IRGC Warns U.S. Over Ships Attack - w/ Analyst Glenn Diesen

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:03]Hey man.

[00:00:06]How's it going?

[00:00:07]Good good. So, literally as we're going live, I'm reading here Trump is posting clips of Mark Levin arguing that pressure on Iran should continue and suggesting another round of fighting may be unavoidable to strengthen the US position ahead of negotiations.

[00:00:20]So, obviously this is Trump being Trump. On one side he says, "Hey, peace is near. Iran is great." A few hours later or a day later he's like, "Hey, we need we might need to bomb them." I see this is just part of the negotiations, but um now I spoke to to Morandi 2 days ago and I've mentioned it a few times on the show where he he's on a completely different page uh to me.

[00:00:41]He's like, "Mario, it's highly likely war's going to continue and we're preparing for it."

[00:00:45]And he said, "We don't see a military build up to that extent if war's not inevitable." And then if you look at the developments, the UAE was attacked today. No one's talking about it. The war's meant to have ended. And uh the US has struck a few ships to disable them.

[00:00:59]I think one or two cargo ships in the last 48 hours.

[00:01:02]And Iran attacked a couple of ships today as well. So, on the ground it looks like a a reduction of fire rather than a a ceasefire.

[00:01:11]Uh but we haven't spoken in a few days, so what's your analysis of the situation now?

[00:01:17]No, I I think also that the war is most likely well going to return. Uh I think they're simply too far away from any real um real deal. Uh and uh Trump's comments as well, this you know, we're we're close to a deal trying to sow optimism. I mean, this can have many purposes. It can be aimed towards uh the domestic market. It can be to again gain trust in the military all in the war. And uh it can also calm markets, but it can also be communication to the Iranians that you know, we think we can be close to deal, but so don't you know, uh mess it up. So, this gives perhaps the US some leeway to uh bomb a little bit with Iran being cautious not to strike back too hard to derail any, you know, goodwill on the side of the Americans. And one gets the impression that perhaps this works as well because when you have the American warships, you you know, the the Iranians don't appear to be sending, you know, heavy missiles after them. Instead, there's more a tendency to do warning shots as if they don't want to disrupt the possible diplomatic >> [clears throat] >> pathway forward, but I I don't think there is one.

[00:02:32]And Trump's entire tactic or the art of the deal or his great negotiations always the same, just put max pressure and then you offer two different binary options that either we have this deal or you can have peace, but you know, it's going to have to be a bit on our condition or we're just going to rain hell on you and, you know, wipe you out.

[00:02:51]And this is kind of maximum pressure. I think the main problem he always runs into is that Iran is facing an existential threat and I think this is the key thing to understand that there is no deal making on the things that Americans want. There's no giving up on a civilian nuclear program.

[00:03:10]There's no giving up on its conventional deterrent that is its drones and ballistic missiles. It's not going to give up its regional partnerships. All of this is required for Iran to survive.

[00:03:21]And again, the the US is not seen to have benign intentions here. So, I don't think the Iranians going to give much at all.

[00:03:31]On the nuclear issue, I think this is something that can be given to well suit tensions and also to reassure the wider international community. But when it comes to the survival of Iran, be it yeah, it's conventional weapons and its regional partnerships, I can't imagine them willing to give an inch because then they're going to be in a very weak position the next time the Americans and Israelis comes after them.

[00:03:58]I'll tell you what my biggest worry is.

[00:03:59]If we shoot and this is the escalation trap. I'm I'm going to I think Robert Pape is coming back on the show next week to going to dig into this. And he's been warning about this for a while.

[00:04:08]Last time we spoke a couple of weeks ago, he he probably told you the same thing. I'm sure you had him on. But he said about how ground troops are inevitable.

[00:04:19]But then he walked up he walked through how we could get there.

[00:04:22]And he's saying he's not talking about full-blown invasion. He's saying ground troops as in an invasion of some of the islands, I think, if I remember correctly. He said, "Look, what will happen is um they're too far off, as you said, in reaching a deal. And then the Americans will think the best way to get the Iranians on the table is to listen to Israel." Which Israel yesterday, our dear friends in Israel, the the Netanyahu administration, they've presented, let me see if I can find it. But they essentially told Trump, there it is. Israel told Washington to bomb Iran's energy infrastructure into total destruction in 24 hours, according to Channel 12.

[00:04:55]And in their mind, the rationale is that rapid and total neutralization of Iran's energy sector would effectively the economy, leaving them with no choice but to enter negotiations in a quote submissive state.

[00:05:08]I just the mindset there after this month and a half of war that we're still talking about getting Iran to submit. So, the worry is that the US goes ahead with that strategy, Glenn, and um Iran has also warned today that they would retaliate significantly more. I Let me see if the response is here. The the quote is here. There it is. Iran, according to Tasnim News, they said that the next attack will feel different. The army spokespersons warned that if Iran attacked is attacked again, the enemy will be surprised by new weapons, new methods, and new arenas of war. Remember they mentioned the undersea cables yesterday or 2 days ago.

[00:05:46]Iran did introduce several previously unseen systems during the last round including the Sejil solid fuel missile, etc. So, so Iran is walking warning not only of new weapons which they always warn about. Not sure what to believe or not and whether as deterrents, but new arenas of war.

[00:06:02]So, my question to you is what how is that if we see a continuation of war, do you think that both sides will be able to limit it or we may some where may see each one drag the other into a prolonged conflict again, a full-blown war again, which could even be worse than the last one cuz if they've tried as Morandi told me, he's like, "Mario, what can they do now?

[00:06:23]They've done everything already."

[00:06:24]That's a good question. The answer is the energy infrastructure, striking Iran's um economic lifeline and then Iran retaliating the same and destroying Fujairah, destroying the Yanbu pipeline, and and causing havoc in the Gulf even further and obviously the Bab el Mandeb Strait. So, we'd love to get your thoughts on how do you think it'll play out.

[00:06:44]Well, you can make an argument that it could be uh lower intensity. That is, I think the United States definitely have an interest in doing a slower suffocation of Iran. This is the general idea that over over time, if you do the sanctions, uh some strikes on critical infrastructure over and the well support of uh different rebel groups within the country, over time you're able to wear the country down as opposed to uh going into high-intensity conflict in which the US would run out of uh missiles. Uh but that being said, I I don't see the Iranians being willing to play the game on the Americans' terms. So, I think it's more likely that they will respond and uh in a big way as well as they did the first time, but probably more radical this time as there's no Yeah, as as all the diplomatic paths appear to have been a hoax. So, and and this whole idea that well, if you just bomb all the energy facilities, desalination plants, then, you know, the the Iranians will be Well, they will submit, they will capitulate, and they will will get a deal on American terms.

[00:07:51]Uh I think it's flawed for many reasons.

[00:07:52]First of all, it assumes that the Iranians will just sit sit back and uh take it. Uh again, the Iranians have many steps they can take as well, and I think that's what we learned from the this war overall, that the Iranians have the ability to follow the Americans up the escalation ladder.

[00:08:10]So, uh the first thing you might assume would be for the Iranians through their um partnership with Yemen would be to shut down the access to the Red Sea as well. Make uh the current energy crisis uh much, much worse.

[00:08:25]And uh furthermore, if if the US would actually go to the step and start to destroy uh the energy facilities of Iran, for example, carpet bomb Kharg Island, uh the Iranians would do the exact same thing in the Gulf states. They would destroy all their energy facilities, their ports, uh desalination plants. I mean, uh a lot of these nations might cease to exist because uh well, they can't survive without it.

[00:08:54]Can you So, when you say something like this, and and I I like our discussions cuz of how pragmatic you are. I [snorts] know people throw throw this word around in interviews that we do because it gets clicks. I know that's not what you mean.

[00:09:06]But when you say it, I take it very seriously.

[00:09:08]And I was thinking about this today, actually, after a discussion yesterday, is how much damage Iran could cause in the region, Bahrain, the UAE, Kuwait, etc. Desalination plants being one, you know, causing significant damage to the civilian infrastructure in the UAE is another cuz the UAE depends on that security.

[00:09:29]And obviously choking off other countries like Kuwait which depend on energy exports, and even the UAE the Saudi as well with the Yanbu pipeline.

[00:09:35]So, Iran could bring down the Gulf with them. Is that a fair statement? If we bring If we decide to really obliterate Iran, when I say we, I mean the US and Israel, do you worry that this could be the outcome? Or is that overblown?

[00:09:52]Yeah, no. I I I don't think that's hyperbolic or any, you know, click clickbait, if you will. I think it's just very strategic for the Iranians. I mean, it's not as if the Americans haven't thought about a carpet bombing the Iranian energy infrastructure, but one of the reasons why they haven't so far is because then the Iranians would do the exact same thing to the Gulf states. So, and you have to see it from the Iranian perspective. The The Gulf states, they're the one who are actually threatening the existence of Iran.

[00:10:24]They're the one hosting and cooperating with hosting the base of the Americans and um giving their airspace and accommodating this attack. I mean, they're very much directly involved in the attack on Iran.

[00:10:36]So, if they're facing an existential threat by the Gulf states, and the Gulf states would by then, you know, indirectly participate in destroying all the energy infrastructure of Iran, why why would they not do the exact same thing? I mean, it doesn't make any sense if they wouldn't. And again, I think the only reason why they haven't gone down this road yet is because they will follow the Americans up that escalation ladder, because if they do it to the Gulf states, then the Americans There's no reason why they wouldn't do it to Iran. But it's a bit of a mutual destruction um Can I object to Is it Could Iran Could Iran lead the escalation ladder this time around instead of the other way around? Could they have escalation dominoes where Iran escalates and the US has to follow through?

[00:11:23]Cuz that would be pretty scary scenario, cuz the US is not used to that scenario.

[00:11:27]The US The US is always used to be the one dictating the escalation ladder.

[00:11:31]Yeah, exactly. But that that's also been part of the benefit they've had for the past 30 plus years that they were the the the global hegemon. That you know, they dominated to such an extent that other countries, you know, they would be mad if they would go up the escalation ladder and pull the Americans after them. But I think the Iranians already did this. That is from the first day when they began to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, attack all the US bases. I don't think the United States thought they would they would do it this quickly.

[00:12:01]But but they did. So I think we can see something similar now. I think um the the Iranians will probably if you would identify how they would escalate, I would assume at least that they would first shut down the Strait of Hormuz because sorry, the shut down the Red Sea with the help of Yemen because this is something that can be reversed. That is if the US then Trump makes another tweet, "Oh, actually Pakistan told us to hold back." Or "Oh, talks are going well." You know, something to walk it back. They would give him that space and then they might be able to reopen it. But the thing is once you burn down the entire energy infrastructure of the Gulf states, there's no coming back from this. And also the then then the Americans would have no reason not to do the same to the Iranians. So I I think that this is if the Iranians are going to push for the escalation and I think there's a possibility that they will hit back hard if this continues cuz the US has been trying to do this incrementalism where they just, you know, hijack a Iranian tanker here or there, bomb an entire Iranian tanker and hope that the Iranians still would like to prefer to cease fire going on. But I think it's it's likely that the Iranians will make some big steps even in the week to come. Again, I don't have a timeline for them.

[00:13:20]But but they can do many other things. They can shut down the Red Sea. They can also encourage their friends in Iraq to make a move against Kuwait.

[00:13:30]There's There's a lot of, you know, tools in the toolbox there.

[00:13:34]That brings me to my next question. By the way, Trump just That's he's doing an interview as we speak. He said the following, "They're militarily defeated in their own minds. Maybe they don't know that. I think we're dealing with people that have a certain power. It's very interesting. They make a deal and then they break it. It's a difficult group. If we left today, it would take them 20 years to rebuild."

[00:13:56]Next, we'll get Iran and Iran's enriched uranium at some point, whatever we want.

[00:14:01]We have it surveyed.

[00:14:02]I did a thing called Space Force and they are watching that. If somebody walked in, they can tell you his name, his address, and the number of his badge. If If anybody gets near the place, we will know about it and we'll blow him up. So, I'll keep reading his comments. There's not much to kind of to to to extrapolate from this, but just back on the Gulf, I think we're we're depending on how much the US really cares about the Gulf. And I think that's really important because if the If the US decides, you know, screw the Gulf, I know they are allies. I know they house our bases, which we we don't really need anymore.

[00:14:37]Let's just destroy Iran cuz then that would China and access to energy to China.

[00:14:43]And Iran would would destroy the Gulf.

[00:14:45]Fine, that hurts Asia and China, our allies, but mainly Asia and China, the global economy, of course. But who who gets hurt the most? Number one is China, followed by Japan and other Asian countries. And the US could even benefit from an energy perspective. So, is there a scenario Just again, it's a hypothetical, but if this is about China, which I believe it is, is there a scenario where the US makes the decision that, "Hey, we're going to destroy Iran because the the benefits are too too great to give us control of the Strait of Hormuz and leverage over China. And if Iran destroys the Gulf with it, so be it." Is that a possibility?

[00:15:20]Well, it's a possibility. I I don't think it's the majority view yet at least, but it does remind me of during the Cold War, you would have articles coming out in favor of first strikes. That is, they were more or less the argument would be if we can knock out the entire Soviet Union in the first strike and the only thing that the Soviets would be able to retaliate would wipe out like 10 or 20% of the US, then that would be a victory. So, you always have those who see it in this extreme, you know, relative power competition. Uh so, it is possible that there are those Well, not possible, I know there are those who think that, you know, if we burn down the world, but the US will be less burnt than the rest in terms of relative power, the US would come out on top. So, I'm sure there's people thinking in those ways. Again, if you can weaken China significantly, um you know, knock out Iran, then the US should be willing to to suffer some economic consequences and problems as a result of this. So, again, this is the this is the problem in international system. Um it's defined by the international anarchy in terms of not being a global government. So, all states compete for security. So, if your countries if your rivals will suffer more in terms of military or economic setback than you, then, you know, you would be willing to take a hit. It would be the same logic if America could crash, you know, make a 50% drop in the Chinese economy and America would only do a 20% drop, then that would be a plus, you know, if you see the world only through relative power. And so, I think there's possibly some pushing for this just to Well, if they're going to leave the Middle East in a big way and they're being forced to leave the Middle East as long as the Iran is holding the Strait of Hormuz. That's important thing to know, you know, I've spoken about this before. If they control the Strait of Hormuz, not only can they you know, collect tolls operation build up a more powerful Iran, but they will have higher tolls on the countries that the participate in sanctions. In other words, countries will have incentives to drop the sanctions on Iran. They would also be able to put this higher tariffs or toll, sorry, on countries that threaten Iran, which means hosting US bases. So, the if they hold the Strait of Hormuz, they can begin to decouple the US from the region. Also, for example, higher tolls on countries that sell their energy in dollars. So, there's a lot of things they can do. So, if the US thinks it's not going to be able to stay in the Middle East anyways, why not burn the whole thing to the ground? I'm sure there's some people thinking in those lines.

[00:17:55]Yeah. Look, I think people forget that um US policy many years ago have you you've I'm sure you've heard of the 1% doctrine by Dick Cheney. So, essentially the 1% doctrine was Dick Cheney's post-9/11 framework that shaped a a generation of American foreign policy. The idea if there's even a 1% chance of a catastrophic threat, especially terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, the US should treat it as a near certainty and act aggressively to stop it. So, that that mindset, that was US foreign policy for many years.

[00:18:25]Um so, there are sometimes, you know, elements within the with the US administration at all times that do have pretty extreme stances.

[00:18:34]Um and you worry that those have a lot of influence over what's happening in the region right now. This is more of a long-term discussion. It's not like the destruction of the Gulf and Iran in the next 3 years in the next 3 months or 6 months, but it could be, you know, if Iran becomes a prolonged conflict over a you know, a year or so, that's where you can start seeing the destruction of the region. Again, that's a a very unlikely hypothetical, but a scary one we should consider in our attempts to try to avoid uh escalation or an escalation trap.

[00:19:05]Um you also said something earlier, the US is trying to slowly suffocate Iran.

[00:19:12]Do you think that could work from what you're seeing right now, all the indicators? And is it is it like there's no way it's going to work or maybe there is a scenario where it would work, but it will also significantly harm the global economy?

[00:19:24]Well, look, you can always weaken Iran, indeed. The war is weakening Iran now as well. You can't uh bomb its cities in this way, attack its critical infrastructure, destroy its ports, putting blockade on its exports without this hurting Iran. So, I think uh in many ways they are they are being weakened. Uh the whole thing is how does this war end? If it ends with the the Americans having to pull out and the uh Iranians controlling the Strait of Hormuz, then they can recover and I think that's the main main thing, but uh but but they don't want to be put in a situation such as what was done to the Syrians, the Iraqis, where they just have the sanctions on and every now and then some American planes will drop some bombs on their cities, something that creates economic uncertainty and prolonged weakness. So, I I assume that this is the uh the desired strategy by the United States, something uh yes, that's a something that they would like to pursue. But again, this is the problem is that the Iranians aren't allowing the Americans to fight uh the war on their terms. So, if it turns into high-intensity war again, then the Americans aren't going to be able to sustain this and uh uh you know, it's it's a little bit what what the Americans wanted also with with the Russians. If you read you know, the RAND Corporation uh reports from 2019 when they discussed uh Ukraine, they made a point as well, if we have you know, if we continue to uh uh train, arm Ukrainians, uh threaten NATO expansion, then the the Russians will be forced to invest more treasury, more blood into into into uh Donbas, the Donbas region. That was back in 2019. However, you don't necessarily want it to blow up to a full-out war because you know, then it could be too too high intensity and also the adversary might then start to take strategic territory and you know, we would lose control over it. So, you want to be able to control the intensity of the war as well. And so, I I assume that this slow suffocation is preferable to high intensity. Or if the Americans go in high intensity, it should be you know, for a few days trying to knock out the government. But if if that's not successful, you want to put an end to it and put back on the slow burner. So, I think this is what the US is going for.

[00:21:42]Regarding Wolfowitz though, he had another thing as well that is in February of '92, that was yeah, 3 months after the Soviet Union collapsed.

[00:21:51]Um Uh yeah, he he was making the point that well, he they had this new doctrine coming out which was leaked in the New York Times, which they kind of revealed the the main strategy ahead for the United States. Its security should depend on global primacy. That is no state or group of states should be able to challenge the United States and it was very specific even make sure that Japan, Germany doesn't gain too much strength cuz they could also put a check on US power. And and of course, you had the Russians, Chinese and they all had to remain divided and weakened. And if you look today what's happening with this you know, greater Eurasia project if you will, it's the exact opposite. You have integration of all the major Eurasian powers, you know, through technologies, industrial cooperation, you have the physical transportation corridors such as the Belt and Road Initiative. You have development of common you have development banks, the trading in their own currencies, new payment systems. We have all these projects happening. And so, I assume that Iran is an interesting target because they're connected closely to China, especially important for energy uh exports, but also they are China's sorry, Iran is also a key node in this international North-South transportation corridor going from Russia, Iran into India connecting Eurasia from north to south.

[00:23:18]Indeed, if you look at some of the targets of the Iranians sorry, of the Americans and Israelis, they've gone after a lot of the bridges, they've been hitting ports in the Caspian Sea. So, they're going after this infrastructure as well. So, again, that's the that's the hegemonic recipe. You want to keep all the major powers divided. This is always This was also the British strategy in Europe. You want to prevent the the great powers from coming together. It traditionally the US and the British attempted to keep the the the Germans and the Russians apart, which is still the strategy. But now, as you have the rise of the East, you also want to keep the the greater Eurasian partner powers apart. That is Russia, China, Iran, India. As long as they remain divided and weakened, there's a hope for American primacy. But it becomes an you know, an empire of chaos because once these countries begin to strengthen and work closer together and have a higher economic connectivity, the relative US power will decline.

[00:24:23]Is it What What What did this come out from?

[00:24:25]>> [laughter] >> I I like it.

[00:24:28]Yeah, well, so I might but what was just Iran is a very central node in the Eurasian >> you know, I love it. I love it. I've got I've got it like that's that's such an interesting topic to dig into. The Wolfowitz Doctrine is an informal label of for a controversial 1992 US defense strategy document advocating for the US to maintain its status as the world's sole superpower preventing the re-re-emergence of any global rival and act unilaterally if necessary to protect vital interests.

[00:24:57]Keywords here, prevent the reemergence of any global rival and act unilaterally if necessary and preemptively. So, prevent and preemptively prevent.

[00:25:09]So >> Yeah, so that's Iran that starts to make sense cuz Iran Are you Are you mainly focusing on China now or you expanding beyond China?

[00:25:18]China, Russia, are you expanding even other countries maybe included because other countries are relatively weak right now, Japan, etc. But Asia, India, India's growing, but they still not and they also not seen as a threat to the US. So, are you saying this strategy is only focused on China, Russia right now?

[00:25:36]No, I think this is the war on Iran, it's a war on Eurasia. It's a war against multipolarity.

[00:25:43]Uh this is why the Chinese, the Russians, they see this also as being a to a large extent a war against them.

[00:25:49]So, this is why they will they will take much greater risks in order to assist Iran because they know that that this is a stepping stone towards trying to defeat them as well. So, I I think Yeah, this is this is why you will see more support, they're willing to take more risks.

[00:26:06]Uh this is why the the Russians from what I hear are sending much more weapons, drones, everything they can to assist Iranians. This is why the Chinese are essentially banning their own companies from abiding by US sanctions, something they didn't even do uh towards um you know, when when when Russia was under the heaviest attacks.

[00:26:26]So, it's a I think this is a goal. This is a restoring primacy. Uh this is why they're fighting now against all these countries at the same time. Russia, uh Iran, also an economic war against China. So, it's a I I think it's a dangerous and foolish policy. Usually, you know, the US has been skilled at going after one target at a time, so isolate that target. By going after all of the major Eurasian powers at the same time, they're essentially pushing them together. This is you know, Henry Kissinger's worst nightmare. You want to split your rivals. Instead, the US is you know, pushing them all together.

[00:27:05]I [snorts] love this. The war on Iran is a war against multipolarity. Well, based on that based on that thought then how far do you think the US will go to achieve that? Because that objective is the opposite is happening right now.

[00:27:18]Multipol- multipolarities accelerating with Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz, indirectly giving access to China and Russia, and now under control under sea cables through the strait. So, now one of the world's most important choke points has just been lost to multipolarity, to one of those poles.

[00:27:35]And also, you've got Iran that said today which I think they said they're just playing with fire. Their deputy parliamentary speaker, he says we're he says we're officially the world's fourth superpower. Today, the Strait of Hormuz belongs forever to the great nation of Iran, and no ship or oil tanker can pass through without Iran's permission, forever.

[00:27:58]So, do you think the US could really walk away?

[00:28:03]Well, that's the thing. If they walk away from the Iran war, they also walk away from unipolarity. the unipolarity and the and the hegemonic strategy. This is why it it's linked to much much much larger game.

[00:28:17]Um but you know, the US often they're quite open in their in in the rhetoric as well. The same as you know, when they were fighting I've been fighting against Russia uh for the last four plus years in in Ukraine. How many times how many American leaders have said the same thing that well, this is a great war. It allows us to use the Ukrainians to try to knock out Russia, you know, from the ranks of great powers and we without losing any American troops, and then we can focus on China.

[00:28:44]The problem is they failed. And then the Russians and the Chinese came much much closer. And I think you're going to see the same now with Iran after this war is over.

[00:28:55]They're going to link their security much much closer to both the China and Russia. So, uh it's we're kind of stuck in this all or nothing war. Either um either the US can restore, you know, global primacy, or it will intensify the multipolar drive. And not just by multipolar world, but a multipolar world, which is organized to a large extent against the United States. So, it's um you don't want international system, or this what the strategic thinking is, you know, defined as all or nothing. Because in such an environment, they're willing to take huge risks. And yeah, that's what we're seeing, which is why this is so dangerous.

[00:29:36]And no, I it's very difficult to say what Americans will do because I don't see a military path here to victory. And I don't see any diplomatic solution. So, it's So, I'm guessing And the scenario of him that you're guessing they will what?

[00:29:55]Oh, just bomb.

[00:29:56]It There's no other There's no other plans. They can't go home. I don't think I think they know they can't win militarily either.

[00:30:04]Not because Iran has the most powerful army in the world.

[00:30:07]You know, the US has a very formidable army. Iran can't stand up to it, you know, toe-to-toe. But they don't need the most powerful army. They don't need the most powerful navy. All they need is enough missiles and enough drones to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. You can't, you know, you can't really reduce their industrial capacity enough.

[00:30:29]These are cheap weapons to make. They're easy. They don't have to have that centralized production. And um yeah, so so you need very simple weapons to shut this down, the Strait of Hormuz that is. And the US can't do much. They would have to invade all of Iran, but again, look at a map. This mountainous country is surrounded by international waters and you know, many regional partnerships. It's a geographically it's a fortress. It's a I again, I I don't doubt that the US will try to sending ground troops, but a full-scale invasion similar to what they did in Iraq, I think it's a Yes, very unlikely.

[00:31:06]>> I had a professor yesterday who said to me, Mario, this is the Suez Canal moment for the US. The Suez Canal was an was was the big was not the beginning, but kind of the indicator of the end of the French and and British Empire. We're seeing a lot of similarities in what's happening right now. And I think you make a very valid point. In a way, Trump walking away from this war right now is is the US essentially walking away from unipolarity.

[00:31:30]That's a that's a very interesting statement.

[00:31:33]And then that makes me doubt my my thought that the war is over.

[00:31:38]But like I said, difficult difficult decision. Actually, should we should the US walk away from being the hegemon around the world, or should we get dragged into a war that further weakens us? What a bad place to be.

[00:31:47]But the US in some ways can be like a a natural empire in its own way, but it can't be a global empire anymore. The the British and the French, they got uh well, knocked down significantly to the point now that they're not that formidable powers anymore. I mean, it's not one of the world powers. And the US, I think, will always be quite powerful.

[00:32:07]It's uh you know, it's a huge landmass, a lot of resources. Uh the the the people also have you know, high on entrepreneurship, innovative.

[00:32:17]So, the US will do fine. And I think, you know, they're protected by their two waters. So, uh and they have the ability to keep foreign rivals, the great powers uh away from their own backyard. So, uh I think they will remain strong in their in the Western Hemisphere, but uh the days of global uh empire or primacy. No, those days are over and I think in that regard comparing it to the Suez Canal moment of 1956 is reasonable.

[00:32:46]Unless somehow they pull a pull a military win out of a hat. So they come up with some strategy that actually works. So if they militarily get to destroy Iran's capabilities or another decapitation strike brings in a Venezuela 2.0 type regime. So we go through multi-layers of decapitation strikes. Again, I'm I'm I don't think it will work. I think it's very dangerous and I'm against it, but there is a possibility they do this and either they get a more friendly regime if more friendly government willing to work with the US or um destroy Iran's military capabilities to an extent where the US could actually invade the islands and control the Strait of Hormuz. If that happens, there is a possibility that we're back to an extension of the world of unipolarity cuz if the US controls Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, that gives it massive leverage over China, Russia, but mainly China.

[00:33:37]No, I I agree. The it would be devastating for well, both China and Russia to have Iran fall in this way.

[00:33:44]You know, even if it's not controlled by by pro-American government, if they can just make a big mess out of it, turn it into another Syria or Libya, it would be bad enough this chaos. So uh but I think overall the main thing that could work for the United States would be to essentially hand it over to someone else and that is yeah, set up some proxy force in the region so the Americans don't have to put in their own troops on the ground.

[00:34:10]That is but I'm not sure who that would be.

[00:34:14]I think ideally they would want to do something like what they did to the Russians after 2014, just train up a proxy army with hundreds of thousands of men who can fight and die on their behalf, but but this is kind of also why the the current war is like the last chance of NATO to destroy Russia because um there's no other strong powerful neighbor with you know millions of people and I think it's the same problem with Iran you know that the Iraqis aren't going to fight for the Americans the Gulf states don't really have any well reasonable significant population or favorable geography to do it.

[00:34:49]Maybe Pakistan if they could if they could get Pakistan eager to join war against Iran but I can't imagine that happening. So no it's you know you get some Kurdish groups or some Iranian opposition groups.

[00:35:07]It's not enough it's not enough no it's it's going to be and I think the Iranians already see that this is possibly something the Americans are dreaming up sending weapons into opposition groups and I think they're all not I don't think I know they're already going after some of these opposition groups within their own country. So no I don't They're striking not only the country they're striking the Kurds on an almost daily basis in Iraq.

[00:35:29]Yeah.

[00:35:30]No no and I I think you know it's not coming out of nowhere I think they see the potential of them joining in with the Americans so No I I don't know what else the Americans can do at this point I think they they would need a regional proxy again they need you know Kurds or Ukrainians something you know something that they've been able to use in the past but I don't see any such force near Iran.

[00:36:04]Man it's a horrible time to be the advisor to the president right now to the US president like if if your goal if your objective is to maintain hegemony in the world.

[00:36:16]There's not many options on the table unless somehow they influence Israel Netanyahu wants a continuation of the war unless they convince so there's always Israel as one card and the other one if Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, the US could be like, "Hey, we're going to blockade." That's one last thing we can maybe discuss as an option. Trump could then blockade the Strait of Hormuz until Iran folds in their control. And for that to happen, the global economy can't afford Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz. So, what Trump could do be like, "Hey, for everyone, including his allies, including American allies, we're going to keep the Strait of Hormuz blockaded, and Iran's going to blockade it as well, until either they blink, Iran, or you guys blink and join us in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and then build a coalition." So, he may force which will harm America's reputation and relationship with their allies, but he may force other countries to join the reopening of the straits.

[00:37:07]Well, I think that's why the Iranians are under such great pressure to not allow anything, because if if the Americans can sail their warships through and then tell the world, "Look, we sailed through, the Iranians didn't dare to do anything because they're the third." Then suddenly tomorrow the Europeans would show up because the Europeans are desperate to show their loyalty to the United States, that NATO is still, you know, means something, and you know, we're still your allies, you can count on us, we're force amplifier, we're not a cost or a you know, drag on US power.

[00:37:38]So, I think yeah, that that this is why they can't.

[00:37:41]They will I think strike anything that tries to move past the Strait of Hormuz.

[00:37:46]But also, I don't think they're going to be in position with, >> [clears throat] >> you know, mutual blockades see who has to give up first. I think that the Iranians have already sent some clear signals that this is coming to an end.

[00:37:58]That is, if the Americans start intercepting or striking Iranian ships, then there will be a huge retaliation. So, I I think they're going to take this blockade off off the table, that this is essentially an act of war, and they're not going to accept it.

[00:38:15]And by the way, do you have a dog as well?

[00:38:18]Oh, you heard that. Sorry about that.

[00:38:20]Yeah, yeah, it's it's it's a All all my guests have >> [laughter] >> I heard it.

[00:38:25]All All my guests have one and I'm starting to really want one because like if we're sitting at home doing these interviews for so many hours, it'd be nice to have like with Larry get like a dog coming and he's start petting him.

[00:38:34]Or I had Joe Kent 2 days ago and he had like cats around him jumping around through the whole interview. I'm starting to get jealous. I might need really need to consider getting one. I'm actually going to think about it now.

[00:38:44]My kids promised they would keep him quiet when I have the interview but >> No, it doesn't It doesn't bother [laughter] They're just not doing their job.

[00:38:52]Tell your kids if I get a dog it's because of them. Um Well, Glenn, as as we wrap up, I'll just going to read you a quote before you jump off from Trump.

[00:39:00]I ended just now. I ended eight wars and we have the greatest economy we've ever had. Just as I'm walking into the room, I see the S&P hit a brand new high during a so-called war. I call it a military conflict because it was pretty easy. But anyway, the key point here is I ended eight wars.

[00:39:15]Um Glenn, always a pleasure to have you.

[00:39:16]Thanks for jumping on.

[00:39:18]Thanks, Mario.

[00:39:19]>> [snorts] >> Thanks, man. All right, guys. Um So, I'll be going live again in in exactly 15 minutes. The guest that we have is the Professor Oh, it won't be live. It'll be Professor for ID's ID.

[00:39:29]It'll be recorded. We'll probably post it later today or tomorrow.

[00:39:32]And then I have an hour to do gym, take care of my health again, guys. And then we've got Anas to discuss the economy.

[00:39:38]We've got Kenneth Roth. We've had him on the show before.

[00:39:41]I remember the name.

[00:39:42]Um the Human Rights Watch executive director. Maybe probably to focus on what's happening in the Middle East and especially in Palestine and Lebanon. And then we have Chris Martenson.

[00:39:52]And Chris is Okay, I think that's the first time we have him on the show.

[00:40:00]And then there we have other guests coming up later. They haven't been booked yet. We have Jennifer Cavanaugh who's also the first time on the show.

[00:40:07]All right, so we'll see you guys in The next one won't be live. So, we'll see you in a couple of hours and then we'll continue the discussions. Bye.