Transcription
So, already within a very short space of time, Iran say as part of their deal they're going to open up the Strait of Hormuz and then suddenly they close them again. Why? Cuz they're a bit offended by something America did. Who exactly is the victor here? Who is the one that's been defeated?
One of the fundamental errors that's being made is this assumption that anything about Iran's agreement to a deal can be trusted. Ben Shapiro breaks this down in really clear detail. I would encourage you to watch this so you have clarity and you can share it with others on why this memorandum of understanding and potential deal with Iran is a complete dead end. The road to nowhere. In fact, no, it's not a road to nowhere. It's a road to destruction.
I actually want to share with you before I share show you this clip of Ben Shapiro, this great quote that I I saw. There's a quote attributed to Winston Churchill having said this to Neville Chamberlain I don't know if it actually was said, but it's it's I've heard it. That you were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war. That's the point. That there's a total miscalculation in thinking that we're ending the forever war. That's not the way you end the forever war. Have a watch of Ben Shapiro and I'll give you some more thoughts afterwards.
And also reminder, if you haven't already, please subscribe to the channel, like, hype, comment cuz it really helps us to get the message out there and to keep delivering these videos for you.
>> Why did Iran sign? Well, I mean they get a few things aside from the fact that the MOU actually guarantees them some obvious immediate benefits including that America will stop attacking them and that we will remove the blockade and allow them to ship their oil sanctions free. There's something bigger that's going on here. The goal of the Iranian government was to get America to sign on the dotted line. That is a major win for them.
Why? Well, because they're master negotiators and they know one thing. Everyone who signs an international deal at least in democracies has what's called sunk cost fallacy. Sunk cost fallacy is something that reflects all human beings. And you have to fight your way through it. Sunk cost fallacy is the idea, let's say you buy a fixer-upper house and you dump $100,000 into fixing the house and you know it's going to cost you another $300,000 and that it's a money loser. You're only going to be able to sell the house for $200,000. Many people will go ahead and continue to sink the money into the house because they'll say, "Hey, I already spent 100. I may as well spend 300 more to get to the completion of the project." That's sunk cost fallacy. You've already put yourself out there for a thing, so you may as well quote unquote go all the way. In other words, once you say and feel that you like a thing, people feel a necessity to keep defending the thing.
So, this means that Iran wanted to get America's name on the paper. In the belief that America will keep defending the crappy deal no matter what. Which again would mean inherently, as we said before, defending the terms of the deal and also Iran as a credible negotiating partner. Now, this is the biggest problem. Iran is run by thug terrorists who have murdered thousands of Americans and in the last few months alone, tens of thousands of Iranians. They lie like they breathe. Obviously, they violated every deal they have ever signed. They are not trustworthy. They are terror supporters. But now, we obviously have a stake in pretending that they are credible.
Now, here's the thing. They're openly dunking on us. They know this. We're pretending that they're reasonable and rational partners on the other side of the table and they're just dunking on us. So, for example, senior IRGC officer Mohsen Rezaee said, quote, "The proud and triumphant nation of Iran brought the devils of the world to their knees and shattered their dominance. This epic wounds you eternally in history. We mourn over the blood of our martyr leader and there's no balm for this wound save vengeance. United as one behind the supreme leader of the revolution, we await the fulfillment of the conditions." Meanwhile, the guy whose name is on the other side of the agreement, Mohammad Qalibaf, who again is the leader of the Iranian parliament and a murderer, says, quote, "We are at your command. The task assigned by us to the supreme leader is to pursue the realization of the conditions and clauses of the agreement. In the event of bad faith breach of contract and excessive demands by the opposing side, we have no hesitation in delivering a crushing response to the enemy. They were once slapped during the war. If they wish to tread that path again, they'll receive an even harder slap."
So, again, does that sound like a a wonderful, awesome partner? Is that Is that what that sounds like to you? Meanwhile, the United States is out there talking about how wonderful and rational these people are. President Trump, yesterday at the G7, was talking about how, you know, the Iranians are great.
>> We're dealing with people that I think are very rational people. And they were nice to deal with. They were strong people, smart people. I think actually they're smarter than the first and second group. But they're not radicalized and they're, you know, looking to help their country.
>> Okay. And then, of course, J.D. Vance, the Vice President of the United States, who's on CBN News with David Brody, and he suggested that he was not uncomfortable in any way standing alongside Mohammad Qalibaf, an mass murderer.
>> How uncomfortable is that going to be for you? I mean, obviously, you don't you don't support the actions of what he did, but you're going to be standing next to him.
>> You know, it's not uncomfortable. I think what the president would say, and I certainly agree, is you deal with all kinds of people in international relations. Sometimes you deal with very nice people, sometimes you deal with very not nice people. Our goal is to try to make the region safer, but most importantly, get what we need for the American people.
>> Okay. So, again, the Iranians understand that if they are treated as a credible partner, they can play us for fools. If we are more invested in the deal than they are, they can pretend that terms that we negotiated mean what they want them to mean, not what we say that they mean. And that that we will will continue to defend Iran and their {quote} reasonable interpretations. That's the whole game.
And that brings us back to Lebanon and what's been going on over the course of the last 48 hours. So, if you recall, the MOU, which we've gone through in detail, literally point one of the deal reads, {quote} United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war declare upon signing this memorandum of understanding an immediate and permanent cessation of military activity on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake not to initiate further war or any military action against each other, to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and to ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.
Now, that provision can be read in two separate ways. This is why I say a meeting of the minds requires both sides to read the provision the same way. This is why lawyers usually negotiate out agreements like this, so that there's no lack of clarity. The whole purpose, however, of this agreement was to prevent clarity. So, United States had from the outset that this term did not stop Israel from defending itself from Hezbollah, because again, the provision says that there would be an immediate and permanent cessation of military activity on all fronts, including in Lebanon. And Lebanon is a state, Hezbollah is not the state of Lebanon. Therefore, in the American read, this does not prevent anti-terror action in Lebanon. It prevents action against the Lebanese government.
In Iran's read, this is supposed to prevent Israel from defending itself from Hezbollah. And now, we would be a little crazy to try to stop Israel from protecting itself from Hezbollah. Again, Hezbollah is not only a terrorist group, it is a terrorist group responsible for the murder of hundreds of Americans. They killed 241 Marines in Beirut in 1983. They killed another 19 US airmen in Saudi in 1996 in the Khobar Towers bombing. They've been responsible for the collapse of the Lebanese state and continuous terror attacks on northern Israel for decades at this point, literally every single day. Iran says literally point one of the agreement. Point one, the first point is that we, the United States, must stop Israel from defending itself. Which is kind of a big gap, right? I mean, that's a big gap. And everybody just glossed over it to get to a deal.
So, what does that mean? It means the US, in an attempt to make it work, is now basically kind of trying to play it both ways. We'll say, "Sure, Israel has the right to defend itself, but not too hard, cuz then the Iranians might get mad." Now, the easiest way to accomplish this uncomfortable goal is to just lie and say that really you're in favor of Israeli Israeli self-defense, like Israel can defend itself against terrorists, but the problem is they're brutal and vicious. They're so mean. Maybe the Syrians should do it, the Syrian terrorist army. That's what the Vice President has been doing over the course of the last couple of days. Here's what he had to say at his White House presser yesterday.
>> The Israelis, just like everybody else, have to respect this peace process that is fundamentally good for them and good for the entire region. What the president has grown frustrated sometimes is that we seem to be right on the cusp of a major breakthrough in the agreement, and then all of a sudden there's a major explosion that goes off in a civilian population center in Beirut, and a lot of people who have nothing to do with Hezbollah lose their lives. That's not acceptable.
>> Okay. So, he's lying. It's not true. Okay, what actually happened is that Hezbollah fired drones over the Israeli border into the sovereign state of Israel. Again, if there were a Mexican drug cartel that began firing rockets over the border next to hotels in San Diego or homes in San Diego, do you think the Trump administration would say, "Hey, it's a pinprick. Who cares?" Or would the Mexican drug cartels be destroyed immediately? Also, it is not true that Israel destroyed an entire building and killed civilians. There's an actual video of the Beirut bombing. As you can see, it hit a specific apartment, and according to Hezbollah, it killed only members of Hezbollah.
>> Hey, so again in order to make the claim that really, really, really Israel is allowed to defend itself but not too hard cuz they get they get too crazy. That's the that's the stick. We are now basically attempting to draw middle ground where none exists because we believe as Americans that our allies should be able to defend themselves from Iranian back terrorists and Iran believes that we as America should stop our allies from defending themselves against Iranian back terrorists.
So, you know, President Trump he's trying to again tell the Israelis not to defend themselves too much because they defend themselves too much then it might kill the deal. He was on with Mark Caputo at Axios and he says that the Israelis basically will do whatever he says.
>> Are you going to be able to control Israel from attacking Lebanon?
>> Yeah.
>> I will be. I mean, I want to Uh they have a lot of respect for me. And they do as I say.
>> Okay, so I mean at this point I should just point out actually America doesn't do what Israel says and Israel doesn't do what America says and they're both sovereign countries. As noted, the Israelis don't like this deal very much. They think it's a bad deal. Okay. Well, you know, America thinks it's a good deal and so President Trump is doing the deal. That's the way it works. Israel believes it ought to protect itself and so it will protect itself and should protect itself. And this notion that America is going to tell them that they can't protect themselves in Lebanon I I don't see the purpose of it.
Instead, what we have is a a sort of bizarre game in which the United States pretends there's a cycle of violence that just has to stop rather than Israeli self-defense. They again they're our allies. They were flying sorties with us this whole war. It was It was Israeli intelligence that led to the targeting of Ayatollah Khamenei. It was Israeli intelligence by the way that helped with rescuing American pilots, our pilots. Hey, but but the game is that because there was no actual agreement on the terms in the first place, we're going to manipulate the agreement into some sort of bizarre agreement that we never had with them. And that is basically a non-starter.
Okay, and Iran knows this. Iran knows this. Their entire goal is to push Hezbollah to kill Israelis, get the Israelis to respond, and then push the United States to blame Israel for being disproportionate so that Iran won't walk out of the deal. And again, that's a great deal for Iran because if Israel were to listen and stop attacking Hezbollah, Hezbollah could up the ante, take back territory, reset up its terror bases, threaten Israel again, which Israel can't allow. And if Israel doesn't allow it, then Iran hopes the United States will turn on Israel in order to protect a deal that doesn't really exist. Again, the Iranians are really good at this. They're very smart.
And then, if and when the deal falls apart, which again, is extremely likely because the chances the MOU ever turns into the framework for a permanent deal are slim to none, given the fact that Iran and the United States don't agree on the basic deal points in the MOU. Again, the United States says that the IAEA is going to be present to down blend Iranian nuclear weaponry and nuclear materials, and the Iranian government is itself saying they will not work with the IAEA. So, that there's there's really not even agreement on the basic terms of the deal. But, if and when the thing falls apart, then presumably the people who promote the deal the hardest will blame Israel for everything falling apart.
>> on the money there as usual. And you know, the one thing that he said about what did he call the uh sunk cost fallacy? Uh that basically America would feel the need to stick to this deal because they're so invested in it ultimately, which is what ultimately America is signaling when they say to Israel, "Hey, that you can't fight Hezbollah, and don't do that." And showing all this weakness to their critical allies who have this, you know, Iran's enemy is both Israel just as much as it is America. Um and the thing that Iran is going to be seeing from this is that, you know, also, aside from their desperation for this deal, because maybe, I don't know, Trump's concerned about the midterms, his legacy, whatever, thinks he's kicked down the the can down the road long enough now, is also that they're knowing that 2 years from now it's going to be a very different uh president. And so they're banking on that, probably banking on it being Vance or for Rubio or some Democrat, I don't know.
This is one of the worst problems that exists in Western politics, where we insist that what you believe is not actually what you believe. Like Vance, I saw him at the conference saying, "You know, ultimately, I think we realize that we're dealing with some rational peop- people here. Now, it's very different kind of people, and in the end, we both want our countries to succeed." What are you talking about? That's not what Iran wants. And they have this denial. They do the exact same thing with the Palestinian cause. In the end, ultimately, the Palestinian cause is just about human rights and nationalism. And that's what we all want. I was like, "No, it's not. It's about an ideological hatred that can exist within the human psyche, and it can trump the need for basic uh comforts and national success in other ways. Cuz they see their success as being based on predicated on the destruction of Israel, on the West, on America, and bringing about their Islamic apocalypse."
And it's it's almost a lack of respect to your enemies to not actually listen to what they say, and believe that they mean what they say. This is one of the fundamental problems that exists in the uh the Western world. We don't listen to the Islamic terrorists, whether they're state-sponsored, whether they're uh you know, the causes like the Palestinian cause, whatever it is. We insist they don't really believe what it is they believe. Instead, they're just What they believe is just like what we want as Western countries. And this is part of the fundamental category error that's being applied to this conflict here.
This is a Hilarian Nazi-like evil, and the only way you destroy that is unconditional surrender. And bringing this state to its knees, which can be done, which Trump said he wants to do earlier on, but now is suddenly reneging on for whatever reason. He talks a big talk, but is he actually prepared to carry through? That's the key question here. Right now, it's kind of weakness. I guarantee you if this was being done by a Democrat, people that are rushing to defend President Trump would be like, "What on earth is this person doing? This is terrible. This is awful." And they'd see it clearly. I know there are others who think, "No, no, come on, Ollie, there's four-D chess being played." I'm not so sure. Convince me of that. Prove it. Don't even prove it. Just provide me with convincing evidence.
It is high time that we see all these conflicts that we're seeing, the Israeli-Arab conflicts. Israeli-Israeli. As someone said to me recently, said, "Stop calling it the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian cause is made up. It's just the Israeli-Arab conflict, really." And then someone said, "Actually, you know, you say that, and people think that's smart. That's the right way to say it." No, it's actually the Israeli-Jihad conflict. That's what this is about, ultimately. It's an Islamic issue. Same with Iran. And so, we need to be as clear-eyed as our enemies are about what this is all about, ultimately. And I guess the saddest part of all is we do have the ability to finish the job. Israel or America or both. But the question is, will we?
And the other great category error that I've been lamenting and talking about a lot is thinking that somehow an end of shooting temporarily is peace. Trump calls, you know, the Gaza peace plan. Hamas is still there. They're going to rearm. They're going to rebuild. Hezbollah, as well. It's not peace. I've said time and again, you should get We should all get this ingrained into our heads. And maybe some make some placards. I don't know. That say the following. Peace is not when the shooting ends, it's when the threat ends.
Hey, just quickly, our new documentary lifts the lid on one of the most controversial words in the whole Israeli-Arab conflict. Don't know what I'm talking about? Well, have a watch of the trailer to find out. And if you want to watch the whole thing, just click on the link below in the video description. On October 28th, 2023, just days after the Hamas October 7th massacre, Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, stood before the cameras and quoted it. The Israel critics reacted with horror, but almost nobody stopped to ask, "What does it actually mean?" Amalek, the word is thousands of years old. It appears in the Torah, the Bible, in the Talmud, in the writings of the great rabbis. The Torah command is clear, Amalek must be wiped out. And yet, most people have almost no idea what Amalek really is. Because Amalek is not simply an ancient tribe, it's a force, a spiritual virus, the voice inside civilizations and inside every single human being that whispers, "Nothing is sacred. Morality isn't worth it." And it sees as its greatest enemy the Jews. 3,000 years of Jewish wisdom says this force is the most dangerous thing in the world. And amazingly, the Talmud, written almost 2,000 years ago, names a place it calls Germamia, and it predicts, "If this force were ever fully unleashed, it would destroy the world." Germamia sounds familiar. Centuries later, the Jewish thinkers who crawled out of the Nazi death camps >> [music] >> sat with that passage and felt the ground move beneath them. In this J-TV Plus documentary, we're going to reveal what Amalek really is, what the commandment to eliminate Amalek really means, and why its defeat is the condition for the redemption of the world. To watch this JTV Plus documentary and access much more premium content, click on the link in the video description.