Epic Disaster w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

All right, we are live with Alexander Mccuris in London and we are very honored to have with us Professor Jeffrey Saxs. Professor Saxs, thank you

Jeffrey Saxs. Professor Saxs, thank you for joining us on the Duran. I have

>> great to be with you.

>> It's a pleasure to have you with us. I

have your uh your information where you can follow Professor Saxs in the description box down below and I will also add it as a pinned comment when the live stream is over. So definitely

follow Professor Sax and everything that he is uh writing about with regards to what is happening in the world and we have a lot going on. So a quick hello to

everyone that is watching us on all of the platforms and uh thank you to our moderators in the chat. Thank you for for keeping everything running.

Alexander, Professor Saxs, let's talk about what is happening in the world.

>> Let us indeed. And who better to discuss this all of this whole situation than Professor Saxs. Professor Saxs who

Professor Saxs. Professor Saxs who understands international relations who knows the region very well who can talk to us about the economic consequences of

this war for the region and for the world. Professor Saxs, let's begin

world. Professor Saxs, let's begin straight with what is in some ways I think the single most important thing.

President Trump talks about this being in some ways a war for necessity. He

speaks about this being a war that must be fought. I find this extraordinarily

be fought. I find this extraordinarily difficult to understand. We had

negotiations ongoing. The negotiations

seem to be succeeding. The Ammani U mediators were happy. The Iranians were making concessions.

What is the moral legal foundation for for this war is the one and if there is no such foundation what conclusion can we draw?

>> Uh well good morning to both of you and everybody th this is the ultimate war of choice the the ultimate war that never

should be never had to be. This is the war of BB's choice decided 40 years ago in BB's fervent

imagination but also this is a US uh deep state war as well with everything amplified by a uh a mentally unstable

president to just put it bluntly. What

do I mean by this? Well, first of all, there was no cause of war. Iran was not threatening the United States or Israel.

Uh in fact, it was virtually begging for negotiations over the past two years uh even after

the first time of negotiations last June was interrupted by a US Israeli war. So

the Iranians wanted negotiations rather fervently and um I met twice in the past two years with President Pzkian

when he came to the United Nations. His

entire entire remarks on both occasions were about peace. uh the desire for peace, the absolute uh um insistence

that under religious doctrine under the fatwa of the late uh uh supreme leader, the one assassinated by Israel, uh they

did not want nuclear weapons. They had

already signed off against nuclear weapons. they just did not want to be

weapons. they just did not want to be attacked and overthrown the way that Israel and the United States are attempting today. So uh basically this

attempting today. So uh basically this is uh not a war that came because of any

exigency, any pressing matter. Certainly

not in any conceivable way a war that is legal under the UN charter. Article 51

allows for uh the use of force in the event of self-defense of an armed attack. Of course, there was nothing

attack. Of course, there was nothing remotely like that in the context of the Israeli US attack here. So, what is

going on? Well, the first point to

going on? Well, the first point to emphasize is that the United States and Israel never wanted a negotiated outcome

with Iran. Not last year, not this year,

with Iran. Not last year, not this year, and not during the past decade.

How do we know that? Because they had one uh when President Obama negotiated the joint comprehensive plan of action, the JCPOA

in 2015, an agreement between Iran and the P5 members of the Security Council, the US,

uh UK, France, China, Russia, plus Germany. So the P5 plus1 and then

Germany. So the P5 plus1 and then ratified immediately unanimously by the UN security council. There was an agreement

for Iran to be under strict UN supervision, the International Atomic Energy Agency to make sure that what

Iran was saying and what it was saying repeatedly for the for decades that it did not want a nuclear weapon, that its

energy program was not for a nuclear weapon, was in fact the case. Now,

important to know under the JCPOA, Iran was in strict compliance. There was

absolutely no sense in which what happened in 2018 was because of Iranian actions. What happened in 2018 is Donald

actions. What happened in 2018 is Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA.

The He said, "We're not going to be party to it. We're not going to be party to an agreement not only duly reached and being implemented but one that was

unanimously adopted by the United Nations Security Council. Why did he tear it up? Well, his uh buddy BB

Netanyahu told him to uh and um Trump uh since then and Netanyahu since then have

been in active delusion that they would simply overthrow the Iranian government, never wanting to negotiate.

I had a a very strange unpleasant interaction with the one of the US negotiators last year uh when I thought

I could be a little bit helpful to make a suggestion or two because I thought there were actual negotiations going on and I was extraordinarily rudely brushed

off and that was the last time I tried to make any informal suggestion about how to move forward. Um, and it was

clear to me from then something so weird is going on because this was before the bombing last June, but it was absolutely

clear how completely strange things were. There was no uh attempt at

were. There was no uh attempt at negotiation. Now, all of this became

negotiation. Now, all of this became clear. I I had to make one correction to

clear. I I had to make one correction to what I've been saying. I've been saying for years that Iran is

being targeted by Israel for 30 years.

And I emphasize 30 years because 30 years ago, a political doctrine of Netanyahu and his American political

adviserss called clean break was issued as Netanyahu became prime minister of Israel. So I said this is a 30year

Israel. So I said this is a 30year attempt to overthrow Iran. I stand

corrected because Netanyahu himself has made clear that even for 10 years before that when he wasn't prime minister, it

was also his dream. He's actually posted that this war is a 40-year dream. So

that means it's not exactly driven by the events at the negotiating table, whether Iran was negotiating in good faith,

whether what was happening with the Omani mediator uh was working. And of

course, we also have to appreciate that the Omani mediator said extremely clearly the negotiations are proceeding.

They were as essentially a fake a cover for a 40-year dream. Now,

having said that, let me put this in context. I'll start 30 years ago with

context. I'll start 30 years ago with clean break. Clean break is the

clean break. Clean break is the prevailing doctrine of uh the Israeli right-wing which runs the country with a

lot of broad support I should say. So

it's not the case in the United States that uh Netanyahu doesn't have support for his violence. It's more widespread in Israel.

clean break was the doctrine that said there would never be a state of Palestine and that the way to ensure that there

would never be a state of Palestine in the two-state solution would be not to

resist the militants such as Hamas that were fighting for uh a Palestinian

state, but rather to take down every government in the Middle East and I should add in Africa that supported the

Palestinian cause. uh and this actually

Palestinian cause. uh and this actually built on earlier Israeli doctrines, extreme militaristic doctrines called

the periphery uh doctrine which is side with the countries in Africa or the

Middle East that uh are non-Islamic if they can find them. So, Christian

countries or places with uh some Christian populations to fight uh the Islamic majority states and especially

those that support Palestine. So the

foreign policy of Israel has been a policy to overthrow governments in the Middle East

that support the Palestinian cause with the ultimate objective being greater Israel. Greater Israel is a an

Israel. Greater Israel is a an ideological doctrine of right-wing Zionism which says that Israel controls all of

the land of what was once Palestine under the British mandate. But for many of these zealots uh especially the

biblical literalists uh in Jewish Zionism and in Christian Zionism

much bigger in fact than mandatory Palestine. But, uh, as the US ambassador

Palestine. But, uh, as the US ambassador to Israel, uh, Mike Huckabe said a

couple of weeks ago, uh, in his interpretation of Genesis 15, Israel's rights extend from the great river of

Egypt to uh, the great river of Mesopotamia, the Euphrates. Okay, this

is all mind-boggling.

But let me come back to the main point.

The main point is that since 1996, it has been Netanyahu's political doctrine to overthrow

governments across the region that support the Palestinian cause. That's

amazingly what this is about from Israel's point of view. The reason that the US goes along with this uh has many

potential uh threads and explanations.

We can come back to that. Of course,

part of it is the Zionist lobby in the United States, no doubt. Part of it may be blackmail under the Epstein files and that kind of thing. But part of it also

is a a US doctrine of global hegemony. uh that

fits well together with the Israeli doctrine of regional hegemony. So, it's

not simply Israel telling the US what to do, but the US neocons

who are tightly linked with the right-wing Zionists uh have a

global doctrine in which Israel's uh clean break doctrine fits well that Israel will be the agent or the partner

in ensuring ing hijgemony in the Middle East as part of a US absolute doctrine to have global

hegemony. Okay. So, we're in something

hegemony. Okay. So, we're in something that's very long-term. Uh it has a couple peculiar features to it. One is

that both the leader of uh the United States and of Israel are old, very sick

men. They are mentally deranged. That's

men. They are mentally deranged. That's

not a political judgment I'm making.

It's my best guess listening to lots of psychologists and psychiatrists about the actual state of affairs. They are

both megalomaniacs and again not in a kind of political cartoon sense but I think in an actual clinical sense. They

are extreme narcissists and my view is that they're psychopaths which is also a

clinical condition meaning a lack of remorse or uh sympathy for victims and

Trump seems to display this in massive extent. So you have an

massive extent. So you have an underlying political doctrine in two countries. US global hegemony, Israeli

countries. US global hegemony, Israeli regional hegemony for the sake of greater Israel. You have two leaders who

greater Israel. You have two leaders who are old, corrupt, unhinged.

And this to my mind is uh the basic reason that we have this uh dreadful dangerous disastrous

war underway. One final point if I may

war underway. One final point if I may say it and then back to you.

The clean break doctrine has been implemented by Israel and the United States for 30 years. So this is not a hypothetical. This is the actual

hypothetical. This is the actual implementation.

And General uh Wesley Clark, who was the NATO Supreme Commander under Bill Clinton, told us after 911,

uh about the application of this doctrine when he visited the Pentagon soon after 9/11,

that's back in 2001, he was shown a document uh that said that the United States would engage in seven wars in

five years. The idea was to remake the

five years. The idea was to remake the Middle East. This was in effect the post

Middle East. This was in effect the post 911 uh application of clean break. The

seven wars were Libya, Sudan, Somalia,

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

We've had all seven wars now. Uh it

wasn't five years. We know from inside testimony that they chose as the first

of those seven in uh West Asia the attack on Iraq in uh March 2003.

They expected that to be a walkover and then they would continue on with the rest of the wars. But that one proved

not to be a walkover.

The US got bogged down in the local civil war and violence for many years and so they didn't reach uh Iran soon

afterwards as they expected. But the

fact of the matter is that all of the wars have now taken place. Libya was

overthrown uh by brazen uh regime change operation in 2011.

Sudan uh was uh destroyed by a heavily Mossadled uh and supported insurrection by South

Sudan that broke Sudan in two. Now we

have two civil wars, one in Sudan and one in South Sudan. Uh, of course Lebanon is in active destruction and

Israel is invading again uh as we speak.

Syria uh the overthrow attempt began in 2011.

noticed that Obama, our nice president, was uh leading the Libya and the Syrian wars. This is across all these

wars. This is across all these presidencies. It doesn't really matter

presidencies. It doesn't really matter exactly who's president, but the Syrian overthrow was expected to be quick. In

2011, it turned into a 14-year prot protracted deadly war uh in which hundreds of thousands of people died. Uh

but that was a CIAled operation called Operation Kimber Sycamore.

And Iran was the great prize. Iran is

something different from all the rest.

It's nearly a 100red million people.

It's a powerful country. uh anyone who has read Heroditus and I hope some people have know that uh these issues

with Iran or Persia go back uh thousands of years. This is a great civilization.

of years. This is a great civilization.

This is not Lebanon if I may say so or some post World War I construction.

And so Iran was the hard case. Uh Iran

has its own long history by the way because Britain and and the United States uh uh subverted Iran back in 1953

which was part of the long sad saga of how the Western world has uh desired to wreck Iran

throughout the 20th century. But having

said that, they couldn't quite get to Iran until now. So this is two old destabilized, mentally uh imbalanced

individuals leading two militaristic states working side by side, not one wagging the other, but both working in partnership for their respective dreams

of hegemony.

Bottom line, this has nothing to do with choice. This is pure imperialism of the

choice. This is pure imperialism of the most vulgar and dangerous kind.

Professor Saxs, thank you for that uh masterly uh masterly discussion. Now, I

have a few points of my own to make and it's part they're partly derived from what you've said here and what you said in other places because you've been

active discussing uh discussing this issue also what your friend Michael Schulenberg by the way has been saying too. And um I'd like to start briefly

too. And um I'd like to start briefly with something which has disturbed me greatly. Firstly, that if we talk about

greatly. Firstly, that if we talk about the attack on Iraq in the United States, Congress was consulted. The United Nations Security

consulted. The United Nations Security Council was was consulted. Of course,

the United Nations Security Council, its concerns were ultimately ignored, but it

was consulted. Um the UN charter makes

was consulted. Um the UN charter makes it very clear that war can only be conducted in self-defense

and um preferably with the authority in fact ultimately always with the authority of the security council itself

which is the institution created to preserve peace. Now none of this has

preserve peace. Now none of this has happened this time. There's been no attempt to consult Congress in the United States. There's been no attempt

United States. There's been no attempt to consult the Security Council. The

attack took place, as you say, in the midst of negotiations.

The other side, Iran, was making concessions. The Imani negotiators were

concessions. The Imani negotiators were talking about a further meeting in Vienna. the United States itself was

Vienna. the United States itself was giving indications that it would be going to that meeting. Um, this is

cynicism taken to the most extreme level. There was no proximate threat

level. There was no proximate threat from Iran. The president of the United

from Iran. The president of the United States had previously said many times that the attack the United States

carried out on Iran back in June had destroyed its nuclear program. Well, he

might have been overstating things, but that's what he said. Um, to me, this is not just a war of choice. That word,

that expression war of choice makes me concerned. What this was was a war of

concerned. What this was was a war of aggression. Or so it seems to me. And if

aggression. Or so it seems to me. And if

you go back to the Nuremberg hearings, which are the foundation of modern international law, it is clearly said that war of wars of aggression are the

greatest the worst form of crimes against peace.

Crimes against peace are the supreme crime from which all other crimes come.

Intern these international war crimes come and of course the

the jurists who formulated these ideas um included Joseph Jackson who was the chief prosecutor. He was a member of the

chief prosecutor. He was a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. He

wrote a letter to President Truman and President Truman came to the General Assembly of the United Nations and said, "We in the United States are going to be

forever bound by this. We accept this.

We formulated it. It applies to us to the same degree as it applies to everyone else. No one is talking about

everyone else. No one is talking about this. Where are the protests that at

this. Where are the protests that at least we had on the eve of the conflict in Iran uh a against Iraq? There was a small protest of perhaps a few thousand

people in London. Nothing comparable to the kind of protests that took place then. Is it because we've had so many

then. Is it because we've had so many wars fought for for all of these extraordinary um and I have to say what you described I mean the ultimate

strategy the strategic purpose behind this war the clean break idea concepts

of hegman. I mean, not only are these um

of hegman. I mean, not only are these um grotesque and unrealistic and inhuman

taken to the extreme, but the they underline the extent to which this is a war of aggression. I mean, wars conducted for those kind of objectives

are by definition wars of aggression.

But have we become so accustomed to these wars now that we allow these things in the west to take

place and we have given up to a degree that I find incredibly concerning and very dangerous. We've given up pushing

very dangerous. We've given up pushing back or protesting against them. Not all

of us. Yourself obviously. You've been a powerful and eloquent voice, one that many many people listen to, but I don't

get the sense of energy and opposition that I once did.

>> I want to I agree with every word you said and I want to underscore one of the words I I think you said is grotesque.

The the aims are grotesque. Uh this is Israel with around 10 million people wanting to assert control over hundreds of millions of people. Uh it's the

United States with around 340 million people uh wanting to assert control over 8.1 billion people. Nothing less than

that. So these are not only wars of

that. So these are not only wars of aggression, they are wars of blatant and brazen imperialism.

We're watching very old-fashioned imperialism.

They are reminiscent of the 19th century. The the point was it had been

century. The the point was it had been uh for the world that uh World War II

was so devastating, so uh uh horrific uh and the nuclear age

was so dangerous that this would not be allowed to happen again. Uh it's not that we haven't seen wars of aggression

before and we had brazen imperialism uh by Europe and the United States for centuries. But the idea was that we had

centuries. But the idea was that we had learned something. Uh and the preamble

learned something. Uh and the preamble of the United Nations charter says this is to end the scourge of wars that have

twice visited humanity in the 20th century. So what we are witnessing is

century. So what we are witnessing is the unlearning uh of what we had learned. We have no instincts in Europe

learned. We have no instincts in Europe or the United States uh and certainly none whatsoever in Israel which lives in

the 4th century BC by many of its leaders not or fifth century BC. It

shouldn't even be so generous as 4th century BC. I this is brazen imperialism

century BC. I this is brazen imperialism and it raises many questions of course but

for me it raises the question is there still a constitutional republic in the United States and it's a very interesting question I

think a lot about because uh we have the paradigm the paradigmatic case of the Roman Republic become becoming the Roman

Empire traditionally dated to 27 BC uh when Octavian declared himself Augustus and princes.

Uh this was the date usually given for the end of the Roman Republic.

>> But what's very interesting uh in fact is two things. One, the trappings of republicanism in Rome continued after what we now call the start of the Roman

Empire because the Senate still met.

They still wore their togas. They still

had consils and magistrates. Uh, and to someone living at that time, they might not have said, "Oh, now we're an empire.

We once were a republic." This was a continuation, not an event. And

secondly, 27 BC, the traditional date after Augustus defeats Mark Anthony and so

forth and declares himself prince was itself a gradual process that goes back throughout the first century BC with Sula Pompei, the triumvirate, Julius

Caesar, etc., etc. Okay, the point is the US has slid into empire for sure at some point.

We have the trappings of constitutional republicanism, but when it comes to foreign policy, we are not a republic.

We're not governed even by the sense of law. And when the Senate was asked

law. And when the Senate was asked itself last week, do we want to have anything to do with it? They didn't say, "Well, under article one of our constitution, it's our job to declare

war." They said, "No, no, no, no, thank

war." They said, "No, no, no, no, thank you. We don't want to get involved in

you. We don't want to get involved in this. This is something for the emperor.

this. This is something for the emperor.

This isn't something for us." So, we're already in that mode of behavior. Of

course, we've seen this for decades. The

imperial presidency has been noted for decades. When did it really uh begin?

decades. When did it really uh begin?

Well, clearly it's a postworld war II phenomenon. 1947

phenomenon. 1947 was a kind of clean break for us. This

is when the CIA was established. That

created the mechanisms for uh US post World War II imperialism.

In January 17, precisely 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was our most celebrated general, the Supreme

Commander of Allied forces in World War II, and then later the president, issued a stark warning that the military-industrial complex was

threatening the US democracy.

We used to read that as a warning about the future. I now read it as a statement

the future. I now read it as a statement of the time about the existing reality that Eisenhower was telling us we've been taken over.

And I think we need to reread that. Uh

arguably just like you could date the decisive turn of Rome in 44 uh BC with the the

murder of Julius Caesar. Arguably you

could say that the American Empire came into full force on November 22nd, 1963 with the assassination of John F.

Kennedy, which I think overwhelmingly likely was a CIA operation and was uh empirically the last time that a president stood up to the

military-industrial state. Uh so it is in my view not

state. Uh so it is in my view not shocking uh that we see these wars of choice. They've

been true all through my career. The

brazenness of this is something different. As you note, there's not even

different. As you note, there's not even an attempt at an excuse. There's not

even an attempt at any kind of process.

The American people are completely against this. Why is this? Two reasons.

against this. Why is this? Two reasons.

One, uh, we have slid into imperial behavior over decades. And so all of the real institutions of control were long

ago pushed aside. But second is the particular personality of uh Donald Trump, a dark triad personality of

megalomania, malignant narcissism and psychopathy.

This is something different. You should

not have a person like this as president. uh this is especially of

president. uh this is especially of such a powerful country this is extremely dangerous. So we have this mix

extremely dangerous. So we have this mix but the underlying reasons is the erosion of uh the most basic

constitutional checks. After all I have

constitutional checks. After all I have to point out from a jeritical point of view the UN charter is not only

something that the US subscribes to. It

is the law of the land. It is a treaty duly ratified by the United States Senate in July 1945 which under our

Constitution makes it the law of the land. But we hear little of the

land. But we hear little of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, thank

Constitution. The Supreme Court, thank God, rallied a few weeks ago and said Trump can't set the whole trade regime.

That's unconstitutional.

That was a a glimmer of light. But when

it comes to foreign policy, sadly, those same nine justices would like, I don't want to put words in their mouth, God forbid, but would likely side

with the imperial presidency. Why does

Europe have not a word about this? Well,

this is what we've been asking for years. How did Europe become a complete

years. How did Europe become a complete vassel of the United States, which it is? And um it is a little hard to

is? And um it is a little hard to understand. Partly it's the selection of

understand. Partly it's the selection of the leaders which have to go through the US approval mill or they get pushed aside easily. Partly it is simple

aside easily. Partly it is simple mechanics. If you have milit US military

mechanics. If you have milit US military bases on your soil, you are an occupied country whether you like it or not. You

have the CIA there. You have subversion.

You have US direct political uh interference. Uh you are a semiaoccupied

interference. Uh you are a semiaoccupied country. But I have to just tell you how

country. But I have to just tell you how shocking it is to hear this. I was at the UN Security Council

last week. I had been invited to testify

last week. I had been invited to testify about the war and then the UK and the US blocked me from testifying. And this is

part for the course. That's the least of it. Uh, but as I listened,

it. Uh, but as I listened, of all people, the Danish ambassador

launched in to a pirate against Iran on the day that the US and Israel attacked

Iran. She couldn't mention that Iran had

Iran. She couldn't mention that Iran had been bombed uh or that 150 school girls

had been murdered uh or that this was a violation of the UN charter unprovoked attack by Israel and the United States.

She didn't even mention that. She just

went into a tirade against Iran. This is

the one that someday will turn to the UN and say, "How can you not help us with Greenland after the United States has invaded her country?" I went up to her

afterwards to have a word. I wanted to point out that this is not safe for Denmark. She looked up from her notes,

Denmark. She looked up from her notes, looked at me, turned around, and walked away. I called after her. Could I have a

away. I called after her. Could I have a word with you? Walked away. And so this is the state of affairs in our world

today. Uh Europe is useless. We know it.

today. Uh Europe is useless. We know it.

We bemoone it every day. Useless. Not a

voice of sanity. Except for Pedro Sanchez. Let's uh champion him because

Sanchez. Let's uh champion him because he's been very brave. And President

Connelly of Ireland who knows about this. But for the rest of Europe,

this. But for the rest of Europe, nothing right now. uh on this point and

so the US and Europe don't uphold the learnings of World War II or the law of

uh the international community uh in the UN charter. We've lost the the reflexes

UN charter. We've lost the the reflexes for that. And sorry to ramble on, but in

for that. And sorry to ramble on, but in 2003, many European countries uh and I remember walking across the green with

Dominique Deipan uh who had just spoken at the UN Security Council. France

objected to the US Iraq war. Wonderful.

We don't hear a voice like that in a major European country now.

No, we don't. Let's talk about Let's talk about Iran because um my own clear sense is that there's been very little understanding of that country. There

were a lot of assumptions that this war was going to end very quickly. There's

been a universal belief among Western leaders that the government is not only unpopular but illegitimate in some way.

never exactly explained that the course of the war has come as a terrible surprise that nobody expected

that it would have dragged on in the way that it has. And you are starting to see in the media, certainly here in Britain,

what you might call the worm of doubt.

People are asking, um, is this going to go on for a long time? Is this going to turn out well? What if it doesn't? What

if we've underestimated Iran? What if

we've underestimated the strength of its institutions and its armed forces and its level of economic and social cohesion?

Well, um if they have underestimated all of those things, um that really does

argue again about their planning, their quality of planning being completely wrong because as you say, they've been

thinking about doing this for years, decades. They should have a very clear

decades. They should have a very clear understanding of Iran. And it seems that they don't. I mean, is that also your

they don't. I mean, is that also your perception? I mean, it's certainly mine

perception? I mean, it's certainly mine that they really don't understand Iran perhaps because they've fallen fallen in with these grotesque ideas of domination

of the Middle East, domination of Hegman, domination of all sorts of things. And one of the things I've

things. And one of the things I've learned in my life is that people who lose touch with reality on one thing

eventually lose touch with reality on everything. Is that what the problem is?

everything. Is that what the problem is?

I I have a general principle which I've tried to um get instated for many many years which is that the United States should not be allowed to bomb any

country when uh more than unless more than half the US population can name two cities in

that country. This would end all

that country. This would end all American wars. Uh Americans know nothing

American wars. Uh Americans know nothing about Iran and that includes our leadership. Of course, I'm being jcular.

leadership. Of course, I'm being jcular.

We should not be bombing other countries, period. But the ignorance is

countries, period. But the ignorance is beyond imagining. Donald Trump, of

beyond imagining. Donald Trump, of course, knows zero about everything.

Everything. The man is a complete total ignoramus. And that is not my testimony.

ignoramus. And that is not my testimony.

That is what I hear from leaders around the world that deal with him. He's

simple-minded. And this is also extraordinarily uh concerning. No, they don't have a

uh concerning. No, they don't have a plan. They don't have a strategy.

plan. They don't have a strategy.

They are uh relying basically on an old CIA failed ploy, which is get the US

into something and then escalate as needed. So that's not a military

needed. So that's not a military strategy. Uh if it could take us back

strategy. Uh if it could take us back again 64 years to another CIA concoction uh which was the invasion of Cuba, the

Bay of Pigs in April 1961.

They had no plan, but Allan Doulles thought once we get people on the ground and if they get under attack, uh Kennedy will have to call in air cover and we

will be in a full-fledged invasion of uh Cuba. Now the plan is we'll escalate as

Cuba. Now the plan is we'll escalate as needed. That's why Trump talks about now

needed. That's why Trump talks about now openly. Well, we're going to have to put

openly. Well, we're going to have to put soldiers in. We're going to have to put

soldiers in. We're going to have to put the boots on the ground as as it's called. I don't think this is going to

called. I don't think this is going to happen by the way because uh the United States public is so much against this at least three to one against it and it's

going to go to much longer stronger opposition very very soon as people see how completely reckless

violent boneheaded all of this is but the answer to the question is they do not have a plan Netanyahu's plan is get

the us involved. Uh the uh those who favor this have the plan that once we're involved, we'll just escalate as necessary. The whole thing is a is a

necessary. The whole thing is a is a complete concoction and debacle. And the

best evidence of that is the market judgment because that's a kind of summary of uh those who are whose money

is directly at stake. Today, oil prices have soared well above $100 a barrel by some quotes that I saw just in the few

minutes before we started up to about $120 a barrel. Oil is on the route to

doubling in price over uh this very early stretch from the pre-war price until today. It's not quite there yet,

until today. It's not quite there yet, but it's headed there. This is an economic calamity. But the point is that

economic calamity. But the point is that those who put their money down in bets and the market bet on energy is the the

cleanest and clearest of this bets is that we have a disaster unfolding.

>> Let's let's let's talk about that because um you're perhaps the best person to discuss this. $120 a barrel oil. We have a already a very difficult

oil. We have a already a very difficult economic situation in Europe altogether.

Um in Germany they've been talking about de-industrialization.

In Britain there's a strong sense of economic malaise. Um in in every western

economic malaise. Um in in every western country people's living standards are

under very very great stress. $120

a barrel oil. What is that going to do to the world economy now? Especially if

the shock continues very long and did the people who made the approximate decisions to start this now, did they

did they not realize that this might happen? I mean, it was so likely that it

happen? I mean, it was so likely that it would happen. How could they miss it?

would happen. How could they miss it?

But tell us first of all about what are the possible outcomes. And by the way before you do can I just point to people what a precian economic commentator you

are in some respects. I remember when Trump brought in the tariffs you said that the tariffs would not reduce the American trade deficit. It they did just

to say. So um given that kind of

to say. So um given that kind of exemplary track record, what are your thoughts about this?

Yeah, if I could just say on the on the tariffs very briefly, I said A, they're illegal, bl brazingly illegal. B, they

wouldn't reduce the trade deficit.

Three, they wouldn't create manufacturing jobs, which on our February report are down 100,000 jobs from last year to this year. The whole

thing is so incredibly imbecillic. Okay,

I'll put that aside on this one.

You know this is weird but my PhD dissertation 46 years ago was on oil shocks. It was

doing the first modeling of the oil shocks of 197374 and 197980

and I wrote the first book about that the economics of worldwide stagflation published in 1982. So I've been I've

been thinking about this for for decades actually. Uh the fact of the matter is

actually. Uh the fact of the matter is this is an extremely extremely serious shock to the world economy. It

is likely to be prolonged. Uh of course uh we're in the very first days so things can change but it doesn't seem

like the US is backing down. And it does seem like the energy facilities of the

Gulf region and Iran are being destroyed or heavily damaged and one country after another is shutting in its production

because you can't produce if you can't store or ship and they can doubt do neither right now. So we're seeing

soaring oil prices. We're seeing another important indicator uh the volatility of the stock market sore once again. That's

called the VIX index. That is also a predictor of a serious economic crisis.

So I believe we're entering into a worldwide economic crisis this year.

when it happened in the 1970s.

Output relative to trend, in other words, taking into account that world output has an underlying upward trend

and then comparing where things were a year after the oil shock from where they were

would have been expected to be. The

downturns in both 73,74 and 7980 were on the order of four or 5% of world output relative to trend.

Very sizable shocks, a lot of economic pain, a lot of unemployment. I think

we're heading for that right now. Um,

of course things can change. These are

early days, but at least as of the past few days, the those who really are

watching in minute detail what's being blown up, uh what production is stopping, what the chances of, uh the US

military opening the straight of Hormuz and so forth. What they're telling us is

this is a very very serious uh economic crisis lying ahead and I think that it

comes in the context of a lot of weakness uh in the US already. The uh

jobs declined in February. They've

basically been stagnant or in decline for several months. Europe is in persistent crisis in a very weak state

across Europe. So I would expect that

across Europe. So I would expect that this would mean a downturn in both the United States and Europe this year.

Trump being insane actually. Oh, so

oil prices will go up. So it's the price we have to bear.

the voters will have a different idea very soon. Uh this will be true across

very soon. Uh this will be true across uh Europe. Uh there is revulsion at the

uh Europe. Uh there is revulsion at the political class in Europe. There is

revulsion of Trump. Uh and we need to remember these are the people we see struting on the stage. They are not liked. They are not popular. They are

liked. They are not popular. They are

not following uh public opinion whatsoever.

And occasionally, rarely, but occasionally, the public gets a say in this. And the say is not going to be uh

this. And the say is not going to be uh is not going to be a happy one. Of

course, all of this depends on US ballots actually being counted in November, which is going to be another drama coming up.

We're just having an election by the way in Ben Wiltonberg in Germany and the the early reports are that the CDU has um uh

lost ground significantly and might lose the states. So anyway, we'll see. Is

the states. So anyway, we'll see. Is

there any way back? Are we is there any way out of this um mess? I mean I I have to say that the idea of sending in the

US Navy to provide escorts to tankers Yes. It's a delusion on a delusion on a

Yes. It's a delusion on a delusion on a delusion.

>> Exactly.

>> Yeah. So that's not going to happen.

>> That's not going to happen. So I mean what what can be done because the other great change in the world is that the United

States does not have the overwhelming monopoly over power that it did say 30 years ago. There are other very very big

years ago. There are other very very big players now. There's China where Donald

players now. There's China where Donald Trump is supposed to go at the end of this month. There's Russia of course.

this month. There's Russia of course.

There's India too. There's all sorts of countries. One gets the sense that none

countries. One gets the sense that none of them are happy. What what might happen? Might we actually see an

happen? Might we actually see an international movement to end this war outside the west? That would be something very new

west? That would be something very new if it were to be effective.

>> Yes. Uh there will be a world rising uh demand to end the war as the economic pain hits and that economic pain is

going to hit quite quickly uh in uh prices of course for petrol uh and diesel and in electricity costs and in

other ways. So it won't take that long

other ways. So it won't take that long for the pain to be widely felt. This is

uh one point that will cause politicians to scramble. What do we do? How do we

to scramble. What do we do? How do we survive? What do we say to our publics?

survive? What do we say to our publics?

The way that this war ends and the only way in my view that it ends is that the United States and Israel stop their war of aggression. Period. I don't think

of aggression. Period. I don't think it's going to end at the negotiating table. I don't see what the negotiations

table. I don't see what the negotiations would be about. I don't see their being a possibility of negotiating right now, but there is absolutely the possibility

that Israel and the United States stop the attack. Of course, that is a loss of

the attack. Of course, that is a loss of face. Who gives a, and I won't say it,

face. Who gives a, and I won't say it, but basically, who could care that Trump and Netanyahu lose face? Despicable

people who went against uh the the world good. Of course, they should lose face.

good. Of course, they should lose face.

They're disgraceful.

We need the fighting to stop.

>> It could stop if there is a crescendo of voices for it to stop.

That crescendo will not start in Europe because they don't even have a voice that they know

how to utilize right now. But that even that will come later. the the voices have to start with where you uh

absolutely uh indicated and that is with the BRICS countries. Uh

China and Russia of course are allies of Iran. They're supporting Iran. Uh the

Iran. They're supporting Iran. Uh the

idea that oh they're giving intelligence are you kidding? Why not? This is a also a US war directed against Russia and

China. I have no doubt about it. Uh this

China. I have no doubt about it. Uh this

is world hegemony at stake. Of course uh they are going to give material support, financial support, military support, probably not direct troops but uh a lot

of other kinds of support. Of course

that's going to happen. But

diplomatically uh what I find most interesting is uh India. India to my mind is actually the

India. India to my mind is actually the decisive factor in this right now.

Sad to say India plays two roles. One of them completely erroneous for India uh and uh and the

other very important. The erroneous role is uh uh India thinking that it will uh

replace China as America's supplier and that it will reap benefits as uh

together with the United States and Israel against well with the United States against China and Israel as a provider

of military technology and intelligence technology. So India has sidled up to

technology. So India has sidled up to the United States despite all the abuses and it hasn't really ended that Modi was

in Israel uh a few days ago for God's sake. What the heck is that? And there's

sake. What the heck is that? And there's

also well there's other considerations but that's one side. The other side is India should remember that its

colonization by the British Empire wasn't a great party. Uh it was a disaster and the same

party. Uh it was a disaster and the same with the United States to become a vassel of the United States uh to play

with the United States in the quad to suffer a calamitous energy crisis because India's completely energy import dependent from the Middle East because

of a USIsraeli war of imperialism is not what India wants. So India has the presidency of

wants. So India has the presidency of the bricks this year. If India, Russia, China Brazil

South Africa, the African Union, uh Egypt Ethiopia uh all stand up and say this is

outrageous. And if Europe,

outrageous. And if Europe, God help us, would follow Pedro Sanchez, uh and say this is not good for us. uh

>> actually the fighting will stop.

After that I think the consequences will be extremely significant.

Of course the US will have been exposed as exactly Kissinger's adage has it to be a friend of the United States is fatal. Uh

this will be proved yet again. I don't

think Israel can uh continue in this mad violent way after this. It will have created a worldwide crisis, not just a

regional crisis. I think Israel, if it

regional crisis. I think Israel, if it continues in this way, should be expelled or suspended from the UN as

South Africa was. uh it is a violent vicious uh state that either regains its

senses or is going to lose uh its hold.

Uh so this is going to be another reckoning that will come. But I think the way this war will end is the world telling the United States and Israel,

stop. It's over. You're wrecking the

stop. It's over. You're wrecking the whole world.

Professor Saxs, thank you very much.

That is that is all I wanted to ask you and I want to say thank you again for your um extremely helpful, comprehensive thorough insightful

answers. Um I don't know whether you

answers. Um I don't know whether you have I don't know whether >> now I'm going to have to run right now.

So terrific to be with you. We'll see

we'll see you soon.

Thank you.

All right, Alexander, you uh you there?

>> Yes, absolutely. Very much so.

>> Cool.

>> Okay, great discussion.

>> Always with with Professor Saxs. Always

an extraordinary discussion. I I've read his book by the way, the 1982 book that he wrote on oil prices on oil shocks. I

read it many years ago. Um I and it is not there in the library. I will try and get myself another copy just to say I think it bears I think it bears rereading.

>> Yeah. Well, we have some breaking news kind of breaking news that Bahrain's state oil company has declared force majour >> was the first one. Well, I think I think

>> their oil refinery was was was smashed yesterday or this morning. Yeah,

>> absolutely.

>> Yeah. So force mature that's going to be one of many I believe. Yes,

>> they will they will all follow. Uh the

the Saudis will be the last but all the others will uh start tumbling one after the other probably this week.

>> Trump tells us not to worry though no cause for concern. Everything is

going exactly according to plan.

>> Trust the plan. Just trust the plan.

Absolutely.

All right. Uh let's let's begin one second with uh Elsa. How's the situation for Stalmer in the UK? Trump and Blair are angry with Britain, but the Iran conflict seems to have made the Epstein

problem go away, at least at the moment.

Thanks.

>> Well, um one says this, but the British public still seem to be very, very angry with Kal. I suspect they're getting

with Kal. I suspect they're getting angrier actually. And the latest u the

angrier actually. And the latest u the latest opinion poll suggests that in the local elections in London in May, Labor is going to be uh is going to be driven

to fourth place. Now London has always been a Labor stronghold since the 1930s.

Port Labor to be pushed into fourth place in London would be absolutely existential territory. I mean, it would

existential territory. I mean, it would be it's extinction territory for the Labor Party.

>> From Russell Hall, that moment when you realize the entire strategy for starting World War II was taken from an old episode of South Park. They're coming

right for us.

>> You know, he Pete Hus actually looks like he he's walked straight out of that South Park cartoon. I mean, that's all I could say about him.

>> Yeah. Commando Crossfire says, "If I could tell the world just one thing, it would be that we're all okay and not to worry because worry is wasteful and useless in times like these."

>> That is a very very wise council.

>> Yeah. Commando Crossfire says, "I won't be made useless. I won't be idle with despair. I'll gather myself around my

despair. I'll gather myself around my faith for lights the darkness most fear."

fear." >> Very good. Haruka, thank you for that super sticker. Ela says, "Mr. Sachs, you

super sticker. Ela says, "Mr. Sachs, you said that you wouldn't vote for Trump because he wasn't a president of peace.

Even though, have you still been disappointed? Have you persevered your

disappointed? Have you persevered your idealism and optimism?

>> Well, I think I think Professor Saxs feels vindicated.

He never have thought very much of Donald Trump, and I'm afraid he's turned out to be completely right.

>> Uh, no. No. Banga says, "Is it possible war in Ukraine won't end because the West is accumulating immense training data for future wars using AI? It could

be a data harvest."

>> Well, it will end and it will end, I think, uh, much sooner now than it would otherwise have done. Perhaps even this year actually, because without the

military and technological and intelligence assistance of the United States, the war wouldn't the war cannot go on. and wouldn't have gone on anyway

go on. and wouldn't have gone on anyway for as long as it has done. Now that is all been withdrawn and as Alex pointed out, they're all panicking. The

Europeans are now getting scared about this because uh and you can read about this. I think was it Axitico? Politico

this. I think was it Axitico? Politico

had an article. Yeah, exactly.

>> They bought the weapons, but now they're afraid they paid for the weapons, they say, but now they're afraid they're not going to get them.

>> Yeah. Well, there you go.

>> Guess they can ask for their money back from Trump will give them their money back.

>> Of course he will. Absolutely. Yes, with

interest.

>> Yes, of course. Jeffrey Silver says, "Great to catch you all live during these troubling times."

>> Uh Addie Petra gifted the Dad Five memberships. Thank you for that. Valerie

memberships. Thank you for that. Valerie

of Russia says, "What's the best way to contact you two directly? Locals? I hear

Alexander often talking about emailing with viewers, but no details." Yes, you can you can write to us at editor at thejuran and uh we will respond >> or or telegram you can

>> telegram is another good place actually.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh last C3D says two seconds before World War II Jeffrey Sachs still wanted a two-state solution. He probably still wants it. That fake promise two-state

wants it. That fake promise two-state solution is part of why we're in World War II now. Get your bedroom ready for get your bedroom bedroom ready for your

cousins. Well, the two-stage solution

cousins. Well, the two-stage solution was proposed back in 1967 directly after the six day war. Uh um UN

Security Council resolution 242. Um it

has of course never been implemented.

We've never moved forward with anything remotely like its implementation. It has

been systematically sabotaged ever since. I think back in 1967

ever since. I think back in 1967 it might have formed a way towards some

kind of long-term peace agreement. Even

someone like Sergey Lavough who has been one of the strongest advocates of it is now by his own admission starting to have doubts that he's recently said that

given the realities on the ground now it might not be imple capable of being implemented at all and that by the way

is a terrible thing because without it what is the plan? What is the way forward? How can you construct a a

forward? How can you construct a a consensus in the Middle East towards peace?

>> Uh Valerie of Russia says, "I would love a video revisiting the Russian Olympic doping scandal. I'm still not sure what

doping scandal. I'm still not sure what happened there. Has your assessment

happened there. Has your assessment changed from seven years ago?"

>> No, it hasn't changed at all. Um and um I you you sound like you might have read some of the things that we were writing

about it seven years ago because there's I remember writing extensively about it um on our website at the Duran and you can you the articles that I wrote then

are still there but no yes let us indeed revisit it because it looks as if Russia is now being readmitted into the Olympic movement. So this is perhaps a good

movement. So this is perhaps a good moment to do it.

>> The Onia says, "How should we view the claim that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism?"

terrorism?" >> Well, the first this is what I would say about this. First of all, there is no

about this. First of all, there is no Middle East country, none. None. None at

all that hasn't dabbled in terrorism to a greater or lesser degree. So to say that Iran has never engaged in terrorism

whatsoever or involved itself in it I think would be wrong. To say that it has

by itself given the region doesn't tell you very much. Where I would push back strongly is against the claim that many

people including Donald Trump make which is that Iran is the biggest and most important sponsor of terrorism in the

Middle East or indeed anywhere. And I

have to say that simply doesn't seem to me to accord with the facts at all. In

terms of terrorism, Iran has been much more often the victim than the perpetrator.

From flipper zero, Trump is pure it for sure, but what if he launched this war so that the deep state doesn't facilitate

his overthrow after the midterms? It

seems like a weird endeavor to undertake purely on his own valition. Well, if

that is his thinking, then I have to say this. He's not an adequate or proper person to be president of the United States. If he is so worried that he's going to be

overthrown in November that he launches a war, then he's got to ask himself, is he putting his own private interests over the wider public interest and that

of the United States? Surely anyway the better thing to do in response to that to that possibility that he might be

challenged in that kind of way is to go out into the country as he used to do.

Talk to his supporters as he used to do.

Meet them, explain to them what the risks are and try to win them round and to get them to support him in the face

of the crisis that is to come. Trump has

retreated into this bunker in the Oval Office and the White House and he's completely lost touch with the sentiments of his base and indeed with

reality altogether.

>> Valerie of Russia says also I would love some videos discussing orthodoxy both in terms of your individual beliefs but also in regards to nefarious political meddling.

>> We have we have plans to do precisely that. Alex has been in discussion with a

that. Alex has been in discussion with a particular individual who um would assist us greatly in having precisely those sort of discussions.

Uh Sam press 1268 says China is not as strong as the Soviet Union was in protecting deterrence versus the USA.

They need to step in or else they will be isolated with Russia. The Americans

will not stop. the that China China is not the Soviet Union and it has repeatedly said that it does not intend to mimic the policies of the Soviet

Union. It looks as also what the Soviet

Union. It looks as also what the Soviet Union what became of the Soviet Union and says to itself we don't want to be there. China's primarily about its own

there. China's primarily about its own economic and social development in which it has been extraordinarily successful.

It is unrealistic to expect China to play the same kind of role in world affairs that the Soviet Union did, which

remember was a European country caught up in a cold war with the West, which was ultimately a conflict about Europe,

just to say. So you know when one shouldn't have expectations that cannot be realized.

>> Uh Upand says, "Greetings from Northeast India. I'm a doctor by profession and my

India. I'm a doctor by profession and my day always ends with Alexander's videos.

Also a great fan of Mr. Saxs and to be able to hear his masterful words is such an honor.

>> Thank you very much for those very kind words."

words." >> Francis 74, thank you for that super chat. Johan 83 says, "Alex Alexander,

chat. Johan 83 says, "Alex Alexander, Jeffrey, thank you for all the work you do. Hopefully the Wi-Fi works when I

do. Hopefully the Wi-Fi works when I check into the bush so I can keep listening to you guys for some sanity."

>> Thank you. Thank you for that. Ralph

Steiner says, "As a ruling god king or even a demigod, a modernday Achilles, will Trump lead his American Christian soldiers to victory over the Muslim infidels?"

infidels?" >> Well, they won't. I mean I again I mean these these these are danger dangerous thoughts and to repeat again we we we

had somebody talk about orthodoxy I mean orthodoxy is very very mistrustful of you know demiggods heroes amongst human

beings it says you know we're all human beings and we need to accept those conditions we should never aspire to be more more than human beings because if

we do we cease to be human beings We cease being human be beings. We become

something else and that is a terrible thing.

>> Blank blank says almost at the timeline timeline of BB's son Bobo leading.

>> Jane Bondish says 70 years born 1956 old school dropout born in New England and have so much respect for Professor Sax and Duran for telling the truth.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you for that. Magnolia Vulcan

says, "This will drag into a multi-year quagmire."

quagmire." >> I'm afraid it will.

>> Ecklas Bourne says, "Hi, Duran. What was

the shortest functioning empire?"

>> What was the shortest functioning? Yeah,

that's a very good question. I'm not

sure. I I'd have to go through history to find out.

>> Uh Stefan G61 says, "Great to see Mr. Saxs back." Ralph Steiner says, "Beware

Saxs back." Ralph Steiner says, "Beware of when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster, for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss

gazes also into you."

>> Absolutely true.

>> Uh Lisa 5156 says, "Trump speaks as if he's divinely chosen to save the world.

It sounds crazier every day. Is there a mechanism for Americans to remove him from office?"

from office?" >> Well, there is. There's impeachment.

There's the 25th amendment. These are

matters for the Americans themselves to think about and decide what they're going to do about. I I will say this after the assassination attempt, the one

that um did damage to him, the one that he escaped uh very very narrowly. I've

always felt and I've always been worried that he was indeed developing some kind of idea. people in that kind of

of idea. people in that kind of situation do that they've been chosen in some way, preserved in some way to do

some great thing and that is a I I find that a rather dangerous thing altogether and I well it it worries me that this

has completely consumed him now and is leading us to this disaster that we're seeing today. Jungle Jin says, "Zionist

seeing today. Jungle Jin says, "Zionist control of the US at its imperialism reminds one of the kind of cortisep fungal infection of insects that create

zombie hosts."

zombie hosts." >> Oh, well, Nick Maslovich, thank you for that super sticker. The man right

sticker. The man right says it will all stop if Israel lays down their arms. >> Well, they're not going to lay lay down their arms. I we shouldn't if if we're

going to look for somewhere where it will stop where the decision to stop it must be made it must be made in Washington.

>> Ross Steiner says is Oceanana now at war with Eurasia. Oceanana Oceanana Oceanana

with Eurasia. Oceanana Oceanana Oceanana is for the deed every thought is for thee. 1984 was indeed a prophetic book.

thee. 1984 was indeed a prophetic book.

>> It was in many ways not just that one.

Zabinator says, "Wonder how many US soldiers died for Israel today."

>> Who knows? Um I I I've seen many reports say that the number that they're giving, which is nine, is wrong. I am not going to second guess behind this. I find this

a difficult and impossible and disturbing thing to do.

>> Some press says, "What do the right-wing populists say about Iran? About the Iran war, Le Pen or Ban Farage? Exactly. This

is why I miss the old left in Europe.

These populist right right want hedgemony. This is why I don't trust

hedgemony. This is why I don't trust them. Don't talk about the liberals.

them. Don't talk about the liberals.

>> Well, as an old as an old leftist, as somebody who used to be part of that, I understand completely what you mean. One

of the reasons we don't have a great organized anti-war movement resisting this at this moment is precisely because that old

left of which historically once upon a time long ago I used to be a part no longer exists anymore.

>> Uh Muzzle Flash says what happened to the climate change cult.

>> Well the the Greens apparently have won in Bath and Velinberg. Don't

underestimate them. Ralph Steiner says in the book 1984, why did George Orwell emit the obvious evangelical Christian Zionist apocalyptic vision that is accompanying the real turn of events?

>> Because he had many many other very important things to discuss and that was not the most important one in that book.

I mean the book can cover everything.

>> MCH parody, thank you for that super sticker. Hafas Hafas says Iran must

sticker. Hafas Hafas says Iran must charge a toll for Hormuse.

>> Well, >> Edward Bernay says, "Is the only way for the global south to end this terrible war against Iran to abandon reliance on the petro dollar?"

>> Well, yes. And by the way, I I think President S, Professor Sax's comments about India are well said. This is a

catastrophe for India. I mean the the country that is going to be one of the countries that's going to be most

exposed by $120 oil is going to be India and India's voice has been silent. They

should be loudly calling for an end to the war.

>> Well, Modi went to Israel to get on board with the war.

>> Well, indeed, absolutely. He thought he would >> he he was another one of these people who thought it would be easy.

>> Yeah.

>> And and he he remained silent when the warship was sunk after attending a military exercise in India. In other

words, coming to India at India's invitation. There's been much criticism

invitation. There's been much criticism of of this. If he isn't careful, his entire political position in India could unravel and he's and the people who are

voting for who vote for him in their tens of millions if they see their oil the oil price the energy costs which are

for them an existential issue uh uh uh surge in the way that they are. They

could turn on him and they would be right to. Ralph Steiner says there's

right to. Ralph Steiner says there's strong movement to have Baron Trump included in any American military draft for boots on the ground in Iran. Could

Prince Harry join too?

>> Well, of course. I'm with those two. How

can we lose?

>> Nico says for the first time since one year of Trump, President Putin has condemned the entire West for both Iran and Ukraine. He returned back to his

and Ukraine. He returned back to his Biden language. Then Pescov came out and

Biden language. Then Pescov came out and said that international law doesn't apply anymore and as Putin said they should focus on themselves. Negotiations

are over.

>> I think you're right. I mean I I'm not fully up to date yet with Putin's latest words, but I think this has been a drift of discussion that really began in

Russia, not as a result of the Valdi attack even before we talked about this.

We talked about how Putin was um going increasingly out of on a limb by persisting on in the negotiations. Then

the Valdak attack came and that was an enormous moment. But now we've had this.

enormous moment. But now we've had this.

>> Sorry, go ahead. I just said the Vald how crazy that was.

>> Well, absolutely. It tells you it's exact. It's the same sort. It's the same

exact. It's the same sort. It's the same people making the same kind of decisions trying to do the the same things all again and again and again. Um and um I I

I I think this is a I think this is a moment this is this is the moment when um even Putin says enough.

Rer 76 says, "What do you think Putin will do if the war continues for a while? Will he just limit the assistance

while? Will he just limit the assistance with the intel and weapons or will he do more? What if the US is successful in

more? What if the US is successful in Iran?

>> Well, if well if the US is successful in Iran, um that will be a major problem for Russia and the brakes, but it will also be a very very s major problem for

the United States because it would then have a broken Iran. And as I think it was Colin Pal said to George W. Bush

about Iraq, you broke it, you own it. We

will have chaos in the Middle East. the

chaos will be even greater and the Russians being in the region probably would be in a better position long term to get a handle over it than the United

States would be. But of course it would be a problem >> as to what they will do if the war drags on. The Russians will gradually step up

on. The Russians will gradually step up a >> Has defined what what a win is? I mean,

he hasn't even defined any. He's Has he defined the objectives? Has he defined >> why they're even in this war? Nothing.

>> Nothing. Nothing. Well, there was an article yesterday in the Intercept. And

of course, it is the Intercept, so you know, be careful. They don't like Trump and they do they do all sorts of things, but they say that all sorts of people have been coming and speaking to them and have been telling this this is

people from within the administration.

And they said that they cannot discern any kind of strategy or plan at all.

It's all been made up from one day to the next. And I have to say to me for

the next. And I have to say to me for the moment that's how it looks.

>> That's how it looks. Yeah.

>> Mike Flyer says, "Thank you, gentlemen of the Duran sanity in chaos."

>> Ralph Steiner says, "Have you heard that Trump is building the ball room?"

Interesting. Nikico says, "Iran is handling the media optics very well. The

hatred towards the expats from the younger generation is insane after they showed them dancing.

>> Yeah.

>> Nikico says Kame's son is now the new supreme leader. Seems people like it.

supreme leader. Seems people like it.

Also, Peskan is doing what he does best, treating the injured. He was a doctor.

>> Yes, he was. Absolutely. And I mean, you know, they they are doing these things.

Now, as I said, we've replaced one Ham with another more hardline Ham who is very very angry because his father, his mother, uh um and his daughter, >> daughter of son. Yeah.

>> And son, I believe, have all been killed.

>> Yeah. Taliban for Taliban. Ham for Ham.

Yeah, >> exactly.

>> Matthew says Trump will soon declare victory and that's that. Well, he might do, but um he won't be able to get away with it this time.

>> Uh Nico says, "I spoke too soon about the ships. Sweden seized another ship.

the ships. Sweden seized another ship.

People demanding that Putin do what the US does to Europe. They are blockading Russia."

Russia." >> Well, then no. This this has been uh this has been happening for a while. All

in the middle of an energy crisis. As I

said, the Russians will deal with it.

>> They won't do anything, you said.

>> But the Russians will deal with it.

>> Ah, deal with it.

I mean they they will create their convoys. They will do all of these

convoys. They will do all of these things. Um but bear in mind in with

things. Um but bear in mind in with exploding energy prices this policy of blockading ships trying

to interfere even further with the oil is unsustainable.

>> Yeah. CSJ00001 says India's position as growing economy is different to all others. China, US, UK have all supported

others. China, US, UK have all supported Pac Pakistan apart from Israel. They

forgot the pressure we withtood for Russia and now with one meeting, we are vassal state.

>> Well, I I I know I I I understand all of this, but again, I think that on this particular issue that we're talking about now, India has not been has not

been wise. I'm not suggesting India is a

been wise. I'm not suggesting India is a vassal state. I'm saying that India has

vassal state. I'm saying that India has made mistakes in its handling of this particular affair.

>> India India should have been a strong advocate before the war of the negotiations and it should be leading

the calls now for an end to the fighting and ultimately for a return to negotiations >> and Modi should have issued some sort of statement about the ship.

>> Absolutely. Absolutely.

Zariel says, "Empire of China 1915 16 by Yaden Shikai." You're welcome.

Yaden Shikai." You're welcome.

>> Thank you for that. Zariel Usuzar 76 says, "Do you think that Russia is going is going this slow in Ukraine because of Putin? This war is about diplomacy and

Putin? This war is about diplomacy and not territory that ultimately he gets an agreement with the US or will he just take Ukraine?" Well, Stanislav Kapugnik,

take Ukraine?" Well, Stanislav Kapugnik, who we've spoken to many times, says that the sentiment in the military is that they would like to move faster and

they've been held back by restraints from the um um political leadership in

Moscow. And I I think that there's been

Moscow. And I I think that there's been certainly up to now a sense in Moscow

that taking this thing reasonably slow um actually worked overall to Russia's diplomatic advantage. It kept the other

diplomatic advantage. It kept the other brick states happy and it did perhaps provide a for a possibility of some sort

of long-term agreement with the United States. I think as of now none of that

States. I think as of now none of that applies any longer. So we might start to see things move more quickly. But I'm

also going to say something um about the way in which the war has been conducted.

I think it also reflects the style of the Russian general staff which is running this war which tends to be very

systematic and very long-term looking for a complete and decisive long-term permanent victory.

>> Nico says it's not just the ship seizures seizures that need to stop. The

Russian air defense in the south is depleted. Belgod and Kranodar can't take

depleted. Belgod and Kranodar can't take anymore.

>> I think that is a a huge overstatement.

I've not seen anybody suggest this.

Well, maybe one or two bloggers have done, but overall, and I get to repeat what I've said, the drone attacks that

the R Ukrainians have conducted have had only a peripheral a minimal impact on Russia itself. The hockey goalie says,

Russia itself. The hockey goalie says, "Is Iran's willingness to directly strike US engulf putting pressure on Putin to be more directed in Ukraine, a

weaker nation, calling the West's bluff?"

bluff?" >> Well, I I think there is some element of this. I mean, um, Lavough gave a very

this. I mean, um, Lavough gave a very interesting u summary in which he he was saying that yes, there's been an awful lot of opposition to uh the whole

diplomatic inter dialogue with the Americans. He finally

admitted that there have been many people in Russia who have been very very critical of this process and he spoke about it rather defensively and he said look we did come to an agreement with

the Americans in Anchorage and we're going to stick by that. Um the Americans so far have not been but we're not making any concessions any concessions

beyond it and that the um good feelings that had briefly existed in Anchorage have completely dissipated. Now he'd

clearly been in discussion with Putin.

It was very carefully worded language, but it was constructed, I think, to signal that

we tried it. We went as far as we could.

This is where basically it ends.

Nico says, "The main problem with the West is unprecedented arrogance, and it's showcased in the media. How dare

they lecture Russia and Iran about civilians?" Arrogance is off the scale.

civilians?" Arrogance is off the scale.

Y you're completely right about that.

>> Uh Leoang, thank you for that super sticker. Monty says, "What with the left

sticker. Monty says, "What with the left in Britain and politics in general beyond the protest vote for the Greens?

I can't imagine people being very impressed with the Greens beyond the wheel." Well, I think that I think

wheel." Well, I think that I think myself that if the Greens ever get hold of the wheel, they will lose support very quickly because to be frank, I I I

think their um program, if one could call it that, is a fantastic one. Just

to say, >> Gio Stone says, "History is being made of China being a superpower."

Joker 84D says, "The US needs a new party. Hard anti-imperial, anti-ionist,

party. Hard anti-imperial, anti-ionist, domestic focused, anti-war.

There's good people on the left and right. It's about corrupt elites and

right. It's about corrupt elites and globalists and the people, not the left and the right. Trying to create such a party in the US is almost impossible in

my experience. I've seen it. I've seen

my experience. I've seen it. I've seen

the attempts made many many times and they never quite succeed. Besides, I

mean, you have the libertarians.

They're already saying many of these things.

Yeah. Nikico says, "As an aspiring nuclear physicist, I must talk about the environmental contamination. Acid rain

environmental contamination. Acid rain is falling in Tran. Satellites show

Busher is damaged."

>> Yes.

Uh Sam Pers says, "Russia will not just take the whole of Ukraine. When Ukraine

really runs out of money, weapons, then Ukraine will come to the table and Russia will get the four regions and parts of Kharkov and sumi." Very clear to me.

>> Quite possibly.

>> User says, "What is your opinion the worst case scenario that could happen with the USIrael Iran war?" And the best case, >> the worst case scenario is that we have

a kind of collapse in Iran and uh enormous waves of chaos across the Middle East and enormous refugee flows in Europe and the spread of violence

across the Middle East and I mean that would be that would be an appalling disaster. Um the optimal outcome which

disaster. Um the optimal outcome which isn't going to happen is that there is a session of hostilities.

I think that's a better word, by the way, than a ceasefire. A sessation of hostilities. It means finally the idea

hostilities. It means finally the idea of war taken off the table and a return to long-term constructive negotiations, >> but that's not going to happen.

>> Nuclear war is also a very >> well that that is maybe that's true. I

mean, nuclear war cannot be cannot be ruled out in this. I think we are I think of all of the various conflicts

that have been fought since Vietnam when there was serious thought given to using nuclear weapons. By the way, um this is

nuclear weapons. By the way, um this is the one that that possibility is is is closest.

>> Ralph Steiner says Trump's closest adviser and the leader of the USA, BB Netanyahu, would like to deal with Turkey as well in this conflict. Will

this be? Well, I mean, we talked about this with Professor Saxs. I mean,

grotesque ambitions. I mean, you you go after Iran, you then go after Turkey as well. I mean, this is this is I mean,

well. I mean, this is this is I mean, this isn't folly. It's outright madness.

Um, murmur murmur Mike Mike Murmer Mike Mike who at the UN is even considering Israel suspension or

expulsion as pref as professor sax suggests. Hexath does look like a South

suggests. Hexath does look like a South Park character.

>> Yes. Well, so far nobody nobody does.

Nobody is. But then the effect of this crisis is going to change the politics of the

Middle East. Um the the one of the

Middle East. Um the the one of the reasons why I pressure of that kind on to you know to um suspend Israel for

example has never been there is because the Arab Gulf states have always opposed it. Now of course they are in crisis. um

it. Now of course they are in crisis. um

if the crisis continues, they're going to start to lose their diplomatic traction anyway.

>> Uh Usuzer 76 says, "Thank you. Always a

pleasure to listen to you >> for that." Uh Salim Mullia says, "What's next for Palestine?"

Well, um I'm afraid a continuation and a prolification of the existing crisis which has been a crisis ever since I I

you know I can remember um of course if this war develops in a particular way then of

course that might lead to openings which could be used to improve the situation but we are very far from that void. Now,

>> uh, Little Faler 187 says, "What would the US do if China decided now is a good time to take Taiwan?"

>> Well, what indeed?

I I I think the US has no plan for that, by the way.

>> Does China have a plan for that?

>> Well, that's a good question. I don't

think they do as it happens.

Uh Nikki Ball says, "Can nuclear facilities at Deona be destroyed or encaps or incapacitated without causing nuclear fallout?"

nuclear fallout?" >> I don't know. Um that is the I don't know what the uh design of Deona is

like, what the fail safes there are. I I

I I am not able to answer those questions and I doubt that many people can by the way. I mean I don't know to what extent Demona has been hardened. My

guess and it's purely a guess is not very much because I don't think Israel or the United States have ever given any

forethought any ever contemplated this possibility.

>> Josie Real says Julius Caesar and Octavian Augustus had popular support from the people unlike Trump.

>> Indeed they did very very much so. And

by the way, going back to uh some of the things that um uh Professor Saxs was saying about the transition in Rome from republic to empire um just to

demonstrate the cynicism of the time. Of

course, what Caesar Augustus always said he was doing was restoring the republic.

That was his uh that was his program.

>> All right. There's a very good book about all of this, by the way, just to quickly say, by a man called Ronald Sin, written before the Second World War called the Roman Revolution. If you want

to read about the whole history here and how it happened, it's probably still the best place.

>> All right, we will uh end the live stream there. Thank you to Professor Sax

stream there. Thank you to Professor Sax for joining us. Thank you to everyone that watched us on this live stream and thank you to our moderators.

Take care everybody.