The Duran Podcast - Neocons, Kamala and a wider Middle East conflict

Episode Date: July 30, 2024

Neocons, Kamala and a wider Middle East conflict

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the escalation in the Middle East and a possible conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, which will obviously mean pulling in Lebanon into this conflict, possibly Iran and maybe even the United States. We actually talked about this in a video we put up a few days ago where we said that given the political situation in the United States and the uncertainty and instability in the United States, Netanyahu visiting. the U.S. that there might be some sort of escalation in the Middle East. And sure enough, that is what we are getting. So what are your thoughts on what's happening in the Middle East? All of this escalation, by the way, is from the missile that hit a football pitch in the Golden Heights. Now, Israeli officials claim this was an Iranian missile. Hesbullah has denied this missile. This missile strike. and they are saying, and people that are aligned with Hezbollah Iran, they are saying that this looks like it was a missile from the Iron Dome that landed on this football pitch.

Kind of like what we see in Ukraine happening where air defense missiles, they're fired in order to take out a missile, but they sometimes malfunction or sometimes drop on apartment buildings or in this case on a football pitch. Anyway, that's what's gotten us to this point of escalation. Your thoughts? Well, the first thing to say, I'm not going to get drawn into, you know, exactly what happened in this football pitch. It was a tragedy. Apparently young people, children were killed, young, you know, minors were killed, which is always a terrible thing. But does it really merit the kind of incredibly dangerous escalation that we're seeing? Well, I would say no. I would say this is a disproportionate response. I would say that the best way to protect civilians in Israel is to try to work towards a ceasefire. But this is not at all what Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government are seeking. We discussed, as you correctly said, in that video that we did a few days ago, around the time of Netanyahu's visit to Washington and his speech to Congress, that Netanyahu

basically has no restraints on him now. The American restraints, such as they were, have now fallen away because of the chaos in the White House, the fact that there is no strong president in the Oval Office any longer. So the result is that it was inevitable, given the nature of this Israeli government, that when the restraints are taken away, they would be looking to escalate, and sure, enough, that is exactly what they're doing. And they're talking now about an Iranian missile launched against them by Hezbollah. They're vowing retaliation. It looks as if we're now heading towards a major confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah, of course, is backed by Iran,

and it's going to be much, much more difficult if Hezbollah is drawn into this conflict for Iran itself to remain, you know, just to stand aside. So a major escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, one which Netanyahu and his supporters ultimately want to involve the United States itself in. Now, if you go back a couple of weeks, you remember there was that exchange of missiles between Iran and Israel. That was carefully mediated, rather negotiated between the Americans and the Iranians to make sure that it didn't get out of control with a much, much weaker administration in Washington,

even than that administration was a few weeks ago. It's much more difficult to see how that kind of media. can succeed this time. So we're back again looking at a potential clash between first Israel and Hezbollah and then between Israel and Iran. And this constant drumbeat of war with Iran is now, you know, banging away again. We might very well be there this time. And that isn't something that Gamala Harris, of course, will welcome before the election.

but as we also discussed in that other video, why would Netanyahu want to help Kamala Harris? Yeah, the Biden White House, it seems like this time around, they're definitely not looking to get pulled into a conflict in the Middle East, given everything that's happening with the Democratic Party, Biden, Kamala Harris, all of this stuff. The last thing that it appears that they want is to get pulled into this, what could be a very big war.

But Netanyahu, he seems like he's very confident in pursuing a conflict with Hezbollah and possibly with Iran. Even though his military is much more hesitant, is very hesitant in pushing for a conflict with Hezbollah and Iran. But Netanyahu is putting the foot on the gas. Why do you think he's doing this? Because I think he believes. Is it a bluff? No, I don't know. Well, there might be an element.

there might be an element of bluff here and there might be an element of domestic politics as well, in that I think Netanyahu knows that by taking this stance, he's shoring up domestic support for his government and for himself within Israel. But I think at the end of the day, he's just been to the United States, he's met with all his supporters there, he's come away confident that he has their backing and the backing of the neocons, that the administration, whatever it wants, even though it doesn't want the United States to be involved in a conflict in the Middle East.

Kamala Harris absolutely does not need or want a major crisis in the Middle East, one in which she might be forced to support whatever line the Biden administration is taking. I mean, it will peel away support one way or the other. More likely than not, it will also expose the fact that she has no control over the US government, of which she is herself nonetheless a part. So she absolutely does not want a crisis in the Middle East at this time. Biden himself probably doesn't either. I suspect what he wants is some degree of quiet to see out his turn

and quiet in the Middle East so that he can focus on the war that he really cares about, which is the war in Ukraine. As he said, as he has said, by the way, So they don't want it, but they might nonetheless find themselves facing it. And I think Netanyahu's calculation is that if the things really turn difficult for Israel, then the United States, despite all the reluctance and all the hesitation, will have no option but to back Israel and not just back Israel, but to become directly involved in some way.

It's the same calculation that we've seen in Europe, being made by people like Macron and Zelensky, that you need to draw the United States into the conflict in some way, so you want provocations, you want to be able to strike at Russia or deploy French troops to Ukraine. Your real agenda is not to do these things in order to change the direction of the war, because you know that won't work. Your real agenda is to try to get the United States. to pull the United States into the conflict. And that, I think, is exactly what Netanyahu is trying to do in the Middle East,

draw the United States into the conflict between Israel and ultimately Iran. Yeah, I think Netanyahu has a much better chance of getting the United States involved into a conflict with Iran in the Middle East than Macron did with trying to get the U.S. into a conflict with Russia and Ukraine. A much better chance. Much better chance. much better than for a number of reasons. Firstly, Iran is a less powerful and daunting adversary than Russia is. So there's that.

Secondly, Israel has much more powerful, much more disciplined, much more long-established support in the United States than Ukraine does. I mean, there's support for Israel within the permanent government of the United States, the deep state, in Congress, in every conceivable institution of the American government, In the media, there are people who support Israel and who want to, will want to support Israel all the way. And over and above and beyond that, there is also, I think, a sense that, you know, the United States has to become involved ultimately to defend in Israel. Because if it, as it's going to lose in Ukraine, it needs to show, it needs to show, it needs.

to show that it is still strong and that means that it can't fail to rise to a challenge from Iran and many, many Americans have very, very strong, visceral feelings about Iran. They have much stronger, much more deep-seated antagonism towards Iran than they even do towards Russia. Yeah, and I imagine if you're one of the neocons that the neolibs, neocons, that is supportive of a conflict in the Middle East, maybe you're not so hot on Ukraine anymore. Maybe you're not so keen on pulling the U.S. into a conflict with China just yet. So if you're one of these neocons that's really focused on the Middle East and Iran, like say someone like John Bolton. I think John Bolton, when you look at all the conflicts going on, I think his number one conflict that he really is.

wants to get into is Iran. Yes, he wants to get into a conflict with Russia. Yes, he hates Russia. Yes, he hates China. Yes, he wants war everywhere. But what really gets him going is Iran. I mean, that's what he, that's what really, really gets a rise out of someone like John Bolter. So if you're one of these guys, you could make the argument, Iran is, is an adversary that we could defeat them. I mean, you can make that argument. I don't think it's going to be easy. I don't, I don't, I don't know if they could defeat Iran, but you can make that argument. Russia is a whole different adversary China. You know, that's a whole other level. So you can say, well, better to take on Iran. We can we can reassert our dominance on the world stage. This is a neocom thinking. We can reassert

our dominance in the world stage. We're losing our grip on the Middle East, so we reassert our dominance in the Middle East as well. And we deliver a blow to bricks because Iran is now a member of Bricks. We embarrassed China because China brokered a reproschement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. I mean, you could probably make a pretty good case and put a good list together if you're trying to convince the establishment to get into a war with Iran. You could probably argue a pretty good case for it. Absolutely. I completely agree. And of course, when we say a good case, it's not a rational case. I mean, I don't think a war against Iran is a rational idea. No, it's a disaster idea.

It's a disaster idea. I'm speaking as a neocon. I'm putting myself in a neocon shoes. I don't want people to misunderstand watching this video. I'm putting myself in John Bolton's shoes, yeah. But that's the point. I mean, from their point of view, all the reasons that you've outlined, to them will seem like good ones. And in the arguments that are taking place within Washington, they will think that these are winning

arguments. The point, and it's a point that, you know, I've encountered myself before. People say, you know, that the Americans have left it too late, that, you know, attacking Iran now is not possible. Iran's built up its forces. That's going to be strong enough to deter the US. I, to people like that, all I would say is, you do not know the near cons. The near cons do not think like this. They're not adding up, you know, the number. of Iranian air defence systems. They're not looking at the sophistication of those systems. They're not thinking of things through in that kind of way. They take it as axiomatic that Iran is a rickety, weak country, and the thought they need to do is attack it, and it will fail. And that is as far as they think.

They don't want to get into the weeds. I saw an interview that John Bolton gave a couple of days ago. he was asked, you know, is it really a good idea for the United States to be taking on Russia and China at one and the same time? I was of course, absolutely. I mean, you know, we talked about World War II. He said we didn't choose then whether to fight a war on one front or two. It was, you know, something we just were able to do. And, you know, he assumes, as neocons all do, that because the United States was able to pull that off in the 40s, it can do so now. And again, they, they, they, they, they, don't think in that way because they do not accept ever that there are any limits on American power and what do you think in that kind of way an attack on Iran for all the reasons that you set out becomes a compellingly attractive thing and if Netanyahu is who knows this very well. He knows these people very well and understands their mindset extremely well. Of all, he meets with them. Many of them are his friends. If Netanyahu now provides them with the opportunity,

they will seize it with both hands. Yeah. What do you think they need to get this going? I mean, I still feel like there could be forces that pullback. I'm still optimistic. I'm still optimistic. I'm in that we're not going to get into a big conflict in the Middle East. Yes. But what do you think Netanyahu is looking for to tip things in his favor so that the U.S. is on board? I mean, he's got Congress's support, I imagine. Yeah. Not all of Congress, but a large part of Congress.

Major exchanges of missiles, signs that Israel itself is taking physical damage. that Israeli civilians are getting killed. Netanyahu will say this is not because we're in a war that we have chosen, it is because we're in a war that has been imposed on us, and you America have a duty to protect us. That's what he's going to say. And it's going to be a compelling narrative for an awful lot of people. All right, scary narrative.

That is the video, the durand.com. are in Rumble, Odyssey, Bitch, Telegram, Rockfin, and Twitter X, and go to the Duran shop, pick up some limited edition merch. You will find a link in the description box down below. Take care.