Episode 5407: Flip Flop In Iran Discussions

Summary

Bannon’s War Room – Episode 5407: Flip Flop In Iran Discussions

Date: May 29, 2026
Host: Steve Bannon
Main Guests: J.D. Vance, John Solomon, Jim Rickards, Trita Parsi, Richard Haass, Lindsey Graham, Mark Levin, Anderson Cooper

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the ongoing, complicated Iran conflict negotiations, examining whether a so-called "pre-deal" between the United States and Iran—focused initially on unblocking the Strait of Hormuz—can be finalized, what its substance would be, and why various factions in Washington and across the Middle East are deeply divided on strategy.
Also discussed are allegations about USAID funds, Ukraine, and the Biden campaign, the future of sanctions on Iran, regime change demands, and the Abraham Accords.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Status of U.S.–Iran Negotiations

• The Pre-Deal Stage

  • Context: Iran and the U.S. are negotiating a "memorandum of understanding" (MOU) as a stepping stone to a bigger deal.

  • Progress & Sticking Points:

    • Both sides want the Strait of Hormuz opened for free passage.
    • Issues remain on Iran’s nuclear enrichment and stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
    • Negotiators: U.S. side is led by VP J.D. Vance; Iran’s Supreme Leader is operating in secrecy, with intermediaries (Qatar, Pakistan) passing messages (Richard Haass, [01:14]).

  • Quote:

    “There are a couple of issues on the nuclear stuff, the highly enriched stockpile, and also the question of enrichment. So, you know, we're going back and forth with them.”
    — J.D. Vance [00:40]

  • Deal Skepticism:

    “It's just too early to tell… we are so far away from [the big deal]. We’re basically negotiating here to get back to zero… how you get this to hold and sustain and then get into the real negotiations for the nuclear material, it's going to be very difficult.”
    — Richard Haass [01:14]

• Immediate vs. Long-term Outcomes

  • Oil Markets & Economics:
    • Expectation that there may be a “phase one” deal to end the mutual blockade, lifting economic pressure on Iran and lowering global oil prices.
    • The nuclear side of talks is described as much tougher (Jim Rickards, [02:51]).
  • Iran’s Strategy:
    • “Iran had a plan B, we had no plan B.” The U.S. gambled on quick regime change, but Iran adapted with asymmetric warfare — drone attacks, leveraging the Strait as a geopolitical “weapon of mass disruption” ([04:22]: Richard Haass).

• Changed Power Dynamics:

  • Iran now knows it can choke off the oil trade; this strategic leverage will remain, even if the Strait is temporarily reopened ([04:11]: Trita Parsi, [04:14]: Steve Bannon, [04:17] J.D. Vance).

2. U.S. Domestic Red Lines and Deal Mechanisms

• Trump's Red Lines:

  • No nuclear weapons, turnover of uranium, free and open Strait of Hormuz.

    “Those are the three red lines.”
    — John Solomon [08:47]

• Trust Issues and Iran’s Weakness:

  • Iran's leadership is fractured, its communications infrastructure decimated, and resources depleted.
  • While privately seeking a deal, Iran is publicly untrustworthy ([07:06]-[10:53]: John Solomon).

• Internal U.S. Politics and Bureaucratic Hurdles:

  • Negotiations being handled outside traditional State Dept. channels, involving figures like Jared Kushner and business associates, increasing the risk of mixed signals and inefficiency ([01:14]: Richard Haass).

3. Ukraine/USAID/Biden Allegations

• Explosive Allegations by John Solomon:
  • Claims of a plot to redirect USAID funds (via Ukraine) to the Biden 2024 campaign, referencing a real-time intelligence intercept and suppressed internal emails judged suspicious by career officials.
  • Calls for White House and OMB transparency, suggesting “two or three months of valuable investigative time have been lost.”

    "One of the emails this contractor found said that this contract doesn’t pass the smell test..."
    — John Solomon [11:08]

  • Frustration at bureaucratic stonewalling:

    “People who are wasting their time are also wasting their credibility by going around saying... there's full access.”
    — John Solomon [16:14]

4. Abraham Accords, Saudi-Israel Normalization, and Sabotage Fears

• Lindsey Graham’s View:

  • Suggests that Trump (if successful) could “end the Arab-Israeli conflict” by getting Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel.

    “If he can get Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam for the entire world to recognize the Jewish state Israel, he'll have ended the Arab Israeli conflict that's been going on for thousands of years.”
    — Lindsey Graham [21:39]

• Trita Parsi’s Counterpoint:

  • Injecting the Abraham Accords at this stage is a “poison pill” that could sabotage the Iran deal:

    “Bringing in the Abraham Accord into this is a poison pill. It’s a way of sabotaging the deal.”
    — Trita Parsi [25:16]

• Persian Perspective:

  • Iran’s leadership does not believe they lost the war; they claim to have forced a ceasefire with two nuclear states unable to achieve their war aims ([28:17]: Trita Parsi).
  • However, their economy is in crisis and needs sanctions relief.

5. Sanctions, Regime Change, and Political Realities

• U.S. Debate: Sanctions Relief vs. Regime Change
  • Hardliners (Levin, Graham) claim relief “funds the regime.”

    “If you lift sanctions, you're just underwriting this regime in this pestilence that is a modern Persian authority.”
    — Steve Bannon paraphrasing Mark Levin [37:05]

  • Parsi rebuts that sanctions rarely cause regime change and that the U.S. must decide if it actually wants a deal or endless punishment/war.

    “We have very few cases in which we can say that an entire government collapsed and transitioned towards democracy as a result of sanctions. The only example we have in the world is actually South Africa under apartheid...”
    — Trita Parsi [38:04]

6. Deal Substance & What Might Be Achievable

• Possible Parameters:

  • Iran agreeing to a long halt in uranium enrichment (potentially 5–12 years—better than the Obama JCPOA), possible forgoing of stockpiles, free Strait with international/regional monitoring, substantial sanctions relief ([35:01]: Trita Parsi).
  • The potential domestic economic benefit:

    “This will make sure that the Iranian market opens up for American companies. That will be the largest market that has opened up since the fall of the Soviet Union.”
    — Trita Parsi [35:01]

  • Differences: JCPOA allowed some Iranian enrichment and limited stockpiles; this deal might have stricter terms if completed.

• Limits:

  • Trump’s red lines do not include regime change.
  • Skeptics argue that the regime’s survival and future threats are not sufficiently addressed.

7. Meta-Analysis and Realities of U.S. Policy

• Conventional Wisdom Failures:

  • Rickards calls out the “perpetual wrongness” of cable-news pundits:

    “When I see people like Richard Haass…first question I ask..when was the last time you were right about anything?”
    — Jim Rickards [40:22]

• Who Has Leverage?

  • Rickards believes Iran, not the U.S., has more leverage—especially with the Strait of Hormuz as a choke point.
  • The U.S. faces a choice: declare victory and leave (surrender), stalemate, or escalate the war, but none offer easy wins ([46:35]: Jim Rickards).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• J.D. Vance on Deal Progress:
  “It's very clear that I think the Iranians, they want to deal and they want to open the Straits of Hormuz. We want them to open the Straits of Hormuz. There are a couple of issues on the nuclear stuff…” [00:40]
• Richard Haass on Negotiation Chaos:
  “We've got the Vice President talking about it, we've got the Secretary of Treasury talking about it. It's the most, you know, kind of multi hydra headed negotiation I've ever seen over such a complex issue.” [01:14]
• Trita Parsi on Abraham Accords as ‘Poison Pill’:
  “Bringing in the Abraham Accord into this is a poison pill. It's a way of sabotaging the deal.” [25:16]
• John Solomon on White House Transparency:
  “Whatever rhetoric you're hearing in the, you know, the propaganda of Iran, it's very different at the negotiating table.” [10:53]
• Jim Rickards on Flawed U.S. Strategy:
  “Iran’s not out to defeat the United States. They’re not going to invade the beaches of New Jersey…Who has the leverage? Iran. Not Trump.” [41:02]
• Mark Levin (as paraphrased):
  “If you lift sanctions, you're just underwriting this regime in this pestilence that is a modern Persian authority.” [37:05 as paraphrased by Bannon]

---

Timeline of Key Segments

• 00:00–01:14 - Anderson Cooper, J.D. Vance, Richard Haass: Framing the state of negotiations
• 02:51–04:46 - Jim Rickards, Richard Haass: Economics of the blockade and Iran’s adaptive strategy
• 07:06–10:53 - John Solomon: Private vs. public Iranian intentions; Trump’s red lines
• 11:08–16:14 - John Solomon: USAID–Ukraine–Biden funding allegations
• 21:39–23:19 - Lindsey Graham on Trump’s potential to end the Arab–Israeli conflict
• 25:16–27:44 - Trita Parsi: Abraham Accords sabotage, regional security
• 28:17–32:22 - Trita Parsi: Iran’s self-perceived victory, economic desperation
• 35:01–39:48 - Trita Parsi: What the deal might look like, sanctions debate
• 40:22–44:06 - Jim Rickards & Steve Bannon: Analysis of leverage, regime change, Abraham Accords
• 46:35–49:27 - Jim Rickards: Game of chicken, why a substantive interim deal is unlikely, U.S. choices moving forward

---

Summary

This episode covers the precarious state of U.S.–Iran conflict de-escalation, with little faith that any deal will be either swift or transformative. Debates rage about the wisdom and reality of sanctions, regime change, trusting Iran’s leadership, foreign policy interference (Abraham Accords), the weaponization of the Strait of Hormuz, and internal Washington infighting (and even scandalous USAID–Ukraine allegations).

While some argue the U.S. remains in a position of strength, several guests insist Iran has the strategic upper hand due to escalation dominance and that the U.S. is boxed in by unrealistic maximalism from its own hawks. Skepticism about achieving regime change is widespread among analysts, but remains the rallying cry for certain U.S. politicians. In the end, all sides seem to acknowledge that a first-phase “deal to get to a deal” may be reachable, but anything lasting and comprehensive is still far on the horizon.

---

For more:

• Trita Parsi on Substack and Quincy Institute
• John Solomon
• Jim Rickards – Strategic Intelligence

Transcript

[Anderson Cooper]

Yeah, the two sides do seem to be moving closer here. But I have to say it is very difficult to tell whether this is real or whether this is just another mirage. You know, we've been down this road before where it appears as if a deal is in hand, only to see it all collapse. Now, the way I understand it is that the Iranians came to the US this week, said they were comfortable with the text of the plan. President Trump asked for a few more days to decide whether he was going to sign off or. We heard from J.D. vance, the Vice president who has been leading these negotiations. Yesterday, he described it as not quite finalized yet. Listen here.

[J.D. Vance]

Well, I think it's hard to say exactly when or if the President is going to sign the mou. We're going back and forth on a couple of language points. I do think that we've made a lot of progress here. It's very clear that I think the Iranians, they want to deal and they want to open the Straits of Hormuz. We want them to open the Straits of Hormuz. There are a couple of issues on the nuclear stuff, the highly enriched stockpile, and also the question of enrichment. So, you know, we're going back and forth with them.

[Steve Bannon]

There's any way President Trump walks away from this conflict with a deal better

[J.D. Vance]

than President Obama got in 2015, which he scuttled,

[Richard Haass]

Anderson. It's just too early to tell. Only because this is the pre deal to get to the negotiations for the big deal. And so we are so far away from that. I mean, we're basically negotiating here to get back to zero, which is to a situation where the Straits of Hormuz were an international waterway with free passage for everybody. That wasn't even on the table when this war started. And only then did we get into a negotiation, excuse me, over the, excuse me, over the fissile material, the near bomb grade fissile material. And when you look at the difficulties they're having with just this issue, you can imagine what's going to happen with that one. You know, when you think about it, Anderson, if you step back, think about what's going on here, you've got a supreme leader in Iran who's hiding somewhere. He has no cell phone with him because he doesn't want to tip off the Israelis or Americans where he is. So people are passing notes back and forth to him. Then they're passing notes back and forth to Qatar and Pakistan, who are mediating between Jared Kushner and Witkoff, the President's negotiators two real estate developers. Where the State Department is, I don't know. We've got the Vice President talking about it, we've got the Secretary of Treasury talking about it. It's the most, you know, kind of multi hydra headed negotiation I've ever seen over such a complex issue. I'm not optimistic. Maybe they'll be able to get something down on paper, but how you get this to hold and sustain it and then get into the real negotiations for the nuclear material, it's going to be very difficult.

[Jim Rickards]

We will see a phase one deal which is essentially for both parties to end their mutual blockade of the Strait of Hormuz because Iran's economy is really suffering perhaps as much as $450 million a day. It's losing as a result of the U.S. blockade. And President Trump wants oil and gases to come down ahead of the the summer travel season. So the first phase of this deal I think is going to happen at some point. The second phase is going to be the very difficult part, resolving the nuclear issue.

[Richard Haass]

Anderson they went in there on the assumption that they were going to change the regime with aerial bombing. It was going to happen quick. They would be replaced by pliant Iranians and they would then do a Venezuela style deal with Trump. When that didn't happen, Trump had no plan B. Iran had a plan B, it had a plan B and a plan C. Plan B was take over the Straits of Hormuz using drones and cruise missiles and attack America's Gulf Arab allies and frighten them so badly that they would deter Trump for the future. So Iran had a plan B, we had no plan B. And we're kind of been making it up ever since then.

[J.D. Vance]

Even the idea that it's going to

[Steve Bannon]

return the Strait to the status quo. I mean Iran with the difference is

[Trita Parsi]

even if there is free passage, Iran

[Steve Bannon]

now knows they can shut down the Strait at any time.

[J.D. Vance]

And now it's a proven hypothesis.

[Richard Haass]

Yes. We in our pursuit of stripping Iran of its weapons, of its potential to make a weapon of mass destruction, we gave them the fuel and the idea to develop a weapon of mass disruption for so much less money. They've got in effect a nuclear weapon of their own. And they did not have that before this war. And we'll have to live with that

[John Solomon]

and the world will have to live

[Mark Levin]

said what are his choices at this point, Joe? You know the deal you can get the Iranians to accept or what, you're not going to get regime change, you're not going to get Iranian capitulation So just say he does what the finish the job gang wants him to do. It's a slogan, not a strategy. So what, he resumes bombing against what? The only meaningful targets we haven't really gone after is the Iranian energy infrastructure. Kind of a problem, though. If we do that, guess what Iran's going to do? They're going to go after the energy infrastructure, every one of its neighbors. And as bad as this crisis is, that would make this look like a tea party, because then you would see the long term destruction of 20% or even more of the world's oil and gas capabilities. So, you know, what is Donald Trump going to do? I think also, Joe, a lot of this returns the question. I mean, you know, what you and Jake think about this is, you know, we had a moment. The President keeps saying we can't allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Okay, everybody agrees on that. But we had an enormous opportunity both to lock that in and to bring about regime change after June. That was when Iran was at its weakest, after the Israeli and American strikes. And rather than taking advantage of that and trying to press diplomatically and turn up the economic heat, we ultimately move towards this war. So you keep coming back to that. We are going to end up. The only question I have is how much worse off are we now than we were before this war began? Donald Trump's going to have to spin it. He's going to say we're better off, but quite honestly, no one who has an ounce of objectivity is going to agree with Him.

[Steve Bannon]

Friday, 29th May, year of our Lord 2026. So we are packed this morning. Go through all of that. Also the grassroots efforts, what's happening on Capitol Hill, and much, much more. I'll start with John Solomon. John, I want to go back to what you talked about yesterday, but just quick. You saw the mainstream media. We wanted to give everybody an update on what the conventional Wisdom in Washington, D.C. is saying. Your thoughts about the, I guess the deal to get to a deal, this pre deal. Do you have any assessment of where we actually stand on this?

[John Solomon]

Yeah, listen, what I hear in talking to people is that what you see publicly and hear publicly, the rhetorical propaganda is not a reflection of what's actually being discussed in the private settings, that the Iranians in the private settings are very clear, that they want to make a deal, that they're tired of the war, they have nothing to fight with. Yes, they still have their skirmishes, but they really want to make a deal. But there needs to be A trust factor to get to a deal. And they also have a communications problem, which is that because the second IRGC people show up, they get whacked with a missile. They don't want to communicate. And so they have a real challenge in getting communication and consensus among a very bifurcated relationship. Iran has always intentionally bifurcated leadership for a scenario like this, but they're more bifurcated by the fact that we've leveled basically their entire communications infrastructure. So the President is willing to test that theory and see if it's real. But I think the most important thing that people are missing in the mainstream media is that Iran has been told unequivocally that the President has some very, very clear red lines. There are three things here no chance he will not accept. Iran is clearly aware of those three lines and they have now agreed to an outline of the 60 day ceasefire that comes with enormous consequences for the Iranian government. If they try to change those red lines later, they're just going to get blown to smithereens, I think they know. So, yeah, the communications internally are just different.

[Steve Bannon]

Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Yeah, just give us those red lines once again. Just give us the three red lines. His red lines.

[John Solomon]

No nuclear weapons program ever again. Turn over the uranium and a free and open Strait of Hormuz. Those are the three red lines. And Trump has signaled, hey, listen, we're not saying we have to control the Strait of Hormuz. You just have to keep it free and open. It's in your territory. Fine. But you got to keep it free and open. No weaponizing it. So those are the red lines. And there is absolute clarity on that. And the fact that the Iranians know that and are agreeing to this deal is significant. Now, they are not trustworthy. We know that. We have 47 now, almost 48 years of proof that they're not trustworthy. But they are beaten down, they are flattened. They got nothing to fight with. They put up four drones, we blow the hell out of them in five seconds. They don't have a way to beat us. They don't. All that rhetoric you heard on television is bs. They got a few missiles here and there. They can be a menace. They cannot be a significant power anymore. They know that the Persians are very pragmatic people, all of their rhetoric aside. And I think that the President believes that the expressions that are at the table with Jarrett and with Steve Witkoff are worth testing, but short and quick and intense. And if they get to the next level, things will be great. If not, he has no problem opening up the skies. And I think this time the President will likely use some shock and all. I would not be surprised if some new weaponry like space based lasers were used to show Iran, hey, you think conventional warfare stuff. Check this out. That would be supersonic transformation of warfare overnight. So Iran knows that what comes next is going to be worse than what it's been through. And I think that that is given, you know, put them in a position to try to negotiate. There are a lot of thorny issues. It's a deal to get to a deal to get to a deal. So it's three steps. But I think the biggest thing I've learned as a reporter in the last 48 hours is whatever rhetoric you're hearing in the, you know, the propaganda of Iran, it's very different at the negotiating table. And that has not been something we've seen in the last 47 years.

[Steve Bannon]

Also, I want to go back to yesterday. You dropped a couple of bombshells on here, but I understand there's some, there's some pushback on that among two of my favorite people. So can you explain what you laid out yesterday and where we actually stand on these bombshells?

[John Solomon]

The first thing is the power of your show, right? When something happens on your show, people take notice. And so yesterday I talked about the fact that I believe that there are very important documents inside the USAD USAID's custody, which is inside OMB right now. OMB isn't temporarily running USAID, so Russ Mode's team is running it that are relevant to a possible plot to route taxpayer money that came through USAID to Ukraine and allegedly went to Donald Trump's 2020, excuse me, Joe Biden 2024 campaign. We had this intercept that Tulsi Gabbard released at our request a few weeks ago, and that intercept shows NSA that the Ukrainians were talking about having worked with USAID to get a large grant that would then be laundered back to the Joe Biden campaign. I learned of that intercept because I was informed from a. So let me walk you through the history because I think there's some disinformation flowing around the White House. So after I was on your show, I mentioned this yesterday, there were people in the White House trying to say this isn't true. Dulcie Gabbard has everything she needs that is not true. So I'm going to tell you exactly what happened. I received information from my longtime U.S. intelligence asset with deep ties to Ukraine, who is Extraordinarily trusted by all of our intelligence agencies. They had heard of this plot in real time. That led me to a conversation with the intelligence community. That led me to the discovery that Tulsi Gabbard had found this intercept. Tulsi declassified it. We got the first part of it out. But the intercept is not specific enough to make a criminal case or to prove the money flow. You got to follow the money. The fastest way to follow the money is to get inside the USAID email database. The low, the low side, the non classified side, and the high side, the classified side. My U.S. intelligence source, who is actually a source for the intelligence government, had the specific names of people who were involved in this alleged plot. In March, a contractor working for omb, assigned to USAID was contacted by ODNI and did a series of searches. He found searches that appeared to be talking about this very troublesome contract. In fact, one of the emails this contractor found said that this contract doesn't pass the smell test, meaning that career people were seeing this money moving around and it looked incredibly suspicious and it looks just like what the intercept was talking about. Instead of taking that information and turning it over to Tulsi Gabbard, OMB rolled up that contractor, took his laptop away, temporarily removed him, and did not convey the information to ODNI and did not convey the information to me, even though I personally asked for it as a reporter. Instead, OMB and OD and USAID have just ignored emails. They've ignored requests and to date I just checked this out as late as yesterday, ODNI has never gotten the emails that that contractor found. Now that contractor has been restored to duty, but he doesn't have access to the emails he found. These were non classified emails that directly fit the pattern in there. Two to three months of valuable investigative time have been lost. And what I want to for all those who are in the White House yesterday saying this isn't true, first off, the people in the White House who matter know it is true that these emails exist and they haven't been turned over. And my encouragement to those who run OMB and to run the White House and run USA Ideas, get the darn emails and get them over to odni. Get them over to me. I have new information that this intelligence asset just brought back from Ukraine a few days ago with more names and more details and dates and times of money and we can find out if the intercept turns out to be true. But you can't find it out. If games like this go on.

[Steve Bannon]

So this is important enough. I want to thank Rob and Parker Sig we've blown the brake, which we're only one to do when the President's on. This is so important. I just want to go back a little bit to make sure people, when the contract, when the inside usaid, the person said, this doesn't pass the smell test. That doesn't pass the smell test was done during the Biden regime. Right. That's how, that's how egregious this part of that operation was.

[John Solomon]

Sir, that email is sent exactly when this intercept is captured. So it's real time. So you got the Ukrainians being told, hey, you're going to do this scam deal and you're going to give the money back. We intercept that and then inside usad the scam deal starting to move forward and someone who's, you know, a career procurement officer goes, hey, this doesn't pass the smell test. And it's the exact name of the company, exact name of the contract that the US Intelligence asset

[Steve Bannon]

that is a massive smoking gun when as corrupt as they were, right. When they sit there and go, this doesn't pass the smell test, you know, Houston, you have a problem. Correct?

[John Solomon]

Yep. Yeah, absolutely. And there are other indicators of this now. There are other names of now government officials that this US Intelligence asset who has regular contact with the Ukrainian government has provided in the last few days. At some point, I should be in a position to help get more information to whoever's going to happen. But what we need to do is find a willing partner who's willing to go into USAID and get these documents. The project was done. ODNI had asked this contractor with the White House's busing to do a search. He did. For some reason, a top lawyer at OMB shut down that operation. And there are many possibilities. One of the things is this company that's involved has a history with the CIA. Maybe we stumbled into something a little bit more complicated, I don't know. But whatever was being passed around the White House yesterday, that everything is transparent, all these things have been turned over, is simply not true. And by the way, the decision makers in the White House know it's not true. So people who are wasting their time are also wasting their credibility by going around saying, hey, we don't have anything. There's full access. If anyone at OMB would like to call me today, I'll help them find the emails in five minutes and they can send them for the FBI.

[Steve Bannon]

So you're discussing some of the most, some of the smartest, toughest, most loyal people to the president and to the cause of transparency of personnel. But you're also addressing something that really needs to be addressed. You're going back to the railhead of 2014, this war that's killed millions of people, the color revolution that Victoria Nuland and our State Department initiated, the impeachment of President Trump. I mean, Ukraine is a scab. Once you pick that scab, a lot of pus comes out. And it has to come out. We have to have a full accounting in. It's like in the Nixon movies when they talk about Project Anaconda and everything they were doing around Cuba back in those days. You have to get to the bottom of this, John. We can't look the other way. I think this is one of the reasons Tulsi Gabbard is considered by our audience in this show as being such a hero. Right. And you're laboring in the vineyard for years when they. When they hounded you about the Ukraine situation, Rudy Giuliani and others. It is absolutely essential for this administration now under President Trump, to get to the bottom of Ukraine, no matter where it leads. We have to turn over every document. We have to be totally transparent. We're not. There's no effort against the deep state. There's no effort against the apparatus that internally that actually makes decisions in this country and the people at the core of trying to thwart President Trump personally, President Trump as commander in chief and in the MAGA movement and the republic overall. So I don't understand why we're not doubling and tripling down on everything with total transparency and more importantly, with urgency. With urgency. With urgency. John Solomon.

[John Solomon]

I think the president has unleashed a new mechanism to speed transparency that will probably take effect next week, and it will allow the White House to move more quickly and not have to rely on deep state bureaucrats and agencies to do things. I think that the President has that urgency. His chief of staff, Susie Wiles, has that urgency. And I think they've created a novel solution to speed this up. You mentioned one thing. CIA, Ukraine. Absolutely. And let's just remind everybody that USAID has long been a cover agency for some CIA operations. It's well known. It's an open secret.

[Steve Bannon]

Amen.

[John Solomon]

But we may be sitting over something that has some intelligence community connections, and I think that may be the sensitivity here, but this can be fixed. And I think when people get to the bottom of it, we'll find out, did it happen? Did it not happen? But there are emails that suggest it was in motion and we should get those out to the American public

[Steve Bannon]

right now. We call this an inner squad scrimmage. John Solomon, where people you're going to be back up following me today at 6. Where do people get you in the interim? All your content, sir.

[John Solomon]

Yeah, just the news.com, the website J. Solomon reports is the handle on all social media and I'm lucky enough to follow you every night six o' clock on this amazing real Americans voice network. Just the news no noise television show.

[Steve Bannon]

And thank you for breaking up your day and doing these hits in the morning. I know the audience greatly appreciates it and just to everybody at the White House and the other agencies are working on this. We are all on the same team. That's Team America trying to get to the bottom of this. And like I said, you got to rip the scab off of Ukraine. Let all the pus come out in all its glory. We need to do that. We owe it to this republic. John Solomon, patriot and warrior thank you sir. Appreciate you. Indication. We got something big we're working on. That was a blown break. Thank Robin Parker. Sig. I've got a shortcut. I got T.R. parsi here. Jim Rickards is going to join us actually. I think we got we've got Cleta, Wade, Miller, Cortez, we got a lot to get to. But I want to play short before I bring in Trita. I want to blow his head up a little more. I want to play a clip from the great lady Lindsey Graham last night on Fox. Let's go and play it.

[Lindsey Graham]

He can pull this off. If he can get Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam for the entire world to recognize the Jewish state Israel, he'll have ended the Arab Israeli conflict that's been going on for thousands of years. They should change the Nobel Prize to the Trump Prize. If he can do that and I think think he can it's the biggest change in the history, in the modern history and in the ancient history of the Mideast where the Arabs and the Jews live together where it becomes a center of power economically not a powder keg. And once you put Iran in a box and he's going to do that, we're going to have peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Nobody thought that was possible. I believe it's possible and there's one, one guy can do it. Donald Trump, I know you're in contact

[Steve Bannon]

with all of the countries in the Middle East.

[Jim Rickards]

Are you getting any indications?

[Lindsey Graham]

My phone's been ringing off the hook, sir. My phone is ringing off the hook. My phone is ringing off the hook because he said I should link the two. He's saying to the Arabs, look what I've done for you. He saved mbs. He's the best friend Israel's ever had. Everybody in the region should rally around the idea of adding Saudi Arabia and other countries to the Abraham Accords. It would change the makeup of the Mideast in a way that nobody could envision just a year ago. It would change the Mideast for the better. The biggest change in thousands of years to our Arab allies. You need to help President Trump. You need to embrace the fact that it is now time to end the Arab Israeli conflict, make peace with Israel, build on the Abraham Accords.

[John Solomon]

Build on.

[Lindsey Graham]

And if you say no to him, you say no at your own peril. Look what he's done for the Arab world. Look what he's done to your biggest enemy, Iran. Look how he stood by you when other people were going to abandon you. As to our friends in Israel, you have no better friend than Donald Trump, quite frankly. Donald Trump, you owe it to him. You owe it to your. To your people. You owe it to the world to do what he's asking you to do. Build on the Abraham Accords. I've never been more optimistic than I am right now. My phone's been ringing off the hook. President Trump, stay on this. You're right to want to expand Abraham Accords. You can do this.

[Steve Bannon]

I think we've identified a problem here. One of the problems, one of the basic problems, there's too many cooks in the kitchen, and there are too many people think they're the head chef. They're in the kitchen. Knowing that Lindsey Graham is taking phone calls. My phone's ringing off the hook. And giving his opinions to leaders in the region is a. I think one of the issues of how do we actually get there now? Trita Parsley's on here. Trita, you said something on this show, I think, four weeks ago. You go, hey, Steve, I don't think we're ever getting to a overall signed deal on this. It's not going to be like the Battleship Missouri in Tokyo harbor in September of 45. There's not gonna be a surrender document. You'd think you at the time said, I don't even think there's gonna be an overall document at all. This thing will probably be piecemeal. It appears that I think you may be closer to right than people think. Hey, you get a pre deal, and then in 60 days, you're gonna get an overall deal. Cause it's gonna take. It's taken us 60 days to get here. And then you have the Lindsey Grahams of the world that are. My phone's ringing off the hook. That means Lindsey's inserted himself into the middle of this negotiation. Trita, make this make sense to us. Where do we stand in all this?

[Trita Parsi]

Good to be with you, Steve. Let me just first say, you know, I'm sure Lindsey Graham's phone is ringing quite a lot, but he has a tendency of overstating his own importance. So I'm not necessarily sure that he is as involved as he wants to be or as he wants people to think that he is. Bringing in the Abraham Accord into this is a poison pill. It's a way of sabotaging the deal. It is not a way of actually ensuring the deal. Now, if the administration wants to make sure that after this deal, there is further effort to be able to add additional agreements and expand on things and potentially get a lot of different countries to be able to normalize relations in various ways, not necessarily the Abraham Accord, but nevertheless, that's a different story. That's a great idea. Go for it. Although I personally believe that one of the things the United States should do once it gets this deal, and hopefully it does, is to encourage the region to take responsibility for their own security and shoulder it themselves, rather than depending on the United States driving the diplomacy or anything of that kind. This is the region that is fully capable of taking care of that and allowing US Soldiers to come home and not having to worry anymore about what's going on in the Middle East. But nevertheless, if you want to do it, you do it afterwards. You do not inject this into this mix at this very, very sensitive stage of the negotiations, knowing very well that there is almost no support in Saudi Arabia and in many other countries right now to normalize with Israel. Mindful of what Israel is doing in Lebanon, in Gaza, and the west bank, this is a way of sabotaging the negotiations. Now, I understand that Trump throws this out there and says, hey, it would be great to do this. And I think he does it for a variety of reasons. He wants to show that he is sensitive to Israeli interests. He wants to remind the pro Israel crowd in Washington, who will come out swinging against his deal if he manages to get it, that he has done more for Israel than anyone else, that he is the one who moved the embassy, recognized the Golan, all of these different things. I think he wants to remind that audience that he's done so much for them. So if they declare war on him over this deal, he will be able to show his pro Israel credentials or push that into their faces. But if you actually make this a condition for the vandio, that is the, you know, that is a very, very clever way of sabotaging these negotiations at the last second.

[Steve Bannon]

Trita King, hang on. I'm going to go through a break. I want to keep you. And then Jim Rickards is going to join us and others, Trita, in the mindset, I'm not saying this is reality. I'm saying it's the reality of how they think do the Persians right now, particularly with this new high command they have on both ayatollah, the mullahs and the reconstituted military structure. Do they believe in their mind that they have lost this war?

[Trita Parsi]

No, they are very confident. They believe that they have inflicted a strategic defeat on the United States. Two nuclear weapons states attacked it, one of them a superpower, and vied for a ceasefire. After 39 days, almost none of the original objectives have been achieved. And instead now we're talking about reopening the strait, something that was open before the war had started. Having said that, I want to be very clear about this. Just because they believe that they have come out of this war perhaps stronger or either way, not as a loser, does not mean that they do not need a deal. They absolutely need a deal. Their economy is predicted to shrink, not just slow the growth, shrink 10% this year as a result of this war. Their economy was already in shatters before this war. So they are in dire need of a deal that entails sanctions relief. And they need it not just because of economic reasons. They need it for security. They're not going to be able to secure themselves if their economy is going down the drain. And I believe that Trump absolutely needs a deal as well. I think it was a mistake to go into this war, but he can turn it around and turn it into something perhaps not the type of the wind that some people would love, but something that nevertheless moves things forward in a very good way.

[Steve Bannon]

Hang on one second for you. We're just gonna keep you through the break. I know you're pressed for time, but a couple other issues I've got to get on the table. Trina Parsing joins us. The dollar's convertibility into gold ended in 1971. Gold was fixed at $35 an ounce. Well, fast forward to today and the US dollar has lost over 85% of its purchasing power. Gold, on the other hand, is increased in value by over 12,000%. That's why Central banks are buying gold at record levels. That's why major firms like Vanguard and BlackRock hold significant positions in gold. And that's why I encourage you to consider diversifying your savings with physical gold from Birch Gold Group. But it starts with education. Birch Gold just announced their Learn and Earn Precious Metals event. This free online event rewards you for learning the basics of investing in precious metals. Sign up to get a free silver on your next purchase. Get even larger incentives as you go. The more you learn, the more you can earn. But you must act now, as this special event only runs through April 30th. The dollar lost its anchor in 1971. You don't have to lose yours. Text my name, Bannon B A N N O N to the number 989-898 to join Birchgold's Learn and Earn Precious Metals event by April 30th. Text Bannon B A N N O N to 989-898 and do it today.

[Trita Parsi]

War Room here's your host, Stephen K. Band.

[Steve Bannon]

Trita Parsi's with us. Trita, you said, you see there's a deal there and that President Trump's the guy that could deliver it. And they realize behind the bravado is that they need a deal. I just want to make sure I got one point right in my own head. Scott Bessant had an economic order plan that the president authorized he was doing to destroy their currency, do everything. This is what drove these people to the streets back in January. Then we added the naval blockade after the kinetic part. Is there anything in the kinetic part that's led to this issue? Because you said, hey, it's the 10% collapse of their economy that has their attention. They understand they can't go on like this. Was it the economic warfare and the blockade that did that, or is it any part of the kinetic part going after their military apparatus that led to that? Sir?

[Trita Parsi]

Steve I think it's actually a bit different because the way you're presenting it makes it sound as if they were unwilling to make a deal. And then the kinetic economic sanctions and the blockade convinced them that they had to. That's not really how things went down. They were at the table before this war. They were making major concessions in the negotiations that were taking place in January and February. They were the ones who were putting out op EDS in Washington Post. Actually, I think their foreign minister put an op ed there saying that there's a trillion dollar opportunity for American businesses. If there is a deal and there's sanctions relief. So they were already there, they were already understanding they need to make a deal, they need to get the sanctions relief. Has the situation become worse economically for them as a result of the war, as a result of the currency manipulation or attacks on it, as well as the blockade? Undoubtedly it has become worse, there's no doubt about that. But it has also become much worse for the United States. The Iranians have escalation dominance right now at the table. I'm not so sure the dynamics are improving for the US side compared to where it was in February or before February 28th. Because we have one thing that has dramatically changed here, which is that for the last 25 years, the neocons have constantly been debating and urging the United States to go and bomb Iran and that a military campaign against Iran would be a huge game changer and it would force the Iranians to agree to all kinds of different things, including a surrender. We have now tried that. We had one third of the US's navy there. This was a real military effort, and it did not succeed. It did not bring them to their knees. It did not cause them to surrender. Which means that the threat of using military force is no longer as potent as it was before, because before it did catch the Iranian's attention. I'm not saying that it's not catching their attention now, but now we have a track record of recognizing it is much, much more difficult than what the neocons said that it would be. And it's not something that I hope any future administration tries because I don't think it ended up becoming helpful to US interests. But nevertheless, they understand they need a deal because their economy is really tanking. And it was tanking even before this war. And so they're at the table, and they have been at the table. It's just a shame that the Israelis have bombed them twice while they were at the table and have assassinated their key negotiators precisely because the Israelis don't want Trump to strike a deal.

[Steve Bannon]

What do you see as the outlines of something that the president that's actually achievable for the President and his negotiating team right now?

[Trita Parsi]

I think what Solomon was saying earlier on is pretty close. I would say first of all, he wants to make sure that he can say that there is no nuclear weapon in Iran, that they're not going to build a nuclear weapon, and there's definitely pathways to that. And on some of the nuclear variables, he is going to get more than what Obama got. For instance, the Iranians appear to be close to agreeing to not enrich uranium for 5, 10, perhaps 12 years. They did not agree to even three days of no enrichment during the JCPOA. The shipping out of the stockpile is going to be a tricky issue, but I think that there can be a compromise that will work. But beyond that, the Iranians, at least in February, were offering to not have a stockpile at all, Meaning it's not just that they ship out what they have. They will not amass more uranium enriched uranium at all, whereas in the JCPOA they would be able to have up to 300 kilos of uranium enriched uranium on their soul at any moment. So on several variables, Trump is going to get a better deal compared to what Obama did. If we, of course, get past the finishing line, I think on the Strait, there's going to be some sort of arrangement. I think from the US Perspective, if there is a regionalized mechanism. So it's not just Iranians and not just Iranians and the Omanis, but several different states that are involved in the management of the strait, that is going to be an acceptable solution. I think there's a pathway to that one as well. Trump, I think, is going to put a lot of sanctions relief on the table, and I think that's the right thing to do, because one of the ways that he will be able to sell this to the American people is to point out that this sanctions relief is going to make sure that the Iranian market opens up for American companies. That will be the largest market that has opened up since the fall of the Soviet Union. It will have tremendous benefits for middle America, for the manufacturing industries in the United States. And that is another way in which he can say this is a better deal than the jcpoa, because the JCQA did not allow any American companies to trade with Iran.

[Steve Bannon]

How does he. And that gets into the thing of the $12 billion downstroke, all that? I'll get into that with Rickards. But what you just said there, sanctions relief, the Lindsey Graham and the Mark Levin, obviously I don't agree with them, but just to present their case, they're going to say if you do that, you're essentially funding the regime. Yes, you killed some of the senior guys. You took out the ayatollah, you took out a bunch of the mullahs, you took out much of the high command of the Revolutionary Guard and the regular military, but you've essentially left the regime. It's still a theocratic regime that's prepared to put immense pressure on its People, you haven't really done regime change. If you lift sanctions, you're just underwriting this regime in this pestilence that is a modern Persian authority. Government is in place. How do you answer that, sir?

[Trita Parsi]

So first of all, we have to ask ourselves, what's the point of these sanctions? From the standpoint of someone like Mark Levine and Lindsey Graham, sanctions were never supposed to be used as a leverage in order for the US to get what it wants in return for something in return for sanctions relief. Rather, it was supposed to be permanent punishment of a country. That's part of the reason why the US Congress almost never lifts sanctions. We just impose them and then they're there forever. And it destroys economies. It doesn't bring down regimes. We have very few cases in which we can say that an entire government collapsed and transitioned towards democracy as a result of sanctions. The only example we have in the world is actually South Africa under apartheid and apartheid and was very, very different circumstances. So the question then is, if you're not going to use it for leverage to actually get things such as major concessions from the Iranians on the nuclear issue, it kind of means you're not looking for a deal. And if you're not looking for a deal, what are you looking for? Well, you're looking for war and you're looking for a regime change, which is exactly what the neocons oftentimes were honest enough to say that they were looking for. And we have to ask ourselves, is that what the American people want? Do they want more war and they want more regime change operations? Trump partially won the elections because he said no to those things.

[Steve Bannon]

Yeah, no, I think that's the rock and the hard place right now, I think. And I, to their credit, I don't think Levin and Lindsey Graham in that, in that group, they're pretty upfront. They want regime change and you're not here. And if you do it now, if you cut this interim deal now, you're just funding guys. They're the worst guys on earth. Trita, where do people go on social media and your website to keep up with all your thinking on this?

[Trita Parsi]

Thank you. They should go first of all to my substack, which is Rita Parsi, and then to my Twitter as TPARCY, and of course to the Quincy website, which is quincyinst.org thank you, Trita.

[Steve Bannon]

Thank you for spending time with us.

[Trita Parsi]

Thank you so much for having me. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[Steve Bannon]

Thank you, sir. Jim Rickards, make it all make sense. You've been at this. This is your Line of country. You've been doing this for, for when most of us were in short pants. What's your assessment of all this?

[Jim Rickards]

Yeah, a couple of things, Steve, going back to the earlier guests and the opening of the show, when I see people like Richard Haass and Tom Freeman and some of the other people who are on these news clips, the first question I asked myself is, when were you right about? When was the last time you were right about anything? And I usually can't go back that far. Like maybe the 90s, I don't know, Bosnia.

[Steve Bannon]

The reason we do it, why are they. They're on the show. Why is it conventional wisdom? Why is the conventional apparatus never get rid of people that are law, that are wrong on everything, and they continue to put them up and they're kind of the conventional thought in town? Why is that? Why is there no penalty for being dead wrong?

[Jim Rickards]

I have no idea. I have a lot of sources. And the way I evaluate my sources, like, hey, got the information, Let it play out. If you're right, okay, you got A plus, and I'll listen to you more. And if you're wrong, okay, eventually I'll disregard you. But these people, they were wrong about China, they were wrong about Ukraine, they're wrong about Iran. Go back even further than that. I'm like, okay, you got a seat, knock yourself out. But I don't pay any attention to it. Now with John Solomon, that's completely different. John Solomon is probably the best reporter, best investigative reporter out there. His sourcing is excellent. His reporting is completely accurate. I listen closely to what John Solomon said, so he got it right. But my question is, so what? And when I say that, I don't mean any disrespect. What I mean is John Solomon has excellent sources in the White House, in the Pentagon. His reporting sounds completely accurate to me when he says, Trump's red lines are open, straight. Give up the uranium, you can't have a bomb, Iran has nothing to beat us, Et cetera can cause mischief. That's all accurate. But when I say, so what? This is asymmetric warfare, and this is economic warfare. Iran's not out to defeat the United States. They're not going to invade the beaches of New Jersey. And so when you talk about the art of the deal, what is the art of the deal? Well, basically, you figure out what your leverage is. You go in, you make outrageous demands, you hold the leverage over the guy who said, you scale back your demands, but you still get way more than you want it. And then you do the deal. That's the art of the deal. Who has the leverage? Iran. Not Trump. We can start bombing again. We could do that tomorrow, but it hasn't worked and it's not going to work. None of our goals have been achieved. We don't have regime change. They still have the uranium.

[Steve Bannon]

Well, hang on, hang on, hold it, hang on, hang on. Hold right there. Listen, I'm going to get to the nub of it. John Solomon, you're right. He's got the inside scoop. He laid out President Trump's three red lines. People, please notice one of the red lines was not regime change. America's greatest ally and Lindsey Graham and Mark Levin and these guys. And look to their credit, they're up front. They're not hiding this. They're saying, no, you have to have regime change. If you don't have regime change, number one, this wasn't worth it. But more importantly, in their thinking, until you get rid of the apparatus that controls Persia, right, this theocracy, you're just kicking the can down the road. Who is right? Are they right? Because I've been anti regime change because I knew that this would take an extended long, bloody conflict. Are they right? Because we're kind of now at the nub of it. President Trump's red lines does not include regime change. I think this whole thing with Abraham

[Mark Levin]

Accord,

[Steve Bannon]

their treaty is right about that. That's a throw some sand in the gear. So there is no deal right now. But if there's no if regime change is not on the table, is one our ally, America's greatest ally, Israel, but more importantly, their relationships here in the country, in the Senate particularly. Are they going to allow us to get President Trump to get to an interim deal now, sir?

[Jim Rickards]

Well, we'll find out. We'll see what kind of deal it is. But going to Lindsey Graham's point, Abraham accords, Saudi Arabia, us, they owe us all this stuff. He left out one thing, there's one word he didn't mention, which is Palestinians. You're not going to crack this nut until you have some solution to the Palestinian problem. So I don't give Graham any credibility on that fashion, the Abraham Accords, because he completely ignored the biggest single issue, which is not the war in Iran, it is the Palestinian situation. And so I think we can disregard that. Again, getting back to John Salman, again, he's a guy you can totally rely

[Steve Bannon]

on, but Palestinians are very. Hang on one second. Hang on a second. Because I'm running. I got to go to commercial break. I'm going to give you plenty of Runway. I think the Palestinians understood something. That's why they and their terrorist buddies had October 7th. I think they looked at the future and they were going to get dealt out and you were going to have Abraham Accord. You already had uae, which is the central military power in the Gulf Emirates. They inserted themselves back into the equation. That's just a hard fact. That's why you've got the beginning, this proto two state solution happening with Qatar and the Turks in Gaza right now. Jim Rickards on the other side.

[Jim Rickards]

Room.

[Trita Parsi]

Here's your host, Stephen K. Band.

[Steve Bannon]

Now more than ever. Bert, go to Birch Gold text ban and B A N N o N and 989-898 the ultimate guide for investing in gold and precious metals in the age of Trump. It's free, no obligation. And you get to talk to Philip Patrick and his team. You saw Philip yesterday. What a rock star. They are there to address all your issues about the ownership of physical gold. Also. Rickards war room.com that's all one word. It's a landing page. Rickardsworm.com you go there, you get all the background and information about strategic intelligence, which is based upon predictive analytics. The reason Jim Rickards is a legend on Wall street and in the intelligence community and this newsletter is what CEOs and chairman, what we call the C suite throughout the world. Read on a monthly basis. Get up to speed. If you love his hits. Here's a contributor. War room you'll love SH Strategic intelligence Rickards, you heard Solomon. You heard Trita. You've got your own thoughts. We got a couple of minutes. Walk us through. Is President Trump who's the ultimate dealmaker? Is he going to get to some interim agreement here, sir?

[Jim Rickards]

No, not, not anything of substance and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Taking a treatise commentary sounded exactly right. You say the economy is going to shrink. 10%. Currencies, you know, in the, in the trash can and all that all sounded right. But go back to what I've said for three months, Steve, and a number of interviews on your show on the war room. This is a game of chicken. It's the best way to understand it. And is Iran under stress? Are they suffering economically? Yes. But you're just weeks away from turning out the license. South Korea, in other words, who's going to blink first? That's really the only question. Who's going to blink first? Iran is under stress. The global economy is under more stress. Now Trump and I gotta give Besson some credit. They've been talking this up. You know, see Marco Rubio out the other day, I think was in India. He took his jacket off. He had looked like a Brooks Brothers product placement. But they're all saying, you know, we're really close, everything's going well. The Americans are really good at talking to themselves. They're not so good at talking to the Iranians. If you're the Iranians, why should they give Trump anything? Are they under stress? Yes. But will they crack before the global economy? No. And that gives them the leverage. Plus it's because the Straits of Hormuz, obviously. Straight up Hormuz, obviously. So Trump has the same three choices he's always had or since start of the war, surrender. Trump will call it a victory, but it's surrender stalemate, which is we just keep going the way we are. Well, the global economy is going to come to a halt, or large portions of it. And the third is escalation, which I've always analogized to Vietnam. I don't see any change in that. I think those are the same three choices. Now, just to go back a little bit to the jcpoa, I gave. I was in touch with the treasury at the time. I gave the Treasury a lot of credit because from 2011 to 2015, when we got the JCPOA, Obama waged a very effective economic warfare. To your point, can you do it with economic warfare without dropping bonds? The answer is yes, and they got there. But then they did. The JCPOA people don't understand. The JCPOA memo, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It was never signed. It was a handshake deal. Both sides had a piece of paper, but it was never signed. Certainly nowhere near a treaty or UN Security Council resolution number one. Number two, we had the English version and the Iranians had the Farsi version. That's their language. I talked to expert translators who translated from Farsi to English. They said they're not the same. So I don't know what that was. And it was a bad deal, and I'm glad Trump tore it up. But that was what Obama proved is that economic sanctions do work. They have to be good, they have to be persistent, they have to be comprehensive, and you need allies and give it enough time. It works a lot better than bombing them. That's not going to do anything. There's been no regime change. So I would say the short answer is it's a game of chicken. The only question is, who blinks first? My assessment is that the US Blinks first because there's more at stake,

[Steve Bannon]

Jim Burkert's last thing. Do you think, because you kind of had a radical view of this. Do you think we're going to get a rate cut, cut a hold or rate increase in June from the new chairman of the Federal Reserve, sir, either

[Jim Rickards]

a hold or an increase. Now, you know, my, my advice is cut rates are way behind the curve in terms of cutting rates. The only reason the US gdp, it is what it is, you know, it's kind of over 2%. Not, not bad. But, but the vast majority of that is infrastructure spending on AI chips and data centers. It remains to be seen. None of that has made any money, by the way, and a lot of it's being done with debt, not equity. It remains to be seen how much it's going to produce.

[Steve Bannon]

But you're right, I keep saying it. We have, it's all in the papers again today. We have the economic plan of the United States right now is very simply a highly leveraged bet on AI productivity and that includes mass job layoffs. So I don't know if that's a wise bet. And I think you're seeing now there's a lot of questioning of that. We're going to get into the details over the weekend about that about artificial intelligence. Is it even coming close to paying off economic because right now we have a highly leveraged bet as a country, both government wise and in the private sector. Highly leveraged bet with some very unsavory characters making those bets in the private side that will have ramifications to this nation for decades to come. Jim, one more time. Rickardswarroom.com you get to go your landing page. Tell about give us the, give us a minute on why people should be reading Strategic Intelligence.

[Jim Rickards]

Yeah, thanks, Dave. Rickardswarroom.com is our landing page. You can go there. You can subscribe to our flagship newsletter, Strategic Intelligence. What we offer is, as I said, we don't tell you what happened. We tell you what's going to happen. Our predictive analytics are second to none. Our track record backs that up. There's never been a time when it was more important to look forward with not wishful thinking, but very disciplined models and analysis. We use everything from behavioral psychology to history to Bayes theorem, but it, but it works and our track record speaks for it. So I hope people have a look and get the newsletter.

[Steve Bannon]

Jim, before we close, I really want to thank you for coming on Memorial Day special. The feedback I got about you talking about your father and these young Marines, 17, 18, 19 years old the young Marines of Peleliu and Tarawa was unbelievable. So I just want to thank you. And obviously your father is not simply a hero to you and your family, but he's a, a hero to all of us. So thank you so much for joining our Memorial Day coverage. It was fantastic.

[Jim Rickards]

Thank you.

[Steve Bannon]

Jim rickards, pretty extraordinary guy. I think it's one of the reasons I love doing the show so much is the people we get on here and the topics we talk about. We're not going to chase the trends and what's hot in today's news. We're going to take a short commercial break. We're going to come back with a clip of John Tudor Jones, one of the most important guys on Wall street, biggest hedge fund manager, I think the underwriter also of the University of Virginia, Kane over there at Citizen Kane over there at cfp. By the way, he's been on fire. Make sure you go to cfp, Citizens Free Press. He's been all over this deal, putting up headlines linking you to the most important stories. When he give a hat tip to Oahu, it's hard for hard, very hard

[Mark Levin]

for me to do

[Steve Bannon]

Birch gold also. Philip Patrick, make sure you go get all the information. There is no commitment. It's totally free. Make sure you load up on it. See what you see. Do it for yourself. You should not buy gold because of anybody's recommendation. You should purchase gold if you think it's the right thing to do for you. That puts the onus on you to roll your sleeves up, get some dirt under your fingernails. Do it today. Birchgold.com Bannon did I do that?