Transkrip penuh untuk The James Bolt Show | 5 August

democracy, I mean, that's a bit of a mask off moment for me. Sauta has completely changed the debate about illegal immigration, and some of the reports that we see from the ground explain why it's not just the vision, because you know, this world runs on vision. We saw the vision of those illegal migrants storming in. We saw them, a lot of them fighting age men. I'm sure there was absolutely terrifying to people both in the city of Serta and then Europe worrying about if the there because and what it also says, the left four years has said illegal migrants are fleeing terrible nations. They're the poor, they're the destitute, that the huddled masses coming to Europe and we need to protect them. This is what we should do with empathy. But here's some like what I found very interesting here is the reporters from Europe who are talking to some of the migrants in Sayuta about what they are doing and why they got there. Here's a couple examples. Ahmad Harun, a twenty nine year old Sudanese migrant, said it had been his quote dream for years to reach Sutor. He told the Ryters news agency that is family waiting for him, adding I want to help them. I have no qualms about him helping his family. You know, there's nothing wrong with that. But that is not an illegal That is not an asylum seeker. That is just a regular migrant who could be going through proper jets but isn't. Here's another one. Giebral from Senegal criticized the Spanish government's response, saying those who arrived at Sayuta were not there to cause trouble. We're not thieves, old the Spanish broadcast RTVE. But leaving us without a response is human inhumane. For five days, you've left people on your territory. They're not eating, they're not showering, they're ill. Again, that's very interesting to me, so because what that says, I mean, like obviously you know he's not showing, it's not eating. That's not good. But the point being that He's come to say Uta with an idea of what he was going to expect, and what he was going to expect was clearly eating and showering and being helpful sickness. And he gets there and it's not there. But again, the idea that an asylum seeker is coming from somewhere that is completely overrun, completely destitute. They're fleeing persecution, they're fleeing killing, and they come to Europe because that's the only place they could be safe is slightly different to the idea that my life is going to improve once I get into say Uta, once I get into Europe. One is a legitimate cause of asylum. One is a migrant choosing a legal means to just improve their lives. Again, I've got no qualm of someone trying to improve their lives. But a country needs a migration system in which it can manage the amount of people coming in, the reasons they have for coming in, and they can do it in an orderly fashion. And when you see seventy thousand people crashing into a city that is not orderly, and the idea that they're like, hang on, I thought things would be better here. I don't quite know what was being expected there. So that's what I want to say about SATA. I'm going to be talking to Jonathan Greenblad from the Anti Defamation League because here's the other part of theator I want to get into. Apparently it's always Rail's fault. Apparently they've been concocting this from the start. It's all the Israeli government, and I want to unpack our strepid that is, so please stick around for that. But the third thing I want to pick on here is Zorion Mundani. Now it should be a big day for Mamdani, one of his beloved allies in the DSA movement is having a big primary race in Michigan, and it's going to test whether the far left radical socialism of Mondani purports is something that could go statewide and not just hurry into New York. I want to zoom in because the state run grocery stuff is very So this is Mamdani's. It's a city on gros rate. We're going to return goods to the people. You don't need capitalism, you don't need consumerism, you don't need markets. You just need the big friendly government giving out food to people. Because that's never not worked out in the past. Now there's all those problems with that, But how is it about this for a fun fact about what people will need if they go to the supermarket. 00:09:22 Speaker 4: Is a program for New Yorkers to be able to put food on the table, not a program for people to be able to make a quick buck through reselling. I'm going to pass it over to our DC headg Pack to add some additional details. 00:09:34 Speaker 5: Yeah, so if you look at o URP for the operator, we are looking to make sure that we target New Yorkers, whether it be a sort of a library card, askit. And also we manage who's buying and that is focused on everyday New Yorkers. 00:09:48 Speaker 2: So you need to show a library card, You need to show some proof of identification that you deserve to be hya you are, that you a genuine applicant, which is all really interesting and to be honest, like I support that kind of stuff, like you should. If you are getting a service from the government, you should be able to prove that the government is allowed to give that to you. Interestingly, of course you never hear any about this when it comes to voting rights, like you don't need to show an idea you don't need to show a library card when you want to vote. Like that, that's a racist institution, that's a racist policy. That's such backward thinking. But apparently you need the library card to have a grocery store. This is definitely something that Donald Trump is picked up on. 00:10:30 Speaker 4: You know, they don't want to access the voting booth with any identification. 00:10:34 Speaker 6: We want voter ID and we want proof of citizenship. 00:10:39 Speaker 4: Well, he also had anything where you had to have two different ideas to shovel snow during the winter, right. 00:10:46 Speaker 2: He's got an incredible memory, because of course you do need those library cards, those licenses to shovel snart.

00:10:52 Speaker 4: For those who want to do more to help your neighbors and earn some extra cash, you too can become an emergency snow shoveler. Just show up at your local sanitation garage between eight am and one pm tomorrow with your paperwork, which is accessible online at NYC dot gov slash snow and you can get started right away. 00:11:10 Speaker 2: And Dan's great because, like that first clip was so interesting that he goes, you know what, I'm about to say something stupid, So why don't I get someone else to come in and say the stupid thing. So I'm not on the clips for the six o'clock news that night. That's sound. He's an operator like that. The second thing, so now City Hall has come out and they said, hey, you don't need a library card. Ah, you don't need idea. This is all just right wing, nutjob social media stuff that we don't know where it came from. It came from the exact person you had at that press conference said it, but you know, you don't need an IDA, which is interesting because the one she was wrong and the library card was never a true thing, and so why did she say that at a press conference or to the library card was a real thing. And they saw the criticism they got, they saw the hypocrisy when it came to voting rights, and they thought, well, you need to do away with the ID card, which is crazy to me because you have the left wing policy that's proven to not work, and so your idea is to make it even more radic. So now you don't even need to prove that you're a New York citizen in order to get these free groceries. So why you know, it's just in a day, in like twenty four hours, you've taken a policy. It's bad, You've made a more left wing it's worse. What's going to happen twenty four hours from now? I'll tell you what. The Democrats love every single license and regulation they can get their hands on, except the ones that stopped them getting elected. So much to talk about in the US right now, and I've got a very special guest with me, Jonathan green Blat, CEO of the Anti Defamation League. 00:12:32 Speaker 3: Welcome, Thank you, Jim. 00:12:34 Speaker 2: There's so much about the rise of the DSA and rise of pretty extreme far left policies within the Democrat Party. I want to get into it. But before we get into that, the migrant crisis in Sayerata, the conspiracy, theorizing I find against Israel. Like the speed of this one has taken my breath away, because Israel has already been blamed for what we saw in Sayota over the week. Javier bar Damas among a whole lot of influences exactly who have said the Israel government were behind that all. What do you put that immediate conspiracy using conspiracizing dancer, Well, I think there are a few things. 00:13:09 Speaker 3: Some may Number one, let's just acknowledge that anti Semitism you know, I hate interrational. Hatred of Jewish individuals or institutions is sometimes called the oldest hatred right. It's been around for thousands of years, and it often manifests this conspiracy theory blaming Jews, scapegoating them as being responsible for whatever the world's ills are. They're responsible for communism, they're responsible for capitalism. They're too strong, they're too weak, they control too much, that their parasites are sucking about whatever. All these crazy they killed Muhammed, they killed Jesus, on and on and so what happened in Suta, in some ways is completely shocking but not surprising. So it is completely shocking that you have blamed the Jewish state for a situation that has literally nothing to do with it, and you call it a migant crisis. It's like a migrant catastrophe. We all watch as tens of thousands of young men streamed across the border into this sort of Spanish enclave. Now, whether I heard some reporting that the Moroccan government suggested that they go, I don't know. If it was self organized, we don't really know yet. 00:14:16 Speaker 2: There's certainly some people who talk to Western media who said they were saying on social media and like Place was saying, how you get in. 00:14:22 Speaker 3: There, go pushing them to go now. But the idea that Israel has anything to do with it is bananas. But I think it stems from a few things. So number one, there's a long standing conspiracy that the Jews are committing white genocide, that Jewish people are trying to overrun America or Europe with brown or black people in order to take over those societies. There's no truth to this at all, but in many way, Suitsa is sort of a microcosma of that idea that not the Jewish people but the Jewish state are trying to take over an area by pushing people to it. But I think the second thing, we need to recognize that there are people out there James with an agenda to push, who are trying to undermine the safety and security of Jewish people. And I think that there's a kind of evil embedded in the heart of anti Sentism, whether it comes from the hard left and radical anti Zionists, or it comes from the extreme right and sort of white supremacist, it comes from political Islamists. I think we need to understand that that evil is there, and with social media, and with TikTok and Instagram, they have a perfect vector to drive their propaganda. 00:15:33 Speaker 2: But the other part of it is like the immediate distraction from the key problem. So obviously, like you know, as you say, there's reports whether in the modern Moroccan government is encouraging people. But the central thing here is that Spain and the Ayear have such open migrant policies, there's such beneficial micro policies through them that this is a kind of behavior that they can encourage. And we could be having a you know, global talk about what that means and migration policies. But because of these antagonists talking about what is Benjamin Yahoo in control of the Moroccan government. 00:16:03 Speaker 3: It's so bananas, I mean, and look like the real countries we're having is not Benjamin, it's Pedro Sanchez. So this guy is fiercely anti

Western, this guy is fiercely anti Israel. This guy proposes policies that most of us don't agree with, like his policies on borders. So it's the fault of his government and the weakness I think that's put us in this position. And then the other side of it. Sorry, by the way, you know who doesn't like this. The Spanish people. The Spanish people don't want this. It is not their idea. Again, it's a kind of a radical socialist government pushing an agenda. And Israel is a very convenient distraction for Sanchez to avoid attention to his own failings, to his own failure. 00:16:43 Speaker 2: I want to move over to the DSi right now. So this is a Democrat Socialist in America, the rising. We've got a very ky Michigan primary right now to test, Like is the rise of the DSA just in New York boys dye thing? Or can this thing be taken nationwide? I just there's two wise I want to talk to you about this one, which is one you've got a history of the Democrat Party or works for Obama. And then second, as a represent prominent representative for the Jewish community as well, there's something about the DSAY that I'm sure would alert you. But to speak as a Democrat right now, like, how damaging is it that the face of the Democrat Party in the media right now, because you know these are the faces, These are the people we're talking about, are people who believe in the bolishing the Senate, people who think the Constitution is poorly written, and you know it needs to be torn up and start again. People that want the military defunded. If that's the face of the Democrat Party, how worried is that for your look? 00:17:34 Speaker 3: I mean, so there are a few things, so number one, so the DSA is absolutely a phenomenon we have to contact with. It does us no good to ignore it or to minimize it. I think we also need to recognize that the DSSA are not Democrats in the traditional sense. I mean, I joke that the DSA it really doesn't stand for Democratic social of America. The acronym it stands for discrimination, scapegoating and anti Semitism, because that seems to be their agenda again, discriminating against the Jewish minority, scapegoating against the elites or the capitalists or the Jews, and anti Semitism seems to run through their whole political kind of argument. Now, the reality is they're trying to take over the Democratic Party use as a vehicle to spread their kind of Leninist Marxist view and it's really really a problem. I mean, the DSA, they're not like socialists from Sweden or something, if you will. They're kind of a confederation of Marxists, of Maoists, of anti Zionists, and other kinds of radicals. And I think it's not just troubling for the Democrats, it's troubling for America. We have a mayor like Zron Mamdani running the most significant consequential city in our country, the heart of American business, the heart of America in many ways. So we're all very concerned about. And I think as we look at these primaries, something to keep in mind is these elections that they're winning now. They did win in New York, some congressional and some congressional races, and I think that Sayed won the primary in Michigan yesterday. These are democratic you know, primaries, So now they have to go for the general election. My guess is, like, as a five to one CEPH the organization TAXI US organization, I don't get involved in politics, but I can observe this and say it is incredibly problematic to have a group of socialists trying to use either political party to advance an agenda of radicalism, of scapegoating, and of raw bigotry. We're all very concerned. 00:19:39 Speaker 2: Yeah, because like I've played the clips on the story before of some of the DSA spokespeople coming on Fox News and you know they're just gleefully talking about abolishing the Senate and stacking the court and stuff like that. 00:19:50 Speaker 3: I don't even know how as an American, like as a patriot who loves my country, I don't even know how to square that. Like this, the democracy, the American experiment, if you will, has worked for two hundred and fifty years. The idea these people are going to come in again with a Marxist agenda and like destroy it and rewrite the Constitution is absurd. 00:20:10 Speaker 2: Yeah, like it's funny, but it's also user but one of them. So this is something I talk about with someone last week, and I want to get your take on it, which is there's a comparison to be made with twenty sixteen Trump. 00:20:21 Speaker 1: Right. 00:20:21 Speaker 2: This is something where you had a whole lot of Republican voters who were so sick of the party, so sick of the same old answers they've been hearing that they go for the radical outside of Donald Trump take and you know, now the Republican parties forever change. DSA could be something like that in that, you know, people back to the strong horse if DSA candidates keep winning, if they keep if they're the force in the Democrat Party, that's now the Democrat Party now. The difference is Trump was preaching make America great again, like it's a positive vision of like what the future can be. We can restore to something. The DSA that is an intensely negative view. The America's founded on evil. Everything's corrupt. We need to burn it down and we can hope build something new at the end of that. Why is that negative view so popular in America? 00:21:07 Speaker 3: Well, I guess there are a couple things. So number one, I don't know that it's so overwhelmingly popular. There's no doubts are on Mum, Donnie won the election in New York, and some of these candidates have won these primary races. But much like we were talking a few minutes ago about like the radicalism of Sanchez, like there may be the radulum, ma'm donnie, but most Americans don't agree with this. So I am optimistic and believe pretty strongly that the DSA will not be able to sort of take over the country. That being said, it's worth noting, James, I mean there is a high degree of cynicism as it was

among people on the right, among people on the left, and they want to see radical change. And I guess the fact that some of our systems haven't delivered in ways that may have met people's expectations. But the answer, again isn't to abolish the Senate. The answer isn't to end the prisons, the answer isn't to defund the police. The answer isn't to erase the borders. And the answer certainly isn't to blame the Jews. So, yes, there are systemic problems. Yes we need big strategic thinking, Yes we need bold new ideas. No we don't need to burn it all down. 00:22:09 Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm gonna know it dad here. But like, there's this incredible section in Warren Base where the main characters is having dinner with a friend of his, and the friends like, oh, who's worried about Napoleon? Who's worried? Like he's all in France? I don't care? Who do I care? And then they leave the dinner and the city's getting evacuated because Napoleon's shown up, and I just worry. Like the Democrats in America are kind of a thing of like, oh, you know, they're just winning a couple of prime I'm not saying, you're saying, there's not the idea that they're just winning a cup of primer. Oh nice, movement will crest You. 00:22:35 Speaker 3: Are so right, Like I think the Democratic leadership, I mean, they really need to contend with this. And it's not a political statement to say the DSA could overwhelm the party. Look, there's another literary moment I think about quite a bit in the sun also rises by Ernest Hemingway favor. Oh so then you know the line when one character gets asked, you know, how did you go bankrupt? And he says gradually and then suddenly. And I think about that all the time, because we are foolish to underestimate what can happen, you know, Visa VI, the DSA. We're foolish to under us what can happen with our democratic societies, Like this can all go away if we don't fight for it. 00:23:14 Speaker 2: So it's just really bleak because you think, like it's not even ancient history to start talking about effects like this like China you mentioned now before China in the fifties, Russia in the twenties, Germany in the thirties, Like you have a population that are looking for desperate change. Someone says, I've got the desperate change for you, and then horrific things happen, And I just wonder, like, is it just the case that the generation that is voting for Mamdani and the DSA have never seen what happens when it goes wrong. 00:23:41 Speaker 3: I think that's part of it. 00:23:42 Speaker 2: Yeah, Like, and then how do we teach people like, hey, look the snake or salesman. It's not just fun and games. It's not just putting, you know, smiling Mamdani in the halls of New York. Like, People's lives can drastically change, people can't die if you start following these policies. 00:23:55 Speaker 3: Well look, I mean I think you're making an important point, which is this is if you will, This isn't American issue because the anti capitalism, the anti liberalism,

and I mean that with small l you know, because these have these these individuals, the DSA itself has very authoritarian impulses again, very anti capitalist impulses, very anti Western impulses, as well as anti Semitic impulses. For me, this really hits home. I mean, I'm the grandson of a Holocaust survivor from Germany who thought Germany was the greatest country in the world until everything fell apart and his entire family was incinerated in Auschwitz, and he came to America as a refugee. I'm also the husband of a political refugee from Iran, and my wife was born in Tehran. She came here in nineteen She came to America nineteen eighty seven or eighty eight. Her family thought Iran's greatest country in the world until the Islamic Revolution and the war, and then they came to the United States as political refugees. So the idea that all of this will hold together if we don't fight for it, it's a myth. And I do think part of what's happening you've kind of alluded to it. Americans have been blessed and we live with such privilege. We really do. I mean, it's an incredibly rich nation, it's an incredibly strong nation. But that doesn't mean it all holds together unless you work at it every single day. And look, as someone who again worked for President Clinton and President Obama, and I did economics, I didn't do any of the kind of lunacy stuff. But I worry about what's happening to the Democratic Party. But more than that, as a patriot, I worry about what's happening to America, and like, as adl I'm focused on, you know, protecting the Jewish people from this explosive rise of anti Semitism. But as an American, I care deeply, profoundly, intensely about my country and wanted to thrive. 00:25:41 Speaker 2: Well, let's talk about the work with the Jewish community there, because we're just saying Zaraon Mandani come out and say Benjaminaenya, who's a war criminal? He was calling for the rest if he ever walked in, and then you know, immediately back down, like, well, I can't personally arrest him, Like that's not not to me. Sorry, clearly it was a political start, but or sorry, the idea that the mayor of New York's city, like such a city that we have synonymous with a strong Jewish population, can just go yeah, yeah, well the president's a war criminal. That's pretty concerning that that idea can not only make its way into the holes of parer in New York, but can be seen as something that hey, this will win me a couple of parts. 00:26:15 Speaker 3: One hundred percent. I mean, look, it is easy it is easy to blame the Jews. It's hard to run most complicated city in America, one of those co considents in the world. It's easy to accuse benjamint Yahoo of some kind of concocted thing put together by the UN or some of these rogue andngos. It's harder to say, how do we bring like, if you will, Israeli and Palestinians together, how do we make sure that our Jewish New Yorkers and are Muslim New Yorkers can kind of break bread together? Like that's not what

he's doing again, it would be it's easy to kind of step on the conspiracy bandwagon, you know, it's harder to have a consistent, like morally authentic notion of the world. I mean again, I'll use mayor Mom Donnie. He has complained about bibing at Yahoo endlessly, very almost not a word about the again, the butchers in Tehran who murdered forty thousand people in January, Like, there were no Hamas militants killing, you know, raping women and murdering children. These were young men and women who were simply protesting and asking for democracy, and they were gunned down in the streets they were murdered in their hospital beds by this revolting government who's increased the executions this year, not decreased them. Not a word from Amdami about that, not a word from the mayor about the policies of the government of Uganda where he is from, that are brutal to theirs LGBTTWO plus community. Again, the only thing he has is an obsession with the Jewish state and perceiving animus towards the Jewish people, and it's it's deeply troubling. 00:27:54 Speaker 2: You brailed up around there. I want to get into that because, look, you've been a critic of Trump in the past. Trump is quite parful and the fact that, like every president had the opportunity to do what I did in Iran, none of them did until I came along. Look, you worked for a Bomba, you worked for Clinton in the economic spot. But what have you made of Trump's approach on Iran? Like it says something that you're thinking, Yeah, good on him for being the president then stood up to the Reigannian regime or as America got itself into another forever war here. 00:28:22 Speaker 3: Look, there is a forever war going on that was started by Iran, the Islamic Revolution since nineteen seventy nine, Iranian school children and Iranian leaders has had every day death to America. We don't say death to Iran. They declared war against US in nineteen seventy nine. They took our people hostage, They murdered in Tehran, they murdered our marines in Beirut, they murdered our people in the Coobar bombings in Sub Saharan Africa. They have murdered, by the way, Jewish people all over the world as well. This is a rapacious, brutal, tyrannical regime that again has said very openly they want to destroy America, let alone, they want to destroy the state of Israel, and they have wrought havoc all over the region. So, to be really honest with you, James, like I do really respect the fact that President Trump took action against a government that was committed publicly to destroying the United States and to destroying the state of Israel. He's the only one who did it. Now, there may be ways I might suggest he could have prosecuted this war a little bit differently, but look, I'm not a four star general. I'm really I'm not so I find it interesting all the armchair kind of generals telling him what he should or shouldn't have done. But the bottom line is that we shouldn't forget there is a forever war. It was declared against the United States. This is a radical revolutionary Islamist regime that wants to spread Sharia all over the Middle East and that wants to destroy the West. And you know, they threaten Europe, and the Europeans do nothing. They threaten American for years, we didn't do nearly enough. They threaten their own neighbors like Saudi Arabia. I'm glad that we've stood up to them, and I hope at the end of the day, for the sake not just of America or Israel, but the sake of the Iranian people, that this brutal dictatorship falls. 00:30:10 Speaker 2: Yeah, you're talking about the people like the Forestar journal. It's like, it's kind of what gets me going, the idea that, oh, the deal can be made with Jdvans is saying this himself, like a deal can be made with this regime. They will abandon their nuclear plants. They genuinely believe that the parts of global peace is the return of the hidden ym after the destruction of Israel and after the destruction of the US. You can't negotiate with that. Like, no matter how scary, big bad Donald Trump is with his bombs, it's the choice between a real world thread against Donald Trump or to disgrace your God like that one's going to win out every single time. I don't know how you can make a deal with someone who genuinely thinks your death is the way to world peace. 00:30:50 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it's a messianic regime. As you said that once the domination of Shia Islam over their Sunni neighbors, over their Jewish neighbors, over the Christian West. They're quite open about it, and so we are foolish and naive to not take them. I mean, this is one of the things that we've learned as a Jewish community. When people say they want to kill you take them at their word. And when the Iranians say they want to kill Donald Trump, when the Iranians say they want to destroy the United States, we should take them at their word. And I think it's a dereliction of duty not to deal with that. Look, I wish you could negotiate with them. I wish you could come up with a peaceful way to resolve this. But again, we have no bone with the Islamic Republic of Iran except for the fact that they want to murder our people and they have over the decades. That's got to end. 00:31:40 Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is it doesn't look like Donald Trump's ever going to put trips on the ground, and he is a bit worried about how this Iron war is going to have the Midsams. There's always been that thought like what the US candor is cripple that Reijaime so enough that Israel can one day come in and just it's a simple blow of the breath and the Reijame would Is that kind of I mean, is that what we understand these rael government could be able to dare in the near futurist too? 00:32:08 Speaker 3: I mean, I'll be frank, I don't know. But I do think that the Iranian people are incredible entrepreneurial, They're innovative, and they have such result and will and so I think if given the opportunity, they would like to rise up again. That's why the

government murdered forty thousand people like in a weekend. I don't think people realize the scope of the savagery they exacted on civilians, on unarmed civilians across the country. I don't know if we've ever seen an act of such brutality in such a short period of time in modernity. Have to go back to, like again, World War two. So the truth is is that I don't know what exactly it will take. Like, I'm not an expert in Iran, but this regime has got to go for the sake of their own people. Let alone the region, let alone America, let alone the world. 00:32:56 Speaker 2: Yeah, Jonathan, thank you so much for joining us on the show. 00:32:58 Speaker 3: Thank you. 00:33:03 Speaker 2: It's any reports coming out of the the US is actually running low on missiles in its war against Iran pretty damaging. You do need missiles in order to be able to bomb things, I find. So let's bring in Jonathan Sia from the Foundation to Defense and Democracy. A couple questions on that, one like how much do we know about the lack of missiles the US has? And then two, when stories like that come out, who would leak that knowing that it really benefits the Ron's case to have those stories out there. 00:33:33 Speaker 6: I mean, the latter point is certainly fair, and it's not the first leak we've gotten from this operation. The more outrageous situation was when about a week ago, when the President was actually planning a very extensive campaign in response to the Islamic Republics numerous violations of the MLU that's practically did and other aggressions that also got leaked, which is what deleted and similar with this one. But as to what it really means, the challenge with the recent war has been we never really had inaccurate numbers for the missiles of whether Iran or the United States. Now it's of course understandable for the US itself not to announce how many missiles or precision guided missiles it has, but it would have been a bit more clarifying had we known how many Tehran possessed, because the original idea was they had about three thousand to one thousand was deranged. We know for a fact that was certainly not even close. So it's that transparency, on one hand, I think would have aided a diplomatic messaging campaign that would have gave the United States to upper hand in regards to media as to what it means. To be more specific, it was precision guided missiles to be more exact, So The point here is that we still have enough munition to pursue different attacks against the regime, but when it comes to specific sites that might make it a little bit more challenging. Usually when we take our targets across Iran, they tend to be a bit smaller, so this is not going to be a strategic issue when it comes to the depletion of stockpiles. The more challenging angle is our allies. So if we have enough interceptors in Kuwait and Bahrain and the United Emirates or even for Israeli. So that's really the mean angle and the mean challenge here. 00:35:21 Speaker 2: Well, when we talked before, it's always been like debates of whether or not the US or Iran taking the hits from the media as to whether or not they're on the defense or who's on the attack, and who's got the stockpiles. If it gets to the part where we're talking about, okay, the US is the one that's actually struggling with stockpiles, not Iran. That's a pretty big signal to the Iranian government and if it's and its proxies around the world that if they can stay in the fire, they might actually get the US to back off. So how damaging is this for the US's efforts here if this is a kind of reporting that's going around, well. 00:35:57 Speaker 6: Under the Islamic Republics doctrine national security strategy, despite this leak being in place or not. From their end, it's a war of attrition. It's more or less think of the Taliban being in charge of the country now. Of course they've taken over Afghanistan, but the idea here is simply outlasting a more expensive campaign. So as you and I have talked about before, when it comes to taking out Iran's military assets, whether it's missiles themselves or the launchers or the stockpiles, they're a lot more expensive to hit than for them in Iran to replace them, so that strategy was in place. Nonetheless, this might play into their hand a little bit more. But I think from Tehran's point of view, it's not the depletion of US's stockpile that is maybe giving them more of a factor to bolden themselves. That's not the only factor here. I think the real angle continues to be the aim behind the US war here. So when Tarron looks at the situation, is under the assumption that no matter what strategy the US uses. The idea is simply to bring techon back to the negotiation table to one way or another, maybe talk about the straight or talk about the nuclear file. So as long as they know for a fact the United States is not pursuing regime change now, whether it's going to be an issue of stockpiles or I don't know, maybe political backlash against the president, or maybe a bit of a diplomatic friction with allies, it doesn't really change their calculation of the wrong term long term. It's really about the main perception that they think Trump does not really want to have a systemic transfer power in Tehran. 00:37:34 Speaker 2: Let's get through some of the other big reports that are coming out recently. So the other one was that, well, it's not so much a report, is it is just Donald Trump's spaking, And he said Aron's had its a lot, this is the last chance it has for a deal. I'm kind of getting the feeling this is a threat he's pretty familiar with, and it's something that Iron has probably heard before. But how do you like when Trump starts saying stuff like that, how do you think Iran is going to respond to that? Is that we called it to or not. 00:38:02 Speaker 6: From Tehran's point of view, they've seen Trump's escalation only in terms of military So if you look at the last few rounds when the war started, we had a

ceasefire and then the MoU So and each each step out of the way. Of course, Tehran violated that agreement one way or another, which meant the United States had to escalate proportionally to maybe punish Tehran using their own wars or to send a message. But if you look at that trajectory, it's the nature of the targeting does not change, it's simply the intensity of it. So if you're a regime official in Tehran, what you're going to expect for it to be the next round is highly going, highly likely going to be maybe military assets around the Persian Gulf. If you look at what sancomp has been targeting, we hear the same islands, same provinces by the Persian Gulf re emerged. So that is something the regime can absorb, frankly, and they're pretty clear about that. I think what I'm looking for here is if the target is going to chane, if they're going to pursue destroying the critical infrastructure, particularly the power grids, the electricity given what's going on inside you on domestically with power outages and somers, tend to be very challenging for the regime and authorities to manage. So that's what I'm really looking out for, and that's what I think Trump sees as his next round of escalation. Asked for the implications of that or what's the strategy behind it, that's a different story, But I think the regime is now either embracing for another wave of strikes around the Persian Gulf, or they're also anticipating maybe a greater attack against the power grids that again we would see ruling brought blackouts intensified further. 00:39:41 Speaker 2: So those power grade attacks, it's something we've definitely heard about before, Donald Trump saying, you know, I'm going to be start eating bridges, I'm going to start eating power ploants, And it's been a threat that has been pretty chilling because it would be one like you know, it's not exactly a military side. There's going to be innocent roun any people who are probably on the side of the US who are going to get caught up stuff like that. Sorry, is not what kind of attack that could possibly lose America, a bit of goodwill within the Iranian people or desperate for the reising to fall. 00:40:08 Speaker 6: It has that potential. Unfortunately, what I would say about that the targeting critical infrastructure. I know bridges were also part of the conversation, but I think the real Achilles Heel, if you will, is going to be the power grids. It's so it's not so the target itself, but the messaging behind it. So the average Iranian right now, internally, they've been living under the regime's brutality for decades now and has gotten much worse in recent years than particularly this month. Executions, arising inflation continues to source. So because of a wide range of reasons, they want the regime gone almost at any cost, not to really overexaggerate. So if the idea was somehow that this power grid is enabling the regime's repression forces to coordinate or to maintain communication with one another using Wi Fi electricity whatnot, and we're eliminating that to pave the way for Iran to be free one day or some one way or another. We're facilitating the conditions for Iranians to bring to the streets that it's still sellable. Tough cell. But I do think there is something that you can characterize around it that would more or less maybe resonate with some Iranians. But the challenge there is the messaging is quite clear that the idea here is to simply pressure the regime so much until they come to the negotiation table. But you know, thinking from a regime officials perspective, they've sabotaged Iran for half a century now, They've depleted all natural resources, water, the youth, I mean, you name it for them, Losing a few more power grids and dealing with the resentful population is not going to be anything new. And as long as they don't think this is one way or another about invoking internal chaos, they'll absorb it and move on. And if anything, they try to point the blame at the United States. But I'll end it with this, even if the United States take these out, and even if there's no proper messaging behind it, ultimately ordinary Iranians are going to blame their own officials for the status quo. Status quo is a wide range of issues, as we talked about. But if the regime claims to be this entity that is going to defeat the United States that is the government that's in fact in control, but all of a sudden it cannot provide basic necessities for its own people, is going to be delegitimized even by its own support base because everybody needs electricity. So this is to say it is a double eight sword. It's really about the messaging behind it and really the end goal with it. 00:42:37 Speaker 2: Just a side not here. You mentioned that the horrific executions that Aron had too people that they say we're killing place in the earlier protests the year. It's wild to me that you had these executions to play that in public, and it got so little coverage from the Western media. I don't really remember making a big impact to Here is the case that we're getting just so desensitized at the brutality of the raja that we forget how evil it is. And I don't know how you can undesensitize people to say like this is what their age aam is capable of, this is what they do to their own people. This needs to fall. 00:43:12 Speaker 6: That is a factor, certainly. So we don't want this situation to be normalized by the international community to just assume that's just an ordinary day in Iran, where people get publicly hanged, which is quite horrific. I mean, having grown up into Iran, I have witnessed two of these as a child wants and it's an image that really sticks with you as a young person. And of course the single aim there is to deter the public, to terrorize the population. But was different this time around. This was I think the only instance where you saw people actually protest the executions as they were taking place, that were chanting and

they ultimately clashed with security forces. So the momentum is there. But more importantly, Iranians do not see this as normal. They see this as losing the main infrastructure, which is the youth, which is dissidence. But to your original question as to why this is not getting any cover, Rich, I'm sorry to say, I don't think this is the first example. I think of the January twenty twenty six protests where they massacre. They slaughtered forty thousand people in forty eight hours, and there was a definite bias when it came to covering that. The same outlets that were discussing the issue in Gaza thoroughly or other instances in the region, well, all of a sudden silenced I mean, I knew people individually that were involved in the Middle East policy, and still we're not even aware about about the incidents or the extent of it itself. So I think the media coverage continues to be a main angle. Maybe it doesn't play into certain outlets biases or their political agenda, but this is all to say that Iranians do not think it's normal, so therefore it should not be treated as such. And the last note I'll end on that is like the public perception aside when it comes to media and how ordinary folks in the West see this. I'm also looking at Washington, DC, and policymakers here are gradually falling behind their European counterparts when it comes to holding the regime accountable in the field of human rights. That was never the case. So there's numerous judges, more than ten tens of different judicial authorities that sentence different dissidents to death, and they order them to be publicly hanged, and they're sanctioned by the EU, by the UK and Canada, but not the United States. We have not seen a human rights sanction since January twenty twenty six, so that in itself I think should be another avenue the United States pursues if they want to maximize their leverage. 00:45:29 Speaker 2: I want to get into this really strange article I read in Fox News which is looking at to what extent do we know this iatol Or is even alive? And to what extent he's actually a ladyship. You've got some sides who are pushing for pace with the US, who were saying, Iola Commane wants this. You've got some sides who want to keep the wall going. You were saying, actually, he says this instead, which makes a question, why can't he come out and say this is the direction I want around to take. In fact, there was this bizarre anecdote that you know, and they'v all denied it, of course, but the Iranian and then travels to speak with Kaminae. Kamina is behind a visa and it goes for a couple of minutes and the president leaves and he says to an aight, I'm not even sure that was him. The voice sounded different, you know, And then they put out the thing. Actually they spoke for hours and everything was fine, and they got on like a house on fire. But like, do we even know this guy is alive? And to what extent could he possibly be ladying and to what extent doesn't even want this war

with Iran to get a war with the US to keep going. 00:46:30 Speaker 6: So a few questions you raised, which are all very fair. Whether we know for a fact if he's alive or not, very unlikely for him to be in a leading capacity. Now we don't know if necessarily he's dead or not. But what is increasingly becoming evident is that he's probably incapacitated, whether he's dead or whether he's in a coma, because he still was in the compound when they struck his father. Apparently he was in the garden when the strike took place, so it's still in the gray area. I do believe that if he was dead, maybe the information would have to an extent leaked. By now, it is in the rgc's favor to have a supreme leader that's either dead but nobody knows, or who is incapacitated, so they can just call the shots on their own. But let's assume he's alive and we can judge him based on his resume. And admittedly what he's done has been mostly covert. He's never had a public appearance, he's never done an interview, never delivered his speech, So it is hard for us to engage ultimately whether I guess, like when we hear the president say his voice didn't sound like his well, many people have never heard his voice to begin with, so that that challenge continues to be there. But that said, if you still look at his track record, he was arguably more hardline than his father. And now this is not to say the regime is becoming more hardlined. They're pursuing the same policies and they're still testing the waters. But by no means was he ever perceived to be, I guess, a moderate or a pragmatist. Necessarily, he was leading his father's office. He was saying for it responsible for numerous human rights atrocities, and you look at the rhetoric coming from him, whether it's him or whether it's people controlling what he's saying, by no means do we maybe get the message that he wants to give up nuclear disarmament or wants to ease the tention in the strait of horror moves. And the last note on that, I know we have individuals like the foreign minister, part of the civilian government quote unquote who maybe says something a bit more positive than the IRGC does. But when it comes to practice, there's no major disagreements between different regime pillars over the overall strategy. There might be differences over tactical issues, meaning when should the agreement will be signed, but whether it should be signed or not and has never really been a topic of rifts between them. Maybe it's the details here and there, But when it comes to the core issues that the United States care about, nuclear disarmament, which is increasingly less on the table, on the focus the strait of horr moves, or Iranian involvement in southern Lebanon or in proxies and who these, we've not seen any disagreements. So the idea that somehow we can use one person against another or work with one entity supreme leader versus foreign minister in the grand scheme of things from a US perspective, I feel to see the differences. 00:49:14 Speaker 2: Really yeah, because it's so interesting to say, like that both sides in Iran are invoking the Caminet's name implies that there's just there's not really a central leadership. Like everyone gets on Donald Trump to say, hey, you said you were so close to a negotiation and then there were bombs in the straight upor moves the next day like they're lying to you. It's also the case that they could be completely two separate camps that both have completely different ideas on what the US should be on what Iran should be doing in the US, which makes negotiations so much more difficult. 00:49:48 Speaker 6: Maybe that might be the case. What I would characterize the situation is more of a good cop batcop scenario in which the Foreign Minister might come in and he would say all the right things and speak maybe in English to Kushner or Witkoff, and say all the correct things in a sense that he wants to de escalate, but he also wants the United States stays to hold up. It's into the bar again and all the diplomatic back and forth. But he would caveat it by saying, I, as Foreign Minister, do not control the RGC, so you might make a deal with me, and I'll try my best to convince them, But those guys are the crazies. I'm the pragmatist. If you work with me, I might be able to convince those guys. But when you look at what they say publicly or privately, there is not that much of a difference when it comes to the overall strategy. So the Foreign Minister right now, he might be claiming one way or another that he wants to maybe the Strait to be under run in control, but he doesn't really give us any more detail outside of that, which really tells you where the regime is headed. And the last point on that, even if he had a meaningful different opinion compared to the RGC, he doesn't have the power, and he says it publicly. He officially announced that it's ultimately the military's call as to what Tehran does or what strategy they choose to conduct, which really tells you, even if they had the power, we are dealing with the IRG seed that is as hardline as it ever was, as ideological as as ever was, and more importantly, the most paranoid it's ever been, which is what makes it so challenging. 00:51:16 Speaker 3: To deal with. 00:51:17 Speaker 2: We kind of touched on this before, but I want to get further into it because another report I'm saying is the idea that there is a lot of Brainian discidents who are just waiting for the call, waiting for the arms that the regime could be toppled. I mean, it's something we had been hearing for a while. But from what we can gather on the streets of Tehran, how close are we to the possibility of people overtaken, sorry, overthrowing the regime. Is this something we could be thinking about. Is something happening this year? 00:51:46 Speaker 6: It's part of the calculation we should be having. I would first have to explain the perception of regime change that and how that has shifted this year,

particularly so prior to January and prior to the recent war. The idea was that regime change would be one where, not overnight. So in January we thought if millions came out, which now is reported maybe tens of millions came out, the region would be overthrown. We saw the scale of their brutality. Now after that, the idea was during the war Israel, somehow maybe going to use some Kurdish separatist groups or different I guess militias that are not really about Iranian nationalism. Again not confirm if they're true, but again it would be rather rapid. It would take within a matter of days, if not weeks, the region would be overthrown. I don't believe that's the perception anymore, just given the sheer scale of brutality of Islamic Republic and how ideological they are. So if there's going to be ambitions of regime change, it has to be more long term. And I think you and I have touched on this before. So even if Iranians came out in the millions like they have before, if they're not armed, it's not going to go anywhere. And this is one of those cases that I think arming groups of dissidents inside urban areas is a gamble that is one hundred percent in favor of the US. There's really no can come out of this in a sense that even if they end up in the wrong hands, it doesn't really harm us. We're not worried about runi and aks or pistols. We worry about Iranian missiles and nuclear weapons. So it's really something that cannot harm anyone. And I think maybe Israelis have some ambitions there. I have not seen the United States lean towards that direction, but it would be a policy shift that you cannot pursue both at the same time, in a sense that you cannot be pursuing a deal by pressuring the regime at the same time going about regime change, it's one or the other. And actually Israelis have more or less made that mistake before. They did that early this stage, in the early stages of the Twelve Day wore the idea was they will weaken the regime. Now, if it falls, then great, If not, at least it's weakened. That's not how you conduct regime change, especially with Islam as republic. This strategy needs to be deliberate. It needs to be overt and covert in a sense that there needs to be diplomatic messaging. We need to get our allies on board, and I do think that framework is in place. The regime has never been this illegitimate, there's never been this much of a trouble maker for the world economy and world security. Europe United States are neighboring allies. So I think the fatigue is there. The momentum on the ground is, of course there. It's really specifically Washington's appetite now, given that Trump is in a box. He cannot pursue a worse steal than the JCPO, and the regime cannot provide concessions. There's no way I put through. 00:54:21 Speaker 2: I want to end on here. So you talked about the appetite in Washington and Trump's focus, which has been the you know, the whole threat for the last couple of months, has been how much appetite does Donald Trump have to keep talking about this? Last week he's talking Sorry, this week, he's talking about the possible peace deal that he's made between Israel and Amas. So it's a bit of a signal to me that he's kind of moved on. He's looking to other areas of the world that he can focus on. Is that a sense you get that Donald Trump has moved on from Iran? Or do you still think he's got the sense that this is the main thing, This is the main prize in foreign policy. This is something I need to get right. 00:54:59 Speaker 6: Do do you think short term wins help this administration both politically and geopolitically In a sense that weill hamas disarmament is still cutting off one of the Islamic Republic's arms that was, of course committing heinous terror attacks across the region. It would be demoralizing. So it's still within the same framework broadly speaking. But the angle here is Washington cannot walk away from the Siron problem because Tehran is ensuring that it's not resolved. So even when the MoU was in place and it was benefiting Tehran, the regime still violated it, hoping it would put itself back on the agenda for Washington, sending the message that you have to deal with us one way or another, and it's going to be on our terms, meaning on Tehran's terms. So, given the balance of power right now, and given that Iran is increasingly testing the US appetite by attacking some of these allies unprovoked, so some of these attacks in recent weeks have been preemptive. Against Kuwait and against Jordan, there was no prior proplication and they still did it. Course, oil prices continue to be an issue, and the Strait is closed because the regime still attacks numerous vessels transitting through. So this is not an issue that you can simply leave and walk away from and maybe pursue an other versus other foreign policy endeavors. They're all interconnected. But more importantly, it has a direct consequence for both US politics. Internally, approval ratings matter to Trump. Fixing this problem is significant, and for Israelis as well. Elections are coming up to tan Yahoo wants to demonstrate that he was the one in fact that remove the threats from Tehran after he neutralized the threats in Syria, in Gaza and in Lebanon by killing Hassan Astrala. So they all have the incentive to fix it. They theoretically should have the appetite therefore as well, it's just a matter of whether they can keep up with the Sharad or if they can't keep up, well, that means they should maybe shift their policy and focus on something more systemic and long term. 00:56:58 Speaker 2: Johnat's and Siety from the foundations that answer democracies. Thank you so much for your time, Thanks for having me. That's it for me this way. Thank you so much for watching the James Bolt Show. If you haven't already, please subscribe to New twenty four Australia on YouTube so you can stay up today with not just my videos, but all of the other wonderful videos we have here on this network.