Transcription
Hello ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our 78th episode of Cold War 2.0 with our dear friend, historian Dr. Tik Chili Lamar.
Today, we're going to discuss the Iran war and the limits of American power. We're going to discuss how the US intelligence community has come to the conclusion that US strikes alone are unlikely to move Iran toward a so-called deal with the United States, a comprehensive deal, or rather, to surrender to the United States.
We will discuss the manipulation of the oil markets and what also means, uh, what the intervention of the Ansarah movement means in the Red Sea. Now, they are striking, striking also the shipments of Saudi Arabia. We will discuss an exclusive report by Reuters in which they are discussing whether or not the Russians have helped the Iranians to strike secret CIA positions in the Persian Gulf monarchies.
We're going to discuss also the recent deal between Saudi Arabia and the United States, um, as it gives now Saudi Arabia a new energy pact, and the Americans are probably going to build nuclear facilities there. And finally, where did all the billions of dollars, uh, from the outcomes or from the income of the Venezuelan oil? This is approximately $13 billion, have gone since the takeover of Venezuela by the United States, or removing Maduro from power?
Thank you very much, my friend, for coming again to the show. I'm very excited for this, uh, conversation with you, and at the same time, I'm very alarmed by what is going on, especially in Venezuela. So, guys, please stay tuned because at the end of this conversation, we will definitely touch what is going on also in Caracas.
Uh, this was a very interesting article, Tar, um, which you shared with me. "US Strikes Unlikely to Move Iran, Intelligence Reports Say." So, what is the premise of this article, guys? Iran's government is unlikely to feel significant impact or soften its negotiating position as a result of new rounds of US military strikes, like those now underway. According to a new intelligence assessment described by current and former US officials, analysts at American spy agencies, especially in the CIA, also have concluded that Tehran and Washington are, for now, stuck in an indefinite limbo between peace and war. With the war deeply unpopular at home, continuing escalation by the US, such as the possible introduction of ground troops, poses political risks for the president with no guarantee of military success.
On another front of the Middle East conflict, Yemen's, they call it, of course, Iran's backed Houthi militia, they have the Ansarah, it would impose a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia, threatening the vital Bab el-Mandeb Strait between the Arabian Peninsula and Africa that leads to the Suez Canal. Topic. Every week, we discuss escalation, de-escalation, war, memorandum of understanding, a possible more comprehensive deal between the both sides, but this looks like each side is holding on certain cards, and they're playing at certain times, and they're trying to harm the other side. The Americans are using harsh and hard power against the Iranians. Nowadays, they are devastating their infrastructure while building civilian infrastructure in the country, in different cities, and in different, uh, regions of the country. Meanwhile, the Iranians are trying to cause more economic harm to the economy, whether it's the American economy or the allies of the United States. Where do you see this is, uh, headed?
I don't see, especially after the recent intervention of the Ansarah movement, that this is, we're going to witness any, um, compromise anytime soon.
Well, nobody ever knows, but for now, it's escalating very, very clearly. Right. I think it's been, uh, 12 days or so since the United States has been attacking Iran massively again. Um, there are still some Western media that, uh, write headlines that imply that they haven't yet fully returned to war. But of course, they have, they have fully returned to war.
That's already happened, right? And, um, the question is how much farther the United States is going to go, and depending on that, uh, Iran will resist and therefore also counter-escalate, obviously. Um, I mean, look, uh, I, I think one thing one should keep in mind, which is that Iran isn't, is hitting the United States economically. There's no doubt about that. And, um, the, the really extremely silly arguments that we hear from people like Pete Heg as defense secretary in the US, or secretary of war as he likes to be called, >> and, uh, and his boss, President Donald Trump, that somehow this doesn't matter to the US because they have enough energy of their own. That's all nonsense, right? Every economist will explain to you that the oil market is absolutely global, and the price increases do affect the US massively. It's also true that there are different types of oil in the game globally, and in fact, the US isn't sufficient on every important type of oil, right? All these things are much more complicated than the Trump administration is trying to make people believe. But, um, the, the overall outcome of all these complications is that, yes, the US can be hit economically by Iran, right? It's not true >> that they're sort of an island of the blessed and they can create an economic storm all around themselves in the world and they are not affected. That's nonsense. That's literally a Trumpist lie, and one shouldn't buy that.
Now, the thing I would add, however, is that Iran is also hitting the US militarily because Iran is massively degrading American bases all around itself, and it is forcing remaining American forces to literally retreat, and they've been retreating to Jordan, and they've been retreating to the Mediterranean. But, um, the question is, where will this retreat actually end? The Americans are paying a price economically, and in military terms, and in political terms. Um, the Iranians have no reason to give in precisely. Well, one reason is that they wouldn't. I wouldn't either, but the other is that they, they have the means to resist. Um, it is extremely difficult for the United States to somehow break Iran or break the will of Iran. If they could be doing that, they would already have done it.
Now, concerning this, um, this interesting leaked, obviously leaked report, right? That there are intelligence reports within the American administration that have been shown to the president, and that these reports from American intelligence agencies, and the jour, the article says mostly from the CIA, say that what the United States is currently doing cannot change Iran's attitude, behavior, whatever you want to call it. These are, of course, extremely interesting leaks because you have to wonder why is this information being made available? Is it by people who want Trump to finally give up and who want to exert pressure on him by publicly revealing that the intelligence agencies of the United States themselves say this isn't going to work? Or is it by people who want him to escalate? And the quintessence, the, the implication that they are trying to sell us is that what we are doing now, Donald, is not working, so let's do something else, and much more again, for instance, escalate the strikes on vital infrastructure, or indeed also bring in nuclear weapons, which have been talked about increasingly. So we don't know what this particular leak means, but the overall situation, I would definitely agree with you, it doesn't look like it's going to get any better soon.
Yes, but, uh, you mentioned escalation, let's say steps could be taken by the United States in the direction of escalation because the, um, trajectory is not working, and the Iranians will not back, back off. Uh, are you ruling out a ground invasion of Iran? Because this is also another topic that is widely discussed nowadays inside the United States, and this would be the last show in the America First Trumpist cultist movement. Basically, [laughter] it was like, no forever war in the United, in, in the Middle East, and no ground invasions, no boots on the ground. And now that American soldiers also have been killed inside Jordan, this could be used to fuel this discussion, right? That to bring, uh, more, more sentiments into the American public and say, "Look, our brave patriotic servicemen have been killed. Look at this beautiful woman that they have killed because they also sharing this woman, servicemen, service women pictures more than the men to try to cause some emotional reaction inside the United States."
Well, look, here's the point. I should clarify that when I say that there may very well be people who are trying to put pressure on Trump to get in even deeper, to escalate more, I'm not saying that that would work. I believe the opposite. I think nothing will work. They will never win this war. It's impossible.
Even if they use a nuclear weapon, they will not win this war. But, um, it is entirely conceivable with an American administration, perhaps in particular, that they will escalate even when they can't win by escalating.
That's basically what I mean. John Mearsheimer has pointed this out recently in an interview. That's what they did in Vietnam. That's literally what they did in the 60s in Vietnam. They weren't always thinking, "We are going to win this." They said, "We are going to win this." But as he suspects, some of them knew it's not that simple and it might not even work. But politically, they felt they had to do it anyhow. So you escalate into, in the end, defeat, right? Insane as this might be. And such a mechanism might work in this case as well. So the US escalates in spite of the fact that it will not win this way. It will just cause even greater destruction.
But the other thing I think one should say is that I know these, the ground invasion question again. A ground invasion would be absolutely insane. Um, everybody with half a brain knows that it would be a terrible idea, that they would incur extreme losses immediately, not slowly, but immediately, um, that they would be defeated in the end and would have to run, or maybe all end up as prisoners of war, the ones who survive.
Um, but again, because this is an American administration, and not just because this is Trump, other American administrations have been insane as well. I'm not saying the fact that the ground invasion is clearly a mad scheme means it cannot happen. It could still happen. They're crazy enough. Now, they cannot quickly launch a ground invasion with the troops that they have in this area because even though they often talk about several 10,000 and 50,000 or something, most of them are not even combat troops, and precisely not the troops that you can actually send to conduct a ground invasion. Right.
Yes. So, a ground invasion, I would, as a minimum, expect to see a very significant, uh, degree of preparation, exceeding what we've seen up until this point. They can't just fly them in from the United States, right? They would have to do a buildup. Again, it can't be ruled out. They're, they're crazy enough, but we don't know. I still think it's less likely.
Now, concerning these, um, American servicemen and women who have been killed, obviously, every death is a tragedy, but let's also be reasonable. Uh, the United States goes around the world slaughtering people. And it's always very strange about Americans in the media and in politics, then whenever an American falls in war, which is legitimate violence, right?
They pretend that that's an enormous crime. No, that's absolutely legitimate. It's a legitimate act of defensive are.
Yeah. And they're on defensive missions. [laughter]
The Iranians are defending.
No, the Americans are defending themselves.
Yes. Yes. I know. No, but in reality, the Iranians are defending themselves, and Americans get killed because they've attacked another country. In war, these things happen, and they can actually not, they're not a crime. They're not even a crime as long as you don't start slaughtering civilians, as the Americans also do. And of course, the Israeli friends. So the Americans have this strange way of thinking that they're basically thinking they're a master race. Actually, they don't know this, but it's almost like saying, "When we kill 500 of you, that doesn't matter. You are nothing. But if you kill one of us, that matters because we are something." That's a very strange attitude, right? You go into a country, you kill their leadership, you massacre civilians. The first day, you kill a whole school of girls. Well, yes, some of you guys are going to die in the end when these people fight back, and you should just sit back and take it because you deserve it. And that's what war is like. Americans have become very strange about this.
But I don't think that it's that easy for the American media and American politicians this time to use this as information war propaganda ammunition. And there are two reasons. One is, we know from polls and other statistics that this war is the most unpopular war America has ever fought on record since there have been polls. The most unpopular is this war. So when you start from there, it's actually difficult to sell that population, who's already very unhappy about being in that war, that, "Oh, they killed one of us, and that's all their fault." No, they're more likely to blame you.
And the other thing is that the Iranians are very smart about this. The Iranians aren't hiding this. They're actually posting those pictures as well. They're posting the pictures of the killed Americans, not their corpses. The Iranians are civilized. That's what Israelis do. Israelis like to post corpses, right? That's because they're perverse. The Iranians post the pictures of these people when they were alive. So they, they're very clear. Yes, they were killed. They were killed by us. And then they comment, "The reason is because this crazy Trump government essentially has been attacking us," and they're doing this all in English. And we know from Iranian, the, the whole Lego videos and similar things, that the Iranians have actually been really, really good about reaching the international public, and I think part of the American public as well, with their message. Even I think they will be successful with a message about Americans that they had to kill in self-defense. So just turning this into pro-war propaganda is going to be really hard for Trump. It's not that simple this time.
A topic I've been following the Iranian press in English, at least, in the past, I don't know, 14, 15 years, and it was always mediocre, like they have not, in part of the American Israeli PR and propaganda, let's say. But this war of aggression against Iran now, it, as if it has given them the incentive to accelerate their energy in terms of the messaging to the Western public. Like, just one day before the war of aggression against Iran, we haven't seen the Iranians doing this stuff. And just on the day of the war of aggression, they just, like they broke the chains and they started playing, uh, as a counterpart, as power with the, with the Israelis and the Americans. But the messaging is, of course, they are ridiculing the enemy, and they're showing their blatant lies. They're finding holes in, in inside their stories, and they're reaching a wide audience. That's why this, uh, channel, which is posting these Lego sketches, has been taken down on YouTube. What harm they are doing, except for ridiculing Trump and showing that he is part of the Epstein class, basically. Ah, [laughter]
T in this, in this situation, um, we have now the Ansarah movement declaring war, basically, against Saudi ships in the Red Sea. Um, of course, this hasn't surprised many people, and this is on Bloomberg, guys. Bob McNally, he's the founder and president of Rapidan Energy Group. He warned that oil prices, prices could move sharply higher if the conflict around the Strait of Hormuz expands to the Red Sea, and he warned that the market has largely exhausted the buffers that helped contain the initial shock. McNally says China is beginning to increase crude imports again, the available reserve release buffer is largely spent, and refiners are running at precautiously high utilization rates. And he responded to Donald Trump's assertion that the US doesn't need the Strait of Hormuz, said that may be true in a physical sense, but not in a price sense, because disruptions anywhere in the global oil market raise prices everywhere.
So, um, this completely goes against the argument that the United States would like to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed because it's not affected by the influx of the energy, but the prices is global, and this is definitely also increasing the energy prices inside the United States. Hence, on the daily consumer, the citizens of the United States, maybe some people say they don't care about the citizens, but what about the manufacturing base? What about the production inside the United States? I think this is also, um, really important question that the production, let's say, um, uh, prices will also increase, and this will be an additional burden on top of the burden that they are already facing, which is around $1 billion of, uh, expenses in this war of aggression against Iran.
Yeah, look, I mean, we've been over this argument that somehow this is all part of an American master plan, and I think we should just leave that behind. It, it, it just doesn't work well with the evidence. Um, but, um, what, what I found interesting about McNally's, um, interview on, on Bloomberg was that in essence, he seemed to say, we have relatively, relatively speaking, low oil prices at this point, in the sense of, given the crisis that already exists, they already should be much higher. And at one point, he literally calls this a bubble, right? It's an unusual way of using this term, but I think we know what he means. It's like artificial. The fly prices are artificially low compared already with the current crisis. And to me, his, his key message that really struck me was that he said, this can't go on forever. One, and second, we are close to breaking point. So we are close to a point where the prices will begin to actually fully reflect the crisis, and when that happens, they will immediately be significantly higher than now, and then the question is where the rise will end. And what I found also interesting is that that actually sinks very well with the opinion of another expert, a guy called, I think, Martinson, who has just been interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and it's, it's an amazing interview. It's extremely interesting, and in some way, that guy says the same thing. What we are seeing at this point is really just for starters.
The oil price, the famous Brent crude benchmark, this actually reflects what really is happening in the world insufficiently and understates the problems. But as it goes, that benchmark today has crossed $100 again, right? And the FT has a big headline, and this and that, and the, the bond markets are already, um, reacting, and the stock markets are reacting. Clearly a big deal. But when you listen to McNally and the guy Martinson, I think, who, who spoke to Tucker, that big deal is nothing compared to what will come if this war doesn't end very soon. And you may even think that even if the war should, for some reason, suddenly end, we are still in deep trouble because there has been such enormous damage to infrastructure, to the oil fields themselves, and of course, to this whole shipping, insurance, whatever industry, right? So that some experts say, even if you shut down the war today, it will take months to even sort out the whole infrastructure again, at least, at least if not longer. So we are probably sitting on top of a massive crisis, and we are just beginning to see what it will do to us and to our economies.
Yes. Uh, by the way, Topic, since you mentioned Tucker Carlson, in this interview, this is a shorter segment of, uh, Tucker basically saying that the oil market is fake, AI is manipulating the prices, uh, trading off of of false US official statements. It makes up 70% of traders. Uh, I will just play this, uh, shortly, guys, for you to know, uh, the premise behind this video and how there can be basically an AI role in manipulating the, um, the oil market. So there's a global shortage of this commodity, and the price goes down. We can say unequivocally at this point that oil markets, at least the Brent crude market, do not reflect reality, which is to say they're fake, and they're either being manipulated by people, and as Ron points out in his piece, that's not a crazy idea. Another possible explanation is AI.
M. So it turns out, one of the many facts that you learn in watching this war, that the majority of oil futures trading, I think about 70%, is done by machines. It's done by AI. There's no people done automatically in the way that we target drones and missiles now. We just let the machine decide who to kill. So apparently, in futures markets, oil futures markets, the machine decides when and how much to buy.
M. How does the machine make that decision? The AI traders read news stories about the price of oil, and prominent in those news stories are statements from American officials saying, "Actually, prices are down. They're never going to go up." Straight up from news is irrelevant. [clears throat] Wow. [laughter] And they calculate their decisions about the future price of oil based on those statements, which of course are not only lies, but probably made in the first place in an effort to influence AI trading in oil futures, if that makes sense. In other words,
You can speak truth into existence because AI, far from being smarter than people, is actually dumber even than Kamala Harris.
[laughter] Well, it's interesting you caught this one because it, it struck me too, that part of the show, and at the end, like a few seconds later, he says something also very important because he says, so once politicians have like Trump, like the, uh, secretary of energy, like Heges, they have talked up the oil markets, right? By completely insane statements, AI algorithms pick up on this and take it as evidence that the markets must be okay, and then use that to create prices, right?
But what Tucker says in the end is that in the end, when the same politicians then look at these prices,
They believe it.
They don't. [laughter] Forget that they actually created the illusion in the first place, right?
It's a feedback system. And it makes perfect sense to me. I, because this has happened before in history. This has happened before. I, I've seen cases of this in entirely different political systems in the past where you have a government, an elite, that actually is creating an illusion, then gets it fed back, and actually starts believing it. This is a very typical mechanism.
But this doesn't lead them into positive outcome. Like these politicians should at least care about the outcome of this war. This was their war, and this was a war which would have, uh, had they been successful, this would have led into enormous revenues for the empire.
And we're talking about the United States and Israel and the rest, basically.
And now they're trying to reach to positive outcomes through market manipulation, which is reflecting negatively on the outcome. So make it make sense. This is completely salad. This is not a strategy.
It is, but that doesn't [laughter] mean it's not real. That doesn't mean it's not real. I mean, it's, it's, it's insane behavior, finally, right? It's not that hard to see through it, but I think this is a part of what we are seeing now happening with the American elites.
Yeah.
Um, also, you have to consider one thing. Um, what's success for these people? Obviously, Trump doesn't want to be seen losing a war, right? He lost round one. He already lost one war against Iran, and now he's starting another one. He's probably going to lose it as well. But there's no reason to think he likes that idea. But again, Trump has many aims in his life, and most of them are, no, all of them, I'm sure, are completely selfish.
So, okay, that war gets lost, but he will still make money on something else, or so will his clan, right? Um, didn't work with Iran. I do something with the Saudis that makes me rich, or even richer. So, it's, it's not that simple. We, we, these people are not genuine patriots, right? This is very important, I think, to understand. They behave as if they were great patriots, even like nationalists, like pre-war, war, USA, right?
But ultimately, they're not, because it doesn't really hurt them when their country is hurt.
Yes. A true patriot suffers with their country, right?
Yes.
So that would mean if your country loses a war, and especially if you are part of the reason, you would suffer, right? You might even, I don't know, you know, punish yourself. [laughter] But they're not patriots. They walk away. They don't care in the end.
They, they attended the World Cup. Meanwhile, their forces were getting killed in, in Jordan. And they took beautiful photos for individual individuals, except that clan, right?
Yeah. I would be so happy now to play the song of Michael Jackson. "They Don't Care About Us," but there will be a copyright strike on the channel. I would, I'm singing in my head now. You can sing with me that song. You mentioned patriotism. You mentioned that these people do not suffer and they're not patriotic. I personally, I would assume that many of the, the families of the soldiers who were stationed outside are probably patriotic. Yeah. They may be thinking that they're serving the nation. What kind of message we should send them if their soldiers were, if their sons and daughters were called now to go to the Middle East in a possible, let's say, ground invasion or more escalatory measures against Iran? What should we tell the families of these people? That we don't want them to die in the Middle East? We don't want any of these people to die. I watched these photos of the pe, of these servicemen who were killed. If I were in the United States, they might be my neighbor. I would have shared the bread with them, maybe drank a beer with them, etc. But they have also in the region carrying out unpatriotic mission, and probably they don't know because some people say also, yeah, they've also victims of the system. We are victims of the system in, in the Middle East, but they've also victims of the system which has impoverished them and pushed them to go into the military service, or probably also they were brainwashed into the thinking that they're serving the nation. What should we tell the families of these soldiers?
I wouldn't presume that they would necessarily listen to us or me, right, to be honest. But as a, as a thought experiment, right? What, what, what could one say to say the parents? Let's assume the parents of a, of a young soldier, male or female. Um, I think the first thing I would say is, if, if you think that, uh, risking the life of, of your child or your country is a legitimate thing, then I can understand you. This is a very traditional, very old human form of behavior, and I can understand you at the very least. But, but it should be your country. It shouldn't be Israel.
It should be your country. It shouldn't be Israel.
And the way the United States now works, I would say to them, means that you will send your child, your son or daughter, to die for Israel. And that there's no understanding that. Don't be fooled like that. The other thing I would say is, two more things. I would say, look, if I were in your place as a parent, there's two things that I wouldn't like to happen to my child. One is, obviously, I wouldn't like them to get killed or maimed and so on, or taken prisoner, right? But the other thing, which is equally important, I wouldn't like them to participate in horrible crimes. I also wouldn't like that. It's not that simple. Just because there is an officer and you're wearing a flag patch and there is, you know, a system of command and orders are coming down, you, you're not relieved of your duty towards morality. You're not, you're never entirely relieved of that. That means you shouldn't, you shouldn't agree either to your child being killed for Israel, which is perverse in the first place because you're an American, not an Israeli, but you also shouldn't agree for your child being at risk of participating in the bombing of civilians in Iran.
Yes.
Why would you think that's a good thing for your child? Do you think your child has a soul? Then that's not a good thing to happen to them, right? That's what I would tell them.
100%. I totally agree with you, Savic, and I'm happy that you shared this message. Um, of course, we cannot reach to millions of American public, but we can do, uh, whatever we can in our capacity. 30% of the viewership on Syrian Analysis are from the United States, and some of them have been in the military in the past. Some of them even participated in the Vietnam War, and they said, uh, they repented, like they, they write under our posts, under our tweets, and say, "This was a waking call for them." Because their father, for example, participated in Vietnam.
I, I'm not a pacifist, and I served in the military. I've never participated in a war because, uh, the military I served in for a little more than a year, uh, it was all during peacetime, right? But I, I made a choice to serve because in reality, at the time, even in West Germany, you could easily get out of it. And I didn't want to get out of it because I'm not a pacifist. I, I truly understand the basic idea of wanting to defend your own country. That, that I understand. But I will also say something else. If somebody else, I'm a German, and if somebody came to me nowadays and said, although I'm too old for this, right, "We want you to come back, dawn a uniform again, and help us fight against Russia," I would not go along.
Because I know that what we are doing right now is an insane policy, that we have absurd diplomacy, that we are on a completely insane and unnecessary trajectory. And although I take obligations seriously, that's already beyond my pay. That's where I would draw the line. So, no. If you're telling me, if you're telling me, "Come and help us defend ourselves against the Ukrainians who have attacked our infrastructure," like the Russians never did, I might help. I might join. If you're telling me, "Come and help us attack the Russians because we feel like it and Ukraine wants us to," I'd say, "No, absolutely not. I'd rather go to prison." No way. So, I'm just trying to explain that I understand people who think there is value in honest military service. I understand that idea. I've, I've, I've done it. But, but there has to be a limit. You can never just abdicate your own responsibility entirely, because if you do that, you end up like the Germans in World War II. "I had orders," right? So, everything goes. No.
No. So, guys, if you are from the United States, if you have a friend, if you have a family member, if you have a neighbor, if you have anyone in your surrounding who is serving in the military, it's a great thing to serve your nation. It's a patriotic to do actually, but not when you are serving outside of your country in offensive wars against other nations. I think this would be my only simple message.
For, for other countries, like 11,000 kilometers away from the United States, stationed in Jordan. And I would like to share with you one more information. Some of your soldiers in Jordan, who were stationed on the borders with Syria, there is an intersection called Al-Tanf border crossing. They've been stationed there to block trade between Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. They were stationed there to, uh, starve the Syrian people. So they, they were basically technically stationed there to impoverish and starve millions of people. Maybe they were, they were not told about this, uh, the real reason why they are stationed there. And we sharing with you, if you have any friends and family and cousins and somebody you know in the surrounding, also encourage them to, uh, show certain resistance to the calls of going into offensive wars in other nations, in against other people. And rest assured, these daughters, these small children who the Americans killed in the school, uh, they're no different from the children inside the United States. If you have a daughter, this is just the same daughter that somebody else has in a different region and then a country B comes, bombs your country, and bombs the school and kills all these small children. I think if you just feel it on your skin, you will resist and you will say, "No, this is the immoral thing to do." This is what we would like to share with you during this stream, beside what Tariq has already eloquently and brilliantly summarized, that how we, you should guys react to this.
And one more thing, Tariq, before we move from Iran, there is this, so-called exclusive of Reuters.
Mhm. The Reuters, uh, article says, "Iran Strikes on CIA Facilities Prompt Questions About Possible Russian Role." Iranian drone attacks on CIA facilities in the Gulf have prompted US intelligence analysts to investigate whether Russia assisted by providing targeting information or advanced drone technology. US intelligence officials have not yet reached firm conclusions about the possible Russian involvement in the attacks on CIA facilities, but they cited the strike's effectiveness and apparent precision, as well as Russia's broader technical support for Iran, as possible evidence. At least two CIA sites were struck in March. One of the facilities was the CIA station in Saudi Arabia, which is located in the US embassy in Riyadh. So this wasn't really a secret location. And a separate site was located in eastern Iraq, and this was in the Iraqi Kurdistan area. Some of the sources said additional CIA sites had been hit, but they didn't disclose details. One internal memo from a Western intelligence agency, described by an official in the region with access to the document, concluded Russia has likely played a role in targeting regional CIA facilities. Two Western officials in the Gulf who were briefed on intelligence reports said analysts thought the Saudi attack involved a pair of Russian-enhanced versions of Iran's Shahed drones. While Russian assistance for Iran is long-standing, given the country's close ties, specific targeting of sensitive CIA sites would indicate Moscow is willing to go further in disrupting US operations as Washington struggles to bring the Iran war to an end.
Uh, this is a crazy article. One, first of all, it is all based on possibly, likely, and it's, it's [laughter] it's all possibly and likely because the analysts say it was too precision attack against our well-known CIA room, which was in the embassy, which this was not even a secret location for the CIA. And secondly, maybe the technologies were coming from, uh, Russia to embolden or improve, improve the precision of these drones. And finally, Russia is standing in the way now between the United States and Iran, while the United States is trying to end the war. The United States wants to end the war, and Russia is disrupting the efforts. This is so crazy on all levels.
Well, look, here's what I think. I think the framing is completely insane, as, as you rightly [laughter] point out, right? All the spins they put on it. But I think that there is something here that may be real. I think there's something here that may be real.
Um, it would not surprise me if Russia were, if Russia is helping Iran. In fact, I'm sure Russia is helping Iran, and, and I'm sure that they're helping them with, um, intelligence, also with very specific intelligence concerning targets. Uh, probably with satellites here. Satellites were involved too. They think the Shahed drones that were involved are actually the same drones that in the past, a few years ago, the Iranians gave to the Russians when the Russians urgently needed drones during the Ukraine war. Then the Russians improved these drones, at least adapted them, and so the article surmises that some of these improved, adapted drones have now come back to Iran, as it were. Mhm.
Now, if you ask yourself the question, there is no proof. You're absolutely right. But if you ask yourself the question, why would Russia do this? [laughter] The answer is, well, because it's perfectly fair. It's a minor way of retaliating for the manner in which the Americans very specifically helped the Ukrainians launching drone and missile attacks deep into Russia. Some people, some experts in the West believe that every Russian refinery has by now been hit, not necessarily destroyed, >> but hit at least once. >> There are various figures of how much Russian refinery capacity has been affected by these de facto American-Ukrainian strikes. That's what they really are, right? I don't know if the high measure, the high estimates of like 40, 50% are correct, but I do believe that they have cost the Russians a lot, that this is very much hurting the Russians. I don't think the Russians will lose the war. I think they will counter-escalate and win in the end. But they certainly have taken a lot of pain from the Americans helping the Ukrainians in their air campaign against Russia. So if the Russians were to help the Iranians striking at American installations, that would make perfect sense. It would be, yes, perfectly legitimate retaliation. And it would also be a way in which the Russians would impose costs on the Americans. In fact, my guess would be that while the Russians wouldn't necessarily boast of it, they have nothing against it being known because they want the Americans to know, "You can do this to us, but we also have ways at getting at you." Now, it's not the equivalent because, after all, the Americans have helped Ukraine launch attacks deep into Russia itself, right? The equivalent to this would be, imagine a war between Mexico and the US, and then the Russians have the Mexicans >> to fire at Washington and New York. That would be the equivalent [clears throat] of what the Americans have done to Russia, quite literally, right? The Americans have helped the Ukrainians in essential ways. That means the Ukrainians couldn't do it without them to strike deep into Russia. The Russians know this. This is perfectly clear to them.
So I would not be astonished at all if they're helping the Iranians this way. But there's also, of course, a larger reason, which is, >> as we talked about this before, neither China nor Russia will allow the Americans to destroy Iran. Because Iran is one of the American top targets, and it shares this quality with Russia and China, and the guys in Beijing and Moscow aren't dumb. I think they've [clears throat] understood that much, that they will not allow the Americans to take out one after the other, and that means they cannot drop Iran. They will help Iran to survive this war and >> to at least again impose a defensive defeat on the Americans.
Yes.
So in that respect, I, I see, you know, it's, there's a kernel of truth in this Reuters piece. But the idea, of course, that therefore the Russians are to blame that America can't end the war. You know, the Russians could turn around and say, "You know what? You Americans are to blame. We can't end the war in Ukraine >> because if you hadn't helped Ukraine, we would long be done with this war," which is true. Yes, they would be. Right.
So I don't know what that's even supposed to mean.
Yes. And the opposite, and the opposite cannot be always true. Like the Russian support for Iran doesn't necessarily mean that, uh, uh, Iran would have lost this war.
No. And there's another, it's good that you remind me, because there's, of course, another possibility, which is that another interpretation of this article is that it's a reflection of the incredible arrogance that makes it impossible for the Americans or the British people or whoever wrote this Reuters piece to consider the possibility that Iran has done all of this themselves. That's another possibility. But in this case, I think it's likely that there's cooperation. I think that the Russians and the Iranians are cooperating. And good for them. And as far as the Americans are concerned, well, you're getting what you deserve. This is how this works. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You know, same [laughter] rules for all.
But there's one more thing, um, that one may want to, to, to highlight in this respect. Let me do, I'm sorry. Let me do a Brian Vatic. Let me do a Brian Vatic.
As I've told you people for years, I've predicted this. The military-industrial complexes of Americans' major opponents are beginning to fuse.
I did predict this because it was easy.
Yes. [laughter]
No, but seriously, but what we are seeing is North Korea is working with the Chinese. The Chinese are working with the Russians. The Russians are working with the North Koreans. The Russians are working with the Iranians. The Iranians are working with the Chinese. So there isn't just one military industrial complex. I'm not saying they're the same, or there are no walls between them for national security reasons. Of course, there are. Everybody keeps their secrets. But they are building more and more bridges to each other, which is extremely important, because if there is a full-blown World War II one day, right?
Then probably these countries will fight all of them together on one side against the United States and whoever is still stupid enough to fight on the side of the Americans. So that's probably the Germans in this case, >> or or the Saudis. And this is where we could lead this, we could lead this conversation, because the Saudis apparently, they made their decision, and they are not going to >> um, abandon their strategic relationship with the United States. And this is, "US and Saudi Arabia Agree Landmark Nuclear Energy Pact." So what are the details, guys? Uh, the US has to help Saudi Arabia develop a civilian nuclear program in an arrangement long sought by the Department of Energy, said on Wednesday the two countries had signed a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement that would lay the legal foundation for a decade-long, multi-billion dollar partnership, provide great access for American companies, and help to fulfill President Donald Trump's nuclear renaissance for America. The deal to help Riyadh >> develop an alternative framework for generating electricity would give US companies a leading role in its nuclear energy program, including the possible American lead construction of a uranium enrichment facility, following a joint study, said two people familiar with the agreement.
So Americans do not really mind Middle Eastern countries having nuclear energy if, if they are the ones rebuilding them and controlling them and benefiting from them, and that's also includes the knowledge of enriching uranium. Well, I mean, this, this deal is particularly interesting because, um, there has been a similar deal, I think, 2008 or so, but I might be wrong on the year, with a country in the neighborhood, namely the United Arab Emirates.
Mhm. And, and these deals are very different in the end, because there are restrictions on the United Arab Emirates concerning precisely enrichment, most important, that are not in the deal with the Saudis. This is what every expert in the world has by now said about the deal with the Saudis. If it goes, if it really happens, right? It's not, they want to do it. It's not yet done. But if it really happens, it will mean that Saudi Arabia will have no serious inspection regime from outside, except what they agreed to with the Americans, which of course is extremely flimsy and and biased. And they will be, de facto, in the end, allowed to enrich. There is complicated language where they do the study first, and then the Americans have to agree in a second step. Forget all of this. Of course, the quintessence, the real meaning of the deal is that this is a deal including civilian nuclear energy cooperation that is building several nuclear power stations by Westinghouse, probably, and an enrichment facility. And enrichment is exactly where you get, as we well know, because we've been following the whole Iran debate, into the area where you can make a nuclear weapon in the end. Right now, the Saudis have said years ago that if Iran ever gets close to a nuke or builds one, they will follow very quickly.
Mhm.
Now, that really means, of course, in diplomatic terms, we will build a nuke, because you never say, "We will build a nuke first," right? Yes. It's like war. You never say, "We attack first." You say, "We will defend ourselves before you attack." Right.
Yes. So the Saudis have told us years ago that they're interested in building nuclear weapons. Wow.
And so the Americans are making a special deal with them, which is very unusual. The first time they've done anything like that, first time.
Mhm.
Which includes de facto enrichment, which is the key stepping stone to nuclear weapons production. You have to think about it. The Iranians had a civilian nuclear program. That, for the Americans, was a reason to constantly hammer them with sanctions, assassinations, together with the Israelis, and anything else you can think of, because they were making the argument, "Once you have a civilian program, we don't trust you. You probably want to build a bomb as well."
Yes. Right now, the same Americans are going to the Saudis and say, "You know.
What? We are going to give you what you need for [clears throat] a civilian program, and we're going to give you the enrichment everybody knows you need for a bomb, >> right?" Okay, we we got that, right? [laughter] >> This is like a counter to Iran. This will definitely um, the the you have you have few countries in the region now very sensitive of Iran's victory. One of them is definitely Saudi Arabia. I don't know if you watched the interview of Araji. Um, this was a podcast interview recently they posted and translated to English. >> And in this interview, he says this was like two weeks before the war of aggression against the 12-day war. Basically, he was in Saudi Arabia. He didn't say in Saudi Arabia. He said in a neighboring country, and the leader of the country was very excited about what is coming next. Basically, he warned Iran that uh, this is going to be the end, that you lost your proxies in the region and you lost your deterrent, and it's better for you to make a deal because the Americans are coming to destroy you. And I've actually warned them that if this happens, then we will retaliate against wherever the fires are coming, including in >> this so-called neighboring country. So the Saudis are very sensitive of this. They want for Iran uh to to lose this uh, this form, and they have assisted >> could have Americans are great in in popular culture. I think he he should oh, but this was not an American, but he should have still quoted a line from the Hunger Games. Simply said, if we burn, you will burn too, because that's the essence and that's what we are seeing what where this is going right now, right? But here's something else. I think you're right that probably there is a calculus to beef up Saudi Arabia as a counterweight to Iran. If that's the case, it's very interesting because Saudi Arabia in American calculus can be a counterweight to Iran without nukes. Has always done that. You would resupply them with even more conventional weapons. Why give them nukes? Maybe because somebody in Washington has concluded that after everything that's happened, Iran is going to have a nuke sooner or later. >> Yes, but because this >> Yes, but the Saudis do not fight. Saudis have the weapons. They don't fight. They they they're not capable of fighting this. >> Sorry. But he can walk. The Americans during the Vietnam War tried for years to make the South Vietnamese army fight. Americans are like [laughter] that, right? So, but here's something else. I think the interesting part is if they really think in Washington, we need to give the Saudis a nuclear weapon, it could mean that they understand that Iran will have a nuclear weapon, that it has become inevitable, >> which would be very interesting implication. But the other thing is, of course, Israel. So that's a real riddle. How does it work that an American president gives so much nuclear attack or trying to he hasn't done it yet to Saudi Arabia where the current regime may be controllable, but you never know where they will be in the future. There has been an American um, I think in Congress, a Democrat, and he said something very interesting in response to this deal. For once, and he said, look, every weapon system that we gave to our great ally, the Shah of Iran, in before 1979, after 1979, was in the hands of the mullahs, as they call them. I would call them differently, but he was basically saying, look, if we give Saudi Arabia the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, we don't know what regime is going to be there in 20 years' time. Oops. >> Yes. >> So they've overlooked that apparently, or they didn't overlook it, but they don't care. But then there's something else you have to consider with Trump. Trump is what people call transactional, and the people around him as well. >> I call it greedy. He's a gangster. He's a very greedy gangster. And this deal brings billions, tens of billions >> officially. And you can assume that there are much bigger, not bigger, but substantial kickbacks to be had as well. And I'm certain somebody will profit in Trump's environment from this deal. So some of this could just be money. And here's another wrinkle because after the news of the deal came out by now, by now Trump has actually said, we are only going to do it if Saudi Arabia finally joins the Abraham Accords. >> Right? He's just started saying this. This was not part of the original news. So I I suspect that he got a call from his Israel lobby handlers or maybe just from Netanyahu directly, his boss, and he said, "Listen, Donald, [laughter] you're giving the Saudis nukes. We, the Israelis, have 300 nukes, which are completely rogue, but that's okay. We are the Israelis. You can't give nukes to anybody in our neighborhood. That's not okay." So he didn't want to get he didn't know what to say. So now he's saying, but the Saudis have to join the Abraham Accords. >> And if the Saudis join the Abraham Accord, then they will Zionize themselves to the to the core, and this will become another Zionist nuclear power, basically in the Middle East. >> So look, I've really been thinking about this. Maybe he knows, maybe he knows the Saudis don't want to do this, and it's his way out so that the Saudis can say, "Hey, hey, that wasn't part of the deal and it's broken." Right? Or he knows something else. Maybe what they discussed with the Saudis already is, we're going to do this deal, and you wait 1, 2, 3, 5, 4 years, whatever looks good, and then you join the Abraham Accords because we understand, right, Muhammad bin Salman, you don't want to look like a cheapo who is just being bought by us. No, no, no. You get a decent interval, and whether that term comes a weird number. You get a decent interval. First the nuclear deal where you promise in a few years' time you also join the Abraham Accords. And maybe Trump got so much pressure meanwhile from the Israelis that he blurted it out and said, "Well, Arab courts are also there." [laughter] Right? I don't know what's going on there, >> but it is an extremely strange thing, and I think this is a space to to watch very um intently. One more thing. Look, even if the Americans didn't do this because they think Iran will get a nuke anyhow, by doing it, they're making double sure that Iran has to. >> I know Iran officially doesn't want to, but I do think Iran will have to change its attitude on that and its policy. I think they will have to acquire nukes. And when they see that sort of move by the Saudis and the Americans together, that's yet another very powerful argument to get your own because this Abraham Accord um condition was uh basically put in the defense pack between Saudi Arabia and the United States, and the Americans sold them. Defense pack means you have to join the Bahama cause, but this was not included in the nuclear uh project. So if this is new, as you said >> as far as we know, we don't know yet >> it looks like an afterthought. We don't know >> we don't know what exactly is going on. >> One thing one should perhaps add, it's very hard for Congress or the Senate to stop this. >> So if people think, oh, the midterms will change the majorities in the in Senate in Congress, that it's not that simple because basically Trump can in the end use a presidential veto to push this through if he wants to, and against veto, that you need two-thirds majorities in both Congress and Senate uh in the House of Representatives and Senate. >> Yes. >> So in all of Congress, and and even after the midterms, that's not going to be in the cards. So once again, the famous checks and balances of the American system at home, they won't stop this madness. They're not capable of this.
Took the more alarming news from Venezuela. This is our last part, guys. We saved it to the later to the last because this is very concerning what is going on in Venezuela. Um, I've been reading an article today uh in the Financial Times. They say the US has collected about $13 billion of Venezuela's oil money. Where is it? They say the Trump administration has collected more than $13 billion in revenues from the Venezuelan oil sales this year, but he said but has said almost nothing about what has happened to the money. Oil revenues make up around a quarter of Venezuela's GDP, and the sanctions relief was expected to provide a major boost to the economy, which was in crisis even before last month's devastating earthquakes. But six months after the US seized control of the funds, economists say the evidence of a recovery in Venezuela is relatively muted. A potential sign that the US has not sent all the revenues back to Caracas. And then, and this is the final uh thing I wanted to show you guys. This is the acting president of Venezuela, right? And uh, these photos were published on the official Instagram account of the United Venezuelan Socialist Party, founded by the late Hugo Chavez. Deli uh Rodriguez, the interim president of Venezuela, shaking hands with and looking up to Ronni uh Kaplan, none other than the spokesman of the IDF in Spanish. He is a double Uruguayan-Israeli citizen against whom an official criminal complaint has been filed in Uruguay due to his complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinian people. This IOF official, alongside others, have been parading their military uniforms in Venezuela freely, something they can't do in the rest of the world. I bet Deli Rodriguez met them to thank them before they leave Venezuela for their help after the devastating earthquake on June 24th. Venezuela cut ties with Israel 17 years ago. This is quite a shock. I'm told the Venezuelan government is under pressure from Trump to receive Israelis. It looks like, sorry for the terminologies, but Venezuela is effed completely economically, geopolitically, and now we have an acting president who is acting like an asset like Golani is doing in Syria. Look to me, the only question is, and I don't know the answer [clears throat], when Nicholas Maduro was kidnapped right in January, I think, in this astonishingly smooth, if a if horrible operation, right, where where his whole guard was massacred, and they they had no chance, total surprise apparently, right? I have always wondered how how do you pull this off without inside people? There must have been treason. There must have been people who metaphorically speaking, opened the gates from inside for this to work like that, right? And so I'm not saying Deli Rodriguez was that traitor or is working with those traitors, although I think there were traitors. But the question to me is, was she working with the Americans then? That would make her the traitor. Was she already working with them before they kidnapped Maduro? Did she have agreements with them? Or has she become like this, the way we see her now, only after the Americans took Venezuela's sovereignty away? Um, but one way or the other, by now she is a collaborator, right, in the in the worst sense of the word. And um, as with collaborators in history, in in general, maybe in the future, historians will ask complicated questions like, um, maybe she really felt she had to do it to protect something that is still there or the people. Um, maybe she's in it just for herself or her own family or group. Who knows, right? I'm not even saying her motives necessarily are terrible. Um, dealing with the Americans, I can imagine constellations where people do terrible things because they've been cornered into horrible situations, right, by overbearing power. And I'm I'm not I don't want to set myself up as a judge, but I do think the the evidence is that she is for one reason or another a collaborator, right? Uh, Venezuela is now a protectorate. And what's so strange about, or not strange, what's a little bit ironic is not the word about this is that in America, you find conservative commentators who complain because what they are saying is, well, they're all still there except Maduro and his wife. So what did we really do? >> That's not the point. That they're all still there because they're all subordinated. They've all been subdued, and they are now given orders from Washington. That's exactly what is happening. It's a protectorate, right? And the wrinkle here with this Israeli war criminal, which is what this is, right? This Mr. Kaplan guy, is that one one aspect of submitting to the US as a collaborator nowadays is to submit to Israel as well. And with a slight degree of exaggeration, you could say that's because the American leadership are also collaborators. They are collaborators with Israel against their own American country. Right? So these collaborators with Israel and its lobby, one of the things they demand from everybody they conquer is you also must bow to Israel and its lobby. Makes a lot of sense once you look at it like this because on the surface, there is no reason why when you have been defeated by the US, which is no wonder because the US is a military giant and Venezuela never had a chance, of course, there is no reason why when you have been defeated by the US, the US is putting their boot on your neck, there is actually no reason why Israelis should turn up. But you can sort of historically understand the the normal case of the had is that Americans turn up, Americans will humiliate you, Americans will exploit you, right? Americans will give you orders. That's what usually happens, right? But this is different. >> Americans conquer you, and then they tell you, and also go to the Israelis, please. What does this say about the Americans? Once again, >> it comes like a package. And also another lesson we learned from this, that uh, when you resist the US empire, you will suffer. But if you subjugate yourself, you will suffer more because people said, if the Venezuelans get along with the Americans and be on terms with good terms with the Americans and accept their conditions, and they will receive their funds back, they will be able to sell their oil back. So where is these billions of dollars of the revenues of Venezuela nowadays? Exactly. To you're absolutely right. That is really the key point of the article that when Venezuela was was taken over in this very strange way, the promises that was made was essentially, we're going to take your sovereignty away, but you will stop being poor. >> Yes. >> Right. >> And they keep them poor. They keep them poor because what's happening is that the Americans are crude enough not only to occupy you but also to bleed you dry. >> And that's what they're doing with this country, and those $13 billion are just, I think, one aspect of this. I mean, Trump has been very clear about it. He's been saying, we are making a lot of money out of Venezuela. They've been saying things like, we've recouped the cost of our invasion 27 times over. >> Yes. >> Right. And of course, when you say we, that's not even the state. That would be bad enough. I'm not saying that's okay. If the American state was bleeding Venezuela dry, that would be terrible and a crime. But it's not just the state. It's this conglomerate of basically criminal structures around the Trump clan. I guarantee you. And it's corrupt people from various Latin American exile communities who are at the TR now. Right. Mhm. >> This is a show for Venezuela, not only in one way, but in every way. >> So, the only >> This is exactly what's happening, by the way, in Syria nowadays. Tic, the bordering of the natural resources, taking over the poor sea, everything, everything after freedom, guys, and democracy, you will just stand naked in front of Uncle Sam, and they will plunder your natural resources. This is not some sort of an exaggeration. We have lots of empirical evidence for it. Tavic is explaining here multiple times to us. But because I follow Syria closely, it's crazy that you sell your all your ports, all your airports, all your energy resources, and what is beneath the earth, and over the earth, and what is flying in the sky. And then you call this the freedom, you know, like the terminologies are so crazy nowadays. And then you have millions of people believing [laughter] this. That will stop. That will stop. See, that's the one thing I think is [laughter] I won't [clears throat] say a reason to be optimistic because that sounds cynical. People are suffering horribly. But >> let me put it like this. There is a way in which this scheme could unravel. It could unravel because it is so brutal and offers nothing. If you were dealing with clever conquerors who would say, "We take away your sovereignty, we exploit you, but you also get a nice cut. We will actually bribe you, right? You get something, you get a reward materially." >> That would be a more dangerous type of occupation in the end. But we are dealing with people who are basically, it's a bit like the Nazis in World War II. They come to you and they say, "We take everything you have. We take your freedom, your sovereignty. We make you slaves and we see to it that you're poor and stay poor forever." So if you confront people with that, there is a way in which perhaps in the long run, they will rebel, perhaps because you're giving them plenty of reason. >> I may believe in a rebellion more in Venezuela than in Syria, but this is a topic for another show. Today we did our 78th episode of Cold War 2.0. Guys, thank you so much for tuning in. Whether you watch this on YouTube or on Rumble, our thanks and gratitude goes to TAK for coming every Friday to this show and sharing with us his valuable insight and also dedicating his also valuable time uh for us. We're doing this every Friday at 5:00 p.m. Central European Time and 11:00 a.m. Eastern American Time. We call this Cold War 2.0 show. I have done an entire playlist for this show. You can check it also in the description below, including Tavic's Substack. If you like what we do, guys, the easy thing always to do, simply just hit the like button, subscribe to Syriana Analysis. Very important, and share this conversation with TK with your friends. Tell them about this show and tell them what we do here on Syriana Analysis. Maybe other people would also like to join and listen to our conversation. That would be a great support from your side. And only if you can and only if you want to support this independent work on Syriana Analysis, you can become a patron. The link is calling on the screen patreon.com/syriana analysis, and I will see you for my solo geopolitical uh discussion or analysis and commentaries on Monday, and we will see you with tavic again next Friday. I wish you peace. Peace be upon you, upon your families, and peace be upon you. Salam.