Loading summary
Transcript50 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for three months, $90 for
- [00:23]
B
six months or $180 for a 12 month plan. Required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy.
- [00:30]
A
See terms.
- [00:32]
B
Summer's full of reasons to look your best to Covis. Western boots are handcrafted in over 200 steps with premium cowhide and exotic leathers. And they're comfortable right out of the box. No break in period. Just boots you can wear all summer long. Their performance shirting and premium denim keep you cool and put together wherever the season takes you. And of course, you can always stop by to covis.com to Covas Forever West. Hello, dear listeners. Welcome back to Conflicted. I'm Thomas Small.
- [01:04]
A
And I'm Ayman Dean, the Oracle of Arabia, reinvigorated and re energized.
- [01:09]
B
Well, that makes one of us. Aon, you're reinvigorated. I'm not reinvigored. I think things can't get worse. I think things can't get worse. We were promised over the weekend some big event that was going to change the, you know, change the whole calculus on the battlefield of the Iran war. And once Trump decided to order up some Mexican food and tacoed. I mean, this is getting so boring, frankly.
- [01:38]
A
Yes, this is a taco with the side, not an avocado dip. It's with a Mirza Ghassmi dip. And I think my Iranian listeners will understand it's really one of the best, best, best, best ever. Like in the mean side dishes in the Iranian cuisine.
- [01:54]
B
Okay, Eamon, we're gonna just, I guess, you know, talk about. What are we going to talk about in this episode? I mean, honestly, I had brainstormed an episode that that was predicated upon the idea that America was going to go hard, you know, and then at the last minute, Saturday night, Sunday morning, once again, nope, we're not going to do it. I guess a lot of people shorted the oil market sometime on Friday afternoon and made a killing on Monday morning when the markets opened and the price of oil dropped by 10 bucks.
- [02:26]
A
Well, Thomas, I mean, you already receive the intelligence bulletins that our company Cruikshank and Dean Lakhanamin sends around to the clients. And you received on Friday night that the Saudi intelligence assessment, which we got hold of, said no, most likely this is all what a pressure tactic in order to get the Iranians to come back to the table. So there was a little bit of a balancing act. And actually you received it yourself. You shouldn't feel that deflated. Come on, buddy.
- [03:02]
B
All right. Well, dear listeners, in this episode, Eamonn is going to explain to me why I'm wrong, or possibly wrong to think that America has lost the Iran war and it's all over. The Americans will withdraw from the Middle East. The Middle east will return to the status quo ante of regional power blocs constantly fighting with each other with no stability whatsoever. And that's it. That's what I think. And Eamon is going to tell me why I might be. Well, I might be right, but I'm probably wrong. Let's get right into it. So, Eamonn, the last time you and I spoke for one of these episodes was on the 18th of July. And in that episode, you predicted that as soon as the World cup ended on the 20th of July, the Iran war would enter a new escalatory phase. And that prediction was basically correct. Literally, on the morning of the 20th of July, American strikes immediately moved deeper inside Iran. And then shortly thereafter, the Houthis opened a Red Sea front against Saudi shipping. And from then on, over the two weeks following, it was a sort of tit for tat escalation, precisely as foreseen. This sort of climaxed towards the end of last week when Trump signaled that a major attack was imminent, probably planned for the first of August. But then, as usual, he canceled it at the last moment, claiming that a new deal was really, really close to being signed that would include an agreement to open the Strait of Hormuz and that following that deal, nuclear talks would resume. So that's what he said. Iran basically bitch slapped the president right back and said, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, none of that's true. So, you know, as always, we don't know what's true. I mean, those of us who only look at the media, the mainstream media. So, Eamon, has the United States lost this war? Has Donald Trump been outplayed by Iran, Iran, whatever their ideology might be, however crazy that ideology might be, and despite the fact that they have this very weak hand compared to the United States, Israel and even their Gulf rivals, enemies, they've played that Hand very well. They are just totally schooling Donald Trump in the art of regional geopolitics, frankly, and are emerging stronger than before. I think the United States has lost this war. What do you think?
- [05:36]
A
Not yet. The percentage I will put on the US losing this war is at 40%. And I will come now to the three scenarios that I have in mind and I will explain them one by one. I do believe that there is a 40% chance that the US will just cut and run and decide, you know what, the Middle east is just too much to handle. Let's go. And that doesn't mean, by the way, it's a winning for Iran. And I will tell you why. It's not even a win for Iran. This actually even a more of a nightmare for Iran. And I will tell you why. If the US Leave and say I'm going to leave the Middle east on devices I don't want to be involved anymore, that's a 40% chance. And I will explain why it is a nightmare scenario for Iran, too.
- [06:19]
B
Okay, one second though, Eamon, let me just say 40% chance that America will cut and run. That's quite a high percentage. It's quite a likely scenario. Then that would suggest to me that over the last five months, as a result of the way this war has played out, you've had to rethink things. I don't think you would have thought we were this close to this degree of likelihood of an American withdrawal from the Middle east this soon at this time.
- [06:43]
A
Yeah. But also I have to be fair that it could be a bluff. And I'm not saying it because some Trump supporters are saying it. No, I'm saying it because I'm watching the skies, I'm watching the sea routes and I'm watching the the warehouses of the militaries all across the region. And I'm seeing a huge amount of stockpiling and ammunition transfers and weapon transfers from the US And Europe and from Southeast Asia and East Asia into the Middle east theater. And so I'm still seeing that. And even this early morning on the 3rd of August, I'm still seeing that happening. It's not like the buildup is stopping. And that's why I will say, yes, there is a possibility of a big taco with the side of Emerza Ghass. But I also have to say that there is still a buildup. And this is why basically we have to say maybe it's the biggest bluff ever. Bluffing the bluffers at their game.
- [07:44]
B
Okay, that's really interesting. President Trump says we're locked and loaded. The Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, says that not since the Second World War has America been mobilized to this degree. These are big statements. But at the same time, CNN is reporting that a CENTCOM intelligence officer asked analysts for creative and unconventional methods to pressure and punish Iran. So how can both of those things be true? Either this incredible buildup not seen since the Second World War is happening, or the Department of War is literally, you know, crowdsourcing now solutions to the problem that it's in.
- [08:23]
A
No, it's always normal for the US Military to put out to their own internal departments and sister departments within the US Government request for out of the box solutions. I've seen that myself actually play out in 2004, 5 and 6, during the counterinsurgency in Iraq. It's not something new, actually. I mean, they did it 20 years ago, they're doing it now whenever they are a little bit in trouble. And actually that exercise led to the surge, which led to the ultimate defeat of AQI or Al Qaeda in Iraq and the killing of Zarqawi in 2006. So it wasn't a bad thing. I mean, let's be fair to them.
- [09:09]
B
Okay, that's clear. It may be then, that this kind of all points bulletin inviting ideas for how to win the war is a road to a solution. But at the same time, Republican senators are saying very outspokenly now that there is no plan, or at least they are not being kept inform at all. Senator John Kennedy was asked, you know, what he thinks about the possibility of a renewed bombing campaign. And he said that he couldn't judge whether such a campaign was justified or not because he literally didn't have any military intelligence. Is that because there is this great plan that is being kept from the senators who are meant to be offering some oversight of the federal government? Or is it that there really isn't a plan to. And it's all being made up on the fly. It does seem that, you know, what you've said in the past, Eamonn, is still true that Trump moves towards the position of whichever regional leader has most recently spoke to him. Last week, he talks to Netanyahu, then there's gonna be a big buildup. It seems that maybe a few days later, Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia speaks to him urging restraint. Then Trump cancels the attack. Is that really what's going on here? That Trump is just being swayed by whoever talks to him last?
- [10:22]
A
We are in a situation where there are two extreme opposite possibilities. The first possibility is that the US doesn't know what he's doing, Trump doesn't know what he's doing, and he is up to his neck in this poop pit. The other possibility is that they know what they're doing, he knows what he's doing, and that his generals are telling him, tell the Iranians that we are about to attack, make them absolutely convinced that we are about to attack. So we see some of their air defense and other missile force movements on the ground in order to determine and to update our targeting data. I mean, that's also a very real possibility. I mean, I'm just telling you here that we live now in a world of social media and of leeks and counter leeks and carrots and other basically savory things. But anyway, we are living in this age of leaks.
- [11:24]
B
Yeah. Okay, so outline for us then that first scenario, which you give a 40% likelihood of coming to pass, which is that the United States decides basically our empire can't afford it anymore, we're leaving the Middle East.
- [11:37]
A
There is a possibility, 40%. I will put at it that they us really is moving towards isolationism and that the party of JD Vance and backed up by Fakhr Carlson and others are really, really steering the ship towards the US Saying to the world, goodbye, we don't need the world anymore, the world doesn't need us. We would rather be isolationist. America first, which is extremely idiotic, and we will know why. So they decide to demobilize, get the aircraft carriers out of the region, get most of the maritime vessels out of the region, and get most of their aircrafts and personnel out of the region too. Now the Iranians might celebrate and say, that's it, we achieved it, we've done it. But this is exactly where the Iranians are absolutely wrong to open the orange juice bottles since then, or the Shiraz bottles in some of their cases. They are not going to celebrate. They shouldn't celebrate because it means that Israel will have a free hand to do whatever they want, because that's it, the US Is out. The only reason the Israelis are restrained at the moment is because they do everything in conjunction with the US but if the US Is out and there are no more US Targets to attack by the Iranians, the Israelis will feel that they are free to do whatever is necessary in their own determination to protect themselves and to protect their own citizens. They will attack Iran and they will make dogs breakfast out of the whole situation. That's for real. But at least the Iranians should Not celebrate because it will mean they will be inviting even more wrath against them. If the Israelis attack, they will attack one of the GCC countries, most likely the uae, which will trigger more other GCC countries like Kuwait and Bahrain to declare solidarity and Jordan will join along. And then that's it. The Iranians are back to square zero. Except this time there isn't one administration to manipulate. They can't manipulate the Israelis, they can't manipulate the Emiratis, they can't manipulate the Bahrainis or the Jordanians or the Kuwaitis. And this is, I think, where things could go out of hand. If they try to pressure the rest of the world into the Bab El Mandeb and move the Houthis against the Saudis, then they are inviting even more problem because the Saudis will be joined by the Pakistanis and then suddenly, you know, so ironically, Kat and run will actually be cut Iran, not cut and run, cut Iran.
- [14:15]
B
Well, let me just question this a little bit because if, you know, if the Iranian regime and especially the IRGC is truly motivated to some extent still by some of those millenarian eschatological beliefs that you've spent so much time describing for us here on conflicted, then they might think, well actually it's kind of a risk in these worldly terms. Yes, America leaves, which is the first goal. Gotta get rid of the great Satan, America. Yes, the little Satan. Israel will cause us some problems, but we're gonna do it because in the end, God is on our side. In the end, the Mahdi is going to return and we're going to conquer Jerusalem and Mecca and Medina and you know, so maybe they just don't actually care about the prospect of one big almighty eschatological war. They're expecting it. It's only our side, Eamon, that doesn't want a big war. Maybe they actually want a big war with the whole region because they expect it to have been divinely foreordained that it should happen.
- [15:17]
A
Yes, when we say they, we are meaning the irgc. We don't mean the entirety of the Iranian government because I assure you, Pezesh Kian, the President of Iran doesn't want this scenario whatsoever. He want to govern a functioning nation. He doesn't want an economy in tatters and people hungry and supply chains completely in tatters. However, the fact of the matter is the IRGC called the shots. And so from their point of view, they won this big war. But the question is, will they ever win it? I mean seriously, will they ever win it? Because if it become an existential threat to the Saudis, to the Emiratis, to the Jordanians, to the Israelis, it's not going to be good news for the Iranians either. It's going to be a war like we have never seen in the entirety of the Middle east before. It will be like Europe in the 1930s and 40s, God help us. That's why I pray and I hope that the US do not cut and run. Because contrary to whatever people might think, the US cutting and running will actually cause this war to become even more bloody and more destructive.
- [16:29]
B
Well, Eamonn, you and I are totally on the same page about that. And the scenario I outlined at the very beginning, my belief that America has lost the war, that it will withdraw, that the American led order is over, and that we just have to face the, what I consider to be on balance, terrible consequences of that and a return to the status quo. Anti. I mean the world before the Atlantic world order, which was a world of great regional power, competition at all times and many, many zones, march land, borderland zones that were constantly seeing low level to high level war and being regularly, you know, kind of ethnically cleansed this way and that as these great powers fought back and forth. You know, we shouldn't be romantic about the past. A lot of people, including me, like to be romantic about the past. As if before modernity it was all sunshine and roses. That is not true. It was very, very conflictual. So if we return to that world with modern technology, modern weapons, nuclear bombs, in the case of Israel and Pakistan and Saudi, you know, it's like this is gonna be terrible. So we're on the same page there and you say 40% likelihood of that. Yes, that to me is high. Before you move on to the next scenario though, I would like to just talk a little bit about Pezeshkian, the Iranian president. It seems to me that his view, it's like in the last three days we see that the mou, the famous memorandum of misunderstanding, is kind of back from the dead. Bezeshkiyam is saying to the IRGC, to his antagonists inside Iran, look, the MoU was good for us, we need to maintain it. We had run rings around Trump, we got him to sign this document which totally favors our position. So we need to support the MoU and he's against hardliners, I suppose, within the government, IRGC, people who don't like the MoU. But he's saying no, no, we have to like the MoU. We must support the MoU. Do you think then in the next few weeks, then we're gonna see a return of the MOU to the table?
- [18:34]
A
We have to understand that President Bezoshkiyan is a civilian president with purely civilian responsibilities and civilian authority with no authority whatsoever over the military. Let's be honest about it. He can, or you remember during the war, he ordered on national TV the IRGC to cease firing against GCC countries. And I was watching his remarks live on TV while I was sitting next to my windows, which were shaking, you know, from the ballistic missile interceptions just over our heads in Dubai. So, you know, I thought, okay, maybe they didn't get the memo. You know, three hours later, another wave. Seven hours later, another wave. And then 24 hours later, I was sitting in front of the same TV next to the same window, watching a repeat of his remarks, only to have my phone screaming the warning from the authorities in the UAE that incoming missiles, danger. So, wow. I mean, he is such an authoritative president. No, seriously, we shouldn't afford him the honor of having an authority or even any influence over the military. I mean, during the war and during the negotiations and repeated time, he is with President Trump on the phone, begging him, saying, I will convince him. I will bring them to the table. I will do this, I will do that. The reality is that the mayor of Tehran, yes, I call him the mayor of Tehran because that's his, you know, that's where his authority extends, only Tehran. The mayor of Tehran is acting along with his foreign minister, Abbas Arakchi, as the mediators. They're true mediators between President Trump and the IRGC.
- [20:29]
B
Okay, so the MoU, whether Pezdashkian wants it to be or not, is dead because the IRGC never really liked the document and they're in control. That's what you're saying now, what is the next scenario, Eamonn, what is the next scenario?
- [20:44]
A
The next scenario is also 40% equal to the first scenario in terms of probability, and that is that the US Will stay the course, but not in a major kinetic way. So there will be no major escalations. It will be a cycle. You remember what we predicted at the very first days of the war when we said that this war is going to be a war of multiple phases, calm and storm, and then calm and then storm. You will see that. So the same thing here is going to happen. The US Is going to stay. The level of deployments is going to continue to be maintained, possibly even emboldened, and there will be a greater buildup. And to add More coercive pressure to choke the economy, to maintain the blockade against the Iranian ports. And most importantly, what a person who is close to the administration, you know who I'm talking about, you know who I know quite well. He said to me that the strategy actually is death by a thousand cuts. That's the idea. It's that, okay, a major kinetic way could force us to boots on the ground, which we are not willing to commit whatsoever except in exceptional cases like the islands. So the chains of the Gulf islands plus Kharg island, we could do that at some point to demonstrate the willingness to invade. But we're not going to invade. We will invade parts of the islands, but not the mainland itself. And we will turn Bandar Abbas into another Gaza for sure to demonstrate that the strait will be protected, will be defended no matter what the cost is. However, there will be no major escalation. That's going to be an all out war. So the American side will deny the Iranians the pretext of an all out war while at the same time surgically while at the same time surgically picking out and destroying their air defenses, their ballistic missile production and storage and supply chain. They will go after their drones production capabilities and capacities and launchers. So that's what they will do. They will just go and slowly, gradually degrade their military, degrade their economy. And then at some point when the currency break through the 2 million per dollar barrier, possibly even 2 1/2 million in few months time, then this is when the Iranian people will say, guys, you told us you are such competent people who can manage peace, manage war, manage everything. You didn't manage the peace, you didn't manage the economy and even the war. You are not managing it. You say you are winning every day, but the enemy is blockading us also there is a new strategy they might deploy which is airstrikes, surgical airstrikes against Pakistani, Afghan, Turkmen, Iraqi, Turkish and Azerbaijani border crossings as well as the Caspian seaports to make sure that even bringing goods through these border crossings and supply chain routes will be expensive. In a proposition for the regime, we're not talking about humanitarian supplies or anything, or food or medicine like any. This is all taken care of, we talked about it before. But they will just have to periodically attack with precise intelligence. Shipments that are carrying chemicals, shipments that are carrying equipments, certain metal alloys, certain engine parts that actually are dual use and are going to be used for the production of ballistic missiles and drones. So they will be attacking, let's say like in the US carrier group, in both the Ford and the Lincoln, they can easily launch attacks. It's very close by to the Pakistani Iranian border, to the Afghan Iranian border, as well as north to the Turkmen Iranian border. Turkmenistan and Iran share a border and there are very few entry points there which can be surgically attacked by Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from the carrier groups. Anyway, as for the Iraqi Iranian border, the US knows that border extremely well. They've been in Iraq now for how long? Goodness, 23 years, man. Now, so they know that border quite well. So from their Jordanian and Israeli bases they can easily take care of that border. The Turkish Iranian border is very tightly controlled as well as the Azeri Iranian border is tightly controlled by both Azerbaijan and Turkey. And so there wouldn't be that much need to do it. The thing is that the Israeli air force will be extremely useful when it comes to the Caspian seaports in the provinces of Mazendaran and eastern Azerbaijan. All of these places, they will go after these ports and take care of any shipments that are suspected of carrying important dual use materials for the Iranian regime. There is no question about it. So if the Iranian regime feel that even the land is being blockaded or even they could actually attack oil shipments that are coming out of Iran and going into other countries illegally, they could attack them before they reach the other countries, like reaching Pakistan or reaching Turkmenistan.
- [26:11]
B
Okay, so you give that a 40% likelihood that America would essentially continue what it's doing now, blockade Iran every now and then, launching surgical strikes against its military capabilities, etc. Maybe really launching something big in Bandar Abbas to gazify it, as you say, maybe putting some boots on the ground in the Arabian Gulf Islands, maybe so basically continue what's going on now? Now you give that the same likelihood as the previous scenario of America just cutting and running. But is it fair to give them 40, 40 like that? Because if America is, is kind of blockading Iran and putting pressure on the Iranian economy, Iran's deterrence strategy, Iran's strategy in this war, which I think it actually has carried out very well, is doing the same thing to America, not just America's economy itself, although to some extent that is the case, especially as the costs of the war increase and as all these downstream effects of the effects on the global economy impact the most important economy in the globe in America. So isn't Iran doing the same thing? I mean, will America genuinely have the stomach to, for one year, two years maybe maintain this current posture as regards Iran, given the increasing economic toll it's taking on the world economy.
- [27:38]
A
I'll tell you why I believe that's the case. Because the Iranian currency is bleeding and bleeding so badly here, like absolutely bleeding. There is no question about it. I mean, and we could see a significant collapse of the Iranian currency in the coming, I would say between six to 12 weeks if the scenario I was talking about, this second 40% were to materialize. And I tell you why, because the Iranian currency was perilously close on Friday and Saturday to the 2 million per dollar mark. It reached 1.95 million. So we were really very close to breaking through the 2 million barrier.
- [28:29]
B
Not to mention the fact that in June inflation reached 88% in Iran. And I think just the other day the IMF projected that Iran's GDP would contract by 6.1% this year. So obviously Iran is suffering economically. There have been power cuts across the country this summer. I mean, we're talking during really some extreme heat waves, power cuts, preventing whatever AC there is from, from being run, etc. They are suffering medicine shortages. Yeah. And you know, a lot of infrastructure, transport infrastructure, industrial port infrastructure, it's been destroyed during the war. So, you know, we're talking billions and billions of dollars of damage. So clearly the Iranian economy is suffering. But I just still think that the IRGC thinks, well, we can take it. It's the Americans who can't take it. It's President Trump for political reasons who can't take it.
- [29:25]
A
Well, here is where, you know, some people might say, really Eamon, you give 40% to the scenario of just cut and run. And I say, yes, there is 40% of America, not Trump, America just deciding to cut and run. Why? Because we are only one heartbeat for that 40% to happen. One heartbeat only. All President Trump and his 80 plus years and an old man, you know, all he has to do basically is just have one stroke and it's all over. We will have President JD Vance implementing Fakhar Carlson isolationist ideals. This inexperienced, war traumatized individual who would take over power, Hexith fire Rubio immediately put together a maga, a true maga, you know, America first isolationist cabinet and would pull disastrously like the US forces from the region and then celebrate it as a promise to the voters that was fulfilled. He will do that. He will do that. He's crazy enough to do it.
- [30:45]
B
But you're not calculating that 40% likelihood of America cutting and running just on the possibility that Trump will have a stroke or will die?
- [30:53]
A
No, no, no, of course not. But I would say 30% chance of it, if it wasn't for the fact that there is a vice president who would, in the case of the incapacitation or the death of the president, who would implement it in a heartbeat, that's a problem. So that's why we have to add the extra 10% there.
- [31:12]
B
For me, Eamon, that really gets to the heart of the problem with Trump's style of governance, Trump's style of authoritarianism. Let's be honest, Trump is a one man show. Yes, he makes all the decisions. There is no collegial or cabinet government in America at the moment. And this is disastrous, I want to say disastrous from the point of view of liberal, you know, of America's or the West's liberal Republican constitutional tradition. But it would be disastrous even in an authoritarian system like say Saudi Arabia, where, yeah, officially in Saudi Arabia, one man sits at the top of a pyramid and kind of quote unquote makes all the decisions. But you and I know that that's not actually how it works. There's, it's in fact very collegiate there, maintained mainly within the royal family and also favored insiders who are technically or bureaucratically or for whatever reason trusted. But in America, the whole foreign policy of the government in a wartime scenario, to be in the hands of just a single guy, nobody knows what's going on, it's disastrous. It means there can't be any long term planning, you know, because Trump can change his mind at any time. And it's even politically dangerous for Trump himself, as he's feeling, because he carries all the responsibility. He can't blame shift on anyone. It's incredible how badly this is going for Trump, but his authoritarianism is a massive liability.
- [32:42]
A
Exactly. But nonetheless, we have to take into account that the US will still stay the course.
- [32:48]
B
Possibly 40%.
- [32:49]
A
Yeah, 40% will stay the course. Why? Because withdrawing will not guarantee, in fact, it will be the opposite of bringing down the price of fuel at the American pumps. Because you can be independent of the Middle Eastern oil, but you cannot be independent, as we discussed before, you and I, Thomas, of the Global Energy Price Index. I mean, even if the US washes its hand completely with all kinds of soaps, you know, and disinfectants from the Middle east, let's put it this way, if they do that, they will never, ever escape the fact that the price at the pump is determined by the stability of the energy market globally. And therefore these same Americans, the same idiotic, ill educated, totally close minded America first idiots who are screaming they don't want the war to happen. And they don't want anything to do with Iran, Iran never did anything to us, blah, blah, blah. Forgetting how many thousands of Americans were killed directly or indirectly by Iran. But let's not go into that. But however, as soon as they bring their troops home, Iran get entangled with the Israelis, the Israelis get entangled with the Iranians, the Iranians get entangled with the Emiratis, they start shooting at ships in the Red Sea and in the Strait of Hormuz. And recently when they attacked the Miata, also like basically near the Suez Canal on the Egyptian delta. Wow. So what do you think is gonna happen to the price of oil when there is. They will factor in that there will be no American retaliation to rein in Iran. So the price index will factor in the absence of the global maritime hegemon. He's not there. The American sailor is not there to protect that. So the effect will be doubling and the tripling of the price increases that we have seen before, instead of 10% and 12%, we will see 30, 40, 50, possibly 100% increase.
- [34:59]
B
And that factor, among others means that you think there's a 40% chance that America will stay the course and continue this sustained pressure campaign on Iran, hoping eventually for the economy to bring down the regime, a civil war or some kind of uprising to happen, their whatever. Now that leaves 20%. You said 40%. America will cut and run. 40% America will stay the course in a long term pressure campaign. What about the last 20%? What do you think has a 1 in 5 chance of taking place as regards the Iran war?
- [35:30]
A
I think extreme measures, and I don't mean only just by the us, possibly even by the Iranian side. Either the Iranian side start to race so quickly and desperately towards a nuclear device, or the Iranian side just announced without a test that they are in possession of a nuclear device. It is extreme measure, of course. So this is why we put it at 20%. It's not 20%. This will happen. The 20% is a mixed bag of everything we're going to talk about. So from the Iranian side, greater number of missiles against Israel, greater number of missiles against Saudi Arabia, the Houthis moving in to invade Saudi territory or to destroy shipping vessels in the Bab El Mandeb in the Red Sea. I mean these are the extreme measures that the Iranians will resort to in order to put pressure on the Americans to leave the region or to lift the blockade. So that's part of the 20%, but also extreme measures that could be taken by the U.S. remember that we Have a president who is easily frustrated, easily offended. He is also narcissistic and vindictive, which is not bad qualities in world leaders. Sometime you need them. Remember Caesar and Gaul? Seriously, you need that sometime. But the problem is the IRGC could be mistaking Trump's hesitation or bluff or weakness or deception, whatever you want to call it, because we don't know, we can't read minds. So they could miscalculate and this could actually backfire big time. Especially if they attempt an assassination either on the president or a member of his family or a member of the cabinet. They could do that if an Iranian cell could actually attack inside the US in a mass casualty event or outside the US against US interests or embassies or hotels or whatever. Or if they attack Israeli embassies or Israeli personnel outside of Israel, if they assassinate Netanyahu, if they assassinate any of the Israeli cabinet members. So you know that in a situation like this, we could see a extreme measure, retaliation by either the US or the Israelis, which is, I've been talking about it since the beginning of the war because somehow there is that nagging voice inside my head, inside my mildly autistic head, telling me that the US might at some point, or the Israelis or someone else. But anyway, most likely the US use tactical nukes for the purpose of destroying subterranean mountain facilities that housing uranium enrichment. Especially if what I said at the beginning of this scenario, that the Iranian regime begins the race towards building a nuclear device to achieve the ultimate deterrence, to survive an economic collapse or inevitable economic collapse. So, you know, they try to go North Korean here now, people always telling me, and pushback, they say, no, no, no, no, no, Eamon, come on. I mean, the use of tactical nukes is forbidden as a. Taboos, whatever. The only taboo is in the name. The reality is that there is no mushroom cloud. There will be no mushroom cloud. I mean, there would be a small earthquake basically within the vicinity of the blast and that's it. You will see mountains shape the mountain, like in a facility, shifting shape and become more like a cauldron instead of a pointy thing towards the sky. So seriously, just, it's not the same as using a nuke against either a military or a civilian facility. A tactical nuke is very different from a conventional one.
- [39:32]
B
But Eamon, it's still essentially the same kind of strike that occurred last June. I mean, I know, bigger warheads, bigger bombs, but still it's the same. You know, strategically speaking, it's the same. We're going to take out their Nuclear program by. By pounding them with this, you know, super, super advanced weapon. But, you know, as we saw last June, that didn't shift the political reality. In fact, it created the conditions for what we have now. I just. Are we putting too much faith? Has America for decades now. And in my conversation last week, in the conflicted conversation with Thiant Mint u, you know, he said that in his view and in the view of his grandfather u thant the UN Secretary general, America has a blind spot, you know, based on a kind of technological hubris that air dominance alone can win wars, can create political facts on the ground, despite the fact that again and again and again, it has proven to be not the case. So even if these tactical nukes were deployed, couldn't the Iranian regime just sit it out, survive for another day as it did last June?
- [40:50]
A
They can. The problem is the psychological impact that the nuke was used on Iran, and it will not be used once or twice. The number I have been quoted is 8. That there are 8 tactical nukes that could actually be deployed into the region and used at the president's pleasure whenever he feels that the time has come now to finish the Iranian regime capacity and capability of having any chance of building a nuclear bomb in the next 20 years. That would send shockwaves all across the Iranian society. We could see people rising up, basically saying, enough is enough. End this war now. We don't want any more to do with this government and its stupidity and its determination to drag the country more and more into conflict that they will never be able to win. You see, at the end of the day, if there is a willingness from the US Side to resort to extreme measures, and I was told that there is willingness at some point because the Iranians are the ones who are creating this willingness. How? By being so determined not to take the win and go home. You know what I mean? They are like a desperate gambler in a Vegas casino who they want to recoup all the losses now instead of taking what is on the table right now, the 24 billion of unfrozen assets, the promise of hundreds of billions of investments in the future, should they dismantle their nuclear program. You know, all of these things. They have these wins, and they have already, like in Amin, more or less changed the reality in the Strait of Hormuz. Take the win and go. But no, they are insisting on humiliating the casino, on bragging, on being loud and loutish and, you know, determined, you know, to actually say, no, I'm gonna bet even more. And so he borrowed his wife's gold, the family's silver, the kids, tuition fees, everything, and put them for a big last gamble, you know, against the house, you know, which is Vegas. But who owns Vegas?
- [43:19]
B
Well, Eamonn, when you think God is on your side and when you think that winning the last big hand at the poker table is preordained by divine providence in your favor, then you might just.
- [43:32]
A
Yes, that's a problem.
- [43:34]
B
You might just do it. This is where the craziness comes back. So 20% chance you think that extreme measures from either or both sides in this war are possible, including on the American side, putting in Those tactical nukes, 40% chance you think that America will continue the current long phased sort of tit for tat back and forth, putting pressure on the Iranian economy, degrading the Iranian military, you know, tactically, strategically, you know, forensically, as it, as it needs to, etc. And 40% chance that what I think is 100% going to happen is America cuts and runs and the world of Atlantic global hegemony will be over. In which case, dear listeners, the world is in for an absolutely crazy ride. Let me tell you, we should not be sanguine about this thing which I think we're watching, happening right before our eyes.
- [44:35]
A
Yeah, absolutely. For, for me, I started stocking on some medicines that, you know, because I'm chronically ill. I have ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, I have hypertension, I have nerve damage in the extremities. So I have lots of medicines like, you know, to stock and to keep, like in, I mean, six months and advance, just in case this strait of ours here is not opening anytime soon. And if the Suez Canal also is being threatened by the Iranians, as we have seen in the attack in Damietta, God help us.
- [45:09]
B
Well, you know, that goes to show, Eamon, that you're putting your money where your mouth is, at least in that first 40% scenario. My goodness. Speaking of your light, and I echo this very light autism, I saw the new Spider man movie on Friday and I think we can end this episode of Conflicted by telling everyone, go see it if you haven't seen it. And Eamonn, I think you should definitely go see it, because as I was watching it, I thought, is it nice? It's excellent, Absolutely excellent. What an entertainment. But I thought, you know what, this is a parable about autism. I think that they've decided to make it, you know, symbolically just here and there about what it's like to experience autism. It was a really interesting approach to the material. And, you know, Tom Holland is very winning. What a great superstar he is, Zendaya. Very winning. Their chemistry is very real, of course, but the whole thing, it was fun, it was funny, it was moving, it was interesting. And as I say, I think it has something to say about neurodiversity. So maybe you'd like to see it.
- [46:13]
A
As long as they don't portray these people as, you know, basically like, meek and weak. I want them to be portrayed as evil masterminds. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
- [46:26]
B
Not evil masterminds. They're portraying them as ultimately very conscientious people. They just have their struggles. Anyway, go see the film, Eamon. Dear listeners. Go see Spider Man. You probably already have. What am I saying? It's the biggest hit ever, you know, in the history of the world. That's it for this time, Eamon. I. I don't know. I think we need to say right now that the next time you and I sit down, we are not going to talk about Iran. I'm going to extract a promise from you. We're going to talk about Libya. I think we need to talk about Libya.
- [47:01]
A
Can we talk just only about, like, the cultural impact of the Smurfs. No, I mean, seriously, in all honesty, like, I mean, what a. You know, it's like talking about, like, in something that is such blue peace, like in emissary. Talk about, you know, blue harmony, you know.
- [47:19]
B
No, sadly, sadly, I think we're going to talk about Libya, a country where peace has long been in very short supply indeed. Dear listeners, thank you for listening. Until then, take care.
- [47:30]
A
Take care, everyone.
- [47:33]
B
Conflicted is a message Heard Production. Our executive producers are Jake Warren and Max Warren. This episode was produced and edited by Thomas Small.