Transcription
I tried. I told them, "Guys, just take it easy. Larry just wants a break for a day." I said that to them. Both of them said, "Okay, Mario." And then then the US decided to sneak ships on Oman. Iran's like, "Mario, look what they're doing." I'm like, "Guys, it's okay. It's okay. I'll have a talk to them." They fire one ship. The US go quiet. I tell guys, don't retaliate. They're like, "Okay, Mario, we won." Trump puts out a post. I'm like, "Trump, I just saw your post. The team's calm." Like, "Yeah, Mario, don't worry. I won't attack." And then all [ __ ] breaks loose, Larry. But I tried. I promise you, I tried.
"They're just te it up so you and I have something to talk about." I told him not to. As you requested, I can't do much. And then, oh, sorry, I forgot. Also, Lebanon went ahead and signed a deal with Israel. Hezbollah is not happy. They said, "Hey, we're going to get into a civil war. People are on the streets." And they're still on the streets right now. So, I don't know. I've got the whole deal, by the way. I've got the the um the 14 14.
"It's embarrassing." "That's not going to work." "Lebanon just surrendered its sovereignty."
All right. Well, let's begin. So, so yesterday we we talked about the um ship that was trying to go into through the Omani side. Iran fired at it. By the way, just to be clear, in this case, I'm also critical of both the US and Iran. Iran, I'm critical because they breached the the ceasefire by firing at that ship. And obviously, the US I'm critical because they retaliated by escalating. They could have just fired at a ship. But I had a debate with Elijah earlier today because clause five of the um ceasefire, I want to put this out there early on, Larry, so you know my stance on it, but clause five says Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge etc. And that's the Omani side which they technically have the right. So obviously Iran wants to ensure they control the strait of Hormuz. So I see the strategic reason they did this. But if you took look at clause five in a silo without clause one that the US and Israel are breaching, Iran did escalate by striking that ship and the US retaliated but in an escalatory way which I think they overreacted to. Let's let's get your thoughts on the what happened yesterday and the attack today. And just to give you more context on the attack, you probably know the context, but just for the audience, the attack according to um the Americans, according to PBS, they uh six US aircraft attacked four Iranian targets, which were radar installations as well as missile and drone storage facilities in Suri, which is what the headquarters of the forces that um enforce Iranian control of the strait of Hormuz. And it's interesting they struck radars because that's what they struck all the other back and forth between Iran and the US. The Americans were always targeting radars to degrade Iran's ability to control the strait as like the strategic reason they keep targeting those radars. But we'd love to get your reaction on that back and forth.
Well, uh, you know, Iran's made it pretty clear they're going to control the strait of Hormuz and, uh, this ship that tried to circumvent it, circumvent their control, Iran is just following up with what it said it was going to do. So now, you know, the United States has initiated the initiated the escalation phase, and the United States can't afford to initiate the escalation phase. If they if they keep this up, it's one thing to send out six planes, do one bombing run, and then my understanding is Iran has already retaliated. They said they have >> a US Army base. I'm not sure what they retaliated with or whatever, but >> um right now the United States uh military forces in the region have finally been ordered to go back to the United States. Now, I don't know how many will be ordered to stay behind, but and I'm not sure what base these uh aircraft came out of to carry out this attack, but uh at some point um you know, if if Iran just did what I'll call a pro-forma response, then I think they're acknowledging that they know the order for the United States to get the hell out of the Middle East has been given and Iran doesn't want to give them a reason to stick around. Go ahead, let them get out. Let them withdraw. But but if the United States decides to engage and escalate this and they start flying these missions every night, they're going to be using up a lot of aviation fuel, which goes to, you know, an article I posted at sonar21.com last night talking about the uh there the aviation fuels made out of uh uh of a particular type of oil. And uh if you make that, you're going to make less diesel and you need diesel and aviation fuel both run the economy and civil aviation. And you and so we're right now at a situation where the United States it's it's it's basically running out of uh the oil that it needs to make diesel and or aviation fuel. And so the more if we get all these if we have one of these combat missions every day, that's that's going to be using up a lot of fuel. And then all of a sudden the United States so this is a kind of sustained this is the kind of activity that can create some real further economic danger for the United States economy and the global economy to be candid.
So on the Iranian attack on the ship yesterday that led to this retaliation actually let's talk about Iran's retaliation. So Iran said um uh they put out a statement that they've responded they've retaliated by striking. Let me find the exact statement. The IRGC Navy said it targeted US military positions in the region that even mentioning where in response to what it described as American aggression and violation of the ceasefire. It seems pretty clear to me the Iranians do not want to escalate. They've made their point clear like hey we will enforce our control of Strait of Hormuz. The Americans I think made their point saying we will not let you enforce your control of the Strait of Hormuz. So there's a power struggle. I don't know who will blink first and more importantly when they will blink. I think at the end of the actually don't know. I think Iran the Americans will blink first on this front. Um there absolutely Americans are going to blink first. Iran's not going to back off on this and the United States doesn't have the military force to compel them to back off. That that's the thing people keep forgetting.
Exactly. Exactly. Military force, but more importantly in my views the political will or the strategic will because Strait of Hormuz is strategically important for many countries and the US is not on top of that list. So we've always said that the US should just walk away. Other countries suffer more than the US. So they'll probably try. I think they'll do it at the behest of other countries that are requesting it. But there's only there's only so far they will go. Trump does not want to be dragged into another war. Um he let me just stick to the retaliation. Um do you think they did attack? Is it possible that the Iranians did not even retaliate and they put out their statements >> because there's no indication at all. Not one alert, nothing.
Yeah, it's possible. They're just saying a vague, you know, a vague description of what they did. May maybe they didn't retaliate again. And I come back. You said, "Well, why wouldn't they?" Well, they know that the United States, the order has been given, go home, go back to the United States, so once they get all those planes out, the United States is not going to have much of a force there to retaliate with in the future.
I don't think they'll if in terms of the forces, I don't think the forces will all come out of the region. A lot of forces to be leaving the region before a final deal is reached. I'm just Mario. I'm telling you, they're given an order to withdraw the US forces from the region and it get it's going to take over a month, a month and a half to you remember it didn't all get there in one week because you have to the aircraft, you know, the F-35s, the F-15s, the F-16s, the A10s, and God knows what else is over there. They have to be fed. It's not like you you pull up a tow truck and you know pile them all on the back and the tow truck drives away with them. No, they have to be flown. And so that means they have to be refueled by air or on the ground.
So, you know, figure uh get your compass out and figure what's from like say uh uh the Muwaffaq Salti base in Jordan, what's 500 miles from there? uh the Italian air base. So they fly from there to the Italy, they land, refuel, then they take off and from there they get maybe to England and then from England they got to get across the ocean which means they're going to have to be refueled at least once or twice and then once they get across the ocean then they land you know somewhere in the say New Hampshire but if they're going to like Dest Florida uh to the uh air base down there so it's it's It's an 8,000 mi trip. And so that takes, let's say that's going to take a couple of days. Plus, you got those KC135 tankers that have to be strategic in place to do the refueling. And you know, so that that takes this will encompass us, you know, 3 four weeks just doing that. Then you got to get the large the C17s and and and maybe the C5As flying over the large uh aircraft that can carry, you know, helicopters because helicopters certainly aren't going to fly back to the United States. They got to be put on board a plane.
Um armored personnel, carriers, any anything like that. And you know what about Patriot missile systems? they maybe would throw in some of those. So that and this is a way also to send Israel a message that you know we're not going to be here to to back you up. You want to be on your own? You want you insist on doing it on your own? Great. You're going to be on your own. Good luck.
So that's even before the MOU the MOU stipulates if I remember correctly that the US would start uh removing forces from the region once the final agreement is signed. No, after 30 days from when the final agreement is signed, I think something along those lines. But it's after the agreement is signed. But you're saying that the process has already begun. The multimonth or multi-week process. You got to understand when when the military does anything, it does it based upon orders that have been put together and issued saying you commander X Y and Z you're going to do this on such and such date or starting from such and such date and this is your ultimate objective and then you got to come back and tell me how you plan to carry this out for example. So they come back with their proposed concept of operations B1 or but in this case they're calling they're saying okay you such and such unit with this many aircraft you are going to uh start your return trip uh to home base and you're going to you'll depart you know Muwaffaq Salti at 0700 local on on June uh 29. From there you will fly to and it may either specify a land base or you will fly and then be refueled and ultimately land say at Lajes or uh uh Rins in in Germany. So you know it's but but the point is you they operate according to these orders that are set in advance and then they're also sequenced.
Um, do you agree with my um my theory on what we just saw right now? It's not nothing too complicated, but that this is both sides trying to um enforce their their wishes or their wills, their wishes or their their um objectives on the Strait of Hormuz. Was the Americans keeping it open as it was before? The Iranians putting it under a new um new management, new new system where they'd be able to eventually toll it. Is that what we're seeing right now? That they're kind of tugged by both sides seeing how far each one can push?
Oh, to an extent, but understand the Strait of Hormuz is not open in the sense that the United States wants it open. Have you looked at marinetraffic.com lately today?
I haven't checked it today, though. Uh so you know there's nothing there hardly anything but little ships going through not big not big uh uh you know tankers.
Um, there's something one of my guests told me yesterday that really clicked in my head today. I want to get your thoughts on it. I mentioned it a couple of times today. Um and he said um the Iranians might have looked at the price of oil right now and that might be like [ __ ] who might have given them too much leeway because the pressure of high oil prices is no longer there. I know the strategic reserves being depleted, the that pressure is still there. That takes a long time to
I mean the the price of oil right now is a it's a manufactured price. It's not real. I mean it's real what people are paying or the future price. What's being paid off the boat though is different in many cases.
Yeah, but still extremely low. Much lower than what many people expected. So what the theory is that the so the people that signed the deal and people that opposed it of course are like crap we gave too much breathing room to Trump and that might so that's what they said yesterday and in my mind today kind of clicked together I'm like maybe that's what gave him the confidence to strike Iran knowing that the price the markets have given him leeway now to act if the price of oil was still at 100 or 90 maybe Trump would have been a lot more reserved price of oil doesn't matter it's the supply that matters that's where the critical That's where the critical issue is right now that Trump is ignoring or that was let's say that was the factor that tipped him over to sign the MOU.
Um, you know, I posted I posted a pretty extensive piece at sonar21.com last night explaining this in detail why what they call a 13-day buffer, which sounds like, oh, well, we got a cushion. That means you basically have nothing. And so therefore, you are dependent upon what is being produced, delivered to the port that day and can be refined within the next 24 hours in order to have something to send out the next day. And I'm, you know, simple and grossly simplifying this. Yeah, they're, you know, it's not they're not rolling in barrels of oil. It's just the opposite. Uh, and this uh, you know, the marine traffic has not picked up. By the way, on your theory of the price of oil being suppressed, so Jeffrey Curry, I was speaking to him a couple hours ago, former Goldman, you might know him, he's the um the co-chair of AAX Markets, former Goldman Sachs trader, and he um his theory because he's very um he's very bullish on the price of oil. Um there's a pretty big position in there, and he expected the price of oil being higher. But what he said, what really surprised him is obviously the price is lower, but that's mainly because Chinese demand is a lot lower. And I know you probably heard a lot of people talk about this. And so that's the main reason why the one of the main reasons the price of oil is so low. But he doesn't understand why the Chinese are not buying enough oil and they're still not buying oil right now. Their demand is still low right now despite the low oil prices. So the um there's various theories. One of them is that China started using their strategic reserves. The satellites are not showing it, but they might have, someone said to me, they might have underground facilities. But even if that theory is right, the question that Jeffrey was saying is that why are they not buying up oil right now from the markets? Why didn't things pick up from China? Because that would bring oil prices even higher again. Um, he doesn't have an answer, but one theory that's floating around is that, you know, oil peaked for the second peak was when Trump and Xi met. So there might be some sort of agreement, some sort of deal could be related to that meeting where the Chinese decided to reduce the pressure on oil prices, but just kind of goes into your um your concern about the price of oil being suppressed in some way.
It's been manipulated. I in what in what world of economic theory do do you get a 20% drop in the supply of a good that is it's an essential good luxury item you know it's not like okay I don't need to have beluga caviar today no I need I need I need the damn diesel or else my tractor is not going to plow the field kind of thing and so the the supply of that goes down, the demand remains steady and the price comes down. Sorry, something's crooked. That's, you know, that's like if you go into a casino and uh you you lo you lose every single uh bet you place, every single one. Maybe the casino is not playing fair, you know, but in this in this case, the market certainly is not playing fair. I like the beluga beluga caviar anecdote.
Yeah, I mean, it's nice but you but you don't need it,
you know.
I'm going to I'm going to change your description on on our interviews to an anecdote expert.
All right. So, so that's on the um so Iran retaliated. Let me see if there's more updates there and I want to get your thoughts on Lebanon because that's a really for me that what's happening in Lebanon is more significant. Um, there's a statement by the uh head of the Iran parliament's national security commission Ibrahim Azizi. The US attacked Iran in the middle of negotiations once again. The failed US president has shown has has shown he has no commitment on the principles of negotiations. The reckless violation of the ceasefire will as always lead to a retreat and regret on their part. The blame game does not does not work anymore.
So JD Vas, oh, I didn't read JD Vas's statement. He said, "Iran signed a ceasefire agreement. We have honored it. If they have disagreements about how the MOU is being applied, they can pick up the phone, but violence will be met with violence." So JD Vance posted that as well and quote tweeted the CENTCOM's announcements about the um the attacks.
Any other comments on this? I think we've covered most of it before we go to the Lebanon deal.
Well, just uh my my energy buddy just sent me a note and he said, you know, everybody's avoiding the golden elephant in the room. The US and Israel have extremely limited jet fuel, kerosene, diesel fuel to deploy to the field. Israel can fly short sorties to southern Lebanon, but they can't fly long haul to attack Iran without US supplied jet fuel. And the US has none to spare. and is rationing its current limited inventory tightly. So this is a case where the the energy supply may dictate what the military response is.
Yeah, it's an interesting factor, an important factor as well. Who is that mystery energy guy that you have that comments?
I guess he's watching us right now.
Sources.
Yes, Ashley.
It's a pleasure to meet you, Mr. X. It's a pleasure to meet you. I've heard a lot about you.
I've heard I've heard a lot about you and the Pakistani source. Mr. Y I call him.
Yeah. X and Y.
Pakistani source is a troublemaker, Larry.
And don't forget we got Pepe and I have Mr. Z as well. Sulfar.
Who's Mr. Z?
He's hosts the he hosts the
Oh, yeah. Yes. On their show. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Pepe was telling me about um the guy the the investor I think he owns a fund or something I remember.
Yeah, he's got he's a he's a he's a Pakistani American American citizen businessman.
Uh
yeah, I remember.
Yeah, he's been kind enough to host uh the host transition protocol.
Yeah. And the other channel as well earlier.
Um, all right, so let's go through the Lebanon deal. That one is um is worrying because Lebanon I still think the Lebanon issue is still the the most complex one to solve. The 14-point plan. Not sure if you saw it, Larry. I'll go through it. I haven't seen it.
Could you send it to me, please?
Yeah. Do you want me to read it out now or do you want me to send it to you as well? We read it together.
Go ahead. Yeah, read it now.
Uh all right. No, I'll read it now. So, I'll go through point by point and then you can comment on each one. It's 14 points. Um, number one, end the conflict and formally work towards ending the state of war. Not much comment there. It sounds like a fair point.
Um, number one. Number two, Israel will withdraw from Lebanon in phases as security conditions are met.
Sounds good but concerning because Iran says that exactly security condition. They're going to explain it now, but as soon as you add conditions, you end up in a situation like in Gaza for example. you just allow, you know, allow Israel to kind of use that vagueness, that ambiguity to m to maintain their presence in Lebanon, which is a big red line for the Lebanese government, by the way, but a big red line for Hezbollah and a big red line for for Iran. Number three, the Lebanese armed forces will gradually assume control of security across the country. I'm fine with that. That doesn't talk about disarmament. It'll get it'll get concerning in a bit. So, thus far so good. Number four, Hezbollah and all other non-state armed groups must be completely and verifiably disarmed. Yeah, not going to happen. Okay. And and and I want a and I want a unicorn zebra pony for Christmas. Okay. I got I got more chances I got more more chances of getting the unicorn zebra pony than they do getting that. about me.
This is this is this is where it gets concerned because now the the Israeli withdrawal is conditional. Number four. Number five and and just give you my position as well which you know and the audience knows. I would love to see and I think you would and most people would like to see I would love to see Hezbollah merge into the Lebanese military even probably I don't say but most people would. The only problem is that number one, Iran is there and Iran won't that let let that happen. And number two, that if you remove Hezbollah, then you don't have a deterrent against Israeli aggression. Um and when you got a country that's neighboring you that's been hostile to so many other countries and they openly many of them say openly they would like to see civil war in Lebanon um then the argument of um you know disarming the only military force able to fight Israel um becomes um less pragmatic but even look even if someone wants to disarm Hezbollah it's no longer the option is no longer on the table so that's why when I see that condition on there they're more use the deal that they signed is already uh concerning and Hezbollah has already put out a statement saying we will not disarm and trying to disarm us will cause civil war. Just to be clear, they've already said that right after the agreement was signed. So that's point four. Point five, Israel says it has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon and will leave once security threats are removed. Another condition. So once security threats are removed, Israel would leave.
And what is do they define security threats?
No, it's a very short agreement. It's just it's worse than the MOU. More vague than the MOU.
Okay.
Number six, Lebanon reaffirms that only the Lebanese state has the authority to wage war and maintain armed forces. In theory, the the point I like in practice, I think you'll agree, the unicorn is more likely. Correct.
Correct. There's still that group called Hezbollah. Number number seven, a US-backed military coordination and verification mechanism will oversee implementation of the agreement. What can go wrong?
Yeah, again, what does that mean?
Yeah. Both sides commit to a sovereign secure Lebanon free of armed groups threatening either country. Again, they're saying no Hezbollah unicorn. 10. The US will coordinate international reconstruction, humanitarian aid, and economic recovery for Lebanon. Um, great. And 11, Lebanon and the US will prevent funds and reconstruction Lebanon and the Lebanon and the US will prevent funds and reconstruction assistance from reaching Hezbollah and other armed groups.
12 out of 14.
No. Yeah. Nonstarter.
12. Israel and Lebanon will establish working groups to negotiate a comprehensive peace and security agreement. 13. Both sides will cease hostile political and legal actions and cooperate on the return of detainees and human remains. And lastly, 14. Israel and Lebanon. Oh, this is your love. 14. You ready, Larry? Israel and Lebanon Israel and Lebanon acknowledged the US role in the agreement and express appreciation for President Donald Trump's leadership.
Oh jeez. That's close.
Yeah. The the tear tear coursing down my cheek. It's so deep.
Oh my god. Yeah. Count. Okay. Count that dead on arrival.
Yeah. The
that that goes absolutely nowhere.
The positive point, just to give you one positive aspect of it. Um, hold on. What happened here? Oh, the positive statement. There's a lot of groups mocking the Iranians for their statement. I I'll tell you in a bit about the attack on the US. I'll explain it in a bit. But just the positive thing here is in that deal, the Israelis immediately pull out of some of the territory they have they've currently occupying. So they will be pulling out of very small amount of territory and the Lebanese military will take control of that territory. So there is an initial step in that direction. Obviously not enough in in what Iran is asking for, which is a full withdrawal of Israel. Now I want to show you a statement that came out from Israeli TV. This is a guy called Ravi Ducker. He's the host of a popular program on Israel's channel 13 and he says the following. You can play the clip without the audio because he speaks Hebrew. Stephanie, quote people could read the subtitles. He said he says maybe it's not bad for us to let the Lebanese government fight. And the guy says that's the goal from the start. Quote, the Israeli plan in Lebanon is to divide the country and plunge it into a civil war to force the Lebanese government into military confrontation with Hezbollah. He just said it right there openly. Yep. Yeah. So that's the um that's the big concerning part is we are seeing disagreements between Hezbollah and Lebanese government. Hezbollah has warned MP Hassan Nasrallah vowed the group will confront any measure taken by Beirut to implement its commitment on the ground. Hezbollah says it will retain its weapons and opposed the Washington signed framework at a at a serious level. And he said enforcement is impossible. Quote unless with US support they go to civil war. That's a very tough word for Lebanon. The country's gone through decades of civil war. So this is a situation in Lebanon. I don't know. I don't know what will happen. I'm really worried about it. And if you add to it the Syrian buildup and the talks that what we discussed yesterday of potentially Syria going into Lebanon and acting at the behest of Israel and the US. But um maybe a good question here for you would be what do you think will happen? You've got pressure. The Lebanon government is signing a deal with Israel. Lebanese government obviously doesn't have much of a military. The only scenario where Hezbollah merges with the Lebanese military would be if there's an agreement that Iran and Hezbollah agree with. But I just don't think that's you know the likelihood of that is you know below you know 5% maybe I'd say
well Iran you know again Hezbollah will coordinate with Iran
and it's not going to go out and do something that will be harmful to Iran's interests and so this is this is again another sort of desperate play by uh the Biden I mean the Biden the Trump administration and the Netanyahu Yeah. What do you think will happen? And um what happens next? They've signed this agreement. Then what?
Well, if they if they print copies of it, people will have readily available things to use for toilet paper. If the toilet paper,
other than that, it's not going to be what you'd call there's not even a Chamberlain peace in our time document. They should go sign it. They should go sign it in Versailles, I guess.
Yeah, that'd be good. Put on
put on a World War I uniform when they do it.
Um, or the Hezbollah leader also released a statement today before the agreement. He said the Lebanese authorities cannot antagonize and oppose more than half of the Lebanese people and functioning and function normally. Um, and they said they want that's the Lebanese um as soon as the agreement was signed, Hezbollah supporters were on the streets. Um, and um they said that um the Lebanese government can't force us to give up our arms. But look, you know, one thing I'll tell you one thing that annoys me. I understand why Hezbollah is there. I understand they're they're an important deterrent against Israel. And um right now after the war ended, before the war ended, I was advocating for the disarmament of Hezbollah. Um, sorry. Before Israel started leveling villages, I was advocating for the disarmament of Hezbollah. When Israel started leveling villages, I'm like, should not disarm until Israel is out and Lebanon has military capabilities to deter Israeli aggression. That was before the MOU when the deal was signed or the ceasefire was agreed and the deal was signed. When I saw the MOU, I'm like, any discussion of disarmament can be had but cannot be enforced. Iran won the war and there's no capabilities right now to dictate dictate Israel's the Lebanese governments or anyone's wishes or Americans wishes to disarm Hezbollah that cannot happen when Iran so clearly and and so decisively won the war. So that's how my position has shifted but like one thing when I look at flags like this and this is this is um this is Lebanon. You can see all the flags are Hezbollah and Iran. So this is why I've always advocated for the disarmament of Hezbollah merging them with the Lebanese military. So the military capabilities are still there in theory just because I I would like to see in any country one military that only um answers to that country's government and that country's people. But unfortunately in Lebanon that that scenario with Israel on its borders.
That's only 44 years that they've uh
had this duality, triality, whatever you want to call it.
Yeah. And and has proven itself as a strong deterrent against Israeli aggression. I think that cannot be ignored.
Yeah, I mean, Israel, despite everything they've tried to do, have been unable to defeat Hezbollah, and they're still shy of taking full control of the Litani River.
Yeah, someone I had um Elijah Magnier, not sure if you know, I'm the journalist.
Yeah. So, he was breaking down how much Israel has taken from Lebanon. I I haven't looked into. I haven't had the chance. A lot less than I expected the territory they've captured.
Um, so, yeah. And and oh, he also made an interesting point. He said, by the way, Stephanie, I've sent you images. Don't show them yet, but just prepare them. They're images of the destruction and the American bases and your report from the Wall Street Journal. Not sure if you saw it, Larry. We'll show it to the audience. Your thoughts on it. Just one interesting thing Elijah told me earlier today, very interesting point. He's like, "Mario, it says Hezbollah's interest for Israel to push further into Lebanon because they would weaken their flanks and it would allow to just pick them off with drones." Um, so and and he talking about the high he gave me a really high number of Israeli casualties. He said, "Mary, that number came from Israel." I couldn't find the source. I told him, "Send it to me." Not sure if he did, but either way, there's casualties there. Um, and that was an interesting point that he made.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, uh, good lord. You know the the the battle over Lebanon has been going on 51 years.
It's crazy.
And pretty good bet going to keep going on 52 53. Lebanon's issue is not going to be resolved until the day comes that instead of this artificial arrangement of who gets reelected president and head of the legislature etc. that it is genuinely they either come up with a federal republic or it's genuinely democratic which means whoever gets the most votes wins.
Even that won't solve the problem in my in my view because it won't solve the problem because Lebanon needs a strong military. It needs a strong military to maintain security but most importantly it needs a strong military to deter Israeli aggression. That's another like this is
well it needs it but it doesn't have it then how did it do this time this go around deterring Israeli aggression not well there's basically when when woke up and started fighting back
and you and fighters from other areas flocked flock there to you know I think they they linked up with Hamas and underground passages and tunnels and storage centers.
Um, I made a statement as soon as the ceasefire was agreed to. I said the biggest losers, the ceasefire before the MOU, the first first ceasefire that caught everyone by surprise. I made a statement saying um the biggest losers from this war are Israel and Lebanon. Israel because obvious reason we've talked a lot about it. Iran's going to come out stronger. Um the American presence in the region is going to move away. And I said there's a possibility, which is now I'm actualizing, but I said there's a possibility Trump tries to turn this into a political win by decoupling from Israel. So that's why Israel is a big loser. And there's not much to discuss there. We've discussed it. The reason I said Lebanon's a big loser is because Iran won. They would want to maintain Hezbollah as an part of the axis of resistance and support them as they always have and support them even further as they were. It turned out very effective and Israel will continue seeing Hezbollah as a threat and they will continue causing issues because of that reason and Lebanon is stuck in the middle. And now if you add to it the mix of Turkey and Turkey expanding its influence, the Syrian military buildup,
Lebanon will will remain what it's been for decades is a battlefield for all these different um for all these different proxies or whatever you want to call them for all these sorry all these different countries.
Yeah, the or the different ethnic groups that comprise Syria.
Yeah. All these different Yeah. comprise. But it will be it will be Lebanon will continue being a battlefield for all these big superpowers. Israel wants more influence. Iran wants more influence. Turkey wants more influence. The US wants more influence. Saudi wants more influence. So that's why it was if Yeah. If Iran if Iran lost the war then one would make the argument I would make the argument actually that maybe we're seeing the end of Hezbollah if Iran decisively lost the war but the complete opposite happened. So just looking at whether you like or not whether you support them or not you just got to accept reality and this is reality.
I couldn't agree more.
Um, so I want to show the audience if you can show the images now Stephanie. Um, I want to get your thoughts on them because that's something you've covered extensively and you've written a lot about on Sonar 21 as well, uh, Larry, and that's a destruction of the American bases. Um, so that's from Wall Street Journal. Satellite imagery reveals for the first time the extent of what Iran destroyed at naval support activity in Bahrain. So, skip that one. I'll tell you when to move to the next one. The military is now considering revamping the base in Bahrain, reducing the US presence in Kuwait and Saudi, and moving some bases or base functions west further farther from reach of Iranian missiles and drones. According to the officials familiar with the deliberations, you can see here the destruction of uh uh satellite communication terminals, warehouses, a water tank, and a communication management facility in um I think that one is in Bahrain. Israel is one of the locations being considered for basing. Go to the next image. Israel is one of the locations being considered for basing. According to two officials, the country hosted a dozen dozens of US aircraft including jet fighters and refueling planes during the war.
Um, that's that's the one in Saudi. That's the the um
Prince Sultan Air Base or
the that's the
that's Prince Sultan. That's the one. You remember the big u the big aircraft that was struck with drones or missiles. I don't know which one, but the big one that got a lot of attention because of very significant damage for very expensive equipment. I think that's the uh um I don't know if that's KC135 frame or not.
I think it is. That's I think there was a KC135. I think one or two of them were were destroyed in in Saudi. Um, and that caused a lot of damage, hundreds of millions of dollars. Let me see which let me ask which US aircraft did Iran destroy in uh Prince Sultan Prince Sultan Air Base Air Base and what was the cost? Um, and also on the top left here you've got the uh the the on the left and right the ones in Kuwait and the UAE the bases you can see more destruction there.
Um, now that's AWACS. Sorry, the AWACS that was destroyed. I think it was one of them. Uh, one or two. No, one
you and you understand why why the AWACS is important.
Or do you?
The uh because of the radar on it that's very valuable. Correct. The one you've talked about.
Well, what's valuable about that radar?
Rare earth that I've acquired from China that are very difficult to procure.
No, what what's useful? What it's needed for is it compensates for those ground radars that Iran blew up.
Wow.
So when you if you take this you take this out too then that means Israel won't have any early warning or the US have any early warning on missile launches for example.
Yeah, let me check how many AWACS they took out. I think they took out one. Each one cost 270
million dollars. Yeah.
Yeah, they've destroyed one of them. One out of the six. Um I
go ahead.
No, I was just say I think you could live off a quarter of a million dollars. I think
the Center for Strategic and International
You might you might have to cut back on your supply of ramen noodles. Okay.
And beluga caviar. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated in a report published Tuesday that the total cost of the war was about 40 billion. The estimate included their calculus of 2.2 billion to 5.1 billion in damage to US bases based on structures that CSIS identified as damaged. So that's a report that came out which goes to your initial point. You're talking about the American military presence moving away from the region. You got is if there's other images, you can go to the next one, Stephanie. I don't know if they have other images in there. Um, but moving the presence to to other and I saw another report that the they're going to the bases are going to be more decentralized. They're going to be more smaller bases further away from Iran and not you know not one big base, more smaller bases scattered around if I understand correctly. So that's
the question is what are they going to be doing?
Why do you need those bases? For what reason?
Yeah, that's the the big question. Um, all right, so that's on the bases destruction. We've talked about the Lebanon peace deal. Something happening in the Gulf. You could remove this. Thank you. Um, Stephanie, head of the Iranian Parliament's National Security Commission. Again, he's very vocal today. He says, "We warned the heads of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Gambling that kind of goes to the point of the bases, Larry. Gambling on the American scenario will squander your stability and security. You saw how US military bases in your countries turned instead of providing security into a source of threat. Missile power, drone capabilities, and the management of the Strait of Hormuz are Iran's serious red lines." I'll read that again. Missile power, drone capabilities, and the management of the Strait of Hormuz are Iranian serious Iranian red lines. The only way to ensure regional security is to distance yourself from America. That's a point that's been pretty clear since the beginning by Iran. And you've we've talked a lot about it.
And then there's another statement here. Ibrahim Azizi says, "Warning for GCC leaders, outsourcing your security has made you less secure. You have seen how US military bases in your countries have turned into a source of threat instead of providing security. Our missile and drone power as well as the management of the Strait of Hormuz." That's the same statement I'm reading again. Um, there is a statement though that I disagree with and let me try to find it. I'll read this one. This is from Iran's foreign ministry and I want to get your thoughts on what you think. Is it raining by the way?
Yeah.
Ah, I can hear it. It's not too loud. Doesn't bother us. Yeah. We've had we've had a we've had a drought here on uh western Florida.
Ah, congratulations on the rain.
All right. So, the southern neighbors must be held accountable. This is Iran's foreign ministry talking about the Gulf. Why did they themselves engage in aggression against aggression against their Muslim neighbor in violation of the principle of good neighborliness and the fundamental rules of international law and allow their territories to be used against Iran or to launch missiles from them? Fair point. So they're criticizing, hey, why did you allow your bases, your American bases in in in your in your territory to be used against us, your neighbor? Some of them some of them, you know, are you know your friendly neighbor where we do business together. Then they so we agree on that point.
Second point, I'll tell you what we where we disagree. I think you you might agree with me. I don't know. Why do they turn a blind eye to the destructive arms race and to the purchase and stockpiling of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of various types of advanced weapons for which there is no defensive justification.
So
who's that? This is
this is the foreign ministry of Iran saying it about the Gulf. They're saying, "Why are you turning a blind eye to the destructive arms race and the purchase of stockpiling of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of various types of advanced weapons?" This is where I disagree. Then there's two other statements I agree with, but I think Iran, they have every right to oppose and and and keep opposing and trying to get the US out of the region. But I think it's the Gulf countries rights, each one of them, to rearm as much as they would like for their own security. as just like it's Iran's right to have a ballistic missile program in Iran. Do you agree?
No. Uh how many times has Iran attacked those Gulf neighbors
until this war?
Nothing before this war.
How many times have these How many times have these Gulf neighbors been involved with supporting attacks on Iran? goes back to the Iran-Iraq war where the Gulf the Gulfies were providing money to Saddam Hussein to carry out attacks on Iran. You know Iran started developing the ballistic missiles exactly in response to the fact that they were a constant target of attack. They were facing CIA-backed, you know, attempts to launch insurgencies, carrying out assassinations inside Iran, carrying out terrorist attacks inside Iran, and the United States didn't even try to hide it. For God's sake, I I'm look, they have the right to be critical of this, but just because Iran attacked the Gulf doesn't mean Iran can't have ballistic missile program. And just because the Gulf supported or just because Iran supported the Houthis that attacked Saudi in
The UAE and Saudi and Ui attacked the Houthis. There were clashes there. Just because Iran supported Hezbollah does not mean Iran doesn't have that right. And every country has groups that they support militarily. And I hold that same value to all Gulf countries and all countries in the region. Every country in the region has the right for self-defense and arming. They don't have the right to attack. Yeah, they have the right for self-defense, but against who? Again, whoever, you don't know what would happen later. If it was now, if they assemble these missiles as part of a, let's call it a grand Islamic defense force to defend against Israel, that's one thing. Of course, if that happened, Israel would lose its mind. Yeah.
Uh, but I'm just saying it's a prudent thing for any country to have a military, and if they're going to get the US bases out of there, they've seen those US bases as being a security umbrella. If those are coming out, they have to compensate for that. Now, if you make the argument that Iran hasn't been hostile towards the Gulf before, what even if they weren't, or even if there is a dove run, if Mushta comes out and says, "I want to make peace with all the countries, I don't want any more wars," etc., in 40 years' time, there's going to be a new leader. Maybe in five years' time, if something happens to him, and we don't know how that new leader will be. And so I think the prudent thing for these countries in the Gulf to do would be to arm themselves while also improving relations with Iran. That's, I just think it's the right of all countries.
And where are they going to get those missiles? Now, that's, I'm not the expert there. Oh, any chance United? Well, the United States will offer to sell it to them, but the US can't make them right now because of the shortage. They don't have enough of them. But I think they should diversify. I think they should have them from different countries.
Well, I think maybe avoid is avoiding Israel. Sorry, I had one more thing. Sorry, Larry. I think avoiding, if Iran doesn't want Israel to have too much presence there, I think that's a fair argument because of how hostile Israel was towards Iran. So I understand the red lines that Iran would have because I could also say, "Hey, Qatar is a sovereign country, or Saudi is a sovereign country. They can have US bases. It's their right."
In theory, that's true. But I would understand Iran's red line saying, "No, the US just used those bases to attack us. So we're not going to accept that." I think that's a fair argument. But I just don't think taking it a step further, saying no arms whatsoever. That's not Iran's official stance, by the way.
Right. But again, we come back to who's going to arm them, and once you arm them, you've got to train them, and who are they going to use those weapons against? It's one thing to say that they're going to have weapons to defend against Israel. Israel does have a track record of attacking countries, even in the Gulf. Qatar being the most recent victim.
Yeah, you never know how the future holds. Iraq attacked Iran. You know, Iraq and Iran had a war. The US attacked countries in the Middle East. Israel attacked Gulf countries and countries in the Middle East. So, there's, you never know what could happen later. So, that's...
Well, okay. But, but who's the one that's been launching the attack, starting the wars? That's the United States. It's not Iran.
Yeah. Not defending. Not. I'm just saying that the Gulf Army is not only about Iran. Iran definitely is having deterrence against Iran. It's the prudent thing as well. It's just the right thing to do. Maybe Iran never attacks, but you just don't take those risks as a country. But also, having a military is not only about Iran. It's about Saudi might decide to attack the UAE. Like, who knows what happens in 50 years and who replaces MBS or MBZ. So, like, there's all these unknowns that I think every country should plan for by having a military. But they should also have a policy and they should take steps to ensure having better diplomatic relations, alliances, a defensive pact, whatever it is, like what Pakistan and Saudi have to ensure to try to build a framework that ensures these things don't happen. You know, similar, not like one extreme example, is the European Union to avoid a repeat of World War II. Not saying it's a good example, just saying it's one example, like taking steps to make sure Gulf coming together, bringing Iran into the alliance, similar to what Qatar, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, and potentially Iran are doing.
I'll read the other two points to the statement because we both agree on those. Then the foreign ministry spokesperson says, "And why do they ignore the repeated aggressions of the Zionist entity against the countries of the region and its occupation of Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territories?" I've always said the Gulf and the Arab countries should come together and try to put more pressure for peace in that region. And the last statement here is, "Why do they remain silent regarding the Israeli nuclear arsenal?" I 100% agree with that, which lies outside the scope of any international oversight, while the conventional defensive capabilities of the state that has repeatedly been subjected to threats, Iran, and attacks from neighboring countries are portrayed as a threat. I think it's a very valid point. Why is Iran seen as a threat and all that focus on Iran when Israel, who's been more aggressive in many ways, has nuclear weapons that not enough pressure is being put there? Now, the answer is because the US is kind of offering that umbrella, diplomatic umbrella for Israel to defend against that pressure. But it's there, these are valid questions by the Iranians, these two points.
Yeah. Yeah. Again, you go back over the 47 years, that first, the first Iraq war, the decision to attack Iran came with the encouragement and support of the United States, as the, and a covert operation that the CIA was running in support of that. So, you know, you've got 47, in that 47 years, at no point has Iran gone out and put together hit teams that are going around assassinating members of the royal families in the various Gulf countries. You know, if they, if Iran had done that, yeah, I'd say, boy, these countries really do need to defend themselves against Iran. But instead, all of these countries have been nothing more than a springboard for putting US forces in a position to attack Iran. And we've got, and this is what I think Pakistan is trying to do right now, with the support of China and Russia, break that cycle so that these countries are no longer seeing Iran as the threat, but they're recognizing the principal threat comes from Israel. So they're going to strengthen themselves against that, and then they're into a cooperative arrangement.
Um, I have a question for you. Um, so, you know how every country does things, and they have their own way of justifying it. Israel inside Lebanon because we want to maintain a buffer zone for Hezbollah to attack us, or in Gaza because of Hamas. The US expanding its influence in the Middle East for all these different reasons, the oil, the threat, etc. So each country does things, you know, Russia, Ukraine, what China is doing in the South China Sea. Now, Iran wants to control the Strait of Hormuz. Okay, the Strait of Hormuz has the Iranian side, the Omani side. If Oman, as a sovereign country, decides, "You know what, we're going to agree with the Americans for whatever reason. They gave us a good deal," or put the Americans aside, "We're going to agree with the, whatever other country, with the global community, and we're going to open our side of the strait to Hummus," which is, by the way, big enough for all ships to go through, and definitely big enough for non-Iranian ships to go through and not charge a fee. They make that decision. So it makes it very difficult for Iran now to charge a fee because there's a free passageway just south of the one up north. Um, so obviously, maybe they can give incentives to ships to go through the Iranian side, blah, blah, blah. But if Oman does this, would you, does Iran, so if Oman does this, does one have to accept it legally? You know, objectively, I think it would be within their legal right to do it, and, um, but I don't, we haven't seen the full agreement between Iran and Oman, what they agreed on with respect to how to manage the Strait of Hormuz, supposedly.
They're unlikely, they're unlikely to do it based on reports.
Correct. Yeah. Just want so, just sorry, this is more hypothetical. Based on reports, Bloomberg reported that Iran, the Omanis already told the Europeans. So I'll read this from Bloomberg. Oman has told European officials there's no way of going back to the pre-war status quo of the strait, and transiting ships may have to be charged some fees. While Omani officials say they will always abide by international maritime law, they added that there could be fees for services related to depolluting the strait and for helping ships navigate it. It's unclear if Oman said all these fees would be obligatory, and that's according to Bloomberg, unconfirmed. So that's most likely what's going to happen. But I'm saying in theory, if Oman does decide, maybe US pressures with sanctions, if they do decide, do you think Iran should not enforce their will on the side militarily?
Yeah. Just personally, I'd say no. You know, it would create, you know, force the traffic over there. But my understanding, which may be flawed, is that the most, the easiest route to navigate is on the Iranian side of the strait, not the Omani side.
Yeah. True. Yeah. It's, I think the Omani side is more narrow, etc. But I did read about it's still big enough for ships to go through. Um, but just wanted to get your thoughts. And one last on that point. Um, do you think the Iranians striking the ship that was going through the Omani side yesterday, because it went through the Omani side, which the Iranians didn't want because they want all ships to go through the Iranian side. Um, do you think that they shouldn't have, and that breaches a clause, or do you think because the, the clause is vague, Elijah was telling me the clause is vague enough to allow Iran to strike. But do you think they had the right to strike that ship or no? Yesterday?
Well, if Oman has agreed with Iran that going forward, ships may pass through the Strait of Hormuz, provided they go through this process, they register, they inform of their intent, etc., and which would lead in the future for being able to charge a fee, but for right now, Iran saying no fee. Well, if this ship didn't follow that, and Oman has agreed to that, then what Iran did was in accordance with that agreement with Oman.
And last question on that point, or last question for today, but also on that point, if that ship went through the Omani side with Omani approval, but did not, or without Iranian approval?
Well, did it conform? Did it conform to the PSA? You know, the, the, the Persian Strait agreement for for the go...
That's for the Iran. But that's for the Iranian side. The PD just...
No, no, no. That was an agreement between Iran and Oman on how to manage the strait.
Oh, okay.
They negotiated that. My understanding, they negotiated that, they agreed on that, and that's going to be how this is going to be managed going forward. And so if this ship was trying to do that outside that agreement, Iran was entitled to say, "Nope, we're going to stop you."
Okay, I understand. So you're saying that if they agreed with the Omanis to go through, but Oman has an agreement with Iran where everything has to go through a certain system they both agreed on, then even if the Omanis gave the go-ahead, it's breaching an agreement that Iran and Oman have made. I don't know if that agreement, but if there is one, they breached that agreement, and that's that breach is therefore justifies action by Iran.
Exactly.
Busy day today. Uh, we've gone through most things. So we had the Iran, the attack on the Strait of Hormuz, we had the mess in Lebanon, we talked about the damage in the American bases, and we talked a bit more, continuing yesterday's discussion on the mess in the Strait of Hormuz and the statements by, um, by Iran on tomorrow, what, by Iran on on the Gulf tomorrow. What we'll talk about, we didn't even have time today, is what's happening in Turkey and the statement from Amid Kohhan, who's an activist in Israel, he says, "15 years from now, Israel will have a war with Egypt." And another person in Israel, I think it's a diplomat, I think it's a diplomat, I can't remember who it is, saying, "Turkey is becoming a front." This is Israel's Minister of Science and Technology. "Turkey is becoming a front that could indeed become a threat in the future." So it's probably discussion for tomorrow. The rhetoric on Israel, which is surprising to me, considering that they couldn't defeat Iran and the US is moving away from the region. You probably want to become more dovish, not more hawkish in your statements.
There you go. Being rational and logical. You've got to stop that, man.
Larry, it's always a pleasure. Hope you enjoy your beluga caviar today.
Yeah, I have to get me some. Thanks, brother.
Take care.
We'll see you later. Bye.
Take care, Larry. All right, guys. Um, I have the last interview, interview number 11 for today. In, oh, any second now, we'll be going live with Jeffrey Snyder. Um, who's an economist and he has a channel called the Euro Dollar University. Um, very astute guy. He's got a pretty big channel. He's a regular on the show, and he does believe, he looks at things from an economic lens, and he does believe he's one of the guests on my show that believes that the war in Iran has not ended. He's been saying this for a while because the US has not achieved its objective of capturing and controlling the Strait of Hormuz, which is the goal of the war from the beginning, which is a theory I've always had. Um, I don't think it's the only goal, but I think it's one of the most important goals, if not the most important goal. So, Jeffrey will be coming on the show in a few seconds for the final interview of the day. And check out the interviews today. It was an incredible lineup from Colonel McGregor to, um, Maddie Hassan, to, um, regulars like Brendan Wert. We've had Elijah Magnier, Brendan Wert, Trita Parsi. We've had the one that was a recorded one, so we'll release one later. And we had Malcolm Nance as well, and Jeffrey Curry. Jeffrey Curry, the news of the bombing happened live while I was with Jeffrey Curry. So you could watch that. The first 20 minutes were an economic discussion, and then all hell broke loose with a bombing of Iran. So incredible amount of videos today. If you want to sit there, watch it, listening to them while you're cooking in the kitchen, going for your run, exercising, going to bed, as many of you do. Just listen to some of these interviews, and I highly recommend the ones with Colonel McGregor and Medi Hassan. I think you'd enjoy those guys. I'll see you in a few seconds or minutes with Jeffrey. Bye-bye.