Iran War: Will the Ceasefire Hold?

Hello dear listeners, conflicted his back, where one day late, but Aiman, I don't think anyone can really blame us, given the total, well, I wanna call it a cluster duck. I also wanna call it a cluster Donald duck that the world and certainly the region witnessed over the last four or five days, holy moly up and down all the way around. How are you feeling? It must have been just, well, I guess thrilling, nail biting, frustrating, (laughs) as the narrative switched back and forth. How have you been keeping? Well, what can I tell you Thomas? Like, I mean, it's been a roller coaster of the past 48 hours. Are we going to see a Armageddon in Iran? Are we going to see, you know, a retreat, another extension, deadlines, you know, the straight of hormones, is it going to be open or not? Will the Iranians keep it delayed? Will there be a ceasefire or a permanent end to the conflict? Are the Pakistanis the right sort of mediators? Will the ceasefire cover Lebanon? You know, or is it just only Iran? I mean, it was and then when the announcement came, oh my God, so yeah, you can imagine. Well, dear listeners, you know, I have to remind you that unlike a lot of people commenting on this war, you know, Aiman is not a professional pundit. He is a professional geopolitical and intelligence analyst and consultant. And so, you know, the fact that he gives us so much of his time fits us in to what is an incredibly busy schedule. I woke up the other day to the news of the ceasefire and we were meant to record that morning. And so I texted him, Aiman, I suppose the events of the last night might delay things a bit. And, you know, I can't reveal, and you didn't tell me the whole truth, but I was aware that you replied from a very high level meeting with very high level decision makers in the region. In real time, I imagine watching, responding, helping them respond to these changing events. So we really are grateful to you for giving us your time. (laughing) No, seriously, I am always indebted to our dear listeners who stuck with us for the past seven years, you know, since conflict had started, I mean, so this is for me, like, I mean, the dear listeners come first. Well, you know, dear listeners, we do thank you and we also invite you to become dearest listeners. If you haven't already done so, subscribe to the conflicted community. In this episode, you know, Aiman, we're just gonna really shoot the shit, as they say. We're just gonna have a conversation about the last few days. We're gonna kind of remind people what happened. We're gonna talk about this ceasefire. We're gonna try to do our best to forecast the near and maybe even immediate future, although that is a fool's errand as we've all learned over the last six weeks. Let's get right into it. (upbeat music) Now, Aiman, I just want to point out that about three weeks ago on this program and, you know, offline, you basically more or less told me this, you said that there would shortly be an intense escalation in the war. You thought that America and its allies, especially Israel, were going to ramp up the pressure on Iran, and of course they certainly did. We saw that while they were putting more and more military assets in place, threatening, you know, to take the islands, threatening all sorts of things. You also said back then, and you pegged it at about a 20% chance then, although, you know, things changed, the escalation happened, that the war would eventually morph into what you called a prolonged multi-phase conflict with lows, diplomatic contacts, and then renewed hostilities at perhaps a less intense level, but that's a perhaps. So I just want to point out that even though, to some extent, the last few days probably came as a surprise not just to the world, but maybe even to you, you always knew that something like this was very possible, if not likely. Yes, remember, you know, sometimes I feel like I am in a, you know, high performance, very strong SUV car, and Trump as a driver. Who dear? And I'm there in the back seat, you know, and he's telling me, you know, a strap up young boy, like I mean, it's gonna be a bumpy ride. I'm gonna be turning, you know, sharply here and there. Even when it happens, I will still be surprised, you know, and so you still like to have the jolt. And, you know, and that's exactly what happened. So he threatened all kinds of things, you know, to happen on Tuesday night. And then, surprise, surprise. There was finally some breakthrough, you know, from the Iranian side, you know, led by Parliamentary Speaker, former IRGC general, former mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Galibaf. So the Galibaf, you know, said, okay, fine, we have 10 points we're gonna present. Now, this is of course like, and basically we'll be talking about these 10 points later, and the 15 points of Trump. We will not mention them all, I mean, basically, but nonetheless, we will focus on the most important ones. So what happened here is the fact that 80 minutes before deadline expired, President Trump comes out and says, that's it, we're gonna have two weeks ceasefire, and in which we will have some negotiations taking place in Pakistan and Islamabad. And of course, that was preceded by a rather clumsy, you know, choreography in a by the White House and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, where he was given a text, you know, a draft, you know, in which he was supposed to copy and paste only in the body of the text. However, he copied and pasted the whole thing that came to him from the White House, you know, and then put it on Twitter, where it says a draft for the, for Pakistan's PM, you know, it's like, - When Aiman immediately, it does make me just wanna, we have to talk about President Trump. We have to talk about this man's personality and the consequences of that personality on this war and on global politics. You know, you have said that this war would happen whether, you know, it was Trump in the White House, whether it was a Democrat in the White House, you know, you've made it clear, the war would happen differently, different theatrics as you've, as you've called it. Because, you know, behind the scenes, and underneath the surface, there is a both national security apparatus, and in fact, a global international security apparatus, which overlaps with finance and all sorts of things, that has been preparing the ground for a conflict with, or a confrontation with the Islamic Republic since the 7th of October. You've made this case, it seems absolutely accurate. And the other day, when Trump threatened to kind of destroy Iranian civilization, an incredible tweet, which, you know, I think just defiantly caused a lot of scandal and outrage because it's a kind of absurd thing to say. You immediately texted me a video of Hillary Clinton, I think, from her campaign back in 2007 against Barack Obama, in which in much more diplomatic, much more reasonable, let's say language, the sort of language you'd expect to a woman or a person like Hillary Clinton to use, she more or less said the same thing, a sign that this kind of the policy, the robust, aggressive, confrontational policy towards the Islamic Republic is not something like in itself outrageous for an American president or an American administration to have. It's an old story. Nonetheless, Donald Trump is different. Yes. Everything about him is different. And you're there in the region, in the GCC, talking to decision-makers with direct access to leaders, you know, and you have to be diplomatic. We understand, you can't necessarily spill all the beans, but it must be very frustrating to be a top level ally of America right now. Even when the policies correspond, you favor the policy, but the personality leading, driving that SUV is so erratic, so not sort of inclined to coordinate properly to speak, honestly, it must be very frustrating. Okay. I will try to explain this as much as I could without ruffling some feathers here. First of all, president Trump is difficult to deal with even in the best of times, but having said that, having said that he is difficult. Yet he is the best president so far as far as the GCC is concerned. And when we talk about the GCC, as well as Israel and Jordan, in the countries that generally align with the US global security vision, and why is that? Because while he is a difficult person, he still gives you what you want, but after much haggling, unlike, for example, with the Democrats, who will give you nothing even after so much haggling? So at the end of the day, you know, people here, you know, in Arabia, in particular, they always say, "Ali Abortefel-Khawati" that, you know, the ultimate wisdom of the story is how it ends. And so from their point of view, with Trump is going to be so much drama before the end comes, but we know that the end will be better in a sense. So now, some people say this is a misled faith. Well, I can imagine why people might say that given the destruction so far that the war has caused. And at the moment, I mean, if this is the Star Wars trilogy, Amen. We are very much at the end of the empire. higher strikes back. Like it seems like we've reached a very low point in that the Islamic Republic has played a very weak hand of cards very well, much has shifted in the meantime. But at this moment, there are analysts who say, well, you know, the Islamic Republic is to some extent politically stronger. I mean, of course this is contestable, but it seems like we're in a dark place. But nonetheless, you're saying the GCC leaders are optimistic still or still feel that the White House is someone they can play ball with. You see, this is one of the most brilliant times for, you know, and I'm not being arrogant here, but for people like me. It's one of the most brilliant times where I feel that I am the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind. And people all across the world, funded academics, retired military even, former politicians, current serving politicians, you know, foreign ministers even in places like the UK in France, you know, including a vet Cooper who is as dumb as she looks. So they all miss the point. I love it, like I mean, basically, because I see them all missing the point. You see, they all focus on the rhetoric. They all focus on the rhetoric from the Islamic Republic, the rhetoric from Trump in particular, and they get exercised with it. They get angry about it, like, and because they are angry with Trump, but other things, Greenland NATO, you know, tariffs, there are many other things to be angry with him. But this is a battle, you know, that is actually crucial in a for the longevity or for whatever left of the Western civilization. So therefore, it is important that we do not lose this war. So for me, I enjoy the fact that the vast majority of these people, including the politicians, you know, basically, and the military and academics and all of that, like in a missed the point, they focus on the rhetoric. For me, we have a saying in Arabic, "Al-Qa'li-Mathulil may done that the final word is for the battlefield." In the battlefield, decide everything. And I am focused as a, you know, an amateur student of four, you know, for me, I focus on military deployments. Not only, you know, the deployment of frontline equipment, such as fighter jets and, you know, air defense and Navy assets. No, I focus also on other things, early warning things, refueling aircrafts, you know, and the shipments, the C-17s, the C-130s, the C-5 galaxy. I look at all of that. And I really sometimes spend time, you know, basically calculating, "I'm a geek." You know, basically, I'm really an nerd here. You don't say. I look at all of these things and I see, like, you know, basically, look, this is my advice to all our dearest listeners. Please do not pay attention to what President Trump says. Everything he does, you know, is basically the exaggeration and his own showmanship, you know, flavor, you know, which is a bit cartoonish and clownish sometime, you know, of what his generals are asking him to do. You know, Mr. President, we need five days to accomplish this, this, and this, by us sometime. Mr. President, you know, our intelligence community, you know, require you, like, you know, to focus on this island, this island, this island, for the purpose of drawing some attention, we need the enemy to move more assets towards these places because it would become easier for us to focus on other locations, just like with the rescue of the F-15 pilot, he was focusing on certain areas in his rhetoric, you know, he blinded the Iranians, you know, as to where the pilot was really there and he, they went and rescued him. It's like, I started to see it, like, basically, he is actually reflecting in a very shaman kind, you know, situation what his generals are asking him to do and terms of buying time or focusing on certain strategic areas, but the reality is this, the last word is for the generals at the moment. I think it's interesting, Aime and what you said, and I want to get back to the question of the GCC leadership and what it's like to work with Trump, but it's interesting what you said about how, you know, retired generals, sitting politicians, et cetera, they get so distracted in their anger at Trump, and it's not just sort of general anger, it's a specific kind of moral outrage. And I'm aware of it, too, just in my conversations with certain friends who seem to be unable to resist that lovely pleasure of moral outrage. And maybe this tells you a lot about the kind of people that have been governing the Western world for a few decades, a kind of aficious, righteous kind of character, rather rational, rather controlled, professional, all of that sort of person, a kind of self-righteous person, really feels entitled to govern, feels like they know it all. And compared to this sort of person, who, you know, people like this, they occupy the chancelaries and the high level bureaucracies, and they're the ones who studied well at school and went to the Ivy leagues, and they followed the rules, and they like rules, and they like things to be done rationally. In comparison to such a person, Donald Trump is just like a massive bowl in a China shop, but he has a certain, you know, in the narcissism, there's a certain wisdom there in the sense that he knows, that he knows how easy it is to stimulate moral outrage in his rivals, or in his enemies, or in his opponents, knowing that anger of that type blinds someone. If you're in a state of moral outrage, you can't see clearly. You're just because you feel very convinced that you know the truth, you feel very convinced, you understand everything, and that serves Donald Trump. I mean, politically, you're saying that it might serve some military purpose, but yes, this is what I find just amazing on the internet and just in general, the way in which so many people cannot resist the temptation to fly into moral outrage and haven't realized yet that that serves their opponent, Donald Trump perfectly. Exactly, and also don't forget that it serves another reason, which is diplomatic, you know, the geostrategic and diplomatic, you know, a strategy here. If you are unpredictable, it's very difficult for the other side to try to outsmart you, you know, strategically. Now, many people are saying Trump is dumb, look what happened, the straight-of-formance is closed. And that is again where we have a problem. People need to understand that wars take time. The problem, Thomas, is the fact that we have become so complacent in confronting eschatological, terror-based regime, such as the Ayatollah's Theocracy, is the fact that there are no wars with that casualties, you know. Sorry, you know, people, I'm sorry, I know that, like in the basic, it hurts, but there is no single war that can, like, you know, basically execute that casualties with that sacrifices, without, you know, side effects, severe side effects. I mean, it pains me that many people are blindly saying there should be no ceasefire in Ukraine. You know, the war must continue. That's the line that Macron and Stammer and Boris Johnson before him and everyone, and I understand it. And, you know, everyone knows my position that I can basically, I lean far more in towards the Ukrainians and their, you know, struggle to resist, you know, you know, a blatant Russian aggression. And you and I also did an episode where we also understood, you know, the genuine Russian grievances. We try to see the whole story. We try, yeah. Exactly. However, in this case, the same people who are supporting the prolonging, you know, of the suffering in Ukraine and the war, which claimed now hundreds of thousands of casualties and caused significant damage to European economy, you know, in terms of inflation and the energy prices and everything, are the same people who are saying, no, no, no, no, we can't have any casualties in Iran, any side effects in the state of hormones. This will have severe effects. They are the same people. What do you think is the reason for that, Amen? Why should European, let's say politicians and diplomats, especially be so kind of hard-nosed when it comes to the Ukraine war? But so naive, idealistic when it comes to the Iran war. Is it because it actually suits their own geostrategic interests or their own power play? Maybe they're calculating that America is on the decline and therefore this is an opportunity for Europe to strike a different position in a new multipolar world. I certainly think that's what France is doing, which is the old game. I mean, France has been doing that for decades. I'm sorry to say, like, basically, that Europe is on the decline. Not in other states. Well, I mean, that might be the case, but Europeans don't seem to understand that. Exactly. Well, of course, they are sleepwalking into a massive disaster. That's only like in 10-15 years. We can see it happening. So they themselves actually have committed suicide by allowing millions of undocumented illegal migration basically into their societies. And you can see the crux in that European societal unity happening and even in the UK. So the last thing they can do, the Europeans, is basically to say, the Americas in decline. Well, in fact, like in the basically it's the other way around. So when it comes to the Europeans, why did they do that? It's because for them, you see, for them and also within that Atlantic alliance between North America, US/Canada, and as well as the European Union/Norway and UK and Ireland, if you look at all of that, there was always two camps when it comes to Iran. It's very important that the listener pay attention to this. So when always two camps, the containment camp and the confrontation camp. Now, in the United States, specifically, but more importantly, because they are the bigger muscle no one else can even close. If you put Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea, the whole of European Union, UK and Canada, on one side and the other side, America will still be 10 times bigger and more powerful in terms of military. So forget it. So they are like in a basically like in the loop side giant here. So the Americans, they have a stronger voice within the confrontation camp, which is the Republicans and some even hawkish Democrats. However, for many years, especially from 2005, all the way until 2018, the louder voice in the United States was always the containment camp, which is represented by Obama and many other people who basically like in the follow his line of politics within the Democratic party. However, in Europe, the confrontation camp is almost like in the basically it's like almost zero. They are hardly heard of or heard from in the US. No, they are in a vociferously loud. They won the argument in 2018 when Trump in a tour up the JCOPI, which I agreed with, like in the way there was solid intelligence that led him to do that. We talked about it. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And so what happened is the Europeans are now seeing themselves tragically, just like Neville Chamberlain saw himself in 1938 as the voice of reason, the voice for avoiding global conflicts. We are not supposed to poke in a basically like in I mean, an important regional player like Iran, you know, Iran should be like in basically Harvard. We have a dialogue with and then I tell them, okay, you know, lovely, you know, bureaucrats and Democrats and liberal like in basically elite, would you like to have a dialogue with Putin, Russia? No hell not. We are not going to do that. Like, you know, we don't reason with tyrants. Okay, thank you so much. Then go fuck yourselves. It's interesting, Amen. It's interesting because you know, during those same decades, you know, one perspective, but I know I'm quite sympathetic to this sort of more what they call, I don't know, realist perspective, although, you know, these words mean very little to me, but it does seem that over those decades, whereas America was pursuing, or I should say the Western world was pursuing what some people say was a was a confrontational stance towards Russia. And as you've just pointed out, a containment stance towards Iran, possibly it should have been the other way around. We should have maintained a containment stance towards Russia and pursued more aggressively a confrontational stance towards Iran earlier. And you know, the other day I did an interview with Jack Carr, the novelist, former Navy SEAL sniper, now historian, about his recent book called Targeted Beirut, in which it tells the story very, very in a detailed way, in a very dramatic way, of the 1983 IRGC lead attack of the US Marines barracks in Beirut. And he says that look, that's it for him and for people of his generation and for people in the intelligence and military community who would have always expected and supported a more confrontational and robust attitude towards the Islamic Republic. He says that was the turning point really that then cast a shadow for several decades, where despite that incredibly gruesome, incredibly violent attack, to US Marine forces who were there as, you know, you and back peacekeepers after all, and had been invited in by the Lebanese president. And they weren't like invading the country. America, Ronald Reagan president at that time really didn't do anything. And he says that, you know, in the course of his book, he actually interviewed one of Ronald Reagan's children. And it said that that sort of tormented Reagan to the end of his life, that event, the attack, and the response, the weak response. Exactly. So I think people could very reasonably argue that America pursued a weak containment strategy towards what was always a very subversive, very actively malign, revolutionary, ideologically committed regime in Tehran. And now, you know, okay, now confronting someone bad late is harder than really. But anyway, it's what's going on. What you see for some people, especially on the European, not only the European left, but also surprisingly, even the European right, people are telling me, oh no, containment and dialogue, my different dialogue. And I say, we will. The only dialogue we heard from them is death to the Shah, which is what's theirs, but also death to every Shah, which is our, you know, kings and shakes and rulers. And of course, like in a, basically like in the, they mean the oil rich monarchies of the Gulf. And I will come to this right now. Why it is important because it's important within the ceasefire context here. Yeah, good. Now we have, you know, Trump announcing that there will be a ceasefire for two weeks. Hurray. There will be talks in Islamabad, hurray. And the US will submit 15 points plan. The Iranians will submit 10 points plan. And these two will be the basis for the negotiations by fine. But as conditions need to be somewhat perfect for the talks to start on Saturday, the 11th of April in Islamabad between JD Vance and Galibov, they will meet there, barring any other surprises. And there are many surprises that could happen in the hour. The idea that it would have come into effect immediately by, you know, roughly three, four I am Gulf standard time. Perfect. And on the condition that these straight-of-formers will, you know, reopen again for international obligations freely without any obstructions, did all this go to plan? We'll find out soon. Yes, exactly. Amen. Let's just take a quick commercial break as they say. And when we get back, we will focus like lasers on the ceasefire. And you know, really, is it even a ceasefire, Amen? You're going to tell us all about it. We'll be right back. We're back. Okay, Amen. Tell us what happened with the ceasefire. The, you know, Donald Trump on Monday said he was going to destroy Iranian civilization unless X, Y, and Z happened. It seemed like that was what was going to happen in the sense that the United States military was going to seriously escalate. But then in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, as you say, this announcement was made very maladroitly, you know, in many cases, but an announcement was made declaring a ceasefire what happened and what's happened since. Well, the straight-of-formers until now remains closed to shipping. Unless if you pay $2 million in crypto to the Iranian IRGC, you will get a pass. So basically only four vessels in a pass since the ceasefire happened. And we are recording this at 2 p.m. Dubai time on Thursday, the 9th of April, which is 11 a.m. UK time. So you can see here that since then, there hasn't been any serious movement in on the straight-of-formers. So that's in itself a ceasefire violation. So that's number one. Number two, there has been 11 ceasefire violations in the immediate hours after that. So Kuwait was attacked. UAE was viciously attacked with severe damage to some gas and oil facilities. Saudi Arabia was attacked with severe damage to Sadorp, Petrochemical plant in Dubai, which basically some of my cousins and nephews actually work there in the same vicinity and the same Petrochemical complex there in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. And then Bahrain was attacked. And Israel continued to be attacked. And so it's like, wow, what a ceasefire. And then roughly about 10 a.m. Gulf standard time after all these attacks happened mysteriously. And some people accuse the UAE as doing it because the US and Israel said it wasn't us. This is on Tuesday now, yeah. So two days ago. Yeah. Tuesday, the refinery in Levan, L-E-V-A-N, Levan was attacked. That's an Iranian refinery. And the Iranian said, is the Emirates who did it? Is the UAE? The UAE didn't deny. They did not confirm. Perfect. All they put out is look, violations of ceasefires are not going to be tolerated. So it was a direct message that, look, do not like an amine shoot at us just because the Americans stopped. Because the Americans stopped. Now we are free to attack back if we want to. So do not like an attest us. And since then, it seems the ceasefire is holding. This is yesterday. Wednesday evening all the way until now. - I mean, some people have said that those violations in the initial hours after the ceasefire may be a consequence of this radically decentralized way in which the Islamic Republic is now run. And that in fact, it takes time to communicate to commanders on the ground that they should stop firing. Because I think it's true to say that the commanders on the ground in Iran have been given a lot of leeway as to the targets and when they fire and what they fire. So maybe that was part of that story. - Exactly, and that's why when the, well, if we believe the story that the UAE did retaliate, not saying that they did, but if they did retaliate, it was their intention to speed up the passage of that memo from the leadership to the disprotunents that stopped firing at us. And they destroyed really like an important refinery for the Iranian side. Now, however, all of these events are happening and the idea is that, okay, the threat of former is not yet open. You know, of course, this is causing considerable contention, but it is not a lethal violation of the ceasefire yet. It's not a lethal violation of the ceasefire. And I think based on people who I talk to here, they believe that the US will turn a blind eye to this right now until Saturday when the meeting really happened in Islamabad. So we will know like, I mean, whether the Iranians are really gonna open the straight-up farmers in honor of this ceasefire negotiations. Now, there was so many, so many back and forth contensions between what was the Iranian 10-point plan, the real one, and what was the 15 points presented by Trump? So now the Pakistanis are being accused of actually giving the Iranians a slightly modified version, kind of like an Amin softer version of what the US 15 points were. And they gave the Americans an even softer version of the 10 points presented by Iran. - Good news. - So there is already some shakhaneri going on here. That's the first thing. And that's why there is a confusion. And Trump is going on truth social several times, saying CNN is publishing like an Amin wrong 10 points plan. That's not what we have received. And actually the Iranian side confirming to CNN, like, I know that's these are the points that we give to the Pakistanis and slide. - I saw those truth social posts. And I do want to tell President Trump, well, like the boy who cried wolf, it's a bit rich now for you to start claiming misinformation. People are saying things that aren't true. - Yes, you know, Donald Trump, you perfected the art of the spreading stuff on the internet that isn't true. - Exactly. So he has only himself to blame to be honest here. So we already started here to see that the expectations management in a sleight of hand that the Pakistanis are practicing might backfire on them because once these two sides meet in Islamabad, I'm gonna tell you, sparks will fly because when Galebaf in a meet JD Vance, and I'm worried about that because Galebaf is a former general, former mayor of the Iran, speak of the parliament, like in a seasoned in a military guy and politician, he's gonna meet JD Vance who's rather like in a basically inexperienced and soft. And so the question is, what's gonna happen there? And also like in the management of the expectations might actually backfire on the Pakistanis in the sense that Galebaf is turning up, expecting that he is going to get some far more concessions than the Americans are ready to give. The same, you know, will apply to JD Vance turning up there, thinking Galebaf is gonna give him some uranium, you know, basically like in a, I mean, 460 kg of uranium when a golden plate. I think this is why I believe that this, this is why I believe that these talks are going to fail because the expectations of both sides are not bridged enough, that this gap is not bridged enough. No way, there is no enough steel in the wall to build a bridge that far between, you know, the two sides positions. That's the first reason why I believe the negotiations will fail. - Before we talk about the second reason though, I just wanna ask you for your analysis on another issue really. It's a kind of broader issue because often on conflict, we present very much the GCC perspective on things and therefore, you know, the GCC Jordanian, Israeli, US kind of perspective on world politics or geopolitics, especially in the region. But then there are these other allies of the United States, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, you know, big land-based allies, big armies, you know, they often are, they're sort of let's say less sexy places than the GCC, than Israel they seem to be less charismatic, important. But I think in this war they have played a role, I mean, that's what I'm seeing. Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan working, you know, they're never supporting this war, opposing it and now working behind the scenes, especially Pakistan, but those other countries as well, to lay the grounds for this, the ceasefire and these talks, which, okay, you say will fail. But what geopolitical geostrategic kind of influence does Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan have? The other half of America's regional alliance infrastructure. - First of all, we have to understand that Pakistan and Egypt are the two faces of one coin, and that is the military enterprise coin. And by the military state enterprise, I mean that a military that is in control of the economy of the country in which they are supposed to protect. - Not unlike Iran. - Exactly. So they share with Iran. Turkey used to be like this in the past, now of course, basically like in them, and we have now long, you know, basically said goodbye to Turkey being a military governed place. Thank God for that. It's not exactly like in the best place, you know, democratically speaking. Still we have like in, I mean, the Ottoman Sultan Erdogan. (laughing) But, you know, but at least like in, I mean, the military is no longer like in, I mean, - Calling the shots there, no. - Exactly. In Pakistan and Egypt, however, the military is like everything. You know, and they control the economy, they control politics, the media narrative, everything. And however, there is also two very important, as well with Turkey, there are two very important, unique things about these three countries that actually show the divide is really not between, let's say, military governments and the GCC, or, you know, Turkey and the GCC. Basically, we are looking at energy rich countries, versus energy import dependent countries. We start to see energy rich, energy poor. This is where we see the divide right now. - I mean, that divide may also inform that discussion we had earlier about Europe's perspective on this war, 'cause it's also energy poor and in America's energy rich. - Exactly. So, the reality is that Pakistan and Egypt oppose this war, by the way, more than Turkey. Turkey is like a little bit like in the back seat. Let's say like in the basically, it's like an aircraft where the pilot is Pakistani, the co-pilot is Egyptian, and the in a navigator in the back, like it basically is, you know, a Turkish guy. And so, Pakistan was in the driving seat, as well as with Egypt, because why, for them, they are the energy poor and poorly led governments when it comes to managing their economies. So, it's their fault. And therefore, they oppose this war because of how much it could impact them. Second reason is also because these two countries, their entire dependence, you know, is on the Gulf being their best ally, their best buddy. And that cannot happen if Iran, the ghost, Iran, the ghoul, Iran the enemy, Iran the scarecrow, is no longer there. You know, and it's replaced by, you know, a far better government for the people in Iran. So, and of course, far better government for the Gulf. And so, therefore, they don't lack the idea of a regime. They want to prolong the life of the regime because the regime acts as, you know, the invisible pump on these fresh, sweet dollars that come into both Pakistan and Egypt, you know, from the alliance with the Gulf, especially when it comes to the millions, upon millions of Pakistani and Egyptian experts living in the Gulf, that pump tens of billions of dollars of cash into both economies. That is where the national economic and geostrategic interest of both Pakistan and Egypt comes into. It's extremely cynical. And that's why the Pakistani Emirati and the Pakistani Kuwaiti and Pakistani Bahrainian relationships are now in the gutter. And the Egyptian GCC as a whole, including Saudi Arabia, relationship are also in the gutter because of the fact that seriously, you're trying to prolong the life of the Frankenstein that basically been haunting us for about 47 years. And now you're trying to save it. So, there are these like in a consideration. That makes sense, you know, any economic and energy shock would be particularly debilitating to Egypt and Pakistan. And their model, their working model here to four, has relied on Iran being powerful so that the Gulf states basically will remain closely tied to Pakistan and Egypt for, they thought security reasons, although that did not pay off and is not paying off. So, Aiman, what about the second reason why you think this ceasefire will not last? We talked about the first one, that Vance and Gali Baf will be meeting in Islamabad, but that there's no real coordination at all between the expectations on both sides and so that it'll just sort of fall at the first hurdle. What about the second reason? The second reason, of course, is Lebanon and this is just a very contentious issue. So, I already predicted that the moment there is a ceasefire between the US and Israel one hand and Iran and the other, that the 90% of Israel's Air Force might that was devoted to attacking Iran will diverge towards Lebanon immediately because they are determined, I've been talking to people from there in Israel. They are determined to finish this problem once and for all they don't want to keep fighting one war after another. They were surprised this time by how ready and rebuilt has been able to do so. But Aiman, what about the first question? Everyone saying was Lebanon included in the ceasefire agreement. This was being contested from the first moment. People were saying yes, there will be no more fighting in Lebanon. Israel was like, "We don't think so. What's the truth there?" Well, first of all, this is why I'm saying there is definitely some chicaneery from the Pakistani side in order to the point that they really, and I'm sorry, they ducked up this whole thing. So, it has become like in a very duchistani kind of way of conducting ceasefire. Conducting, huh? Conducting is crazy. We're going to create a whole new thing where people are going to say duck instead of the other one. So, Pakistan, you think is chicaneery in the sense that Pakistan is the one saying that Lebanon is included but no one necessarily confirmed that? Exactly. I'm absolutely saying that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is actually responsible for this mess. And I will tell you why, because I know Pakistan is quite well. I lived there for a while in a basic like an, I mean, I know the country and its systems, from the, how the ISI work, how the Army work, how the political system work, like in a goodness, like in a basically, I know many parliamentarians there from several parties, including by the way, like in the band MQM. So, it's not like in a basically for my Pakistani listeners, I know that in the whole Karachi mafia thing and all of that and the Liyari neighborhood. So, do not like in a, tell, oh, Iman, what do you know about Pakistan? I know. So, you know, it's like, it's all Bachua's and Pagel's system. You know what I'm talking about. So, let me go back in a basic way to the fact that I know how the, you know, the Pakistani mediators here, which is a general, asim Munir and Prime Minister Shahbash Sharif would have conducted this, in order for, you know, in their desperation to get it, you know, this kind of ceasefire deal, just the deal of having a ceasefire over the threshold, they told the Iranians, okay, you know, what do you need like an infrastructure fire? The ceasefire must include, you know, all the front lines that our regional allies are engaged in, that include Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. So, they went to the Americans and said, look, the Iranians are asking for, you know, one, two, three. And the Americans are saying, well, nothing to do with us, like in a, basically, we're not attacking Lebanon. And so, as for the Israelis, we have nothing to do with them. So, they went back and they said to the Iranian side, right there, I got your back, I got the confirmation from there. Lebanon is not going to be attacked. And the Lebanon is included. And it's like, you can see the slight of hand in the Shakenery here. Again, they very, very, very unique Pakistani Shakenery of actually conducting these kind of, you know, basically negotiations. So, so Iran accepted in good faith, you know, that Lebanon is going to be spared. But it doesn't only reflect, you know, Pakistani Shakenery, as you say, it also reflects the way that the Trump White House operates, because, you know, I think it's believable that Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel woke up on Tuesday as well, a little bit surprised to find that a ceasefire had been agreed, a ceasefire which, you know, does directly impact their own foreign policy preferences. And if America says we've got nothing to do with Israel, well, that's just not true. They've got a lot to do with Israel. So, how was the ceasefire agreement met within in Jerusalem? I mean, and this will get us back to the question of the Lebanon campaign, which is ongoing. Okay. I want to listen to, and dolejmi here a little bit, anyone who believes that BB Netanyahu woke up just like this to find out about the ceasefire and that all of this happened behind his back. You have to be really, really geopolitically naive to believe that. This whole strategy agreed between these two men and between the institutions of both countries, months and advance, every step of it, including the coordination in the military side, logistic side, political side, diplomatic side, espionage, sabotage, everything you can imagine. So, I'm the financial part of it, of course. So, this idea that somehow, you know, baby wasn't aware, baby is upset, baby, no, no, no, no, no. It's like, just get this out of your mind, you know, BB Netanyahu knew an advance, well an advance, what was going to happen. And he was already knew the real reason why there is a two weeks delay. And I will reveal, you know, the real reason. So, one second, one second, we're going to get to that at the end. Let's keep talking about Lebanon. What's happened in Lebanon in the last couple of days. So, BB Netanyahu, you know, taking advantage of this, you know, gap, whatever he wanted, because he wanted to, he desperately needed the Israeli Air Force access to be far more dedicated to the Lebanese problem, rather than the Iranian problem. Because that is where the vast majority of the impacts within Israel over the past four weeks came from, from Lebanon. And so he wanted to deal with it. So, and there was also indications of a coup being organized inside Lebanon by Hasbullah and some of their allies. Wow, really? What, what, what indications? Gosh. Well, I mean, basically, like, as you know, I'm half Lebanese, I have some relatives, like, basically in certain institutions and bodies, like, basically, of the Lebanese state. And there was, you know, significant talk of a coup being organized by Hasbullah and some of their Christian and she had allies who are none aligned with Hasbullah in the past. To actually depose the President and the Prime Minister in particular, and to take over certain parts of the government. There was a possibility that there would be some army leaders who will be joining them in this coup. And so, there was going to be a 80 member plus, you know, including political figures from Hasbullah and other groups. And of course, military commanders on the ground for Hasbullah organized a Zoom meeting. I'm not kidding. Seriously, they organized a secret Zoom meeting. All 80 of them, more than 80 actually, to talk about the plans for this and actually three of the deceased political leaders, including Saddak Nabulsi, including Muhammad Qumati. Like, quite a few others, you know, leading members. And someone other leading member who I'm not going to mention here, but he is a prominent Christian leader in Lebanon, who is very much aligned with Hasbullah and Assad regime in the past, who also tweeted. So you see, three tweets from some of the deceased happened just one hour before the Zoom meeting where they are talking about the hour for accountability for those who betrayed the resistance is coming soon. And then he, this Christian leader who wasn't in the meeting, you know, lucky for him, otherwise he would have been dead. He said that, look, if the resistance lose, I'm going to lose with them with honor. And if they win, I will be up to the task of whatever they need me to be. In other words, like, basically, he was putting himself to be a president. Now, perfect. He was caught in the act. Then 100, 100 Israeli aircrafts flew over Lebanon and simultaneously dropped 120 bombs on more than 80 locations where the 80 conspirators were actually talking on Zoom because the Israeli signal intelligence picked up the Zoom link highlighted all the IP addresses and then attacked with extreme precision 300 people died. And 1,400 people wounded all across Lebanon, including like in the neighborhoods in Beirut, no one expected that the bombing will happen. But what happened here is, I'm sorry to say this, but that attack, despite the fact that came from the Israeli side, despite the fact that it came from BB Nathaniahu side might have saved Lebanon from a far darker fate. So really outline for us, who are these people who were killed? What is the consequences of this extraordinary, I mean, just to tack gosh, the Israelis once again pull out a rabbit from the hat. What they can do, it is incredible. My goodness. Exactly, exactly. And I know many people will be upset like I'm saying that I'm actually like a. in fully much in support of this operation, despite like in basically the extremely tragic consequences of what happened, but nonetheless they have prevented something even worse. And I will tell you why, because Sadakhna will say Mahmud Kammalte, and 80 other commanders and political figures of Hezbollah, they were planning a coup against the country to replace the president, to replace the prime minister. They could have massacred thousands upon thousands of their opponents within the Sunni and Christian communities. And it would have been much worse, and it would have plunged the country into a bloody civil war. And so what the Israelis did is the fact that they decapitated the leaders of that conspiracy. And that, like I mean, was, is the big talk right now in Lebanon, is that there was supposed to be a coup. And so somehow, they want to say it, but it was the Israelis who saved them from the scoo, not because of the goodness of the heart of the Israelis, but because the Israelis don't want Hezbollah to be in control of a country. And it shows how brazen the Iranians were in trying to take over Lebanon. Now, it's a Zoom meeting. It's amazing, like, basically, if you think of it, it's another Pager operation. You remember the Pagers? Of course, yeah, yeah. Booby trapped and all of that. And so if it was, Booby trapped. And Hezbollah operative was a female. Would that mean basically that's like a basic issue? No, no, no, no. I'm putting a stop to this one right away. [LAUGHTER] And no, no, no, no, no. So let's keep talking about this. So this Zoom meeting, amazingly, like, I mean, the Israelis decided to remove the Zed and put the B in Zoom. It became the boom meeting. From one, from one dad joke to another, and goodness gracious. I couldn't resist, sorry. OK, so there's been this boom meeting. It means that the ceasefire certainly does not apply to Lebanon. Let's Zoom out now. And why-- so this means that the ceasefire will fail because of things happening in Lebanon. But if the ceasefire doesn't apply to Lebanon, why will Israeli actions in Lebanon cause the ceasefire to fail? Well, because you see, the Iranians came out multiple times and highlighted the text that they were given. Even they published the text that they were given by the Pakistanis, which clearly said, this ceasefire include Lebanon. They highlighted it in yellow there, like for everyone to see online. And even Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, in embarrassed by all of this, came out and said, we believe that this ceasefire does indeed include Lebanon. But the Israelis are saying, no, it doesn't. Netanyahu said it four times in the space of 24 hours. He said, this ceasefire does not apply to Lebanon. Lebanon is still an existential threat for us. So however, they devanced when he landed in Budapest on his way, of course, like I mean, to Islamabad, these two cities couldn't have been more different with the Persian Islamabad. So he landed in Budapest. And he said, on the tarmac in the press conference, he said that the ceasefire does not apply to Lebanon. If Iran wants to collapse the ceasefire, because of Lebanon, so be it, that's their choice. So he was very clear about it. However, he also dropped a hint. He said, if Israel were to voluntarily restrain themselves a little bit in Lebanon to allow for this expected talks in Saturday to happen in good faith, then I would deeply appreciate it. So he was like, I mean, laying the ground for that. And that's why the tempo of attacks over the past eight hours has been different between Lebanon and Israel. We want to move now to the question of why this two weeks ceasefire was agreed on the American side. But before we do that, Amen, I have one question for you. A geopolitical dimension that we tend to overlook and I really want us to scrutinize this question carefully. And it reminds me since we're talking about Lebanon, of the episode we did in season three, where we covered the 1958 Lebanon crisis. This is when, in pursuit of the Eisenhower doctrine, the United States sent an expeditionary force to Lebanon to prevent what was considered to be an ongoing possible civil war in pursuit of Arab nationalist Ames led by Colonel Nasir at the time. Now, then in 1958, Kruschev, the premier of the Soviet Union, basically got on the phone and told President Eisenhower, look buddy, you will not escalate this into a full scale invasion. You certainly will not spread it beyond Lebanon. And if you try to do so, we will go nuclear on your ass. And it actually was an early instance of the sort of Cold War diplomacy or Cold War intervention that the Soviet Union was able to do because it was a nuclear power. OK, flash forward to today. For the last six weeks, the United States has been prosecuting an extremely violent assault on Iran, an ally of Russia, which remains a very big nuclear power. And yet it seems that overtly, Russia is not making anything like that kind of an intervention. Warning the United States that its geopolitical and geostrategic interests in the Middle East need to be taken into consideration. And absent that, they might go nuclear. They're not playing the same game that they used to. However, we know that the Russia has been helping Iran. Russia has been giving Iran intelligence that is helping Iranian units target quite precisely in many instances, American and other military assets in the region. And I believe there is some serious Russian skull dugory going on in Yemen with the Houthis. And that was coming out in the days preceding the ceasefire. So is there something like a Russian dimension to this where Russia is threatening to escalate if America doesn't pull back? OK. There are three issues that we have to discuss here in order to answer this question. First of all, we must understand that Putin is not the absolute Tsar of Russia. Putin at the end of the day, he is an arbiter between 400 plus oligarchs. We have to understand that. Russia, basically, we have a Tsar who's powerful. But also he has 400 boyars. If you see anyone like in the who's familiar with Russian history, we'll understand what I mean. And these oligarchs do have a say. It's not like in basically that Putin is a one-man show when he's a Kim Jong Un and no one else could challenge him. No. He still have to rely to some extent on the goodwill of the 400 plus oligarchs that are really like in a mean control of Russia's vast mineral and energy wealth. No. That's the first thing we need to understand. What makes that equation even more difficult is the fact he is entangled in a war in Ukraine. And he already sacrificed so many young lives in a young Russian lives there in Ukraine. The second thing we have to understand is that despite everything, there is actually an excellent interpersonal relationship between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. The two, despite the enmity between their institutions, they have a cordial relationship on a personal level. And therefore, Putin cannot go head-to-head with Trump right now. He cannot, because he knows Trump is unpredictable. And that Trump could switch so quickly from being a sympathetic ear, which is the lone sympathetic ear in the Western camp, to a deadly rival. He doesn't want that to happen, especially when he's fighting a war in Ukraine. And the third reason why the Russians and Vladimir Putin, in particular, did not rush to provide overt military aid or even military threats to help Iran, and the Iranian regime right now, is because of the special relationship with the GCC. He can push it to the limit. He can stretch it to the point of almost breaking, but he cannot break it. He cannot afford that, because the oligarchs who are residing in places like Dubai, and Abu Dhabi, and Doha, and Rasul Khmeim, and Umar, and benefiting significantly from having a banking system where they can park $200 or $300 billion of their assets, they will tell President Putin, do not fuck this up for us for the sake of a-- for the towel heads across the water. They mean Iran. Now, interesting, Aiman, because that-- the degree to which the Emirates have been in bed with the Russians and this kind of secret underground finance, gold network that has all funneled through Dubai, often, you know, understandably, it is characterized as an example of kind of Emirati bed faith dealing and kind of cynicism. But now we see that actually the Emirates, in addition to everything else, were playing a pretty clever geostrategic game there, neutralizing Russia's ability to do whatever is not in the interests of the GCC. Absolutely. At the end of the day, the Emirates wanted to have zero problems with every one. I mean, but nonetheless, even though they were cordial towards the Iranians, look what happened. But also, they were cordial towards Russians. But the Russians are pushing the envelope right now. So between now and then, MBS, MBS and other leaders of the GCC do give a call to President Putin and remind him that, you know, what like, I mean, we have hundreds of your oligarchs here, parking a lot of your money here, hundreds of billions of dollars. Just remember that. And so he would say in return to them, oh, I'm only helping Iran just a little bit to hurt the Americans who are hurting me in Ukraine, but no more than that. You know, I will not aid Iran to the extent where they will have a significant advantage against you. There is no way he can do that. So because the only the GCC will be angry with him, the oligarchs will be angry with him. Remember that? The $400 oligarchs, they will be angry with him. And so the idea is it really is a game, Amen. It's just a game that these men with power play. It's incredible. They're just sort of trading, you know, on, well, frankly, on human lives. It's really depressing. So, so you don't think that any Russian moves in recent days had any influence at all in the cease fire being agreed to by Americans. Fine. Then let's talk about the American strategic outlook now. Why did they agree to a two week ceasefire when every indication is that the cease fire is not going to work? Now, I can already see two possible answers. And if they're right, just say yes, and we can move on to something that we haven't already considered. One, market manipulation once again. Two, getting some military assets in the region. I think that that's very necessary. I understand that there is a shortage of American, you know, missile, particularly interceptor assets at the moment. Maybe they need to restock those. I even heard some whispers that maybe they're in talks with Taiwan to get some of their interceptors, which is a very interesting kind of dangerous move. If that's true. And the Greeks and the quite few other, yeah, that the George HW Bush aircraft carrier group is on its way to the region. So, you know, again, there might be just a need for a pause to get the military assets in place for another escalation. So, market manipulation and military readiness, you know, if that's it, if that's why they've agreed to a two week ceasefire, well, then that makes perfect sense. But there may be other considerations. Well, first of all, yes, I know. Like, I mean, yes to both what you said, you're right. It's about market manipulation to bring down the oil prices to an acceptable level, like to the 80s, possibly like in the basically high 70s. And then when the hostilities resume, they will actually start to rise from a lower base, rather than from a higher base. So, that's typical market manipulation for you. And that shows like the benefit of having a businessman as a president sometime like an amine. He takes that into account. And I'm sure he is profiting also from it personally. How I have no idea. Anyway, so I did an interview with Oliver Bolo, who talks about money laundering and all sorts of ways in which powerful people make money. Exactly. But also at the same time, he also see that allied countries in the region, you know, Israel, the GCC, they are telling him individually and collectively that look pal, you know, you want to go and go boom on Iran. Look, some countries are down 60% or 64% or 65% on their interceptors. So they are really dangerously low. Well, like in I mean, we need to restock. And so they are diverting a lot of interceptors right now. You know, from, as you said, Taiwan, they are diverting it from Korea. They are diverting even from Greece. And you know, from even countries, you know, further afield. You know, and so sometimes, sometimes through agreement with the Americans and sometimes through regional countries doing bilateral agreements, you know, with some of these countries. But because that will be far more appealing and more lucrative, to be honest, you know, basically then if the request came, you know, from the Americans themselves. And so also they need, you know, the US lost roughly about 17 MQ-9 repels, you know, these, you know, very sophisticated and rather expensive drone aircrafts over Iran. So they are going to ship in 18 more, plus few more assets, which I can talk about, you know, and of course the aircraft carrier, the George H. W. Bush aircraft carrier will be here next Wednesday. And that will bring the total aircraft carriers to about three. And also it will come with its destroyers. They have used 900 Tomahawk cruise missiles. My understanding is that they are bringing, you know, 600 to replenish some of that lost stock. And that will bring the total, you know, of Tomahawk cruise missiles around Iran to up to 1200, you know, to really boost up the firepower and to give the Americans far more option. In addition, they are flying in more 80 second, you know, airborne in a division, you know, they are bringing in more Marines and all sorts of ammunition. Yes, they are getting up for another fight. But it doesn't mean that it necessarily must happen because they hope, you know, that all of this firepower coming and on display for everyone to see will persuade the Iranians that come on guys. You've seen what we can do. And what you can do is 1% of what we can do. So your damage was 99% higher than the damage being inflicted in the Gulf countries. Seriously, the damage in Iran is way, like way far, you know, greater and widespread than what happened to the Gulf countries in Israel. So come on, see the writing on the wall. Your economy got more roughly 2, 3, 4 weeks maximum before it collapses. So can you see wisdom here and just allow us the access to go and recover the 460 kg of highly enriched uranium to collect and destroy the center of futures. And for you to have one sentence, you see Trump is looking for one sentence and one sentence only will end the war. When the Iranian eye at Allah comes out, you know, when I told Allah, Mr. Bahamana, he comes out and say, we have now closed the chapter on Iran's nuclear program forever. Now, of course, you know, whatever it entails is still a surrender. He's asking them to surrender. And I think for President Trump, because of his New York upbringing, basically, like, I mean, being that kind of, you know, how can I say like, I mean, Hassler, Grifter gangster, adjacent kind of person, mafia, like, you know, Don, you know, after all his name is Donald, so he's the Don for real. He cannot understand when the other side is behaving like an ideological, radical, religious, theological way of thinking. He cannot, he cannot, can't, so you think he's, he think he's not going to get the surrender that he's after. They just won't surrender. Yeah. And therefore he gets angry and he decides, you know, I'm going to wipe out their civilization. However, I want to stress something here. He did not mean civilization as in I'm going to wipe out their historic cities and murals and all of that and Persepolis and you know, Alamutu whatever. No, you know, he didn't say that, but he meant by civilization is the civilization in the modern, meaning of the word, i.e. they will have no electricity, you know, or internet or phones, you know, by the morning. That's what he meant. He didn't mean, you know, that it's a civilizational vandalism, but the problem is like, that's Trump for you. Well, Aiman, you know, on the internet on Monday after after Donald Trump said he was going to wipe out Iranian civilization. Many people pointed out that in the sixth century BC, the Delphic Oracle told King Cresus of Lydia that if Cresus goes to war, he will destroy a great empire. And in his vanity, I suppose, Cresus thought, oh, that must mean if I attack the Persian empire, their empire will fall. Well, Aiman, that is not what happened. And the Delphic Oracle in its wisdom had tricked him and his intervention against the Persian empire brought the downfall of his own kingdom. You know, I know you don't like people to be too pessimistic about this war so much as writing on an American victory, but I think we need to point out that it is possible that the writing is on the wall for the American-led world order and that things down the line will become much, much less ordered as a result. We have to at least accept that that's a real possibility here. It is. I mean, this is a problem with getting involved in conflicts. I mean, the British empire went to its last war in the Suiz, and that was a disaster. But because why? Because there was a bigger empire telling them, you know, stop right there. Now, the risk here to the US is not a bigger empire telling them to stop. Actually, they are the biggest empire, you know, the world has ever seen. The risk is from within the empire itself, the loud, the fetus voices that are telling them to stop. When in fact, you know, if there is a unity, at least some unity, that okay, maybe we did not [BLANK_AUDIO] agree with the timing or the execution of the war, but we cannot lose it. Because if they lose it, that will be a loss for every single, not only American, but every single, freedom, loving person on earth. You know, we cannot allow the idols backed up by Xi Jinping and Putin to have the final word here. And yet the American empire here doesn't have any bigger empire to tell them to stop. The voices are not coming from a bigger empire. America is the largest empire the world has ever seen. The most powerful, the most prosperous, the wealthiest. However, the voices are coming from within the empire itself. You know, the containment camp are screaming at Donald Trump telling him to stop. It's not a good war. It's not a good timing. It wasn't the right thing to do. Confronting Iran, you know, was a bad idea. Confronting Russia is better. I mean, so of course, like in all of these, you know, contradicting, you know, messages coming out of them, but nonetheless, no problem. But those defeatist voices should understand that despite whatever they think of Donald Trump, they might think of him as a charlatan, as a userpper, as a clown, as I'm befitting for the office. No problem. Okay, believe all of that. Please, I support you in this belief. But do not let your hatred of the man take your eyes off the prize. And that is finally to get rid of this regime. Now, the war has happened, whether you had reservations about it starting from the beginning, I agree with you. But please, do not let your hatred of the man and your political differences with him or his administration. You know, blind you to the fact that the world will be a far better place if we finally get rid of the itulas. Do not give the itulas a chance to breathe. Do not let them to have another life line. Because finally, we need the ninth life of this Persian cat to be extinguished. Well, Aiman, I don't disagree. I think that people who look at the Middle East and see all sorts of problems there. And especially I think people who are particularly animated by the Israeli policies as regards the Palestinians, you know, especially now with this very ironclad right wing Israeli center of power in Israel, you know, people who want a solution to problems like the Israel Palestinian problem. I wish they would see that the first step towards anything like a permanent and equitable solution to a problem like that one. And there are other problems that need addressing throughout the region. The first step is getting rid of the Islamic Republic. This is the Iran. This is the first step. And I wish people would understand this. A lot of people have their eyes on other problems that they wish also to be solved or they wish to be solved. And they don't see that it is Iran that actually is the proximate obstacle, the initial obstacle to any of those other problems. People don't believe that because people sort of they have different view. They might say that the fundamental problem is the existence of Israel. For example, that's one perspective. I disagree with that perspective. Yeah. I think that it is the Islamic Republic of Iran that is the first problem that must be addressed. And until it is addressed properly, not through containment, but through real confrontation. Confrontation. Nothing else can. nothing else will happen. And this kind of sclerotic kick the can down the road, management policy, which the Obama administration kind of perfected, let's say, will continue. But the truth is, amen, it couldn't continue. It was not at any point a real long-term solution. You could never just manage that situation forever because as America and its international allies in that class were managing the Middle East in that way. We're managing Iran by balancing its interests against other interests and treating it like it was a legitimate political actor in the region. All the while under the surface, Iran was continuing its own ideologically charged aim of spoiling the whole region and taking it over as best it could based on its Millenarian goals. This is not on my side, I don't think, an ideologically charged analysis of the situation. I think it's just objective. That's what was going on. And the containment camp was under estimating that aspect of the Islamic Republic. They just didn't want to accept it because it seems to them and their Harvard educated brains completely unbelievable. But that's the point. That is the truth. I want to remind the listeners because every word you said here resonated with me. I want to remind the listeners that from 1933 until 1938, they were the worst years of Winston Churchill's life. He called them Tizias, the wildernesses. He was out, cast out completely. Why? Because he was warning that the Nazis, and the rise of the Nazis in Germany is going to result in an expansionist policy in Europe and is going to plunge Europe back into the darkness of the Great War that proceeded. Now we call it the First World War. You have no idea when you read some of the books and some of the work that was written around that period, the viciousness of the British political and civil service class that were attacking Churchill so passionately and defending the Nazis so passionately and saying that you are misinterpreting their rhetoric. You are exaggerating their threat. You are a war monger. You don't know what you're talking about. And then of course culminating in Neville Chamberlain's speech, peace in our time, brandishing that like a famous letter. But then of course Hitler proved every one of them wrong and did exactly what he did. And we had that moment, we had that moment when in October 7, when in 23 Iran crossed that threshold. They used one of their proxies as not a tool of deterrence but as a means of geostrategic sabotage against the region. And before that they used the hoothies also as a strategic tool of sabotage in the region. The question is can we tolerate this anymore? Remember that hate Israel already wants hate Saudi Arabia all you want. But these countries need to defend themselves at some point. You can't just tell people not to defend themselves because you don't like them. And so speaking here as someone who was born in Saudi Arabia and growing up there, the question is what do you want the scientists to do? Coward? Basically like I know we can't defend ourselves because why? Because some liberals in Europe said like in Iran it was understood it can be contained. When in fact they already poured the cross the border and recruited 700,000 men under arms within so many proxies. How do you deal with these people? How do you deal? I mean and that's exactly why I agree with you. This is the moment that Europe should realize that the Iranians as you can see from the military performance they were prepared for this war for 40 years and it shows. Well, Aiman thank you very much. You've got to go back to your day job now trying to make sense of what's going on and we're grateful to you for helping us make sense of it. Dear listeners, that's it for today. Thank you for listening another long episode goodness gracious. Aiman we said this one would be 45 minutes. Let's wrap it up. Well you know that's it. That's it. Goodbye. This speaks you'll hear from us soon. Goodbye everyone. Conflicted is a message heard production. Our executive producers are Max Warren and Jake Warren. This episode was produced and edited by Thomas Small.