Jim Jatras: Iran War ultimatums and retaliation (LIVE)

Okay, we are live with Alexander Merk Kyrus in London and we are very honored, very happy to have with us. Once again, on the Durand, Jim, Jatas, Jim, my friend, how are you doing? Great to be here, gentlemen. It's always a pleasure to be with you. Jim, where can people follow your work? I follow you on X. Is that the place where people can find you? That is the only place. I'm an old boomer guy. I don't have a big social media profile, just X. All right, I have that X link in the description box down below. I will add it as a pin and comment as well. Highly recommend you follow Jim on X, formerly known as Twitter. Jim provides great commentary and analysis on X. So before we get started, Alexander, Jim, a quick hello and shout out to everyone that's watching us on all of the platforms, big shout out to our local community. I thank you to our moderators in YouTube. Alexander, Jim, let's talk about the Iran War and we have some breaking news, I guess, or a breaking, a breaking truth social post. Let's discuss it. It's very confusing because we get one through the social post after another. They're not always consistent with each other and they often take us in different directions. But I think that beneath the surface there are continuities about this conflict which we can discuss and explore and which you can become very visible when one does analyse and explore them. And I cannot think of anybody better to help us identify and see these continuities and to get us to understand what is actually going on than Jim Jatras, who has been with us on previous programs, who have discussed Ukraine, who have discussed other issues. He knows the political system in the United States. He's worked in the US government. He has some understanding of these institutions that make these extraordinary decisions. And I think he's been one of the most astute and insightful commentators up to now in this conflict as well as the various other conflicts that we have seen. So Jim, we've had an extraordinary couple of weeks and we've had an extraordinary couple of days. We started a military operation which is clearly intended, indisputably intended, to achieve regime change any wrong. You only have to go back and read what Trump was saying and what Netanyahu was saying. To see that. Then the anticipated regime change didn't come. We had a war of attrition and then we had a massive succession of hugely escalatory steps, which tumbled one after the other over the last couple of days. Straight of Hormuz, tightly controlled by the Iranians, we've had military deployments by the United States and all kinds of threats. And we had an attack on a gas field in Iran, then we had an Iranian counter strike on energy facilities in Qatar. Then we had an attack on an Iranian nuclear facility in Natanz. We had then the Iranian counter strike against Dhamona and Arad. Dhamona is where Israel keeps its enormous, the important nuclear power, nuclear reactor which produces the raw material from which Israel makes its nuclear weapons. We then had an absolutely astonishing statement from Donald Trump talking about a 48 hour ultimatum with massive strikes across the Middle East and across Iran intended to destroy a knockout its entire power system. And then just a few hours before this ultimatum was due to expire, we have the five day calls. We have the rowing backward seems of the ultimatum. We have talk about possible dialogue with Iranians after all. Should we take any of this seriously? Should we actually go to see an end to this conflict or is it just another punctuation mark in a horrible escalating story over to you Jim? Well, as far as the 48 hour fire and brimstone threat that Trump issued two days ago, there's a couple of ways you could look at his backing off today. One is Taco, Trump always chickens out and he never, and then he intended to follow through with it, but now he's decided not to. I think the more likely explanation is he never intended to follow through with it, that he intended to do exactly what he did today as a cover for that marine expeditionary unit that's coming over from the far east, getting into position for an attack on hard island or where else their target might be. They're supposed to be arriving in the theater, even as we speak right now, getting prepped for whatever that attack is going to be. I think that's most likely explanation. I'll also maybe a little profit taking by people close to the White House on the oil markets. No, that would never happen. Now the other possible explanation, which I don't think is very likely at all, is that there is really some kind of backshadowation going on. If that's the case, I guess I would say shame on the Iranians. If they haven't figured out by now, after they got set up for this attack by the talks that we're going on with the United States with those two flim flam artists from New York, Whitcoff and Kushner, in a very treacherous way, set them up for this attack. If they haven't learned by now, and for that matter, if they haven't learned in Moscow and Beijing, then you simply cannot talk to these people. There's no way they will negotiate with you in good faith. I don't know what to say. I throw up my hands that you can try to engage in classic diplomacy with the United States today, but there just isn't anybody to talk. By the way, it's not just the Trump administration. I mean, I think this has been the case for some time. Trump has just added his own peculiar personal level of crazy to the next. We could talk about American politics, what this means for Trump, impeachment, the House and all of that sort of thing. But I don't think people outside the United States appreciate how totally corrupt and dysfunctional the American state has become at the highest levels. That we are simply not capable of the kind of flexibility to change course from long-standing patterns of trying to subdue any country that we consider to be disobedient, whether it's Russia or China or Iran. I guess the bottom line is, first off, I expect things to escalate. I don't know if the five days are going to run out. In fact, I would be all surprised is that Trump will talk, "Oh, we're talking, what a bam, you'll hit them with an attack just the way we launched the attack on February 28." This is actually the key point because one of the consistent pattern of this whole story is of extreme hostility towards Iran from the Trump administration and from the US political class and an obsessive, well obsessive, a single-minded focus on achieving one thing in Iran, not an end to nuclear enrichment or doing away with its ballistic missiles. These are just roots to that objective. The objective clearly is the overthrow of the political system, the removal of the political structures that were created in Iran following the 1979 revolution. In other words, the end of the Islamic Republic. It is regime change in just two words. That, it seems to me, is entirely and exclusively what this is about. Did the United States expect regime change to happen immediately after their initial strikes and were they taken by surprise by the fact that it not only did not happen but that the Iranians have been able to hit that? We hear a lot about how the Israelis somehow led Trump into this. I think that's a complex thing. I don't think it's a simple calculation. Yes, he somehow, he was fooled by the Israelis or he somehow under their control. I think the nature of the relationship between Israel and the United States is much broader and deeper than that. However, he may have been misled as to how successful this initial strike was and where he was told by some people that, "Hey, this thing gonna work out too well, but I don't know how forcefully he was told that." He had a lot of other people, including Hegseth and Marco Rubio, telling him, "Bam, this is gonna be a knockout blow." People have noted that the United States has been all over the map in terms of what our goals are. Get rid of their nuclear program, get rid of their missile program, get rid of their relationship with their proxies, etc., etc., regime change as you point out. Remember what Trump said, I guess it was a couple of weeks ago now, that That, the only acceptable outcome is unconditional surrender. I mean, I guess he was channeling his inner FDR from where was that? Casa Blanca, wherever that was. There's nothing, that's the zero option. I mean, there's nothing more you can do to a country, the unconditional surrender. I guess what we're going to have to have a battleship Missouri signing ceremony or something like that. I guess the aircraft carrier, the signing ceremony, once the Iranians run up the white flag, all those other things are subsumed into that goal, which he has never retracted. Now, it could be certainly regime change, it could be a synonym for that. Also failing that, you ended with a wrecked state, like you do in Libya or in Syria, that would be also an acceptable outcome for both the United States and the Israelis, I think. But anyway, I don't see any way out, you know, people keep talking about it on the off-ramp. I don't see what the off-ramp is, unless, again, the Iranians have taken leave of their senses and will come back for more lies in order to set themselves up for another attack. There's a very strong parallel, I would say, between the Russian refusal of a ceasefire in Ukraine and the Iranian refusal of ceasefire here, because why would we give you a respite just so you could rearm and come back at us again? Anybody with any sense would realize that's the only purpose of any temporary off-ramp at this point. Absolutely. Now, can I just make my point here, which is that I think that there is no confusion about what the American objectives are, the American objective is regime change. The reason they have come up with all of these alternatives, you know, enrichment, ballistic missiles and things of that kind, since the fighting began, is because as regime change was not immediately achieved and it began to seem that it might not be achieved in any proximate period of time, they had to come up with some reasons for keeping the fighting going and giving the impression that, you know, there wasn't a cheaper pull objective that somehow felt short of regime change. I think it's purely a product of an inability to achieve regime change or regime collapse if you prefer. In the last few hours, I think that has always been the objective and it remains that objective still. Now, if you go to the Iranian media and of course I do read the Iranian media, but only those parts of it that are in English, they seem to be well aware of all of this. They are repeatedly saying exactly the things that you could say, we can't trust the United States, we've been led up by the Garden Path by them repeatedly. We are not interested in temporary arrangements with the United States. We set out our own conditions which are pretty extraordinary conditions, extraordinary, maybe not so extraordinary, given what's happened. A few weeks ago, people would have said that they were extraordinary. Why would the Iranians, from a practical point of view, agree to a ceasefire now? Because they are successfully resisting, they have the pressure on the energy markets. It doesn't make any kind of sense. And if we're talking about discussions going on, you know, back channels and things of that kind. No sense is the back channels if they are taking place. They are saying no, the Iranians are saying no. What would might induce them to change? Because there's no words so far that they've changed. Everything that we've heard about this five day announcement comes to the United States. Yes. And it's all the truth. I've heard speculation that at some point the Iranians will say, okay, fine, we can end this war, but on our terms, you have to remove your bases from the Persian Gulf, you have to lift the sanctions, et cetera, et cetera. The trouble is, I don't see that the United States can actually make that offer. I don't see how Trump can make that offer after he's painted himself in the corner of here. And this, be honest, even if he did make that offer, what's the likelihood we would follow through with it? I mean, if we could promise to lift the sanctions, would the sanctions actually be lifted? You know, I can't see any circumstances where the sanctions will be lifted. Certainly, Congress would not go along with it. So in this, where you get to American domestic politics, I've been out at the polling stations here in Virginia last few days because we have this referendum going on during entering the congressional districts here in Virginia. It's all about Trump, Trump, Trump, that we have to, we have to rig our elections here in Virginia because Texas is rigging theirs in favor of the Republicans and all comes down to who's going to have majority in what my Senate days we call the House of Reprehensibles and that if Trump gets impeached and this war goes very badly, it's not inconceivable if the Senate also goes democratic that he's going to be removed. There's also a lot of talk, as you know, about the 25th Amendment. The guy is clearly losing it. Okay, I say this with some degree of sadness. I mean, you know, maybe I'm just a sap, but I vote it for the peace president in three different elections and somebody once said he was Tom Woods, you know, no matter who you vote for, you get John McCain. And you know, a lot of people who wanted to believe, you know, coming in, not only obviously with Iran, but especially when the Ukraine way, he was going to solve that one day, right? There was a lot of hope that he could come in and do something different. I just don't think that's possible. I just don't think that there is, the United States today reminds me so much of the Soviet Union and its latter stages, where it is so sclerotic, it is so inflexible, it is so incapable of changing course and reforming itself that all can happen as it gets to the inevitable crash, whenever that crash comes. And maybe that crash will come because of the impact on the global economy of this war. And so I think that's another reason Trump needs to find some way to pull a rabbit out of his hat and come in and win this somehow. You know, maybe the next step is cease carg island and now we've got the Iranians by the throat or wherever part of the anatomy you want and they'll have to capitulate. Maybe that's the thinking of this point if there is anything. Well, this is what I would like to come to next because what you're talking about points to escalation. Now, if the Iranians are not going to shift their position, even just, and they were probably there may very plausibly see this five day pause as a sign of weakness and that might make them harden their position rather than soften it. So if the Iranians reject this, if they say we don't know cease fires, our position remains exactly as it was. The straight of the almost remains under wrong control. It continues. We set out our conditions. We're not going to shift our conditions. But the United States, if Trump is not prepared to discuss these impossible things with the Iranians, what alternative politically does he have save for escalation? And the point about escalation is that if you get into this kind of game, the other side repeatedly over the course of this conflict has shown that they are able to escalate to. We attack the tons, they attack the Mona. We attack South cars, they attack the facilities in Qatar. Where does this stop? How does this stop? I think that's the question everybody is asking themselves because the Iranians are, they do have escalation dominance. But they're proceeding in a very deliberate way. As you point out, it's for tat, I guess. I guess everybody likes the tit better than the tat. But anyway, they keep doing that and that makes sense from their point of view. But where does it end? And unfortunately, I think a lot of people think it ends eventually with an Israeli nuclear strike. I mean, if we get to the point where the Iranians really do have an upper hand and they can keep escalating and they're not going to surrender, the other side does not. They don't want to surrender either. What else is left at that point? And that's just something I'm sure that not only in Tehran, they're thinking about that again back in the Moscow and Beijing. I mean, it looks like they, they, they, they understand. I look, I think the natural tendency in both Russia and China would be say, can't we find a way to DS go? Like this, can't we find some way to stop this crisis? I can understand that because you don't want to get to the point where everything blows up in a nuclear cloud. But on the other hand, they also have to understand they've got the United States now caught kind of where the Americans wanted to catch the Russians in Ukraine, where basically we're the ones bleeding. We don't have a good way out and and our international credibility as as a dominant global power is being sapt very, very badly in this conflict. From their point of view, you, you'd want to see that continue. But how do you get it to the point where a state that is incapable of seeing the situation it's in and pulling back from it just simply does something that's, that's totally crazy. And again, I don't think it's probably going to be the Americans, although even that I would not rule out. out that Trump might eventually consider the use of nuclear weapons, but more likely would be the Israelis. That's something the Iranians have to think about and also relates to, okay, at what point do they decide that their only protection at this point is to do something that I would have done in their shoes a long time ago, which is acquired a nuclear capability. I mean, if you're faced with a choice of being Libya or North Korea, I'd rather be North Korea. I'm, you know, especially with the removal of the old Ayatollah, the spring leader who was the issuance of the Fadwa against the nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they're reconsidering that. In fact, do announce in the not too distant future that yes, we do now have a nuclear capability. Now, you have worked in the U.S. government. Again, it seems to me that the U.S. went into this conflict with a whole series of misunderstandings or complete misunderstandings. They didn't understand the nature of the flow they were taking on. This year that Iran was much weaker than it turned out to be. They didn't, there are lots of reports that they didn't anticipate. Many of the moves that Iran has made, close of the straight-of-all moves, for example, securing their internal positions. I find that very difficult to understand. How is that possible? The United States were told has the biggest intelligence apparatus in the world. There's supposed to know a huge amount about everything everywhere. How is it possible that the United States did not anticipate simple things like the closure of the straight-of-all moves, the ability of Iran to launch missiles across the Middle East, the effectiveness of Iran's drones? Given that we had a huge amount of information out there, which made that clear to everybody, it made it all all three of us hear about these things before the fighting started. How could it be that the president of the United States was not informed about them and thought that this would all be a walk in the park or a little excursion as he has talked about it? I think there's two factors to it. One is the imperial hubris that took over completely in Washington with the end of the first Cold War with the Soviet Union. These people actually talked themselves into believing we are supreme, we're going to control the entire world. No other power has any legitimate interests that we must respect, and if they will not bend to our will, then nobody could stop us from bringing them to heal. I think that point of view is virtually universal in the ruling establishment and in Washington DC. I think there was some truth to it in the 1990s and the early 2000s when we were that powerful to almost as powerful as we thought we were, and to some extent people are still living in the past in that regard. They still think that we are that powerful relative to everybody else. The other thing is, and I think maybe it's a corollary to the first one, is that the whole system of political advice based on intelligence has been so corrupted that the Yes Man factor of anything, only things get to the top that the boss wants to hear. It's almost like, I guess Hitler in the bunker or something like that, is that anybody with bad news or saying, "Boss, we can't do that, it won't work," that's going to get filtered out of the system by the time it gets to the top because it clashes with what they know to be the case from their ideological morons. Do they have any idea of the military problems? Because I have been listening to what a lot of people, and I'm talking about military people, have been saying about open, administrative, almost incredibly difficult military operation, capturing Harder Island, and incredibly difficult military operation. A British Navy captain, a person who is a dyed in the Walt Neocombe, by the way, who writes of the Daily Telegraph says, "We have no ability to deal with sea mines." The Royal Navy has no ability to deal with sea mines. The US Navy no longer has that ability either. If the Iranians stop planting seeding the sea, the Persian Gulf of sea mines, we're basically stuck. There's nothing we can do about that. Does any of this get through to the President? We've seen that there's been these attacks on Iran, the air attacks, apparently they're also not going as well as anticipated. We've seen problems that it does seem as if the Iranians were able to intercept and damage at least one stealth fighter jet. But I noticed this, how does the planning system work? Because I don't understand how the planning system works if it repeatedly makes. I'm talking now about military decisions, make ends up making bad military decisions, time and time again. Well, Trump did invite the Chinese Navy and maybe they need to take him up on his offer. After all, they could go in, secure their own energy supply, tell the rest of those guys that are on their own, feed some intelligence. What does Trump say at that point, by the way, if the Chinese show up to secure their own energy lifeline? Look, he said he's a British Navy captain, which means he's the equivalent of the Colonel. Yes, you'll find some colonels and some majors down there who really know what's going on, but how many of them are going to fall on their sword by telling the boss what he doesn't want. Even if they report at that level, as I say, it's going to get filled up. He's going to be a doctored out. If you want to be a general, if you want to be an ad-bro, then you don't bring bad news to the boss. He just don't. And I think that's part of the corruption of the system we have. Maybe some of it gets through it. He does say it at a very technical level, but I don't think anybody is going to go to the boss and say, we can't do that. Rather, they want to say, well, it's going to be very difficult. We have to face this, but it can do bosses. Zero defects. We will deliver. That's what we're looking at now. But this is a, this is the baking of a disaster. Now, let's, let's, let's, let's look at this further because you talked about the outside part. You talked about the Russians and the Chinese and I think you're absolutely correct. On the one hand, they're looking at this as a conflict, which does open up possibilities that they can take advantage of. It bogs the United States down. They might gain leverage over it. At the same time, they're very, very worried that this thing could spin out completely out of control. And I was reading the central bank, chair, Nabilina. She spoke about how, yes, this conflict might have advantages economically for Russia, but there are also long-term risks as well. What do you think the balance of thinking is? I mean, you, you, you had to deal with the Russians. I will always get the sense that with these kind of conflicts, they tend to be very, very cautious and securing stability is always their primary concern. What do you think that they're telling the Iranians and what do you think they might be telling the Americans? And would they be prepared to act as a goat between? I, I think you're right about their tendency toward caution, but the fact of the matter is caution isn't the way it's the safest, safest option. If you're dealing with people who are, as I say, simply not behaving in a normal way and you simply cannot make a deal with them, being cautious in the hopes that eventually they'll come around and see reason and sign a reasonable agreement and stick by it is, is not cautious, it's delusional. And I think, unfortunately, at least from my point of view, there's still many people in Moscow and Beijing who are still invested in the current system. In other words, the Chinese, I look, I can understand the Chinese, they don't want to see the collapse of the United States economically because they have such a strong interest in continued commerce with the United States, selling a lot of stuff to the United States. I mean, I've heard talk that, you know, the Chinese really want to bring us down, they can dump all their treasuries, which they've been doing incrementally, but they haven't like done anything sudden that would crash the United States dollar. Honestly, you know, there's, there's a little proverb, I believe it's a Greek proverb that danger can never be overcome without danger that if, yes, it's dangerous to consider the possibility that the United States suffers such a humiliating defeat here, hopefully without a lot of bloodshed just because we can't accomplish our goals, that that actually does crack the global economy, cracks the US dollar dominance and so forth and changes the world's situation fundamentally. I don't think that's what the Russians in the, in the, in the Chinese are inclined to do. I think they're inclined to do what basically said, can we somehow find some way that the Iranians can show the Americans that they're not going to succeed and then we can step in and find some off ramp. The trouble with that off ramp is, you know, be very blunt about this, it can only be coming from Washington. Washington will never allow you to see the news. honor its commitments under any off-rand. And I think that's the dilemma they find themselves in. Do they fully realize that or not? I mean, you know, you look at somebody like, you know, Mr. Lovaryl, who is probably the greatest diplomat certainly of the current day and for many decades in the past. And back in 2007, he said that the behavior of the United States today is remniscent of the experience of Bolshevism and Trotskyism. He's absolutely right. But how do you negotiate with people like to, how do you expect them to keep their commitments? And that's what I really am so concerned about that they're taking a situation where there could be a fundamental shift in just shifting us back to where we've been for the last couple of decades that can only proceed toward escalation on a global scale eventually. - Do you think the Russians, and specifically the Russians, are involved in helping around? There's been a lot of discussion about this. There's been many, many rumors that they're providing intelligence that they've trained Iranian drone operators that they've helped the Iranians improve their missiles and the reach and the flexibility of their missiles. There's no reports rumors that there's a Russian air defense system operating in Northeastern Iran. It's very difficult to put one's finger on any of this, but do you think this is actually happening? And a lot of people doubt it. - You're as well informed about this as I am and probably better. I think it's very plausible to me. I think they're going to do whatever they can do with plausible deniability, so they're not directly involved. Although I have to assume with all of these capabilities if they are there, there's gotta be a lot of Russian personnel along there with them. And so, but again, there's a history to that. I mean, remember, there were so-yet pilots in the Arab craft we were fighting in Korea and even in Vietnam. So I wouldn't be at all surprised that they're providing personnel along with some of this hardware. Again, as we recall from after the June war, the Iranians under President Pseyshkian had wanted to believe. They wanted to believe they could come to an agreement with the Americans because the Iranian business community wanted that. Apparently they were disabused of that in June of last year and they finally took the Russian and Chinese offer say, "Yeah, we gotta beef up our defenses." However, we can. Of course, that's only a period of a few months. These capabilities takes time to build up. But I'm guessing a lot has been done in the meantime and continues to be done. - Have you been surprised by how tough Iran has been at the fact that it's held together that it's absorbed the blows that's been able to hit back, that it's conducted a very intelligent, at least I would call it intelligent strategy of response. I mean, you can make ethical criticisms and I know many people do political criticisms, but it is a war and in a war, it's you have to fight a war in a certain way if you're going to succeed in it. So to me, it looks intelligent. Have you been surprised by this? Because I was so straight away that I, to some extent, have been, I was not sure how stable Iran was or how coherent the decision making process inside Iran would be. - You know, I feel exactly the same way. I mean, you've heard a lot of people say that Iran wins this war simply by surviving. That if at some point that the Americans in Israel has decided that this regime change is not going to work, well, we'll just declare victory and go home and the Iranians can wipe their forehead and say, "Phew, we survived, we win." And it doesn't look like they're willing to do that. They say, "Hey, look, the Americans "have now got their mammary gland caught in a ringer here, "we're not going to let them go. "We're not going to let them go." That they would be want to disengage, but we're not going to disengage until we get whatever their end game is. And that's, of course, we haven't seen precisely from Tehran what their end game is, but it would have to be something like dismantling all those bases in the region, how they get a commitment on removing sanctions. I don't know because again, promises won't be kept. There has to be some way to dog walk that where they continue their tax on Israel and on the Gulf States, on American assets in the region, until various concrete steps are taken to actually relieve those sanctions. And the other thing, of course, as we've heard talk about some kind of a toll system through the state of Hormuz where the Ukrainians are able to drive compensation from the traffic going through there in compensation for all the damage they've suffered of this war, is that a possible off-rent at some point if the other side really does cryonco? As I say, I don't expect them to cryonco. I expect them to escalate and eventually do something very, very stupid and dangerous. - Can we talk about the Gulf States because they have considerable influence in the United States. They've invested very heavily in the United States. They have a longstanding animus against Iran. They have been caught in the middle. They've been very, very badly damaged by this war. Their own long-term interinstability is probably known question because they're so dependent on the price of oil, on oil exports. What are they doing? Are they telling the Americans escalate or are they telling the Americans stop? Because again, it's very difficult to get a sense of what they're saying because one is reading constantly contradictory things. And what sort of influence do they actually have in Washington when these kind of decisions are made? - It's very hard to know because the reports were seeing all over the place, but it's pretty clear that just as this is an existential war for Iran, it's become an existential war for Israel and an existential war for the Gulf States. As you point out, these are very fragile regimes in all of these countries. Probably the most fragile is Bahrain. With you have a like, as Sunni regime sitting on top of a majority, large majority, Shiite population. But the other ones are also pretty much pie crust regimes as well that could easily come crumbling down and that could cut either way for them. They may realize unless the United States wins this war, they are going to go down one way or the other, especially if we are forced to withdraw from the region or they may figure, we know we saw those reports what was that two years ago, when the Chinese had broken, maybe it was three years ago, the Chinese had broken a deal between Tehran and Saudi Arabia to normalize relations. I wonder if that was just part of a deception from the beginning. Maybe the Chinese were deceiving themselves too. Oh, these guys are going to make nice and have peace. What in fact, they were all gearing up for a war against Iran. It kind of reminded me the way when Assad was re-inmitted to the Arab League and they told the Russians in the Chinese, I don't need you anymore because I'm going to, excuse me, Russian, the Iranians. I'm going to be back in the good races with all my Arab friends and I don't have to really worry about fighting this war anymore. Again, that was just to set him up for the regime change. So I don't know what they're doing. In terms of their influence in the Washington, people tend to throw the word, new conservative around very loosely when it comes to Washington. Everybody, every guy who's a practitioner of aggressive policy is a new conservative. New conservatives are a specific ideological strike, ultimately driving from, well, it's a lot more, except from Trotskyism. But you have a lot of other aggressive circles in Washington connected with people like Brian Merleti points out with all the corporations in the arms industry, the so-called Vulcans, people like Donald Remsfeld or Connie Rice or even somebody like John Bolton. It was not ideologically a new con. He's more of a great power showbiz like, "Sussler Rhodes" or something like that, not Leon Trotsky. So it's, but I would say the gold states and the Saudis, they spent a lot of money on weapons, most of which they can't use very well, but it has another way of basically paying back Washington for all the, with all the petro dollars that lubricate the American political machine. They're allied, of course, with the new conservatives and the pro-Israel crowd, but they're not identical to them. They do have distinct interests. I don't think they have enough, throw weight by themselves though, to divorce themselves from their political allies in the Neal Conservative camp. So I think they're kind of stuck. I don't know how much agency they really have. They're more like, they really are sidelines in many respects. - If Iran comes out of this in ways that make you to peer the victor, is it not going to also be the dominant power in the Persian Gulf area and much of the Middle East? Isn't Iranian influence going to greatly expand and isn't that going to have an effect in the southern Persian Gulf? Aren't the various Arab states, whatever Arab states emerge out of this? aren't they going to have to look increasingly to Tehran? Isn't the Arabian Peninsula altogether going to be much more under Arabian influence? And isn't that something that must cause alarm in the United States, in Israel, but of course also in Turkey too? Oh, absolutely. There's no question about that. If they survive in a way that does involve, especially, of the American bases in the region have to be withdrawn, at that point, even the pretence, the facade of American protection for those regimes, assuming they can stay in power at all, means that they have to see which way the wind is blowing and it's blowing from Tehran. I suppose it would be especially the case if the Iranians do end up becoming a nuclear power, which they're very well-cured. In that sense, it's not only, as I said, existential photos regimes put for the global American empire because the Middle East in some ways is the crown jewel of the global empire. Without that, how do we maintain our dominance in Europe? How do we project power into the forest? All this was, in terms of not only bringing down the Iranian government, we also wanted to make sure we could choke off the energy supply going to China. This is absolutely essential to the American program for global domination. If that collapses and we're no longer the dominant power in that region, and Iran is maybe not being a major power in the same way that Russia and China are, but certainly a very respectable mid-size power that is a regional hegemon, that is a revolution from international affairs. And really, is the death now of American global dominance, I would say? Because this, I think a lot about Vietnam and the conflict in Vietnam. And I do think there are some rather interesting parallels in the sense that the United States got involved in Vietnam. And we now know clearly that that was a war of choice. If you go through the Pentagon papers, which by the way I have done, there is absolutely no doubt about this. The idea that the United States or somewhere, lewd into Vietnam or persuaded to interfere in Vietnam is completely wrong. But again, a lot of the decision making was poor, a lot of the intelligence collection was bad. There was again always the default position to the president and his officials that you have to be tough, you have to be strong, there mustn't be any retreat, there's always the pressure to get more and more deeply involved. And then eventually the United States was able to get out of Vietnam through a very complex diplomatic process. And the long-term effects were not that great because South East Asia, for all the attempts to talk it up its importance, was not in the end that important. The Middle East is extremely important, it is important in a completely different way. The stakes this time are much higher. Is that understood in Washington? I think it is. I think it is. As you point out, Vietnam, Southeast Asia, the Dominoes and all that stuff was a peripheral fight on the edges of the two great blocks, the Soviet block and the American block and we're kicking each other under the table. You could say the same thing about the wars that took place in Gola and Mozambique and Central America to some extent. But without dominance of the Middle East, without the United States dollar, restring on the Petro dollar, the sense that everybody in the world has where the dominant power and every place in the world we choose to apply our power, I think that sweater unravels fairly quickly. And that's why I think it is existential. I mean, you're right, we survived a very humiliating, it was a complex political way we got out of Southeast Asia, but it ended up in a humiliating collapse of South Vietnam. But then of course, we returned the favor to the Soviets and Afghanistan and that actually did lead in part to the Soviet collapse. I think maybe we're looking at something, as I said earlier, look, I've been saying for several years, the United States has to go through something similar to what the Soviet Union went through in the 1990s. And there's a very close symbiosis between the internal stability of the United States and our global empire, just like there was between the Soviet Union and the global communist movement. That one one goes down, they're both going down. And I think that's part of the thing that I think is starting to be appreciated when you look at how unstable things are here in the United States as I alluded to earlier about our elections. There's a lot in terms of our constitutional system domestically that just doesn't work anymore. And if we have a major, not just high oil prices like we did in the early 1970s, but a major degradation of the status of the dollar and that affects all the supply chains, that could have a very devastating effect internally in the United States. Again, is that fully understood? Because there's a lot of people who continue to serve, read an article in the financial times today, who continue to say that the United States is fully insulated from the economic effects of this crisis. That in fact, what it will do is call, cause investment flows to increase to the United States because it is the same haven that the United States is energy self-sufficient, that it will come through. It will be the rest of the world that basically collapses, not the United States itself. I didn't agree with that analysis, by the way. I think that is disastrously complacent. But is that view, which does seem to come from time to time, to find reflections and some of Trump's comments? Is that view, the financial times view, the one that carries weight, that carries traction in Washington? I think that's a dominant one. I mean, you're familiar with the Taliban, not seem a Thanksgiving day, Turkey analogy. Past this prologue, looks good, looks good, looks good, oh, bam, then the head comes off. I think markets tend to look everything in terms of past performance. I think politicians do as well. We also have to keep in mind the political situation in the United States. We've heard a lot of talk about how much of the MAGA base Trump is losing, with the first with the Epstein files and now with his war. I think there's a lot more of it than that still supports them than people might think. A lot of the younger crowd have checked out, but they tend to be rather cynical and skeptical about everything anyway. You'd be shocked, and I heard this out at the polling places here in Virginia. How many people of the over 40 generation, the real Trump and Z is who believe everything the orange Messiah says. He really could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it. As far as this crowd goes, they believe everything he says, everything they see on Fox News, and that base of support is still there. And I think it's what he's still counting on. I mean, it's only about maybe a quarter to 30% of the electorate, but it's still rock solid. And he's still probably thinks he can pull a rabbit out of his hat if he can somehow spin this thing as a win, or maybe if he fails that, we'll go and take Cuba instead. And that'll be a compensation prize. Jim, any final thoughts? I mean, we'd look like we're in an incredibly complex conflict. It doesn't seem as if there's any clear way through. I guess people would have said that about Vietnam 2 and 68. In 1968, when Johnson finally stopped bombing and started the peace negotiations in Paris, it didn't look to many people as if that would last. And in fact, we did see lots of moments of extreme escalation afterwards. But will this thing somehow disentangle itself? Or is this process of escalation to the ultimate apocalyptic event, the use of nuclear weapons? Is that now baked in the cake? Yeah, I've heard that the light at the end of tunnel has been turned off because of the lack of energy supplies. So there's no light at the end of the tunnel anymore, where it's a train coming. I don't know any more than YouTube gentlemen do in terms of what is going to happen. We can certainly look at what possibly could happen. I guess my view as an American is that since I think this day of reckoning must come, I'd rather come sooner with less loss of life than later with greater loss of life. So I hope that at the Russians and Chinese as well as the Iranians are playing a careful game of chess, they can put us in a position where we have no choice but to disengage and suffer a huge humiliation, a huge loss at our international prestige. And that starts the sweater unwatt rambling that leads to a shift in the internal order here in the United States. That's got to come. I'd rather it not happen, you know, two or three years ago with a major conflict with Russia or China and maybe one that does go nuclear that will have far more devastating consequences. We've got to get there one way or the other. I'd rather get there sooner and with less damage than later with greater damage. Jim Joshua's a thank you for answering my question. So thoroughly. and so well. I wondered if you could just wait a few minutes. I think Alex will bond to put some questions to you from the viewers, but that's been a wonderful program. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Real quick update. Iranian media close to the IRGC state that there were no negotiations between Iran and the US and Trump retreated due to fear of Iran's retaliatory actions. I think that's probably correct. I'm not sure it was so much the retaliatory action fear. I don't think he ever intended to follow through with that threat. As I say, I think it's a cover for whatever comes next. I think it's probably going to be something to do with those marines. Yeah. There are a lot of statements coming out of Iran right now. Jim Alexander would say that there were no negotiations. That's what they're claiming. And those statements come out pretty quick, almost immediate, which would also signal that Iran is also trying to not allow the markets to be manipulated either. Yes. With such a quick statement. Absolutely. Anyway, from Nico, Mr. Jatras, I've seen your podcast tour where you are urging Russia to strike Europe and thus start World War Three, but you never consider the consequences. Sorry. I'm sorry. Is it more? Should I address it? Yeah, there's another part. Let me just reach the other part. Who is going to fight this war or survive the Holocaust? You have to live your life or me and my generation who are left to clean up in one second. The Western elites will do anything to preserve privacy, including nuclear war. They are currently destroying Iran, making the nation unlivable. That's possible. I think a nuclear strike against Iran by the Americans who are more likely to raise this is not completely out of the question. I hope they're not that crazy if one never knows. As far as the Russians go, no, I've never said the Russians strike Europe. I've said that given that we have direct American British and French strikes inside Russia. Again, there's a maybe a Ukrainian button thing around the button, but we all know it's really those other powers striking Russia inside pre-1991 Russia that simply striking back against targets in Iran. I don't think since the message needs to be sent. If I were the Russians, I would be looking at those British bases on Cyprus. Again, with warning, with an arresting with no warhead to say, look, if you're going to strike inside our territory, we're going to strike yours. We're not going to escalate to anything quite close to even hitting in your home countries. But if you're going to keep this up, that's what we're going to get. I think that again, back we were saying earlier, all this caution from Moscow simply projects in the image of weakness. The other side says, well, they threaten consequences, but instead they just hit the Ukrainians harder. I don't think that gets a message across. It just tells the NATO people, Russia's weak, Russia's afraid of us. We can keep doing this. We can keep escalating. I think that's the real danger there. Sparky says, Scott Bessent is a sort of stooge skilled at pushing value down in order to take advantage of short positions. This ranges from individual stockspots or commodities up to the world economy. I think we've long since lost our moral innocence when it comes to the fact that corrupt people will make a killing on policies that they have a hand in implementing. Does this surprise anybody now? Yeah. From Tachatka, are we 100% sure Iran doesn't already have a nuclear weapon? 100% sure no, but I don't think it's likely. Apparently, Whitcoff was saying, of course, that he could trust anything he says, that the Ukrainians were very proudly telling him about their 60% enrichment. They could move forward on that very soon, which he took as a recent statement. I guess we better go hit them now. Iran has been a threshold state for a very long time, and one of a number of states in the world. A lot of people want to say, "Ran has not developed a nuclear weapon because we've stopped it from doing so. We've hit their nuclear facilities. We've strangled their enrichment." None of that's true. The only reason they don't have a nuclear weapon is because they have not made a decision to make one. I believe they could do one in shorter order anytime they wanted to. They don't really need to have one right now, but I think they're facing fissure-cut bait decision. If we're going to do it, we better do it now because we may not want to wait until after the Israelis strike us with their nukes. All right, here's a question from Fernando. What if Iran fails impeachment, civil unrest for Trump? What if Trump, this is a good question? What if Trump fails? What happens to him? Honestly, I think it's almost certain that he's going to lose the House in November and he is going to be impeached. Will he be removed? I think that depends on what happens in the Senate. Yeah, if this war turns out to be a horrible dismal failure, I think the prospects that he would be removed go up very dramatically and depending on how bad it is, it could even happen before November under the 25th Amendment. I think civil unrest, civil unrest, a whole other story. I think that's coming anyway. It could come sooner and in a more acute form if this war turns into a big disaster. Here's a question for you, Jim, from Sparky, about the missiles towards Diego Garcia, and Israel's sponsor, Foss Flag. Do you think it was a false flag? The missiles to Diego Garcia? I don't think so. I suppose it's possible. They would be launched from what Israeli submarines perhaps or something like that. I'm not sure what the Israelis necessarily would have gotten out of that except, how does it help the Israelis to expose what could be an American vulnerability and a greater than anticipated Iranian capability? I don't see where the plus is for them there. One more question for Jim from Elina. The UN General Assembly condemned Iran. The country that was attacked. What good is the UN anymore, Jim? It isn't. I've never been a big believer in the UN. I thought the only really useful part of the UN was the Security Council, something was missing, of course, in the League of Nations, which was, I think, in function, not in intent, was to be something like an approximation of the the concert of Europe that existed in 19th century. You get all the big powers around the table, and they can come to an agreement on action, then action is possible if they can't. At least you don't back a major power into the corner where he has no choice but to fight. That's the way the system was supposed to work. We're actually more or less did work for several decades. Remember, that's the real reason we've had all these calls to remove the veto in the security, deprived Russia of its veto. We have non-unanimous decision making. That's a recipe for war. The reason the VATU was there and the reason the Security Council was there was so that no major power would be forced to fight for survival. I think that's been the good thing about the UN. General Assembly, that's where the rabble mouth off. Who cares about that? One more for you, Jim. From Elliot, Qatar had a good relationship with Iran. Can it be repaired? That's a good question. Of course, there the common nexus was gas. There was a lot of focus in the last few weeks about oil, oil, but the real question right now is gas, it seems to me, that those are the facilities that seem to have been damaged more than the oil-producing facilities. I suppose that there's still a basis once this war wraps up for there'd be some relationship between the two countries. I don't know if the Al-Fani family will still be in power in Qatar at that point, but at some point, I think one, this war ends one way or the other, especially if, as we've discussed, Iran becomes the regional hegemon. Yeah, the Qataris will have to play ball. One more question, Jim. Let you go. This is coming from locals. What do you say to people who are saying that Iran is not, is no unicorn regime. They are a brutal autocratic regime and have been a menace in the region for decades. I don't think they've been a menace in the region for decades, but I'll be a blunt about this. I'm not a fan of the Iranian government or the Islamic regime in Tehran. I'm a Christian. I'm not Muslim, not a Shia Muslim. I think there's some very ugly things about that regime, just like I thought there were ugly things about obviously the communist regimes that used to exist in Russia and so forth. That doesn't mean I'm in favor though of doing crazy things and going to war with them. That despite whatever their ideology is and some of their domestic practices are North Korea, for example, you still need to conduct state-to-state relations in a rational way that serve your interest and don't blow up the whole world in the process. I think we've lost sight of that. They're bad. So we get to go kill them. Okay, great. Thanks a lot. Who's really bad then if you go around the world destroying every regime that you think doesn't run its internal affairs the way we think we should? Thank you Jim from Game of Chairs to Quote Sir Arthur Harris. They have soared the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind. So it seems. All right. Thank you for for for I'll turn the questions Jim it was great having you on. Thank you. Alexander, you're muted. I'll hear you mute Alexander. I just wanted to say thanks to Jim for coming on this program. Jim, what's again the best place to follow you is our ex correct. On ex that's only a place at Jim Jatras and wishing you both the blessed Pasca. F. Harry still. Jim, thank you. Oh, the best. Take care. Thank you. Bye bye. Okay, Alex, Edder. That was a great show. It was. We went into. We weren't into things very deep. I think actually, which is really good. Yes. Yes. And a lot of breaking news. Yes. What are your thoughts, Alex? Well, I, you know, it's again very frustrating because before I did this. We did this live stream and all this used came out. I was working on a program for my own channel. In which, of course, I was talking about the ultimatum. And why I thought it was a mistake. And how I thought the Trump should back off. The bell. He's back off. Now I think I think. And what he's doing is he does it in the way that he always does. He says that he's he's giving them more time because they're coming forward. They're making proposals. The Russians are doing all of these things. And none of this is true. The fact of the matter is the 48 hour ultimatum was a terrible mistake. It was a spasm of anger and panic because things started. We started to look really bad in the energy markets. There was the attack on Dimona, which I suspect was particularly frightening to him. He needed to basically wanted to express anger and he wanted to create a situation. So that today he could announce that this thing had been low. That something that this has been postponed so that you could bring the energy markets back. Back in line. So this is what makes this so difficult because you have a president. Donald Trump who changes his stunts literally from one out of the next. But what to keep up with this is very, very difficult for anybody who wants to do the kind of analysis that we are trying to do. So I put a poll up in the chat Alexander and I asked the question is the Trump five day energy strike pause. Trump Trump chickening out taco. Is it a cover for ground forces or is it real negotiations? 46% said taco. 50% said cover for ground forces and 4% said real negotiations. Well, I agree with I agree with the fact that it's not real. I mean, I did get anybody at this point by this time. Imagine imagine the GT's real. The point about cover for ground operations, which was the point that Jim was making. But of course, if it's a deception, it's not a deception that's going to work because the Iranians, as we see, are not letting themselves be fooled by it. So there is no point in doing this. The Iranians in my opinion have quite clearly figured out Trump by now. Let themselves be caught by surprise June. They let themselves be caught by surprise on the 28th February. They're not going to be caught by surprise the third time and the hard men who are now in charge in Iran are not going to be deceived in this way. By the way, and for the record, I don't think one can start a ground operation in five days. What the Marines are estimated to arrive in the region by the 25th. At least the 5,000 Marines. But I mean, there's no the Iranians would have no reason to think that they were not they were not coming. And it's not realistic, I think, that once they arrive, they go to start operations ground operations right away. I will have to be training. They'll have to be preparations of some kind. These are going to be visible to the Iranians. The Iranians are already fully prepared for all of that. But of course, in Trump's own mind, he might think that because going back to part of the discussion I had with with Jim, it doesn't seem as if the people who are in charge of the military side are prepared prepared to stand up to Trump and tell tell him how it is. Once upon a time they did that if you knew anything about the how the US military fought the second world war. Absolutely. I mean, they told George Marshall, George Marshall, told Roosevelt. And they understood what was possible and what was not. The last president, it seems to me, who really went hard and asked the military seriously. What can you do? What is in beyond your ability to do and ask the hard questions. Was JFK in the 60s? And he was getting frustrated by the fact that the military weren't always providing him with proper answers. So you can see that even by that time, there'd been a deterioration. And now we see it far worse since then. All right, let's, let's get to some questions. Alexander. Absolutely. From Nikos. In a video you admitted that president Putin's image is destroyed. The political capital he lost is much worse. They won't allow him to run his last term. I see Russians now talk of the era of Putin's stability is over and demand revolution. They underestimate the West's willingness to retaliate. Putin has to absorb the blows even if this destroys his image. But it's this or nuclear war which Iran might face. The West has one either way. Part four people might hate Putin for not responding and I agreed to an extent with that criticism, but don't expect the next guy to start hitting Europe. I don't remember ever having said in any program that Putin's image or authority in Russia had been destroyed. What I have said is that there is a certain amount of criticism from some sections of Russian society about some of his dances in relation to the Ukraine conflict. These are not in my opinion related so much to military developments as to the specific question of why is Russia still talking to the Trump administration? Why they have been going on with along with the charade of negotiating with Whitgoth and Kushner about a settlement in Ukraine. But Putin has never done anything that would destroy his reputation in Russia. On the contrary, the accumulated goodwill and authority he has is enormous. And the country altogether remains extremely stable. He has been quiet the past couple of weeks. Especially with regards to Ukraine. He hasn't talked much about Ukraine. Exactly. Exactly. Which is responding a response to the criticisms which have been made. But that's what the focus of the criticism is. The fact that he talks to Trump. People are becoming very frustrated about this. From a hero D6 says can you go easy with AI and subtitles in your thumbnails is getting chaotic invite an actual Iranian on the show to explain the situation. We don't know about the the AI. The thumbnails are. Or titles. I mean, it was our that's us. And the thumbnails anyway, OK, thank you for that. Nikos says Europe isn't afraid of Iran's actions. They want to destroy Russia. So they're blaming the disaster on Trump and waiting for the Democrats to return. Look at Spain. They oppose the Iran war, but they gave Zelensky a billion. When the Democrats return, they'll come at Russia with fury and vengeance. Well, the Europeans remain absolutely obsessed and fixated with Ukraine. I mean, this is Russia. And I mean, melts who's been the most extreme hardliner on the whole Russia issue. He's come out and said straight forward. He probably wrote. He's not even a war. We don't care about that. That's not what concerns us. Russia is what concerns us. Anybody who has been following this at the Europeans at all carefully over the last five, 10, 20 years, which I know you have because we could see that. So there is no doubt about this. But the question is, what can the Europeans do? They are running out of time. They're running out of money. And even the Democrats in two years' time are now largely run out of weapons. The Russians, we stood whatever Joe Biden and the Europeans together throughout them, it's not realistic to think that the United States and the Europeans together are going to be able to do much more. Chunky Monkey says if a Gulf nation collapses soon, doesn't that risk turning it into Iran 2.0? Shia and anti-Israel, isn't that a foreseeable and humiliating defeat? I think that's an absolutely correct. I mean, bear in mind, the only one of the Gulf Arab states that has a Shia majority is Bahrain and there is already apparently major crisis there. But there's a major Shia community in Saudi Arabia which is in conflict, regular conflict with the government there. And putting aside all of that, if Iran emerges the victor, then it's difficult to see how it would not be the dominant power in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Now that is a crisis for the Israel, it's a crisis for the United States. I think it will be a crisis for Turkey as well. And we could start to see real tensions between Turkey and Iran grow and maybe at that point the Turkey Erdogan, whoever succeeds Erdogan, will start to play the old game that the Ottomans used to play of presenting themselves as the champions of Sunni Islam against Shia Iran. So Lensky one says why is Zelensky still not an alive at this time? Trump captured Maduro, took out the Iranian leaders, why is Zelensky being pursued along with other Ukrainian leadership? But putting the answer to that, he said that Zelensky is the gift that Russia goes on to get it. He actually said, I mean he didn't use those words, but he said that. Why should we eliminate an incompetent and irrational leader and replace him with somebody who might be more rational and more competent and might conduct the war against us better? Now there is one specific point which I think does need to be addressed and understood, which is that the Russians, one of the reasons that they are saying they cannot come to a deal with the Ukrainians is because Zelensky is leading the Ukrainians. Eliminates Zelensky and that problem perhaps no longer exists. Then a new leader who takes over in Kiev might have some legitimacy in which case the Russians excuse for not conducting negotiations with the Ukrainians goes away. I say excuse because I have never come away with the sense that the Russians have any real interest in negotiating a solution anymore with the Ukrainians. Not since the collapse of the Istanbul Agreement in 2022 and not since Istanbul plus, which was what Putin set out in June 2024. Zelensky one, thank you for the five direct memberships. How to go, thank you for that super sticker. Zelensky one, thank you for another five direct memberships. Maximum distractions says fingers crossed the Democrats sweep Congress in the midterms. It's high time. The other useless booklickers of the empire war bluties. So let's do one. I'm wearing a blutie today that has no connection. The two have no connections with each other. Nothing would ever induce me to vote for the Democrats. If I had the vote, which thankfully I don't. Iranian kiddos says Iran should not agree to any type of ceasefire until it secures a permanent end hostilities against the Iranian nation. Any truth would be dangerous risking a slow death like Iraq from 1990 to 2003, which is what the Iranians have consistently said, which is what Jim Jatras also said, and what since Trump's announcement, the Iranian officials have also in effect been saying. I see no reason why the Iranians should change their strategy and it seems that they're not doing so. And the strategy Iranian kiddo is exactly the one that you set out. Zelensky one, thank you for five Iran memberships and another 10 Iran memberships. We have all kinds of Iran memberships gifted by Zelensky. Of course, Janik zero to one nine nine. Thank you for that super sticker. Nikos says, Iran, I ask this as a favor of you. Can you do a video about Greece? What's left of the Greek economy is tourism and our tankers now both are gone. You have a lot, you ask a very good question. We used to do programs about the Greek economy. Long ago, we haven't done one for a very long time. Maybe we should at some point, maybe around Easter time. They announced some measures today. Alex, I ended a deal with the fuel shortages and stuff like that. I forgot exactly what measures Mitsodakis announced. But European nations are starting to announce their measures. Exactly. Very bad. I love that he's talking about rationing by the way. Elena Diaz says, why is the Lebanese regime so passive? If they are not going to fight for their territory, why don't they just sell and compensate the people? What I have heard about Lebanon, and I've never been there, but what I've heard about Lebanon is that there is no actual Lebanese government in the sense of one might assume one. You have different factions who represent different communities which come together, but these factions are mostly loyal to each other. So when they form a government, the government itself is not really very stable and isn't able to do very much because it's a constant negotiation between the factions. I should stress that a Lebanese identity does exist, but at this political governmental level, it is because of the nature of the Lebanese system. It is incapable of getting itself organized and for forming a coherent government that would work in the way that you say. Elza says, the European intelligence found Putin's plan to help Orban to be reelected by staging an attack. Can these agencies find Trump's plan for his excursion to Iran, too? Well, of course. Absolutely. It's a serious thing. They have this enormous ability to find out all the nefarious things that Vladimir Putin is doing. They discover things that are so fantastic, so extraordinary that one wonders whether they have ever happened or could have happened, but things that Donald Trump and the United States actually do, those of course they don't see. They still haven't figured out Nord Stream, but they unravel to the whole Orban Russian paper. Okay. European, it'll because says, unlike Europeans, Greeks know what's going on, and we protest. We are exhausted because the cops protect the government, so I guess we'll just die. We used to protest a lot more, but I think people are very demoralized and very exhausted. And yes, I still find when I go to Greece, which I haven't been to for a while, by the way, when I go to Greece, the level of political conversation is often very sophisticated, but more sophisticated than you generally find in London, by the way. But as I said, it doesn't translate itself into action because when we did protest, it didn't result in anything. Iranian Kero says Iran should promptly refute on ex any of Trump's hints about a possible end to the war. It's just market manipulation. Iran should keep the Brent and WTI above $100 for an opportunity. You know, I think there must have been listening to your advice. Probably they, the Iranians knew what you were going to say before you said it because that is exactly what they're going to be doing. Yeah. Is this you can't really say, thank you for that super sticker. Fernand Otoia says, what if Al-Aqsa is destroyed? What happens next? Alexa. Oh, I see. We'll see. We'll see. I mean, Alexa. All right, Mark. Q. Q. Ren. Jiao. Iranian Kero economic pain should be harsh enough to ensure that next time they plan a military adventure in Iran, their own constituents won't allow it. Well, that's clearly a part of the strategy. I think that it has to be more than just in conflicting economic pain, because bear in mind that what has been a crisis this time, economically might be mitigated later. So you lose, you find yourself forced to retreat because of the high energy prices. Then you spend another two or three years building up your energy reserves, you give yourself a cushion, and then you try again. So it can't just be a question of an energy wall. You have to think of more things, but undoubtedly that is part of the Iranian strategy. - From, second Alexander, from Nicos, you said that Iran and China wouldn't let ships, wouldn't let ships being seized, but they did. The US seized 12 Chinese and four Iranian ships, which haven't returned. Did I ever say that? Did I ever, first of all, I should say that you're ahead of in information terms than I am. But I have actually taken a cue from Brian Belerty and suggested that the real purpose of these marine deployments actually is more likely about seizing ships, ferrying oil from Iran, rather than conducting operations. And so that's the reason why we're doing this. - So, anyway, again, I am not sure what your referencing that we have said. - Maybe the Russianships that are, that are steadfastly the Mediterranean, like Orban announced, or Iran, Macron. Macron announced a couple of days ago that the Chinese, the Mediterranean. - Yes, a tracker, except to repeat again, what the Russians have said is that they will protect, as they are, by the way, legally obliged to do, they are prepared to attack, protect a Russian flag tanker, which is a Russian ship. This particular tanker that was in the Eastern Mediterranean had the flag of Madagascar. So, the Russians are not under an obligation or a duty or a required to protect it in the same way. And I think this is a valid distinction, by the way, because protecting your own shipping is a recognized thing within international maritime law. And it doesn't overextend your resources. And since it is your own shipping, you can organize it in certain ways. You could tell the ship owners or the captains, like this is when we're going to travel, this is how we do it. This is where the convoy will be. This is how you join those convoy's ship owners, who have ships all over the world, and I've had some experiences all over the world with different flags that they put up and down whenever they choose. It is impractical for the Russians to protect them. It doesn't this lead to so much chaos, though, in shipping and trade? I mean, it is. Obviously, Russia is not going to be able to protect all these ships. So, yeah, they're going to focus on the ships with their flags. But you do have a lot of ships that are going to Russian ports and transferring energy here and there. This ship was at a Russian port. Yes. Oh, absolutely. So this is just chaos. It is absolutely chaos. It is absolute chaos. And it is chaos that's going to disrupt the entire maritime system. Again, if you know anything about it, you see ships. The way these ships work is they get from one port, they get to another port, they get to a different port. They pick up cargo there, they lead cargo somewhere else. They take on fuel, they move on to another place. Ships are in constant motion. And what is now going to happen? And by the way, not just in constant motion, they change owners all the time. And I mean, yeah, I mean valley donors. I mean, they're, they're, you know, one ship owner needs a ship to transfer cargo to X, Y, Z, place. He doesn't have a ship immediately available. He contacts another ship owner. He buys that, that ship from the other ship owner. Now all of that is going to start to freeze up because nobody knows whose ship might be frozen or not. Again, the people who are doing these things do not understand shipping and the way in which the shipping industry works. It is utter and complete folly. And to the extent that this is targeting Russian energy exports, you are targeting Russian energy exports in the middle of a global energy crisis, you can only push prices up, still further, which will end up benefiting the one country that still exports energy, which is Russia. I mean, it is stupid. Orren, Jars says, good morning gentlemen. I just wanted to say that I hope and hate all these wars that are currently being waged and that I deeply hope for peace as soon as possible. So do I. I think you're absolutely right. So does Alex. So do we. Sorry, I'll say Germans have sweepers, but won't engage in this war. Good for them. One wise decision, the only wise decision they've made last five years. Iranian kiddos says Iran should monetize the straight and definitely and use the proceeds to rebuild damaged infrastructure. It should seize this chance. I believe they are monetizing. That's exactly where they will soon. Yeah. Maryland 709 says, thank you. Zelensky one. Oh, Renjass says, unfortunately, there are far too many Trump, Trump pennies on YouTube cheering on this chaos like Anton Bagman Daniel. Well, I'm not going to identify any particular individual. There are all sorts of people there who are cheering this on. I'm incredibly fantastical theories as to why it's happening at all. I'm going to spend time on that. I'm going to focus on analysis. We are going to focus on the analysis of the events as they're playing out. Sparky says Scott Besson and his crowd may believe destroying the world economy will leave the US as the last country standing a kind of like World War two. And in elegant downright crude way to put the US back on top. Yes, I can see that. And I think there might be some people in the US who do think it that way. But of course they're completely wrong. They are not looking at the US as it was in the 1940s in the 1940s. The US had by far the biggest manufacturing base in the world. It had a super it had the strongest technology base in the world. And of course it was sufficient, so sufficient in food and energy. The United States was part of the global economy at that time. But it was not as bound up with it as it is today. The US is not an economic island in the way that it was in the 1920s and 30s and 40s. If there is a crisis in the global economy, it will pull the United States down. There are other countries of the world notably Russia, by the way, which are much more of a self-sufficient economic island than the United States today. It was forced upon it. The economic island was forced on Russia. Absolutely. Yes. Yes. True. It is interesting. Absolutely. Absolutely. Nico says Starlink has been upgraded and Russia lost access. I don't know how the Ukrainians have so many drone drones for strikes. At least negotiations are suspended. The the the the the the again I've actually been in contact with a hundred people in Russia. They tell me that you even in many of the places where the drones are supposed to hit, you're not hardly even aware of them. I think we spoke to was it. Shwale the other day on Friday and he said that he was in one particular city. I think it was I think it was Belgeron where the drones were supposed to be there and you wouldn't even know that there were any drones there. So this this story again is being massively overstated. It's like the refinery attacks in the summer. As for Starlink, well, again, I think Shwale made the point that the Russians adjusted to that within days. I think again, the level of disruption was minimal. But they are sending a lot of drones, which is interesting. Oh, of course they are. Well, I mean, we have seen a big uptick in we've didn't have in drones that are going towards Moscow and St. Petersburg. Yes, so they're traveling longer distances. And we know why they're getting help from the US. They're getting help in Starlink. They're getting help from all of these people. But what actual difference are they making? I mean, that's that's the thing to ask. And so far, none. Sparky says Jim, it seems as if Neoconsionists and establishment media combine as a bizarre world, Hogan's heroes, fooling President Trump as if he is Colonel Kling. Well, I think that we should not be in a hurry to a quick Trump himself of responsibility. He is the president of the United States. He can call you. in which ever person he wants to speak to for advice, there are lots of good people out there who would provide him good advice. Jim, for example, has worked for the US government, but Trump prefers to talk to people like Laura Lumer and others instead. >> Yeah, seriously. >> Yeah, the Lindsey Graham. >> And Lindsey Graham, he says, this war will only stagnate. This may not be what the US wants, but it's not far from what Israel wants, and they are paying the smallest price compared to the US and the GCC. >> Are they actually, again, I'm far from sure. I think that for the Israelis, a long duration conflict with Iran is probably far from what they would want to see. I think they would want to see instead, either regime change in Iran. Or it collapse in Iran. Absolutely not a long duration war, which is resulting in things like the strike on the Mona, which happened two or three days ago. >> Iranian Kyrgyz is as soon as I heard the F-35 story. I knew some people are going to make it all about Russia somehow. It's a complete work of fiction. There is no evidence of S-400s in Iran, but I wish these reports were true. >> Well, there are reports. I don't know how true or not. They are. >> Who is to say? >> Iranian Kyrgyz says according to the government, the F-35 was targeted in central Iran using an Iranian-made system, not in far Eastern Iran using an S-400 again. Please be careful with reports. You see on the internet. >> I know. Elliott TZP says, "Should an Iran use Hormuz while they can? Won't the GCC put in place alternatives over time and neutralize the leverage and how long would that take?" >> Well, this is one reason why economic using focusing on the economy as opposed to looking for wider strategic security, systems that will guarantee security. It's probably not wise, a wise strategy for Iran, because after this conflict is over, assuming that there has been no long-term resolution, then of course the Gulf states will start to look for alternative exit routes through the Arabian Peninsula, just as the Americans will act to build up their reserves. That's why you basically force them, you should try and force them into a permanent resolution now once you hold this advantage. >> The Haki Goli says, "LBC radio concerned Iran has hypersonic and the UK has no defense against them." "Presenter shocked when analysts mentioned Russia had them too and actually in range. Where have these people been for four years?" >> Well, quite, exactly. Sparky says, "Instead of using Sunsuz, the art of war President Trump uses the Mongolian cluster F strategy." Sparky also says, "Many say the missiles fired a day at Garcia or a false flag." >> I don't believe that. I'll read that. Again, I know the Iranians are saying this, but just as in Jim's case, I don't know why the Israelis want them. >> What if it wasn't in Israel? What if it was a false flag but not in Israeli false flag but a false flag to pull the Europeans in? >> It's possible. >> It's possible. >> It's possible. It seems to be more likely that this is part of the information game that the Iranians themselves are playing and they're playing it very well, by the way. I always say this information is a part of war. So this strike at Diego Garcia, they say, "No, no, it wasn't us. It was someone else who's up to it, maybe Israel. Thank for someone else. The Americans know presumably." And that's ultimately what really matters. >> Elliot TZP says, "They gave Kim's to Saddam and helped him devastated Iran to prevent Iran domination in the region. They will do the same again to prevent that again." >> Well indeed, yes. This goes back to what Jim was talking about, about going all the way up to using nuclear weapons. If the imperative is to stop Iran dominating the region. You also would say, "Tarifan's scenario is going to happen after that." >> Nico says, "I finally made the top 10 best and worst Greek and Iranian leaders list." It was hard, man. So many awful leaders. I'm leaving them on your telegram. We look forward to that list. Nico says, "The next big one, top 20 worst people who ever lived." We know number one, one of the three commies, Stalin, Mao, and Poltpot will be number two. Jiangga says, "Jekols are not fussy about those bones they pick over." If Iran survives but Arab states failed, doesn't that offer future land grabs by Israel? >> Well, yes, but in that kind of scenario, Israel would not, would be grabbing land, but it would still face a colossus because Iran relative to Israel is a colossus with much bigger land territory, much bigger armed forces, and which is prevailed in a war against Israel and the United States. So grabbing land, even Gabi economic resources would not resolve Israel's strategic crisis. >> From Fautan, given the dismal performance of top-end US weapons in the war, could they really have been that impactful in Ukraine? >> That's an excellent question. >> I have to say, I completely agree with you. I think Gabi made the same point on one of my programs, which is that given that the patriot missiles have been so unsuccessful in the Middle East, why do people go on believing that the Ukrainian claims that they're successfully shooting down like the sonic missiles, and it's gander missiles? It astonishes me the same with drones, by the way, that given that the Shahid drones were able to operate all across the Middle East, why believe the Ukrainian claims that they're shooting down all of these get on missiles? But there it is. It's what people want to believe. It's what the media message has to be. You go, you always assume that whatever the Ukrainians say is true, and even if it's clearly contradicted by events on the ground in the Middle East, and by the way, the Ukraine itself, well, you still must believe Zelensky. >> He's a good actor. A very well-paid actor, so Zelensky. Perhaps the best paid actor in all of history. Sparky says, although it's true, Israel isn't the only powerful lobby in DC destroying it will stop a key kickback loop with Congress for a while. Got to start somewhere. >> Well, if we're talking about ending corruption, the problem is always in Washington. And if you don't sort out a corrupt system in Washington, then if one corrupt outside leaves the scene, another one will simply take its place. >> Nico says, well, there was a distortion of my comment to Jatras. I get it. You don't want to offend him. I'm critical of him and his generations attitude towards wars. >> I think he answered the question. >> I think he was clear. Empire, we are says, Israel's nuclear weapons are myth. Why would we build aircraft for Israel made to carry our nuclear weapons? Why reinvent the wheel when you can just craft a very good myth around one? >> Well, I don't believe it is a myth. I think we should take this extremely seriously, but the true nature of the Iranian -- sorry, the Israeli nuclear program is one that I don't pretend I never very well. >> Sparky says, wouldn't a Diego Garcia-Faz flag be an attempt to bring NATO support and more US support for the war? >> Yes, possibly. I'm not quite sure why, if I have to say, because the Diego Garcia is an American base in a British territory. There is no mood in Britain to join the war. And you go on. >> There's a second part that we know that there were actual missiles fired at the Diego Garcia, or was it just a false report? >> Well, it might have been a completely false report. Again, if it was a false report, it's a false report coming from the US. And again, I'm not entirely sure why they would publish it, given that in fact it's caused tremors in Washington. >> Why is Trump so obsessed with trying to create a coalition? >> Oh, good question. >> Why? >> I have that question. >> It's a coalition. >> It doesn't really add anything to the war. >> Exactly, it doesn't. >> Why is he so obsessed with trying to build a coalition? >> Yes. Yes, it's an extra question. You know, I suppose the easy answer is to, you know, you should have a bunch of last-gibbed. But it doesn't make much political sense anyway because maybe it's, it is ultimately political. He wants to say to people in the US, look, I'm reading this great coalition. It's not just me, everybody, all around the world can see what bad people, the Iranians are, and they've all joined up with me. This is my great coalition of the Willie. It was, I suppose, the calculation of the George W. Bush had, but it didn't work that well for him in the end. So, while Trump thinks it would work better for Trump, I really just don't know. Maybe because Obama had a coalition and Bush had a coalition, he wants a coalition as well. Yes. Why has the Iran turned left? I don't know, have we turned left? We haven't turned left at all. Left, right. Left, right. The left would have wanted the war, the right would have wanted the war, the said it would have wanted a war. They were repeated moves to the Biden era that really made it fairly clear that soon all the ladies that we'd about an attack with had Harry Spina left it. We would still have an attack on Iran. Of that, I've absolutely settled. Sullivan and Biden were talking about an attack on Iran, but remember the report from the New York Times, which came out in February, which revealed that Sullivan and Biden were thinking about a strike against Iran, but the only reason they didn't do it was because Biden only had one month left of his presidency and it would have looked bad if he passed on a war. Exactly. You're completely right. Remember that report? Yeah, I remember it well. Yeah. Absolutely. Now that you're reminded me of what I remember. They were talking about it. Exactly. Yeah. And actually, I believe Biden even said in that New York Times piece that that Biden even told Sullivan, let's just have Trump deal with it. He can begin it. I'm not going to pass a war to him. Yes. Yeah. Arcane eclectics says, see if you guys can get Miranda on the show. Yes. Yes. Definitely. Empire, we are. My family is zarced and Soviet. The most criticism I heard of the USSR was of the influence of Jews and deference to Israel. I see those same problems in Russia today, even now Russia is providing petroleum products to Israel. Well, I don't know about. I know there is extensive trade between Israel and Russia. I thought the Soviet Union, I have to say, I mean, what I remember from the late 60s right up until the 1980s is that relations were terrible. They didn't even have diplomatic relations at that time. From Chris, the the Biko farmer, what about Brent oil price crash? 113 down to 96. Yes. I mean, this is partly what this whole announcement today was. Trump is desperate to keep oil prices below $100. Iranian kiddos says, Natan's facility is visible from Qashan Isfahan highway. If it was actually destroyed, I guess I would be dead from radiation by now as I draw on it. Well, there you go. I mean, we are hearing so much. I mean, this is the facility that was supposed to be obliterated in June. And we just been obliterated all over again. In a few months time, we're going to be hearing about another attack, which is obliterated into third time. Just so Gordon Wilkinson says, why would Turkey find a dominant Iran a threat? Instead, couldn't they become close allies and find joint interests as a reason to work together? One would wish. I don't think so. I think that if certainly one other one is around, he will not be comfortable sharing the central Asia with another big power like Iran. Chris, the Biko farmer, thank you for the Iran memberships. Irinette Suvlad Irini. Irini Suvlad Zidu says, what is the most possible scenario regarding the outcomes of the Middle East War and the worst case scenario? Are we going to be only hungry or also bombed? Well, the worst scenario is nuclear weapons. I mean, the use of nuclear weapons would change the entire realities of the world we know and change them irrevocably. So that is the worst scenario. The most plausible scenario is that we have a global recession and starvation. Yeah, I think we already have that pretty much in the bag. Yeah. Cactus Ray, thank you for that super sticker. Rani and Kido says Putin would never target Zelensky. He's part of a protected group starting with the letter J. I'm choosing my words very carefully. Well, I think I've answered my I'll give my abuse of what he would sparky, which is which is the reasons he has himself given. Sparky says, I don't seek to equip president Trump or responsibility, even without Hogan's heroes, his down manipulation. Wouldn't it be wise to have Colonel Klingk as president? Yeah, Colonel Klingk would be a better, a better choice than Biden or open view. Azzy, hi guys, don't you think Iran is playing the information on social media like X are better than Russia? Oh, yes, absolutely. No question. As I said many times, the Russians are dreadful at this. They are, they are and the Iranians are much, much more sophisticated. Look at how skillfully Arabshi has been playing X and compare that with anyone within the Russian ministries. We'll do me a chair for example. Seven key forces. If Iran felt it was going to lose, could surrender into China or Russia be a viable option? Well, I don't think they're even contemplating those possibilities. I think that for the moment, they have no reason to think like that and I don't think that that is part of their strategy. I think the Iranians will not look or plan for a surrender to anyone. And why would the Russians and the Chinese accept their surrender? Just for Martin, any chance if there's a settlement, could Iran pulling out of bricks be part of it? I would have thought that from an Iranian point of view, staying in bricks makes much better sense. Surely as part of a settlement, you would want to deepen your partnerships with those countries which can support you. Just say. Russell Hall says a coalition as legitimacy. Yeah, that's exactly the point is. Empire, we are says, I built Israeli F-15s avionics. I have thousands of hours running all the systems. Those aircraft were built to carry out, to carry hour, B-61 nuclear gravity bombs. Not some mythical Israeli device. I understand that. My understanding is that the F-35s would not be used for a nuclear strike. The Israelis, can I stress again, this isn't something I know very much about, am at all experts in, but the aviation bombs would be carried by older F-15s and that most of Israel's nuclear arsenal is on missiles, Jericho missiles, some of which are in submarines. But let me be honest, I don't know very much about this topic and discussing it makes me uncomfortable and I don't want to give the impression that I know more than I do. Iranian Keto says Trump made a big miscalculation. The sad thing is Iran is becoming more liberal at a very fast pace, but he just handed a big win to conservatives on a golden platter. Streets of Iran have been packed with people morning for a month. Yes, I've heard exactly the same thing. And I agree, I think Iran was evolving in a direction very different from the ones that has been described in the West. Someone I know, a very closer acquaintance, has recently been to Iran, went to Iran before the conflict began, but only shortly before the conflict began. And he made exactly that comment. He said that he was surprised, for example, at the social changes that he had seen in Iran. How many women, for example, young women, for example, were there without edskarves and how widely women are represented and many layers of Iranian society, including the government. And of course, in the academic and educational worlds. From Peter, Alexander and I were born the same year, happy birthday, Alexander. Thank you. 1961, 1961 was a vintage way. Yeah, by the way, the claret of that, yeah, was outstanding. Sparky says President Trump attempts to create a coalition, so as to spread out the blame for a colossal failure. Correct. Seven key four says, "Decimated only means 10 percent, so in Trump." And heg says, "Say Iran has been decimated." That means 10 percent damage. Well, I suspect you are being much more precise in your use of language than these people are even capable of in their own thoughts. Alexander, that's everything. Well, it was a brilliant live stream all together and Jim was an outstanding guest and we'll see how this goes. I mean, I think this is the biggest crisis since Vietnam. Are these bigger than Vietnam? Bigger than Vietnam. Bigger than Vietnam. I think the stakes are disastrously high and what Jim said about the Middle East being pivotal. The same was true for the British, by the way. It was control of the Middle East that held the British Empire together. It was able to enable the British to keep everything tied together and of course the Royal Navy depended on Iranian petroleum oil from Iran, which is why the British went into Iran in the first place. That was the advice the German admirals gave to the German leadership in the 1940s. They said focus on the Middle East. Don't get bogged down in Russia as we know that advice was not heated and the rest is history. Now we have Russia and the Middle East. We have Russia and the Middle East. All right. We will end the live stream there. Thank you once again to Jim. Jantras, I have his information in the description box down below. Thank you to everyone that joined us on Odyssey, rumble, YouTube, end of the dira.locals.com. Check out videos that will be going up very soon on Alexander's channel and on my channel as well. Thank you to our moderators. Peter, to Harry, to Zahraiel. To I believe I saw the teacher, I think was also moderating. And we have one more superchats from Truth or FB long term pain or short term gain, no gain at all. Yeah, no one gains from this. No. All right. Take care everybody.