Transcription
Maddie, how are you?
>> I'm good. How are you?
>> Good, man. Good. Um, last we spoke was during the war. Um,
>> actually, I know where to start.
>> A lot of people were talking about boots on the ground. Some people even worried about Trump using nukes. I never had those concerns. Um, and everyone worried that we're going to be stuck in another forever war. Trump walked away. Now, I'm someone we agreed on criticizing the war. I've been criticizing it for weeks. I think it's one of the stupidest, stupidest wars, the the biggest strategic blunders for the US in possibly decades. Um, but he walked away, or it looks like it. Do you give him credit for that particular part, that he did actually walk away despite all the pressure?
>> I wouldn't give him credit. I don't even give credit to a person who started an illegal war for trying to end it. I I'm glad he did. I approve of him doing so. I'm not one of these people you see as some Democrats, Mario, now trying to hit Trump from the right, saying this deal gives Iran billions of dollars. It's dead on arrival in the Senate. I think Richard Blumenthal said, and Chuck Schumer has come out against. I'm not one of these people who's doing like a taco Trump look, egging him on. No, I'm glad. Look, you know, if he takes a face-saving deal and it's good for the people of the region and good for America, fine. If it's good for him as well, it helps him before the midterms, fine. I mean, there's bigger things going on. Obviously, it's, you know, from a strategically um anti-Trump position, you would want the war to continue because it's a disaster for him and his party and gas prices. It hurts him in the midterms. Uh, my colleague Swin Subsang at Zato did a whole report about how the Iranians, according to US intel, they know that the Iranians know that the midterms are coming and that the midterms factor into the Iranians' considerations. So all of those, you know, domestic political considerations mean that the war is bad for Trump. And so the war ending by definition is good for Trump. So as someone who doesn't want to see things good for Trump, I could say, well, I hope the war continues. But no, of course not. This is not about partisanship or domestic politics. This is about saving lives and ending a regional and global catastrophe. So if it ends, good.
Now, I'm saying if it ends, because I'm not someone who thinks it's over. I don't think the Gaza war is over. We were told the Gaza war is over with that October ceasefire. How did that work out? Over a thousand people killed in Gaza since then. Kids killed just this week in Gaza. Beach tents bombed. So no, Gaza is not over. Lebanon is not over. People, Israelis were killing alleged Hezbollah militants just this week. Um, so none of it's over, Mario. We're in a, you know what's that phrase from Winston Churchill? It's not the, it's not the end. It's not the beginning of the end. It's the end of the beginning. And I feel like that's where we are.
>> H. Yeah, I, I agree. This is what. So I've been very optimistic for months. You probably know this. Discuss. Now, I've been, I've been optimistic that we're not going to see a continuation of a full-blown war for for very long, but I said my optimism ends at the MOU because if you look at what happened in Alaska, the negotiations about ending the war in Ukraine and also the Gaza peace deal. That's why I'm a bit skeptical about the MOU. The only difference here if you compare it to Gaza is Iran has a lot of the cards. In Gaza, Hamas doesn't have the same leverage. In this case, it's the, the, the, the calculus is very different. So I think Trump...
>> But doesn't, but doesn't Iran holding the cards mean that there's more likely to go back to war? I mean, they're not going to roll over. They've made that clear. Every time they've got a lot more to lose. I mean, Trump has a lot more to...
>> which is why you'll see, you look at the statement he put out today on Truth Social about this alleged drone attack, uh, in the Strait of Hormuz on this, uh, cargo ship near Oman. I think it's Singaporean. Um, which the Iranians haven't admitted to doing, but they haven't denied doing. Trump's statement is quite mild by Trump's standards, which tells you he doesn't want to blow this whole thing up and say, "Well, you violated ceasefire, back to war we go." He doesn't want this war. JD Vance has been doing a media tour making the case against war. So, it'd be very bizarre for them to suddenly return to war when Vance has spent the last 10 days cosplaying as a dove, saying, "Why would we want to do endless war?" And not just playing as a dove, attacking critics of the deal. He's gone out of his way to attack the Israelis, Vance, to attack, you know, cable show hosts and right-wingers who have come out against the deal. So, it's not, yet it's not in their interest to go back to war anytime soon. Um, but at the same time, Mario, you notice JD Vance big time overselling this deal as to what America has achieved. And that's where the Iranians will surely be perturbed. He goes around saying, "We got more nuclear inspections than the JCPOA." Have we? Haven't heard that from Iran. He says the Iranians are going to use their own unfrozen assets to buy US agricultural goods. Iran, Iran says no. So, there's a whole debate there about are the Americans overselling this at home for their own domestic audience? They forget. Of course they are. But then the Iranians are watching and responding in real time. We live in a very different world to the negotiations of 20, 30, 40 years ago. This is real time responses on social media.
>> Yeah, I've got the, uh, quote by Gully Buff. Let me see if I can find it in time where he's mocking Trump. That was yesterday. He said, "America," actually yesterday he posted, "they're playing the same game as Trump." You know, Trump is always trolling on on social media. The Iranians have been doing it for the last few months. "America falsely claims our unfrozen assets will buy their agriculture. Interesting. The only crop we're harvesting is what you planted. Decades of mistrust. It's organic, abundant, and homegrown. But apparently the US only exports GMO soybeans, broken promises, and trash talks." That was by the speaker of the Iranian parliament.
>> I mean, at some point, I don't know which investigative journalist will get the story, but I would know, I would love to know who's writing all these tweets for the Iranians.
>> Exactly. Exactly.
>> They're very good at trolling. They weren't so good before. I mean, it's a very easy test. Go look at tweets from last year and go look at them now. It's clearly a different person writing [laughter] and it's not Claude or ChatGPT either. It's not, this doesn't read like Hunter Biden AI tweets, right? This is actually really just really snarky, original, uh, take down, probably from some young Iranian-American, I'm going to guess, but who knows?
>> Now, a dark joke. Mad is trying to find who's writing the tweet, their tweets for sure. The guys behind the Lego videos are keeping their, we were doing, going to do an interview with them, but they want to keep their identity, uh...
>> Can you blame them? Secret?
>> No, not at all. Not at all. Must is not coming out. They're trying to get him out by saying he's dead. All this stuff.
>> Big time. Big time. They want to, if he comes out, they immediately will try and kill him. No.
>> Do you think, do you think genuinely, you think the Israelis will kill him without [snorts]?
>> Genuinely, they will kill him and Iran's smart enough to know that? I mean, there, just think about, they will do a ROI on keeping the deal going or blowing up the deal by killing him, and they will do blow up the deal by killing him because they think killing the second Kai, whatever insane logic they have in their heads, they think that will be the next blow. What's your analysis as someone who's been critical, rightly so, of Israeli influence in the US? What's your analysis of what we're seeing right now? The rhetoric from Trump and JD Vance, the fact that Trump is sitting there justifying Iran's missile program. Yes.
>> Um, JD Vance criticizing Israel on a daily basis.
>> Very interesting.
>> What's your analysis of it?
>> It's very, very interesting. There's, I think there's many factors at play. I'll be honest. Look, I never thought I would see a president or vice president, certainly a Republican president and vice president. As you say, in the same week, uh, the vice president calls out Israel by name from a podium at the White House, says, "We're your only friend. Everyone hates you. We don't mess with us." Uh, never saw that from Vice President Kamala Harris, Vice President Mike Pence, uh, Vice President Joe Biden. Uh, and then to have a president of the United States in the middle of a G7 summit or wherever he was traveling to and saying, "Well, every, you know, why shouldn't they have missiles? You know, how can I tell them not to have ballistic missiles?" Which is amazing on so many levels because number one, no American president has ever said anything close. Number two, if any other president had said this, it would be the end of their presidency. Only Trump gets away with this stuff. And number three, of course, it makes Trump look like the biggest loser of all because don't forget ballistic missiles were one of the main reasons we went to war. If you look at all the reasons stated by Hexath Rubio, the White House, that was top of the reason. It wasn't just nuclear program. It was, forget the nuclear program. They had these missiles we need to stop. And when they were bragging about winning the war, you had people from the administration like Rubio going on air saying, "We've degraded their missile capacity." So when Trump goes, "Well, they're allowed to have missiles. How can I tell them not to? Saudis got them." You'll notice Marco Rubio has been very quiet on all of this in recent weeks. He's been happily meeting Gulf States and doing the rounds. But I've not heard him say a word about ballistic missiles or Israel. Maybe I missed it. I've not heard a word from Rubio on either of those two topics that Trump and Vance have expounded on. So clearly we're in a very new world. What is driving that? Uh, I think the pro-Israel lobby is obviously very upset about it. You're seeing Mark Levin and others having breakdowns on air. Uh, Mark Dubowitz from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. All the big pro-Israel voices online, on air. They're just having kind of mini breakdowns. I don't know if you saw hilarious video podcast and Eli Lake just losing it, SCREAMING, "WHAT'S GOING ON? WHAT'S GOING ON?" Literally screaming because they don't understand their hero Trump has suddenly thrown them under the bus. I don't think this is Trump being anti-Israel or pro-Palestine. That's just too crude. That's not how Trump operates. This is Trump trying to get something done that he thinks will help his own ego, his own domestic agenda, get him back to talking about the ballroom, which is what he wants to talk about. And therefore, anyone who gets in his way, he will crush. Uh, that's his approach to everything. So, uh, it'll be interesting to see how long he tolerates this mild dissent on the MAGA side from pro-Israel voices like your Ted Cruzes, like your Mark Levins. Um, I'm intrigued to see how, how much he, he tolerates. You'll notice, uh, Mario, and I've pointed this out on Twitter. A lot of these guys who are criticizing Trump and Vance, even Laura Loomer and others, they will not say Trump's name. Have you noticed that? They'll do a post saying this deal is so bad. This, are we being conned? Like, who's we? Why don't you say Trump's being conned? They won't say Trump's name. Or they'll say JD Vance's deal. You'll notice Ben Shapiro keeps calling it JD Vance's deal. They're so gutless that as much as they want to defend Israel, they're still too scared to call out Trump by name. Such is the power and influence and intimidation of Donald Trump on the conservative movement right now. So, I called out Mark Levin the other day. I said, "Hey, Mark, why don't you say Trump's name? Why are you talking about an abstract? Why don't you call out the person who's doing this that you don't agree with?" And they just won't do it. But how long that sustains, I don't know. The pro-Israel lobby is not going to roll over, uh, without a fight. They're probably, uh, you know, working right now, all of their contacts to try and kill this deal on the hill at least. Um, and we'll see what happens. I, I mean, the Israeli government itself is not going to let this deal sustain. Israel is the master breaker-upper of ceasefires and deals. They've done it for 25 years. I've, I've studied it. I've written about it. I've documented it. I've talked about it. Uh, they've done it again and again. I can give you many, many examples where there is a ceasefire in place or a ceasefire about to go in blaze and Israel blows the whole thing up.
>> How much leverage do you think the administration has over Israel?
>> That is the 64. That is the $3 billion.
>> Well, because right now, 'cause right now I'm, I'm trying to see. So far I don't disagree with anything you've said. I'm trying to find points of disagreement, but...
>> What do you think? Okay. So, what do you think? How much leverage do you think the Trump administration has?
>> To be honest, I, I don't know either because they're, because they could be, they're abiding by Trump's request right now. They haven't pulled out of Lebanon, but at least they're having the discussion. There is a ceasefire there. They're breaching it every day, but a lot less than they did previously. That's the Israeli version of a ceasefire. I don't know whether this is them, um, you know, Trump being able to reign them in or them just playing the long game, giving it Trump a couple of weeks, making them happy and then planning to, to, to, to break the deal later on. So I wrote about this, I want to say 2024, start of 2024 when I left MSNBC. Uh, I wrote a piece for the Guardian, I think it was, yeah, right at the beginning of 2024, I wrote a piece for the Guardian, my, when I went back as a Guardian columnist, and I wrote a piece saying Joe Biden could end this war with a single phone call and I gave the example of Ronald Reagan calling Menachem Begin famously in 1982, I think it was, when the Israelis were bombarding Beirut and Reagan saw an image on TV of a child, uh, missing a limb. A Lebanese child, one child, not thousands like in Gaza. And it bothered him so much. Ronald Reagan's no dove, no softy. Bothered him so much. He called Begin. And not only did he say, "Stop the war." He said, "Stop this Holocaust." And Menachem was pissed. He said, "You don't need to tell me what a Holocaust is. I'm, you know, etc., etc." But he did. 20 minutes later, he called back and said, "Stop. Bombs have stopped falling." Um, and I used that as an example to say at the time, the American president has great leverage over Israeli prime ministers. Has always had. And Biden could end this war with a phone call, and he chose not to. Um, Donald Trump also could get Israel out of Lebanon, um, uh, with a phone call. And I, and I've had this conversation, um, with many, many people. People ask me, in fact, Patrick Bet-David, I was on his show recently and he kept asking me, "Will you give credit to Donald Trump for this deal and ending this?" And I said, "I'll give him, you know, I'll give him credit when he actually goes above and beyond like, let's see if you can get Israel out of Lebanon because a ceasefire is not enough for me. Ceasefire is the bare minimum. Do they get to keep southern Lebanon? Do they get to keep the chunks of Syria and Gaza? taken. The Israeli government is saying we're keeping all of it. This is not Ben-Gvir. The Israeli foreign minister, the Israeli defense minister Katz is saying we're keeping Syria, we're keeping Gaza, we're keeping Lebanon, the bits we've taken. So, is an American government going to actually use the leverage to get Israel out of those places or are they going to allow Israel to become this greater Israel project that so many of them want to do?
>> Yeah. First on your point about the leverage. Um, you said you used the example under Reagan. Well, that was decades ago. So, the question is, is the leverage now the same as it was before? Has it flipped? Does Israel, has Israel's leverage over the US increased since because the lobbyists and the donors?
>> No, that's, that's, that's a great question. Certainly the lobby, certainly the pro-Israel lobby, I think, is more powerful than it was in the early 80s. Uh, but they're also at the same time, double-edged sword. They're taking a lot of hits, right? You saw what happened in the New York primaries the other day where Mandani's candidates all won their races running basically against APAC. The Democratic party has turned on APAC in a big, big way. A lot of Democrats who used to take APAC money are now saying no thanks. I just interviewed a congressman this week who said, "I think all Democrats should swear off APAC money." Um, and I think they're in a very tricky position in that sense, having become a very partisan, domestic toxic issue. But look, the US leverage is still there because we still fund and arm Israel. At the beginning of this war, a very prominent Israeli general said at the time, very openly at the beginning of the Gaza genocide, he said, "Look, if the Americans turn off the tabs, if they stop sending us bullets, it's over. We have to stop. We cannot operate without American support." The defense minister at the time, Yoav Gallant, when far-right Israelis were attacking him, saying, "You should tell Biden XYZ," he said, "Look, we need them. It's as simple as that. We can't operate without them." So, the Israelis know that you need US support to get anything done. They cannot carry out an indefinite war in Lebanon without US support. Thomas Massie, outgoing congressman in Kentucky who lost because of APAC and other pro-Israel groups. Um, he's just put this bill, uh, to cut or this amendment, uh, to the federal budget bill to cut $3 billion to Israel. It's going to put a lot of members of Congress on the spot if they're forced to vote on it. There was a story in Punch Bowl News that Democratic members of the House are panicking because they don't want to have to be, go on record and put their actual position on Israel out there knowing that their base and them are in very different positions. So, we'll see how, but look, fundamentally America, one thing I agree with Donald Trump is America is the senior partner and Israel is the junior partner as he keeps saying, that's a fact and therefore the US does have most of the leverage here if it wants to use it.
>> Well, I'm glad I finally found a point with you and because I know you debated him a while ago. He said the same thing you did, uh, to me last week. He said you asked him the question. I asked him, could Israel, um, get into a war with Iran without American support? He said no. Anyone that thinks it was delusional. So that makes your point there.
>> I mean, they can't defeat Hamas. They spent two years bombing all of Gaza and still Hamas survives. We were told Hezbollah was finished after the pager operation and the assassination of Nasrallah. They've just killed 30 to 40 Israeli soldiers, I think, in southern Lebanon in the last few months. And of course, Iran is not, uh, you know, is not Gaza, is not southern Lebanon. Actually has a military and a defense capability. As we've seen, [snorts] they've held off against two nuclear armed powers, two of the most, uh, strongest military powers in the world. They've held them off for several months now. Um, yeah. I don't think the Iran, Israelis could do anything without American support. Do you remember last year, Mario? Do you remember when, uh, when there was the exchange of fire? Now I'm getting good views. Not last year, in 2024. Do you remember under Biden when there was the exchange of, when the Iranians first attacked Israel after Israel attacked Iran after the Syrian, uh, attack on the Iranian offices in Syria?
>> And the Iranians fired rockets? Do you remember it was American aircraft and Jordanian aircraft and a bunch of other aircraft region that intercepted those rockets heading for Israel and it was like, you do need your allies. I know you want to be Sparta in the Middle East, but you're not Sparta.
>> Yeah. Even in this war there, there was a report, I think, by the New York Times that the, the US used more munitions to defend Israel than Israel used itself. Something along those lines. I could be getting some parts of it wrong.
>> Yeah. Um, there's, um, there's something else that told me a couple of days ago, um, and that's something else you'd agree with now, another prime minister that attacked Lebanon in 2006. And that's the problems in the Middle East would not, there won't be peace in the Middle East unless the Palestinian issue is resolved. We agree on Iran. We know that Iran has won this war. We know Iran strategically has come out stronger from this war. What happens in Palestine? Iran is using the leverage for Lebanon to, to, to support Lebanon and Hezbollah. What happens in Gaza?
>> Oh, 100%. This is all interconnected and Olmert is right on this and he's come late to this party. He obviously committed his own war crimes in Lebanon in 2006. I grilled him on that for Zateo back in 2024. I pushed him on that. But obviously on this issue, he's been much better than his successors in terms of calling out some of the war crimes, calling it a war of annihilation, basically genocide, calling out ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, calling out quote Jewish terrorism, all things a prime minister of Israel is saying. By the way, I, I quote tweeted his Haaretz op-ed recently where he was vicious about what Israel is doing. And I said if somebody wrote this in Germany or in a US college campus, they'd be accused of anti-Semitism, be thrown out of the university. This is the former prime minister of Israel saying what you can't say now apparently in US colleges or in parts of Germany or the UK. Um, so that's an irony. Um, in terms of the point he's making about the relationship between Palestine, yes, many of us have said for years that peace for the Middle East does run through Palestine. We were told by the neocons in 2003, we were told no, no, the road to peace runs through Baghdad. You take out Saddam Hussein, things are going to improve through the region. And I think Benjamin Netanyahu famously said in Congress, the reverberations will be felt around the region. Then after that was a failure, we were told Iran, actually Iran is the place you got to go through. Tehran, that's where Rubio said it the other day. He said they're behind everything bad in the Middle East. Hezbollah, Hamas, they're behind Syria, Assad, it's Iran. Um, again, we've seen that is not the case. You have to have a regionwide solution to the problems, uh, that are going on there. You cannot simply say we're going to put Palestine in a box, we're going to put Lebanon in a box, we're going to put Iran. These are all interconnected. We've seen that. We've seen that again and again since 9/11. We've seen that again and again, uh, since the Arab Spring. We've seen that since Syria. We've seen that now under Trump and the neocons and the Marco Rubios as well. They simply don't want to accept that because they don't want to accept the existence of Palestine. They don't want to accept the existence of Palestinians. So they have to pretend that this is a side issue. Could this change now with Iran winning this war? The balance and power shifting towards Iran. We're seeing change in Lebanon. I don't know what's going to happen in Syria. Trump is floating his stupid idea of Syria helping, uh, helping Israel by getting rid of...
>> Unbelievable. The Syrians, look, the Syrians, don't forget, Shara, formerly Galani, formerly al-Qaeda and HTS, came in very conciliatory towards Israel, in fact, to the point where some conspiracy theorists were like, "See, he's a CIA agent, that's why he's always been fine with Israel and he, you know, he hates all the other country, but he's fine with Israel." Actually, if you look now, the Syrian government are very critical of Israel right now, both in public and in private, um, and I've heard, heard some, a lot of anti-Israeli noises from the Syrians. They're not happy about what Israel is doing in Syria or in Lebanon. Um, and they're obviously not going to go fight Hezbollah on Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu's behalf. That would be insane.
>> Unless. So I thought so as well, but I started getting concerned when I saw the comments yesterday and the gift by Trump to Erdogan. Um, I don't know how much leverage Erdogan has over Al-Shara, but I'm, I'm hoping they're not connected. Trump is not like, "Look, Erdogan, I'll give you the F-35s, but I need you to convince Al-Shara to go into Lebanon." I thought it was a stupid, crazy idea, uh, just a couple of days ago, but I also thought a war between the US and Iran was a crazy idea and here we are.
>> True. Trump, I mean, Trump loves his authoritarian leaders in the Middle East. He doesn't like Muslims at home. MAGA doesn't like Muslims in the US, but they love authoritarian Muslims abroad. Uh, they love the leaders of the country where you are at and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Uh, you know, he praised Erdogan as a great leader. Erdogan, of course, has a Trump Tower in Istanbul or Ankara. I can't remember which city it's in. I've said for a long time the Iranians could, the Iranians could resolve all of this just by building a Trump Tower in Tehran and everything would be fine. Trump, Trump would just leave them alone. In fact, I made that joke 10 years ago when Trump was fighting ISIS in 2017 and I said if, if ISIS build a Trump Tower in in Raqqa, they'll be fine. And I was joking in 2017 when I said that. And now we hear stories that Shara is offering a Trump Tower in Damascus. So, you know what? The gap between humor and reality isn't that far in Trumpland. So, no, anything's possible, but I think Shara is a smart guy. I don't think it would help him in any way to now start a new fight with Hezbollah when he's got his own huge domestic issues going on right now. A lot of domestic violence, discontent in Syria.
>> He even warned the Lebanese prime minister not to trust Israel. He's like, "Don't give them concessions unless you get something in return first."
>> One day, Israel is more isolated than it's ever been. This whole Abraham Accord stuff is nonsensical. You saw JD Vance's comments about the UAE. Even the most hawkish nation, the most pro-Israel nation, Vance said, referring to you, is dealing with Iran, doing trade deals with Iran. So, we're in a very different place.
>> Incredible comments. Incredible comments.
>> Yeah, exactly. A, true. B, should you be saying that out loud? But Israel has driven these countries into the arms of Iran. I said that last time I came on your show. It doesn't matter what they say publicly about, oh, we don't like being bombed by Iran. Of course, they don't like being bombed by Iran. No one wants to be bombed by Iran. But they know who they blame. They don't blame Iran. They blame Israel for starting the war, pulling America into the war, and getting Iran to fire at them. So, that's a huge problem. And Vance is right when he says, "Everyone hates you in the world. We're your only ally." And of, and you know, again, to mention what happened in New York this week, even America's allyship is under question partly because the Democratic party base is in a very different position. Democrats are heading into a more Israel critical position than I ever thought they would. Uh, the establishment is holding out for as long as it takes. Let's see how long they can hold out. And then the Republicans, you asked me earlier about, you know, Vance and Trump and the change in direction, the leverage. The Republican party has its own anti-Semitic fringe that's become mainstream. There's a lot of people on the Republican side who are either anti-Semites, just don't like Jews, or are just old school isolationists and don't want anything to do with foreign policy or foreign wars or foreign money going to foreign countries. And that's a pretty bad combination for Israel as well. You know that you're seeing the Israelis getting very upset about the Tucker Carlson's and Candace Owenses of this world and Marjorie Taylor Greens. Um, I still think they're a small part of the Republican coalition. Trump is still dominant, but the direction of travel, if you look at the polling, Mario, every, you know, a majority of Americans under the age of 50, and I include Republicans here, are opposed to more weapon sales to Israel, including Republicans under 50. It's just old Republicans who are super pro-Israel still.
>> So then to try to answer that last question, probably the most difficult one, Palestine, we know what the, the balance of power shifting is already having impact in Lebanon, uh, is having an impact in Syria, but Palestine seems to be neglected.
>> Yes, Palestine is always neglected, is always ignored, which is why people keep, uh, trying to keep, uh, the story alive. I think in the US, uh, people on the left have done a very good job of keeping it alive and now making it into a mainstream political issue, making APAC toxic, making, uh, issues like genocide a litmus test for candidates in primary races. You're seeing Democrats now switching positions. People I never thought would switch positions are switching positions. Um, so look, you cannot resolve the Palestine issue unless you resolve it here in Washington DC as long as Israel has US cover, US protection, US arms, US funding. Israel will never come to the table and do any kind of peace deal or any kind of give any kind of justice, uh, to the Palestinians. So the road to Palestinian, the road to Middle East peace does run through Palestine and the road to peace in Palestine runs through Washington DC. There's no debate about that. I think everyone's very well aware of that and we'll see, you know, if there is a change of president in 2028, whether a Democrat comes in, uh, with a better agenda. Mario, I have to run soon. But since you're talking about things that are being ignored, well, I have a question for you.
>> No, we're done. You have to run, you said.
>> No, no, I have a question for you because, because I'm on your show and I, I tweeted at you and you just ignored my tweet. So, now I have to ask you about the tweet that I tweeted at you. You just ignored. I was no...
>> You put out a tweet this week. You put out a tweet saying, "This is Manchester where Andy Burnham is mayor. Good luck Britain." And this was Elon Musk's amplified video of Shia Muslims, uh, doing a religious procession on Ashura in Manchester. And you said, "Good luck Britain," as if that's bad. And I said, "Mario, are you saying Shia Muslims shouldn't be allowed to publicly commemorate Muharram or are you saying there shouldn't be any Shia in Manchester?" And you didn't answer me.
>> Ah, you found a point where we disagree. What concerns me? So, obviously, I have no problem with Islam. I've got, you know, some of my closest friends are, are Muslim. Um, I was born Christian.
>> And you live, and you live in a Muslim majority country last time I checked.
>> I live in the, exactly. I live in the UAE. Um, my concern and I've been to Europe. I've spent a long time in Europe. The identity of Europe is just getting eroded. And you look at the metrics, the, the, the name, uh, the most common name for babies for years now in many European countries is Muhammad. And that's one of many other metrics. But that's true.
>> You know the reason for that. You know the reason for that because there's a more common name. It's just that if you add up all the non-Muslim names, there's still way more.
>> True. But it does make a point that the culture is being eroded now. Some people make the...
>> Hold on. Is a, hold on. I'm, where are you from, Mario? You from Italy. I don't know where you're from.
>> Born in, no, no. I was born in Lebanon.
>> Born in Lebanon. Okay. Sorry. The name. Uh, so you've never lived in Europe.
>> No, I've spent years in Europe.
>> So, I'm born and raised in Europe. I was born and raised in the United Kingdom. Right. I'm a Shia Muslim. That procession that Elon amplified, uh, to try and incite more hate against Muslims. That procession has happened since I was a kid. Now, you don't have to like it. You could say, "Look, I don't think Muslims should be allowed to do processions." But that's, that's happened since I was a kid. Since I, since the 1980s, I've been remembering that it's not new. What's new is social media is amplifying this stuff and weaponizing this stuff. So even if I accept your argument about demographics, about culture changing, about names. Even if I accept that, which I don't, but let's say I accept it, that procession is nothing new. It's not a sign of Islamic takeover. It's not a sign of British culture being eroded. Jews get to have processions. Hindus do Diwali on the streets. Shia Muslims every year do a procession on Ashura. It's not dangerous. It's not...
>> Violent.
>> Agree. Agree. The procession itself is not the issue. It's part of a... So if you look at the, the, the tweet itself alone, you can argue that, hey, why is he attacking the procession? But if you look at it as part of a, of a broader... Yeah. But if you look at it as part of a broader message that the, the way immigration is being handled in Europe and what that's doing to the European culture and European countries, then it would probably make more sense. Not saying you agree with it, but the...
>> No, I don't agree. And I'm happy to have a legitimate disagreement about immigration, rates of immigration, etc. I'm saying when I look at that and I saw Elon Musk do it, it's very dangerous, right? We just had an attack on Muslims in Edinburgh, uh, by a guy who's been charged with terrorist related offenses. Five people stabbed, many other Muslims. We just had an attack in San Diego, California. Mosque was attacked by a neo-Nazi pair of teenagers who killed three Muslim worshippers, tried to kill a bunch of Muslim kids. It's very dangerous when Elon Musk and others on the right are amplifying videos of peaceful, law-abiding British Muslims doing a religious procession, not hurting anyone, something they've done for years, and then you post it and say, "Good luck Britain." So, I would just wanted to check, are you saying that Shia shouldn't be allowed to do a religious procession in the UK?
>> No, no. I'm saying immigration should be handled differently in Europe. Now, I think if you criticize my advice, my advice would be if you're going to do that, and I again, you have legitimate point of view to say immigration should be handled differently. I'm saying maybe don't do it with videos of British Muslims, many of whom are not immigrants in that video. They're born and raised in the UK exercising their religious freedom and their free speech, which I thought you support.
>> I appreciate the tweeting advice.
>> All right. I just wanted to clarify [laughter] because obviously if you are an anti-Seal [laughter] level, definitely not. Um, and I think also, you know, on your last point as well, if someone criticizes immigration, there's always going to be a stupid minority that will act on this in a violent way. If you criticize Trump, people will act on it in a violent way. The assassination attempts. If you criticize Israel, some people will mix it into with Judaism and act in a violent way. So, there's always going to be that minority.
>> Exactly. I think there's a line a tweet like this versus a tweet that's calling for violence. Big difference. But I, I, I take the criticism constructively, Maddie.
>> All right. Cheers, Mario. Thank you for letting me make it. Thanks for having me.
>> Thank you, Maddie. All right, guys. Uh, that's it for today. Um, we've got another six interviews for you today. Today, we've got 11 interviews. It's going to be an incredible lineup. We just had Mehdi Hasan, um, one of my favorite guests as well. Uh, we had, I did an interview before that but hasn't been published about the rare earth, the security threat to the US because of the rare earth refining that's happening in China. Not enough people are talking about this. That was a recorded interview that'll be posted later. Had Colonel McGregor earlier as well as Elijah Magnier. The next interview will be in 30 minutes with Trita Parsi. Then we have Patrick Christey's, funny enough, will be talking about, um, the new prime minister in the UK, um, the replacement for Starmer and we'll, I'll probably bring up the issue of immigration with Patrick, get his thoughts on it and then we have Jeffrey Currie, uh, for an economic conversation about the global economy, a regular on the show. Brendan Wer, regular on the show. Malcolm Nance, a regular on the show. Larry Johnson and Jeffrey Snyder. It's going to be a packed day. I'll see you guys in 27 minutes. Bye.