Speaker 1: Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Gerdusky. I
Speaker 1: want to thank you all for being here another week.
Speaker 1: Happy Monday. I hope you all enjoyed the last week's
Speaker 1: episodes on the Pope and demographics. It couldn't have come
Speaker 1: at a better time because we have a new Pope.
Speaker 1: It's big news for all the Catholics. Last Thursday, May eighth,
Speaker 1: we elected our first American Pope. I, as a lifelong
Speaker 1: cradle Catholic, never in my life believed I would ever
Speaker 1: see an American pope. A Cardinal Robert provost Is from
Speaker 1: Chicago is our new Pope. He has taken a name
Speaker 1: of Poplio the fourteenth. Once again, very exciting for Catholics.
Speaker 1: No matter how you kind of fill out on the
Speaker 1: how religious you are American Catholics, it must be what
Speaker 1: it must felt like for black Americans to see Obama
Speaker 1: get elected. You just never thought you would see the
Speaker 1: day an American Catholic would ever be. We rise the
Speaker 1: position of the Pope. Some little facts about him to
Speaker 1: go off of last week's episode. He's considered a more
Speaker 1: moderate pope. He is less open than Francis, but more
Speaker 1: of a centrist. He's not as I guess liberal as
Speaker 1: Francis is and some doctrine stuff. He's going to be
Speaker 1: a headache to conservatives on issues like migration because he
Speaker 1: championed kind of more open borders or more refugees. That's
Speaker 1: the way most cardinals are. It's just kind of how
Speaker 1: it is. It's very annoying. What is the truth? But
Speaker 1: he's the value pro life he has been. He's kind
Speaker 1: of a mixed position on gays and lesbians, being more
Speaker 1: open to them in the church. He's certainly more I guess,
Speaker 1: right wing on that issue than Francis was. But I
Speaker 1: think the most important thing from the managerial aspect, is
Speaker 1: considered good with finances, and it could help desperately change
Speaker 1: the shifting financial situation that the church is in, which
Speaker 1: is pretty dire. We discussed that in the last week's
Speaker 1: podcast on the Pope if you didn't hear about it.
Speaker 1: He's also, by the way, there was a lot of
Speaker 1: online chat that he's a registered Republican. He's from Illinois.
Speaker 1: Illinois does not register people by partying. He did, however,
Speaker 1: vote in several Republican primaries, so he's likely a Republican.
Speaker 1: But in my personal experience, I have met many many
Speaker 1: priests in my life, and I could count on one
Speaker 1: hand how many of them were open Democrats. Usually priests
Speaker 1: in my life i've ever met are are Republicans. Not
Speaker 1: so much nuns. Nuns tend nuns, especially older nuns, tend
Speaker 1: to be more liberal.
Speaker 2: But the.
Speaker 1: Priests I've always met tend to be Republicans. I've met
Speaker 1: very few democratic priests, and so this shouldn't surprise it.
Speaker 1: But I don't think. I think it's important not to
Speaker 1: put the role of the Pope and the and what
Speaker 1: he has said and what he does in the context
Speaker 1: of American politics. The Church is eternal. He is the
Speaker 1: you know, he's sitting on the throne of Saint Peter
Speaker 1: as the victor of Christ, and he's going to do
Speaker 1: his best to protect the church and the integrity of
Speaker 1: the Church. And I think that as a Catholic, we
Speaker 1: should all pray for him to do the best job
Speaker 1: that he possibly can. So it's my little spiel about
Speaker 1: the Pope. And by then, also Sunday is Mother's Day.
Speaker 1: Happy Mother's Day to my mom, who doesn't listen to
Speaker 1: this podcast, but my other aunt's grandmother do so, Havy
Speaker 1: Mother's Day to you. I hope for all the moms
Speaker 1: and grandmothers and godmothers who listens podcasts, it was all
Speaker 1: very special for you. This one made you feel special
Speaker 1: on Mother's Day. I want to spend some time talking
Speaker 1: about foreign policy because especially specifically an American first foreign policy,
Speaker 1: because the media in this media environment we've heard, you know,
Speaker 1: the media just it's it's like ping pong. It goes
Speaker 1: back and forth constantly, knee jerk reaction to knee jerk
Speaker 1: reaction to get people's head spinning about whatever topic is
Speaker 1: of the moment, to either bash Trump or Elon or
Speaker 1: you know the marilynd Man go now Salvador. Things that
Speaker 1: don't hit people's lives as effectively as it does create narratives.
Speaker 1: And it's very easy to crap on liberal media because
Speaker 1: I mean, they have no shame. You can't you cannot
Speaker 1: shame a liberal person VideA. I don't know if you,
Speaker 1: by the way, if anyone saw this, but last week
Speaker 1: or like late last week, Rachel Maddow was on Stephen
Speaker 1: Colbert and these two looney tunes are sitting there with
Speaker 1: complete straight faces, almost frowning and saying, I think this
Speaker 1: is like Republicans are doing what they're doing because they
Speaker 1: don't have to worry about an election. They think they
Speaker 1: want to end democracy, they won't worry about elections in
Speaker 1: the future. It is nonsensical fear porn. It is direct
Speaker 1: dopamine hits for people who are chanting up the end
Speaker 1: is near and that Trump's a dictator and we're in fascism,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's like seeing the guy on the
Speaker 1: side of the road who says, like the end is
Speaker 1: coming and he's screaming repent. Now, I always think like
Speaker 1: those people, like what if God comes back and you know,
Speaker 1: he says, I send you a guy with the science
Speaker 1: saying and is near. You should have known its near.
Speaker 1: But anyway, that's it doesn't matter. ADHD is extremely strong today. Guys. Anyway,
Speaker 1: that was Madam and copeire totally batshit crazy statements that
Speaker 1: were utterly untrue, feeding nonsense to peoples whose brains have
Speaker 1: become like worms, Like it is crazy. And I just
Speaker 1: wish that like the next guest who is on the
Speaker 1: show would have like looked at them and said, I
Speaker 1: will bet you ten thousand dollars that we will hold
Speaker 1: an election in eighteen months, that all of your fear
Speaker 1: that you have been peddling to the American public is
Speaker 1: not true. It's not going to be true. And in fact,
Speaker 1: I will spend the ten thousand dollars if I lose,
Speaker 1: But you have to apologize to the audience for misdirecting
Speaker 1: them if you lose. That's what I would love. It's
Speaker 1: probably not going to happen. But these people, I mean,
Speaker 1: their brains have really rotted. The ones who are saying
Speaker 1: the elections are over, it's just it's crazy. I even
Speaker 1: saw the comedian Kathy Griffin on her podcast saying that, like,
Speaker 1: you know, we should free Luigi. I mean, these people's
Speaker 1: brains are broken and you can't fix them. You just can't.
Speaker 1: You have to just keep it moving and you know,
Speaker 1: hope that the government in charge makes the right moves.
Speaker 1: And you can't obssess with people in the media. But
Speaker 1: that's what everyone else does. So anyway, sorry, back to
Speaker 1: foreign policy, which is what I was originally intending to
Speaker 1: talk about. Not many people are talking about this schism
Speaker 1: happening between the Trump administration and conservative media, and it's
Speaker 1: over Iran, over the nation of Iran, and whether or
Speaker 1: not Iran is in their urinium enrichment program intended to
Speaker 1: build nuclear bombs is capable or will be capable soon,
Speaker 1: and there's negotiations happening in the state of those negotiations.
Speaker 1: This has been the concern of obviously presence, dating back decades.
Speaker 1: The benefit of being middle aged now is that I
Speaker 1: can remember a quarter of a century ago when George W.
Speaker 1: Bush saying an attack against Iran was on the table.
Speaker 1: This is right after the Iraq War, because they were
Speaker 1: close to getting a nuclear bomb. This is two thousand
Speaker 1: and six. This is almost twenty years ago that he
Speaker 1: said they were very close to get an nuclear bomb,
Speaker 1: and one of his memoirs he actually said there were
Speaker 1: plans drawn up to attack Iran and they were backed
Speaker 1: that last minute. And under the Bomb administration, obviously we
Speaker 1: had the Iran deal to temporary limit uranium enrichment in
Speaker 1: favor of increasing their oil sales, and it had some
Speaker 1: minimal success in some capabilities, but it continued to fund
Speaker 1: their terrorist organizations throughout the world. Wasn't really going to
Speaker 1: change anything, and it really emboldened the current power regime
Speaker 1: of Iran, which is a horrific tyrannical regime. That is
Speaker 1: what real tyranny looks like. To the Rachel Meadows of
Speaker 1: the world and to the Kathy Griffins of the world,
Speaker 1: it doesn't look like Donald Trump. It looks like Iran. Currently,
Speaker 1: the women of Iran who have protested their government are
Speaker 1: one hundred times the feminists that any of these phony
Speaker 1: pink hat wearing liberal loonies attacking Trump are anyway back
Speaker 1: to Iran. Sorry, there is a substantial portion of the
Speaker 1: Republican Party, especially in the media, that are actively rooting
Speaker 1: for a military conflict with Iran. Trump picked his longtime
Speaker 1: friend and fellow real estate developer Steve Wikoff to be
Speaker 1: the Special Envoy to the Middle East, and he's actively
Speaker 1: working on avoiding a war with Iran, trying to inc
Speaker 1: ad deal to stop them from becoming a nuclear power.
Speaker 1: And this has infuriated neo conservatives. The New York Post
Speaker 1: President Trump's favorite paper, which regularly publishes neo conservaives, although
Speaker 1: they have published me a few times, so I appreciate it,
Speaker 1: but they do publish a lot of neo conservatives. They
Speaker 1: said that wik Kopff was the wrong person to try
Speaker 1: to get this deal and this agreement because he's too
Speaker 1: he's not willing to, you know, put a war basically
Speaker 1: on the table the day prior from them publishing that,
Speaker 1: which is April thirtieth, on my birthday. Douglas Murray, a
Speaker 1: buddy of mine who I know pretty well. He also
Speaker 1: said that he was the wrong man for the job
Speaker 1: in Douglas's you know, a fairly fairly vocal neoconservative. Wickoff
Speaker 1: has had some early successes in his job, including the
Speaker 1: release of thirty three hostages from Hamas, including two Americans,
Speaker 1: and he struck a deal with the Iranian Bakkuthis and
Speaker 1: Yemen to stop attacking our ships. So things are happening.
Speaker 1: Secretary of Rubia was very happy with the work that
Speaker 1: he's been doing, so as President Trump and considering the
Speaker 1: aspect of that, I'm thirty eight years old. I have
Speaker 1: seen this same movie for twenty five years almost, or
Speaker 1: twenty years almost, where the chatter from the pro war
Speaker 1: crowd is that Iran is going to develop this nuclear
Speaker 1: weapon any day now. It's kind of like how liberals say,
Speaker 1: like Trump, the walls are closing and it's any day now,
Speaker 1: any day now, any day now. I kind of feel
Speaker 1: like any rush towards conflict is very dumb and very
Speaker 1: short sighted and a war weary America is not up
Speaker 1: for it. Any which way that we could avoid any
Speaker 1: kind of military conflict while de escalating the situation is
Speaker 1: well worth it. But I'm not an expert in Ron.
Speaker 1: I've never been there, bas looking for most America has
Speaker 1: never been there. But my next guest is and he
Speaker 1: can tell us more about the situation, a possible conflict,
Speaker 1: and how the Iranian people feel up. Next with me
Speaker 1: today is Shahim Gobadi. He is from the National Council
Speaker 1: of Resistance of Iran. Thank you for being here, Shahim,
Speaker 1: thank you for having me. Now. On Thursday, it was
Speaker 1: discovered that Iran has another nuclear site that was previously undisclosed.
Speaker 1: What can you tell my audience about the state of
Speaker 1: Iran's nuclear program as it stands today.
Speaker 2: Actually, this new revelation was made by the National Council
Speaker 2: of Resistance of Iran, which is the coalition of Iranian
Speaker 2: democratic opposition movements like the Parliament in Exile of the Resistance.
Speaker 2: We have had more than one hundred and ten revelations,
Speaker 2: but various aspects of the Iran nuclear the first program
Speaker 2: going back three decades, particularly in the last two decades.
Speaker 2: All I can tell you is that the Iranian regime
Speaker 2: is on the cost of getting nuclear weapons. What do
Speaker 2: you mean by this? While the world has focused on
Speaker 2: how much in rich uranium the regime has, which is
Speaker 2: enough for at least six nuclear bombs. For a nuclear bomb,
Speaker 2: you need other weaponization and also delivery system basically warheads
Speaker 2: to be carried by ballistic missiles. And the point of
Speaker 2: the matter is that the regime has worked on the
Speaker 2: other two aspects very much diligently and concurrently with the enrichment.
Speaker 2: So they have the rich uranium, they are working on vaponization,
Speaker 2: they're working on delivery system. Actually today if you reveal
Speaker 2: another side which has been unknown before, working in tandem
Speaker 2: with this ballistic missile program for nuclear warheads. So the
Speaker 2: regime has been working very hard to this, and particularly
Speaker 2: in the last year and a half or two that
Speaker 2: it has been much weaker at home and has been
Speaker 2: much weaker in the region. You have relied more on
Speaker 2: acquired nuclear weapons as the guarant tour for their survival.
Speaker 1: Now, so I am thirty eight years old, and for
Speaker 1: the last since I was about fourteen, about a quarter
Speaker 1: of a century, I have heard that Iran is within
Speaker 1: days of getting a nuclear weapon since the Iraq War. Essentially,
Speaker 1: the drum beat for a war with Iran has been
Speaker 1: very real. It's been championed by a number of American
Speaker 1: politicians going back to the Bush administration, and it's never
Speaker 1: come to fruition. So how how much can we rely
Speaker 1: on the evidence that Iran is very close to a
Speaker 1: nuclear webon this time?
Speaker 2: Well, you have to bear in mind that we are
Speaker 2: the movement. As I said, I suppose the Hidian secret
Speaker 2: nuclear facilities, most enrichment in Natans back in two thousand
Speaker 2: and two, prolutonium site again in two thousand and two,
Speaker 2: many many research sites, many many scientists, and this is
Speaker 2: based on people on the ground, what they call human intelligence.
Speaker 2: And according to Los Alamos Research, more than ninety five
Speaker 2: percent of the NCIL revelations have been corroborated one wey
Speaker 2: or the other. The fact of the matter is, we
Speaker 2: never ever advocated for a war a year on. We
Speaker 2: do not believe the solution is a military solution. Rather,
Speaker 2: from the day one, all they have asked for is
Speaker 2: a solid policy. You know what the problem has been
Speaker 2: in the last twenty four years that you refer to,
Speaker 2: Actually the time you're referring to is exactly August fourteen,
Speaker 2: two thousand and two, that my very colleague whould the
Speaker 2: press conference today, held a press conference in the middle
Speaker 2: of summer in Washington, and at that time nobody wanted
Speaker 2: to believe Iran has a new crear program. Then when
Speaker 2: the IA went there they saw it, then they start
Speaker 2: believing it. All we always ask for is a robust policy.
Speaker 2: What was a robust policy. Robost policy is holding regime
Speaker 2: accountable for its nefarious conduct, to impose tough sanctions on
Speaker 2: the region, to prevent it from the means to advocate
Speaker 2: and advance this nuclear weapons program, and to recognize the
Speaker 2: right of the Union people and the resistance to being
Speaker 2: about the regime change by themselves. But what happened in
Speaker 2: reality administration after administration, and I don't only think about
Speaker 2: inside the United States, I'm talking about the other side
Speaker 2: of Atlantic too. People thought that by giving concessions to
Speaker 2: the regime to get involved in endless negotiations, they can
Speaker 2: somehow miraculously talk this region out of driving for nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: And where we are today. Actually, if there were a
Speaker 2: robust policy two decades ago, the situation would not have
Speaker 2: got to where we are today. But unfortunately, as I said,
Speaker 2: appiacement after appeacement got us very well. Today, while the
Speaker 2: threat is very real, we never advocated and we were
Speaker 2: never a proponent of a military confrontation with your role
Speaker 2: because you don't think that's solution.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying you have been necessarily, but there are
Speaker 1: people in America certainly that have and they are the
Speaker 1: ones who've been saying for all these decades that Iran's
Speaker 1: nuclear program is within and is very capable, and it's
Speaker 1: going to happen any day now. And obviously Iran is
Speaker 1: a big supporter of terrorism around the entire globe. One
Speaker 1: thing I would like to know is you mentioned about,
Speaker 1: you know, sanctions, which we already have sanctions on Iran.
Speaker 1: What what good does it do if the United States
Speaker 1: is sanctions on Iran, but like China doesn't or Russia doesn't.
Speaker 2: Well, you have to remember we are talking about sanctions.
Speaker 2: We are talking about also secondary sanctions of what we're
Speaker 2: buyasi in a gas, and we're talking about sanctioning where
Speaker 2: it basically tifles the regime's social revenue. Because the fact
Speaker 2: of the matter is all the money that this regime gets,
Speaker 2: every single dying that it gets is useful repressing Ranian people,
Speaker 2: is used to advance. This nuclear program is used to
Speaker 2: advance this missile program, is used to stipend its proxies
Speaker 2: all over the world and the region actually and it's
Speaker 2: been will be plundered by you know, the regime's top brass.
Speaker 2: None of this gets to the Ranian people. So basically
Speaker 2: what happens is the region cells the Union people's wealth.
Speaker 2: They're oil, their gas and other resources to finance its
Speaker 2: nefarious conduct, which the first and the primary victims of
Speaker 2: the Anion people themselves. While the world is concerned about
Speaker 2: the nuclear weapons, are concerned about you know, regimes terrorism,
Speaker 2: But for me as an Iranian, it's also very important
Speaker 2: what the regime does to its own citizens. That's first
Speaker 2: and foremost, you know, in the last two in the
Speaker 2: last four decades, which NCRII the National Consular Resistance of Iran,
Speaker 2: has been battling to bring about a regime change, and
Speaker 2: I have to emphasize by the Iranians, for the Iranians.
Speaker 2: More of one hundreds and twenty thousand good Iranians as
Speaker 2: it gets thirteen years old and as old as seventy
Speaker 2: two men and women have been executed by this RATIONI
Speaker 2: solely for striving for democracy, no rights. So for us,
Speaker 2: the issue is not solely you know, international or foreign.
Speaker 2: That's about, you know, the dignity of our people, our country,
Speaker 2: and democracy in our country and freedom, which you know
Speaker 2: Iranians deserve very much like any other nation on the
Speaker 2: face of the earth.
Speaker 1: So I want to I want to go into the
Speaker 1: Iranian people in a second, but but I want to
Speaker 1: go back to the policy Iran for for just a moment.
Speaker 1: Should Iran have any sort of Urinian program, because they're
Speaker 1: talking about that should have a certain level. The t
Speaker 1: from administration has been negotiating. You know, couldn't they en
Speaker 1: rich at all? But should they be allowed in your
Speaker 1: opinion of any sort of are.
Speaker 2: Giving a nuclear program has to be shut down. Actually,
Speaker 2: the NCRI, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, has
Speaker 2: a ten point plan for the future of Iran, which
Speaker 2: has been articulated by Madame Mariam Bradjavi, the President elect
Speaker 2: of the Iranian Resistance. Madame Mariam Bradjevi is the person
Speaker 2: that the resistance has elected to be the president for
Speaker 2: a transitional period when the Mullahs are ousted and Iran
Speaker 2: is democratic and one item of that plan, in addition
Speaker 2: to separation of religion and government and gender equality and
Speaker 2: freedom and rights of all the ethnic and national minorities,
Speaker 2: is a non nuclear run. So we believe Iran does
Speaker 2: not need nuclear program. It does not make any sense
Speaker 2: at all. It's not economically savvy. It's actually very consprobative
Speaker 2: for a country like Iran. You know, investing so much
Speaker 2: an Iranian nuclear program is like an Eskimo investing on
Speaker 2: a fridge or a refrigerator. You know, you're talking about
Speaker 2: a country which is sitting on the second biggest oil
Speaker 2: gas reserves in the world, the fourth biggest oil reserve
Speaker 2: in the world, a country which has one person of
Speaker 2: the population in the world but has somewhere from seven
Speaker 2: to eight percent of the world minerals, even according to
Speaker 2: the regime's own estimates. I read a report, internal report,
Speaker 2: but there is Parliament back in two thousand and five,
Speaker 2: and I have the document. We said, creating you know,
Speaker 2: power plants based on nuclear energy in Iran. It does
Speaker 2: not make any sense, they said, be that's kind of
Speaker 2: a price. In a normal situation, we can build ten
Speaker 2: fossil fuel you know plants in Iran. Because the energy
Speaker 2: is so cheap, So all can one wonder why this
Speaker 2: regime is so insistent on nuclear program. It's all obvious
Speaker 2: it's for weapons. It has no civilian purpose. And the
Speaker 2: only party that is so intransigent about this whole thing
Speaker 2: is the regime.
Speaker 1: What do you make of Steve Wikoff, President Trump's and
Speaker 1: Special envoy to the Middle East and what his work
Speaker 1: has been with Iran?
Speaker 2: Well, obviously I know they are trying to reach a
Speaker 2: good deal, but I think that it starts from the
Speaker 2: point that they have to realize that there's nothing civilian.
Speaker 2: There's nothing benevolent in this whole program from the onset.
Speaker 2: It has been for military purposes, and there's so much
Speaker 2: facts to prove this. If it was civilian and for
Speaker 2: good purposes, why the regime is so secretive about this?
Speaker 2: You know, none of its sites, none of its size,
Speaker 2: has ever been informed of the IAEA by the regime itself.
Speaker 2: All of the sites have been told to the IEA
Speaker 2: after we have told on them by our network inside
Speaker 2: the country. So or why do they allow the ia
Speaker 2: to interview their scientists? Why they don't you know, allow
Speaker 2: snapback inspections, I mean snap inspections. So there's obviously more
Speaker 2: than one eskeleton in the closets.
Speaker 1: What do you make of Israel's what they've been doing
Speaker 1: the wrong, which just feels like every couple of months
Speaker 1: you hear about Israel having either a cyber attack or
Speaker 1: killing a scientist or something or other to just kind
Speaker 1: of slow down or stop Iran's nuclear program.
Speaker 2: I think the Iranian problem has an Urnian solution. You know,
Speaker 2: what has been missing in all of the paradigm comes
Speaker 2: to you run in all these years, in the twenty
Speaker 2: four plus years that you mentioned you have been following
Speaker 2: the Union situation in the last quarter century. The biggest
Speaker 2: missing element is the role of the Unian people and
Speaker 2: the resistance. That's the fact that we changed the whole calculus.
Speaker 1: Well, let's talk about the Iranian people then, because I
Speaker 1: mean I have followed a number of resistance movements by
Speaker 1: the Iranian people. There was the Green Revolution. Most recently,
Speaker 1: there was a very very brave effort on the part
Speaker 1: of Iranian women to expose their hair and cut their hair.
Speaker 1: Was deeply, deeply moving what they were doing, But it
Speaker 1: war one. What is the feeling of the leadership by
Speaker 1: the people of Iran.
Speaker 2: They hate the regime in its entirety, How can you
Speaker 2: gauge that? Since December two thousand and seven, seventeen, sorry,
Speaker 2: which is you know, seven and a half years, there
Speaker 2: has been four major nationwide uprisings in Iran, all of
Speaker 2: them calling for the regimes overthrow. And each time the
Speaker 2: uprising gets bigger, more pervasive, more inclusive, people from all
Speaker 2: walks of life, all age groups. The last one you
Speaker 2: just mentioned that it started in September twenty two and
Speaker 2: went on for months and months, included all thirty one
Speaker 2: provinces of Iran, somewhere in like three hundred cities and
Speaker 2: towns throughout the country. Now it's a very really number.
Speaker 2: So there's a nationwide sentiment. According to the regime's own
Speaker 2: public figures, ninety six percent of the people of Irn
Speaker 2: hate this regime. That's amazing. Ninety six percent of people
Speaker 2: want a regime change. So that's the sentiment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, as someone who reads a lot about demographics
Speaker 1: and studies a lot of how populations are acting both
Speaker 1: economically and socially, Iran's people the action, not the leadership,
Speaker 1: but the people. Well, you know, they have relatively few children,
Speaker 1: They try to buy homes, they like, they enjoy Western
Speaker 1: media as much as they can get it. I would
Speaker 1: love to see a future of a western, a pro
Speaker 1: Western Iran. I think that we I think that it's
Speaker 1: possible based on the population, Unlike let's say the population
Speaker 1: of I'm just using an example Afghanistan, whom are not
Speaker 1: pro Western in essence and they don't have the ability
Speaker 1: to be pro Western and govern themselves. I think Iran
Speaker 1: does how do we get there? You've mentioned sanctions, you
Speaker 1: mentioned having a correct response, But if I mean does
Speaker 1: does a does a revolution involve a military uprising of
Speaker 1: some sorts? I just wanted how what is what is
Speaker 1: the domino that has not fallen? Given that these protests
Speaker 1: have gone up, have increased that the governments of the
Speaker 1: West have put heavy emphasis. What is the domino that
Speaker 1: has not fallen needs to fall? To get there?
Speaker 2: I think the ultimate solution would be another uprising by
Speaker 2: the Venian people. Said, if you look at the trajectory,
Speaker 2: it's getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and the slogans
Speaker 2: are are becoming more demanding. What I'm saying is that
Speaker 2: people have kiss goodbye to the regime, have been calling
Speaker 2: for the overthrow the leader, the Supreme Leader, which everything
Speaker 2: is hit, which hinges upon. Also, what's the way telling
Speaker 2: is that thinking the last uprising people also rejected an
Speaker 2: ignotion of going back to the time of monarchy the
Speaker 2: last shot they have been you know, chanting down with
Speaker 2: the operasor being the shaw or the Supreme Leader, which
Speaker 2: meant that they're fully cognized of the fan that they
Speaker 2: reject dictatorshow any shape and form. So the solution will be,
Speaker 2: you know, basically what I would say, revolution by the people.
Speaker 2: And also you have to remember there's an organized resistance
Speaker 2: on the ground in the form of resistance units which
Speaker 2: are affiliated to the people as much a headn't organize
Speaker 2: position of run. These are the biggest resistance movement inside
Speaker 2: the country, which are part of the n CR. So
Speaker 2: you have it.
Speaker 1: I thought the shot was fairly popular though or or
Speaker 1: the family of the show was popular.
Speaker 2: Well, the fact of the matter is you have to
Speaker 2: remember the shot was boots Or of Iraq by popular
Speaker 2: uprising for the obvious reasons. It was very oppressive. He
Speaker 2: was very corrupt.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess less oppressive than the current ones. So
Speaker 1: it's everything's I guess in perspective, and I'm not advocating
Speaker 1: for the shot I'm just I'm just sorry. ADHD is
Speaker 1: very real today. So but but that's but when it comes.
Speaker 2: Asking for is basically what will happen is that there
Speaker 2: would be an uprising by the people that will take
Speaker 2: the balance. Now, the question is what kind of a
Speaker 2: policy we advocate from the West. The VEST should not
Speaker 2: sit on the fence, as they say. While we do
Speaker 2: not advocate boots underground, we are not seeking weapons from
Speaker 2: any country. We're not asking money from any country. But
Speaker 2: we think the VEST should have a much active policy
Speaker 2: on Iran on these components. First of all, as I said,
Speaker 2: you have to have much tougher sanctions on the regime
Speaker 2: to prevent them to have the money to continue financing
Speaker 2: is apparatus of repression and belligerence. Number Two, the UN
Speaker 2: Security Council resolutions that are suspended because of the nuclear
Speaker 2: deal have to be reactivated because the regime has violated
Speaker 2: that resolution time and again. And Third, I think it's
Speaker 2: very important politically that the West, and here in a
Speaker 2: specific the United States, should recognize the right of the
Speaker 2: Union people in the Runian youth to bring about a
Speaker 2: regime change and establish a democratic government. That's very important.
Speaker 1: So we should recognize And I'm just clarifying, I'm not
Speaker 1: battling claring so you like like the Trump administration or
Speaker 1: the president I states whoever it will be at any
Speaker 1: given time to recognize a leader not being the current one,
Speaker 1: but whom is recognized by I guess a movement of
Speaker 1: people of Iran, even if the current leadership is there.
Speaker 2: True, but also more important is the concept that, look,
Speaker 2: we realize that the Unians have the right to bring
Speaker 2: about the regime change by themselves. I think that sense
Speaker 2: shock faves to the Mulas. It also sends a very
Speaker 2: positive message to the Unians that the world is on
Speaker 2: their side, that instead of thinking passe, the world realizes
Speaker 2: who is the Union people are right, the resistance is right.
Speaker 2: And you know the Mulas are are doomed to be
Speaker 2: overthrown by the Uranian people. Now, how and when would
Speaker 2: that happen? Obviously nobody has a crystal ball to give
Speaker 2: you you know on exact date that this will happen.
Speaker 2: But if you look at the trajectory, the last two
Speaker 2: or three years has been awfully bad for the Mullahs.
Speaker 2: First of all, the uprising that you just mentioned, especially
Speaker 2: because the young generation has been very active, including men
Speaker 2: and women. That's important. Also from a regional perspective, the
Speaker 2: regime has received a lot of you know, devastating blows.
Speaker 2: His wole law has been basically you know decimated. Who
Speaker 2: is obviously you know, which are armed by the regime
Speaker 2: and finance and propped up, are very much in trouble.
Speaker 2: And most importantly, the bachelor Assad regime in Syria, which
Speaker 2: was like the full crumb or the lynchpin of the
Speaker 2: regime's regional strategy, was gone eleven days. So if I
Speaker 2: may say, in one word, all the chickens are coming
Speaker 2: home for the Supreme leader to roost at the same time.
Speaker 1: So well, okay, my last, my last question for you,
Speaker 1: and this is a complicated one. So you've said that
Speaker 1: we shouldn't get involved militarily, and this something I very
Speaker 1: much agree with, is we shouldn't be involved militarily, and
Speaker 1: I disagree hell with the people who are advocating for that.
Speaker 1: But if Iran is let's say, days away or weeks
Speaker 1: away or months away even from a nuclear weapon, what
Speaker 1: do you do then? How do you counter that? Is
Speaker 1: it just sanctions and hoping it all goes away, or
Speaker 1: is it a technological strike? Or is it something else.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you would what the what the
Speaker 1: Western governments would you do if Iran is as nuclear
Speaker 1: capable as people are saying that they are.
Speaker 2: Well, Honestly, I did not say that Iran is days away,
Speaker 2: because the people who say Iran is days away only
Speaker 2: think about enrichment. But as I said, there's also weaponization.
Speaker 2: There's also a delivery system for the stick missile. The
Speaker 2: world doesn't have much time, I should say. But as
Speaker 2: I said, the policy that we propose and we advocate,
Speaker 2: and as I said, Madame Mariam Rajevi testified before the
Speaker 2: US Congress online just on January of this year, and
Speaker 2: she said, look, just change the whole policy. What does
Speaker 2: that mean? As you said, much tougher sanctions, put Iran
Speaker 2: on their Chapter seven of the Unions Security Council mandate,
Speaker 2: which means that the regime is a global threat, and
Speaker 2: also change the attitude toward the resistance and the winning people.
Speaker 2: If you think that, you know, if the people of
Speaker 2: Iran are given political encouragement to know that in fact,
Speaker 2: the world is on their side, the world would not,
Speaker 2: you know, sit idle. And I'm talking about politically and
Speaker 2: morally that would make a big difference. Time is not
Speaker 2: in the favor of the moloss As I said, if
Speaker 2: you look at the trajectory, there has been four uprisings
Speaker 2: in seven years alone, so another one is inevitable. And
Speaker 2: you don't have to trust me. If you read the
Speaker 2: regimes on press, if you listen to the regimes analysts,
Speaker 2: even a lot of the regime's own officials are warning
Speaker 2: the way things are going, another uprising is inevitable. They're
Speaker 2: seventy percent of the population live below the poverty line.
Speaker 2: You know, this is a huge number of people. The
Speaker 2: lower class is getting smaller, I mean, middle class is
Speaker 2: getting smaller and smaller, and the regime is getting more
Speaker 2: and more isolated. And also what's important is that you
Speaker 2: have a vible alternative against the regime. So that's important
Speaker 2: to realize that, you know, the resistance has done its
Speaker 2: work over the years, a network inside the country, a
Speaker 2: political platform, a clear plan for future, and identify the leader,
Speaker 2: which as I said, is very much known to the
Speaker 2: US Congress and the US Senate. More than four thousand
Speaker 2: members of parliaments have endorsed this plant. Basically, Iranian people
Speaker 2: have done a lot to be where they are today,
Speaker 2: But I think the world would be much better off
Speaker 2: to be on their side, to only think about, you know,
Speaker 2: attack or not attack. The narrative that you either bomb
Speaker 2: them or you pisce their hands and placate them. I
Speaker 2: think the narrative that the mulahs propagated over the years.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a great that's a great way to that's
Speaker 1: a great way to leave it off. And I think
Speaker 1: that's really important context, especially to an American audience who
Speaker 1: only hears that the solutions either go with the Supreme
Speaker 1: Leader or full on war. The American people are overwhelming
Speaker 1: against Shahinkobadi. Where can people research and learn more about
Speaker 1: the National Councils of National Council of Resistance of Iran.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a good website called NCR National Councular Resistance
Speaker 2: so NCR. That Iran dot org. NCR, that'sh Iran dot org.
Speaker 2: That's our website. They can also go to the website
Speaker 2: of Madame Mariam Rajavi Mariam m A R y A
Speaker 2: M Rajavi r A j A v I and they
Speaker 2: can get a lot of first hand information, unfiltered, which
Speaker 2: our people get from Iran on a daily basis. You
Speaker 2: know that's also a part of our endeavored to make
Speaker 2: people aware that Iran is not synonymous with the mu
Speaker 2: laws that rule them, and it's very important to get
Speaker 2: the word out that there's a third option, an option
Speaker 2: that identifies with the Union people and their aspiration and
Speaker 2: their organized resistance. And trust me, the moment that is done,
Speaker 2: the mulas will be unnotice.
Speaker 1: I hope that that happens one day. I hope you
Speaker 1: have a democratic and pro western Iran. I really do
Speaker 1: thank you for being on this podcast. I genuinely appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Me too, and have a good one and I wish
Speaker 2: you and your viewers have the best of days ahead.
Speaker 1: Hey, we'll be right back after this and now for
Speaker 1: the ask Me Anything segment. If you want to be
Speaker 1: part of the Ask Me Anything segment, email me Ryan
Speaker 1: at numbers Game podcast dot com. That's ryanat numbers gamepodcast
Speaker 1: dot com. You could even tweet me if you want
Speaker 1: about the podcast and ask me a question. I will
Speaker 1: answer on air about any issue you could possibly think
Speaker 1: of that I know anything about, which is not sports,
Speaker 1: So any sports questions. Although apparently the new Pope is
Speaker 1: a White Sox fan or Cubs fan or something like
Speaker 1: that doesn't sound well. I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I got the cubs of the White Sox. But best
Speaker 1: the luck to wealth those teams and the new Pope.
Speaker 1: All Right, The question is my friend highly who says,
Speaker 1: do you think the Pierre people inside the Trump administration
Speaker 1: were actively trying to sabotage him? This is a very
Speaker 1: good question. It is one that comes up a lot,
Speaker 1: and it is very difficult to answer. I will say
Speaker 1: that in the first Trump administration, I tweeted a list
Speaker 1: of people who were actively working to us to go back.
Speaker 1: I had a lot of sources, so I was working
Speaker 1: as a reporter for part of the time inside the
Speaker 1: first administration, very high up inside the trumdministration in the
Speaker 1: Oval Office, who were telling me, these are lists of
Speaker 1: people working to sit there and stop Trump. Many now
Speaker 1: are prominent never trumpers. One was the anonymous guy I
Speaker 1: was tweeting about him long before it was happening. Many
Speaker 1: with the leakers that were coming out, And in that
Speaker 1: case of the first administration, when it was so glaringly
Speaker 1: obvious there were people working to stop Trump. The difference
Speaker 1: was and I'm not I'm not spending a lot of
Speaker 1: time talking about him because he's no longer in politics,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really matter. But Jared Kushner really protected a
Speaker 1: lot of those people, a lot of those people, and
Speaker 1: he wasn't the only one. There were a lot of
Speaker 1: people being protected. Kelly and Conway protected a lot of
Speaker 1: those people from being fired or advocated for them. There
Speaker 1: was a scene where it was the former head of
Speaker 1: the Personnel Office who was hiring tons of never Trumpers,
Speaker 1: the first Personnel Office, whose name I can't remember, and
Speaker 1: it was pointed out to Trump with him in the
Speaker 1: room that he was a leaker, and basically the whole
Speaker 1: Oval office defended this guy and he was leaking. He
Speaker 1: went to like the next room and leaked immediately against
Speaker 1: Ginny Thomas, who was a Supreme Court justice. Clarence Thomas's
Speaker 1: wife who made the point that he was one leaking,
Speaker 1: or she was one of the people. She wasn't a
Speaker 1: single person. There was another person in the room who
Speaker 1: made the point, but she was one of the people
Speaker 1: making the point that he was leaking. Anyway, it was
Speaker 1: very obvious and there was an entire ecosystem within the
Speaker 1: White House of the first term to protect the never trumpers,
Speaker 1: the leakers, the people trying to create their own agenda.
Speaker 1: This administration is new. I don't see that same framework
Speaker 1: in the same way that the first term existed. Certainly not.
Speaker 1: It's certainly a much more cohesive white House. Here's a
Speaker 1: problem with saying somebody is against the Trump agenda or
Speaker 1: trying to sabotage him. Trump's changes his minds a lot,
Speaker 1: changes his mind quite often, right. He can be very impulsive,
Speaker 1: and there are times when he takes two sides of
Speaker 1: the same issue. So who is the one sabotaging him? Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the issue lies when the president is something that you
Speaker 1: don't like, or with the administration something you don't like.
Speaker 1: The problem lies in the president. Nine times out of ten,
Speaker 1: if he is allowing those people to be around him,
Speaker 1: it is a problem of the president. Now, this administration
Speaker 1: runs a lot smoother. I think Susie Willis has done
Speaker 1: a very good job of facilitating a cohesive White House.
Speaker 1: But as far as creating someone working against the president,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say that. I would say there are weaker
Speaker 1: links in the administration. I think that the Commerce Secretary
Speaker 1: Lutnik is an immensely weak link. I think he has
Speaker 1: done no service to the president whatsoever. I think he's
Speaker 1: been very problematic in his role every by the way,
Speaker 1: he said hates when I say problematic, I still do it.
Speaker 1: But he's been an issue in his role. I think
Speaker 1: that Christy nom has had many issues in her role.
Speaker 1: So but we'll see how long she stays around for.
Speaker 1: But are they sabotaging the president? No? Are they weaker links? Yes?
Speaker 1: Do they sometimes push their own agenda to the president
Speaker 1: hoping he changes his mind? I believe so. So that's
Speaker 1: my very long and short answer of it. It's not
Speaker 1: as bad as the first White House. But are there
Speaker 1: people who push their own agenda and hope the president
Speaker 1: believes them? Yes? Does he do it sometimes? Yes? So
Speaker 1: that's the long and short of it. Anyway, Thank you all.
Speaker 1: Please email me some stuff. I love getting these kinds
Speaker 1: of questions. It's a really good way to enter with
Speaker 1: the audience. And if you like this podcast, please like
Speaker 1: and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. Give me a five star review if
Speaker 1: you're being generous, and I will see you guys on Thursday.