The broader implications of the attack on Iran | Jerm Warfare

Craving the coffee flavor you love.

But without the caffeine,

kachavas got you covered with their newest coffee flavor.

This all-in-one nutrition shake delivers bold, authentic flavor,

crafted from premium, decaffeinated Brazilian beans.

Quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated.

Just two scoops of kachavas all-in-one nutrition shake,

and you've got 25 grams of protein,

six grams of fiber, greens, and so much more.

Whether you're craving that coffee taste

to kickstart your morning ritual,

or as a nutrient-packed reward

to round out your afternoon,

kachava keeps you fueled and satisfied

wherever your day takes you.

Plus, it actually tastes delicious.

No fillers, no nonsense.

Just the good stuff, your body craves.

And for the times you feel like switching it up,

you've got seven flavors to choose from,

all with the highest quality ingredients.

Treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your body craves.

Go to kachava.com and use code news.

New customers get 15% off their first order.

That's K-A-C-H-A-V-A.com code news.

My name is Jerm, this is Jerm Wolfe,

the Battle of Ideas.

Last week, we had an incredibly timely conversation.

We asked the question,

what would happen if the U.S attacked Iran?

And that happened, I think, within 48 hours

after we ate that recording.

Now, the counter-response is fairly significant.

What that shows is that the counter-response

shows is that attacking Iran was a stupid idea.

Well, enough people were saying it was a stupid idea

for months before it actually happened.

I mean, it was quite amazing that it happened

within 48 hours of that conversation.

But on the other hand, we and to many others

have been talking about the fact that this was going to happen

for several weeks before.

There was only a question of when it was going to happen.

Iran's been on the target list for decades.

So it was inevitable that it was going to happen.

It's fascinating to me that it's Trump that has done it.

It's fascinating to me how they are trying to justify it

in terms of, well, we had to do it

because Israel was going to do it.

And we knew that if Israel did it, then we were going to get,

we were going to be on the receiving end

of some of what Iran did.

So we got in there first.

And also the whole, now the whole Christian Zionism,

openly Christian Zionist rhetoric that's going

apparently during the runs of the US military

and certainly coming out of the mouth of Hexath.

So we are really at a critical point

because this doesn't look like, I mean, it doesn't look

like the United States.

And the other thing, of course, the other narrative

that's already being set up as I mentioned

on Wednesday's news program or an extra,

I think it's maybe an extra, was on Tuesday night,

Channel 4 News had somebody on,

can't remember his name, who was pushing the idea

that in taking this action, Trump is actually preventing a war.

So undoubtedly, should this conclude soon,

sooner rather than later, we are going to hear rhetoric

from Trump having stopped nine and a half wars

instead of eight and a half.

It's just, it's just incredible how the insanity

that we're witnessing in front of our eyes

at the moment, but I don't see that this is going

to end anytime soon.

And then we've got the question Charles can talk a little bit

about this, maybe about, you know, who has what weapons?

Because, of course, the US claims to have unlimited supplies

of missiles and other stuff, other kit.

I don't think anybody with, you know, anybody

who that's been paying attention believes a word of that

because so much of it has already gone to Ukraine and so on.

Then there's the question of what Iran has.

And Iran, obviously, is claiming that it has lots.

And the West is claiming that it has almost nothing

and they're trying to build a narrative at the moment

that, initially, there was this massive response

from Iran, but that has tilled off in the last few days.

So they were initially launching hundreds of missiles,

neither only launching tens of missiles,

therefore they must be running out.

And so it goes on.

It is absolutely already a massive propaganda exercise.

Never mind what's actually happening to the poor people

that are on the receiving end of whatever side is pushing

whatever.

And the school is hit.

That was a disgrace.

That was an absolute disgrace and no serious acknowledgement

of regret on the US side.

And in fact, you know, as Vanessa was showing

on the UK column news program on Wednesday,

the clip of Trump, really, you know,

on beginning his little speech by saying how much he prayed

for the, oh, prayed for the fallen and the wounded,

but, you know, this stuff happens.

You know, so in other words, demonstrating

a complete lack of empathy with anybody

that's really been on the receiving end of this.

Yes.

Well, I mean, to go back to the point about it being stupid,

let's face it, attacking anywhere at any point is stupid.

And stupid is, of course, not really quite the right word

because it's utterly inhuman.

And what I would like to get to is the bit

that the United States rhetoric glosses over completely,

which Mike has just alluded to because of the atrocious way

in which Trump just dismissed the lives that would be lost.

And of course, you know, by really only talking

about American lives, we get straight to the heart of it,

which is that there is never any acknowledgement

that killing people in another country is just not OK.

There's still people.

And I didn't want to stop talking about this.

I think I referenced, if not on this podcast,

then another UK column broadcast.

But I recently read a firsthand account of life

in the trenches in the First World War.

And it was not only extremely poignant and horrific to read,

but it brought out several very, very important philosophical

points.

And it was really the passage of time in this instance,

written by the specific book I'm talking about

is called Tommy at Gomkoor, written by Thomas Higgins.

And I know I've definitely spoken about it

on this banter session before.

But the point, one of the very important points made

is the realization that they were just killing German men

because they were German.

There was no other qualifying criterion

for killing these people.

And that is exactly what's happening now.

And that is what confronts any service man or woman

in this theatre of conflict, whether they're actively

engaged or on the periphery, they are now

going to be actively involved in the process

of killing Iranians simply because they're Iranian.

And they are absolutely not people

that have ever done anything to them, despite the narrative.

So the idea that there could ever be a just conflict,

I think, is very, very stretched.

And just before we get accused of sort of double standards,

I would bring the Russia-Ukraine situation in here,

because, of course, that is problematic,

because one can see absolutely with the way in which NATO

and the European Union and all the various Western power

bases have acted against Vladimir Putin in particular

and the Russian state, the Russian identity.

And, of course, there's a very, very complex history

to that, however, is it really ever the right thing

to begin an engagement that you know is going

to result in the deaths of, if not hundreds,

then thousands of people.

And look at what's happened in Russia and Ukraine.

I mean, the whole thing is completely tragic

and having spent time working in Ukraine years ago,

it's a dreadful, dreadful thing.

And I think we also get poisoned slightly

by sort of considering what Zelensky is doing

is appalling and that he's corrupt,

and they're all corrupt, and whatever.

But still, I mean, that may well be the case,

but that doesn't, in any way, make any of it any better.

It is awful, awful slaughter.

And it's people like Trump and Hexif, who stand up there.

Okay, Hexif has put himself in harm's way

in a previous life, but it's certainly not going to do so now.

So the idea that this is in any way just

and this idea of invoking, you know, godliness

and all that kind of thing is absolutely dreadful

and cynical.

The other thing, sorry, just on what,

whilst we're on contradictions and ironies,

I mean, isn't it amazing that there are many, many accounts

of exactly like you say, Mike,

of the United States having a knackered supply line

where munitions are concerned,

and the fact that they may run up,

and there's no one feels there's no smoke

without fire here.

And yet the Iranians are openly declaring

that they are very well armed, very well supplied.

They're very well prepared, which gets completely dismissed.

And yet the idea that they have nuclear weapons,

despite the utter absence of evidence is a story

that gets promulgated forever and ever.

So isn't it just fascinating how at times like this,

you know, absolutely all better off.

I mean, the truth just gets,

it is absolutely the first casualty

and the whole situation is one gigantic manipulation

from there and of course has to be

because if they're going to convince personnel,

particularly of the United States armed forces

to sign up and join in,

they've got to make it sound good.

But I think it's also fair to say

that in a war there is the fog of propaganda

and that comes also from the Iranians side.

I think in these circumstances is very hard

to ever know exactly what the truth is.

But of course not, I mean, of course,

if you've got two protagonists,

they are going to put the best face on whatever situation

they find themselves in because that is part and parcel

of the battle.

They've got a, there's a psychological aspect

of any warfare and you've got to convince the enemy

that you've, that you're serious.

But in Iran's case, you know,

it is clear that they have a significant capability

that the other targets of regime change

that the West has attacked in previous conflicts never had.

I mean, you know, Iran has hypersonic weapons.

Iran has a drone capability that it developed in its country.

It didn't buy it from somewhere else.

And in fact, it sold its drone designed to Russia

and Russia's using those drones very successfully in Ukraine.

So, you know, the United States,

so you began this by suggesting that this was a stupid thing

to do, it was stupid on many, many levels.

But it was stupid because, you know,

they are taking on a country which is absolutely capable

of defending itself and in ways that the other countries were not.

And so, this is not going to be Iraq, it simply isn't.

So, we have to, but the bigger, the bigger problem is,

you know, if we have a country like the United States

with a trillion plus dollar a year defense budget,

we don't, you know, even with that,

they are struggling to supply themselves and so on.

But, you know, that's the scale of their defense budget.

And they're now using language like Armageddon

and, you know, envisioning the final conflict happening at this point.

It is clear that this is not just about Iran.

In their minds, this is absolutely about expanding this conflict regionally

and turning this into something much bigger

than just simply the regime change of a single country.

And we should all be concerned about that.

We should all be pushing back very hard against that possibility.

Yeah.

I mean, in terms of...

Sorry, go on, Charles.

No, no, no.

Well, it's just, sorry, just to go,

because I don't really deal with it directly,

but to talk about the stupidity of it, yes.

I mean, if we're to look at the strategic and the tactical picture,

then, yes, very stupid.

And I think, as part of a wider question,

one really has to examine the reputational damage that America is going to do to itself.

I know this seems like, you know,

oh, sort of, here we go again, and they've always somehow come out of it

in fairly good shape.

The rest of the world still wants to deal with them

and this, that, and the other.

I think we've talked about the Donald Trump effect a lot,

obviously, on these banter sessions.

But I think that is just an extra dimension.

On Wednesday's news program, I played the clip of him just having a pop

at anybody that wasn't going to support United States action,

and he had a gayist arm at describing him as not being Winston Churchill.

And Spain.

Exactly, and that's what I was going to say.

And so Spain has just, has just sort of had the info that the point,

and this is something that Douglas McGregor has, I think,

been particularly clear on and well-referenced.

He makes the point that, you know, there's only so many times

that the United States can do this.

And particularly when you've got the instability and apparent madness

of the American regime, as compared with the stability offered by China

or Russia or India or, you know, there are many other places to look now

in terms of allegiances and economic ties.

And so to sort of nail your colours to the, to the mass of Israel

and to undertake an action like this,

it is on a military level, I would say, exactly like you suggest,

absurdly stupid, but on a national level,

I mean, the repercussions could and probably should be dire,

maybe not in the immediate term,

but in the way that America is going to be perceived as a dwindling empire.

I think is absolutely, you know, sort of playing itself out now.

But, you know, it remains to be seen exactly how countries will respond to that.

You know, Spain, for example, now, I mean, what are they going to do?

Are they going to go back sort of cap in hand and say, oh, you know,

don't worry, we really do want to have something to do with you,

knowing that the wind could change direction again tomorrow, multiple times.

Or not, are they going to think, well, perhaps it might be time to move on?

You know, maybe America isn't who they really say they are.

Maybe they're not all that great.

And especially when they, you know, they put out all this brash chat about,

about being able to destroy, you know, like they always do.

It was the same thing with Mission Accomplish back in 2003.

I mean, this idea that their military might is absolutely sort of impenetrable and whatnot.

And of course, they're going to get found out.

And where will that take them and where will that take the rest of the world more interestingly?

I was going to say earlier with regards to navigating the fog of propaganda.

I don't think it's fair to say that there is equal amounts of propaganda from both sides

because the US has, you know, attacked Iran and Iran is defending itself.

And so the way I would see it, and this is just a theory,

but I'm more likely to put more faith in what's coming out of Iran than what's coming out of the US in this instance

because they are not the aggressor.

Up to a point, I mean, the point I would make here is, of course,

the propaganda machine that the US, the UK and the EU has is so much more capable and advanced.

It's got massive tech companies spawned in the United States, spawned in Israel.

Absolutely behind it.

We're seeing so much content being automatically generated by bots.

So from that point of view, yes.

But you know, at the same time, we've got to recognize that, as you say, Iran is a country, no, under attack.

It didn't take the first step on this.

And it has to do what it thinks is the right thing on every front.

And so it's going to use whatever capabilities it has to present a public face,

which is a positive one for its people and also to give the idea to the other side that they're strong.

No, I don't know because none of us can know exactly what is sitting underground in Iran.

The only people that know that are the people that are able to go there and see for themselves.

So we've got it, but we've just got to appreciate the world we're living in and try to decipher what we're seeing as best we can.

I think my favorite though is the offer from North Korea saying that it will give Iran rockets that will wipe out Israel.

It doesn't surprise me, you know, North Korea is normally.

But I bet I mean, is it any surprise?

North Korea has demonstrated a launch capability and at great cost to its people.

I mean, I'm not going to underestimate the effect, you know, the fact that they are putting so much resource into that capability means, of course, other people are suffering.

But the point is that every time the rhetoric has come out of the UK or the US on Iran, North Korea's name is never too far behind.

So it's hardly surprising that they are prepared to make that kind of offer.

I mean, I was obviously being facetious, but I mean, do you think North Korea is just making up words or do you think they legit have what they say they have?

Britain has now made two attempts to test its tried nuclear missile delivery system.

So it's sent a submarine off and it's attempted to test fire the rockets that are supposed to deliver tried nuclear warheads to the destination and both occasions, those tests filled.

North Korea is firing off. I mean, we hear it all the time. It's it's fully propagandized in the Western media. North Korea has has fired yet another ballistic missile and you know, it landed somewhere in the Pacific and so on.

So they have demonstrated that they are well down the road of developing a capability and, you know, they're they're test fireings don't seem to be feeling.

I mean, obviously that could be concerning for for the future.

Who for? It's only concerning for us because North Korea isn't showing any signs of wanting to enter into conflict with with anybody else.

It is clearly demonstrating a capability with a view to trying to persuade the West to leave it alone.

This is what of our affairs is what they're saying effectively there.

This is what Vanessa said on my on my show this week and satari said that you're from from Iran.

Both of them said that Iran is not causing any chaos with its neighbors. It's not attacking anybody. It just wants to remain independent.

Yeah, it's it's sort of it's like the macro version of of not wanting to have a covered job.

You know, you just you just want to be left alone, but no, there has to be continued pressure and pressure and pressure and then eventually it snaps and and you get clobbered.

It's it's completely extraordinary and of course, you know, we know this and I dare say most people are very well versed with the statistics and of course I can't give accurate ones.

But all these countries that are accused of being aggressors or of presenting a threat and this and the other.

The military engagements that they've been involved with compared with those that the United States has taken on over the last hundred years.

I mean, there's there is no comparison.

So it is incredible really that here we are in 2026 and anyone still believes what comes out of the propaganda machines of the Western nations who are and all have been the aggressors.

Now, I'm not saying that there has been no, you know, that no one else has ever been involved in any of this.

But I mean, specifically like has just been referenced whether it's North Korea or Iran or Russia.

They they all anything that they have been involved in pales into insignificance compared with in particular the Americans.

So it is astonishing what people will digest and believe.

But of course, the moment something like this happens, you know, you listen to Trump and Hegsith in particular.

And if you hadn't been paying attention to any of it, you'd think, wow, okay, this is this is amazing.

Yeah, these guys, they really, you know, they really need to do this.

And of course, social media is a wash with people, you know, thanking, thanking President Trump.

I mean, yeah, just the sort of this combined action with Israel, I believe should be enough to make people feel very, very uncomfortable.

But of course, because of the way things have been manipulated over the last two and a half years, it's easy to see how people were primed for exactly this scenario in which they would support not just United States action, but United States action at the behest of and in conjunction with Israel.

It's perfectly astonishing. I think if you'd asked somebody whether such a thing would be acceptable five years ago, I don't think people would have gone for it.

I asked, um, was it, was it Vanessa or was it Satori? I forget now, but I asked one of them, whose wall is it?

And I think it was Vanessa and she said the Zionists.

And I think that's a good answer because that incorporates both the US and Israel in this because it's hard to know who's actually driving it.

If you're going to, if you want to only look at countries.

Well, absolutely. And I think specifically with Vanessa, as you haven't listened to all of that, that one.

But, um, but not just those countries, but also the wider, the region and, you know, the Gulf states in particular, she was talking about the way, the way in which the tapestry of the Middle East sort of wider does or does not support the fraction.

Yeah, absolutely, but, but with specific regard to Israeli intentions, all is the intention of the state of Israel. Yes, absolutely.

Um, that fracturing of the Arab world is actually, I think, pivotal to understanding why runners being attacked because I mean, if you just go online or you just talk to people around you, they all say the same thing.

It's totalitarian is Islamist regime. It's still, you know, that's, that's the deflection. That's the, uh, the very low hanging fruit argument, but the real, the real agenda is a lot deeper.

It has to do with greater Israel that it has to do with the fracturing of, um, quote unquote, the Middle East. It's not about, um, what, what the average person thinks.

This is part of the difficulty of, of communicating this kind of, um, of talking point.

I think, um, they, first of all, I would question, you know, the excuse that anybody that says that Iran is, you know, an Islamist dictatorship.

If Iran is an Islamist dictatorship, that's Iran's problem. Why is it, why is it our problem? Why do we feel that we need to intervene on these things?

How do we feel if, if, uh, you know, um, Iran was intervening on, uh, in the UK, where there is a big opposition to not just the Labour Party, but to all political parties at the moment.

How do we feel if, if, uh, if Iran was bombing London to bring about regime change? This is our, whatever's going on in the UK is our problem to deal with internally.

Um, and, and it's pretty arrogant of any, you know, even if we assumed that that was what was going on here, that, that, that we were writing to the rescue of, of, uh, the oppressed in, in a dictatorship in another country that, that's, we don't live there and we've no way of actually knowing what it's like to live there.

Um, on, on the bigger question, though, um, uh, completely lost my train of thought on that one, but, uh, well, I was making the point that, that, uh, the deeper agenda is the fracturing of the Arab world, um, in favor of, of Israeli expansion.

Yeah, but I mean, right, so, so the point it was going to make is that, you know, there's no, there's no one answer to this because, because yes, uh, the greater Israel project is one part of it.

Belton Road is also a part of it that we can't ignore because this is, this is also about, uh, trade routes and, and making sure that, that from a geopolitical point of view, certain vested interests have, have control of certain regions.

Uh, you know, and we, we, we come back, we can come back to the statement that, that RFK met about, uh, um, about Israel being America's aircraft carrier in the region. That's, that's effectively correct.

Um, but, but equally a part of that is also the, the deliberate, um, intentional sectarian, uh, strife, which is created by, you know, Western money effectively, um, to make sure that there can be, um,

to make sure that there can be no unity in the region and make sure that, that, uh, that region is not standing up as a, as a, as a single entity, which could, you know, actually influence its own affairs rather than have, have its affairs influenced from, from great powers outside, outside the region.

So, you know, there's no question that this, that, that Zionism has a massive role to play in, in what's going on at the moment, but you could equally point at a, at a whole range of other vested interests that are equally, um, interested in making, you know, find themselves aligned with Zionism on, in this particular instance, because it suits their particular agenda as well.

So, you know, it is an extremely complex, um, situation, um, and, uh, you know, many, many players taking part, um, I'm going to be interested to see if for whether, um, Russia and China decide to step in at any point and, and offer support themselves.

I, I have the feeling that you don't think, well, I have a feeling that they're not going to, I think that, um, they are, um, busy with their own issues and actually, um, but I think at the same time it's, you know, coming back to the North Korea point is interesting that North Korea has, has made this, this offer because actually, you know,

the Mark Carney speech at the World Economic Forum about middle countries getting together, I think, I think the global side, the, so-called global side that, that is clearly being perceived as a massive, uh, economic and geopolitical threat to the West and Western Hajjimani at the moment, um, is very fractured and, you know, the, the key players are effectively being picked off one by one at the moment.

Uh, and, uh, you know, maybe, maybe some of those countries, including Russia and China would be wise to, to, to take hate of what Carney said and maybe think about building a, a proper cohesive, uh, power block that would actually offer some, you know, serious, um, not so much resistance, but, but certainly have a, have a chilling effect on, on this sort of, uh, this, this policy that we're pursuing, that the West is pursuing these days.

Of, of just, uh, just choosing to pull leaders out of people's countries and, and attempt to change everything in their favor. It's, it's, it's quite incredible that the, the people on the receiving end of this aren't, um, that are, you know, are still as, as fractured as they are in the face of what they're, what they're saying.

I mean, if you take a step back and you ask the question, who benefits, I don't benefit from what's going on in the, in the run, uh, you know, petrol diesel prices are going to go up.

Um, I don't think you got absolutely key point. This is absolutely a key point because, because, you know, all the people that are cheerleading for this action in a run in, in the United States or in the UK or in, uh, Europe, we are going to be, uh, economically devastated in the next couple of years.

If this continues very much longer, we're going to start seeing the kind, you know, inflation worse than we saw in the COVID time.

We're going to see energy prices skyrocket.

Um, our standard of living is going to collapse. There's no, there's no alternative. That is, that is what is going to happen because, um, as soon as energy starts becoming scarce.

And remember, this is a major, uh, route for all kinds of supply chains. Uh, we've already seen, um, supply chains devastated over the 2020 to 2023 period.

We're going to see that happen again at what we've seen. We've seen how hard it is to get certain products into into Europe and the UK because they've had to travel run the South Coast of Africa instead of going through.

This is, uh, the, um, this is can also, so, you know, this is not good for us. And, and, uh, this is as much actually we should be looking at it this way.

My opinion, this is much an attack on, uh, the ordinary people of the West as it is on a run.

And, uh, because, because the people that are pulling the, the strings on this, um, they've already got there.

They're already sorted out. I mean, how many of these, uh, billionaire oligarchs have already built their underground shelters?

We, we know this has been, we've been talking about this for years and they're not hiding it either. They're often, we often see the images and photographs in, uh, mainstream press.

So, you know, they don't care whether this escalates or not because they have, they've sorted themselves out in their minds.

I'm not convinced that that's necessarily going to work in the end, but, but in their minds, they're, they're not concerned about how this, uh, conflict might spread, whether it's this one or the next one at some point it is going to spread.

So this is much an attack on us as it is on a run. And we've got to recognize that and start fighting back.

Frankly, Catherine, Catherine Olsenfitz has already been making, um, arguments, uh, for the acceleration of digital ID, CBDC stablecoins as a result of this attack on your own.

And that's also pretty important. Central bankers are winning. They, they are certainly winning this. It's no doubt about that.

Look, every policy is going to be accelerated by this. This is, this is how they, this is how they create crises in order to accelerate policy. That's, that's how it works.

Well, I mean, as part of that, you know, I think, I think the, um, the boot being on the other foot pointers is absolutely right and well made by Mike. And this is what I was serving in the armed forces thought about very much, particularly with regard to Afghanistan.

And it seemed to me so cock-eyed that we couldn't look at it in that way, you know, to, to go and throw your weight around in somebody else's country imagining that you either know best for it or have any right to be there is completely extraordinary.

That does take me back to the, to the Russia Ukraine point, because of course, I think we need to be sort of even handed or consider that. And of course, the, the significant part of that is that the east of Ukraine for reasons of history is by and large populated by ethnic Russians.

And so that, that's why that specific intervention in the context of what we're speaking about makes sense. Whereas this doesn't know military operations, American military operations are only ever predicated on American interests. And I, I know that for sure, because I've seen briefings set out exactly like that.

The idea that America would ever do anything that wasn't in her interests is not credible. But you see, this is, this is where I think it does get very interesting because what, what now are considered to be America's best interests economically one might say that destabilizing the Middle East.

Or it could be an appalling decision economically, you know, the repercussions for that region and therefore for the United States trade oil.

I mean, in so many respects could be disastrous. So is it that the bean counters have seen something that we haven't and that they can project that there will be an economic benefit that isn't yet apparent or is it as you rightly point out?

That this provides the opportunity to drive on the digital infrastructure and control mechanisms that have been waiting in the wings for some years. And this is absolutely that emergency or a sort of hybridization of both of those points.

As stupid as this is in terms of military strategy or geopolitics or just humanity. I mean, the idea that America has any business bashing the administration of one country because they say that a majority of people don't like it when they can't substantiate that at all.

And even if a majority don't, is it still any business of theirs and all that argument.

But really, what is it that's going to fall out of this? Of course, exactly. Again, the point is well made that the decisions that are made are made by people who will not in any way be affected by this except for by the successes or otherwise of the businesses or the various organizations that they have.

Hold the levers to and how will they benefit and so I think that's how we have to examine this where this takes Israel.

I think is is a slightly different question and I don't feel necessarily sufficiently qualified to to answer that, but I do think it is an interesting one because it absolutely I would say notwithstanding the point about the Gulf state.

And the support that Israel may have from the fractured nature of the Middle East and all the rest of it, but I do question what Israel will look like at the end of this whenever the end of this actually is.

What do you think?

Mike smiling.

I wonder if Israel is going to make a hundred years.

And I'm not saying that anybody must wipe out Israel. That's not what I'm saying.

No, but Israel is is is is almost inviting major aggression on itself.

Yes, I mean, it would appear so. And I don't know, I think just because it.

When I say Israel, when I say, when I say Israel, I mean the Israeli government. I'm not talking about the people.

Yes, absolutely. I think we need to be very clear about that. But this is it. The government of Israel, you know, in exactly the same way that the American administration conducts itself is the language, the rhetoric, the action,

the way in which they behave, I mean, you know, sort of playground bully, whatever, whatever it is that you want to call them, however you want to describe it, you know, the thing is that when somebody like that gets knocked on their backside, that's normally the end of it.

And it I just wonder.

Given the conditions that do surround this particular action. And you know, going back to to what Russia or China and I would say China in particular might do.

Yes, I think the idea of any direct intervention is is extremely, extremely unlikely as to be not even conceivable.

But I don't think that means that there would be no action. And as I say, that's because I think it, you know, this does come back to to the economic position.

And yes, OK, China is much more significant to Iran than Iran is to China. But there is a there is a strong trade relationship there.

Iran exports to China more than to anywhere else. And it is reasonable to think that the Chinese do have some legitimate interest in there being a good outcome for Iran, of course, for many other reasons.

So I think there is a lot of there is a lot yet to to come out, a lot of hands yet to be dealt.

So we will, of course, how do we know we will see, but I really do think it is worth questioning, you know, I think we've had this impression because the way in which Israel has conducted itself towards Gaza and Lebanon, I mean, not not exclusively, but just what we've seen in the last two and a half years.

I think has given people the impression that there is a sort of there is an invulnerability there, they can just do what they want, particularly because they have the support of the Americans, but in actual fact, what is that really going to be worth, I think is my question.

If the American might, militarily, is not what it's purported to be because they don't have a limitless supply of munitions in particular that their hardware is not quite up to scratch that Iran is extraordinarily difficult to deal with because of its geography.

There are many aspects that point towards the potential for a pretty dramatic undoing for for the American empire and indeed the state of Israel, I think I think these are totally legitimate questions, but I think we've been, we've almost been propagandized into thinking that such an outcome would not at all be possible.

I think, I think, I think it absolutely should be regarded as possible.

I've got a feeling that Iran is going to come out stronger.

Well, I mean, absolutely possible.

Let's see, what do you think about that?

I think that if we look at the United States history of these types of conflicts,

any time that they've come up against resistance, they don't win Korea and Vietnam, of course, and somehow that those defeats haven't stuck.

No, I don't think Iran has every possibility of coming out stronger because if they come even close to winning this or at least getting the United States in a position where they have to back off, I mean, I realize that that's practical.

It's certainly that would be a very difficult thing to achieve because because, of course, the US is effectively bet its entire reputation on this action.

Nonetheless, if they do succeed in doing that, that is going to be a massive victory for them and so yes, and they absolutely have the potential to come out stronger.

The West, no matter how much money the West spends, if we look at the relative defense budgets of Trump keeps whining about Britain and the EU's defense budgets, but if we look at the defense budgets of NATO countries and compare those with the defense budgets of Iran or Russia or even China, we look at the types of weaponry that they are developing

with their relatively small quantities of cash and we look at what the F-35 platform is ridiculous.

The UK announced the day before yesterday whatever it was that we were sending a destroyer to Cyprus and now yesterday they've had this morning or last night they've had to admit actually it's not going for another week because we have to refit it

because it wasn't it was being fed it out for another mission because we have so few destroyers, we can't find one that can just go to a particular place.

We've got to actually completely change what was being fed it out to do.

There's still the question of whether it can, whether it will actually succeed in getting to Cyprus because these particular boats have demonstrated that they break down when the water gets too warm.

The West is in a state of real collapse on so many levels, it's not just about part holes in the road, it's also about the fact that we are spending huge quantities of money on stuff and really not getting much return for it.

Do you think China's approach is the best so far? I mean they aren't getting involved.

I think it was Vanessa this week who said that it wasn't Vanessa, I think it was Vanessa said to me this week that their approach, it's outside the boundaries of morality, they're just simply being pragmatic.

As far as we're aware of, we don't know what may have gone on behind the scenes but certainly as far as we are, I would agree.

I mean what is to be well apart from condemnation, verbalized condemnation, what point is there in sort of weighing into an already disastrous situation.

But no, I think sorry, just on the point of the destroyer specifically, I mean this is such a joke because obviously we've had four years now, exactly four years of all NATO forces but the British in particular saying how we are mobilizing specifically for war with Russia.

I mean that was the line, initially it wasn't sort of Russia, sort of mobilizing this and the other.

But even prior to that, the whole point of having an armed force is that readiness is one of your capabilities and high readiness also.

And that simply does not exist and even after four years of apparently being focused entirely on the activity in the Northern hemisphere in particularly the northern latitudes and now this, it is something like this should just undo the entire narrative.

It makes it absolutely abundantly clear that we're not able to meet frankly anything, any demand, unless it is entirely on our terms.

So if we, if we can plan at least a year ahead that we're going to do this that and the other, okay, maybe that's possible and as an example, just to go back to the Navy, we had an aircraft carrier or pretty much the aircraft carrier in the Indo Pacific last year on a

very bizarre, it was basically on exercise, but it was described as an operational torch is kind of strange.

And now that's back and that's being sent up to the Arctic, to the high north.

So there's no suggestion that the aircraft carrier, which is obviously ready to deploy, would just turn round and go to the Mediterranean or to the Gulf.

That's not being considered apparently instead.

It's a great demonstration, Charles, isn't it, of how far, you know, our capability has collapsed because, you know, no matter what you think of the Forklands War, the British military demonstrated that it could react.

And now we know we claim to have rapid reaction forces and rapid is two years.

It's not rapid.

It's not rapid. There's no reaction and not really a credible force. Yeah, it is it is absolutely absurd.

So how ridiculous to sort of even consider getting involved. I mean, you know, again, going back to the line that's being trotted out by the British establishment, which is that

that our involvement is is, you know, to protect British lives. And it's, it's a defensive.

We're going to take on a defensive role and this that the other because of our interests in the region.

Well, in actual fact, is that really in large part code for, okay, we don't actually have any kit or blocks to send out there.

You know, it looks increasingly like it. So, you know, what a what a fast.

As a parallel talking point and maybe something to think about in the future as as a actual discussion, because this has now started coming up as a result of this attack on your run.

If the Suez Canal does get shut down or closed for any number of reasons.

South Africa becomes pretty important because the suit is the right.

Yes, correct. And this has been spoken about now on various levels.

How, how are prepared are we for for, you know, more traffic coming around the coast.

And what does it mean for West versus East?

It's it's a very strange dynamic to be in because we're part of bricks, which means that we are obviously more closely aligned to your run and China and Russia.

So, I don't have anywhere I'm going with this talking point, but it is something that has come up and it's it really is a fascinating thought.

Theoretically, you're more aligned with Russia and China, but I mean, India at the moment is doing a good demonstration of not really that that doesn't count for much because as we know those.

Yeah, sure.

So, you know, bricks, bricks is still as an organization, still extremely loose.

It's not flimsy tight.

Yeah, I mean, South Africa probably should view this as an opportunity.

No, the question is whether any of the ships that are not using the Suez Canal anymore are how many of them actually stop in South Africa on their way, probably not very many.

But, you know, the idea of using shipping to deliver stuff anyway, it's so inefficient.

And, you know, we should be opening, we should be opening the.

It was genius.

The cheaper is it?

Yeah, it is. Why do you say it's inefficient?

Now, just because it takes a long to get anything from.

I mean, if you're going to transport, let's say, a hundred cars.

Obviously, it's easy on a ship than it is on an airplane.

Yeah, but the point is we're not we're everything's everything still we're still thinking in terms of coastal and right.

You know, why do we not?

There's other ways to transport stuff.

I mean, trends, for example, seems like a pretty good way to get stuff from A to B, but we don't want to build.

And, you know, we don't want to open up the internal spaces that we have.

But, but anyway, getting back to the original point, you know, this is, this is, nothing is separate from anything else.

Clearly, in the minds of certain oligarchs, this situation in the Middle East has been planned for a very long time.

Yeah.

And as almost as zero fanfare in the Western press, you know, China has sent, and I think it was September last year sent its first.

It was a partnership around through the Arctic route to Felix though in the UK to deliver a container ship load of containers.

So that that route and the investment that China and Russia have made in their Arctic ports is huge and spectacularly modern and so on.

Just going I mean, there's plenty of stuff that's on the internet on that on YouTube and whatnot about this.

But it's not getting any widespread coverage, because all we're hearing in the West is about

how the Arctic is becoming a major area of competition now, and that we've got to have

control of it without any real explanation of why.

So it's aside from the, obviously, the mining opportunities are there as well, but also

the trade route is opened up, and you know, Russia and China are investing in nuclear

part, continuing to invest in nuclear part icebreakers to keep this route open even first

much of the years they can.

So this puts competition on Suez, and that's something that the West doesn't seem to want

to see.

Mike, you mentioned trains.

I interviewed a woman a number of years ago.

I'll see if I can get it onto my UK column show.

Very few people know that part of the Belt and Road Initiative is building a high-speed

railway network right around the circumference of Africa, and it's currently underway, and that

right there will dramatically change the trade routes from ships to trains.

And it's a really underway.

They've got parts of it already built in Kenya, here in South Africa too, and they're rolling

it out in bits and pieces all over the continent, and it's obviously a very, very big project,

but nobody's talking about it because nobody knows about it.

Yeah, indeed, but this kind of thing is going on everywhere, and we need to be talking

about it a lot more because it's actually pretty positive stuff.

Yeah, it's very positive, yeah.

I mean, much of it is a rehash of the colonial infrastructure, which of course either has

been destroyed or doesn't really work anymore.

Certainly that line, the lunatic express, the line that goes up from Mombasa up through

Kenya and on into Uganda, which was a colonial project and worked well, obviously then didn't

work well, but now does, but that's very much the relationship between the railways and

the ports.

And so I think both things are significant, and suddenly Chinese investment has also been

very much in deep water ports too, but I think going back to the series, yeah, I think

you're right, not just for South Africa, I think for African countries, this will represent

an interesting time.

There is obviously increasing interest in every sense, I mean, most of the economic in

Africa.

I think the great challenge is for African nations to be able to play the game correctly and

not to end up getting shafted.

And that is, yeah, I mean, exactly.

So it's a terribly, terribly difficult thing to do.

I think they start, you know, you should regard all African countries as starting in a

very commanding position because they have so much of what others want.

And they shouldn't feel vulnerable, you know, in negotiating terms, I think, but of course

corruption plays its part as it does anywhere in the world.

So it would be a huge tragedy to see Africa sort of ruined all over again.

But I mean, you know, one would put money on that happening to a certain extent.

I don't think, I don't think that that ruining will be too easy achievable again.

If we look at what happened with the vaccine a lot, I mean, I don't know, yeah, you say

that.

Actually, that was exactly the point I was about to make.

Yes, I agree with you.

But you see, what was the fallout from that because the vaccine was a flop, there's been

a massive surge in this idea, which has started very much in this country and in Western

countries, which is the idea that there's definitely something wrong with you.

We just haven't found out what it is yet.

So what we're going to do is we're going to push out teams into the regions.

We're going to go and see you poor people in your villages and we are going to test you.

And guess what, when we test you for stuff, we will find it.

And when we find it, funnily enough, we've got something you can take for it.

And then you're in the system and you're, you know, that the whole thing changes.

And I, you know, okay, specifically because I've traveled there a lot in recent times,

but Kenya is a brilliant sort of test case for this.

I mean, it's awful, but it is absolutely happening.

And it's, and going back to what we were saying earlier with what will be the outcome for

Americans or for the West when there's economic crash as a result of war, this push, this

healthcare thing overlays exactly with digital identity in Africa.

And it's where, you know, you've got Tony Blair and Oracle and all the rest of it, all

this being done alongside, as I say, alongside, or I'm sorry, when I say alongside, I mean,

concurrent with these infrastructure projects.

So there is enormous danger that the one enables the other.

I think that's true.

Of course, you know, African people know more sort of aware of the larger agenda with

respect to digital ID and the rest than populations in Western countries or China or Russia and

so on.

But I mean, I think if we can take any positive, positive issues out of what's happened

in Africa in recent months, you know, the French attempts to destabilize Burkina Faso

in these years and so on, those failed.

And so it seems to me that in some circles, in some governments that there's, they still

remember a little bit of their history from the last 50 years or so.

Absolutely.

And that is the case.

I think at the individual level as well, I think there is an innate suspicion of, you

know, meddling from, from afar from just newfangled stuff, but that only goes so far.

The problem is that I think there comes a point where people do cave, especially, and of

course, is the most insidious part of it when there is some sort of financial incentive.

Always.

Yes.

That's what becomes introduced.

And the moment you start corrupting people and look at, you know, look at all these

projects that do this, it's just, it is grim, but that's the, that's the way in always.

And the problem is the moment that starts, it's very, very difficult for it to, for it

to change course.

All right, guys, we'll catch up with you next week.

Having great candidates to hire can be like, well, trying to find a needle in a haystack.

Sure, you can post your job to some job board, but then all you can do is hope the right

person comes along, which is why you should try Zippercrooter for free.

At zippercrooter.com slash zip.

Zippercrooter doesn't depend on candidates finding you.

It finds them for you.

It's powerful technology identifies people with the right experience and actively invites

them to apply to your job.

You get qualified candidates fast.

So while other companies might deliver a lot of, hey, Zippercrooter finds you what you're

looking for.

The needle in the haystack.

See why four out of five employers who post a job on Zippercrooter get a quality candidate

within the first day.

Zippercrooter, the smartest way to hire.

And right now, you can try Zippercrooter for free.

That's right.

Free.

Zippercrooter.com slash zip.