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.
Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. I have an amazing show
Speaker 1: for buddy today. What do we have, Crystal?
Speaker 4: Indeed we do.
Speaker 2: The Taco cycle continues on Iran. Trump backs down after
Speaker 2: making a series of extraordinary threats.
Speaker 4: Stop me if you've heard this one before.
Speaker 2: We'll break down the very latest here. Meanwhile, Top brass
Speaker 2: in military warning that we can choose. We can either
Speaker 2: protect Israel or we can protect the homeland. So that
Speaker 2: seems great. This comes as US four versus are withdrawing
Speaker 2: from a rock and a series of warnings have gone
Speaker 2: out to embassies across the region. Connerson Max Miller is
Speaker 2: under fire for domestic abuse allegations. We've got some new
Speaker 2: details there and a wild video that he released doubling
Speaker 2: down and trying to defend himself. It appears that the
Speaker 2: US and Israel may have been behind a hybrid war
Speaker 2: up against Spain, possibly looking likely.
Speaker 4: We'll show you all the evidence.
Speaker 2: Van David Rojas is going to join us to break
Speaker 2: down what happened in Seyouta with this migrant quote unquote invasion. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: New York is suing Calshi for the right to control
Speaker 2: gambling in their own state. This is a major, major
Speaker 2: lawsuit which will determine whether or not states have any
Speaker 2: say whatsoever in what is allowed to go in their
Speaker 2: state with regards to gambling.
Speaker 1: Yes, it is a landmark lawsuit. It will literally determine
Speaker 1: the fate of sports gambling nationwide and.
Speaker 3: Also give just people some details about how explosive.
Speaker 1: Gambling has become here in our society.
Speaker 3: Thank you to everybody who has been signing up Breaking
Speaker 3: Points at dot com. You can go ahead and sign
Speaker 3: up for our free newsletter. We have a big announcement
Speaker 3: actually that's coming tomorrow and that will be released on
Speaker 3: our newsletter for all of our subscribers. So it's totally
Speaker 3: free to be able to sign up Breakpoints dot Com,
Speaker 3: or you can support our premium subscription program, which is
Speaker 3: also available at our website. If you're watching this on YouTube,
Speaker 3: please hit subscribe to our YouTube channel. If you're listening
Speaker 3: to the podcast, please share an episode with a thread.
Speaker 3: But as Crystal said, let's go ahead and begin with
Speaker 3: Taco Sunday of what we saw. Let's put a one
Speaker 3: up here on the screen.
Speaker 1: Trump.
Speaker 3: The USA is locked and loaded, ready to go against
Speaker 3: the Islamic Republic of Iran at levels of military terror,
Speaker 3: strength and power not.
Speaker 1: Seen since World War Two.
Speaker 3: Despite this, we have just been asked by Iran and
Speaker 3: other Middle Eastern countries to hold off any attack in
Speaker 3: that the parameters of a deal has been agreed to.
Speaker 3: This would include the immediate, complete and total opening of
Speaker 3: the Horne moves straight and an end to Iran's nuclear threat.
Speaker 3: On this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit
Speaker 3: of the world and likewise the survival of a successful
Speaker 3: and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack subject to being
Speaker 3: able to rapidly make a deal. The country of Israel
Speaker 3: joins me in this commitment. Get to work, everybody, get
Speaker 3: it done. Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Speaker 3: President Donald J.
Speaker 1: Trump.
Speaker 3: So this comes on the heels of some leakage that
Speaker 3: came out of the White House. What we can now
Speaker 3: very clearly see was an op President Trump met on
Speaker 3: Friday with his entire cabinet in which he convened a
Speaker 3: big meeting about Iran. And in that meeting, what immediately
Speaker 3: came out and leaks to Axio, CBS News and otherwise
Speaker 3: was the US was planning a massive attack on Iran's
Speaker 3: energy infrastructure in conjunction with the nation of Israel. Now,
Speaker 3: immediately many people said, well, you know, if you were
Speaker 3: going to do a big attack, which you necessarily leak
Speaker 3: it in the first place, many speculated that it was
Speaker 3: indeed an opening and a threat to try and get
Speaker 3: Iran to capitulate. However, Iran did not capitulate, that they
Speaker 3: did not come to the table, no deal actually was reached,
Speaker 3: and when push came to shove, Trump ultimately just decided
Speaker 3: to cancel it because of the dire warnings from his
Speaker 3: own military. And we know this because Iran has released
Speaker 3: this let's put it up here on the screen. They
Speaker 3: say the plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is false.
Speaker 3: A source close to the nuclear negotiation team this is
Speaker 3: from Iranian state media told far As Media there is
Speaker 3: no agreement regarding the reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaker 1: The news published about it is false.
Speaker 3: Furthermore, a military source emphasized, as long as the United
Speaker 3: States continues as hostile actions, the Strait of hormuves remains closed.
Speaker 3: The passes of ships will only be possible through the
Speaker 3: designated route and with permission from the Navy of the
Speaker 3: Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Hours ago, some media outlets affiliated
Speaker 3: with the enemy claimed Iran had agreed to reopening the
Speaker 3: Strait of Hormuz, a plan which ships would enter the
Speaker 3: Persian Gulf through the Iranian territorial waters and exit through
Speaker 3: Omani territorial waters. Basically crystal from what we can see
Speaker 3: so far is that this so called parameter of a
Speaker 3: deal is based upon a meeting in which nothing was
Speaker 3: agreed to between the Omani's and between the Iranians, in
Speaker 3: which they were hashing out for themselves whether ships were
Speaker 3: able to enter through Iran and exit through the Omani Route. Remember,
Speaker 3: the United States is currently trying to route all traffic
Speaker 3: through the Omani Route outside of Iranian territorial waters, of course,
Speaker 3: which has been met with Iranian fire because of their
Speaker 3: control of the Strait of Our Moose. In fact, just
Speaker 3: hours after this deal was supposedly announced, Iran fired at
Speaker 3: a tanker which was trying to do just that hours ago.
Speaker 3: As of last night, so nothing has actually been agreed to.
Speaker 3: The blockade is on Trump just completely basically. I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, chickened out because we want him to taco.
Speaker 3: We want that here on this show. But ultimately it
Speaker 3: came down to bluster threats didn't follow through because the
Speaker 3: entire Gulf was like, please do not do this. You
Speaker 3: can't defend us, and then our infrastructure will also be destroyed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right, And I wouldn't be surprised at all
Speaker 2: because has agreed to nothing if they continue to take
Speaker 2: shots at strategic assets in the region, because you know,
Speaker 2: their view is that they need to continue to make
Speaker 2: us pay and force Trump to do more than chicken out,
Speaker 2: because it's not enough for him to just walk away
Speaker 2: from the current insane threat that he's making. He actually
Speaker 2: has to accept a defeat. And that's why you can
Speaker 2: never you can never dismiss these wild ravings from him.
Speaker 2: You know, we see assets moving to the region, we
Speaker 2: see him making these very public threats, we see leaks
Speaker 2: in the press about wild plans that are being hatched
Speaker 2: and considered in the situation room, and you can't dismiss it,
Speaker 2: even though we go through this cycle time and time again,
Speaker 2: because it's impossible to see him also accepting the deal
Speaker 2: that would be on the table, which would acknowledge that
Speaker 2: we have been completely defeated. So we're now in this
Speaker 2: no man's land where it is very precarious, where it
Speaker 2: is very uncertain what the next move is ultimately going
Speaker 2: to be, and you cannot rule out that he may
Speaker 2: get frustrated at some point and do some wild you know,
Speaker 2: nuclear attack on Pickaxe Mountain or try to seize carg Island,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Put a seven up on the screen. You
Speaker 2: flagged this this morning. I mean, this gives you a
Speaker 2: sense of just how desperate at of ideas they are.
Speaker 2: They've taken to like crowdsourcing strategies for an attack.
Speaker 4: Here, this is from CNN.
Speaker 2: They say exclusive US military as troops for creative and
Speaker 2: unconventional ideas to punish Iran. The request from a senior
Speaker 2: officer at the US military command carrying out President Donald
Speaker 2: Trump's war with Iran came in an email. We need ideas.
Speaker 2: We are looking for new, creative and unconventional ways to
Speaker 2: pressure and punish Iran, an officer and US sent Comm's
Speaker 2: intelligence branch wrote in a message sent Wednesday to a
Speaker 2: broad group of military analysts, according to a source familiar.
Speaker 2: Second source also said a senior US military officer sent
Speaker 2: the message last week, soliciting new ideas for how to
Speaker 2: deal with Iran. The crowdsourcing style query, which military officials
Speaker 2: said was unusual over email, is one sign of the
Speaker 2: limited and potentially unpalatable options available to Trump to force
Speaker 2: Iran into a deal on his terms. Hoping to find
Speaker 2: an alternative, official at Sencom kicked off the brainstorming session
Speaker 2: via email to see if anyone had a better idea.
Speaker 2: The second source SITCOM is looking at everything, acknowledging it
Speaker 2: needs to reevaluate the strategy. I mean this is wild,
Speaker 2: I mean saber, think about think about this?
Speaker 4: How long?
Speaker 2: How many decades has the US military been thinking about
Speaker 2: and wargaming and planning out what they would do vis
Speaker 2: a vis Iran, considering we thought every possible scenario. And
Speaker 2: so if you think, you know, if you're listening to
Speaker 2: Mark Levin or you're missing listening to Ben Shapiro and
Speaker 2: you're hearing all this confidence from people, Oh, we just
Speaker 2: need to strike them harder, we just need to bomb
Speaker 2: them a little bit more, and it's all going to
Speaker 2: work out. The US military doesn't think, so they are
Speaker 2: literally out of ideas and having to go to the crowd.
Speaker 2: I don't know were we got nothing? You guys got
Speaker 2: any thoughts on what we could do here?
Speaker 3: Forty seven years, trillions of dollars and all I got
Speaker 3: was this lousy email.
Speaker 1: I mean that kind of.
Speaker 3: Sus top basically where we're at. You're going to the
Speaker 3: junior officer corps and be like, hey, we've only spent
Speaker 3: our entire careers planning for this. This has been the
Speaker 3: number one thing, the op plan on the desk and
Speaker 3: sent com commander. It's literally his job every year to
Speaker 3: update the plan. And they executed that plan. It was
Speaker 3: a tremendous failure. So what does that say about them?
Speaker 3: And I'm sure there's some junior military officer and other
Speaker 3: who's trying to come up with some better ideas, and
Speaker 3: they could try, but the end of the day, you know,
Speaker 3: what we have in front of us is very simple,
Speaker 3: is within the bounds of what Trump actually this is.
Speaker 3: And this, this dispels the entire thing. This is not
Speaker 3: a military problem. This is a political problem, because if
Speaker 3: this had a military solution, it would have already been done.
Speaker 3: When it comes to unconventional ideas, and you know, let's
Speaker 3: take past wars where the US was bought in, like
Speaker 3: World War two or others. What would happen in a
Speaker 3: situation like this is they would have buy in from
Speaker 3: the business community, from the intellectuals, from all of society
Speaker 3: who are all working together to creatively solve this very
Speaker 3: very thorny issue. But here the vast majority of the population,
Speaker 3: we want out any corporation that's not a defense contract
Speaker 3: or other that's engaged in trying to do this. We're like, whoah,
Speaker 3: we don't want to continue this war. We want this
Speaker 3: over with, done for. And that's the biggest problem that
Speaker 3: the White House faces politically.
Speaker 1: We don't want a ground invasion.
Speaker 3: Sure it could happen, but that's not necessarily something that
Speaker 3: any of us want at all.
Speaker 1: In fact, we want the total opposite.
Speaker 3: And that's why within the confines of what Trump has,
Speaker 3: where he has to have minimal casualties and he wants
Speaker 3: to inflict maximum damage, there is no military solution to
Speaker 3: this problem.
Speaker 1: Period.
Speaker 3: The sooner that we get to capitulation and to acknowledging
Speaker 3: de facto Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, the
Speaker 3: better we all are off. And in fact, you can
Speaker 3: even see any even signs of peace quote unquote, or
Speaker 3: even lack of action. You know, oil isn't like eighty
Speaker 3: something dollars a barrel. You know, if this comes and
Speaker 3: stays for the next two weeks, you will see dipping
Speaker 3: below four dollars, and it'll just continue to be this
Speaker 3: on and off cycle. But I do think that your
Speaker 3: point about how the Iranians will very likely continue to
Speaker 3: punish is because they see that the problem of oil
Speaker 3: continuing to go up and down, and you know, up
Speaker 3: and down is giving the White House the runway necessarily
Speaker 3: that they don't want, because remember, the blockade is still
Speaker 3: in power, and their economy is still suffering. They have
Speaker 3: a much higher capacity for suffering than we do. They've
Speaker 3: lost I mean, so many more people in the in
Speaker 3: the engagements.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're going to talk about one of them. Actually,
Speaker 1: maybe we can just put.
Speaker 3: It up here now a five for example, all of
Speaker 3: what's being done in our name, you know, right now,
Speaker 3: it appears to the United States we dropped a two
Speaker 3: thousand pound bomb on a family home on Keshiam Island,
Speaker 3: killing a husband, a wife, and their two year old son.
Speaker 3: The paper found no indication of a nearby military target.
Speaker 3: You can see the crater. I mean, it is stunning,
Speaker 3: like genuinely crazy scenes out of Gaza. Why did we
Speaker 3: kill these people for no reason? You know, absolutely not,
Speaker 3: and their blood was shed for literally nothing in this case,
Speaker 3: you know. And it shows also the point about scentcom
Speaker 3: being like we need more ideas, we've run out of targets.
Speaker 3: It appears if we're going around we're hitting family homes
Speaker 3: with two thousand pound bombs. We're just bombing random stuff
Speaker 3: in and along the straight up our moves or where
Speaker 3: Iranian air defense capabilities are head and so you can
Speaker 3: see like it is just a never ending cycle of
Speaker 3: we bomb simply for the sake of bombing all blying
Speaker 3: a you know, an actual diplomatic solution, and that diplomatic
Speaker 3: solution will will involve the greatest strategic defeat of the
Speaker 3: United States in modern history.
Speaker 1: And that's simply people.
Speaker 3: We have to swallow it until we get until we
Speaker 3: get used to that idea. Then this is just going
Speaker 3: to be the status quo. And the President has not
Speaker 3: suffered nearly enough to be able to get him to
Speaker 3: that point because we all know, you know what it's
Speaker 3: going to have to look like. It's just it is
Speaker 3: the simple reality of the current facts that are in
Speaker 3: front of us.
Speaker 2: I mean, this two thousand pound bomb dropped on a
Speaker 2: family home, trusts, constant threats to commit war crimes against
Speaker 2: civilian and infrastructure, the of course triple bombing of a girls' school,
Speaker 2: which I don't think anyone could say with a straight
Speaker 2: face for sure was unintentional. We act just like the
Speaker 2: Israelis now. You know, we spend a long time covering
Speaker 2: the genocide in Gaza, saying that with all of the
Speaker 2: qualms and critiques that we have of the way the
Speaker 2: US military behaved in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were some
Speaker 2: lines and I don't think that we can really say
Speaker 2: that anymore, you know, I don't think that we would
Speaker 2: give in a similar scenario. I mean, we backed the
Speaker 2: entire Gaza genocide, so how can we even say separate
Speaker 2: ourselves from any of this. This is exactly the way
Speaker 2: that Israel behaves is the way we behave and we
Speaker 2: think nothing of taking your tax dollars and using it
Speaker 2: to buy two thousand pound bombs that we drop on
Speaker 2: family homes, you know, in Iran. So that is what
Speaker 2: our country is at this point, and people should be
Speaker 2: horrified by that. Do you have any expectation that the
Speaker 2: Trump administration will engage in any sort of investigation to
Speaker 2: find out.
Speaker 4: What happens here?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Because there was theoretically an investigation into the girls school bombing,
Speaker 2: and Trump came out and said, oh, well, we'll never
Speaker 2: know what happened, meaning they'll never release the results. They
Speaker 2: know exactly exactly what happened there. A couple things with
Speaker 2: regard to the let's crowdsource and brainstorm the next move
Speaker 2: here because we're out of ideas. Do you think Iron's
Speaker 2: ount of ideas? No, they know exactly what they would
Speaker 2: do next. They know exactly the way that they would escalate.
Speaker 2: They have lots of ideas for how they could cause
Speaker 2: even more pain and tighten the grip on the global economy,
Speaker 2: which is obviously a primary strategy for them. So while
Speaker 2: we're running around, I don't know what we do next.
Speaker 2: We kind of blew our load with all the targets
Speaker 2: and none of it's really having an impat And don't
Speaker 2: really want to do this ground invasion because it will
Speaker 2: be a complete and total disaster and probably won't work anyway.
Speaker 2: Don't really want to do the whole tactical nuclear weapon
Speaker 2: on Pickax Mountain.
Speaker 4: Because of what that will unleash.
Speaker 2: Iran has a plan and a strategy and has been
Speaker 2: executing it quite effectively, so their coherence versus are chaotic. Incoherence,
Speaker 2: I think tells you a lot to begin with here,
Speaker 2: and let's go in. Put a six up on the screen.
Speaker 2: In terms of how Iran is thinking about this, this
Speaker 2: is from treet de Parsi. He's reflecting on the latest
Speaker 2: Taco cycle. He says, yet another apocalyptic threat followed by
Speaker 2: another self congratulatory climb down. The pattern is becoming tiresome.
Speaker 2: By now, unable to escalate his way on of the
Speaker 2: self inflicted debacle, Trump tries to bluff his way out,
Speaker 2: except Tehran is not falling for it. Rather, it is
Speaker 2: confidently raising the stakes, calculating Trump will only fully commit
Speaker 2: to a diplomatic solution once he has internalized that he
Speaker 2: does not have a military option. It's a risky strategy
Speaker 2: with potential attacks in Egypt and cyber attacks in the US.
Speaker 2: Will get to that in just a moment, but one
Speaker 2: that the new and far lesser strained military leadership believes
Speaker 2: is more likely to achieve security than giving into Trump.
Speaker 2: So the next few days will undoubtedly be eventful, and
Speaker 2: he's holding a Q and A session Friday. I believe
Speaker 2: you can sign up over at his substack, which of
Speaker 2: course we recommend that you do. But you know, the
Speaker 2: reality here is Sager. It's easy for us to sit
Speaker 2: here and say, hey, Taco all the way like, let's
Speaker 2: get the hell out of here. That's what's going to
Speaker 2: be best for the US. That's what's going to be
Speaker 2: best for the war, for the world. This war is
Speaker 2: an utter and complete disaster if you're Trump. And by
Speaker 2: the way, also if you are a member of the
Speaker 2: military brass the deep state, you're ideologically committed to the
Speaker 2: US empire. We have to acknowledge that basically the end
Speaker 2: of the US Empire admitting defeat and meaning that admitting
Speaker 2: that we can't control the waterways. I mean, what are
Speaker 2: we as an empire if we aren't, you know, out
Speaker 2: there to secure free trade, free global trade and commerce
Speaker 2: around the world. If we have to acknowledge, no, we
Speaker 2: can't do this with iron even if we wanted to,
Speaker 2: they get to have a say that is basically the
Speaker 2: end of US Empire. And so that's why even a
Speaker 2: lot of the military brass that had a lot of
Speaker 2: reservations going into this, which were expressed clearly not force
Speaker 2: fully enough to Trump, why they're still going to be
Speaker 2: trying to figure this thing out and trying to come
Speaker 2: up with a solution. Okay, if we do, you know,
Speaker 2: some insane bombing campaign, if we do some sort of raid,
Speaker 2: maybe there's some sort of hacking up, maybe we can
Speaker 2: take on a few more regime leaders, they're going to
Speaker 2: throw a lot at the wall because they've realized that
Speaker 2: it is kind of all on the line here, and
Speaker 2: you know, they're ideologically committed to the continuance of the
Speaker 2: US Empire. And so that's why in a lot of
Speaker 2: ways them and Trump are in the same boat at
Speaker 2: this point.
Speaker 3: Right that explains at one point five trillion dollar military
Speaker 3: spending because they're like, oh, we just have to spend
Speaker 3: even more on the exact same weapons that got us
Speaker 3: into the same situation.
Speaker 1: That we're in right now.
Speaker 3: We could have more weapons. Wouldn't matter, It literally wouldn't matter.
Speaker 3: Wouldn't change anything about Iranian capitulation zero. What it would change, obviously,
Speaker 3: is the American ability to defend other far fling parts
Speaker 3: of our empire. But this is going to create like
Speaker 3: the husbandry of resources, which is a disaster ultimately to
Speaker 3: the prestige and to the image. Because it was inconceivable,
Speaker 3: even to extreme military skeptics like me, that we would
Speaker 3: be in this situation today. I mean, all the script
Speaker 3: was written, though, to be fair, when we look at
Speaker 3: the drone threat, when we look at the interestet we
Speaker 3: talked about here for years and years, from the Ukraine
Speaker 3: conflict to the Operation Midnight Hammer, the Reduction of Thad.
Speaker 3: The script was there, but nobody expected I think the
Speaker 3: Third Act to go in the direction that it ultimately did.
Speaker 3: So now what's going to happen In my opinion, this
Speaker 3: like Phase two style type thing where we have no
Speaker 3: war and no peace. It's going to happen for a
Speaker 3: very long period of time for the exactly the situation
Speaker 3: that you just laid out. It's just like Afghanistan. Admitting
Speaker 3: defeat is so catastrophic to the image and prestige and
Speaker 3: of the United States and its military that we will
Speaker 3: throw good money after bad ten times over just to
Speaker 3: not have to admit defeat. And Trump will have to
Speaker 3: be brought to a crushing economic situation to ultimately recognize
Speaker 3: the de facto Irani and Romani control of the Strait
Speaker 3: of Hormuz. Many, you know, the cranks of the people
Speaker 3: like us who are like, why are we in this?
Speaker 3: We will all be vindicated in the end, don't worry.
Speaker 3: But in the interim, like you said, there are very
Speaker 3: very powerful people here in Washington, many of whom didn't
Speaker 3: even agree or want to launch the war in the
Speaker 3: first place, who are now like, we have to put
Speaker 3: it all on the line, this very First World war mentality.
Speaker 3: You could see it through all ages, in all warfare.
Speaker 3: Even though you have a useless and stupid situation, you're like, well,
Speaker 3: for the future, for us as a nation to be
Speaker 3: able to survive, we have to continue to do that.
Speaker 3: And that's how you end up in these prolonged and
Speaker 3: disastrous quagmires in Vietnam, perfect example.
Speaker 1: Highly recommend everybody you know. You know, if you read
Speaker 1: and look at.
Speaker 3: The exact situation from how you go to a few
Speaker 3: thousand military advisors to five hundred thousand American troops on
Speaker 3: the ground.
Speaker 1: It took five years.
Speaker 3: It's nothing, but the logic in which it all happened
Speaker 3: is exactly the way that it is right now. I
Speaker 3: don't think we'll end up with ground troops at least
Speaker 3: in a prolonged occupation sense like we are with it,
Speaker 3: but that doesn't make it any less catastrophic.
Speaker 2: We're basically all sitting here waiting around for either a
Speaker 2: catastrophic economic crisis or a catastrophic political crisis, because those
Speaker 2: are the things that would force this to an end.
Speaker 2: And that is the Iranian understanding. So when will that come?
Speaker 2: You know, We're We've talked endlessly about the strategic petroleum reserve,
Speaker 2: about the oil markets. There's all sorts of you know,
Speaker 2: interconnectivities in the economy that very hard even for experts
Speaker 2: to predict when something is going to break in a
Speaker 2: catastrophic manner. We're basically waiting around for that or we're
Speaker 2: waiting around for the sort of political crisis, you know,
Speaker 2: visa Vietnam, like a similar level political crisis that forces
Speaker 2: Trump's hand, enforces an end here, although I think he's
Speaker 2: more impervious to those horses, you know, than previous presidents were.
Speaker 2: And for him, as long as he is like, you know,
Speaker 2: staying out of prison and getting rich, then he only
Speaker 2: cares so much. But the economic crisis, he doesn't want
Speaker 2: to be remembered as Herbert Hoover. So so that's kind
Speaker 2: of where we are, is just sitting here and wondering
Speaker 2: when the global economic system is going to completely fall
Speaker 2: apart in a way that forces their hand. And that's
Speaker 2: kind of a terrible place to be.
Speaker 1: Right, and it could take years, years and years.
Speaker 3: So that's why we really need to buckle in. Let's
Speaker 3: put a four up here on the screen. This is
Speaker 3: very important. Also, you know we were talking here a
Speaker 3: little bit about the empire. Well, it turns out that
Speaker 3: Saudi Crown Prince MBS is one of the main reasons
Speaker 3: that these attacks did not go forward. The Kingdom, by
Speaker 3: the way, even released their readout of the call where
Speaker 3: they explicitly said the Crown Prince asked President Trump not
Speaker 3: to resume major air strikes on Iran. You never see
Speaker 3: that out of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. What they
Speaker 3: see here is that Salmon spoke to President Trump on
Speaker 3: Saturday express concern over his plans for massive new strikes,
Speaker 3: because of course Iran had actually published a list of
Speaker 3: sites that would be struck in retaliation, many of them
Speaker 3: in Saudi Arabia, which would have sent oil prices absolutely skyrocketing.
Speaker 3: Quote the Saudi's express concern, asked for clarity about the
Speaker 3: plan of action. NBS urged Trump to de escalate and
Speaker 3: from launching the strikes. The apparently the Saudi Defense Minister,
Speaker 3: who I think is the brother known as KBS, came
Speaker 3: to Washington thirteen hour flight for a single meeting just
Speaker 3: with the Vice President J. Dve Hans, in which he
Speaker 3: begged him please do not go forward with these new strikes,
Speaker 3: and then.
Speaker 1: Flew back to Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 3: That's how twenty six hours on a plane for a
Speaker 3: one hour meeting in which they saw the situation that
Speaker 3: dire that they couldn't even just pick up the phone,
Speaker 3: I think again, just underscoring he's oh, he's got he's
Speaker 3: definitely got Let's not, let's not you know, cry too
Speaker 3: many tears for the for the rich princes of the
Speaker 3: House of Riod, but you know, or the House of Sods. Sorry,
Speaker 3: but I do think it underscores just how much of
Speaker 3: a pain position that they are in. How the UA
Speaker 3: so Saudi's in that position too, where remember they're exporting
Speaker 3: some oil. The UAE and Bahrain are apparently pissed off
Speaker 3: at the United States for not escalating the conflict because
Speaker 3: they're done.
Speaker 1: They're locked in right now.
Speaker 3: And they're also I mean, UA is not getting pounded
Speaker 3: as much, but Bahrain and Kuwait absolutely are. And they're like, hey,
Speaker 3: why have we been buying all these weapons? We need
Speaker 3: more interceptors, and Trump and them are like, yeah, you
Speaker 3: needed interceptors, so does Ukraine, and so do we. So
Speaker 3: basically we're the only ones getting them because we're the
Speaker 3: ones who make it, which is what's making everybody rethink
Speaker 3: their alliance. But I do think you know, to the
Speaker 3: empire point, when you imagine this, you have an empire
Speaker 3: of antiquity, you have the provinces of which you have
Speaker 3: guaranteed their security. You start a war, which is disastrous
Speaker 3: for said provinces, and then the provinces I guess usually
Speaker 3: would say, hey, you need to come and defend us.
Speaker 3: But when it gets revealed that you can't defend them,
Speaker 3: then of course you're gonna have to go back to
Speaker 3: the Imperial capital and say please, please, don't stop, because
Speaker 3: you don't have the capacity to defend us, which means
Speaker 3: that you're actually going to inflict pain. And that is,
Speaker 3: as you said at the beginning of the end. None
Speaker 3: of this will happen overnight. It happens over many, many years.
Speaker 3: But you know, you can it is very easy, I think,
Speaker 3: at least in this position now, to say generally, based
Speaker 3: upon the course of history, we know where this story
Speaker 3: is going to go, and none of it is good
Speaker 3: for the US's ability to defend you know, quote unquote allies.
Speaker 3: And I mean, you know, I talk a lot here
Speaker 3: and I have for many years about NATO and all that.
Speaker 3: I don't care about Estonia and Latvia or any of
Speaker 3: the far flung posts, you know, nineteen nineties additions. But
Speaker 3: I do care a lot about Japan and South Korea,
Speaker 3: about really like the UK, I mean, you know, Australia,
Speaker 3: actual critical trading partners, allies of the United States, and
Speaker 3: right now we're in a situation where that's in question,
Speaker 3: and that's what I think should scare everybody.
Speaker 4: Do you care about SAYU to Spain because the place
Speaker 4: I never knew existed.
Speaker 1: Didn't even very interested. Now now, I mean, I got
Speaker 1: to be honest, it is fascinating, totally.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, I started going down that history rabbit hole too.
Speaker 2: We'll get to that in a minute. So just one
Speaker 2: last thing on in terms of the allies, the Saudis
Speaker 2: have enough sort of size and societal strength and position
Speaker 2: that I think they feel like, you know, they'll be
Speaker 2: they'll be okay out of this uh war.
Speaker 4: They don't like the attacks.
Speaker 2: This is very bad for them, very bad for their economy,
Speaker 2: all of that stuff, And so that's why they're coming
Speaker 2: and like, hey, could we not do this? You know,
Speaker 2: this hasn't worked out the way that you said it
Speaker 2: was going to work out, because there were was reporting
Speaker 2: that early on when Trump was saying, hey, it's going
Speaker 2: to be four days, no problem, We're going to take
Speaker 2: them out. It's going to be great. That Iranian has
Speaker 2: been a pain in your butt. Now you'll have more
Speaker 2: ascendance in the region. They were like, great, cool when
Speaker 2: this hasn't gone the way they wanted. Now they want
Speaker 2: out now, they want a deal, They want this to
Speaker 2: be done. They want to go back to sort of
Speaker 2: normal course of order. Not that that's entirely possible, but
Speaker 2: Rain and UAE are more in the boat of sort
Speaker 2: of like the US Empire protectors, like this is genuinely existential.
Speaker 2: UA is barely a country. I mean, it really isn't
Speaker 2: quite a proper country, and their whole thing is built
Speaker 2: on their brand as this luxury respite for the global elite,
Speaker 2: the global money launderers to come and stay and enjoy
Speaker 2: and park their money. Being in a war zone is
Speaker 2: not part of that deal. So they've got a real
Speaker 2: existential problem. And then Bahrain has a problem as well
Speaker 2: because their leadership doesn't have a lot of legitimacy. You've
Speaker 2: got a lot of sites there or sympathetic to Iran,
Speaker 2: so they haven't an existential issue as well. So I
Speaker 2: think for those countries you can understand they're in this
Speaker 2: sort of like all or nothing place as well. Where
Speaker 2: to end the war now is going to be somewhat
Speaker 2: unacceptable for them because they've you know, that threat will remain,
Speaker 2: and that threat will loom and will undermine the very
Speaker 2: sort of underpinnings of their of their states such as
Speaker 2: they are. So I think that's part of why you
Speaker 2: see a different response there. Let's put a three up
Speaker 2: on the screen. You know, I'm not really sure what
Speaker 2: to make of this, but in terms of what the
Speaker 2: Iranians are up to or could be up to, there's
Speaker 2: a report from the New York Times, and we've seen
Speaker 2: some other reporting that the Iranians have. It looks like
Speaker 2: potentially the Iranians have hacked US water supply systems in
Speaker 2: seven different states that we know of, Minnesota being one,
Speaker 2: Michigan being the other. I don't think we know what
Speaker 2: the other five states are specifically. This is one of
Speaker 2: those saga where they say, well, it bears the hallmarks
Speaker 2: of an Iranian hack.
Speaker 4: We don't know for sure. It's possible. You know.
Speaker 2: I take it sort of more seriously than perhaps I
Speaker 2: otherwise would, for two reasons. Number one, because Trump wants
Speaker 2: to downplay it, Like if this was some sort of
Speaker 2: a you know, an intel op from the US government
Speaker 2: or from the Israelis, it feels like Trump would embrace it.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, they're coming after us. That's why we've got
Speaker 2: to attack them, We've got to neutralize the threat, et cetera.
Speaker 2: He has very much wanted to downplay these and even
Speaker 2: tried to blame the Minnesota government for hacking their own
Speaker 2: water system.
Speaker 4: Okay, sure.
Speaker 2: And then the other reason is because true to Parsi,
Speaker 2: of course, we have a lot of respect for thinks
Speaker 2: that it's possible that this was the Iranians as well
Speaker 2: as a sort of warning shot. They didn't do anything
Speaker 2: here that really caused problems. It was more of an
Speaker 2: announcement of their capabilities of hey, you know, nice water
Speaker 2: supply system you have. They're connected to the internet. Shame
Speaker 2: if something would happen to it. Again, I'm not sure,
Speaker 2: and neither are the analysts who are quoted in this
Speaker 2: New York times pace, but it's definitely something to consider
Speaker 2: and pay attention to because we feel very protected here
Speaker 2: in the US. We have, you know, a lot of
Speaker 2: our own geographic advantages which are tremendous, and we know
Speaker 2: that Iranian missiles can't reach our homeland.
Speaker 4: Our shores here.
Speaker 2: It's a reminder that in a world that is completely interconnected,
Speaker 2: they still do have potential ways to you know, disrupt
Speaker 2: life here. As well and get at us and mess
Speaker 2: with us. And of course we know that also from
Speaker 2: every time we to the gas pump and see what
Speaker 2: the price is.
Speaker 3: I am always skeptical of these types of stories. Everyone
Speaker 3: should be too. It does make sense in the way
Speaker 3: they traded to put it, and that it would be
Speaker 3: the horizontal escalation in terms of you mess with our
Speaker 3: power plants, We're going to try.
Speaker 1: And mess with yours.
Speaker 3: And it has always been kind of a glaring cybersecurity
Speaker 3: problem that we have major holes and problems with our
Speaker 3: utility companies energy. I mean even in terms of our airlines.
Speaker 3: You know, United or American gets grounded every other week
Speaker 3: because of an IT problem.
Speaker 1: We don't know why, but that's hundreds.
Speaker 3: Of billions of dollars you know, at stake if that
Speaker 3: we were to have a sustained shutdown.
Speaker 1: So it's very possible that could be there. Obviously, we'll
Speaker 1: watch it.
Speaker 3: Like you said, too, Trump downplaying it does seem to
Speaker 3: actually make me think, hmm, maybe there was actually something there.
Speaker 3: Because if it were real, or if it were something
Speaker 3: that or sorry, if it weren't real, if it was
Speaker 3: like a manufactured thing to try and to escalate the war,
Speaker 3: then people who would want to use it as a
Speaker 3: pretext would certainly be crying. So we'll see they make
Speaker 3: knowing this administration, they may turn around and do sometime
Speaker 3: in the future. All right, let's get to the military.
Speaker 2: One of the things that we have learned from this
Speaker 2: war is what a failure the US basing strategy has
Speaker 2: been throughout the region. And now we have this extraordinary
Speaker 2: development we can put up here on the screen. After
Speaker 2: how many years have we been in Iraq because of
Speaker 2: this war, it appears that we are approaching an actual
Speaker 2: full withdrawal from Iraq. As bases in the Kurdistan region
Speaker 2: face attacks from Iran and their proxies, Patriot air defense
Speaker 2: systems that detect and shoot down incoming missiles and drones
Speaker 2: have already been removed. According to Al Monitor and their sources,
Speaker 2: let me go ahead and read you a little bit
Speaker 2: of this article. They say the US military has started
Speaker 2: to draw down its last remaining forces from Iraq station
Speaker 2: in the vicinity vicinity of Ourbiel's Airport in the Iraqi
Speaker 2: Kurdistan region. Well placed sources tell al Monitor Patriot mobile
Speaker 2: air to surface air defense systems that detect and shoes
Speaker 2: down incoming missiles, drones, and other airborne enemy equipment have
Speaker 2: already been removed from the military compound. The pullout started
Speaker 2: last week and is ongoing, with the bulk of the
Speaker 2: US forces and their heavy equipment out. All of the
Speaker 2: Patriot anti missile batteries had been redeployed to an undisclosed destination,
Speaker 2: they said, adding that other defensive weapons systems remained in
Speaker 2: place as of the time of publication. Regional officials claim
Speaker 2: the pullout was sager routine and in line with the
Speaker 2: US commitment to withdraw all its forces from Iraq by
Speaker 2: a September thirtieth deadline that was agreed with Baghdad. So
Speaker 2: I think we can read the tea laves here, and
Speaker 2: I mean this is pretty extraordinary. Basically, Iran wants us
Speaker 2: out of the region, and in a way, we are
Speaker 2: being forced to oblige because we can no longer protect
Speaker 2: our forces throughout the region. We have to marshal our
Speaker 2: resources as we run low on all sorts of missiles
Speaker 2: and missile interceptors and all the rest. So we have
Speaker 2: to strategically reposition to make sure we can attack I
Speaker 2: guess the most vital assets at this point, and so
Speaker 2: after all of this. It is now the Iran war
Speaker 2: that has actually forced us to fully withdraw from Iraq,
Speaker 2: where we never should have been in the first place.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, that's kind of where I was going to start.
Speaker 3: It's like, well, let's actually look at the history of
Speaker 3: the space of Kurdistan. This was one of the jump
Speaker 3: off points between the United States and ISIS where we
Speaker 3: fought side by side the United States Special Forces and
Speaker 3: a lot of the Kurdish troops that helped defeat ISIS
Speaker 3: both in Iraq and in Syria. But then let's actually
Speaker 3: take a step back even further and let's think about
Speaker 3: why these bases and all of that have to be
Speaker 3: driven out in the first place. Is the truth is,
Speaker 3: we invaded this country of Iraq, and yeah, we deposed
Speaker 3: Saddam Hussein and we turned it by our own admission,
Speaker 3: into an Iranian proxy state, in which the Iraqi Prime
Speaker 3: Minister has had to come here to Washington and effectively demand,
Speaker 3: as of a few weeks ago, that we leave. And
Speaker 3: remember that was an agreement that was agreed to in
Speaker 3: the Oval Office in which Trump and the Iraqi PM said, yes,
Speaker 3: the United States is to exit the country, but it's
Speaker 3: going to do so not on terms that are ours
Speaker 3: and not in terms of a quote unquote prosperous Iraq
Speaker 3: that has the ability to thrive as a democracy is
Speaker 3: George W. Bush and all that's sold to us, but
Speaker 3: one in which there are major Iranian military proxies which
Speaker 3: have the ability to shoot drones at American service members.
Speaker 3: And don't forget this is also where multiple service members
Speaker 3: were dyed in a mysterious air crash of those two tankers.
Speaker 3: Let's not forget that. And there's still a lot of
Speaker 3: questions that surround it. In addition to just last week
Speaker 3: that unexploded drone that actually was exploded by some EOD
Speaker 3: tech and ended up killing a nearby American service member.
Speaker 3: That happened in Iraq alongside those three casualties that also
Speaker 3: happened in Jordan. So we still have forces that are
Speaker 3: there on the ground having to leave basically unceremoniously, and
Speaker 3: in the midst of all of this, especially not on
Speaker 3: our own terms, does demonstrate ultimately the benefit to Iran
Speaker 3: and to their strategy. This also comes on the heels
Speaker 3: of the empty we've seen previously of the Aladeid Air
Speaker 3: Base in Doha, which was a huge base of operations.
Speaker 3: I used to live very nearby it SEC seventeen's and
Speaker 3: these transport planes that were.
Speaker 1: Coming in I was there in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 3: The would be coming in all hours of the day
Speaker 3: bringing in supplies and troops and all this other stuff
Speaker 3: for the war in Iraq. To have to abandon that
Speaker 3: for the drone or the missile threat is crazy. We
Speaker 3: also have seen similar situation in Kuwait and Bahrain in
Speaker 3: which the air defense either was knocked out or non existent,
Speaker 3: troops having to go sleep in hotels. So we've seen
Speaker 3: this now time and time again, where being driven out
Speaker 3: not just the basis, but of the ability to use
Speaker 3: them for the function that we ultimately wanted, which is
Speaker 3: the major problem. And I think that you compare this,
Speaker 3: as we've talked about previously with the military failure. The
Speaker 3: truth is is like we are living through what is
Speaker 3: technically called like a revolution in military affairs. I won't
Speaker 3: go into all of it, but it is a fascinating
Speaker 3: intellectual exercise in which you know the ways in which
Speaker 3: warfare is conducted and understood is complete lately. Change I've
Speaker 3: talked to here previously about the battleship and World War
Speaker 3: two and how what changed about the what changed in
Speaker 3: the theory of the battleship to ability to project power
Speaker 3: and how that was blown up in a single second
Speaker 3: whenever aircraft were able to sink them in a matter
Speaker 3: of seconds. It completely changed the understanding of naval warfare
Speaker 3: at that time. Well this time, you know, it also
Speaker 3: happened in the nineteen nineties. Again bore everybody with the details.
Speaker 3: But the drone threat and the missile threat in particular,
Speaker 3: along with the interceptor math and the exchange between those
Speaker 3: two is another one I think that we're all living through.
Speaker 3: And I saw some discussion about that today and you
Speaker 3: can actually see it with B three, which is really shocking.
Speaker 3: I mean, first of all, when we read this headline,
Speaker 3: some might even ask why are we protecting Israel in
Speaker 3: the first place. But the top the US general in
Speaker 3: the region has now warned the Pentagon quote hey lacks
Speaker 3: sufficient forces to protect Israel. He says that a shortage
Speaker 3: of navy destroyers used to defend against Iranian ballistic missile
Speaker 3: attacks will now have to force the head of European
Speaker 3: Command to prioritize the US homeland instead. He says that
Speaker 3: the Pentagon this week he lacks sufficient naval forces to
Speaker 3: continue protecting Israel from incoming ballistic missiles, illustrating how the
Speaker 3: ongoing Iran war has imposed the constraints on the military
Speaker 3: and that he will be forced to choose between defense
Speaker 3: of the US quote homeland as in basis, over that
Speaker 3: of Israel, who, like some others, spoke on the condition
Speaker 3: of anonymity here to the Washington Posts. But what I
Speaker 3: think this demonstrates, first of all, is that same empire
Speaker 3: problem that we had previously. Don't forget that we had
Speaker 3: a situation where the United States was expending more of
Speaker 3: our interceptors than Israel was expending of their own, even
Speaker 3: though they have them. Why for no reason that has
Speaker 3: ever been revealed here to the public. Let's not forget
Speaker 3: that in the Operation Midnight Hammer in thirteen days, the
Speaker 3: United States expended twenty five percent of the entire THAD inventory,
Speaker 3: twenty five percent of everything that we had, just to
Speaker 3: shoot down missiles that were headed towards Israel, not towards
Speaker 3: the United States. So see now how the defense of Israel,
Speaker 3: not just in terms of them dragging us into this
Speaker 3: war or being complicit, et cetera, convincing Trump to do it,
Speaker 3: but even just the sheer military defense of them, what
Speaker 3: it has cost us and allies that are actually.
Speaker 1: Meaningful and helpful to our country.
Speaker 3: I think when you pour these two things together, or
Speaker 3: a pair of these two things together, and then show
Speaker 3: these golf allies, which, by the way, you know, I'm
Speaker 3: not some big golf defender, but if you're going to
Speaker 3: look at it in a balance sheet, you'd say, we
Speaker 3: get a hell of a lot more from Kuwait or
Speaker 3: Bahrain or any of these places than we do from Israel,
Speaker 3: this tiny little country with no even oil or in
Speaker 3: terms of our trading, and especially if you're to put
Speaker 3: them together, you would obviously prioritize one over the other.
Speaker 1: And I'm not just the one saying that.
Speaker 3: Remember we even played Saudi's on their own television in
Speaker 3: the midst of the war, who were furious saying they're
Speaker 3: defending Israel but they can't even defend us. It's such
Speaker 3: a crazy situation total.
Speaker 2: I mean, let's just pause on the wild nature of
Speaker 2: even having to say, well, we've got a tough choice
Speaker 2: on our hands, defend Israel or defend the whole Like,
Speaker 2: how is this even being framed as?
Speaker 4: I don't know which way should we go. But it
Speaker 4: shows you how.
Speaker 2: Committed they are to the endless support of this small
Speaker 2: country in the Middle East, which is I think quite insane,
Speaker 2: quite insane. At this point, Let's go ahead and put
Speaker 2: B two up on the screen, just to show you
Speaker 2: some of the state of play here. In terms of
Speaker 2: the economy. Trump says the Iran talks or to resume
Speaker 2: after the US called off a major attack. Oil prices
Speaker 2: are down after the latest taco so once again the
Speaker 2: market's taking seriously whatever Trump is saying here and buying
Speaker 2: himself some war time. Let's also put before up on
Speaker 2: the screen. This goes to what we're speaking about previously
Speaker 2: about how locked in the deep state and the military
Speaker 2: brass is. You've got a US commander who plans, he
Speaker 2: claims he's got a two week plan to escalate strikes
Speaker 2: in Iran. The idea here just basically being let's bomb
Speaker 2: the more and bomb them harder, and maybe that'll work.
Speaker 2: This is also something that was leaked to the Wall
Speaker 2: Street Journal prior to Trump backing down, so I think
Speaker 2: this could also potentially be seen as part of just
Speaker 2: the you know, using the weaponizing the press to try
Speaker 2: to make a credible threat against Iran that would hopefully
Speaker 2: cause some sort of you know, create some sort of
Speaker 2: leverage for the US and negotiations, and force Iron to
Speaker 2: concede things that they have been unwilling to concede. This
Speaker 2: obviously didn't work, But I also don't doubt Soger that
Speaker 2: there are plenty of people inside of the Pentagon who
Speaker 2: find coming to a deal that acknowledges defeat at this
Speaker 2: point to be completely unacceptable. In are floating a lot
Speaker 2: of wild plans, wild desperate plans, because wild and desperate
Speaker 2: plans are all we have at this point.
Speaker 1: That's very true, you know.
Speaker 3: I also think we should pair some of this with
Speaker 3: the sheer insanity of what it actually looked like like
Speaker 3: what this war if Trump had actually pressed the button
Speaker 3: and said it would let's go to before. For example,
Speaker 3: this was the actual plan, all leaked out to the
Speaker 3: Wall Street Journal. It was a two week plan to
Speaker 3: escalate strikes. As Trump reiterates for the Iran's missile attack,
Speaker 3: the question is how long the new air campaign will last.
Speaker 3: This Encom commander had pushed a ten to fourteen day
Speaker 3: intensive air strike aimed to cripple Iran's missile capacity. Despite
Speaker 3: warnings that the US is running low on defense munitions. Basically,
Speaker 3: what Admiral Cooper had been pushing, who is the leader
Speaker 3: of Sencom, was well, what we can do is we
Speaker 3: can cripple the Iranian ballistic missic capacity a little bit
Speaker 3: more if you give me all the spare munitions and
Speaker 3: interceptors in the entire arsenal. That was his plan, and
Speaker 3: in addition to that, Trump was also saying we would
Speaker 3: hit some of these critical infrastructure.
Speaker 1: But one of the things that we learned.
Speaker 3: After the pause of or after the pause or whatever
Speaker 3: you want to call the initial ceaspire was even though
Speaker 3: we'd said we destroyed ninety five percent of Iran's ballistic
Speaker 3: missic capacity, it turns out the number was more like
Speaker 3: thirty percent. And then that thirty percent a lot of
Speaker 3: it was able to be dug out as a now
Speaker 3: evidence by the fact that they were able to hit
Speaker 3: one of our bases which killed several US service members,
Speaker 3: and I've been able to use them all across the
Speaker 3: region in the interim. So I do think that you know,
Speaker 3: when we talked previously about Sendcom asking for unconventional ideas,
Speaker 3: this idea and this plan is so you know, ludicrous
Speaker 3: in its actual proposal to basically just continue what what's
Speaker 3: already had been done and to quote finish the job
Speaker 3: in terms of the targets, as if those targets had
Speaker 3: done anything what they were supposed to do in the
Speaker 3: first place, which was bring down the regime, even in
Speaker 3: conjunction with all of these insane Israeli air strikes. So
Speaker 3: I just want to make sure people know that's what
Speaker 3: the actual plan.
Speaker 1: Was on the table.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and quite to the contrary, it just strengthened the
Speaker 2: government by all accounts, as best we can tell from
Speaker 2: the outside. Put the last element in this block up
Speaker 2: on the screen here, guys, B six. This is just
Speaker 2: important to note where we are at this point. This
Speaker 2: is from the New York Times. It's framed under what
Speaker 2: they call news analysis, which is somewhere between you know,
Speaker 2: reporting and opinion. This is Stephen Erlinger, who they say
Speaker 2: has covered issues related to Ron since the Islamic Revolution
Speaker 2: in nineteen seventy eight. And the analysis here is going
Speaker 2: to be very similar to things you've been hearing on
Speaker 2: the show for quite a while, they say. And around
Speaker 2: the US of pars headed for a strategic defeat, Allies fear,
Speaker 2: with none of President Trump's aims accomplished and the straight
Speaker 2: deformat is closed, US allies see dysfunction and vulnerability from
Speaker 2: the war. To see this sort of analysis in the
Speaker 2: New York Times, you know, which is very hawkish, very
Speaker 2: pro American empire outlet, is I think a significant development
Speaker 2: in and of itself and a sign of the times
Speaker 2: of how undeniable the.
Speaker 4: Defeat has become in this war.
Speaker 2: And you know, I like how they frame it in
Speaker 2: terms of our allies fear, but very much the you know,
Speaker 2: the writing is on the wall here in terms of
Speaker 2: what we've been unable to accomplish and how on every
Speaker 2: objective that we claimed during this war that we had,
Speaker 2: we have gone backwards from where we started. So everything
Speaker 2: that you know, whether it's Iranian pursuit of a nuclear weapon,
Speaker 2: whether it's wanting to topple the regime, whether it's wanting
Speaker 2: to back up the protesters in the streets, whether it's
Speaker 2: in terms of the straight of horm who's on every
Speaker 2: single one of these metrics that have been floated at
Speaker 2: times as objectives of the war. We have undeniably gone
Speaker 2: in the opposite direction and have much much less leverage
Speaker 2: in order to secure the aims than we did before
Speaker 2: we started this foolish war, and that is now being
Speaker 2: openly acknowledged in mainstream publications like the New York Times.
Speaker 3: Yep, exactly right. Yeah, I mean to the extent that
Speaker 3: it's just saying what a lot of people already know.
Speaker 3: You know, it's not actually important for what it says,
Speaker 3: but it's important for where it appears at the front
Speaker 3: page on Sunday, and that just means things are a
Speaker 3: lot worse, you know, once they get to that point,
Speaker 3: you can just bet that it's actually much much worse
Speaker 3: in terms of what all of us on the bleeding
Speaker 3: edge can see, all right, should we get to Max Miller.
Speaker 4: Indeed,