Trump and Israel Split Erupts Over Gas Field Attacks

Welcome to Navarra Live. Coming up tonight, a fracture between the United States and Israel has emerged as the two countries begin openly briefing against each other over the war in Iran, and the illegal US blockade of Cuba has intensified. Shadow Minister Nick Timothy's comments on Islam earn him an endorsement from Tommy Robinson, and Trump's former counter-terrorism chief hits out at Israel in a tell-all interview with Tucker Carlson.

I'm Helena, aka No Justice M T G. And tonight I'm delighted to be joined by Barry Malone. First time having as my co-host and absolutely looking forward to it. I'm super excited to be honest with you. Um, I'm a big fan and uh I'm sure it's gonna be way better than when I come on with Michael. That's a joke. I love you, Michael. I'm sorry.

Uh it's an absolute pleasure. Absolute pleasure to be joined by you. Very much, very much looking forward to tonight. And make sure, as always, you make sure you let us know your comments in the YouTube chat and in the comment section down below.

Ever since the start of the war in Iran three weeks ago, we've said that Israel and the United States have wildly different interests in West Asia. But it's only today that they've begun openly briefing against one another. For context, whether or not Trump knew about Israel's attacks on gas fields in Iran. These were the fires which broke out at the South Pars gas field yesterday after Israeli airstrikes hit the crucial installation.

And those attacks on Iran's energy infrastructure led, predictably, to Iranian retaliation. Last night, Iran targeted energy infrastructure across the Gulf. And most significantly, that includes a missile strike against Gatha's Raslafan complex, which supplies a fifth of the world's natural gas. The Financial Times has called the attacks on Qatar as an Armageddon scenario for gas markets.

An arm again scenario in energy markets is not ideal for Donald Trump in the lead up to crucial midterm elections. But according to a report from Axios, the US had approved Israel's attacks. Their report yesterday quoted Israeli officials who said the strike was coordinated with and approved by the Trump administration.

A US defense official then confirmed that narrative. However, after Iran hit back at Raslafan and other sites in the Gulf, Trump distanced himself from Israel's actions. This was his message on Truth Social. Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the Middle East, has violently lashed out at a major facility known as the South Pars gas field in Iran. A relatively small section of the hole has been hit.

The United States knew nothing about this particular attack, and the country of Qatar was in no way, shape, or form involved with it. nor did it have any idea that it was going to happen. Unfortunately, Iran did not know this, or any of the pertinent facts pertaining to the South Park attack, and unjustifiably and unfairly attacked the portion of Qatar's LNG and gas facility. No more attacks will be made by Israel pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars field.

Unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case Qatar, in which instance the United States of America, with or without help or consent of Israel, will massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars gas field. That's an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before.

I do not want to authorize this level of violence and destruction because of the long term implications that it will have on the future of Iran. But if Qatar's NNG has again attacked, I will not hesitate to do so. Thank you for attention to this matter, President Donald J. Trump. I know you're all very excited for me to read that entire truth uh in the Trump accent, but unfortunately it doesn't really uh go well if you do it in long burst.

So was the Access report wrong? Well, not according to Israel. Reuters have quotes this afternoon from three Israeli officials who reiterated that Trump did know about those attacks. So that's a mess. As is this.

We had a b break the glass uh plan across the administration and at Treasury. Uh we unsanctioned Russian oil. We knew that there were about a hundred and thirty million barrels on the water and we created supply that is beyond the Straits of Hermos. So we anticipated this. We knew that The uh there could be a temporary and I want to emphasize temporary choke point there, and there was a hundred and thirty million barrels of floating storage. In the coming days.

uh we may unsanction the Iranian oil that's on the water. It's about a hundred and forty million barrels. So depending on how you count it, that's ten days to two weeks of supply that the Iranians had been pushing out. that would have all gone to China. In essence we will be using the Iranian barrels against the Iranians to keep the price down for the next ten or fourteen days as we continue this campaign. That was United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant.

His message, Iran blocking the Strait of Hommuz, has created an oil shortage. Therefore the Americans are considering lifting sanctions on Iranian oil. With geniuses like this running the show, you can see why America's usual allies have so far refused to get involved. However, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan released a joint statement today saying this.

We condemn in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas installations, and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces. We express our deep concern about the escalating conflict. We call on Iran to cease immediately its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks, and other attempts to block the strait to commercial shipping.

We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the strait. We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning. So what the hell does that mean? I spoke earlier to Andreas Krieg, senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King's College London.

This is a very kind of desperate way for the European partners in particular to show some relevance. They obviously the ones who bear the burden of the of the Iranian attacks on the energy infrastructure in the in the region. but don't really have any sort of tangible ways of really doing it. I mean they're not explaining how they're doing it. They're also not directly responding to Trump's risk request for them to basically bear more of that burden to opening the Straits up.

Uh what it seems like at the moment at least, i i it there isn't really a maritime sort of uh escort um sort of solution out there that would solve the problem, basically. Uh it's I don't know necessarily that there is anything that they could offer um these states without actually engaging into direct uh negotiation and diplomacy with the Iranians to come to some sort of agreement.

and get a freedom of passage on paper before they will then bring in their navies to kind of create some deterrence. I cannot see at this point why a navy without getting a freedom of passage by the Iranians, by the RGC, why they would go through it and risk very expensive platforms to do so. What do you make of the claims and counterclaims being made as to whether the US approved Israel's attack on the South Park's gas field?

Look, there is a lot of back and forth and obviously with so many instances where the Israelis have crossed ret line after ret line, obviously in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, in in Iran, Yemen and so on and so forth, a and also obviously against Qatar in in September last year. In this context, I think this is you know, we've every single time we've seen the Americans s denying any responsibility, saying we've didn't give a green light, we warned against it, and Israel did it anyway.

Either way it looks very weak. So if there there are only two options here, either the the Americans did give a green light and the Israelis execute it, which is terrible because it shows that the Americans were basically okay with the fact that Gulf energy infrastructure, which for m most of these countries is the center of gravity for their economic and uh their model of prosperity.

that the Americans allowed this to be targeted reciprocally because obviously a strike by Israel on on on Iranian infrastructure will mi was inevitably going to lead to a response by Iran. The second option is that Uh and you know, it this looks uh uh more likely now is that the the Americans didn't give a green light, give a r a yellow light or ignored it.

And the Israelis went and and um and basic did it anyway, which means the Americans have absolutely no control over their junior partner, which has been driving this campaign and arguably has been really pulling the Americans into a war. that I think Trump for the most part wanted to avoid. There was concern that Iran hitting energy infrastructure in the Gulf would bring those states more directly into the war. That doesn't appear to have happened. What's your read on why that is?

Well, not imminently. Uh I think the the discussions that the that the Gulf States, various capitals have had over the last week or so have have mu have really tangibly changed.

From how they were a few weeks ago. Uh, I think it's quite clear now that a lot of them are considering more offensive courses of action. Uh Just minimally at least to restore some sort of semblance of deterrence and create some sort of balance of deterrence by saying, Okay, if Iran is striking us, we will strike back to punish them. Uh but the problem with all of this is that ultimately this if you get drugged uh if you get dragged into this sort of tit for tat.

escalatory spiral, there isn't an easy way out for either side. And uh you have to the Gulf states have to ask themselves whether getting sucked into this will a make any contribution whatsoever in uh in in this ultimately in this Israeli war against Iran, d do they make a di will they make a difference? Most likely not.

And also they have to think about the long term consequences of that. So they Once Israel is gone, once America is gone, once once these two have basically withdrawn uh from this war, the Gulf states will have to live side by side, coexist with Iran, whatever regime is left, or whatever of the regime is left.

Uh and so in this kind of context they have to be very careful and weigh up the different options and and the potential costs. And the long term costs for being part of an Israeli war against Iran are potentially uh still outweighing the the benefits of somewhat sending a strong message towards Iran, which I I think at this point is probably the most that Gulf states are considering sending a very strong message, physical, military message. Because ultimately all the Gulf states know this

By military means. It will be solved on the negotiation table. So they're all about de-escalation, but obviously ret line after ret line have been crossed by the Iranians as well. So just sitting idly by without doing anything is not necessarily a long-term sort of strategy for the Gulf. In Trump's Truth Social Post, he pledged that no more attacks will be made by Israel on the South Park gas field. Is that something he can guarantee, do you think? No, absolutely not. Trump has been

You know, he's he's shown his weaknesses time and again. The Israelis have ignored his uh warnings time and again. I mean the strike on Qatar is probably the strike by Israel on Qatar in September last year is probably really the uh a testimony to that, to the fact that the Americans cannot control Israel, despite the fact that Israel obviously uh gets extensive amount, billions and billions of dollars of military aid and are essentially entirely dependent, codependent on the Americans.

Uh but for some reason this White House doesn't have the sort of control ability, the strength and power to actually rein the Israelis in. So I don't think they can guarantee it. And the Israelis are quite unhinged. For them this is an existential war. They frame it in that way and they're willing at all cost to achieve whatever ever outcome, whatever objective they can achieve.

It was a very interesting point that you raised that there was an expectation that both the Biden and the Trump administrations would put their foot down, and they haven't. Because that has historically been the case. You look at Reagan's relationship with Menechem Begin in the Lebanon War, where he did put his foot down. What do you think has changed in that relationship that meant the previous dynamic hasn't played out in the same way?

So see the Israeli American relationship has always been somewhat a special relationship, not just over the last uh ten, twenty years, but over the last uh fifty years or so. Um and in you know probably n since nineteen seventy-three. But what we've seen really developing over the nineties and two thousands is the a very, very powerful coercive network, the the the Israel lobby.

um that has found ways to compel people into silence, coercing others into following a particular line of thought, and obviously also inducing others through payments to kind of follow a pro Israel approach. And obviously that Israel lobby is now currently falling apart because they're they're they're being faced with a reality and a pushback. from the mega crowd.

Uh but what we've seen since the seventh of October is at least in the beginning, this Israel lobby had a lot of control, coercive and compulsive control, over the Biden and also now the Trump White House. Some of that control is fading and also we're seeing an overreaction, a pushback by the American public across the spectrum, but particularly on the liberal end of the spectrum, where Democrats are people who vo uh register as Democrats.

are now overwhelmingly anti Israel and and co countering Israeli influence. And the same is true on the far right. with the America First movement where overwhelming uh there's an overwhelming majority of people saying we America first means America first, not Israeli first, Israel first. Um so that dynamic is still playing out. And I think it's also an explainer for why Netanyahu wanted to do this war now, why he wanted why he saw this as the last chance.

to get a war from the White House and get some buy in from a White House. Because it moving down the line another five years from now, I think Israel's influence in America is going to vein. Uh and I think Netanyahu and any Israeli politician is well aware that Israel will have to go it alone next time around.

So that post from Trump shows that there is at least a straining of the relationship potentially between the United States and Israel if they are doing things and having to be reined in, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, by the Trump administration. How do you think that this kind of dynamic will affect? US Israeli relations long term and potentially the Trump's presidency in the short term.

I think Trump has a a whole host of different problems. Over the last two and a half years, since the seventh of October, we've time and again seen a case where under the Biden administration and also under Trump The Israelis done what they thought was in their interest. They've been pushing the envelope until someone put their foot down and that very rarely happened. There were never any consequences for the Israelis and uh things got back to normal very quickly.

So I was under the illusion last time, particularly after the strike on Qatar in September last year, that, you know, the the Trump administration would put their foot down, rein in the Israelis and the Israelis would now listen to the Trump administration. That's clearly not happening. Uh and so I I'm I'm not surprised if the Iranians uh if the Israelis will cross another red line without any consequences.

But in the long run, uh it will affect America's or Trump's standing in particular vis a vis his own base, the Make America Great Again, the America First Base, who have turned on Israel quite, you know, quite tangibly actually over the last year, year and a half. And so for a lot of the people who've m brought Trump into office by advocating for him, also based on Trump's promise never to direct America into another Quetmire war, and clearly Trump has has kind of disappointed most of them.

Uh for most of these people now they they feel disillusioned with Trump and have they have millions of followers and these followers did vote for Trump. And I think now it being seen or kind of visibly supporting Israel and and driving an Israeli first policy is something that fundamentally undermines the the promise that MAGA or that Trump has given to MAGA.

And I think from that uh point of view, Israel's uh you know, Israel in pursuit of its own national interest is might be sacrificing the Trump presidency. That was Andreas Creek speaking to me earlier today.

But whilst the war in Iran is destabilizing Trump's presidency, it may be having the opposite effects here in the UK. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's approval ratings have been fifty points underwater for over a year since the government announced it had plans to slash five billion from disability welfare. But if there's one thing that unites public opinion, other than a shared hatred of Starmer and his government, it's opposition to UK involvement in the illegal US Israeli attacks on Iran.

In a Ugov poll for Sky News, a whopping seventy percent of UK voters opposed the UK following Trump and Netanyahu into war, with pretty much every vote group other than reform UK voters backing the government's decision not to. The problem for the government is that the public also oppose their current position of allowing the Trump regime access to REF Fairford to launch oxymoronically titled defensive strikes against Iranian missile bases.

Given there have been months and months of speculation on whether or not the Prime Minister could rescue his beleaguered premiership. Strong leadership on the international stage could during a geopolitical crisis could have been exactly what he needed to show the supposed statesmanship that the SW1 cadre so often insists he possesses.

This has frequently been a way of politicians invoking the rally round the flag effect to turn the polls around. It famously reversed the first Thatcher government's fortunes when she took the UK to war in the Falklands. Put in typical Stammer fashion, in aiming to please everybody by doing a little bit of war as a treat, he's ended up alienating everyone from Labour's voting coalition.

Both reform curious voters who favor a full throated backing of Israel, and green curious voters who want total non involvement. This is a man, remember, with a one hundred and seventy seat majority, and he's acting like he's leading a fragile coalition. Compare it to the rhetoric of Pedro Sanchez, the social democratic leader of Spain, who said this two weeks ago after committing not to allow the US access to military bases when the conflict was initiated.

Durante estos últimos días habréis escuchado decir aquello de que España está sola. Esos fueron los mismos que nos dijeron cuando reconocimos el Estado de Palestina, que luego fueron todos los demás, que estábamos solos. No, nosotros no estamos solos, somos los primeros, somos los primeros. Lo estamos viendo ya. Estamos viendo cómo muchos otros gobiernos ya se están posicionando en contra de esta guerra los que se van a quedar solos son aquellos que defienden lo indefendible.

For those listening on the podcast. That was Pedro Sanchez at a rally saying, In recent days you must have heard people say that Spain is alone. No, those were the same people who told us when we recognized the state of Palestine, and then it was everyone else, that we were alone. No, we are not alone. We are the first. We're seeing how many other governments are already taking a stand against this war. Those who are going to be left alone are the ones who defend the indefensible.

Can anyone at home really imagine Keir Starmer saying anything like that? Sanchez is acting like a true leader, with a razor thin majority held together with various leftist parties and minor separatist parties. Compare this to Starmer, who is trying and failing to triangulate a divided electorate with a huge majority.

And if the wagons weren't being circled before, they certainly are now, as fresh rumours of a coming leadership bid from former deputy leader Angela Rayner have surfaced in the last couple of days, courtesy of a scoop from IT V Peston's Pippa Crero. Angela Rayner's allies are increasingly confident that an HRIRC investigation into her tax affairs will conclude this side of the May elections. Now that means that the former deputy now has a route back to frontline politics.

at a perilous moment for the Prime Minister. Labour is expected to suffer catastrophic losses across the country. MPs who backed away from triggering triggering a contest last month might not be so reluctant this time. In a speech last night, Rayner warned that the very survival of the Labour Party is at stake and that the government is running out of time. But the challenge wouldn't be straightforward. Starmer has insisted that he's not going anywhere and would fight any contest.

Now Downing Street inside just tell me he won a big personal mandate for change at the last election and he intends to deliver on it, however hard that might be. Let's take a look at this salvation poll of party members for Labour list. It shows why Rayner's allies think that she'll go for it. In any head-to-head contest contest between Starmer and likely rivals, only Rayner or Andy Burnham would beat him.

But with the Prime Minister so focused on the Middle East crisis and the economic fallout at home, well voters feel now is the time for a destabilizing leadership battle. And that's where the fulcrum of all of this discussion really lies, is the fact that whilst

It's clear to a lot of us that Labour are really heading for a bruising at the local elections. I saw one projection that in London alone they're slated to potentially lose as many as seven hundred councillors, mostly to the Green Party and the Conservative Party.

and therefore Keir Starmer's leadership is would in normal situations be completely untenable. Whilst it is true that the Conservative Party are much More likely to commit regicide than the Labour Party historically have been, where they've usually been pretty good at staying loyal to their leadership. They've never really faced the prospect of total wipeout.

in these kind of electoral scenarios. And Keir Starmer would be the first person to be leading the party should that scenario take place. You'd think that anybody in a normal situation would think he has to go, we have to save the future of the party, as many of those concerns have been raised by Angela Rayner as we saw there in that bit from Pippa Crera.

But the issue of course comes down to the fact that If Keir Starmer were to resign at a time when geopolitical tensions are incredibly heightened, we've got so much international entropy in terms of our relationships with other countries, with the United States.

The political will, internally within Keir Starmer's office, would be we can't get rid of the leader. We've built relationships with Trump, et cetera, et cetera, and how good those relationships are, people can judge for themselves at home. But the people internally in label will be almost certain to try and convince Kirstame he shouldn't resign, not only because of the internal party stuff of not wanting to give up to the left.

That's what the whole point of Keir Starmer's leadership campaign was, was to excise the left from control of the party. They wouldn't want to give that up easily, and they have the perfect excuse in the war in Iran by saying Iran war at the moment, so much instability, we can't create any more by triggering any kind of leadership contest.

But that will only as far as I can see be bad for the Labour Party. And Rayner's concerns about the future of the Labour Party were articulated to the city in a call with investors mediated by BNP Paribus. She criticised the Osborne ERA Office for Budget Responsibility for not properly taking into account the economic benefits of state investment in how it projects future government finances, in particular with regard to social housing investment.

She's repeating what's been said on the left by many of us, that Starmer and Reeves have failed to challenge the Thatcherite consensus on state spending by singing from the same hymnsheet as the Tories of yesteryear. The general secretary of Unite the Union Sharon Graham, whose trade union revoked Andrew Rayner's membership due to the row over the Birmingham bin strikes, was, however, more circumspect over Rayner's leadership ambitions. Someone who

is talking a similar language to you, it feels to me, is Angela Rayner. She says p labour's become the establishment since coming to power. We can't just go through the motions in the face of decline. I I know you are someone who likes to talk about policies and not personalities.

But sometimes it's hard to completely delink the two, right, because the person determines the policy. At one point at what point do you think we should be looking at a change of leader and would Angela Rayner make a good leader of the Labour Party?

Well look I think, you know, irrespective of what I believe, I think after the May elections there will be a move to change a leader, uh because I think Labour are going to pretty much be decimated in those elections. I don't think that they understand themselves.

um how bad that will be, how what the what the anger is out there about the fact that they haven't backed workers, that the fact they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing things that quite frankly we would expect a Labor government to do. For example, have a wealth tax It's not radical. I mean it's pretty obvious that that's the sort of thing that we need to be looking at when the gap between the rich and the poor is as wide as it is.

Felly, mewn gwirionedd, mae Angela Rayner wedi gwneud rhywbeth i'r boing a'r boing a'r boing a'r boing a'r boing a'r boing a'r boing a'r boing a'r boing a'r boing a'r boing. Yn ymwneud hyn, mae'n ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud You know, you can't just say, Look, I am X, Y, or Z you need to have the tangibles. What is it you want to do?

yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw. Barry, it seems that as I've said before, the wagons are being circled right now with regards to Kistarmer. Do you think that the war in Iran will let him keep his position, or do you think it's curtains after the local elections? Well I think as you say the the Labour Party has been briefing for a while.

That because of global instability, you know, we need Stommer because Stomer is a mature statesman and he's been doing well on the international stage. And I think clinging to that idea that even as he falters at home, he's what Britain needs abroad. I mean, even BBC, I think a month or two ago wrote in a certain analysis piece uh calling him a kind of a titan on the world stage.

Um which uh you know, again, people can judge for them for themselves. Look, I think that his slight resistance, shall we say, to what's going in going on in Iran. Is in line with what the British public think. And I think that that is good for him. And I think that Labour can make a little bit of headway.

saying that what the country needs is stable, stable leadership and a stable government right now as things get more dangerous in the world, et cetera, et cetera. But I kind of feel like it's too late. You know, we're already halfway through March and we have the local elections coming up in May. And what everyone is saying is is correct. The Labour Party is going to be absolutely obliterated. It's going to be destroyed.

And I think that there have been several opportunities in uh recent months to heave against Stammer internally, but nobody wanted the job right now. You know, it would be crazy to take on the job. just before Labor is gonna get this massive bloody nose and so You know, I hear the argument about stable leadership right now, but look, I think that the pressure will be immense post the elections in May, and I just don't see how he can survive.

post May. Um and then and then, you know, there's there's other things at play right now in terms of you know, we've seen um as you talked about with with Andreas.

these attacks on oil and gas facilities or you know, what we're what we're looking at right now is like It's a threat to the world's plumbing system. And what that's going to do is that's going to hurt people in their pocket. And you know, the sh it's going to hurt people in their pockets in this country because the UK government has

since Israel b responded to the October seventh attack, since Israel started to commit its genocide, the government has been lockstep with Israel. And the result of that has been You know, an assault on freedom of expression, an assault on the right to protest. um people on hunger strike in prison because they stood up against the genocide. And now finally it's gonna hurt British people in the pocket.

So I really think that for for the public, that is what's gonna override everything else. It's gonna be brilliant, now I have to pay more for petrol. That does seem to be the case. in the kind of the SW one sphere, Keir Starmer on the world stage is like the number one concern that they have. It's I mean certainly it's the most newsworthy in terms of what's worth reporting on because it is so kind of geopolitically important.

the relationships are between the biggest and most powerful countries in the world. But when it actually comes down to what people are going to vote on in May and then eventually at the next general election, it's gonna come down to kitchen table issues. It's gonna come down to can you afford to pay the bills? Can you afford to feed the kids?

And people were already struggling with that because of the last oil price shock that we had in 2022. And that was ultimately the death of the Conservative Party. Potentially even forever if they don't rescue their current dire polling. And Unless Kearsummer or the Labour Party can keep can think of something fast, they're going to suffer the same fate. They're already hated for decisions that they took themselves. Right? They're already hated for missteps of their own making, unforced errors.

This is gonna be totally exogenous what's happening here because of Trump and Israel's decision to blow up the world economy by attacking Iran. And they'll have no leg to stand on. There is no benefit of the doubt that can be given to this administration,'cause they've already kind of shot that through the floor. That's already gone. Any benefit of the doubt was essentially gone as soon as the winds of fuel debacle happened.

So another oil shock, another round of inflation, another cost of living crisis, when the last one hasn't even finished yet, will again lead to the what inshallah will be an obliteration of the Labour Party at the local elections.

The world's attention is currently focused on the Middle East, but Donald Trump hasn't yet dropped his plans for further regime change in the Western Hemisphere. You know, all my life I've been hearing about the United States and Cuba. Uh when will the United States do it? I do believe I'll be the honor of having the honor of That'd be a good honor. That's a big honor. Taking Cuba. Taking Cuba in some form, yeah. Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it,

I think I could do anything I want with it. You want to know the truth? That was Donald Trump casually saying he was to take a sovereign nation of 10 million people. And they aren't just words. Trump is currently overseeing the most brutal blockade Cuba has endured since the revolution in nineteen fifty nine. After the success of his mission to abduct Maduro, a longtime ally of the Cuban government, Trump has signed an executive order imposing tariffs on any country which sells oil to Cuba.

The consequence has been a severe fuel shortage and rolling blackouts. There is, however, currently a movement of to break the siege in Cuba. and our colleague Stephen is currently on the island from where he sent this report. I'm in Havana, the capital of Cuba, a beautiful but somewhat crumbling city. And I'm here as part of a hundred strong delegation from across Europe.

Of the Nuestra America convoy, delivering aid, medical supplies, that kind of thing to the people of Cuba who are struggling under US President Donald Trump's ongoing oil embargo. We're also here to stand in solidarity. with the people of Cuba who are battling that embargo with their usual resistance. and resilience.

Rydyn ni'n fawr i'n fawr ymwneud hynny, lle mae'r bobl sydd wedi'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i had contributed aid for those boxes. Now that may not sound like much, but organisers of the convoy say that more than four tons of aid was flown from Italy.

And when we landed in Havana in the early hours of this morning, those boxes were handed over to local organizers who are going to distribute it where it's most needed. Now you don't have to go very far to see how that embargo is playing out. On Monday night before we left there was a complete blackout of the island as the as the country's electric grid just gave way. That was the most intense in a series of rolling blackouts, some of which have lasted for days.

that have been taking place across the island since the embargo began. Transport has been affected too, the streets are eerily empty of cars and buses as movement becomes increasingly difficult during this fuel shortage. Man-made fuel shortage.

On Monday night Donald Trump spoke of taking the island, essentially through the collective punishment of the people of Cuba. Now that's a kind of classic US playbook for Cuba, it's been going on for decades. only made explicit and intensified by Mr Trump. Taking Cuba in some form, yeah. And Cuba's president Miguel Diaz Canal has said that any attempt to take the island will be met with impregnable resistance.

That resistance is now international with several more delegations set to arrive later in the week, including a flotilla from Mexico. And I'll be here throughout. Barry, under the cover of what is a regime change war in Iran. The Trump administration is engaging in what seems to be blatant territorial imperialism if Trump's statements are to be believed.

And the whole world's just ignored it, haven't they? Yeah, it's exactly what it is. It's it's it it's blatant aggression against a sovereign state. It's a a blatant move. of imperialism and ultimately it's having uh uh a terrible impact on the people of Cuba.

Um look, the US has embargoed Cuba since nineteen sixty. That's not new. And Cuba has had shortages of uh fuel and uh medicine and food over the years and there have been blackouts before quite regularly, but this takes it to a whole new level with the cutting off of the lifeline from uh Venezuela.

Um, and it's just an incredibly aggressive tactic to make life more difficult for the Cuban people in order to cause unrest in the country. I was reading today that there were some people trying to fuel their cars with charcoal. in Havana I mean that's insane. And the thing that I think that We really have to know is that when you impose an embargo with the explicit purpose

Of hurting the civilian population. What you're engaging in is collective punishment, and collective punishment is a war crime. uh what we know from Trump's support of Israel is that he's not averse to war crimes. But that's how I see it. That's how I slice it. It's collective punishment against a sovereign nation. And, you know, I think that What he said about taking control of Cuba was an extraordinary thing to say.

And I think that there's a real fear right now that you know with what he did in Venezuela, with the current war in Iran, and with this twisting of the screw in Cuba. I worry that his legacy is trying to the legacy that he wants is trying to reshape the world. in a way that is just going to make the world more insecure. And, you know, maybe what he wants to do is is leave office With a new world order that ultimately is going to propel us potentially into a more precarious era.

I have to agree with you. And the fact that I have seen people who would class themselves as liberal conservatives, kind of gloating at the actions of the Trump regime in Cuba here. And I again, uh, I'm just glad that there are at least some people who are out there showing solidarity with Cuba and I I wish the mission to try and relieve as much as they can All the best.

In one of the richest cities on earth. Eyes, homeless and unseen. Julie Remish died in an underpass in Westminster. Just meters away from the buildings that govern Britain. Around him. How can someone lose everything in the heart? Follow that question. Yeah. secrecy and power. A system that decides who gets a home and who doesn't. This is the kind of place where that relationship between dirty money in the city and the kind of dark money that goes into the political machine kind of meet.

Where could this lead? Where does it end? I'm Kojo Karam, writer and researcher, and since 2018. Death in Westminster is a four-part series from Navarra. produced by Planner B Productions. Death in Westminster arrives on the tenth of March in the Navarra Media podcast feed.

Nick Timothy is the Conservative MP for West Suffolk, and despite being newly minted at the last election, he's already Shadow Lord Chancellor and the Vice Chair of Conservative Friends of Israel. He rose to prominence in twenty seventeen as the Chief of Staff to then Prime Minister Theresa May, when he was forced to resign after her general election campaign saw the party lose their majority to an insurgent Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party.

The embarrassment doesn't stop there, however, we covered him last year on this very show. Go heavily into that for the supporters of Israeli football club Maccabi Tel Aviv, after they were banned from tickets to their match against Das Villa. which saw him utilise a whole slew of Islamophobic tropes and accuse the local police of quote conceding to the mob. But his latest escapade into the headlines is far more sinister.

Here we see Sadiq Khan praying with fellow Muslims in Trafalgar Square for Iftar, a harmless act of faith in a space that plenty of faith groups have used for similar purposes. Yet Nick Timothy didn't seem to think it was harmless weever, and posted this tweet that needs to be read to be believed.

Too many are too polite to say this, but mass ritual prayer in public places is an act of domination. The Adan, which declares there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger, is, when called in a public place, a declaration of domination. Perform these rituals in mosques if you wish, but they are not welcome in our public places and shared institutions, and given their explicit repudiation of Christianity, they certainly do not belong in our churches and cathedrals.

I am not suggesting everybody at Trafalgar Square last night is an ish, but the domination of public places is straight from the Ismus playbook. Trafalgar Square belongs to us all. It is a national memorial to our independence and our salvation. Last night was not like a televised football match or a St. Patrick's Day celebration. It was an act of domination and therefore division. It shouldn't happen again.

Now, for someone to go from being the chief of staff of Theresa May, an emblematic figure of the Tory left, to being a brain Islamophobic crank must be incredibly jarring for many One Nation conservatives. The Tories have always marketed themselves as a party prioritizing free speech and personal liberty, and here's a front bencher openly calling for the restrictions of freedom to practice religion to one very specific group of people.

It's a trend we're seeing from centre right parties across the global north. A thermostatic reaction to migration policy over the last thirty years has moved their voter bases significantly rightward. meaning they've been either usurped by parties to their right or have been chasing the rhetoric of those same parties.

And if we didn't need any more evidence of the reformification of the Tories, here is Reform UK leader Nigel Farage himself today echoing Timothy's sentiment. What we witnessed on Monday in London in the historic Trafalgar Square. in a country that was based and built on Judeo Christian values because that's at the bottom of everything this country's ever been. What we witness there. was a group of people headed up by the ghastly Sadiq Khan. Attempting dominant.

over our capital city and over our culture. And what do we get today? A Prime Minister's questions? The PM defended what happened in Trafalgar Square and said that anybody that stands out and speaks against it is a bigot. Well I'm sorry, Prime Minister. I'm sorry, the Conservative Party that let most of these people in. We are not going to surrender.

everything that was built over centuries, defended At a cost of great blood in two world wars, for us to be a free, independent nation, we will not put up with this any more simple as. That was quite a polemic there from Nigel Farage. It is actually quite scary, I think, the way in which he was employing the rhetoric there, the talk of surrender, the talk of world wars.

Essentially defending the restrictions of liberty. He said that we fought for liberty, and yet his position here is banning other people's liberty. What? Because he's offended? because he believes that it offenses Christian values. I mean, he talks about Judeo Christian values, but there's no such thing. There are there is Judaism and there is Christianity. And Islam is also an Abrahamic religion which is part of that same kind of group.

Judeo Christian is only ever a term that's used or invoked by the right wing specifically to counter Islam. Because they perceive Islam as some kind of new threat. It's really a kind of changing of rhetoric in terms of the West versus East dynamic that's been kind of historical now, ever since American unipolarity kind of came into existence. And it is this Essentially.

division of the world between what they would perceive as the civilized West versus the Muslim East, that they have created Judeo Christian values as their kind of religious base for the West, even though that

really not the case. It the UK mostly historically went on Christian values, but that's kind of degraded as we've become more humanist in our approach, as we've become more secular. So You can tell that it's only being done specifically to scapegoats Muslims in particular once you hear Judeo-Christian being invoked. But it's also quite funny as well, Nick Timothy saying, Well it is

somehow an act of domination because they proclaim that their God is the one true God. That like Islam will deny other religions. I think you'll find most religions do that. I think most religions believe that they're true God. Or that their God is the one true God. The idea that this is specific to Islam is untrue. And therefore you can see that they are singling out this group in particular.

And if Nick Timothy's comments endorsement from Nigel Farage was bad enough, Timothy's also found the most damning bad fellow possible. But I want to congratulate and thank every patriot, everyone who stood up, everyone who refused to be silenced, everyone who played their part in shifting the overton window so far. So much that a Conservative Member of Parliament now feels comfortable to state these facts.

Now if this would have been twelve months ago, eighteen months ago, two years ago, then no MP would have said anything like this. You know why? Because the left had the monopoly, they would have absolutely crucified him, the Conservative Party would have kicked him out. Do you know why now they can say this? Because of you. Because you took to the streets in your millions. You have gave confidence. to people to speak the truth and know that there's support for that truth.

For that feeling, for that pride, for that courage, for all of it. It's there now. You did it. Every one of you did it. People said, What's the point in these rallies, these demonstrations? Conversations are now being had.

Whether it be by this MP in the Conservative Party, and fair play and well done to him, or whether it be from Restore Britain, whether it be from Advance, whether it be from Nigel Franz, whoever it's from, these things have happened because they now have confidence because they see it. The scary part is he isn't wrong.

The overturn window has shifted, and it's being deliberately shifted by politicians who refuse to repudiate the latent Islamophobia on the right of politics, and by billionaires who back the far right cynically to scapegoat minorities for the problems that they cause, the billionaires cause.

Tory leader Kenny Baydog has let it slide so far, refusing to sack Timothy despite calls from the Prime Minister to do so in the Commons on Wednesday. The Tory chair Kevin Hollenrig has backed him too, although his defence didn't actually seem very convincing to LBC's Nick Ferrari. I think Nick was right. I I think pr pr uh that ki kind of that kind of exclusive event um in a public location which is a ticket only event in a public place is wrong.

They are not welcome in our public places. Why not, Mr. Chairman? That's not to say Muslims are not welcome in our public. No, no, no, prayer, acts of prayer, mu mass ritual prayer. Have you ever attended your paper? I mean I don't know whether you have, but have you ever attended a papal visit when they come to this country? There's always hold these. I've attended two. That's wrong, is it? That's an inclusive event. We see this as being an exclusive event and it was a ticket.

Th it's not like they took over the whole of Trafalgar Square. They had an area that was sectioned off so they could celebrate and pray. Wha what I thought that would be part of living in multicultural United Kingdom. Clearly I'm wrong in the views of the Conservative Party. Well yeah, that we have we're entitled to our views, Nick. Well I I reverse the question. Why would you need to do an organised event like that, which is only a prayer event, it wasn't a performance.

Nick is asking Where's the tolerance gone, Kevin? We to uh that's just wrong, Nick. We uh completely tolerate the w Muslim faith. We support the Muslim faith. All moderate Muslims we should support in this country. We support freedom of religion, freedom of speech. This is freedom of speech acting in in in effect today. The absolute topsy turvy world he must live in to calling out

someone else is engaging in a restriction on free speech for saying that Muslims should be allowed to pray. The fact that there's gone so far that the swivel eye loons are now running the asylum, so much so that Nick Ferrari is the one going, where's the tolerance? Rwy'n cael ei fod yn mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd.

something about being a ticketed event, meaning it's exclusive, therefore that that is why it's bad, right? If they'd taken over all of Trafalgar Square and it wasn't ticketed, would it have been okay then, Kevin, by your own logic? None of this makes sense, but it's clear he is backtracking because of them deciding That they're not going to bother in any way coming down on Nick Timothy for his comments in the Conservative Party.

Uh Barry, this kind of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party isn't new. We've seen this before. We've seen comments, I believe there was Nuzrat Ghani who said that she d received Islamophobia within the Conservative Party. But in previous iterations of the Tories, there was at least some kind of artifice that they would come down on people who engaged in this stuff, even if it was only symbolically. What do you think has changed that's got them to this point?

First of all, I actually felt really sick watching those clips. Um, you know, uh Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage engaging in the most base Islamophobia, engaging in talk that I would deem fascistic. It was disgusting to watch those clips just now. And what Nick Timothy said is rampant, blatant, naked Islamophobia. No matter how you slice it, that's just a statement of fact.

And it's been galling to watch Kemi Badenok cycle through different excuses while defending it. You know, first of all it was he was just defending British values. Then it was, well, they shouldn't be praying in public. And it was crazy that each new excuse she came up with was still Islamophobic.

Um and I think you're right that, you know, there has been this history of Islamophobia in the Tory party. This is not in any way new. You have the example you just raised, but also wasn't it in two thousand and eighteen that Saida Warsi came out and said that there was a problem with Islamophobia. You know, that's eight years ago. At the time uh Theresa May was the Prime Minister and Saida Warsi had said that she was in denial about the problem and that she should publicly acknowledge it.

They're not in denial about the problem now, they're leaning into Islamophobia. Um, I think it was also interesting to watch uh Kirst Dahmer go on the attack. yesterday, when you look at sort of like the wider political scene in the UK, given that Labour have lost so many Muslim voters over the war in Gaza. It was interesting to see him go on the attack. Also, um, you know, on Monday there was a debate in the Commons about this new social cohesion plan.

that the Labour government is i w wants to introduce. And if you look at that plan, um, you know, it explicitly calls out Islamophobia and stuff. So I wonder if they now see this as a fertile uh attack line. This is is is Islamophobia in the Tory party. And not that they're s that that that they ha have to use that in a cynical way. The Tory party is rampantly Islamophobic and it's a a huge problem and it's dangerous the way that they're talking.

Um, but I think for for Badenok, look, they're not gonna make any political hay off this. Yeah, we've already seen that as as as you say, trying to out reform, reform has not worked. Has not worked for Labour. Not work for the Tories. You know, guess what? People like the original flavor. They don't like New Coke. They like reform. And all you do is you set the table. for Farage to come out and make a grandstanding

speech like that, you know, you've opened the door for reform to frame the conversation. So massive problem in the Tory party. Absoluting. And just not beneficial for them in any way, shape or form.

One thing I would say, Barry, what's interesting is that usually when you see racist tropes being invoked, or when you see people engaging in racism, The framing is usually one with which that people treat their own race as superior. There's the treating other races or other people of different backgrounds as being inferior. What's interesting about this is the fact that to me

It mirrors the way in which the right wingers of old talked about Jewish people. It's not feeling superior. It's this idea of a of a plot, the idea of the threat. It is treating them as a subversive ent a subversive entity trying to undermine society. This was the way, like when the the the trope about Judeo-Bolshevism, right, came up. there was this idea that there was a subversion of society happening from this particular ethnic minority.

And I feel like this is the way in which they're talking about Muslims right now. I feel like the way in which they talk about Muslims, we saw this in response to the Gorton and Denton by election too. saying that society is being undermined and overturned by people practicing takea. We hear this a lot from the right in the so far as though Zoran Mamdani only got elected'cause he was practicing takia by pretending to be more liberal than he was, so that he could subvert society

as a Muslim, which is far different. It's a far cry from what we usually hear from these kind of racist narratives. What do you make of that comparison? Yeah, I think you're spot on. And I think it's Look, I think it's one thing to say uh to express racism by saying one group is better than another, but I I think it's more dangerous.

to go down this road of saying that a group is subversive and that a group is a threat to the state. And and and actually, you know, that's exactly what Nick Timothy said, isn't it, with this comment about domination, about how they're seeking to dominate. And that's not new. You know, he is not the first person to say this. He's just echoing hard right talking points. Like I've seen this before. I've seen this in the UK. We've seen this in the US.

In Ireland where I come from, we have a growing problem with the far right. And I've seen them say the same thing when there are Eid prayers held in public in Dublin. The Irish far right has come out and said they're trying to dominate us. This is an act of domination. And it's definitely, I think, an advance. On the Islamophobia that we've seen from the right in this country before, and the Islamophobia that we've seen from the Conservative Party before this use of the word domination and

and this and this contention that uh the Muslim population is somehow a threat to the state. And i yes, it's way more dangerous than the kind of talk that we've seen before and again reflective of this movement. of the Overton window in which you can attack an entire community like this. And like you say with the Gorton and Denton byelection, even, you know, imply that there was some kind of

Fraud perpetrated by the Muslim community. And you know, there was talk that they had imported this practice from elsewhere and you know, as if the Muslim community in Gorton and Denton are not really British. And, you know, when you go down that road, And one of the most mainstream parties in the country, the Tory party, one of the two, you know, parties of government.

are going down that road, then I I I don't think it's hysterical to say we're looking down the barrel of fascism with this stuff.

Joe Kent is the former US head of counterterrorism, who resigned this week in protest at the Iran War. He posted a dramatic resignation letter in which he said Iran posed no immediate threat to the United States and that the US had been dragged into the war by Israel.

ac wedi wedi'i wedi'i'i wedi'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i' And just to be clear, there was no intelligence that showed an imminent threat. There was no intelligence that showed they were on the cusp of building a nuclear weapon. There was no intelligence indeed that showed they were trying to build a nuclear weapon. And

Nobody you know said, I've seen it but you haven't. It exists but you just haven't seen it. Did you ever hear anybody say there is intel that shows this? I did not know. But I but I know how this works. I know the Israeli officials some in intelligence, some in government will come to US government officials and they will say all kinds of things that we we know from our intelligence just simply isn't true.

Um and they'll say, Hey, I'm giving you a preview, it's not an intelligence channel as yet, but here's what's gonna happen. And that doesn't usually come to the right. made their decisions on the basis of intelligence collected and or vetted by our intelligence. That's why we have intelligence agencies that soak up hundreds of billions a year. But you're saying that Israeli officials short circuited the entire US government and just went right to American policymakers and said

It doesn't matter what your country says, here's what we know. So what you're saying? Oh, and they'll say, Hey, this isn't in intelligence channels yet because it's it's gonna take some time to get there. Um and here they're on the cusp of building a bomb. You know, they're they're going to

I don't know, you you pick your topic. A lot of times they'll they'll sample different things until they find what sticks, but in in general, the narrative about, you know, they're going to do a preemptive attack or really just they're going to build a nuclear weapon. And and if we don't stop them now, they're going to build a nuclear weapon. Now, in lots of contexts, that would seem like a ridiculously simplistic idea of how Israel might influence US foreign policy. With Donald Trump

Kinda makes sense. And to be honest, maybe even with Joe Biden. Think about him saying publicly he'd seen pictures of beheaded babies. Who was it who told him that evidence existed? Was that a Ra Israeli officials throwing out any idea they had until something stuck?

And Kent also explained how the media plays a role here. Let's go back to that clip. and enrichment is the pathway to that. They're going to continue enriching at whatever percent. Enrichment became the the narrative. And so that hung up and that short circuited and really sabotaged. the entire negotiations because the Iranians basically said, like, w we're not gonna negotiate if the if the whole starting point is

no enrichment. And again, that had nothing to do with a nuclear weapon, and the Iranians essentially agreed to that, so the Israelis came in

they moved that that red line and they would do a lot to say like, oh, they're enriching and you know what that means? That means in X amount of time they could have a nuclear bomb. You have to ask now. And then the way the ecosystem would work is that the talking heads on on TV, you know, your Mark Levin's, Sean Hannity's, et cetera, they would say basically the exact same thing that night on TV or there would be a you know a piece written in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times.

That would say something very, very similar, yet if you looked in classified intelligence, we d we didn't see any of that. Again, this kinda makes sense with a guy like Trump. You have Israeli officials and politicians feeding him made up intelligence directly, then you have pundits repeat that on TV, and lo and behold, Ultimately this idiot thinks maybe bombing Iran is actually a good idea. Uh Barry, what what do you make of Jo Kent's argument?

Yeah, I think that we've seen this before and it's uh you know, in terms of Trump responding to stuff that's planted in the media or echoed by the media. We had this in his first term where he sort of infamously used to sit down and watch. Fox and Friends and, you know, occasionally phoned in, but apparently would be heavily influenced policy wise by what he heard on Fox and Friends. But this whole Joe Kent

episode. It's it's extraordinary. I mean, just to set up who this man was, you know, he was the head of what they call the National Counter Terrorism Center, which was set up post nine eleven in order to coordinate the different intelligence agencies in the US because

uh one of the things that they believed in the wake of nine eleven was that a reason that it hadn't been detected was because the intelligence agencies had not been talking to each other. So he headed up this place that brought the CIA the FBI, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security together to coordinate. So this is a man who knew b about US intelligence at a really, really high level. And so for him to walk away.

and and do this is remarkable. And I think that the the key thing I took away from the Tucker Carlson interview, and it's the key thing that I took away from Jo Ken's letter, was, I mean, this simple declaration that Iran was not an imminent threat. And so therefore, you know, the US has has has gone to war on a false pretense.

And then coupled that with Tulsi Gabbard, who, you know, the director of US national intelligence, who yesterday appeared before the US Intelligence Committee, which I I think is a thing that happens once or twice a year. But she again was straight down the line on this and I actually pulled a quote up.

She said as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, which was the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities in June last year, as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. Right now we also heard that from Trump in June last year, that it didn't exist anymore. So that is now look, it's something that we knew. It's something that was obvious. But now Trump has two very, very senior intelligence officials

Coming out and confirming that, confirming that it was complete nonsense that Iran posed any kind of imminent threat. Gabbard went further. She actually said that they hadn't managed. to salvage anything or make any new progress since the attacks in June. um um of last year. So, you know, attacking Iran was never a MAGA project. It's hugely unpopular in the US. He's going against the US public on this. He's going against a lot of his base.

on this. And I think um as you alluded to earlier, we have uh midterms coming up in the US in November. in which the House and Senate are both in play. Uh I was actually talking to somebody earlier today who's a former US government official, was until very recently a US government official. Who told me that, you know, even the Senate is in play. Now it's very hard. The Republicans have uh a majority in the Senate and in the House. It's very hard to flip seats.

in the Senate. But in terms of flipping seats in the House, I think they only have a a majority of five in the House. All the maths are showing that the Democrats right now have a very strong chance of Flipping the house. And if that happens, then what Trump is left with is what they you know, what they call in the US a sort of a a a a lame a lame duck presidency. And it's gonna make it very difficult.

For him to get things done, notwithstanding executive orders, which can only take you so far. So Trump is in an incredibly difficult spot. um, domestically as this thing continues, you know, Hexet said today it's gonna cost two hundred billion. A war that's already incredibly unpopular with the US population. How do you think that's going to go down with the US public?

So he is in a really, really tough spot. And now to have Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Kent come out and say that there was no reason to go to war with Iran and that the reason that was given was a pretense. I think this is really, really tough for Donald Trump right now.

Certainly agree with that. This, however, is the most explosive part of the interview. And then you know, Charlie Kirk is killed publicly in a very horrific way, and we're not really even allowed to look into that at all. And Charlie Kirk was one of President Trump's closest advisors and he also advocated heavily against a war with Iran. He was in the Oval Office in the lead up to the Twelve Day War.

I I wasn't particularly close with Charlie. Uh he was very gracious to me when I was running for Congress, very, very supportive. Uh so we knew each other. And the last time I saw Charlie Kirk on this earth, was in in June, um in in the in the West Wing in the stairway and I said hi to him and he looked me in the eye and he said very loudly and it's a small you've been in the West Wing, it's it's small, uh it's a tight space and and he said, Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran.

Very loudly. And he walked off and he went, I believe, into the oval. Um so when one of President Trump's closest advisors who is vocally advocating for us to not go to war with Iran and for us to rethink at least our relationship with the Israelis. Um, and then he's suddenly publicly assassinated and we're not allowed to ask any questions about that.

It's a data point. It's a data point that we need to look into. Aaron Ross Powell What do you mean um when you say we're not allowed to ask any questions about that? Aaron Ross Powell We j we've we've been told that this individual, uh Robinson, is a lone gunman and maybe he is. Um but the investigation that that I was a part of, the National Counterterrorism Center was a part of, we were stopped from continuing to investigate. And the FBI will say that that they stopped that because

they wanted to have tr ev turn everything over to the Utah state authorities. Everything's going to trial. It's very, very sensitive. But there was still a lot for us to look into that I I I can't really get into, but there was still linkage. for us to investigate that we needed to run down. I'm not making any conclusions. I'm not saying that because you know because of this, this happened. I'm not I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying there's unanswered questions.

We know the pressure because of the text messages that text messages that have been made public that Charlie was under a lot of pressure from a lot of pro-Israel donors. And again, we know Charlie was advocating to President Trump against this war with Iran.

Barry, we are used to hearing wild conspiracy theories from Trump appointees and from guests on the Tucker Carlson show. But that's quite the claim uh that is being made. by Joe Kent there from someone who is until this week the head of US counterterrorism. Do you think there's anything to this or is he just stuck in the Candice Oan cinematic universe? You know there's a way in which I just don't wanna touch this with a ten foot ball.

speculation, you know, but from from from me or anybody else who tries to decode this, because there's absolutely no evidence of anything like that. Yes, of course it's significant that this man who I actually said earlier was in this incredibly important position would say this. But then a lot of the people in the Trump administration, and he's a political appointee, um, have kind of weird checkered histories where they have leaned into conspiracy theories.

So I don't know. Look, do I think it's likely that Israel assassinated Charlie Kirk? No, not really. And I don't think there's any evidence to point to it. But who bloody knows these days? Up is down, down is up, everything's insane, particularly in the US. So who knows? But I am not really touching.

Yeah, I think as far as I can see, claims that somehow Massad is involved potentially, right? I think that's for the birds really. But I do think that the questions really need to be asked about the reaction from the Trump administration if they are totally making their counterterrorism unit hands off, right? There's some kind of justification in my mind that the Trump administration will have.

for getting their counterterrorism unit again for somebody who murdered somebody in politically, right? It was a political murder that was done. Somehow counterterrorism isn't involved. And I wanna know what the Trump administration's rationale was for. I was we'll leave it up to the state. in Utah. Again, do I think that Israel are involved? I think that

That is d sounds like crank conspiracy stuff to me. But we have seen how the FBI have acted in response to Charlie Kirk's assassination. And again, this doesn't look like normal behaviour well for what something and for in for what institutions like this would do in the case of a high profile assassination like that.

Thank you very much, Barry, for joining me tonight, as always. Thanks, Elena. It was great to be on with you. Absolutely, absolutely was. And thank you, everyone at home, for tuning in. Come back tomorrow for another live stream from 6 p.m. For now, you've been watching Navarra Media. Good night.