Transcription
One of the biggest problems that Americans have today, and whether that's regular Americans or policymakers, is that we have reduced Iran to a caricature. They're just the evil empire brought up new again, kind of like the Soviet Union in the past. And there's this theocratic regime and there's crazy mullahs. That's the way we view them. Nothing they say matters anyway. The only thing that matters is what we say.
Well, that is ridiculous. If we don't even understand what the other side is saying, what they actually believe, then how can you have any kind of policy that has a chance to succeed?
Patrick Henningsen is back on the show today, and he's coming to us from Tehran itself, where he's been. He's the host of 21st Century Wire, PatrickHenningsen.com, and the Sunday Wire show, which he had on just yesterday. Patrick, first of all, welcome back to the show. But I wonder if you could just kind of tell us, this is a pretty unusual thing for a Westerner to actually be in Tehran and putting out news media from there into a Western audience. How did that come about?
Well, thanks. Uh, great to be with you, Danny. Um, I hope our connection is, uh, stable and, uh, we can talk for a while. Uh, as people know, the internet can be spotty here, but, uh, hopefully we have a good, stable connection for, for now. Um, I, I, I got a last-minute opportunity. Um, I put in my press accreditation at the very, very last minute, and, uh, I probably could have used a few extra weeks to book a flight, but I, I managed to get, uh, some of the last seats available to get here for what I thought was going to be a historic, uh, moment, uh, for Iran as a country, but also for the region, and I would say for the world as well. If you think of the importance of the Middle East and West Asia, and how the power, uh, dynamic has, uh, in some ways shifted, maybe some say flipped, uh, in the last six months.
So, and, and this is a leader that's been here for, uh, 40 years, uh, as the sort of godfather of, of the country and custodian of the Islamic, uh, revolution, uh, in Iran. So, uh, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, uh, who was assassinated by the United States, uh, in Israel in the opening, uh, days of the so-called 40-day war. So, uh, yeah, and it's been really just hitting the ground running, uh, like much like when I came here before. Um, I'm working with local media professionals to get access to, uh, what are, you know, not easy things to, to get access to. And, and I feel very fortunate I've been able to see a viewpoint from, from an Iranian perspective, uh, at the Grand Masala, the Grand Mosque for the, this is a week-long funeral procession. It's nationwide. He, he's going from Tehran. Millions of people have already attended today. I don't know what the numbers were, but I saw at the low end, 8 million people on the streets of Tehran for today's, >> in Tehran alone. >> in Tehran alone for today's funeral procession. And then we had millions at the Grand Mosque the last previous two days. And I, I got to attend those and really got to see very, very upfront and close, um, the intensity of this, the mixed emotions. Unbelievable.
Uh, so it's, it's important. I mean, Americans got to understand, and, and Europeans and people in the West, they don't really have a concept of this kind of society where the the leader is the religious leader, of course, he's also the commander-in-chief, he is also the philosopher, uh, the court philosopher for the, for, for the country, he's also the sort of godfather of Iranians. So there's people like from the age of, let's say, late 20s to, to mid-40s, um, this is the only leader they've ever known in their whole life, you know. So, this is their sort of shared memory. This is the kind of figurehead of the country, but more than a figurehead, very active in different, uh, levels of, of society. And when he, so that's that shared memory, then he passes away, that's a, a shared mourning, and it's deeply affected people here, especially with the backdrop of the war. The US and Israel are still at war with Iran. So the intensity of all these emotions that people are feeling and, you know, wanting, uh, wanting to, you know, rebalance the scales of justice, quite frankly, and wanting to avenge the death of their beloved head of state.
Now, Americans need to understand that's a situation they've initiated, because nobody has ever come up with any justification of why they killed, uh, uh, the Ayatollah, the, the Supreme Leader, other than that we were told by all these Fox Fox News pundits and Lindsey Graham and everybody else that we need to decapitate the head of the snake, and then the regime will collapse, and Iranian society will collapse, and they'll rise up and take over their institutions, as the president, uh, as President Trump, uh, implored the Iranian people to do. Of course, we know that didn't happen after that. In fact, the opposite happened. Massive galvanization of society, massive reinvigoration of the Islamic Revolution.
Today, what we witnessed on the street, I've never seen anything like this in my life. I've been to the biggest demonstrations in the world. I've been to the biggest demonstration in this country just in February for the National Day, and that was dwarfed by what we saw today, not just in numbers, but in the intensity of it. And the other, >> Patrick, let me ask you if you could, because I, I do want to kind of take a bookends of that, because you were there in February just before the war started, and who knew if it was for sure at that time if it was going to start? I wonder if you can characterize, first of all, the, the mood of the people in February as compared to the mood of the people, if you can generalize it, uh, today.
>> Yeah, that's a great question, Danny, and, um, it's an important comparison. So when I came, uh, it was just coming off of the massive riots, which we've learned, including the president's own admission, that we were trafficking weapons to, you know, mostly peaceful protesters, burning, burning down mosques and torching, uh, fire trucks and, uh, attacking, uh, uh, first responders, and, and a lot of people died in the crossfire of that, including many policemen and so forth. So I, I had come to to learn more about what happened there, because I knew that was being used as the justification to build up the case for the war. Uh, that the, the regime is evil, and they need to be toppled because they're oppressing their people. That was the narrative the US and, uh, and its allies were, were pushing at the time. Um, so the mood was, uh, I, and I was surprised, and I remember commenting to you back in February on this program, Danny, that I, I didn't realize the absolute groundswell and broad-based support that the government had, that the Supreme Leader had. I really didn't understand Iranian society that well at the time. So it was a, it was a surprise to me. When I've rec, and now that that stereotype had been put to rest in my mind back in February, now I've come and I've seen another, it's, this is like another level. So before, the mood, Danny, was, we support the government, we're under the, the US are threatening war against us again. The, the aircraft carriers, US is assembling naval assets, you remember in the Gulf of Oman, the Indian Ocean, you know, it was a massive armada, as, as the US called it at the time, and they were ready, they were ready, and they were back, they were behind their government. But, but people didn't, didn't fully comprehend the viciousness that the US and Israel were capable of, uh, until the war sort of begun. And, and so now, all those stereotypes and all the anxiety and not knowing, now there's no questions. The, the Iranian attitude is so crystallized now, because they've done something, and they know this. They've done something that no country in the world has done. China has not felt the full blow of the US military. Russia has not felt the full blow of the US military. And Israel, uh, two massive, massively powerful conventional militaries, uh, plus the sanctions, but just the military, Iran remains standing after that. Not only standing, Danny, they've reversed the leverage geopolitically in the region. And all of this in the space of five months, roughly. That's, you know, if you think about it, it took the Viet Cong 12 years, 15 years to, uh, to expose the, the, the, the shortcomings of US imperial lackeys in the '60s and '70s. And this, this one was, uh, uh, five week, five months.
>> And if I could just interject that, that's that's another consequence of our absolute foolishness and arrogance and thinking that we could win this with air power. When we were in Vietnam, we were in there with a half a million troops on the ground in their country, plus the Air Force and everything else. And now, then this time, we tried to do it on the cheap, just with bombs. And so once bombs and missiles and drones don't work, you don't have ground troops. So now, then you expose the limits to your power and your stockpiles. So we're running out of both offensive and defensive missiles. And now Iran has sucked them all down, shot back its own.
And so, you had started answering this question already, but, uh, to what extent are the people of Iran, and again, I know when you talk to individuals, you get their viewpoint, so it's hard to characterize, but as best you can do, do they recognize that they are the first ones really since the North Vietnamese to stand up militarily to the United States and then emerge? Even the Taliban, they just outlasted us. But these guys actually took it in the teeth, and we can't win militarily. Do they recognize that? And what has that resulted in?
>> No. And, you know, we, I'm, I'm very lucky that as an American, I'm on the street without any security, with, you know, a million angry, two, three, four million angry Iranians. Angry at our government, not at me, of course, personally, but I'm the closest representative to the US in their life at that particular moment in time. So they were not venting at me, but, uh, to telling, telling me. And we also spoke to, uh, people in the foreign, around the foreign ministry and the national security, uh, council, people within the consensus of the foreign policy consensus community. And the, the general attitude is that they don't expect anything from the United States. On the, um, they don't. But, but they're, but the political, the, the parliamentary system, the president, the political, uh, um, uh, departments of this country will keep the door open for negotiations. They will fulfill their obligations that they have set forth, but they, they absolutely are preparing for war with the United States because they don't believe the US is, uh, you know, is potentially, let's just say the alarms are up that the US is may not fulfill their obligations and want to move the goalposts again. Um, and President Trump's comments, uh, on Friday were hugely damaging here. And he said, uh, President Trump said, "We've given them a week off because we're nice. We're not going to bomb them for a week. We'll let them have their funeral." I mean, just this continuation of this, uh, attitude from Washington, it, it's not impressing the people here at all. They're not intimidated by it, but they're, they're kind of annoyed by it. And it, what it's done is it's emboldened the hardliners here.
>> No, that's exactly what I was going to ask you. That's that's what he said prior to the, the, uh, to the funeral, etc. Well, here, just, let's see, just about three hours ago. So, President Trump, you tell me how you think this is going to land on the people that you just talked to.
>> Look, we're going to win one way or the other. We're either going to make a deal or we're going to finish the job. Okay? And it won't be tough to finish the job. Uh, I'd rather make a deal because I don't want to affect 91 million people. We can knock down their bridges in one hour. We can knock out their energy supply. All of those big plants that they built, big, beautiful, modern plants. They had a lot of money. They don't have any money now. We haven't given them any money. But we can knock out their electricity and power generating plants. In, I would say, a small part of, of an afternoon, every plant will be gone. And they know that. Look, we're going to win one way or the other.
>> Yeah. So what do you, what do you think, what do you think about that? That we're going to win one way or the other? Firstly, the, the, the way the Iranians translate that statement is that Trump has no intention, and the US government has no intention of following through with the memorandum of understanding. Otherwise, they wouldn't be making threats during the initial stage of negotiations. And that's a professional diplomatic position to take. Uh, obviously, you don't have diplomatic professionals in Washington, they, otherwise they wouldn't be talking like that before the 60-day, uh, uh, phase one is completed. So Trump is seems to be doing everything possible to undermine his own, uh, uh, side of this memorandum of understanding. So he says he wants a deal, but he's doing everything to sort of undercut his own deal, which is kind of counterintuitive, you could say, or it's just sloppy. Or he, he, or his team don't actually know what they're doing, and they think that they can threaten and intimidate their way to concessions on the Iranian side.
The Iranian attitude, Danny, is that, uh, they're ready to rebuild whatever is destroyed, um, in a matter of weeks. We have passed through so many bombing damaged areas that I was expecting to see the damage. I haven't seen the damage, and they, they've already put up the, the stainless steel framework for replacement buildings, and they're already rebuilding. So, they have, they have access to steel. They have great architects. They have builders. They have materials. They just immediately get on with reconstruction. So, their attitude is like, "You can blow up all our bridges, but we're just going to rebuild them and probably better." That's the attitude you're dealing with here. These are not, this is not a third-world country. These aren't people that are, um, easily intimidated by rhetoric. But, uh, the US should really ask itself, what's it prepared to lose if it's going to take out all the Iranian, uh, energy infrastructure again? What, what is it prepared to lose in the region? What's Israel prepared to lose? Because they're going to incur losses, um, if, uh, if we're able to talk to these.
>> Were you able to talk to any officials on this trip?
>> Um, I have, uh, privately, and, uh, we, we won't have on record until actually a foreign policy forum tomorrow with the highest, you know, level.
>> So, what is your expectation, or what is your understanding rather, if President Trump carried through on that threat and did go back and start bombing energy infrastructure, oil infrastructure, etc.? What is going to be the Iranian response?
>> The Iranian response is a further galvanization of society. Um, a, a further, uh, tightening of the political consensus. Um, and probably, I would say, uh, the public are 100%, Danny, 100% behind, uh, the government if they're being attacked by the United States. It's, if it's only going to increase the support and the cohesion in society because there's, there's even people that are, Mo, Danny, you wouldn't believe this. We're out in the street today. We're talking to people that used to protest against the government, and now they're pressuring the government not to negotiate with the United States and to to continue the offensive. These are people that were against the government a year ago. So that, that's the flip that's happened through a lot of society. And I'm not, I'm not saying it's 100% consensus to, uh, you know, play hardball with the US, but I'm going to tell you, it's, it's, uh, it's on the increase by orders of magnitude compared to where society was six or 12 months ago. So I mean, that's kind of what you're dealing with here. And so, you know, if, if the US thinks that they can sort of, you know, muscle and, uh, use coercion and threats of collective punishment, that these are somehow going to be effective in, what, what is their strategy? Is their strategy still regime change? Is this how they plan on carrying out regime change? Because if that's the case, I really don't think that the plan in Washington is, is, is fully baked, if, if it's not even half-baked, actually, if that's what they really think. So, I'm, I'm, I'm just curious what the strategy is in Washington. Have they developed one since last month, or is this, are we just going back to pre, uh, February 27th? It's very hard to to answer that question at the moment based on these statements by the president.
>> And, you know, I, I want to take a look at one other thing because you mentioned this a second ago about changing the goalposts. So the memorandum of understanding was done, and you say that many in Iran don't, don't believe we're even going to abide by those terms. Forget about what we get to later with the alleged negotiated end to the conflict itself. But, that has been highlighted a little bit by General Jack Keane, who he's, he was here talking on Fox News yesterday about ostensibly talking about leverage he thinks the United States has. So I want your comment on that. But listen carefully to what he feels and what he believes the terms are that we're negotiating.
>> We have lots of leverage here. We have, you mentioned part of it, holding back financing based on, uh, their achieving the goals of the, of clearly of the negotiation. And I think the goals are really three-fold. You mentioned one, ending their nuclear enterprise for sure, restriction on ballistic missiles, and support for proxies are the, are the other two. So he's, I, I don't think there's anything in the MOU about long-range missiles and about proxy support, uh, at all. And he's talking like those things have to be done before we give anything, which is definitely not the terms of the deal. How do you see it?
>> He's also speaking with a forked tongue on the nuclear issue. Specifically, Jack Keane says the nuclear enterprise. So what he's trying to do is fold in civilian nuclear power into the nuclear question because they haven't produced any evidence that Iran was ever developing a nuclear weapon. So again, this is just part of that general deception and, uh, you know, sideways shuffling that the United States keeps doing on these issues to try to fabricate some kind of, firstly, fabricate a case that justifies the action that they're planning on taking. But further than that, uh, all the, you're right, Danny, all the, all of those are not on the table. So again, that's not a really good, uh, that's not going through and trying to get a deal at all. If that's the case, if Jack Keane's a reflection of the way the White House is going, but what, what's Trump doing is pretty pretty obvious. And the Iranians have picked up on this. What they're saying here is that the, you know, the Singapore flag tanker, that whole situation, they believe was engineered because the US is trying to route ships, uh, through hugging the Omani coast, basically, and that was shut down just, I believe yesterday, where Iranian, uh, speedboats are now warding off any ships that are taking that route out. So what the US is trying to do is create a, a provocation to hit, uh, systematically start taking out radar stations and things that would help in the logistical management of the Strait of Hormuz. So what the US is attempting to do is change facts on the ground so that Iran can't have administrative and logistical control over the strait because the physical management of the strait is Iran's absolute greatest leverage in all of this. And the US believes that they can just gradually incrementally sort of degrade that, again, changing facts on the ground, move the goalposts, change negotiations mid-stream. That's, they, they do realize that this is a US strategy. Everyone's talking about it. You know, the nuance of the political conversation here is so much more advanced than what you're having in America right now. And so I wouldn't never underestimate the Iranian political calculus on this and how educated the public are on these issues because they're the ones that are going to be, you know, broadcasting the consensus that the, the, the government here is very responsive to public opinion, uh, um, which a lot of people might not believe or understand. But there is, uh, many layers of consensus here. Public, then you have at the, at the, at the political and parliamentary level, and then of course, you have the Council of Experts and the Supreme Leader as well, but all sort of three layers, like four layers of this in society are kind of congealed to create that kind of public consensus here. And it's, uh, the more the US continues down this erratic, chaotic road and with these pseudo negotiations, um, with very little hands to play militarily, less and less, Danny. Look at the situation in the region. What's the US's position now compared to six months ago? It's a lot weaker. Everybody knows that. But I don't think the memo, they haven't got the memo in Washington on this yet.
>> Well, as a matter of fact,
>> Let, let me show you the memo that has been released in, in, in Washington. And, uh, tell me, tell me how this matches what you're seeing on the ground. I'm sure it's going to be identical, and you'll see it the same way, because as it turns out, uh, this is Andy McCarthy, who's a columnist, uh, at the National Review, and also a Fox News contributor. And he says that Tehran's hegemonic ambitions and endemic anti-Americanism make negotiation with it pointless. Regime operatives are indoctrinated in the jihadist concept of war as deception. Uh, yeah, just, uh, we'll, we'll talk about that one in a second. And therefore, nothing regime operatives say, I don't know why they don't say, uh, government officials, but whatever. Uh, say negotiations is trustworthy, and, and therefore nothing to which they agree in writing, such as Trump's memorandum, is worth the paper it's written on. So these hegemonic, uh, ambitions and, uh, you know, as Jack Keane says, a lot of times these, uh, uh, religious Nazis, I'm sorry, that's, that's Lindsey Graham, religious Nazis, and all that. So, um, how does that match with what you actually see on the ground?
>> Look, uh, it's a bit rich, uh, anybody who's supporting Israel, considering what the Israelis have done in Gaza and are doing in South Lebanon now and in the West Bank, uh, to accusing anybody of being a Nazi. Um, and specifically, I'm, I'm leveling that at Mark Levin, by the way. Um, but, uh, look, the, again, this goes to the lack of understanding, Danny, the fundamental underestimation, the fundamental lack of understanding of how the political economy is organized here. You know, you can't separate the, the religious, uh, the, the moral, the ethical, uh, the, the positions that this government takes in Tehran on things like Palestine. That's not just rhetoric. They actually, you know, they actually believe in these principles. It's practically enshrined in their constitution. And, you know, it's so, I can't believe that some of these, you know, war hawks in Washington haven't worked, or, uh, Israel haven't worked this out yet. And the other thing is the politics in the military are blended with that. It's so, you know, when you have the issues of, of the faith and protecting, you know, Muslims that are being persecuted in Palestine, and Christians, by the way, um, that's also part of the, uh, the Iranian concern. It's all Palestinians, Christian, Muslim, and otherwise, same with Lebanon. And so it's a very real position, and they've put that front and center on the, uh, conditions for a negotiated settlement. It's right at the top. So that, by, by taking that moral position, and then with the military deterrence, which they have demonstrated to be credible, to back that up, then you have that's the military dimension. And then you have the political and the geopolitical dimension, which they are exercising vis-à-vis their Gulf state neighbors, and they've transformed their relationship with a lot of these Gulf states. I mean, the, the Saudis sent a delegation, sent a delegation to the funeral of the Supreme Leader. I mean, this is historic, what's going on here. And again, has the penny dropped in, in Washington about this? It's a full package here. Because that, that's something I really, I want to make sure I don't forget. What is the significance of, of a Saudi delegation? And were there other GCC countries that also met? What is the message that was received, and what is your understanding of the message that was intended from the Saudi delegation to Washington?
>> Yeah, I, I don't know the details of all the other GCC countries. Um, and, but, but the fact that there were representatives from Saudi Arabia is, is the most important, is the most important. Um, and it means that there's an acknowledgement there that this is an important event for, for Iran, and religiously as well. Uh, even though we're talking about two different, um, sectarian sides of the Islamic, um, uh, issue, vis-à-vis Sunnis and Shiites. Um, so, uh, it, it is really significant. Other leading Muslim countries like Malaysia, uh, Russia sent a delegation as well, and, and many, many other countries. Um, so, uh, you can't say Iran is isolated. Um, the Pakistani delegation was significant. That's an Islamic Republic as well. So, you know, between Pak, just between Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, if there's any degree of, uh, cohesion and recognition there, and, and, and, and relations, that's, that's massive. This is a sea change just from 12 months ago. So that's, so important. And, uh, the other, the other thing, it, what it says, Danny, is that there's now the beginning of a conversation about what the security architecture is going to look like in, in the Persian Gulf and West Asia more broadly. And this is not, has nothing to do with the United States. They don't have a say in that. And so that's the conversation that you're starting to see happen now between these governments. And the fact that Pakistan has played such a, a key role in the mediation between the United States, I think speaks volumes. And everybody knows how close the relationship between Islamabad and, and Riyadh is. It's a very close, very tight, and cooperative relationship between those two countries. So you add Iran into that equation, and it really is a very different, uh, potentially a very different direction that the region's going in. And that, there's no future for the United States in the region playing, playing spoiler, playing bouncer, uh, playing, uh, attack dog for on behalf of Israel, or vis-à-vis Israel, playing attack dog on behalf of the United States. Those days are, are, are winding down. And if, if the US and the war lobby, or the Israeli lobby, think that they're going to kick and scream and bully and, you know, destroy and, you know, wreck their way to some kind of, uh, deal or agreement, and that, that, that's not going to have absolutely horrific ramifications for their interests in the region and for their allies. I think that this is a delusional position by the United States. I'm just, I'm just saying, Danny, take a temperature check on the ground here. Uh, this is a very strong consensus that's forming here. Um, and, you know, there, you're starting to see a kind of unanimity of thought and realization about the true nature of Washington and Israel's role in the region. And that includes anyone allying with them.
>> Well, and,
>> Yeah, and I wanted to talk about that too, because there's a couple of things here that have, uh, been out in the news here in the last couple of days, uh, here in the United States and in Israel, that is related to Saudi Arabia. So Saudi Arabia goes and they sent a delegation there, which is obviously not, uh, uh, didn't make anybody in Washington happy. But Saudi Arabia is also connected because Israel has said about, and so did President Trump prior to all this insanity that we launched, has been saying, you know, Abraham Accords, Abraham Accords. Now, I think, you know, pretty much what Saudi Arabia's view is. But here's what Benjamin Netanyahu said on Fox News about how great things are going.
>> First of all, we see eye to eye on just about everything. And sometimes, as happens among the best of allies, and we are the best of allies, there can be differences of opinion. We usually, uh, speak about it in open conversation. You can imagine the president has his way of expressing things, and so do I. But we are, you know, we're allies. But I'd like to see the peace with Lebanon advance, just as we advanced together, President Trump and I, the Abraham Accords, which brought four peace agreements that nobody believed were possible. We brought them together. And I think that the fact that we basically hammered the Iranian regime, uh, we've weakened it substantially, and that opens up the path for some other peace deals.
>> So, Iran's been hammered, and so they're basically on the sidelines. Uh, Abraham Accords is great because nobody thought we could do it. Um, and we see eye to eye with America. What could go wrong?
>> I mean, announcing that you've done the Abraham Accords and actually having the Abraham Accords are two different things. Uh, and they haven't got past the announcement stage on that. And what the, what the move that Marco Rubio and co tried to pull with Lebanon by creating this kind of normalization agreement between, uh, the, the president and the prime minister, uh, and certain factions in Lebanon, pro-US factions, and, uh, and the Israelis, um, and bypassing everyone else in Lebanon, including the majority of the population and the, the working majority in parliament, Hezbollah, and Hezbollah, the armed, uh, militia wing as well in South Lebanon, that basically guaranteed that the, the MOU would be basically dead on arrival. That's what the US has done. Okay. Now, the reality of that is, in speaking to, there are, there are a number of, uh, top Lebanese journalists here covering this event. There's people from all over the, uh, the, the Middle East and the Islamic world. And on having a chance to speak to some of them, and some of the best are here, and they basically said there's no chance that that deal, with, with Lebanon, the Lebanese government, with Joseph Aoun, brokered by the US and Netanyahu, it's, it's never going to see the light of day. And they believe the only chance that Israel has to change the facts on the ground is to bring in the Al-Qaeda forces from Syria to to ferment a violent civil war. Uh, and they think that that's actually going to be very difficult and could really backfire on a very weak Syrian regime right now led by, uh, Al-Assad, as he's now known, President, the President, uh, Gallani. So, uh, there's all sorts of problems with that whole, uh, gambit that the US is doing with, with Lebanon there. So, uh, what's Netanyahu talking about? What Abraham Accords? I mean, I know Jared Kushner gave a PowerPoint presentation a few years ago. It was very impressive. But what happened? Well, October 7th happened, and that was the end of the Abraham Accords effectively. And then the, the 40-day war happened, and then it's really the end of the Abraham Accords. And that, that, that has transformed the relationship between Iran and the Gulf States irrevocably. It's never going back. There's no chance. So, I don't know what, what, what world that they're living in that they think that they can kind of resurrect that. Um, no, there's absolutely zero chance of that happening based on what we have witnessed together. I mean, look at what's happened in the last 12 months, and how can you argue that this is a different region, and so are the Gulf States? So, no Abraham Accords. Maybe with the UAE, that's probably the only, uh, country that might have a chance at normalization with Israel. But do you know what they call the UAE? The, the joke, the joke is here. They're calling it East Israel, >> basically. That's what they call the UAE. So, I mean, that's how ridiculous they're viewing the Abraham Accords, um, from the Iranian perspective, but also, I think this is the case in, uh, Iraq, and probably even in Egypt as well. No chance whatsoever.
>> Yeah, that's, I mean, that's, that's kind of the way I've viewed it here. It's kind of common sense, but it doesn't seem to be common sense among the, the loyal followers, uh, here with President Trump and with Benjamin Netanyahu. Now, there has been, interestingly, uh, you know, a big gulf in the United States, even among some on the right, that are peeling away from saying, all right, we've been given too much deference to Israel. Obviously, you have, uh, Ro Khanna, uh, and, uh, the, um, I forget his name, the, the, uh, representative, the Republican representative, Thomas Massie. Um, you have, uh, Tulsi, not Tulsi Gabbard, um, others in on the, got here. Uh, Tucker Carlson, and, and a handful of others that have really been pushing back. And just, just a lot of people have been pushing back. But it seems like that memo also, speaking of memos that don't get through, hasn't gotten through to the elite, because they seem to be still acting like everything is good, and everybody still loves Israel, no matter what they do. And I found this very interesting here. This is President Trump posted this this morning. Um, he said, Hillary Clinton, uh, with Democrat critics by backing Trump's Gaza plan as "the only game in town." And, true enough, she did. She, she published an op-ed where she actually said that. So you have this weird bedfellows of President Trump and Hillary Clinton together saying, yeah, the only game in town is the one that the US-Israel is doing with Gaza. And I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. Is that really the only game in town with Gaza?
Well, uh, sadly, I'm going to say that, uh, at the moment, the, the, the US are very close, Israel are very close to herding, um, you know, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into what are effectively concentration camps, and they're, they're calling these sort of safe camps, and they're going to be under armed guard by US mercenaries 24/7. And we'll have a repeat of that whole debacle of people being shot as they're sort of, you know, uh, running, scrambling to to pick up parcels of food that, uh, hunger games, uh, that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, that, uh, ridiculous NGO that was set up that was part of this plan. So, uh, naturally, Hillary's going to be on board with, uh, with, with that, because that's probably exactly the type of, uh, plan that she would have concocted if she was in, uh, in charge, if she, uh, had won the 2016 election. Heaven forbid. But, uh, so, what, what Trump is doing there is, uh, he, he's trying to sell this is some kind of a solution. The reality is it's a complete failure in terms of where things were, uh, two years ago, and right as Trump came in as president. If, if positive moves had been made to get Israel to withdraw from Gaza when Trump came into office. Instead, Steve Bannon was deployed, Jared Kushner was deployed to basically run cover for Israel and to keep, make sure that US arms and support kept flowing while they, uh, are getting busy ethnically cleansing and continuing the genocide of the native Palestinian population in Gaza. And now you're seeing the sort of endgame, which is full, uh, depopulation of, uh, of the Gaza Strip. I mean, it's pretty hard to argue that's not what's happening. Um, so again, the, the, the board of peace was a kind of quasi-privatized initiative designed to bypass, uh, a whole litany of UN Security Council resolutions regarding, uh, Israel's illegal occupation of Gaza, and the fact that it has been running a siege against a population that's already under heavy duress, which is a war crime on a, on a of the highest possible level. So this is what they're presiding over, and they're trying to sell it as a win. And all this is doing is just strengthening the Iranian position, the moral argument that Iran is making to the region and to the world. Uh, and also for their allies as well, that what, what they call their proxies. And again, I'm going to reiterate, Hezbollah is not an Iranian proxy. They're allied with Iran. That's certain. Okay? They do get support over the years from Iran, but they're not a proxy. Uh, Hezbollah is absolutely a Lebanese-based, uh, organization. I mean, that's a fact. And their proxies in Iraq are Iraqis. Okay. They, they do form, uh, what's being called an axis of resistance. Ditto with Yemen, but these are all independent state actors or semi-state actors. Um, in Iraq, the resistance is nested under the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. So what, what are you going to call that? So, this is, and, and Iran is, look, th this hard line that the US and Israel are pushing just relentlessly. What they've done is basically given a mandate to the IRGC to protect the country, to defend the country. They have a very, very solid mandate to do their job in that respect. So there's no question of where things are sitting in this equation. All Iran has to do is basically stick to its, uh, core principles of that agreement. And what you're going to see, Danny, in fact, you're already seeing it, is other countries in the region are starting to conform to the Iranian position. Why? Because the Iranian position is based on a moral red line. Well, that's what the US used to do back in the old days, right? Used to, used to have a moral red line, and then the threat of US force was enough to make everybody cower and back down to, to a position. But, uh, now that's not the case. Iran is not going to cower or back down because of a threat of US military aggression. That's gone. That card, as Trump likes to call it, is gone.
>> And that, that, that fundamentally transforms everything, Danny, in the region.
>> Yeah, it does. And that, that, that you're never going to be able to play that card again. It's, it's over. Um, listen, in the amount of time we have, uh, left with you before you, you take off here, um, I want to talk into another area that you're, uh, obviously very knowledgeable about, that is back in the Russia-Ukraine war. Overnight, there was another big strike from the Russian side into Ukraine. Uh, they hit all kinds of huge targets in, uh, in Kiev, and actually several throughout in the operational zone in the forward areas. You can see on the right-hand side there, a lot of drones that were fired into those. And, uh, because Ukraine has prioritized its air defense up in the capital region, which had very minimal success, but a little bit, there are virtually none in the operational zone. So those drones and missiles are getting through, uh, nearly all of them, causing all kinds of trouble. But that's not the only thing, because the Ukraine side itself is firing back, and they hit, uh, in, uh, a very large, uh, refinery, Russian oil refinery, which is the first time on record that had been hit. It was over 3,000 kilometers. Um, so that is, is causing some significant problems with Russia. Apparently, there's a, uh, overall, all these recent strikes are causing Russia quite a bit of problems in refinement capacity, and causing them to actually have to start rationing fuel even inside of Moscow and in other parts of Russia. Meanwhile, on the eve of the NATO, uh, commentary, on the eve of NATO meeting tomorrow, I think is when it starts, Ukraine is saying, "Hey, we need more Patriots. Don't, don't give it to us in 2027," which apparently is some contracts. They want a bunch now. Um, of course, it's not really going to make that much difference, but that's what they're trying to say. And lastly, uh, President Trump, uh, is saying, "Hey, uh, Trump won spending promises from NATO last year and this year, he's going to try to enforce them here." How do you see all of this stuff playing out, uh, in, as on the eve of the NATO summit, where Ukraine wanting to get a bunch more stuff, Trump wanting to tell NATO, "Give me more money or spend more money." Um, and then Russia and Ukraine continuing to back and forth on the energy attacks.
>> Yeah, Danny, you just cracked the enigma code of the Ukraine conflict. That's on the eve of every single major, whether it's the G7, NATO summit, Munich Security Conference, you see these gallant Ukrainian drone attacks. And, and really, the way these are regarded, uh, in Russia, they're an annoyance. They're really inconvenient, but ultimately they're a pin, they're a series of pinpricks, um, compared to the bigger strategic picture. And again, this is like very, uh, you know, it might seem like canny tactical maneuvers by the Ukrainians and their European backers, but what are they really going to achieve in the long run? Because on the battlefield in Ukraine, Russia still plays the long game. They have now breached some of the most key, uh, fortress cities, um, in, in, they have total control over Luhansk. That's a major achievement, and a major initial objective of the original SMO, and they're very close to to doing that in, in Donetsk as well, also in terms of Donbas, and also, uh, some of the fortifications that were protecting, uh, Kharkiv, as well, and, uh, Odessa won't be far behind. So, th, you know, those are the sort of long-term strategic objectives of Russia, of securing its perimeter, and so they're going to achieve these things whether or not these refineries keep getting hit by Ukrainian drone attacks. So Ukraine might be winning the media war. They might be winning the, uh, fundraising war, uh, vis-à-vis NATO funding and the support from Western allies, but they're, they're losing the actual war on the ground in Ukraine. That's pretty clear from pretty much all the reports, um, that we can find, and all the data we're looking at. And, and again, the Jack Keanes of the world will go and wax on Fox, saying, "Well, look how long it's taken Russia to take such little territory. They must not be very good and very effective. Putin's on his last legs. Russia's on their knees." As well. Uh, a little bit of common sense. Uh, clearly there's nation-building going on here on the Russian side. They're recapturing historic Novorossiya, that pretty much, uh, overlays pretty clear with the Ukrainian electoral map, vis-à-vis Russian speakers voting for pro-Russian candidates, and they plan on governing over these areas. Now, Danny, as a military expert yourself, you'll know that if you plan on governing and taking territory and keeping territory, the last thing you want to do is be killing civilians in those territories. That means the grind is going to be slow. It's going to be tedious. It's going to be meticulous, and you yourself are going to incur quite a few losses, uh, on the Russian side in doing that. But while doing that, they're also wiping out massive amounts of Ukrainian battalions, and they're overcoming a lot of the tactical things that Ukraine has been, uh, throwing at Russia over the last four years. It, I'm not saying this is pretty. I'm not saying that this is a, a clean war for either side, but the, it's very clear what the Russian strategy is. However, I'm not very sure what the Ukrainian strategy is, or the US, or the European strategy. In that sense.
>> It, it seems to just be continue the war and, and just, uh, just keep the thing going, no matter how many Ukrainian people have to die, because, uh, it seems that that is an end to itself, to keep the thing going. But the problem is that there has been an increasing number of statements and annoyance and aggravation, if not outright anger, on the Russian side because of strikes like this, which now have an impact on the population. I think that there is this fantastical hope among the Western that that somehow this annoyance with Putin can turn into people turning against him and saying, "Hey, just end the war right here." Do you see any prospect that that could happen?
>> Absolutely not. Despite how, uh, how painful and, uh, uncomfortable this conflict is for many Russians, um, let's not kid ourselves, it is. But a more, um, a bigger majority of the Russian population is absolutely behind the government. They know, like the Iranians know, this is a bigger story. This is an existential threat to Russia. NATO enlargement, the weaponization of Ukraine, all the, uh, schism that they're trying to create, uh, between Ukrainians and Russians, uh, in the West, just as the Iranians are also very aware that this is an existential drive to eliminate any resistance to US or Israeli hegemony in the, in, in the Middle East. The same is true with, uh, Eastern Europe and along this.
front. Everybody knows that. Hence, Danny, the the the support, the deep supports there, but what's more important, the institutions in Russia are going to support the president. And Putin, even if he's losing five, six, seven, let's say he lost 10% on approval poll ratings and stuff like that, he's still, you know, very comfortably around 70% approval rating. And, you know, compare that to any leader anywhere else in the world. I say Vladimir Putin's in in a very good standing uh in in that sense. So again, if they're hoping that uh this is going to somehow pull the rug out from under the Russian president, what they're doing, and in fact, it is galvanizing the hardliners. The hardliners in Russia are getting a better platform now. That's not good news for the West. I'm sorry. It just it just isn't. So, I think they need to re-evaluate their uh quote strategy uh on this.
And and what do you make of the uh because I haven't had you on since we've since he' said this before. Uh President Trump enters office. I'm going to end this in a day. Uh and then it was okay. Well, 100 days and a bunch of stuff. Anchorage looked like, hey, maybe we're making some progress, whatever. Uh things start muddling along and then all of a sudden basically we just quit and just stop even trying. And it went silent for a long time. Then all of a sudden in the I think it was the 1 of June uh the White House announces it's going to have an $8 billion new arms and support package for Ukraine. And then to defend it, Secretary of State Marco Rubio comes out and says, um, listen, we picked a side in this deal and it's Ukraine side. So we're not even ostensively trying to get this over anymore at the cabinet level of the United States. What then is the United States play right now? What are we trying to accomplish? It seems like they've defaulted to the deep the original sort of deep state position and uh you know official Washington wins again. Danny, they're undefeated. Official Washington. Many different presidents, campaigns, and parties come through, but the deep state is just still running with that amazing no hitter that they've been throwing now for quite some time, at least the last five or six US administrations. So, uh, again, it's, uh, it's that old story.
Um, you know, it it it the the important part for us, you know, I consider myself part of the electorate, uh, is to recognize the gap between what the public want during each election cycle and what the public get uh, from the political class after they're elected. And that that gap remains very wide. and they always pander to the anti-war vote because they know it's the swing vote in America whether it's Democrat or Republican that is a vote you want and you that's how you carry elections and carry swing states and win by narrow margins in that in general elections and Donald Trump is no exception to playing that uh that angle which he has played masterfully in my opinion in 2024 uh in the elections the results now should speak for themselves and we need to as as the electorate to come to grips with this repeating Groundhog Day scenario that we keep getting uh every four years.
>> Well, now you know this this one though potentially could carry even more ramifications than our fecklessness in the Middle East because I mean that that has some relatively near-term problem with the straight of the horm still not being fully opened up and no prospect it's going to happen anytime soon. That's going to have some medium-term financial impact. This one here though has the greatest uh catastrophic potential because there are a growing number of course in and you mentioned among the the the war hawk top right in Russia that they're putting more pressure on President Trump, President Putin to strike into Western Europe and saying I'm they're sick of allowing the Western countries to use their airspace uh to use their intelligence, their targeting systems, their physical manufacturing, etc. to use stuff that's been used against Russian uh cities, etc. that they're saying, "Hey, it's time to strike back." And and it doesn't feel like to me, I mean, I like your view because you talked to a lot of different people, it doesn't feel like that Russia is just going to keep just taking this in the in the gut and never do anything back. Do you think that there is a risk that in some period of time, and you can define what that is, that Russia may actually act outside the borders of Ukraine?
I I think I think absolutely in fact that if anything's developing uh on the political pressure in Russia with this conversation, it's that the hardliners are basically saying that you know uh we're we're going to lose our deter our credible deterrence if we continue to allow uh these attacks from uh NATO's proxy. This is a real proxy Ukraine. They're literally being armed to the teeth by Western European and US NATO members and then they're using those to kill Russians. Russia's not using anybody to kill Europeans in the West. So this this equation is getting very uncomfortable and very lopsided and it's almost begging um Russia to basically uh go go to the root of what is a potential existential problem and threat to their their existence their not just their national security but their existence because the plan being articulated by the uh the brains in Germany in Berlin in in in Paris and in London is that they can overwhelm And they can, and this is at the think tank level, they're also talking about this with their next generation warfare autonomous drones. They can overwhelm R the Russian state, immobilize the Russian state through these waves of drone attacks and and they believe that this is going to be their path to victory over Russia. why they need to to to declare a victory over Russia or to defeat Russia or to break up or dismember Russia as Khalia Kalis uh the high European representative for foreign policy herself has publicly said breaking it up into 10 different countries why this is this uh uh imperative by the west is uh anyone's guess really but it's real it's happening so Russia's looking at the Iranian situation and Iran dealt with that pretty pretty quickly um by hitting US bases uh and and manufacturing facilities and the types of threats that were were hitting Iran, US proxies or US positions in the region. And what uh what happened to the Gulf States? They they pretty much capitulated to Iran. So, Russia's looking at that and saying, what are the what are the Europeans really going to do if we uh demonstrate some deterrence on European soil? Are they really going to escalate? Is the US really going to come to their aid or is there going to be a kind of freakout in Europe like how did we get here? I think there'll be a political crisis in Europe if that happens and Russia would if they're calculating this um and it is a political decision and and that the effect is political Danny make no mistake about it that you know as uh Claus Witzian view that war is an extension of politics by other means. Absolutely. Russia subscribes to this and so that's that's a gamble the Europeans are kind of you know wagering there and uh they're they think that Russia's bluffing quite frankly.
Where is that going to lead us there? Um, do we want to learn why all these missile uh bilateral and multilateral missile agreements and nuclear disarmament agreements were all erected during the Cold War? Are we do we have to learn that figure that one out again? Are we going to have to go through that whole process again collectively in the west to prove why we need those things? Um, that's a question that people need to ask themselves uh in the west. They serious conversation.
>> I know you you talked to a lot of people in Europe and and uh both both in UK and in other countries. It seems to me that the at least at least among the the ruling elites and in in all all these European countries and I I nearly don't accept anybody anymore. I think that they do believe that Russia is only bluffing, that there are no red lines, that they as long as there's not like a a French jet that fires a missile into somewhere into Russia, as long as there's, you know, plausible deniability in between or or an area of separation so that they give the missile to Ukraine and then Ukraine fires it. Somehow they think that's a get out of jail free card and they don't have to worry about it. I think that they really believe that there is no red line as long as they maintain that separation that uh is going to be that way. Russia, how how is what is your understanding of how the Europeans view that calculation?
You know, I I would like to say that they have an independent position on that, Danny, but this goes back to the US uh piece on this this insistence by the US that European countries, you know, increase their spending on their defense budgets, you know, 5%, it used to be 2%, then they were pushing for three, now it's five. these countries simply can't afford to spend that kind of money on quote defense when the antagonization coming from the US and some of the uh European governments um is the one creating the threat that they would need to defend against. So this this whole uh uh pantomime this manakian pantomime that's been constructed here I think a lot of it's being driven by the US quite frankly because to me the cheapest most economic and prosperous solution would be to engage in diplomatic negotiations. I mean, that would be because all of these European countries, Danny, they're already running historically over budget, and some of them have had to relax the European Union uh uh fiscal uh uh uh safety measures, put in place u in terms of approving uh the budgets of individual member states. They pushed a lot and created loopholes to get around that to to pay for all this quote investment and quote defense. Well, this isn't really affordable and it's going to create inflationary pressures that are already uh kind of a problem in all of these European countries and the only people that are absolutely benefiting from this are people in the defense industry, shareholders in those industries and politicians uh as well that are, you know, being lobbyed by those industries. Those are the only to me the only real beneficiaries from this. from the from the public point of view, they're cutting uh services. The price of energy and power is skyrocketing. Um, you know, it's unaffordable actually. Electric and gas in Europe. I'm talking firsthand here. You'd be shocked at what we're paying right now. And uh and and there's some really uh gouging going on uh right across the board in Europe. So I think uh that I don't think it's sustainable, you know, and at some point I think the the political pressure is going to come whereby just out of pure survival for some governments, they're going to have to start moving towards some kind of a diplomatic conversation to resolve the the Ukraine situation with Russia because that's that's the only economic, practical, and probably safest option if you want to maintain equilibrium, peace and prosperity in Europe.
Europe. What they're doing now, what they're pushing for, what the US is pushing the Europeans into, which they are. They're acting like it's hands off, Danny, but this is very real pressure being applied via NATO from Washington. Okay. Very real pressure. And and and yet and a lot of these are sickopantic Mark Rut types in a lot of the European decision-making positions at this. And that's the problem actually. Um, and and it's not I don't blame the European public because I think they've been brainwashed to a large degree um with this whole Ukraine ferago and then dragging Finland and and Sweden into NATO uh talking about putting nuclear weapons on finished soil. This is just madness.
>> Yeah. you know, and so I I don't I don't think this has a lot of popularity, and there's going to be a lot of governments that will be out because of this issue. And I think there is a a race on the elites part to escalate to a point where they kind of somehow bring this to a a military crisis or ahead or a standoff or something to kind of uh charge a new hot stroke cold war and then back off. I I really don't know what the strategy is. Maybe Europe just forgot about the devastation of the last two world wars on European soil and they just need to learn that lesson again. I really hope that's not the case. But Danny, pressure is being applied by Washington. Washington could end it in 24 hours still. But they don't have the political will or the desire to do that. We need to ask ourselves why.
>> Yeah. And I think we know the answer to that. Uh, and it has to do with something that's green and also with power. Well, listen, uh, really appreciate you sticking with it late and, uh, you know, covering all these topics today. We, uh, we certainly appreciate it and we appreciate you and, uh, look forward to seeing you on the next, uh, episode. Thank you very very much.
>> Yeah. And, and thank you for playing my reports from, uh, from Iran and sharing those, putting those up on Instagram and Axe daily. Uh, so we'll be releasing more of those um, during during the coming days and weeks. just to give Western audiences and English speaking audiences a little bit of additional perspective of kind of what life is like here, how the politics are, how the religion is, how the geopolitics are, and that's that's why we came.
>> Yeah. And we uh we're big fans of that. That's one of the reasons we have you on the show and recommend people just keep following you to find out both on X and on 21st Century Wire. Thank you very much.
>> Thanks, Danny. You know, I don't try to talk you into buying gold or tell you how to run your stock portfolio, but there is a way you can help us. Subscribe, hit that like button, and share this with somebody you love.