Trump’s Iran War Is Falling Apart: Panic in the Pentagon | Tarik Cyril Amar

Hello ladies and gentlemen, and welcome again to our Cold War 2.0 with our dear friend Tariq Ali Omar. The war of aggression is still ongoing against Iran, and today we are going to walk through and analyze some of the important articles published this week, and also the important events that happened during the past week. Tariq, thank you again for coming to the show. I hope you're doing great today.

Yeah, I'm fine. How are you, Kowsar? Thank you. I'm good. The sun has shined here for around 5 minutes, so I feel happy, and then we're back to the usual cloudy weather.

I've been going through some of the articles this week, and this article has caught my attention, which is in The Times. They say, "Inside Trump's Search for a Way Out of the Iran War." I have summarized it, and there are, in my opinion, three important takeaways. We can focus on them today.

The first takeaway is that the White House, the article is basically portraying that the White House was shocked by the scale of Iran's response. This article in The Times says Trump officials, including Pete Hoekstra, expected a limited retaliation, but instead got region-wide strikes, and the world was shocked that it hit the global economy and US domestic politics much harder than anticipated.

The second takeaway is that Trump now appears trapped between wanting out and wanting to claim total victory. So the article says that Trump wants to end the war, but not before achieving goals like permanently blocking Iran's nuclear path and damaging its missile program. So the argument here is that those goals are proving much harder to achieve nowadays, and the White House's preferred timeline than Trump's rhetoric suggests.

The third takeaway, so it's four takeaways actually, not three. Um, is that it implies that the war was built on a bad strategic assumption. And this assumption is that a massive opening strike, in their mind, would force Iran into symbolic retaliation and then de-escalation like the previous ones. So the article in The Times says that theory, this theory drew from earlier Trump-era episodes, but this time Iran used broader retaliation and Hormuz leverage instead, blowing up the one-and-done model.

The final takeaway, and I think this is the most important strategic point, is that some officials inside the Trump administration reportedly fear a prolonged war could push Iran closer to the bomb, not farther from it. So, according to The Times, they say officials in the American administration warned that if Tehran concludes only nuclear deterrents can prevent this from happening again, the war may produce the opposite of its stated objective.

Um, I think there is quite a focus on this nuclear deterrent capacity. My humble opinion is, Tariq, that Iran doesn't need to develop a nuke for deterrents. They need a nuke if they come after a first strike from the Israeli side. That's why they have kept the threshold or the capability and the capacity to build one if they come under a nuclear attack. But nowadays, they already hold the card in their hands, and the ramp-off conditions are in their hands. The Iranians can decide when these hostilities between these sides are over. And now they are striking side agreements with many countries, including Japan. And today, the Japanese, and I think the French, have also, one of the French cargo ships has passed through the Strait of Hormuz. So the only way out, it seems, they have to deal with Iran individually, separately, not collectively in this case. And I don't see that Iran has come to the conclusion that they would need a nuclear bomb to deter future attacks. I think this has already been a lesson for the Americans that this is not a journey.

Well, if, if the question is the one about the role that nuclear deterrents could possibly play, or maybe should not play for Iran, right? Um, I think that is extremely difficult to predict. Because look, even while Iran has the upper hand in this war, right? Um, and even while we can interpret this as Iran's capacity to strike with missiles and drones, um, and its resilience in general, and its mosaic defense strategy, and all the different components, right? That have gone into Iran's ability, uh, not only to withstand the American-Israeli attack, but to actually turn the tables on these very powerful states, right? So it's a great temptation to think, well, this proves the point of all those people who have for many years argued inside and outside Iran that Iran simply doesn't need nuclear deterrents, right? I think the question remains at least open, to be very honest, because the other way to read this attack is to say, the fact that the attack has occurred proves the point that Iran should have acquired nuclear weapons. And that is, to me, an at least equally convincing argument. Because I have to engage in a counterfactual. I admit that. But I think it is plausible to assume that if Iran had had nuclear weapons already, like, for instance, North Korea, another place which I'm sure the United States would love to resolve with violence, right? Um, maybe the attack would never have happened. Maybe it would never have happened. And we have to consider that while there is something very, um, I would almost say encouraging, uplifting, about the fact that the Iranians have, as it were, done so well in defending themselves, right? And all power to their arm for the future. They have also taken great harm and great damage, and they're likely to take some more before this is over. So it is a serious argument to consider to say, well, isn't it better to have a deterrent that actually keeps your attacker from attacking in the first place?

Mhm. Um, going forward in the future, my first of all, let me say one thing. I'm not Iranian. And I do think that when it comes to decisions like this, there is a special, um, threshold that has to do with whether you're one of them or not. And, and I think that's important. And I, I do never want to be in the place where I preach to people what they're supposed to do, right? Having said that, having said that, I still see very strong incentives for building a nuclear deterrent after this war. But that's a different issue. It's a, it's a very complicated issue. It's also something that ultimately the Iranians have to settle.

I would add one thing. I understand that some supporters [clears throat] of Iran, and I'm also a supporter of Iran, very much, have often argued that the Iranians themselves don't want it. And, and that's true. They've said they don't want it. Uh, they have—

All is good. >> They have com— Yeah, they have complied. They have complied with the 2015 agreement. Everybody forgets that that the Iranians actually were complying extremely well, right? With the JCPOA. Um, neither Obama, which is also often forgotten, nor Trump, nor Biden ever returned the favor. Obama also delayed all of the things that he should have given Iran in return. Nobody was ever honest with Iran, right? Um, so there, there's the fatwa, the famous fatwa by Ali Khamenei, right? Against nuclear weapons. This is all true. A fatwa is a decree or an edict. It can also be superseded. One fatwa doesn't settle things forever. That, that much I understand. And that as well may change in the future.

>> [snorts] >> I'm very pessimistic about the world in which we are now and into which we are going in general. And I have to say that I, I begin to believe that every nation outside the West, outside the West, there is a difference here, that can afford nuclear deterrents has very good reasons to acquire it now. Because the West, not the Russians, the Chinese, not those. They don't, they didn't do this. This is empirical. It is the West that has demonstrated to everyone that if you do not have nuclear weapons, we will try at least to devastate and even genocide you if we feel like it, right? Uh, so it, this is not only a question for Iran. That's what I'm trying to say. This will be a question for a lot of states in the future. Does one need a minimum nuclear deterrent? Enough to threaten away the United States, the worst of them all, probably also powers like, let's not overlook them, Great Britain and the French in the future, that absolutely not beyond going insane. That can happen as well. And to also threaten away, if you are in their area of the world, Israel. Very much. Israel and the United States are two powers with nuclear weapons. The United States have an enormous arsenal, basically one of the two largest arsenals in the world. The numerical difference with the Russian is small and doesn't really matter. These two have the two biggest arsenals. Israel has a significant arsenal and it's completely uncontrolled and completely legal on top of it. And Israel is run by people who are even more murderous than the Americans and completely batshit insane by now. So, there are really good reasons to get yourself nukes. Yes.

Now, does this mean that a nuclear bomb will always protect you? No, it doesn't mean that. You might still end up in a war. But people have to think beyond ending up in a war. They have to think about how a war may end. Even now, Iran is in terrible danger of being struck by Israeli nuclear weapons. That danger has not passed. People should be very careful about this. Yes. And I must say that I would consider that danger, that specific danger, much less urgent if Iran could credibly say, "Well, okay, we wipe you out back." Right? If you try this, if you nuke Iran, you lose Tel Aviv. It's going to go. This is probably the only way to talk to Israelis that really helps at this stage in history. I'm very sorry about this, but that's as it is. Nuclear, sheer, pure nuclear deterrents. In other words, the question is not simply, as many people think, if you have a nuclear deterrent, will anybody attack you? That's not the main question. The main question is, if you don't have a nuclear deterrent, >> [clears throat] >> are you in a position to defeat your nuclear opponent? That's the real question. What happens when you defeat an insane nuclear-armed power like Israel or also the US? Because for them, the temptation in defeat is worst to launch, to to reach for the worst weapon. And that's probably when you have to have a nuke yourself to say, "This stays conventional and you will accept your conventional defeat. You will not escalate to nuclear because I can escalate back." This is a point people really need to understand and that will be very important in the future.

Tariq, I totally agree with you about the analysis why some countries, including Iran, would like to acquire a nuke in this case, especially when it comes to the capacity and the capability to hit back against any possible nuclear attack against them. The argument that, for example, now if had Iran had a nuke now, they wouldn't have come under attack. I'm trying to think a little bit, just for a just for a discussion about this. I'm thinking like the American empire looked like a drunk man walking, and it needed this slap in the face to wake up, you know? And were it not for this war, we wouldn't have realized and noticed that there is a limit for the American empire. So, sometimes, although we prayed that this war not have happened against Iran, but since it happened and now we can see the consequences of it, it looks like this war was necessary not only for Iran, but also many other nations also to just take a note and say that the price for serious resistance, not like rhetorical resistance, serious resistance, if you plan for it for decades, it is worthy and it is even better than the compromise or the surrender like they did, for example, in Venezuela, right? Because there were so many examples in the past that the people were like, "Okay, there is no hope, you know? How can you resist this empire? It's the strongest empire in human history and they're doing whatever they they they they would like to do. There is no international law, nothing protects the people, right?" But now the Iranians have set like a model for the people to see that it is possible. So, all I'm saying is not acquiring a nuke only in this particular case and time for Iran, probably it served not many people around the world to see that there is a limit for this empire and you can fight back, but still for you to survive, you will need a nuke. In the case of Iran and in the case of Iran and Israel, I mean, Israel is a very small country compared to Iran. Yeah, like only ballistic arsenal could destroy um Israel if any power would like to, yeah.

Yeah. And also, I, I mean, this may sound a little bit odd to people, but I think the thing that actually protects Israel, this murderous state, right? Much more even than its nuclear deterrent, is something else which people never mention. Israel sits on Palestine. Right? So, any any power that would consider or feel compelled to strike Israel with weapons of mass destruction, imagine Israel would nuke Iran, presumably Tehran, right? The Iranian leadership would then be in a terrible conundrum that nobody ever mentions, which is on one side, if they had nukes, they would have to return this horrific attack, but on the other, by returning it, they're destroying Palestine. Yes. A lot of people don't consider that. Israel has taken Palestine hostage, among other things. Israel is a batshit crazy regime that has nuclear weapons, they're completely, uh, irregular and illegal and uncontrolled. They're also aimed at Europe, by the way. That's the Samson doctrine. Europeans never want to accept this, but it's true. Israelis have told us this. And at the same time, like a hostage taker, it has sort of tied itself to its victim, Palestine. So, even if you took out Israel, you would damage Palestine terribly in the process. You wouldn't liberate it, you would destroy it. Right? So, there, there are enormous problems here. I mean, obviously, any use of nuclear weapons is full of enormous problems, but there are additional, very peculiar problems here.

The other thing that I would say about what you just said is you're absolutely right. If you could call it, I think, an irony of history. In a way, in a way, and I'm sorry that this happened to the Iranians. I'm not being cynical here. But in the larger course of human history, you could make an argument that humanity needed the example of Iranian resistance and Iranian victory. And you could make an argument that that could only happen because the Americans and the Israelis felt so hubristic that they attacked the way they did. And then you could make an argument that they only felt so sure of themselves because they knew that Iran doesn't have nukes. I get your point. I get your point. But again, I think we we agree on the general point, which is that going forward into the future, I don't know. Yes. know. I think states in the global south better arm themselves up, including with nuclear weapons, because we, the West, have become extremely dangerous, even more than usual.

My friends, I just want to make a few comments. First of all, thank you so much for tuning in, whether you're watching this on YouTube or on Rumble. As you're watching this, the easy way to support this work is just to hit the like button, thumbs up as you're watching and subscribe. I also would like to thank our moderator at Axis for being present with us. And one more thing about supporting Syriana Analysis, and this is something that happened to me today. One of you guys sent $1 support through PayPal, and in the note, he wrote that thank you so much for having Ali um, Ali Zadeh. Uh, he's a great and thoughtful Iranian commentator. And PayPal struck me with an email and said, "We put a limitation over your account because you have to explain why the word Iranian is mentioned in the note." So, I have explained what >> [laughter] >> It's sorry to say, it's a $1. It's a $1. They deducted 40 cents of it as a transaction fee. >> [laughter] >> So, 60 cents made a trouble for my for my PayPal account. Just for the future, if you guys want to send any assistance, support, tipping for the work we do here on Syriana Analysis, kindly do not mention Iran, Syria, the axis of resistance, and all this stuff because they were like, it's almost like that old Monty Python sketch, don't mention the war. It's just don't mention Iran. >> [laughter] >> Don't mention Iran. And don't mention anything, guys.

Oh, can I, can I say one more thing? I'm sorry, because there's really something I wanted to add to our discussion about nuclear deterrents, right? The relationship between the West and all the others who are the vast majority of humanity. Um, I also believe that very unfortunately, we've talked about this before, right? We have seen, for better or for worse, I'm beginning to think for worse actually, the fall of the Soviet Empire in my lifetime and your lifetime, I think. I was a little older already, but you also, I think, were alive. And, and the thing about the fall of the Soviet Empire was that it actually imploded in a very civilized, peaceful manner. I know there are a few Lithuanians who are now having like stomach cramps because Lithuania is the center of the world, and yes, there were some, there were some real clashes with dead people there, but actually on a historic scale of things, if you could please look at the world and not just your own little navel for a moment, the Soviet Empire collapsed astonishingly peacefully. It could have taken all of us down easily, very easily, or it could have been a mega civil war with nukes, which would also have been a catastrophe for all of us. And it didn't do that because it was civilized and humanistic at the end, believe it or not. Now, we believe, I believe that the Americans will not go down like this. I believe they're going down, but I think they will go down fighting and very badly try to damage the rest of the world while this is happening. >> [clears throat] >> I don't want to be too pessimistic, but I think it's possible that we will see either one large-scale world war or several large-scale conventional wars attached to the decline of the American Empire. And there the question will be, will they escalate to nuclear or not? And one very important thing will be to force the Americans to at least not go nuclear. To accept either one big conventional defeat, maybe if there is World War III with Russia, China, America, everybody in the mix, and the Americans take a conventional defeat and have to learn to live with it, then it's important that the Russians and the Chinese can deter them and say, if you go nuclear now, we will do too. And I think this may play a role in smaller conflicts as well. So, this may sound very pessimistic, but we may be headed for a chain of bad conventional wars that we are getting anyhow, and our real question is, are the Americans going to go nuclear? And that has to be prevented, and probably the best way to this is to deter them with nuclear weapons.

Tariq, it seems that things are seriously going bad for the Americans. I have collected a few articles and reports. I'm going to go through them. This is in The Intercept, "Casualty Cover-up: The Pentagon is Hiding US Losses Under Trump in the Middle East." So, um, troops, or almost 750 US troops have been wounded or killed in the Middle East since October 2023. An analysis by The Intercept has found, but the Pentagon won't acknowledge it. The CENTCOM, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, appears to be engaged in what a defense official called a casualty cover-up. Hundreds of US personnel have been killed or injured in the region since the US launched a war on Iran just over a month ago. So, this is only in 1 month.

Then we have today, I'm going to come back to this report, which is also important. So, today we have a serious incident in Iran. Iran has shot down a US fighter jet, according to a source familiar with the incident, and there is a search effort underway. So, this is also other details. First, this would be the first time since the beginning of the Iran war that a US jet was downed by Iran. Iranian state media published pictures and videos that allegedly show parts of the downed plane and one of the ejection seats. Three pictures suggest that the downed plane was an F-15E. Iran is offering a valuable reward for anyone who can capture the downed pilot. This is a major, major, of course, incident. It's not an escalation.

Then we have news coming from the United States that the Pentagon, basically, and Pete Hegseth, they have, they're doing some purges. So, the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has just ordered, has just ousted four top US general military leaders in the last 24 hours. General Randy George, he's the Army Chief. General David Hone, this is the TRADOC. Major General William Green Jr., Chaplains. Major General James Eisenhower, First Armored Division. Those are their photos, just quickly. Those are the people who were kicked out.

And then finally, we are also coming to another news, and this is about Tulsi Gabbard. "Trump Told Advisers About Replacing Tulsi Gabbard as Intelligence Chief." So, Trump has privately asked cabinet members in recent weeks whether he should replace his Director of National Intelligence, venting frustration that she shielded the former deputy who undercut his rationale for war with Iran, according to two people relieved on the discussions. So, we have, yeah, Joe Kent. So, we have moved from, Tariq, it looks like from an attempt of regime change in Iran. I'm not saying there is a regime change happening in the United States, but it looks like there is a purge happening inside the regime itself.

There's a purge, yeah. Definitely. Look, um, yeah, I mean, I've been reading these things too, and I would even add one more name, and I think although it's not immediately obvious, I think it belongs here, which is that of Pam Bondi, who is basically the justice minister, right? The attorney general of the United States. And yes, that is a very domestic policy function. It's not a security military function, like with Gabbard and these generals, but people shouldn't forget in the background of these war, of this war are the Epstein files, and that is not a conspiracy theory. They are important here. We don't know exactly how they are important. And Pam Bondi is the person who was the single most important person Trump relied on to manage the Epstein files and their fallout. And although she did her very worst, totally sold her soul, demeaned herself to engage in a massive, brutal cover-up for pedophiles and murderers, it wasn't good enough. It still wasn't good enough. And look, here, here's the thing. This war, among other things, has definitely, among other things, been started to distract from the files. It may also have been started, which I believe is probably true, because Trump can be blackmailed with the files. But even if it was a distraction, it will come back. The files haven't gone away forever. So, I think even the Pam Bondi thing has to be added here, and that makes the purge even bigger, right? So, the fallout, the circle of the fallout is even bigger. And, yeah, the obvious question is, why is this happening? Why, if you look at the military, the generals, some people have asked, and I think rightly, is what Pete Hegseth wants to do so insane that he has to get rid of a number of already very submissive generals because he can't do it with them? And because the American military is actually extremely submissive, it's not actually a heroic military. It reminds me very much of the military of Nazi Germany, right? These people who were projecting this aura of courage and valor and, you know, Prussian discipline, but they all licked Hitler's boots. They all licked Hitler's boots when it came to it, right? And that's what the American military reminds me very much of, you know? They're very good at going out in the world with enormous military superiority, massacring people. It's never a fair fight, but when they have to stand up to their own [ __ ] bags at home, there's nothing happening from these guys, at least nothing we can see. So, the question is, if he still has to purge them, what is this guy up [laughter] to? Right? We don't know, but we know he's insane. He believes that Armageddon is coming and he has to have a hand in it. He thinks God wants him to slaughter people somewhere else. He's that sort of type, you know? Um, so, who knows what's behind this?

Gabbard is interesting because I don't think it's just Joe Kent. I think this is the peak of a longer development, whether she survives this or doesn't survive it for now, which is that Gabbard is another sort of tragic figure. I don't want to do too much honor to her because she as well has totally sold her soul. She made her name as an anti-interventionist. That was her big spiel, just like with Trump. The big spiel was, I'm conservative who's going to keep us out of wars. In essence, both Gabbard and Trump were sending uh America First, and that means isolationist signals in a good way, meaning we're going to stay out of the world. We're not going to do this anymore. And she totally obeyed him and changed, totally betrayed this complete policy, and yet, it's not good enough. It's still not good enough, right? So, it tells you something else, which is how pathological this American regime is by now. It's not just the Trump regime, it's the American regime. It's one of those entities. It's not just authoritarian, which it is de facto. It's not just a rogue state, which it totally is. United States is a rogue state, literally. It's a state that puts itself aggressively above all international norms, above all international law, and all basic morality. That's a rogue state. It's just a very big one, which is why some people can't recognize it. Yes, the biggest, most powerful state on planet Earth is a rogue state. Welcome to human history. It's not looking good right now. So, what sort of rogue state is this actually in this stage? It seems that even at its top, it's losing all predictability and rationality. It seems that the top has to consist only of yes-men and yes-women entirely. And not only yes-women and yes-men, because look, these generals were yes-men, I'm sure. Pam Bondi was a yes-woman. So is Tulsi Gabbard. That's not enough. It's got to be yes, yes, yes, my Führer, all the time. Otherwise, you're shown the door. What sort of regime is this?

Yeah. I mean, what do we have to expect from them? I mean, I will, I will, I will show you one more thing just to add and confirm your opinion about Pete Buttigieg and how nutjob he is and how nutjob this administration is actually. This is the so-called Christian pastor Paula White. She compared Trump to Jesus Christ. Guys, just brace yourselves for this. That's what they have to do now. That's how you keep your job. Is your here because of God and because of you? >> [applause] >> And I just want to share this thought and pray for President Trump. Jesus taught us so many lessons through his death, burial, and resurrection. He showed us great leadership, great transformation requires great sacrifice. And Mr. President, no one has paid the price like you have paid the price. Oh my >> It almost cost you your life. You were betrayed and arrested. It's an abomination. >> And falsely accused. It's a familiar pattern that our Lord and Savior showed us. But it didn't end there for him, and it didn't end there for you. God always had a plan. On the third day, he rose, he defeated evil, he conquered death, hell, and the grave. And because he rose, we all know that we can rise. And sir, because of his resurrection, you rose up. Because he was victorious, you were victorious. And I believe that the Lord said to tell you this, because of his victory, you will be victorious in all you put your hand to. [applause]

You know what else Jesus did? She may not be aware of this because I don't think she's ever reading the Bible actually. But the other thing that Jesus did is he drove out demons. You know? >> Yes, he drove out [laughter] demons. And he will drive this woman out. Very quickly. This woman is a damn demon. >> [laughter] >> I mean, she looks like the Dajjal, as they say in the false Messiah, you know? Force in herself, and I mean this literally. She's like, I, I, I'm an agnostic, but there are ever more people in this world like Benjamin Netanyahu or her, where I'm like, I have to acknowledge there are demons. They actually exist. I'm an agnostic, but they're demons. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you can, you can be an agnostic and still believe that evil exists, and it could be in a different shape or form, and I think this woman is completely possessed. Yeah.

But I mean, to be serious for a moment, I mean, look, obviously what she's doing is from a Christian perspective, right? And I was raised as a Roman Catholic, as I've said before. And I think it's, it would also be true for many other Christians, Orthodox Protestant Christians. What she's doing is blasphemy, right? To take, to take the name of Jesus, and that is the Lord, in this manner is blasphemous. It's, it's a horrific sin, literally. It's a horrific sin for a Christian to use God's image, the name of Jesus, to glorify a worldly leader. I mean, imagine early Christianity. Imagine these first generations like St. Paul and so on, and some of them, one of them would have approached a Roman emperor and would have said, you know what? You're just like Jesus. Right? We would all know that that would have been betrayal of the faith, and it would have been blasphemy. That's what she's doing. She's object, she's a disgusting, horrific person. But again, that's not even the main thing to me. The main thing to me is we have to fully face how far America has fallen. We, look, since World War II and before, I know this, but let's begin with the end of World War II. America has always been arrogant, extremely violent, extremely hypocritical, and that goes back in history. I repeat. But I, I must say, in my lifetime, right? I was born '69. In my lifetime, including people like younger George Bush, who was terrible, and Ronald Reagan, who was pretty terrible in his own way, including these guys, I have never seen this degree of decrepitude, moral decay, intellectual decay. It's really catastrophic. It's absolutely catastrophic. We are not just dealing with a very dangerous and very greedy imperial power. They've been that for a very long time. Now they're insane. Now they're insane, just like their Israeli friends.

No, no. And again, that's my reason why I compare them, why I do compare them to the Nazis, because that was the dynamic of Nazi Germany, too. On one side, whatever Tim Snyder may say, who has discovered that the Nazis weren't nationalists. Yeah, well, absolutely not. Did you see? Of course they were nationalists. They were, among other things, extreme and extremely violent nationalists. The reason Tim says this is he loves nationalists, so he has to sort of pull the Nazis and the nationalists apart, [laughter] so he can love his Polish and Lithuanian nationalists. We all understand the game. But yes, on one side, the Nazis were extremely violent nationalists. Those had happened before. But there was a whole different set in thing to them, an aspect that was important, that had to do with the occult, with believing the most outrageous, bizarre theories, with coming up with things like cultural theories that Shakespeare was actually German, his real name was Schüttelspeer, and he was from Bavaria. And that was the funny side, right? So, it's often laughable, but you have to understand what made the Nazis so incredibly explosive was the mixture, yes, >> of the usual evils of authoritarianism and aggressive state behavior, which is bad enough, and insanity, serious insanity. And I see that now in the United States. It's insane. It's insane. >> Yes, it is. >> Yeah, it's obvious.

Guys, >> I wonder how these Europeans don't see it. I mean, they see it probably, but they all have to, Yeah. >> [laughter] >> Right. I will, I will ask you about the Europeans after this. Now, one of, one of, one of our friends says, how did K work friend Tarek? What a guest this dude is. So, he's a professor, Tarek Civil Amar. I have met him online actually on X. I watched one of his participation on a podcast. This was, I think, 1 and 1/2, 2 years ago, and I sent him a DM and invited him to the show, and I said, "I would be honored to have you." And since then, I found that he's someone who is very honest, a person of integrity, and my experience with academics was not really good, and he is, as we say, >> As is mine. And I have a lot. He's a jewel among the academics, a very outspoken, righteous, and also I find that there is an intellectual and humorous also chemistry that we can also present. I mean, 1 hour or 1 hour and 10 minutes, let's say 70 minutes, sometimes 60 minutes of conversation for some people. Sometimes it is boring. I totally understand. I'm also can't watch 60 minutes of show, but then you guys come here, 1,000 people watch this online, and I, and there is no 1,000 people watching when I'm doing it. That means Tarek's input and insight is very valuable for you. That's why you're coming back and watching and listening to him. That's what, that's how we, how to say, befriended? I don't know how to call it in English. And, and if you guys want to read what Tarek writes on his personal Substack, >> Yes. the link is scrolling now on the screen. And this is a coupon for the Easter offer. If you subscribe to Tarek's Substack, you will receive 50% off all the new annual subscriptions for 1 year. And this is in the next 3, 4 days. So, until, until the 7th of this month. Guys, the link is already in the description below. It's also scrolling on the screen. And if you're watching this on your PC or watching it on your TV, and you have your smartphone on your hand, you can scan this QR code on the top side of Tarek's site, and it sends you directly to his subscription page on Substack. This is how we can support Tarek's academic and also analytical work on his own Substack. Just wanted to make this announcement before we move to the next part. And just quickly, guys, want to thank you for supporting Syriana. For example, our friend Warren, I think Warren is, I think it's a Dutch, Deutsche Nachname. Norway will orange Mussolini's boss allow years with former college and Persia. He says, and then [clears throat] he says, "In a recent interview entitled 'The Predatory Hegemon,' February 2026, Stephen Walt draws a direct parallel between Trump's business history and his presidency." I think this is important that we have to read and we could discuss it maybe next week, Tariq. I will save this just to make a screenshot quickly for me to go back to this and understand what is it, first the premise, and we could also discuss next week, okay, my friend? And finally, he says, "What would be smart do? I wonder how Eurasia might have developed if the three emperors league had injured." That's a hypothetical question. I think Tariq, good [laughter] one. I love it. It's a good one. I love it. It really makes me think actually. He's, he's making great observations actually in this case. So I just wanted to thank you so much for supporting Syriana [laughter] Analysis.

Um, Tariq, there is a news in The Washington Post. They say officials from more than 30 countries are meeting, and they have met actually yesterday to discuss ways to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. And, and of course, the US is not expected to have representatives at the meeting, according to The Washington Post. And one of the commentators says that there's a good chance Europe could enshrine Iran's toll system independent of whatever America chooses to do. It is clear this meeting wants to set an independent course for these nations away from US policy. Is it realistic for Europe to pursue this path?

I think it would be, I think it would be very reasonable. I, I'm saying this without irony. If, if the point is European states, let's say the European Union plus the UK, acknowledging the Iranian right to control the Strait and also to take fees, presumably not in dollars, but either in the real, the Iranian currency, which is very important, right? In which currency these are paid? Or maybe even in yuan, that has also happened, the Chinese [clears throat] currency. So if European states were to actually take the, the, the, the principle position, right? I know that some are already passing, but what we're talking about here is a policy, right? Come out with an explicit policy and say, we acknowledge this, Iran has this right. This isn't underhand, this isn't just the individual ship owner, the individual company. This is actually policy now. We acknowledge Iran has this right. You would have to tie in Oman, right? It's not that Oman can somehow make a big difference, but the Strait, in in terms, in pure legal terms, which would matter here, right? Part of is a big part, the bigger part is Iranian national waters, and the smaller part is Omani national waters, which is often forgotten. So if you want to have a full resolution, a really nice one, you bring in Oman, but I don't think that would be the problem. Now, here is my my question concerning this scenario. Are the Europeans smart enough to do this? We have not seen Europeans being reasonable for years. And I mean this really literally. Ukraine conflict, tariff wars with the United States, reaction to Venezuela. Even, even the way they got together over Greenland, although they think that was some sort of big glory thing they did there. Europeans have an awful track record recently. And of course, their whole attitude towards Israel and this genocide, right? And we could go on. The attitude to Russia, everything is a mess with Europeans in foreign policy, right? And to China as well. So if the Europeans actually in this case agreed to say, you know what? We're going to deal with Iran above board, officially. We don't care what the US says. Man, that would be a breakthrough. And it would be wonderful, I think. It would be a very good small first step for the Europeans to finally find the bloody brains again and a little bit of a spine on top of it. Mhm. Is it going to happen? I don't know. Are they there? Maybe what is helping them now is that Trump is ever getting ever more brutal and explicit about dropping NATO entirely. Who knows?

Tariq, also there is a discussion now in Germany. Tino Chrupalla has made a statement that he wants for the German, German, sorry, American troops to withdraw from, yes, from Germany. And then other AFD politicians came and criticized him. And of course, >> say, and people say nowadays that there is an Israel wing in the AFD, and then there is the independent wing. So you can see that also clearly, right?

Yeah, I totally agree. And, you know, when Chrupalla did this, he did it on somewhere on a state level, on a land level, right? For people who are not that familiar with German politics, it's an important statement, but he didn't make it in the name of the party. There were some very misleading reports on social media where people were spreading this idea that the AFD has said the Americans should go. That's not true. This didn't happen. Chrupalla is the second leader of the AFD, right? He's the co-leader with Alice Weidel. Chrupalla has always been in terms of foreign policy more reasonable than most others. In terms of Russia, Israel, America, Chrupalla is a much more reasonable person. I like him in that way. But he doesn't represent the party. That's just not a thing. And when he made that statement, he made it at a land level congress, right? Not even in Berlin. He knows why. I think he was trying to fight over this statement. He's right to do so. But the question is, is he going to win? And the fact that he's already been criticized by others tells you what you need to know about the AFD, that the AFD is not simply nationalist in the sense of Chrupalla, namely being capable of saying, our national interests also demand that we get rid of the Americans. And he's totally right about this. The AFD has a massive Atlanticist wing. Yes, it does. Even if the program says something else. I know the AFD program is misleading on this. Forget it. There is a massive Atlanticist wing, and that is my greatest worry about the AFD, one of my greatest worries about the AFD, that even if they get into government in the future, and even if they should dominate a government, which is possible in the future, they will do a Meloni. They will do exactly what Meloni has done. They will be the populist right insurgents. They will get into power, and then they make peace with the Americans and they, and of course NATO. And then at the end of it, people like Chrupalla will be marginalized or even kicked out. That, that is a scenario. Be aware the AFD is not a simple proposition. Chrupalla has, has my full support in these things. I think he's brilliant. I think he's absolutely right. But he's not speaking for the AFD. I hope one day he will, but that is a very, very open question, I think.

But I, I saw also an observation Tariq on X that he received a lot of support from Germans in the left and in the right when he said that. So strategically speaking, it has it has become also like in the United States. The moment somebody is getting embedded with the Zionist lobby in the United States or doing the bidding of the Israelis, for example, they're losing credibility very fast. They're becoming irrelevant in the eyes of the people. There is no longer like the hero politician in the eyes of the people. Even Trump, nobody respects him among his mega base. I mean, most of the people who voted for him say that this is, yeah, this is too obvious. So I think strategically speaking, Absolutely clearly, yeah. So strategically speaking, I think it is it is counterproductive for any official, regardless left or right. All these things are just labels in my opinion nowadays for any politician, whether in Germany or in the United States, to put eggs in the basket of the of the United States. This has become too controversial among the popular base, you know? So he has taken the strategic approach, which is beneficial for him, for his party, and for Germany. And then the people who are short-sighted and they want this transatlantic relationship to to stay the way it is. Those are the ones who are going to lose in the public's eye. This is what I'm trying to say.

I hope so. I hope so. Your, your word in God's ear. I mean, hopefully that's the dynamic. In Arabic they say, "From your mouth to the doors of the skies." Like, I hope your words >> [laughter] >> So we went, we're going to discuss guys a very important article now. And this one is actually published by the former foreign minister of Iran, Javad Zarif himself. And he published this in Foreign Affairs. The article says, "How Iran Should End the War." So we have a few major points he made here. He says, so Javad Zarif, he wrote this in, and this is his vision. And those are the key points.

First, a ceasefire is not enough, and efforts must be made to reach a comprehensive peace agreement to end 47 years of enmity. Iran, in cooperation with the Sultanate of Oman, must ensure safe passage for commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Before reaching a final agreement, the US must allow the sale of Iranian oil and its derivatives without obstacles in exchange for Iran's commitment to never seek nuclear weapons. The United States must end all UN Security Council resolutions against Iran and lift the unilateral American sanctions imposed on it. China and Russia, in cooperation with the United States, can help establish a uranium enrichment consortium with Iran and interested neighboring countries. Cooperation must begin on a regional security network to ensure non-aggression, cooperation, and freedom of navigation. Asia. Iran and the United States should announce and sign a permanent non-aggression pact. And finally, to both bolster peace, Iran and the United States should begin mutually beneficial trade, economic, and technological cooperation.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, this looks like like saving the American side. It doesn't look for me that he's trying to, he's like a safe face for face-saving for for the Trump administration here. The nuclear program in cooperation with neighboring countries, uh, American investments in the United

States, and the mechanism to jointly manage Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, the Iranians are capable of asking for more in my opinion under such circumstances.

You know, um let me let me say that one thing again. I I Zarif is a former Iranian foreign minister. He's an Iranian. So, I don't want to come across as arrogant, right? This is a discussion Iranians are having amongst each other. But of course, he's also published this in Foreign Affairs, which is very interesting, right? Why is it appeared there? Um but my opinion, very humbly offered, is I think some of the points he he he is making make a lot of sense. For instance, when he says a ceasefire doesn't work, we need a full agreement. He then softens that up. I'm not happy about this, but the the basic idea is good. No ceasefire, full agreement. Which I find very interesting because very similar to what the Russians say in the Ukraine war, and they're also right because the West is no longer reliable enough to do ceasefires with. You have to go for full agreement. Tie them down immediately. Now, even agreements can be broken, I'm aware.

Now, here are the problems, I think, with what he's saying. I uh don't see any mention or hardly any mention of Israel in this text. When you read his text alone, you you feel like there's no Israel involved in this. >> [laughter] >> And obviously, this cannot in any way be resolved without considering Israel's horrific role. I'll give an example. Zarif says there has to be a non-aggression pact or treaty, I should say, between uh Tehran and Washington. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. But how do you make a non-aggression treaty stick while the US maintains its completely pathological relationship with Israel? Because that relationship means that any American leadership, as long as that lasts, is ready to break any agreement as long as Israel wants it and as long as Israel insists long enough. We've seen it in this war. Israel has been trying for at least more than two decades to get this war going, and finally, they did against all American national interests, probably by blackmail. Secondly, we see it already in the JCPOA, right? Why was that abandoned? That wasn't an agreement like a non-aggression treaty would be. So, there I I really I think this sounds strange from Zarif because he knows all of these things, and he's a very smart man, right? Why is he not even addressing these obvious issues? The elephant in the room in his article is Israel, and it should be there.

Then the other thing I found very odd is that he operates with the assumption that Iran should give up any option of ever making nuclear weapons. And I think that's to be honest, I think that's exactly wrong. This is different from the issue we were discussing at the beginning, which is these are different issues. Should Iran make a weapon? Is different from should Iran have the option of making a weapon? And I think an outcome where Iran gives away the option at this point makes absolutely no sense. The minimum Iran has to maintain is a serious option of becoming a nuclear-armed state. So that the United States and Israel in the future, at the very least, constantly have to ask themselves, if we [ __ ] up again, are they finally going to build the bomb quickly? This idea that the Iranians can just give up on that option is horrific. I really don't see why he came up with that.

The second one is what I'm missing is a serious appreciation of the difference between civilian nuclear power and weapon nuclear power because the Americans, of course, are the ones who pretended it's all the same, but it's not. Iran has a crystal-clear right to use nuclear power for civilian purposes. They like any other state. And the Americans were trying to take away that as well. We could go into the technical details, but that's what it was, right? So, that needs to be cleared up. It needs to be absolutely clear that Iranians can have a nuclear program at least for civilian use. Now, Zarif says there should be this common multinational initiative where there's only one source of enrichment. Presumably, that's for civilian use because he wants to rule out military use. Having the Americans in this consortium is poison, and he must know this. There might be such a solution, but it has to exclude the Americans as well as the Israelis, of course, and as much because, and Zarif knows this, we have to assume that the Americans will always do what Israel wants in the end. So, they have to be out. You may be able to build such a consortium with China, Russia, maybe India, maybe maybe because India is very much tied to Israel, which is a big mistake. You may be able to build it with the Gulf Cooperation Council states if they change course. That may be possible, but the US needs to be out. This whole idea that the US sits in all sorts of committees together with Iran to manage regional affairs, that strikes me as insane. The US needs to be banished from this region, and not for emotional reasons, for rational reasons. And the same, I think, holds for his idea about what to do with the Strait of Hormuz.

Yes. First of all, Iran has very good reasons, not only a right, it has good reasons to go for a national solution at this point to say, "We manage this. End of story. You all learn to live with this. We manage this straight." But if Iran wanted to go international and say, "Hey, you know what? We're ready to share." Not with the United States. The United States are too unpredictable. They are too they they always break their word. They have massacred negotiators. They have attacked under cover of negotiations twice. They are completely beholden to Israel. The United States can't be in anything anymore there. They need to go out. If anybody is in, again, maybe Iran's neighbors if that relationship improves once after the Americans have left. So, I have a lot of issues with this article.

Let me say one thing in its favor. One thing in its favor, which is the fundamental thought that he articulates is not stupid. The fundamental thought is basically saying, "We are winning this war. Let's try to cash in on it while the going is good." Right? There is a logic there. But I I do think that is one issue. I think he is premature. I think they have to conduct the war longer, but I can see his idea. But how you then do it, how you transform your generosity of letting the other get out into your own advantage, I must say that I find most of his proposals misguided. And a little bit as if they're from another age. They're from the age precisely before this war. They don't fit into the world that the war has made.

Yes. One our friend says we should have Professor Michael Hudson for a chat. I have his email. I have been in touch with him, and he told me that he was ill, and he wanted to he had to go through some surgery, so I couldn't have him. So, I will send him an email. Maybe we could have him Tariq in the next two weeks on the show and do like a panel, like an hour and a half with him. That would be amazing. Yeah, I think so. Tariq, I wanted to show you one last video. We will just go a little bit few minutes beyond 1 hour, and that is Norman Finkelstein. I I I'm truly interested in your thoughts about what he said recently on a show. He made a lot of controversial claims, so I will play the video. Let's watch and listen to him, and then we I would like to hear your thoughts about it.

There's no evidence. And I've studied it very closely. There's no evidence that the US went to war against Iraq. Israel's the hest. Or that Israel tricked or duped people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, two very smart individuals with long experience in government, and they can make errors. In the case of Iraq, they made a colossal error. But tricked and duped, no. That's not in the Cheney or Rumsfeld lexicon. That doesn't happen with them. They can make errors, errors often born of hubris, but not errors. Excuse me, we're not being tricked or duped by the Israelis into believing that they were engaged in a war of natural national interest, which was actually a war of Israeli national interest. That doesn't happen. Period. Full stop. Mr. Kent, you're completely out to lunch. The things he's saying, you know, they now say they now say this group of right-wing mega mega and ex-mega types that Israel's behind the Kennedy assassination. Where are you going? Where are you going? That's just going to be Israel was behind the Civil War. Israel was behind the fall of the Roman Empire. It's just so completely lunatic, and they all believe it. I mean, you wouldn't believe the the degree of seriousness with which they say things like Israel was behind the Kennedy assassination. So, Kennedy's an interesting example of one aspect of what happened. As you know, everybody now says everybody says left, right, and center. They say Israel manipulated Trump into this war. Israel manipulated Trump into this war. He was tricked by the Israelis. He was seduced. Everybody says that from Tom Friedman to this guy who's a little person on the left, Daniel Levy. Everyone. It's ridiculous. With all the claims being made that Trump was tricked, he was no more tricked than Cheney and Rumsfeld were tricked in 2003. Nobody tricks them. They could be wrong, and they were very wrong, and Trump was wrong, and the Israelis were wrong. But, of course it was the US national interest. There's always been a national interest in get getting getting rid of Iran. I want to focus only on this last point about it was always in the national interest of the United States, and this was not Israel's. Like, this is this is the context, right? Am I getting him correctly? And in my opinion, this is my humble opinion, great academic, great researcher, but geopolitically speaking, he has been making some, just my humble opinion, errors in in analysis.

Look, and I say this without any irony, and and with persistent enormous respect for him and his his work. Yes. Um I think you could say that for him is true what he says about Cheney. They're very different, of course, but in one thing, one respect, you can compare, which is that he's a super smart guy, but he can also make great mistakes. Mhm. But that's what he says about Rumsfeld and Cheney. They're evil, he's not evil. Mhm. But they're very smart. They cannot be tricked, but they can make big mistakes, as he says, colossal mistakes. And I think Finkelstein here makes a number of colossal mistakes. I do say that with all due respect, very sincerely. Um I I to to to use this as a contrast, right? I have lost all respect for Chomsky. Chomsky is for me I I despise him by now. Um I I do not do that regarding Finkelstein. I think Finkelstein is a much more honest, a much better man, although his tragedy has been that he's always looked up to Chomsky, which is a different issue, you know? It's it's absurd, because Finkelstein is the better person, the much better person. So, and he is very smart and very very erudite, right? And very right. And having said all of this, look, I think his his quick dismissal of Israelis having something to do with Kennedy's killing is completely wrong-headed. He I think he's completely wrong. Um I understand that this cannot be proven. There is, however, some minor evidence. Um nothing can be proven about this murder, except I think all reasonable people accept that the official story is [ __ ] right? I think he knows that as well. The official story, the lone gunman, the bullet that makes a salto mortale twice over, that's all [ __ ] Everybody understands that. The real question has always been, so what was it, right? And I won't go into details, but there are actually good reasons to suspect the Israelis very severely. There are good reasons. This is not a simple stupid conspiracy theory. And I can see from the other things he says around this what irritates him when he says, "Oh, and the cause the Civil War and so on, right?" He's beginning to feel that there is a way in which everything that went wrong is now blamed on them. A little bit like Putin, Mhm. right? Putin. Putin did this. Putin did that. Now it's Israelis. Israelis. Mhm. But he's clearly going too far here, because he is not ready to accept a case where it really does make sense to suspect them massively. And the Kennedy assassination is such a case, and we know the background has to do with the beginnings of the Israeli nuclear program, actually. And Kennedy's attitude specifically to that, right? So, that's one thing.

The other thing is I think he's completely wrong again when he draws a simple parallel between the Iraq war and this war against Iran. In some ways they are similar in that they're based on on lies, they're wars of aggression, the United States plays a leading role. Yeah, I get that, right? But whatever he thinks about Cheney and Rumsfeld, he cannot argue. He cannot argue that Trump cannot be fooled. I'm sorry, that is obvious nonsense. Trump can be fooled. Now, the bigger question is how did it happen that such a man has ultimate power in the United States? That's a question to American political and cultural and social history, right? But he's almost speaking as if we have to assume that everybody who ends up at the top of the American hierarchy cannot be a total idiot. And there he's wrong. Trump is an idiot. He is an idiot with intuition. I've written about this myself. There is powerful political intuition, often in employed for very bad purposes, but there is an intuitive demagogic politician in Trump, and and it's that's a reality. That's what people have underestimated. But he's also a fool. He's also a horrific fool. And from his public statements, and they do mean something, we can tell that he was believing a lot of Israeli narratives. And we know that Israeli intelligence has infiltrated American intelligence. We know that American decision-makers depend on Israeli [ __ ] intelligence, on disinformation. I'm a little angry that he seems to disregard all of this. The American political system, even at its top, is not a sealed container where the Israelis can't get in. They can get in very very very much, and not only to the president, but into the CIA, into all the other security and intelligence services, into the FBI, into the ordinary police. We know all of this. Into the military, into the Pentagon. We've had this We have Israeli [clears throat] officers permanently at the Pentagon, which is completely insane if you think about it. So, his quick dismissal just saying, "Oh, no, that's not possible. You know, these the United States, we are bad, but we are not that stupid." No, I'm not going along.

And the other thing is Yes. >> to say one more thing. I think he's even making it too easy for himself about the Iraq war. Mhm. Because the Iraq war was also very much the outcome of the neocons. And I'm sorry, the neocons were very much tied to Israel. Right? That's a deep link. And they did inform the policy that went to the aggression against Iran. So, I think what's happening here, >> [cough] >> and I have to guess, Gesundheit. >> Sorry. Is that Finkelstein >> [clears throat] >> feels threatened by narrative, and I understand him there. That shifts blame away from the US and says, "Oh, it's the Israelis' fault. They did this." And there, deep down, I agree with him. The US is to blame for all of this. >> [cough and clears throat] >> But the way he argues it, I totally disagree with him. I'm I'm totally on your side on this. I just wanted to hear your thoughts about this. I just saw it today, and I was a little bit surprised, and I think it is important to put this in this context that you have put it here for also the people to get a broad perspective of the responsibility, and we have to discuss this in the future as well when the war is over and understand the role of each player, whether state, non-state actor, and the lobbyists. And you cannot really dismiss the the capability of Israel to do Mhm. that. I agree with you. >> It's just very unrealistic. Indeed.

Ash printer, thank you so much habibi for the great support of Syrian analysis. He says, "Please consider hosting Brian Baletic. I would love to see three of you have a conversation." Thank you both Tariq. So, I just I just made notes here guys with Brian Baletic and Michael Hudson. I think our friend Tariq and Brian would have some differences of opinion [clears throat] which is great about the role of Israel because he believes the United States is driving Israel and probably Tariq has a little slightly different opinion. That would be great ground to have a respectful conversation between them. I promise you that I will send him the message. I'm in touch with him and we could have him either next week or the week after. Until then guys, the kind thing from you to do is just hit the like button on this stream to support this work. Subscribe to Syrian analysis. If you like to go one step further, only if you can and only if you want, you can support this independent work through Patreon. The link is scrolling on the screen. patreon.com/syriananalysis. If you don't like using Patreon, there are different other means in the description below. Tariq's substack is also in the description below. All the relevant links are there. Thank you so much for tuning in whether you watch this on YouTube or on Rumble. And also thank you with access for being present with us in the live chat. And thank you Tariq for always being generous also with your time and with your thoughts. But today we really appreciate you and your thoughts. And we will see you guys next week. Have a great weekend. Peace be upon you. Salaam. >> See you. Bye-bye.