Hormuz at Breaking Point and Remembering Journalists Killed in Gaza

Summary

Drop Site News – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Hormuz at Breaking Point and Remembering Journalists Killed in Gaza
Date: August 11, 2026
Hosts & Contributors: Murtaza Hussain, Ryan Grim, Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Abu Bakr Abed, Brett Erickson

---

Overview

This episode delves into two major ongoing crises:

1. The Protracted Economic Siege in the Persian Gulf: The hosts and guest analyst break down the high-stakes economic standoff between Iran and the United States over the Strait of Hormuz—with a focus on oil market dynamics, global economic shockwaves, and why the situation remains a “lose-lose.”

2. One Year Since the Killing of Anas al Sharif: The panel commemorates the anniversary of the targeted killing of Palestinian journalist Anas al Sharif in Gaza, referencing a broader trend of journalist casualties during Israel's multi-year campaign, and reflecting on the challenges, trauma, and suppression facing surviving Gazan journalists—including layoffs by major media outlets and international failures in providing protection.

---

I. The Siege at the Strait of Hormuz: Oil, Economics, and Escalation

Setting the Stage: Economic Stalemate

• Hosts: Murtaza (“Maz”) Hussain and Ryan Grim introduce the continued economic war between the US and Iran over Hormuz, highlighting how both sides have shifted from outright kinetic war to long-term economic sieges.

  • “[The war] has settled into a kind of stasis where both sides are trying to inflict economic harm … to make the situation untenable for the other party.” – Murtaza Hussain [00:23]

• Economic Cost for Americans:

  • Food prices, inflation, and borrowing costs have risen in the US.
  • Strategic Petroleum Reserve at its lowest level in four decades.
  • “It seems like we’re entering a situation where it’s a lose, lose for everybody.” – Hussain [02:52]

• Political Discord:

  • Trump’s campaign on “economic well-being” and “avoiding costly foreign entanglements” is now at odds with reality as US midterms approach.
  • “He has explicitly said he’s not interested in that anymore. He calls this short term pain for, for long term gain.” – Ryan Grim [03:29]

Memorable Exchange

• “We’re kind of cushioned more than almost any other country from the consequences of our own actions.” – Grim [03:49]

---

Expert Segment with Brett Erickson: Oil Math, Blockade Efficacy, and Global Implications

Guest: Brett Erickson, geopolitical and markets expert

Analysis of the Siege/Blockade

• Ineffective Oil Blockade:

  • Iran had 120–140M barrels of oil outside the blockade; benefited enormously when price surged in early siege.
  • “Iranian oil was selling at just barely a discount. So they’re earning double what they had projected to earn at that time.” – Erickson [09:45]

• Revenue Buffer for Iran:

  • Due to a prior MoU and pre-blockade sales, Iran is months ahead on budgeted oil revenue.
  • Even if blockade is suddenly 100% effective, the financial buffer buys Iran time—well into 2027 before revenues “freeze up.”
  • “We’re looking well into 2027 before those oil revenues actually freeze up.” – Erickson [12:47]

Oil Prices & Why They Remain Resilient

• Brent crude prices have remained at ~$80-85 despite the strait closure.
  • Drop in Chinese demand, alternative “Omani route,” east-west pipelines, and increased supply elsewhere have softened the blow.
  • “There is not a significant drop in the amount of oil reaching the market… We’re probably at 3 or 4 million barrels per day that are not reaching the market now, compared to 13 or 14 million earlier on.” – Erickson [15:40]

Stamina, Escalation, and Defining the “Weak Link”

• It’s Not US vs. Iran, But Global Weakness

  • “It’s not the US economy versus the Iranian economy... It’s the economies in Africa, Asia, Japan, South Korea, India... When we look at the fertilizer crisis in Africa… it’s a weak link global economy versus the Iranian economy.” – Erickson [17:41]
  • The “weakest link” may break first (i.e., food shortages in the Global South, not just American inflation).

• Limits to Escalation

  • If economic pain on Iran gets too severe, it’s almost certain Iran will escalate, targeting more Gulf infrastructure and raising the risk of catastrophic global fallout.
  • “You’d be insane to believe there wouldn’t be an economic depression... When not enough energy is reaching global markets, hospitals can’t function, people can’t get emergency care… It’s not just ‘I can’t afford to buy shoes.’ People will die. And at a very massive scale.” – Erickson [21:14]
  • “If it does actually get to the point that the time does become on Washington’s side, Iran will just escalate... That’s at the very core of this entire conflict.” – Erickson [18:58]

Iran’s Resilience

• Iran’s economy, after nearly five decades of sanctions, has become highly self-sufficient.
• Physical damage (e.g., bombing of a major steel plant) is serious but not near collapse.
• Inflation fell after blockade was temporarily lifted; rial held up better than expected.
• “They’re really looking at just a very short timeline of pain.” – Erickson [25:40]
• Rally-Around-the-Flag: Societal support and anti-US sentiment have only hardened.

Sustainability of Omani Oil Route

• Outbound tanker flows outpace inbound by 3.5:1; the workaround is likely temporary.
• Iran chooses not to escalate further—for now—but can escalate at any time:
  • “They’ve proven the ability to kill sailors and to capsize vessels, and they can pull that lever if they need to… They just simply don’t have an incentive to [right now].” – Erickson [29:38]

Key Quote:
“It’s just a risk management decision where right now, it’s not good. And clearly the United States is incapable of protecting vessels to a sufficient degree. But what happens when they start getting killed and vessels start being sunk entirely… then that’s just going to shut down even more.” – Erickson [33:18]

---

II. Remembering Anas al Sharif and Journalists Killed in Gaza

Transition: [34:51] — Hosts shift audience focus from economic warfare to media and human rights, marking a solemn anniversary.

The Killing & Its Message

Sharif Abdel Kouddous comments:

• One year since the assassination of Anas al Sharif (28), "the most recognized Palestinian journalist…still alive and still reporting from Gaza," by an Israeli airstrike on a media tent at Shifa Hospital.
• Targeting Journalists as a Warning:
  "It was a warning and a signal that Israel can eliminate the most prominent journalistic voice on the ground at the time in Anas Al Sharif and get away with it." – Kouddous [36:19]
• Over 260 Palestinian journalists have been killed since Oct 2023—a historic number—with US/European arms and political support.

First-Hand Accounts: Abu Bakr Abed and the Aftermath

Abu Bakr’s perspective (joining from Dublin):

• Colleagues and family remain devastated; post-assassination environment is one of "fear and panic" among Gaza journalists.

• “The overall sentiment at the moment in Gaza is that journalist after the killing spree has intensified over the past few months by the Israeli military… Overall sentiment is fear, is panic to go to rush to the bombed out scenes and to report in them.” – Abed [39:47]

• No Protection for Journalists: Anas repeatedly called on international organizations for help after direct threats from the Israeli military (calls, WhatsApp, bombing of his home). No response.

• “He was killed twice, once by the silence of the world and the second time… by not achieving accountability against his murderers.” – Abed [41:19]

Structural Impunity and Media Complicity

• Western media amplified Israeli claims against al Sharif (e.g., alleging he was a “Hamas militant”), affecting global perception, and contributing to ongoing dangers faced by journalists.

---

The Human Cost: Grief, Layoffs, Malnutrition

Palestinians Journalists Under Siege

• Mohammed Washi and his brother Ahmed: Both Al Jazeera journalists, killed in separate strikes, the latter with no evidence of militancy other than holding a gun as a cameraman.

• Media layoffs: Al Jazeera recently laid off 24 Gaza staff without reason, compounding hardship for survivors, raising suspicion of external (US/Trump/Israel) political pressure.

  • “If they [journalists] don’t die or if they don’t get killed, Al Jazeera would fire them. That’s in his own words.” – Abed [46:06]

• Media double standards:

  • Non-Palestinian/Western journalists with visible military connections face no repercussions, while Gazan reporters are scapegoated and devalued.
  • "It's very appalling and racist." – Abed [51:00]

Ongoing Trauma and Barriers

• Malnutrition and Disease:

  • After leaving, Abu Bakr is still treated for hepatitis A and malnutrition in Ireland, an ongoing health effect from his time reporting in Gaza.
  • Evacuations for medical treatment have dropped to zero under the Trump administration; even Biden only allowed limited numbers.
  • Thousands of children remain untreated due to Israel’s restrictions and lack of international reprieve:
    • “There is an unbelievable degree of racism and...simply discrimination against Palestinians, whether they're students, wounded children and families or any other part of the society.” – Abed [62:25]

• Working Under Siege:

  • Ongoing displacement, lack of food, using obsolete equipment, dangerous journeys to report stories.
  • "Even the workplaces where Palestinian journalists are working in Gaza are actually attempted workplace. It's from, made from flimsy, leaky tents." – Abed [63:21]
  • Banks overwhelmed; cannot even withdraw money for daily survival.

Call for International Pressure

• Abed, having initially opposed international reporters entering Gaza, now calls for more pressure on Israel to allow international, especially Western, journalists in—since Gazan reporters are too easily targeted with impunity.

---

The Politics of Humanitarian Visas: Focus on Ireland

• Despite historical Irish support for Palestine, Ireland is not waiving visa requirements for Gazans even as it did for Ukrainians.
• Palestinian students with scholarships stuck due to Kafkaesque demands for financial proof, “strong ties” to Gaza (which lies in ruins).
• Irish government still deeply tied to US and Israel— solidary for Palestine largely symbolic.
  • "It's a myth of solidarity. The Irish government...is complicit and has blood on its hands." – Abed [80:22]
  • 75 Irish citizens served in the IDF during the genocide.

---

III. US Politics: The Israel Lobby and Changing Party Dynamics

Upcoming Drop Site Event:

• Live Stream Promo: Special event with Eli Clifton (author of a new Israel lobby book), drawing connections between current US institutional dynamics and the increasing normalization and legal codification of pro-Israel stances.

Election Updates

• Democratic primaries in MI, WI, MN with strong Palestine undercurrents.
• Notable races:
  • South Carolina: Mark(“Matt”) Lynch running against AIPAC funding in a Republican primary, may repeat his previous credible challenge to Lindsey Graham.
  • MN: Peggy Flanagan (progressive, anti-AIPAC) vs. Angie Craig (Dem establishment, huge dark money).
  • Wisconsin: Fran Hong’s unexpected surge concerning "end of wokeness" debates and anti-cancel culture rhetoric.

The Cancel Culture Discourse

• Reflection on the shifting meaning of “cancel culture”—now weaponized more aggressively against anti-war and pro-Palestinian voices than in “wokeness 1.0.”
  • “Most people forget that the biggest cancel culture for years and years and years was of anti war voices. But more than anything else, the Palestine exception.” – Kouddous [88:35]
  • Recounting Haverford College’s policies institutionalizing Zionism-protection as a protected category above all others.
• “Whatever woke one was, and however many excesses there were, it never got remotely that institutionalized into the apparatus of the state and the institutions itself.” – Grim [90:56]

---

Select Notable Quotes (w/ Timestamps & Attribution)

• “It seems like we’re entering a situation where it’s a lose, lose for everybody.”
  — Murtaza Hussain [02:52]

• “You’d be insane to believe there wouldn’t be an economic depression... when not enough energy is reaching the global markets, hospitals can’t function properly... People will die and at a very massive scale.”
  — Brett Erickson [21:14]

• “He was killed twice, once by the silence of the world and the and the second time was by not, not achieving accountability against his murderers.”
  — Abu Bakr Abed [41:19]

• “They’re just people who can be sacrificed. But for white journalists...they’re more sacred for them. And it’s very appalling and racist.”
  — Abed [51:00]

• “Most people forget that the biggest cancel culture was of anti-war voices ... the Palestine exception.”
  — Sharif Abdul Kouddous [88:35]

---

Important Timestamps & Segments

• [00:00–08:00] – Introduction, US economic impact, Strategic Petroleum Reserve update
• [08:00–34:41] – Brett Erickson: Oil math, the blockade’s global implications, escalation risk, sustainability of Omani route
• [34:51–53:38] – Remembering Anas al Sharif, targeted killings of journalists, media complicity, layoffs at Al Jazeera
• [53:38–69:33] – Gaza journalists’ trauma, denial of medical evacuation, impact on families, Ireland’s politicized visa process
• [69:33–80:22] – Irish government’s complicity in Israeli/US policy, false solidarity rhetoric
• [80:22–92:48] – Political segment: US primaries, the Israel lobby, “cancel culture” discourse, legal suppression of pro-Palestinian voices

---

Tone and Style

• Language: Blunt, factual, deeply informed but with palpable frustration and urgency, especially regarding humanitarian crises and institutional failures.
• Atmosphere: Analytical but deeply human, with space for grief, anger, and a call for accountability.

---

For Further Engagement

• Audio & Transcript of Anas al Sharif: Excerpts posted on dropsitenews.com and Instagram.
• Upcoming Subscriber Event: Israel Lobby book live-stream tomorrow @ 7pm. Sign up at dropsitenews.com.

---

This summary is crafted to provide those who missed the episode with a comprehensive, nuanced understanding of both the macro-level economic and political developments, as well as the human stories—and ongoing injustices—on the ground in Gaza and beyond.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to the drop site News Tuesday Morning Livestream. I'm your host this week, Murtaza Hussain. I'll be joined later on by colleagues Ryan Grimm and then Sharif Abdul Kaddus and also Abu Bakr Abed. We have a really good show this week. We're going to be talking about a number of different things. First of all, the current ongoing war of economic sieges between Iran and the United States over the Strait of Hormuz. The war itself has settled into a kind of stasis where both sides are trying to inflict economic harm on each other to try to make the situation untenable for the other party. We have a guest coming on later, Brett Erickson. He's the economics and geopolitical expert, specifically on markets and so forth, to discuss the mathematics behind this siege and who's likely to prevail and also the impact in global financial markets and oil markets from having this very critical waterway choked off for so long. There's a lot of impacts that people would not expect in global bond markets and so forth which are affecting people in the United States and beyond, but are going to amplify as time goes on if the situation is not resolved decisively by one side or the other. So we're going to talk about that. And later we're going to talk with Abu Bakr and Sharif about the one year anniversary of the killing of journalist Anas al Sharif in Gaza and the many, many journalists who've been killed in Gaza during the genocide over the past three years. Almost now. But first, I want to bring Ryan on just to chat a bit before we have Brett on. Ryan, good to see you.

[B]

Yeah. How you doing, Maz?

[A]

So before we have Brett on, I want to talk a little bit with you just about the economic situation both in the United States and globally now that we're settled into. Almost like a permanent standoff with Iran or a situation which is a war or just short of war. Food prices in the US have gone up. Inflation is going crazy in the US Bond prices are going up, is going to affect the financing costs of everything. People refinancing their mortgages and so forth will be affected by that. And there's not really a solution on the horizon, it seems. And there's a headline I was looking at this morning before the show started that the US Strategic Petroleum reserves have actually dipped to its lowest level in like four decades. These reserves are basically there for emergencies. They release huge millions of barrels of oil to the market to cool the markets and to make sure shortages and Things like that don't happen in the case of a war. There was a major release for the Ukraine war and now another one for the Iran war. And now it's under 300 million barrels, which would mean that if there's another release of 150 million barrels or so, it would come close to this level where it's almost dangerous to continue operating it because it needs to have 70 million barrels to maintain some sort of structural stability in the actual caves where the oil is kept. So it seems like we're entering a situation where it's a lose, lose for everybody. I was kind of curious in your perspective as well too, because Trump actually campaign specifically on economic well being for ordinary people in the United States and avoiding costly foreign entanglements. It seems to be completely at odds with that as we're heading through the midterms. And I imagine it's going to be something that affects people's the way people vote in. Much of the economy is suffering quite a bit now.

[B]

Yeah, he completely abandoned the entire premise of his comeback other than retribution. His entire premise was eggs are too expensive, grocery prices are too expensive, inflation's out of control. Biden did this. I'm going to come in, I'm going to fix this, I'm going to make everybody's life more, more, a little bit, little bit easier, give you a little more breathing room. He has explicitly said he's not interested in that anymore. He calls this short term pain for, for long term gain. Last week, I believe Brett knows these numbers a lot better than I do. Something like 6 million barrels were released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He can get into those, into that with some more precision and talk about what that means long term. I think one, one thing that I haven't seen kicked around much is so people are wondering, yes, this is really, really bad. Like, things are going terribly here in the United States and much more so around the rest of the world. We're kind of cushioned more than almost any other country from the consequences of our own actions. But, and so people are wondering like, why hasn't it gotten even worse? And I think there's a lot of kind of engineering that has gone on to arrange that. But I also think what people need to try to think back to is where things would be had this not happened. If you go back to February, mortgage interest rates and interest rates had come under 4%, mortgage interest rates had come under 4% for the first time since, you know, since spiking many years prior, which was starting to open up the, the housing economy. Like, finally, people who had been locked into these, you know, very low interest rates that they had refinanced into during COVID were saying, okay, you know what? I can actually now sell my home. And because I can sell my home, then somebody else can buy the home. And so you've had, know, for, you know, seven years or so, effectively an entire generation of people locked out of the housing market that was finally starting to thaw. You were, you were, you were seeing inflation coming down. You were seeing, you were seeing a real kind of economic rebound, slash, return to normalcy. And the, and the trend lines were all in a pretty positive direction, except for all of the volatility and insanity caused by Trump's, you know, Liberation Day and the, and the tariff policies, which hadn't quite buffeted the economy completely yet because the world was hoping that this was just a thing, a phase that he was into. And it was going to, you know, it was causing real damage, but it wasn't causing the kind it would if it stuck around permanently. And so if you imagine where the world would be and what prices would be like and what the economy would be like in a world say, you know, six months later where, where we did not go to war, I think the gap between that and where we are is much greater than kind of the gap between where we were in February, because things still sucked in February hadn't quite gotten better yet. So I think that partly explains when people are saying, why haven't things gotten much worse? Well, they're much worse relative to where they would be if Trump hadn't completely derailed the process of this, this recovery and sent us off into this, into this odd place. I see Brad is here.

[A]

There's.

[B]

Because there's a lot, There's a lot going on underneath the hood, whether it comes to the collapse of so forth. That is interrelated here.

[A]

Yeah, absolutely. Brett, welcome to the show.

[C]

Absolutely. Thank you guys for having me here.

[A]

Yeah. So, Brett, I've been following your analysis for quite some time during the war, actually, and it's very interesting because you've been able to fill in some of the math behind the numbers of the US's proposed strategies for economic warfare against Iran during the war. Before we get to that, I want to just let listeners know a little bit or viewers know a little bit that in the last 48 hours, there were some interesting developments regarding the possibility of a negotiated settlement to the war. It seemed like there were reports over the weekend that a deal might be at hand and Even Scott Besant and other administration officials seem to be preparing the ground for some sort of concession on the Strait of Hormuz or some sort of diplomatic solution that would open up the Strait in some capacity. But after that, based on apparently allegedly, the US Moving the goalposts at the last minute regarding an agreement, the Iranian side released very onerous, seemingly list of demands for the US on full lifting of sanctions, removal of all US Military assets from the region as a prerequisite to engaging in new talks on the situation. So front loading their demands for an agreement at the beginning and seeming to draw a much harder line in making the prospect of a negotiated settlement less likely. And there were some reporting, as I mentioned, that that may have been response to something happening behind the scenes in the talks on the US Side. And, and today the Pakistani defense minister, who's not really a reliable source to be honest on these subjects, he said that a deal is still at hand, some peace agreements happening, and so forth. It all seems very unlikely at the moment or seems very ambiguous at best. But I did want to ask you something very particular because me and Ryan were discussing before he came on the impact in global financial markets, global oil reserves and so forth. And it seems like it's a test of stamina between the US And Iran or the global economy, really, and Iran now, who can last much longer. The Strait is blocked for the most part. Iran is hitting ships coming out of the Strait as much as they can. And the US Is doing this blockade on Iran. And it seems like they're trying to see where hyperinflation or where inflation or where general economic shortages and so forth will bite hardest. I'm curious your perspective on the US Strategy towards Iran at the moment, because they're trying to stop Iran from exporting oil, which is a major lifeblood of the economy. But there's a clock ticking on the US Side as well, too, for all the reasons me and Ryan were mentioning beforehand. Who do you think has more stamina or more leeway in the situation? And how do you think that that siege strategy is likely to play out?

[C]

Yeah, so, I mean, one of the key flaws with the blockade is a

[B]

lot of it is meant to cut

[C]

off those oil revenues. The issue is in the first blockade, they Iran had about 120 to 140 million barrels of oil outside the blockade line. And in May, the average price of brent was about $117 per barrel. Iranian oil was selling at just barely a discount. So they're earning double what they had projected to earn at that Time. As a result, through this month, they're ahead of schedule on their projected oil revenues. And that is definitely a huge aspect in their ability to weather this storm. And then we signed the MoU, and as a result, during those 27 days, Iran was able to export 80 million more barrels of oil, which is about 175% their normal export rate. So while eventually the blockade will bite, we're not seeing that in the rial. The rial has held better than it did prior to the war to the US Dollar, and Iran's inflation rate has not meaningfully been impacted as a result of the blockade here. So we're just not seeing, from a data numbers perspective, we're not seeing much to contribute to an imminent collapse of the Iranian economic infrastructure.

[B]

Just to clarify, Brett, if they were able to push 80 million barrels, export 80 million barrels during the 20 days that the MoU was in, in operation, how long will that. Will those ships be out at sea docking and unloading their cargo such that it continues to bring in revenue even as the. Even if the blockade is like 100 effective when it comes to new ships going out?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, that's a big.

[B]

Are they all unloaded? Weeks, months? Like, what are we talking?

[C]

Yes. I mean, Iran, per their year 1405 budget bill, is only planning to sell oil at 55 a barrel. Right now, Iranian oil is selling it, you know, five, six, seven dollar discounts, but we're trading at, you know, 85 to 90 per barrel. So they're earning significantly more than they have been budgeting for. In addition, their average export rate is about, generally 1.7 million barrels per day. So between those two, I mean, at $55 a barrel, at 80 million barrels, you're looking at 40 days. But when you're talking about selling it at $80 per barrel, you're looking at three months. The other important aspect is generally for Iranian oil sales, because of the need to launder those proceeds and evade sanctions, it can take one, two or even three months for those revenues to hit the Iranian system so that they're actually usable for trade. So, I mean, you're looking at four, five, six months before those revenues fully dry up. And that doesn't even account for the roughly month and a half to two months ahead of budget that they are from being able to export and sell so much before the blockade was implemented. In fact, we even did a reverse blockade essentially by unsanctioning Iranian oil in March under a general license view, where they were able to sell free of sanctions. So they're ahead of schedule and we just let them export 80 million more barrels that they're going to be able to sell at higher than market prices or higher than budgeted prices. So, I mean, we're looking well into 2027 before the those oil revenues actually freeze up. And I mean, then it only starts. I mean, then they're only at budget for that timeline, not even catastrophically below.

[A]

Well, that's a really important point. I want to ask you something too as well, because at the start of the war there was a fear, and actually it happened, that Brent oil prices would go up to 120, 150, maybe even 200 if the straight remains closed. But somehow, even though it's elevated, it stayed around the 80, 85 range at the moment at least, and seems to be stable there despite the fact that there's no political solution on the horizon realistically that we can see. And there's no strict possibility of militarily opening the straits. So all the blockages are still there. Why has it stayed at that relatively manageable level at the moment? And secondly, if the Iranians can go well into 2027 before these budgetary shortfalls really begin to bite regarding their oil sales, where might the global economy be however, by that time if the sieges work out that long and there's no solution to the strait or normalization of traffic there?

[C]

Yeah. So I think this is something that's really critical in understanding how the Iranians have approached this. And again, it's just not compatible with this group of religious extremists that are hell bent on martyrdom here. I mean, they've been exceptionally pragmatic and I think what needs to be understood is they don't have an incentive to escalate beyond what is necessary to win this war after this conflict is over. Their neighboring Gulf countries are not moving to Australia anytime soon. They're still going to be there. They're still going to need to work together and have relations with one another. So a big aspect of this when we look at the global energy markets is early in the conflict, the global energy markets were losing 13, 14 million barrels per day. Now you have Chinese imports down about four and a half million barrels, which is coming back online, but has been a very large part of why global oil prices have not risen more extremely. But you also have this Omani route, and while it's certainly not 8 million barrels per day like some US officials want to claim, it is likely 4 or 5 million barrels per day that are transiting under Project Freedom through the Omani route. And that when combined with the decreases in Chinese demand, when combined with the east west pipeline, and when combined with the increase in global oil production elsewhere around the globe, there is not a significant drop in the amount of oil reaching the market as there was prior to the war. We're looking probably at 3 or 4 million barrels per day that are not reaching the market now, compared to 13 or 14 million barrels per day that it was early in the conflict. But what's worth noting is that very clearly Iran has the ability to much more severely shut down the Omani route or to strike Gulf energy infrastructure or I mean, the Houthis just earlier today sunk a vessel and killed or they didn't sink the vessel, but they killed three sailors there in the Babel Mandeb. So the Iranians and their proxy networks have significant ability to escalate if they decide that they need to escalate. But they don't have incentive to over escalate and cause unnecessary damage if they believe that they can win at the current rate that they're at.

[B]

And what does the math say about their ability to win at this current rate? The global economy is down 3 to 4 million. Why can't the global economy then just kind of stumble along well into 2027?

[C]

Right. So, I mean, I think this is a huge aspect that's been misunderstood or mis communicated in general is it's not the US Economy versus the Iranian economy. If that's the case. Of course, no American or a very small amount of Americans want this work to continue. But the US Economy could survive far longer than the Iranian economy. That's not what it is though. It's the economies in Africa, the economies in Asia. When we look at Japan, when we look at South Korea, you look at India, we look at the fertilizer crisis in Africa, it's those versus the Iranian economy. It's a weak link. Global economies versus the Iranian economy. We can't just have a complete food supply shortage that takes place and gets tens or hundreds of thousands killed. And then just in the United States, like, well, we're fine. We're, we're able to feed our, our people. So I guess screw you guys. No, I mean, it's a global economy, the weak link.

[B]

I guess if you're Trump, Trump, I can imagine Trump saying, well, why can't we. Like, why does Trump, Trump famously does not care like about any.

[D]

Right.

[C]

No, I mean, I think this is, this is a hard part about the economic warfare perspective as well, is we don't have a lot of ability to escalate. This is why we so far haven't really conducted bridge and power plant stay at scale. We haven't struck their oil infrastructure at scale because if we do, Iran can escalate, but that doesn't change just because it's economic warfare versus kinetic military strikes. If it does actually get to the point that the time does become on Washington's side, Iran will just escalate. They'll just attack Gulf energy infrastructure or water desalination or other critical economic infrastructure across the Gulf region and turn the table. You can't believe that they're a group of ideological extremists and then also believe that they aren't going to go down in a pile of grass if push comes to shove. Those two positions just aren't compatible. So to believe that they would not escalate when the economic pain became so severe would just be a ludicrous belief. And then you would be discounting escalation dominance as a whole, which is at the very core of this entire conflict.

[A]

You know, Brett, also for people who maybe don't understand as well too, because you know, to Ryan's point, they will say, well, if you destroy the gun Gulf, great, it's their problem. We'll try to improve fracking here or something like that, engage in autarky and so forth. Very unrealistic ideas. But that's kind of the retort by some of the Trump people that even encouraging these attacks and so forth and start of the war. If there was catastrophic destruction of Gulf economies and infrastructure and so forth, what would be the knock on effects to the global economy? And secondly, you mentioned the weak link aspect as well too. The last week there was a very interesting intervention by the Treasury Department to help stabilize the Japanese yen and so forth. Asia was very, very impacted much more directly by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. In the short term, what other dominoes may start following if this continues, staying at this level of stasis? And if it does escalate, then what would be the implications for the US Economy and global economy to lose the Gulf and so forth or have a significant damage there from the war?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, this is the danger that everyone is facing right now is we're essentially spinning a roulette wheel of economic theory right now. I'd much rather just not be spinning that wheel and be in the status quo that we were prior to the war. But if the, I mean, if, if the escalation spirals out of control in the Middle East, I Don't think anyone can say what the effects would be. I think you'd be insane to believe that there wouldn't be an economic depression. But you also need to understand when we look at economic depressions or even recessions, you know, I mean, people die from starvation during those times. People commit suicide from job loss and losing their homes during economic depressions. You know, when not enough energy is reaching the global markets, hospitals can't function properly and people can't get the necessary emergency care that they need and they die. So there's a lot of death and destruction that comes with economic fallout. It is not so simply just, I can't afford to buy a new pair of shoes this month. It's that people will die and at a very massive scale. You also have to look at the humanitarian aspects. I mean, if, if we get to that point, we're looking at a total humanitarian collapse inside of Iran, which is 93, 95 million people, along with the entire Gulf. I mean, you're, you're just spinning an economic roulette wheel of bad and worse outcomes. And this is, you'd be very hard pressed to be able to make the debate that that is anything resembling a win. And who knows how that actually shakes out inside of Iran. Who's to even say that a total economic collapse inside of Iran or even a change in government inside of Iran is a better net outcome than what we currently have? I mean, they haven't developed nuclear weapons. They haven't, you know, nuked Washington D.C. or Tel Aviv up till now. I mean, who's to say that we'd have a better outcome? Or who's to even say that a total collapse would even reopen the Strait of Hormuz? I mean, we clearly see that it takes very little to stymie maritime shipping through the straits. So you're just spinning a roulette wheel and crossing your fingers that it is not entirely catastrophic. And that's, I just think, not a remotely acceptable outcome, especially from the President, who is very publicly claimed to not want to be the next Herbert Hoover and certainly would be.

[B]

What do we know about the, the physical economy inside Iran and what do we know about their, the ability to get imports separate and apart from products that come through this Strait of Hormuz?

[C]

Yeah, so, I mean, there's obviously a very large part of this and what has been a lot of the pushback to the blockade is they have land borders and people can fly in products as well. And they have Belt and Road Initiative rail lines from China and Russia I mean the ability. And they also have a huge domestic economy that is entirely self reliant. Because of the 47 years of sanctions that they've been under. They've been forced to become very reliant on themselves. So from a food production standpoint, from, I mean we've seen when bombing takes place inside of Iran, how quickly they're able to repair a lot of these roads and rail lines and bridges that have been taken out. They're very self sufficient.

[B]

And what did the, not just, what did the destruction of that, of the steel, their, their kind of massive signature steel plant due to their ability to make those kinds of rapid repairs.

[C]

I mean, not really entirely much. I mean again, they're very self sufficient and again, it's problematic. I mean there has been a ton of economic damage imposed on, on Iran as a result of the bombing campaign. Probably 140, 150 billion there. And then also blockade is probably causing $175 million of losses per day, which is a little broken because you're combining imports and exports there. But again, when you look at the inflation rate over the last month, it halved once the blockade was lifted under the MoU. When you look at the reality, US dollar exchange rate under the MoU it fell from 1.8 million to 1 prior to the conflict to 1.532 at the bottom of the MoU, which is obviously less than it was prior to the war. So it was a better exchange rate after the war ended. So you're looking at a lot of temporary economic pain. But then if they're getting 100 to 120 billion of frozen assets, they're getting ability to extract fees from the straightforward moves. They're getting a reconstruction fund, they're coming out economic net positive in the long term and medium term, even, even the short term. I mean if they get those frozen assets released, they're going to unwind almost all of the economic damage and then be able to have a lot more internal security knowing that there's a very low likelihood that any future US President would launch a war again against Iran. So they're really looking at just a very short timeline of pain. And when you're looking at like the bombing of the school children in Manob and threatening to wipe out the civilization and bombing their water infrastructure and threatening bridge and power plants day, you can't deny that there was a rallying around the flag or at least a total disenchantment of the view of the United States where again they've suffered for 47 years. This isn't new to them. And now they have so much more belief in what had probably been viewed as propaganda of the Great Satan we bought. I mean we killed 168 school children and teachers and threatened to wipe out their civilization. That's pretty great Satany behavior to believe that they can't stand another six months or a year. You just would have a very hard time making that debate. They're just about to collapse at this point when the economic data just does not support that. And there is so much more, more steadfastness around the country of Iran right now.

[A]

This is my last question, but it seems like the US theory of victory as expressed by Trump recently who said that the US is going to be low keying it, quote unquote in the war. So basically trying to get as much oil as you can out of the Straight with the Omani roads and then hoping that these siege eventually bites enough to either force the implosion of Iranian society and economy or at least they force them back to the negotiating table. Unfavorable terms, ostensibly opening up the strait with no preconditions and things like that. Do you think that they can get enough oil out of the Strait on the Omani route? Is that a sustainable situation? Because I know Normally there's about 20 million barrels that come out of the Strait. The US claims that there's 8 million barrels coming out from the Omani Road. Open source intelligence suggests more like 3 to 4 million respectively. Is that enough to sustain the global markets like that? Sort of. Maybe quartering of the Straight is enough life support to keep things going for the next six months or year. Or do you think that that is an unrealistic, for various reasons in addition to the fact that Iran may escalate and start hitting those ships a bit more?

[C]

Yes, I mean, I think it's twofold. So one, something that Roy Johnson just highlighted the other day is the outbound flows of vessels is about three and a half times that of the inflow of vessels. So it's very temporary. Right now there's able to be even, whether it be 3 to 5 million or let's assume 8 million barrels per day moving throughout the Omani route, that's very temporary. If there's not enough replacement vessels coming back in to then be able to continue that perpetually. And that is what we are seeing is there's three and a half times the amount leaving that is entering. But what is worth noting is this is buying time. And I think that is why the premise that people are saying Iran is overplaying their hand is just fundamentally incorrect right now. I would argue that they are underplaying it. By allowing that much to move, move through the Omani route, they clearly have the ability to strike. We see it with the Houthis. They sunk a vessel just last week, entirely encapsized it, and then they killed three more sailors today on a Saudi vessel in the battle of Mandeb. Iran can do the same in Iran can escalate. And again, let's assume that they are unable to strike those vessels and shut that down. They're not just going to roll over and call it quits. They're just going to escalate and strike energy infrastructure across the Gulf. I mean, they're just not going to roll over and allow that to happen. But again, at the same time, they don't have incentive to over escalate if they do not yet feel the need to. But you'd have a really hard time convincing anyone that they do not have the capability to more severely strike those vessels. Right now. It's been much more of a disabling tactic. They, They've proven the ability to kill sailors and to capsize vessels, and they can pull that lever if they need to. They just simply don't have an incentive to. If they believe that time is on their side, which very clearly they do right now, and they believe that they can wait out Trump and they can get the concessions that they need. But if, if push comes to shove, they're just going to escalate. It's the same problem that it's been throughout any escalation option, military or economic or otherwise, throughout this entire war, is Iran holds escalation dominance. And that's something we just fundamentally are incapable of overcoming without, again, spinning that economic roulette wheel that I don't think Trump is willing to spin because it has no guarantee of actual victory and it would make him Herbert Hoover.

[B]

I think you just answered a question that I've. That I've had, and

[A]

I think.

[B]

I think we might have just lost Brett.

[E]

But the.

[B]

I had been wondering why. And Brett, I don't know if you lost this for a second. I was saying. I think you just answered a question that I've. That I've had. I've been wondering why they were allowing, you know, such significant traffic to move through the Omani route when they didn't have to, but now that makes perfect sense. Like, if. So if you're a ship owner and your ships are stuck in the Strait of Hormuz and the U. S Is making some offers to you about they're going to guarantee the safety of your ship. And maybe there are some, you know, behind the scenes, there are some offers that, like, we'll compensate you if this doesn't. Doesn't work out. Obviously the insurers are not interested in insuring this, but we'll take care of it, don't worry. And we're printing money to save Japan. Might as well print a tiny bit just to save a ship. Then as a ship owner, you're like, okay, like, it's either that or I just have this ship stuck there.

[C]

Exactly.

[B]

And I'm bankrupt in four months because I need that ship moving. This is a cash flow business.

[D]

Now.

[B]

Once they're out, when, when Trump calls again, he's like, hey, can you guys roll back in and pick up another delivery and roll back out? I would imagine at that point they're like, yeah, we've got, we have other, you know, we have other business opportunities that don't involve the high likelihood of getting killed and sunk. So we're just.

[C]

Well, and that's. Yeah. And that's the issue too, is like, if right now companies and countries are willing to take that risk, Iran will just kill sailors and sink a vessel, and then that becomes a very different risk calculus. Right now they're, Iran is more focused on disabling vessels, but once people start dying and once vessels start entirely sinking, you're going to see an even greater reduction of inflows because they don't want to be killed. So even if it's right now, you know, three and a half times more exiting than entering once. If Iran feels the need to escalate, which is a key, if they feel the need to, which right now they don't, then you're going to see like a seven times outbound to inbound rate. So it's just going to continue to decrease. It's just a risk management decision where right now it's not good. And clearly the United States is incapable of protecting vessels to a sufficient degree. But what happens when they start getting killed and vessels start being sunk entirely, which Iran clearly has a capability to do, then that's just going to shut down even more. So it's really just a. Iran doesn't have the need to unnecessarily escalate and unnecessarily deteriorate relations with other countries until they need to, and then they will.

[B]

Right. Makes sense.

[A]

Brett, thanks so much for joining us today. It was good to get your Analysis.

[C]

Absolutely appreciate you guys having me here.

[A]

Okay, so next up we have our colleague Srif Altukaddus and our other colleague Abu Bakr al Abed, be talking about the anniversary of the killing of Anas Al Sharif. Sharifa, welcome to the. Welcome to the show.

[E]

Thanks guys. Yeah, as we all know, yesterday was the one year anniversary of the assassination of Palestinian journalist Anas Al Sharif. There were events and vigils yesterday held in Gaza. There were also protests and vigils held across the United States, including in front of the New York Times building yesterday in New York City. You know, Anas Al Sharif and five other journalists were murdered by the Israeli military when they bombed a media tent outside of Shifa Hospital and in a strike that they took credit for and proudly proclaimed had succeeded in assassinating Anas al Sharif. The other journalists, four of them were also with Al Jazeera, his colleagues, Mohammed Kreka, Ibrahim Zoher, Mu' Min Aliwa and Mohammad Nufal. And another journalist from the media outlet Sahet, Mohammed Al Khalidi. And you know, this came Israel's murder of the entire Al Jazeera team in Gaza City came just as they were launching this full scale invasion of Gaza City. And was seen by the journalists still in the city, including, you know, frequent drop side contributor Abdul Qadr Sabah, that it was a warning and a signal that Israel can eliminate the most prominent journalistic voice on the ground at the time in Anas Al Sharif and get away with it. And the day he was killed, Abdul Qadir was on the scene moments after as a close colleague of Anas Al Sharif and really harrowing footage of his body being pulled out of the wreckage. He had emerged at just 28 years old as the most recognized Palestinian journalist that was still alive and still reporting from Gaza. And he had stayed in the north during the entire of Israel's genocidal onslaught. It became a near constant presence on television and online. And he was like many journalists, directly and repeatedly threatened by the Israeli military for many months. He would receive calls on his phone by Israeli army officers telling him to cease coverage, telling him to leave northern Gaza. He received messages and voice notes on WhatsApp from Israeli forces. They would send him a pin location of his location to show that they knew exactly where he was. They bombed his house in Jabalia and killed his father. The Israeli military spokesperson in Arabic would post videos online taunting him. And then In October of 2024, the Israeli military placed Anas Al Sharif and five other Al Jazeera journalists on a hit list and basically claiming that they were going to kill them. And they've now killed two of them, Anastas Sharif and our colleague Hossam Shabet who was assassinated on March 24th, 4th last year in a strike on his car in Bethleha. So There are over 260 Palestinian journalists who have been killed since October 2023 by Israel, which is an unprecedented number in modern history. And they've been killed by this military that is enabled, backed, armed and funded by the United States and Europe. And these killings of journalists have continued through the so called ceasefire that was was put in place in October of last year. But to talk more about journalists in genocide, to remember Anas Al Sharif and other journalists were joined by Palestinian journalist Abu Bakr Abed. He was and is a frequent contributor to Drop Site. He provided some of our most essential coverage on the ground from Gaza. He made the very difficult decision last year to leave Gaza and he's now based in Dublin where he joins us from. Welcome to dropsite Abu Bakr, it's good to have you with us again. Can you first talk about this first anniversary of the killings of Anasa Sharif and his colleagues and five other journalists in an airstrike on a media town last year. What do you think is most important for people to understand about journalists working in Gaza and covering genocide?

[D]

Thank you so much for having me. It's good to be back. Well, there aren't any words to describe how the family Venice feels, how his colleagues feel as well. And you probably also vigil yesterday that happened in front of the place where Eins Shaf was murdered, where the journalist gathered. And I think the overall sentiment at the moment in Gaza is that journalist after the killing spree has intensified over the past few months by the Israeli military. The killing spree of journalists that the overall sentiment is fear is panic to go to rush to the bombed out scenes and to report in them. And honestly because I left Gaza a year ago, I think it has become even harder for journalists to work or report freely, independently and to go to the bombed out scenes because the double tap strikes or technologies techniques have been used repeatedly by Israel during these times. And we saw that inside Nasser medical complex when also a group of journalists were murdered. And the Israeli military denied it first and then it said it was a Hamas camera. So it's pretty appalling what we're seeing at the moment. I think what I'm setting most about regarding NSG Sharif is that he repeatedly called on on international committees to protect journalists and International media organizations to protect him. He flagged up all these threats directed at him by Israeli military officers and by pro Israel media personalities but there was no response. And I believe that the world failed him and as well said in his opinion yesterday in algaes or English he said that he was killed by. He was killed twice, once by the silence of the world and the and the second time was by not, not achieving accountability against his murderers. And he's right, he's absolutely spot on. We haven't seen any response. The killing of journalists continued unabated since his killing. And when we are talking about ns Sheriff, he was truly the eyes of Gaza, the most popular Arabic speaking journalists in Gaza, the one who covered northern Gaza. I think without him we didn't have known anything about what happened in northern Gaza. The general general's plan back in late 2024, the catastrophic famine levels in parts of northern Gaza, the destruction depleted arbitration operations that have been used by or that have been carried out by the Israeli military in vast parts of Jabalia and Beit Lahia wouldn't have known anything about that weren't it for the likes of anecdote who was one of the very, very few journalists and reporters to remain in northern Gaza. So it's a heartbreaking loss and I think since his killing we haven't seen as much coverage as when he was alive. So this loss is not just one that concerns Al Jazeera, it concerns the entire media or journalist community in Gaza and around the globe. But I don't believe that Western mainstream media and most of the Western media outlets, including the Arab media, scare much about it because they have been regurgitating all this propaganda, believing Israel's token points as if he was a literal Hamas or whatever operative, which wasn't proved at all. It was a baseless allegation that other media outlets took as fact. So we're talking about massive loss.

[E]

Well, I think it bears repeating. Also as you mentioned, the coverage by Western media outlets has enabled this killing to continue. Especially in the case of Anastas Sharif. We saw, you know, Reuters won a Pulitzer Prize for photography the year prior and one of the submissions in that prize was a photo by Anas Al Sharif of Jabalia of this massive bombardment of Jabalia and their coverage the day that he was assassinated repeated in the headline and in the lead, Israel's claims that he was a Hamas militant. It did put denials but then it said, you know, his employer Al Jazeera, which is funded by the Qatari government, denies these claims. Then much further down in the article, it said that, you know, CPJ and the UN Also find these claims unsubstantiated but really kind of shocking coverage for a reporter that helped it win its appeal. Surprise. And also, I think, you know, a lot of people, a lot of the world has turned away from coverage of Gaza, firstly because of a so called ceasefire that the US and Israel have very much pushed to have it portrayed as an actual ceasefire, when in fact, you know, the killing has, has, has continued. But also because of the war in Iran and in Lebanon, attention has turned away. And I think actually the last time we had you on the live stream, Abu Bakr was to talk about a journalist who was assassinated in April, Mohammed Washe, who was a close friend of yours and a mentor. He was assassinated in an airstrike on his car west of Gaza City. And again, the Israeli military bragged about his killing just in late June. His younger brother Ahmed was also killed in a strike, I think, I believe in Burej refugee camp. His brother was just 25 years old and he was Muhammad's cameraman. Right. He was also working for Al Jazeera. I believe he was the 12th Al Jazeera journalist to be killed. He would set up the shots for Muhammad. They worked together as a team. He took care of Muhammad's children after Muhammad was killed in April and then he's killed in June and the Israeli military again brags about it and claims without even bothering to provide any supposed evidence that he's a Hamas terrorist. You know, what kind of effect does this have on the journalist community in Gaza? And then I do want to ask you about journalists being fired and losing their jobs recently.

[D]

I think first it's important to note that when it came to Mohamed Al Shah's project Brother, the only evidence that Israeli military posted was him holding a gun and firing shots from a gun. And I think if you want to talk about this particular evidence, all Israeli journalists are legitimate targets and must be killed and must be assassinated. There wasn't a single proof that Ahmed Usha was a, a member of any political or armed resistance group. There was an atoll, but all these laws have been regurgitated all the time. Even when Zohra Mamdani honored him or paid him a tribute, there were attacks on him by the so called U. N. Israeli ambassador and other Israeli officials that he wasn't a journalist, but he was a, an operative. And we have seen, like I've seen it myself on Instagram and other social media platforms that Israeli journalists are Actually embedded in, with the Israeli military into parts of Gaza, which is illegal, which is an occupied piece of land. And they're holding guns and they're having, you know, these love vests with, with the, with Israeli soldiers. And nobody talks about it, see. And, and as I said, as I mentioned before in the last time CNN hired a, an actual ex Israeli soldier who posted a picture of herself on a tank. So I, I think the level of ambition, impunity. Israel is drunk on impunity to kill journalists. The levels of impunity that we have seen are absolutely astounding. And what hurts more, as you just mentioned, the way these journalists are being treated and it becomes more hurtful and painful from a news outlet like Al Jazeera on Jonas himself been murdered in Gaza. And they should have been the champions of the rights of the Palestinian journalists as they have always portrayed themselves as like, as such. So There have been 24 layoffs recently by Al Jazeera to 20 like to journalists in Gaza. Not only journalists, but also photographers and cameramen. And there weren't any reasons clarified to those reporters. And I spoke to the, I think one of them spoke out on this, on the suppression which he believes to be something like a policy against Palestinian journalists that if they don't die or if they don't get killed, Al Jazeera would fire them. That's in his own words. And Mahmoud Shah, when we talk about him, he's, he's the nephew of Anasi Sharif and he's just 22, 23 years old. He was born in 2024. He's the sole survivor among northern Gaza journalists. He stayed there in the north. I was talking to him quite repeatedly. I've been talking to him quite repeatedly over the past week since his, since the decision he received from Al Jazeera. And he talked to me that, that he literally imperiled his life every time he was quoting for Al Jazeera with Anas Sharif. And one of the striking things that he told me, he said that I think, I believe if Anesthesia Sharif stayed alive, they wouldn't have fired me. I think that there would be a different scenario. And he said to me I was, I was doing my work at around noon and a week ago, quite a week ago and then I received a call, call from Al Jazeera Gaza office. And they called me and they said well, that I have been fired and thank you for your service or for your work. And he asked for the reasons. He reached out to the administration, Qatar about to ask about the reasons and no reasons were, were unraveled for him at all. And he feels a lot of pain because his benefits or his benefit entitlements haven't been paid. He wasn't told that they would be paid. And you know, we're talking about someone who has lost his home, who has lost several members of his family. All of his friends have been murdered in plain sight in front of his eyes. He doesn't have a house. He's just a young man trying to survive the days. And the fact that he like he told me a lot of the times that we were rushing to the, to the bombarded places, risking their lives lives on a, on an animal drawn cart, walking sometimes like running in the streets. And we were bombed three times, we survived attacks multiple times just to receive such a, an unfair decision. And I feel his pain. I think the way even he told me like the way he has been treated is completely inhumane. And when you talk about, about these journalists who have been ground down by, by several media, it's not all the Al Jazeera, it kind of like weighs you down with a lot of despair and disappointment at how actually which is the question that we need to ask Western media outlets and every media outlet treats Palestinian journalists. And if we are just want to do sloganeering about Palestinian journalists and not giving them anything, then we shouldn't run any media analyst in my opinion because these journalists have done the most extraordinary job in our lifetimes. I don't think there, there's any comparison to it. So it's very frustrating. And, and just one final point on that also. Al Jazeera English previous Gaza crew who chose the safety of overstaying Gaza, they were all fired without any reasons. All of them. And we, and they are staff, some of them who have worked for Al Jazeera English for many years, for over 10 years. And they covered the 2020 war on Gaza. They covered the numerous escalations and the great return of the Great return marches in 2018. And they were, they were subjected, subjected to this level of horror all the, the time inside Gaza, inside what we call an open air prison now. It's a close air prison. And then they were fired because it shows their safety. And if this means something, we can't really shy away from saying it. It means that Palestinian journalists from most media outlets are scapegoats. They're just people who can be sacrificed. But for white journalists, with respect or, or any other type of journalists nor they're more sacred for them. And it's very appalling and racist.

[B]

Yeah. Abu Bakr, when it comes to the amount of money that the, that Al Jazeera was paying to these journalists, whether Arabic or, or English, to the journalists themselves and to their families, you know, it's, it's, it's a lifeline to Al Jazeera. They wouldn't notice, you know, they'd sneeze and lose more money than that in their executive office offices. So it can't, it can't be as if they had a, they had a meeting to decide like how to tighten their budget and they decided they had to fire all of these heroic journalists. Like the, the meeting that they would host would cost more just be for all of the different chauffeurs and you know, by the time the meeting was over they, they could pay for the, that entire budget. So that means something other than money is driving this. Do you, do you get a sense that some of this is being driven by them cater to the Trump administration or Israel? What, what do you, what's your sense of what's going on?

[D]

I believe so the way, because I've been like, I've been following closely upon, not particular coverage of the, of the genocide in Gaza. Al Jazeera English run coverage of Gaza in the first month of two months into genocide, saying it's an Israel Hamas war and they were trying to water down their statements and to tone down their language when it comes to covering Israel's war crimes and what they're doing in Gaza. And I think it's quite infamous because I believe the US Sphere of influence over Al Jazeera and Qatar is very large. It's very Gangachuan indeed. And we all know that what, what the Qatari relations with the United States are like. So I believe there has been like that the coverage of Al Jazeera, the reporting of Al Jazeera on Gaza has been meddled with by the United States. I do believe in that and because if you see Al Jazeera English in particular, how they have been reporting this genocide, it tells you a lot that or traces the questions about, about what you have just mentioned. But you're right, like I don't the budget or, or the budget wouldn't be much affected if those journalists were stayed and were reinstated. It wouldn't affect them in the slightest. And I don't know, like the reasons are completely mysterious except for the fact that it is a racist, as I said, appalling decision that, that nobody can understand or comprehend.

[E]

I think, I mean I think there also might be just a degree of callousness that, you know, from what I've heard also from people inside Al Jazeera, is that, oh, there's not that much coverage that we need from Gaza now. People are not that interested anymore. There's a quote, unquote, ceasefire, Iran is happening. We don't need these reporters, and they just fire them summarily. It could be something deeper, that there's pressure, and there always has been pressure on Qatar, including during a blockade by Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in Egypt several years ago. One of their primary demands on Qatar was to curb Al Jazeera's coverage. We don't know if that's happening behind the scenes or not or what's playing into this. But what we do know is that, yes, these Palestinian journalists who have performed this heroic task of covering this war, of covering this genocide, have now been cut loose. And their sole livelihood for them, for their families, they're really supporting many, many people around them, has been cut off. I also wanted to ask. A lot of people, don't talk about, there's over 260 journalists killed, but so many journalists have been wounded and are not covering anymore, and journalists who have been forced to leave Gaza and are also not able to cover Gaza anymore. And I wanted to ask about your case also, Abu Bakr. Part of the reason that you left Gaza, you had made that very difficult decision that, you know, we were speaking about for a long time, was you were suffering very deeply from malnutrition and your life was beginning to be in danger. And also you were afraid because journalists were being so targeted that you were putting danger on your family because journalist families were being killed alongside them as they were being hit. But on this issue of malnutrition, you were still suffering the health effects of the malnutrition that you had in Gaza. Can you talk a little bit about that and how it's still lingering, actually?

[D]

So last month, I was. I was diagnosed again with hepatitis A virus, which happened to me in Gaza during the genocide and before the genocide, in 2022. And when I came here, Thailand, although I was examined, my full body was examined, there were no marks of the disease. So suddenly I started feeling very fatigued and very malnourished and. And very fragile. So I went to the hospital, and then the hospital asked me to stay in the hospital for two nights. And then they found out that I am still suffering from symptoms of hepatitis A virus and from malnutrition. So that I needed to take care of myself, eat more and go on a diet that would help me recuperate in the best way possible. And it was very depressing for me. I think I didn't expect that after almost a year from leaving Gaza, since leaving Gaza that I would pick up these issues again. And now they are recurring. And I'm actually my last two weeks of recovery, I haven't recovered fully from it yet. And it is something that has really devastated me over the past few weeks. And I was talking to you Sher, to you Sharif, about it and about the treatment process and it's no surprise, but I'm not as much saddened by my disease as by those in Gaza, by the diseases that people are suffering from Gaza. You're talking about thousands who are still stuck in the territory, who want to be treated outside, who want to get outside for me. But they are being denied by the Israelis. And I and I don't know why they're being denied. Children are dying every single day. They're succumbing to the wounds, to their diseases and they don't have some kind of reprieve at all. They don't have a way to get out of Gaza. There are so many draconian restrictions on the movements of these patients outside Gaza, of these genocides people outside of Gaza. And I really want to mention something if you allow me, on, on, on probably it's quite related to the American politics and what is happening right now. And that's why I, I doubled down on this point probably in the past that it's very important. It's very notable that under the Biden administration that children from Gaza were being evacuated to get treatment in the United States. And we have seen the, this increasing from a time to time during the Trump, during the Biden administration. But when Trump came into power now there aren't any children getting evacuated into the United States hospitals. There aren't any families, any students who are despite the fact that they are given scholarships by United States, by American universities, but the US Military administration denies them visas and they can't really go to the United States. So there's also probably I know Biden and I know Trump and what they stand for, but there's also a better side of the Democratic Party that Palestinians were allowed to go to the United States and were allowed despite their both parties complicity that they were allowed to go to the United States to receive the treatment they wanted. And there are actually from the Biden administration thousands of children, probably hundreds, maybe thousands actually don't know, but there are hundreds of impeded children who are now being treated inside the United States hospitals. And that is very important. But since the Trump administration, this hasn't, this hasn't happened at all. It happened first in trips and traps, but then it hasn't happened at all, was cut off completely. So there are many aspects to this. And I receive pleas every time from people in Gaza for the children to be evacuated because they're suffering from these signs of malnutrition and patches of other diseases and viral infections, but they can't get evacuated. They need agreement from third parties or countries in Europe, but they are not getting it. And now what I what my understanding because I've talked to people, to students and to patients, families in Gaza, that they are now even putting more restrictions on families in Gaza because they believe that there's a ceasefire ongoing, that the situation is getting better, that the healthcare system has restored its, its kind of malicing Gaza, and that people can receive treatment inside Gaza's precarious and decimated healthcare sector, which I find appalling. So as I just said, we're getting back to the same point that there is an unbelievable degree of racism and as you said, rightly, said Sharif, callousness and supremacy, I would believe, against and discrimination against Palestinians, whether they're students, wounded children and families or any other part of the society.

[A]

Abu Bakr, despite everything, there's still some journalists who are still in Gaza dealing with these conditions, Israeli attacks and being part of the suffering of Gazans in general, famine, disease and so forth. And you yourself, as Sharif mentioned, experienced a lot of this. Can you talk a bit about what it's like to be a journalist and being subject to displacement and lack of hunger and still having to find a way to work in those conditions and what people who are still reporting from Gaza may be experiencing today.

[D]

I mean, I'm short of words when it comes to describing these conditions. When I was in Gaza and I was talking much to Sharif and Ryan and Jeremy and about the conditions and every five minutes, literally there was an airstair nearby our adjacent air strike. And we reported in the much on this, on the cop bombing of parts of Darul Bala, the invasion of Eastern Darula. And a lot of these things were happening like quite 1km, 2km from where I live. And besides that, it's very like people don't understand and won't understand until they get into Gazan sea and meet Palestinian journalists and how they operate inside the pulverized territory themselves, what they are doing and how they're reporting. Most of these journalists have families. They have families to take care of. They have families to provide food and water for and they are living in dilapidated tents. Even the workplaces where Palestinian journalists are working in Gaza are actually attempted workplace. It's from, made from flimsy, leaky tents. So when it's, when it's, when it's winter, they are drowning in water and floods and their tents are blown away. When it's, when it's summer they are, it's scorching heat and they can't bear it. So that's life for them. They have families to take care of. And then you have these layoffs from these media outlets. So how can they continue to survive? Not only that, but some of the journalists who live on the eastern outskirts of the entire Gaza Strip are forced to leave as Israel continues to expand its occupation of Gaza, particularly from the eastern side of the Strip or from the eastern regions of the Strip that this expands to where they live, especially in Al Say, to a neighborhood in Gaza City, in central Gaza's Al refugee camp, parts of Der El Palah and more to the eastern outskirts of Khan Yunus, like Absan. And some of these journalists are living there. So when Israel expands its occupation of Gaza, it's, they have to leave their homes if, even if they have homes in the first place and they have to move and relocate, relocate to another place. And besides all of that, it's also very significant to know that even if they want to get their money out from their banks, either cash or pay by card, which has become, which has become a frequent, a recent frequent transaction among Gazans when the ceasefire took effect, the so called ceasefire took effect. But when they want to, to draw cash from the banks, the, the banks are overwhelmed. They are inundated with hundreds, but even thousands of people. So they can't get the cash out to continue the work and to continue their operations. And, and, and as a matter of fact, they're using Babel like I talked to more of them to so many of these journalists. They're using old phones like you're talking about Xiaomi, which is a Chinese company, a phone that was created, created in 2012 or somebody else using a Samsung phone from 2010 or somebody using a camera that, that dates back to 2010 even before. So they're using the same, the same like equipment that they have got hold of since, for many, many years. And it is like, as I said, it is appalling. There's not much pressure. I think Ryan and I were talking about something that I'm a PO like I'm Opposing I'm completely imposing the, the, to allow like international journals to get into Gaza. But now I have completely changed my opinion. The, the fear that has been sparked among Gaza journalists to report on the situation. I know Western reporters, Mr. Media, mainstream media reports are biased for Israel, towards Israel. But now the situation has been upended. I think now we need them because if you have journalists in Gaza who are very worried about their lives and the lives of their families and they have everything to lose right now. I know Gaza is decimated and obliterated, but they can't afford to lose more journalists. There are a few journalists who deserve like, who are very much needed now to, to survive. So there has to be more pressure from international organized media organizations on the Israeli military and Israeli government to be allowed into Gaza. But we haven't seen even this sincerity, I would say to get into Gaza and amplify the voices of people in Gaza. So I think I have changed my opinion completely after what I've heard from people. Like I have advised you understand, to go and cover some stories and they've told me, no, we're not going to do it. It's a dangerous place and we know what's going to happen. So if Israel would, would probably back down a little bit if it is a white journalist going to that place and covering the story. But if it is a Palestinian journalist, their lives don't matter anymore for them. Like they can target anyone, they can go after anyone and it doesn't make any difference difference. But I'm sure like journalists in Gaza are more than willing to help, you know, Western journalists to cover stories in Gaza. But I think it's, it's now the time more than ever. It is the time more than ever.

[E]

Abubakr I just thought with just one final question and going back on this issue of visas, as you mentioned, the Trump administration issued a blanket ban on any Palestinian receiving a visa to the United States. And of course that affected medical evacuations too. The US Wasn't taking many medical evacuees, but they did take some and those were significant. But you're now based in Ireland and you had a piece recently in Electronic Intifada talking about how Ireland now is restricting visas for students from Gaza. These are, there are students who have already received fully funded scholarships to Irish universities and are now not being granted the visas. Can you talk about what's happening in Ireland?

[D]

Yeah. So I'm just going to start with a new update because I have received a reply from the Justice Minister or Justice Minister's Office and he noted that, well, there aren't any special arrangements for Palestinians nor will be, nor like will be in the near future for Palestinian students or Palestinian nationals to come into Ireland, despite what they call the humanitarian crisis. And I, and I am astonished by the double standards here because in 2022 the Taoiseach of Ireland, which means the Prime Minister of Ireland, Ireland, Mihail Martin, who's right now also the Prime Minister of Ireland, he issued a statement back in 2022 shortly after the war between Ukraine and Russia broke out. He said that Ukrainian citizens, and I'm quoting him, the Ukrainian citizens to be visas for Ukrainian citizens to be waived because of the humanitarian situation and that this situation with Trump anything. But now you can see yourself what the response looks like that there won't be any special arrangements for Palestinian students and they are treated as any other student or like any other students from around the globe. And it's quite interesting because last year, according to the stats in Ireland, Ireland has accepted over 40,000 international students and most of them come from India. And those are privately funded scholarships that the Indians come on or are accepted onto. The same with Palestinians. Most of the Palestinian students who have been, who have traveled to Ireland over the past two years in particular because these, these evacuations have happened in coordination with the Kat Disre militaries, especially on it on the borders and with the Foreign affairs Department and with Jordanian officials. And it tells a lot. It actually tells a lot that if you look at how these Palestinian students are being treated and we have looked at the rejection letters, these Palestinian students are also privately funded. They have been accepted and to fully funded scholarships. The ones who have been accepted into fully funded scholarships, state funded scholarships, have been granted visas. The others were not because they're privately funded by external donors or private donors. It is the same story with Indians, Brazilians, Americans even and other students. And the reason they're being denied as spelled out in the rejection Lotus, that they have to account for the gaps in education. And I and, and as she said, like as the, the office of the Justice Minister wrote to me in the in, in his reply, that he is acutely aware of the humanitarian crisis, but if he is, then he knows that Gaza universities have been annihilated, that there's not a single standing university inside the Gaza Gaza Strip at the moment, which doesn't seem, which doesn't seem that he's acutely aware they're asking them to provide financial proof. And I don't know how audacious it can be for Someone to ask people in Gaza who have been starved to death, who have been bombarded during the past few years to provide financial proof of thousands, tens of thousands of euros. And they're asking them to show family circumstances, to show proof of family circumstances. And these people, like I saw one of the rejection letters and one of the women, the female students, she wrote in her visa application that she left or she left in a tented city. And I don't know how they have asked her for a proof of family circumstances. And above all of that, they're asking them to show strong obligations to return to Gaza and Gaza at least if the reconstruction process or the recovery process starts now. It needs more than a decade at least to get back on its feet. But that's not the case for them, for the Irish immigration officials. And they're putting these stringent, therefore imposing these stringent draconian restrictions and requirements, requirements on the students to just push them away from coming to Ireland. And there has been a protest, which was very heartbreaking to see in Gaza City by some of these students calling on the Irish government to allow them to come to Ireland this month. Now, I have heard early in the morning from local sources that there will be a court of students evacuated during this month, on the 24th of August, if not, if the Israeli military doesn't block it. But these students, there hasn't been any information revealed whether the students, whether or not the students are those who are privately funded or state funded. So things are quite murky at the moment. But I believe, like, all these stances, as I just said, the way they treated Ukrainian citizens and the way they are treating Ukraine Palestinians, including Palestinian children who have been wounded during the genocide, is really, really outstandingly appalling.

[B]

Yeah, Ireland is one quick follow up there. Ireland is, you know, famously in the abstract, very, you know, pro Palestine. But what, what is, what are the politics like domestically on the ground when it comes to, you know, Palestinians who are in Ireland? And is there, is there some xenophobic pressure that is, that is on these, on these officials, that is pushing them to be more restrictive? Like, what's, what's driving this? Because I think people who are watching are like, wait a minute, I thought Ireland was one of the best countries in the world when it came to, when it comes to supporting, you know, Palestinian rights and dignity.

[D]

There's an enormous level of lobbying on the Irish government to submit to the United States demands in particular and to the Israeli lobby. And this was crystal clear. And in different trains of events during the past Three years particularly I remember one of them, one of the most striking events was the renaming of Herzogen park and Herzog park was. Herzog was the sixth president of Israel. He was, he was responsible for the expulsion of over 250,000 people in occupied territories and he was also responsible for the killing of hundreds of Palestinians and those now occupied villages. And the motion was going to be passed by Dublin City Council council and everyone agreed on that. The people wanted that. The people are very supportive of Palestine. They have shown an unwavering level of solidarity since the genocide broke out. But then there was one objection tweet from one of the American officials and one of them Israeli officials. And then the story went viral and the pressure grew massively on Ireland, on the Irish government. And then the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris released the statements or issued statements that they are very quote, appalled by this motion and that Tazek represents Ireland's history and island's history. We know that it has taken a neutral position for many, many years since their freedom. And then the emotion was cancelled immediately. Concert it was and not only that, because not only that it's also across different, like over past times it's, it's also been reported in the Journal, in the local news outlet Journal and in the Dutch as well. The island deliberately allowed the United States to deport Palestinian nationals from the United States. And they were shackled on, on the airplane and they were handcuffed and they knew that they didn't do anything and the airport was used, their airways were used as if nothing was, was wrong with that. And we also know that Ireland also recently in, in mid-2025 and late 2025 paid over 10 million euros in 10 million US taxes for traffic, air traffic for military jets, U. S Military jets that carry weapons to Israel. Also Ireland was reported that it has paid millions of euros in military exports for Israel during only 2024. So actually it's. As somebody like one of the professors that I talked to, it's a myth of, of solidarity. The Irish government despite without the pressure from the people, I think it would be as much as the UK or as much as the United States and Ireland is in fact a settlement for the United. It's a US Settlement whatever. Like the level of investments by the United States and Ireland is, is, is, is unbelievable. And the way its politics are, is being controlled by the United States is also unbelievable. Even when it comes to the occupied territories belt, they, they just removed the services from the, from the bill which constitutes over 70 or nearly 70% of the bill. So it still gives Israel legitimacy. Ireland is the second major trading partner with Israel with over with, with tens of millions of euros. And you can see Israeli products here and in every, almost every shop in Ireland. There are also 75 Irish citizens who have served in the Israeli military during the genocide as it was declassified by the Dutch. So if you want to talk about the Irish government's complicity or the Irish regime's complicity, I would believe we need hours and hours. It's. It's pretty apart and it's very complicit and has blood on its hands. As much as it's a microcosm of the UK government and other Western governments, it's complicit, definitely.

[E]

Well, Abu Bakr, thank you so much for all your work and for all the work you've done for dropsight and all the work you continue to do and for your voice and for speaking out. And I want to remind people that as yesterday was the anniversary of NS's assassination, we posted yesterday for the first time some audio of Anas. We sent him a series of questions back in September of 2024 and he sent me back a 10 minute voice note and we published excerpts of that. If you want to read the full transcript, it's also linked, you can see that on our Instagram sidenews.com and that does it for the show. But Ryan, there's a bunch of primaries today in Michigan and Wisconsin where Palestine, you know, has always been, you know, a key issue in Democratic primaries. But what's happening with our coverage with that? And you're doing a live stream tomorrow?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

So tomorrow we're. Maz and I are doing something with Eli Lake or not Eli Lake. Um, Eli Clifton.

[D]

Rich.

[B]

Sorry, sorry, Eli. This new book on the Israel lobby, that's for. It'll that it's for drop site premium subscribers or whatever you would call people who are paying to support drop site. We'll post it, you know, we'll post the full thing later. But if you want to be there live, you know, just go to dropsitenews.com and sign up to get a, you know, to become a subscriber and support the work we're doing and then join. Join us at 7pm tomorrow night. Yeah. Today, Minnesota, Wisconsin and South Carolina all have primaries. Interestingly South Carolina, I got Matt lynch or Mark Lynch, I forget his first name is running in the Republican primary. This is to finish the term that of Lindsey Graham. He is. He recently has been and has been running kind of against apac, saying I'm the only candidate in this race in South Carolina that is refusing APAC money. He got, he ran against Graham in the previous primary and I think he got 29% of the vote which is pretty respectable for you know, for how long Lindsey Graham had been in the Senate. There's now, it's now a multi way primary with his sister Darlene Graham running to replace him who has Trump support. But there are other Republican candidates who have some base of support as, as well. Darlene interestingly said my, my brother, I will admit was obsessed with war and national security and foreign entanglements and that would not be how I would engage as, as a senator. Kind of an interesting, kind of slight rebuke of her, of her late brother. But if it'll be interesting to see how lynch performs in the South Carolina primary running against, running against APAC, if he can hold that 29% and the rest split the rest of the vote, that it could be a very interesting kind of stunning result for Republican voters there in South Carolina, Minnesota, Peggy Flanagan is, has been kind of refusing APAC money. She's a Lieutenant governor, Native American woman who has been a relentless kind of populist and critic of, of Israel. She's running against Angie Craig who has the very unsubtle endorsement of the Democratic establishment. Kind of a center right, center right House member. So that th, those, those two are neck and neck. Angie Craig has had tens of millions of dollars in dark money spent to prop her up. It's a, it's kind of a, it's, it's, it's similar in its dynamics to what we saw in the Michigan Senate race, but has gotten just a fraction of the attention. But if, if Flanagan has the support of Bernie Sanders, etc, so if she wins, that's gonna, that'll be quite interesting. There's also a very hotly contested place to replace Angie Craig in, in the House between a guy, Matt Klein, who has the support of, of hundreds of thousand dollars worth of APAC bundling, plus millions of dollars that appear to be from pro Israel donors, you know, floating through these various, you know, front vehicles against two other candidates, Matt Little and Kiana Berg. So we'll be watching that one closely as well. And then of course we have Wisconsin where centrist Democrats are absolutely panicking at Fran Hong's surge. Like this candidate who in a previous environment would, would have, you know, no chance whatsoever. And she has just steamrolled her way through opponent after opponent that they've tried to put up to stop her. So we'll, we'll see. We'll see how that goes. Her. Her race has triggered this interesting conversation online about, about the kind of end of wokeness. I don't know if you guys saw this thing, the interview where she was asked about her comments, her previous comments saying that she wanted to cancel Thanksgiving, which is kind of almost a overly cliched, like, instance of like, you know, woke one overreach. And she sort of stood by it and the whole world kind of came down on her and she's like, all right, never mind, never mind. Of course I love Thanksgiving. Everybody loves Thanksgiving. Yes, it's rooted in its own genocide, but we all love. We all love Thanksgiving. And AOC was asked about that and she also laughed it off and said, oh, you know, we all said some crazy stuff.

[E]

She said woke one was crazy.

[B]

Woke one was crazy. Which is. She was quoting the city count, New York City Councilman Chiose. Who's what? He's Queens.

[E]

He's a Bed Stuy.

[B]

That's high. Yeah. And so it. There's this interesting moment where the, the. That that wing of the Democratic Party is running on the moral authority that that was accrued during that period. Sticking with a lot of the substance, yet trying to distance itself from some of the stuff that's more, you know, electorally difficult for them to. To run on now, while yet not quite ever acknowledging that it ever happened. Like we're kind of getting a denouncing of cancel culture from some elements of the left before they've ever actually acknowledged that it was ever a thing, which is kind of a funny kind of gap to try to live in. Like you, you are. You're denouncing a thing. You're denouncing a thing that you won't quite acknowledge ever existed.

[A]

I think Abdul Al said something the other day that in regards to Hassan Piker and someone asking him about on cnn, that we don't want to go back to cancel culture of that period. So again, acknowledging that something bad had happened, but without the full, you know, I guess debrief or something, I. I propose a jubilee or like a mass amnesty for all cancellations. 2020, 2023. That period. All crazy statements. Maybe, but I don't know that maybe we're not. Not there yet. Maybe you can attribute to Covid or something as well.

[B]

The deal has to be that if it's, if it's a full jubilee, that okay, we, we will, you know, wave away and give a, give a hall pass to, you know, you you saying that we should like, you know, cancel you for going to a Mexican restaurant and doing cultural appropriation. Like if you said that we're giving you a jubilee for that, but you then have to allow, you know, the trainer, the gym trainer who was fired for, I think unheard, had something about a trip, a guy was running a trivia, trivia contest and mispronounced Nicaragua and was fired. Like, that guy has to be allowed back to society. If you can be forgiven for your tweets about, you know, sushi being cultural appropriation or whatever, I think that could be a fair grand bargain jubilee.

[E]

Well, I think, you know, most people forget that the biggest cancel culture for years and years and years was of anti war voices. But more than anything else, the Palestine exception, I mean, if you said anything about Palestine, you would be canceled. And by all these free speech, so called free speech absolutists, you know, your, your Bill Mahers and Barry Weisses and all of this, they were the prime people doing this canceling of pro Palestinian voices. So it's kind of ridiculous. And also, you know, yes, there was what we call cancel culture, but it's also a movement that's contending, you know, with decades of police brutality and police killing black people. And finally we're having these discussions and there's some accountability. And the moment there's some accountability, the backlash is so vicious that it's now being apologized for. And yes, we have to contend with, maybe there was overreach, but I think the backlash worked in a way.

[A]

And Ryan, to sri's point, you mentioned this woke too, that's much worse than the anti Palestinian enshrining in laws. They're using legal measures to expel people from the country. They're doing terrible things. It's really authoritarian. And they're putting a far worse form of ideological censorship on people on this subject. And it's still escalating as it, as we go on right now. So it is.

[B]

Right, right. Cancel culture as it related to, you know, Zionism. Pro Palestine voices never went away. And now it is kind of becoming, yes, woke to the Haverford. I saw this deal at Haverford College or just Haverford College University, whatever it is Haverford has put out, you know, reached, reached some sort of settlement where they, they insist that any criticism of Zion, like I think their, their statement is Zionism is an essential part of Judaism and therefore any discrimination or criticism of a Zionist is, you know, punishable under, under school rules. So, like, if. I'm sure they've probably already banned you know, students were justice and Palestine at Haverford, but if they hadn't, like, SJP would have to say, sure, we, we would welcome people who completely disagree with our organization into our organization. Otherwise they're all, they're all expelled. Mandatory annual trainings on anti Semitism in a way that does not apply to any other group. Like have, like, they're unique, uniquely having these annual trainings. So whatever woke one was, and however many excesses there were, it never, it never got remotely that institutionalized into the apparatus of the, of the state and the institutions itself.

[E]

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? I mean, there was, there was. You know, I forgot where I heard this on a podcast, but someone citing the premier McCarthy scholar and saying, comparing the two eras and saying this is much, much worse, actually, this is much worse. And it's happening on an institutional level, it's happening on a government level, and, and it's much more vicious. So, so, yeah, I think.

[B]

And on the, on the right and

[E]

all of this talk of like, walk to bed. I wish some of these candidates would actually raise this instead of kind of going on the retreat so much.

[B]

And there's a renaissance of, of McCarthy himself on the right. Like there, there's a, there's a revisionist element now that is, that is saying, yeah, that McCarthy was right. We need more McCarthy. In fact, there was was an executive order or some kind of presidential finding recently that, that cited McCarthy as an example of, a positive example of how anybody associated with Cuba or the left needs to be treated. Now, at the same time, if you're running in a swing state, saying that you want to cancel Thanksgiving is just, it's just, as a matter of fact, not gonna fly.

[A]

Right. Well, thanks so much, guys, for, for joining Sharif and Ryan. And thank you everyone for our viewers for joining this week as well, too. You can catch us Every Tuesday at 9:30am on the live stream. And as Ryan mentioned, tomorrow you can see a special event for subscribers to Dropsite on a new book, Israel's Lobby by Eli Clifton and Ian Lustig. I'm reading the book right now. It's absolutely fantastic. It's not even a sequel, I would say, to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Waltz, Israel Lobby book, but something diagnosing the far more extreme conditions that exist today in which Sharif and Ryan and myself were just discussing regarding Israel's influence on American institutions and US Foreign policy and even domestic policy and the legal regime in the country as well, too. I do encourage people to sign up, subscribe and join us for that event. And again, you can catch us every Tuesday, same time, same place. And you see a lot more coverage by dropsight in the week to come as well. Thank you again so much for joining us and we'll see you again one week from now.