Transcription
Hello ladies and gentlemen, welcome again to Syrian Analysis. I'm your host, Galasian. Thank you very much for tuning in to our weekly show, Cold War 2.0, with our dear friend, historian Dr. Tech Amar.
And please, guys, let me know as you're watching the stream if my voice is sound and clear. I'm using this small microphone. I'm not sure if the uh volume is good on your side and if it's glitching. Last time, you said it's glitching. So please let me know also in the live chat so I could fix that as we were speaking.
But as you may know, guys, yesterday, or a few hours ago, the United States and Iran have reached a preliminary framework agreement to end their nearly four-month-old war, the war of aggression against Iran, extending a temporary ceasefire for 60 days to allow for long-term so-called peace talks. And this was brokered by Pakistan and Qatar. The tentative memorandum of understanding is scheduled to be officially signed this Friday, June the 19, 2026, in Geneva, Switzerland.
Of course, we don't have yet the full text of the agreement, but many media outlets are talking about a few important elements or segments of this agreement. So, what are the key elements that were agreed upon according to the preliminary reports? First, straight up, reopening which was open before the war, but thanks to this agreement, Iran will clear naval mines to reopen the critical shipping lane, and President Trump declared it will be permanently toll-free, though Iranian state media suggested Iran intends to implement maritime service fees after the six-day window.
The second uh agreed element is lifting the US blockade, and which means the United States will dismantle its naval blockade of the Iranian ports. Within 30 days, there will be a ceasefire on all fronts, including in Lebanon. There will be uh release of frozen assets, and this is roughly $24 billion Iranian frozen assets. Then we will probably also witness uh US troop withdrawal from the periphery and the vicinity of Iran. And finally, which is a narrow agenda, this is discussions regarding Iran's ballistic missile program and its financial support of its regional areas in the region, which we don't know much of details about.
But what were we not resolved is the nuclear question. And some media uh outlets claim and say that the Lebanon case was not yet formally settled, and there hasn't been much talk about the arms of Hezbollah as a non-state actor having a big military inside Lebanon. And finally, of course, how would Iran spend the the unfrozen assets? Are they going to finance their allies again? Are they going to improve their positions in Lebanon, in Yemen, or probably other geographies?
Tiff, how are you doing? First of all, what were your first impressions about this agreement? Um, are you optimistic about it? Do you see that this this represents, let's say, the balance of power after this war of aggression against Iran? Overall, how do you evaluate it?
I uh, you know, I first of all, I'm fine. Thank you very much. And thank you for having me. Kvok, hope you're well too. Look, um, concerning the agreement that of course is maybe really the news event of the day, very clearly, right? And we have to talk about it. Um, I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic. Um, I, let me put it negatively, I don't belong to those who sit on the sidelines with actually very limited information and think they know so much better than, in this case, the leadership in Tehran. I, this is a real problem, actually. You know, I'm, I'm a little bit fed up with, um, say Americans or Europeans who have no connection to the region, by the way, um, making a huge hullabaloo, for instance, on alternative media by constantly feeding their many followers this line of, "I know best, and they're walking into a trap. Don't do it, Iran. Don't do it. I know so much better because I've read the Brookings papers."
I'm sorry. I'm tired of this. And I tell you exactly why. This is not a woke point. But you know, Richard Medhurst has a connection to the region. I don't see him this way. I see him as sometimes a little sycophantic for Mike Taste, but I respect him a lot for positions he's taken, for hits he's taken, right? Real persecution in his case. And also, he is actually partly Pakistani, and that's not the same as somebody from Iran. That's not what I'm saying, but he sort of belongs. And so with him, I have some room for very strong interventions. But when there's a pure sort of American, say, sitting in Thailand who constantly preaches about what the Iranians have to do because he knows so much better, right? That smacks to me of imperialism. That's an, that's a reverse imperialist mindset. "I, the white man, know best. And I will now tell you how you little Iranians are too naive to understand the other white men in my capital correctly." And that would be Brian Bellic. I'm talking about. And I've had it, right? So I'm not one of these people. If at a stretch, having a father who is actually from the wider region as well, this is how I got my weird name for German. Even I could claim a little bit of a connection. But you know what? I don't know Arabic. I don't know Persian. I'm a German in terms of culturation. I've studied in the UK and the US. In many ways, I'm a Westerner. I'm a rebellious Westerner, but I'm a Westerner. And one thing I'm not going to do is sit here and preach to the Iranians for two reasons. First of all, it's rude and disrespectful and imperialist, even if you think you know better. And the second reason is, why would I do that? Up until now, the leadership in Tehran has surprised many of us by its massive success. These guys have just defeated the US and Israel. These guys have just defeated the US and Israel. And I'm not saying the game is over. I'm not saying the US and Israel will necessarily settle. Actually, I think they will always try again in some way. But round one is over. They have defeated the US and Israel. And how have they defeated them? By grit, enormous courage, and valor, but also by outplaying them both. Tehran has the better chess players. It's very clear. It's very clear. So, I'm not going to set myself up here and start a a sermon about how this isn't good enough as an agreement. "You're walking into a trap. Go." You know what?
So, here's what with all of this. Having said all of this in advance, I will say my sense is that one thing remains clear. The Iranians have achieved war aims. The US hasn't achieved war aims, and neither has Israel. Please, people have to remember the real US-Israeli war aims were regime change, destruction of the Iranian state, civil war in Iran, decomposition of Iran as a functioning society. The real war aim was to do to Iran what they've done to Syria.
Yes.
Even worse. Even worse, Dick, because it would turn worse in in Iran.
Well, you know what I mean, right? None of this has happened. Instead, it is the United States that's on the back foot. And it is the United States that for various reasons, which we can go into, it's the United States leadership here that has had to come and meet Iran. Actually, now Iran has also not been able and not been willing, this is not how they function, to say, invade the US, capture tons of territory, and then, you know, negotiate from that position. No, obviously not. They've massively weakened the US in the region. They've maintained the blockade of Hormuz, which of course the US would have broken if they could have, but they can't. They have withstood repeated attacks. They have retaliated. This is a first for attacks on Lebanon. This is a first. And the Israelis had to take it. Ask me personally, I think the retaliation wasn't big enough. I like my retaliations against Israel to be really big, but that's a different issue. It is a precedent and a big one, right? And we could go on. The Iranians have achieved a lot here, right?
And so here's this agreement that actually may not even work. We don't know. The way that America and Israel works, we do have to consider all of this could still be a ruse. And we wake up tomorrow morning and they've run the worst attacks ever on Iran yet. That's possible with them. I don't think it's likely. I think they mean it. At least the Americans, not the Israelis.
Now, if this is true, the strait has to be unblocked. Okay. But the Iranians can block at any time, and that's what the Americans know. And with, with least cost possible, Tiff, I mean, the United States has to send a navy there. Can block it with drones. And the Iranians have not only shown they can do it, they have shown that the US can't undo it. They have shown the US has to talk to us to get us away from here. Okay. Point one. Trump fantasies about toll-free. He can go and jump in the Strait of Hormuz about that. The Iranians decide who's paying tolls or service fees or ecological fees or whatever they, the Iranians think is the best label. That's all. Now, in Tehran, Trump can fantasize any way he wants. The Iranians will decide this.
Now, the Iranians apparently got some form of phased sanctions relief and unfreezing of assets.
Yes.
It's major. Now, obviously, you can come in here as a purist and you can say, "Well, why aren't the sanctions just lifted immediately and the frozen assets, which is basically stolen assets, returned immediately to Iran?" Yeah, I'd like that better, too. And if somebody would argue with me that in these phase deals, Israelis and Americans have a super rich tradition of cheating. Whenever they say to you, "Phase one, phase two, phase three, phase four," the real meaning is, "We [expletive] you over in phase one, then in phase two, then in phase two." All our broken promises are already lined up for you. That's all the things we won't do ultimately. But again, if the Iranians come to the conclusion in three months' time that, "Hey, you're not unfreezing our assets," they close the strait because they're still there. So it's not that simple, actually. This time, it's not just in Washington's hands at all.
Ballistic missiles. I have no idea what the details are, but here's one thing I will bet with you. The Iranians are not letting go one inch of their ballistic missile program.
And there is no way the Americans or the Israelis can force them.
Nuclear program. Well, let's go back to the simple fact that the Iranians, at least officially, never wanted to build a nuke.
Mhm.
So, the Americans have fought a big war and lost it to make the Iranians not want what the Iranians never wanted.
Impressive. Wow. You show these guys, right? Not a big win. Not a big win. And let's be serious. Look, we have talked about how we do not want on this program to do what some other people do and feed Western propaganda about, "Oh, the Iranians really have a nuke or they're really building one."
Having said that, it is an Iranian decision what they will do in the future, and it is ultimately an Iranian decision what they may want to do in secret. There are circumstances, and the Iranians are certainly in such circumstances, that justify a state being much less than literal about an agreement, especially if it's an agreement with Israelis, which it isn't even directly, or directly with Americans who cheat about [expletive] everything all the time.
So, you know what? If the Iranians are telling the Americans, whether sincerely or not, "This is it. You get the uranium that we only have, by the way, let's remember, because you, Donald Trump, destroyed the first deal, that's why we have this massively enriched uranium, the famous 440 kilograms, and then the others." The Iranian can say to them, "Yeah, we can dilute this under international supervision, fine." But that doesn't mean that they can never build the bomb if they really want to. That's up to them still, right? And I won't go into this because again, it's up to them, right?
But certainly, nobody in the West has a right to complain and go, "Oh, the Iranians have given up on the bombs. That's so stupid."
First of all, if they actually have given up, right? That's their decision. But secondly, if they haven't given up, if they're sort of sneaky, they won't tell you. So, you know, and that's part of the game, right? The way that the Chinese obviously have supported the Iranians with very important satellite intelligence. Have the Chinese told us that officially? No, they haven't. Why would they? That's another case where I'm tired of hearing some anti-imperialists on some show in the West going, "The Chinese have left Iran in the lurch. They didn't do anything. Are you dumb?" There are a lot of things that states do in this world that they don't announce. That's the way it works. You don't like it, I can't help it, you know.
So again, I mean, there really are two levels to discuss this here. One is, what is this agreement really worth for Iran, which is our most important question, and then also for Lebanon and for Gaza and for the Palestinians and for all the victims of Israel. And the second question is, how do we finally get beyond these mind games that we play in the West, including on the left, where we expect countries like Iran to be our champions? They have to do everything right to defeat the US for us, exactly the way we want it to be defeated, because we feel we are all, every single one of us, such a great strategist. Let's, let's, you know, let's drop this [expletive] for a while and let's think about where's Tehran? What do they know? And we don't know. What sort of constraints do they have? Because everybody has constraints. Are they playing a long game? Because look at it, you can say that the Iranians in the past made mistakes in the playing of the long game. For instance, the famous strategic patience, right? That was a mistake, arguably. But even if that was a mistake, look at where they are now. So somehow, on some level, the Iranians have been good enough at the long game to come out the winners against the USA. That hasn't happened for a [expletive] long time.
So, have some respect. Have some respect for these people. They're likely not to be too dumb, not to see what Brian Bellic sees. And if they go in another direction, it's probably because they see and understand more than Brian Bellic, for instance.
Have some feminine respect. Now.
So, I have to make a few sarcastic comments first. Uh, after Tavik said, first of all, I thought that Iran already has a nuke. So it seems that although Iran acquired a nuke, now this deal will take away Iran's nuke. This is number one. Number two, I also thought, the the second thing, I also thought that Iran and the United States are doing, let's say, under the table agreement together to continue this war as long as possible in order to crash the global economy, as some people claim that Iran and the United States are allies and they are conspiring together and they want for this war to be prolonged. It seems that this agreement also proves them wrong. So, the first two people were proven to be wrong.
As for Brian Bellic, as you may guys know, I have invited Brian on uh on this show and I've been also posting his stuff on my X account when I see his nailing it, for example. And when he doesn't nail it, when he didn't nail it, for example, few times in my opinion, I invited him to come to the show and we could have a respectful conversation between Tariq and himself, and he said he's open to it, and then he blocked Tariq on X. That's why I, I think I think I think in this case, um, I will take a position. It's a clear position on the side of Tariq, and I don't, um, want this debate to happen because, um, I think a debate should also be based on people's ability to accept a different opinion without getting really triggered and blocking people. Like, look, if Brian blocked me, I would have accepted it more than when he blocked Tariq because, um, I could be more of a pain in the ass on X than TK. And Tar is truly like a historian, a scholar, an intellectual, a respectful person. I don't understand why would anyone block Tavik for simply disagreeing, and he didn't attack Brian or anyone else. We're talking about literally the the ideas, the analysis. So, everybody is free, guys. Everybody can, of course, you're mostly invited to watch what Brian is saying and also watch what TK and I myself were saying on this show. And people have, let's say, their, you can literally reach to the conclusion that you like at the end of the day, right?
Um, I wanted on this show, we don't, we don't lay down the law on this show. We don't. And we also won't constantly say, as we told you half a year ago, it's exactly happening. We don't. It is not a really nice thing. And this is why, for example, there have been few other theories during this war. And I invited a few who were open to listen and not patronize me. But then I found some people who raised theories were very attractive, but they were, uh, really bashing everyone who doesn't want to, uh, buy the theory as its entirety because theories in political science is not an objective reality. It's not something with concrete evidence. Those are ideas that we share, and then time could prove them either partially correct or correct or completely incorrect. You know, all these things vary. This is not like mathematics or physics that we're trying to do one plus one here. So some people who raised other theories, I didn't invite them because they were as arrogant with us in the online community, telling us like, "We are the idiots and they're the ones who can see through all this deception and we're just sitting on the side and being manipulated." And I personally do not accept that.
But Kog, if I may add one thing, um, you're absolutely right with everything you say, and it's, it's sort of also my fault that it's all come up because I mentioned him by name, but I, I thought, why not be concrete?
Um, I know it looks like it's personal, but it's not. I've, what I've really had enough of, and he's just an example, is Westerners trying to tell people in the global South what they must do. And I'm particularly allergic to it actually from the left because from the right, that's what the right has always done. The right is by nature imperialists. They, they can't even, you know, that's the way they are. You know, you always have to almost have to have pity on these poor guys, right? But the people who claim we're on the left, we are actually with the global South, um, but then always know better. And and that's almost a bit of a business model where they read sort of lectures about how Iran goes into a trap, China goes into a trap. Nobody understands the nefarious West as well as these people do, including these guys in the global South who have been suffering from and fighting against the nefarious West forever in practice. I mean, that's, I've, I've, I've had it with that, you know, just have some bloody respect already. It's enough of that, right?
And the other thing I would like to say, and this is a bit more about Bellic himself, as it were, as a case, when he blocked me, I really wondered why, because I never got into some sort of online battle with him. And I can think of only two things. On this show, I once remarked that I think that there's a bit of a cult of personality around him. And I think...
I think that was the case. Yes.
And I, and I think he promotes that. He sets himself up as infallible. And I think, I, I just find that very unimpressive. Right. But you know, he could easily say this about me. It wouldn't be true, but I would never block anybody for that. In fact, you could say I'm an idiot. I wouldn't block him. That's it. That's not what I do. Right? I might be mean, but I wouldn't block him. So, but the other thing is, and then I thought, what else could it be? And that actually made me interested if it's not that. And I began to look at the way he has treated Gaza. And it is true that he hasn't just openly taken the Israeli side, but I do see him now as somebody who has really muddied the waters and run interference for Israel. I do. And the way he's done it is by bashing Hamas. That is the Bellic position. He has come out and said Hamas is not a real resistance organization. He has spread a completely idiotic theory, I will say it, about how Hamas is basically this tool also of the empire and everything they've done is part of this overarching calculus of these geniuses in Washington. And that is taking away, and I'm not saying this as a talking point. I mean this very seriously. Hamas, whatever you think about it, these are some of the bravest fighters in the world. Brian Bellic may think of himself as a super marine. Hamas has been braver than any marine in the past, maybe except the ones who actually fought in real wars. Not speaking about what sort of war, right, which are often very evil in the US. These people have fought with far inferior weapons against Israel, America, and the West supporting both of them. And they have never given. They have taken incredible. For me, the comparison for Hamas is the people who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. And yes, if this blows your mind, those were Jews. Those were Jews fighting genocidal Nazis. And Hamas, whatever happened on October the 7th, they have been fighting for years now genocidal Zionists, cornered and alone. And I really, really don't like it if somebody treats them as if they are a tool and not a legitimate resistance organization of the Palestinian people, because that's also massive disrespect to the Palestinians, and I really, really don't like the political implications of that, because that's interference for Israel.
I personally, um, have criticized Hamas for a very long time, uh, due to the position on Syria. And then when the massacres started, uh, I had my, what is my duty at the end of the day? I don't want for the Palestinians to get killed en masse. Right? This is our moral duty. I think claiming that Hamas has agreed with Israel to carry out on October 7th is a fallacy. It's completely...
being used, you know, a sock puppet thing.
But my, my theory was that Israel knew about the attack and they let it happen. This is completely different than saying that Hamas, uh, basically agreed with Israel to carry out this attack against the, um, um, the kibbutz and against the military. But Tar, there is, um, I just wanted to say one thing, just quickly, before I move to Israel, because the Israelis are showing some, um, lots of panic and upset on on social media and also in the, um, newspapers. Uh, Richard Medhurst, just a small correction, Tiff. Richard Medhurst's mother is a Syrian Christian from Damascus.
And and his father, I think, guys, please correct me if I'm wrong. I think he's half British, half Pakistani, and they were in the UN peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, and this is where they met, and this is how the situation happened. And, uh, I will, I will also ask, uh, him personally and send him about your ancestry. We need your DNA test. Okay, Richard, just for you to know before we...
That's not what I mean. That's not what I mean. But I'm not that. I'm just joking. I'm... No, no, no, no. I'm just joking. Tic, you know,
because I think some people were asking if his father was Pakistani, and I think his father is half...
Yeah, I might easily got that slightly wrong.
No, no, I'm just making a sarcastic. I think he identifies himself as a British Syrian journalist. So, we take it as he identifies himself. Um, the the former chief of staff of the Israeli occupation forces, historic, he posted, his name is Yair Golan. And for those who know Arabic, that would be a really funny name. Yair. Um, "A tough morning for Israel," he says. "This morning, Israeli citizens are waking up to an agreement between the United States and Iran made over Israel's head. In one major stroke, immense military achievements secured with the courage of our pilots and the blood of our fighters have been erased. While Netanyahu stood on the sidelines, weak, ill, isolated, and powerless, Trump signs an agreement that fails billions to the Ayatollah's regime, leaves the nuclear infrastructure intact, preserves the ballistic threat as is, and throws a lifeline to the murderous regime in Tehran. This is the culmination of long years of failure. Netanyahu is the man who for years sold the public a false image of Mr. Security and in reality became the father of Israel's greatest strategic failure in its history. The man who built the notion of Hamas as an asset, who enabled the flow of Qatar money, who abandoned the diplomatic arena, who dismantled Israel's alliance and left it isolated at the moment of truth. Netanyahu is good for Hamas. Netanyahu is good for Iran. Netanyahu is good for Hezbollah. Netanyahu is not good for Israel." This is the former chief of staff of Israel, Tar. It looks like the public opinion is turning against him, not only from the left, but also from the center-right in Israel. Now, do you see that this is the end of Netanyahu's career?
You know, it should have been the end multiple times already by by ordinary standards, right? Given his corruption scandals and given his incredible crimes. Um, so I, I don't dare make a guess. Um, it, yeah, it could be, but I think that the, the point I would stress is a bit different, which is, it won't make a difference. It won't make a difference. Um, the problem with Israel is of course, Netanyahu is is a horrific figure, right? But the problem with Israel ultimately isn't Netanyahu. The problem is Israel. It is very large parts, the vast majority, I think, of Israeli society that is the problem with Israel.
Yes.
And it is the whole Israeli elite that is the problem with Israel. And that's why if you get rid of Netanyahu, nothing will get better. In fact, in a way, things can can get worse. I know this is perverse, but it's not my fault. That's the situation. Because imagine they replace Netanyahu with some other, uh, who isn't under direct indictment from the International Criminal Court as Netanyahu is. The immediate reaction in the West is going to be, "Oh my god, everything is fine. It's a good Israeli in charge now." And then that good Israeli is going to go on genociding the Palestinians, driving them with terror, rape, and everything else out of the West Bank, murdering and genociding by now the Lebanese, terrorizing the whole region, running vast international networks. He's not going to recall all the secret service operations that the Israelis have told us about. The head of the Mossad has told us, "We've infiltrated supply chains in every country of the world." Those are his words. Nobody will do this in Israel. They are fundamentally the same. I will say that now. I've had it. And the fine distinctions where, "Oh yeah, this is sort of also a butcher, but, you know, he only butchers like three children a day and Netanyahu needed five." Don't interest me. Don't interest me at all. And so Netanyahu falling, Netanyahu not falling, what's the big deal?
Now, what I find interesting about this particular email is that it is still, it is bursting with arrogance because it is also a narrative that says, "We have failed." Um, but the fact that our opponents are winning, Hezbollah, Iran, that fact has nothing to do with them. This is exactly how the Germans handled being defeated, defeated by the Soviets, who really broke their spine. Exactly what they did because they were too proud to accept that these Soviets, who we have said are subhuman, who we have said are the last dregs of humanity, if human at all, they have defeated us, these Soviets. That they couldn't say. So they started telling a story about, "We made mistakes. We, the Ubermensch, made some mistakes." That is still a massive form of arrogance. And it's so typical that it turns up in Israel now. It's not the Iranians have actually defeated us. It's Netanyahu got it wrong. One of us got it wrong. Because usually when we do it right, we always win, right? So it must have been a mistake on our part, right? Couldn't be that those other guys are just better than us, actually, really. Right?
So that's the one thing. And the other thing, of course, is if you look at this message, what it also says is, "What we want from someone who will succeed Netanyahu is to pursue all our imperialist aggressive brutal aims, but better." But better. Nothing else is in this message. There's nothing good here. Nothing good. And, you know, if the Israelis now start going after each other more aggressively than they already do, I'm for it. Because, you know what? When the Israelis aim to destroy other states, to disintegrate them, to set people up against each other in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iran, I want that to happen to them. I will be most pleased if the Israelis manage to end up where they wanted the Iranians to end up, in a bloody civil war. Because if they start fighting each other, they for a while maybe have less energy to genocide and lead war against everybody else. So if the Israelis go after each other, yeah, please let's have more of it. But more than that, I don't see here. More than that, I don't see here. I, because and I will repeat this, and I will repeat it for our friends from the German start shoots, I'm not calling for genocide. I'm calling for the abolition of a state. That's a difference. Nazi Germany was abolished, and that was right as a state. The Germans were not genocided. Get the difference now? We have it in our own history. So, Israel, as many reasonable people by now agree, has to go. Israel as a state has to go. And everything that brings that closer, I'm for it.
But there is something else that could happen to, um, today dropped a new article says, "Humiliated by Trump on the Iran front, Netanyahu may set the Middle East ablaze." I would like to read a few, um, paragraphs of this, because I think those are important. Um, here it says, "For Netanyahu, this is a failure on multiple fronts. The last year or the last year of US-Israeli attacks was supposed to be a culmination of his decades-long obsession to comprehensively defang Israel's capacity to threaten Israel. But the emerging agreement is..."
Yeah, Iran's capacity to threaten Israel.
"...But the emerging agreement is far from that aim. Instead, it seems more likely that Iran will emerge from its sanctions-laden financial deep freeze with the capacity to pump far more cash and munitions into developing its missiles and proxies. The suggestion in recent reports that Iran itself would dilute the highly enriched uranium on its own soil is, to put it diplomatically, barely credible. And then for Netanyahu, yeah, for Netanyahu, the even worse news is that every Israeli can see with her own eyes how far reality has strayed from the prime minister's extravagant, now tired, pledges of total victory and the new Middle East. And the potential Iran deal will make the chasm undeniable. What's bad for Netanyahu's election chances, because there are elections coming now. What's bad? What's bad for Netanyahu's election chances ends up being bad for the Middle East because he will only seek more extreme methods to win. In election season, everything from the independence of the judiciary and the media to the West Bank settlement expansion to the lives of Palestinians and Lebanese is for sale to his ragtag coalition, and everything is in play for the IDF. If Netanyahu is blocked on the Iran and Lebanon, he will go for again." During the same Iran war press conference on March 19, when he said that Jesus Christ had no advantage over Genghis Khan and kicked off a global storm, the prime minister also noted that the function of leaders is to stand and tell people the truth, even when things are uncomfortable. From the moment those words came out of his mouth, Netanyahu clearly had no intention of standing by them. But amid all the spin trying to turn objective failure into truth, there was still a moment that Netanyahu actually spoke the truth. So Netanyahu could also go for an escalation. It doesn't have to be in Lebanon because now Lebanon is in the ceasefire agreement. He could go to Gaza. He could blow up the situation again.
Um, I would to say two things. He, he could actually escalate in Lebanon because, um, Iran, uh, can insist that the ceasefire memorandum of understanding and any future full peace deal will include Lebanon. And I, I believe Iran does sincerely insist on that. Right. But Iran is still making agreements with the US. So Iran is not actually literally making an agreement with Israel, which it can't. That's not Iran's fault. You can't make agreements with Israel. It's an insane entity. I don't even know how one can. But the problem so is the US. But you know the difference. And so here's the problem. Those agreements may actually emerge. Friday may come along. The memorandum of understanding is signed. Next day, next night, Israel attacks Lebanon again. Iran says, "Hey, we agreed to Washington." Washington does this. And says, "Yeah, with us, but not with them. We don't control them. We have nothing to do with that."
Iran might say, "Well, but we know that they are using your military assets to do this." Every time Washington just says, "Yeah, so there is this very specific situation here where Iran might be left in a situation where they make an agreement with the US and the real outcome is not that Israel stops. The real outcome is that Israel goes on attacking Lebanon, but Iran keeps striking at Lebanon, and the US doesn't re-enter. Not openly. The US would always help Israel under the table, but doesn't re-enter. Right? So that Israel, to an extent, to an extent, would be a little more alone than before. Right? So Iran is not in a position, I'm not criticizing Iran. Iran is not in a position to force Israel to stop in Lebanon. Iran is perhaps in a position to force the Americans to say to Israel, "You need to stop." However, we both know that the Israelis and Americans are great liars, and that it's perfectly possible for Washington to say to Iran, "Yeah, we told them to stop," and say to Benjamin, "But, you know what? You can go on." I mean, we all know these games, right? We are not stupid.
So, they can escalate in Lebanon. They can escalate in other places. But here's the problem.
It's true that what Haritz says, Netanyahu is a genocidal mass murderer and he's certifiably insane. Um, which doesn't make for an excuse. He still belongs in hell when he finally croaks. But the point is, of course he does. Of course he does. He's a monster. He's, I mean, he can have tea with Hitler once he's down there. But, um, the point is really something else. Question is, can he escalate conventionally and win?
And that's where it gets interesting because they've been beaten once now. That's where it gets interesting. Now, we also know, and of course the Israelis may be using information warfare here and disinforming us, right? But we have reports that the Israeli army has basically said to Netanyahu, "Don't go on. We are breaking up." And there must be some truth to this because again, please, people, accept the fact that the Israelis are not actually Ubermensch.
No, extremely well-armed bloody thugs.
And a very brave opponent now for years who have bled them, who have bled them, and who are demoralizing them and grinding these bastards down. They're not done yet. But don't you think the Israelis are suffering? And they should. Yes, they're suffering too. So this whole logic that Israel is just in this position to do whatever they want is not true. Israel also has to take into account its very effective opponents. Right. Here is the one thing, and we both know what that is. That Israel can do that the others really can't do. It can begin...
using nuclear weapons. Because unfortunately, thanks to the French and the Germans and other such nasty, disgusting collaborators, these insane fascist Zionists have a nuclear arsenal, which is entirely rogue. Let's repeat that, right? The Israeli nuclear arsenal is entirely rogue. The Iranians don't have a single nuke. I actually think they don't yet, but we had to wage war on them. The Israelis have about 300 nuclear warheads. Some of them stationed on submarines so that they can actually attack everyone in the whole world. And they have a doctrine to go with that. But that's not a problem because that's just a genocidal band of fascists. Why would we mind that they have 300 nukes now? But here's the problem with nukes, right? I'm very concerned with Israel ending up using a nuclear weapon. I have one hope. I have one hope, and I really don't know this. It's just a wish. I hope somebody in the world who also has nukes has told the Israelis, "You do this, you face symmetrical retribution. You saw one nuke at Tehran, we will throw one at Tel Aviv for you."
And that's not because I want anybody to burn up in a nuclear explosion. I hate these weapons even more than others. But yes, this is a case for deterrence. If somebody needs to be deterred, it's the Israelis. Does anybody deter them? I have no idea. It's certainly not happening loudly. Now, however, for the Israelis, it is still difficult to use a nuclear weapon because they do know they would cross a threshold that would invite annihilating retribution, including not necessarily by nuclear weapons. If the Israelis throw five nukes at Iran in a horrific scenario, Iran won't stop fighting. It's not that simple. Actually, Iran would plaster them with everything they have conventionally. And Israel has no strategic depth. So, you know what? Haritz, maybe Haritz too needs to get a little bit the head out of the Israeli ass, liberal Israeli ass, and look around themselves and not think that they are all powerful because they're not.
They're not, actually.
Yes. Actually, Tavik, this is something important. During times of war, I mean, Israel since its creation, uh, they have sold this narrative, whether true or not, to the people in the region that the Israeli army is an invincible army. It's unbeatable. It's undefeated. You can't really defeat this. This is psychological warfare against the people of the region, basically telling them, "This is a force that you can't beat. It's better for you to deal with them or..."
It's full of racism, too. "We, the great Israelis, and you, the little Arabs, you know, you can't get organized to beat us." It's, it's, it's...
That's why I think I think Hezbollah, and they played the counter-psychological operation against the Israelis in 2006 and afterwards, of this war in 2006, because the Israelis were defeated. And I remember when Nasrallah came to the speech of victory, he said one word basically describing Israel. He said, "Israel turned out to be weaker than the spider's web." And this has been normalized among the people who believed in in in Hezbollah. So the people started believing in victory because of the 2006 war, which I think, because of this psychological also warfare, or partially, Israel now, um, of course, I'm not saying they were not criminal in the past. They were. In 2006, they had the Dahiya Doctrine. But the amount of criminality they have committed after 2023, 2024, and onwards was unprecedented. And it seems that because they won't...
Right. But I know what you're saying.
Yeah. But they wanted it seems to prove to the people that we are unbeatable again because of what happened in the past. This was this excessive force. It, it, it wasn't only military. They were showing the people, "This is how you will end up if you resist. This is the image that they wanted for the people to remember."
And I think that, you know, I think apparently, with Israeli society, I think it's a very, and I'll say it, it's a very sick society. I'm sure there are exceptions. I'm sure there are sane people there. I, I pity them because it must be very hard to live in Israel as a sane person. But as a society, I think it's very sick. Like the German society was sick, deeply sick under the Nazis, right? It's not just the political leadership. And when you look at the specific emanations of of this pathology, right? The the addiction to rape, which is really bizarre, right? The addiction to sexual violence in general, the addiction to to not just killing, but torture. They seem to be addicted to torment and sadism. They're sick. They're really sick people. And the way they glorified, even when their talk shows, and they they love it. They really wallow in it. But you have to also ask, apart from the psychological aspects here, isn't that also a way in which they try to destroy the will to resist of the victims? Because they're trying to signal to them, "We can't. It's not that we can kill you. Of course we can kill you. You can assume that we can do anything we like, and you can never resist us effectively." That's what they're trying to do this way. Total demoralization, right? And we have to see that it hasn't worked. The resistance has never stopped. In fact, in many ways, it's growing stronger. That's just a fact. That's an empirical fact. The resistance is growing stronger. Again, we can talk about Hezbollah. You and I, we've written it off. We had written it off. And here they are. And here they are. And they're inflicting real pain on them. So...
The Israeli model of sadistic mass violence to establish your domination is actually failing. It's, it's, it's horrible because while it's failing, it inflicts such enormous suffering, enormous suffering. Look, if I had told you about the Nazis in 1944, 1943, let's say, right? Stalingrad has already happened. They've lost Stalingrad. Uh, maybe it's the summer. They've also lost the big battle of Kursk. And I come to you and I say, "The Nazi model of ultraviolent, mass violent, sadistic domination in Eastern Europe is failing." You may very well have said to me, "But look at all the pain they're still inflicting. How is that failing?" And I think Israel is at a point like this. They still have the capacity to make untold numbers of innocents suffer, but that doesn't mean it's winning. That doesn't mean it's working.
Yeah. Oh, Tiff, um, before I move, by the way, to the last part of today's conversation, guys, today, many, many more people have joined this live stream. Usually on Monday, most a lot more people come to join, which is great because today we have Tar with us. And this is also an opportunity for many, many of you telling the live chat, "Tar is a great brain. Tiff's analysis are on point. Tiff nailed it." This and that. Well, if you're on Substack, please subscribe to his work. The link is scrolling on the screen. Substack.com/Amomar. I dropped it in the live chat. It's in the description below. You can find him simply there, guys. If you just type his name. If you're not on Substack, you should be, because on YouTube, at any moment, we could be canceled. And if you're canceled on YouTube, the place where we will post the most will be on Substack, guys. So that would be amazing. If you don't have a Substack, make a Substack because I, I think it's also a great platform for information and intellectual also interaction with people. Um, Yanu, I just don't want to speak about people and individuals, but I will tell you my opinion about him later privately. I know what you mean. I know your question. He's asking about Alon Miz. Alon Miz. He's an ex-Zionist and an Israeli. I don't know if he gave up on his Israeli passport or not. I don't have any any any differences with the guy. Actually, I found him cool. I just found it strange that he made up this theory about the formation of an axis of resistance led by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Golani, Syria. That was something for me from a fantasy movie that would uh would never come into realization, and it's quite clear nowadays that Syria has been put into, uh, the bin. Topic. Joe Kent posted something before the deal, but in the last paragraph, I think this is important, and I would like to read this because it looks like he's hinting, you know, something that I will try to explain and...
Please, uh, let me know if you agree with me. This is Joe Kent. Posted this, guys, just before the deal, right? So he said, Trump is being presented with a binary choice: cut a deal or escalate the war. At this point, the, the reality we are in, based on the conditions we have allowed, I don't know. At this point, the reality we are in, based on the conditions we have allowed, means that either way, Trump will be criticized for cutting a worse deal than Obama's, or will be forced further into war, worse than we have.
A third option: no deal required, just to declare a victory and walk away. Until Israel is restrained, they will drag us back into war, just like they did after Operation Midnight Hammer. Unless we reset the conditions on our terms, we will ultimately suffer an endless cycle of conflict, ICT at the behest of Israel. Trump should reject the Obama-Bush binary and handle this his way. Pull our troops out, cut aid to Israel, say he won, and quietly deal with the Iranians moving forward. This is very important. This way, Iran loses its incentive to choke the s, freeing up oil commerce and avoiding an escalation into war no one wants and which we can't afford. Persia is an ancient and formidable geographic reality. We must deal with them as such. I think he's going one step further into this.
Maybe all I'm saying is these people who don't want for the United States to continue the war, and they're coming from the right. Maybe they think, all I'm saying, just to theoretically, maybe they think they can deal with Iran instead of Israel in the region to continue American dominance on the region. Now that Iran is emerging victorious, we need to deal with Iran to continue dominating the region. But instead of doing it through the Israelis, we can do it through what they call the moderates inside Iran, which is another fantasy in my opinion.
Yeah. Look, um, first of all, I should say it's the first time I've seen this, and it's very good you brought it up. But so, I'm speaking very spontaneously, right? And I might well overlook something. Um, to me, this particular, uh, post by him, by Joe Kent, looks as if he's trying to do what he's, I think, tried to do before, which is drive a wedge between Israel and the US. From a point of view of, um, almost cynical, um, national interest realism. So, the, the Joe Kent approach is to say, Israel is not good for us, the US, right? In, in, in a very conservative way. Um, as you know, you can have all sorts of issues with that approach and with Joe Kent personally, but I have sympathy for that for a very simple reason. I'm, I'm deep down also a pragmatist, like Lenin used to be a pragmatist. I'm not saying I'm as smart as Lenin, but people who study Lenin should realize he was not just a doctrinnaire. He was actually a doctrinnaire and a pragmatist. That's why he was so efficient.
So, I'm a pragmatist when it counts. And if it takes Joe Kent's nationalist Americans from the right to break the sickening link between the US and Israel that has done so much harm to the Middle East, to the Palestinians, and to the world in general, all power to their arm. All power to their arm. If that's their task in history, I, I wish them the best as far as it goes. Now, you brought up something else, which is a more pessimistic interpretation, and you might very well be right, where you see a possibility, if I understand you right, where he seems to be saying, "Look, the new top dog is actually Iran, right? And so, let's try to do something with Iran, right? Let's run a shoo with them, and let's drop Israel."
Yes. I think that's possible. That, that, that's between the lines there. I think you're right. That's a possibility. I don't know. It's possible for me, too. I think there's one interesting point. If that's the case, if he's actually advancing a sneaky argument for trying to bring Iran in, ganging up with Iran, right? It's still different from what they did with the Shah. Why is it different? Because when they did it with the Shah, they also were smoozing with Israel. And if Kent is now saying, "Let's smooze with Iran instead of Israel," even that's progress. Even that's progress. Not that I want it to happen. I mean, it's progress for an American nationalist mind to understand that you got to drop Israel. Whatever else you do, drop effing Israel. It's enough. So, that's sort of progress in my book.
Now, the other thing is, of course, last point, because we don't want to make the mistake where we just focus on what Americans think. We want to also look at the people they think about Iran. There is, of course, another difference between the Iran of the Shah and the Iran now, which is that the Iran now, think of them what you want. Yeah. Yeah. You can have all your criticisms, but it is a government that represents the nation much more than the Shah's government ever did. Yes, it does. Many stages. Yes. Right. Exactly. So, and that's something that somebody like Joe Kent probably doesn't understand. What he understands from his military logic, right, is they've beaten us. And, you know, let's, let's give him credit. I say this without irony. An American military man who can acknowledge that they've been beaten and actually think about what that means. That's unusual. Usually, they can't do that. They're too dumb and too arrogant. That's big. But I'm sure he can't think about deeply why. And there are many reasons they have to do with strategy and so on. But there is a deep reason, which is that this government is deeply anchored in its nation. Yes, they have tensions. Yes, there are many Iranians or few who also don't like them. But there's no comparison with the Shah regime. The Shah regime was basically a parasite on top of that society. Right? So that doesn't work. His fantasy, if his fantasy is we gang up with Iran and then we make Iran into our new client, it will never work. Iran will never be a client. The other reason why Iran will never be a client again like under the Shah is they know you too well. You have put Iran through the ringer for about half a century with everything you had plus your dastardly, murderous Israeli friends. They know you really well. And they also know that if you try to smooze with them now, you only do it because they've beaten you.
They know that. They understand what that implies. Namely, they don't have to be clients with you at all. Yes. That's all. All those ships have sailed. Yes, 100%. Um, Tavik, last question. A short question, a simple question without getting into lots of details. A lot has been said in the past two weeks between Netanyahu and Erdogan, but I want to ask a different type of question. Is it, do you see a possibility of a conflict, whether proxy or direct, between a NATO member and Israel in the region? Basically,
Look, I mean, the flippant part in me, flippant, okay, I won't really say it, but there's a flippant part in me that wants to say, "Man, I'd be so happy," right? Because that will really shake up the Israeli position very badly. But obviously, one can't wish for a large regional war just like that. Um, it's complex. I will say it this time. I will say it's complex. But let me say it a little more. I, I happen to believe, and I've believed this for a long time, that Palestine must be fully liberated from Israel. Fully. Not half of it, not a third, whatever. Fully. Palestine must become Palestine again. Make Palestine great again. That's my position. And the, the way to achieving this, I don't know the future. I may be wrong here, but I guess that the way to achieving this liberation will lead to military conflict. Again, I don't think I think Israel is such an insane society. They won't let go without more war. And there will have to be that, the horrific grip on the Palestinians will have to be pried loose with. So I know.
Have you muted me? It's, it, it was like, my finger mistakenly muted it, and it doesn't work again. You've had enough, right? So, but let me say it again. You won't get away. So, what I was going to say is, I really think that there is a high likelihood that Palestine will be liberated by some form of war. This has happened before. Sometimes you have to fight. Sometimes, uh, uh, it, it, it is, it is very likely that Israelis will not give up without being defeated in a total war. So, um, having said that, of course, when I think about long-term perspectives, very long term, what would be the coalition to do this, to finally drive Israel away? Um, who knows? I don't know the future. Uh, short term, I am sort of happy to see the extremely aggressive statements, not for the first time, by the way, from Israelis towards Turkey and toward Erdogan personally. I'm happy because, um, if there's one thing I have always sort of liked about Turkish policy, one thing, it's, um, the antagonism to Israel. And if there's one thing that I have disliked enormously, is that they've never been serious about it. Let's be very clear here. They haven't even really interrupted trade.
So all the big talk with Erdogan standing in the middle of Israel wearing a Palestinian scarf and going, "Our brothers, we will never leave them alone." You know what? It's enough. You either talk and you act, or you don't talk. That's the way the world works. We can all see it. Obviously, there's the other issue, which is Syria, where I'm completely not, not unhappy. That isn't the word. I'm, I detest what Turkey has done to Syria together with others. Right? I will be clear. But if the Israelis make the mistake of antagonizing this Turkish government or future Turkish governments, once again, my response is, go all. So, you know what, Israel, you want to invite those to be on the other side? I, you know what? Go ahead. Go ahead. Insult them. Insult them as much as you want. I hope they take note.
We can also speak with him in Turkish if he likes Erdogan. If he didn't understand this segment, I can also speak some Turkish and I'm sure T can also help me a little bit, and we could deliver this. I know that Turkey unfortunately has very, um, Turkey is more repressive of, of speech than Germany. And that's saying a lot because Germany is very repressive by now. Now. And I'm not joking. I'm not making jokes about this. And so, who knows? They might not like, you know, somebody might not like this being said. But do they really think nobody sees that they talk big and don't do anything? Yeah. If they want to actually follow up with action on their big talk about Israel, which I'm sympathetic to, bravo. And I mean it. But if they don't want to follow up with action, if they think we're all fools, that they can cheat us, talk big, and do nothing and trade, come on, please. Enough. Yeah, really enough.
Guys, this week the schedule is going to be a little bit different. Today we did it on Monday with Tic because last Friday we couldn't do our weekly show, Cold War 2.0. Our next show with TA is going to be on Saturday, and at the same time, 5:00 PM Central European Time, uh, 11:00 AM Eastern American Time. My next stream with you is going to be on Wednesday. So Tuesday, there is not going to be a stream. Thursday, yes. Then Thursday, there is not going to be a stream. So Monday, Wednesday, and then Saturday. Next week, we go back to our normal schedule. Sooner or later, I could also update you on, uh, about the updates and about the changes. But if you are appreciating what we drew here, guys, the easy thing always to do, just hit the like button as you're watching, as you're going to, as you're going to leave this stream, share this video with your friends, introduce them to this show because Cold War 2.0 is a weekly show with Tar. And also, we have a special playlist only with talks with Tar. Introduce them to Syrian analyst. Tell them about TK, tell them about this show. So they could also come every week and watch this show. That would be a great help. And only if you want and only if you can support this independent work. There is a link scrolling on the screen, patreon.com/syrianaanalysis, and the QR code is also on the screen. If you don't like using Patreon, there are different other links and means in the description below.
This was all for today. Tar, thank you so much, really, for coming and for your great insights. I truly appreciate you, and we appreciate you guys for coming to the show every week to, uh, come watch and listen to our conversation. So thank you so much for doing it, whether you watched on YouTube or on Rumble. And special thanks to our moderators, Johan, and also V access for being present with us. Thank you so much, guys.
Can I add one thing before we start? I'm sorry, it's really spontaneous. I hope I'm not sort of jumping the gun or something. Shouldn't we do a call-in one day, like, as we talk about our, the people who are here with us, as it were?
To do what? Call-in? You know where people get to sort of, no, I don't know, technically it's no longer a phone, but you know what I mean, where people can directly interact?
I, I think, I, I think what we could do is basically those who are, um, let's say, those who are premium members of Syria or their patrons, for example. No, we could send them a link if they want to participate and have a direct conversation or a talk or a question, uh, for you or with. I think we should do some, at least some sessions like that.
Before the floor open. If you, if you guys also know the technicalities, I will do my research about this. I promise you in a week or two, I will come with an answer. But if you know more about it, please let me know in the comments below. I will also take into consider. This is a brilliant idea. We could also engage you in conversation, guys. So let us know also. So with this idea, I think what T presented here is a brilliant idea. So we wish you peace, guys. Have a great week. Peace be upon you, guys, upon your families. And salam.