Speaker 1: Today's Zero Hedge Debate sponsored by J. M. Bullion. Today
Speaker 1: we have Scott Horton versus my Javadan Fhar. He is
Speaker 1: an Israeli scholar professor, and we will be debating the
Speaker 1: topic of how the US should handle the situation with Iran.
Speaker 1: We're going to be doing kind of a presidential style
Speaker 1: debate with myself, Clint Russell, the host of Liberty Lockdown,
Speaker 1: former vice presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, and Amy Kozak,
Speaker 1: who will be handling the I'm too biased basically, so
Speaker 1: go ahead and introduce yourself.
Speaker 2: Amy.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Clint. It's good to be here, and I
Speaker 3: will say I appreciate libertarian spaces because we tend to
Speaker 3: put ideas and arguments front and center, not a character
Speaker 3: at hominem or any of that kind of stuff. So
Speaker 3: looking forward to a civil discussion, and yes, I'm here
Speaker 3: to provide the co moderating roles as a bit of
Speaker 3: a balance to possibly, you know, Clint's position and echoing
Speaker 3: doctor jabadan Far's position on Iran and Israel and Palestin.
Speaker 3: I am a comedian and commentator alean pro Israel. So
Speaker 3: it's just good to be here and looking forward to
Speaker 3: a balanced discussion.
Speaker 1: Mister Horton, if you'd like to introduce yourself to the audience.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 4: I'm the director of the Libertarian Institute, the host of
Speaker 4: the Scott Wharton Show, and editorial director of antiwar dot Com.
Speaker 4: And I wrote the books Enough Already, Time in the
Speaker 4: War on Terrorism and provoked how Washington started the New
Speaker 4: Cold War with Russia and the catastrophe in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to call you my ear just for ease,
Speaker 1: if you could introduce yourself to the audience as well.
Speaker 5: Hi, my name is doctor Mejavedanfhar, Iranian Israeli researcher and
Speaker 5: writer and lecturer. I've been teaching various contemporary Iranian history
Speaker 5: and politics courses for the last twelve years at Reichman University,
Speaker 5: and I've also been researching Iran Israel relationship. It's both
Speaker 5: before and after the seventy nine revolution.
Speaker 1: Well interesting, I'm going to start with the strategic interests here.
Speaker 1: It's a point of contention amongst libertarian audience in the
Speaker 1: non inventionist camp as well as many of the America
Speaker 1: First or MAGA voters. What are the core US national
Speaker 1: interests at stake in its policy towards Iran, and how
Speaker 1: should these guide the choice between interventionists and non interventionist approaches.
Speaker 1: We'll start with mister Horton's.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, America has really, you know, oil interests
Speaker 4: in the Middle East, but it really doesn't matter who's
Speaker 4: in charge of which regime, the oil will always be
Speaker 4: for sale. So you know, our entire strategic position as
Speaker 4: the regional hedgeman is entirely unnecessary, and it's mostly because
Speaker 4: of Israel. So you know, America is Israel's greatest ally,
Speaker 4: but they're not ours. They don't do anything for us
Speaker 4: at all, and even when we wage wars for them,
Speaker 4: they don't even help. He can't even name something that
Speaker 4: Israel even did for the United States at all over
Speaker 4: there in the last twenty years, other than helping Obama
Speaker 4: back Alcada in Syria.
Speaker 2: But that was Obama helping them.
Speaker 4: Back al Qada in Syria because they hate the Ala
Speaker 4: Whites for their alliance with the Sheites in Iran, which
Speaker 4: is not America's interests at all. America could have made
Speaker 4: peace with Iran decades ago, in fact, and the scholar
Speaker 4: here knows far more about this than me. But I'm
Speaker 4: sure he'll agree. Israel stayed friends with Iran after the
Speaker 4: revolution is seventy nine and through the nineteen eighties. That's
Speaker 4: why when Ronald Reagan, just a couple of years after
Speaker 4: the Beyroot attack, when he switched sides temporarily in the
Speaker 4: Iran Iraq War and armed Iran during the Iran Contra.
Speaker 2: Scandal, he used the Israelis as the cutout.
Speaker 4: You guys, give them your missiles and we'll give you
Speaker 4: some more in order to get those missiles to Tehran.
Speaker 4: So we couldn't normalize relations back during the Reagan years,
Speaker 4: we were already getting along with them enough to sell
Speaker 4: them missiles. In Knight ninety three, when Bill Clinton came
Speaker 4: into power, part of his government's idea was we should
Speaker 4: go ahead and normalize relations with Iraq and with Iran.
Speaker 4: And it's a big new Brazinski, who had been the
Speaker 4: National Security Advisor during the Revolution of seventy nine and
Speaker 4: had egg all over his face for his humiliation there,
Speaker 4: but was a leading grand strategist of American foreign policy
Speaker 4: by ninety three. He said we should build a pipeline
Speaker 4: from the Caspian Basin across Iran that way to cut
Speaker 4: them in, make some money, but also find a way
Speaker 4: to begin warming up relations with them. And you know
Speaker 4: that was just a couple of years after the end
Speaker 4: of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the
Speaker 4: idea was, we can't get along with everybody. The new
Speaker 4: president Rosson Johnny was trying to suck up to the West.
Speaker 4: They even armed al Cada in Bosnia as a favorite
Speaker 4: of Bill Clinton in nineteen ninety four or nineteen ninety five,
Speaker 4: because they were trying to suck up to the United States.
Speaker 4: In fact, Alexander Haig, Ronald Reagan's secretary of State, also
Speaker 4: wanted to build a oil pipeline across Iran as a
Speaker 4: way to open up relations with them. And guess what
Speaker 4: Clint Israel said, No, it was Yitzak Rabin's government which
Speaker 4: was reversing their strategy of the periphery and said that
Speaker 4: now they wanted to deal with the Arabs and demonize Iran,
Speaker 4: who insisted that Bill Clinton, instead of trying to warm
Speaker 4: up relations with Iraq and Iran, that he keep the
Speaker 4: bases in Saudi Arabia to wage what was called the
Speaker 4: dual containment policy against both. And that policy was invented
Speaker 4: in Israel and it was Jitsak Shamir's aid Martin Indick,
Speaker 4: who announced the policy, convinced Clinton to do it, and
Speaker 4: announced the policy in a speech at the Washington Institute
Speaker 4: for nii's Policy, which is a spinoff of APEC. So
Speaker 4: the fact of the matter is that without Israel's intervention,
Speaker 4: America could have warmed up relations with the Ayahtolas regime
Speaker 4: back in nineteen ninety three.
Speaker 2: We didn't have to.
Speaker 4: Have this last thirty years of contention and all these
Speaker 4: rats and risk of war and all this stuff. But
Speaker 4: it's the Israeli burr in America, Sattle, that is, you know,
Speaker 4: preventing our government from pursuing a Middle East policy that
Speaker 4: is actually in the interests of the American people instead
Speaker 4: of the interests of Israel.
Speaker 5: Okay, can I answer that question now?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Absolutely, my area. I'd love for you to either answer
Speaker 1: my question or to respond to Scott's claims.
Speaker 5: Respond to what Scott said, the idea that the Unite
Speaker 5: that I'm very surprised by some of the imperialistic talk
Speaker 5: from the United States by people who claim to be
Speaker 5: anti imperialists. I think it is very imperialist to say
Speaker 5: that Iran has no agency, that the Islamic Republic of Iran. Well,
Speaker 5: what you're saying is that only Israel has agency here,
Speaker 5: not the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Speaker 3: I did say that, hold on, hold on, I just
Speaker 3: just to reset for a second, just so we can
Speaker 3: avoid interruptions. From my understanding, Scott, of what you were saying,
Speaker 3: the suggestion and implication is that America's interest in the
Speaker 3: region are pretty much dictated by Israel throughout this whole process,
Speaker 3: and that all the actions that have been taken and
Speaker 3: all the posturing of Iran at we treat them as
Speaker 3: a rational actor in this and that if not for
Speaker 3: Israel's interest, America takes no action at all, and it's
Speaker 3: all at the behest of Israel. So I had Actually
Speaker 3: that's if I'm mistaking what your suggestion, what you're suggesting
Speaker 3: in your remarks, I'd like to hear doctor dravidam First's
Speaker 3: response to that. If that's the acasion, not much closer.
Speaker 4: That's much closer to what I said was that Bill
Speaker 4: Clinton's agency had to take a back seat to Israel's interest.
Speaker 4: I didn't really discuss what was going on in Tehran
Speaker 4: at all during that other than that they were trying
Speaker 4: to suck up to the US, and America was pushing
Speaker 4: them away.
Speaker 2: But I should deny that they had agency?
Speaker 4: What an absolute Okay, well, just what you say about
Speaker 4: any human over the age of eighteen, Just.
Speaker 3: To reframe that, just to help, just to help translate
Speaker 3: that for a minute. So doctor Jevenevor, can you address
Speaker 3: the claim that essentially all of the actions taken by
Speaker 3: US in this region have to do much more at
Speaker 3: the behest of Israel, and that is that that is
Speaker 3: dictating American policy.
Speaker 5: I think to say that the United States takes all
Speaker 5: its decisions in the Middle East because of Israel, it's
Speaker 5: not only inaccurate, it's also insulting to the to other
Speaker 5: you know, theories of international relations where agency is given
Speaker 5: to all sides. I'm not here to tell you that
Speaker 5: Israel has never made mistakes. Of course, we haven't made mistakes.
Speaker 5: Everybody makes mistakes. But to say that the state of
Speaker 5: Israel is in charge of United States policy towards Iran
Speaker 5: is completely taking away any agency that the Islamic Republic
Speaker 5: of Iran has had in its relations with the United States.
Speaker 5: Since the beginning of the revolution, Israel was trying to
Speaker 5: set up relations between Iran and the United States because
Speaker 5: it viewed Iraq as a threat. Now, if you want
Speaker 5: to talk about that, Iraq can tell you know. Within
Speaker 5: October seventy ninety, CIA was providing information to the Iranians
Speaker 5: regarding Iraqi plans to invade Iraq. The United States was
Speaker 5: trying to improve relations with the Islamic Republic. It was
Speaker 5: the Islamach Republic who took US hostages for four hundred
Speaker 5: and forty four days. It was the Islamic Republic that
Speaker 5: killed two hundred and forty Marines in October eighty three
Speaker 5: and then blew up the USM Messimba Route Scott. None
Speaker 5: of these were because of Israel. Now, if you want
Speaker 5: to talk about nineteen ninety three. In nineteen ninety three,
Speaker 5: let's remember the President of the United States, Bill Clinton.
Speaker 5: His biggest foreign policy issue, His biggest foreign policy ambition
Speaker 5: was peace between Israelis and Palestinians, which I think you
Speaker 5: and I both want it, if I'm not mistaken. What
Speaker 5: happened was the reason why he came up with the
Speaker 5: dual containment is that soon after the Madrid Peace stocks
Speaker 5: around the Madrid peace talks in nineteen ninety one, President Rafsan,
Speaker 5: Johnny said that the Israelis and the iran and the
Speaker 5: Palestinians can reach whatever they want. We will live with it.
Speaker 5: And he said that, of course, but we also have
Speaker 5: to take into consideration, and it's crucial that we do.
Speaker 5: And it's key that at that time the person who
Speaker 5: said Iran's foreign policy was not the president, he was
Speaker 5: the supreme leader. The supreme leader has much more power
Speaker 5: when it comes to the foreign policy. And around the
Speaker 5: same time as Madrid, when your President Evan George Bush
Speaker 5: of Blessed Memory tried to bring peace between us and
Speaker 5: the Palestinians, the Iranians, around the same time, I tol
Speaker 5: A harm and A because of domestic issues also and
Speaker 5: also because of his anti American and anti Israeli ideology,
Speaker 5: arranged the conference, invited the heads of Palestinian Islamiji had
Speaker 5: Hamas Hizballah, and they declared that anybody who wants to
Speaker 5: make peace with Israel is an enemy of the Islamic
Speaker 5: Republic and we are going to help anybody who wants
Speaker 5: to torpedo the peace talks. And since then we saw
Speaker 5: Hamas and Islamic you had became one of the bloodiest
Speaker 5: and deadliest enemies of the peace talks, and that on
Speaker 5: the mind US President Clinton, especially his plans to bring
Speaker 5: peace into this region. Hence why we had the dual containment.
Speaker 4: Well, I haven't read Treaty Parsi's book Treacherous Alliance in
Speaker 4: a few years, have to go back to the exact
Speaker 4: timeline and details there. But as he explains, it was
Speaker 4: Yitzakrabin who did want to deal with the Palestinians. He
Speaker 4: didn't want to give them a real state, but something
Speaker 4: like a pseudo type state and deal with them.
Speaker 2: And as a way of dealing with the.
Speaker 4: Other Arab states, so they turned the strategy of the
Speaker 4: periphery on its head, where they used to prioritize being
Speaker 4: friends with Iran, for example, to divide Iraq's attention and
Speaker 4: the other Sunni Arab states away from themselves. And now
Speaker 4: they would try to negotiate with the Arabs and turn
Speaker 4: on the Iranians and demonize the Iranians. And as Parsi
Speaker 4: shows in his book, it's after that that Iran began
Speaker 4: to back Hamas. There's no reason in the world why
Speaker 4: that shouldn't should necessitate America keeping bases in Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 4: To bomb and blockade Iraq and balance and pressure against Iran.
Speaker 4: And it was that policy more than any other, that
Speaker 4: turned America and Saudi and Britain's Al Qaeda terrorist mercenaries
Speaker 4: against the United States. It was when after Rabine was
Speaker 4: assassinated and his successor, his successor, Shimon Perez, invaded Lebanon.
Speaker 4: And it was actually enough Tolly Bennett who called in
Speaker 4: the artillery strike on a un shelter and killed one
Speaker 4: hundred and six women and children at the Kana massacre
Speaker 4: in nineteen ninety six, and bin Laden ranted all about
Speaker 4: that on first page of his declaration of war against
Speaker 4: the United States in nineteen ninety six. And Mohammad Alta
Speaker 4: and his buddy Ramsey bin alsheb when they read that
Speaker 4: they were Egyptian engineering students studying in Hamburg, Germany, and
Speaker 4: when they read ben Laden's rant about the Kana massacre,
Speaker 4: these Egyptians signed up to volunteer for a Saudi to
Speaker 4: attack America to get revenge for what Israel was doing
Speaker 4: in Lebanon and what Israel was doing in Palestine and
Speaker 4: the Israeli centric policy of keeping American forces in Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 4: Now you guys, will and the audience will note that
Speaker 4: I never blamed Israel for the nineteen seventy nine revolution,
Speaker 4: So that was kind of a funny thing to bring
Speaker 4: up to refute that, of course I never said. And
Speaker 4: in fact, although I didn't address this before, I certainly
Speaker 4: didn't mean to exclude that there are other humans in
Speaker 4: the world doing things. For example, there was a whiskey
Speaker 4: smuggling ring that Kuwaiti intelligence built up into a fake
Speaker 4: assassination plot against h. W. Bush and Seymour Hirsch debunked
Speaker 4: this in the New Yorker magazine.
Speaker 2: By the end of the year, case not closed.
Speaker 4: It turned out that the Iraqi plot, the Saddam Hussein
Speaker 4: plot to murder h. W. Bush with a truck bomb
Speaker 4: in Kuwait, was completely fake. And guess what. The guy
Speaker 4: that made it up was the same guy whose daughter
Speaker 4: claimed that she saw the Iraqi soldiers throwing the babies
Speaker 4: out of the incubators in order to lie us into
Speaker 4: Iraq War one two years later. Her father is the
Speaker 4: one who spun up the truck bomb assassination plot against
Speaker 4: Huba Bush. And it was after that that Bill Clinton
Speaker 4: gave in to Martin and Dick and Yitzak Rabin and
Speaker 4: adopted their policy of dual containment. So I'm not saying
Speaker 4: for a moment that Israel had anything to do with
Speaker 4: the whiskey smuggling ring or the.
Speaker 2: Kuwaiti plot to frame up this.
Speaker 4: Fake scheme of this fake assassination attempt against h. W.
Speaker 3: Bush.
Speaker 4: I never said that there are all kinds of things
Speaker 4: in motion. But it was Martin Indick's policy, and he
Speaker 4: had been the Yitsak Shamir's guy, and he was the
Speaker 4: one who coined the whole thing. And anyone should read
Speaker 4: it's the excellent book Treacherous Alliance by Treta Parsi, where
Speaker 4: he shows what's going on behind the scenes and all of.
Speaker 1: This absolutely, Doctor javidan Far, But I would also like
Speaker 1: to I would like to make sure that you answered
Speaker 1: my question specifically, because I'm trying to be convinced of
Speaker 1: your position. Why is Iran or intervention in Iran in
Speaker 1: the national interest of the American people?
Speaker 5: Specifically, I'll answer one of the marks made by Scott,
Speaker 5: and then i will answer your question. First and foremost,
Speaker 5: Treatah Parsy in his book takes a huge acrobatic leap
Speaker 5: over the actions of the Islamic Republic, and he focuses
Speaker 5: on Israel, and it comes up with a theory that
Speaker 5: if you test it, it doesn't really stand. He's saying
Speaker 5: that Israel after the Cold War was looking for a
Speaker 5: new enemy. It was Israel that turned Iran into its enemy,
Speaker 5: because it was Israel that turned the periphery doctrine on
Speaker 5: its head. That is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest. Israel
Speaker 5: actually supported Iran in the Iran Iraq War with the
Speaker 5: hope of improving relations with them. And what Treatah Partsy
Speaker 5: doesn't say is that the Islamic Republic of Iran, instead
Speaker 5: of using that opportunity to improve relations with Israel and
Speaker 5: the US, supported Palestinian Islami Chihad, who started its terror
Speaker 5: attacks against Israelis in the late eighties. What Treata Parsi
Speaker 5: doesn't say is that the Islamic republics supported Hamas who
Speaker 5: started his terror activities in the nineteen nineties early nineteen nineties.
Speaker 5: I think that's grotesquely dishonest to say that Israel was
Speaker 5: looking for an enemy when we know that the Islamic
Speaker 5: Republic tried to blatantly undermine them. Madrid Peace talks by
Speaker 5: supporting groups that called for the elimination of the Israeli
Speaker 5: of Israeli of this country, and has supported the killing
Speaker 5: and murdering of innocent Israelis in cafes and restaurants to
Speaker 5: treat a party. These things don't matter in his argument.
Speaker 2: It's not true. It is a damn lie.
Speaker 4: No, you can read the book and he does not
Speaker 4: ignore Iranian support for Hamas at all.
Speaker 5: In the great time, Scott, let me speak, Please, I
Speaker 5: tried to you know, you spoke. Let's let's try to
Speaker 5: keep this clear.
Speaker 2: For the for the for what you're saying about my
Speaker 2: friend is incorrect.
Speaker 5: What I'm saying about your friend is correct because his arguments,
Speaker 5: if we put the facts that I gave you into
Speaker 5: his arguments that says it was Israel that turned Iran
Speaker 5: into an enemy. That argument doesn't stand. How can Israel
Speaker 5: turn Iran into the enemy when Israel helped Iran in
Speaker 5: the Iran Iraq War and it was the Islamic Republic
Speaker 5: of Iran that declared war proxy war on the state
Speaker 5: of Israel.
Speaker 4: Well, you guys can quibble about the timeline and who
Speaker 4: turned on who first if you want, And.
Speaker 5: That's very important.
Speaker 4: It is, but you're you, you just outright stated that
Speaker 4: he doesn't mention he completely ignores Iran's support for Hamas.
Speaker 4: I already said in this interview earlier, in this debate
Speaker 4: earlier that, as he explains, the Iranians did not begin
Speaker 4: backing Hamas until after the the Rabine doctrine and had
Speaker 4: changed and they were excluded from Madrid and Rabine had officially,
Speaker 4: you know, inaugurated the reversal of the strategy.
Speaker 2: Of correct he does not ignore Amos.
Speaker 4: Terrorism, and he doesn't ignore Iranian support for it.
Speaker 2: That's all in there.
Speaker 4: And he also does quote Israeli strategists. And this is
Speaker 4: what's so great about that book is there's no news
Speaker 4: cycle bs in it. It's all quotes from the highest
Speaker 4: level strategists in America, Israel, and Iran. And he has
Speaker 4: Israeli strategist saying, we needed new glue for the alliance
Speaker 4: with the United States after the fall of Soviet Union.
Speaker 2: Why did they need us?
Speaker 4: And what we decided on was Islamic fundamentalism.
Speaker 5: And particularly we chose Islamic fundamentalism. That's a new.
Speaker 2: Glue for the alliance.
Speaker 4: The reason why America needed to support Israel was to
Speaker 4: hold back the Islamic horde and all of that you
Speaker 4: know narrative that they are America's you know, easter most
Speaker 4: fort or the West's easternmost fort in the Middle East
Speaker 4: holding back the tide, and that's why we have to
Speaker 4: prop them up.
Speaker 5: So Islami terrorists were not killing American citizens and it's
Speaker 5: because of I don't understand, to be honest with you,
Speaker 5: the idea, that's.
Speaker 2: Because Islamic fundamentalism, I said.
Speaker 4: They decided that they would use Islamic fundamentalism as the
Speaker 4: excuse for the alliance, as new glue for the alliance
Speaker 4: between their country and ours.
Speaker 2: That's what they said.
Speaker 6: Now is the time to take advantage of the power
Speaker 6: of gold and silver to grow your wealth. Whether you're
Speaker 6: an experienced investor or new to the game, these precious
Speaker 6: metals have a long history of being a safe haven
Speaker 6: for your savings, but they also offer growth potential, making
Speaker 6: them a wise investment choice.
Speaker 2: So where does the average.
Speaker 6: Investor go to buy gold and silver?
Speaker 5: That's easy.
Speaker 6: JM Bullion Jambullion is one of the most popular and
Speaker 6: most trusted precious metals retailers in the nation. We offer
Speaker 6: a huge selection of gold, silver, platus them and palladium
Speaker 6: products that can be delivered to your door in safe, discrete,
Speaker 6: fully insured packaging, from one gram of gold to an
Speaker 6: entire mint box of silver. JM Bullion offers precious metals
Speaker 6: to suit every financial goal and budget, no matter your budget.
Speaker 6: Now is the time to start investing in precious metals
Speaker 6: and start protecting yourself and your savings against these volatile markets.
Speaker 6: Visit jambullion dot com today to take a look at
Speaker 6: our wide variety of precious metals rounds, coins, and bars
Speaker 6: and find out how you can turn your savings into gold.
Speaker 3: So, Scott, I just want to I just want to
Speaker 3: chime in here just for a second because before it's
Speaker 3: arts to get interrupting, and I do want to come
Speaker 3: back to Clint's fundamental question, which is sort of what's
Speaker 3: centered around this is America's interest and in Iran at all?
Speaker 3: Because I think this is this is fundamental. Scott. You
Speaker 3: brought up the timeline issue and in terms of confusing
Speaker 3: actors and reactors, actions and reactions, this is where the
Speaker 3: fundamental disagreement is. So can you just talk about because
Speaker 3: it sounds like Scott, you're making this case that's centered
Speaker 3: around geopolitics and rational actors responding to conditions. And I
Speaker 3: want to ask this question about to the extent of
Speaker 3: whether this is ideologically driven, whether Islamic fundamentalism is a
Speaker 3: reality that precedes the actions of the West versus a
Speaker 3: response to actions of the West.
Speaker 4: So, I mean, as we've already agreed, Israel got along
Speaker 4: just fine with the mean old Ayatola Komane.
Speaker 2: Throughout his reign.
Speaker 5: He turned against Scott. He murdered our citizens. We didn't
Speaker 5: get along with him. We tried to help him in
Speaker 5: the war, but he killed our citizens.
Speaker 4: That's ridicuous that Israel backed Iran in the Iran Iraq war, which.
Speaker 5: Afterwards they chilled our citizens. Afterwards, they killed our citizens. Afterwards,
Speaker 5: it was two years. Hang on, please let me speak.
Speaker 5: Two years after that. Three years after that war, they
Speaker 5: set up a conference in which they declared proxy war
Speaker 5: against the state of Israel. Please don't ignore that and
Speaker 5: treatm Parsy tries to say that Iran may try to
Speaker 5: improve relations with America by citing raph San Johnny, but
Speaker 5: what under minds treata party, And again he doesn't say
Speaker 5: this is that it was Iola Harmona who said Iran's
Speaker 5: foreign policy TREATAD Party, just as RAF San Johnny doesn't
Speaker 5: say harmony because TREATAD Party like you. Scott also advances
Speaker 5: the idea that it's because of Israel that Iran and
Speaker 5: the United States are enemies, and that is completely inaccurate. Now,
Speaker 5: to answer Clint's question, Clint, to reach to reach, Clint,
Speaker 5: I'm just going to finish an innicantalk waiting for waiting,
Speaker 5: very patient, Clint. At the end of the day, if
Speaker 5: you reach a piece still with the with the Iranian regime,
Speaker 5: that would be good for the State of Israel. That
Speaker 5: would be good. To have American embassy on Iranian soil,
Speaker 5: to have American diplomats on Iranian soil, that would be great.
Speaker 5: But you know what, Clint, the Islamic Republic will never
Speaker 5: let that happen. You know, Vietnam, America did terrible things
Speaker 5: to Vietnam in nineteen seventy five, they broke relations. By
Speaker 5: nineteen ninety five, you had relations with Vietnam again. The
Speaker 5: Islamic Republican time and time again, has refused American office
Speaker 5: for a consulate for embassy. President Obama tried to open
Speaker 5: up an Internet like a virtual embassy they shut it down.
Speaker 5: The Islamic Republic views peace with your country as an
Speaker 5: existential threat. They believe that peace with America and the
Speaker 5: presidence of American diplomats talking about women's rights in Iran,
Speaker 5: talking about democracy, bringing American investment in Iran, undermining the
Speaker 5: companies owned by the regime, that is a threat. That
Speaker 5: is a some seat in Iran as a as a
Speaker 5: excuse me as an existential threat. They believe this is
Speaker 5: why the Soviet Union fell apart. The representative of the
Speaker 5: Supreme Leader the IRGC said, and I can provide the
Speaker 5: documentation in farce if you want that. The reason why
Speaker 5: the Soviet Union fell apart was that stopping a revolutionary
Speaker 5: state during Garbachov and it improved relations with America instead,
Speaker 5: and that allowed America to infiltrate them, you know, the
Speaker 5: ideologies such as democracy and human rights and rule of law,
Speaker 5: and that's what led to you know, convinced, that's convincing
Speaker 5: the Soviets that the system was bankrupt, and they themselves
Speaker 5: broke down the system.
Speaker 1: I'm not arguing, I'm not arguing that we're ever going
Speaker 1: to be allies with Iran. I'm asking specific.
Speaker 5: The diplomatic relations you're not going to have.
Speaker 1: But I'm asking specifically, we don't have to have diplomatic
Speaker 1: relations with a lot of countries, and that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that we have to go to war with them. Why
Speaker 1: specifically is an American and the American people's interest to
Speaker 1: intervene to go to war to bomb Iran?
Speaker 5: I don't know. That's a question that Americans have to decide.
Speaker 5: If you can read nuclear deal with them, God bless you,
Speaker 5: good luck.
Speaker 1: Okay, So you're arguing that it won't happen.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I don't know. Look, I don't know
Speaker 5: that what your president decides is up to him. But
Speaker 5: at the end of the day, if America wants to
Speaker 5: reach a deal, I think it was a terrible mistake
Speaker 5: for President Trump to leave the Iran nuclear deal. I
Speaker 5: think it would be good if there's a new look. See,
Speaker 5: you know, we call it geopolitics because geography impacts politics.
Speaker 5: You guys are living in the US. I'm living in Israel.
Speaker 5: We are much closer to Iran in my country unlike yours,
Speaker 5: and I repeat, in my country, unlike yours. The Iranian
Speaker 5: regime has sponsored the killing of more than a thousand
Speaker 5: Israeli citizens before October seventh in your country, they haven't.
Speaker 5: In America, buses have not been blown up, cafes have
Speaker 5: not been blown up with Iranian money. In Israel, they
Speaker 5: and this makes us much more sensitive to the threat.
Speaker 5: Now do I agree with Natanyaho's way of handling Iran, No,
Speaker 5: I don't. But overwhelming majority of Israelis, including those on
Speaker 5: the left, don't want this regime to have a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 5: If you guys can stop it with reaching a deal,
Speaker 5: God bless you well.
Speaker 1: From an Israeli perspective, I completely understand. I'm under the
Speaker 1: impression that there are many people in Israel that would
Speaker 1: like to see us actually intervene actively, not just stand
Speaker 1: down allow that Yahoo to do so. But I have
Speaker 1: monopolized the time so far. So Ami, I'd like to
Speaker 1: have you hop in here.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Sure, I think it's important to ask like a
Speaker 3: macro fundamental question as we talk about American intervention, like Scott,
Speaker 3: in your opinion, what is the standard by which a
Speaker 3: country is justified in going to war to begin with?
Speaker 2: Well, it's se defense only.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is so much of the talk about
Speaker 4: Iran is When, where and under what circumstances should we
Speaker 4: attack them, right, like we're the Japanese. Now we just
Speaker 4: attack and start wars if that's how we want to
Speaker 4: do things, which used to be the most you know,
Speaker 4: dastardly thing. Right, Pearl Harbor will live forever in infamy
Speaker 4: because of what a morally horrific thing it was for
Speaker 4: Japan to sneak attack and start a war against innocent,
Speaker 4: old US.
Speaker 2: Right, So this is we should never be starting wars.
Speaker 4: And when Joseph Stalin, right, not just Khrush chief, but
Speaker 4: Stalin the second worst guy ever or maybe they're depending
Speaker 4: on how you rank them. I went to get atomic bombs,
Speaker 4: Truman did not attack the Soviet Union to prevent them
Speaker 4: from achieving atomic weaponry.
Speaker 2: Same thing for.
Speaker 4: Lyndon Johnson in the nineteen sixties when Mal Saytong, who
Speaker 4: you know, quantitatively killed more people than any other person alive,
Speaker 4: Ganghis Khan and Tamerlane combined can't touch mal Saytong. And
Speaker 4: when he went to get Adam bombs, Lyndon Johnson, I'm
Speaker 4: not attacking China to prevent them from getting Adam bombs.
Speaker 2: Do we want nuclear proliferation in the world?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 4: Should we do everything we can to negotiate the prevention
Speaker 4: of that. Yes, should we start a war to stop
Speaker 4: a country from obtaining a nuclear weapon? Of course not
Speaker 4: and even that, of course, not that you did this
Speaker 4: in your question, but the way I framed it anyway,
Speaker 4: you know, begs the question of whether Ron is even
Speaker 4: attempting to achieve a nuclear weapons status, and which you know,
Speaker 4: I'd like to explain real quick why that's actually not
Speaker 4: the case.
Speaker 2: What they do have is a latent nuclear deterrent.
Speaker 4: They've proven that they've mastered the fuel cycle, that they
Speaker 4: could enrich uranium up to weapons grade, and then it's
Speaker 4: nineteen forties technology to make a simple.
Speaker 2: Gun type nuke out of that, and they could.
Speaker 4: And so what they're essentially saying is we got a
Speaker 4: revolver in one pocket and bullets in the other. Let's
Speaker 4: not escalate this any further. So this is the same
Speaker 4: status as Japan, Brazil, and Germany. They have a latent
Speaker 4: nuclear deterrent. They've proven that they know how to use
Speaker 4: nuclear material and even create fissionable material.
Speaker 2: But they their entire.
Speaker 4: Stance since the Axis of Evil speech in two thousand
Speaker 4: and two was where Iraq said, hey, we're not doing anything.
Speaker 4: Here's a twelve thousand page dot CIA about how innocent
Speaker 4: we are. Well, that didn't help. America just buffaloed right
Speaker 4: in there at Israeli behest. We can get back to
Speaker 4: that if you want to talk about a rock warteam.
Speaker 4: The North Koreans said, fine, you're gonna bully us out
Speaker 4: of the treaty, will leave the treaty, and they made
Speaker 4: nukes and we've left them alone ever since. And the
Speaker 4: Iranians position was, our books are wide open, We've were
Speaker 4: members of the Non Proliferation Treaty, we have IAEA inspectors
Speaker 4: at all our nuclear facilities, and the Europeans and everybody
Speaker 4: else are witnesses.
Speaker 2: We're not making nukes. You have no pretext for war here.
Speaker 4: And they were right, of course that America wanted to
Speaker 4: go after their enemy Saddam Hussein first, and so if
Speaker 4: they bided their time and were patient, that would work,
Speaker 4: and that is what worked. By two thousand and five,
Speaker 4: they had completed the Natance facility and had begun enriching uranium.
Speaker 4: And so the Iatola's position for the last twenty years
Speaker 4: essentially has been to have this nuclear capability without the
Speaker 4: actual nukes. And this is why he was perfectly willing
Speaker 4: to negotiate the deal with Barack Obama in twenty fifteen
Speaker 4: where he said I don't want nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to make nuclear weapons, and yes, I'm
Speaker 2: willing to.
Speaker 4: Expand the inspection regime and dial back the program to
Speaker 4: a degree in order to reassure you of that. And
Speaker 4: I absolutely agree with Meyer Hero that it was completely
Speaker 4: idiotic for Donald Trump to tear up that deal or
Speaker 4: at least withdraw American participation in the JCPO in twenty
Speaker 4: eighteen at Netanyahu's behest, of course, because under that deal,
Speaker 4: it was with the entire UN Security Council, but unlike
Speaker 4: a normal Security Council resolution where any one country can
Speaker 4: veto it, this was majority rule. So it meant that
Speaker 4: if America, Britain, and France agree, then we get to
Speaker 4: have our way, and Russia and China can't vote to
Speaker 4: stop it when it comes to a we're suspicious of
Speaker 4: a site and we want to send inspectors there to
Speaker 4: look at it, and then if they didn't comply, then
Speaker 4: the entire global sanctions regime automatically snap back into place.
Speaker 4: It was a really great deal and it got such
Speaker 4: a and I hate to get Barack Obamber John Kerry
Speaker 4: credit for anything.
Speaker 2: Quite frankly, I really do.
Speaker 4: But they bribed him with their own money that Jimmy
Speaker 4: Carter stole back in seventy nine. That was the pala
Speaker 4: of cash, was Iranian money, and that was all they
Speaker 4: got to scale back their program, expand inspections and add
Speaker 4: additional protocols to their safeguards agreement and again forever foreswear
Speaker 4: atomic weapons.
Speaker 2: And that ought to be a good enough basis essentially.
Speaker 4: In other words, long story short, they're saying, don't attack me,
Speaker 4: and I won't make a nuke, and America is saying,
Speaker 4: don't make a nuke and I won't attack you. So
Speaker 4: there's a perfect basis for an agreement right there.
Speaker 3: So Mayor, I'd love to hear your response to that.
Speaker 3: And also Scott does agree that the standard for war
Speaker 3: is self defense, and the framing of this question is
Speaker 3: should America attack Iran? My question to you is to
Speaker 3: what extent is does I ran believe it's at war
Speaker 3: with the United States to begin with? If you think
Speaker 3: about taking hostages in seven to nine since the revolution
Speaker 3: and attacks since then, and funding of terrorism, forgive me
Speaker 3: if it's a leading question, I just I'm curious if
Speaker 3: to what extent we're looking at this the wrong way
Speaker 3: as waiting to decide if America should be the initial
Speaker 3: aggressor or attacker on Iran versus And also to what
Speaker 3: extent does that inform the Iranian ideology and ambition? What
Speaker 3: do you think Scott is missing in his assessment.
Speaker 5: Do you think the only reason America would want to
Speaker 5: attack Iran is because of Israel? That would be the
Speaker 5: only reason.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: And this is in the New York Times again just
Speaker 4: two days ago, where the Israelis, I think probably are bluffing,
Speaker 4: but they're threatening that they'll go ahead and attack Iran,
Speaker 4: and they might even attack Iran even if Trump gets
Speaker 4: a deal, and they have the article, the most recent
Speaker 4: piece is by Data. Let me just say very quickly,
Speaker 4: I promise I'll stop, but I'm answering your question that
Speaker 4: you asked me directly.
Speaker 6: Here.
Speaker 4: Israeli sources told Ronan Bergmann that.
Speaker 2: Oops is the wrong quote. Sorry, I have it right here.
Speaker 7: That I know that net who believes the US would
Speaker 7: have no choice but to assist Israel militarily if Iran
Speaker 7: counter attack.
Speaker 4: In other words, the Israeli plan, if it comes down
Speaker 4: to it, is to knowingly force America into a war
Speaker 4: by starting a war with Iran that they know that
Speaker 4: they can't finish and that we will have to finish
Speaker 4: for them, and they're happy to tell that to the
Speaker 4: New York Times.
Speaker 5: Okay, first and foremost, I think it was the right
Speaker 5: decision for the State of Israel to bomb me Rock's
Speaker 5: nuclear program. That was a very wise decision that President
Speaker 5: Reagan was against and me nothing began took it. It
Speaker 5: was a very right decision to attack serious chemical program
Speaker 5: two thousand and seven. And if the Islamic Republic, who
Speaker 5: has called for our elimination, not your country's, got mine.
Speaker 5: And if the Islamic Republic was denied the Holocaust, you know,
Speaker 5: it's incredible. Guys were living in twenty twenty five. The
Speaker 5: only government in the world that denies the Holocaust not
Speaker 5: only denies the Holocaust, makes fun of it by cartoon competition.
Speaker 5: Let me repeat that, Holocaust cartoon competitions in Iran are heard,
Speaker 5: are held not just once or twice, I think four three,
Speaker 5: four times. If such a regime decides to make a
Speaker 5: nuclear weapon, I think it would be justified for the
Speaker 5: startup for the State of Israel to start war by
Speaker 5: attacking them.
Speaker 2: However, they know that America will have to finish it
Speaker 2: for them.
Speaker 5: How please go, I go. However, we are at a
Speaker 5: stage where we have to see what President Trump will deliver.
Speaker 5: The idea that the Islamic Republic of Iran has always
Speaker 5: I don't know if you're saying with Scott, so forgive
Speaker 5: me if I'm going to you know, if I don't
Speaker 5: get it right. The idea that if Scott or somebody
Speaker 5: else is saying that the Islamic Republic of Iran has
Speaker 5: played this nuclear program, has it has always been transparent
Speaker 5: is completely wrong. They were caught illegally without informing the
Speaker 5: idea about building the tance. It was Israel who found
Speaker 5: out and informed the Mujadinaj who revealed it. It was
Speaker 5: a centrifuge. Why hide it? Again? Iran was caught hiding
Speaker 5: building a new enrichment plant at FORDU. If you don't
Speaker 5: want a nuclear weapon, why hide it? It was again
Speaker 5: there was a program to develop nuclear trigger at the
Speaker 5: Parching site. They even had a chamber to test surrogate
Speaker 5: surrogate explosives for simulating a trigger mechanism. Again that the
Speaker 5: Iranians were caught and we saw with the documents that
Speaker 5: the Mozart brought out of Iran, which incidentally also showed
Speaker 5: that Iran was keeping its side of the deal. But
Speaker 5: that's a different story. The Iranian regime was proved time
Speaker 5: and again that it had intention of ultimately having the
Speaker 5: capability to make a nuclear weapon. Why did it stopped?
Speaker 5: First and foremost because of Israeli intelligence. Second of all,
Speaker 5: because the Islamic Republic of Iran insisted on making America
Speaker 5: into its enemy, not the State of Israel. It was
Speaker 5: the Islamic Republic of Iran who killed two hundred and
Speaker 5: forty Marines in Beirut, who took US hostages, who attacked
Speaker 5: the US embassy in Bay Route, who took other US
Speaker 5: hostages in Lebanon, the Hobar Tower bombings in Saudirabia in
Speaker 5: nineteen ninety six, nineteen US servicemen were killed. They were
Speaker 5: planning to blow up a restaurant in the middle of Washington, DC.
Speaker 5: In twenty eleven, and the CIA quote them. The Islamic Republic,
Speaker 5: with its own policies, has ensured that America becomes its
Speaker 5: enemy because the Islamic Republic of Iran, I'm talking about
Speaker 5: the regime, not the people views peace with America almost
Speaker 5: as dangerous, if not more than war, because it views
Speaker 5: peace with the United States as undermining one of its
Speaker 5: fundamental reasons to exist, and the people of Iran are
Speaker 5: against this. Polls have shown repeatedly that people of Iran
Speaker 5: want better relations with the United States. And I tell
Speaker 5: you what, guys, just to show how much the regime
Speaker 5: is opposed to having good relations with the US in Washington,
Speaker 5: d C sits in informer Iranian post as the Kazi
Speaker 5: who took a poll together with Gallup in the early
Speaker 5: two thousands showing that majority of Iranians want to have
Speaker 5: good relations with the US. And what did the regime
Speaker 5: do to an Iranian post who showed this, putting in
Speaker 5: jail for three years, one year of those was in
Speaker 5: solitary confinement for just publishing a poll in Iran showing
Speaker 5: the people of Iran want better relations with the United States. Scott,
Speaker 5: the biggest enemy of peace between your country and Iran
Speaker 5: is not my country. It is Ali Khomene.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, there's a lot of things there.
Speaker 4: First of all, since pouring in their tens or hundreds
Speaker 4: of millions to do another color coded revolution, as they
Speaker 4: attempted to do with the Green Revolution in two thousand
Speaker 4: and nine, and yes, USAID and NED did help to
Speaker 4: finance that, and you can read it.
Speaker 2: In right way.
Speaker 4: Media in americannewsmax dot com has a thing by Timmerman,
Speaker 4: who I think was at the Foundation for Defensive Democracies,
Speaker 4: explaining it and don't interrupt me. You just got to
Speaker 4: make fifteen false claims, so I'm going to refute them now.
Speaker 4: In Osa in nineteen eighty one, Saddam Hussein had an open,
Speaker 4: declared nuclear facility at Osirak that was inspected by the IAEA,
Speaker 4: and when Israel bombed it, all they did was drive
Speaker 4: it underground, and the CIA and the Israelis did not
Speaker 4: know that. In fact, Saddam Hussein did begin building a
Speaker 4: secret nuclear weapons program in the nineteen eighties in reaction
Speaker 4: to Osirak, to that attack, and then that wasn't discovered
Speaker 4: until the aftermath of Iraq War one when America d Iraq.
Speaker 5: What so he did have weapons of us destruction? What
Speaker 5: you were saying is that he did have weapons of
Speaker 5: my destruction?
Speaker 4: Right, listen with your ear holes nineteen eighties, at the
Speaker 4: end of a Rock War one in nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 4: America occupied all of southern Iraq and found Saddam Hussein's
Speaker 4: secret nuclear weapons program. It was not very advanced, but
Speaker 4: it did exist, and it came into existence in reaction
Speaker 4: to that ridiculous Israeli blunder of launching a preemptive attack
Speaker 4: on an open, declared, inspected civilian nuclear facility.
Speaker 2: That is the exact truth.
Speaker 4: And then the rest of the truth is unlike what
Speaker 4: you just said, that Iran Iraq did not have any
Speaker 4: form of nuclear program whatsoever after nineteen ninety one, nor
Speaker 4: did they have any program to develop chemical or biological
Speaker 4: weapons in that country after the First Gulf War. Now
Speaker 4: you said why hide nentence. The reason to hide ntans
Speaker 4: was because America did everything in the world that they
Speaker 4: could to intervene.
Speaker 2: And there's something called the Nuclear.
Speaker 4: Suppliers Group, which is essentially a monopoly controlled by the
Speaker 4: nuclear weapons states on nuclear technology, and they refused to
Speaker 4: let Iran buy any enrichment equipment. So they went to
Speaker 4: the black market and they bought it from a Q Khan,
Speaker 4: the Pakistani nuclear weapons scientist, the same as Libya and
Speaker 4: North Korea eventually did buy some equipment from him, and
Speaker 4: that was what they originally had started spinning up at NTANCE,
Speaker 4: and so they clearly wanted to have the facility done
Speaker 4: before they announced it. But it was not the Israeli
Speaker 4: Masad and the Mujahadeen eculk. It was actually David Albright,
Speaker 4: the American nuclear weapons wonk who originally found NTANCE and
Speaker 4: published that, and then Israel. Yes, dude, you should take
Speaker 4: it up with David Albright. He'll fight you over it.
Speaker 4: He's got the timeline. David Albright brought it up. Then
Speaker 4: Israel funneled that to And who's the mujaiden e Culk.
Speaker 4: They're a communist terrorist cult that used to work for
Speaker 4: the Ayatola who then went to work for Saddam Hussein
Speaker 4: and now are sock puppets of the Israelis. They just
Speaker 4: two weeks ago announced a big fake intelligence scheme. Look
Speaker 4: at these aerial pictures of a giant secret nuclear facility,
Speaker 4: the NCRI. That's m EK announced and it was totally fake,
Speaker 4: and no intelligence agency anywhere in the world, even the Israelis,
Speaker 4: I don't think publicly supported that as being true. Then
Speaker 4: he mentions the nuclear triggers. Funny, you don't mention that
Speaker 4: Benjaminette Yahoo was part of a group that stole critrons
Speaker 4: from the United States. Back at the time, he was
Speaker 4: working with Arnan Milchan, the famous American movie producer. Their
Speaker 4: Israeli spies stealing nuclear trigrupt.
Speaker 2: Me, don't interrupt me.
Speaker 4: You can go on and on with your bs as
Speaker 4: soon as I'm done. And your whole thing about Parchin
Speaker 4: and the nuclear triggers, that Partchen is completely debunked. The
Speaker 4: scientist in charge at Parchen was a guy named den
Speaker 4: Chenko whose speciality was making nano diamonds for industry. He
Speaker 4: had no speciality in making nuclear weapons or nuclear triggers whatsoever.
Speaker 4: Has completely debunked. You have no idea what you're even
Speaker 4: talking about. You didn't even know the guy's name. His
Speaker 4: name's dan Chenko. And they what they said was he
Speaker 4: went to this university in Moscow where nuclear research also happens. Yeah, well,
Speaker 4: he didn't participate in any of that. His expertise was
Speaker 4: in making nano diamonds. Then you mentioned why Iran doesn't
Speaker 4: want to make nukes, while according to the National Intelligence
Speaker 4: Estimate of two thousand and seven, when the CIA and
Speaker 4: the other intelligence agencies finally officially came out and debunked
Speaker 4: the lie that they were pursuing nuclear weapons. They said
Speaker 4: it was because yes, it came out in November two
Speaker 4: thousand and seven, anyone can read it. And their conclusion was,
Speaker 4: since America got rid of Iran's greatest enemy, Saddam Hussein
Speaker 4: and put their best friends, the Bottle Brigade and the
Speaker 4: Supreme Islamic Council and the Dawa Party in power in Baghdad,
Speaker 4: at Israeli behest that now the Ayatola didn't even need
Speaker 4: to feign a pursuit of atomic weapons as a deterrent
Speaker 4: against Saddam because now his friends ruled Baghdad thanks to
Speaker 4: Richard Pearl and George W.
Speaker 2: Bush.
Speaker 4: Then you mentioned the Baby Route bombing of nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 4: First of all, that was forty two years ago. Second
Speaker 4: of all, Ronald Reagan sold the missiles just a couple
Speaker 4: of years after that, and it didn't bother the Israelis
Speaker 4: whatsoever at the time. They kept selling them weapons all
Speaker 4: through the nineteen eighties. So don't give me crocodile tears
Speaker 4: about that. And according to Victor Ostrowski, the former Israeli spy,
Speaker 4: Israel knew that the attack was coming, and so that's
Speaker 4: what the Americans get for sticking their nose into our
Speaker 4: business and did not warrant the United States. Anyone could
Speaker 4: read the book Victor Ostrowski By Way of Deception where
Speaker 4: he explains about that. And then when Iran that did
Speaker 4: that anyway, it was proto Hasbala and Iran backed militia there,
Speaker 4: but there's no proof that that attack was ordered by Tehran.
Speaker 2: And then Kobar Towers.
Speaker 4: That's an absolute lie that Iranian back Saudi has Bala
Speaker 4: did the Kobar Towers. That was Osama bin Laden and
Speaker 4: colleague Sheik Muhammad who did that.
Speaker 2: And the CIA knows that.
Speaker 4: Michael Showier, the former chief of the CIA's been lauden
Speaker 4: unit himself told me that, and Osama bin Laden himself
Speaker 4: bragged about it and took credit for the attack to
Speaker 4: Abdel Bari Atwan. And who was the target Clint and me?
Speaker 4: The target was American airmen whose job it was to
Speaker 4: bomb Iraq from bases in Saudi in other words, provoking
Speaker 4: the September eleventh attack against the United States. And then
Speaker 4: he mentioned the twenty eleven restaurant plot, again a complete hoax.
Speaker 2: The guy wasn't even part of the royal family.
Speaker 4: The ambassador at the time was a nobody and all
Speaker 4: that happened was it was a drug deal that got intercepted,
Speaker 4: and they and it was this guy was a used
Speaker 4: car dealer who couldn't find his car keys, and they
Speaker 4: said he was recruited by Hesbala into his plot to
Speaker 4: blow up and assassinate this guy at a restaurant in Washington.
Speaker 2: He's a ridiculous hoax.
Speaker 1: Damn, I got up in. You hit him, you bombarded him.
Speaker 1: I'm going to give you about ninety seconds to respond,
Speaker 1: But then I want to ask another question.
Speaker 5: Please, you know the idea that Israel, you know, everything
Speaker 5: that that's been fact proven that the Islamach Republic has undertaken,
Speaker 5: is is a lie that the Islamic Republic of Iran
Speaker 5: all these things that I mentioned that have been fact proven,
Speaker 5: or it's just the conspiracy theory. It's really, you know,
Speaker 5: it's really Beggar's belief that the Islamic Republic has always
Speaker 5: been so you know, it's been it is not guilty
Speaker 5: of any of these factors, even though there have been
Speaker 5: commissioned and and all the respected newspapers have reported on it.
Speaker 5: So Scott can believe whatever he wants to believe. But
Speaker 5: the United the United States.
Speaker 2: The nano diamonds guy. It's one of the other nano
Speaker 2: diamonds guy. Okay, So you just don't know what you're
Speaker 2: talking about, you No, I know.
Speaker 5: I just think that you're talking that you're coming up
Speaker 5: with theories that are that that I completely disagree with
Speaker 5: the with with the sources, and I think that this
Speaker 5: is what we see to believe that Iran is has
Speaker 5: always been the victim in all these cases of conspiracy.
Speaker 5: Theory just is beggar's belief that Iran has just been
Speaker 5: continuously You just said that Iran has been a victim,
Speaker 5: a victim, a victim Scot. That's in the world of fantasy,
Speaker 5: not in the real world. This catalog a lot.
Speaker 2: Of lives that you told that accused him of.
Speaker 3: What do you think mayor Iran wants? What is it?
Speaker 3: Do you think the presumption is Scott is saying they
Speaker 3: want to be welcomed by the Community of Nations and
Speaker 3: these gestures to welcome them in is the way to go?
Speaker 3: Is there something else that's like? Do you think it's
Speaker 3: what's that?
Speaker 2: I didn't say that.
Speaker 3: Well, that the the idea, the strategy should be that
Speaker 3: it should be one of Well, my question is my
Speaker 3: question is do you what what do you think really
Speaker 3: drives the Iranian regime? What do they want? Do they want?
Speaker 3: I forget, I'm not presuming them that's what you're saying, Scott.
Speaker 3: But do you think they want to be part of
Speaker 3: this community of nations in trade with the West and
Speaker 3: have peace with the West, have peace with Israel, have
Speaker 3: peace with America? What do they want?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 5: A MEI can I just make a quick point about
Speaker 5: the United States and Iran. The people of Iran have
Speaker 5: not had a better friend than the United States. Your
Speaker 5: country has been a wonderful friend to the people of Iran. Okay,
Speaker 5: it was the United States that pressured Stalin to leave
Speaker 5: Iranian territory in nineteen forty six. If it wasn't for
Speaker 5: President Truman, Stalin would have continued to occupy the Iranian territory.
Speaker 5: And it was and he helped to create the Azerbaijanalu
Speaker 5: Thoom's Republican the Mahavadutom Republic in order to undermine the
Speaker 5: Iranian sovereignty. Iranians, we owe a great death of gratitude
Speaker 5: to President Truman. It was American weapons that allowed Iran
Speaker 5: to stand up to Iraq in nineteen sixty nine by
Speaker 5: driving by the Abusina ship in the middle of the
Speaker 5: Chatl Arab to take half of the Chatel Arab for
Speaker 5: Iranian sovereignty, which should have been the case because the
Speaker 5: Iraqis have been cheating Iran since nineteen thirty seven. It
Speaker 5: was American Development AID that created a lot of centers
Speaker 5: of education and training for Iranian doctors. And I think
Speaker 5: the people of Iran, I think in the West have
Speaker 5: not in modern history of Iran have not had a
Speaker 5: better friend than the United States of America. However, the
Speaker 5: Islamic Republic of Iran is ideologically opposed to good relations
Speaker 5: with the United States. We saw that time and time again,
Speaker 5: even after the nuclear deal with Obama. The nuclear deal
Speaker 5: went into effect in twenty sixteen. Soon after was the
Speaker 5: Iranian regime arrested the dual Iranian American citizens Mcnamazi, who
Speaker 5: wanted what Scott wants, good relations between Iran and the
Speaker 5: United States. Then to make sure that American companies can't
Speaker 5: invest in Iran because the regime doesn't want its business
Speaker 5: interest on the mind, they tested two missiles with writing
Speaker 5: in Hebrew that Israel should be wiped up the face
Speaker 5: of the earth. What do you think that does the
Speaker 5: foreign investment in Iran. That's exactly what you would do
Speaker 5: if you want to undermine foreign investment in Iran. And
Speaker 5: this is why, according to jabad zarif you know, in
Speaker 5: the first year after the nuclear deal, there was only
Speaker 5: like two billion dollars worth of investment in Iran where
Speaker 5: they were hoping for I don't know, eighty billion dollars.
Speaker 5: The Islamic Republic, the regime, I'm talking about the hierarchy.
Speaker 5: I'm not talking in Iran. You have dual system. You
Speaker 5: have revolutionary institutions headed by the Supreme Leader and all
Speaker 5: the organizations that he heads, and then you have republican
Speaker 5: institutions who are elected in elections of course, controlled by
Speaker 5: the revolutionary institutions. Time and time again have been presidents
Speaker 5: in Iran who have wanted to have good relations with
Speaker 5: the US, even Ahmadi Nejad, even Madled Ahmadi Nejad, but
Speaker 5: the Supreme Leader doesn't want it for ideological reasons and
Speaker 5: because of he believes that America. Good relations with America
Speaker 5: would undermine the legitimacy of his regime. Good relations with
Speaker 5: America is viewed as the Berlin Wall in terms of
Speaker 5: the regime's ideology and also his business reasons. The regime
Speaker 5: doesn't want good relations with your country because there are
Speaker 5: many regime organizations who produce everything from tomato p ry
Speaker 5: to cars, and if America comes in, Iranian has would
Speaker 5: preferred to buy their products because they are better quality,
Speaker 5: and that would undermine it's interest. So tell me, the
Speaker 5: peace between Iran and the United States is supremely the alikamine.
Speaker 1: Doctor Meyer, You've you scoffed at the open when Scott
Speaker 1: alleged that most of our Middle Eastern policy, America's Middle
Speaker 1: Eastern policy has been predicated off of Israel's interests. I've
Speaker 1: always wanted to ask, what do you make of the
Speaker 1: clean Break doctrine authored by Richard Pearl, David Wormster, and
Speaker 1: Douglas Fight in nineteen ninety six the nineteen nine it
Speaker 1: was the neo conservative kind of game plan for the
Speaker 1: Middle East. If that doesn't convince you, you then also
Speaker 1: had General Wesley Clark in two thousand and seven that
Speaker 1: stated that shortly after nine to eleven he was informed
Speaker 1: that the US had a plan to take out a
Speaker 1: rack Syria eleven on Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off
Speaker 1: with Iran. I've always wanted to ask in Israeli scan
Speaker 1: about this, so I'm going to take the opportunity. Well
Speaker 1: I have that chance. It sure sounds to me like
Speaker 1: we are we have a plan of conquest in the
Speaker 1: Middle East. That Clean Big Break doctrine was authored by
Speaker 1: American neo conservatives, but it was sent to Benjamin net
Speaker 1: Yahoo in nineteen ninety six. He then basically redlined the
Speaker 1: things that he didn't like, and he and he authorized
Speaker 1: the things that he did. That seems as if our
Speaker 1: foreign policy has been dictated for the past thirty plus
Speaker 1: years by Israel. How am I.
Speaker 5: Wrong, Clint? We you know, to say that Israel has
Speaker 5: no influence in Washington, d C. Would be fantasy. Of course,
Speaker 5: we tried to out influence. We have relations. We have
Speaker 5: relations with the world's greatest power and with one of
Speaker 5: our best friends. Of course it's very normal. But to
Speaker 5: believe that America invaded Iraq because of Israel, that's inaccurate.
Speaker 5: When they came to Israel, from my understanding, when they
Speaker 5: came to talk to the Israeli government, I'm talking about
Speaker 5: Israeli government officials. They sent me want to attack Iraq.
Speaker 5: And what did the Israeli say, attack Iran. Don't attack Iraq,
Speaker 5: attack Iran. But they didn't listen. They attacked Iraq number one,
Speaker 5: number two. All these persons that you were talking about wounds,
Speaker 5: et cetera, et cetera, they were not employees of the
Speaker 5: Israeli government. I don't understand how the opinion of American
Speaker 5: Jews in the US government can be construed as having
Speaker 5: you know, they are carrying out Israeli policy. Please, Clint,
Speaker 5: you live in the superpower you have. Please, You guys
Speaker 5: have also have to accept some agency for your mistakes.
Speaker 5: So do we. Of course, we have to accept agency
Speaker 5: for some of our mistakes. But you guys also have
Speaker 5: to step up and to take agency from one of
Speaker 5: for your mistakes, which included the Iraq War. To say
Speaker 5: that it was because of Israel takes away any agency
Speaker 5: that the United You have a president, you have the
Speaker 5: ci A. You know George Tennant said that the WMD
Speaker 5: was was he said, Islam dunk If that was that
Speaker 5: the expression he used, These are decisions made by the
Speaker 5: United States. If you were going to do it a
Speaker 5: behest of Israel. This rightly said, attack Iran the Israelis
Speaker 5: already realized that Iran was the biggest danger. But you
Speaker 5: guys started to attack Iraq, and you know that was
Speaker 5: a mistake. I understand that was that we know and
Speaker 5: we now know that was a mistake and it also
Speaker 5: costs Israel.
Speaker 1: Okay, but talk to Mayer just to be clear. The
Speaker 1: reason I'm asking it is that you have this game
Speaker 1: plan that's being laid out in nineteen ninety six. You
Speaker 1: also have the confirmation that this game plan existed immediately
Speaker 1: after nine to eleven. We then invaded a bunch of
Speaker 1: countries that had nothing to do with nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: And you're telling me that that's just a mistake as
Speaker 1: opposed to a game plan that was dictated by Zionists
Speaker 1: in America.
Speaker 5: Clint, America can make mistakes without Israel.
Speaker 1: Well, just our mistakes happened to be If it Israel
Speaker 1: every time, isn't that odd?
Speaker 5: But that doesn't mean that he is responsible. And they
Speaker 5: tell me, how is it interests Iraq is now on
Speaker 5: the Iran Iranian control? How is that.
Speaker 1: Interest I'm being too I'm being too contentious. So let
Speaker 1: me let Scott go.
Speaker 4: Well, look, here's the thing. He's right that George W.
Speaker 4: Bush is not Jewish, right, George W. Bush is you know,
Speaker 4: the son of Episcopalians or or Anglicans or whatever.
Speaker 2: I think. He fashions himself a Methodist.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Connelly's Rice and George Tennant. Uh.
Speaker 2: None of the principles on the in the W.
Speaker 4: Bush administration were Jewish Zionists or Jewish spies or Israeli
Speaker 4: agents or spies sent here to represent a foreign power.
Speaker 4: But boy, all their guys were, you know, John Hannah
Speaker 4: and Robert Joseph and Zall make Khalil Zad and Stephen
Speaker 4: Hadley and Richard Pearl and Douglas Fifth, Jeane Kirkpatrick and
Speaker 4: Ken Adelman and Abram Shulski and Michael Maloof and Michael
Speaker 4: Rubin and Michael Ledeen.
Speaker 2: These are the people who's staffed.
Speaker 4: And John Bolton is not actual neo Conservative, but he's
Speaker 4: a fellow traveler very close to them. These are the
Speaker 4: people who staffed the Vice President's Office, the National Security Council,
Speaker 4: the State Department, and the Pentagon. They marginalize people like
Speaker 4: Colin Powell and his right hand man Dick Armitage at State.
Speaker 5: Please say what they are. Please say what you think
Speaker 5: these people are?
Speaker 7: They?
Speaker 4: Okay, they are? Were most of them acting as agents
Speaker 4: of influence for Israel and the ones who I have
Speaker 4: that from Colin Powell's chief of staff, Right, yeah, what
Speaker 4: does Colin Powell's chief of staff know about what.
Speaker 5: Administration? So that's okay.
Speaker 2: Asked me a direct question, you don't want to let
Speaker 2: me answer it.
Speaker 4: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson told me that Douglas Fife and David
Speaker 4: worms Are both were acting directly as agents of the
Speaker 4: Israeli state.
Speaker 2: The rest of these guys.
Speaker 4: All all have essentially a strong ideological commitment to neo conservatism.
Speaker 2: They're not all Israeli's spies to many of them.
Speaker 4: And John Bolton is one who said this explicitly numerous times.
Speaker 2: America's interests and Israel's interests are.
Speaker 4: Exactly the same. So they don't see it as serving
Speaker 4: a foreign power. They see it as just doing what
Speaker 4: they think is right anyway.
Speaker 2: But it's not.
Speaker 4: And you call these all mistakes, but they're the mistakes
Speaker 4: that were on the lacud's list. Now you're right too
Speaker 4: that Ariel Sharon said, no, I want you to go
Speaker 4: to Tehran first, and he was the Prime Minister during
Speaker 4: September eleventh. But as JJ goddamn it, as JJ Goldberg
Speaker 4: from the foreword did a long expos on this, explaining
Speaker 4: that inside the LEACUD there was a big split, and
Speaker 4: Sharon was the Iran hawk, and net and Yahoo was
Speaker 4: the Iraq hawk, and the neo conservatives in America were
Speaker 4: much closer to the Net and Yahu faction inside LACUD
Speaker 4: at that time. And now JJ Goldberg says the same
Speaker 4: thing that you said, and the same thing that I
Speaker 4: just said, which is.
Speaker 2: These men did not do it.
Speaker 4: It was w Bush that pulled that trigger one hundred
Speaker 4: percent and Dick Cheney, they were the ones responsible for that.
Speaker 2: But these were the men.
Speaker 4: And this is what John Meerscheimer and Stephen Walt make
Speaker 4: an ironclad case in their book The Israel Lobby and
Speaker 4: American Foreign Policy that the war could not have happened
Speaker 4: without the neo Conservatives acting as the vanguard of the
Speaker 4: Israel lobby in the United States. The American Israel Public
Speaker 4: Affairs Committee also avowedly pushed for the regime change there.
Speaker 2: And I have in my book enough already.
Speaker 4: I have quote after quote after quote from people involved
Speaker 4: saying that this is what had happened. In fact, Connolly's
Speaker 4: Rice's deputy Philip Zellikow, said that what this is really
Speaker 4: about is Saddam Hussein gave money to the families of
Speaker 4: suicide bombers. He gave money to any Palestinian family who
Speaker 4: someone died, you know, in conflict with Israel, but that
Speaker 4: included suicide bombers. So in a sense, Saddam Hussein was
Speaker 4: paying a bounty to the family of suicide bombers. And
Speaker 4: this was something that Wolfe of Wits and then would
Speaker 4: bring up from time to time. And as Zelikow said,
Speaker 4: this is not something that they wanted to really emphasize
Speaker 4: to the American people because blowing up a bus in
Speaker 4: Tel Aviv is bad, but it's not in Texas, and
Speaker 4: it's not even in New York, and so it's not
Speaker 4: the kind of thing that would be a good enough
Speaker 4: reason for the American people to go to war.
Speaker 2: But was that the reason the neo conservatives wanted to
Speaker 2: go to war? Absolutely it was.
Speaker 4: And one more thing, and then I promise, I'll stop
Speaker 4: and let you go as long as you want America.
Speaker 4: The US government has been a very good friend, not
Speaker 4: to the Iranian people, but to the Iranian regime. And
Speaker 4: in fact, the worst thing that the Ayadzola Commedye has
Speaker 4: done in this century was his government back to the
Speaker 4: Iraqi National Congress. They had a headquarters office in Tehran,
Speaker 4: and it was Ahmed Chalabi and his friends from this
Speaker 4: fake Iraqi government in exile.
Speaker 2: They were the ones.
Speaker 4: Who first of all sold David Wormser and Richard Pearl
Speaker 4: on the idea that overthrowing secular Sunni Saddam in Iraq
Speaker 4: would weaken and hurt Iran rather than benefit them. And secondly,
Speaker 4: they were the ones who funneled about two thirds of
Speaker 4: the lives of the weapons of mass destruction through the
Speaker 4: fifth run Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon and
Speaker 4: straight up to the Vice President's Office into the American
Speaker 4: media to lie us into war. And then what happened
Speaker 4: when American baited Iraq. They took the Bottle Brigade, the
Speaker 4: Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in
Speaker 4: Iraq who'd been living in Iran for twenty years since
Speaker 4: the Iranian Revolution, and took them.
Speaker 2: All the way to power in Baghdad. So that was
Speaker 2: what George W.
Speaker 4: Bush in the United States of America did for Iran
Speaker 4: was overthrown secular Sunni bought this Saddam and put their
Speaker 4: best friends from Dawa in power in Baghdad. There's a
Speaker 4: guy from the Supreme Islamic Council is the prime minister
Speaker 4: right now, Sudani. He lived in Iran for twenty years,
Speaker 4: so did Malaki, sod Jafari.
Speaker 2: All of these guys are Iranian agents.
Speaker 4: And that's who a Rock War two benefited more than
Speaker 4: anyone else. And then this is why America also supported
Speaker 4: the jihadi war against Assad in twenty eleven. Was if
Speaker 4: we put Iran up two pegs in Baghdad, we got
Speaker 4: to try to take them down a peg in Damascus.
Speaker 4: And this is what has finally been fulfilled now as
Speaker 4: of last December, when al Qaeda finally succeeded in sacking
Speaker 4: Damascus and overthrowing the government there. And this is why
Speaker 4: to make up for the fact that America did what
Speaker 4: Israel wanted and overthrew secular Suni Saddam, but that backfired,
Speaker 4: and so now they had to make up for that
Speaker 4: by putting America back on the side of the Jahadiss
Speaker 4: as long as it's against the sites and their friends.
Speaker 4: Even though it wasn't Hasbala that knocked down our towers.
Speaker 4: It was the radical Sunni vanguard of the al Qaeda
Speaker 4: Bin Laden Night movement of bin Laden and Zawahari, the
Speaker 4: enemies of Iran that did that attack on our our country.
Speaker 1: I would like to have this debate go, yeah, but
Speaker 1: real quick, yeah, just real quick. I just wanted to say, uh,
Speaker 1: massive thanks to zero heads for putting this debate on.
Speaker 1: I could have it go for two full hours, but
Speaker 1: because we do not have that amount of time, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have to go to closing arguments. I want to
Speaker 1: again thank our sponsor, which is Jay M. Bully On
Speaker 1: and I will start with doctor Meyer.
Speaker 5: I just want to is there a mistake Scott that
Speaker 5: America has made in the Middle East which you think
Speaker 5: Israel is not responsible for?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I'm I mean one of the biggest ones was in
Speaker 4: two thy and fifteen when Barack Obama switched sides in
Speaker 4: the war in Yemen. He had been backing the Hooti
Speaker 4: in fact, the Hootie takeover usnarwis.
Speaker 5: So there is something, Okay, So at least there is something,
Speaker 5: Thank god, there's one thing responsible for.
Speaker 2: That's amazing. Not Israel.
Speaker 5: That is amazing. Okay, so wow to Israel, we fell
Speaker 5: asleep of the will days because for for you know,
Speaker 5: for what I can understand, it's that we were just basically,
Speaker 5: you know, the puppet masters of America before the invasion
Speaker 5: of Iraq. The CIA, I didn't interrupt you, I didn't
Speaker 5: interrupt you. Please. So the CIA and the FBI completely
Speaker 5: missed out on Israeli agents in Washington infiltrating the American
Speaker 5: decision making circles, pulling the strings, and making America attack
Speaker 5: Iraq at the behest of Israel. Because what you're saying
Speaker 5: is all these people you just mentioned are Israeli agents,
Speaker 5: and they did the job to convince Bush on behalf
Speaker 5: of Israel. So Israel was sitting here and just pulling
Speaker 5: the puppet master in Tel Aviv and was running these
Speaker 5: people in Washington, and the CIA and the FBI had
Speaker 5: absolutely no idea. That is fantasy. That's the world of
Speaker 5: Rush today. That is the world hang on. That is
Speaker 5: the world of Walt and Meersheimer, who believe that Israel
Speaker 5: is the country that is most responsible for the invasion
Speaker 5: of Iraq. Nothing to do with Saddam Hussein blockading blockading
Speaker 5: the inspectors.
Speaker 8: On these hang On, hang on, good story about you
Speaker 8: went on up, So you're just wrong.
Speaker 2: I never said that.
Speaker 3: You can think he's wrong. I just want to look
Speaker 3: like hear his response, Wes.
Speaker 5: You attacked Iraq because of all these ten people you mentioned,
Speaker 5: and that they were acting on the behest of Israel.
Speaker 5: So that means that you have no CIA, That means
Speaker 5: you have no FBI. That would insinuate hang On, hang on,
Speaker 5: because all these people would have had to receive secret
Speaker 5: communications from the State of Israel, either from this Israeli
Speaker 5: embassy a drop of points, probably maybe most Sad or
Speaker 5: maybe the Israeli you know, getting secret cables telling them
Speaker 5: to convince the Americans to attack Iraq because that's what
Speaker 5: Israeli influenced over that decision would mean. Or there's the
Speaker 5: alternative that these people are Americans who make decisions. Then
Speaker 5: may be pro Israel, but they make their own decisions.
Speaker 5: They advise the government based on their own view, not
Speaker 5: because they're getting the messages from Israel or because they
Speaker 5: believe that America is the client state of Israel. You
Speaker 5: make that mistake to attack America to attack Iraq. Those
Speaker 5: people are American citizens who have a right to have
Speaker 5: whatever beliefs they want. But what they don't have a
Speaker 5: right to is to be a spy or agent of
Speaker 5: influence of another country. And there's nothing from the CIA
Speaker 5: or the FBI that said that these people were running
Speaker 5: the operation at the behest of Israel. So you cannot
Speaker 5: blame Israel for the mistake that was made in Iraq.
Speaker 4: You have no idea what you're talking about. The CIA
Speaker 4: started ratting on the neo conservatives. Melvin Goodman, a former CIO.
Speaker 5: Are they catching the spies? You can't catch spies.
Speaker 4: Melvin Goodman said that the neo conservatives in the Pentagon
Speaker 4: are lying us in the war for Israel. Former CIA
Speaker 4: officer in September of two thousand and two. It was
Speaker 4: CIA guys who told the truth about the officer's special plans.
Speaker 4: It was Kara Katowski, the Air Force officer, who said
Speaker 4: Israeli generals were walking around the Pentagon.
Speaker 2: Like they own the place.
Speaker 4: And it was the FBI who in fact did investigate
Speaker 4: the neo conservatives in the Pentagon, whether they finds of
Speaker 4: anti Semitism and all the rest if they.
Speaker 5: Find oh so, really so, why is that they called
Speaker 5: Jonathan and Jonathan pull Out. Then if the FBI is
Speaker 5: scared of anti Semitism, why did they catch Jonathan pull Out.
Speaker 2: I didn't say they were scared of it.
Speaker 5: You just said that because of anti Semitism. So if
Speaker 5: if the FBI didn't find spies, then it must be
Speaker 5: because of those Israelis pulling a come on, come on,
Speaker 5: this is not Russia today. This is a serious conversation.
Speaker 3: Doctor Jovi, downfire. If you can just to button up
Speaker 3: this back and forth, can you just give and then
Speaker 3: go into your closing statement? Mayor your perception of events,
Speaker 3: because Scott has presented it in this way, it seems
Speaker 3: to me a little bit from my perspective that you know,
Speaker 3: you're drawing the target around the row a little bit,
Speaker 3: but in your perception of the events in terms of
Speaker 3: interest aligning and the clean bank strategy, and in terms
Speaker 3: of what motivated America to act in the region in
Speaker 3: response to being attacked, how do you perceive those seeming
Speaker 3: coincidences or interest aligning from the clean bank strategy. So
Speaker 3: the way Israel operated the way America operated, because on
Speaker 3: the optics, it presents a certain way and you're disputing that,
Speaker 3: which I understand. So from your perspective, what's the nuance there,
Speaker 3: what's the alternative viewpoint about why things played out the
Speaker 3: way they play out.
Speaker 5: I think the ways the American administration at that time
Speaker 5: made it strategic error in interpreting intelligence, and Saddamus saying
Speaker 5: was also hiding this intelligence from the Americans, and we
Speaker 5: had a war because President Bush wanted democracy for Iraq. Okay,
Speaker 5: he wanted to turn Iraq into a democratic state, and
Speaker 5: he wanted also, of course, the whole idea that they wanted,
Speaker 5: you know, this Wilsonian idea of exporting liberal democracy, and
Speaker 5: they had their own you know, set of set of priorities.
Speaker 5: It was you know, the question is Saddam was not
Speaker 5: was not cooperating misinterpretation of intelligence. The Americans wanted to
Speaker 5: introduce democracy, and of course there was oil interest, of
Speaker 5: course there was, and this is why we had that situation,
Speaker 5: this is why we had the war. Did not turn
Speaker 5: out to Israel's interests, which is why Israeli officials when
Speaker 5: the Americans wanted to attack Iraq, they said you should
Speaker 5: attack Iran because at that time they were viewing Iran
Speaker 5: as the biggest threat. Now I can understand Israel has
Speaker 5: made many these states. Please believe me, be over our country.
Speaker 5: We've been around since nineteen forty eight. We've made good
Speaker 5: decisions and we've made terrible decisions. The decision to invade
Speaker 5: Iraq was not ours. This was not ours.
Speaker 4: This was a.
Speaker 5: Decision by the United States.
Speaker 1: Doctor Mayer. Can you acknowledge at least that neither Iraq
Speaker 1: or Iran had anything to do with nine to eleven?
Speaker 5: Correct? So, the Iran, but the Iranian has allowed some
Speaker 5: of the some of the Again, there's been a I
Speaker 5: have to look into this, I have to look into this.
Speaker 5: So with that caveat, some of the bombers had crossed
Speaker 5: the Iranian terreship. But that's the only thing I mean overall, No.
Speaker 5: Ninety eleven was not the Iraqi Iranian job not right.
Speaker 1: So that's the reason for the question as to all
Speaker 1: of these, all of these countries that are laid out
Speaker 1: as to be in the line of fire in terms
Speaker 1: of conquest for the US Empire. It's laid out nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety six. It's confirmed in two thousand and two thousand
Speaker 1: and one, right after nine to eleven they had a
Speaker 1: plan to take out these seven countries. Six of these
Speaker 1: seven countries have fallen, but you have this one remaining,
Speaker 1: which is Iran, which you happen to have Natan Yahoo
Speaker 1: being the war drums against and you're telling me these
Speaker 1: are just mistakes on behalf of Americans. This is not
Speaker 1: in Israeli interest. You can understand why that kind of
Speaker 1: beggars belief, right.
Speaker 5: Well, the first of all, the document that you're talking about,
Speaker 5: I don't believe it was raw, don't. First of all,
Speaker 5: I haven't heard that much about it. Number Two, I
Speaker 5: don't think Israel would publish a document like that as
Speaker 5: an official document. That can you know in the future
Speaker 5: if something goes wrong, that would be used against it
Speaker 5: if Israel was behind such a document. Number Three, we
Speaker 5: see that the people who took those decisions have nothing
Speaker 5: to do with Israel. If it happens, in your view
Speaker 5: to have served Israeli interests, which it didn't, but because
Speaker 5: you believe that it incidentally it serves into Israel's interest,
Speaker 5: then Israel must be responsible that that doesn't stand up.
Speaker 5: That would not stand up in any court.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a it's a letter written to net
Speaker 1: Yahoo to say.
Speaker 3: It's But Clint, there are all sorts of strategies and
Speaker 3: playing place over time in hindsight's twenty twenty to be
Speaker 3: able to draw some sort of pattern in the past
Speaker 3: when you look.
Speaker 1: At But this is this is seven countries laid out
Speaker 1: allegedly documented. I think it was. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it was Chanier.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it was.
Speaker 4: I could clarify, guys, this is not an official government document.
Speaker 4: It was written by David Wormser primarily and co signed
Speaker 4: by Richard Pearl and Douglas fIF Fight now disavows it entirely,
Speaker 4: by the way, but it was written for Netnyahu. And
Speaker 4: there's a companion piece that goes with it called Coping
Speaker 4: with Crumbling States. And then they wrote a book called
Speaker 4: Tyranny's Ally America's Failure to Remove Saddam Hussein from power
Speaker 4: in Iraq, which is by Wormser with a foreword by Pearl,
Speaker 4: And it's all the same thing over and over again,
Speaker 4: and it's all got Ahmed Chalabi's.
Speaker 1: Name in it.
Speaker 4: And the Ayatola's man sent to lie to the American
Speaker 4: Zionists and promise them that if a and this is
Speaker 4: the whole point of.
Speaker 5: It, only American Zionist, no American was involved. Only American Zionists.
Speaker 1: No other Americans.
Speaker 4: If the if the American government or the Israeli government
Speaker 4: could succeed in overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, that would
Speaker 4: lead to site control. But the sites will be compliant
Speaker 4: with US, and they'll obey Turkey and Jordan and be
Speaker 4: friends with Israel.
Speaker 2: The Saite clerics will order.
Speaker 4: Hasbala to stop being friends with Iran, and the democracy
Speaker 4: in Iraq will be so great that it'll be a nightmare,
Speaker 4: quote a nightmare for the Iranian regime to have a
Speaker 4: free site supermajority ruled Iraq. This was the whole plan,
Speaker 4: and it was a bunch of smoke being blown up
Speaker 4: their ear ends by an Iranian agent i'm At Chalabi,
Speaker 4: who was working for the Ayatola and who essentially was
Speaker 4: telling the American neo conservatives what they needed to hear
Speaker 4: to get America to do this for Israel. And I'll
Speaker 4: remind your audience too that Benjamin Netanyahu came and testify
Speaker 4: to the US Congress spike.
Speaker 5: To America to do something that is wanted. So the
Speaker 5: Irania sentenced spiking America to get to do something for Israel.
Speaker 4: How was that came and testified and said, I promise,
Speaker 4: if you get rid of Siddam Hussein, it's gonna have
Speaker 4: positive reverberations.
Speaker 5: He wasn't in power. He wasn't in power. He was
Speaker 5: an individual. He wasn't in power. That was the thing
Speaker 5: to do.
Speaker 4: And then another thing is that you said that about
Speaker 4: the FBI and the CIA having no idea about this. Again,
Speaker 4: the CIA were the ones ratting on the neo cons
Speaker 4: in the American media.
Speaker 2: The FBI investigated them.
Speaker 4: And there's great journalism by Julian Borger in The Guardian
Speaker 4: in a piece called The Spies Who Pushed for War
Speaker 4: about how Ariel Sharon created his own Office of Special Plans.
Speaker 4: And again you're right that he wanted to go after
Speaker 4: Iron first, but once it was clear that Bush and
Speaker 4: the Americans wanted to do Iraq, he said, okay, fine,
Speaker 4: and he got on board for that and helped push
Speaker 4: and he had his own men bypassed Masad and manufacture
Speaker 4: fake intelligence in English to funnel into the American intelligence stream.
Speaker 4: It's also in the book A Pretext for War by
Speaker 4: James Bamford, but anyone can pull it up right now.
Speaker 4: The Guardian Forger The Spies who Pushed for War and
Speaker 4: Karen Katowski, the Air Force Lieutenant colonel whistleblower can verify
Speaker 4: Israeli generals walking around going straight to Doug Fight's office
Speaker 4: like they own the place, refusing to even wait for
Speaker 4: their escorts to take them to his office.
Speaker 5: Yes, may just one point, just one day, point, just
Speaker 5: one sentence, if Israel did not exist, America would still
Speaker 5: have a very high probability, if not certainty, that America
Speaker 5: would still have attacked I rock.
Speaker 3: Oh please, Well, also, it just it feels like it's
Speaker 3: offullly a cinematic view Scott of how these things play out,
Speaker 3: as if these like and it feels very convenient to
Speaker 3: notice these patterns rather than looking at it as a
Speaker 3: much more complex interest that align at various points in time,
Speaker 3: much more gray areas here, rather than finding the one
Speaker 3: assistant chief of staff who said this one thing and
Speaker 3: that's a big whistle wan.
Speaker 2: So when I hear these points we make about it,
Speaker 2: you should read it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's just where I think the objection is,
Speaker 3: Like the way you paint this narrative is if it's
Speaker 3: in the sort of cinematic fantasy sort of way you
Speaker 3: look back Hindsight's twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: That's hw Bush called the neo conservatives the crazies, and
Speaker 4: they were to be kept in the basement. They were
Speaker 4: allowed to work on South America policy or Latin America policy,
Speaker 4: but they were not allowed to mess with the Middle East.
Speaker 2: When W.
Speaker 4: Bush got elected, Dick Cheney hired them to all of
Speaker 4: the most important positions in his office on the National
Speaker 4: Security Council and in the State Department and then the Pentagon.
Speaker 4: And Colon Powell said they operated what he called, quote
Speaker 4: a separate government directly under the control of Dick Cheney,
Speaker 4: and he referred to the office as Special Plans in
Speaker 4: the Pentagon as Fife's Gestapo office.
Speaker 5: That was the worst.
Speaker 4: They called themselves the cabal, and there was to lie
Speaker 4: us into war with Iraq.
Speaker 1: And to clarify this, I'm not like, this is not
Speaker 1: a made up thing that I'm claiming. It's a clean break,
Speaker 1: a new strategy for securing the proalm. It still exists
Speaker 1: as a pdf on dougfight dot com. He was one
Speaker 1: of the co authors on it. And additionally, I don't
Speaker 1: think that this is a cinematic retelling of history. This
Speaker 1: is basically looking at empirical facts in hindsight and cross
Speaker 1: referencing them against claims made by very prominent people like
Speaker 1: General Wesley Clark, who said that n O one right
Speaker 1: after nine eleven they had a list of a rack Seria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
Speaker 1: and Iran. Six of those seven have already been either bombed, conquered, toppled,
Speaker 1: or whatever, either by the US or by Israel. I
Speaker 1: don't think that that's cinematic to make that claims.
Speaker 2: It was Israel that brought.
Speaker 5: All that policy is. It's amazing. I've never realized my
Speaker 5: country was such an incredible superpower. You know, if everything
Speaker 5: that Scott says that we for it as a country
Speaker 5: of eight million, we are a country of genius superpowers.
Speaker 5: Who are you know who are running America? I only.
Speaker 4: Right I read the Wall Street Journal or.
Speaker 5: The reason why the count.
Speaker 4: Is look a PAK ranks right up there with the A, A,
Speaker 4: R P and the n r A as one of
Speaker 4: the most powerful lobbies in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: That's no conspiracy theory, that's the Wall Street.
Speaker 5: We run America, run America, Clint.
Speaker 3: I assume we have to, we have to come to
Speaker 3: an ending. But there you had a point in response
Speaker 3: to Clint saying, these are simply we're looking at claims
Speaker 3: being made, we're squaring them with reality.
Speaker 5: What was your response, You know, maybe the reason why
Speaker 5: someone of those countries were attacked is because they attacked
Speaker 5: your country.
Speaker 1: Do you know which ones, which ones of those seven
Speaker 1: which attacked.
Speaker 5: Well, well, you're talking about Iran, Iran killing your citizens,
Speaker 5: and you're killing your citizens in Al Hobar support terrorist
Speaker 5: and killing American citizens. You're talking about Sudan. First of all,
Speaker 5: I don't know that that that that document is specific.
Speaker 5: I haven't read it, but let's just say it does.
Speaker 5: Is Douglas Fai Israeli employee? Is he on the payroll
Speaker 5: of the Mozart? If he's, then you're absolutely right. But
Speaker 5: if an American citizen decides to publish a policy paper
Speaker 5: on his website that happens to also be in line
Speaker 5: as a consequence with Israeli interest, that does not mean
Speaker 5: that he's on the payroll of the Israeli government or
Speaker 5: that he's an American agent of influence.
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not arguing that he's not an American.
Speaker 1: I'm arguing he is an American that that sent that
Speaker 1: letter that ended up becoming our policy under the George W.
Speaker 1: Bush administration in the early two thousands, and all of
Speaker 1: those plans were carried out.
Speaker 2: After that letter.
Speaker 1: After that letter was sent to Yahoo that that is
Speaker 1: a concidence.
Speaker 5: So he sent so the Israel is behind this. If
Speaker 5: every letter sent from Washington to Israel it can be
Speaker 5: taken as a sign that Israel's controlling everything, then you
Speaker 5: should shut down your conference on Senate.
Speaker 2: Things.
Speaker 4: The Clean Break document from nineteen ninety six in the
Speaker 4: seven Countries in five Years document are totally different.
Speaker 2: I know, right.
Speaker 4: I just want to make sure where I actually made
Speaker 4: that mistake earlier. I think when I said yeah, was
Speaker 4: in a government document, I was talking about the Clean
Speaker 4: Break But I think you guys have been referring to
Speaker 4: the Pentagon document. That absolutely was from the Office of
Speaker 4: the Secretary of Defense, according to General Clark, and General
Speaker 4: Clark told me in our debate on Pierce Morgan that yeah,
Speaker 4: it was the Israelis, that it was their agenda that
Speaker 4: was represented in that seven Countries document.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: But you see, I hear like, just because there's agreement
Speaker 3: between one Israeli official and a neo conservative in America,
Speaker 3: you make me conspiracy thing because agrees about Iraq, and
Speaker 3: he's wrong in it was the entire Democrat.
Speaker 1: It's a pretty odd coincidence that in that letter and
Speaker 1: in that that that claimed by Wesley Clark that there's
Speaker 1: these seven nations, which by the way, he made in
Speaker 1: the mid two thousands, and many of those nations toppled
Speaker 1: after the fact, proving out the claim that in fact
Speaker 1: that list was accurate, and the only one remaining on
Speaker 1: that list is Iran, Which is the purpose of this
Speaker 1: debate today is whether or not America should once again
Speaker 1: intervene in Iran. I'm just saying, that's a lot of coincidences.
Speaker 5: Guys have been killing your citizens since nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 1: Where are they killing the America has.
Speaker 5: Got problems with Iran, that is a major factor, and
Speaker 5: not some document on a website by somebody who you
Speaker 5: believe that may or may not be on the payroll
Speaker 5: of the State of USA.
Speaker 1: Well, I will I will allow the audience to decide
Speaker 1: whether or not they think it's coincidental that six of
Speaker 1: those seven countries have already been toppled, bombed, overthrown entirely.
Speaker 1: I think it's I think that the claim has a
Speaker 1: lot of merit, but setting that aside, I would like
Speaker 1: to give you an opportunity to make closing arguments two
Speaker 1: minutes to you my air and then we'll go to scott.
Speaker 3: A. JM.
Speaker 2: Bullion.
Speaker 9: Excellent serve and competitive pricing aren't just goals, they're our standard.
Speaker 9: Our commitment to customer discretion and privacy with secure and
Speaker 9: confidential transactions has earned us an unparalleled reputation as an
Speaker 9: online retailer of precious metals, backed by over three hundred
Speaker 9: and seventy five thousand reviews averaging four point eight out
Speaker 9: of five stars only at JM Bullion.
Speaker 5: Look, first of all, let me speak from the heart.
Speaker 5: As an Iranian ISRAELI was born on Bar Mitzlad in Tehran.
Speaker 5: I'm very proud of my Iranian roots. I hope that
Speaker 5: by this time next year we'll be able to have
Speaker 5: this conversation in person in Tehran and next to the
Speaker 5: US embass and nicking near the Israeli embassy. I think
Speaker 5: the people of Iran and the people of Israel, and
Speaker 5: the people of America who make tremendous partners in developing
Speaker 5: this region your country. As an Iranian is ready, I
Speaker 5: have to tell you a best friend of the State
Speaker 5: of Israel and one of the best friends of the
Speaker 5: people of be Run in the contemporary history of Iran.
Speaker 5: I think that Israel has made mistakes in the past,
Speaker 5: and we make mistakes with the current government. I you know,
Speaker 5: I've lost count of how many protests I've taken part
Speaker 5: in since the judicial reform in two thousand and three
Speaker 5: and since the Gaza War. Of course Hamas is responsible
Speaker 5: for this war, but I think the current Israeli government
Speaker 5: is also making many mistakes inside Israel. I think that
Speaker 5: the United States of America. Israel does have influence in
Speaker 5: the United States of America because America is our greatest
Speaker 5: friend and ally and we try to have shared interest.
Speaker 5: Have we made mistakes in the past, Yes, we have.
Speaker 5: I don't think that we should have tried to undermind
Speaker 5: the Iran nuclear deal with President Obama, and I think
Speaker 5: that's just one of the mistakes that we make. And
Speaker 5: you know, President Prime Minister Antonia, who going to speak
Speaker 5: at your Congress. I think that was a terrible mistake.
Speaker 5: But you know, to believe that what happened in Iraq,
Speaker 5: and that what happened in Iraq is because of Israel,
Speaker 5: and that the reason why your country and the Islamic
Speaker 5: Republic of Iran don't have relations is because of Israel.
Speaker 5: Is grotesquely wrong, intellectually incorrect. The biggest country that is
Speaker 5: und mind peace between your country and the Islamic Republic
Speaker 5: of Iran. The biggest person is Ali Khamene, who has
Speaker 5: far more power than any Iranian president. And there have
Speaker 5: been many Iranian presidents who have wanted better relations with
Speaker 5: your country, but he has stopped it. I say, there
Speaker 5: are numerous reasons why your country doesn't have peace with Iran.
Speaker 5: The biggest is supremely the Ali Khamene and the organizations
Speaker 5: that he controls. Two minutes, fifteen seconds, go ahead, all
Speaker 5: Israel I know it, baby.
Speaker 4: Come on, well America again. Is Israel's great this ally?
Speaker 4: But there's nothing but a millstone around our neck. We
Speaker 4: don't need really to have a Middle East policy at all.
Speaker 4: We certainly don't need to be the dominant force in
Speaker 4: the Middle East. We could have a deal with Iran.
Speaker 4: We could have had one thirty years ago. We could
Speaker 4: have one right now. I urge everyone, especially you know,
Speaker 4: I know the zero head, zero Hedge audience is a
Speaker 4: very sympathetically, very sympathetic to Donald Trump and Maga and
Speaker 4: all that, and I would say his government, they're saying
Speaker 4: a lot of positive things right now, and they need
Speaker 4: all the support they can get to do the right thing,
Speaker 4: to make a new nuclear deal with Iran, and to
Speaker 4: face down Israeli threats. Again, it's in the New York
Speaker 4: Times two days ago that they're trying to sabotage the
Speaker 4: thing so or yesterday sorry, that they're trying to sabotage
Speaker 4: the thing by threatening war and speaking of the clean break.
Speaker 4: And you know, the clean break is not about America's
Speaker 4: interest at all. It's all about what's good for Israel.
Speaker 4: And the whole point of it, the clean break meant,
Speaker 4: this is Wormser's proposal and Pearl's proposal for how Israel
Speaker 4: can under who can make a clean break from Oslo
Speaker 4: and from the Rabine strategy of trying to make peace
Speaker 4: with the Palestinians. And what they said was that instead,
Speaker 4: what we should do is we should get America to
Speaker 4: overthrow Saddam in Iraq, which they said will weaken Iran
Speaker 4: and Hesbala and Syria and empower Jordan and Turkey and Israel,
Speaker 4: and then Hesbala will no longer be a threat on
Speaker 4: Israel's northern flank, and then that way they can continue
Speaker 4: to confiscate all the Palestinians property and not have to
Speaker 4: worry about a threat like Hesbala on their northern flank
Speaker 4: while they're continuing to colonize the last measley stinking twenty
Speaker 4: two percent of Palestine. And this is why forty five
Speaker 4: hundred Americans had to die in Iraq War two, and
Speaker 4: this is why they're threatening to get us into a
Speaker 4: war with Iran right now.
Speaker 2: Is for Israel's interests.
Speaker 4: And if we had a real war with Iran, we
Speaker 4: have tens of thousands of soldiers in Kuwait, in Bahrain,
Speaker 4: Cutter and Saudi all at risk. We have the gates
Speaker 4: of the Straits of Hormuz in the Persia Gulf, which
Speaker 4: Iran could easily close and destroy the world economy, driving
Speaker 4: oil over two hundred dollars a barrel, and just none
Speaker 4: of this is in America's interests at all. The policy
Speaker 4: for MAGA has to be either America first or Israel instead.
Speaker 4: And if we're going to put America first, then we
Speaker 4: need to put the last of these diplomatic hurdles out
Speaker 4: of the way and get back to American independence and
Speaker 4: peace and prosperity, and heed George Washington's warnings about entangling
Speaker 4: alliances and making enemies out of all of our friends, enemies,
Speaker 4: and being involved in having Americans with passionate attachments to
Speaker 4: the interests of foreign powers that undermine harmony and Republican
Speaker 4: rule here in the United States of America, our home.
Speaker 1: Oh well, I want to thank both of you for
Speaker 1: doing this debate. I think it was very, very valuable
Speaker 1: and could not be more timely given that we have
Speaker 1: a very important decision to make as to whether not
Speaker 1: we are going to be intervening in Iran, and I
Speaker 1: think we can all agree, at least I hope we
Speaker 1: can all agree and pray for peace in this moment,
Speaker 1: and let's hope we can avoid a war so we
Speaker 1: don't have to argue over whether or not it was
Speaker 1: on behalf of Israel. I'm Clint Russell. I'm the host
Speaker 1: of Liberty Lockdown. If you love zero Heads, you will
Speaker 1: love Liberty Lockdown. You can subscribe to that over on
Speaker 1: YouTube or audio podcatchers. Amy Kozak, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for co hosting with me. If you'd like to give
Speaker 1: any plugs.
Speaker 3: Yes, Amy Kozak's been a pleasure to be here and
Speaker 3: a pleasure to moderate and be part of this conversation.
Speaker 3: I think it was productive and constructive, got a little
Speaker 3: tense and heated, but we got Israelis here. We can
Speaker 3: always we can handle a little back and forth, so
Speaker 3: it's all good and it was a lot of fun.
Speaker 3: You guys can follow me at Amy Kozak on Twitter
Speaker 3: and Instagram and check out some stand up I perform
Speaker 3: all over all over the country. It's a great country
Speaker 3: and we love that show. And right, Scott's a great, so.
Speaker 1: Great great Scott and magne any any plug Scott.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I wrote the book Provoked about how America started a
Speaker 4: new Cold War with Russia in the Catastrophe in Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Came out last year and before that was enough already
Speaker 4: my history of America's wars in the Middle East since
Speaker 4: nineteen seventy nine, where people can find a lot of
Speaker 4: the details of the kinds of stuff that we're discussing today.
Speaker 4: And I'll go ahead and announce it because it's coming
Speaker 4: up very soon. The Great Tom Woods has built me
Speaker 4: my own liberty classroom. It's called the Scott Wharton Academy
Speaker 4: of Foreign policy and freedom, and everyone can check out
Speaker 4: and sign up to be the first to find out
Speaker 4: when it all goes live at scott Wharton Academy dot.
Speaker 5: Comyer no that it's been a lot of fun. Really,
Speaker 5: we Israelis, do you know political debates far as the sport.
Speaker 5: It's a Jewish sport which we in Israel be perfected
Speaker 5: it so no great, great exchange of ideas. Of course,
Speaker 5: to disagree it's even more fun.
Speaker 1: Absolutely,