Title: Putin Warns Staggering Response to NATO — Iran
Show: Dialogue Works
Date: 2025-10-25
URL: https://youtu.be/g2htCOU-tTw
Duration: 59:00

---

[00:05] Hi everybody. Today is Saturday, October 25th, 2025 and our friend John Kiriakou is back with us. Welcome back, John. Thank you so much, Nima. Good to see you. Please subscribe and hit like button and and please follow John. The links to his YouTube channels is in the description. And John, can you tell us what is the name of these YouTube channels that they can find in the description? >> Sure. Sure, the the bigger of the two is

[00:35] called Deep Focus with John Kiriakou. We have the same kinds of conversations that you and I have and the uh the other one is called The DeProgram Show. That's with John Kiriakou and Ted Rall. We do that every morning and we talk about the day's news. Great. Thank you. John, let me start with the current situation between the United States, the West, and Russia. We've learned from Reuters, they're talking about the new package of sanctions to be imposed on Russia by the end of this month, if I'm

[01:07] not mistaken. It was introduced 3 days ago. And the main goal of these sanctions are the Russian oil infrastructure and the bank system, the bank the bank you know, the the the sector of the banking of Russia, that they the communication they have with the other countries and Zelenskyy's pushing for you know, total disconnection of Russia with dollar. And what we've learned 5 months ago, 6

[01:39] months ago from Russian president that he said that they have reduced their dependence on dollar from 54% to 13% 5 or 6 months ago. And here is what Donald Trump said about the new sanctions and how he feels about them. Putin basically said today that Russia is immune from US sanctions. He said that it would not impact the Russian

[02:09] economy in any serious way. Is he wrong? >> glad I'm glad he feels that way. That's good. I'll let you know about it in 6 months from now, okay? Let's see. Let's see how it all works out. [Music] John, just look at Pete Hoekstra, please, here. The reality >> economy in any serious way. Is he wrong? >> I'm glad he feels that way. That's good. I'll let you know about it in 6 months from now, okay? Let's see. Let's see how it all works out. Yeah, it's something Yeah.

[02:39] What's your take? What's your understanding of this sort of strange behavior? Bizarre, it's so bizarre and I don't know if we have any sort of, you know, explanation for that. What's your take on what's going on? You know, it seems to me, Nima, that this is like an administration without a policy. And even worse than that, it's it's an administration without an idea of what the policy should be. Either you're going to be neo-conservative or you're not. You're going to be MAGA,

[03:11] America first. So, one or the other. This issue with sanctions, it's as though it's as though the administration doesn't really understand that sanctions have less and less and less of an effect every time you use them. For example, immediately after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we piled sanctions on Russia with the idea being that we would paralyze the ruble and make such an

[03:42] economic catastrophe in Russia that the Russians would have to pull out. Well, since the invasion and the sanctions, the ruble is up 40% against the dollar. 40%. The Russians have turned instead to the Chinese. The Chinese have developed their own Swift system. So, these banking transactions no longer go through New York, they go through Shanghai, which makes the Russians immune

[04:13] to American financial sanctions. So, we have sanctioned other countries to the point where the sanctions don't have any effect. The sanctions don't work. Just this morning, we sanctioned um uh President Petro of uh Colombia and his family only because he said something that made Donald Trump angry. That was it. And now we have sanctions on one of our closest allies in the Western Hemisphere. It doesn't make any sense. We're we're

[04:44] preparing to sanction Canada. We're preparing to sanction Ireland. Uh the none of this makes any sense anymore. Um I've long been opposed to sanctions as a foreign policy weapon. Look at Iran as another example. And forgive me if I'm repeating myself here. But we have had sanctions on Iran for 47 years. 47 years. Yet, if you go to Iran, and I

[05:16] have friends who are in Iran right now, you'll see daily life in the street being completely normal. Why? Because the Russians have strong economic relationships with with the Iranians, rather. Strong relationships with Russia, with China, with India. Iran is a member of the BRICS now. They don't they don't need the United States. And because they've been so heavily sanctioned by the United States over so many years, they've had decades to work around those

[05:47] sanctions. It seems to me that every time the United States places sanctions on a country, it makes us a little bit weaker. It reminds me of Donald Trump before being elected in the United States. He said the same thing. Why do we need to have to put sanctions on Iran and Russia? And that would hurt us and you see Donald Trump is totally different from what it was before. Mhm. And who are

[06:18] these people, John? I I I I you know, I think you know that there is a video in which Putin said that after anybody is elected, it doesn't matter Republican, Democrat, the people in dark suits come in and they give them the plan. This is the plan. Who are these people? Well, I think the most obvious ones are Republican members of the US Senate. We can talk about the deep state, certainly. But in terms of policy and

[06:49] the formulation of policy, the people who have the most effect, the most impact, the most influence with Donald Trump are Republican members of the US Senate. Because just like members of the deep state, they're not going anywhere. I mean, we reelect 96% of our members of Congress, 98% of the Senate, 96% of the House. And so, those senators are going to be there long after Donald Trump leaves.

[07:19] So, what they do, what they are doing is trying to force a neo-conservative foreign policy back into the White House and the State Department. And while they failed in the first Trump administration, they're largely succeeding now. All of a sudden, Donald Trump is doing things that MAGA Republicans should be furious about. And instead, it's just traditional Republican foreign policy sneaking back in. And it's because, I think, of

[07:51] Republican senators. Yeah. These Republicans that you mentioned, um it seems that you're talking about people like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz and these people. How how in the world Donald Trump would side with them against, you know, you remember during the Russia gate, few Republicans supported Donald Trump. Few. And you know, and one of them, one of the most, you know,

[08:22] you know, one of the the Republicans was Rand Paul that he did everything to support Donald Trump. Donald Trump right now is turning, you know, he's just attacking him. People in Kentucky, don't vote him, you know, just remove him from What is this sort of relationship? How? Because from what I my understanding of Donald Trump is anybody who seems friendly to him is going to support him. But that's not the case for

[08:53] Rand Paul. That's not the case for these people like Ted Tucker Carlson. Who Who decides about these sort of policies? Not personal, it's beyond that. >> It is. It's beyond that. And isn't it interesting that it's only now that so many Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are comfortable enough or feel safe enough to begin disagreeing with Donald Trump over US policy toward Israel, for example.

[09:24] It really has been Tucker Carlson that has led that fight. Uh it's it's refreshing. But I think And I think we're going to see more of it after the midterm elections. Because Donald Trump Here's the bottom line. The bottom line is Donald Trump is a lame duck. Donald Trump cannot run for president again. He's done. The Constitution is very, very clear. He can't run again. And a lot of Republicans believe that once Donald Trump departs the scene, the Republican Party as a party is going

[09:56] to return to a neo-conservative policy that it has maintained since the end of the Second World War, really. So, Lindsey Graham is going to become the old Lindsey Graham again, as horrible as that sounds. Ted Cruz is going to talk about invading other countries like he used to talk about all the time. And all of these people who have been worried that Donald Trump may damage their re-election efforts or may say something

[10:27] mean about them or may support a primary opponent running against them, they're all going to go back to the way things were, feel free to criticize, even to criticize Donald Trump. They're just biting their time. Once they get past this next election, which is a year from Well, it's a year and a week from now. Um Donald Trump is going to be an afterthought.

[10:57] Even Barack Obama, who was far more popular than Donald Trump, even he realized that he was essentially done being president after year six. Do you think that this situation with Russia would lead to new escalations because in this new sort of sanctions, is this new package, they're talking about hitting the Russian oil infrastructure.

[11:29] They were attacked physically by Ukrainians. And which we know when we talk about Ukrainians, we have to consider that the targets, the intelligence all came from the United States and the British. And they attacked them physically and they're trying to sanction them, you know, two sort of different attacks on their oil infrastructure. What is that Do you think we are heading toward new escalations in Ukraine? >> I do. And I'll tell you why.

[12:01] Well, besides the fact that the that the neo-conservatives are re-establishing themselves, I've spoken over the last two weeks with some of the most important thinkers on the issue of Russian studies uh here in Washington, the chairman of the history department at uh at American University and a Russia expert and the the founder of the nuclear studies program, for example. Um and every one of these experts that I speak with say the same thing, which is

[12:32] remarkable. They say it independently of one another. And that is that the war is essentially over. Russia has won. Right? The the Russians although they're advancing slowly, they're advancing. And every day they lose a little bit more territory. And so it's not in Russia's interest to end this war. Why would they want to? They're winning. Well, the only way that you can force the Russians to the negotiating table is to push them back. And the only way to push them back is to use American

[13:02] intelligence, British intelligence, German intelligence, and NATO hardware that you're giving to the to the Ukrainians to push them back. If you can't push them back physically on the ground, which the Ukrainians cannot, and NATO, of course, can't provide troops because then that would be a declaration of war, you have them do something that is almost as dangerous, and that is to strike Russian infrastructure, especially oil and gas infrastructure. I think that would be a catastrophic

[13:34] error on the part of the West because it ratchets up the level of violence in this war. And I think that we should then expect to see some sort of a of a Russian response. You know, during the Vietnam War, one of the complaints that the United States had was that the Russians and the Chinese were were arming and funding the North Vietnamese. Well, of course they were because they wanted to push the United States out.

[14:04] Well, now, if we are are continuing to arm and fund the Ukrainians, the Russians are going to make it worse for Ukraine and worse for us. The only way to go is up in escalation, and that's a very bad thing. I think one of the realistic signs of what to what's because with the Trump administration, you cannot find out what is the policy, what would be the policy in the next 24 hours. >> Right. And but when it comes to Russians, we

[14:36] have seen some sort of consistency in their sort of message. And that is hugely problematic when it comes to the latest escalations because we see Putin just warning the United States and the West with, you know, shocking and staggering response from Russia to any attack on Russia on on deep into the Russian soil. But Medvedev also came out and said, "This

[15:06] the United States is our enemy." Yes. The main outcome of these new sanctions, that shows you for those those of you who are delusional and delusional about, you know, what's going on between the United States and Russia, you have to understand that the enemy is the United States. These are not signs. No. I You know, I I'm one of these people, Nima, who is eternally optimistic. And even I am not seeing any reasons for optimism. One thing about Medvedev, too,

[15:38] I was just talking to a to a Russian um about him yesterday. Here in the West, so many people think Medvedev is a loose cannon. He's a kind of crazy, he's always on Twitter. He does that on purpose. He Medvedev is the one who puts the Russian policy position out there in the public for the West to read. He's not just, you know, sitting on his on the edge of his bed just, you know, tweeting on his phone.

[16:09] This is what his instructions are. He's the one that's out there floating Russian policy positions while Putin acts more presidential. The only thing that gives me optimism right now is that at least Trump and Putin are talking. Biden and Putin didn't talk. There was a report in the New York Times at the beginning of this past week that even

[16:39] Melania Trump picked up the hot phone and spoke with Putin about, I don't know, some women's rights issue. That's incredible to me. Can you imagine Jill Biden picking up the phone and calling Putin and having an actual conversation? So, at least we have that. At least we have dialogue, even if the dialogue is not yet getting us anywhere. Um you know, I have a lot of problems with a lot of Donald Trump's policies, but in this case, really, we should let Trump

[17:10] be Trump and try to work out a deal to to get this war behind us. The main issue, John, in the latest you know, meeting between the two in Alaska, Yes. >> Anchorage in Alaska, they were talking about this ceasefire and if you remember, Donald Trump came out of the meeting, he said that there would be no ceasefire. We have to find permanent solution for the situation. But he came back to the same position

[17:41] that he he had before the meeting. Mhm. He's talking again about an immediate ceasefire, which is not accepted, which is not the case for Russia. >> to happen. Yeah, you're right. And the other point, John, when you have some sort of chaos in the communication you have with your counterpart, which would be Russia, there is a lot happening behind the scene. You know, if something like what has happened to

[18:12] nuclear bombers of Russia happens by British intelligence, by Polish intelligence, something is how can you control that? Is that the case that anybody concerned in your opinion in the Trump administration that could happen or they don't care about it? So, what would Russia do? The last time they we did it, they didn't respond, they didn't do anything. That was a terrorist terrorist attack. But these, you know, Russia is what

[18:42] seems to me from the Russian part, they're so patient. But it gets to a moment that's going to be explosive. The same happened with the case of Ukraine, John. Since 2014 up until 2022, they were trying to be patient, negotiating. And it came to a point that there is no point for negotiation with the West. Let's go and fight. Yeah. >> This is hugely concerning, in my opinion. I I agree with you. I agree

[19:12] with you. You know, it it was very funny to me, funny to the point where I actually laughed out loud when I read the report in in the Washington Post that here we are disagreeing with the Russians almost every day, and it's headlines. We disagree on on arms transfers to the Ukrainians, we disagree on the use of drones, we disagree on this, we disagree on that. The Russians send a bomber inside American airspace. And then the Russians say, "We're in talks with the United States to to uh

[19:45] build a bridge connecting uh Russia with Alaska. And it's going to be called the Putin-Trump Bridge." It's like, "What? what are you talking about? There's not going to be any bridge collecting Russian connecting Russia and and Alaska. Why even say such a thing? Well, they throw that out there because they want people to understand that while the headlines are bad at least we're still talking. Now, with that said

[20:17] Marco Rubio, I'm not a fan of Marco Rubio. I never have been. Marco Rubio is a classic Republican neo-conservative. And a lot of it is because of his personal background. His family fled Cuba. He's staunchly anti-communist. A lot of Republicans still think that the Russians are communists. As crazy as that sounds, a lot of them still believe that. And now, not only is Rubio Secretary of State, he's also the

[20:48] National Security Advisor and he has traditionally and consistently exhibited weakness in front of Donald Trump. You may remember the the 2016 debates where Trump called him little Marco Rubio. And and said in in public in the first debate that Rubio was so afraid to debate him that he was standing in a puddle of his own piss. Well, how much respect is involved

[21:18] in a statement like that? I think Rubio is afraid of Trump. So, what what we're seeing right now is a Trump foreign policy affected not by Rubio and Rubio's ideology, but by the ideology of Rubio's former colleagues in the Senate. It's the traditional Republican foreign policy that's being forced on Trump through Rubio. John, let's dig deeper in the Trump administration in terms of the

[21:48] intelligence that he's receiving. Because we I don't know if he tries to say something different from what he's hearing or he literally receives, you know, false information. I remember when we learned that Tulsi Gabbard going to be in the administration, we were so optimistic that she's going to change the tone in Washington. But so far, who's who's you know the mastermind of the intelligence

[22:20] that's getting to the Donald Trump getting to the Trump administration getting to Donald Trump himself? Is that Tulsi Gabbard? It doesn't seem to me because just remembering what has happened with the case of Iran when Tulsi Gabbard said there is no sign, no any evidence that Iran is going beyond the program the peaceful program they have. They don't they're not they haven't you know, they haven't gone after, you

[22:52] know, nuclear bombs. There there is no sign for us to to to state that. But Donald Trump said he doesn't care about what Tulsi Gabbard said. He has his own mind. Right. >> But it doesn't seem to me that he has his own mind. Somebody's providing him with information. Who's that? I think you're right. In fact, I know you're right because when Donald Trump commissioned a national intelligence estimate

[23:22] on the Russia gate, he calls it the Russia gate hoax. I agree it's a hoax. Um and the CIA prepared a paper saying, you know, this is what we found. Uh he fired literally everybody that had something to do with the paper. Now, the CIA is different from the rest of the federal government in that it does not have the same uh Civil Service Act protections that the rest of the government has. At the CIA

[23:53] um these tell us all the time, we serve at the pleasure of the president. And so, if the president doesn't like your face or he doesn't like your tie he can fire you and there's nothing you can do about it. You can't go to the to the union. You can't you can't uh go to the Merit Systems Protection Board and ask for a second chance. You're out. They take your badge, they walk you to your car and you drive away and never come back. So we know at least in that example

[24:26] that he was getting his intelligence from Tulsi Gabbard and he hated it. He hated what the intelligence was. Interestingly enough the intelligence that goes from the CIA to Donald Trump doesn't go through Tulsi Gabbard so much as it goes through John Ratcliffe. But John Ratcliffe has been immune so far. Uh one of the things that I heard recently is John Ratcliffe and why what in the world would would make him do such a thing? But I heard recently that John Ratcliffe has been consulting with John Brennan

[24:59] about what intelligence should go to the president. Why in God's name would you consult someone like John Brennan knowing that the president hates John Brennan more than anybody else in America and is actively seeking to prosecute him? See, but that's what the deep state is. It's this amorphous blob that never goes anywhere and never changes and knows that Donald Trump's only going to be president for 3 more years and they can outwait him. So, I think that he's getting his

[25:30] intelligence from several different places. I think he's getting it from the intelligence community, whether it's DNI or CIA. I think he's getting it from Fox News and maybe Newsmax, but most likely Fox News. And I think the people who are close to him whisper into his ear things that they know he wants to hear. And that's how he formulates policy. That's why we see policy constantly moving back and forth. What is our China policy? I can give you 10 different answers and none of them

[26:02] have anything to do with the other because it changes all the time. And it changes on what the last person whispered into Donald Trump's ear and what he saw on Fox News. How do you evaluate the role of Stephen Miller? Oh, I think Stephen Miller is very, very important. Very important in this administration. And you know that this is a different Steve Miller than what we saw in the first uh

[26:35] right all the time. Well, we know that Stephen Miller is the architect of the immigration policy. He's the architect of the border policy. He's the architect of the Israel policy. Yet, he never speaks publicly anymore. He was on TV the other day and I actually didn't recognize him. He lives in the same town that I live in, Arlington, Virginia. And last week he sold his house and moved and we don't know where because pro-immigration demonstrators were

[27:07] marching in front of the house and writing messages in chalk on the on the sidewalk. So, he literally sold his house and moved. It's a different Stephen Miller. It's a quiet, private Stephen Miller who's who's making policy behind the scenes where the rest of us aren't supposed to see the sausage being made. John, do you see how do you see the connection between the British intelligence and the intelligence in the United CIA? Or do they coordinate what they want to

[27:39] do, for example, in Ukraine with the United States or they have some sort of independence to do that? >> they they coordinate very, very closely. In fact, you know, I was giving a I I gave a speaking tour. I had a speaking tour all around the United Kingdom at the start of the year and one of the people that I was conversant with on stage was a retired MI6 officer. And we used to talk about exactly this question. And he said, you know, we never minded being the little brother to the CIA

[28:10] except when the CIA goes out and starts killing people. Then we disagree and we didn't want anything to do with that. Otherwise, everything we do is coordinated with the CIA. Actually, I think the opposite. Well, I he didn't want to talk about India or or Africa. So, I have to agree with you. I think the opposite, too. But John, the case of Ukraine is so much important

[28:40] for the British government for many reasons because the rise of Zelenskyy is the production of the British policy. Yes. The British did they they produced Zelenskyy. You know, you have a as you we have a literally a far-right government in Kiev. Yes. They're they're mostly, you know even on CNN if you've seen that you know, the high Hitler in their sign, you know, it's unbelievably you and you put a

[29:10] Jew as the head of these people. Yeah. And this only the this sort of plan comes from the British. And they every time Zelenskyy comes to the United States Washington talking with Donald Trump in the aftermath he goes to the United Kingdom. Always. Same has happened just two days ago. Yes. What are they what is the leverage? What are they trying to do which would be different from what the United States wants to do with Ukraine in Europe?

[29:42] Well, the British policy really comes down to where that Boris Johnson said it was three or four years ago. Right? It was Boris Johnson that made sure that there was no change in policy and the British were going to drag the Americans whether it was, you know, willingly or kicking and screaming to ensure that this war did not end. Right? The idea is to is to keep the Russians fighting. You know this old joke that that we're going to fight to the last Ukrainian. Well, it's it's said because it's true.

[30:16] The idea is to do to the Russians what the Russians did to us in Vietnam. Or what we did to the Russians in Afghanistan. Right? Fight to the last Russian. If they have to bring in troops from North Korea or for China, kill them, too. But the idea is just to drain the Russians, to bankrupt Russia. And that's not really working out. Well, of course, Zelenskyy and whoever happens to be British Prime Minister on any given day,

[30:48] and God knows they've had a lot of them. Um the idea is to make sure that there's no change in that policy that Boris Johnson set out years ago. I I think the the case of Ukraine Let me put it this way. The two projects, Ukraine project and Israel project, both are are the production of the British Empire. In my >> Yeah, without any question.

[31:20] And and May I add something? May I add something that's very topical? It's not just Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine. Just yesterday I was having a conversation about the border skirmish that resulted in as many as 200 dead between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the Durand Line was drawn by the British. The British created that border. That border is not recognized by any of the tribes.

[31:51] You know, look at the Pashtuns. They have family members on one side of the border, family members on the other side of the border. And the British just drew a line between them. What gives the British the right now or 100 years ago or 200 years ago? What gave the British the right to decide where where borders should be? And so here we are more than a century later, and we still have problems. Deadly, serious problems because of this British imperialist

[32:22] arrogance. Which Do you think the British are doing the same that they've done to themselves to the United to the US Empire? Oh, I do. I do think so. The British egged us on. The British want us to be the policeman of the world. And they don't really care if it if it weakens the United States over the long run. They willingly gave up their empire after the Second World War because they were bankrupt. And that's exactly when

[32:52] the US was ascendant and we were creating our new empire. And so, you know, they're the little brother now to the United States. They prefer to go along for the ride. Yeah. John, is that if we focus a little bit on Ukraine, do you think the case with Zelenskyy, because one of the main issues being addressed by the Russians so far is the Zelenskyy cannot be in power because he's not the legitimate

[33:23] president of Ukraine. But if we go beyond that, who cares about who's going to run Ukraine if you change Zelenskyy with Zaluzhnyy, which is the former commander of Ukrainian Army, Right. which is now the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Kingdom, which is prepared if they want to change Zelenskyy, he's going to be Right. the same story. Well, you know, Putin is right that according to the Ukrainian Constitution,

[33:54] it's actually not legitimate. It's not legal for Zelenskyy to still be in this position. Zelenskyy, of course, has suspended elections because the country is in a time of war, but the Ukrainian Constitution is clear that you can't just suspend the Constitution indefinitely. Um I agree with you. Zaluzhnyy is the is the person who would probably be installed or elected

[34:25] uh to replace Zelenskyy. The British would be thrilled with that. The Americans likely would also be thrilled with it. But I think that they don't want to allow the Russians even that small victory of pushing Zelenskyy out. And that's why they're not they're not demanding new elections. Let me say I'm amazed by the ability of the intelligence community in the West, the way that they're preparing. You know, looking at Zaluzhnyy when the way it was, you know, the commander with,

[34:55] you know, this right now with the beautiful suit and, you know, he's like an actor. The new photos coming out. The same has happened with the al-Julani in Syria. Yes. You know, they literally turn a, you know, a guy butcher into a president. Member of al-Qaeda, founding co-leader of ISIS, and then we decide, "No, no, this is the guy we're going to work with."

[35:25] You know, I I've said, and maybe this is controversial, but I've said from the beginning, you don't just flip like that overnight. He has to have been a CIA source of long standing for the United States all of a sudden to say, "Uh we're going to go with this guy. We're going to go with this ISIS guy because he's the one that we can work with. He's the moderate." And then, like magic, like that, the United States lifts sanctions against Syria, where they were literally dancing in the

[35:55] street. And then we said, "Well, but you have to protect religious minorities." Right? Christians and and Druze and uh you know, Jews, there's a handful of Jews still in Damascus, whomever. And they say, "Yes, yes, we're going to protect religious minorities." And then they start killing everybody. And we say, "Well, that's a shame, but we have to look at the bigger picture and and he's our guy."

[36:27] Donald Trump, it seems that the Trump administration has some sort of differences with Netanyahu administration in terms of the peace plan, so-called peace plan. Peace plan is not it's not a pause. It's a It is. Peace plan is not any There is no no sign of peace plan. >> Correct. But we had the Vice President of the United States, J.D. Vance, and then Rubio going to Israel. Donald Trump himself said that the

[36:58] annexation of the West Bank is not going to happen under the Trump administration. But Netanyahu, he said in Hebrew with the Israeli media, he said, "They always say that. And don't worry about that doesn't That's not important because we are an independent nation." Right. Is Israel an independent nation in your opinion? Oh, yeah. I think Israel controls the United States, not not the the reverse.

[37:30] Um you know, the the Knesset uh in committee, they voted 25 to 24 this week to annex the West Bank. Historically, that has been an unacceptable position for the United States since 1967. But but the Israelis have such incredible control over US foreign policy. And the Democrats are even more pro-Israel than the Republicans are. I wouldn't be surprised if what

[38:03] Netanyahu said was true. "Uh the Americans, they always say that. They're going to fall into line." I bet they do fall into line. What was the response when the Israelis annexed the Golan Heights? Nobody said a word. Nobody said a single word. I mean, the Israelis essentially de facto have annexed the West Bank. They just cleared out a Christian village two, three weeks ago to make room for new settlers from New Jersey,

[38:35] New York, Toronto. Just Ahlan wa Sahlan. Come on in. Pick any house you want. It's yours now. Well, what is that? How How is the United the United States supposed to be the honest broker? We we can't be when our foreign policy is controlled by Israel. Donald Trump in his speech at the Knesset said that he had no idea about, you know, moving the embassy

[39:06] to Jerusalem. Please. Sheldon Adelson paid for it. Yeah. Sheldon Adelson paid for it and they put a big bronze plaque uh at the embassy now thanking Donald Trump and Sheldon Adelson for moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. You know, that bill was passed by Congress during the Clinton uh administration. But the bill had a provision that the president could halt the transfer until there was a peace agreement between the

[39:36] Israelis and the Palestinians. And Donald Trump just said, "Ah, screw it. We're going to move. And just did it. So, we we really have no we have no hammer to hold over the Israelis to say, "Well, listen, if you want if you want us to move the embassy, sure, we'll move the embassy, but you have to make peace with the Palestinians." Now, they say, "Ah, go screw yourself. We do what we want." John, you've mentioned that the British intelligence is like a little brother to

[40:08] the United States CIA. But, how about Mossad? Mossad is a little brother or No, no. No. No, Mossad does anything it wants, anywhere it wants. Uh law means nothing. International law means nothing to Mossad. If they want to do an operation, they do it. If they want to kill you, they'll kill you. If they want to kill you and you happen to be in an apartment building, they'll take out the whole city block and kill everybody on the block if they could be sure they're going to kill you.

[40:38] They are utterly, completely, and totally independent. You know what's so strange to me, John? I talked with Colonel Jacques Baud. Colonel Jacques Baud, he's he was part of the NATO operation, the chief of NATO in in Africa. I talked with American, you know, colonels, and they always say that there is no law for Israel in military.

[41:09] Syria. So, how how they can have such a leverage on military if they they, you know, you're talking about the the main the can't, you know, you know, you know, the main core of military, they don't agree with Israel, but they're somehow doing whatever Israel wants them to do. Yeah. That comes from Capitol Hill. The Israelis have been so smart in the way that they have invested in

[41:41] American elections since the 1950s, but really especially beginning in the Nixon administration around 1969. They realized, they recognized the the import of money in American political races. And so, if you even think about voting against something that the Israelis want in Congress, they will primary you, and they will spend millions of dollars to beat you to install a pro-Israel person in your

[42:12] place. They've been wildly successful. I mean, this is a an ethnic group that makes up roughly 2%, less than 2% of the American population. But, look at the the power and the authority that they have, and it's because of AIPAC and because they so clearly understand the American political process better than anybody else.

[42:42] You mentioned Nixon, but how about Carter? I see I don't see Carter be that much in line with Israel. No. No, and George H.W. Bush. When I was serving in Bahrain, I think I may have mentioned this to you. When I was serving serving in Bahrain from 1994 to 1996, His Highness the Emir, Sheikh Isa bin Salman Al Khalifa, he used to invite uh diplomats and their families to his beach house every weekend. Uh he wanted us to to

[43:13] feel um uninhibited to wear a bathing suit, and your wife could wear a bikini and people wouldn't stare at her, right? So, we would take our son, I had one child at the time. We would take our son to the beach on the weekends, and the Emir took a a liking to my wife, so he would invite her for tea, and then a half an hour later the servant would come and get me, and and then I would go sit with him. And we had a rule at the embassy that anything the Emir said at the beach was off-limits and not reportable back to

[43:44] the State Department. And he used to talk about these things all the time. He said, for example, Carter was good for the Arabs. He said, "But, the last president to give the Arabs a fair shake was George H.W. Bush." When George H.W. Bush told the Israelis, "Stop building these settlements," and the Israelis gave him the finger, he cut off loan guarantees until they did stop building the settlements. Once the the American

[44:14] voters threw him out of office and brought in uh um uh Bill Clinton, everything started back up again, and they started building settlements. So, Eisenhower, Carter, and George H.W. Bush were really the only three presidents, well, and and Kennedy uh on the nuclear issue. We're the only four presidents, let's say, since the end of the Second World War to really give the Arabs a

[44:45] fair a fair shake. Everybody else is just in the the pocket of the Israelis politically. Do you think that the Trump administration has some sort of backbone in countering that, or you see you don't see that much of, you know, Carter, that much of George H.W. Bush. Why is that the case? What where is that backbone in the US president?

[45:18] You know, to me there there's this innate issue of fairness. Okay, I I watch the same news that the president watches, that every president watches. And I see what the Israelis are doing to Palestinians. Human rights mean nothing to the Israelis. And they freely will tell you they don't care about human rights. I do. Um and other president or some presidents do. But, for the most part, it's

[45:50] millions and millions and millions of dollars going into campaign coffers with the likes of Sheldon Adelson whispering in the ear of whoever happens to be president, "You really need to do things the way we want you to do them. You really need to support the Israelis." You know, the first time I went to Israel, I I went twice in 2022. I'd never been to Israel before. And all over the old city of Jerusalem, you see these posters on the wall like glued on the walls of buildings,

[46:22] and it says, "America, we are with you." And I thought, "Well, what the [ __ ] was that supposed to mean? With us in what? How? We don't want you to be with us. We want an independent foreign policy." But, it's like they're trying to convince us, "Remember, we're your only true friends in the Middle East," even though they're not. It's like they were propagandizing themselves to help them propagandize us.

[46:52] I I really didn't like that at all. "America, we are with you," and it has a fist on it. Like, "Well, what's that supposed to mean?" Iranian the head of intelligence of Iranians said 3 days ago that 50, more than 50 intelligence agency helped Israel during the 12 days of war and before the 12 days of war to attack Iran. And I remember last time we talked, you

[47:24] said that Iran has failed in terms of counterintelligence. But, when you you're facing such a huge intelligence against you, you know, each and every country in the region, out of the region, in in Europe, in America, you know, everybody's against you. What is the solution for these countries? Do you think I I talked with Paul Craig Roberts, one of the solution that he brings to the table is that Russia, Iran, and

[47:56] China, even India. I think what's going on against India is somehow of concern because Pakistan, the case of Pakistan, Bangladesh, the color revolution in Bangladesh. Do you think that after all the behavior of the United States would bring these countries together? Yes. I do. First of all, I think that the Iranian intelligence chief is correct. It probably was 50 countries siding with the with the Israelis.

[48:27] But, on the Iranian side, the Russians are good, the Chinese are good, the Indians are good. They should have been liaising with the with the Iraqis, for example. Um the problem is that with the exception of the of the Russians and the and the Chinese, those countries don't really stack up to what the West can offer, especially especially technologically. So,

[48:58] with that said, I I stand by my original position that the Iranians have a counterintelligence problem. I don't think anybody realized how deeply infiltrated they had been with the Israeli recruitment of Afghan refugees, for example. Kudos to the Israelis. I would have never thought of that. Because you would think, "Well, what access do the do these undocumented, you know, would-be refugees have?" It turned out they had a lot of access,

[49:28] especially locational access related to um Iranian military leaders. So, I think that the Iranians need to work hard on counterintelligence and probably need to strengthen their liaison relationships with countries with which they are they're friendly. Specifically, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Indians. Only then, I think, will they be able to protect themselves or better protect themselves against the

[49:59] Israelis. Every time we hear that there is nothing going on in the Middle no war, and everything is going to the good direction, I really I feel a lot, you know, that that something big can happen. Always. Yeah. Always. You know, I say all the time, if you have access to Netflix, no matter where you are in the world, you have to watch this this series called Fauda. It's an Israeli series, but it's a joint Israeli-Palestinian series, and it will

[50:30] make you both love and hate both sides. It's so beautifully written and so exciting. It really did does give you a window into the thinking of both sides of the conflict. John, Israel the we have two agencies, Mossad and Shin Bet. >> Yeah. And the communication between the two and how much

[51:02] you know, Mossad is influencing the foreign policy of Israel, how much Shin Bet is influencing, how do you see the communication between these two agencies and the government in Israel? >> Yeah, it's all very close. You know, here in the United States, there's a there's a a wall between the CIA and the FBI. The FBI is just domestic, the CIA is just foreign. It's it's not so clear in Israel. Certainly, of course, the Mossad focuses on foreign intelligence and the Shin Bet

[51:33] on domestic intelligence, but but everything bleeds into the other side in Israel. And so, Mossad and Shin Bet work very closely together. The very first briefing I ever gave at the CIA, this was in like March or April of 1990, was to a joint it was a joint briefing for Mossad and Shin Bet. Well, overseas, I I I lived for years overseas.

[52:05] I couldn't even imagine going to an intelligence service with the FBI for a briefing. I can't imagine even doing something like that. In fact, Mossad and Shin Bet do it all the time. What would be the policy if they want to if they decide as as we've mentioned something big would may happen, but if they decide to attack Iran again,

[52:36] what is how these intelligence agencies would convince the, you know, the public opinion or not the public opinion, the decision makers in Israel that could decision could help Israel in a long run. How much of that sort of, you know, decision is coming from Mossad and Shin Bet in your opinion? In my opinion, a lot of it is coming from Mossad. Because remember, the Israelis keep talking about this existential threat.

[53:06] They use the word existential all the time. That maybe Iran's not a threat today, and maybe it won't be a threat tomorrow, but a year from now, 5, 10, 50 years from now, it's going to be a catastrophe because eventually Iran is going to get nuclear weapons and they're going to fire them at Israel and it's the end of the world. Right? That's the Israeli position. And so, what the Mossad does, and it does it quite successfully, is to convince Israeli policy makers

[53:37] that that is still the case. And the policy makers in turn convince the Israeli public that that is still the case. And so, you and I both know that Iran is no threat to Israel. Right? We both know that. But the Israelis don't care because their view of the threat is that it's existential. It could be 50 years from now. So, best to take it take care of it today by killing every Iranian nuclear scientist, by taking out the entire Iranian military leadership,

[54:09] by overthrowing Ayatollah Khamenei, whatever they have to do. Do you remember right before the 12-day war started, Netanyahu gave this ridiculous, like embarrassingly silly, address to the Iranian people saying, "We are with you, Iranian people, and we want to help you, and as soon as we overthrow your government, we're going to send 25 experts in water, and we're going to

[54:39] make the deserts bloom in Iran because we are with you." What is that? I don't know one single Iranian that took that seriously. It I felt embarrassed for the Israelis. It was so silly and ridiculous. But this is all part of the same policy, all part of the propaganda. Yeah. Every time he talks, he has a picture of water again. Always drinking water.

[55:09] Nobody cares about the water. Oh my god. John, just to wrap up this session, how last time you said that there is a possibility of war between the two Iran and Israel. With the current situation, we know that the administration in the United States, which it seems to me that the mastermind as Kushner himself that that mastermind of the new plan in Gaza is a dividing Gaza in two zones. One zone in the hand

[55:40] of the United States under Kushner and Steve Whitcomb on the other part. Is that going to help the situation? No. No, not at all. Just like a ceasefire doesn't help. A ceasefire is not a peace agreement. And the Israelis, we know what the Israelis do with ceasefires because they do the same thing every day, every time, rather. They'll wait a couple days and then they'll blame the Palestinians for violating the ceasefire and then they kill another 100 people and then the war starts again. It's always exactly the

[56:11] same script that the Israelis follow. And so, no, I I don't see Tony Blair bringing peace and and prosperity to Gaza just like Steve Whitcomb and and Jared Kushner are not going to bring peace and prosperity to Gaza. Nobody will until there is an independent Palestine. That's the only solution here. Is there has to be an independent Palestine. That's it.

[56:43] You know, I I mentioned to you, I think I mentioned it the last time we talked, maybe the time before, but Dennis Ross, the former special envoy for the Middle East peace process, told me once, around the year 2000, I guess it was, I met with him at the State Department and he said, "There are no new ideas. Every idea has been thought of and none of it has worked. There are no new ideas. What we have to do is just have the

[57:14] Palestinians and the Israelis agree on an idea that they don't really like very much, but is the least offensive of the ideas that have been presented." And what that's going to have to be, you know, we talk about the one-state solution, the two-state solution, what about a three-state solution? Right? The West Bank Palestinians are an independent individual entity. The Gaza Palestinians have, you know, it's a completely different culture, it's a

[57:44] different society, they're it's a different they're different families in Gaza. Maybe we need two Palestines. Because God knows that if the Israelis absorb both of them, they're not going to give them the same freedoms that Israeli citizens have. So, we're going to have to we're going to have to force an agreement that nobody likes, but is the least offensive to the two sides. Yeah. Because that would be, John,

[58:16] hugely problematic because the West Bank Israelis are they're already talking about it as, you know, the annexation of the West Bank and look at the West Bank, you know, they have It's going to end up it would end up looking like Bosnia, where there are these little circles on the map, little circles like pinpricks all over the map, and those are, you know, Serbian enclaves, for example. Yeah. At this point, it would have to look like that

[58:46] in the West Bank. Yeah. And if I were an Israeli, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near Gaza. Thank you so much, John, for being with us. >> Great pleasure, as always. >> It's always great to see you. Thank you. Thank you.
