Padraig Martin critiques the current conflict as a strategic failure where Iran dismantles U.S. logistics, isolates allies like the UAE, and exploits Washington's "groupthink." He details his rejected 2006 thesis on Shi'ite identity, claims the Beirut bombing was an Israeli false flag, and argues Trump is trapped between dispensationalist Christians and business interests like Eric Prince. The discussion highlights looming rare earth shortages, potential nuclear escalation by Israel or Pakistan, and the risk of Iranian sleeper cells, concluding that this quagmire represents a humiliating defeat undermining American global capacity. [Automatically generated summary]
Leave it to Donald Trump to make George W. Bush look like Lawrence of Arabia.
We're now 10 days into the most poorly conceived Jewish war in American history, and some of the highlights so far include at least a dozen dead U.S. troops so far, and likely many more, an emerging energy crisis, furious and frightened so-called allies in the Gulf, billions lost to Iranian attacks and spent munitions, Russia with some unexpected sanctions relief, China with a wonderful window into U.S. tactics and weapons performance,
a new and improved Ayatollah Khamenei, and of course, death and destruction across Iran.
Now, with the president this afternoon teasing an imminent end to hostilities, the market gave him the signal that peace would be better for business.
But on that front, I'm reminded of the meme, isn't there someone you forgot to ask?
It's tempting to say that Iran is now in the catbird seat with the ability to escalate or de-escalate based on what it perceives as its long-term interests.
And so we're now in a position to make either a humiliating tap out in the near term, or staying in this quicksand for months and making a disastrous situation even worse.
Up to and including the Israeli temptation to just nuke an entire country.
In that spirit of incomprehensible strategic folly, we welcome back Patrick Martin, who's perhaps the preeminent Iran expert in our corner of politics to provide some subject matter expertise that we could all use a shot of.
So, Mr. Producer, hit it.
Israel Or Bust: The Unprepared Response00:15:11
Welcome back, everyone, to Full House, the world's finest show for white fathers, aspiring ones, and the whole family.
It is episode 223, and this is Monday, March 9th, 2026.
Just to keep track, things happen so fast these days.
And yes, this is two shows in two weeks, but don't get greedy.
Gonna dispense with some of the opening stuff.
You know, we're at givesendgo.com slash fullhouse if you like the show, but let's just get right into it.
With us tonight, as always, is Sam.
Sam, welcome back right at the top.
How you feeling?
Any initial thoughts here?
Yeah.
It's, you know, I like to take a humorous look at things sometimes or try to be chipper and wise about things, but I got to say following this is really.
It's kind of depressing in a way.
I was looking at these pictures and videos of the the condition of Tehran right now with this black rain almost they describe it like a nuclear winter.
The sky is darkened, there's this uh, heavy soot that's forming like a sulfuric acid and damaging things and it's just uh it's, it's terrible, you know it's.
It's just, it's really uh like apocalyptic to see something like that and um, you know, all things considered, like I say, this is it's scary times in a way.
And uh um, you know a lot of it is just read.
You know people are getting themselves all worked up about what they see on the Telegram or elsewhere, that the videos and commentary.
People are, you know, angry at each other and denouncing each other and stuff.
But where does it really like to me?
I'm just like a spectator at this.
But it did, it did hit home today because Middle East Spectator is down.
The guy got your main squeeze, your main source of information from elections to the Middle East.
Yes, absolutely yeah, that's what that was my go-to to kind of get a like a really different view of things.
Gone gone, so it's.
It's really hitting home now the war is coming home to me.
Yep, lots of censorship out there.
We've barely got any window into what's going on on the ground in Israel.
Um for, for a delightful change, CNN actually has a man on the ground in Tehran who's been doing some good work with man on the street footage uh, etc.
And i'll say here at the top, i'm half elated may be the wrong word, but excited at least to see Imperial Jewish hubris get kicked in the teeth right and square, where it deserves it so far, and and also half terrified one at the prospect of Iran losing which, of course, is still possible, even if it doesn't look likely right now.
And then the domestic consequences of a resurgent left.
Uh, you know all of this, all the good things that were happening on the domestic front getting discredited, abandoned or, you know, basically fought back against.
So and uh, what about?
What about this?
Supposedly this?
Uh, Itemar Ben Gir supposedly got killed, or I think Iranian sources are claiming He got killed in the bombings.
Looks like an example of FUD to me, Sam.
Misinformation.
I haven't seen anything like that.
It was just like there was a, you know, Trump saying he's going to back.
You know, there's just, there's a lot of slop out there.
And I want to believe that would be lovely, but I didn't see any evidence of that actually being true.
So, yep, watch.
Well, it's just that there's so much like fake information or censorship, you know, either too much or too little.
And that's why I can't get too excited about it in a certain sense, except that it's very discouraging to me to see the death and the killing.
And at least, like I said, the Tehran with the black rain and the overcast dark skies and all that is sad, really, in a way.
I found that Telegram has been better.
If you want to go to those five or six news hyperactive feeds for what's going on in a reputable way of reporting, that's where to go.
And then I have been going over to Twitter for the bangers and the commentary just to see all the people hating this.
Anyway, welcome back, Sam.
Oh, welcome back.
I was going to say, I do recommend Counterintelligence Global as another good independent source of seeing all kinds of views and things on there.
But check it out.
Absolutely.
We've been featured or forwarded whatever a few times from them over the years.
All right.
Rolo, welcome back.
You are not wearing a kefiya or any other Muslim garb that I can see.
Maybe the secret underwear.
His shirt says save our kind.
I don't know what the hell it's.
I can't see.
You're in a tiny little window on my computer.
What is it?
Oh, it says, save our land, join the clan.
Oh, okay.
Well, that's that's really cool.
I just couldn't see it.
Any thoughts here at the top?
Hey, boomers.
Hey, boomers.
The Fox News boomers, probably the only ones in large numbers to support this, but I don't want to give the American populace too much credit.
I suspect this is way more unpopular than the polls reveal, but don't want to assume and be left looking like an ass.
All right.
Finally, then, our very special return guest is, of course, the author of A Walk in the Park, My Charlottesville Story, as interviewed on the show.
Longtime Southern nationalist.
And I think it's fair to call him an Iran/slash Shia hand for many, many years.
Patrick, welcome back, big guy.
Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you for the invitation, gentlemen.
We're grateful for your time.
Yep.
It's been one hell of a couple of weeks, right?
Yeah, before I ask you a 10-part question with all these clauses and long-winded, et cetera, lay it on us.
I mean, this is kind of your bread and butter.
I'm sure you're proud that what you have been claiming or arguing for years would happen is to a large extent happening.
And I was a little, all right, I'll shut up after this, but you, you, we talked to you during Gaza, you know, and the kickoff of all that.
And Hezbollah did not exactly rise to the occasion then as we had hoped or expected, although they got kicked pretty badly in their teeth there.
But this time, I think that the Iranians are delivering better than they ever have as promised.
I'll stop there.
Your top line thoughts.
Take as much time as you want, ramble.
It's all you, buddy.
Yeah, I mean, first of all, again, thank you, gentlemen.
You know, for those of y'all who don't know who I am, I worked in the Bureau of Industry and Security for a lot of years, working on nonproliferation issues, specifically engaging Iran.
Worked at the DIA as well as a DIA fellow at a particular graduate school and did my thesis on Iran.
I had the privilege of both working with the IDF and working with Hezbollah on the construction of my thesis years ago.
And for a lot of years, I was employed by the U.S. government until I decided to switch into the contracting role and worked in GWAT for quite a number of years.
So this has really been my bread and butter for the better part of a 20-year career.
And, you know, as far as Iran's concerned, it's doing what I kind of expected them to do.
And Iran's not going to beat the United States military.
Well, will not beat the U.S. militarily in a tit for tat missile exchange or air exchange of any kind.
But what it does need to do is make it so bad that the U.S. really cannot continue its war effort on any political or economic scale.
And, you know, for whatever reasons are going on is this quite a bit.
And, you know, being in the South, you are genuinely exposed to a lot of dispensationalist rhetoric, which is a big part of what's going on at the Trump administration now, which we can get into in a bit.
Myself, having been raised a Catholic and I no longer am a practicing Catholic, but I still have quite a bit of Catholic views.
I'm an Irish Catholic by, well, by the grace of God.
But, you know, it's a, I have a little bit different viewpoints on Christianity and myself now as a Christian identitarian.
But, you know, all that said, You know, you look at this and you see the traps that the administration is walking into that Iran's purposely setting.
Iran's going to make this as costly as possible for the United States.
And the longer Iran lasts as it's going to last, I mean, there's a lot here, but it's going to last in terms of its overall attack on that which is the United States and Israel, in that it will make it so hard for them to continue to work in a, again, a much broader geopolitical and geoeconomic sense.
Iran took out all the local regional logistics areas.
I mean, they've taken out every logistics support network that the U.S. Navy has.
They've been able to take out a lot of the eyes and ears, so to speak, the tactical intelligence, signals, intelligence stations that exist throughout the region, which is what they should have done.
It was pretty predictable that they would do this.
By doing so, we still can see when we have a missile attack occur or strike come out of Iran, but the satellite relays coming from those are so slow in comparison to what you can get from those tactical signals intelligence facilities that existed in places like Mahrain, in Qatar, in Saudi Arabia, and in UAE.
So they've been able to knock out the logistics zone in general.
The closest logistics facility available to the U.S. Navy is Djibouti, which is within striking distance of the Houthis.
They have been able to essentially isolate the U.S. and Israel.
They've also been able to create something that is attention that was kind of unpredictable.
And that is, for a lot of years, the Sunni majority has looked upon the Shiites with a great deal of concern as a possibility that there might be elements within Shiism that would seek somewhat of a revenge for the seventh century dispossession of Mecca.
And in striking those areas of the Arabic world, the Sunni Arabic world, they very carefully struck those areas that are U.S. military, U.S. contractor-based facilities.
And in so doing, they have not earned the ire of the Arabs in general, which is outstanding strategically.
I mean, really, it was a, I mean, we're talking about a very surgical approach from the Iranians perspective in that they have not, say, struck areas that would be higher elements of Sunni thought, for instance, or Wahhabi thought and so forth.
They really struck only those American-controlled locations, which many of the Sunnis would have purposely struck if they had an opportunity to do so.
Some of the more radical elements of Sunni Islam, the Salafists and the Wahhabis.
So as a whole, what they've done here is this.
They've now taken out the odds and ears of the United States and Israel.
They've taken out logistics support of the U.S. Navy.
They have forced it into a situation where they have now had the Arab world say, wait a second, why are you protecting Israel and not protecting us?
And that's a big one, especially for UAE, but also for Qatar and Bahrain, who have said, hey, we've been hosting you for a long period of time here, and you're not going to protect us.
You're going to move all of your interceptors to Israel.
And then what do they do?
They geopolitically shifted the entire narrative by completely wiping out those interceptors.
I mean, it looks like about half of the interceptors globally have been wiped out.
Now, understanding that we walked into this with a shortage due to Ukraine, now we're moving product from South Korea based on the Korean reports now and shifting it over to protect Israel.
The whole world has just saw that the U.S. is not interested in protecting East Asia, is not interested in protecting its Arab allies, is not interested in protecting any, even its European allies, is somewhat abandoned its European allies.
In fact, forced the UK and France's hand, threatened Spain.
So they've actually forced NATO's hand.
They have not protected Turkey.
They have decided and said Israel or bust.
And as a result, the whole world has saw that Israel and only Israel matters the United States.
And that has dismantled and destroyed the U.S. geopolitical diplomatic capacity on a scale that I don't think Trump or his administration could really comprehend.
And I can't finish.
I'm smiling from ear to ear hearing you say what is so obvious because that's one of the good aspects of this is that it's never been so obvious, never so naked, can't be denied.
And one suspects that that will serve as, if not now, as the cleave between us and them, that going forward, this will not be forgotten, cannot be forgotten both domestically as well as overseas.
My first question for you is, how is it possible that we were this unprepared or overconfident, given that Iran's been in our crosshairs for at least 20, 25 years?
I mean, I'm sure that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz was in our war plans, right?
I'm sure drones and rockets and the ability to keep our Navy pretty far offshore was in there.
Maybe it's a stupid question.
You know, one instantly goes to Trump, of course, but it really looks bad.
And Dean Kane does not seem like a dummy.
He's probably got one of the toughest jobs in the world right now.
Whatever your thoughts are on that.
Yeah, so I, you know, again, I think part of this is groupthink in that, and anybody who's ever worked in DC knows this.
You have, when you go inside a bureaucracy, I've been in one, you've been in one.
What happens is that you have these folks that are around you that encircle you that will drown out any kind of contrarian thought.
And nobody wants to push the envelope in such a way that could potentially hurt their any form of ability to get promoted.
In the military, that would be, they would be locked out of the potential for any kind of senior military command in government service, in any of the GS roles.
The likelihood of becoming a GS15 when you've been that thorn in the side of everybody else is unlikely, let alone getting a contracted position.
That's the fact.
So you have these, you have this sort of, this is what we believe.
This is what's going to happen.
And a lot of that has been driven by Israeli-led think tanks.
Persian Identity and the 2006 Thesis00:15:18
Now, I know this firsthand because I was fired by the DIA in March 2006.
I came back from doing my thesis.
I had worked out an arrangement where I had studied with the IDF.
I worked with the IDF.
I worked with one of their intelligence assets on the ground, a former Mossad agent who helped me understand their perspective of Iran.
But I also worked with members of the Canadian government to get into Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and work with Hezbollah on my thesis and understand Hezbollah's position on Shiite identity in general and what it meant for what Iran's role was in the protection of Shiism.
And I came back in March 2006 and presented my thesis.
And I was in a place in Los Angeles.
And I presented, it was March 2006.
In fact, about this time, March 2006, 20 years ago to this day, practically.
I presented my findings.
Members of the Rumpsville team were at the meeting.
They were pissed off at me.
I got on a plane.
I was working for General Russ Howard at Tufts University at the time as Counter Services Center.
His XL was Colonel Paula Broadwell.
Anybody who knows Paula Broadwell and knows or remembers, she was the lover of a particular general, Petraeus, and it became a big, big poop show later on.
But anyway, Paul was a great XO, by the way.
I got on a plane.
I arrived into the New York airport in JFK and I was fired.
An email from General General Russ Howard, your role in the DIA will not be extended beyond your fellowship.
For the content of your thesis, essentially.
The condom of my thesis.
And my condom, my thesis was essentially that Iran is, number one, Iran is the epicenter of Shi'identity, regardless of whether you have competing Shi'id entities and Houthis who are Zaidi fivers or they're Ishmaeli Shiites in Lebanon.
The Jafari School, the Jafari School of Islam in Iran is leader of Shi'islam and this cannot be broken down.
This is a core component of who Iran is, is this sort of underdog type of a personality that has integrated itself with Iranian identity over the Persian and Azeri identity, but Iranian identity over the course of centuries that can't be broken militarily.
And it's not going to be broken from a civil perspective.
And the best way to approach this is to see if you could find some form of detente where you could find commonalities and interests that align with your own and just essentially make offensively an ally out of Iran was my ultimate thought on my thesis.
My other issue was that I came across thanks to assistance from Hezbollah: there was a group of Karajites called calling themselves the Islamic Nation, Islamic State.
They were on the border of Iraq and Syria at the time.
This is 2006 reported about this, that we came across that the Israelis were helping train.
And they were mostly disaffected members, former Baathists and former al-Qaeda members who had joined these Karajite movement to join this Islamic nation.
Again, ultimately calling itself the Islamic country, Islamic State, whatever you want to call it, that became the formation of ISIS.
That was part of my thesis.
And as a result, it got struck for my thesis.
I had to do a classified version and an unclassified version.
And I wound up getting terminated because, A, the idea that the Israelis might be assisting al-Qaeda was highly controversial.
And B, the idea that we should really ally ourselves with Iran was really controversial.
And I pointed out the fact that we have had work with them before.
We worked with them in Afghanistan.
The Hazara in Herat were our allies in Afghanistan in both the first Mujahideen wars and in the second long-term occupation, the Hazara.
And that Hazara facilitation was through Iran.
Tehran helped us with that, not anybody else.
That it was Tehran that helped us with the Iran-Contra.
I mean, because people will say Iran-Contra might be controversial at the time, but it really was a part of the counter-communism entity.
And Iran itself has always had a great tension with Russia, even for centuries, going back very, very early on.
We were talking six, seven centuries ago, but even as early as, or as recently, I should say, as World War II, when Russia occupied for a brief period of time, that which comprises Iran.
So we have this natural alliance with Iran.
And yet at the same time, we keep pooping on it because of Israel.
Twice in a row, mid-negotiations.
Now the Iranians are basically saying you can have your ceasefire negotiations yourselves.
We're not interested in talking to a party that's currently bombing us.
You back off first.
Go ahead, Sam.
Question for you, Patrick.
Do you think there's anything like, you know, as much as Iran is tied up with Islam as being part of its identity and all that, at the same time, there is a sentiment like Islam, that's like an Arabic thing.
These people are Persian.
They are not Arabs.
And there is a sense of that they're two different things.
And maybe some people feel more of an identity of a Persian.
Is that part of the movement?
So it's been a long time.
That was, again, going back 20 years ago now.
And this really carried on throughout Jiwad.
In fact, as contractor, we work often in Western Afghanistan.
I will say this, no, but here's the unique part of this.
It's correct that the Sunnah, the Sunni identity as a whole, Sunnis really is a part of the community.
It's almost like saying generically Christian or generically Catholic, actually, so to speak, perspective of Catholicism, not the Roman Catholicism or Orthodox Catholicism, but actually a broader sense of the Christian community as a whole is a Sunnah.
The Sunni identity has largely been driven by an Arab world, but is not specifically Arab.
It has taken its own identity around the world.
Uzbeks are Sunnis.
The Tajiks are Sunnis, they're the Kazakhs and so forth.
Indonesians are Sunnis.
There are a great deal of Sunnis and the Philippines, etc.
So you have them around the world, and it has always taken on a certain nationalistic or local identity that has sort of morphed into or integrated Islam into that national identity.
And depending upon how strong that has occurred, that identity, that Islamic identity has been a sort of an umbrella, as for lack of a better term, an umbrella identity as a whole for that group.
So for instance, Kyrgyz are Muslims, but they also believe in what's called a Manas Chi, which is a sort of a Buddhist type belief in a reincarnated being through their children and so forth.
It's a very unique cultural dynamic of Kyrgyzstan.
This has happens throughout.
So Sunnis in general have this sort of like kind of very, how to say it kind of morphs into the identity of a given culture and kind of creates its own ethnic, ethno-religious identity.
Shiism is so unique in that because of the history of Shiism, the Shiites really ran into the Zagros Mountains after the fourth caliph Ali was assassinated by Karajites, ironically, going back to ISIS, that is, and running into the Zagos Mountains, running into Iran and seeking refuge.
And they found refuge amongst the first members that gave them refuge were Zorastrians, and the Persians are Zorastians.
And Persia itself is a natural fortress, just in general, just a physiological fortress.
And the Persians give them refuge.
Well, Shiism takes root in Persia as early as the early 8th century and begins to form its, like Islam, like Sunni Islam, begins to form its own ethnic identity.
Now, there are other elements as well of the Shiites, the followers of Zali.
The followers of Ali go down to Yemen.
They find root in the Houthis, which becomes the Zadis, the Fivers, Fifth Imam, Seveners, Ishmaelis, and Lebanon.
But it really is Iran, Persia, that really gives them the opportunity to become who they become today, who Shia becomes today.
And so from about the 8th century on, Shiism and Persian identity become intertwined, so deeply intertwined that Persian identity and Shiism is almost inseparable.
Persian, and just to point out, Iran, which really means Aryan, by the way, in 1933, the name of Persia was changed to Iran by the Shah at the time.
This is Pahlavi Shah's father, changed the name to Iran in order to ingratiate himself with, ironically, Adolf Hitler, to seek out any kind of potential allies against a Soviet incursion into Iran, who he thought is the bigger threat.
The Iranians felt that the Soviets are the bigger threat than the nationalists in Germany.
When he changed that name, there's another issue there that happens as well.
And that is that the Iranians also recognize that there's two ethno-groups that are very, that are tied to Shiism, and that is Persian and Aziris.
Persians are about 65% of population.
About 25% of the population is Azeri.
But both are Shiites and both have this sort of identity of we were the original followers of Muhammad's word.
We were the ones who followed Ali.
We were the ones who stuck together and held Muhammad's words to what his value was.
Ali graciously enough stepped aside to allow two additional caliphs to emerge who screwed up everything.
But he tried to step aside in order to allow an infant faith to build in a very tenuous time of the faith.
And then when he took control of Islam as the fourth caliph, he was assassinated for doing so.
And so there was, and then we held back.
We held strong.
We held to Muhammad's rule.
And yet we were the persecuted.
And this persecution complex goes into Persia and finds a Persian identity that is equally feels persecuted.
Persians are, as you said, they're a minority in the region as a whole.
They're surrounded by Arab states to their west.
To their east, they're surrounded by a group of ethno-linguistic tribes that are very unique, very different, certainly not theirs, mostly Turkic-oriented, that are always a threat.
In fact, at one point in time, Persia was conquered for a period of about 80 years under Amir Tamur, Tamerlane, who comes in and takes Persia.
But Persia has always felt itself under the gun, has always felt itself being attacked because it's a minority.
And here is Shiism.
They were also minority.
They were the ones who held it.
They feel it's sort of social justice kind of narrative, this sort of this deeply ingrained sense that they're the underdogs and that they will have to always fight in order to do what's right.
And this is part of who they are.
And so the idea of separating Persian identity from Shia identity is impossible.
And here's where this all comes together.
And this is where that thought is that we might be able to separate this out because this has been a big part of the overall, I guess, the zeitgeist really of the U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence community as a whole that has misled the Trump administration and really has misled previous administrations as well.
It's misled Obama and misled Bush, Clinton, et cetera, is that we have had, as in the United States, we have tried to separate this out for quite some time, believing that the Artesh, the traditional Persian military that goes back to 2,500 years, might someday rise up.
You can't separate Persian and Shiite identity.
It's not, Shiism is not Arab.
Shiism is almost definitively Persian now.
It has been almost definitively Persian for the better part, really, since about 800.
Well, really, it's about 750 AD.
And this identity has only strengthened over time.
So it is so tightly wound that when you try to attack it, it actually attacks back.
And to put this in perspective, 1953, Mossadegh, socialist leader, is elected to be the leader of Iran.
The Iranian people, he's a secularist in every which way.
The clergy, including Ruhollah Khomeini, a young, at that time, a young cleric, a young mullah, eventually becomes a grand Ayatollah Khomeini, is part of Operation Ajax to rid themselves of Mosadegh.
Mossadegh, most Iranians are not mad about the removal of Mossadegh.
Mosaddegh was what made Mossadegh a figure was really mostly the socialist movements that still existed in urbanite areas of Iran.
The 1963 white revolution, the Americans pushed down.
It was largely led by a bunch of academics from what had previously been the Frankfurt School.
The Frankfurt School comes to the United States.
They wind up setting up a shop in Columbia University and the new school in New York City.
And they create the idea that they can take a culture, a tightly wound traditionalist culture, and upend it, uproot it, and take out its religious components and secularize it.
And so in 1963, the Kennedy administration and really the Johnson administration more so pushes upon the Shah an idea of the white revolution, which was really radical.
It was women's rights, women's liberation, but there's more to that.
There was a big LGBT push.
There was a transgenderism push, huge transgenderism push.
There was a lot of sexual immorality that was happening.
And when they introduced this, including other parts like such as land reform, et cetera, that winds up putting the Shah up against Khomeini and his allies.
Now, what happens next is interesting because the Shah does not accept this as part of a condition of American support, fearing that the Soviets might take him over.
Plus, they know that he knows that the United States is his benefactor, winds up pushing and imposing these white revolution ideas.
And the white revolution does what?
Traditional Revolt Against Secular Iran00:05:17
It winds up angering mostly conservative young males in Iran, in Iran at the time, who are like, wait a second, our women all of a sudden are walking out with hijab, without hijabs.
They're walking out with mini scarves.
They're walking out like sluts.
I can't find a good wife.
I can't get myself a woman that's going to be my wife and have children when I don't know if she's had like 10 or 15 other gods.
I can't believe that this guy is walking around with his, you know, his penis and a dress.
I mean, this is transgender stuff.
Iran becomes the transgender surgical capital by 1974 for the world.
So it becomes a destination for transgender surgeries by 1974.
And this is but sex and Botswana long before we thought about it.
100%.
And this is being pushed by, this is being pushed by SEPA, which was the public affairs school out of Columbia University, mostly professors who had previously been at either the Frankfurt School or alumni of those Frankfurt School professors who are pushing the white revolution onto Iran.
Khomeini actually gets exiled by Shah.
He gets pushed out of Iran, goes to Iraq, right?
He eventually gets to France.
He gets to France and he's arguing about the fact that this completely cultural aversion, this anti-Islamic inversion of our traditions of who we are.
And those cassette tapes at that time, which was like the podcast of the day, wanted to find themselves smuggled into Iran at near death.
And they really wanted to push this out amongst young men who begin listening to this.
And then young women begin to gravitate towards this.
And so you begin to see this traditional revolt.
It's beginning to burgeon so bad that Savak in the early, in the late 60s and early 70s, Savak is not worried about the socialists that are beginning to uprise in colleges and universities.
They're actually targeting right-wing fundamentalists within Iran.
They're going after these traditionalist conservatives, these Shiite conservatives.
They're torturing them.
They're targeting.
They're actually funding the MEK.
The MEK, by the way, the Mohujuddin al-Kalk is a group of socialists who are then being funded by covertly being funded by SAVAC, by the Shah, to go and bash up right-wing fundamentalists who happen to be protesting.
So you'd have like, say, 30 or 40 right-wingers who come out to a protest, but also you have 200 students who are from a socialist group that come in and attack, and they would arrest all the 20 or 30 right-wingers for creating a riot when it was a 200 or 300 socialists that were beating them up.
And this was happening in cities like Qome, which was one of the great religious centers of Shia Islam, Shia theology.
And this is happening throughout Iran.
And while this is happening, MEK is growing stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger.
And so by the time that once they, once they realize, once the Shah realizes by about 1974, 75 that MEK is really the threat and it wasn't really the right way, it's too late.
He ultimately comes to the United States for surgery.
MEK takes over.
MEK is the one who takes our embassy, by the way, and tries to impose upon Iran a secular society and get the Shah back for his alleged crimes.
Well, throughout this chaos, it's the right-wingers come back and say, wait, this is all this is the rest of Iran comes back and says, we don't want them either.
We don't want a more secular Iran.
We want a more conservative Iran.
We want a more Islamist Iran.
We want Iran that is more like Shia Islam that is built within us.
And they're the ones who call back Khomeini.
And Khomeini comes back and reinforces himself and waits for about a year.
He's having to rebuild his own network.
And once he does so, he immediately gives back the hostages back to the United States because they weren't his.
They were MEKs and begins to crush MEK.
Now, ironically, MEK, again, the Muhujadini al-Khalk, the socialists who do flee are now our allies.
Weirdly enough, the ones who actually took our embassy hostage are now our allies as of 1996 or so, 1995, 1996.
But, you know, so you look at this weird turn of events.
What I'm getting to is this.
The broader population of Iran has always felt itself to be Shiite.
It's felt itself now for centuries to be Shiite.
And there's no breaking that out.
You're not going to go to them and say, it would almost like going to the Irish and saying, you are no longer allowed to be Catholic.
Now, Ireland has gone so secular and so wildly secular as it is.
I myself am no longer a practicing Catholic, but I'll always be an Irish Catholic, just genetically.
And you can't break that out of who I am in my zeitgeist.
You definitely got to break down the Irish.
Imagine 92 million who have felt this kind of burdeners kind of pain since about the eighth century.
Now I know how Tucker felt when he interviewed Putin.
Patrick, that was good.
That's all very good.
That's a very, very good.
I'm not going to interfere with that.
Well, it began with Rurik crossing the neighborhood.
That was a very valuable history lesson.
Thank you very much.
I don't mean to mock it.
Misplaced Anger in Beirut00:10:06
I just had to crack it.
No, no, no.
I totally spurred down.
I'm so sorry to be on you, but I'm going to be on you now.
Yeah, I had to do it.
That's what makes our show good is because we have that kind of serious moment like that.
But, you know, these younger guys, Patrick, well, you're a younger guy too, probably, but Coach and Rolo there, they may not appreciate the feeling that was in our country when the hostages were taken.
It was right before I was born.
Yep.
But I remember I was in junior high and you know, this show Nightline with Ted Coppel.
Maybe you guys are even too young to remember that.
But that's how, you know, this idea of there being a nightly news show like that, beyond just the news, but that would, you know, they would count the days.
This is day 179 or whatever, you know, ended up being some four or five hundred days, I think.
And they're using that as the timestamp, too, that we've been at war with our reds right.
With these boomers, see, that, I mean, we can, we can blame the boomers.
We could say why we don't agree with them or we don't like them or whatever it is.
But that is a feeling that is in a lot of these boomers.
And I alluded to before the show that I had had several boomer experiences recently.
And there's a lot of things you can observe about them, how they will just start talking, you know, they'll commit felonies, you know, in words right there in front of people.
I always tout the virtues of my water rower and my water tank was getting a little bit algae.
So I went and I bought some stuff and the guy selling it to me, he was, you know, a boomer.
And I said a few things that kind of instigated him, but he, you know, he just goes full bore and he wouldn't stop.
And it's funny, A, but some of their, some of their ideas or their feelings are not without basis or rationale to it.
But it just got me thinking about boomers because then at church, I ended up sitting with a bunch of boomers at the coffee and donuts and I lit them up on the Jews.
And, you know, they kind of took that and a couple other things about Iran and all that.
So, but if you think about these boomers, maybe some people, they want to write them off and discount their power or their place in all of this.
And maybe some people feel like, oh, these people are old.
They're going to be dead soon.
Maybe, but they're not dead yet.
And they're not going to be all gone soon.
And the thing is, boomers are, there's large numbers.
They vote.
They have money.
And they are, as I just said, sometimes unhinged and enthusiastic with their beliefs.
So like the whole thing with, let's say, getting blacks to vote or Mexicans to vote or whatever is you might say, oh, these all these groups have potential power.
Yeah, but they're very inert.
You know, it's hard.
Their own leaders will complain about that.
Like you can't get them to do anything because they're so lazy.
But these boomers are not like that.
And we can ridicule them in different ways.
And, oh, they're going to be dead soon.
They don't count.
They do count because they have numbers and they're active and they vote.
So that is no small factor in all.
I did not see Sam advocating for the BQ there coming, obviously.
I'm not taking their side by any means.
Fair enough.
By any means.
I'm just saying, you know, maybe don't overlook that.
Don't overlook that.
If I could address that, I mean, there's a, and I do, first of all, I'm old enough to have done, I was doing rosaries for the hostages in late 70s.
Well, maybe we're not too far off from each other.
Yeah, we're about maybe probably about five years apart, maybe at most.
So I was doing rosaries as a kid.
And I mean, there was two times I remember doing rosaries was that and then for Bobby Sands and the Hunger Strikers.
I remember that.
I was a little.
Yeah.
So, I mean, I was, so those are the two times I remember most distinctly.
And so, I mean, as far as the boomers are, here's what I would say to the boomers.
And it's going to be hard to do this.
But one, their anger is misplaced.
The folks that took the hostages are not Khomeini.
In fact, Khomeini freed them.
Khomeini really didn't want anything to do with the hostage crisis.
They happened to be there at the time.
He kind of used that as a way to kind of push off the socialists while he was consolidating power.
But it was really the socialists.
It was, again, the Mujahideen al-Khalk, M-E-K, that was a socialist group that was mad.
It was angry because of the removal of Mossadegh in 1953.
They were angry that they felt that the Shah was kind of backpedaling on his white revolution reforms that he had embraced in the 60s and 70s, i.e. the idea that women can all this stuff and LGBT stuff and so forth, land reform, et cetera.
So they were mad about that.
They weren't mad about, and really, to be honest, the U.S., and if you ever have a chance to have a conversation with a dispassionate boomer, and I have my parents are boomers and uncles, aunts are boomers.
So, I mean, I get it.
It's kind of tough to do.
But when you have a conversation with this, they say, hey, just to point this out, that it wasn't Khomeini and that team.
They weren't even in the country when the embassy was taken.
Khomeini was in France.
It was the Mujahideeni al-Khalk, who was a socialist group.
And the United States, Jimmy Carter, et cetera, chose Khomeini, believing that Khomeini would be a better foil to the Soviets at that time because they had Mohammed Dawood in Afghanistan, who was the socialist leader, ultimately would lead to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
But it was a social leader since 1973, which is immediately to the east of Iran.
So the fear was that if Iran, if Afghanistan, with Afghanistan falling, Pakistan or Iran might be next, it's sort of domino theory idea, and that Khomeini would be a better foil against the Soviet Union than the socialist student party that was holding our embassy hostage in Mujahine al-Khalk.
So we actually helped facilitate Khomeini go back into Iran.
I can remember.
Yeah, I can remember the chants of the people that, as we would be showing on TV anyways, the Islamic people, they would be chanting an Islamic republic, neither Eastern nor Western.
That was exactly it.
Yeah.
Well, you know, the second thing, dude, the most of them are angry about is the bombing of the Beirut, bomb, the Beirut Embassy.
As a Marine, of course, I myself am a Marine.
And I know a lot of Marines as well, really upset.
They wanted the revenge on that.
But, you know, it has been my theory, and I've actually written about this, that Israel was the one who actually hit the U.S. embassy, not the Iranians.
And this is point out in 1982.
Yeah, it was a huge false flag.
October 1982, the Khomeini's government had only been in power for two years.
There was really no, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps was only about two years old.
There wasn't really a true IRGC yet.
There was no Hezbollah yet.
There was Amal, which was a different group altogether.
It was a group, kind of a loose confederation of Shiite militia fighting.
You had, and the Americans, to point out, the Americans were there to largely protect the Muslim population from being attacked by a Israeli incursion into Lebanon.
We were holding the line to the point where when the French actually wanted to bomb Iran, so this is an interesting story.
There's a book called Twilight, what is it, Twilight Sun or something like that?
It's Twilight Sand.
I forget the name of the book exactly, unfortunately, but talks about this where the French wanted to bomb Iran.
They were infuriated by, and Reagan and the CIA said, it's not Iran.
We don't know who this guy is.
We don't think it's Iran that was behind this bombing of the Beirut embassy or the Beirut barracks.
And so Reagan chose not to attack Iran.
Reagan was cooperating.
What he couldn't say at the time was Reagan was cooperating with the Iranian regime on Iran-Contra.
And he was cooperating with the Iran regime on the war in the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
They were providing Greek intel and they were also providing them with supply chain facilitation into Herat, which is where the Hazar live.
So you had two, Reagan was cooperating extensively.
The Reagan administration was extensively cooperating with Iran at the time that the Beirut bombing happened.
So the likelihood that it was Iranians almost impossible, really was, it didn't make any sense, especially given the fact that the Americans were protecting the Shiite minority at that time from Israeli incursions.
They were really protecting both Sunnis and Shiites, but especially the Shiites who happened to be being caught in the crossfire between the Israelis and the Sunnis when the PLO ran in, the Palestinians run into Lebanon after they're pushed out of Jordan.
So there's that anger that was there for the Iran embassy, which is misplaced.
And there's the anger about the Beirut bombing, which is also misplaced.
And again, I do believe that was going to be Israel.
And we were working with the Iranians while also supporting the Iraqis in the Iran-Iraq war, which is still bottomless of mine.
Yeah, not asking a question about that.
We'll do that one on another show.
A little bit back to brass tax.
Misplaced Anger and Nuclear Speculation00:15:28
Today was the first time.
Hold on, hold on.
Oh, yeah.
Roll up, please.
Yes.
Yeah.
We can cover that real quick.
I mean, look how the United States treats its allies in the Middle East.
The lessons are multiplying rapidly.
But today was the first crack in the facade, right?
For the first nine days, whatever.
We're nine or 10 days in.
It was greatest war ever.
We're bombing them, the smithereens.
We're going to take casualties.
If gas prices rise, they rise.
The short-term pain for long-term gain talking point went out.
And this was the very first day as oil prices, you know, they jumped to 116 a barrel and were coming down a little bit.
Then Trump comes out with perhaps a little trial balloon or a market soother to say that, you know, we might be wrapping this up soon.
We've already won, which of course was he, that was always in the cards.
He would just say, we won and go home and probably return to fight another day, which the Iranians know, of course.
Do you, I'm not looking to have a gotcha, you know, it's a 50-50 question.
Do you see a Trump taco coming quickly within a week or two?
Or do you think we are sucked into this thing for months given the pressure from Israel and donors?
And it would be humiliating.
Everyone, Trump can say whatever he wants, but it would be an abject strategic defeat and a humiliation.
It's already a humiliation.
But to leave now would be a humiliation.
He's really caught himself in an impossible situation.
Where do you see this going, if you don't mind speculating?
Yeah, so I think it's exactly right.
What you're saying is humiliation is really the word, the key word.
So the problem for Trump is this.
Trump has already said, he's said so many crazy things in general, these like grandiose things that he sort of entrapped himself.
He wanted to have a role in choosing who would be the leader of the Shiite faith.
I mean, it would be essentially telling Catholics, if your College of Cardinals don't choose the right Pope, I'm going to kill the Pope and get myself my own Pope.
I mean, it's sort of like telling that to 10% of the Muslim world.
So, I mean, this is just, that's absurd.
The idea of the people who are going to be able to do it.
Kutzba doesn't do it credit.
Right.
Right.
It's like telling 10% of the Islamic world, hey, your next leader is going to be chosen by a Jewish prime minister and an Episcopalian guy who has had sex with porn SARS.
So, I mean, this is like, it's just, it's, it's not happening.
Um, so there's that.
There's the, the, there have been quite a few voices that are a little more reasonable.
My old boss, for instance, Eric Prince, is a good example of this, who have said, hey, get out.
He said this about a week ago.
You used to really quickly in his car.
Yeah, like right off the bat.
This is bad.
We should stop.
And that's not good for his business.
Credit, we're good.
Yeah, credit.
I mean, Prince is like, get out.
Get out.
The damage is done from a global scale.
We don't have, and here's where the real trap is more than any other, is that not only do we have to move the tactical high-altitude aerial defense systems out from South Korea?
You know, we're about half depleted now.
We really don't have enough for ourselves.
We're about to be at the point where about a quarter depleted.
And we are still trying to, we are now being turned down by Eastern European allies like Poland and Romania for having stuff brought over because they themselves are fearful of a potential for a Russian attack at their potential weakness.
And even the Poles are saying we want our own defense systems.
So this is really bad across the world.
We don't have the rare earth elements in order to continue to build these supplies in general.
We were at a 10-year supply walking into this week.
We're probably somewhere around two or three years max.
And that's being generous.
Unless we take Greenland, we don't have these supplies.
Greenland is the only, it's really our only shot.
We don't have the rare earth elements necessary to continue our military capacity.
Or we take China.
Our choices are either take Greenland or take China.
I would choose Greenland.
So you've got this reality that's coming across the words of Trump himself, and they're crashing into it like two meteors.
And so if Trump leaves now, which would be the smartest thing for him to do is to say, we won.
Just say we won.
Make it witchcraft.
We won.
We killed Khomeini.
This guy's going to work with us and walk out.
Israel, you're good.
You don't have any more nuclear threat.
That would be the smart thing for him to do.
He can't do it, though.
And the reason why he can't do it is simple.
Israel won't let him do it.
That's it.
I mean, at the bottom line is Israel is not going to let him do it.
It was something he made the speech today where he said, hey, I'm good.
Apparently, they asked the Israelis right after, are you sure about this?
Is this really what's happening?
We're about to wrap this up.
Israel's like, no, we need to make this.
This is done forever.
I don't understand what the Americans are saying.
Don't know what Trump is saying, but we're ready for this long-term war.
And then Trump comes out and says we're in for a long-term war.
I think Trump is right now caught between dispensationalist Christians who have a great deal of influence on the administration, guys like Hag Seth, guys like what's his name?
Dispensationalist Christians.
And then you've got these reality.
And I wouldn't even be surprised, honestly, if there are some Jews in the administration who are like, wait, this is a no-winner, guys.
It's time for us to jump.
I wouldn't be surprised if a guy like Lutnick, for instance, who's probably about as Jewish as, I don't know, a McDonald's cheeseburger, is probably saying, this is not good for business.
Let's get out.
And so he's got this tug of war.
And I just don't think Trump really ever thought this through.
And I just don't think he's really a big thinker in that regard.
This is not to like, this is not to bash Trump voters or any of this.
Trump has always been sort of superficial business guy.
This is what he is.
This is what he does.
He's a carnival bargainer in many ways.
But when you're talking about deep strategic thought, I don't think Trump really thinks deeply and strategically.
I think he does make somebody, you know, he's a business guy.
He does what he's going to do and he hopes to move on to the next business deal.
And I think he's trapped.
And so I think what's going to happen here is this: we're going to probably stay in this war a little bit longer.
I wouldn't be surprised if we're here for another month or two months.
I think there will be the 82nd Airborne will be deployed to help the Kurds.
And when that happens, so that's the official boots on it.
That's the official boots on the ground pushing into Iran proper with the Kurds or supporting the Kurds.
You think that's still in the cards?
Yep.
I think it is.
I think this is your version of the U.S. MAG going into Vietnam.
This is the idea that we will, we probably already have, in fact, I guarantee we already have special forces on the ground working with the Kurds, probably Marsock at this time.
They've got a pretty strong presence on that border.
So Marsoak has probably been there for a while.
Marsak is working with the Kurds.
They're going to probably try to get SF into areas of Western Afghanistan that are not Hazara-controlled.
We know that there's about a plane to two planes of Chinese supplies that are going into Iraq every single, almost every hour now.
Okay.
Chinese have been supplying.
Yeah, misapplying in through Eastern Iraq, sorry, Iran.
Incapable will be in touch by U.S. aircraft.
Incapable will be in touch by just about anybody going into Iraq.
So we know special forces will probably try to go in there and try to disrupt those flows.
But for the most part, the boots on the ground will be the 82nd Airborne or a unit of similar stature going in to support the Kurds in a way that will, again, this is going to be from their perspective.
Once that's there, once that commitment is there of choosing the ground, there's no turning back.
There's no really walking.
You're not walking this one back.
So over at that point.
I mean, it's already for me, it's over.
You know, I haven't like said this or whatever because I've, you, you've been very critical of Trump from day one to where I was like, what do you kind of, yeah.
Anyway, this, this was like the, this was, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt on the domestic stuff because it was such a radical departure.
And I don't want to do a big segue here, but this starting a war, a very deadly, dangerous, disastrous, strategically incompetent war for Israel is, it's over.
But yeah, I'll never say a nice, nice word about him again.
You know, if you didn't do this, I was willing to overlook a lot of the other stuff.
Now that deal is out the door.
I don't know what you think about Daryl Cooper, but I did really enjoy his appearance on the anti-war podcast.
I think it's called Provoked.
But he said the ultimate worst case scenario here, if this goes poorly enough, that Israel could use their nukes.
Of course, that's always a possibility.
Do you give that any credence?
And then I want to ask again about Russia and China, but Israel and nukes, you see it being a possibility?
Two issues with that.
One is apparently the Iranians were able to knock out a significant portion of what was the Israeli capacity to fire the nukes.
That has been, that was damaged significantly.
And that's coming from reports again on Telegram.
I follow probably the same channels y'all follow, CIG and so forth as well, right?
So War Monitor and War Noir.
So there are a lot of reports coming out right now with regard to, it does appear that that has been taken down.
Number two, the problem for Israel is this.
There is no.
Israel doesn't really give a damn anymore.
It seems to be to me.
If they use their nukes, the Pakistanis are the wild card here.
The Pakistanis have a joint protective agreement with Saudi Arabia, but they also have a vested interest in Iran.
And the Pakistanis are looking at Iran right now and having great overtures with Iran.
Kami British, as we speak, they have a similar issue with Baluchis and maintaining the Baluchi issue to the South.
Does Pakistan then say, if you fire your nukes, we fire our nukes?
And so that would create a tit for tat that Israel cannot win, period.
I think the biggest problem for Israel right now is that the biggest wildcard really is Israel because Israel is really being pushed by a couple of folks.
You've got Netanyahu, number one, who is like peak boomer, Israel first, or everywhere.
And there's no question, but we already know who he is.
You've got a Shabbat movement that's right now that's pushing for a lot of this right now, believing that this was going to bring into the Jewish Messiah, Shabbad, the idea that there's going to be the Hasidic prophecy that's going to be fulfilled.
And you have dispensationalist Christians that are essentially feeding this who want their own theological ends to be met.
So even if Israel's cooler heads prevail and say, wait a second, we don't want to have a nuclear war.
We don't have a nuclear exchange.
It's crazy.
We don't want this to happen.
There may be wild enough members deep enough in the administration of Netanyahu that will want it to happen and will press that button and will say, you know what, this is it.
We're going to press this button.
We're going to make this happen.
We're going to create this Armageddon type scenario.
This is going to happen.
And here we go.
And so you have this element there that's such a deep wild card because you have so many theologically insane elements that are feeding into this narrative, both in the Trump administration, but also the Netanyahu administration.
I think even stronger than Netanyahu administration, to be honest, that would actually look to fire a nuke.
So is there a possibility?
I would say it's probably something like a 60-40 possibility.
Yes.
Wow.
If your, we're not to get knocked out as fast as they think it will.
All right.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't, or lose-lose scenario then for sure.
Oh, man.
You mentioned China supplying through Herat and Western Afghanistan into Iran.
Any whispers in the wind about Russian supplies?
I know that they, I mean, obviously the Russians have given them air defense technology.
They've had the Shahed technology transfer from Iran to Russia, them using it.
I forget the damn name of the Guaran, I believe, is the Russian variant.
But any scoop on Russia and Iran, whether Russia's pulling a Syria here and allowing and unfolding catastrophe without doing much.
Russia right now is providing intelligence, we know, but the one thing to note about this is Iran really does not have the same relationship.
Everybody keeps talking about Iran and Russian relationship.
They don't exist really.
Russia and Iran, well, Iran does not trust Russia.
Russia has kind of needed Iran.
So it's been a cautious alliance at best.
And the only way to kind of put this in a perspective that some folks may recognize would be think of it like Franco-Spain and NSDEAP Germany, in that during the course of the NSEAP Germany, German war, Spain never really got directly involved in support for the Germans.
Kind of flipped that on its head in that, in this case, Spain being sort of the Iranians.
The Iranians never really trusted the Russians.
They don't really, because they're the bigger power that's immediately to their north, effectively.
They really were very nervous about them during the Soviet era.
One of the reasons why they quietly co-leaded up to the United States throughout the 1980s, despite all the rhetoric, otherwise.
And so the Russians and the Iranians have always had a kind of a sort of an arms distance relationship with each other.
And there might be some material support to some extent, but that's about the extent of it.
China, who does not like the Russians either, China doesn't trust the Russians.
They had their own issues during the course of the Vietnam War.
And then shortly after, of course, we all know what happened during the Cold War.
The Chinese, on the other hand, have a much stronger relationship with Iran.
Iran is part of their Silk Road initiative.
Iran is a big component of what might have been the BRICS, a BRIC alternative to the U.S. currency, which may ultimately happen, by the way, depending on what occurs with the U.S. currency as a result of this war, which I do think is going to have some significant challenges here very soon.
So you have this, you have a very different relationship between China and Iran than you have with Russia and Iran.
Very good.
Thank you.
We're already at an hour, but I'm going to blame you for at least 10% of that.
So I got a couple more for you here.
Big guys.
You're good, man.
You're good.
You're good, bro.
Very good.
Want to ask about the potential risk of actual Iranian sleeper cells in the United States or in Europe, whether they're a fictional creation, of course, of Mossad and the CIA.
Is there actually a chance that Iranian agents could start getting terroristic on our territory?
Iran's Economic Leverage and Carrier Threat00:14:43
Is that fantasy?
Is it a low probability thing?
Do they exist in the first place?
I saw somebody just say up front: if there's a terrorist attack and they blame it on Iran, I am instantly just throwing it out the door and saying that it's CIA or Mossad.
It's a gay op.
But is there any reality to that possibility?
The only problem would be Phil.
The only problem I think would be a possibility is if this really does become a very definitively religious war, in that if we kill the next leader of the Shiite world and we continue to press upon the world that we must kill every Shiite leader.
So again, imagine a scenario where we said, we're going to kill every pope until you let us choose your pope.
And every Catholic is going to be subordinated to me, a Jewish prime minister, and my Episcopalian buddy in Trump.
And if you don't, that's it.
In that regard, you will probably get radicalized individuals that may try to make an attack.
The idea like this black guy that came out of nowhere with this like I love Allah t-shirt or something.
Property of Allah.
Yeah, yeah, whatever it was.
I mean, I mean, come on, man.
I mean, like that, that, okay, he, I feel bad for the people that died, and he probably, but he's clearly not, he's not an ideologically aligned guy for sure, especially if he came from Senegal, where there's no real known Jafari Senegal Shiite presence.
But anyway, I think this would happen.
You would have a scenario where you now have troops on the ground.
You are now attacking Shiite communities.
You're now attacking Qom.
If you attack Qom, gloves are off.
If you are, you're going after, if you're going after, if you attack Kabbalah, which of course now we're looking at with Kabbalah, we've got Sunni, sorry, Shiite, Iraqi Shiites who are now engaging in this fight.
If you start attacking religious areas and it becomes a fight where it is clear that the Shiite world is about to collapse, you might get.
And this is where, and this is not even from Iran directed.
There was a study about this back in 2002 called Segmented Polycentric Integrated Network Spin.
U.S. military always loves to have its anagrams.
The spin was the idea that you would have a sort of an element or something would happen to trigger individuals to attack based on a very deeply held theological belief.
And that was the biggest fear that the US had for very for a long period of time.
These sort of lone wolves or small cells that were completely independent, had no leadership role whatsoever.
They decided to take it upon themselves to attack back.
I think that is very likely.
I don't think it would be Iran directed.
If it is Iran directed, the most likely area would be the New York area, simply because of the United Nations diplomatic community, diplomatic pouch, going into the United Nations, having the ability to bring in a weapon that's much larger or stronger, but also having a 50-mile radius at which they could travel and probably staying within those confines in order to maximize the impact.
That's a real possibility if this gets to a point where this is just a gloves are off.
This is a bloodbath.
This is troops getting killed thousands at a time.
Now we're going to bring it back home to the United States.
Again, I think if the 82nd Airborne goes in, 10th Mountain goes into Zagros, for instance, then you might see something happen at some point in time.
But at this stage, right now, unlikely.
Fair enough.
Do you think they have nukes or if not, what's your best guess on how long it would take them to build a bomb if they finally got the go from the new Ayatollah?
I don't think they have nukes.
If they had nukes, at this stage right now, I wouldn't be surprised that they would even have at least attempted to use them.
Tested it.
They would have done in North Korea and showed the world that they've got them.
They don't have them.
I think it would be kind of tough to develop one under these current circumstances.
No, undoubtedly.
If I were, say, North Korea, for instance, and I knew that there can be a short-range tactical nuclear ability, and I don't think that the North Koreans have that.
But if I'm North Korea and I say, you know, if I sympathize with them and the money's right, I might use one of those Chinese supply aircraft to send one that way.
Now, of course, all eyes would be on China at that point where they would say, wait a second, how did this get here?
And they would probably look at China.
Now, whether China cares or not, that's end of the ballgame, because now we're talking about a much bigger geopolitical arrangement than simply a tactical nuke being launched into, say, an area of Israel.
If this drags on and we truly do get sucked into the quicksand, I can't imagine that the Chinese wouldn't view that as their opportunity to go after Taiwan, but that's in their court.
I won't speculate.
I did say Dean Kane before instead of Dan Kane.
Excuse me.
No, I was not speaking of the Superman actor, Dan Kane.
Pardon.
My last big important one is that the Iranians have like half the world's economy by the balls right now, simply by, you know, they've taken out some, obviously they've done attacks throughout the Gulf.
They haven't hit that many oil tankers, uh, you know, maybe one here, one at port, one there.
Um, I mean, I assume that they, if they wanted to, they can absolutely keep it shut for as long as their government is functioning and they have their mosaic defense of a few uh platoons or whatnot, with shah heads and and a few missiles, and keep that sucker shut for as long as possible, because Trump just came out and sit tonight and said, reopen it or we're going to hit you 20 times harder, which of course I don't give any credence to.
But is there any?
Are you familiar with any war game scenario in which we're successfully able to reopen the strait into the teeth of Iranian refusal to do so?
In every scenario i've ever seen, we've lost.
So the um and the one question mark that's out there is, do they have Yj20s, hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missiles?
It is the overwhelming belief of most military strategists, regardless of where they're from, that there are at least some Yj20s that are in Iran.
Whether or not they're still operative, whether or not the Israelis struck them, the United States I don't know, but uh, we do know that they had them, at least some.
At least they had them going into this Chinese Technology Supply missile, Chinese Jev's Chinese anti-ship missile.
It's called an aircraft carrier killer um.
It can easily take out an aircraft carrier.
We have no defense against it.
Um, the the biggest problem for the Yj20 is and what you want to do, by the way, you want to fire Yj20.
You want to take out the U.s's Navy's ability to see and hear tactical again, take out this tactical signal intelligence.
So, going from the initial conversation we had from the very beginning of the show, going all the way back to that, what did Iran do?
It took out that tactical signet ability out of the gate so the U.s wouldn't see it coming.
The issue is really distance and the ability to fire it before they're identified, and that's really been the big question mark.
The straight to our moves would be a lot easier, is much tighter.
It's all five miles wide at best.
Um, you know you're talking about a much tighter control zone.
If you look at the traffic that's going on in any kind of the maritime vessel uh, mapping you you can see very clearly is nothing's happening in the straits of our moves.
There's like nothing, literally nothing.
Maybe a couple fishing Boats, so even if you wanted to open it up, even if you're Trump, you say, I want to open it up.
He apparently talked to Louise London and the insurers.
Apparently, the United States is going to ensure this.
We're going to back it with our own uh dollar.
I don't know how we're going to do that.
We're already 40,000 debt.
Well, they said the Navy would accompany ships.
That's what Trump said.
And here, right.
And here's my big point about that: if the Navy's going to cover ships, what have we done historically to make sure that we've gotten into a war?
Almost every single war we've gotten into.
Well, I should say almost every most of the wars we've gotten into were Navy-oriented.
War of 1840.
Vietnam, USS Maine, World War I, Spanish-American War, World War I, right?
I mean, the Lusitania, we're talking about Pearl Harbor, World War II, Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam.
I mean, so we love getting into wars when it comes to a U.S. Navy ship, unless it's USS Liberty.
So, I mean, we're going to go into right.
So, I mean, if we're going to go into war, who better to kill than sailors?
And this is in the way we've done it historically.
So, here, what better way to get the U.S. and more fired up for war, a long-term war, troops on the ground, everything else involved than to have some sucker, unfortunately, some sucker cruiser roll in there to protect the tanker and get wiped out by a YJ-20.
Yeah, it crossed my mind that they were like, ooh, that will bring the pain if we actually sink one of their ships, let alone an aircraft carrier.
And the Houthis, do you think that they're actually on a chain being held as an ace up the sleeve by the Iranians, or are they pretty hurting after our aborted assaults on them earlier this year or last year?
Yeah, the Houthis are they've been their historic group in its own right.
They uh they probably are hurting a little bit, but you know, even them, the Lebanese as well.
You know, we've got the Israeli incursions into South Latin.
Barely talked about Hezbollah, but you know, we talk about this stuff, and here's the deal: every single time that one of these groups fires a rocket or fires a missile, what are they doing?
They're having to use an interceptor to stop it.
And by using, it doesn't matter how crappy or cheap those rockets or missiles may be, it's stop or a drone, it stops it from the potential from having another interceptor stop a much stronger, more powerful Israeli strike, Iranian strike, excuse me.
So, if you go into that, and if you continue to have supplies coming in from China, um, eventually you're going to get to a point where you're able to deploy your weapons and your drone systems in such a way that you're able to now, you've run out of interceptors, and now you're able to go in and do this stuff.
So, I think what's going to happen is the Houthis are still going to be out there threat.
It's going to keep the eyes of the U.S. Navy at least in the back of its mind.
At least one eyeball is going to stay to the left, essentially.
One eyeball is going to stay in Lebanon.
And that's going to keep them a little bit off guard.
And then what happens next?
You've got the Iranians that are going to come in and do their thing.
One of their generals said, yeah, we're deliberately like going forward, we're holding back the best stuff.
And that is what we'll be using going forward.
It seems so obvious.
Like you're going to run out of interceptors.
They're going to use the cheap stuff first.
It's hard for me still to believe.
Last show, I said, my guess is that Trump is going to double down on this.
I was also right that the markets on Monday did not reflect the reality.
And then they freaked out.
And somebody else said today's rally is also bullshit fantasy.
You know, one headline and algorithm said, buy, buy, buy.
Go ahead, Sam.
The financial sector job market is completely collapsed, like to levels before 2009.
Saw that too.
Yep.
Jack, the old CEO of Twitter, laid off like close to 50% of block, which does cash app and all the rest of that.
I just wanted to say that it's not hyperbole that I've almost never been more disgusted by my government and seeing the buffoonish bombastic press conferences out of Hegseth.
And then the cartoonish juvenile hype edits on Twitter with SpongeBob and Tom Cruise and Minority Report and football footage spliced in with blowing up things.
Iran.
Talk about appealing to the least common denominator and doing a really shitty job of it too.
I don't even see teenagers getting, oh, you did some, you blew up some things set to Superman music.
Sign me up.
Like it's the most incredibly bad.
It literally is bad optics at a time when that is much more serious than what we usually talk about it.
Making light of death, doing it in a juvenile way and leaving everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.
If you listen, if, yep, yeah, boomer bait and poorly laid teenager warfodder bait, I think too.
But you're absolutely right.
Like, what's his name?
Dan Scovino is posting all these videos left and right.
I just want to spit in the street.
If you believe Tucker, you know, Trump is listening now to Laura Loomer and Mark Levin and whoever whispers sweet nothings into his ear and he looks like a damn out of touch fool.
Well, Kushner at least is, you know, somewhat more savvy, I'd have to believe than, you know, because he has financial interests at stake in the Gulf and in the success.
I don't think any of them are savvy.
Jews are the most like emotional thinking race.
Some are more savvy than Mark Levin is what I'm getting at.
Yeah, but some are incredible.
Some orange boomers, yes.
Well, I would say, I mean, you're right in that, like, I mean, Laura Loomer, aka the saw person.
Having a secret, she clearly has a theater.
Right.
I mean, Mark Levine, of course, and so forth.
But I do agree with you.
I think Jared Kushner and maybe even Steve Woodcoff, you know, there are, there are, and who knows?
I mean, even Stephen Miller, for this matter, maybe part of that, oh, I think Stephen Miller may even be more of the, it's been my belief, just to put this out there, is that we are right now stuck between Jews who hate Western civilization more than they love Israel versus Jews who love Israel more than they hate Western civilization.
The Host and the Parasite00:04:55
And I think that's where we're at right now.
And I think Stephen Miller is kind of in that latter camp where he does love Israel.
He understands Western civilization needs to survive in order for his people to survive.
It's almost like the parasite that says, wait a second, we can't suck out the lifeblood of this host just yet.
We can't do that.
I think there's sort of a Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff element that's probably there.
It's probably thinking the same thing.
This may not be in our best interest long term because if the host dies, we die.
And then the parasite situation from the Mark Levins, the Lauren Loomers that say, well, just find another host.
It'll be India.
It'll be whomever.
And I think, and I think Tucker's kind of on to something when he says that, is that they are looking for their next host.
I mean, hell, they already tried to host the Chinese government in the PRC in Haifa by giving them naval base in 2020, 2020, March 2020.
They've been looking at this for a while.
Incredible.
And it does tickle me the idea that Jews' new patron is going to be India or the Jews are going to flee to India.
Like the idea of Jews trying to find what they get in New York and like New Delhi or anywhere, not even Goa.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Good luck getting the same support from India.
Anyway, Sam Rolo, last ones for Patrick.
Let's get him the heck out of here and let's wrap this puppy too.
If you got anything, otherwise, we'll call it.
Rolo, come on, give me, give him one.
Not history related.
Okay.
Well, you know, I was thinking about this, how like we're just always right on Jews in Israel.
And we've been saying this for years.
Some, just by virtue of age, been doing it longer.
But all of us together, we've never stopped calling out Jews.
And There's people out there that are trying to discredit us because that's what we do.
When now it's more apparent than ever that this is an Israeli war, I mean, this is not the U.S. using Israel.
This is, you know, Mike Johnson and Marco Rubio saying, well, Israel was going to do it anyway.
So we kind of had to do it.
Otherwise, total anti-Semites vindicated across the board.
Yeah.
And then, and we're in this annoying part of life where there's this thing.
I'll call it, oh, I don't know.
We'll call it Rolo's razor.
Now, that's not the kind of razor that Jack Graham should use to shave off the last four hairs on his head.
No, no, no.
It's this idea that Adolf Hitler is the most evil man in history because of what he did to the Jews.
But right now, no one can be honest about the problem caused by Jews because those were the problems that were addressed by Adolf Hitler, the most evil man in history.
You know, I think if I could just speak that real quick, I think you're 100% right, by the way.
I agree with you.
I think you're one, I point out to you conservatives all the time, they'll never pick up a book and read Mein Kampf.
I did.
It's a boring book, by the way, but I will say this.
Mein Kampf speaks almost identical to, and by the way, I used to like reading it when I was at a project in Asheville, North Carolina.
And I would go to bars and pick out Mein Kampf and read it while I'm sipping on scotch.
Nobody's going to fight with you.
Yeah, I didn't have any issues.
But the, but I'll say, but the thing was, on a serious note, it reads like the Republican complaints of 2016 and on.
And you might accepting maybe the Jews part.
I mean, essentially it was, I think we're at an inflection point right now where the younger generation, and I really have a lot of confidence in Gen Z and Gen Alpha.
I really do.
Half my kids are Gen Z, half and Gen Alpha.
I will say this.
I think there's a certain part of them that's saying, I don't believe anything anybody says.
I don't believe in the Holocaust.
I don't believe.
Show me the videotape.
Essentially, right.
And so I think we've gotten to a point where after the boomers were inculcated with this stuff, and Gen X, you know, myself, I'm a Gen Xer.
I'm right smack down in the middle of it.
Gen X as a Gen Xer, we were infused with it as well.
But, you know, a lot of Gen Xers themselves began asking questions, especially because we were at the forefront of a lot of the boomer decisions that occurred in the whole racial idea, right?
Direct Lineal Descendant of the 12th Imam00:03:51
So we're the first ones to take the brunt of all this.
I think a lot of Gen Z and Gen. This is not going to, boomers are going to pass away.
And when they do, I think the Jews are screwed.
I mean, I don't really think they've admitted this, like people below a certain age, like let's say 35 or 40.
There's no support for their wicked thing at all.
Right.
Right.
I think it's from your lips to the Ayatollah's ears.
Yep.
Speaking of the Ayatollah, if I'll just chip in one more question for Patrick, we'll wrap it up.
This Machaba Khamenei, he's so his parents were killed, and his wife and son were all killed in this.
So, yeah, what kind of man do we think he's going to be?
Harder, for sure.
I don't think so.
So, the interesting thing about Musaba Khomeini is that he's actually been in conversations for quite some time.
He has been a leader of Shi'islam for he's actually a multilineal descendant of the original Shiites that came across the Zagros Mountains, and he knows that.
And so, in many ways, in fact, there's some thought in Qolm that he may be a direct lineal descendant.
And they talked about this with Khomeini as well, as a direct lineal ascendant to Muhammad through Ali.
So, this is a man who is probably looking at himself as the potential for pulling in the 12th Imam, which would be essentially an apocalyptic event.
He is, by the way, for those of you not aware, Mashia, he is pro-Catholic.
He has a very strong relationship with Catholics.
He's got a very strong relationship.
He's easy.
He's almost a Marist, actually, interestingly enough.
Has a great deal of veneration for the Virgin Mother and has some unique ideas, but they're very much apocalyptic ideas.
And he is not a, this is not a pushover.
This is a guy that's going to take things to, if you need to take the gloves off, this is your guy.
This is kind of a big old slap in the face, like you will not tell us who we're going to choose.
This is the whole purpose of him.
And there is, again, a personal belief that he is a lineal descendant of Ali, which really changes the game because it really does bring in Muhammad, direct descendant of Muhammad.
Amen.
Patrick Martin, thank you so much for your time, for your expertise.
I don't want a single other coffin draped in an American flag to come home, but almost as much, I want the Iranians to hold on and give the Israelis everything they deserve and more for starting this thing in the first place.
And so far, I'd say so good.
It's tough to judge, but they're still hanging on.
They're fighting on.
They've got domestic stability.
They've retained launch capacity.
And we are starting, our government at least is probably starting to freak out a little bit, given a stranglehold on the street.
At least what I was reading was that at the beginning, yeah, you had the U.S. bombers and missiles and everything hitting it.
But now the majority of the bombing and attacks are being done by Israel.
And the U.S. is just kind of in the background now.
So it will be interesting to watch them.
We know how vicious and bloodthirsty these Jews are, even more than the American lackeys.
It could be very ugly.
And like I say, honestly, watching a lot of this stuff, I'm left with like a very bad feeling.
The Lord Knows I Can't Change00:05:08
Oh, absolutely.
This could get much worse very quickly.
All right.
Godspeed, Patrick.
Stay safe, brother.
Thank you again.
And what are we going to listen to to take us out here?
What do you want to play?
Florida Man makes his appearance and his exit.
God bless you all.
Thank you.
God bless you and your family.
We'll talk to you next week, guys.
And we love you.
See ya.
again.
Well, I must be traveling on now.
This is too many places I've got to see.
If I stay here with you, girl, Things just couldn't be the same.
Cause I'm as free as a bird now.
And this world you cannot change.
Oh, and the world you cannot change.
And this world you cannot change.
The Lord knows I can't change.
Bye, baby.
Christmas we love you for this feeling I can't change.
Please don't take so badly Cause the Lord knows I'm blind If I stay here with you, Girl.
Things just couldn't be the same, Cause I'm as free as a bird now.