Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 3/3/26: Scott Horton Unloads On Iran War, MSM Pro-War Propaganda, Kat Abughazaleh On Iran and Ukraine

Episode Date: March 3, 2026

Krystal and Saagar discuss Scott Horton unloads on Iran war, mainstream media pro-war propaganda, Kat Abughazaleh on Iran, Ukraine, and China.   Trita Parsi: https://x.com/tparsi?s=20 Scott Horton: https://x.com/scotthortonshow Kat Abughazaleh: https://katforillinois.com/ Kat's Discord: https://discord.com/invite/katforillinois    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Hey, I'm Jay Shetty, host of the On Purpose podcast. I'm joined by Luke Combs, award-winning country music artist and one of the most authentic voices in music today. The guy that says he's always going to be there and that will do anything to be there is the only guy that's not there. No matter what, I'm going to prioritize my wife and my children.

I dread the conversation with my son. Listen to On Purpose with Jay Shetty, on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Amanda Knox, and in the new podcast, Doubt, the case of Lucy Lettby, we unpack the story of an unimaginable tragedy that gripped the UK in 2023. But what if we didn't get the whole story? Evidence has been made to fit. The moment you look at the whole picture, the case collapsed.

What if the truth was disguised by a story we chose to believe? Oh my God, I think she might be innocent. Listen to Doubt, the case of Lucy Letby, on the eye. IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Special Agent Regal, Special Agent Bradley Hall. In 2018, the FBI took down a ring of spies working for China's Ministry of State Security, one of the most mysterious intelligence agencies in the world. The Sixth Bureau podcast is a story of the inner workings of the MSS and how one man's

ambition and mistakes opened its fault of secrets. Listen to the Sixth Bureau on the IHeart Radio. app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga 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. Joining us now, Scott Horton, he's the director of the Libertarian Institute and the author of Provoked. Scott, it's good to see you. Thanks for joining us. Thank you both very much for having me. Well, obviously, you know, we have so much to talk about. You are, of course, an expert really on the history of a lot of the claims here, but you're also an expert on NATO. We're actually very curious for your take here as we watch the next frontier of this

war evolved. So we've got the U.S. and Israel at war with Iran. You've got Iran attacking much of the Gulf. But now you have Israel also trying to set the terms for the potential destruction of NATO, saying that they may even attack Turkey. Let's take a listen here to Neftali Bennett, the former Prime Minister of Israel. Get your reaction. Turkish threat is emerging. I want to be very clear. Turkey and Qatar have gained influence in Syria, are seeking influence elsewhere and everywhere throughout the region. And from here, I warn, Turkey is the new Iran. Erdogan is sophisticated, dangerous, and he seeks to encircle Israel. We can't close our eyes again. And while some senior Israelis were on Qatar's payroll, Qatar and Turkey are nourishing the Islamic Brotherhood monster

that is growing and eventually might become as dangerous as the one created by Iran. Turkey and Qatar gaining influence not only in Syria, but also in Gaza, through the front door and everyone, and trying to create a new choke ring. Turkey is trying to flip Saudi Arabia against us and establish a hostile Sunni access with nuclear Pakistan. So, Scott, if this war continues to drag on, they're potentially maybe attacking Turkey, which would probably be the dissolution of NATO itself. Your reaction, both to that clip and to the entire situation? Well, first of all, I have to say that Naftali Bennett is the cause of September 11th.

For people who don't know, in 1996, Naftali Bennett called in an artillery strike on a UN shelter in Kana, Lebanon and killed 108 women and children. And bin Laden went off all about that in his first declaration of war. in 1996. And when Muhammad Atta and his best friend, Ramsey bin al-Shib, read bin Laden's declaration of war and his declaration, they need to get revenge for the Khan of Massacre in Operation Grapes of Wrath, that was what made Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker of September 11th, decide to join al-Qaeda.

And so literally, it was that man's murder of innocent women and children that caused those two towers full of 3,000 innocent men and women to be. brought down on September 11th. So don't anyone ever forget that about Naftali Bennett. And then he will be Prime Minister of Israel again, almost certainly. And then as far as NATO goes, we should leave NATO. We should abandon Israel faster than we should abandon Turkey, so there's no confusion there. But it's understandable that the Israelis are upset with the Turks. After they helped the Turks help al-Qaeda take over Syria, well, now they don't have the Bothis to balance against Turkey anymore.

Who could have thought that there would have been repercussions from helping al-Qaeda sack the Ba'athists? And is it true that Turkey and Qatar backed the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the region? Yes, absolutely. It was a tradition started by the British and the Americans through the Saudis. They created the Muslim Brotherhood in the first place.

Everybody read Devil's Game by Robert Dreyfus is an excellent book on the background to all of that. But is that the kind of thing that could be solved with diplomacy by the American super duper power? Yes, obviously, if that's what we were trying to do. But if the Israelis have a strategy that says, let's go ahead and pick a fight with the Turks, well, then common sense and reason

and diplomatic possibility are basically irrelevant. They get what they want, evidently. Right. I wanted to ask you, Scott, about the role that religious rhetoric and fanaticism plays in stoking these conflicts in advance, or just after Trump started this war. There was this bizarre CNN piece

where they were talking about how the date was chosen because of its connection to the Porum holiday and something to do with Amalek. We've got Bibi out talking about Amalek again, you know, similar rhetoric to what we heard in connection with the genocide in Gaza. And then there's this report from independent journalist Jonathan Larson this morning. I don't know if you've seen this yet, where he's found that U.S. troops were told the Iran War is for Armageddon and the return of Jesus. I'll read you a little bit from this piece. A combat unit commander told non-commissioned at a briefing Monday that the Iran War is part of God's plan that President Donald Trump was anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to

Earth, according to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer from Saturday morning through Monday night, more than 110 similar complaints about commanders in every branch of the military had been logged by the Military Freedom Foundation. And just as one more example, of course, we all listened to that interview between Mike Huckabee, Christian Zionist, and Tucker Carlson, where he said, yeah, I'm good with the Greater Israel Project because he sees that as fulfillment of a biblical prophecy. It's completely crazy. I mean, I don't know.

Makes you wish that the skull and bones, Episcopalians would come back. You know, these, look, you know, what can I say? I can't really argue religious doctrine with people because I don't really have one. But I think there, in my lifetime, there's been a broad spectrum of people who believe in the Bible and religion, but who don't take, you know, biblical prophecy as their mandate to implement as American foreign policy. It's completely nuts that you would have not just, you know, Republican voters whipped into line with this kind of crap,

but that you would have actual policies based on this, that you would have leaders of the military who were actually caught up in this stuff. and, you know, it's people's religion. It's not like you can just convince them that, oh, that's just superstitioner. That's one part of the Bible where you shouldn't be guessing at or whatever. It's the most important thing in the world to them. And everybody believes their own interpretation of it with, you know, whatever degree of blind faith, pretty hard to shake anyone out of that belief that, like, actually, you know, maybe this is just a line of crap.

And your particular beliefs about what's happening now and the near few, future in biblical prophecies, really no more credible than David Koresh or any other end times prophecy going on. But this is a big deal inside the military, and I know especially in the U.S. Air Force, there's an activist named Mikey Weinstein, obviously a Jewish activist going back to the W. Bush years, who complained very heavily about this kind of end times apocalyptic belief systems at the very height of the leadership of the U.S. Air Force, where these are the guys in charge of delivering the H-bombs, and they are really caught up in, like, biblical prophecy that, yeah, maybe this is meant to be. This is how we force Jesus to come back as we start a world

war, maybe even a nuclear war, the end of the world, because that's what's supposed to happen. That's God's plan is for us to cause this terrible chaos. When, you know, anyone can tell you, I mean, I just happen to grow up around Christians, and I know it says in there that nobody knows the day or the time. all of this. You're just supposed to wait around for the second coming. You're not supposed to try to make it happen. But I've known people like this in my life too. You know, I'm from Texas. There's a lot of Baptists around here and various strains of evangelicals. And I have known people who are just absolutely convicted beyond any certainty that you see right here where it says one day, well,

one day means 500 years. And 500 years means I'm going to get raptured up in the thing and the whatever. And there are people who are so into it. And there's no way to reason with them. The idea that they would be really having this much influence on how policy is carried out is absolutely terrifying. I mean, I don't know what to say. I grew up around the very same people, Scott, not that far from where you live. We also wanted to take advantage of your expertise on the nuclear issue. So the vice president, J.D. Vance, took to the airwaves yesterday. He said this is all about Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

All they want is for this military campaign for Iran not to get a nuclear weapon. Now, remember, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense have said, actually, this is about a missile shield for that nuclear weapon. This, Bibi Netanyahu said this is about immunity from strike, aka we have to take out their immunity from the ability to build a nuclear weapon. By the way, meanwhile, let's put this D3 up here on the screen, satellite imagery currently indicates that there has been an apparent attack on the Iranian nuclear site, but only eliminated in terms of the amount of attack. How credulous do you take this credulous, this explanation? This is all about nuclear weapons. Oh, they're simply lying. It's a completely bogus pretext for war.

I mean, in fact, last summer, they really did essentially obliterate Iran's nuclear program. They took the Fordo-Natans and Isfahan facilities completely offline. And Fordo and Natanz is where they're enriching uranium hexafluoride gas to a higher percent U-235. And Isfahan is the facility, the conversion facilities. where you can take metal to gas and back to metal again. Well, without that, I mean, they're essentially just shut down. And there's a new report by a group called ISIS Online. This is David Albright.

He's a little bit sketchy, but this seemed credible enough, where they have their satellite pictures show there's absolutely nothing going on at Fordo and Natanzar is Fahan at all. They've sealed all the entrances with dirt and the rest. There's a place called Pickax Mountain where supposedly they're doing some preliminary tunnel digging or whatever. They have essentially zero operating cascades anywhere in the country. So Trump and Netanyahu, they really did call the Ayatollah's buff last June and essentially decimate his program.

And then we know from the negotiations in Oman that they were, the Iranians were essentially negotiating from that position of weakness and knew it. They said, you know what? We'll give you Obama deal times 100. We'll have a full moratorium on enrichment for up to three to five years for between three to five years. And even then we'll enrich only up to 1.5 percent. will take any stockpile of uranium that we have and we'll send that to the United States, not even to Russia or France, but to the United States to hold onto the stockpile and transform any enriched uranium that they do enrich to fuel rods and send back.

And they promised no sunset provisions. So anything that was one of the big complaints about the JCPOA was all the sunsets that these things expire in five or ten years. So they were climbing way down the ladder as far as they were only the barest face saving on the ability to continue to maintain a civilian nuclear energy program at all. And then I think that's probably why they launched the war, right? This is the reporting that Netanyahu came to town and said, don't let these negotiations get in the way of starting the war.

We're doing this. The negotiations are only a pretext. And it seems likely that they decided to launch the war when they did because the Iranians were too willing to compromise. And Wikoff was about to come home with an acceptable deal. And they couldn't have that. And let me ask you, my last question for you on that. We've been talking about the extraordinary comments from Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying, hey, there was an imminent threat because Israel was going to attack Iran with us or without us. And that was going to create

a risk of Iran attacking our bases and service members in the region. So rather than saying to Israel, hey, don't do that. And, you know, here are going to be the repercussions if you do, oh, client state, vassal state of ours. Instead, they said, I guess we're going to get roped into this war with Iran. I mean, how do you make sense of this? Why is the option of constraining Israel just seemingly completely off the table and out of sight for these people? Yeah, I'm not sure how much I buy that. I mean, clearly Netanyahu's roped Donald Trump into doing this by hook or crook one way or the other. I'm not so sure I buy the narrative that he said, look, I'm going to do it without you and I might use nukes and I'm going to provoke attacks against American bases

so you might as well come with me and gave Trump no choice. That sounds to me like public relations from the White House. I appreciate them blaming Israel because they do deserve a lot of the blame. But Trump is the man in that chair behind that desk. You needed as them trying to wash their hands of the consequences and say they made us do it effectively. And remember, there was that story in Politico just what, one or two days before the war launch. I guess it came out on, what, Thursday before the war, that they were talking with the Israelis about maybe having the Israelis start the war in order to provoke Iran into hitting. U.S. bases so that they could tell the American people, well, see, they hit our bases, we have

to do this. So if they were floating that as a way, as a sort of end run around the American people and a backdoor way into getting into the war on Thursday, from the White House's side, they were floating that. And it sounds to me like they were perfectly in coordination on this. And they decided to do this together. So if that rationale is out the window, and I also am a little bit skeptical of it, to be honest with you, then what is the motivation for Trump who, you know, we have a whole compilation of Trump and R.K. Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard and Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance. Oh, we'd never go to war with Iran. Blah, blah, blah, blah. What is the rationale for this large, now regional war? What is the rationale for the timing? You know, what do you think did lead to this if it wasn't, you know, some combination of Donald Trump being compromised and Israeli threats?

Right. And then funny that that's even a question. We don't know why the president launched this completely unnecessary unprovoked agreement. of war and we got to like sit here and suss it out through the tea leaves. Do they have video of him raping a child? Is that what it is that beneath all those Epstein redactions is Donald Trump actually committing felonies? Or do they, did he is maybe nothing to do with Epstein? Maybe they've just been tapping his phone like they did Bill Clinton. Remember, they tried to blackmail Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky before that story

ever leaked that we want you to release Jonathan Pollard. And he almost did it. It's set that the top ranks of the CIA, we're all going to resign over it and cause a huge controversy, but they went to Bill Clinton and said, we got proof you're cheating on your wife, pal. They had no problem trying to blackmail the president then. So it could be that. It also could be that just Donald Trump is good friends with Netanyahu. He's always, you know, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner obviously always speaks from the Lakud point of view. He didn't know anything else about it. He doesn't know any Palestinians or any Iranians. If he knows any Iranians,

they're monarchist expat types, right? He doesn't know anyone to tell him a real contrary point of view on these things, I think is a big part of it. And then, you know, people would always say, oh, Donald Trump, he's so uncouth. You know, he's not from Manhattan. He's from Queens. And he's kind of like, don't get me wrong. He's obviously born very rich, but he has that sort of uncouth working class way of talking or whatever. And they were afraid. Remember, they'd say, I think he's an anti-Semite.

Like, he one time used the word Jew outside of a reverential tone or whatever. You know, we're afraid. Like, okay, if there really is any of that kind of like Donald Trump era sort of racism that he grew up in as a New Yorker in that time or whatever. There potentially could be a little bit of that. I don't see that, certainly as far as Jews go, but even if that was true, well, how much lower must he consider Arabs then?

If that's what kind of mean or racist he is, if he thinks, you know, he looks down on Jews or other minorities at all, the Palestinians, they're Arabs. They're camel jockeys and sand and words and whatever. You just do with them what you want. It's the same way they created Israel in the first place. Yeah, a bunch of Arabs have.

have to be removed. But so what? It's like talking about removing livestock or something like that. It doesn't affect them morally or whatever. So if Netanyahu says to Trump, man, this could be big and fun and you'll go down in history. Bill Crystal will compare you to Theodore Roosevelt and you'll be great and whatever. Then that could be very tempting to Donald Trump. Yeah, it could be all of the above, right? Yeah. Something big, something that, you know, he wants to build this giant arch in Washington. So he's remembered as the guy who built the giant arch. You know, like he wants to do something. Wow. Scott, as always, man, thank you for joining us. Appreciate you. Absolutely. Thank you both. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders,

and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the honest talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHeartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. In 2023, a story gripped the UK, evoking horror and disbelief. The nurse who should have been in charge of caring for tiny babies is now the most prolific child killer in modern British history.

Everyone thought they knew how it ended. A verdict, a villain, a nurse named Lucy Letby. Lucy Letby has been found guilty. But what if we didn't get the whole story? The moment you look at the whole picture, the case collapses. I'm Amanda Knox, and in the new podcast, doubt the case of Lucy Lettby, we follow the evidence and hear from the people that lived it, to ask what really happened when the world decided who Lucy Lettby was.

No voicing of any skepticism or doubt. It'll cause so much harm at every single level of the British establishment of this is wrong. Listen to Doubt, the case of Lucy Letby on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. China's Ministry of State Security is one of the most mysterious and powerful spy agencies in the world. But in 2017, the FBI got inside. This is Special Agent Regal. Special Agent Bradley Hall. This MSS officer has no idea the U.S. government is on to him.

But the FBI has his chats, texts, emails, even his personal diary. Hear how they got it on the Sixth Bureau podcast. I now have several terabytes of an MSS officer, no doubt, no question, of his life. And that's a unicorn. No one had ever seen anything like that. It was unbelievable. This is a story of the inner workings of the MSS and how one man's ambition and mistakes opened its fault of secrets. Listen to the Sixth Bureau on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

All right, guys, we wanted to carve on a little space to take a look at the overwhelming pro-war media propaganda diet that the American people are being force-fed right now. Let's start with CNN, Dana Bash, with some interesting guests here. Let's take a listen. This is a Berlin Wall moment. Just tear this wall down. Then America will be safe without Islamic Republic. I love America. I love Iran.

No, Sager, many people are saying that CNN is set to get worse under the Ellison control. And I do have confidence that Barry will figure out how. But it's going to take some creativity based on what I've seen on that network after this war was launched. Look, no disrespect to this. Maybe. Actually, I always say that before. Actually, no, disrespect. Like, here's the deal.

You know, this woman, I get it. She's Iranian expat. She wants freedom for her country. I'm, like, very limited, somewhat sympathetic. My country is not a vessel for you to achieve your ambitions. I forget. I think Bronco said this. America is the only country on Earth, which has immigrants that come to it to get it to bomb their home country.

It's the only place. I've also said this generally about diaspora, and I really mean this. The diaspora are often some of the least informed people, most biased and out of touch about what's going on back home. I said that about myself. Do not ask me about what's going on in India. I don't know. I'm from Brian, Texas. Okay?

I barely know what's going on in my own country, let alone to reflect the beliefs of one billion people who live across the world. It's ridiculous. And yet, Trita Parsi was telling us this morning that BBC ran an article with three people in Iran, or a soundbite or whatever, three people in Iran where they're like, we're so happy to be bombed, as if that's the only view inside of the country. CNN is trying to project the same thing. Berlin Wall moment. No, it's not. You know, it's a catastrophe for the people in Iran. Maybe it'll end up good, but in the immediate term, there's at least over 1,000 people who are confirmed to be killed, including a much little school.

children, not to mention all of the other people killed across the region as a result of this embroiling conflict. We don't sit here could cheer up and down. We don't even know what's going to come next. You're probably cheering on your own civil war and destruction of your own country. It's discussed. You know, the people to talk to you really would, hey, let's talk to the Iraqis about how this. You're right. Let's talk to the Afghanis. Let's talk to the, you know, the people of Libya. Let's talk to them about, you know, probably some of them had some hopes and aspirations when Yeah, we saw them. So I'm cheering.

Yeah, when we came in, et cetera. How did that go for you? I think that would be an interesting and revelatory to see from our news networks. Let me go ahead and skip over to MS now with Rachel Maddow. And this was a very interesting segment here because she goes out of her way. And look, I think that is true that some of the Gulf country, Saudi Arabia in particular, I mean, there is a rivalry there with Iran right. And there was reporting that Saudi Arabia was also pushing Trump a lot.

alongside Israel to get into this war with Iran. But let's be very clear. I mean, it's very clear who the primary mover is here, right? It's Israel. I mean, you can listen to the Secretary of State. You can listen to Netanyahu talking about how he's tried in president after president to get someone to do this and finally got Donald Trump to. You can listen to him talk about how this is a fulfillment of a 40-year fantasy that he has held. And so Rachel kind of cleverly decides to all but erase that aspect and instead focus in on these Gulf countries, which are now in flames and being attacked and running out of interceptors and being stonewalled by the United States for any sort of replacements. Let's take a listen to a little bit of that.

Who benefits? Who wants Iran bombed off the map and for their own reasons? Who are Iran's rivals and enemies? Perennially, it's the Gulf Arab states, countries like Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates and Qatar. And of course, you remember the Saudis who stuffed another two billion dollars into the pot. of Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. They said, don't worry, Jared will never again work for the U.S. government. He's never coming back to Washington. So it's okay that he's taken all this money from the Saudis now. We will never have to worry about having somebody involved in U.S. policy who has also just been given billions of dollars by Saudi Arabia,

apparently for no reason. Well, that was the explanation when he took all that money from the Saudis at the end of Trump's first term. And now today, who has been leading the negotiations on behalf of the United States government with Iran before we just started this war with them today? I mean, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio was in St. Kitts this week. It wasn't him. No, it was Jared Kushner. And I think this will be the, you know, the MSNBC line from a lot of the hosts, because this allows them to be anti-war and is much easier to pick on, like the politics of picking on Saudi Arabia. And look, they deserve it, like critical. Saudi Arabia as well.

The politics of that are much easier than focusing your ire. What about the word Israel? Israel. Can we all say it? The Secretary of State said it. Can we say it? Israel is the primary mover of this conflict.

Why am I? This makes me feel crazy. And look, we expect bullshit from Fox, but in a time of opposition, the way that you channel that opposition, like with CNN, where it's like that Mark Warner initial. They're like, well, but we need to hear a case. from the president and the war,

and he needs a strategy. It's like, no, there's no strategy. This whole thing is bullshit. It's over. This is bad. They can't, like, look, we saw this during Iraq, you know, with the MSNBC

and all of that light in the initial years of the war before eventually discovering the Keith Obermann opposition. But we don't want to get to that point. Let's just not get there in the first place. I will at least give the politicians credit. They're ahead of, like, the media in this case.

Mark Warner and Ruben Gallego, you know, these are like centrist as they come. are all out there. Gallego is definitely trying to make a pivot. He just endorse Grand Platner as well. But yeah, I mean, they... Even they, though, are like, this is Israel's war.

They're calling him... They're like, we're being walked around on a leash. I mean, this is like Four Chan's, you know, Zog posting from like five years ago. You know what I mean? I know. It is crazy to hear. Mark Warner in particular,

when I heard him talking about, like, Israel dragging us somewhere. It was like, wow. I could never have imagined. You know, to your point, let's actually play a Fox News clip because just rest assured, Fox News has been embarrassingly, slavishly pro-war, building up to the war, in the war now,

whitewashing everything that's going on. I mean, just absolute, shameful cheerleaders. And this moment from Brigham, this is E7 guys that I'm queuing up here, is particularly extraordinary because he's like, oh, I think the Democrats are caught in a bind because this war is so popular. Meanwhile, look at literally every poll and you will see the way that people are completely disgusted with what is being done in their name. This is E7. Let's take a listen to that. the public reaction is likely to be favorable. And I think these Democrats are kind of trapped because they exist in a party whose membership overwhelmingly despises Donald Trump.

It's been called Trump derangement syndrome, and there's something to that. And the result is that these Democrats, with rare exceptions, John Federman today, of course, was the one we just heard from, are opposed to this because they feel they must be, that they feel their job in life is to resist and oppose Donald Trump in every way, almost no matter what he does. So I think that accounts for the political reaction on the Democratic side here. Now, over time, those who are critical may feel vindicated if things start to go Bailey. But if they don't, they're going to be stuck with this. He thinks this is going to, you know, the public is going to react very favorably to this. Look, this is the same guy who sold the Iraq War in 03. Why should we be so

surprised. I literally used to watch this guy when I was a bit, like a child in like grade school doing the exact same stuff. Nothing's changed. Absolutely nothing has changed. And look, if anything, I want to give America credit because despite all this BS, they're still against the war. Imagine that. This is like a boomer trap, but the rest of the country is living in a totally different reality. I mean, I'm not just fluffing us, but yesterday was literally the biggest day in the history of our show. I think this is why. I am always, look, you know, you don't want to be too self-referential. I'm like, it's very nice if the show is popular, but you'll watch cable news like I was yesterday waiting for Trump to speak. And I was like, oh, this is why,

right? Because it's just Brett McGurke, Brett McGurke was on Stephen Colbert yesterday. Oh my God, are you serious? So, Libs, give him up, all right? Colbert is bad. Sorry, unironically. Like, that was Stephen Colbert's special guest. If you don't know who that is, as a former, he worked for multiple administrations. He's pro-war. He's anti. He was driving the pro-genocide train. Exactly. Pro-Israel, like, you know, one of these typical blob politicians who's just been around the block, one of the most failed politician, like one of the most failed U.S. policymakers probably in decades. But continues to fail up and get up to around. Exactly. And he's the one who's on CNN all the time. Now he's on Stephen Colbert. I mean, this is the level of propaganda

that we're all dealing with. It's craziness. Let's put E-6 up on the screen. This is Scott Jennings, who's, of course, the resident Republican over at CNN. So he's got two sirens here. He says, senior Trump administration officials, tell me that credible intelligence indicated Iran plan preemptive missile strikes against U.S. military targets in the region and against civilian targets as well, failure to act would have resulted in mass U.S. casualties.

Yeah. So, you know, you know this is really credible information when senior officials, rather than, like, you know, brief in Congress or, like, planning this with a credible mutual. media source, leak it to Scott Jennings so that he can tweet it out. And sure enough, immediately you had everyone from Ted Cruz, you know, the military, the people themselves who went and briefed Congress saying, yeah, no, this is not true. There were no preemptive attacks. And now, of course, we've got Marco Rubio laying out this new tale about how well, technically, there sort of were

preemptive attacks if Israel struck them first, which we thought they were going to strike them first, and that put us at risk. I guess that's their definition of, you know, preemptive. that we're preempting Israel, putting our troops in danger is the new story. Is CNN going to have this guy on again? Of course. Look at this. I mean,

this man lies all the time. On their airwaves and they just keep having them back, having them back. It's all theater. It's all a game, you know, to all of these people. If you get a story, like here's the thing, you're going to have any opinion that you want, literally any.

I don't care. I'll never say that you shouldn't be allowed on the air. But that is literally bullshit whenever it comes. And it's laundered propaganda from the government. Does CNN have any standards to allow this up on their air? Because he is doing this under their auspices, repeating these types of talking points. Again, it's not an opinion. This is a literal fact that he's trying to presuppose onto the minds of the American public,

which is a complete lie. I can tell you. A complete lie. If someone like came on our program and just like routinely, like we would not have back someone on the air who's just trying to lie to our audience all the time. What is the purpose of that? Like it's not a game. It's not fun. like the, you know, they like the fights, they like the debates, they like that, that circus.

And so we'll fight and debate if we think there's a purpose to it, but this is literally a purpose for the actual, like, you know, supposed entertainment value. But this is the ultimate reduction of the mainstream media where even war and peace lies where lives, lives are at stake. The lives of American service members, Iranians, Israelis, Americans are living in the entire Gulf. Even that is reduced to entertainment. This is. This is why I hate these people so, so much. By the way, speaking of hate, Van Jones, Mr. Reasonable. Here's Mr. Reasonable, Van Jones, singing the praises of Reza Pahlavi, the failed son,

who will be the next monarch of Iran. Take a listen. Recently, you saw millions of people come out of their homes protesting demanding a new regime. They were chanting the name of Reza Pahlavi. Who is Rezapalavi? He is actually the son of someone who's known as the Shah of Iran. He doesn't want to come home as a ruler like his father. He wants to come home as a healer.

He wants to come home. It's what's called a transitional figure to give the people of Iran a fair chance to come up with a new government for themselves that is based not on theocracy like they have right now or a monarchy like they had under his father but a true democracy.

But why should you care about Rezapalovit? If Iran were suddenly to be ruled by someone who believes in democracy, believes in rule of law, believes in women's rights, believes in fairness to everyone, suddenly the entire region of the Middle East changes overnight. And the Iranian people get a chance to step forward as partners to the world again. Yeah, this is what counts now for good analysis.

were chanting his name. Maybe some people were. Maybe a few Mossad people in the crowd were, for sure. This guy has no support out of Los Angeles and here in Georgetown. And Potomac Maryland, where he was. Didn't even Trump say something about him? Yeah, even he was like, yeah, he doesn't have that much support except, you know, it's true. That's true.

And then that lady with the Afro who's on TV. That's it. Those are the only people. Right? It's ridiculous. And this is like, honestly, Akhmad Chalabi had more of a chance of leading Iraq than this guy does, of leading Iran. A democratic transition. I mean, you know, this guy has not even said one word about any of the people he supposedly

wants to lead who are dead. Not one word. So he's going to lead them? Oh, yeah. Okay. I'm sure that's going to work out. One thing that really endears leaders to their, you know, potential subjects is when they cheer for their country to get bombed and their people to get killed and don't even express regret about it when it happens.

That's something that I find really endears a potential leader to their people. Yeah, I mean, you know, and you love the propaganda. Like, he fails to mention how the Shah came into power and why it was a monarchy, the fact that we overthrew their actual democratically elected leader, Mossadegh, and installed the Shah's to the Shah. So, I mean, there is no legitimacy here whatsoever. And, you know, apparently even the Trump regime knows that. But somehow Van Jones, who used to somehow be a Maoist. I mean, this is man's transition to whatever this is is just crazy, total sell-out at this point. And, yeah, well, yeah.

Take a little something called Bezos Prize. Google Bezos Prize. What do you get 100 million? Yeah. Okay. Interesting. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are at them.

And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast and IHeartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. In 2023, a story gripped the UK, evoking horror and disbelief.

The nurse who should have been in charge of caring for tiny babies is now the most prolific child killer in modern British history. Everyone thought they knew how it ended. A verdict, a villain, a nurse named Lucy. Letby. Lucy Letby has been found guilty. But what if we didn't get the whole story? The moment you look at the whole picture, the case collapses. I'm Amanda Knox, and in the new podcast, Doubt the case of Lucy Lettby, we follow the evidence and hear from the people that lived it, to ask what really happened when the world decided who Lucy Lettby was. No voicing of any skepticism or doubt. It'll cause so much harm at every single level of the British establishment

of this is wrong. Listen to doubt the case of Lucy Letby on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. China's Ministry of State Security is one of the most mysterious and powerful spy agencies in the world. But in 2017, the FBI got inside.

This is Special Agent Regal, Special Agent Bradley Hall. This MSS officer has no idea the U.S. government is on to him. But the FBI has his chats, texts, emails, even his personal diary.

Hear how they got it on the Sixth Bureau podcast. I now have several terabytes of an MSS officer, no doubt, no question, of his life. And that's a unicorn. No one had ever seen anything like that.

It was unbelievable. This is a story of the inner workings of the MSS and how one man's ambition and mistakes opened its vault of secrets. Listen to the Sixth Bureau on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, guys.

So this morning, we are talking to Illinois congressional candidate for the ninth congressional district, Kat Abu Ghazela. She is running in a Democratic primary right now. And we wanted to talk to her specifically about foreign policy. Kat, welcome. Great to see you. Great to see you, too. Yeah, of course. So just to give people a little bit of sort of context and backstory here, Ryan was able to get his hands on an email that had been sent from a campaign.

advisor to you, who I understand is no longer with the team, that represented a number of your views that people had questions about because they found some of those views relatively surprising. So we figured rather than trying to parse secondhand from an advisor who's no longer with the team anymore, we would just speak to you directly about these things. So glad to have you today. Thanks so much. Yeah, of course. So I actually wanted to start with an issue that wasn't in that letter. We'll get to the letter in a minute, but that is top of mind for people, which is the Iran War. So the first question is just, you know, what do you think about the Iran War? Do you support or oppose it and why? I absolutely oppose it. This was completely unprovoked. And as we saw

in reporting this morning, Pete Hexeth is trying to paint this as a Christian war with one commander even telling his squad that this is to bring Jesus back through the Armageddon. This is a violation of international law. It's disgusting. And it's on Congress to pass a war powers resolution. This is also another impeachable offense for Trump. Absolutely oppose it. And I'm just couldn't be more disgusted. So, Kat, let's go through some of the, some of the email to get your, to get your sense on, you know, where you agreed with Ben Murmel, the National Security Advisor, and where you disagreed with him. But first of all, is it, is it true that he's no longer with the campaign?

And was it, was it this email? Was it something else? Like, what's the, if he's no longer with the campaign, what was the, what was the, what was the, there. Yeah, let's start with Ben. So Ben was helping us write some policy on everything from animal rights to our free and sovereign Palestine page. He actually offered to resign the second the story broke because we have two weeks until Election Day and he didn't want the story to be about him. He wanted to support the campaign and it was a mutual decision, mainly because this was communication that was not passed by the campaign. It was not approved by the campaign. I would not have used such

aggressive language and there were some characterizations in there that I actively disagree with. But I also take umbrage with some of the characterizations I've seen of Ben and I do want to clear this up right now. First off, I have seen people try to paint him as anti-Palestine and that couldn't be further from the truth. Ben actually grew up in an Orthodox Jewish family and has lost many of his personal relationships, his family, his friends, his community for standing up for Palestinian dignity. He and I have spent hours articulating our right to return policy, which of course is very personal to myself and my family because, you know, we're Palestinian. He has consistently, actually when he was at the GW encampment, I was also at the GW encampment.

He was characterized as attending a pro-Israel counter-protests there. Both the encampment and the counter-protesters were extremely close together. I know he spoke to some of the hostages family, but I think that it's very disingenuous and also unfair to characterize him as anti-Palestine, considering what he has risked in his own personal life to stand up for Palestinian human rights. The main issue for his departure is the lack of communication with the campaign. We also were made aware of him inviting HSI, which is a part of ICE to speak to a group that he was in. I very much disagree with that. I know that his perspective at that time was like, well, it's not like the bad part of ICE.

an investigation wing. And I think that he now realizes that ICE has been bad since it's been created. And hopefully he wouldn't make that decision again, but I do have a problem with it. Gotcha. So let's let's dig into the letter then a little bit. You said you disagreed with some of the framing or some of the language in the letter. Could you just be a little bit specific about that? And we can just put as an example, put G1 up on the screen as an example of some of the language in the letter. It described you as firmly an interventionist and it also said you won't stop until Russia is made to pay for its crimes, among other, you know, policy characterizations. But what was some of the language in there that you felt was not

reflective of the views that you hold? Well, those two quotes specifically are probably where I'd start. Won't stop until Russia has made to pay for its crime seems vague and aggressive, but firmly an interventionist, I would very much disagree with. First off, I would not describe myself and I've never described myself as an interventionist when it comes to Ukraine and when it comes to anywhere in the world, including the United States' own actions. I am anti-war of aggression, anti-invasion, anti-crimes against humanity. And I think one thing that email didn't capture is how we need to exhaust all diplomatic options for humane foreign policy and that any sort of military aid would be an absolute last resort. Also not captured there is talking about how paying for

arms to Ukraine to protect itself from invasion should be paid for through seizing Russian oligarch assets, which has been a proposed solution in countries in Europe and is one I believe that we should act here. But what I really want to lead with is humane foreign policy. I'm endorsed by peace action, which is the world's largest grassroots peace network. I firmly believe that in my ideal United States, we are leading with public diplomacy. We are ensuring the re-institution, So expansion of USAID and issuing reparations to the global South, especially in the focus of infrastructure and renewable energy. These are things that I think we should be focusing on.

And deterrence is its own subjects, but I do not describe myself as an interventionist. The two main things that people picked up on here were the Russia-Ukraine policy and then kind of China, Taiwan. So, I mean, let's do Russia-Ukraine first. So rather than get into what the email says is your policy, tell us what your policy is. Do you believe that, as the memo says, that the U.S. should arm Ukraine until basically every square foot of Ukrainian land is taken back from Russia? How do you see this ending? Yeah, I mean, I want to be realistic here. I'm not sure that there is a world right now where Ukraine gets every square foot of land that Russia has illegally seized.

But there is a way that we can get Ukraine to a position where they have equal footing or an advantage at the bargaining table. I mean, part of the reason that this has been so costly for both states and for every state that is siding with either one is that there wasn't firm enough policy to demonstrate that this would be a costly affair, both in human life and in dollars. So the effort of arming Ukraine needs to be rooted in the idea of getting to a negotiating table where they are able to fight for their own self-determination, and then also politically recognizing illegally seized land as still part of Ukraine. So one specific question there. Early in the war, there's reports that Ukraine and Russia were actually pretty close to a deal, and that deal would have involved, you know, Russia taking some land, you know, Crimea, probably

parts of eastern Ukraine. the U.S. and the U.K. intervened to stop that diplomacy and to continue the war. So do you think that was the right move for the U.S. to intervene at that point and continue arming Ukraine and sort of block that potential diplomatic solution? Do you think that was the right decision or do you think that that was the wrong call at that point? I mean, personally, I think that historically appeasement has not been shown to be an effective solution to invasion. But I also firmly, like when it comes to foreign, policy, my leading principle is the idea of self-determination. And I think in that moment, it should

have been up to the people of Ukraine to decide where they wanted to reach a peace deal. But once again, that's leading in self-determination. I'm not sure the exact call I would have made in that moment, because frankly, I'm not under bombings right now. And it's much different when you are in that position. I don't think it should be the United States and any other country's role to force any country to decide what decision to make in its own self-determination. So the war has lasted longer than World War I at this point. It has created a generational crisis of demography for Ukraine. I'm sure you've seen the, if you want, there are countless videos going around of basically,

you know, gangs of Ukrainian government officials like snatching fairly elderly people off the street you know, pushing them into vans, driving them to the front. A lot of Ukrainian men have left for other parts of, have left for other parts of Europe. If it's that difficult for the Ukrainian government to force its own people to go to the front lines and die in this war, why do we believe that we should then continue pushing them to go to that? Doesn't that say something about their lack of interest in pursuing this war if they have to be forced at gunpoint to go die for this. And so at what Russia also has suffered, you know, many tens of thousands, probably perhaps

hundreds of thousands of casualties. Why does, at what point does it become a cost that is like acceptable to the United States? You said you want to, you know, you want them to bear a cost so that they don't do it again. Haven't they born that cost at this point? or what would the cost be? I'm sorry. I don't know when I said that.

I was mentioning that this war has been costly. And that's, I think, the aspect of everything that you said shows that war is hell. I think it should be up to the Ukrainian people. And whether it is a referendum or whether it is negotiating from their leadership to decide what deal they want to make to end this war. But once again, invasion is not okay. It's not okay when the United States. does it. It's not okay when Russia does it. I would the Ukrainian people express that sense of self-determination?

There aren't elections. And when they are asked to go to the front lines, they resist. That's part of the problem, ensuring that there are ways to have, like, I know that war is difficult, but I do think that there is more role for democracy to play here. But at the same time, I just need to stress that invasion and wars of aggression are not okay. It's not okay when the U.S. does it. It's not okay when Russia does it.

And appeasement historically is not the answer or the instant salve to an invader as we'd like to hope it would be. And then how do you balance this? And this will tie into your Taiwan policy. How do you balance those principles of, you know, national self-determination and opposing wars of aggression with concern that, for example, and you can tell me whether this is your policy or not, you know, by providing. long-range weaponry to Ukraine, allowing them to strike within Russia, you know, increasing involvement in what, you know, is clearly like a proxy war with the U.S. directly involved on the side of Ukraine, that you're courting this direct engagement between two nuclear powers, which obviously in the nuclear age, we have to take extraordinarily seriously. So how do you balance those principles that you hold with a concern about, you know, an escalatory spiral that could lead into, you know, chaos and disaster.

Yeah, I think that this is one of those issues that in our modern diplomatic age, it's like there's no black and white. But I think the main thing here is that Putin doesn't just want to stop with part of Ukraine. That is not his plan. He will continue to take more and more. We saw this after 2014, the fact that he invaded Ukraine once again in a war of aggression shows that his goal is not just for one piece of the country or even just that country. We risk even greater conflict, not just between as like a proxy war, which I, in, you know,

my own values, I don't want to see or I would not want to support Ukraine in that respect, but in a way of self-determination. But it would be in that case, you would have even more countries that are directly drawn into this conflict, raising these stakes of possible nuclear war or possible conflict between superpowers. I also think, you know, for me, nuclear disarmament is a huge priority and something that I would want to champion in Congress, especially in a post-Trump world. On the question of 2014, do you think the U.S. played a role in instigating by, you know, pushing NATO closer and closer, support for active support for the Maidan?

uprising? What role in response? Because I think that goes to the question of American intervention and its virtues. I totally get what you're saying, Ryan, but personally, I think the point is moot once you're invading another country, once you are violating that sovereignty. There is no equivocating on whether that's okay or not, no matter what the United States or any other country is doing. Invasion is a line that we need to draw. All right, let's let's, talk then a little bit about your policy on Taiwan. And again, rather than, you know, quoting from the letter from the advisor, I'll just let you, you know, have the floor here of how you think that the U.S. should approach Taiwan and China. I really appreciate that, Crystal, genuinely. And I also want to

stress for anyone and not just you, Ryan, if you want to reach out to us, I don't use Twitter anymore. The best way to contact us is through our press accounts or any of the other social media accounts that we're on. So for comment, would really appreciate that in the future. Regarding Taiwan, though, look, the Republicans want to use China as some boogeyman, and I don't think it has to be that way. You know, we are in a globalized world. I am not an isolationist, but I want us to get to a point where China can be a partner with us in trade and innovation. I also have to balance that with the commitment that I have to self-determination and to promises that we have made in the past. regarding Taiwan, I think one thing this email didn't get clear was the fact that any sort of military

aid to Taiwan is an absolute last resort, not just after diplomatic options have been exhausted, but after we exhaust the diplomatic options after that. We need to be reinvesting in diplomacy between Taiwan and China, between Taiwan and the U.S. and China. Additionally, we need to be politically adhering to the one China policy. If the Taiwanese people pass a referendum saying they want reunification with China. I'm absolutely supportive of that. That is their choice. But once again, invasion is where we draw the line. Even then, I don't support boots on the ground in Taiwan. I support specifically in a defensive stance for Taiwan to be able to protect itself from invasion to ensure that there is, you know, a cost by trying to invade this country. But I also want to stress here that

military aid should be conditional. And I don't care if it's Taiwan or Mexico. If we are providing military aid to a country, we need to ensure it's conditional that crimes against humanity are not being systematically committed using our weapons paid for by our tax dollars. Additionally, I also want to stress that military aid is expensive. I also think we should be slashing the Pentagon's budget and that we should be closing many of our military bases overseas. This is a massive cost and we also need to be investigating companies and contractors in the military industrial complex that have essentially robbed the taxpayers

of our money for their own profit. The current policy towards Taiwan is known as you've talked about, strategic ambiguity, where you don't, the U.S. won't say whether or not they're going to come in and actively defend

in the case of a Chinese assault on Taiwan. Do you believe, as the memo says, and I believe that you've said elsewhere, but just get it directly from you, do you believe that policy should be altered? Here's the thing. If we had a president who wasn't a complete madman, like a complete psychopath, I would say let's not even touch it.

If we had a president, AOC here, who was able to balance these things at one time, I would say absolutely this is the policy to go with. But we don't have that. We have a guy who's waging a Christian war with Israel against Iran with zero provocation. we need to ensure that we are codifying major actions that we will need to take regardless of the president under this administration, especially because no one, the United States, China, any other country in the world has any idea what would happen if China does invade Taiwan. Under this president, it could be wiping your hands clean and saying, I'm good. He could try to nuke it.

We have no idea. By codifying a response, we can ensure that there is that deterrence for more diplomatic solutions, which once again is the main thing. The last thing I want is war with China. But Trump is a madman. And we have no idea his response to anything on the foreign or domestic stage. This is why I even, I mean, it's controversial to broach the subject at all, but why I did so. So the...

Just one question. Quick follow of us. So just to make sure I understand what you're saying. So because Trump is a madman, you want to codify that the U.S. will definitely respond militarily if China moves on Taiwan. Will provide military aid to Taiwan if asked to defend itself from an invasion. That military aid, of course, being conditional. And aid means shipping weapons or aid means actively participating in an assisting in the defense?

I know in the past, I have said aid intercepting missiles at the beginning of an invasion. I think that is on the table, but we should not have U.S. troops deployed on Taiwanese soil. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women.

Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on Iheart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. In 2023, a story gripped the UK, evoking horror and disbelief. The nurse who should have been in charge of caring for tiny babies is now the most prolific child killer in modern British history. Everyone thought they knew how it ended. A verdict, a villain, a nurse named Lucy. Letby. Lucy Letby has been found guilty. But what if we didn't get the whole story?

The moment you look at the whole picture, the case collapses. I'm Amanda Knox, and in the new podcast, Doubt the case of Lucy Letby, we follow the evidence and hear from the people that lived in, to ask what really happened when the world decided who Lucy Lettby was. No voicing of any skepticism or doubt. It'll cause so much harm at every single level of the British establishment of This is wrong. Listen to doubt the case of Lucy Letby on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. China's Ministry of State Security is one of the most mysterious and powerful spy agencies in the world. But in 2017, the FBI got inside.

This is Special Agent Regal, Special Agent Bradley Hall. This MSS officer has no idea the U.S. government is on to him. But the FBI has his chats, texts, emails, even his personal diary. Hear how they got it on the Sixth Bureau podcast. I now have several terabytes of an MSS officer, no doubt, no question, of his life. And that's the unicorn. No one had ever seen anything like that. It was unbelievable.

This is a story of the inner workings of the MSS and how one man's ambition and mistakes opened its vault of secrets. Listen to the Sixth Bureau on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Obviously, the concern is that if you move away from strategic ambiguity, which is meant to, I don't know what we'd do, to enforcing this hard line and saying, you know, we will respond, we will defund Taiwan, that that would in fact provoke a direct conflict with China. and again gets to the same concern about a direct conflict with Russia. Obviously, nuclear-armed superpower, incredibly capable at this point in terms of their military and technology. So what gives you the confidence that drawing that harder line is not going to actually escalate the conflict with China? I mean, frankly, Biden did this in his last administration.

He mentioned that we need to be questioning where we stand on strategic ambiguity in the response. that China had was some angry op-eds on the mainland, but did not spark a full invasion into Taiwan. So on a more kind of philosophical level to get to the heart of your kind of foreign policy approach, you do have a, you know, very deep and intuitive understanding of the problems with the military industrial complex and also its willingness to like assist in a genocide in Gaza. I'm just curious, how did you develop this comfort with using U.S. military support, intervention, and U.S. sanctions around the world? One would expect, like, for somebody who has seen what the U.S. is capable of when it intervenes,

either through sanctions policy or militarily, you'd say, you know what, we just need to roll, we just need to roll this back. Yeah. So where does the comfort come from? I wouldn't describe it as comfort at all. I mean, my own family was expelled from Palestine in 1948. And there are still many of my family members that don't have full civil or legal rights that have been killed as a result of this genocide. It's not something that I take any comfort in. But I also think we need to be realistic in the right to self-determination, which I think is something that,

I hope you all understand. I'm very personally invested in and passionate about. But I want to do everything we possibly can to lead with humane foreign policy. Under Trump, these are safeguards against him and not knowing what his response would be. But I ideally would like to not have to use them at all. One of the, you know, I studied international affairs actually focused on security policy. like I really focused on atrocity, genocide, and extremism in school. And one of my biggest passions, one of my favorite courses and one of the things that I've studied

the most is the value of public diplomacy, of cultural exchange, of investing in infrastructure, of the need to have trade between all of these countries in the globalized world that we have now. That is what I want our foreign policy to be. I want to be rolling back military bases abroad. I want to be cutting the Pentagon's budget. We need to be investing it in housing, groceries and health care here. We need not just a Marshall plan, but a new, new deal for our federal government that includes mass employment, that includes building more housing, that focuses instead

of bombs on actually helping folks here. But we also will have to deal with the fact that we are pariahs on the global stage. We need to recognize, I think one of the issues here when we're talking about this is, I mean what I say. And that's not something you, see a lot in politics, especially when it comes to military aid. I feel very passionate about sovereignty, and I feel very passionate about human rights. And that is part of why I am running for Congress in the first place. I want to not just end the genocide in Gaza and in the West Bank, but also be working towards establishing Palestinian statehood and also ensuring that any solution there is negotiated

by the people actually living there and not dictated by the United States. These are all principles that can, when it comes to military aid, when it comes to public diplomacy, when it comes to reparations for the global south, it can be difficult to hold them in, especially with the United States history

of intervention and imperialism, to hold them together and to understand how they contradict and also understand how they're more complicated than we would like to portray them. Yeah. But that is also part of, the reason that I want to help elect more progressives across the country. So we don't have

representatives that are beholden to the military industrial complex. And we can look at these issues with clear eyes and also express disagreements and try to find the best path forward. It just seems that the two values are somewhat in conflict. The value of rolling back, you know, the bases overseas and checking the military industrial complex and reclaiming some of that funding so that instead of having austerity for social programs, we have austerity for the Pentagon seems to be in conflict with the instinct to intervene in all of these border disputes. And one other thing that I'll put there, too, is obviously we talk about Ukraine and Taiwan a lot because those are the places where the empire has the most interest and is interested

in checking these geopolitical rivals in particular. But there are dozens of border disputes around the world right now. So also, what is the limiting principle for where you would want the military engage, where you would want us intervening, potentially covertly? You know, how do you reel that in if that's the underlying principle? First off, I don't support, like, covert CIA coups. And I think this is something that we also need to ensure that we are holding people accountable for, that we are investigating these types of interventions that we have made. these are things that I think we should be saying publicly and above board, or at least discussing publicly and above board,

because that lack of transparency when it comes to any sort of intervention has been limited in the past. And when it comes to these two issues in particular, not only have we made a commitment, actually full stop, we have made a commitment. And I also want to stress that any sort of aid to these two, two states has to come with consent from those states. You're absolutely right, Crystal, of like, these are geopolitical rivals. But it also means that when they are doing an imperialism,

when they are invading another country, they aren't necessarily in the right just because they're not the United States. Yes, these are two very hot button topics that involve two of our biggest geopolitical rivals, but they're also two commitments that we have made. And when it comes to invasion, if we have made that commitment, we should absolutely stand by it with the consent of those countries and not putting our troops on the ground. But first off, exhausting every diplomatic option beforehand. Are there any models for intervention, either diplomatic or military, that you would uplift as like this is how it should be done? And this was actually effective at producing self-determination in the country. where it was brought to.

I'm actually going to go a little bit aside from that question to one of my favorite examples of public diplomacy that when I first heard like the first half of this, I was like, I don't know about that. And then by the end of it was on board with. So bear with me here. One of my professors was a PAO in a Middle Eastern country, a public affairs officer. And during Ramadan, this was, I believe, in like 20, 2014, early 2010s.

They worked with a local film group to create a TV series about the realities of being an ISIS bride, of being a woman recruited to ISIS and the horror of, I think all of us can agree that women undergo when they are recruited by ISIS. It was largely paid for with a coalition of dollars, but also pushed by the American, by the American, by the American, government, but it had complete control by the filmmakers who were local that filmed it, wrote it, distributed it, and it was aired during Ramadan. The next year, ISIS recruitment of women went down by like 75%. That is, I think, a, yes, it is a small example, but an example of actually beneficial U.S. involvement in diplomacy, but also actively working towards a goal. Of course, that is much smaller than providing military aid or trying to negotiate border disputes.

But this is the type of public diplomacy and humane foreign policy that I think we should be leading with by putting it in the hands of the people that actually live there, of the leaders who are actually there, of addressing the issues that they actually want to address and not saying, we are the cops that are dictating what you have to do, but instead asking, look, especially as we're going to have to make a lot of, we're going to have to be on like a 20-year apology tour after this presidency and after, you know, the last hundred years of American foreign policy of we have immense resources and these are actual issues on the ground. And if we are going to be involved in this globalized world, how do you want us to be involved?

And in terms of a military intervention or action, as there are a military intervention? model that, you know, that you would point to that is sort of reflective of the values that you support? I mean, unfortunately, the war that I can think that the United States was on the right of is World War II. And I can point to the fact that appeasement didn't work, but that working with and arming countries that did fight against invasion was successful, but it did have a massive toll, which is why we need to have a firmer commitment to international law.

international laws that didn't exist until after that war and ensuring that we are truly trying to follow those principles. Laws that, by the way, were created by both the United States and the Soviet Union. But the truth is, over the last hundred years, the only consistency we've really seen is across the board the effects of imperialism and the model for fascism on the global scale, targeting visible minorities, queer people, educational institutions, and trying to silo a population within its borders while targeting another population. So we are kind of on uncharted territory here, and I think it's on us, not just as the United States, but as a planet, to be committing to the values

that we believe and trying something new. There's an argument. I'm curious for you, I'm sure you've seen it, and curious your take on it, that kind of hawkish wing of the U.S. security establishment overlearned the lesson of World War II and now tries to frame all diplomacy as appeasement. That any diplomacy with somebody that you consider to be adversarial is by then definition appeasement and will lead to then worse things. So we actually have to confront. Confrontation has to be the lead. What's your, I'm sure you've heard that argument.

What's your counter to it? I think it's a dumb argument, frankly. Like I said, a lot of American politicians on both sides want to paint China as a boogeyman. I think that we can be using deterrence not just as a way to stop an invasion of Taiwan, but also as a stopgap to build diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China. We live in a globalized world and we have to act like it. We have to be encouraging more trade relationships. We have to be encouraging investment in infrastructure and renewable energy.

We have to be collaborating on innovation. And maybe that sounds polyana-ish, but I don't care. I think that this is the future of our world. If we want to have any chance of surviving climate change, if we want to have any chance of surviving or not enduring a thermonuclear war, that collaboration and diplomacy is essential. And you'll have to do it with countries you like and countries you don't like. And I think that specific argument that you mentioned,

especially by Warhawks, is frankly kind of idiotic. I would just go back to the example of Ukraine, because I think it illustrates some of the difficult choices here, where very early on there was a diplomatic effort. And we know kind of the contours of what that deal would have looked like. And it is a much better deal than what would likely be on the table for Ukraine today. And it obviously comes four years before we've had this. mass, you know, death and destruction and the loss effectively of an entire generation, if not two

generations of Ukrainian men and heavy battlefield losses. So, you know, how do you think about weighing and balancing the fact that there's no doubt, right? In a lot of ways, it would have been an unjust outcome at that point in time because Russia would have taken some territory based on that invasion. Nevertheless, it would be a superior outcome to what is likely to be achievable at this point. Once again, I think that in that instance, it should have been up to Ukraine and not pressure by other countries outside of Ukraine. This is an argument of sovereignty, in my opinion. And if that is what the country of Ukraine chooses to do and what they have negotiated, that should be their prerogative. And the United States is not Ukraine. I'm not sure if you all have heard this.

We are not Ukraine, and it should be up to that country to be able to decide its future. So APAC has apparently been coming after you, Kat. Ryan, maybe you should set this up because you know the details of who exactly this APAC affiliated Super PAC-Pac Chicago Progressive Partnership is. Yeah, this seems like a new one. Originally they were doing, well, they had two in there, affordable Chicago now. Ironically, APAC biting Mamdani's kind of affordability message. and then they had one elect Chicago women.

Now they call it ECW because it's already so toxic. So immediately their fake pack had took on a level of toxicity that they had to alter that. They were docs. So they're coming after you for positions you held in high school. Am I? Yeah. Are we reading that right? Yeah, hold on.

Let me describe this ad to y'all. So I grew up like Reagan, Republican, because my mom was a white. Texan and my dad was like, yeah, simulation's great. And so when I was about 15, I started questioning whether Ronald Reagan was right about everything. He was wrong pretty much about everything. And Trump had just announced his presidency around then. And so I was like, maybe Marco Rubio is the answer, which anyways, I wrote an op-ed in my high school paper, which is now defunct, by the way. I got it shut down for writing a story on students cheating. and the Alumni Association didn't like that.

But they quoted this paper twice in an ad to try to paint me as a secret Republican, literally my high school paper. Additionally, they have, they used AI to give me Mara Lago face on a pin next to Marco Rubio's face. It's really incredible stuff. It also, the entire thing is like,

who is Kat Aba Gazzale? We don't know. as if there aren't thousands of pages of my own reporting and federal indictments to let people know. But genuinely made me laugh out loud. So you've been on a journey since then. Yeah. So can you talk about how you wound up where you are now? Because I think we have G6 here.

I think along the way on this journey, you were a bit enamored of Pete Buttigieg. You had high hopes for Pete. I had high hopes for Pete's for Pete. What was it about the Buttigieg campaign that, like, attracted you then? And if, like, is that where you are politically now or would you, if, if today's cat was back in the 2020 presidential election, would you support a different candidate? I would be supporting Bernie Sanders. So I, so I grew up in this, like, you know, fiscally conservative household. And then we moved and where we moved to was much less segregated by income than where I had originally grown up.

So I was about 15. And one of my friends who absolutely brilliant, so much smarter and more talented than me, couldn't go to college. She wanted to be a doctor and she couldn't go to college. She still hasn't because she had to help take care of her family. And it kind of, it was like that puncture that I needed to break this conservative sphere I was in where I was like, but you did everything right. you did the bootstraps, you got the scholarship. Like, what do you mean you can't go to college? So that was when I started questioning things.

By the end of the 2016 election, I was canvassing for Hillary at some voter registration drives, and I was like, I'm a Democrat now. And then throughout college, I started to go more and more to the left, specifically focusing on atrocity, genocide, and extremism because there was also this idea, my parents also came on this journey with me, of a lot of our values didn't align with this party

that we said we were a part of. Like at no point during my childhood did I feel like I couldn't do something just because I was a woman. I was very passionate about Palestinian sovereignty since I was a little kid. I actually got put in. I couldn't go to recess one day because I corrected my fifth grade teacher on settlements. But in college, I just started kind of, I was coming to this idea of like, well, you know, we need the guy that will appeal to everyone. And I thought, I actually wrote a paper in my senior year where I was like, Pete Buttigieg is the thought cast out a candidate. Like you can just get it at a bar and it's fine.

But yeah, by 2020, I graduated. I had gone to school to either become a Foreign Service officer or to work for like a legacy media outlet. And I graduated into May 2020. And I was very disenchanted with both our government and legacy media, which is why I started looking for jobs that align more with my values. In the, by the time of like January 2020, I was very much in Bernie's camp.

And I wish that in. 2016. I could have been a part of that too, even though I was 16, 17 years old. But really covering the far right and seeing how ineffective Democrats have been in addressing the threat of the far right has been essential in shaping my worldview. Like we told them about January 6th before it happened. We told them about where the DEI, CRT anti-trans panic would lead. We told them about how attacking encampments under the guise of protecting students from anti-Semitism was actually aligning with people spreading the great replacement theory. And they didn't listen. And so that's why I decided to run for Congress because I wanted someone in Congress who understood the far right. And I do.

And lastly, Kat, just tell people, you know, when is the primary? How's the campaign going? And how can they support you if they're so inclined down the stretch? If I've redeemed myself at all in this interview, you can find our website at catbri, Illinois.com. That's Kat with a K. I, our primary day is March 17th. early voting has already started all over the district. The ninth district of Illinois goes from uptown Chicago, up to Evanston, West Tuscogi, and then all the way to Crystal Lake in Algonquin. It is gerrymandered to hell. It looks like Maryland on OZEPIC, but we would love your help.

So you can join our Discord. Discord.orgia slash Cat for Illinois. You can phone bank from anywhere. You can doork if you're local. We could really use your help of the three viable candidates in this race. I am the only one who has not met with or submitted a position paper to APEC. I was the first one to call for impeachment. And we are the only campaign in this entire race of 16 candidates that is funded by majority small dollar donations.

Well, we really appreciate you doing the interview and just clarifying where you stand. I don't think you needed redemption, but people just want to know, okay, you know, what are your views? No, absolutely. I mean, like, I'm joking when I say that. But, like, the main thing is, is like, look, we can disagree on these. But I always want to be clear about where I stand. I am, since I was a little kid, my belief has been you have to stick to your moral. even to your own detriment or even if it, you know, pisses someone off.

So this is where I stand and I hope that we were able to clarify this. Appreciate that. Kat, thank you so much. Good luck. Great to see you. Thanks so much, guys. Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate it.

As a reminder, we do have our free month trial going on. Let's put that up there on the screen. Breaking Points.com promo code is BP Free 26 and you can try our premium service just for one free month and see if you can use it. You can cancel any time if you don't want to. We deeply appreciate all. all of the millions of new people who are watching the show. It really is incredible to see. And we appreciate you all very, very much. Sorry about some of the programming stuff.

Lots of going on today. So we had to drop a few segments. Yeah, but we'll pick them up. Don't worry. We're going to get to that hypocrisy. Don't worry. That one is not going to, we're not going to lose side of that. One last point in personal privilege. Happy birthday to my daughter Ella. Incredible. Who is turning 18 today, which I'm in denial about. I think she's in denial about, too. but love her very much and excited about the young woman she has become. Happy birthday, Ella.

As a girl dad, I'm already dreading 18. You can stay this size forever. All right, thank you guys so much for watching. We will see you all on Thursday. Great show for everybody tomorrow, though. Hey, I'm Jay Chetty, host of the on-purpose podcast. I'm joined by Luke Combs, award-winning country music artist, and one of the most authentic voices in music today.

The guy that says he's always going to be there and that will do anything to be there is the only guy that's not there. No matter what, I'm going to prioritize my wife and my children. I dread the conversation with my son. Listen to On Purpose with Jay Chetty on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Amanda Knox, and in the new podcast, Doubt, the case of Lucy Letby, we unpack the story of an unimaginable tragedy that gripped the UK in 23. but what if we didn't get the whole story?

Evidence has been made to fit. The moment you look at the whole picture, the case collapsed. What if the truth was disguised by a story we chose to believe? Oh my God, I think she might be innocent. Listen to doubt the case of Lucy Letby on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Special Agent Regal, Special Agent Bradley Hall. In 2018, the FBI took down a ring of spies

working for China's Ministry of State Security, one of the most mysterious intelligence agencies in the world. The Sixth Bureau podcast is a story of the inner workings of the MSS and how one man's ambition and mistakes opened its fault of secrets. Listen to the Sixth Bureau on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast, guaranteed human.