The Darrell McClain show
Independent media that won't reinforce tribalism. We have one Planet; nobody's leaving so let’s reason together!! Darrell McClain is a Military veteran with an abnormal interest in politics, economics, religion, philosophy, science, and literature. He's the author of Faith and the Ballot: A Christian's Guide to Voting, Unity, and Witness in Divided Times. He was born and raised in Jacksonville FL, and went to Edward H white High School,l where he wrestled under Coach Jermy Smith and The Late Brian Gilbert. He was a team wrestling captain, District champion, and an NHSCA All-American in freestyle Wrestling. He received a wrestling scholarship from Waldorf University in Forest City, Iowa. After a short period, he decided he no longer wanted to cut weight, effectively ending his college wrestling journey. Darrell McClain is an Ordained Pastor under the Universal Life Church and is still in good standing. He's a Believer in The Doctrines of Grace, Also Known as Calvinism. He joined the United States Navy in 2008 and was A Master at Arms (military police officer) He was awarded several awards while on active duty, including an expeditionary combat medal, a Global War on Terror medal, a National Defense Medal, a Korean Defense Medal, and multiple Navy achievement medals. While In the Navy, he was also the assistant wrestling coach at Robert E Lee High School. He's a Black Belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu under 6th-degree black belt Gustavo Machado, Darrell Trains At Gustavo Machado Norfolk under the 4th-degree black belt, and Former Marine Professor Mark Sausser. He went to school for psychology at American Military University and for criminal justice at ECPI University.
The Darrell McClain show
Wrestling with War: The Complex Politics of Trump's Iran Strategy
When American B-2 bombers struck three Iranian nuclear facilities, they didn't just destroy buildings—they dramatically reshaped the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape. This watershed moment represents America's full entry into the Israel-Iran conflict, moving beyond defensive missile interception to offensive strikes on Iranian soil.
The fallout has been swift and multifaceted. President Trump warned Iran against retaliation while simultaneously expressing frustration with Israel for violating a negotiated ceasefire. "I'm not happy with Israel," Trump declared bluntly. "You don't go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them." This rare public criticism of Israeli actions reveals the complex dynamics at play as America attempts to navigate its role in this volatile conflict.
Perhaps most fascinating is the deep split within Trump's own political base. Traditional hawks celebrate while the more isolationist "America First" wing sounds alarms about mission creep. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene didn't mince words: "Americans all over the world are seriously questioning if this is going to be World War Three." Meanwhile, former advisor Steve Bannon warned of a "bait and switch to please neocon warmongers." This internal struggle mirrors broader questions about America's proper role in Middle Eastern conflicts.
The mainstream media's coverage has been particularly troubling. Networks provided almost exclusively pro-war perspectives, with supposed progressives like Van Jones joining neoconservatives in cheerleading military action. This propaganda machine eerily resembles the lead-up to previous Middle Eastern wars, raising the question: Have we learned nothing from our past interventions?
Professor Jeffrey Sachs provides essential context by explaining that this moment represents the culmination of Netanyahu's "30-year mission to drag the United States into war with Iran." His analysis, paired with historical perspectives from voices like Noam Chomsky, offers a sobering counterpoint to the media's war drums.
As tensions remain high, now is the time to engage critically with America's Middle East policy. What are the true costs of this escalation? And who stands to benefit? Follow the Darrell McLean Show for ongoing analysis that cuts through tribalism to find reasoned common ground.
In an address to the nation late Saturday, President Trump warned Iran not to strike back after the US conducted airstrikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities.
Speaker 2:This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.
Speaker 1:Israeli Prime Minister, benjamin Netanyahu, praised US involvement in the ongoing war between Iran and Israel.
Speaker 3:History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime, the world's most dangerous weapons.
Speaker 1:News of the strike comes hours after it was revealed. B-2 bombers were dispatched from Missouri to Guam. The B-2 bombers are capable of carrying barrack-busting bombs capable of destroying the kinds of underground nuclear facilities Iran was believed to possess.
Speaker 2:The strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace.
Speaker 1:Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, will hold a rare news conference to give details of the attack. There is concern for the safety of the 40,000 US military soldiers stationed in the region and there has been some bipartisan backlash over whether President Trump unconstitutionally bypassed Congress to execute an act of war. In a social media post, Representative Thomas Massey of Kentucky, a Republican, wrote this is not constitutional.
Speaker 5:Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show. I'm your host, darrell McLean. Independent media that won't reinforce tribalism. We have one planet. Nobody is leaving, so let us reason together. You have the distinct pleasure with me to be joining me for episode 460. As you have just heard, the United States has bombed three of the sites in Iran, the nuclear sites. We are actually not aware right now if it has been a decisive bomb that has penetrated and destroyed the enriched uranium. That is something that we will know in the future, but it is a big deal. It has actually changed the calculus of this israel iran conflict, because the united states has got it not just with shooting down missiles, but also now with bombing targets inside of Iran. Now, after this happened, there was supposed to be a ceasefire with Israel and Iran, but it seems like that that did not go off like it was supposed to, and the president was actually asked about this while he was headed to Marine One and he was not at all happy about that either.
Speaker 6:I do. They violated, but Israel violated it too. Are you questioning Israel's commitment? Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs the likes of which I've never seen before, the biggest load that we've seen. I'm not happy with Israel. You know when I say, OK, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them, so I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either.
Speaker 6:I'm not happy with Iran either, but I'm really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because the one rocket that didn't land, that was shot perhaps by mistake that didn't land. I'm not happy about that. Basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing. Do you understand that?
Speaker 5:Now, of course, when it comes to the politics of it all, there is a split in the country over this, and not just in the country at large, but in the president's base in general.
Speaker 5:So President Trump's decision to do this but not only to do the bombing, but to float regime change after several of his top administrators had said that it wasn't about regime change in Iran following the US strikes on nuclear facilities has caused a new rupture across the MAGA universe, as the top supporters fret about the possibility of deeper US involvement in a Middle Eastern war. Trump surprised some of his supporters by authorizing the weekend strikes against three nuclear sites in Iran, but he and his team seemed to signal the military action could end there. The president scrambled those calculations in a true social post. On Sunday he said that while it was not politically correct to use the term regime change, if the current Iran regime is unable to make Iran great again, there wouldn't be there. Why wouldn't there be a regime change? And then he wrote the road, the term, the term me got make Iran great again. The White House walked back Trump's remarks Monday with a press secretary, carolyn LeVette, saying he was just suggesting the Iranian people might want a new government, not suggesting that the new front are motive to the war. Trump on Monday evening also announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, a move that suggests he wants to dramatically defuse tensions amongst all sides. But earlier remarks left Trump supporters opposed to the war worried, fearful.
Speaker 5:More harkish voices of the MAGA movement were carrying the day Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, the most outspoken MAGA voice to post-US intervention in Iran-Israel war, said Americans are having restless nights as the results of Trump's airstrikes. Restless nights as the results of Trump's airstrikes. Quote the reality is no American slept better after America bombed Iran because all of a sudden we now have threats on our homeland. Green said On Monday Steve's ban is rolling progress. We now have warnings from the State Department, from Americans overseas. Americans in Israel are terrified for their lives. Americans in Israel are terrified for their lives. Americas all over the world are seriously questioning if this is going to be World War Three, she said On a social media platform. Green went to one a step further. It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocon warmongers, military industrial complex contractors and neocon television personalities that MAGA hates and were never Trumpers. She wrote.
Speaker 5:Trump regime change remarks notably came just hours after Vice President Vance in an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, said the administration's view has been clear that regime change was not on the agenda. View has been clear that regime change was not on the agenda. There's definitely concern among MAGA, said one official who worked in the Trump administration in the first term, the idea that Trump is openly flooding regime change, especially in such blunt terms, make me nervous, not just because of the instability it could trigger, but because it signals he completely handed over the foreign policy to decisions and hardliners like Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It becomes populist posturing with neocon execution. The source added. The more hawkish voices in the Trump's orbit welcome Trump's words, even if they are just a trial balloon.
Speaker 5:As usual, president Trump is on spot with his desire to make Iran great again by changing the regime, either through their behavior or new leadership and that came from Senator Lindsey Graham on X, as President Trump suggested. Who is in their right mind would want this regime change to continue the status quo attacking the neighbors, oppressing their people and being the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. If you like that, you're a sick puppy. Count me in. For any way possible to make iran great again by making it decent again. He continued, adding the make iran great again. Acronym b.
Speaker 5:A former top Trump official said Monday he's worried about mission creep. Quote now it's all about. Now it's all about hey, we don't know where the material is. Bannon said on the podcast for Iran's enriched uranium stockpile what's going to lead us to folks hey, do we need a 75th Ranger Battalion to go in and find it. Oh, it's coming. It's coming. Is this because the ultimate goal is regime change? And if so, that's fine. Israelis, have it, we continue. If you want regime change, go for it, baby, just no participation by the united states government. Trump's comments came after weeks in which he had said dismantling Iran's nuclear programs would be the goal of any US mission, not regime change. The truth's social post conflicts with one of his longstanding views, as he criticized what he perceived as unnecessary meddling throughout the Middle East and he vowed to keep the United States out of wars. Now, before announcing the ceasefire, trump signaled a desire to de-escalate after Iran on Monday lodged missiles into US air bases in Qatar. Iran provided prior notice of the attack and, according to the Qataris, all the missiles were intercepted and there were zero casualties.
Speaker 5:Now the president is separately getting some questions from Congress about the authorization of the strikes, with lawmakers pushing for a vote on the War Powers Resolution, a vote on Senator Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia's measure could come at some point this week with some GOP support, but whether it could win with the requisite 51 votes is an open question. It's unlikely enough Republicans would back it to override the presidential veto. Speaker Mike Johnson also told reporters Monday that he does not back a resolution and is not supportive of bringing such measures to the floor. He noted presidents in both parties have large strikes similar to Trump's, without congressional authority. Rep Thomas Massey, the Republican, is the main GOP sponsor of the resolution. On Sunday he accused Trump of absolutely breaking a campaign promise and labeled the idea that strikes weren't an act of war as ludicrous.
Speaker 5:Three bombings to neutralize Iran may turn out to be the 2025 version of two weeks to slow the spread. This could turn into a protracted, prolonged engagement. I am leery of this, given everything that has happened before. And Thomas Massey said if you are on the Darrell McLean sub stack, I actually wrote two pieces over the week, one entitled the Dangers of the Drumbeat of War why the Israeli and Iran Conflict Demands Honest Reflection, and I would like some attention to be given to that in this context and the other one was ripping up the Iran nuclear deal how the spirit, how spying ego derailed Middle East peace. Now I will be doing a shorter shows where I will at times read the read some of the pieces that that is going into the sub stack Um, uh, maybe, maybe about 10 minutes, however long it takes me to read that article, but those articles are. But until the time being to to um, uh analysis pieces that are written over at the drama clean sub stack page, I'll just, I'll just say this Um, uh, we kind of know, if you look at the historical record, how we got in this situation.
Speaker 5:I don't think the United States has to be here. I think we got here a lot somewhat by our own hand, by our own doing, just from a very long view of our history in the region for over about 80 years. Yeah and um, and that's me thinking about, actually, if I was to think all the way back to 1953, that would be, you know, exactly 72 years. So this has been a long time in the making. I uh, people want to blame, want to blame President Trump for this. I think it would be very naive to blame one administration for 70, so years of bad policy towards the region, and I try to be more nuanced when it comes to that.
Speaker 5:A lot of people are cheerleading this or cheerleading that and, of course, like I said in the previous episode, I'm a very non-interventionist person when it comes to the Middle East. I'm a hands-off person when it comes to the Middle East. I'm a hands-off person when it comes to the Middle East. I don't think that the US has a clear and concise plan to deal with the United States and, flat out, I think we've been getting some bad intelligence, usually from the prime minister, and that's just if you really look at the history. I mean, in 1992, bibi Netanyahu told the Israeli parliament that Iran was three to five years from getting a bomb.
Speaker 5:In 1995, in his book Fighting Terrorism, he said that Iran was five to seven years away from getting the bomb. In 1996, he told Congress Iran was getting extremely close and only the US could stop it. In 2009, he told the US Congress, again a delegation that our experts have said that Iran was one to two years away from getting the bomb. In 2012, bibi Netanyahu told the United Nations that Iran was a year away from getting the bomb. In 2018, bibi Netanyahu claimed that Iran has a secret weapons site with little to no evidence. And in 2025, he launched a unprovoked attack, says the bomb is months away and this was done basically by all intent purposes, just to sabotage. The Iranian S Office of the Director of National Intelligence said just in March of this year we continue to access Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. So I think the US has done these strikes. Of course, it is my position that they have done it under with bad intelligence.
Speaker 3:It did for you and the grief he's taken over here. You had the gall when he said this is what I've done and I need you to be a partner. I need you to stand down First. Here's what I can't say. I can't stop at all, which is another lie of the many lies we've gotten from the Netanyahu government A bald-faced lie. But then he says okay, I need you to stand up. I can't have any scale. If you can't get some guys back, it's fine.
Speaker 3:Goes to bed, gets a couple hours, so he wakes up and you lied to him. That's why he's's furious. That's as mad as I've ever seen the president united states and think about how did you get his anger like that, given everything he's done for you and the pressure he's under, and a couple hours sleep and I was in a freaking plane and fly for what? Six, eight hours to sit down with this crowd at nato, which you know he just wildly enthusiastic about doing that and plus putting himself going in the air at a time when you're in a shooting conflict in the world, putting his life at risk to do that. And this is what he gets. This is the thanks he gets. So don't sit there and don't glaze him.
Speaker 3:Netanyahu goes on Israel TV and glazes him. Don't glaze him. Don't slobber all over him. It doesn't mean anything. You showed what you really thought of him last night. Oh, president Trump's the greatest. You showed exactly your appreciation last night. You showed exactly. And do I see any of the Baghdad Bob equivalents, the Tel Aviv Levens or any of this crowd today calling him out? They never call out Netanyahu, who got Israel into this. And for supporters of Israel, which is kind of on the ropes about this, it makes it very hard when someone, when your top guy is dealing from the bottom of the deck, is not straight and in fact, not only not straight, he's a bald-faced liar. If you support Israel and you love Israel and you want to see Israel not just survive but thrive, you better be asking hard questions. You better be asking hard questions. You better be asking hard questions. You better be asking hard questions and demanding straight answers.
Speaker 5:That was the populist voice, Steve Bannon, one of the advisors from President Trump's first administration. I think I've said before that when it comes to the wing of the Republicans that I think are on the right side of a lot of issues, I would say Steve Bannon is one of the voices of reason when it comes to the Republicans at this moment.
Speaker 9:With the insanity of the last 24 hours. I know you've been monitoring this situation. I just want to get your reaction to the broader ramifications of this ceasefire, at least for now, between Israel and Iran and the role here of the United States.
Speaker 4:Well, this has been an absolutely wild week. In a way, it is an absolutely wild week. In a way, it is Bibi's fulfillment of a 30-year mission to try to drag the United States into a war with Iran. This latest episode has been part of a long-term idea of Netanyahu, which is we're going to do what we want in Gaza, the West Bank, we're going to control everything. We'll kill, we'll have a genocide and anyone that objects, any other country in the region, will overthrow that government. That's been the basic strategy for 30 years. For 30 years, the United States has gone along with that strategy, whether it is in Lebanon, syria, iraq, sudan, libya, and Iran was always the big prize.
Speaker 4:So Netanyahu has been absolutely itching for a big war with Iran, trying to drag the US in, and what we saw last week probably was the great battle inside between the deep state, which is absolutely in line with Mossad it's basically a Mossad-CIA operation for 30 years and MAGA, which says stop, we're sick of this, we're sick of these wars.
Speaker 4:The president I don't know where he is because I haven't checked my social media for the last 30 seconds he's been on both sides of this, but his base has been saying do not do this, do not do this, whereas Netanyahu has been saying next year in Tehran. Netanyahu's been saying that next year in Tehran, or his ministers have been putting that out in disgusting vulgarity. So I don't know whether this is going to stop, but this is a battle of a long-term strategy of Netanyahu remake the Middle East to give basically complete, total impunity to Israel to do every murder, massacre, genocide that it wants to do. And some of us who think that's not making the world a better place, that's not helping anything and it's not making America more secure. Thanks God if the ceasefire holds. That's a good thing. That's the bottom line.
Speaker 7:Yeah, professor, let's pull in that thread a little bit more of the Israelis. As you mentioned, this has been a multi-decade project of Netanyahu specifically, but it's broadly supported the Israeli public and certainly with his entire coalition, including literal terrorists that are involved in his government. So he's not going to give up and say, ok, cease fire and now we have peace with Iran. That is certainly not going to happen. So what do you expect to see, based on previous historical actions, from the Israelis? What do you expect the Israelis to do next to try to play their next card to get us drawn in yet again?
Speaker 4:Well, the Israelis will make new provocations, that's for sure. They will make arguments that now we see the perfidy of Iran or for whatever argument to keep drawing us in. I have said for years I think decades now that the main job of the president of the United States in modern times is to keep the foot on the brake of the war machine, because it's always revving. If you went to the deep state in the last few days, I think bombing missions against iran are just splendid. Let's uh try out those b2s, let's see how the bunker busters do and uh, going beyond that, the regime change. Well, that was in half the tweets of the last or social truth posts of the last few days.
Speaker 4:So I think that Israel will provoke and it is the job of the United States when in rare moments presidents do their job, to keep the foot on the brake. And this morning Trump unusually chastised Israel in a post to say do not drop that bomb. Well, actually that's his job. It's pretty interesting he did it this time. Yesterday was different. We'll see what happens tomorrow.
Speaker 9:So one of the things I'm curious about, sir, you're obviously always looked at the bigger picture, and there was a lot made, potentially, of Russia and China coming in on Iran's side. That didn't materialize to a major extent, but there were at least some entanglements. We can put this one up on the screen. For example, president, former president Medvedev of Russia at one point basically threatened, basically said the Americans have accomplished nothing in their strikes, potentially we could transfer nukes to them. He walked it back a little bit later, saying a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads, but then he walked it back later. What do you make, though, of how the Russians and the Chinese will respond to what's transpired?
Speaker 4:in the last 12 days of how the Russians and the Chinese will respond to what's transpired in the last 12 days. Yeah, I think, by the way, what Medvedev was saying in that point number three was not Russia transferring nuclear arms or endorsing that, but the fact that Pakistan is a country closely aligned with the Islamic cause, obviously, and with Iran, and absolutely able to transfer nuclear weapons. North Korea is another case, and I think that's an important point, by the way, because we've been told that the be-all and end-all is Iran's enrichment of uranium. That is not the true issue at stake here. The true issue at stake is is Israel vulnerable by its own actions, to a nuclear attack on Israel? The answer is yes. Does Israel create more security for itself the way that it operates? My answer is no. It makes Israel more and more dangerous. Not only did we see, obviously, that the Iron Dome ain't so iron and that there were easily it was not hard to penetrate the air defenses in Israel, but Israel seems to think that Iran is the end of the story, and it is not the end of the story. And it is not the end of the story. There are 57 countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation that are absolutely dead set against what Israel is doing. The vast majority of the world is dead set against it.
Speaker 4:When you ask about Russia and China, it is their fundamental purpose not to be thrown under the bus of the United States. This is the basic point. They want a multipolar world, not a US-dominated world, and they are succeeding in that because the US does not have the means, the power, in my view, the interest interest, but put that aside the means or the power to make a us dominated world, despite what washington has believed for more than 30 years. So russia and china are careful. China's very precise, I think it is. It's a cliche, but it's also true that Russia plays chess, china plays go and the United States plays poker. One hand at a time, very quick, not any long term strategy, just go for the hand. And I think that China and Russia bided their time in the first days. China and Russia bided their time in the first days, but the point was really Iran was not decapitated with regime change, nor was it stopped in its ability to do great damage inside Israel up until the very last moment, which really irks the Israelis that it was. The last exchange of missiles in this case was Iran's, and then Israel tried to violate the timeline and launch another one so it could be last, and that's when Trump said no stop. We already have an understanding about the chronology. So we are watching, step by step, the emerging of a true multipolar world, where other powers that don't love the United States they don't hate it, by the way, they just don't want to be subservient to it they have nuclear arms, powerful weapons, the technologies that we have, so that we can't dominate, and Iran is a regional power. It's not a pushover for Israel, by any means. There was no one strike and it's all over.
Speaker 4:One of the things that may have happened last week, I don't know, of course, but Netanyahu telling Trump we can do it, we can do it, we can do it. And they did their decapitation murders Mossad really is a murder machine, of course and they did its decapitation strike and it did not bring down the regime, and so it probably led Trump and people around him to say come on, you know, the Israelis have given us a bunch of BS on this. It didn't change the regime, it didn't end the threats, and I think that's when Trump heard his base calling, he heard common sense calling and he said look, this isn't going according to plan. And I think the main point is with Russia and China. They were cautious, but they weren't letting Iran fall by any means. And if Iran were to be facing a more cataclysmic set of events in the last few days, I think the reactions also would have been different. Interesting.
Speaker 7:To your point about. Perhaps Israelis were selling, perhaps they even believed that they would be able to create a regime collapse in short time. The Washington Post got a hold of this leaked audio of Mossad agents calling Israeli generals and saying you have 12 hours or else we're going to murder you and your wife and kids, by the way, and if you want to avoid that fate, you need to record yourself surrendering. You need to film the surrender video and send it to us, which, of course, would have been used as propaganda by the Israelis and, as best we know, not one of them did that, which I think you know, in and of itself is an indication that they may have miscalculated the strength of this regime, especially once a country is bombed, like it's very common for people to rally around the flag.
Speaker 7:But I wanted to ask you with regards to Israel so they have bombed, you know they're committing a genocide in Palestine, in the Gaza Strip. They bombed Lebanon, syria, yemen, iran, iraq and our nuclear-armed nation outside of the NPT, you know, did have a secret nuclear weapons program and you know are a rogue nation, I think by any characterization at this point, is there going to be any consequence for them? Like, is there any sort of longer-term consequence for the fact that they have behaved in this outrageous, barbaric fashion over years? At this point and, you know, really made themselves a villain in terms of the eyes of much of the world.
Speaker 4:I think Israel is in its worst insecurity in its history by far, because it is utterly isolated in the international system. I'm sitting just outside the UN. I've been attending UN Security Council meetings, un General Assembly sessions. You have 95% of the world population voting against Israel. Right now. You have an overwhelming call for the absolutely practical state of Palestine being established on the borders of the 4th of June 1967, and Israel learning finally, after decades and decades. It's just going to have to live alongside the Palestinian people, who have the same number population as the Israeli Jews. And this is the most basic point of all. Israel has no security from all of this. It has achieved nothing except a wasteland in its neighborhood, and if it wants security, the only security is to rejoin the family of nations. And the way to do that is straightforward it's according to international law, it's according to basic common sense, it's according to decency, it's according to endless resolutions of the US Security Council and the UN General Assembly, and that is that there would be a state of Palestine for the Palestinian people alongside a state of Israel, and President Trump actually can make that happen If he wants his Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 4:It's not by this ceasefire, after this behavior of the last week. It is by a Palestinian state being established. How does that happen? One vote change in the UN Security Council. The US vetoed this last year when it came to a vote in the Security Council, which is the part of the UN system or the international system that establishes the statehood membership in the UN. All the United States has to do is to say we go along with all the rest of the world and tell Israel wake up, we're saving you, we're not hurting you, we are saving you from yourself.
Speaker 4:However, it's just crazy what Israel's doing and the idea that this is any security. I think they should understand that, with apartment buildings in Beersheba being destroyed, with Haifa being attacked, with Tel Aviv being attacked, with the countries outside of the region like Pakistan and DPRK watching, if Israel thinks it has any security at all from its brazenness, it should think it again. And, by the way, what we saw in the Mossad tape, which is chilling, of course, to listen to, is that Mossad became a killing machine. It's very skillful at mass murder. I would say, not mass murder in the sense of the murder of the leadership of the Iranian military last week. Yes, that's Mossad's business. Yes, that's Mossad's business, but to have that as your centerpiece of statehood to be murder incorporated is not going to get you safety or security or any sound sleep any day in your life. Israel needs to rethink fundamentally this BB strategy, which goes back to 1996 when he first became prime minister.
Speaker 7:And I think to your point they're not going to rethink it because the public is broadly supportive of the Bibi strategy. It has to be forced upon them, and the United States of America can do that if there is any will to do it.
Speaker 4:It depends always. It has always depended on the United States going along. By the way, people should get online if they haven't done it recently, and look at Netanyahu's speech to the US Congress in 2002, telling him how wonderful the Iraq war is going to be. Oh, it's a cakewalk. It's going to inspire the whole region. This man is nuts. He's a failure for 30 years. He's the biggest warmonger on the planet. If Trump wants a successful presidency, don't sign on to this idiocy. Do your job, mr President. Make peace in the region. That has to be. You give the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, stop the genocide and go along with international law. It's pretty straightforward. It's there for the taking.
Speaker 5:So that was Professor Jeffrey Sachs, along with Crystal Ball and Sega Ingenetti. If you want to look at some of Jeffrey Sachs' work, you just go to wwwjeffsachsorg and that's S-A-C-H-S dot org.
Speaker 5:Now I think this is fairly straightforward when we get to stuff like this. This has been something that John McCain wanted, that Lindsey Graham wants, that Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State wants. You know that Mitch McConnell came out celebrating this. And then, when you get looked at some of the on CNN and Fox News, it was deranged and unhinged coverage after these war strikes, just a full-on propaganda machine. And it did remind me of being young and being in high school and the country was attacked the September 11th attacks happened and then hearing the drumbeat of war and hearing very little pushback in the mainstream media about this. And the big deal is because it's pretty much known now that the president of the United States watches Fox News. So he was listening to Sean Hannity, he was listening to Mark Levin, as they were, you know, cheerleaders for for this, this regime change war, and of course, they won't be getting their hands dirty in it.
Speaker 5:They won't be sending their children to fight in it, it's just. It is a sin and a shame of how easy it is for them to push this type of stuff. Let's listen to the great progressive analyst on CNN, Van Jones.
Speaker 8:He's buying himself some time and some room. I was also in the Holy Land very recently. I think progressives underestimate how dangerous Iran is. Iran is not a normal country. Normal countries don't blind women because they showed some hair. They don't empower little gangs and proxies to surround the country and fire rockets and raid people. So Iran, the two things are clear the what they cannot have have a bomb and the why because they say death to America, death to Israel and death to all the Jews. One of those should offend you. If you're a progressive, at least one should offend you. And so the question, though, is the who and the how. Is Israel going to take out this nuclear capacity by dropping people there who blow it up, or is America going to take it out by dropping a bomb that blows it up? But the what and the why are clear, and I think progressives should get on board with that. We cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. I was in the region, you were in the region. This is a very dangerous power that cannot get nuclear weapons.
Speaker 5:Yes, yes, brilliant progressive Fan Jones, who just got back from the Holy Land to deliver some wisdom like that. And of course, if you look at CNN, they didn't just have the esteemed intelligent progressive Van Jones air quotes, they had the very well-known warmonger John Bolton. You know to, I guess, give the conservative take. Let's hear what John Bolton had to say. Were you surprised that President Trump took such decisive action?
Speaker 11:Well, let me say this unequivocally I think President Trump made the right decision for America to attack Iran's nuclear weapons program, and I think we're on the verge of potentially seeing regime change in Iran as part of that. I think this is a huge change in the Middle East. It was a decisive action. It was the right thing to do. I thought somebody should do it for a long time, but better late than never.
Speaker 5:Here we go. Good old John Bolton always wanted to do it. Been a neoconservative for years, never found a target in the Middle East. He didn't want a bomb, and CNN continued with this. When you went to the newsroom on the Internet and looking at the articles, you have an analysis coming out from CNN's Stephen Collinson, and the article stated Analysts US strikes mark a stunning demonstration of military might and presidential power.
Speaker 5:They're not taking this stuff seriously. They're just cheerleading for war. It's just nothing but pure, pure propaganda.
Speaker 5:This stuff is maddening and it's so revealing to have somebody like Van Jones, who's supposed to be some leftist progressive, on CNN webinizing identity politics. Oh, look at what they do to women. Oh, look at the gays, oh, and it's like oh, yes, yes, yes. What about the American allies, saudi Arabia, any different? What about any of our partners? What about that? What about Israel? How they treat ethnic minorities, even people who are Jews, who are anti-Zionist in Israel you should go see how they're treated. How about those women and children and gays in Gaza who have been bombed to smithereens?
Speaker 5:This is a bunch of bullcrap and they know it is, and it is nothing more than the weaponization of identity politics in order to gin up a war because you don't like a chant and and you, you haven't even fully tried to wrestle with. When did they start saying death to america and death to israel? When did they start saying that? Wasn't there something that happened? Oh, yeah, and maybe, maybe that coup, uh, maybe the installing of the Shah by us, maybe that's when they started yelling death to America, death to Israel. You ever thought about that? Uh, if not, it may be some uh, deeper analysis you may need, uh, mr Van Jones, versus just going to the Holy Land and slobbering, coming back and slobbering all over a country from which you do not belong to, and in the entire panel of Fox News, the entire panel of CNN, when you talked about this issue, cnn, when you talked about this issue, not one anti-bomb, not one anti-war voice the entire weekend, none Zero.
Speaker 12:Western Europe is weak. That's why wars start in Western Europe. That's why World War I started there and World War II started there. And I would tell the demagogues in our country when you were going on about World War III, donald Trump just prevented World War III by using the United States military to stop it.
Speaker 5:That loudmouth demagogue that you just heard was Mark Levin on Fox News, who has been doing everything he could to get the president involved in these wars in the Middle East.
Speaker 5:And look, reporting that came out of the New York Times this morning literally said that a part of the reason that President Trump changed his mind on whether he was going to get involved was because he was currently watching Fox News and listening to John Hannity and Mark Levin and those people saying we should not just strike, that, we should get involved. A lot of his analysts actually said they still wish that Tucker Carlson was at Fox News because the president would have at least heard one opposing voice against this entanglement in the Middle East. I feel like we're stuck in this non-ending, constantly repeating, mind-forged manacle of being in the Middle East, and it sucks because I don't feel like it's going to change anytime soon, because most of the baby boomers who who watched most of the news, who had most of the money to fund most campaigns unfortunately they get their news from Fox news highest ranking show CNN, abc, msnbc and those stations just cheer me for war. If you were watching Fox News over the weekend, you were hearing this type of thing.
Speaker 10:Anyone who says this war isn't good is either with the regime or has something to gain from it. Good is either with the regime or has something to gain from it. And I look at, you know, even in America, I look at the people and the influencers that are talking poorly about. You know this possibility that just happened tonight and it makes you wonder. You know why. Why are they all of a sudden against taking out the nuclear capability of Iran?
Speaker 5:That old, old adage from the Bush administration either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. We've heard this before. It was not true then. It's not true now. All that lady was trying to do was basically say, if you are concerned about this, yada, yada, yada. She was winking and nodding and pretty much calling you anti-Semite. That's basically what you were hearing, which is, as time goes on, people are just going to come out and flat out say that Again, the conservative type of people not all, but most are going to weaponize the anti-Semitism claim. And if you don't support this, it's because you're anti-Semitic. I heard even during the campaign people were saying that they didn't pick the governor governor of pennsylvania, uh, because they are anti-semitic. It's just. It's just the new thing that we're never gonna have here. Um, there's a lot more going on in the news, obviously. I think sometimes that what happens is because things seem so overwhelming. You just you're gonna miss something because there's so much going on.
Speaker 5:The Trump administration has, under the Veteran administration, has cut a program that is saving veterans homes, and even some Republicans have some questions. Npr has heard from more than 50 veterans around the country who are upset about the veterans administration cutting the program that was helping vets avoid flood closures. Veterans are now having worse options than most Americans in just the past year, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It having worse options than most Americans In just the past year. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, it has helped more than 33,000 veterans and service members who got to hide on their loans by giving them a new low-interest rate mortgage. But last month, out of fear of potential costs, the VA abruptly did away with this safety net program. It was the latest deployment in the VA mortgage saga that has whiplashed veterans between VAERS-enacted cancel programs and left thousands in fear of losing their homes. There are about 80,000 vets in the US behind on their mortgages and heading towards foreclosure, according to the data from the ICE mortgage technology. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are questioning this move by the Veterans Administration.
Speaker 5:Stephen Miller owns six-figure stock companies. Who is profiting off of deportations, the influential Trump admin aide behind the Harley Immigration Policy's host, substantial Financial States and Palantir Technologies. And this report is coming from Pablo Martinez, stephen Miller administration's aide behind the Harley Immigration Policy, substantial Financial States and Palantir Technologies, a key tech contractor for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is raising new ethics questions, according to the report published Tuesday by the Project for Government Oversight. The Project for Government Oversight goes on to say parliamentarians' ICE contracts and political connections have long been controversial. The companies, too, have enabled ICE agents to identify and detain and deport people, including through recent enactments that give officers near real-time data of self-deportations. Meanwhile, palantir stock has surged more than 80% this year, making it one of the top performers in the S&P 500. Of the top performers in the SMP 500.
Speaker 5:Pope Leo came out with words about the strike of Iran and is already going vile. Pope Leo said War does not solve problems. On the contrary, it amplifies them and inflicts deep wounds on the history of people which takes generations to heal. No armed victory can compensate for the pain of mothers, the fear of children, our stolen futures. May diplomacy silence the weapons. May nations charge their future with works of peace, not with violence, bloodshed and conflict. So that is from the new Pope.
Speaker 5:There's a marital race going on in New York and Bill Clinton has done a last-minute endorsement of Andrew Cuomo. Andrew Cuomo is a pathetic and disgusting figure and what's ridiculous is most of Democrats had just asked just in the recent past that he step down, and a lot of those Democrats who were saying he stepped down for sexual assault et cetera, et cetera, have come out to endorse him. Bill Clinton's last minute endorsement of Andrew Cuomo in New York's mayoral race is all too fitting. Both men is representing corporate democratic establishment opposed by the socialist candidate, zoran Mondi, and that is a band of the working class and that has abandoned the working class. Bill Clinton's last-minute endorsement is basically that he's in the Democratic lower primaries, including some of the shocking twists and turns. The city's cop controller, mayor candidate brand leader, was arrested by immigration and customs enforcement agent Joe Mahdi, muslim democratic socialist who relentlessly focuses on bread and butter issues but also refuses to bend to the demand of centuries respectability on issues like Palestine, where, from being the longest of the long shots to being neck and neck with the former governor, andrew Cuomo, as New Yorkers head to cast their votes today, most of the recent polls have Muhammad Moudanadi ahead of Cuomo. One development that is not particularly surprising, although is the grotesquely revealing is of Cuomo. One development that is not particularly surprising, although is the grotesquely revealing, is that Cuomo scored a last-minute endorsement from Bill Clinton, the president who has infamously declared the era big government is over Praise the governor of Cuomo.
Speaker 5:When it comes to the Democratic Party, I'll just say this Every time that they seem like they have a candidate that is intelligent, popular and the base of the people like that, just expect the establishment to come in and kill that candidate and pick a loser or somebody who has very, very awful policies. The last thing I'll say is oil prices fell sharply after China after President Trump says China can continue buying oil from Iran. Oil prices fell sharply on Tuesday after President Trump told China they can keep buying oil from Iran, a sign that the US is easing its maximum pressure campaign on the Islamic Republic in the wake of the ceasefire with Israel. China cannot continue to purchase oil from Iran, trump said in a post on his social media platform to social hopefully they will be purchasing plenty from the us also. It was a great honor to make this happen. So there we have it.
Speaker 5:I'm going to end with a blast with intellectual past here. Uh, I'm gonna give us a treat and do something I rarely do. We're gonna go to two of the blasts from the intellectual past. We're going to travel back to our brothers and sisters in Europe. We're going to go back to the selling of the war. And we're going to go to the selling of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the selling of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we're going to travel to a time where there is a politician, who has now left us, by the name of Tony Benn, and we're going to hear that in a blast from the intellectual past.
Speaker 13:War is an easy thing to talk about. There are not many people of the generation that remember it dear. I as an, an honourable gentleman, served the distinction of. I never killed anyone but I wore a uniform. But I was in London in the blitz of 1940, living in the Millbank Tower where I was born. Some different ideas have come in since, and every night I went down to the shelter in Thames House. Every morning I saw Dockland burning.
Speaker 13:500 people were killed in Westminster one night by a landmine. It was terrifying. Aren't Arabs terrified? Aren't Iraqis terrified? Aren't Iraqi? Women weep when their children die. Does bombing strengthen their determination? What fools we are to live in a generation for which war is a computer game for our children and just an interesting little Channel 4 news item.
Speaker 13:Every member of Parliament tonight who votes for the government motion will be consciously and deliberately accepting the responsibility for the deaths of innocent people if the war begins, as I fear it will.
Speaker 13:Now that's for their decision to take, but this is a quite unique debate in my parliamentary experience, where we ask to share responsibility for a decision we won't really be taking, with consequences for people who have no part to play in the brutality of the regime which we are dealing with. And I finish with this On October 24th 1945, and the former Prime Minister from Bexley and Olsen will remember the United Nations Charter was passed and the words of that charter. They etched into my mind and moved me even as I think of them. We, the people of the United Nations, determined to save future generations, succeeding generations, from the scourge of war which, twice in our lifetime, has caused untold suffering to mankind. That was the pledge of that generation to this generation. And it will be the greatest betrayal of all if we voted to abandon the charter and take unilateral action and pretend we were doing it in the name of the international community. And I shall vote against the motion for the reason that I give one.
Speaker 5:Tony Benn was born April the 3rd, 1925 and he died the 14th of March in 2014. The 4th 10th of March in 2014. I remember Tony Bennett, his favorite. One of his famous quotes if you can find weapons to kill people or money for weapons to kill people, you can find money to help and heal people Blacks on the Intellectual Paths. From the Member of Parliament Tony Bennett.
Speaker 14:In Western policymaking circles and among political commentators, the Iranian threat is considered to pose the greatest danger to world order and hence must be the primary focus of US foreign policy. Europe's trailing along politely as usual. This year is called the year of Iran because of the danger of that enormous threat, which does raise the question what exactly is the Iranian threat? If you read the public commentary you don't get much of an answer, but there actually is an authoritative answer which is ignored. The authoritative answer is provided by the regular reports to Congress by the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies come every year, reports on the global security, and of course they include a section on Iran. It was almost a year ago. The reports make it very clear that whatever the Iranian threat is, it's not military, it's all quote Iran's military spending is relatively low compared to the rest of the region. In fact it's less than a quarter of that of Saudi Arabia and minuscule as compared with the US. Of course, iran's military doctrine is strictly defensive, designed to slow an invasion and to force a diplomatic solution to hostilities. Iran has only limited capacity to project force beyond its borders. They of course bring up the nuclear option and say that Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.
Speaker 14:Brutal clerical regime in Iran is undoubtedly a major threat to its own people, though hardly outranks US allies in that regard. But the threat lies elsewhere and it's ominous. One element of the threat is Iran's potential deterrent capacity. Notice that that's an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty because it might interfere with US freedom of action in the region. It's, of course, glaringly obvious why Iran would seek a deterrent capacity. Just take a look at the disposition of forces in the region, including nuclear forces.
Speaker 14:Seven years ago, one of Israel's leading military historians, martin von Krefeld, wrote that the world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy, particularly when they're under constant threat of attack by the United States, of course in violation of the UN Charter. But remember that that doesn't apply to the United States. Whether they are in fact developing a nuclear capability, we don't really know, but perhaps so Well. The Iranian threat, as described in the documents and the reports, goes beyond deterrence. Iran is also seeking to expand its influence in neighboring countries and thus to destabilize the region, as it's called. Notice that when the US invades and occupies Iran's neighbors, that's stabilization. When Iran tries to expand its influence say commercial relations with its neighbors, that's destabilization. That is absolutely routine usage in foreign policy.
Speaker 14:That is absolutely routine usage in foreign policy commentary, so sometimes it becomes almost comical. Here's a prominent foreign policy analyst, james Chase, former editor of Foreign Affairs, rather on the liberal side intimately. He was properly using the term stability in its technical sense when he explained that in order to achieve stability in Chile it was necessary to destabilize the country, namely by overthrowing the elected and the government, installing a vicious dictatorship sounds contradictory, but it isn't if you understand the technical meaning of the term well. Other concerns I have no time to go into. They're interesting to explore, but I think they simply underscore what the guiding doctrines are and their continuing status in imperial culture. That's very much in accord with the doctrines that were laid down by FDR's planners back during the Second World War. The United States cannot tolerate any exercise of sovereignty that interferes with its global designs. The United States and Europe are of course, engaged in punishing Iran for its threat to stability and trying to get it to become a more civilized country. But it's useful to recall how isolated the US and Europe are, the non-aligned countries, which is most of the world. They have for years been vigorously supporting Iran's right to enrich uranium Within the region. As I mentioned, the irrelevant public even strongly favors Iranian nuclear weapons.
Speaker 14:The major regional power, turkey, voted against the latest US sanctions motion in the Security Council, along with Brazil, which is the most admired country of the South, as polls show. Turkey's disobedience led to sharp censure at that point, but not for the first time. Turkey was bitterly condemned in 2003 when the government committed a major crime. It followed the will of 95% of the population and refused to take part in the US-Pritish invasion of Iraq, and that demonstrated its very weak grasp of democracy, which led to sanctions and sharp censure. Same today, after the 2010 Security Council misdeed, turkey was warned by Obama's top diplomat on European affairs, philip Gordon, that it must demonstrate its commitment to partnership with the West. Follow orders, in other words. A scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations asked how do we keep the Turks in their lane? They're departing. Something wrong In their lane means following orders. Like good Democrats, our style Democrats.
Speaker 14:Brazil's Lula was admonished in a New York Times headline. It was admonished in a New York Times headline. He was warned that his effort with Turkey to provide a solution to the uranium enrichment issue outside the framework of US power is a spot on the Brazilian leaders legacy. In brief, do what we say. That's your function. It's kind of an interesting sidelight to all of this, which has been effectively suppressed. The Iran-Turkey-Brazil deal had been approved in advance by President Obama, presumably on the assumption that it would fail and that would provide an ideological weapon against Iran. That was revealed by the British Foreign Office, which released the letter of support for it after Brazil was censured. When the effort succeeded, approval quickly turned to censure and Washington ran through a Security Council resolution which was so weak that China readily signed, and is now chastised for living up to the letter of the resolution but not following Washington's unilateral directives, which go far beyond it which go far beyond it.
Speaker 5:So that last clip you heard was a short excerpt. It was in 2011, at UCLA I'm sorry, at UCLA Rickman Goldman Lecture, and the voice of that one was Professor Noam Chomsky. Thank you for tuning in no-transcript.