Today's Zero Hedge Debate sponsored by J. M. Bullion. Today we have Scott Horton versus my Javadan Fhar. He is an Israeli scholar professor, and we will be debating the topic of how the US should handle the situation with Iran.
We're going to be doing kind of a presidential style debate with myself, Clint Russell, the host of Liberty Lockdown, former vice presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, and Amy Kozak, who will be handling the I'm too biased basically, so go ahead and introduce yourself.
Amy.
Thank you, Clint. It's good to be here, and I will say I appreciate libertarian spaces because we tend to put ideas and arguments front and center, not a character at hominem or any of that kind of stuff. So looking forward to a civil discussion, and yes, I'm here to provide the co moderating roles as a bit of a balance to possibly, you know, Clint's position and echoing doctor jabadan Far's position on Iran and Israel and Palestin.
I am a comedian and commentator alean pro Israel. So it's just good to be here and looking forward to a balanced discussion.
Mister Horton, if you'd like to introduce yourself to the audience.
Sure.
I'm the director of the Libertarian Institute, the host of the Scott Wharton Show, and editorial director of antiwar dot Com. And I wrote the books Enough Already, Time in the War on Terrorism and provoked how Washington started the New Cold War with Russia and the catastrophe in Ukraine.
And I'm going to call you my ear just for ease, if you could introduce yourself to the audience as well.
Hi, my name is doctor Mejavedanfhar, Iranian Israeli researcher and writer and lecturer. I've been teaching various contemporary Iranian history and politics courses for the last twelve years at Reichman University, and I've also been researching Iran Israel relationship. It's both before and after the seventy nine revolution.
Well interesting, I'm going to start with the strategic interests here. It's a point of contention amongst libertarian audience in the non inventionist camp as well as many of the America First or MAGA voters. What are the core US national interests at stake in its policy towards Iran, and how should these guide the choice between interventionists and non interventionist approaches. We'll start with mister Horton's.
Well, I mean, America has really, you know, oil interests in the Middle East, but it really doesn't matter who's in charge of which regime, the oil will always be for sale. So you know, our entire strategic position as the regional hedgeman is entirely unnecessary, and it's mostly because of Israel. So you know, America is Israel's greatest ally, but they're not ours. They don't do anything for us at all, and even when we wage wars for them,
they don't even help. He can't even name something that Israel even did for the United States at all over there in the last twenty years, other than helping Obama back Alcada in Syria.
But that was Obama helping them.
Back al Qada in Syria because they hate the Ala Whites for their alliance with the Sheites in Iran, which is not America's interests at all. America could have made peace with Iran decades ago, in fact, and the scholar here knows far more about this than me. But I'm sure he'll agree. Israel stayed friends with Iran after the
revolution is seventy nine and through the nineteen eighties. That's why when Ronald Reagan, just a couple of years after the Beyroot attack, when he switched sides temporarily in the Iran Iraq War and armed Iran during the Iran Contra.
Scandal, he used the Israelis as the cutout.
You guys, give them your missiles and we'll give you some more in order to get those missiles to Tehran. So we couldn't normalize relations back during the Reagan years, we were already getting along with them enough to sell them missiles. In Knight ninety three, when Bill Clinton came into power, part of his government's idea was we should go ahead and normalize relations with Iraq and with Iran.
And it's a big new Brazinski, who had been the National Security Advisor during the Revolution of seventy nine and had egg all over his face for his humiliation there, but was a leading grand strategist of American foreign policy by ninety three. He said we should build a pipeline from the Caspian Basin across Iran that way to cut them in, make some money, but also find a way
to begin warming up relations with them. And you know that was just a couple of years after the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the idea was, we can't get along with everybody. The new president Rosson Johnny was trying to suck up to the West. They even armed al Cada in Bosnia as a favorite of Bill Clinton in nineteen ninety four or nineteen ninety five, because they were trying to suck up to the United States.
In fact, Alexander Haig, Ronald Reagan's secretary of State, also wanted to build a oil pipeline across Iran as a
way to open up relations with them. And guess what Clint Israel said, No, it was Yitzak Rabin's government which was reversing their strategy of the periphery and said that now they wanted to deal with the Arabs and demonize Iran, who insisted that Bill Clinton, instead of trying to warm up relations with Iraq and Iran, that he keep the bases in Saudi Arabia to wage what was called the
dual containment policy against both. And that policy was invented in Israel and it was Jitsak Shamir's aid Martin Indick, who announced the policy, convinced Clinton to do it, and announced the policy in a speech at the Washington Institute for nii's Policy, which is a spinoff of APEC. So the fact of the matter is that without Israel's intervention, America could have warmed up relations with the Ayahtolas regime back in nineteen ninety three.
We didn't have to.
Have this last thirty years of contention and all these rats and risk of war and all this stuff. But it's the Israeli burr in America, Sattle, that is, you know, preventing our government from pursuing a Middle East policy that is actually in the interests of the American people instead of the interests of Israel.
Okay, can I answer that question now?
Yeah?
Absolutely, my area. I'd love for you to either answer my question or to respond to Scott's claims.
Respond to what Scott said, the idea that the Unite that I'm very surprised by some of the imperialistic talk from the United States by people who claim to be anti imperialists. I think it is very imperialist to say that Iran has no agency, that the Islamic Republic of Iran. Well, what you're saying is that only Israel has agency here, not the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I did say that, hold on, hold on, I just just to reset for a second, just so we can avoid interruptions. From my understanding, Scott, of what you were saying, the suggestion and implication is that America's interest in the region are pretty much dictated by Israel throughout this whole process, and that all the actions that have been taken and all the posturing of Iran at we treat them as a rational actor in this and that if not for Israel's interest, America takes no action at all, and it's
all at the behest of Israel. So I had Actually that's if I'm mistaking what your suggestion, what you're suggesting in your remarks, I'd like to hear doctor dravidam First's response to that. If that's the acasion, not much closer.
That's much closer to what I said was that Bill Clinton's agency had to take a back seat to Israel's interest. I didn't really discuss what was going on in Tehran at all during that other than that they were trying to suck up to the US, and America was pushing them away.
But I should deny that they had agency?
What an absolute Okay, well, just what you say about any human over the age of eighteen, Just.
To reframe that, just to help, just to help translate that for a minute. So doctor Jevenevor, can you address the claim that essentially all of the actions taken by US in this region have to do much more at the behest of Israel, and that is that that is dictating American policy.
I think to say that the United States takes all its decisions in the Middle East because of Israel, it's not only inaccurate, it's also insulting to the to other you know, theories of international relations where agency is given to all sides. I'm not here to tell you that Israel has never made mistakes. Of course, we haven't made mistakes.
Everybody makes mistakes. But to say that the state of Israel is in charge of United States policy towards Iran is completely taking away any agency that the Islamic Republic of Iran has had in its relations with the United States. Since the beginning of the revolution, Israel was trying to set up relations between Iran and the United States because it viewed Iraq as a threat. Now, if you want
to talk about that, Iraq can tell you know. Within October seventy ninety, CIA was providing information to the Iranians regarding Iraqi plans to invade Iraq. The United States was trying to improve relations with the Islamic Republic. It was the Islamach Republic who took US hostages for four hundred and forty four days. It was the Islamic Republic that killed two hundred and forty Marines in October eighty three and then blew up the USM Messimba Route Scott. None
of these were because of Israel. Now, if you want to talk about nineteen ninety three. In nineteen ninety three, let's remember the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. His biggest foreign policy issue, His biggest foreign policy ambition was peace between Israelis and Palestinians, which I think you
and I both want it, if I'm not mistaken. What happened was the reason why he came up with the dual containment is that soon after the Madrid Peace stocks around the Madrid peace talks in nineteen ninety one, President Rafsan, Johnny said that the Israelis and the iran and the Palestinians can reach whatever they want. We will live with it. And he said that, of course, but we also have to take into consideration, and it's crucial that we do.
And it's key that at that time the person who said Iran's foreign policy was not the president, he was the supreme leader. The supreme leader has much more power
when it comes to the foreign policy. And around the same time as Madrid, when your President Evan George Bush of Blessed Memory tried to bring peace between us and the Palestinians, the Iranians, around the same time, I tol A harm and A because of domestic issues also and also because of his anti American and anti Israeli ideology, arranged the conference, invited the heads of Palestinian Islamiji had Hamas Hizballah, and they declared that anybody who wants to
make peace with Israel is an enemy of the Islamic Republic and we are going to help anybody who wants to torpedo the peace talks. And since then we saw Hamas and Islamic you had became one of the bloodiest and deadliest enemies of the peace talks, and that on the mind US President Clinton, especially his plans to bring peace into this region. Hence why we had the dual containment.
Well, I haven't read Treaty Parsi's book Treacherous Alliance in a few years, have to go back to the exact timeline and details there. But as he explains, it was Yitzakrabin who did want to deal with the Palestinians. He didn't want to give them a real state, but something like a pseudo type state and deal with them.
And as a way of dealing with the.
Other Arab states, so they turned the strategy of the periphery on its head, where they used to prioritize being friends with Iran, for example, to divide Iraq's attention and the other Sunni Arab states away from themselves. And now they would try to negotiate with the Arabs and turn on the Iranians and demonize the Iranians. And as Parsi shows in his book, it's after that that Iran began
to back Hamas. There's no reason in the world why that shouldn't should necessitate America keeping bases in Saudi Arabia. To bomb and blockade Iraq and balance and pressure against Iran. And it was that policy more than any other, that turned America and Saudi and Britain's Al Qaeda terrorist mercenaries against the United States. It was when after Rabine was assassinated and his successor, his successor, Shimon Perez, invaded Lebanon.
And it was actually enough Tolly Bennett who called in the artillery strike on a un shelter and killed one hundred and six women and children at the Kana massacre in nineteen ninety six, and bin Laden ranted all about that on first page of his declaration of war against
the United States in nineteen ninety six. And Mohammad Alta and his buddy Ramsey bin alsheb when they read that they were Egyptian engineering students studying in Hamburg, Germany, and when they read ben Laden's rant about the Kana massacre, these Egyptians signed up to volunteer for a Saudi to attack America to get revenge for what Israel was doing in Lebanon and what Israel was doing in Palestine and the Israeli centric policy of keeping American forces in Saudi Arabia.
Now you guys, will and the audience will note that I never blamed Israel for the nineteen seventy nine revolution, So that was kind of a funny thing to bring up to refute that, of course I never said. And in fact, although I didn't address this before, I certainly didn't mean to exclude that there are other humans in
the world doing things. For example, there was a whiskey smuggling ring that Kuwaiti intelligence built up into a fake assassination plot against h. W. Bush and Seymour Hirsch debunked this in the New Yorker magazine.
By the end of the year, case not closed.
It turned out that the Iraqi plot, the Saddam Hussein plot to murder h. W. Bush with a truck bomb in Kuwait, was completely fake. And guess what. The guy that made it up was the same guy whose daughter claimed that she saw the Iraqi soldiers throwing the babies out of the incubators in order to lie us into Iraq War one two years later. Her father is the one who spun up the truck bomb assassination plot against
Huba Bush. And it was after that that Bill Clinton gave in to Martin and Dick and Yitzak Rabin and adopted their policy of dual containment. So I'm not saying for a moment that Israel had anything to do with the whiskey smuggling ring or the.
Kuwaiti plot to frame up this.
Fake scheme of this fake assassination attempt against h. W.
Bush.
I never said that there are all kinds of things in motion. But it was Martin Indick's policy, and he had been the Yitsak Shamir's guy, and he was the one who coined the whole thing. And anyone should read it's the excellent book Treacherous Alliance by Treta Parsi, where he shows what's going on behind the scenes and all of.
This absolutely, Doctor javidan Far, But I would also like to I would like to make sure that you answered my question specifically, because I'm trying to be convinced of your position. Why is Iran or intervention in Iran in the national interest of the American people?
Specifically, I'll answer one of the marks made by Scott, and then i will answer your question. First and foremost, Treatah Parsy in his book takes a huge acrobatic leap over the actions of the Islamic Republic, and he focuses on Israel, and it comes up with a theory that if you test it, it doesn't really stand. He's saying that Israel after the Cold War was looking for a new enemy. It was Israel that turned Iran into its enemy, because it was Israel that turned the periphery doctrine on
its head. That is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest. Israel actually supported Iran in the Iran Iraq War with the hope of improving relations with them. And what Treatah Partsy doesn't say is that the Islamic Republic of Iran, instead of using that opportunity to improve relations with Israel and the US, supported Palestinian Islami Chihad, who started its terror
attacks against Israelis in the late eighties. What Treata Parsi doesn't say is that the Islamic republics supported Hamas who started his terror activities in the nineteen nineties early nineteen nineties. I think that's grotesquely dishonest to say that Israel was looking for an enemy when we know that the Islamic
Republic tried to blatantly undermine them. Madrid Peace talks by supporting groups that called for the elimination of the Israeli of Israeli of this country, and has supported the killing and murdering of innocent Israelis in cafes and restaurants to treat a party. These things don't matter in his argument.
It's not true. It is a damn lie.
No, you can read the book and he does not ignore Iranian support for Hamas at all.
In the great time, Scott, let me speak, Please, I tried to you know, you spoke. Let's let's try to keep this clear.
For the for the for what you're saying about my friend is incorrect.
What I'm saying about your friend is correct because his arguments, if we put the facts that I gave you into his arguments that says it was Israel that turned Iran into an enemy. That argument doesn't stand. How can Israel turn Iran into the enemy when Israel helped Iran in the Iran Iraq War and it was the Islamic Republic of Iran that declared war proxy war on the state of Israel.
Well, you guys can quibble about the timeline and who turned on who first if you want, And.
That's very important.
It is, but you're you, you just outright stated that he doesn't mention he completely ignores Iran's support for Hamas. I already said in this interview earlier, in this debate earlier that, as he explains, the Iranians did not begin backing Hamas until after the the Rabine doctrine and had changed and they were excluded from Madrid and Rabine had officially, you know, inaugurated the reversal of the strategy.
Of correct he does not ignore Amos.
Terrorism, and he doesn't ignore Iranian support for it.
That's all in there.
And he also does quote Israeli strategists. And this is what's so great about that book is there's no news cycle bs in it. It's all quotes from the highest level strategists in America, Israel, and Iran. And he has Israeli strategist saying, we needed new glue for the alliance with the United States after the fall of Soviet Union.
Why did they need us?
And what we decided on was Islamic fundamentalism.
And particularly we chose Islamic fundamentalism. That's a new.
Glue for the alliance.
The reason why America needed to support Israel was to hold back the Islamic horde and all of that you know narrative that they are America's you know, easter most fort or the West's easternmost fort in the Middle East holding back the tide, and that's why we have to prop them up.
So Islami terrorists were not killing American citizens and it's because of I don't understand, to be honest with you, the idea, that's.
Because Islamic fundamentalism, I said.
They decided that they would use Islamic fundamentalism as the excuse for the alliance, as new glue for the alliance between their country and ours.
That's what they said.
Now is the time to take advantage of the power of gold and silver to grow your wealth. Whether you're an experienced investor or new to the game, these precious metals have a long history of being a safe haven for your savings, but they also offer growth potential, making them a wise investment choice.
So where does the average.
Investor go to buy gold and silver?
That's easy.
JM Bullion Jambullion is one of the most popular and most trusted precious metals retailers in the nation. We offer a huge selection of gold, silver, platus them and palladium products that can be delivered to your door in safe, discrete, fully insured packaging, from one gram of gold to an entire mint box of silver. JM Bullion offers precious metals to suit every financial goal and budget, no matter your budget.
Now is the time to start investing in precious metals and start protecting yourself and your savings against these volatile markets. Visit jambullion dot com today to take a look at our wide variety of precious metals rounds, coins, and bars and find out how you can turn your savings into gold.
So, Scott, I just want to I just want to chime in here just for a second because before it's arts to get interrupting, and I do want to come back to Clint's fundamental question, which is sort of what's centered around this is America's interest and in Iran at all? Because I think this is this is fundamental. Scott. You brought up the timeline issue and in terms of confusing actors and reactors, actions and reactions, this is where the
fundamental disagreement is. So can you just talk about because it sounds like Scott, you're making this case that's centered around geopolitics and rational actors responding to conditions. And I want to ask this question about to the extent of whether this is ideologically driven, whether Islamic fundamentalism is a reality that precedes the actions of the West versus a response to actions of the West.
So, I mean, as we've already agreed, Israel got along just fine with the mean old Ayatola Komane.
Throughout his reign.
He turned against Scott. He murdered our citizens. We didn't get along with him. We tried to help him in the war, but he killed our citizens.
That's ridicuous that Israel backed Iran in the Iran Iraq war, which.
Afterwards they chilled our citizens. Afterwards, they killed our citizens. Afterwards, it was two years. Hang on, please let me speak. Two years after that. Three years after that war, they set up a conference in which they declared proxy war
against the state of Israel. Please don't ignore that and treatm Parsy tries to say that Iran may try to improve relations with America by citing raph San Johnny, but what under minds treata party, And again he doesn't say this is that it was Iola Harmona who said Iran's foreign policy TREATAD Party, just as RAF San Johnny doesn't say harmony because TREATAD Party like you. Scott also advances the idea that it's because of Israel that Iran and
the United States are enemies, and that is completely inaccurate. Now, to answer Clint's question, Clint, to reach to reach, Clint, I'm just going to finish an innicantalk waiting for waiting, very patient, Clint. At the end of the day, if you reach a piece still with the with the Iranian regime, that would be good for the State of Israel. That would be good. To have American embassy on Iranian soil, to have American diplomats on Iranian soil, that would be great.
But you know what, Clint, the Islamic Republic will never let that happen. You know, Vietnam, America did terrible things to Vietnam in nineteen seventy five, they broke relations. By nineteen ninety five, you had relations with Vietnam again. The Islamic Republican time and time again, has refused American office for a consulate for embassy. President Obama tried to open up an Internet like a virtual embassy they shut it down. The Islamic Republic views peace with your country as an
existential threat. They believe that peace with America and the presidence of American diplomats talking about women's rights in Iran, talking about democracy, bringing American investment in Iran, undermining the companies owned by the regime, that is a threat. That is a some seat in Iran as a as a excuse me as an existential threat. They believe this is why the Soviet Union fell apart. The representative of the Supreme Leader the IRGC said, and I can provide the
documentation in farce if you want that. The reason why the Soviet Union fell apart was that stopping a revolutionary state during Garbachov and it improved relations with America instead, and that allowed America to infiltrate them, you know, the ideologies such as democracy and human rights and rule of law, and that's what led to you know, convinced, that's convincing the Soviets that the system was bankrupt, and they themselves broke down the system.
I'm not arguing, I'm not arguing that we're ever going to be allies with Iran. I'm asking specific.
The diplomatic relations you're not going to have.
But I'm asking specifically, we don't have to have diplomatic relations with a lot of countries, and that doesn't mean that we have to go to war with them. Why specifically is an American and the American people's interest to intervene to go to war to bomb Iran?
I don't know. That's a question that Americans have to decide. If you can read nuclear deal with them, God bless you, good luck.
Okay, So you're arguing that it won't happen.
I don't know. I don't know. Look, I don't know that what your president decides is up to him. But at the end of the day, if America wants to reach a deal, I think it was a terrible mistake for President Trump to leave the Iran nuclear deal. I think it would be good if there's a new look. See, you know, we call it geopolitics because geography impacts politics. You guys are living in the US. I'm living in Israel. We are much closer to Iran in my country unlike yours,
and I repeat, in my country, unlike yours. The Iranian regime has sponsored the killing of more than a thousand Israeli citizens before October seventh in your country, they haven't. In America, buses have not been blown up, cafes have not been blown up with Iranian money. In Israel, they and this makes us much more sensitive to the threat. Now do I agree with Natanyaho's way of handling Iran, No,
I don't. But overwhelming majority of Israelis, including those on the left, don't want this regime to have a nuclear weapon. If you guys can stop it with reaching a deal, God bless you well.
From an Israeli perspective, I completely understand. I'm under the impression that there are many people in Israel that would like to see us actually intervene actively, not just stand down allow that Yahoo to do so. But I have monopolized the time so far. So Ami, I'd like to have you hop in here.
Yeah. Sure, I think it's important to ask like a macro fundamental question as we talk about American intervention, like Scott, in your opinion, what is the standard by which a country is justified in going to war to begin with?
Well, it's se defense only.
I mean, this is so much of the talk about Iran is When, where and under what circumstances should we attack them, right, like we're the Japanese. Now we just attack and start wars if that's how we want to do things, which used to be the most you know, dastardly thing. Right, Pearl Harbor will live forever in infamy because of what a morally horrific thing it was for Japan to sneak attack and start a war against innocent, old US.
Right, So this is we should never be starting wars.
And when Joseph Stalin, right, not just Khrush chief, but Stalin the second worst guy ever or maybe they're depending on how you rank them. I went to get atomic bombs, Truman did not attack the Soviet Union to prevent them from achieving atomic weaponry.
Same thing for.
Lyndon Johnson in the nineteen sixties when Mal Saytong, who you know, quantitatively killed more people than any other person alive, Ganghis Khan and Tamerlane combined can't touch mal Saytong. And when he went to get Adam bombs, Lyndon Johnson, I'm not attacking China to prevent them from getting Adam bombs.
Do we want nuclear proliferation in the world?
No?
Should we do everything we can to negotiate the prevention of that. Yes, should we start a war to stop a country from obtaining a nuclear weapon? Of course not and even that, of course, not that you did this in your question, but the way I framed it anyway, you know, begs the question of whether Ron is even attempting to achieve a nuclear weapons status, and which you know, I'd like to explain real quick why that's actually not the case.
What they do have is a latent nuclear deterrent.
They've proven that they've mastered the fuel cycle, that they could enrich uranium up to weapons grade, and then it's nineteen forties technology to make a simple.
Gun type nuke out of that, and they could.
And so what they're essentially saying is we got a revolver in one pocket and bullets in the other. Let's not escalate this any further. So this is the same status as Japan, Brazil, and Germany. They have a latent nuclear deterrent. They've proven that they know how to use nuclear material and even create fissionable material.
But they their entire.
Stance since the Axis of Evil speech in two thousand and two was where Iraq said, hey, we're not doing anything. Here's a twelve thousand page dot CIA about how innocent we are. Well, that didn't help. America just buffaloed right in there at Israeli behest. We can get back to that if you want to talk about a rock warteam. The North Koreans said, fine, you're gonna bully us out of the treaty, will leave the treaty, and they made
nukes and we've left them alone ever since. And the Iranians position was, our books are wide open, We've were members of the Non Proliferation Treaty, we have IAEA inspectors at all our nuclear facilities, and the Europeans and everybody else are witnesses.
We're not making nukes. You have no pretext for war here.
And they were right, of course that America wanted to go after their enemy Saddam Hussein first, and so if they bided their time and were patient, that would work, and that is what worked. By two thousand and five, they had completed the Natance facility and had begun enriching uranium. And so the Iatola's position for the last twenty years essentially has been to have this nuclear capability without the
actual nukes. And this is why he was perfectly willing to negotiate the deal with Barack Obama in twenty fifteen where he said I don't want nuclear weapons.
I'm not trying to make nuclear weapons, and yes, I'm willing to.
Expand the inspection regime and dial back the program to a degree in order to reassure you of that. And I absolutely agree with Meyer Hero that it was completely idiotic for Donald Trump to tear up that deal or at least withdraw American participation in the JCPO in twenty eighteen at Netanyahu's behest, of course, because under that deal, it was with the entire UN Security Council, but unlike a normal Security Council resolution where any one country can
veto it, this was majority rule. So it meant that if America, Britain, and France agree, then we get to have our way, and Russia and China can't vote to stop it when it comes to a we're suspicious of a site and we want to send inspectors there to look at it, and then if they didn't comply, then the entire global sanctions regime automatically snap back into place. It was a really great deal and it got such a and I hate to get Barack Obamber John Kerry credit for anything.
Quite frankly, I really do.
But they bribed him with their own money that Jimmy Carter stole back in seventy nine. That was the pala of cash, was Iranian money, and that was all they got to scale back their program, expand inspections and add additional protocols to their safeguards agreement and again forever foreswear atomic weapons.
And that ought to be a good enough basis essentially.
In other words, long story short, they're saying, don't attack me, and I won't make a nuke, and America is saying, don't make a nuke and I won't attack you. So there's a perfect basis for an agreement right there.
So Mayor, I'd love to hear your response to that. And also Scott does agree that the standard for war is self defense, and the framing of this question is should America attack Iran? My question to you is to what extent is does I ran believe it's at war
with the United States to begin with? If you think about taking hostages in seven to nine since the revolution and attacks since then, and funding of terrorism, forgive me if it's a leading question, I just I'm curious if to what extent we're looking at this the wrong way as waiting to decide if America should be the initial aggressor or attacker on Iran versus And also to what extent does that inform the Iranian ideology and ambition? What do you think Scott is missing in his assessment.
Do you think the only reason America would want to attack Iran is because of Israel? That would be the only reason.
Yes.
And this is in the New York Times again just two days ago, where the Israelis, I think probably are bluffing, but they're threatening that they'll go ahead and attack Iran, and they might even attack Iran even if Trump gets a deal, and they have the article, the most recent piece is by Data. Let me just say very quickly, I promise I'll stop, but I'm answering your question that you asked me directly.
Here.
Israeli sources told Ronan Bergmann that.
Oops is the wrong quote. Sorry, I have it right here.
That I know that net who believes the US would have no choice but to assist Israel militarily if Iran counter attack.
In other words, the Israeli plan, if it comes down to it, is to knowingly force America into a war by starting a war with Iran that they know that they can't finish and that we will have to finish for them, and they're happy to tell that to the New York Times.
Okay, first and foremost, I think it was the right decision for the State of Israel to bomb me Rock's nuclear program. That was a very wise decision that President Reagan was against and me nothing began took it. It was a very right decision to attack serious chemical program two thousand and seven. And if the Islamic Republic, who has called for our elimination, not your country's, got mine. And if the Islamic Republic was denied the Holocaust, you know,
it's incredible. Guys were living in twenty twenty five. The only government in the world that denies the Holocaust not only denies the Holocaust, makes fun of it by cartoon competition. Let me repeat that, Holocaust cartoon competitions in Iran are heard, are held not just once or twice, I think four three, four times. If such a regime decides to make a nuclear weapon, I think it would be justified for the startup for the State of Israel to start war by attacking them.
However, they know that America will have to finish it for them.
How please go, I go. However, we are at a stage where we have to see what President Trump will deliver. The idea that the Islamic Republic of Iran has always I don't know if you're saying with Scott, so forgive me if I'm going to you know, if I don't get it right. The idea that if Scott or somebody else is saying that the Islamic Republic of Iran has played this nuclear program, has it has always been transparent is completely wrong. They were caught illegally without informing the
idea about building the tance. It was Israel who found out and informed the Mujadinaj who revealed it. It was a centrifuge. Why hide it? Again? Iran was caught hiding building a new enrichment plant at FORDU. If you don't want a nuclear weapon, why hide it? It was again there was a program to develop nuclear trigger at the Parching site. They even had a chamber to test surrogate
surrogate explosives for simulating a trigger mechanism. Again that the Iranians were caught and we saw with the documents that the Mozart brought out of Iran, which incidentally also showed that Iran was keeping its side of the deal. But that's a different story. The Iranian regime was proved time and again that it had intention of ultimately having the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Why did it stopped?
First and foremost because of Israeli intelligence. Second of all, because the Islamic Republic of Iran insisted on making America into its enemy, not the State of Israel. It was the Islamic Republic of Iran who killed two hundred and forty Marines in Beirut, who took US hostages, who attacked the US embassy in Bay Route, who took other US hostages in Lebanon, the Hobar Tower bombings in Saudirabia in
nineteen ninety six, nineteen US servicemen were killed. They were planning to blow up a restaurant in the middle of Washington, DC.
In twenty eleven, and the CIA quote them. The Islamic Republic, with its own policies, has ensured that America becomes its enemy because the Islamic Republic of Iran, I'm talking about the regime, not the people views peace with America almost as dangerous, if not more than war, because it views peace with the United States as undermining one of its fundamental reasons to exist, and the people of Iran are against this. Polls have shown repeatedly that people of Iran
want better relations with the United States. And I tell you what, guys, just to show how much the regime is opposed to having good relations with the US in Washington, d C sits in informer Iranian post as the Kazi who took a poll together with Gallup in the early two thousands showing that majority of Iranians want to have
good relations with the US. And what did the regime do to an Iranian post who showed this, putting in jail for three years, one year of those was in solitary confinement for just publishing a poll in Iran showing the people of Iran want better relations with the United States. Scott, the biggest enemy of peace between your country and Iran is not my country. It is Ali Khomene.
Okay, Well, there's a lot of things there.
First of all, since pouring in their tens or hundreds of millions to do another color coded revolution, as they attempted to do with the Green Revolution in two thousand and nine, and yes, USAID and NED did help to finance that, and you can read it.
In right way.
Media in americannewsmax dot com has a thing by Timmerman, who I think was at the Foundation for Defensive Democracies, explaining it and don't interrupt me. You just got to make fifteen false claims, so I'm going to refute them now. In Osa in nineteen eighty one, Saddam Hussein had an open, declared nuclear facility at Osirak that was inspected by the IAEA, and when Israel bombed it, all they did was drive it underground, and the CIA and the Israelis did not
know that. In fact, Saddam Hussein did begin building a secret nuclear weapons program in the nineteen eighties in reaction to Osirak, to that attack, and then that wasn't discovered until the aftermath of Iraq War one when America d Iraq.
What so he did have weapons of us destruction? What you were saying is that he did have weapons of my destruction?
Right, listen with your ear holes nineteen eighties, at the end of a Rock War one in nineteen ninety one, America occupied all of southern Iraq and found Saddam Hussein's secret nuclear weapons program. It was not very advanced, but it did exist, and it came into existence in reaction to that ridiculous Israeli blunder of launching a preemptive attack on an open, declared, inspected civilian nuclear facility.
That is the exact truth.
And then the rest of the truth is unlike what you just said, that Iran Iraq did not have any form of nuclear program whatsoever after nineteen ninety one, nor did they have any program to develop chemical or biological weapons in that country after the First Gulf War. Now you said why hide nentence. The reason to hide ntans was because America did everything in the world that they could to intervene.
And there's something called the Nuclear.
Suppliers Group, which is essentially a monopoly controlled by the nuclear weapons states on nuclear technology, and they refused to let Iran buy any enrichment equipment. So they went to the black market and they bought it from a Q Khan, the Pakistani nuclear weapons scientist, the same as Libya and North Korea eventually did buy some equipment from him, and that was what they originally had started spinning up at NTANCE, and so they clearly wanted to have the facility done
before they announced it. But it was not the Israeli Masad and the Mujahadeen eculk. It was actually David Albright, the American nuclear weapons wonk who originally found NTANCE and published that, and then Israel. Yes, dude, you should take it up with David Albright. He'll fight you over it. He's got the timeline. David Albright brought it up. Then Israel funneled that to And who's the mujaiden e Culk.
They're a communist terrorist cult that used to work for the Ayatola who then went to work for Saddam Hussein and now are sock puppets of the Israelis. They just two weeks ago announced a big fake intelligence scheme. Look at these aerial pictures of a giant secret nuclear facility, the NCRI. That's m EK announced and it was totally fake, and no intelligence agency anywhere in the world, even the Israelis, I don't think publicly supported that as being true. Then
he mentions the nuclear triggers. Funny, you don't mention that Benjaminette Yahoo was part of a group that stole critrons from the United States. Back at the time, he was working with Arnan Milchan, the famous American movie producer. Their Israeli spies stealing nuclear trigrupt.
Me, don't interrupt me.
You can go on and on with your bs as soon as I'm done. And your whole thing about Parchin and the nuclear triggers, that Partchen is completely debunked. The scientist in charge at Parchen was a guy named den Chenko whose speciality was making nano diamonds for industry. He had no speciality in making nuclear weapons or nuclear triggers whatsoever. Has completely debunked. You have no idea what you're even talking about. You didn't even know the guy's name. His
name's dan Chenko. And they what they said was he went to this university in Moscow where nuclear research also happens. Yeah, well, he didn't participate in any of that. His expertise was in making nano diamonds. Then you mentioned why Iran doesn't want to make nukes, while according to the National Intelligence Estimate of two thousand and seven, when the CIA and the other intelligence agencies finally officially came out and debunked
the lie that they were pursuing nuclear weapons. They said it was because yes, it came out in November two
thousand and seven, anyone can read it. And their conclusion was, since America got rid of Iran's greatest enemy, Saddam Hussein and put their best friends, the Bottle Brigade and the Supreme Islamic Council and the Dawa Party in power in Baghdad, at Israeli behest that now the Ayatola didn't even need to feign a pursuit of atomic weapons as a deterrent against Saddam because now his friends ruled Baghdad thanks to Richard Pearl and George W.
Bush.
Then you mentioned the Baby Route bombing of nineteen eighty three. First of all, that was forty two years ago. Second of all, Ronald Reagan sold the missiles just a couple of years after that, and it didn't bother the Israelis whatsoever at the time. They kept selling them weapons all through the nineteen eighties. So don't give me crocodile tears
about that. And according to Victor Ostrowski, the former Israeli spy, Israel knew that the attack was coming, and so that's what the Americans get for sticking their nose into our business and did not warrant the United States. Anyone could read the book Victor Ostrowski By Way of Deception where he explains about that. And then when Iran that did that anyway, it was proto Hasbala and Iran backed militia there, but there's no proof that that attack was ordered by Tehran.
And then Kobar Towers.
That's an absolute lie that Iranian back Saudi has Bala did the Kobar Towers. That was Osama bin Laden and colleague Sheik Muhammad who did that.
And the CIA knows that.
Michael Showier, the former chief of the CIA's been lauden unit himself told me that, and Osama bin Laden himself bragged about it and took credit for the attack to Abdel Bari Atwan. And who was the target Clint and me? The target was American airmen whose job it was to bomb Iraq from bases in Saudi in other words, provoking the September eleventh attack against the United States. And then he mentioned the twenty eleven restaurant plot, again a complete hoax.
The guy wasn't even part of the royal family.
The ambassador at the time was a nobody and all that happened was it was a drug deal that got intercepted, and they and it was this guy was a used car dealer who couldn't find his car keys, and they said he was recruited by Hesbala into his plot to blow up and assassinate this guy at a restaurant in Washington.
He's a ridiculous hoax.
Damn, I got up in. You hit him, you bombarded him. I'm going to give you about ninety seconds to respond, But then I want to ask another question.
Please, you know the idea that Israel, you know, everything that that's been fact proven that the Islamach Republic has undertaken, is is a lie that the Islamic Republic of Iran all these things that I mentioned that have been fact proven,
or it's just the conspiracy theory. It's really, you know, it's really Beggar's belief that the Islamic Republic has always been so you know, it's been it is not guilty of any of these factors, even though there have been commissioned and and all the respected newspapers have reported on it. So Scott can believe whatever he wants to believe. But the United the United States.
The nano diamonds guy. It's one of the other nano diamonds guy. Okay, So you just don't know what you're talking about, you No, I know.
I just think that you're talking that you're coming up with theories that are that that I completely disagree with the with with the sources, and I think that this is what we see to believe that Iran is has always been the victim in all these cases of conspiracy. Theory just is beggar's belief that Iran has just been continuously You just said that Iran has been a victim, a victim, a victim Scot. That's in the world of fantasy, not in the real world. This catalog a lot.
Of lives that you told that accused him of.
What do you think mayor Iran wants? What is it? Do you think the presumption is Scott is saying they want to be welcomed by the Community of Nations and these gestures to welcome them in is the way to go? Is there something else that's like? Do you think it's what's that?
I didn't say that.
Well, that the the idea, the strategy should be that it should be one of Well, my question is my question is do you what what do you think really drives the Iranian regime? What do they want? Do they want? I forget, I'm not presuming them that's what you're saying, Scott. But do you think they want to be part of this community of nations in trade with the West and have peace with the West, have peace with Israel, have peace with America? What do they want?
You know?
A MEI can I just make a quick point about the United States and Iran. The people of Iran have not had a better friend than the United States. Your country has been a wonderful friend to the people of Iran. Okay, it was the United States that pressured Stalin to leave Iranian territory in nineteen forty six. If it wasn't for President Truman, Stalin would have continued to occupy the Iranian territory.
And it was and he helped to create the Azerbaijanalu Thoom's Republican the Mahavadutom Republic in order to undermine the Iranian sovereignty. Iranians, we owe a great death of gratitude to President Truman. It was American weapons that allowed Iran to stand up to Iraq in nineteen sixty nine by driving by the Abusina ship in the middle of the Chatl Arab to take half of the Chatel Arab for Iranian sovereignty, which should have been the case because the
Iraqis have been cheating Iran since nineteen thirty seven. It was American Development AID that created a lot of centers of education and training for Iranian doctors. And I think the people of Iran, I think in the West have not in modern history of Iran have not had a better friend than the United States of America. However, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ideologically opposed to good relations with the United States. We saw that time and time again,
even after the nuclear deal with Obama. The nuclear deal went into effect in twenty sixteen. Soon after was the Iranian regime arrested the dual Iranian American citizens Mcnamazi, who wanted what Scott wants, good relations between Iran and the United States. Then to make sure that American companies can't invest in Iran because the regime doesn't want its business interest on the mind, they tested two missiles with writing in Hebrew that Israel should be wiped up the face
of the earth. What do you think that does the foreign investment in Iran. That's exactly what you would do if you want to undermine foreign investment in Iran. And this is why, according to jabad zarif you know, in the first year after the nuclear deal, there was only like two billion dollars worth of investment in Iran where they were hoping for I don't know, eighty billion dollars. The Islamic Republic, the regime, I'm talking about the hierarchy.
I'm not talking in Iran. You have dual system. You have revolutionary institutions headed by the Supreme Leader and all the organizations that he heads, and then you have republican institutions who are elected in elections of course, controlled by the revolutionary institutions. Time and time again have been presidents in Iran who have wanted to have good relations with the US, even Ahmadi Nejad, even Madled Ahmadi Nejad, but the Supreme Leader doesn't want it for ideological reasons and
because of he believes that America. Good relations with America would undermine the legitimacy of his regime. Good relations with America is viewed as the Berlin Wall in terms of the regime's ideology and also his business reasons. The regime doesn't want good relations with your country because there are many regime organizations who produce everything from tomato p ry to cars, and if America comes in, Iranian has would preferred to buy their products because they are better quality,
and that would undermine it's interest. So tell me, the peace between Iran and the United States is supremely the alikamine.
Doctor Meyer, You've you scoffed at the open when Scott alleged that most of our Middle Eastern policy, America's Middle Eastern policy has been predicated off of Israel's interests. I've always wanted to ask, what do you make of the clean Break doctrine authored by Richard Pearl, David Wormster, and Douglas Fight in nineteen ninety six the nineteen nine it was the neo conservative kind of game plan for the
Middle East. If that doesn't convince you, you then also had General Wesley Clark in two thousand and seven that stated that shortly after nine to eleven he was informed that the US had a plan to take out a rack Syria eleven on Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off with Iran. I've always wanted to ask in Israeli scan about this, so I'm going to take the opportunity. Well I have that chance. It sure sounds to me like we are we have a plan of conquest in the
Middle East. That Clean Big Break doctrine was authored by American neo conservatives, but it was sent to Benjamin net Yahoo in nineteen ninety six. He then basically redlined the things that he didn't like, and he and he authorized the things that he did. That seems as if our foreign policy has been dictated for the past thirty plus years by Israel. How am I.
Wrong, Clint? We you know, to say that Israel has no influence in Washington, d C. Would be fantasy. Of course, we tried to out influence. We have relations. We have relations with the world's greatest power and with one of our best friends. Of course it's very normal. But to believe that America invaded Iraq because of Israel, that's inaccurate. When they came to Israel, from my understanding, when they came to talk to the Israeli government, I'm talking about
Israeli government officials. They sent me want to attack Iraq. And what did the Israeli say, attack Iran. Don't attack Iraq, attack Iran. But they didn't listen. They attacked Iraq number one, number two. All these persons that you were talking about wounds, et cetera, et cetera, they were not employees of the Israeli government. I don't understand how the opinion of American Jews in the US government can be construed as having you know, they are carrying out Israeli policy. Please, Clint,
you live in the superpower you have. Please, You guys have also have to accept some agency for your mistakes. So do we. Of course, we have to accept agency for some of our mistakes. But you guys also have to step up and to take agency from one of
for your mistakes, which included the Iraq War. To say that it was because of Israel takes away any agency that the United You have a president, you have the ci A. You know George Tennant said that the WMD was was he said, Islam dunk If that was that the expression he used, These are decisions made by the United States. If you were going to do it a behest of Israel. This rightly said, attack Iran the Israelis
already realized that Iran was the biggest danger. But you guys started to attack Iraq, and you know that was a mistake. I understand that was that we know and we now know that was a mistake and it also costs Israel.
Okay, but talk to Mayer just to be clear. The reason I'm asking it is that you have this game plan that's being laid out in nineteen ninety six. You also have the confirmation that this game plan existed immediately after nine to eleven. We then invaded a bunch of countries that had nothing to do with nine to eleven. And you're telling me that that's just a mistake as opposed to a game plan that was dictated by Zionists in America.
Clint, America can make mistakes without Israel.
Well, just our mistakes happened to be If it Israel every time, isn't that odd?
But that doesn't mean that he is responsible. And they tell me, how is it interests Iraq is now on the Iran Iranian control? How is that.
Interest I'm being too I'm being too contentious. So let me let Scott go.
Well, look, here's the thing. He's right that George W. Bush is not Jewish, right, George W. Bush is you know, the son of Episcopalians or or Anglicans or whatever.
I think. He fashions himself a Methodist.
Uh.
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Connelly's Rice and George Tennant. Uh.
None of the principles on the in the W.
Bush administration were Jewish Zionists or Jewish spies or Israeli agents or spies sent here to represent a foreign power. But boy, all their guys were, you know, John Hannah and Robert Joseph and Zall make Khalil Zad and Stephen Hadley and Richard Pearl and Douglas Fifth, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Ken Adelman and Abram Shulski and Michael Maloof and Michael Rubin and Michael Ledeen.
These are the people who's staffed.
And John Bolton is not actual neo Conservative, but he's a fellow traveler very close to them. These are the people who staffed the Vice President's Office, the National Security Council, the State Department, and the Pentagon. They marginalize people like Colin Powell and his right hand man Dick Armitage at State.
Please say what they are. Please say what you think these people are?
They?
Okay, they are? Were most of them acting as agents of influence for Israel and the ones who I have that from Colin Powell's chief of staff, Right, yeah, what does Colin Powell's chief of staff know about what.
Administration? So that's okay.
Asked me a direct question, you don't want to let me answer it.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson told me that Douglas Fife and David worms Are both were acting directly as agents of the Israeli state.
The rest of these guys.
All all have essentially a strong ideological commitment to neo conservatism.
They're not all Israeli's spies to many of them.
And John Bolton is one who said this explicitly numerous times.
America's interests and Israel's interests are.
Exactly the same. So they don't see it as serving a foreign power. They see it as just doing what they think is right anyway.
But it's not.
And you call these all mistakes, but they're the mistakes that were on the lacud's list. Now you're right too that Ariel Sharon said, no, I want you to go to Tehran first, and he was the Prime Minister during
September eleventh. But as JJ goddamn it, as JJ Goldberg from the foreword did a long expos on this, explaining that inside the LEACUD there was a big split, and Sharon was the Iran hawk, and net and Yahoo was the Iraq hawk, and the neo conservatives in America were much closer to the Net and Yahu faction inside LACUD at that time. And now JJ Goldberg says the same thing that you said, and the same thing that I just said, which is.
These men did not do it.
It was w Bush that pulled that trigger one hundred percent and Dick Cheney, they were the ones responsible for that.
But these were the men.
And this is what John Meerscheimer and Stephen Walt make an ironclad case in their book The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy that the war could not have happened without the neo Conservatives acting as the vanguard of the Israel lobby in the United States. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee also avowedly pushed for the regime change there.
And I have in my book enough already.
I have quote after quote after quote from people involved saying that this is what had happened. In fact, Connolly's Rice's deputy Philip Zellikow, said that what this is really about is Saddam Hussein gave money to the families of suicide bombers. He gave money to any Palestinian family who someone died, you know, in conflict with Israel, but that included suicide bombers. So in a sense, Saddam Hussein was
paying a bounty to the family of suicide bombers. And this was something that Wolfe of Wits and then would bring up from time to time. And as Zelikow said, this is not something that they wanted to really emphasize to the American people because blowing up a bus in Tel Aviv is bad, but it's not in Texas, and it's not even in New York, and so it's not the kind of thing that would be a good enough reason for the American people to go to war.
But was that the reason the neo conservatives wanted to go to war? Absolutely it was.
And one more thing, and then I promise, I'll stop and let you go as long as you want America. The US government has been a very good friend, not to the Iranian people, but to the Iranian regime. And in fact, the worst thing that the Ayadzola Commedye has done in this century was his government back to the Iraqi National Congress. They had a headquarters office in Tehran, and it was Ahmed Chalabi and his friends from this fake Iraqi government in exile.
They were the ones.
Who first of all sold David Wormser and Richard Pearl on the idea that overthrowing secular Sunni Saddam in Iraq would weaken and hurt Iran rather than benefit them. And secondly, they were the ones who funneled about two thirds of the lives of the weapons of mass destruction through the fifth run Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon and straight up to the Vice President's Office into the American media to lie us into war. And then what happened
when American baited Iraq. They took the Bottle Brigade, the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq who'd been living in Iran for twenty years since the Iranian Revolution, and took them.
All the way to power in Baghdad. So that was what George W.
Bush in the United States of America did for Iran was overthrown secular Sunni bought this Saddam and put their best friends from Dawa in power in Baghdad. There's a guy from the Supreme Islamic Council is the prime minister right now, Sudani. He lived in Iran for twenty years, so did Malaki, sod Jafari.
All of these guys are Iranian agents.
And that's who a Rock War two benefited more than anyone else. And then this is why America also supported the jihadi war against Assad in twenty eleven. Was if we put Iran up two pegs in Baghdad, we got to try to take them down a peg in Damascus. And this is what has finally been fulfilled now as of last December, when al Qaeda finally succeeded in sacking
Damascus and overthrowing the government there. And this is why to make up for the fact that America did what Israel wanted and overthrew secular Suni Saddam, but that backfired, and so now they had to make up for that by putting America back on the side of the Jahadiss as long as it's against the sites and their friends. Even though it wasn't Hasbala that knocked down our towers.
It was the radical Sunni vanguard of the al Qaeda Bin Laden Night movement of bin Laden and Zawahari, the enemies of Iran that did that attack on our our country.
I would like to have this debate go, yeah, but real quick, yeah, just real quick. I just wanted to say, uh, massive thanks to zero heads for putting this debate on. I could have it go for two full hours, but because we do not have that amount of time, I'm gonna have to go to closing arguments. I want to again thank our sponsor, which is Jay M. Bully On and I will start with doctor Meyer.
I just want to is there a mistake Scott that America has made in the Middle East which you think Israel is not responsible for?
Yeah?
I'm I mean one of the biggest ones was in two thy and fifteen when Barack Obama switched sides in the war in Yemen. He had been backing the Hooti in fact, the Hootie takeover usnarwis.
So there is something, Okay, So at least there is something, Thank god, there's one thing responsible for.
That's amazing. Not Israel.
That is amazing. Okay, so wow to Israel, we fell asleep of the will days because for for you know, for what I can understand, it's that we were just basically, you know, the puppet masters of America before the invasion of Iraq. The CIA, I didn't interrupt you, I didn't interrupt you. Please. So the CIA and the FBI completely missed out on Israeli agents in Washington infiltrating the American decision making circles, pulling the strings, and making America attack
Iraq at the behest of Israel. Because what you're saying is all these people you just mentioned are Israeli agents, and they did the job to convince Bush on behalf of Israel. So Israel was sitting here and just pulling the puppet master in Tel Aviv and was running these people in Washington, and the CIA and the FBI had absolutely no idea. That is fantasy. That's the world of
Rush today. That is the world hang on. That is the world of Walt and Meersheimer, who believe that Israel is the country that is most responsible for the invasion of Iraq. Nothing to do with Saddam Hussein blockading blockading the inspectors.
On these hang On, hang on, good story about you went on up, So you're just wrong.
I never said that.
You can think he's wrong. I just want to look like hear his response, Wes.
You attacked Iraq because of all these ten people you mentioned, and that they were acting on the behest of Israel. So that means that you have no CIA, That means
you have no FBI. That would insinuate hang On, hang on, because all these people would have had to receive secret communications from the State of Israel, either from this Israeli embassy a drop of points, probably maybe most Sad or maybe the Israeli you know, getting secret cables telling them to convince the Americans to attack Iraq because that's what Israeli influenced over that decision would mean. Or there's the
alternative that these people are Americans who make decisions. Then may be pro Israel, but they make their own decisions. They advise the government based on their own view, not because they're getting the messages from Israel or because they believe that America is the client state of Israel. You make that mistake to attack America to attack Iraq. Those people are American citizens who have a right to have
whatever beliefs they want. But what they don't have a right to is to be a spy or agent of influence of another country. And there's nothing from the CIA or the FBI that said that these people were running the operation at the behest of Israel. So you cannot blame Israel for the mistake that was made in Iraq.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The CIA started ratting on the neo conservatives. Melvin Goodman, a former CIO.
Are they catching the spies? You can't catch spies.
Melvin Goodman said that the neo conservatives in the Pentagon are lying us in the war for Israel. Former CIA officer in September of two thousand and two. It was CIA guys who told the truth about the officer's special plans. It was Kara Katowski, the Air Force officer, who said Israeli generals were walking around the Pentagon.
Like they own the place.
And it was the FBI who in fact did investigate the neo conservatives in the Pentagon, whether they finds of anti Semitism and all the rest if they.
Find oh so, really so, why is that they called Jonathan and Jonathan pull Out. Then if the FBI is scared of anti Semitism, why did they catch Jonathan pull Out.
I didn't say they were scared of it.
You just said that because of anti Semitism. So if if the FBI didn't find spies, then it must be because of those Israelis pulling a come on, come on, this is not Russia today. This is a serious conversation.
Doctor Jovi, downfire. If you can just to button up this back and forth, can you just give and then
go into your closing statement? Mayor your perception of events, because Scott has presented it in this way, it seems to me a little bit from my perspective that you know, you're drawing the target around the row a little bit, but in your perception of the events in terms of interest aligning and the clean bank strategy, and in terms of what motivated America to act in the region in response to being attacked, how do you perceive those seeming
coincidences or interest aligning from the clean bank strategy. So the way Israel operated the way America operated, because on the optics, it presents a certain way and you're disputing that, which I understand. So from your perspective, what's the nuance there, what's the alternative viewpoint about why things played out the way they play out.
I think the ways the American administration at that time made it strategic error in interpreting intelligence, and Saddamus saying was also hiding this intelligence from the Americans, and we had a war because President Bush wanted democracy for Iraq. Okay, he wanted to turn Iraq into a democratic state, and he wanted also, of course, the whole idea that they wanted, you know, this Wilsonian idea of exporting liberal democracy, and they had their own you know, set of set of priorities.
It was you know, the question is Saddam was not was not cooperating misinterpretation of intelligence. The Americans wanted to introduce democracy, and of course there was oil interest, of course there was, and this is why we had that situation, this is why we had the war. Did not turn out to Israel's interests, which is why Israeli officials when the Americans wanted to attack Iraq, they said you should attack Iran because at that time they were viewing Iran
as the biggest threat. Now I can understand Israel has made many these states. Please believe me, be over our country. We've been around since nineteen forty eight. We've made good decisions and we've made terrible decisions. The decision to invade Iraq was not ours. This was not ours.
This was a.
Decision by the United States.
Doctor Mayer. Can you acknowledge at least that neither Iraq or Iran had anything to do with nine to eleven?
Correct? So, the Iran, but the Iranian has allowed some of the some of the Again, there's been a I have to look into this, I have to look into this. So with that caveat, some of the bombers had crossed the Iranian terreship. But that's the only thing I mean overall, No. Ninety eleven was not the Iraqi Iranian job not right.
So that's the reason for the question as to all of these, all of these countries that are laid out as to be in the line of fire in terms of conquest for the US Empire. It's laid out nineteen ninety six. It's confirmed in two thousand and two thousand and one, right after nine to eleven they had a
plan to take out these seven countries. Six of these seven countries have fallen, but you have this one remaining, which is Iran, which you happen to have Natan Yahoo being the war drums against and you're telling me these are just mistakes on behalf of Americans. This is not in Israeli interest. You can understand why that kind of beggars belief, right.
Well, the first of all, the document that you're talking about, I don't believe it was raw, don't. First of all, I haven't heard that much about it. Number Two, I don't think Israel would publish a document like that as an official document. That can you know in the future if something goes wrong, that would be used against it if Israel was behind such a document. Number Three, we see that the people who took those decisions have nothing
to do with Israel. If it happens, in your view to have served Israeli interests, which it didn't, but because you believe that it incidentally it serves into Israel's interest, then Israel must be responsible that that doesn't stand up. That would not stand up in any court.
I mean, it's a it's a letter written to net Yahoo to say.
It's But Clint, there are all sorts of strategies and playing place over time in hindsight's twenty twenty to be able to draw some sort of pattern in the past when you look.
At But this is this is seven countries laid out allegedly documented. I think it was. I don't know if it was Chanier.
I don't know if it was.
I could clarify, guys, this is not an official government document. It was written by David Wormser primarily and co signed by Richard Pearl and Douglas fIF Fight now disavows it entirely, by the way, but it was written for Netnyahu. And there's a companion piece that goes with it called Coping
with Crumbling States. And then they wrote a book called Tyranny's Ally America's Failure to Remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, which is by Wormser with a foreword by Pearl, And it's all the same thing over and over again, and it's all got Ahmed Chalabi's.
Name in it.
And the Ayatola's man sent to lie to the American Zionists and promise them that if a and this is the whole point of.
It, only American Zionist, no American was involved. Only American Zionists.
No other Americans.
If the if the American government or the Israeli government could succeed in overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, that would lead to site control. But the sites will be compliant with US, and they'll obey Turkey and Jordan and be friends with Israel.
The Saite clerics will order.
Hasbala to stop being friends with Iran, and the democracy in Iraq will be so great that it'll be a nightmare, quote a nightmare for the Iranian regime to have a free site supermajority ruled Iraq. This was the whole plan, and it was a bunch of smoke being blown up their ear ends by an Iranian agent i'm At Chalabi, who was working for the Ayatola and who essentially was telling the American neo conservatives what they needed to hear
to get America to do this for Israel. And I'll remind your audience too that Benjamin Netanyahu came and testify to the US Congress spike.
To America to do something that is wanted. So the Irania sentenced spiking America to get to do something for Israel.
How was that came and testified and said, I promise, if you get rid of Siddam Hussein, it's gonna have positive reverberations.
He wasn't in power. He wasn't in power. He was an individual. He wasn't in power. That was the thing to do.
And then another thing is that you said that about the FBI and the CIA having no idea about this. Again, the CIA were the ones ratting on the neo cons in the American media.
The FBI investigated them.
And there's great journalism by Julian Borger in The Guardian in a piece called The Spies Who Pushed for War about how Ariel Sharon created his own Office of Special Plans.
And again you're right that he wanted to go after Iron first, but once it was clear that Bush and the Americans wanted to do Iraq, he said, okay, fine, and he got on board for that and helped push and he had his own men bypassed Masad and manufacture fake intelligence in English to funnel into the American intelligence stream. It's also in the book A Pretext for War by James Bamford, but anyone can pull it up right now.
The Guardian Forger The Spies who Pushed for War and Karen Katowski, the Air Force Lieutenant colonel whistleblower can verify Israeli generals walking around going straight to Doug Fight's office like they own the place, refusing to even wait for their escorts to take them to his office.
Yes, may just one point, just one day, point, just one sentence, if Israel did not exist, America would still have a very high probability, if not certainty, that America would still have attacked I rock.
Oh please, Well, also, it just it feels like it's offullly a cinematic view Scott of how these things play out, as if these like and it feels very convenient to notice these patterns rather than looking at it as a much more complex interest that align at various points in time, much more gray areas here, rather than finding the one assistant chief of staff who said this one thing and that's a big whistle wan.
So when I hear these points we make about it, you should read it.
Yeah, that's that's just where I think the objection is, Like the way you paint this narrative is if it's in the sort of cinematic fantasy sort of way you look back Hindsight's twenty twenty.
That's hw Bush called the neo conservatives the crazies, and they were to be kept in the basement. They were allowed to work on South America policy or Latin America policy, but they were not allowed to mess with the Middle East.
When W.
Bush got elected, Dick Cheney hired them to all of the most important positions in his office on the National Security Council and in the State Department and then the Pentagon. And Colon Powell said they operated what he called, quote a separate government directly under the control of Dick Cheney, and he referred to the office as Special Plans in the Pentagon as Fife's Gestapo office.
That was the worst.
They called themselves the cabal, and there was to lie us into war with Iraq.
And to clarify this, I'm not like, this is not a made up thing that I'm claiming. It's a clean break, a new strategy for securing the proalm. It still exists as a pdf on dougfight dot com. He was one of the co authors on it. And additionally, I don't
think that this is a cinematic retelling of history. This is basically looking at empirical facts in hindsight and cross referencing them against claims made by very prominent people like General Wesley Clark, who said that n O one right after nine eleven they had a list of a rack Seria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Six of those seven have already been either bombed, conquered, toppled,
or whatever, either by the US or by Israel. I don't think that that's cinematic to make that claims.
It was Israel that brought.
All that policy is. It's amazing. I've never realized my country was such an incredible superpower. You know, if everything that Scott says that we for it as a country of eight million, we are a country of genius superpowers. Who are you know who are running America? I only.
Right I read the Wall Street Journal or.
The reason why the count.
Is look a PAK ranks right up there with the A, A, R P and the n r A as one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, d C.
That's no conspiracy theory, that's the Wall Street.
We run America, run America, Clint.
I assume we have to, we have to come to an ending. But there you had a point in response to Clint saying, these are simply we're looking at claims being made, we're squaring them with reality.
What was your response, You know, maybe the reason why someone of those countries were attacked is because they attacked your country.
Do you know which ones, which ones of those seven which attacked.
Well, well, you're talking about Iran, Iran killing your citizens, and you're killing your citizens in Al Hobar support terrorist and killing American citizens. You're talking about Sudan. First of all, I don't know that that that that document is specific. I haven't read it, but let's just say it does. Is Douglas Fai Israeli employee? Is he on the payroll
of the Mozart? If he's, then you're absolutely right. But if an American citizen decides to publish a policy paper on his website that happens to also be in line as a consequence with Israeli interest, that does not mean that he's on the payroll of the Israeli government or that he's an American agent of influence.
I'm not I'm not arguing that he's not an American. I'm arguing he is an American that that sent that letter that ended up becoming our policy under the George W. Bush administration in the early two thousands, and all of those plans were carried out.
After that letter.
After that letter was sent to Yahoo that that is a concidence.
So he sent so the Israel is behind this. If every letter sent from Washington to Israel it can be taken as a sign that Israel's controlling everything, then you should shut down your conference on Senate.
Things.
The Clean Break document from nineteen ninety six in the seven Countries in five Years document are totally different.
I know, right.
I just want to make sure where I actually made that mistake earlier. I think when I said yeah, was in a government document, I was talking about the Clean Break But I think you guys have been referring to the Pentagon document. That absolutely was from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, according to General Clark, and General Clark told me in our debate on Pierce Morgan that yeah, it was the Israelis, that it was their agenda that was represented in that seven Countries document.
Yeah.
But you see, I hear like, just because there's agreement between one Israeli official and a neo conservative in America, you make me conspiracy thing because agrees about Iraq, and he's wrong in it was the entire Democrat.
It's a pretty odd coincidence that in that letter and in that that that claimed by Wesley Clark that there's these seven nations, which by the way, he made in the mid two thousands, and many of those nations toppled after the fact, proving out the claim that in fact that list was accurate, and the only one remaining on that list is Iran, Which is the purpose of this debate today is whether or not America should once again intervene in Iran. I'm just saying, that's a lot of coincidences.
Guys have been killing your citizens since nineteen seventy nine.
Where are they killing the America has.
Got problems with Iran, that is a major factor, and not some document on a website by somebody who you believe that may or may not be on the payroll of the State of USA.
Well, I will I will allow the audience to decide whether or not they think it's coincidental that six of those seven countries have already been toppled, bombed, overthrown entirely. I think it's I think that the claim has a lot of merit, but setting that aside, I would like to give you an opportunity to make closing arguments two minutes to you my air and then we'll go to scott.
A. JM.
Bullion.
Excellent serve and competitive pricing aren't just goals, they're our standard. Our commitment to customer discretion and privacy with secure and confidential transactions has earned us an unparalleled reputation as an online retailer of precious metals, backed by over three hundred and seventy five thousand reviews averaging four point eight out of five stars only at JM Bullion.
Look, first of all, let me speak from the heart. As an Iranian ISRAELI was born on Bar Mitzlad in Tehran. I'm very proud of my Iranian roots. I hope that by this time next year we'll be able to have this conversation in person in Tehran and next to the US embass and nicking near the Israeli embassy. I think the people of Iran and the people of Israel, and the people of America who make tremendous partners in developing
this region your country. As an Iranian is ready, I have to tell you a best friend of the State of Israel and one of the best friends of the people of be Run in the contemporary history of Iran. I think that Israel has made mistakes in the past, and we make mistakes with the current government. I you know, I've lost count of how many protests I've taken part in since the judicial reform in two thousand and three
and since the Gaza War. Of course Hamas is responsible for this war, but I think the current Israeli government is also making many mistakes inside Israel. I think that the United States of America. Israel does have influence in the United States of America because America is our greatest friend and ally and we try to have shared interest. Have we made mistakes in the past, Yes, we have. I don't think that we should have tried to undermind the Iran nuclear deal with President Obama, and I think
that's just one of the mistakes that we make. And you know, President Prime Minister Antonia, who going to speak at your Congress. I think that was a terrible mistake. But you know, to believe that what happened in Iraq, and that what happened in Iraq is because of Israel, and that the reason why your country and the Islamic Republic of Iran don't have relations is because of Israel.
Is grotesquely wrong, intellectually incorrect. The biggest country that is und mind peace between your country and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The biggest person is Ali Khamene, who has far more power than any Iranian president. And there have been many Iranian presidents who have wanted better relations with your country, but he has stopped it. I say, there are numerous reasons why your country doesn't have peace with Iran. The biggest is supremely the Ali Khamene and the organizations
that he controls. Two minutes, fifteen seconds, go ahead, all Israel I know it, baby.
Come on, well America again. Is Israel's great this ally? But there's nothing but a millstone around our neck. We don't need really to have a Middle East policy at all. We certainly don't need to be the dominant force in the Middle East. We could have a deal with Iran. We could have had one thirty years ago. We could
have one right now. I urge everyone, especially you know, I know the zero head, zero Hedge audience is a very sympathetically, very sympathetic to Donald Trump and Maga and all that, and I would say his government, they're saying a lot of positive things right now, and they need all the support they can get to do the right thing, to make a new nuclear deal with Iran, and to
face down Israeli threats. Again, it's in the New York Times two days ago that they're trying to sabotage the thing so or yesterday sorry, that they're trying to sabotage the thing by threatening war and speaking of the clean break. And you know, the clean break is not about America's interest at all. It's all about what's good for Israel.
And the whole point of it, the clean break meant, this is Wormser's proposal and Pearl's proposal for how Israel can under who can make a clean break from Oslo and from the Rabine strategy of trying to make peace
with the Palestinians. And what they said was that instead, what we should do is we should get America to overthrow Saddam in Iraq, which they said will weaken Iran and Hesbala and Syria and empower Jordan and Turkey and Israel, and then Hesbala will no longer be a threat on Israel's northern flank, and then that way they can continue to confiscate all the Palestinians property and not have to worry about a threat like Hesbala on their northern flank
while they're continuing to colonize the last measley stinking twenty two percent of Palestine. And this is why forty five hundred Americans had to die in Iraq War two, and this is why they're threatening to get us into a war with Iran right now.
Is for Israel's interests.
And if we had a real war with Iran, we have tens of thousands of soldiers in Kuwait, in Bahrain, Cutter and Saudi all at risk. We have the gates of the Straits of Hormuz in the Persia Gulf, which Iran could easily close and destroy the world economy, driving oil over two hundred dollars a barrel, and just none of this is in America's interests at all. The policy for MAGA has to be either America first or Israel instead.
And if we're going to put America first, then we need to put the last of these diplomatic hurdles out of the way and get back to American independence and peace and prosperity, and heed George Washington's warnings about entangling alliances and making enemies out of all of our friends, enemies, and being involved in having Americans with passionate attachments to the interests of foreign powers that undermine harmony and Republican rule here in the United States of America, our home.
Oh well, I want to thank both of you for doing this debate. I think it was very, very valuable and could not be more timely given that we have a very important decision to make as to whether not we are going to be intervening in Iran, and I think we can all agree, at least I hope we can all agree and pray for peace in this moment, and let's hope we can avoid a war so we don't have to argue over whether or not it was on behalf of Israel. I'm Clint Russell. I'm the host
of Liberty Lockdown. If you love zero Heads, you will love Liberty Lockdown. You can subscribe to that over on YouTube or audio podcatchers. Amy Kozak, thank you so much for co hosting with me. If you'd like to give any plugs.
Yes, Amy Kozak's been a pleasure to be here and a pleasure to moderate and be part of this conversation. I think it was productive and constructive, got a little tense and heated, but we got Israelis here. We can always we can handle a little back and forth, so it's all good and it was a lot of fun. You guys can follow me at Amy Kozak on Twitter and Instagram and check out some stand up I perform all over all over the country. It's a great country
and we love that show. And right, Scott's a great, so.
Great great Scott and magne any any plug Scott.
Yeah.
I wrote the book Provoked about how America started a new Cold War with Russia in the Catastrophe in Ukraine. Came out last year and before that was enough already my history of America's wars in the Middle East since nineteen seventy nine, where people can find a lot of the details of the kinds of stuff that we're discussing today. And I'll go ahead and announce it because it's coming up very soon. The Great Tom Woods has built me
my own liberty classroom. It's called the Scott Wharton Academy of Foreign policy and freedom, and everyone can check out and sign up to be the first to find out when it all goes live at scott Wharton Academy dot.
Comyer no that it's been a lot of fun. Really, we Israelis, do you know political debates far as the sport. It's a Jewish sport which we in Israel be perfected it so no great, great exchange of ideas. Of course, to disagree it's even more fun.
Absolutely,