274 - Norman Finkelstein: Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, and the War in Iran

41:28They, this nation of lunatics, this nation of homicidal maniacs, they speak so freely, so easily about annihilating 10, in the case of China, China's population in 1963 was about 600 million, annihilating 100 million people. They're so blasé about it. He said, yes, go, you find a clip. He said, well, maybe in 1963, 63, China should have been nuked. But that's their claim. No claim of an imminent threat, and even Trump had to qualify it. He said maybe in two weeks. But that's not what the law says. I'm not saying the law for the law's sake. I'm not saying that. I'm saying it because the whole purpose of the law is to try to eliminate, as the founding charter of the UN said, the scourge of war.

42:49That war, and I heard Gideon Levy say this, the Israeli colonist, who's a decent guy for sure. I was listening to him yesterday, I believe, and he said, the problem with Israelis is war is not the first excuse me war is not the last option he said for Israelis war is always the first option diplomacy is the last option actually diplomacy isn't even an option diplomacy is just a facade for the Israelis it's always just bomb them, bomb them, bomb them annihilate them, obliterate them destroy them that's the Israelis that's why trump gets along so well with them because it's his mentality also that's they're a type there was a neoconservative his name was michael ladin he recently died and he said at the time of the iraq war this is 2003 three every 10 years or so the united states needs to pick up a small crappy little country and throw it against the wall just to show we mean business every 10 years or so you have to pick up a small crappy little country and throw it against the wall to show we mean business that's the Israelis, and that's the Trump people also.

44:20The ones who revel, thrive, get orgasmic pleasure from, as Trump said, we obliterated them. We obliterate. Who did you obliterate? Babies? You obliterate babies? Children? Who did you obliterate? Whose lives did you doubt? whose lives did you turn the lights off you know that's them there are two points sort of tangential points that you've brought up that I want to I don't want to lose sight of I'm curious to hear what you had to say before we move on and the first was you said that You didn't believe that Putin's actions in Ukraine were comparable to anything that's going on today, despite what some people might say?

45:22So that's one thing that I wanted to ask you about. Maybe we should just start there, if you're open to talking about that a bit. Yeah, I'm open to talking about it. In the case of Putin, you have to understand the context. Putin is my age. That's correct. Putin is my age. his family family members they died they were killed during world war ii several family members were killed during world war ii russia lost 30 million people during world war ii the united states lost about 250 000 the brits lost about the same number in the Battle of Leningrad, just Leningrad, the Siege of Leningrad, the 800 days, 800 or 900 days, maybe 900, the Siege of Leningrad, a million and a half Russians died in the Siege of Leningrad.

46:36So, it is just interesting. I mean, before you continue, it is just interesting, obviously, when I learned this history in high school and grade school. Well, I wasn't the best student in high school and grade school, so I'm sure that these numbers were given to me at some point. But certainly because of the perspective from which it's taught, this U.S., Western Europe-centric perspective, you don't really consider the great disparity in losses. I did either. You know when I discovered it? When? I still remember. As you know, when you get all of your long-term memories, much keener, much more acute than your short-term memory.

47:24I was in seventh grade. We were doing world history. And in our textbook, back then we had textbooks. In my textbook, there was a bar graph of countries and how many people were killed during World War II. and I see the US a little more 250 ,000 I see the UK back then I think the number was 400 ,000 and then I see the Soviet Union I'm already knowing that was a case where a picture was worth or in this case a graph was worth a thousand words it suddenly dawned on me and so I think the Soviet Union has a right not to have a hostile military bloc armed with nuclear weapons on its border I think they have earned that historic right and I thought and still believe that Ukraine excuse me, Russia negotiated in good faith It simply asked, its goal, its aim was that there be no nuclear weapons placed on its border and that Ukraine doesn't join NATO.

48:59Now, let me be clear. I am not blind to Israelis' concern, because they could say, Russia lost 30 million people. We lost half of European Jewry during World War II, the Nazi Holocaust. And I'm not going to pretend as if that's not a trivial fact. That's a trivial fact. It is a significant fact. It's not a trivial fact. I get that. I have no problem with that. But I said Russia was engaged in good faith negotiations. Iran has put forth reasonable proposals. one leaving the non-proliferation treaty aside one proposal is completely reasonable that is you might or might not be aware there's what's called a nuclear free zone in Latin America meaning no country can acquire nuclear weapons all the signatories have to agree no nuclear weapons in Latin America.

50:15There's the same treaty in Africa. That's why you don't hear about Latin American countries or African countries acquiring nuclear weapons. There's a treaty. You declare the area. It's called a weapons of mass destruction free zone. WMDFZ. Weapons of mass destruction free zone. And there's one in the South Pacific Australia, Solomon Islands, and so forth, for a good reason, by the way, because that's where the nuclear powers used to test their weapons. And so the South Pacific Islands didn't like that. I can tell you a lot about that, but that would be a digression. too far a digression so all the countries in the middle east agreed including iran let's create a weapons of mass destruction free zone if israel were really concerned about iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons here's an easy solution israel is the one country that refuses to sign it So I emphasized with the case of the Russian Federation, good faith negotiations.

51:42Israel's have not been good faith. Israel wants a monopoly on nuclear weapons. It wants everybody else not to have them, but it reserves the right to have them for itself. No, that's not good faith negotiations. That's our good faith negotiations. So I don't believe this. The Russians have been saying, you know, when these idiots are talking about Putin's war, what do you mean Putin's war? The Russians have been saying since 1999, no NATO expansion. The entire ruling elite there agrees on that point. There's no dissent with the Soviet ruling elite. on the question of NATO expansion to Russia's border.

52:34And I think that's a reasonable demand in light of its history. That's a reasonable demand. Israel hasn't negotiated in good faith. Israel wants everybody else not to have nuclear weapons so it can terrorize everybody in the region. I don't think it has that right. By the way, as a very good historian, Israeli historian, Ze 'ev Maoz pointed out, actually, the strategy never really worked. It wasn't a deterrent. They say keeping the weapon is a deterrent to attack. Has it deterred Iran? Has it? Israel has nuclear weapons. Has that stopped Iran from targeting Tel Aviv? Has it stopped it from targeting the vicinity of Dimona?

53:35In 2006, the Hezbollah was targeting Israeli cities. Did Israel's nuclear weapons threat deter them? No. did it deter Egypt from attacking in 1973 the so called Yom Kippur war did it no it's not even true that it works as a deterrent so you might ask them why do they keep this weapon if they can't use it because like you said nobody wants to be an international pariah and if you use that weapon you are you know internationally that would have crossed a threshold that hasn't been crossed in 1945. Yeah, close to 100 years now, close, 80 years. That's a separate question, which Maoz, the historian I mentioned, goes into at great length.

54:41But Israel, Iran has made all sorts of proposals which are completely consistent with the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There's no inconsistency. Nobody even said what's called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, the one that was signed by Obama, the Obama administration. Everybody agrees it was working. Everybody agrees it was working. Why did you pull out? Why did Trump pull out? and then Biden went along with it. Why did you pull out? It was working. There's no dispute about that. So, in general, I think the Iranian record is fine. I have, I see no grounds to put it in the same category as the bad faith demonstrated by Israel, Iran was acting in good faith.

55:49Don't ask, you know, you can't prove these things, but as you know, the supreme leader, Khamenei, the fellow who was assassinated, he said for theological reasons, he was absolutely imposed nuclear weapons, and he put a fatwa on it, a prohibition.

56:09We can't acquire nuclear weapons. I don't know how to take that, but they didn't get them that we know.

56:35Trials and Term Lengths vary by model. Video streaming and games are only available while parked.

56:44Just, again, I'm obviously not as well versed in the UN Charter as you are, but is the basic idea that with Article 2, if you have a general or a genuine grievance with another country, maybe one with national security implications, and then you attempt to engage in good faith negotiations, and those negotiations go nowhere. you are justified in using force or can be permissible? How does this work? Okay. I have to be careful here. First of all, I'm not an expert on the UN or international, but I've studied it enough and I teach aspects of it.

57:34You can't, you can't, the only circumstance, first of all, The UN Security Council is the supreme body for war and peace. It gets the final say. Even if you're acting in self-defense, even if you're acting in self-defense, you're only allowed to act until the Security Council has seized the issue. And then you have to listen to what the Security Council says. The Security Council is the final arbiter on all issues of war and peace. So acting in self-defense is a provisional measure until the Security Council is seized of the question. but other than armed attack you can't do anything you can go to the security council you can go to the international court of justice but you can't resort to force

58:49okay so you you understand but you'd enter one qualification one qualification Under international law, if you are under foreign domination or colonial domination, then you have a right to use force to achieve your self-determination and or statehood. If you are under colonial or foreign occupation, what's called colonial domination or foreign occupation, then you have the right to use force in order to recover your right to statehood and self-determination. Basically, it's a form of, you have to write self-defense against a violent and armed attack, that we know, in Article 51. And an occupation is considered the extension of an armed attack.

1:00:10And therefore, a colonial people or people under occupation have the right of self-defense against this colonial or foreign domination. But only because it's a form of violent armed attack. A colonial or foreign domination is a form of armed attack or an extension of it. The reason that I ask about Article 2 specifically is I'm just trying to better understand your position on Russia's actions toward Ukraine. I agree. It's a violation. Okay. Look, as you know, my credo is never quarrel with facts. So it is. There's no question about that, in my opinion. I would say, though, I make a distinction, and I agree it's not made by everybody.

1:01:25I think there's a distinction to be made between a legal right and a historical right. And just like I kind of agreed, many people don't like me for saying it, but I'll say it. I thought that in 1947, the Israel-Arab conflict is being debated at the United Nations in the General Assembly. and the foreign minister Gromyko comes up to speak and he gave the most famous presentation during what was called the partition debate he gave the most famous presentation what does he say he says that He wishes that there was a way for the Arabs and the Jews to live together in Palestine. He wishes, and he still hopes.

1:02:37but he says if there's no way for them to get along if the differences are so pronounced that there's no way for them to get along Gromigo says this remember Russia lost 30 million people during World War II but Gromigo said and I thought this was a really impressive remark from a very tough guy. He's Stalin's Secretary of State. When I say Gromyko, you know my memory. No, it's either Gromyko or I think it was Gromyko. It wasn't Molotov. I think it was Gromyko. I've read the speech so many times and now I can't remember. So Gromyko says, I wish and hope they can get along and still hope they can get along.

1:03:42But if not, he says, nobody during World War II suffered the way the Jews did. Coming from a Russian, that was a very impressive statement. Nobody suffered like the Jews. The suffering was so terrible, what the Jews endured, that he said if they didn't get along, the Jews should have a right to a state. Now, the state was a flagrant violation of Palestinian self-determination. It was their land. I don't think that's disputable. from the moment the Jewish settlers started to come to Palestine, it was opposed. It was like as if suddenly one night the Palestinian Arabs woke up and said, we don't want Jews here.

1:04:36No, they opposed the creation of a Jewish state in their midst. But, and I get a lot of flack for it, but I can handle the flack. I say, I kind of agree with Gromyko. So, given the historical suffering, given the historical suffering, and if the conflict was, if the parties, there was no possibility of reconciliation between them, I thought there was a historical right there. You know, it was my parents. They walked out of the war with the thought, not illegitimate, though I don't think it was entirely correct, that the whole world abandoned them. Nobody cared about them. The whole world abandoned them.

1:05:31And my mother was very emphatic, even though she, like my father, hated the state of Israel. they were both sympathetic to the Palestinians. But my mother would emphatically say, the Jews need a refuge. That was a lesson they drew from the experience. The Jews need a refuge. And I recognize that refuge comes at the expense of the Palestinians. I'm not going to deny that. And I think it was illegal. I don't believe they had a legal right, the Jews, to appropriate a portion of Palestine for themselves. I don't believe they had that legal right. As a legal question, I cannot support it. Like I said with Putin, I know it's illegal.

1:06:27I recognize it. I do believe there is a relevant notion of a historic right. And I, just like I admire Gromnyko for what he said, when you ask me about Putin and Ukraine, I first have to look at the history. And I can tell you, I know where Putin's coming from. He's my age. And if you go and look in the Wikipedia entry for him, if you go and look at it, you're going to see when they talk about his childhood, the first thing they start talking about is members of his family who were killed during World War II. That's where Putin's life began. And you know what, Mr. Robinson? That's where my life began.

1:07:26So I get it, but I'm not going to pretend that the law says otherwise. Yes, the law says otherwise. It was a breach of the UN Charter. Period. Full stop. You're not going to get me to equivocate on that. That's not going to happen. this distinction between the legal and historical right is very well taken i since you mentioned the word imminent earlier and stressed it legally speaking there is an interesting case that i read in my criminal law course where you have this case where there was a a woman and her husband brutally beat her he raped her he forced her to prostitute herself he forced her to eat dog food she just lived in utter sort of stress and fear of her husband and one day when i guess she thought that she was going to be killed like she thought most days she killed him and then the question is did he have a right of self-defense no that well that is no that that isn't the question here she killed him while he was sleeping and because he was sleeping there was no imminent risk of her death because he was asleep and he could not have killed her at that time And because there was no imminent risk, she was legally responsible.

1:09:04But the question might be, did she have a moral right or something? You know what? That's very, let's call it prophetic that you made that analogy. Because I make it in my book. Well, you have, on our show, you gave me a sort of similar scenario in one episode. I'll just read it. Sure. From the forthcoming book. What was Israel to do after 7 October? Didn't it have a right to self-defense? Consider this hypothetical. A woman is battered by her husband, day in and day out, for decades. She lets out shrieks of agony and despair, but the neighbors ignore her pleas. She contacts the police, like the Palestinians went to the UN.

1:10:14After conducting a thorough investigation, the police, they file a devastating report, like the UN filed all those devastating reports of Israel's killing sprees in Gaza. They file a devastating report, but it's left in the desk drawer to collect dust. Or in this case, it's left in my bookshelves to collect dust, all those UN reports condemning Israel. One day, as he approaches her, the battered woman decides to take matters into her own hands. She reaches for a knife and stabs him. Once, twice, thrice. He grabs his pistol and shoots her dead in self-defense.

1:11:13The wife batterer, I checked with a lot of lawyers on this, the wife batterer would more likely than not be acquitted of murder in a court of law. Legally, he had the right to kill her. But did he have the moral right to kill her? or did he forfeit the right to self-defense after decades of criminally abusing her? I think he forfeited the right.

1:11:53That's another form of historic right. I don't think he had—did he have the right to kill her? No, he did not. I don't care what the law says about self-defense. the lawyers say nine kinds out of 10 he would be acquitted i don't think he had a right to kill her yeah so thank you for explaining the the two situations and why you view the one as different from the other the other sort of digression that i wanted to go on is you said that you had a lot more to say about Joe Kent's statements. One thing that I, the thing that I find most interesting about it actually didn't have anything to do with Iran, and it's just ever since the Epstein scandal, for better or worse, for the quality of my thinking, I've been much more open-minded to conspiracies and conspiracy theories, even though, I mean, giving them that label is pretty pejorative, it sounds like to me.

1:13:02But he implied that he felt that Israel very much could have been behind Charlie Kirk's killing, which I found very interesting just to hear from somebody that's so high level. but I'd love to hear your thoughts on what he has said. Look, Joe Kent is an intersection. He himself is not interesting at all, that's for sure. He has raw physical courage, raw physical courage. I don't doubt that. There's no question in my mind about that. Last night I was reading Hitler's Mein Kampf for some things I needed to check. Hitler had a lot of raw physical courage. I'm glad you added that clarification. It's not your bedtime reading.

1:14:00Hitler had a lot of raw physical courage. Nobody ever disputed that. He actually thrived in war. The most thrilling moment in his life was when World War I begins. He is orgasmic thrilled to be in the war. you know uh so raw physical courage yes there's an element to be admired in it in particular because i don't possess it um but as you can see from where i just came there are limits to how much you can admire it there are limits to how admirable or overshadowing that quality is. So I'm not going to deny Mr. Kent his raw physical courage. Now, he says a lot of things. He has said a lot of things which are complete nonsense.

1:15:04Time doesn't allow me to go into them now. There's no evidence. And I've studied it very closely. There's no evidence that the U.S. went to war against Iraq or Israel's behest. Or that Israel tricked or duped people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, two very smart individuals with long experience in government. And they can make errors. In the case of Iraq, they made a colossal error. But tricked and duped? No. That's not in the Cheney or Rumsfeld lexicon. That doesn't happen with them. They can make errors, errors often born of hubris, but not being tricked or duped by the Israelis into believing that they were engaged in a war of national interests, which was actually a war of Israeli national interests.

1:16:11That doesn't happen. Period. Full stop. Then he made claims that Hamas was able to dominate the social media during the Gaza genocide. I know the Hamas people. I know the Hamas people. Some of them are very impressive. Don't kid yourself. Bassem Nayim, their current international representatives, I'm sure you will appreciate. he has two PhDs from Germany. I mean, these are not United, Edward, Emirate PhDs. This is Germany. Very smart guy. I once wrote to him, we were occasionally in correspondence. I said to him, you know what, Bassem Nheim, you deserve better in life. You deserve better. And for once, he was actually very candid with me in a human way.

1:17:17And he started to list, I lost my mother in the war. I mean the genocide, what's happened. I lost my son. I lost him. He lost two sons. I said, you deserve better. What do you want me to tell you? Two PhDs by a Gazan-Palestinian in Germany. Very impressive. So,

1:17:47the idea, but the idea that Hamas Tom makes, I mean, they barely know the top people. They're publications with no disrespect towards them. None, none. But they're so primitive. They're so primitive. The English is so basic. and the idea that they can make clever TikTok videos in English on the web no no no Mr. Kent you're completely out to lunch the things he's saying you know they now say they now say this group of right wing MAGA and ex-MAGA types that Israel was behind the Kennedy assassination where are you going where are you going next it's going to be Israel was behind the civil war Israel was behind the fall of the Roman Empire it's just so completely lunatic and they all believe it I mean you wouldn't believe the the degree of seriousness with which they say things like Israel was behind a candy assassination you will have noticed perhaps that these people i don't want to name them because i don't want to get into a verbal uh mudslinging pissing contest they will never except for one of them one time one of them one time none of them will let me on their programs if you think of who are those prominent podcasters, and you think through it, one of them, only one, had me on one time.

1:19:42Because I just don't see eye to eye with them on these basic issues about whether the Jews control America or things like that. so candid it's an interesting example of one aspect of what happened as you know everybody now says everybody says left right and center they say Israel manipulated Trump into this war Israel manipulated Trump into this war he was tricked by the Israelis he was seduced Everybody says that from Tom Friedman to this guy who's a person on the left, Daniel Levy, everyone.

1:20:30It's ridiculous. But there is an element of truth to it, an element. And that's when we come back to Kent. Now, this will take me a little time to explain, and we'll just end it on this. But I think it's an important point to clarify for viewers.

1:20:55Trump has been a very personalized presidency, a very eccentric presidency. uh there's no it's very hard to demarcate with trump what you might call the national interest from his personal self-aggrandizement and that's actually unusual most of the u.s presidents they did step into office with an element of seriousness they're here to serve the national interest as defined by the ruling elites. And they had agendas. Carter had his agenda. Reagan had his agenda.

1:21:55Clinton had his agenda. They had very clear agendas of what they wanted to do, not to aggrandize their ego. Of course, they had humongous ingots. You don't become president of the United States by being a wallflower. But they had a sense of purpose as the chief executive in our country. And they surround themselves with very serious people. You might not like them, but nobody would seriously doubt Hillary Clinton's competence. Competence. I'm limiting myself to competence. Nobody would seriously doubt Anthony Blinken's competence. I'm not saying moral compass, just competence, raw competence. Same thing for John Kerry, who was, I guess it was Obama's second or first.

1:22:54Hillary Clinton was the first. So maybe Kerry was, I think the second Secretary of State. And you go, I go back very far. And, you know, the secretaries of state, Carter's was Cyrus Vance. There was Henry Kissinger. You know, people who were highly confident. That was not Trump. Trump surrounded himself with a bunch of sub-mediocre yes people.

1:23:29submediocrities and they were just yes men, the great leader, the great leader, the great leader. So what did he surround himself with? Mark Rubio as Secretary of State. Mark Rubio, when he goes to the toilet, he brings along the GPS to find his anal cavity. He's not a Secretary of State. Then he has Tulsi Gabbard in intelligence, national intelligence. What she knows about national intelligence? No. Not very impressive. Jared Kushner. Jared Kushner looks like he's been on puberty blockers the last 30 years. with his porcelain vase face. Somebody has to tell Jared to get off of puberty blockers and get some facial hair.

1:24:34Witkoff. Witkoff went to Hofstra University and his only qualification is he knows the difference between an iron and a wood. he was Trump's golfing partner. And the same thing, if you look at the credentials of Joe Kent, I never even heard of the school he went to. He went to Norwich College, which is a military college. And then he split, the head of another intelligence agency.

1:25:13so Trump is smart enough at least to know that all the people he surrounded himself are stupid and they were all yes men oh great leader oh brilliant all that all that and so basically in the Trump administration there was an information void there was nobody who knew anything Trump was certain and they didn't know anything. That's why he put them there, because he wanted people who made him look good. He doesn't want anyone around him who makes him look bad. So it makes him look good. And that's where the Israelis came in.

1:26:00Benjamin Netanyahu is anything. He's a good used car salesman. And he filled the information void, and he told Trump this will be an easy win. it'll be a cakewalk. It'll be like Venezuela, you know, and Trump believed it. So I think that tipped the balance. Trump had his own reasons for going into Iran. There was an element of national interest. There was. Hey, guess what? Trump is not the first president who wanted to get rid of the Iranian regime. In case people have a historic memory that goes back beyond a week, In 2003, the whole plan was first Iraq, then Syria, then Iran. So you're telling me that when Rumsfeld and Cheney set that agenda, they were working for the Israelis?

1:26:57They saw toppling Iran as the big Megillah. But they wanted to do it one step at a time, knock out Iraq, knock out Syria, and then we knock out Iran. So when people say now this war was not in the national interest, it was all cooked up by Netanyahu. But then by that reckoning, Cheney and Rumsfeld must also have been Israeli agents. because they wanted to attack Iran. That was supposed, that was the plan. The only difference between Israel and the Americans in 2003, Israel started out saying Iran first. And the Americans, the Rumsfeld-Cheney regime, they said Iran last. but they saw attacking Iran as being in the U.S.

1:28:00national interest. Ask yourself and ask your viewers, or let your viewers ask themselves a simple question. If the Iran war, as of now, as of now, as of this moment, if it had not gone south, Let's say it turned out that it turned out to be a cakewalk. Would anybody be saying that this was Israel's war and it wasn't in the national interest? Or would they have been celebrating it as a great victory for the U.S.?

1:28:44would Trump be disclaiming responsibility for it if they won as they hoped to would they be disclaiming responsibility and say no it's all Israel's it was all Israel's idea would that be what they say your little one grew three inches overnight adorable also expensive it. Sell their pint-sized pieces on Depop and list them in minutes with no selling fees. Because somewhere, a dad refuses to pay full price for the clothes his kids will outgrow tomorrow. And he's ready to buy your son's entire wardrobe right now. Consider your future growth spurt budget secured. Start selling on Depop, where taste recognizes taste.

1:29:30Payment processing fees and boosting fees still apply. See website for details. The world moves fast. Your work day, even faster, pitching products, drafting reports, analyzing data. Microsoft 365 Copilot is your AI assistant for work built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and other Microsoft 365 apps you use, helping you quickly write, analyze, create, and summarize so you can cut through clutter and clear a path to your best work. Learn more at Microsoft.com slash M365 Copilot.

1:30:09Of course they see it in their national interest. They've always seen it, since 1979, when the U.S.-backed regime of the Shah, the Savak torture regime, when it was overthrown, they wanted to get rid of the mullahs. That's why they financed Iraq's attack on Iran that lasted eight years, because they wouldn't get rid of the Ayatollah, the mullahs, whatever you want to call them. So, I think Trump was acting in his concept of the national interest, and his concept was completely aligned with the American view all along. The difference was, Trump thought it would be easy. Now, remember, in 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld thought it would be easy.

1:31:00They were wrong. This time, I believe Trump had his own independent reasons for doing it. They were the national interests, broadly defined, broadly defined, and then there were personal aspects to it. They were positive and negative. Positive, Trump's victory with the Gaza war, his claim to having ended it, and then the UN Security Council on November 18th, 2025, few people are even aware of it. They gave Gaza to Trump. They literally, he was given the deed to Gaza. That's a fact. That's crazy. I don't even know what to make of that. Well, it's a fact. I've written on it extensively. And then there was Venezuela.

1:31:57So there's the hubris that comes with that. The sense of invincibility. So that was the positive incentive to going after Iran. And then there was the negative incentive. The debacle of Greenland, very embarrassing. I'm taking it. I'm taking it. No question about it. We're taking it. and he had to back off. And then the second big setback, you might have forgotten it already, but I'll immediately jog your memory. The second setback was Minnesota.

1:32:41They sent in all the ice and miraculously the people resisted and he had to back off. He had to take them out. huge embarrassment for him. And so now he wanted to restore his grandeur, this cross between Caesar and Napoleon. And so he wanted to go into Iran. Now, I do believe, let's say hypothetically, I do believe, I can't prove it, this is speculation, if the Israelis had told them, don't do it, don't do it. We have a lot of experience in this region. We have a lot of experience with Iran. It's not going to be a cakewalk. Don't do it. I don't think he would have done it. I don't. Because he didn't trust any of the people around him.

1:33:41They only said what he wanted them to say. So there was that informational vacuum. And if the Israelis stepped in and said, don't do it, in my opinion, purely speculative for anyone who is going to say, oh, what does he know? Yeah, it's true. But I think the Israeli intervention, Bibi Netanyahu is nothing if not a talented used car salesman. It tipped the balance. It tipped the balance in that decision. But all the claims being made that Trump was tricked, there was no more tricked than Cheney and Rumsfeld were tricked in 2003. Nobody tricks them. They could be wrong, and they were very wrong, and Trump was wrong, and the Israelis were wrong.

1:34:35But, of course, it was the U.S. national interest. There's always been a national interest in getting rid of Iran under the current leadership. Israel would like to get rid of it altogether for it to just disintegrate like Libya or Iraq. The U.S. is not there. The U.S. would prefer, as they did in Venezuela, they prefer the coherent government under our control, under our thumb. So I thought Kent was representative of the type of advisers that Trump had assembled around him. sub-mediocre to begin with yes men just saying the great leader whatever you say is right and also he didn't he himself had contempt for them Trump's smart enough not that he's smart at all but he's smart enough to know they know nothing Mark Rubio talking about global politics no no that doesn't that doesn't fly doesn't so that's where i think there is a little element that israel uh you could say played a role in instigating the war but it was not a case of it wasn't in the u.s national interest and israel fooled them no that's ridiculous kiss well norman and i mean it's great to see you it's great to talk to you it's it's probably epistemically irresponsible of me to do so much of my learning about important topics in conversations like this one with you as opposed to doing independent rigorous research but i'm immensely appreciative that you let me ask you these, what are for you, probably very simple, basic questions in front of an audience.

1:36:47So thank you so much for that too. No, after that, you asked me at the very beginning, why am I starting to speak now? Because I am concerned that I think things are being said now in chorus, uniformly across the war, no dissent. It's now become the received wisdom that this is Israel's war and that Trump was tricked. And I just think that's ridiculous. So I thought, you know, maybe it's time to say something.