Transcription
Uh, you know, this you can't make this stuff up. These people want it every way and sideways and as deep as possible. Now they can't get out of the hole they've dug for themselves.
And you know, the other part there of his comments is that well, okay, well if it wasn't an imminent threat, they haven't given up on their ambitions. He said you're missing the point. They haven't given up on their ambitions. So far, the only thing I have seen in our classified and and released intelligence assessments plus anything public is that Iran prior to 28 February had categorically said that they were not going to nuclear weapon. Our intelligence said they weren't. So upon what basis if you've ever heard anywhere else cuz I haven't, does he make the claim that they haven't given up on their ambitions? Other than his statement, have you seen any evidence to support that?
No, but once again, that's a talking point from Prime Minister Netanyahu and he seems to be calling the tune to which everybody is dancing. I think we can also say with absolute certainty that everyone watching this atrocity unfold in front of us has concluded that if you don't want to be attacked by the United States or Israel or both, you really need a nuclear weapon. So, I'm surprised nobody at the hearing brought that up. That if you really are judging this from a very objective standpoint, then I think Mr. Hegseth and President Trump are both ensuring that in the future nuclear weapons will proliferate.
And obviously that's not quite the expectation or the outcome we were seeking here. What do you think was the intent? Let's just go back to the to the the ultimate purpose of this war. I know you have for decades talked about you know, you want to have an objective, you want to have an end stage, you want to have the means to get it done and you have a whole plan before you launch and take one period of action. Pretty clear that none of that happened, but as best you can ascertain, what was the intent? What What was the end state that President Trump and this whole cohort wanted to see on the other side? What do you think they tried to accomplish?
I think the objective was from the very beginning to bring Iran to a point where it is willing to subjugate or subordinate itself to Israel's demands. That Iran would would reach a point where they understand it is best to essentially neutralize yourself. Go along with whatever Israel wants because if you do that, you'll be left alone, at least in so far as the Israelis are concerned. And I think that purpose is is failed miserably. I think with each successive attack, Iran has become more and more convinced that it must fight to the bitter end because it's essentially the last man standing in the region. I think the Iranians continue to communicate with the Turks and the Egyptians, two potentially powerful states who could intervene in this conflict and bring it to a rapid close, but neither are willing to do that because neither of them want to go to war with us. But I think the region is reaching a point where they begun to understand that we are the arm of Israel and that we're going to continue to do whatever it is that Israel wants regardless of the consequences. So, when you go through your purpose, method, end state, the purpose was what did it start? We're going to bomb in support of an uprising. That failed. Purpose number two, we're going to decapitate the regime. We're going to topple the regime. We're going to replace the regime. That failed. Number three, having failed to replace the regime, well, then we're going to utterly destroy the Iranian state and nation. Well, that didn't work. Uh we ran out of munitions and the Iranians demonstrated that they could effectively nullify our influence. So, now we're at a a different set of crossroads. We still are insisting that Iran must agree to Israel's terms, but we've said those terms are largely about a nuclear weapon. And again, the Iranians had, as you point out, said they don't want a nuclear weapon. My point [clears throat] is now, I think, if you if you're an Iranian, particularly under the age of 30 or under the age of 40, you're beginning to conclude that you absolutely must have a a nuclear weapon. Uh so, I think we've now radicalized the youth, the younger generation of Iranians, to the point where they're going to fight tooth and nail forever. And I think the other problem that we've got is that nobody believes anything we say. How many times can you change your argument? How many times can you alter the theme? And then come back and expect somebody to believe anything that you commit to. I think that's the other problem.
Well, you know what? I That's an important point that that's not getting as much uh notice. Or obviously, people are still right now find it trying to focus on are we going to restore the war or not, and how we going to get out of this mess. But there are other things, kind of a canary in the coal mine. Uh like your view on this. South Korea uh has said that they have to be able to defend themselves without foreign troops and states to resolve to reclaim operational control by 2028. To me, that is a big deal. Uh but I can't imagine that it's detached or divorced from what's happening here, because one wonders, are they starting to say, "Hey, we can't count on you at all. We better start figuring out for ourselves." What do you make of that?
The Koreans have wanted operational command and control of their own armed forces for many years now. Right now, the Korean armed forces are under the command of an army four-star, who's the commander of US Forces Korea. He is also the combined joint UN commander that disposes over the Koreans as well as over American forces. They want to get out of that. Now, we can talk about why. Well, first of all, you know, Korea is now an immensely powerful state. They have what? 40 approaching 40 to 50 million people. Uh they have a tremendous scientific industrial base. It's increasingly clear that North Korea is not going to attack because North Korea has been told by both Moscow and Beijing not to do that. The Koreans are doing a land office business with China. They see, and so do the Japanese, by the way, the hostilities emerging between us and China. Neither Korea nor Japan want to be dragged into a war against China. Now, you put all of that together and they're being as polite as possible, but they're privately telling us to get the hell out of Korea. We should. We've been there for 70 years. There's no requirement for us to be there anymore. There hasn't been for a long time. They can defend themselves, and most of all, they want peace in Asia, which by the way is what everybody else in Asia wants. We're the ones that keep talking about war in Asia, not the Chinese, not the Koreans, and not the Japanese. So, I think this is more evidence of our imperial overstretch that's worn out its welcome. And the vassal states that have lived within this framework want out from under us, and that includes Korea, and I think you'll soon see the same thing happen in Japan.
Well, that that would certainly be a tectonic shift. It seems likely that a lot of this has been at least ooched on and and accelerated perhaps because of the demonstrated I mean, let's just say it, incompetence in how we, number one, chose to wage this war, and now how we're actually conducting it. How do you see it?
Well, it's not just incompetence. It's viewing the current president, and frankly, the government as a whole, because Congress, as we know, just from the recent voting that's going on about the War Powers Act and so forth, Congress is actively supporting the president. So, if you're sitting in Korea or Japan, you're sitting almost anywhere in Asia, you you like to do business with us. You don't dislike us. You want to be on good terms with us, but you see us rogue power, this dangerous contagious patient that has to be kept down at the end of the hall in the hospital. Uh the guys in the white coats are waiting to take us away as far as the Asians are concerned, because they don't see the justification or the rationale or the need for conflict, period. We are the ones that have created the conflicted uh region of the Middle East and created and potentially could create similar conflict in Asia. So, I I think people have had it with us, and I'm surprised that more of this has not happened sooner, but people in Asia are nothing if not patient, and they all desperately want to be polite, but it this is all going to fall apart on Donald Trump's watch.
Yeah, and that that could be starting, as you said, there in the South Korea. Uh I want to go back to Secretary Hagel said though, because one would think, logically, that having seen that 40 days and 40 nights of bombing did not budge any of our objectives at all, any of them. You you rattled off several of the changing objectives, and none of those have been accomplished. So, you would think, all right, now we need to find a way to get out of here, cuz this ain't working, and to turn it back on would just produce more of the same, except drain other portions of our inventory. So, that's bad, cuz then that would diminish our defensive capabilities elsewhere in the world. But there is a theme rolling around here, Doug, to where people are saying, and I'm talking to supporters of the president, "No, man, you just haven't pushed hard enough yet. Don't don't get weak-kneed on me and quit now. Watch this exchange between Hexeth and a friendly member of Congress."
Do you know how long it took for the United States to have its first major victory in World War II? In the Pacific theater. Number of years. No. It was actually 6 months. It was It was the Battle of Midway. All right? It was a turning point of World War II. Could you imagine if we had had the same Democrats asking then Secretary of War, all right? Gee, it's been 2 months. Okay? And we haven't won this war yet. Back then. We didn't even have We didn't win a major battle for 6 months. Your job, the job of the military, what you've done in the first 2 months is extraordinary.
Wow, it's extraordinary. I thought it was an abject strategic failure, but apparently I missed the boat. What do you think?
Well, I think the gentleman forgets that the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. And
[clears throat]
that precipitated the mobilization of the United States for war. Iran has not attacked us. It has not attacked our Conus or continental-based forces. It hasn't attacked us at Pearl Harbor. It hasn't attacked us in Korea or Japan. It is not attacking us or has not been attacking us in the Middle East. Now, you listen to people who say, "Well, that's not true. Those Iranians say we're pushing those Iraqis, and look at what happened to us." Well, I've got news for you. We supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq and the Iraqi armed forces in its war with Iran. And Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi forces killed some 800,000 people on the Iranian side. And we not only supplied them with weapons and equipment and training and advice, we actually encouraged a Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons against Iran. So, this is this is the way the real world views us. This is the way the Iranians are viewing us. So, I think that particular politician, I don't know what his name is, is living on another planet. He's certainly not on planet Earth and he doesn't understand what's at risk here or what's at stake because we're moving away from simply trying to beat Iran into submission because of what Israel wants to a setting that could ultimately accelerate our descent into a regional war that could become global. Nobody seems to get that. But then again, we kind of live on planet America.
Yeah, which which just just creates out of pure cloth fiction, whatever it wants to believe and then they'll just pretend like it is true. And we're running into the reality how that's is now going to crash the the spin into rubble. Uh, let's take a look at what we're trying to do now. So, one thing that they has been recognized in the White House is that this hasn't been working. So, now that President Trump is faced in and according to leaks that have come out in the just the last 12 hours, so quite a few last night. One is that we should extend the blockade and just go with longer. Another one is that we should just declare victory and walk away and then a third one is no, we need to double down on the military and there are advocates for each one of those. I want to take a look at the one that seems to be earlier today anyway, seemed to be getting on the ascendancy in the White House according to Axios. And I'll tell you in just a second that now since this time, it seems like he's shifting back toward the the worst of the outcome, which is try more militarily. But let's take a look first of all at what Axios said just a little over an hour ago is that Trump rejects Iran's offer and alleged offer and says that the blockade will stay until there's a nuclear deal. And according to what he told Axios, Trump sees the blockade as somewhat more effective than the bombing. And the source said that he had yet to order any kinetic action as of Tuesday night. But he did post a very strange AI generated meme of himself, which I'll show you in just a second. But for now, Trump sees continuing the blockade as his primary source of leverage, but he would consider military action if Iran won't cave, according to the sources here. And you know, here is this is what he posted. This is what they were referring to, this very bizarre post from this morning that Iran can't get their act together. They don't know how to sign a non-nuclear deal. Doug, Doug, what do you make of these these three options and his actions here?
Well, I think it's disappointing that the president of the United States presents his views and opinions in the form of a comic strip, because that's effectively what we're looking at. This is a very superficial glance at something which is equally superficial, and that is Trump's approach to this entire matter. There's no maturity, there's no balance, there's no real diplomacy. There's no [clears throat] serious thinking about the strategic implications for us, let alone the rest of the world. And the rest of the world right now is really very, very close to walking away from us completely. So, let's stop and look at these three options. Let's start with the last one. Declare victory and walk away. Well, fine. Declare victory. The only people that are going to take that seriously are people probably in the White House. Now, the good news is that most Americans are not interested in this. They don't support the war. So, frankly, from his standpoint, ending this conflict is an easy win for Donald Trump. He would be applauded for doing so. But we have the third party. It's called Israel. That's unacceptable. So, scrap declaring victory and walking away. Two, blockade. Uh how effective is a blockade? Well, it's very effective right now in so far as going to breed famine all over the global south. It's uh reducing Europe to ruins. It's creating conditions all over the world conducive to panic and destruction. Uh why? Because there are 47 different types of petroleum products that can't get out of the Persian Gulf. Uh he's not really hurting Iran. Iran will stay the course. There is no evidence that Iran is going to wake up tomorrow morning and say, "Please, please don't harm us anymore." Uh-uh. The exact opposite is the case. We have a increasingly irrationalized uh population, particularly under the age of 40, that wants no more discussion and no more negotiations with us under any circumstances. So the blockade is going to have more do more damage to us as a country and ultimately more damage to the rest of the world than it's going to harm Iran. In fact, Iran will probably come out of this looking like uh a superhero compared to us given where we're headed. And that leads us to the last option, which is go back, repeat what you did before with more violence, more munitions, more forces. Will that work? I doubt it very seriously, but I think that's what he considers to be probably his best option. Uh he has he's put everything on the line. His presidency right now is on the line. His survival in office is on the line. If he took option three, I think he could survive. Option two will not keep him there. Will option one keep him in office? Well, he may think so because he may say, "I may get lucky." The problem with the first option is the Chinese, the Russians, uh Indian, uh the Indians, everybody around the world that's watching this, everybody in Europe is is sort of suspending disbelief that we would be this barbarous and this stupid to put everything on the line for a war against a country that threatens none of them. Uh so I think he'll go for option one because I don't think he gives a damn what happens around the world. I don't think he gives a damn about anything or anybody else. Uh so I think you're going to get option one. Hope I'm wrong.
Now one of the things that you'd spoken to me about earlier today is you said this issue of the fertilizer has slowed [clears throat] to a trickle there and you say and I think when you're talking about how barbarous some of our actions are don't care about what happens around the world, what does this chart tell you?
Well, look at November. It talks It talks to you about weekly exports through the Strait of Hormuz in terms of tons of fertilizer. We are effectively reversing the green revolution. We're robbing the world of access to the fertilizer it desperately needs to grow the food to support the population we have today. And if you look at that, nothing is coming out of the Gulf and neither the Russians nor we nor anybody else can produce enough to export and help others. In fact, there was a letter sent to the president of the United States that was signed by leaders in the agricultural arena. They were talking about farmers. Right now bankruptcy among farmers is up 46% and the farmers in the United States are in real danger because they too can't afford the fertilizer because the price of fertilizer has driven risen dramatically. Uh so we're going to suffer. We're going to have less available. We are going to have shortfalls on the shelves inside of the various food marts. We're going to have a lot more people showing up at the food banks. So, only the food banks aren't going to be able to help them very much because they won't have additional food. Uh Trump doesn't seem to understand this. And from the very beginning, he always had the option of of coming forward after the failure of this first operation and say, "Look, on humanitarian grounds, as the president of the United States and he styles himself the leader of the free world, although I think that falls on deaf ears now, uh I am going to suspend this operation because it's in the interest of the world to stop." Well, he's not going to do that. And so, he's throwing our farmers under the bus. He's throwing the American population standard of living under the bus. He's throwing much of the world under the bus. He doesn't seem to care.
Now, let me ask you another question, Doug. I I know something that is kind of uh left a real pretty sour taste in your mouth about something was in the Washington Post last week by Mark Thiessen. Um to what extent do you think that this plays into that theme of the of the diminishing credibility and reputation of the United States and others abroad because this one I although this this article was uh posted reposted by President Trump, he himself didn't say it, but in this uh there was one particular part you found particularly offensive.
I think I think the post that you had highlighted it, Doug.
Yes. Yeah, absolutely. In other words, go back in and try yet again to kill everyone in the government that could possibly contribute to a negotiation. Well, that makes great sense. Uh if there's nobody to negotiate with you, well, then just kill everybody. Uh this is by Mark Thiessen and as I recollect, Mark Thiessen was a speechwriter for President Bush, which is a frightening prospect, but I think that may explain much. But he certainly is a bloodthirsty individual, and I don't know what that stems from. That looks like blind, unreasoned hatred.
And when what I mean, how is this viewed around the world? I mean, that's just another data point, but we've had the fact that we started this war, we had the fact that we killed these kids on day one, we assassinated their leader. Now then there's problems with the price of oil and it's affecting our allies in Asia, Europe, and Africa already. And now that we're trying to potentially take a step that could go further and harm literally everyone if we go back to the to the kinetic face here because of the Iranian response. What is this doing to our future as a nation almost no matter how this works out? Has this or do you think we're in the process of changing how the rest of the world sees us from what used to be the city on a hill that we were supposed to be an example for people to follow to something that everyone should fear or even hate?
I think we've gone from the city on the hill to a leper colony. And I think we're going to remain in that condition for some time, especially if he presses ahead and unleashes hell one more time on Iran. Uh international sympathy is not with us. I know he's not concerned about that. He's worried about his donors uh who are preeminently concerned about Israel, not us. Uh so I I don't think it's going to make any difference what you and I say here today, but the truth is, we're being transformed into a leper colony. Nobody's going to want to do business with us under any circumstances, and we've always taken the position that everybody has to do business with us. That's not true. Uh they can do business with alternative sources. What are those alternative sources? Well, lots of them are in Asia. That's particularly true for China and Japan and Korea and Taiwan. Uh and for Southeast Asia. And increasingly, the Europeans are viewing us as certifiably insane. They haven't figured out what we're trying to do because it doesn't make any difference to them from the standpoint of who we hate or dislike, but when you disrupt the global supply chains and you destroy uh the energy complex, everybody says, "Well, wait a minute. These are the people that destroyed Nord Stream 2." You know, what are we doing with them? These are not our allies. These These people are sick. They're dangerous. They're demented. They're deranged. I think we're losing our standing all over the world. And you know, we can always take some something of a beating just because we're a leading power. But this is this makes no sense. This borders on criminality. I think the American people in another two or three months are going to be in the streets in this country. And I think they're going to demand an accounting. And I think the people in Washington are incredibly stupid to ignore that reality because the things we are doing to others are going to redound to our disadvantage. We're going to see more trouble. We're going to see much higher prices. We're going to watch the financial markets collapse. We're going to watch President Trump's sacred stock market lose 50, 60% of its value. At that point, the world changes. Not just us, the whole world. But we are going then have to do adapt to a very different environment here at home. We've lived in a in a state of abundance for decades. We're about to go into a state of scarcity. In other words, we're we're going to replace the abundance that we've become accustomed to, that we like and take for granted. It's going to become scarcity. People are not going to be able to buy the things that they're accustomed to buying. They're not going to be able to go where they want to go. Uh I don't think the people in Washington understand this. I think they're living in a fantasy world because they're living in the world where you can print money. Well, you can print money, but you can't print petroleum. You can't print fertilizer. You don't print nitrogen and phosphates. You don't don't print silver or gold. So, I think ultimately, uh we're going to be in a lot of trouble, but it's going to take a little longer to hit us, another 3 or 4 months. And by then, the American people will be up in arms and anything's possible at that stage.
You know, one of the things that could hasten that on is if we return to combat operations because Iran has definitely promised that if there is any attack at all, if it's resumed, no matter even if we try the so-called small version, they again won't recognize the scale of it, only the fact of it. And they said they will immediately strike back and hit energy sources throughout the Gulf, etc. And now that you don't have a political block, you have a physical uh block of uh supply that can't be turned back on for uh maybe close to a year, something probably not till next year at the earliest once the war's over. So, that's the worst possible outcome.
Well, actually, let's stop a minute because it's worse than that. Most of the analysts that are familiar with the oil markets and they understand what it takes to drill for oil and extract it are saying that if we stopped everything right now, we might recover in 18 months, maybe 2 years. Because remember, we've already got examples in the Gulf of drilling rigs that are no longer drilling because they have nowhere to put the the excess oil supply. They're filling up the tanks. Those tanks are sitting there, but if you can't drill, you can't pull it out, the water the the pressure underground drops, water infiltrates. It may take a lot of money and a lot of time to refit and rework the oil infrastructure and make it productive. Remember, the corporate heads of the oil sector met with President Trump about Venezuela and they tried to explain to him how much money it would take and how long it would take to recover Venezuela from the state of decay that its oil infrastructure finds itself. We're now going to face that. Now, if we go back in now and do exactly what you've said, uh we'll probably attack many of the same targets. We'll no doubt find new ones. I also think we're going to find a much more ruthless