2253 - Trump Bombs Iran, Mamdani Surges in New Poll w/ Matt Duss, Eskander Sadeghi, Anthony Conwright

Summary

Summary of "The Majority Report with Sam Seder" Episode 2253 Title: Trump Bombs Iran, Mamdani Surges in New Poll w/ Matt Duss, Eskander Sadeghi, Anthony Conwright
Release Date: June 23, 2025

---

Introduction

In Episode 2253 of The Majority Report with Sam Seder, host Sam Seder delves into two pivotal events shaping the political landscape: the unexpected U.S. military strike against Iran and a significant surge in support for Zoran Mamdani in the upcoming New York City mayoral election. The episode features insightful discussions with experts Matt Duss, Iskander Sadeghi, and Anthony Conwright, providing listeners with a comprehensive analysis of these critical issues.

---

1. U.S. Attack on Iran: Analyzing the Implications

Guests: Matt Duss and Iskander Sadeghi

The episode opens with Sam Seder addressing the unforeseen U.S. military action against Iran, prompting immediate concerns about regional stability and nuclear proliferation.

Matt Duss on the Surprise Attack Matt Duss, Executive Vice President at the Center for International Policy and co-host of the Undiplomatic Pod, expresses his astonishment at the U.S. attack, emphasizing the fragile state of diplomatic negotiations prior to the strike.

“Weeks ago, just over a week ago, it seemed that diplomacy was moving along, and we could get a deal... But once Israel attacked and Trump eventually went along with it, that was enough of a yellowish light for Netanyahu to proceed.”
(Timestamp: 22:56)

Duss highlights that the Trump administration's demands, particularly the insistence on zero nuclear enrichment in Iran, were seen as a "poison pill" by negotiators, effectively derailing any progress toward a diplomatic resolution.

Iskander Sadeghi on Historical Context and Regional Reactions Iskander Sadeghi, a senior lecturer in history of the Middle East at the University of York, provides a historical backdrop to the current tensions, tracing back to the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup that overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. He underscores the long-standing animosity between the U.S.—and by extension, its allies like Israel—and Iran.

“The revolution defined Iran in opposition to American hegemony and Israeli dominance in the region... Netanyahu has been harping on the imminent threat posed by Iran's nuclear program for decades.”
(Timestamp: 43:15)

Sadeghi discusses how Israel's strategic actions aim for regime change in Iran, viewing it as the final obstacle to regional dominance. He warns of the potential for prolonged conflict and the destabilizing effects it could have on the Middle East.

“Having weakened Iran's partners... the strategic depth Iran previously enjoyed has been degraded, limiting their ability to deter further aggression.”
(Timestamp: 32:10)

---

2. New York City Mayoral Election: Zoran Mamdani's Surge

Discussion Points: Polling Data and Demographic Shifts

Sam Seder shifts focus to the New York City mayoral race, highlighting recent polling that shows Zoran Mamdani closing the gap with incumbent Andrew Cuomo. The Emerson Polling data reveals significant shifts in voter support across various demographics.

Polling Insights:

• Overall Popularity: Cuomo leads Mamdani 35% to 32% in the initial ballot, but Mamdani has surged to 52% in a ranked-choice voting simulation.
• Early Voters: Mamdani holds a 10-point lead (41% to 31%) among early voters.
• Age Demographics:
  • Under 50: Mamdani leads 50% to 38% over Cuomo.
  • 50-59: Cuomo dominates with 63% support.
• Ethnic Groups:
  • Hispanic Voters: Cuomo 60%, Mamdani 40%.
  • Black Voters: Cuomo 62%, Mamdani 38%.
  • Asian Voters: Cuomo an overwhelming 79% support.

“It's exciting stuff. Here is a video of an elderly man speaking about Andrew Cuomo... 'He took a lot of lives away because of that.'”
(Timestamp: 13:59)

Seder discusses the implications of these shifts, particularly how Mamdani's growing support among younger voters and college-educated demographics could signal broader changes within the Democratic Party's base.

---

3. Will Black Americans Vote for Socialists?

Guest: Anthony Conwright
Co-Guest: Emma Vigland

In a segment addressing the mayoral election, Sam Seder welcomes Anthony Conwright, a writer from The Nation, to explore the dynamics of black voter support in New York City.

Anthony Conwright on Black Voter Dynamics Conwright examines why Andrew Cuomo maintains strong support among African American voters despite Mamdani's surge.

“One of the things that Zoran was experiencing early on was name recognition. Right. And so that really is gonna impact black voters, who tend to get their news from more establishment-type programs.”
(Timestamp: 77:54)

He argues that historical endorsements from established Democratic figures like James Clyburn favor Cuomo, limiting Mamdani's breakthrough within the black community.

Emma Vigland's Perspectives on Voter Mobilization Emma Vigland adds that entrenched narratives within the Democratic Party discourage black voters from supporting socialist candidates, perpetuating a reliance on establishment candidates who may not fully address systemic issues affecting their communities.

“If you keep presenting a situation to a group of voters where it feels like nothing is going to change... it's natural to feel jaded and displaced.”
(Timestamp: 83:10)

Vigland emphasizes the need for a moral imperative in political messaging to inspire and mobilize the black community towards progressive candidates like Mamdani.

---

4. Update: Iran Attacks U.S. Base in Qatar

Final Segment: Real-Time Developments

As the episode progresses, Sam Seder provides a critical update on Iran's missile strike against the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East. This action marks a significant escalation in hostilities.

“Iran says the missile attack matched the number of US Bombs. So basically just saying this is a tit for tat.”
(Timestamp: 104:22)

Seder reflects on the historical pattern of retaliatory actions between the U.S. and Iran, expressing concern over the potential for a prolonged conflict reminiscent of past confrontations like the Soleimani assassination.

“This is the long con. 35 years... they're driving us crazy. This is the long con.”
(Timestamp: 104:42)

The discussion highlights the increasing instability in the region and the challenges in de-escalating the situation, underscoring the dangers of sustained military engagements.

---

Conclusion

Episode 2253 of The Majority Report with Sam Seder offers a comprehensive examination of two major events: the U.S. strike on Iran and the shifting dynamics of the New York City mayoral race. Through expert analysis, the episode underscores the complexities of international relations and the evolving landscape of local politics, particularly within marginalized communities striving for progressive change.

Listeners are encouraged to stay informed and engaged as these developments continue to unfold, shaping both national and global political arenas.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Matt Duss (22:56): “Weeks ago, just over a week ago, it seemed that diplomacy was moving along, and we could get a deal...”
• Iskander Sadeghi (43:15): “The revolution defined Iran in opposition to American hegemony and Israeli dominance in the region...”
• Emma Vigland (83:10): “If you keep presenting a situation to a group of voters where it feels like nothing is going to change...”
• Sam Seder (104:42): “This is the long con. 35 years... they're driving us crazy. This is the long con.”

---

For more information, visit majority.fm.

Transcript

[Sam Seder]

Hey folks, today's episode is brought to you by one of my favorite sponsors, sunsetlakesabad.com use the code left is best and you will get 20% off. What will you get 20% off on? You'll get 20% off their tinctures, their sleep tinctures, their tinctures for pets. You'll get 20% off their solve that I'm using right now because I've got my famous, famous summer eczema and I use the solve that is there for I use the solve that is actually for muscle aches on my eczema. Because if you've ever had eczema, you know that you look for anything in the house that you have that you could actually apply to it. And this just worked. Also, you get 20% off on their Saba Day fudge their Saba Day coffee. There's Sebade Smokables like a pre roll or Keef or just Bud. They've got so many great Seba Day products for you to try out. They are all third party tested. They are all grown without pesticides. They use integrated pest management. These guys are movement partners. They have donated tens of thousands of dollars to things like strike relief funds and refugee resettlement and Planned Parenthood incarceral reform and just on and on and on. Just a great organization, great business. They get great business practices, Mostly employee owned, $20 minimum wage. When they start to harvest, check them out. You will not be disappointed. Left is best, will get you 20% off. Also makes great gifts. They got gummies, they got focus gummies, calm gummies, all of it. Sunsetlakesebide.com left is best. Check it out now. Also no time for the show. The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Monday, June 23rd, 2025. My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Matt Duss, Executive Vice president the center for International Policy and co host of the Undiplomatic Pod on America's attack on Iran. Also on the program to discuss that attack, Askander Sagati Burjerdi, senior lecturer in history in the Middle east at the University of York in the uk. Then Anthony Conright, writer discussing his peace in the nation. Will black Americans vote for a socialist? Zoran Mamdani. Meanwhile, US enters Israel's war bombing Iran and yet Trump officials admit they have no idea if it successfully destroyed Iran's nuclear sites. Meanwhile, Israel continues to turn Gaza aid sites into a killing field in New York City. Mayoral election is tomorrow and Mamdani catches Cuomo in the latest Emerson Poll. Trump's beautiful disaster bill. Polling is in the toilet as the Senate races to pass it and the parliamentarian strips out nearly a dozen of its provisions. Judge denies government motion to hold Abrega Garcia. ICE, however, is looking to detain Garcia as soon as he's released. Mahmoud Khalil is released on condition bail. Then NATO to meet tomorrow in the wake of being in the dark on the US Attack on Iran. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome ladies and gentlemen. Thanks so much for joining us. Emma on honeymoon we were going to have a special guest co host for the day but he missed his plane last night in California. Yep, kids today can never get anywhere on time. But this is why you guys don't get invited places. Hopefully we will have Hasan Piker on the show next time he's in New York or he's probably flying in this morning. So we'll see. I don't know. We got a lot to get to today. Obviously our schedule has been completely upended because of the attack on Iran this weekend. We had Adam Gaffney scheduled today to talk about the Medicaid provisions in the so called big beautiful bill. We will have him on Friday to discuss those. In the meantime, this poll showing Zoran Mamdani up is fascinating and exciting. Tomorrow is the election. You have seen every Democratic establishment figure there is. The old ones come out in support of Cuomo. I'm talking about Bill Clinton. I don't know if these two guys met at some type of sexual harassment, sexual harassers support group or what, I don't know. But Clinton came out in favor of Cuomo. Clyburn the other day came out in favor of Cuomo. But there but Cuomo has a problem and that is that the enthusiasm is with Mondani and that is a bigger issue in a primary than it would be in a general election. In a general election people just go out and vote because they know about the election. It's in the news constantly. They don't want a Republican to win in a primary. Enthusiasm can take you a far away even if you're fighting against literally tens of millions of dollars poured into the race by people like Mike Bloomberg and Ken Langone's folks and Palantir, all of these right wingers. Doordash, doordash. They're all funding Andrew Cuomo. This poll came out, you can see this is the New York Democratic primary tracking. This is from Emerson Polling along with picks 11, local station in the Hill. Andrew Cuomo leading Mamdani 35% to 32%. And look at those trajectories. Mamdani gained 10 points on the initial ballot test, rising from 22% to 32%. That's relative to Emerson's last month's poll, while Cuomo gained 1.34% to 35%. And this polling was done over the weekend? I'm sorry, was done? Yes, I believe it was over the weekend. The ranked choice voting simulation over eight rounds ends with Mamdani at 52% and Cuomo at 48%. Voters who have already cast their ballots during New York City's early voting period break for Mamdani again. This is they, they did a poll. I think it was like 850 people. There's a 3 or 4% margin of error. Many of the people that they contacted had already voted or at least some. Mamdani hold held a 10 point lead over Cuomo 41 to 31% on early voters. Among those who plan to vote on election day or had not yet voted at the time of the survey, Cuomo leads with 36% followed by Mamdani at 31%. We got some images to show you as to why this is very, very problematic for Cuomo right now. It's like 95 degrees in New York City. I walked to work three hours ago and was sweating my buttocks off. And folks know I'm old, but I'm spry. Voters under 50 break from Donnie by a 2 to 1 margin. Cuomo leads 50 to 59 year olds, 63 to 37% because my cohort of voters are the worst people in the country. We were raised in the Reagan era, P.J. o' Rourke and what's like he was on Spin City and the Family Ties. Michael J. Fox was like a little right winger and we all. Fortunately for me, I escaped by just wearing sweater vests and I didn't adopt anything else. Hispanic voters support Cuomo 60 to 40%. Black voters favor Cuomo 62 to 38%. We're going to talk to Anthony Conright about that later. Asian voters 79 to 21%. Mamdani leads Cuomo among college educated voters, 62 to 38%. The this survey was taken from the 18th to the 20th, so there was still a couple of days of early voting left. And here is why this is a shot on. Was it on Sunday? Is this on Sunday? This is from yesterday. That was the Last day of early voting. Yes, Sunday. Today's Monday. Okay. Last day of early voting at the Museum of Natural History. And this is why Andrew Cuomo has a problem with relying, having to rely so heavily on election day voting. First of all, you have MAMDANI Beating Cuomo two to one with voters who are under the age of 50. Speaking as someone who is over the age of 50, I can tell you my sensitivity to heat has grown exponentially each year into my 50s. Here is what the line looked like outside of the Museum of Natural History on the final day of early voting. Now, I don't know how long people are waiting in that line, but I can tell you they're not going to wait that long if it's 100 degrees out in New York City. And I don't think they're all shaded by scaffolding like that. Exactly. So, obviously, look, so much about this is predicting, you know, who's going to come out to vote if you watch the. If you've watched any television in New York City for the past four weeks, you have been inundated with negative Mamdani ads. The Cuomo people have gone completely berserk. They have so much money to pour out the door, but it's also an incompetent campaign that failed to get their matching funds. So if you haven't voted in New York City and you are a New York City voter, understand your vote tomorrow is going to be even more heavily weighted insofar as your ability to get out and vote is probably going to be offsetting multiple votes on the other side, people who intended to vote for Cuomo but give up because it's too hot. So this is a big, big deal. It's a big deal. Go back and look at the press. After Adams won in 2024, he was considered. I'm sorry, 2022, he was considered to be. Nate Silver said he was, like, one of his top choices to be a presidential candidate. I'm not saying that Mom Donnie is going to do that, but traditionally, something like this has very, very big impact nationally. So there you go. It's exciting stuff. Here is a video of an elderly man speaking about Andrew Cuomo. Do we have that one? Just to inspire you. Go ahead.

[Caller]

That he's a. I was one of the. The people that would, you know, unfortunately, was here when he was thinking of people in here that had Covid and they were side by side with us instead of them, you know, being on their own unit, people getting coughing and other people getting infected. And with that and led to a lot of people dying, a lot of people getting sick. I even got sick. You know, it was bodies being carried out of here left and right while they complimenting this man on doing a good job when he actually did a up job. He up a lot of people. Like he took a lot of lives away because of that. They wasn't planned for that. Right. And he could have prevented a lot of things from happening the way that it did, especially in here. If I could say something to the next mayor in New York, I would tell him not to do the same dumb shit that Cuomo did to us during COVID and to take heed and realize that people in nursing homes matter and treat us better.

[Emma Vigland]

Anything else you want to share?

[Sam Seder]

What do you wish? There you go. Appreciate the sentiment. We'll probably get demonetized because of that. But that was worth money well spent. Exactly. Happy to services in kind. In a moment we'll be talking about Dusk President at the center for the International Policy Executive Vice President at the center for International Policy Co host of the Undiplomatic Pod it is super hot in this city. My air conditioning, always at home, underperforms it has for ages. It's a long story. I don't want to get into it too much. But the beauty is I've got fans. And then on top of that I sleep on temperature regulating sheets. It's Cozy Earth's bamboo sheets. They temperature regulate. They are guaranteed to give you a comfortable night's sleep. They naturally wick away heat and moisture from your body helping you sleep several degrees cooler. I have done an actual not a taste test. I've compared non cozier sheets with cozier sheets and they actually work. Plus they got all sorts of other things. I've got an amazing jogger from them. My favorite hoodie is from Cozy Earth. It is both like heavy but cool warm when you need it to be. They have something called the all day tee. And I will tell you that it's not just an all day tee. It is actually a twice day tea. Because over the weekend I'm like who am I going to see? Why am I going to wash this? It's naturally breathable fabric. Keeps you cool and comfortable all day. They have a new line of pants called Studio pants. They're incredibly soft. They are super comfortable and breathable. They feel like you're wearing sweats but they look like nice pants. Want to thank Cozy Earth for sponsoring this episode. Cozy Earth understands we need to create our home sanctuary. Your five to nine routine should include relaxation and rejuvenation and cooling down. Cozy Earth bedding products have a 10 year warranty. That is a decade of cool quality sleep. They have a 100 night sleep trial. You try them during the hottest nights of the year. That's now. If you're not in love, return them hassle free. But believe me, you will not want to. Luxury shouldn't be out of reach. Go to cozy earth.com use the code majority report all one word for up to 40% off of cozy Earth best selling temperature regulating sheets, apparel and more. Trust me, you're going to feel the difference the very first night. That's cozy earth.com code is majority Report Sleep Cooler Lounge Lighter Stay cozy. Also this time of year I've got a shift from red wine to white wine or maybe to a rose because I feel like it triggers my eczema. I don't know why I'm spending so much time. Everything, everything is now eczema oriented. But when I go into a wine store or at least back in the day, I'm like, I have no idea what wine to get. And then if somebody comes up to me and starts talking about fruity or nutty or you can, you know, volcanic ash or whatever, I can't. I can't. I don't know what to pick at a wine store. However, I have now been able to bypass that entire process. If you ever wanted to learn about wine but can't figure it out, our next partner, Naked Wines has changed the game. For learning about wine, you don't have to take a class, you just basically save a lot of money. Today's episode sponsored by naked wines. It's 2025. You don't want to shop for wine like was 2005. Naked wines is a service that directly connects you to the world's finest independent winemaker so you can get award winning wine delivered straight to your door. And if you use our code Majority for the code and [e-mail], you will be able to get their incredible deal of six bottles of wine for just $39.99. I've talked in the past how my sister Julie used to work for winemakers in Italy. She has incredibly high standards, will denigrate the vast majority of things in the past. Wines I have bought in the past. We got a bunch of wines for Thanksgiving and for Passover this year because we're all together and she gave it a big thumbs up. I have a great Syrah from Naked Wines. They have been around for over 15 years they fund 90 independent winemakers around the world. There are no commitments or membership fees. You can enjoy naked wines hassle free. You can pause or cancel at any time. If you got a trip coming up or you just backed up, you can enjoy naked wines after that period easily. Now is the time to join the naked wines community. Head to nakedwines.com Majority Enter Click Enter Voucher. Put in the code Majority for both the code and the password for six bottles of wine for just 39.99 shout out shipping included. That's 100 bucks off your first six bottles. @nakedwines.com Majority use the code and password majority for six bottles of wine for $39.99. We'll put the all of that info in the podcast and YouTube description. Quick Break and then mat.

[Emma Vigland]

Sam.

[Sam Seder]

We are back. Sam Seder on the Majority Report Emma Vigland out this week. Want to welcome back to the program executive vice President, the Center for International Policy, co host of the Undiplomatic Pod, Matt Duss. Matt, we've talked in the past about the potential for something like this. Give me your sense of how surprised were you? I mean, if you go back even like three weeks ago that the US Would attack the Iranians as of three.

[Matt Duss]

Weeks ago, even just over a week ago, I mean, just up until the moment the news broke of Israel launching its attacks, it was two Thursdays to go. It seemed that, you know, diplomacy was moving along and we could get a deal. I mean, there were clearly some gaps. You know, Trump seems to have landed on this, you know, demand for zero enrichment in Iran, which I think most people understand is a non starter. And unfortunately, I think a lot of the people who are pushing him to make that a demand understand it's a non starter because they intended it as a poison pill for the negotiations. But Stephen, it still seemed to me that, you know, Witkoff was, was committed to it. Iranians and Americans were talking to each other, which is good to be able to kind of narrow those gaps. But then, you know, once Israel attacked and the reporting started to come out about how Trump eventually went along with that, even if it wasn't a bright green light, it was enough of a yellowish light that Netanyahu went ahead and did what he did, making an enormous bet that Trump would eventually join in. And it seemed likely that given that Trump had sort of folded under pressure to support what Israel was doing, he would eventually fold and do what he did Saturday night.

[Sam Seder]

Well, just to go back for just a moment in terms of like Trump's demands in the context of negotiations. Were there other ones? I mean I remember the original. In the original JPOCA or I am jcpoa.

[Matt Duss]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

Yes, almost.

[Matt Duss]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

That the, I was close that the biggest sort of like complaints of the neoconservatives was that this was just a deal about nuclear proliferation as opposed to getting Iran to stop funding their proxy organizations to a whole host of issues that they had. Was that included in the asks by the Trump administration?

[Matt Duss]

Not to my knowledge. And you're right, that was one of the complaints that neocons had was that this non proliferation agreement didn't deal with things that aren't non proliferation. But Trump, you know, as far as I know, yes, I mean I'm sure these things were being discussed, you know, Iran's ballistic missiles and support for proxies, you know, extremist groups around the region. But this was still pretty focused on the nuclear program, as far as I know.

[Sam Seder]

My understanding is we don't really have a sense of what the, how effective the US Was at ending Iran's nuclear program. Do you have, have you heard anything to that effect?

[Matt Duss]

I mean, I think we can say quite definitively that the United States and Israel have not ended Iran's nuclear program. I think just starting with satellite photos, you can see that there's damage done to the Fordo facility. Unsurprisingly, it dropped, you know, B2 bombers dropped, I think the biggest non nuclear weapon that the United States has several times on, on this mountain facility. But still it's a big mountain and stuff is inside hardened bunkers deep, deep under that, under that mountain. If I would encourage folks to look at Jeffrey Lewis, he's a, he, he's an analyst at the Monterey Institute, I'm sorry, the Middlebury Institute in Monterey, California. He had a long tweet thread based on a piece he'd written where he says, you know, tactically, yes, this stuff's impressive, but this has at best, as far as we can tell right now, set back Iran's program several months. Again, it's hard to say for sure because Iran, from what I've heard, concluded that Trump was going to do this. They concluded this a couple weeks ago and so they started transferring material to different places. There are, you know, Fordo is kind of the big, the big facility that people do know about. Everyone has long estimated there are facilities we don't know about. And Iran had told the IAEA that at some point it was going to, it was going to open a new enrichment facility. And you can bet when they announced that facility, they would not be just like breaking ground for it on that day. It would be something that had essentially already created. So, yeah, it seems from the estimates I'm seeing, these attacks, this war, this grave violation of Internet national law has managed to set back Iran's nuclear program a fraction of what the JCPOA did.

[Sam Seder]

I want to try and dig in a little bit more into like, you know, what the, what the goal here is and you know, like why Trump did this. But let's start with Israel because it seems to me that Israel has at one point, and I don't know how many months ago it was planned for this in the sense that they take out Hezbollah, they go deep into Syria, they attempt to degrade Yemen's capacity. Obviously they, after the four week, you know, truce in Gaza, they went on to further decimate and now, you know, full on starvation campaign essentially with the Palestinians there. But Iran's capacity to strike back seems to me has been diminished. I don't, I don't know how much, but certainly it's been diminished insofar as like if Hezbollah still had its capacity, they would be sending rockets into northern Israel by now. If Hamas had its capacity, they'd be sending rockets into southern Israel by now. If Yemen, you know, had increased capacity, they would also. I mean, I imagine that they, they, they, I mean, they have a little bit in the wake of the, the bombing campaign that Israel started against Iran a week or two ago. But it seems like Israel has been planning this and that this is more about regime change than anything else. I mean, because it's clear even the US did not. This is not like a quick one and done type of situation.

[Matt Duss]

Right? No, I mean, there's a couple things there. One is first, the last part first is yes, at this point it seems very, very clear that Israel's goal is regime change. I mean, it's bombing schools, it's bombing police stations, it bombed the gates Evan prison just a few hours ago, a notorious prison where a lot of dissidents and activists are taken and often tortured by the regime. So it's bombing symbols of the regime. It's not just bombing nuclear facilities. And I think that's ultimately what they want to try and draw Donald Trump into. And if his, you know, if he's going to try, if he just wants to do this one and done strike, which again, I wish he hadn't done it, but now that he's done it, I hope that's what it is. That's a much, obviously a much bigger proposition. And the idea that anyone thinks that this will turn out well just boggles my mind. But now we have to go back and what you talked about, you know, over the course of, you know, the past, whatever it is, 20 months since October 7th, you'll notice that Israel steadily, you know, started acting much in a much more escalatory, escalatory fashion wherever it wanted, whether obviously obliterating Gaza and then taking action in Lebanon and then Syria as well, once the Assad regime fell. It's occupying parts of Syria right now. It has bombed Yemen, and again, it has genuine concerns with Hezbollah, with the Houthis. Syria, it's much, much less clear. But now, you know, again, having weakened Iran's partners in exactly the way you said and kind of what Iran used to have, what is known as strategic depth, I mean, that was the goal of forming all these relationships and supporting these, these groups across the region was just to have different levers that they could pull, you know, and, you know, as a, as a deterrent to keep Israel or the United States or anyone else from doing what is happening now, that those levers have been degraded. But it seems that if you want to, like, apply a strategy to what Israel has been doing, and in part, it's hard to apply a strategy because let's also remember, a lot of this, as we have discussed before, is driven by Netanyahu's own political imperatives. I mean, he needs to keep this war going to stay out of jail, essentially. But if we want to see a pattern here, and this is where, you know, if not toppling the regime, at least severely weakening the regime in Iran makes sense because that's kind of what Israel and some in the United States want to see, just a severely degraded region, if not collapsed states, then very weak states that, you know, the United States and by proxy, the United States, you know, you know, local sheriff, Israel, in this case, can kind of exert power.

[Sam Seder]

Well, what, I mean, this seems like a huge risk to me. From Donald Trump's perspective, what is, what do you think is actually driving this? I mean, they were 60 days is not that long to have a deadline for these negotiations. That seems absurd to me. And it, you know, Donald Trump wanted to be, you know, is portraying himself as a peacemaker. He already made his deals to get money from Miriam Adelson, and it didn't include backing up Israel's regime change. What is your sense that that is actually driving this? Is it just. He, you know, he's got people. I mean, he pretty, you know, he specifically left Hegseth out, he specifically is ignoring the, all the intelligence that says this is not an ongoing threat.

[Matt Duss]

Yes, right.

[Sam Seder]

What, what, what is, what, what is their thinking?

[Matt Duss]

I mean, with Trump, you know, it's, it, it, it could be just very simple that, you know, enough people got into his ear and convinced him to change course. I think part of what I've heard is that Netanyahu and others were working on him really hard, saying, the Iranians are taking you for a ride. They're treating you like a sucker. They're not, they're not negotiating in good faith. Listen, we saw how effective Netanyahu was at manipulating, you know, Joe, Joe Biden and Joe Biden's team. He's done this with a number of presidents. Again, that's not to absolve the US of our very clear responsibility not to get suckered into this stuff by Netanyahu. But he's, he's really good at working the US Bureaucracy and he certainly has allies within the administration. There was an ongoing debate between the administration's hawks and the more administration's more restraint committed folks, people like J.D. vance. My understanding that Hegseth himself had been more on that side. Obviously, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, who most recently put out that assessment that you're talking about, that the US Intelligence community continues to assess that Iran has not made a decision to obtain a nuclear weapon. So, you know, I think Trump obviously was convinced to go ahead and yellowish green light the Israeli attack. And from what I've read, and I find this convincing is that that popped off and he spent the night watching Fox News hailing this, all the, you know, the footage of this impressive stuff that the Israelis can do and they can do some really impressive stuff. And you know, when the initial news of the attack broke, you saw the statement from Secretary Rubio saying, oh, well, Israel's doing this. We're not part of it. This is. They've taken these steps on their own. But by the morning, Trump puts out a truth social post, you know, clearly trying to associate him more with the war, saying, oh, yes, it's just, you know, just wonderful, and trying to take some credit for it. So I think he's unfortunately just been convinced that this is, this is how you do maga.

[Sam Seder]

Let me ask you about this. And this is complete speculation and conjecture in my life because it seems, it seems like, I mean, I, I give very little credit to Donald Trump as a thinker in any way, but one thing that he does have a sense of is like his own protecting his own political hide. And it's hard for me to imagine what the, what the, what the upside is for him on this. But I wonder, you know, Saudi Arabia has been so quiet relative to, it's like, you know, what was a very heated proxy war up until, I feel like a year ago, maybe, you know, less. And, you know, as late as, like, you know, a year or two years ago, it seemed that everything that was happening in the Middle east was a function in some way of this war, proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. To what extent do you think there is, you know, the interests of those Gulf states maybe sitting back, also encouraging Trump in a very, very quiet way to do something like this? I mean, this is clearly picking up from the neocon vision that started in the Iraq war. Like, we're going to go to, we're going to go to Iraq, then we're going to go to Syria, then we're going to go to Iran, and we're going to. The Middle east is going to be basically like Disneyland with democracy. And I wonder if that dream wasn't revived less from an ideological standpoint in Donald Trump's mind. But in terms of there's a lot of money for me here and it's worth a lot to the Saudis for me to engage in this.

[Matt Duss]

Well, that's just it. He was getting that money anyway. And you're right. Up until a few years ago, especially during the era of the jcpoa, when Obama was trying to make a deal with the Iranians, there was strong opposition from the Saudis, from the Emiratis, and obviously from the Israelis. But let's remember a few years ago, there was a Saudi Iran detente that was brokered by China. Mohammed bin Salman obviously have a lot of problems with him. He's actually been trying to have better relations with Iran. He's been trying to have better relations with a lot of actors in the region. They've basically squashed the beef with Qatar. So while I'm not going to say that they're displeased at Iran, the Iranian government taking a beating, I don't think this is something that the Saudis were really strongly at advocating because they're kind of getting what they want from Donald Trump anyway. And so to have the Israelis and the Americans now coming behind them, just, you know, unilaterally going in and smashing up Tehran, another major Middle Eastern capital, that's not something that really sits well with the region's publics. And Mohammed bin Salman and some of these other Leaders are conscious that of public opinion.

[Sam Seder]

Interesting. And so give me your, I mean it's anybody's guess what happens next, but I guess it has to do with the likelihood of Iran retaliating and then it feels like it could be off to the races. What, what is your sense?

[Matt Duss]

Right. I mean so what we're seeing today, I mean there was a few hours ago there was news that the Qatari government had urged Americans in the countries to shelter in place. Always, always a great phrase that means trouble is on the way. They've closed Qatari airspace. I don't know if this indicates that Iran could, could be striking Aloude base, which is the US's biggest base in the Middle east there just outside Doha, Qatar. We did see. I mean my sense is even before Trump attacked, I mean Iran was signaling that they want to de escalate. They did not want the US to get involved and they were ready to de escalate but they were not ready to negotiate peace while Israel was still attacking them. Understandably. But let's think back to 2020, January 2020, when Trump assassinated Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force and kind of Iran's like regional mastermind and planner for all of Iran's kind of proxy groups. Iran responded with an hours long, first of all it signaled that it was going to respond, it needed to respond. But this response would be a one off. They did not want to escalate further. But then they launched an hours long missile attack against Al Assad base in IR that nearly killed 150 US troops who were there sheltering in these bunkers as this attack went on. And then it came out slowly, little by little that over 100 of them had sustained traumatic brain injuries. Now Trump himself, it was very interesting. Like they initially denied that there were any casualties and then little by little they started to, okay, a few people were hurt and then it finally came out, no 100 were pretty severely injured. But that signaled that Trump understood, okay, I want this to de escalate too. And if it immediately comes out rather than in dribs and drabs of that there were actual serious casualties. It could create, you know, political pressure on me to have to escalate. I mean, so that does indicate a level of political intelligence or at least understanding like I could be pushed into something that I don't want to do. I hope that there will be something similar that happens now.

[Sam Seder]

I hope you're right, Matt Duss. I have a feeling we'll probably be in touch over the coming weeks. Really appreciate your insights here and analysis. And we will link to the center for International Policy and your undiplomatic pod.

[Matt Duss]

Thanks a lot, Sam.

[Sam Seder]

All right. We're going to take a quick break and when we come back, we're going to be talking to senior lecturer in the history of the Middle east at the University of York, Skander Sigati Borji, just after this.

[Emma Vigland]

It's Sam.

[Sam Seder]

We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Emma Vigeland, off this week. Want to welcome to the program senior lecturer in history of the Middle east at the University of York, Iskander Sad Degi Iskander, thanks so much for joining us.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Thanks for having me. Great to be with you.

[Sam Seder]

Let's start from the your sense of the forces that led to I mean, I think like the Israeli sort of desire to attack Iran has been in existence for my entire adult life, as far as I can tell from like, you know, Netanyahu has been talking about this for 30 years. What do you have a sense of what the other players in the region like, what their perspective is on this and what might be inspiring Trump and the forces that may be sort of acting upon that? Because I know you have a piece today in the Jacobin about the shah's son.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Well, I think the shah's son, which we can get to in a little bit, is more of actually a useful idiot and like a propaganda tool which which has basically been used by the Israelis somewhat effectively, I guess, but not all too effectively. Obviously, there's a grander kind of, I think, geopolitical agenda at work. Obviously, this animosity and hostility to Iran has really defined Benjamin Netanyahu's entire sort of political career. I mean, from the mid-90s, he's been harping on about the imminent threat posed by Iran's nuclear program, so much so that actually even an Israeli scholar, a scholar by the name of Hago Ram, wrote a very good book called Iranophobia, in which he kind of explored how Iran really was a way in which Israeli elites managed to deflect from sort of neoliberalism, neoliberalization in Israeli society. So many of the contradictions defining Israeli society, Iran has sort of been this perpetual boogeyman, I think, and sort of presented as this existential threat.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah.

[Iskander Sadegi]

And of course, Iran has this history, a long history going back to the revolution of 1979 or was he supporting the Palestinian cause? Obviously, it defines itself, the Islamic Republic defines itself against sort of American hegemony and Israeli kind of dominance in the region. And I guess we're sort of seeing this long arc of various regimes which have been ousted or overthrown, many of which were obviously seen as posed threats, I guess, to Israeli domination of the region. And Iran was always seen as sort of the final. The final sort of obstacle, the final sort of country to take out in this long list. Famously, Wesley Clark spoke about as well, General Wesley Clark spoke about. So I think this is sort of, you know, he saw this as his opportunity, really, in order to force the issue. My sense is, I mean, again, and we really don't know the granular detail, of course, but my sense is that there had been extensive sort of intelligence sharing between the Israelis and obviously the American government, the Pentagon and so on. I'm pretty sure that had been shared for some time. And I think it was a matter of timing, really. And I think obviously following the fall of Assad, there was, I mean, I'm sure you heard this for the last couple of months that Iran is the weakest ever been. Now is the time. And I think obviously he forced the issue, but he also managed, I think, convince Donald Trump. And I think maybe they both have different objectives. I think Donald Trump's objective was to use the Israeli attacks, one, to weaken Iran further and then obviously maybe pursue this attack on Iran's nuclear site, but also potentially use it as leverage not to negotiate. I wouldn't call this a negotiation to basically to impose what he called, quote, unquote, total surrender. So that's, I think, sort of the lay of the land in the sort of grander scheme of things.

[Sam Seder]

Will you just remind people? Because in this country, history usually only goes back about three years, and in the context of Iran, it's as if nothing existed prior to 1979. But will you, just for folks who don't know, reiterate the history going back to 1953 or 1950, when Mosaddegh was ousted in a CIA and as far as I know, MI6 coup. Will you just give us a little bit of that history?

[Iskander Sadegi]

I mean, I think that is a good place to start, absolutely. But I think I won't really go on a long digression, but we could even go back to sort of 1907, when Iran was basically de facto divided into different spheres of influence by Imperial Russia and Britain, where you have the establishment of bp, you know, it was called the Anglo Iranian Oil Company at the time. It was basically an enclave which was completely controlled by the British. Even we had its own sort of security services. Then you can even move to 1941, where Britain, and again this time the Soviet Union basically invaded Iran and occupied it. Then of course we can move to 1953, where in 1951 sort of the nationalist Premier Mohamed Mossadegh had decided with a lot of, sort of a popular mandate really and a lot of popular support to nationalize the Anglo Iranian Oil Company, which is today known as BP British Petroleum. And of course he was immediately sort of faced with a naval blockade by the British. And then you had ultimately the Eisenhower administration and Churchill government here in the UK plot for his overthrow. And then he is ultimately obviously overthrown by the MI6 and the CIA. And then subsequently after that, the Shah returns from Rome and then we have really this steady building up and consolidation of his dictatorship. And obviously the United States, the CIA as well as the Mossad, actually the Israelis had a very, very decisive role actually in building up the infamous savak, which tortured and executed many, many dissidents in Iran during this period. And that was the source of this growing enmity because obviously they had very much. The United States was seen as sort of supporting the Shah throughout this period in a very kind of uncritical way. I mean, we can even go to 1976 where the Shah was really buying more American arms per capita than any other power in the world. And maybe even in absolute terms at that point, he was the biggest purchase of American arms. That's why he was sort of given so much leeway. And he became known as the gendarme, the Persian Gulf. Sort of very much carrying out within this broader kind of American hegemonic security architecture, very much aligned with broader American objectives in the Persian Gulf region. And Saudi Arabia at that time was more of a junior partner actually. So yeah, obviously this is sort of in 1975, he established a one party state as well. So that's another kind of feather in his cap. And then of course he's overthrown in the revolution which runs between 1977 and 1979, which obviously brought the Islamic Republic ultimately to power.

[Sam Seder]

That the Islamic Republic. What was the, was the revolution that took place in 79. How much of it was a function of. There were pro democratic forces. There was, I mean, I imagine, I mean, I was young at the time, so I don't remember the details, but there were multiple sort of like cohorts that were involved in that revolution. It was that the Khomeini cohort had the most sort of like power, I guess.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the revolution was a broad coalition. It Sort of ran from liberal nationalists to kind of more religiously inclined sort of nationalists to Marxist Leninists to Maoists to obviously Islamists as well, but also of various hues. Some of them were more influenced actually by sort of Marxian sort of ideology, some that were closer to the clergy and sort of the commercial class, the mercantile kind of classes, the bazaar and obviously, I mean, Khomeini was very clearly kind of the unparalleled and undisputed, I think, leader of the revolution. I guess not many Iranians necessarily envisioned the constitution that would ultimately emerge in the power struggle to define the post revolutionary state.

[Emma Vigland]

However.

[Sam Seder]

I'm starting to see some reports on our im and I don't know that there. It's possible that there was an attack on that US base in Qatar that Matt Duss had just told us some people were saying was imminent.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

What is your sense of the potential of this being one round of tit for tat as it comes in terms of like in terms of America and that's it?

[Iskander Sadegi]

I mean, I'm sure that both, maybe the Trump administration, I think up to a point that that is how maybe the Trump administration has envisioned it. And I also probably think that the Iranians similarly hope for that to be the case. But the problem with these things is that they have a kind of a life of their own. And it's usually where these sort of unpredictable factor which enters in where this could spiral. I think that's always been the fear. I mean, obviously a lot of people are referring back to when Qasem Soleimani, General Qasem Soleimani was assassinated by the Trump administration in Iraq again on a sort of a ruse, sort of luring there for negotiations actually with Saudi Arabia. And then he was killed in a third country. And then in retaliation for that, Iran struck, basically telegraphed ahead to the Americans to empty out the Ain Al Assad air base, which they did, and that sort of controlled it. And I guess maybe that has happened. Obviously I don't have any information in that regard, but I would assume that that is a possibility that may be similarly because I did gather that already the Qataris had closed their airspace. And obviously Qatar is a. I mean, on the one hand it's a close seller of the United States and hosts centcom and it's sort of the biggest airbase in the region, but it is also a friend of the Iranian government as well. They have cordial relations. So I could imagine Iran basically giving them a heads up and that's why we saw that that would make sense to me. That seems plausible.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, if you Google Iran bombs, Qatar, you can see reports as early as two, three, four or five hours ago that it was imminent, which seems to me to be a sufficient amount of time for at least the people on that base to either evacuate or get into shelters or whatever it is that they would do. That doesn't seem like an exactly like a surprise attack, as it were.

[Iskander Sadegi]

No, no, no. I mean, just the one thing I would just add that I think is important, you have to really understand that, that Iran, from the outset, since the Israeli act of aggression in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran has actually consistently been indicating both to the Gulf states that it doesn't want to target them or doesn't want this to expand and get any more, get any worse. So they have been, because they don't want to alienate the Gulf states, and they've actually been trying to indicate that it's the Israelis in particular and obviously following obviously the American attack. Americans obviously very much have a hand in this as soon as the copilot. I mean, I guess they already were even before this. But they've been trying to indicate that, trying to show that the Israelis are the key sort of agents of instability, the true sort of agents of chaos. And this is why they've very much been sort of appealing to the UN appealing to the UN Charter, appealing to their Gulf allies. But I think obviously the strikes on Iran's nuclear sites by the United States was this one. It was obviously just a red line which just couldn't be allowed to be passed without some response.

[Sam Seder]

What is your sense in terms of the stability of the Iranian regime? And do you have any sense of like, in the event that it was to sort of become shakier, what entities might take over and where would their sympathies be?

[Iskander Sadegi]

I mean, my sense, at least for the time being, is that there has been a sort of a rallying around the flag or rallying around the homeland effect. I mean, this has been remarkable. I've remarked on at the very outset. I've seen scenes which really are reminiscent of the 1980s in Iran when basically, obviously, the United States backed Star Hussein's invasion, more or less of Iran in support of that war effort for eight years. So, I mean, I have seen a fair degree of resilience. Obviously, the Iranian state is very unpopular in some quarters. It does, however, have a deep base of support. I mean, we need to understand, I mean, it came about through a revolution and then was basically institutionalized and forged in a war. I mean, the people in the Revolutionary Guards basically fought for an eight year period and they saw, you know, they fought in sort of World War I style trenches. The idea that they're just going to melt away, I think is for the birds, to be honest with you. And I do think it is resilient. And I think actually, I mean, the things that I'm seeing, and I try to follow their official channels and see what their kind of discourse is. I'm not obviously endorsing that, but I'm trying to get a sense of what they're thinking. And from what I gathered, they're ready for a longer campaign. I mean, I think, and from what I understand, I mean, maybe this was a symbolic strike at this American air base, but from what I gather, they actually want to draw this out with respect to strikes on the Israelis because I think their main fear actually is that Netanyahu then goes back to his public with this sense of triumphalism and then potentially moves to try and normalize strikes on Iran. So I think they are actually going to continue to sort of work out the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in Israel's air defenses. And I think there is a good chance that they will try to continue that because Netanyahu's promise is this is going to be a quick lightning campaign and we're going to be triumphant. And actually the greatest fear, and you also see this amongst Israeli sort of security analysts and so on. I mean, one of their greatest fears, that this drawn out, this gets drawn out for weeks. So I think actually they're kind of revving up for that. But yeah, I mean, the Iranian state itself has multiple vulnerabilities. Of course there was a lot of discontent. There's been protests both over the economy, both over the conditions, the political conditions, over the state in which women have often been treated. There's been lots of protests in that regard and discontent. But again, I mean, in conditions of war, what happens is society tends to get militarized. Nationalist fervor, it's very predictable. I mean, if you spoke to me beforehand, I could have easily predicted this. I think many, many experts have also said that this would actually happen. And this is really kind of detrimental. I think if we support struggles for greater sort of democratic rights and civil rights and labor rights, a highly militarized society is not going to be conducive to that.

[Sam Seder]

Obviously, I am skeptical as to that's where our support really is. I mean, I would imagine to the extent that the United States And Israel have a desire for regime change in Iran. It is for some version of the Shah.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Again, no, no, no, I absolutely agree with you there. I meant sort of asking people of good conscience maybe, but no, absolutely. I mean, I wrote very kind of. I mean, to be honest, just the sheer brazenness, actually, I really just don't. I do think the Israelis and their understanding Iran is just untethered from reality. I think on the one hand they're fed stuff maybe by the parts and elements within the sort of monarchist Iranian diaspora and on the other hand, I mean, maybe their own expertise. And also I just think, you know, the fact of the matter is that they've sort of had this sense of impunity ongoing for many, many years, but obviously it's intensified since sort of the genocide in Gaza has been carrying on unabated. So there is this kind of sense of imperviousness and invincibility. And within days actually of the strikes, the Jerusalem Post was outright calling for the Balkanization of Iran, which immediately circulated on Iranian Twitter and social media. And I mean, even people who really do not like this regime, which are horrified and they really have no trust or no faith whatsoever in the Americans or the Israelis, and they really see what's happened in Libya and in Syria, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and they understand that both I think the United States and the Israelis would prefer a really fragmented, shattered sort of state without any real capacity and ability to function than actually a strong functioning state. And I think they understand that. And that's why we see the reactions across much of Iranian civil society that we have.

[Sam Seder]

I think it's hard for people to appreciate how incompetent in terms of making these assessments the Israelis can be and frankly the US can be. I mean, we saw this with Iraq. People were convinced that Iraq was going to, you know, within months blossom into some type of free market paradise and society would be, and things would function. And we watched three or four or five or six years of total incompetence in the form of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Maybe it was a little bit longer, but it was shocking the level of assuredness that the so called experts had. And I think it's like, you know, as just citizens we presume, like, oh, we may disagree with the idea of, you know, attacking and bombing another country, but it, but these people must know what they're talking about on some level, even if we disagree what they're doing. But their assessments can be completely, totally blinkered.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Well, just to speak to that, I mean, I'm not sure if you've seen the latest New York Times reporting, but it basically says that they don't even know where the, the stockpile of highly enriched uranium is. And there's plenty of actually evidence that, I mean, they're claiming that Iran's centrifuges have all been destroyed, but I mean, I wouldn't bet on that. So on the one hand, what the Trump administration has done has done really untold damage to the nuclear non proliferation regime. Like really damage beyond measure. They've shown it to be absolutely kind of hypocritical, have a double standard. I mean, Iran was the most inspected place on the planet and obviously previously subjected itself to the JCPOA in 2015, as we know the deal which Mr. Trump trashed. And then what we have is a scenario whereby two nuclear armed states, and, you know, Israel basically brought nuclear weapons into the region, attacked a country which, you know, all indications show was really, really, really eager to do a deal. And the reason is, I mean, Iran is not obviously a democratic, a fully democratic society. I mean, it's not a democrat, it's a competitive authoritarian society. But there are societal levers in order to exert pressure. And there was significant pressure on the government to improve the economic situation. There was a lot of discontent amongst the middle classes, the low middle classes, and just the brutality of the sanctions over the last several years as well as sort of economic mismanagement and had really, you know, had really impoverished a huge number of people. It had really had a devastation. I've seen it amongst my own family. It's devastating. So there was significant pressure on sort of the Iranian government to do a deal and you know, basically the possession government who was recently elected, sort of was very much elected on this platform of negotiating with the United States, was elected on this platform of reaching a diplomatic settlement and was elected on this platform of getting sanctions relief. This is what he was elected to do. And he had broad support across the political spectrum. So Iran sincerely pursued this. And what happened? They were attacked. I mean, they were attacked. And it's not only. And the thing is, I think I really also have to just center here. We have like over 800 people being killed at this point. I mean, an uncle of a friend of mine was killed, was murdered and you know, just the shit. And it's just absolutely. And it really has alienated beyond measure, beyond words countless Iranians actually who are really sympathetic, actually putting pressure on the government to do a deal with the United States. So that's kind of the situation a completely corroded nuclear long provision regime and really a government, but also people who are deeply now skeptical that they can trust a word coming out of the Trump administration's mouth. Because what happens, they say we're going to negotiate with you and then they end up bombing you, launching surprise attacks. Even the two week deadline, which Trump then said, oh, we'll give you two weeks and then we'll make a decision. And then obviously Seymour Hersh published this piece saying the attack would happen over the weekend and he actually was proven to be absolutely correct. So this is the situation we're in and I really don't know how we're going to then how they're going to break through this sort of the trust, the sort of the lack of trust, the complete distrust now exists.

[Sam Seder]

Do you have any. I mean, it seems to me that the ability of the United States to get into any negotiation in any context has been severely damaged because of this. I mean, severely. And you know, Trump has effectively said, regardless whether it's like, you know, the Paris Accords or the original Obama nuke deal or just even these negotiations, it's completely, there's no credibility. I just don't know how any government anywhere could enter into negotiations with the United States States and not feel like they're putting domestic, you know, themselves at risk domestically for looking like idiots and fools. What is your sense of why the United States did this? Like we have the intel that seems to be unanimous that there that the Iranians have not had a program since 2003. Before you answer actually what your sense is the United States, Cuz I have, you know, who knows with Donald Trump at the end of the day. But the Iranians have enriched uranium to 60%, which is far greater than you need for a civilian use, still 30% less than you need to even begin to make a weapon that could deliver it anywhere, et cetera, et cetera. But what is your sense? What was that increase in enrichment? What was that about?

[Iskander Sadegi]

My sense is that that was a way of gaining leverage because the reality is it's a massively asymmetrical kind of negotiation. And if you think about it, Iran entered the jcpoa, it literally poured concrete into its heavy water reactor in Iraq so it could never be actually used again. And there was extreme criticism actually within Iran that, that you're basically destroying actually real gains in our program and you're giving up real material things for these ethereal things called sanctions, which the United States can just impose at no cost whatsoever, very capriciously. So there was A lot of criticism within Iran in this regard as well. So, I mean, so my sense is that this time they were saying, okay, you're going to play, you're going to. Trump's going to pull out in 2018. The Biden administration, which has a lot to answer for, for bringing us to this point, who basically kept Trump's quote, unquote, maximum pressure. And I think we shouldn't really even use this euphemism. I think it's really, really, actually dishonest. It's a form of economic warfare to really destroy and hollow out a society and. Yes. And create massacred discontent so that that can then be weaponized. I mean, that's what it is. It's not. Maximum pressure is a euphemism. And we shouldn't. And, you know, millions of people, millions upon millions of people, lives have been destroyed by this. And I've seen it with my own eyes. It's just horrendous. So I think Iran was saying, okay, you're going to do that. We're going to build up this software and we're going to use it as leverage. I think actually the issue is the Iranian leadership probably underestimated the willingness of both Netanyahu, I mean, post October 7, basically, to push all caution to the wind, and the United States, basically, to let any guardrails have been completely removed. I mean, and that should have been really clear from what he did to Lebanon when he was basically engaging in collective pilot and killed in excess of 3,000 people, basically carrying outright sort of terrorist actions with his pager attack, which really was an act of state terrorism. It should have been. And obviously then killing Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, and basically destroying several apartment blocks in order to do that, using a bunker buster bomb, when that was permitted and the whole world collapsed, or most of the Western elites collapsed, it should have been clear to Iran that basically there was no limits whatsoever. So I think probably Iran did make a miscalculation. They probably thought that they could do this and actually get a deal, and that's why they entered this negotiation. Because the reality of it is, I mean, I mean, if they did decide to go and actually weaponize, pursue a nuclear deterrent before this, that's a political decision, which means they would have to effectively stop all cooperation with the iaea. And therefore, that would basically, the whole world would be alerted to that. And then they would have to basically take. Turn it into a device, meld it into the metal that was necessary to put it on a warhead. Then get the delivery device, all these sorts of things. This is actually a complex and very difficult process. It would take considerable time. If you actually look at other states that have pursued weaponization, they're not members of the npt, overwhelming. The only one is North Korea, but Pakistan wasn't, India wasn't, and neither was Israel, obviously. So I think we have to take that into consideration. So all of this sort of scaremongering is just that? Absolutely. And the reality why Iran didn't go down the route of a nuclear deterrent, which they might actually be very much regretting now, because obviously they can compare the fate of Libya with that of North Korea, is because they didn't want to bear the huge amount of economic isolation and the heavy political costs that would come from that. And why is that? Because they would receive significant pushback amongst the Iranian population. There would be protests or there would be riots, or there would be significant political discontent. So that's why they didn't take that decision.

[Sam Seder]

That discontent would probably theoretically be a little bit less in light of what's happened and the idea that that short of a nuclear weapon, we have no protection against these bombings. Where do you think this goes next?

[Iskander Sadegi]

Yeah, that's a really difficult one. I mean, my sense before this news that you've just informed me regarding the strike on Al Uday, possibly, I'm not sure. Will the Trump administration sort of leave it at that and say this was a tit for tat? Has this been in some sense choreographed even? But I think actually my sense initially, before this news was that they might actually hold off on this. They weren't going to play the cards of the Strait of Hormuz. They weren't going to play. I mean, already we've seen sort of shipping insurance, double. I mean, in a sense, and we actually. I mean, someone did send me actually an update from Donald Trump talking about oil prices. It does seem he's getting a little bit nervous there, actually. So I don't think Iran wants to play that card yet, which shows that they're actually. They don't feel existentially threatened. And they also have other options. I mean, I still think, even though Hezbollah has been depleted, I think it is more than capable, actually, of entering into the fold. I think Ansar Allah in Yemen is more than capable of, again, even more forcefully entering to the fold, possibly even closing the Bab Al Mandab Strait as well. These are all cards to play, but I think the main thing for the minute, they will be focusing particularly on Israel and actually ensuring that they've raised the cost efficiently so that Benjamin Netanyahu does not actually try to normalize just bombing Iran anytime he feels like it's kids.

[Sam Seder]

Skander Sadegi, senior lecturer of history in the Middle east at the University of York, thank you so much for your time today. We'll link to that piece in Jacobin and perhaps we will speak again soon. Hopefully, this will be just a tit for tat situation, but I, it's hard to imagine. Yes.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Yeah. Yeah. My family's displaced. Yeah. They're like, they're all displaced. They've left Tehran.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Because.

[Sam Seder]

Well, our thoughts with your family and appreciate it.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Thank you so much for having me.

[Sam Seder]

All right. Appreciate your time. All right, folks, we're going to take a quick break. We're breaking format just a little bit today because of all the news. We have a big election in this city tomorrow. Really more consequential, I think, than one would imagine this mayoral election because of who Andrew Cuomo is and who Zoran Mamdani is and where the Democratic Party is nationally. I'm going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll be talking to Anthony Con, right, writing in the Nation magazine asking the question, will black Americans vote for socialist? We'll be right back after this.

[Emma Vigland]

It's.

[Sam Seder]

We are back, Sam Cedar on the Majority Report, Emma Vigland out for the week on her honeymoon when all this news is happening. Joining us now, Anthony Conright, writer, freelance writer writing in the Nation, Will Black Americans vote for socialists? Anthony, welcome to the program. The there's a new poll out today from Emerson taken over, I think, just ending on Friday with still two days of the early voting to take place, showing that Zoran Mamdani is within the margin of error in the first ballot and 35 to 38, I believe it was and is two or three points up in the eighth ballot. It's ranked choice voting. But one thing has been clear in both in this polling and in prior polling that Andrew Cuomo's biggest base of support is with African American voters also, I should say Asian voters and Latino voters and in the boroughs of the Bronx and Staten island, which you wouldn't necessarily assume would be voting with each other. Give us your sense of like, what is driving Cuomo support in the black community in New York.

[Emma Vigland]

Right. So just for starters, to acknowledge, obviously talking about race can sometimes get a little weird and awkward and talking about people as a monolith can be a little problematic. But let's continue forward knowing that everything we Say and ask is with the best of. Of intention. And so with that being said, let's.

[Sam Seder]

Talk about, you know, we're talking broad strokes. I mean, you know, you know, not all college educated people are voting for Zohra Mandani. Not all. And not all, you know, Jews are voting in one way or another. But this is. When we talk about electoral politics, a lot of times people get reduced down to, you know, one demographic, if there's a consistency there, there. So. But with that said.

[Emma Vigland]

Right. So, okay. I think it's actually a part of sort of a larger project within establishment Democratic Party politics in that if you can keep progressive leftist politicians away from black folks, well, all we will tend to know are the establishment candidates. So one of the things that. That Zoran was experiencing early on was name recognition. Right. And so that really is gonna impact black voters, who tend to get their news from more establishment type programs. And then if you kind of think about Zuron's politics, we've been kind of trained to believe that anything that is democratic socialist is bad and is sort of anti black in a way. And unfortunately, those are all of the things that black voters have to kind of combat in this race to sort of vote within their interests. But as soon as black folks hear about Varan and hear about his politics, they're on board. I was actually getting my hair cut Last week on 116th in Malcolm X, and my barber was like, he knows I write. And so he was like, yo, man, what you think about this Zoran guy? I kind of like him. You know, what is like, I'm 65 years old. And he goes, well, I don't want to. You know, I can't really say anything out loud because, you know, I'll be looked at like I'm crazy. And I was like, no, shout it from the corner. Like, we have to be. We have to expose folks in our community to ensure that, you know, we're voting within our best interest.

[Sam Seder]

How much of it is. I mean, we saw this in the context of Bernie Sanders in 2016 and particularly in 2020 and with South Carolina voters. I mean, James Clyburn came out, endorsed Biden. Clyburn has done the same thing with Cuomo in this instance. How much of the dynamic is that black people understand or have a sense of the stakes in an election? I mean, within the context of, like, a general election in the country, it seems to me the dynamic may be different than in New York City, but that, like, there is a concern that was articulated about Bernie Sanders that He can't win. Like, this was even a dynamic, this was even a dynamic with Obama early in, in 2000. I mean, I want to say through the summer of 2007 that he can't win and in a general election, and therefore we have to make sure that we're putting it up the best candidate. Now, I don't see how that would necessarily apply in New York, where, although Rudy Giuliani is probably still in people's minds, how much of it is it that versus the idea of a democratic socialist being seen as a white project?

[Emma Vigland]

Okay, I think it's all interconnected. But when you, when you actually, like, break down the reasoning, you can actually, if you're, if you're thinking something is more racist than the other, like, like, imagine what it is like to tell a voting bloc, like, you cannot have any sort of progressive or leftist political aspirations. You have to be pragmatic and you just have to sort of suffer slowly. And I think that's crazy. There's nothing pragmatic about poverty. There's nothing pragmatic about any sort of suffering. And we tend to only apply that type of thinking when it comes to black folks, like, you know, white people. If you look at Trump's voter base, they have allowed him to literally violate the Constitution. And no one was like, well, he has to do so with some sort of pragmatism. He's been doing it full tilt. So I don't understand why all of a sudden when it comes to black people, it's like, oh, well, we are so pragmatic, we will take our suffering very, very slowly instead of having the audacity to have political aspirations that are outside the bounds of establishment party politics. And I think it's like, in. I think it's insane. I think that's more of a kind of like a narrative than it actually is. Like what more so than it is about what black people need or should aspire to politically.

[Sam Seder]

How much of this is a function of Barack Obama? Because, and I asked this because in 2012, I had the late Glenn Ford on from the Black Agenda report. And his argument to me at the time, which I think, I mean, has obviously stuck with me for now for 12 years, was that Obama was the greater of two evils between him and Mitt Romney in the sense that, that Obama was undermining the long historical role of radicalism and socialism within the black community and was essentially short circuiting it by being so, so pragmatic. And what's your sense of that?

[Emma Vigland]

Well, I think that's true to an extent. I don't think one man can sort of outdo an unethical system. So no matter who you put in there, no one person's going to topple sort of the aspirations of the empire. And I think one of the things that we all sort of have did that was not fair to Barack Obama was sort of project our own hopes of what a black president would mean without sort of realizing that the last thing he could do as soon as he gets into office is actually sort of via, quote, unquote, black president, if you know what I mean. So he kind of in response to some of the stuff. But this is the thing with Obama, in response to what Trump was doing, he had somewhere said, imagine if I had did some of the. And it's like, well, I did. I did imagine you do. I wish you would have gone that far for the moral cause. And I think that's what's so frustrating to kind of look at sort of establishment Democratic Party politics, is that they've lost the ethical and moral calling to everything. It is a moral imperative to look at your neighbor, no matter what race they are, and say, you shouldn't die on the street. It's a moral imperative to say, in the written richest country in the world, people shouldn't be homeless. It's crazy. How can. In New York City, Cuomo is like, doing the whole, well, if we raise taxes, then millionaires and billionaires, oh, my God, we might lose a few. I don't know what we'll do without one of the 123 billionaires that lists New York City as their primary home. And it's like, I don't care. I'm more concerned with protecting the moral imperative than the political one. And so, fine, you might lose 10 billionaires, but you're losing hundreds and thousands of black people who are displaced because they can't afford to live here, and white people, too. And so I think what's super frustrating with what's going on, especially to watch some of the older black statesmen, is that they've completely lost the moral imperative that Zoran is fighting for now advocating for.

[Sam Seder]

Let me read to you, you, if you would, because this really stuck with me if New York became a socialist economy. Everything is free. Cuomo said we tax the rich at an exorbitant rate. The ritual move to Massachusetts. I remember when we used to call Massachusetts Taxachusetts. I didn't, but that was New Jersey or Florida. And then you write, to be clear, 123 billionaires list New York City as their primary residents. Residents, the most in the world. And New York City is home to 384,500 millionaires, the most in the world. Cuomo mourns the prospect of losing this class, but does not grieve for the exodus of black families, black children and black teenagers forced out of New York City by the rising cost of living. I think that really, really puts things very well into perspective. What is from your perspective? I mean, you had the opportunity to, you know, talk directly to your Barber, who at 65 in particular is in a cohort that generally is, is more skeptical of non establishment Democratic politicians. What, what is needed to mobilize the black community? I mean, particularly in the context of a primary that's going to decide somebody that is more than likely. I mean, the Republican Party. Rudy Giuliani was last in Bloomberg, but that was almost two decades ago. Like, I mean, this, it seems like New York City is not going to vote for a Republican. Certainly not going to be Curtis Silwa or Sliwa. I can't remember how to say his name. But what is your sense that needs to happen in these communities to change their voting perspective?

[Emma Vigland]

Well, we have to broaden the sort of the people that we present in front of voters as sort of the, I don't want to say like shepherds of black voters, but so like, for example, I am a super left black atheist. Like, there aren't a lot of folks like me that are put in front of black audiences. And I think that's like one of the things. So that way, you know, like, black folks can see like, oh, it's actually not a white thing to say, wow, everybody in the country should have healthcare. And if we do think it's a white thing, we go like, that's probably that says something about how we think about black politics. But like, I think we kind of have to expand who folks are being exposed to. But also I think just as a general rule of thumb is to remember to center ourselves in the moral imperative. I think, like, we really, really lost that. And part of that kind of happened once black folks became sort of enrolled in the Democratic party politics, which happened after Martin Luther King Jr. Died. And so in order to have political standing and to have like a seat at the table, there are some things that you kind of are forced to let go of that are sort of moral principles. And so I think part of that contributed to this. But I think at some point, point not only black folks, but like, as a community, as a Whole, you know, like, on the Democratic side, we have to, like, we had the moral argument, like, no one should die on the street, full stop. Nobody should be homeless. That they do not have to be full stop. And I think just having hold of that, but moral clarity and presenting that and keeping that at the center of the sort of politics, I think would be the best thing.

[Sam Seder]

Do you think? And I'm just wondering, like, you know, why Cuomo, what the appeal is, and I wonder if your sense is, is.

[Emma Vigland]

That.

[Sam Seder]

In the black community in New York City, there is any amount of jadedness that, that, I mean, that your barber is asking this question about Zoran this week, we're closer to the election. I wonder if, like, a certain amount of. Because in black folk that I spoke to in the wake of the first Trump election, people were like, I'm not that surprised. You know, like, there's a certain level of jadedness that I wonder, you know, and this obviously is just anecdotal, but I wonder if from your perspective there, that jadedness causes engagement that might be a little bit later in the process. I mean, very few people know that the primary takes place. I mean, I think this is going to help, Madame, to be honest. But, you know, were not for Mamdani in this race, most people I know would have no idea that there was a, like, I feel like the last one, barely anybody knew was even happening, because people just don't pay attention to politics when it's 92 degrees out.

[Emma Vigland]

Right, Right. And so here's the thing. If you, if you, if you look at Trump especially that, that first, his first win, one of the things he's like, well, the system is rigged. The tax system is game. Look at this war. Look at all. So he's kind of taking a critique of America that black people have had for such a long time and then using it. And then you have Democrats being like, what do you mean the system is rigged? No way. So he kind of like, made Democrats defend an unethical and system that is rigged, which appeals to white people, because white people are poor, too. So Democrats were like, instead of finding a way to build a multiracial coalition that says, hey, the system is rigged, they let Trump have all of that ground. And black people are. Obviously, there was a small increase and whatnot with black support for Trump. But, I mean, what do you expect if you're not. It's the best you can offer. Somebody is not Trump or I'm with her, or this is such an existential crisis. But we're not going to actually have any sort of politics that addresses, like, a moral concern. What do you think is going to happen? And so I think if Democrats would have been like, you know what? Yeah, there is police brutality and white people. You know what? The police beat you and shoot you, too. So we all need to get together to fight this. You know what? Rent is super in New York, and it's disproportionately impacting black people. But you know what? There's a lot of poor white people in New York, too. And you know what? The system is rigged against you. It's also rigged against me. So let's get together and fight this thing. And so I think if you keep presenting a situation to a group of voters where it feels like nothing is going to change, no matter who you vote for, of course you're gonna feel jaded and displaced and sad and despondent. Like, that's just a natural occurrence. But then, unfortun, unfortunately, there aren't just a lot of black people in the United States in general. And so we sort of disproportionately are impacted by those things. But, like, if you don't give someone to hope for, you don't give people something to aspire to, what do you think is going to happen? And so we have, you know, Cuomo is going to black churches being like, oh, well, you know, we, you know, be idealistic, but you have to be realistic. And I think that just is not a message that you see from the Conservative Party. They're not saying, well, we have to pragmatically use ice to round people up. They're like, you know, like, we'll get a few Mexicans here. We'll even get some white people. We'll just start picking people off the street without due process. Who cares? We're just gonna do it until we get the desired results. And I think, like, that's the kind of energy we have to have on the opposite side of the coin. I'm not necessarily, you know, like, I don't care if there are a bunch of billionaires and millionaires who end up leaving the city. Like, my sort of moral concern and ethical concern isn't with them. It's. My concern is for the person who's sleeping on the street around the corner from my house. Like, I don't want that person to be displaced. I don't want. I don't. My concern is for people who can't afford to take the boat bus. Like, my concern is for lowering police contact with people who are on the bus. And, you know, a good way to do that is if you have universal bus transportation. It's like it's in. So, like, I just think if you, if you present people with sort of a moral North Star and you say, I don't care what, what your race is, I don't care, you know, wherever you are, rural, urban, in a city like in the richest country in the world, we shouldn't have people who are dying on the street. Like, I just think it's like, it's that simple. And I think we just sort of, the party has to do a better job of making that the message instead of like, you know, have the audacity of a little bit of hope.

[Sam Seder]

The irony, too, is that Cuomo talks about his concern about capital flight from New York State. In the meantime, he's lowering tax. He was lowering taxes on them. So what's the point? Like, it would just.

[Emma Vigland]

Right.

[Sam Seder]

There's going to be some store on Madison Avenue that's going to close because people aren't buying, you know, first anymore or whatever it is.

[Emma Vigland]

Right, right.

[Caller]

You know.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

Anthony Con. Right. We will put a link to your piece in the Nation magazine. Much appreciated.

[Emma Vigland]

Oh, no, thank you for, for having me on again. Sorry for calling in so many times. I was that one caller that like two weeks ago.

[Sam Seder]

Appreciate it. Appreciate it. Glad to connect.

[Emma Vigland]

Thank you.

[Sam Seder]

All right, we're going to head to the fun half. We should reiterate that there have been reports and I think it has now been confirmed that Iran has attacked that US Base in Qatar with missiles. This is the Al Udid Air Base. This is where the forward headquarters of CENTCOM is located. It's the biggest base in the region. Matt Duss earlier in the program said that there was reason to believe that's where the Iranians would strike, and it appears that he was. Was correct. Now, as I mentioned earlier, if you had Googled that the attack apparently took a. Took place 30 or 40 minutes ago. If you, if you had googled it 30 or 40 minutes ago, you would see reports as early as like three to four to five hours early here that an attack may be imminent on that base. So it's clear that Iran was giving a heads up ostensibly to minimize U.S. casualties in an attempt to perhaps de. Escalate. Escalate. Iran says the missile attack matched the number of US Bombs. So basically just saying this is a tit for tat. Look at how proportional he can be. It is like this happened after Soleimani, too. We are told that the Iranian regime. And make no mistake, I have a real problem with religious fundamentalism. If you've been watching the show for any period of time, you would know that this. I am not a supporter of the Iranian regime. I'm not a supporter of many governments, to be honest with you, but list them all. But to the extent that I am a supporter of any governments, Iran, the Iranian regime is not one of them. The ones that aren't doing wars. The story that I have been told since, since 1979 was that the Iranians are irrational, they're madmen, that they're complete. They don't act rationally. This, of course, was also the story of Saddam and Gaddafi and every other person we ever bombed. Noriega, Japanese, the guy in Grenada. They're all mad men. Crazy people. Oh, yeah, most of them. I mean, I wasn't around. I'm just going by what I like, literally what I remember hearing. And it really appears that every time we attack Iran, there is an attempt to de escalate, which suggests to me that they're not so crazy they realize it's not gonna work. Yes. Decades of being the rational actor is all just to trick us. Exactly. And it's driving us crazy. This is the long. This is the long con. 35 years. And then one day they just for 35, 50 years. 40 years. 45 years. Oh, Jesus. All right, we're going to take a break. Head into the fun half. You can support this program by becoming a [e-mail] when you do, you not only get the free show, free of commercials, but you also get the fun half. Also, don't forget just coffee, co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. Off. You can buy the majority report blend. I don't know what's going to happen to the WTF blend, which is Marc Maron show once he goes off air. My guess is it'll still sit there languishing. I. I did want to mention, though, in the conversation with Anthony Conright that not only do I remember that interview with Glenn Ford, but the one joke of Mark Marin's I remember and I've remembered it for 16 years and I've heard a lot of his jokes. Maybe the other ones I remember were just completely inappropriate to talk about. But the one joke I do remember from the Air America days was that after Barack Obama, or in the lead up to the potential for Barack Obama to get elected, Marin had a joke was if Barack Obama wins, finally black people in this country will have an opportunity to be screwed over by one of their own. And turned out to be fairly indicative. Barack Obama was basically, you know, there was some good stuff, the Medicaid expansion and oh, the Iranian nuclear. Oh, well, Matt, what's happening on left reckoning? Yeah, left reckoning. We talked about Iran again. Patreon.com left reckoning. And kind of how this whole anti war right wing would basically be like the new Coke. And I think we're seeing it evaporate.

[Emma Vigland]

Right in front of our eyes.

[Sam Seder]

All right, folks, see you in the fun half three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow.

[Matt Duss]

What?

[Sam Seder]

What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on for. Hold on for a second. Emma. Welcome to the program.

[Emma Vigland]

Matt.

[Sam Seder]

What is up, everyone? No m. You did it.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Fun hat.

[Sam Seder]

Let's go, Brandon.

[Emma Vigland]

Let's go, Brandon.

[Sam Seder]

Bradley, you want to say hello?

[Matt Duss]

Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy.

[Sam Seder]

It's all the boys today.

[Matt Duss]

Fundamentally false.

[Sam Seder]

No. I'm sorry.

[Emma Vigland]

Women.

[Sam Seder]

Stop talking for seconds now. Let me finish.

[Emma Vigland]

Where is this coming from?

[Iskander Sadegi]

Dude?

[Sam Seder]

But. Dude, you want to smoke this? 7A. Yes.

[Caller]

Hi.

[Matt Duss]

Me? This me?

[Sam Seder]

Yes. Is this me? Is it me? It is you? Is this me? Hello?

[Matt Duss]

Is this me?

[Sam Seder]

I think it is you.

[Iskander Sadegi]

Who is you?

[Sam Seder]

No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

[Iskander Sadegi]

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism.

[Sam Seder]

I'm gonna discuss my life. Libertarians, they're so stupid. Though common sense says of course. Gobbledygook. We nailed him. So what's 79 plus 21 challenge? Man, I'm positively quivering. I believe 96. I want to say 8 5, 7, 2, 1 0, 35, 501, 1 half. 3, 8, 9, 11. For instance. $3,400. $1900. 5 4. $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game. Actually. You're making me think less. But, but let me say this poop.

[Iskander Sadegi]

You can call it satire.

[Sam Seder]

Sam goes satire on top of it all. My favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like everything you do without a duck. Hey, buddy. We see you. All right, folks, folks, folks. It's just the week. Being weeded out. Obviously. Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I, I, I don't know. But you should know, people just don't.

[Matt Duss]

Like to entertain ideas.

[Sam Seder]

Anyone? I have a question. Who cares? Our chat is enabled, folks. I love it. I do love that. Gotta jump, gotta be quick. I gotta jump.

[Matt Duss]

I'm losing it, bro.

[Sam Seder]

2 o' clock, we're already late and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag. Outrageous. Like, what is wrong with you?

[Emma Vigland]

Love you. Bye.

[Sam Seder]

Love you.

[Emma Vigland]

Bye.

[Sam Seder]

Bye.