Latest / International Flavor: Where the Truth Tastes Better / Iran, Israel, Hormuz, and U.S. Escalation | International Flavor

Transcript

Iran, Israel, Hormuz, and U.S. Escalation | International Flavor · International Flavor: Where the Truth Tastes Better

• 0:00
  Hello, good morning. Welcome. I am
• 0:02
  Samuel Trap. This is International
• 0:05
  Flavor. You are on DAM radio. It's
• 0:08
  Monday morning. I'm coming to you live
• 0:10
  from the Lake Ozark real estate of the
• 0:11
  art studio. And uh feel free to phone in
• 0:14
  this morning 5737468020
• 0:17
  should you feel the urge come upon you
• 0:20
  to chat or to discuss weird things going
• 0:24
  on on the planet. Um there's plenty of
• 0:28
  that going on. I've had quite the
• 0:31
  weekend. So, first I'm gonna do a little
• 0:34
  bitching because that's what I do. Um,
• 0:37
  it's freaking cold. What is this?
• 0:39
  Yesterday, Saturday it's freaking 81.
• 0:42
  Today it's god knows what. They're like
• 0:45
  12 and uh and I don't like it. So, went
• 0:49
  to bed last night. It was hot in the
• 0:51
  house. Woke up freezing.
• 0:54
  The hell kind of nonsense is that? I
• 0:58
  don't like it and I uh I want change.
• 1:03
  I'm pushing for change. Make Sam's house
• 1:06
  great again. That's what we wish to do.
• 1:08
  And we wish to be one temperature all
• 1:10
  the time. Not this nonsensical nonsense
• 1:13
  that we are forced to put up with.
• 1:17
  Anyway, that's my bitching for today.
• 1:19
  It's over. That is all. That's Maybe
• 1:21
  I'll make that for the whole week. Maybe
• 1:23
  I won't again the entire week.
• 1:26
  Well, if I did that, I wouldn't be Sam
• 1:28
  now, would I? So, I have a joke for you.
• 1:31
  Speaking of of that, uh,
• 1:35
  so it's a it's a terrible joke. I mean,
• 1:37
  it's a horrible joke, but you'll
• 1:39
  appreciate it, right? Um,
• 1:42
  there's a guy in uh he's, you know,
• 1:47
  unfortunately doing an accident in his
• 1:49
  youth. He's got a uh
• 1:52
  a fake eyeball
• 1:55
  and he couldn't spend a lot of money on
• 1:58
  this eyeball. And so
• 2:02
  unfortunately he had to take the
• 2:05
  polished wooden version and they had
• 2:07
  polished it up real nice. It was really
• 2:09
  pretty and he'd have to pop it in his
• 2:11
  head and you know but he didn't have the
• 2:13
  money for the very expensive eyeball.
• 2:16
  So, you know, it's a glass eyeball. So,
• 2:18
  he he had one that was wooden and
• 2:23
  he always was very self-conscious about
• 2:25
  it. He had a hard time u you know
• 2:28
  dating. Couldn't find a girl. And so,
• 2:30
  he's he's got a friend. You know how you
• 2:32
  are when you don't have a date. You
• 2:33
  know, your friend sets you up. Friend
• 2:35
  sets you up with another girl.
• 2:38
  And uh he's like, "Well, you know, I'd
• 2:40
  like to, but man, I'm really paranoid. I
• 2:42
  don't like it. I always feel
• 2:43
  uncomfortable. I don't know what to do."
• 2:45
  He said, "Listen, nobody's perfect. You
• 2:47
  know, the girl that I'm setting you up
• 2:49
  with, she's got u
• 2:52
  she's got a a a hair lift, cleft pallet,
• 2:54
  she cleft lip, and she's got a a hair
• 2:57
  lip. And he goes he goes, "Oh, well, I I
• 3:00
  don't know." He says, "Maybe it would be
• 3:02
  good for us to uh be in, you know, you
• 3:05
  know, be be in misery with each other.
• 3:07
  Nobody's perfect." And he's going to go
• 3:09
  and he's going to take a date. And he
• 3:11
  says, "Well, listen, she's subconscious,
• 3:13
  too. Don't say anything about it. just
• 3:15
  people are people. What difference does
• 3:17
  it make? Why are you putting such a hard
• 3:18
  time in this? This is a terrible joke,
• 3:20
  by the way. Just so you know, I'm for
• 3:23
  fair warning right here. And he says,
• 3:26
  "All right, it's an old joke from Sam's
• 3:29
  uh what do you call it? High school or
• 3:32
  even junior high school days is when
• 3:35
  this this is an old joke." So, just to
• 3:38
  preface that, used to be able to get
• 3:40
  away with stuff you can't get away with
• 3:42
  anymore. But hey, I'm a risk taker. So,
• 3:45
  uh, at any rate, um, they go out. He he
• 3:50
  he says, "Well, this will be great." He
• 3:51
  choose to take her to dinner. He says,
• 3:52
  "Well, let's see if we can, you know,
• 3:54
  have a nice dinner. We'll have a few
• 3:56
  drinks. You know, we'll have dinner.
• 3:58
  It'll be great. You know, I'm I'm really
• 4:00
  looking forward to this very attractive
• 4:01
  girl. Just happen to have a uh a hair
• 4:04
  lip." And he goes, he goes, "Man, you
• 4:06
  know, I'm not a bad-looking guy. I just
• 4:08
  happen to, you know, not be able to
• 4:10
  afford the glass eye in life, you know.
• 4:13
  So,
• 4:14
  they go out to dinner, things are going
• 4:17
  well, you know, they're sitting there,
• 4:18
  they're getting along great. He's he's
• 4:21
  he's really liking her. He thinks she's
• 4:22
  a she's a great girl. And uh he's going,
• 4:26
  "Man, this is fantastic. She's she's
• 4:29
  really a good girl." And he goes, "Man,
• 4:31
  is it possible? Could I have finally
• 4:33
  found a woman?" And the whole time
• 4:35
  she's, you know, thinking, "Oh my gosh,
• 4:37
  this guy's really great. I don't care if
• 4:39
  he's got a, you know, a artificial
• 4:43
  eyeball. What do I care?" And, uh, he
• 4:45
  says, "You're a great guy." And, uh,
• 4:48
  she's a great girl. And so the dinner's
• 4:50
  going well. They have a drink. They're s
• 4:53
  after the drink, they go out to the they
• 4:55
  go to the bar in the restaurant. They
• 4:57
  sit at the restaurant bar. They're
• 4:59
  having another drink and uh, you know,
• 5:01
  having a night cap. Um and and and
• 5:05
  getting getting ready the the evening is
• 5:07
  coming to a close. The bar is a
• 5:09
  restaurant is getting ready to close and
• 5:12
  uh he he he he gets up his courage. It's
• 5:16
  like man this opportunity isn't going to
• 5:19
  come up all he gets up his courage and
• 5:20
  he's like man he says to her would you
• 5:24
  like to come over to my place and she
• 5:27
  says oh would I? and he says hair lip
• 5:31
  hair lip.
• 5:34
  Do you get it? Oh, I hope so. Anyway,
• 5:36
  it's a weak weak joke, but that's the
• 5:39
  joke. Sorry, that's the the nature of
• 5:41
  the beast today. Uh, it's a weird day
• 5:45
  we're talking about. Um, so what is in
• 5:49
  the news today? What do we have? We have
• 5:52
  Jewish ambulances
• 5:54
  being torched in London with video. They
• 5:58
  even provided video of all of this. Um,
• 6:02
  this is this is uh, you know, talk about
• 6:05
  um,
• 6:07
  anti-semitism. I suppose this is
• 6:10
  nonsense. Uh, police are treating an
• 6:13
  arson attack as an anti-semitic
• 6:16
  hate crime. Well, that's what they do.
• 6:19
  Um, why am I echoing? I feel like I'm
• 6:21
  echoing in here and I don't like it. So
• 6:25
  maybe the maybe just the volume's up a
• 6:27
  little high. Anyway, sorry you have to
• 6:31
  uh train along with me here at the real
• 6:33
  estate stateofthe-art
• 6:35
  studio.
• 6:37
  Four ambulances operated by a Jewish
• 6:40
  volunteer organization in London were
• 6:43
  set on fire overnight. The incident took
• 6:47
  place in Golders Green area of the
• 6:50
  Barnett Burrow at around 1:45 in the
• 6:53
  morning. CCTV footage shows at least
• 6:56
  three masked individuals setting fire to
• 6:59
  vehicles belonging to the local branch
• 7:02
  of Hatazala,
• 7:04
  a network of volunteer emergency medical
• 7:06
  services that works with Jewish
• 7:08
  communities. London Fire Brigade said
• 7:11
  the multiple cylinders on the vehicles
• 7:14
  exploded, causing windows in a nearby
• 7:18
  residential building to shatter. No
• 7:20
  injuries were reported. The Metro Police
• 7:23
  said nearby homes were evacuated as a
• 7:25
  precaution and confirmed that the case
• 7:28
  was being treated as an anti-semitic
• 7:31
  hate crime.
• 7:34
  So there's also some new news on now
• 7:38
  we're going to have ICE ICE is going to
• 7:42
  be at the airport now. Now um I guess
• 7:45
  you got to get past the uh ICE officials
• 7:48
  too. Um, I don't know how you feel about
• 7:53
  this. Trump says he's going to deploy
• 7:56
  Immigration and Customs Enforcement guys
• 7:58
  to be standing in for Transportation
• 8:03
  Security Administration, TSA, personnel
• 8:05
  at airports unless the Democrats in
• 8:07
  Congress unblock funding for DHS.
• 8:12
  The partial shutdown that began in
• 8:14
  February
• 8:16
  has left thousands of TSA employees
• 8:18
  without pay. Well, there's too freaking
• 8:20
  many of them anyway. That that's a
• 8:23
  personal view. Probably, you know,
• 8:25
  people don't like that, but Jesus,
• 8:27
  they're everywhere. You can't swing a
• 8:28
  dead cat without hitting a TSA agent.
• 8:31
  It's nonsense. Um resulting in there are
• 8:34
  now lengthy security lines at airports
• 8:37
  across the country. TSA and ICE are part
• 8:39
  of the DHS. However, the latter agency
• 8:44
  received $75 billion.
• 8:48
  75 billion bucks.
• 8:51
  Let's say that again. 75 billion
• 8:55
  dollar for immigration enforcement. Is
• 8:59
  that nuts or what? He got it from
• 9:02
  Trump's big beautiful bill. Yeah, it was
• 9:05
  real beautiful. We've gone up $2
• 9:07
  trillion in debt since the man took
• 9:11
  office.
• 9:12
  Anyway, that was signed into law. In in
• 9:15
  a post on True Social, by the way, which
• 9:18
  is also losing hundreds of millions of
• 9:21
  dollars, according to a lot of people,
• 9:23
  uh Saturday, the US president wrote that
• 9:26
  if radical left Democrats don't
• 9:29
  immediately sign an agreement to let our
• 9:31
  country, in particular our airports, to
• 9:34
  be free and safe again, I will move our
• 9:37
  brilliant. Now, all ICE agents are
• 9:40
  brilliant. This is great. Our brilliant
• 9:43
  patriotic ICE agents to the airports
• 9:45
  where they will do security like no one
• 9:47
  has ever seen before. Everything is
• 9:50
  always like nobody's ever seen before.
• 9:53
  You're going to win so much you're going
• 9:54
  to be sick of it.
• 9:57
  Ah this guy no wonder he's got Heg Seth
• 10:01
  running the uh running the military.
• 10:03
  That guy's a a football, you know,
• 10:05
  cheerleader and uh Trump's the football
• 10:09
  quarterback. This is good stuff. uh the
• 10:11
  big beautiful bill anyway, including
• 10:13
  immediate arrest of all illegal
• 10:15
  immigrants that come into the country.
• 10:17
  Well, you don't fly in if you're coming
• 10:19
  in illegally. It's not how it works. You
• 10:23
  you sneak in if you're coming in. And
• 10:26
  the people that come in and are and
• 10:29
  usually have a visa when they fly in. If
• 10:31
  you're coming in from a uh a
• 10:33
  non-friendly country, you have to have a
• 10:35
  visa or that you just get turned around,
• 10:37
  right? It's not like people are flying
• 10:39
  in and getting allowed in. Anyway, Tesla
• 10:42
  and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who has
• 10:46
  emerged as a major supporter of the
• 10:47
  Republican party, also weighed in,
• 10:50
  offering to pay the salaries of TSA
• 10:54
  personnel during this funding impass.
• 10:56
  Wonder how much interest he's going to
• 10:58
  get, if any. On Sunday, NBC News citing
• 11:02
  DHS estimates report that more than 400
• 11:05
  agents have quit since February 14 when
• 11:08
  the partial shutdown started. Well, that
• 11:11
  means jobs are available. So, you're
• 11:13
  you're uh improving jobs, right?
• 11:16
  Well, good stuff. Anyway, I wanted to uh
• 11:21
  speak a tiny bit about
• 11:26
  what do you think? Where are we going to
• 11:28
  go today?
• 11:29
  How do we uh how do we speak on this
• 11:33
  topic without getting uh I don't know
• 11:37
  attacked
• 11:39
  without uh
• 11:42
  you know causing problems. I watched
• 11:47
  um
• 11:50
  I watched a lot of news over the weekend
• 11:52
  surprisingly. Um
• 11:56
  uh you know the US is planning for
• 11:58
  ground forces in Iran. You know we got
• 12:01
  lots of people on our way over there.
• 12:03
  This is BS friends and neighbors
• 12:05
  according to Sammy. And you know since
• 12:08
  it's my show I can say what I like the
• 12:14
  I'm going to start with this from the
• 12:16
  beginning. Let us begin at the
• 12:19
  beginning. You do realize my last name
• 12:21
  was trap and 100 years ago was von trap
• 12:23
  and as of now you know traps are not
• 12:26
  royalty.
• 12:27
  Uh except for you know minor uh uh kings
• 12:31
  and queens who live in Chicago and chose
• 12:33
  to take the name. But uh here we're just
• 12:37
  in plain old ordinary traps. But way
• 12:40
  back when
• 12:42
  we used to be able to sing. When you
• 12:46
  read you begin with ABC and when you
• 12:49
  sing you begin with dome.
• 12:53
  But let's let us begin at the beginning
• 12:56
  which is a very fine place to start.
• 12:59
  Let's talk about
• 13:04
  one show that I saw in particular. I
• 13:08
  watched a guy, former Marine,
• 13:11
  uh, now a political commentator, got his
• 13:15
  own podcast and he was on a program. In
• 13:17
  fact, I think I saw him on another
• 13:19
  program after that. So, I think and he's
• 13:22
  a young man. He's uh seemed quite
• 13:26
  intelligent from what I saw of him. and
• 13:28
  he he has a theory
• 13:32
  and I liked his theory and it was very
• 13:35
  well put together and very coherent and
• 13:38
  I so and I watch everybody knows I watch
• 13:42
  a lot of international uh politics and I
• 13:45
  I try to keep on top of that stuff and
• 13:51
  basically
• 13:54
  this is according to him and I've been
• 13:56
  wondering about this I mean if we're if
• 13:58
  we're really this stupid that we're
• 14:00
  going to uh you know go into Iran even
• 14:03
  further in Israel's you know greatest
• 14:07
  wet dream you know we're going to jump
• 14:09
  in there and and take over Iran for
• 14:12
  Israel um you know
• 14:17
  we obviously haven't learned our lessons
• 14:20
  Iraq Syria Yemen figure it anywhere
• 14:24
  Somalia uh Afghanistan stand. 20 years,
• 14:28
  hundreds of millions, zero result. Did
• 14:31
  you know that our final forces were
• 14:33
  booted out of Iraq over the weekend just
• 14:37
  now? And I I I doubt they'll be allowed
• 14:40
  back in. So now Iraq has expelled all of
• 14:44
  our uh all of our military finally
• 14:47
  after, you know, hundreds of years.
• 14:50
  That's an exaggeration, but if I told
• 14:52
  you once, I told you a thousand times
• 14:54
  never to exaggerate. Uh let's see.
• 14:57
  Let's talk about this is not just
• 14:59
  another Middle East war. And I think
• 15:04
  this bears repeating because there's a
• 15:06
  lot of news that has been going around
• 15:08
  that's saying this really isn't just
• 15:10
  another Middle East war. This is going
• 15:12
  to be a world war. And I think that the
• 15:15
  risk of it is pretty freaking great. And
• 15:19
  it's one upsmanship.
• 15:21
  And some people just can't handle things
• 15:24
  without one upsmanship.
• 15:27
  And Berlettics,
• 15:30
  Brian Berlettic, remember that name.
• 15:31
  Take a look at it. If you haven't heard
• 15:33
  of him, you haven't looked at him yet.
• 15:34
  This was a pretty good a pretty good
• 15:36
  talk. And I want to combine it. I mean,
• 15:38
  it dovetales somewhat with my views on
• 15:42
  the issue, but a a little bit sharper.
• 15:45
  And uh it also double uh it I watched
• 15:50
  Sergey Lavough you know just a 20 30
• 15:52
  minute uh interview that was done with
• 15:55
  him and I want to share you the a bit of
• 15:59
  a combination of all this if I can
• 16:01
  possibly get there today and I think I
• 16:04
  might be able to. It's a little bit long
• 16:06
  in the making, but um
• 16:10
  you know,
• 16:12
  I I think it is essential because if you
• 16:15
  get the framing wrong at the beginning
• 16:16
  of of how I'm going to give you this
• 16:18
  theory, then everything that follows it
• 16:21
  will come out crooked. That's just the
• 16:22
  way it is. And this is what's happening
• 16:24
  in most of the discussion in the world
• 16:26
  about Iran, around Israel, around the
• 16:30
  United States, especially around the
• 16:32
  straight of Hormuz, around oil, and the
• 16:35
  broader question of where this conflict
• 16:38
  is really headed. Donald Trump changes
• 16:41
  his mind every day. You know, two to
• 16:44
  three days ago, he was saying, "We won.
• 16:46
  It's over." You know, he's been And then
• 16:48
  he goes back to 48 hour ultimatum. you
• 16:51
  either open the straight of Hormuz or
• 16:53
  we're going to bomb your uh electrical
• 16:56
  plants. Now, this is a big mistake if he
• 16:58
  does because there were huge um bombings
• 17:03
  even in Israel and and Iran has
• 17:06
  threatened to take out desaliniz
• 17:09
  desalinization plants just like was done
• 17:12
  to them on one plant but they only you
• 17:14
  know their their water supply is only 3
• 17:16
  4% 5% maybe uh taken from the seawater
• 17:21
  the rest of the region is heavily
• 17:25
  it needs it Bahrain big time Qatar big
• 17:29
  time all of these these Gulf states that
• 17:32
  they don't have any water you I mean
• 17:34
  they're bringing it in from huge
• 17:37
  desalinization plants so
• 17:42
  there these questions of and the
• 17:44
  conflict and where it's going
• 17:46
  they're not getting easy and Trump isn't
• 17:48
  making it any better
• 17:50
  changes his mind every day I mean today
• 17:52
  might be another day that we've won it's
• 17:54
  over I've declared it's
• 17:56
  surrender or we're going to bomb your uh
• 17:59
  bomb your plants. And so most people are
• 18:02
  being handed a simple, familiar,
• 18:05
  misleading story. Story that is not
• 18:08
  true. Goes like this. Middle East is
• 18:10
  unstable again. Iran is involved. Israel
• 18:12
  is striking again. They're the they're
• 18:15
  the sane people. Actually, they're the
• 18:17
  lunatics. And the US may or may not get
• 18:20
  dragged in again. Oil prices are going
• 18:22
  to go up and you have to fund it again.
• 18:25
  And this is another one of those
• 18:26
  unfortunate but somehow rout routine
• 18:30
  um flare-ups, you know, that oh gee,
• 18:33
  it's just a flare up, right?
• 18:36
  The world just has to endure these sorts
• 18:38
  of thing until the grown-ups come in to
• 18:41
  the Straits of Hormuz bringing tons of
• 18:43
  warship and we will calm things down and
• 18:46
  restore order. That's because we're the
• 18:48
  world's policemen.
• 18:51
  That is the typical package. Fox News
• 18:54
  all over it. They make me sick. You
• 18:56
  know, you watch these guys. Yeah, we're
• 18:58
  winning. No, we're not.
• 19:02
  And that's TV version. Neat little box
• 19:05
  that they want to do to you and the box
• 19:06
  is completely wrong. You need to pe
• 19:09
  listen to people that have a clue. And
• 19:11
  those guys need a bigger magnifying
• 19:13
  glass because, you know, they cannot
• 19:16
  find a clue at Fox News or anywhere else
• 19:20
  for that matter. You know, there's been
• 19:22
  a even even the critical CNN um I
• 19:25
  watched something of theirs the other
• 19:26
  day and was like, geez, you're still
• 19:28
  dummies, but
• 19:31
  but they're making an effort, right?
• 19:34
  What we are looking at is not a local
• 19:36
  conflict that might have global contact
• 19:39
  uh context. We're looking at a global
• 19:42
  systems conflict that is manifesting
• 19:46
  itself through an opportunity to attack
• 19:48
  Iran, through Israel, through the growth
• 19:52
  uh through energy architecture of the
• 19:54
  Middle East. That is a very different
• 19:56
  thing than a local conflict. And if you
• 19:59
  start from that proposition, suddenly a
• 20:02
  lot of what seems irrational looks very
• 20:04
  rational indeed. So, we've been trained
• 20:08
  for years, for decades, to think of the
• 20:10
  Middle East as a place where things just
• 20:13
  blow up because that's what the Middle
• 20:15
  East does, right? Some tribal things,
• 20:19
  sex, some religious things, some old
• 20:21
  hatred, ancient grievances, and then the
• 20:25
  US has to step in. The great powers have
• 20:27
  to figure out how to try to keep
• 20:29
  civilization from falling apart. It's a
• 20:31
  convenient theory, but it's also
• 20:33
  insulting because it erases the
• 20:36
  structure of power and how it is
• 20:39
  created. It erases logistics. It erases
• 20:42
  trade and it erases most importantly
• 20:46
  energy and energy transport. It it also
• 20:50
  erases the thoughts of imperial
• 20:51
  planning, finance, who benefits. And
• 20:55
  when you erase all of that, what you are
• 20:57
  left with is what we get in America,
• 21:00
  theater, and that's it. You either hate,
• 21:04
  we hate the religious people, they're
• 21:06
  they're ridless extremists. They're
• 21:08
  seeking the nuclear bomb. They aren't
• 21:10
  close to a nuclear bomb, by the way.
• 21:11
  They have the technology. They got
• 21:13
  scientists, but they're not close.
• 21:15
  They are selling you a lie. If you
• 21:18
  believe that stuff, they say, "No, no,
• 21:20
  Chase, where are we going to get struck
• 21:22
  by Iran?" My ass, you were. You are now,
• 21:24
  but you weren't before. Did you see the
• 21:26
  video that they put out last night all
• 21:28
  over the news Iran
• 21:31
  that showed underground stockpiles,
• 21:35
  tons of them with the just a sample of
• 21:37
  some of their underground stockpiles of
• 21:40
  weapons that we can't reach by the way.
• 21:42
  Uh so one of the reasons I pay so much
• 21:45
  attention is to what has been coming out
• 21:47
  of Russia whether Lavough whether the
• 21:50
  talk shows here or the talk shows there
• 21:52
  whether uh what I think are true
• 21:54
  geopolitical analysts and current
• 21:57
  affairs um I don't believe that they're
• 22:00
  saints over there they know everything
• 22:02
  or that they're neutral or incapable of
• 22:04
  their own propaganda. They have their
• 22:06
  version of it as well. But so of course
• 22:08
  I'm not saying that they're they I think
• 22:11
  they're more truthful than ours. But but
• 22:14
  then again we have more to hide. Uh
• 22:17
  every side has a point of view. Every
• 22:19
  state has an interest. Every media
• 22:21
  system has a blind spot. But you know
• 22:24
  I'll tell you this much of the Russian
• 22:26
  commentary is at least treating this as
• 22:28
  a strategic struggle and not some sort
• 22:32
  of morality show. you know, gee, we're
• 22:34
  right and we got to we got to take care
• 22:36
  of the bad guys. It's always the bad
• 22:38
  guys and and that's not it. But when
• 22:41
  they talk about Iran, they don't speak
• 22:43
  as if it's just about one bad
• 22:46
  government, one nuclear file, one rash
• 22:49
  decision by a nut job, one temporary
• 22:52
  exchange of missiles. They talk about it
• 22:54
  as this is a part of a much larger
• 22:57
  crisis involving the very structure of
• 23:01
  international law. the collapse of old
• 23:04
  restraint and the use of energy as an
• 23:07
  instrument of pressure which is
• 23:10
  obviously
• 23:12
  part of the deal if not the entire deal.
• 23:16
  It's also the weakening of the old west
• 23:20
  centered order. That's what's driving
• 23:23
  it. The stuff I've been talking about
• 23:25
  for nearly 2 years now both in Russian
• 23:29
  and in English. It was why I was driven
• 23:33
  to go to the bricks conference in Kazan
• 23:36
  in Russia year and a half ago. And it's
• 23:41
  the it's the weakening of the western
• 23:43
  centered order, the refusal of a lot of
• 23:46
  people to play along with uh business as
• 23:50
  usual. And that's a lot closer to
• 23:53
  reality than the nonsense we're getting
• 23:55
  from the usual talking heads. So think
• 23:58
  about what has already happened. So
• 24:00
  before you get into drama, right, the
• 24:03
  maps, military jargon, uh or even the
• 24:07
  human suffering, which is very real,
• 24:09
  look instead at the quiet indicators,
• 24:12
  the ones that people who move real goods
• 24:14
  and ensure real cargo and calculate real
• 24:19
  exposure, what they actually care about.
• 24:22
  Shipping routes shifting, insurance
• 24:24
  rates astronomical,
• 24:27
  risk models changing, ports less
• 24:29
  predictable, tanker traffic behaving
• 24:32
  totally differently.
• 24:35
  Uh in fact, um infrastructure of uh
• 24:39
  logistics is changing incredibly, right?
• 24:43
  Um naval positions are are different.
• 24:47
  diplomatic language is getting more
• 24:49
  careful, more evasive, and in some cases
• 24:52
  even more panicked than usual. And none
• 24:55
  of that is happening because people are
• 24:57
  worried about an emotional, oh,
• 24:59
  democracy first and these guys are
• 25:01
  dictators. They're not worried about
• 25:03
  that crap. This is happening because the
• 25:05
  underlying system
• 25:08
  is in shock and it's are trying to
• 25:11
  figure out how we're going to absorb it.
• 25:13
  And that is the point that the average
• 25:15
  viewer misses because he is taught to
• 25:17
  think in drama rather than in structure
• 25:20
  and in infrastructure in specific and
• 25:23
  energy infrastructure. The average
• 25:25
  person says well there has to be you
• 25:28
  know has there been a world war
• 25:31
  recently.
• 25:32
  It was almost 100 years ago 80. But has
• 25:35
  a straight of moves been fully
• 25:37
  closed? No. Has China moved? Nope. Has
• 25:40
  Russia moved? Nope. Has America invaded?
• 25:43
  Not yet, but we're gonna we're getting
• 25:44
  ready to stupidly. Has Europe mobilized?
• 25:47
  Nope. They say they're not gonna. And
• 25:49
  because the answer to some of those
• 25:51
  questions is no. People imagine the
• 25:53
  crisis is merely hypothetical. It isn't.
• 25:57
  But that's not how the crisis work. And
• 25:59
  the world is built.
• 26:01
  This is how the world is built. Highly
• 26:03
  optimized supply chains,
• 26:06
  leveraged energy dependence, fragile,
• 26:10
  very fragile political legitimacy,
• 26:13
  financial markets, crossborder
• 26:16
  logistics, precision, and you know,
• 26:19
  they're all inflated and the crisis has
• 26:22
  begun before the formal catastrophe has
• 26:26
  even occurred. Who else paid more than a
• 26:29
  $1.50 50 a gallon than what they paid
• 26:32
  six short weeks ago.
• 26:35
  So this is when risk is entering the
• 26:39
  bloodstream of the system through
• 26:41
  extremely high insurance rates. Now the
• 26:45
  the oil that we're buying now was
• 26:49
  supplied months ago.
• 26:53
  And
• 26:54
  why are we getting a new price on that?
• 26:57
  because they can and that's what they
• 26:59
  do. So this is why I keep saying this is
• 27:01
  not about who fires the next rocket or
• 27:03
  who bombs the next uh energy
• 27:07
  infrastructure, who bombs the next oil.
• 27:10
  Well, you know, it's not about that and
• 27:13
  or these ridiculous posts by idiots on
• 27:16
  social media. This is about what happens
• 27:19
  when the world begins to do um
• 27:22
  interesting things. They doubt the
• 27:24
  reliability of one of the core energy
• 27:28
  corridors.
• 27:30
  Okay, this is a huge marketing impact or
• 27:33
  market impact. Once that doubt is in the
• 27:36
  market, the effects are going to spread
• 27:38
  far beyond the battlefield. They've
• 27:40
  already hit our uh our gas tanks here.
• 27:44
  And even though we have US economists
• 27:48
  going, we're we're self-sufficient. We
• 27:50
  don't need anybody's oil. Then why in
• 27:52
  the hell are we paying like everybody
• 27:54
  else is? If all the oil's coming
• 27:56
  locally, doesn't have to be shipped
• 27:57
  through the straight of Hormuz. Why in
• 27:59
  the hell are we paying for the straight
• 28:00
  of Hormuz? Well, uh, you know, people
• 28:02
  are It's right for people to squeeze as
• 28:04
  much money out of the system as they
• 28:06
  can. It's It's capitalism, folks. You
• 28:09
  know, hey, it's an opportunity to raise
• 28:11
  the prices. Why wouldn't you? Yeah.
• 28:13
  Well, because it's cheaper here,
• 28:15
  allegedly.
• 28:16
  H makes you think, doesn't it? It's a
• 28:19
  political calculation in capitals
• 28:22
  nowhere near Thrron. It's corporate
• 28:25
  boardrooms. It's moving into military
• 28:27
  planning. It's food prices. It's
• 28:30
  fertilizer, which by the way is the
• 28:33
  number two thing going through the
• 28:35
  straits of Hormuz.
• 28:38
  Fertilizer. And you can't get that.
• 28:41
  Everybody's talking about their
• 28:42
  household budget and how much it costs.
• 28:44
  I was telling you last week, how much
• 28:46
  extra did I pay for uh by the time it
• 28:48
  was all said and done, I filled up the
• 28:50
  tank uh 25 gallons?
• 28:54
  Uh five times, I guess, 125 bucks at
• 28:58
  least $150 more than what I would
• 29:02
  normally pay one way, okay, to get to
• 29:05
  get to Florida.
• 29:07
  Um that's why I think the old language
• 29:09
  is completely useless here. People go,
• 29:11
  "It's a regional conflict." Well, then I
• 29:13
  want to ask regional for who? Regional
• 29:16
  for the European economy that's uh
• 29:18
  incredibly vulnerable to energy shock
• 29:20
  because they've blown up Nordstream too
• 29:22
  and they they've gotten rid of Duja
• 29:25
  pipeline and they're trying to blow that
• 29:27
  up. Uh Ukraine that's for natural gas in
• 29:30
  Ukraine is uh you know at eternal war.
• 29:34
  They'll never give up on on Russia
• 29:36
  although they should. uh the spring um
• 29:39
  the spring offensives are beginning even
• 29:42
  now. So let's pause and take and ask an
• 29:45
  obvious question. Why do so many people
• 29:47
  insist on seeing this as a local local
• 29:50
  dispute when the signs of the systemic
• 29:53
  strain are visible visible already
• 29:55
  worldwide.
• 29:57
  Most of it is laziness but part of it is
• 29:59
  ideology. the need to preserve the
• 30:02
  illusion that the world is still
• 30:04
  organized the way it was 20 or 30 years
• 30:07
  ago. It isn't. But they want to keep the
• 30:11
  illusion that Washington is at the
• 30:13
  center of it. Europe is a moral chorus.
• 30:16
  Yay. You know, they're the, you know,
• 30:18
  Pete Hegsess of Europe. Uh, with
• 30:20
  everyone else reacting only to what we
• 30:23
  do. You know, the same old toolkits.
• 30:26
  sanctions, pressure, proxy war,
• 30:29
  selective law
• 30:31
  that only applies to others but never to
• 30:34
  us that is going to impose world order
• 30:38
  or world colonialism. But think about
• 30:40
  the deeper answer. If people admitted to
• 30:43
  what this really is, they would also
• 30:46
  have to admit that the old system is
• 30:48
  weaker than advertised. They would have
• 30:51
  to admit that escalation now creates
• 30:54
  consequences that can't be simply fenced
• 30:57
  in. They would have to admit that
• 30:59
  controlling the narrative is not the
• 31:01
  same as controlling the outcome. And we
• 31:05
  never do that. We control the narrative.
• 31:07
  You know, the blue dress narrative is
• 31:09
  what I call it. Um, you know, because
• 31:14
  it is what it is, but by God, if I say
• 31:16
  it often enough, people will believe it.
• 31:19
  And that's a painful admission for an
• 31:21
  empire, right? For for, you know,
• 31:24
  especially one that that says it can do
• 31:27
  anything anywhere in the world. We're
• 31:30
  the greatest on the planet and you never
• 31:32
  have to pay any consequences.
• 31:34
  Consequences are coming, people. One of
• 31:36
  the most revealing things that come out
• 31:38
  in recent commentary, especially out of
• 31:40
  Russia and the Russian media and the
• 31:42
  strategic talk shows, that the repeated
• 31:45
  emphasis on the fact that the world is
• 31:48
  not lining up the way it used to, not
• 31:51
  even Europe. And by the way, that's not
• 31:54
  a small observation. It's huge. In the
• 31:57
  old model, there'd be a conflict. Iraq,
• 32:00
  take an example.
• 32:03
  Then a coalition, Australia's joining
• 32:05
  in. And they're going to send over 200
• 32:07
  soldiers. England's in. They have a
• 32:08
  77,000man
• 32:10
  army and they'll send 15,000 of them.
• 32:12
  Why? Because the US is going and we got
• 32:14
  to support our brothers across the sea.
• 32:17
  Series of declarations about
• 32:19
  international norms only that apply to
• 32:21
  other people, not to us. You know, we're
• 32:23
  the we're the we're the gunslingers of
• 32:25
  the of the of the world. The financial
• 32:28
  system and the media system would move
• 32:30
  in roughly the same direction like they
• 32:32
  always do. And then pressure is brought
• 32:35
  to bear on the people that need to lose
• 32:38
  so that the same old winners can win.
• 32:40
  Even countries that are uneasy about it
• 32:42
  would generally fall into line at least
• 32:44
  outwardly. The model is frayed now.
• 32:48
  India isn't paying attention. They're
• 32:51
  calculating their own interest. China
• 32:55
  calculates its own interest. The Gulf
• 32:58
  States are pushing back and and
• 33:01
  calculating their own interest. Turkey
• 33:03
  calculates its interest definitely and
• 33:06
  they're a NATO member. I wonder for how
• 33:09
  long. Even Europe for all of its
• 33:10
  posturing increasingly looks less like a
• 33:13
  person who's just going to fall in line
• 33:16
  and they're acting more like a nervous,
• 33:17
  divided, energy fragile, remember
• 33:20
  appendage of decisions that it no longer
• 33:23
  fully controls.
• 33:26
  That definitely matters because it means
• 33:28
  that in the moment of crisis, these
• 33:30
  crisis moments don't produce the same
• 33:32
  discipline block behavior that they once
• 33:34
  did. They just don't. So when I say this
• 33:37
  isn't a local war, I mean not merely
• 33:39
  that it has global consequences. I mean
• 33:42
  that the very shape of the world order
• 33:44
  is now part of the conflict itself. Iran
• 33:47
  is one theater, Israel's completely
• 33:50
  another. The Gulf is a third. And by the
• 33:52
  way, Israel isn't getting anywhere near
• 33:54
  the support that they used to get. And
• 33:57
  including from me, by the way, I think
• 33:59
  Netanyahu is a bad man. That's what I
• 34:02
  think. Uh the Gulf is another. Europe's
• 34:05
  energy vulnerability is another. Asian
• 34:07
  import dependence is another. Russia's
• 34:10
  role as an energy and strategic actor is
• 34:12
  a third and a big one. China's patient
• 34:15
  observational position
• 34:18
  you ought to be paying attention to
• 34:20
  because they're watching and trust me
• 34:22
  they're learning the declining
• 34:24
  credibility of old institutions. Third
• 34:26
  and the hypocrisy around international
• 34:29
  law is front and center. Not a side
• 34:34
  note, this is the architecture right
• 34:37
  here. You can no longer claim that we
• 34:40
  even remotely follow the rules that we
• 34:43
  helped create. So this is this is the
• 34:47
  architecture of what's going on. And
• 34:49
  it's another point that has to be made
• 34:51
  plainly. Much of what we are witnessing
• 34:53
  right now is not confusion. It's not
• 34:57
  incompetence, at least not alone. And it
• 35:00
  isn't merely a case of leaders
• 35:02
  blundering around in the dark. Some of
• 35:05
  that, of course, is certainly true.
• 35:08
  Some of the people speaking publicly
• 35:10
  sound like they're deranged. You know,
• 35:12
  uh, you listen to not Netanyahu, that
• 35:16
  guy's out there. Okay? If you listen to
• 35:18
  ours typical spokesman, you know, uh,
• 35:22
  you get your Lindsey Grahams, that guy's
• 35:23
  nuts. You know, in my humble view, uh,
• 35:26
  you know, morally numb, ignorant people
• 35:29
  that are out there talking about this,
• 35:32
  uh, oh, you know, it's we got to take
• 35:34
  care of dictators around the planet. No,
• 35:37
  we don't. Let them take care of their
• 35:39
  own damn dictators. We don't have
• 35:41
  anything to do with it. If you cannot
• 35:43
  fully control the rising world, you can
• 35:45
  still try to make its critable critical
• 35:48
  nodes unstable. So, if Israel and the US
• 35:51
  can continue to paint Iran as the goon
• 35:54
  squad and that they're going to, you
• 35:57
  know, lob a nuclear weapon, when um
• 36:02
  Netanyahu finally throws out the bomb,
• 36:05
  it'll be not his fault at all.
• 36:09
  That's the way it goes. It's not his
• 36:11
  fault. You know, he didn't do it. He was
• 36:14
  forced to, just like he's forced to
• 36:16
  invade now. he's forced to bomb the crap
• 36:18
  out of uh uh southern Lebanon now. It's
• 36:22
  it's nonsense, right? So, if if they
• 36:25
  they obviously are not con in control of
• 36:27
  the world anymore and they're taking
• 36:29
  some desperate measures here right at
• 36:32
  the end of that dominance. If you can't
• 36:35
  stop your energy dependence uh from
• 36:38
  reconfiguring toward your greatest
• 36:41
  rivals Russia, China, India, you can
• 36:44
  threaten the channels through which that
• 36:46
  dependence is managed, right? And
• 36:49
  suddenly what look like chaos in the
• 36:52
  beginning begins to resemble the method
• 36:55
  that we have used for years now. And
• 36:57
  it's a new method. they have to do
• 36:58
  something like this or you know you
• 37:01
  can't say that what they're not what
• 37:03
  they're doing is not logical. It's
• 37:05
  logical from the point of view of a of a
• 37:08
  flailing and and drowning um world order
• 37:13
  from 30 to 50 years ago.
• 37:16
  This doesn't mean that every actor in
• 37:18
  that field wants the same thing. Far
• 37:20
  from it. Israel has its own logic, its
• 37:23
  own obsession, and its own internal
• 37:26
  politics, its own ambitions. It wants
• 37:28
  more more land. You got people down
• 37:32
  there slaughtering with abandon. And
• 37:35
  these are private citizens. They've
• 37:36
  opened it up for settlement. You know
• 37:38
  what that means? It means go in and kill
• 37:41
  people and take their land. That's
• 37:42
  what's going on right now, believe it or
• 37:45
  not. That's what's happening. Um, its
• 37:47
  own strategic, its own relationship to
• 37:50
  permanent war. It loves permanent war.
• 37:52
  It wants permanent war. It thinks it's
• 37:54
  the strongest 10 11 million people
• 37:58
  in the world. They think they're a
• 38:00
  superpower. They are cuz they got
• 38:02
  nuclear weapons. And Trump has his own
• 38:04
  logic if you can, you know, find it. You
• 38:07
  know, whether it's ego, theater,
• 38:09
  domination, impulses, methodology,
• 38:11
  grievances, you know, he's always
• 38:13
  agrieved somehow. Those stupid people
• 38:16
  before me didn't know what the hell is
• 38:18
  going on and I do. and he has a
• 38:20
  breathtaking indifference to long-term
• 38:23
  coherence of anything. He has fully
• 38:26
  bought into um you know
• 38:30
  I'm in charge period. The American deep
• 38:33
  state if we have to use that term has
• 38:36
  its own continuity of purpose and right
• 38:38
  now it's in lock step with Donald Trump
• 38:41
  because uh it's broader than any one
• 38:43
  president and far more patient than
• 38:46
  Trump's public tantrums. Europe has
• 38:49
  weakness that is masquerading as
• 38:52
  democratic principles, right? Russia has
• 38:55
  opportunity and danger all at the same
• 38:57
  time. China sees risk, exposure, and
• 39:00
  long-term advantage. The Gulf monarchies
• 39:03
  are watching their own vulnerability
• 39:05
  right now. So, this isn't some choir
• 39:09
  singing from one sheet of music. It is a
• 39:12
  system under a massive amount of stress.
• 39:14
  And each actor is responding to that
• 39:17
  stress from his own position. And that
• 39:20
  is where I think the Russian commentary
• 39:22
  from Lavough despite its obvious bias is
• 39:25
  pretty useful. And everybody's got their
• 39:27
  obvious biases. You have to read that in
• 39:29
  when you uh when you listen to it.
• 39:31
  That's how it works. Uh because it keeps
• 39:33
  dragging the discussion back towards
• 39:35
  structure just like China by the way and
• 39:37
  just like India by the way. It asks
• 39:39
  questions like who controls the
• 39:41
  corridors? Who bears the cost? Who can
• 39:44
  wait? Who can absorb the shock? Who
• 39:47
  benefits from prolonged instability?
• 39:50
  United States, by the way. Who gains
• 39:53
  from more costly oil? Who loses from
• 39:56
  unreliable shipping? Who's trying to
• 39:58
  force whom into what hierarchy? These
• 40:02
  are adult questions and they're the
• 40:04
  right questions. Compare that with the
• 40:06
  childish nonsense we get all over the
• 40:08
  West. Is this good for Trump? Is
• 40:11
  Netanyahu overplaying his head? Will
• 40:13
  Iran blink? Is this escalation a symbol?
• 40:17
  You know, this isn't analysis. It's
• 40:18
  gossip. You know, it's theater. Just
• 40:20
  like I say, so let me say something else
• 40:22
  about time because uh you know, it's
• 40:25
  also misunderstood. You hear warnings
• 40:28
  about catastrophe and assume that if
• 40:30
  catastrophe doesn't show up immediately,
• 40:32
  then the warning has to have been
• 40:34
  overblown.
• 40:36
  But hang on,
• 40:41
  coffee drinkers of America unite. But
• 40:44
  strategic crises do not always announce
• 40:47
  themselves with a single clean um press
• 40:52
  conference, right? They begin as a
• 40:54
  progressive corrosion, which we've been
• 40:56
  watching for a while. Confidence weakens
• 40:59
  first behavior changes. The contingency
• 41:02
  plan is a permanent policy. the
• 41:05
  financial distortion sets in. I mean,
• 41:08
  think about the story I just read to
• 41:09
  you. We can't come up with a budget and
• 41:12
  the budget goes October to October.
• 41:14
  We're in freaking March and we're
• 41:17
  talking about a government shutdown
• 41:19
  because we can't figure out how to pay
• 41:22
  Department of Lab Services. This is BS.
• 41:26
  I mean, what kind of country do we live
• 41:27
  in? Who's the third world country? The
• 41:30
  one with what 40 trillion nearly in
• 41:33
  debt. what we we passed 39 I want to say
• 41:37
  and uh nearly 40 trillion in debt
• 41:42
  or you know somebody who uh doesn't have
• 41:46
  any debt at all far far less uh which is
• 41:51
  Russia by the way and uh China didn't
• 41:54
  have a lot of debt either nowhere close
• 41:58
  to what we have so this contingency
• 42:00
  planning
• 42:02
  financial distortion
• 42:05
  alliances fraying, domestic politics are
• 42:08
  crap, and the military move that would
• 42:11
  once have been unthinkable is now
• 42:13
  thinkable because the ground has been
• 42:15
  prepared psychologically and
• 42:17
  structurally. In that sense, the crisis
• 42:19
  is not waiting for the future. It's
• 42:21
  already underway. Uh that is why I want
• 42:24
  to, you know, talk about uh something
• 42:26
  that is not just another Middle Eastern
• 42:29
  war. This is not a replay of the
• 42:32
  sectarian script of uh you know
• 42:35
  dictators. There are dictators over
• 42:37
  there. They're all dictators. You think
• 42:39
  it's not a dictator in Qatar who's one
• 42:41
  of our greatest friends and allies. The
• 42:43
  guy's a prince. He's in charge. Period.
• 42:47
  That's it. That's a monarchy. But that's
• 42:50
  okay. We're allowed to have monarchies,
• 42:53
  you know, as long as they're friendly to
• 42:55
  us. But you can't be a monarchy or a a
• 42:58
  one rule family in Iran or anywhere else
• 43:02
  for that matter. And what business is it
• 43:04
  of ours? Whether they act like Qatar or
• 43:06
  whether they act like I don't know any
• 43:09
  of the other places over there. Saudi is
• 43:11
  run by a prince. Okay. Emir or something
• 43:14
  like that. What do they what they call
• 43:16
  the guy? Future control of strategic
• 43:17
  flows in a world that no longer agrees
• 43:20
  on who is entitled to control them.
• 43:24
  The Gulf States aren't even in agreement
• 43:26
  that the US can come in and run it like
• 43:28
  they want. The American troops being
• 43:30
  booted out of Iraq is a big deal. And
• 43:33
  they actually had to ask for more time
• 43:35
  to get their people out. NATO troops had
• 43:38
  to beg yesterday to get out. And uh
• 43:41
  they're out and I doubt they ever get
• 43:43
  let back in.
• 43:45
  So, you know, stop thinking about this
• 43:49
  as a box called Iran. Iran's just, you
• 43:52
  know, a small node. It is not the story.
• 43:56
  The real story is the system, the energy
• 43:58
  routes, the financial assumptions around
• 44:01
  them, the alliances, and the fear
• 44:04
  surrounding all of it, the rebalancing
• 44:07
  that is going on. Once you start looking
• 44:10
  at at it this way, it's not it's it's a
• 44:13
  lot more interesting. Not who started
• 44:15
  it, not who said what on TV, not even
• 44:18
  who can score the next tactical or
• 44:20
  political point, but rather who is
• 44:22
  trying to reshape the map of dependence
• 44:27
  and who's trying to survive the
• 44:29
  reshaping and who's planning to inherit
• 44:32
  the order that emerges afterward.
• 44:36
  So, I watched that Brian Berlitic that I
• 44:38
  was telling you about and and I found it
• 44:40
  quite interesting. Now, now that we've
• 44:43
  talked about this uh conflict, it's more
• 44:45
  systemic. The next thing we have to do
• 44:48
  is confront how it's actually being
• 44:51
  managed or in my view mismanaged by the
• 44:55
  people supposedly trying to be in
• 44:57
  control of it. Because one of the most
• 44:59
  striking things you see is that a number
• 45:02
  of conflicts is that uh the doctrine can
• 45:05
  be summarized very simply. Escalation
• 45:10
  now we'll deal with the problems that it
• 45:13
  brings to us later. That's almost too
• 45:15
  crude to be real, but it's absolutely
• 45:17
  real. The oneupsmanship and the
• 45:19
  gamesmanship and I'm I got the bigger
• 45:21
  wiener than you here is is is ongoing.
• 45:24
  It is crude but true. That's all this
• 45:28
  is. You know, you got a bunch of, you
• 45:31
  know, the big football players in the
• 45:33
  locker and the small wimp over in Iran.
• 45:36
  And that's what we got. That's what we
• 45:38
  got. I don't believe that's reality, but
• 45:41
  that's what people think we got. If you
• 45:43
  watch US TV, uh, you know what about the
• 45:46
  language of deterrence doesn't exist.
• 45:49
  Sending a message, restoring
• 45:51
  credibility, none of those things
• 45:53
  matter. But when you ask for obvious
• 45:55
  followup, what happens after the message
• 45:57
  has been sent? What does success
• 46:00
  actually look like? What is the
• 46:03
  structure of the piece that follows? You
• 46:05
  either get silence total or a slogan.
• 46:09
  We're going to take out a dictator.
• 46:11
  Well, you already did that. Now what?
• 46:13
  So, you did that allegedly in Venezuela.
• 46:16
  That's not what you did. You just put in
• 46:18
  the next generation. And uh that's the
• 46:20
  exact same thing you did in Iran. you
• 46:22
  put in the next generation. Why won't
• 46:24
  you stop now? May maybe you have uh how
• 46:27
  about how about Iran sends you 50 what
• 46:30
  was how many was it 50 billion barrels
• 46:32
  of oil for free? We got to steal 50
• 46:35
  billion barrels from Venezuela. Yay.
• 46:37
  It's not about narot terrorism. Not
• 46:39
  remotely. It's about something else. So
• 46:44
  this is where the analytics come into
• 46:47
  play. You don't have to accept every
• 46:49
  element of my argument uh you know to
• 46:51
  explain the behavior of the official
• 46:54
  narrative because uh you know when you
• 46:58
  think about it that's where the tension
• 47:01
  exists and it's worth laying out you
• 47:04
  know something for you. One is that
• 47:06
  Israel under Netanyahu is the primary
• 47:10
  driver that has been pushing for
• 47:13
  confrontation and war with Iran for
• 47:15
  years.
• 47:17
  Um, and Israel claims it's existential.
• 47:20
  Iran definitely sees this as existential
• 47:22
  and they're not going to budge because
• 47:24
  of it. They're not, you know, they think
• 47:26
  they're in a fight for their very
• 47:27
  existence. And trust me, they are. Now,
• 47:30
  the US is coming out and saying, "We
• 47:31
  want to tear this up into little
• 47:33
  chunks." They'd rather have 50 different
• 47:35
  independent local monarchies than one
• 47:38
  big Iranian monarchy. That's what
• 47:41
  they're trying to do. They give a crap
• 47:43
  about dictatorship.
• 47:45
  That doesn't matter. So the alternative
• 47:47
  view, and this is where Berlin's issue
• 47:49
  came in, is that the US is not being
• 47:52
  dragged by Netanyahu,
• 47:55
  but is instead permitting Netanyahu to
• 47:58
  act on their behalf and shaping the
• 48:00
  escalation because it serves the United
• 48:03
  States's larger strategic purpose. And
• 48:06
  in that version, Israel isn't the, you
• 48:09
  know, master of ceremonies, but is an
• 48:12
  accelerant, you know, a a very willing
• 48:15
  accelerant, a forward instrument, a
• 48:18
  partner, an aggressive partner whose
• 48:20
  aggression can be folded into a a a
• 48:23
  broad design. If that's true, which I
• 48:26
  believe it is,
• 48:28
  the picture is changing dramatically
• 48:31
  because now you're not dealing with a
• 48:32
  superpower being manipulated. You're
• 48:35
  dealing with a superpower that is
• 48:36
  perfectly aware of the manipulation and
• 48:39
  is pro proceeding anyway because it
• 48:42
  believes the long-term strategic payoff
• 48:45
  justifies immediate stability. Now, I'm
• 48:48
  not saying that everything is centrally
• 48:50
  controlled or that every actor is
• 48:52
  following a slit a script. The world is
• 48:54
  far too complex. But there is a
• 48:57
  difference between total control and
• 49:00
  direction. I don't believe the deep
• 49:02
  state ever was totally a control. I
• 49:05
  think they're, you know, they all have
• 49:06
  the same
• 49:08
  goals
• 49:10
  financially
• 49:12
  and power structure that they have
• 49:15
  always had and this is very much like a
• 49:18
  similar situation. So
• 49:22
  there was a lady I also watched named uh
• 49:24
  Kerin uh Gavororgian and her analysis
• 49:28
  was pretty useful because it talked
• 49:32
  about a concept that's ignored in in the
• 49:35
  west. The idea that escalation between
• 49:38
  major powers doesn't produce a clear
• 49:41
  winner among the powers. Instead it
• 49:43
  creates a space for a third force.
• 49:47
  actors who are not at the center of the
• 49:49
  conflict but are who are able to take
• 49:52
  advantage of the uh uh natural disorder
• 49:55
  that surrounds it. And that's a a shift
• 49:59
  because traditional model uh is binary.
• 50:02
  One side wins, the other side loses. But
• 50:04
  what she was describing is something to
• 50:06
  what we see in a number of historic
• 50:08
  situations where the direct participants
• 50:11
  exhaust themselves, weaken their own
• 50:13
  positions, disrupt their own system, and
• 50:17
  in the process create an open space for
• 50:20
  somebody else to step in. And I think
• 50:23
  that's very real possibility here.
• 50:28
  So let's ask a different question. Not
• 50:30
  just who is escalating, but who benefits
• 50:32
  from the escalation continuing. And this
• 50:36
  is where it's much more complicated
• 50:37
  because the benefits aren't even evenly
• 50:40
  distributed.
• 50:42
  They're not even immediate. Some actors
• 50:44
  benefit from high energy prices today.
• 50:46
  Some benefit from a disruption to their
• 50:49
  competitors. Some benefit from the
• 50:51
  opportunities of rebuilding. And some
• 50:53
  benefit from weakening of alliances.
• 50:57
  and others are benefiting just because
• 50:59
  they're not caught in the middle of the
• 51:01
  storm. Russia. And this is why the lack
• 51:04
  of a clear end game cuz we don't have
• 51:07
  one isn't just a failure of planning.
• 51:10
  It's at least in part a reflection a
• 51:12
  reflection of the fact that for some of
• 51:14
  the key players, the process is the
• 51:17
  objective. That's America. The process
• 51:20
  is the objective.
• 51:23
  prolonged instability,
• 51:25
  continued war, another 200 billion that
• 51:30
  the uh military-industrial complex gets
• 51:33
  to uh spread around as it sees fit. Uh
• 51:38
  that serves as the strategic purpose
• 51:41
  itself. It reshapes economic markets. It
• 51:45
  reshapes political alignment. It creates
• 51:48
  new dependency and new security. It
• 51:51
  opens doors that might otherwise be
• 51:54
  closed. Now, that is dangerous because
• 51:58
  the assumption underlying it is that the
• 52:00
  instability can itself be contained,
• 52:02
  that it can be calibrated, that it can
• 52:04
  be increased or decreased as needed. But
• 52:07
  history isn't that kind of assumption uh
• 52:12
  factor doesn't take it into place. Time
• 52:14
  and again, we've watched where actors
• 52:16
  believe they're managing escalation and
• 52:19
  all they're doing is managing the the
• 52:23
  the deep state, if you want to call it
• 52:25
  that. Afghanistan for 20 years, Iraq for
• 52:28
  Jesus, we just left there. You know, the
• 52:31
  line between pressure and chaos isn't
• 52:34
  always where people think it is. And so
• 52:36
  I would watch Lavrov because you know
• 52:39
  the the sick part is he's the he's the
• 52:42
  only adult in the room that that I'm
• 52:45
  watching. Well, it's not true. Not the
• 52:47
  only, but there aren't any here
• 52:50
  trying to find one here as a joke. And
• 52:53
  Lavough, you should watch his his uh his
• 52:56
  interview yesterday with a guy um Jesus,
• 53:01
  I can't remember. Pier v canal
• 53:03
  the first first ch channel one I suppose
• 53:06
  it would be um he talks about
• 53:08
  international law mutual restraint
• 53:11
  negotiated boundaries are no longer the
• 53:14
  governing principle he was blunt he says
• 53:17
  that what we are seeing is a return to a
• 53:19
  world in which power is exercised for
• 53:22
  its own sake and no constraint and
• 53:26
  whether you agree with his
• 53:28
  interpretation or not you can't deny
• 53:30
  what we're watching
• 53:31
  targeted killings, decapitation strikes,
• 53:34
  taking out that's illegal, by the way.
• 53:38
  Attacking people's energy infrastructure
• 53:40
  like Donald Trump is talking about going
• 53:43
  in and bombing the hell out of all your
• 53:45
  power plants. That is a war crime
• 53:50
  in case you were wondering. And now
• 53:52
  we're just Yeah, go get them. Bomb their
• 53:55
  nuclear plants. That's a war crime.
• 53:59
  sanctions as a weapon, selective
• 54:01
  application of rules, that's continual.
• 54:03
  It's been that way for at least my
• 54:06
  entire lifetime and doesn't exactly
• 54:08
  inspire confidence in stability of our
• 54:11
  old system. So when you combine these
• 54:14
  elements, the willingness to escalate
• 54:16
  without a clearly defined endgame, the
• 54:20
  possibility that escalation is serving a
• 54:22
  broader strategic objective, continue
• 54:25
  the war at all costs, the emergence of
• 54:28
  third actors who benefit from this
• 54:30
  instability and the erosion of the norms
• 54:33
  that once constrained people, you begin
• 54:36
  to see this situation is very different.
• 54:38
  It isn't just another cycle. It's a
• 54:40
  different kind of cycle. And that brings
• 54:43
  us back to the problem we were talking
• 54:45
  about. If you're escalating with no map,
• 54:47
  if you're applying pressure without a
• 54:49
  clearly articulated structure for what
• 54:51
  comes next, then you're just gambling.
• 54:54
  That's all we're doing. Not with your
• 54:56
  own position, but with the system
• 54:58
  itself. And in a world that is already
• 55:00
  more fragmented and more sensitive
• 55:03
  disruption, it's not a small gamble.
• 55:07
  Once this pro prospess
• 55:10
  prospect begins,
• 55:13
  the actors adjust. And once the markets
• 55:16
  adjust,
• 55:18
  other alliances begin to wobble. You
• 55:21
  can't just declare the experiment is
• 55:23
  over and we'll go back to what we said.
• 55:25
  And that's what we're experiencing right
• 55:27
  now. So before you know we move on, look
• 55:31
  at the pattern of escalation with no
• 55:34
  clearly defined destination. We have no
• 55:36
  idea what we're doing. Donald Trump
• 55:38
  changes his mind every single day and I
• 55:42
  wonder what today's change is going to
• 55:44
  be. So the energy system itself is the
• 55:48
  real battlefield. What have I said on
• 55:50
  this show before multiple times?
• 55:53
  Similar to uh uh uh what was the name of
• 55:57
  the show with uh um
• 56:01
  Kevin Cosner? Build it and they will
• 56:03
  come. you know, uh, the Field of Dreams
• 56:06
  or whatever it was called. Um, you know,
• 56:09
  build it. If you can control the system,
• 56:13
  you control the logistics, you control
• 56:16
  the infrastructure,
• 56:18
  then you can control the energy
• 56:22
  battlefield, right? The modern world
• 56:25
  runs on energy.
• 56:27
  Uh ships move, planes fly, fertilizer is
• 56:31
  produced, food is transported, industry
• 56:35
  depends on it, your your heat, Sam being
• 56:38
  cold depends on it, electricity depends
• 56:41
  on it. And most importantly,
• 56:44
  the entire financial and economic
• 56:47
  structure that people take for granted
• 56:49
  is built on the assumption that energy
• 56:52
  will continue to be available and flow
• 56:54
  in a predictable way.
• 56:57
  When you look at the map, not a
• 56:59
  political map, but a map of alliances
• 57:01
  and borders, um, you know, energy flow
• 57:04
  we're talking about, you see the world
• 57:06
  quite a bit differently. You see
• 57:08
  pipelines, shipping lanes, choke points
• 57:11
  or moos, terminals, refineries, transit
• 57:14
  corridors.
• 57:16
  You see narrow passages or moos through
• 57:19
  which enormous volumes of oil and gas
• 57:22
  must pass.
• 57:25
  We hear that name pretty often, but uh
• 57:28
  most people don't grasp what it
• 57:30
  represents. This isn't just another
• 57:32
  strategic location. This is one of the
• 57:34
  most critical arteries in the global
• 57:36
  energy system, a significant portion of
• 57:39
  the world's oil passes through that
• 57:42
  narrow stretch, literally the bottleneck
• 57:46
  through which the lifeblood of the
• 57:48
  global economy must flow.
• 57:52
  And you know, I watched another Jeffrey
• 57:55
  Sachs analysis uh this weekend, too,
• 57:58
  because he cuts through the noise and
• 58:00
  reminds us that uh something is so
• 58:03
  obvious, but it gets ignored. You don't
• 58:06
  need a full closure of the straight of
• 58:07
  Hormuz to create a crisis. You do not
• 58:09
  need to physically block every tanker.
• 58:11
  You do not even need a dramatic
• 58:13
  cinematic moment where the world
• 58:15
  suddenly realizes that this is an
• 58:17
  important spot. All you need is a
• 58:19
  critical credible risk to that system.
• 58:23
  And we already have that. By the way,
• 58:25
  Iran says we haven't closed it. You
• 58:27
  know, we're letting our ships through.
• 58:29
  And if your ships want to pay, they can
• 58:31
  get through, too. We'll let them
• 58:33
  through. But, you know, we're tired of
• 58:36
  being treated this way. And we control
• 58:39
  the straight. And I'm not so sure that
• 58:42
  uh uh you know, let's say that har uh uh
• 58:45
  car car that island that they take it.
• 58:49
  If you think that Iran, which has bombed
• 58:51
  the crap out of several things over the
• 58:53
  last couple of days, when they when
• 58:55
  Donald Trump says you open the stray of
• 58:58
  horror moves and they say it's already
• 58:59
  open and they're just open to ships uh
• 59:03
  paying in yuan,
• 59:05
  it's open. You want to pay in Chinese
• 59:07
  currency? Great. China's far more stable
• 59:10
  than youn jobs in the west. If you want
• 59:13
  to pay in that currency, then we're
• 59:15
  willing to keep the the the straight
• 59:17
  open and we'll accept that. Or you want
• 59:20
  to pay the piper, you know, we'll let it
• 59:22
  go. But we're tired of being your
• 59:24
  whipping boy. And uh insurance is
• 59:26
  noticing. Insurance is all about it.
• 59:28
  Supply chain is done. I'm not saying I
• 59:30
  agree with this. I'm just saying this is
• 59:32
  reality. Okay? And so people don't get
• 59:35
  it. They're waiting for the next event
• 59:37
  for Trump to go in and blow up Gar
• 59:39
  Island. That's gonna help, right? Uh
• 59:41
  that'll help. Not at all. Or if he takes
• 59:43
  it over, you know what's going to happen
• 59:45
  then? Iran's going to destroy it. No
• 59:48
  doubt. This is an existential threat for
• 59:51
  them. This is the endgame. We are at the
• 59:55
  endgame. And and there ain't no way. Uh
• 59:58
  think about this like uh Afghanistan.
• 1:00:02
  Think of it like Iraq and any other of
• 1:00:04
  the jokes of wars we've been involved in
• 1:00:07
  in the last 30 years in the Middle East.
• 1:00:10
  Number one, none of them want us there.
• 1:00:12
  Number two, they have no
• 1:00:16
  positive endgame and concept of us being
• 1:00:20
  they don't want us to be like we were in
• 1:00:22
  Europe all over all of military bases,
• 1:00:25
  US military bases all over. In a world
• 1:00:28
  where energy is critical, they're
• 1:00:30
  they're changing. They're changing the
• 1:00:31
  way they think. Qatar, a dictatorship,
• 1:00:35
  a monarchy,
• 1:00:37
  by the way, just so you know. Uh, and
• 1:00:39
  and and I'm not against it. I don't
• 1:00:41
  care. It's not my country. It's a
• 1:00:43
  beautiful country regardless of who's
• 1:00:44
  running it. It's beautiful. They know
• 1:00:46
  they're not going to be beautiful if
• 1:00:48
  they don't do something about this. And
• 1:00:50
  they're, you know, they may join. They
• 1:00:53
  may be part of the coalition, but they
• 1:00:54
  don't have much to add. There's only
• 1:00:56
  347,000 total there anyway. They don't
• 1:00:59
  they what what kind of army do they
• 1:01:01
  have? It's not large. They're dependent
• 1:01:05
  upon that kind of thing. And and they've
• 1:01:07
  been a great middleman for both sides.
• 1:01:11
  And for Hezbollah, for Iran, for Israel,
• 1:01:14
  for all of them. And what did Israel
• 1:01:16
  reward them with? Bomb the hell out of
• 1:01:18
  them. Didn't say a word about it
• 1:01:19
  beforehand. Nonsense. So the
• 1:01:21
  conversation about Iran is interesting
• 1:01:23
  in this regard because Iran is not just
• 1:01:26
  another country in the Middle East. It's
• 1:01:28
  a its proximity to one of the most
• 1:01:30
  important energy choke points in the
• 1:01:33
  world.
• 1:01:34
  It has the capability not necessarily
• 1:01:37
  permanently but to make hormuz
• 1:01:40
  unreliable no matter what. The US isn't
• 1:01:44
  going to stop that by putting a few
• 1:01:46
  warships there. Okay? To introduce
• 1:01:49
  uncertainty, to raise the cost of using
• 1:01:52
  it, to force adjustments in behavior.
• 1:01:55
  You don't have to believe in total
• 1:01:56
  control to exercise influence. You only
• 1:01:59
  need the ability to create doubt and
• 1:02:01
  risk. So connect that to the broad
• 1:02:04
  geopolitical picture. If you're China
• 1:02:06
  and you rely on imports to pass through
• 1:02:08
  these routes, the stability in the Gulf
• 1:02:10
  is not a regional concern. It's a core
• 1:02:13
  strategic interest. And we're watching
• 1:02:15
  them already sign new contracts with
• 1:02:18
  Russia for natural gas and for more oil.
• 1:02:21
  And they have the two big pipelines that
• 1:02:23
  come through the southeastern part of uh
• 1:02:26
  Russia and now and those are those are
• 1:02:30
  pipelines.
• 1:02:32
  They're there and they have a huge
• 1:02:34
  volume going through there and they're
• 1:02:36
  connecting them through other routes as
• 1:02:38
  well. And uh and China is taking more
• 1:02:41
  because of the instability that's going
• 1:02:43
  on. And China's watching quietly. You
• 1:02:46
  know, if you're the United States, you
• 1:02:48
  might believe that you are less
• 1:02:50
  vulnerable, but you're still tied to
• 1:02:51
  this global system. Uh even if you have
• 1:02:54
  all just your your own uh you are a net
• 1:02:59
  exporter, not a net importer, but even
• 1:03:02
  so, we're still paying. So, the argument
• 1:03:04
  put forward by Beritic is particularly
• 1:03:08
  provocative. He suggests that the goal
• 1:03:09
  isn't to shut down the flows, but
• 1:03:12
  destabilize them in a way that impose
• 1:03:14
  costs on competitors, particularly
• 1:03:17
  China. That's what Trump is doing. He's
• 1:03:21
  trying to make it expensive for China.
• 1:03:23
  Remember what he said last week. There
• 1:03:24
  was um conversations about, well, you
• 1:03:27
  have to go back to the pro dollar
• 1:03:29
  because that's not happening anymore,
• 1:03:30
  and we're losing our asses because of
• 1:03:32
  it. So, he wants to force them back to
• 1:03:35
  the petro dollar. I heard a uh one of
• 1:03:37
  the um recent shows that I watched said
• 1:03:40
  that if Iran comes back in and agrees to
• 1:03:43
  do everything in dollars again with
• 1:03:46
  their own natural resources then you and
• 1:03:50
  give up on the hormuz and you know
• 1:03:52
  whatever any anything else that Israel
• 1:03:55
  wants and that the US will force um
• 1:03:58
  then we can have some sort of agreement.
• 1:04:01
  You must agree to this. But whether you
• 1:04:03
  fully accept that argument or not, it it
• 1:04:05
  uh provides a lens through which certain
• 1:04:09
  actions make more sense than they do
• 1:04:12
  today. If the goal was simply to
• 1:04:14
  eliminate a threat, it's already gone.
• 1:04:16
  You killed off the top. You Trump says
• 1:04:18
  we already won. We already killed all
• 1:04:20
  those guys. Then you would expect to see
• 1:04:22
  a strong emphasis on deescalation, on
• 1:04:25
  negotiation, on a clear end state. We
• 1:04:28
  don't even know what the end state is.
• 1:04:30
  But the goal includes managed
• 1:04:33
  instability.
• 1:04:34
  If that's what we're looking for, then
• 1:04:36
  the pattern is quite a bit different.
• 1:04:38
  You see repeat pressure points. You see
• 1:04:40
  actions that increase risk, but they
• 1:04:42
  don't resolve anything. You see a
• 1:04:44
  willingness to operate in a gray zone,
• 1:04:48
  if not completely out of control. But
• 1:04:51
  the critical thing is this kind of
• 1:04:53
  strategy carries itself enormous risk.
• 1:04:56
  Because while you may intend to create a
• 1:04:58
  controlled instability, you're operating
• 1:05:00
  that a system that is inherently
• 1:05:04
  sensitive to such risk. A small
• 1:05:06
  disruption will have a large effect.
• 1:05:08
  Miscalculation is a big mistake. And
• 1:05:11
  once confidence is eroded, you're not
• 1:05:14
  going to restore it. So there was an
• 1:05:18
  Iranian guy named Mandi who uh I watched
• 1:05:21
  as well. some he had an interview and he
• 1:05:23
  reminds us that Iran is not a passive
• 1:05:26
  actor. It's not waiting to be pressured.
• 1:05:29
  It has prepared for this scenario. Thus,
• 1:05:33
  the weapons show of what they have and
• 1:05:36
  they are not running out anytime soon.
• 1:05:41
  It has developed capabilities designed
• 1:05:43
  to operate just under this type of
• 1:05:47
  conflict. It is considered how to
• 1:05:49
  respond in ways that impose costs
• 1:05:54
  and you know but they don't invite
• 1:05:58
  immediate
• 1:06:00
  don't invite Netanyahu pushing a nuclear
• 1:06:02
  bomb just yet cuz we know that's where
• 1:06:04
  it's come from. At least I know you know
• 1:06:07
  you can call me wrong, you can call me a
• 1:06:09
  nut, but don't think so.
• 1:06:12
  So now that the picture is all complex
• 1:06:15
  and you have a system that depends on a
• 1:06:17
  stable energy flow and you have actors
• 1:06:19
  willing to introduce instability the US
• 1:06:23
  and you have other actors capable of
• 1:06:25
  responding in ways that'll amplify the
• 1:06:28
  instability Iran that isn't a
• 1:06:31
  representation or reps.
• 1:06:36
  It's increased volatility.
• 1:06:39
  So when you hear discussions about Iran,
• 1:06:41
  about strikes, about response, about
• 1:06:43
  deterrence, you need to keep thinking of
• 1:06:45
  something else very simple,
• 1:06:48
  a very fundamental question at the end.
• 1:06:52
  Who controls the flow of energy in a
• 1:06:54
  world where the flow can no longer be
• 1:06:58
  taken for granted? If you if the if the
• 1:07:02
  flow is out, you know, is instable like
• 1:07:07
  it is, that answer to the question is
• 1:07:10
  going to reshape absolutely everything
• 1:07:12
  else. And it'll shape economic outcomes
• 1:07:16
  and political stability and alliances at
• 1:07:20
  the end and the balance of power
• 1:07:23
  overall. And right now, that question
• 1:07:26
  isn't even being discussed. It's being
• 1:07:28
  contested not through direct
• 1:07:30
  confrontation but through positioning
• 1:07:33
  through signaling through uh I don't
• 1:07:35
  know creation of more risk mismanagement
• 1:07:39
  of expectations that's why this matters
• 1:07:43
  that is why it's important okay
• 1:07:49
  and let's see
• 1:07:53
  now that we've established that this
• 1:07:54
  isn't a local conflict this is a global
• 1:07:57
  conflict conflict already and that
• 1:07:59
  escalation is proceeding without a
• 1:08:01
  clearly defined destination. Nobody
• 1:08:03
  knows where we're going. I don't even
• 1:08:05
  think Trump has. He hasn't articulated
• 1:08:07
  it well if he does. And the real
• 1:08:09
  battlefield is the energy system itself.
• 1:08:13
  We need to turn to a question that is in
• 1:08:15
  many ways even more important than
• 1:08:16
  anything we covered so far. And Lavough
• 1:08:19
  brought it out pretty well. He uh
• 1:08:24
  he's impossible to ignore. Now,
• 1:08:26
  Berlettic, the Iranian guy, Mammdani or
• 1:08:29
  whatever his name was, um they are
• 1:08:32
  talking theoretical,
• 1:08:34
  um they are talking structural,
• 1:08:36
  economic, uh and an analytical, but this
• 1:08:39
  guy Lavrov is acting as inside the state
• 1:08:44
  powered systems themselves. He's part of
• 1:08:47
  the issue. And when he talks, you can't
• 1:08:50
  ignore him. Not because he's neutral,
• 1:08:52
  he's not. Not because he's beyond
• 1:08:53
  criticism, he's not. but because he's
• 1:08:56
  one of few figures that speaks
• 1:08:58
  consistently at a state level who
• 1:09:00
  describes what is happening in terms
• 1:09:02
  that go beyond the immediate crisis. He
• 1:09:05
  isn't talking about good versus evil. He
• 1:09:08
  also isn't talking about Iran as an
• 1:09:10
  isolated case. He isn't talking about
• 1:09:13
  Israel as an isolated actor. He's
• 1:09:15
  talking about the breakdown of the
• 1:09:18
  operating system of international
• 1:09:20
  relations. And that's a different level
• 1:09:23
  of analysis than what most audiences are
• 1:09:26
  given. That's why I think he's a hell of
• 1:09:30
  a lot smarter or at least
• 1:09:34
  more realistic than the rest of them. He
• 1:09:36
  ain't selling you some kind of a
• 1:09:38
  theater, some kind of a TV show, some
• 1:09:41
  kind of a who wants to be a millionaire
• 1:09:43
  program, you know? Uh what was the one
• 1:09:45
  that Donald Trump had? um where he
• 1:09:48
  sells, you know, people would let's make
• 1:09:50
  a deal or what whatever it was he was
• 1:09:53
  doing where people would sell him their
• 1:09:55
  ideas. He ain't doing that. Lavro's not
• 1:09:57
  doing that. He's saying, "Watch people.
• 1:09:59
  It's getting destroyed right before your
• 1:10:02
  eyes." and his central argument which
• 1:10:05
  I've heard
• 1:10:08
  fairly often or in in one form or
• 1:10:10
  another is the world is moving away what
• 1:10:14
  was once described optimistically as
• 1:10:17
  this rules-based order. The only people
• 1:10:20
  that cling to that are the people who
• 1:10:22
  never followed those rules in the first
• 1:10:23
  place. And now it's going to a system in
• 1:10:26
  which power is exercised more directly.
• 1:10:29
  We're the biggest we're the biggest
• 1:10:31
  baddest player on the block. We're the
• 1:10:33
  biggest bully and therefore we get to do
• 1:10:34
  what we want uh more selectively and
• 1:10:37
  with no constraint. That's what's
• 1:10:39
  happening now. The word rulesbased or
• 1:10:42
  the phrase rules-based order is a bit of
• 1:10:44
  a marketing scam anyway because those
• 1:10:47
  rules were never applied evenly. But
• 1:10:49
  what Lavough is pointing to isn't just a
• 1:10:51
  hypocrisy of that. He's pointing to a
• 1:10:54
  shift in other people's behavior based
• 1:10:56
  on the fact that everybody says it is
• 1:10:58
  now just uh hypocrisy, a shift in even
• 1:11:01
  the pretense that there's some kind of a
• 1:11:03
  universal rule, that there's some kind
• 1:11:05
  of a UN charter. Nobody's paying
• 1:11:08
  attention to it in the West. The only
• 1:11:09
  people they try to apply it to is not
• 1:11:11
  themselves. you know, he's he said uh
• 1:11:15
  the universal rules pretense is less
• 1:11:18
  important than the assertion of force,
• 1:11:21
  sanctions, economic pressure, and
• 1:11:24
  strategic positioning. And apparently,
• 1:11:27
  we're all about that here now. Now, we,
• 1:11:29
  you know, Donald Trump can just say,
• 1:11:31
  "I'm the rules-based order. Period." End
• 1:11:34
  of sentence. Move on. I'll I'm going to
• 1:11:37
  send my army and I'm going to take care
• 1:11:39
  of you. Well, good luck with that
• 1:11:40
  theory, too, because it'll be another
• 1:11:42
  20-year war.
• 1:11:44
  So, when Lavough talks about this, he
• 1:11:46
  often ties it to energy, and that is
• 1:11:48
  where his perspective is relevant to
• 1:11:51
  what I already talked about. He says
• 1:11:52
  that Western policy, particularly
• 1:11:54
  American policy, is increasingly
• 1:11:57
  treating energy not as a commodity, but
• 1:11:59
  as a control lever. Sanctions on Russian
• 1:12:02
  energy, pressure on European supply,
• 1:12:04
  interventions in countries like
• 1:12:06
  Venezuela and Iran. All of these,
• 1:12:09
  according to Lavough, aren't separate
• 1:12:11
  policy decisions, but are part of a
• 1:12:12
  broader effort to shape who produces the
• 1:12:15
  energy, who consumes it, and under what
• 1:12:18
  conditions. When you place that argument
• 1:12:21
  alongside what we've already talked
• 1:12:23
  about, choke points, about harm, about
• 1:12:26
  risk, about vulnerability, you begin to
• 1:12:29
  see that these are not competing
• 1:12:31
  narratives.
• 1:12:33
  They're just a different description of
• 1:12:35
  the same reality. Now, you don't have to
• 1:12:38
  accept Lavrov's framing to recognize
• 1:12:40
  that it's internally consistent. In
• 1:12:42
  fact, you shouldn't accept it because uh
• 1:12:46
  you know, you can't rely on the
• 1:12:47
  perspective of only one actor when
• 1:12:50
  coming up with a thesis, especially one
• 1:12:52
  so deeply involved in the conflict
• 1:12:54
  itself. Uh but you should compare his
• 1:12:59
  statements with observable behavior. You
• 1:13:02
  should ask whether the actions we are
• 1:13:04
  seeing targeted strikes economic
• 1:13:07
  warfare, selective enforcement, shifting
• 1:13:11
  justification dependent upon who you're
• 1:13:14
  talking to, whether they're part of a
• 1:13:16
  rules-based framework or a powerbased
• 1:13:19
  framework. And when you do that
• 1:13:21
  honestly, truthfully,
• 1:13:25
  you can't it's it's hard to argue that
• 1:13:27
  the old order, which is us, is
• 1:13:31
  functioning the way it once did, even if
• 1:13:33
  it never functioned perfectly to begin
• 1:13:36
  with. We never followed the rules base
• 1:13:38
  order. But now, forget about it.
• 1:13:40
  Nobody's paying attention because they
• 1:13:42
  know that the rules do not apply.
• 1:13:45
  Um, China isn't responding, Russia isn't
• 1:13:49
  responding to this situation with a
• 1:13:50
  dramatic military gesture. It's
• 1:13:53
  responding with caution, with
• 1:13:55
  observation, and longterm
• 1:13:59
  repositioning.
• 1:14:01
  It understands that its own economy
• 1:14:03
  depends heavily on energy flow that
• 1:14:06
  passes through vulnerable regions. You
• 1:14:08
  saw, by the way, that sanctions are
• 1:14:11
  lifted on Iran by Trump.
• 1:14:16
  They're lifted. 30 days lifted. No
• 1:14:19
  sanctions. He needs that oil to flow. If
• 1:14:22
  that doesn't tell you something extreme,
• 1:14:25
  you're not paying attention. And uh
• 1:14:28
  Russia, no uh no uh no sanctions for for
• 1:14:32
  for oil in certain areas. India can buy
• 1:14:37
  oil from whoever they want and they
• 1:14:40
  always did anyway but now Bessant is
• 1:14:42
  claiming it was his idea. I allowed them
• 1:14:46
  to you know Donald Trump's going to
• 1:14:47
  allow them for 30 days to buy oil from
• 1:14:49
  whoever they want. Gee thanks Donald
• 1:14:51
  Trump as if you now control uh India
• 1:14:53
  too. You don't. And they were always
• 1:14:55
  buying it from who they wanted. Never
• 1:14:57
  has there been an agreement for them to
• 1:15:00
  not buy oil from Russia. They talked
• 1:15:03
  about it. Trump said, "You can't do it
• 1:15:05
  or we're going to we're going to tariff
• 1:15:06
  you." Well, tariff away then.
• 1:15:09
  And then Trump changed his mind and you
• 1:15:11
  know, you don't hear about it two three
• 1:15:13
  days later. China isn't responding to
• 1:15:15
  this situation with any sort of dramatic
• 1:15:18
  military gesture. It's watching. It's
• 1:15:21
  observing cautiously long-term. It
• 1:15:25
  understands that what's going on. India
• 1:15:29
  continues to purchase energy, ignores
• 1:15:32
  political pressure that forced alignment
• 1:15:35
  in earlier eras. It is balancing its
• 1:15:39
  relationships. It's paying in yuan a lot
• 1:15:41
  of times. It's paying in the ruble.
• 1:15:44
  Russia's accepting the rupee too, the uh
• 1:15:47
  Indian money. So tell you what it
• 1:15:51
  refuses to lock itself India into a
• 1:15:53
  position that might become
• 1:15:55
  disadvantageous if the system shifts.
• 1:15:58
  It's acting on its own behalf. The Gulf
• 1:16:01
  states have started doing something
• 1:16:03
  comparable.
• 1:16:05
  They have ties everywhere, multiple
• 1:16:08
  axis. They avoid committing fully to any
• 1:16:12
  one direction even if they do give
• 1:16:14
  Donald Trump a $400 million airplane. So
• 1:16:16
  he uh ignores them. You know, even
• 1:16:20
  Europe, despite its rhetoric, has showed
• 1:16:22
  signs of strain. It's caught between its
• 1:16:24
  alignment with the US and the economic
• 1:16:27
  realities
• 1:16:28
  of dependence that have never been
• 1:16:31
  resolved. So what ties all of these
• 1:16:34
  things together and the behaviors is not
• 1:16:37
  coordination. There's no single meeting
• 1:16:40
  where all these countries sit down and
• 1:16:42
  agree on a plan. What ties them together
• 1:16:45
  is something more subtle and probably
• 1:16:47
  more significant.
• 1:16:50
  A recognition that the system itself is
• 1:16:53
  changing and survival in the changing
• 1:16:55
  system requires flexibility, not blind
• 1:16:59
  alignment. Canada, you're watching them
• 1:17:01
  do the same thing. They started working
• 1:17:04
  with China. Trump is having a fit over
• 1:17:06
  it. You can't work with China. Well, why
• 1:17:08
  not? You don't want to work with us. You
• 1:17:10
  treat us like you're lackey. You know,
• 1:17:12
  you're we're your whipping child to the
• 1:17:14
  north and Mexico is your whipping child
• 1:17:17
  to the south and Cuba is going to be
• 1:17:19
  your 51st state or is it 54th? We don't
• 1:17:22
  know anymore. It changes by the week.
• 1:17:25
  You know who's going to be next. So
• 1:17:27
  Lavrov's perspective, he isn't just
• 1:17:29
  describing strange western behavior,
• 1:17:32
  which is constant in his review. He is
• 1:17:35
  describing the responses to western
• 1:17:38
  behavior and saying that if the system
• 1:17:40
  is no longer governed by even marginally
• 1:17:44
  consistent rules, countries have to
• 1:17:47
  adapt to a reality in which power is
• 1:17:49
  exercised more openly like the US is
• 1:17:52
  displaying right now. Well, we'll come
• 1:17:54
  and beat you into submission. If you
• 1:17:56
  don't do what Israel says, we'll beat
• 1:17:58
  you. You know, I'm big brother. You
• 1:18:00
  know, this is what we do. And they're
• 1:18:02
  adapting. It doesn't mean more
• 1:18:04
  confrontation. It means patience. When
• 1:18:07
  Trump is gone, things go back to normal.
• 1:18:09
  May well, whatever normal meant. It
• 1:18:12
  means waiting to see how far escalation
• 1:18:14
  goes, how stable it remains, and more
• 1:18:17
  importantly, what opportunities it
• 1:18:19
  creates. Now, this introduces a dynamic
• 1:18:21
  very different from what people are used
• 1:18:23
  to. In the past, a major conflict
• 1:18:25
  produced a kind of gravitational pull.
• 1:18:27
  You had to pick one side or the other.
• 1:18:30
  Neutrality
• 1:18:31
  wasn't allowed. Basically, countries
• 1:18:33
  were drawn into one camp or the other.
• 1:18:37
  Pressure, current environment aside, the
• 1:18:41
  gravitational pool is certainly weaker.
• 1:18:43
  Countries are maneuvering on their own
• 1:18:47
  and they have far more alternatives.
• 1:18:49
  They have more ways to absorb pressure
• 1:18:51
  without fully capitulating. And as a
• 1:18:53
  result, escalation
• 1:18:56
  isn't consolidating the system of power.
• 1:19:00
  It's fragmenting it further. And this
• 1:19:03
  fragmentation is going to have profound
• 1:19:05
  implication because it means the outcome
• 1:19:08
  of the conflict is not going to be
• 1:19:10
  determined just by those who are most
• 1:19:13
  visibly involved in it. It'll be shaped
• 1:19:16
  by those who are sitting on the outside,
• 1:19:19
  China, Russia, notably India, who are
• 1:19:23
  preserving their own flexibility and are
• 1:19:25
  able to move decisively once the
• 1:19:27
  direction of change becomes clear. US is
• 1:19:30
  wasting all kinds of money. 200 billion
• 1:19:33
  in a couple of weeks with more on the
• 1:19:35
  way. This is not cheap and we don't have
• 1:19:38
  the way to keep it up. And meanwhile,
• 1:19:40
  cheap drones are coming all over. And we
• 1:19:42
  have ICBMs coming in all over uh the
• 1:19:45
  Middle East, and we can't stop them
• 1:19:48
  because we ran out of defensive
• 1:19:51
  missiles, giving them all to Ukraine for
• 1:19:53
  another war that we didn't need to be
• 1:19:55
  involved in. So, I I tell you what, I
• 1:19:58
  think we're in trouble. Not in trouble.
• 1:20:00
  We're America. We're we're we're going
• 1:20:01
  to be just fine. But we're involved in a
• 1:20:03
  long-term scenario. We can, you know, we
• 1:20:07
  can play attrition games, too. Um, so
• 1:20:09
  the important actors aren't going to be
• 1:20:12
  the ones making the loudest statements
• 1:20:14
  on TV. They're going to be the ones who
• 1:20:16
  say very little but are preparing very
• 1:20:19
  carefully.
• 1:20:21
  Very carefully. And this brings us to
• 1:20:23
  another uncomfortable uh but necessary
• 1:20:26
  conclusion. If Lavrov is even partially
• 1:20:28
  correct in his assessment that the old
• 1:20:31
  system is collapsing and if behavior of
• 1:20:34
  the other actors reflects a recognition
• 1:20:37
  of that breakdown itself, then we're not
• 1:20:40
  rep simply witnessing a conflict in a
• 1:20:43
  stable order that's always been that
• 1:20:45
  way. We're witnessing a conflict during
• 1:20:47
  a transition between two different
• 1:20:50
  orders. And transitions are inherently
• 1:20:53
  stable in the first place. There are
• 1:20:55
  periods in which old assumptions no
• 1:20:57
  longer hold, but the new structure
• 1:20:59
  hasn't been fully formed yet. These are
• 1:21:02
  periods in which miscalculation
• 1:21:05
  is dangerous because the rules of the
• 1:21:08
  game are not defined.
• 1:21:12
  So as we move on, you know, the question
• 1:21:15
  that flows from the understanding of
• 1:21:17
  what we're talking about is the system
• 1:21:20
  is changing. If the system is changing,
• 1:21:23
  if the rules no longer are reliable, if
• 1:21:26
  energy is the central lever, which
• 1:21:29
  obviously it is, because every time
• 1:21:31
  Trump takes over a different place, it's
• 1:21:33
  to increase power or steal resources.
• 1:21:37
  And if countries are positioning
• 1:21:38
  themselves for what comes afterward
• 1:21:42
  regardless of who wins, then who is
• 1:21:45
  actually going to control that system
• 1:21:48
  afterward becomes a very important
• 1:21:51
  question. And so the real question is
• 1:21:54
  who gets to control what comes next. So
• 1:22:00
  this is where discussions fall apart
• 1:22:02
  because they're not designed to think in
• 1:22:04
  those terms. We don't know what the
• 1:22:06
  outcome is going to be. They're focused
• 1:22:07
  on an event, not on a structure. They're
• 1:22:10
  designed to keep people engaged in the
• 1:22:11
  immediate drama, not the long-term
• 1:22:14
  result. But if you step back and look at
• 1:22:16
  whatever the pattern is, what you begin
• 1:22:18
  to see is not a conflict unfolding, but
• 1:22:20
  the reordering process beginning to take
• 1:22:23
  shape. Not fully, not complete, but
• 1:22:27
  visible from behavior of the actors
• 1:22:29
  involved. When systems are under this
• 1:22:31
  type of pressure, they don't just snap
• 1:22:33
  back to where they were before. They
• 1:22:34
  adjust and they reorganize and they
• 1:22:36
  redistribute influence and dependency in
• 1:22:39
  ways that often become clear only
• 1:22:43
  afterward. The key point is
• 1:22:46
  that the actors who shape the reordering
• 1:22:49
  aren't always the ones who dominate
• 1:22:53
  or win or lose in the conflict. This is
• 1:22:57
  the idea of the third force that
• 1:22:59
  Berlettic touched upon and that uh
• 1:23:02
  Mamani talked about that we're talking
• 1:23:04
  about where this is central. When major
• 1:23:06
  players engage in sustained
• 1:23:08
  confrontation, they expend all kinds of
• 1:23:11
  resources and disrupt the own the
• 1:23:13
  systems that they themselves depend
• 1:23:15
  upon, they create openings for other
• 1:23:17
  people. Openings for others that are
• 1:23:19
  less directly involved, less exposed,
• 1:23:22
  more flexible, and far more patient.
• 1:23:25
  Those actors don't need to win a war.
• 1:23:27
  They just need to be in a position to
• 1:23:29
  take advantage of what the war changes.
• 1:23:33
  And when you apply that to the current
• 1:23:35
  situation, the implic implications are
• 1:23:37
  difficult to ignore. Because while the
• 1:23:39
  US and its immediate allies are deeply
• 1:23:42
  engaged in managing or forcing
• 1:23:45
  escalation
• 1:23:48
  and Iran is positioned as both a target
• 1:23:50
  and a responder, other actors, China,
• 1:23:54
  India, Russia, other regional powers who
• 1:23:56
  aren't committing themselves fully to
• 1:23:59
  one side or the other, but are
• 1:24:01
  preserving their ability to move in
• 1:24:02
  whatever direction proves most
• 1:24:04
  advantageous,
• 1:24:07
  then you'll get to see what a meaningful
• 1:24:10
  action really is afterward. China in
• 1:24:13
  particular stands out very much. It is
• 1:24:17
  heavily dependent on energy from that
• 1:24:19
  region. So, it has a clear interest in
• 1:24:22
  avoiding a catastrophic disruption, but
• 1:24:25
  is also in a position to benefit from
• 1:24:27
  the very instability that is weakening
• 1:24:29
  the existing structure, especially if
• 1:24:31
  that instability creates an opportunity
• 1:24:33
  for investment. They have money that
• 1:24:36
  they're no longer investing in the
• 1:24:37
  United States. They have money for
• 1:24:40
  reconstruction, for new agreements, for
• 1:24:43
  expanded influence in a region
• 1:24:45
  previously dominated by the United
• 1:24:47
  States. They do not need to rush. They
• 1:24:50
  got the money. It does not need
• 1:24:53
  escalation. It can afford to wait,
• 1:24:56
  watch, and step in when the time is
• 1:24:58
  right. And that is a different kind of
• 1:25:01
  power than the one most people are used
• 1:25:03
  to thinking about. It isn't a power
• 1:25:05
  expressed through immediate action.
• 1:25:07
  They're watching us
• 1:25:09
  whittle away our own resources, openly
• 1:25:12
  discussing not having defenses to cover
• 1:25:14
  all of our obligations, taking people
• 1:25:17
  from the South China Sea and moving them
• 1:25:20
  into the Middle East. Think about that,
• 1:25:24
  friends and neighbors, and the picture
• 1:25:26
  that it paints for a people like China
• 1:25:31
  and for Taiwan who's scared shitless
• 1:25:33
  right now.
• 1:25:35
  Jeez, something's going to happen. US
• 1:25:37
  ain't going to be there. We're we're
• 1:25:39
  going further and further toward mass
• 1:25:41
  escalation. This doesn't mean that
• 1:25:43
  there's any kind of predetermined
• 1:25:45
  outcome or that there's any guarantee
• 1:25:47
  about who's going to emerge as the uh
• 1:25:49
  primary beneficiary. It's too complex
• 1:25:51
  for that. But there are too many v val v
• 1:25:54
  variables, too many potential points of
• 1:25:57
  failure and too many ways which things
• 1:25:59
  will escalate beyond anyone's control.
• 1:26:02
  And so the outcome isn't going to be
• 1:26:04
  shaped by who fights, but by who adapts
• 1:26:07
  best to the changes. And that's why the
• 1:26:11
  control of energy routes, stability of
• 1:26:14
  choke points, and the ability to manage
• 1:26:16
  or exploit disruption are critical.
• 1:26:20
  because they determine not just who
• 1:26:22
  suffers in the short term, but who gains
• 1:26:24
  in the long term. In a world where the
• 1:26:26
  old rules are no longer reliably
• 1:26:29
  enforced, they never have been, at least
• 1:26:31
  for the last 30. Power is exercised more
• 1:26:34
  directly. That's fairly new. At least we
• 1:26:37
  claimed we weren't doing it willy-nilly
• 1:26:39
  before. Now we're just doing it because
• 1:26:41
  we're the biggest baddest bully on the
• 1:26:44
  block. and where actors are increas in
• 1:26:48
  increasingly operating based on their
• 1:26:49
  own calculation rather than a collective
• 1:26:52
  framework of any kind.
• 1:26:55
  These factors are far more important
• 1:26:57
  than they were before.
• 1:27:00
  There's an a tendency a tendency in
• 1:27:03
  times of crisis to look for something
• 1:27:05
  clear to look for a simple answer to
• 1:27:07
  look for a clear line between right and
• 1:27:10
  wrong between between aggression and
• 1:27:13
  defense between cause and effect.
• 1:27:16
  They're still important at a moral
• 1:27:18
  level, but they obscure the structural
• 1:27:21
  realities. That's unfortunate to say,
• 1:27:24
  but true. Systems do not reorganize
• 1:27:27
  based on morality. They reorganize based
• 1:27:30
  on power, resources, and the ability to
• 1:27:34
  shape outcome over time. That doesn't
• 1:27:38
  mean morality is irrelevant. It means
• 1:27:40
  that morality alone does not determine
• 1:27:42
  the structure of the system. And we've
• 1:27:45
  never really morality for us is a uh
• 1:27:49
  loaded question. It's something we
• 1:27:51
  ignore if it if it is uh in our best
• 1:27:54
  interests. We ignore non-democracy
• 1:27:57
  monarchy structures if it's in our
• 1:28:01
  interest. But when it's not, we claim
• 1:28:04
  that we go to war because there's a
• 1:28:06
  dictator in this state. What we're
• 1:28:09
  watching isn't just a a conflict. It's a
• 1:28:12
  moment of transition. Um, and it's a big
• 1:28:15
  transition. Positions are going to be
• 1:28:17
  adopted. Opportunities are going to be
• 1:28:19
  seized. And they may not come out as you
• 1:28:23
  think they're going to come out. I just
• 1:28:25
  want to leave you with one final
• 1:28:27
  thought. The question isn't who wins
• 1:28:30
  this week, this month, or even this
• 1:28:33
  year. Trump says he won already. The
• 1:28:36
  question is who's building a position
• 1:28:38
  that will allow them to shape what comes
• 1:28:41
  next. Because in the end, the side that
• 1:28:44
  controls the condition of the future
• 1:28:47
  through energy, trade, relationships,
• 1:28:49
  and influence is the side that will
• 1:28:51
  define the system. And right now, the
• 1:28:54
  world is only focused on the conflict
• 1:28:57
  and the future is being quietly
• 1:28:59
  reconstructed while we're not paying any
• 1:29:01
  attention. That's what I say. So, I
• 1:29:05
  appreciate you listening to
• 1:29:06
  International Flavor today. I'm Samuel
• 1:29:08
  Trap coming to you live from the Lake
• 1:29:11
  Ozark Real Estate of the Art Studio. You
• 1:29:14
  can always listen to our former shows at
• 1:29:16
  live at I'm sorry, at
• 1:29:17
  damradio.com/mpodcast.
• 1:29:19
  You can go out to
• 1:29:20
  internationalflavor.com
• 1:29:22
  and do the same. Um, I do another show
• 1:29:24
  on Fridays called civicoutlaws.com where
• 1:29:27
  we focus on Missouri government
• 1:29:29
  overreach.
• 1:29:31
  Hope you join me on Friday. It's going
• 1:29:33
  to be an interesting week. A lot going
• 1:29:36
  on on that end. So,
• 1:29:39
  join us in when you get an opportunity.
• 1:29:43
  We love to have you.
• 1:29:45
  I hope you have a very nice, but
• 1:29:47
  apparently very cold, mid Missouri day.
• 1:29:50
  Bye-bye.