Transcription
Welcome back. We are joined again by Larry Johnson, a former CI analyst to discuss what appears to be a war coming sooner rather than later to Iran. At least, um, the world has its eyes now on Iran, given that the United States continues to mobilize more and more military assets to the region. Um, how should we read this? Is this preparation for war, or is this just, uh, the US building up, uh, well, some show of strength during negotiations?
Well, I was hoping it was simply a, you know, an intimidation gesture, but what, what I'm hearing from, uh, friends that are still involved with national security matters, uh, this is far more serious. They've described it as, um, it's one of two things. This is either going to be a reprise of Midnight Hammer, when the US launched B-2 raids into northern Iran. Of course, that was done in, let's call it, collaboration or coordination with Iran, or it is going, they're preparing for an Israeli attack and to be able to back up Israel. One of two things. And it didn't say it was just this was to try to force Iran to make concessions at the negotiating table.
Um, the other, you know, sort of, I say it as a warning indicator. This, uh, there, there's a former Under Secretary of Defense, a gentleman named Steve, Steven Bryan. Uh, and I know Steven, I, I like him. I consider him, you know, a friend. You know, we're acquaintances via email and Zoom calls. But he is a, he's a, he's a Zionist, and I'm not using that as a pejorative. I mean, that's his view. Believes that God gave that land to Israel and they have a right to, uh, occupy it. However, he is very moderate. He's usually very, he's not a Ben Gvir crazy or Smotrich crazy. Uh, and, and he, he writes good, solid analysis. Well, he put out a p, a piece two days ago reacting to the, uh, recent negotiations between the United States and Iran. It was very emotional. I mean, just tearing Wittoft apart, uh, and describing that Iran is using a rope-a-dope strategy, referencing Muhammad Ali's, uh, technique of allowing a puncher to punch out, you know, until they would exhaust themselves, and then they could, then he could strike back. Uh, so when I'm seeing someone like Steve get that emotional, uh, you know, that there is enormous pressure now coming down on Trump to, to attack, to attack Iran.
And the issue now is, you know, they moved on from nuclear weapons. It is ballistic missiles and support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which is just a, you know, the, particularly the latter, support for Hamas and Hezbollah, a complete red herring. Uh, the, the rhetoric and claims by Israel don't match the facts. The, the, and I saw, you know, I saw your recent debate with his fellow Rosen, Joel Rosenberg. Thought you did an excellent job, but again, he, he continued to put out the lies that massive terrorist attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. And if you just, you know, I challenge anybody, go do the research. There are plenty of AI search engines out there. Just ask the questions. How many Israelis have been killed by Iranian proxy groups since 1982? Because that's when Hezbollah came into existence. And the answer is fewer than 5,000. And you match that up against the 70,000 plus Palestinians that have been murdered by the Israelis during the course of the last, uh, two years and three months. So, it, it, it just doesn't add up. So, this is, uh, Trump is under great pressure now to, uh, to attack. And I think that's one of the reasons Bibi Netanyahu is coming to town, not just to press Trump to do it, but also to coordinate. Uh, I, I think it's highly likely we could see violence in the next, uh, two weeks. I, man, I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong.
Yeah, that I thought that debate was interesting because, uh, it, it was, it's so dishonest. But you see this always with arguments because they say, well, look at this government, they treat their population so horribly, and you know, they, yeah, the whole pitch is quite manipulative. But then when you ask, well, what do you intend to achieve with a military strike like this? Uh, because if you look at all your previous, um, military adventurism over the past 20, 30 years, which one has ever led to success? And then, well, we didn't stabilize any government, but we created chaos, divisions to make sure that it would be weak enough not to threaten Israel. So, so, so you can't have it both ways. You can't say in one hand, the, the key objective is to create chaos and instability and hardship for people, and at the same time, you're doing it because you want to help them. So, it's all, I just, you know, if, if that's your goal, you think that every country in the entire region has to be divided, destroyed, and in chaos in order for Israel's security? Make that argument. I just find it very dishonest that they have to pretend they're humanitarians, like caring about protests, while you're actually doing everything you can to destabilize the economy, pumping weapons in, fueling violence. I mean, it's, it's, uh, again, at least if you say, we want to destroy Iran, at least you have honesty. But it's not even that.
Um, but if we go with the first hypothesis here, though, that the objective is simply, I, I do not believe that's the case, but the objective is to simply put a lot of pressure on Iran, uh, in the negotiations. What actually can be achieved now with the negotiations? Because, uh, it appears that the US has wedded itself to this idea that you don't just get the, uh, nuclear deal, but it has to be tied to Iran abandoning all allies, Iran giving up its conventional weapons, that is its ballistic missiles, that's its entire deterrence, and just, you know, bet its entire future, its existence on the hope that Israel and the United States won't take advantage of its weakness.
>> Yeah. Well, they've, uh, if Iran hasn't learned that lesson yet, they're going to be in bigger trouble. But I think they have. You know, they've got 18 different types of ballistic missiles, um, both old and very modern. They just tested an intercontinental ballistic missile, uh, reportedly successfully tested it. Uh, they've got, uh, five different types of cruise missiles. They've got in excess of 15 types of drones. So Iran has been preparing over the last, you know, they finally came to the realization as a result of the events of the last 46 years since the arrival of the Ayatollah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic, uh, back in, um, you know, February, uh, of, uh, I guess February 1979, that they're at war with the United States. The United States has repeatedly attacked Iran, not the other way around. The, the United States is very fond of creating this narrative that it's, you know, here we are, we're just minding our own business, looking around, and these nasty Iranians come up and attack us out of the blue. And, you know, they cite, look what Iran was behind the bombing of, uh, the Marines. Uh, we call it the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in October 1983. Well, what, what happened in September of 1983? Oh, yeah, that'd be right. US battleships, when we still had those deployed, were shelling Shiite neighborhoods and villages in the Beqaa Valley, killing Shiite women and children. So, you know, when we kill a bunch of civilians and then their relatives or friends retaliate, we act surprised. Uh, the, you know, from the early outset in 1980, even before, even before Hezbollah existed, the United States is encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. And we then supply Saddam Hussein with precursor chemicals used to produce mustard gas, which when all is said and done, when that war was over, at least 500,000 Iranians were dead as a consequence of that war. So, you know, if, uh, if you killed 500,000 of my relatives and countrymen and friends, and I was chanting "Death to Glenn Disen," at least you'd understand why. You know, you killed half a million of my, of my people. And again, here's the United States, a complete disconnect. We don't, we don't seem to understand that.
So, Iran now has, they've, they're almost naive in some aspects. If you go back to October of 2024, um, when they launched a demonstration attack, they were wanting to show Israel what they could do with drones and missiles, hoping that that would persuade the Israelis to back off. It had the opposite effect. They just assumed, "Oh, Iran's weak. Uh, they took Iranian patience for weakness." And the same happened in June, the 12-day war. You continued to lie to the public about, uh, the claim that Iran really inflicted no damage at all on Israel, when the exact opposite was the case. So now Iran's come to the place that they have drawn a line in the sand. Uh, they have been a victim again of an act of war by the West, admitted act of war by Scott Bessant, that we attacked your economy to inflict maximum economic damage on you and your people, and happy about it. Look at, look at what we did. So now Iran is going to be fully justified, and, uh, they're prepared to defend themselves. They're not going to throw the first punch, but if attacked, um, they will then retaliate on a massive scale. And I don't think, and they're not going to stop until there is a negotiated settlement to the war that will include lifting of economic sanctions on Iran. That's where I think this is ultimately headed, because this time Iran's got the backing of China and Russia. There, there are reports that China has provided an advanced 3D radar, one that allows it to, uh, determine, you know, specific locations, specific height, uh, and direction of travel. Uh, if they can use that to identify inbound threats. Uh, they've got air defense systems supplied by both Russia and China. And right now, there are Chinese and Russian warships headed to the Arabian Sea where they are scheduled, uh, towards the middle of February or the first of March, uh, to conduct a joint naval military exercise, which this will be the eighth iteration of it. They started it in 2019. So, it's, it's a far different tactical position situation right now than what confronted, uh, Iran in the surprise attack of June 13th, 2025.
I just, it's very strange to me that, um, the solution every time becomes war. This is not just something that applies to Iran, but it's, uh, whether it's Russia or, well, any, any adversary. I mean, usually when you have any conflict with a large or great power, well, even large in this case, you know, usually people look for areas where the key strategic security interests can be harmonized. So, where could the US respect Iran? And what does Iran have to respect from the US or Israel? And if there's areas it can't be harmonized, then look for areas, ways to manage the competition. If none of this is possible, then, of course, uh, war is, uh, is an option. Uh, that's why I often like talking to people from the intelligence community. At least, you know, they have the, um, the maturity to sit down with the other side, to appreciate their politics, their traditions, cultures, all of this.
>> Uh, exactly. Because, you know, you don't hate opponents. You, you have to be able to chart out the possibility of where, how far diplomacy can go before you go down that path of war. The problem, I think, is the drooling idiots, which is, yeah, which are our politicians, our journalists. It's, it's just the, the hatred and the, the, the contempt for the other side. It's so blinding that this, as you said, now with Iran, the assumption that they're just these bad guys always coming to get us, and anyone who disagrees with that, they're either naive or they're just in their pockets of the mullahs. You know, this kind of extremist radical thinking, it's really very destructive. I don't know where it's coming from, though. The West, if it's just, um, something left over from hegemony, that all adversaries have to be vilified, never understood. It's, it's very strange. We didn't used to be like this. We used to be able to sit down and appreciate the other side. Again, not hating adversaries.
>> But sorry,
>> No, no. I was just going to say, the, it's a combination of two things. Uh, the, the Zionist lobby, starting from the early '70s, has been very, you know, so 50 years of propaganda to persuade the, the United States that Iran, in particular, is the biggest Islamic threat. And, uh, what, what I find fascinating, and, and I saw this firsthand when I, because right after 9/11, you know, I'd been working with the US military Special Operations Command and Joint SOCOM, and the, the level of ignorance about Sunni Islam versus Shia Islam was incredible. They had no, I, you know, one Muslim same as another Muslim. And then when you tried to explain that, you know, particularly in Iran's case, Iran had been repeatedly attacked by these Muslim extremists that, uh, the, that are Sunni. They're based in the, the Wahhabi sect, uh, out of Pakistan. They're known as the Deobandis. But, uh, you know, for many years, Iran was fighting those very Islamic extremists that we in the United States claim attacked us on 9/11. So, right off the bat, that, that should have made us a natural ally of Iran. But then we got this deep, dark undercurrent where the CIA had been funding and enabling many of these radical Sunni groups during the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets and had developed relationships and contacts and then continued to use them and, uh, to the point that we deployed them in, uh, Chechnya, the second Chechen war against Russia. And we just, we saw it recently with Al-Baghdadi. I mean, you know, bona fide came out of Al-Qaeda, part of ISIS, then from ISIS to Al-Nusra, and then from Al-Nusra, he sets up his own, uh, uh, organization, and he's getting, getting hugs in the White House, in the Oval Office, for God's sake. So, you know, this, we, we create this simple narrative about Muslim bad, US good, and then we put, you know, Iran into the bad category without actually understanding how they have been fighting against the very Islamic extremism that we claim that we oppose, and yet, with, through my old, old organization, fund and enable those very extremists. I mean, it's just, that's where you step back and realize the, the world's not as we're told that it is.
>> Yeah. Well, there's a lot of things that could have been done after the September 11th attacks. People often forget that, uh, the first, I think, foreign leader to call Bush was, uh, President Putin, and, you know, essentially saying, well, we, we can cooperate with you. Let's build a partnership on this. And that was a genuine idea that as long as all relations between the US and Russia were focused on the redivision of Europe through NATO expansion, everything will always be zero-sum. But they thought, we also have a problem with, uh, with this fundamentalism. So maybe this can be an opportunity to essentially overcome the legacy of the Cold War and become profound partners. Uh, that was not taken. And as you said, the same with Iran. They actually fought against the same people. The Iranians also approached the United States. Nothing. Instead, we forward, uh, what is now 25 years, and instead, we, not just the United States, but the political West allied itself with Al-Qaeda in Syria. I mean, they couldn't make it up. What are we doing here? We could, the paths not taken are just quite extraordinary.
Um, but on this, uh, path to war now against Iran, as that seems to be, well, that's where we're heading, uh, what weapons have the US assembled? Do you have any clear overview in terms of, uh, because it doesn't look like this is just going for another 10-day war. They need an incredible amount of not just air defenses, but also offensive capabilities if they're going to go after a massive adversary like Iran.
You know, I'm told that we, we've deployed a, a very large number of F-35 fighter bombers to the region. Now, you have the F-35C that operates off of the aircraft carrier, but in addition to that, you have other F-35s that are land-based that are not, uh, going off of carriers. And those are used to try to, what's called SEAD, SEAD, suppression of enemy air defense. You know, if you, we're ever going to talk military stuff, you got to use acronyms because that's all they use. But the, um, the SEAD mission is such. I, I did get a, a message from one of my readers that who is in Yerevan, Armenia, and said that there is a huge US presence, huge buildup of US, uh, C-17s and other aircraft there. Didn't mention if any personnel had disembarked. So the United States is moving forces into the region, but they're doing so on the assumption that Iran's not going to be able to detect, much less stop, uh, these, uh, these aircraft. The F-35 is known as a stealth plane. The, the problem is, uh, the Chinese reportedly have deployed a radar that is specifically designed to detect stealth aircraft. So this thing is, uh, this is, uh, wading into very, very dangerous waters because it's not just Iran that's going to stand up and say, "Okay, we're going to fight back." You know, during, during the 12-day war, they could have bombed all of the US bases. There are at least 10 to 12 different bases scattered from Qatar up through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, uh, into, uh, Iraq, Syria, but they didn't, didn't touch them until the very end where Trump got the bomb and quote, "obliterate Iran," and then Iran struck, uh, the radar station at Al Udeid Air Force Base in Qatar. Then it was over. That, that's not going to be the case this time. You've already had, uh, the Shiites throughout the region, particularly in Iraq, rise up and declare that they will go on a full attack against US interests, US personnel. So, this could rapidly, rapidly get out of control. And the ability, I believe Iran has, uh, the ability to inflict such devastation on Israel. They, they'll, they'll stay away from Jerusalem, but they will destroy Haifa and Tel Aviv, and in, in a way that Israel has never, you know, Israel got hit last time in a way it never been hit before. This time will be much, much worse. And the, the reliance upon THAAD or Patriots or Golden Dome or Iron Dome, they won't work. Iran's got too many missiles to overwhelm and and deplete the air defense systems first and foremost, but they also have missiles capable of traveling at hypersonic speeds and being maneuvered, which makes it impossible for them to be shot down by those three systems. I don't like it when, um, there's too much unpredictability at stake here. But this is what I mean with the United States doesn't know exactly what Iran has. All they know is that the Israelis are warning them that Iran is being able to replenish most of the things they either fired off or lost during the last war. But if we add to this, uh, I think the Russians, as you said, and the Chinese know that this war will not be a short one like the other. It will be much more brutal and prolonged. So I think that they will also find ways of assisting, even if it's just offering intelligence, some radars which can detect, uh, well, better than the Israelis. I mean, in any way they can help with weapons, uh, short of, of course, engaging any direct shooting war with the United States.
>> But, uh, with, with all this unpredictability, it's still very strange that the US is willing to go forth with this. I mean, there's been war games in the past which haven't turned out very well. So the, the decision to still go forth with this, I mean, this is the only almost source of, uh, uh, optimism I have, that it seems too crazy to actually, that they actually will go through with this. But, um, but what is
>> Yeah. Well, no. I was just going to say that. So, unlike what happened on June 13th, 2025, that 12-day war, and then this latest attempt at sparking a color revolution that started on December 28th and lasted until, you know, roughly January 10th, there were primarily Mossad intelligence assets on the ground in Iran. They played a critical role, especially during the 12-day war, of helping to, uh, destroy some air defense systems as well as laser-guided weapons on them. Uh, to my knowledge, uh, Israel was not flying aircraft in and over, uh, Iran. Israel wasn't flying that aircraft in and over Iran during the 12-day war. They were still using standoff. Well, those intelligence networks now, I think have been completely compromised through what, uh, these Iranians discovered last year and then what they've done this time, tracking with the Starlink terminals. So, you start right there that they've got less intelligence capability on the ground. Uh, and in fact, they're, they're more blind now than they ever have been. But then also, we've got the record of the United States with its carrier task force or carrier strike group in the Red Sea last March and now Operation Rough Rider. So in that operation, the Navy was given the specific task of establishing freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. That meant a ship could sail wherever it wanted to go without being harassed or sunk or attacked, and to deplete, degrade, uh, the, uh, offensive capability of the Houthis, as well as to degrade their relationship and support from Iran. Those, those were the three missions. And to do that, at one point, for there was one aircraft carrier arrived, and then a second one. So you had two aircraft carriers, and each of them, uh, with they had five destroyers, four destroyers and a cruiser. And the, and the purpose of those ships is they provide, uh, a defensive screen that they shoot, they have air defense missiles, usually about a hundred per boat, per ship, and, uh, they were to be fired at incoming Houthi missiles. Well, when we look at what, what we've got off the coast of Iran right now, we got one carrier. Okay, so we got half of what we had in the Red Sea. And instead of, you know, a total of five ships capable of air defense, we only have three. And what makes them, what makes it even a weaker situation is each of those, the destroy, the three destroyers, instead of having a full complement of like say, a hundred air defense missiles in these vertical launch system cells. And just imagine, these are, these are like tubes put together. They're in the deck of the ship. The missile goes in, missile fires out. Well, instead of having a full complement of a hundred, they've got only half, 50 to 60. The rest are with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Now, you say, "Oh, well, they, they could fire those Tomahawk cruise missiles with GPS." The, the, I, my understanding though is those ships are staying a thousand miles off the coast of Iran because Iran has drones and anti-ship missiles that can travel more than a thousand miles. And the, what's, what's the range of a Tomahawk? 1,000 miles. So if they fire them off from sea, it's going to barely reach the beaches. It's not like you can travel anywhere it wants in, uh, in Iran. So when you're stepping back and looking at this militarily, you got to say, based upon the situation in the Red Sea, where the United States had every military advantage over the Houthis. Houthis didn't have an air force. Houthis had a limited missile supply. They, they didn't have an air defense system at all. And yet we failed. We completely failed to stop them from interfering with ships that they wanted to attack. And so now we're going up against Iran, who has a modern air force. They have modern air defense systems that have been supplemented by Russia and China. They have an incredible array of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles that are buried underground, underground cities that are well protected, that can't be destroyed from, uh, just a cruise, a Tomahawk cruise missile, as an example. And so we're going to get into that fight. And like I said, I'm sure you're puzzled, man. What the hell are they thinking?
What are the thoughts on the Israeli side? I'm not sure if you're following the Israeli media, but especially now that Netanyahu is set to visit Trump this week already. Uh, but the Israelis, they suffered a lot of destruction last time. Uh, I heard by some that they're planning to sit this one out and only join in if Iran is on its back foot and, uh, it will be, I guess, a low-cost military adventure. Well, hoping that America can do this on its own. Uh, again, one never knows. But, uh, what, what is the impression you're getting from from Israel? Is it, is this fair? Is that this has it has to be done now before Iran can build itself too strong, or is it, are the concerns that Israel is also not ready for this war?
It's, um, I often, uh, you know, to the credit of the Israelis, I often find that their media is at least, at least more honest about their intentions than ours. Um, but I was wondering how, how you see the Israeli view on this.
>> Well, the, the Israeli press is commenting that this, this is an urgent visit by Netanyahu. Now, I cannot rule out that this is not a visit to coordinate a military operation. And because the last time Netanyahu was just in, uh, DC were on the, uh, the 9th, the 40, about 41 days ago, on December 29th, when Bibi was in meeting with Trump, and there they were coordinating on that color revolution that was launched on the 28th. Um, and I think at that time, my understanding was it was anticipated to have the United States carry out an attack as the thing, as the protests culminated in the effort to destabilize, further destabilize and cause the collapse of the regime. Well, that plan didn't work out. The, whatever the CIA and Mossad had promised, it didn't, didn't come to pass. So, here's Bibi now for the second bite at the apple. Trump is under enormous pressure from the Zionist lobby, both, uh, from Israel and here in the United States. I mean, people, uh, like Sheldon Adelson's wife, Miriam Adelson, the donors. You know, I, I wrote a piece at sonar21.com last night commenting on a recent article by Steven Bryan. I, I know Steven. I, you know, I think he's a, a very decent person. He used to be the Under Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, back '81 to, um, '88. So, you know, good, good lord, 40, 40 plus years ago. Um, but he wrote a, a piece just trashing the talks that took place in Oman, just a, a blistering critique of Steve Wittoft and, uh, you know, calling for action, you know, so that Trump's got to do something. So the, the, the, there is no support. When, when I, I guess what I'm saying is, when I see someone like Steven Bryan adopt that position, he's not a Ben Gvir or a Smotrich, you know, he, those guys are crazy. They're fanatics. Steven's not a fanatic. He, I mean, he's a Zionist, but he's usually does rational thought and analysis. He, he was all emotional. And if he's feeling that way, I guarantee you that same view is shared not just within the Jewish community, but within the Zionist community among Christians. And so with that kind of pressure coming to bear on Trump, the odds are he's going to cave. And what is so dangerous about it is we keep telling ourselves how great we are militarily. You know, we, we're like the evil queen in Snow White. You know, mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all? And the mirror is going, "Oh, you are, you're the best. Nobody better than you." And yet we can't step back and objectively look at, okay, how did we do in Afghanistan after 21 years? How do we do in the Red Sea against the Houthis after more than a year, Operation Prosperity Guardian, and then succeeded by Rough Rider? We failed. And, and so without recognizing that we've, we've entered an era where the US military, that as it exists institutionally, it was designed for a particular period of time when technology was different. It's now changed. It, we're witnessing something as fundamentally different as took place from say, the Spanish-American War and then World War I. So in the Spanish-American War, you got Teddy Roosevelt riding up the hill on his horse. Horse cavalry was still important, but somewhere in that next 20 years, with the advent of tanks and machine guns, machine guns in particular, horses were no longer really relevant. And I mean, they were a liability more than an asset. So now look at what we're doing with aircraft carriers. We, we spend, you know, years building them, 10, you know, $15 billion dollars or more, and all of a sudden they can be taken out by a $500,000 hypersonic missile that China has them, Russia has them, Iran reportedly has them. So all of a sudden, you can't use that aircraft. And then just, just before coming on your show, I was reading an article sent to me by one of my Air Force buddies that they're now, they've, the US, think about this. The US Navy has now created a jet, a combat jet and a trainer that they will not allow it to land on a carrier. Okay? So they're developing a new jet technology, but it's not going to be carrier-based. So you're going, so why do we have aircraft carriers, particularly now, like we're seeing with in the case with Iran, we have to keep them so far offshore that the weapons that they have normally that could be used if they were say, a hundred miles offshore, are now basically useless because they are so, the distance is so great. And so with the advent of drones, I mean, just from a technology standpoint, when you realize those destroyers that are supposed to provide the air defense screen, they got a hundred missiles. Normally, if they got an attack coming in, they'll fire two of those missiles, sometimes more, but let's go with just at least two to take out the one target. That's 50. You get 50 shots. And, uh, so imagine that you're flooding an aircraft carrier or the, that destroyer with 300 drones. That can be done. And all you can't shoot them all down, and then they can attack and cause damage. And once, once the destroyer is out, has fired all those missiles, it has to sail to another port to get reloaded by a crane. They don't, no longer, it's not a simple matter of just, you know, grabbing them off some other ship and stuffing them in, in the tube. I mean, so we've, we've created this dysfunctional, highly technical, very advanced, and it's unworkable in a combat environment. And that's what, you know, that's what these people aren't thinking through. And look at, with all of the advantages we had then on paper, I mean, in, say, let's go to Afghanistan, we had tanks, we had artillery, we had, uh, fixed-wing aircraft, we had rotary-wing, you know, helicopters, we had mortars, we had overhead imagery, we, and we're, we're fighting a bunch of guys who are carrying rifles, basically. They got some mortars, they got some heavy machine guns, but they're not, they're not anywhere well-equipped like we are. And we couldn't beat, after 21 years, we had to withdraw because we, we could not win that insurgency. So that's why I said, this, it's one thing to have the most expensive military in the world, but the capabilities, can it actually defeat an enemy or someone you've labeled as an enemy and then control the situation? And it's, it's not just the United States. I mean, it's happened to Israel. Look at, think, think of it from, here's Israel with a 300,000-man army. They have surrounded an area that's 5 miles wide and 25 miles long. They're fighting against a force that again is armed with sidearms and rifles. They're not armed with tanks and artillery and heavy equipment. And with all of that advantage that Israel has, because it's got them completely surrounded, I mean, it's not like they've got an easy way to resupply themselves, and yet Israel was unable, and still has been unable, to defeat Hamas and take actual control of the territory, which means you can walk the streets, you don't have to worry about getting ambushed. So that's where we've got, we got to get away from this Hollywood mentality of military prowess and recognize there are always limits to military power, which, you know, as Clausewitz talked about, the military force is just one part of the politics of it. You got to deal with the actual politics. So, uh, and that's where I think the United States falls short. We refuse to deal with the actual politics of this. Instead, we indulge these fantasies.
>> Yeah. Well, uh, just as a last question, that is, uh, how do you see the, the other countries in the region reacting? Because as Iran has said, uh, this would likely be a regional war, that is, they would strike at least the US bases in the region, but they would also consider countries who join in on this to be, uh, well, they should be held accountable, that is, launching or refueling from their territory. I know Saudi Arabia said that, you know, we're not going to permit it, just to make sure that they wouldn't be struck. Uh, again, you don't know if they're actually going to follow through on this. Uh, but, um, how do you see the rest of the region possibly joining in? And, you know, before you mentioned Yerevan, or, you know, you can also put Baku on that list. To what extent do you think the US could come down from the north? Because, you know, Tehran is all the way up there in the Caspian Sea. It wouldn't surprise me if there would be some efforts of, uh, of using, um, yeah, at least Azerbaijan as a launching pad now that, you know, Trump has brought peace to that region.
Yeah. No, in fact, I think that's how this war will spread. Uh, I, I fully anticipate that Armenia and Azerbaijan will be used as launching pads for attacks against Iran. Uh, they've, Iran has held discussions with the Azeris, but this wouldn't be the first time that that a government betrayed another government. Um, but, uh, I, I think also Iran has contingency plans in place to take out the military targets, and those, they're not big countries. So that's, that's one advantage that Iran has. The other is, uh, Russia, as well, is, is providing intelligence support, uh, to Iran with respect to Armenia and Azerbaijan, because, uh, Putin and his government, they're not real happy with either of those two, because they recognize that the United States has embarked on a plan of subversion to, you know, turn those countries so that they can be used as springboards to attack Russia. So, uh, you're right that I think Saudi Arabia, Qatar, uh, they're going to choose to sit this one out if they can. Uh, Iraq has already basically declared itself fully aligned and supporting Iran, which, you know, what a remarkable accomplishment, because we go back, u, you know, 40 years, and, uh, Iran and Iraq were enemies killing each other, and again, and they were doing so at the behest of the United States. And, and most, you know, most people today don't recall that at least through the first eight years of the, you know, 19, from 1980 to 1988, one of the biggest supporters of the Islamic Republic of Iran and helping them acquire weapons was Israel. So, u, it was only after Saddam, uh, you know, went off the rails and was no longer considered a threat, that Israel turned its attention and said, "Oh, we've got to now be worried about, uh, uh, Iran as a potential nuclear threat." So, you know, the, we always like to portray these things as very simple, black and white. You know, we know who the good guys are, we know who the bad guys are. No, it is, it's a, it's a far more complex, nuanced situation, and unfortunately, the West has no clue about it. Absolutely no clue. We, we go with the cartoon version. The evil, uh, the evil Ayatollah killing innocent children, while America the Beautiful is running around planting trees and and opening flower shops. Could not be further from the truth.
>> Well, uh, just, yeah, as a final thought, that was, uh, something I mentioned at the debate you referenced before as well, that is, when the Chinese came in and began to, uh, seek to improve relations between Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf states, and Iran, uh, what you heard from the former head of Mossad was, hey, listen, if the whole anti-Iranian coalition is going to fall apart, we should also explore our, you know, opportunity or possibility of making peace with Iran. You know, we don't have a shared, we don't share a common border, we don't really have that many interests that has to be in coalition. At least maybe it's time to start talking about when, how, how we can negotiate, what core interests of theirs we have to respect, what core interests of ours they have to respect, at least start to talk. I, it, it baffles me that there's no efforts at all to at least explore the opportunity. I mean, I don't see why Iran would have to be this, you know, die-hard enemy. I think, as you said, this idea that it just runs in their blood that they want to destroy America. It's, I'm, I'm not sure where this comes from. I think if anything, there's been efforts over the years which proves that at least the Iranians look towards the possibility or hoped that they could, uh, uh, yeah, improve relations with the United States. And again, no country on the planet in its right mind wants to have a confrontational relationship with the US, which has the biggest army. So this is, um, no, it's, um, it's absurd to see how far this has gone.
>> Yeah. Yeah. The final thoughts before we wrap up.
>> Yeah. Th this, uh, you know, Iran and Israel once had good relations, and they can have good relations again. And that was under the Ayatollah. So, you know, it is, it's well within this, uh, the scope. Uh, part of this though goes to because Iran has been willing to support Shiite populations in, in Lebanon, in Syria, uh, and in Israel, that, uh, for that reason, Israel wants to destroy, uh, Iran. And, you know, that until, until the Zionist element is reigned in, until, until they get to the point that they no longer believe that they have, that they are entitled by a deity. They claim that this, this deity has given them this specific land and given them permission to kill the people who are already there. I mean, that's, you know, it's a racist, uh, mentality. Uh, but it's, you can't, you can't ignore it. It's real because people act on those beliefs. And, and when, when you feel like you're entitled, you can do whatever you want to these Palestinians and to Shiites, you know, that, that's not going to get resolved easily. But, uh, the thing we have to remember about Iran is since the Ayatollah took over, Khomeini took over in '79, Iran hasn't been going out with sending military adventurers out to attack other countries. They did provide military support to Bashar al-Assad against an Islamic insurgency that the US actually was supporting. I mean, there's the, there's the other. We were supporting the very people who attacked us on 9/11. It doesn't make sense.
Well, Larry, thank you as always for taking the time. I know you're in high demand. And, uh, as always, I will leave a link to Sonar, Sonar21, uh, in the description. And I highly recommend for, yeah, all the listeners to check out, uh, your articles there as well. At least that's what I do. So, thank you again.
>> Well, thank you for what you do because your, your program provides a really, a wide variety of information that people just take time to watch, they'll be better informed, much better than mainstream media. I'll say that. Doesn't take much these days, sadly.
Thanks. All right. Bye-bye.