Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here, and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
That is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support.
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaking of I guess expanding the math, Kamala Harris was down in Texas for a big rally with Beyonce and also with Michelle Obama trying to boost Colin Alright's chances in the Senate against Ted Cruz.
Michelle Obama, kind of following.
In our husband's footsteps, had some very specific messaging towards men.
Let's take a listen to a little bit of that.
But see anyone out there thinking about sitting out this election or voting for Donald Trump or a third party candidate in protests because you're fed up.
Let me warn.
You, your rage does not exist in a vacuum. If we don't get this election right, your wife, your daughter, your mother, we as women will become collateral damage to your rage.
Are you, as men prepared.
To look into the eyes of the women and children you love and tell them that you supported this assault on our safety and to the women listening, we have every right to demand that the men in our lives do.
Better by us.
We have to and how it will affect every single woman in your life. Your girlfriend could be the one in legal jeopardy if she needs a pill from out of state or overseas, or if she has to travel across state lines because the local clinic closed up. Your wife or mother could be the ones at higher risk of dying from undiagnosed cervical cancer because they have no access to.
Regular gynecological care.
Your daughter could be the one too terrified to call the doctor if she's bleeding during an unexpected pregnancy. And this will not just affect women, It will affect you and your sons. The devastating consequences of teen pregnancy won't just be born by young girls, but also by the
young men who are the fathers. They too will have their dreams of going to college, their entire future is totally upended by an unwanted pregnancy, her pressure dropping as she loses more and more blood or some unforeseen infection spreads, and her doctors aren't sure if they can act. You will be the one praying that it's not too late. You will be the one pleading for somebody, anybody, to
do something. And then there is the tragic but very real possibility that in the worst case scenario, you just might be the one holding flowers at the funeral. You might be the one left to raise your children alone.
Do not put our lives in the hands of politicians, mostly men who have no clue or do not care about what we as women are going through.
So there were kind of two parts of that message. The first part where she's very like, you know, you have every reason women to expect your men to do better, and then you need to do better. The second part, I think much more effective, where she's like personalizing it and talking about some of the most dire consequences of losing the right to abortion care. But I mean, listen, I don't think that when you're out there tell it on this issue, right, we know that this is not the number.
One she's for men, right, literally not the number.
One, And so I don't even know if this message really is for men. But it comes off it's similar to Obama's of like, you know, lecturing.
Hectoring and lecturing this Las Obamas.
Like you're thinking about this wrong, et cetera, and so, like I said, the second part of that, I think is actually very effective. I think it's consistent with like the way Kamala Harris has talked about abortion, how some of the most effective surrogates have talked about these specific consequences which we have seen, and the way that yes, if you're a man, this could affect somebody you love in your life.
I think that's effective.
I think anytime you go on on the direction of like could even be construed as lecturing, I think you're on very shaky grounds.
Yeah, and that's why I was, like, I was honestly so pissed off by it, because I just hate this hectoring and lecturing, specifically from the Obamas, where you have these people who are in charge of the country for eight years and then this, you know, as the male shift has happened, and there's a lot of reasons as to why, but abortion is a key reason why a lot of women are voting, and there's absolutely nothing wrong
with that. But this whole like we have reason to expect better from the men in our lives, and it's you know what, does she say, the consequences of your rage? The thing is, and we just had a whole conversation about this with the Trump thing. Whenever people are mad, validating why they are, specifically in a small deed democratic context is really important. Dismissing and saying you're wrong is quite literally one of the most least effective political strategies
that is out there. So in general, being in the position of lecturing people, especially from the heights of people were in charge of the country, just completely like counterproductive. Now,
the latter part of that message, I agree. I mean, that's one of those where the most effective abortion ads I've seen is when it's a couple and was that I forget the people who work spoke at the DNC and there was a man and wife and she had she needed like an abortion or something, and then the doctors denied her one.
She was left with consequences for that.
And he's it was a Texas.
One and he's all the husbands up there being like my wife and I wanted more children, and this is a I mean, that's a powerful ad. That's a family ad that's one that looks at you know, as a unit. This was very much like kind of both pitting men and women against each other, but more importantly it was
lecturing against the men. And so I think that the most effective is to message like to that unit as a family specifically people were in a marriage, and you know, it really also celebrated this this this like hyper individualism, which is connect you know, that whole teen pregnancy message. I don't even necessarily disagree. It's more just like putting it in that way is I think quite gross, and it's like all of them which part, just the part was like, oh, their lives will be ruined by having
a baby. I just think that's I don't know that to me, that one it reads wrong just because it very much looks at as like as as something that will quote ruin your life, and there are a lot
of consequences teen pregnancy, et cetera. But I just think talking about it in that way very much like centering the teenager and the teenage girl and boy and like their ability to go on and like do whatever they want and this like individualism that kind of does validate some of the pro life way that people criticize.
But I don't know the whole thing to me just read wrong.
The best part of their message is just trying to message to people as a unit and why it's consequential for you. But outside of that, lecturing and putting people against each other I always think is the wrong move.
Kalin Harris actually did a very good job at the debate talking about this, and you know she she had those specifics. I mean, one of the most effective ads we've ever seen on the topic of abortion was the young woman in Kentucky who had been raped repeatedly by her stepfather and who said, listen, I would not have had the ability to have choices if it was you know, Daniel Cameron, who was the one who was running for governor, and you end up with a Democrat winning the state
of Kentucky focused on an issue of abortion. So so yeah, that part of the message I do think is very effective, but the other part not so much. The same time, we got a little hot mic moment from Kamala Harris. She's at a bar with Gretchen Whitmer and seems to get caught saying something like, you know, we need to make up ground with male voters. And then she says like, oh, there's microphones around ship. Lol, let's take a listen to how this all went down.
Yeah, oh we have microphones and listening to everything.
I didn't realize that, Okay, Weds, I just told the family secret ship.
Anyway.
Yeah, so the audio is muffled. But yeah, basically we need to move.
Ground, move ground among that.
Okay.
Yeah, so anyway, some indication that they which I mean we've seen. Actually she's doing a podcast.
It's no secret. It makes it's not a secret.
Yeah, but I mean to hear her acknowledge it.
Whatever.
It's a thing. Right, she got caught saying something she didn't mean to say publicly. This is the thing.
But yeah, she's doing the Shannon Sharp podcast today Club Club Chase. So we'll take a listen to that tonight. And she's you know, enlisted. I guess Tim Walls is playing mad Football on Twitch.
Yeah, although that was a bomb only they didn't have that many streamers on it. Really, this isn't like Tim Wall's derangements and so subjectively it was like ten thouts, which I mean we you know, we get more.
On that than our live streams.
It's not impressed those are not impressed it.
She's made a number of conservative efforts to try to go into more mail spaces and you know, put out surguts that she thinks will be effective, et cetera. So clearly they realize this is an area that they've got to shore up in order to be to prevail on election day.
Yes, either, I don want to get to a clip to talking of so many I referenced earlier. Here is John Fetterman talking to a New York Times reporter on their podcast specifically about that cultural phenomenon I referenced earlier, and explaining to her what truck nuts are.
Let's take a listen.
You know, I I'll never forget. I lived directly across the street from the steel Mill and we were doing an event there for Clinton, and I asked the Union President. I'm like, hey, where we are on Trump? And he's like, yeah, probably half or sixty percent two thirds are voting for him. And I was like, Oh, that sucks. And then immediately there was a guy getting off and he had a truck and he had truck nuts on it. You know what truck nuts are?
Do?
I look like I know what?
Yeah, it's ball hung on the hitch of a truck and he honked and he was like, oh Trump as he drove by, and it's like, hey, we're in trouble.
Yeah, it does not surprise me that the truck nuts guys are for Trump. I actually respect the fact that she was like, do I look like do I look like the kind of person who knows.
What truck nuts?
I mean, I weur suit every day.
I don't know what trucknuts are, right, I guess I was raised in Texas. You know, I remember the first time I ever saw a pair. I don't know, I mean to me culturally, I think that was important. And look, you can give it to Fetterman and he did win state by five. He says that they're in trouble. What else did he say? He said, he's like the level
of Trump support is astonishing. I believe that was the word that he used specifically where he lives, you know, in Pittsburgh so or in that in the Steel area, which is interesting. I'm curious, like there's been a this is pure Pa politics. Yeah, Harris just recently released an
ad like centering herself around the city of Philadelphia. Yeah, and it was like celebrating Philly and I was like an Eagles game, but I was like, you know, culturally, this is very interesting because there is like such a
massive cultural divide between Philly the mainline suburbs. You know, you've got the urban population, you've got the white college educated, the celebration of the city of Philadelphia, and then you've got Pittsburgh and all the other areas so they're a rural and pa that are much more like culturally conservative. So it does seem like there are picking sides. I'm not sure which way it's going to go.
Well, Pittsburgh is also quite democratic. The city itself and the surrounding suburbs are quite you know democratic in general. But yeah, I mean between Philly and Pittsburgh, you have a lot of rural, very conservative areas.
They call it like Pencil Tucky.
And yeah, remember after when Hillary was running in twenty sixteen, wasn't it Schumer that said that thing about like for every person we lose in rural Pennsylvania, were going to pick up two in the suburbs and didn't work out for Hillary, but a it worked out for Joe Biden twenty twenty.
It may well work out for Kalma Harris this time.
Around.
We'll see if that electoral calculation has has blossomed for them. But yeah, I guess a real cultural divide on display there between the New York Times lady and John Fetterman.
Absolutely all right. Last part is Beyonce also was at that event. Let's take a listen to what she had to say.
I'm not here as a politician. I'm here as a mother, a mother who cares deeply about the world. My children and all of our children live in a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies.
A world war.
We're not divided. Our past, our present, our future merge and.
We need you.
It's time to sing a new song, a song that began two hundred and forty eight years ago.
The old notes of.
Downfall, discord, despair no longer resonate. Our generations of loved ones before us are whispering a prophecy, a quest, a calling, an anthem.
I don't know.
It makes me nervous. All the selection makes me so nervous. Does remind me so much of Hillary?
Leo came out to endorse Kamala Leo DiCaprio, Oh jokes about that else.
Yeah, that's the first time me back to a woman who was over twenty five.
No, it's he saw twenty twenty four and got confused. Just a joke, Leo, like, I love you.
Of age, But yeah, yeah, exactly, will see it does seem very twenty sixteen. And she got the tweet the Springsteen rally with Obama, the exact same thing that happened in twenty sixteen.
So I don't know.
Going to Houston, I mean, both of these candidates now it's Kamala, why are in Houston?
Trump? Why are you going to New Mexico?
Yes, going on here.
I mean Texas makes a little bit of sense because of coloradulright as one of their best chances to steal a seat from Republicans. And I think they also liked the backdrop of Texas has been the site of some of the most horrifying stories of women, you know, women's.
Health, and so I think I think they liked that backdrop as well. But yeah, I mean, Comma's not gonna win tex right exactly.
You know, every time somebody talks about the Senate races, I just always think your job's not to get the Senate elected.
Your job is to you know, be president. So anyway, I don't know.
She probably she maybe had some fund raisers. There's a lot of money there too, because that's fun. Razors.
When Trump flies all the way to Montana to do a rally, I'm it's fucking Montana.
Like, less than a million people live in Montana. What are you doing? You know, it's like or Coachella in California.
It's the same thing. Yeah, I mean, but you know, we just talked about the nationalization. That's certainly part of it. Okay, we've talked way too much today, so we can't do Michigan today tomorrow, promise. Sorry, everybody, don't freak out, don't leave any for crazy comments. What happened to Michigan. It's not being censored. Let's get to endorsement. Turning down to endorsements.
Huge story here in Washington. The Washington Post, the local hometown paper, has decided not to endorse in this year's presidential election.
Let's put this up there on the screen.
This decision was announced by the Post internally somewhat nine days before the election. The decision was made by this new editor. His name is will Lewis, a former Rupert Murdoch employee from the UK. Calling back to the history of the Washington Post pre nineteen sixty and they're not making presidential endorsements.
Now.
There has been quite a lot of discussion about this, certainly because you may have noticed. But at the very top of the Washington Post there's a little line on
beneath it it says democracy dies in the darkness. And I seem to recall, you know, millions of dollars and lots of people here in DC signing up for the Washington Post for democracy dies in the darkness, and lots of resistance liberalism and columnists there who signed up for that vision under Jeff Bezos, and then Bezos himself deciding nine days before the election is like, yeah, you.
Know what, We're not gonna endorse here. So there's quite a lot to say about it.
I think it really just comes down to the capriciousness of a billionaire owned media and you know, a lot of people I don't know, Tell me if you agree with me. There's been a big thing online about people who are canceling the Washington Posts and journalists and others their subscriptions, yeah, are like, please don't cancel the Washington Post. It hurts journalists. I'm go go you know what, let me defend these folks. These people signed up for freaking
democracy dies in the darkness their resistance lives. These are the people who made millions selling an annotated copy of the Mulla Report. Okay, some people Pepperig Farm remembers. So when those same people don't see a COMMA endorsement, what do you think is going to happen?
You took their money gladly.
I agree.
When it was anti Trump, I agree with you. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Also, like it's owned by a billions.
Yeah, that's right.
If he wants to kick in some more money, it will be nothing.
He lost one hundred millions last year on the post. He's not gonna chap his ass to lose four thousand subscribers. Sure.
Yeah, So like if he wants to fill in that gap, then that's on him. That's not on you know, the people who are disgusted with this decision. And I don't care how you feel, abou Kama Harris or Donald Trump. You should be disgusted with this decision because it's pretty clear. The Washington Posts reported that the decision did come directly from Jeff Bezos, and we all know why he's a
big government contractor. Blue Origin has massive contracts with the federal government, and Trump did cancel some of his contracts last time around two. So he's looking at this and he's putting his own like class capitalist interests ahead of the way of the the journalistic integrity of the Post. That's what's going on here. He's he and by the way,
we can put E two up on the screen. Friday's announcement, based right at the Guardian didn't mention Amazon and didn't mention Blue Origin, but within ours, high ranking officials of Blue Origin met with Trump after a campaign speech in Austin, Texas, as the Republican omni seeks a second presidency, Trump met with Blue Origin CEO and vice president of government relations.
That means lobbying, according to the AP.
Meanwhile, CNN reported the Amazon CEO, Andy Jasse had also recently reached out to speak with the former president by phone. Those reported overtures were eviscerated by Washington Post Editor at large and longtime columnist Robert Kagan, which TLDR. He calls it a clear quid pro quote, and I think that's fairly obvious.
Right.
Bezos doesn't want to have his government contracts canceled.
Again.
He doesn't want to be crosswise with Trump. He wants to make nice with him because he thinks Trump may well be back in the White House and he knows there'll be no punishment from the Kamala Harris people if they win. They're not gonna, you know, go out for quote unquote retribution. So yeah, that's what's going on. And again, like I said, this is not to try to make
a partisan point. This is to say you should be very very leary a billionaire influence in politics, billionaire influence in media, billionaire ownership.
And I will also say when Bernie.
Sanders made this point back in twenty twenty about how the Bezos Washing Post maybe wasn't too friendly towards him because of his class politics, he was smeared as a conspiracy theorist by the same people who now like you should be. You owe Bernie Sanderson apology because obviously he was right.
I did so many monologues.
Act some of my most viral monologues initially over at Rising were specifically about this billionaire ownership of the Washington Post. I remember, remember when Bloomberg was in the race and Bloomberg News was like, we're still objective.
I go, yeah, you're definitely still objective whenever the guy of your namesake is in the goddamn race, that's right sure.
And by the way, the guy justifying that, Mikelthwaite, is the same British moron who was on stage with Trump talking about tariffs. Just so people know for who exactly are like the most corrupt people in this country.
And that's the point.
The point though, and the irony is when democracy dies in the darkness. These people didn't give a damn about billionaire ownership because it was fine for them, and yet now it's oh my god, you know he's he's like playing with our lives and giving up on our values. And look, I have some sympathy because Jennifer Rubin, right, I mean, these brain dead resistance people, to be fair, they were courted on this basis, they were employed on
the very like real idea. Even Robert Kagan, right, Okay, So for people who don't know who, Robert Kagan is literally one of the chief voices for war in Iraq, neo conservative, unreconstructed, married to Victoria Newland, who is one of the most psychotic former members of the State Department of NATO, expansion, etc. I have nothing nice to say about these people, but they were hired on the basis of being anti Trump for these quote unquote like principal reasons.
So even though I disagree with them, it's not like they don't have a coherent worldview. And so for Bezos to just change the rules of the game, which he can, is deeply disingenuous to his readers and to his employees. And that's the problem, is that when it's capricious and it's totally up to him, it's just a ludicrous position that puts, you know, it just tells.
Us what the whole game is about. Yeah, and I don't want everybody to know that.
And also why nobody billionaire or whatever owns a slice of this company and the only people who control it are the vast majority of our previous describers.
It is also I mean, it is also like capitulation advance because they do know that Trump will, you know, will look to punish his political enemies because he's done it in the past. And there's a more reporting for the Washington Post this morning.
I'm just reading. Jeff Stein tweeted this out.
Some billionaires who Trump targeted are now hedging their bets as the president former president vous retribution against enemies if elected. Bezos block Swappo endorsement. Zuckerberg is promising neutrality. Warren Buffett is staying out. The Google chief reportedly called Trump to praise his McDonald's stuff. CEO's rushing to back channel to Team Trump.
Quote.
Trump has not had no issue calling out political enemies by name, threatening to use the force of government for retribution. Apparently that is intimidating a lot of wealthy targets. Is a very scary sign that government intimidation works is the take of one individual.
So, you know, I do think this is part of a pattern of people who fear that.
Trump is going to end up back in the White House and don't want to be on his bad side because they want their companies to continue to flourish. They don't want to be made, you know, an example of by Trump even by just turning them into a partisan name, et cetera.
So that's part of what you see going on.
Lumped into this conversation, potentially unfairly was the La Times, which also decided not to endorse in this race, and I think you could similarly make a point about, like, you know, it's the billionaire owner of the La Times who was also making the decisions for the newsroom about not endorsing, but seems to have a more principled reason for doing so. We can put this up on the
screen with regards to La Times. So their billionaire owner says that they are protesting calmless support of Israel's war in Gaza. This is according to his daughter, a thirty one year old political activist who has been They've been consistently anti genocide in terms of the Israeli assault on Gaza, anti apartheid. She's been a consistent activist on the you know, pro Palestine side of this equation. So she said, quote, our family made the joint decision not to endorse a
presidential candidate. This was the first and only time I've been involved in the process, and point to commeless support for Israel's war in Gaza. So you know, like I said, more principled. Certainly, you know, a direction I support a lot more in terms of the rationale behind it, although you still have to say, like you know, the billionaire influence part, even if it is a cause that I support, it's still a troubling direction.
Well, and this, look, the whole point is to me, this just goes against the idea of the news business in the first place. I'm like, these endorsements, and specifically in the more partisan age, they're not swaying anybody. They're purely cultural signifiers, and I think that's fundamentally wrong with the way that this all should be in the first place. Like, notice,
you know, nobody's been endorsing anybody over here. I did a whole monologue where I said how you should vote, and specifically it was like, how you should think about voting based on the issues that are important to you, because you're the one who.
Should make that decision. Outsourcing your thinking to somebody else is frankly ridiculous.
But that is the mainstay of a lot of current Republican out a lands and a lot of these democratic ones. So there's a meta conversation, I guess, yeah, to be had, But broadly, what I really come back to is these journalists who are constantly tutting everybody who's canceling their Washington Post subscription. I'll be like, hey, I hate to break it to you. The people who subscribed to it. They didn't do it for the News. They did it for
this democracy dies in the darkness. Mullershit. And so you cannot be mad at them when they cancel, because they you renegged on the vision that they sold.
That's the whole point.
Bethos is in general, even just from a business, has been a horrendous owner of the Post. They have been bleeding subscribers. You know for a while now New York Times has been able to very successfully, like.
They rolled it up their business.
Yeah, and they have all these different verticals, the cooking and the sports and the games and all this stuff that's very popular that doesn't isn't just reliant on opposition to this one political figure. But you know, I'm sure the Post is going to be fine because, like I said, they've got a billionaire owner. Who to make up that
lost thousands of subscriptions is absolutely nothing. But I still someone tweet this, and I think this is probably correct that there will likely be a lot less I think these are indications that there will be a lot less institutional resistance.
To Trump this time around.
That more the mo is Let's try to be neutral, let's try to placate him, Let's try not to earn his iire, let's try not to, you know, tank like have our government contracts canceled, et cetera, et cetera. And you know, we had already seen this in terms of Wall Street and Finance warming up to Trump. You know, the number of donors that he's getting from the institutional finance much larger than they were back in twenty sixteen
or even in twenty twenty. He has gone out of his way to make explicit promises to billionaires in the country. Obviously is backed by the wealthiest person on the planet. But I do think that that this is an indication that the strategy of lockstep institutional resistance to Trump is has basically disintegrated into no, we're going to try to appease him, try to go along, to get along, so that we don't end up in his targets.
Yeah, And I also just think there's like a cultural difference at this point. If Trump has been around for a long time, like the shock of his win in twenty sixteen, and that level of like employee walk out out, this stuff is gone, you know at this point, and if I don't see it coming back in that way, whatever resistance to Trump what form that will take. It
will not be the cringe twenty seventeen version. I would hope it's much more of a deep, like actual assessment within the party about like, hey, why didn't we have a primary?
Why did we prop up Biden for such a lot?
Actually, I'm curious with you, do you think that'll happen or do you think they're going to go rush Agate again or like some similar like cope, what do you think the cope.
It's going to be cope of course, just racism.
No, I think probably they'll blame like it depends on how the election results go down, but it's certainly possible they'll blame people who you voted for Jill Stein or sat out because they were disgusted with the support for genocide. Yeah, I think that's you know, that's a pretty clear trajectory. You already see the ads that are you know, against Jill Stein. You see those efforts under way, So that will be that will be a big part of it.
But I think also secretly they'll just decide like, oh, it's sexism and we could just never run a woman.
Again, right, which is so dumb. Again, like Greshen Whitmer would be way more competitive.
In this race. But don't you think that's true?
If Hillary and both lose to Trump, the secret assessment, the public assessment will be, you know, the public to racist b I mean, sexist, blah blah blah, and the secret assessment will be like, that's why we must only run men year on out.
I think it won't be an elite assessment, unfortunately. I think a lot of it will come to voters. Democratic voters care a lot about winning, and they're less ideological in terms of.
They're willing to go along with a lot and they want to win.
And so if that is the assessment from elite media and others that is kind of pumped out there, then they may internalize it.
Again, I think that's totally incorrect. I mean, she's not that far away.
From she's doing way better than Yeah, she's so much will.
You know, kind of a dumb thesis, but I could see it. I don't know.
I really do hope when Biden is gone and we can all talk, honestly, they we'll just talk about how insane it was to prop them up for as long as we did, how insane it was not that going to happen.
That's not going to happened because they were. They're all complicit in it, you know, so they can't they can't. It can't be that, I mean the yeah, the in fact, actually, actually it's.
Much more likely. The conversation you get is should have stuck with Biden.
I'm telling I already see people on Twitter are like, I'm not convinced that she's better than the mind.
It's like you are.
Insane, you are in like, go back and watch that debate and tell me that this was the guy that Democrats should have run. No, Obviously, the much better direction would have been to actually have a primary process where voters actually got to vet these candidates, where you know, even if it doesn't end up being Kamlers, at the end of the day, she has to go through the rigors of that and is strengthened by that process. That's clear,
like very obvious taken. Then there's you know, I'm sure there'll also be a she loses Pennsylvania, They'll be that she should have picked jos Shapiro to Oh yeah, right, that'll be a big one as well. So it just still depends on the flavor of what goes down. But I think you are much more likely to see the we should have stuck with Biden than the we should have actually had a democratic process.
Very possible. All right, guys, we got treat to Parsi standing by. Let's get to it.
So, as we're usual, we have huge updates coming out of the Middle East, and to break down the very latest with regard to Israel retaliating against Iran, we've got doctor Treta Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible state Craft.
Great to see you, sir, Good to you.
Good to be with you guys again.
Yeah, of course, so let's put this Wall Street Journal article up on the screen. You know, I refer to these in a shorthand as retaliatory attacks. Of course, we know that that's not exactly accurate, since this is just retaliation to the latest Iranian attacks, which were retaliation for Israeli attacks.
But in any case, we've.
Got a Wall Street Journal article here arguing that Biden pushed Israel to limit their attacks on Iran, yet still inflict a heavy blow. Based on what we know about the sites that Israel did strike, what can we say about the level of these attacks and the potential response.
Well, the interesting thing is we actually cannot say that much. Clearly, the Israelis struck. Clearly, they were successful in striking at least twenty sites. They left about five people killed. That number may increase. There's definitely been some damage. The extent to which that damage has occurred, however, is unclear. The Israelis are saying that they've essentially taken out all of Yvan's long range anti defense missiles and systems. The iranis
of course downplaying it. I think the Israelis are exaggerating. The truth may be somewhere in between, but we frankly just don't know quite yet. But this is very important because if the Israeli narrative turns out to be true, and I'm personally skeptical, part of the reason I'm skeptical is because it actually serves the interests of those in Israel or in power. We want to see further escalation because the argument they're essentially making is see Yran no
longer has long range anti defense missiles. As a result, it is going to be relatively easy now to strike the nuclear program. What are we waiting for? Let's just go for it and then hoping that either the Bide administration or the Trump admonstration would go along with it. I'm very skeptical of this for several reasons. A because we don't know quite yet the extent of the damage. We don't know how long it will take Vanians to
recuperate from whatever that damage is. But also no one thought that the danger with striking Van's nuclear program was Yvon's anti defense missiles. That has not been the reason as to why the strikes have not taken place. The reason why the strikes hasn't taken place is because it's quite clear if the nuclear sites are struck, the Ivanians
will weaponize their program, they will leave the MPT. And given how deeply much of the program is underground, the US it's self has made the assessment that whe or without anti defense missiles in place, the ability to actually take out the facilities underground is very very limited. If the US has that calculation, restitualt Israeli simply cannot do it. So there's a lot of fog and a lot of smoke right now, and it is all about establishing various narratives.
And from the Israeli side, of course, the narrative they want is see this was easy. The Iranians couldn't do that much about it. What are we waiting for unleash us and allow us to take out everything?
Yeah, so, doctor Parsi, in terms of the Iranian regime and just the way they have reacted to this, what does it tell us? Is it similar to last time around where we consider the matter closed? How is the message that is currently coming out of media and others in response to this.
So initially, almost even before any real assessment could be made of what the damage was, they were downplaying it, which sent a clear signal they don't want to see further escalation. They're not the ones who started this exchange of direct fire between Israel and Yvon. That's what the Israelis started on April first, when they struck the Ivanian
consular section of the embassy in Damascus. But as time has passed, and as we have seen, most importantly that there has been casualties, you are seeing things happening in the Ivanian debate in which there is a lot of anger and a lot of belief that not responding may actually be a mistake. What they don't want to see is the idea of striking Tehran becoming normalized in the same way that striking Damascus or striking Beirut has become
normalized for these Raelis. They do it regularly. It's hardly news any longer, certainly not in the mainstream American media. They almost never report on those things. The Ivanis don't want to end up in that situation in which Israel striking Tehran will become a normalized issue, and that is one of the pressures internally for them to do something. The question, of course is what could they do without sparking the larger ward that the Israelis want and these Iranians do not want.
Interesting. Yeah, that's such a great point. I hadn't thought about about the normalization of those Israeli attacks on Bayvorud and on Damascus. I wanted to ask you what you made of this reporting inside of the Wall Street journal piece we just had at They say that the White House use Israel's request for that anti missile battery as leverage after the Pentagon indicated Israel wanted the system to bolster its defenses against Iran. Tony Blinkin recommended at a
meeting with Biden. The US agreed to send it only if Israel promised to strike only military sites.
What do you make of that assertion of the use of.
That anti missile battery basically to sort of coerce the Israelis into not striking nuclear sites.
I think this whole thing is a bit of a fallacy. I don't doubt that the story is true, and I wouldn't doubt that Blincoln would have agreed to the fads even if he got nothing from these Raelis. The bottom line is the fact that they didn't strike the nuclear facilities may not be that relevant if this continues to escalate, And there's much to indicate that, even though the Vanians may not respond quickly, that this is not the end of this story. This may be the end of one chapter.
But unfortunately, as long as the United States helps Israel reduce the cost of its own escalations by rushing in and protecting it every time it happens, and every time these Raelis want to escalate, instead of saying no, we don't want to war in the region, they can drag us in. Instead, we say we'll just strike here, just strike there, and we'll give you more missiles so you
don't have to be the cost of it. If that is our approach, all we're doing is that we're ensuring escalation, We're just ensuring it at a slower pace than if we didn't provide those if we didn't push back against those initial targets, this may very well end up with strikes against the nuclear sides and a complete war. So just slowing it down, which is what the Bid demonstration
at best have done, is simply not good enough. If we believe that the US is interest in all of this is for us not to get dragged into another war, individual.
Which I think we all do at least here, And that's my question. My last question really is how do you think that the Israelis will calibrate and will they escalate if Donald Trump does win the election in eight days.
I think there's a degree of nervousness in Israel. Israelis I've spoken to. They're not saying that they don't prefer Trump, but there is a degree of nervousness because they know very well that if Trump changes his mind and doesn't want to see discontinue, there's going to be a high cost for the Israelis to do to Trump what they
have done to Biden. They have disregarded almost every red line that Biden has put forward, Biden himself has clearly not been serious about those different things, but the Israelis have taken pleasure in humiliating Biden publicly. I don't think the Israelis would do that easily with Trump. They know
that the reactions can be quite unpredictable. I think it's also very interesting that as much as the Trump administration is saying things such as, you know, you got to do what you got to do, go do the job, etc. They're not saying anything about what the US would do in terms of supporting Isrum. And one line that I think is coming out of the Trump camp is we don't want to restrain these Ralis, but we also don't want to help them do what they're doing because we
don't want to get into a war. Jdvans themselves said in an interview that it's a clear interest with you as not to get into a war with you. Blan. So I think you may end up seeing a policy in which the pretense of restrictions that I think the Bidendmistration has put forward will simply not be there. They may even be active encouragement, but perhaps without a very large part, if not all, of the materials supported the Biden demonstration has provided the how does.
That square with some of the significant interest groups on the Republican side, Not only you know, the evangelical base, which has been Trump's largest, most core supporters, highest level of support, who actually they have a higher favorability rating for bb net Yahoo than American Jews do. Miriam Addilson, being one of his largest donors, know a commitment to
Israel being her largest issue. Reporting suggests that, you know, one of the things that she wants out of Trump is for him to allow Israel to annex the West Bank.
You know, officially within.
The Republican Party you have versus the Democratic Party of much stronger support for Israel, for shipping weapons to Israel, much more hawkish views visa vi Iran. So how does that Trump assessment square with some of those critical interest groups and donors on the Republican side.
You're absolutely right, Chryst that that is a critical element within the Trump camp as well, that you have those who not only want to continue to do this, but also want to see even greater American support for it.
And I don't think that the battle within the Trump administration has been entirely square it out when it comes to this, I'm just judging it based on what Trump himself has said so far, which is going quite far out there and in terms of expressing support for Israel but saying very little about what the US role would be.
And then you listen to Jdvans and there you have a bit more detail in terms of even being more in favor of not putting restrictions on Israel, but also even more clear about the US not necessarily being part of it and not getting involved in the war. I think at the end of the day, we have to be very frank we do not know what the Trump administration would do because it is quite unpredictable, particularly mindful of the very elements that you mentioned. And this is
going back to Stargar's question. Part of the reason why there's a degree of nervousness in Israel about Trump as well. They know that in many ways he may actually be much better for them, but they also know that if Trump were to change his mind and decide to go on a path that they're not happy with, it probably cannot do too much about it.
Very interesting, doctor Parci. Always great to have your analysis. Thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you so much for having me.
Yeah, it's our play too.
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
Thanks to all our premium subscribers breakingpoints dot com if you want to become one otherwise, We'll see you all tomorrow