May 12, 2025 • 38 mins
In this conversation, Shahin Gobadi from the National Council of Resistance of Iran discusses the current state of Iran's nuclear program, emphasizing the imminent threat posed by the regime's advancements in weaponization and delivery systems. He critiques the effectiveness of sanctions and advocates for a more robust international policy that recognizes the rights of the Iranian people to pursue regime change. Gobadi highlights the significant public dissent against the regime, noting that a vast majority of Iranians desire a democratic future free from oppression. He calls for a comprehensive approach to address the nuclear threat while supporting the Iranian resistance movement. It's a Numbers Game is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.
Follow Shahin Gobadi HERE
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
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 (00:01):
Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Gerdusky. I
want to thank you all for being here another week.
Happy Monday. I hope you all enjoyed the last week's
episodes on the Pope and demographics. It couldn't have come
at a better time because we have a new Pope.
It's big news for all the Catholics. Last Thursday, May eighth,
we elected our first American Pope. I, as a lifelong
(00:25):
cradle Catholic, never in my life believed I would ever
see an American pope. A Cardinal Robert provost Is from
Chicago is our new Pope. He has taken a name
of Poplio the fourteenth. Once again, very exciting for Catholics.
No matter how you kind of fill out on the
how religious you are American Catholics, it must be what
(00:47):
it must felt like for black Americans to see Obama
get elected. You just never thought you would see the
day an American Catholic would ever be. We rise the
position of the Pope. Some little facts about him to
go off of last week's episode. He's considered a more
moderate pope. He is less open than Francis, but more
of a centrist. He's not as I guess liberal as
(01:09):
Francis is and some doctrine stuff. He's going to be
a headache to conservatives on issues like migration because he
championed kind of more open borders or more refugees. That's
the way most cardinals are. It's just kind of how
it is. It's very annoying. What is the truth? But
he's the value pro life he has been. He's kind
of a mixed position on gays and lesbians, being more
(01:31):
open to them in the church. He's certainly more I guess,
right wing on that issue than Francis was. But I
think the most important thing from the managerial aspect, is
considered good with finances, and it could help desperately change
the shifting financial situation that the church is in, which
is pretty dire. We discussed that in the last week's
podcast on the Pope if you didn't hear about it.
(01:51):
He's also, by the way, there was a lot of
online chat that he's a registered Republican. He's from Illinois.
Illinois does not register people by partying. He did, however,
vote in several Republican primaries, so he's likely a Republican.
But in my personal experience, I have met many many
priests in my life, and I could count on one
hand how many of them were open Democrats. Usually priests
(02:13):
in my life i've ever met are are Republicans. Not
so much nuns. Nuns tend nuns, especially older nuns, tend
to be more liberal.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
But the.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Priests I've always met tend to be Republicans. I've met
very few democratic priests, and so this shouldn't surprise it.
But I don't think. I think it's important not to
put the role of the Pope and the and what
he has said and what he does in the context
of American politics. The Church is eternal. He is the
(02:48):
you know, he's sitting on the throne of Saint Peter
as the victor of Christ, and he's going to do
his best to protect the church and the integrity of
the Church. And I think that as a Catholic, we
should all pray for him to do the best job
that he possibly can. So it's my little spiel about
the Pope. And by then, also Sunday is Mother's Day.
Happy Mother's Day to my mom, who doesn't listen to
this podcast, but my other aunt's grandmother do so, Havy
(03:11):
Mother's Day to you. I hope for all the moms
and grandmothers and godmothers who listens podcasts, it was all
very special for you. This one made you feel special
on Mother's Day. I want to spend some time talking
about foreign policy because especially specifically an American first foreign policy,
because the media in this media environment we've heard, you know,
the media just it's it's like ping pong. It goes
(03:34):
back and forth constantly, knee jerk reaction to knee jerk
reaction to get people's head spinning about whatever topic is
of the moment, to either bash Trump or Elon or
you know the marilynd Man go now Salvador. Things that
don't hit people's lives as effectively as it does create narratives.
And it's very easy to crap on liberal media because
(03:57):
I mean, they have no shame. You can't you cannot
shame a liberal person VideA. I don't know if you,
by the way, if anyone saw this, but last week
or like late last week, Rachel Maddow was on Stephen
Colbert and these two looney tunes are sitting there with
complete straight faces, almost frowning and saying, I think this
is like Republicans are doing what they're doing because they
(04:19):
don't have to worry about an election. They think they
want to end democracy, they won't worry about elections in
the future. It is nonsensical fear porn. It is direct
dopamine hits for people who are chanting up the end
is near and that Trump's a dictator and we're in fascism,
and you know, it's like seeing the guy on the
(04:41):
side of the road who says, like the end is
coming and he's screaming repent. Now, I always think like
those people, like what if God comes back and you know,
he says, I send you a guy with the science
saying and is near. You should have known its near.
But anyway, that's it doesn't matter. ADHD is extremely strong today. Guys. Anyway,
that was Madam and copeire totally batshit crazy statements that
(05:03):
were utterly untrue, feeding nonsense to peoples whose brains have
become like worms, Like it is crazy. And I just
wish that like the next guest who is on the
show would have like looked at them and said, I
will bet you ten thousand dollars that we will hold
an election in eighteen months, that all of your fear
(05:26):
that you have been peddling to the American public is
not true. It's not going to be true. And in fact,
I will spend the ten thousand dollars if I lose,
But you have to apologize to the audience for misdirecting
them if you lose. That's what I would love. It's
probably not going to happen. But these people, I mean,
their brains have really rotted. The ones who are saying
(05:47):
the elections are over, it's just it's crazy. I even
saw the comedian Kathy Griffin on her podcast saying that, like,
you know, we should free Luigi. I mean, these people's
brains are broken and you can't fix them. You just can't.
You have to just keep it moving and you know,
hope that the government in charge makes the right moves.
And you can't obssess with people in the media. But
(06:07):
that's what everyone else does. So anyway, sorry, back to
foreign policy, which is what I was originally intending to
talk about. Not many people are talking about this schism
happening between the Trump administration and conservative media, and it's
over Iran, over the nation of Iran, and whether or
(06:28):
not Iran is in their urinium enrichment program intended to
build nuclear bombs is capable or will be capable soon,
and there's negotiations happening in the state of those negotiations.
This has been the concern of obviously presence, dating back decades.
The benefit of being middle aged now is that I
can remember a quarter of a century ago when George W.
(06:51):
Bush saying an attack against Iran was on the table.
This is right after the Iraq War, because they were
close to getting a nuclear bomb. This is two thousand
and six. This is almost twenty years ago that he
said they were very close to get an nuclear bomb,
and one of his memoirs he actually said there were
plans drawn up to attack Iran and they were backed
that last minute. And under the Bomb administration, obviously we
(07:12):
had the Iran deal to temporary limit uranium enrichment in
favor of increasing their oil sales, and it had some
minimal success in some capabilities, but it continued to fund
their terrorist organizations throughout the world. Wasn't really going to
change anything, and it really emboldened the current power regime
of Iran, which is a horrific tyrannical regime. That is
(07:36):
what real tyranny looks like. To the Rachel Meadows of
the world and to the Kathy Griffins of the world,
it doesn't look like Donald Trump. It looks like Iran. Currently,
the women of Iran who have protested their government are
one hundred times the feminists that any of these phony
pink hat wearing liberal loonies attacking Trump are anyway back
(07:58):
to Iran. Sorry, there is a substantial portion of the
Republican Party, especially in the media, that are actively rooting
for a military conflict with Iran. Trump picked his longtime
friend and fellow real estate developer Steve Wikoff to be
the Special Envoy to the Middle East, and he's actively
working on avoiding a war with Iran, trying to inc
(08:20):
ad deal to stop them from becoming a nuclear power.
And this has infuriated neo conservatives. The New York Post
President Trump's favorite paper, which regularly publishes neo conservaives, although
they have published me a few times, so I appreciate it,
but they do publish a lot of neo conservatives. They
said that wik Kopff was the wrong person to try
to get this deal and this agreement because he's too
(08:42):
he's not willing to, you know, put a war basically
on the table the day prior from them publishing that,
which is April thirtieth, on my birthday. Douglas Murray, a
buddy of mine who I know pretty well. He also
said that he was the wrong man for the job
in Douglas's you know, a fairly fairly vocal neoconservative. Wickoff
has had some early successes in his job, including the
(09:03):
release of thirty three hostages from Hamas, including two Americans,
and he struck a deal with the Iranian Bakkuthis and
Yemen to stop attacking our ships. So things are happening.
Secretary of Rubia was very happy with the work that
he's been doing, so as President Trump and considering the
aspect of that, I'm thirty eight years old. I have
seen this same movie for twenty five years almost, or
(09:27):
twenty years almost, where the chatter from the pro war
crowd is that Iran is going to develop this nuclear
weapon any day now. It's kind of like how liberals say,
like Trump, the walls are closing and it's any day now,
any day now, any day now. I kind of feel
like any rush towards conflict is very dumb and very
short sighted and a war weary America is not up
(09:48):
for it. Any which way that we could avoid any
kind of military conflict while de escalating the situation is
well worth it. But I'm not an expert in Ron.
I've never been there, bas looking for most America has
never been there. But my next guest is and he
can tell us more about the situation, a possible conflict,
and how the Iranian people feel up. Next with me
(10:12):
today is Shahim Gobadi. He is from the National Council
of Resistance of Iran. Thank you for being here, Shahim,
thank you for having me. Now. On Thursday, it was
discovered that Iran has another nuclear site that was previously undisclosed.
What can you tell my audience about the state of
Iran's nuclear program as it stands today.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Actually, this new revelation was made by the National Council
of Resistance of Iran, which is the coalition of Iranian
democratic opposition movements like the Parliament in Exile of the Resistance.
We have had more than one hundred and ten revelations,
but various aspects of the Iran nuclear the first program
going back three decades, particularly in the last two decades.
(10:57):
All I can tell you is that the Iranian regime
is on the cost of getting nuclear weapons. What do
you mean by this? While the world has focused on
how much in rich uranium the regime has, which is
enough for at least six nuclear bombs. For a nuclear bomb,
you need other weaponization and also delivery system basically warheads
(11:21):
to be carried by ballistic missiles. And the point of
the matter is that the regime has worked on the
other two aspects very much diligently and concurrently with the enrichment.
So they have the rich uranium, they are working on vaponization,
they're working on delivery system. Actually today if you reveal
another side which has been unknown before, working in tandem
(11:44):
with this ballistic missile program for nuclear warheads. So the
regime has been working very hard to this, and particularly
in the last year and a half or two that
it has been much weaker at home and has been
much weaker in the region. You have relied more on
acquired nuclear weapons as the guarant tour for their survival.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Now, so I am thirty eight years old, and for
the last since I was about fourteen, about a quarter
of a century, I have heard that Iran is within
days of getting a nuclear weapon since the Iraq War. Essentially,
the drum beat for a war with Iran has been
very real. It's been championed by a number of American
(12:26):
politicians going back to the Bush administration, and it's never
come to fruition. So how how much can we rely
on the evidence that Iran is very close to a
nuclear webon this time?
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Well, you have to bear in mind that we are
the movement. As I said, I suppose the Hidian secret
nuclear facilities, most enrichment in Natans back in two thousand
and two, prolutonium site again in two thousand and two,
many many research sites, many many scientists, and this is
based on people on the ground, what they call human intelligence.
(13:04):
And according to Los Alamos Research, more than ninety five
percent of the NCIL revelations have been corroborated one wey
or the other. The fact of the matter is, we
never ever advocated for a war a year on. We
do not believe the solution is a military solution. Rather,
from the day one, all they have asked for is
(13:26):
a solid policy. You know what the problem has been
in the last twenty four years that you refer to,
Actually the time you're referring to is exactly August fourteen,
two thousand and two, that my very colleague whould the
press conference today, held a press conference in the middle
of summer in Washington, and at that time nobody wanted
to believe Iran has a new crear program. Then when
(13:47):
the IA went there they saw it, then they start
believing it. All we always ask for is a robust policy.
What was a robust policy. Robost policy is holding regime
accountable for its nefarious conduct, to impose tough sanctions on
the region, to prevent it from the means to advocate
and advance this nuclear weapons program, and to recognize the
(14:10):
right of the Union people and the resistance to being
about the regime change by themselves. But what happened in
reality administration after administration, and I don't only think about
inside the United States, I'm talking about the other side
of Atlantic too. People thought that by giving concessions to
the regime to get involved in endless negotiations, they can
(14:32):
somehow miraculously talk this region out of driving for nuclear weapons.
And where we are today. Actually, if there were a
robust policy two decades ago, the situation would not have
got to where we are today. But unfortunately, as I said,
appiacement after appeacement got us very well. Today, while the
threat is very real, we never advocated and we were
(14:54):
never a proponent of a military confrontation with your role
because you don't think that's solution.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
I'm not saying you have been necessarily, but there are
people in America certainly that have and they are the
ones who've been saying for all these decades that Iran's
nuclear program is within and is very capable, and it's
going to happen any day now. And obviously Iran is
a big supporter of terrorism around the entire globe. One
(15:20):
thing I would like to know is you mentioned about,
you know, sanctions, which we already have sanctions on Iran.
What what good does it do if the United States
is sanctions on Iran, but like China doesn't or Russia doesn't.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Well, you have to remember we are talking about sanctions.
We are talking about also secondary sanctions of what we're
buyasi in a gas, and we're talking about sanctioning where
it basically tifles the regime's social revenue. Because the fact
of the matter is all the money that this regime gets,
every single dying that it gets is useful repressing Ranian people,
(15:59):
is used to advance. This nuclear program is used to
advance this missile program, is used to stipend its proxies
all over the world and the region actually and it's
been will be plundered by you know, the regime's top brass.
None of this gets to the Ranian people. So basically
what happens is the region cells the Union people's wealth.
They're oil, their gas and other resources to finance its
(16:21):
nefarious conduct, which the first and the primary victims of
the Anion people themselves. While the world is concerned about
the nuclear weapons, are concerned about you know, regimes terrorism,
But for me as an Iranian, it's also very important
what the regime does to its own citizens. That's first
and foremost, you know, in the last two in the
last four decades, which NCRII the National Consular Resistance of Iran,
(16:44):
has been battling to bring about a regime change, and
I have to emphasize by the Iranians, for the Iranians.
More of one hundreds and twenty thousand good Iranians as
it gets thirteen years old and as old as seventy
two men and women have been executed by this RATIONI
solely for striving for democracy, no rights. So for us,
the issue is not solely you know, international or foreign.
(17:07):
That's about, you know, the dignity of our people, our country,
and democracy in our country and freedom, which you know
Iranians deserve very much like any other nation on the
face of the earth.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
So I want to I want to go into the
Iranian people in a second, but but I want to
go back to the policy Iran for for just a moment.
Should Iran have any sort of Urinian program, because they're
talking about that should have a certain level. The t
from administration has been negotiating. You know, couldn't they en
rich at all? But should they be allowed in your
(17:37):
opinion of any sort of are.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Giving a nuclear program has to be shut down. Actually,
the NCRI, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, has
a ten point plan for the future of Iran, which
has been articulated by Madame Mariam Bradjavi, the President elect
of the Iranian Resistance. Madame Mariam Bradjevi is the person
that the resistance has elected to be the president for
a transitional period when the Mullahs are ousted and Iran
(18:01):
is democratic and one item of that plan, in addition
to separation of religion and government and gender equality and
freedom and rights of all the ethnic and national minorities,
is a non nuclear run. So we believe Iran does
not need nuclear program. It does not make any sense
at all. It's not economically savvy. It's actually very consprobative
(18:25):
for a country like Iran. You know, investing so much
an Iranian nuclear program is like an Eskimo investing on
a fridge or a refrigerator. You know, you're talking about
a country which is sitting on the second biggest oil
gas reserves in the world, the fourth biggest oil reserve
in the world, a country which has one person of
(18:48):
the population in the world but has somewhere from seven
to eight percent of the world minerals, even according to
the regime's own estimates. I read a report, internal report,
but there is Parliament back in two thousand and five,
and I have the document. We said, creating you know,
power plants based on nuclear energy in Iran. It does
(19:10):
not make any sense, they said, be that's kind of
a price. In a normal situation, we can build ten
fossil fuel you know plants in Iran. Because the energy
is so cheap, So all can one wonder why this
regime is so insistent on nuclear program. It's all obvious
it's for weapons. It has no civilian purpose. And the
(19:31):
only party that is so intransigent about this whole thing
is the regime.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
What do you make of Steve Wikoff, President Trump's and
Special envoy to the Middle East and what his work
has been with Iran?
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Well, obviously I know they are trying to reach a
good deal, but I think that it starts from the
point that they have to realize that there's nothing civilian.
There's nothing benevolent in this whole program from the onset.
It has been for military purposes, and there's so much
facts to prove this. If it was civilian and for
(20:08):
good purposes, why the regime is so secretive about this?
You know, none of its sites, none of its size,
has ever been informed of the IAEA by the regime itself.
All of the sites have been told to the IEA
after we have told on them by our network inside
the country. So or why do they allow the ia
to interview their scientists? Why they don't you know, allow
(20:32):
snapback inspections, I mean snap inspections. So there's obviously more
than one eskeleton in the closets.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
What do you make of Israel's what they've been doing
the wrong, which just feels like every couple of months
you hear about Israel having either a cyber attack or
killing a scientist or something or other to just kind
of slow down or stop Iran's nuclear program.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
I think the Iranian problem has an Urnian solution. You know,
what has been missing in all of the paradigm comes
to you run in all these years, in the twenty
four plus years that you mentioned you have been following
the Union situation in the last quarter century. The biggest
missing element is the role of the Unian people and
the resistance. That's the fact that we changed the whole calculus.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Well, let's talk about the Iranian people then, because I
mean I have followed a number of resistance movements by
the Iranian people. There was the Green Revolution. Most recently,
there was a very very brave effort on the part
of Iranian women to expose their hair and cut their hair.
Was deeply, deeply moving what they were doing, But it
(21:39):
war one. What is the feeling of the leadership by
the people of Iran.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
They hate the regime in its entirety, How can you
gauge that? Since December two thousand and seven, seventeen, sorry,
which is you know, seven and a half years, there
has been four major nationwide uprisings in Iran, all of
them calling for the regimes overthrow. And each time the
(22:08):
uprising gets bigger, more pervasive, more inclusive, people from all
walks of life, all age groups. The last one you
just mentioned that it started in September twenty two and
went on for months and months, included all thirty one
provinces of Iran, somewhere in like three hundred cities and
towns throughout the country. Now it's a very really number.
(22:30):
So there's a nationwide sentiment. According to the regime's own
public figures, ninety six percent of the people of Irn
hate this regime. That's amazing. Ninety six percent of people
want a regime change. So that's the sentiment.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Yeah. So, as someone who reads a lot about demographics
and studies a lot of how populations are acting both
economically and socially, Iran's people the action, not the leadership,
but the people. Well, you know, they have relatively few children,
They try to buy homes, they like, they enjoy Western
media as much as they can get it. I would
(23:09):
love to see a future of a western, a pro
Western Iran. I think that we I think that it's
possible based on the population, Unlike let's say the population
of I'm just using an example Afghanistan, whom are not
pro Western in essence and they don't have the ability
to be pro Western and govern themselves. I think Iran
(23:29):
does how do we get there? You've mentioned sanctions, you
mentioned having a correct response, But if I mean does
does a does a revolution involve a military uprising of
some sorts? I just wanted how what is what is
the domino that has not fallen? Given that these protests
(23:51):
have gone up, have increased that the governments of the
West have put heavy emphasis. What is the domino that
has not fallen needs to fall? To get there?
Speaker 2 (24:01):
I think the ultimate solution would be another uprising by
the Venian people. Said, if you look at the trajectory,
it's getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and the slogans
are are becoming more demanding. What I'm saying is that
people have kiss goodbye to the regime, have been calling
for the overthrow the leader, the Supreme Leader, which everything
(24:23):
is hit, which hinges upon. Also, what's the way telling
is that thinking the last uprising people also rejected an
ignotion of going back to the time of monarchy the
last shot they have been you know, chanting down with
the operasor being the shaw or the Supreme Leader, which
meant that they're fully cognized of the fan that they
(24:43):
reject dictatorshow any shape and form. So the solution will be,
you know, basically what I would say, revolution by the people.
And also you have to remember there's an organized resistance
on the ground in the form of resistance units which
are affiliated to the people as much a headn't organize
position of run. These are the biggest resistance movement inside
the country, which are part of the n CR. So
(25:05):
you have it.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
I thought the shot was fairly popular though or or
the family of the show was popular.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
Well, the fact of the matter is you have to
remember the shot was boots Or of Iraq by popular
uprising for the obvious reasons. It was very oppressive. He
was very corrupt.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Well, I guess less oppressive than the current ones. So
it's everything's I guess in perspective, and I'm not advocating
for the shot I'm just I'm just sorry. ADHD is
very real today. So but but that's but when it comes.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Asking for is basically what will happen is that there
would be an uprising by the people that will take
the balance. Now, the question is what kind of a
policy we advocate from the West. The VEST should not
sit on the fence, as they say. While we do
not advocate boots underground, we are not seeking weapons from
any country. We're not asking money from any country. But
(25:56):
we think the VEST should have a much active policy
on Iran on these components. First of all, as I said,
you have to have much tougher sanctions on the regime
to prevent them to have the money to continue financing
is apparatus of repression and belligerence. Number Two, the UN
Security Council resolutions that are suspended because of the nuclear
(26:16):
deal have to be reactivated because the regime has violated
that resolution time and again. And Third, I think it's
very important politically that the West, and here in a
specific the United States, should recognize the right of the
Union people in the Runian youth to bring about a
regime change and establish a democratic government. That's very important.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
So we should recognize And I'm just clarifying, I'm not
battling claring so you like like the Trump administration or
the president I states whoever it will be at any
given time to recognize a leader not being the current one,
but whom is recognized by I guess a movement of
people of Iran, even if the current leadership is there.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
True, but also more important is the concept that, look,
we realize that the Unians have the right to bring
about the regime change by themselves. I think that sense
shock faves to the Mulas. It also sends a very
positive message to the Unians that the world is on
their side, that instead of thinking passe, the world realizes
who is the Union people are right, the resistance is right.
(27:23):
And you know the Mulas are are doomed to be
overthrown by the Uranian people. Now, how and when would
that happen? Obviously nobody has a crystal ball to give
you you know on exact date that this will happen.
But if you look at the trajectory, the last two
or three years has been awfully bad for the Mullahs.
First of all, the uprising that you just mentioned, especially
(27:44):
because the young generation has been very active, including men
and women. That's important. Also from a regional perspective, the
regime has received a lot of you know, devastating blows.
His wole law has been basically you know decimated. Who
is obviously you know, which are armed by the regime
and finance and propped up, are very much in trouble.
(28:05):
And most importantly, the bachelor Assad regime in Syria, which
was like the full crumb or the lynchpin of the
regime's regional strategy, was gone eleven days. So if I
may say, in one word, all the chickens are coming
home for the Supreme leader to roost at the same time.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
So well, okay, my last, my last question for you,
and this is a complicated one. So you've said that
we shouldn't get involved militarily, and this something I very
much agree with, is we shouldn't be involved militarily, and
I disagree hell with the people who are advocating for that.
But if Iran is let's say, days away or weeks
away or months away even from a nuclear weapon, what
(28:47):
do you do then? How do you counter that? Is
it just sanctions and hoping it all goes away, or
is it a technological strike? Or is it something else.
I don't know what you would what the what the
Western governments would you do if Iran is as nuclear
capable as people are saying that they are.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Well, Honestly, I did not say that Iran is days away,
because the people who say Iran is days away only
think about enrichment. But as I said, there's also weaponization.
There's also a delivery system for the stick missile. The
world doesn't have much time, I should say. But as
I said, the policy that we propose and we advocate,
and as I said, Madame Mariam Rajevi testified before the
(29:32):
US Congress online just on January of this year, and
she said, look, just change the whole policy. What does
that mean? As you said, much tougher sanctions, put Iran
on their Chapter seven of the Unions Security Council mandate,
which means that the regime is a global threat, and
also change the attitude toward the resistance and the winning people.
(29:54):
If you think that, you know, if the people of
Iran are given political encouragement to know that in fact,
the world is on their side, the world would not,
you know, sit idle. And I'm talking about politically and
morally that would make a big difference. Time is not
in the favor of the moloss As I said, if
(30:15):
you look at the trajectory, there has been four uprisings
in seven years alone, so another one is inevitable. And
you don't have to trust me. If you read the
regimes on press, if you listen to the regimes analysts,
even a lot of the regime's own officials are warning
the way things are going, another uprising is inevitable. They're
(30:36):
seventy percent of the population live below the poverty line.
You know, this is a huge number of people. The
lower class is getting smaller, I mean, middle class is
getting smaller and smaller, and the regime is getting more
and more isolated. And also what's important is that you
have a vible alternative against the regime. So that's important
(30:59):
to realize that, you know, the resistance has done its
work over the years, a network inside the country, a
political platform, a clear plan for future, and identify the leader,
which as I said, is very much known to the
US Congress and the US Senate. More than four thousand
members of parliaments have endorsed this plant. Basically, Iranian people
(31:19):
have done a lot to be where they are today,
But I think the world would be much better off
to be on their side, to only think about, you know,
attack or not attack. The narrative that you either bomb
them or you pisce their hands and placate them. I
(31:39):
think the narrative that the mulahs propagated over the years.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Well, that's a great that's a great way to that's
a great way to leave it off. And I think
that's really important context, especially to an American audience who
only hears that the solutions either go with the Supreme
Leader or full on war. The American people are overwhelming
(32:04):
against Shahinkobadi. Where can people research and learn more about
the National Councils of National Council of Resistance of Iran.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Well, there's a good website called NCR National Councular Resistance
so NCR. That Iran dot org. NCR, that'sh Iran dot org.
That's our website. They can also go to the website
of Madame Mariam Rajavi Mariam m A R y A
M Rajavi r A j A v I and they
can get a lot of first hand information, unfiltered, which
(32:36):
our people get from Iran on a daily basis. You
know that's also a part of our endeavored to make
people aware that Iran is not synonymous with the mu
laws that rule them, and it's very important to get
the word out that there's a third option, an option
that identifies with the Union people and their aspiration and
their organized resistance. And trust me, the moment that is done,
(33:01):
the mulas will be unnotice.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
I hope that that happens one day. I hope you
have a democratic and pro western Iran. I really do
thank you for being on this podcast. I genuinely appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Me too, and have a good one and I wish
you and your viewers have the best of days ahead.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Hey, we'll be right back after this and now for
the ask Me Anything segment. If you want to be
part of the Ask Me Anything segment, email me Ryan
at numbers Game podcast dot com. That's ryanat numbers gamepodcast
dot com. You could even tweet me if you want
about the podcast and ask me a question. I will
answer on air about any issue you could possibly think
(33:39):
of that I know anything about, which is not sports,
So any sports questions. Although apparently the new Pope is
a White Sox fan or Cubs fan or something like
that doesn't sound well. I don't know. I don't know.
I got the cubs of the White Sox. But best
the luck to wealth those teams and the new Pope.
All Right, The question is my friend highly who says,
do you think the Pierre people inside the Trump administration
were actively trying to sabotage him? This is a very
(34:02):
good question. It is one that comes up a lot,
and it is very difficult to answer. I will say
that in the first Trump administration, I tweeted a list
of people who were actively working to us to go back.
I had a lot of sources, so I was working
as a reporter for part of the time inside the
first administration, very high up inside the trumdministration in the
(34:25):
Oval Office, who were telling me, these are lists of
people working to sit there and stop Trump. Many now
are prominent never trumpers. One was the anonymous guy I
was tweeting about him long before it was happening. Many
with the leakers that were coming out, And in that
case of the first administration, when it was so glaringly
obvious there were people working to stop Trump. The difference
(34:49):
was and I'm not I'm not spending a lot of
time talking about him because he's no longer in politics,
it doesn't really matter. But Jared Kushner really protected a
lot of those people, a lot of those people, and
he wasn't the only one. There were a lot of
people being protected. Kelly and Conway protected a lot of
those people from being fired or advocated for them. There
(35:10):
was a scene where it was the former head of
the Personnel Office who was hiring tons of never Trumpers,
the first Personnel Office, whose name I can't remember, and
it was pointed out to Trump with him in the
room that he was a leaker, and basically the whole
Oval office defended this guy and he was leaking. He
went to like the next room and leaked immediately against
(35:32):
Ginny Thomas, who was a Supreme Court justice. Clarence Thomas's
wife who made the point that he was one leaking,
or she was one of the people. She wasn't a
single person. There was another person in the room who
made the point, but she was one of the people
making the point that he was leaking. Anyway, it was
very obvious and there was an entire ecosystem within the
White House of the first term to protect the never trumpers,
(35:54):
the leakers, the people trying to create their own agenda.
This administration is new. I don't see that same framework
in the same way that the first term existed. Certainly not.
It's certainly a much more cohesive white House. Here's a
problem with saying somebody is against the Trump agenda or
trying to sabotage him. Trump's changes his minds a lot,
(36:17):
changes his mind quite often, right. He can be very impulsive,
and there are times when he takes two sides of
the same issue. So who is the one sabotaging him? Ultimately,
the issue lies when the president is something that you
don't like, or with the administration something you don't like.
(36:39):
The problem lies in the president. Nine times out of ten,
if he is allowing those people to be around him,
it is a problem of the president. Now, this administration
runs a lot smoother. I think Susie Willis has done
a very good job of facilitating a cohesive White House.
But as far as creating someone working against the president,
(37:00):
I wouldn't say that. I would say there are weaker
links in the administration. I think that the Commerce Secretary
Lutnik is an immensely weak link. I think he has
done no service to the president whatsoever. I think he's
been very problematic in his role every by the way,
he said hates when I say problematic, I still do it.
But he's been an issue in his role. I think
(37:23):
that Christy nom has had many issues in her role.
So but we'll see how long she stays around for.
But are they sabotaging the president? No? Are they weaker links? Yes?
Do they sometimes push their own agenda to the president
hoping he changes his mind? I believe so. So that's
my very long and short answer of it. It's not
(37:45):
as bad as the first White House. But are there
people who push their own agenda and hope the president
believes them? Yes? Does he do it sometimes? Yes? So
that's the long and short of it. Anyway, Thank you all.
Please email me some stuff. I love getting these kinds
of questions. It's a really good way to enter with
the audience. And if you like this podcast, please like
and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, wherever you
(38:06):
get your podcasts. Give me a five star review if
you're being generous, and I will see you guys on Thursday.
Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Gerdusky. I
want to thank you all for being here another week.
Happy Monday. I hope you all enjoyed the last week's
episodes on the Pope and demographics. It couldn't have come
at a better time because we have a new Pope.
It's big news for all the Catholics. Last Thursday, May eighth,
we elected our first American Pope. I, as a lifelong
(00:25):
cradle Catholic, never in my life believed I would ever
see an American pope. A Cardinal Robert provost Is from
Chicago is our new Pope. He has taken a name
of Poplio the fourteenth. Once again, very exciting for Catholics.
No matter how you kind of fill out on the
how religious you are American Catholics, it must be what
(00:47):
it must felt like for black Americans to see Obama
get elected. You just never thought you would see the
day an American Catholic would ever be. We rise the
position of the Pope. Some little facts about him to
go off of last week's episode. He's considered a more
moderate pope. He is less open than Francis, but more
of a centrist. He's not as I guess liberal as
(01:09):
Francis is and some doctrine stuff. He's going to be
a headache to conservatives on issues like migration because he
championed kind of more open borders or more refugees. That's
the way most cardinals are. It's just kind of how
it is. It's very annoying. What is the truth? But
he's the value pro life he has been. He's kind
of a mixed position on gays and lesbians, being more
(01:31):
open to them in the church. He's certainly more I guess,
right wing on that issue than Francis was. But I
think the most important thing from the managerial aspect, is
considered good with finances, and it could help desperately change
the shifting financial situation that the church is in, which
is pretty dire. We discussed that in the last week's
podcast on the Pope if you didn't hear about it.
(01:51):
He's also, by the way, there was a lot of
online chat that he's a registered Republican. He's from Illinois.
Illinois does not register people by partying. He did, however,
vote in several Republican primaries, so he's likely a Republican.
But in my personal experience, I have met many many
priests in my life, and I could count on one
hand how many of them were open Democrats. Usually priests
(02:13):
in my life i've ever met are are Republicans. Not
so much nuns. Nuns tend nuns, especially older nuns, tend
to be more liberal.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
But the.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Priests I've always met tend to be Republicans. I've met
very few democratic priests, and so this shouldn't surprise it.
But I don't think. I think it's important not to
put the role of the Pope and the and what
he has said and what he does in the context
of American politics. The Church is eternal. He is the
(02:48):
you know, he's sitting on the throne of Saint Peter
as the victor of Christ, and he's going to do
his best to protect the church and the integrity of
the Church. And I think that as a Catholic, we
should all pray for him to do the best job
that he possibly can. So it's my little spiel about
the Pope. And by then, also Sunday is Mother's Day.
Happy Mother's Day to my mom, who doesn't listen to
this podcast, but my other aunt's grandmother do so, Havy
(03:11):
Mother's Day to you. I hope for all the moms
and grandmothers and godmothers who listens podcasts, it was all
very special for you. This one made you feel special
on Mother's Day. I want to spend some time talking
about foreign policy because especially specifically an American first foreign policy,
because the media in this media environment we've heard, you know,
the media just it's it's like ping pong. It goes
(03:34):
back and forth constantly, knee jerk reaction to knee jerk
reaction to get people's head spinning about whatever topic is
of the moment, to either bash Trump or Elon or
you know the marilynd Man go now Salvador. Things that
don't hit people's lives as effectively as it does create narratives.
And it's very easy to crap on liberal media because
(03:57):
I mean, they have no shame. You can't you cannot
shame a liberal person VideA. I don't know if you,
by the way, if anyone saw this, but last week
or like late last week, Rachel Maddow was on Stephen
Colbert and these two looney tunes are sitting there with
complete straight faces, almost frowning and saying, I think this
is like Republicans are doing what they're doing because they
(04:19):
don't have to worry about an election. They think they
want to end democracy, they won't worry about elections in
the future. It is nonsensical fear porn. It is direct
dopamine hits for people who are chanting up the end
is near and that Trump's a dictator and we're in fascism,
and you know, it's like seeing the guy on the
(04:41):
side of the road who says, like the end is
coming and he's screaming repent. Now, I always think like
those people, like what if God comes back and you know,
he says, I send you a guy with the science
saying and is near. You should have known its near.
But anyway, that's it doesn't matter. ADHD is extremely strong today. Guys. Anyway,
that was Madam and copeire totally batshit crazy statements that
(05:03):
were utterly untrue, feeding nonsense to peoples whose brains have
become like worms, Like it is crazy. And I just
wish that like the next guest who is on the
show would have like looked at them and said, I
will bet you ten thousand dollars that we will hold
an election in eighteen months, that all of your fear
(05:26):
that you have been peddling to the American public is
not true. It's not going to be true. And in fact,
I will spend the ten thousand dollars if I lose,
But you have to apologize to the audience for misdirecting
them if you lose. That's what I would love. It's
probably not going to happen. But these people, I mean,
their brains have really rotted. The ones who are saying
(05:47):
the elections are over, it's just it's crazy. I even
saw the comedian Kathy Griffin on her podcast saying that, like,
you know, we should free Luigi. I mean, these people's
brains are broken and you can't fix them. You just can't.
You have to just keep it moving and you know,
hope that the government in charge makes the right moves.
And you can't obssess with people in the media. But
(06:07):
that's what everyone else does. So anyway, sorry, back to
foreign policy, which is what I was originally intending to
talk about. Not many people are talking about this schism
happening between the Trump administration and conservative media, and it's
over Iran, over the nation of Iran, and whether or
(06:28):
not Iran is in their urinium enrichment program intended to
build nuclear bombs is capable or will be capable soon,
and there's negotiations happening in the state of those negotiations.
This has been the concern of obviously presence, dating back decades.
The benefit of being middle aged now is that I
can remember a quarter of a century ago when George W.
(06:51):
Bush saying an attack against Iran was on the table.
This is right after the Iraq War, because they were
close to getting a nuclear bomb. This is two thousand
and six. This is almost twenty years ago that he
said they were very close to get an nuclear bomb,
and one of his memoirs he actually said there were
plans drawn up to attack Iran and they were backed
that last minute. And under the Bomb administration, obviously we
(07:12):
had the Iran deal to temporary limit uranium enrichment in
favor of increasing their oil sales, and it had some
minimal success in some capabilities, but it continued to fund
their terrorist organizations throughout the world. Wasn't really going to
change anything, and it really emboldened the current power regime
of Iran, which is a horrific tyrannical regime. That is
(07:36):
what real tyranny looks like. To the Rachel Meadows of
the world and to the Kathy Griffins of the world,
it doesn't look like Donald Trump. It looks like Iran. Currently,
the women of Iran who have protested their government are
one hundred times the feminists that any of these phony
pink hat wearing liberal loonies attacking Trump are anyway back
(07:58):
to Iran. Sorry, there is a substantial portion of the
Republican Party, especially in the media, that are actively rooting
for a military conflict with Iran. Trump picked his longtime
friend and fellow real estate developer Steve Wikoff to be
the Special Envoy to the Middle East, and he's actively
working on avoiding a war with Iran, trying to inc
(08:20):
ad deal to stop them from becoming a nuclear power.
And this has infuriated neo conservatives. The New York Post
President Trump's favorite paper, which regularly publishes neo conservaives, although
they have published me a few times, so I appreciate it,
but they do publish a lot of neo conservatives. They
said that wik Kopff was the wrong person to try
to get this deal and this agreement because he's too
(08:42):
he's not willing to, you know, put a war basically
on the table the day prior from them publishing that,
which is April thirtieth, on my birthday. Douglas Murray, a
buddy of mine who I know pretty well. He also
said that he was the wrong man for the job
in Douglas's you know, a fairly fairly vocal neoconservative. Wickoff
has had some early successes in his job, including the
(09:03):
release of thirty three hostages from Hamas, including two Americans,
and he struck a deal with the Iranian Bakkuthis and
Yemen to stop attacking our ships. So things are happening.
Secretary of Rubia was very happy with the work that
he's been doing, so as President Trump and considering the
aspect of that, I'm thirty eight years old. I have
seen this same movie for twenty five years almost, or
(09:27):
twenty years almost, where the chatter from the pro war
crowd is that Iran is going to develop this nuclear
weapon any day now. It's kind of like how liberals say,
like Trump, the walls are closing and it's any day now,
any day now, any day now. I kind of feel
like any rush towards conflict is very dumb and very
short sighted and a war weary America is not up
(09:48):
for it. Any which way that we could avoid any
kind of military conflict while de escalating the situation is
well worth it. But I'm not an expert in Ron.
I've never been there, bas looking for most America has
never been there. But my next guest is and he
can tell us more about the situation, a possible conflict,
and how the Iranian people feel up. Next with me
(10:12):
today is Shahim Gobadi. He is from the National Council
of Resistance of Iran. Thank you for being here, Shahim,
thank you for having me. Now. On Thursday, it was
discovered that Iran has another nuclear site that was previously undisclosed.
What can you tell my audience about the state of
Iran's nuclear program as it stands today.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Actually, this new revelation was made by the National Council
of Resistance of Iran, which is the coalition of Iranian
democratic opposition movements like the Parliament in Exile of the Resistance.
We have had more than one hundred and ten revelations,
but various aspects of the Iran nuclear the first program
going back three decades, particularly in the last two decades.
(10:57):
All I can tell you is that the Iranian regime
is on the cost of getting nuclear weapons. What do
you mean by this? While the world has focused on
how much in rich uranium the regime has, which is
enough for at least six nuclear bombs. For a nuclear bomb,
you need other weaponization and also delivery system basically warheads
(11:21):
to be carried by ballistic missiles. And the point of
the matter is that the regime has worked on the
other two aspects very much diligently and concurrently with the enrichment.
So they have the rich uranium, they are working on vaponization,
they're working on delivery system. Actually today if you reveal
another side which has been unknown before, working in tandem
(11:44):
with this ballistic missile program for nuclear warheads. So the
regime has been working very hard to this, and particularly
in the last year and a half or two that
it has been much weaker at home and has been
much weaker in the region. You have relied more on
acquired nuclear weapons as the guarant tour for their survival.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Now, so I am thirty eight years old, and for
the last since I was about fourteen, about a quarter
of a century, I have heard that Iran is within
days of getting a nuclear weapon since the Iraq War. Essentially,
the drum beat for a war with Iran has been
very real. It's been championed by a number of American
(12:26):
politicians going back to the Bush administration, and it's never
come to fruition. So how how much can we rely
on the evidence that Iran is very close to a
nuclear webon this time?
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Well, you have to bear in mind that we are
the movement. As I said, I suppose the Hidian secret
nuclear facilities, most enrichment in Natans back in two thousand
and two, prolutonium site again in two thousand and two,
many many research sites, many many scientists, and this is
based on people on the ground, what they call human intelligence.
(13:04):
And according to Los Alamos Research, more than ninety five
percent of the NCIL revelations have been corroborated one wey
or the other. The fact of the matter is, we
never ever advocated for a war a year on. We
do not believe the solution is a military solution. Rather,
from the day one, all they have asked for is
(13:26):
a solid policy. You know what the problem has been
in the last twenty four years that you refer to,
Actually the time you're referring to is exactly August fourteen,
two thousand and two, that my very colleague whould the
press conference today, held a press conference in the middle
of summer in Washington, and at that time nobody wanted
to believe Iran has a new crear program. Then when
(13:47):
the IA went there they saw it, then they start
believing it. All we always ask for is a robust policy.
What was a robust policy. Robost policy is holding regime
accountable for its nefarious conduct, to impose tough sanctions on
the region, to prevent it from the means to advocate
and advance this nuclear weapons program, and to recognize the
(14:10):
right of the Union people and the resistance to being
about the regime change by themselves. But what happened in
reality administration after administration, and I don't only think about
inside the United States, I'm talking about the other side
of Atlantic too. People thought that by giving concessions to
the regime to get involved in endless negotiations, they can
(14:32):
somehow miraculously talk this region out of driving for nuclear weapons.
And where we are today. Actually, if there were a
robust policy two decades ago, the situation would not have
got to where we are today. But unfortunately, as I said,
appiacement after appeacement got us very well. Today, while the
threat is very real, we never advocated and we were
(14:54):
never a proponent of a military confrontation with your role
because you don't think that's solution.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
I'm not saying you have been necessarily, but there are
people in America certainly that have and they are the
ones who've been saying for all these decades that Iran's
nuclear program is within and is very capable, and it's
going to happen any day now. And obviously Iran is
a big supporter of terrorism around the entire globe. One
(15:20):
thing I would like to know is you mentioned about,
you know, sanctions, which we already have sanctions on Iran.
What what good does it do if the United States
is sanctions on Iran, but like China doesn't or Russia doesn't.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Well, you have to remember we are talking about sanctions.
We are talking about also secondary sanctions of what we're
buyasi in a gas, and we're talking about sanctioning where
it basically tifles the regime's social revenue. Because the fact
of the matter is all the money that this regime gets,
every single dying that it gets is useful repressing Ranian people,
(15:59):
is used to advance. This nuclear program is used to
advance this missile program, is used to stipend its proxies
all over the world and the region actually and it's
been will be plundered by you know, the regime's top brass.
None of this gets to the Ranian people. So basically
what happens is the region cells the Union people's wealth.
They're oil, their gas and other resources to finance its
(16:21):
nefarious conduct, which the first and the primary victims of
the Anion people themselves. While the world is concerned about
the nuclear weapons, are concerned about you know, regimes terrorism,
But for me as an Iranian, it's also very important
what the regime does to its own citizens. That's first
and foremost, you know, in the last two in the
last four decades, which NCRII the National Consular Resistance of Iran,
(16:44):
has been battling to bring about a regime change, and
I have to emphasize by the Iranians, for the Iranians.
More of one hundreds and twenty thousand good Iranians as
it gets thirteen years old and as old as seventy
two men and women have been executed by this RATIONI
solely for striving for democracy, no rights. So for us,
the issue is not solely you know, international or foreign.
(17:07):
That's about, you know, the dignity of our people, our country,
and democracy in our country and freedom, which you know
Iranians deserve very much like any other nation on the
face of the earth.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
So I want to I want to go into the
Iranian people in a second, but but I want to
go back to the policy Iran for for just a moment.
Should Iran have any sort of Urinian program, because they're
talking about that should have a certain level. The t
from administration has been negotiating. You know, couldn't they en
rich at all? But should they be allowed in your
(17:37):
opinion of any sort of are.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Giving a nuclear program has to be shut down. Actually,
the NCRI, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, has
a ten point plan for the future of Iran, which
has been articulated by Madame Mariam Bradjavi, the President elect
of the Iranian Resistance. Madame Mariam Bradjevi is the person
that the resistance has elected to be the president for
a transitional period when the Mullahs are ousted and Iran
(18:01):
is democratic and one item of that plan, in addition
to separation of religion and government and gender equality and
freedom and rights of all the ethnic and national minorities,
is a non nuclear run. So we believe Iran does
not need nuclear program. It does not make any sense
at all. It's not economically savvy. It's actually very consprobative
(18:25):
for a country like Iran. You know, investing so much
an Iranian nuclear program is like an Eskimo investing on
a fridge or a refrigerator. You know, you're talking about
a country which is sitting on the second biggest oil
gas reserves in the world, the fourth biggest oil reserve
in the world, a country which has one person of
(18:48):
the population in the world but has somewhere from seven
to eight percent of the world minerals, even according to
the regime's own estimates. I read a report, internal report,
but there is Parliament back in two thousand and five,
and I have the document. We said, creating you know,
power plants based on nuclear energy in Iran. It does
(19:10):
not make any sense, they said, be that's kind of
a price. In a normal situation, we can build ten
fossil fuel you know plants in Iran. Because the energy
is so cheap, So all can one wonder why this
regime is so insistent on nuclear program. It's all obvious
it's for weapons. It has no civilian purpose. And the
(19:31):
only party that is so intransigent about this whole thing
is the regime.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
What do you make of Steve Wikoff, President Trump's and
Special envoy to the Middle East and what his work
has been with Iran?
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Well, obviously I know they are trying to reach a
good deal, but I think that it starts from the
point that they have to realize that there's nothing civilian.
There's nothing benevolent in this whole program from the onset.
It has been for military purposes, and there's so much
facts to prove this. If it was civilian and for
(20:08):
good purposes, why the regime is so secretive about this?
You know, none of its sites, none of its size,
has ever been informed of the IAEA by the regime itself.
All of the sites have been told to the IEA
after we have told on them by our network inside
the country. So or why do they allow the ia
to interview their scientists? Why they don't you know, allow
(20:32):
snapback inspections, I mean snap inspections. So there's obviously more
than one eskeleton in the closets.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
What do you make of Israel's what they've been doing
the wrong, which just feels like every couple of months
you hear about Israel having either a cyber attack or
killing a scientist or something or other to just kind
of slow down or stop Iran's nuclear program.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
I think the Iranian problem has an Urnian solution. You know,
what has been missing in all of the paradigm comes
to you run in all these years, in the twenty
four plus years that you mentioned you have been following
the Union situation in the last quarter century. The biggest
missing element is the role of the Unian people and
the resistance. That's the fact that we changed the whole calculus.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Well, let's talk about the Iranian people then, because I
mean I have followed a number of resistance movements by
the Iranian people. There was the Green Revolution. Most recently,
there was a very very brave effort on the part
of Iranian women to expose their hair and cut their hair.
Was deeply, deeply moving what they were doing, But it
(21:39):
war one. What is the feeling of the leadership by
the people of Iran.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
They hate the regime in its entirety, How can you
gauge that? Since December two thousand and seven, seventeen, sorry,
which is you know, seven and a half years, there
has been four major nationwide uprisings in Iran, all of
them calling for the regimes overthrow. And each time the
(22:08):
uprising gets bigger, more pervasive, more inclusive, people from all
walks of life, all age groups. The last one you
just mentioned that it started in September twenty two and
went on for months and months, included all thirty one
provinces of Iran, somewhere in like three hundred cities and
towns throughout the country. Now it's a very really number.
(22:30):
So there's a nationwide sentiment. According to the regime's own
public figures, ninety six percent of the people of Irn
hate this regime. That's amazing. Ninety six percent of people
want a regime change. So that's the sentiment.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Yeah. So, as someone who reads a lot about demographics
and studies a lot of how populations are acting both
economically and socially, Iran's people the action, not the leadership,
but the people. Well, you know, they have relatively few children,
They try to buy homes, they like, they enjoy Western
media as much as they can get it. I would
(23:09):
love to see a future of a western, a pro
Western Iran. I think that we I think that it's
possible based on the population, Unlike let's say the population
of I'm just using an example Afghanistan, whom are not
pro Western in essence and they don't have the ability
to be pro Western and govern themselves. I think Iran
(23:29):
does how do we get there? You've mentioned sanctions, you
mentioned having a correct response, But if I mean does
does a does a revolution involve a military uprising of
some sorts? I just wanted how what is what is
the domino that has not fallen? Given that these protests
(23:51):
have gone up, have increased that the governments of the
West have put heavy emphasis. What is the domino that
has not fallen needs to fall? To get there?
Speaker 2 (24:01):
I think the ultimate solution would be another uprising by
the Venian people. Said, if you look at the trajectory,
it's getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and the slogans
are are becoming more demanding. What I'm saying is that
people have kiss goodbye to the regime, have been calling
for the overthrow the leader, the Supreme Leader, which everything
(24:23):
is hit, which hinges upon. Also, what's the way telling
is that thinking the last uprising people also rejected an
ignotion of going back to the time of monarchy the
last shot they have been you know, chanting down with
the operasor being the shaw or the Supreme Leader, which
meant that they're fully cognized of the fan that they
(24:43):
reject dictatorshow any shape and form. So the solution will be,
you know, basically what I would say, revolution by the people.
And also you have to remember there's an organized resistance
on the ground in the form of resistance units which
are affiliated to the people as much a headn't organize
position of run. These are the biggest resistance movement inside
the country, which are part of the n CR. So
(25:05):
you have it.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
I thought the shot was fairly popular though or or
the family of the show was popular.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
Well, the fact of the matter is you have to
remember the shot was boots Or of Iraq by popular
uprising for the obvious reasons. It was very oppressive. He
was very corrupt.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Well, I guess less oppressive than the current ones. So
it's everything's I guess in perspective, and I'm not advocating
for the shot I'm just I'm just sorry. ADHD is
very real today. So but but that's but when it comes.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Asking for is basically what will happen is that there
would be an uprising by the people that will take
the balance. Now, the question is what kind of a
policy we advocate from the West. The VEST should not
sit on the fence, as they say. While we do
not advocate boots underground, we are not seeking weapons from
any country. We're not asking money from any country. But
(25:56):
we think the VEST should have a much active policy
on Iran on these components. First of all, as I said,
you have to have much tougher sanctions on the regime
to prevent them to have the money to continue financing
is apparatus of repression and belligerence. Number Two, the UN
Security Council resolutions that are suspended because of the nuclear
(26:16):
deal have to be reactivated because the regime has violated
that resolution time and again. And Third, I think it's
very important politically that the West, and here in a
specific the United States, should recognize the right of the
Union people in the Runian youth to bring about a
regime change and establish a democratic government. That's very important.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
So we should recognize And I'm just clarifying, I'm not
battling claring so you like like the Trump administration or
the president I states whoever it will be at any
given time to recognize a leader not being the current one,
but whom is recognized by I guess a movement of
people of Iran, even if the current leadership is there.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
True, but also more important is the concept that, look,
we realize that the Unians have the right to bring
about the regime change by themselves. I think that sense
shock faves to the Mulas. It also sends a very
positive message to the Unians that the world is on
their side, that instead of thinking passe, the world realizes
who is the Union people are right, the resistance is right.
(27:23):
And you know the Mulas are are doomed to be
overthrown by the Uranian people. Now, how and when would
that happen? Obviously nobody has a crystal ball to give
you you know on exact date that this will happen.
But if you look at the trajectory, the last two
or three years has been awfully bad for the Mullahs.
First of all, the uprising that you just mentioned, especially
(27:44):
because the young generation has been very active, including men
and women. That's important. Also from a regional perspective, the
regime has received a lot of you know, devastating blows.
His wole law has been basically you know decimated. Who
is obviously you know, which are armed by the regime
and finance and propped up, are very much in trouble.
(28:05):
And most importantly, the bachelor Assad regime in Syria, which
was like the full crumb or the lynchpin of the
regime's regional strategy, was gone eleven days. So if I
may say, in one word, all the chickens are coming
home for the Supreme leader to roost at the same time.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
So well, okay, my last, my last question for you,
and this is a complicated one. So you've said that
we shouldn't get involved militarily, and this something I very
much agree with, is we shouldn't be involved militarily, and
I disagree hell with the people who are advocating for that.
But if Iran is let's say, days away or weeks
away or months away even from a nuclear weapon, what
(28:47):
do you do then? How do you counter that? Is
it just sanctions and hoping it all goes away, or
is it a technological strike? Or is it something else.
I don't know what you would what the what the
Western governments would you do if Iran is as nuclear
capable as people are saying that they are.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Well, Honestly, I did not say that Iran is days away,
because the people who say Iran is days away only
think about enrichment. But as I said, there's also weaponization.
There's also a delivery system for the stick missile. The
world doesn't have much time, I should say. But as
I said, the policy that we propose and we advocate,
and as I said, Madame Mariam Rajevi testified before the
(29:32):
US Congress online just on January of this year, and
she said, look, just change the whole policy. What does
that mean? As you said, much tougher sanctions, put Iran
on their Chapter seven of the Unions Security Council mandate,
which means that the regime is a global threat, and
also change the attitude toward the resistance and the winning people.
(29:54):
If you think that, you know, if the people of
Iran are given political encouragement to know that in fact,
the world is on their side, the world would not,
you know, sit idle. And I'm talking about politically and
morally that would make a big difference. Time is not
in the favor of the moloss As I said, if
(30:15):
you look at the trajectory, there has been four uprisings
in seven years alone, so another one is inevitable. And
you don't have to trust me. If you read the
regimes on press, if you listen to the regimes analysts,
even a lot of the regime's own officials are warning
the way things are going, another uprising is inevitable. They're
(30:36):
seventy percent of the population live below the poverty line.
You know, this is a huge number of people. The
lower class is getting smaller, I mean, middle class is
getting smaller and smaller, and the regime is getting more
and more isolated. And also what's important is that you
have a vible alternative against the regime. So that's important
(30:59):
to realize that, you know, the resistance has done its
work over the years, a network inside the country, a
political platform, a clear plan for future, and identify the leader,
which as I said, is very much known to the
US Congress and the US Senate. More than four thousand
members of parliaments have endorsed this plant. Basically, Iranian people
(31:19):
have done a lot to be where they are today,
But I think the world would be much better off
to be on their side, to only think about, you know,
attack or not attack. The narrative that you either bomb
them or you pisce their hands and placate them. I
(31:39):
think the narrative that the mulahs propagated over the years.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Well, that's a great that's a great way to that's
a great way to leave it off. And I think
that's really important context, especially to an American audience who
only hears that the solutions either go with the Supreme
Leader or full on war. The American people are overwhelming
(32:04):
against Shahinkobadi. Where can people research and learn more about
the National Councils of National Council of Resistance of Iran.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Well, there's a good website called NCR National Councular Resistance
so NCR. That Iran dot org. NCR, that'sh Iran dot org.
That's our website. They can also go to the website
of Madame Mariam Rajavi Mariam m A R y A
M Rajavi r A j A v I and they
can get a lot of first hand information, unfiltered, which
(32:36):
our people get from Iran on a daily basis. You
know that's also a part of our endeavored to make
people aware that Iran is not synonymous with the mu
laws that rule them, and it's very important to get
the word out that there's a third option, an option
that identifies with the Union people and their aspiration and
their organized resistance. And trust me, the moment that is done,
(33:01):
the mulas will be unnotice.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
I hope that that happens one day. I hope you
have a democratic and pro western Iran. I really do
thank you for being on this podcast. I genuinely appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Me too, and have a good one and I wish
you and your viewers have the best of days ahead.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Hey, we'll be right back after this and now for
the ask Me Anything segment. If you want to be
part of the Ask Me Anything segment, email me Ryan
at numbers Game podcast dot com. That's ryanat numbers gamepodcast
dot com. You could even tweet me if you want
about the podcast and ask me a question. I will
answer on air about any issue you could possibly think
(33:39):
of that I know anything about, which is not sports,
So any sports questions. Although apparently the new Pope is
a White Sox fan or Cubs fan or something like
that doesn't sound well. I don't know. I don't know.
I got the cubs of the White Sox. But best
the luck to wealth those teams and the new Pope.
All Right, The question is my friend highly who says,
do you think the Pierre people inside the Trump administration
were actively trying to sabotage him? This is a very
(34:02):
good question. It is one that comes up a lot,
and it is very difficult to answer. I will say
that in the first Trump administration, I tweeted a list
of people who were actively working to us to go back.
I had a lot of sources, so I was working
as a reporter for part of the time inside the
first administration, very high up inside the trumdministration in the
(34:25):
Oval Office, who were telling me, these are lists of
people working to sit there and stop Trump. Many now
are prominent never trumpers. One was the anonymous guy I
was tweeting about him long before it was happening. Many
with the leakers that were coming out, And in that
case of the first administration, when it was so glaringly
obvious there were people working to stop Trump. The difference
(34:49):
was and I'm not I'm not spending a lot of
time talking about him because he's no longer in politics,
it doesn't really matter. But Jared Kushner really protected a
lot of those people, a lot of those people, and
he wasn't the only one. There were a lot of
people being protected. Kelly and Conway protected a lot of
those people from being fired or advocated for them. There
(35:10):
was a scene where it was the former head of
the Personnel Office who was hiring tons of never Trumpers,
the first Personnel Office, whose name I can't remember, and
it was pointed out to Trump with him in the
room that he was a leaker, and basically the whole
Oval office defended this guy and he was leaking. He
went to like the next room and leaked immediately against
(35:32):
Ginny Thomas, who was a Supreme Court justice. Clarence Thomas's
wife who made the point that he was one leaking,
or she was one of the people. She wasn't a
single person. There was another person in the room who
made the point, but she was one of the people
making the point that he was leaking. Anyway, it was
very obvious and there was an entire ecosystem within the
White House of the first term to protect the never trumpers,
(35:54):
the leakers, the people trying to create their own agenda.
This administration is new. I don't see that same framework
in the same way that the first term existed. Certainly not.
It's certainly a much more cohesive white House. Here's a
problem with saying somebody is against the Trump agenda or
trying to sabotage him. Trump's changes his minds a lot,
(36:17):
changes his mind quite often, right. He can be very impulsive,
and there are times when he takes two sides of
the same issue. So who is the one sabotaging him? Ultimately,
the issue lies when the president is something that you
don't like, or with the administration something you don't like.
(36:39):
The problem lies in the president. Nine times out of ten,
if he is allowing those people to be around him,
it is a problem of the president. Now, this administration
runs a lot smoother. I think Susie Willis has done
a very good job of facilitating a cohesive White House.
But as far as creating someone working against the president,
(37:00):
I wouldn't say that. I would say there are weaker
links in the administration. I think that the Commerce Secretary
Lutnik is an immensely weak link. I think he has
done no service to the president whatsoever. I think he's
been very problematic in his role every by the way,
he said hates when I say problematic, I still do it.
But he's been an issue in his role. I think
(37:23):
that Christy nom has had many issues in her role.
So but we'll see how long she stays around for.
But are they sabotaging the president? No? Are they weaker links? Yes?
Do they sometimes push their own agenda to the president
hoping he changes his mind? I believe so. So that's
my very long and short answer of it. It's not
(37:45):
as bad as the first White House. But are there
people who push their own agenda and hope the president
believes them? Yes? Does he do it sometimes? Yes? So
that's the long and short of it. Anyway, Thank you all.
Please email me some stuff. I love getting these kinds
of questions. It's a really good way to enter with
the audience. And if you like this podcast, please like
and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, wherever you
(38:06):
get your podcasts. Give me a five star review if
you're being generous, and I will see you guys on Thursday.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.