistic, but I hope
Speaker 10: that in some sense Trump lived up through the which
Speaker 10: he's seeking a Nobel Priest prize and at least the
Speaker 10: clients to engage in further confrontations, at least the sense
Speaker 10: with Iran. But you know, respecting that he's doing nothing
Speaker 10: to stop what's going on in Gaza, He's arming it,
Speaker 10: he's green lighting it, he's giving a political cover, and
Speaker 10: he's also helping you bring it to a more extreme
Speaker 10: stage where potentially the population of guys that will be
Speaker 10: expelled from the territory entirely. That's what these really governments
Speaker 10: saying NOWHO talked about in this meeting as well too,
Speaker 10: And I think that is a very very grotesque and
Speaker 10: dire escalation of the situation to what you can call
Speaker 10: full blown ethnic cleansing.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a good segue to the next clip that
Speaker 2: I have for you to react to, because Trump got
Speaker 2: asked if the Palestinian relocation plan, also known as ethnic cleansing,
Speaker 2: which Trump had floated of, Hey, let's get all of
Speaker 2: these Palestinians down of Gaza so that me and my
Speaker 2: billionaire buddies can come in and develop this beach front property.
Speaker 2: People call it Gaza Lago. Is that still on the table,
Speaker 2: he was asked, and he actually pitches the question over
Speaker 2: to Natan Yahoo to get him to respond to it.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and take a listen to that exchange.
Speaker 5: The city in relocation plans fell along the table. Is
Speaker 5: there a plan that during any proder and finding fund Yeah,
Speaker 5: maybe one or I let you answer that question, mister.
Speaker 5: Where a man when he's got to answer.
Speaker 11: I think President Trump had a brilliant vision. It's called
Speaker 11: free choice. You know, if people want to stay, they
Speaker 11: can stay, but if they want to leave, they should
Speaker 11: be able to leave. It shouldn't be a prison, should
Speaker 11: be an open place and give people a free choice.
Speaker 11: We're working with the United States very closely about finding
Speaker 11: countries that will seek to realize what they always say
Speaker 11: that they want to give the Palestinians a better future
Speaker 11: and those who and I think we're we're getting close
Speaker 11: to finding several countries, and I think this will give
Speaker 11: again the freedom to choose.
Speaker 6: Palestinia should happen, and I hope that we can secure
Speaker 6: it a close by.
Speaker 7: And we've had great cooperation from surrounding meaning surrounding Israel,
Speaker 7: surrounding countryes, great cooperation from every single one of them.
Speaker 6: So something good will happen.
Speaker 3: Freedom to choose mas who could object?
Speaker 5: Yeah, you know this is the thing. Basically he's seeing
Speaker 5: freedom to choose.
Speaker 10: But he's the actual variable here is you can stay
Speaker 10: and starve to death and be killed or leave.
Speaker 5: In that sense, it is not the freedom to choose.
Speaker 10: It's a duress, extreme extreme duress to try to force
Speaker 10: people out.
Speaker 5: What they're doing now is they're trying to concentrate.
Speaker 10: This is the word that they actually use themselves to
Speaker 10: concentrate the population in a very small southern stript and
Speaker 10: I suppose eventually it make life so difficult and so
Speaker 10: hopeless over a long period of time that piecemeal people
Speaker 10: can be gotten out of there. And I think that,
Speaker 10: regardless of Trump is saying, there's not really any country
Speaker 10: which is going to take millions of people. It will
Speaker 10: destabilize and either countries, people get very angry. They believe
Speaker 10: in the Two States solutions on paper of these governments
Speaker 10: around Israel as well too, and this will put an
Speaker 10: end to that forever. What they may try to do
Speaker 10: is to try to get you know, a thousand people
Speaker 10: out here and there over a long period of time,
Speaker 10: and gradually, you know, make pastings so miserable in this
Speaker 10: place that they send them somewhere else in the world
Speaker 10: that may take them. But you know, I don't I'm
Speaker 10: skeptical that any country, as I said, is agreed to
Speaker 10: take large numbers of people. There've been people floating in
Speaker 10: the Israeli government sending them to Somami Land or Sudan
Speaker 10: or Congo or other places like this, and this kind
Speaker 10: of is reminiscent of you know, I hate to use
Speaker 10: the analogy, but in World War two, the Madagascar plan
Speaker 10: that they Germany out of sending the Jewish undesirable Jewish
Speaker 10: population and saw.
Speaker 5: It to the madagas star just send them far away,
Speaker 5: somewhere in Africa, somewhere far away, someone have to hear
Speaker 5: about them. That's the way that they're talking about the subject.
Speaker 10: And again, this is not people leaving under free choic
Speaker 10: the way that now was framing it. They're trying to
Speaker 10: give him a choice. You can die, you can starve,
Speaker 10: your family can be killed.
Speaker 5: Here, or you can go somewhere.
Speaker 10: We don't have to hear about you again, and you
Speaker 10: won't really add anything over there either. But that's your choice.
Speaker 10: You can die or you can leave. That's epic cleansing.
Speaker 10: And his framing of it, which seems to portray it
Speaker 10: in a more benign way, couldn't.
Speaker 5: Be more further from the truth.
Speaker 10: That's really, really terrible and monster's thing happening right now
Speaker 10: and very unfortunate. It's very shameful. I think that the
Speaker 10: US government is public facilitated. And again, and when Trump
Speaker 10: talks about this, it seems like you've deferred the whole
Speaker 10: policy that Netnago seem that is running the US at
Speaker 10: least policy, because he didn't even get an answer to it.
Speaker 10: He just said, well, mister Neiho, what do you think
Speaker 10: about that? And let him effectively defying what is the
Speaker 10: US policy on the subject.
Speaker 2: He did the same thing when he got asked about
Speaker 2: whether to state solution was still possible, he said the
Speaker 2: same thing. Oh, let me give the question to the
Speaker 2: best person in the world to answer that, and pitched
Speaker 2: it over to net Yahoo, who you know, gave some
Speaker 2: answer about how well, of course we'd love them to
Speaker 2: have the you know, ability to govern, but he said,
Speaker 2: we will always make sure that we have the ultimate
Speaker 2: security control.
Speaker 3: So effectively the answer there is no which has been
Speaker 3: which is nothing new for.
Speaker 2: I mean, this has been his life's project political project,
Speaker 2: is to make sure and guarantee that Palestinians never have
Speaker 2: a state of their own, and he's used any sort
Speaker 2: of tactic that he possibly can in order to effectuate that.
Speaker 10: Ocome, Yeah, you said that very well, Crystal. Both two
Speaker 10: things those lifetime projects are preventing past and in state
Speaker 10: and bombing ran and his.
Speaker 3: Own political power. That would be the third yeah, in.
Speaker 10: His own political power, and he's seen in a Trump
Speaker 10: sort of like a cipher through which he can accomplish
Speaker 10: these goals alongside uh, you know, and that said Biden
Speaker 10: was also giving him as much support as he could
Speaker 10: as well too. These are both very appliable and supportive administrations.
Speaker 5: In the US.
Speaker 10: I think the most important thing here is actually in
Speaker 10: historical context, you look at Niao's career. He's fanatically wanted
Speaker 10: these things for a very very long time. Whatever beliefs
Speaker 10: Trump had or Biden had, uh, you know, they're seemed
Speaker 10: much more malleable, to seem much more bleeding, you could.
Speaker 5: Say, or you know, they did there to a degree.
Speaker 10: When you have someone who's fanatically committed to what they
Speaker 10: want and they know exactly what it is and they're
Speaker 10: absolutely driven to get it, and you have an interlocka
Speaker 10: or so on the other side who is unsure even
Speaker 10: ten percent, I would bet on the person who knows
Speaker 10: what they want getting what they want, and that's net Nyiaho.
Speaker 10: In this case, he knows he wants to bomb Merun,
Speaker 10: he knows he wants to stop at Palistinian state, expel
Speaker 10: the Palestinians. Trump doesn't even know what he wants as
Speaker 10: much he differs to net Niyaho even these questions to
Speaker 10: the press. So I would expect net Nyaho to win
Speaker 10: in this uh innocent scenario to get what he wants.
Speaker 5: And I think it's.
Speaker 10: Say that net now is almost running these policies in
Speaker 10: a way in the US, and it's unfortunate, but that's
Speaker 10: what appears to be the case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Which is not to take away agency or blame
Speaker 2: from Trump because he's the one who's outsourced the policy
Speaker 2: to NETANYAHUO.
Speaker 3: But to say that ultimately.
Speaker 2: Our interests are not being reflected here whatsoever, you know,
Speaker 2: let alone forget about the interests of Palestinians. That doesn't
Speaker 2: even enter into the equation. It's all been outsourced effectively
Speaker 2: to Natanyao. And actually that's the last piece I want
Speaker 2: to ask you about. Let's put B six up on
Speaker 2: the screen here. This is one of these axios reports
Speaker 2: from Barack revied. So you know, this is something that
Speaker 2: has been leaked to him, either from the Israeli officials
Speaker 2: or from the American officials. In any case, they think
Speaker 2: that they can get Trump to give them a green
Speaker 2: light to attack Iran again. They say that Ronderner Ron
Speaker 2: Dermer told officials in close briefings he came away from
Speaker 2: a recent visit to Washington with the impression Trump administration
Speaker 2: would back new Israeli strikes on Iran under certain circumstances.
Speaker 2: One scenario would be an Iranian attempt to remove the
Speaker 2: highly imbris uranium inside the damaged facilities. Another would be
Speaker 2: if the Iranians are rebuilding their nuclear program. They go
Speaker 2: on to say that Dermer met last week with Vice
Speaker 2: President Jaety Vance, Secretary of State Marko Rubio, and White
Speaker 2: House Envoy Steve Whitcoff, and so I think this speaks
Speaker 2: directly to your point of the Israelis know very much
Speaker 2: what they want to do, and so what they feel
Speaker 2: like they can do is create this framework of like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, this is this whole.
Speaker 3: Twelve day war piece situation.
Speaker 2: This is great for now, but obviously if Iran goes
Speaker 2: back to building a nuclear weapon, then we're going to
Speaker 2: have to go back in. And then, as we know
Speaker 2: from the last time, the last war with Iran, you know,
Speaker 2: mere weeks ago, there was no actual change in Iranian
Speaker 2: nuclear development. There was just a pretext that was created
Speaker 2: of oh, now's the time we have to go, and
Speaker 2: this is urgent, so there's nothing to stop them again
Speaker 2: from producing some sort of intelligence estimate that oh my god,
Speaker 2: Iran is rushing to a nuclear weapon, not to mention
Speaker 2: that they may well do that at this point, because
Speaker 2: the logic that this war on them from Israel in
Speaker 2: the US has created is one that would lead you
Speaker 2: logically to conclude, I guess I have no choice but
Speaker 2: to develop a nuclear weapon to give myself some sort
Speaker 2: of protection against these maniacs.
Speaker 10: I think the real purpose of this war last month
Speaker 10: was actually not to stop the nuclear program, as really didn't.
Speaker 10: As you pointed out, they still have a problem, and
Speaker 10: they can reconstitute in a year or two. It's not
Speaker 10: a huge impediment. What they really are seeking is to
Speaker 10: make it normal to bombing Iran. They wanted to make
Speaker 10: it like Iraq in the nineties, where the US and
Speaker 10: other countries could bomb the country whenever they wanted. They
Speaker 10: can gradually weaken the country, weaken its sovereignty, undermine it,
Speaker 10: and so forth, such that maybe in ten years from now,
Speaker 10: after that's been done, we bomb Iran all the time,
Speaker 10: and we fight them all the time, they can say, well,
Speaker 10: we'll just sumergme change, then let's just get it, take
Speaker 10: it one more notch further. I think it's about turning
Speaker 10: up the temperature gradually. That was the purpose of bombing
Speaker 10: Iran in this case. And when they're saying we want
Speaker 10: to green light, it's not saying that give us permission.
Speaker 10: The whole question was about they're saying, you know, you
Speaker 10: need to provide a support the US arms these attacks.
Speaker 10: It gives fuel for them, it gives logistics and intelligence.
Speaker 10: It's saying that you're committing to being part of the
Speaker 10: future operations. It's not just about Israeli. It's about the
Speaker 10: work could not have happened without very very intensive American
Speaker 10: support at all levels, logistical, tactical, strategic, very very practical
Speaker 10: weapons and logistics and so forth. And it's saying these
Speaker 10: promises and guarantees I interpret them, is saying that you
Speaker 10: will commit to giving us that support in the future,
Speaker 10: because without that, Iran's very far away from Israel. They
Speaker 10: can't really carry out the attacks, they can't really do
Speaker 10: anything they're doing without American, very intensive American backing. So
Speaker 10: I think that now it's basically looping America into a
Speaker 10: forever war with Iran. But he's doing in a slow,
Speaker 10: gradual way, whereas you get the commitments first the original attack,
Speaker 10: then you give commitments for their attacks, and then ten
Speaker 10: years from now, who knows, you could see an aerroch
Speaker 10: type situation gradually developed where the US is forced to
Speaker 10: ultimately do regime change, may put boots on the ground
Speaker 10: and so forth, and none of us ever really knew
Speaker 10: how it got to that point. We won't paying attention
Speaker 10: was happening today. But I think that's when that Neil's
Speaker 10: aim is, and that's what the administration is gradually allowing
Speaker 10: itself to be roped into.
Speaker 2: I think, unfortunately, that looks very likely. All right, Martaza Hussain,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for joining me this morning helping
Speaker 2: make sense of all of these things.
Speaker 5: Thanks Chris,