Transcription
And I didn't make the intro, for God's sake. How are you? I'm good. Um, so what are we talk, what are we talking about today? I think the craziest story I, I want to chat to you about is, um, because we've been talking on whether, even yesterday, we talked about it, whether Israel could try to assassinate Mushtaba Kam in the funeral processions and, you know, the various ways they could do it. One of the guests was telling me about, you know, the missile that has the blades that comes out of it. Can you show that video again while we're talking, Stephanie, without the audio of that missile? So, it can actually, it's a very targeted strike with limited, um, collateral damage. And we're just talking about the various ways they could assassinate Mushabak. Um, I don't think it's likely. I think it's highly unlikely. Not even sure if he's going to show up. Um, but the a story came out today that makes me reconsider my position.
So, according to the New York Times, the US reportedly feared during nuclear negotiations with Iran in April that Israel was planning to assassinate Galibbah and Arachi in an attempt to derail the talks. The report says Washington asked several countries to warn Iran, while Iran sought guarantees through Pakistani, Qatari mediators that its delegation would not be targeted. You can remove the video. Uh, Stephanie, Galib's plane later made an emergency landing in Mashad, which is up north in Iran, after Iranian intelligence warned of a possible Israeli attack. And three senior Iranian officials said that, uh, Galibbah narrowly survived Israeli strikes in June last year. And in this war.
So, according to the New York Times, not only did the US worry Israel would assassinate them in while they were negotiating with JD Vance in Pakistan during the negotiations, um, but they, instead of stopping the Israelis, they were worried that the Israelis are going to do it anyway. They tried to warn Iran through mediators, Qatar and Pakistan, and, um, I'll actually read the rest of it. Iran adopted additional security measures during this, uh, during the negotiations with the US, the Pakistani ones, and since, uh, to reduce the risk of Israeli strikes against the senior officials, according to New York Times. Quote, "In April, uh, Galibbah had been scheduled to travel to Pakistan for a meeting with the US with JD Vance, but Iranian security officials feared Israel could use the visit to assassinate Galibbah or Arachi in an effort to derail the negotiations. Pakistani fighter jets escorted the Iranian delegation's aircraft carrying more than 70 Iranian officials between the Iranian border and Islamabad."
So, there were fighter jets escorting, Pakistani fighter jets. On the return flight, on the way back, Iranian security services warned of intelligence that Israel planned to strike the plane and that two Israeli fighter jets had entered Iranian airspace from the Iraqi border. The aircraft made an emergency landing in Mashad, up north, and the delegation traveled the remaining 8 hours by road to Thran. So, based on this report, Israel actually tried to assassinate Galibbah and Narachi in the midst of negotiations. Holy [ __ ] Now, what is it that Israel is trying to accomplish? More war. Well, yeah, except a war that they can't win and they're not able to handle. That's, that's what is so insane about this. You know, they've already proven that they can't stop the Iranian ballistic missiles. So, and, and they're killing the people who have been most likely willing to negotiate with them. So, yeah, let's, let's make sure that you put, uh, folks who are hardliners who will be unforgiving in power. Yeah, that'll serve Israel's interests. These people are crazy. They're just bonafide nuts.
It does. Would you? Go ahead. No, I was going to ask you a second question, but I'll let you finish this comment first. No, no, I just said it's, um, you kill somebody if that, if that person is planning to kill you and cause immediate bodily harm or, you know, these Iranians are killing, are not in that category. They're the ones actually withholding, encouraging no attacks. So, I, I don't, I don't get it. Uh, if I, if I had to speculate, it's to derail, obviously, to derail negotiations, but the goal is to drag the US into it. You would call it a losing war if we just repeat the same that's happened before, but at, at the end of the day, it seems like the American, the Iranians are losing the most. Depends how you measure it, militarily, by damage wise. Lebanese probably up there as well. But the point I'm making is the Americans are in some ways losing more than the Israelis. So, if the Israelis drag the US, from a strategic perspective, you could argue that it, it benefits their interest. If they keep weakening Iran, they won't achieve victory, strategic victory. I don't think they'll be able to achieve it. But if they can convince the Americans to just keep bombing Iran, bombing Iran, it works in, uh, it works in Israel's interest. I think that's the goal they're trying to achieve.
I just, what's wild to me though, is that the Americans help them. Well, look, that assumes, and it's a faulty assumption, that after they bomb Iran, Iran doesn't retaliate. Iran retaliates with greater force, greater strength, greater duration. And every single case, whether it's the 12-day war or this last, you know, the 42-day war, uh, it's been Israel looking for an out, not Iran. And, uh, you know, the fact that this peace, you know, ceasefire was announced, it coincided with roughly the last day that oil carriers on the high seas delivered their cargo to their final destination. Not, you know, you think that's a coincidence? That's why the United States was eager to get a ceasefire back open because there was, they don't have enough oil to replace what they've lost. Yeah. It's just another crazy part is that the Americans, instead of, you know, I would expect that if the Americans were able to force Israel eventually to a ceasefire in Lebanon, I don't know what they would have, what they would have been able to do to, to get to achieve that because in this report, the Americans warned Iran through Pakistan and Qatar. Mhm.
Why would you need to warn Iran if you don't want Israel to assassinate their leaders? Can't you just pick up the phone and say, "Uh, BB, you kill them, I'm out immediately. You deal with the consequences." And by the way, the aid would stop. I don't understand what's stopping President Trump. I'm sure there's something there because I'm sure he'd love to do that. But what is it that's stopping him from being able to do that? Oh, it's, I think it's increasingly clear that that Trump's not really in control of his own administration. Um, Tucker Carlson did a fascinating interview last night with, uh, investigative reporter that had looked into the whole January 6 incidents. And what came out of that was that the whole January 6 incident was highly orchestrated and it had the involvement of, uh, the CIA, highly classified special military units, uh, and the FBI. Now, the reason I raise that is this investigative reporter has now identified the Capitol Hill police officer who is actually the one that planted the bombs outside the DNC and RNC headquarters. And the, these were not real bombs. They were inert. But here's Trump unable to control that process. So, if you look at something that's so central to his own political survival and he's unable to control it, why in the world do we think he's actually in control of any of this foreign policy activity?
That's a very good point. Makes you question a lot of things about how the government works and how much those we elect or those Americans elect, um, are the ones that make the final decisions. No, it's really, it's, it's the concept of a deep state control. It's real. Um, and you get, you get bureaucrats who are in senior positions. They, they have seniority. They have security. And, you know, if there's something they don't like about a current administration, they work against it. Uh, so that's where, you know, I always come back to look at, you know, let's look at the kinds of things that you think have to be in order in order for there to be like a military strike or military action. And so that's where I come down, like right now, saying I don't see any immediate military action in the, on the horizon, simply because the, the bureaucratic mechanisms that make that happen have been temporarily deactivated. And what I mean by that is the, the CATs, the crisis action teams, they, they've stopped doing 24/7. They're now five days a week, eight hours a day. Um, so that means planting cells that would normally be operational and, uh, and operation cells, they've been essentially deactivated for now. Now, if we see them stand back up, that's a good indicator that the United States is getting ready to do something militarily.
On the, um, also in the last 48 hours, the USS Boxer. I know you're talking about an order for military aircraft to move away from the region, not military aircraft, sorry, military equipment, but according to reports, um, so first, there was a report that came out, the USS Boxer, um, which is an amphibious, uh, ready group, actually just arrived to the region, I think yesterday or two days ago, according to SenCom. And then Brad Cooper was talking about how 50,000 troops are in the region. He said yesterday that the, um, let me find it here. I wrote it down. In his visit to Lebanon, he said there's 50,000 troops, more than 50,000 American service members are currently operating across the region, remaining vigilant and ready. And well,
50,000 across the region. I mean, you know, let's go back to the claim about the Boxer. Sorry, that's [ __ ]. The USS Boxer departed Naval Base San Diego on Wednesday, March 18th, 2026. Are you telling me it took three friggin months to get there? I don't know about it. It was just mentioned to me today. Yeah, I'm just telling you what, what they're mentioning to you is [ __ ]. It's a lie. Yeah, Brad Cooper made, "Oh, it's just on station." No, it's not. It left San Diego to sail to that area on March 18th. Just type into, you know, type into your search engine, how long does it take the USS Boxer to sail from San Diego to, uh, Chabahar? You know, 50 days maximum. And, uh, and yet they're telling us that, so March 18th to April 18th, there's 30. April 18th to May 18th, there's 60. May 18th to June 18th, there's 90. You're talking almost four freaking months to get there. Shut up. That's ridiculous. You're still confident. You don't think there'll be a military buildup whatsoever. You still think they're planning to take all the military equipment away? Well, there's, like I said, until until someone tells me that the CAT, Oh, we've, we've reactivated the CAT. Okay. And then we see, uh, aircraft going to, say, Fort Bragg. They're flying, they're flying from their, their station to Fort Bragg to pick people up and then flying to the Middle East. Yeah. Then there's a buildup. But that's not happening. It's the opposite that's happening. The airplanes are flying out of the Middle East. They're flying to Fort Bragg, dropping people off, and then going back to their home station.
But, but why? Ask yourself, why would Cooper lie like this about the USS Boxer? Oh, yeah, it's ready there on station. It's been there for god, two months. Have some skepticism about this. Um, all right. So, in terms of the, the, the risks of Mushtava Kame, you're saying that, so if the Americans are not ready for war, if they, they've got military equipment moving away from the region, if the crisis management team are not active, or they've downsized, or they're working less hours, but that doesn't mean Israel wouldn't like to see a resumption of war. You're saying if Israel has an opportunity to derail the negotiations, they would take it. Would agree on that within me, within means, or they would not take it without American approval? Oh, they, they might do it, but they'd, they'd be risking war with the world. You know, an assassination of the Ayatollah during this, uh, this international event, because India, Chinese are sending a high-level delegation. India sending a high-level delegation. Uh, the Russians are sending Medvedev. That's pretty high. So, and, and then look at the, look at the that missile, you know, in the video you showed. That's not a precision-guided weapon. That's a Hellfire missile. That's one that doesn't explode. That one that has blades coming out of it. No, no, no. It does explode. It carries a 20 kg warhead, or a 20 lb warhead, excuse me. And so, not this one. This is a different one. So, this is a Hellfire. It has a name. Um, there it is. Hold on. An RX9. Hellfire R9X. Sorry. So, this one, it's infamous because blades would come out of it and it would kill someone. So, if there's two people sitting in a car, it will kill one of them but not the other one. Um, and that's the. And so it wouldn't explode whatsoever. The blades come out and it just slices the person. Yeah, that would again, they, they do that at a, at a religious ceremony like that, in front of all these other foreign dignitaries. Israel, Israel would be, you know, immediately Iran would be retaliating, and there's not a single country that would intervene to encourage them to stop. But you're also talking about a country that tried to assassinate the leading negotiators during negotiations when the Americans invited them. I understand it's not the same as killing the supreme leader during a funeral. Yeah, but you didn't have the Russians and the Chinese and the Indians there. They, it was just them. There was no risk of any kind of foreigner getting hurt. Weren't the Chi, weren't the Chinese in, um, Oh, no. They weren't. The Chinese were in Venezuela when Trump kidnapped Maduro. Yeah, that's the story. I, I've really seen no confirmation of that. But, but the point is, kidnapping Maduro is one thing. Killing Tom and doing an assassination in a, in a religious ceremony that's frankly is attracting Muslims from around the world. This would be viewed as an attack on Islam, you know, and if, if that's. They already killed the supreme leader. I just, they've already killed the supreme leader. They killed the supreme leader. They tried to kill negot, leading negotiators when they were invited to negotiations by the US. The US has offered them security guarantees. Yeah. And how did that turn out for him? Did it, did it make Israel more secure? Did it stop the attacks on Israel? No. So, I think I think it'll make more of a pariah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. I think it'll make Israel more of a pariah. But if they seem to be very in their decision-making, they seem to be since October 7th, very short-term oriented, short-term strategic thinking. You know, a lot of the decisions they've taken, there might be a short-term win, but long-term they've come at a great cost. And I worry, I'd be surprised, but what if BB does it? What if BB is so desperate now he's losing politically? He's like, "Screw it. I'm going to try to achieve a massive win. Kill Mushabak. It's horrible for Israel in the next few years. It will alienate us. Trump will be pissed off." It's not going to alienate. It's not going to alienate people. It's going to lead to the destruction of Israel. Iran will not stop with ballistic missiles until Israel is a smoldering ruin. This would have, this would have crossed the line that they will not, you know, there won't be any going back from it. Wouldn't killing the Ali was crossing the line as well? Well, you can make that case, but Israel, Iran responded. And again, who was it that sought an end to the fighting on day 42? Was it Israel and the United States? Yes. It wasn't Iran. I think it was, it was the United States, not Israel. Israel did not want to end the war. Israel was advocating for it. Critical. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Israel, the reason Israel is going to the United States, you got to stop this. They were getting hammered. And, you know, reports now come out, they suffered so much more damage than initially reported. You know, I, you can fault Ron for saying, you know, you guys got too much damn, you know, patience and you're too charitable. You ought to, you ought to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Cuz you have for those kinds of provocations. I mean, like Israel has done nothing but provoke. They were meant to be ceasefire in Lebanon. They're escalating, escalated the bombing in Lebanon. According to all these reports, they kept saying, making statements, we're not going to abide by the ceasefire. Kat saying a few days ago, there was a T-cut said it himself. There's a target on Mushabakam. So, it's like they're, they're doing their actions show they don't want to abide by the MOU. They still haven't pulled out of Lebanon. A ceasefire has still not happened. Um, they, there were reports they were trying to kill the negotiators, according to New York Times. They literally tried to kill the negotiators on their way back from negotiating with the vice president of the United States of America on Trump's request. And I'm sure there's been security guarantees offered by the US on that trip. I would assume. They're the defense minister saying pretty openly, there's a target on their supreme leader's head. I just, like, I get, I don't think they'll do it. I think this is too far. But it just, I think I'm more worried now than I was a few days ago about it. Well, you're making a good case for why, uh, Israel should be destroyed. I, I don't, I don't think it should, should be. I don't think it should be destroyed. Well, this kind, this kind of action, this. I'm against that action. That's horrible. This is, this is, this is an act of war. It's beyond that. I just. Yeah. When I read the report though, Go ahead. Go ahead. You've got to, you know, you got to. Are you suggesting that the Israelis have no cost-benefit analysis capability at all? No, no, they, they do. They're just very short-term oriented in it. Well, even short-term oriented cost-benefit analysis of Netanyahu versus of Israel are different. That's. Okay. What, what, what does killing how many abide them? Political point for political points for Netanyahu in the elections? Potentially. Political po, political points when the ensuing response of Iran is to bomb the living hell out of Tel Aviv and Haifa. I don't see how that helps his political, how that helps his political campaign. Well, his political campaign was getting a boost. He was gaining support while the war was raging, while Israel was being attacked. Support dropped when the war ended because of the terms in which it ended. So, if he manag, if he restarts it and kills Mushtaba, I don't know. I don't know how Israelis might perceive it differently. Yeah. Now we do. Trump, let me play this clip for you. Just said it now. I'm, I'm sure it'll make you happy. Steph, if you could play that clip with the audio, please, to Larry. He's in a good mood. Let's make it better. So, play that clip with the audio. It just came in now. And then play this one as well. So, he's giving an interview as we speak. I did a blockade that was essentially not a blockade. It was a wall of steel. We have the great navy, the greatest navy in the world. These guys are unbelievable. Not one ship got through to Iran. They have 300% inflation. They're making no money. So, we're going to take some of the money and we're going to buy them. They need food. They need corn and wheat and soybeans. And we're going to have exclusively our American farmers provide that, assuming we get to the position where we should get to. I think we're going to get there. They have their strength is gone. Their bravado is gone. Although they keep a pretty good friend. The, the one thing they do have is fakeness. The New York Times said the other day that Iran is in better position now than it was four months ago. I said, "Wait a minute. Their military is gone. Their inflation is up to 300% from 5%. Their leaders are gone. Their second row of leaders are gone. Some of their third row of leaders are gone. Their generals are mostly wiped out. But they said that they are in better shape today than they were four months ago before we attacked." No, we were very strong.
Um, he makes a good point, Larry. He did. Their military is gone. Their leaders, all layers are gone. Their generals are gone. Wait, wait. You don't really believe that, do you? I mean, you're just for the sake of discussion, you're repeating, you're repeating the nonsense that he said, right? Is that. They military capitulated. Mustaba, sorry, Ali Kam is gone. They seem all like victories to me. So maybe we're just looking at this wrong. Um, how many, what, what was the daily shipment of oil out of Iran on February 27th, '26? It was 1.4 million barrels. Right now, they're doing 1.6 million barrels and they're getting a 20% premium on every barrel. Yeah, that's suffering, man. That's. They're going backwards. Sanctions lifted. The, uh, the ballistic missiles. Lifted. They've. Oh, they're still in. They're still intact. Uh, they haven't been wiped out. The United States acknowledged they haven't been wiped out. Uh, cruise missiles still there. Drones still there. The fact is, Iran demonstrated last week in response to a US attack. They retaliated on a much more, on a much larger scale than what the United States fired at them. So, you know, Trump lives in his little delusional fantasy world. Uh, you know, he can, he can dress up in a military uniform and march around and pretend that he's king of the world, but, but the fact of the matter is, the Iranian military is still quite intact. Their air force. The air force was never part of their key, you know, strategic leg of protection. And several, most of their, most of their air force is still intact. It flew to Pakistan, sheltered there, or was sheltered underground, uh, in underground shelters that weren't destroyed. Uh, far as the Navy goes, they still got patrol boats. They still got, uh, boghammers, high-speed boats. They still got drones, both surface and underwater, you know. So, he, he's got, he's got to tell himself these stories in order to justify what he's actually doing. I think I think he knows reality. I think he's just trying to tell the voters a story to, trying to create his own reality. Um, so jokes aside, obviously, I, I know what he's saying is BS. Um, let me, there is important news I do want to get through and, um, probably should have done that instead of messing with you. So, um, straight home. So, European leaders, according to Bloomberg. So, two pieces of news. I'm going to merge them together. Uh, about 3 hours ago, uh, a story came out of Bloomberg, sorry, Wall Street Journal, that they, there was an offer made by the US in the Qatar negotiations to unfreeze $6 billion of funds for Iran, not to charge a fee at the trade of Hammud. Iran rejected that offer. Obviously, it's not, doesn't make sense as an offer. And an earlier report came out today. So, we talked about how Oman, according to a report, made an offer, a formal offer to the US, that they will charge a fee in the trade of hummus. Well, according to Bloomberg, European powers, some European powers, now accept a fee at the Strait of Hormuz as inevitable. So, they said Iran is going to charge a fee. This is the new reality. All they're asking right now is to not discriminate against ships based on nationality. In other words, look, if we're going to pay, can China and Russia also pay? So, it's like everyone should pay. So, this is the position of what Europe and even some Gulf countries are in. It's not if and whether Iran will charge a fee. They will charge a fee, but please do it fairly. And actually, I was put out a piece also to know that was yesterday that Wikov and Kushner are trying to make an offer to Iran, saying, "Hey, look, we will unfreeze a lot of assets, so more than the offer that came out of the Wall Street Journal, and lift sanctions. You'll make a lot more money that way, rather than charge a fee." So, instead of charging a fee and making money that way, we'll give you a great offer. You can make more money with that. Just don't charge a fee in the Strait of Hormuz, which, in my view, it could work. It just depends on what the Americans offer them. It has to be, in my view, the lifting of the majority, if not all the sanctions, and the unfreezing of the majority, if not all the assets, for Iran to give up charging a fee for the Strait of Hormuz.
Ask yourself this question. Why is the United States so preoccupied about the prospect of Iran charging a fee? I mean, if the United States doesn't depend upon the Gulf and any ships coming out of there, why do they care? For allies, maybe. Allies are pressuring the US. Oh, yes. The United States, it just loves its allies. Oh, Lord knows. We. We love our. We love our allies so much. We want to make sure that none of them suffer any pain or grief. No, this is, this is the. Are we, are we talking the same president that imposed tariffs on all of his beloved allies? The allies saying, "What if the, what if these allies are threatening to sell treasuries, for example, or using their vices to try to pressure Trump?" Their levers, sorry, to pressure Trump. They're already selling. They're already selling treasuries. Yeah. US has no leverage on this. That's the point. You open. Why do you think? Why do you think he's trying to open it? Yeah. Because they see it as, as very costly to them, to the United States, and they don't want to pay. It's, it's a, they're not, they don't want to have to submit themselves to the Iranians. And, but allowing this to go forward just simply shows Iran's in charge of the Gulf, of the Strait. Yeah, it is. You know, welcome, welcome to the real world, guys. Yeah. So, um, I, I don't see, I don't see Iran taking this offer from Witoff and Kushner. If anything, they'll say, "Okay, let's see the money first." You know, it's like, it's like, not, not that I've engaged in any high-highric drug deals or even low-price drug deals, for that matter, but you don't show up and say, "Yeah, give me the drugs first and then I'll pay you the money." No, no, no, no, no, no. Let's see the money first, then we'll, we'll talk about the product. Same deal here. Or it could be like this, probably a movie we could both relate to. Or it could be like in, um, Say Hello, uh, Scarface, when he's going to do his first drug deal and he's going there. "Do you have the stuff?" "Yeah, of course I have the stuff." "You have the money?" "I have it." "Where's the stuff?" "Uh, nearby." "Where's the money?" "Uh, nearby." And then they try to kill each other. Do you know which scene I'm talking about? Yeah. Yeah. We finally relate to a scene. Yeah. Yeah. Looking at your apparel today. What you're wearing. It suits. The clothing. Yeah. I'd fit in with the "Say hello to my little friend." Little friend. All right. So, that's on. Yeah. No, I just say that, uh, Iran is, you know, it's firm about its, it's going to control the Strait of Hormuz now. It recognizes this is leverage. And with that leverage, you can also use it for, you know, the friends and family program. Hey, China, come on through. You don't have to pay. You know, Russia, but Russ, you know, actually, Russia is not dependent upon anything coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. Russia produces everything that the Strait of Hormuz produces. Include helium, liquid natural gas, oil, sulfur, ura. You know, for Russia, this, if anything, this closure of the Strait of Hormuz, good for Russia. Makes his products more expensive. They're getting more money out of it. Yeah. I. They were the, the only winners of the, the Iran war where a lot of economists were making the argument how the US benefited economically relative to other countries from the closure of the Austral. But whenever they're making that argument, it's always the only other country benefiting is Russia, obviously, as a net energy exporter.
All right. So, that's on the home front. Um, and the fact that the Americans made a deal and the Iranians rejected it. We've talked about the USS Boxer. We've talked about the Galibbah and Arachi assassination attempts. Um, and let me ask, let me ask you a question. Why do you think they're putting out this story about the USS Boxer now? Oh, it's now entered the region for the fight. I, I mean, you know, just look it up. It, it set sail to be deployed, uh, in March 18th. And so, you know, it got there within 60 days. And so, just now they're pretending, oh, it just arrived. I mean, it's, it's so, it's so provably false. Why would they make such a stupid claim? I mean, it's, it's really bizarre. I, it reinforces, reinforces my point. Anything coming out of Brad Cooper's mouth, you can't trust. You know, it's spin, it's politics, but it has nothing to do with reality.
So, then there's a JD Vance interview that he did, uh, yesterday. Um, I don't know if you saw it. Um, should I play the clip? Uh, please. Oh, you want me to play it for you? It won't bother you. This one, it's, um, it's kind of just trying to understand. Let me tell you which one it is, Stephanie. We played it earlier today, so it should be in our chat. Um, but it's in that, in that, um, in that interview, he's talking about, um, I think Stephanie found it on, in a way, saying that the MOU is just to give breathing space for the Americans rather than actually ending the war, and I know that's a concern you have and have, um, so this is, he's kind of hinting at that. It's hard to determine whether he means it. You can play it whenever it's ready, Stephanie, if you found it. Oh, this is it here. Uh, this one here, Stephanie. Yeah, this is it. Play it. Yep. It's pre-war height. So, I think what the president has told us to do is use this MOU to sort of refill the world's oil economy. Yeah. To refill some stocks and then to see where the hand is. And, you know, if the, as I've said this repeatedly, if the Iranians are willing to make the commitments that we would like them to make and are willing to back those up with verifiable milestones, then we are going to change our relationship with Iran. And if they don't do that, then nothing has really changed except for what we've already accomplished from the military campaign, which is a lot. So, we kind of have two options here. We have the option of pursuing a long-term deal with the Iranians, but that requires a significant change in their behavior. We have the option of banking our wins and then of course doing things on top of that if the president feels that we have to. And I think both of those options are very much in play and the president's going to let this play out. But what's happening right now is he's letting those options play out in an environment where there is significantly less pressure on the world energy economy. And this is my biggest frustration with right-wing critics of what we've done over the last few months in Iran is that they don't realize how completely they were losing the political argument because of what was happening to world energy markets. Yeah. So what the president of the United States has done, you're talking about the critics who want more bombs dropping. Their attitude is just drop bombs and drop bombs and drop bombs and they can't really articulate to what end. And what the president is saying, I'm, I'm willing to drop bombs and he's clearly shown that he's willing to drop bombs, but only if it serves an objective. And so what he's doing right now is taking a lot of pressure off of the world economy, the world energy economy in particular, while not giving up a single one of his gains and while preserving a lot of optionality. I, I think that's a very good place for us to be in, but there's uncertainty because no one can be certain what the Iranians are going to do. Right? So then the message, if, if you're an Iranian, the message you're getting from the US is not. Okay. Yeah. So, so he's kind of hinting that, you, um, you got to unmute Larry, Stephanie. Um, but you heard what he said. He's, um, kind of hinting at the possibility that the option of war is still there. Um, so doesn't mean it's now. I understand there's the discussion we've had about military buildup, but option of war means the optionality could be in three months' time, could be in six months' time.
Yeah. So, let's remember what Donald Trump said at the G7, uh, meeting, um, in June. He said, quote, "We only have about four weeks of oil left if the Strait stays closed. We have to get it open." Now, this is not sustainable. Now, he wasn't, he wasn't talking about the light crude or sweet, sweet oil as they call it, because the United States produces enough sweet oil to prod, you know, produce all the gasoline it needs domestically. What he's talking about is the heavy crude, the crude oil or the sour oil that produces diesel and or, uh, diesel or aviation fuel. And that's what they're running out of. And what, what's happened now has, it has not restored that. So, that that clock is, you know, we're now down much less than four weeks, down to a week of oil left, if his calculations were right. I actually think it's going to be more like another five weeks that they'll run out. But they are running out. And, and the run out is just, it's very simple to illustrate. You take, you know, draw a line that's your existing demand, and the supply at the prior to February 28th is meeting that existing demand. Now, the supply dropped 20%. Now, the, it was a delayed impact because, as I pointed out earlier, the oil that was on the high seas took about four, from February 28th, count 40 days, that's when the last oil tanker would have arrived in the United States and offloaded the heavy crude. Okay. So, from that date, you know, say April 8th, you start counting then, how many days can we survive by, because we don't have, there's not enough heavy crude out there to make up that difference. We're already importing everything we can from Canada, everything from Mexico, everything from Venezuela. We're still short. So, what the, what the, what the Trump administration did in mid-April was they started drawing down on the strategic petroleum reserve and taking out of that the sour oil, you know, the heavy crude, and that's going to the refineries that are along the, the Gulf, Gulf of America, now formerly Gulf of Mexico, but they're, they're drawing that down, but they're not getting anything coming in. Well, now that level in the strategic petroleum reserve has reached, it's now at a critical stage. There's only a small margin, maybe six, seven days of supply left before they're out. And once you're out, then you're dealing still with this 20% shortage. And somebody, you got to cut somewhere. Are you going to cut aviation fuel, or you going to cut diesel? Uh, aviation fuel means fewer aircraft fly. Civilian airliners will face cutbacks, or you cut back diesel, not enough diesel for tractors and farmers, or for the trucks that they run on. So, that's the problem, and that's not solved yet, because if the, the oil tankers that have come out this week so far, 90, 90% of them, and maybe 100%, but I'm pretty sure the 90% number, they're going to Asia. They're going to South, to China, uh, to South Korea, some to India, Indonesia, Malay. They're going to Asia. That's the, that doesn't help the United States at all with diesel and aviation fuel. So, and even if you start getting tankers out today to deal with that shortage, that's going to be 40 days before they get to the United States and then gets refined. So, you're looking at at least 45 more days. And that's the point from, you know, say within a, within a week, two weeks, the United States is now going to be in a deficit situation, and they don't have reserves to pull out of the strategic petroleum reserve. That's the issue.
Yeah. There was, um, a guest I spoke with today that I think you'd really like. He, I thought of you while I was speaking with him, Philillip Pillington, sorry, Pilington. Great guy. He's, Oh, you know. I'm, I'm familiar with his writing. I, I don't know him personally. Yeah. So, he, he's, um, got his own podcast, etc. Met him for the first time. And he was making the argument because it reminded me of something you said. He's, so again, he's an economist, and he's going through how the, just the oil prices are being heavily manipulated, which I know is something you've been concerned about for a long time, because he's like, it just doesn't make sense that the, the, the future prices are so low, but there was just supply demand, just don't make sense. There's not enough ships going through the Strait of Hormuz to be a lot more ships to kind of meet the demand that's that exists. And then obviously, if China's back in the market and demand increases on the Chinese side, that will make it even worse. And then you've also got to fill up the strategic petroleum reserves. So, if you add that to the mix. Um, so, so his argument is that, uh, and he's also talking about how the oil that is on the ships. Is something you've said to me as well, is selling for a much higher price than the future prices. Correct. Much higher. His estimation, there's a term for it and how it's calculated, but his estimation is similar to a number that HFI research mentioned, according to him, of the price of oil they're paying is $105, $110. He said it could be as high as $115 a barrel. So, he's saying, Mario, it's been manipulated. It's being, it has, it has the pro, it's being manipulated. It's been being manipulated for for for years, but now it's at a whole other level. And he just says, like, it's just not sustainable. And there's people, there are analysts that do believe that. The way they're trading that is by buying, um, stocks and energy companies. That's the, the trade. But for anyone that, um, believes that oil prices are being, being manipulated, so this is an argument that he was making. He's done an incredible job at explaining it. Went really deep, um, earlier today. I enjoyed it. I, I told him I want you on the show on a regular basis. Um, and, um, but yeah, I was thinking of you while having that conversation because I know you. Yeah. No. Well, he's, he's exactly right. Uh, and again, this is, you know, I don't know about you. I know before this whole, this, the war started, I used to just think of oil as like, oil, you know, it doesn't have all these different components, it's just oil, and you can, you can do this or that, you got a lot of choices. Turns out, no, that, I was wrong. Um, so you've got certain, certain prochemical outputs require, require a particular kind of oil, but particularly with aviation and diesel fuel, that's from what they call the middle distillates. And, and out of a barrel of oil, 30% of the oil in that barrel may go towards the middle distillates. So, that, that is why Trump let the cat out of the bag at the G7 where he said, "We, we're going to be out in four weeks. We need to get the Strait open now." Yeah. So, he finally listened to whoever was briefing him, uh, cuz he wasn't lying. He wasn't making that up. All right. So, in other news, we've got Iranian president said that, um, now, actually, let's go to the funeral because we were talking about it earlier. So, uh, Pakistan announced that Shahbaz Sharif, the prime minister, is going to be traveling today, sorry, tomorrow, to attend the funeral. Um, and he'll be accompanied by other officials from Pakistan. Also, Ismael Bag, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, said, quote, "More than 100 countries from around the world will attend the farewell and funeral ceremony of the martyred leader of the Islamic Republic of the Islamic Revolution, Ali Khamenei. We did not invite the countries that supported the aggressor's attack on Iran during the war to participate in the funeral ceremony of the martyred leader." So, that's, um, uh, just some updates on, so another big leader, I don't know if you know that the prime minister of Pakistan's going, is not going, according to the report, but the prime minister is, um, also, there was this, if you could show that image, um, remember how we talked the last attack that happened, we showed an image, if you can quickly show it, Stephanie, of the radar that was, uh, destroyed, uh, by the Americans. It's been struck many times. They struck it again. Um, so, it's in Sirk, in Sirk, the city of Sirk. Sir Island. I think Syriak is an island. Sir Island. It's been destroyed three times. It's actually been rebuilt for the third or fourth times. I think third time. It's been rebuilt again now.
Um, and funny because Trump. I'm just laughing. So, they're not doing a real good job of destroying it, are they? If it could be so quickly. Unless it's easy to rebuild. I don't know. Um, because it sounds like a little tower. Or unless it's a decoy. As a plot twist. Um, well, you got to ask yourself, you know, I would think a real radar might take actually more time to construct. Whereas you, you build a decoy and put it back up real quick. Come get it, Americans. Burn up those Tomahawks. So, that was this morning. So, this is this morning with satellite images. And now, with that in mind, I want you to listen to the clip of what Trump said a few minutes ago. I think it'd be, it's perfect timing. Them are really big ships and in a way they had courage going out, but our navy took them out. We escorted them out and nobody knew. The lights were off. Everything was off. Everything was silent. We blew up Iran's radar. They had no radar. They still don't. We blew it up again the other night. They had a nice new radar system. They were all set to go and we blew it up last week. They have to start all over again for a third time. They keep blowing it up and it keeps coming back. Huh. Gee, that sounds like it sounds like a bad case of herpes. Where did you come up with this? That's the least thing I expected you to say. That's a good one, though. Jesus Christ. Um, so another piece of news though. Trump's sitting there going, "Why do I still got this sore on my lip?" So, another piece of story, a piece of news that came out as well today, according to Reuters, um, in terms of rebuilding from the war damage. Saudi Aramco has resumed full crude exports through the Strait of Hormuz with at least five super tankers carrying around 10 million barrels departing from Ras Tanura. The state oil giant has also begun offering up to 6 million barrels of July loading crude to its regular Asian customers on a spot basis, marking a rare shift away from its traditional long-term contract model as it seeks to boost sales. The increase in export comes after the US-Iran truce, blah, blah, blah. And that also comes with a report here by HFI. US naval forces are reportedly, if you can show this image as well, this, there's a video on this tweet I'm going to send you now, Stephanie, you can play it for, uh, for the audience and for Larry, um, so that contradicts other things we've been talking about. US naval forces are reportedly supporting and protecting super tankers transiting through the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani corridor over the last 24 hours. That's this morning, uh, at least four non-Iranian VLCCs transited inbound with AIS on, with AIS on the transponder on via the shroud. If you can play the. Yeah, play.
this one. No, just play. Can you play? No, you can't. Or can you figure it out and play, please?
Um, over the last 24 hours, at least four non uh Iranian VLCC's transited inbound with AIS on on via the shout under American oversight and protection while Iranian link traffic remains limited and the IRGC has not escalated it escalated in response.
Um, and then there's a chart here and there's an image >> which direction were they going? >> Inbound, right? >> Uh, for transit inbound. >> They're going into the straight, right? >> With AIS on. >> So they don't So they don't have oil on board yet, right? >> I'm assuming so if it says inbound. >> Yeah. So why is Iran gonna worry about a ship that doesn't have any oil on board? >> Yeah. Yeah, let me see the actual report here. Maybe the team were wrong. Uh, okay. >> And they claimed that there are US Navy ships accompanying it. Nonsense. >> US protection report that went in that went in. >> Yeah, went in. Anyway, so that's the report here, but I get conflicting information on what's happen. So, I'm just reading it as is.
Um but as you said this is inbound but the Sandi Aramos re uh um uh repaired itself according to the Reuters report. >> And where are they sending their oil? >> Asia to which >> Asia obviously Asia is the one that's uh >> okay. How does that help? How does that help the United States? The United States is running a deficit on heavy crude. How does that help the United States? It doesn't. That's the point. You know, they can send all the oil they want to China. It's not going to help the United States one damn bit. And yet Trump's proud of that. He needs to go back and read his brief on that issue.
So, we've cleared home. Um, we've talked about the war damage. We've played some clips. We've talked a lot about the funeral. We've talked about the risks or like thereof of a return to a full-blown war. Yesterday, we covered Syria and Yemen. There's more updates on that front, more mobilizations which we'll probably talk about next time we come. Um there's talks in Yemen about clashes. Um positive developments between Syria and Lebanon uh heading in the right direction of no clashes, but it's it's a lot of updates there.
Uh yeah, you can play the video. Yes, Stephanie. Uh you can play it, but it's we've moved on anyway. Um some updates on the Lebanese side. Nothing too significant. Um just worried about war. Uh the country is really worried about get being plunged into war.
Um and then probably the last thing is that's an American political point. I'll bring it up and get your thoughts on it, Larry. A report from Axios, you could remove it. It's fine, Stephanie. According to Axios, former US fighter so Kamala Harris had privately contacted Mamani and held closed door meetings with pro Palestinian activists as she lays the ground word grow groundwork for a possible 2028 presidential campaign. Axious reports Harris recently spoke with Mdani about the future of the Democratic Party and also met with figures linked to the uncommitted movement which opposed the Biden administration's policy on the war in Gaza. She has additionally consulted Democrats and former aids on issues including China, AI, and Venezuela. The outreach comes as Harris seeks to rebuild ties with the Democrat party's progressive wing following criticism over her alignment with Biden's approach to Israel during the 2024 election. Harris has not announced whether she will run in 2028. just an interesting point on how the um the Israel issue is going to become more and more important in the um in the next election.
>> Yeah. Well, and not in terms of being pro-Israel. That's the point. Israel Israel has done so much damage to its reputation and uh the you know the political atmosphere in the United States is definitely turning against them.
>> Yeah. And we're going to see that plan. We we mentioned yesterday how Tucker is launching uh he he's not launching his own either he's launching his own party or wants to support a third party um that's a non non-interventionist non-interventionist a party that moves away from these forever wars or these foreign wars which is what the country needs but yeah I think the reverberations of October 7th and everything that happened since >> um going to be felt for many years to come especially in the next elections. Yeah, I think actually a third party like that would probably get some traction uh because it would focus on focusing on America's needs and building up infrastructure, dealing with the social problems we have here in this country, lack of adequate health care, uh growing economic inequality. You know, you saw today the the report on jobs was they had expected more jobs to be produced. Nope. Fewer. So, you know, you even Trump keeps talking, oh, the economy is great. Couldn't be any better. It's not true. But that's their story. But regardless of what it is right now, if Trump's statement to the G7 was correct, that we're going to run out of oil. The when he says we're going to run out of oil, what he meant, we're going to run out of the heavy crude that's needed for diesel and aviation fuel. I keep hammering that. It's important that people understand that uh if that's not reversed that is going to have dramatic negative economic impacts on the US economy on the global economy. So, you know, instead they're and but that's why he's not going to if let me put it this way. If he if he decides for some reason to put a halt to all this withdrawal of US forces and decides to renew attacks with with Iran, that is going to be a major that will be another disruptive action that will stop the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf. Number one, it will lead to significant damage to Israel and it will will in fact uh reduce Israel's ability to continue its military operations in Lebanon and Syria. Uh and it's going to severely damage the US economy, not to mention the European economy. So, you know, it's not a it's not a bright scenario.
M Oh, a resumption of of war is uh yeah, I really hope it doesn't happen again. It'll be a [ __ ] show. Um Larry, >> that's Is that a technical term? [ __ ] show. >> I heard it from Brad Cooper today. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. >> Well, thanks, Larry. >> If he's saying it's not true, then we know that. I'll see you soon. See you tomorrow. >> All right, my friend. Thanks. Bye-bye. >> Take care, Larry.
All right, guys. This is it for today. You've got the news recap. You've got some incredible interviews to check out. Um, if you want to check out another interview for the day, I would recommend the last one with Colonel Anthony Aguular was great, a great military discussion of number one of how an assassination of Mushabakam would look like and how a resumption of the war would look like. And another interview I recommend you check out um Philip Pilingston which I've just mentioned with uh with Larry. Honestly, he's first time guest on the show. I really enjoyed it and I think you'd love it as well. So few hours ago, I think it was eight hours ago with Philip Pickinson. Check that interview out and there's also a great discussion with Pravin looking at everything as always from a geopolitical lens. Guys, I'm off for the day. I hope you enjoyed the coverage and I'll see you tomorrow. As always, I'll go through the comments now before heading to bed. Thank you everyone. Bye-bye.