Transcription
How are you, man? I'm doing well. Doing well, thank you. And you? Good. Been a while? A while? Yes. Well, I spoke with Azie once in the last few weeks. Oh, okay. What? You didn't want to speak to me that day? I asked for you specifically and she told me that you didn't want to talk to me. Oh, [ __ ] Uh, well, good to speak to you again, man. Uh, all right. So, let's um I'm going to ask you first about the attack that happened um yesterday to try to get your I'm trying to understand what the Iranians are trying to achieve, what the Americans are trying to achieve. I've have my own theory. So, I want to start with that and talking about the latest developments, but then the later part of the discussion, I want to get your thoughts on something something bigger because you always look at everything from a holistic level, from a geopolitical and global level. And I want to talk about the rhetoric we're hearing from Israel about Turkey and Egypt, which really took me by surprise considering they just lost to Iran. So, the timing of it was a bit odd. But let's start with the strike. So, yesterday, two days ago, Iran struck a vessel. Let's go before that. 3 days ago, Oman said they'll open a passageway on their side of the Strait of Hormuz, the south. Iran put out a statement saying that that we're not happy with that, but it doesn't breach the MOU, but you know, Iran wasn't happy with it. And then ships started going through. Iran warned them and then Iran fired a drone at one of them. Not much damage. It was a small amount of damage. Trump posted about it. We all kind of dismissed it as nothing because we're used to ships getting hit. And then the next day, the US struck Iran. I think some got some information on the strikes. Um, I'll read them later. The US put out a statement on what they struck. It was a limited strike, but they did strike radars and drone I think a drone warehouse and a missile facility in Syriak Island just on on the on the coast. And then everyone was waiting for what happens next. Iran retaliated a very limited retaliation. I think they fired a few drones at Bahrain following Iran's retaliatory attacks. Uh which the attack? So the RGC said it attacked US army positions in the region. Bahrain confirmed Iran launched drone attacks on its soil, but they were all intercepted. And today, uh, we get news that Iran, you know, was not really deterred by America's attack and it went ahead and struck another tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. I'm guessing it's one going through the southern part of the Strait of Hormuz. So, that's kind of what's been going on in the last three days. And it for me, it just seems like there is a power struggle between the two sides. Iran wants to control the Strait of Hormuz and charge a fee. The Americans obviously don't want that to happen. So, as negotiations go on, they're trying to both see how far they can push um and to try to to to achieve their objectives. That's how I see it. And I'm not sure whether I should be concerned about it, whether it can get out of control or not, but I'd love to get your analysis.
So, uh, I I have to give you my impression, Mario, because obviously the most uh um the most critical aspects of this conflict, the most strategic aspects of the this conflict are going to be arguments that are not going to be discussed in public between either sides. But I I have the impression that the Iranians view the current stage of the conflict between Iran and the West as a as a very unique historical opportunity for them to rid themselves of Western colonialism because they have been they have been struggling with this for over 120 years now. Uh first it was the British and then it was the British and Americans. Now it's seems that it's mostly Americans, but it's not just the Americans, it's also the British and it's also NATO. And who knows what else might happen in the future. And so right now, uh, the United States is on the back foot. Uh, we'll just wait for Alex's internet to come up. You should take a few seconds. The producer will just fix it. Um, but I think what if I know Alex well because he's been on the show a few times and I think what he's I'm gonna try to speak on his behalf in the next couple few seconds or couple of minutes as his internet gets fixed. I think what's going to what he's going to talk about is how this is, you know, for the Americans, they tried to achieve an objective that advances their strategic interests and that of Israel. But for Iran, it's not only an existential war, but it's a war to to kind of change the status quo that existed for so many decades. Everyone looks at this war as this war that just started a few weeks ago, a few months ago, maybe last year, the 12-day war. But just like Gaza and the October 7th didn't, you know, didn't out of nothing. And it's an issue that's been going on for many years and many decades, it's the same thing here. Iran since the 1979 revolution, the Islamic Republic coming into power. Since then, it's just faced sanctions and sanctions is a form of warfare, sanctions for decades, and Iran has been crippled by these sanctions. That's what led to the protests uh earlier this year. Um, so for Iran, this is their chance to get rid of the sanctions, but also get rid of that kind of stranglehold by the West having all these military bases around them. Um, that threat always being on top of them, as well as the sanctions, as well as the ongoing pressure. Um, and there's, you know, indirect warfare between the two as well. When you see what's happening in Lebanon, Iran supporting Hezbollah, you've got Saudi supporting groups there and they were all fighting what happened in Yemen with the Houthis and the other groups supported by the UAE and Saudi that eventually directly got involved in the war. These are American allies closely supported or heavily supported by the US. So this has been going on for a very long time and for Iran what they want to achieve is to get rid of the US and the region and become the hegemonic power. So for them, this it's um it's worth a lot more than what it is for the Americans. And that's why I think they'll be a lot more resilient. They'd be willing to continue pushing even if it takes 3 months, 6 months to get what they want. They're patient because they've gone through decades of being under American influence or control. Um on the American side, Trump doesn't have that luxury. Trump has the midterms. Trump has other issues. um the Iran war or the Iran operation was just meant to last a few days, maybe weeks, and that was it and not become a quagmire that he's still stuck in six months in that could cost him the midterms. So, they both have a very different mindset in how they approach the war and that puts that gives a massive advantage to Iran.
Let me give you guys a quick news recap while we're waiting for Alex to come in. I kind of spoke on his behalf because I've I've had him on the show a few times, so I know how he thinks, but you know, if he can probably hear me, so he'll correct if I got anything wrong. Um we're working on his internet right now. He'll be back. So we know there was a today there was a projectile a drone that struck um a ship that's going through the Omani side of the Strait of Hormuz. And uh over the last 24 hours there's someone that wrote a good analysis. I I'll read a summary of it on what's been happening since the attack since the back and forth between Iran and the US. Traffic flow has slowed considerably since the strike yesterday according to AIS. So that's just ships that turn on their transponders. There's always some that turn off the transponders and and try to sneak through, but that's a very small number compared to the total. There was a small cluster of VLCC's, the big ships that were escorted by the US that transited the Strait of Hormuz. These three, only three VCC's were unsanctioned, presenting the largest inbound VCC count since the MOU was signed. That was before the US strike. Following the US strike, so after yesterday, there's one tanker that bravely transited the Omani route, but has stalled at the end of the video. It is yet to be seen what happens. That could be the one that was struck today. There were several interesting U-turns observed over the last 24 hours with one LG tanker, Om Salal, turning around. This weekend will be important to see just how many transit um we see through the Oman lane. I've attached the video. Probably should have showed you guys the video, but I'll let the producers sort Alex's internet connection. Um, so I think everyone's watching now to see the impact. So this is the power struggle that's happening. The US are trying to establish their control of the Strait of Hormuz. The um the Iran are trying to do the same thing as well. And depending on how many ships go through, if a lot of ships go through, that's a point to the Americans. If it slows and it shows that it's slowing and that I expect it to go down that path which is a point to the Iranians and highlights their cons their um their control um over the Strait of Hormuz, but we'll see. Only time will tell and we'll keep watching the ships that are going through.
So, Alex, I tried to kind of expand. I don't know if you could hear me while I was speaking. I was trying to expand on your point because I I know I've had you on the show a few times, but what I said to the audience is um and I'll let you expand from there is that for Iran, this is something that they've been facing. They've been under American control or influence for decades since the revolution when the Islamic Republic took control. So for them, this is something much bigger than one war they won. This is their chance to get out of the sanctions, the control, the bases around them, for them to become a hegemon in the region. So it's they're going to be a lot more patient because something a lot bigger and more important for them. But I'd let you expand to it on it and make the point in a better way.
Yeah. Basically. So I you know I believe that they are um coming from the point of view that you know the pressure on Iran is never going to end and that uh peace negotiations and and ceasefire are going to be used in the same way way as as the as the Minsk accords against Russia. you know, for the West to give themselves time to regroup and prepare another attack. And you know, we know that the this Western colonial assault on practically all the key uh resourcerich regions around the world is absolutely relentless and it never stops. And if they if they lose, they regroup and they try again and they try again and they try again. You know, they had seven countries on the list uh that they were going to take down in 5 years. That was back in 2001. It took them a long time and they and it wasn't straightforward. Uh I I remember in 1987 I was 17 years old the first time that uh Ronald Reagan bombed Libya and uh it took them another 26 years to be able to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi. But they never gave up on that target. They never gave up. So they they just kept coming back. Same thing with Syria. Syria was supposed to go down uh right after Iraq and then you know they they grouped up for their war in 2011. They they launched it in 2013 more or less. I think they were they lost that war by 2015 in October and uh the regime of Bashar al-Assad or the government of Bashar al-Assad survived but still you know then they you know they regrouped they re re um reconstituted the jihadi forces in Turkey for another hurah and in um late November uh and December of 2024 they went for it again. So, these countries are practically under a permanent siege constantly. They're either being infiltrated by uh CIA, MI6, Mossad agents or separatist groups or terrorist groups. They're under attack constantly. And since Iran has remained the last independent power in the in the Middle East, they realize that they are the only target left and they're never ever going to be left alone. So I think that for them from their point of view, this is a unique opportunity to uh free themselves of Western colonialism. And I think that uh the past three months have instructed them, it has shown them that the most powerful weapon that they possess is their control of the Strait of Hormuz. So they're not going to make it easy for the Americans to undo the damage that they have initiated uh by attacking them on 28th February. They're going to make it as difficult for them as possible and they're going to make the best use they can of this weapon. So, I think that they're going to try to uh let caros go to, you know, to Japan, to China, to um India perhaps. Uh let's let's call it less unfriendly nations. Uh but they're going to still make it difficult for the United States and for the West to uh undo the damage uh in the in the economic sense. And so it doesn't surprise me at all that that they would uh that they would uh insist on controlling the Strait of Hormuz. That they would insist on being able to inspect vessels and uh and force them to pay their fees, environmental control, security fees, whatever they have. And that they will never give up on this weapon. This is, you know, understandably the the best trump card that they have in their hand. So, I expect that um they're going to continue playing it in a way that damages the United States and that uh jeopardizes their foothold in the region with the view of evicting them completely. And then I think that uh the uh the idea of tying the the ceasefire to Lebanon is is a quite a clever ploy that because they know that Israel is politically cannot give up on Lebanon that the Israeli government can just withdraw and say like well okay I guess you know if Trump tells us to uh leave Lebanon alone then we will. They have given themselves an open door to restart hostilities opportunistically if it suits them to do so. So on both sides in uh uh Israel, Lebanon and in the Strait of Hormuz they've uh they given themselves um an upper hand and I think that they will continue to play the game this way. Make it difficult for the Americans and uh probably not give Trump any sort of a an offramp that he can that he can even remotely uh characterize as a victory. Um and so these these hostilities are probably going to continue. Whether they're going to escalate into something, you know, a a total renewal of hostilities, I think will rem depend on the on the the way the United States respond because if it's these little pimpric strikes, then maybe mutual pimpric strikes are going to continue. But if the United States uh escalates it and goes after Iranian energy infrastructure, electricity infrastructure, water infrastructure, uh command centers, uh if they try to assassinate Iranian leaders again, then um I think that the Iranians are going to escalate it far beyond where we are today. And we don't know what that means because you know we had Sega Shooyu the Russian former Russian defense minister uh and national security adviser now who said uh Iranians have weapons that we haven't seen yet which are much more powerful than what they have used thus far and then the Iranian generals themselves have also said we have much more powerful weapons that we haven't used yet but if we escalate then uh we're going to use those weapons and the United States is going to take very heavy casualties. I don't know if this is trash talk. I don't know if this is scops or if there's something real behind it, but it's enough for the Americans to think twice about trying again to assassinate the leadership of Iran or to try to destroy their water and electricity infrastructure or their or their oil facilities. So I think that for the time being over the next 60 days perhaps we're going to see a lot more of these pin prick attacks that are not going to really jeopardize uh peace but they are going to constantly remind the world who's in control of the Strait of Hormuz and and it's not Trump obviously.
Hm. Do you agree with me with my belief that it would take a lot it would take something very significant for Trump to return to this war? Because there's there's others that believe that the the mission of controlling the Strait of Hormuz or the importance of the Strait of Hormuz means that the US would not just give it up that easily and they would try again and again even cons despite the cost to be able to gain control of that energy choke point to get leverage over China. Um but I'm in the camp even though I believe that theory I do believe I'm in a camp that is just the war just went so badly for the US that it's just not worth the cost. What do you believe? And we'll get um we'll get Alex's thoughts on this particular question in a bit. Um I'll go through a bit uh continue my news uh recap for you guys. Uh there someone did a post on the violations by the Americans of the MOU. The US has violated four points of the MOU with Iran in just seven days. So we know and I was critical of Iran violating 1 point two days ago striking the ship that violates.5 clause five of the agreement of the MOU which says that they should do their best to ensure the safe passage of ships. So this is the one these are the points that the Americans have violated. Trump threatened to quote not let the Iranian delegation return home right in the middle of the negotiations in Switzerland causing the Iranian delegation prematurely to end the discussion. So that that's violation of clause number two that that says that you should not make threats um to the both sides should not threaten violence towards the other or threaten warfare towards the other. I don't consider that consider that a major breach um like Lebanon I consider a major breach but it's a breach nonetheless and I think the MOU should be taken seriously by both sides. Point number two, Israel continued to bomb Lebanon and fight Hezbollah after the MOU was signed. That one I think is very significant violating point one as the US never exerted pressure on Israel to do so. The US did exert a lot of pressure on Israel to to cease fire. Israel did eventually cease fire but it took a while and the ceasefire till now is not perfect. Um so I would say this is a violation. It was more significant before it's improving. And to be honest I'm seeing and that's why I think Trump's going to walk away. I'm seeing significant efforts from the US from the American side to really not escalate. The strikes yesterday could be disputed, but they really that's why I think they really want to walk away and that's just demonstrated seeing the amount of pressure they've exerted at least publicly from what we're seeing. I don't have any insider knowledge on this one, but seeing the amount of pressure they're exerting publicly on Israel and the fact that Israel's abiding by it so far, it just shows that they're serious about this agreement. Number three, the US pressured Oman into opening the so-called so-called into opening the southern lane in the Strait of Hormuz for ships to use bypassing the Iranian toll booth violating point four number four and number five. Um I don't know why that's violating number four and number five because that's Omani territorial waters. Which we'll go through in a bit.
Alex, did you hear my question about the likelihood of the war restarting? I want to get your thoughts on it.
Yes, I did hear the question, but I think we're only allowed one question at a time on this connection. So, well, okay. So, Mario, we we know that uh the United States cannot conduct a ground operation. So, and then particularly they couldn't even think about one until the summer is over because it's it's very hot. And then what are what are their options? If they wanted to conduct a ground operation, there would have to be a draft or you know how they're kind of starting to take control of a lot of these South American countries like Argentina and Colombia and Venezuela and so forth. If I were sitting at the Pentagon or in the Department of Defense, I would uh I would try to uh recruit uh troops from those countries because you could give them two 3,000. I think the Colombians in Ukraine were being paid 2 or 3,000 a month. So that way maybe you can raise an army, let's say a respectable size army and get them to the Middle East. But that would have to be in uh probably in the winter winter months, you know, or maybe at least November, October, Novemberish. And then we know that there's a November midterm elections where I I don't know if it would suit Trump to be at war in um in um a major war during the midterm elections. That could work if you're attacked first. You know, if if if you get attacked first and then you become a wartime president because you're defending the honor and and of your of your country and getting back at your attackers, kind of like the George W. Bush version, then it might suit you to be at war during midterm elections. But if you're just going to continue a war of choice, that might cost you very dearly in the elections. So, uh, that's a lot of elements. I I'm I'm I'm kind of trying to use my imagination because as things stand today, there's no way that the United States can go into a renewed uh escalation uh as is. But between now and November, or let's say after the summer is over and cooler months set in, there's a there's a whole range of options that they could uh explore. To launch a ground operation into into Iran. And that would be bringing maybe troops from South America, maybe trying to get the Kurds again to volunteer for for war and to mount something completely different from where they are today. And I think that Iranians are perfectly capable of using their imagination and strategic thinking as well. And so they might not want to wait, you know, they might not want to give the Americans the opportunity to to regroup and and and amass ground troops at Iranian borders. Americans are uh amassing uh strategic bombers and and uh refueling aircraft in the region which is a pretty strong indication that they they have no intention to uh let this go, you know, for the time being to to just answer your question for the time being no Americans I think are not in a position to renew hostilities, but they probably are going to uh use the time for the preparations for the next round and then the Iranians can see this coming. So, Iranians might keep, you know, these pin prick uh exchanges going to to simply keep the Americans and Israelis disrupted non-stop and then using the economic weapon to weaken Trump, to weaken his administration.
I think for the Americans to consider any military operation. Again, it's like sacrificing the Gulf, but that's assuming because then Iran will just strike the energy infrastructure in the Gulf if if it starts losing the war. Now, that's that's um assuming the Gulf would allow the US to use the bases there again for war. And seeing how the the Gulf countries are getting closer to Iran, improving relations with Iran, I think that's highly unlikely. And without the access to the American bases in the region, it's going to become a lot harder and their airspace as well. It's going to become a lot harder for the Americans, if not impossible, for the Americans to conduct a new operation against Iran. If they lost the first war against Iran with with full access to their bases in the airspace of the Gulf countries, imagine not having that access. And then if you add Latin American troops, if if that does something, it's unprecedented at least in in the last few decades. If they use Latin American troops for the war, they're not capable troops. So Latin American troops with an American military that doesn't have access to bases and airspace of the Gulf. I just don't think it the option would make sense in any way. Again, the only exception would be if the Gulf allow their use of the airspace that would I don't know why they would. And the Americans accept the fact that the Gulf are going to suffer massively. The economies are going to be destroyed if this restarts. Um, I I agree with you, Mario. It would be a long shot. It would be a long shot, but you know, I'm just basically going on the precedent that they did did use a lot of Colombian and I think Brazilian and some other Latin American troops in uh in Ukraine. And so somehow somehow these rat lines exist. And you know, if you needed to to raise a large army, where would you go? you know, in in the United States, it's going to be difficult. In Europe, it's going to be difficult. Europeans are dead set on going to war against Russia. So, I I don't see them very excited about going uh to to to fight Iran in the Middle East. And then I have to ask myself, why are they so keen on taking control of all these South American countries, you know, Bolivia and Ecuador and Colombia and Venezuela and so forth? So, I'm I'm kind of seeing trouble there. Because you know the economies of of those countries are not doing really well. $2,000 is a lot of money for a lot of South American ordinary men. And if you tell them, hey, you know, come to the Middle East to join our mercenary units and you'll be sending home $2,000 a month, that's that's going to attract a lot of people. And so I I do agree that that's a long shot. Maybe geographically the only place where they could group these troops in the in the in the in the interim is maybe in parts of Syria, Kurdistan, but I agree it's it it doesn't it doesn't look great. Iran is already out of their control for the most part. And I I'm sorry, Iraq. And it there are many Iraqi militias that are loyal to I mean that are aligned with with Iranians. So that that wouldn't be a cakewalk. Even even traversing Iraq could be could be very very difficult.
I'm looking at the team sent me through the cost of the war so far. It's been an expensive war. Very very expensive. They're asking me if I want to show it on screen. Not yet, guys. I think we might go through this a bit later. For now, I want to stick to the theory of whether the war could restart again. Um, but if they do use troops from Latin America, that would be unofficially similar to what we've seen, as you said, in Ukraine and stuff, wouldn't be the troops, Latin American troops joining the US military.
No, no, no. Mercenaries. No, no, obviously mercenaries. I understand, you know, volunteers. Volunteers.
I got it. To help the Kurds or something like Exactly. I I got you.
Freedom. freedom and democracy, you know.
CIA operation type thing. Okay.
Interesting. Interesting. Okay. Um, but you would you still say this is uh is it would you say it's more likely or is it more likely that war would restart or more likely that we've seen the Okay, I'm going to give you two scenarios. War would restart, mission not accomplished. Scenario number two, which I would I would say is more likely but not by much. Scenario number two would be the other extreme. An eventual deal that lead might take years to achieve that leads to the gradual lifting of sanctions, improvement of relations, and the welcoming of Iran to the global economy. I know Israel doesn't want that, but I'm in the camp that I believe and I've been in that camp for for for a few months that Israel the the influence Israel has over the US uh over US Congress and US political for US foreign policies is dropping pretty quickly.
I agree with that. But I don't think it's about Israel so much. Israel is still a pawn in this whole game. And I think that the ultimate objective of of these conflicts is basic colonialism. You know, Iran is a very rich country in terms of resources. Is the fifth richest country in the world in terms of in terms of natural resources. Estimated at about $30 trillion. It has 92 million population. Very well educated population. You need you need workforce, right? Because all those resources are not going to extract themselves. So, um it's the basic colonialism because 35 $30 trillion in natural resources can be $30 trillion in collateral that can be used by western banks to issue loans against that. And the the incentive is because you know the day a bank issues a loan to its client and when its client their client to could be Westinghouse or Exon Mobile or um Hallebertton or you know any one Monsanto any one of these large multinational corporations the day let's say JP Morgan issues a $1 billion loan to Monsanto let's call because now we're going to switch Iran completely to GMO uh crops. That $1 billion in that moment becomes a new asset on JP Morgan's uh balance sheet and and all they had to do is is you know a few keystrokes. So once you have political control of the country, then you can do that thousands of times over again and all that wealth that is in Iran that belongs to the Iranian people starts to get extracted towards western financial centers. That's the that's the key incentive. Israel has served the purpose of enabling this system in enabling this uh colonialism, right? By keeping the region uh always um destabilized constantly at war. If you if you have global dominance in military technologies in uh um in in finance, meaning you know when you need loans, who do you turn to? It's always been western financial institutions, you know, either private ones or things like IMF uh and World Bank. You always turned westwards. there was no other choice. So by having these monopolies on military technologies and on finance uh by keeping countries at war and keeping them con constantly uh destabilized, they were practically always your guaranteed clients. They would need to turn to you for loans because your your economy is always in trouble and you have no money for uh military spending, let alone social spending. And then uh to fight your enemies if you're always at war you need the best weapons available. So again you are always by default turning to western uh providers the western military comp you know military-industrial complex American British French and so forth. So this model worked really nice but the whole purpose was it to allow western corporations to be the main uh vectors of economic development financed always by western money center banks like you know JP Morgan RB you know let's call it uh GIBs the global systemically important banks they they are always there right and the point is that every time one of these large banks issues a loan to General Electric, Loheed Martin, Exon Mobile, whatever you name it, any any company, that loan is instantly a new asset on that bank's balance sheet. And now it's going to be repaid with the money with the wealth generated in Iran. Right? That is the objective. you know, Israel has the whole purpose of Israel is downstream from this system, right? And so this this incentive is never going to go away. And the obstacle is political control of a region or a country. And for as long you said you as you have a government in Thran that has their own ideas about how they're going to develop their country, who's going to get contracts for oil, for agriculture, for this and for that, and they fund it through Chinese banks or Russian banks or or their own banks. That's the wealth that flows to them and not to the city of London or to Wall Street. And I think that this is the key incentive for war. This is key incentive for most wars fought everywhere in the world at the moment. And that incentive is not going away. Uh so there's no I think there's there's no chance of Iran being accepted as a as a normal member of the community of nations unless they surrender their uh sovereignty at least in terms of economics. And you can, you know, like if you if you listen to Scott Besson, this is what he's talking about lately. You know, he's talking about, oh, you know, when the war in Ukraine is over, I think that the Russians are going to have to, not that they're going to have to, that they're going to want to come back into the US dollar orbit. And it's very important that, you know, the the exports from the Gulf uh are traded in US dollars. That's, you know, he's basically telling everybody this is the basis of our power. This is the foundation of our power and we have to keep all these countries trading their exports in US dollars. And you know that means that you have to be always in the orbit of the western financial system because that way the the wealth of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Iran, China, India, you name it, Venezuela, whoever is always uh flowing towards Western money center banks, the the GIBs, the global systemically important banks. And you know that that when they say all all wars are bankers wars, it's absolutely true. And this is why because they're the only ones who have this incentive. And you know, if you just take the corporations themselves, you know, I mentioned Monsanto and and Exon Mobile and so forth. It doesn't matter. All those corporations could do business on on a different basis. And they actually don't care. you know, if they need if they need a billion dollar loan, they don't care if they get it from a Russian bank or Iranian bank or a Chinese bank. A million a billion dollars is a billion dollars as far as they're concerned. It's the JP Morgans and Goldman Sachs of this world that absolutely do care. So they are they are the only let's say segment in western economies for whom is do or die. You know whether they have political control over a nation or over a region is the difference between whether the wealth from that region accrues to them or whether it stays in that country, you know, whether that country gets [ __ ] or goes to the or goes to the alternative the alternative financial system created by China and BRICS.
Exactly. Correct. And so, you know, normally corporations shouldn't care about this because a they don't care who they get a billion dollar loan from and b they don't really have to control, you know, the Exon Mobile could do great business by buying Iranian exports from Iranian companies that extract that oil. They could just buy it in bulk, sell it in the United States and Europe, make a margin, have a great business. But it's the bankers who would earn zilch from that or you know they would the wealth that they would um that they would extract from Iran would be negligible uh in in that arrangement. So Mario this is basically the history of colonialism. This is the whole reason for colonialism. This has been going on for 500 or 600 years. I studied economics. None of this was ever explained to me because it's deliberately obscured. It's deliberately it's deliberate it's deliberately being kept hidden and basically nobody really talks about it but you know when when you come to analyzing why do we have forever wars and why is a country more than uh 10 times more likely to be invaded by the United States if they have uh oil for example there there's got to be systemic reason it's not because American people are evil it's not because American people like war or Europeans for that matter is because there's a system of incentive of incentives that is driving the whole system towards certain outcomes and we're seeing that all the time all the time for centuries you know uh Syria Libya um anywhere basically anywhere that western countries have uh colonized they left in ruins basically they didn't they didn't civilize any of these nations they didn't develop them u they've always left misery and mayhem and it's still going on. So I I think it's really really important to understand the core ultimate systemic reasons for that because you you don't wake up thinking I need to control the Strait of Hormuz or I need my government to control the Strait of Hormuz. I don't either. Most people don't. They don't care. They don't they barely know that it exists or where it is. But there's always obviously a very narrow segment in society that cares very very deeply except that they have perfected for a few centuries the art of concealing their hand. So you see these multinational corporations go in and you see that they act abusively, but you can't quite tell why or why. It's always a certain nation, you know, it's it's it's usually not um I don't know. It's it's seldom Japanese corporations. It's it it's it's seldom um South African banks. It's it's always kind of Wall Street, Paris and and uh the city of London. So I I think this equation is not going to change regardless of how well Israel is doing, whether the support for Israel in the United States is stronger or not so strong, regardless of whether Iran has earned certain respectability and uh should be welcome into the community of nations. I I think it's this I think it's the it's the basic uh wealth extraction incentive that's that's driving all these forever wars.
Colonialism of the 21st century.
Yeah. Yeah. Correct. You know, it's it's dressed up nicer. It's marketed more effectively, but essentially it's the same thing as it as it always has been.
Yeah. I understand what you mean. You've explained it well as always and kind of to link it to what happened now kind of it's part of the bigger picture on how far Iran is willing to go to maintain their control their trump card of the of control of the Strait of Hormuz and the second point is the likelihood that the US will strike Iran again and it shows the importance economically to the system that's been created that is incentivized by forever wars. So that's uh as always you've just given us that looked at it from a holistic lens and a historical lens and I appreciate the conversation as always Alex.
Thanks. Thank you. It's always always a pleasure.
The internet lasted. The internet lasted man.
It was but it was still just one question.
Exactly. True. True. That's why you didn't stop. That's why you just went on. You didn't let me ask another question. I didn't dare to I didn't dare to stop because I thought if I stop that's it. We're getting cut off again.
But I'm pretty smooth. You should watch me. I'm smooth whenever you cut off. Uh because I'm used to it. I carry on. I have like notes going on to kind of keep the flow going and then you jump back in and you keep the flow going. So we did well, man. I think we made it work just by the internet. But next time, guys, you'll be
Make make sure Alex is home, guys. Next time we have him on. Make sure he's home so he has perfect internet connection. Thanks guys. Don, next time you'll be home when we have the interview.
Yeah, that's right. Take care. My
Appreciate it, brother. Good to see you again, man. Thank you so much.
Good to see you. Yeah. Bye-bye.
All right, guys. So, this is Alex Crraer um a regular on the show, someone I really enjoy speaking to and and uh I would love him to be even more regular um on the show. Uh we'll be live again in a few seconds uh with in a few in a couple of minutes with Daniel Levy um to focus more on what's happening in Israel and the rhetoric that's coming out of Israel as well. The threats against um what's happening in Lebanon. While me and Alex were speaking, there was a strike again in Lebanon in uh the same place, Nabat Alabatia al Fala um in southern Lebanon. So there's meant to be a ceasefire, but southern Lebanon is being struck. And the rhetoric in Israel is about Egypt. there's going to be a war with Egypt. Turkey's a new front, a new threat. Just mind-boggling um how it's always about wars and um just never finding diplomatic solutions with those countries. It's about always them being a threat, them being another front, them being um um the risk of becoming the next October 7th. Like they talk about the the uh the the military groups in in um in Syria and as well as Hezbollah. So it's like always the same rhetoric, the same theme for freaking day after day after week after months after year. So Daniel Levy will give will do a good job at explaining that for us. And what would it take to change? What would it take for Israel to start looking at the world differently differently? To start looking at the region differently. So I'll see you guys in a couple of minutes. Bye-bye.