6/23/25: Trump Threatens Iran Regime Change, Iran Floats Hormuz Shutdown, Scott Horton Debunks Nuke Lies

Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump threatens Iran regime change, Iran floats Hormuz shutdown, Scott Horton debunks Israel Iran nuke lies.

 

John Mearsheimer: https://www.mearsheimer.com/

Scott Horton: https://scotthorton.org/

 

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.

Episode Transcript

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 this 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.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal?

Speaker 2 (00:37):
We have two absolute giants booked to join us in
this show. So I am extremely excited to speak with
Scott Horton about the reality of the Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Speaker 4 (00:48):
He can do some debunking.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
For us there, so very excited to speak with him,
and we are also going to be talking to Professor
John Meerscheimer about the geostrategic implications of all of this
and how we got to this place in the first
place that really super psyched to talk to them. Before
we get into that, we're going to break down all
of the latest news with regard to our war in
Israel's war with Iran. Trump has now gone from saying,

(01:11):
you know, we destroyed all the nuclear sites.

Speaker 4 (01:13):
To now the indications are we aren't.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
And all the administration officials went out on the Sunday
shows and said there's no regime change here, and then
Trump goes ahead and tweets on maybe we are going
to do a regime change. So there is a whole
lot to get into, a lot of moving parts. Also,
as we watch what Iran's potential retaliation could be, We're
also going to spend some time taking a hard look
at all of the intense media propaganda, wild wild stuff

(01:35):
going on, especially on Fox News and CNN, so that
is where we are going to focus. We're also going
to take a look at the oftentimes utterly pathetic democratic
reaction and what is going on with the quote unquote
opposition party, and then later today for premium subscriber, Soccer
and I will be doing that AMA Live. So if
you want to be able to participate in those, make
sure you sign up at Breakingpoints dot Com. Thank you

(01:55):
so much to everyone who's been supporting the show. One
cool thing that we are going to get to do
this week, Sager is Griffin and Ryan are going to
New York. We're going to be doing a live stream
Tuesday night. That New York City Democratic primary mayoral race
with the top two being Andrew Cuomo versus Zoron Mamdanni,
is going down this Tuesday, so we are going to

(02:16):
be covering that live and Newpole actually just came out
this morning that has this from Emerson that has Zoron leading.
After you go through all the right choice rounds and whatever,
fifty two, forty eight and now the polymarket betting odds
which were wildly Inquoma's favor yesterday I have now completely
flipped in favor of Zoron. So it's going to be
a nail bider. Very interesting to see how this race

(02:38):
goes down as sort of a canary in the coal
mine of where the Democratic face is now.

Speaker 3 (02:41):
That's right, but thank you to our premium describers. That's
where we're able to afward. We have them both on
the ground, They're going to be there in New York City.
Hopefully we're able to get some interviews with soor On
Mamdani as well as possibly Mahmoud Khalil, you know.

Speaker 1 (02:52):
Maybe working on that media. We're working on the stor.

Speaker 4 (02:55):
More accurately, Ryan is working.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
Ryan is working because Ryan.

Speaker 2 (02:58):
Knows someone who knows someone.

Speaker 1 (03:00):
Always he's the goat. What can we say? He is
the greatest to ever do it.

Speaker 3 (03:03):
Thank you seriously to everybody who has been signing up
Breakingpoints dot com. If you're able to join us, we
have a massive influx of new listeners and of new viewers,
which we deeply appreciate. Guys, if you can't afford a
membership right now, it's totally fine.

Speaker 1 (03:16):
Just do us a favor.

Speaker 3 (03:17):
Hit the subscribe button on YouTube, or if you're listening
to this on a podcast, just go ahead and take
your favorite episode.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
I heard a lot of people really enjoyed our episode.

Speaker 3 (03:25):
Immediately after the strikes that happened on around Just text
it to a friend if somebody's asking, hey, what is
actually going on here? And hopefully we can help people
sort throughout all. So with that could transition to what
the hell is going on? Right?

Speaker 1 (03:39):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (03:39):
Well, I have a feeling with Scott Horden and Meerscheimer
in the show today Today might be one of those
favorite shows. That's one I'm certainly really excited to hear
from both of those individuals. So let's go ahead and
put a one up on the screen here, guys, you
just can't make the shit up. This is Donald Trump
on True Social yesterday. It's not politically correct to use
the term regime change, But if the current Iranian regime

(04:02):
is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there
be a regime change?

Speaker 1 (04:08):
Question?

Speaker 4 (04:09):
Question? Question?

Speaker 2 (04:10):
And then he says, myga, make Iran great again instead
of naga.

Speaker 4 (04:14):
You get that.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
That's sure, that's my that's my great, my best gas here,
So saga before I even play all of the administration
students who were sent out to say, oh, there's no
regime change here, before Trump completely undercuts them.

Speaker 4 (04:30):
I mean, how quickly have they moved the goalposts?

Speaker 5 (04:33):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (04:33):
Right, it's it's just extraordinary. Like first, oh, we're doing diplomacy,
No way, we don't want war, we just want diplomacy.
Then oh, this is great, that Israel striking, and oh
we were not involved at all. And then the next
day after Trump sees the Fox News coverage and how
glowing it is.

Speaker 4 (04:48):
Oh, of course it was all us. We were totally involved.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
But then we actually, what we really want is diplomatic negotiation.
So you know, it's great Israel's doing their thing with us,
but we really want diplomacy. And then you know, very
quickly that diplomacy obviously because some of the lead negotiators
were murdered, falls apart. And then it's off to the races.
So now we've gone from oh, we're just going to
drop a bomb on four Toho two. Well, actually, you

(05:11):
can't destroy the nuclear program just with bombing. So looky, looky,
I guess we're going to have to do regime change.
And your two hosts here called.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
It all along.

Speaker 4 (05:21):
I would have loved to be wrong, but that's where
we are.

Speaker 1 (05:23):
I wanted to be wrong, I really did, you know.

Speaker 3 (05:25):
I wanted to see something that really challenge all of
my priors about US intervention in the Middle East. But
cynicism is ultimately the only thing that can be rewarded.

Speaker 6 (05:33):
Here.

Speaker 1 (05:34):
We started with Israel has got it. All America has.

Speaker 3 (05:37):
To do is give them the bombs, and then we're like, no, no, no, no,
we just got to do one strike on these three
facilities and then it's over. And now as we're going
to get into for the rest of the show, actually
turns out, yes, the strikes were quote successful possibly in
knocking out some of those facilities, but oh, the nuclear
material itself is not there. It's going to go through
a lot with Scott, which means what, oh, maybe we're

(05:58):
going to have to go back and continue this this morning.
The IDF has removed all pretenses of this being about
the nuclear program. They're bombing regime targets, including you know,
political prisons or whatever from the Iranians or apparently Iran
had some doomsday clock about when Israel was going to
be destroyed and they bombed that just in case you're
all aware of like what this is all really about.

(06:20):
But with Trump, I mean, this really is a massive
indictment of a lot of these MAGA influencers, because the
MAGA line for the last week has been trust President Trump.
He's got this, He's not going to do regime change.

Speaker 1 (06:31):
He tweeted it out. He just tweeted it out.

Speaker 3 (06:33):
Not only did he just tweet it out, he actually
humiliated all three of his major you know, national security
officials who went on television all day to assure the
American public and the Iranians listen, we are not trying
to do regime change here, and we look if you
want the evidence, I'm talking hours beforehand. Vice President jad Vance,

(06:55):
National Security Advisor, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Sectef, Pete Hexeth.
They all said it over and over again, this is
not about regime change, even though Trump literally said it
is about regime change.

Speaker 1 (07:05):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 7 (07:06):
Our view has been very clear that we don't want
a regime change. We do not want to protract this
or build this out anymore than it's already been built out.
We want to end their nuclear program, and then we
want to talk to the Iranians about a long term
settlement here.

Speaker 8 (07:20):
So this mission was a very precise mission. It had
three objectives, three nuclear sites. It was not attack on Iran.
It was not an attack on the Iranian people. This
wasn't a regime change move. This was designed to degrade
and or destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear
weaponization ambitions.

Speaker 9 (07:38):
So is regime change off the table, mister Secretary. And
to the chairman, you know you said the battle damage
assessment is still ongoing, But do you believe that some
nuclear capability in Iran remains.

Speaker 7 (07:53):
This mission was not has not been about regime change.

Speaker 3 (07:57):
It's not about regime change. Not doing regime change, don't
worry about it. And the reason why is because they're like,
maybe we can come to some agreement with the Iranians.
So the Iranians now have look whether it's true or not.
At this point, the narrative is diplomacy was a ruse,
and then it was listen, we have nothing to do
with this.

Speaker 1 (08:13):
This was only Israel.

Speaker 3 (08:14):
Now, actually we did bomb you, but this is just
about the nuclear sites. It's not about anything else. To
now Trump is saying, so, why would you want to
negotiate with like at this point, let's put yourself in
the strategic empathy. Okay, you don't have to like Iran,
you don't have to like the regime. Put yourself in
their shoes.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
What would you do? What would you do? And will continue?

Speaker 3 (08:36):
You know, with these statements from US policymakers, it's just preposterous.
And also I mean, I know we're going to get
to this, but I want to preview this. The Trump
speech is one of the most It will live in
history as one of the most extraordinary speeches in the
US Israel relationship of all time. I mean he literally
taught the United States of America and Israel together. He

(08:57):
thanked Prime Minister net and Yahoo before he thanked the
US Air Force service members who dropped the bombs on Iran.
He said, God bless Israel, before God bless America. This
is the game is up in terms of what this
is all about. I mean, this is Israel's war, this
is America's war. Donald Trump, our president, has chosen to

(09:18):
fuse those two things together, and he is betting his
entire presidency on this. You know, will it work out
for him? I mean, he's got better political instincts than me,
but at the very least, like for a lot of
other people out there, if you deluded yourself, you know,
into thinking that there was some independence or whatever, maybe
that was true at one point. I do not believe
it to be true at all anymore. Donald Trump has

(09:39):
made his choice to die is absolutely cast.

Speaker 4 (09:41):
You know, Socger I was thinking about this, and.

Speaker 2 (09:45):
I have especially for people who you know, we're looking
at the genocide and Gosam were like, I can't vote
for a ticket that was part of this, and so
they wanted to believe that maybe Trump would be different.
And one of the analyzes that was offered is Biden
is a die the Wolf Zionist, like he's actually ideologically
committed to the project, whereas Trump is purely transactional. But

(10:06):
you know what, that should have been a red flag
for us, because no one's going to play the transactional
game better than the Israel lobby, right, And.

Speaker 3 (10:12):
That's you know, that's a very insightful thing. And that's
actually really one day we'll do like a full retrospective
on how we got here. And there's a big, big
reason why this is all happening.

Speaker 1 (10:23):
It's a big part of that.

Speaker 2 (10:24):
Yeah, because if you actually have some sort of principle,
even if your principle is like I love Israel and
I want what's best for Israel, this is not in
the long run going to be best for Israel. I mean,
people around the world hate this country now, right. You
cannot bomb your way to safety and security. So there
is even if you have any sort of ideological principle

(10:47):
you're willing to stick to, you there is some sort
of limits that you may eventually put. As we've seen
with other American presidents. By the way, who have it
the end of the day said, you know what, it's
too far, it's too much. We're done here. But with Trump,
because he's just for sale of eye is better. Then
you don't have any sort of a limiting principle, and
that's how you end up.

Speaker 4 (11:04):
You know, this is John McCain's fondest wish. Like people
are sharing this meme of him.

Speaker 3 (11:09):
This former advisors are saying that I'm not joking. His
son in law Ben Dominic literally is like this is history.
I mean, look, yeah, I take it from his family.

Speaker 4 (11:15):
All right, listen, absolutely true.

Speaker 2 (11:17):
Yeah, Lindsay Graham's the John McCain's, the John Boltons. They
are getting the Bill crystals. Yes, they are getting their
fondest wish right now through this president who dared both
in twenty sixteen, in twenty twenty four, who dared to
posture as being anti war, and is now already like

(11:39):
put us into a regime change war in the Middle East,
the exact thing that he would have had us believe
he would never do, even as he spoke down to
both sides of his mouth like he'd say that, and
then he'd also say we should bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities.
So you know, people heard what they wanted to hear ultimately,
and the record spoke for itself from the first term
where he was extremely hawkish and also risked direct hot

(12:02):
war with the Run after assassinating costm sool of money.
But we're going to spend some more time tomorrow, probably
on all of the MAGA influencer cope, because you could
spend a long time talking about the way that these
people have shifted and the mental gymnastics that are going
on here. But let me just give you one example,
because it fits with what Zager was saying about the
evolution here of their talking points and the evolution here

(12:25):
of what the administration has been trying to sell us.
So Charlie Kirk originally starts off with like, we shouldn't
be in war with Iran, and then once it's clear
that we are, then it's what we shouldn't directly bomb
a Run, and then once it's once we do that,
then it's what we shouldn't do regime change and have
boots in the ground. Now once Trump comes out and says, hey,
why not regime change, Let's make a Run great again.

(12:48):
Now we get this from Charlie Kirk parsing of the
different varieties of regime change. A bottom up revolution rises
from the will of the people, a top down regime
change is engineered by elites and the intel community. One
is organic, the other is orchestrated and forced. The line
is very thin, and we must proceed extremely carefully before
you know what we could be. In a situation like Libya,

(13:11):
President Trump is talking about an organic uprising?

Speaker 4 (13:14):
Oh is he as.

Speaker 2 (13:15):
He's bombing Iran? He's talking about this is all just organic.
America cannot get involved in a forceful decapitation effort in Persia.
So the number of times he has already shifted the
goalposts here to now we're parsing the nuances of which
type of regime change he thinks Trump ultimately means is
just absolutely incredible to see this speech from Trump. Honestly,

(13:42):
I was shocked because I thought he would be on
his game with regard to this messaging. It's not hard
to convince them. Sadly, it's not hard to convince the
American people to bomb someplace that they've never been to. Okay,
that's just the sad fact of the matter, based on
my entire life experience. So if you say Iran has nuke.
We had to go in there and stop it. We

(14:02):
dropped the bombs. It's done, it's over. God bless America.
We preserved our American interests. You know what, I'm sorry
to say, there's a large amount of American set at
least that the jump would be like you know what,
I get it, Okay, we had to tell there was
a dangerous situation. They were going to bomb Zuri or
New York was gonna be next to whatever the hell
they had been sold on Fox News primarily in CNN
as well. That's really not what he said, and he

(14:24):
also threatened more belicosity and really made it clear this
wasn't really about our interests, about Israel's interest I mean,
he really didn't even try to hide that in this speech.
The other piece, optically is he's got Rubio, Hegseth and JD.
Vance behind him, you know, which was a way of
sort of projecting that he's brought the you know.

Speaker 4 (14:46):
JD.

Speaker 2 (14:47):
Vance was supposedly the highest level like non interventionist in
the administration. Heg Seth was also supposedly had learned his
lesson blah blah blah. Rubio has always been a Neocon,
but we had also been sold some like, oh, maybe
he's changed his ways here too. By having them there
behind him while he's announcing this, it's basically a way
of sort of like publicly humiliating and demonstrating that they've

(15:07):
all been brought to heal. In any case, let's go
ahead and take a listen to a sampling of what
he had to say in that speech.

Speaker 10 (15:13):
A short time ago, the US military carried out massive
precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the
Iranian regime for Doe, Natanz, and Esfahan. Tonight, I can
report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular

(15:33):
military success. Iran's key nuclear and Richmond facilities have been
completely and totally obliterated around the bully of the Middle
East must now make peace. If they do not, future
attacks would be far greater and a lot easier. I
want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister bb netn Yahoo.

(15:54):
We worked as a team like perhaps no team has
ever worked before, and we've gone a long way to
erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank
the Israeli military for the wonderful job they've done with
all of that being said, this cannot continue. There will
be either peace or there will be tragedy. For I

(16:15):
ran far greater than we have witnessed over the last
eight days. Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight's was
the most difficult of them all by far, and perhaps
the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly,
we will go after those other targets with precision, speed

(16:36):
and skill. Most of them can be taken out in
a matter of minutes.

Speaker 2 (16:42):
So he threatens additional action, and he says something there Soger.
He says Iran's key nuclear facilities were completely and totally obliterated.
That is not the case. The administration is no longer
even claiming that that is the case. You can put
this next satellite images up here on the screen. This
is beh I mean, you can see certainly damage which

(17:03):
has occurred here. But the big question too was Fodeau,
which is the nuclear facility buried under the mountain that
there was a lot of discussion of prior to this bombings.
Put the next one up on the screen and you
can see the before and the after here. You know,
it's actually a little bit difficult to tell exactly where
the bombs dropped and what happened. But all the indications

(17:23):
that we're getting from the Israelis and from the Americans
at this point is yes, there was significant damage, but
these nuclear facilities are not completely and totally obliterated. As
he said, not to mention. Now we're getting these pieces
of like, oh and there, but did you know there's
other really even more important nuclear facilities and oh, by
the way, and here's natons. You can see the before

(17:44):
and after there and oh, by the way, they because
there was so much projection of like we're going to
do this, or maybe we're going to do this, or
maybe we're not going to do this, the Iranians moved
their stockpile of enriched uranium to some secret site that
you know, I don't think we have awareness of. Maybe
we have awareness of where it is. But the you know,
ostensible goal here of making it impossible for them, at

(18:07):
least in the medium term to race towards a bomb
has been a failure. Now, reminder, our intelligence community and
the IAEA say they were not trying to develop a
nuclear weapon, that that wasn't something that they had in mind.
That if they didn't decide to it would take years
for them to develop not only that weapon, but the
capability to deliver it. But you know, now we've changed

(18:28):
the calculus where because of the aggressive actions of the
Israelis and of now ourselves as well, there is a
lot of logic and well, I'm sure talk to Mehershima
about this later. There's a lot of logic in place
for Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Speaker 4 (18:45):
So that's where we are.

Speaker 3 (18:45):
The Trump administration is defining terms in complete stupidity because
they're like, the sites have been obliterated, and it's like, okay, well,
it's not really about the sites, right, It's about the
ability to weaponize a nuclear bomb, right, And that means
it's about the uranium stockpile. Let's go and put the
next punt up there on the screen. And there's also
some further stuff that gets into it. It says the

(19:07):
Iranian photo site looks to be severely damaged, but not destroyed.

Speaker 1 (19:10):
But furthermore, this is the most important thing.

Speaker 3 (19:12):
Basically, US officials now concede they do not know the
fate of the Iranian uranium stockpile, and that the current
assessment is that almost all of it, and especially according
to the Uranians, was moved out of these places before.
In fact, there is an arms control expert who I
religiously followed I have for ten years on the North
Korea nuclear program and more, and his current analysis is

(19:34):
that not only does Iran not have access to this
uranium stockpile, but there are several other facilities which are
more recently built, of which the IAA has not ever
been inspected. They don't even know where they are secret
facilities and more where they fully have the capacity to
take this sixty percent uranium and enrich it to ninety
percent if they wish to do so. As you just said,

(19:54):
and we'll talk to Meerscheimer about, there has never been
more strategic logic to have that happen. And in fact,
there's already satellite imagery showing trucks and other Iranian facilities
that were going there before the strikes, maybe two or
three days beforehand.

Speaker 1 (20:09):
And moving it out of there. Now, you may ask why.

Speaker 3 (20:11):
The world's most moral, incredible military, Israel, while they're bombing
doomsday clocks, doesn't have the capacity apparently to bomb those
trucks or to say, hey, why are these big trucks
capable of using nuclear material there? Yeah, you may want
to question that, including with the United States. This is
the problem is that now the stage is set for
what more strikes, because like, oh, well, we didn't get

(20:33):
it here, so actually we got to go back and
we got to go get this quote nuclear material. And look,
it's going to be the same logic. Israel doesn't have
the bunker busters, they don't have the capacity. They actually
hit fourdough again this morning, similarly trying to take out
other things on the side, and again begs the questions like, well,
if we destroyed it, then why do they have to
go back and hit it again. Look to the actions,
not to the words, and because the actions tell us

(20:55):
the entire story, and the story is clear. Also, I
would show why the Iran that made the quote Miga
tweet is so damaging.

Speaker 1 (21:03):
What did JD say in there? He said, we're not
at war with Iran? Bullsh whatever. All right, let's move
past that.

Speaker 3 (21:10):
We're not at war with Iraq, not war with your
we're at war with their nuclear program.

Speaker 1 (21:15):
Then we want to come to an agreement.

Speaker 3 (21:18):
Now that agreement would be about this uranium stockpile, but
we don't even know where that is. This is I'm
telling you this is leak US intelligence officials, other officials. Iaea,
they're saying, we have no clue, we don't know where
it all went. Well, how do you get that? This
is basically like the same Iraq playbook. The whole reason
why boots on the ground and all that had to happen,
not just for a regime change. It was sold to

(21:39):
the American public as we have to go and secure
it ourselves.

Speaker 1 (21:42):
What Israel's going to go and secure it? The great
geniuses and the IDF.

Speaker 3 (21:47):
Yeah, I'm sure that you know some nineteen year old
reservists who have now spent two years just like happy
shooting around named Gaza are very proficient at being able
to No. Of course, it's be only the US military,
and we haven't even gotten into Iranian retaliation. But I
actually realized we hadn't even played that JD thing. So
just so you guys can take a listen and to
show how damaging the Make Iran Great Again Regime change

(22:09):
declaration was from Donald Trump. It directly undermines his alleged
policy and actually makes it clear what the real policy is.

Speaker 1 (22:18):
Take a listen.

Speaker 4 (22:18):
Is the United States now at war with Iran?

Speaker 6 (22:24):
No?

Speaker 7 (22:24):
Kristen we're not at war with Iran. We're at war
with Iran's nuclear program. And let me just say Kristin
that we're incredibly grateful and proud of the American Air
Force pilots who did an incredible job last night. The
operation was really extraordinary. I certainly empathize with Americans who
are exhausted after twenty five years of foreign entanglements in

(22:46):
the Middle East. I understand the concern. But the difference
is that back then we had dumb presidents, and now
we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish
America's national security objectives. So this is not going to
be some long drawn out thing we've got in. We've
done the job of setting their nuclear program back. We're
going to now work to permanently dismantle that nuclear program

(23:08):
over the coming years. And that is what the President
has set out to do.

Speaker 3 (23:12):
You could see clear he said that's what the president.
And also you know, oh, we had dumb presidents or
whatever in the past. I mean, if that's the level
of argumentation that we've been reduced to, it again comes
back to trust Trump. You should not trust Trump, by
the way, And this is the other thing. The neogons
didn't trust Trump when when Steve wickcoff and it looked
like negotiations and all of that would happened. What were
they doing? They were like, he's a Katari trader, you

(23:33):
know all this. Mark Levin was on TV. He say,
mister President, you got to abandon this policy. They didn't
trust him. They were thorn in his side and they won.
That's why because it was an overwhelming pressure campaign. Now
look again, Trump's intentions will never truly know what all
of this is. But at a certain point it really
doesn't matter again because of the actions. So where things
stand as of some what thirty six hours post strike

(23:56):
are very clear is the four Dah facility. In others
they appear to be quote severely damaged. We do not
yet know where the stockpile is. We do have current
indications that the Israelis continue their regime change operations. We
have Donald Trump himself who has declared regime change is
a possibility that he'd be very okay with, if not
wanting to affect. And we have all of the all

(24:19):
of the pieces in place to continue more air strikes
on Iran, if not a call for some sort of
US intervention and all of this is before the Uranians
have even responded to the United States, which of course
is an open possibility, a dangerous one, and looks all
the more.

Speaker 6 (24:37):
Likely right now.

Speaker 2 (24:38):
Yeah, that's exactly right. So let's move to the indications there.
We just got word this morning from Katar. Let's go
ahead and put this up on the screen.

Speaker 4 (24:48):
Guys.

Speaker 2 (24:48):
This is from the State Department. They say, out of
an abundance of caution, we recommend American citizens shelter in
place until further notice. So some dire indications there are
coming out of the State Department. Let's go and put
this next piece up on the screen there. This is
a seven guys coming out of the Times of Israel.
So they're claiming Yahoo has some interesting intel on the

(25:11):
whereabouts of iron sixty percent enriched uranium. What do you
make of this piece, sager A, you buy this?

Speaker 3 (25:17):
No, of course I don't buy it, because look, I mean,
they can claim whatever they would like. It's clear that
their military didn't actually be up to the job, and
they knew it from the very beginning. They knew from
day one they would never actually be able to destroy
the nuclear program. And that's part of the reason why again,
look at the actions, guys. This is all out in
the open. They're openly striking regime targets and oil and

(25:39):
gas facilities.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
And by the way, have been from day one. Yes,
that's why all the strikes in Tehran. Those are not
nuclear facilities. So this has been and it's so important
to emphasize the point Sager is making because they want
to sell you this is about Iran's nuclear program, and
that's the way they'll keep dragging. Oh, we actually didn't
completely obliterate fourto Oh yeah, there's this new site. Oh
they moved in rich uranium. Now we got to do more.

(26:01):
Now we've got to do more, and now we got.

Speaker 4 (26:03):
To do more.

Speaker 2 (26:04):
And you just keep inching forward. And I mean Trump
at this point is just like completely said, all right,
well we need regime change, I guess. And that's the
truth of the matter is even if you keep it
at we have to make sure that they can't get
a nuclear weapon, you can't ensure that. There's literally no
way to actually guarantee that. The best path they were
on was the diplomatic one back with the JCPOA and
the negotiations that are going on the beginning of this

(26:26):
Trump administration where it's like, Okay, we're going to give
you sanctions relief, and you're going to agree not to
pursue a weapon, and we're going to have, you know,
an inspection regime that can give us some sort of
comfort that that's not happening. But what the Hawks are
going to say is, well, you really can't guarantee it
until we have some sort of puppet regime in there
that we can just control. So that's the way that
this logic ultimately works.

Speaker 3 (26:46):
Let's put AA please up on the screen. This is
arguably the most important indication that's you come out of Iran.
We'll contextualized for you. The Iranian parliament has reportedly backed
closing the strace of our moves obviously, which could spike
the price of oil where what is its thirty forty
percent of the world's oil moves through, very very important for.

Speaker 1 (27:03):
The Chinese economy.

Speaker 3 (27:05):
Now again, just to explain here what the Iranian parliament did,
and there are several different parts of the government. It's
not exactly a parliamentary democracy, okay, there are many different bodies.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
They all report up to the Ayatola.

Speaker 3 (27:17):
Effectively, what they said is they have approved the closing
of the straits of our moves if the Ayatola and
the National Security Council of Iran decide to do so.
So they're not saying that they're going to do it. It's
effectively like a declaration of war from Congress saying, hey,
if you want to declare war, you can and then
it's up to the discretionary authority of the executive So
in a way, they actually followed the process more than

(27:39):
our own president did whenever he launched a war. Kind
of ironic conviously, but what it does tell you is
that is the nightmare scenario. It's one that US officials
have said would be suicidal. It almost certainly would. It
would lead to the massive basically a massive involvement of
the United States Navy. It would obviously shock the world's
oil prices. It would be a devastating blow to the
Chinese economy. It would just be absolute mass chaos. It's

(28:01):
something that they have the ability to do, to mine
if they want to, and to close along with the
who these as well, to try and put more pressure,
you know, on US and other shipping assets that are
all throughout the region. But the point really stands is
that they have a lot of optionality right now.

Speaker 1 (28:18):
They're looking all across the world.

Speaker 3 (28:19):
By the way, another reason why that Qatar thing is
so significant is it's not about US citizens, guitar. It's
about the fact we have a massive air base in Qatar.
Now reportedly a lot of the US assets were taken
out of that at the beginning. But this was always
a big nightmare is that that airbase is very strategic.
It was a key staging point for US troops for
logistics wise, during the war in Iraq. There's thousands of

(28:42):
American service members that are not just there, but also
in the region Bahrain. You have the fifth Fleet and
you have US two carrier strike groups that are there
as well. Put that together, I mean with Iraq and
with Syria, there are so many different vectors through which
they could attack the United States, US assets, American citizens
if they wanted to. That is the danger. Now are

(29:02):
they going to decide to do that? You know, the
Americans have basically said that's going to be suicidal. Again,
I asked for strategic empathy. If somebody said that diplomacy
with you is a ruse, and if somebody said, will
we strike your facilities?

Speaker 1 (29:14):
But that's it no more.

Speaker 3 (29:16):
And then the president, the chief decider, comes out and says, actually,
it's about regime change.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
What would you do?

Speaker 3 (29:21):
And also, we're not dealing with the most rational actors
here because the Ayatola is eighty six years old. I've
been reading a lot about the Ayatola, and this is
a guy who basically staked his entire security doctrine on
nuclear ambitions as a deterrent that has collapsed literally around him.
The country is more precarious today than at any point

(29:42):
since nineteen seventy nine, and in his vision, at any
points since than fifties during the restoration of the Shah.
So he doesn't have anything to live for anymore except
for his own legacy. It's not that hard, even at
a rational level, take religion and all this other stuff
out of it, to say we're going to fight to
the death. He's a decider, he's the person who makes
these decisions, and they're all kinds of people inside the

(30:02):
Iranian regime who want to fight.

Speaker 1 (30:04):
At this point feel humiliated.

Speaker 3 (30:06):
There has been a massive rally around the flag in
Tehran and all across the country. And in fact, if
there is a regime change, you know, he said and
already designated his successor. But let's say the Mullas are
thrown out of power. The most likely, from what I
can tell and have read, it would not be democratic.
It would be some secular nationalist IRGC type figure who

(30:27):
would sprint towards a bomb to say, we will never
let this happen to our country again. This is a
bad scenario. And of course they have access to chemical,
biological weapons. They got the ballistic missiles program.

Speaker 1 (30:39):
We don't know.

Speaker 3 (30:39):
Israel claims to have destroyed half of it. We'll see,
doesn't look like that from Tel Aviv, I can tell.

Speaker 1 (30:44):
You that right now.

Speaker 3 (30:45):
Yeah, but that's you know, this is why you know,
the triumphalists are like, it's just about the strike.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
They're like, how why are you guys bedwetting so much?

Speaker 3 (30:55):
I mean, how have you not learned about the fortieth
consequences at this point?

Speaker 1 (30:59):
And it's not at the one.

Speaker 3 (31:00):
Look, the US strikes on Libya were successful, right, It
took seven months for that country to go to shit.

Speaker 1 (31:05):
Gaddafi was killed in October.

Speaker 3 (31:06):
We started seven months before that, and actually the country
didn't really collapse until twenty fourteen. The Iraqi Civil War
didn't start really hot until two thousand and five, two
thousand and six Afghanistan, the Taliban didn't rise for two
to three years. Everybody had their mission accomplished moment. And
it happens every time the West wins the opening because
it's about sheer military strength, and then the strategic and

(31:27):
the political question, which we never think about from the beginning,
collapses and then what happens.

Speaker 1 (31:31):
We have to get more involved.

Speaker 2 (31:32):
Yeah, I mean, Iranians are fighting an existential battle for
their country. Like that is a difficult Like we couldn't
even defeat the Houfies, Like let's be.

Speaker 1 (31:40):
From the air. We can do it on the ground. Yeah,
if we want to want that, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
Yeah, So in any case, let's put this this as unbelievable.
This next piece, but the sub one is screened from CNBC.
So the US is apparently calling on China to prevent
a run from closing the strait of hormones and disrupting
global oil flows. So we're like, you know, have created
this likely consequence or potential consequence, and now we're begging
the Chinese to rescue us from the potential implications of

(32:06):
our own actions. You know, this is something I want
to talk more to Meerscheimer about because Chinese get more
a much larger percentage of their oil comes through the
straight up hormoes than ours. However, there are some other
possible ways to ship oil other than through the straight
of war moves from Iran. So I'm just like, I'm

(32:26):
just very skeptical at this point. You know, we heard
all these economic projections about how the sanctions on Russia
would just be utterly devastating to their economy and they
couldn't possibly survive, and that turned out not to be
the case. So at this point, I'm just all of
the like economic fallout predictions of how this will be
completely devastating to Chinese, the Chinese economy. I just want

(32:46):
to learn more and I want to see more before
I take people at their word that that would actually
be the case. We also had the Foreign Minister of
Iran making comments saying that the US has blown through
every red line, which I think is a pretty reasonable
thing frankly to say at this point, Let's go ahead
and take a listen to a little bit of what
he had to say.

Speaker 1 (33:06):
In the wake of these strikes, the.

Speaker 11 (33:08):
United States showed that they have no respect to United
Nations Charter. They have no respect to international law. They
have no respect to any international law regarding you know,

(33:38):
managing the board and facing challenges of the bold. There
is no red line that they have not crossed. And
the last one and the most dangerous one, was happened
only last night when they crossed a very big red
line by attacking nuclear facilities. I don't know how much

(34:02):
room is left for diplomacy. We are now calculating the damages.
And as I said, the damages are not only for
our nuclear facilities. The damages are or the United Nations Charter.
It was not only Iran's facilities which was bombed, It

(34:24):
was also the United Nations Charter. It was also non
prolifashion regime and NPT which was bombed last the Americans,
And it was the rule of law and international law
which was bombed.

Speaker 2 (34:41):
That part about how we you know, figuratively bombed the
Nonplar River Proliferation Treaty is actually really accurate because many countries,
not just to run, many countries are going to look
at our actions and be like, oh, well, they're not
messing with North Korea. But I see what happened to Olivia.
I see what happened to Iran. So what kind of
logic does that create around the world. There's just no

(35:02):
doubt about that at this point. Put a thirteen up
on the screen just in terms of, you know, potential
retaliation that we're watching.

Speaker 4 (35:09):
This was an Iranian.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
State TV broadcaster who was showing on the map all
the location of US bases throughout the region, of which
there are many. And what sager is some fifty thousand
US troops stationed throughout the region, all of them at risk,
all of them in danger. Now they don't have an
iron dome or David's Sling or an aerosystem to protect
them on those bases in the nearby region. And lastly,

(35:33):
put a fourteen up on the screen. We're going to
talk more about this, all this sleeper cell talk in
the media block, but the US Environment of State issued
an urgent warning to all American citizens to exercise caution
due to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. And
they really are pushing this idea here domestic lea sager
that there's these you know, Iranian sleeper cells that may

(35:55):
leap into action at any moment, and I would just be.

Speaker 4 (35:58):
Highly skeptical, highly skeptical.

Speaker 2 (36:01):
Of those claims because I mean, this is the way
that they want to bring the war home and create
some sort of a justification. So people feel like.

Speaker 4 (36:09):
Oh, you know, maybe we don't want war, but we
got to act.

Speaker 2 (36:12):
There's these sleeper cells here, and I'm terrified that we're
going to be next. So that's kind of where we
are as we're waiting to see Ballaz and Aran's court
of what they're going to do next.

Speaker 3 (36:21):
Yeah, if you're old enough, you can remember the terror
levels already. We're at security threat level red. So yeah,
I feel like I'm twelve years old all over.

Speaker 2 (36:30):
I feel so old watching this all unfold again, I
feel so old.

Speaker 6 (36:34):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 3 (36:35):
All right, let's get to Scott Horton and he's standing by.
We're very excited now to be joined by Scott Horton.
He is the director of the Libertarian Institute, author of Provoked,
a fantastic book, and a great friend of the show.

Speaker 1 (36:46):
Scott, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

Speaker 5 (36:48):
Man.

Speaker 6 (36:49):
Thank you both very much for having.

Speaker 3 (36:50):
Me absolutely, I mean, such an expert. Here is particularly
what we wanted to talk about with you, Scott is
uranium enrichment the claims of the United States, where things
stand now, in particular, where things may go, you know,
with these US strikes on Iran, let's start here with JD.
Vans asked specifically about the Iranian stockpile of uranium, effectively

(37:12):
admitting that the stockpile itself was not hit and what
that means for the future.

Speaker 1 (37:16):
We're gonna play it. We're gonna get your reaction. Let's
take a listen.

Speaker 7 (37:19):
We feel very confident that the four Dau nuclear site
was substantially set back, and that.

Speaker 6 (37:24):
Was our goal.

Speaker 7 (37:25):
The UN's Atomic Energy watchdog said that Iran had nine
hundred pounds of highly enriched uranium.

Speaker 6 (37:35):
What do we know what has become of that? Was
it destroyed in this attack? Do we know.

Speaker 7 (37:41):
That's a big star work in the coming weeks. Yeah, John,
We're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure
that we do something with that fuel, and that's one
of the things that we're going to have conversations with
the Uranians about. But what we know, John, is they
no longer have the capacity to turn that stockpile of
highly enriched uranium to weapons grade uranium. That was really
the goal here. Uranium is not that difficult to come by, John,

(38:04):
But enriching uranium up to the point of a nuclear weapon,
that is what the President put a stop to last night.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Scott.

Speaker 3 (38:11):
Can you just react to that, because now the claim
is is that the stockpile itself was not destroyed, possibly
for a further pretext of US involvement, but maybe even
take the audience back a bit further as to what
all of this enriched uranium stuff even means and why
it really was a pretext and not a real reason
for the US to strike them right.

Speaker 6 (38:31):
Now, Yeah, well that's absolutely right.

Speaker 5 (38:34):
So to start with the latest, they are more likely
to break out toward a nuclear weapon now, which is
what those of us on the anti warst side have
been saying for twenty years. Here, what Iran has is
a latent nuclear deterrent. They mastered the fuel cycle back
in two thousand and five. That is, they proved that
they knew how to enrich uranium to whatever percent. Now

(38:55):
they need three point six percent for their electricity program,
and they need a little bit of twenty percent for
their isotope reactors. But otherwise, the war Party is as
a kernel of truth when they say, and you know,
how they do it.

Speaker 6 (39:07):
They always make it.

Speaker 5 (39:08):
A rhetorical question, Well, what do they need with all
that sixty percent enriched uranium.

Speaker 6 (39:13):
Well there's a.

Speaker 5 (39:15):
Real answer to that, other than they're on their way
to making nuclear weapons. Of course, they could have enriched
up to ninety plus percent all along. They enriched up
to sixty percent as a bargaining chit to negotiate away
in order to try to get the sanctions lifted and
try to get the United States back in the deal.
It's the same thing they did in the Obama years,
And of course it was in response to Israeli assassinations

(39:35):
of their nuclear scientists and attacks on their personnel in
Syria and things that caused them to go ahead after
Trump withdrew from the deal in twenty eighteen, and go
ahead and start enriching up to twenty again and then
eventually up to sixty percent. Now you'll hear every hawk
on every show say, oh my god, sixty percent uranium.

(39:56):
And then what they're betting on is that the audience
doesn't know anything about it. What you're telling them is
nuclear scary, be afraid, and we stop the thing. Brump
was asked, but Tulca Gabbert says they weren't breaking out
toward a nuclear weapon, and he said, well, I don't
care what she said. They were getting close to one
or something. He said, Kookie Tucker Carlson needs to understand

(40:18):
that Iran can't have a bomb.

Speaker 6 (40:21):
So what's implied there, heavily, of course, is.

Speaker 5 (40:24):
That Iran was making a bomb and that we stop
them from making a bomb.

Speaker 6 (40:28):
But that's just not true at all.

Speaker 5 (40:30):
And you know, I'm not trying to be you know,
convince anyone that to be naive. As I said, it
already was a latent nuclear weapons to turn in a sense.
But what it also is is their civilian energy program.
And you know, any economists could explain why it might
make sense for Ron to burn their domestic supply of

(40:51):
uranium and sell their oil on the world market if
they can, And so this is, you know, the main
part of it. On the other hand, it also is
just like Brazil and Germany and Japan, where they've proven
they mastered the fuel cycle and they could make atomic
bombs if pushed to it.

Speaker 6 (41:06):
So it's sort of like saying.

Speaker 5 (41:07):
I have a revolver in one pocket and some bullets
in the other. Lets you and me not get into
a fistfight, and then that way this thing won't escalate.
That's essentially been their stance our whole twenty first century long.

Speaker 6 (41:17):
Here to go back to w. Bush, he put them
in the axis of evil.

Speaker 5 (41:21):
Just think about what a cynical lie this is that
the Ayatola, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Kim Jong
il are all in on it together, working against you
right as absolute total hoax. Well Saddam said, my books
are wide open, here's my twelve thousand page dossier.

Speaker 6 (41:40):
I'm not doing anything.

Speaker 5 (41:40):
And they just buffaloed right in there based on a
bunch of lies and got it done anyway. The neo
conservatives got it done in North Korea. Bush and Bolton
bullied them out of the no obroliferation Treaty.

Speaker 6 (41:50):
They went ahead and made nuclear weapons. Nobody's messed with
them since.

Speaker 5 (41:53):
But what the Supreme Leader did was the Supreme Leader
in Iran, the Ayahtola, said here's what we're going to do.
We're going to open our books. It's wide open. We're
going to stay in the NPT. We have a safeguards
agreement with the IAEA, and they can verify the non
diversion of any nuclear material from our civilian program to
any military purpose, which is exactly what they've done. And

(42:14):
the only reason Obama even needed to do the deal
in twenty fifteen was because essentially, the world led by Israel,
or the West led by Israel, we're essentially just pretending
the MPT didn't exist, pretending that Iran didn't already have
a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and the Israelis were
threatening an aggressive war then, and Obama felt it was necessary.

(42:35):
And I'm not taking Obama's side for people who don't
know me. I hate the Democrats more than anyone hates
the Democrats. If I'm just telling you, this is the
true history of the world here is Obama made a
deal where they would severely restrict their program, they would
expand the inspections regime, and in exchange, we would lift
sanctions and give them some of their own money back.
That Palada cash was money that Jimmy Carter had stolen

(42:56):
from them during the revolution in nineteen seventy nine. John
Carey has just given some of that back in exchange.
They poured concrete into their rock. That's aarak a rock,
heavy water reactor. They severely restricted the number of centrifuges
spinning at the tense by I think two thirds. They
converted the Florido facility to research only rather than uranium

(43:18):
and enrich uranium production. And they expanded the inspections regime
where America and our allies on the UN Security Council
we have the majority. It's America, Britain in France versus
Russian China. Unlike a normal Security Council resolution, Russian China
couldn't veto it.

Speaker 6 (43:32):
It was majority rules. Under this deal.

Speaker 5 (43:34):
If we want to inspect even non nuclear sites, we can,
as long as we have some plausible reason to do so,
and submit the request in a reasonable amount of time
and so forth. There's no way that they can have
a secret nuclear weapons program and then smuggle it out
the back door before inspectors arrive, or whatever this.

Speaker 6 (43:52):
Kind of thing. So the.

Speaker 5 (43:56):
Deal of twenty fifteen was engineered so that Iran, if
they withdrew from the NPT, and if they kicked the
inspectors out of the country and beat their chests and
said now we're making nukes, it would take them a
year to make one. And by the way, as long
as you're let me ramble on here. Let me explain
real quick too, that you cannot miniatureize a uranium bomb. Yes,

(44:18):
uranium bombs are virtually always a gun type nuke like
fat Man that they dropped on Hiroshima, which is essentially
a giant shotgun inside that bomb, firing a highly enriched
weapons grade enriched uranium slug into a target of the
same that causes the supercritical reaction. They didn't even test
that bomb. It's nineteen forties technology, simple stuff. They didn't

(44:39):
test that. The Trinity test was of the Nagasaki bomb,
which was a plutonium implosion bomb. That's the kind of
bomb that can be miniaturized and married to a missile. However,
Uranians have no plutonium root to the bomb because even
though they still do have one heavy water reactor at
Boucher and it produces plutonium waste, they do not have

(45:00):
the facility required to reprocess that waste get the impurities
out to make it possible to use for weapons fuel.

Speaker 6 (45:07):
And under the JCPOA, which they're still in.

Speaker 5 (45:09):
This part of it with the Russians is that every
two or three years or so, this shut down the
reactor and the Russians will come and get all the
plutonium waste and take it away. So their plutonium route
to the bomb did not exist at all, and their
uranium route to the bomb was delayed for at least
one year, and then as I say, at the end
of that year, they would have had enough to make
one bomb with, but then no way to deliver it

(45:31):
other than slapping on the back of a flatbed truck
or something like that. Still would essentially be you know,
the most base, the most minimum of nuclear deterrent. And
it's you know, and I'll wrap up with this is
that it's clear from all of the reporting here nothing changed.
The only one in opposition that is Israeli intelligence claims
that something changed, but American intelligence has not verified that

(45:53):
at all. The only thing that changed was Trump made
up a sixty day deadline and then the Iranians went
past it, and he was on this absolute redline, deal
killer that they can have no enrichment in the country
at all whatsoever. Back to what Jadie Vance was saying there,
essentially equating them having the capability to enrich with progress

(46:14):
toward a nuclear weapon and claiming that that was what
we stopped. But it's just it's no more sincere than
Bill Clinton and Kosovo, or George Bush in a rock
or Afghanistan, or Barack Obama in Libya or Syria or
any of the US or Yemen, any of these things.
It's always just hoax after hoax with these people and
their worst.

Speaker 2 (46:34):
Well, let's talk a little bit more about that, because
they've got a little bit of a propaganda issue, given
the fact that Tulca Gabbard was at the end of
March came out saying very clearly, the American intelligence community
does not believe that Iron is pursuing a weapon, and
so now we're supposed to believe, just some months later
that this has suddenly completely changed, and so much so

(46:54):
that we need to get involved in what Trump is
now admitting maybe a regime change operation. Of course, we've
all seen from the beginning that the nukes were pretexts
and this was in fact a regime change operation. Let
me get your reaction to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, say,
being pressed on this, you know this question of okay,
well are they pursuing a nuclear bombs? Since that is

(47:15):
your pretext, Let's go ahead and take a listen to
how he.

Speaker 12 (47:17):
Responds on a phrase you just word weaponization ambitions. Are
you saying there that the United States did not see
intelligence that the Supreme Leader had ordered weaponization.

Speaker 8 (47:32):
That's irrelevant. I think that question being asked in the media.
That's an irrelevant question.

Speaker 12 (47:36):
That is point in US intelligence assessment. You know that's
not yes, it was, that's the political decision.

Speaker 8 (47:42):
Well I know that better than you know that, and
I know that that's not the case.

Speaker 4 (47:44):
But whether the order was given.

Speaker 8 (47:47):
And the people who say that it doesn't matter if
the order was given, they have everything they need to
build nuclear weapons. Why would you bury Why would you
bury things in a mountain three hundred feet under the ground.
Why would you bury six Why do they have sixty
percent in enrich uranium? You need sixty percent and rich.
You are the only countries in the world that have
uranium at sixty percent? Are countries that have nuclear weapons
because it can quickly make it ninety They have all

(48:08):
the elements they have. Why why do they have a
space program? Is a ron going to go to the moon? No,
they're trying to build an ICBM.

Speaker 4 (48:14):
No, But that's a question.

Speaker 12 (48:15):
That's a question, that's a question of intent. And you
know in the intelligence assessment that it was that Iran
wanted to.

Speaker 1 (48:21):
Be a threshold.

Speaker 4 (48:21):
See you use thos.

Speaker 12 (48:23):
I'm talking on what the intelligence is, March assessment, and
that's why I was asking you if you know something
more from it.

Speaker 8 (48:29):
That's also an inaccurate representation of it. That's inaccurate representation
of it. That's not how intelligence is read. That's now
how intelligence is used. Here's what the whole world knows.
Forget about intelligence, what the IAEA knows. They are enriching
uranium well beyond anything you need.

Speaker 6 (48:44):
For a for a for a civil nuclear program.

Speaker 2 (48:48):
Scott, your your reaction to that propaganda effort, I.

Speaker 5 (48:52):
Mean, anyone ought to be able to just see right
through that the only countries that have sixty percent uranium
are countries that have nuclear bombs. Really is he's saying
you can make a bomb out of sixty percent uranium.
Is he's saying that any nuclear weapons stay in the
world as they're arsenal made out of uranium bombs rather

(49:12):
than plutonium implosion bombs.

Speaker 6 (49:14):
And he's simply bluffing.

Speaker 5 (49:16):
And Marco Ruby, I'm glad he hired Marco Little Marco
for the job actually, because you could see right through
the guy.

Speaker 6 (49:24):
He's just as transparent as could be.

Speaker 5 (49:25):
He's got Miriam Adelson's hand right up his rear and
moving his lips for him. He's not really a human man, right,
He's like a corporate mascot, like Tony the Tiger or
you know, Ronald McDonald or something.

Speaker 6 (49:36):
He's sitting there.

Speaker 5 (49:36):
His job is to lie to you so that you'll
be confused and let him commit horrific sins on behalf
of a foreign power.

Speaker 3 (49:44):
Yeah, I mean, but then one of the things that
really scott there is about what you said about the
capability is confusing capability with intention, and that intention, again,
according to US intelligence, did not exist. I can back
you up as well. You know, I reported over the weekend.
I spoke with senior US intelligence official, people with the
highest level who saw it, and they said, no, there

(50:06):
has been no change whatsoever in the iatola or the
Iranian higher commands decision making on whether to build a
nuclear bomb or not. And so I really want to
just end on that note with you. Here is specifically
about how the logic of nuclearization has never made more
sense than today because what has happened is that Israel,
with impunity, is allowed to just come in and bomb

(50:28):
the shit out of your entire regime, basically target your
oil and gas facilities. The United States has the ability
to come in and to blow up all.

Speaker 1 (50:35):
Your nuclear enrichment.

Speaker 3 (50:36):
It has never made more sense for them to have
a nuclear detern than right now instead of trying to
pursue some sort of deal. When the President himself also says, actually,
regime change, that's totally cool and fine with me.

Speaker 1 (50:48):
Why would they want to do anything else?

Speaker 5 (50:50):
I mean, and looka this very well could be the
absolute death of the Non Proliferation Treaty.

Speaker 6 (50:56):
The nuclear weapons.

Speaker 5 (50:57):
States have never lived up to their promise to disarm
signed in there, of course, although America and Russia did
come way down from tens of thousands of nukes each,
but still, and then here's you have a nuclear weapons
state Israel that's not a member of the Nonpoliferation Treaty
acting in concert with the United States the world Empire.

Speaker 6 (51:17):
That's a total violation of it.

Speaker 5 (51:19):
Attacking a non nuclear weapon state signatory to the NPT
over their civilian program. That again, you hear Vanka Rubio
ben and over backwards trying to figure out how to
get you to conflate it with something scary that again
was nothing but a latent program. At the time, we
had the perfect basis for a standoff. I'm not saying

(51:39):
I endorsed this. I'm a total non interventionist here. But
they were saying if you attack us, or they were
heavily implying, if you attack us, we might just make
a nuke, and our side was saying, don't make a nuke,
or we'll attack you.

Speaker 6 (51:52):
Okay, well great.

Speaker 5 (51:53):
They could have just left it at that for Trump
to have, you know, bowed down essentially to pressure. There
were you might remember some wiggle words a couple few
weeks ago about well, maybe we could allow some enrichment
on some limited basis under some sort of compromise, maybe
even do a consortium with the Saudi's and enriched together
some kind of thing. They were trying to be flexible
for a minute there, and then the lobby came down

(52:15):
hard and said no enrichment at all, which, of course
the ayah Tola was never going to give into.

Speaker 6 (52:20):
So they were just setting us up for this war.

Speaker 5 (52:22):
But I'll encourage your audience to pay very close attention
to people like Marco Rubio and for that matter, of
the rest of the pundits and whatever out echoing the
war party talking points. And you'll notice this distinct lack
of clarity when it comes down to exactly what was
going on here. There's a lot of implication that's essentially
relying on people's ignorance that if they say nuclear this exactly.

Speaker 6 (52:43):
You know, it was the focus groups that learned this
in nineteen ninety.

Speaker 5 (52:47):
People didn't really want to go liberate the weight and
reinstall His Highness the King al Jaber to the throne
there until they did. They got people at the mall
and they sat them down in focus groups. As soon
as they said nuclear, people said, okay, I guess we
got to go. And then they use that same lesson
for Rockward two. And of course they're doing the same
thing here because they know that most people didn't study

(53:09):
hard sciences in college and stuff. We don't know about
uranium this and that, and so they can try to
just make it sound scary and say, listen, we can't wait.
Remember this was the line Colly's, Rice, George Bush, and
Colon Powell all three said, we can't wait for the
proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Speaker 6 (53:28):
So you and your Mama better just stay scared and
let us do what we want.

Speaker 4 (53:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (53:34):
No, that is all so absolutely correct, And I mean,
in a way I appreciate Trump setting out that true
socials saying like, eh, maybe it is regime change, so
we can all drop the pretense here, because I've never
seen polling that is so wildly apart depending on how
you frame the question, because you're absolutely right. If you
say to people like Iran's pursuing a nuclear weapon, should we,

(53:54):
you know, go in surgical strike their nuclear facilities to
prevent them? Guess what you get a lot of people
will say yeah, sure, because that also feels costless and limited,
and like, oh, there's this big scary threat and we
can just take it out easily if you're going too right.
If you ask people, I know, one of the questions
asked should we get involved in the war between Iran
and Israel?

Speaker 4 (54:14):
And people like, hell no, why would we do that?

Speaker 2 (54:18):
And I've yet to even see the question asked should
we get involved in a regime change war with Iran,
which is of course what we are in at this point,
But I have no doubt the polling on that would
be absolutely abysmal, which is why to your point, Scott,
it matters so much how you frame these questions and
how you clarify for the American people what is actually

(54:39):
happening here and what the President has actually put us into,
which is a regime change war.

Speaker 4 (54:44):
It is already underway. It is happening right now.

Speaker 6 (54:47):
Agree, and look, even in regards to we don't know.

Speaker 5 (54:49):
The secret councils of these people, but just on the
most basic level, this is what Harry Brown said is
government doesn't work. They fail upwards. The worst things are,
the better it is for them. And so everything, by
their logic is always escalation. Look, all we're gonna do
is we're gonna take out a few nuclear sites. What
you're saying now.

Speaker 6 (55:10):
They're gonna break out toward a nuclear weapon? Oh boy,
I best.

Speaker 5 (55:13):
I guess we need to get the Americans in there,
because only they can get the Fhoidos site.

Speaker 6 (55:17):
Now, got America in there, and then.

Speaker 5 (55:21):
No, they're saying, I saw a report today the Iranians
are claiming they have a new secret base that they
built under a bigger deeper.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
On the screenwire talking, yeah, we have that report, like, oh,
there's another one.

Speaker 4 (55:34):
It's ei there it is I guess.

Speaker 5 (55:35):
We're gonna have to send in the eighty second Airborne
to go in there and destroy it by hand then
this time, or we're gonna have to use nuclear weapons.
Probably not, but they're talking about that might be what
it would take. Or you know what, I guess we're
just gonna have to go ahead and kill the Supreme Leader.
I saw Benjamin Etna who said that would solve everything
if we just killed the ayah Toola comedy and can't

(55:56):
get picture George W. Bud, I mean Donald Trump say
to it's buying in to that one and and going
along with that and then what now you got to
kill every last cleric in the country to prevent one
from claiming to be the Supreme Leader? Are you going
to prop up the Azeries or the Blue Kye Binladenites
in order to keep the she Hees out?

Speaker 6 (56:16):
Or who's going to take charge? They're talking in the
Shaw's Sun. Oh my god, how in the world.

Speaker 2 (56:22):
Is according to Fox News?

Speaker 3 (56:25):
You know what's also follow It's not it's his Imperial Highness.
Just for those of us who care the shot shot,
I'm just saying, if we want we want to be correct,
let's be correct.

Speaker 6 (56:37):
Should be calling him my lord.

Speaker 5 (56:41):
She is.

Speaker 1 (56:43):
Can't get over Scott.

Speaker 2 (56:44):
I said to you, I'm sorry that your expertise still
continues to be so incredibly relevant, but we appreciate you
taking the time to talk to us and help explain
these things.

Speaker 4 (56:51):
No one better, no one does it better than you do.

Speaker 6 (56:54):
Thank you so much, both of you. Great to be
with you.

Speaker 5 (57:00):
People would to British