Interview with Dr. Hamid Gholam Zadeh. about Iranian policy and planning
Oct 30, 2026
Tim’s Comments:
Iran’s strategy is to fight against the US in the next 6 months using a war of economic pain. Iran is betting Iranians can handle economic pain better than the US public, which is unaccustomed to sanctions or sanctions-like environments.
Max Blumenthal (the interviewer) and Dr. Zadeh (interviewee) expect another round of military attacks. If the US/Israel use a nuclear bomb (such as against Pickaxe mountain), Iran would abandon its fatwa and pursue nuclear weapons.
Israel/US have not been able to assassinate Iran’s new supreme leader and officials. If they spot an opportunity, this could prompt a new attack.
Dr. Zadeh says that the US should admit that their war of regime change has failed, but he says the US is too proud to do that.
TRANSCRIPT
15:58
ECONOMIC PAIN: CONTEST
So with this American economy which has not been prepared for closure of the Strait of Hormuz and which is very capitalistic and very fixed and very, let’s say, sharp in economic terms, is suffering much more. So the yield of the treasury bonds or the oil prices, the gas prices inside the country and the suffering that the American people are tolerating because of a war of no reasons that President Trump has imposed on Iran, that might lead to the change in the congressional shape and congress party situation, and that would be a defeat for President Trump and his administration. And that would be a defeat for them, and then the situation would change. So this is about changing behavior of the other side, and Iran is hopeful to be able to do that in less than six months. However, you see, one is prepared to, and is preparing actually, to continue this initiative beyond six months. But we believe that before that six months, Americans would be forced to make some changes or decide something, and the situation would change, and they would be forced to lift this blockade.
So this is, I mean, when you talk about the zero-inflation initiative, it’s not a macro... it’s addressing a macroeconomic problem caused by a military siege. So the theory of change as you just explained it is that within six months the economic pain will be greater on the US side because of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz than the pain that Iranians are suffering and which they are sort of accustomed to suffering because of decades and decades of sanctions. Am I correct that that’s how you see relief coming from this imposed macro and economic problem?
NAVAL BLOCKAID: CAN’T CONTINUE FOREVER
Exactly. The Iranians have had some pain and now they are suffering a little more pain. But the Americans did not have any pain, and they are now suffering a pain which did not exist in the past, and it is putting pressure on the Americans. And it is for no reasons, and that is for the war of will that the Trump administration imposed against Iran, because this administration actually bowed to Israeli regimes’ requests and demands and orders, let’s say. The naval blockade, which is the centerpiece of this plan of the Americans, is based on naval forces which are in the region, and it is putting a huge pressure on the naval forces who are on the floats. Just let’s remember, in one of the navies they stocked the toilets with tissue paper1 to actually make some problems. There were fires in the kitchen of another one. There were suicides in another one, and it would actually make it difficult for those people, and they are putting pressure on American officials to get back home, and you cannot keep them forever. So this naval blockade cannot be continued forever.
On the other side of the story, it is Iran’s Strait of Hormuz and a land and geography which has been in place for thousands of years. You cannot cut and paste the Strait of Hormuz in another part of the world, or you cannot cut and paste Iran in another part of the world. These are next together, and Iranians would be easily able to close the Strait of Hormuz for good and forever, and the Americans... we are living here, we cannot move anywhere else, and we can easily continue this blockade. So this situation seems to be more in favor of Iran rather than the US perspective, or at least the Trump administration perspective.
The operation economic outcast siege is designed at least in part to cause internal unrest and riots like we saw in January. The Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said after those riots that he basically took credit for them and said the US had devalued the Iranian currency to the point where unrest was inevitable. He recently in an interview urged Iranians to not pay their taxes because they would receive no services in return. What is your response to that? And is Bessent once again trying to encourage unrest? And do you see that as a possibility on the horizon?
He is trying to do the same wishfully, but he is a person who said that the Iranian economy would break within two weeks just about a month ago. So that two weeks seems to continue for more than four weeks and forever. That’s because the American administration is totally ignorant about Iran and Iranian society. Both in the 12-day war and in the 40-day war, they were hopeful that with the eruption of the military campaign against Iran, people would go to the streets and turn against the government and there would be a revolution against everything, but it never happened because an outside attack would unite Iranians, and Iranians forget about all the differences and get united and work together against a foreign enemy. And that is a characteristic that Iranians have for thousands of years. It’s not just about the Islamic Republic of Iran; it is inside Iranian DNA and their genes and their law that they are protecting their country. Iranians and Aryans and Persians have existed for thousands of years. It is not something to be just a recent and modern issue.
So this is because the Americans do not know Iranians at all. Part of that is because they are buying the stories of Iranian dissidents who are living in the United States and just selling stories to American officials and earning a lot of money, thousands of dollars of US taxpayers just to sell the story that they want to hear. That’s the cognitive bias that Americans have regarding Iran.
So Iranians not paying taxes is not something that would bring that much problem to the Iranian government, because they have just recently actually fixed the problems with the taxing system and now they are receiving tax more than before. And if they, for example, let’s suppose that Iranians would follow Bessent’s proposal and they would listen to him and they would not pay taxes, that would be just like two years ago, and the Iranian government was living without those taxes and there would not be that much problem. However, the system inside Iran is in a way that tax evasion would not be that much possible. And just like other countries, we are using banks and digital banks and we are using all the infrastructure and software and those things that make it very difficult to evade tax in a modern country. You know, this is because they think that—I have seen some less knowledgeable people who still think that people in Iran are commuting on the streets with camels or such things—and it seems that the people in the White House are from that category of people: very ignorant, very uninformed about Iran. So no, Iranians are not going to follow Bessent, and even if they do, it would not be that much of a problem for the government to be defeated or be in any sort of problem. However, as I said, I don’t think Iranians would buy these words... When Iranians hear him, they would be more united and they would be more against the United States, they would be more united among themselves. So that would be the outcome of his words. The two weeks of deadline that he gave to break the economy—and we have gone much further beyond that—the same would happen, and nothing will happen to Iran, sir.
And when you deal with the Trump administration, do you see a difference between them and, for example, the Obama administration that negotiated the JCPOA? And with US midterm elections coming up, do you think that this could actually alter US policy toward Iran? Contribute any momentum toward negotiations or alter Trump and the Trump administration’s behavior in any way if, as expected, the Democrats take the House of Representatives and possibly even the Senate as well?
Essentially, basically, there is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans vis-a-vis Iran and their policy. They are both against Iran and they both want to defeat Iran and have regime change inside Iran, but in different methods and different ways, but the objective is the same. President Obama signed the JCPOA, but he did not implement it completely and he did not move this nationally. We’re supposed to do that, and it was in his interview or in his book—I cannot remember exactly—but he said later after the JCPOA that if I could, I would dismantle all the Iranian nuclear facilities, all screws and nuts, everything. Trump does the same, and President Trump is saying the same, but in another way, in a more blatant and more frank way. So regarding policy, there’s not much difference, but what can be helpful to Iran, or let’s say what Iran would be benefiting from, is domestic differences and domestic politics of the United States.
If the Congress is overtaken by the Democrats and the majority of both chambers in the House and the Senate would be Democratic, they would not necessarily vote against war in Iran. Of course, that would be possible, but Iran is not hopeful about that. But something more practical: they are not going to impeach President Trump. That would not work; I’m familiar with American politics, that is not going to happen. But what might happen is that President Trump would not be able to easily follow whatever he could do, just like the first two years of his term. If the Congress is changed, the situation politically would be difficult or more difficult for him, and he cannot dictate all the decisions made by the Democratic Congress. And the price that he needs to pay for domestic policy would be too high, and war could be one of those issues. Then with the economic woes that are the result of this war against Iran, the Democratic Party would be able to pose some threats or put pressure on his administration, and then there would be some difficulties for him. He would not be as free as the past to work against Iran, and then that would be a change for Iran.
Trump at a recent campaign rally for the Republicans running in the midterms boasted that he never took the memorandum of understanding negotiated in Islamabad seriously, and that he basically just exploited it and used it to get more ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Does this statement, or just the general US behavior in which Trump flagrantly violated the MOU, how does that affect the view that you have or others have in the Iranian foreign policy world of JD Vance—Vice President JD Vance’s—new letter offering negotiations and on the concept of negotiating with Washington in general?
I think President Trump is right, and it is one of the rare places that he has been honest actually, in saying that he never signed the MOU to implement that, and I would say it is the general behavior of the Americans in their negotiation policy. I remember there was a study—I guess 25 or 6 years ago—an institute studied negotiation behavior of the United States, and they interviewed several American diplomats and several European diplomats who had the experience of negotiating diplomatically with the Americans, and the outcome was, in one sentence, in a nutshell, that the Americans negotiate to dictate their own deals to the other side. They’re not negotiating for negotiation. They’re not negotiating for exchanging ideas; they’re just negotiating to dictate to the other side. And if you do not accept their dictation, then they would not implement whatever you say and whatever they sign, and that is the same thing that happened in the JCPOA and happened in the MOU as well.
So the moment that he tweeted to accept the ceasefire and accept the Iranian framework for negotiations, he wasn’t honest in that, and he was just using it in order to avoid the threat that he had made and to avoid the attacks that Iran was actually carrying out against American interests in the region. And when he signed the MOU, he was not honest and he did not want to implement that. It was very clear because they violated the MOU by working in the Strait of Hormuz with Oman in violation of item four of the MOU, which says that Iran and Oman are responsible for the Strait. So yes, he’s very honest in that.
And now with the message that JD Vance has reportedly sent to the Iranian officials, I would say that is another piece to the same puzzle, that they just want to have Iran on the negotiation table to ask for some points from the Iranian side. So they were stuck in this quandary and they have no way out of this war that they have started, and there is no objective made and there is nothing that they can do, and there is no outcome and no way out for them. So with that, the only hope that they have is to make some achievements in the negotiations in political groups. And I have some reports that American administration, the US officials, have accepted all the terms that Iran has put forward, the seven items that Iran has said and the seven-day framework that Iran has said, but they are demanding Iran to have the nuclear issue within those negotiation items as well.
But the answer has been a definite ‘no’ from the Iranian side. The Iranian supreme leader has said that these seven proposals and the items that Iran has asked are fixed, no changes, no acceptance of any other things; it should be accepted by the Americans, all or none, and there’s not going to be any negotiations on the nuclear issue. If everything is done just according to the MOU, if all things are done, then we can move on and discuss the nuclear issue, but before that there’s nothing about that. And that’s what Americans are trying to achieve: to have some nuclear item into the negotiations because with that President Trump would be able to say and to claim that this war was for the nuclear issue and they have managed to finally make some achievement in agreeing on making a deal on the nuclear issue with the Iranians. But the war did not have anything to do with the nuclear issue; it was an operation economic change, and they admitted that, and they have failed to do that. So he’s just trying to find a way out of that, and this letter is another piece to the puzzle.
And so it sounds like you’re saying that another round of conflict, or you could be suggesting that another round of conflict is inevitable. Is that your assessment?
That’s definitely my assessment. I would expect it to happen, because that is the only way he might make some false claims: carry out a strike, maybe a bigger strike—even a nuclear strike against Iran—and then claim that I have destroyed everything and I have achieved a victory and I’m leaving the scene. However, I do not think that the scenario would be the same that he expects, just the same way that he failed to carry out his own scenarios in the 12-day war, in January, and in February, and 40 days of war. And after that, of course, if there’s an attack against Iran—even if it is a nuclear attack against Iran—Iran is going to respond very strongly and very harshly, and that paves the way for Iran to pursue a nuclear bomb actually.
So there are many public events, huge public events inside the Iranian community asking the government to build a nuclear weapon because it is a matter of defending ourselves. And you’re following the news around the world and you know that there are many countries and many allies saying that in order to prevent a nuclear attack against Iran... So if there is a nuclear attack, everything is fixed and Iran would be able and would actually have all the excuses to build a nuclear weapon.
LIFTING THE NUCLEAR FATWA
You’re saying like a nuclear attack, like a tactical nuclear weapon deployed against, for example, Fordow / Pickaxe Mountain, that would justify the lifting of the fatwa?
Yeah, exactly. And you know, there are some very delicate points in Iran and in Shia religious issues that, you know, defense is necessary, it’s a religious demand that you need, you have to defend yourself, and there is no choice in that when you are attacked. You need to defend yourself, and if you are attacked ultimately, then I think you need to defend yourself the same way as well. So with that, I think that would be a very good excuse for Iran to build some nuclear weapons. And I’m quite sure that whether a ‘mother of all bombs’ is used or a tactical nuclear weapon is used or even a nuclear dirty bomb is used or bunker busters—whatever is used—they would not be able to destroy the facility under Pickaxe Mountain or in Fordow, so Iran is actually very well prepared for that.
I know that the Americans would not believe this, American officials like it, but the same way they made mistakes and miscalculated everything in the recent two wars, that would be the same if they carry out another strike. The worst way for Americans is to concede and to accept the defeats that they have suffered in the war and just leave the scene. But the American administration is too proud to do that, and President Trump of course is much too proud to do that, to admit that they have been defeated. But if they do that, that would be the best situation for the American people, for Iranians, for the people of the region of course, and for the whole world, which are suffering from the war that Americans started for no reason.
Since we know that American officials are not thinking very wisely, I would expect them to attack Iran again and suffer another form of defeat in a military campaign again, and then there would be no option but to leave the scene with a huge blow to their reputation and to their power in the world.
ISRAEL ELECTIONS CONSEQUENCES
Well, one reason why I think the US—any administration, I mean, we saw Biden avoid any real negotiations toward a deal—why they can’t make a durable deal or concede on the nuclear issue is because of Israeli influence in the United States and on the US government. So what is your assessment of the Israeli elections in which Netanyahu and the Likud bloc have seemingly survived, have more seats than the change bloc of Gadi Eisenkot, and there was an unprecedented Arab turnout, but it’s very unclear how this government will shape up? Does the Israeli election, or a Netanyahu caretaker government, make an all-out assault on Iran more likely, possibly because Netanyahu wants to encourage unity among all of his opponents? And is there any difference in your view between how Netanyahu and a figure like Eisenkot would approach Iran?
I was looking at a picture coming from Charlie Hebdo depicting the election in the Israeli regime: that the coalition is bombing Gaza from one side, the opposition is bombing from the other side. So that’s the depiction of the election in Israel. When it comes to the war, there’s no difference between them. The point is that whether an attack on Iran would benefit them in the election is one part of the story, or from the other side of the story, whether an attack would inflict a heavy blow and damage to Iran. So if either of these two things would be possible, they would attack before the election, during the election, after the election, during the caretaking government, whatever it is; the outcome is important for them.
ASSASSINATION OPPORTUNITY PROMPT ATTACKS
The reason that they have not attacked Iran until now is that they are not sure about the Iranian reaction and what suffering would be ahead of them, the Israelis and Americans. And the most important one is that they have not been able to assassinate, for example, the supreme leader or their officials. If they can do that, they would attack Iran because it would be a gain for them. So the achievements and the outcomes, the consequences, are the two reasons that they have not attacked Iran. It’s not about the election that much; it’s not about the political situation. It is more about the outcomes and consequences of the attack. If he knows that there would be some things possible for them, they would attack, whether with a caretaker government, whether by Eisenkot, whether by whoever it is. If they can make any gains, they would attack.
Well, the February 28th attack on Iran was basically sold to Trump because Israeli intelligence knew where the leader and his staff were going to meet and when at his office. He wasn’t exactly hiding. You’re saying that Israel would immediately attack if it could locate the new leader Mojtaba, and that would be just a moment of opportunity that they would seize? Is that... I mean, if that’s my correct interpretation, is that why we and the Iranian public have not seen Mojtaba Khamenei since he was appointed as leader?
You’re so right. They’re trying to have the maximum care and caution about him in order to avoid any form of infiltration, any form of espionage, or any form of technological violation against Iran, so it would be better safe than sorry. So that’s why he has not appeared in public and there is no video or photos of him, just in order to make sure that it would not be possible for the regimes in the United States and Israel to attack the supreme leader. Yeah, that’s exactly correct.
Turning back to the regional picture, there was a very interesting meeting in Tehran with the head of the National Security Council meeting with his counterparts from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, who formed the new Mecca pact or Mecca alliance, which supposedly has this kind of Article 5 agreement that if one is attacked then they all defend one another. My first question about this meeting, apart from the Mecca pact, is that Saudi Arabia had made the trip to Tehran at a time when it’s really on the defensive and getting hammered by the Yemeni armed forces of Ansar Allah. Was the Saudi Arabian motivation for coming to Tehran to basically appeal for a ceasefire, and if so, what does this say about the current state of the Axis of Resistance?
I think there have been several objectives in the meeting. Inter alia, one of them for Saudi Arabia was to stop the attacks on facilities, but it is not something Iran can help, because Yemen is an independent country and independent group and not a proxy of Iran in order to be ordered what to do or not to do. They share some objectives, they share some ideals and values, but that doesn’t mean that they are following whatever orders that they receive from Iran. And the one who has started the war is Saudi Arabia; they can stop attacking Yemen, and then the reaction from Yemen would be stopped as well.
Another objective was trying to prevent an attack on Iran by luring Iran into accepting a deal with the United States. But as I said, for the Iranian side, the problem is that Iran is very well aware that whatever agreement the Americans make would not be trustworthy and they would violate them. And there is only one way you can deal with the United States, and it is forcing them into something, not agreeing with them into something or dealing with them. The only way is to force Americans into something. Now Iran is forcing Americans out of the region, and unless this happens there would not be security and stability in our region.
So one of the messages that Iran gave to these members of the troika, members of the Mecca pact, was that if you want security you need to remove the American bases from the region, because they are the source of threat to everyone, not only Iran, but also to the other countries as well. And the message was given to them that Iran is not going to accept any form of negotiations unless those conditions that Iran has set is accepted by the Americans, and Iran has no fear and is totally prepared for another round of war if necessary. So the message was very clear and very strict and very strong to these people. I have here that they have brought some message from Washington as well, threatening Iran into another round of war. But the response, as I said, was ‘Let’s have it. If you want war, let’s have it.’ The outcome would be disastrous not only for Americans, but also for the countries in the region and of course for the whole world, because they would suffer economically from that as well.
And how is the message received by Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia that the bases must be removed? I mean, Turkey has Incirlik Air Base, which is one of the key US air bases; it has a NATO listening station directed against Iran. Pakistan’s de facto military junta is operating heavily under the influence of US intelligence. Under what circumstances will they change that posture?
The way I talked about the military bases, I meant mainly in the Arab countries in the Gulf which have been used against Iran. Right now Iran is focusing on those bases. Of course, the same in Pakistan and Turkey and elsewhere are threats as well, but the ones that have been used against Iran are mainly those in Arab countries: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, etc. So I meant about those things. Whether the other countries have been in order in the agenda for discussion, I’m not sure about that. But something I know is about the bases in Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and in the region like Jordan or Iraq or else.
And what’s your overall view of the Mecca pact? Is it... does it have the potential to offset Israeli plans to become the kind of regional hegemon, or is it more like a means of beefing up the palace guards for Mohammed bin Salman?
After the Mecca pact was signed, Yemen had attacked... and neither Pakistan nor Turkey have been involved, and they have actually not implemented the deal, and they are quite aware that it would not happen. It was more a gesture rather than a real fact. It was a gesture to say that we are united and we are all three sides of Iran and we can contain Iran. But the reality on the ground is totally different from what you can discuss on papers. Neither of these countries are able to stand against the United States. Turkey... when the coup happened in Turkey and Erdoğan blamed United States for actually housing the opposition leader in Pennsylvania/Washington, and he turned against the United States, it took only two or three days when Americans put a few sanctions against Turkey and he stepped back from his position. So they could not even stand against the United States for three days in economic warfare, let alone military warfare. And we know about Saudi Arabia currently, what the situation is, and Pakistan is another story again. None of them would be able to stand against a country who has been able to stand against the United States, which claims to have the biggest and strongest army in the world.
So the reality in military campaigns, in power, is not just by numbers or figures or on paper. The reality is about influence, about how strong you are, about how influential you are, and how capable you are. Just look at Yemen and Saudi Arabia and UAE: Yemen almost has nothing, and Saudis and UAE have almost everything, and they have not been able to defeat Yemenis. So it’s not about numbers and figures. So the Mecca pact to me was just a gesture, a political gesture to say that we are united, we can do something in order to threaten and frighten countries like Iran or Yemen. But Iran, Yemen, and some other countries—let’s say Iranian allies—are very practical and very pragmatic in their political policymaking, and they know that these things could not stop Iran and these things could not be a threat to Iran.
And last question, kind of bringing it back to the Tehran municipality where you work, when I was in Iran in July, I got to see the...
EXTRA: US WAR PLANS:
Likely Loss of the Rule of Law
4:38
Earlier this week, Admiral Bradley Cooper spent uh the better part of a day uh in the White House uh advising uh President Trump on whatever plans Sentcom has made for some sort of um an attack. General Kellogg u the extremist fanatic out of touch person that he is apparently talks to somebody in the White House. He says it could come as soon as Wednesday, the day after election day. Uh Senator Chris Murphy, by virtue of being one of the gang of eight, he’s on the Senate uh intelligence committee, received a briefing on what Admiral Cooper suggested to President Trump and what Trump has apparently uh told Hegsth uh to prepare to do. watch uh uh Senator Murphy’s very gloomy and unhappy recitation of what he was told in the briefing. Chris, in one of these briefings, we did get the chance to have a fairly detailed conversation about what the war plan would be if we restarted military operations. You you’ve heard a preview that it would be a short duration Yeah. um plan. I will just say this, their plan is insane.
Um, it won’t it it it won’t it it it it will lead to devastating escalation and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law.
Can you say more? I mean there’s been open reporting as to you know what we may be planning and the civilian infrastructure that we may be targeting.
Um I I I think the plan the plan that they have they have they’ve been asked by the president to develop a plan. Whether they believe it it will work or not I do not know. Um but the plan that they have developed will lead in my view to a prolongment and an escalation of this war that will be devastating for our security interests.
Destruction of our commitment to the rule of law. Larry, what do you think Admiral Bradley has prepared and the president has approved?
Yeah. So this would have been a two-stage process. first stage was the the J5 at uh Sententcom, not not Sylvia who was just fired, but the JCOM the J5 at Sentcom along with the J3, the guy in charge of operations.
um they would have put together a list of uh courses of action, you know, COAs, and that would have been first briefed to Trump, you know, like the Chinese menu, you know, do you want the compound chicken or do you want the shrimp and beef? Um and so in this case, apparently Trump has already decided on a course of action. That’s why Murphy was able to be briefed. He wasn’t he wasn’t being briefed on a series of possible courses of action. He was he was told this was the course of action. Now, the fact that Trump is going to the to the length to brief Congress tells me that he’s damn serious about doing this. Now, you know, and and Murphy may be absolutely correct that it’s insane, but uh the the meeting with uh Cooper and General Kaine at the White House took place yesterday, Thursday. So, I think this was the final planning process to say, okay, this is these are the assets we have in place. What are they likely to do? the the most likely first course I you know it may be a combination of things but they’re going to attack the nuclear sites. In fact, there’s already news out this late this afternoon that there have been explosions in Ishvahan and Busher. Now, are those from anti-aircraft guns firing or those from actual bombs being dropped? We don’t have any clarification on that. But the other thing that’s so disturbing is they’re talking about landing troops on the islands in the Persian Gulf. Karg and Keshum in particular. I would simply note and I’ll let our you know I won’t call him a retired Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine, but Karg Islands the size of Eoima. And in 1945, we invaded. The first wave of Marines was 36,000. Ultimately, 80,000 Marines went in. 27,000 casualties came out, 7,000 dead, 20,000 wounded. Or Keshum Island is the size of Okinawa. We and we went into Okinawa with 180,000 100,000 army, 70 80,000 marines. We don’t have anywhere near numbers like that. You know, we might be talking maybe 8,000 5 to 8,000 Marines total. And so the notion that the that Trump is actually seriously considering putting US troops on those islands would be a human and strategic disaster for the United States.
Got it, Scott. [clears throat] Well, um, first of all, I don’t think anybody’s talking about occupying the islands and and maintaining a force. It’s it’s a militarily impossible mission to do with the force structure available. Uh, what we’re probably talking about is a raid. It’s a classic Marine mission. Um, and it’s one that the force structure could in fact support. um you know a raid on the carg to destroy energy infrastructure a raid on keshum to do the to do the same because I think uh besides the um the token um bombing of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure because anybody who’s an expert on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure knows that we don’t know where the 60% enriched uranium is. So we’re just doing this for optics so the president can claim to have recreated nuclear dust. The the real target here is Iran. I believe Iran’s uh energy production, infrastructure, and other vital economic targets. I believe that the uh the strategic um goal is the collapse of the Iranian economy. There’s a lot of talk in Washington DC about how weak and fragile the Iranian economy is. And I think people have convinced Donald Trump that by attacking a certain set of targets um that we can achieve this collapse and that will lead to regime change. I think there will also be an element of this attack that targets Iranian leadership. Netanyahu has talked about finishing the job and the job was uh to eliminate the Iranian leadership. So that’s the direction we’re going and this is what I think Chris Murphy is worried about because uh we we are setting ourselves on a course of action uh that doesn’t uh address the Iranian ballistic missile capabilities and we know that we don’t have the ability to defend against them. So, what’s going to happen is once we attack these uh energy structures, we’re we’re betting that we’re in a race to the bottom, that Iran will hit bottom before we do uh before the world does. But Iran is going to come back and pound the living dog poop out of uh the totality of the region’s energy infrastructure to include Saudi Arabia. Um, you know, Iran I they just had the Mecca packed meeting in Thran and Saudi Arabia was there and I think the Iranians put them on notice that uh you cannot allow yourselves to be used by the United States to attack us. If you do, uh, we will finish the job that the Hoodi have started. And right now the Hoodi have inflicted what I believe to be is a mortal wound against the House of Saud. The Iranians will simply issue the Kudigra, but they’ll also do that against Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arabs. and we’re going to be losing 23 to 25% of the world’s energy uh production capability. This will lead to an immediate global economic crisis. This is what Murphy’s talking about. This is the deliberate destruction of the global economy by the president. An illegal war of aggression done without any authority whatsoever from the US Congress or the United Nations or the international community of the [clears throat] biggest criminal act that’s been committed in modern times. Our leader is about to do this and this will destroy the global economy and in doing so maybe inflict fatal harm on the American economy. I mean I don’t know why Chris Murphy was silent. I have to tell you that if I were a senator with the immunity that I possess, I would have revealed the totality of that plan called it insane and demanded that the president not implement it. Chris Murphy, frankly speaking, is a facilitator of this action because he’s not doing what needs to be done to stop this insanity. He can call it insane, but it it is it really insane if he sits back and and allows it to happen.
Uh here’s uh Newsweek’s reporting. This just came out a few minutes ago. It sounds macob to me, Larry and Scott, but you both have more uh experience. US Army soldiers are training to bury fellow troops in temporary graves on moss for the first time in decades. rehearsing how the US military would respond of a sustained high number if it sustained a high number of casualties. Soldiers with the third core sustainment command and the 20th Engineer Brigade based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as well as religious support personnel like military chaplain, etc., etc. Scott, have you ever heard of this? Rehearsing to bury your colleagues in shallow graves. I mean, we we, you know, back in the day when we did highintensity conflict, we of course uh had mass casualty, you know, plans in place, including uh you know, the the mass disposal of bodies. It’s a health issue. You can’t have bodies rotting around.
But let’s just be frank here. There’s no conflict in the Middle East that’s going to produce mass American casualties. First of all, we don’t have enough troops to send over there to get killed. Um so, what are they practicing for? And you put this you you link this to uh the operation fortress that they’re talking about. Um I think what they’re preparing to do is is bury Americans. I think they’re you know creating a scenario where we lose electricity, we lose power. Uh the military and critical personnel fortress down on military bases and the American people are left to fend for themselves which means starvation um and and and death of exposure and then the military has to come in and dispose of those bodies. So, you know, I don’t think this is about preparing for a a conflict in the Middle East. We don’t have enough troops to justify mass burial. This is about burying Americans. And I wish the government would start being honest.
Chris Murphy needs to start being honest. The people who know what the hell’s going on have to start being honest with the American people about what we’re getting ready to do.
Larry, what is the uh significance uh of the meeting in Thran between Iran, Pakistan, uh Saudi Arabia and Turkey? Did Iran threaten Saudi Arabia at that meeting? And is there really no All right. Tell us what you think happened or what your sources are telling you from Pakistan. Yeah, this uh this meeting was arranged at at the at the suggestion of Assam Munir uh the uh guy running Pakistan right now general. Uh he met with Moshin Resai the week before so basically two weeks ago uh on Monday and uh they they said okay yeah let’s have this meeting. So the meeting was convened this last Monday with uh the signitories all to the Mecca agreement uh Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and they and with uh now they brought in Iran. So Iran was offered has been invited to join. Uh it was uh conditioned on the end of the war in the Persian Gulf. Uh there was also discussion about the war with Yemen. Uh and you know my what I’m told to Pakistani sources is that Pakistan and Turkey basically told the Saudis man you know we’re we’re not going to get in the middle of that fight. You need to uh get a negotiated settlement. You need to get this stopped. Uh but what what this marked they all had the same opinion which was having this relationship with the United States the previous relationship at least Pakistan Saudi Arabia and Turkey have had it’s it’s like living with a toxic girlfriend and they um they don’t want nothing to do with it. Uh so you know this I think this is the start of a process that’s going to actually achieve Iran’s objective of getting the United States out of the Persian Gulf. It already has withdrawn from a number of bases. So whether it was de facto or desure the the the reality is the United States no longer has the physical presence in the Persian Gulf that it had just a year ago. and there’s no indication that it’s going to be able to return to what it had a year ago. So th this was uh this was an important diplomatic step forward. Um there were reports circulating saying that um the Saudis were offering the Houthis a billion dollars as a as a incentive to you know back off and stop the war. The Houthies don’t get out of bed for a billion dollars. Okay. Uh 500 billion maybe. But the the the reality right now is both the Saudis and and much of the rest of the Gulf suffering enormous economic damage and that damage is not going to be reversed anytime soon. Head of Aramco said two years minimum.
Scott, how badly damaged the Saudi Arabia at the hands of Ansarah?
Well, I I think again what Larry just concluded with is the physical damage uh which is immense and it’s going to be years to recover. This is bad news for Europe. This is bad news for Asia. It’s bad news for China. Um and it can just get worse again if we do end up attacking Iranian infrastructure. This uh this mecca pact is meaningless because Iran will take down u the totality of the region’s oil infrastructure. Um but let’s say we do avoid uh you know that uh you know apocalyptic uh scenario. Uh I believe fatal damage has already been done by the Hoodi to uh to Saudi Arabia. Um you know in the west we don’t talk about it but Saudi Arabia is very much a tribal structure and if you you look at how I Assad created it you know it’s tribal alliance based upon a tribal alliance based on tribal alliance. Those alliances were shattered in 2017 by Muhammad bin Salman and his in what effect was a coup uh in December of 2017 where he arrested 11 uh you know members of the royal family and uh to to bully his way to the top. He alienated everybody. Um the only reason why he remains in power is because of the the fear of his u of his capability to bring harm and his ability to use the wealth of Saudi Arabia to buy off loyalty of the tribes. that wealth now is in question. I mean, it’s we’re looking at the Saudi Arabia has lost, you know, 40 50% of their uh of their GDP and it’s they’re not going to recover. Um the tribes have abandoned uh MBS. They literally have. The the tribes of Saudi Arabia have told MBS he’s on his own.
And it gets even worse. the three southern provinces of Saudi Arabia which used to be part of Yemen up until 1933 when Saudi Arabia stole them. Um the head of the tribes there uh traveled recently to a capital city to pledge his allegiance. It was SA and he pledged allegiance to Ansrala to the Hoodi. So you see people are already fleeing. This is, I believe, the end of Saudi Arabia, the fall of the House of Saud regardless of what happens to Aramco and for the international energy market, Larry, which Trump claims will be back mysteriously as soon as the midterms are over.
Yeah. No, it’s just a lie. He’s we we’ve seen some of the prices like diesel diesel like in in where I live got up to 620 a gallon last week. Now it’s down to like 580. Well, why is that? Trump ordered the withdrawal from the strategic petroleum reserve below the critical threshold. There’s a critical threshold that was established that saying if you drew below this you would put the physical structure of those caverns salt caverns in jeopardy that they would be because you have to pour salt water into them to get the oil out. But if at a certain level if you got too much water in there it combines with the salt. salt degrades, the caverns collapse in on themselves and and he’s been doing that essentially to try to save his rear end in this election because people are so upset about the diesel prices. But it it’s a global shortage. And even if they if they get a peace agreement tomorrow, they say everything’s going to flow freely through the Gulf. The the the the ability of the Gulf right now to produce oil is at 50% at best of what their original capability was, despite what Trump is saying. And we saw one of the side effects of this uh on on Tuesday this week. Uh an American cruise ship called the VAV that was basically a floating condo hotel for uh retirees who would buy a cabin. A lot of them, you know, sold their homes or their apartments to buy on to this cabin. It was like for life. It was a lifetime thing. And they’d sell around the world. It’d be great. Um they they they they were pushed off the ship in in Cambodia because the the the price of diesel that they had budgeted at $1,800 a month per cabin has now gone up to over $8,000 a month per cabin. Four and a half times increase. And so now all these people who thought that they had bought a luxury uh cabin on a cruise ship, they’re they’re homeless. And this was a direct this is throughout Asia because the price they’re paying there is the price throughout. This is Cambodia. This is Vietnam. This is Thailand. This is Laos. It is this is a global shortage. And there’s nothing that can be done within the next year that’s going to eliminate that shortage.
All because of two human beings, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump.
Scott, before we go, while we’ve been focusing on Israel and on Iran, what is happening in the special military operation uh as Russia gets closer and closer to its military objectives in Ukraine?
Well, uh, right now there’s a big distraction taking place, the city of Oleski, uh, where there was a humanitarian crisis triggered by the actions of the Ukrainian government and isolating, uh, the civilian population from food, water, medicine. U, there there’s a negotiated uh, you know, humanitarian relief process taking place that’s uh, sucking the oxygen out of the the war narrative right now. And it and it should I mean I I know Jana Lantraata the uh human rights commissioner personally and uh you know she’s in there leading the charge for the Russians and it’s honorable work that she’s doing. But the war continues and this is what people tend to forget that um you know Russia continues to dis dismantle Ukraine. Anybody who thought that the Ukrainians were going to listen to Donald Trump and not attack Russian infrastructure, uh, the Ukrainians have reached out and uh, and and struck an oil refiner, a critical oil refinery in the Samara region. Um, the war continues. Russia continues to dominate on the front and we’re looking at not just the collapse of Ukraine, but the extinction of Ukraine. Khal Kalas uh who’s long been the mouthpiece of Europe in promoting the war. Reality has hit her in the face like uh you know two jabs from Mike Tyson and she is now sitting there going we we we can’t continue this war. We can’t continue to support Ukraine. There’s no support for this amongst the European people and without America’s help there’s nothing we can do. This is the reality and it’s you’re going to see you know the the rapid collapse of Ukraine I believe in the weeks and months to come. There’s nothing that can be done to pull Ukraine out of this. Uh everybody focusing on this ceasefire is focusing on the wrong thing.
Before we go, just for a little humor, here’s what happens when Fox News, my former employer for 24 years, assumes that everybody at a Trump rally is MAGA. [laughter] Tom, why are you here this morning?
Well, in the late 70s, I was a little too young to get involved and um go to South America for the Jonestown Massacre, but this is as close as I’ll ever get, so that’s why I’m here. Wait, the Jonestown Massacre? That’s right.
There’s nothing like seeing a cult right up front, man.
All right. So, maybe maybe this is not a Trump boy right now.
It’s okay. We’ll find over. I appreciate that. See,
[laughter]
he wanted to see what a cult gathering was like. So, we went to Trump’s rally in Ohio.
And that was that was 1978, the Jonestown Massacre. I remember it because I was in Honduras at the time.
Oh, boy. All right, guys. Thank you very much. Thanks for your time, Scott.
Wherever you’re driving, safe travels and thank you very much for stopping the car to come to us. We’ll see you both uh early next week. All the best.
All right, take care. Bye-bye.
Thank you. And we will of course be with you uh on Monday morning as usual with Alistister Crook and Larry Johnson. And if this war starts, we’ll be here for you. Judge Npalitano for judging freedom.
FOOTNOTES:
It is rumored that sailors are sabotaging the toilets on their ships to pressure the navy to bring them home after record-breaking deployments