Transcription
President Trump told Fox News, "49 Tomahawk missiles hit locations as close as 40 miles from the capital of Tan. Positions were also targeted along the southwestern part of the country." The president described the strikes as violent and vicious. Also, President Trump says top Iranian officials called him directly asking him to stop the bombing.
"That was Trey Yinst on Fox News talking about what President Trump had done last night. Uh, what's what's now going to turn out to be at least day two of at least a three-day bombing campaign. More on that in just a second. Uh, but uh, John Mirshimeber, uh, we're always grateful to have you on and sometimes the timing couldn't be better and this is one of those times here. Who's for those who may not know if you've been living under a rock, John Mirshimer is the international relations theorist, professor of political science, University of Chicago and a and a former army veteran as a matter of fact during the Vietnam era. So, uh, welcome back to the show. But uh, let me just ask your opinion, uh, on on what has been going on up to this point. Just up through last night with allegedly we fired a bunch of missiles because of so-called getting a helicopter shot down. That was that's a little bit sketchy, but that's what we said yesterday. There was no kind of precedent. We just said no, we're going to hit you again. And then we did hit those targets. What do you make of this? And is the ceasefire now officially dead?"
"Well, it's impossible to call what's going on a ceasefire, right? Uh, I mean, we've not gone that far up the escalation ladder, but this is hardly a ceasefire. Uh, this all started when the Americans claimed that the Iranians shot down an Apache helicopter and President Trump said that he was compelled to respond. And that meant that President Trump was going to go up the escalation ladder because the Iranians said that they would retaliate, uh, and they would actually retaliate disproportionately. As hard as the United States hit them, they'd hit back harder. Uh, and of course, President Trump did attack Iran or did send the American military to attack Iran and the Iranians responded. President Trump, uh, responded and the Iranians responded and President Trump is now promising to respond again, uh, in a more extreme way, I might add. All of this is just a way of saying, Danny, that what we're doing here is we're going up the escalation ladder. And President Trump is betting that he can defeat the Iranians as he goes up that ladder and get them to submit. And the question is, do you believe that's true?"
"You know, and and there's another question we have to ask is ask them to submit to what? Because the what keeps changing. And we're going to see there has been some new demands added this morning and actually some that were alluded to last night. Uh, which I I just consider bizarre. We'll see what you think here in a second. But let's go back to, uh, earlier today where President Trump was on a phone with Fox News. Uh, and he explained a little bit about what's coming tonight."
"Yeah, there will be more bombing tonight. It'll be a bigger, bigger, more powerful. Don't forget, we've knocked out all of their anti-aircraft. They don't have any anti- they have nothing. I mean, they they may get lucky with a shoulder weapon or something, but for the most part, you know, they they have no they have no defense. Now, I keep hearing this phrase over and over to all this military activity is to get them to quote sign the deal. They keep saying that, sign the deal. But the question I got to ask is, which deal? Because we have had Professor Morandi on this show. I've talked to some others in the administration that says there has been a deal of sorts already on the table that both sides have largely agreed to in the form of a memorandum of understanding, which is not a deal to end the war. Just be clear on that. But that's a a deal to start the process, especially on the bigger issue of the nuclear program and all the things that go along with that. But there's a lot of things that have to come up front from the Iranian side here. So, if that's the deal that we're trying to get to, that was already Iran had already been willing to sign on to that document. But now the terms seem to be changing. So, what deal is it that we're trying to get them to sign on now?"
"I I don't know what we're trying to get them to sign, what that deal looks like. I thought the deal that was on the table that the Iranians accept and I thought that the Trump administration accepted, uh, was all about just getting a ceasefire. As you said, Danny, it's very important that we make it clear to viewers that we're talking about getting a ceasefire here and then serious negotiations will begin on a host of issues like the nuclear issue, the question of reparations, the question of who controls the straits, uh, and so forth and so on. So that's in the sort of second phase. But in the first phase, I thought there were just a handful of uh, uh, uh, dimensions to that ceasefire deal that were on the table. One is that all shooting had to stop, including in Lebanon. So, in other words, the Hezbollah versus Israel war had to be shut down, uh, as well as the Iran versus the US and Israel war. So you have to stop all the shooting. That's number one. Number two is the Iranians open up the Strait of Hormuz and we eliminate the blockade, which means the ships can flow out of the Gulf, uh, at a in large numbers and, uh, the Gulf in effect is open. So that's two. Three is that the Iranians get $24 billion of their frozen assets back. Uh, and, uh, uh, and I think, you know, once that happens and finally, once you lift, uh, the sanctions off of the sale of Iranian oil into the global oil markets. This is not lifting all sanctions, just the sanctions on Iranian oil, so that Iranian oil can flow out of the Gulf and into global markets. Once you do those four things, you get, uh, a ceasefire, a real ceasefire. And it appeared for a while that both the Americans and the Iranians agreed on that and they were just working out the details. But given what happened with the Apache helicopter and given the fact that we're now going up the escalation ladder, you would think that's all gone up in smoke. Uh, and I don't know where this all ends, but, uh, but I think that is the state of play as best you can tell on the outside."
"Now, here here's, uh, one from the inside that we have here. Uh, yesterday, before this per second round, uh, was launched, we had this from Secretary of War Pete Hexth, who was, uh, talking from Cuba, where apparently we're getting ready for the next war. More on that later. Uh, but this is what he said about what was then coming last night and why."
"As President Trump said, they've been tap tap tapping. You can see when someone's trying to tap tap tap on a deal. Instead, they're going to have tap tap tap bombs dropping on key facilities in Iran from the United States of America. And that's not because, uh, we want to restart anything. We don't have to restart. It's because we are the War Department is prepared to set the terms to ensure that we get the kind of deal President Trump expects."
"You know, I don't I don't know what he means about this is not restarting anything. Well, it's the second night of bombing and you have another one coming, so I I don't know how else you define that. But this whole thing about tap tap tapping along, that implies that terms have been changing. But here's what I can tell you from from some sources that that have actually two separate sources, one on the Iranian side and one on the American side who have pretty close to direct knowledge about what has been going on inside these negotiations. And they conferred with what you suggested a second ago that there was largely an agreed upon framework to start that whole process that you just described and they were that the terms were largely agreed to by both parties and then but now it appears that not that the Iranians were tapping us along what it appears with that Trump decided not to take those terms and now instead of just saying no he wants to this is the way it appears anyway that Trump is gonna like say oh well it was their fault so I'm gonna bomb them until now then they'll give me as secretary Hexath said the terms that Trump can live with, i.e. the only way I can interpret that is I want unconditional surrender. Do you see it any different?"
"I don't know what he Seth is saying and I never know what Trump really means because he changes what he says."
"He may not know what he means. That's the problem."
"Yeah. So, it's very hard to know. And you know, these guys talk about a deal. The deal is the second phase, right? The actual peace agreement, uh, where you deal with the nuclear issue, the question of who controls the strait, uh, the overall package of sanctions and so forth and so on. That will all be dealt with once you get a ceasefire in place and you can sit down and have serious negotiations. The problem we face here is we can't even get a ceasefire. It looked like we had all the ingredients for a ceasefire. Uh, it looked like the Pakistanis were working to, you know, free up the $24 billion in Iranian assets and that we had solved that problem and therefore all four problems were solved. It looked like Trump might get Netanyahu, uh, and Hezbollah to stop shooting at each other. So it looked like we had, uh, the makings of a deal that would create a ceasefire, but not a final agreement, and then it all went up in smoke with the shooting down of this Apache. Uh, I mean, Trump could have handled that in a variety of different ways and, uh, but he chose to go up the escalation ladder. And Danny, the first question that pops into my head when I see what's happening is why do these people in the administration think that they're going to win by going up the escalation ladder? You know, Trump talks about the fact that the Iranians don't have a lot of air defenses, which means that a lot of our aircraft and Tomahawk missiles can attack Iran, uh, and pretty much get a free ride in the process. I think there's a lot of truth in that. But what he misses is that Iran has a significant offensive capability of its own built around drones and missiles, both cruise missiles and especially ballistic missiles. Those ballistic missiles are numerous. They are deadly accurate and they've already done an enormous amount of damage to American military installations in the region. And you know, we are here in a target-rich environment and in a target-rich environment where the Iranians have lots of accurate missiles. Uh, how do you go up the escalation ladder and beat them? And by the way, you know, Trump is now beginning to talk about, you know, taking Car Island, uh, taking over Iranian oil and so forth and so on. If he goes down that road, what he's going to find is that the Iranians are going to retaliate against the flow of Saudi oil into the Red Sea. They're going to attack against, uh, the flow of UAE oil, uh, out of the Sea of Oman, and it's just going to lead to no good. I mean, we have no interest in, you know, further escalating this war because escalating the war militarily not only does not produce victory, but it makes the economic situation worse. I mean, the reason that Trump is desperate to solve this war as we're moving into the fourth month is because of the economic consequences and the fact that all sorts of people are telling him, "This one only gets worse with the passage of time." Okay, it gets worse with the passage of time. Therefore, you better shut it down ASAP. But instead, we're going up the escalation ladder in the mistaken belief that by doing so, we gain more coercive leverage. I actually think that's not true. As you know, I've argued for a long time what's happening now, what's happening now, continuation of the war, escalation of the war is in Iran's interest. I I don't think what's happening now is not in Iran's interest. Iran has a vested interest in prolonging this war and accelerating the speed at which we head towards the cliff, towards the precipice at the economic level. So, uh, I think if anything, President Trump is in a deep hole and what he's doing is he's digging faster and deeper."
"Uh, you know, you you took some of the words right out of my mouth here on some of the changes because I we talked about what had been on the table and what people had been saying in the administration about what our objectives were, etc. And then they have taken a big turn in the last 12 hours. Uh, so I'm Gary was showing you on the screen there a second ago what Trump put on True Social. But before we focus on that, let me show you something that was on Fox News last night, uh, by, uh, General Keith Kellogg. Politically, we say stop the negotiations, have our team come home, say, you know, our phone number, give us a call. Economically, you take things like Lorac Island, which is the command and control facility in the strait. You take Car Island, which is their economic lifeline. You tell the rest of the world you're not going to get any oil because we now control the oil. We're now the oil barrels. But what do you make of that? First of all, that we want to not just take Cargal or not just hit it. Uh, but we want to take their oil and be, uh, like oil barons. What do you make of that? Because that is that is a little bit out there for me. It's a lot out there."
"It's delusional, right? These are people who are desperate, right? People like Keith Kellogg helped get us into this war. He's been a cheerleader all along and, uh, all the sort of viable strategies that people talked about, uh, turned out to be not very viable and these people are desperate. So now they're talking about taking Car Island. Uh, we talked about this once before. It makes no sense. Uh, the idea that you're going to take over Iranian oil, you're going to take over the straits, uh, and you're going to control the flow of oil into global markets from the Persian Gulf and you're going to have all sorts of leverage over countries all over the planet like China. This is like crazy. Uh, right, we don't have the military capability to take over Iran's oil, to take over, uh, the Persian Gulf. Uh, it would be insane. And, uh, boots on the ground really. Uh, we don't have the military forces in the region to do that over any sustained period of time. I mean, maybe we can take an island for a brief period of time. We're talking about a huge country. It's a huge piece of real estate. They have what, 93 million people. And furthermore, if you've ever looked at the terrain during the Cold War, Danny, one of the contingencies that people like me who did security studies back then focused on was the question of the Soviet Union, uh, invading Iran. This is after 1979. Remember in 1979 the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and you also had a revolution in Iran where Iran was greatly weakened. So all sorts of people looked at the question of, uh, you know, how easy it would be for, uh, uh, Soviet Union to invade Iran, come through the Zagros mountains and go down to Kuzstan and so forth and so on. And almost everybody understood very quickly that the terrain in Iran was forbidding, to put it mildly. This is not like conquering Poland, which is a flat country, you know, sandwiched in between Russia/the Soviet Union, Germany, and Austria, uh, that was conquered and disappeared from the map on many occasions. The geography here is forbidding, to put it mildly, and, uh, we don't have many ground forces. Trump's not going to put serious boots on the ground. So all this talk about, you know, basically conquering, uh, uh, conquering Iran and bringing them to the knees to their knees is just crazy. And by the way, just on the whole timing, uh, dimension of this story. The economy, the international economy is in trouble. It's in trouble. You can see interest rates going up in the United States and everybody predicts that if we don't shut this down, they're going to go up faster and further, right? So, you would think that Trump would be thinking about how to shut this one down, which seemed to be the direction he was moving in before Monday. However, he's now going up the escalation ladder. And you want to remember the tougher he talks and the tougher his actions are, the more extensive will be the Iranian response. And as the Iranians respond, they will end up doing more and more damage, and that will hurt the flow of oil and other products out of the Persian Gulf, which will further exacerbate the problems we face in the international economy. So, I for the life of me don't see how this is a war-winning strategy."
"You know, we you and I have talked many times, um, in terms of the Russia-Ukraine war over the last year or so since Trump has been inaugurated. We we've often pointed out that whatever Trump is doing today very often has been the product of whoever was the last person to talk to him was before he made a statement and then if somebody different went in the other ear, then he would come out in a different way the next day. That seems to be playing out here. So when when this report anyway of a helicopter being shot down, initially it wasn't shot down. Initially it was just it went down. That was and and sitcom wasn't saying anything. So we just knew that a helicopter went down. President Trump was asking immediately after it. And his comment was, it's no big deal. I'm not really worried about it. That's what he said initially. And then of course we know something happened later that now all of a sudden it's a major deal and we're going to strike 20 targets. We all know with that. Well, I just showed you Keith talking to Trump last night and then this morning, President Trump said this."
"And they're getting decimated. Just decimated and they're dying to make a deal. They want to make a deal so badly and they're really in sub in submission. They just don't know it yet. Okay. To be honest with you, they just don't know it yet. And we are talking to them and all, but you know, look, my preference has always been take Car Island. That's."
"Yeah. So, I'm just going to take CarGal and then back to that True Social in there. He also adds, uh, we're going to take their oil infrastructure and assume control of the oil and gas markets almost verbatim what Keith Kellogg had said the night before and Trump had not even mentioned Car Island or the oil for months. So, what do you make of that? Because that concerns me."
"Well, I think there's no question that there are a handful of people who are around, uh, Trump who make the kinds of arguments that, uh, General Kellogg does. And, uh, you're probably right. I don't have any hard facts, but you're probably right that the last person who speaks to him matters a lot and what he says, uh, from time to time. And, uh, probably someone like Keith Kellogg, uh, talked to him and told him that we do have a magic formula and that magic formula is to take is to take Car Island, take control of the strait, take control of Iranian oil and, uh, use that leverage to bring the Iranians to their knees and by the way send a clear message to countries like China and countries all over the world that we are basically in charge of the supply of the world's oil. And, uh, people have to dance to our tune. Uh, this is the way a lot of people seem to think these days. And as I emphasize ad nauseam, what strikes me about all of this is that people who should know better have no sense of the limits of military power. They they just think that, you know, the United States has this incredibly powerful military. It can and it can do almost anything it wants with it and get its way. And as you and I know very well, uh, we do have impressive military power, but there are real limits to what you can do with that military power. As we found out a long time ago in Vietnam, as we found out a long time ago in Afghanistan, and as we're now finding out in Iran, uh, there are just limits to what you can do."
"Yeah, there there are. And and you can you can at least partially forgive somebody who doesn't know anything about military affairs or or how wars function, whatever, and they just hear bumper stickers like, we're the most powerful military in the history of the world. You can forgive them for thinking, oh well, yeah, Iran's a lot smaller of a country and a lot smaller of a military. Surely we can take them. But as you suggested, it's something different and worse when it's somebody who should know better, i.e. a four-star general like Jack Keane. Even if they sign on a dotted line and we get everything we want on paper, what are they going to do in terms of implementation? They're going to stall it and then they're going to attempt to reverse it? I do believe we're likely on a path to return to major combat operations and that will put the regime on a path to its collapse. What do we do about Caralen? The president indicated today he would prefer to take it. Kind of the Venezuelan model. If we took control of it, it would only be on a temporary basis and we would be working eventually with a government that we could work with and return control to them because it is their oil deal. If we don't get a deal, it seems to me we're going back to major combat operations, which in my mind is the preferred option anyway. If we can get this regime to give up their predatory nature, take away their offensive capability to do that, force the collapse of the regime at some point, the strategic opportunity to reset the Middle East for generations to come is there. That is still all possible."
"Now, if if that had been said by Benjamin Netanyahu, I I would have understood where it was coming from because he wants to reset the Middle East. That's exactly what Netanyahu wants. But coming from General Keane, he should surely know that we don't have the military capacity together with Israel to compel that or we would already have done it. So what do you make of why he keeps saying this? And I'll tell you why it worries me is because just like I showed you Kellogg said what he said last night and then Trump echoed it the next morning. Uh, before the first of these what's now going to be three days of bombing started, Jack Keane went on Fox News again and said, I think we really need to go back to bombing because that's the only thing that's going to make these guys bring around. And now here he's done it and and if he's talking about Car and all this other kind of stuff and taking over the oil, um, if he convinces Trump here to go down a path that militarily that you just laid out cannot succeed, where does that leave us after we try?"
"Well, just be in worse shape than we are today. Again, we're in a hole. Uh, we're in a deep hole. And what President Trump, who's in charge, is doing is he's digging faster and digging deeper. I I don't know what else to say. The idea that we're going to get, uh, the Iranians to surrender, I think, is not a serious argument. We represent an existential threat to them. The United States and Israel are genocidal states, uh, that have their gun sites on Iran and want to destroy Iran. Uh, and President Trump says, uh, they're ready to submit. They just don't know that. What does that mean? Uh, I don't think they're ever going to know that. He may think they're ready to submit, but the fact that they don't know that tells you they're not ready to submit. And by the way, just with General Keane, you know, he tells this story about the Americans are the good guys. Uh, President Trump is especially one of the good guys and the Iranians are the bad guys. We can't trust them to implement, uh, an agreement. Well, I would point out that we had this agreement with the Iranians called the JCPOA. Uh, and it wasn't the Iranians who walked away from the deal. It was President Trump who walked away from the deal. Do you think the Iranians can trust President Trump? I don't."
"And let me just add on there on February the 26th, two days before war, we also had at least the outlines of a deal where Iran was willing to do stuff that was better than the JCPOA and we threw that away too. Big important point. And let me add to that, Danny, that before the 12-day war last June, we were negotiating and making major progress on the same deal. And out of the blue, the Israelis, followed by us, struck Iran. So, you gave one example. I gave two examples. Do you think the Iranians trust the United States? I don't think they trust the United States. Do you think anybody trusts the United States at this point in time? Do you think Vladimir Putin trusts the United States? I don't think so. I think everybody knows that you cannot trust the United States and you cannot trust Israel. But that's not the story that General Keane tells. He tells exactly the opposite. And, uh, I think that he's blowing smoke. I think there's no evidence to support his perspective. But then again, if we go back to the question of what the military consequences of going up the escalation ladder are, we simply don't have the capability to execute these strategies and win this war the way these two generals, General Kellogg and General Keane, think we can. And as you pointed out, and I think your point hits the nail right on the head, if this is the magic formula, we would have done it a long time ago. The fact that we've not done it so far tells you that it doesn't provide a way out of this disastrous situation that we find ourselves in. So, so let me ask you something, Gary. Be ready to bring that, uh, that full screen back up you just had there a second ago. I assume that's something that's breaking because I didn't see it earlier. Uh, the question is, if we go down this path and whether he we physically try to take Car or or bomb it, uh, you know, who knows what we may do, but the since it's self-evident that it is not militarily attainable. So we can try, but we will fail, and then where will that leave us then? Because if if we were in our fantasy minds thinking this will compel the Iranian side to have a better deal. You have Gibbuff there. G if you could pop that back up. Uh, this apparently is something he's just said here. He said, "Wrong strategies and impulsive decisions will reset the entire board for the worst. Explode energy infrastructure and markets and create endless quagmire that you will be stuck in for years. You will see a different Iran." Now, Galibbah is not just the speaker of the Iranian parliament. He's also, understand, a former general. He's definitely a combat veteran. Uh, and it's very closely tied with the IRGC. So I I don't, uh, consider this empty bluster that if we go against Car Island because I'm sure that's what that's in reference to. Uh, yeah, you see that's 11 about a little over an hour and a half ago. Uh, that's what he's going to say. So that would put us in a profoundly worse shape. Surely, even with the lust for war that Jack Keane, Keith Kellog, Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo, add infinitum, all that that they want, yet they got to see that if we go down that path, we won't succeed and it will worsen our situations. Help me understand the mindset of these people."
"I I can't I I I simply can't explain it, right? I mean, it just seems so obvious to me, uh, that educated people and especially individuals like Generals Keane and Kellogg, who have been in the American military and in fact have been in the American army, uh, where you tend to have a more healthy appreciation of the limits of force than you do if you're in the Air Force, where you tend to think that air power is a magic bullet. Uh, I I find it just inexplainable what's going on here. I I don't know what these people are thinking. Uh, and I'm actually surprised that Trump himself hasn't figured out the the advice that these people are giving him is bad advice. These were the people who got him into this war to begin with. You would think he would be scratching his head at this point and saying to himself, you know, maybe I ought not to listen to these people who encouraged me to get into this war because they got me into a giant quagmire. And, you know, if you think about their solutions for fixing this problem, they really don't sound that plausible. This is what you would expect. And you would expect him to be calling up advisors. I would imagine that JD Vance, who is a smart man, whatever you think of his policy views, has figured out what you and I have figured out. And that Trump would be relying heavily on someone like Vance, uh, who again, I would imagine understands this. But, uh, you know, the sort of mimic the words of Pete Hegsith and, you know, listen to these two generals and, uh, Lindsey Graham. My God, when you listen to Lindsey Graham talk, you wonder what planet he's on, right? It's just not the way the world works. And and and as I've said many times, we have overwhelming evidence at this point in time, given all these escapades that we've been in, we have overwhelming evidence that their ideas hardly ever bear fruit. Seems like every war we get into, we lose."
"So, let me let me go down a bit of a rabbit hole here. So you have just laid out something that and and a number all these people that I mentioned, even they're smart people. They're clearly not stupid. Uh, they're not ignorant. They it's not that they don't have they don't have a lack of adequate knowledge. They do. And yet they're taking actions that based on the knowledge that we possess would lead us into a disastrous situation. So when faced with a situation to where the actions are illogical, when logic should lead these people to make a different decision and there it's like 45 degrees out from what they should be doing. You have to look, are there other explainable alternatives? And I just want your view on something. This is something I've been hearing for well over a year and have dismissed. Have just said no, that that's so crazy it's not even possible. But I'm starting to wonder, is it worthy of of at least exploring? And that is to claim that there are some that say, you know, the West, especially, uh, is is so overburdened with debt, especially the United States, but also Europe, uh, that they can never ever crawl out from under. And the only way that they can do so is if they get a big war like a World War II situation to where you can reset the stage, uh, financially, and you have to go into all like a lot of stuff that we did in World War II, which helped get us out of the Great Depression, etc. Is it even, do you give any plausibility to the thought that there may be a lot of these elite echelon people that are actually wanting to draw us into a war that then we could either default or do something else that we had to go into something else to get that reset to avoid what they may calculate as a worse economic disaster later?"
"I'll make two points on that, Danny. First is I've never seen any evidence of anyone in the war party. Uh, this includes President Trump and his principal advisers, and people outside the administration as well. I've never seen any of them make that argument. So I don't see the evidence. Second point, and maybe more important point, is that you want to remember that when we went into the war on February 28th, we didn't go in thinking it was going to be a long war. We went in thinking we were going to win a quick and decisive victory. We thought, you know, this is the United States military and the Israeli military, two of the most powerful and potent fighting forces on the planet. We could go in, cause regime change very quickly, and live happily ever after. That's that was our thinking when we went in. And that's, uh, uh, that's contradicts the argument that you were making that we wanted a long war. Now, you might argue that once we didn't win a quick and decisive victory and it became clear that we were in a war of attrition, people began to welcome it for the reasons that you said. Uh, I again don't see any evidence of that. I think the better argument is that these people who were in the war party and were pushing this war have put their reputations on the line and that it would be, uh, devastating for their reputations, uh, if we lose this war and, uh, therefore, uh, they are interested in doubling down. And when they hear people like us say it's not going to work, they understand that it probably won't work. But if there's even a small chance that it'll work, they're in favor of it. And it's easy, of course, for them to convince themselves that there's a small chance it will work. And therefore they push forward thinking that, you know, there'll be some miracle and the end result is that we will win the war or we will come close enough to winning the war that they can claim that we've won the war and their reputations won't be sullied. I think if anything, that's what's driving them at this point. But, uh, who knows? And by the way, let's just go back to the decision to start this war. And you and I have talked about this before. The evidence is overwhelming in the scholarly literature. And I don't mean scholarly in a narrow sense, but in a broad sense. The evidence is overwhelming in the scholarly literature and in the historical record that regime change caused by air power alone never happens. It never happens. And President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu embarked on a military campaign that was predicated on the assumption that air power alone could topple the regime in, uh, in Iran, and we would win a quick and decisive victory and we would be sitting in the catbird seat in the Persian Gulf. That that was what they were thinking. This is this was an irrational decision, right? This was an irrational decision because the theory of victory was profoundly flawed. And almost everybody I know fully understands that because we have so much experience trying to, uh, cause regime change around the world that we pay attention, uh, to how you do that and how you don't do that. And everybody, almost everybody knows you can't do it with air power alone. But yet Trump and Netanyahu for some reason thought that they could do it with air power alone. This was an irrational decision. No rational theory of victory here. But are we surprised by the fact that individuals who got us into this war with a cockamamie strategy are now continuing to push forward more cockamamie strategies? I don't think we really should be surprised here. It's kind of what we should expect. Uh, it's what you get from the American elite. Think the Iraq war in March 2003. Think the decision to stay in Afghanistan after we knocked off the Taliban, uh, forever and ever. I mean, just hard to understand what people are thinking."
"Yeah, you know, I'm not I'm not sure which is worse, uh, that there's some diabolical scheming going on somewhere else to keep us into a war or or ridiculous thinking like you're talking about because at least the one there may be some schematic and some plan, the other ones we're just stumbling into whatever happens, and either way it's bad, but holy cow, just something is is off the charts wrong. Uh, I want to break in with something here. Uh, you talked about earlier how it was so important for voices like with this channel, the channels that you go on, the statements that you make, and all this kind of stuff. But there are some that now are trying to silence one of our voices here. This is breaking news. Haven't heard this before. It just came out. Somebody just sent it to me that the US administration is investigating Iran War critic Trida Parsy and saying that they may even look to deport him, uh, because he's saying things that they don't like. And I I this is now it's it's starting to flow up on all kinds of media here. I hope this is is wrong or I hope that this is just a scare tactic. U, but he's been pretty outspoken about saying a lot of the sane stuff that you and I talk about here, and I consider that troubling."
"I make a couple points here, Danny. First of all, Trida says basically what you and I say, right? In in a very important way, the three of us are interchangeable on these issues, right? Uh, and the fact that they're thinking about deporting him, if this is true, is horrifying. It's despicable. I mean, what does this country come to? Uh, treat Porcy as a loyal American. I mean, he."
"Exactly."
"You know, just kind of this is all kind of crazy. Uh, the idea that they're going to deport somebody who's saying things about the Iran war that they don't like. It's not like he's a cheerleader for Iran and he's feeding them classified information or something like that. But this is where we're at, uh, in this country at this point in time. And by the way, what's most disturbing here is that President Trump and the Republicans ran on the platform that the left, the Democratic Party, and people on the left hand side of the political spectrum were trying to shut down free speech. Uh, and there was certain instances where that was true for sure. But President Trump comes into office, the Republicans are in charge of both the House and the Senate, and if you ask me, they're far worse than the Democrats were. Uh, this is just a terrible situation."
"You know, it was so ironic, John, even more so because, uh, I remember at the inaugural speech, President Trump said this. He said, "We are now for free speech and now then you can say whatever you want, etc." And then now then obviously that was just a bunch of empty words because it it only lasts as long as you're saying free speech the way that he wants you to. Otherwise, you're going to get shut down. And who knows whether tomorrow it's going to be me that's going to be brought up on some made-up investigation or you maybe even."
"Oh yeah. There's there's no question about that. And as you and I know, both of us have suffered professionally, not greatly, but we've suffered somewhat professionally because of our views. Uh, and I find this quite shocking. You and I both two guys who served in the American military, right? And, uh, they're basically punishing us for saying things, uh, that we firmly believe are in the American national interest. You're two guys, two American firsters, you and me, who care about the United States, want the United States to do good things. And what we're what we're criticizing when we listen to people like Generals Keen and Kellogg, and what we're arguing for are all aimed at doing good for the United States and actually doing good for the Ukrainian people if you want to talk about the Ukraine war and even the Iran war, right? It's not like, uh, you know, we're out to hurt other people and, uh, that we're out to damage the United States. On the contrary, and I think the same thing is true with Trida. Trida really wants to shut down the Iran war badly. Uh, and, uh, he is in many ways deeply dedicated to SAN if he can, you know, help sway the public debate debate in ways and and the debate inside the administration as well in ways that lead to a ceasefire and then a deal. He really wants a deal. Uh, so his intentions are noble here. His intentions are in the American national interest, as is the case with you and me. But as you know, and he knows more than we do apparently now. I hope it doesn't pan out. Uh, if you say things that, you know, the current administration doesn't like or even previous administrations, you'll get punished. You'll suffer professionally. This is a terrible situation. And by the way, getting back to the question of why we're in so much trouble today, what's the cause of this? This is part of the problem. When you don't have an open debate and you punish people who you don't agree with, you're, you know, cruising for a bruising, as we used to say when I was a kid."
"Yep. There's no doubt about that. And I hope that this is, uh, this is just a shot across the bow. Turns out to be nothing. There's a lot of pushback. like I imagine we're not the only ones who are going to be, uh, coming to Trid's defense and talk about how he is an American patriot, uh, and seeks the best good for the American people and others start to see it too. Hopefully it doesn't go any further than that. Uh, listen, in the in the last few minutes that I got with you here, I want to talk touch on a separate topic here. Going to you mentioned a minute ago the Russia-Ukraine war. You just got back from Athens, Greece, which I was very jealous about. Would love to go there sometime. Uh, but, uh, one of the one of the headlines that came out of here, this is a screenshot from one of the videos of it says, "There may be nothing left of NATO. Professor Amir Shimemer's chilling Trump prediction." Let us fill us in a little bit. What what did you talk about here that got such a headline?"
"Well, I think there's no question that President Trump, uh, has little use for the Europeans in general, uh, and he has little use for the NATO alliance. And he has done, uh, enormous damage to transatlantic relations and he has done significant damage, uh, to NATO itself. And if you think about it, he still has more than two and a half years left in office. So he's going to be around for a long time. And there is no reason to think that his attitude towards NATO is going to change in any meaningful way. And in fact, what I think is going to happen is that he's going to continue to tear apart at the fabric of that institution and he's going to continue to tear apart at the transatlantic, uh, relationship as well. So that's point number one. Point number two is you want to understand that we have long been interested in pivoting to Asia. And when you pivot to a place, you have to pivot away from another place. And the place that we're going to pivot away from is Europe. Because we're not going to pivot away from the Middle East because of Israel, given the fact that we're joined at the hip with Israel and that the lobby is so incredibly powerful in the United States. We're not going to leave the Middle East in any meaningful way. And we're certainly going to remain tied to Israel. And at the same time, as I said, we're bent on containing China and East Asia. So, we're going to have to prioritize. And when we prioritize, number three on our list will be Europe. And that means that we will greatly reduce our footprint, our military footprint in Europe. And that means our conventional forces. And given Trump's brothers, he may actually pull us completely out of Europe. I don't think that's going to happen, but I think it's a possibility. And if you talk to the Europeans today, the Europeans fully understand what's going on here. They understand that, uh, Trump is, uh, shifting the burden of providing security in Europe off the shoulders of the United States onto the shoulders of the Europeans. So the Europeans are beginning to do more for themselves. They're beginning to think of the EU as their principal security environment rather than, uh, excuse."
me, their principal security institution rather than the EU. Uh, so I think that what you see is a NATO that has been greatly weakened because of President Trump's attitude towards, uh, uh, towards Europe and towards the alliance, and also because of those structural forces. And, uh, I, I wouldn't be surprised if the alliance existed in name only, uh, when Trump finally leaves office, uh, on January 20, 2029.
>> Yeah, that's, I'd love to have do a whole show with you on that because that's a fascinating topic. Uh, may even add in the the changes that the two wars, the the Russia-Ukraine war and the US-Israeli war against Iran are are changing so many different things. I think the United Nations is also becoming more and more just an empty suit and and just a, a blah blah blah forum to to talk, but no actual action, not like it was originally created. Love to talk to you about those kind of things, but I want to speak on the the current topic here.
Uh, in terms of the Russia-Ukraine war, there has been an an escalation, first of all, of rhetoric on the Russian side about how they were going to, uh, start hitting command and control centers and decision-making centers in Kyiv. And, and then they hit some targets, but it didn't really go much further than that. And then afterwards, it seemed like, uh, Zelensky kind of got a little bit of encouragement by the fact that there wasn't a big huge strike that wiped out a bunch of stuff in in in Kyiv. And he sent this pretty strong letter to publicly send to Putin saying, "I want to have a negotiation. I want to have a talk." And and all this long letter stuff basically asked, um, "I'd like you to surrender to me and do whatever I want to do." It was, uh, ridiculous and it was in the open, etc.
U, so that that stirred up a lot of conversation since that time on both sides of Ukraine and Russia. In a conference with European leaders, Zelensky was asked, I think it was just yesterday, uh, about what he intended with that letter. "During one month, I sent several letters with different goals to different institutions, beginning from the EU, United States, White House, and Congress, and also Putin. I had different goals. For example, the United States. I really wanted to do everything to shift a little bit from the Middle East to Ukraine the situation, and we, I needed very much. I, I, I can't share with you all the details, but I believe me, my nation needed too much anti-ballistic missiles. So, and I got the result, and I will not share with you details of this result, but I did it. And, uh, and, um, I think I had no, I think I know I had a goal sending a letter to Putin, for example, and I think I've got the result what I needed."
So, he didn't really go into the details of what he thought that result was. But what do you make of this? Because it sounds like that he himself is saying, "I was just trying to manipulate everybody in Europe and the United States so I can get some more anti-aircraft missiles, which he says, I got, and I had a purpose with Putin." What do you make of those two claims?
>> I don't think he got hardly anything from the United States. He wanted Patriots, right? And we don't have Patriots to give them. Uh, the idea that we, that he has a, a rosy future in terms of getting armaments from the Europeans and from us, uh, is delusional, right? Uh, the United States, uh, is not in a position, uh, to give him lots of weaponry. We've used our precious weaponry already, uh, in large numbers in the Middle East war. And by the way, if we go up the escalation ladder in the Ukraine war, as now appears to be the case, we're going to use up more of that precious weaponry. Uh, and then we have the whole question of, can we afford to even do that, given that we need, uh, weaponry in East Asia to contain China? There's no weaponry to give him.
Um, and, uh, so he, he faces a very dark future with the United States. And there was this Czech alliance that was supplying him, uh, or supplying Ukraine with lots of heavy caliber, uh, artillery munition and other munitions. And, uh, a good number of the countries, the European countries that were in that coalition, that Czech alliance, have pulled out and told, uh, Zelensky that they're not going to give Ukraine any more assistance through that alliance. Uh, so European support's beginning to soften. American support has basically dried up. I'm talking about support in terms of sending material, uh, or weapons, uh, to Ukraine.
Uh, and with regard to Putin, what's the purpose of sending an antagonistic letter to Putin and treating him like he's a, you know, a kindergarten child? It just doesn't make any sense at all. But that's the way Zelensky operates. And as you and I have said on countless occasions, this one's going to be settled on the battlefield. And it is being settled on the battlefield. Uh, there's not going to be a diplomatic solution, uh, until Ukraine is at a point where it has no choice but to throw up its hands and ask for an armistice.
And in fact, speaking of, there was, we showed a couple of days ago, Putin's response to that himself on camera, which which he looked at it and viewed it with contempt, if not a little bit of anger, uh, about saying how, you know, this rude thing, it's not going to make us do anything. And then Lavrov actually came out also and said, >> Just what you said, this will be settled in the military form, and that's, that's just how it's going to be because apparently nobody wants to talk with us.
>> The Russian ambassador to the United Nations, Nebenzia, said this. >> Zelensky himself prevented himself at a certain point from talking to the president, issuing a decree forbidding him to engage with President Putin. All right. If you want to talk, we never refused. But he made, he made it through a so-called megaphone diplomacy. He made it public. The letter was burish. If you want to talk, even if you forbade yourself to talk, you do it discreetly through the back channels so that it can be arranged in a proper way. But the way he addressed, of course, prevents us from engaging in talks, in talks under the conditions that he puts on the table. So, I mean, if you were actually engaged in interested in negotiations, then that's exactly how you would do it.
Which then, of course, implies that this may be something, and this is what I'd like you to to address here. Is Zelensky's actions here something akin to what we're trying to do in the Iran war with some of these Kellogg and Keith or, uh, uh, Jack Keane comments, to where he's just trying to double down? Anything besides having a negotiation? So, I'm going to have this public thing that's going to make me look tough by putting it in Putin's face and then allegedly going to get something over here, but just trying to buy a little bit of time, ignoring what the realities that you just described would be. What do you make of that?
>> I was thinking about it just like you were. As I was listening to him talk, I was thinking, here's another delusional individual talking about how to deal with a war that's gone south. And, uh, you just kind of shake your head and wonder. Uh, I mean, if you look at the position the Ukrainians are in, uh, you look at the situation on the battlefield, uh, they are badly outnumbered, uh, in terms of the number of troops the Russians have versus the number of troops they have. I'd bet it's over two to one advantage in Russia's favor. Furthermore, all the evidence is they don't have enough, um, uh, troops, the Ukrainians, to thickly populate the forward edge of the battle area. Uh, and they're gaping holes. Now, they're somewhat, uh, somewhat able to deal with that with drones. There's no question about that. And that slows the Russians down. But if you look at what's happening on the battlefield, the Russians are moving forward, uh, slowly, for sure, but they are moving forward, and the Ukrainian army, uh, is showing all signs, uh, all sorts of signs that it's in deep trouble. All you have to do is look at the number of people who are AWOL, the number of draft dodgers, uh, and so forth and so on. This is an army that is in real trouble.
Uh, and they don't have, uh, missile defenses of any sort anymore. Uh, that, that's why Zelensky is trying to get Persian, not Persian Patriot missiles from, um, from Trump, but he can't get them. Uh, so they're in deep trouble. And, uh, Zelensky talks like he's in the driver's seat. You know, we hear all this rhetoric in the West that Ukraine has turned the tide on the battlefield. They've got the Russians on their back feet, and the Russians are suffering enormous casualties. Putin is not popular anymore. All sorts of people want to get rid of him. Uh, the drone campaign with the strikes deep into Mother Russia is having a deadly effect. All we have to do is just push a little bit harder now, and Putin will submit. This is the rhetoric that you hear in the West. I mean, I read some of these articles that people write, and these are prominent people describing what's happening in Ukraine, and I just sort of scratch my head and say, for anybody who's following what's going on in the war, uh, you can make a case that the Russians are not winning quickly, that drones have helped the Ukrainians slow down the Russian steamroller. Fine, you can make that argument. But to argue that the Ukrainians have turned the tide, that they're going to win the war, uh, in any meaningful way, uh, I don't know how you can make that argument based on what's happening, uh, on the actual battlefield.
>> And, and, yeah, well, you've partially answered the question I was going to ask anyway, but I'll ask the rest of it, too. Is that how do you respond to those people who say, um, well, it's not just that Russia's going slow, they don't have the wherewithal, they can't, they can't win this overall because it's already been four and a half years, there's a lot of grumbling going on in Russia right now, a lot of people are getting aggravated at Putin because he hasn't won. And so then they maybe if, as long as they drag it out on the front, they can expand that internal anger and then eventually, like public opinion caused us to withdraw from Vietnam, eventually that will cause Putin to have to say, "All right, fine. I'll have a negotiated settlement on the line of contact," which apparently Zelensky has been pushing for of late. He finally has said, "Okay, well, I tell you what, I won't give you all four of the old blasts, but wherever the line of contact is, and we'll freeze it there and call it a day and whatever." What do you say to that argument?
>> Well, just a couple points. First of all, it's very important to understand that the Russians don't draft people and send them to Ukraine, right? It's an all-volunteer military that's doing the fighting in Ukraine. Uh, and to go back to the Vietnam War, I mean, one of the reasons the Vietnam War was, uh, so controversial and eventually came to an end was because we had a draft. And when you have a draft and you have to send people to the front, uh, it's a wholly different situation compared to having an all-volunteer military. And you know, we were talking before about the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians, uh, draft people, and many of those people don't want to be drafted into the military. They go AWOL. This is why they have a huge AWOL problem. Uh, and they also have a draft dodger problem. The Russians don't have that. So even if there is dissatisfaction inside of Mother Russia, uh, the fact is that given that you're fighting with an all-volunteer military, you can get away with a lot.
Furthermore, it's very important to understand that one of the reasons that the Russians have moved slowly. It's not just simply the drones. It's the fact that the Russians have not been a, not been willing to pursue, uh, a tactical strategy, or let me put it differently, they've not been willing to adopt tactics that involve, uh, frontal attacks, uh, against fixed, uh, fortifications where the attacking forces get mowed down, right? Uh, sometimes people will describe the Russians as sort of, uh, uh, uh, engaging in frontal wave attacks.
>> They just say, >> Meat grinder attacks, I used to call it.
>> Meat grinder attacks. Exactly, Danny. They're not doing that. It, they're moving very slow and very purposefully, and they're trying to minimize the casualties. They're fully aware of how deadly it is up on the front lines, as are the Ukrainians, for that matter, right? Uh, you get up on the front lines in a place like Ukraine, and it doesn't take you more than a few seconds to figure out, uh, that surviving is not easy, and you better come up with tactics that maximize the chances that you'll survive. And the Russians, of course, have done that. But that involves moving actually quite cautiously, uh, and not, you know, being very blitz-oriented or anything like that. They're not, the Russians are not audacious at a tactical or even at a strategic level. And that means that the casualties are not that high. And, uh, and I think you're going to move more slowly in terms of conquering territory than they have moved. But nevertheless, you're going to keep the casualties down, which is true. And again, you have an all-volunteer military, and they're rolling up, uh, the territory in the four oblasts that they claim they want. They control, uh, all of, uh, what's the territory, Luhansk, and then I think most of, if I'm not mistaken.
>> They control all of Luhansk. Great. And they control about 75% of Donetsk. Uh, they control about 75% of Zaporizhzhia, and they control about 75% of Kherson. Uh, and I believe they'll eventually end up controlling 100% of those four oblasts plus Crimea, of course. And I wouldn't be surprised, Danny, as we've talked about before, if they end up going after Odessa and Kharkiv as well. Very hard to say whether that'll happen because, uh, you know, drones make it difficult, uh, to just capture large swaths of territory all of a sudden. But nevertheless, they may end up capturing those two oblasts as well. Uh, but they're going to win the war. It's going to be an ugly victory. But the idea that Ukraine, uh, is going to, you know, turn the tide, uh, and is turning the tide, I, I think is belied by the facts.
>> Yeah. And, and, and I know we're about out of time here, so just briefly, uh, is there any scenario that you can come up with in your mind where Ukraine could turn the tide? Is there any amount of weapons that we could give? Is there any tactics they could choose? Is there any way to drag this out long enough to actually cause something to happen inside of Russia? Is there any scenario you can imagine that could literally physically turn the tide to where Ukraine would eventually regain lost territory?
>> Danny, just real quick before John answers, I just wanted to show you that Trump is now canceling tonight the new strikes on Iran.
>> Well, there you go. No more.
>> I think, I think Danny, to your credit, he's listening to your show. And, uh, and what happened here is he heard that you and I were patriotic Americans who were interested in seeing him do the right thing, as is the case with Tao Parsy. Uh, and, uh, in fact, he would, he would be very well suited to call up Treta Parsy. If, if President Trump talked to Treta Parsy on a daily basis, he'd be in much better shape today, uh, than he is, given that he's talking to the generals that we mentioned and Lind and assorted other people who, uh, uh, don't understand strategy 101. Uh, which, as you and I have talked about, is shocking, but nevertheless seems to be true. But, let's see what he says there. "Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level, the discussions have been brought to the highest level. I, and approved, I have the United States of America, canceled the scheduled strikes of bombings against Iran this evening. Discussions and final points have been in both concept and great detail approved by all parties, including US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of other countries. Uh, the naval blockade will remain in full force and in fact until this transaction is finalized. Time and place sent out shortly." Now, that's, that's almost identical to something he pushed about 10 or 12 days ago. So I literally put no stock in that whatsoever. But, um, I don't know. I guess we'll see. As long as it stopped the bombing tonight, maybe there is something else going on behind the scenes. What do you think?
>> Feels like we're at Coney Island on the roller coaster.
>> Right? You know, you just, you just never know. Uh, but, you know, I, I'll just say, I want to just say this, Danny. I think that we never want to lose sight of the fact that what is really the most important element of this story is the international economy. And all you have to do is look at what's happening with inflation, um, interest rates, uh, price of gas, so forth and so on. And the incentives for President Trump to shut this one down quickly are just enormous. They're just enormous. He, he would really be crazy to go up the escalation ladder, especially to try and take control of Iranian oil. Oh, it would just be such a foolish mistake. Uh, and so I think that he, he at some point just has to back off from the military, uh, approach to dealing with this problem and move to get some sort of ceasefire, and then move to gain trust with the Iranians as best he can, and then work out some sort of deal, if that's possible. I'm not sure that's possible, by the way, given how little trust there is and given what a terrible, uh, dealmaker he is. Uh, but, but we had Robert Barnes on the show yesterday, and he said, "We need to retitle this. It's now 'Art of the No Deal' for President Trump, compared to what it used to be." So I think that's a pretty apt description.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Uh, but anyway, I, I, I think that I, I, I bet that, you know, somebody told him the basic facts of life here, which is, think about the economy, President Trump, and that will focus the mind, and you will quickly understand we've got to shut this one down. We've got to get a ceasefire. And by the way, Danny, if we get the ceasefire, going back to our discussion of what the ceasefire looks like, we get the ceasefire, the Strait is opened, and Iranian oil comes flowing out, right? And we then go a long way towards moving towards fixing this problem, the economic problem. We're still going to pay a real price here.
>> Yep.
>> We can, we can damage limit if we get a ceasefire tomorrow. And again, that, that means getting that Iranian oil out into global markets. And I hope viewers remember that in the early part of this war, during the, >> oil, Iranian oil was flowing out of the Gulf because President Trump understood quite correctly, he needed that Iranian oil in global markets. And of course, he still does. But if you could really open the Strait in a meaningful way, and not shut down the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, you know, out of the Red Sea, keep that one open, too. You know, you go a long way towards, um, stemming, >> getting the damage.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
>> Well, well, we'll have to wait and see. Man, this is truly a roller coaster day. Who knows what it may be? By the time the evening comes around, it could be back to bombing for all we know. But, uh, that's where it is today. And as always, we're very, very grateful for you coming in to explain all of these crazy things. And as a reminder, there's mirshber.substack.com to where you can keep up with John all the time, and he always posts a lot of great stuff. Uh, look there sometimes even from the Daniel Davis Steve. That's pretty interesting. Yeah, go to see there. But look forward to seeing you, John, on the next episode.
>> Thank you, Danny. Look forward to seeing you as well.
>> And we'll see you guys. Uh, I am back on some travels. Uh, and we've got a pretty busy travel schedule here the next month or so. I'm in and out. So, you'll see me with some different backdrops here the next time, I think. Uh, but, uh, we are, man, there's so many things going on. We definitely can't stop, uh, bringing you stories. So, we will do that even while on vacation. Thanks very much, folks, and I'll see you next time on the Daniel Davis Deep Dive. You know, we don't have sponsors because we hate to hit you over the head with ads. I don't like them. So, show a little love back. Subscribe, like, and send this to somebody you care about.