Speaker 1: Second, we will help stability insure stability in Eastern Syria,
Speaker 1: protecting any personnel are personnel against any threats, and will
Speaker 1: remain our mission against ISIS WIST have been maintained, including
Speaker 1: the security of detention facilities where ISIS fighters are being
Speaker 1: held as prisoners. We're cleared eyed about the fact that
Speaker 1: ISIS will try to take advantage of the vacuum to
Speaker 1: re establish its capabilities and to create a safe haven.
Speaker 1: We will not let that happen. In fact, is today
Speaker 1: US forces conducted a dozen of precision strikes air strikes
Speaker 1: within Syria targeting ICEIS camps and ISIS operatives. Third, we
Speaker 1: will engage with all Syrian groups, including within the process
Speaker 1: led by the United Nations, to establish a transition away
Speaker 1: from this sovereigy toward independent sovereign and independent independent. I
Speaker 1: might to say it again. I'm sure you there's a new.
Speaker 2: Constitution independent independent. I'll say it again because I really
Speaker 2: want to emphasize it independent, which is why we sent
Speaker 2: dozens of strikes into Syria just yesterday. Oh so independent.
Speaker 2: First off, Joe Biden's a mess. I mean, he's reading
Speaker 2: off a telepraptery he can barely get through the thing.
Speaker 2: It's unbelievable, but you know, I guess that's why he's gone. Now,
Speaker 2: welcome back to Libdy Lockdown. This is Clint Russell. You
Speaker 2: beautiful people. I missed you so much. Got so much
Speaker 2: to talk about today. Unbelievable turn of events all over
Speaker 2: the world, including the pardon of Hunter Biden, Joe's son,
Speaker 2: and blanket pardons that are being promised for Anthony Fauci
Speaker 2: and a litany of other Cast of Evil characters. So
Speaker 2: the biggest story, though, which just happened over the past
Speaker 2: twenty four hours, is that Syria has fallen to be
Speaker 2: more explicit, Bashar al Asad has been toppled. And for
Speaker 2: those that are have not been paying attention to this,
Speaker 2: I'm sure most of you have because you're a fan
Speaker 2: of the show. I've had Scott Horton on many times.
Speaker 2: I'm sure many of you listen to him, and you're
Speaker 2: familiar with the shenanigans in Syria that have led to
Speaker 2: this point in time. And it is complex, it is
Speaker 2: very hard to dissect, but I think I have a
Speaker 2: fairly good handle on it after years and years of
Speaker 2: reading everything and listening to Scott Horton and reading a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of other pieces on this topic to try
Speaker 2: and try and wrap my head around it. This is
Speaker 2: my opinion. I want to be very clear, a lot
Speaker 2: of this has to do with black ops. It has
Speaker 2: to do with back room dealing between nation states, and
Speaker 2: we don't we're not privy too much of this. This
Speaker 2: is like analysis based off of the consequences of what
Speaker 2: we see happening in the Middle East. This is my
Speaker 2: opinion as to what it means. Iran, Syria, and obviously
Speaker 2: Russia kind of our partners. They work together. Russia has
Speaker 2: a base within Syria. They've been kind of the you know,
Speaker 2: the axis of evil from the US State Department's perspective,
Speaker 2: But to me, they just look like kind of an
Speaker 2: attempt at a bipolar world order or a multipolar world order.
Speaker 2: We've seen many instances of Russia actually bombing or fighting
Speaker 2: within Syria to defend Basharlissad, So the assumption was that
Speaker 2: that would happen again. It did not. So this is
Speaker 2: a huge paradigm shift and a lot of people, including myself,
Speaker 2: are scrambling to try and analyze it. Why Why did
Speaker 2: both Iran, who was obviously allies with assad as well
Speaker 2: as Putin, who WASUS obviously probably the top ally of
Speaker 2: ASAD not intervene, and Assad and his troops also didn't fight,
Speaker 2: so it was a full I mean, people are calling
Speaker 2: it a coup because internally it looks as if there
Speaker 2: was some underlings beneath Bashar al Assad that did not
Speaker 2: flee along with him, and that are working with the
Speaker 2: terrorists that are now taking over the country, which is
Speaker 2: apparently a victory. Somehow, it looks as if there's been
Speaker 2: some backroom dealing. Now this is my guess as to
Speaker 2: what may have happened, and I don't know factually, but
Speaker 2: I think that based off of the fact that they
Speaker 2: all stood down simultaneously, it's plausible at minimum that Putin
Speaker 2: and either the US State Department or the incoming Trump
Speaker 2: administration made a deal. This is my thesis. We'll see
Speaker 2: if I'm right. I hope I'm right, because it's actually
Speaker 2: better for the world than the alternative. But what it
Speaker 2: looks like to me is that perhaps Putin and Trump
Speaker 2: or some you know, whatever the actual apparatus is that
Speaker 2: runs our foreign policy, if it's the US State Department,
Speaker 2: they appear to have made a deal to essentially stand
Speaker 2: down in Ukraine, that's my guess, in exchange for Russia
Speaker 2: standing down in Syria and probably abandoning Iran because of Israel.
Speaker 2: I know most people in the conservative commentating space won't
Speaker 2: say that out loud, and I understand why. It's definitely
Speaker 2: a cancelable offense. But if you actually look at the
Speaker 2: territories that since October seventh of last year, who has
Speaker 2: Israel been going after? Well, obviously Gaza where the attack
Speaker 2: came from, which was awful, and that none of that changes,
Speaker 2: but also Lebanon, also Syria. If you look at even
Speaker 2: though this has been called a conspiracy theory, if you
Speaker 2: look at what's called the Greater Israel project, it looks
Speaker 2: to me like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, which has already fallen.
Speaker 2: There's a whole list of the Wesley Clark Seven which
Speaker 2: i'll play for you in a second, that have all
Speaker 2: fallen except for Iran. Well, all of those nations are
Speaker 2: not all of those seven, but those three nations that
Speaker 2: I just listed off would constant to including a sliver
Speaker 2: of Egypt and Turkey, would constitute what would be the
Speaker 2: Greater Israel project, which is basically an expansionary project to
Speaker 2: make Israel. It's you know, I don't know whatever it's
Speaker 2: rightful homeland is. And it looks to me as if
Speaker 2: that's what's happening, And it looks to me as if
Speaker 2: the US military and the US taxpayer, you and I
Speaker 2: are being used to that end. That we are not
Speaker 2: in fact fighting as much for our own geopolitical interests
Speaker 2: and certainly not for our national defense. That's laughable at
Speaker 2: this point. Clearly this has nothing to do with our
Speaker 2: national defense. We are arming and funding al Qaeda spinoffs
Speaker 2: as well as Isis in order to topple Bashar al Asad.
Speaker 2: So we're in fact arming and funding the organization that
Speaker 2: was responsible for nine to eleven. Does that sound like
Speaker 2: that's in our best national defense interests to you, because
Speaker 2: it doesn't sound like it to me. So what it
Speaker 2: looks like to me is that we have waged these
Speaker 2: endless wars in the Middle East to topple every leader
Speaker 2: that had a oppositional stance towards Israel and in particular
Speaker 2: their treatment of the Palestinians. And as a consequence, there
Speaker 2: is now much more pliable leadership in most of those nations.
Speaker 2: And if they're not pliable, if they're not actually going
Speaker 2: along with US State Department and Israeli interests. Well, they're
Speaker 2: in such disarray that they don't have any capacity to
Speaker 2: actually threaten Israel. So either way, it actually benefits Israel clearly.
Speaker 2: Like you, when you're trying to figure out something you can't,
Speaker 2: you know, no, definitively, you ask yourself what quibono? Who benefits? Well,
Speaker 2: all of those wars, as best I can tell, are
Speaker 2: to the detriment of the West and to the benefit
Speaker 2: of Israel. Because if you actually look at where the
Speaker 2: you know, the illegal immigration, but the really refugee flow
Speaker 2: from those nations that we toppled time and time again, Libya, Syria, Yemen,
Speaker 2: where do they go. Do they flee into Israel? Well
Speaker 2: the fuck no, they don't, not at all. They flee
Speaker 2: into Some of them go to Egypt, but many of them,
Speaker 2: probably most of them go into Europe. And we've seen
Speaker 2: what's happening in Europe as a consequence of that hasn't
Speaker 2: been pretty. The rest or a huge percentage of the
Speaker 2: rest go to America and they're offered either refugee status
Speaker 2: or citizenship or just come here illegally. In what world
Speaker 2: is that to the benefit of the American people. Well,
Speaker 2: to me, it doesn't appear to be to our benefit
Speaker 2: and it doesn't even appear to be obviously in our
Speaker 2: strategic interests. So I started to think about Okay, so
Speaker 2: what is the what is the trade off? What is
Speaker 2: the American benefit? Well, who's the real prize? Is it putin?
Speaker 2: I don't think so. I think it's probably China that
Speaker 2: has been at the end of the day, who they
Speaker 2: really want to get after. So here's the game board
Speaker 2: as I see it. A toppel Syria. You take the
Speaker 2: supply line that for Hesbola off the table, so you
Speaker 2: can no longer easily, at least no longer easily get
Speaker 2: weaponry to both Hamas in Gaza as well as Hesbola
Speaker 2: and Lebanon, So you take them off the map. Now
Speaker 2: Iran is isolated, but also Russia is weakened because they
Speaker 2: had a military base in Syria, which I would assume
Speaker 2: they won't have access to anymore. So that's not good
Speaker 2: for them, but it is very good for one nation obviously.
Speaker 2: So now you have Iran isolated. Okay, once they fall,
Speaker 2: it's basically game over for the Middle East. Israel has
Speaker 2: conquered it entirely or more or less. So then where's
Speaker 2: the trade off after that? Well, the biggest are not
Speaker 2: the biggest, but two of the biggest allies to Russia
Speaker 2: were Syria and Iran. So you've now taken some of
Speaker 2: their biggest allies off the map and they're now still
Speaker 2: theoretically bogged down in this quagmire and Ukraine facing all
Speaker 2: of NATO potentially. You've heard some geopolitical strategists, neo conservative
Speaker 2: bent that are talking about how the real end goal
Speaker 2: is to topple Putin and then to use Ukraine slash
Speaker 2: Russia as method or our method for encircling or weakening
Speaker 2: or potentially attacking China. Is that's probably what we've witnessed
Speaker 2: over the past twenty years, is that we secure the
Speaker 2: Greater Israel project for Israel, and then we move on Russia,
Speaker 2: which we're already moving on, and then from there, assuming
Speaker 2: we're victorious and we don't all die in nuclear winner,
Speaker 2: then you move on China. So that's my honest opinion
Speaker 2: as to probably what we're seeing, what I think may
Speaker 2: have happened, though, the reason that Russia stood down is that,
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a few options. Either A they were
Speaker 2: so weakened from this multi year fight against Ukraine that
Speaker 2: they just didn't think that it was worth expending the
Speaker 2: resources to try and defend Bashar al Asad in Syria.
Speaker 2: That's possible. Alternatively, it's possible that they've come to an
Speaker 2: agreement with the incoming Trump administration that says, hey, we
Speaker 2: get Ukraine, you stand down, you stop AID, we take it,
Speaker 2: we stop messing with NATO descends you get Syria and Iran.
Speaker 2: Now I'm not saying it's fair, I'm not saying it's good.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying that's what it looks like could have happened.
Speaker 2: And if that's the case, maybe it's the best case
Speaker 2: scenario in terms of or the best we could hope for,
Speaker 2: I should say, in terms of avoiding a hot war
Speaker 2: between nuclear powers or NATO and Russia, which is the
Speaker 2: same thing. I think that's a distinct possibility too. So
Speaker 2: that's my current operating hypothesis as to what we've witnessed
Speaker 2: over the past twenty four hours. Why people stood down
Speaker 2: or I mean, it could just be that they thought that,
Speaker 2: you know, the Syrians weren't prepared to fight and defend
Speaker 2: themselves from the on oncoming hordes. And they didn't want
Speaker 2: to expend any resources because they thought it was a
Speaker 2: losing battle. That's possible. So I don't know, it's very hard,
Speaker 2: it's very hard to decipher all of this, but I
Speaker 2: think that we are witnessing major chess moves, major like
Speaker 2: moves that I didn't think were possible to be honest, like,
Speaker 2: I really didn't think that Beshar Alesad well, obviously I
Speaker 2: thought he was capable of falling, but I did not
Speaker 2: think it was imminent. I mean, they've been in this
Speaker 2: circumstance for years and years and years, like a decade
Speaker 2: of civil war. And for those that think that I'm
Speaker 2: making up any any aspects of this, except for the
Speaker 2: guessing part. But in terms of American involvement in this, well,
Speaker 2: first off, Joe Biden just told you, okay, dozens of strikes.
Speaker 2: He also in that same speech goes on to by
Speaker 2: the way, those dozens of strikes are going to support
Speaker 2: al Qaeda they they move on the capital of Syria.
Speaker 2: That's crazy, that's unbelievable. Okay, So we already have acknowledgement
Speaker 2: from the President of the United States that yes, in fact,
Speaker 2: we are essentially providing overwatch we're providing cover with bombardment
Speaker 2: on Syrian troops for ISIS and al Qaida, two groups
Speaker 2: that are definitely our enemies, right, So that's one which
Speaker 2: is nuts in its own right. But then if you
Speaker 2: think I'm making up any aspect of this in terms
Speaker 2: of the history of our involvement in that arena, well
Speaker 2: let me fill you in on what's called Operation Timber Sycamore,
Speaker 2: straight from Wikipedia. Take it for what it's worth. It
Speaker 2: is just Wikipedia after all. But Timber Sycamore was a
Speaker 2: classified weapons supply and training program or run by the
Speaker 2: United States Central Intelligence Agency and supported by the United
Speaker 2: Kingdom and some Arab intelligence services, including Saudi intelligence. The
Speaker 2: aim of the program was to remove Syrian President Bashar
Speaker 2: al Asad from power. Launched in twenty twelve or twenty thirteen,
Speaker 2: it supplied money, weaponry, and training to Syrian opposition groups
Speaker 2: fighting Syrian government forces in the Syrian Civil War. According
Speaker 2: to US officials, the program was run by the CIA's
Speaker 2: Special Activities Division and has trained thousands of rebels. President
Speaker 2: Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to begin arming Serias
Speaker 2: and battled rebels in twenty thirteen. The program became public
Speaker 2: knowledge in mid twenty sixteen, so basically right when the
Speaker 2: Civil War began, America had its hands already in the
Speaker 2: pot continuing. One consequence of the program has been a
Speaker 2: flood of US weapons, including the assault rifles, mortars, and
Speaker 2: rocket propelled grenades, into the Middle East black market. Critics
Speaker 2: of the program within the Obama administration viewed it as
Speaker 2: ineffective and expensive, and raised concerns about seizure of weaponry
Speaker 2: by Islamist groups and about Timber Sycamore backed rebels fighting
Speaker 2: alongside the al Qaeda affiliated Alnowserfront and its allies. In
Speaker 2: July twenty seventeen, US officials stated that Timber Sycamore would
Speaker 2: be phased out, with funds possibly redirected to fighting the
Speaker 2: Islamic State Order or to offering rebel forces defensive capabilities. Well,
Speaker 2: it doesn't look like it was phased out to me personally,
Speaker 2: particularly when you keep in mind that President Donald Trump
Speaker 2: attempted to remove our troops from Syria and was lied
Speaker 2: to by his generals about the troop count there. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I don't think it ended personally. Health insurance is so frustrating.
Speaker 2: I really cannot stand dealing with it. The headache of
Speaker 2: health insurance is exactly why crowdhealth was created. It's not
Speaker 2: health insurance. It's a better way to pay for healthcare
Speaker 2: through crowdfunding. So stop sending money to big insurance companies
Speaker 2: who profit off of not paying your bills and check
Speaker 2: out crowd health. For one hundred and seventy five dollars
Speaker 2: for an individual or five hundred and seventy five dollars
Speaker 2: for a family of four or more. You'll get access
Speaker 2: to a community of people who are willing to help
Speaker 2: out in the event of an emergency. You'll get access
Speaker 2: to telemedicine, visits, diskound of prescriptions, and so much more
Speaker 2: without doctor's networks getting in the way. And of course,
Speaker 2: you'll join the crowd, a group of members just like
Speaker 2: you who want to help pay for each other's unexpected
Speaker 2: medical events. Let crowdhealth help with your health care needs.
Speaker 2: Get started today for just nine to nine dollars per
Speaker 2: month for your first three months by using code lockdown
Speaker 2: at join crowdhealth dot com. Health is not insurance. Learn
Speaker 2: more at join crowdhealth dot com. That's joined crowdhealth dot
Speaker 2: com code lockdown. And I think that what we witnessed
Speaker 2: yesterday was evidence that it did not end. Also, what
Speaker 2: makes this really fascinating is that Turkey, who has been
Speaker 2: one of the in terms of NATO members, one of
Speaker 2: the more outspoken supporters of the people of Palestine, they
Speaker 2: also moved on as SOD, a SOD who by all
Speaker 2: accounts was in fact a big supporter of the Palestinians
Speaker 2: as well. So what the fuck right? So that tells
Speaker 2: me there's major horse trading happening. You have a NATO
Speaker 2: member that is arming and funding these Isis ALCADA groups
Speaker 2: that are then invading into Syria. Obviously, there's been you know,
Speaker 2: wars raging for a decade plus now, so this is
Speaker 2: nothing new. But in terms of the troop count and
Speaker 2: the weaponry that they had and the plans that they had,
Speaker 2: that was that was fueled by in my opinion, Israel, Turkey,
Speaker 2: six CIA, US State Department. That's what it looks like
Speaker 2: to me. It looks like this was a full on
Speaker 2: takeover operation that was ran by you know, the West,
Speaker 2: whatever you want to call it, and it succeeded. So
Speaker 2: let me let me take off my libertarian cap and
Speaker 2: just put on the analysis or tactical analysis cap. I'm impressed.
Speaker 2: I know you're like, what, how could you possibly say that,
Speaker 2: I'm impressed. I didn't think this was possible. I didn't
Speaker 2: I did not think that they could possibly pull this off.
Speaker 2: I mean, most of us, including myself, have perceived the
Speaker 2: empire to be in decline. We've lost time and time
Speaker 2: again every war. All these wars that I'm talking about
Speaker 2: appeared to be losses when they ended. You know, scare
Speaker 2: quotes ended Afghanistan, Iraq, Did they go, well, are we
Speaker 2: are we kicking ass in Ukraine?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: So the fact that this played out how it did
Speaker 2: and and happened without any US troop or limited there
Speaker 2: are some limited US troop participation to top al Asad
Speaker 2: is pretty remarkable. And then you add into the fact
Speaker 2: that they've essentially gutted or weakened a lot Hesbela in Lebanon.
Speaker 2: They've obviously weakened Hamas tremendously as well, the Hoho Thies
Speaker 2: and Yemen. What Israel has set out to do this?
Speaker 2: This is kind of goes back to the analysis of
Speaker 2: the Belfer Bellefoort Declaration and how Israel came to exist
Speaker 2: in the first place. It's like, regardless of how you
Speaker 2: feel about it, it's impressive it's like it's modern day
Speaker 2: conquest in a way that somehow is largely internationally accepted,
Speaker 2: Like how did you do that? You look at what
Speaker 2: Putin's doing right now, He's trying to take just a
Speaker 2: small portion of Ukraine. They're like, yeah, we're just gonna
Speaker 2: take an entire country, like we're gonna take all of it.
Speaker 2: And there the entire international community stands almost entirely unified
Speaker 2: in opposition to Putin and what he's doing. No, in fairness,
Speaker 2: a huge percentage of the world stands in opposition to
Speaker 2: what Israel is doing in Gaza right now. But in
Speaker 2: terms of like the actual creation of Israel, it's pretty
Speaker 2: much worldwide accepted. Totally fine, it's okay, like it happened, Yeah,
Speaker 2: sure they did. They took you know, ninety percent of
Speaker 2: a land mass that wasn't theirs, but.
Speaker 4: Yeah they did it.
Speaker 2: So it's okay. It's seventy years ago, move on seventy five,
Speaker 2: give or take. So what I'm looking at here and
Speaker 2: I'm just like, man, this is impressive, Like that this
Speaker 2: is a dying empire. Right, We're thirty six trillion in debt.
Speaker 2: We haven't won a war in my lifetime or since
Speaker 2: I was a kid least, I guess you could say
Speaker 2: Iraq War one we won. All of a sudden. You
Speaker 2: just see these chess pieces moving and you're like, WHOA,
Speaker 2: all right, I think I see the game board now.
Speaker 2: I think I see exactly what this has all been about.
Speaker 2: And it's not as if I'm like just guessing, like
Speaker 2: this is what the neocons talked about back in the nineties,
Speaker 2: and the neocons talked about a lot of this had
Speaker 2: to do with Israel, as you know. So it looks
Speaker 2: to me as if they're pulling it off, like I'm
Speaker 2: setting all morality aside and death and destruction in my
Speaker 2: opposition to war. I'm just saying, look at what's happening,
Speaker 2: and tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that they're not
Speaker 2: prevailing in this attempt all of the opposition, I mean,
Speaker 2: the Pager attacks to take out almost all of the leadership,
Speaker 2: like the higher level leadership that opposed them in Lebanon Amas.
Speaker 2: I mean, Jesus Christ, could they could they have more,
Speaker 2: you know, more thoroughly devastated the Palestinians. I don't think so.
Speaker 2: And now Syria goes down pretty much pretty much without
Speaker 2: a fight, and It's starting to make me feel like
Speaker 2: Iran has to feel like they're on deck. They have
Speaker 2: to feel like that. I mean, and I think that's
Speaker 2: the big war that we have to be very loudly
Speaker 2: outspoken against because that is the that's the final nail.
Speaker 2: As Wesley Clark told us, let's listen.
Speaker 5: He said, I just got this down from upstairs, meaning
Speaker 5: Securarated Events office today and he said, this is a
Speaker 5: memo that describes how we're going to take out seven
Speaker 5: countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
Speaker 5: and finishing off Iran.
Speaker 2: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.
Speaker 2: Are you noticing something? Yes, those first six have fallen.
Speaker 2: I mean, people also forget that just six months ago,
Speaker 2: the President Raisi of Iran died in an accidental helicopter crash. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and the Israeli war Room Twitter account posted a picture
Speaker 2: of a helicopter right after that news broke. Now does
Speaker 2: that mean that they were responsible. No, But at the
Speaker 2: time no one knew what had happened, and it turned
Speaker 2: out that in fact, yes, he had crashed and it
Speaker 2: was faulty equipment or whatever. But they've essentially toppled the
Speaker 2: leadership in Iran already, and I think that that could
Speaker 2: be the explanation as to why Iran did not come
Speaker 2: to serious defense in the final hours. So it looks
Speaker 2: to me as if this is a done deal that
Speaker 2: Iran is almost certainly going to fall in the next
Speaker 2: few years, maybe sooner. I just want to be very clear,
Speaker 2: I'm not gleeful about any of that. This is just
Speaker 2: pure analysis. In fact, I oppose it. I think it's terrible.
Speaker 2: I think it's extraordinarily dangerous. I think that we're going
Speaker 2: to deal with refugee crisis and immigration crisis that pales
Speaker 2: in comparison to what we've already dealt with as a
Speaker 2: consequence of all of our other prior interventions in the
Speaker 2: Middle East. So I'm not rooting for any of this.
Speaker 2: I oppose all of it. Just set my bona fides
Speaker 2: aside and just talk about the analysis here. It looks
Speaker 2: as if it's a done deal. It looks as if
Speaker 2: you can basically put the Aran on the board as
Speaker 2: a w for them too. So as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 2: Wesley Clark in two thousand and three, who was talking
Speaker 2: about his meeting in the days just after nine to eleven,
Speaker 2: everything he said has already happened. So if you think
Speaker 2: that there isn't a master game plan, you think that
Speaker 2: our national defense is in fact predicated off of just
Speaker 2: you know, well, when people mess with us, we strike back,
Speaker 2: that there's not actually an overarching thesis a game plan
Speaker 2: for conquest. You're just lying to yourself. And I guess
Speaker 2: that the point that's most important all this is to
Speaker 2: just realize that if that's if that's the case, if
Speaker 2: I'm right that, in fact the seven nations that fell,
Speaker 2: and there's many others that weren't even on that list
Speaker 2: that have fallen over the past twenty years as a
Speaker 2: consequence of American interventionism, what in what world do we
Speaker 2: have a right to tell Putin and Russia, Hey, you
Speaker 2: can't have a say over who runs one of your
Speaker 2: most important, you know, neighbors governments, like again setting morality aside.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, like, is fair fair or not? We're
Speaker 2: gonna pretend is if we don't do that, like thousands
Speaker 2: and thousands and thousands of miles away from our border.
Speaker 2: But you can't do it on your border. Wait are
Speaker 2: you a nuclear power? Oh you are? Okay, well we're
Speaker 2: in nuclear power and we say you can't do that.
Speaker 2: It's just not a it's not a reasonable way. Like
Speaker 2: my preference would be that we don't do that either,
Speaker 2: and Putin and Russia don't do that to Ukraine either.
Speaker 2: That like that that's the good answer if you want
Speaker 2: to be you know, pure about this. But if you're
Speaker 2: going to be kind of tactical about it or try
Speaker 2: and analyze things on how they are as opposed to
Speaker 2: what you wish they were, well, then how the fuck
Speaker 2: are you going to tell Putin that he can't do that?
Speaker 2: And then to add into that the fact that you're
Speaker 2: responsible for the leadership change that happened in Ukraine on
Speaker 2: his border in twenty fourteen, So you definitely don't have
Speaker 2: a leg to stand on when you tell him, oh,
Speaker 2: you can't do that, sorry you can't. He's like, you
Speaker 2: do it to everyone. He's like, I can't do it
Speaker 2: to my neighbor. Are you fucking kidding me? So that's
Speaker 2: that's the paradigm. That's like, that's really what like real
Speaker 2: politic analysis, right, Like that's what we actually are looking at.
Speaker 2: That's what we're actually dealing with. I think I got
Speaker 2: it down. I would love to hear your thoughts, though.
Speaker 2: If you think I got any of this wrong, please
Speaker 2: let me know. I'll respond to the comments and we
Speaker 2: can duke it out. But I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty
Speaker 2: sure that's what we're witnessing. So why did I say
Speaker 2: that I think that this could be the best outcome
Speaker 2: that we could hope for. Is that, Well, if Putin
Speaker 2: didn't stand down, if he didn't make a deal with
Speaker 2: the US State Department or the incoming Trump administration, well
Speaker 2: then that means that he is extraordinarily weak, that he
Speaker 2: could not assist the Syrians because he's overextended, or he's
Speaker 2: running low on resources or troops or something. I don't
Speaker 2: know which, in which case he is desperate, in which case,
Speaker 2: really desperate measures may be taken, like firing a tactical
Speaker 2: nuke to try and get NATO to stand down, to
Speaker 2: back off. So I guess my hope is that this
Speaker 2: has been negotiated, that there has been conversations, because everything
Speaker 2: I've been hearing is that there are no conversations that
Speaker 2: Anthony Blincoln, our State Department rep. Has not had a
Speaker 2: conversation with Latimer Putin in years. If that's the case,
Speaker 2: well then we're in a lot of trouble. Not to
Speaker 2: not again, just to make this fucking crystal clear for
Speaker 2: the imbeciles that might tune in that don't understand my worldview,
Speaker 2: not because I'm rooting for Putin, but because I'm very
Speaker 2: concerned about what desperate leaders might do when they're sitting
Speaker 2: on an arsenal of six thousand nuclear weapons and you
Speaker 2: have the largest alliance of nuclear powers that have ever
Speaker 2: existed in human history, breathing down your neck on your
Speaker 2: southern border. Can you understand why that may be dangerous?
Speaker 2: You ought to be able to understand why that may
Speaker 2: be dangerous. This is not a stretch of the imagination
Speaker 2: to go well, given what happened to Gaddafi in Libya,
Speaker 2: given what just happened to Asad by the way he
Speaker 2: got asylum in Russia, he flew out last night. Early
Speaker 2: reports was that he crashed and now it looks as
Speaker 2: if he got his family out, which I guess may
Speaker 2: be a good thing depending on your worldview. But if
Speaker 2: you look at what happened to Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein
Speaker 2: and in Kadafi alone would be enough that yet you
Speaker 2: do not want to lose to the NATO hegemonic power,
Speaker 2: like if you lose, you probably perish. So that's my
Speaker 2: concern is that if he didn't make a deal to
Speaker 2: stand down in Syria and to essentially turn the chessboard
Speaker 2: over and say hey, I get Ukraine, you get this, well,
Speaker 2: then he is in dire straits. That means he is
Speaker 2: up against a wall, and they may be planning to
Speaker 2: finish the job no matter what the consequences are. Now,
Speaker 2: I don't even want to put that into the world.
Speaker 2: So I'm just gonna hope that there has been negotiations
Speaker 2: that Trump, who has been having meetings with a lot
Speaker 2: of foreign diplomats, has almost certainly reached out to Putin
Speaker 2: and they have come to an agreement of some kind
Speaker 2: to avoid that possible endpoint. We'll see, but I think
Speaker 2: I think that's it's probably airb Like I don't see
Speaker 2: a C in those in those possibilities. Let me know
Speaker 2: what you think. Are you tired of paying storage fees
Speaker 2: and exhorbit premiums for physical gold all while it just
Speaker 2: sits there collecting dust. There's a better way to own gold.
Speaker 2: With Monetary Metals, you can earn up to five percent
Speaker 2: annually on your gold paid in gold. For the last
Speaker 2: eight years, Monetary Metals is being paying clients between two
Speaker 2: to five percent on their physical gold and silver holdings,
Speaker 2: all while they enjoy free storage and insurance. Their team
Speaker 2: is full of passionate champions of liberty combined with decades
Speaker 2: of investment and banking experience. Imagine your total gold and
Speaker 2: silver ounces grow every month as you receive your interest
Speaker 2: payments from Monetary Medals. Check out Monetary dash metals dot
Speaker 2: com slash lockdown to learn more about putting your precious
Speaker 2: metals to work today. Again, that's Monetary dash Metals dot
Speaker 2: com slash lockdown. An entire Arab leadership was executed, yet
Speaker 2: we stood on the sidelines. Why any one of you
Speaker 2: might be next? Yes, they laugh, there's a sad laughing.
Speaker 2: Why won't there be an investigation in the killing of
Speaker 2: Saddam Hussein? America fought alongside Sadda Hussein against Khmadians. He
Speaker 2: was their friend. Cheney was a friend of Saddam Hussein. Brumsfeld,
Speaker 2: the US Defense secretary at the time Iraq was destroyed,
Speaker 2: was a close friend of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately they sold
Speaker 2: him out and hanged him. You are friends of America.
Speaker 2: Let's say that we are not you. But one of
Speaker 2: these days America may hang us. I was a speech
Speaker 2: by Molmargaret Afi in two thousand and eight. Three years
Speaker 2: later he was dead at the hands of rebel groups.
Speaker 2: Charl Asad who sat there and laughed that day. Maybe
Speaker 2: he laughed out of incredulity, maybe he laughed out of nervousness.
Speaker 2: I don't know which. He has now been toppled to.
Speaker 2: I would have imagine many of the other leaders in
Speaker 2: that room have since been removed from power. Again, I'm
Speaker 2: setting morality aside in this analysis. It's amazing what they've accomplished.
Speaker 2: Like they are doing this, It is happening, and they
Speaker 2: are succeeding at it, not without enormous expense, not without
Speaker 2: enormous loss of financial resources as well as life. It's
Speaker 2: been disastrous, but they are succeeding in their mission. I
Speaker 2: think it's very hard to deny that at this point.
Speaker 2: If you think I'm exaggerating at all when it comes
Speaker 2: to the rebel groups that have toppled Asad, listen to
Speaker 2: the former head of I six Sir John Sars.
Speaker 4: When I was chief of mi I six ten twelve
Speaker 4: years ago, we looked at all these Syrian opposition groups
Speaker 4: and classified them into those that we could support and
Speaker 4: those who will be on the pale and too close
Speaker 4: to Al Kayada, and Tafari Ra Shan was definitely in
Speaker 4: the lattter category. But I think Abu Muhammad al Jolani,
Speaker 4: the leader, has made great efforts the last ten years
Speaker 4: to distance himself from those terrorist groups, and certainly the
Speaker 4: actions we've seen of Taparia is Sham over the last
Speaker 4: last two weeks has been those of a liberation movement,
Speaker 4: not of a terrorist organization.
Speaker 6: And so I think the Home Secretary will be asking
Speaker 6: the MI five and the Joint Terrorism Assessment Center for
Speaker 6: a review of the situation about tapari Is Sham and
Speaker 6: whether it should remain on the prescribed entity list. It
Speaker 6: would be rather ridiculous, actually, if we're unable to engage
Speaker 6: with the new leadership in Syria because of a prescription
Speaker 6: dating back twelve years.
Speaker 2: So straight from the head of the former six. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the leader of Tarirolsham is now the facto leader of Syria,
Speaker 2: and he just so you know that I'm not making
Speaker 2: this up. This is from the US State Department in
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen. Stop this terrorist Muhammad al Jlani, So I
Speaker 2: post there's a yes, hello, US State Department. I like
Speaker 2: to collect on this bounty. He's in the Presidential Palace
Speaker 2: of Syria. Also you put him there. This is a
Speaker 2: up to ten million dollar reward for this guy. And
Speaker 2: he was he was responsible, I shit, you not for
Speaker 2: fighting alongside or as a high level leader in both
Speaker 2: ISIS and al Qaida. He fought American troops in Iraq.
Speaker 2: He was actually fighting against American troops. And we are
Speaker 2: now arming and funding the organization that he is a
Speaker 2: leader of, the leader of to take down Assad in Syria.
Speaker 2: And this has been the case for years. That's what
Speaker 2: Operation Timber Sycamore was, is that we have been funding
Speaker 2: these terrorist groups because they are absolutely terrorists. These are
Speaker 2: not good guys. That's preferable to the clean shaven Assad. Okay,
Speaker 2: I guess I mean it's just madness. It's absolute madness.
Speaker 2: Now that's not Again, this is not to say that
Speaker 2: asd was a good guy, just like I don't think
Speaker 2: Putin's a good guy. But you have to look at
Speaker 2: like you have to analyze this in a relative fashion, right, Like,
Speaker 2: if you're talking about who's going to be the leader,
Speaker 2: you have to go, well, is he better than what?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 5: So?
Speaker 2: Was Asd great for the people of Syria? No, he
Speaker 2: had tens of thousands of people that were locked up
Speaker 2: in prison, political dissidence. There was a civil war that
Speaker 2: waged there. Granted there was American involvement at a lot
Speaker 2: of other foreign involvement to make that happen, but regardless,
Speaker 2: like they were suffering, the people of Syria were suffering.
Speaker 2: I'm certainly not saying it was all Asad's fault, but
Speaker 2: it was certainly partially his. So yeah, not ideal, But
Speaker 2: do you think it's better to have isis slash al
Speaker 2: Qaeda now leading Syria. I'm gonna go out on a
Speaker 2: lim and say no, no, actually it's not. In fact,
Speaker 2: it's a fucking catastrophe. And I don't know how in
Speaker 2: God's name you could spin it otherwise. But guess what
Speaker 2: every foreign policy talking head in America is pretending as if, yeah,
Speaker 2: this is great, what an unbelievable win. There's no no IFFs,
Speaker 2: ends or butts about it. Well, I got a few ifs,
Speaker 2: hands and butts like Hey, if this becomes iol if
Speaker 2: this is actually now the breeding ground for the largest
Speaker 2: terrorist organization in the world, that doesn't seem ideal, and
Speaker 2: that seems really dangerous. But I don't think that this
Speaker 2: should be happening, and I certainly don't think I should
Speaker 2: be fucking forced to fund it. My god, so dangerous,
Speaker 2: so reckless. But what do you think John Bolton has
Speaker 2: to say about it?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think she's totally unqualified to be a DNI,
Speaker 7: and I think her positions put her beyond the outer
Speaker 7: most fringe of American politics. When she visited Aside in Syria,
Speaker 7: he was effectively a Russian iran An ally, and what
Speaker 7: she said about Syria not being a direct threat to
Speaker 7: the United States, that was her justification for going. It's
Speaker 7: completely false. The Syrians and their combination with Iran and
Speaker 7: Hezbela have posed direct threats to Americans across the region.
Speaker 7: They certainly pose a direct threat to key American allies
Speaker 7: Israel and Jordan.
Speaker 2: Very important caveat that he throws in there, right, they
Speaker 2: certainly pose a threat to our people across the region.
Speaker 2: So her point is that, yeah, Syria is not a
Speaker 2: direct threat to the homeland of the United States of America.
Speaker 2: That's what she's saying. And even John Bolton, lying bloodsilk
Speaker 2: monster that he is, still can't deny that. So then
Speaker 2: he has to pivot and make it sound as if, oh, no, no,
Speaker 2: she's an asset to Asad and therefore an asset to
Speaker 2: putin because she denies that they're a threat to the
Speaker 2: rest of our troops that are over in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: thousands of miles away from our own homeland. Like, hey, John,
Speaker 2: how about we bring them back? Maybe you ever consider that? No,
Speaker 2: of course not.
Speaker 7: And it's going to be very interesting to see what
Speaker 7: the files that may be uncovered in the Syrian government
Speaker 7: if the rebels succeed in capturing Damascus, what they show
Speaker 7: about a number of Americans.
Speaker 2: So you see what John Bolton did there, right, he's
Speaker 2: insinuating that there will be documented proof that Tulsi Gabbard
Speaker 2: is in the employe of Bashar al Assad. Slash the Iranians,
Speaker 2: slash the Russians. That's what he's hinting at. Couldn't be
Speaker 2: more clear. He's basically saying it explicitly. Wow, she is
Speaker 2: in the National Guard. She has served honorably overseas in
Speaker 2: the war on Terror, the war that he illegally pushed
Speaker 2: for or didn't push for it illegally. Just the war
Speaker 2: itself was illegal. It should be illegal what he did,
Speaker 2: but it's not.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he is now already pivoting to I mean, obviously
Speaker 2: this was right before fell, but he's trying to tarnish
Speaker 2: her as DNI and keep anyone who isn't completely on
Speaker 2: board with regime change in Iran and Russia off the chessboard.
Speaker 2: Could it be more obvious that's clearly what he's there for.
Speaker 2: That's clearly what he's doing. And I think that it's reprehensible.
Speaker 2: I really do, I think to smear someone in that
Speaker 2: fashion when I mean, let's be honest, Tulsa Gabbert is
Speaker 2: not some non invention as. She's certainly not a libertarian
Speaker 2: like me. She would be totally fine with some of
Speaker 2: these wars, just not all of them. And that is
Speaker 2: enough for her to be smeared mercilessly because she said that, hey,
Speaker 2: maybe we shouldn't be arming and funding the terrorist groups
Speaker 2: that I fought against just ten years ago or fifteen
Speaker 2: years ago. I don't want to be in bed with
Speaker 2: these people. They're terrible. Well for John Bolton. He's like,
Speaker 2: I don't mind being in bed with terrible people. I'm
Speaker 2: terrible too. This is perfect. He has no problem with
Speaker 2: it at all. So that's what that's the operation, And
Speaker 2: this is the reason that I am. I have decided
Speaker 2: to set some of my more puritanical beliefs aside to say, Look,
Speaker 2: what's the best I can hope for? Is Pete hegg
Speaker 2: Seth as Secretary of Defense? Is he some non interventionists? No,
Speaker 2: he's not. Tulsi Gabbard is d and I is she? No?
Speaker 2: I mean she's more of a non interventionist, but still not. Yeah. So,
Speaker 2: But like, what's what are my alternatives? Anthony B. Lincoln,
Speaker 2: Lloyd Austin. Is that an improvement? Fuck? No, it's not.
Speaker 2: If we want to have the best possible outcome that
Speaker 2: we can hope for, we probably need to get on
Speaker 2: board with lending our vocal support to try and get
Speaker 2: Tulsi Gabbart heg Seth. This the entire cabinet pushed through
Speaker 2: for Trump because the alternative is so horrifying, and we'll
Speaker 2: see if it works out fingers crossed. Here's Jeffrey Sachs
Speaker 2: breaking down some of the history of Syria. For those
Speaker 2: that don't believe what I have to say about it,
Speaker 2: he's pretty much the top expert on this arena. How
Speaker 2: out of control this could escalate.
Speaker 8: It's true, but I think we have to step back
Speaker 8: and not put this in partisan terms. This is a
Speaker 8: US mistake that started seven years ago. And I remember
Speaker 8: the day on your show when President Obama said Asad
Speaker 8: must go, and I looked at you and Joe and
Speaker 8: I said, huh, how's he going to do that? Where's
Speaker 8: the policy for that? And we know they sent him
Speaker 8: the CIA to overthrow Asad. The CIA and Saudi Arabia
Speaker 8: together in covert operations, tried to overthrow Asad. It was
Speaker 8: a disaster. Eventually it brought in both Isis as a
Speaker 8: splinter group to the Jihadis that went in. It also
Speaker 8: brought in Russia. So we have been digging deeper and
Speaker 8: deeper and deeper. What we should do now is get
Speaker 8: out and not continue to throw missiles, not have a
Speaker 8: confrontation with Russia. Seven years has been a disaster under Obama,
Speaker 8: continuing under Trump. This is what I would call the
Speaker 8: permanent state. This is the CIA, This is a Pentagon
Speaker 8: wanting to keep Iran in Russia out of Syria. But
Speaker 8: no way to do that, and so we have made
Speaker 8: a proxy war in Syria. It's killed five hundred thousand people,
Speaker 8: displaced ten million. And I'll say predictably so because I
Speaker 8: predicted it seven years ago that there was no way
Speaker 8: to do this and that it would make a complete cast.
Speaker 8: So what I would plead to President Trump is get out,
Speaker 8: like his instinct told him. By the way, that was
Speaker 8: his instinct. But then all the establishment, the New York Times,
Speaker 8: the Washington Post, the Pentagon, everybody said no, no, that's irresponsible,
Speaker 8: but his instinct, that's right. Get out. We've done enough
Speaker 8: damage seven years, and now we really risk a confrontation
Speaker 8: with Russia that is extraordinarily dangerous, reckless.
Speaker 2: Now here's the unfortunate reality. From the US State Department's perspective.
Speaker 2: They're going to say, Jeffrey Sex was wrong, you said
Speaker 2: seven years and that this could never be victorious. Well,
Speaker 2: we just prevailed. We topple a sod. They're not going
Speaker 2: to really worry about what comes next. And if you
Speaker 2: don't believe me, just look at what happened after Saddam
Speaker 2: Hussein was out Orgadafi was out. They do a victory
Speaker 2: lap and then the catastrophe that unfolds, including open air
Speaker 2: slave markets in Libya, are just kind of written off
Speaker 2: to history as if they don't matter. Is if we
Speaker 2: weren't responsible for bringing that about because of our ridiculous
Speaker 2: foreign policy. That's how they're going to view Jeffrey Sex's warning.
Speaker 2: They're going to say, he got it wrong. Seven years
Speaker 2: we couldn't do it. Well, we did it. The sod
Speaker 2: is gone. That's going to be the challenge is that
Speaker 2: they're going to argue that, look, we prevailed here, and
Speaker 2: we have to argue that you prevailed in toppling Asad,
Speaker 2: But did it actually make life better for the Syrian people,
Speaker 2: or safer for the world, or for the American tax
Speaker 2: pair And I think the answer is probably going to
Speaker 2: be no on all accounts, because that's what the track
Speaker 2: record is. Is what the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin
Speaker 2: and Ya who had to say about it.
Speaker 3: This is a historic day for the Middle East. The
Speaker 3: collapse of the Acid regime, the tyranny in Damascus offers
Speaker 3: great opportunity but also is fraught with significant dangers. This
Speaker 3: collapse is a direct result of our forceful action against
Speaker 3: Kibaala and Iran Asad's main supporters. It's set off a
Speaker 3: chain reaction of all those who want to free themselves
Speaker 3: from this tyranny and its suppression. But it also means
Speaker 3: we have to take action against possible threats. One of
Speaker 3: them is the collapse of the separation of forces agreement
Speaker 3: from nineteen seventy four between Israel and Syria and held
Speaker 3: for fifty years. Last night it collapsed. The Syrian Army
Speaker 3: abandoned its positions. We gave the Israeli Army the order
Speaker 3: to take over this positions to ensure that no hostile
Speaker 3: force embeds itself right next to the border of Israel.
Speaker 3: This is a temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement
Speaker 3: is found. Equally, we send a hand of peace to
Speaker 3: all those beyond our border in Syria, to the Jews,
Speaker 3: to the Kurds, to the Christians, and to the Muslims
Speaker 3: who want to live in peace with Israel. We're going
Speaker 3: to follow events very carefully. If we can establish neighborly
Speaker 3: relations and a peaceful relations with the new forces emerging
Speaker 3: in Syria, that's our desire. But if we do not,
Speaker 3: we'll do whatever it takes to defend the state of
Speaker 3: Israel and the border of Israel.
Speaker 2: So they're basically admitting it thanks to our decisive actions,
Speaker 2: Aside has fallen. So yes, they participated. Joe Biden to
Speaker 2: open the show, he acknowledged the they had dozens of strikes.
Speaker 2: I already showed you, Timber Sycamore, this is clearly not
Speaker 2: some just purely organic revolution of the people rising up
Speaker 2: against tyranny in Syria. Now, I hope for the best
Speaker 2: for the people that are true, you know, freedom fighters
Speaker 2: in Syria. I want them to have freedom and to
Speaker 2: be able to self govern and decide their own future.
Speaker 2: I am not rooting against these people, and I hope
Speaker 2: that I'm wrong, and I hope that in fact, Isis
Speaker 2: and al Qaida doesn't end up holding onto power for
Speaker 2: the next for the foreseeable future. But that's who's in
Speaker 2: power now, Like that's the strongest gang in Syria right now?
Speaker 2: Are those guys like the head Choppers, as Scott Horton
Speaker 2: famously calls them. That doesn't seem preferable to me, to
Speaker 2: Basha al Asad, But hey, maybe I'm just being a
Speaker 2: pussy about it. I don't know. It seems really not
Speaker 2: ideal to me. I think that the important thing to
Speaker 2: recognize in that is that it's not over. Like even
Speaker 2: when Netyahu talks about it, he's still acknowledging this ain't
Speaker 2: over Like the people that took over. He's like, we're
Speaker 2: going to try and get along with them, but if
Speaker 2: we can't, well then we'll do whatever we have to
Speaker 2: defend ourselves. Well, what does defending ourselves look like? Well,
Speaker 2: recently it's looked a hell of a lot like taking
Speaker 2: land from people. So I would not be surprised given
Speaker 2: that Syria is also part of the Greater Israel project.
Speaker 2: That's that's the next move that they'll end up taking,
Speaker 2: carving off some land. In fact, today there are already
Speaker 2: reports that they took portions of the goal On Heights
Speaker 2: from Syria under their control. Will they give it back,
Speaker 2: I don't know, kind of doubt it, So I think
Speaker 2: that's that's what we're witnessing right now is this entire
Speaker 2: project has been rolled out and largely successful over the
Speaker 2: past thirty years, and unfortunately you and I have been
Speaker 2: bled financially and physically, some of us the troops to
Speaker 2: make this come to pass, and I didn't vote for
Speaker 2: any of it. You'll kind of take an advantage of
Speaker 2: if I'm being honest, and I don't really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: And what I really don't appreciate is that when I
Speaker 2: realize what's happening and I kind of lay it out
Speaker 2: for you the way I have over the past thirty years,
Speaker 2: that to just say, hey, I think that's what's happening here.
Speaker 2: To be accused of bigotry or hatred for saying that
Speaker 2: is so laughably absurd, Like why can't I not point
Speaker 2: that out and go, I don't think that's right. In fact,
Speaker 2: I think it's totally immral. And I certainly, whether whether
Speaker 2: you agree with what's happening over there or not, I
Speaker 2: think it should we should all be able to agree.
Speaker 2: I shouldn't be getting taxed to do that, given that
Speaker 2: it's against my morality, and I'm sure many of you
Speaker 2: feel the same. I think it's terrible. I think it's evil, honestly.
Speaker 2: So it's just very frustrating to witness all of this.
Speaker 2: It really is just a little bit more evidence to
Speaker 2: prove out my case. These are unclassified at US Department.
Speaker 2: I guess the cables or emails. This is from Jake
Speaker 2: Sullivan to Hillary Clinton on February twelve, twenty twelve, says
Speaker 2: see last item. Aq is on our side in Syria,
Speaker 2: that's al Qaida. Otherwise things have basically turned out as expected.
Speaker 2: Next we have another unclassified document from the US Department
Speaker 2: of State. The best way to help Israel deal with
Speaker 2: Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of
Speaker 2: Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar As'ad. Negotiations to limit
Speaker 2: Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma, nor
Speaker 2: will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of
Speaker 2: any nuclear weapons program, the capability to enricher uranium. At best,
Speaker 2: the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that
Speaker 2: began in Istanbul this April will continue in Baghdad in May.
Speaker 2: Will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a
Speaker 2: decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could
Speaker 2: provoke a major Mid East war. Iran's nuclear program in
Speaker 2: Serria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are for
Speaker 2: Israel's leaders, or excuse me, for Israeli leaders. The real
Speaker 2: threat from a nuclear armed Iran is not the prospect
Speaker 2: of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear
Speaker 2: attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of
Speaker 2: both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about but
Speaker 2: cannot talk about, is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly,
Speaker 2: but could also prompt other adversaries like Saudi Arabia and
Speaker 2: Egypt to go nuclear as well. The result would be
Speaker 2: a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond
Speaker 2: to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon
Speaker 2: as it can today. If Iran were to reach the
Speaker 2: threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it
Speaker 2: much easier to call on its allies in Syria and
Speaker 2: hes Blood to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.
Speaker 2: Back to Syria, it is the strategic relationship between Iran
Speaker 2: and the regime of Bisharl Assad in Syria that makes
Speaker 2: it impossible for Iran to undermine Israel's security, not through
Speaker 2: a direct attack, which in thirty years of hostility between
Speaker 2: Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies
Speaker 2: in Lebanon, like Hesbela. They are sustained, armed and trained
Speaker 2: by Iran via Syria. The end of the Asad regime
Speaker 2: would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why
Speaker 2: defeating ASAD is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's
Speaker 2: I'm a Poor Show last week, Defense Minister Ahud Barak
Speaker 2: argued that the toppling down of ASAD will be a
Speaker 2: major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.
Speaker 2: It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence
Speaker 2: in the Arab world, and it will weaken dramatically both
Speaker 2: Hesbela and Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jahad in Gaza.
Speaker 2: Bringing down a SOD would not only be a massive
Speaker 2: boon to his israel security, it would also ease Israel's
Speaker 2: understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then Israel and
Speaker 2: the United States might be able to develop a common
Speaker 2: view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that
Speaker 2: military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the
Speaker 2: combination of iron strategic alliance with Syria and the steady
Speaker 2: progress and Iran's nuclear richment program that has led Israeli
Speaker 2: leaders to contemplate a surprise attack if necessary over the
Speaker 2: objections of Washington. With a Sad gone and Iran no
Speaker 2: longer able to threaten Israel through its proxies, is possible
Speaker 2: that the United States and Israel can agree on red
Speaker 2: lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unax sceptible threshold.
Speaker 2: In short, the White House can ease the tensions that
Speaker 2: have developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing.
Speaker 2: In Syria, the rebellion in Syria has now lasted more
Speaker 2: than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor
Speaker 2: is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from
Speaker 2: the outside. With his life and his family at risk,
Speaker 2: only the threat of use of force will change the
Speaker 2: Syrian dictator Bishah Asad's mind. So that's the State Department
Speaker 2: cable that was unclassified, that was twenty fourteen, and they're
Speaker 2: laying it all out like that's what this was about.
Speaker 2: They toppled Asad at the direct request of Israel because
Speaker 2: they wanted to weaken Iran and they wanted to cut
Speaker 2: off supply lines to Hesbela and Lebanon. I know this
Speaker 2: is very complicated, particularly if you're not interested in foreign policy.
Speaker 2: So I hope that you've been able to stick with
Speaker 2: me on this topic. But I think it's very important
Speaker 2: that we understand what exactly is happening and why. And
Speaker 2: I think that based off of those documents as well
Speaker 2: as everything else that I've laid out, it's kind of irrefutable.
Speaker 2: That's why this happened, That's why there was a decade
Speaker 2: long civil war in Syria, is that he was fighting
Speaker 2: to try and keep control of his nation. Now you
Speaker 2: can be mad at his tactics. You can say, oh,
Speaker 2: he's you know, he killed people and therefore he's evil like, yeah,
Speaker 2: but the circumstance wasn't exactly of his own volition, now,
Speaker 2: was it? Well, based off these documents, no, the fuck
Speaker 2: it wasn't. It definitely was not. And if you're going
Speaker 2: to look at his toppling as a unmitigated good, well
Speaker 2: then I think you're just not paying attention. I think
Speaker 2: you're not digging deep enough to actually figure out qui bono,
Speaker 2: who actually made all of the death and destruction come
Speaker 2: to bear? And unfortunately the answer is it wasn't usually
Speaker 2: Asad and it's not usually put in either. It's unfortunately,
Speaker 2: usually my government and a few of our allies that
Speaker 2: are responsible for making most of this come about. And
Speaker 2: also we are then stuck with the bill too, So
Speaker 2: not very cool. Given that I oppose all of it,
Speaker 2: as I'm sure most.
Speaker 8: Of you do.
Speaker 9: We also have a history of kind of moving in
Speaker 9: and out of Pakistan. I mean, let's remember here, the
Speaker 9: people we are fighting today we funded twenty years ago,
Speaker 9: and we did it because we were locked in this
Speaker 9: struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan and we
Speaker 9: did not want to see them control Central Asia. And
Speaker 9: we went to work. And it was President Reagan in
Speaker 9: partnership with the Congress led by Democrats, who said, you
Speaker 9: know what sounds like a pretty good idea. Let's deal
Speaker 9: with the ISI and the Pakistani military and let's go
Speaker 9: recruit these Mujahadeen and that's great. Let's get some to
Speaker 9: come from Saudi Arabian other places, importing their Wahabi brand
Speaker 9: of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.
Speaker 9: And guess what they retreated. They lost billions of dollars
Speaker 9: and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. So
Speaker 9: there's a very strong argument, which is wasn't a bad
Speaker 9: investment to end the Soviet Union? But let's be careful
Speaker 9: what we sew, because we will harvest. So we then
Speaker 9: left Pakistan. We said, okay, fine, you deal with the
Speaker 9: stingers that we've left all over your country. You deal
Speaker 9: with the minds that are along the border. And by
Speaker 9: the way, we don't want to have anything to do
Speaker 9: with you. In fact, we're sanctioning you. So we stopped
Speaker 9: dealing with the Pakistani military and with Isi, and we
Speaker 9: now are making up for a lot of lost time.
Speaker 2: I never thought in a million years I would end
Speaker 2: an episode of Liberty Lockdown with a quote from Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 2: be careful because what you sew you will harvest. Exactly, Hillary, exactly.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys so much for tuning in. Please do
Speaker 2: leave a comment, hit the like button, subscribe, and share
Speaker 2: this around, particularly if you have any neok on friends
Speaker 2: that are celebrating. I would love for them to watch
Speaker 2: this just to understand how how fucking crazy it all is,
Speaker 2: and how dangerous it is, and how much you're being
Speaker 2: lied to about what's really happening. I hope you found
Speaker 2: this informative. If you did, hit the like button and
Speaker 2: leave a five star review wherever you listen, and make
Speaker 2: sure you subscribe on all your audio podcasters just search
Speaker 2: for Liberty Lockdown, click subscribe and make sure that you
Speaker 2: have auto update so that they download every time. I
Speaker 2: appreciate you guys, See you soon, peace. Welcome to Liberty Lockdown.
Speaker 2: Let's go to your plock home, your liberty and come.
Speaker 2: But yeah, it's on call.
Speaker 8: When did it come
Speaker 2: From and where did he