The Duran Podcast - Middle East escalation; Hardline neocons vs moderate neocons

Episode Date: January 3, 2024

Middle East escalation; Hardline neocons vs moderate neocons

All right, Alexander, let's do an update on what is happening in the Middle East. So we got the news over the New Year's weekend that the USS Ford is going to be returning back to Norfolk, Virginia. It's going to be leaving the Middle East and going back home. And this was, according to the officials that told ABC news about this, this, this, um, story, this update on the USS Ford, that this is part of the schedule. This was scheduled. It needs to go back to Virginia. And, you know, that's that. There's nothing more to this story other than this was a scheduled return back to the United States for this carrier. And then we also have the news from the Israeli defense forces that they're going to,

be having a type of shift in their military operations. And I believe that this is part of what Blinken told the Netanyahu administration when he was in Jerusalem a couple of weeks ago to shift from a high intensity to a low intensity type of operation. It seems like Israel is the Israeli defense forces, according to their spokesman. and this is indeed what they're now doing, though they did say that this war is going to last throughout 2024. So what do you make of this news, this update in the Mediterranean and update with regards to the

conflict in Gaza? Well, I think the first thing to say is that if they're pulling back one of the two carriers, the Gerald Ford, and if the Israelis are withdrawing, what appears to be the biggest, the most heavily equipped part of their military from Gaza. Then actually, despite all the language, it looks like some kind of de-escalation is underway. I mean, I accept that the general Ford probably does need to return home at some point to re-equip. I also understand that it is undermanned. It's US's newest carrier. Apparently, there's been recruitment problems in the Ukrainian military, sorry, the US military, but the fact is that it does appear that it is somewhat

underman and this has been causing some problems in operating this carrier. Having said that, I cannot quite myself believe that the US military could not keep a carrier on station longer if it needed to. I mean, it's only been there for a. a few weeks, which I would have thought, you know, a military force of this kind could certainly continue to operate longer. And I think that what has probably happened is that within the US and Israeli governments, we see this constant battle between those who want to escalate the war, those who have been talking about taking the fight in the Middle East to Hezbollah in Lebanon, talk about launching a major strike on Hezbollah in Lebanon,

talk about military strikes on the Houthis in Yemen, talk from people like John Bolton, and we know that he talks for many others, of a strike on Iran as well. So there is that group. Then there is the other group, which I think does undoubtedly include people like Blinken and perhaps even Sullivan as well, who are looking at the situation in the Middle East. They're saying we cannot afford an all-out war in the Middle East. That would destroy whatever prospects we have of winning the election in November,

which is for them, remember, always the priority. And we also see this war in Gaza apparently going nowhere very fast. Civilians are dying in thousands, but Hamas is still there. There's no evidence so far that Hamas has even been seriously damaged, let alone destroyed. And they're saying, we don't need an escalation. So let's, on the contrary, try and pull back in some way and try and calm things down so that we can open the way to the election in November. And it seems that for the moment, the Sullivan Lincoln group, if I can call it that, the more moderate group has won out. So they're pulling back the Gerald Ford.

and we've also seen this withdrawal of forces from Gaza. Now, that there is dissension about this, that there is argument about this. I don't know there's any doubt at all because putting aside the arguments in the United States, Netanyahu tried to give a press conference, he gave a press conference. He's a defense minister, and I believe he, he's a defense minister. security minister, was both supposed to be there with him, and neither of them turned up. So he's clearly, there's clearly tensions within Israel about this decision. Some people are not happy with it.

And I suspect there's tensions in the US. and even as we see a pullback in some places, we still see large numbers of ships gathering in the Red Sea. There's been attacks on Houthi boats by the US in the Red Sea. The Houthis continue to launch their strikes on shipping in the Red Sea. So there's an awful lot of things that are unresolved. And it is not impossible that we can see the whole thing start up all over again. But for the moment at least, it looks like. the pendulum has shifted back. Probably, my guess is that over the holiday, people from the Democratic

Party, the DNC, came along and said, look, this isn't playing well. We've got the president's ratings. His trust ratings are the lowest of any president going into an election cycle. and we can't risk a war in the Middle East. And I think for the moment at least, that has been decisive. I wonder how long this de-escalation, if you want to call it that. Let's call it a de-escalation, for lack of a better word. But I wonder how long this is going to last until the neocons come back and start pressing their cause, which is all-out war, especially against Iran.

I mean, that's what they want to go after. And I think the U.S. UK from reading various articles from the UK. I think the UK is definitely on the neocon side. Oh, awesome. Articles saying that they're giving a final warning to Yemen. If you hit another ship, then we're going to start to strike out at targets inside of Yemen. So I think the UK is trying to swing the pendulum back to the war with not only Yemen, but Iran as well.

Can I just say, you're absolutely right. And can I just say at talking as a Britain, living in Britain, that this obsessive belligerence of Britain in all of these conflicts and these constant attempts to go to the United States into taking extreme measures seems to me to be extremely strange and very, very ill-advised on the British part. because all the information about the nature of the fleet, the ships that we've been sending to the Red Sea ourselves, the British, is that, to be frank, they can't function without American protection. I mean, so, you know, we're not able to launch these strikes ourselves or to take on the Houthis ourselves. We certainly can't take on Iran ourselves. So constantly telling the Americans to do it, goading the Americans to do it, I can easily see how it's going to make some people in Washington extremely exasperated with the British. The British have been extreme hardliners on Ukraine and now they're shaping up to be extreme hardliners of the Middle East. And I ask again, as a Britain, what is Britain's national interest here? Why are we doing this all the time?

Well, that's just my own little aside. I think I need to say that, as I said, as a British person. The fact is, you're absolutely correct. The British at the moment are very keen on expanding the war in the Middle East for reasons known best to themselves. and they do want to have a major attack on the Houthis. And it's important to say that the Gerald Ford is being withdrawn. There are other warships, less powerful warships taking its place. There's an amphibious warfare carrier, which does carry aircraft, by the way. It's not a strike carrier. It's not the kind of carrier you would need in order to launch air strikes against Iran, for example.

But it is still a powerful warship. There are other warships as well. So the neocons and their British allies still have lots of dangerous weapons in the Middle East that they can play with. And of course, the fact that we're seeing signs of de-escalation is going to enrage the neocons. They're going to be furious. And from their point to view, they're less interested in the Democrats winning the elections next year, this year rather, than they are getting their war this year. If they feel that whoever wins in November is less sympathetic to the neocom thinking than the current president is, then they will want to see their war. happened this year, whilst the current president is still in office. So that's going to make them

even more determined to push for a war at this time. And I suspect we're going to see the arguments and the divisions within Washington grow. Yeah, I mean, we've said it on many episodes. For the neocons, I mean, this is as close as I can remember they've ever got into to actually getting that war with Iran, which is something they have wanted for for many decades now. So, I mean, they're not going to let this opportunity as they see it. They're not going to let this opportunity slip through their fingers. And I think that's that's the difference when you look at like a neocon like Newland compared to a neocon, neocon, neoliberal like Blinking. Blinking Sullivan, yes, they're neocons, neoliberals.

Yes, they want war. But they also care about elections. Yeah. And they also care about the part. party. Someone like Newland doesn't care about any of that stuff. She doesn't care which party is in power. She'll be there, whether it's Republicans, whether it's Democrats. And so she just wants the war. If it damages Biden, fine. No problem. As long as she gets that war with Iran. Now, your thoughts on that statement. And then I want you to just talk about the politics around Netanyahu. Is this the compromise

that Sullivan and Blinkett have thought up with Netanyahu. We'll move this to low intensity. We'll de-escalate. We won't call it de-escalation. We'll move this to low intensity. You can say that this war is going to last all throughout 2024, which gives you the political cover inside of Israel so that you don't end up in prison because of your court cases.

So you don't lose power and end up in prison because of all the cases against him. Is that what they've worked out or they're trying to work out with Netanyahu? I think it is. But let's talk about Newland quickly and all of those people, because you're absolutely correct. The thing to understand is that there are neocons like Blacon and Sullivan who are very much part of the Democratic Party and in fact particular factions within the Democratic Party. If Joe loses the election, they're no longer going to occupy the positions that they do. and they will not perhaps be part of any new administration going forward, even a Democrat one,

because they're so connected to Biden now. Whereas Newland, just talking about Newland, I mean, she was brought into the government at a high level by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. She was there throughout Obama's time. Obviously, she wasn't there where Trump was president, but she came back. as soon as Biden was elected. So, I mean, she's part of the permanent government, if you like, of the United States. As a lot of these neocons are, they may not hold particular office,

but they are always there. They're always powerful. They're always influential. Newland has the connections to the Institute for the Study of War, to the near think tanks and NGOs and publications that work with all of that. So from her point of view, she is not in power because she just wants to be in power. She is in power in order to execute on the neocom program. That's why she wants to be in power because she wants to progress it.

And that is a primary objective. If Biden loses in November, well, so be it. She'll still be there. She'll still be in Washington. She'll still have all the influence. She'll still, her, you know, her material circumstances are not going to change. But what she's calculating at the moment is, if there's a president who comes after Biden, who doesn't want to expand the war in the Middle East,

then I must expand the war in the Middle East now because my priority is to expand the neocon agenda, and this president, President Biden, is the one who is most sympathetic to me. So that's her outlook. And I mention her specifically, but of course there are others like her as well. And, you know, we must always understand that.

Now, coming to Netanyahu, you see, he's a complex and uncertain figure, but I think you're absolutely correct. I think the policy now, the idea that the Sullivan Blinken people have is their priorities to win the election. They want this whole story in Gaza to go away. It's delivered terrible, terrible media stories. for them in the United States. It's caused a lot of embarrassment to the United States globally. We've had votes against the United States and Israel and the General Assembly, and they've been increasing in size. We've had very difficult votes for the United States in the Security Council. Ambassador Polianzky of Russia told Glenn Dyson and myself that at the last

meeting of the Security Council, the Russians proposed an amendment to strengthen a resolution to include a ceasefire and 10 countries supported it and the United States was forced to veto it. So that's what they are worried about. They have a completely different agenda to Newlands, even though, as you rightly say, they accept the same neocom presumptions that she does. and they want, therefore, to dial things down so that we can repair the damage, we can manipulate the media. We don't have constant coverage of the war in the media any longer. We don't have journalists from time to time asking difficult questions to the president and getting embarrassing answers from the president.

So what we do is we can't tell our donors. some of whom are very supportive of Israel. We don't want to antagonize our pro-Israeli part, the pro-Israeli part of their base. So we don't want to say that we've just abandoned Israel. So what we do is we get most of the troops out of Gaza. We claim victory. And we say that the campaign is now changing

and going in a different direction. And that does give Netanyahu some cover because he says that the operation is continuing. And at the same time, it means that it's much easier for us to control the media flow. We can say there aren't tanks there, there aren't fighter jets, bombing Gaza anymore. So out of sight, out of mind. It's not a big story any longer. There's fighting going on in Gaza, but it hasn't, it's not the big news story that it's been over the last three months.

Ultimately, what Sullivan and Blinken are doing is that they're running a media campaign rather than a military one or a political one in Gaza, a media campaign that they can shape in order to have enabled Biden to win the election. And for the moment, Netanyahu has to go along with it because he can't go against the Americans, because if the Americans started to overtly back his supporters, his opponents rather, in Israel, that might put Netanyahu himself in a very difficult position. And anyway, he knows that Israel ultimately needs the United States. At the same time, it means that Netanyahu can continue to say and claim in Israel that the war is going on,

and that the objective of destroying Hamas remains unchanged. Now, in practice, and this is where we have the fact that, you know, important ministers don't turn up at news conferences with him, we can see that the tensions within Israel are growing. There are the hardliners there who will be very angry about this retreat, and there will be others who will be saying to themselves, well, the extent to which even Netanyahu can continue to pretend, that this is going to plan is impossible and that Netanyahu's situation is weakening. So we'll see how it works out.

Yeah, and Netanyahu's popularity is not doing so good either. So he's in a very weak and vulnerable position. And I wonder, I also wonder if this media campaign treating this war in Gaza like a media campaign. I wonder if that's even going to work in the United States or if the damage has already been done for the Biden campaign. I mean, you know, our Americans is the American public just going to forget about this and move on and then, you know, be like, okay, you know, Joe Biden, yeah, he's, he's great, you know, three or six months down the line. I don't know. I think, I think that there will be some people in the United States.

who will lose interest in this. But I think that there are crucial parts of the Democratic Party's electoral constituency who won't. I think Arabs, for example, in Michigan, won't forget about this. I think some of the young people won't forget about this. So I think that too much damage has been done by now. And of course, the thing to always understand is that this is an unresolved situation with the Niacom's New London Co. Still there with the situation in Israel itself unstable. Also, we don't know what Hamas is going to do in response to all of this. So, the potential for this to spiral out of Blinkens and Sullivan's control remains very great indeed.

it's not as if we have a ceasefire. So without a ceasefire, you know, you're still, you've still got all, you know, the explosives around you and you're still playing with matches. Yeah, exactly right. They can't get the ceasefire, so they're just playing with words, low intensity. Let's shift this to low intensity fighting. They're still going to be fighting. They're still going to be suffering. and they're still going to be death.

But in the minds of Blinken and Sullivan, it's going to be a lower intensity. Thus, they'll be able to manage the optics of it all. I mean, I guess that's how they're visualizing this. Exactly. That's exactly how them visualizing it. And they're hoping they can fool people. And they're hoping that they can fool.

Well, you see, this is, I think, where their skill set is. I think they always think that. they definitely have the media on their side. So I guess that gives them a lot of reason to believe they can pull this off. All right. We will leave it there. The durad.

Dotlocals.com. We are on Rumble, Odyssey, bitch shoot, telegram, rockfin, and Twitter X. And go to the Duran shop, 20% off. Use the code, the Dirad 20. Take care.