DeProgram with John Kiriakou and Ted Rall - Trump Joins Iran’s Blockade | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas

Episode Date: April 13, 2026

Editorial cartoonist Ted Rall and political analyst Jamarl Thomas deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM EST. Today we discuss:• In one of the most bizarre gambits in military history, Trump responds to Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz with his own blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. You can’t blockade—I blockade! Oil futures are soaring; stocks are down. (Tune in Tuesday as oil-markets expert Prof. Mark Barteau of Texas A&M joins to explain the economics of global oil markets and this game of economic brinkmanship.)• Peace talks in Islamabad collapse over the U.S. “take it or leave it” demand that Iran stop enriching uranium and surrender its stockpile, Israel’s war against Lebanon, sanctions, reparations, and control of the Strait of Hormuz. Is there still hope?• The 55-to-38 defeat of Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, by Peter Magyar, leader of the center-right Tisza party, should deliver a sharp jolt to one of America’s two major political parties—the Democrats.JOIN US LIVE ON RUMBLEhttps://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShowFOLLOW TED:https://rall.com/https://x.com/tedrallLISTEN ON SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/show/2kdFlw2w8sSPhKI8NRx8ZuLISTEN ON APPLE MUSIC:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deprogram-with-john-kiriakou-and-ted-rall

Hey there, thanks for tuning into Deep Program with Ted Rall and at Dancing Jamaral Thomas. Good morning, Jamal. What's going on, man? How are you doing this morning? I'm laughing my ass at Donald Trump. It's Monday, April 13th. Thanks for joining, following, sharing, and all that stuff. Thank you for liking the show. Please post your questions if you're watching the live chat on YouTube or Rumble in the 9 o'clock hour, Eastern Time. and we will get to all of your questions. Super chats are prioritized. Just a little bit of housekeeping.

Or I should just say some notes. We have two academics coming up later this week. Professor Bartow of Texas A&M, he's a leading expert on the global oil markets. We'll be joining us tomorrow at 9.30 a.m. Eastern Time live. He'll answer your questions about why it is that the United States is energy independent, but your gas prices are still going up. And on Thursday, we've got a professor coming on to,

talk, he's an expert on ancient religions and he'll explain who Baal was or is, depending on your point of view, and what it all means, his, uh, ball's role in, uh, the Epstein files and the Iran videos. I mean, you know, there's been a lot of balls had quite the his moment in the sun lately. Um, so we'll be getting into, uh, all the meaning of that and the mysticism and all that stuff, the mythology. Um, okay. So, Jamal, we have, we have, we're supposed to have, you, if they're supposed to have questions, we're supposed to have answers. But so over the weekend, basically, on Saturday, J.D. Vance and led a delegation to Islamabad. He met with his Iranian counterparts for about 21 hours.

From all, from basically, it seems like the two parties got along pretty well, but they couldn't, they could not arrive at any kind of peace, any agreement, mainly because the United States kept moving the goalposts, and also because the, which, of course, does sound very Donald Trump. And also because the U.S. position seems to be take it or leave it. The main holdups were about the U.S. wants Iran to completely stop

enriching uranium and surrender its current enriched uranium stockpile. Maybe we should take these one at a time, Jamar. I thought this demand was crazy. I mean, you're literally telling Iran, which has nuclear power plants, which are not cheap to build and are a major source of their energy, even though they're an oil exporting state, that they're not allowed to have nuclear power anymore. And there's a lot of other applications to having enriched uranium that have nothing to do with building nuclear weapons. And the United States, including medical stuff.

And there's, the United States is basically saying, look, we want you to completely become like a denuclearized power in every sense of that term. You know, Jerome, there's, and when you negotiate, there's stuff that each side has to get. Then there's stuff that each side would like to have. Iran kind of has to keep their uranium, wouldn't you say? Well, yeah. I mean, they are trying to get across on the negotiations. negotiating table, but they couldn't get by force. And usually it's the other way around, right?

It's like, you know, you're trying to get something and then force comes. The U.S. effectively tried to do something, could not do it militarily, and then tried to get it through negotiations. What's weird about it is if you remember, the U.S. was trying to get these negotiations, meaning they were calling for a ceasefire going by all the way back to March. And so it's like, okay, dude, you've lost the war. losers don't get to dictate terms. And for whatever particular reason, the U.S. believes that the loser gets to dictate terms. They don't.

And so Iran has core demands. One of its rare lines is that is not, meaning, if you were coming into this negotiation under the idea that you were going to dictate terms, you were woefully mistaken, considering you were the one that was screaming for the ceasefire. It's almost like this was a trap, if that makes sense. Like, we will say that, yes, we would accept your 10-point terms as a basis on negotiations. And then once we get into negotiations, we're going to pretend it as if we somehow won the conflict and can dictate terms. No. That's not the way it works.

So, I mean, a lot of this, I think, is for domestic and for MAGA world consumption, right? I mean, the Trump. The Trump administration is trying to, I mean, I keep thinking of World War I. So in World War I was fought entirely, on the Western Front was fought entirely on French territory. And yet the Germans lost. And so, and mainly the reason for that is because the Germans couldn't maintain the supply lines. Ironically, they would have been better off if the war had been fought on German territory. Anyway, after the war, this myth sprung up, promulgated by,

German nationalists like Hitler, who said, you know, the stab, yeah, we, Germany would have won, but we got the stab in the back, and they blamed Jews for this. And, you know, and basically, you know, this was nonsense. Nothing of the sort happened. Germany was here in square, but basically, it was easy to see why the German people were so confused. They said, well, you know, we were never bombed. We killed a lot of them. They didn't kill a lot of us. We bombed their, shit, we killed their people. We like, this can't be right because it's

war and if you blow up the other guy's shit and you kill their people, then you win. But the Vietnam War became like it, was like that for the Americans too. We killed two million of them. They killed 58,000 of ours. Well, we killed 2,000 of those because they died

in car actions, but we won't get into that. So the and then at the, you know, so then this myth sprung up in the late 70s, early 80s from the right, you know, embodied by the Rambo movies. Like we, you know, we were fighting, but they wouldn't let us win, right? Like, no, but so yes, we did bomb their shit and we broke their shit. We killed their people, but we still lost.

And like, and so here, I think, you know, we're seeing a, this is another example of that. We bombed their shit. We hit 11,000 targets. We fucked up their economy. We killed their thousands of their people, including school girls. And like now we're supposed to say like, well, look, we've won. But it doesn't always work that way because the, you know, the Iranians have the ace in the hole. They have the straight of Burmuse and we'll talk about that.

But I mean, I think that's what the Trump administration is playing off of. They're trying to say like, you know, they know they've lost. We know because of Tweetgate. We know that they know. But they're fronting for their public. For my point of view, they should watch our channels because I have often made the argument that murdering a lot of people doesn't mean you win a war. No. Like, there's this kind of weird, I don't know if it comes from Vietnam.

I don't know where they get it from, but this idea that if you kill a lot of people, you win. And I keep pointing out that is not true. It is not true. Nazi Germany killed the most people in World War II. Exactly. You can score. You can kill scores of people. If you don't accomplish the objectives, then you lose.

And this is the same thing in true in Iran, right? And what makes it worse? Each time the U.S. gets involved into these wars and they lose the wars, they lose more and more credibility. So you provoke a war in Ukraine. You get a mud hole stumped in you with all of the powers of Europe and the U.S. combined. Russia still wins, meaning you can't go with this idea that Russia is a

paper tiger. Russia has expanded the boundaries of the Russian Federation and continues to beat the hell out of Ukraine despite all of the assistance of Europe and the United States. Okay, well, what does that make it look like in the context of the U.S. being able to articulate things through U.S. power? Okay, well, you look like you can't do it. And you do the same thing in Iran, where you start off with an Iranian government that is doing everything in this power to not fight a war. you provoke them into forcing them to fight that war. And what happens? An Iran that you consider to be a third-rate power now has control of the Strait of Ramosus

and is considered to be the fourth power in the world. Like all of these things are making the situation from the standpoint of the U.S. look worse and worse. It's insane. And the thing is that the Iranians, I mean, I think that the linchpin to what you just said, right, is, you know, they took control of the Strait of Ramos. they always had control of the state of Ormuse. That's just geography.

And the failure of American military planners in any administration to anticipate that a cornered, beleaguered regime would resort to closing the Strait of Ormuz is, you know, it's baffling. We have a, thank you very much for Hassan Saleh for the $20 donation. When will the administration media narrative stop that this is about a nuclear threat or about helping the people of Iran. There is no nuclear threat or was. We don't care about their people. This is just an Israeli mandated op. They're not going to stop. I mean, the, you know, the Americans always go into these wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq. They always say

they're going to liberate. My favorite example of that was when Reagan invaded Grenada. I think it was 1985 and he said, oh, we're really worried about these American medical students who are in terrible danger of the evil socialist government of Grenada. So the students arrive, I believe it, was MacArthur Airport on Long Island, and they're walking down onto the tarmac, and the reporter is yell, you know, are you safe? Do you feel good? Are you, do you feel safer now? And he held back like, we don't know what was going on. Everything was fine. That is the narrative, right? I mean, it's always, and I don't even know, I mean, it's kind of like, the last time that, I mean, look, my mom was nine when U.S. troops arrived in her village in France in the summer of

1944. And that was liberation. Okay, that was liberation. It's not really why they were there, but it ended up being liberation. I think the last time the United States has really truly been engaged at that, unless you possibly want to argue Kuwait in 1991, you can't argue that. But that's about it. And I don't know why that narrative still works at all. And then also the nuclear threat. That's just WMD's 2.0. After WM. WMDs, I thought this would never work again. And yet, it does work with some people. It's wild when you think about it.

I mean, like, it's not like even in question if Bush was lying about a rat having nukes. I mean, I remember Nancy Pelosi said at one point, well, we knew Bush was lying about the news. And it's like, okay, but when the whole question of impeachment came up, Pelosi was against it. Right. Like, meaning they knew that Bush was lying about the news.

And yet, they still went along with it, right? And then when the public itself, meaning the American public at this point, realizes Bush was lying, we went into Iraq on the premise of a lie. And the majority of the American public is against what Bush did in that. In retrospect, of course. And then this comes up. And Trump is like, hey, man, we can't let them get a nuclear weapon. And the media is like, well, obviously we can't let them get a nuclear weapon. But the thing is, but what really, I mean, look, not to say that Bush's messaging was always made much sense.

I mean, I'll never forget Donald Trump saying, we know where the WMDs are. They are north, south, east, or west and west of Baghdad somewhere. Okay. I mean, that weed is powerful. Right. But still, they were more consistent than this guy. I mean, Trump has literally said that he said, he said, Iraq. Iran's nuclear capability has been obliterated.

And I guess we had to re-obliterate it. I guess maybe many people don't know what multisolabic words mean like obliterate. But I mean, okay, if it was obliterated, then it's no longer a threat. By definition, right? So if it ever existed in the first place. So, I mean, you know, I really like this question because it's, and it is, I don't know if it's really mandated up, but it's certainly and is really, I mean, we are, acting like it's an Israeli man.

We're definitely doing Netanyahu's bidding. This is to the extent that there's a strategy at all, it's Netanyahu's strategy. See, I think it's U.S. strategy. I think it's U.S. policy. Like, because let's be honest, right? Going all the way back to George Bush, they wanted to get rid of Iran.

And not just wanted to get rid of Iran, they couldn't do it right off the bat. And what you had was one policy after the next that an extra belief was leading to this outcome. It's just so happened that Trump just so happens to be holding the gun at this point. But all of these presidents going all the way back to like Bush, Obama, Biden, all of them were doing things either to get rid of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. It's only that Syria had fell after, of course, Obama putting billions of dollars into it, after, of course, Donald Trump working with the Israelis and the Turks, etc.,

had taken down Syria where they had a pathway to get to Iran. Meaning the other presidents might not have did it just because they didn't necessarily see, let's say, a gateway to do it. From Donald Trump's point of view, this was the opening, and they went for it. It just so happened they failed. I guess I'm saying that, yeah, I get it, right? They may say, okay, well, this is what Israel wants, but it's also what the the United States wanted and what they've been working towards from one president to the next. I get Israel is scapegoat for it. But let's be honest, if it wasn't for the U.S. giving them tens of billions of dollars, giving them political cover or given them diplomatic cover, Israel will never be

doing this. I don't, I am not in mind that this is the tail wagging the dog. I just don't buy that premise. Yeah, I do think it's more, I do, I mean, I more agree with you than not on that Jamal, for sure. I mean, I don't think this is that. I mean, it's two assholes working together in conjunction. Yes. It's a marriage. I do like that analogy. So let's talk about more of the, okay, so the other, okay, the other sticking points were Israel doesn't want to stop bombing Lebanon and even though that was part of the ceasefire agreement. I think, but I was really interested in your thoughts here about the sanctions and reparations, right? So the Iranian said, look, we're not going to even talk about anything until you give us our fucking money back. The West is holding on

to the way, and people might be wondering, like, what is this money? Right. So basically, Iran has continued to sell oil and gas for decades. And the buyers, because of sanctions, aren't allowed to pay them. But there's the idea that in the future, maybe Iranians are hoping that future is now, that they would get that money. So that money goes into accounts. It's held in escrow in places like mostly in Belgium. And that money sits there. And now the Iranians are saying, you know, you blew up tons of our shit.

And reparations, we could probably give up. But how about you let us use our money to rebuild and do reconstruction? Because it's tens of billions of dollars. And we need it. the so what I don't get is you know I mentioned like you need to understand where the other side is coming from how is it that the Americans don't understand that the Iranians who by the way have won and are winning and we're going to get into the blockade the blockade the blockade of the blockade but how is it that they don't get that like they're going to have to give that money back and and that they're going to

have to drop the sanctions for the Iranians to even be really willing to talk much further. It's a hedge mom. I mean, like the reality of it is, hey, this is issue of power. This is not about right or wrong. In the context of power, the U.S. still believes, well, and I guess there are two things, right? A U.S. president, especially a president, as hubristic, thin skin, and as much of an egomaniac and a narcissist is Trump, cannot accept failure in this way. It's too big and its failure to what the U.S. considers to be a smaller regional power at that. And so the U.S. who went into this war believing that they can impose this will on Iran failed miserably. And now this headermine is going to have to either acknowledge, okay, we fucked up.

And this is which we never do. Which we never do. Right. But part of that acknowledgement would be reparations and giving them their money back. Meaning this is very hard, if not impossible. But giving them their money, I think the Iranians can do without the reparations, and they know they're not going to get it. They can do it without the reparations. It's an ask.

It's a throwaway. It's a throwaway. It's a throwaway. It's a throwaway. But the Strait of Ramos is not. Straight of Ramos is like, yeah, the, well, okay, let's get into the Strait of Ormuz. Yeah. The Iranians, so basically, obviously, obviously, you know, is driving Trump crazy. So after the peace talks failed.

And I will give Vance credit for, you know, basically doing, he was obviously fantasizing that this, by the way, to me, his trip to Islamabad was the first salvo of his 2008 presidential election campaign. He was like, polling, though. It's his coming out party. He has the worst polling of any vice president in the history of vice presidents. That's just because people are bigoted against vampire, up against weirwolves. Is that what it is? That's what it is. I swear you bite a man's cattle and drink its blood

and suddenly you're the bad guy. Yeah, no, he's a very unlikable man. And he doesn't televise well. So I don't think he'll be president. I mean, you know, obviously it's a long time between now and that. Hell, I don't even know if there's going to be an election. But the, yeah, no, but the point is that those fell apart. And immediately, Trump's response was to impose a blockade on the blockade.

He's like, okay, you blockade the strait. Well, we'll blockade you. And what that means in practical terms is two things. If any ships pay the toll or make arrangements or are allied with whatever, any ship that the Iranians led through, they will, the Americans will block. And then furthermore, they will block other Iranians. ports that are in the U.S. media has not been emphasizing this, but that the Iranians won't be able, but they don't ship oil out of these other ports, but they would, you know, other shipping would be cut off. So we think we should take these things one at a time, right? So blockading

the Strait of Ormuz, okay, but I think this is like where the U.S. where Trump and his people are beyond stupid because they've taken their eye off the ball. I mean, the point here is to reduce oil prices by increasing supply by reopening the Strait of Ormuz. If you cut off Iranian oil as well as the oil, the non-Iranian oil that's currently not getting through, and you also cut off like whatever stuff that's going to China or anything that like paid a toll to the Iranians, you're further reducing whatever trickle is getting through. And by the way, you know, this isn't Ted Rawls opinion or Jamarles Thomas's opinion.

This is the opinion of the stock market, which is tanking right now, and the oil futures market, which is shooting up right now. Right. Yeah. That's what I told you. Like, that's what's so crazy about it, right? Like, Iran's, the entire point of Iran block this straight of removes is to have a leverage on global energy markets.

Basically, it's like, okay, you keep fucking with us. And so we're going to make your life miserable by driving up the price of energy. to where there is a cost imparted into your population in a way that doesn't really get imparted. It's basically you impose sanctions on us. We impose sanctions on you. Right.

Going back to what, doing the Jimmy Carter administration where they had gas lines and stuff like that. It's like, okay, you need a reckoning. And that reckoning will be felt through the costs that you're paying for everything, including gas. All right. So Trump turns around and says, fine.

If you're going to do that, we're going to make it worse. Like that's right. Like the entire point. It's the most petulant shit I've ever heard. And that's saying a lot when you're talking about Donald Trump. It is. It's insane. Like, so there.

Even the Brookings institution is like saying like, oh, it actually kind of makes sense. And I'm like, I don't think it makes sense. I mean, it'll impose a little, I mean, basically, first of all, Iran is not a, is not a petro state. It's not Bahrain. They have, it's a, it's a diverse economy that does a lot of other things. So it's not like, oh, if we can't sell oil, we're fucked. But also, they're in an existential battle, right?

So this is a game of economic chicken. And basically, it's a question is who's going to blink first. I'd say the Iranians are more, in a better position to withstand suffering. because they're used to it. And especially right now, than the Americans or their European allies are. I think right now the Europeans, like Macron and so on, Kier Starmor, they just can't believe this shit.

It's like they're like, here they are being dragged into this thing that they had nothing to do with. Well, by the way, they're not being dragged into it because the UK has come out and said, we're not involved in this. Sure, but they're paying the price economically. They're already running out of oil. There's already gas stations in the UK

that are empty? Well, because if they're no longer, A, they're not taking Russian energy, right? Right. At the very least, they're trying not to. And so you have the situation where they're already at war with Russia. They've already been passing sanctions and everything else against Russia. Like, we don't want to take their energy. And by 20, 27 or whatever the data is, we're not taking the energy.

And now you have this war with Iran where the energy, what, 30% go through the straight of Ramos? Stopped. Okay, what does that mean for Europe? and did the U.S. even go to Europe and say, hey, by the way, we're going to do this. No, they did not. Meaning the U.S. didn't even alert like the Gulf States and stuff that this was a policy that they were going to effectively take on.

We don't seem to care. No, what happens to Europe? No, we don't care. I mean, or Trump doesn't care. Trump doesn't care. Yeah. I mean, this is, I mean, so we're in agreement, right? This is an incredibly boneheaded move.

It is. How long will it last? I was a petulant. It's very petulant, right? It's, I give an example. One time I was in, I forget the country I was in, I think it was in Austria or something like that. And I got into an argument with the clinic in Austria. And I was like, well, screw it. I'm just not coming. My girlfriend was like, what were you going to do? How would you going to find another clinic? I was like, I don't know, but damn that I wasn't going to do it. it's that, right? It's like, no, I don't have another option, but damn it, this is the pathway. We've all, yeah, we've all been there. We all have that childish side.

But normally it doesn't have massive geopolitical, economic implications. I mean, like, fuck, and they're not going to tell me what to do. I'm not going to do it. It's that. I mean, by the end of this month, I mean, the pain, you know, there's going to be a world of hurt starting to spread around the world. economically. Well, that's the wild part.

And there's another part to this too, right? Like, so the Taiwanese opposition leader just met with China. And, you know, there's this question of, okay, well, what do other countries start to do when they realize, like, for example, when you were the Gulf states and you realize, oh, my God,

these bases are magnets for Iranian missiles. and they're not protecting, you know, right? It's not repulsing those missiles. It's absorbing those missiles. When you look at Ukraine and you think yourself, hey, overthrowing the government of Ukraine wasn't necessarily in the betterment of Ukraine. Like, what do countries do when they see that,

A, the U.S. actually can't protect you? And it doesn't want to. And doesn't want to. And if anything is unreliable. Well, and it's exposing you to increased risk. Like, you'd be better off without them entirely. Yeah. Like, that's a sea change.

I mean, and then you're talking about Russia taking more territory, Iran taking more territory. These things are... And also, like, when you look at NATO, for example, right, the whole idea was like, oh, so the U.S. is like, we don't want to pay as much and blah, blah, blah, and that's reasonable. There's an argument to be made for it. I've made it myself. Yeah. But that from the European standpoint, it's kind of like, you know, it used to be like Big Sam at the table was like, checks on me, give me the bill.

So it's everybody another round, you know. And so that bought us the influence. And it bought us a lot of maybe not goodwill, but tolerance around from these allies. But if we're not picking up the tab anymore and we're being assholes, really, then why do they need to deal with us? there's that. I mean, you think the costs that Europe is effectively taken on in regards to the energy costs, the money that they're paying for weapons and all those other stuff. It's just insane.

And now there's a blockade that is going to drive up costs that much more, not just for Europe, but all of us. By the way, I have to ask you, is that a snazzy new microphone you've got there? It is a snazzy new microphone. It looks great. Thank you. I appreciate that. just want to say well i'm trying to update my stuff now that i have an actual place to update stuff in that helps all right just just curious i was like whoa it's like all right it's red it's like

whoa it's like a lava lamp um uh so all right so let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's some questions oh before we do that let me just ask uh you have an ad hey robbie do we have an ad uh we do one second i'll pop up there for you boss ma'am thank you roby thank you roby All right. So let's let's hit some questions in the meantime while those ads go up. Flanderina, for once I agree with the Democrats, Trump should not have backed out of the deal Obama brokered with Iran. No. Yes. Shouldn't have? Agreed. Made the blue funk. This was totally a trap. Didn't they move a shipping vessel closer to the strait while they were negotiating?

Yes. They did. Yes. I think, Philip, I think Iran should be willing to give up their uranium following the Israelis. really is giving up their uranium. Well, and their nukes. It nukes, right. They have a hundred of them. Right. But they shouldn't have to get up their uranium.

Maybe. I mean, they're using. It's wrong with the build a new. They're a sovereign nation. They can build the new. If they want to use medical stuff, they can use medical stuff. I mean, the idea that the U.S. gets the right to tell countries, hey, you shouldn't be able to do this.

It's outrageous. Yeah, I remember this in the 70s when I was, kid and I would hear like oh so-and-so wants to get nuclear weapons but the United States is considering whether or not to allow them and I was like who who appointed us God nuclear God I mean the only country that's ever used nuclear weapons irresponsibly twice against civilian targets I mean I I it makes no sense at all maybe blue the Ted doesn't it go back to the destabilization thing regarding the strat four report you have mentioned previously

Yeah, yeah, it does. Flandrina, I'm really tired of all the winning. I'd love if we stopped getting into wars that easily could have been resolved with negotiations. Yeah, you would be both. Govman, 43 over on Rumble, thank you for the very generous $60 donation. Does NATO's dumb expansion into Eastern Europe

justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine? the Western, the West didn't invade the Soviet Union for being in its sphere like East Germany during the Cold War. Let's get into that because it's, I mean, obviously it's worth talking about. While we're chewing on that, I'll read the ad. Still haven't tried 1775 coffee. Now is your shot. The 1775 starter kit just dropped. Only a thousand units. You're getting the bold, dark roast that hits hard, the smooth, medium roast, and the vitality mushroom coffee.

for clean energy and laser focus, no crash. All single origin, small batch, toxin free and mold free. Plus, you're also getting a gold spoon clip because freedom isn't scooped with plastic. A father is strong enough to stir up your coffee and your mother-in-law's opinions. And a black 1775 tumbler,

$170 worth of coffee in gear. Yours for 99. This is for the ones you've been watching 1775 blow up on Rumble, wondering if it's actually worth it. Spoiler, it is. Go to 1775 coffee.com slash studio and grab your starter kit. before they're gone, bold beans, clean fuel, and a morning routine that stands for something

just like Rumbledess. So you want to tackle Ukraine first, or shall I? Sure. Whether or not Russia was justified in going into Ukraine. Yeah, absolutely just fighting onto Ukraine. And no, I'm not being a hypocrite in this case, meaning there's a difference between the United States conjuring up a quote-unquote, missile threat of weapons of mass destruction and the same way they did for Iraq in order to, I guess, part dear, to go into Iran, as opposed to a credible threat where the United States is overthrows a country, a country, by the way, that has been a gateway into attacks into Russia twice the first time killing 10 million people, a second time killing, what, 40 or 30

many people. And by the way, credible threat, considering the U.S. has overthrown government after government after government, yeah, one was real. They were at the Russian border, for God's sake. This was not something that was just kind of Russia was making up. It was clear and obvious with the overthrow of Ukraine, that they were antagonizing Russia. At least that's my take on it. I didn't take it as, you know, it's one thing if the threat was made up. But they, actively overthrew the government of Ukraine. There's a difference in these things. At least I don't see it.

I mean, give me your take on it. Yeah, I mean, my take's a little, I mean, there's not a lot of daylight between us. I mean, I think, here's the thing. I tend to just, I tend to look at, I tend to evaluate people's actions, including those of presidents, presidents of countries, based on what you would do or what I would do in the same spot. And so here's my thing. If I'm Putin and my politics are left, right, somewhere in between, I'm going to do the same

exact thing because you kind of have no choice. If you don't, the U.S. is running roughshod over you. NATO is, you've already tolerated NATO expansion all the way up to your border. You've said that Ukraine can join EU. You're fine with that. But you don't, but you just can't have a foreign military alliance that can, that poses a threat. And here's the threat, right? Like, it happens all the time in the world where drunken border guards at 2 o'clock in the morning

board start shooting at each other across a river. Literally happens all the time. And you don't want a situation where some Yuki gets a hole in him. And then that triggers an Article 5 situation with NATO. Ukraine is a NATO member, you know, goes to Brussels and says, listen, we've been attacked, we need to nuke Russia. If you're Russia, you're like, that's dangerous as shit in general and to us specifically. And then, you know, I guess I know at the risk of this sounding a little bit like it's the Sudeten land,

it's also not to be forgotten that Ukraine's borders were not really drawn in a great way during the Soviet Union. And it didn't really matter because the Soviet Union was all one country. But when it became a sovereign state, really Eastern Ukraine never should have been in Ukraine. It should have been part of Russia because ethnically and culturally, it's Russian. And so then the civil war starts in 2014 to 2022, where the Ukrainian central government is bombing and shelling and killing ethnic Russians right across the border. And quite justifiably, you know, there's Russian domestic pressure. on Putin, just saying those are our relatives, those are our co-religionists, those are

our fellow Russians who are being massacred, and you need to protect them. And so I think it's like, my question here is, would any American president have tolerated Mexico or Canada joining the Warsaw Pact? And the answer is, no, they would have invaded. And that's basically the position that Putin was in. I mean, theoretically, speaking, nation states shouldn't invade each other. That's the, you know, that's the absolute centerpiece of whatever kind of global order we have in the 20th and 21st centuries. It shouldn't happen. But I can't imagine any Russian president doing anything different in that situation. Or any American president. Or any American president. I think anyone would have done the same.

I mean, the reality of it is, Burns memo, Myanmar means net, was very clear that it's like, look, if we continue to do this policy. I mean, keep in mind, Ukraine had a policy at one point where in the Constitution, they weren't supposed to join NATO. They changed the Constitution in order to allow them to actually join NATO. And this notion that they're trying to be surrounded, like, I mean, if you think about it, NATO shouldn't even exist now. I mean, NATO existed as an anti-Soviet military alliance. That's how it was conceived. There's no USSR. There should be no NATO. Yeah, agree. So it's, look, this is not me being a warmonger per se. This is me being pragmatic. William Burns, and it means that pointed out that this idea of Ukraine or for

that matter, Georgia, joining NATO is a no-go. And Russia will respond and not just Russia will respond, that it would create the conditions for a civil war in Ukraine that Russia would have to respond, considering this on their border, something that they don't want to have to do. I mean, even Burns, CIA director for Joe Biden, understood that, look, if you do this, there will be pressure on Russia to get involved once Ukraine devolves into a civil war. It's exactly what happened. They knew it was going to happen. They did it.

And, I mean, it is true that the Russians waited eight years to go in. So it's not like they were precipitous here. John Park is asking us, do we think the next president should cut off all aid and military help to Israel or should be a main talking point in the presidential debate. Let me be really clear. Not only should we cut off all military and other aid to Israel. We should sever diplomatic relations. We should have nothing to do with them.

Ditto. I mean, it's a pariah state, and it's a genocide state, and it's an apartheid state. Fuck them. Yeah. And by the way, our own laws, we're not supposed to be dealing with Israel. If you remember, Joe Biden lied when the whole condition thing came up of, wait a minute, we're not supposed to be dealing with countries that are committing a genocide.

We're not supposed to be dealing with countries that are starving on its population. And the Biden administration lied in order to continue aid to Israel. Here's a question that probably would be well directed to Robbie, so I'll put him up. Mr. A. Lee, how do these grifters manage to claim to be Christian, but do the exact opposite of what a Christian does? It's pretty easy. They don't read their Bibles and they don't understand the basic tenets of the faith. I mean, the highest law is first, love the Lord.

like God's all that heart, then you love your neighbors as yourself. We don't do that. And that's not what Christian churches teach. That's why. Hmm. It sucks. I don't think they care. I don't think these people as being real Christians. They just don't either. Covering. Right. It's like, I'm going to wear the sheep's clothing. Well, like, I was telling Robbie, like, about this offline. I was like, so right now, I believe I'm holding my phone. Like, I believe it. You know what I mean? Like, I believe it. I believe it. I believe it as much as I believe anything. But, like, people who see, say they believe in God, most Americans, they don't really believe it in the same way. They say they

believe it. It's cultural. It's like, you know, they're supposed to. They were raised that way, but they don't really think they're going to be called to judgment when they die and that they're, and that they're going to be, you know, held to account for all of eternity. I really don't think they believe that. Now, I've met people who believe that. Robbie believes that. And I've met people who in other countries like Buddhists in Thailand they believe it but but like that's just not that's not most americans well i mean i don't know if ted i know you follow me on facebook i don't know if jt if you do or if any of the followers you don't follow me is search your robbie west i'll pop up i'm friends with ted and um i was having this debate with uh with my pastor at my church and the

bible is clear is that if someone comes to comes to you with a different gospel from not what the apostles brought and that person is an athema you don't welcome them don't bring them into your house and neither you wish of God's speed because then you are a partaker of their evil deeds I believe that that applies corporately to nations as well as individuals and so the pastors is like well that's a how do you come to that conclusion I said the same way that you that you take Genesis 12 out of context when God told Abraham that I will bless those who bless thee and curse those who curse thee so If that's good for Abraham, why is it what the Apostle John said, good for my point of view? It's the same thing.

And the blue screen popped up. It was really kind of neat because it's the same thing. If it's true for one, it's got to be true for the other. And lastly, I'll go away. The Bible never, ever, ever says, you must bless Israel. It does not say that. The blessing to Abraham is through his line, through his seed. It does not say that.

to the person Jesus Christ. That is the blessing. It is through him which all people and all nations can be reconciled with God. It has nothing to do with an ethnic group, has nothing to do with the nation. And as sure as hell does not have to do with an antichrist religion that blasphemes my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to witness to the cross from me and my sins. Thank you, Robbie. I love a man who believes and stuff.

Frasmatas, is Trump trying to humiliate J.D. Vance for Marco? I don't think so. I think Trump knows that he was losing and he was trying to send a by sending Vance who it's well known opposed to this war within the administration. He was trying and he was sending a high level official. This was actually a sign of goodwill to the Iranians. Like I take this seriously and I'm not sending an asshole. I mean, what's wild about it? Why do we even have the State Department. Right. That's a good question.

Like Marble Rubio is not included in any of these. It's been crazy ever since we started, ever since Colin Powell became Secretary of State. It's like you put a, you put a military general as the chief nation's chief diplomat. Why would you do that? Yeah. I mean, he's sending his special envoy to all of these operations. And you have to ask, why is, you know, why is, um, Wikoff, his point person. when you have Rubio as Secretary of State, meaning it's almost like the Secretary of Sage has been sideline.

It's very strange. Yeah, you send Vance, but Vance is, it's almost like sending Vance is almost like a lie, if that makes sense. Like you're sending somebody who's supposedly opposed to the conflict while simultaneously sending him with marching orders that in no way can effectively resolve the conflict. It's very strange. But I don't know. I don't think he's trying to humiliate events. I just think the White House is incompetent. Yeah, well, for sure.

They don't know what the fuck they're doing. Philip Blair, off-topic question for me, since you're fluent in French and a lover of history, have you browsed through any of the French werewolf trial transcripts? For example, Gilles Gagne. So, yeah, Gilles Gagne was one of several Frenchmen. This was in the 1500s who died, who basically were convinced.

convicted, they were put on trial for being werewolves and for eating people. But, you know, their confessions were no doubt elicited under torture. I've never read any of the transcripts. But speaking of transcripts, once in a used bookstore in the East Village, a section of the transcripts that were published by the Soviet Union of the Soviet, of the anti-Trottskyist show trials under Stalin in 1937. And it's preposterous and amazing because people are like literally on the stand under oath

and it's all the transcripts. And obviously the Soviet Union had this translated into English, right? And it's like, and it says basically, you know, it's like I was a pedophile. I ate children. You know, I ran with the capitalist running dogs. I betrayed the workers. I mean, it's outlandish. And it's basically because these guys were told, if you don't go do this, I mean, you're going to be executed no matter what. But, you know,

we're going to kill your family too. So you've got to go and confess. And they would literally be like, I beg for, I deserve a bullet in the head. Please kill me. And the judge would be like, after careful consideration, I've decided to grant you your wish. It's absolutely terrifying. Oh, that sucks so bad. Can you imagine people like, God, man, that sucks. Not only are you going to die, but to save your family, maybe save your family. Maybe not, you know. It's like, because you have to believe them.

It's like, it's obvious that they were lying. And maybe that's the wild part. And maybe that's the terrifying part about it, right? People know that this was a show trial. Oh. There's nothing that you can do about the fact, but it's the show trial. That's so wild to me. Ari and Gordy.

Thanks for the 1999, very generous donation. Good morning, Ted, J.T. and Robbie. The orange tarred lost his fucking mind if it thinks it can block the straight and threatened to attack foreign ships. What happens when another country retaliates as a result of threats by the United States on their ships? Fascinating question. This is the whole China question, right? Hmm.

How does China respond? the Donald Trump pulling some mess like this, and is Donald Trump really going to try to interdict the Chinese shit if indeed it's getting oil from Iran? How is that going to work? Well, I don't think we will actually do that. I mean, that's the other thing, too, is like when you're bluffing and everyone knows you're bluffing,

that weakens you in a major way. Look, I guess here's a question. This must be hard to answer. I don't know. I know I couldn't answer it. How long does the blockade of the blockade go on? I mean, the securities markets, you know, nobody likes this. The economy, this is not a solution.

It's just a further complication of an already complicated problem for Trump. Well, it's an accelerant on U.S. decline. I mean, like, let's be very honest. Between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, both of them were remarkably incompetent. But astonishingly so. Joe Biden accelerated the war in Ukraine, which also damaged Europe in a direct sense, especially from the economic sense and because of energy costs and everything else. Donald Trump is effectively doing the same thing to America, in this case, and to the global energy markets.

And there's a question of like, the entire point of what Iran was doing was to create a reckoning in the United States, meaning in the same way that the U.S. passed sanctions and what had on other countries in order to put pressure on the government. Iran effectively is doing that to America in regards to the street of Famos. Trump is making that policy that much worse for us, meaning that is a cost that we are going to have to effectively pay. If gas goes to $500 a barrel, $300 a barrel, and it is because Donald Trump initiated a war of aggression, that is falling back on us. That's not, you know, Iran is prepared to take that hit. The United States very rarely has to deal with anything dealing with a reckoning from the policies that the United States effectuates. What does it look like when everything that you deal with goes up, when inflation goes up, the amount of energy costs for energy goes up?

And all of it was because of a war that was provoked by the U.S. government. How does, like, how does the U.S. or let's say how does this administration accommodate? that reality. I don't know the answer to that. I mean, I also don't understand why they're not, they don't seem to very heavily weigh the domestic political consequences. I mean, just today, it's being reported that finally the president is starting to message the idea that, you know, gas prices will not have gone down.

They will only have gone up by Election Day. I mean, you know, if you're, you know, if you're in a purple district running for re-election, as a Republican this fall, you're very displeased by this statement, right? I mean, the president does not seem to care about the fate of his congressional allies. I mean, maybe he's written them off already and he thinks they're going to lose anyway, so he doesn't care. I mean, what is this about? Why doesn't he care about that?

I don't know. I mean, that's even the dance issue, right? I mean, you've effectively torched Vance in this process because all of these, because let's be, you know, one of the things that we need to be realized. Vance was obviously not given a lot of wiggle room to do what he needed to do to get a deal with the Iranians. Agreed. And from a standpoint of politics or domestic politics, you've torched your party. When everybody that's going to be running in these elections will be compared to Trump.

I guarantee Trump is so much of a luminary. Oh, yeah, you just know the attack ads. You know, you just know, Congressman Jamal Tano Thomas voted with Donald Trump 316 times. Gas is now $17 a gallon. Jamal Thomas wants your children not to be able to get driven to school. Vote against Jamal Thomas. You know, paid for by Americans for a good thing. Right.

Right. Right. Jamar Thomas hates babies. Or Trump hates babies because he's raised the cost of baby food. And so and so voted with Trump in this. Yeah, oh, they're going to be vicious ads. Yeah, I mean, that's, they're just going to be running against Trump. Normally, you know, you and I, I know we have agreed that that's not normally a great tactic.

But it worked in 2020 for Biden and it's going to work this fall. Let me answer this. Do you think, I mean, does Donald Trump realize that he's going to get impeached? He knows. because he has said that behind closed doors to his caucus. I guess he's kind of like, I've been impeached twice, whatever. I've been impeached before. I'll be impeached again.

I think more if I'm more like Donald Trump and I'm like worried about those Epstein files, I'm really worried about the House Oversight Committee under Democratic Control starting January 1st. That is what I'm worried about. Yeah. I mean, it doesn't seem like he's accommodated. the political consequences of losing in the midterms? No.

Yeah, and I mean, I wonder if he doesn't have, I mean, it really does seem like he doesn't have people in the room who genuinely are willing to oppose him. I mean, J.D. Vance was against this war, but according to the reporting in the Times, he basically was like, look, I don't think, you know, I think this is a bad idea, but I'll support you no matter what. Right.

I mean, of course, obviously you have to say, that. But I don't get the sense that he ever, he or anyone else would ever say something about this or any other issue. Like, are you out of your fucking mind, Mr. President? This is insane. You can't do this. I don't think he asks anyone like that

around him. Well, those people have been fired. Right. And keep in mind, Kamala Harris is the same thing for Joe Biden. Where Joe Biden looks at her and said, hey, are you with me, kid? And she was like, yes. And in no way did she do what she needed to do.

in a sense of dividing herself or pulling herself away from Joe Biden and say, hey, I'm against this policy. I'm against that policy. I guess that's a vice president. It's a vice presidential mentality, right? It's like how Al Gore couldn't really distance himself from Bill Clinton.

Or actually, I guess he tried to distance himself too much, right? Well, he tried. Bill Clinton had 70% approval rate. Yeah, I'm not entirely, I'm not sure I completely agree with the conventional wisdom there with Al Gore. I think there were other things. things that cost him. I don't want to let this episode slip away without us discussing the Hungarian election results. Or bond loses. Yeah. Or bond loses.

Defeated by a guy, yeah, 55 to 38, defeated by a guy in Peter Magyar, who apparently has some interesting sexual proclivities. Does he? He likes to be spanked or something like that. it's uh yeah we won't get into that but let's just say he fell for a honey trap he claims to have fallen for a honey trap operation and allowed himself to be seduced that is a quote yeah with prostitutes and cameras and everything i gotta be honest it'd be a sucker for a honey trap too depending upon what that honey trap is those things are unfair man sure i know i've tried to explain that to women like there's certain situations like your husband might love you to death. But there's certain situations like, you know, where alcohol is involved, where really

no man is impervious. It's not possible. Even the Pope, you know, who by the way, did you see that Trump went after the Pope? I saw that. Oh, my God. In American Pope. The American Pope, right? Yeah.

And he basically said that he wouldn't have been Pope without Trump. Like, you owe me? Like, no, I don't think so. I think I owe God and the, and the Council of Cardinals. Oh, God. Asshole. Yeah, I like how he's like, I'm not afraid of Donald Trump. I'm like, I should think not.

You're the fucking Pope. You're the Pope. Okay, but let's get back to Orban. So basically, this is being hailed here in the West as a defeat of Trumpian authoritarianism. Orban was an ally of Trump. Trump always talks. about like the strong man model that Orban represented. However, let's not put too fine a point on it.

Peter Magyar, who won, he's not a liberal. He's from the right. And basically, I think, you know, there's some warning signs here for Democrats, not just Republicans. There's warning signs for Republicans, too. But Magyar basically did, he was kind of like, not politically, but he was an insurgent, sort of like a Bernie Sanders candidate.

Like he basically took over a small tertiary party that wasn't doing much and basically seized control of it and started campaigning in a way that had very little to do with their original ideology. And basically he was kind of like a, you know, he was a populist, a radical populist, the kind that the DNC hates. Yeah. Do you think, see, that's the wild part about this, right? And Hungary is a very different country anyway. It is a different country. I mean, there's going to be a sea change in regards to policy, I suppose. I mean, Orban was the rational actor in the context of the war.

At one point, he was the lone voice. The Europeans hated him to completely. He called him an dictator, despite the fact he just lost an election, right? So the whole dictator thing is out the window. But, you know, there's a question of what does this mean? I mean, Hungary gets 80, 90 percent of his energy. from Russia. So there's that. So this idea that it can unwit itself from Russia. I don't know how it would do that. Yeah, I don't see that. And also, there's not that much political daylight between. I think that I might take, and we have some questions I got, we've got to get to. Orby. My take here is that like this is less about a rejection of urbanism and more of a new generation. This guy's 45, Orban's old. This is about like, you know, millennials having their,

having their own guy. Yeah. And he's been in all 16 years. Yeah, yeah. Exactly. Like enough already. Rod Nogu, thanks for the two euros. Keep it up.

We will. Thank you very much. Johnny, come lately. Thanks for the five Australian dollars. It's not a war, but we won big league. We destroyed the nuclear program, but they can't have a nuke. We opened the strait, but we're not blockading it.

Hilarious. Juan Don, thanks for the buck. They are used to the American people being focused on fighting each other. Phyllis Fobb, thanks for the dollar. Joining the UN makes UN treaties you ratify the highest law in the land. Another basic requirement is no UN country can join another similar global organization. When NATO acts in Afghanistan, it's global and therefore illegal. Phyllis Bob, likewise, for every stupid country that join Trump's Board of Peace.

Board of Peace indeed. Notice that we're not hearing anything about the Board of Peace anymore. Yep. We're just gone. Okay, so what? UN Security Council? And now it's... We got a minute left.

All right, what now with Iran? It's not a hot war. The ceasefire is still holding, except in Lebanon. So I think, you know, there's going to... I mean, now we're entering a seriously dangerous phase, right? Yeah. I mean, you have a corner president that is just failed at a war

and it's unclear what happens from here? Blockade, I suppose. Yeah, the naval... And by the way, under some circumstances, a naval blockade is a war crime, although I'm not clear that this one necessarily is. But, okay, we will get to that. It makes me nervous as hell.

25th Amendment, J.D. Vance, you know what you're supposed to do. Do it, do it, do it. U.S. Congress, that includes you Republicans, impeach this guy. Get rid of him. Get JD in there. You give him two years to get ready for 2028.

He might win, you know? Maybe. It's your best shot. It's like if the Democrats had put Al Gore in and Clinton had stepped aside in 1998. Al Gore would have had a better shot by 2000. Agreed. Well, Harris would have, too, believe it or not.

Yeah, same thing, same thing. If Biden would step aside earlier. All right, with that, thank you very. everyone for tuning in. We're here on Deep Program, JT&I, every Monday through Friday at 9 a.m. Eastern time. Don't miss us. No Q&A today because I'm in a hotel and they're going to kick me out at 12 noon, so I can't do it. But we'll do the Q&A on Wednesday. We'll be back tomorrow at 9 a.m. Please stay tuned for the TMI show with Manila Chan and yours truly. Thanks, thanks everyone. Bye.