Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. Have an amazing
Speaker 1: show for a buddy today. What do we Crystal?
Speaker 3: Indeed we do.
Speaker 2: The MLU with Iran has been signed in Versailles, and
Speaker 2: Trump gave a wild press conference that we want to
Speaker 2: spend some time with some some very very interesting things.
Speaker 2: That is part of why we are in day whatever.
Speaker 2: I don't know at this point of the complete Zio meltdown,
Speaker 2: but they have decided to train their ire on one man.
Speaker 2: That man is not Donald Trump. It is Jade Vance.
Speaker 2: So that is an interesting political dynamic that we want
Speaker 2: to take into. We're also really excited to be joined
Speaker 2: by the editor of Omwadge Media. They have had a
Speaker 2: number of really significant scoops over the course of the
Speaker 2: Iran War, and so we're going to dig into the
Speaker 2: details of this memo of understanding what it says, what
Speaker 2: it doesn't say, what it means in terms of the
Speaker 2: possibilities of war and peace going forward.
Speaker 3: So very much looking forward to that.
Speaker 2: Trump's new FED chair has been part of the decision
Speaker 2: to keep rates the same in a significant announcement yesterday.
Speaker 2: Of course, Trump has been agitating aggressively for rights to
Speaker 2: be cut, so we'll see what he had to say
Speaker 2: on the matter. And the membership list of Peter Thiel's
Speaker 2: Secret Society has been leaked as well as an eye brazing,
Speaker 2: eyebrow racing, eye brathing eyebrow agenda for their next confabs.
Speaker 2: So a lot of very influential, powerful names on both
Speaker 2: sides of the aisle that have been revealed as part
Speaker 2: of that exclusive club set.
Speaker 1: Certainly, and maybe they'll meet next in Argentina where he
Speaker 1: currently was. Thank you to everybody who's been subscribing to
Speaker 1: the show. Breakingpoints at dot Com to support us. Seriously,
Speaker 1: we deeply appreciate we've had so many new viewers who've
Speaker 1: been coming in and probably enjoying the zion Is meltdown
Speaker 1: with the rest of us. If we want to keep
Speaker 1: that up, Breakingpoints dot Com support our work over here.
Speaker 1: If you're watching this on YouTube, please hit subscribe to
Speaker 1: our channel and listening to the podcast. Please share an
Speaker 1: episode with the friend or rate us five stars help
Speaker 1: other people find the show. But let's go ahead and start,
Speaker 1: like you said, with the Memorandum of Understanding that has
Speaker 1: now been signed in Versa Ell. Here it is in
Speaker 1: all of its pomp and circumstance, Donald Trump. They're signing
Speaker 1: the Memorandum of Understanding in the hall. Yes, I think
Speaker 1: each's some Farsi some new English translation there as well.
Speaker 1: Everybody is clapping, surrounded by world leaders. The Secretary of
Speaker 1: State right behind him, and Macron leads two rounds of
Speaker 1: applause and cries of bravo as the document is signed.
Speaker 1: You know, I'll hold some of my historical commentary here
Speaker 1: on Versa I here for a moment. But it is
Speaker 1: nonetheless extraordinary. One of the reasons why it is being
Speaker 1: signed electronically and being transmitted between both sides is because
Speaker 1: they want immediate resumption of the passage of traffic through
Speaker 1: the Strait of Horror Moods, which as of this morning,
Speaker 1: three Saudi tankers appear to be making their way through
Speaker 1: the Strait of hornor Moves. So it does show us that,
Speaker 1: you know, some traffic is beginning to resume. And on
Speaker 1: the other side, the Iranians know that the moment it's
Speaker 1: actually signed considered official, that they get the release of
Speaker 1: some of their funds, which Trump of course address. But
Speaker 1: as you said, we had a wild Trump press conference
Speaker 1: which preceded all of this. It's like somebody injected truth
Speaker 1: serum into him and all of a sudden, you know,
Speaker 1: the gaff is when a politician tells the truth, and
Speaker 1: there were a lot of gaffes I think throughout this
Speaker 1: entire one. First and foremost is Trump here on nuclear enrichment,
Speaker 1: being like, yeah, maybe we won't let them enrich a
Speaker 1: little bit. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4: We've been pretty tough in that.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 4: It's also it is a little hard though, when you
Speaker 4: say that somebody wants to other people have it, other
Speaker 4: adjoining states have it, and you're not letting them have
Speaker 4: it for purposes of electricity and things like that. It's
Speaker 4: always a little tough. You have to use a little
Speaker 4: common SENSI please.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree, got to use common sense.
Speaker 1: Agreed, Yeah, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2: Restauraw is their right to enrich for civilian purposes. But
Speaker 2: pre up to this moment, you know, if you said that,
Speaker 2: you were mostly like, you know, a fringe lefty, usually radical,
Speaker 2: and now here you have the president like, well, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, let's be reasonable a lot about this. Why
Speaker 2: would we ban them from riching a little bit for
Speaker 2: civilian purposes?
Speaker 1: You were previously surrender monkey if you said, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: they said that we won't get a nuclear weapon. They
Speaker 1: even agreed not to enrich past a certain point for
Speaker 1: civilian purposes. So I used my common sense before the war,
Speaker 1: and I was like, what's the problem with that? And
Speaker 1: yet Trump consistently said that the Iranians would not commit
Speaker 1: to zero enrichment, as in zero enrichment and uranium whatsoever
Speaker 1: or any nuclear material, including for civilian or for medical purposes,
Speaker 1: and used that as a pretext. Remember, he would consistently
Speaker 1: say Iran won't remember the magic words, they won't say
Speaker 1: the magic words zero nuclear weapons, which he would define
Speaker 1: as zero enrichment. Anybody watching the show over one hundred
Speaker 1: days ago, I guess now is very familiar. And now
Speaker 1: Trump has come full circle back to this show.
Speaker 2: So much of it with him too is like whoever
Speaker 2: he last spoke with one hundred percent?
Speaker 3: So I don't know who what. Maybe it was JD.
Speaker 2: Van's last and his year, but somebody gave him some
Speaker 2: new thoughts on the matter. Because previously, and not just
Speaker 2: during this war, but leading up to it, in the
Speaker 2: Twelve Day War and throughout the negotiations, which you know,
Speaker 2: I mean they had a pretty reasonable deal on the
Speaker 2: table before they started bombing Ran the first time around.
Speaker 2: But in any case, you know, they he kept having
Speaker 2: his red line shifted by Israel and made more and
Speaker 2: more extreme. So it became not just no nuclear weapons,
Speaker 2: not just no nuclear Richmond whatsoever. But also we're going
Speaker 2: to we have to deal with the pallistic missile program,
Speaker 2: which is another area that he gets to here. And
Speaker 2: now he says, well, how does that make any sense?
Speaker 2: If everybody else is allowed to have weapons and defend themselves,
Speaker 2: doesn't Iran have a right to defend itself to and
Speaker 2: have some sort of a military presence and have their
Speaker 2: mollistic missile program.
Speaker 3: Let's sake, go listen to that.
Speaker 4: So we'll be working on a parallel effort with the
Speaker 4: Gulf nations to address non nuclear issues, such as the
Speaker 4: conventional ballistic missiles, which we'll be talking about and support.
Speaker 4: I mean, they have to have some because other people
Speaker 4: have some. You've got to have some. Somebody said you
Speaker 4: shouldn't give them one, but I have guys. I like
Speaker 4: some of these guys, but I don't think this, don't
Speaker 4: think they're smart. Sure, you shouldn't let them have any missile.
Speaker 4: I said, well what am I going to do? Am
Speaker 4: I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles? But they
Speaker 4: can't have them?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir, can't.
Speaker 4: Does it work that way? You know, it doesn't work
Speaker 4: that way. And missiles aren't the problem. Missiles or they
Speaker 4: heard a little lowkey, but it don't blow up the planet.
Speaker 2: Just yeah, absolutely, part true, Yeah, accurate. What you're gonna
Speaker 2: let everybody else and there you're gonna let Israel have
Speaker 2: whatever they want from ours dot files, but you're not
Speaker 2: gonna let her on have any missile.
Speaker 1: As he said, in other words, Iran has a right
Speaker 1: to defend itself. Right, that's that's.
Speaker 3: What it a right to exp does it have a.
Speaker 1: Right to Iran has a right to exist and a
Speaker 1: right to defend itself. Right, Yeah, he's right, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, part of this just belies the basic fact. Yes,
Speaker 1: when you lose a war, there are two things that
Speaker 1: have to happen. Number one, you don't get everything that
Speaker 1: you want, and too, you have to pay them a
Speaker 1: lot of reparations. This is Lindy, It's a tale as
Speaker 1: old as time. You don't conquer the place. Thus you've
Speaker 1: got to take some gold out of the treasury and
Speaker 1: you know, haul it on over and sign a memorandum
Speaker 1: and as if that doesn't hold, then you go back
Speaker 1: to war. This is what happens people. Sorry, I mean,
Speaker 1: be about faith in one hundred days, it's kind of
Speaker 1: what's yeah, so's talking about it. But at a basic level, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's true. But that's why these by uttering these truths
Speaker 1: for the first time. Look from Trump, he can reverse
Speaker 1: you know, at anything, he.
Speaker 3: Can say something different today.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you can say something different today. But there is
Speaker 1: power in the truth, and there is power in what
Speaker 1: we have been trying to emphasize here for quite some time.
Speaker 1: How is it that you can allow Israel, a rogue state,
Speaker 1: to have a secret nuclear weapons program, to have missiles
Speaker 1: to bomb seven of its neighbors, to conquer and annexed
Speaker 1: parts of Syria, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Gaza, and
Speaker 1: then in a straight face say you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: have any even civilian nuclear in Richmond. You're not allowed
Speaker 1: to have any ballistic missile threat. You cannot do that,
Speaker 1: or you can. You have to take over the entire country,
Speaker 1: right And so that's why by saying yes, they have
Speaker 1: a right right to defend itself and sure, oh a
Speaker 1: civilian nuclear we can't say that. And they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: but you're going to pay them. It's like, yeah, we
Speaker 1: have to pay them, otherwise they're going to continue to
Speaker 1: keep the straightformance and even paying, as Trump soon addresses,
Speaker 1: is not even really paying them. We're paying them with
Speaker 1: their own money like Obama did this so called palettes.
Speaker 2: Of cap Let me just react to what you just said,
Speaker 2: because I think you made an important point about the
Speaker 2: power of truth and the power of reality, and I
Speaker 2: think that that has overwhelmed the propaganda efforts, which were
Speaker 2: very minimal, by the way, for this war and pretty
Speaker 2: pathetic and poorly organized and changing day by day. But
Speaker 2: the ability of the American people to see through some
Speaker 2: of that propaganda has really overwhelmed this war effort, and
Speaker 2: American foreign policy is increasingly built on propaganda and lies,
Speaker 2: whether it's things like, oh, Israel's the most moral army
Speaker 2: on the planet and there are great allies, and it's
Speaker 2: really great for our interests eventually, especially, I mean in
Speaker 2: part because of social media. Because you have a much
Speaker 2: more diverse media ecosystem, you're not able to just keep
Speaker 2: people in the mainstream press, where these propaganda efforts are
Speaker 2: you know, come with very few holes in them, are
Speaker 2: very cohesive. Since you have that access, people are just
Speaker 2: not buying this fantasy world. And the fantasy world is
Speaker 2: becoming more and more preposterous by the day. I told
Speaker 2: you a while ago, I was shocked by this. I
Speaker 2: was talking to my mom, who is not like particularly political.
Speaker 2: She most of her life has been an independent. Now
Speaker 2: she hates Trump, so she's definitely votes for Democrats by
Speaker 2: and large, but she was talking about Iran and she
Speaker 2: was like, I don't really get it, Like we're allowed
Speaker 2: to have nuclear weapons, so they are She's like, that
Speaker 2: doesn't seem fair to me. I was like, wow, lom okay,
Speaker 2: I was pretty shocked that she said that. But people
Speaker 2: are seeing through a lot of these lies and these
Speaker 2: propaganda that has been built up over years and years
Speaker 2: and years. So look, Trump, one danger with him always
Speaker 2: is that people hear on one day something that they
Speaker 2: want to hear from Trump, just as the you know,
Speaker 2: the Zionists who wanted this war. We're hearing a lot
Speaker 2: of things from him that they wanted to hear over
Speaker 2: a lot of days.
Speaker 3: And now he's saying something.
Speaker 2: Different and doing something different at least for the moment,
Speaker 2: and so they, oh, my god, he betrayed us.
Speaker 3: He's shocked.
Speaker 2: I mean, this man will turn on a dime at
Speaker 2: any moment. There is no person he is loyal to,
Speaker 2: There is no country is loyal to outside of himself. So,
Speaker 2: you know, it's remarkable to hear him say these things
Speaker 2: that of course if Fabama said, if Biden said it,
Speaker 2: it would be and we would still be hearing about
Speaker 2: it on Fox News, et cetera. It is remarkable to
Speaker 2: hear him say those things, but of course it doesn't
Speaker 2: mean that this is his fixed, locked in position. Doesn't
Speaker 2: mean that we won't go back to war tomorrow. I
Speaker 2: mean Israel is still bombing, they root. All of this
Speaker 2: is very tenuous and unstable. But the reason to talk
Speaker 2: about it is not because Trump is a reliable or
Speaker 2: good actor here. The reason to talk about it is
Speaker 2: because I think you're right. I think there is power
Speaker 2: and truth, and I think these are a lot of
Speaker 2: things that the American people have intuitive, which is why
Speaker 2: they have been so opposed to this war from the
Speaker 2: beginning in a way that is truly unprecedented in I think,
Speaker 2: in American history.
Speaker 1: Let's just stick again, you know, and I know some
Speaker 1: of this is repetitive for long time viewers. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but like, let's just think about you know, let's go
Speaker 1: back to Biden logic. We have to arm Ukraine because
Speaker 1: they're being invaded. Israel invades. Israel invades Gaza, the West Bank,
Speaker 1: Syria and Lebanon annexes their territory in violation of international law,
Speaker 1: and we enable it and we ship them weapons. Hold on,
Speaker 1: what a second Bucah's a genocide Gaza?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 1: That no, that's a what is it? A self defense action?
Speaker 1: Horrific civilian casualties except one is orders of magnitude bigger
Speaker 1: than the other. That doesn't make a hell of a
Speaker 1: lot of sense, does it.
Speaker 2: Even the framing of Iran as like the singular evening.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: You know, people watched.
Speaker 2: Us in Israel commit a genocide in Gaza for years
Speaker 2: and then we go out and try to do our
Speaker 2: moral preening in the world. Oh, the Islamic terrorist regime.
Speaker 2: But they're shooting protesters in the street. It's not that
Speaker 2: Americans are looking this and go oh yeah, Ron, They're
Speaker 2: actually the good guys. They're just going like, well, who
Speaker 2: are we really at this point to go out and
Speaker 2: lecture the world on moral values? And do we really
Speaker 2: believe that Donald Trump is so deeply concerned about the
Speaker 2: rights of protesters in the street in Tehran?
Speaker 3: Of course, it's preposterous.
Speaker 2: And so the the fantasy world has become so divorce
Speaker 2: from reality that people did not buy it. They have
Speaker 2: access to information they didn't used to have. And now
Speaker 2: you have an American president who is acknowledging things that
Speaker 2: you know, and I've gotten this can change in a moment,
Speaker 2: But who is acknowledging obvious logical things that many Americans
Speaker 2: into it did and it is hard to put that
Speaker 2: understanding back in the bottle.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, same with Iraq. I mean, oh, we were
Speaker 1: greeted as liberators. We're going to bring them democracy and
Speaker 1: for it. We all lived through that. We all know
Speaker 1: this is bullshit from day one. It's only the same
Speaker 1: people who pushed the war are the very same people
Speaker 1: who are parroting those truths. Which is ironic because in
Speaker 1: most cases actually the exact same people who are defending
Speaker 1: and who were pushing it. There is immense power in
Speaker 1: the truth. Here is the next one from Donald Trump
Speaker 1: about Iran's money and how can we just keep it?
Speaker 1: That would undermine faith in the dollar. Let's go and
Speaker 1: put a three and let's.
Speaker 6: Listen explained though, what the difference is between giving a
Speaker 6: rack and US dollars and unfreezing US dollars for.
Speaker 4: Well, the unfreezing it's an easy one to answer. We
Speaker 4: have taken a lot of their money, and we have
Speaker 4: their money. We have taken them. It's not our money,
Speaker 4: it's their money, and we froze it. At a certain
Speaker 4: point in time, I guess we're going to have to
Speaker 4: give it back. You know, if we didn't give it back,
Speaker 4: nobody would ever invest in the dollar again if you
Speaker 4: took their money. Because I thought about it, you know,
Speaker 4: I'm not the post perfect person. I said to Scott Scott,
Speaker 4: what do we keep their money? What the hell are
Speaker 4: we giving it back to them? But you know, people
Speaker 4: from lots of nations, some nations we don't agree with,
Speaker 4: they have their money with the dollars become very strong
Speaker 4: under me, and they don't want to have a little
Speaker 4: conflict with somebody and end up having the United States
Speaker 4: just take their money. So if you do that, you
Speaker 4: really don't have a system.
Speaker 1: Your rights are absolutely You're absolutely right. And yet again,
Speaker 1: you know, this is a neocon worldview, is that the
Speaker 1: United States can be the world's reserve currency in bank
Speaker 1: that just declares when somebody who's spooky and bad doesn't
Speaker 1: get to have access to their money, like we did
Speaker 1: with Russia. You know, I'm coming back to Russia. We
Speaker 1: just said, oh no, actually, all of your money, it's ours.
Speaker 1: And as we said at the time, we're like, hey,
Speaker 1: we're going to blow up the integrity of the entire
Speaker 1: international banking system and create an alternative, you know, cycle
Speaker 1: of crypto and of the Chinese wand that will be
Speaker 1: used to circumvent the US Bank, which actually makes us weaker.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what happened. And then how did Iran actually
Speaker 1: facilitate some of those two million And we know at
Speaker 1: least some people paid the toll. How did they pay
Speaker 1: either in wand or they paid in crypto? Well, guess what.
Speaker 1: You laid the ground for that again with what happened
Speaker 1: after Ukraine. So you are watching the reckoning and we're
Speaker 1: actually going to talk about this later. People are now
Speaker 1: bullish back on the dollar after a result of this,
Speaker 1: because they're like, oh, hey, actually, you know, we could
Speaker 1: go back to the world's reserve. Says it's bad for
Speaker 1: the States, especially in an emerging multipolar system where people
Speaker 1: who are quote enemies or bad or for a president
Speaker 1: can at any time just turn his back and say
Speaker 1: all of your money is ours. To be able to
Speaker 1: keep it. You know, this reminds me of the whole
Speaker 1: Palace of cash situation, which I'll be honest at the
Speaker 1: time I fell for it because I didn't do enough research.
Speaker 1: But going back treat to PARSI outlined all of this
Speaker 1: on the Tucker Carlson Show and laid it out extremely well.
Speaker 1: He's like, look, he had a certain amount of money
Speaker 1: was paid by the SHAW to the United States for arms.
Speaker 1: We didn't send the arms, we kept the money. The
Speaker 1: Iranian regime took the US to court at the Hague,
Speaker 1: and the Hague was going to rule against us, so
Speaker 1: we had to send back the money with interest because
Speaker 1: that's the rule. And we sent back what was their money.
Speaker 2: Well, and when they were sanctioned from using any of
Speaker 2: the traditional banking systems, so how else are you going
Speaker 2: to get them the money then sending them sending them
Speaker 2: pallets of cash? And that is the piece where it's
Speaker 2: This one is the hardest for me to stomach from
Speaker 2: Trump because he has demagogued like so much against the
Speaker 2: JCPOA and the provisions in there and the palettes of cash.
Speaker 2: I mean, he did the whole thing all in on
Speaker 2: those talking wow we go Obama with how terrible deal
Speaker 2: it was and how we sent them these palettes of
Speaker 2: cash to fund their terrorist activities, blah blah blah. So
Speaker 2: it is a little bit hard for me to stomach
Speaker 2: him now acknowledging the truth when it comes to him
Speaker 2: and his deal of Hey, this is actually their money
Speaker 2: and at some point we probably should give it back.
Speaker 2: Otherwise this becomes in a way a problem for us,
Speaker 2: because if we are continually using and abusing our status
Speaker 2: is the world's reserve currency, our domination of the global
Speaker 2: financial system, then of course nations are going to figure
Speaker 2: out alternatives, and that is already happening in nascent form,
Speaker 2: and already our sanctions and the power of those sanctions
Speaker 2: they're still powerful, don't get me wrong, but already they're
Speaker 2: beginning to be diminished and less of a threat than
Speaker 2: they used to be. Now, that's probably a good thing
Speaker 2: for the world, but if you're an American president and
Speaker 2: you're interested in preserving American empire, not such great there.
Speaker 1: It's a disaster. And yeah, I mean ninety eight that
Speaker 1: makes a lot of sense. Sure where else are you
Speaker 1: going to go in twenty twenty six. Nope, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of different avenues that you can go through, and
Speaker 1: if you're willing to sit there and to suffer, which
Speaker 1: ultimately that's what happened. The Iranians were like, Okay, we're
Speaker 1: going to take a massive hit. People are going to starve,
Speaker 1: people are going to be poor, but at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, we're going to hold out for victory.
Speaker 1: We're literally under consistent bombing and attack. This is an
Speaker 1: absolute war of survival. And as all regimes that are
Speaker 1: under that exact type of pressure, they did not buckle,
Speaker 1: They got stronger, they held out for potential terms, and
Speaker 1: we eventually had to bend the knee. This is how
Speaker 1: things were going to work out. As you said, by
Speaker 1: the way, I think this is a good thing. This
Speaker 1: actually is a healthy dynamic. But this is why it
Speaker 1: is so intolerable for Israel, because if we treat Iran
Speaker 1: like a normal country, that erases their regional hegemony over
Speaker 1: the entire world. That erases the fact that we now
Speaker 1: have to balance these different interests. And you know, I
Speaker 1: made this point with doctor Parsi. Iran's GDP is only
Speaker 1: one hundred billion less than the entire nation of Israel. Now, granted,
Speaker 1: Israel is a much higher GDP per capita, but there
Speaker 1: are plenty of small high GDP per capita nations which
Speaker 1: overall GDP don't make them particularly important to the rest
Speaker 1: of the world. You have Iran here, which unsanctioned and
Speaker 1: reconstructed with that three hundred billion, if they're able to
Speaker 1: sell oil into the global market to export, you know,
Speaker 1: any of this and then use it to invest twenty
Speaker 1: five years from now, between the strait of hormones and
Speaker 1: the strength of their economy, this is going to be
Speaker 1: a geopolitical not maybe not powerhouse, what regional power. Like
Speaker 1: Robert Pape has consistently said, and he really deserves you know,
Speaker 1: he's the first person who really gave me the vision
Speaker 1: of this framework. He's right, you know, between the power
Speaker 1: of geography and then their ability to export this amount
Speaker 1: of oil. Not to mention you know, look, they have,
Speaker 1: as the neocons always said, there's a lot of intellectual
Speaker 1: capital that's locked up in Iran. If they have the
Speaker 1: ability over the next twenty five years to operate as
Speaker 1: a normal nation, there is no reason that they will
Speaker 1: not become massively more economically and strategically important to the world.
Speaker 1: And just to show the power of their bargaining chip. Finally,
Speaker 1: you know, everybody, I have. The number one chirp that
Speaker 1: annoys me is people say you said oil was going
Speaker 1: to hit two hundred. I'm like, sorry, I didn't foresee
Speaker 1: that China would cut forty percent of all of its
Speaker 1: imports for the first time ever in human history. I apologize,
Speaker 1: Thank you. Also, you should be thinking, so you should
Speaker 1: be happy I was wrong, and you should thank China
Speaker 1: for having better evs and for a shit ton more
Speaker 1: oil reserve than we do. But we also kept pointing
Speaker 1: to one thing, the strategic petroleum reserve, and we're like, hey,
Speaker 1: all these oil executives say another month or two of
Speaker 1: this is gonna be a real problem. And what did
Speaker 1: everybody say, Oh, you're wrong, it's not happening. Look at
Speaker 1: the delusional traders on Wall Street. Well, same power in
Speaker 1: the truth. Here's Trump saying we had four weeks until
Speaker 1: every strategic petroleum reserve ran dry. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4: Also, we run out of reserves in about four weeks.
Speaker 4: You know, there are reserves all over the world, and
Speaker 4: we would really run out, and there'll be a time
Speaker 4: when you wouldn't be able to get it. And you
Speaker 4: want to see.
Speaker 3: Bedlam, bedlam, bedlam.
Speaker 1: That's what we're at it towards I'll get you know,
Speaker 1: Chevron Ceo all Rory. I want to really, these people
Speaker 1: deserve credit. They were not incorrect. All they did not
Speaker 1: foresee was China having one of the world's largest strategic
Speaker 1: petroleum reserves and massively cutting their energy imports, which I
Speaker 1: will just say nobody literally could have foreseen that except
Speaker 1: for the CCP, if China had continued to import oil,
Speaker 1: the current estimate is oil would have been over one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty to one hundred and seventy dollars a
Speaker 1: barrel now here. Whenever it comes to the strategic reserve,
Speaker 1: they have access to the ex because the data is
Speaker 1: all out there. We can all see, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: lowest level since nineteen ninety eight, next week, the lowest
Speaker 1: level since nineteen eighty four. Were like, well, it's not
Speaker 1: that much oil there, and then when they do, we
Speaker 1: know how much that we produce on a daily basis,
Speaker 1: We have no slack in the system. We know what
Speaker 1: direction that's going to go. Same here from Trump, we
Speaker 1: would have run out of oil and it would have
Speaker 1: been bedlam. So the basic reality is that Iran's strategy
Speaker 1: was correct, and that fundamentally the weapon of the Strait
Speaker 1: of Hormoves will remain for all time a part of
Speaker 1: the Iranian playbook, and it should be from their perspective.
Speaker 1: We can either change that by occupying their nation and
Speaker 1: taking hundreds of thousands of casualties, or we can pay
Speaker 1: them and we can just live together. I choose the latter.
Speaker 1: I think most people do too.
Speaker 2: You know, it's it's very interesting to hear Trump say
Speaker 2: this to say the least, because I mean, this is
Speaker 2: what the Iranian bet was right. They bet that we
Speaker 2: could not take the economic pain that they could, and
Speaker 2: that it would hurt us more and it would force
Speaker 2: us to come to the table and give them the
Speaker 2: terms that they had long been seeking. This is confirmation
Speaker 2: that they were correct, that that bet ultimately paid off.
Speaker 2: You know, all the propaganda of FDD and others who
Speaker 2: were saying, oh, if you just if we do a blockade,
Speaker 2: if they're blockade, they're going to completely collapse. Remember that
Speaker 2: they were saying, oh, their oil wells are going to
Speaker 2: explode and they're going to completely collapse in days. Obviously
Speaker 2: that did not happen. And so here you have Trump
Speaker 2: acknowledging the reason for the timing of this deal is
Speaker 2: because we ran out of runway. We were weeks away
Speaker 2: from what he describes as bedlam, because we were running
Speaker 2: too low on the strategic petroleum reserve. We weren't the
Speaker 2: only ones the whole world's ability to absorb this extraordinarily
Speaker 2: truly historic level of an energy shock that was within
Speaker 2: days to weeks of coming to an end, and so
Speaker 2: that's why he was so intent on getting this deal
Speaker 2: now because we were out of time.
Speaker 3: There was another very interesting colm.
Speaker 2: We didn't pull it, but I think it was a
Speaker 2: lot of things he said were just like very revealing
Speaker 2: of what was going on in his head as he's
Speaker 2: watching all of this unfold. And we know how much
Speaker 2: he watches the stock market and how much market manipulation
Speaker 2: was a part of the entire strategy this whole time along,
Speaker 2: and he said, like, look, I observed that when there
Speaker 2: was talk of peace, the stock market went on, and
Speaker 2: when there was talk of war, the stock market went down.
Speaker 2: And the markets are that they're more genius than any
Speaker 2: person on the entire planet. So the markets are wise
Speaker 2: and all knowing. So that sent me the message of hey,
Speaker 2: I better get to peace because that's what the stock
Speaker 2: market wants. I think that was genuinely an influential part
Speaker 2: of his thinking, was just this very simplistic, oh piece
Speaker 2: good war bad as judging by the response from the market.
Speaker 2: So I thought that was very revealing as well. You know,
Speaker 2: all that being said, I just want to again sound
Speaker 2: a note of caution, you know, I'm just reading the
Speaker 2: headlines right now in Haretz. You've got Israel holding negotiations
Speaker 2: with the US as it seeks to continuous deployment of
Speaker 2: troops in southern Lebanon. One person was killed in an
Speaker 2: Israeli drone strike in a town in southern Lebanon's Navitia district,
Speaker 2: according to a local channel.
Speaker 3: So you still have Israel agitating here.
Speaker 2: Netnyahu's entire entire political career is truly on the line.
Speaker 2: Israel feels that this is existential. We're going to show
Speaker 2: you some of the continued freak count from their allies here,
Speaker 2: as well as some domestic you know, intense supporters of
Speaker 2: net Yahoo for example, who are just absolutely losing their minds.
Speaker 2: They will do whatever they can to undermine this. And
Speaker 2: Trump is very sensitive. His ego is very sensitive. You
Speaker 2: know that he could wake up today, see news coverage
Speaker 2: she doesn't like, and go back to banging the drums
Speaker 2: of war.
Speaker 3: None of this is stable.
Speaker 2: The other thing I will just say on the politics
Speaker 2: of it is, you know, when Biden withdrew from Afghanistan,
Speaker 2: there's this It's not exactly the same, but it is
Speaker 2: a bit of a similar moment of acknowledging the reality
Speaker 2: of this as a failed war. We've been here for decades,
Speaker 2: we didn't accomplish anything. Now is the time to pull
Speaker 2: the plug. What we're going to stay there forever. That
Speaker 2: was basically the reason for the Afghan withdrawal was there
Speaker 2: is not going to be a good time to do this,
Speaker 2: so we're just going to do this and acknowledge the
Speaker 2: reality that is in front of everybody's eyes. People leading
Speaker 2: up to the withdrawal supported it overwhelmingly. If you pulled
Speaker 2: the American people we looked at these polls, they would say, yes,
Speaker 2: we should.
Speaker 3: Get out of Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: Then it happened, and it became the single most devastating
Speaker 2: blow to Biden's presidency, the reason being because there was
Speaker 2: such a united front across all media apparatus. There were
Speaker 2: very big again credit to ro Connie was one of
Speaker 2: the only ones who was willing to go out and
Speaker 2: defend Biden and his withdrawal from Afghanistan. There was such
Speaker 2: a blanket condemnation then, of course, like the horror of
Speaker 2: American service members being killed, the mess of all that
Speaker 2: surely did not help anything. Although I don't know that
Speaker 2: there ever would have been a way that this could
Speaker 2: have gone completely smoothly. It really was like the death
Speaker 2: knell of his presidency. And so even though Trump here,
Speaker 2: if this goes through, if we get to peace, etc.
Speaker 2: I mean, the fact that he brought us into war
Speaker 2: to begin with was an utter and complete disaster. And
Speaker 2: the acknowledgment of the reality of our losing this war,
Speaker 2: which is what happened.
Speaker 3: We lost the war.
Speaker 2: And what that means, what we're going to have to
Speaker 2: give in exchange for acknowledging that reality would be a
Speaker 2: death now for Trump's presidency. The way that the Afghan
Speaker 2: removedstra was from Biden.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it's like ending a war which you shouldn't
Speaker 1: have been in the first That's why even navigating is
Speaker 1: just so difficult. Right you want to be like, wow,
Speaker 1: thank you for your strategic wisdom. It's like, well you
Speaker 1: got us into this damn message.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're the reason that the straight of hormans were
Speaker 2: closed in the first way.
Speaker 1: Right, and yeah, what it is actually thank god gas
Speaker 1: just hit three ninety nine a gallon nationally.
Speaker 4: Good.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm happy it was to fifty. So okay,
Speaker 1: you know it's like, are we going to are we
Speaker 1: going to celebrate things. No, that's why instead of Trump,
Speaker 1: I'm just going to attack the people who are attacking
Speaker 1: the deal. That's going to be kind of my where
Speaker 1: I'm at. But yeah, you're not wrong. A lot of
Speaker 1: people are not going to forget because it's not like
Speaker 1: things were all peachy here in the US even before
Speaker 1: the US went to or with the run last thing.
Speaker 1: Matt Stoler had a good tweet months ago where he said,
Speaker 1: I'll believe that a deal is real when Trump starts
Speaker 1: praising the Iranians in a vaguely homosexual manner and his
Speaker 1: nascent dude crush is We're very on display, not necessarily
Speaker 1: to the Iranians here, but to a lot of the
Speaker 1: Arab allies who helped cement this piece deal. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen a six.
Speaker 7: Yes, we're a.
Speaker 4: Nice looking person.
Speaker 7: Is he from your gun?
Speaker 4: Is he from your gun? Absolutely?
Speaker 6: No, he's got such.
Speaker 4: A nice way about him. My people is they're so mean?
Speaker 7: Look at.
Speaker 1: He cared for No, I can't him.
Speaker 4: I could put him in a movie right now, go ahead.
Speaker 4: He's a very tough Negotiator's one of the toughest act
Speaker 4: So you look at this man, I'll give you a lesson.
Speaker 4: He's the most beautiful looking man. He looks so nice.
Speaker 4: He's like an angel, but actually he's a tough He's
Speaker 4: a killer. I don't want to he's that killer. He's
Speaker 4: as tough as a couple, but he looks so good,
Speaker 4: so he gets you by surprise. So he was in
Speaker 4: a hotel and I met him, and we fell in love,
Speaker 4: deeply in love. And he didn't even want to.
Speaker 1: The last person's talking about there as president of like
Speaker 1: one of the most brutal dictators.
Speaker 2: He's like, I stayed longer as long as I was
Speaker 2: supposed to.
Speaker 3: We fell in love.
Speaker 2: So my theory of what happened here that really clinched
Speaker 2: the deal in the end, and you know, led to
Speaker 2: Trump's capitulation on some key concessions. As he saw the
Speaker 2: Iranian men's national soccer team and was like at these
Speaker 2: lit these big, strong guys and some better looking to
Speaker 2: Tom Cruise, and he was like, give them what they want.
Speaker 2: They want to do a little nuclear Richmond, why not?
Speaker 2: They want their money back? Who could blame them? Give
Speaker 2: them their money back. I think I think that's what's
Speaker 2: really going on behind the scenes. There was there was
Speaker 2: a chart on Twitter that said, like, as Trump's dementia
Speaker 2: level rises, also his blatant bisexuality rises in tandem.
Speaker 3: So that might be.
Speaker 1: What's going on here, certainly something. All right, let's get
Speaker 1: to the vance situation. Turning now to this bizarre situuation
Speaker 1: in the Maga neocon world where all of these pathetic
Speaker 1: cowards do not have the balls to actually say Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: you made a bad deal. And so instead it's like
Speaker 1: the good czar and the bad boyars. They have to
Speaker 1: go and find who that bad boyar is. Here it
Speaker 1: is now the vice president who is manipulating and controlling
Speaker 1: things behind the scenes. Here is Ben Shapiro on Fox
Speaker 1: News making this case. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: I've said many times the President deciding to go into
Speaker 7: Iran and to hit nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer
Speaker 7: and then to go after Iron's ballistic missile facilities and
Speaker 7: nuclear facilities Army, Navy, and Air Force in this current
Speaker 7: operation was the signal act of political bravery, perhaps of
Speaker 7: my lifetime. With that said, this MoU appears to be
Speaker 7: just from the text, a disaster that does not achieve
Speaker 7: any of the actual signal goals that were set by
Speaker 7: the administration at the beginning. There were effectively five goals
Speaker 7: that were set by the administration at the beginning when
Speaker 7: it was ending the nuclear program not just nuclear weapons,
Speaker 7: no nuclear Richmonds, Zeroon Richmond that is not in the deal.
Speaker 1: Ballistic missiles ended.
Speaker 7: That is not in the deal, and the President today
Speaker 7: suggested that ballistic missiles should actually continue to be held
Speaker 7: by the Iranians because the Saudis our allies also hold
Speaker 7: ballistic missiles. Then you have the support of terrorism that
Speaker 7: is not part of the deal. Anything that looks like
Speaker 7: an attempt to end terrorism, a permanent opening of the
Speaker 7: straight ofform moves toll free.
Speaker 1: Not only is that not in the deal, the deal.
Speaker 7: Appears to have a provision allowing Iran and Oman to
Speaker 7: attempt to toll the straits after sixty days, and then
Speaker 7: finally the idea that Iran would receive some sort of
Speaker 7: sanctions released after all of those things happen, we are
Speaker 7: already seeing from day one relief in their ability to
Speaker 7: ship oil out of Iran. In my opinion, the Vice
Speaker 7: President of the United States, the chief negotiator on this
Speaker 7: particular project, has not well served the president.
Speaker 1: He has not well served the president he served. Maybe
Speaker 1: consider the possibility Trump who signed it, can read can
Speaker 1: we accept that possibility? Thus, maybe it's Donald Trump's deal
Speaker 1: and you don't have the stones to say, hey, Trump,
Speaker 1: you made a bad deal. About this is It's like
Speaker 1: he's like this infallible, Like literally, it's the czar is infallible.
Speaker 1: Only the people around him who are bad. But the
Speaker 1: irony of all of this is is that when Talker
Speaker 1: and a few others remember when of the war breakout
Speaker 1: and they were like, well, Israel drug us into a war?
Speaker 1: They're like, Donald Trump is the wisest, most independent, most
Speaker 1: singular leader in to say he is controlled, manipulated, in
Speaker 1: fact preposterously discussing, insulting. Can anybody look at the mighty
Speaker 1: President Trump and say he is controlled? And now now
Speaker 1: he's just a weak is like he's not just being
Speaker 1: all led by his advice. Let me give you my
Speaker 1: other personal favorite, Will Chamberlain. You know we've had him
Speaker 1: here on the show. You know him, and I you know,
Speaker 1: I used to like the guy. But the guy was
Speaker 1: a huge defender of this deal today says that we
Speaker 1: have the text, the deal is absolutely terrible. There's no
Speaker 1: getting around it. The text gives Iran his huge immediate
Speaker 1: financial benefits and in exchange the straight nothing else. There's
Speaker 1: what he said on February eighteenth, twenty twenty six. You
Speaker 1: do not have more insight into what America should do
Speaker 1: visa vi irn than Donald Trump, jd Vance, Mark or
Speaker 1: Ruby and Pete Hegstath. You just don't let them cook.
Speaker 1: I agree, let them I agree, let them cook. Cross
Speaker 1: the plant? Am I right? You know that cross the plant?
Speaker 1: That sounds like pannican behavior.
Speaker 2: Some people who are out there doing the trust the
Speaker 2: plan though, like some like they're trying to imagine some
Speaker 2: four D chess where you know, this all ends in
Speaker 2: and and look, it may be the case that we
Speaker 2: end up going back to it, but it.
Speaker 1: Won't be forty chess. It'll just be as real.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly exactly, but no, I mean, this has been
Speaker 2: a consistent theme since the first Trump administration. Then I
Speaker 2: remember hearing all about how, oh it's Kushner's fall, that
Speaker 2: you know Trump is doing X or Y or Z
Speaker 2: that we don't want him to do. It reminds me
Speaker 2: too of so John Pedorance is in total melt atys
Speaker 2: human watermelon is and it's kind of it's very enjoyable
Speaker 2: because he's telling the truth about something like he's saying.
Speaker 3: Things like, I don't know why we even went into
Speaker 3: this word.
Speaker 2: It's like, yeah, me neither, why did we you know,
Speaker 2: at the urging of idiots like you. But in any case,
Speaker 2: he said this extraordinary thing about how he was like, look,
Speaker 2: what this all comes down to is the truth of
Speaker 2: the matter is Trump is corrupt. And when he was
Speaker 2: doing you know, the the Iran war and doing the
Speaker 2: bigging of Israel, that wasn't because of his corruption.
Speaker 3: That was his genuine view.
Speaker 2: But now the corruption is taking hold, just completely ignoring
Speaker 2: the whole Miriam Addelson of the situation, or the way
Speaker 2: that you know, whit Coffin, Kushner and the Trump family
Speaker 2: are like completely invested in the entire region, et cetera.
Speaker 2: So but now now that he's doing something that Pudoritz
Speaker 2: does not want him to do, now it's the corruption
Speaker 2: that's really driving the train. It really is incredible to see.
Speaker 2: But you know, the jd Vance thing is significant politically
Speaker 2: because in a sense, you know, I think that they
Speaker 2: are correct to politically correct to hone in on JD
Speaker 2: Vance avoid the direct criticism of Trump because you know
Speaker 2: howth and skinty is. And Trump himself said that, Hey,
Speaker 2: if this deal doesn't work out, you know, I'm going
Speaker 2: to blame I'm going to blame the vice president. I'm
Speaker 2: going to say that it was all his fault. And
Speaker 2: like many things that he uttered yesterday, I think on
Speaker 2: that he was telling the truth.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and take a listen.
Speaker 6: Why not stick around for the signing ceremony with this
Speaker 6: Iran piece deal?
Speaker 1: Might you might?
Speaker 4: Yeah? I might, But I'd rather this is a memorandum
Speaker 4: of understanding. It's very important, but it might not be
Speaker 4: the kind of a document that I should be showing.
Speaker 6: There's some element to this where you send the vice president.
Speaker 6: If it works out, great, you look like a genius
Speaker 6: for sending him, and if it doesn't work out, it's
Speaker 6: the vice president.
Speaker 5: I like that idea.
Speaker 4: Issue Well, this way, if it works out, I'm going
Speaker 4: to take the credit. If it doesn't work out, I'm
Speaker 4: blaming JD. You better be careful, JD. He should have
Speaker 4: turned his plane around and get the hell out of here.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I like that idea. I think it's a good idea.
Speaker 2: It's very interesting to want to mark Rubus face throughout
Speaker 2: this entire press gouference, by the way, But no, I
Speaker 2: mean when it was war and Trump is threatening to
Speaker 2: kill the entire civilization and all these sorts of things,
Speaker 2: Marco Rubio was very much on the you know, he
Speaker 2: was on the upswing, and he was put out to
Speaker 2: the media and he was a lot of the public face.
Speaker 2: Now that there's an attempt at this memo of understanding
Speaker 2: and negotiations towards a peace deal, jd Vance has been
Speaker 2: on like three thousand news programs.
Speaker 1: I'm just briefing the press this morning.
Speaker 2: Oh is he And I just got a notification on
Speaker 2: my phone that he did one.
Speaker 3: With Russ Dalzad. He was on with the Ladies at
Speaker 3: the View, he was over Fox News.
Speaker 2: I mean, he really is being made the face of
Speaker 2: this thing. And so I think there is some truth
Speaker 2: to Trump's quip there that you know, oh, if this
Speaker 2: doesn't go well, I'll just blame JD. Vance And I
Speaker 2: think you know that will that will allow the neo
Speaker 2: cons to attack the deal without getting into Trump's bad graces. Look,
Speaker 2: I mean it's a similar strategy to what Joe Kent employed.
Speaker 2: You know where he was, but he tried, you know,
Speaker 2: he went out of his way to be like, oh,
Speaker 2: the only person who could get us down of this
Speaker 2: bind is the magnificent Donald Trump, you know. I mean
Speaker 2: he understood that Trump's ego is very very fragile, and
Speaker 2: so if you're going to, you know, continue to have
Speaker 2: any sort of standing with him, you have to protect
Speaker 2: the ego at all costs. And so they're doing their
Speaker 2: version of that of well, who can we identify that
Speaker 2: we can pick on who Also, by the way, you know,
Speaker 2: Ben Shapiro and JD. Vance have other ideological differences that
Speaker 2: Shapiro would you know, are happy, happy to go after JD.
Speaker 2: Vance and make him the potential fall guy if this
Speaker 2: thing comes apart, which is very very well made.
Speaker 1: This is part of the issue with Trump. He doesn't
Speaker 1: want to actually take credit for anything. I mean he
Speaker 1: literally says it out loud. So in some ways you
Speaker 1: could just say, you know, like he literally said, He's like, well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't worry. If it works out, I'll take credit.
Speaker 1: If it doesn't, then I'll blame JD. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think JD has made the calculation. He's like, look, I'm
Speaker 1: going to be the face of this thing. Nobody else
Speaker 1: will try to sell it. You know to the pre
Speaker 1: ware you're gonna have rubios. Rubio went out and sold
Speaker 1: the war. How did that work out? It actually worked
Speaker 1: out well for me because he's the only person who
Speaker 1: told the truth. The day after the war. Remember, well,
Speaker 1: we had to attack Iran because Israel was going to
Speaker 1: attack them, and they were and there's nothing that we
Speaker 1: could have done to stop them. So we went into
Speaker 1: the war because of Israel. He literally said it.
Speaker 2: So, look, did you hear Hillary Clinton's comments? This is
Speaker 2: which ones well there she said a lot, but she
Speaker 2: said she said this thing about how oh Israel tried
Speaker 2: to get us into war with the Ran many times,
Speaker 2: and she said that they would literally tell them like
Speaker 2: the planes are on the tarmac and they'd be like,
Speaker 2: don't care.
Speaker 3: But because Trump.
Speaker 2: Is such a rube and he's got a bunch of
Speaker 2: incompetent idiots around him, and because he ultimately wanted this
Speaker 2: war and wanted to be talked into this, and was
Speaker 2: very easily talked into it because of the idea of like, oh, sir,
Speaker 2: your legacy, you'll remake them middle least, you'll do what
Speaker 2: no one else had the courage to do, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 2: But in any case, when they did the whole like, oh,
Speaker 2: we're about to go, he was like, all right, well,
Speaker 2: I guess we have to go. And that was the
Speaker 2: final thing that pushed him over the edge, is what
Speaker 2: it seems like happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I look beyond all of you know, the stupidity
Speaker 1: of even getting into all of this in the first place.
Speaker 1: I do actually think this is very important. Let's go
Speaker 1: and put d B three up here on the screen.
Speaker 1: This was Everyone should read this. The Israeli ultra hawks
Speaker 1: who feel betrayed by Trump's Iran deal. Shimon Ricklin, an
Speaker 1: anchor on the country's right wing channel fourteen and a
Speaker 1: Natsa nyathu ally ally thinks America stabbed Israel in the back.
Speaker 1: I really recommend everybody go and actually read this thing
Speaker 1: to get into the deranged minds of the Israeli right wing.
Speaker 1: But the important line there, which has a deep historical
Speaker 1: parallel to the Versailles and the Memorandum of Understanding and
Speaker 1: the fourteen points, just like you know the fourteen points
Speaker 1: by Wilson the Peace Plan, is the phrase stabbed in
Speaker 1: the back, because what is playing out right now is
Speaker 1: the exact same situation as the Germans of nineteen nine
Speaker 1: team where the home front collapsed and they had to
Speaker 1: surrender at the Treaty of Versailles, and they decided to
Speaker 1: concoct this theory where it was the German people who
Speaker 1: opposed the war from continuing because they were starving and
Speaker 1: going through like revolution, that it was their fault that
Speaker 1: the Great Armed Forces ended up having to surrender. This
Speaker 1: stab in the back theory obviously becomes intrinsic with Nazism.
Speaker 1: But in this case, the people who stabbed the Israelis
Speaker 1: in the back are us, the Americans, because we don't
Speaker 1: have the stomach for war, as they recently wrote. But
Speaker 1: why is this so dangerous? Because for them they're going
Speaker 1: to construct this unhinged new reality which you can actually
Speaker 1: read in here. And he goes, well, you know, the
Speaker 1: blockade of the blockade was working, and if America had
Speaker 1: just allowed our Kurdish militias to enter, then it would
Speaker 1: have worked. He said, the IDF General staff told him
Speaker 1: that there was an eighty percent chance of regime change
Speaker 1: if we had just let these curve. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is the same durin shit that the Germans used to
Speaker 1: say after the First World War. Oh if only we
Speaker 1: had done this one more military for.
Speaker 3: The Vietnam vet endor. Yeah, they hit in the same
Speaker 3: shit all the days.
Speaker 1: Then we could have it all could have worked out,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, but why is that so dangerous?
Speaker 1: Because when you don't reckon with reality what happens? Oh well,
Speaker 1: we all know we're stabbed in the back when back
Speaker 1: under Germany. But like the parallels here are exactly the same.
Speaker 1: Where they cannot grapple with their own failure like they might.
Speaker 1: They can only be failed. It's like the whole Trump
Speaker 1: can't fail, it can only be failed. The Israelis can
Speaker 1: never fail. They can only be failed in this case
Speaker 1: by America. Go ahead and look. Trump's approval rating now
Speaker 1: is minus twenty three in Israel. Three weeks ago it
Speaker 1: was plus sixteen. What does that tell you? Right, they
Speaker 1: want us to serve them, like that's the way that
Speaker 1: they look at it. You can actually even read throughout
Speaker 1: this entire.
Speaker 2: Think about I mean, Trump has done everything everything they
Speaker 2: truly like, they basically annexed, you know, parts of Syria,
Speaker 2: invaded and annexed parts of Lebanon. They have now sixty
Speaker 2: to seventy percent of Gaza that they've annexed. You know,
Speaker 2: he supported their genocide for a long time before we
Speaker 2: got any sort of a deal there. The deal continues
Speaker 2: to be a disaster in the Israelis are still allowed
Speaker 2: to kill with impunity Palestinians, the West Bank rampaging. Even
Speaker 2: the little bit of you know, settler sanctions that the
Speaker 2: Biden administration put on like four people.
Speaker 3: The Trump ad.
Speaker 2: Michael, Oh, we can't do that, you know, We've got
Speaker 2: to let the violent terror settlers rampage throughout and do
Speaker 2: whatever they want. He has done everything they want up
Speaker 2: to and including starting this war, which was something that
Speaker 2: the Israeli public and NETNAHUO wanted very dearly. And now
Speaker 2: they cannot handle the fact that this was a disaster.
Speaker 2: It was not only a dramatic disaster and miscalculation by Trump,
Speaker 2: it was a dramatic disaster and mixed calculation by them
Speaker 2: because all of their oh, it's going to regime is
Speaker 2: going to collapse, and they're so weak, blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: They were high on their own supply, the same way
Speaker 2: that Trump was high on his own supply. With regards
Speaker 2: to Venezuela, I want to read you this one section
Speaker 2: and Shatner I don't know why anyone ever agrees to an.
Speaker 3: Interview with this guy.
Speaker 1: Which guy's is really so he does, I guess, I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 2: They're very savvy about American medias. I'm not sure about that.
Speaker 2: But unlike the domestic political context here where Shapiro and
Speaker 2: others are going out of their way not to blame Trump,
Speaker 2: he and the Israelis are very much putting the blame
Speaker 2: on Trump, as they should, I guess, and Channer kind
Speaker 2: of plays along with him in all of this and
Speaker 2: all of his delusions. So in any case, Channer says,
Speaker 2: putting aside the merits of this war? Do you think
Speaker 2: people such as yourself and the Prime Minister misjudge Donald Trump?
Speaker 2: I know you said a joyful prayer on the air
Speaker 2: when he was elected in twenty twenty four. You must
Speaker 2: have had some sense of who this guy is, that
Speaker 2: he isn't loyal to anyone, that he had no real
Speaker 2: core values. The response, listen, I was really happy when
Speaker 2: he was elected.
Speaker 3: I admit it.
Speaker 2: I think it was good for Israel, and in the
Speaker 2: beginning it was. But today I don't know what to think.
Speaker 2: I am really in shock. Chattner goes on it's hard
Speaker 2: to fathom again playing along with him. I don't have
Speaker 2: a lot of moments like this. I don't remember someone
Speaker 2: in modern history who would go with you and do
Speaker 2: wonderful things and then suddenly disappear and go against you.
Speaker 2: So no, I'm the bad guy. I supported you, I
Speaker 2: was the good guy. How did I become the bad guy?
Speaker 2: And Iatola is the good guy? And then Shanna replies,
Speaker 2: this is why I was wondering whether you had ever
Speaker 2: observed Donald Trump?
Speaker 3: Did you know who you're dealing with here?
Speaker 2: Like, the man has no loyalties to anyone anything except
Speaker 2: what serves him right then, in that moment, and five
Speaker 2: days from now, they may be cheering him again. You know,
Speaker 2: they're negotiating over whether they continue to occupy and bomb
Speaker 2: in Lebanon, and we'll see what happens with that.
Speaker 3: We'll see what happens over.
Speaker 2: The next sixty days, whether his ego can handle the
Speaker 2: damage that it's no doubt sustaining, as so many people
Speaker 2: come out and say, hey, this is actually really it's.
Speaker 3: Not even that it's a bad deal. It is the
Speaker 3: necessary deal.
Speaker 2: But clearly it acknowledges reality that we lost and they won.
Speaker 3: Can he handle that. Can he sustain it?
Speaker 2: So the same guy may be singing his praises again
Speaker 2: and thinking their besties again, you know, in a week's time.
Speaker 2: But pretty wild to see the level of delusion that
Speaker 2: they had about who and what they were dealing.
Speaker 1: Oh it's look, they created in their own mythos and
Speaker 1: I think they really believed Neta Yahuu that he controlled
Speaker 1: Donald Trump or that he was you know, had the
Speaker 1: What did he say once behind closed door, He's like,
Speaker 1: I know exactly how to work the Americans. I mean,
Speaker 1: to his credit, he did. He actually did. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can't say that he didn't get almost ninety eight
Speaker 1: percent of what he wanted. But as usual with these
Speaker 1: rampaging lunatics is that they get what they want and
Speaker 1: it's working, and it's working, and it's working, and then
Speaker 1: they go one dice, roll too many and oh seven
Speaker 1: comes up on the table. And that's what happened here
Speaker 1: with Iran, is they actually got everything that they wanted,
Speaker 1: which is part of the why it's good because it
Speaker 1: shows you that we be absent a ground invasion, we
Speaker 1: threw everything we had at Iran and they still did
Speaker 1: not buckle in the way that they wanted, so they
Speaker 1: have nothing. That's why they need the stab in the
Speaker 1: back theory. But again I really want I want to
Speaker 1: emphasize that, you know, considering where history went after the
Speaker 1: Treaty of Versailles, at Trump signing the Versailles Memorandum, after
Speaker 1: stab in the back, it can get very, very dangerous,
Speaker 1: by the way, you know, on JPod, I've been wanting
Speaker 1: to revisit this. Do you remember this from July four,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five when Trump said the word shylock and
Speaker 1: JPod said, Trump bombed Iran? He can say shylock one
Speaker 1: hundred times a day forever as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: So I just want to know, JPod, does Trump still
Speaker 1: have your permission to say that is my most practiced
Speaker 1: shylock card of the day. Does he still have a
Speaker 1: shylock card?
Speaker 3: So beyond here that is.
Speaker 1: An open questionable to the human watermelon, JPod.
Speaker 2: One last thing I want to add in here, just
Speaker 2: as we're thinking of how unhinged the Israelis are, how
Speaker 2: existential this is for Netanyahu's political career, which I genuinely
Speaker 2: think it is, and his political opponents are all challenging
Speaker 2: him from the right, all saying like you were not
Speaker 2: hawkish enough and you need to defy the Americans, that
Speaker 2: we can't accept this weak status, as their clients state,
Speaker 2: that's how they're all posturing. It's it's very popular with
Speaker 2: the Israel public. So I do think he is in deep,
Speaker 2: deep political trouble. So I mean, what would he and
Speaker 2: what would the state be willing to do in order
Speaker 2: to you know, resecure his standing in order to go
Speaker 2: back to war that he personally sees as being existential
Speaker 2: for his political career, and I think the nation of
Speaker 2: Israel sees as being existential to their you know, their
Speaker 2: construction as they are now their particular view of how
Speaker 2: you know, they can't possibly allow any rival, They can't
Speaker 2: have anyone who could even theoretically challenge them, whether or
Speaker 2: not they have intent to do them harm or not.
Speaker 2: And in that vein, it was very unnerving to see
Speaker 2: Laura Lumer tweet that soon there will be a massive
Speaker 2: Islamic terror attack in America and the perpetrators will likely
Speaker 2: have financial ties to podcasters and those who are sowing
Speaker 2: discord for foreign nations in America. I predict there will
Speaker 2: be many casualties. Only then will it may be set
Speaker 2: in that people have been conned into supporting a terrorist
Speaker 2: syop to distract you from the threat of Islam while
Speaker 2: the enemy plotted to destroy our country from within with
Speaker 2: bottled conspiracy theories. It will likely be ten times worse
Speaker 2: than nine to eleven. Glenn Greenwald quote treated this and said,
Speaker 2: everyone understandably gets a bit nervous when an agent of
Speaker 2: Israel starts threatening, I mean predicting a major mass casualty
Speaker 2: terrorist attack in American soil just days after the American
Speaker 2: president announces a.
Speaker 3: Deal that enrages all of Israel.
Speaker 2: I wish that we could ignore the rantings of Laura Lumer,
Speaker 2: who was a genuinely mentally unwell person, but unfortunately she
Speaker 2: has influence, has been shown to have influence. You know,
Speaker 2: she's been targeting trade to Parsi, and next thing you know,
Speaker 2: you get this fruit Press article saying that he's under
Speaker 2: investigation and being threatened with deportation. So unfortunately, we cannot
Speaker 2: ignore the ravings of this lunatic, and we cannot ignore
Speaker 2: what a dangerous situation and phase we're in right now
Speaker 2: because of the Israel. For the Israelis, there are no
Speaker 2: moral red lines because they are always inherently the good guys,
Speaker 2: and so anything they do in service of what they
Speaker 2: see as their sense is inherently moral and just because
Speaker 2: they are good people, no matter what they do, their
Speaker 2: actions have no bearing on the fact that they are
Speaker 2: the permanent victims and they are the permanent good guys.
Speaker 2: So when you have a you know, bankrupts moral landscape
Speaker 2: or a non existent moral landscape such as that, there
Speaker 2: is nothing you can put off the table that they
Speaker 2: would not try to, you know, for net nyahuo to
Speaker 2: preserve as political status and for them to be able
Speaker 2: to preserve their ascendant dominance in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know, look, I don't count these people
Speaker 1: out for a second. The lower lumor thing very dangerous.
Speaker 1: The level of anger inside of Israel. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know how much you should take like the musings
Speaker 1: of various you know, random Israelis, like that's always a
Speaker 1: little bit dangerous. But if you take a look at
Speaker 1: some of their telegram channels and things like there's some
Speaker 1: unhinged stop I'm looking at one from this morning that said,
Speaker 1: this is an anonymous telegram channel of a bunch of Israelis,
Speaker 1: and they said we will join the Iranians chant of
Speaker 1: death to Americ right. I mean, two people have the means,
Speaker 1: the opportunity, the ability, and so maybe we should start
Speaker 1: worrying about sleeper cells, you know, in terms of sabage.
Speaker 2: Here's another headline from this one from the Times of Israel,
Speaker 2: which is a more like right wing outlet nen Yahoo
Speaker 2: to lean on right wing pundits pro Israel senators to
Speaker 2: influence final Iran deal. This is PERCNN plans to use
Speaker 2: pro Israel senators, the right wing media personalities to influence
Speaker 2: the terms of the final agreement. Believes a final deal
Speaker 2: with Iran will be secured, but that Tehran will not
Speaker 2: fulfill its obligations. Plans to use media figures like Fox
Speaker 2: News is Mark Levin and pro Israel politicians to get
Speaker 2: his message across to Trump. So as you were watching,
Speaker 2: you know Ted Cruz has been critical of the deal.
Speaker 2: Obviously Levin has been losing his mind as you're watching
Speaker 2: these people, just remember they may have literally gotten a
Speaker 2: call from net Nyahu telling them what to say, how
Speaker 2: to push, and how to try to manipulate the situation.
Speaker 1: Exactly right. All right, We've got a great guest standing by.
Speaker 5: Let's get to it.
Speaker 2: So we now have the official terms in the Memo
Speaker 2: of Understanding, so to dig more into those terms and
Speaker 2: what they will mean going forward. We're very happy to
Speaker 2: be joined for the first time by Muhammad Ali Shabani.
Speaker 2: He is the editor of m Watch Media. We've relied
Speaker 2: on some of their reporting. They've had some fantastic scoops
Speaker 2: over the course of this entire conflict, of course before
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 3: It's great to have you, sir.
Speaker 1: Good to see you, sir.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no problem.
Speaker 2: So let's go ahead, guys and put this first element
Speaker 2: up on the screen. This is some of your reporting
Speaker 2: of the Iranian released version of the Memo of Understanding. Here,
Speaker 2: just break down for us what you see as being
Speaker 2: some of the most significant points as we move into
Speaker 2: the sixty day negotiation period.
Speaker 8: Well, I think first and foremost, the most important thing
Speaker 8: to keep in mind is basically that this is MU
Speaker 8: is a Memoran and of understanding.
Speaker 5: This is a framework, This is a world map.
Speaker 8: This is not a finalized deal that needs to be
Speaker 8: fully implemented for next ten years, right, So the most
Speaker 8: important provision I think within this MoU is that it
Speaker 8: provides for sixty days to come to a final deal,
Speaker 8: as it's referred to within this document, and that sixty
Speaker 8: day period can be extended by mutual consent. However, there
Speaker 8: is a kind of deadline here, and the big ticket
Speaker 8: items such as how to resolve the future of the
Speaker 8: one nuclear program, those kinds of things have been mostly
Speaker 8: pushed back, and so it's going to be difficult next
Speaker 8: two months ahead, and we don't know. They may need
Speaker 8: more time, they may need less time, and they may
Speaker 8: also come to the conclusion that a deal isn't to
Speaker 8: be had. And already we're seeing a lot of people
Speaker 8: in Israel in particular.
Speaker 5: You know, there are two camps.
Speaker 8: One camp is very much outraged about this MoU and
Speaker 8: the other camp is very relaxed, saying essentially they're not
Speaker 8: going to have a final deal. So, if I were
Speaker 8: to outline anything that's very important about this MoU is
Speaker 8: the number one. It's not a final deal. In outlines
Speaker 8: sixty days for negotiations on things like the nuclear program.
Speaker 8: But apart from that, the provisions within the MoU which
Speaker 8: have starred a lot of I think contention, include things
Speaker 8: like the extent of the Iran USC squire. So this
Speaker 8: is a document between Iran and the United States. There
Speaker 8: are no other signatories to this apart from Pakistan as
Speaker 8: the mediator, and it does say essentially that this truth
Speaker 8: or this secession of hostilities extends to their allies, their
Speaker 8: respective allies in this war. And that's very important because
Speaker 8: that means essentially Israel is a party to this document,
Speaker 8: even though Israel hasn't been in the negotiations. Israel didn't
Speaker 8: signed this. And one of the provisions in paragraph one,
Speaker 8: for instance, is that Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty must
Speaker 8: be ensured and that for instance, fighting extends to for
Speaker 8: instance Lebanon as well. And this is going to be
Speaker 8: one big test I think for this for this MU
Speaker 8: one of the initial tests, which is is Israel is
Speaker 8: going to adhere to paragraph one right, it can argue that,
Speaker 8: for instance, that this still had nothing to do with this, Well,
Speaker 8: then sign this document and we're not going to put
Speaker 8: up with it. And that's going to be a big
Speaker 8: problem for Trump. I think how is he going to
Speaker 8: deal with that, especially with the domestic political firestorm it's
Speaker 8: facing right for having agreed to someone. So that's just
Speaker 8: one of the many points that I would I would fate.
Speaker 1: Very good point. By the way, this morning, you know
Speaker 1: Israeli media Netta Noa who says we are not bound
Speaker 1: by the agreement, So you know that doesn't exactly take
Speaker 1: a genius to see that one coming. Can we put
Speaker 1: to us C three where we have the draft compared
Speaker 1: to the final image up here on the screen, because
Speaker 1: there were a couple of interesting flags that we have here,
Speaker 1: our producers created this graphic where in the original draft
Speaker 1: they actually added an explicit pledge to protect Lebanese sovereignty.
Speaker 1: In Article four, they said that the US will only
Speaker 1: begin removal at signing and will fully end the blockade
Speaker 1: at a thirty day deadline. In Article five they explicitly
Speaker 1: added a line where they said that free passage will
Speaker 1: resume only for sixty days under the memorandum of understanding,
Speaker 1: which open up the door to charging tolls through the
Speaker 1: strait of horm moves between Iran and Oman. In article
Speaker 1: seven they write about sanctions, it adds a mutual pledge
Speaker 1: to quote immediately address the sanctions issue once talks start.
Speaker 1: And then Article eight, perhaps the most important, they say
Speaker 1: a same reaffirmation, but now specifically a minimum method of
Speaker 1: on site down blending under IAEA supervision of enrichment talks
Speaker 1: added to what do you make of these concessions given
Speaker 1: obviously by the United States, you know, at the last
Speaker 1: minute in the final memorandum understanding compared to the draft
Speaker 1: which had been released some twenty four hours earlier.
Speaker 8: So you know, we reported a couple of days ago
Speaker 8: on this provision and paragraph one that got to do
Speaker 8: with Lebanon specifically, it's about the again ensuring the territorial
Speaker 8: integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon, and the Aeian side kind
Speaker 8: of insisted that they had managed to get that language
Speaker 8: in there as a direct result of the Israeli a
Speaker 8: tackle on Babe. So just as a kind of quick backdrop,
Speaker 8: IWON had put out a redline saying that an Israeli
Speaker 8: attack on the Lebanese capital would warrant a direct response
Speaker 8: from Iran against Israel, this kind of triangular pattern, and
Speaker 8: I think just when the US and Evan were on
Speaker 8: the cusp of signing this MoU the Israeli's launched this
Speaker 8: attack on Baby, probably calculating, probably knowing that IWON is
Speaker 8: going to hit back, and Iran that night was loading
Speaker 8: its missiles the launchers were being loaded, and it was
Speaker 8: on that level apparently, and they managed through the direct
Speaker 8: interventional Trump a number of concessions by the United States
Speaker 8: come to an agreement and they did not fire anything
Speaker 8: at Israel that night. So that kind of gambit by
Speaker 8: Netanyah who seems to have backfired in the sense that
Speaker 8: some of these concessions that you outlined, including Lebanon specifically,
Speaker 8: appear to have been a direct result of this kind
Speaker 8: of gambit by Nathania. We're trying to god One into
Speaker 8: attacking and then for him to then strike back at
Speaker 8: Evan obviously, get that dynamic going and kind of try
Speaker 8: to derail Evan US diplomatic That's the kind of essence
Speaker 8: of of the dynamic there. I think another thing he
Speaker 8: attempted with that operation by hitting Baby was to say,
Speaker 8: especially what he's doing now that hisbolizes for US a
Speaker 8: national security issue has got nothing to do with the
Speaker 8: United States, where anything he signed with he wants is
Speaker 8: not going to apply to us. We're not going to
Speaker 8: pay attention to that. And you know, he has a
Speaker 8: right to do that, he's a leader of Israel in
Speaker 8: a leader of different country, But then he needs to
Speaker 8: also accept that there's going to be costs for that.
Speaker 8: You know, Israel's ability to fight this war realized a
Speaker 8: lot in the United States. If he doesn't want the
Speaker 8: US involved in any kind of diplomacy to do with
Speaker 8: Israel or the region, then you know it'd be difficult
Speaker 8: for him to argue, then you need to give me
Speaker 8: all the possible support, political support, military support, having actual
Speaker 8: US forces stations inside Israel, operating missile defense, et cetera.
Speaker 5: Things like that.
Speaker 8: So it's putting him in an awkward position. And having
Speaker 8: said that, I think what we need to really keep
Speaker 8: in mind again, I hate to be repetitive that this
Speaker 8: is MoU It's not a final deal. There are a
Speaker 8: lot of negotiations ahead. There are a lot of heated
Speaker 8: reactions right now to a lot of the provisions in there. Well,
Speaker 8: we need to just try to keep in mind again,
Speaker 8: is that this story, this episode, about how this language
Speaker 8: about Lebanon was inserted there. It holds an important lesson
Speaker 8: that maybe on the previous few US administrations, Israel was
Speaker 8: quite a depth playing the White House, frankly, to try
Speaker 8: to kind of threaten something and get something out of them,
Speaker 8: And now he Wan's kind of doing the opposite, right.
Speaker 8: And it's interesting that just yesterday, i think the day before,
Speaker 8: Hillary Clinton went out and essentially said that the Israeli
Speaker 8: is doing her term as secretary, saying, you know, they
Speaker 8: used to do this kind of stuff all the time,
Speaker 8: saying that we're going to attack yourn we have planes
Speaker 8: on the tarmac, and she would just say, you know,
Speaker 8: you guys, go ahead. And it'd be interesting if, you know,
Speaker 8: you know, if Trump would were to do the same
Speaker 8: thing now after this incident in Babut, if natanyaw is
Speaker 8: to say, no, I don't care what you guys gonna do.
Speaker 8: I'm gonna go ahead and bombay route. And what if
Speaker 8: Trump just says, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah, be our guest. Yeah, make sure you have some
Speaker 1: bad missiles too, to shoot down some missiles. Whenever the
Speaker 1: time comes. We wish you the.
Speaker 5: Best of luck.
Speaker 2: Lingering on Lebanon here for a moment, and the first
Speaker 2: provision where this language about quote ensuring the territorial integrity
Speaker 2: and sovereignty of Lebanon appears in the final draft. It
Speaker 2: didn't appear in the earlier draft that was leaked to
Speaker 2: American media outlets. Do the Iranians you think interpret that
Speaker 2: as a demand for the IDEF not only to stop
Speaker 2: bombing and attacking, but also to fully withdraw from southern Lebanon.
Speaker 5: So we have.
Speaker 8: Reports saying that as Bulla apparently has been informed by
Speaker 8: the audience that a final deals again keep in mind,
Speaker 8: is not the This is not the final deal, don
Speaker 8: or the final deal with the United States will entail
Speaker 8: Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
Speaker 5: And that's where.
Speaker 8: The language about territorial integrity and sovereignty come in. You
Speaker 8: can't have sovereignty with foreign forces on your soil. That's
Speaker 8: not sovereignty. Sovereignty literally is defined as monopoly on violence
Speaker 8: within your boundaries, your territorial boundaries. Right, So I think
Speaker 8: that's the that's the kind of long term gain, that's
Speaker 8: what they're looking at down the line. Again, we don't
Speaker 8: know how long these negotiations on the final deal are
Speaker 8: going to continue. We know there's a sixty day period,
Speaker 8: but it says extendable by mutual consent, right, so we
Speaker 8: don't have a clear timeline. What we do know is
Speaker 8: that the endgame is Israel needs to leave Lebanon. And
Speaker 8: you know, frankly, I'm not sure whether that's against Israeli interests.
Speaker 8: Israel spent eighteen years in Lebanon until the early two thousands,
Speaker 8: you know, and I don't think they want to stay
Speaker 8: in there. There's not really much for them there. They're
Speaker 8: just exposed right now. They're facing a lot of difficulties
Speaker 8: with things like these new drums that has Boloized firing
Speaker 8: at them on a daily basis.
Speaker 5: It's not a good situation.
Speaker 8: I think for Israel it's much more How can I
Speaker 8: put this advantageous to find Larnche air strikes, et cetera
Speaker 8: from behind the border? Right, they can do that, they
Speaker 8: can continue doing that, but having forces on underground puts
Speaker 8: them at great vulnerability, a lot of political risk and
Speaker 8: direct confrontation with.
Speaker 3: The United States.
Speaker 1: You're assuming they think rationally, well, it.
Speaker 2: Gives them of your segre, It gives them kind of
Speaker 2: an excuse to retreat without it being labeled as such.
Speaker 2: All the Americans are forcing us into it. But to
Speaker 2: your point, they've been sustaining significant losses in Lebanon, much
Speaker 2: more so than what they were expecting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Mohammed, I do want to get your reaction to
Speaker 1: C four. We can put it up here on the screen.
Speaker 1: I'm curious from your perspective, whenever you're talking with international sources.
Speaker 1: Here in the United States, we are already watching a
Speaker 1: deep state effort to try in torpedo elements of the
Speaker 1: memorandum understanding and an eventual deal. So recently, the State
Speaker 1: Department actually told Congress that Iran's oil exports are quote
Speaker 1: a primary revenue source for terrorism financing, which is hours
Speaker 1: after the US and Iran signed the memorandum that included
Speaker 1: oil sanctions relief, and Trump is downplaying Iran's behavior. The
Speaker 1: reason why this matters is if by reporting that they
Speaker 1: actually are making themselves subject to congressional review if they
Speaker 1: want to try and take some sanctions off, and their
Speaker 1: significant domestic elements here in the US, specifically headed by
Speaker 1: Mark or Rubio here obviously, which could easily technically derail
Speaker 1: the details. What I'm curious for you is how do
Speaker 1: the Iranians see the actual capability of getting across a
Speaker 1: finish line, as well as some of the other regional
Speaker 1: sources that you've spoken to.
Speaker 8: So Iran, I think the way it approaches things like
Speaker 8: sanctions relief is that it will rely heavily on waivers
Speaker 8: or presidential waivers.
Speaker 5: Okay, that's the way they look at things.
Speaker 8: Ultimately they understand that Congress is going to be difficult,
Speaker 8: and then that prior to November, Trump can push things through,
Speaker 8: but after November it's going to be much more difficult.
Speaker 8: And we're seeing one layer to that in the reactions
Speaker 8: to this MoU by the Democrats who have opposed this war,
Speaker 8: but now that there's an actual cessation of hostilities, now
Speaker 8: that there's actual document to find a way out of
Speaker 8: this conflict, they're among the loudest voices were opposed to
Speaker 8: this document, you know, screaming that Trump is handing over
Speaker 8: X and Y, et cetera. So that's kind of giving
Speaker 8: us a sense of Congressional action is going to be difficult,
Speaker 8: and sooner you get it done, the better. But the
Speaker 8: first and foremost is reliance on presidential waivers to kind
Speaker 8: of get a lot of these sanctions really through. But
Speaker 8: I think zooming out further, the number one calculation I
Speaker 8: think on the part of you one is if we
Speaker 8: manage to get a deal that is implemented, that's a win.
Speaker 8: If we don't manage to get a deal because of
Speaker 8: subterfuge or what have you. On the part of the
Speaker 8: United States, that's also a win because we managed to
Speaker 8: make clear to our own.
Speaker 5: People that we're not the problem here. Right, So in.
Speaker 8: Case there is a resumption of hoscilities, then they're going
Speaker 8: to basically be able to count on popular support that
Speaker 8: they wouldn't if it became quite clear that they're not
Speaker 8: being rational they don't want a negotiated solution to do
Speaker 8: all of this, etc. So I think the way they're
Speaker 8: approaching sanctions relief is it's a win win. We get it,
Speaker 8: we win if we don't get it because of us
Speaker 8: inaction or what when domestic politics has also a win
Speaker 8: for us. It just shows we can make a deal
Speaker 8: with the United States.
Speaker 2: What do you see as the most difficult sticking points
Speaker 2: over the next sixty days in terms of secure a
Speaker 2: final deal?
Speaker 8: So, I mean there are some It's quite interesting. So
Speaker 8: on Trump's marks rest yesterday, he was quite honest for
Speaker 8: the first time. I think he was just saying things like,
Speaker 8: you know, you can't tell you onan not to have
Speaker 8: any kind of nuclear program and then its neighbors have
Speaker 8: it and missiles and these kinds of things.
Speaker 5: I think there's going to be.
Speaker 8: A lot of pushing pull about the details of things
Speaker 8: like the enrichment, the uranium enrichment. I think that can
Speaker 8: be solved. They had a solution prior to this war,
Speaker 8: which was basically for Youwan to engage in an international
Speaker 8: constortium on its soil with a bunch of its neighbors,
Speaker 8: to basically have a multinational operation going to make sure
Speaker 8: that there's maximum transparency there's going to be any kind
Speaker 8: of diversion of the nuclear program for weaponization. I think
Speaker 8: there's a solution for that. I think when you look
Speaker 8: at things like terrorism financing, of course there's a domestic
Speaker 8: political element to it that has to do with sanctions really,
Speaker 8: but I think another element to it is an attempt
Speaker 8: to shape the framework of these negotiations. If you look
Speaker 8: at the MU, there are a couple of things in
Speaker 8: which stand out in terms of their missing.
Speaker 5: Number one is missiles.
Speaker 8: Number two is this kind of Ewan's region Alliance network.
Speaker 5: How it's going to approach that.
Speaker 8: So I think in these negotiations we're going to possibly
Speaker 8: see some attempts to put these things on a gender.
Speaker 8: But again, it's quite confusing because Trump is so openly
Speaker 8: now going out and saying that, you know, Iran has
Speaker 8: to be able to defend itself. We can't have a
Speaker 8: situation with Ivan whereby he can't defend itself. And here
Speaker 8: we're going to see the influence and possibly even the
Speaker 8: limits of what Israel and it's kind of allies in
Speaker 8: Washington can achieve because we understand that prior to this war,
Speaker 8: there was a lot of talk about the nuclear program
Speaker 8: being an imminent threat. And as soon as the war
Speaker 8: had begun and things started going wrong, we saw it.
Speaker 8: Onao go out and say, well, hold on, it wasn't
Speaker 8: the nuclear issue. In fact, it was the missiles that
Speaker 8: Evan had X amount of missiles that we're going to
Speaker 8: fight at uts, which would be the.
Speaker 5: Equivalent of a nuclear bond. Right.
Speaker 8: And now that Ewan has had this war and it's
Speaker 8: found that missiles are basically its only real means of
Speaker 8: determines and defense, they're not going to give them up.
Speaker 5: So is that going to be the.
Speaker 8: Achilles Heel of these kinds of negotiations.
Speaker 5: We don't know. We're going to find out in the
Speaker 5: next sixty days or so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because the fact Trump says something today doesn't mean
Speaker 2: you won't say something different tomorrow. We've seen these Raelies
Speaker 2: in the past be successful at incerting new red lines
Speaker 2: into negotiations that end up being poison pills, So that
Speaker 2: certainly is a possibility. I'm curious. Just lastly for me,
Speaker 2: you mentioned that there's one camp of Israelis that are
Speaker 2: really freaking out. We've shared some of their commentary on
Speaker 2: this show, so our audience will be very familiar with
Speaker 2: that viewpoint. You said, there's another faction that's kind of
Speaker 2: relaxed because they're like, heh, that's never going to be
Speaker 2: a deal, don't worry about it. We're going to be
Speaker 2: going back to war. It's going to be fine. What
Speaker 2: do you think is giving them that confidence?
Speaker 8: I think, based on what I've read the people in
Speaker 8: the security circles and intelligence, they're essentially saying that their
Speaker 8: read of you want, their understanding of you want is
Speaker 8: that these bottom lines they have on things like the
Speaker 8: nuclear on things like the regional policies such as the
Speaker 8: also the missile program, they're not going to budge on them. Fundamentally,
Speaker 8: these are points that they've been quite stubborn on for
Speaker 8: the past twenty years. They may be right, they may
Speaker 8: also be wrong because there's been one big change in
Speaker 8: you won because we've changed from one fomb and a
Speaker 8: to another. Right, there has been a regime change, just
Speaker 8: not the kind of regime change that the United States
Speaker 8: and Israel may have liked.
Speaker 5: Right, So we don't.
Speaker 8: Know what this new leadership, how pragmatic they may be
Speaker 8: on things like the nuclear issue, things like the regional
Speaker 8: alliance networks.
Speaker 5: We have no idea. So I think this is a
Speaker 5: kind of a black box right now.
Speaker 8: And again we're just going to have to wait and
Speaker 8: see and time will tell to what extent you want
Speaker 8: in the United States can be flexible in the relations.
Speaker 8: What we do know is that the former supreme leader
Speaker 8: of you want aye six year old Alifamina, he was
Speaker 8: quite stringent on certain things and now he's gone and
Speaker 8: we don't know how he wants.
Speaker 1: Bottom line may have changed. Right, really really good point. Well,
Speaker 1: Mom and SOT sightful. Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much for having me