B (6:56)

Hi Dan, it's great to be here.

A (6:58)

I'm really excited to have this conversation because you've been discussing some of these ideas in your Hebrew language podcast. But I think a lot of our audience has not had the opportunity to hear that and it prompted some of our thinking here and we figured go to the source and unpack it with the source. So I want to start with where you start, which is helping us understand the difference between the 12 day war in June of last year and this current war. How should we understand the difference between these two wars?

B (7:27)

So there's a common misunderstanding. People see this as a continuation of the 12 Day War. It's just, you know, more of the same thing. It's like the first day of this war is like the 13th day of the 12th day war. The difference is very deep. And that is if we look at this moment from 20,000ft and we're looking at everything we went through and what we're going through. So you know, Dan, how in great books and films there's always a few different distinct storylines and every story is progressing and unfolding in its own pace, in light of its own logic. And then sometime, usually towards the end of the movie, the stories converge and that's the climax of the movie, right? So we'd have, we had ever since 1979 two grand stories. But there are distinct stories. One story is the battle between the Islamic Republic and Western civilization. And a part of that story is the battle of Israel for its security, and it's a battle against Iran. In parallel, in a different universe, there is the war of the Islamic Republic against the Iranian people and the heroic battle of the Iranian people. Israel is fighting for security, they're fighting for their liberty. And every one of these stories is unfolding in its own pace. And you could say that the Islamic Republic declared war against Western civilization, because being anti Western for the Islamic Republic is not a policy, it's an identity. It's not something that they do, it's who they are. And they declared war once they stormed the embassy in Tehran in 79 and in 1980, creating the hostage crisis. And then 1983 is another moment, another episode in that story when they bombed the Marines in Levanak. And this story progresses and in parallel, in 1999, the Islamic Republic attacked students and universities in Tehran and all over Iran. And in 2009, in that storyline, Iran hit the streets and they start protesting because they feel they know that the elections were stolen from them. They voted for Mousawi, but the Tollah said that Ahmadinejad won the elections. And then there's 2017 protests and 2019 protests, and then the heroic protest of Women Life Liberty of 2022. So these are two stories that are progressing. The Twelfth Day War, Dan, is another episode in the story of the battle of Western civilization against Iran and Iran against the West. It's an episode in that story. This moment is stories unite, is when their stories melt into each other. This is the great grand convergence. Because when the Iranian people hit the streets in January 2026, and they express their extreme passion for liberty and how extreme they express that they're willing to suffer and sacrifice and die for their Liberty. And in January 8, which is in some sense their October 7, when more than 30,000 Iranians were murdered by the regime in the streets of Tehran. And in the background, you have President Trump saying, help us on the way. This is the moment when these stories converge and this has significance and meaning, because this is not just about degrading their capacities. Because every one of these stories has historic weight. And the big question is the accumulation of the weight of one story. The battle of the Iranians for their liberty and the battle of the Israelis and the Americans for their security. If the weight of the both stories, when they're added up, is this enough to bring down the regime? I would think so. If this can't bring down the regime, what can bring down the regime, and yet we don't know the answer. But we definitely know that this is a very different moment than the twelfth Day War.

A (11:07)

Okay, So I want to focus on the dynamic between two of the three biggest players in the war, the US And Israel. We'll get to Iran in a moment. We'll come back to some of these ideas that you're zeroing in on inside Iran. But how do you understand the US US Israel relationship at this point and what I mean by at this point, meaning how is it playing out in the context of this war?

B (11:28)

So what's very puzzling about this moment, in February, a poll came out, the Gallup poll. These are polls that come out every few months, and they measure the level of the emotional relationship between Americans and the state of Israel. Now, usually in these polls, Europeans come out not so pro Israel, more pro Palestinian, and Americans come out more pro Israel. The question is asked, who are you for in the Israeli Palestinian conflict? Who do you support? Europeans in large majorities support the Palestinians, traditionally Americans. I'm talking about America as a whole, not right left America as a whole. The majority support Israel and not the Palestinians. And this February, the poll comes out, and it looks like America became Europe, where there's more Americans that are pro Palestinian than pro Israeli. These are European numbers, especially among young Americans. So this is very troubling because it does seem like something is happened, something has shifted. Young Americans and Americans as a whole are now developing a distance, an emotional distance between them and Israel. And then like a few days after this poll comes out, this war breaks out. And in this war, we're modeling the. I don't know if there's maybe, you know, if there's any precedent for the way the Israeli military and the American military fighting together, shoulder to shoulder, modeling the highest level of alliance and friendship, which means maybe our lowest moment and the highest moment are the same moment itself.

A (12:53)

So I think the only comp in terms of a hot war is the US and the UK during World War II. To your point, there's nothing.

B (13:01)

There's nothing like it.

A (13:02)

There's nothing comparable. And by the way, when I say there's nothing comparable, Mika, I mean, guys, I've been actually studying this quite closely and talking to a lot of historians about this because I've been struck by it. I've never seen anything like it. It's not only unprecedented for Israel in the US Israel relationship, that kind of cohesiveness and full integration, but the US has never had an alliance like this anywhere. And in terms of the best Cold War comparison you can think of is the height of the Cold War between Reagan and Thatcher, where they were totally synced. That's the most recent one. But even that wasn't even necessarily in a hot war. Two militaries, two intelligence agencies, so completely integrated.

B (13:38)

Yeah. Dan Kane and Ayala Samir are both chief of the leaders of our militaries. They seem like they're working together, like two brigade commanders in Lebanon is really working together, speaking on the phone four times a day. So you ask yourself, what is going on here? This is so puzzling because at the same moment where Americans are distancing themselves from Israel, emotionally, our armies are closer than ever strategically. So this is a very interesting and confusing paradox. And I think this captures everything that's puzzling about this moment.

A (14:11)

By the way, what's also interesting is people I'm in touch with in the government have pointed out also this is also an inverse of how the US how the State Department, used to deal with the Arab world, that these Arab countries, they had very close strategic relationships with for decades, even though the argument was we get so much out of the relationship with these Arab countries going back decades, and maybe the popularity of this relationship was not strong among the American public. From a real politics standpoint, US Policymakers and strategists believe the relationships, government to government, were very important and that Israel actually, from a real politics standpoint, for many decades, it was argued, was a liability. Now that also seems to have flipped, or it's just different now, where these relationships with Israel and the Israeli government is, from a real politics standpoint, extremely important. Even if American public opinion appears to

B (15:01)

be shifting, this paradox is now pregnant. I mean, this could take us to different futures. Right?

A (15:06)

Right.

B (15:07)

And it all depends on how this war works out.

A (15:10)

Right.

B (15:10)

It all depends on the results.

A (15:12)

This paradox in the context of the war. I just want you to spell out what's going on, the narratives of the left and the right, and then we'll go into what happens if the war works out. And if the war doesn't work out, well, the narratives.

B (15:24)

Well, there's the New York Times narrative, right? And that is Israel is leading the United States into another fiasco, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Like little Israel is leading the United States of America to another fiasco. And then there is the Tucker Carlson narrative, which is. Which is not similar to the New York Times narrative. And that is that Israel is actually. Is more extreme, that America is Israel's proxy and that Israel somehow took over the decision making in The United States of America.

A (15:54)

Tail wagging the dog.

B (15:56)

Yeah. But both narratives is that Israel is pushing the United States of America into a disaster. These are dominant narratives in the left and in that vocal part of maga Right. Which means, Dan, that if this war goes wrong, that means that the Tucker Carlson narrative becomes like the prophecy that predicted reality. And then that narrative becomes a dominant narrative, a persuasive narrative, and that would be a disaster for the Israeli American relationship. But on the other hand, if this war goes right, it means that when America went with the NATO coalition to Afghanistan, it spilled trillions of dollars, thousands of people dying. And what were the results when they entered Afghanistan? There was Taliban in Afghanistan. And when they left Afghanistan, guess what? There was Taliban in Afghanistan. Then they go to Iraq and with another coalition, not all NATO, but another serious coalition with Great Britain and other countries supporting it, and then spilled trillions of dollars, thousands of people dying, and also there was no real benefits. And then it goes to the third war in the Middle east with tiny Israel. And if the narrative will be that with investing relatively not a lot of resources, time, energy, money and soldiers, the results were real, significant benefits to the security of the United States of America. Wow. That means that the other side of the paradox that becomes dominant, Israel is an American asset. It is America's best friend. It is the only alliance that America can really count on. Which means then that what this war, from an Israeli perspective, it's not only about Iran. It's also about America. It's not only about the question, will we be able to weaken and hopefully wipe out our greatest enemy. It's also about the question, if we can save the relationship with our best friend. And the results will define everything. It's about our enemy and about our friendship. And that's why the stakes are pretty high. Everything is on the table.

A (17:51)

Okay, so we've spent a lot of time on this podcast discussing the underlying forces driving the anti Zionist movement on the left in the West. I think we should spend maybe a little time here describing the underlying forces driving the isolationist wing on the right. We can debate how big that wing is. I think the wing is smaller than it is represented on social media in actual numbers, but it's certainly not nothing. And it's definitely larger than it once was. So how would you describe the underlying forces driving what's going on on the right?

B (18:24)

So there's two pieces. One piece is the deep state piece, and the second piece is the isolationist piece. And they're related. Let's just let's see how this works. So the deep state piece, this is the narrative. It's a narrative of three parts. One, there is a group, there is the globalists. There is a certain invisible elite that their interests are not local, not national, but they're global. And they control the deep state. The deep state, the unelected part of America, the bureaucrats, the FBI, the judges, the academia. The deep state is stronger than the state. So if the globalists control the deep state, and the deep state is stronger than the state means that the globalists are in control of America. So it means that your nation is not in control of itself. So now the grand agenda of MAGA is the liberation of the nation from the globalists. And to do that, we have to bring down the deep state. Now, this creates an interesting paradox. Almost always nationalism is supposed to lead to unity. This is a version of nationalism that breaks down unity, because usually nationalists define themselves as opposed to other nations. Here this is a nationalism that defines itself as opposed to forces within America, within your nation. And it also means that you fight the globalists through bringing down the deep state. So that's one piece. Now the second piece is the isolationist piece. There's economic isolationism, but there's also, we're not going to intervene. We're not nero cons anymore. We're not going to war to save other nations, America first. We're not spreading democracy in the world. We're not in that whole George W. Bush agenda anymore. But there is a deep connection between these two pieces. And the connection is that the deep state, the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon always pushes America to forever wars. And the link that connects the deep state narrative with the isolationist narrative is the Jews or the Israel Lobby. The Israel lobby has infiltrated into the deep state and it's constantly pushing America to forever wars in the Middle East. So defeating the deep state and stopping forever wars. These two narratives converge with the idea that we have to weaken the Israel lobby, which is actually the Jewish invisible forces control that took over the hijacked the United States of America.

A (20:51)

Why do you think Trump is going against these forces? He clearly is not just going. I mean, he's completely ignoring them.

B (20:56)

It's very impressive.

A (20:58)

It's extraordinary. So what's going on there?

B (21:00)

Because I think what's hard to see is that just like we said, there's these two stories, there's the fight for Iranian liberation narrative and fight for Israel and America for security narrative. Now they're converging. Well, these stories are only small story within a much larger story, and that is the competition between major superpowers over global dominance, the United States and China. We're in a small episode inside that larger narrative. And Tucker Carlson and others say Israel is pushing America, the United States of America, to World War Three. Yes. Tucker, are you sure about that? Because if this works out, this prevents World War Three. Let's see how this plays out. Because World War III breaks out when China acts on Taiwan. Right now, for Xi Jinping, Taiwan is not a small thing. It's a major part of his political identity, his idea. Xi Jinping's idea of the rejuvenation of China, of the Chinese dream, means two things. It means that China dominates in the future, the AI industry. I mean, technology in general. It takes the lead in technology. But that's when we think about the future. When they think about the past, that means that they're finally liberated from the past of humiliation. In Chinese current mythology cultivated by the CCP, between 1849 and 1949, China went through 100 years of humiliation where foreign powers were playing them from the outside. They were divided from within. And now they're still recovering from 100 years of humiliation. And you know what the last symbol of those years of humiliation is? It's Taiwan. So uniting with Taiwan is liberating ourselves from the past of humiliation. But it's also owning the chin chip industry, which Taiwan is a key part of the global supply chain of the AI hardware. And that's how you dominate the future. So Taiwan is a critical point. There is no Chinese rejuvenation without what they call the unification with Taiwan. And Xi Jinping, this is all open. He declared that by 2027, the Chinese army has to be ready for the move on Taiwan. It doesn't mean they're going to attack Taiwan or do make a move on Taiwan. But 2027 is the year when they have to be prepared and ready. So Iran is very important for China for the move on Taiwan. There's also, by the way, an energy play here, but people talk about that a lot. But Iran is very important, not only oil wise, but because when China makes a move on Taiwan, the United States of America will have to focus all its assets in South China Sea in this conflict escalating. And what Iran is for Taiwan, it's a second front. Iran is a destabilizer and Iran swallows it sucks American assets and American attention to this critical part of the world, to the Persian or Arab Gulf. And in some way, Iran is for China what Hezbollah was for Iran. Hezbollah always distracted Israeli attention and Israeli assets towards Lebanon. And it neutralized the IDF's ability to take out the Iranian nuclear project. So what Hezbollah was for Iran in a strategic sense, Iran is for China. So if this war and Iran is not a part of the story, the United States of America is positioned much better coming 2027. But then it's even more than that, because one of the reasons why China has the guts to even dream about an act in Taiwan, whatever it will be, maybe just to circle Taiwan with boats and isolate it and hope to break it and promote the grand unification. But the fact that they could even think about it, that they have the courage to think about it, has everything to do with the fact that the United States has lost its ability to deter its enem and restore global order. And where did it lose its deterrence? It lost its. In the fiasco in Afghanistan. And I know you were there then and in Iraq.

A (24:52)

Well, you're saying the fiasco in Afghanistan, the real fiasco, meaning summer, August of 2021, where the US pulled out of Afghanistan and just abandoned the place. And that from what we understand, many of America's adversaries around the world, by the way, including Russia especially perhaps Russia, looked at that and said, America is really pulling back.

B (25:10)

America does not. It seems like, first of all, it seems, one, that America doesn't know how to use its military in an efficient way, an effective way. And two, that the American people lost their appetite for war. And which means, well, now Putin could invade Ukraine and get away with it, and Xi Jinping saying, hey, maybe I could get away with Taiwan. But if this works out, so America shows that knows how to fight again. Now, it's a display of incredible technological superiority. And if this ends well, America knows how to fight. It knows how with minimum resources to achieve maximum impact. If this works out well, and America will come out of this story with its ability to deter its enemies. This is not what brings us closer to World War 3. This is what blocks World War 3. This is what prevents World War 3. If this ends well, America, as Victor Davis Hanson pointed out, comes out with the dominance it had after World War II and has the ability to deter its enemies and to restore. So New York Times saying that this war is violation of world order. If this works out, this saves. This restores world order. By the way, if this goes wrong, if this goes south and China and Russia see, well, America still didn't get its mojo back. And America completely loses its ability, its appetite, there will be no political capital. These kind of moves in the future. So Obviously, World War 3 comes closer. So in a very deep sense, Dan, the stakes were never higher. From an Israeli perspective, it's not about only wiping out our greatest enemy. It's also about saving our relationship with our best friend. That's from an Israeli narrow perspective. From a global perspective, this is about preventing World War Three. This is about restoring world order. The stakes were never higher. This war is about everything.

A (26:56)

Now, in your Hebrew language podcast, you talk about the way Trump and the US Got into this war. You pointed out there's no kind of Pearl harbor moment.

B (27:05)

Yeah, yeah. The America first movement, as you know, wasn't invented. Now, this was a sentiment born after World War I, and this sentiment reached its peak before World War II. The American first Movement was a movement against America joining World War II. What's his name? Charles Lindbergh. And by the way, Charles Lindbergh, in his famous speech, when he speaks about the different forces trying to push the United States of America to join World War II, he spoke about the British. Obviously, the British wanted the United States to join World War II. He speaks about the Roosevelt government that secretly want to join World War II, but he finally speaks about the Jews with all their control in Hollywood. So the connection between isolationism and antisemitism, that connection is not new. It was a part of the original America first movement. Americans were isolationist as a nation. The sentiment was an isolationist sentiment post World War I. And Roosevelt, he made a promise to the voters not to join the war. But Pearl harbor changed everything and it destroyed the America first movement. Because Americans would say, yeah, we're going into this. We're in. We're on board. So the idea that a president violates his promise to his voters and joins a war, that's not new. That's Roosevelt. That's not Trump. But Roosevelt had Pearl Harbor. He violated his promise to his voters. After Pearl Harbor, Trump is turning his back to his promise without Pearl harbor, which makes this moment so unique. This is why the stakes are so high. Because if this goes south, if this goes wrong, the implications on the world are very serious. And on Israel, this could be disastrous. So this is why. But this could go right. I mean, this. In our Israeli podcast, we're speaking about, do our pilots know how much weight is on their shoulders? So do they know that's not only about. I mean, it's about saving. It's about Israeli security. But do they know it's also about restoring global order? Do they know it's also about saving Our relationship with the United States of America. And if this goes wrong, that relationship will be in serious danger. Do they know all the implications after we said that? We got so many responses from pilots, including I got it WhatsApp from a high rank commander in the Israeli Air Force and he says we know. I mean maybe they couldn't articulate it, but they feel the weight of history on their shoulders.

A (29:31)

I'm curious about that. Do Israelis. You're talking about the pilots here, but just generally cuz Israeli public opinion is like well over 90% in support of the war and it's across the board, it's from right to left. It's been a while since I've seen this kind of solidarity expressed in public opinion. A lot of that obviously is about Israel dealing with an existential threat to Israel in what is already a very dangerous neighborhood. Do Israelis also understand your sense when I say Israelis, I'm just being very generally here, but you know, the Israeli

B (29:58)

military, the Israeli Air Force, the Mossad, it's like they're on a stage and their audience that they imagine is the Israelis, the Israeli audience, I think they don't always internalize that the audience is the entire world. Like you're on stage but you don't realize the size of your audience. I don't think there's not high awareness they're playing for Israeli audience. They're not. I don't know how aware they are of the, how the global stakes are so high.

A (30:24)

And when you say that FDR had this Pearl harbor moment and Trump didn't, I understand that on the one hand, on the other hand, what I've been struck by is if you go back and look at what Trump said as a private citizen going back decades, he has this longstanding, well understood, I mean well understood meaning it makes sense. But he has this longstanding fixation with Iran going back to the US hostages being held as long as they were going back to a whole range of, of terrorist attacks that Iran was behind. Going Back to the 600 plus American military personnel that were killed by Iranian backed militias and terrorists in the second Iraq war. I mean we can go on and on and on. He sees the hands of Iran in so many actions against America again going back decades. Not just going back to his first term as president where he took serious action against Iran, but he's been talking about it for decades. And if you look at Iran and you know what their ambitions are and you know, obviously they have these nuclear ambitions and beyond and you look at other adversaries of America, Russia, China, North Korea, all those countries already have nuclear weapons capabilities, and there's nothing really that we can do about them. And why it creates our. The management of those relationships, makes them so complicated. Iran of those is in the same category of countries that are adversarial geopolitically to America and the West. Yet it does not have.

B (31:43)

Have.

A (31:44)

So we think, does not have the full capabilities that we worry that they strive for. And so this was an opportunity. He didn't need a Pearl harbor moment. I think as far as Trump is concerned, there've been Pearl harbor moments going back to 1979.

B (31:56)

I think there's something very coherent in Trump's doctrine. And because you could say, well, this is not America first. Joining a war against Iran is not America first. But Trump says America first. He also says peace through strength. And in order to restore peace through strength, the enemies of America have to believe that America is willing to fight. If America first would be interpreted the way Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson interpret it, there's no peace through strength. America can't make credible threats that will use force to restore peace if their ideology is that they never use force. So saying that we're putting America first and we're going to restore peace through strength, there's something very coherent in Trump's policy. It's just not coherence with things he said during the election season.

A (32:44)

Yeah. What's interesting, though, you're right. He didn't spell this out in the way you're articulating it on the one hand. On the other hand, I think what he would say is we've had an approach in war fighting over the last couple of decades. It's called the post nine, 11 wars, in which you either go with all in. So the narrative goes, an endless war, an endless military presence abroad and. And quagmire. Right. Or you do nothing. Or, you know, you watch complete chaos and mass civilian displacement and massacre in Syria. Hundreds of thousands of people, innocent, slaughtered. Even though you issue a red line and you do nothing, why do nothing? Because we can't get involved. Because the moment we get involved, we wind up in endless war in quagmire. So it was one or the other. It was a binary choice. And I think what Trump has introduced is we can get involved militarily, where he's not compromising himself, where he's not abandoning his commitments from his campaigns, is, I'm not going to get us into an endless war. I'm not going to get us into a quagmire So I will deploy U.S. forces in a very targeted, surgical way, like he did in June of 25, like he did in Venezuela, or I will work closely with American allies, capable allies, as the administration put it, like Israel. That means we can still be engaged militarily, we can still intervene militarily. But the way Trump stays true to MAGA is by not getting bogged down, quagmire, endless war, overstretched.

B (34:07)

Yes. I would say there's three characteristics to the way Trump manages wars in the spirit of America. First, one is what you said, not entering a quagmire, not boots on the ground, not making it quick and effective, whatever that means. I mean, what is quick compared to Afghanistan? 20 years, even if it's a half a year, it's quick. Hopefully you'll be less.

A (34:26)

And what is effective? And how do you define effectiveness?

B (34:28)

And what is effectiveness? Effective? That's one thing. A second thing is Iraq and Afghanistan. There was always attempt to find legitimacy in NATO and in the UN and the Security Council. And Trump doesn't need legitimacy from international institutions. And that is the spirit of America First. We're not asking the world for permission. We're only asking what do we want and what do we need? And finally, our purpose is not to spread democracy. Our purpose is not, not nation building, it's nation protecting. It's not building a different nation, it's protecting our nation. So I think Trump is reinterpreting America First. America first is not about not joining wars. America first is about how you join wars.

A (35:07)

Okay, you've laid out, Mika, some very high stakes for the world, possibly existential stakes, stakes that will be definitional for decades, whether those Israeli Air Force pilots appreciate it or not. In a story in which Israel is playing a central role, not the central role, but a central role which is different than the Zionist story we were taught growing up. So what are the implications for Zionism in this grand story?

B (35:35)

So it's interesting because when you speak it to Israeli soldiers participating here, and by the way, fighting also in Lebanon, not only in Iran, the motivation and intention of Israeli fighters in this war. We're fighting this war to protect Israel, but the consequences of this war are humongous. We spoke about preventing World War iii, restoring world order. By the way, it's not only about liberation of the Iranian people, it's also about liberation of the Lebanese, the people of Lebanon. If the Islamic Republic collapses, the people of Lebanon will be liberated from being hijacked by Hezbollah. They're hijacked by Iran also. So it's not about liberation of one nation, it's liberation of two nations. So there's an interesting gap between the intentions of our soldiers, which is nationalistic. It's Israel first. It's for what's good for us. And the results could stabilize the world and liberate not one, but two nations. So we ask about Zionism. There's so many Zionist thinkers, right? And almost every Zionist thinker has within his writings not one, but two sentiments. One sentiment is a how creating a strong, vibrant Jewish state can save the Jewish people. But there's always a different sentiment on how it could inspire the world, be a hor lagoim, a light into the nations. I think this moment where there is a gap between our intentions and our results. Our intentions are to save Israel, but the results might be very altruistic towards the world and other nations. This moment is captured by Theodore Herzl, Theodor Herzl, and is maybe the most important book in the history of Zionism. Judenstadt, or Judenstadt, the State of the Jews. He writes this book in 1896, and this is ground zero of Zionism.

A (37:19)

And I just want to say, Micah, we have. I assume most of our listeners know who you're referring to when you talk about Theodora Herzl, but I just. We also have a lot of non Jewish listeners, people who may not be as close to the history. Just. I mean, we'll link to some Theodore Herzl works in our show notes, but he's just think of him as both the intellectual visionary of what was modern Zionism that created the political forces or activated the political forces and movement that led to the founding of the modern Chinese Jewish state.

B (37:43)

He didn't know he's going to be an activist. He doesn't. He didn't know he's going to go and create the first Zionist conference in 1897. He just wrote a book, but the book became a bestseller and it created a lot of energy. Then he decided to tap into that energy and to call Jewish leaders from around the world to a conference in Switzerland where they.

A (38:01)

Right in Basel, Switzerland.

B (38:03)

In Basel, Switzerland, which was the first Zionist conference. Can you imagine having one book having so much impact? Okay, and that's him.

A (38:10)

All right. Well, it's not only that. It's that then all of a sudden we say all these people meet in Basel, Switzerland for the first Zionist Congress. It wasn't like people just hopping on United flights and Air, Swiss Air flights. This is people taking ships traveling days and weeks from all over the world. I Mean, it was like. It's hard to imagine for what seemed like a crazy idea. It was a crazy idea. And all these people are gathering from all over there.

B (38:34)

It was a crazy idea. And his book, the State of the Jews or Judenstadt, he tries to explain why it's possible, why this isn't that crazy and was still seen as a crazy idea. But it's a very technical book. I would even say it's a boring book. The State of the Jews. It's interesting. It became a best seller. It's very technical. It's trying to show a plan, a business plan of how this could work. But at the very end, in the last paragraph of the book, he tries to elevate the spirit of his readers. And what he says there is that everything that the Jews will do when they have a state will be for egoistic reasons. They'll do it for themselves, but the results will be for the benefit of the entire world. He predicts that the Jews will be in that position. I have it here.

A (39:19)

Go ahead.

B (39:20)

I have it here in Hebrew, but I'll read you. He didn't read it. It doesn't matter. He didn't write it in Hebrew, he wrote it in German. So towards the end of the book, he writes, the world will be liberated through our liberation, enriched by our riches and enlarged by our greatness. And everything we attempt there for our own prosperity will have a powerful and blessed effect for the benefit of all mankind. So he predicts that Zionism will put the Jewish people in a position that everything they do for themselves will be for the benefit of humanity. So this isn't the Zionism. We have Zionist thinkers that think about Zionism as altruism. We have to work hard for the benefit of humanity. Helza says no, no. Zionism will create the alchemy where everything you do for nationalistic reasons will be for the benefit of humanity. I think health didn't always get everything right, but he's capturing this moment in Israeli history. This is the weight on the shoulders of our pilots and our Mossad agents and our intelligence. They're doing it for Israeli security. But the result, the benefit will be the liberation of the Iranians, the Lebanese, restoring world order, making America dominant again, and prevent World War Three. So we're doing it for our benefit, but to save Israel and save Israeli security. But the pipe product is that will save the world. And by the way, from conversations I have with Israeli fighters, again, we have to be honest, they're doing it for us, but it gives so Much meaning and purpose, knowing that this is something for the benefit of humanity. This is the moment of Teoto Herzl.

A (40:51)

So, Mika, the conspiracy theory then, in which Israel is the destabilizing force of the Middle east, which this conspiracy theory that is obviously gaining purchase in the west today in increasing numbers, as you point out, on both sides of the aisle, both ends of the political and ideological spectrum, and is therefore a destabilizing force not just in the Middle east, but it has implications more broadly. What you're basically arguing, what Herzl was arguing, if you connect your theory to his, is that this whole conspiracy theory is being flipped. Iran is actually the destabilizing force and Israel working with the United States becomes the stabilizing force.

B (41:28)

Exactly. Now think about the purpose of this conspiracy theory. The purpose of this conspiracy theory is to break the war. Now, maybe it'll be successful. Maybe Trump will say, okay, this is all over and we'll end the war when Iran is intact and they still have. Maybe it might break the war, but if the war goes well, the war will break the conspiracy theory. The result of this war will break down. The conspiracy theory will become marginalized. Tucker and his theories will become marginalized again, exactly where they need to be. So what is stronger, the conspiracy or the Israeli military and the American military? Will the conspiracy break the war or will the victory or hopefully success in this war break the conspiracy theory? Those are the stakes. And the stakes are very high.

A (42:08)

All right, Mika, we will leave it there. Thank you for this. It was very valuable frame. We wanted to just take a step back today. There's so much going on and there's so much news and it's sometimes easy to lose one of the bigger issues, issues at stake here. And you've definitely provided a provocative frame. So looking forward to our listeners reaction to this. Thank you for doing this.

B (42:28)

Thank you, dad.

A (42:38)

That's our show for today. If you value the Call Me Back podcast and you want to support our mission, please subscribe to our weekly members only show, Inside Call Me Back. Inside Call Me Back is where Nadavael Amit Segal and I respond to challenging questions from listeners and have the conversations that typically occur after the cameras stop rolling. To subscribe, please follow the link in the show notes or you can go to ark media.org that's ark media.org call me back is produced and edited by Lon Benito. Arc Media's executive producer is Adam James Levin Aretti. Our production manager is Brittany Cohn. Our community manager is Eva Wiener. Our music was composed by Yuval Semo. Sound and video editing by Liquid Audio. Until next time, I'm your host, Dan. Senor.

B (43:36)

Sam.