Jeffrey Sachs: The Inevitable War With Iran, and Biden’s Attempts to Sabotage Trump

Tucker Carlson

Dec. 2024

Chapters:

0:00 The Regime Change in Syria

8:48 What Is Greater Israel?

21:45 Were Americans Involved in the Overthrowing of Assad?

34:26 War With China by 2027

40:22 Biden’s Attempt to Sabotage Trump

46:10 The Attempted Coup of South Korea 

51:20 Jeffrey Sachs' Warning to Trump of Potential Nuclear War

55:18 Will We See the Declassification of the 9/11 Documents?

1:07:11 Will Trump Pardon Snowden and Assange?

1:16:43 The Most Important Appointment of Trump’s Cabinet

1:26:29 Biden’s Attempt to Kill Putin

1:35:58 Can Trump Bring Peace?

1:45:44 Is War With Iran Inevitable?

1:51:21 Why Corporate Media Hates Jeffrey Sachs

Transcript

 The Regime Change in Syria

0:00

Well, first of all, thank you. So many things have happened in the last two weeks. I keep thinking, where's Jeff Sachs?

0:06

I want to go. I wonder what this means. So the most dramatic and from my perspective, unexpected

0:11

thing that happened was all of a sudden the government in Syria changed. There was regime change in Syria.

0:16

Who did that? Why? And what does it mean? Well, it's part of a 30 year effort.

0:23

This is Netanyahu's war to remake the Middle East.

0:28

It's been a disaster. It continues to be a disaster. But as Netanyahu himself

0:34

said, after Assad left, we have remade the Middle East.

0:40

And so it has to be understood as something that didn't just happen in a week, but has been an ongoing.

0:47

War. Throughout the Middle East.

1:10

And maybe the right way to understand what's happened with Syria is to think back to a really remarkable

1:18

occasion when Wesley Clark, the general who headed NATO. Yes.

1:25

Went to the Pentagon just after 911. And famously he was shown a piece of paper

1:31

that said, we're going to have seven wars in five years. And he was completely dumbfounded,

1:37

said, What does this have to do with anything? And he was told that the neocons and

1:43

the Israelis are going to remake the Middle East. And the seven countries on the list are very telling.

1:50

They would Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran

1:56

and then in Africa, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and

2:03

seven countries. We've been at war in six of them now. And I mean, we the United States

2:10

on behalf of Israel, including in Syria. And so what happened in Syria

2:15

last week was the culmination of a long term

2:20

effort by Israel to reshape the Middle East in its image. That started with Netanyahu

2:27

and his American advisers in 1996 in something called Clean Break,

2:32

which was a political document that the Americans and Netanyahu made when Netanyahu became

2:39

prime minister. After 911, it went into full gear with the Iraq

2:44

war as being the first of those wars. Clean break. What does that refer to? Clean break is we're going to make

2:51

a clean break of the Middle East. A break with the past. We're going to break with the past. We're not going to have land

2:57

for peace, which is the idea that Israel would have a Palestinian state next door.

3:04

No, we're going to have greater Israel and we're just going to bash anybody that doesn't like it.

3:10

And we're going to do that by bringing down any government that supports the Palestinians.

3:18

It's a rather shocking amount of hubris. It has been, in my view,

3:23

a complete disaster for the United States and for the Middle East. It has been Netanyahu's

3:30

M.O. since 1996, actually, and he's been prime minister more than half the time

3:36

since then. And the United States goes to war on his behalf.

3:41

And what happened in Syria is the culmination of that effort.

3:46

So seven wars in five years. Netanyahu came to the U.S.

3:53

in 19. In 2000, two excuse me, after I.

3:59

911, actually, he came in September 20th, 2001, if I remember correctly,

4:06

and gave a speech that said there's terrorism, but you don't fight the terrorists.

4:12

You fight the governments that backed the terrorists. That's the idea. So you go to war.

4:18

You don't just have a kind of an anti-terrorism effort. You go to war. And the first of those wars was

4:24

Iraq. But Syria was supposed to be exactly the next war.

4:29

And the timeline was this remarkable idea of seven wars in five years,

4:36

according to all of the understanding that we now have from lots of insiders, from

4:42

documents, from the archives. What happened was the US got bogged down in Iraq.

4:47

There was the insurgency. We didn't move onward to the next war, which

4:53

was to be Syria, which was to happen already 20 years ago. But in 2011,

5:00

what really brought Assad down last week started under Obama.

5:06

And yes, and this is also interesting.

5:11

It doesn't really matter who's president. This is long term, deep state policy.

5:18

Obama ordered the CIA to overthrow Assad. So that started in 2011.

5:25

But why would Obama want to overthrow Assad? Because Israel has run American foreign

5:32

policy in the Middle East for 30 years. That's how it works.

5:37

Now we have the Israel lobby. We have this clean break strategy.

5:43

We have a plan for seven wars in five years.

5:48

And what's interesting is they actually kind of carry out this madness.

5:53

They don't explain any of it to the American people. They don't tell anybody. But you can watch step

5:59

by step. We've had six of those seven wars. The only one that hasn't

6:06

happened is Iran. And if you watched every. Day. Now, the

6:12

MSM, the mainstream media's is pushing for a U.S. war with Iran.

6:18

Netanyahu's pushing for war with Iran. They're really trying to get this started to make seven out of

6:23

seven. But Obama, you know, for no particular reason, by the way.

6:29

But he launched two of these wars on the list of seven.

6:35

He launched the war to bring down the Libyan government, Moammar Gadhafi, in the fall

6:41

of or the war started in March 2011.

6:47

And he and Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, said Assad must

6:54

go in the spring of 2011. I remember scratching my head

7:00

at the time saying, that's interesting. How are they going to do that?

7:05

Syria was a normal, functioning country at the time, despite whatever.

7:11

You read whatever propaganda is said Syria was a normal,

7:16

functioning country. I recently dredged out a report by the International Monetary

7:22

Fund on Syria in 2009 that praised the Syrian government for its reforms in its rapid

7:28

economic growth and look forward to continued years of economic development.

7:33

In other words, it was not this wasteland or

7:39

this battlefield. It was an actual

7:44

normal country. Was it a threat to the United States? It was no threat to the United States whatsoever, but it was deemed

7:51

to be by Netanyahu, a threat to Israel because of the simple reason, which

7:57

is that Netanyahu wants to control all of Palestine, wants to rule

8:04

over the Palestinian people, does not want a Palestinian state. And that has led to militant

8:11

opposition. That's led to Hamas, that's led to Hezbollah, that's led to other groups.

8:16

Netanyahu's theory is, well, we're never going to allow a Palestinian state. So we have to bring down any

8:23

government that supports those militant groups against us because our core aim is

8:29

greater Israel. That's not much of a worthy cause, by the way.

8:35

Having a Palestinian state next door and having peace could have saved probably a million lives by

8:42

now over the last 30 years. But that's not Netanyahu's crazy ambition,

 What Is Greater Israel?

8:48

which is what. Is greater Israel? Greater Israel means depending on how

8:54

crazy the people are, either that Israel controls

9:00

not only its geographic territory, but that it essentially controls or

9:07

annexes the West Bank. I do Golan Heights,

9:12

which they've just enlarged, the Gaza. Golan Heights being part of Syria. Historically, it was part of Syria.

9:19

It's claimed by Israel and now with an expanded territory

9:26

and East Jerusalem. So everything that was captured in 1967,

9:32

Netanyahu explicitly said, we're never giving that back. Now, there are two motivations

9:38

for that. One, Netanyahu says it's not safe to give it back because he doesn't want to negotiate

9:44

any kind of peace or any state of Palestine. Then there are

9:50

religious zealots. I would use even stronger terms who use

9:56

I. The Book of Joshua, which is 2700 years ago,

10:03

that said, well, God gave us everything from from the river in

10:08

Egypt, meaning the Nile to the Euphrates. And there are zealots in

10:13

Israel and there are in the government who believe, yes, this is God's ordinance.

10:19

We're going to take whatever we want to The. Nile, to the Euphrates would include what?

10:25

Well, if you take the if you take the greater view of this, it would include

10:31

Lebanon. It would include Syria, it would include part of Iraq. It would include part of Egypt.

10:37

And some of these people actually quote the Bible and say, we're

10:43

going to do this. And it's it's a little sad and absolutely

10:49

terribly frightening. But I'd say the more narrow vision is what they call from

10:56

the river to the sea, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. That's taken as

11:02

a pro-Palestinian chant. But it's exactly the opposite.

11:08

It is the greater Israel literal vision of the government

11:15

of Israel. It's the literal idea. There happened to be 7 million Palestinians there. That's a, you know, a minor

11:21

problem. I maybe they can be ethnically cleansed. Maybe they can be thrown out.

11:27

Maybe they can just be ruled in in a military dominant way,

11:35

of course. So probably well over 100,000 have been killed

11:41

in the most recent war by Israel. Official count, 45,000

11:49

bodies claim from the rubble. But we know that there are a lot more that have died

11:55

since this war in Gaza began. But all of this is to say

12:02

this greater Israel idea says we can't make peace with the

12:08

Palestinians. So anyone that supports the Palestinians is by definition a mortal threat

12:15

to us. And when you have a mortal threat, you must destroy it.

12:20

And so this is the opposite of diplomacy. It's war. And as Netanyahu crowed last

12:26

week, it's war to remake the Middle East. It's all spelled out, by

12:33

the way, in very clear ways. But you have to dig for them. You have to find them.

12:39

You have to understand that this is long standing. You have to understand that each

12:45

president has played. Part of that role. So when we come back to Obama,

12:50

he started the war with Syria in 2011.

12:56

I can remember actually vividly the call that Assad

13:02

must go. And yeah, I did scratch my head. I was actually I think it

13:08

was on Morning Joe when it was said and I was asked by Joe Scarborough, what do you think?

13:14

And I said, well, that's pretty odd. How is he going to do that? Turned out it was going to be 13

13:20

years of mass war, 300,000 dead and destroying a country.

13:25

That's what it turned out to be. But Obama signed an order called Operation Timber

13:32

Sycamore. People should look it up. You can find it online, but you

13:37

can't find it in the mainstream media. And because it's not discussed. But it was a so called

13:44

presidential finding that the CIA should work with Turkey, with Saudi Arabia,

13:50

with others to overthrow the government of Syria.

13:56

So that was the plan. We went to war. We had this.

14:01

Is what led to Benghazi, correct? Benghazi is Libya. So Libya, I understand. Yes.

14:06

But it was the same time in 2000. Descending was the reason there were so many American Intel assets.

14:13

There was also removing arms from Libya to.

14:18

Sorry. Yes, if you say it, that was one of the first things was to establish

14:24

a ratline, so-called from Libya to Syria. Absolutely. And Seymour Hersh wrote

14:30

a terrific piece explaining all of. That that was never explained. I mean, I worked at a news organization at the time that made a

14:36

lot of the Benghazi and the death of a U.S. ambassador. And, you know, what was the Obama administration, you know,

14:43

thinking They were so negligent, but there was never any discussion about what they were doing there in the first place.

14:48

No, none of this is explained. Of course, this is it's none of the public's business.

14:54

This is our business. We're the war machine. You stay out of this. So none of this is explained.

15:00

Interestingly, the whole Syrian operation.

15:05

I. I think I counted right that The New York Times mentioned Operation Kimber Sycamore, I think

15:11

three times in the 20 tens. So a war that caused billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands

15:18

of lives. CIA operation, covert action links with Libya never

15:25

explained, never discussed. And even when the government falls last week,

15:31

no background given. You know, we're supposed to have amnesia. We're not supposed to understand that what happens

15:37

is the result of long term plans that have been pretty disastrous.

15:43

I and by the way, as I've said,

15:48

Israel has driven so many American wars. And we say. Absolutely. Yes, that's our greatest

15:55

ally. These have been at huge cost to the United States, cost of trillions of dollars, cost

16:02

geopolitically. But somehow we gave away our foreign policy

16:09

to Israel years and years ago, and it's been absolutely devastating. And it's interesting to go

16:15

back and watch Netanyahu speak to the American people. Go look at a video clip of 2000,

16:22

one, 2002 in 2000, two in October. He comes and testifies in the

16:27

Senate. And there's a nice clip of him promising how wonderful

16:32

the war in Iraq is going to be because a, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass

16:39

destruction. He says, I'm 100% certain complete lies, by the way. And they knew that they

16:44

were lies at the time. And it's going to be wonderful. We're going to topple that dictator

16:50

and then dictators are going to be toppled everywhere. And the young people of Iran are

16:55

going to rise up. This is his idea. Together with his US political

17:01

consultants, together with neocons in the US government for the last 25 years,

17:08

they have never apologized for dragging the United States into countless wars in the Middle East,

17:14

spending trillions of dollars running up U.S. debt and doing what? Creating chaos.

17:22

So just to go back to the seven countries, because it's worth remembering

17:28

Lebanon, it barely exists as a functioning country right now. Syria, it's going to be

17:35

pick to pieces. Don't believe it. Well, it's obvious in what we're seeing every day.

17:41

Territorial integrity. Yeah. Israel has just invaded from the southwest

17:46

into a deeper Syria, Turkey from the north. The Russia has its area.

17:52

The United States and the Kurds have their area. This this place is just going to be a battlefield for

17:58

years to come. Iraq, we know what happened with Iraq, trillions of dollars,

18:04

a complete destabilization of the country. Look at the other three wars.

18:11

The United States broke apart. Sudan. Why? Well, Sudan was

18:17

an enemy of Israel. So we have to break apart Sudan. So we supported the South Sudanese.

18:22

Now we have the the real trade factor, massive civil war in Sudan

18:29

and massive civil war in South Sudan and which we broke apart the country. And now there's civil war in both

18:36

halves of the country. Somalia basically doesn't exist as a country.

18:41

Libya, it doesn't exist. It's a battlefield. It's a war zone. So that's six out of six.

18:47

And Netanyahu's crowing. Now we go on to Iran. You're a feel like you can't trust

18:53

the things you hear or read, like every news source is hollow, distorted or clearly

18:59

just propaganda lying to you. Well, you're not imagining it. If the last few years have proven anything, it's that legacy

19:06

media exists to distort the truth and to control you, to keep information from the

19:11

public instead of letting you know what's actually going on. They don't want you to know. But there is so, however, a

19:16

publication that fights this that is not propaganda. One that we read every month and

19:21

have for many years is call him Primus. It's from Hillsdale College in Michigan. And Primus is a free

19:26

speech digest that features some of the best minds in the country addressing the questions

19:31

that actually matter, the ones that are not addressed in the Washington Post or on NBC News.

19:37

The best part of it, it is free. No cost whatsoever, no strings attached. They just send it to you. Hillsdale will send in Primus right

19:42

to your house, no charge. All you got to do is ask. Go to Tucker for hillsdale.com

19:48

and subscribe for free today that's Tucker for hillsdale.com. The only way this stays a democracy

19:55

is if the citizenry is informed. You can't fight tyranny if you don't know what's going on in Primus

20:01

helps. It's free. Don't we sign up now? Who's paid? For all this. You have? I have.

20:08

Of course. This is where does $28 trillion of debt come from?

20:13

We've paid probably $7 trillion. If you add it up, according to

20:20

Brown University studies, for example, something like $7 trillion has gone into this.

20:26

Israel couldn't do this for one day. Israel, You know, Netanyahu, We are lions.

20:33

Yeah, right. You are liars. But we are the ones funding you, arming you, paying

20:39

for all of this. That's the United States. And this is weird

20:44

to me because we say yes to defend our ally. No, no, no. We're doing their

20:50

foreign policy, which makes no sense. Which doesn't lead to any peace, which leads to

20:57

basically a war zone across the Middle East. And we say this is good for us.

21:03

Why is this good for us? What what what's the United States getting out of any of this?

21:08

We haven't gotten anything out of any of this except massive geopolitical

21:13

isolation. The most recent votes in the U.N., for example, put the United States alone,

21:20

alone with Israel. And I shouldn't exaggerate. We have Micronesia on our side.

21:26

We have Nauru on our side with its 12,000 people, maybe a couple of other countries.

21:31

The whole rest of the world is saying what is going on? Endless war in the Middle East. Well, this is because

21:38

we're defending someone with some seventh century B.C. vision of what

 Were Americans Involved in the Overthrowing of Assad?

21:45

they want their country to be. We're Americans involved in the overthrow of Assad last week.

21:51

Of course they were, because this has been an ongoing operation, whether they were involved in the

21:57

final days. I don't know. They were involved in the in the 13 years nonstop.

22:05

I don't understand how. Actually, let me tell you an interesting story, by the way.

22:11

The war started in 2011. It was called the it was.

22:17

It was portrayed as always, as the CIA does as a a local

22:24

uprising and the freedom fighters. And it was said this was Syrians protesting

22:30

against Syria. That's always how any CIA regime change operation works.

22:36

There may also be local opposition, but the CIA is the did provides the armaments.

22:43

It provides the flow of heavy weapons. It provides the financing. It provides the training, it provides the camps.

22:49

It provides the political organization. So this started in 2011.

22:56

In 2012, there was already a bloodbath underway and a lot of people dying and a lot

23:02

of civilians dying and a lot of ancient historic sites because this is the Fertile

23:09

Crescent. This is the birthplace of humanity itself, of civilization

23:14

being destroyed. And so a very senior global diplomat

23:20

that I knew very, very well was tasked with trying to.

23:27

Find peace. Peace. Nice idea. Maybe we don't need the blood

23:32

bath. And I met him in the spring of 2012,

23:38

and he said it failed. And said, why did fail? He said, well, we had a full peace

23:44

agreement, but it was blocked by one party alone. We had the different forces

23:50

in Syria, we had the regional. But it was blocked by one who was a block by block by

23:56

the United States government. Why? Well, because their condition

24:01

was that Assad must go. On the first day of the agreement,

24:06

rather than a political process, everyone else agreed on a political process.

24:12

But the United States said, no, no, this is regime change. Assad must go on the first day.

24:18

And that was not possible. So that was the end of the attempt at peace. So we should understand

24:25

this was an American operation. But I never understood What I didn't

24:30

understand and still don't understand is why we're all required to hate Assad. I'm not speaking for myself.

24:36

I don't have strong feelings about Assad one way or the other. Apparently he's protected the Christians, so I'm grateful for that as a Christian.

24:41

But I. I don't know why am I required to hate Assad? Tulsi Gabbard went and met with

24:46

Assad. She's been attacked ever since. Is anyone ever explained why Americans should hate

24:53

Assad? Because every regime change operation we ever do,

24:59

we have to make sure that the opponent is the worst villain

25:05

since Hitler or Hitler reincarnate. Some ophthalmologist from London, as in, is a bloodthirsty.

25:11

I never I didn't really. We have to say this and this is part of the PsyOps

25:17

or the info war that goes along with regime change operations. This is completely typical.

25:23

And we're told if we don't stop him now, it's only going to spread. And I.

25:29

He'll be in Des Moines. Exactly. Did this is the Nicaraguans.

25:36

We're going to be in Harlingen, Texas. Remember you know, this is this is standard

25:41

fare. It's so pedestrian, such bad script writing

25:47

that you can't believe it's still there. Why did some of The New York Times just ask the obvious question, which is, why am I supposed to hate Assad?

25:53

Exactly. Why is it somehow a test of my loyalty to the United States? What I think of Bashar

25:59

al-Assad? Like, who cares? Like what? That's such an that's such a core question. I never heard anyone ask

26:04

that. Can I can I laugh when you mention New York Times because they won't cover

26:11

any historical background of any conflict at all, because

26:18

all of this is aimed at a free hand for

26:24

the security state, a free hand for the military. But why would The New York Times be

26:30

parroting the security state? Well, I think that's that that's a question that

26:36

goes back decades, partly because it's staffed in part by probably

26:43

people from the intelligence agencies. We've known that for years and know The. New York Times. Who we know in the past,

26:50

the CIA just had reporters on the payroll. I mean, whether they do or not now,

26:56

I have no idea. So I'm not making a current claim. But we know that that's a historic fact. We know historically

27:02

that the with very rare exceptions, The New York Times has just followed

27:08

the the unnamed official sources that this is the whole M.O.

27:14

This a patriotic newspaper. It follows what it's told to do.

27:19

And it doesn't ask questions. It has not asked any questions about any of these

27:24

wars in recent memory, not about Ukraine, not about

27:29

the wars raging throughout the Middle East. As I said, I think

27:35

there was one full page actually about Operation Timber Sycamore in 2016.

27:41

You would think that something that got us into a war of 13 years

27:47

where we spent billions of dollars were hundreds of thousands of people died. Even at this stage there would be a

27:54

kind of page or a box explaining the historical background to this, but it didn't

27:59

exist. I, I actually wrote, I have to say, I wrote to one of the reporters saying, Couldn't you mention a

28:05

little background? So. Very interesting idea, Mr. Saxe. So I'm waiting.

28:13

You wrote to a New York Times reporter. Well, I know these people for decades. Yeah. And by the way, not only

28:19

do I know them and some I like very much, by the way, and some have been classmates of mine

28:26

a long time ago. And they they know things that they don't report.

28:31

And that's also important to understand that what they will say in private is

28:37

the opposite of what their newspaper says. And I mean literally the opposite.

28:42

So that's very worrying to me because we operate

28:48

foreign policy in secrecy. I we do not have any kind of democratic oversight

28:54

of foreign policy. There is no explanation of it. There's no accountability for it.

29:00

It's in a very few hands. It's not in good or reliable hands.

29:05

It's not explained. We gave over the Middle East foreign policy to Israel a long time ago,

29:10

not to U.S. interests, but to Israel's interests. That is the Israel lobby.

29:16

And we we don't hear questioning of this at all.

29:22

Of course, not from the government, not from the Congress, not from oversight by

29:28

any democratic institutions. Nor does the mainstream media, which fewer

29:34

and fewer people are interested in because they don't get any facts from it.

29:40

Look into these issues. What happens next in Syria?

29:45

Well, there will be continued war. And now the drumbeat is for war with Iran.

29:53

Anything is possible. Netanyahu dearly wants the U.S. to go in and bomb Iran.

30:00

Probably some of President Trump's advisers will feel the same.

30:05

The incoming administration is a mix of old school hard liners and

30:12

people with a very different perspective. So there will be an internal battle for the

30:17

heart and soul of the new administration. But there will be some who say, yeah, now's time to carry on.

30:24

The war has blown and Hamas have been weakened.

30:29

Syria has fallen, the air defenses are gone. Now we can fly and do in

30:35

Iran. Of course, all of this is a profound delusion.

30:42

And that's, I think, really important to understand. We've had six wars

30:49

so far Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and

30:56

Libya. Six out of the seven that were on the list shown to Wesley Clark, not one of them

31:02

has led to stability to peace, even much less to geopolitical

31:10

interests being solved. So I it's not like we're

31:16

finding solutions to anything. Yes, it has allowed at unbelievable

31:22

cost Israel to hold on to the West Bank, East Jerusalem,

31:29

the Golan Heights and Gaza, as if that's some kind of grand strategic

31:35

aim of the United States or justifiable in the face of international law

31:42

and nearly global opposition to such thinking. But it doesn't lead to any

31:49

answers. And there's no way. To, quote, defeat Iran

31:55

even if we went in and bombed Iran. Iran has strong

32:00

allies. Iran has Russia and China as allies.

32:06

Iran is part of the BRICs. Iran has a military relationship with

32:14

Russia. Of course, we have even crazier people who think we're going to defeat Russia.

32:21

But Russia has 6000 nuclear warheads, of which 1600

32:27

are deployed. It has its new hypersonic.

32:32

Arash. Nick, I can't go ballistic missile which travels

32:39

that Mach 11. It has other hypersonic weapons.

32:45

So, yes, we have people in the U.S. who, in their

32:51

mental blindness, I think about continued

32:57

escalation all the way to nuclear Armageddon. They really do. They're very ignorant people

33:03

and they're around in high positions. And so when you ask what comes next?

33:10

What comes next is whether. President Trump can change

33:16

course. This is the most important question facing the United

33:21

States. And there are

33:26

several different. Factions in Washington

33:32

right now that are fighting for. Ultimate say I.

33:38

There's a piece by Mitch McConnell, our octogenarian, who

33:44

is completely living in a delusional

33:49

past, who has a lead article in Foreign Affairs magazine calling for America

33:56

to commit to primacy. And he calls for a massive

34:01

military build up to get ready for every kind of eventuality with

34:07

Russia and China. That's the old school. And it remains very powerful. And it's got very powerful

34:14

interests because it's the biggest business in Washington, about $1.5 trillion

34:20

of annual spending for the military machine. And Mitch McConnell absolutely

 War With China by 2027

34:26

represents that. Then there are groups that say. You know, we don't

34:33

really have any fundamental conflict with Russia and Russia's

34:39

no real threat to us. But China's the real threat. So we should end the war in Ukraine,

34:46

something I completely agree with. But we should do it so that we build up and get ready for

34:53

the war with China. And this is kind of the the middle ground.

35:00

Which is war with China. Well. Our country that manufactures all of

35:06

our antibiotics everywhere. Everyone is talking about war with China

35:12

in Washington by 2027. And it's so weird is

35:19

if we just are trying to rush headlong into complete destruction.

35:25

But we have official documents of a Navy strategy saying we must prepare for war with China

35:31

by 2027. We had a major article in The New York Times,

35:38

which I actually once upon a time read with interest. But in any event, it was a story

35:45

about the Pentagon preparing for war with China. And I, I wrote the

35:50

reporter actually, this is another guy. I know these people for decades. So I wrote the reporter

35:56

and I said, thank you for writing that story. I was happy to read it now because

36:01

there'll be no time to read it after the war will be dead. So I'm glad that we

36:06

have the story now. And the reporter wrote back to me right away said,

36:13

Jeff, the editor. I had put in three times

36:18

that the Pentagon doesn't want this war, but the editor took it out three times

36:24

and I don't really know why. And I didn't notice that in the hurrying to finish the piece.

36:31

Yeah. Do you understand that? You're. You're one of our world's great journalists. A person writing a front

36:38

page story about war. And she's written three times. The Pentagon doesn't want it. And the editor takes that out all

36:45

the time. And she didn't recognize that. That's The New York Times. I don't I don't know even what that

36:50

means, but. Well, that's when you quit. I mean, you can't allow that. This is so amazing.

36:56

But yes, there are. So there is a group gearing up for war with China.

37:02

It's unbelievable. Nuclear superpower with the much larger army

37:07

in their eye on their shores. And the whole thing is is

37:13

beyond belief. Then there is a group. There actually is a group.

37:19

That says, hey, we don't need war with anybody. We're not threatened.

37:25

The United States is more secure than at any time in history and any time

37:31

that a country could be secure. We had two big oceans. No one can attack us. We have every amount

37:38

of deterrence. China does not threaten us and could not threaten us.

37:43

And so what are we talking about? War. This way. Why are we in war with Russia, in Ukraine?

37:50

And that is a U.S. Russia war, as everybody should understand. Why are we at war all over the

37:56

Middle East? And that is a U.S. war. We've got absolutely no

38:03

troops on the ground, in the air, and we have troops on the ground, of course, but we have forces on the ground there, often

38:08

CIA or covert. But yes, this is our wars.

38:14

We're paying for them. We're financing them more, arming them. We're the intelligence, if you can use that word.

38:21

Why do we need a war in with China? And so there are people who say,

38:28

hey, why don't we make business advanced technology? I actually have

38:35

some attention to our economic needs, not go bankrupt in the process.

38:41

And that group is also part of of the Trump incoming team.

38:46

And this is probably the most consequential question that a country could face

38:52

is which of these different voices will prevail in this new administration?

38:58

This time of year, we are focused on our families because we're apt to be with our families celebrating

39:04

together. And it's the time of year where you might ask yourself, what happens when you're gone?

39:10

What's left behind will protect your family's future and peace of mind with a product called Policy genius.

39:16

Policy genius has one goal to make it easy to find and buy life insurance so your

39:22

loved ones have something when you're not here, something they use to cover debts and

39:27

expenses. If something unexpected happens because unexpected things do happen with policy

39:33

genius, you don't need to struggle to do this. You can find life insurance policies that started $293 per

39:39

year for $1 million of coverage. Some options are 100% online, and that lets you avoid unnecessary

39:46

medical exams, which is always good policy. Genius combines digital tools with

39:52

the expertise of real licensed agents. You compare quotes from America's top insurers side by side

39:58

for free, and there are no hidden fees. Their license support team helps you get what you need fast. You can get on with your life.

40:05

Join thousands of happy policy genius customers, live five star reviews on Google and Trustpilot.

40:12

So secure your families tomorrow so you have peace of mind today. It's easy go to policy genius.com/tucker day

40:17

get your fleet free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save again its policy genius.com

 Biden’s Attempt to Sabotage Trump

40:23

slash. Tucker I've never felt more uneasy than I have in the last few weeks during this

40:29

period between the election and the inauguration. And it does what doesn't seem like it is a fact that the outgoing

40:35

administration is trying to accelerate conflict to leave the incoming administration in charge of a bunch of different

40:41

wars, especially with Russia. I have to say, you know, my I think the Biden administration has

40:48

been the worst of our governments in modern history.

40:53

And that's saying a lot because I am a complainer. So I don't go generally

40:58

I don't generally praise administrations. I like to think of myself

41:03

as a responsible, tough grader. And I haven't given high marks to any administration

41:12

from Clinton onward. I think they've all been failures. But Biden's administration

41:18

has been a complete shocking disaster,

41:23

which has brought us closer to nuclear war, brought us into more conflict,

41:30

didn't have one iota of diplomacy. I don't count diplomacy,

41:36

meaning you go talk to a junior ally. I mean, diplomacy, meaning you talk

41:42

to someone on the other side to figure out. How to appear to. Escalate.

41:47

And we know you know very well and you heard

41:53

it recently from both the Russian foreign minister that our secretary of state

41:59

and the Russian foreign minister have not spoken at all for years.

42:05

This is the most mind bogglingly stupid approach to our security

42:12

and survival imaginable. And as far as we know and this is what what,

42:18

what. Lavrov said in his interview with you. Biden and Putin have not spoken

42:25

once since February 2022. It's just unbelievable

42:33

to not even speak, to not try to understand each other's position, to not discuss,

42:39

to not try to find a way out when Now the most accurate assessment is that there are

42:46

at least a million Ukrainians dead or severely wounded

42:51

since February 2022, and the United States hasn't lifted a finger, not even one

42:57

time, to try to talk to the other side. So, yes, this has been a

43:03

shockingly terrible government. Biden We don't know

43:09

really. You may know. I don't know whether he's compos mentis. I don't know whether the

43:14

guy thinks I'm told till four in the afternoon. He can still function to

43:19

some extent. I don't know if it's true, but I know Jake Sullivan, Anthony

43:25

Blinken. I regard as complete failures.

43:30

Sullivan's job is our security. He's not made us any more secure. He's made us profoundly insecure.

43:38

And we're getting closer and closer to nuclear war. And the only way we

43:43

avoid that realization is to laugh away. Every statement

43:50

in President Putin said it again today, by the way, that we are absolutely

43:57

mocking Russia's serious red lines. Is that really

44:03

for our security? That we don't have a discussion about them even.

44:09

And we're not. And everything. Yes. Is escalating. We see little

44:15

fires being set all over the neighborhoods of these war zones.

44:22

And it's not only throughout the Middle East and the drumbeat for war with Iran.

44:28

It's not only Biden authorizing the use of long distance

44:34

strikes into Russia, which as President Putin has accurately

44:40

said and has not been denied by the United States, are actually U.S.

44:45

strikes. And, of course, Russia. But this is incredible. How would we feel if

44:51

Russia were attacking the United States? Would we say.

44:56

And trying to kill the president? Yes, we are trying to kill Putin. What would we say? That's just fine.

45:02

Don't worry if Americans are getting a little upset about that. But that's literally

45:08

what Biden has approved. And then we see hotspots around. You have to be, you

45:14

know, really into this to be following them. But I in

45:19

the country of Georgia, in the South Caucasus region, there is a little typical

45:26

regime change maneuver that's been underway in recent weeks. It will not succeed, but

45:32

it the aim was to destabilize that region. The hand of the U.S.

45:37

is absolutely clear in that we see in Romania another bizarre episode

45:44

where a presidential election was in its second round and the lead candidate was saying

45:51

we should end the war with Ukraine. And the Supreme Court

45:56

of Romania annulled the election, claiming Russian interference.

46:02

And so that candidate that was calling for peace, I could not win

46:08

election. We're seeing those kinds of events all over. What are we seeing in South Korea.

 The Attempted Coup of South Korea

46:15

In South Korea? Of course, we saw something that we don't understand that's also

46:21

mind boggling, which was an attempted coup by the president of

46:27

Korea, President Jung, who called out the military to surround and arrest

46:33

the the parliament. And ultimately the coup failed and the president was thrown out of

46:39

office. But why he made that coup is not absolutely clear.

46:46

And the US reaction was bizarre. The US said were watching

46:52

with concern. That was all. It didn't say anything about restore the constitutional order or

46:59

we're against the coup or anything else. And there was a

47:04

a a glimmer of possible reason. I don't want to overstate

47:10

any certainty on this, because this is, of course, also not

47:16

analyzed properly or made public. So we don't have the information. But the week before the

47:24

military action, the coup attempt, there was a visit by

47:30

the Ukrainian defense minister for armaments from South Korea, something that the

47:36

United States has been pushing very hard for. The United States has been trying to get South Korea to ship

47:42

arms to Ukraine because the U.S. inventories are depleted.

47:48

And you South Korea, under its law, cannot do so because it cannot ship

47:54

arms to belligerents that are engaged in war. And the.

48:01

Parliament opposed it. The parliament president does not have a majority in the

48:06

parliament or the former president and the opposition opposed the armaments.

48:14

So there's some possible relate a relationship with this that

48:21

when young declared martial law he said that that the opposition was siding

48:27

with the North Koreans. That was his statement. And some read that as

48:33

a way to clear the way for South Korea to enter the Ukraine war with massive

48:40

arms shipments. I don't know whether that's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the case.

48:46

I maybe will find out. It happens that the acting president was my first Ph.D.

48:53

student at Harvard now. So I go back with him for 44 years,

48:59

which is nice. Amazing. Yeah. Just a coincidence. That's amazing.

49:05

I want to ask you, why did Russia stand aside as Assad

49:11

fell? I think that it was a, first of all,

49:16

a military choice because Russia is in the midst of a

49:23

very tough war along a 1200 kilometer front

49:29

in Ukraine. And it did not want to divert any major

49:34

military effort in in that direction. Second, the the

49:41

proximate reason why Assad fell was that the main military

49:47

backing of Assad was Hezbollah forces and the Iranian eye,

49:53

the Iranian guard. And they had both been.

49:59

Especially Hezbollah, had been very badly mauled by Israel in

50:05

the last month and a half and had pulled its reinforcements from Syria to reinforce

50:12

Lebanese positions. And so Assad was left without the backing of

50:18

Hezbollah forces, several thousand, which was the bulwark of his military.

50:24

I think a third reason is that Russia doesn't think it's leaving Syria, that this isn't

50:30

the end of the story. And immediately the supposed new force

50:37

in Syria, the Egypt's said that it wants Russia to stay

50:43

and to keep its bases in Syria. Russia has a naval base and a small one and a

50:50

and an airfield. And Russia has re deployed its forces

50:56

from within Syria to both of those bases, but is probably not leaving. So I think from a

51:03

probably a strategic calculus for Russia just regards this as a a temporary

51:10

step on a on a path to continued conflict and that there was this

51:17

was not the time to get into another major front. Yes. And that that would be my

 Jeffrey Sachs' Warning to Trump of Potential Nuclear War

51:23

my assessment. So we've got a little over a month between now and the inauguration.

51:29

Clearly, as noted, the Biden administration is trying to make decisions that are revokable and

51:34

deepen the war between the United States and Russia and then all these other things. If you were the Trump people right

51:40

now before the inauguration, what would you be doing? Well, I would

51:46

first be clear under under the Constitution, Biden

51:52

is president till January 20th. I think it's right to say

51:57

that Biden should not put America into

52:04

further insecurity. He's done enough damage. And so I think it's

52:09

right for every political figure to say to Biden, you're at the end of your

52:15

term and the world is very dangerous. You do not have a mandate to

52:21

increase the danger. You should never have authorized

52:27

the use of attack arms and other U.S. missiles in deep strikes

52:33

into Russia. Stop further provocations now.

52:39

So I hope that politicians of both parties and I think President Trump can

52:45

also make this clear, it's not to take over the government until January 20th.

52:51

But Biden. Absolutely, in my view is

52:58

without the. Legitimacy to further endanger us.

53:04

And they should prevent any actions.

53:10

From abroad that threaten American security, of course. But I don't see those happening.

53:15

I think the biggest risk right now is continued US provocations of the kind that

53:22

we've been discussing in Ukraine, in the Middle East, in the periphery

53:27

of Russia, in the Far East. Stop any further provocations.

53:34

The idea of somehow tying Trump's hands is completely

53:42

illegitimate, constitutionally and politically, and it's a disastrous approach.

53:48

We're not playing a game of two people or a game of two administrations. We're trying to survive

53:56

at a time of perhaps maximum global peril right now.

54:02

So just to say most. Experts that look at this think

54:07

we're closer to nuclear war than we have ever been. And I refer

54:13

often to the doomsday clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which is the graphic

54:20

to demonstrate how close or how far we are from nuclear war. And that doomsday clock

54:26

puts the clock at 90s to midnight, which is the closest

54:32

to nuclear Armageddon that it has ever been since the clock was first

54:38

rolled out in 1947. So I think it behooves

54:43

those people who are making the decisions in the Biden administration

54:50

to stop imperiling Americans at this point

54:55

and to understand that their job right now is to keep things stable, to give

55:01

power over to President Trump on January 20th, 2025.

55:08

One of the promises of the new administration is massive declassification

55:14

of pardons for these. If it could only be. This would change so

 Will We See the Declassification of the 9/11 Documents?

55:21

much. One of the things that I'm interested in learning about is 911,

55:27

because I think it's important to understand why that happened. And I think my guess is that

55:32

one of the reasons so many documents from 911 are still classified 23 years later, It's hard to imagine

55:37

why is because they tell a more detailed story about

55:42

why al Qaeda struck the United States. And it seems clear it was a response

55:48

to that. And I'm not defending it, of course, obviously, but it was still cause and effect.

55:54

And the cause was American foreign policy was response to that. Hey, do you think that's true?

56:00

And B, if it is true, then. How afraid should we be about future

56:05

terror attacks given what we've been doing? Well, let me say something about declassification.

56:13

We had one and only one close look at the CIA

56:19

in its entire history of the last 77, 74. And that was actually

56:26

74, 75. It'll be the 50th anniversary this coming year of the

56:32

Church committee. It was the only time that there was even a partial

56:39

look inside what the CIA had been doing. What they uncovered was

56:46

a viper's nest of stupidity, evil

56:52

disaster, and of course, the unbelievable unaccountability

56:58

they uncovered, of course, say, numerous assassination plots. They uncovered an absolutely

57:06

shocking and awful program called MK-Ultra, which was a

57:13

look at a massive warped program to,

57:20

you know, for trying for mind control where they took innocent people, vagrants

57:26

off the streets of Times Square and shot them up with drugs or drove

57:32

them to suicide through sleep deprivation, every kind of shocking

57:38

thing you can't even make up. And that made for great movie series like the Bourne series, which

57:44

is about MKUltra, in fact. Now, that was 1975.

57:52

We've gone 50 years. Of further

57:59

secretive operations. I mentioned one of them by the timber.

58:05

Sycamore. But that's one of many. I've seen many. Myself by accident because

58:11

I'm not in the security field. I'm an economist, but I'm around lots of governments.

58:18

I'm all over the world. I've seen coups with my own eyes. I've seen the U.S. role in these

58:24

coups. I've seen things that are absolutely disgusting.

58:29

Not because people are showing me the secret documents. I don't even want to see those, by

58:34

the way I see them because I happen to be told or shown.

58:40

No. Walked around the Maidan soon after a coup overthrew Yanukovich,

58:47

and people explained things to me, which I found completely awful about American complicity

58:53

in all of this. I had a president in.

58:58

In the Western Hemisphere say to me, Jeff, they're going to take me out. And I said, No, no, no, no.

59:04

We're going to. Everything's going to be fine. And they see, I took them out in broad daylight.

59:10

And so we have no. Review of any of this.

59:17

We have gone to war repeatedly on false pretenses.

59:22

We have gone to war repeatedly in so-called covert operations

59:28

that are not covert to the people being affected. Well, that's right. But we

59:33

just hear denials. We hear stupidity from from The New York Times, a

59:39

complete imbecility childishness that they don't want to ask any single question.

59:45

What about the maiden? What was the U.S. government doing there? Well, it's easy

59:52

enough to find out what were the decisions taken in

59:58

overthrowing various regimes. What about a number

1:00:03

of the assassinations that we have? Every forensic reason to know were.

1:00:11

Conspiracies that the US never allowed to be understood.

1:00:16

Whether any of this is ever found. I don't know. But if it is, it would change the course of America

1:00:22

back to a true republic. Because what happened in this country is that we

1:00:28

were overtaken by the security state and we became a system

1:00:35

of confidentiality and unaccountability. And it's a big,

1:00:42

massive machine. And a lot of people are paid to keep quiet or to

1:00:48

salute whatever the military industrial complex or the intelligence agencies

1:00:55

are doing without asking questions. Because when you have $1.5 trillion a year spent on

1:01:01

that, they're pretty big business. And it has affected the universities.

1:01:06

Think tanks, of course, the Congress, which asked no questions of any serious kind.

1:01:12

And so major, major events of fundamental significance

1:01:19

for our insecurity take place without any truth telling at all.

1:01:24

So all of this is to say it may be the most important

1:01:30

thing that President Trump could do would be to open up the historical record so that we

1:01:36

understand. What has really happened because we are 90s

1:01:42

to midnight. We are closer to nuclear war than ever. We have a military machine

1:01:48

in the service of the Israel lobby or in the service of the military contractors or in the

1:01:54

service of the Deep State on its own or for whatever other crazy

1:02:00

idea. And we just don't have. Democratic deliberation

1:02:07

or accountability about this, But we could. If we did.

1:02:13

We would change the direction of this country. For 35 years. Liberty Save has been the number

1:02:18

one manufacturer of safes made in this country, American made from start to finish.

1:02:24

They make high quality gun safes. I've got one vault doors, home safes, handgun vaults, whatever

1:02:30

you need to protect the things you value. And again, I can tell you from personal experience, these guys

1:02:35

know what they're doing. I use liberty safes for the things that I don't want stolen, the things that

1:02:40

really matter. My father's shotguns, the documents that I've got to have and a lot more. I can tell you what else but

1:02:47

you need one. Crime rates are way up in a few of anything you would like to protect that you need

1:02:53

to protect liberty. Safes is the way to do it now. Liberty Safe has over 350

1:02:58

dealers nationwide who specialize in delivery and installation and answering any questions you

1:03:05

have. If you've got someone to protect, they've got a way to protect it. Visit Liberty safe.com.

1:03:11

Pick out what you need and be sure to use the code Tucker at checkout to let them know that we sent you. They'll take care of the rest.

1:03:17

Liberty safe as a product we fervently believe in liberty. Say if you are always protected.

1:03:22

Well, the system is designed with accountability at the heart of it. And we have oversight

1:03:27

committees in the House and the Senate that are supposed to be making certain that the intelligence community, the ICI,

1:03:34

is operating in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. That's their job. They don't they obviously

1:03:41

don't do their job. But what they do is very interesting. Our system of government is

1:03:48

is actually rather ingenious. It's ingenious because you can buy

1:03:53

a piece of government at very low cost If the military industrial contractor is just

1:04:00

buy off a couple committees, that's enough because they're the only ones that have responsibility.

1:04:05

Yes. If the health insurers just buy off the health committees in the House and the

1:04:11

Senate, that's enough. If the Israel lobby just gets its hold on a

1:04:17

couple of committees, they run American foreign policy in the Middle East. So what I have found to be ingenious

1:04:24

about our completely corrupted political system is how inexpensive it is to buy

1:04:31

your corner of the story. You don't control everything. No one controls everything.

1:04:37

But if you want to control health care, it's a couple committees. If you want to control

1:04:43

the military industrial machinery, that's just a couple of committees. And so there is

1:04:49

no oversight and there won't be oversight until there is public oversight.

1:04:55

Nobody oversees themselves. And the idea that a few congressmen and I know some of them,

1:05:02

that they're really constraining anything that the

1:05:08

CIA or the intelligence community does. No way.

1:05:13

Let me let me we've talked about it before, but. Well, there but that's they're puppets of it. They're completely and they're

1:05:19

they're funded. They need. Some scrutiny. They're funded by it. They're puppets of it.

1:05:25

There are almost no independent members of our Congress. Everyone almost everyone

1:05:31

is on the take. Rand Paul is my one exception. I think he's the most principled

1:05:36

member of our Congress in both houses. He really believes

1:05:43

in honesty and small government and wants to know the truth and give.

1:05:49

I'll give an example of the complete lack of oversight in something we

1:05:55

may know, something we talked about. Okay, where did that pandemic come from? The evidence is now overwhelming,

1:06:02

though still not definitive that it was made in a U.S. lab. This is overwhelming.

1:06:09

Even the report of the House committee that issued a report

1:06:15

a couple of weeks ago says, yes, there was obviously a lot of cover up and and a lot

1:06:20

of unanswered questions and a lot of engagement of us scientists in this. And we know that the US

1:06:26

government lied up the wazoo on all of the question

1:06:32

of the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that made the pandemic and has lied until today.

1:06:39

We know that the intelligence agencies know a lot that they haven't said So

1:06:44

this is another area. Could we actually have some some honesty?

1:06:50

Could we actually have some transparency? Could we actually look at something where a pandemic

1:06:56

took perhaps 20 million lives worldwide? Where'd that come from?

1:07:02

Especially since the evidence is now overwhelming that it was a laboratory creation

1:07:08

with U.S. scientists and US funding playing a huge. For one this.

 Will Trump Pardon Snowden and Assange?

1:07:15

Do you think the new president will pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange?

1:07:20

No. Snowden is a remarkable person. I don't know Julian Assange.

1:07:25

I do know Edward Snowden. And he is an absolutely remarkable

1:07:31

person. And yes, he is a hero

1:07:36

because he told us what the government was actually doing towards us. And of course,

1:07:42

the security state which really runs America. Therefore, I

1:07:48

immediately branded him as the worst villain. But we found out more from Snowden about

1:07:55

the risk to our freedom than from just about anybody else. And Julian Assange, you know,

1:08:01

I know almost every day I.

1:08:07

Invoke a memorandum that he enabled

1:08:12

me to see and you to see and all of us to see. That explains.

1:08:18

The Ukraine war better than anything else.

1:08:23

And Julian Assange. Deserves all of the credit for this. And it's also an interesting

1:08:30

story, if I may just say, in one minute. I our current CIA director, William Burns,

1:08:37

in 2008 was the US ambassador to Russia. And when he was U.S.

1:08:43

ambassador to Russia, he understood completely perfectly

1:08:48

that the U.S. push to expand NATO's to Ukraine was disastrous.

1:08:55

Pure provocation, crossing Russia's red lines, likely to create a civil

1:09:02

war inside Ukraine and a possible war between the United States and Russia.

1:09:07

And he wrote a memo back to Condoleezza Rice, who I our secretary

1:09:14

of state. And the memo said that the entire Russian

1:09:20

political class opposes NATO's enlargement and for real reasons.

1:09:28

And that memo famously became known as nyet. Means yet no means

1:09:34

no. Don't play games with this. This is real. This is a red line. Okay? Something like this

1:09:41

should be understood by the American people. We've just spent around $200 billion.

1:09:47

We've just caused deaths of perhaps 6 or 700,000 Ukrainians

1:09:54

and completely false pretenses and false pretenses. That, as The New York Times has

1:10:01

wrongly stated unendingly that the war in Ukraine was, quote, unprovoked.

1:10:08

Not only was it provoked, the US provoked it. And not only that, our senior

1:10:14

diplomats knew that knew that at the time and wrote about it. Now, this memo

1:10:20

makes this perfectly clear. Anyone can go online and type William Burns. Nyet means nyet cable

1:10:27

and you will come up with this cable and then you can read why in 2008, we knew

1:10:34

that the deep state push for NATO enlargement was mind bendingly stupid,

1:10:41

dangerous, provocative and likely to get us into disaster, which it did.

1:10:47

How do we even see that memo? Do you think that a congressional committee called Condoleezza

1:10:54

Rice and said, Could we have the documentary evidence to understand the choices you're making?

1:10:59

Of course not. There's no oversight when it comes to security issues. We are already

1:11:06

in a security state that has no resemblance to democracy whatsoever.

1:11:11

But Julian Assange. Enabled us to see it. So we have to express

1:11:18

gratitude for that. This is the truth. If you don't want leaks,

1:11:24

don't have a world run. Where every consequential fact is hidden from the American

1:11:31

people. And it enables one disaster after another. And just to make clear

1:11:37

how disastrous this is. Bill Clinton, who was, in my view, a completely ineffectual

1:11:44

president in the long list of ineffectual presidents, came to office in 1993

1:11:50

when the Doomsday Clock was at 17 minutes from midnight, meaning

1:11:56

that it was the farthest away from nuclear war in the whole history of the nuclear

1:12:02

age. Every single president, starting with Clinton, brought

1:12:07

the Doomsday Clock closer to Armageddon. So we went from 17 minutes

1:12:13

to midnight to 90s to midnight with no accountability or explanation at all.

1:12:21

Do you think it's fair to say that anyone who opposes pardons for Edward Snowden and Julian

1:12:27

Assange should be looked at with suspicion

1:12:32

or is actually an enemy of the country? Well, I think that they may just be ignorant or don't understand

1:12:38

or maybe they're New York Times readers. You know, in other words, there are there are a lot of people who

1:12:44

really don't understand the situation right now, don't understand how dangerous it is,

1:12:50

don't understand how lawless it is, don't understand how we're driven by

1:12:57

these long term aims that are absolutely disastrous. I thank Mitch McConnell, by

1:13:04

the way, for writing his essay that the goal is primacy.

1:13:09

Too late. If if our goal is primacy and we pursue that like

1:13:15

this octogenarian who can barely function anymore says we should will all get

1:13:21

blown up. We'll move from 90s to midnight to 60s to midnight to 30s

1:13:26

to midnight and goodbye. Because we can't have a world where the United States says

1:13:32

we're in charge of everything. If you aim that way, we will end up with

1:13:38

World War three. That will not go well. Well, we're we're begging South Korea for munitions.

1:13:44

So the truth is, we don't have the power to affect that anyway. But, you know, this is

1:13:49

the interesting thing. Already. You could know back in

1:13:56

2014, don't overthrow the Ukrainian government. You could know in

1:14:02

2015, honor the Minsk agreement that would end the war.

1:14:07

You could know in 2021, negotiate with Russia because actually

1:14:13

Ukraine. Okay. I won't even say Ukraine. The United States cannot win a war in Ukraine against

1:14:20

Russia. We knew that. But these are not clever people.

1:14:26

Jake Sullivan is not a clever person. They don't understand. They're like terrible poker

1:14:32

players that somehow are sitting at, you know, the grand slam of poker.

1:14:37

They don't know what they're doing and they're bluffing and they're betting and they're doubling down with our money, by the way.

1:14:45

You know, and so, yes, you could know this primacy thing.

1:14:51

Come on. This is what does it even mean in a world of multiple nuclear superpowers?

1:14:57

What does it even mean? It means we just ignore all of that till we're all blown

1:15:03

to smithereens. No, but you know, Mitch McConnell's barely functions anymore.

1:15:09

But he's got the big story in foreign affairs about how we need to preserve primacy.

1:15:15

So there are there's a lot of momentum and ignorance and

1:15:21

deep state arrogance. Who the hell are you to tell us you don't even read the secret files?

1:15:27

You know this. This is so really where we have been for a very long

1:15:32

time. Since 1991. The Deep state, the CIA

1:15:38

and others have been trying to defeat Russia Since 1991.

1:15:43

Netanyahu has been with American military remaking the Middle East.

1:15:49

It's been a disaster on both fronts. It's made America drastically less

1:15:55

secure. But they continue this group in power and there

1:16:01

is a chance. That President Trump could change this. This is the most promising

1:16:07

single reality of his government if he chooses.

1:16:12

Rightly, he has to understand he's got a completely divided

1:16:18

team and he's got a completely divided landscape in Washington. And I think he knows

1:16:24

the deep state is not going out with a whimper. It's so it's going to fight

1:16:31

for its prerogatives. Are people, you know, worried about a terror attack in the US?

1:16:38

I don't know. They don't tell me. And I and I'm I'm frankly, myself

 The Most Important Appointment of Trump’s Cabinet

1:16:44

more worried about World War Three. Yes. So you said the president has

1:16:49

assembled a divided team. One person who I think is pretty close to his stated

1:16:55

objectives on foreign policy is Tulsi Gabbard. Yes. Who he's nominated to be director of national intelligence.

1:17:01

The entire Senate Intel Committee appears to be against her. I think every member. And that shows that she

1:17:07

is completely underrated. That's exactly right. Do you think she'll make it? How important is it that she make

1:17:14

it? She's probably and I don't want to jinx anything. She's probably the most important

1:17:19

appointment of of the Trump administration. Does seem that way. She is incredibly intelligent,

1:17:25

incredibly honest, incredibly committed to U.S. security and

1:17:33

would do a superb job. So that's why she's being opposed, because

1:17:40

she. The the forces that be that are worse than mediocre,

1:17:47

that are right now on top of the $1.5 trillion a year machine

1:17:53

that have been running disastrous wars, that have been bringing us closer and closer

1:17:59

to doom. Don't want any accountability. And what Tulsi Gabbard would

1:18:06

represent is competence, honesty, forthrightness and

1:18:13

not having been a party to all these failures. So if you're the incoming

1:18:18

administration, how hard do you fight for her nomination? Well, she's critical because

1:18:24

this is the most important question facing the United States today. We have many important questions.

1:18:31

We have major financial, social, political, economic, institutional

1:18:37

questions. But the most important question facing us is, is a country that potentially is

1:18:44

more secure than any country in the history of the world going to do itself in by

1:18:50

itself provoked World War three, and we're on that course.

1:18:55

And five presidents have been on that course through their incompetence and their obedience

1:19:02

to an unaccountable deep state. And President Trump

1:19:07

is coming in saying that he's going to change direction. He says every day

1:19:13

that he wants to be president for peace. By the way, I think the greatest

1:19:18

thing that could happen is for Nobel Peace Prize is for President Trump. He could end the war in Ukraine.

1:19:24

He could end the war in the Middle East, not by bombing Iran. That would do the opposite, but by

1:19:29

enabling a two state solution in the Middle East. And the wars would

1:19:35

all end. He could end the talk of the war in

1:19:41

East Asia, which would be the utter disaster and folly by recognizing that

1:19:48

we shouldn't be meddling in China's internal affairs. And Taiwan is an internal

1:19:54

affair of China. And he should be restoring a framework

1:20:01

of nuclear arms control. I give him four Nobel Peace Prize just for that.

1:20:06

If he chooses that direction, he'll be the most consequential president in our modern history, perhaps

1:20:12

in our history, because he will reestablish security for the American people. If he follows the hardliners,

1:20:18

we're just he's just going to add yet another eight years of bringing us closer

1:20:25

to doom. How how is the Ukraine more settled? The Ukraine war is settled literally

1:20:30

in one call, just as he says, because all he has to do.

1:20:36

Really all he has to do is pick up the phone and call President Putin and say, you

1:20:42

know, that 30 year effort to expand NATO

1:20:49

to Ukraine and to Georgia was ridiculous, unacceptable,

1:20:55

unnecessary provocation and it's led us to this juncture.

1:21:01

I'm against it. I'm going to say it publicly. We're going to end this adventurism.

1:21:07

And you stop fighting today and the fighting will stop that moment, actually.

1:21:13

Then there will be the there will be details. And the details are where

1:21:18

the borders will be drawn. Exactly. But the war will end. The war will not end, by the

1:21:25

way. By saying let's have a cease fire. That's a meaningless statement.

1:21:30

As you heard repeatedly from Foreign Minister Lavrov. And as I know, when is that anyone

1:21:37

thinking about this knows this isn't about a cease fire. This is about a cause of this

1:21:43

war. And the cause of this war is that Russia does not want the U.S. and its missile systems

1:21:51

on its 1200 kilometer border with Ukraine right now.

1:21:58

And Biden was so stupid. And I'm using the term, of course, it sounds I don't know

1:22:04

how it sounds, but it's true that he couldn't say that. And avoid the war, though, was

1:22:10

obvious how to avoid this war. Obvious how to avoid this war.

1:22:15

But Biden couldn't do it. He was. That's why I say he's been such

1:22:21

a terrible president. And. I think that President Trump

1:22:26

wants to do it this way. Now, again, he's got people around him of

1:22:31

many different views. Some say promise him. Just ask for a cease fire.

1:22:38

Freeze the conflict Armistice. Korean solution, 1953.

1:22:43

This is completely beside the point. Russia is going to freeze the conflict. It's actually winning on

1:22:50

the ground. But why is it fighting? It's fighting because it does not want this regime

1:22:56

which was installed by the United States in 2014 to have U.S..

1:23:03

Bases, NATO's U.S. weapons and missile systems on its border.

1:23:09

And the fact that Biden just proved the point by saying, yeah, we'll fire the missiles into Russia, make

1:23:15

it all the more clear why they're concerned about this. This isn't an idle threat. This isn't some dumb thing.

1:23:21

This is they're being hit right now by US missile systems, by us,

1:23:28

by U.S. personnel firing these missile systems. So it's not an idle threat.

1:23:33

So people who say freeze the conflict, they don't get it. People say and there was

1:23:40

an initial statement I NATO will not enlarge for at least

1:23:47

x years. Somebody said ten years. Somebody said 20 years. This is also completely

1:23:53

ridiculous. Then another idea. Well we'll give Russia this territory, Donetsk

1:24:00

and Lugansk and maybe Hirshon and zap Russia and Crimea, but all the rest

1:24:06

of Ukraine will be part of NATO. Of course not. It's the same deal. This is ridiculous.

1:24:12

So if you understand what this is about, where it came from, why it continues

1:24:18

to this moment. There is one phone call that ends it, which is get

1:24:24

to the underlying cause of the war, the underlying cause of the war, going back to a

1:24:30

decision that Bill Clinton made in 1994 is the decision to expand

1:24:36

NATO's to Ukraine. And by the way, they want to expand it to the South Caucasus, to

1:24:42

Georgia, which is also in turmoil right now. It's very interesting,

1:24:47

Tucker, that I, Zbigniew Brzezinski, spelled this out

1:24:53

to the letter in 1997, and it's fascinating to read

1:25:00

his account. All wrong. He got it completely wrong.

1:25:06

But he spelled it out. And what he said was in his book

1:25:12

The Grand Chessboard in 1997. We should expand

1:25:18

NATO eastward. We should expand Europe eastward and we should ask

1:25:23

the question what will Russia do? Russia won't like it.

1:25:29

So Brzezinski spends a whole chapter. What will Russia do? And he asks the question, Well,

1:25:35

could Russia ever align with China? Nope. That's not going to happen.

1:25:41

Could Russia ever align with Iran? No, that's not going to happen. Russia's only choice

1:25:48

is to accede to the US action. So in 1997

1:25:55

it was perfectly clearly understood. What is the strategy? What are we going to do and

1:26:02

what will happen? The only problem is it was wrong. This is the only problem.

1:26:07

He got it completely wrong. And you can go back. To his credit, he wrote his

1:26:13

prediction. It's wrong. But why are we still playing that game until today?

1:26:19

Why did Biden exactly continue on that failed course?

1:26:24

Because he's a failure, that's why. Because he didn't understand. Because he's surrounded by

 Biden’s Attempt to Kill Putin

1:26:31

mediocrities at best. The Biden administration has tried to kill Vladimir Putin.

1:26:37

That's a fact, I think. And they funded separatist groups within Russia, probably going

1:26:43

back before Biden. Well, this has been, by the way, CIA ops to

1:26:48

to have separatist groups everywhere. And fascinating, just if I could mention, because it's it's

1:26:55

almost humorous, except that it's so tragic. There was a I

1:27:01

don't remember the exact name, but something around 1998 called the Chechnya Friendship

1:27:06

Committee. Chechnya. Okay. Burning issue for the United States. I dare 1 in 1,000,000 of your

1:27:13

listeners to know exactly where Chechnya has in its history, because who knows? Who cares?

1:27:18

But if you look at the Chechnya Friendship Committee, it was the blue ribbon committee

1:27:24

of American neocons. Just big Brzezinski right there. Everyone wants

1:27:30

the hard line. Why they couldn't care for one iota

1:27:37

of a moment about Chechnya. Of course not. They wanted to break up Russia.

1:27:44

Everything is antagonism. So they fund Islamic extremism. So they funded the jihadists

1:27:50

everywhere. And by the way, it's not even it's we made al

1:27:55

Qaeda I think everyone understands this. We made Osama bin Laden. We made this

1:28:02

the overthrow in Syria, where they're saying, my God, it's it's

1:28:07

why do you think this was what Obama tasked in 2000, 11, 12

1:28:14

jihadists? So what would happen if they succeeded in killing Putin?

1:28:19

I mean, what I don't understand why that would be in America's interest to

1:28:25

have 6000 nuclear warheads unsecured floating around in a country that's

1:28:31

20% Muslim and very complicated and like that seems like the last thing that you would ever want to do

1:28:38

when he's the most pro-Western leader in Russia. Let let let me address it in a in a little bit different way.

1:28:45

In the last year, the leaders of Hamas wanted

1:28:52

to make peace with Israel and their political negotiator was a

1:28:59

man named Haniya. What did Israel do when the peace feelers came out?

1:29:05

They assassinated him to make sure that there would be no attempt

1:29:11

by Hamas to make peace. Nasrallah of Hezbollah.

1:29:16

For real? For real. They that he's the one that they killed at the inauguration.

1:29:22

Yes. I remember he was. He was the political negotiator for Hamas.

1:29:28

And they wanted to try to find a peace. Israel.

1:29:33

Hates the idea that there would be negotiations with Hamas. The idea is to

1:29:40

remake the Middle East through war, not through a peaceful negotiation.

1:29:45

Then Nasrallah in a in Hezbollah

1:29:50

wanted to make peace with with Israel.

1:29:56

What did they do? They killed him. Of course, this is

1:30:01

this is a basic point. Kill the peacemakers. This is very important to

1:30:08

understand. You assassinate the people that might want to negotiate.

1:30:14

And we this. Is this was something that JFK learned, I think, the hard way. Well, this is

1:30:20

the modus operandi of the CIA and it's the modus operandi of Mossad

1:30:26

and it's the modus operandi of this deep state, which is you're not

1:30:33

aiming for peace. You're aiming for primacy. You're aiming for dominance.

1:30:39

You're aiming to remake the region in your image. You're resisting any

1:30:44

call for compromise. Yitzhak Rabin, when he wanted to

1:30:49

make peace, he was assassinated.  killed the peacemakers.

1:30:55

But what we know is that this is state action. We know this in the United States

1:31:02

kill the peacemakers. We know it. Of Mossad. Rise and kill. And they've done it repeatedly

1:31:08

in front of our eyes. So it's not the harshest enemy you try to kill.

1:31:14

It's the one that threatens you. Not with war, but with diplomacy.

1:31:20

That's what they dislike. They don't want peace. They want primacy. This is really a different thing.

1:31:27

Where is it getting us? Since the whole thing is completely delusional, it's getting us

1:31:32

closer and closer to nuclear annihilation. How could anyone think he'd

1:31:38

killed the president of a nuclear superpower? Of course, it's.

1:31:43

It's the most mind boggling, wrongheaded idea. I have no information about

1:31:50

that. What I do have information about is the ones that they actually kill. By the way, I also

1:31:56

know through lots of. Lots of discussions and

1:32:02

I can't go into all of them because I just have been lucky to have.

1:32:08

I mean, fascinating discussions. Iran has been asking

1:32:13

for peace and for reaching out to the Biden administration for the last

1:32:19

two years. How do we take that? They must be vulnerable now.

1:32:26

We must kill them. That's the idea. It's so weird. Iran is reaching out for peace now.

1:32:31

Iran has been for two years. There have been peace. I talked to an intermediary

1:32:37

recently. I've talked to many diplomats in the last in in most recent months.

1:32:43

By the way, there's a astoundingly my God, an astoundingly

1:32:49

insightful episode that was reposted of PBS NewsHour

1:32:56

I with Robert MacNeil interviewing Henry Kissinger and

1:33:03

Jack Matlock in 1994. So this is the 30th anniversary of this show.

1:33:10

And the show was on NATO's enlargement. And Matlock, who was the

1:33:16

U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, a wonderful diplomat and a very, very smart,

1:33:22

fine man, was saying in 1994, don't provoke.

1:33:28

We have peace now. Don't expand. NATO We've said we won't. We shouldn't. And if Russia

1:33:34

ever becomes belligerent again, of course we would reconsider and take action. But right now there's no

1:33:40

belligerency. There's there's no reason to provoke. Kissinger.

1:33:48 is incoherent, actually, which is unusual.

1:33:53

But Robert McNeil kind of can't even fathom what Kissinger

1:34:00

saying until Kissinger finally stumbles out with the statement. And I won't get it exactly right.

1:34:07

But he says something to the effect if you can't provoke Russia when they're weak, how are we

1:34:13

going to provoke them when they're strong? And it's just such a weird idea that there's no

1:34:19

moment when you could actually try to make peace, because if they're weak, definitely don't make

1:34:25

peace. Because if you try not to provoke them, then, well, then you won't be credible when they're

1:34:30

strong. And so the idea is you always must be aggressive. So Kissinger was saying in 1994,

1:34:37

of course we need to expand NATO. And yes, Russia won't like it, but they're weak now, so they can't

1:34:43

resist later on, by the way. He came to understand that expanding NATO's to Ukraine was

1:34:50

just too far. He actually did reach that understanding in 2015. But watching him in 2004

1:34:57

is very interesting because 2004 was the year that the decision was

1:35:03

made. And this is also something very important to understand about our foreign policy.

1:35:08

It's not that a president comes in and then we have a new foreign policy and then another

1:35:13

president. We have a new foreign policy. These things are very deeply set courses.

1:35:19

These wars in the Middle East go back 30 years, this war against Russia.

1:35:26

Actually goes back to 1945 at the end of World War Two, but in the current version goes back to

1:35:33

1991 and by plan to 1994 when Clinton laid out the

1:35:40

NATO enlargement and then Brzezinski spelled it out for the public in 1997.

1:35:47

But it was decisions already taken. So we can watch Kissinger in 1994 explaining,

1:35:54

yeah, Russia's weak, take advantage of them. It's this is the time to take advantage of them.

 Can Trump Bring Peace?

1:35:59

This is what gets us into such unbelievable insecurity. We could be the safest people

1:36:05

in the world, in history. No one could conceivably attack us. And yet we're 90 seconds

1:36:11

to midnight. Do you have any expectation that will change?

1:36:17

I'm counting on President Trump to change this. I think his his

1:36:23

instinct is right. I think his sense is right. I think he doesn't like war.

1:36:29

I really do. You know you know. He doesn't he. He displayed that in the first term.

1:36:36

And he said that repeatedly. Now, this is the best thing we have going for us.

1:36:41

Now, in his first term, he hired a lot of very irresponsible people

1:36:48

that like war or that like duplicity or that like

1:36:54

the Deep State or that like, accountability. Unaccountability like John Bolton. I want to make least favorites

1:37:01

among all of these. Fair And and and Trump hired them.

1:37:07

So the question now, is it probably not his deep sense,

1:37:14

which I think is absolutely right, but now his tactical sense inside the U.S.

1:37:21

government. Please don't let the Deep state continue on a path

1:37:26

that it's been on. And don't let the normal hard liners, because Washington

1:37:32

is filled with people who have been on the payroll of the military industrial complex.

1:37:39

Their whole careers don't let them dominate. Policy. And the incoming administration

1:37:45

is such a. A mix right now. And we see that the

1:37:53

clarity of those who want to control this, how hard they're being,

1:38:00

you know, how harshly they're being opposed like Tulsi Gabbard. Or let me say Bobby Kennedy, though

1:38:07

his department is. Health. But he understands

1:38:13

this peace side as well very clearly. These are the ones that they're fighting because we

1:38:19

have been for, I'd say again, 30 years at least, and arguably

1:38:26

basically 80 years since the end of World War Two. On a particular jab, which

1:38:33

at least Mitch McConnell does a disservice of naming by its name, which is primacy.

1:38:39

And if we continue on that course, the Trump will fail and the United States will be

1:38:45

gravely endangered. And if he reverses that course, say, he stands to be

1:38:50

a great an historic president. Because there's so much at stake. You sort of wonder what.

1:38:56

The people who oppose that kind of reform would do. And the national security state has been willing, eager to use

1:39:01

violence abroad again and again and again, murdering people,

1:39:06

as I said, trying to murder Putin. Would they? Or are you concerned that they would be willing to use that domestically?

1:39:13

I think there's no doubt that they've used assassinations at home. I'm of the view

1:39:19

that JFK was the first clear case of that at home.

1:39:24

I this is a long, long story. And some people roll

1:39:29

their eyes at it. But I've spent too much of my life reading, studying,

1:39:36

examining this. I think it's quite arguable for

1:39:41

Bobby Kennedy the same way. And I don't think that there have been scruples inside.

1:39:47

About keeping prerogatives. At the same time,

1:39:53

the situation is better now in one regard.

1:39:58

30 years of failure. So it's not as if the course that we're on

1:40:05

is giving us these great benefits. The United States needs

1:40:11

to change course for our own security. We need to change course for our

1:40:17

own finances. Were not in good shape in this country. Yes. When

1:40:24

75% or so of Americans repeatedly say America's on the wrong track,

1:40:30

they're correct at that. And they say that. Now, that's the latest Gallup.

1:40:37

Findings and they're completely right. So this is not

1:40:43

the exuberance and I would say the hubris of 1991.

1:40:48

And I was there then I. As an

1:40:54

economic specialist and an adviser. Unpaid and informal, but an

1:40:59

adviser to President Gorbachev and an adviser to President Yeltsin and an adviser to Ukraine's

1:41:05

President Kuchma on how to stabilize their desperately destabilized

1:41:12

economies and how to move to market systems. And the United States

1:41:19

was not interested in peace. We had this hubris

1:41:24

that history had ended. We had won, and now America would run the show.

1:41:30

The difference today is that we're 33 years after the end of the

1:41:37

Soviet Union. We tried the neocon approach for 30 years.

1:41:42

Now we have engaged in all of Netanyahu's wars. We went to war in Ukraine.

1:41:50

Everything that was predicted has been proved wrong. The neocons failed time

1:41:57

and again. They didn't remake Afghanistan. They didn't remake Iraq.

1:42:03

They did not remake the Middle East. They did not call Putin's bluff

1:42:09

and enter a Ukraine with NATO. They did not enter

1:42:16

Georgia with NATO. They completely misjudged how we

1:42:23

would push the rest of the world into unity, as I mentioned, with Zbig Brzezinski saying

1:42:29

Russia will never side with China on this, while of course, he got wrong.

1:42:35

The most fundamental diplomatic change of our age, the rise of China, and

1:42:41

the creation of a group that does not want US hegemony and

1:42:47

a group that is increasingly integrated in production and military and security and

1:42:53

diplomacy. So we are at a time where the failures

1:42:59

are self-evident. If people open their eyes and the American people know it, in fact.

1:43:04

So it's not even convincing the American people. It's it's worse than you think. No, they know.

1:43:10

They want they want their own. Problem solved. Yeah. How about jobs? Some housing, reduced crime

1:43:17

in my neighborhood. Keep the inflation down. Could you keep the debt from destroying American public finances?

1:43:24

They're not interested in Mitch McConnell's primacy continuing. He's an octogenarian.

1:43:31

Go, Don, you're. You're done. It's time for something different. So in this sense, it's

1:43:37

really possible for this administration, this incoming administration, to change course

1:43:43

because it doesn't require a massive public education. It requires honesty.

1:43:51

It requires seeing down the deep state internally. It requires making sure

1:43:58

that the key appointments that want competence, honesty and security for America actually get

1:44:04

the job. And of course, it requires President Trump

1:44:10

following through on his profound main insight,

1:44:15

which is that there is no reason for war with Russia. There's no reason for war

1:44:21

with China. And I want him really to know, really to know there's no reason for war with Iran.

1:44:28

None. But every week, every day, Fox News tells me that there's some,

1:44:34

you know, assassination attempt by Iran. They're sending drones from their ships offshore over

1:44:40

our country to scope it out for future attacks. I mean, Iran is presented in the US media as the aggressor,

1:44:47

trying to kill Trump, for example. I don't know if those Fox reporters

1:44:53

have the chance to speak with the Iranian senior officials or. All that stuff to our.

1:44:59

Middle East officials. I do. I do all the time. I am able to

1:45:05

ask questions, to check facts, to understand

1:45:11

circumstances. I speak to lots of people engaged all over

1:45:16

the Middle East on these questions. And it's simply not true. So the first thing

1:45:23

one should do, period in this world is talk to the other side.

1:45:28

And if. If Donald Trump has that, I

1:45:34

this would be the farthest reach. But if he has that impulse with Iran, too, he

1:45:40

will be perhaps amazed, perhaps gratified, but he would do a huge service

 Is War With Iran Inevitable?

1:45:47

for the American people, huge service for the American people. My sense is that.

1:45:54

You know, a war with Iran feels inevitable. I'm obviously opposed to it. But tell us how you think that would

1:46:00

go if it happens. There's nothing inevitable till it happens.

1:46:06

So thank. You. This is extremely important. A war with Iran will be

1:46:11

World War three. So that's the point. Iran is not alone

1:46:17

and it will not remain alone. And so if we go

1:46:22

to war with Iran, we are expanding the war with Russia. With Russia, we are

1:46:29

at a possibility of peace, but we're also at a possibility of nuclear war.

1:46:35

They're both very close. And if we go to war with Iran, we make the war, nuclear

1:46:41

war all the more likely.

1:46:46

Do you think that the people pushing us toward war with Iran understand that?

1:46:52

No. No, I think that they're following a plan.

1:46:57

Clean break. 1996 and a plan. 1991.

1:47:03

Seven wars in five years. That has been deep set.

1:47:08

And that has been Netanyahu's baby all the time. Netanyahu I regard as

1:47:15

one of the most delusional and dangerous people on the planet, and he has engaged the United

1:47:21

States so far in six disastrous wars, and he's aiming to engage us in

1:47:27

yet one more. But Netanyahu's track record is just

1:47:33

about the worst of any person on the planet right now in terms of damage

1:47:39

done. And we should be able to understand that. And we have a lot of rhetoric in

1:47:44

this country standing up for Israel. We're not standing up for Israel. We are engaging

1:47:50

in war on Israel's behalf all over the Middle East. That's a completely different thing.

1:47:57

I believe in Israel, Israel's security alongside

1:48:03

a state of Palestine, which I know completely to be possible and achievable and peaceful

1:48:10

and ending this risk of World War three and could have prevented the million

1:48:16

or so deaths that have come from Netanyahu's wars up until now. And the Arab states have been

1:48:23

saying this repeatedly since 2002. It's called the Arab Peace Initiative. Anybody can look it

1:48:29

up. They repeated they repeated basically nonstop in the last two years.

1:48:36

The Iranians want peace. I know that as well. And so the whole

1:48:42

game is to make claims about the other side and to say, if you talk to the other

1:48:48

side, you're a traitor. That's what they say about Tulsi Gabbard. She talked to Assad.

1:48:54

Well, what about that? Isn't that amazing? But I just again, just to refer back to the core of it, I don't

1:49:00

understand when Assad became our enemy and why and why should I go along with that? It was almost a flip

1:49:07

because there were nice words said about him by Hillary Clinton one year and then the next year exactly

1:49:13

the opposite, because these are mind games that are played for reasons

1:49:18

that are not said directly. And that have no bearing on American

1:49:23

national security or aren't motivated by a desire to protect the United States. There's nothing to do with that. Of course not.

1:49:29

Nothing that has happened in the Middle East has been for American national security.

1:49:34

None of it not one of these wars. These have been Netanyahu's wars. Watch him cheer.

1:49:40

Why does I mean, it's just amazing how few Americans and many

1:49:46

Americans love their country and are willing to lay down their lives for it in half. But how few are willing to say what

1:49:52

you've just said. Because they're told repeatedly

1:49:57

the opposite and you can be told anything can be sold, even Not that people

1:50:03

believe it, by the way, but they don't hear. The correct story anywhere

1:50:09

in the mainstream. They hear things that don't quite make sense to them. And by the way, this is one of the

1:50:16

points of info war. The public didn't believe the official narrative about

1:50:22

JFK's assassination. The public didn't believe the official narrative about RFK assassination.

1:50:28

The public didn't believe the official narrative about Covid. The public didn't believe the

1:50:34

official narrative about Iraq. The public doesn't believe these things, but it doesn't hear

1:50:40

the coherent explanation from the New York Times or MSNBC or CNN or

1:50:47

anybody else. No one actually tries to explain. And so what hangs out there is

1:50:54

something completely unsatisfactory, but it doesn't have an

1:51:00

alternative explanation. And if you don't have the clarity of the alternative,

1:51:07

then this miserable phony in four approach,

1:51:12

it fills the space. And they're not interested in convincing us because

1:51:18

we don't have any say in any of these issues. They're interested in doing what they want to do without

 Why Corporate Media Hates Jeffrey Sachs

1:51:25

being stopped. That's the difference. When was the last time you appeared or wrote for a mainstream

1:51:31

publication or television channel here? It was the day that I was on Bloomberg

1:51:38

and I said the U.S. blew up Nord Stream. That would I remember that. And they cut you off.

1:51:43

And they cut me off. And then and then they berated me for several minutes

1:51:48

while I was watching on the screen, but cut off. And that was the last. Moment with the US to blow up Nord

1:51:54

Stream. For. Me. You were telling the truth, of course. And exactly who did it When

1:51:59

is something that would be easy to find out in five minutes. So that's not even hard to find out.

1:52:05

But you haven't appeared on any. Not once. Because. Yeah, it's not quite true.

1:52:11

You know, if it has nothing to do with foreign policy issues, it's just an economics question once

1:52:17

in a while. But. But basically. The mainstream.

1:52:24

Follows the security state line. The two, I mean, and they're acting in their own interest.

1:52:29

This is not flattery, but it's just true. Whenever we do an interview with you, it gets millions of views and people love it and we make

1:52:35

revenue off it. And it's like it's good business to have you on. I happen to agree with you and think you're wise, but it's

1:52:40

not like people don't want to hear what you're saying. Lots of people do. We've proven. That people want to hear some explanation of it.

1:52:47

Specifically. So you were a fixture on in different channels, NBC, for example.

1:52:52

And so when they ban you from those channels, they're hurting themselves because viewers want to watch you.

1:52:57

Well, it's just I know that because I have you on. So how exactly does that order go out?

1:53:03

Do you think Do you know the mechanics of keeping you off? Like one day there's just a bulletin, you know, no more

1:53:08

Jeffrey Sachs or how does that work? I know. I need to ask you because the

1:53:16

the phrasing, the official lines, kind of this stupidities and silliness

1:53:22

is on almost any story of the kind that we're talking about get repeated across

1:53:29

the mainstream space very, very quickly, and not only on the US side,

1:53:35

but generally in the British media as well.

1:53:40

And so there's certainly some there's an official

1:53:45

narrative, of course. So this is part of the story that senior White House briefing,

1:53:52

Jake or somebody else briefs. And that becomes the meme. That becomes what you have to

1:53:57

defend. You have to defend your continued access. You have to be good, loyal

1:54:02

citizen of this. By the way, I there are lots of contracts that go

1:54:08

out with the military industrial complex. This is a trillion and a half dollar a year

1:54:14

business, not a small business, by the way. It's it's real business. It's lots of think tanks.

1:54:20

It's lots of academic centers. It it's lots of people on hire.

1:54:25

It's lots of contracts. It's lots of that. All you don't get any. I mean, I don't want any of that but

1:54:31

you don't get any of that if you're standing outside that. None of it.

1:54:37

So, you know, people make decisions. I think one of the best lines of modern history is the

1:54:43

line of of Sinclair Lewis, that you can't convince a person to believe something when

1:54:49

their salary depends on believing the opposite. Yes. And that's

1:54:55

a real thing. People have jobs. They don't they just don't want to get out of line.

1:55:01

They don't necessarily believe, but they don't want to get out of line. And it's very

1:55:08

worrisome. And we thought that checks and balances

1:55:14

of the US government would be a stabilizer, and especially that

1:55:20

we would have voices in Congress that would be able to.

1:55:26

Ask real questions. And we have in the past, we had Frank Church,

1:55:31

we had J. William Fulbright, who was not only brilliant and a

1:55:37

critic of American foreign policy, was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

1:55:42

Who do we have now? We have Rand Paul, Bob, and we had Tulsi

1:55:48

in Congress, but basically almost nobody. Now they're scared.

1:55:54

They don't want to talk or they're paid for by, who knows, RSX or Northrop

1:55:59

Grumman or or or General Dynamics or Boeing or somebody.

1:56:05

So they don't even ask questions. This is the reality.

1:56:12

Jeffrey Sachs, thank you very much. Great to be with you. Great to be with you. Thank you.