Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an
Speaker 3: amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal.
Speaker 2: Indeed, we do a lot of big things happening here
Speaker 2: and around the world, so we'll update you on those protests.
Speaker 2: Pete Hegseth had some significant testimony in front of Congress yesterday.
Speaker 2: Moments did not go so well, so break all of
Speaker 2: that down for you. Also. Gavin Newsom, obviously seizing the
Speaker 2: moment to potentially further his presidential ambitions. Will break down
Speaker 2: the political aspect of that as well. All eyes on
Speaker 2: Israel and raw some very ominous signs that Israel may
Speaker 2: be preparing to strike Iran. Martaza Hussein is going to
Speaker 2: join us to break down those indications and what we
Speaker 2: can say about that, and where those nuclear talks between
Speaker 2: Trump and the Iranians are as of today. So break
Speaker 2: all of that down for obviously extraordinarily consequential news there.
Speaker 2: Yesterday we received word from the Trump administration that they
Speaker 2: have a China deal we'll call it. It seems like
Speaker 2: it's a framework at this point. We've got some of
Speaker 2: the loose details Scott Bessett and others answering questions, so
Speaker 2: we'll tell you what we know about that. We also
Speaker 2: have some sort of reproach mol with Elon and Trump,
Speaker 2: him posting yesterday at three or four am, which Emily
Speaker 2: and I mentioned in the show. We didn't have a
Speaker 2: chance like fully break it down. He regrets, Yeah, some
Speaker 2: those the things that he said went too far.
Speaker 1: Soccer, Yes, that's right.
Speaker 3: It appears to have been at high level broker talks
Speaker 3: between the White House and between Elon. So perhaps this
Speaker 3: is the you know, the beginning of the bromance again.
Speaker 1: We'll see, you never know.
Speaker 2: Twists and turns.
Speaker 1: We can only hope. No, you never know.
Speaker 2: And we have some big news in the New York
Speaker 2: City mayor race, first poll ever to come out that
Speaker 2: shows zoron Mom Donnie leading that race, beating Andrew Cuomo,
Speaker 2: former governor. We also have some clips from his appearance
Speaker 2: on the Breakfast Club which are pretty interesting as well.
Speaker 2: So we'll take a look at that and what that
Speaker 2: means more broadly for the Democratic Party in the country,
Speaker 2: all that good stuff before we get to any of that, Sager.
Speaker 2: Today is the last day the free month trial.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, it is the very very last day, or perhaps
Speaker 3: fortunately for those of you who have been waiting and
Speaker 3: you've just been hovering there with your mouse, you can
Speaker 3: go ahead and sign up at Breakingpoints dot com BP
Speaker 3: free see what we're all about.
Speaker 1: You can check out the trial for yourself.
Speaker 3: You get the full show, of course, the AMA access,
Speaker 3: some of the Friday Show, exclusive content, and so much more.
Speaker 3: So go ahead and sign up at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: The promo code is BP free. We deeply appreciate so
Speaker 3: many of the people who have signed up here. You're
Speaker 3: preventing Ryan from having to do what is it Hymn's
Speaker 3: ads or Jenny Parlay, the exclusive Saga DraftKings Parlay or Phantom.
Speaker 3: Can you imagine that the prize picks or any of
Speaker 3: these other jokes sports books that are out there, so
Speaker 3: ag one and all of So if you don't want
Speaker 3: to hear that, you can go ahead and sign up
Speaker 3: at breakingpoints dot com, BP free hues that promo code.
Speaker 2: All right, let's get to the protes All right, let's
Speaker 2: go ahead, get to the process best as I can tell.
Speaker 2: Protests around the country and including La pretty quiet last night.
Speaker 2: You know, the elt Mayor of La has instituted a
Speaker 2: curfew and that seems to have calm things down significantly.
Speaker 2: So let me show you a couple of clips here
Speaker 2: from Pete Hegsat's testimony for Congress yesterday. So he got
Speaker 2: asked whether the guard could be deployed in other cities.
Speaker 2: He also got asked about the the usage of the
Speaker 2: National Guard on January sixth, versus with regards to what
Speaker 2: is going down in LA. Let's go ahead and take
Speaker 2: a listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 4: Or which guard.
Speaker 5: And I'm trying to figure out if you decided to
Speaker 5: do this collectively in Kansas or any other place would
Speaker 5: you need to specify a new sort of fact pattern
Speaker 5: or do you think this order applies to any guard anywhere,
Speaker 5: any service branch anywhere. It's just like, I get your justification,
Speaker 5: we disagree about the circumstances. I'm just trying to figure out,
Speaker 5: did you just potentially mobilize every guard everywhere and every
Speaker 5: service member everywhere? I mean, create the framework for that.
Speaker 5: I understand you didn't. I'm saying, what does the document
Speaker 5: do in your opinion.
Speaker 6: Senator, if you noticed the initial order of two thousand
Speaker 6: in California was followed by a follow on order for
Speaker 6: the additional two thousand with a recognition that the situation
Speaker 6: there required more resources in order to support law enforcement.
Speaker 4: So part of it is getting ahead of.
Speaker 6: A problem so that if in other places, if there
Speaker 6: are other riots and places where law enforcement officers are threatened,
Speaker 6: we would have the capability to surge National Guard there
Speaker 6: if necessary.
Speaker 7: The National Guard was deployed here on January sixth, and
Speaker 7: that was a decision made by the Department of Defense.
Speaker 7: Do you support that decision? Do you believe that that
Speaker 7: was the right decision to deploy the National Guard to
Speaker 7: defend the capital in January sixth.
Speaker 6: All I know is it's the right decision to be
Speaker 6: deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to defend ice
Speaker 6: agents who deserve to be defended in the execution of
Speaker 6: their job.
Speaker 7: But I think it's important to know whether you think
Speaker 7: it was also important to have the National Guard defending
Speaker 7: the United States Capital when there were violent protesters here
Speaker 7: on the president's behalf. To make sure that folks know
Speaker 7: that you care about protest, whether it's against the president
Speaker 7: or on behalf of the president.
Speaker 6: Senator I was in the Washington, DC National Guard when
Speaker 6: that happened, and was initially ordered to go guard the
Speaker 6: inauguration of Joe Biden, but because of the politicization of
Speaker 6: the Biden administration, my orders were revoked and ultimately because
Speaker 6: of the politics that being played inside the Defense Department
Speaker 6: by the previous administration.
Speaker 7: But do you support the decision made on January sixth
Speaker 7: to send the National Guard here?
Speaker 6: I support the decision that President Trump made and requesting
Speaker 6: the National donors denied.
Speaker 7: So you do not Trump, you do not support, you
Speaker 7: do not guarsion to send the National Guard here to
Speaker 7: defend the capital. I think that speaks to the worry
Speaker 7: that many Americans have that there is a double standard.
Speaker 2: So obviously two significant things there. First of all, no
Speaker 2: limiting principle on the order that Trump signed. You know,
Speaker 2: hag Seth acknowledges effectively that yeah, we could deploy troops,
Speaker 2: we could federalize National Guard anywhere. And you know, really
Speaker 2: important in the context of there are planned protests this
Speaker 2: weekend on the day of Trump's big military slash birthday parade,
Speaker 2: Trump himself said that protesters, not not violent protesters, just
Speaker 2: protesters in general would be met with force. So Pete
Speaker 2: Hugseth indicating yeah, this isn't just about LA. We have
Speaker 2: the option available, and I don't think anyone would be
Speaker 2: surprised if they federalized the National Guard in other places
Speaker 2: Blue states and cities in particular. The other piece here,
Speaker 2: actually good question from Senator Chris Murphy, because you know,
Speaker 2: the January sixth riots were significantly more consequential and violent
Speaker 2: than what was going down in LA. And Pete Hegseth
Speaker 2: can't bring himself to say that it was the right
Speaker 2: decision in that instance to bring in the National Guard,
Speaker 2: but he is fully behind bringing it in in LA.
Speaker 2: So before I played the next one, what did you
Speaker 2: make of that soccer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean the Jan six element is one which
Speaker 3: always really comes back to bite them because you see
Speaker 3: a lot of the insurrectionist stuff that is being used
Speaker 3: right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, here's the thing.
Speaker 3: We weren't critical about National Guard deployment at the time,
Speaker 3: if you recall I was talking about it with Ryan.
Speaker 3: I mean, all of those images of people sleeping on
Speaker 3: the floor in parking garages and stuff that actually happened here.
Speaker 3: We were effectively occupied in Washington for three months, and
Speaker 3: it costs I don't even remember how many billions and
Speaker 3: billions of dollars.
Speaker 1: It was useless. It was a completely unnecessary thing.
Speaker 3: We have some five thousand US troops of some kind,
Speaker 3: either National guardsmen and or United States Marines that are
Speaker 3: being deployed in defense of this. The crazy thing about
Speaker 3: the Marines is that we were told that they were
Speaker 3: actually ready and had been trained and riot control and
Speaker 3: all this other stuff, but they actually not the case.
Speaker 3: They're not even in Los Angeles right now at the moment.
Speaker 3: So this is a colossal, you know, bit of expenditure
Speaker 3: for what purpose exactly. I mean, the current estimate is,
Speaker 3: what's one hundred and thirty one million dollars for a
Speaker 3: single I mean it's not even been a full week
Speaker 3: of this, so extrapolate that out more. Also, anybody who
Speaker 3: remembers covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number
Speaker 3: of like support personnel that you need to support anything.
Speaker 1: Like this is astounding.
Speaker 3: And so I think that the more that this, you know, continues,
Speaker 3: and especially if it goes national, it's really going to
Speaker 3: be I mean, a very easy talking point I think
Speaker 3: for your Democrats, and not only talk about January sixth.
Speaker 1: But also just the cost.
Speaker 3: I mean, the cost does matter here where It's like
Speaker 3: you guys are literally rolling around celebrating a five million
Speaker 3: dollar cut to Zimbabwe.
Speaker 1: It's like you just blew ton.
Speaker 3: There are times that over a weekend deployment to Los Angeles.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I think that I think we are trending.
Speaker 3: You know, if we talked about the politics and stuff
Speaker 3: like that here, and especially as violence has happened yesterday,
Speaker 3: we'll see you over the weekend whenever body's not at
Speaker 3: work or whatever. But especially if things begin to go
Speaker 3: down and you just see more militarized like images that
Speaker 3: come out of LA I do think things could turn
Speaker 3: against them.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and take a listen to this next part,
Speaker 2: because he gets asked in addition, okay, so under what
Speaker 2: authority are the deployment of the Marines in particular, like,
Speaker 2: what constitutional authority is justifying this extraordinary action with regard
Speaker 2: to federalizing the National Guard and bringing in the Marines.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and take a listen to how we
Speaker 2: response to that.
Speaker 8: Just specifically, mister secretary, what is the authority that the
Speaker 8: administration is using to deploy active duty Marines to California neighborhoods?
Speaker 4: What authority the president has constitutional authority? In order to support.
Speaker 8: Site cite the provision of the Constitution.
Speaker 4: I'd have to I'd have to pull up the specific provisions.
Speaker 6: But our Office of General Council, alongside our leadership, has.
Speaker 4: Reviewed and ensured in the order that we.
Speaker 6: Set out that it's completely constitutional for the President to
Speaker 6: use federal troops to.
Speaker 4: Defend federal law enforcement administration.
Speaker 7: I would are you prepared to authorize DHS to use
Speaker 7: drones and also to authorizing elite forces to detain our
Speaker 7: arrest American citizens?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 4: Senator, Every authorization we've provided the.
Speaker 6: National Guard UH and the Marines in Los Angeles is
Speaker 6: under the authority the President of.
Speaker 4: The United States is lawful and constitutional.
Speaker 6: They are assisting in defending the law enforcement officers, the
Speaker 6: law facilities, the execution to their.
Speaker 4: Job in the city of Los Angeles.
Speaker 2: So won't rule out their use of drones and military forces. Obviously,
Speaker 2: the first clip where he's like, I don't really know
Speaker 2: what authority. I'm sure it's constitutional, but I can't really
Speaker 2: tell you how. Not a great look there at a
Speaker 2: time when you know the authorization of this is legally contested. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Man Newsom has already stued there's actually supposed to be
Speaker 2: hearings today about whether or not this was a lawful
Speaker 2: deployment of both the Marines and the decision to federalize
Speaker 2: the National Guard over the objections of the governor of
Speaker 2: California and Sagara. I was reading yesterday, I actually didn't
Speaker 2: realize this. Marines were used in nineteen ninety two in
Speaker 2: the context of suppressing the LA riots, and some of
Speaker 2: the local cops were like, this was really not great
Speaker 2: because they're not trained for domestic law enforcement situations. And
Speaker 2: one of the anecdotes that you know, became sort of
Speaker 2: notorious coming out of that is the LAPD we're like,
Speaker 2: all right, cover us to the Marines, cover us as
Speaker 2: we go into this house, as we approach this house. Well,
Speaker 2: for law enforcement, that means okay, watch make sure no
Speaker 2: one's coming out. For the Marines, it meant light up
Speaker 2: the whole house. And people were like, what the hell
Speaker 2: are you doing. They're like, you told us to cover
Speaker 2: you to us. That's what that means. So just to
Speaker 2: give one example of how that's why you don't deploy
Speaker 2: active duty soldiers on American streets outside of truly extraordinary circumstances. Now,
Speaker 2: the La riots in nineteen ninety two, I mean it
Speaker 2: is hard to if you haven't watched anything or read
Speaker 2: the news about what went down there. I mean it
Speaker 2: was insane. Over sixty people killed, billion dollars in damage,
Speaker 2: business is looted. I mean, this was just going on
Speaker 2: and on. It was a massive, uncontrolled conflagration. And you
Speaker 2: had the governor of California who said, yes, we need
Speaker 2: the help. Yes, let's federalize the National Guard. Yes, federal
Speaker 2: garment please come in and assist us. Totally different situation here,
Speaker 2: and I think sober that is what you know is
Speaker 2: so disturbing to me is the attempt to normalize the
Speaker 2: use of military forces in a domestic law enforcement context,
Speaker 2: and to make it seemed normal to have our streets
Speaker 2: completely militarized in this way. I think you and Ryan
Speaker 2: made a great point that part of what has conditioned
Speaker 2: us for this moment also is how all of the
Speaker 2: local law enforcement in every major city, you can't even
Speaker 2: tell them apart from National Guard.
Speaker 1: It's funny.
Speaker 3: I see these clips go viral all the time. They're like, look,
Speaker 3: national Guards, and I'm like, no, that's LAPD for what purpose.
Speaker 3: I actually I wrote a piece of years ago about
Speaker 3: Ferguson and about how that actually set the tone for
Speaker 3: a lot of what we saw.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, we.
Speaker 3: Could debate Ferguson and all that, but I don't think
Speaker 3: anybody's going to be sitting around defending Ferguson PD, even
Speaker 3: in a wright or left wing level.
Speaker 1: And that's specifically because of this.
Speaker 3: That's what a lot of the conversation unfortunately has actually
Speaker 3: gotten worse. And that is really I mean, look, I
Speaker 3: think it's dangerous in this regard. And again, you know,
Speaker 3: for the White House, they really do seem to believe
Speaker 3: that they're on their strongest footing in taking on and look,
Speaker 3: I mean we did not deny here the Mexican flag
Speaker 3: stuff and all that is not good. I mean, look,
Speaker 3: there has been some property damage, but you know, we
Speaker 3: I think contextualizing the scale of this is actually genuinely important,
Speaker 3: specifically because of the reaction that they're coming here. But look,
Speaker 3: we can't deny this is something that the White House
Speaker 3: wants to pick this fight, and in some respects I'm
Speaker 3: not I'm still a bit torn. I don't know yet
Speaker 3: how the country is going to react, because you know,
Speaker 3: I did underestimate how much of this, like left wing
Speaker 3: cities out of control stuff has become not only a
Speaker 3: meme but like a shibboleth literally across the entire country,
Speaker 3: like you don't live in the city, you live in
Speaker 3: the Upper Midwest and stuff.
Speaker 1: These images are everywhere.
Speaker 3: It's literally like, you know, calling people in San Francisco
Speaker 3: and be like, are you safe? You know, they really
Speaker 3: have no familiarity at all with that, and you can't
Speaker 3: blame them probably vice versa as well. I'm just I'm
Speaker 3: still kind of trying to tease out and see like
Speaker 3: how this goes. They clearly believe that things are going
Speaker 3: to be, you know, for them, but also it's probably
Speaker 3: about tone setting as well, you know, especially ahead of
Speaker 3: this military parade here in Washington and New York City,
Speaker 3: Chicago dealt. There's been some other protests, but nothing has
Speaker 3: really risen to the level of la Yeah, perhaps that's
Speaker 3: part of it as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, let's go ahead and get to this
Speaker 2: next piece where you know, the Trump administration has been
Speaker 2: threatening to arrest Gavin Newsom. Tom Homan first, you know,
Speaker 2: said this, and then Trump said, yeah, I think he should.
Speaker 2: And Trump got another question about this yesterday whether or
Speaker 2: not he thinks that Gavin Newsom could be charged and arrested.
Speaker 2: By the way, the last time he got asked this
Speaker 2: of like, well, exactly what would be the pretext for
Speaker 2: arresting him, and he said for running for governor that
Speaker 2: was the reason. That was the reason he should be
Speaker 2: charged and arrested. So in any case he gets asked
Speaker 2: about this again, let's take a listen.
Speaker 1: Are you gonna arrest Gavin Newsom?
Speaker 9: Well, he's not doing a good job, you know, arrest
Speaker 9: What does that mean he's not doing a good job?
Speaker 1: Jim, Well, in theory, you could.
Speaker 9: I guess, you know, it's almost like a dissipation of duty.
Speaker 9: Nobody's ever seen anything like that.
Speaker 2: In theory I could, so that is where that stands.
Speaker 2: Also soccer, this week, they charged this Congresswan mac Iver
Speaker 2: with you know, crimes that could lead to seventeen years
Speaker 2: in prison and the context of that, you know, situation
Speaker 2: that unfolded outside of a federal detention facility that Ice
Speaker 2: was using in Newark, New Jersey. So you know, you've
Speaker 2: got a lot of authoritarian pieces coming together here. You
Speaker 2: have the charging this congressman. You have the threats of
Speaker 2: arrest of Gavin Newsom for existing and doing things that
Speaker 2: Trump didn't like. You have the federalizing of the National
Speaker 2: Guard over the ejections of the elected governor of California.
Speaker 2: You have the deployment of marines. You had that wild
Speaker 2: partisan speech to troops at Fort Bragg. By the way,
Speaker 2: we learned more about that. First of all, they were
Speaker 2: hand selected to make sure they had the right politics,
Speaker 2: the ones that were behind Trump, and they sold the
Speaker 2: MAGA merchandise, which is like, I mean again, I know
Speaker 2: no one cares about the before times and what things
Speaker 2: used to be like, but these are things that would
Speaker 2: just be completely out of bounds. And then you have
Speaker 2: tanks being into DC for his big birthday parade, show
Speaker 2: of force and strength, et cetera. So a lot of
Speaker 2: authoritarian elements just in your face, you know, flood the
Speaker 2: zone with them this week as we head into the
Speaker 2: weekend where there are planned significant protests they're called No
Speaker 2: King's protests that were planned across the country and.
Speaker 3: Especially here in Washington. Yeah, I'm actually curious to see.
Speaker 3: We're going to get to that in a little bit
Speaker 3: as to how the protests and the parade itself might
Speaker 3: be disrupted because of weather.
Speaker 2: But le's going to this parade. They asked them if
Speaker 2: the Republicans, and none of them.
Speaker 1: Were like, I think it's the military.
Speaker 3: I think what they're going to do is because remember
Speaker 3: the estensible purpose of the parade is the United States
Speaker 3: Army's two hundred and fiftieth birthday.
Speaker 2: So this happens aside.
Speaker 3: Whatever I will not be attending, mostly because of traffic reasons.
Speaker 3: This is impossible to get into the city. But what
Speaker 3: you have here in the Northern Virginia area, as you know,
Speaker 3: is like there's what half the United States military lives
Speaker 3: around the Pentagon. They're either going to get orders or
Speaker 3: they're going to go and so with a lot of
Speaker 3: their families, and so I think the vast majority of
Speaker 3: the people who will be there in attendance of the
Speaker 3: Grand Parade, Schill, we remember what the inspiration for this was?
Speaker 3: Is that all because five or six years ago Trump
Speaker 3: went to the Bastille Day parades in France and he
Speaker 3: was like, Hey, this is pretty cool, you know, watching
Speaker 3: tanks and all that roll down the champ dellyz And
Speaker 3: that's why he was like, Okay, we need to bring
Speaker 3: this to Washington. I'm actually surprised because it was supposed
Speaker 3: to be for America's two hundred and fiftieth birthday, which
Speaker 3: I believe is isn't that next year in.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty six?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so seventeen sive six day it would have been
Speaker 3: next year, so July fourth, twenty twenty six. But I
Speaker 3: guess he just had to have one for the two
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty birthday of the US Army, something that
Speaker 3: definitely the.
Speaker 1: US population knows quite a bit. I'm telling you, I
Speaker 1: didn't even know w with the two undred fty birthday.
Speaker 2: Well, America's birthday doesn't fall on Trump's birthday, so that
Speaker 2: wasn't going to work.
Speaker 1: Out soccer as.
Speaker 2: It's billy you one more piece here. We can go
Speaker 2: ahead and is this a vo or a sad guys,
Speaker 2: you can let me know, pretty troubling in my opinion,
Speaker 2: given the context, true social post from Trump. Let's go
Speaker 2: and put this up on the Oh, it's a side,
Speaker 2: so goll Let's go out and play this and you
Speaker 2: can take a look at the text on the screen.
Speaker 2: Let me go ahead and read this a little bit
Speaker 2: to you before we play it, because for those of
Speaker 2: you who are listening by a podcast, he says, I'm
Speaker 2: more confident than ever that in the days ahead and
Speaker 2: every generation to come, the US Army will keep glory
Speaker 2: upon glory. You will summonn inexhaustible courage, you'll protect every
Speaker 2: inch of US soil, and you will defend America to
Speaker 2: the ends of the earth in the days ahead. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's take a listen.
Speaker 1: Just the job.
Speaker 9: It's a calling and a sacred tradition passed down from
Speaker 9: father to son, brother to sister, and one generation to
Speaker 9: the next, that every hour of danger on noblest citizens
Speaker 9: have answered that call.
Speaker 4: Time and again.
Speaker 9: Our enemies have learned that if you dare to threaten
Speaker 9: the American people, American soldier will chase you down, thrush you,
Speaker 9: and cast you into Bob.
Speaker 2: All right, So that was that. In addition, Sager who
Speaker 2: pulled this it literally may ran on his parade.
Speaker 3: Yes, actually literal rain on the parade. You know, I'm
Speaker 3: an avid DC weather watcher. Here we have storm for
Speaker 3: the Capitol Weather gangret you yeah, shout out to the
Speaker 3: Capitol Weather Gang if you do live in the DMV area,
Speaker 3: they are absolutely the best threatened. The US Armises two
Speaker 3: and and fifty celebration in DC on Saturday. A slow
Speaker 3: moving Trump front may trigger late day showers and storms
Speaker 3: as the parade, concert and fireworks crowds are gathering. Morning
Speaker 3: looks mostly dry, but heat and humidity are building. I'm
Speaker 3: gonna say this, I get how in the vacuum that
Speaker 3: that truth social post and all that looks troubling, But
Speaker 3: having covered the Pentagon, the absolute vast majority of like
Speaker 3: Pentagon agid prop and stuff that they put out is
Speaker 3: like this, I get where you're coming from.
Speaker 1: Well, I do people to just know like this.
Speaker 3: Type of this is standard fair for like Obama, for
Speaker 3: for for the first Trump administrative. Basically anytime they're like, oh,
Speaker 3: the war fighters, the killers the US armies, just so
Speaker 3: people know that is what a very average US army is.
Speaker 1: Propaganda, that's the case.
Speaker 2: And you know what any of these things, well not
Speaker 2: any of them, but some of these things individually, like
Speaker 2: the military parade. Yeah, this is a normal administration and
Speaker 2: they're doing this quirpasthma. All right, I mean it's a
Speaker 2: waste of money. Like what are we doing. We're destroying
Speaker 2: the streets in DC.
Speaker 3: They really don't ate that or like shitty streets anyway,
Speaker 3: so maybe we can rebuild them properly.
Speaker 2: As not great, but isn't the end of the world
Speaker 2: no coming in the context of everything else, That's where
Speaker 2: it becomes. You know, when you see the tanks being
Speaker 2: rolled into DC at the time when they're threatening the
Speaker 2: use of the National Guard, federalizing the National Guard in
Speaker 2: cities across the country, and they're deploying active duty marines
Speaker 2: against US citizens for like incredibly protectual reasons over the
Speaker 2: objections of the elected governor of that state. And oh,
Speaker 2: by the way, they're threatening to arrest the elected governor
Speaker 2: of that state because he got elected. That's when I
Speaker 2: see things like that, and you know, they add to
Speaker 2: a picture that is to me deeply troubling. And the
Speaker 2: last thing I'm saying that then we can move on
Speaker 2: to Gavin some and how he is certainly enjoying his
Speaker 2: moment in the sun with all of this. You know,
Speaker 2: there are some there has been a pattern in this
Speaker 2: administration where it's not just this moment, it's the attacks
Speaker 2: on the universities, it's the you know, trying to bring
Speaker 2: the media to heal, it's even the use of national
Speaker 2: emergency to justify this wild terror fsham. Like, the consistent
Speaker 2: pattern in this administration has been consolidation of power, and
Speaker 2: it feels very much like we're coming to a crescendo
Speaker 2: with that. And also Soger. One other you know note
Speaker 2: of some of the contexts, which which you've gestured at
Speaker 2: before is the quote unquote Big Beautiful Bill is wildly unpopular.
Speaker 2: People see it as a giant giveaway to the rich,
Speaker 2: because that's what it is. And so they're also trying
Speaker 2: to use this moment of large scale anti ice protests
Speaker 2: to make to refashion and rebrand the Big Beautiful Bill
Speaker 2: as being about immigration. And you see Stephen Miller doing
Speaker 2: this aggressively, going after Rand and the Libertarians who are
Speaker 2: opposed to it and saying basically, if you oppose this,
Speaker 2: and you oppose border security and oppose the present's agenda
Speaker 2: on immigration, So I think that is another one of
Speaker 2: the political goals, but they are trying to effectuate.
Speaker 3: There's no question. I genuinely again, I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 3: we have polls. Yesterday we covered immigration. Trump is the
Speaker 3: strongest issue. I saw a quentnin peac poll. Roar recently
Speaker 3: showed him underwater.
Speaker 1: It's a little bit hard to believe.
Speaker 3: The numbers are a little bit too fantastical, but it
Speaker 3: wouldn't be surprised me if he's moving towards more fifty
Speaker 3: to fifty. But there's no question on the bill. I
Speaker 3: mean I flagged it from day one. I'm like, look,
Speaker 3: they're going to do it, and it's going to be
Speaker 3: massively unpopular. Yeah, there's just I mean, that's what the
Speaker 3: tax cuts and job Zac story part of it was
Speaker 3: in the first term. We're basically riding up almost the
Speaker 3: exact same timeline with the passage of the so called
Speaker 3: Big Beautiful Bill, and tying these two things together does
Speaker 3: give them a lot of cover for eventually going home
Speaker 3: and telling people what it's all about but of course America. Look,
Speaker 3: Americans are smart at least in this regard. Anytime a
Speaker 3: piece of tax legislation passes, they're like, hey, so what's
Speaker 3: in this Exactly they're like, oh, okay, got it, you know,
Speaker 3: not all much a surprise. And actually even yah, even
Speaker 3: right now, there's all these stupid fights right now, even
Speaker 3: in the Senate, to make sure that they at least
Speaker 3: strip like some of the decent parts out of the bills.
Speaker 1: So honestly, it can be a lot worse.
Speaker 2: They want to take out with like tax on tips stuff.
Speaker 3: They want to take out tax on tips or at
Speaker 3: least you know, restricted, and then even the salt cap,
Speaker 3: you know, they want to make it to lower it
Speaker 3: even more, to anger some.
Speaker 1: Of the Blue states.
Speaker 3: It's just just stuff like that where it's just preposterous,
Speaker 3: you know. But can I say this, I actually was
Speaker 3: reading about the new salt thing.
Speaker 1: It's a terrible thing. Basically, the income raise it so
Speaker 1: that people who.
Speaker 3: Are like upper middle class earners in California and New
Speaker 3: York or at least like grandfather name to a more
Speaker 3: modest thing. So it applies to the millionaires but not
Speaker 3: to upper middle class people are like Okay, I think.
Speaker 1: That's you know, relatively fun.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's not bad.
Speaker 3: I just say that I just want people to know, like,
Speaker 3: the current way that the salt thing is structured, I
Speaker 3: actually think is quite fair. They income cap it at
Speaker 3: like four hundred thousand or something, basically making sure that
Speaker 3: high property tax people in New York and California don't
Speaker 3: get double screwed. Like, I think it's fine. At the
Speaker 3: same time, we're not all shed in tears for people
Speaker 3: making three or four hundred thousand a year. My point
Speaker 3: just being that the bill, the bill itself is deeply unpopular.
Speaker 3: A lot of what is all happening with this is
Speaker 3: effectively like a gambit to distract. But you know what
Speaker 3: we will soon talk about looms over all of this
Speaker 3: is Iran, And actually that was where I would be
Speaker 3: the most worried. And this is my great hope, and
Speaker 3: I'll say it again, but you know, if there is
Speaker 3: some sort of outbreak of conflict, then I would hope
Speaker 3: that people really do take to the streets the way
Speaker 3: that they did with the war in Iraq. Don't forget
Speaker 3: millions of people took to the streets across the world
Speaker 3: to protest that war. And that is also where we
Speaker 3: could see significant you know, and the weaponization of this
Speaker 3: great so called anti Semitism machine, you know, against people.
Speaker 3: And if those two things are conflated, saying that war
Speaker 3: with Iran is bad because it is anti Semitic, that's
Speaker 3: probably where I worry most, especially with conflict on the
Speaker 3: horizon right now.
Speaker 2: Well, I do have some good news for you, which
Speaker 2: is that mister Salt himself, Josh gottheimer handed to him
Speaker 2: in the Democratic primary, came in fourth place with eleven
Speaker 2: percent of the vote, so you know, he thought he
Speaker 2: was really killing it.
Speaker 3: Well, you know that's that is those are the richest
Speaker 3: people in New.
Speaker 2: Jersey, I guess yeah, constituents showed up him, and I'm
Speaker 2: sure they'll give him more campaign funds in the future. Anyway, Okay,
Speaker 2: let's go ahead and move on to Gavin Newsom. You know,
Speaker 2: one of the interesting things here is Newsom really coming
Speaker 2: into the Trump administration kind of misread the moment with
Speaker 2: regard to the Democratic base. We talked about this before
Speaker 2: he launched his podcast, seeing okay, it's a podcast moment,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna launch my podcast, And then he had on
Speaker 2: people from the right like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon
Speaker 2: and Gavin Newsom is actually very good debater. Like I'm
Speaker 2: not a big fan of Gavin Newsome, but you have to,
Speaker 2: you know, acknowledge political TWL where it exists. He did
Speaker 2: a great job in that debate versus Ron DeSantis that
Speaker 2: was you know, very well received among the Democratic base,
Speaker 2: got a lot of attention, et cetera. So he has
Speaker 2: the chops to do it, and instead he invites on
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon and basically like lets them
Speaker 2: berate him, and he just sort of like takes it.
Speaker 2: And it's like, oh, I appreciate that. I appreciate that
Speaker 2: Democratic base. At that point, we're looking for people who
Speaker 2: are willing to fight. So that's how Bernie ends up,
Speaker 2: you know, wildly popular at the base. AOC ends up
Speaker 2: wildly popular with the bass. Jasmine Crockett has her moment
Speaker 2: and becomes you know, this national figure, et cetera. So
Speaker 2: he wildly misreads the moment. And obviously everyone knows this
Speaker 2: man has been dreaming of being president for probably his
Speaker 2: whole life, being the like sort of sociopathic individual that
Speaker 2: he is, so he misreads things at the beginning now,
Speaker 2: Trump has handed him this, you know, very large opportunity
Speaker 2: in the national spotlight to stand up to Trump in
Speaker 2: the way that a Democratic base and a lot of
Speaker 2: independent voters I think want to see and in a
Speaker 2: lot of ways, I do think he has met that moment.
Speaker 2: At the same time, other Democrats are like, I mean
Speaker 2: that Democratic Party is just so utterly pathetic. This thing
Speaker 2: sagur about how they're not sure whether they should pick
Speaker 2: this fight with Trump, and they don't know if this
Speaker 2: is the police just did might just be distractions, Like,
Speaker 2: could you just have some principle that you're willing to
Speaker 2: stand for without taking a fucking focus group, poll tested
Speaker 2: situation before you know what? Does? Like, it's so pathetic
Speaker 2: and disgusting me, and it serves Gavin Newsom because then
Speaker 2: he ends up being the only one out there in
Speaker 2: the spotlight. So, all of that being said, Harry Enton
Speaker 2: and CNN took a look at the Google search traffic
Speaker 2: and how this is all playing into Newsom's twenty twenty
Speaker 2: eight ambitions. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 10: Yeah, let's just start off. If Gavin Newsom wanted to
Speaker 10: take on Donald Trump and loves the attention he has
Speaker 10: one hundred percent.
Speaker 4: Gotte it.
Speaker 1: Take a look here.
Speaker 10: Google searches of Gavin Newsom with Donald Trump. Get this
Speaker 10: up nine thousand, seven hundred percent versus a week ago.
Speaker 10: More folks are googling Gavin Newsom's name with Donald Trump
Speaker 10: than ever before in Google searches dating all the way
Speaker 10: back since two thousand and four. Donald Trump was able
Speaker 10: to make a name for himself through The Apprentice, through
Speaker 10: all of his business adventures. He is now making a
Speaker 10: name for Gavin Newsom, who seems more than willing to
Speaker 10: relish in this fight. Should Democrats oppose Donald Trump? More
Speaker 10: among Democrats? Look at this, eighty four percent. Eighty four
Speaker 10: percent of Democrats nationwide say they want Democrats to take
Speaker 10: on Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Moore.
Speaker 10: This is not twenty seventeen anymore, where the majority of
Speaker 10: Democrats want to compromise with Donald Trump. No, they want
Speaker 10: a fighter with Donald Trump. Top chances to be the
Speaker 10: twenty twenty eight nominee. Look, it's a clown car at
Speaker 10: this particular point. All these candidates swish together. But you'll
Speaker 10: notice that one name is ahead of the rest, and
Speaker 10: that's Gavin Neussom at twelve percent.
Speaker 11: You see a.
Speaker 10: Kasu Cortes, ten Buddha Judge ten Shapiro six percent. But
Speaker 10: Gavin Newsom certainly is up there right now in terms
Speaker 10: of the candidates who are best impositioned to will get
Speaker 10: that twenty twenty eight nomination.
Speaker 2: And this is concerning to me because I'm not a
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom fan, you know, in terms of how he's
Speaker 2: governed in California. Basically, if there's a conflicts between core
Speaker 2: democratic based principles things like supporting labor unions or expanding
Speaker 2: healthcare and donors, he's going with the donor. So that's
Speaker 2: kind of the way you should understand his governance. So
Speaker 2: the fact that I think he is doing himself a
Speaker 2: lot of favors with the Democratic base, and I have
Speaker 2: to say, like has been much more responsive on social media.
Speaker 2: He really does sort of understand sour the new media
Speaker 2: ecosystem a lot better.
Speaker 1: I was talking down the prat with Ryan. I was like,
Speaker 1: look at this dude.
Speaker 3: His first interviews I see Brian Tyler Cohen and MIAs
Speaker 3: type smart right Pod Save America were.
Speaker 2: Smart for an interview by the way, Yeah he turned
Speaker 2: us down.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we tried try.
Speaker 2: You wanted to stay with the solidly liberal.
Speaker 1: It's annoying because but yeah, and we wouldn't be annoying
Speaker 1: about it. I'm just I don't know.
Speaker 2: Anyway, we'd ask them some real questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would ask him for sure.
Speaker 3: Questions, whatever we can table that. You know, Actually, Gavin
Speaker 3: staff and I back in the day actually had a
Speaker 3: decent exchange, so they should know we've I have been
Speaker 3: fair to that.
Speaker 2: He follows me on Twitter, so I thought maybe there
Speaker 2: was a right.
Speaker 3: Well, Calnia, California is our largest audience, So California, many
Speaker 3: of you are constituents of Gavin Sotel gave to listen
Speaker 3: to the people.
Speaker 1: I doubt he will.
Speaker 3: That's not exactly how the things work over there. No,
Speaker 3: I do think he's actually handling himself quite well. I've
Speaker 3: always been a newsome admirer for his sheer political talent.
Speaker 3: I think he is clowned in very unfair ways. Like
Speaker 3: I mean, I remember, I just thought there was no
Speaker 3: way French laundry would ever happen, and like, don't. I
Speaker 3: was like, there's no way that he doesn't that he
Speaker 3: gets away with this. But he survived, not only survived
Speaker 3: the recall election. Since then, is in broadly like popular issu.
Speaker 3: He understands new media, and I think one of the
Speaker 3: things I underestimated is, Look, California is a machine state.
Speaker 3: The machine produces a lot of horrible politicians. But in general,
Speaker 3: we shouldn't underestimate the governor of the large the most
Speaker 3: popular state in the entire Union.
Speaker 1: That has been a mistake.
Speaker 2: The largest economy in the world, literally one of.
Speaker 1: The largest economies in the world.
Speaker 3: I mean, people underestimated Richard Nixon for being from California.
Speaker 3: People underestimated Ronald Reagan from being from California. Like, California
Speaker 3: looms large over our politics, always has for a long time,
Speaker 3: and I think that with Gavin Newsom, that is where
Speaker 3: his sheer political talent, which was on display with that
Speaker 3: debate with Ron DeSantis.
Speaker 1: Again you can debate like, oh.
Speaker 3: Did he score a point here or there, like on
Speaker 3: the Merits, it's not really about that. It's really about
Speaker 3: his affectation. And the thing I've always said about Gavin
Speaker 3: is Gavin loves the game more than anything else in
Speaker 3: the world. He's got the black hole inside of him.
Speaker 3: That's what you need, you know, Why else are you
Speaker 3: going on Shan Hannity's show. That's nuts? Like why are
Speaker 3: you texting Sean Hannity during his live broadcast, you know,
Speaker 3: like quibbling with some of the things that Sean says,
Speaker 3: Because you have to be obsessed with yourself and you
Speaker 3: have to need that affirmation more than anything else in
Speaker 3: the world, and that you can't teach that, like you
Speaker 3: have to just be born with it. And so I
Speaker 3: really see that inside of him, and especially now, like
Speaker 3: with the way the stars are aligning, Gavin is learning
Speaker 3: you know that that Steve Mann and Charlie Kirk stuff
Speaker 3: that he was doing in the very beginning that's really
Speaker 3: not the most.
Speaker 1: Politically effect the strategy.
Speaker 3: And he will now really align himself as like a
Speaker 3: major resistance figure now. And he doesn't have the baggage
Speaker 3: that Karen Bassett. That's another critical thing. Karen is so
Speaker 3: horribly you know, just scarred by those fires. Yeah, Gavin
Speaker 3: is the real leader of the liberal resistance right now.
Speaker 11: True.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he just has more whatever than she has too. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean he Here's the thing that I'm concerned about.
Speaker 2: The Democratic base. Actually, Democratic congressional leaders are underwater with
Speaker 2: the base that is very different from Trump one point. No,
Speaker 2: they have been radicalized in a lot of regards. They
Speaker 2: are disgusted with the Chuck Schumers and Keem Jeffries and
Speaker 2: the like people who capitulated. And Gavin Newsom was very
Speaker 2: much putting himself in that camp with the way that
Speaker 2: he approached those interviews with Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon.
Speaker 2: At first, when I saw his lineup for initial podcast guests,
Speaker 2: I thought it could really benefit him if he was
Speaker 2: going to go in and really spar with them. I mean,
Speaker 2: it doesn't have to be vicious, but if he was
Speaker 2: going to get into an exchange, have these viral moments
Speaker 2: like that would have been really smart. What I'm concerned
Speaker 2: about with the Democratic base is well, they want a
Speaker 2: fighter and someone who's standing up to Trump. There is
Speaker 2: a kind of like ideological neutrality. It's not like there's
Speaker 2: they specifically want, like a particular policy agenda. They just
Speaker 2: want people who get caught fighting. And that's where if
Speaker 2: you have someone like a Gavin Newsom or a peat
Speaker 2: Boot to judge for that matter, who are good at
Speaker 2: going into spaces on Fox News and tussling with them,
Speaker 2: and you know, good at doing like the performance of
Speaker 2: standing up to Trump, and I you know, and again
Speaker 2: I hand it to gather. I think he's doing a
Speaker 2: good job in this moment of you know, standing up
Speaker 2: for California and standing up for his values, not backing
Speaker 2: down all those sorts of things. I think that, you know,
Speaker 2: that could be a you know, that could be something
Speaker 2: that a Democratic base would be interested in, even though
Speaker 2: on the merits in terms of what they offer policy wise,
Speaker 2: it's like just more of the same sort of status
Speaker 2: quo liberal type politicians. So in any case, he gave
Speaker 2: his big like sort of primetime us put this up
Speaker 2: on the screen. The New York Times analyzed this as
Speaker 2: having a twenty twenty eight subtext, which I think you
Speaker 2: would have to you know, be pretty silly and naive
Speaker 2: not to see. They lead this off with when Gavin
Speaker 2: Newsom stepped in front of a camera Tuesday evening. He
Speaker 2: was a Californian governor addressing his constituents. But by the
Speaker 2: time mister Newsom was finished, it was clear the governor
Speaker 2: is speaking not only to his state, but to his
Speaker 2: country and his beleaguered party. To Democrats looking for direction
Speaker 2: in leadership. Mister Newsom used one of the highest profile
Speaker 2: moments of his political career to lay out the threat
Speaker 2: that He argued President Trump posed the nation and how
Speaker 2: Americans should resist it, and he suggested he was the
Speaker 2: man to lead that fight. Democracy is under assault right
Speaker 2: before our eyes. Mister Newsom said, the moment we have
Speaker 2: feared has arrived. And as I said before, the fact
Speaker 2: that other Democrats are not so much stepping up to
Speaker 2: the plate to defend California in an aggressive way, and
Speaker 2: you know, are wary of picking this fight with Trump
Speaker 2: and whatever it really has allowed him to grab and
Speaker 2: capitalize on the moment. And then to the point of
Speaker 2: the way he's using social media in a much more
Speaker 2: sort of direct way, tussling with with Steven Miller and
Speaker 2: other various Trump officials, even going back and forth with
Speaker 2: you know, sort of like influencer types on the right
Speaker 2: and asserting, you know, his position in all of these
Speaker 2: things in real time. He also posted this this star
Speaker 2: wars I guess not meme, but of reading the Emperor,
Speaker 2: reading one of Trump's stories of gundagalism.
Speaker 4: Of this.
Speaker 12: Once great American city, LUs Angeles has been invaded and
Speaker 12: occupied by illegal aliens and criminals. Now violent insurrectionist moves
Speaker 12: are swarming and attacking our federal agents to try and
Speaker 12: stop deportation operations.
Speaker 2: Scacer thought it was kind of grant. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I thought I was gonna.
Speaker 1: Political Star Wars is grant.
Speaker 3: I had to listen to love Star Wars all right,
Speaker 3: like we were talking earlier, and ors awesome. Tony Gilroy's
Speaker 3: absolutely good status. But unfortunately when politicians try to invoke
Speaker 3: the Evil Empire or any of that stuff, it just
Speaker 3: it absolutely doesn't work for me. I will also acknowledge
Speaker 3: it's the most basic level of like memification on the
Speaker 3: Internet when talking about big stuffs, So I have to
Speaker 3: only assume it will largely go over well with a
Speaker 3: lot of people. You can always assume that you know
Speaker 3: the worst in terms of in terms of his popularity,
Speaker 3: I do think I think broadly him at Pete Boodha
Speaker 3: Jedge are handling himself very well. It kills me to say,
Speaker 3: it kills me to say to watch these two people.
Speaker 3: But I didn't have enough of a chance to talk
Speaker 3: about Buddha Judge on Flagrant.
Speaker 1: I mean, he did well, like it got millions of views.
Speaker 3: There's a viral video of him where Andrew's like, so
Speaker 3: what do you want He's like, I want you to
Speaker 3: be able to get up in the morning and be able.
Speaker 1: To go to it.
Speaker 3: I mean, it was everywhere, and you know, it led
Speaker 3: to there's a New New York Times profile about some
Speaker 3: of the broadcasters or whatever. But if mentions that interview
Speaker 3: with Andrew Schultz specifically, we had Bernie Sanders that was
Speaker 3: more recently there as well, very.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean. These these are the people
Speaker 1: who understand.
Speaker 3: The meat the current media environment, and they also they
Speaker 3: want to play.
Speaker 1: They're willing to take risks.
Speaker 3: That's something we talked about yesterday on the theo Von segment.
Speaker 3: It's like, just take a risk, like yeah, you know,
Speaker 3: Schultz was making like hooker jokes at one point. Buddha
Speaker 3: Judge is clearly uncomfortable, but it's like as part of it,
Speaker 3: you know, and a lot of people just don't want
Speaker 3: to sit there and they don't want to take it.
Speaker 3: But you know, with risk comms reward, Trump showed us
Speaker 3: that's a very effective communication strategy and it's definitely one
Speaker 3: that should be cemented now at this time.
Speaker 1: So well, yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Don't know, both of them have that annoying ass Obama cadence,
Speaker 2: which to me should be just qualifying from the jump.
Speaker 2: Just on that on that alone. Let alone there, you know,
Speaker 2: status quo neoliberal politics. But I mean, I will, I
Speaker 2: will put that in there. Especially with Gavin, there is
Speaker 2: just something about him that reads used car salesman. Is
Speaker 2: he does read just like typical slimy politician. That's just
Speaker 2: the vibe you get from I've always thought he looks
Speaker 2: like a vampire from a movie. And so you know,
Speaker 2: it's not a lock in. But he's certainly using this
Speaker 2: moment to the greatest effect that he possibly can to
Speaker 2: bolster his chances in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, we're very excited now to be joined by Mortaza Hussein.
Speaker 3: He is a national security and foreign affairs correspondent for
Speaker 3: Drop site News. Great friends of the show, it's good
Speaker 3: to see you man, Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 11: Thank it seious.
Speaker 1: All right, well you.
Speaker 3: Join us at a very very consequential time, my friend,
Speaker 3: let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: We have major developments across the Middle East. CBS News
Speaker 3: and multiple other outlets reporting quote Israel is poised to
Speaker 3: launch an operation on Iran so mas. What we know
Speaker 3: so far from inside the administration is that this is
Speaker 3: being sold allegedly as Israel is poised to strike Iran
Speaker 3: without US approval, But it appears, of course the US
Speaker 3: at least has some forewarning its own intelligence, perhaps even
Speaker 3: at diplomatic channels. Things are all over the place in
Speaker 3: terms of what's actually happening. There has been widespread now
Speaker 3: evacuation or at least voluntarily evacuation of the departure of
Speaker 3: dependence in the in the US military bases across the region.
Speaker 3: President Donald Trump has reacted very ominously. I'm gonna play
Speaker 3: this and then we're gonna get your reaction. Let's take
Speaker 3: a listen.
Speaker 2: Could you provide an update on Iran.
Speaker 3: We're hearing reports that US personnel are being moved out
Speaker 3: of the region within striking distance.
Speaker 9: Well, they are being moved out because it could be
Speaker 9: a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens. But they are,
Speaker 9: We've given notice to move out, and we'll see what happens.
Speaker 6: Is there anything that can be done to dial the
Speaker 6: temperature down in the region.
Speaker 9: They can't have a nuclear weapon, very simple, they can't
Speaker 9: have a nuclear weapent.
Speaker 1: We're not going to allow that.
Speaker 10: Say it, wal are US competants of military personnel?
Speaker 1: Bob used, That's the same thing you.
Speaker 3: Some ominous stuff there. Mausei is basically like, yeah, it
Speaker 3: could be a dangerous place. So combined with the Israel reporting,
Speaker 3: what can you tell us?
Speaker 13: Yeah, it's unfortunate because about a month and a half ago,
Speaker 13: it seemed like the situation is much more optimistic, and
Speaker 13: I think I would attribute the change to changing statements
Speaker 13: from Steve Wikoff and people in Congress as well too.
Speaker 13: At the start of the process, Wikoff was saying that
Speaker 13: the US would be okay with the Iranians having low
Speaker 13: level nuclear enriishment for civilian purposes, which will be monitored
Speaker 13: and so forth by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and
Speaker 13: the Iranians are okay with that. They don't necessarily want
Speaker 13: a nuclear bomb per se. They could have pursued one
Speaker 13: some years ago, but they're a great costs associated with
Speaker 13: having a bomb. It will kiss off many of their
Speaker 13: neighbors separate from the US, would probably start an arms
Speaker 13: race in the Middle East as well too. It could
Speaker 13: trigger war at least for a short term with the
Speaker 13: US or other parties.
Speaker 11: So they have said they.
Speaker 13: Don't want a bomb, but they don't want to dismantle
Speaker 13: their entire nuclear energy program, which they spend many many
Speaker 13: years building it's an issue of national pride as well too.
Speaker 13: So Wickcoff now is taking a very very expressing or
Speaker 13: conveying a very very maximal's position, which is kind of
Speaker 13: like the Libya position. And people remember Libya agreed to
Speaker 13: dismantle his entire putative capacity for developing everything, which even
Speaker 13: could be a WND, and that didn't end very well
Speaker 13: for Libya. It wasn't a very advisable path if you
Speaker 13: look at from the Libyan's perspective.
Speaker 3: Getting sodomized on television. You know, I mean, that's honest
Speaker 3: about what happened here.
Speaker 13: Yeah, Yeah, the Libyans agreed to dismantle and then they
Speaker 13: were attacked and their leadership was killed and driven to
Speaker 13: excel and many terrible things.
Speaker 11: So the Iranians do not want to repeat that. So effectively,
Speaker 11: we have.
Speaker 13: A situation where the US red line that's currently publicly
Speaker 13: express and the Iranian red line is in commensurate. The
Speaker 13: US is saying now that they can't have any enrichment
Speaker 13: at all, the Iranians saying, will never give up our richment.
Speaker 13: So in this case, it creates a situation where a
Speaker 13: conflict would become inevitable unless one side would a compromise,
Speaker 13: it back down. And I think what we saw last
Speaker 13: couple of days our attempts to maybe do psychological operations
Speaker 13: saying that the Israeli is going to attack you if
Speaker 13: you don't compromise on the subject. But so what we
Speaker 13: seem so far the runnings do not seem to be
Speaker 13: backing down. Say, they escalated quite a bit, saying that
Speaker 13: they may withdraw from their nuclear treaties and take other
Speaker 13: steps in response to that.
Speaker 11: As well too.
Speaker 13: So I think unfortunately we've had a situation where a
Speaker 13: deal was very, very attainable, but now at least the
Speaker 13: last forty eight hours seemed a lot less.
Speaker 2: So, and Ma's how do you assess the likelihood that
Speaker 2: Israel will strike Iran? Obviously you have the personnel being
Speaker 2: pulled from the region, that's one indication. You also have
Speaker 2: various people now going out and saying they're really close to,
Speaker 2: you know, achieving a nuclear weapon, which we always hear,
Speaker 2: you know, before the war drums start beating. So how
Speaker 2: likely do you think it is that we are on
Speaker 2: the prespose of some sort of Israeli action? Also, given
Speaker 2: the fact that it appears Trump has several times a
Speaker 2: couple times during the course of this negotiation sort of
Speaker 2: pushed them off and said, no, you can't strike Iran
Speaker 2: at this point.
Speaker 13: Yeah, you know, the Israeli modus operanda is usually to
Speaker 13: strike with people not expecting it, not to telegraph it's
Speaker 13: happening beforehand. So what you see in the last couple
Speaker 13: of days is a tremendous amount of signaling and telegraphing,
Speaker 13: which makes you think this is more at least for now, psychological.
Speaker 13: They're not necessarily preparing for an imminent attack. But you know,
Speaker 13: there are top schedules for this weekend between the US
Speaker 13: and Iran in Oman, and based on what happens in
Speaker 13: those talks, situations could change. But I think if the
Speaker 13: Israelis do attack, or someone does attack, they won't be
Speaker 13: this lead up that's very very public where they're issuing
Speaker 13: statements publicly and evacuating people in a very very notable manner.
Speaker 13: I think they would have strike, try to use the
Speaker 13: element of surprise as much as possible.
Speaker 11: But I think the thing is.
Speaker 13: The Iranians, if they really do believe that the Israelis
Speaker 13: or even the US is going to attack them, They're
Speaker 13: gonna take preparations beforehand. They're going to try to move
Speaker 13: as much nuclear material out of the likely to be
Speaker 13: targeted sites beforehand. They may withdraw from certain treaties or
Speaker 13: expel inspectors so they can take their nuclear materials completely
Speaker 13: into private. So actually, you know, even from the perspective,
Speaker 13: if you want to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon, attacking
Speaker 13: is kind of a really bad option because the Iranians
Speaker 13: it's a huge country. First of all, it's almost nine
Speaker 13: million people. It's a very very big land mass. It's
Speaker 13: not like Iraq. It's much much more challenging than Iraq
Speaker 13: to attack for foreign country. And if they withdraw from
Speaker 13: these treaties, there's not only much you can do. You
Speaker 13: can maybe attack them once, but then how do you
Speaker 13: even have to keep attacking them forever? Really to figure
Speaker 13: out where the nuclear materials are. The knowledge won't be
Speaker 13: taken out of the country, You'll still be there. You
Speaker 13: may have to invade the country even to stop or
Speaker 13: to root out the new suspected nuclear sites. Attacking Iran
Speaker 13: will not be a one off affair. It wouldn't be
Speaker 13: a week long or a couple of days or even
Speaker 13: a month. It will probably take the entire Trump term
Speaker 13: or even longer. Beyond that being involved militarily in the country,
Speaker 13: if you really want to stop the nuclear program, if
Speaker 13: they would draw from the treaties. So I think that
Speaker 13: the deal really dissatisfy everyone's needs. It satisfies their own
Speaker 13: need to maintain some civilian program. The Trump administration wants
Speaker 13: to pivot that China doesn't want to have more wars
Speaker 13: in the Middle East. I think the American public is very,
Speaker 13: very exhausted and disenchanted with this. So a deal really
Speaker 13: is the path of least resistance. But because I think
Speaker 13: that maybe a poison pill has been imputed in this
Speaker 13: deal based on what we've seen with the Witcoff's evolutionary statements,
Speaker 13: it's moved from agreeing to civilian Richmond and nothing. I
Speaker 13: think the people in the US who do want a war,
Speaker 13: and they suggest they successfully put that change of position in,
Speaker 13: but it's not really a good solution for anybody. It's
Speaker 13: bad for Iranian it's bad for Americans, bad for Israelis
Speaker 13: even to have the major war where they run for many,
Speaker 13: many years. But that's the path we're on right now.
Speaker 13: Barring some heroic diplomacy on Sunday, well.
Speaker 1: We can talk about that. So at the very least.
Speaker 3: There were initial comments that were made that there would
Speaker 3: be no more or not a sixth round of talks. Now,
Speaker 3: fortunately for US, we can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 3: The Omani foreign minister confirmed that talks will happen between
Speaker 3: Steve Witkoff and between Iran's foreign minister. However, mas At
Speaker 3: the same time, we do know that Israel's head of
Speaker 3: Mosad and their minister Ron Dermer will be meeting with
Speaker 3: Steve Witkoff, apparently ahead of said meeting again potentially for
Speaker 3: su coordination of what exactly. We don't know, but this
Speaker 3: last round of talks seems very critical because of the
Speaker 3: position where US intelligence now saying that Israel is basically
Speaker 3: poised to strike Iran. There's a lot of pressure on
Speaker 3: the Iranians in the US there. I'm what is your
Speaker 3: assessment if this does not come to some decent conclusion
Speaker 3: in this round, is it even possible for us to
Speaker 3: have another round or are we going to see the
Speaker 3: prelude to, like you said, withdrawing from agreements. I believe
Speaker 3: Iran just got rebuked this morning by the IAEA over
Speaker 3: nuclear materials. So things do seem to be trending, you know,
Speaker 3: in a very bad direction. Unless things go well during
Speaker 3: these talks.
Speaker 13: It is a problem to that Masade officials and Ron
Speaker 13: Dhermer and bring around the talks from the beginning.
Speaker 11: They've been in Rome, they've been wherever the talks are happening.
Speaker 13: They're either briefing Wi Cough beforehand or just being in
Speaker 13: the area to let them know that their position is very,
Speaker 13: very important in these talks. So, you know, to be honest,
Speaker 13: I'm not particularly optimistic, unfortunately about the Sunday talks. So
Speaker 13: though the talks this weekend, it seems like a last
Speaker 13: ditch effort, and you know they're strong, there are strong
Speaker 13: motivations for both sides to come to some of the
Speaker 13: tent War is not good for the Iranians.
Speaker 11: War is not good for the US.
Speaker 13: Either the Trump administration or Space wants to see another
Speaker 13: war like this, but they're not box themselves the situation
Speaker 13: where it's almost you know, I wouldn't say inevitable, but
Speaker 13: it's become much more likely than it needs to be.
Speaker 11: I think that these talks that may be the last
Speaker 11: efforts to.
Speaker 13: See if any sort of compromise agreement can be found,
Speaker 13: and if not, you could see Israeli strikes in Iran.
Speaker 13: But the issue is, you know, if Israel does it alone,
Speaker 13: quote unquote, it will still have tremendous US intelligence, logistic,
Speaker 13: and other support. But also it's very very likely that
Speaker 13: the fortified nuclear positions that Iran has cannot be destroyed
Speaker 13: by Israeli aircraft or munitions. They need American B two's
Speaker 13: and thirty thousand pound bombs to actually destroy these. So
Speaker 13: almost inevitably, the Israeli attacks most likely will do an
Speaker 13: insufficient damage to the Iranian sites, and the US would
Speaker 13: feel compelled to become involved. And if the Iranians retaliate,
Speaker 13: which they said they will, they would also create great
Speaker 13: pressure for the US to get involved in defend Israel
Speaker 13: as well too from those attacks. So I think, unfortunately,
Speaker 13: even though nobody wants it, everyone's still fed up of
Speaker 13: wars in the Middle East. We're really headed towards the
Speaker 13: situation where not just a warning Middle East, but the
Speaker 13: biggest war we've ever had in the Middle East could
Speaker 13: be right on our doorstep, just you know, in a
Speaker 13: few weeks. So I think that people in the administration
Speaker 13: or you know, support have communication with the administrations should
Speaker 13: sort of impress as much as they can that how
Speaker 13: close we are, how unnecessary it all is, and how
Speaker 13: important this diplomacy this weekend and beyond is to avoid
Speaker 13: what could be a very very disaster situation.
Speaker 2: Last question that I have for you, Maz, the Trump
Speaker 2: administrations try to posture like, oh, Israel might strikeer On,
Speaker 2: we have nothing to do with it. Let's say they
Speaker 2: maintain that pasture Israel does striger On. Is anyone going
Speaker 2: to believe that we had nothing to do with it,
Speaker 2: that this was just Israel acting of their own accord?
Speaker 11: I don't think so.
Speaker 13: This very very obvious close coordination with the US and Israel. Also,
Speaker 13: the US arms Israel, that all the arms come from
Speaker 13: the US. If it's real purchase those arms would be
Speaker 13: be privatively expensive actually for them to carry out the
Speaker 13: operations they are and now so there is not really
Speaker 13: the great acceptance of that. But that said, of course,
Speaker 13: Iron would like to avoid the direct confrontation with the
Speaker 13: US itself. It said it would target American bases if
Speaker 13: the US attacked it. But if there's some plausible deniability,
Speaker 13: it's kind of useful for both sides to say, well,
Speaker 13: it was between US and israelis technically but that said,
Speaker 13: I do think for the technical reasons I laid out,
Speaker 13: there's a very strong involvement, even if initially it's only
Speaker 13: the Israelis directly carrying out the strikes, that the Americans
Speaker 13: could become the US military could become involved in the
Speaker 13: conflict directly simply to the only the US military can
Speaker 13: really destroy these sites or more as a greatest chance
Speaker 13: of doing so. And when, if and when the Iranians retaliate,
Speaker 13: the political pressure in the US to step in to
Speaker 13: defend Israel to attack more sites inside Iran with American
Speaker 13: military weaponry, it will be great. And you know, the
Speaker 13: Israeli Is, they do punch above their way for their size,
Speaker 13: but they are the most bigger country in Israel, and
Speaker 13: really to balance the scales, the Israelis need America to
Speaker 13: be involved in the war. And I think the entire
Speaker 13: strategy in Natanyahu and Dermer and so forth is to
Speaker 13: force America into a conflict because they can't. They feel
Speaker 13: they can't do it alone. They can't achieve what they
Speaker 13: want to alone, and they really need America to be
Speaker 13: involved in war in the Middle East or at least
Speaker 13: another generation.
Speaker 3: We already have the playbook, right they blew up an embassy,
Speaker 3: and then the Iranians struck back and guests who shot
Speaker 3: down ninety nine percent of the incoming projectiles, not them, right, Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's like this is this has already happened. In fact,
Speaker 3: that was you know, the groundwork for this right now.
Speaker 3: And by the way, if it costs one billion dollars
Speaker 3: just to shoot down some silly drones and a couple
Speaker 3: of missiles, what do you think is going to happen
Speaker 3: if they actually hit nuclear centrifuges and we see real
Speaker 3: stuff start flying through the air. This is not a joke,
Speaker 3: as you said, and part of the reason why we
Speaker 3: see this widespread now evacuation of dependent military forces. I mean,
Speaker 3: the US embassy in Jerusalem is telling people don't leave
Speaker 3: the country now for some time. They are taking this
Speaker 3: very very seriously, and they don't just do this for
Speaker 3: no reason.
Speaker 1: Anyway, We really appreciate your analysis. I you know, I
Speaker 1: hope you're not right. I think you are.
Speaker 3: You know, I think I think these weekends talks are
Speaker 3: genuine make or break and I guess we should all
Speaker 3: just start talking about how Trump is the greatest diplomatic
Speaker 3: figure and we should give him the Nobel Prize. Yes,
Speaker 3: I will fly to Stockholm, bring us back.
Speaker 2: In the deal. He got us out of three ways.
Speaker 3: Just get us, get us a deal, do something, because otherwise,
Speaker 3: you know we're headed for bad, bad waters.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us, my friend. We
Speaker 1: appreciate it.
Speaker 11: Thans Gus