US-Iran Crisis: Trump's Ultimatum & Gaza's Stalemate

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is the paid advertisement from Betterhelp. Let's pause and
take a moment to talk about something very important. Life
has its pressures for everyone, and we often carry the
immense weight of expectation to never show weakness, to hide
our true feelings, and believe that asking for support somehow
makes us less of a person. But bottling things up
isn't the answer. It can often lead to feeling down, burnout,

(00:23):
or other unhealthy habits. We want to normalize the idea
that it's okay to struggle. Real strength actually comes from
opening up about what you are carrying and doing something
about it so that you can be at your best
for yourself and everyone in your life. If you're feeling
the way of the world, or even if things just
feel a bit off. I can't stress enough the value
of talking to someone. It could be a friend, a

(00:46):
loved one, or a therapist. We here this week explained
believe that therapy can be incredibly valuable. Whether you've been
in therapy personally or not, the broader benefits are clear.
It's so helpful for learning positive coping skills, understanding how
to set healthy boundaries, and it really empowers you to
be the best version of yourself, and it's so important

(01:07):
to remember that therapy isn't just for those who've experienced
combat or major trauma. It's a tool for anyone looking
to improve their mental well being and navigate life's challenges.
That's why we're thrilled to talk about better Help. With
over five thousand therapists in the UK. Better Help is
the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over five
million people globally, and it clearly resonates with users, boasting

(01:31):
an app store rating of four point nine out of
five stars based on over one point seven million client
review it's also incredibly convenient. You can connect with a
therapist at the click of a button, helping you fit
therapy into your busy schedule, and you can even switch
therapists at any time if you feel it's not the
right fit. And here's something special for our listeners. As

(01:51):
the largest online therapy provider in the world, better Help
is offering our listeners ten percent off their first month.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
What are you waiting for?

Speaker 1 (01:59):
Talk it out with better help once again. Our listeners
get teen percent off their first month by going to
betterhelp dot com slash this week. That's b E T
T E r H e l P dot com slash
this week.

Speaker 3 (02:24):
Tired of feeling overwhelmed by the headlines, want to truly
understand the why behind the global chaos? Then you are
in the right place. Welcome to this Week Explained, your
weekly deep dive into the most complex and impactful story
shaping our world. I'm Tiana and joining me as always
is Curvin. Before we jump into the crucial developments of
the week, a quick favor. If you want to ensure

(02:46):
you never miss an episode, make sure you're following or
subscribed on your podcast platform. It literally takes two seconds
and keeps you instantly updated. And if you are getting
value from what we do here.

Speaker 1 (02:57):
A simple rating or review on Apple Podcast or Spotify
helps us reach more curious minds like yours.

Speaker 3 (03:04):
And don't forget the new interactive comments on Spotify. It's
a fantastic way to engage directly with the show and
other listeners, extending the conversation beyond the broadcast. You can
also find more fantastic podcasts like ours by visiting leonmedianetwork
dot com, part of the awesome Leon Media Network. This week,
we're diving into the latest from Ukraine and Gaza and

(03:25):
Iran's threats toward US President Donald Trump. Let's kick things
off with the war in Ukraine. Last week we discussed
the unsettling news of a temporary halt in US arm
shipments to Ukraine, raising concerns about the immediate impact on
their defenses. Today we have a significant update, So Kurvin,
let's jump right on into it. What is the latest
on military supplies to Ukraine.

Speaker 4 (03:48):
Oh, Tiannata. The good news here is that the US
has resumed military supplies to Ukraine's President Vladimir Zelenski even
confirmed this a week after the US briefly paused some
critical arm shipments. As the crucial development given the escalating
situation on the ground from Russia.

Speaker 3 (04:07):
We keep doing that, though didn't like hegseeth pause it
like twice.

Speaker 2 (04:11):
We talked about that.

Speaker 4 (04:12):
We talked about that last week. Yeah, and it kept
getting The word the media would use is overturned.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
The word or the phrase.

Speaker 4 (04:24):
That the White House and the Trump administration would use
is it was reevaluated and then extended. So yeah, they
paused it for a bit. Now they've opened it back up,
sending munitions to Ukraine, helping in the defense of Ukraine
from Russian attacks which have escalated astronomically, I would say

(04:47):
in the last couple of months.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
Now, well, that has got to be huge, rely freaky.

Speaker 3 (04:54):
We heard about President Trump's involvement, So can you elaborate
on the details of this renewed aid, especially regarding the
highly sought after Patriot air defense systems. Yeah?

Speaker 4 (05:03):
Absolutely, And President Trump announced that he did strike a
deal with NATO for the US to send Patriot air
defense systems to Ukraine via that alliance. And this is
a significant move, especially after that surge of Russian aerial
attacks that I just alluded to. And Trump stated that
NATO's actually going to reimburse the full cost of these munitions.

(05:27):
And we know, as we discussed last week, NATO has
agreed to increase defense funding. I'm sure that's all part
of the process of this whole agreement that they have here.
And Zelenski also added that Jerremany is ready to pay
for two Patriot missile systems, Norway is going to pay
for one, so that's three additional systems for Ukraine, and

(05:51):
then other European partners are prepared to contribute. I'm sure
Poland is going to be one of those that are
going to push to contribute to a Patriot air defense
because Russia is right there on the border. So this
multilateral approach is a clear sign of urgency for Western Europe.

Speaker 3 (06:08):
So this is not just the US directly, but a
broader coordinated effort through NATO.

Speaker 2 (06:13):
That's it's a novel approach.

Speaker 3 (06:15):
So what was the specific concern when the shipments were
initially halted and how critical are these Patriots systems?

Speaker 4 (06:23):
Yeah, the pause had Zelensky highly concerned because he's concerned
about the impact on Ukraine's defenses, particularly with critical armaments
like Patriot systems and precision artillery shells being stopped. Now,
these Patriot batteries are absolutely vile to Ukraine. They detect
and intercept incoming missiles. They're considered the world's best air

(06:45):
defense system. Ukraine has been requesting them for a few
months now, and each additional battery allows them to protect
more cities and more critical infrastructure. They are expensive though,
they're about a billion dollars for one battery, so one battery,
one system, and that explains why allies have been hesitant

(07:06):
to part with them from their own stocks.

Speaker 3 (07:09):
That cost certainly highlights their value and the commitment required.
So let's shift the discussion to these Russian attacks that
you've been alluding to. The public information we have points
to a significant increase in recent weeks. What is this
the current state of the war on the ground, especially
regarding these aerial assaults.

Speaker 4 (07:29):
The situation on the ground remains incredibly tense and has,
in fact, as I said, worsened in terms of aerial attacks.
So Russia has drastically stepped up its drone and missile
bombardments on Ukrainian cities. Just this week, Ukraine reported that
Russia launched over seven hundred attack and decoy drones overnight.
This relentless assault is designed to overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses

(07:53):
and these attacks have actually led to a three year
high and civilian casualties in the month of June. Now
the UN has verified at least two hundred and thirty
two hundred and thirty two people have been killed in
the last month and over thirteen hundred injured.

Speaker 2 (08:08):
Are we talking about civilians?

Speaker 3 (08:10):
Do they keep you know, unlike the fighting in Gaza
where Hamas lumpson civilian and Hama's deaths altogether, is.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
It did this thing here?

Speaker 4 (08:20):
No, that is not the case. And that's just because
of the reporting system, right, So the UN is on
the ground and the Ukrainian Ukrainian health services along with
Western European health services are corroborating those numbers, and so
these are civilian casualties.

Speaker 3 (08:40):
Well, that is a devastating toll. Are there specific areas
being targeted and how is Ukraine attempting to counter these attacks?

Speaker 4 (08:51):
Yeah? Absolutely so. Russian forces are increasingly concentrating massive strike
packages against there's two main target cities and they're trying
to overwhelm the defenses of those cities. Those would be
Kiv and Kharkiv. They've been particularly they've been hit particularly
hard over the last month. Just this week, a Russian

(09:14):
drone attack in Kharkiv damaged a maternity hospital. It's devastating
for the people of Ukraine. In a response, Ukraine is
ramping up its own drone interceptor programs. Kiv City, for example,
is allocating funds for what they call a clean Sky program.
That program is to use interceptor drones to defend against

(09:35):
nightly attacks there in the city. While Ukraine and air
defenses are intercepting many of these incoming projectiles. They were
poorly shot down two hundred ninety six drones and seven
missiles out of that recent record barrage. The sheer volume
is a massive challenge to Ukraine now. Ukrainian intelligence also
believes Russia's expanding its domestic drone production, and some analysts

(09:59):
suggest that they could soon launch one thousand drones a night.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
One thousand drones at night.

Speaker 3 (10:06):
I mean, I can see why there is such an
ergency for these patriot deliveries. But beyond air defense, what
other developments are we seeing on the battlefield this week?

Speaker 1 (10:16):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (10:16):
So in the battlefield, Russian forces have made some limited advances,
particularly in Donetsk and Sumai regions. Ukrainian and intelligence, however,
assesses that Russia's goal of seizing the entirety of Donetsk
by the end of twenty twenty five is not realistic.
There have also been reports of Ukrainian counterattacks and areas
near Sumai. The Institute for the Study of War notes

(10:39):
that Russian forces are taking very high casualties for a
disproportionately small amount of gains.

Speaker 3 (10:46):
That sounds like a grinding war of attrition, with the
aerial dimension becoming more.

Speaker 1 (10:53):
Even more critical. So what about the diplomatic front?

Speaker 3 (10:55):
We know Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with foreign
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Speaker 2 (11:01):
So what came of those discussions?

Speaker 4 (11:05):
Yeah, they actually met in Malaysia this week, and while
Secretary of Rubio described the conversation as frank, he echoed
President Trump's frustration at the lack of progress in peace
talks and Russia's perceived inflexibility. Now, Rubio mentioned that they
shared some new ideas on how to conduct on how
the conflict should conclude or could conclude, which he was

(11:28):
going to go and take it back to Trump, but
no specifics have been revealed as of Vietna. Interestingly, Russia's
Foreign Ministry readout emphasized discussions about bilateral US Russian issues
rather than just talking about the conflict in Ukraine or
Ukraine itself. So that suggests a potential criminin effort to

(11:49):
shift that focus.

Speaker 3 (11:52):
And President Trump himself has indicated some growing first vision
with Putin, not just indicated, he's flat out stated that
he's frustrated with Putin. Yes, yeahso mentioned a quote major
statement end quote on Russia coming on Monday.

Speaker 2 (12:06):
So that's tomorrow for us, probably.

Speaker 3 (12:09):
Day oh for you guys, Any idea what that might entail.

Speaker 4 (12:15):
Yeah, and that's the billion dollar question here, Tianna. So
Trump told NBC News that he was quote not happy
end quote with Putin, and the lack of bars towards
ending the war is something he is very concerned about.
Trump is how even complain that Putin's very nice attitude
turned out to be meaningless. Had President Trump been listening

(12:38):
to this podcast, he would have already known that that
was probably going to happen, because we kind of harp
on that a lot on this podcast. Can't trust what
Putin says. He's only trying to do is what his
original goal was, which is to take over Kiev and
take over all of Ukraine. Now, Trump confirmed he would

(12:58):
make a major state on Monday, the day this episode
will come out, but he gave no hints about what
is going to be in that statement. Now, given the
renewed aid in his express frustration, it could range from
further escalations and support for Ukraine, maybe a new diplomatic initiative,

(13:19):
or perhaps even a more direct challenge to Putin's approach.
We'll have to wait and see.

Speaker 2 (13:25):
We do gotta wait till tomorrow.

Speaker 3 (13:28):
So, finally, Kurvin, any of the significant geopolitical developments that
stand out from this past week.

Speaker 4 (13:35):
Yes, on a related note, there has been some movement
regarding future stabilization efforts. European allies, with a US delegation
that was present there for the first time, have agreed
to establish a headquarters in Paris, France for a post
ceasefire multinational force for Ukraine. If you remember, we've discussed
this on the podcast a few months ago. Having a

(13:56):
multinational force of peacekeepers wants the cease fire is agreed to,
and this force would provide logistical and training support to
reconstitute Ukraine's armed forces. Also, the UK announced a new
defense agreement with Ukraine, but include additional military assistance and
joint defense production, providing over five thousand air defense interceptors.

(14:19):
This highlights the growing commitment from European partners to bolster
Ukraine's long term security. And one more thing. The European
Court of Human Rights issued a ruling on July ninth,
and they found Russia responsible for flagrant and widespread human
rights violations in occupied parts of Ukraine and during the
full scale invasion. That includes indiscriminate attacks, summary executions, and

(14:42):
even the use of rape as a weapon.

Speaker 1 (14:44):
Of war.

Speaker 3 (14:47):
That is vile, even though absolutely that ruling isn't going
to result in anything, is it. It's just them saying,
just stating it, like putting it on record, that they
don't agree with what's happened.

Speaker 4 (15:01):
Absolutely, it's one for the history books, right, So one
hundred years later, what they're thinking is what at least
it is written that the European Court of Human Rights
knew this was going on, they couldn't do anything to
stop it, but they pointed the finger at Russia for
doing Yeah, there's no legal binding in any of this.

Speaker 3 (15:22):
Yeah, so an important reminder of the human cost of
this conflict. We will be watching for President Trump's statement
on Monday and the ongoing developments in Ukraine, but that
will have to wait for next week's episode. So now
let's shift to the Midle East and more specifically the
war in Gaza. I want to start with a rather

(15:43):
extraordinary development involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nttnill, who, in
some very strong words aimed at The New York Times,
his office issued then very quickly retracted a lengthy statement
this week. So Kurvin walk us through what happened here.

Speaker 4 (16:00):
Yeah, very interesting moment. There at the core of it
was this New York Times report that essentially accused Prime
Minister and Yahoo of prolonging the Gaza War, with the
implied motive being to rehabilitate his political standing after the
October seventh atrocities and to cling to power. This isn't

(16:21):
a novel idea. It's just that the New York Times
wrote about it, got sources and quoted those sources and
basically wrote it as if this was factual. I say that,
as if this was factual, because we just don't know
it could one hundred percent be factual. That that is

(16:42):
why he's prolonging this war. I think you've said that
on many occasions, Jenna, That's what it.

Speaker 2 (16:48):
Yeah, I've said that.

Speaker 4 (16:51):
Not in not in a sense that we have the
sources and we've fact checked all of it, but reading
between the lines and you know, seeing what has been
going on.

Speaker 1 (17:00):
Yeah, gut feeling right.

Speaker 4 (17:02):
This is the New York Times saying we have sources,
we know for a fact that this is what's going on.
And that's why Benjamin Netnyaw, who hasn't tried to shut
down this podcast, but he is trying to shut down
what the New York Times is doing in this report. Now,
Netnyawho's office fired back with a remarkably forceful and English

(17:24):
language statement now importantly has as you said, it was
deleted shortly after being published, and that was around midnight
on a Shabbat or their Sabbath day deleted.

Speaker 3 (17:37):
That's almost as newsworthy as the statement itself. So what
exactly did this statement say in his defense?

Speaker 4 (17:46):
Yeah, there was a full throttle rebuttal. The statement vehemently
denounced the New York Times report. They said it. They
called it a rehashing of discredited and false political activists
and their talking points, and they asserted that it to
Thames Israel, the brave people of Israel and its prime minister.

(18:06):
A statement argue that Netnyahu and his cabinet strategic decisions
led to I'll quote them here, quote one of the
greatest military comebacks in history. End quote that Danya, who
was able to transform Israel from a perceived weakness on
October seventh to a paramount regional power with significantly weakened enemies.

Speaker 3 (18:29):
I never thought they were weak, even when they got
attacked on October seventh.

Speaker 1 (18:34):
That was not what came to mind at all.

Speaker 2 (18:36):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (18:38):
I just because oh, eventually the bad guys are going
to figure out how to weasel their way in, you
know what I mean.

Speaker 4 (18:45):
Yeah, like he got fluid.

Speaker 2 (18:47):
I mean, we don't get me wrong.

Speaker 3 (18:49):
We messed up when it came to September eleventh, because
we were warned that there was a possibility that something
like that would happen.

Speaker 2 (18:54):
We just ignored it.

Speaker 1 (18:55):
But that is that's not has been weak, that's us
be a dumb.

Speaker 4 (19:00):
Yeah, I think so. From uh, I'll take from my perspective,
I would agree with you on that. I thought that
their intelligence community had lapsed in defending and securing the
people of Israel. But to think that the State of
Israel was weak, that was not something I don't think

(19:20):
anyone was writing in any aspect.

Speaker 2 (19:24):
I don't think so.

Speaker 3 (19:25):
I don't think they were perceived that way at all.
They took it that way because their egos aren't you know.

Speaker 4 (19:32):
And maybe that says more about how they felt internally
than those external Yeah.

Speaker 2 (19:38):
Ording yeah, they they personally don't want to be perceived.

Speaker 4 (19:43):
As weak, but absolutely not.

Speaker 3 (19:46):
I mean, obviously that is a bold claim that they
made within the state. In the statement which was quote
one of the greatest military comebacks in history end quote.

Speaker 2 (19:57):
So did the statement offer any specifics to.

Speaker 4 (20:01):
Back that up, Yeah, it sure did. It listed several
of the key military successes under net Nahu's leadership, like
the Battle of Rafa. They claimed that that shut down
the Philadelphia Corridor that was used for smuggling weapons by Hamas.
They talked about the covert detonation of Hesbala pagers and

(20:22):
destruction of Hesbal missile stockpiles, the destruction of Asad's armaments,
and even the targeted killing of terrorist chiefs like dave
Hania Sinwar in Nostrala. And it also mentioned the decisive
action against the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile existential threats,

(20:43):
which is what they call the nuclear and ballistic missile
program in Iran, These existential threats that Iran has, and
the carrying out of that attack in the Rising Lion
operation from a few weeks ago.

Speaker 3 (20:56):
I think we have at this podcast have covered each
one of those quote unquote achievements. So did the statement
also address the fact that Netanya, who has repeatedly ignored
advice from his own security establishment or did they forget
that part?

Speaker 4 (21:11):
Yeah, they know they did just a twist on you know,
what they said about it. So they specifically contended that
these achievements wouldn't have been possible if Netna, who had
accepted early recommendations from senior defense and security officials to
end the war. That, according to the statement, that would
have left Hamas has blowed the Asad regime and Iranian

(21:35):
threats intact. I tend to believe that, you know, history
is going to tell if it was the right move
or the wrong move. But post October seventh, every single
one of those entities that I mentioned have been completely
have been either completely wiped out or lowered as a

(21:58):
less secure and their leadership has been completely destroyed. So
we'll see if they come back in the next few years,
but so far that has been true. They also had
a very pointed line stating that these senior officials, whose
anonymous supporters are widely quoted throughout the article, have since

(22:20):
been replaced, meaning they have moved all of those what
they would call leakers out of the government. So that
was a clear job there at the New York Times
reporting and implicitly at those within the Israeli establishment who
may have been its sources.

Speaker 3 (22:41):
I wouldn't put it past Israel to have already found
out who the leaks were.

Speaker 4 (22:47):
Oh yeah, Massades got it and they moved them out.
That's no doubt.

Speaker 3 (22:52):
They knew they were leaking as they were leaking. I'm
sure they were let's do what they do here, and
then when they did it.

Speaker 1 (22:58):
Yeah. Anyway, So.

Speaker 3 (23:01):
What about the ongoing hostage situation that's been a massive
point of contention for his government domestically.

Speaker 4 (23:09):
Yeah. The statement also addressed that directly. It defended netnya
Who's approach to freeing hostages held in Gaza. They said,
his quote forceful application of combined military and diplomatic pressure
has so far achieved the release of two hundred five
hostages out of a total of two hundred and fifty
five end quote. It reiterated his commitment to securing the

(23:31):
return of the remaining fifty, specifying that twenty of those
fifty are still alive.

Speaker 3 (23:38):
So, in essence, the statement framed netnya Who as a strong,
decisive leader whose actions were for the good of Israel
and not for his own political gain.

Speaker 4 (23:49):
Yeah, and you would expect nothing less coming from his office,
or any world leader's office for that matter. This isn't
unique to Benjamin net Yahoo. It's not a particularly unbiased group,
so it was a comprehensive defense, though, as we noted,
one that was very quickly pulled offline. Now, the reasons

(24:11):
for that deletion remain, at least officially unexplained.

Speaker 3 (24:16):
A deleted statement, a strong rebuttal, and a defensive, aggressive
military action, all while dealing with internal pressure. So it
paints a complex picture of ntna who's current political landscape.

Speaker 4 (24:28):
Yeah, it sure does. And it just goes to show
the immense pressure both internal and external, that is government
is operating under. Now, the New York Times article clearly
struck a nerve with them, which prompted this unusually strong,
albeit fleeting response.

Speaker 3 (24:43):
And speaking of pressure curve, and let's not forget the
broader regional picture, we also had to report this week
about US President Donald Trump's reaction to a potential Israeli
strike on Iran. This is the recurring concern, especially after
October seventh. So what did this report indicate?

Speaker 4 (25:02):
Yeah, that report indicated that US President Donald Trump did
not object when Prime Minister Benjamin nat Yahoo mentioned Israel
might strike Iran again if the Islamic Republic restarts its
nuclear weapons program. And this is significant as it suggests
a degree of tacit acceptance or at least a lack
of direct prohibition from the United States.

Speaker 3 (25:26):
So a green light or at least an amber one
from the US side.

Speaker 4 (25:32):
Yeah, it's not necessarily a full green light, and the report,
in true geopolitical style, is very nuanced. While Trump reportedly
didn't object, it also states that he favors a diplomatic
solution and he is hoping to use the threat of
further attacks to encourage Iran to sign a deal. That
deal would bart from developing that nuclear bomb. Now, the threat,

(25:57):
the threat of force as a lever for diplomacy is
something that Trump is starting to use more and more increasingly,
especially towards Iran.

Speaker 3 (26:07):
But if Israel is prepared to act, does that mean
they will always seek you as approval first?

Speaker 4 (26:16):
Although the report does address that, it suggests that Trump
might actually pressure Netnyaho not to strike Iran in order
to preserve diplomatic talks. Now, it quotes a senior Israeli
official who stated that Israel might not necessarily seek an
explicit American green lights before that attack. This official also

(26:36):
noted that Israel has intelligence on potential covert Iranian nuclear activities,
and it believes it can prevent Iran from quickly developing
nuclear weapons in the short term. So it's a complex
dance of deterrence, diplomacy, and potential unilateral action.

Speaker 3 (26:55):
So we have Netanyahu pushing back hard against me the reports,
consolidating his image as a strong leader, potentially with the
US NOD on a run, and Israel asserting its independence
and security matters. It really speaks to the unpredictable nature
of regional power plays.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
Enough talk about.

Speaker 3 (27:14):
Natan Yahoo for now, I want to shift our focus
on the ceasefire negotiations between Israel and moss.

Speaker 1 (27:21):
So what's the current state of play there.

Speaker 2 (27:24):
We hear so much back and forth.

Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah, it is constantly evolving, and it's often a frustrating situation,
as you just alluded to. There now, as of now,
a comprehensive cease fire deal remains elusive. There have been
multiple rounds of negotiations, but as we've discussed weekend and
week out, we are consistently hitting roadblocks in these discussions.

Speaker 2 (27:49):
Okay, so what are the primary sticking points?

Speaker 3 (27:52):
Is it still about the number of hostages or the
duration of the pause or something else Entirely.

Speaker 4 (27:59):
That's really just to combination of factors, but the core
issues remain consistent. So on the Hamas side, they are
generally demanding a permanent ceasefire as part of any deal.
They want to complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
They also want guarantees regarding reconstruction and the lifting of

(28:19):
the aid blockade. Now, for Israel, the primary objective is
return of all remaining hostages. They've been adamant that any
ceasefire must be temporary and cannot compromise the long term,
long term goal of eliminating Hamas's military and governing capabilities.

Speaker 3 (28:38):
And we just heard in the previous segment how Prime
Minister Netanyahu's office explicitly stated his commitment to that very
goal quote, the elimination of Hamas's military and governing capabilities
to ensure that the October seventh massacre will never be repeated.

Speaker 2 (28:54):
Again end quote.

Speaker 1 (28:56):
That certainly doesn't sound like a permanent ceasefire.

Speaker 4 (29:00):
So that stated commitment from Netnyahu's office really highlights the
fundamental gap between the two sides. Now, Hamas views a
permanent into hostilities and Israeli withdrawal as non negotiable, and
they will not agree to it, and they will not
perform a significant hostage release until that happens. Now, Israel

(29:20):
sees any permanent cease fire before Hamas's dismantle as a
threat to its own security. We've seen proposals involving multiple
phases with initial pauses and limited hostage releases, but they
often falter on the commitment to a lasting cessation of
the fighting in Gaza.

Speaker 3 (29:41):
So, in essence, we're in a persistent state of flux,
with ongoing efforts but no immediate breakthrough in sight.

Speaker 4 (29:48):
Right, I mean, that's the most accurate assessment I have
heard maybe ever Siena. That is exactly what's going on here.

Speaker 2 (29:57):
Really, just stop, I'm just kidding.

Speaker 4 (30:01):
It's like you've been following this since October seventh of
twenty twenty three. You really drilled down where we stand
at the moment.

Speaker 2 (30:10):
On that note, we are going to take a quick
break here.

Speaker 3 (30:14):
When we come back, we'll pivot to a truly unorthodox
proposal coming out of the West Bank and what it
might mean or not mean for.

Speaker 1 (30:22):
The future of Palestinian governance.

Speaker 2 (30:24):
So please stay with us. We'll be right back welcome
back listeners. Before the break, we were discussing the.

Speaker 3 (30:30):
Very direct and often confrontational geopolitical maneuvering in the midle East.
But now Carvin, we're going to shift gears and discuss
something that on the surface sounds like it could come straight.

Speaker 2 (30:41):
Out of a political thriller.

Speaker 3 (30:43):
An unorthodox peace proposal emerging from a group of shakes
on the West Bank.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
So could this really be the key to piece?

Speaker 4 (30:52):
The short answer here is absolutely not. But despite that unlikelihood,
this proposal has certainly stirred up a lot of discussion
and for some even excitement, particularly among those who are
eager to advance a peace agreement that sidesteps the possible
creation of a Palestinian state.

Speaker 3 (31:11):
Okay, so if not a real peace plan, then what
exactly is this proposal?

Speaker 1 (31:17):
Like?

Speaker 2 (31:17):
Who are these Sikhs and what are they putting forward?

Speaker 4 (31:22):
The proposal comes from five prominent though mostly anonymous shakes
in the Hebron region, and the letter outlining the plan,
which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, came
from Sheikh Walle the al Jabbari. He's a senior figure
in one of Hebron's most influential clans and It was
actually addressed to Israel's economy minister that's near Barkat. They

(31:47):
offered full recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and
proposed a peaceful break from the Palestinian authority to form
an autonomous immort of Hebron aligned with the abraham A.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
Corps an Amrat of Hebron. This is fascinating.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
Every time we discuss Israel in the Middle East, you
always bring up how none of the Arab states will
agree to a Jewish state in the Middle East. But now,
after all this fighting started by Hamas and escalated by Israel,
we are seeing fractures in that anti Jewish state alliance.

Speaker 2 (32:21):
So what would this Emra entail.

Speaker 4 (32:26):
Well, according to the letter, this region would partner with
Israel and include zero tolerance for terrorism. Sheik Jabari himself
told The Wall Street Journal that he and other Sikhs
understood that there was no point in pressing for a
Palestinian state. He was quoted saying there will be no
Palestinian state, not even in a thousand years, not ever

(32:49):
after October seventh. Israel will not give it.

Speaker 3 (32:53):
It's kind of wild that they are like, it's up
to Israel, but I mean, those are powerful words, and
they sound a lot like we've heard from.

Speaker 2 (33:01):
Some Israeli officials.

Speaker 3 (33:03):
So how has this been received on the Israeli side?

Speaker 4 (33:07):
Yeah, obviously Israel has praised the proposal, arguing that the
Palestinian authority has lost the trust of both its own
people and the Israeli public. And he stated the Israeli
government has stated that Sheik Jabbari wants peace with Israel
and to join the abraham Accords with the support of
his fellow sheikhs. Who in Israel is going to say

(33:29):
no to that? So certainly some enthusiasm from the Israeli side.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Well, okay, let's look at it from the other side.

Speaker 3 (33:38):
This has to be controversial within Palestine and surrounding Arab states.
So what has been the reaction to this proposal from
that side?

Speaker 4 (33:48):
Well, unfortunately, this past week, Shaik al Jabari's car was
set ablaze in East Jerusalem. It was an act of vandalism,
widely seen as a direct response to his proposal, and significantly,
some member of his own family formally disowned him. So
immediate and quite dramatic response from the Palestinian side.

Speaker 2 (34:08):
What kind of car do you know? What kind of car?

Speaker 4 (34:10):
It was, I don't I'm sure it's a Mercedes, see.

Speaker 3 (34:14):
Something super fancy that nobody could actually afford her.

Speaker 4 (34:20):
Okay, as people are starving, yeah.

Speaker 1 (34:23):
Yeah, while people are starving and yeah, and also in
the middle of conflict and all this stuff, and he
comes along with his gymsey Car.

Speaker 2 (34:30):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
Well, that speaks volumes about the internal Palestinian reaction. So
what do experts on Palestinian societies say about the feasibility
of such a plan?

Speaker 4 (34:40):
Like, they are overwhelmingly skeptical. They say that the plan
was neither new nor feasible. They pointed out that a
similar proposal from while the old Jabbari's father, Sheik Fari Jabbari,
made headlines back in twenty twelve. The current proposal has
been described as a fantasy of some on Israel's far
right who see the Palestinian authority as the enemy and

(35:03):
who hope for an alternative vision, whether through tribal emirates
or a federate model, and that federal model would then
eliminate the prospect of Palestinian statehood altogether.

Speaker 2 (35:16):
So it's less.

Speaker 3 (35:17):
About genuine Palestinian aspirations and more about an Israeli strategic desire.

Speaker 4 (35:24):
Yeah, that's the strong implication for many experts. One of
those experts suggests that the Dabaris are largely motivated by nostalgia.
They want to restore a golden era from the nineteen
forties to late nineteen seventies, when their clan held significant
sway and ties with Israeli authorities. Now, the proposal explicitly

(35:46):
rejects the two state solution. They seek to replace the
Oslo Accords from the nineties, which they claim only brought damage, death,
economic disaster and destruction.

Speaker 3 (35:58):
And beyond the political life inspirations. Were there any concrete
economic components to this proposal, Well.

Speaker 4 (36:06):
Yeah, there were some. So the plan included a step
by step proposal to allow one thousand Hebron residents to
begin working in Israel. The goal of that would be
to gradually increase that number to fifty thousand. And this
is significant because since October seventh, Israel has sharply reduced
Palestinian work permits. They've cut off a key source of

(36:27):
income to Palestinians now. The proposal also included the creation
of a joint economic zone on over one thousand acres
near the security fence that's expected to employ tens of
thousands of Palestinians.

Speaker 3 (36:43):
So what is the ultimate vision if this Hebron plot succeeds.

Speaker 4 (36:49):
The idea was for Hebron to serve as a pilot
for a broader transformation in the West Bank. That would
mean that other cities like Bethlehem would potentially tri transition
to independent local immirates. And this plan, by the way,
has been in development four years now, so it.

Speaker 3 (37:09):
Has some intellectual backing in certain Israeli circles. But what
about the broader Palestinian reaction beyond the car attack and
the family disownment.

Speaker 4 (37:19):
Yeah, widespread dismissal. Alsinian activists called the Wall Street Journal
article a dangerous fabrication. They accused its author of shockingly
poor journalism or deliberate misinformation. Eli or Levy, he's a
Palestinian affairs correspondent. He dismissed it as nonsense. Said, words

(37:40):
come cheap, and these recycled statements have led to nothing.

Speaker 3 (37:44):
How is it misinformation if it came out that they
really were having this discussion with this shake?

Speaker 4 (37:52):
Yeah? How is it misinformation from the New York Times
when you also claim that these were sources from inside
your government, that you got rid of a right, Okay, Yeah, we.

Speaker 2 (38:04):
Just like throwing misinformation around and we don't like what
the words say.

Speaker 4 (38:08):
That's that is absolutely true. Misinformation can now be defined
as anything you don't like, kind.

Speaker 5 (38:15):
Of like how everybody throws the word gaslight around like race,
Just like it's somebody who doesn't agree with you, so
you throw the word gaslight around to make put it back.

Speaker 1 (38:26):
On them, even though you really just don't like what
they're saying to you.

Speaker 4 (38:29):
It's not Although we are being gaslight on the Epstein list,
and that's all I'll say about that.

Speaker 3 (38:34):
I am not going there because it I'm infuriated, like
he looks part of his platform for getting elected. Yes,
we are going off on a tangent.

Speaker 4 (38:45):
This is an opinion as well, but when I hold
strongly too.

Speaker 3 (38:50):
Well, part of what got him elected was him saying
that he would release all those files. You know, Yeah,
a lot of people wanted to I wanted these people
to be held accountable for and there he's bearing it.

Speaker 4 (39:05):
So and then and the internet is forever.

Speaker 3 (39:09):
The Internet is forever now. And I mean, it's too bad.
You can't do that now. You can't gaslight us because
we have had the receipts. So anyway, yes, let's bring
it back. Let's go back to what we are supposed.

Speaker 2 (39:21):
To be talking about. So tell us about the intelligence community's.

Speaker 4 (39:25):
Perspective on this, on Epstein or on oh okay mine?
All right, Well, yeah, we could get into the other one.
That could be a whole episode. But for this talking
about joining into these immorts, the intelligence community is very skeptical.

Speaker 5 (39:49):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (39:49):
They've said that the initiative reflects a persistent fantasy among
some in Israel that instead of dealing with the unified
Palestinian leadership with national aspirations, it might be possible to
divide Palestinian society into clans and local immirates, sort of
this dividing conquer approach that would erode the idea of statehood.

(40:10):
They say, no one in the Palestinian arena bis into
This has even been compared to Israel's reliance on the
Abu Shabab clan in Gaza to say your local militia
that Israel has back to counter hamas, which has not worked.
They're calling it a situation where fantasies override clear eyed assessment.

Speaker 3 (40:30):
Well, it sounds like this proposal, while intriguing to some
on paper fundamentally misunderstands the prevailing Palestinian national identity.

Speaker 4 (40:40):
So that's the consensus among most experts, and when we
discuss complex issues like the Israeli Palestinian conflict, we always
want to turn to the experts to get the real answers.
They have this deep knowledge of the history, the nuances,
and their knowledge on the politics is in valley. Often

(41:02):
they do reach a clear consensus. But sometimes experts really
just can't see the forest for the trees. And what
do I mean by that is that their decades of
meticulous focus creates tunnel vision and they get so caught
up in the minutia, the specific clauses, the initial or
the internal politics that they struggle to zoom out and
questioning these foundations can kind of feel counterintuitive. They also

(41:27):
have the unconscious bias aspect to this. This makes it
incredibly difficult to envision a scenario where their long held
vision is actually a flawed vision or we're peraps.

Speaker 3 (41:39):
I don't know if it's an unconscious conscious You think
it's very conscious.

Speaker 4 (41:45):
Okay, I won't push back against that, honestly, come on,
but you know where I'm trying to get at this
It's just like, I know, I've studied this so much
that I absolutely know everything about this, and so anything
that contradicts that won't work for them. They just can't

(42:08):
see it. They see what they expect, filtering out anything
that just doesn't fit their beliefs or their bias. There's
also the humiliation factor that's for leading experts. Publicly admitting
past theories or solutions might be wrong carries a significant
professional risk, could be a monetary risk. This can unfortunately

(42:32):
outweigh the immense benefit of bringing peace to the millions
of Palestinians who desperately want it. It encourage it, or
it discourages exploring radical new ideas or admitting miscalculations in
their expertise. So while I absolutely respect the experts, I
really respect all the experts on both sides of this,

(42:52):
it is vital to have a healthy skepticism when they're talking.
And we got to ask our perspectives being missed. Are
we too focused on details to see a simpler, maybe
unconventional path forward that could kind of break the deadlock?
And sometimes, you know, the most profound insights come from
stepping outside of that forest entirely.

Speaker 1 (43:14):
Okay, Curvin let's reset.

Speaker 3 (43:17):
We've just touched on the critical idea that sometimes the
very depth of expertise can create blind spots, especially when
high stakes and complex, deeply emotional issues are at play.
But for now, shifting gears entirely, we need to address
the situation that has exploded onto the global stage this
past week, and that's the escalating tensions between the United

(43:39):
States and Iran. It's gone from a simmering concern to
a full blown crisis with truly blistering rhetoric and concerning
developments on both sides. So take us back to the
start of this week, way back, way back, a few
days ago, whites ago. What were the initial flash points

(43:59):
that i this rapid escalation and what's the context we
need to understand the severity of the current situation and
crucially from both Washington and Tehran. What kind of fiery
rhetoric have we been hearing that's pushed us to this
brink lay out the stage for us.

Speaker 4 (44:19):
Yeah, absolutely so this past week it has indeed been
a significant turning point. It kicked off with a truly
incendiary development. The initial flashpoint was Iran Supreme leader and
he publicly claimed victory over Israel, which by extension means
that it was victory over the United States, a deeply

(44:41):
provocative move, and he threatened to attack more US military
basis as well. This is not just an isolated statement.
He essentially it essentially marked supreme lead to Chromini breaking
his silence after what had been a somewhat fragile ceasefire
between and Iran, and a ceasefire that itself followed a

(45:04):
series of mutual bombings between the two nations and a
subsequent f bomb by US President Trump. So this rhetoric
from Homini was a direct and very public escalation from Tehran,
setting the stage for everything that followed, and.

Speaker 3 (45:22):
President Trump's response was to put it mildly, immediate and forceful.

Speaker 4 (45:27):
Yeah, forceful is an understatement. Trump directly addressed Helmini during
a White House press conference on Friday, essentially told Homini
uh he'd been beat to hell and he should not
be saying the words that he's saying. The President didn't
shy away from the possibility of further military action either.
He stated that the US would absolutely consider bombing Iran

(45:50):
again if intelligence suggested they were enriching uranium to a
concerning level.

Speaker 2 (45:56):
He then took it to his favorite website, truth social.

Speaker 1 (46:00):
Name to really hammer holm his point.

Speaker 3 (46:02):
You know, he always uses truth Social to really put
out there what he couldn't say during press conferences and stuff.

Speaker 1 (46:10):
He just puts out everything that comes into his mind.

Speaker 4 (46:15):
Yeah, and this isn't hyperbole, but I really like how
he signs off of his truth truth social posts or
his truths. I don't know what they're called, or they
called truth bombs. I don't know what.

Speaker 1 (46:27):
I don't know what they're called.

Speaker 2 (46:28):
I'm not on truth Social, I'm not on anything.

Speaker 4 (46:32):
He always signs it off now, or at least not
I should know what say always, but he has tended
to now sign off with thank you for your attention
in this matter. So he has a huge diatribe of
all kinds of you know, weird things that he's saying,
and then he'll always end it with thank you for

(46:53):
your attention in this matter. And I find that great.
I really do. Everyone should have. They'll catch phrase at
the end, and I'm glad he's found his now. But
you're asking what he wrote on truth Social. Yeah, he
went on there partially that day, then again on Saturday

(47:19):
morning of this week, he posted a lengthy message on
his favorite website, he accused Homini of lying about Iran's victory.
You reaffirmed his much debated viewpoint that the US strikes
on June twenty first obliterated three key Iranian nuclear facilities.
In a particularly striking claim, Trump said he knew exactly

(47:41):
where Homini was sheltered and prevented Israel or US forces
from terminating his life, expressing disappointment that Homiini wasn't so
grateful about having his life spared.

Speaker 3 (47:54):
Okay, now we have heard this on multiple occasions from
the President as well as league for from the US
and Israel. So does this finally confirm the fact that
the US told Israel to refrain from killing the Supreme Leader.

Speaker 4 (48:09):
It's not as simple as like a US veto on this.
What we know is that targeting Iran Supreme Leader was
indeed any option on Israel's table. Now, when Israel presented this,
the US assessed, probably the juice wouldn't be worth the
squeeze on this one, and so it indicates a calculated
conclusion the potential benefits of such an action were far

(48:33):
outweighed by the enormous risks that would happen in this
and the US likely determine the immediate fallout and uncontrollable
escalation would create a more dangerous situation for both nations,
Iran and Israel, and it would hinder long term goals. Now, consequently,
the US may have countered that proposal with an alternative strategy.

(48:55):
I think they really countered it with focusing on fostering
regime change from within Iran.

Speaker 3 (49:01):
Okay, so how is Iran reacting to Trump's direct, almost
personal attacks.

Speaker 4 (49:07):
Well, not well, but you probably expect that. Iran's more
minister publicly stated on Friday that Trump needs to drop
his disrespectful tone towards Romini if he generally wants a deal.
He emphasized the Iranian people do not take kindly to
threats and insults, and he also made a pointed reference
to NATO Chief Mark Rout bringing back the Trump Daddy

(49:31):
statements from last week, which we ended the podcast on.
Is clearly framing this as Iran forcing the US to
step in.

Speaker 3 (49:41):
It sounds like a deeply entrenched standoff with both sides
refusing to back down. So what do you see as
the immediate next steps or the most significant risks in
this highly charged environment?

Speaker 4 (49:54):
I mean, the immediate risk is miscalculation, and that's on
all sides. I don't if I sent you the post,
but Iranian media started to talk about how they were
going to assassinate Trump, and this has been something that
is Iran has been wanting to do since twenty sixteen.
I think a miscalculation there, any movement forward with that

(50:19):
would be devastating it. It'd be devastating for Iran and
the Iranian people. The rhetoric is so elevated, and it
claims from both sides are so absolute that it leaves
a very little room for de escalation. The sanctions right
now are hurting Iran, and Trump did signal that he's
willing to double down on that pressure. The danger here

(50:40):
is that any perceived new aggression, even a minor incident,
could quickly spiral into a wider conflict. We're seeing a
clear clash of narratives, with both sides claiming victory, both
sides showing no signs of compromise. The international community continues
to urge de escalation, but this direct back and forth
in public between Trump and Jomini that makes it incredibly challenging.

Speaker 3 (51:05):
Well, that's a very concerning outlook. I think now's the
time for us to wrap up this episode.

Speaker 4 (51:11):
Yeah probably no.

Speaker 6 (51:12):
Rad surtainly depressed now well, thank you Carvin for shedding
light on this complex and rapidly evolving situation that we
will continue.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
To monitor very closely.

Speaker 1 (51:26):
Is there anything else you would like to discuss?

Speaker 4 (51:29):
I have nothing else, how about you?

Speaker 2 (51:33):
No, we need to begin our Sunday Funday now. Yes?

Speaker 3 (51:38):
Yeah, so, thank you for listening to this Week Explained.
We hope you found it both informative and engaging. If
you have any feedback or suggestions for future episodes, we
would love to hear from you. For more in depth
coverage of these stories and more, be sure to follow
us on social media at This Week Explained Tianna.

Speaker 4 (51:54):
Thank you so much, and until next week, stay safe
out there.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}US-Iran Crisis: Trump's Ultimatum & Gaza's Stalemate

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

All Episodes

US-Iran Crisis: Trump's Ultimatum & Gaza's Stalemate

On Purpose with Jay Shetty