Transcription
Let's talk about the tactic of seizing Iranian ships, uh, by the Trump administration. Well, uh, I thought that uh last Friday, when uh the uh ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon was in place, and the uh Iranians said that they would open up the strait, uh, and in fact began to open up the strait, that the ceasefire was then fully in place, and that we would begin moving forward uh in the negotiations in Islamabad. Uh, it looked very promising last Friday when these uh events took place.
Then President Trump said that he was not going to take uh the US blockade off the strait of Hormuz, which is another way of saying he was not going to take the US blockade off of Iran. And this is after Iran has just agreed to end its blockade. And he also said that the United States was going to stop and board ships that were headed toward Iran, uh, or were leaving from Iran. And the end result is that the Iranians did a 180° turn, and they said they're reclosing the strait of Hormuz. And that's where we are today. This is completely counterproductive. Forget the legality of what we did. This is completely counterproductive. You got the cease play ceasefire in place on Friday, and you're talking about having negotiations in Islamabad early this week in the wake of putting the ceasefire in place. Why wouldn't you just put an end to the American naval blockade on Iran? It just makes common sense. Why would you say you're going to keep the blockade on? Why would you say that you're going to board Iranian ships and then actually go out and board an Iranian ship after you shoot it up? Uh, it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. And this is, you know, one of the principal aspects of Trumpian foreign policy. It is rather bizarre and doesn't seem to comport with what would consider one would consider sort of rational legal behavior. So I, to be honest, don't understand what's going on here.
>> Don't they, isn't it in their interest to have Iranian oil on the market?
That's I, I didn't mention that, but you're exactly right that that's why we were allowing Iranian oil to come through the strait out into the global market. You're, you're exactly right. And here they are threatening to cut it off, in addition to the fact they're making it less likely that the other side trusts you, the Iranians trust you, and that you can work out a deal. Uh, it seems that the Trump administration wants a deal. They should want a deal because, as I said to you before, they can't go up the escalation ladder and win. Number one, and number two, they are in danger of taking the international economy off a cliff. So they should want a deal here. And sometimes President Trump acts like he wants a deal. Other times he acts like he doesn't want a deal. And this is an instance of that. And then you add to it, as [clears throat] you did, the fact that we really do need that Iranian oil out in the global market to do everything possible to keep oil prices as low as possible.
>> Well, the reason great powers have a diplomatic corps is that they're multilingual, bicultural. They, they understand their adversary as well as their allies, and uh, the Trump administration has gutted the State Department. So uh, one wonders if it's just an on the one hand they may want a deal, on the other hand they're utterly unable perhaps to read Iranian political power and Iranian culture.
I agree with you. I mean, there's no question that just on a very general level, President Trump does not respect expertise. He, he thinks he's a genius. He thinks he knows everything. He doesn't have to rely on experts, and he doesn't need anyone from the State Department or any area experts inside the government to tell him what to do. He knows what to do. So, there is that dimension to it. But there's another dimension to this, Chris, that's even more worrisome. And that is that it sometimes strikes me that President Trump is a mad king. I don't know if you read the story in the Wall Street Journal uh about what life is like inside President Trump's White House uh in the course of this war against Iran. And the story is told in there, uh, and the White House has not refuted this story, that uh after those two pilots were shot down uh earlier this month, uh, and President Trump was told about this, he was hysterical. He, he was hysterical for a few hours. He was just beside himself with rage to the point where his aides had to keep him outside of the room while they decided how to deal with the problem. And occasionally one of the aides would go out and brief him on what was going on. You want to just think about what's going on here. Here is the president of the United States in the midst of a serious crisis. An American fighter has fighter plane, an F-15, has been shot down inside of Iran. There are two pilots who are missing. They have to rescue them. And this is going to take some careful planning. This is a crisis. The president of the United States is throwing a tantrum, an hours-long tantrum, according to the Wall Street Journal. Again, to the point where he has to be taken outside of the room. Uh, can you imagine this happening with JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis? It's unimaginable. It's unimaginable to me that any president would act this way. And it's very interesting how little attention this episode has got uh in the mainstream media. But it, I think, speaks volumes about the dangers that we face with President Trump in control. Uh, if we get into a really serious crisis, something beyond the actual war that's now taking place that threatens to escalate, that involves maybe China or Russia, uh, and he's in charge, uh, this is a very frightening thought, and I would imagine in that circumstance he'll be pushed out of the room again, and his aides will take over. But what does that tell you about the United States? And just one final point on this, you want to remember that President Trump is the kind of person who thinks he knows everything. And therefore, even his aides don't matter that much. He is the ultimate decider. Period. End of story. And if this is our ultimate decider, if this is our sovereign uh in an extreme crisis, I think we're in real trouble.
Well, he was reportedly against the advice of his military and intelligence chiefs. He uh believed they would, the Iranians would not seize the strait of Hormuz.
>> Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think if you go back to the uh original decision to uh attack Iran, and you read, there were two New York Times stories uh on this whole matter. The second one was just filled with details. It's very clear that except for Pete Hexth, who really doesn't matter very much because I don't think anybody, even President Trump, takes him that seriously. But all of his other advisers uh were uh very, very skeptical, if not opposed uh to this operation. They understood full well that this was playing with fire. But nevertheless, President Trump dismissed their concerns, and he went along with the Israelis, who basically sold him a bill of goods. Uh, it was the head of Mossad uh and David Barnea and uh Prime Minister Netanyahu who convinced President Trump that we would win a quick and decisive victory. And then just to build on your point, therefore we wouldn't have to worry about Iran closing the strait of Hormuz. We would win very quickly. But the fact is, if Trump had listened to his advisers, and he had carefully examined them uh as to why they were uh reticent or opposed to going to war against Iran, he might not have done this. In fact, I think it's highly likely he would not have done it. Uh, but again, he didn't really care what they had to say. Uh, and he was willing to listen to the Israelis. Uh, and he should have understood that the Israelis were selling him a bill of goods, but apparently he didn't.