All-Out War in Iran, That's What Netanyahu Needs /Alastair Crooke & Lt Col Daniel Davis

Added: 2026-05-23

[00:00:01]President Trump continues to tell everybody that he is working on a deal to end this war. He is working on a deal that will ensure no nuclear weapons for Iran, that they will not have control of the straight of the Hormuz and everything will be wonderful as long as they agree to this or bad things will happen. Problem is when you start looking at all parts of this equation, lots of confusion and lots of contradictory information. We're going to get to the bottom of that today.

[00:00:26]We're also going to talk about potential for nuclear war in Europe. Something that seems to have just been taken off the table and is not even a realistic possibility, but we may see it's a little bit more serious than we think.

[00:00:39]And we have nobody better to talk about that today than some who's actually written on the topic here recently. And that is Alistister Crook, former British diplomat and MI6 officer with decades of experience in the Middle East, European security affairs, and has also served as a senior adviser to the European Union.

[00:00:54]And as you're about to see, he's also the founder of Conflict Forum, which is on Substack. Alistar, welcome back to the show. Uh really great to have you on for a couple reasons today.

[00:01:05]>> But let's uh let's jump right into the first one here because there's an interesting article out here recently in the Atlantic uh which uh by Robert Kagan who up until recently had been a pretty big war hawk. But now all of a sudden he's kind of turned into I mean dare I say it a realist and looking at reality and he writes in the Atlantic here. I think it came out yesterday. Trump is seeking a letter of intent and and before that it was a memorandum of understanding. It seems like all these different phrases, but they keep changing. But uh nevertheless, he says uh that would formally end the war and launch a 30-day period of negotiations on Iran's nuclear program and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The purpose and effect of such an agreement should be clear. The United States is walking away from the crisis. Trump may launch another limited strike to look tough and falsify or satisfy the demands of his supporters. More on that in a second as well, but it would be a performative gesture. Endgame in this case is a euphemism for surrender. But let me look at just look at each of these three things here. Uh because he's saying, look, we want to formally end the war and launch a 30-day period of negotiations. I mean, you're a British diplomat. I'm thinking, wait, if you're having if you're going to enter into negotiations, that's not an end of war.

[00:02:20]That's not a permit anything. That's just a ceasefire to have negotiations.

[00:02:24]How do you read that part of it?

[00:02:27]>> I agree with you exactly. Um the document that that we've seen that little doesn't address any of the major issues. Uh it just proposes there are many questions about it. It says uh that hormos would be reopened under a joint supervision. Joint supervision with whom? And what does reopening mean? I mean, it's just a a sort of bland document. I think there's something important here that I just want to convey because you know we always get these sort of you know stories suddenly emerging either from Axius or from Alarabia that the deal is you know an a document is just about to be agreed and then uh a little while later then we're told it isn't like that at all. I just want to say something because I have some experience of this and I've lived in Pakistan too but I mean this is how it works. Um actually what happens there is no face-to-face negotiation. People are not talking to each other on this because the Iranians don't trust that way of doing business through mediators.

[00:03:43]They want everything in writing quite wisely. So it has to come in writing. Uh then the whether it is Muner or some other Pakistani official uh would then hand it over uh to the Iranians.

[00:04:01]Iranians would write a response carefully choosing each word, hand it back to the Pakistanis to convey to the Americans. It's not a sort of a discussion. And so sometimes this gets um if you like in their enthusiasm for for being a mediator. Sometimes mediators um put a gloss on things or try and promote it. Remember that the Pakistani military like the Pakistani fashion has no political base in Pakistan at all. He is a military person who's acted if you like um in an irregular way. the popular leader of Pakistan, Imran Khan, um was imprisoned and uh ousted at the behest of the United States um because he take took a neutral stand on the war in Ukraine. Um and so this person who's there has nothing other than the support of the United States. And so he is naturally seeking to please the United States. So probably drafts get written and get presented as if they're from the United States or what he thinks people would liken to hear in the United States or perhaps they come from the United States with sort of input verbal input from them. But it is just simply a post box. So piece of paper goes one way and a piece of paper goes back the other way because of um the experience of being misled. The Iranians have a long experience of being misled that things are said to be oh yes we had a little earlier oh yes we had you know oh yes sanctions can be lifted during the talks. Yes, there can be a ceasefire and this can happen and it turns out that you know there are no real concessions from the United States and I would say where we are at the moment is still at the same umpas. The Iranians are remain with their five points. Their five points are the pre requisite conditions to enter into negotiations and America Trump's position remains the same. He wants the enriched uranium. He wants homos opened without tolls. And uh so there's ampass at at the moment. And mostly these negotiations that we're seeing were mostly actually more about manipulating markets, manipulating the oil price and the futures market, trying to get it down so that um Americans so that Americans don't um uh uh so that Americans don't uh worry about gasoline prices. It's all about markets keeping the equity market up. Uh and so it it's it's all about manipulating markets really more than substance I think at this point. And you know just just your point here uh this this is uh uh out last night which is breaking this is uh this was last night. Yeah last night in the Middle East at 2:45 p.m. in Washington uh that an Iranian source closely negotiated says claims of a final draft of a US agreement are false.

[00:07:38]What a shock that is. The talks are impermanent deadlock to the contrary.

[00:07:42]And that was when early in the day uh X was just alive with all kinds of people saying oh the two sides are almost agreed to there's about something to come out and then people the Iranian side of course said what are you talking about we're not there's not even any negotiations what how are we almost at a at a solve it whatever then it finally comes out now then today let me run back to uh this article here real quick because I think it's important uh is according to Robert Kagan here he says the United States is basically trying to walk away to do the walk away theory that we've talked about before, but that Trump may launch another limited strike to look tough on his way out. So, first question is, if that happens, is there a a just a little shot that US could blast away at Iran just to cover their tracks as they walk away and Iran would be all right, no problem. Go ahead and do that and walk away. If if that's not the case, what do you think Iran would do if he tries to do that?

[00:08:38]>> They said it very very very clearly.

[00:08:40]They are not prepared to have if you and I like um we'll we'll do a little bombing of that and you can do a little bombing of this and we'll call it a day.

[00:08:53]That's happened in the past, but they have made it very very clear if there is any attack, as soon as that attack starts, there will be a massive response from Iran on the infrastructure, the bases in um not just the Gulf area, American bases there, but more the Iranians have said very clearly, this time we will widen it beyond the Gulf area. um to other places. They haven't said which places, but they've said it's going to be a much wider war and it's going to be um with different weapons and it is going to be a very intense war. At the moment, um, Iran, um, is basically expecting an escalation and thinking that all of this probably these talks of suddenly, you know, that there are negotiations in hand and so on out of the blue. Um uh all of this is sort of to to throw them off balance um in preparation for an American uh massive attack on Iran and Iranian infrastructure. So they are all prepared and expecting fully expecting at any moment a war may come. Whether it will come or not, no one can tell because this all lies in Trump's head essentially.

[00:10:24]Well, now let's let's take a look at speaking of Trump's head and his inner circle. U I'm going to show you something here from Marco Rubio, a video that was just released this morning. If if we're trying to have some sort of negotiation is Iran has categorically said, I think working with Oman, they basically already have a system set up, a toll booth and whatever we want to call it today and and that the enriched uranium is not even on the table. In fact, they reprogrammed the whole nuclear program is not on the table until the war gets settled and then later they'll talk. That's what they're saying. Here is what Marco Rubio is saying. America's position is >> those conversations that are ongoing.

[00:10:59]There's been some slight progress. I don't want to exaggerate it, but there's been a little bit of movement and that's good. The fundamentals remain the same.

[00:11:05]Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.

[00:11:07]And to achieve that, we're going to have to address the issue of enrichment.

[00:11:10]We're going to have to address the issue of the highlyenriched uranium. And then added to this, of course, is the issue of the straits. Iran is trying to create a tolling system. It can't happen. If that were to happen in the states of Hormuz, it will happen in five other places around the world. Why would countries all over the world say, "Well, we want to do this, too."

[00:11:26]>> So, h how can you even plausibly say we're making some progress? Not that much. But then the fun fundamental things on America's side are unchanged.

[00:11:34]The fundamental things on the Iranian side are unchanged and they're not bridgible in the current form. How what do you make of that? Well, you saw exactly the point that I'm making about why there's so much manipulation going on. He said, "We're having conversations. There's a little bit of progress that there are no conversations. There are pieces of paper that are carefully worded that are exchanged between the two sides." But it's not the case of a sort of twoing and throwing discussion and let's have a bit of this and a little bit of that because uh the Iranians have been burnt by that before and so they're not going to accept that sort of you know well maybe we can maybe it will be lift sanctions incrementally. Oh yeah, they've heard that many times before.

[00:12:23]And were sanctions incrementally lifted? No, they don't believe so. So, the ampass is exactly where you say you're up right. They have now instituted an authority um um for Homo Straits. It's operating.

[00:12:43]It's got a website even you have to fill in some forms and you pass them through and between Oman and Iran um they can pass and uh if you don't like the word word toll well the Iranians say this is an environmental charge and a security charge since you don't like it but I don't understand why Rubio is caused such a thing saying oh tolls no impossible what do you think People pay when they go through the Sewish Canal to get into the Red Sea. Do they not pay a toll Panama Canal? Do you not pay a toll to go through these areas? Do you not pay a toll when you go on a motorway? I do here. Every time I have to go on a motorway, I get used to paying tolls.

[00:13:32]So, I mean, you know, these are normal facts of life.

[00:13:37]>> Well, it seems to have been that way uh or it is that way now. never was before, never would have been had we not started this war. I think that is crystal clear to most people, but not all people.

[00:13:49]There are still those who want to have a different outcome. And my my question is to you right now before we're going to shift over to another topic here. Where can this go? As long as we keep talking about stuff that's just not even reality and Iran keeps saying here is reality with it or not, I'm going to continue to go down this path. Where can this go?

[00:14:07]And let me just show you real quick.

[00:14:08]Because here in the in the US, you have the likes of Mark Leven in the upper leftand corner who's a big advocate. Uh and you can see from his his post here just last night, it's time to destroy the Iranian regime. Now he's like saying, you know, forget it. Not even any nasties. Let's just destroy them.

[00:14:24]Forget this and get on get it done. The clock is ticking. Uh meanwhile, you have on the other side here, that's just from this morning, the Iranian source says that uh the whole issue is about uh Iran wants a 30-day trust building period before you'll do anything. Um which is just not going to happen any so we just seem to be at a complete impass reality. So where can this go in the near term?

[00:14:48]Well, this is precisely why the Iranian calculus is that Trump for all sorts of reasons um going from the Israeli crisis at the moment and Israel is in a form of crisis and the headlines in um the Hebrew press are very clear. Netanyahu needs a big war. It says that it's also in the even in the English language press. Everyone in Israel understands that Netanyahu is in deep crisis. His government may come apart um because of a conscription bill. It's it's it's weakening. Um there's all sorts of stories about it um you know may even blow up before elections. I.e. elections will come perhaps earlier. could blow up anytime. The military are telling Netanyahu um that the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, I is collapsing. It cannot continue. It's just overstretched. Morale is bad. Discipline is breaking down. Um the troops are looting and killing and doing criminal acts and the army is losing control over this. and uh the all of this is leading to a severe crisis. So that's at one level. The other one of course is that Trump um his ego and his whole um career has been built on being a winner and not a loser. And so coming to an agreement which isn't so much better than the JCPOA that was negotiated by his uh uh unesteemed rival Obama um is is not acceptable to him. So the only alternatives really is that he goes to allout conflict because a small conflict I mean they he's been looking for a small conflict ever since Venezuela. Can we do a quick Venezuela in Iran and his team and the Pentagon come back and said to him, "No, that isn't going to work.

[00:17:03]This isn't Venezuela. This is Iran. It's not going to happen." So either he goes to a big war or he has to do what I don't think psychologically um uh he is capable of doing uh which is to concede Iran's basic um demands and then it would be possible to move on um to other issues but until he gets there I don't think it's going going to it's going to be possible the Iranians and there is something that Again, just to stop this confusion that goes on that I keep seeing in the mainstream uh press, the uh the the decision um that Iran will not give up um its enriched uranium, the 430 kilos of 60% enriched uranium to anyone including to Russia.

[00:18:00]it will not be exported abroad is an order from the supreme leader Machaba and I just underline because people keep talking about I see headlines in in the press even today oh you know Pzash Kan says this or that Pash Kan is not in the same position as an Iranian prison president is not in the same position as an American president the commander and chief of all military and security forces in Iran is a supreme leader and that is under through the supreme national security council. The president is responsible for domestic affairs, not foreign policy and not defense policy.

[00:18:50]He sits of course on the Supreme National Security Council but he's just one member or his governments are just part of of the forum which also contains the IRGC.

[00:19:05]So the person managing the war and making the negotiating decisions in conjunction with the supreme leader uh is is an IRGC general and that's Talib who's a respected and revered uh IRGC member. He was mayor of Tehran and a popular mayor of Tehran and he was a presidential candidate. So he has standing and wait. he is the main negotiator but the final decisions. So when it's been ordered by Machaba that it won't go abroad that's the end of it.

[00:19:44]It's not going to go abroad until he changes that decision and that's not likely. So um you know all this talk about you know well maybe you know mediators can shift the position and you know persuade Iran that it can give it up as a goodwill gesture to Trump uh ladder for him to climb down the tree. I mean it won't happen uh in the light of the decision because uh he is the absolute commander o of the military and security policies o of Iran.

[00:20:24]Well, uh, you know, I want to I want to shift to a different, uh, point here because that that seems to be at an impass. And what I'm about to show you is going to show why it's even less likely to get solved than it might even otherwise seem, which is already monumentally difficult because President Trump himself is setting impossibly high objectives to meet. But in this clip here, this is actually going to transition to the second part of our discussion here about nuclear weapons.

[00:20:49]and he's talking here in the context of the Iranian situation here. But the the theory and the idea about why they're so scary or should be so scary, but I don't think are in reality uh is what would happen if they landed on an American city.

[00:21:04]>> I'm not doing this politically. I'm look, everyone tells me it's unpopular, but I think it's very popular. when you when they hear that it's having to do with nuclear weapons, weapons that could take out Los Angeles, could take out major cities very quickly. When they hear that, you know, when they're explain, I'll tell you what, when we explain it to people, I don't really have enough time to explain to people.

[00:21:27]I'm too busy getting it done. When they understand, I think it's a I think it's frankly very popular.

[00:21:35]>> Number one, that's that's nonsensical what he's saying. It's not even a coherent sentences. He keeps stopping, but he's trying to say, "Look, because Iran would nuke LA or some crazy stuff like that." He says, "You should be afraid of that. So, that's why we have to take care of this situation here."

[00:21:49]But you've written a piece uh in your conflicts forum here called paradox paradoxically fear is the foundation of stability deterrence works. And and the the core issue you said here is yet the core issue remains unchanged from half a century ago. strategic stability ultimately rest on credible nuclear deterrence, a sufficient arsenal, and the demonstrated readiness to use it if necessary. Intimidation, however uncomfortable the world may be, remains the foundation of peace among nuclear powers. F first of all, just what what prompted you to write this article? Then we're going to get into some of the details here. And and I guess just a question that I have is it it seems to me that the world at large, but definitely the United States has lost its fear of nuclear weapons about what happened in 1945. It seemed to really really uh predominate in the thoughts of politicians around the world, even in the United States. And that seems to be lost now. Now it's almost just like a tool to use to let me go attack Iran.

[00:22:48]How do you see that?

[00:22:51]Well, this uh really stemmed in that piece that you've just put up by by me uh arose from a paper that was written by Professor Sergey Karaganov um who is a um both an academic but also a a longstanding political figure um in Russia. Um and why it's so important what he's saying um is because first of all um the substance to his paper it's been dismissed in much of the west as something that's a bit fringe and something that we shouldn't take too seriously. Well, I'm saying it actually has a lot of substance in it. And secondly, it's important because actually the views expressed in this paper and repeated by um Professor Karaganov in innumerable interviews on television and other things are are now at the center of Russian politics.

[00:23:56]They're not an outlying idea. They have become the mainstream view. That's why we should take um this proposition very seriously. And what it goes back to and when I'm saying that is because I I I've had direct um I've discussed this directly with professor Karaganov and I have some therefore idea of you know the background to it because it comes from my direct conversation with it. But it is about the sense which you just mentioned that whereas Russia did have if you like a deterrence a nuclear deterrence in the 50s um which they had created a great trouble um because they were in the cold war if you like and that they felt the need um to defend themselves and to create a deterrence that would be deterrence that would deter um and it was there in the 50s and then of course after the implosion of the Soviet Union um much of that disappeared. uh Russia was obviously much weaker but the deterrence lapsed and what um Caragonov has been saying very much is the problem is that people don't take uh our deterrence because of course Russia still is a a major new nuclear power they've just had a demonstration of that in this recent time a massive demonstration of their nuclear forces.

[00:25:45]Um, so it is a nuclear power, but you've probably come across it as I have. You know, if I say, "Oh, well, you know, if you push this too far, you may find that there will be a reaction from Russia."

[00:25:59]Oh, no, Alistister, of course not.

[00:26:01]Because I mean, the Russians would never dare to do something like that. They wouldn't. It's all bluff. It's just bluff from Moscow. We don't take this serious. This has been a constant refrain from American and European neocons throughout this period. It's all bluff. They never use it. We can go on building our nuclear forces and even think again of nuclear primacy um as uh because Russia really will never do it.

[00:26:33]They're too cautious. They would never use a nuclear weapon. And Caraganov said uh to me and I wrote it in this uh report, you know, this is a very dangerous thing for the world to enter into a position where they think that Russia will never use its nuclear forces under any circumstances, however provoked, because they don't fear it and they think everything is just bluff and we can just go on taunting Russia. we can go on escalating against Russia and and there will be no consequences. And what we have seen and we see this very visibly and why it's so important now is we've seen the Europeans particularly ratchet each every few months it ratches the pressure on o on Russia. First of all it was drones inside on the borders of Russia. um uh Belograd or some area.

[00:27:36]Then there were drones going further field. Now we have the case that drones are landing in Moscow in huge numbers even though they don't do that much damage but they are there and they have an effect on the public and in St. Petersburg. And of course, it's justified as sort of damaging Russian energy infrastructure. And it isn't. It really isn't. It does a little damage to some refineries, but they are quickly repaired. Um, it is a provocation more than a strategic weapon that is being used. and we're getting to the boundary uh where this is no longer acceptable and will result in some sort of direct response from Russia because not only are these missiles flying directly into deepest Russia um but they're flying through NATO airspace through Finland through the Baltic Republic through the Baltic states directly onto St. Petersburg onto the refineries there because they can fly almost entirely through NATO space and then just emerge u near to St. Petersburg and therefore use NATO space and the reliance on the sort of article five that NATO could would never be attacked by Russia because Russia would never dare to do such a thing. um relying on that to get around Russia's air defenses and to spring up right on on target at St. Petersburg uh or Moscow and uh it's now going stage by stage and now it is getting too much uh and at the same time we've heard constantly from Europe this refrain war war prepare for war with Russia prepare for war um the German uh leadership say we may have war even by um 2027 we may have war at any moment with Russia. Even though you know you look around and you can see quite clearly Europe hasn't got the capacity for war with Russia. It hasn't got the money to finance a war with Russia. It hasn't got the troops for a war with Russia. So why are they saying it?

[00:30:08]They're saying it because they hope to provoke through Ukraine and through if you like using these Baltic uh um states um they are hoping to provoke Russia towards uh action against NATO states.

[00:30:27]Um and then that they intend and hope that maybe with this administration or if this administration um becomes a lame duck or disappears from office then they can reverse everything. They can bring America back to Europe because Trump has been taking NATO and America away from Europe. Now we can bring America back. So, let me ask you, >> America back to NATO. This is a hugely important point here because I I've heard this before when when there are those in the west that want to prompt a Russian strike in there because then that will allow things to reverse as you said. But the you laid out in the the phrase right before that that the NATO large I mean speak forget about UK, France, Germany. I mean the big powers they don't have the troops they don't have the air power they don't have the industrial capacity. So why would you want to prompt something you may not survive long enough for America to come back and join? Why would they take that risk?

[00:31:35]um uh because they are um they are trying to do it um if you like bit by bit to I I if you like to sort of assuage the Russian um uh uh response deterrent until they can get pull back America to join you you know after all this was laid out clearly this is the the the policy of Germany France and the UK. King Charles went to Congress and you recall what he said there. America must join with Europe and preparing for a war with Russia. What what who wants whose interest is it to have a war with Russia? But nonetheless, he was speaking on behalf of his I mean also the government policy and the policy of those Euro3 um that are wanting to to move to bring just as in with Roosevelt to bring you know America into a new war with with Russia. That at least is how Russia sees it. I know because I've heard it. They believe, they say, "But Alistister, you know, you you say that uh the West isn't capable of fighting a war with Russia." But every moment, every day, we hear them talking about a war. They're now talking about a sort of Baltic arc in which Russia will be engaged. They try and engage with tankers um and with other elements. Um, and it's a a ratchet, one ratchet at a time, another ratchet, another ratchet until the moment is right when they hope, if you like, to engage a new administration in Washington or other to come and join with Europe uh in a war.

[00:33:36]You may ask say it doesn't make sense.

[00:33:40]Why would this be going on? Well, it's been going on for 200 years. That's why when you look at the um if the determination of certain forces in Europe, financial source forces, deep state forces have been planning this financing if you like the Japanese war against Russia um in 1905 that weakened the SAR. financing the Bolevik revolution, financing, if you like, um the near takeover in the 1900s of Russia by the Harvard boys and um their resources. All of these things have been going on for a long time. Russia is acutely aware of the sort of deep longunning um hostility and the desire to weaken and destroy Russia.

[00:34:37]Whether you say it's misplaced, exaggerated or whatever, um it is beside the point that is how um Russia sees the picture.

[00:34:50]This is a psychology and that is what was disturbing uh professor caragana because he said if they don't fear our nuclear weapons then they will go on ratcheting and ratcheting up until we are at war. So we have to bring back a certain degree of fear. That's why there is that sort of paradox as I called it or the oxymoron of actually um a nuclear fear can be the source of stability particularly at a time when arms control has largely disappeared all that we talk about arms control but it's meaningless I mean it hasn't been in existence for for a long time because it didn't suit the United States to go on with arms control because they wanted um to pursue a conventional war through Ukraine uh against Russia um and uh in that way then the arms control limitations would continue even as um they were pursuing that war and just take an example of this this was very apparent you remember when there was that spiderweb attack on um on Russia's strategic nuclear aircraft on the tarmac. They were there because of the salt treaty. They are supposed to hold their strategic bombers out in the open so that satellites, American satellites, can verify that they're still there and something hasn't changed. So, they're kept out in the open. And that was the basis of that attack. It failed. It didn't work. It went wrong. But they were had all of these containers and these vans brought into Russia with sliding roofs so that the missiles could be fired from the vehicles and hit the strategic nuclear force of Russia. Why would the United States think that this was a good idea? Because clearly it wouldn't have happened without the United States support. Why did they think if it was a good idea to attack its strategic nuclear power, why would they have attacked in Vor um if you like with their attacks which is where um Russia has its over the horizon radar systems at Bores.

[00:37:22]These are over horizon about intercontinental war. They're not anything to do with Ukraine whatsoever.

[00:37:32]These are the raiders that are to give early warning of a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia.

[00:37:41]Why attack those? Why attack the nuclear strategic bomber? Now, you can say, "Oh, don't take it seriously. It's not so important." But I mean if you're sitting in Russia in Moscow and you understand the significance of this yeah you will say um are the Americans you know moving towards a preparing for um the idea they've already said publicly the official responsible for it that they believe American can win a nuclear exchange uh with wi with with Russia And then that attack on Valdai, the Valdai compound that also happens to be um if you like the center, the control center, an underground bunker control center, which has the the house of Putin there too, but it also is the command center for nuclear forces in the event of an exchange with another adversary.

[00:38:46]You know, I'd like you to because I think that you said something a minute ago that I think is so important for us to understand. Uh we think Russia would never do this because they say article 5 32 NATO countries against one Russia.

[00:39:01]They would never survive that. So they never will. So we can do those things safely.

[00:39:06]But I want you to help us to understand the Russian mentality as as exposed by uh professor Karaganov as you mentioned here because he said one interesting thing I I found very interesting from your article. This is what you put in there that he wrote. The use of nuclear weapons is a great sin but the de facto refusal to use them is an unforgivable deadly and criminal sin because it paves the way for expansion and escalation in of the world war unleashed by the west.

[00:39:34]If it is not stopped, it will most definitely lead to the destruction of humanity, including our own country.

[00:39:40]Vladimir Putin's question, and what is the point of a world without Russia, remains relevant. So when he says using nuclear weapons is a sin, but not using them is a greater sin. To what extent does that, I guess impose on Putin's thinking, and how widespread is that in Russia?

[00:39:58]Um uh well first of all I mean what he said too and this is important to understand because this directly affects particularly Europe and he said listen we must understand the lesson from Iran how the Iranians have used conventional weaponry missiles carefully chosen on vulnerable assets of the United States and Israel and the Gulf States and That caused them to retreat. That brought a retreat. And so what he's saying is the first layer has to be convention arrnik.

[00:40:37]And he says we must build a range of missile capabilities for the future.

[00:40:44]Archnik, besnik, all of these things for conventional um power. But at the back of it always has to be some sense of real fear um that there is ultimately if none of those things work the nuclear I mean the absolute last resort is a nuclear use but to rule out or to allow that deterrence to fall away to come into a disuse I is a danger and I open to think also that actually it is in a European interest for Russia to have a deterrence because otherwise we will slowly slowly step by step end up possibly in a major war with Russia by these little steps that Europe is taking every time you know first of all it was drones then it's attacks they wanted to use Tomahawk missiles. Now they are using massive drones that are made in Britain, made in France. The actual drones or or or assembled in Ukraine but made in Britain. These are British if you like. Who's behind the plan? And this is why I'm saying it goes back to the decision-makings. Who is behind this plan to to do this escalation to use the Baltics and Finland? You know, the Baltics are just, you know, minor in this. The big question that Russia is looking at, who is the decision makers?

[00:42:31]And the decision makers are in Germany and in Britain and in France that are planning this slow escalation. You know what is called this is what the Russians think is happening is that we are trying to boil the frog. You know the story.

[00:42:52]You boil the frog, you put the frog into cold water and as you slowly increase the heat um after you know degree by degree in the end the frog dies and so they think that this uh what is happening is a sort of boiling the frog exercise of escalation small escalations and so I think if this goes on I'm this is just my personal view but if it goes on I think there will be a reaction against the decision makers who are behind it. I mean we know quite clearly it's not a surprise they've already said this and we don't know uh I mean exactly where the I don't know where the missiles launched from but Nareskin has said that they are actually being that the Ukrainians are are in left here um with these um uh with these drones I don't know Nareskin is the head of their intelligence service. So, he probably has quite good information. But even if they're not, it's not so much what's happening in the Baltic states. Um I mean, and there, you know, threats to to uh to to take in to go to the Kalin Grand um peninsula or anything like that. Is who is they? They have to, as they see it, have to send a painful and clear message to decision makers. Those decision makers are largely in Europe.

[00:44:35]It's European driven this move towards war with Russia. But just like as we've heard about, you know, the war on Iran, you know, the question is why would it be in a European interest to go to war with Russia? What for? How could it be in a European interest? Well, it has been a European interest for a long time. From uh I mean the war Europe has been fighting Russia. I mean from Germany it was from Napoleon from Germany. Britain was the only one who was not but Russia had almost the entire of Europe fighting it in the second world war and you know they don't intend to be boiled in the pot. So they are looking for ways, conventional ways like the Iranians have done to send a very clear message that in that case sending a message to Washington saying look you know pull back because otherwise we will escalate and it will be extremely damaging for our economies your economies the world economy and if you don't if you don't listen to the message draw back pull back from this exercise in Iran and pull back from this attempt to um slowly escalate into something much more serious.

[00:46:08]Um, let me ask you a little follow-up question on what you just said there because I I mean I I hear what you're saying about why because the obvious question that any normal person would ask was why would the West, Europe, US want to do this boil the frog thing to try and move closer to a conflict with Russia when Russia clearly does not pose a conventional threat to attack the West on their own initiative. So there's nothing to deter or or limit from coming from them. But as you pointed out, I mean, you went back to Napoleon to to Hitler, etc. There seems to be this long-standing desire in the current form because we've seen World War I and World War II and the massive destruction and now with the destruction power profoundly higher, any third attempt would be massively more in casualties for Europe.

[00:47:00]what is is animating the individual today to even want to play with a boil the frog theory?

[00:47:07]>> Uh well because I mean you know you ask a very complex question but really it goes back to things that have happened in the past. Um it was called the pale of settlement. Uh and it led to a huge immigration. Um I mean first of all to a radicalization of population that were in these pales of settlement which were mostly in Poland. Um uh led to quite a radicalization um in the pale of settlement and many of those people arrived in in in in in America. uh but also many of them went to um Palestine, to Israel um and many went came to came came to Europe and and those people were part of a part of a a generation of young people who were radicalized really radicalized uh against uh the SAR and against or the government in in in in Russia. Um from the 1860s onwards it became you know uh the the the younger generation rose up against their parents essentially and became troskists and became bolsheviks uh and were throwing you know um nail bombs into cafes in in in in Russia. Um but then Stalin came and repressed it and if you like um uh sent people to to the camps in Siberia and there's a huge anger uh and resentments for uh what they call programs and programs before I'm not saying there weren't programs but many of them were not you know the pro programs that took place or claimed to place in Ukraine. many many of them were actually done by the Greeks who resented competition and things in in in these areas. So there's a a a sort of deep history of um desire for revenge for what happened during the Stalin period and after the Bolevik revolution and um so this is this has been long longstanding and you know um Europe financed these the Bolevik revolution European banks financed the uh the Bolevik revolution They financed the war against Russia, the Japanese war that that defeated Russia. They financed um the Ukrainian um if you like war against Russia. Um and ultimately, you know, this is at the forefront of the screen for many Russians. They see this and understand it. It's not sort of our take on on the world and we say, you know, well, is it real? Is it something that we should take seriously? Well, I think we should take it very seriously. I've always felt, you know, that the most important thing in geopolitics, which I try to practice too, is to put yourself in someone else's shoes and see the world not just from your vision, not from the inside, but from the outside. So the You know, and the the huge change that can take place politically and in geopolitical understanding is when suddenly for a moment you see actually the inside has an outside and the outside is a different view. And that if you've got to understand that to find a solution um to the apparent contradiction of holding opinions and views that are facets that are completely contradictory >> and as long as we fail to do that I mean you have all kinds of problems because we live in this I don't know about in Europe as much but at least in the United States we live in this virtual reality we just we We program in what the other side is and then we wear these goggles and we don't even see what really is going on which has pretty bad consequences.

[00:51:23]So this is and and the consequences could be very serious with this if we ignore what you know and you said is the paper by Caraganov serious yes I'm trying to say to you this is you know yes when he first started talking about this nuclear issues it was considered to be a little bit out of an outlier it is now dead central This is the thinking. This is why the Russians have just had a major nuclear. This is the first step. A major look at it. It's been a massive demonstration of nuclear power that has taken place. People will say to you, oh, was it probably scheduled a year ago?

[00:52:11]No, it was put on particularly loud to say to the west, don't forget we are a nuclear power. And if you think you can just ignore this by going on uh uh uh uh sort of bit by bit um dissecting us and taking us to pieces, continuing to use Ukraine as as a battering ramp um to destroy Russia. And what they're saying is, you know, Europe is using Ukraine to prevent a settlement. I think that was so obvious during that period when Witoff and Kushner were going back and forwards. I mean, every time, you know, the Europeans would call a meeting and then they bring Zilinski in and say, "No, no, no, no. We can't have this. We can't have this at all. They have to continue. There can't be anything. There can't be a settlement. There can only be an unilateral ceasefire. Um, that's all that is acceptable. and it didn't resolve the issues. The issue fundamentally about Ukraine is the same one. It's Russian security. They need to know what is the limit of NATO's um if you like where is the border of NATO, how far does NATO extend and to say in the other side this is Russia, China's Asian frontier. We have to have some understanding you know it just NATO goes on and on expanding taking different views and the Russians are saying that you know we have to hold this we have to have a serious discussion so Caragono's point final point I mean is something fairly simple we have to talk about this we have to talk about again which we don't do and haven't done for some time we have to talk about, you know, understanding each side's perspective on the nuclear issue and on conventional weapons. It may not end up in a treaty, but something needs to be managed. There needs to be someone who possibly is even a you know uh someone with some some weight or standing in their society that can come and say, you know, this is how we need to understand each other. Let's have some sort of onant.

[00:54:43]>> Gary, if I could get you to pull that previous headline back up there, the one you just had about Putin will only use it as a last resort. Uh, that I think is more important than appears at face value. I'd like your view on this. I know we're right just about running out of time here. Uh, but taking a look at at what this headline is here. Reading it from Western Putin says uh use nuclear weapons would be a last resort. So when we hear that, we think, oh well, and unless we attack them first, then they're not going to use nuclear weapons, so we don't have to worry about it. All this kind of stuff.

[00:55:18]But it depends on the definition of lesser. You said a second ago, you got to look at the other side and think the way they do. We're thinking the way we do, but here is uh Caraganov. Uh I I perceive, and you tell me if you think I'm wrong, I perceive he's putting that definition of last resort in a different context. Here he is with Glenn Diesson.

[00:55:39]>> We have restored our soul and our honor.

[00:55:43]We have started to value those people in our society which are truly valuable meritocratic elites, scholars, doctors, officers. The country is becoming more healthy. But for that we are paying for too many bodies. So my advice to my government is that we should stop this war at least in Europe by going up the ladder of escalation first attacking by commercial weapons symbolic or logistical points on European soil. We not need an inch of Europe as you might understand. And then if they do not succumb, we should follow with nuclear strikes relatively mess with of course offering some kind of ultimatum. If they do not succumb, some of the countries of Europe should perish.

[00:56:37]>> Now whether Putin holds that view or not, I don't know. But when he says last resort, that means we'll fire conventional weapons at these points because of all the things that have happened in the last four plus years. So when he says less wrote that seems to be different than what Americans are thinking. How do you see that contrax?

[00:56:56]>> I mean he puts it in the context of we need to learn the lessons from Iran.

[00:57:02]Iran used um not necessarily the most powerful conventional weapons but conventional weapons to send a very clear message striking at a vulnerable asset but not destroying everything. to send a message clearly and saying retreat and largely the west did retreat and he is um Karaganov is saying very much the the same message is saying look we've tried it verbally and said to you know we put statement after statement out saying we won't accept this and people say oh it's bluff we don't pay any attention we won't pay any attention will just continue. We'll continue on soldiering. And he's saying if they don't stop, if they don't hear that we do have limits, that there are boundaries that you cannot cross. And if you cross those boundaries, first of all, we will deliver a pointed message um uh in terms of a conventional weapon.

[00:58:12]If it goes on and you don't pay any attention, we may then use a tactical weapon to underline the last resort is that we are a nuclear power. I'm not trying to present the Russian case. I underline I'm presenting the European case because I'm presenting the case that Europe actually has no interest in going down uh this route. it should um actually come to some understandings about where the limits of of security lie. Where are the limits of NATO action? Where are the limits that um uh China and Russia and Iran can pretend to? Um if without that I mean it becomes chaotic and it becomes unmanageable and can easily deteriorate. We have no interest in sort of pushing this to the limit. Now Caragana clearly and I say I've discussed it with him. It I mean he is creating a psychological a psychological atmosphere but a real one.

[00:59:31]He's creating a psychological atmosphere. He believes it's important that Americans and Europeans understand that deterrence is deterrent and it has to deter. If it doesn't deter, it's a waste of time. And so he's trying to underline the importance that for Russia, nuclear power is seen as a major deterrent.

[00:59:57]And and just final question here. What is your best assessment for how close we are if we if the if Putin would do it?

[01:00:07]Not Caragano, but Putin would say, "All right, it's it's crossed my red line."

[01:00:12]Europe has apparently no intention of changing anything that they've been doing for the last four and a half years that Putin would say, "All right, that's it. We're going to try the Kyagonov method. Conventional missiles at various sites in Europe." How close do you think we are to that?

[01:00:26]Uh quite close quite close if this escalation goes on. I mean, how many missiles, you know, first of all, it was um uh it was Ukraine threatening um the 9th of June um victory celebrations in Moscow with a massive attack which um then Putin spoke to Trump and Trump got it called off and then we had a massive drone attack on Moscow, probably the one that was intended for the 9th of June, which was put pulled back. um uh on Moscow. I I mean this is, you know, so if yes, it didn't happen on the 9th of June. They just saved it up and did it a few days later. Um either the Europeans pull back the Ukrainians on on this and say, "No, here are the guidelines. We have to manage this. you you know you can't simply just escalate and escalate and escalate with drones and with and as I underline you know these drones are storm shadows and drones I mean they are cruise missiles produced they may be trans shipped to Ukraine in crates and put together again in Ukraine but fundamentally these are European weapons being used directly on Russia you can't get around that these are European weapons facilitated and assisted to strike deep into Russia. How long does Russia put up with that? I don't think it'll go on forever putting up with that. I think it's been pretty patient so far. And as a European, I think we should respect that deterrence. And I think that deterrence is actually something that serves us because we don't want the frog to get boiled.

[01:02:22]>> Indeed. Indeed, we don't. Couldn't couldn't put it any better myself. Thank you so much for coming on today, Alistar, and uh really laying this out in in honest way. Just remind people to go and read this this whole article on the Conflicts Forum. Uh there's the address you see on the screen, conflicts forum.substack.com.

[01:02:40]uh and read all this stuff because there's constant new material we put out there. So, uh thank you very much, Alistister. It's always a pleasure to have you on the show.

[01:02:48]>> Thank you. Thank you for having me.

[01:02:51]>> And we appreciate you guys as well. Uh there's going to be one more short show today. Something that's been kind of in my crawl. You'll see it uh on the schedule here coming up shortly. Take a look at that. I'll be back off of the We're going to do the intelligence brief tomorrow, by the way. We're going to still stick with that. So, I'll do one more here uh from Vacation with my family. uh on Saturday morning, the intelligence brief. Otherwise, we'll see you back in my studio Monday morning on uh on the Daniel Davis. See you then.

[01:03:16]>> You know, we don't have sponsors because we hate to hit you over the head with ads. I don't like them. So, show a little love back. Subscribe, like, and send this to somebody you care about.