Urgent Warning: China’s Takeover & Global Power Shifts | Andrew Bustamante PT 1

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Impact Theory – “Urgent Warning: China’s Takeover & Global Power Shifts” (Andrew Bustamante PT 1)

Date: July 18, 2024
Host: Tom Bilyeu
Guest: Andrew Bustamante (Ex-CIA, Geopolitical Analyst)

---

Episode Overview

In this compelling episode, Tom Bilyeu sits down with Andrew Bustamante, former CIA intelligence officer, to dissect the coming global power shifts with a focus on China’s ambitions, America’s vulnerabilities, and the multipolar world order. Andrew illuminates the mechanisms of economic cycles, the realities of modern conflict, and the underestimated nuances behind international events, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict and European intelligence wars.

This conversation is rich with realpolitik, providing actionable insights for anyone seeking to grasp the “ground truth” of current events and what it means for America’s future and global stability.

---

Key Topics & Insights

---

1. The Predictability of Global Power Shifts

Timestamps: 01:00 – 07:30

• Rise and Fall of Empires: Drawing on Ray Dalio and Soviet economist Kondratiev’s “waves,” Andrew explains how empires move through predictable cycles of economic expansion and collapse.

  • “America’s basically at the end of the 100-year cycle and phase six is total collapse war, basically. And the old world order falls apart” – Host (01:57)
  • Kondratiev Waves predict cycles of interstate and intrastate conflict—25 years to a peak and fall, gradually lengthening over time.
  • “The next peak of conflict, according to Kondratiev’s wave against the United States’s point of view happens in about 2024, 2025.” – Andrew Bustamante (05:02)

• Lessons from American History: Andrew ties America’s past unity and primacy to historical necessity rather than purely moral narrative.

  • “The Civil War was so important because we needed to remain one unified country from coast to coast to have American primacy in the long run.” – Andrew Bustamante (07:20)

---

2. The Coming Conflict: Is War with China Inevitable?

Timestamps: 09:02 – 17:28

• Legal Maneuvering on Taiwan:

  • Andrew forecasts that China will likely “make a legal move on Taiwan,” repeating the Hong Kong strategy of changing the laws before moving in, not an outright military invasion.
    • “What China did in Hong Kong was legal. First. They changed the laws… now here it is, 2023, and most people don’t even remember what happened.” – Andrew Bustamante (09:20)
    • “In the eyes of American policy, Taiwan already belongs to China.” – Andrew Bustamante (11:58)
  • UN Dynamics: China’s moves will be bolstered by UN members who are in the BRICS bloc, not condemning Russia or China, reflecting new multipolarity.
    • “Even NATO is not unified on this.” – Andrew Bustamante (14:01)

• America’s Response:

  • The U.S. will likely limit itself to rhetoric and sanctions rather than risk open conflict or loss of life.
  • Economic interests: “Our business interests with China are significantly bigger than our business interests with Taiwan… Taiwan has the market cornered on semiconductors, but that’s not just for the United States. Who designs the semiconductors? We do.” – Andrew Bustamante (15:59)
  • Movement toward domestic semiconductor manufacturing via the CHIPS Act.

Memorable Quote:

“I anticipate China making a legal move on Taiwan that will be supported by key members in the UN. Why? Because how many of the BRICS are in the leading countries in the UN? All of them.” – Andrew Bustamante (13:17)

---

3. Europe, NATO, and Espionage Shifts

Timestamps: 18:29 – 25:16

• Declining U.S. Influence in NATO:

  • Key European allies like France and Germany want to lessen American dominance, even to the point of exclusion from NATO.
    • “France and Germany have both come out to say that they don’t want the United States in NATO anymore.” – Andrew Bustamante (20:27)
  • The U.S. enabled Europe to underfund their militaries so they could focus resources on intelligence.

• French Espionage:

  • France’s DGSE (intelligence service) is among the world’s most formidable, in part due to historical grudge after CIA spying scandals.
    • "If you talk to an intelligence professional... you will hear the same thing over and over again. Fuck France.” – Andrew Bustamante (24:57)

Notable Moment:

“It’s the perfect kind of clandestine operation. Nobody even knows the threat is there.” – Andrew Bustamante (25:17)

---

4. Division and the Fragility of Democracy

Timestamps: 25:26 – 30:39

• American Division:
  • Internal division is seen as the biggest weakness—America’s adversaries are acutely aware that unity would only come after massive suffering.
    • “Not only would it take a tremendous amount of suffering for us to reunite, but our biggest threats right now are also aware that as long as we don’t suffer, we’re not really going to unite.” – Andrew Bustamante (29:10)
  • Survival vs. Thriving:
    • “We are hardwired. Human beings are wired to survive. We are not wired to thrive.” – Andrew Bustamante (30:11)

---

5. The Israel-Palestine Quagmire: Layers of Conflict and Solutions

Timestamps: 32:01 – 83:13

• Biblical and Modern Context:

  • The roots of conflict stretch back to the sons of Abraham, but modern conflict is amplified by 20th-century statecraft and external interventions.
  • Western powers established Israel post-Holocaust, fueling its economy, while Palestinians received little international aid.

• Hamas and the Ladders of Extremism:

  • Hamas began as a political/revolutionary movement, not initially labeled as terrorist until 1997 by the U.S. and allies.
  • The current situation is more complex than headlines suggest: “All humanitarian aid that we send to Palestine has to go through Hamas… they control the politics, they control the governance, they control the hospitals.” – Andrew Bustamante (40:00)

• Roots of Radicalization:

  • “The first step in a radicalization process is to validate an injustice… The next step is to create the aggressor who’s guilty… then show the community of others like you… and that’s how you get to extremism.” – Andrew Bustamante (66:45)
  • Generational trauma from current violence will produce more radicalization for decades.

• Economic Solutions Over Ideological Ones:

  • Both sides require economic incentive and independence.
  • Andrew advocates for a robust two-state solution, recommending that Palestinians be given the same post-war economic boost as Israel once received:

    “We can give people an option, we can give people solutions, give them outcomes. 60 minutes can change a life if you give them an outcome… the globe needs to broker a two-state solution... We need to rally and give the Palestinians that economic boost that the Israelis got post World War II.” (65:19, 62:15)

  • Acknowledgement of personal stance:

    “I am pro-Israel because I am very matter of factly pro-America... we must ensure the survival of Israel and the Israeli state. Practically speaking, not ideologically, not based on history and justice and everything else.” – Andrew Bustamante (58:46, 58:45)

• Proxy Warfare and Middle East Balance:

  • The war is not just Israel vs. Palestine, but a proxy for U.S.–Iran competition, with Iran seeking a “Shia crescent" for ideological and power reasons.
  • Saudi Arabia and Iran are key rivals influencing regional dynamics, with trade carve-outs (e.g., food exports from Iran) revealing underlying economic pragmatism.

• America’s Dilemma:

  • The U.S. specializes in creating dependent, not independent partners, leading to NATO resentment and global instability.
  • Economic intertwining, not just military might, will dictate the durability of any new world order or peace.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “What I find is so sad is that there are so few pro-Israel voices that are giving any kind of validation to the Palestinian plight.” – Andrew Bustamante (58:45)
• “The way that you defeat extremism is by taking out the first step in the ladder—you have to take away the injustice.” – Andrew Bustamante (66:45)
• “If you can incentivize people economically to cooperate, they will find a way for their religions to also cooperate.” – Andrew Bustamante (79:29)

---

Important Timestamps

• Predictability of Conflict Cycles: 04:02 – 07:30
• China’s Legal Approach to Taiwan: 09:20 – 13:17
• BRICS Influence in the UN: 13:17 – 14:04
• French Espionage and NATO Dynamics: 20:27 – 25:26
• Fear of American Disunity: 29:10 – 30:11
• Israel-Palestine Historical Overview: 36:59 – 39:25
• Hamas, Terrorism, and Radicalization: 57:56 – 66:45
• Proxy Conflicts in the Middle East: 77:17 – 79:47
• Economics Over Ideology: 79:13 – 83:13

---

Summary & Takeaways

• Empires run in cycles—America may be approaching a turning point, with China positioned to ascend.
• China’s preferred methods of expansion are legal and bureaucratic, not just military: expect legislative actions over Taiwan mirroring Hong Kong’s absorption.
• The U.S. must reconcile its economic dependencies and internal divisions if it hopes to maintain primacy amidst shifting global alliances.
• Occult histories (e.g., French intelligence activity, inner-NATO rivalries) profoundly shape the reality beneath surface-level headlines.
• Israel-Palestine remains unsolvable without massive soft-power investment: economic hope, not ideology, must underpin peace.
• The radicalization of disaffected populations happens in predictable stages, exacerbated by perceived injustices and oppression.
• Proxy wars—especially between Iran and the U.S. for Middle Eastern dominance—increase the complexity and stakes of local conflicts.
• Long-term global stability hinges less on military might, more on who can successfully foster economic and civic alignment among allies and adversaries alike.

---

For further analysis and actionable insights, tune in to Part 2 of the conversation.

---

Transcript

[Grainger Announcer]

If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Grainger Announcer 2]

When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters, but when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-granger. Click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Host / Interviewer]

You live in a world that is manipulated by so many unseen hands, it feels ridiculous just pointing out the things that have already been proven, let alone the things many of us suspect is probably going on. That's why our guest today, former CIA spy Andrew Bustamante, has rocketed to fame. He's come out from behind the curtain to explain how the clandestine world world actually works and help us see global politics through the lens of head fakes, feints and subterfuge. His analysis on evolving geopolitical threats such as the Israel Palestine conflict and the destabilizing nature of the escalation and tension between China and the US offer insights that will help all of us build a more accurate worldview. And the closer you can get to ground truth, the more effective you can be in times of change. So please join me as I sit down with the incomparable and Andrew Bustamante.

[Guest Analyst 1]

So Ray Dalio takes a very economic view of the world and he's like, oh hey, by the way, what he calls the big cycle is so predictable that he broke it down into six phases. And every empire has gone through these six phases. They last for roughly like 100 to 150 years. America's basically at the end of the 100 year cycle and phase six is total collapse war basically. And the old world order falls apart, there is usually a violent war and then a new world order is established and we are like clockwork on the cycle. From a money perspective, from a division perspective, everything just lines up. So you have to have an internal populace that is divided. You need to get yourself over your skis From a debt perspective, which we've done, you have to start printing money like crazy. And there has to be a new superpower on the rise. Like it's. The stage is set and the stage was set in World War II, which is how we became the dominant power. To your point about waking a sleeping dragon. Sleeping dragon woke up, but now we're in trouble. So that's my overly simplistic view of why this worked. It was sort of a fluke. Not a fluke, but it was. We, we hit the cycle at just the right moment. When the British Empire collapsed at the end of World War II because of RG geography, we weren't destroyed by bombs. So we come out of the war pretty much unscathed. So we ramp up all of our production capabilities. We absolutely crush it. We help win. We create the nuclear bomb. Like just a lot of things come together and so then we're established as the world reserve currency because it's not like we weren't divided before then, but we got to really enjoy a hot minute of prosperity. Does that seem like the right breakdown of why we could overcome our differences previously and now we can't? Like how do you.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Yeah, I don't think it's wrong. I don't think it's wrong at all. I think that it's interesting to me because it sounds like Ray Dalio. One of the reasons you respect him so much is because his analysis is based in economics and he's put his

[Guest Analyst 1]

money where his mouth is.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Economics and economists have long been viewed as the true predictors of future prosperity. At CIA we lean heavily into economic studies, economic experts, economic analysis, the law of economics. Because the law of economics is that of the law of scarcity. One of the first and most underrated economists out there was actually a Soviet economist, a guy named Kondratiev. Kondratiev created what's known as the Kondratiev Wave, the Kondratiev cycle. That cycle essentially puts us. It explains the pattern of interstate conflict or intra state conflict, where countries compete, actually go to war with each other. And it puts it on about a 25 year cycle. 25 years to a peak in conflict, 25 years to a drop in conflict. And then as the wave continues, like most waves, the actual peak of the waves expands. So it goes from being 25 years to 25 years to then 32 years to 32 years, and you start to see this longer, slower wave. Right. But it's still a wave, still a waveform. The next peak of conflict, according to Kondratiev's wave against the United States's point of view happens in about 2024, 2025.

[Host / Interviewer]

Oh, great.

[Andrew Bustamante]

So we now have multiple economists basically saying that there's a peak coming, a peak of conflict coming. And that conflict for the Kondratsiev wave is a peak of popular conflict and unpopular conflict. So we're coming off of an unpopular conflict. Right. Afghanistan and Iraq largely turned into an unpopular conflict at the end. Right. And the wave between when that started and when the next wave is coming is right in that 25 year mark. Right. So according to Kondratyv, we are not only coming up on a period of conflict, but it will be popular inside the United States. So people will rally behind that conflict. That doesn't mean we're going to win. That doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be in our best interest. But it does mean to your point earlier that we might see that moment where everybody kind of comes together again. I think part of the reason that we were able to be successful was because of the same rules of economics that you laid out from World War II. Our country hugely unpopular. Western expansion was hugely unpopular at the time. The Civil War. Nobody wants to see the Civil War again. Most people would say the Civil War was a traumatic and horrible loss of life. At the time. There was no other option. Abraham Lincoln had no option except to pursue civil war. But because he knew that the presidents before him had been working to create a single solitary nation that had national security from coast to coast. We can say it was a fight for states rights. We can say it was a fight for slavery. We can say it was a fight for lots of things. And those are also true. But they may not be the number one reason why the Civil War was so important. The Civil War was so important because we needed to remain one unified country from coast to coast to have American primacy in the long run. American primacy is a concept that was created by Alexander Hamilton.

[Host / Interviewer]

Really.

[Andrew Bustamante]

American primacy is not new. There's an entire society out there called the Alexander Hamilton Society that's focused on preserving the ideals of Alexander Hamilton and the Founding Fathers, who all believed that a strong United States meant a strong world because they saw and lived through the oppression of living under a monarchy. Right. If you look at the top five wealthiest countries in the world right now, the top five wealthiest countries in the world, two of them are democracies, the other three are monarchies. Right. So the idea that democracy is the solution to all wealth and success hasn't really Been proven yet we're still outnumbered by monarchies. Right. So what does the future hold? The future will be. Conflict is coming. Multiple economists have pointed to it. You can see the writing on the wall, what my wife and I call the writing on the wall. Conflict is coming. What will that conflict look like is the bigger question. You talked earlier about how you and I might be of the same ilk when it comes to, are we already engaged in World War iii? Is World War III coming up? What will that world war look like? There is conflict coming. There is no reason for us to think it will look like it looked in World War II. If anything, conflict has proven to us that it evolves and changes, just like technology and just like human thinking. Right. But it's still predictable because it takes human beings to wage war. I don't think I'm answering your question very well here, but these are all. This is where my brain goes.

[Guest Analyst 1]

So my question is, do you see this as a conflict with China? Does it become open warfare? Is this going to be over Taiwan, like, or the Russia, Ukraine thing spills over into something. How do you see this playing out?

[Andrew Bustamante]

So my honest. My honest anticipation, what I expect will happen is that China will make a legal move on Taiwan. What China did in Hong Kong was legal. First. They changed the laws in Hong Kong. They changed the laws in China, which then changed the laws in Hong Kong, which made it legal for them to go in and take Hong Kong by force. In 2019, right before COVID hit, the whole world watched and it happened, and the whole world complained and threw a fit and. And leveraged sanctions and said it was unfair and unjust and everything else. And then the Chinese did it anyways, and now Here it is, 2023, and most people don't even remember what happened in Hong Kong just four years ago. Now they're watching what's happening in Ukraine. Now, in Ukraine, some people say that what happened in Ukraine is that the world rallied behind Ukraine by giving them weapons and giving them training and giving them resources. The most limited resource in Ukraine is Ukrainian soldiers. It's not tanks or guns or howitzers. The thing that will run out first is Ukrainian fighters. That's like. It's been. It's a shame to me to watch what's happening because the Ukrainian fighting force is putting up such a valiant fight. They're doing everything they possibly can to equip every war fighter to be worth 10, 20, 30, 50 Russian fighters. Right? But that's their most limited resource. They're not going to be able to create more Russian fighters in the next three to five years. You just can't. You can't turn a five year old into an 18 year old. So that's the resource, that's the clock that Zelensky knows he's fighting against, that he's racing against is not a clock of fighter jets or missile defense systems. It's how am I going to find enough fighters? And NATO and the west know that they don't want to put their boots in Ukraine fighting the Russians because that's all it would take for the Russians to basically say, hey, NATO allies are killing Russians. So now Russia can kill NATO allies. And because Russia is a nuclear power, they essentially have the same, like the same trump card that we had in World War II. So nobody in NATO wants to mess with that trump card because when you have an animal cornered.

[Host / Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Andrew Bustamante]

It does amazing things. Right. So what I see happening is China will make a legal move on Taiwan.

[Guest Analyst 1]

What legal play do they have with Taiwan though?

[Andrew Bustamante]

They have a number of legal plays. First of all, do you know what the American official American stance is on Taiwan?

[Guest Analyst 1]

It's something like we're not going to do anything but don't touch them.

[Host / Interviewer]

It's so bizarrely vague.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Yeah, it's called the one China two systems policy. Essentially, in the eyes of American policy, Taiwan already belongs to China.

[Guest Analyst 1]

Interesting.

[Andrew Bustamante]

So then China also has acknowledged with Taiwan you have your own system, but you're still part of the mother country.

[Guest Analyst 1]

This is Hong Kong 2.0.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Hong Kong 2.0. And over the stretch of like, what is it, 80 miles from coast to coast between, between southeastern China and Taiwan. So it's, it's sticky, man. If, if China makes a legislative move that basically forces the Taiwanese system to then say, you are now communist. Right. They could have the legal foundation to do that. And then a legal attack is very similar to what they did in Hong Kong. That goes to court systems, that doesn't go to bullets. Right. And then when the legal system starts to go in their best interest or in their favor, now China has legal grounds to basically have Chinese police officers enforce Chinese law inside Taiwan. This whole process, what the hell is the United States going to do? There's no missiles, there's no guns. You can drive through the straits all you want. It's a legal issue, it's not a military issue. So I anticipate China making a legal move on Taiwan that will be supported by key members in the UN. Why? Because how many of the BRICs are in the, the, the leading countries in the UN, all of them. Right. If you look at the Ukrainian conflict now, the news media oversimplifies everything. So media says that the UN Passes resolutions that condemn Russia. That's true. And the u. And the UN passes resolutions with a large majority, 140 countries, you know, condemn Russia. That is also true. What they're not telling you is that the countries who are not condemning Russia are. Are the largest, wealthiest countries in the UN China is not condemning Russia. South Africa is not condemning Russia. India is not condemning Russia. Right. Even inside NATO, you have Belgium and Hungary who are not condemning Russia.

[Guest Analyst 1]

Really.

[Andrew Bustamante]

So even NATO is not unified on this.

[Host / Interviewer]

Whoa.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Right. China's seeing all of this, and China's seeing it for what it really is, not for what American media is telling the American people. It is. The American media isn't. They're not trying to, you know, they're not trying to lead us astray. They're just trying to run a business. They're trying to get people to read their newspaper, click their links, see their ads so that they can have. They can pay their employees the next pay cycle. It's all media is trying to do.

[Guest Analyst 2]

It's not.

[Andrew Bustamante]

They're not trying to lead us down the wrong path. So once there's an administrative takeover in Taiwan, China has all the rules that it like, all the COVID it needs to basically just shipping to start shipping National Guard troops, police officers, even military units over to Taiwan. And now Taiwan belongs to China in a bloodless war very similar to the bloodless coups that we've seen multiple times in places like Thailand or all over Southeast Asia. Right. That's how I see it happening. And I see it largely happening in the lead up to the 2024 election because China is going to benefit from a very confused American base during peak division and electoral cycle.

[Guest Analyst 1]

Wow, that's so distressing, because that feels very plausible. Okay, so we have a lot of business interests there, so what will our reaction be? Because my first thought was our reaction will be, oh, maybe that's the best way for this to happen. We can be like, ah, we don't have to go and commit our American lives to it.

[Host / Interviewer]

They did it.

[Guest Analyst 1]

Just like Taiwan. Or, sorry, just like Hong Kong, where we'll rant and rave and say, this is a problem, and how dare you. And sanctions. But ultimately be glad that we're not sending people to die. But do we have enough business interest there that. Especially in sensitive areas like chip manufacturing, where we can't let it go, our

[Andrew Bustamante]

business interests with China are Significantly bigger than our business interests with Taiwan. Wow. Taiwan has the market cornered on semiconductors, but that's not just for the United States. They have the market. They have like 98% of the market share in semiconductor manufacturing. Who designs the semiconductors?

[Guest Analyst 2]

We do.

[Andrew Bustamante]

We have all the ip. They just have the plants. That's why one of the big initiatives in Biden's chip act is to actually bring TSMC tmsc, I forget the name of the country or I forget the name of the company, the main manufacturer in Taiwan, to actually bring them to the United States. So they're trying to build manufacturing plants for the Taiwanese company here in the flyover states in the United States so that we can just bring that tool.

[Guest Analyst 1]

God, this is going to be a fascinating stateside 10 to 20 year period.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Absolutely. You just nailed it right there. It is going to be a fascinating decade to two decades in the future. So that's what I want to focus on. That's what I encourage my clients to focus on. It's not about what happens now or in the next two years. It's about what are you going to do so that your family, your business, your financial legacy, your individual legacy is safeguarded for what the world could look like 10 to 20 years from now. The world could look like the United States is still the economic and military superpower. It could look like that. So you may not have to change much. But according to economists, by 2033, China will be the economic superpower. That's not far away.

[Grainger Announcer]

If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock, so your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner offering the products you need all in one place. From H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Guest Analyst 1]

If we print money like crazy, then we could not go to zero. But like every other superpower before us, you really get knocked for six. It is not a minor thing that happens.

[Guest Analyst 2]

Right.

[Guest Analyst 1]

And then you lose your ability to print your way out of things, which then you go into austerity. Now you look like England post World War II, which, hey, England's amazing. But they definitely had some rough years, and they're certainly not the global superpower that we are now. But I've sort of always imagined us falling into the number two position where we still maintain some real might, that we have massive influence in other parts of the world, that there will almost certainly be parts like Europe. And look, they're an economic mess, but. But parts like Europe that are going to be far more aligned, most likely, certainly culturally, with America than they would be with China. And so you get sort of a more like, Cold War vibe where America's Russia was a huge player. For anybody that's too young to remember, Russia was a beast when I was a kid. Now, we didn't know that.

[Host / Interviewer]

It was a bit of a paper tiger, but, like, they really.

[Guest Analyst 1]

They mattered, the global stage, and I imagine will still matter.

[Andrew Bustamante]

I think you're asking yourself the right questions, right? What? Knowing that humans are laughably predictable. If China becomes the next global superpower, what is the laughably predictable thing that would happen next? Right. The most predictable outcome is that China would take the number one spot. We would fall to the number two spot. Who's always everyone's target, the guy in the lead. So right now the world is unified that the United States is enemy number one. Even if there are allies, we're still enemy number one. You think NATO likes the United States? No. France and Germany have both come out to say that they don't want the United States in NATO anymore.

[Guest Analyst 1]

What?

[Andrew Bustamante]

Absolutely. The chancellor of Germany has said he wants Germany to have the largest army in Europe, specifically so that they can't be bossed around anymore by the United States because everybody's overdependent on the United States military. Right. The president of France, early in the invasion with Ukraine, shut Biden down and said, you are actually. You are exacerbating this conflict with the rhetoric that you're spitting in Poland and the United States when you don't even have. The United States isn't even within the firing range of Russia. Right, Right. So France and Germany have had something to say. Biden has been so successful with his policy in. In Poland because Poland has long had history against Russia. So it's a natural. Like, it's a natural way in. Poland already hates Russia, and Poland will take Any help it can get from anybody in NATO. And so the United States comes in and says, hey, we'll help you, Poland, we'll back you up. And Poland backs the United States up, but Canada and France and Russia and Germany and the uk, they have a very different story there.

[Guest Analyst 1]

Well, we have to talk about France. So I was scandalized in my research

[Host / Interviewer]

to hear you say that.

[Guest Analyst 1]

When you think about, like the most hardcore intelligence agencies, that France of all places, is like, brutal.

[Host / Interviewer]

The D S G E D G

[Andrew Bustamante]

S E D G S E. Yep. What's their stick?

[Guest Analyst 1]

Why France?

[Andrew Bustamante]

So there's a couple of reasons why France. So one of the biggest reasons why France is because in the late 90s, the United States CIA was caught spying on the French government. Just like in the early 2010s, we were caught. We were caught spying on the German government. Right. Unlike Germany, France holds a grudge.

[Guest Analyst 1]

So is France not spying on us?

[Andrew Bustamante]

Of course they are. Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course they are.

[Host / Interviewer]

So.

[Guest Analyst 1]

But it's like we got caught and so now they get to be mad.

[Andrew Bustamante]

No, it's more like something changed. Prior to the 90s, prior to the late 90s, France wasn't so interested in the United States. They were interested in more direct threats to France. Well, now in the late 90s, there's this giant flap inside France. And now France is like, fuck the Americans, right? So they start to dedicate resources to building up an intelligence service and a skill set that makes sure that they will never be penetrated by the Americans again.

[Guest Analyst 2]

Right?

[Andrew Bustamante]

The DGSE becomes one of the, and still remains one of the best funded, most technically capable intelligence services in the world. Why does French. Why does France have enough money to put all of their resources into their intelligence operations? Because guess what, they don't have to worry about military industrial complex because they're part of NATO. And the United States wants to keep sending weapons and troops into the European countries. So the United States has basically bought its influence in NATO by forcing Europe to prioritize or giving Europe the opportunity to prioritize their economic growth in other avenues besides military industrial development. That's why most of the militaries in Europe are very weak and very small. Now there are some that are modernized, which is why everybody's so excited about Sweden and Finland coming into NATO. But most other countries are outdated and underfunded and they don't need to be funded because if something happens In Poland, Article 5 of the NATO alliance means that the United States military is going to come save the day. So they're okay with that. And of course the United States is okay with that too, because it means there's never going to be a military competitor in Northern in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As a result, what does get to happen is those countries can take all the money that they would spend on military defense and channel it into intelligence operations. Now, when they channel it into intelligence operations against China, North Korea, Iran, terrorism, they share that information back and forth with the United States selectively, and they build that alliance, but they also spend those resources spying against the United States. And because France specifically is so well funded and holds a grudge and is so adept specifically at targeting Americans, they have made a huge impact in the space of economic and industrial espionage against the United States. There. There are. If you talk to an intelligence professional, like, I'm sure you have friends in your network and you're like, hey, is France really that big a deal? You will hear the same thing over and over again. Fuck France.

[Guest Analyst 2]

Wow.

[Andrew Bustamante]

You will hear those two words from every intelligence professional out there. Because we have all been bested at some point in time by the dgse. They either stumbled into one of our cases, they false flagged and pretended to be CIA and recruited an asset from underneath us, or who knows what. Right. But they know how to target Americans.

[Host / Interviewer]

Whoa.

[Andrew Bustamante]

And nobody knows they even exist. It's the perfect kind of clandestine operation. Nobody even knows the threat is there.

[Guest Analyst 1]

The way that information warfare works, leveraging the human animal against itself. I am waking up to a reality that I've been so focused in my life on my businesses and my loves and passions and my wife. Oh my God.

[Host / Interviewer]

That I just,

[Guest Analyst 1]

I'm totally blind, all this. And that I have an outdated vision. Like I think of France from the 80s and 90s when I was a kid. And like, we all made fun of them.

[Andrew Bustamante]

They put their hands up.

[Guest Analyst 1]

They don't even fight back a hundred percent. And so my vision, I'm sure on a lot of these countries is really skewed in terms of what they actually think about us. Because I remember there was a lot of that grumbling when the World Trade center first, not 9 11, but in the 90s.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Yeah.

[Guest Analyst 1]

When they first bombed it, where it was like, there are people in the world that hate Americans.

[Host / Interviewer]

I was like, say what?

[Guest Analyst 1]

Like, I had completely, you know, my own sort of insulated vision of America and just, we export culture and America's so great and who wouldn't love democracy?

[Host / Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Guest Analyst 1]

That was the first time where I was like, whoa, wait a second. Like, people don't actually want this. And that is. So in recent years, I've been reading a lot about totalitarian states, Communism, and, like, what that really looks like in practice. And it gets real scary real fast. And so looking at Mao's China, which is like anybody that wants to have their brain absolutely melted, there are three books that I recommend that you read where you can see just how terrifying humans can be. And that is Mao the Unknown Story, the Untold Story. I can never remember the exact, but that. The Gulag Archipelago, about the gulag system in Russia. And then the Red Famine, which is about the Ukrainian famine. Those three books will show you that the depths of human evil. Like, I don't know how like it. That's really, really unbelievable. Like, what went down? And then when I was thinking about China, and it's like. But ultimately, like, that is born of the people. That is the natural outcropping. Now, look, it may come and go, and maybe it's just born of the people right now in this moment, and maybe that won't last.

[Host / Interviewer]

But

[Guest Analyst 1]

it is the system that they don't overthrow. That would be the right way to say it, because they could at any moment, if the people really don't want it, they could overthrow it. And they don't. And so that was the eye opening where I was like, oh, wow. Like, the rest of the world does not think of democracy just to keep it simple the way that I do. And honestly now I'm beginning to wonder if even kids growing up now think of democracy the way that I do. And if demographics are destiny. I get a little unnerved because I'm man, I don't. I. I am in the process of formulating my opinion about this. So a lot of what I have is emotion. So going back to your early things, that we are emotional creatures and the way that we feel determines what we see. A lot of the emotion that I have that I have not solidified into an updated worldview is I'm very unnerved by the amount of division in the country. And I don't see, knowing what I know about humans, I don't see how we get back onto coming together without massive suffering. Now, with enough suffering, we will. But I don't see how we'll come back together without just a tremendous amount of suffering.

[Andrew Bustamante]

I wish I could disagree with you, but I agree with you. Not only would it take a tremendous amount of suffering for us to reunite, but our biggest threats right now are also aware that as long as we don't suffer, we're not really going to unite so they can just execute. As long as they can execute cleanly on a consistent vision, they will. Because you know what we cannot do? We cannot execute cleanly on a consistent vision. And I believe in the American experiment and I believe that the world is safer with the United States being the global superpower. But I also think that the world has, the world hasn't come to that conclusion on its own. So maybe what we need is a different global superpower for a while before the world is like, you know what, maybe we don't like this, right? Maybe we want to return to another system.

[Guest Analyst 1]

God, I hope it doesn't come to that.

[Andrew Bustamante]

I hope it doesn't come to that either, because I won't. You and I won't be here for that. My kids will be right, my grandkids will be the ones going through that transition. And that's not going to be a pretty transition. And who knows? It's the. The thing is that again, knowing how people work, we are hardwired. Human beings are wired to survive. We are not wired to thrive. We are wired to survive.

[Host / Interviewer]

Ouch. Ouch. Yeah.

[Andrew Bustamante]

The human brain, the processing that goes between the amygdala and the sensory codex and all the different parts of your left and right brain that help you reach conclusions, they were all built and they have all evolved around the idea of individual survival. So whatever happens, human beings will survive. We'll adapt and will survive. We might suffer along the way, but Buddhism says suffering is part of the experience, right? So to avoid suffering is almost contrary to the, in, to the faith based, the dominant faith based religions in the world, right? Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, they all agree suffering is unavoidable. But human beings still find a way to persevere. I would love to not have that happen, but if I was in charge of any country that didn't want the United States to be the new global superpower, I would just let the United States continue to pick at its toenails like it does right now, right? We're the fat dude in the corner picking at our hangnail while the rest of the world is working out, exercising, getting smart and getting ready to go to, to go to war, right?

[Guest Analyst 2]

So when you take a look at the battlefield here, not the, not the literal battlefield, but the, the landscape of Israel and Palestine, what you have is something that in many ways goes all the way back to biblical days. Abraham, who's the father of all nations, had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael became the father of Islam, Isaac became the father of Judaism and on to become the father of Christianity. So the conflict that exists between Palestine, a Muslim country or a Muslim group, and Israel, a Jewish, largely predominantly Jewish group, essentially is the. The generational, ongoing conflict between Isaac and

[Host / Interviewer]

Ishmael and is there. So forgive me, dear listeners, but I think of this as a story and a very powerful story, but one designed to convey things at each branch. So between the brothers, I have to imagine there was a tale that we learn about each brother. Each brother represents something. What do the brothers represent?

[Guest Analyst 2]

So I, I don't. I am not creative enough, I think, to speak to the literary element of Jordan Peterson.

[Host / Interviewer]

No, for real. Like, this is his whole shtick. Yeah, like showing how basically modern humanity can be read through the lens of religious traditions and what those stories tell you. Most people haven't read his book Maps of Meaning. It is unbelievably good anyway, so, okay, so that part we don't have, that's. We have a dot point that has a gap. Maybe we won't be able to fill it in here, but I get your point. So we've got the two brothers that create two different traditions, and they both lay.

[Guest Analyst 2]

They both have valid claim all the way back to the biblical.

[Host / Interviewer]

Valid claim of what?

[Guest Analyst 2]

A valid claim all the way back to biblical and. Or Quranic tradition, to being tied to the Father of all nations.

[Host / Interviewer]

Okay, why does that matter?

[Guest Analyst 2]

Because for both of them, what they're. What they're really trying to say is that they have a right to survive in. In equality, that they are tied to the Father of all nations.

[Host / Interviewer]

But does this come down to, hey, we're tied to the Father of all nations, and that manifests as dirt. And so this dirt and rock is rightfully mine?

[Guest Analyst 2]

I think that's the oversimplified way that the Western world has it.

[Host / Interviewer]

Oversimplified or is that really what. Like, at some point, this manifests as something either ideological or tangible.

[Guest Analyst 2]

So the. The place where it becomes tangible and ideological is in the end of World War II. At the end of World War II, the Jewish Diaspora that had been hunted and killed by the Nazi party needed a country of their own. And because other countries in the world didn't want to take on the refugees, they essentially took them all to the Palestinian state that is now known as Israel and was. And the Western. The Western allies granted the boundaries of Israel and said, this is where the Jews should live. This is where Jerusalem exists. This is where the. This is the. This is their homeland, where they were born, where they came from going back to the Brothers, going back to the Brothers. But the Palestinian Muslims were already there. They had never been displaced from their homeland. So by having the west create a nation state, create boundaries and everything for a group of religious people, Jews that were persecuted during World War II, now all of a sudden, the west defined the organizational national structure of Israel. And that's where the conflict really started. Because now you had Western allies saying, this is the Jewish state, the Jewish state defining itself as Israel, the Palestinian diaspora who were now being forced from their own homeland, saying, but we were already here. Like this is, this is Jerusalem is the city where, where Muhammad ascended into heaven. Like, this is a holy place for us too. And so the west was just like, well, then you can both share it. We're going home, right? We got, we got a party after VE Day. We're done here. And that's where everything started.

[Grainger Announcer 2]

Discover Top rated stays Loved by Guests Rated highest by real guests through authentic reviews Verbo Book a vacation Rental Loved by Guests when you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery. So you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done

[Guest Analyst 2]

from there. You also then had Western powers funding and fueling the economic success of Israel.

[Host / Interviewer]

And by the way, I just want people listening at home. You are providing a very fast painting. I know enough to know that there's, you know, God only knows how much history of conflict before 1948, where these boundaries are laid and all that stuff. I just want people to understand this is an exercise in how to think

[Guest Analyst 1]

through a difficult problem.

[Host / Interviewer]

This is not a one for one accurate representation of everything. You will need a far longer video from experts in this field. We into this conversation fully understanding that. But I do think to the initial framing of this episode, I think it's very important to understand what I'm trying to do. I think putting your head down is the wrong move at this particular moment in history. There are probably times that come and go throughout history where it is okay to put your head down. And for the first 40 years of my life I had my head down and it worked out wonderfully. But this moment feels different now. That could be a mirage. Maybe it's Just my age and everybody sort of pokes their head up at this point in their age and starts thinking the way that I'm thinking. I don't know. But this moment really does feel different to me. And we'll get into AI and some other things later. I think there are a lot of threats on the board right now. Certainly AI, technology, social media, all of that. We talked about velocity and volume of information earlier. All of that's at play. So anyway, I just want to set that stage so the comments doesn't waste time with like the boring shit like, because, yes, simplistic viewpoint here from the setting of the table. We'll talk. Okay, but what do you do now?

[Guest Analyst 2]

Right.

[Host / Interviewer]

And what I really hope, because I, I think that the comments are going to end up being a big part of what makes this episode useful to a larger audience. So I hope that we can eliminate some of the. More. I don't want people to get bogged down with the wrong thing. So, yes, many details to talk about. We just need to set a quick table so that then we can talk about things like, hey, when humans have a historical conflict over who has a right to the land without getting lost in the minutiae of that right, how do you move forward? And that just. Again, so we're setting the table.

[Guest Analyst 1]

Sorry.

[Guest Analyst 2]

No, so it's fair. So I'll, I'll set the table faster too.

[Host / Interviewer]

No, no, no, I don't need you to set it faster because I know no matter how much you do, we're, we're not going to get there. The more detail you have give it to me.

[Guest Analyst 2]

For sure. Fair enough. So, so then what ended up happening was now we have as, as the west places the Jewish Diaspora into Israel and, and supports the establishment of, of a Jewish state, we then also have the responsibility of the west in fueling the economy for the Jewish state. Because you can't. I mean, we did the same thing in Japan. We're going to rebuild. There's economic benefits to the United States in rebuilding foreign countries. There's economic benefits in having allies that you help economically rebuild. So fast forward till today and now you have. Israel had this massive boost economically from Western partners and Western allies when they were placed in Israel. Those, the, the Palestinian counterparts did not have access to that financial benefit that the Israelis did. So there's, like you said, decades of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. And there's. Everything's documented out there and there's a thousand ways that you can look at it and interpret it and whatever else. But in the end, what, what happened was the, the Palestinians, through the lens of most Muslim countries, became oppressed, became ostracized from their own, like their own land, their own nation, where they could thrive and to build an economy and build a political establishment and build a legacy for their future because that land was being supported and developed by the Jewish state and the Jewish state and the Muslim state just didn't want to get along for a number of reasons that, that we don't really have a say in because we didn't live there at the time. Right. And that's how, that's how I interpret the many years of historical conflict between Palestinians and Israelis in that country. The place where we have to fast forward this to is till 1997. In 1987, Hamas became a political group that was supporting Palestinians in their fight to resist what was perceived to be Israeli oppression. Hamas became the more aggressive group versus the Palestinian Authority, which became what's known as a secular group or a non religious group. And those became the two con, the two political powers vying for support from the Palestinian people. And at the time, in 1986, the vast majority of that support went to the Palestinian Authority, not to Hamas. Hamas's promise at the time was we will destroy the Israeli country and we will return the entire country back to the Muslim people. Not a religious war. They weren't going after killing Jews. They were trying to destroy Israel. Not that it makes it that much better, but at least to clarify what their ambitions were in 1987, nobody determined that Hamas was a terrorist organization. In 1987, despite their claim, despite their promise to eradicate Israel, in 1997, following major terrorist attacks inside the United States, the peak being the Timothy McVeigh bombing of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City, the United States became very focused on terrorism and counterterrorism. And in 1987, they created the terrorist Watch list or the foreign terrorist organization list. And in that list, they listed every Muslim extremist group as a terrorist organization. On that list, Hamas was included. So at that moment in time, in 1997, based on what was happening in the United States, in their struggle with extremism, they targeted Muslim extremism as one of the other, one of the many extremisms that they would list as terrorist organizations. That's why even today, the United States lists Hamas as a terrorist group where most of the rest of the world does not. There's even country like there's only 12 countries total that that list Hamas as a terrorist organization. And in many ways it's because those 12 countries, there's 11 countries take the lead. They follow the lead of the United States. The UN as an organization, does not list Hamas as terrorist. So in 1997, Hamas becomes a terrorist group, but they're this terrorist group that also has a political arm that's supporting and taking care of the Palestinian people. Within Gaza, that's already kind of a mess. That becomes complicated. Right? Palestine can't create a standing army. They can't create their own standing economy. They can't create foreign trade. They can't create anything significant because they don't have. They're not recognized as a nation. So a few Muslim countries like Qatar and, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt recognize the Palestinian people, but not the Palestinian state. And everybody recognizes the right of the Palestinians to a state, but nobody wants to say what that state is going to be. So that becomes a mess that most of the first world doesn't even follow, doesn't really care about until things start blowing up in Israel and Palestine. October 7, 2023. This group known as Hamas, based out of Gaza, conducts this massive incursion. The most doctrinally correct word is it was an incursion across a border within one country closest to a civil war. Much closer to a civil war than an attack from a foreign nation. Right. They carry out this incursion that uses terrorist tactics, terrorist tools, but also targets military targets for a political goal that has been stated and consistent since 1987. Now, we live in this world where what is this thing that's happening? The United States labels the group as a terrorist group. However, all humanitarian aid that we send to Palestine has to go through Hamas. Like, they control the politics, they control the governance, they control the hospitals, not terror. Al Qaeda never controlled hospitals. Right. That's. It's. It's not as clear as we think it is, but it's hard to get that nuance across with the velocity and volume of information. So now we live in this world where velocity and volume of information make it so that we all see the dead bodies and the, the crying children and the dying women on the Palestinian side. But we also read about the atrocities that were executed against these Israelis in a surprise attack on October 7th. We're faced with all the information, and there's no clarity as to what's really the nuance, what's really the. The battlefield. What are we really looking at here? So you've got Israel trying to counter what they know is a. Is a threat to their national sovereignty, but they've also got a problem with a group that was created because of the oppression they put on the Palestinian people. And that's. That is what the group states is their whole, their whole core purpose, the reason they exist at all is because of that oppression. So you've got this, this absolute mess that the world is watching play out day to day, but at the same time, the world isn't invested enough to actually try to resolve the conflict.

[Host / Interviewer]

Okay, so one, I want to acknowledge that that is a sketch from a perspective. Again, speaking to the comment section right now. Of course there are going to be different perspectives on that. I don't know this well enough to feel like I have a perspective, but I will lay out a few things that I am aware of as a way of filling in additional color to your point about trying to triangulate based on opposing viewpoints. And I think yours is a. From the different voices that I've heard, yours is relatively sedate. There are people that are far sort of harder. On the Palestinian side, though, I'd say you lean pro Palestinian. I don't know if that feels right to you, but that seems reasonable. You're pretty middle of the road, but if you have a lean, it's that way. So some of the other ships that I've heard, by way of putting dots that, that people will have to connect as they try to build a narrative that creates the emotion that allows them to have a way of thinking how to move forward would be okay. You mentioned the Jews are coming out of the Holocaust. You've just had 6 million people in the Diaspora literally at an industrial level, killed in unimaginably horrific ways. And I can only imagine you started this by saying, like, they're able to trace all of this back to the brothers and the split and the way that that sort of. And you mentioned compasses earlier. And if you get off by 3 degrees in the beginning, doesn't seem like much. But, you know, a thousand years later, there's a huge gulf between you, which is very much what this feels like. I bring that up to say that you really can go back and back and back on who owns the land. You can go back and back and back on who did who wrong. And so trying to find, like, where it all started is probably not super fruitful. But there, if you're the Israelis or if you're a Jew Post World War II, never again. We're going to be strong this time. We're going to build a nation state. That nation state has to be somewhere. We go back to the region of Judea, which is where they derive their name from. So to your point, they were removed from their homeland, but still very much spiritually. That probably isn't the right word, but there's a thing there where they still have a massive identity in that region that they're tied to, even all these years later. Also, it's my understanding that there was no official Palestinian state. So it's not like the Jews went in and took over a state. So the West, I'm now guessing, I want to be very clear about sort of where I'm teleporting myself into the mind of somebody and when I'm offering what I think are facts. Now I am very much speaking like a writer would speak, but if I'm the West and I'm like, man, there's no state here anyway, I don't really fully understand the conflict. I can see bad things coming because I'm smart and I understand humans well enough. There's probably going to be some drama here, which is why the US actually pulls their support at one point of this whole idea. But nonetheless, it's like, well, we'll do it. We'll bone out. To your point, we want to go celebrate. We've just won World War II and I don't see a better solution. So let's see what happens through all of that. There are times where a two state solution has been proposed. The Palestinians reject it. There's the whole notion of from the river to the sea. They don't believe that there's any amount of Israel that can exist. I'm using the word Israel very intentionally as opposed to Jews. This is where I don't know it well enough to know if that accurately captures the spirit. It certainly accurately captures the pr. That is very much how it is presented. No, no, this isn't about religious difference. This is not a racist thing. This is just purely Israel occupied, our land that is rightfully ours. And we want to get rid of the nation state of Israel. Of course, functionally, the way that you do that is by killing people, ripping them, tearing them from their land, because they will of course fight back. If they were all just willing to up and leave, then sure. But we know that that's not going to happen. So multiple times that's offered and rejected for the reasons that I just laid out. And you end up in a position now where you gave me a piece that I had not heard before. So it's very interesting because I looked at this and was like, okay, Israel ends up thriving economically and Palestine has not. Now of course I'm aware of the positioning of. It's an open air prison. How could they ever hope to. You have these people that have just subjugated them and of course the economy is never going to grow. What I had never heard before, and it's very interesting is, well, the west really helped them when they were in that nascent, fragile place, the west helped them get their feet under them. I think it begs the question, what have they been doing with the aid that they've gotten? Because it's billions of dollars. And so one would hope that they would be spending that on infrastructure. So anyway, this is where I now start going, okay, I don't know how many more pieces it makes sense to put on the table because I have a base assumption that now we're just getting into who's right and who's wrong. I have a base assumption that this will continue to be an intractable problem if you are approaching this from right and wrong. Which is why again, as a headline reader, the Abraham Accords strike me as very positive because it was just human greed, to use a terrible word, for something that maybe isn't bad at all, which is when people are thriving economically, the people feel good, you feel like you have a future, you have hope that your kids lives will be better than yours. And when you get people in that kind of momentum now they're pointed in a positive direction. So again, I'm leaking my base assumptions here. So my base assumption is you have to give the Palestinian people a sense of a future, that their kids lives will be better than theirs, that you want to fill them with hope and optimism and all of that. Now you're not going to do that with the who's right and who's wrong. Now I happen to have a weird sort of thing in my life that makes me maybe look at things a little bit differently. Again, frame of reference, this is bias now, but my wife's family is from Cyprus. And for people that don't know the history of Cyprus, it is freakishly similar to the Israel Palestine conflict. You had Greeks and Turks living on the same little island. If you've never looked it up. Like, this is not a big place living on the same island. And one day in the 70s, I think late 60s, early 70s, the Turks invaders and they cut the island in half. And the people on north side of the island, my wife's family included, they're just stripped of everything. This house isn't yours. It was yours Monday morning when you woke up. Monday night. It's not your house. We've seen these videos play out in Israel, Palestine, so we know this drama. And I mean, gut wrenching, as you can imagine. You literally lose everything in an instant, man. Like, I, I can't imagine, like, if, if tonight this house and everything that I own ceased to be mine. That would be obviously the most traumatic thing that ever happened to me in my life. So brutal. The crazy thing is that you don't have the same ongoing bloodshed between the Greeks and the Turks. And so it makes me ask what is different? Because you have the same sense of the Greeks, like, that's not their land to take. They have no right to that land. That was our land. We were kicked out of it. It's rightfully ours. You can trace it back. So you know, history of Greeks occupying the island, raising it, you know, from nothingness, taming it, all that. Like, I mean, the Greeks have a very long history and so. And I'm sure the Turks would say the same thing, right? So even though you have all of that, you have not got the same, like, they've managed to reach stability. So the question becomes, what, what is different? And this is where it seems to me that you have to at least begin exploring the ideologies and what's happening. And again, you're never going to get either side to give up their religion. So I, for me, as I think through this difficult problem, I'm just saying whatever solution you're going to propose has to take that off the table. You cannot ask them to go, oh, the other person's right, their religion is correct. They're not going to do that. You can't ask them to go, you're right, we're, we're just going to move out of Israel and hand it over. They're never going to do that. And given that in 2005 the Jews pulled out of the west bank and out of the Gaza Strip and it didn't solve the conflict. So they, even if another was like, hey, but if you just leave this area, then everything really will be fine. They don't have a reason to believe, like, historically, just the way the humans are, they're gonna be like, no, we tried that and it didn't work, so you gotta take that off the table. So now it, when I think about, okay, as I tell entrepreneurs all the time, if you have a difficult problem to solve, ask yourself, has anybody solved this problem in the past? And if you want to look at it from apartheid, cool, look at South Africa. What, what did they get, right? Or look at some of the countries where a new nation state was born and is that the right way to handle this? And then you can start at least mapping out why those would or wouldn't work. And from what I hear, because the first time I heard of a two state solution, I was like, that makes sense to me. Do it. Yeah, perfect. I can't believe I didn't think of that. Right. And then everyone's like, yeah, no, nobody considers that realistic anymore. But that feels like the thing we have to find out. That is a gap that will never be able to resolve this until we find out why having a two state solution won't work. Do you think I'm crazy about that or. Because that to me feels like you have to put your finger on that and say, why doesn't the two state solution exist? The first argument I think is going to be Israel has no right to exist. They occupied this territory. And then I'm like, I get it, Cyprus again, Horrible fucking. If you want to get the, the people that I know and love in tears, all you need to do is talk about that day. So I, I have seen a similar heartache up close. But it, that, it's just, that's going to be militaristic, right? That's, that's guns, death, bloodshed. And is that really a game you want to play when Israel's a way more accomplished military? Probably not. Do you want it spreading wider in the region? Speaking as a guy in America. So discount my opinion because I'm not in it. That sounds horrible to me. And again, let me leak my bias. I'm making the base assumption that we should be trying to avoid death. If that isn't on somebody's bingo card, that's where we'll disconnect. We'll be two ships passing night anyway. So I put my finger on that. That feels like the thing that has to be addressed. And if the punchline is from the river to the sea, all this left is military. So, yeah. What, where, where does any of that thinking go wrong in terms of just finding the thing that we have to say? We have to understand this thing.

[Guest Analyst 2]

I don't know that I would label any of that thinking as wrong. There's a couple of places where I would. I think it's worth clarifying. So, like I mentioned earlier, I, I tend to look at everything through a lens of practicality, right? Value, fact, vast versus truth. Right. And you made a base assumption about me earlier, you tried to verify it, that I'm pro Palestine. I've never, I, I pull Heavy from my espionage background. And one of the key things that was taught to me by the director of CIA, by General Petraeus was you don't disclose your position because if you just as soon as you disclose your position, you've disclosed your position. I was mentioning that to you earlier about information superiority. Right. I've never disclosed my position.

[Host / Interviewer]

I should have asked you 10 questions.

[Guest Analyst 2]

I will just, I will disclose my position for you.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Oh word.

[Guest Analyst 2]

Right. So impact theory exclusive for anybody who cares. I am actually pro Israel. I am actually pro Israel. But the reason I'm pro Israel is not what I think people will understand. I am pro Israel because I am very matter of factly pro America. I am pro United States. The country that I think should remain the dominant superpower in the world is the United States. To aid the United States in that objective, we must ensure the survival of Israel and the Israeli state. Practically speaking, not ideologically, not based on history and justice and everything else. What's happening the Palestinian people is an atrocity. It's a terrible, sad thing that has forced them into a path of revolutionary terrorism. Very similar to what we saw when, when the United States was rejecting the civil rights movement, when women weren't allowed to vote and they turned to violence like we've seen this before. And it is, it is a sad, tragic thing. What's happened to Palestine, what has happened to Palestine, what is yet to happen to Palestine. All of that being acknowledged. As an American who wants to see American primacy in the future, we have to stand up and support the Israeli state. Having a strategic economic and military partner like Israel sit next to our strategic and military partner, that is Jordan in the Middle east gives us an incredible economic and military advantage over the entire globe that we cannot sacrifice. Ideology aside, if we want to protect American lives, we have to ensure the long term longevity, support and close relationships with the Israeli people and with the country of Israel. That's, that is my official position. What I find is so sad is that there are so few pro Israel voices that are giving any kind of validation to the Palestinian plight. So I want to be one of those voices that can say we must partner and support Israel. And the way that we partner and support them is by finding a way for them to like protect and, and defend themselves without turning to this kind of destruction. Because as long as they turn down this path of destruction, they're isolating themselves from everyone else in the world. And that makes it so that we have a very hard time standing next to them as the beacon of freedom in the world. We have a hard time supporting Israel in the face of everybody else, including all the countries of the United Nation and NATO who look at us and say, how can you stand by and let this happen? How can you support this? How can you fund this, how can you encourage this? Not to mention the corruption challenges that Israel has that so closely align with the corruption challenges of our own past presidential, you know, hopefuls and presidents that we're trying to work through ourselves between Netanyahu's corruption and Trump's corruption. Right. It's a mess and it's, it's a sad mess. But the, but the bottom line, practical element here is that Israel encourages and expands national security objectives for the United States. That doesn't mean we should call Hamas terrorists just because we don't want to call them revolutionary terrorists, which is really more akin to what Malcolm X was, revolutionary terrorism.

[Host / Interviewer]

Right.

[Guest Analyst 2]

We don't want to go down that road because it's too nuanced for the American people. Instead, we're going to put, put big billboards up in major cities that say Hamas is not just Israel's problem. Right. Hamas is your problem too. So I say all that because my conclusion is the same as your conclusion. The world, the globe needs to broker a two state solution. And in a, and in order to incentivize that two state solution, we need to rally and give the Palestinians that economic boost that the Israelis got post World War II. Let's find a way to massively expedite their infrastructure, their, their technology, their, their ability to self govern. Let's give them everything they need. If that means that they want to have close ties with the Arab world, that's exactly what the Arab world has wanted forever. That's why Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the UAE rushed to the aid of the Palestinians. So let's make that happen. And when, when we negotiate land, let's find a way to make sure that they're neighboring a Arab ally like Jordan or Egypt. Let's find a way to make that happen. Let's make it a world problem instead of saying it's their problem. Because every pair of brothers who has ever had an argument over business, they've needed an arbitrator to help them. They've needed the help of others to come to a meaningful way of resolving their conflict. I'm not trying to oversimplify it, but I am saying like, a strong Israel is in America's best interest. A strong, peaceful Middle east is in America's best interest. A strong Muslim world that counterbalances Iran is in America's best interest. So we need to find a way to let people know that this is a more complex issue than what they're doing hearing. And we're not afraid of the complexity. Let's lean into the complexity and let's solve it together. Because the more that America can influence peace around the world, the more that, Erica, the more that America is an influential power in the world. And when we don't step into our influence, we leave a vacuum that allows our largest adversaries, Russia, China, Iran, to step into that vacuum instead. And that's exactly what we're seeing in the global world right now. We're seeing not only are those countries stepping into the vacuum that we're leaving behind, but they're allying together. So much so that even Hollywood movies like Leave the World behind is literally showing what would happen if North Korea and Iran worked together to cut off the United States. That's why there were elements of both languages in the movie itself. Right? Spoiler alert. But my point is, if even modern media, if even Hollywood is showing this division from east to west, that goes to show how much it's real, because art reflects reality, okay?

[Host / Interviewer]

So one thing I think we have to acknowledge if. If we're going to at least put all the pieces on the table, and I just want to reiterate, I don't have the hubris to think I'm the man to turn to to solve this problem. Trust me, I would turn to you.

[Guest Analyst 2]

I thought that was a really good solution, man. That was a good solution.

[Host / Interviewer]

I don't think we have a real one yet because of something you taught me, which is that you really have to get in the mind of your enemy. And every assumption I have I know is coming from my own frame of reference, which could not be more Western, could not be more American, and they don't want the same things I want. So I'll ask the, arguably the hardest question of all. How much does the cultural mindset of the Palestinians or the Israelis, is this a cultural collision from just the way that they view how things ought to be, that you're just never going to be able to deal with that? Or is this. Well, Iran is throwing so much money around, they're just doing their bidding. Like, what. What is the point of, like, if I'm Iran and I want to destabilize Israel and get the world to turn on them, what's the lever that I pull to get the Palestinian people to do what I want them to do? Is it a religious lever that I pull, is it something else?

[Guest Analyst 2]

So in the. In the radicalization process, one of the things that we're taught at CIA is that there's a. There's a ladder of radicalization, an actual process for how you radicalize an extremist, and that's an extremist. Whether they're a Christian extremist or an ethnic extremist or a Muslim extremist, there's a ladder of extremism. And the first step is validating an injustice. It's the first step because when people believe that there's a perceived injustice and nobody validates that injustice, then they are conditioned. They are. They are primed to believe that there was no injustice, and they're just angry about nothing. So the first step in a radicalization process is to validate an injustice. It's independent of religion, right? This was done to you. It should have never been done to you. And then the next step in the radicalization ladder is to create the aggressor who's guilty of the injustice. This should have never happened to you. It happened to you because of this villain. It's a story. And now your. On your injustice has been validated, and there is a group that executed that injustice on you. The next step in the ladder is to say, there are others like you who have been equally treated in this unjust way by the same group. So now the person who's walking up this ladder is like, I do have a reason to be angry. They are the enemy. And there's this group that I can join against the same enemy. And you can see how this ladder just keeps on going until it ends with you strap a bomb to yourself and you run into their church and you run into their synagogue and you blow yourself up. And now you win. You can see how the ladder plays out, right? The way that you defeat extremism is by taking out the first step in the ladder. You have to take away the injustice. Unfortunately, what's happened since October 7th has created generational repercussions. There will not be a Palestinian for the next three generations who does not have a visceral memory. A dead brother, a dead sister, a dead child, a dead mother, a dead grandmother, a dead grandfather, aunts, uncles. There have been so many killed in this attack, in this counter attack since October 7th, that it's. It's left a generational scar that is going to be 50 years worth of work for everybody who gets in on the action to try to resolve this problem. We will have to face and accept that there was an injustice that was carried out and that we can resolve it so that instead of taking people up a ladder of radicalization, we can take them through a ladder of healing, a ladder of, of resolution.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Right?

[Guest Analyst 2]

What happened here, what is continuing to happen every day is fixable. We can't fix what's happened already, but we can fix what we do moving forward. We can give people an option, we can give people solutions, give them outcomes. 60 minutes can change a life if you give them an outcome. So what outcomes can we reach that that changes the whole trajectory of what's happening in the Middle East? We have to be willing to ask ourselves that question. And with the rubber really meets the road, where it gets really uncomfortable for us is that we have to be willing to accept that mistakes were made, policy mistakes, narrative mistakes, military mistakes, and that we are going to pay the reputational and financial penalty of those mistakes that were made. We just, we have to do that if we're going to really invest in a solution to what's happening in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it is just easier when your neighbors are fighting to just stay out of the fight. But if we really want to stand as the leader of the free world, we have to find a way to create freedom for both peoples in the Middle East. We have to be invested in both peoples in the Middle East. Not to mention the fact that the closer we get to the Muslim world, the more secure we will be against Islamic extremism. Because we won't be isolated. We won't stand opposite Islam and Muslim evolution and Muslim development. We will find a way to partner with it and, and, and not be a world divided by boundaries and faith and religion, But a world that's connected by a common belief in humanity and connection. We can do that. It will be expensive, it will be time consuming. It will be a lot of eating crow and humble pie. But if we can do it for 50 years, that doesn't seem like a long time. Consider the fact that, that Israel didn't even exist before 1948. In the, in the annals of time, they're less than 100 years old. They're still a young country. We're still a young country. Right? If we can evolve and change and come to our adolescence, then certainly they can evolve and change before they even reach their adolescence. Again, maybe that's too ideological. Ideological.

[Host / Interviewer]

But I think that it is probably too, it's too idealistic, maybe it's too Pollyanna. So, but it, it begs the next question, which is okay. And using enemy is, is not probably Ideal language, which again is a step in this whole process of thinking through something. Well, understanding how you have to change your own frame of reference, which I think is going to be a big part of this. But if I were consulting on this project, I would be really trying to understand, okay, what is the mindset of the people that I'm dealing with. What are the things that I know I'm not going to be able to alter. So like the religious angle, I'm going to have to find a way for them to see like a connection or to ignore it. I'm not going to be able to get them to adopt each other's way of thinking. Thinking. Okay, so I still come back to we have to have a goal. I think the go. The, the goal has to be that the Palestinians feel they are in control of their own destiny. I just really. Look, that is a Western notion that, that not everybody in the world agrees with. So I'm very open to if that's my fundamental flaw in my thinking, but my thinking is built upon that, that for them to really have hope in their future and to believe that their children's lives will be better, that they have to feel a sense that they destiny, they control their own lives, they can build the nation the way that they want to. And so I need to understand, given that the, you're not, you have to remove the idea of we're just going to get rid of the Jewish people, you are inviting them to fight tooth and nail, and they're currently so much better at that than you that it's just a death knell. So I would take that off the table in terms of it's not going to lead to the outcome I'm going for anyway. So if we take that off the table, then I need to understand why the two state solution continues to be rejected. Because if it's for religious reasons, then we have to, we have to either confront that directly and create a new narrative. One thing that I think people underestimate is the need for off ramps. And this was something I heard people very wisely talk about with Russia and Ukraine. People were very angry with Putin for invading a sovereign nation, and rightly so. But if you don't give him an off ramp where he can save face and look good to his people, you are guaranteeing an escalation.

[Guest Analyst 2]

Correct.

[Host / Interviewer]

And so while it's gross and it's icky and fucking hateful and nobody wants to do it, it's certainly going to save lives. Again, what's your goal? And if your Goal is I'm perfectly happy for every single Ukrainian to die trying to push back Russia. Okay, then if that's your goal, then you're making choices that make sense for that. If that isn't your goal, then putting on the table an off ramp for Putin would be wise because both Zelensky and Putin need off ramps to be able to go to their people and say, see, we got a victory.

[Guest Analyst 2]

Right?

[Host / Interviewer]

And so if I were helping advise or negotiate, I'd just be thinking about that, like, how do I help them each save face? Even if I think one or both of them are horrendous, I'm still going to give them an off ramp because it's the only way this is going to happen. So I'm thinking, okay, what are our off ramps here? How do both sides get to save face and feel like, okay, we quote unquote, won the saying, and that there's an empowering narrative for both of them. So that has to be found. So whether that is. I'm reading a book right now called Silk Roads. Really interesting book. A pretty and I don't know how accurate it is, so full disclosure, but a really interesting take on history about how east and west have sort of bumped into each other over and over throughout time. And that the author was painting this really fascinating picture where there were a time where there wasn't seen to be a big gap between Muslims and Jews. And I found that very interesting. And they weren't really bothered by the differences in each other's faith. So anyway, I would look into that to see is there really something there where we can paint a far more united vision married to an economic reality? Because if we can make their lives better quickly, then suddenly that becomes very interesting. And so marrying it to your idea of, okay, how do we get real infrastructure built so that their lives really are better? Whether that's education, better hospitals, better roads, I don't know. There I have nothing but ignorance to offer. But there is a thing you can do that builds a stable entity where you can get food, shel water, education, and life starts moving in the right direction. So what are those things? How do you avoid corruption? All that, of course, would be hyper complicated. And I don't know enough about the Abraham Accords. Again, I'm very much a headline reader there. But given how much enthusiasm was going into that and it's economic in nature, can you get that back on track? But you have to do something where they, you really are giving them a super tangible win.

[Guest Analyst 2]

Yeah, the, the thing that's missing, I feel like in a lot of the conversations is to understand that what's happening in Israel is a proxy conflict between Iran and the United States.

[Andrew Bustamante]

And what does Iran want?

[Guest Analyst 2]

Iran wants. Ultimately what Iran wants is a Shia crescent, something they've been after for a long time.

[Host / Interviewer]

Is it ideological in nature? Is it power in nature?

[Guest Analyst 2]

It's, it's, it's power and land mass. It really is a caliphate.

[Host / Interviewer]

I don't know what a caliphate is.

[Guest Analyst 2]

A, a Islamic homeland that stretches beyond Iran. Right. And, and is Shia Islam in nature, not Sunni Islam, which is the predominant Islam throughout the, the collegian Arabic state speaking states. So that's really what Iran wants. And, and they, they struggle to get that. And the largest counterbalance to Iran isn't the United States, it's Saudi Arabia. So when you actually hone in on the Middle east, the two big powers like counterbalancing each other are Saudi Arabia and Iran. The United States is just an outside player.

[Host / Interviewer]

Saudi's a lot bigger than Iran though.

[Guest Analyst 2]

A lot bigger by gdp, a lot bigger by land mass. However, the breadbasket of the Middle east is Iran. The breadbasket of that. That's so significant. It means that UAE and Oman and Jordan and Saudi Arabia all list Iran as an enemy. But they all get their agriculture from Iran. The cucumbers, the fresh fruit, the vegetables. It's a carve out so that we can continue, they can continue to have agricultural trade with Iran. Another thing that people don't realize is that there's carve outs all the time.

[Host / Interviewer]

That's, that is the power of economics.

[Guest Analyst 2]

That's the power of economics.

[Host / Interviewer]

Because Iran then could just choke them all off.

[Guest Analyst 2]

Correct.

[Host / Interviewer]

They want the money.

[Guest Analyst 2]

Correct. Iran wants some, some form of income and revenue.

[Host / Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Guest Analyst 2]

And they've been sanctioned in so many ways. So it's just to your point about needing an economic and a religious solution. I don't fully disagree, but I would prioritize economics first. Because if you can, can incentivize people economically, economics runs the world.

[Host / Interviewer]

Oh for sure.

[Guest Analyst 2]

If you can incentivize people economically to cooperate, they will find a way for their religions to also cooperate.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Right.

[Guest Analyst 2]

They will find a way to say, hey, you know what? We all come from the same papa bear. We all came from everybody, all the nations, they come from us. Like let's get along, let's do that.

[Andrew Bustamante]

Right.

[Guest Analyst 2]

That's something that France can't say. That's something the United States can't say. United States definitely can't say that we come from anybody. We're the bastard children of everybody. We just flocked here. Right. So there's, there's absolutely a solution there ideologically. What isn't there is a solution economically. And it's not just about economically incentivizing the Palestinians. It's also about economically incentivizing the Israelis. It takes two sets of economic stimulus, two sets of economic benefits. And even better if they can be economic benefits that are commingled. Right. So the, the more success in Israel, the more success in Palestine. The more success in Palestine, the more success in Israel.

[Host / Interviewer]

Right.

[Guest Analyst 2]

Create in a sense of independence among them. Unfortunately, creating independent partners is something the United States is very bad at. We Since World War II have specialized in creating dependent partners. That's why NATO doesn't really like us very much anymore. That's why France and Spain and Germany are, are actively opponents of the United States in NATO because they realize that what we've really done is made all of Europe dependent on the United States for their technology, for their trade, for their financial solvency. And now the same thing is it's difficult for the United States to adopt a different sort of policy than essentially economic bullying. And that's something we're going to have to learn how to do. Right. It's, it's something that, that I think a pre, an old generation of capitalists believed that you had to be the biggest in order to be safe. What I think the new era of capitalists is learning is that we can be innovative, successful, financially independent, financially soul like solvent. We can be a lot of things and still be totally safe. Because it's only when you're competing for the top space that you're really at risk. Nobody really cares about everybody else who's just. Even people who are thriving, people overlook all the people who are thriving. They focus on the very poor and they focus on the very rich. So I mean running a, I, I hope to one day run a 50 million dollar business and in the eyes of business that's still small. I think the actual cutoff for small business is 45 million dollars a year. Think about that. You can run a 35 million dollar business and still be classified as a small business. I'm not trying to compete with 100 billion dollar businesses or not trying to compete up. I want to make an impact. I want to build wealth. I want to make a difference in the world. I want to leave a legacy for my children. Much like many entrepreneurs, we want to make a splash, but we don't need to make the biggest splash. The United States wants I believe that the United States is still the best option of all the bad options. We're the best bad option for how the world should lean through superpower dominance. Until a better solution presents itself, I'm going to continue investing in American primacy. That's why my company is an American company. And I couldn't be prouder to pay American taxes, right? Because my business is helping to fund a stronger America. That makes me very proud. It makes me very happy. But there's plenty of Indians and Singaporeans and, and Thais who are also very proud that their business is running, is building their country.

[Host / Interviewer]

Andrew and I cover even more in part two. So if you want to better understand the near term geopolitical threats, be sure to tune in.