The Duran Podcast - Iran and Israel; Pressure to escalate and de-escalate

Episode Date: April 15, 2024

Iran and Israel; Pressure to escalate and de-escalate

All right, Alexander, let's talk about what is happening with Israel and Iran. And maybe we can start things off with that Financial Times article, which talks about a calibrated response from Iran and hints at some sort of back-channel diplomacy that took place. that took place because the article was written about a day before Iran launched their drone and missile strikes at Israel. The backchannel diplomacy that took place between the United States and Iran via Oman. That is what the Financial Times article was hinting at. And you talked about this in your video update.

I saw your video update and then I read the article. And I built much of my analysis based on that video update and that article from the Financial Times because that article from the Financial Times almost felt like it's scripted out the entire events that then unfolded with regards to Iran and Israel. Anyway, so let's get into it. What are your thoughts? It's one of the most extraordinary articles I have ever read in the media because it written. on the eve of an Iranian missile strike on Israel, it basically set out in advance pretty much everything that we've seen since. I mean, you're quite right when you say hint, because of course he didn't exactly prophesied and say that this would happen. But it basically, if you read it

carefully, it made it fairly clear that this is what was likely to happen. Now, I think, you know, we need to understand a number of things. The first thing is that the United States does not want a general war in the Middle East. When I say the United States, I have to be very careful because there are some people in the United States, and there are some people, no doubt, within the administration, who probably do want a general war in the Middle East, a war between the United States and Iran, alongside Israel, you know, all the massive crisis fighting, missiles going backwards and forwards, air strikes on Iran, they hanker and long for that and have done so for decades. And, you know, they're as close to getting it as they've ever been.

But there are other people in the United States who say to themselves, look, we've got this ongoing crisis in Ukraine, which is going horribly wrong. We have had a crisis in Gaza, which is going horribly wrong. We have a very difficult election in the United States coming. We do not need a war in the Middle East at this time, especially as every single military venture we've attempted in the Middle East since 2000 has been a failure. And so that seems to me at the moment to be the ascendant view within the administration. And on the Iranian side, you can also see why they too don't want a war, a general war in the Middle East. From their point of view, everything up to recently has been going right for them.

They've sorted out their relations with Saudi Arabia. They've joined the bricks. Their economy is booming. They've completed a major arms agreement, arm supply agreement with Russia. They've started receiving Russian ground attack and training aircraft, the most advanced aircraft they've received from any place, basically since the fall of the Shah of Iran. They don't want to jeopardize that situation either.

They know perfectly well that if they got drawn into a long, prolonged conflict, all-out conflict in the Middle East, that would create chaos and havoc for them and set them massively back. So, given that these interests exist, And given that, as we've discussed in many previous programs, that missile strike by Israel on the Iranian embassy in Damascus was clearly intended as a trap, a trap to get the United States and Iran ultimately fighting each other. It's not surprising given the joint interests that each side has to avoid. falling into that trap, that they have been engaging in private discussions with each other.

And what the Financial Times article said is that Iran has no real option but to respond in some way to the Israeli strike on their embassy in Damascus, failing to do so would show weakness to Israel, might invite further attacks, and beyond that, would lose Iran credibility with some of its key allies in the Middle East, Hezbollah, the Houthis, whoever. So Iran had to respond. But what they said to the Americans through Roman is that we will respond, but we want to avoid a larger war. So if we do it in a, if we slow walk it, if we do it in a kind of measured way, if we attack a few installations but don't do a significant amount of damage, if we don't kill civilians and we don't kill military people, will you let the whole thing start to de-escalate from that point onwards? And that's what the

Financial Times basically tells us the Iranians said to the Americans. And the Americans apparently said to the Iranians, we don't want to escalate the conflict either. provided you keep things at that kind of level, we too will work to try to de-escalate the situation from that point on. And that is exactly what we've seen. That is exactly how the situation has played out. So the Iranians launched a missile strike on Iran. It did do a certain amount of damage. We'll come to that in a moment. Some missiles did get through. It did demonstrate resolves. It was enabled the Iranians to tell their people and their allies in the Middle East that, you know, we're not going to take Israeli attacks on us lying down. It told the Israelis as well.

If you go on attacking us, well, we are in the position to defend ourselves. But at the same time, it was done at that kind of level where the Americans are able to say, well, right, let's call us stop. Let's draw a line under everything from this point on. we're not going to escalate beyond what has happened. Now, that's exactly what we see. So Biden telephones. Netanyahu tells him, you've achieved this amazing success. You've shot down all those Iranian missiles. You've suffered minimal damage. Let's let this pass. Let's move on. Let's not get into a situation of tip-for-tat. Let's try and avoid an escalation. And the very latest words that we heard last night and early this morning is that the Israelis who were planning an attack on Iran have now called it off.

So things are playing out essentially in the same way that that Financial Times article has told us. It is very strange. It is almost bizarre. But if you take a step back and think about what the interests of the two major sides, which are not Israel, but the United States in Iran, if you think about what their interests are, you can understand why it's playing out in the way that this is. Yeah, I have a question for you.

I also read that they called it off. I've also read mixed reports, to be quite honest. I've read that they've called it off after the Biden phone call. I have read that they had their war cabinet meeting in Israel, and Netanyahu said that they're going to have to respond. They are going to retaliate. I heard reports saying they were going to retaliate last night. I've heard reports saying that they were going to retaliate at a day and time of their choosing.

Do you believe that they're going to retaliate in some form or another, some time in the near future? I mean, when I mean retaliation, it could mean a retaliation, a strike against Iran, or it could mean sanctions. I mean, it could be a broad range of things. Do you believe that Netanyahu is going to have to do something in order to please the war cabinet? Because I have heard mixed reports about whether Israel is going to strike at Iran or not. And I've heard some reports saying they're going to strike hard at Iran. I've heard a lot of reports saying they're going to work the sanctions route. What do you think?

Right. Israel is, of course, the Joker in the pack. Because, of course, the Americans of the Iranians can agree all sorts of things with each other. what the Israelis decide to do, we have seen that the Americans find it extremely difficult to control the Israelis. And of course, always bear in mind that within the United States, in Washington, inside the administration itself, Israel has its advocates and its supporters, and people who want Israel to go all the way, and who want the United States to support Israel going all the way. And at times, and we've discussed this already, the president talks like he is one of those people. I mean, you know, he's talked about Israel having cast iron guarantees from the United States,

all of those kind of things. So the Americans and the Iranians might come to an understanding with each other. but Israel is not a part of that understanding. And that has to be understood. Now, what the Israelis choose to do remains to be seen. The Americans have told the Israelis, we don't want you to retaliate, at least not in a kinetic way.

The Americans have also convened the G7. Now, this isn't something that people have understood. They've asked why is the United States calling up the G7 and not say NATO or something like that. The reason they're calling up the G7 is, because they do not want a military response. They want to bring together their core allies, in other words, the G7 states, the big ones, to put pressure on Israel, not to prepare for a war against Iran. That is their priority at the moment. So there are all those pressures building up

on the Israelis from the American side. But the Israelis themselves are themselves under pressure. Netanyahu has set himself up for many years now as the tough prime minister who will take no nonsense, no threats from Iran, who's talked endlessly about the enormous danger that Iran poses to Israel. Very difficult to see him sitting back with folded hands after Iran has launched military strikes against Israel. Beyond that, within his cabinet, he's got all kinds of other people, people like Gantz, the defence minister who's a rival, maybe a more moderate figure in some respects,

maybe a more hardline figure in others, but he's probably senting that Netanyahu is now in an awkward position because he's between the Americans and, you know, Israeli public, so Gantz can be the person who now strikes out and takes the hard line. And, of course, there's other people within the cabinet who are eating much more hardline. line and Gans. People like Ben Gvier and Smortrich, Ben Gvier has already threatened Netanyahu and told him that his premiership will be in jeopardy if he really does call off the offensive on Rafa.

So there are all these pressures within Israel. And I don't think the Israelis have made a final decision yet about what they're going to do. I think that some kind of response from Israel is, inevitable. I mean, it's all very well the Americans saying, you know, the Israelis mustn't do anything. I think politically within Israel, that is an impossible position to take, at least for this Israeli cabinet and for this Israeli Prime Minister. The question is whether it will be a mild response or a response that is relatively mild and which the Iranians, Iranians can live with and which will take us back to that, you know, proxy war that we've had between Iran and Israel for a very long time where the Israelis do something covertly and

the Iranians respond and tip for tap, things of that kind, or whether the Israelis do, do something public and big, which the Iranians feel obliged to respond to. So this remains. an extremely dangerous situation indeed. We're not out of it. I mean, we've not got through it at all. No one should think this. And, you know, there's going to be huge pressure on the Israeli government, both from the Americans and the G7 and others, no doubt,

but also counter pressure coming from its own supporters within Israel, large parts of the Israeli public, from within the cabinet itself. And at the moment, it's difficult to know where this is going to go. Right. I agree. If the response is mild from Israel, then we're off the escalation escalator. If it's not, then we're back on it.

And Iran's going to feel obliged, obligated to retaliate. And yeah, then this thing, you know, gets out of hand. But, you know, do you feel like this? could end if the Biden White House would just give out a stronger message with regards to what Israel is going to do. Because, you know, the Biden White House is very much engaged in narrative control. And I feel like right now they have the media running interference for them trying to get out the message that this was a success for Israel. You shot down 99% of all the missiles. This was a win for Israel. This was a fifth.

failure for Iran. And you see a lot of articles from most of the collective West media. Some of the neocon publications are calling for war. Okay, that's fine. They always call for war. But most of the mainstream media, New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, they're pretty much running the same story, which is Israeli defense is a success. U.S. Patriot missiles are amazing. Iran failed in its retaliation. All is good. But my opinion is that we're still missing a critical piece to getting off the escalation escalator, which is Biden, the president of the United States or the Biden White House. But the president, the president, has to come out and say, this is over. This is over.

It's done. Israel will not get any support from the United States if they go after Iran. if Israel finds itself in a mess by going after Iran, don't call us up. We're not going to be there for you. And maybe he could even take it one step further and say, if Israel escalates, then, you know, supports going to be going to be cut off. I mean, it's missing this strong statement from the United States to say it's over. This whole affair is done. Let's move on. We're not getting that.

And we never get it from the Biden White House. We get narratives. We never get strong statements. Exactly. You're absolutely correct. Because what they're trying to do is manipulate the American public by spinning narratives rather than get complete control of the situation. We've discussed how complex the situation is in Israel. The enormous pressures on Netanyahu and on the cabinet and within the cabinet,

itself. Now, what this absolutely requires is exactly what you said. A strong statement from the administration, from the President of the United States, backed by statements from the Secretary of State from Blinken and from the Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, saying, enough's enough. Isrus won. They've won this round. So, you know, there's no need for anything further. And we draw a line under the whole affair. And if the Israelis go forward, the... United States opposes that. And they can say in private to the Israelis, if you do go forward, we'll do all the things that you talked about, you know, cut off aid, alert you in advance that you're on your own, do that sort of thing. But not only are they not doing that, publicly,

they're doing the opposite. Even as all the indications are that in private, they're telling the Israelis to exercise restraint. And we're having, you know, a cascade of articles now, briefings from the non-inverse officials telling us this. I'm sure this is true. Even as they're doing that in private, publicly, they're saying the exact opposite. They're saying, you know, we got Israel's back. We, you know, and Israel will be defended no matter what. You know, we have a cast iron. and Israel has a cast iron support from the United States. So publicly, they give Israel a blank check, even as in private. They're trying to pull it back.

Now, this is an impossible situation. And, of course, it opens the way for Netanyahu to say to himself, well, at the end of the day, if I do launch a big attack on Iran, then I can do it. and the Americans will back me, even if at the moment they're saying that they won't, and even if they're unhappy if I do it. So that is the fundamental problem. That is the ultimate failure of Israeli diplomacy, or rather of U.S. diplomacy. And to be clear, the U.S. does have that power.

It could do this. It could assert itself authoritatively in the way that we've done, we've said. But no sign is. it will do so because, of course, the administration is itself divided. The president probably doesn't want to go there anyway because viscerally, despite the fact that on this occasion he does seem to understand some of the problems. But viscerally, his instinct is to support a hardline with Israel. And they're terrified that, you know, electorally in the election,

taking a strong stand against Israel in this kind of way isn't going to play well. So the result is we get mixed messages, garbled messages. It's fairly clear what the ascendant wing of the administration wants to see happen. But in the end, they can't translate it into straightforward words. So that massively increases the danger that this whole thing could be. go appallingly wrong. And from an election standpoint, you also have guys like Sullivan, who I believe understand that if this thing does escalate, then that's a whole other part of Biden's base,

let's say his base from 2020, that they would lose because there's a large part of the American public that would be absolutely opposed to an escalation in a war with Iran. And to be honest, Israel is not ready for a conflict with Iran, nor is the United States ready for a conflict with Iran. And I believe there are people in the Netanyahu administration, but most importantly in the Biden White House, who understand that this is a very, very bad idea. Absolutely. And I think that's perhaps where we must now say, way, and discuss briefly the actual strike itself, because of course you're quite right. There's been massive amount of narrative construction around there. It's a total failure.

The missiles, half the missiles collapsed at the moment when they were launched. They managed to shoot down 99% of them. A few got through but did minimal damage and all of that. Now, the Iranians actually provided us with details of the targets that they were wanting to hit. And there were two bases, air bases, which they said were the basis from which the planes took off, which carried out the missile strike on their embassy. Damascus and a building from which the intelligence agencies, the Israeli intelligence agencies were functioning. Now, from what I have been able to understand, the reality is that the Iranians

managed to hit all three. Now, it's probably true that in terms of the basis, only a small amount of damage was done. But the fact is, Israel with its enormously powerful and effective and dense air defense system, wasn't able to prevent some Iranian ballistic missiles getting through and hitting those bases. About the intelligence building, I'm not so sure, but I heard reports that it was one of the places that was also hit. So it wasn't the complete and utter. failure that some people are saying some Iranian missiles did get through. I think what has confused a lot of people is that there was this huge number of drones and cruise missiles and rockets probably fired by Hesbullah. People are down playing that by the way, but it does seem as if that did happen.

And rockets fired by the Houthis and other less sophisticated rockets fired by the Iranians themselves. clearly the purpose of that was to overwhelm the Israeli defences. And in that it was successful. It enabled, it opened the way for some missiles to get through. And by the way, one of the results is that it cost Israel an awful lot of money. I mean, the weapon systems that Israel expended over the course of one single night apparently had a value of something like $1.3 billion. That's the figure that's been thrown around.

Now, that suggests that in a long-term attrition war, where the Iranians are being more aggressive in attacking targets within Israel, Israel would be, I won't say, defenseless, but in a vulnerable position. And of course, Israel has perhaps the densest air defence system in the world, but there are American bases scattered all across the Middle East. It does look as if Iranian missiles can get through.

And if the United States is involved, well, its bases, its personnel across the Middle East start to be vulnerable. Now, that's not saying that, you know, for the Iranians to do that, going to be cost free for them. Obviously, we're talking about a missile and air war. They will be attacked themselves. They will take a lot of damage, and they don't want to find themselves in that situation. But unlike Israel, Iran is a huge country.

It is very mountainous country. It has places you can conceal all kinds of things. Probably all sorts of things have been concealed in all kinds of places. they can probably absorb levels of punishment that Israel and the United States cannot absorb in the Middle East. So over time, if we're talking about prolonged attrition war, they would probably come out on top. They don't want to go there. It would jeopardize their economic recovery. It would put a stress on their alliances.

It might cause problems between them and the Saudis. But that's the reality of the overall military balance. which this attack has demonstrated. And as you absolutely rightly say, there are people in Washington who understand that. There are people in Israel who understand that too. The question is not whether there are people in Washington and Israel who understand the risks of this war.

And I'm not even talking about what might happen, you know, elsewhere, whether other people in Iraq and Syria and less, Lebanon might get angry and might also decide to join the war in some way so that, you know, we get an absolute explosive fire across the Middle East, a distinct possibility, by the way. But there are people in Washington and Israel who understand the dangers, who understand that the United States is already overextended. It's got the war in Ukraine going on. It's shorted missiles to supply to the Ukraine. It's got problems with China, in the South China Sea, and over Taiwan. And it's got lots of other problems, problems in its economy, all those kind of things.

There are those people who do understand that. The question is, are they being listened to? Are they being listened to in Washington? And are they being listened to in Israel? And if they are speaking out, is it nonetheless the case that there are people who nonetheless want to ignore what they're saying because they're so blinded by arrogance and confidence and belief in certain victory and are so intent on war, which is the only thing they seem to understand and seem to want.

Well, are those people prepared to listen to what these people, these people who understand the situation are really saying, we've seen time and again with councils, the prudence and of realism, are disregarded and with entirely predictable results, that hasn't changed anything. We've lurched from one disastrous adventure to another. You know, I'm not a gambling man, but if I was, I still wouldn't put money on the forces of reason prevailing in this situation. Yeah, I agree with you.

That's what worries me is, you know, they always opt for war. In this scenario, there must be some voices that are telling them, yeah, you want war? Okay. I'm also for war. I'm sure there are voices that are saying, yes, I also want war. We've been wanting war with Iran for 30 years. But given the circumstances right now, we just can't do it. We just can't do it.

And we're going through an election. So everything, the timing is off. And I understand John Bolton and I understand Mike Pompeo and all the neocons. I understand that you want this. But, you know, this is just not the right time. I mean, you know, that's kind of what I'm thinking might actually play out. Their instinct is always for war. Absolutely.

But it's just not, it's not there. It's not there at the moment. And it probably never will be. You know, to be quite honest, I think, you know, their whole Iran war. that that ship may have, may have sailed. And before you comment, Iran has been very clear in their message. I just want to say they've been very clear. They've said, it's over for us.

We launched our attack. We got the results we wanted. We're done now. So their messaging has been crystal clear. Very forward, very direct, very straight. For them, it's over. Yes. You've got right.

I mean, they're crystal clear in what they're saying. The Americans, as we see, are not crystal clear. still clear. They're saying one thing to the Israelis in private. They're saying, well, not completely different thing publicly. They're crowing about some great victory, which hasn't really happened. They're doing all of these, all of these things all the time. So you're absolutely right. Now, I think like you, if you really push me, I think like you, that those people who are, if you, are the soft neocons are the dominant neocons. They've got the election. They're worried about the orange man. They're looking at the crisis in Ukraine. I think.

think that in the end, they will prevail in this. They will prevail in the United States, and they will prevail in Israel. But, you know, the hard neocons, the ones who want warm, always, they're also there. And, you know, they tend in the end to get what they want. So again, I come back to what I say. I think on balance that it will play out, as you say, and that this understanding that the Americans and the Iranians have reached with other will in the end be fulfilled but to repeat again i wouldn't put money on it i mean it's it's uh it's you know looking at the situation uh realistically and you know not these people aren't very realistic people um they won war i mean you know marco rubio has already made some astonishing statements

you know quoting from the old testament in a most terrifying way and you know some of the article I've been reading, have been, you know, from the hardline neocons, have been shattering. So, you know, they are not going to be persuaded to give up on their demands for all-out war. And there was another article I read, again, from hardline neocons. This is from National Review. Wasn't about Israel, by the way, it was about Ukraine. And they were analyzing some of the other. articles that have recently been appearing, explaining the maths, explaining why victory in Ukraine

is, you know, impossible. And the National Review article said, you know, this is all surrender. The people who talk like this are surrenders. They're chamberlains. They're people of that kind. They, you know, they, you know, they prepare to give up, you know. So, I mean, so, and unfortunately, that kind of rhetoric does still have traction. But on balance, I agree. I think the overriding factor actually is the election. I think if it were not for the election, we would probably be in a much worse position than the one we're in at the moment. Exactly.

But because of the election, I think they will pull back. The election and Trump standing there waiting. Absolutely. You know, I would even say that the election, absolutely, and if it was a say it was like a Nikki Haley, then I think they would actually go for it. They would actually, the hardcore neocons would win out. But the fact that you have Trump there,

I imagine there are a lot of people that are like, look, we can't risk this. We cannot risk a war, which will, without a doubt, sink Biden's reelection chances. Absolutely. Not to mention the havoc it will do on international oil markets. inflation is already rising it'll rise even further yeah with the money the aid package that mike johnson is preparing within the next few days to present to the house maybe it's going to have

ukraine in there maybe not my guess is it's probably not going to have ukraine but i don't know i don't know um the the the main focus of the package according to johnson is money to israel how how is this part of the the whole scenario maybe Maybe Netanyahu is trying to create tension in order to help the money along. Maybe the money could be leveraged by the Biden White House in order to dissuade Netanyahu in Israel. I don't know. What are your thoughts on the timing of the aid package? You know, this is a very good question because we don't quite know what the aid package is going to look like.

But on the face of it, it's a sweetener. It looks like a sweetener to me to get the Israelis to stand down in the sense that they've just flown away at $1.3 billion of very expensive weaponry in a single night. They've got a very difficult situation in Gaza. The Israeli economy has gone through very, very rough patch. All the young men have been conscripted, brought into the army, not just young men, all the reserve is. have been conscripted and brought into the army. There's a collapse in tourism, all of that sort of thing. So it's been in a bad way.

So it's a good way for the US to get some leverage over the situation. They can say to Netanyahu and to the cabinet, look, we want you to slow down. If you slow down, well, in return for you slowing down, we're giving you X number of billion dollars and, you know, just, you know, listen to what we say. I mean, that's my own guess about this. Of course, it could be otherwise. It could be that, you know, the Israelis will take it as further proof that whatever they do,

the Americans will still back them. I mean, you know, one mustn't discount that as well. We don't know what the exact amount is going to be. We don't know whether there's going to be any strings attached, unlikely, to be honest. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out. Again, it also relates to domestic American politics in that there's clearly a scramble between some politicians in the US to show that they're loyal to Israel at this time. Again, important at a time where the election is blooming.

So, you know, all of this is in claim. Yeah. Yeah, the timing of it is lines up that this is probably an important piece to the puzzle as far as either de-escalation or escalation. Who knows, it could go either way with the money. Yeah. All right. We will end it there. The durand.orgals.com.

We are on Rumble, Odyssey, Bichutes, Telegram, Rockfin, and Twitter X. And go to the Duran shop, pick up some limited edition merch. The link is in the description box down below. Take care.