Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 5/4/26: Oil Spikes Amid Hormuz Chaos, US Bases Damaged By Iran, Spirit Airlines Goes Bankrupt

Episode Date: May 4, 2026

Krystal and Saagar discuss oil spikes amid Hormuz chaos, US bases damaged by Iran, Spirit airlines goes bankrupt.    Richard Wolff: https://www.youtube.com/@RichardDWolff/videos Trita Parsi: https://x.com/tparsi?s=20    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com    Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human. When a group of women discover they've all dated the same prolific con artist, they take matters into their own hands. I vowed I will be his last target. He is not going to get away with this. He's going to get what he deserves. We always say that trust your girlfriends.

Listen to the girlfriends. Trust me, babe. On the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you. You got your podcast. I got you. On The Look Back at it podcast. From 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me.

I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. With our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. 84 was a wild year. It was a wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people.

Listen to Look Back at it on the I Heart Radio app. Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. My mother-in-law spent years sabotaging our relationship until Karma made her pay for it. All right, Sophia, tell me about how we started this story. She moved in for two weeks, lasted five days, left a mess, and then pressed her ear against their bedroom door and burst in screaming. When kicked out to a hotel, she called her son-in-law's workplace, pretending his partner had been rushed to the hospital by ambulance.

She faked a medical emergency? And spoiler, that was just the beginning. To find out how it ends, listen to. to the OK Storytime podcast on the IHeartRadio 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 breaking points.com. Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday.

I have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Priscilla? Indeed, we do. Fast-moving developments this morning claims and counterclaims from the Iranians and the Americans. We do know the U.S. is announcing new rules of engagement to target Iranian ships. We also have Trump saying we're going to guide ships

through the Strait of Form Huz that apparently just meant like giving them a map or something of that nature. Anyway, Trita Parsi is going to join us to let us know as best we can tell where we are this morning, where things are likely to be headed, what the Iranians' position is at this point. We're also going to take a look at the way the Gulf Arab countries are reacting. They are in crisis and increasingly divided. Spirit Airlines is dead, competing claims there about what exactly happened. Israel is applying the Gaza model to Lebanon.

There might be a secret Jeffrey Epstein suicide note that we're just learning about. now. And economics professor Richard Wolfe is going to join us to talk about the global economic impacts of the Iran War. In particular, this move that China just made where they said effectively like, no, we're not going to comply with U.S. sanctions, which is kind of a first. It's a significant step on their part. So interested to hear from him the significance that he finds in their actions there. Yes, that's right. Thank you to everybody's and subscribing to the show, breaking points.com. We are doing our AMA live today from the studio. That's all I can tease for right. I don't have any exclusive thoughts, let's say, on marijuana that you may be able to hear. Thank you to everybody who has been

subscribing also to our YouTube channel. We deeply appreciate it. If you're listening to this on a podcast, please share an episode with a friend really helps other people find the show. But let's go and start very fast moving developments with Iran. We've already added multiple different ones. It's not even 8 a.m. here in the East Coast. Yeah, as I was coming in, like, texting. I had to put this in the show. So Iran is claiming that they stopped a year. U.S. warship from entering the straight of from those. We can put this up from Sky News. They are claiming, and this is from state news, Persian media in Iran, two missiles hit a U.S. warship near Jask Island after ignoring Iranian warnings, again, according to state media there

in Iran. U.S. is already out denying this. Sentcom putting on a statement we can put up on the screen claim Iranian state media claims that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps hit a U.S. warship with two missiles. Truth, no U.S. Navy ships have been struck. U.S. forces are supporting Project Freedom and enforcing the naval blockade on Iranian ports. So that's as much as we know about that at this point. And I'm sure eventually we will learn who is telling the truth in this particular scenario. We can also put the next one up on the screen. This is from the UAE. They are claiming that one of their carriers, one of their oil tankers, was targeted and struck while trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz.

So we have that development as well. In addition, this part is solid in terms of the U.S. position. We can put Barack Ravid's latest report here up on the screen. U.S. official saying that the rules of engagement for U.S. forces in the region have been changed and they were authorized to strike immediate threats against ships that cross the street like IRGC fastboats or Iranian missile positions. So all of these things point in the same direction of increasing escalatory situation, very fraught, very dangerous, where the Iranians are claiming they struck a U.S. warship. The U.S. is saying we will hit your ships if you try to impede any ships that are transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

And Sagar, this comes on the heels of this Trump truth. This is A1, guys, we can put this up on the screen, where he is claiming that the U.S. is going to guide. this is his language, going to guide, help free up ships, which are locked in the street of Hormuz, and guide them through the ship. For the good of Iran, the Middle East, the United States, we have told these countries we will guide their ships safely out of these restricted waterways so they can freely and ably get on with their business. He goes on to say a lot of other things as well, but that's sort of the primary piece that he's

putting out here. And, you know, immediately, of course, this phrase like, well, what do you mean by that? when you hear that language, you're going to guide them through, you assume U.S. naval and perhaps air assets are going to be utilized to ensure their safety. But pretty quickly after that, we got word that, no, no, no, we're not going to use any U.S. military assets. We're going to just tell ships they can go through and give them some indication of what we think would be a safe path. Exactly right. Let's put A0D guys on the screen. Also what we added this morning, they are now saying that the rules of engagement for U.S. forces in the region have now been changed. And they're

were authorized to strike immediate threats against ships that cross the strait like IRGC fastboats or Iranian missile positions. However, these officials are clarifying that ships will not be actually escorting these tankers through the Straits of Hormuz. Remember, Trump's truth makes clear that this is about neutral countries who have been not affected and or involved in the war and that they would basically be given like a map of where they think that there are minds being able to go through. Again, this is all very very. very, very fast moving as of this morning. But that's where things currently stand. The oil markets are going wild all just in the last two hour initially late last night, Sunday. They opened

2% down. At one point, they were 5% up on the claim that a warship hit, and then it went down a little bit still remains very, very high. I think before we bring in Treat DeParsie, we just want to emphasize all of this chaos is exactly why the price of oil remains where it's at. It's why today, as of this morning, gas price National is around $4.45 per gallon, a 30% increase in a single week and, in fact, one of the largest single week gains in modern American history. Trump is trying his best. That's why that announcement that truth was put out right before the Brent crude market was to open, and it did initially work. However, showing that it basically fell apart within hours after things started going, you know, kinetic in the Straits of Hormuz,

which just highlights the absolute insanity of all of this. So this is, you know, kind of a little news briefing that we've been able to do, but we do have Tretia's Parsi standing by. Yeah. And one last piece before I do bring in Trita. We can put A1B up on the screen, just the Iranian response here. They're saying they reject any attempt. They told Jeremy Skahildas to alter, quote, current conditions in the Strait of Hormuz will respond forcefully to President Trump's so-called Project Freedom, and they go on to say any commercial vessel attempting to transit through designated restrictive routes without prior coordination will be promptly intercepted by Iranian forces.

Sounds like this morning they may be making good on that if the information coming from the UAE is, in fact, correct. So with all of that being said, to analyze where we are, we're going to go ahead and bring in Treata Parsi of the Quincy Institute. Yes. Canadian women are looking for more. more into themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world around 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 IHartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. 2%. That is the number of people who take the stairs when there is also an escalator available.

I'm Michael Easter, and on my podcast, 2%, I break down the science of mental toughness, fitness, and building resilience in our strange modern world. I'll be speaking with writers, researchers, and other health and fitness experts, and more to look past the impractical and way too complex pseudoscience that dominates the wellness industry. We really believe that seed oils were inherently inflammatory. We got it wrong. Many of the problems that we are freaked out about in the world are the result of stress. Put yourself through some hardships, and you will come out on the other side a happier, more fulfilled, healthier person.

Listen to 2%. That's T-W-O-Persent on the I-Hart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Do you remember when Diana Ross double-tapped Little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people. I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George Bush got to do with Little Kim? Well, you can find out on the Look Back at it podcast. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English.

Each episode, we pick a here, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill, waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84 is big to me, not just because. of crack. I'm down to talk about crack on day, but just so y'all know. I mean, at this point, Mark, this is the second episode where we've discussed crack. So I'm starting to see that there's a through line.

We also have AIDS on the table right now. Thank you finishing that sentence. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Really? Yeah. For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your Podcasts.

Dr. Parsi, great to see you. Good to see you, sir. Good to see you guys. So I just lay down a whole bunch of things. We've got these competing claims this morning. We have the UAE saying that one of their tankers was struck. We have the U.S. saying they're changing the rules of engagement. This, of course, all comes on the heels of Trump posting that we're going to guide ships

from the Strait of Hormuz, but it turns out that just means, like, give them a map. What do you make of all of these fast-breaking developments? Let me first start off by saying that, according to the defense, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Iranian economy should have collapsed about 10 days ago, thanks to the blockade that Trump imposed. We're now 10 days past that deadline, and instead, we're seeing this. That tells you quite a lot about what this blockade really was, what another illusionary silver bullet that Trump, in his desperation accepted, it frankly worsened his own situation. And now we're in a situation in which he's saying that he's going to be

guiding, and as you guys pointed out in your opening, completely unclear exactly what that means. But what I think we can say is this. Throughout the war, the U.S. Navy kept itself about 3,000 kilometers away from the Iranian shorelines precisely because of the concern that the Iranians would have missiles that could strike these ships and potentially even sink a major American warship. And in order to avoid any American casualties, the Navy kept itself at that length, also complicated the flight sorties in the sense that a lot of refueling was needed to be done mid-air because of the fact that the aircraft carriers were so far away from Iranian shorelines. Now, Trump apparently is telling us that he doesn't care about American casualties because

he's now suddenly going to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. And then immediately afterwards, he starts backing down. I think what we're seeing here is the desperation that yet another silver bullet did not proved to be a silver bullet. It was just another regular bullet sold by the Israelis and their allies in Washington that have just deepened the crisis for Trump, and he is increasingly desperate. There is a diplomatic way out, but it will not work unless Trump drops his maximalist Israeli positions in these negotiations.

Let's go to A4, Dr. Parsi, to get your react. This was the initial truth social posts over the weekend. Trump says, I will be soon reviewing the plan. Iran has just sent to us, but we can't imagine it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to humanity and the world over the last 47 years. The details of the plan that we know of, A5 please, and this is what in particular what we want your reaction to, this is the Iranian demand.

Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iran's surroundings, lifting the naval blockade, lifting sanctions, release of Iran's frozen assets, paying compensation, ending the war on all fronts. However, there was some reporting as well that they had actually agreed to some sort of a 15-year enrichment delay. So your reaction here to their combination of demands and willing to move on nuclear enrichment, which ultimately, like you said, if this is to end, it will end this way. What do you make of Iran's positions here? Are they loosening up a bit? Are they showing some signs of openness? Or are we still in a total stalemate?

So almost all of the different variations of the proposal that has been circulating in the media have been denied one way or another by the Iranians. Some of it I do think are true. Some of it probably is not. The 15-year moratorium, as it was phrased in the Al Jazeera read out of it, I found it very unlikely. In Geneva, what the Iranians had agreed to through the Omanis was that there would be enrichment only on Enliquiry.

needs basis, meaning that if there was a need for fuel paths for a reactor, that's when they would enrich. They would only enrich for two specific reactors. The TRR in Tehran and a new reactor that doesn't even go online for another seven years. The TRR already has fuel paths for five to seven years, which would in essence mean the Iranians would not be enriching any uranium for the next five to seven years, which would be the duration of the Trump administration some more. And that was the face-saving exit for Trump. He would be able to say that there will be zero enrichment during his presidency because of this formula. Now, could that formula be extended to 15 years?

There's pathways to that. You could either have Russia, France, provide these fuel pads up front and have a guaranteed supply for the Iranians for the next 15 years. And as a result, the formula would still stand. It would just extend to 15 years. You could take the 60% enriched uranium and downblend it to 19.7%. to 19.75% and turned that into fuel paths. So there are pathways in which you can actually extend the timeline to 15 years. But whether they have agreed to that or not, it's unclear.

But more than anything else, it will not be called a moratorium because it will essentially be something that is on that needs basis. But nevertheless, the bigger point that I think is coming through, despite which variation of the deal you're looking at, is that the Iranians are no longer looking for a ceasefire or even an end to this conflict. they're essentially putting forward a grand bargain, something that ends 47 years of U.S. Iran and Mity that encompasses the entire region.

It includes Israel, it includes America's proxy Israel as well as Iran's proxies, if you want to use that language. None of them can engage in any more warfare. That means an end to attacks in Gaza and end to attacks in Lebanon. But in return, they're offering some of these nuclear things, but they will also ask for a tremendous amount of sanctions relief. Now, a lot of this, of course, the Iranians know are negotiating bids that will not be accepted by the U.S. I cannot see any scenario in which the United States will agree to pay reparations to Iran or that it even will leave the region militarily

as a request of an Iranian demand. I think it should leave the region because of U.S. interests, but that's different from doing so because the Iranians are requesting it. What worries me more than anything else, is that when you at least take a look at these public versions of these negotiations, there doesn't seem to have been much movement. And as long as there's not much movement, that's when we see the higher likelihood of some sort of a confrontation, Trump getting frustrated and starting to talk about, you know, the kind of things that he wants to do in the straight of our moods, et cetera, and the risk for military confrontation renewing significantly goes up. And time is running out. At the end of the day, this current situation cannot last forever.

We just found out yesterday, Kuwait has not exported a single barrel of oil for 30 days now. Has not happened in 30 years. Asian countries are suffering tremendously. This is something that we're paying very little attention to in the United States. And other countries are paying a much, much higher economic cost than the U.S. is. Dr. Parsi, I'm curious for your view on what do you think Trump was up to with this? this tweet about we're going to guide the ships through the straight informant. Is this just market manipulation? Do you think he's trying to provoke a confrontation that was something that

Professor Robert Pape had floated that they could be trying to set up some sort of Gulf of Tonkin situation because they want to go back to the war, but they want the Iranians to be perceived as the aggressor. When I was discussing this in our group chat, Ryan said, well, when have we ever needed an excuse to go back to war? Seems like they'd just restart the war if they wanted to. In any case, what do you think is the gambit here from Trump? To me, this reminds me very much of what happened when he started saying that he's going to attack the oil facilities at Harg Island. And there was all of this buzz about how dangerous that would be for the Ivanias, what a significant setback that would be for the oil industry, all of that true. And then what did he end up doing?

He struck the island, but he made sure that none of the missiles got anywhere near the oil facilities. Instead, he struck some military facilities on that island. So what happened in that situation was that it became very clear to Trump. He doesn't have these escalatory options at his disposal because the Iranians have escalation dominance. If he had struck those oil facilities, the Iranians would have struck all of the oil facilities in the GCC countries, including the ones that can be used to sidestep the Strait of Hormuz. And that would dramatically increase oil prices, not.

just immediately, but in the long run, because it would take years to rebuild those, that infrastructure for oil. And as a result, he backed all. Seems to me that again, he issued some threat or he had some plan in which he wanted to go all out. And then once it came to the implementation, he backs down. Once it comes to what happens after that tweet, he backs down even further. It's a sign of his desperation, because as I said earlier on, once again, another one of his silver bullets, this blockade ended up backfiring on him rather than being this type of a quick fix that would have turned the tables and forced Iranians to capitulate. Right.

You made an earlier point about FDD, and I do feel like it's important to say, can we put A8 up there on the screen? The Trump administration is now openly using FDD graphics about enriched uranium stockpiles. And look, you know, to not get too inside baseball, but FDD is probably the most of the most of the pro-war think tank here in Washington. I would say, I don't even think they would necessarily disagree with me on that, in addition to being very allied, I guess you could say, with the Israeli government's interests.

So it is pretty clear here, especially also with the more recent news that Steve Whitkoff has just had somebody join him who previously also worked at FDD, where, look, personnel is policy in many ways, and the people who are being empowered in this current moment all seem to be of the much more hawkish variety. Absolutely. And I think, first of all, I think you made FDD's day by calling them the most pro-war think tank in Washington, D.C.

That is a compliment in their world. Yeah, I don't think they would disagree. And it is absolutely correct. And one of the thing that is quite fascinating is that in the beginning of Trump II's administration, we did not have anyone from FDD in the administration. It was a sign that some of the efforts to keep the neocons out of the administration had been successful. There had been some, of course, but not any FD staffers because during Trump won, there were FDD staffers that were in the White House, in the NSC, while still being on FD's payroll.

Whether that was ethical or even legal is unclear to me, but nevertheless, it's a rather unusual situation that you have someone working at the NSC and still being on the payroll of its previous advocacy organization. So the fact that Trump is increasingly going in this direction is also a reason as to why he's stuck because the entire objective of the Israelis and its pro-Israel allies in Washington, D.C. has not to be to resolve the situation. It is to make sure that this war gets prolonged and that at a minimum, the U.S. never lifts any sanctions, never lifts any of the pressure on Yvonne, regardless of what that pressure costs the U.S. or the global economy. Let's talk a little bit more about what that pressure is costing the U.S. and new realities that have been established.

You just had a fantastic piece. This is A2 guys that we can put up on the screen. Your headline here is Trump's war has destroyed the illusion of U.S. military supremacy for countries that depend on U.S. military protection. This should be a wake-up call. And while we're very much in a, you know, it's hard to see exactly how this conflict is going to end and what the terms of the deal are going to. to be, et cetera, you're pointing to some realities that have been established here, some sort of genies that are out of the bottle that are not going to be put back in in terms of the perception of the U.S. military and its ability to asserts dominance wherever and whatever it wants to.

Break down a little bit of the thesis of your piece and what the implications are. What I write here is I think that this war and the manner in which it has evolved, and in many ways at this point it is a strategic defeat for the United States is a wake-up call. in terms of whether the U.S.'s grand strategy of liberal hegemony and primacy on a global scale any longer is actually feasible. Because much of the conversation so far has been that the U.S.'s domination in the region is going to come to an end, that many of the GCC countries are no longer going to rely on an America's secure umbrella that really proved to be not only unreliable but ineffective in this war.

But I think it actually goes beyond that. First of all, if we compare the depth of this disaster to that of, the Iraq War, I think this one goes further. Because at least in the Iraq War, the United States won the war in three weeks. The U.S.'s military dominance was never in question. Moreover, the United States also achieved its political objective of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. That too has not been achieved in the Iran case. The Iranian regime is still there in many ways.

It seems to be much stronger than what it was before. And on top of that, the Iranians have at a minimum, deny the U.S. a victory and at a maximum score, a strategic victory against the United States. So this goes much beyond the type of a debacle that Iraq was. But moreover, the global consequences are far beyond that as well. You never saw the Iraq war cause famine or fuel shortages or gas prices going up in an uncontrollable way in the manner that this war has now already caused on a global scale. And the U.S. is, as we have discussed already now, incapable of even coming up with some

ideas of how to be able to fix this using its coercive power. So the utility of American coercive power has really been denied here. It's a combination of the Iranians using new technology, drones, missiles, as well as geography, of course. But even if you don't have something as strategically viable as the Strait of Hormuz, or vital as Strait of Hormuz, you can still use the terrain as a way of denying victory for a much stronger military power. That's what the Ukrainians have done. So I think going forward, this is going to really raise questions as to whether the United States can pursue global primacy any longer. Because that was based on the idea that the United States can fight two major wars on two continents at the same time. We have not been able to fight this war on one continent successfully.

And this is, I think, going to end up becoming an inflection point, one in which we are going to move much faster towards multipolarity than we were already on that trajectory. This sped it up even further. And one sign of it is something I think you all just mentioned earlier on in the show, which is the Chinese now coming out and saying they're no longer going to be respecting U.S. sanctions and that if the United States actually goes after any Chinese ships that have been carrying Iranian oil or any oil from the Persian Gulf, the Chinese are not going to accept that. Whereas reality is up until now, the Chinese more or less have. They have been abiding by U.S. sanctions.

And now, 10 days or so before Trump is supposed to show up in Beijing, the Chinese change their rules of the game. It's a direct consequence of how badly this war has gone. And I think that's just the beginning of the global repercussions we're going to see. 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 and I Heart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. 2%. That is the number of people who take the stairs when there is also an escalator available. I'm Michael Easter. And on my podcast, 2%, I break down the science of mental toughness.

fitness and building resilience in our strange modern world. I'll be speaking with writers, researchers, and other health and fitness experts, and more, to look past the impractical and way too complex pseudoscience that dominates the wellness industry. We really believe that seed oils were inherently inflammatory. We got it wrong. Many of the problems that we are freaked out about in the world are the result of stress. Put yourself through some hardships, and you will calm out. but on the other side, a happier, more fulfilled, healthier person.

Listen to 2%. That's TWO percent on the I-Hart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Do you remember when Diana Ross double-tap Little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people. I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George Bush got to do with Little Kim? Well, you can find out on the Look Back at it podcast.

I'm Sam Jett. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick it here, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill, waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84 is big to me, not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack on day, but just so y'all know. I mean, at this point, Mark, this is the second episode where we've discussed crack. So I'm starting to see that there's a through line.

We also have AIDS on the table right now. Thank you finishing that sentence. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Really? Yeah. For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's turn now to the Gulf countries and also to the bases of ours which were hit.

We have a CNN report here, which details much of this A-10. Let's take a listen. To get a sense of just how vulnerable U.S. facilities have been. Come, have a look at this. It's the war room at Qatar's El-Odeid Air Base. The theater command and control hub for U.S. air power across 21 nations. Struck not just once, but twice. And according to a U.S. source, causing significant damage.

The base had been largely evacuated at this point and no casualties were reported. Iran's visibility over its targets has never been clearer. In 2024, according to the Financial Times, Tehran secretly acquired a Chinese satellite. known as the T-E-O-1B, a massive upgrade from its own satellites. That means that Tehran went from looking at images of this quality to this. This is the first time America has fought an adversary with satellites that capture high-res imagery, almost as detailed as its own. As the scale of the damage comes into focus, many will wonder whether America's presence

once a protective shield in the Middle East has turned into its Achilles' heel. This really highlights your point, sir, which is not only about the diminishing of U.S. military might and the ability even to project power, but to have these rock star installations which have taken immense damage in only a 38-day period, as you said, would be equivalent of not defeating Saddam in the whatever 30 days that it took in the opening days of the Iraq War. It just seems, as this continues, to be even more of a grand strategic defeat for the United States. Certainly. And I think it raises another element here, which was hinted at it in this CNN report, which is quite extraordinary. But he also tells us of how much misinformation we have gotten from the U.S. government during the war in which all of these things were being denied. And massive exaggerations of how much Iranians suffered military setbacks.

It is the fact that now we're going to be in a scenario in which may be. of these countries who have benefited from the U.S. security umbrella, who have wanted the security umbrella, who have lobbied for it and who have lobbied against restrainers in Washington for more than a decade, restrains who wanted to see a different approach to security, who wanted to see a withdrawal of many, and closure of many of these different bases, or at least handling over the responsibility of security to these different states. That was always being pushed backing us, not only by the military industrial complex, but also by many of these allies who, very much benefited from free riding on American security.

Now they have seen that that security was a bit of an illusion. And many of them are going to be asked to pay for the rebuilding of these bases. And I'm not so sure that they will. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these bases, not all, will actually essentially be phased out. And that then means that the push against this grand strategy of liberal hegemony and this total military dominance of the world is not just going to become from the American public,

but also slowly from some of these very same allies who once benefited from it, who once lobbied for it, they're going to turn against it as well because it proved to be unreliable and ineffective. There also appears to be a growing split among some of these nations. We can put 812 up on the screen. This is from Axios, but I know you've been discussing this as well, the year that shook the Gulf. The UAE is leaving OPEC, Saudi Arabia is ending its splashiest foreign sports venture. The two U.S. allies are in the midst of a messy divorce, even as both face fire from Iran.

So can you talk also about, you know, I think Iran analysis that Saudi Arabia so far actually economically had benefited from the war because they're benefiting from the premium price that they're able to sell oil from UAE, on the other hand, has been, you know, very economically damaged by the war and certainly their brand as, you know, a playground for a global elite has been very much damaged. So can you talk about those dynamics? I think the GCC as a political entity is, if not dead, about to essentially go towards its death.

It is a security organization that was set up in the early 1980s in response to a specific geopolitical situation at the time, which was a smaller six GCC states, although Saudi Arabia is not small, felt a greater threat from Iraq and from Iran at the time. So notably Iran and Iraq are not part of this organization. But that, again, was very. based on a common security imperative and a common security threat perception at the time. That is no longer the case. It's not that Iran is not seen as a threat, but the approach of how

to deal with Iran is dramatically different. And UAE has turned into a complete Israeli ally. And many of these states in the GCC view Israel as a greater threat than Iran. And on top of that, also believe that the UAE's alliance with Israel have actually undermined the broader security of the Persian Gulf as a whole. So we're seeing these splits. And on top of that, there's egos, there's economic competition, there's competition in the Horn of Africa. There's a lot of different things that have been tearing these different countries in a different direction. And the Iran war has now really put that to the fore. We have seen that the Iranians struck at the UAE much, much harder than they did against any of the other countries. And they also actually

spared Saudi Arabia tremendously in that war, which clearly was an indication. of the Iranians wanted to keep the pathway open for some sort of a more positive relationship with Saudi Arabia after the war. Whereas when it comes to the UAE, they struck them much harder, largely as a punishment for the UAE being so close to Israel. And if Trump restarts the war, incidentally, I think one of the things we will see is not only that there will be, again, this horizontal escalation by the Iranians, but I suspect that there will be even more of a laser focus on the UAE because now the Iranians are going to try to drive an even deeper wedge between the UAE and some of the other GCC countries.

It makes sense. It actually fits with the news this morning, the Adnach carrier that was struck the Abu Dhabi National Oil Corporation tanker, which was struck by the Iranians this morning. That's been confirmed by the government of the UAE. And the UAE has been the most belligerent in the United Nations and other places in calling for direct military escalation against Iran. Now, that's actually kind of my last question here is when we see this fracture within the Middle East, and there's alliances in these countries between Oman, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.

What do you expect, you know, the ability for U.S. bases to even be present in the country, even to be after this conflict is settled? Let's say we don't voluntarily do it, but what if those countries themselves say, hey, we don't want these bases in our countries anymore? I think most of the countries will diversify their security basket. They will continue to buy a lot of American weapons. In fact, they may increase their purchases of American weapons. But I think they will start phasing out the bases.

Not all of them, they may be keeping one or two, but this type of a system in which I think right now there's about 19 bases, permanent bases in the region, I think, is going to be something that we're not going to see five to 10 years from now. And again, it's also going to come down to cost. The United States is not going to pay for the rebuilding of these bases. It's going to ask these states to do so, and many of them are going to say, well, we would rather use the money to buy weapons from the United States

or weapons from other countries and diversify our basket. Now, the UAE may be the exception. The UAE may actually triple down, not just on the United States, but on Israel as well, and become an even closer ally of the United States and Israel militarily. Dr. Parsi, thank you so much for joining us, sir. We deeply appreciate your time. Thank you so much for having. I appreciate it. Canadian women are looking for more, more out of 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 and IHeart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts.

2%. That is the number of people who do. take the stairs when there is also an escalator available. I'm Michael Easter, and on my podcast, 2%. I break down the science of mental toughness, fitness, and building resilience in our strange, modern world. I'll be speaking with writers, researchers, and other health and fitness experts, and more, to look past the impractical and way too complex pseudoscience that dominates the wellness industry. We really believe that seed oils were inherently inflammatory. We got it wrong.

Many of the problems that we are freaked out about in the world are the result of stress. Put yourself through some hardships, and you will come out on the other side a happier, more fulfilled, healthier person. Listen to 2%. That's TWO percent on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Do you remember when Diana Ross double-tapped Little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George's... George Bush didn't like black people. I know what you're thinking.

What the hell does George Bush got to do a little kill? Well, you can find out on the Look Back at it podcast. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick it here, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill, waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84 is big to me, not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack all day, but just so y'all know.

I mean, at this point, this is the second episode where we've discussed, correct. So I'm starting to see that there's a through line. We also have AIDS on the table right now. Thank you finishing that sentence. Yes. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Really? Yeah.

For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's turn now to Spirit Airlines in terms of the impacts. So a lot of different claims going around are out there about why Spirit Airlines not only went bankrupt, but went literally ceasing operations overnight, leading to some passengers having to be rebooked, emotional, you know, under goodbye announcements from pilots in the middle of the air. You almost never see this in the United States. Usually airlines are going to bankruptcy.

That's not even all that uncommon, but to find a potential buyer, you know, they were potentially going to get a bailout from the government. None of that ended up happening. And they just genuinely went bust overnight with, yes, some sometimes. signs in the immediate future, but not really many people expected this. So the Trump administration, obviously reacting to this over the weekend. Here was Secretary Scott Besson saying, actually, it's Biden's fault. Let's take a listen. The Treasury was supposed to be doing a deal to save this company. Can you tell us what happened? Sure, Maria. So this is just more of the mess we inherited from the Biden administration in September 22, Elizabeth Warren, who loves to write letters,

sent a letter to the Justice Department, to the Labor, to the transport department, saying that they should oppose the merger with Spirit Airlines. JetBlue wanted to buy them for $3.8 billion. It would have given them much more resiliency. And she and the Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was probably the worst transportation secretary in history when he came to the office. They also were against the merger. And if JetBlue had merged with Spirit, we would have all these jobs that were lost yesterday. We had 30 airport, 30 regional airports who have lost service. And I can tell you what happened here. It wasn't Treasury.

It was commerce. It was trying to put something together. But the reason we were here was because the merger, the Biden administration opposed the merger. We shouldn't have been here in the first place. So a lot of this is going around in terms of the blame. And I'm actually going to go and jump to the last element guys here in the block B7 from our friend Matt Stoller who wrote this piece, Who killed Spirit Airlines? He says it wasn't Biden's antitrust enforcers.

There were many factors. Trump's Iran war, JetBlue, the big four airlines, and behind all of that deregulation, this story has happened hundreds of times. I actually think what he points out, and obviously this is mostly about the Iran War. I think that's it more than anything. But just to address this immediately. That's certainly the final trigger that killed by. The Iran war is what actually put the bullet in their head, but obviously they were dying, bleeding out for many years. What happened? They had a proposed merger with JetBlue. And on paper, you're like, okay, well, that seems better. What I wasn't really aware, though, from that until I really dug into it was JetBlue's plan was to hike fares and to cancel like 40% or something of their route. So not really good for the consumer. Now, maybe it'd be better off if they had merged and, you know, it was still moderately there. But however, what I seem to have read is that many of the airlines were actually lobbying the Biden or the Trump administration not to bail out Spirit Airlines. Why? Because Spirit at the end of the day, listen, I do. I hate Spirit Airlines and I wouldn't fly it. But I fly more than once a year. The vast majority of their customers are one to three times a year flyers who are looking for a cheap discount fare to go place from A to B and they don't care if they have to pay five if they're not going to get a soda from Washington to Denver for four and a half hour flight, right? That's not really a priority.

You don't pick your seed or whatever. They're like, I don't give a shit. Just get me from point A to point B so I can go see my cousin or can go on vacation. It's fine. I think that's a very valuable place in the market. So what they happen to do is that Spirit's competitive fares actually dragged down basic economy fairs for all of the big three carriers. So the big three carriers were desperate actually for the government not to bailout Spirit

so they could go bust. This is another reason why JetBlue really wanted to acquire Spirit and hike the rates was because they're competing against each other. So this is actually a good example of multi-factorial policy. Number one is that we had a policy where we had a discount airline, which we potentially would have bailed out. I think we should have bailed them out. And look, I know many people are going to be upset about that, but I think cheaper airfare is a vital and important thing to a functioning first world nation. I just really do. That's why they have Ryanair and all those cheap options in Europe. And honestly, it's really nice for a lot of the people who live there. You can jet,

you know, literally across the continent. Here, we've never had that. We're a huge country. I accept that. But a couple hundred dollars, as opposed to six, seven hundred dollars is really, really important to, especially middle class people or families, you know, trying to get somewhere. So you have this general policy where we potentially would have done a bailout. We ultimately didn't do it. For a variety of reasons, I mostly think it's because the big three airlines said, hey, please don't do it. And then the Iran war doubled their jet fuel cost, overnight and basically just put two bullets in their head. Yeah.

And they just had to die. It's honestly a tragic story. Yeah. It's a direct consequence of Iran, but of a lot of other government policy over the years. Yeah. And to your point, so the big airlines really despise them and have been trying to do everything they can to destroy them. And Matt has some reporting that's not totally confirmed, but that he had from an insider

about the way they would do that. And so effectively, he said, consumers of low-fayers. airlines tend to book a few weeks before their trip. So a few weeks before a Spirit flight from San New York to Orlando, one or more of the big carriers would radically discount their price on just 20 seats on a similar route. So they would poach those last 20 customers from Spirit. Now, they could afford to effectively sell those seats at a loss. And what that means is for Spirit, it would take what would have otherwise been a profitable flight and put it in the red. And so there is a, if you look at their profitability over time, somewhere around 2016, it seems like the big carriers

figure out this strategy to effectively try to come in and destroy them. And so then now you had them on weak financial footing, looking for a bailout, really being pushed over the cliff by the Iran War and the jet fuel prices. And then who's there to come in and do that final shove over the cliff, the major carriers who want them to be dead? You know, in terms of this jet merger, potential merger, because this is what all the talking point. are about, oh, Biden's antitrust and even near it. And it's not just the Republicans, by the way, near its hand and other corporate type Democrats coming in using the same argument to argue

against future antitrust enforcement were you to have another Democratic administration. The other problem with it, number one, it was sort of on its face illegal. Even Spirit Airlines created a presentation for their shareholders where they're like, this is probably illegal and will probably be blocked. They were contemplating a separate deal where they would merge with another low-cost carrier frontier, which seemed to make more sense and would have preserved their business model and preserve the downward pressure that they had on prices and the positive impact they have for consumers, you know, on the roots that they fly. So, but the shareholders ignored that advice,

went ahead with it, you know, hope for the best. Ultimately, predictably, it was struck down as illegal. There's one other aspect of it, too, though, which is that JetBlue was really loaded up with debt at that time as well. And so they would have been taking on, obviously, an even more extraordinary amount of debt just to buy Spirit. So it's not even clear that JetBlue would have been able to manage then their debt service and they would have survived into the future. But it certainly would have meant that, you know, Spirit would have been killed earlier. It would have been killed at the time of that merger versus being killed now by the Jet Fuel price surge and by the four big carriers who wanted to see them gone. Let's put B4 up here on the screen because it's one thing to say Jet Fuel.

It's another here to see the numbers. So Patrick DeHan over at Gas Buddy compiled this list. Just check this out. This is from May 2nd, so only two days ago. Just imagine what airlines are contending with. Here is the cost to fill a Boeing triple seven today. Chicago, $213,000. Dallas, $180,000. Minneapolis, $180,000. New York City, $180,000. Los Angeles, $217,000. Seattle, $225,000. So, yeah, that's a lot of. money. We're talking about 200 grand in some cases to fill up the whole plane. Now, look, I get it. It's a big aircraft. You probably picked a bigger one just to show exactly what you're dealing with at a macro level. And I know it just takes a full tank of gas to get somewhere going. But I mean, come on,

$200,000 just to fill up an airplane? Like, that's a lot of money. And that's double, literally, what it costs as of a month ago. So that's going to show up somewhere. There is no denying this. The Iran War is what killed spirit. Now, they were, again, they were bleeding out already, but it was the jet fuel crisis. Let's go ahead and put B3 up there on the screen. They actually detail this in Al Jazeera. They've begun their wind down all over the jet fuel doubling in prices

that will cost now thousands of jobs. But I think more importantly is that this airline, so for example, in the week between May 1st and May 15th, They had 809,000 seats, which would have flown on 4,119 domestic flights. So that is almost 800,000 or sorry, 400,000 seats because of the status of when they're going bankrupt that will just not be here this week, 400,000 seats on an airplane. That is going to show up somewhere. And the likelihood is it will show up in now American and Delta and United, they can charge

whatever they want, and they've got the jet fuel stuff on top of that. So good, you know, good luck to anybody who wants to fly right now. I don't think it's out of the question to see $800,000 fares, even for intra-east coast, like in the middle of the summer. And in terms of international, good luck. Like, I was looking at Dubai this morning, even in the couple weeks since the ceasefire, air traffic out of Dubai, or passenger traffic in Dubai International Airport is down 20%. Now, look, some of that demand will be destroyed, let's say 10%, but those other 10, if they're still going to fly somewhere, they might have to go through Europe. So if you're trying to connect, if you're going to Asia and you're connecting through Europe or through a direct flight,

you know, one of those very competitive flights from here in the U.S., I think it will be like thousands of dollars. Like I think the idea of an economy ticket being one to 2000, which I still think was high compared to where things were before. I think you could potentially start to see, you know, economy see. It's not premium economy seats. Be like $3,500, $4,000 in the middle of peak summer if stuff like this continues. And you have airlines adding on additional jet fuel surcharges like Japan Airlines, 350 per ticket for any one-way flight, North America and Europe.

And then so round-trip, that's another $700. Heathrow, I'm sure by the end of the next few months we'll also have, they already have a very, very high landing tax. I think it could go up, you know, even more, several hundred bucks. So this is just going to be unsustainable. Like, you're just not going to be able to fly anymore. Yeah. At a certain point.

And looking internationally, Air India, they cut all of their international flights through July, all of them. Oh, my God. Yeah, they cut all of their... This is a very specific niche thing, but there are a lot of families living in the Bay Area and, you know, people like me who grew up as first generation immigrants who all would go to India over the summer and book on shitty... No offense. Actually, no offense. On shitty airlines like Air India.

Air India's the worst airline I've never flown up. Okay, fine. Let's just say. It's dog shit. All right? It's, it's, it's, literally cockroaches on the way. It is the worst airline in the world. Sorry, don't sue me.

All right. It's, I had a bad experience. It's my own personal. Multiple bad experience. Yes. But anyway, yeah, it's not good for a lot of American. So apparently they're flying domestically still within India, but all of their international flights through July are completely cut.

But, you know, going back to what you're talking about, and in terms of the impact here domestically from spirits closure, there was literally something called the Spirit effect. When they would begin flying a certain route, every other carrier knew they had to reduce their price. And so with them gone, now their hand is freed. And Stoller makes a bigger point and really should read his whole analysis because it's typically, you know, as usual, it's very excellent and in depth and very thoughtful, which is that ever since the airline industry was deregulated, you've had all of this combination of consolidations and mergers, and then just so many bankruptcies. Because it really is the type of service.

And he compares it to the mail service where it's like you pay the same amount for a stamp. And for some places, that is you're sort of paying above cost and you're subsidizing service to rural areas. It's a similar dynamic with air travel, where if you want there to be reliable, affordable access throughout the country, you're going to have to manage that from the, you know, from the federal level and make sure that those routes, even the ones that are not the most profitable, that those continue to be serviced. And so, you know, undergirding this whole story, you know, going back now decades when the decision was made to deregulate airlines,

that's when you get to this scenario of having, you know, a handful of choices and the big airlines with their, with their hubs and the way they're able to operate. and the way they're able to go after new entrants like spirit that we're trying to undercut them on price, that's how you end up in this situation where, you know, its air travel is miserable, where you don't have access in certain parts of the country, where low-cost carriers and others who are trying to innovate are quickly pushed down. Last thing here, we can put B5 up on the screen. It just shows you that this fuel price crunch is not just going to affect airlines here.

We already talked about Air India. Sagar was talking about. Ryanair, actually the UK is now loosening some of their rules and saying basically like, okay, if you have a flight that's going somewhere that's half empty and you have another one later in the day, you're allowed to push those passengers to that other flight, which is something they weren't allowed to do before. But in any case, you know, this is the early days. This is the early days of the impact from the war.

This is just like COVID where, you know, you drop a giant boulder in the water and then the ripples just spread and spread and spread. And this is one of the first very noticeable ripples. And, you know, is it, is at the end of the world? No. If you were hoping to go to a wedding or a funeral or visit your relatives or, God forbid, go on vacation. Certainly not a happy thing, but it's not necessarily life-threatening. But this is just the first of many, many impacts that we are already seeing ripple throughout our economy and the global economy. Yeah, look, what made COVID inflation miserable is nobody died because. food prices went up by 20%?

Or, okay, very few people. People probably did. Very few people died because food prices went up by 20%. It still sucked. I mean, that's the whole part. What has been happening in this country since 2020?

Every year, it gets worse. Housing, food, things been more expensive. It's just like everything has more friction. Has it really gotten better? I just, I don't, more crime. It's just like, everything is shitty. And, you know, there's the, what is the theory?

It's like and shittification. I'm sure you've heard that before. With corporate, you know, dealing with a corporation, health insurance, right? It's just nothing is simple. And yes, maybe that is romanticizing a different time, but I don't know. I just feel like things are getting much worse and worse and worse.

And I don't see anything particularly getting better. When a group of women discover they've all dated the same prolific con artist, they take matters into their own hands. I vowed. I will be his last target. He is not going to get away with this. He's going to get what he deserves. We always say that trust your girlfriends. Listen to the girlfriends.

Trust me, babe. On the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the Look Back at it podcast. From 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick you here,

unpack what went down and try to make sense of how we survived it with our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. 84 was a wild year. It was a wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey, what's good, y'all? You're listening to learn the hard way with your favorite therapist and host care games. This space is about black men's experiences, having honest comments. conversations that it's really not safe to have anywhere, but you're having them with a licensed professional who knows what he's doing. How many men carry a suit or armor. It signals to the world that you not to be played with. And just because you have the capability that does not mean that you need to, listen to learn the hard way on the IHard radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHart podcast. Guaranteed human.