Latest / UK Column Radio / What will happen if America attacks Iran? | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

What will happen if America attacks Iran? | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:32
My name is June. This is June.
0:33
Warfare, the battle of ideas. Trump gave his very big state
0:39
address, I think it was yesterday.
0:42
And I give it a very big ignoring.
0:45
Well, of course, of course it's the same every year.
0:48
But the thing I want to point out is that he again made
0:52
threats about Iran. Now, how dangerous do you think
0:57
this whole America Iran division actually is?
1:02
Is it just word play? No, no, it's very dangerous.
1:07
I mean, everybody that I know, but you know, is of the view
1:15
that that this is not just word play.
1:16
This is this is serious and he is going to do something
1:22
significant. And the reason that it's taking
1:24
so long is because as was discussed on Wednesday's news
1:29
program with Vanessa, that it's it's apparent that they are
1:34
intending that this would be a a sort of multi faceted strike.
1:39
So not just not just weapons from the United States, but also
1:45
proxies deployed from Syria, through Iraq, from Azerbaijan,
1:52
from Pakistan even and incursions across the border
1:58
from people that have been funded and armed as usual by
2:02
UKUSEU. So, so basically internal strife
2:08
plus the bombings, plus external agents of the state of the US
2:13
that is all heading the Iranian government at the same time.
2:21
But now, just before we get into any kind of confusion, because
2:24
when you get into the details, you can very quickly lose sight
2:28
of the big picture, let's just go back a few steps.
2:31
Why? What is the issue with Iran and
2:34
America? You on 1st Charles.
2:44
Well, I think it depends how far back we go.
2:54
I mean, as it does with with anywhere but but oh gosh, that's
2:59
a that is a extremely big question and.
3:02
Well, well put. Put it in these terms.
3:04
Then what what is the United States issue with North Korea?
3:08
What's the United States issue with Iraq?
3:10
What's the United States issue with Libya?
3:12
What's the United States issue with Syria?
3:15
What's the United States issue with every country that the
3:18
United States has carried out some some kind of regime change
3:22
operation? Venezuela, Cuba, I mean the list
3:26
goes on. They they have geopolitical aims
3:29
and we don't necessarily know what all of those are.
3:33
We, we hear, we get a narrative in the mainstream press for what
3:37
they would like us to believe. The reasons are what what was
3:41
what, what did Afghanistan do? Well, we know what what
3:45
Afghanistan was said to have done, but the truth is what
3:49
Afghanistan did was that they stopped the, the production of
3:53
opium. And that's why following 911,
3:58
the United States and Britain invaded Afghanistan for no other
4:01
reason. And as soon as they got into
4:03
that country, they restarted the the drug trade again.
4:07
Now in more recent years then then you say, well, why did they
4:10
leave Afghanistan? Well, they left Afghanistan
4:12
because opium's not relevant anymore.
4:14
Because because, because artificial opiates exist.
4:19
And so, you know, there are there are reasons that that that
4:25
are publicly made available. Iran has been on the US hit list
4:29
for what 30 years openly we need regime change in that country.
4:36
And but, you know, it's, it's, it's all there, there, it's
4:40
there are many reasons why why the United States decides that
4:46
their country needs a different regime.
4:48
And some of them are public and some of them aren't.
4:53
Yeah. I mean, I think where I was
4:55
going was concerning the specific not quite factors all
5:06
the blocks that when when put together point towards country
5:12
that has a degree of stability and independence and financial
5:20
security that that threatens the United States paradigm.
5:31
Or the Israeli paradigm. Well, yes, OK, yeah, I mean that
5:36
that again is is another big part of it.
5:39
But but the sorry. So therefore, the the history,
5:42
what I think is fascinating is to especially if you consider
5:47
the geography of Iran, what is it that has led to modern day
5:52
Iran being what it is? How, how has that, how has that
5:58
been possible? And that perhaps is a is a
6:01
question too big to quite get into grips with today.
6:04
But but the, you know, the meddling, I mean, previously by
6:09
the British in particular, but in that part of the world has
6:12
been going on for millennia. So I think in, in so many
6:17
respects, it's just completely fascinating to see that that
6:21
Iran in 2026 is, is well, I suppose in a way able to be
6:29
somewhere that that is able to present itself as a, as a
6:36
challenge, a threat, you know, a problem to to the United States,
6:41
to Israel, to the United Kingdom.
6:46
Yeah, I think, I think that's the bit that I find fascinating.
6:51
I had the great pleasure of interviewing an Iranian
6:56
journalist by the name of Taurus Siddiqui.
6:59
I'll try and get it back on actually.
7:02
And she said it pretty much goes back to 1979 when the Iranian
7:09
government got rid of the Western stranglehold.
7:15
You know, the way the Iranian revolution now it depends on on
7:19
from which perspective you are looking.
7:20
But from her perspective, it was a good thing because it it
7:24
returned a degree of sovereignty to Iran.
7:28
And I think that the one factor might be, Mike, that the US just
7:33
can't handle this. It doesn't like any country that
7:36
it can't have a manipulative effect over.
7:42
I, I think look the, the Middle East that that part of the world
7:49
is from a strategic and trade point of view, absolutely key
7:58
control of that is, is absolutely necessary.
8:01
And obviously what Russia and China, the BRICS countries are
8:06
doing with the Belt and Road is a threat to Western hegemony.
8:12
I think that what was it RFK talked about Israel being
8:20
America's aircraft carrier in the region.
8:22
This this is absolutely fair comment.
8:29
And Israel is, is there to maintain control through
8:37
destabilization, let's put it that way.
8:40
It's it's divide and conquer again.
8:42
And get, get a base of operations in that, in that area
8:47
or a destabilizing influence. Make sure that there can be no
8:52
real cooperation between countries in the area, because
8:56
some will, you know, favour a Western alignment, Some will
9:00
favour an Eastern alignment and keep, keep the thing in from
9:06
from ever getting to the point of, of them from a unified
9:11
standpoint, seeing the benefits of not being Western aligned.
9:17
And but what, what they don't want is, is a competition for
9:25
for the, for trade. And that that is a key region
9:30
for that. So Iran is problematic.
9:37
Iran is working with countries that that the West doesn't like.
9:43
And but more than that, Iran has managed to get itself in a
9:47
position where it is not reliant on other countries.
9:54
It's not reliant on other countries for its for
9:59
self-defense. It's got its own military
10:02
industrial capability. It's got a very advanced
10:05
military industrial capability. And frankly, if, if or when the
10:10
United States actually starts this action, they're going to, I
10:14
think get it's not going to be a free ride like it was with Iraq,
10:19
for example. So that clearly, clearly that's
10:25
why they're, they're taking this strategy of hitting Iran with
10:28
pretty much everything they've got.
10:29
That's, that's clearly, you know, based on what we're
10:31
saying, that seems to be the direction that it's going.
10:35
And they want to hit around with everything that they've got,
10:38
internal destabilization, destabilization around the
10:41
borders, plus whatever the United States does.
10:44
Because distracting the, the Iranian military from the, the
10:51
big target, which is, which is those two aircraft carriers has
10:55
got to be, you know, that has got to be something that they,
11:02
that they want to achieve. And well, we'll, we'll see.
11:08
But whether they achieve that or not, there are, I've no doubt
11:11
that if, if the United States starts this, they will, they
11:15
will suffer casualties. This is not this is not going to
11:19
be an easy ride for them. Yeah, I mean, the previous
11:22
attempt just what, a month or two ago didn't end very well for
11:27
for the US and for the UK. Yeah.
11:33
I mean, I think this is the bit that that I I do find
11:37
fascinating because I mean, there's no there's no way in
11:39
which they can't know this. It's not like we can be sitting
11:42
here thinking Iran would would give a pretty good account of
11:47
itself and that the United States or United Kingdom armed
11:52
forces somewhere that went out as well.
11:54
And I think going back to what Vanessa was saying on
11:58
Wednesday's news program about, about the use of proxy forces
12:03
and this and the other, it quite how this will be conducted will
12:10
be well, sort of dreadful, but fascinating at the same time to
12:15
see because it compared with any of the engagements that that
12:20
either of those countries have had the the US and the UK have
12:22
had in the last few decades. It would be a bit totally,
12:28
totally different thing. And therefore they will have to
12:33
think very long and hard about how they're going to try and
12:36
make that happen. Because the, you know, on the,
12:40
on the, on the one side of it, the, the ability to maintain any
12:45
kind of combat effectiveness in the face of that kind of an
12:47
onstable would be a huge challenge.
12:52
And, and then you've got the public opinion.
12:57
And this is the bit that you're going back to your opening
12:59
remarks about the Trump's address.
13:02
I mean, again, I covered a little bit of this on Wednesday,
13:04
but what he did use it to do was to, was to sort of grandstand
13:11
about the capability, the, the United States capability.
13:15
And you know, how, how much he's achieved, how much they've
13:19
achieved and this that and the other.
13:21
But I mean, again, going back to Mike's point, these were, these
13:24
were all in, in engagements that whether it was sort of wasn't
13:29
really a contest. I mean, and, and for a start,
13:32
they shouldn't have ever happened in the United States,
13:34
shouldn't have been there in the 1st place.
13:35
OK, exactly the same in in any meddling in in Iran, But but you
13:42
know how to how to go about this and achieve whatever objective
13:48
exactly it is that they have set.
13:49
But, but based on, in the interests of America, it's very
13:53
hard to see how they will actually progress this without a
13:56
significant deterioration of their own armed forces and A,
14:01
and a massive drop in public opinion.
14:05
But I, you know, perhaps I'll be proved wrong.
14:08
You see, the thing that we haven't yet talked about, but we
14:11
did a while ago was the, the, the looming sense that there was
14:15
going to be a false flag in Iran, false flag either on
14:19
British or or American soil or both.
14:23
And that's absolutely, it's, it's almost as if that's gone
14:25
off track. I mean, that was that was the
14:27
case the beginning of 2025 when they were there was a lot of
14:30
talk and a lot of legislation and whatnot about what was being
14:34
called foreign influence. And, you know, they were very
14:38
much setting the setting the scene for a for an Iranian false
14:41
flag. Now that that sort of they tried
14:44
a couple of things, but but basically that hasn't actually
14:46
come to part. And of course that would be the
14:48
one thing that would swing it because now people are clinging
14:53
on by their fingernails to the Ukraine narrative.
14:57
The sort of, oh, you know, British security is Ukrainian
14:59
security, and the Russians will be over here before we can say
15:02
Jack Robinson is actually turns out no one's really believing
15:07
that anymore. Whereas if suddenly something
15:09
goes bang and it's got an Iranian label on it, that that
15:13
would change things quite dramatically.
15:16
Well, it looks as if there was foreign interest in Mike's
15:20
camera, but it's nice to see what you're back.
15:22
That that has annoyed me immensely.
15:25
So that's twice that's happened as it is the browser that's
15:28
causing the problem. OK, well, at least you're back.
15:34
Sort of. But you were shaking your head
15:39
there, Mike. Were you disagreeing with
15:41
Charles or were you just shaking it at the?
15:43
Not at all. I was just wanting to lose
15:46
control and swear that nicely, but I didn't want to pollute
15:50
your your recording with me complaining about the.
15:59
What do you think could happen if it was AUS strike on Iran?
16:07
That's there's no doubt about what will happen if there's AUS
16:10
strike on Iran, this will escalate.
16:12
So, you know, because inevitably, for example,
16:16
Hezbollah is going to get involved and Israel has already
16:21
said that if Hezbollah gets involved in any way, then they
16:24
are going to attack targets in Lebanon, for example.
16:29
But you know, this, this will undoubtedly expand beyond Iran.
16:36
And I mean, who knows where it will end, But it's, it's, it is
16:40
an extremely dangerous situation.
16:43
But, but you know, even for Trump, though, for him
16:46
personally, it's going to be usually interesting to see how
16:51
this effects his, his personal brand because he was elected on.
17:01
I'm not going to start any wars. And, and he's busy at the same
17:06
time that he started wars in all kinds of places, including, you
17:09
know, where he's he's attacked Venezuela and other stuff.
17:12
He he is busy saying, oh, I've stopped 8 1/2 wars so far.
17:17
Well, is he going to, is he, is this going to be if, if, if he,
17:20
if he obliterates Iran, if, if it, if it gets to that point and
17:24
he succeeds in obliterating Iran and destroying their capability
17:28
to defend themselves and and the US wins this conflict, will he
17:33
then say I stopped another war? Yeah, of.
17:37
Course, I mean, it's the guy's off his head at the moment as
17:40
far as I can see. Well, yes, but then again, he
17:43
is, he is learning how to play the game.
17:45
And going back to the false flag thing, you know, he I think he
17:50
must have had dinner with Alastair Campbell recently
17:53
because he did, he did of course talk about Iran's.
17:59
I can't remember that he said that they can do it.
18:01
But basically the sort of 45 minute claim, you know, Oh well,
18:04
Iran could be, could be targeting the United, mainland
18:08
United States with its weapons within.
18:11
Well, I don't know if he actually said 45 minutes, but
18:14
but I mean, he is, he is absolutely warming people up for
18:18
this. And I think with his with, with
18:21
the the family line on Israel, I don't think it would take much
18:28
convincing for the public to to be absolutely on side with I'm
18:35
the president of peace and we're going to blast Iran.
18:39
I think people would be very happy to go along with those two
18:42
things being true at the same time.
18:49
Do you think Trump is actually though, in control?
18:55
Of what? No, no, Trump's not
18:58
uncontrolled. No, no, no.
19:00
Trump's barely in control of what comes out of out of his own
19:02
mouth. No, he's, he's not in control.
19:07
And, and The thing is, the people that are around them have
19:10
clearly worked out how to play him very well.
19:15
And, and ego is, is 100% the main mechanism as far as I can
19:20
see. So no, he's he's, he's got
19:26
people around him that are effectively helping embrace the
19:30
decisions to the riches. I think another way of looking
19:34
at this potential conflict in Iran is who benefits, because I
19:41
can't see the US actually benefiting.
19:45
It's not. It's not about the US
19:47
benefiting, it's about Israel benefiting in the first
19:49
instance. Israel benefits because they get
19:52
rid of their only their only real competition in the region.
19:56
Yeah. And and and the US benefits will
20:00
benefit, but because they'll get access to Iranian oil.
20:03
Yeah, and indeed the the, the war industry, the defence
20:08
industry of course benefits. Will benefit, and enormously.
20:12
And Iranian oil won't be going to Russia and China.
20:15
Yeah. Now, obviously, Iran knows this.
20:22
They have to. Yeah, they do.
20:27
What do you mean? What are they going to do about
20:28
it? Or well, I mean, what I mean is
20:31
we the world talks as if Iran are these bystanders like they
20:35
just they don't know what's going on, but they obviously do.
20:39
I mean, they successfully pulled back on that star link sort of
20:44
infiltration that that that was used.
20:47
They are obviously very aware and acutely sensitive to to what
20:54
the US is potentially planning. But what can they do about it?
21:01
I mean, they can. There's nothing they can do to
21:03
stop it happening. They can only prepare and and
21:06
hopefully they've prepared sufficiently.
21:09
But what does that preparation include though, do you think?
21:12
Well, that preparation includes hypersonic weapons and we we
21:15
cannot forget that Iran has a significant capability.
21:21
Now whether that whether that includes nuclear weapons, they
21:24
say not. And unlike Israel, I, I have no
21:29
particular reason to disbelieve what they're saying there
21:32
because certainly I haven't seen any evidence that they actually
21:34
have nuclear weapons. They have insisted that their
21:37
nuclear program is for civilian nuclear energy purposes only.
21:43
And nobody has demonstrated any credible evidence as far as I
21:46
can see that it, that it's anything different to that.
21:49
But the the fact remains that that that they have a
21:54
significant capability and those and the two US aircraft carriers
22:00
don't have a significant defense to it.
22:04
And, and the last Iranian attack, the last Israeli attack
22:08
on Iran was not only fairly significantly repelled, they,
22:16
they, Iran succeeded in getting a reasonable number of their
22:21
missiles to target in Israel. And Israel is supposed to have,
22:26
you know, it's Iron Dome or whatever it's called to protect
22:30
it from that kind of thing. So, so Iran to a certain degree
22:34
demonstrated what it's capable of when the last time it was on
22:39
the receiving end of of an Israeli attack and it it
22:43
retaliated so. You know Trump, Trump said that
22:49
he won't allow Iran to have nukes.
22:52
But now listen to this. As of 2026, the US has a total
22:56
of 5277 nuclear warheads, with 1770 of the of those words
23:03
deployed and ready for use. But Iran isn't a loud one.
23:10
It. Only works one way.
23:13
All of this stuff, it is a very difficult predicament that that
23:20
Iran is in and, and in in effect broadly that Russia has been put
23:27
in the same position and you know, that's where they've been
23:30
for the last four years. I mean, OK, the, the parallels
23:34
are not complete, but, but the, the trouble is if they, if they
23:41
are to do anything, then then clearly that's regarded as a, as
23:46
a green light for unleashing absolutely everything at them.
23:52
So you know, which of course they, they will know.
23:54
So the whole thing, that the whole thing is a, is a trap in
23:59
exactly the way that Russia has, has been trapped.
24:03
And, and it's, it is very difficult.
24:06
But but the, it's the, you know, I mean, really frankly, bearing
24:11
in mind that it's us that pay for all this, the, it's the,
24:16
it's the dishonesty that is just so utterly unbelievable.
24:22
You know, on all of this. I mean, the, the, the background
24:25
to any of these stories, when you examine it is just one
24:30
gigantic minefield of lies from, from, from our side, from the
24:35
West. It is, it is absolutely
24:37
dreadful. And I'm not saying that we have
24:40
necessarily a complete monopoly on lying, but I think I think we
24:44
get told more lies per day than than most.
24:48
Well, listen to this Israel's nuclear weapon status is more
24:53
complex than most countries because of its policy of nuclear
24:56
ambiguity. Israel has never officially
24:59
confirmed or denied having nuclear weapons.
25:07
That probably means they do. It's more than probable.
25:13
I mean, everybody, it is an open secret.
25:15
Everybody knows that that Israel has nuclear weapons.
25:20
That's, that's, there's, there's not really any debate to be had
25:24
about that. They, they don't officially
25:27
admit but but that, you know, at the end of the day, this is the
25:30
main issue because as you say, the United States has 5000
25:34
whatever. How many, how many could Iran
25:38
possibly have? Even if it had any, it might
25:41
have one or five or 10, But this is not, this is clearly not a
25:46
threat to the United States. The other problem is they don't
25:49
have a delivery system that can reach the United States.
25:52
It does, despite what Trump may have said at the state of the
25:55
nation speech, that Iran might have a capability of of reaching
26:01
the United States at some point, a delivery capability that could
26:05
reach the United States at this point.
26:07
It doesn't have the only country that that could possibly be
26:11
threatened by Iran and nuclear weapons would be Israel.
26:16
And bearing in mind the prevailing winds, would they
26:20
would they do that anyway? I don't, I don't know.
26:22
I don't think it's, you know, the whole thing is, is, is just
26:26
a, a set up a, a justification for the action that's being
26:30
taken here. And the bottom line is the the
26:33
regime in inverted commas is not one that the United States and
26:39
the the the UK wants to be friends with.
26:43
And so it has to go at whatever cost.
26:47
And then anything else is just fluff.
26:50
It's just excuses. Alex Craner was on my show for
26:57
UK column I think last year sometime and he argued that
27:01
Trump is in favor of multipolarity.
27:03
I don't know if I buy that argument and this is an example
27:07
of him not favoring multipolarity, or maybe it is.
27:10
What do you think? Yeah.
27:19
I mean, I would. Do you remember how how it was
27:23
that Alex sort of substantiated that?
27:27
Well, he he was making the argument that that Trump does
27:33
like the idea of competing economies.
27:37
I don't see that. I have to admit, I don't see, I
27:43
don't see any sign of that whatsoever.
27:45
He, he's, I, I think Trump is Trump is for Monopoly.
27:51
He wants, he wants to be winning the game every, every time.
27:56
He you know, and, and so if it's all about the art of the deal
27:59
for him, the deal is that he wins and the other person loses.
28:03
He there is no win win concept in Trump's mind that that at
28:08
least I have not seen any evidence of it.
28:11
Yeah, I, I do agree. It doesn't I wouldn't have said
28:13
it looks like I don't need to just disagree point blank with
28:17
with that point of view. But given what we've seen with
28:20
all the, you know, the tariff stuff, just as a most obvious
28:25
example. And then and then Greenland and
28:30
and Venezuela, I mean it, I don't know to me that that's,
28:35
that is very much suggestive that he is intent on gathering
28:43
up all the various strings he can.
28:48
And again, the well, it's just, you know, the, the way in which
28:53
in particular the, the Chinese and the Russians are spoken
28:57
about is not today. I, I, I really didn't get the
29:02
sense that they're regarded as competitors, certainly not in a,
29:06
in a constructive or positive sense.
29:09
It, it, it's always with a, you know, that there is an element
29:13
of threat or menace more, more than an element of threat or
29:16
menace. And therefore it is important
29:19
that that America is dominant in order to control not just the
29:24
economic conditions within which other companies or countries are
29:29
able to operate, but but also the, you know, the sort of
29:34
military slash security situation too.
29:37
I yeah, I mean, I think there's very little evidence of that
29:42
right now. But and, and you know what, what
29:48
would what would change? I don't know.
29:50
No, I, but I mean in in Alex's defense, I would say the
29:53
situation has changed somewhat in the last in the last year or
29:56
so. So if he was, if he was making
29:58
those comments at some point in the middle of last year, then
30:01
then you know, that's, that's a different world.
30:04
And it's, it's incredible how quickly situation is changing.
30:09
Yeah, I mean, it's, it's not a stab, but Alex, just by the way,
30:12
it's just. A it's a very interesting point
30:15
of view and and that's exactly it.
30:17
That's why, you know, reference the, the tariff thing at all and
30:21
indeed the other things that have happened since because,
30:25
yeah, again, this little crystal ball element, you know, could,
30:29
could one have considered that that this would be on the cards?
30:35
Yeah, actually, some, some of it definitely.
30:37
I mean, the, I think, I think, well, we've talked about it
30:39
before, but the certainly the green and Canada piece that that
30:44
that that is a rehash of something's been going on for a
30:47
long, long time. And so there are there
30:50
absolutely are things that keep coming back to the surface, but
30:54
you're just not quite sure when it's going to happen.
30:57
And Iran is exactly one of those.
31:02
If the US does unleash the Kraken on on Iran, what what
31:08
will the British government do? Well, this is an interesting
31:13
question because you know, the last we heard was that Starmer
31:18
had refused the United States permission to use British bases
31:26
to launch this from. Now, whether that's still the
31:30
situation or not, I don't know because I haven't seen any.
31:34
I haven't seen any updates. I don't know if you've seen
31:37
anything, Charles, but but that was, that was the last we heard.
31:42
Now in the past with respect to Syria, with other regimes, well,
31:47
actually maybe Trump won, I can't remember, but in the past,
31:52
you know, if, if Britain said no, United States didn't go
31:57
ahead. And so, so this again is, is
32:01
another indication that you know, the, the, the traditional
32:09
British US alignment on geopolitics isn't there at this
32:13
point in time. Now, my particular suggestion
32:19
for why that is isn't that it isn't that on a long term basis
32:23
the UK and the US are no longer friends or that they don't have
32:28
a special relationship anymore. Because I think that special
32:30
relationship was all always about the deep state
32:33
intelligence agencies and that kind of thing anyway.
32:37
But I think this is more about the effort to force the European
32:44
Union down a path. And so for the meantime, Britain
32:50
and the United States are presenting the idea that they
32:53
are not as close as they have otherwise been.
32:58
I think it's fake and it's all about driving.
33:03
Try trying to drive the Europeans to to get themselves
33:09
much more aligned together on a war footing than they are.
33:13
They're sort of still pushing back against it a little bit.
33:18
OK. But now you mentioned European,
33:19
so I mean, I asked about the British government.
33:23
What about NATO? What is NATO right?
33:30
Because, because what we have is, is, is the United, the, the
33:33
United Kingdom regime and we have the European Commission.
33:37
Forget about the European member states because makes no
33:40
difference what they think. It's what the European
33:42
Commission and the and the UK thinks and that's that's what's
33:46
driving NATO's policy at the moment.
33:51
So NATO is this, that whatever happens in Iran isn't going to
33:54
be a NATO effort because because it's not going to be AUK effort
34:00
at this point? And the relationship between the
34:05
US and NATO, I can't figure out what's going on there.
34:09
No, it's completely fake. This this, this supposed split
34:12
is completely fake Germ. This, this is something that
34:14
Trump started in 2017. Was it 17 or 18 when when the
34:19
new NATO headquarters was opened in Brussels?
34:21
Can't remember. It was 17 or 18 and and Trump
34:25
was already making, you know, noises about NATO not being fit
34:29
for purpose, but he still went there.
34:30
He still opened the the place. They still presented them with
34:33
their, their, their big piece of structural art, which was a, a
34:40
piece of metal allegedly from the World Trade Center, which is
34:43
sitting outside new headquarters.
34:45
And, and they lined up all the EU leaders there like, like
34:48
naughty school children. While, while Trump gave a speech
34:51
which said you guys aren't spending enough.
34:52
You're very naughty children, you're not spending enough on
34:56
defence. And they, and at that point they
34:58
all laughed at them. They were all sniggering in, in
35:00
a line, sniggering behind their hands.
35:04
But they're not sniggering anymore, right?
35:06
Because because the United States has in their minds,
35:10
provided the the lion's share of the, of the defense capability
35:15
of the EUUS bases in the EU and Germany and Poland and, and
35:19
other countries have provided the protection that the EU feels
35:24
that it needs from from the East.
35:27
And the United States is not guaranteeing that anymore.
35:31
But, but it's, but it's, it's all about what Trump said in
35:37
2017. He said, you know, you are,
35:39
you're taking away, I can't remember the exact language that
35:42
he used, but he basically said you're taking the Mickey because
35:45
you're expecting the United States to pay for this all you
35:48
need to put your hands in your pockets.
35:51
So I think that's, I think that's what this game is with
35:54
the game between the relationship between the US, the
35:57
UK and also the relationship between the UK and the EU is all
36:01
about that. And just to feed into what
36:05
you're saying, the secretary general of, of, of NATO
36:09
congratulated Trump on his attacks on, on Iran, and he
36:16
seems to be pretty supportive of the whole thing.
36:20
But Reuters in that case. But he is a secretary general.
36:24
There is a nut job, he absolutely is.
36:28
He would blow up this world, that man.
36:33
Yeah, yeah. I mean, which but, but, yeah.
36:36
But my point, Mike, is that it it's, it's aligning with what
36:39
you said that it, that it is theater, that there's no real,
36:46
there's no real conflict between the US and NATO.
36:51
No, there isn't. But Charles, what are your
36:54
thoughts? No, no, obviously.
36:55
I mean, that's exactly what I see now.
36:57
You know, using Reuter as an example.
37:00
I mean, he has, he, he, he is saying he's always parroting
37:05
Trump word for word on the, you know, the sort of the
37:09
requirement to spend this and deliver that.
37:13
But no, no, I mean, it's it any, any messaging about there being
37:21
discrepancies or differences, they're just, they're not really
37:24
borne out by what one sees. I mean, you know, whether it's
37:29
just the Sibley language that's used, peace through strength or
37:34
deterrence of a particular thing, a particular place.
37:38
I mean, whether or not they're doing it under a banner that
37:41
says NATO on it or that says anyone else, that they are all
37:46
basically doing exactly the same thing with critically, you know,
37:51
going back to who benefits with the same bits of kit, the same
37:57
ammunition and the same technical capabilities, inputs,
38:04
the same data sharing and, and all that kind of thing.
38:08
And I think that's the, that that's really where we should,
38:14
what sort of what one should look at in order to determine
38:18
what's going on. And, and, and yeah, who, who,
38:23
who benefits. And, and there is, you know,
38:25
this, this is what has changed so much over the years.
38:30
And we've talked about this a lot with regard to other
38:37
industries, but, but actually the the way in which military
38:41
activity is conducted has, has, has evolved or has changed it
38:47
just absolutely hugely because of the way everything has become
38:55
technologically enabled. And I know I've talked about
38:59
this a little bit before. I mean, obviously this is
39:01
something Mike in particular has been concentrating on I think on
39:06
UK column a lot over the years. But the the way in which control
39:14
of various elements of hardware and communications capabilities
39:21
and and whatnot, gradually governments and militaries have
39:27
lost more and more and more control over what they use, how
39:31
they use it, and what information they have compared
39:37
with or they have to themselves. You know, the, the sort of the,
39:42
the partnership or the, the overlap or overlay of a military
39:46
capability with the, you know, with the, with the sort of
39:50
civilian dimension. I mean that it's, it's just,
39:54
it's a totally different thing now.
39:55
It really is. And then don't forget that.
39:59
Yeah, go on. Yeah, I was going to say France
40:01
and Germany are wanting to, you know, throw sanctions on Iran.
40:06
You know, when you when you think about this, right, you
40:10
have a population in this country that is just going to
40:13
suffer. And I would I would also argue
40:18
that Americans are going to suffer.
40:23
Yeah. Look, look, let's, let's, let's
40:27
be realistic about what it is we're facing at the moment.
40:32
We have we have a Western, the Western nations economies are at
40:37
the end that that is a fact, right?
40:41
The the, the death blow, forget about 2000 and seven, 2008.
40:45
That was that was bad enough, but the death blow was, was the
40:49
COVID tyranny, as Charles put it on the news program on
40:52
Wednesday, right? That that, that has absolutely
40:56
pulled the rug out from any possibility of of building a new
41:00
economy. But on top of that, we have
41:05
systematically destroyed our manufacturing capability over
41:08
the last decades. And what are we doing instead?
41:13
We're we're trying to use the massively, massively over
41:19
leveraged banking system and the banking system is now as bad as
41:22
it was in 2007 in the run up to the financial crash, right.
41:27
We are there are more and more voices starting to talk about
41:31
this now. We are staring at a major
41:35
banking collapse, but we in the meantime, we have roads that we
41:41
can't drive on. We have power systems that don't
41:45
can't deliver enough power with food systems that we can't feed
41:48
ourselves with, right? We have situations which are
41:52
unrecoverable without money and we don't have any money because
41:57
we're so leveraged in debt that we can't pay for these.
42:01
And now on top of that, we've stuck this war policy on the
42:05
over the over the top, and now we're expected to spend greater
42:09
and greater amounts of GDP. What GDP, there is no real GDP
42:13
left in any of our countries, right?
42:16
So, So what options are there at that point?
42:20
Because the bankers are not going to allow for any kind of
42:23
restructuring of that because that means they lose everything.
42:29
So what they're doing is just playing another shell game here.
42:32
If you think about what happened during the COVID tyranny, we had
42:38
the we had economy shut down, we had more and more debt being
42:42
taken on. And where did that debt money go
42:44
to? It went straight into
42:45
pharmaceutical companies and the pharmaceutical companies got
42:49
huge quantities of profits for nothing.
42:52
I mean, even if you believed in the vaccines, the jobs, whatever
42:56
you want to call them, even you've believed in that.
42:59
A significant proportion of what was manufactured is still
43:01
sitting on the shelf somewhere. It was never used.
43:04
That's probably out of date now. So most of that money was
43:07
wasted. It was all, it was all debt.
43:11
Then the track and trace systems, what as much as Britain
43:14
spend on track and trace, £30 billion, right, all debt.
43:20
So debt, debt, debt, debt, debt, debt.
43:21
We're leveraged the hilt. There is no option at this point
43:27
but to go for a, a war policy right now.
43:32
What are they actually doing in the meantime?
43:34
Because everybody knows we've been talking about this for long
43:37
enough. Everybody knows that the the the
43:39
UK and the EU, in particular, the US to a lesser extent,
43:42
because they they spend huge quantities, trillion dollars a
43:46
year, whatever on defense, on war, I should say, but there's
43:51
no way that that that Britain or the EU can prosecute a war with
43:55
Russia. But but what we're doing is
43:58
we're creating the environment whereby they can demand more and
44:01
more taxpayers money just gets funneled straight into into
44:05
defense companies. So they're effectively playing
44:07
the same shell game with defense companies now that they were
44:11
playing with pharma companies in 2020 and 2021.
44:14
And this all our money, all our futures is just being pushed
44:18
into profit and inverted commas for, for warmongers.
44:24
Well, well, that's, that's just more assets stripping of you and
44:29
me and assets being moved into the hands of a fewer and fewer
44:34
number of people at the very top.
44:37
People who have, if they haven't already built their underground
44:40
bunkers, they're, they're in construction at the moment,
44:43
right? Because we, you know, we've
44:44
seen, how many stories have we seen about these wealthy people
44:48
building their underground bunkers?
44:49
So what are they intending now? It's not too late to stop what
44:53
they're intending because they don't think it's going to happen
44:55
this year, but it might happen. It might, who knows?
44:58
Because because the game that they're playing is, is is
45:01
dangerous and it could go anyway.
45:04
But I don't think their intention is to start anything
45:06
major this year. But but you know, so there's
45:11
still potentially time to stop it.
45:12
But people have got to recognize the situation we're in before
45:15
before they can consider what they might do to to change the
45:18
direction of travel here. Well, you've just answered the
45:21
question earlier about who benefits and you've also kind of
45:27
highlighted the great taking that David Webb has has so
45:32
eloquently spoken about the bankers, the oligarchs.
45:38
The banker, the bankers are one, one part of it, yes, for sure.
45:42
But but it's not just them, it's it's, it's this entire
45:45
oligarchical class that we have running across the banks, across
45:49
the corporates and, and politicians are just the, the
45:53
middle managers for this and not even very good ones because they
45:58
can't sell their, their rubbish narratives.
46:01
Nobody's buying it. I do.
46:06
I do wonder, though, what I mean, you said you don't think
46:10
anything big will happen this year, but the way Trump has been
46:13
talking, I mean, I suppose it's typically Trump, though.
46:19
Yeah, it's not just him. I think he's he's the obvious.
46:24
He's the obvious one because the way he says stuff, it does get
46:28
more attention. I mean, just his delivery alone.
46:33
But I think he's not really saying things that other people
46:36
aren't absolutely pointing towards.
46:38
And, and I think just to concentrate on what Mike has
46:44
just described, I mean, I think this is the, this is the
46:46
critical point that that a lot of people probably not
46:49
understanding is that these, the, the sequencing of this is,
46:54
is absolutely very deliberate to, to have set the set
47:00
financial system to, to have sort of overturned it from 2020
47:06
means that the, you know, war is, is a logical conclusion at
47:16
that point or after that point, you know, the, the push towards
47:19
and then the, the delivery of. Because first of all, if you're
47:25
when you're controlling and communicating with your
47:29
population, war, I mean, let's say an invisible illness is a,
47:35
is a pretty good one, but war is a very, very good, you know,
47:40
perhaps the best tool for controlling people with, I mean,
47:44
the most obvious. Well, this would be the time,
47:47
you know, identity cards, for example, during the Second World
47:51
War, of course, people, you know, people in the United
47:52
Kingdom carried identity cards. So.
47:54
So to all this discussion we have now about digital identity
47:59
and oh, well, you know, it's sort of happening by stealth and
48:01
this and the other. Yeah, it would be, but but were
48:05
were there to be a state of war entered into sort of formally,
48:10
then then that would be that could be one of the sort of the
48:13
overnight switches. So I think I think the some of
48:16
the reason that this is being held back to a certain extent is
48:20
because there is just more, there's more groundwork to be
48:24
done. And, you know, this goes across
48:28
so many things, all the, those things that do have dates on
48:31
them, like the 2030, you know, all the stuff that's supposed to
48:34
happen by 20-30, which obviously isn't happening.
48:37
And we look at the what it is that the Russian, I mean, you
48:42
know, the, the again, look at the timing, the it's funny to
48:47
think back now because it's you one sort of forgets these
48:50
things. But the, the February 2022, I
48:57
mean, wasn't it what's I can't remember in terms of COVID
49:02
regulations or something? Didn't something end in, in that
49:06
very month 2022? I mean, it was literally it was
49:08
almost the day before and then and then the Russia Ukraine
49:12
thing kicked off the following day.
49:14
I'd have to check. I can't remember.
49:15
Yeah, I think it was the coronavirus act.
49:16
Is that what it was? Yeah.
49:17
It was in your appeal. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
49:19
So something something like that, you know, you say, Oh,
49:23
well, it was coincidence. Yeah, not really.
49:29
So, yeah. So all of these things do do
49:32
have a traceable line in both directions, I think, to to
49:39
project what happens. You know, you, when you have
49:42
your war, you, you set the conditions for a complete rehash
49:48
of your financial system if you want.
49:52
I mean, you, you sort of you have to do it.
49:53
But also it is the perfect excuse for oh, gosh, sorry,
49:58
there isn't actually any more money left.
50:00
And it's not because of that. It's, it's because of this, it's
50:04
because of the war. So I think there are, there are
50:08
so many elements of warfare either in prospect or in
50:16
practice that just relates. So absolutely to all the other
50:23
things that we talk about, which is why I think it's really
50:27
important that we do concentrate on it and we and we do make
50:31
people think about it because like I said a short while ago,
50:37
this is done with our money. And, and you know, in simple
50:43
terms, obviously we're not surrendering our money to, to do
50:46
this, then then it's much harder for it to happen.
50:51
But similarly with, with people, it is, it is necessary that
50:56
people go forward to take part in these wars.
51:00
And if that is, if that call is not responded to in the way that
51:07
it has been in the past, then again, that that creates a, a
51:10
very big problem. And we were talking, well, yes,
51:13
actually, again on Wednesday's news, Vanessa was talking about
51:16
the USS Gerald Ford, which has had problems with its, with its
51:24
sort of sewage system on board. And but the point is that there
51:27
was a, you know, sort of what was described as a mutiny to try
51:32
to stop these things from working in order that these guys
51:36
get sent home. So it's just a demonstration of
51:39
what people can do when they, when they decide they've just
51:42
had enough of something I think to to sort of derail a war
51:48
effort, whilst apparently difficult, certainly not
51:52
impossible. I mean, the United Kingdom has
51:54
hardly got anyone in the armed forces now.
51:56
So if no one else turns up, then that that is sort of that put in
52:01
really simple crude terms. Is China that kid sitting on the
52:09
side of the playground watching the brawl unfold?
52:14
No, because China's, China's on the target list.
52:19
So, so you know this, this is, this is problematic for, for
52:23
Russia and China. They, they are, they are clearly
52:28
in my, well, my assessment of it is that they are trying to find
52:37
a way to avoid what they know is coming because they know they're
52:43
on the target list. So Russia is doing things, which
52:48
is resulting in Russia getting criticism from certain people.
52:53
And, and I, I absolutely understand why I'm, I'm amongst
52:59
others talking about finesse here, for example, I understand
53:03
why that criticism is forthcoming.
53:08
I, I'm going to say I, I have some sympathy with the position
53:13
that countries find themselves in because, because they are
53:17
dealing with a bully who is a very big bully now.
53:22
And, and so they're trying to placate or they're trying to
53:26
make deals with and, and, but I don't think that's going to
53:31
work. I think, I think that that the,
53:35
the, the decision was made a long time ago that Russia has to
53:39
be dealt with and that China has to be dealt with.
53:41
And, and I don't think anything's going to stop that.
53:47
So, yeah. But the reality is, I think, I
53:50
think, I think it would be, I think it would be much better
53:53
for for those countries, Russia, China, Iran, India, a number of
53:59
Latin American countries. It would be much more sensible
54:03
thing for them to do exactly what Mark Carney was suggesting
54:07
at the World Economic Forum and consider themselves as middle
54:11
countries and actually get together in a much stronger way
54:15
than they are at the moment. Because they might, they might
54:19
say that they support, you know, Russia might say it supports
54:23
Iran. And OK, Russia has has run some
54:26
military exercises with Iran in the last couple of weeks and
54:30
Russia seems to be perhaps maybe sending a, an oil tanker to
54:34
Cuba, for example, at the moment.
54:38
But you know, what Trump is doing to Cuba at the moment is
54:40
absolute disgrace and nobody's even noticing, right?
54:46
And, and so, you know, but The thing is, if Russia sends this
54:52
tanker, if this tanker is on its way, you know, what's going to
54:55
happen? the US is, or the UK is simply
54:57
going to say, oh, shadow vessel and they're going to seize it if
55:02
they think that it's actually going to reach a destination in
55:04
Cuba. So, you know, we, we are
55:07
absolutely in a lawless, from international law point of view
55:10
in a lawless situation. And these countries to a certain
55:19
degree recognize that, but I'm not sure that they have an
55:23
answer at this stage. Now I was going to say that I
55:27
think that China's defence is probably a lot more powerful
55:32
than what than what we perhaps think.
55:38
I mean they work in long term strategies.
55:45
Yeah. I mean, Russia and China are are
55:47
doing a lot to develop their defensive capability.
55:53
Russia's doing a lot to develop its offensive capability as it's
55:56
demonstrating in in in Ukraine at the moment.
56:01
But you know, the point is, Jeremy, that that should it come
56:08
to actual kinetic conflict as as Ukraine is demonstrating at the
56:12
moment, doesn't matter whether you have the capability to
56:17
provide some kind of defence or not, it's going to be hellish
56:21
for the people on the ground. And who wants that, right?
56:25
So, so, you know, Russia and China don't want to see their
56:29
own populations decimated or worse.
56:32
I'm. Trying to think of a way to come
56:39
in for the final leap year with some kind of upliftment.
56:49
Well, I'll tell, I'll no, I mean, I mean, let's, let's just
56:52
talk, let's just finish with Epstein then, because, because
56:55
there, there is an opportunity if, if, if a significant
56:59
proportion of Western populations, because there's how
57:03
many hundreds of thousands of emails are there, there's
57:05
information there that that we absolutely could see all our
57:10
governments brought down plus the oligarch class as well.
57:15
They're sufficient there probably if, if, if enough
57:19
people actually got engaged with that topic, it's there.
57:22
So it's, it's a gift. It's sitting there in front of
57:25
us. We need to, we need to get to
57:28
grips with it as as populations, not as individual media
57:32
organizations or the occasional journalist.
57:34
We need to get it to grips with it as populations.
57:38
And we need to get rid of the people that are driving the war
57:41
agenda, that are driving the surveillance agenda, the digital
57:44
idea agenda. It's all the same people, for
57:46
goodness sake. It's only a couple of 100 people
57:49
probably that we need to actually get rid of, put them in
57:53
bloody presents. Excuse my language, but that's
57:55
that's let's use the information that's in front of us and get
57:59
get that job done. Yeah.
58:03
Closing thoughts from the. Point well, no, I would sort of
58:07
I would go along with that and you know, because there is a
58:11
genuine sense of panic. It's it's unusual that one sees
58:14
this, but I think people have have absolutely had their, have
58:18
their, have had their feathers ruffled by this.
58:21
I mean, the only other thing I would say is just, you know,
58:25
we've talked a lot about sort of military capabilities and, and
58:30
this that and the other. I mean, I think what to me
58:33
again, is fascinating, perhaps particularly about Russia, but I
58:37
mean China as well. It's just how how much of A
58:41
contrast there is between what is said in Western countries,
58:47
but the United Kingdom, I would say in particular, I was
58:52
reporting on the environment secretary's address to the
58:56
National Farmers Union on Wednesday.
58:58
And it's just pathetic. It is just, it's just one sort
59:02
of dreary load of sort of vaguely connected sound bites
59:07
and none of it really means anything.
59:09
And then you look at the, the, the way in which Russia has
59:14
responded to, I mean, OK, sanctions, but but to, to all
59:20
the, all the various obstacles put in its path.
59:24
And it's just, you know, they've just got on with it from a, from
59:28
a self-sufficiency point of view.
59:32
And we, we're going to be talking about sort of arming
59:34
themselves and this, but you need much more to it than that.
59:36
And, and food being such a critical element and that, that
59:40
just it, it does demonstrate something that that we are
59:44
absolutely lacking here. I mean, first of all, a totally
59:46
failed narrative, but the, the action, it's just not there.
59:52
And, and again, going back to the point of where, where we fit
59:57
in what we can do. These are the areas in which we
1:00:00
need to, to, to make sure that we are actually sorting
1:00:03
ourselves out. So I think so much can be
1:00:06
learned from these countries that are supposedly in the
1:00:09
crosshairs of. The United States, the United
1:00:11
Kingdom, NATO and all the rest of it, because after all, they
1:00:14
are, they are under intense pressure, They do actually have
1:00:17
to do something about it. And in most cases they do
1:00:21
respond. And I think we can all learn
1:00:22
from that. All right, Mike and Charles,
1:00:26
looking forward to having you joining me in the trenches next
1:00:29
week. Hopefully.
1:00:31
Cheers.