Lawrence Wilkerson: Rogue State America - Decay of a Superpower

追加: 2026-05-12

[00:00:01]Welcome back. We are joined today by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson who used to be the chief of staff to the US Secretary of State. Uh thank you as always for coming back on the program.

[00:00:12]>> Thank you for having me and thank you for that introduction. It signals the fact that we did once upon a time have diplomacy.

[00:00:21]>> Yeah, I'm um missing the diplomacy as well. Uh again with Iran it seems to have been fraudulent from day one. Uh with Russia it's been either absent or fraudulent but uh yeah overall um I missed the days of diplomacy uh when diplomats consider it part of their job description. Um I I I wanted to start off with u what's happening now with Iran because I see that Donald Trump has put his uh project freedom on pause.

[00:00:52]that is uh he was supposed to open up the straight of her moose by force. It didn't go as planned. So again, it's on pause. While Marco Rubio said that operation epic fury uh as the war is called has already met all objectives and has therefore been concluded. I was wondering what do you make of these statements? Are they trying to walk back this disaster in terms of returning to war or do you think this this much this is just a deception uh yeah temporary retreat before they ramp up again?

[00:01:28]>> Well, the latter would come to mind as a matter of practice of the Trump administration including the secretary of state national security adviser Marco Rubio. The statements he made yesterday were just egregiously wrong. The Secretary of State of the United States of America says categorically, "A blockade is not an act of war."

[00:01:51]What the hell book is he reading? A blockade has been an act of war for about a thousand years, codified as such post World War II in international law.

[00:02:02]That's the reason John Kennedy in 1962 was instructive to the XCOM committee, the group that helped him figure out the Cuban missile crisis, particularly Bobby. And in this case, as if memory serves, McNamera actually offered him the alternative ruled out Kennedy ruled out the blockade of Cuba and was searching for some other mechanism, if you will. And I think it was McNamera.

[00:02:32]It might have been Bobby, might have been both of them. But if memory serves, it was McNamera who said, "How about quarantine?" A good medical term. And Kennedy liked it. And so it was a quarantine. It was not not a blockade because a blockade again is an act of war, Mr. Secretary of State. And then we get Chain and Hexith discussing kamicazi dolphins. How absurd can you be? Um I I just don't understand this leadership at all. I can't crawl in their heads because their heads are not like mine.

[00:03:11]Their heads are not like yours either.

[00:03:13]They're not like anything I've ever encountered. But to your question, it failed objectly. And what Rubio has suggested and what I think Trump is suggesting more and more though feebly and often incoherently is I want out. I need a way out. I've got to find a way out. And if you won't give me a way out, I'll carve myself a way out and I'll make it look like it's a successful way out in terms of what I did to Iran. Um that's all I can judge this by because on the surface on the surface of the sea it is not successful and the only way the strait is going to be successful if there is a potential for that is if the Omani Iranian consortium I'll call it is allowed to control the strait and to do what they want to do which is to charge in terms of the commerce a modest fee for people passing through. Um, that's the only way they're going to get the straight open. And the only way I I was marveling at the fact that they were talking about the straight was open and people could go places and there's 2,000 ships in the North Arabian Sea. What are you going to do? Peel them off one at a time with an escort? Uh, you don't have that many ships, do you? No, you certainly don't. Um, so the whole thing, Glenn, was cocked up in some place where they don't think very much. Um, and I've got to figure it was in the Pentagon with Pete Hags super supervising. So, now we see glaring proof of the fact that neither General Kaine, I'm increasingly of that mind, nor uh, Hexath, we all thought that, I think, all along, it's been confirmed now, know what they're doing.

[00:05:07]No, I think yeah, the Iran in control of the straight of moose will probably be the the only possible outcome. It I think it's a shame because it it didn't have to be this way. the ultimate goal of the stra moose I mean for the Iranians I think it's a means to an end because they've been asking for a proper security architecture in the region which gives them security as well cuz they can't live another 47 years under these crippling sanctions and perpetual threats by the bases that surround them I think the straight of her moose given that there is no diplomatic path towards uh a sustainable peace with the US and Israel I think the straight of moose is just a means comes to an end. It's a way of putting um essentially higher tolls on countries that sanction it, that threatens it, possibly by hosting bases or actually attacking it. Uh so I I think it will be a way of um well reasserting Iranian security in in the region and it will probably be successful, but again it's a bit like the war in Ukraine. I mean, the Russians didn't have to take the territories. If there was a security architecture to restore Ukraine's neutrality and take take into account Russia security concerns, this could have been done through diplomacy uh not by taking territory. But again, as you started off saying, we don't have diplomacy anymore.

[00:06:28]So, it's very difficult to uh to achieve anything through talk and instead everything has to take this very hard format. Uh but uh at the same time as the US indicating it wants to walk this back if this is genuine. We also see that the French are sending this uh Charles the Gaul aircraft carrier strike group. Uh I think it's currently in the Red Sea. Uh I might be mistaken. How do you how do you assess this? Are they are they planning an operation? I'm I'm not sure what the Europeans can do if the Americans couldn't pull it off. Or is this just to have some show of strength uh you know the last hour to prove to Trump that the Europeans are a force amplifier and not well dead weight.

[00:07:17]>> A brave and meaningless display of gic fervor. It won't add anything to the combat power. In fact, it may detriment the combat power to a certain extent because let's face it, and let me back up and give you some facts here, if I can recall them, we have two carriers, aircraft carriers on the ways, so to speak, right now. One of them getting ready for completion and testing and the other one getting ready to start up. I suspect the first is going to come in somewhere between 20 and 21 billion when all the cost overruns are calculated and probably be delayed at least a year beyond maybe two if history proves anything its acceptance date. The second one, Kennedy, I believe she is, is going to come out and probably cost 22 or$23 billion and going to be suitably delayed. Also, both are obsolete as they sit right now in the ways.

[00:08:25]Um, every carrier on the high seas is obsolete with regard to really first tier warfare.

[00:08:33]We have not had that demonstrated by Iran, which they could do. I think they could do it, but they don't want to because they know on their side of the coin, being better thinkers than we, they know that if they were to do that and put 5,000 Americans in Davy Jones locker and a $16 billion aircraft carrier there with them, that that would probably get the American people thinking a little differently about the Iran war. They're very comfortable with the way American people are despising the Iran war right now. So they're obsolete and the French carrier is obsolete obsolete. So I mean this is no addition to combat. It's a French as I said it's a gic display of French piss.

[00:09:20]Um but it doesn't add anything to the to to the material at sea that could do anything other than sink. Now, let's look at something else that's happening right now that is in stark contrast to all of this. The French effort, Ukraine, you name it. And I got to get this straight. So, I'm going to look at my notes here. The 18th bricks summit is going to be in September in Delhi. Modi will be the presiding person. He's president of the uh group now.

[00:09:53]Listen to their subject matter title.

[00:09:58]Quote, "Building for resilience, innovation, cooperation, and sustainability," unquote. That's their purpose. That's their announced purpose.

[00:10:13]That's the announced purpose I would have given in 1991,992 to what George H. Bush and Brent Skov and Coen Powell were talking about in terms of not primacy, not the number one power in the world bar none or will sanction or bomb you, but cooperation comedy.

[00:10:38]That's what they're doing. So, contrast that. Oh, incidentally, it happens to include the number one economic power in the world, China. soon to be the number one financial power in the world if they do what Xi Jinping just mandated.

[00:10:56]It's them doing it instead of us. We are the ones fighting that. We are the we are the recalcitrance in the world. And while I'm at it, let's just define us properly.

[00:11:09]If you want to define the empire properly right now, you have to go back to some examples of previous type organizations.

[00:11:18]Take Hitler's Third Reich for example.

[00:11:21]Take Tojo's Japan. Take the rape of Nank King and the Japanese invasion of China.

[00:11:28]Take all of those things together and what you have is a historical example of what you have now in the empire. Where else could you hear a Secretary of War stand up before the podium and utter war crimes? Say war crimes. Say that they are his policy. Say that they are the way he is going to confront the world.

[00:11:54]He's going to send Iran back to the dark ages. He's going to destroy the entire place. He gives no quarter. These are all war crimes. Dwight Eisenhower isn't rolling in his grave. He's spinning in his grave. These are, let alone our founding fathers. These are war crimes.

[00:12:14]Everything that rolls out of Hegest mouth virtually, and much of what comes out of Trump's contorted mouth is a war crime. So look at the contrast here. We are setting ourselves up as the next victim of whatever Nuremberg tribunal these countries want to hold eventually.

[00:12:34]and they're setting themselves up to be our counterpart in terms of what we did post World War II for international law, for human rights, for human dignity, you name it. However imperfect it was, we did it. One of the main instruments in doing it was one of the main instruments in waging the war, Dwight Eisenhower.

[00:12:55]And he said one of the reasons he moved the way he did, very much in favor of the United Nations, very instrumental in helping the United Nations get going, was because he had seen war for what it was, what it really was, 100 million casualties. Um, we're on the other side of the coin now, Glenn. Americans have to wake up and confront that. We are the bad guy in the world.

[00:13:25]The other side are the good guys. If we don't figure that out and somehow change what we're doing, alter what we're doing, we're going down. I mean, there's no question in my mind about it because they are dedicated to what they just said. They're dedicated to this comedy and cooperation and innovation and resilience. And by golly, they're good at it. All of them.

[00:13:50]So what are we doing is my question to Donald Trump this morning. What are we doing Donald? What are you doing? What is your government doing? What is the Congress doing? What is the Supreme Court doing? What are all the senus of power of the empire doing? Because you're driving us into a wall over a cliff.

[00:14:13]Yeah. Well, the great irony as well you and I discussed a bit before we started this recording is that uh Trump initially appeared to be the candidate who well without stating those words was making the case for why the US should walk back the empire in order to shore up and save the republic. and uh instead it appears to be going the other direction that is uh gambling the republic in order to perpetuate the empire. But I I I was wondering though what what happens now if if well not if or when the United States will have to roll back a bit. Uh how does that what does it mean for the wider region and the future of Israel and Iran? because uh when I read the Israeli media, be it the Jerusalem Post or Haretss, you see that um well that they're quite pessimistic themselves and also on many levels the war with Iran, but also the stability of Netanyahu's political position and the media reveals a lot of infighting suggestions that Netanyahu risks the survival of the state itself.

[00:15:26]So I think everyone recognizes what what's being gambled here. But how do you how do you think given that the US looks like it has to walk this back at some point as you said just carve a way out of this? What does this mean for the region for Iran for Israel?

[00:15:44]One of the unique things about the description that I just gave, however, briefly, of how we resemble the powers that we fought in World War II, is the fact that we have Israel. The fact that Israel is sort of the Reinhard Hydri for Trump's Hitler. Um, and that's uh, as you just indicated in the nature of your question, a true problem and challenge.

[00:16:09]Picking up heretses this morning online and reading just reading down the headlines was like reading an indictment of Israel from from one of his series of editorial writers and other journalists who have a brain and who feel like they have some freedom. But at the same time when you go into the articles you find out that there is hardly an iota of deviation in support of the Israeli people for what BB Natanyahu has done Reinhard Hydri has done and what he might do and instead of being called it off because you're destroying the state of Israel it's do more because if you don't do more you will destroy the state of Israel as we conceive it. And that's the real secret here as we Jews in Israel conceive it because the other citizens almost 50% plus of Israel's population don't feel this way or if they do they're too scared to say it. They'll be you know taken out shot. So, we've got this unique ingredient in this re reprise, if you will, of a Hitlerian tojoin world in the role that Israel is playing. And right now, they're playing it really violently and blatantly in Lebanon. So much so that the president of Lebanon has said he's not sure he wants to meet with Netanyahu as long as Netanyahu is still doing what he's doing in his country. I don't blame him. I suspect he probably will because we'll bend his arm behind his back. But I don't blame him for not wanting to meet with the man who's raping his country and not going after Hezbollah so much as he's going after every single person or thing he can find in Lebanon to rape, pillillage, and plunder. So that's additional ingredients to this ignamy, this awful situation the empire has gotten itself into that it seems to have no wherewithal, no courage to extricate itself from. And so that's the reason I'm so pessimistic. I don't think we're going to get out of this. I don't think Trump's going to get out of it. I don't think Israel's going to get I' I've said many times, I'll say it again. I'll reinforce it here. Israel will not be a state in Levant in the in its present configuration. It will not be an apartheid state like it is now. It is not a democracy. Were it to return to being a democracy, a genuine democracy with all the flaws that democracies have nonetheless, it could exist and it could persist and maybe survive. Uh I don't know. It's created a lot of enemies now that aren't going to forget very quickly, but it could make its way into the future were it to be a genuine democracy and accept all comers, Christians, Arabs, Jews, others.

[00:19:13]So that's a special ingredient here that you can't find an analogy for in that period I was describing. We have returned to only we're on the other side of the Nuremberg tribunal now. We're in the docket. We are in the dock. We're being accused and we will be accused in the future. Um I don't know who's going to do it. I don't know how they're going to do it, but somehow retribution will be obtained. It's like when Lot turned around and looked at Sodom and Gomorrah and turned to a pillar of salt. It's that sure. Uh but I don't know how we're going I don't know how we're going to extricate ourselves from the immediate circumstances in any way that affords a platform from which we can begin to alter this situation. We're not even giving him new a new commander-in-chief, a new president if we have one. We're not even giving him a platform to stand on to do this. We're leaving him with such hu horrendous debt, such horrendous situations in the world with their allies all of whom must think we've lost it and such a horrendous situation with regard to those in the world who through our own pery are having to oppose us now and hold summits in India.

[00:20:30]I wonder with you mentioned that the allies are horrified but to to some extent they do tow the line though. You mentioned for example what's happening in Lebanon but um the I saw just today that the German foreign minister said that Israel has every right to be in South Lebanon. And of course this is the same Germany who backed the atrocities in Gaza is the same Germany who said that Israel is doing our dirty work for us in Iran. So they might complain a lot about Trump, but uh they seem to be on board on many of the most the worst impulses of Trump. I'm wondering if this is part of the yeah the legacy of the hegemonic era after the cold war because some key problems when you have a hegeimon seems that well not only would it be hubris but also when you can absorb a lot of cost from doing stupid things you end up doing a lot of stupid things. Uh also the death of diplomacy. Why talk to your opponent when you can dictate the terms and that tend tendency to overextend the arrogance? I mean it's it's easy often to point to the US but if you look at the Europeans the you know the the way they ignored for example the security of the largest European country Russia for 30 plus years this makes no sense unless there's some hegemonic hubris and I'm wondering if the same with Israel because in the past 30 plus years they pursued I would argue this clean break doctrine that is let's just stop doing diplomacy make compromises let's just impose our will by force. We have the world hedgeimon standing behind us ensuring that no one will go against us.

[00:22:09]It's uh possibly it hasn't been it hasn't been good for America's allies either to have the big bad US standing behind them because uh we don't have to make any compromises and the arrogance has just reached ridiculous uh levels.

[00:22:24]Um but um >> I give you my my feelings on that. I've stated them before, but let me restate them. One, I do not think a single one of the European leaders in power right now, even some of those that might have been just freshly elected is going to be around very long. U certainly not Merrick and certainly not Mcronone and certainly not Star and the ones we throw out each day. Um, but I think a lot of other leaders too are going to be gone.

[00:22:56]My concern is why are they going to be gone? Are they be gonna be gone because of the legitimate populace that says, "Wait a minute. This has really been bad for us and you have been the leader during this bad for us period. Therefore, we're throwing you out and we're going to try to find someone else."

[00:23:17]whether they find someone else who is more interested in some comedy and cooperation amongst European countries including Russia or someone who wants to uh create a Europe individually that's very very like the 1930s Europe and can't get along and is constantly in turmoil economic and otherwise is a matter of history determining it. I can't predict that. Um I I've not got my feet deep enough in Europe to predict that. And I'm not sure I could even if I did because I'm not European. I think it was Maggie Thatcher that said the problem with Europeans is we visit, they live there.

[00:24:06]That's a real good way of summing it up.

[00:24:09]Um, so I don't know how Europe is going to come through this, but I know damn well they're not going to come through it if they keep hanging on to the tail of the United States shirt. No way.

[00:24:22]Because one, we're going to withdraw that tail and two, it's not very formidable anymore other than its nuclear stockpile. And that brings me to my favorite subject. The only thing that makes this situation remarkably different, existentially different from that previous period I was describing and comparing it to in the 30s and all other previous periods in the last 5,000 years of human history is nuclear weapons. And that's frightening when you think about it because the empire is not going out with not using everything in its arsenal to try and prevent it. So you look at this summit that's taking place in India. You think about the genuine nature of their subject matter in terms of what the world needs whether they're going to go that way or not at least they've said they are. And when you say something like that and you have powers behind you like China and increasingly like India then you have some weight you have some gravitas. Um, and much the same way I would say and again I'm going back to that analogy which I think is pretty good analogy that we had gravitas in 1945 and six and seven and so on. Not just because we had the nuclear weapon and nobody else did until the Soviets secloed their bomb, but because we were actually acting as if we cared about what happened to those 100 million people who died and we cared about all the other things that we supposedly put much effort into defending. We cared enough to go to the tribunals. We cared enough to go to the to the conventions, to the Geneva business, to all the things that we did with regard to diplomacy that as Eisenhower said multiple times would keep this from happening again. You know, he lamented the League of Nations and the lack of success that he had had.

[00:26:26]And one of the reasons he was very powerful behind the scenes, if you will, with regard to the UN was because he knew the league had failed so miserably.

[00:26:35]And that was part of why we got into the second iteration of of the World War. I think it was chapter 1, chapter 2. And he didn't want that to happen again. All those people are gone. I take you back to what Powell told me in 1989 when I first joined him. Larry, Europe is not going to be the same much longer.

[00:26:54]They're gone. Meet Theon Cole Thatcher Major. They're all gone. There's no one going to be left who has his feet in the turmoil in the dye and the blood of World War II. Even as a 12y old or a 13-year-old, no one. When that happens, Larry, Europe's going to be a different place. We can only pray that it's a better different place. It could be a much worse different place. I think we're seeing that come to fruition. But to repeat, I think the Europeans are smart enough to throw most of these people out. The question becomes how do their particular political processes which are very different from ours in many cases if not all cases and very different from one another in most cases. How do their political processes democratic as they pretend to be just like we do? How do they produce the kind of leadership that Powell was saying would be necessary if Europe were to get through this postcold war period without too much damage and us too. I don't think he ever ever entertained the idea of the transatlantic link being utterly severed and mainly because and here we come back to those horrible weapons again, the nuclear weapons and the need for Europe to have that cushion to lie back on in case something were to happen or to provide a deterrent for them against whomever because there are a lot of these things in the world. China and Russia combined, India, Pakistan, we're we're building back out again to where in our program is as robust and dangerous as anyone's. We're building back out to those 30,000 warheads we had when the war came to a close, the Cold War, and we went down almost to 2,000. I mean, that's a pipe dream now. I mean, we're going to build we're going to build twice the number of weapons we have right now with three or four times the lethality we have right now. So, we can have a first strike capability and ride out any retaliation and come out the winner. That's what we're looking for. So, this is a very dangerous world and I'm happy to see what's happening in India and I wish them every success.

[00:29:14]>> Yeah. with all this talk of uh gaining first strike capabilities uh not just the capabilities being built but also when I see the what what has been done towards the Russian that attacks on the early warning radars their nuclear trident uh it's it's as if we forget that any successful first strike still can't ignore that we still reside on this same PL planet. It's very hard to bombber on planet over and over again without affecting all of us. Um, >> what would the Indians be building the AGY 5? I'm building it. Hell, it's it's deployed now.

[00:29:50]>> 30,000 kilometers per hour missile. It's no golden dome is going to get this dude. And it carries MVD warheads. I just found that out yesterday. It carries MVD warheads. So, it can carry multiple nuclear warheads in its nose cone and deploy them. Uh, I'm assuming the same way we deploy our MERS with pinpoint accuracy over a ballistic missile silo or whatever. Um, why would the Indians want a 7,000 kilometer containerized road mobile ICBM?

[00:30:27]Uh, do they smell something in the wind?

[00:30:33]We just keep doing this and we're we're going right back to the point of danger we were at. and breathed a deep sigh of relief about being out of at the end of the cold war. But that's gone. We didn't hold it for more than four years.

[00:30:49]I I was wondering though, do you see the US since World War II having become dependent on um on a threat and conflict in order to preserve its current position? Because well Kennan made this George Kennan that is made this uh point in 1987 where he argued that if the Soviet Union would uh sink into the sea tomorrow then uh the the military-industrial complex would have to well invent another enemy simply because it was too much of the economy too much of the economy was built into this military-industrial complex. But one could also widen the argument further by pointing out that the entire structure of the international system has become too dependent on having enemies. Because if one has an alliance system such as was during the cold war or a hegemonic system after the cold war, uh they only exist if you have a a common threat. So once peace begins to break out, you know, the alliance systems begin to fragment and uh and essentially it's it's easy if you want to if one maintains his power in the world through alliance systems, one has to perpetuate conflicts in some ways because as we saw when the Chinese were pushing this peace between the Saudis and Iranians, it it I think it created some shock in Washington because well, if the Arabs are going to make peace with the Iranians, why would they uh why do would they be obedient to Washington and also who would help them weaken the Iranians. So kind of peace is not uh always a friend of the empire if you will.

[00:32:26]>> You're absolutely right and Kennan made those points. As old as he was, he was just short of his death when he visited with Powell as did Henry Kissinger in a different sort of way. Um and part of Powell's push back, it wasn't real push back. Pal had too much respect for both men to push back hard. But part of his push back though, gentle push back, was, "We're smarter than that now, and we'll figure out a way to deal with this military-industrial complex." Um, I remember thinking to myself, "Yeah, right. Probably not." Uh if you're familiar with the report from Aaron Mountain, um they actually concluded in that and there's a lot of controversy over whether that was an official analysis done at the behest of perhaps the president of the United States, if it was a reaction to John F.

[00:33:25]Kennedy's speech at American University June 10th I think 1963 right before he was assassinated or whether it was just a big joke. The New York Times carried all sto all kinds of stories about it. Lewis Lampam and couple of other people were accused. Um but it was a very titillating study and what it said in the end in no uncertain terms was that what you just said was absolutely true that we could not live in an empire. We could not live with coexistent empires if you will without all of them but particularly us having a threat like the Soviets present. So whom would we construct?

[00:34:17]And the essence of that report was and I think this is what was so titillating about it and disturbing about it and it was a bestseller for a while.

[00:34:30]Their conclusion was you can't human society doesn't matter whether it's Indian, Chinese, Russian, American, human society requires for political rule a threat that is judged by those who are ruled by those politics that is existential.

[00:34:52]And it went on to say the only way you could relieve that as the foundation of society was to find some, don't call it a threat, some force that was equivalent in terms of existential.

[00:35:10]And of course, it hinted at that for three millennia or so, we found one in religion.

[00:35:19]In other words, people believe that if you sinned, you're going to hell in a broad sense. Nations believe that uh under their various guises of religion. So that was one way to do it.

[00:35:33]But the report concluded that that way was pretty morbid. This is in the 60s7s.

[00:35:40]Um, so the other thing you need is some kind of existential threat you can put in front of the people and tell them this will kill you if you do not stay cohesive, if you do not build your society, if you do not have warriors, Pete Heg said, you know, and what I said when I read that was pick up the latest UN report on the climate and you have a quintessential potential example of a very lethal existentially so threat but it's not military it's not the traditional threat so why don't we all come together what was it they said in India building resilience innovation cooperation and sustainability and fight the climate crisis make that the cohesive element of world society that triumphs over man's beastiality, over man's desire for power and so so people say it's not a big enough threat.

[00:36:49]It will be, ladies and gentlemen, it will be. Look at the temperatures in Europe for this last year. Look at the newspapers and how they're reporting on those temperatures, especially in places like where they were just off the charts in Spain, for example. Um, give it another 20 years. Just give it another 30 years. And if we haven't killed ourselves with the other threat, nuclear weapons, the climate is going to show us that it is ready to kill us to every man, woman, and child.

[00:37:22]We need to get together and prevent that. And wow, there's a hundred years of being able to live in reasonable cooperative spirit.

[00:37:34]But will we do that? I don't know.

[00:37:37]I'm hoping a big element of this bricks meeting comes out with that kind of conclusion. I do know that the central party school in China has come to that kind of conclusion and is advising the polit according.

[00:37:54]>> Yeah. No, it would be good to find some um I guess uh common purpose on you know saving this planet or discovering new planets uh you know something other than this uh tribalism and um uh you know continuous warfare.

[00:38:14]Uh I I just had one one last question though. How do you see um China and Russia playing into what is happening now the what looks like well it's been a failure in Iran because often we address these conflicts as if there are three different one we have the economic war with China with the proxy war against the Russians of the more direct war with Iran but but as we've seen well for example the the the Chinese they consider them themselves to be a key target in this Iran war indeed you hear from Washington when they justified what they did to Venezuela, they referenced, you know, China shouldn't have this oil.

[00:38:54]They make similar comments in Iran. So, so now the Chinese have banned the sanctions on uh well, its own companies from abiding by US sanctions. We see also Russia stepping up, taking a more forceful um giving yeah more for forceful support for Iran. Um, how do you how do you think this will impact whether or not it ends in victory or failure? Uh, this this relations between the great powers because, you know, will they essentially find common purpose against the US because this would be, I think, a a disaster. This is not a you wouldn't want a multipolar system where the other great powers find common cause in balancing the US either. So what do we how do you see this um yeah I guess a group of great powers uh you behaving >> if we don't get out of the Rubio heath Trump group leadership what you just described is where we're headed um I think the councils in both China and Russia India to a certain extent Pakistan even and Pakistan is getting it full in the peace with regard to our inability to do diplomacy in any way, fashion, or form that makes sense.

[00:40:13]A lot of countries have already put themselves on the decision block, if you will, as to where to go with regard to this empire. all we're doing right now and particularly in reinforcing their view of us with this insane war against Iran. And Hegath makes it even more insane every day as does General Kaine with his comments about dolphins and such.

[00:40:39]If we don't get off this, if we don't, it's not just the straight of Hormuz and the global economy and such. It's the entire position of the empire in the world that is going to be as you just insinuated it could be in reality that is to say the world's going to be against us and it's going to be a disaster for us an absolute disaster and when J when when Xi Jinping fulfills his promise to obliterate the Brettonwood system to take swift and trash it in the garbage can to say to OFAC, for example, you have 2.6 billion people under sanctions right now. You have no one under sanctions because we have just lifted them. Um, then we're toast. We're toast. It's just a matter of time before someone puts a stake in our heart. I hope that doesn't happen. I hope we don't have to come to that in past. But in terms of history and many of the empires who have expired throughout that history, that is certainly a way for it to happen. And I come back again. The one difference in all of that 5,000 years, 3,000 of which we know quite a bit about. In all of that time, there was no technological means that Nebuchadnezzar, that Cyrus, that you name it, Genghask Khan had to destroy the world. There is now.

[00:42:05]And that worries the hell out of me. It should worry the hell out of every sentient human being. And I say censient human being realizing it's a totality because there's a lot of human beings who aren't censient.

[00:42:20]Yeah. Well, that goes back to the initial problem which you were discussing that the World War II generation as it has passed or passing away. Um there's no one left as uh well Powell told you with some healthy respect for war and uh silly decisions will start to be made. The problem is it's very hard to, you know, if it's true that each generation have to learn the horrors of war on their own, it's we don't have that luxury anymore with the weapons we have. So, >> you know, >> one would hope that diplomacy would >> at the at the meeting the Eisenhower media network had out in Columbus a couple of weeks ago, Columbus of Iowa, one of the things we talked about in the margins was how and General Lech, who's the head of the network right now, made this point vividly, Americans haven't seen bombs since 1865.

[00:43:14]I mean, that's true. They have not seen armies walking on their front lawn since 1865.

[00:43:22]So we have lost all comprehension of what war like we're waging against Iran right now is like.

[00:43:33]That's a great point. It's again another cost of um hedgemony because often this ideal of security through dominance it has a lot of problems built into it.

[00:43:47]>> Yes.

[00:43:48]>> Quite a few.

[00:43:50]>> Yeah. as both Kenan and Kissinger will want to say to Powell at the end of their lives or at least Kennan at the end of his life. He didn't live much longer after that visit.

[00:44:03]Well, I know you got a busy day ahead of you. So, thank you very much for taking the time to yeah, speak with me. And uh I'm uh I'm cautiously optimistic that uh the recent efforts now by the US to try to break open the straight of her moose and restart hostility that it was it could have been a probing mission and u in which the US is walking back but uh cautiously optimistic. I suspect I will be disappointed very soon. But uh >> there are some people here u one of whom I respect his views who say that we're just waiting for Friday and Israel and us are going to resume the incredible bombing of Iran.

[00:44:50]>> Yeah, that seems more likely unfortunately.

[00:44:54]Anyways, thanks again Colonel Hulkerson.

[00:44:57]>> Take care.