June 12, 2025 • 53 mins
Krystal and Saagar discuss Hegseth threatens National Guard everywhere, Newsom stocks skyrocket amid LA protests, Israel plans Iran strike.
Murtaza Hussain: https://www.dropsitenews.com/s/murtaza-hussain
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an
amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Indeed, we do a lot of big things happening here
and around the world, so we'll update you on those protests.
Pete Hegseth had some significant testimony in front of Congress yesterday.
Moments did not go so well, so break all of
that down for you. Also. Gavin Newsom, obviously seizing the
moment to potentially further his presidential ambitions. Will break down
the political aspect of that as well. All eyes on
(00:58):
Israel and raw some very ominous signs that Israel may
be preparing to strike Iran. Martaza Hussein is going to
join us to break down those indications and what we
can say about that, and where those nuclear talks between
Trump and the Iranians are as of today. So break
all of that down for obviously extraordinarily consequential news there.
(01:19):
Yesterday we received word from the Trump administration that they
have a China deal we'll call it. It seems like
it's a framework at this point. We've got some of
the loose details Scott Bessett and others answering questions, so
we'll tell you what we know about that. We also
have some sort of reproach mol with Elon and Trump,
him posting yesterday at three or four am, which Emily
(01:40):
and I mentioned in the show. We didn't have a
chance like fully break it down. He regrets, Yeah, some
those the things that he said went too far.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Soccer, Yes, that's right.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
It appears to have been at high level broker talks
between the White House and between Elon. So perhaps this
is the you know, the beginning of the bromance again.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
We'll see, you never know.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Twists and turns.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
We can only hope. No, you never know.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
And we have some big news in the New York
City mayor race, first poll ever to come out that
shows zoron Mom Donnie leading that race, beating Andrew Cuomo,
former governor. We also have some clips from his appearance
on the Breakfast Club which are pretty interesting as well.
So we'll take a look at that and what that
means more broadly for the Democratic Party in the country,
(02:21):
all that good stuff before we get to any of that, Sager.
Today is the last day the free month trial.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Unfortunately, it is the very very last day, or perhaps
fortunately for those of you who have been waiting and
you've just been hovering there with your mouse, you can
go ahead and sign up at Breakingpoints dot com BP
free see what we're all about.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
You can check out the trial for yourself.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
You get the full show, of course, the AMA access,
some of the Friday Show, exclusive content, and so much more.
So go ahead and sign up at Breakingpoints dot com.
The promo code is BP free. We deeply appreciate so
many of the people who have signed up here. You're
preventing Ryan from having to do what is it Hymn's
ads or Jenny Parlay, the exclusive Saga DraftKings Parlay or Phantom.
(03:09):
Can you imagine that the prize picks or any of
these other jokes sports books that are out there, so
ag one and all of So if you don't want
to hear that, you can go ahead and sign up
at breakingpoints dot com, BP free hues that promo code.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
All right, let's get to the protes All right, let's
go ahead, get to the process best as I can tell.
Protests around the country and including La pretty quiet last night.
You know, the elt Mayor of La has instituted a
curfew and that seems to have calm things down significantly.
So let me show you a couple of clips here
from Pete Hegsat's testimony for Congress yesterday. So he got
asked whether the guard could be deployed in other cities.
(03:43):
He also got asked about the the usage of the
National Guard on January sixth, versus with regards to what
is going down in LA. Let's go ahead and take
a listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Or which guard.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
And I'm trying to figure out if you decided to
do this collectively in Kansas or any other place would
you need to specify a new sort of fact pattern
or do you think this order applies to any guard anywhere,
any service branch anywhere. It's just like, I get your justification,
(04:19):
we disagree about the circumstances. I'm just trying to figure out,
did you just potentially mobilize every guard everywhere and every
service member everywhere? I mean, create the framework for that.
I understand you didn't. I'm saying, what does the document
do in your opinion.
Speaker 6 (04:36):
Senator, if you noticed the initial order of two thousand
in California was followed by a follow on order for
the additional two thousand with a recognition that the situation
there required more resources in order to support law enforcement.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
So part of it is getting ahead of.
Speaker 6 (04:50):
A problem so that if in other places, if there
are other riots and places where law enforcement officers are threatened,
we would have the capability to surge National Guard there
if necessary.
Speaker 7 (05:02):
The National Guard was deployed here on January sixth, and
that was a decision made by the Department of Defense.
Do you support that decision? Do you believe that that
was the right decision to deploy the National Guard to
defend the capital in January sixth.
Speaker 6 (05:18):
All I know is it's the right decision to be
deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to defend ice
agents who deserve to be defended in the execution of
their job.
Speaker 7 (05:26):
But I think it's important to know whether you think
it was also important to have the National Guard defending
the United States Capital when there were violent protesters here
on the president's behalf. To make sure that folks know
that you care about protest, whether it's against the president
or on behalf of the president.
Speaker 6 (05:44):
Senator I was in the Washington, DC National Guard when
that happened, and was initially ordered to go guard the
inauguration of Joe Biden, but because of the politicization of
the Biden administration, my orders were revoked and ultimately because
of the politics that being played inside the Defense Department
by the previous administration.
Speaker 7 (06:05):
But do you support the decision made on January sixth
to send the National Guard here?
Speaker 6 (06:09):
I support the decision that President Trump made and requesting
the National donors denied.
Speaker 7 (06:14):
So you do not Trump, you do not support, you
do not guarsion to send the National Guard here to
defend the capital. I think that speaks to the worry
that many Americans have that there is a double standard.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
So obviously two significant things there. First of all, no
limiting principle on the order that Trump signed. You know,
hag Seth acknowledges effectively that yeah, we could deploy troops,
we could federalize National Guard anywhere. And you know, really
important in the context of there are planned protests this
weekend on the day of Trump's big military slash birthday parade,
(06:48):
Trump himself said that protesters, not not violent protesters, just
protesters in general would be met with force. So Pete
Hugseth indicating yeah, this isn't just about LA. We have
the option available, and I don't think anyone would be
surprised if they federalized the National Guard in other places
Blue states and cities in particular. The other piece here,
(07:08):
actually good question from Senator Chris Murphy, because you know,
the January sixth riots were significantly more consequential and violent
than what was going down in LA. And Pete Hegseth
can't bring himself to say that it was the right
decision in that instance to bring in the National Guard,
but he is fully behind bringing it in in LA.
So before I played the next one, what did you
(07:28):
make of that soccer.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Yeah, I mean the Jan six element is one which
always really comes back to bite them because you see
a lot of the insurrectionist stuff that is being used
right now.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
I mean, here's the thing.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
We weren't critical about National Guard deployment at the time,
if you recall I was talking about it with Ryan.
I mean, all of those images of people sleeping on
the floor in parking garages and stuff that actually happened here.
We were effectively occupied in Washington for three months, and
it costs I don't even remember how many billions and
billions of dollars.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
It was useless. It was a completely unnecessary thing.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
We have some five thousand US troops of some kind,
either National guardsmen and or United States Marines that are
being deployed in defense of this. The crazy thing about
the Marines is that we were told that they were
actually ready and had been trained and riot control and
all this other stuff, but they actually not the case.
They're not even in Los Angeles right now at the moment.
So this is a colossal, you know, bit of expenditure
(08:20):
for what purpose exactly. I mean, the current estimate is,
what's one hundred and thirty one million dollars for a
single I mean it's not even been a full week
of this, so extrapolate that out more. Also, anybody who
remembers covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number
of like support personnel that you need to support anything.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Like this is astounding.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
And so I think that the more that this, you know, continues,
and especially if it goes national, it's really going to
be I mean, a very easy talking point I think
for your Democrats, and not only talk about January sixth.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
But also just the cost.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
I mean, the cost does matter here where It's like
you guys are literally rolling around celebrating a five million
dollar cut to Zimbabwe.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
It's like you just blew ton.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
There are times that over a weekend deployment to Los Angeles.
So yeah, I think that I think we are trending.
You know, if we talked about the politics and stuff
like that here, and especially as violence has happened yesterday,
we'll see you over the weekend whenever body's not at
work or whatever. But especially if things begin to go
down and you just see more militarized like images that
come out of LA I do think things could turn
(09:21):
against them.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to this next part,
because he gets asked in addition, okay, so under what
authority are the deployment of the Marines in particular, like,
what constitutional authority is justifying this extraordinary action with regard
to federalizing the National Guard and bringing in the Marines.
Let's go ahead and take a listen to how we
response to that.
Speaker 8 (09:42):
Just specifically, mister secretary, what is the authority that the
administration is using to deploy active duty Marines to California neighborhoods?
Speaker 4 (09:55):
What authority the president has constitutional authority? In order to support.
Speaker 8 (10:01):
Site cite the provision of the Constitution.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
I'd have to I'd have to pull up the specific provisions.
Speaker 6 (10:06):
But our Office of General Council, alongside our leadership, has.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Reviewed and ensured in the order that we.
Speaker 6 (10:14):
Set out that it's completely constitutional for the President to
use federal troops to.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
Defend federal law enforcement administration.
Speaker 7 (10:22):
I would are you prepared to authorize DHS to use
drones and also to authorizing elite forces to detain our
arrest American citizens?
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (10:32):
Senator, Every authorization we've provided the.
Speaker 6 (10:34):
National Guard UH and the Marines in Los Angeles is
under the authority the President of.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
The United States is lawful and constitutional.
Speaker 6 (10:42):
They are assisting in defending the law enforcement officers, the
law facilities, the execution to their.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
Job in the city of Los Angeles.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
So won't rule out their use of drones and military forces. Obviously,
the first clip where he's like, I don't really know
what authority. I'm sure it's constitutional, but I can't really
tell you how. Not a great look there at a
time when you know the authorization of this is legally contested. Yeah,
Man Newsom has already stued there's actually supposed to be
hearings today about whether or not this was a lawful
(11:15):
deployment of both the Marines and the decision to federalize
the National Guard over the objections of the governor of
California and Sagara. I was reading yesterday, I actually didn't
realize this. Marines were used in nineteen ninety two in
the context of suppressing the LA riots, and some of
the local cops were like, this was really not great
(11:38):
because they're not trained for domestic law enforcement situations. And
one of the anecdotes that you know, became sort of
notorious coming out of that is the LAPD we're like,
all right, cover us to the Marines, cover us as
we go into this house, as we approach this house. Well,
for law enforcement, that means okay, watch make sure no
one's coming out. For the Marines, it meant light up
(11:58):
the whole house. And people were like, what the hell
are you doing. They're like, you told us to cover
you to us. That's what that means. So just to
give one example of how that's why you don't deploy
active duty soldiers on American streets outside of truly extraordinary circumstances. Now,
the La riots in nineteen ninety two, I mean it
(12:20):
is hard to if you haven't watched anything or read
the news about what went down there. I mean it
was insane. Over sixty people killed, billion dollars in damage,
business is looted. I mean, this was just going on
and on. It was a massive, uncontrolled conflagration. And you
had the governor of California who said, yes, we need
the help. Yes, let's federalize the National Guard. Yes, federal
(12:42):
garment please come in and assist us. Totally different situation here,
and I think sober that is what you know is
so disturbing to me is the attempt to normalize the
use of military forces in a domestic law enforcement context,
and to make it seemed normal to have our streets
completely militarized in this way. I think you and Ryan
(13:05):
made a great point that part of what has conditioned
us for this moment also is how all of the
local law enforcement in every major city, you can't even
tell them apart from National Guard.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
It's funny.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
I see these clips go viral all the time. They're like, look,
national Guards, and I'm like, no, that's LAPD for what purpose.
I actually I wrote a piece of years ago about
Ferguson and about how that actually set the tone for
a lot of what we saw.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
I mean, look, we.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
Could debate Ferguson and all that, but I don't think
anybody's going to be sitting around defending Ferguson PD, even
in a wright or left wing level.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
And that's specifically because of this.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
That's what a lot of the conversation unfortunately has actually
gotten worse. And that is really I mean, look, I
think it's dangerous in this regard. And again, you know,
for the White House, they really do seem to believe
that they're on their strongest footing in taking on and look,
I mean we did not deny here the Mexican flag
stuff and all that is not good. I mean, look,
there has been some property damage, but you know, we
(14:01):
I think contextualizing the scale of this is actually genuinely important,
specifically because of the reaction that they're coming here. But look,
we can't deny this is something that the White House
wants to pick this fight, and in some respects I'm
not I'm still a bit torn. I don't know yet
how the country is going to react, because you know,
(14:21):
I did underestimate how much of this, like left wing
cities out of control stuff has become not only a
meme but like a shibboleth literally across the entire country,
like you don't live in the city, you live in
the Upper Midwest and stuff.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
These images are everywhere.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
It's literally like, you know, calling people in San Francisco
and be like, are you safe? You know, they really
have no familiarity at all with that, and you can't
blame them probably vice versa as well. I'm just I'm
still kind of trying to tease out and see like
how this goes. They clearly believe that things are going
to be, you know, for them, but also it's probably
about tone setting as well, you know, especially ahead of
this military parade here in Washington and New York City,
(14:58):
Chicago dealt. There's been some other protests, but nothing has
really risen to the level of la Yeah, perhaps that's
part of it as well.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Yeah, all right, let's go ahead and get to this
next piece where you know, the Trump administration has been
threatening to arrest Gavin Newsom. Tom Homan first, you know,
said this, and then Trump said, yeah, I think he should.
And Trump got another question about this yesterday whether or
(15:25):
not he thinks that Gavin Newsom could be charged and arrested.
By the way, the last time he got asked this
of like, well, exactly what would be the pretext for
arresting him, and he said for running for governor that
was the reason. That was the reason he should be
charged and arrested. So in any case he gets asked
about this again, let's take a listen.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Are you gonna arrest Gavin Newsom?
Speaker 9 (15:46):
Well, he's not doing a good job, you know, arrest
What does that mean he's not doing a good job?
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Jim, Well, in theory, you could.
Speaker 9 (15:54):
I guess, you know, it's almost like a dissipation of duty.
Nobody's ever seen anything like that.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
In theory I could, so that is where that stands.
Also soccer, this week, they charged this Congresswan mac Iver
with you know, crimes that could lead to seventeen years
in prison and the context of that, you know, situation
that unfolded outside of a federal detention facility that Ice
was using in Newark, New Jersey. So you know, you've
(16:20):
got a lot of authoritarian pieces coming together here. You
have the charging this congressman. You have the threats of
arrest of Gavin Newsom for existing and doing things that
Trump didn't like. You have the federalizing of the National
Guard over the ejections of the elected governor of California.
You have the deployment of marines. You had that wild
partisan speech to troops at Fort Bragg. By the way,
(16:43):
we learned more about that. First of all, they were
hand selected to make sure they had the right politics,
the ones that were behind Trump, and they sold the
MAGA merchandise, which is like, I mean again, I know
no one cares about the before times and what things
used to be like, but these are things that would
just be completely out of bounds. And then you have
tanks being into DC for his big birthday parade, show
of force and strength, et cetera. So a lot of
(17:06):
authoritarian elements just in your face, you know, flood the
zone with them this week as we head into the
weekend where there are planned significant protests they're called No
King's protests that were planned across the country and.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
Especially here in Washington. Yeah, I'm actually curious to see.
We're going to get to that in a little bit
as to how the protests and the parade itself might
be disrupted because of weather.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
But le's going to this parade. They asked them if
the Republicans, and none of them.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Were like, I think it's the military.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
I think what they're going to do is because remember
the estensible purpose of the parade is the United States
Army's two hundred and fiftieth birthday.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
So this happens aside.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Whatever I will not be attending, mostly because of traffic reasons.
This is impossible to get into the city. But what
you have here in the Northern Virginia area, as you know,
is like there's what half the United States military lives
around the Pentagon. They're either going to get orders or
they're going to go and so with a lot of
their families, and so I think the vast majority of
the people who will be there in attendance of the
(18:04):
Grand Parade, Schill, we remember what the inspiration for this was?
Is that all because five or six years ago Trump
went to the Bastille Day parades in France and he
was like, Hey, this is pretty cool, you know, watching
tanks and all that roll down the champ dellyz And
that's why he was like, Okay, we need to bring
this to Washington. I'm actually surprised because it was supposed
to be for America's two hundred and fiftieth birthday, which
(18:25):
I believe is isn't that next year in.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Twenty twenty six?
Speaker 3 (18:28):
Yeah, so seventeen sive six day it would have been
next year, so July fourth, twenty twenty six. But I
guess he just had to have one for the two
hundred and fifty birthday of the US Army, something that
definitely the.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
US population knows quite a bit. I'm telling you, I
didn't even know w with the two undred fty birthday.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Well, America's birthday doesn't fall on Trump's birthday, so that
wasn't going to work.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Out soccer as.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
It's billy you one more piece here. We can go
ahead and is this a vo or a sad guys,
you can let me know, pretty troubling in my opinion,
given the context, true social post from Trump. Let's go
and put this up on the Oh, it's a side,
so goll Let's go out and play this and you
can take a look at the text on the screen.
(19:05):
Let me go ahead and read this a little bit
to you before we play it, because for those of
you who are listening by a podcast, he says, I'm
more confident than ever that in the days ahead and
every generation to come, the US Army will keep glory
upon glory. You will summonn inexhaustible courage, you'll protect every
inch of US soil, and you will defend America to
the ends of the earth in the days ahead. Okay,
let's take a listen.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Just the job.
Speaker 9 (19:26):
It's a calling and a sacred tradition passed down from
father to son, brother to sister, and one generation to
the next, that every hour of danger on noblest citizens
have answered that call.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Time and again.
Speaker 9 (19:44):
Our enemies have learned that if you dare to threaten
the American people, American soldier will chase you down, thrush you,
and cast you into Bob.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
All right, So that was that. In addition, Sager who
pulled this it literally may ran on his parade.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Yes, actually literal rain on the parade. You know, I'm
an avid DC weather watcher. Here we have storm for
the Capitol Weather gangret you yeah, shout out to the
Capitol Weather Gang if you do live in the DMV area,
they are absolutely the best threatened. The US Armises two
and and fifty celebration in DC on Saturday. A slow
moving Trump front may trigger late day showers and storms
as the parade, concert and fireworks crowds are gathering. Morning
(20:24):
looks mostly dry, but heat and humidity are building. I'm
gonna say this, I get how in the vacuum that
that truth social post and all that looks troubling, But
having covered the Pentagon, the absolute vast majority of like
Pentagon agid prop and stuff that they put out is
like this, I get where you're coming from.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Well, I do people to just know like this.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
Type of this is standard fair for like Obama, for
for for the first Trump administrative. Basically anytime they're like, oh,
the war fighters, the killers the US armies, just so
people know that is what a very average US army is.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Propaganda, that's the case.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
And you know what any of these things, well not
any of them, but some of these things individually, like
the military parade. Yeah, this is a normal administration and
they're doing this quirpasthma. All right, I mean it's a
waste of money. Like what are we doing. We're destroying
the streets in DC.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
They really don't ate that or like shitty streets anyway,
so maybe we can rebuild them properly.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
As not great, but isn't the end of the world
no coming in the context of everything else, That's where
it becomes. You know, when you see the tanks being
rolled into DC at the time when they're threatening the
use of the National Guard, federalizing the National Guard in
cities across the country, and they're deploying active duty marines
against US citizens for like incredibly protectual reasons over the
(21:42):
objections of the elected governor of that state. And oh,
by the way, they're threatening to arrest the elected governor
of that state because he got elected. That's when I
see things like that, and you know, they add to
a picture that is to me deeply troubling. And the
last thing I'm saying that then we can move on
to Gavin some and how he is certainly enjoying his
moment in the sun with all of this. You know,
(22:05):
there are some there has been a pattern in this
administration where it's not just this moment, it's the attacks
on the universities, it's the you know, trying to bring
the media to heal, it's even the use of national
emergency to justify this wild terror fsham. Like, the consistent
pattern in this administration has been consolidation of power, and
(22:28):
it feels very much like we're coming to a crescendo
with that. And also Soger. One other you know note
of some of the contexts, which which you've gestured at
before is the quote unquote Big Beautiful Bill is wildly unpopular.
People see it as a giant giveaway to the rich,
because that's what it is. And so they're also trying
to use this moment of large scale anti ice protests
(22:52):
to make to refashion and rebrand the Big Beautiful Bill
as being about immigration. And you see Stephen Miller doing
this aggressively, going after Rand and the Libertarians who are
opposed to it and saying basically, if you oppose this,
and you oppose border security and oppose the present's agenda
on immigration, So I think that is another one of
the political goals, but they are trying to effectuate.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
There's no question. I genuinely again, I don't know. I mean,
we have polls. Yesterday we covered immigration. Trump is the
strongest issue. I saw a quentnin peac poll. Roar recently
showed him underwater.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
It's a little bit hard to believe.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
The numbers are a little bit too fantastical, but it
wouldn't be surprised me if he's moving towards more fifty
to fifty. But there's no question on the bill. I
mean I flagged it from day one. I'm like, look,
they're going to do it, and it's going to be
massively unpopular. Yeah, there's just I mean, that's what the
tax cuts and job Zac story part of it was
in the first term. We're basically riding up almost the
exact same timeline with the passage of the so called
Big Beautiful Bill, and tying these two things together does
(23:45):
give them a lot of cover for eventually going home
and telling people what it's all about but of course America. Look,
Americans are smart at least in this regard. Anytime a
piece of tax legislation passes, they're like, hey, so what's
in this Exactly they're like, oh, okay, got it, you know,
not all much a surprise. And actually even yah, even
right now, there's all these stupid fights right now, even
in the Senate, to make sure that they at least
(24:07):
strip like some of the decent parts out of the bills.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
So honestly, it can be a lot worse.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
They want to take out with like tax on tips stuff.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
They want to take out tax on tips or at
least you know, restricted, and then even the salt cap,
you know, they want to make it to lower it
even more, to anger some.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
Of the Blue states.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
It's just just stuff like that where it's just preposterous,
you know. But can I say this, I actually was
reading about the new salt thing.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
It's a terrible thing. Basically, the income raise it so
that people who.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Are like upper middle class earners in California and New
York or at least like grandfather name to a more
modest thing. So it applies to the millionaires but not
to upper middle class people are like Okay, I think.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
That's you know, relatively fun.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Yeah, that's not bad.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
I just say that I just want people to know, like,
the current way that the salt thing is structured, I
actually think is quite fair. They income cap it at
like four hundred thousand or something, basically making sure that
high property tax people in New York and California don't
get double screwed. Like, I think it's fine. At the
same time, we're not all shed in tears for people
making three or four hundred thousand a year. My point
(25:04):
just being that the bill, the bill itself is deeply unpopular.
A lot of what is all happening with this is
effectively like a gambit to distract. But you know what
we will soon talk about looms over all of this
is Iran, And actually that was where I would be
the most worried. And this is my great hope, and
(25:24):
I'll say it again, but you know, if there is
some sort of outbreak of conflict, then I would hope
that people really do take to the streets the way
that they did with the war in Iraq. Don't forget
millions of people took to the streets across the world
to protest that war. And that is also where we
could see significant you know, and the weaponization of this
great so called anti Semitism machine, you know, against people.
(25:49):
And if those two things are conflated, saying that war
with Iran is bad because it is anti Semitic, that's
probably where I worry most, especially with conflict on the
horizon right now.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Well, I do have some good news for you, which
is that mister Salt himself, Josh gottheimer handed to him
in the Democratic primary, came in fourth place with eleven
percent of the vote, so you know, he thought he
was really killing it.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Well, you know that's that is those are the richest
people in New.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
Jersey, I guess yeah, constituents showed up him, and I'm
sure they'll give him more campaign funds in the future. Anyway, Okay,
let's go ahead and move on to Gavin Newsom. You know,
one of the interesting things here is Newsom really coming
into the Trump administration kind of misread the moment with
regard to the Democratic base. We talked about this before
(26:39):
he launched his podcast, seeing okay, it's a podcast moment,
I'm gonna launch my podcast, And then he had on
people from the right like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon
and Gavin Newsom is actually very good debater. Like I'm
not a big fan of Gavin Newsome, but you have to,
you know, acknowledge political TWL where it exists. He did
a great job in that debate versus Ron DeSantis that
was you know, very well received among the Democratic base,
(27:03):
got a lot of attention, et cetera. So he has
the chops to do it, and instead he invites on
Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon and basically like lets them
berate him, and he just sort of like takes it.
And it's like, oh, I appreciate that. I appreciate that
Democratic base. At that point, we're looking for people who
are willing to fight. So that's how Bernie ends up,
you know, wildly popular at the base. AOC ends up
wildly popular with the bass. Jasmine Crockett has her moment
(27:25):
and becomes you know, this national figure, et cetera. So
he wildly misreads the moment. And obviously everyone knows this
man has been dreaming of being president for probably his
whole life, being the like sort of sociopathic individual that
he is, so he misreads things at the beginning now,
Trump has handed him this, you know, very large opportunity
in the national spotlight to stand up to Trump in
(27:47):
the way that a Democratic base and a lot of
independent voters I think want to see and in a
lot of ways, I do think he has met that moment.
At the same time, other Democrats are like, I mean
that Democratic Party is just so utterly pathetic. This thing
sagur about how they're not sure whether they should pick
this fight with Trump, and they don't know if this
is the police just did might just be distractions, Like,
(28:08):
could you just have some principle that you're willing to
stand for without taking a fucking focus group, poll tested
situation before you know what? Does? Like, it's so pathetic
and disgusting me, and it serves Gavin Newsom because then
he ends up being the only one out there in
the spotlight. So, all of that being said, Harry Enton
and CNN took a look at the Google search traffic
(28:29):
and how this is all playing into Newsom's twenty twenty
eight ambitions. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 10 (28:34):
Yeah, let's just start off. If Gavin Newsom wanted to
take on Donald Trump and loves the attention he has
one hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Gotte it.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Take a look here.
Speaker 10 (28:42):
Google searches of Gavin Newsom with Donald Trump. Get this
up nine thousand, seven hundred percent versus a week ago.
More folks are googling Gavin Newsom's name with Donald Trump
than ever before in Google searches dating all the way
back since two thousand and four. Donald Trump was able
to make a name for himself through The Apprentice, through
all of his business adventures. He is now making a
(29:05):
name for Gavin Newsom, who seems more than willing to
relish in this fight. Should Democrats oppose Donald Trump? More
among Democrats? Look at this, eighty four percent. Eighty four
percent of Democrats nationwide say they want Democrats to take
on Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
Moore.
Speaker 10 (29:21):
This is not twenty seventeen anymore, where the majority of
Democrats want to compromise with Donald Trump. No, they want
a fighter with Donald Trump. Top chances to be the
twenty twenty eight nominee. Look, it's a clown car at
this particular point. All these candidates swish together. But you'll
notice that one name is ahead of the rest, and
that's Gavin Neussom at twelve percent.
Speaker 11 (29:39):
You see a.
Speaker 10 (29:39):
Kasu Cortes, ten Buddha Judge ten Shapiro six percent. But
Gavin Newsom certainly is up there right now in terms
of the candidates who are best impositioned to will get
that twenty twenty eight nomination.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
And this is concerning to me because I'm not a
Gavin Newsom fan, you know, in terms of how he's
governed in California. Basically, if there's a conflicts between core
democratic based principles things like supporting labor unions or expanding
healthcare and donors, he's going with the donor. So that's
kind of the way you should understand his governance. So
(30:13):
the fact that I think he is doing himself a
lot of favors with the Democratic base, and I have
to say, like has been much more responsive on social media.
He really does sort of understand sour the new media
ecosystem a lot better.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
I was talking down the prat with Ryan. I was like,
look at this dude.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
His first interviews I see Brian Tyler Cohen and MIAs
type smart right Pod Save America were.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Smart for an interview by the way, Yeah he turned
us down.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
Yeah, we tried try.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
You wanted to stay with the solidly liberal.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
It's annoying because but yeah, and we wouldn't be annoying
about it. I'm just I don't know.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Anyway, we'd ask them some real questions.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Yeah, I would ask him for sure.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
Questions, whatever we can table that. You know, Actually, Gavin
staff and I back in the day actually had a
decent exchange, so they should know we've I have been
fair to that.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
He follows me on Twitter, so I thought maybe there
was a right.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
Well, Calnia, California is our largest audience, So California, many
of you are constituents of Gavin Sotel gave to listen
to the people.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
I doubt he will.
Speaker 3 (31:08):
That's not exactly how the things work over there. No,
I do think he's actually handling himself quite well. I've
always been a newsome admirer for his sheer political talent.
I think he is clowned in very unfair ways. Like
I mean, I remember, I just thought there was no
way French laundry would ever happen, and like, don't. I
was like, there's no way that he doesn't that he
(31:29):
gets away with this. But he survived, not only survived
the recall election. Since then, is in broadly like popular issu.
He understands new media, and I think one of the
things I underestimated is, Look, California is a machine state.
The machine produces a lot of horrible politicians. But in general,
we shouldn't underestimate the governor of the large the most
(31:51):
popular state in the entire Union.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
That has been a mistake.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
The largest economy in the world, literally one of.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
The largest economies in the world.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
I mean, people underestimated Richard Nixon for being from California.
People underestimated Ronald Reagan from being from California. Like, California
looms large over our politics, always has for a long time,
and I think that with Gavin Newsom, that is where
his sheer political talent, which was on display with that
debate with Ron DeSantis.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Again you can debate like, oh.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
Did he score a point here or there, like on
the Merits, it's not really about that. It's really about
his affectation. And the thing I've always said about Gavin
is Gavin loves the game more than anything else in
the world. He's got the black hole inside of him.
That's what you need, you know, Why else are you
going on Shan Hannity's show. That's nuts? Like why are
you texting Sean Hannity during his live broadcast, you know,
(32:38):
like quibbling with some of the things that Sean says,
Because you have to be obsessed with yourself and you
have to need that affirmation more than anything else in
the world, and that you can't teach that, like you
have to just be born with it. And so I
really see that inside of him, and especially now, like
with the way the stars are aligning, Gavin is learning
you know that that Steve Mann and Charlie Kirk stuff
(32:58):
that he was doing in the very beginning that's really
not the most.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
Politically effect the strategy.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
And he will now really align himself as like a
major resistance figure now. And he doesn't have the baggage
that Karen Bassett. That's another critical thing. Karen is so
horribly you know, just scarred by those fires. Yeah, Gavin
is the real leader of the liberal resistance right now.
Speaker 11 (33:17):
True.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
Yeah, and he just has more whatever than she has too. Yeah,
I mean he Here's the thing that I'm concerned about.
The Democratic base. Actually, Democratic congressional leaders are underwater with
the base that is very different from Trump one point. No,
they have been radicalized in a lot of regards. They
are disgusted with the Chuck Schumers and Keem Jeffries and
(33:40):
the like people who capitulated. And Gavin Newsom was very
much putting himself in that camp with the way that
he approached those interviews with Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon.
At first, when I saw his lineup for initial podcast guests,
I thought it could really benefit him if he was
going to go in and really spar with them. I mean,
it doesn't have to be vicious, but if he was
going to get into an exchange, have these viral moments
(34:01):
like that would have been really smart. What I'm concerned
about with the Democratic base is well, they want a
fighter and someone who's standing up to Trump. There is
a kind of like ideological neutrality. It's not like there's
they specifically want, like a particular policy agenda. They just
want people who get caught fighting. And that's where if
(34:21):
you have someone like a Gavin Newsom or a peat
Boot to judge for that matter, who are good at
going into spaces on Fox News and tussling with them,
and you know, good at doing like the performance of
standing up to Trump, and I you know, and again
I hand it to gather. I think he's doing a
good job in this moment of you know, standing up
for California and standing up for his values, not backing
down all those sorts of things. I think that, you know,
(34:43):
that could be a you know, that could be something
that a Democratic base would be interested in, even though
on the merits in terms of what they offer policy wise,
it's like just more of the same sort of status
quo liberal type politicians. So in any case, he gave
his big like sort of primetime us put this up
on the screen. The New York Times analyzed this as
(35:04):
having a twenty twenty eight subtext, which I think you
would have to you know, be pretty silly and naive
not to see. They lead this off with when Gavin
Newsom stepped in front of a camera Tuesday evening. He
was a Californian governor addressing his constituents. But by the
time mister Newsom was finished, it was clear the governor
is speaking not only to his state, but to his
country and his beleaguered party. To Democrats looking for direction
(35:24):
in leadership. Mister Newsom used one of the highest profile
moments of his political career to lay out the threat
that He argued President Trump posed the nation and how
Americans should resist it, and he suggested he was the
man to lead that fight. Democracy is under assault right
before our eyes. Mister Newsom said, the moment we have
feared has arrived. And as I said before, the fact
that other Democrats are not so much stepping up to
(35:47):
the plate to defend California in an aggressive way, and
you know, are wary of picking this fight with Trump
and whatever it really has allowed him to grab and
capitalize on the moment. And then to the point of
the way he's using social media in a much more
sort of direct way, tussling with with Steven Miller and
other various Trump officials, even going back and forth with
(36:09):
you know, sort of like influencer types on the right
and asserting, you know, his position in all of these
things in real time. He also posted this this star
wars I guess not meme, but of reading the Emperor,
reading one of Trump's stories of gundagalism.
Speaker 4 (36:25):
Of this.
Speaker 12 (36:28):
Once great American city, LUs Angeles has been invaded and
occupied by illegal aliens and criminals. Now violent insurrectionist moves
are swarming and attacking our federal agents to try and
(36:49):
stop deportation operations.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Scacer thought it was kind of grant. I don't know.
I thought I was gonna.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Political Star Wars is grant.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
I had to listen to love Star Wars all right,
like we were talking earlier, and ors awesome. Tony Gilroy's
absolutely good status. But unfortunately when politicians try to invoke
the Evil Empire or any of that stuff, it just
it absolutely doesn't work for me. I will also acknowledge
it's the most basic level of like memification on the
Internet when talking about big stuffs, So I have to
(37:20):
only assume it will largely go over well with a
lot of people. You can always assume that you know
the worst in terms of in terms of his popularity,
I do think I think broadly him at Pete Boodha
Jedge are handling himself very well. It kills me to say,
it kills me to say to watch these two people.
But I didn't have enough of a chance to talk
about Buddha Judge on Flagrant.
Speaker 1 (37:41):
I mean, he did well, like it got millions of views.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
There's a viral video of him where Andrew's like, so
what do you want He's like, I want you to
be able to get up in the morning and be able.
Speaker 1 (37:51):
To go to it.
Speaker 3 (37:51):
I mean, it was everywhere, and you know, it led
to there's a New New York Times profile about some
of the broadcasters or whatever. But if mentions that interview
with Andrew Schultz specifically, we had Bernie Sanders that was
more recently there as well, very.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
You know what I mean. These these are the people
who understand.
Speaker 3 (38:09):
The meat the current media environment, and they also they
want to play.
Speaker 1 (38:12):
They're willing to take risks.
Speaker 3 (38:13):
That's something we talked about yesterday on the theo Von segment.
It's like, just take a risk, like yeah, you know,
Schultz was making like hooker jokes at one point. Buddha
Judge is clearly uncomfortable, but it's like as part of it,
you know, and a lot of people just don't want
to sit there and they don't want to take it.
But you know, with risk comms reward, Trump showed us
that's a very effective communication strategy and it's definitely one
that should be cemented now at this time.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
So well, yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
Don't know, both of them have that annoying ass Obama cadence,
which to me should be just qualifying from the jump.
Just on that on that alone. Let alone there, you know,
status quo neoliberal politics. But I mean, I will, I
will put that in there. Especially with Gavin, there is
just something about him that reads used car salesman. Is
he does read just like typical slimy politician. That's just
(38:57):
the vibe you get from I've always thought he looks
like a vampire from a movie. And so you know,
it's not a lock in. But he's certainly using this
moment to the greatest effect that he possibly can to
bolster his chances in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 3 (39:11):
Absolutely, we're very excited now to be joined by Mortaza Hussein.
He is a national security and foreign affairs correspondent for
Drop site News. Great friends of the show, it's good
to see you man, Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 11 (39:24):
Thank it seious.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
All right, well you.
Speaker 3 (39:26):
Join us at a very very consequential time, my friend,
let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
We have major developments across the Middle East. CBS News
and multiple other outlets reporting quote Israel is poised to
launch an operation on Iran so mas. What we know
so far from inside the administration is that this is
being sold allegedly as Israel is poised to strike Iran
(39:47):
without US approval, But it appears, of course the US
at least has some forewarning its own intelligence, perhaps even
at diplomatic channels. Things are all over the place in
terms of what's actually happening. There has been widespread now
evacuation or at least voluntarily evacuation of the departure of
dependence in the in the US military bases across the region.
(40:10):
President Donald Trump has reacted very ominously. I'm gonna play
this and then we're gonna get your reaction. Let's take
a listen.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
Could you provide an update on Iran.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
We're hearing reports that US personnel are being moved out
of the region within striking distance.
Speaker 9 (40:23):
Well, they are being moved out because it could be
a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens. But they are,
We've given notice to move out, and we'll see what happens.
Speaker 6 (40:33):
Is there anything that can be done to dial the
temperature down in the region.
Speaker 9 (40:38):
They can't have a nuclear weapon, very simple, they can't
have a nuclear weapent.
Speaker 1 (40:43):
We're not going to allow that.
Speaker 10 (40:44):
Say it, wal are US competants of military personnel?
Speaker 1 (40:48):
Bob used, That's the same thing you.
Speaker 3 (40:54):
Some ominous stuff there. Mausei is basically like, yeah, it
could be a dangerous place. So combined with the Israel reporting,
what can you tell us?
Speaker 13 (41:03):
Yeah, it's unfortunate because about a month and a half ago,
it seemed like the situation is much more optimistic, and
I think I would attribute the change to changing statements
from Steve Wikoff and people in Congress as well too.
At the start of the process, Wikoff was saying that
the US would be okay with the Iranians having low
level nuclear enriishment for civilian purposes, which will be monitored
(41:23):
and so forth by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and
the Iranians are okay with that. They don't necessarily want
a nuclear bomb per se. They could have pursued one
some years ago, but they're a great costs associated with
having a bomb. It will kiss off many of their
neighbors separate from the US, would probably start an arms
race in the Middle East as well too. It could
trigger war at least for a short term with the
(41:44):
US or other parties.
Speaker 11 (41:45):
So they have said they.
Speaker 13 (41:46):
Don't want a bomb, but they don't want to dismantle
their entire nuclear energy program, which they spend many many
years building it's an issue of national pride as well too.
So Wickcoff now is taking a very very expressing or
conveying a very very maximal's position, which is kind of
like the Libya position. And people remember Libya agreed to
dismantle his entire putative capacity for developing everything, which even
(42:10):
could be a WND, and that didn't end very well
for Libya. It wasn't a very advisable path if you
look at from the Libyan's perspective.
Speaker 3 (42:20):
Getting sodomized on television. You know, I mean, that's honest
about what happened here.
Speaker 13 (42:25):
Yeah, Yeah, the Libyans agreed to dismantle and then they
were attacked and their leadership was killed and driven to
excel and many terrible things.
Speaker 11 (42:32):
So the Iranians do not want to repeat that. So effectively,
we have.
Speaker 13 (42:35):
A situation where the US red line that's currently publicly
express and the Iranian red line is in commensurate. The
US is saying now that they can't have any enrichment
at all, the Iranians saying, will never give up our richment.
So in this case, it creates a situation where a
conflict would become inevitable unless one side would a compromise,
it back down. And I think what we saw last
(42:56):
couple of days our attempts to maybe do psychological operations
saying that the Israeli is going to attack you if
you don't compromise on the subject. But so what we
seem so far the runnings do not seem to be
backing down. Say, they escalated quite a bit, saying that
they may withdraw from their nuclear treaties and take other
steps in response to that.
Speaker 11 (43:17):
As well too.
Speaker 13 (43:18):
So I think unfortunately we've had a situation where a
deal was very, very attainable, but now at least the
last forty eight hours seemed a lot less.
Speaker 2 (43:26):
So, and Ma's how do you assess the likelihood that
Israel will strike Iran? Obviously you have the personnel being
pulled from the region, that's one indication. You also have
various people now going out and saying they're really close to,
you know, achieving a nuclear weapon, which we always hear,
you know, before the war drums start beating. So how
(43:47):
likely do you think it is that we are on
the prespose of some sort of Israeli action? Also, given
the fact that it appears Trump has several times a
couple times during the course of this negotiation sort of
pushed them off and said, no, you can't strike Iran
at this point.
Speaker 13 (44:01):
Yeah, you know, the Israeli modus operanda is usually to
strike with people not expecting it, not to telegraph it's
happening beforehand. So what you see in the last couple
of days is a tremendous amount of signaling and telegraphing,
which makes you think this is more at least for now, psychological.
They're not necessarily preparing for an imminent attack. But you know,
there are top schedules for this weekend between the US
(44:22):
and Iran in Oman, and based on what happens in
those talks, situations could change. But I think if the
Israelis do attack, or someone does attack, they won't be
this lead up that's very very public where they're issuing
statements publicly and evacuating people in a very very notable manner.
I think they would have strike, try to use the
element of surprise as much as possible.
Speaker 11 (44:44):
But I think the thing is.
Speaker 13 (44:45):
The Iranians, if they really do believe that the Israelis
or even the US is going to attack them, They're
gonna take preparations beforehand. They're going to try to move
as much nuclear material out of the likely to be
targeted sites beforehand. They may withdraw from certain treaties or
expel inspectors so they can take their nuclear materials completely
into private. So actually, you know, even from the perspective,
(45:08):
if you want to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon, attacking
is kind of a really bad option because the Iranians
it's a huge country. First of all, it's almost nine
million people. It's a very very big land mass. It's
not like Iraq. It's much much more challenging than Iraq
to attack for foreign country. And if they withdraw from
these treaties, there's not only much you can do. You
can maybe attack them once, but then how do you
(45:29):
even have to keep attacking them forever? Really to figure
out where the nuclear materials are. The knowledge won't be
taken out of the country, You'll still be there. You
may have to invade the country even to stop or
to root out the new suspected nuclear sites. Attacking Iran
will not be a one off affair. It wouldn't be
a week long or a couple of days or even
a month. It will probably take the entire Trump term
(45:51):
or even longer. Beyond that being involved militarily in the country,
if you really want to stop the nuclear program, if
they would draw from the treaties. So I think that
the deal really dissatisfy everyone's needs. It satisfies their own
need to maintain some civilian program. The Trump administration wants
to pivot that China doesn't want to have more wars
in the Middle East. I think the American public is very,
very exhausted and disenchanted with this. So a deal really
(46:14):
is the path of least resistance. But because I think
that maybe a poison pill has been imputed in this
deal based on what we've seen with the Witcoff's evolutionary statements,
it's moved from agreeing to civilian Richmond and nothing. I
think the people in the US who do want a war,
and they suggest they successfully put that change of position in,
(46:34):
but it's not really a good solution for anybody. It's
bad for Iranian it's bad for Americans, bad for Israelis
even to have the major war where they run for many,
many years. But that's the path we're on right now.
Barring some heroic diplomacy on Sunday, well.
Speaker 1 (46:47):
We can talk about that. So at the very least.
Speaker 3 (46:49):
There were initial comments that were made that there would
be no more or not a sixth round of talks. Now,
fortunately for US, we can put this up on the screen.
The Omani foreign minister confirmed that talks will happen between
Steve Witkoff and between Iran's foreign minister. However, mas At
the same time, we do know that Israel's head of
(47:09):
Mosad and their minister Ron Dermer will be meeting with
Steve Witkoff, apparently ahead of said meeting again potentially for
su coordination of what exactly. We don't know, but this
last round of talks seems very critical because of the
position where US intelligence now saying that Israel is basically
poised to strike Iran. There's a lot of pressure on
the Iranians in the US there. I'm what is your
(47:32):
assessment if this does not come to some decent conclusion
in this round, is it even possible for us to
have another round or are we going to see the
prelude to, like you said, withdrawing from agreements. I believe
Iran just got rebuked this morning by the IAEA over
nuclear materials. So things do seem to be trending, you know,
in a very bad direction. Unless things go well during
(47:54):
these talks.
Speaker 13 (47:55):
It is a problem to that Masade officials and Ron
Dhermer and bring around the talks from the beginning.
Speaker 11 (48:01):
They've been in Rome, they've been wherever the talks are happening.
Speaker 13 (48:04):
They're either briefing Wi Cough beforehand or just being in
the area to let them know that their position is very,
very important in these talks. So, you know, to be honest,
I'm not particularly optimistic, unfortunately about the Sunday talks. So
though the talks this weekend, it seems like a last
ditch effort, and you know they're strong, there are strong
motivations for both sides to come to some of the
tent War is not good for the Iranians.
Speaker 11 (48:26):
War is not good for the US.
Speaker 13 (48:27):
Either the Trump administration or Space wants to see another
war like this, but they're not box themselves the situation
where it's almost you know, I wouldn't say inevitable, but
it's become much more likely than it needs to be.
Speaker 11 (48:40):
I think that these talks that may be the last
efforts to.
Speaker 13 (48:44):
See if any sort of compromise agreement can be found,
and if not, you could see Israeli strikes in Iran.
But the issue is, you know, if Israel does it alone,
quote unquote, it will still have tremendous US intelligence, logistic,
and other support. But also it's very very likely that
the fortified nuclear positions that Iran has cannot be destroyed
(49:05):
by Israeli aircraft or munitions. They need American B two's
and thirty thousand pound bombs to actually destroy these. So
almost inevitably, the Israeli attacks most likely will do an
insufficient damage to the Iranian sites, and the US would
feel compelled to become involved. And if the Iranians retaliate,
which they said they will, they would also create great
(49:26):
pressure for the US to get involved in defend Israel
as well too from those attacks. So I think, unfortunately,
even though nobody wants it, everyone's still fed up of
wars in the Middle East. We're really headed towards the
situation where not just a warning Middle East, but the
biggest war we've ever had in the Middle East could
be right on our doorstep, just you know, in a
few weeks. So I think that people in the administration
(49:47):
or you know, support have communication with the administrations should
sort of impress as much as they can that how
close we are, how unnecessary it all is, and how
important this diplomacy this weekend and beyond is to avoid
what could be a very very disaster situation.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
Last question that I have for you, Maz, the Trump
administrations try to posture like, oh, Israel might strikeer On,
we have nothing to do with it. Let's say they
maintain that pasture Israel does striger On. Is anyone going
to believe that we had nothing to do with it,
that this was just Israel acting of their own accord?
Speaker 11 (50:21):
I don't think so.
Speaker 13 (50:22):
This very very obvious close coordination with the US and Israel. Also,
the US arms Israel, that all the arms come from
the US. If it's real purchase those arms would be
be privatively expensive actually for them to carry out the
operations they are and now so there is not really
the great acceptance of that. But that said, of course,
Iron would like to avoid the direct confrontation with the
(50:43):
US itself. It said it would target American bases if
the US attacked it. But if there's some plausible deniability,
it's kind of useful for both sides to say, well,
it was between US and israelis technically but that said,
I do think for the technical reasons I laid out,
there's a very strong involvement, even if initially it's only
the Israelis directly carrying out the strikes, that the Americans
(51:06):
could become the US military could become involved in the
conflict directly simply to the only the US military can
really destroy these sites or more as a greatest chance
of doing so. And when, if and when the Iranians retaliate,
the political pressure in the US to step in to
defend Israel to attack more sites inside Iran with American
(51:27):
military weaponry, it will be great. And you know, the
Israeli Is, they do punch above their way for their size,
but they are the most bigger country in Israel, and
really to balance the scales, the Israelis need America to
be involved in the war. And I think the entire
strategy in Natanyahu and Dermer and so forth is to
force America into a conflict because they can't. They feel
they can't do it alone. They can't achieve what they
want to alone, and they really need America to be
(51:49):
involved in war in the Middle East or at least
another generation.
Speaker 3 (51:52):
We already have the playbook, right they blew up an embassy,
and then the Iranians struck back and guests who shot
down ninety nine percent of the incoming projectiles, not them, right, Yeah,
it's like this is this has already happened. In fact,
that was you know, the groundwork for this right now.
And by the way, if it costs one billion dollars
just to shoot down some silly drones and a couple
of missiles, what do you think is going to happen
(52:14):
if they actually hit nuclear centrifuges and we see real
stuff start flying through the air. This is not a joke,
as you said, and part of the reason why we
see this widespread now evacuation of dependent military forces. I mean,
the US embassy in Jerusalem is telling people don't leave
the country now for some time. They are taking this
very very seriously, and they don't just do this for
(52:36):
no reason.
Speaker 1 (52:36):
Anyway, We really appreciate your analysis. I you know, I
hope you're not right. I think you are.
Speaker 3 (52:42):
You know, I think I think these weekends talks are
genuine make or break and I guess we should all
just start talking about how Trump is the greatest diplomatic
figure and we should give him the Nobel Prize. Yes,
I will fly to Stockholm, bring us back.
Speaker 2 (52:57):
In the deal. He got us out of three ways.
Speaker 3 (53:00):
Just get us, get us a deal, do something, because otherwise,
you know we're headed for bad, bad waters.
Speaker 1 (53:06):
Thank you so much for joining us, my friend. We
appreciate it.
Speaker 11 (53:08):
Thans Gus
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an
amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Indeed, we do a lot of big things happening here
and around the world, so we'll update you on those protests.
Pete Hegseth had some significant testimony in front of Congress yesterday.
Moments did not go so well, so break all of
that down for you. Also. Gavin Newsom, obviously seizing the
moment to potentially further his presidential ambitions. Will break down
the political aspect of that as well. All eyes on
(00:58):
Israel and raw some very ominous signs that Israel may
be preparing to strike Iran. Martaza Hussein is going to
join us to break down those indications and what we
can say about that, and where those nuclear talks between
Trump and the Iranians are as of today. So break
all of that down for obviously extraordinarily consequential news there.
(01:19):
Yesterday we received word from the Trump administration that they
have a China deal we'll call it. It seems like
it's a framework at this point. We've got some of
the loose details Scott Bessett and others answering questions, so
we'll tell you what we know about that. We also
have some sort of reproach mol with Elon and Trump,
him posting yesterday at three or four am, which Emily
(01:40):
and I mentioned in the show. We didn't have a
chance like fully break it down. He regrets, Yeah, some
those the things that he said went too far.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Soccer, Yes, that's right.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
It appears to have been at high level broker talks
between the White House and between Elon. So perhaps this
is the you know, the beginning of the bromance again.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
We'll see, you never know.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Twists and turns.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
We can only hope. No, you never know.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
And we have some big news in the New York
City mayor race, first poll ever to come out that
shows zoron Mom Donnie leading that race, beating Andrew Cuomo,
former governor. We also have some clips from his appearance
on the Breakfast Club which are pretty interesting as well.
So we'll take a look at that and what that
means more broadly for the Democratic Party in the country,
(02:21):
all that good stuff before we get to any of that, Sager.
Today is the last day the free month trial.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Unfortunately, it is the very very last day, or perhaps
fortunately for those of you who have been waiting and
you've just been hovering there with your mouse, you can
go ahead and sign up at Breakingpoints dot com BP
free see what we're all about.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
You can check out the trial for yourself.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
You get the full show, of course, the AMA access,
some of the Friday Show, exclusive content, and so much more.
So go ahead and sign up at Breakingpoints dot com.
The promo code is BP free. We deeply appreciate so
many of the people who have signed up here. You're
preventing Ryan from having to do what is it Hymn's
ads or Jenny Parlay, the exclusive Saga DraftKings Parlay or Phantom.
(03:09):
Can you imagine that the prize picks or any of
these other jokes sports books that are out there, so
ag one and all of So if you don't want
to hear that, you can go ahead and sign up
at breakingpoints dot com, BP free hues that promo code.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
All right, let's get to the protes All right, let's
go ahead, get to the process best as I can tell.
Protests around the country and including La pretty quiet last night.
You know, the elt Mayor of La has instituted a
curfew and that seems to have calm things down significantly.
So let me show you a couple of clips here
from Pete Hegsat's testimony for Congress yesterday. So he got
asked whether the guard could be deployed in other cities.
(03:43):
He also got asked about the the usage of the
National Guard on January sixth, versus with regards to what
is going down in LA. Let's go ahead and take
a listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Or which guard.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
And I'm trying to figure out if you decided to
do this collectively in Kansas or any other place would
you need to specify a new sort of fact pattern
or do you think this order applies to any guard anywhere,
any service branch anywhere. It's just like, I get your justification,
(04:19):
we disagree about the circumstances. I'm just trying to figure out,
did you just potentially mobilize every guard everywhere and every
service member everywhere? I mean, create the framework for that.
I understand you didn't. I'm saying, what does the document
do in your opinion.
Speaker 6 (04:36):
Senator, if you noticed the initial order of two thousand
in California was followed by a follow on order for
the additional two thousand with a recognition that the situation
there required more resources in order to support law enforcement.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
So part of it is getting ahead of.
Speaker 6 (04:50):
A problem so that if in other places, if there
are other riots and places where law enforcement officers are threatened,
we would have the capability to surge National Guard there
if necessary.
Speaker 7 (05:02):
The National Guard was deployed here on January sixth, and
that was a decision made by the Department of Defense.
Do you support that decision? Do you believe that that
was the right decision to deploy the National Guard to
defend the capital in January sixth.
Speaker 6 (05:18):
All I know is it's the right decision to be
deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to defend ice
agents who deserve to be defended in the execution of
their job.
Speaker 7 (05:26):
But I think it's important to know whether you think
it was also important to have the National Guard defending
the United States Capital when there were violent protesters here
on the president's behalf. To make sure that folks know
that you care about protest, whether it's against the president
or on behalf of the president.
Speaker 6 (05:44):
Senator I was in the Washington, DC National Guard when
that happened, and was initially ordered to go guard the
inauguration of Joe Biden, but because of the politicization of
the Biden administration, my orders were revoked and ultimately because
of the politics that being played inside the Defense Department
by the previous administration.
Speaker 7 (06:05):
But do you support the decision made on January sixth
to send the National Guard here?
Speaker 6 (06:09):
I support the decision that President Trump made and requesting
the National donors denied.
Speaker 7 (06:14):
So you do not Trump, you do not support, you
do not guarsion to send the National Guard here to
defend the capital. I think that speaks to the worry
that many Americans have that there is a double standard.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
So obviously two significant things there. First of all, no
limiting principle on the order that Trump signed. You know,
hag Seth acknowledges effectively that yeah, we could deploy troops,
we could federalize National Guard anywhere. And you know, really
important in the context of there are planned protests this
weekend on the day of Trump's big military slash birthday parade,
(06:48):
Trump himself said that protesters, not not violent protesters, just
protesters in general would be met with force. So Pete
Hugseth indicating yeah, this isn't just about LA. We have
the option available, and I don't think anyone would be
surprised if they federalized the National Guard in other places
Blue states and cities in particular. The other piece here,
(07:08):
actually good question from Senator Chris Murphy, because you know,
the January sixth riots were significantly more consequential and violent
than what was going down in LA. And Pete Hegseth
can't bring himself to say that it was the right
decision in that instance to bring in the National Guard,
but he is fully behind bringing it in in LA.
So before I played the next one, what did you
(07:28):
make of that soccer.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Yeah, I mean the Jan six element is one which
always really comes back to bite them because you see
a lot of the insurrectionist stuff that is being used
right now.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
I mean, here's the thing.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
We weren't critical about National Guard deployment at the time,
if you recall I was talking about it with Ryan.
I mean, all of those images of people sleeping on
the floor in parking garages and stuff that actually happened here.
We were effectively occupied in Washington for three months, and
it costs I don't even remember how many billions and
billions of dollars.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
It was useless. It was a completely unnecessary thing.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
We have some five thousand US troops of some kind,
either National guardsmen and or United States Marines that are
being deployed in defense of this. The crazy thing about
the Marines is that we were told that they were
actually ready and had been trained and riot control and
all this other stuff, but they actually not the case.
They're not even in Los Angeles right now at the moment.
So this is a colossal, you know, bit of expenditure
(08:20):
for what purpose exactly. I mean, the current estimate is,
what's one hundred and thirty one million dollars for a
single I mean it's not even been a full week
of this, so extrapolate that out more. Also, anybody who
remembers covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number
of like support personnel that you need to support anything.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Like this is astounding.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
And so I think that the more that this, you know, continues,
and especially if it goes national, it's really going to
be I mean, a very easy talking point I think
for your Democrats, and not only talk about January sixth.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
But also just the cost.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
I mean, the cost does matter here where It's like
you guys are literally rolling around celebrating a five million
dollar cut to Zimbabwe.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
It's like you just blew ton.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
There are times that over a weekend deployment to Los Angeles.
So yeah, I think that I think we are trending.
You know, if we talked about the politics and stuff
like that here, and especially as violence has happened yesterday,
we'll see you over the weekend whenever body's not at
work or whatever. But especially if things begin to go
down and you just see more militarized like images that
come out of LA I do think things could turn
(09:21):
against them.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to this next part,
because he gets asked in addition, okay, so under what
authority are the deployment of the Marines in particular, like,
what constitutional authority is justifying this extraordinary action with regard
to federalizing the National Guard and bringing in the Marines.
Let's go ahead and take a listen to how we
response to that.
Speaker 8 (09:42):
Just specifically, mister secretary, what is the authority that the
administration is using to deploy active duty Marines to California neighborhoods?
Speaker 4 (09:55):
What authority the president has constitutional authority? In order to support.
Speaker 8 (10:01):
Site cite the provision of the Constitution.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
I'd have to I'd have to pull up the specific provisions.
Speaker 6 (10:06):
But our Office of General Council, alongside our leadership, has.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Reviewed and ensured in the order that we.
Speaker 6 (10:14):
Set out that it's completely constitutional for the President to
use federal troops to.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
Defend federal law enforcement administration.
Speaker 7 (10:22):
I would are you prepared to authorize DHS to use
drones and also to authorizing elite forces to detain our
arrest American citizens?
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (10:32):
Senator, Every authorization we've provided the.
Speaker 6 (10:34):
National Guard UH and the Marines in Los Angeles is
under the authority the President of.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
The United States is lawful and constitutional.
Speaker 6 (10:42):
They are assisting in defending the law enforcement officers, the
law facilities, the execution to their.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
Job in the city of Los Angeles.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
So won't rule out their use of drones and military forces. Obviously,
the first clip where he's like, I don't really know
what authority. I'm sure it's constitutional, but I can't really
tell you how. Not a great look there at a
time when you know the authorization of this is legally contested. Yeah,
Man Newsom has already stued there's actually supposed to be
hearings today about whether or not this was a lawful
(11:15):
deployment of both the Marines and the decision to federalize
the National Guard over the objections of the governor of
California and Sagara. I was reading yesterday, I actually didn't
realize this. Marines were used in nineteen ninety two in
the context of suppressing the LA riots, and some of
the local cops were like, this was really not great
(11:38):
because they're not trained for domestic law enforcement situations. And
one of the anecdotes that you know, became sort of
notorious coming out of that is the LAPD we're like,
all right, cover us to the Marines, cover us as
we go into this house, as we approach this house. Well,
for law enforcement, that means okay, watch make sure no
one's coming out. For the Marines, it meant light up
(11:58):
the whole house. And people were like, what the hell
are you doing. They're like, you told us to cover
you to us. That's what that means. So just to
give one example of how that's why you don't deploy
active duty soldiers on American streets outside of truly extraordinary circumstances. Now,
the La riots in nineteen ninety two, I mean it
(12:20):
is hard to if you haven't watched anything or read
the news about what went down there. I mean it
was insane. Over sixty people killed, billion dollars in damage,
business is looted. I mean, this was just going on
and on. It was a massive, uncontrolled conflagration. And you
had the governor of California who said, yes, we need
the help. Yes, let's federalize the National Guard. Yes, federal
(12:42):
garment please come in and assist us. Totally different situation here,
and I think sober that is what you know is
so disturbing to me is the attempt to normalize the
use of military forces in a domestic law enforcement context,
and to make it seemed normal to have our streets
completely militarized in this way. I think you and Ryan
(13:05):
made a great point that part of what has conditioned
us for this moment also is how all of the
local law enforcement in every major city, you can't even
tell them apart from National Guard.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
It's funny.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
I see these clips go viral all the time. They're like, look,
national Guards, and I'm like, no, that's LAPD for what purpose.
I actually I wrote a piece of years ago about
Ferguson and about how that actually set the tone for
a lot of what we saw.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
I mean, look, we.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
Could debate Ferguson and all that, but I don't think
anybody's going to be sitting around defending Ferguson PD, even
in a wright or left wing level.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
And that's specifically because of this.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
That's what a lot of the conversation unfortunately has actually
gotten worse. And that is really I mean, look, I
think it's dangerous in this regard. And again, you know,
for the White House, they really do seem to believe
that they're on their strongest footing in taking on and look,
I mean we did not deny here the Mexican flag
stuff and all that is not good. I mean, look,
there has been some property damage, but you know, we
(14:01):
I think contextualizing the scale of this is actually genuinely important,
specifically because of the reaction that they're coming here. But look,
we can't deny this is something that the White House
wants to pick this fight, and in some respects I'm
not I'm still a bit torn. I don't know yet
how the country is going to react, because you know,
(14:21):
I did underestimate how much of this, like left wing
cities out of control stuff has become not only a
meme but like a shibboleth literally across the entire country,
like you don't live in the city, you live in
the Upper Midwest and stuff.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
These images are everywhere.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
It's literally like, you know, calling people in San Francisco
and be like, are you safe? You know, they really
have no familiarity at all with that, and you can't
blame them probably vice versa as well. I'm just I'm
still kind of trying to tease out and see like
how this goes. They clearly believe that things are going
to be, you know, for them, but also it's probably
about tone setting as well, you know, especially ahead of
this military parade here in Washington and New York City,
(14:58):
Chicago dealt. There's been some other protests, but nothing has
really risen to the level of la Yeah, perhaps that's
part of it as well.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Yeah, all right, let's go ahead and get to this
next piece where you know, the Trump administration has been
threatening to arrest Gavin Newsom. Tom Homan first, you know,
said this, and then Trump said, yeah, I think he should.
And Trump got another question about this yesterday whether or
(15:25):
not he thinks that Gavin Newsom could be charged and arrested.
By the way, the last time he got asked this
of like, well, exactly what would be the pretext for
arresting him, and he said for running for governor that
was the reason. That was the reason he should be
charged and arrested. So in any case he gets asked
about this again, let's take a listen.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Are you gonna arrest Gavin Newsom?
Speaker 9 (15:46):
Well, he's not doing a good job, you know, arrest
What does that mean he's not doing a good job?
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Jim, Well, in theory, you could.
Speaker 9 (15:54):
I guess, you know, it's almost like a dissipation of duty.
Nobody's ever seen anything like that.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
In theory I could, so that is where that stands.
Also soccer, this week, they charged this Congresswan mac Iver
with you know, crimes that could lead to seventeen years
in prison and the context of that, you know, situation
that unfolded outside of a federal detention facility that Ice
was using in Newark, New Jersey. So you know, you've
(16:20):
got a lot of authoritarian pieces coming together here. You
have the charging this congressman. You have the threats of
arrest of Gavin Newsom for existing and doing things that
Trump didn't like. You have the federalizing of the National
Guard over the ejections of the elected governor of California.
You have the deployment of marines. You had that wild
partisan speech to troops at Fort Bragg. By the way,
(16:43):
we learned more about that. First of all, they were
hand selected to make sure they had the right politics,
the ones that were behind Trump, and they sold the
MAGA merchandise, which is like, I mean again, I know
no one cares about the before times and what things
used to be like, but these are things that would
just be completely out of bounds. And then you have
tanks being into DC for his big birthday parade, show
of force and strength, et cetera. So a lot of
(17:06):
authoritarian elements just in your face, you know, flood the
zone with them this week as we head into the
weekend where there are planned significant protests they're called No
King's protests that were planned across the country and.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
Especially here in Washington. Yeah, I'm actually curious to see.
We're going to get to that in a little bit
as to how the protests and the parade itself might
be disrupted because of weather.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
But le's going to this parade. They asked them if
the Republicans, and none of them.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Were like, I think it's the military.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
I think what they're going to do is because remember
the estensible purpose of the parade is the United States
Army's two hundred and fiftieth birthday.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
So this happens aside.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Whatever I will not be attending, mostly because of traffic reasons.
This is impossible to get into the city. But what
you have here in the Northern Virginia area, as you know,
is like there's what half the United States military lives
around the Pentagon. They're either going to get orders or
they're going to go and so with a lot of
their families, and so I think the vast majority of
the people who will be there in attendance of the
(18:04):
Grand Parade, Schill, we remember what the inspiration for this was?
Is that all because five or six years ago Trump
went to the Bastille Day parades in France and he
was like, Hey, this is pretty cool, you know, watching
tanks and all that roll down the champ dellyz And
that's why he was like, Okay, we need to bring
this to Washington. I'm actually surprised because it was supposed
to be for America's two hundred and fiftieth birthday, which
(18:25):
I believe is isn't that next year in.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Twenty twenty six?
Speaker 3 (18:28):
Yeah, so seventeen sive six day it would have been
next year, so July fourth, twenty twenty six. But I
guess he just had to have one for the two
hundred and fifty birthday of the US Army, something that
definitely the.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
US population knows quite a bit. I'm telling you, I
didn't even know w with the two undred fty birthday.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Well, America's birthday doesn't fall on Trump's birthday, so that
wasn't going to work.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Out soccer as.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
It's billy you one more piece here. We can go
ahead and is this a vo or a sad guys,
you can let me know, pretty troubling in my opinion,
given the context, true social post from Trump. Let's go
and put this up on the Oh, it's a side,
so goll Let's go out and play this and you
can take a look at the text on the screen.
(19:05):
Let me go ahead and read this a little bit
to you before we play it, because for those of
you who are listening by a podcast, he says, I'm
more confident than ever that in the days ahead and
every generation to come, the US Army will keep glory
upon glory. You will summonn inexhaustible courage, you'll protect every
inch of US soil, and you will defend America to
the ends of the earth in the days ahead. Okay,
let's take a listen.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Just the job.
Speaker 9 (19:26):
It's a calling and a sacred tradition passed down from
father to son, brother to sister, and one generation to
the next, that every hour of danger on noblest citizens
have answered that call.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Time and again.
Speaker 9 (19:44):
Our enemies have learned that if you dare to threaten
the American people, American soldier will chase you down, thrush you,
and cast you into Bob.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
All right, So that was that. In addition, Sager who
pulled this it literally may ran on his parade.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Yes, actually literal rain on the parade. You know, I'm
an avid DC weather watcher. Here we have storm for
the Capitol Weather gangret you yeah, shout out to the
Capitol Weather Gang if you do live in the DMV area,
they are absolutely the best threatened. The US Armises two
and and fifty celebration in DC on Saturday. A slow
moving Trump front may trigger late day showers and storms
as the parade, concert and fireworks crowds are gathering. Morning
(20:24):
looks mostly dry, but heat and humidity are building. I'm
gonna say this, I get how in the vacuum that
that truth social post and all that looks troubling, But
having covered the Pentagon, the absolute vast majority of like
Pentagon agid prop and stuff that they put out is
like this, I get where you're coming from.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Well, I do people to just know like this.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
Type of this is standard fair for like Obama, for
for for the first Trump administrative. Basically anytime they're like, oh,
the war fighters, the killers the US armies, just so
people know that is what a very average US army is.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Propaganda, that's the case.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
And you know what any of these things, well not
any of them, but some of these things individually, like
the military parade. Yeah, this is a normal administration and
they're doing this quirpasthma. All right, I mean it's a
waste of money. Like what are we doing. We're destroying
the streets in DC.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
They really don't ate that or like shitty streets anyway,
so maybe we can rebuild them properly.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
As not great, but isn't the end of the world
no coming in the context of everything else, That's where
it becomes. You know, when you see the tanks being
rolled into DC at the time when they're threatening the
use of the National Guard, federalizing the National Guard in
cities across the country, and they're deploying active duty marines
against US citizens for like incredibly protectual reasons over the
(21:42):
objections of the elected governor of that state. And oh,
by the way, they're threatening to arrest the elected governor
of that state because he got elected. That's when I
see things like that, and you know, they add to
a picture that is to me deeply troubling. And the
last thing I'm saying that then we can move on
to Gavin some and how he is certainly enjoying his
moment in the sun with all of this. You know,
(22:05):
there are some there has been a pattern in this
administration where it's not just this moment, it's the attacks
on the universities, it's the you know, trying to bring
the media to heal, it's even the use of national
emergency to justify this wild terror fsham. Like, the consistent
pattern in this administration has been consolidation of power, and
(22:28):
it feels very much like we're coming to a crescendo
with that. And also Soger. One other you know note
of some of the contexts, which which you've gestured at
before is the quote unquote Big Beautiful Bill is wildly unpopular.
People see it as a giant giveaway to the rich,
because that's what it is. And so they're also trying
to use this moment of large scale anti ice protests
(22:52):
to make to refashion and rebrand the Big Beautiful Bill
as being about immigration. And you see Stephen Miller doing
this aggressively, going after Rand and the Libertarians who are
opposed to it and saying basically, if you oppose this,
and you oppose border security and oppose the present's agenda
on immigration, So I think that is another one of
the political goals, but they are trying to effectuate.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
There's no question. I genuinely again, I don't know. I mean,
we have polls. Yesterday we covered immigration. Trump is the
strongest issue. I saw a quentnin peac poll. Roar recently
showed him underwater.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
It's a little bit hard to believe.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
The numbers are a little bit too fantastical, but it
wouldn't be surprised me if he's moving towards more fifty
to fifty. But there's no question on the bill. I
mean I flagged it from day one. I'm like, look,
they're going to do it, and it's going to be
massively unpopular. Yeah, there's just I mean, that's what the
tax cuts and job Zac story part of it was
in the first term. We're basically riding up almost the
exact same timeline with the passage of the so called
Big Beautiful Bill, and tying these two things together does
(23:45):
give them a lot of cover for eventually going home
and telling people what it's all about but of course America. Look,
Americans are smart at least in this regard. Anytime a
piece of tax legislation passes, they're like, hey, so what's
in this Exactly they're like, oh, okay, got it, you know,
not all much a surprise. And actually even yah, even
right now, there's all these stupid fights right now, even
in the Senate, to make sure that they at least
(24:07):
strip like some of the decent parts out of the bills.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
So honestly, it can be a lot worse.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
They want to take out with like tax on tips stuff.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
They want to take out tax on tips or at
least you know, restricted, and then even the salt cap,
you know, they want to make it to lower it
even more, to anger some.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
Of the Blue states.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
It's just just stuff like that where it's just preposterous,
you know. But can I say this, I actually was
reading about the new salt thing.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
It's a terrible thing. Basically, the income raise it so
that people who.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Are like upper middle class earners in California and New
York or at least like grandfather name to a more
modest thing. So it applies to the millionaires but not
to upper middle class people are like Okay, I think.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
That's you know, relatively fun.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Yeah, that's not bad.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
I just say that I just want people to know, like,
the current way that the salt thing is structured, I
actually think is quite fair. They income cap it at
like four hundred thousand or something, basically making sure that
high property tax people in New York and California don't
get double screwed. Like, I think it's fine. At the
same time, we're not all shed in tears for people
making three or four hundred thousand a year. My point
(25:04):
just being that the bill, the bill itself is deeply unpopular.
A lot of what is all happening with this is
effectively like a gambit to distract. But you know what
we will soon talk about looms over all of this
is Iran, And actually that was where I would be
the most worried. And this is my great hope, and
(25:24):
I'll say it again, but you know, if there is
some sort of outbreak of conflict, then I would hope
that people really do take to the streets the way
that they did with the war in Iraq. Don't forget
millions of people took to the streets across the world
to protest that war. And that is also where we
could see significant you know, and the weaponization of this
great so called anti Semitism machine, you know, against people.
(25:49):
And if those two things are conflated, saying that war
with Iran is bad because it is anti Semitic, that's
probably where I worry most, especially with conflict on the
horizon right now.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Well, I do have some good news for you, which
is that mister Salt himself, Josh gottheimer handed to him
in the Democratic primary, came in fourth place with eleven
percent of the vote, so you know, he thought he
was really killing it.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Well, you know that's that is those are the richest
people in New.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
Jersey, I guess yeah, constituents showed up him, and I'm
sure they'll give him more campaign funds in the future. Anyway, Okay,
let's go ahead and move on to Gavin Newsom. You know,
one of the interesting things here is Newsom really coming
into the Trump administration kind of misread the moment with
regard to the Democratic base. We talked about this before
(26:39):
he launched his podcast, seeing okay, it's a podcast moment,
I'm gonna launch my podcast, And then he had on
people from the right like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon
and Gavin Newsom is actually very good debater. Like I'm
not a big fan of Gavin Newsome, but you have to,
you know, acknowledge political TWL where it exists. He did
a great job in that debate versus Ron DeSantis that
was you know, very well received among the Democratic base,
(27:03):
got a lot of attention, et cetera. So he has
the chops to do it, and instead he invites on
Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon and basically like lets them
berate him, and he just sort of like takes it.
And it's like, oh, I appreciate that. I appreciate that
Democratic base. At that point, we're looking for people who
are willing to fight. So that's how Bernie ends up,
you know, wildly popular at the base. AOC ends up
wildly popular with the bass. Jasmine Crockett has her moment
(27:25):
and becomes you know, this national figure, et cetera. So
he wildly misreads the moment. And obviously everyone knows this
man has been dreaming of being president for probably his
whole life, being the like sort of sociopathic individual that
he is, so he misreads things at the beginning now,
Trump has handed him this, you know, very large opportunity
in the national spotlight to stand up to Trump in
(27:47):
the way that a Democratic base and a lot of
independent voters I think want to see and in a
lot of ways, I do think he has met that moment.
At the same time, other Democrats are like, I mean
that Democratic Party is just so utterly pathetic. This thing
sagur about how they're not sure whether they should pick
this fight with Trump, and they don't know if this
is the police just did might just be distractions, Like,
(28:08):
could you just have some principle that you're willing to
stand for without taking a fucking focus group, poll tested
situation before you know what? Does? Like, it's so pathetic
and disgusting me, and it serves Gavin Newsom because then
he ends up being the only one out there in
the spotlight. So, all of that being said, Harry Enton
and CNN took a look at the Google search traffic
(28:29):
and how this is all playing into Newsom's twenty twenty
eight ambitions. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 10 (28:34):
Yeah, let's just start off. If Gavin Newsom wanted to
take on Donald Trump and loves the attention he has
one hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Gotte it.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Take a look here.
Speaker 10 (28:42):
Google searches of Gavin Newsom with Donald Trump. Get this
up nine thousand, seven hundred percent versus a week ago.
More folks are googling Gavin Newsom's name with Donald Trump
than ever before in Google searches dating all the way
back since two thousand and four. Donald Trump was able
to make a name for himself through The Apprentice, through
all of his business adventures. He is now making a
(29:05):
name for Gavin Newsom, who seems more than willing to
relish in this fight. Should Democrats oppose Donald Trump? More
among Democrats? Look at this, eighty four percent. Eighty four
percent of Democrats nationwide say they want Democrats to take
on Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
Moore.
Speaker 10 (29:21):
This is not twenty seventeen anymore, where the majority of
Democrats want to compromise with Donald Trump. No, they want
a fighter with Donald Trump. Top chances to be the
twenty twenty eight nominee. Look, it's a clown car at
this particular point. All these candidates swish together. But you'll
notice that one name is ahead of the rest, and
that's Gavin Neussom at twelve percent.
Speaker 11 (29:39):
You see a.
Speaker 10 (29:39):
Kasu Cortes, ten Buddha Judge ten Shapiro six percent. But
Gavin Newsom certainly is up there right now in terms
of the candidates who are best impositioned to will get
that twenty twenty eight nomination.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
And this is concerning to me because I'm not a
Gavin Newsom fan, you know, in terms of how he's
governed in California. Basically, if there's a conflicts between core
democratic based principles things like supporting labor unions or expanding
healthcare and donors, he's going with the donor. So that's
kind of the way you should understand his governance. So
(30:13):
the fact that I think he is doing himself a
lot of favors with the Democratic base, and I have
to say, like has been much more responsive on social media.
He really does sort of understand sour the new media
ecosystem a lot better.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
I was talking down the prat with Ryan. I was like,
look at this dude.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
His first interviews I see Brian Tyler Cohen and MIAs
type smart right Pod Save America were.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Smart for an interview by the way, Yeah he turned
us down.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
Yeah, we tried try.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
You wanted to stay with the solidly liberal.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
It's annoying because but yeah, and we wouldn't be annoying
about it. I'm just I don't know.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Anyway, we'd ask them some real questions.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Yeah, I would ask him for sure.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
Questions, whatever we can table that. You know, Actually, Gavin
staff and I back in the day actually had a
decent exchange, so they should know we've I have been
fair to that.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
He follows me on Twitter, so I thought maybe there
was a right.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
Well, Calnia, California is our largest audience, So California, many
of you are constituents of Gavin Sotel gave to listen
to the people.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
I doubt he will.
Speaker 3 (31:08):
That's not exactly how the things work over there. No,
I do think he's actually handling himself quite well. I've
always been a newsome admirer for his sheer political talent.
I think he is clowned in very unfair ways. Like
I mean, I remember, I just thought there was no
way French laundry would ever happen, and like, don't. I
was like, there's no way that he doesn't that he
(31:29):
gets away with this. But he survived, not only survived
the recall election. Since then, is in broadly like popular issu.
He understands new media, and I think one of the
things I underestimated is, Look, California is a machine state.
The machine produces a lot of horrible politicians. But in general,
we shouldn't underestimate the governor of the large the most
(31:51):
popular state in the entire Union.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
That has been a mistake.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
The largest economy in the world, literally one of.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
The largest economies in the world.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
I mean, people underestimated Richard Nixon for being from California.
People underestimated Ronald Reagan from being from California. Like, California
looms large over our politics, always has for a long time,
and I think that with Gavin Newsom, that is where
his sheer political talent, which was on display with that
debate with Ron DeSantis.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Again you can debate like, oh.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
Did he score a point here or there, like on
the Merits, it's not really about that. It's really about
his affectation. And the thing I've always said about Gavin
is Gavin loves the game more than anything else in
the world. He's got the black hole inside of him.
That's what you need, you know, Why else are you
going on Shan Hannity's show. That's nuts? Like why are
you texting Sean Hannity during his live broadcast, you know,
(32:38):
like quibbling with some of the things that Sean says,
Because you have to be obsessed with yourself and you
have to need that affirmation more than anything else in
the world, and that you can't teach that, like you
have to just be born with it. And so I
really see that inside of him, and especially now, like
with the way the stars are aligning, Gavin is learning
you know that that Steve Mann and Charlie Kirk stuff
(32:58):
that he was doing in the very beginning that's really
not the most.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
Politically effect the strategy.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
And he will now really align himself as like a
major resistance figure now. And he doesn't have the baggage
that Karen Bassett. That's another critical thing. Karen is so
horribly you know, just scarred by those fires. Yeah, Gavin
is the real leader of the liberal resistance right now.
Speaker 11 (33:17):
True.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
Yeah, and he just has more whatever than she has too. Yeah,
I mean he Here's the thing that I'm concerned about.
The Democratic base. Actually, Democratic congressional leaders are underwater with
the base that is very different from Trump one point. No,
they have been radicalized in a lot of regards. They
are disgusted with the Chuck Schumers and Keem Jeffries and
(33:40):
the like people who capitulated. And Gavin Newsom was very
much putting himself in that camp with the way that
he approached those interviews with Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon.
At first, when I saw his lineup for initial podcast guests,
I thought it could really benefit him if he was
going to go in and really spar with them. I mean,
it doesn't have to be vicious, but if he was
going to get into an exchange, have these viral moments
(34:01):
like that would have been really smart. What I'm concerned
about with the Democratic base is well, they want a
fighter and someone who's standing up to Trump. There is
a kind of like ideological neutrality. It's not like there's
they specifically want, like a particular policy agenda. They just
want people who get caught fighting. And that's where if
(34:21):
you have someone like a Gavin Newsom or a peat
Boot to judge for that matter, who are good at
going into spaces on Fox News and tussling with them,
and you know, good at doing like the performance of
standing up to Trump, and I you know, and again
I hand it to gather. I think he's doing a
good job in this moment of you know, standing up
for California and standing up for his values, not backing
down all those sorts of things. I think that, you know,
(34:43):
that could be a you know, that could be something
that a Democratic base would be interested in, even though
on the merits in terms of what they offer policy wise,
it's like just more of the same sort of status
quo liberal type politicians. So in any case, he gave
his big like sort of primetime us put this up
on the screen. The New York Times analyzed this as
(35:04):
having a twenty twenty eight subtext, which I think you
would have to you know, be pretty silly and naive
not to see. They lead this off with when Gavin
Newsom stepped in front of a camera Tuesday evening. He
was a Californian governor addressing his constituents. But by the
time mister Newsom was finished, it was clear the governor
is speaking not only to his state, but to his
country and his beleaguered party. To Democrats looking for direction
(35:24):
in leadership. Mister Newsom used one of the highest profile
moments of his political career to lay out the threat
that He argued President Trump posed the nation and how
Americans should resist it, and he suggested he was the
man to lead that fight. Democracy is under assault right
before our eyes. Mister Newsom said, the moment we have
feared has arrived. And as I said before, the fact
that other Democrats are not so much stepping up to
(35:47):
the plate to defend California in an aggressive way, and
you know, are wary of picking this fight with Trump
and whatever it really has allowed him to grab and
capitalize on the moment. And then to the point of
the way he's using social media in a much more
sort of direct way, tussling with with Steven Miller and
other various Trump officials, even going back and forth with
(36:09):
you know, sort of like influencer types on the right
and asserting, you know, his position in all of these
things in real time. He also posted this this star
wars I guess not meme, but of reading the Emperor,
reading one of Trump's stories of gundagalism.
Speaker 4 (36:25):
Of this.
Speaker 12 (36:28):
Once great American city, LUs Angeles has been invaded and
occupied by illegal aliens and criminals. Now violent insurrectionist moves
are swarming and attacking our federal agents to try and
(36:49):
stop deportation operations.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Scacer thought it was kind of grant. I don't know.
I thought I was gonna.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Political Star Wars is grant.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
I had to listen to love Star Wars all right,
like we were talking earlier, and ors awesome. Tony Gilroy's
absolutely good status. But unfortunately when politicians try to invoke
the Evil Empire or any of that stuff, it just
it absolutely doesn't work for me. I will also acknowledge
it's the most basic level of like memification on the
Internet when talking about big stuffs, So I have to
(37:20):
only assume it will largely go over well with a
lot of people. You can always assume that you know
the worst in terms of in terms of his popularity,
I do think I think broadly him at Pete Boodha
Jedge are handling himself very well. It kills me to say,
it kills me to say to watch these two people.
But I didn't have enough of a chance to talk
about Buddha Judge on Flagrant.
Speaker 1 (37:41):
I mean, he did well, like it got millions of views.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
There's a viral video of him where Andrew's like, so
what do you want He's like, I want you to
be able to get up in the morning and be able.
Speaker 1 (37:51):
To go to it.
Speaker 3 (37:51):
I mean, it was everywhere, and you know, it led
to there's a New New York Times profile about some
of the broadcasters or whatever. But if mentions that interview
with Andrew Schultz specifically, we had Bernie Sanders that was
more recently there as well, very.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
You know what I mean. These these are the people
who understand.
Speaker 3 (38:09):
The meat the current media environment, and they also they
want to play.
Speaker 1 (38:12):
They're willing to take risks.
Speaker 3 (38:13):
That's something we talked about yesterday on the theo Von segment.
It's like, just take a risk, like yeah, you know,
Schultz was making like hooker jokes at one point. Buddha
Judge is clearly uncomfortable, but it's like as part of it,
you know, and a lot of people just don't want
to sit there and they don't want to take it.
But you know, with risk comms reward, Trump showed us
that's a very effective communication strategy and it's definitely one
that should be cemented now at this time.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
So well, yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
Don't know, both of them have that annoying ass Obama cadence,
which to me should be just qualifying from the jump.
Just on that on that alone. Let alone there, you know,
status quo neoliberal politics. But I mean, I will, I
will put that in there. Especially with Gavin, there is
just something about him that reads used car salesman. Is
he does read just like typical slimy politician. That's just
(38:57):
the vibe you get from I've always thought he looks
like a vampire from a movie. And so you know,
it's not a lock in. But he's certainly using this
moment to the greatest effect that he possibly can to
bolster his chances in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 3 (39:11):
Absolutely, we're very excited now to be joined by Mortaza Hussein.
He is a national security and foreign affairs correspondent for
Drop site News. Great friends of the show, it's good
to see you man, Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 11 (39:24):
Thank it seious.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
All right, well you.
Speaker 3 (39:26):
Join us at a very very consequential time, my friend,
let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
We have major developments across the Middle East. CBS News
and multiple other outlets reporting quote Israel is poised to
launch an operation on Iran so mas. What we know
so far from inside the administration is that this is
being sold allegedly as Israel is poised to strike Iran
(39:47):
without US approval, But it appears, of course the US
at least has some forewarning its own intelligence, perhaps even
at diplomatic channels. Things are all over the place in
terms of what's actually happening. There has been widespread now
evacuation or at least voluntarily evacuation of the departure of
dependence in the in the US military bases across the region.
(40:10):
President Donald Trump has reacted very ominously. I'm gonna play
this and then we're gonna get your reaction. Let's take
a listen.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
Could you provide an update on Iran.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
We're hearing reports that US personnel are being moved out
of the region within striking distance.
Speaker 9 (40:23):
Well, they are being moved out because it could be
a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens. But they are,
We've given notice to move out, and we'll see what happens.
Speaker 6 (40:33):
Is there anything that can be done to dial the
temperature down in the region.
Speaker 9 (40:38):
They can't have a nuclear weapon, very simple, they can't
have a nuclear weapent.
Speaker 1 (40:43):
We're not going to allow that.
Speaker 10 (40:44):
Say it, wal are US competants of military personnel?
Speaker 1 (40:48):
Bob used, That's the same thing you.
Speaker 3 (40:54):
Some ominous stuff there. Mausei is basically like, yeah, it
could be a dangerous place. So combined with the Israel reporting,
what can you tell us?
Speaker 13 (41:03):
Yeah, it's unfortunate because about a month and a half ago,
it seemed like the situation is much more optimistic, and
I think I would attribute the change to changing statements
from Steve Wikoff and people in Congress as well too.
At the start of the process, Wikoff was saying that
the US would be okay with the Iranians having low
level nuclear enriishment for civilian purposes, which will be monitored
(41:23):
and so forth by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and
the Iranians are okay with that. They don't necessarily want
a nuclear bomb per se. They could have pursued one
some years ago, but they're a great costs associated with
having a bomb. It will kiss off many of their
neighbors separate from the US, would probably start an arms
race in the Middle East as well too. It could
trigger war at least for a short term with the
(41:44):
US or other parties.
Speaker 11 (41:45):
So they have said they.
Speaker 13 (41:46):
Don't want a bomb, but they don't want to dismantle
their entire nuclear energy program, which they spend many many
years building it's an issue of national pride as well too.
So Wickcoff now is taking a very very expressing or
conveying a very very maximal's position, which is kind of
like the Libya position. And people remember Libya agreed to
dismantle his entire putative capacity for developing everything, which even
(42:10):
could be a WND, and that didn't end very well
for Libya. It wasn't a very advisable path if you
look at from the Libyan's perspective.
Speaker 3 (42:20):
Getting sodomized on television. You know, I mean, that's honest
about what happened here.
Speaker 13 (42:25):
Yeah, Yeah, the Libyans agreed to dismantle and then they
were attacked and their leadership was killed and driven to
excel and many terrible things.
Speaker 11 (42:32):
So the Iranians do not want to repeat that. So effectively,
we have.
Speaker 13 (42:35):
A situation where the US red line that's currently publicly
express and the Iranian red line is in commensurate. The
US is saying now that they can't have any enrichment
at all, the Iranians saying, will never give up our richment.
So in this case, it creates a situation where a
conflict would become inevitable unless one side would a compromise,
it back down. And I think what we saw last
(42:56):
couple of days our attempts to maybe do psychological operations
saying that the Israeli is going to attack you if
you don't compromise on the subject. But so what we
seem so far the runnings do not seem to be
backing down. Say, they escalated quite a bit, saying that
they may withdraw from their nuclear treaties and take other
steps in response to that.
Speaker 11 (43:17):
As well too.
Speaker 13 (43:18):
So I think unfortunately we've had a situation where a
deal was very, very attainable, but now at least the
last forty eight hours seemed a lot less.
Speaker 2 (43:26):
So, and Ma's how do you assess the likelihood that
Israel will strike Iran? Obviously you have the personnel being
pulled from the region, that's one indication. You also have
various people now going out and saying they're really close to,
you know, achieving a nuclear weapon, which we always hear,
you know, before the war drums start beating. So how
(43:47):
likely do you think it is that we are on
the prespose of some sort of Israeli action? Also, given
the fact that it appears Trump has several times a
couple times during the course of this negotiation sort of
pushed them off and said, no, you can't strike Iran
at this point.
Speaker 13 (44:01):
Yeah, you know, the Israeli modus operanda is usually to
strike with people not expecting it, not to telegraph it's
happening beforehand. So what you see in the last couple
of days is a tremendous amount of signaling and telegraphing,
which makes you think this is more at least for now, psychological.
They're not necessarily preparing for an imminent attack. But you know,
there are top schedules for this weekend between the US
(44:22):
and Iran in Oman, and based on what happens in
those talks, situations could change. But I think if the
Israelis do attack, or someone does attack, they won't be
this lead up that's very very public where they're issuing
statements publicly and evacuating people in a very very notable manner.
I think they would have strike, try to use the
element of surprise as much as possible.
Speaker 11 (44:44):
But I think the thing is.
Speaker 13 (44:45):
The Iranians, if they really do believe that the Israelis
or even the US is going to attack them, They're
gonna take preparations beforehand. They're going to try to move
as much nuclear material out of the likely to be
targeted sites beforehand. They may withdraw from certain treaties or
expel inspectors so they can take their nuclear materials completely
into private. So actually, you know, even from the perspective,
(45:08):
if you want to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon, attacking
is kind of a really bad option because the Iranians
it's a huge country. First of all, it's almost nine
million people. It's a very very big land mass. It's
not like Iraq. It's much much more challenging than Iraq
to attack for foreign country. And if they withdraw from
these treaties, there's not only much you can do. You
can maybe attack them once, but then how do you
(45:29):
even have to keep attacking them forever? Really to figure
out where the nuclear materials are. The knowledge won't be
taken out of the country, You'll still be there. You
may have to invade the country even to stop or
to root out the new suspected nuclear sites. Attacking Iran
will not be a one off affair. It wouldn't be
a week long or a couple of days or even
a month. It will probably take the entire Trump term
(45:51):
or even longer. Beyond that being involved militarily in the country,
if you really want to stop the nuclear program, if
they would draw from the treaties. So I think that
the deal really dissatisfy everyone's needs. It satisfies their own
need to maintain some civilian program. The Trump administration wants
to pivot that China doesn't want to have more wars
in the Middle East. I think the American public is very,
very exhausted and disenchanted with this. So a deal really
(46:14):
is the path of least resistance. But because I think
that maybe a poison pill has been imputed in this
deal based on what we've seen with the Witcoff's evolutionary statements,
it's moved from agreeing to civilian Richmond and nothing. I
think the people in the US who do want a war,
and they suggest they successfully put that change of position in,
(46:34):
but it's not really a good solution for anybody. It's
bad for Iranian it's bad for Americans, bad for Israelis
even to have the major war where they run for many,
many years. But that's the path we're on right now.
Barring some heroic diplomacy on Sunday, well.
Speaker 1 (46:47):
We can talk about that. So at the very least.
Speaker 3 (46:49):
There were initial comments that were made that there would
be no more or not a sixth round of talks. Now,
fortunately for US, we can put this up on the screen.
The Omani foreign minister confirmed that talks will happen between
Steve Witkoff and between Iran's foreign minister. However, mas At
the same time, we do know that Israel's head of
(47:09):
Mosad and their minister Ron Dermer will be meeting with
Steve Witkoff, apparently ahead of said meeting again potentially for
su coordination of what exactly. We don't know, but this
last round of talks seems very critical because of the
position where US intelligence now saying that Israel is basically
poised to strike Iran. There's a lot of pressure on
the Iranians in the US there. I'm what is your
(47:32):
assessment if this does not come to some decent conclusion
in this round, is it even possible for us to
have another round or are we going to see the
prelude to, like you said, withdrawing from agreements. I believe
Iran just got rebuked this morning by the IAEA over
nuclear materials. So things do seem to be trending, you know,
in a very bad direction. Unless things go well during
(47:54):
these talks.
Speaker 13 (47:55):
It is a problem to that Masade officials and Ron
Dhermer and bring around the talks from the beginning.
Speaker 11 (48:01):
They've been in Rome, they've been wherever the talks are happening.
Speaker 13 (48:04):
They're either briefing Wi Cough beforehand or just being in
the area to let them know that their position is very,
very important in these talks. So, you know, to be honest,
I'm not particularly optimistic, unfortunately about the Sunday talks. So
though the talks this weekend, it seems like a last
ditch effort, and you know they're strong, there are strong
motivations for both sides to come to some of the
tent War is not good for the Iranians.
Speaker 11 (48:26):
War is not good for the US.
Speaker 13 (48:27):
Either the Trump administration or Space wants to see another
war like this, but they're not box themselves the situation
where it's almost you know, I wouldn't say inevitable, but
it's become much more likely than it needs to be.
Speaker 11 (48:40):
I think that these talks that may be the last
efforts to.
Speaker 13 (48:44):
See if any sort of compromise agreement can be found,
and if not, you could see Israeli strikes in Iran.
But the issue is, you know, if Israel does it alone,
quote unquote, it will still have tremendous US intelligence, logistic,
and other support. But also it's very very likely that
the fortified nuclear positions that Iran has cannot be destroyed
(49:05):
by Israeli aircraft or munitions. They need American B two's
and thirty thousand pound bombs to actually destroy these. So
almost inevitably, the Israeli attacks most likely will do an
insufficient damage to the Iranian sites, and the US would
feel compelled to become involved. And if the Iranians retaliate,
which they said they will, they would also create great
(49:26):
pressure for the US to get involved in defend Israel
as well too from those attacks. So I think, unfortunately,
even though nobody wants it, everyone's still fed up of
wars in the Middle East. We're really headed towards the
situation where not just a warning Middle East, but the
biggest war we've ever had in the Middle East could
be right on our doorstep, just you know, in a
few weeks. So I think that people in the administration
(49:47):
or you know, support have communication with the administrations should
sort of impress as much as they can that how
close we are, how unnecessary it all is, and how
important this diplomacy this weekend and beyond is to avoid
what could be a very very disaster situation.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
Last question that I have for you, Maz, the Trump
administrations try to posture like, oh, Israel might strikeer On,
we have nothing to do with it. Let's say they
maintain that pasture Israel does striger On. Is anyone going
to believe that we had nothing to do with it,
that this was just Israel acting of their own accord?
Speaker 11 (50:21):
I don't think so.
Speaker 13 (50:22):
This very very obvious close coordination with the US and Israel. Also,
the US arms Israel, that all the arms come from
the US. If it's real purchase those arms would be
be privatively expensive actually for them to carry out the
operations they are and now so there is not really
the great acceptance of that. But that said, of course,
Iron would like to avoid the direct confrontation with the
(50:43):
US itself. It said it would target American bases if
the US attacked it. But if there's some plausible deniability,
it's kind of useful for both sides to say, well,
it was between US and israelis technically but that said,
I do think for the technical reasons I laid out,
there's a very strong involvement, even if initially it's only
the Israelis directly carrying out the strikes, that the Americans
(51:06):
could become the US military could become involved in the
conflict directly simply to the only the US military can
really destroy these sites or more as a greatest chance
of doing so. And when, if and when the Iranians retaliate,
the political pressure in the US to step in to
defend Israel to attack more sites inside Iran with American
(51:27):
military weaponry, it will be great. And you know, the
Israeli Is, they do punch above their way for their size,
but they are the most bigger country in Israel, and
really to balance the scales, the Israelis need America to
be involved in the war. And I think the entire
strategy in Natanyahu and Dermer and so forth is to
force America into a conflict because they can't. They feel
they can't do it alone. They can't achieve what they
want to alone, and they really need America to be
(51:49):
involved in war in the Middle East or at least
another generation.
Speaker 3 (51:52):
We already have the playbook, right they blew up an embassy,
and then the Iranians struck back and guests who shot
down ninety nine percent of the incoming projectiles, not them, right, Yeah,
it's like this is this has already happened. In fact,
that was you know, the groundwork for this right now.
And by the way, if it costs one billion dollars
just to shoot down some silly drones and a couple
of missiles, what do you think is going to happen
(52:14):
if they actually hit nuclear centrifuges and we see real
stuff start flying through the air. This is not a joke,
as you said, and part of the reason why we
see this widespread now evacuation of dependent military forces. I mean,
the US embassy in Jerusalem is telling people don't leave
the country now for some time. They are taking this
very very seriously, and they don't just do this for
(52:36):
no reason.
Speaker 1 (52:36):
Anyway, We really appreciate your analysis. I you know, I
hope you're not right. I think you are.
Speaker 3 (52:42):
You know, I think I think these weekends talks are
genuine make or break and I guess we should all
just start talking about how Trump is the greatest diplomatic
figure and we should give him the Nobel Prize. Yes,
I will fly to Stockholm, bring us back.
Speaker 2 (52:57):
In the deal. He got us out of three ways.
Speaker 3 (53:00):
Just get us, get us a deal, do something, because otherwise,
you know we're headed for bad, bad waters.
Speaker 1 (53:06):
Thank you so much for joining us, my friend. We
appreciate it.
Speaker 11 (53:08):
Thans Gus
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.