August 14, 2025 • 39 mins
Krystal and Saagar discuss the fight between Laura Loomer and Marjorie Taylor Greene and what it means for a post Trump world, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna teling Joe Rogan that she's seen evidence of UFOs and interdimensional beings, and Netanyahu seeds potential for an upcoming war with Iran.
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 1 (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 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Let's get to the next part, shall we,
MAGA and what does it all mean? So Laura Lumer
out with any interesting new take, which you know she
may be right, so let's put it up there on
the screen. Here's what she had to say. Quote, I
(00:46):
don't think the GOP is going to survive post Trump.
There's too many conflicting personalities trying to jockey for the
mantles to MAGA. None of them have what it takes
to be Trump's successor. We are witnessing the end of
a future post MAGA. Movement as we know it. Because
everyone quote inside the Big tenth, the GOP forced on us,
realizes that they hate each other. There won't be a
(01:06):
viable political movement post Maga. You can see the writing
on the wall. Nobody has what it takes. So, you know,
I think she's right. I actually think she's one hundred
percent right, because Trump is the most beloved figure in
the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. Now, by the way
this does let's explain and define terms. Does that mean
(01:28):
that the Republicans will not win a future election. No,
what she's saying is that GOP as it's currently constitute
is not going to survive post Trump. I think that's accurate.
And the reason why is his personality is the binding
glue of everything. It's what keeps anti Israel and pro
Israel folks fanatically pro Trump who put their trust in
the personality. It's what keeps I don't even know, like
(01:52):
people who are pro Steve Bannon want to raise taxes
on the rich, with people who like Ron Johnson who
want to the corporate tax and don't want to stop
stock trade banning. It's like the singularity of his personality.
Ma oh my God, Yeah, Ma's going to exist in
the same party as Lindsey Graham, you know in the FIUD. No,
it's not happening. So it's his personality and his love
(02:16):
with the base, which is what Keena keeps it all together.
It's genuine occult of personality. And I actually think that's
why Lumer is the most accurate in her explanation of Trump.
Isn't because it's all about him. No, I'm not some
supporter or whatever of Laura Lumer. I thought she what
she did if the name prosad was disgusting. But my
point is just that at a political level, I do
(02:36):
think she's correct. It's also why whoever comes next, you're
just gonna have a hell of a time because at
a personality level, it's just like George H. W. Bush.
Did he successfully ride Reagan's coattails to the ninety two
or the eighty eight election? Sure, but he got blown
out in ninety two. He didn't have the same personality,
the same connection Trump is Reagan asking in terms of
(02:57):
his love with the base. And also, let's think of
about what it took for the GOP to have to
come back in the year two thousand. It was eight
years in the Doldrums. A lot of it was defined
by opposition to Clinton, you bear, I mean, you could
define whether you won the election or not, you know,
in two thousand, but you know, it came damn close
for an electoral thing, and it took nine to eleven
(03:18):
and I rock for you to win the popular vote
in two thousand. It took a long time. And then
posts after that it took twenty years to win the
popular vote again. So I think we are in a
similar kind of turning point where you know, in the
next administration, MTG is not going to have to couch
every single criticism but I love Trump. She's just going
(03:39):
to be like, here's what I think, yeah, and screw
the current president. A lot of people did that under Bush.
Nobody ever had that level of support with the base.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
I think the closest equivalent on the Democratic side, which
has some lessons, is Obama, right, And there was a
lot of Democratic triumphalism, the coalition of the assign And
you know, there was an assumption that this Obama coalition
was something that was durable, right, that it wasn't just
specific to him and his particular like charming charisma and
his story and all of whatever that entailed for people,
(04:08):
and that was just not true. You know, the Obama
cole that he was the only person who could put
together the Obama coal issue, was very good at getting
himself elected, not so good at you know, getting other Democrats,
especially in off years elected, and certainly wasn't able to
handle hand his mantle even one election forward, and Hillary
Clinton is ultimately defeated by Donald Trump. And then you know,
(04:30):
to your point about does that did that mean the Democratic.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Party never won an election again?
Speaker 1 (04:34):
No, of course not.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Joe Biden gets elected, but that has not stopped the
overall sort of deterioration of the Democratic Party position and
put it in a potential doom spiral. Now, I think
Trump is sort of like, in a sense, like rescuing
them from that. And there's a possibility that out of
that you actually get a you know, someone who is
more in the Zoraan mold, who has the charisman and
(04:57):
has a different type of politics and has some distance
from the the sins of the past, et cetera. That's
certainly a possibility at this point for rebirth for the
Democratic Party, though nothing is remotely guaranteed.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
But I think it's very possible.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
The Republicans are similarly overestimating how much that realignment that
they celebrate so much is truly durable outside of the
singular personality of Donald Trump. And you know, he like
whether it's Jamie Vance or Don Junior or whoever, or
Marco Rubio, whoever, it is that he tries to really
(05:30):
annoint as his successor. You know, I think he will
have about as much sway with the electorate in anointing
a successor as Barack Obama olts.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Whatly did you know? The Clinton example is a great one.
So why did al Gore fail in the two thousand election, where,
by the way, even if you think you want or whatever,
he only won by five hundred votes in the state
of Florida. It's a massive screw up compared to ninety six.
The ninety six to two thousand map is one of
the great one of the biggest sea changes in politics
that very few people go back, and they don't look
(05:58):
at it. They really ignore what happened. Well, the story
within that was that Clinton again his support was all
about Bubba like him and his talks. You know, folks
see kind of way of connecting. But it wasn't built
on anything like political message, and Gore tried to separate
himself from Lewinsky but also kind of embrace himself as
his like steady hand on the wheel. It almost worked.
(06:20):
But the point actually for whoever comes next is if
Trump is unpopular but very popular with the bass, you
cannot win your primary without wholly embracing him. This is
a huge problem because in oh wait, McCain did what
he was like, yeah, Bush, He's like the fuck off, Like,
don't ever campaign with me, sit in the White House.
I want nothing to do with you. And that was,
(06:42):
you know, to the extend he had any chance, it
was by able to draw some parallel away from Bush
and Bush he didn't mind, or maybe he did, but
you know, he didn't do anything about it. You think
Trump is going to tolerate that, right? I mean, what
are you gonna do. You're gonna have to kiss Trump's
ass all day long if you want to get yourself
to win the prime. But then how do you win
a general election. Something I've been thinking about is in
(07:05):
twenty seven I cannot wait to ask JD to be like,
hey man, you flamed Kamala for saying that you couldn't.
You couldn't had no difference between herself and Joe Biden.
So do you have any difference in how you would
have handled this presidency under Trump? He can't answer that, honestly,
we all know it. Okay, but that's a real problem.
(07:27):
If Trump is at thirty five percent popularity but ninety
percent popularity with the GOP base, and you know that's
one where a Democrat you're not held by those chains.
You can just say whatever you want. There is no
leader of the Democratic Party you can win the damn primary.
And so you've got all of these forces which are
built on his own personality. And also, look if as
(07:47):
long as he's alive, he will remain the tweeter in chief.
It doesn't matter you think he's going to give up
the reins. When he's not president, he will be the
mongol king in mar A Lago who summons whoever the
Republican is down there yea on month. And because if
they want something to be done, Trump has got to
support it. So it's not George W. Bush who's sales
you know, does his paintings and goes to Rangers games
(08:08):
like you think Trump will abide by the presidential norms
of pros presidency. He's gonna be tweeting up until the
day he dies. So there's a lot of personality problems
that are built into this that just never have existed
in mid I mean, maybe Theodore Roosevelt is the best
example of a president who served two ish terms, you know,
and then kind of tried to come back, and he
(08:29):
did nuke at Taft in the election, So that could be,
you know, the scenario that we see in the future.
But I just see bad roads ahead, you know for
the GOP because of that personality base thing, and how
are you going to run, you know, and establish yourself
as something new unless you really are on a massive
(08:49):
high water mark like the Reagan administration wasn't eighty nine.
I'm not so sure that's going to happen. We're still
three and a half years away. Nobody really knows well.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
And you can also see it kind of coming apart
in real time with all of this factional infighting that
is broken out and Laura Lum's at the center. I
think you're absolutely right that she understands. This is the
reason why she comes to the White House and has
an influence she does because she gets it. This is
not about anything other than Donald Trump and the person
of Donald Trump and loyalty to Donald Trump and whatever
Donald Trump says like that is the end all be all.
(09:18):
She understands that, and that's the game she plays, and
that's why she has been able to position herself so
effectively in this administration. But you've got you've got her
fighting with EMPTG. We'll give you some of those details
one a minute. You've got the influencer wars with you know,
Candace versus Fuintes, Fuentez versus Tucker, and you know, fwints
is really serving.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
I see so much, so many.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Parallels with like the left after Bernie's defeat in twenty twenty,
where there's the sense of nihilism that takes hold. Where
you've got Jimmy Door out there, you know, as the
you know, the purest of the pure. And it's a
very similar kind of a dynamic that you see unfolding
of all this like bitter acrimon any personality conflicts. And
(10:02):
then you also have some like substantive you have vast
actually substantive policy differences between a number of these camps
as well. But MTG and Laura Lumer have been fighting
in a way that only the Maga ladies can.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Go at it.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
It really is a particular brand of messiness at new levels.
We can put this up on the screen some of
these quotes, so this is from a daily beast rundown
of all of this. The headline is fuming Lumer goes
nuclear on EMPTG and all night attack. The far right
provocateur has gone after her fellow Maga Republican representative Margie
(10:39):
Cheryler Green with a level of vitriol that is striking
even by Lumer standards, calling the lawmaker a rabid dog
and a lying, fake Christian horr. In part, she said,
this is a woman who allowed her sexual impulses to
tear her family apart. She wants to now tear our
country apart to try to steal Trump's movement away from him.
(11:00):
Don't let this home wrecker become a country home wrecker.
We can put the next piece up on the screen,
a little bit from MTG. She says she has no
about Lumur, She has no long time relationships because she
psychotically turns on everyone. Laura Lumer is the most unstable
person in worst liability to ever walk of the Oval office.
Fighting began, they say, after Lumor stunned some of her
own supporters by ranting against the military's decision to celebrate
(11:22):
a Medal.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Of Honor recipient.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
There is a lot more here, by the way, in
terms of the back and forth, was quite lengthy and extensive,
including Lumor accusing Green of getting bent over backwards inside
the gym by every man who isn't your husband. So
that was the general tenor of this dispute. I believe
this came after Lumer had said something about MTG's quote
unquote roast beef in her pants. So these times two
(11:47):
have a long time acrimonious relationship, Sager. But like I
said to me, it's just emblematic of a movement that
everybody's trying to jockey for a position. They see the
trump eras coming to an end, trying to get in
good with Trump. They're trying to shape what comes next.
They hate each other, and it's all kind of bubbling
to the surface in a way that we haven't really
(12:08):
seen in the past.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Yeah, I mean I said this to you, and look,
I hope isn't taken two the wrong way. But as
the parties switch up in terms of support based on
education levels. It's not a surprise to see some of
this burst out into the open.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
It's not exactly an elevated and classy dispute.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
It's it's look, I mean, you know, if you take
a look fun to cover, if you look at the
ratings for the type of people who engage in reality
television and those type of personalities. I mean, actually, let's
think about it. One of the things that has happened
in the last you know, Trump realignment is that a
lot of reality TV stars, bodybuilders like people and all that,
(12:48):
who are lesser educated but you know, also very popular,
have become Trump supporters. So it would make quite a
bit of sense that that behavior, of course, and Trump
cabin members you're right with WWE and you know, you
see everything that's all Republican now. So well, if that's
the case, and that behavior is going to replicate itself,
it's funny because it's at a demographic level. There's a
(13:08):
viral thing going around right now of one of the
richest neighborhoods in Illinois was are It was a Republican
district in twenty twelve and it's now D plus thirty five,
and like that's the story of America, right, like A
twenty twelve I think it's called win It.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
I'm not from Illinois, but anyway, one of the wealthyes
neighborhoods in Illinois voted from it Romney by overwhelming margins,
voted for Kamala by thirty five points. Yeah, and it's like, well,
you know, those are the type of people who find
a lot of this stuff very distasteful. But the people
who find it hilarious and interesting drama, et cetera. That's
reality TV. That's the demographic. A lot of those people
(13:44):
are Republican now, so you're going to see it replicated
in this politics. And I think that's a very polite
way of saying trashy Anna Paulina Luna on The Joe
Rogan Experience, very interesting episode. I actually recommend people go
and listening to all of it. But Anna Paulina Luna,
one of the congressmen who has been at the spearhead
of a lot of the UFO UAP inquiries, some of
(14:07):
the whistleblowers. She made some interesting claims around that that
I'm going to return to. But first and foremost, you
have a member of the United States Congress at the
forefront on the UFO issue, making some absolutely extraordinary claims
about things that she has seen. Now, claims are claims,
and we need to see evidence, but at the very
least we can take it for what it is. Let's
take a listen.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
You said that you've seen evidence, Like, what kind of
evidence have you seen?
Speaker 3 (14:30):
I have seen photos, I have.
Speaker 5 (14:32):
Seen what have you seen photos of?
Speaker 6 (14:36):
So I was in a skiff, and I can't discuss
all that was in a skiff, but what I can
tell you is, based on the photos that I've seen,
I'm very confident that there's things out there that have
not been created by mad Kain.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
It seems crazy that people have access to information that
shows that there's something outside of us that is more intelligent,
at least more capable than we are. I did from
everybody else.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
So let's just, you know, sit on that for a
little bit. Is that I've seen photos that I am
very confident that there are things that are out there
that have not been created by mankind. This is allegedly
like in a classified setting, and I have been pushing
on this. It is so complicated because at the same
time she did claim that some of the whistleblowers who
we've spoken about here on this show, how they pretended
(15:23):
to have the flu before they were supposed to show
up for a briefing. Those people have now come out,
at least one of them, lou Elizondo, and he's spoken
about how that's not true. So there even seems to
be some interro fighting within this to the relating to
our previous block of messiness or whatever. And I'm not
still quite sure exactly what's going on there. But at
the end of the day, what her Tim Burchett and
(15:44):
a few other members of Congress were pushing for were
some of these briefings, photos and other things that are
said to exist. The difficulty on this is we have
been hearing this now for White sometime for years and right,
how many times do I say here on the show,
and it's becoming exhausting for people to say that people
who have seen classified images of this or that have
not yet been able to see actually something tangible. I
(16:07):
will say on Luna's record her attacks on the whistleblowers,
notwithstanding on JFK, she's been solid. Don't take it from me,
Take it from Jefferson Morley, who we've had here on
the show who I trust absolutely and totally on the
JFK issue, and he said that she very seriously has
been working with him and others in order to get
the files out. They invited him to testify. He worked,
(16:28):
I believe with her office, and it's some stuff behind
the scenes which allowed to get deep classification or release
and broadly saw that inquiry a s seria. So if
we take that together with the UFO issue, I'll say
there's some implicit trust at least on the track record.
But it's been a long time since the UFO hearing.
We're gonna need to have another one. And but by
and large, it's like, just release it at this point.
(16:48):
And is it? I mean, maybe it's like Epstein, It
just it exists. It can't be released. It's hidden. JD
has said that he's quote working or whatever on the issue.
Maybe Trump is a file. I mean, do you want
to know The best presidential theory on UFOs is that
Eisenhower had a summit with the aliens in nineteen This
is serious, I'm not kidding. Is that he had a
(17:09):
summit with the aliens. I believe he was in fifty six.
Over how we're going to manage Earth and alien relations.
That's a very serious, actually talk. I mean, look, I'd
like to say some more.
Speaker 7 (17:18):
Evidence what I said, but on the UFO issue, very specifically,
as a believer in the phenomenon, I will say, at
least it is encouraging that she says that she said
these in a class fright hearing, because at the very
least it's a falsifiable claim.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
What I want. That's why I loved when Dave Grush
went under oath. I'm like, we need more oath. We
need more stuff which is falsifiable or not. No more illusions,
like she makes very specific claims, and specifically in this
next clip, she made claims which again we can prove
our false or not if the documentation is released. Let's
take a listen.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
Do you think that it's possible that these are US
vehicles that are top secret?
Speaker 6 (17:56):
I definitely think that there's a level of advanced technology
that the US government has, and I think that that
tech can be hased within the defense contract around realm.
And of course some information is going to be classified.
But I can also tell you, and this might sound crazy,
but based on our investigations and stuff that we've seen, Okay,
there is definitely something that I think would rival what
(18:18):
we know currently with physics and a tech that potentially
is out there that we don't have the ability to
reproduce because it would basically be like dropping a cell
phone right off back during the time of maybe cavemands.
So like we just don't have the tech to develop
it yet. But there's definitely something that I can tell
you with confidence that exists that we don't know how
to explain currently.
Speaker 5 (18:38):
So when you say that it operates outside our understanding
of physics, what specifically are you saying? Like what happened to.
Speaker 6 (18:48):
I guess break it down in simple terms, is that
I think that some of the tech that exists that
whatever these things have, these energy things have, Yeah, well
they call the interdimensional beings. I think that they can
actually operate through the time spaces that we currently have.
It's really changing the way that we understand, you know,
(19:08):
the origins of life and the spiritual reality that we know.
Speaker 5 (19:13):
When you say interdimensional beings, that they know that these
are interdimensional beings? How do they know that that?
Speaker 6 (19:21):
So based on testimony would be based on witnesses that
have come forward. But what I can tell you is
just know that they've that they've seen things. And what
I can tell you without getting into classified conversations, is
that there have been incidences that I believe where very
(19:43):
credible people have reported that there have been movement.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Outside of time and space that's very vague.
Speaker 6 (19:52):
Yeah, so look, yeah, look, have I seen a portal?
Speaker 8 (19:57):
But no?
Speaker 6 (19:57):
Have I seen a spaceship personally? Know I've seen evidence
of this.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (20:03):
Have I seen photo documentation of aircraft that I believe
we're not made by mankind?
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Yes?
Speaker 6 (20:12):
Is there historical significance to this yes? Is there multiple
events that go back to I would argue maybe even
before the time of Christ, that have documented this in texts?
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Yes?
Speaker 6 (20:24):
So do I believe that the government has access to
certain technology, Yes, to an extent. And I believe that
certain contractors potentially have back engineered this tech. I think
that that's what can explain the advancements that we're seeing.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
All Right, I mean, what do you think, Crystal. I
know it sounds crazy at this point, we just got
to say.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
That's my assumption until I see any sort of evidence,
is that this is bullshit and she's telling Rogan what
she wants to hear, I think, But that has to
be the default assumption if there's no evidence that's offered,
you had, like, these are wild, extraordinary claims that are
being made, so you better bring something other than like
you know, you heard from a witness theoretically and there
(21:04):
might be something, but you can't really say anything.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
I am getting sick of I have seen it, like
you know, former Undersecretary of Defense coming on me, like
I've seen that there's an extraordinary video. I've heard this
now for probably five six years, right about this video
that allegedly exists on a UFO passing in between two
fighter aircraft and the two pilots absolutely freak out at
the level of speed, you know, very similar to the original.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
You could do sick of it.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Yeah, And I think that's the default at this point
because we just have yet. We have heard so many promises,
so much slowering from the bureaucracy, from the Pentagon. We've
seen so many claims like this. Luna, by the way,
here is not testifying under oath, which Grush, to his credit,
actually did. And what's important and also here about the
(21:48):
contextualization of what she's saying is I've seen claims from
people who said they've experienced it. That fits actually with the
original Grush testimony before Congress where he was talking because
remember his goal was to compile all of the information
of the reports, and that's eventually what led to his
whistleblower report. We at just this point have got to
see like some release or some sort of evidence. And
it's also disappointing, I would say, for her to, you know,
(22:10):
imply like that they were not credible, but then also
at this point taking some of their words seriously, and
so at this point we really are I think it's
kind of make or break where it either has to
come out or a lot of the trust is just
going to be killed forever. Yeah, because we've seen so
much of this like winking and nodding. It's chock Epstein.
(22:31):
It's the similar thing, it's the exact same thing. They
come out, they say they're going to do it, and
then they basically show a complete and a total cover up.
The cover up is enough for people to think that
there is a there there, and of course I do
believe that there is certainly a there there, but I
am getting sick of a lot of these people at
this point. It seems like she's using it to try
and get you know, people while guys are talking about it,
(22:52):
but release and do something like she did with JFK.
Or I just don't want to hear about it anymore
from you. I would be better off not hearing it
than to, you know, get your hopes up and to
get crushed like over and over again.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
Yeah, and you know, Trump made it quite explicit.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
Yeah, he's made a big deal about this, so RFK.
You remember when he was on our show and I
asked him about it multiple times and he's claimed to
have a briefing about it but hasn't said anything.
Speaker 6 (23:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
No, that's a great point too.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
And even imber Trump specifically talking about the drones and
how he's going to reveal everything when he gets in
and it's like okay, and then he comes out, he's
just like, it's nothing to worry about, Like I can
tell you I know what it is. Yeah, and it's
nothing you should worry about. Oh okay, this is the transparency. Thanks,
this is great.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Thanks. So I guess that's just I just sort of.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Roll my eyes at this stuff until I get something
more concrete.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I think that's fair. I think it's a normal reaction
now at this point, like I said, I would hope
that this is a precursor to actually something in the
future like she's done with JFK. But otherwise, ma'am, we're
sick of hearing just claims. We will actually want to
see evidence in some disclosure. So with that we have
great guest standing by Dave DeCamp. Let's get to it.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
There have been some troubling signs coming out from the
Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Natyaho, about a potential return
to war with Iran. So to break down where we
are very happy to be joined by Dave de Camp.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
He is the news editor of the great website.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Anti war dot com and also host of anti War
News with Dave DeCamp.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Welcome, good to see.
Speaker 4 (24:18):
You man, Thanks for having me. I appreciate it, of course.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
So let me go ahead and start by playing Natnyaho
in his own words an English language for some reason,
appeal to the people of Iran.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to a bit.
Speaker 8 (24:31):
Of this today. I'm going to make an unprecedented offer
to Iran. It relates to water. The Iranian people are
victims of a cruel and tyrannical regime that denies them
vital water. Israel stands with the people of Iran, and
that is why I want to help save countless Uranian lives.
Here's how Iran's Meteorological Organization says that nearly ninety six
(24:54):
percent of Iran suffers from some levels of drought. Isa Kalentari,
a former agriculture minister, said that fifty million Iranians could
be forced out of their homes due to environmental damage.
Fifty million millions of Iranian children are suffering due to mismanagement,
to incompetence in the theft of vital resources by the
(25:16):
Iranian regime. Now, Israel also has water challenges. We've developed
cutting edge technologies to address them. Israel recycles nearly ninety
percent of its wastewater. That's far more than any other
country on Earth. We invented drip irrigation. Our technology targets
individual plants with exactly the nutrients they need for each plant.
(25:38):
Israel has to know how to prevent environmental catastrophe in Iran.
I want to share this information with the people of Iran. Sadly,
Iran bans as reellies from visiting, so we'll have to
get creative. We will launch a Farsi website with detailed
plans on how Uranians can recycle their wastewater. The Iranian
regime shouts death to Israel in response Israel Shad's life
(26:02):
to the Iranian people. The people of Iran are good
and decent. They shouldn't have to face such a cruel
regime alone.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
We are with you, Dave.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
He's just such a generous and caring man. I think
that's what we should really take away from that.
Speaker 4 (26:16):
Yeah, I mean, it is rich of him to kind
of frame his you know, himself as some kind of
humanitarian that wants to bring water to a people when
he's blockading and starving the people of Gaza. But you know,
we've seen him put out these videos before, and really
the last time he did it was during the what
we call now I guess, the twelve day war that
(26:37):
Israel launched on Iran. So this is concerning to see
because we do appear to be on the trajectory toward
another confrontation here just because of what we see coming
from Israel, the US and Iran. Essentially, Iran's position has
been that they're willing to resume nuclear negotiations with the
(26:58):
US if they can get some kind of assurance is
that they won't be attacked again, which I think is
a very reasonable position considering the US and Israel actually
use the cover of the previous negotiations to launch the war,
and I mean the US really, like the Trump administration,
really spent its diplomatic credibility on this. Israel actually code
(27:18):
named the initial attack, the initial air strikes that targeted
Iranian leadership, the Red Wedding, referring to the Game of
Thrones scene, which is, you know, a massacre based on portrayal.
It's just and Israel Katz, the Defense Minister, recently, actually
said that publicly that it was called it the Red Wedding,
and he's been threatening to kill Kamenade, the Iranian Supreme leader.
(27:41):
So Aron wants assurances. And you also have President Trump
threatening to Bombaran again if they resume in Richmond. You
have this stuff coming from the Yahoo and what he
also said in that video is, you know, take to
the streets essentially, rise up against your government. So these
are not assurances that they're not going to be attacked
again if they resumed the negotiations with the US. We're
(28:02):
seeing reports just breaking right before we started recording that
Reuters is reporting that Kamene has decided that they should
resume the negotiations with the US. Skeptical of that that's
true at this moment. Ruters's sources on Iran aren't always correct,
but it's just we have, you know, several dynamics here
that don't look good. And another thing is the European countries,
(28:24):
the UK, France, and Germany. A big difference between the
negotiations that the Trump administration was engaged in with Iran
from when Obama was engaged in similar negotiations is that
the Europeans were not on board. This time. It seemed
like almost like they wanted war. And after Israel launched
the war, we even saw the German Chancellor Meurers say,
(28:46):
Israel's doing our dirty work. And this is right before
this when they started being critical of what Israel's doing
in Gaza. And that's a whole other aspect of this,
you know, with the genocide in Gaza. I mean, the
phase that we're in now, what they're preparing for this
takeover of Gaza City is going to be absolutely horrific.
And what's a nice distraction from that is a new
war with Iran. And you know, as Trita Parsi wrote
(29:11):
in Foreign Policy a very excellent article I really kind
of summarized all this stuff. You know, Israel did not
win the war with Iran. One point that he made
was that one of Israel's goals was that they want
Iran to be like Syria, to be like Lebanon, to
be one of these countries that they could just bomb
with impunity. But they didn't achieve that because right up
until the last moment, Iron was hitting them with their missiles.
(29:32):
And right now Iron is rebuilding, you know, working to
rebuild its air defenses, replenish its missiles. So Israel only
only wants that to go on for so long. The
big question is is Trump going to support another war
with Iran? And based on what he's been saying when
it comes to Israel, it seems likely to me that
he would.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Yeah, yeah, did we actually have tree to Parsi's article here?
We can put it up there on the screen about
the next Israel Iran war is coming. I mean, Dave,
can you just break down what he talks about about
the strategic calculus of both countries now could mean an
even more violent war, which he predicts, by the way,
could start as early as August, as in where we're
talking right now.
Speaker 4 (30:10):
Yeah. So one reason why I think he put that
August timeline is because again France, the UK and Jerremany
they're threatening to reimpose what they call the snapback sanctions,
which were UN Security Council sanctions lifted by the twenty
fifteen Iran deal, and the threat has always been to
reimpose them, and sum Maranging officials are saying, we don't
know if this is kind of their official line, that
if those sanctions are imposed, they're going to withdraw from
(30:33):
the Non Proliferation Treaty. And I think that's that would
be the pretext for the US and Israel to launch
another war if they did that, or it would at least,
you know, give net and Yahoo a better argument with
the Trump administration, because Iran wants her to be consequences
for these actions for the bombing. You know, after the bombing,
they ended cooperation with the IAEA, even though they are
(30:54):
still in talks with them. But another point that he makes,
as I said, he you know, they want Iran to
either be impotent essentially that they could bomb them without
any trouble, or they do want regime change, and you know,
I think people get the wrong idea. You know, I
don't think there's really any scenario where US troops are
going into Iran. They don't want to replace the regime.
(31:17):
They just want to destroy it. They want to sink
the country into chaos. And you know, you see that
with Syria right now. The Israel supported the regime change
against a sad and this new government came in. I
mean they are in al Qaeda government. It's literally the
guy who founded Al Keda in Syria who's part of
the government. But even though he's been al Shara, the
new so called president has been very deferential toward Israel.
(31:40):
We've seen Israel bomb them, so it's clear, you know,
they don't want to unified Syria. They would prefer shattered
Iran to this, you know, relatively stable one that we see.
And another thing about the calculations that Parsi talks about
is that Iran is sorry. Israel has always had really
significant intelligence assets inside and apparently with the first wave
(32:01):
of attacks, you know, people on the ground and drones
that were fired from inside Iran played a big role
in hurting their air defenses. But we've seen this big
crackdown in Iran. I think they've arrested like twenty thousand people,
so they're losing. I think they probably spent a lot
of their intel assets. So there's a lot of reasons
why Israel might want to hit them again soon. And
(32:24):
they need the US. I mean, that's just the fact
because the US intercepted so many Iranian missiles and you know,
besides just bombing the nuclear facility, So this is very
much Israel wanting to drag the US into another war.
Speaker 8 (32:36):
It.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Yeah, the other question I have is whether they, since
they named it the Red Wedding, if they watched the
rest of that series and saw how it turned out
for that family. We'll put that aside in any case,
picking backing off of what you were saying there, you know,
what indications do we have from Trump about how he
would behave if Israel goes back to war with Iran.
(32:57):
You know, he seemed to want this and this is
what dark Parsi lays on his piece. He seemed to
want it to be sort of like a want and done.
Do you think that he has the fortitude to resist
Israel's endless entreaties for us to get you know, directly
engaged once again in a hot war with Iran.
Speaker 4 (33:15):
Based on what I've seen from Trump, I mean, it
doesn't seem like he wants a big war, but we've
seen the kind of the rhetoric is, oh, if they start,
you know, restart their enrichment program again, and I'll, you know,
we'll we'll blow them away again. You know, we'll, we'll,
we'll hit him again. And I think the lesson he
learned from this, and the same lesson that he learned
from Solomani in his first administration when he assassinated the
(33:35):
Iranian general and Iran's response was very choreographed. They fired
some missiles at a US based in Iraq and essentially
gave them notification. And this happened again. I mean, this
was a big concern with this war, is the US
bombing Iran? Are they going to hit American basis hard
or they're going to be American casualties? And they didn't
this time again, it was it was choreographed and they
(33:56):
gave the US notice. So I think the lesson Trump learned,
and I think kind of the people he's listening to
on this are are saying, you could hit Ron hard,
and you know, they're not going to do anything. And
I think they know that in Tehran. That that is
you know that if this happens again, as Sagar mentioned before,
I should get into that angle of what Parsi said
that it could be bloodier than last time. I think
(34:18):
that in Iran, you know, the calculation is going to
be different, because it was pretty clear that they were
trying to stop you know, they were hitting is real hard,
but you know, it was clear they were saying, you know,
if you stop attacking us, we'll stop attacking you, and
that'll be that. And then again they got bombed by
the US, but they gave him notice before they hit
the basin guitar. But this time around, I think things
(34:39):
will be different, especially if they are just going to
go for trying to kill the Supreme Leader and and
things like that.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Yeah, I mean, I think all of this is just
so incredibly dangerous, Dave, And I mean when you look
at it in the future, like what are some of
the critical steps that we should look for, Like already
this video from net and Yahoo, it's not looking good right,
the fact that it's in England. It's a telegraph to
the administration. You talked there about the August timeline. What
are some other things our audience and others can look
(35:06):
out for.
Speaker 4 (35:07):
I think those snapback sanctions are really a big thing
because it's not really clear to what France what they're
asking for with the E three countries that they call
and the signatories to the JCPOA are asking for. They
say they got to resume negotiations and they want them
to resume cooperation with the IAEA. But again, you know,
they're very eager and doing this all very fast and
(35:30):
giving them a deadline. So it just to me makes
diplomacy seem unlikely. But I think we see those sanctions
go into place, if we see Aron take that step
to leave the Non Proliferation Treaty, those are signs I
think that we're going toward war. And also, I mean,
you know, when it comes to Trump, I mean the
fact that he does appear to be allowing Israel, supporting
(35:52):
Israel's escalations in Gaza, you know, and saying, oh, it's
totally up to Israel. You know, they frame it like
it's all Israel's a sovereign country that makes its own decisions,
but they're completely relying on US military aid for their
military operations. So like, if Israel's escalating in Gaza, the
US needs to support it. So if Trump is going
to support all that, then you know, it wouldn't surprise
(36:13):
me if he supports another war with Iran. You know,
we're just not seeing any kind of reining in of
net Yahu here. The strategy seems to be giving him
like a bear hug and saying he's great, and you
know there's a witch hunt against him, and it's clear
he wants this war with Iran.
Speaker 3 (36:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (36:30):
So you know, another potential escalation I think is in Lebanon,
because you know, I mentioned I think I mentioned that
that this would serve a war with the wrong would serve
as a good distraction from Gaza. We're also seeing indications
for a big escalation in Lebanon. The US is demanding
that the Lebanese government disarmed Hezbalah, and they've agreed to
do that. But how are they going to do that?
I mean, that could be potential civil war. But they
(36:54):
gave him a deadline and they're basically threatening. You know,
Israel has been bombing Lebanon. They signed this so called
ceasefire agreement last year, but is you know, one side
ceased fire but the other didn't, right, But they're essentially
threatening escalation eleven and I think that's kind of another
area to keep an eye on. And then when we
talk about the war with Iran getting bloodier, one thing
that we didn't see with this war was the Shia
(37:16):
militias in Iraq. You know, there's always a concern of
them targeting us. Bass. I think if this war happens again,
we will see that kind of the the Iran kind
of unleashing its capabilities and its allies in the region
as well.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Dave, my last question for you is I wanted to
get you to respond to something we actually covered earlier
in the show Controllerrooms. See one if you have it,
if we could put that up on the screen. But
I'm sure you saw Netnyahu acknowledging his connection to the
vision of quote unquote greater Israel, saying he's on a
historic and spiritual mission for the Jewish people. And so
(37:52):
you know, connect the potential escalation with Iran with the
actions in Lebanon in Syria and you know the West
Bank and Gaza. You know, what is the big picture
here for Israel? What are the goals that they are
trying to accomplish.
Speaker 4 (38:08):
Yeah, I mean that's really something that he said that,
and you know, I think it's clear so in the
region right now, I mean, the only country that can
really inflict damage on Israel is ram You know, the
Huthis and Yemen have been able to get some missiles through,
and there's certainly a problem for Israel, but it's not
like they can do the damage like Iran can. So
(38:29):
when he talks about greater Israel, I mean, we've seen
them invade the southern Syria after the regime change, and
they're continuing to push further in there, and members of
the government, including Besilosmotrich talk openly about the idea of
just taking over southern Lebanon. And of course we just
saw Smotridge approved some major settlement expansion in the West Bank.
So all this expansion in the region. Really the only
(38:50):
game in town when it comes to being able to
threaten Israel's expansion is Iran. And so I believe that's why,
you know, they're the last piece that Netanya who wants
to knock off the board, so you know, kind of
goes along with the so called Greater Israel. Everything kind
of that's happening in Godza, the West Bank, eleven on Syria,
(39:14):
and potentially beyond based on what Netanya who said.
Speaker 1 (39:17):
Yeah, well Dave, we really appreciate your analysis, man, and
I hope you'll come back on the show.
Speaker 4 (39:21):
Thank you, Yeah, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (39:24):
Absolutely, Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
Programming reminder, the Friday show will be on Saturday morning.
We'll maybe have a special guest hopefully to break down
the Trump Putin summit for everybody, so look out for
that in your inboxes. We'll see you then.
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 1 (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 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Let's get to the next part, shall we,
MAGA and what does it all mean? So Laura Lumer
out with any interesting new take, which you know she
may be right, so let's put it up there on
the screen. Here's what she had to say. Quote, I
(00:46):
don't think the GOP is going to survive post Trump.
There's too many conflicting personalities trying to jockey for the
mantles to MAGA. None of them have what it takes
to be Trump's successor. We are witnessing the end of
a future post MAGA. Movement as we know it. Because
everyone quote inside the Big tenth, the GOP forced on us,
realizes that they hate each other. There won't be a
(01:06):
viable political movement post Maga. You can see the writing
on the wall. Nobody has what it takes. So, you know,
I think she's right. I actually think she's one hundred
percent right, because Trump is the most beloved figure in
the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. Now, by the way
this does let's explain and define terms. Does that mean
(01:28):
that the Republicans will not win a future election. No,
what she's saying is that GOP as it's currently constitute
is not going to survive post Trump. I think that's accurate.
And the reason why is his personality is the binding
glue of everything. It's what keeps anti Israel and pro
Israel folks fanatically pro Trump who put their trust in
the personality. It's what keeps I don't even know, like
(01:52):
people who are pro Steve Bannon want to raise taxes
on the rich, with people who like Ron Johnson who
want to the corporate tax and don't want to stop
stock trade banning. It's like the singularity of his personality.
Ma oh my God, Yeah, Ma's going to exist in
the same party as Lindsey Graham, you know in the FIUD. No,
it's not happening. So it's his personality and his love
(02:16):
with the base, which is what Keena keeps it all together.
It's genuine occult of personality. And I actually think that's
why Lumer is the most accurate in her explanation of Trump.
Isn't because it's all about him. No, I'm not some
supporter or whatever of Laura Lumer. I thought she what
she did if the name prosad was disgusting. But my
point is just that at a political level, I do
(02:36):
think she's correct. It's also why whoever comes next, you're
just gonna have a hell of a time because at
a personality level, it's just like George H. W. Bush.
Did he successfully ride Reagan's coattails to the ninety two
or the eighty eight election? Sure, but he got blown
out in ninety two. He didn't have the same personality,
the same connection Trump is Reagan asking in terms of
(02:57):
his love with the base. And also, let's think of
about what it took for the GOP to have to
come back in the year two thousand. It was eight
years in the Doldrums. A lot of it was defined
by opposition to Clinton, you bear, I mean, you could
define whether you won the election or not, you know,
in two thousand, but you know, it came damn close
for an electoral thing, and it took nine to eleven
(03:18):
and I rock for you to win the popular vote
in two thousand. It took a long time. And then
posts after that it took twenty years to win the
popular vote again. So I think we are in a
similar kind of turning point where you know, in the
next administration, MTG is not going to have to couch
every single criticism but I love Trump. She's just going
(03:39):
to be like, here's what I think, yeah, and screw
the current president. A lot of people did that under Bush.
Nobody ever had that level of support with the base.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
I think the closest equivalent on the Democratic side, which
has some lessons, is Obama, right, And there was a
lot of Democratic triumphalism, the coalition of the assign And
you know, there was an assumption that this Obama coalition
was something that was durable, right, that it wasn't just
specific to him and his particular like charming charisma and
his story and all of whatever that entailed for people,
(04:08):
and that was just not true. You know, the Obama
cole that he was the only person who could put
together the Obama coal issue, was very good at getting
himself elected, not so good at you know, getting other Democrats,
especially in off years elected, and certainly wasn't able to
handle hand his mantle even one election forward, and Hillary
Clinton is ultimately defeated by Donald Trump. And then you know,
(04:30):
to your point about does that did that mean the Democratic.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Party never won an election again?
Speaker 1 (04:34):
No, of course not.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Joe Biden gets elected, but that has not stopped the
overall sort of deterioration of the Democratic Party position and
put it in a potential doom spiral. Now, I think
Trump is sort of like, in a sense, like rescuing
them from that. And there's a possibility that out of
that you actually get a you know, someone who is
more in the Zoraan mold, who has the charisman and
(04:57):
has a different type of politics and has some distance
from the the sins of the past, et cetera. That's
certainly a possibility at this point for rebirth for the
Democratic Party, though nothing is remotely guaranteed.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
But I think it's very possible.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
The Republicans are similarly overestimating how much that realignment that
they celebrate so much is truly durable outside of the
singular personality of Donald Trump. And you know, he like
whether it's Jamie Vance or Don Junior or whoever, or
Marco Rubio, whoever, it is that he tries to really
(05:30):
annoint as his successor. You know, I think he will
have about as much sway with the electorate in anointing
a successor as Barack Obama olts.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Whatly did you know? The Clinton example is a great one.
So why did al Gore fail in the two thousand election, where,
by the way, even if you think you want or whatever,
he only won by five hundred votes in the state
of Florida. It's a massive screw up compared to ninety six.
The ninety six to two thousand map is one of
the great one of the biggest sea changes in politics
that very few people go back, and they don't look
(05:58):
at it. They really ignore what happened. Well, the story
within that was that Clinton again his support was all
about Bubba like him and his talks. You know, folks
see kind of way of connecting. But it wasn't built
on anything like political message, and Gore tried to separate
himself from Lewinsky but also kind of embrace himself as
his like steady hand on the wheel. It almost worked.
(06:20):
But the point actually for whoever comes next is if
Trump is unpopular but very popular with the bass, you
cannot win your primary without wholly embracing him. This is
a huge problem because in oh wait, McCain did what
he was like, yeah, Bush, He's like the fuck off, Like,
don't ever campaign with me, sit in the White House.
I want nothing to do with you. And that was,
(06:42):
you know, to the extend he had any chance, it
was by able to draw some parallel away from Bush
and Bush he didn't mind, or maybe he did, but
you know, he didn't do anything about it. You think
Trump is going to tolerate that, right? I mean, what
are you gonna do. You're gonna have to kiss Trump's
ass all day long if you want to get yourself
to win the prime. But then how do you win
a general election. Something I've been thinking about is in
(07:05):
twenty seven I cannot wait to ask JD to be like,
hey man, you flamed Kamala for saying that you couldn't.
You couldn't had no difference between herself and Joe Biden.
So do you have any difference in how you would
have handled this presidency under Trump? He can't answer that, honestly,
we all know it. Okay, but that's a real problem.
(07:27):
If Trump is at thirty five percent popularity but ninety
percent popularity with the GOP base, and you know that's
one where a Democrat you're not held by those chains.
You can just say whatever you want. There is no
leader of the Democratic Party you can win the damn primary.
And so you've got all of these forces which are
built on his own personality. And also, look if as
(07:47):
long as he's alive, he will remain the tweeter in chief.
It doesn't matter you think he's going to give up
the reins. When he's not president, he will be the
mongol king in mar A Lago who summons whoever the
Republican is down there yea on month. And because if
they want something to be done, Trump has got to
support it. So it's not George W. Bush who's sales
you know, does his paintings and goes to Rangers games
(08:08):
like you think Trump will abide by the presidential norms
of pros presidency. He's gonna be tweeting up until the
day he dies. So there's a lot of personality problems
that are built into this that just never have existed
in mid I mean, maybe Theodore Roosevelt is the best
example of a president who served two ish terms, you know,
and then kind of tried to come back, and he
(08:29):
did nuke at Taft in the election, So that could be,
you know, the scenario that we see in the future.
But I just see bad roads ahead, you know for
the GOP because of that personality base thing, and how
are you going to run, you know, and establish yourself
as something new unless you really are on a massive
(08:49):
high water mark like the Reagan administration wasn't eighty nine.
I'm not so sure that's going to happen. We're still
three and a half years away. Nobody really knows well.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
And you can also see it kind of coming apart
in real time with all of this factional infighting that
is broken out and Laura Lum's at the center. I
think you're absolutely right that she understands. This is the
reason why she comes to the White House and has
an influence she does because she gets it. This is
not about anything other than Donald Trump and the person
of Donald Trump and loyalty to Donald Trump and whatever
Donald Trump says like that is the end all be all.
(09:18):
She understands that, and that's the game she plays, and
that's why she has been able to position herself so
effectively in this administration. But you've got you've got her
fighting with EMPTG. We'll give you some of those details
one a minute. You've got the influencer wars with you know,
Candace versus Fuintes, Fuentez versus Tucker, and you know, fwints
is really serving.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
I see so much, so many.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Parallels with like the left after Bernie's defeat in twenty twenty,
where there's the sense of nihilism that takes hold. Where
you've got Jimmy Door out there, you know, as the
you know, the purest of the pure. And it's a
very similar kind of a dynamic that you see unfolding
of all this like bitter acrimon any personality conflicts. And
(10:02):
then you also have some like substantive you have vast
actually substantive policy differences between a number of these camps
as well. But MTG and Laura Lumer have been fighting
in a way that only the Maga ladies can.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Go at it.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
It really is a particular brand of messiness at new levels.
We can put this up on the screen some of
these quotes, so this is from a daily beast rundown
of all of this. The headline is fuming Lumer goes
nuclear on EMPTG and all night attack. The far right
provocateur has gone after her fellow Maga Republican representative Margie
(10:39):
Cheryler Green with a level of vitriol that is striking
even by Lumer standards, calling the lawmaker a rabid dog
and a lying, fake Christian horr. In part, she said,
this is a woman who allowed her sexual impulses to
tear her family apart. She wants to now tear our
country apart to try to steal Trump's movement away from him.
(11:00):
Don't let this home wrecker become a country home wrecker.
We can put the next piece up on the screen,
a little bit from MTG. She says she has no
about Lumur, She has no long time relationships because she
psychotically turns on everyone. Laura Lumer is the most unstable
person in worst liability to ever walk of the Oval office.
Fighting began, they say, after Lumor stunned some of her
own supporters by ranting against the military's decision to celebrate
(11:22):
a Medal.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Of Honor recipient.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
There is a lot more here, by the way, in
terms of the back and forth, was quite lengthy and extensive,
including Lumor accusing Green of getting bent over backwards inside
the gym by every man who isn't your husband. So
that was the general tenor of this dispute. I believe
this came after Lumer had said something about MTG's quote
unquote roast beef in her pants. So these times two
(11:47):
have a long time acrimonious relationship, Sager. But like I
said to me, it's just emblematic of a movement that
everybody's trying to jockey for a position. They see the
trump eras coming to an end, trying to get in
good with Trump. They're trying to shape what comes next.
They hate each other, and it's all kind of bubbling
to the surface in a way that we haven't really
(12:08):
seen in the past.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Yeah, I mean I said this to you, and look,
I hope isn't taken two the wrong way. But as
the parties switch up in terms of support based on
education levels. It's not a surprise to see some of
this burst out into the open.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
It's not exactly an elevated and classy dispute.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
It's it's look, I mean, you know, if you take
a look fun to cover, if you look at the
ratings for the type of people who engage in reality
television and those type of personalities. I mean, actually, let's
think about it. One of the things that has happened
in the last you know, Trump realignment is that a
lot of reality TV stars, bodybuilders like people and all that,
(12:48):
who are lesser educated but you know, also very popular,
have become Trump supporters. So it would make quite a
bit of sense that that behavior, of course, and Trump
cabin members you're right with WWE and you know, you
see everything that's all Republican now. So well, if that's
the case, and that behavior is going to replicate itself,
it's funny because it's at a demographic level. There's a
(13:08):
viral thing going around right now of one of the
richest neighborhoods in Illinois was are It was a Republican
district in twenty twelve and it's now D plus thirty five,
and like that's the story of America, right, like A
twenty twelve I think it's called win It.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
I'm not from Illinois, but anyway, one of the wealthyes
neighborhoods in Illinois voted from it Romney by overwhelming margins,
voted for Kamala by thirty five points. Yeah, and it's like, well,
you know, those are the type of people who find
a lot of this stuff very distasteful. But the people
who find it hilarious and interesting drama, et cetera. That's
reality TV. That's the demographic. A lot of those people
(13:44):
are Republican now, so you're going to see it replicated
in this politics. And I think that's a very polite
way of saying trashy Anna Paulina Luna on The Joe
Rogan Experience, very interesting episode. I actually recommend people go
and listening to all of it. But Anna Paulina Luna,
one of the congressmen who has been at the spearhead
of a lot of the UFO UAP inquiries, some of
(14:07):
the whistleblowers. She made some interesting claims around that that
I'm going to return to. But first and foremost, you
have a member of the United States Congress at the
forefront on the UFO issue, making some absolutely extraordinary claims
about things that she has seen. Now, claims are claims,
and we need to see evidence, but at the very
least we can take it for what it is. Let's
take a listen.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
You said that you've seen evidence, Like, what kind of
evidence have you seen?
Speaker 3 (14:30):
I have seen photos, I have.
Speaker 5 (14:32):
Seen what have you seen photos of?
Speaker 6 (14:36):
So I was in a skiff, and I can't discuss
all that was in a skiff, but what I can
tell you is, based on the photos that I've seen,
I'm very confident that there's things out there that have
not been created by mad Kain.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
It seems crazy that people have access to information that
shows that there's something outside of us that is more intelligent,
at least more capable than we are. I did from
everybody else.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
So let's just, you know, sit on that for a
little bit. Is that I've seen photos that I am
very confident that there are things that are out there
that have not been created by mankind. This is allegedly
like in a classified setting, and I have been pushing
on this. It is so complicated because at the same
time she did claim that some of the whistleblowers who
we've spoken about here on this show, how they pretended
(15:23):
to have the flu before they were supposed to show
up for a briefing. Those people have now come out,
at least one of them, lou Elizondo, and he's spoken
about how that's not true. So there even seems to
be some interro fighting within this to the relating to
our previous block of messiness or whatever. And I'm not
still quite sure exactly what's going on there. But at
the end of the day, what her Tim Burchett and
(15:44):
a few other members of Congress were pushing for were
some of these briefings, photos and other things that are
said to exist. The difficulty on this is we have
been hearing this now for White sometime for years and right,
how many times do I say here on the show,
and it's becoming exhausting for people to say that people
who have seen classified images of this or that have
not yet been able to see actually something tangible. I
(16:07):
will say on Luna's record her attacks on the whistleblowers,
notwithstanding on JFK, she's been solid. Don't take it from me,
Take it from Jefferson Morley, who we've had here on
the show who I trust absolutely and totally on the
JFK issue, and he said that she very seriously has
been working with him and others in order to get
the files out. They invited him to testify. He worked,
(16:28):
I believe with her office, and it's some stuff behind
the scenes which allowed to get deep classification or release
and broadly saw that inquiry a s seria. So if
we take that together with the UFO issue, I'll say
there's some implicit trust at least on the track record.
But it's been a long time since the UFO hearing.
We're gonna need to have another one. And but by
and large, it's like, just release it at this point.
(16:48):
And is it? I mean, maybe it's like Epstein, It
just it exists. It can't be released. It's hidden. JD
has said that he's quote working or whatever on the issue.
Maybe Trump is a file. I mean, do you want
to know The best presidential theory on UFOs is that
Eisenhower had a summit with the aliens in nineteen This
is serious, I'm not kidding. Is that he had a
(17:09):
summit with the aliens. I believe he was in fifty six.
Over how we're going to manage Earth and alien relations.
That's a very serious, actually talk. I mean, look, I'd
like to say some more.
Speaker 7 (17:18):
Evidence what I said, but on the UFO issue, very specifically,
as a believer in the phenomenon, I will say, at
least it is encouraging that she says that she said
these in a class fright hearing, because at the very
least it's a falsifiable claim.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
What I want. That's why I loved when Dave Grush
went under oath. I'm like, we need more oath. We
need more stuff which is falsifiable or not. No more illusions,
like she makes very specific claims, and specifically in this
next clip, she made claims which again we can prove
our false or not if the documentation is released. Let's
take a listen.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
Do you think that it's possible that these are US
vehicles that are top secret?
Speaker 6 (17:56):
I definitely think that there's a level of advanced technology
that the US government has, and I think that that
tech can be hased within the defense contract around realm.
And of course some information is going to be classified.
But I can also tell you, and this might sound crazy,
but based on our investigations and stuff that we've seen, Okay,
there is definitely something that I think would rival what
(18:18):
we know currently with physics and a tech that potentially
is out there that we don't have the ability to
reproduce because it would basically be like dropping a cell
phone right off back during the time of maybe cavemands.
So like we just don't have the tech to develop
it yet. But there's definitely something that I can tell
you with confidence that exists that we don't know how
to explain currently.
Speaker 5 (18:38):
So when you say that it operates outside our understanding
of physics, what specifically are you saying? Like what happened to.
Speaker 6 (18:48):
I guess break it down in simple terms, is that
I think that some of the tech that exists that
whatever these things have, these energy things have, Yeah, well
they call the interdimensional beings. I think that they can
actually operate through the time spaces that we currently have.
It's really changing the way that we understand, you know,
(19:08):
the origins of life and the spiritual reality that we know.
Speaker 5 (19:13):
When you say interdimensional beings, that they know that these
are interdimensional beings? How do they know that that?
Speaker 6 (19:21):
So based on testimony would be based on witnesses that
have come forward. But what I can tell you is
just know that they've that they've seen things. And what
I can tell you without getting into classified conversations, is
that there have been incidences that I believe where very
(19:43):
credible people have reported that there have been movement.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Outside of time and space that's very vague.
Speaker 6 (19:52):
Yeah, so look, yeah, look, have I seen a portal?
Speaker 8 (19:57):
But no?
Speaker 6 (19:57):
Have I seen a spaceship personally? Know I've seen evidence
of this.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (20:03):
Have I seen photo documentation of aircraft that I believe
we're not made by mankind?
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Yes?
Speaker 6 (20:12):
Is there historical significance to this yes? Is there multiple
events that go back to I would argue maybe even
before the time of Christ, that have documented this in texts?
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Yes?
Speaker 6 (20:24):
So do I believe that the government has access to
certain technology, Yes, to an extent. And I believe that
certain contractors potentially have back engineered this tech. I think
that that's what can explain the advancements that we're seeing.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
All Right, I mean, what do you think, Crystal. I
know it sounds crazy at this point, we just got
to say.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
That's my assumption until I see any sort of evidence,
is that this is bullshit and she's telling Rogan what
she wants to hear, I think, But that has to
be the default assumption if there's no evidence that's offered,
you had, like, these are wild, extraordinary claims that are
being made, so you better bring something other than like
you know, you heard from a witness theoretically and there
(21:04):
might be something, but you can't really say anything.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
I am getting sick of I have seen it, like
you know, former Undersecretary of Defense coming on me, like
I've seen that there's an extraordinary video. I've heard this
now for probably five six years, right about this video
that allegedly exists on a UFO passing in between two
fighter aircraft and the two pilots absolutely freak out at
the level of speed, you know, very similar to the original.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
You could do sick of it.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Yeah, And I think that's the default at this point
because we just have yet. We have heard so many promises,
so much slowering from the bureaucracy, from the Pentagon. We've
seen so many claims like this. Luna, by the way,
here is not testifying under oath, which Grush, to his credit,
actually did. And what's important and also here about the
(21:48):
contextualization of what she's saying is I've seen claims from
people who said they've experienced it. That fits actually with the
original Grush testimony before Congress where he was talking because
remember his goal was to compile all of the information
of the reports, and that's eventually what led to his
whistleblower report. We at just this point have got to
see like some release or some sort of evidence. And
it's also disappointing, I would say, for her to, you know,
(22:10):
imply like that they were not credible, but then also
at this point taking some of their words seriously, and
so at this point we really are I think it's
kind of make or break where it either has to
come out or a lot of the trust is just
going to be killed forever. Yeah, because we've seen so
much of this like winking and nodding. It's chock Epstein.
(22:31):
It's the similar thing, it's the exact same thing. They
come out, they say they're going to do it, and
then they basically show a complete and a total cover up.
The cover up is enough for people to think that
there is a there there, and of course I do
believe that there is certainly a there there, but I
am getting sick of a lot of these people at
this point. It seems like she's using it to try
and get you know, people while guys are talking about it,
(22:52):
but release and do something like she did with JFK.
Or I just don't want to hear about it anymore
from you. I would be better off not hearing it
than to, you know, get your hopes up and to
get crushed like over and over again.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
Yeah, and you know, Trump made it quite explicit.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
Yeah, he's made a big deal about this, so RFK.
You remember when he was on our show and I
asked him about it multiple times and he's claimed to
have a briefing about it but hasn't said anything.
Speaker 6 (23:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
No, that's a great point too.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
And even imber Trump specifically talking about the drones and
how he's going to reveal everything when he gets in
and it's like okay, and then he comes out, he's
just like, it's nothing to worry about, Like I can
tell you I know what it is. Yeah, and it's
nothing you should worry about. Oh okay, this is the transparency. Thanks,
this is great.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Thanks. So I guess that's just I just sort of.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Roll my eyes at this stuff until I get something
more concrete.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I think that's fair. I think it's a normal reaction
now at this point, like I said, I would hope
that this is a precursor to actually something in the
future like she's done with JFK. But otherwise, ma'am, we're
sick of hearing just claims. We will actually want to
see evidence in some disclosure. So with that we have
great guest standing by Dave DeCamp. Let's get to it.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
There have been some troubling signs coming out from the
Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Natyaho, about a potential return
to war with Iran. So to break down where we
are very happy to be joined by Dave de Camp.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
He is the news editor of the great website.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Anti war dot com and also host of anti War
News with Dave DeCamp.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Welcome, good to see.
Speaker 4 (24:18):
You man, Thanks for having me. I appreciate it, of course.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
So let me go ahead and start by playing Natnyaho
in his own words an English language for some reason,
appeal to the people of Iran.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to a bit.
Speaker 8 (24:31):
Of this today. I'm going to make an unprecedented offer
to Iran. It relates to water. The Iranian people are
victims of a cruel and tyrannical regime that denies them
vital water. Israel stands with the people of Iran, and
that is why I want to help save countless Uranian lives.
Here's how Iran's Meteorological Organization says that nearly ninety six
(24:54):
percent of Iran suffers from some levels of drought. Isa Kalentari,
a former agriculture minister, said that fifty million Iranians could
be forced out of their homes due to environmental damage.
Fifty million millions of Iranian children are suffering due to mismanagement,
to incompetence in the theft of vital resources by the
(25:16):
Iranian regime. Now, Israel also has water challenges. We've developed
cutting edge technologies to address them. Israel recycles nearly ninety
percent of its wastewater. That's far more than any other
country on Earth. We invented drip irrigation. Our technology targets
individual plants with exactly the nutrients they need for each plant.
(25:38):
Israel has to know how to prevent environmental catastrophe in Iran.
I want to share this information with the people of Iran. Sadly,
Iran bans as reellies from visiting, so we'll have to
get creative. We will launch a Farsi website with detailed
plans on how Uranians can recycle their wastewater. The Iranian
regime shouts death to Israel in response Israel Shad's life
(26:02):
to the Iranian people. The people of Iran are good
and decent. They shouldn't have to face such a cruel
regime alone.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
We are with you, Dave.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
He's just such a generous and caring man. I think
that's what we should really take away from that.
Speaker 4 (26:16):
Yeah, I mean, it is rich of him to kind
of frame his you know, himself as some kind of
humanitarian that wants to bring water to a people when
he's blockading and starving the people of Gaza. But you know,
we've seen him put out these videos before, and really
the last time he did it was during the what
we call now I guess, the twelve day war that
(26:37):
Israel launched on Iran. So this is concerning to see
because we do appear to be on the trajectory toward
another confrontation here just because of what we see coming
from Israel, the US and Iran. Essentially, Iran's position has
been that they're willing to resume nuclear negotiations with the
(26:58):
US if they can get some kind of assurance is
that they won't be attacked again, which I think is
a very reasonable position considering the US and Israel actually
use the cover of the previous negotiations to launch the war,
and I mean the US really, like the Trump administration,
really spent its diplomatic credibility on this. Israel actually code
(27:18):
named the initial attack, the initial air strikes that targeted
Iranian leadership, the Red Wedding, referring to the Game of
Thrones scene, which is, you know, a massacre based on portrayal.
It's just and Israel Katz, the Defense Minister, recently, actually
said that publicly that it was called it the Red Wedding,
and he's been threatening to kill Kamenade, the Iranian Supreme leader.
(27:41):
So Aron wants assurances. And you also have President Trump
threatening to Bombaran again if they resume in Richmond. You
have this stuff coming from the Yahoo and what he
also said in that video is, you know, take to
the streets essentially, rise up against your government. So these
are not assurances that they're not going to be attacked
again if they resumed the negotiations with the US. We're
(28:02):
seeing reports just breaking right before we started recording that
Reuters is reporting that Kamene has decided that they should
resume the negotiations with the US. Skeptical of that that's
true at this moment. Ruters's sources on Iran aren't always correct,
but it's just we have, you know, several dynamics here
that don't look good. And another thing is the European countries,
(28:24):
the UK, France, and Germany. A big difference between the
negotiations that the Trump administration was engaged in with Iran
from when Obama was engaged in similar negotiations is that
the Europeans were not on board. This time. It seemed
like almost like they wanted war. And after Israel launched
the war, we even saw the German Chancellor Meurers say,
(28:46):
Israel's doing our dirty work. And this is right before
this when they started being critical of what Israel's doing
in Gaza. And that's a whole other aspect of this,
you know, with the genocide in Gaza. I mean, the
phase that we're in now, what they're preparing for this
takeover of Gaza City is going to be absolutely horrific.
And what's a nice distraction from that is a new
war with Iran. And you know, as Trita Parsi wrote
(29:11):
in Foreign Policy a very excellent article I really kind
of summarized all this stuff. You know, Israel did not
win the war with Iran. One point that he made
was that one of Israel's goals was that they want
Iran to be like Syria, to be like Lebanon, to
be one of these countries that they could just bomb
with impunity. But they didn't achieve that because right up
until the last moment, Iron was hitting them with their missiles.
(29:32):
And right now Iron is rebuilding, you know, working to
rebuild its air defenses, replenish its missiles. So Israel only
only wants that to go on for so long. The
big question is is Trump going to support another war
with Iran? And based on what he's been saying when
it comes to Israel, it seems likely to me that
he would.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Yeah, yeah, did we actually have tree to Parsi's article here?
We can put it up there on the screen about
the next Israel Iran war is coming. I mean, Dave,
can you just break down what he talks about about
the strategic calculus of both countries now could mean an
even more violent war, which he predicts, by the way,
could start as early as August, as in where we're
talking right now.
Speaker 4 (30:10):
Yeah. So one reason why I think he put that
August timeline is because again France, the UK and Jerremany
they're threatening to reimpose what they call the snapback sanctions,
which were UN Security Council sanctions lifted by the twenty
fifteen Iran deal, and the threat has always been to
reimpose them, and sum Maranging officials are saying, we don't
know if this is kind of their official line, that
if those sanctions are imposed, they're going to withdraw from
(30:33):
the Non Proliferation Treaty. And I think that's that would
be the pretext for the US and Israel to launch
another war if they did that, or it would at least,
you know, give net and Yahoo a better argument with
the Trump administration, because Iran wants her to be consequences
for these actions for the bombing. You know, after the bombing,
they ended cooperation with the IAEA, even though they are
(30:54):
still in talks with them. But another point that he makes,
as I said, he you know, they want Iran to
either be impotent essentially that they could bomb them without
any trouble, or they do want regime change, and you know,
I think people get the wrong idea. You know, I
don't think there's really any scenario where US troops are
going into Iran. They don't want to replace the regime.
(31:17):
They just want to destroy it. They want to sink
the country into chaos. And you know, you see that
with Syria right now. The Israel supported the regime change
against a sad and this new government came in. I
mean they are in al Qaeda government. It's literally the
guy who founded Al Keda in Syria who's part of
the government. But even though he's been al Shara, the
new so called president has been very deferential toward Israel.
(31:40):
We've seen Israel bomb them, so it's clear, you know,
they don't want to unified Syria. They would prefer shattered
Iran to this, you know, relatively stable one that we see.
And another thing about the calculations that Parsi talks about
is that Iran is sorry. Israel has always had really
significant intelligence assets inside and apparently with the first wave
(32:01):
of attacks, you know, people on the ground and drones
that were fired from inside Iran played a big role
in hurting their air defenses. But we've seen this big
crackdown in Iran. I think they've arrested like twenty thousand people,
so they're losing. I think they probably spent a lot
of their intel assets. So there's a lot of reasons
why Israel might want to hit them again soon. And
(32:24):
they need the US. I mean, that's just the fact
because the US intercepted so many Iranian missiles and you know,
besides just bombing the nuclear facility, So this is very
much Israel wanting to drag the US into another war.
Speaker 8 (32:36):
It.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Yeah, the other question I have is whether they, since
they named it the Red Wedding, if they watched the
rest of that series and saw how it turned out
for that family. We'll put that aside in any case,
picking backing off of what you were saying there, you know,
what indications do we have from Trump about how he
would behave if Israel goes back to war with Iran.
(32:57):
You know, he seemed to want this and this is
what dark Parsi lays on his piece. He seemed to
want it to be sort of like a want and done.
Do you think that he has the fortitude to resist
Israel's endless entreaties for us to get you know, directly
engaged once again in a hot war with Iran.
Speaker 4 (33:15):
Based on what I've seen from Trump, I mean, it
doesn't seem like he wants a big war, but we've
seen the kind of the rhetoric is, oh, if they start,
you know, restart their enrichment program again, and I'll, you know,
we'll we'll blow them away again. You know, we'll, we'll,
we'll hit him again. And I think the lesson he
learned from this, and the same lesson that he learned
from Solomani in his first administration when he assassinated the
(33:35):
Iranian general and Iran's response was very choreographed. They fired
some missiles at a US based in Iraq and essentially
gave them notification. And this happened again. I mean, this
was a big concern with this war, is the US
bombing Iran? Are they going to hit American basis hard
or they're going to be American casualties? And they didn't
this time again, it was it was choreographed and they
(33:56):
gave the US notice. So I think the lesson Trump learned,
and I think kind of the people he's listening to
on this are are saying, you could hit Ron hard,
and you know, they're not going to do anything. And
I think they know that in Tehran. That that is
you know that if this happens again, as Sagar mentioned before,
I should get into that angle of what Parsi said
that it could be bloodier than last time. I think
(34:18):
that in Iran, you know, the calculation is going to
be different, because it was pretty clear that they were
trying to stop you know, they were hitting is real hard,
but you know, it was clear they were saying, you know,
if you stop attacking us, we'll stop attacking you, and
that'll be that. And then again they got bombed by
the US, but they gave him notice before they hit
the basin guitar. But this time around, I think things
(34:39):
will be different, especially if they are just going to
go for trying to kill the Supreme Leader and and
things like that.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Yeah, I mean, I think all of this is just
so incredibly dangerous, Dave, And I mean when you look
at it in the future, like what are some of
the critical steps that we should look for, Like already
this video from net and Yahoo, it's not looking good right,
the fact that it's in England. It's a telegraph to
the administration. You talked there about the August timeline. What
are some other things our audience and others can look
(35:06):
out for.
Speaker 4 (35:07):
I think those snapback sanctions are really a big thing
because it's not really clear to what France what they're
asking for with the E three countries that they call
and the signatories to the JCPOA are asking for. They
say they got to resume negotiations and they want them
to resume cooperation with the IAEA. But again, you know,
they're very eager and doing this all very fast and
(35:30):
giving them a deadline. So it just to me makes
diplomacy seem unlikely. But I think we see those sanctions
go into place, if we see Aron take that step
to leave the Non Proliferation Treaty, those are signs I
think that we're going toward war. And also, I mean,
you know, when it comes to Trump, I mean the
fact that he does appear to be allowing Israel, supporting
(35:52):
Israel's escalations in Gaza, you know, and saying, oh, it's
totally up to Israel. You know, they frame it like
it's all Israel's a sovereign country that makes its own decisions,
but they're completely relying on US military aid for their
military operations. So like, if Israel's escalating in Gaza, the
US needs to support it. So if Trump is going
to support all that, then you know, it wouldn't surprise
(36:13):
me if he supports another war with Iran. You know,
we're just not seeing any kind of reining in of
net Yahu here. The strategy seems to be giving him
like a bear hug and saying he's great, and you
know there's a witch hunt against him, and it's clear
he wants this war with Iran.
Speaker 3 (36:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (36:30):
So you know, another potential escalation I think is in Lebanon,
because you know, I mentioned I think I mentioned that
that this would serve a war with the wrong would serve
as a good distraction from Gaza. We're also seeing indications
for a big escalation in Lebanon. The US is demanding
that the Lebanese government disarmed Hezbalah, and they've agreed to
do that. But how are they going to do that?
I mean, that could be potential civil war. But they
(36:54):
gave him a deadline and they're basically threatening. You know,
Israel has been bombing Lebanon. They signed this so called
ceasefire agreement last year, but is you know, one side
ceased fire but the other didn't, right, But they're essentially
threatening escalation eleven and I think that's kind of another
area to keep an eye on. And then when we
talk about the war with Iran getting bloodier, one thing
that we didn't see with this war was the Shia
(37:16):
militias in Iraq. You know, there's always a concern of
them targeting us. Bass. I think if this war happens again,
we will see that kind of the the Iran kind
of unleashing its capabilities and its allies in the region
as well.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Dave, my last question for you is I wanted to
get you to respond to something we actually covered earlier
in the show Controllerrooms. See one if you have it,
if we could put that up on the screen. But
I'm sure you saw Netnyahu acknowledging his connection to the
vision of quote unquote greater Israel, saying he's on a
historic and spiritual mission for the Jewish people. And so
(37:52):
you know, connect the potential escalation with Iran with the
actions in Lebanon in Syria and you know the West
Bank and Gaza. You know, what is the big picture
here for Israel? What are the goals that they are
trying to accomplish.
Speaker 4 (38:08):
Yeah, I mean that's really something that he said that,
and you know, I think it's clear so in the
region right now, I mean, the only country that can
really inflict damage on Israel is ram You know, the
Huthis and Yemen have been able to get some missiles through,
and there's certainly a problem for Israel, but it's not
like they can do the damage like Iran can. So
(38:29):
when he talks about greater Israel, I mean, we've seen
them invade the southern Syria after the regime change, and
they're continuing to push further in there, and members of
the government, including Besilosmotrich talk openly about the idea of
just taking over southern Lebanon. And of course we just
saw Smotridge approved some major settlement expansion in the West Bank.
So all this expansion in the region. Really the only
(38:50):
game in town when it comes to being able to
threaten Israel's expansion is Iran. And so I believe that's why,
you know, they're the last piece that Netanya who wants
to knock off the board, so you know, kind of
goes along with the so called Greater Israel. Everything kind
of that's happening in Godza, the West Bank, eleven on Syria,
(39:14):
and potentially beyond based on what Netanya who said.
Speaker 1 (39:17):
Yeah, well Dave, we really appreciate your analysis, man, and
I hope you'll come back on the show.
Speaker 4 (39:21):
Thank you, Yeah, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (39:24):
Absolutely, Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
Programming reminder, the Friday show will be on Saturday morning.
We'll maybe have a special guest hopefully to break down
the Trump Putin summit for everybody, so look out for
that in your inboxes. We'll see you then.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!