6/16/26: Trump Slams Bibi Over Lebanon Attacks, Ben Shapiro Meltdown Over Iran Deal, Bari Weiss Vs Trita Parsi

This is an I Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. Good morning everybody, happy Tuesday. I have an amazing show for everybody today. What do you have for us? Indeed, we do a lot of updates for you about what we know with regard to the Iran deal, Trump making some interesting comments today about how Syria should actually be in charge of taking care of Hezbollah, not Israel, Netanyahu resisting, pulling out of Lebanon, so a lot to get to there. Trisha Parsi is gonna join us to break down his understanding of the deal and how it came together and also the deportation threats against him, which have been quite significant. We also are gonna take a look at some new AI stories, Anthropics Dario Amade with some very terrifying and eyebrow-raising comments. Also a major walkout from another graduation ceremony. This one, the CEO of Google was speaking. So that is quite a significant development there. We're taking a look also at the oil markets. Let's say that the deal signing happens this Friday, that they in 60 days even are able to come to some sort of agreement. Obviously a lot of these things have, you know, a lot of question marks around them, but even given the best case scenario, how long will it take for the oil markets to get back to normal? We've got some numbers and some data there to show you. We're also taking a look at the polls this morning and a very interesting clip of a MAGA grandma who says that the Trump economy is giving her literal panic attacks. So a lot to get to this morning and for the premium subscribers, we will also have the AMA live after we record the show. That's right. If you wanna watch it, breakingpoint.com, you can sign up and become a premium subscriber today. Everybody who's been supporting the show, thank you. We had a huge day yesterday actually. So seriously, thank you to all of these viewers. Many of the new viewers who are here, go ahead and check out our premium service. If you're just watching us on YouTube, please hit subscribe to our YouTube channel. If you're listening to the podcast, share an episode with a friend. But let's go ahead and start with Iran. So right now, what we are seeing is extraordinary new comments from President Trump, who is abroad attending the G7. There's a lot of different bilateral meetings. One was with Zelinsky. This one was with the Emir of Qatar, where he appears to say, and to shunt Israel under the bus in Lebanon, though of course, Bibi Netanyahu is resisting. We'll show you that here in just a little bit. But here are his comments where he says that if Israel can't handle Hezbollah, maybe Al-Qaeda in Syria can. Let's take a listen. Syria, you know, he's pulled that country together amazingly quickly. He's very capable. And he's been very good for me. He's protected everything that I've asked for. He's done. And if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, he'll do the job. Syria will do the job. He'll do the job. Syria will do the job. So we're gonna ask Al-Qaeda to take on Hezbollah. Interesting. Let's go to the next one. This is from Trey Yanks. He compiled all of Trump's comments throughout the day here on Israel and Hezbollah. He says, Israel is fighting Hezbollah too long. Too many people are being killed. You don't have to knock down an apartment house every time you're looking for somebody. There are a lot of people in those apartment houses. They're not all Hezbollah. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah. On Israel striking Hezbollah in Beirut, I did not like that. I let them know that. Says the attack was quote too much. If Israel can't do the job, he'll do the job. Syria will do the job. BB has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon. I am not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves in Lebanon and Hezbollah. Israel would have blown up a long time ago had I not gotten involved. So that is interesting to say the least. And remember Hezbollah and Lebanon remain the keystone to this entire thing. The Iranians say it's in the memorandum of understanding. The Trump administration briefed a bunch of reporters yesterday. They say it's not in the memorandum of understanding. And yet there is still full scale freak out because we have no idea what's in that memorandum of understanding. It hasn't been released according to the vice president. It is quote a page and a half. The JCPOA for reference was I think 159 pages after it was released. But what we do know is that many of the key details, which we brought you all yesterday, which were reported by the Iranian side about what's in it for them, including a $300 billion reconstruction fund, do now appear to be confirmed by the vice president who was on television yesterday. Let's take a listen. The Iranians are saying that they're going to have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund. True or false? Well, that's the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf Coast Coalition, so long as they honor their end of the obligation. I think that one of the things you're going to see at, and people have to be skeptical of this, is that the hardliners in the Iranian system will overemphasize the benefits that Iran gets, while under-emphasizing all the things that they have to concede and all the things they have to provide in order to get these benefits. So we absolutely are open to the Gulf Coast countries investing in the reconstruction of Iran. But only if Iran ends their nuclear program, ends their enriched stockpile of material, and is really open to an inspection and enforcement regime that gives the American people confidence they're never going to have a nuclear weapon. So I think the dance you're going to see, Ed, which is going to be interesting, is the Iranian media, especially the hardline media, they're going to talk a lot about what they get without talking about what they give. It's important for all of us to correct that record. Correcting the record by confirming that the report is true. Listen, you spend it however you need. I don't care. $300 billion around what we destroyed in the country. The bottom line is no sanctions, and you allow the money to flow, whether it's from America or a mysterious bank in Switzerland. Who was laying that out yesterday on the show about these Swiss banks that Qatar controls, but doesn't really control and will transfer it? I don't give a shit which way you do it. But the clear, honest truth is that when you lose a war, yeah, sometimes you got to pay the piper, and that's the truth. And the Israeli lobby in Washington is losing it over this. They should. Guess what? Iran's entire GDP in 2024 was $456 billion. So this is $300 billion in reconstruction funds, in addition to sanctions relief, in addition to requiring like intra-gulf investment and basically de facto normalization of all of these countries' relations with Iran. And on top of that, for nuclear enrichment, that remains the biggest sticking point. And don't get me wrong, there's still going to be a ton of fights to be had in interim 60 days. But to have that on the table for Iran, I understand now why they took the deal. Yeah, I mean, they demanded genuine, like they demanded full-on reparations. We all thought that was a joke. It's not. It's now been confirmed here by the vice president. But this is the reality. This is the reality we have to grapple with. I'm fine with it. We should never have been here in the first place. Israel War lobby, you got what you deserve. I don't know what else to say. And not only those one-time funds and sanctions relief, obviously, but also an income in perpetuity, or not a toll, but a fee to transit the straight-and-form moves is what looks like is going to be contemplated here. Going back to the piece about Lebanon and Israel and how central this is and these disputed characterizations of what is in the memo of understanding, et cetera. Amwaj Media says that they got their hands on the first page of the memo of understanding. And Ryan tweeted the sound paragraph one of the MOU, according to Amwaj Media, says Iran and the US, quote, and their allies in the current war, obviously, that would include Israel, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other in ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. So perhaps that language is where there could be, I look at that and I say, OK, that means you have to withdraw from Lebanon. But perhaps the Israelis look at that and say, well, we can ensure the territorial integrity, but still keep our troops occupying on the ground in Lebanon. In any case, paragraph one is further described as elaborating how, quote, the final deal, the comprehensive agreement envisioned to be signed within 60 days of the initiation of talks on June 19th will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph. And previously, when the initial ceasefire, which led to a decline in hostilities between all of the various parties, remember there was that whole flak about, OK, was Lebanon included or not? The Iranians and then the Pakistanis confirmed no Lebanon was in the deal and always contemplated Iran has made it incredibly clear and has backed that up with attacks directly on Israel, which was the first, because they continue to attack within Lebanon. So this is truly, truly a key point. The other piece before we get to some of Netanyahu's comments here, because he is politically in a very difficult place domestically. He was very unpopular before October 7th. He has forestalled any sort of reckoning with how October 7th unfolded and what problems he may have created in the government that enabled the attacks on that day. In any case, he's got his major corruption trial that keeps getting pushed off as long as he continues to fight new wars. He is facing significant opponents and may actually lose his slot as prime minister. Those supposedly more moderate opponents are all hitting him from the right on not being hardline enough with regard to Iran. And given where the public is in Israel, those attacks have some purchase within Israeli society. But in any case, putting him aside for a moment, the other dynamic here that's very interesting, Sager, is that JD Vance has clearly been put out as the face of this deal. And I think he wants to be the face of this deal. He wants to sell it to the public. He wants to be associated with helping to bring this thing to a close. But it has also made it so that he has become really the target of attacks from neocons who are too scared to directly attack Trump, of course. And so it's all, oh, it's JD Vance's fault. Give me a break. We know in the negotiations in Islamabad, JD Vance was stripped of any authority. He kept having to call Trump and reportedly Netanyahu as well, getting up from the table to chat, oh, what about this? What about that? Had very little authority. I mean, this comes directly from Trump, because of course it does. He is the one who has to, at the end of the day, say yes, we're going forward with this deal. But they see him as too powerful a figure. They don't want to go directly against him. So instead, they're attacking JD Vance, which creates an interesting political activity. I was just ranting to you this morning. These people are the most pathetic cowards. They spent three months telling us, oh, nobody controls Trump. He's uncontrollable. He's independent. And he's so wise. And he's the one who took us to the war with Iran. And you are a disloyal to attack him and to say he's controlled. Now, whenever it's time to be doing a deal after the disastrous war you motherfuckers dragged us into, now it's like, oh my God, he's controlled by his vice president. And no way, he's going on Megan Kelly's show. What a disaster. I mean, they are such pathetic cowards. And now they want the deal to have to go through Congress. Whereas when going to war, Trump could do that on his own. But we want peace. You gotta have everybody sign off on it. Outrage yesterday. John Thune has not been briefed on the memorandum on Senate. Oh my God. Nobody briefed him on the decision to go to war. All right? All right, so you don't know. If we can go to war without you, then we can get into peace without you, bitch. I mean, I'm sorry. I apologize for you. So worked up about this, but it's like living in an alternative reality, where all of these people for three months have just been licking Trump's feet. And guess what? Whenever Trump attacked Iran, it was very important. I mean, you can go back and look at the record that I blamed Trump. And when I went on Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly's show, you know, when we were talking about the whole Israel, and I was like, no guys, like, look, yes, Israel. This is Trump. So this time around, they can't do that because they're afraid, they're cowards, and they wanna retain some level of influence. Now they gotta attack JD Van. And by the way, the reason I'm spending so much time on this, this is Israel Lobby Playbook 101. They are the nastiest, most pathetic, you know, they are the nastiest, they have no scruples. They will do anything to defeat this deal. Anything. And you know, 300 billion, this is existential. Because by the way, five years from now, who's gonna have a larger GDP? Iran or Israel? Yes. And if we have full scale normalization of relations, who's gonna be maybe more important to the United States? Maybe good relations with the country that controls the Straits of Hormuz and is exporting all this oil or this little startup nation, which just can't stop bombing all of its neighbors and causing all kinds of problems is basically a leech on the United States. Which one of those two countries is gonna be more important? They are going to do everything. And I mean, do not put anything off the table. Israel, the way that they operate now and their entire conception is that we cannot allow any nation in our region to rival us. Period. And that nation doesn't even have to have direct animosity or be saying that Israel's the great saint or the little saint or whatever. They just want to make sure that there cannot be even the theoretical possibility of any threat. But they are too small of a nation to be able to pull that off on their own. So they require dependence on the US to back up that posture. And so if you have an Iran that is economically strong, that has clearly demonstrated military capability and also geo-strategic dominance in the region, that is an unacceptable state of affairs for Israel as they have currently postured themselves and the expectations that the entire population has. I mean, this is not some fringe view. This is like pretty much unanimously the view in Israel is that they have to make sure there is no even theoretical possibility of any nation that can threaten them. So if this deal goes through, they are going to have to almost like rebuild their entire self-conception. They're going to have to rebuild their entire approach to the region. I think that will create a much more stable region if you don't have this rogue super power backed nuclear arms state that's constantly going around and bombing their neighbors with absolute no accountability whatsoever for the crimes that they commit. But in that way, it is existential for Israel. It's existential in the way that Israel has been conducting themselves for years and years at this point. So that's why there's a freegant. Let's go ahead and put A2 up on the screen here. This is Netanyahu speaking to the nation again. Remember, he is under a very strong political pressure from the supposed moderates, although they are not moderate in any real sense of the word and have been pushing him from the right to be more hawkish, more aggressive. So what he says on Lebanon is we created a buffer zone, a security zone, and we will remain there as long as necessary. Iran wanted us to withdraw from there. That did not happen. Do you know why it did not happen among other reasons? Because I stood very, very firmly. I was resolute on this matter. And I think our American friends respect that determination and that steadfastness. So he's saying we aren't withdrawing from Lebanon. We've created what he describes as a buffer zone, otherwise known as an illegal occupation, something the Israelis know quite a lot about. But there, he's signaling that he is not willing to withdraw from Lebanon. And so you've got some good language coming from Trump saying, hey, Israel needs to be done here. Maybe Syria should get involved instead. I don't know what's going on with that one. But will Trump actually take the actions that are required to reign Israel in? We've seen some tough words, allegedly, from Biden in the past and on the record now from Trump in public currently. But is he going to be willing to actually cut them off, to actually say, well, no, we're not doing this? Because if he did that, it would be very simple to compel Israel to do what we want them to do. We have incredible leverage over them. But that's the part that we've never seen, either from Trump or certainly from Biden, is the willingness to take actions and not just rhetorically express some frustration. This is where, look, if you're a betting man, which side would you take? I don't advocate bets if it were on Cal-Chi. Which way would you put your money? I can lay out this. Trump seems very frustrated, desperately wants a deal. You've got JD out there. I haven't heard from Pete Hegseth, or I won't give him one of the nicknames, Pete Hegseth and or Marco Rubio in a while. These are good things. So people have been sidelined. Things can change literally at any moment. What needs to happen in the interim, and I hate doing this, because I don't usually play the inside game. But right now, what needs to happen is that these Mark Levin type characters and others need to be branded as disloyal and anti-Trump. That's really what the internal game and all of that needs to play out us. In addition, though, what you need to see is that Bebe has to continue to fight for his domestic political ends, which is increasingly going to put him directly at odds with Trump. Because Trump reportedly is now very unpopular inside of Israel, because the Israelis are furious that anybody would tell them no for the first time in their lives. Now again, if I were to bet, I would definitely not bet against them. I think the next 65 days genuinely will be insane. And on Lebanon especially, like for example, everything's gonna be more clear. Let's put A6 here on the screen. Here you have the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson who says explicitly, the Iranian claim that the Israeli strike on Beirut backfired and that Lebanon is explicitly referenced three times in the memorandum of understanding, including provisions, territorial sovereignty, territorial integrity, and ending the war. You just showed, Bebe said, I'm not gonna do that. And in fact, put A7 up here on the screen. Netanyahu has explicitly said, we will not just remain in Lebanon. We will remain in Gaza and Syria after the US-Iran deal is signed. I also love, everyone just implicitly sits and says, oh yeah, Israel currently occupies, as we remember, I cover it at the time. They just annexed a part of Syria and nobody said a word here in Washington. They have de facto annexed Lebanon. Nobody says a word, but we do know. And this is where, look, maybe this is me living in a fantasy land. If we just pull aid from them, if we just do that, that all collapses in a day. They cannot defend themselves. Look at them, we have to shoot down all their missiles. I love reading the Israeli press, front page, haredim, riot, overdraft, their own people don't even wanna fight. And it's like, look at them. They're actually a weak society, especially whenever it comes to their ability to fight. Even in Lebanon, I mean, come on. This whole occupation and everything, the way that it has gone, it's been a disaster, actually, for the IDF. And the IDF general, chief of staff, is the person saying that, not even me, who is arguing about, oh, it's putting all this strain on the military and then Gaza, we all know how they comport themselves there. If it weren't for bombs, I mean, come on, their ground forces did terribly, actually, whenever it came to fighting. So they cannot sustain any of this without the full force backing of the United States of America. But this is where I have to give the caution. Let's put AA up here on the screen. I took very, very close notice of this, and I wanna highlight it for everybody. The CIA director here, John Ratcliffe, quote, told Trump and other senior officials, intelligence gathered by the US raised serious doubts about Iran's willingness to make nuclear concessions as the US is seeking a final deal. You are going to see perhaps the greatest deep state leak operation of all time, maybe only similarly comparable to what happened when Obama tried to withdraw from Afghanistan back in 2009. According, by the way, even to Barack Ravid, the CIA director Ratcliffe is here, quote, casting doubt as an intelligence analyst. You have Marco Rubio and Pete Hegset who are opposed to the deal. I would generally not bet against the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense here, who both control vast resources, allies, they can create things and do things as they want. They have control of these intelligence agencies of diplomatic memos, of cables. Remember, Rubio is also not just the Secretary of State, he's also the national security advisor. So he runs the policy shop out of a White House. They can very easily manipulate these things. They also have a vast leak apparatus from the New York Times and Barack Ravid and all of these others. Stenographers will write anything, right? And so you can give them whatever you need. All of this intelligence and other things will all be laundered through the neoconservative press and be used explicitly as a way to attack, attack, attack and to shape the decision matrix so that every night on Fox News it will be a drum beat about how Trump is doing the wrong thing. Can he sustain that? Obviously no, we watched what happened. And so that's my last caution is the 300, like the contours of the deal as of right now actually look like something that could work. But let's be real, this is a full on existential threat to Israel as we know it. And to their entire lobby here in Washington and I would never bet against these people. The Ratcliffe thing, when I saw that, I was like, here we go. Like this is day one, now imagine day 35, like the New York Times stories about all the warnings from Hegseth. And by the way, they're all starting to start being real honest now. For a hundred days we heard Iran's military has been decimated. Now you're all actually gonna get the truth because they're gonna use it as a pretext for why we shouldn't do the deal. Well, we're gonna get the real figures on the ballistic missiles. We're gonna get, I just saw my first segment on Fox News yesterday. Actually Iran's military hasn't been decimated first time they've said it in a hundred days. So you're actually gonna get the truth about Iran's military and its ballistic missile program and maybe even its nuclear enrichment and all that. Listen, I don't care about any of that but they're gonna use it as a pretext. So I'm just setting the space that the next, third, 60 days it's gonna be wild. Just like how we went from after the 12 day war, like oh, their nuclear program's totally decimated to, well, actually, no, it's not. And now we need to go to war to make sure that they can not produce nuclear weapons. Just wait, it's gonna be something. But it'll be fun to cover it all with you. Okay, we have Treeta Parsi standing by. Let's get to it. Very excited now to be joined by our great friend Treeta Parsi who has found himself under attack by the despicable Barry Weiss. Let's start with B-Zero up here on the screen. I do wanna draw this to everyone's attention. Dr. Parsi has found himself attacked by the Free Press who allegedly reported that he was being considered for deportation. So Dropsite, Breaking Points, and the American conservative have all started this petition to stand with Treeta Parsi against deportation. There'll be a link down in the description and we encourage you to add your name to this petition to show the United States government. How many American citizens stand here with our friend. But we are gonna start, first of all, for his great analysis of the situation and of this war. And let's put A-Zero B up here on the screen. Sir, you give us some comments here about Trump's latest musings on Hezbollah. So here he says, Israel is fighting Hezbollah too long. Too many people are being killed. You don't have to knock down an apartment house every time you're looking for somebody. There are a lot of people in those apartment houses. They're not all Hezbollah. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah and quote, I did not like that Israel striking Beirut. I let them know that. What do you make of these kind of musings here on Israel and Hezbollah, which remains one of the key problems for Trump in actually attaining this ceasefire? Well, Trump is pushing back against Israelis trying to sabotage his deal. And he's doing so not simply by saying, hey, don't sabotage my deal. He's going after specific methods that the Israelis are using to build up opinion against Israel. He's criticizing them for the massive amount of collateral damage that they're totally fine with inflicting. Whereas the US itself follows different rules. And it was under the Biden administration that the United States just lifted all restrictions on Israel. They could do whatever they wanted. And of course, Trump continued that for a while, but he's hinting here now that he's going to restrict that by saying that you don't have to kill and take down entire apartment building. The Israelis attacked Lebanon just hours before the electronic signing knowing very well that that was an Iranian red line and also an implicit American red line. It was a clear attempt by them to sabotage this. And I think that, you know, their hands is shown now. And I think the glasses are off. The Trump administration is clearly seeing what the Israelis are intending to do when the only way to prevent them from doing so is not just these comments. I think they're helpful. It's not just these angry phone calls, although I'm pleased to hear about them. They have to make it very clear. The United States is not going to go into a war that Israel starts against America's wishes because the incentive for the Israelis is that they believe that by starting these wars, they can drag the US into it. If you can make it absolutely clear that will not work, it will also disincentivize the Israelis from going down that path because there's no value for them doing so if they can't get the United States to get dragged in. So this has to be done not just orally, but also make it clear militarily. We're not going to be there for you. Yeah. I'm looking at times of Israel headline right now. It says, a mid-US-Iran deal, IDF says, Hezbollah continues attacking troops in South Lebanon. We've already had at least one IDF drone strike within Lebanon. How much do you think that Iran will tolerate of this? Well, it depends between when we are talking about it. Will they tolerate it right now? Probably. Will they tolerate it after Friday? Probably not. And they will not tolerate even though at this point it is Beirut that is the red line. I suspect that from the signing or at least shortly thereafter, it will be all of Lebanon. And then they're going to be very adamant about this because if they allow for some strikes in Southern Lebanon, well, then eventually the Israelis are going to push forward and push forward and push forward. So I think there's going to be a very firm line there. At least that's what they're going to have to do if they want to keep this together. But at the same time, it's very much also relies on them holding back Hezbollah. And Hezbollah will not be held back if the Israelis are still inside of Lebanon. Hezbollah will not tolerate that the Israelis are occupying parts of Lebanon because otherwise this agreement, the ceasefire, it can end up cementing an Israeli occupation of Lebanon. So I think the US is also going to have to push the Israelis very hard to get out of Lebanon in order to make sure that that front does not jeopardize the much more important front from the Trump administration's perspective, which is to end this war with Iran. Yeah, sir, I do want, you know, one of the warnings I gave before we were interviewing you is just about the sheer force of the Israel lobby and what they are about to bring down on the head of Donald Trump. You lived through the original Israel lobby attacks and ongoing from Barry Weiss herself. But what we are watching here with Ben Shapiro and others is a serious, serious threat that I don't want to diminish in any way to Donald Trump and really to the entire country. Let's take a listen here to a preview of what we're going to be hearing now for the next 60 days. Let's take a listen to Shapiro. Israel is going to have to respond to terrorism across its border, as we'll see if the United States is going to suddenly become an advocate for the idea that Israel can't defend itself. Then this is a giant L for the United States and suddenly there's no difference between Israel defending itself and Hezbollah firing missiles and rockets at Israelis in Israeli territory. Okay, this is the problem. If you keep sending the signal to a terror-backing regime that chants death to America, that you want to deal with them so badly that you're going to tell our allies in the region to stand down, you are giving them an enormous amount of forward momentum. And that is a huge mistake. Huge mistake and a giant L here for the United States. The total fusing, sir, of Israeli and US interests. There is no separate, you know, just conceptually to separate them is wrong from their perspective. Look, I think we have to remind ourselves of one very important thing. Yes, you're absolutely right, Sagar. This is going to be extremely tough. But Obama did win this fight. Yeah, he beat them. He defeated them back in 2015 and defeated them in Congress as well when there was this massive fight and then every Republican was voting with the Israelis at that time. That means that this can be won again, but it's going to be a hell of a fight. There's no doubt about it. It's after Obama won the fight that they managed to destroy the deal by convincing Trump in 2018 to withdraw from the deal. But short of that, the president, once he puts down his foot, the track record is one in which, you know, he gets his way because the Israelis at the end of the day, despite the fact that they could put forward a tremendous amount of resistance and inflict significant political costs on the president, the president will win. The question is, will he put down his foot firmly and focus on this matter, prioritize it, not get distracted and not let himself be convinced that it's better off for him not to fight this fight? Now, one thing I think is really fascinating when it comes to how the Trump administration is talking about this deal, trying to sell this deal to the American public, which is really different from the manner in which the Obama administration did it, is that the Obama administration only focused on this as a nuclear deal. They love talking about the nuclear details about all of the guarantees and all of the inspections, and they never wanted to touch on the idea that this could be the beginning of a better relationship between the two countries, that this could lead to a transformation of the region. If that were to happen, that would be a valid and valuable bonus, but it was not something that they wanna use as a selling point, nor did they even embrace the idea that it would be a good thing to have a better relationship with Iran after this. J.E. Vance's talking points are completely the reverse of this. He's starting off by saying, hey, this is gonna transform U.S.-Iran relations. This is going to transform the region as a whole, because we're gonna end this enmity. Trump is talking about this as a peace deal. I think if you wanna fight the Israelis on this, in Washington, that is exactly the right way to do it, to go full-on and explain that this is about changing the entire relationship and the region, enable the United States to get out of the Middle East because we shouldn't be there in the first place, and sell that to the American public instead of focusing on completely boring nuclear details that most Americans will not be able to fully understand anyways, because none of them are the vast majority of us are not nuclear scientists. So I find that very fascinating. It's complete reverse of how the Obama administration approaches this. Yeah, which makes that stylistically, could not be more different between the Obama administration and this administration. I wanted to play for you Mark Teeson, who Trump had held up during the hostilities as someone we should all be paying attention to was very much in favor of the Iran war now as very concerned about the potential end of war against Iran. He is raising specific concerns about the $300 billion reconstruction fund. This is B3 guys, let's go ahead and take a listen to this. Apparently we're gonna give them sanctions relief and reconstruction based on performance, but that means that we're gonna be giving them a lifeline to revive their regime after we had decimated it. That is a huge problem, because the Iranians may comply for a short period of time, but then we're gonna have a weak American president and they're gonna have gotten the money. And then there's talk of a reconstruction fund of hundreds of billions of dollars. We didn't, they'll be like doing a Marshall plan for Germany while the Nazis were still in power. So I'm anxious to see what the details of the ELR and what gets negotiated, but I'm concerned, I agree. It seems like this is one of the primary attacks on the memo of understanding as we understand it and a potential deal you heard from Shapir and also Levin as we played earlier that this is contrary to Israel's interests and is very unfair to Israel. You also had John Padura saying, Trump chickened out, sort of like going straight at his manhood and his masculinity and saying this is embarrassing and humiliating for him. But on the financial aspect of this, what do we know about how this is all going to work out and how do you think that the administration will try to spin that? Because of course the right under the JCPOA, we heard endlessly about these pallets of cash and have heard about this for years and years afterwards. I'm sure Trump has talked about it as well. And so now you have significant amount of money that is going to flow to Iran, much of which is their own assets. However, it seems like a difficult piece for them to try to sell. So I'm hearing this critique also from some folks from the democratic side. I know, oh my God, they're gonna get investments. Let's separate a couple of things. First of all, you have the unfreezing of their assets as a result of sanctions relief. That's their own money that they will have access to again, which is what they use in order to be able to buy food, medicine or other things. Then you have what is called this investment fund. We have to remember, the Iranians have suffered $300 billion plus in damages as a result of this war. So this is a reconstruction fund that whether the US is gonna be part of it or not, we don't know yet, but it is an investment fund. This is the other countries in the region saying, okay, we are now going to try to have an economic relationship with Iran, integrate ourselves with Iranian economy as a way of building a buffer against a future war. Because we wanna make sure that, we clearly cannot just rely on American bases or American weapons that actually ended up being a detriment to our security. So we're gonna have to move away from this idea of just completely containing the Iranians. We have to integrate with them as well. And if we do that, we will build bridges that enables peace to actually flourish in the region in the very same manner that after Second World War, the Europeans needed to rebuild Germany in order to make sure that they integrated all of their economies and raised the cost of war. That is actually a very good thing. Now, I don't know if the US is gonna be participating in it or not, but if the region wants to do this, and this is primarily gonna be a regional thing, why on earth should the United States stand against that or even argue against that? Shouldn't it be better for everyone if they're actually are doing things for themselves in order to be able to make peace more viable and more less likely? We should be very happy about that. We should be very happy that as part of this deal, we're actually giving the region a chance to take care of these matters on their own and make sure that they can do things on their own that leads to peace rather than to the United States having to build more bases there or bring more troops to that region. One of the things though, sir, is that as we continue to run the numbers, I was just looking, Israel's whole economy is only 500 billion. Iran's romp economy is 437 billion. So an unsanctioned reconstructed Iran would be a many times bigger economic powerhouse in addition to strategic powerhouse, which would mean it's more important to the region, more important to the United States. But that's part of the reason why it seems to be so existential for them. And we're watching this in their press. Yeah, go ahead. Absolutely. I mean, this is part of the reason why the Israelis started to push for sanctions back in the mid 1990s in order to make sure that Iran would not emerge as a potential rival to Israel as a strategic partner for the United States. After the Cold War, the Israelis found themselves in a very, very dire situation. They were in outpost against Soviet penetration of the region, but there was no longer Soviet Union. And then the Persian Gulf War led to a scenario in which the U.S. actually moved closer to the Arab States in the region. And Israel was increasingly seen as a liability rather than a strategic asset. It's during this period that the Israelis reframe their alliance with the United States to not be a strategic one, but rather one based on shared values. I have no idea what that means, but nevertheless, that's when that term was coming up, precisely because the strategic underpinning of the relationship was now significantly weakened. And in that context, if the U.S. and Iran actually rebuild their relations, and I'm not saying they will, because I don't think there will be a partnership on an alliance, but if they were, this is a country that has gas, that has oil, that has a huge strategic location, geopolitically, can control this rate of warm moves, has a market of 90 plus million people. If sanctions are lifted, it's probably gonna be an economy three to four times the size of Israel, has an industrial base, a scientific base that is only second to none to Israel as itself. So it has all of the different things that could enable it to be a major, major player and an asset to the United States. One of the key things that held it back is partly the sanctions and Iran's own government because of their mismanagement, because of their repression, because of their corruption, and because of a political system that is just not capable of allowing the country to live up to its full potential. But this is something that the Israelis have been worried about for a very long time, and this is a nightmare scenario for them. Not only that Trump would end the war, but also lift the sanctions, because the war weakens Iran in the short term. Sanctions destroys a country over decades, slowly but surely destroys its social fabric. And the Israelis have been successful in having major sanctions on Iran for more than three or so decades now. To see those lifted would be an absolutely devastating blow to their approach and to how they define their interest in the region. Let's put B-5 up just to underscore your point here. You've got some quotes here and Haaretz from various Netanyahu allies don't bullshit us, Trump raging at the treacherous United States over the Iran deal. What does this mean for Israel? You know, let's say, I mean, look, there's still a lot of question marks, but let's say the official signing happens this Friday. Let's say we get 60 days down the road and they're able to come to terms on the nuclear file and the other major outstanding issues, which remain. And the sanctions are lifted and Iran is able to begin to rebuild. There is no regime change. So far it doesn't look like the proxy funding is contemplated as part of this deal either. How will Israel have to change? What will they have to reckon with? And what do you think that this will mean for Netanyahu and his own political standing? First of all, on the last part of it, this is going to be devastating for Netanyahu. And part of the reason why you have this public meltdown in Israel is also politically motivated. It's all about the upcoming elections and to finally unseat him. And he will probably end up going to jail afterwards. So this is from his standpoint existential. But for Israel, the Israelis could adjust to this reality. Change your security doctrine. Recognize that they have to find some sort of a modus vivendi with a lot of different countries in the region, that they will not have security by constantly dominating their environment and thinking that they have to have total maneuverability in Syria, in the West Bank, in Lebanon, in order to be secure, but actually vie for real peace. Something that we have absolutely not seen from the Israeli government for at least 15 or so plus years. But I think, frankly, more likely is that they will not have the capacity intellectually, creatively, emotionally to be able to steer their ship in a different direction. And instead, you will see further attempts by the Israelis to sabotage this deal even after the 60 days, even after it's been established, just as they did with the JCPO. I think I mentioned on Tucker's show yesterday that I sat down with APAC after the JCPOA, and I thought that, OK, now it's going to be interesting to see how they're going to adjust to this reality. And I walked away realizing they're not going to adjust at all. They don't care that the deal has been sealed, that it is implemented. They're going to do everything they can to unravel it. And I suspect that that is the path that the Israelis will go this time as well. And they succeeded. But that means they succeeded. Exactly. Not under Obama, but they succeeded afterwards. And that may be their calculation that they will succeed afterwards. But it means that during this period, they're going to be in a direct confrontation with Trump in a manner that I don't think Trump potentially will be as restrained as Obama was. Remember, one of the things that Obama did in order to calm down the Israelis, that he signed that $10 billion, what was it, the 10-year deal, $30 billion, in which that was a way of trying to make sure that the Israelis calm down a little bit. We'll see if Trump does that. There are several bills in Congress right now that is going to try to integrate the US military with Israeli military, the US intelligence, with the US, with Israeli intelligence. He may end up accepting some of those things as some sort of a goodie that he gives to the Israelis in order to calm them down. Very good point. If they do go, they still won't go quietly. You almost certainly have to buy them off in some respect. We do want to shift now, sir, just to this deportation story. Let's put B7 up here on the screen. This was the initial free press story from about six days ago. Will the US deport Treeta Parsi from Jay Solomon, who I believe was fired into disgrace, if I recall, is one of the Washington's most quoted opponents of the Iran War, the administration is weighing whether to revoke his green card. With some officials arguing he isn't just another pundit. Tell us a little bit about where you caught off guard by this. Did you have some rumblings that something like this was going to happen? And what's been the general result now that it's been public for six days? Thanks, Agarra. And thank you guys again for the petition and my support. I deeply, deeply appreciate that. So we knew that something was coming in the free press. They had reached out. We had no interest in talking to them. We don't consider them to be a legitimate outlet in any way, shape, or form. But also we knew that Laura Loomer had been tweeting for a couple of weeks now, trying to get me deported. And obviously she has a track record of every once in a while getting her way. So we knew that there wasn't an escalation of their attempts to silence me. As I write in my sub-stack piece about this, they've been trying to silence and cancel me for more than 25 years. The only difference now is that they're really going much further than trying to actually deport me, or at least they say. But what was really fascinating here is that within hours of this report coming out, the State Department came out and denied it, and which is extremely unusual. But they came out and said that they don't have any plans, at least now, to deport me. And part of the reason why that happened is partly because of this public backlash that occurred, which was completely organic. We had nothing to do with it. And partly because there were elements inside the Trump administration that opposed this as well. And I think that led to this very unusual move of the State Department coming out and denying and essentially just completely blowing that story away. It was all based on one unnamed source in the State Department. And as I heard from some people inside, it may actually have been a rogue actor. That hope that by getting this story out there, it could trigger an investigation, rather than there actually having been an investigation to begin with. But for now, it does seem to me that this backfired on them. But I don't think that they have given up, just like with this fight against the JCPOI and the nuclear deal, they will continue. And what I think is absolutely clear is that they can't win an argument. Clearly, they can't win a war either. So all they have is the attempt to try to cancel and silence people. Well, I have to think not only the public outcry. Also, as you said, there are some elements within the administration who were like, no, why would we do this? But also, now the fact that Trump is on the side of a deal, like, look, we're on Trump's side now, right? Like, yes, please go ahead. So I mean, but that's the nature of him, right? He's personalized the presidency. Everything's about whether you're with or against him in this moment. I think you are a sort of consummate diplomat. And Annals, the whole idea of Quincy is to bring together the anti-war right and left, something that obviously resonates very much with us on this show, which is part of why we love you, having you on. And also because your analysis is so important and so spot on. So I would think that the fact that now we're in the phase of let's try to make this deal happen, that that would also provide you some protection for the moment, not that there isn't a guarantee. Not that there's any guarantees for the long term. Yeah, I certainly hope so. And I think you also put your finger on something very important. I personally do think that the elevation of these attacks, it's not just because of the war and the fact that I'm out more in the media, but it is also because Quincy and breaking points and many others right now are trying to really build bridges between the left and the right so that we have a united front against this uniparty war machine. And that is a massive threat. So all of these people who want us to just dominate every region of the world militarily, you have 750 bases, constantly be at war with someone, invent new enemies so that we can have a larger military budget, et cetera, et cetera. And the fact that the left and the right is coming together in opposition to that is a huge threat. And I think Quincy has played a role in all of this, which makes it all the more valuable for them to try to silence and attack us. Right, man. That's all they can do. No, if you hadn't been effective, they wouldn't care. Yeah. They'd say, keep going on CNN. That's why they do. We like having you out there. It's the fact that what you say resonates and appeals to a lot of people, regardless of their partisan affiliation. That's exactly why they marked you on as a target. Well, yeah. The war is not yet over, but we do have, again, we have a link to the petition. And then we have a link to Dr. Parsey's sub-stack, which is down in the description. We encourage you to go and to subscribe and to keep updated for all the excellent analysis. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you so much for having me. Really appreciate it. Thank you. This is an I Heart podcast. Guaranteed human.