Chapo Trap House - 1003 - Bored of Peace feat. Derek Davison (1/19/2026)

Episode Date: January 20, 2026

Chapo Foreign Policy correspondent Derek Davison returns to talk about the decades that have been happening these past few weeks. We stop at Iran and cover the protests and the possible involvement of Israeli weaponry; at Syria, where Rojava and the SDF have all but capitulated to Ahmed al-Sharaa; at Greenland, where the potential of an inter-NATO conflict grows, and in Israel, where Trump attempts to do freemium diplomacy. Finally, we read a piece about the Brandon administration acquiring The Device. Find all of Derek’s foreign policy coverage at: www.foreignexchanges.news www.americanprestigepod.com

Hello, everybody. It's Monday, January 19th, and this is your Chopo. On today's episode, Felix and I are once again joined by our good friend and senior Chopo, Foreign Policy Correspondent, from American Prestige and Foreign Exchanges. It's Derek Davison back again, the double D. Welcome back, Derek. Thanks for having me, guys. I'm excited to be on. I have a new project. I need to raise a billion dollars so that I can become a permanent member of the Board of Peace. So, you know, if anybody's listening out there and you want to put together like a little... Yeah, we're getting a go fund me together to get there on the Board of Peace. You know, I just need to buy my way in and then I think it'll be smooth sailing from there.

The Board of Peace reminds me of those, I mean, speaking of podcasts, those podcasts, those podcasts are 2017 that had like 18 rotating co-hosts. It's like, it's a cast of thousands. We're kicking Djibouti out because some unsavory DMs have served. For $1 billion, you can be in a discord with President Donald Trump. Here are all his personal uncensored thoughts and opinions. Notably, he's very reticent about sharing those things just publicly. The forbidden riffs. Right, right.

Edition. Obviously, having you went there like, obviously to take a break from a focusing on the ongoing occupation of America to talk about some of the other things that are happening in the world today. And I guess like, I want to start here. Obviously, we don't usually talk about sports on this show. This is not a sports-based podcast. And as such, I really think that we're really doing our listeners a disservice because we're not giving them the opportunity to make money by gambling. You know, I didn't give anyone my, you know, my playoff picks over the weekend. You would have lost

money. But the point is, we're here for you. And now, with the new innovations like Kalshi, that allow you bet on any world outcome, finally, we can get, like, let's get, let's get like a Felix Will, Derek Parley going here. Let's make our listeners some money. So Derek,

let's go on Kalshi. Which country is America most likely to intervene in militarily next? Iran, Greenland, or Syria. I mean, I would have said Iran up until a couple of days ago, but now he's pissed off about Greenland. So, yeah, I don't know. That may be the next one to go.

I don't know what the operation would look like. There's nobody you can just kidnap in the middle of the night and have the entire Greenland establishment fall at your feet the way he did in Venezuela. But yeah, he's really really pissed off at those guys now. Well, I guess let's start with Greenland because basically the news came out today that I'm just going to read this. It says a new president of the United States letter to Jonah. This is like the, it says Greenland reiterates threats and is forwarded by the NSC staff to multiple European ambassadors in Washington. I obtained the text for multiple officials. This is Trump's message to the Denmark's ambassador.

Oh, no, no, Norway's ambassador. in Norway. There's Norwegian Prime Minister. Yeah. President Trump has asked the following message shared with Prime Minister Jonas Garstor to be forwarded to your name, head of department government state. Dear Jonas, considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China and why do they have a right of ownership anyway?

There are no written documents. It is only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago. But we had boats landing there also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since it's founding. And now NATO should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland. Thank you, President DJT. Now, a couple of things about that.

And what I find, I guess, like, it's baffling on its face, but like makes sense if you understand like the deeper Trump psychology. Like when he says the world will not be safe unless we have total and complete control of Greenland, we already do. And when he says that Denmark can't protect Greenland from Russia and China, Denmark is in NATO. The United States is in NATO.

So like we would be like we would be protecting it from Russia and China as we're already apparently doing. But like what are we to make of it? Like time and time again, people have to like ask themselves over and over again. Is he fucking serious about this? And I think he is, but like obviously you can talk about like the minerals or whatever resources you have in Greenland, but I think it's more, more than anything, it's a test case, like for line stepping and boundary pushing about what he can get away with. And also like psychologically how important it is for MAGA and the sort of like, I don't know, resurgent Fourth Reich in America to have like a new frontier, like to conquer and take and acquire territory through force.

Because like that's what they believe in. And it doesn't really matter that the territory in question is something that we are, is, essentially already our territory. But I've been interested in your thoughts on the Greenland situation. So, yeah, I mean, there's a number of things here. One is that he has this strange relationship with Europe where, like, they are so sycophantic to him, and they have been for this entire first year of his second term. And on some level, I think that's disgusts him. Like, he's disgusted by just the cowtowing and the sort of, you know, kneeling at his feet.

in the spinelessness. But he also doesn't like it when he perceives that they're standing up to him. And I don't know what the red line here is. I don't know if he even knows.

I mean, it's just his brain fires an occasional neuron goes off and he feels one way or the other. But like he really doesn't seem to have a kind of modus Vivendi for dealing

with European leaders. Either they're too obsequious or they're not being obsequious, enough. They knuckle under on NATO and he likes that, but then, you know, they, you know, kind of grovel at his feet over Ukraine. And that doesn't seem to get the same level of response. So I don't know. I don't, I don't really know how to parse that, but it's just clear that he doesn't like these guys very much. And so, yeah, like anything he can do to sort of push the boundary there and, you know, bully these guys. I think that's basically it. He just likes to.

bully them. And, you know, if they respond, you know, by by giving in, then that just means he'll push further. If they actually stand up and you have some sort of military conflict or breakdown in NATO, he doesn't really give a shit. Like, he doesn't, he doesn't care. There is the mineral thing, but they've stopped talking about the minerals. And I think partly because the minerals are probably unexractable. I mean, at least in current conditions. It's very difficult to logistically figure out how you would extract whatever minerals Greenland has. Now, fortunately, in that regard, the environmental policies of this administration mean that the big logistical problem, which is the ice, isn't going to be there for very much longer, but we're probably

going to have bigger fish to fry when the ice melts. So I don't know that that's, you know, any cause for optimism there. But still, like, they've really focused on this security aspect, which, as you said, it doesn't make any sense. Like, it's in NATO. The U.S. has bases there. It can do anything it wants there. You know, like any, any ask that it makes of Denmark, as far as a military presence

in Greenland, short of, we're just going to invade the fucking island and take it from you, would be gladly accepted. They'll take anything at this point to just, you know, get this to stop. Like, there's nothing there that is somehow. an imminent threat to U.S. security. It's not like you've got Russian and Chinese, naval vessels circling the island, waiting for the right moment to strike.

None of this makes a whole lot of sense. So I think it does come back mostly for him to just bullying Europe. And you're right, there is another weird element to this that I don't understand very well, but is clearly present, which is all of these fucking Silicon Valley

tech guys who think that this is like the new frontier and they're going to build like sanctuary cities like yeah his sanctuary cities for pedophiles there and i'm just like you know i mean that my response to that it's like drop these fucking people off in the ice and let them build this build paradise like i i don't care like fuck oh you know these these people would would be gone in 30 minutes if you did that but but yeah why not like you go go nuts you guys can have the frontier and do whatever you rugged, manly tech geeks, go do what you need to do. Peter Kiel trying to groom a juvenile polar bear

and then trying to push it off a cliff when it turns A-Tun. Derek, this is all very interesting in light of, well, something I'm very excited for, the Canadian-Chinese Union that, you know, eventually Illinois is going to join. But what do you think it counts for, the fact that like Canada of all places is showing much more backbone than the entire EU. That is interesting. I mean, I think Carney, you know, we'll see what comes of it. I mean,

Carney went to China. He had this meeting with Xi and, you know, did demonstrate some possibility that Canada is going to try to develop a closer relationship. I don't know how far that's going to go or how far he's going to be willing to take it. Because Canada, more so than the EU, is, is, you know, really vulnerable to, to pressure for the U.S. Yeah, but, yeah, but I mean, that car deal is a pretty fucking big thing. It is. They reduce tariffs from 100% to what, like 10%, right?

Right, right. And I said, there were like, mega people on X going like, Canada's going to destroy the U.S. auto industry. Like, oh, well, boo fucking who. Like, sorry, not Canada's problem, I would think. So, yeah, I mean, I do. You're right. It is a big deal. I'm sort of taking a wait and see approach to how far, how big a deal it becomes.

But yeah, I mean, I think, you know, the Europeans are just, I, they're a sad bunch. And Carney, Carney has been, since he took over from, from Trudeau, has been, has shown more of a background in terms of his willingness to stand up to Trump than any than these other guys than the Europeans. And I just don't know if it's like a learned helplessness on the part of the Europeans over decades or if it really is like they got it in their heads that like genuflecting to Trump was the only way they could keep him to, you know, on side with with respect to Ukraine, which hasn't really worked. Like, but, but they're really a pathetic bunch. Yeah, no. And like speaking like speaking exactly to that, like I think the thing that struck me about European

leaders is I think like at the beginning of Trump's second term, I think they had this like too clever by half idea that like, well, obviously Trump is an idiot with like the attention span of a fucking hummingbird, which is true. But like they think that they're so much smarter. But the thing is like they are still vassals of America. And I think they like genuinely have this idea that if you just flatter him enough or give him personal gifts, like if you give him like, oh like here's something gold, Mr. President. God, you're such a genius. We all have. admire you so much. Here's the FIFA Peace Prize. Yeah, yeah, the FIFA Peace Prize that he'll just get bored and move on. But like, to your original point, like, I think it just signal, it only signals like further subservience, which discuss him and will only lead to further aggression on his part. I remind me of a Trump one thing. Do you remember when like the, this was like, there was a lot of stuff like this during Trump one, but this, I, it always really just grossed me out. When people were like, oh, Queen Elizabeth is doing like epic shit. to Trump.

Yeah, yeah. See how she has her arm angle as they're taking their picture together, like slightly to the left. Yeah, it's just, yeah. I mean, that was the only thing about Bungler did that I liked was when he gave her an iPod with all his speeches on it.

That was really, that was like such a Trump thing to do. But, um, but I remember, I remember at the time people going, like, can you imagine like how bad it is for Queen Elizabeth to have to meet with a guy like this? And it's like, oh, yeah, she's never dealt with a guy like this, an old pedophile who's ecstical and wards himself a bunch of bullshit medals.

Yeah, for fucking family. She's not related to 500 million guys like that. But I think, I don't know, again, this is only for professionals. If you are just a regular, do not try to get inside other people's head. That's only for people like us. I think for the Europeans, it's a problem of, I wouldn't say not your grandfather's pedophile, but not the pedophile that is your grandfather. They probably

think like, okay, we've dealt with a billion guys like this before. But he's, I don't know, there's fewer pedophile norms and social niceties that they're used to, and none of the typical European passive aggressive tricks

work on him. And I think also just, yeah, that he simultaneously like, you know, sets the table for everyone to grovel for him, but also, hates it when people actually do it. He's just so incoherent. And I say that because, like, it has worked for them on occasion to go and, like, bow and

scrape before him. I think, I'm thinking back to, like, when he had the summit with Putin and Alaska, and it really looked like he was about to, like, make a real sharp turn on Ukraine and, like, go full, full bore in favor of Russia. And, like, Zelensky and all the European leaders flew immediately to Washington. and they had that picture where they were all sitting in the semi-circle around Trump's desk, like they were in fucking, like they were in fucking detention and the guidance counselor was lecturing them. And it worked.

I mean, it worked. It got him, it pulled him back from a direction that it seemed like he was going back to one that was more favorable to the Ukrainians and the Europeans. So it's partly, I think it's, they have this in their heads because sometimes you get a short-term benefit out of it. before, you know, the disgust kicks back in. And it's, you know, partly because this, this is a man with a dying brain and it doesn't work all the time. And he has rapid changes of mood and, you know, wakes up one day and feels one thing and wakes up the next day and feels something completely different because that's just the state

that he's in. I mean, speaking also to like the general incoherence of it, which is a good point, it's hard to game out and like Tote up to a guy like that who there's, no like through line. I mean, I'm glad you brought up Ukraine because it's like, during Trump one, he basically went further than any other U.S. president has gone before with lethal A. Like the policy that is now like specifically associated with Brandon because obviously the special military operation happened during Brandon, it was initially like one of those Trump policies that was brought, that was encouraged by like the John Bolton Rubio sphere of

influence. Right. And if he's just wildly oscillating between like, you know, we should give them everything. Like we should give them fucking F-35s. They should strike inside Russia to like they started, like Ukraine started this war. They should have to pay reparations to Russia. Like how do you, you can't consistently like kiss ass to a guy like that, unfortunately for for the Europeans. I've been like one thing that has been amusing is of course, speaking of our European vassals, is to have them discover that imperialism can happen. to European countries too. But like to what extent is like

Greenland like already like kind of like Denmark's property? Like I mean that's how did that occur? And like to what extent to the people of Greenland like did they associate with Denmark? I understand like look I know Trump has been like offering you know like every Greenlander would get a half million dollars. And my attitude about that is if they're willing to give up like the free health care

and education that Denmark gives them for $500,000, then they should become Americans because they already are spiritually, intellectually. Like, they're ready to become part of the Burger Reich if that seems like a good deal to them. But like, give up your state-back, upper middle class existence, and you can enter a lottery where you can go to the club with Sneakow. But what do you make it like?

Like, are European vessels? And like Greenland kind of is a imperial holding of Denmark, right? Am I wrong of that way? I mean, it's autonomous now, but yeah, I mean, it's part of Denmark as an imperial. It's technically like, you know, NATO, like, which is us. So if we were to invade Greenland, we would essentially be going to war with ourselves and upending like, you know, the last, I don't know, half century plus. In the United States and the World War II.

Yeah, I mean, I don't, my sense, I mean, before when this all initially started and he started musing about like, you know, and this was at the same time he's doing like Canada should be the 51st state and like, oh, maybe we should have Greenland. And it's hard to get a beat on like how serious he was about any of this stuff. But the consistent reporting in terms of where the most of the Greenland, like the Greenlandic public is, is that they support independence and they don't want to be part of Denmark, but they also don't want to be part of the U.S. Like they want to be an independent state. And I think that the more pressure he puts, the sense I get at least is that the more pressure he puts on Denmark and Greenland, like that we're coming, we're going to buy this place or we're going to take it over somehow.

The better they feel about staying part of Denmark as opposed to the alternative of becoming part of the U.S. I mean, thousands of people protested in a, it protested in nuke just the other day. just over the weekend, I think Saturday, which doesn't sound like that many, but it's a country of like 50,000 people. Hang out with you more. Yeah. I mean, as a percentage of the Greenland population was probably a pretty significant percentage of people who participated in this demonstration to say, we don't want to be part of the United States, marched on the U.S. consulate. So it was a major thing. So I think the idea or the tendency among most of the population is that they do not want to be part of the United States.

There's been this push for independence that's sort of stalled out now in the face of all these U.S. threats because the concern is you become independent. You'll just come under U.S. way anyway or that the U.S. will rope you into some compact or free association agreement, which is something they've talked about as well. and, you know, they're not, I think it's all kind of gotten put on the back burner. And they're sort of like we would, you know, we'll stay with Denmark for the time being, which is sort of remarkable on Trump's part, I guess, bringing people together. Do you remember when J.D. and Usher went over there? Yeah. On the charm offensive.

I mean, of all the people to send on a charm offensive, the most repulsive man in America, let's drop him off and see what that does. And like, I think that like they're definitely like savvier than any American because like at first it was $100,000. Now I'm hearing $500,000. The I, let's say they went along with that. And they're like, sure, I'll think a half million dollar check to become an American. Sounds great. The idea that anyone would get that money is so.

Oh, it's a lot of. It would be like it would be probably 10 grand if they were lucky like at the end of the day. Like coming from Donald Trump, you know, the guy well known for, you know, paying bill, paying his bills, be they lawyers or contractors. No, I mean, I think he would boost the U.S. military presence and then say, we've given you each $500,000 worth of protection from all the great threats of the world. And like, I mean, it would be some bullshit like that. How is that valued even? Like, the typical cruise missile costs like $3 million.

Well, there you go. That's six people covered right there. Put a cruise missile on the island. But if they, like, great, there's probably not a lot of population density in Greenland. And if you're just like, if you live in like, I don't know what they live in over that. But like, whatever your domicile is gets hit by a cruise missile, like they'll only restore one limb if you get blown up. Like, who's valuing this? To the people of Greenland, I say, abandon the Scandinavian social welfare model.

Do you want that? Or does everyone in Greenland want a pair of signed boxing shorts by Floyd Mayweather? the rich like the Americans are see how greedy they are they're even trying to shoot their friends or invade their friends just for greed and we know that there's minerals and oils possibly in our underground and that's worth so much more even than that but even if we didn't have that we would still not be bought actually speaking of missiles on islands Derek I want to ask you about this because you know like an issue that came up is like correct me if I'm wrong about this but I I think I read today that Britain's trident nuclear missile, like systems, are operated by Americans, and the missiles and the systems themselves are only serviced and repaired in America by Americans. So essentially, like, Britain's nuclear deterrence is essentially how much of that is just America, like that they essentially don't have control of their own nuclear arsenal. Yeah, I don't know this very well.

I mean, it has to do with the, I think, the submarine launched, the Trident, the Trident, two, which is used on U.S. submarines. It's manufactured. I think Lockheed Martin makes it. But yeah, I don't, I mean, as far as the missiles that are in the British arsenal, this is not, this isn't something that I'm hugely familiar with. And I haven't seen whatever, I haven't seen the article that you're talking about. It was just something I read. Listeners, feel free to correct me. Like, I thought of that, like, in light of the fact of, like, Felix, you've been posting a lot recently about the nobility and indeed the superiority of the French people to any Angloid. And I would just like to think that, like, I think this is a good example of, like, France at the end of the day has their own nuclear weapons.

And as someone pointed out on Twitter, they're probably the only European country that if it came to it wouldn't have a problem killing tens of millions of Americans. So once again, we come back to nuclear weapons and like, does North Korea, like, do they look so crazy? Because I know like, as long as I can remember, whenever you hear about North Korea, they're like this mad hermit kingdom run by a lunatic. And it's like, given how world events are shaken out, like, can you really say that they're that crazy? France, by the way, also the only other country operating nuclear marine propelled aircraft carriers. China is going to get there, probably within the next five years, but pretty impressive. Yeah, I've never thought that the North Koreans look crazy for acquiring or for building their own nukes. I mean, it's clearly you look at the difference between a North Korea and Iran or Venezuela.

And it's pretty obvious why one of those places is relatively unfucked with. I mean, they're under sanctions, but they don't get nearly as much grief. they haven't had any U.S. air strikes or U.S. Special Forces operations in their capitals, in their capital city. So, yeah, it's pretty obvious what that gets you at this point. I don't know why more countries aren't pursuing it. Well, okay, that's a good segue after talking about nuclear weapons programs, sanctions. Let's talk about Iran right now. Obviously, Iran has been going through like a great deal of protests at the moment. Derek, what can you tell us about, can you give us some background on what started this recent wave of protests in Iran,

what the government's response has been and like the state of Iran right now? Because like, as far as I can tell, it seems like everyone thought, like, you know, there was like some initial hope that like this might topple the government. But like after a week or so of this, it seems to me like the government of Iran is more durable than people might have imagined. They seem to be still in control of the country. but can you just give us some background on why these protests develops and like and the scale of the violence and repression of these protests that have been going on? Because like I've seen it's hard to tell because like the internet is blacked out in Iran.

It's like I've seen figures ranging from 2,000 people killed to 20,000 people killed in the crackdown on these protests. So can you just give us, walk us, walk us through what's going on in Iran right now? So yeah, I mean, it comes back to the Iranian economy. to partly sanctions. I mean, there are other factors that have weakened the Iranian economy, corruption, basic mismanagement, but sanctions are a huge part of the story. And they're a huge part of the story, not just in their direct effect, but in the fact that they create, you know, by cutting Iran off from all the normal channels to access, you know, global capital or international capital or banking services or these other things, they create a lot of space for, you know,

for black market operators, corrupt operators, to kind of fill in the gaps. So it's a reinforcing, they're kind of mutually reinforcing. But what happened in late last year was the UK, France, and Germany reimposed all of the old UN nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. They initiated what's called the snapback mechanism in the 2015 nuclear deal. which was about to expire. And so these sanctions were going to go away forever. And, you know, God knows we can't lose an opportunity to sanction the Iranian.

And so they initiated this mechanism, which makes it a virtual certainty that the sanctions are reimposed. The way it was designed was that it couldn't really be blocked by the UN. So they reimposed those sanctions. And the Rial, which is already, you know, virtually worthless, craters. much further than it ever has. It was down to like 1.3 million to the dollar. I think it's been close to 1.5 million to the dollar since then. So just a huge devaluation of the currency,

you know, more shortages, economic strife. And the protests themselves began among the merchant class in Tehran, the bizarre merchants who are fed up with having to struggle through a shitty economy as they've had to do for many years now. And they took to the streets, and then it very quickly took off from there. I think the Iranian government tried initially

to manage this in a less violent way. I mean, you have a government in place now, at least at the elected level, the presidency, that is somewhat sympathetic to this stuff. I mean, it's more on the reformist side of things, Massoud Peschian, and sort of more in tune with, you know, kind of understanding people's grievances here. So they tried to, you know, assuage the protest that they met with some of the leadership,

the organizers and talked about, you know, ways that we could ameliorate your concerns or address your concerns. They tried at one point to introduce some sort of cash subsidy program for people, but because of the constraints that they're under, the subsidies amounted to like $7 a month or some, you know, really insignificant things. So that didn't achieve anything. And then as they began to grow and expand to other cities and other social classes, and they really started to get, you know, you really started to see significant numbers of people in the streets. And especially when I think Reza Pahlavi decided to jump on board and call for protests.

And that was the night that the Iranians imposed the communications blackout. And there were indications before everything went dark of like really, massive protests in Tehran. That was really the night that they started to crack down intensely. There had been reports of 50, 60 people killed. We don't, again, hard to know all the circumstances, but it was after that point that you started to see that number go up. And I tend to believe some of the less extravagant, let's say, estimates from groups like the human rights activist news network, a news agency, the Iran Human Rights Group, which is based in Europe. And they've been at around 3,000, 3,500, you know, approaching 4,000.

And I think as more information gets out. And the reason I say that is because Ali Hamini, the Supreme Leader himself over the weekend, gave an address, I think it was on Saturday, and said thousands of people were killed. He acknowledged that thousands of people died in these protests. He didn't say that they were killed by security forces. he blamed it on foreign agents and provocateurs and rioters. But if even Chamei is sort of, you know, acknowledging ballpark that number, you know, I think that that has some credibility to it.

In terms of the regime stability, I say regime, everybody gets mad when you say regime. Let's say government. Sorry, I need me to say regime. But the government's stability, I think it's sort of, you know, it's another cycle of something that's going to have to happen. a few more times before the government collapses. But I don't think they're on a sustainable path because there isn't very much that they can do to address the underlying grievance, which is that the Iranian economy is, you know, has been smashed, shattered. And there's,

there's not that much they can do. So people just carry these grievances and you go through around a protest and the response, you know, after they try to play around with some, you know, marginal solutions and that doesn't work. The response is to crack down. You get a round of cracking down, which just makes people angrier. And then it subsides. And then,

you know, a few months later, a year later, you get the same thing happening, but people are still angry. They're building on all the anger that they felt for 10 years now or however long it's been.

And it's just, it's going to continue to, to I think, get bigger and bigger. And I don't know that there's a way out of this. I know that, you know, the government talks about,

ending corruption. It talks about, you know, taking, you know, systemic kind of reforms to fix this stuff. That's going to run into, that always will run into the wall of sanctions. And it happens to be something that like every government that's been elected in Iran from time immemorial has said, we're going to take on corruption. We're going to tackle all this stuff. And it never happens. So there's a sort of, you know, busted promise aspect to this, as well as a structural limitation on just how much. you can actually do to appease the protesters. So I do think, like, over time, this is just going to continue to happen and get worse and

worse. Getting it out for the future, and I agree with you that there's just running headlong into the problem of sanctions, there's just, like, you could, they could reincarnate LaGuardia. They could have 50,000 LaGuardias occupying every level of government. And it would not really ameliorate things enough to, like, fix the currency. enough to really cause like cost of living issues. But, you know, looking ahead

like the next like, I don't know, five, ten years, something that I saw people both who spend time in Iran or just live there full time talk about is that this sort of this recent port deal that Iran had where it looked like they were going to go

with China, but the last minute they went with India because India offered a slightly better deal. And when this last round of Sanchez came in, obviously, that was the end of that deal. They sort of snake to China for no reason because India, obviously, even if they had the will to do this, that money is probably never hitting the Iranian coffers. But looking ahead, like, if, hypothetically, like, if, you know, Khamini is, what,

like 93, 94, when he inevitably dies, do you think there would be? 80s. According to Google. I don't know why I thought 93. Well, I mean, he's had cancer so you can probably add a few years.

I know, it's just such a specific number. I don't know. I think I need new glasses. But, like, depending on who got in there, do you think there would be an opportunity for whoever or whatever comes after

to create more, a stronger relationship with China? Because I think that would obviously be their best shot towards stabilizing things. It's interesting. I mean, the transition from Hohmani to whatever comes after him is going to be a real inflection point, I think. I mean, you know, Iran has only done this once under the Islamic Republic.

And it was a real succession crisis. I mean, Hohmani was not the obvious candidate to succeed Khomeini when he died in 1989. And so there's not, like, there's no precedent here for what you do that anything could come, could, could, could follow how many, I mean, I've seen people talk about the possibility of turning the Supreme Leadership into like a three-person committee or, you know, appointing, like, I mean, how many his son is a contender, although I don't think he has necessarily the, uh, the, the jurisdiction or the, the juridic qualifications, although neither technically did how many when he got the job. So, you know, there's, there's a lot of questions about, you know, what would that mean?

would it become a hereditary thing? Like, do we really want that? There's a lot of, you know, kind of, you know, been a lot of speculation. Not so much recently, but when how many was in really bad health a few years ago, like this was a big topic of conversation. Like, my guess would be that what will come out of that transition, which is going to take place against the backdrop of, I would assume, another mass outpouring of protests.

So you're going to have a lot of public preference. pressure on whatever, you know, whatever process they do undertake for succession. That could be a wild card. But my guess is that what would emerge from that is something that's a little closer to a power sharing arrangement between the Supreme Leader office and the IRGC. So you might have a Supreme Leader who's more of a kind of distant, not figurehead necessarily, but monarchical, not so much involved in the day-to-day aspect of things kind of overseeing a government that's really run by the IRGC or somebody high up or with connections to the IRGC.

And in that case, if that's the kind of thing that emerges, you could see them go in a couple of different directions. There's a possibility of some relatively pragmatic IRGC commander coming to power and saying, you know, we're solid enough, we're stable enough to like negotiate, with the U.S. again, or let's take it in the other direction and, you know, come to a closer relationship with China. But there's a lot of directions that that could go. And I do think there's something's got to get. I mean, they've got to find some way out of this, whether it's, you know, let's finally,

you know, do the nuclear deal that the U.S. wants us to do, which, you know, you can wait out Trump and see if you can get a little bit more favorable terms from whoever comes after, or you can, you know, if it's Trump or Vance, talk about some of the things that the Iranians have regarded as taboo previously, like the missile program. I guess the regional proxies isn't as big a deal now as it would have been or as it used to be given how badly they've been beaten up in many cases. But, but yeah, I don't, they're not an attendable, they're not an attenable course right now. Like something, something does have to give, whether it's, you know, finding a way to go all in with China and the Chinese, government, you know, sort of dropping its, it's still somewhat reticence, I think, although they seem to be, you know, providing more weapons and a little bit more, at least, support than, say,

during, they did during the 12-day war or whatever we're calling it. But still, yeah, something's got to change. And that's also, I can not really get a consistent line on what they did or didn't do during the 12-day war, China, because I've heard, I mean, it's just always maddening to try to find stuff about this because you're... I don't know. You have to navigate like 12 accounts called like A-O-R news. And it's probably what being like a Bills fan is like, honestly. There you go, yeah.

But on the other side of that, there was a thread going around from... I forget the person's name, but I think they grew up in Iran or they spent some time in their childhood there and go back frequently, but they live in America. And their basic point was that on the other side of this, things are obviously horrible as far as cost of living and inflation and everything goes in Iran and have been for a very long time and are getting worse. But every time we kind of see this similar cycle with protests in that there's two or three days of immense, very well attended protests that eventually they're. They are dispersed and they die down. And there's this consistent problem, at least from an outside perspective, that it doesn't seem like there's any consistent, you know, dominant group or sets of groups or ideological factions among the protests. And that there's just, regardless of how bad things are, there is still enough support there.

And opposition is scattered enough that they can keep doing. this. And I'm in, again, like on a long enough timeline, which doesn't even have to be that long with currency issues that are this bad, nine times out of ten, you would say, yeah, that augurs doom for the government in question. But it is notable that we do keep seeing the same exact cycle. And I mean, I don't think we've brought it up with these protests specifically, but it does seem like this time that it's almost acknowledged among the West even that we or Israel or us in conjunction with Israel may have like provided weapons for for yeah like Mike Pompeo seemed to imply that like Mossade agents were marching

shoulder to shoulder with the Iranian people I don't know if he meant that literally or not I mean, I would just, look, I think we can just assume that, like, Israel, I'm sure, as their intelligence services are doing something about this. But, like, I don't want to overrate it too much to make it seem like there's, there is no domestic political. Oh, right. I'm not, I'm not saying. But I am interested, like, Derek, like about what, how you rate, like, the claims of, like, direct massed, not just infiltration of the protests, but like, the arming of them as well. Just to clarify, I'm not saying that, like, the protests or Mossad fermented. I'm saying that instances of, like, gunfire emanating from crowds, people think those

were, like, Israeli provided weapons and possibly, like, you know, people acting at the behest of Israel. Yeah, I mean, I would say a couple of things. One is, I think that this round of protests, I mean, it followed the same general pattern, but the level of violence was different. it was more intense and that cuts potentially both ways but this was a level of violence that I think and again it's hard to know

but I think you would have to go back to 79 to find this level of this this many casualties in a politically involved in politically involved unrest in Iran so it's different in that sense and if that becomes the template for future protests

I think it's they're going to continue to escalate and that that becomes a problem for the government survival. I do agree part of the reason that these things don't wind up really seriously threatening the government is because there really isn't a focus on an alternative. Instead, you get like these outside actors, Pahlavi and M.E.K and like these groups that are outside around in exile, you know, kind of trying to claim ownership of protests that they really don't have all that much to do with. And Pahlavi tried this time, and we don't really know. There were, I mean, there are reports of people chanting pro-monarchy slogans,

the extent to which they're doing that because they really, you know, want the Pahlavi tinaeus to return or because it just is something to latch on to as an alternative to the Islamic Republic is very far from clear. So, yeah, without a, without a like on the table ready alternative, it's difficult to mount a serious challenge. in terms of the outside influence. I mean, again, it's very hard to say. And anything that I would say, you know, try to say definitively here would be speculation, entirely speculation on my part. But we do, we did see, I think, some interesting things here in especially in that among the casualty figures, there are a large number for this type of unrest in Iran. large number of security forces, and that includes police, you know, IRGC, it includes the besiege,

the paramilitary wing of the IRGC, kind of, you know, auxiliary wing, a lot of, a large, fairly large number of them relatively. I mean, not dwarfed by the number of protesters who died, but a fairly large number of them killed in these protests, which speaks to some capability on the part of the protesters to act violently or react violently. whatever the case may be against security forces, whether that's coming from weapons that the, you know, Mossad is smuggling into the country or the CIA is smuggling into the country, or if it's because the protests have been infiltrated, there are a lot of armed groups in Iran. There are Kurdish groups that were attacking during the protests.

We're attacking IRGC positions in northwestern Iran along the border with Iraq. There are groups in, you know, kind of the eastern part of the country, Sunni, jihadist groups, smugglers, criminal networks. You know, there's a lot of guns, a lot of armed groups floating around that country. You know, were they able to infiltrate the protest? What's the overlap between those groups and Mossad or other potentially outside actors? There's a lot of open questions. But I do think there were indications here, especially in the number of security forces who were killed,

that something was different about this protest. Like the protesters were armed to a higher degree or were more capable of, you know, kind of giving as well as getting, as the case may be, in their clashes with the security forces. I don't. I'm hesitant to attribute that definitively to anything, but it does raise some questions. If I could sort of reposition this conversation on Iran back to how it affects me personally as a selfish American. I was hoping maybe feel the only people who matter really. I was hoping you could help help me here for my own purposes

we need to develop what is the correct line on these protests because obviously I've seen a lot of commentary recently about like I'm just going to quote the headline from the Atlantic the silence of the left on Iran by Gal Beckford and you know you've seen a lot of like commentary from people

who spent the last two and a half years completely criminalizing any kind of protest on college campuses to now point to those same college campuses and say hey where are the protests? But like, you know, like there's this accusation of hypocrisy, right? Like, as, you know, America deals with our, you know, internal security for us is killing our own citizens for protesting the flagrantly undemocratic and evil nature of our government,

I see a lot of similarities in Iran in that, like, I think it's probably a country with less formal civil liberties or, you know, like legal rights as Americans have, but isn't, in fact, about as democratic as the United States of America is, which is to say not very much at all. So like, what is the correct leftist line on Iran? Because I've been like, or at least just the correct chopo trap house line on Iran because I've been sort of mulling it over in my brain. And like, if I were an Iranian, I would probably want these bums gone too. Like I feel the same way about my own government.

But the same, but the thing is like for me, from my perspective is Will, the American who has to live the life that I was given. I guess my attitude is if there is another government that replaces this one, I would prefer it be one that still has the ability and willingness to fire missiles Israel if it needs to. I guess I sincerely doubt that anything that would replace this current government or regime or whatever you want to call it would be one of that nature. What are we to make of as like how does this reflect on us personally as our own political opinions and point of view as Americans? Yeah, I mean, I think you can recognize that the Iranian people have real

grievances and that those are legitimate and, you know, it's not our place to critique those while at the same time saying I don't think the United States should intervene and try to arrange regime change in Tehran. I don't think those are incompatible points. And I know that there were people in the streets who were hoping for some kind of U.S. military action and support. I don't know what that would look like. And I think the reality is that anything the U.S. could have done that involved bombs or missiles raining down on parts of Iran would have at best been a sideline to the protests and at worst would have discredited the protests in the eyes of the majority of the Iranian people as again, you know, sort of caused by or engineered by a foreign

power. There are other things you could do like, you know, cyber attacks on, you know, the IRGC, or police that might have had more direct effect on their capacity to respond to the protests. But I don't see a way to bomb your way to like a successful revolution in Tehran. Like that doesn't, I don't think that's how this could work. And certainly if you're talking about putting somebody like Reza-Palavi back in power, I think you would have to do that with an invasion, not just with, you know, with air strikes and standing off. So I understand the frustration, I guess, on the part of some people in Iran who were hoping

for some kind of even symbolic U.S. strike to support them. I just don't think it would have mattered in the end. And I don't really have an opinion on what kind of government is going to happen here. you know, if after how many, if the protests succeed, what that would look like, it's very hard to say because they're so unfocused. But it is, you would like,

you would like Iran to maintain if not, you know, if you don't want to put it in as stark a terms as, you know, maintaining a willingness to fire missiles on Israel, at least retain the prerogative to say no to the United States, which doesn't seem to be the case in say Venezuela.

You know, you would at least hope for them to have that degree of autonomy. If Reza Pavlovi was somehow installed, if that somehow happened, what would the official position be for his wife's trainer? Is there like a royal...

Like a royal... What's a male mistress? We don't even really have to work for it. What's a male version of a cortisone? You know, like, in ancient China, they had like, cortisans wielded immense political influence and power. And I'm thinking maybe this Pilates guy

could be like the hand behind the throne. Have you ever heard? Have you ever heard this intact eunuch? Nice. Have you ever heard the one of, I think my, my pick, my favorite song ever written and performed about being the other guy, being a male mistress, Interpol's mind over time. And I think they could have an orchestra play that every time he enters a room. The Marine Corps band could play it when he comes to the White House. Well, as someone who definitely like who they're someone who's self-worth and sort of personality and conception of how I view myself in the world very much depends on whether the Atlantic magazine regards me as hypocritical and anything.

I would just like to say like where should we protest, you know? Because like I mean like obviously like we need to identify the members of the U.S. government that are supporting the current government of Iran and arming them. just please direct me to them. Or like, you know, for instance, Ivy League universities whose endowments are very heavily invested in the Iranian nuclear program. Like, just direct me. I'm willing to be molded by the Atlantic Magazine. Just show me where to protest, who to protest, and I'll do it.

I mean, it's just another round of the like, why aren't you protesting Sudan? Why aren't you protesting what's happening in the Congo? And like, they know why. All these people know why. They know what the difference is. They just want you to shut the fuck up about Gaza. And that's that's the end of the story. Like they,

they themselves do not give a shit about what's happening in Sudan or the Congo or or any of these other places. Maybe in Iran because they are all, you know, I would love it. The same class that like every time somebody sets off a firework in Tehran, this is the end. This is the end of the regime. They're going, they're falling.

They're collapsing right now. I mean, I think this is instructive and perhaps like, you know, a positive evolution in that like, I would very much like the U.S. State Department to treat Israel like Iran. I mean, like, that would be, that would be progress to me. Yes. If we could get to the point where the U.S. is not responsible for the genocide in Gaza and not enabling it, I think that would be a good place to be.

And, you know, we can see what the Israelis would be able to do on their own then. When you have a government that's killing thousands of innocent people, you know, as Americans, we simply just must say, stop, you know. We have to do anything in our power to stop the evil doers from doing the evil that they do. And like that, that's been consistent over the course of our history. Exactly. Yeah. It's, it's been the one through line of U.S. foreign policy for 250 years now.

Like, I, it's just, it's maddening that they, they keep running this argument. And you keep having the same chorus of dipshits, you know, kind of saying, yeah, I agree. Where's the protest over, you know, where the campus protests? I mean, first of all, fucking campuses. have been at winter break, for one thing. But secondly, like, you guys know why. You know why people get mad about what's happening in Gaza and protest. And it's because they feel responsible because the fucking government of their country is enabling it. That's why. Just a quote from the Atlantic article here, it says, for the exiles I spoke with, the most disturbing and telling

thing about the tepid response was the contrast with the impassioned reaction to Gaza. Why is that when Palestinians armed or unarmed fight for liberation had seen as a moral duty to support them. But in Iranians' protests, they are labeled armed terrorists or agents of Assad. Shams, the feminist scholar said. I mean, like, to her, I'll just say, I'm sorry. I know the Western left is obviously, like, in control of a lot of the governments of the world right now. And I really wish they would do more to support the people of Iran. But like, you know, just so far it hasn't worked out. Like, what is the demand supposed to be? Like, these protests are a political action with a demand of the U.S. government. What is the demand supposed to be?

about Iran. And I'm sorry, like, you know, no disrespect to the, the feminist scholar being quoted in this article, but like, yes, the left of the Western world has, like,

organized, you know, like rather quickly, and I would say forcefully, to oppose and oppose the genocide in Gaza and to stand with the people of Palestine against their dispossession and extermination. It hasn't done shit.

I mean, they're still being killed every fucking day. So now you want us to support the Iranian people. Okay, I guess. If that makes everyone feel better, But like, you know, I mean, it's just like, who do you think is really making the decisions here? Like, how powerful do you imagine these, like the pro-Palestine movement in Europe and America could be? Exactly.

Because we haven't had any effect on our government. And now you want us to, like, affect your government or the Iranian government with our, you know, protest or... Which has no vulnerability. There's no lever that the U.S. could pull or there's no, nothing that the U.S. could stop doing or threatened to, to stop doing. I mean, even the threat of air strikes is somewhat lame in this regard. And I don't think you're going to get a lot of college students out on campus, you know, protesting in favor of bombing another country. That's just not how that typically goes. So yeah, I don't know what the, the expectation is that people would be, would be protesting about. I mean, I, I personally, I have told the

people managing my retirement account and wills to divest from all of our Iranian stocks. Yeah. And believe me, I'm taking a bath. We're finally doing BDS. I'm taking a bath on these goddamn pistachios. But, you know, the capital gains have got to be killer. Yeah. I mean, it is, it is putting my niece through mime school.

Your niece, Felix, don't you know that for, for girl, it is much harder to be mime? Well, no, that's for a clown. Mime's actually, that's, I was actually talking to another feminist scholar who said that mining is like for women, especially. Moving, moving on from Iran to Syria, because like a lot of stuff is going on in here right now. Can we talk a little bit about the fall of Rajavism and like just your impression of how the current Shara government of Syria? Is it different anyway from Assad's and what has led to the like, He collapsed of, you know, like the sort of semi-autonomous Kurdish reason in Syria. And I'm always going to excru.

Is it the SDF that just like the STF, Syrian Democratic forces? Yeah. Like, could you give us some background about what's happening there? Yeah. I mean, the SDF leadership and Shahar's government signed an agreement back in March, last March, to, in principle, to, they agreed to, in incorporate the SDF into the Syrian state, basically, to bring the autonomous region kind of, you know, under, uh, within Damascus's sphere to bring the fighters from, from the, you know, the groups armed wing into the Syrian security forces, the interior ministry and the defense

ministry. But they never implemented it and they never, you know, they never really, uh, took it beyond the, like, we, we agree in general, this is a thing that should happen. They never agreed on how to do the SDF had been, you know, insisting that it wanted to, you know, wanted its region of northeastern Syria to be autonomous, you know, kind of kind of somewhat under Damascus control, but largely autonomous. They wanted the SDF fighters to come into the Syrian security forces as cohesive units, which would have maintained them as, you know, maintain some separation between them and the rest of the security forces.

And the Syrian government obviously, you know, wanted. things to go in the opposite direction. And then you had the, let's be clear, massacres of first alloys and then later there was an incident in the southern Syria of Druze at the hands of jihadist auxiliaries that are tied to the ex-Alqaeda elements of the Syrian state at this point. And there's no way around that. Like those things, if you're the leader of, of the largely Kurdish and, you know, kind of existing to protect, or, you know, you feel to protect Kurdish rights and prerogatives of Kurdish community in Syria, the SDF, you watch what happened to the Alawites on the coast, you watch what happened to the Druze in the south,

and you are going to be less inclined to surrender any sort of control or autonomy to Damascus. So things went back and forth for several months until the last few weeks there had been renewed fighting at the same time that they were, you know, sort of trying to renew the negotiations on making this deal happen. There had been renewed fighting between the SDF and Syrian government forces in Aleppo. That wound up with the Syrian government basically surrounding two Kurdish neighborhoods or, predominantly Kurdish neighborhoods or neighborhoods with a large Kurdish presence, let's say, in Aleppo and forcing the SDF fighters to leave, which they did. They decamped to part of Eastern Aleppo province and the Syrian forces followed them there. And they were kind of gearing up for, you know, renewing those clashes when the U.S.

And Tom Barak, who's the ambassador to Turkey and is also the administration's envoy for Syria, kind of stepped in and negotiated or brokered a deal where the SDF agreed to leave Aleppo altogether, Aleppo province, pull all of its fighters across the Euphrates River to the east into territories that the group already controlled. But at the same time, there was a report on Friday in Reuters that said that the Syrian military was gearing up for an offensive that would cross the Euphrates River and go into these areas and really just try to break the back of the SDF, and that's what happened over the weekend. There was an incident during the evacuation of Aleppo where a couple of Syrian soldiers were killed, and whether that was, you know, just the

pretext or, you know, this was a real breaking point. I don't know. But the Syrian military from that point on just went on the offensive. They drove the SDF out of Topka, which is a city on the Euphrates. it's home to Syria's largest hydroelectric dam and also an important military facility. They pushed them out of there and then they just kind of moved into the northeast. At the same time, this was happening a lot of Arab tribes, some of which had been opposed to the SDF all along because they were uncomfortable with kind of Kurdish administration of places in Raqa province or Derazor in the east. Some of them had been, some of these tribes had been aligned with the SDF. SDF in the fight against Islamic State, but clearly decided that they would rather throw in their lot with Damascus than remain under SDF control.

So they turned on the Kurds. And the SDF's positions as a result, like kind of across this region, really collapsed very quickly. So by Sunday you had them agreeing basically to a capitulation. It looks like a capitulation. All the details haven't been released, but it is an end to the autonomous region in the Northeast. it's an incorporation of SDF fighters into the state on an individual basis rather than as cohesive units. It really seems to be everything on the terms that the Syrian government wants them to be on. And the SDF is kind of giving up.

So, you know, we'll see beyond that. I mean, the U.S. had threatened to step in and sanction the Syrian government. If it went ahead with its offense of it obviously did not, continuing a long tradition of, you know, using proxies and then discarding them, especially Kurdish proxies. Kurds get fucked over by America once again. Yeah, you know, film at 11. Yeah, Derek, I mean, I saw today, you know, footage from Syria of like the Syrian government forces tearing down a statue that was like built to commemorate the Kurdish female fighters. I mean, like, where does this leave, like, the YPJ fight?

Like, where does this leave like the Kurds of northeastern? I mean, it leaves them in a very precarious position. Like, a lot of these people, the people who tore down the statue, they were, you know, there were interviews with some of the people who. were in that crowd who said things like, you know, we don't, we don't have anything against the Kurds. We just didn't want to live under Kurdish administration. Like, we weren't comfortable with that. And, you know, okay, I'm not here to pass judgment on that one way or the other. That does seem to have been a prevalent feeling, which I think you can can glean from the fact that, you know, these

tribes that were, as I said, some of them had been allied with the SDF suddenly, you know, kind of turned and defected to the government. The Kurds are now in a position. I mean, you know, depends on how quickly the SDF stands down or how thoroughly that process goes. But they will find themselves in a position similar to the Alawite, similar to the Druze, where they are somewhat at the mercy of groups that, you know, may decide to go on a rampage in places like Haseka or Kobani, places that are really predominantly Kurdish in these communities

and, you know, do some horrible things if they get a mind to. So it leaves them, I think, in a very difficult position and it's something that I would be concerned about moving forward. Now, the SDA, I mean, these fighters are still there and they still have their guns. They're standing down. But, you know, I don't know what that means in terms of whether these communities will have some degree of protection that, let's say, the alloys didn't necessarily have or don't necessarily have. But it's, you know, it is a dangerous place for them to be, I think. Whoops, we've got an insert into this episode because it wouldn't be a pivotal high stakes world roundup with Derek if something critical and updating to the story didn't happen while we were recording. Shit didn't keep happening.

Bullshit do just keep happening, doesn't it? So anyway, we've got Derek back here a little bit after we recorded with some updates on Syria. Yeah, so we talked about there being a. a ceasefire, that may not be the case anymore. There were scattered reports of fighting before we recorded. But the main event that was supposed to be happening was that the leader of the Syrian Democratic Forces Muslim Abdi was heading to Damascus, where he and Ahmed Ashara, the Syrian interim president, were going to sign the ceasefire deal that they had. reached over the weekend. They were supposed to do this on Sunday, but apparently Abdi couldn't get to

Damascus because of bad weather or something of that nature. So they delayed it. He did get there, and then it sounds like their meeting went really badly. I don't know if they actually signed the framework. There's a senior official in the Kurdish Democratic Union Party or P-Y-D, which is the main political element within the SDF kind of coalition named Fosal Youssef, who she characterized the meaning as not positive. She implied or suggested that Sharab basically went in demanding that the SDF surrender outright, and Abdi wasn't willing to do that. She later, or she also told, this was a quote from Al Jazeera.

She said that there was no political will on the part of the government to implement a ceasefire, alleged that there are Islamic state elements fighting within or alongside the government forces. I'll talk about that in a second because there is an IS aspect of this. But basically, it doesn't sound like that meeting went very well. And as I said, there was sort of scattered fighting between the two groups, the government and the SDF in parts of northeastern Syria. you could chalk that up to sort of, you know, just post ceasefire hangover or somebody didn't get the memo. But with the failure of this meeting, it really sounds like the ceasefire has broken down or is in the process of breaking down. The reports are pretty heavy fighting, especially around the city of Haseka and Haseka province in the northeast, which is really getting into a place that is kind of central to the Syrian Kurdish geographical region.

I guess, or identity. There were also reports, this is where the IS element comes in, there were also reports of fighting around a couple of prisons where the SDF has been holding Islamic State fighters, including reports that some of the Islamic State fighters were escaping in the middle of this fighting. Each side is blaming the other for this, of course, as you might expect. The SDF had continued to hold these guys, I think, because they felt like it would give them some leverage, with the U.S. to support for support against Damascus. That turned out not to be the case. It was a miscalculation, as was you could argue, and this is deeper than we probably need to get in this discussion. The SDF's entire posture here of kind of depending on the United States to swoop in and save them from Turkey or from the Syrian government was miscalculation on their part,

as it turns out. That said, we have another report from Amber and Zaman, who's a reporter at El Monitor and covers Kurdish stories quite a bit, that Donald Trump spoke with Sharah by phone as this was all going on on Monday and demanded an end to the fighting. He demanded that Sharah not allow his forces to go into Haseka City, which would be a red line, apparently for Trump. There's no indication that he made any threats of actually doing anything if the Syrians go ahead with their operation anyway. But he does seem to be trying to urge an end to what's going on. And this is a fluid situation. So, you know, we're doing this update. But by the time people get to listen to this, the situation will probably

have changed again. But I did want to feel like we should update people and also maybe make it clear that the situation is a little less definitive than we might have made it sound earlier when we did the original interview. But that's as far as I know where things stand at this point. Well, that is the situation as of 6.21 p.m. Eastern Standard time. Let's be specific. And hopefully this remains accurate by time this podcast hits your ears. But thanks for hopping back on, Derek.

Sure. Thanks for having me again. Now back to Derek. Before we clock out for today in our world roundup, I would like to just talk about a news story that I noticed last week and I didn't get a chance to talk about it. And I thought, Derek, you'd be the perfect person to discuss this topic with. But I'm turning now to, this is from The Hill. I'm just going to read the first two paragraphs here. The Pentagon during the last days of the Biden administration secretly purchased a device that some investigators believe could be linked to the Havana syndrome,

a medical condition that has impacted U.S. service members, diplomats, and spies. The device, which has some Russian components, was bought by Homeland Security investigations using the funding from the Defense Department and has been tested by the Pentagon for over a year, CNN reported on Tuesday, adding that officials paid eight figures for it. So, you know, egg on my face. I always said the Havana syndrome wasn't real. Turns out they bought the device. If they paid eight figures for it, it must be legitimate. It's real. God knows. I say that and obviously like this is a perfect like the last days of the Biden administration.

You know, it's just like, you know, like they always say about the CIA, like you'll never hear about our victories. Only our law, only are only our embarrassments. And it's like if only Biden or Kamala Harris could just be like right at the October surprise, be like, we bought the Havana syndrome device. It's real. Thankfully, this power is in the hands of Americans now. And by the way, it had some Russian components in this device. obviously like I think this is farcical. But like, correct me if I'm wrong.

Wasn't there news reports of like during the, when they, when they, when they, you know, kidnapped him. Sorry. Sorry.

Right. Right. Please get on me. When they came up, like, weren't their news reports of like Venezuelan, uh, soldiers or like security forces being overcome with like waves of nausea or like

vertigo or something like that. So I don't know. Yeah. I mean there were like, I remember there were like people in the like, Members of the presidential guard who spoke afterwards and were just like stunned at whatever kit the U.S. forces were, you know, brought with them and like the capabilities that they had. So anything is possible. I mean, I've been in a like shitty mood for the last week and a half. So I don't know. Maybe they're bombarding my house as well.

Go on here. It says, the device which produces radio waves is being studied and is a subject of debate as to whether it's connected to anomalous health incidents. A.HIs, also known as the Vanna syndrome. The existence of the device was first reported by intelligence journalist Sasha Inber. As attorney for nearly three dozen federal victims, mostly from within intelligence community of anomalous health, hashtag anomalous health incidents, I can confirm that I had the same information of the U.S. government possessing one or more such devices from different sources, National Security lawyer Mark Zaid said in a Thursday post on social platform X, time for at CIA to reveal what it knows yet.

But like, you know, once again, I don't want to make light of the anomalous health incidents suffered by many people within our intelligence community. But my attitude towards this is, okay, they bought the device. This is like similar to all these disclosures about UFOs and bullshit like that. I'm like, just show me the device. Just show me the device. Show me what it looks like.

Just let me see a picture of the device. Put it on there. Maybe like some video footage of it being used. Like, I know you paid a lot of money for it. but like until you show me the fucking the alien graze, the alien space crats, until you show me the device, I don't want to hear about this shit. Because it's probably

Yeah, you can't just be like, hey, we bought the on we gun. Oh, okay. Well, can I, like, can I fucking see it? You know, set your phasers to melancholy. Like, I mean, can you give me a fucking glance at this shit at least? Like, I don't need to know how it works or see a blueprint.

But just like holding it up on camera would be nice, even that much. It says, uh, yes, the Mysterious illness first came to the surface in late 2016 after U.S. officials who were stationed in Havana, Cuba and their family members, started reporting several symptoms, including insomnia, problems with hearing, memory loss, and vertigo. Most of the U.S. intelligence community continues to believe that it is very unlikely that a foreign adversary was responsible for the so-called Havana syndrome. A U.S. intelligence report was released in January 2025 said. Well, to that report, I say, the device. They've got the device now. So what are we to make of this?

I don't, I mean, I guess, I don't know, man. Like, I don't know anymore. Like, it was so farcical, you know, these stories. It was hard not to laugh at them. Is there really a device that, you know, makes you feel ukey that has military application? I, okay, like, I guess, I don't know. It's really hard to make anything of it. advice caused brain damage, which, you know. Right. You know, usually hangovers don't do that, but trouble sleeping, nausea and vertigo, you know, you're stationed in Nevada, Cuba. So, it could be there. But like, it's just going to me because, like, if the Biden administration and they're on their way out the fucking door, spend eight figures on a device, that's, that's our tax

dollars. That's our money. This is what they're wasting our money on. We get Doge on this. I want to see the device. Show us the device. Hashtag. Show us the device.

And then I will have sympathy for the anonymous. Show us the device and demonstrate. Like, I want to, like, Trump should hold a press conference where he uses the device on the White House press corps. That would be off. You bring up Doge. Like, you're telling me, like, big balls didn't want to take this thing out for a test drive and like, yeah, exactly. People up. Like, you know, in, you know, in downtown D.C. or something.

I mean, it's hard for me to believe that with this gang of people running the, the government that they haven't just been zapping people with the, you know, sad ray or the, you know, the nausea ray or whatever the hell it is, just like on the regular. So, yeah, I don't know. Let's say I'm still a little skeptical. Well, I mean, any listeners out there, if you have a device that you'd like to sell us that, you know, can do some vaguely frightening thing, vaguely frightening and unexplained phenomenon, we're always on the market for a new device, chopper traphouse. store.

But you have to put the money toward getting me into the board of peace with a permanent membership. Yeah, yeah. One billion dollars. You have to agree with that. I'm part of the board of peace with ads and it really sucks. Well, I guess like, I guess the board of peace with like the blue chew advertisement every five seconds. If you would like to exercise a veto over the U.S.

is a United States policy. Watch this ad first. I keep getting at, like, I keep like trying to propose this. things. The other day, I was like, what if I annexed Trinidad and Tobago? And they served me an ad for sperm donor stuff. And it's like, I can afford to at least have like a shitty membership here. I clearly don't need to sell my cum. I guess like this is what I say I want to talk about. Let's bring it full circle because we open the show talking about the board of peace. And we're going to close it. First of all,

Derek, like, could you explain to listeners who maybe are not aware of it? What is like, it's essentially Trump's plan to create a billion dollar members only club that will like basically rival the UN but be purely under his control like I don't know what it is anymore like how do you see this larger like as

you see this as a part of this larger I don't know like shift away from a liberal international order into like a more 18th or 19th century mode of like great power imperialism that Trump and his cronies seem to be like philosophically, I don't know, attuned with.

So it's, it's funny. I mean, the board of peace was introduced as part of the Gaza ceasefire package. It was supposed to be in the second phase, which we've now supposedly entered, even though they never implemented the first phase fully. The second phase of the ceasefire, the board of peace was supposed to be the executive board kind of overseeing the administration of Gaza with a Palestinian committee of so-called technocrats running the day-to-day affairs

and then reporting to the board. But now it's morphed into this thing where it's not, like the reporting, the Financial Times reported on this, like Bloomberg did a thing on it over the last few days, as Trump has been sending out his invitation letters to various world leaders to participate in this, thing. It includes a charter now that hasn't gone through any vetting. Like the Board of Peace

as it refers to Gaza was kind of given the UN's imprimatur when it, you know, kind of approved the ceasefire and, you know, symbolically at least. But the charter that they're sending out doesn't mention Gaza at all. It doesn't have anything, it doesn't say anything about Gaza specifically. It sets out this body as like just a general. I have the language. It calls itself an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.

So very general, the countries that get invited have a three-year window that they get to be on it, unless they pay the billion dollars to buy themselves a permanent membership, which is a real thing. I mean, we're joking, but like, that's a real thing. He's charging dues if you want to stay on this thing. And it's just very strange. Like, when the board was, he started announcing members of a committee, a board, late last week.

And at the time, it seemed like, oh, well, this is the board of peace. And it included, like, fucking Tony Blair and Jared Kushner and Steve Whitcomb. cough and sort of like this isn't what they said it was going to be like this isn't the world leaders committee that they said they were going to have well that turns out to just be i guess this new thing the gaza executive committee which is supposed to intermediate between the technocrats who are running day-to-day managing management of the territory and the board of peace but the board of peace now has this much bigger broader vaguer mandate that sets it up to be basically an alternative to the United Nations where Donald Trump has the right to pick and choose

who gets to be involved. He gets to kick people off if he gets pissed off at them. I guess there's an allowance for like a two-thirds vote of the full membership to override things. But since Trump is the chair, he has this like sole prerogative to choose who gets to participate and who doesn't. And it really is like it's not even like a great powers thing in the sense of like, you said, like, you know, going, harkening back to like an 18th or 19th century construct. It's just like the Donald Trump Friends Club. And they're going to like go around the world and solve problems, I guess. It really is like just a fucked up concept.

And it's interesting because the response has been like the response from all the folks in all the, the European leaders, you know, as we talked about earlier with Greenland has been like, they're not really saying anything. They're like, yes, I got the invitation. I don't really want to talk about it. But you've got like, you know, Victor Orban is like, yeah, I'm on, man. Like, put me on this fucking thing. Yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. Or like, you know, Putin, you said that he got an invitation to be on it. Like, like, so you've got some people who are just really eager to be on this thing. And then

other people are like, I don't know what this is. And it makes me uncomfortable. And I think for all you can say about the UN, like, for as deeply, deeply flawed as the United Nations is, there's at least a set of principles under which this organization is supposed to operate, as opposed to, like, it just, like, Donald Trump's friends and, you know, contributors. Once again, it's like, it's back to the, it's like the same thing as the Greenland thing. It's like, it's not good enough that, like, the UN is virtually already, basically just controlled by the United States of America, but, like, maybe some leeway from the Security Council. But the thing is, like, that's not good enough for these people.

They want another UN that is just Donald Trump and his friends. And I guess, like, the way I can conceive of it is like, you know, Donald Trump, great New Yorker, great baseball fan. We all remember when he said he was the top baseball prospect out of the city of New York. We all know that. You know, the city with more Dominicans than the Dominican Republic, practically. But so, like, the United Nations, that's the National League of Nations. Board of Peace, American League of Nations. And it could have, like, you know, a designated hit or a slight.

It's only different rules, but like, yeah, once again, it's just like, like, why, why, like, why, like, why, like, why go to this absurd degree, like, when, like, it does seem like, they are undoing, like, more or less, like, everything that the United States has done over the, like, since the end of World War II to essentially control the world. But, like, that isn't good enough for them. That isn't good enough for them. Because, like, like, like, some of the, some world leaders still don't like them or I don't know, like they don't invite them to the right parties or what. Like, it's just, I don't know. It's just, there is this strain of thought on the right and the, the MAGA, right, you know, I guess to. Like, they look at NATO is like, it's like, oh, they're just stealing money from us. Yeah, like NATO.

The primary means through which, like, we dominate the world militarily. Exactly. Like, NATO, the UN, the IMF, the world. But like, all of these institutions somehow exist to thwart the United States when they were all fucking established by the United States to, extend dominance over the planet during the Cold War. And it's, it's,

it is really like a wild thing to watch these guys undo all of this stuff that has done nothing but serve U.S. Empire. And I guess some of the principal ones will tell you they don't really want the US to have an empire. But even those guys are like, uh, yeah,

fuck, let's take over Venezuela. Like, let's take over green. Like, what the fuck do you think you're doing? If you just, even if you just constrain your imperial ambitions to the Western

hemisphere, that's still a fucking empire. Like, you haven't changed anything materially. Is it like that that empire of like American military hegemony and economic dominance and like is this like, you know, the capitalist hegemon and military superpower of the world and all of these like institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, NATO that have undergirded it for like, you know, since the end of World War II, despite all of its like blood-soaked hypocrisy, it still has to be justified and was founded with the ideals of like liberal internationalism and like a liberal democratic. world order, you know, despite how hypocritical that may be and like how it's actually functioned over the last, you know, 70, 80 years or whatever. But the thing is like, that's what they don't want. And they don't want even the pretense that this is justified because America

is a beacon of liberal democracy for the world. And that's what justifies our right to dominate and police the world. They want to get rid of that and just mainly have, like I said, like an empire of just, like, on its face of just constant warfare. violent repression at home and abroad. I think that like what galls them is that like it's not enough to have a U.S. empire if that empire is justified by an appeal to democratic or liberal values, which they despise. Right. Right.

And and it, but ultimately it is self-defeating because you can manage the empire much better through these institutions that people still buy into for reasons that I don't understand. Because of the principles, you know, again, no matter how hypocritical they are, it's a much more effective way to run an empire than what they're going to try to do or what they're trying to do,

which is just kind of big foot everybody. You know, and like I guess like among the more honest right wingers, like when they say that like Europe has basically like outsourced all of its security to the United States, like since the end of World War II, they're basically right. But you know what? If I was a European leader right now,

maybe time to start rethinking that. You know? Like when like when the ruling state just decides, oh, like we can invade and take you over too. Maybe it might be time to make some new arrangements. Or like I said, build and develop your own nuclear weapons and not depend on America. And NATO as this like permanent shield against what, Russia? I don't know.

Make a deal with Russia. Make a deal with China. Because like whatever you think about America, like before, since or now, like the main problem now is that like nothing we say or do can be trusted to last more than a minute. Like no agreement that we sign, no security arrangement, no, not even decades of peaceful productive ally ship will protect you. Because guess what? You have outsourced everything to America.

You gave us all control. And now we're run by an obese pedophile whose brain is melting. So good luck for that. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. It's, you know, the thing that undergirds all of this kind of house of cards has fallen apart.

And that's the United States, the stability of the U.S. government. Well, we'll see how this develops over the next the weeks and years but Derek it is always enjoy to have you on and to try to

take a trip around the world with Derek yeah it's always fun to be here recommend once again American prestige the podcast foreign exchanges

the substack you will have links to both in the episode description that does it for today everybody till next time bye bye

me are my own food city now I will be