The Duran Podcast - Lame duck Biden explores strikes on Iran

Episode Date: January 5, 2025

Lame duck Biden explores strikes on Iran The Duran: Episode 2109

All right, Alexander, let's talk about an Axios scoop, an Axios scoop with the title, Biden discussed plans to strike Iran nuclear sites if Tehran speeds towards a bomb. That's the scoop from Axios. It talks about meetings that took place a month ago. These meetings took place a month ago, not yesterday, not two, three days ago. One month ago, meetings were taking place according to three sources. that somehow decided, decided to speak to Axios. They decided to speak to Axios, these three sources,

and they told them that Sullivan, Jake Sullivan and Biden, were holding talks about striking Iran. Now, Axios says that these meetings were not in the framework of a yes or no decision. It wasn't about Biden making a decision then and there. Keep in mind, this is a month ago, making a decision then and there about strike in Iran, but it was basically Sullivan providing the intel about Iran and its progress towards creating a nuclear weapon. And they were discussing their options if Iran were to get to 90% uranium purity, then what

options does the Biden White House have to strike nuclear facilities in Iran before January 20th and the Trump White House taking over? And that was their concern. How would this look if the United States with a lame duck, they actually used the word, lame duck, President Biden started a war with Iran. So that's the article, Alexander, from Axios. Just one final thought before you jump in. This really reminds me of the long-range missile strikes and all the reporting about the long-range missile strikes.

and Biden thinking about whether to green light it or not. Eventually, we got the answer there. And here we are with two more weeks until January 20th. And Axios gives us this article. Absolutely. That's completely correct. And in force, it's not impossible that we will see these strikes. Bear in mind, we on this channel have been talking about the possibility of the Biden administration launching strikes on Iran ever since the crisis in the Middle East began on the 7th of October, 2023. I mean, we've, I think, been pretty close on several occasions to that very thing happening. Now, what was going on back last month, a month ago? The short answer is Syria collapsed. There was reports appeared at that time, if you remember,

that because of the collapse of the Syrian air defense system, which had been an advanced shield for Iran, this is the moment when Israel would be able to conduct deep strikes inside Syria. There was apparently advanced planning about this. It is universally acknowledged that Israel by itself doesn't have the capabilities to destroy the facilities, the really heavily embedded facilities within Iran. where the weapons programs are supposed to be taking place. So the suggestion was that the United States be involved. And I have to say, this looks to me exactly consistent with all of that.

In other words, discussions, discussions between the Israelis and the Biden administration about fulfilling finally that learcon obsession of an airman. campaign against Iran, involving Israel and the United States. And of course, you raise the specter of Iranian nuclear weapons to justify doing it. Just as going back to your point about the missile strikes against Russia, you raised the specter of North Korean troops to justify that. You talk this time about nuclear weapons in Iran. Now, the thing to say about nuclear weapons in Iran is that maybe after all the events that have

taken place over the last year and a half, the Iranians do decide to go ahead with a nuclear weapons program. I mean, I'm not excluding that possibility. There is no conceivable way that they can have a nuclear weapon ready by the 20th of January. I mean, that is technologically impossible. The various Iranian nuclear sites are under continuous surveillance. The Iranians moved towards that objective.

It would become very quickly known. So it's not going to happen by the 20th of January. That is impossible. So why discuss doing it in the last weeks of an administration, which has just lost an election? election and when Donald Trump is going to become president of the United States on the 20th of January, surely something this momentous like starting a war with Iran is something that Donald Trump as the future president should be the person to decide upon. It really is intended to

prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, given that, as I said, Iran can't acquiring nuclear weapon by the 20th of January. There has to be another reason. And by the way, since we brought up Donald Trump, was he informed about all of these discussions that were taking place? Did Jake Sullivan or Joe Biden or anyone else pick up the phone and tell Donald's, you know, we're actually thinking about attacking Iran over? the next couple of weeks. Have you anything to say about it? I can just imagine the reaction from Trump if they did. But I wonder whether they did, in fact, brief him. Obviously they didn't. So why discuss this? Why think about doing this and think about doing this before the 20th of

January? Well, I think that there are three reasons. Firstly, there is this opportunity. The Syrian air defenses are out of the picture. The Israelis are thinking about doing it. The neocons want to do it. This is a neocon administration. So why not just go ahead and do it? That's the first thing that the neocons are wanted to do it. And this is the chance to do it.

The second is that, On the 17th of January, there is going to be a big deal, security agreement concluded between Russia and Iran. This is before Trump enters office. Now, we don't have the whole details, but we reach out, I think, the same information about this. This does include various security provisions. The Russians are going to commit themselves to beefing up Iran's air defenses, in fact, integrating

Iran's air defense system into their own, and we've seen how effective Russia's air defense system is. Obviously, this would all take time to set up, but there could be a desire to preempt this signing of this pact before it happens, to basically warn the Russians against going ahead with signing a pact with Iran. That's another possibility. And I think an important factor in these discussions. The third one is surely the single most important one to commit Donald Trump to a walk with Iran, which he probably wants to avoid, in fact, which he definitely wants to avoid, in my opinion.

So you conduct these strikes against Iran, the near cons are in. ecstasies over this. We have all kinds of people applauding the fact that this is happening. You start a conflict with Iran and of course Trump becomes president on the 20th of January and it is very, very difficult for him to bring it to a stop. So I think that was partly also the plan. If this meeting, this meeting took place a month ago. Yeah. So would this be proof that the United States knew or what was about to happen in Syria? Yeah, I think it is.

I'm fairly sure it does show it. I think the air defense system's understanding. And they mentioned it in the article that one of the sources said Sullivan urged Biden to consider striking Iran because Iran was at its weakest moment. Yeah, exactly. Of course they do. So they understood what was about to unfold in Syria. Yes.

And they understood that the air defenses in Syria would make it easier. Once everything unfolded in Syria, Al-Jolani, HTS, all that stuff, they understood that it would open up the path towards an easier strike against Iran. Yes. Exactly. Okay. Okay. How provocative would it be for the Biden White House to do such a thing?

weeks or days before he exits the office? I mean, has this ever been done in U.S. history? No, this is a short answer. No one, no president in his last weeks of office after his party has lost an election has started a war in this kind of way, with a major power in this kind of way. This is unheard of. It is an astonishing abuse of the. the presidential prerogatives and authority to commit an administration which is about to take office to a war. A war, bear in mind, the United States has not been attacked by Iran in any significant way, in any way.

So I mean, there is no precedent for this. This is to say, I mean, Axios says that this would be a risky thing to do. It would not be a risky thing to do. It would be an unheard of thing to do. It would be provocative beyond anything I've ever imagined. It just demonstrates what an incredibly dangerous administration this one is. Yeah, well, they were saying the same thing about missile strikes into Russian territory. It's risky, it's risky, but eventually Biden.

Well, we now know that the decision was made long before it was. Yeah, exactly. I was going to say if Biden even made that decision. But anyway, you've made that decision. Yeah. So, wow. This really does remind me of the long-range missile strike the decision to strike the to strike Russian territory.

Absolutely. It's pretty much copy-paste. What are the chances that this happens? Because in the Axios article, they mentioned it several times that no decision has been made. This wasn't about making a decision. This wasn't a yes or no type of meeting. And they really made. make sure to drive that point home. No decision has been made. This was not about Biden making a

decision whether to strike or not to strike Iran. But once again, remember the long range missile, strike into Russia and all the articles and discussions about that and the reports about all of that and remember the result, the result that we actually got. And what do you think are the Are the chances that in the next couple of days, Biden might announce, you know, hey, we need to go after the nuclear facilities as the excuse set there that they're putting out there to do this? Well, let's just quickly go back to the long-range missiles, because, of course, we were told throughout the spring and the summer that not been a decision made. There was still the story that was being spread when Stama met with Biden in September,

except, of course, the New York Times squirled away in admission in a recent article that the decision had actually been made in the spring. So it took a while to get the pieces together to implement it, but in fact, the decision had already been made way back in the spring. And here again, we have the same story, the same pretense, that this is all, these are all discussions, that this is all an academic exercise, it's just something we're thinking of doing, we can't assume that. There's still two and a half weeks. They might do it. It's not impossible. They're the kind of people who could do this sort of thing.

I think it is less likely for two reasons. Firstly, this is on a scale of a normative. that has never been seen before at any point in American history. I cannot remember any point in American history where an outgoing administration has done something like this. That is one. And I think there would be huge opposition, including, by the way, this time, from some people within the Democratic Party.

But I think the other reason takes us back to why despite the fact that the decision for the law, long-range missile strikes on Russia, which, as I said, the New York Times tells us, was made in the spring, wasn't, in fact, implemented until November. And I'm guessing, I mean, my guess about that, and I'm pretty sure I'm right, is that the Pentagon straneously opposed it. And I suspect the Pentagon would be equally opposed, in fact, even more opposed to this kind of campaign against Iran.

And I think that's probably enough. I think it's going to be very difficult for the Biden White House to overcome that opposition in just two and a half weeks. And my guess is, by the way, that this article in Axios is part of this internal debate that's going on within the Biden administration about whether to do it or not to do it. and the fact that we've been alerted about the fact that there have been discussions about it, of course, also alerts the Trump people. And I presume that they're taking action now to prevent it happening also. Yeah. Just not enough time provided to do this.

Amazing. All right, we will end the video there. The durand.com. We are on Rumble, Odyssey, Bitchu, Telegraph, Rockfin, and X. Go to the Durant shop, pick up some merch like what we are wearing in this video up. the link to the direct shop is in the description box down below. Take care.