The Duran Podcast - US-Iran talks, preventing catastrophic war w/ Dennis Kucinich (Live)

Episode Date: April 15, 2025

US-Iran talks, preventing catastrophic war w/ Dennis Kucinich (Live)

All right. We are live with Alexander Mercuris in London, and we are very honored and very privileged to have with us. Once again, on the Duran, Dennis Kucinich. Thank you for joining us again on the Duran. This is my pleasure. The Duran is a podcast that I am very grateful for your existence, and to have this opportunity to speak with you is just wonderful. So I look forward to it. Thank you. Thank you so much for joining us. Let's say, Alexander, yeah. No, I would say thank you also. For those very fine words and we're honored to have you on our program. That's all I wanted to say. Absolutely.

So let's say a quick hello to everyone that is watching us on Odyssey, on Rockfin, everyone joining us on Rumble and YouTube, and a big shout out to our locals community, the duran.com. and a shout out and a thank you to our moderators in the chat. We have with us. Peter, who is moderating as well as myself. It'll be Peter and Alex. We will be moderating the chat,

and I'm sure we'll have more moderators joining us in a bit. So, Alexander, Mr. Kucinich, let's talk about everything that is happening in the Middle East. Gentlemen, take it away. Absolutely, because of course, nobody has been a stronger advocate for peace, I would say, not just in the Middle East, but in terms of the entire foreign policy of the United States, and Dennis Kucinich has been. And can I also add that not only has he been an advocate of peace, but he has been an advocate of what I absolutely believe to be the true national interests of the United States.

States of America. I think that the United States has found itself repeatedly drawn into all sorts of wars and conflicts. I believe these wars have had a very bad effect on the character of the US economy, on the nature of US society, and I don't think they have made the United States stronger or more secure, I think they've done all of those, I've done, think they've done the opposite to all of those things. They made it less secure and put it in a worse position than it would otherwise have been. So when I say policy of peace, that is the kind of policy of peace that I mean, a policy that seeks good relations where it is possible with other countries that doesn't look for enemies, that going back to what John Quincy

Adams said right at the beginning of the founding of the United States doesn't look for monsters to slay, lest we become a monster ourselves. And as I said, Dennis Kucinich, as far as I'm concerned, is a true apostle and continuer of that foreign policy. Well, we look at the situation in the Middle East. We have negotiations at the moment with Iran. uncertain where they are going, but they're accompanied with all kinds of threats of military action. We have military action, ongoing military action.

In Yemen, with the United States, we have a deteriorating situation in the Palestinian territories. I think the best thing to do would be to go straight in. Mr. Kucinich, can you perhaps give us your broad views about where we are and how great is the threat of war? and what do you think maybe the United States ought to be doing in this kind of situation in which it finds itself? Well, Alexander, thank you so much for that introduction. And when you look at, let's say, going back to the war in the Balkans in 1999,

The U.S. did not have to bomb Serbia, but it did. The U.S., a few years later, after 9-11, did not have to attack Iraq, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, where located as well, located as well, 9-11, didn't have the intention or capability of attack in the United States. and nevertheless, based on primarily ideological reasons and economic reasons as well, the United States executed an attack on Iraq that resulted in the debts of over a million Iraqis, the destruction of the country, the debts of 5,000 of our brave men and women who serve in the U.S. military. at the long-term cost of depending who you talk to, at least three and maybe as much as $5, 6 trillion,

which added greatly to our national deficit. And then you go from Iraq to Libya, to Syria, to Lebanon, to Yemen. And the U.S. has, unfortunately, been in a position of using its military power as a heavy hand to try to change underlying conditions which are not subject to being bombed. They involve long-term careful negotiations. I mean, the so-called JCPOA agreement with Iran over their nuclear enrichment, took 13 years to accomplish with sick nations involved. The idea that somehow you can bomb the world to peace,

there was a pop artist by the name Michael Fronte, who said you can bomb the world to pieces, but you cannot bomb the world to peace. And yet there are those who believe that in the service of empire, of a gemini, of acquiring influence, assets, resources that the U.S. can proceed with a militarized approach. I believe personally that is an acronistic. It's a dead end.

That we are not pursuing what has been called the science of human relations. We do not exercise the capacity. to talk to people, you put a gun on the table, and then you're talking, and sometimes you shoot the person you're talking to. That is not a way to foster the survival of our nation, let alone the world. So I've taken a very strong stand, both as a member of Congress and as a private citizen, to say, you know, my wife and I just started the Cossinage Institute for Human and Ecological Security so we can continue this work of working for peace and showing a path forward that we can actually find a way to negotiate and resolve our differences in a nonviolent way. So I'm, you know, as we get into our discussion here, you know, certainly Iran is right at the forefront of the considerations of, you know, whether or not we're going to change our approach.

in terms of trying to negotiate our differences or whether we're going to use those differences as an excuse to go to war. And I might say that the differences are always characterized in ways that lack credibility. How far do people in the United States, in your opinion, understand that the war that has been talked about now, which is a war with Iran, is going to be

qualitatively different from the wars that we have seen in the past. I mean, I'm not saying that the war in Iraq wasn't a terrible war, and one which went on for a very, very long time. But Iran is a much bigger country than Iraq. It has a much more sophisticated history. History. and society than Iraq. It has a much bigger industrial base. It's a very mountainous, rugged country. And, of course, it's much closer than Iraq ever was to acquiring nuclear weapons. It probably could acquire nuclear weapons.

I say that because it seems to me that a pathway to peace with Iran is not ultimately that difficult to achieve. We have a, the Iranians say they don't want to have nuclear weapons. We say we don't want them to have nuclear weapons, given that both sides appear to be agreed on that point. What is the problem? I mean, I know that there are lots of other issues that can be used to complicate this. But given how dangerous a war would be,

obtaining an agreement, seeking a compromise, And when all the factors are there in place to achieve it, would seem to me to be an obvious thing to do. It would seem that way, Alexander. But let's unpack some of the issues that are present right now that are part of that soft circumference of potential negotiation between the United States and Iran. number one, Iran's nuclear status. Iran agreed, and, you know, with five other nations, that it would keep its enrichment of uranium to a degree

that would support its civilian nuclear reactors at 3.75% approximately, but would not go beyond that. Once Donald Trump came in as president, he canceled the agreement. That left Iran free to pursue a higher degree of enrichment. They are not pursuing a nuclear weapon, according to the U.S. national intelligence estimate of last month. However, it is said that the collective strength of their offensive arsenal puts it within the realm of a nuclear level power. Still, they don't have a nuclear weapon by anybody's estimate, number one, number two,

there has been a fatwa issued a basically spiritual declaration by the religious leader of Iran, whose word is law, that we will not develop a nuclear weapon. So the JCPOA worked, President Trump set it aside. Now he is going back and saying no nuclear weapons to a country, as you point out, that doesn't. So they want nuclear weapons, but there's more. And here's the more of it. The U.S. is also demanding that Iran get rid of its missile defenses, which is not going to happen. I mean, is it a non-negotiable demand, perhaps?

But Iran will not do that. They cannot do that. If it disarms, it will be a target for sure. just like Libya was a target, and, you know, they understand the vulnerability. So that's one of the points of contention right now. And the other one is that Iran's support for various groups internationally, like Hamas, Hezbollah, Yemenis, and others who are in a constant Tet-a-Tet with Israel. You know, the extent to which that can be negotiated is another question.

But here's the real problem with where we're at right now. President Trump has made extraordinary threats, which in and of themselves are contrary to international law, that he would bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure if Iran doesn't come to some kind of an agreement. That approach makes it very difficult to come to an agreement. First of all, secondly, it sets the stage for a nuclear war. Now, already, as we speak, there are at least six B-2 bombers, stealth bombers,

which are situated in the Indian Ocean Island of Diego Garcia. They can be fully loaded with an assortment of munitions, including 2,000-pound nuclear bunker busters. So I just want to play out this scenario for a moment and for your viewers to think about this. If you drop a 500-pound gravity bomb on a nuclear reactor, you're going to have radiation released and it will go a great distance. If you drop a nuclear bunker buster on a nuclear facility,

there is a synergistic effect of radioactivity, and that will go far and wide. If there is an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, which includes at least a minimum of 12 facilities, you're talking about a level of radiation that would spread across not only a nation, of 90 million people in Iran. But a level of radiation that would spread to Pakistan,

to Afghanistan, to India, and up into the upper atmosphere, eventually around the world. You change the wind direction, goes out towards the Middle East. This is insanity. You cannot, to talk about using nuclear weapons, to elect to use nuclear weapons, to get rid of, of a nuclear weapon that doesn't exist in a country that says they don't want them in a country which had previously agreed to limit its enrichment of uranium is a leap along the path of

a march of folly. And I have called it out. I'm doing it again. You know, I've published on Substack, a lengthy analysis of what happens if you start bombing nuclear facilities, or if you drop nuclear bombs. Do you know these B-83 bombs, each one of them contains the explosive power of 80, 80, Hiroshima's, each one of them. And the B-2 is said to have the capability of carrying at least 14 of those on board. What are we talking about here? I mean, we're basically talking about killing ourselves.

I think absolutely right. Can I just also say you mentioned that making threats actually propels you towards conflict. It reminded me of something I once heard or read which you know the playwright Chekhov said if you put a gun in the first act of a play by the third act it will have gone off and that is absolutely what what happens also in negotiations. If you start bringing in threats like that into a negotiation at a very early stage in a negotiation, then the entire negotiation starts to be framed around the threat

rather than seeking the agreement that you want to see, achieve. And that is a very dangerous thing. Having been in many negotiations myself at various times of my life, I can say that with confidence. Now, as I said, why is this not discussed more widely in the United States? I should say, by the way, that I know that an awful lot of people, many, many people follow and attend very carefully to what you say. I do, but I know an awful lot of others who do as well.

But why is this not a topic that is at the forefront of discussion in the United States? Because what you've just outlined is an absolute. terrifying scenario. I mean, one that is unimaginably horrifying and which could be a precursor very easily to even worse things if we ever got to that point. So why is this not being talked about? Why is they not push back against the president and his officials telling people, you know, you've got us into this mess. For heaven's sake, get us out. There's a deal there. It can be done, let's just go ahead and do it and stabilize at least this relationship with Iran on the nuclear weapons thing.

And guess we've got all sorts of other things to think about in the Middle East, but we can move on to them later. Why isn't this happening? Why are the big newspapers silent and all that? Let's put our finger on what I think is one of the great philosophical flaws. which I have seen run through our political system for many years. I mean, I started my current politics going back to 1967. And what I've seen is this, this critical disjuncture

between understanding the nature of cause and effect, that we can, we only think in terms of what we can do. We don't think of the response. I mean, in a way, this is reflected, in the markets today, on tariffs. Does anybody think of what the effect will be of tariffs on a market? Does anyone think of what the effect would be on bond markets? Does anyone think of the effect would be on the dollar itself?

Apparently not. They just do it. Did anyone think of what the effect, does anyone think of what the effect would be on bombing a nuclear infrastructure in Iran? No, I would say in the people that I've talked to, Washington and I'm there often. There's, it's only, the only part that we get is what we can do, not what will happen as a consequence. And that is fatal because if, if you, if you do not countenance the consequences of what

you do, then you are in a sociopathic way. world. Even lending itself a psychopathic approach towards dealing with others. One must also, I mean, one must always think of what is the reciprocal nature of one's actions. And unfortunately, we haven't got there. This is why, by the way, despite the fact that we blew up Iran, that Iraq that had nothing to do with 9-11, there's been no apologies. You know, you can go back to the beginning of the history of the country. We just do things, but we act upon, but don't think about the effects on others. and in a world which is technologically and in every other way, interdependent and interconnected, that's bonkers.

You know, we really need to try to connect with a sense of empathy and compassion and understanding. And if we did that, we'd never threaten the use of nuclear way. weapons. And we wouldn't be subsidizing the genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. There is a disconnect, Alexander, and I've seen it over and over and over. And it is philosophically anarchical. Is there another factor, specifically with Iran, which I've encountered many times for many Americans, which Americans do not like, a lot of Americans do not like Iran. I mean, there continues to be this thing about the Iranian hostages, the American hostages rather, who were taken captured in Tehran in

1979. You know, we both lived through all of that. You were prominent in American politics at the time. You remember the feelings that existed then. There's been feelings ever since building up and they've never really gone away about Iran, which people don't. seem to be able to put to one side and say, well, you know, we don't have to like these people, but we have a joint interest with them in avoiding this catastrophe. When always comes up against this and this view that the Iranians are ultimately irrational, that they're prepared to start war, if we don't act, they will, you know, go ahead and attack Israel themselves at some point because that's what they do.

and that this somehow gets in the way of any kind of, you know, more rational approach to them. Because I certainly feel that. Well, Alexander, let's go back even before the 1979 Iranian Revolution. It was a revolution to oust the Shah of Iran who was put in there by the United States of America after the U.S. toppled the government of Mohammed Mossadegh, an elected government in Iran in 1953. So again, follow the causal chain.

Mossadegh gets ousted by the U.S. The U.S. installs the Shah. The Shah's regime was ousted in a revolution. that was as much religious as it was political. And we're dealing with the long-term effects of our own involvement from 70, more than 70 years ago. So, you know, we don't go into these things with clean hands. And I'm, you know, I love my country.

but if you love someone or a country, you need to be familiar with its history in order to be able to help guide it to a different place. And as you correctly point out, there is this animosity towards Iran based on the hostages. And I can well understand that, Those hostages, by the way, were released in a deal when on the first day of Ronald Reagan's presidency. But one has to understand the U.S.'s role in the world, which has been consequential, almost singular in its impact.

We have 800 military bases around the world at this very moment. We have the second largest nuclear arsenal next to Russia. We have an ability, we have a $1 trillion military budget we're looking at, first time in history. There is a heady sense of power that comes with that. And at the same time, if you have great power, you better have great restraint. And you really need to have a word. worldview, which cannot be so sharply interiorized that you think that everything has to be my way or the

highway. The world doesn't work that way. In a matter of fact, the world's already responding with economically, with the formation of bricks a few years ago, nations that are non-aligned are starting to come together in a process that started decades ago. The world's changing, and America needs to change with it. And we need to find a way to live at peace in a very complicated world where that's what everyone else wants to do too for the most part. They want to live in peace. Can I ask a further question? Because again, you have this long experience of American politics. You've talked all the way back to the 1960s. Do you not feel that over this time, America has actually lost a lot of its ability to conduct diplomacy?

That we now have a situation where one individual is conducting negotiations with the Iranians, with Russians, with Israelis. he's not even a member of the diplomatic call. He's a businessman based in New York. I make no criticism of him, by the way. He may be a very capable man, but he's doing all this by himself. He's trying to do all of this by himself. And the State Department, the officials of the State Department,

they don't seem to have that level of competence any longer either to grasp the complexities of these negotiations or to conduct them themselves. in a way that might take us towards the solution. Because for so long, just as you say, that United States has practiced not a policy of diplomacy, but a policy of dictation. And dictation can only work up to a very limited point. And in fact, ultimately, it always provokes a reaction.

It's true. Mr. Whitkoff, who you speak of, appears to be very smart. He's remarkably measured in his approach, which is important. President Trump trusts him. But how can one person who has spent his life in New York's business community, no matter how smart he is, understand the nuances of, of culture, of religion, of state craft, just like that. De novo, doesn't happen that way. And so he's in a precarious position, also being undercut by neocons, who will have influence on President

Trump's cabinet. I mean, on the issue of Russian Ukraine, for example, there's a dispute inside the cabinet that has led to a kind of an inertia, an impasse over coming up with a deal with Russia. So turning towards Iran, the United States has not the capacity for these negotiations, complex negotiations, which are on. necessary to be able to come to a peaceful resolution. And that's a problem, a serious problem. And those who have a depth of experience on something like fashioning a JCPOA and all the diverse elements that go into such an agreement, they're on the outside looking in right

now. So we are dancing in the dark here. And we ought to be concerned because if the headlong motion is towards war without regard to the consequences for whatever reason, then we're going to have a war. I don't think the people in the United States are thinking about this right now. I don't you know in an economy and this is a very important point I was on a call with Alistair Crook earlier today and you know he pointed out that one of the things that's forcing a reconsideration of any kind of action at this moment is the current condition in the markets in the U.S. economy with high interest rates,

with the dislocation between the status of cash bonds and futures in the bond market with the scramble for dollars, the rising U.S. deficits, the debt servicing that's going on, supply shocks, price surges, de-dollarization. I mean, all of these factors, credit availability, are coming into play at a time that we're talking about going a war. What? Who's thinking about the fact that if we bomb Iran, the Strait of Hormuz closed, access to oil, the price of oil will go up to 150, maybe $200 a barrel, price at the pump in the

U.S. $6, $7, depending on state taxes, $10 a gallon. U.S. economy already in trouble, just goes into the dumper and with it is Trump's presidency. And so, you know, there's, let's, you know, again, talk about consequences. And this isn't anything that people want to hear. War games are not just, I'm going to put my tanks and my planes here and don't worry about what's happening with the other person. Iran has the ability to defend itself.

Iran has been busy building a defense for years. Some of it's embedded deeply in mountains. One of the things that Alistair Crook talked about today is that even if Tehran was wiped off the face of the earth, they have an automated response missile system, which has the capacity to wipe out Israel, sort of a dead hand approach that just goes into play. Who's thinking about this? Why and if you think about it, you don't put the gun on the table. It's the last thing you want to do.

So I'm, I'm, we're in a moment where there's unknowns. And but, but keep in mind this condition was created by seemingly non-negotiable demands. and it's absolutely mind-blowing when I think about how the fate of the world rests with such dalliance and unconscious exercise of power. I'm going to just ask one last question, but it is in two parts. The first is that I think this is my own view. A lot of the misunderstanding about the Middle East is that there's a perception in the United States that Iran is the source of the instabilities in the Middle East.

The Middle East has many causes of instability, but in order to achieve stability in the Middle East, I believe that you have to finally resolve justly and in a sustainable way, the core issue, which is that of the Palestinians and the Israelis and the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Unless that happens, you may be chasing demons in Iran and Iraq or Syria, wherever, but you're not ultimately going to change anything. The problems are just going to come back because you're not addressing. the core problem, which is that one. The other thing I wanted to say, and I was going to actually ask you about the American economy, but you've greatly anticipated many of the things I wanted you to say.

But my own view, you talked about consequences, things people don't understand the consequences that happen as a result of decisions. My view, and again, I'd be interested to know what you'd say about this, is that many of these problems, we are seeing. in America's economy are the product of its foreign policy. The economy has been shaped around the foreign policy for far too long. To give one very simple example, there's a lot of talk now about manufacturing and the problems of manufacturing in the United States. One of the reasons why America lost competitiveness on world markets was because it's factories and and its best scientists were producing weapons,

which are not bought by many people, instead of the kind of products that America used to make in those enormous quantities, which made it the greatest manufacturing and industrial power. So there's just been this shift in the focus of American manufacturing in a way that ultimately made it uncompetitive. I know actually you've discussed this before, but just quickly, if you have time, a few words about those two points. And there I will finish.

I mean, you've raised a central point with respect to the American economy. And here's where the difficulty comes from. There was a time that America was the preeminent power with respect to steel automotive aerospace and shipping, for example. Trade agreements such as NAFTA, the general agreement on tariff and trade and China trade and others, caused a dismantling of America's industrial base. And so President Trump has recognized that, but you rebuild an industrial base first, and then you can talk about tariffs. We're doing it in reverse.

we are now in a position where, I mean, we're really not in a position of fight a long war. We might think that everything can be solved with nuclear weapons. No, it can't. So you're right about the U.S. does make a lot of arms, and we sell them all over the world. And a lot of those arms right now, the bombs are being dropped on Gazans who can't defend themselves. 2,000-pound bombs, bombs that can cut through steel. They're just blowing up people, vaporizing them, throwing their bodies, hundreds of feet in the air.

It's like some kind of a grotesque shooting gallery. And you're also correct in saying that the plate of the Palestinians is a central, a core problem. in peace in the Middle East and beyond. And so where are we with that? Well, right now there is a genocide ongoing. The Palestinians are facing extermination. The type of violence that's being raked upon the Palestinians is heartbreaking.

And yet it is primarily the instrumentality of America that is doing it while it's being delivered by our close friends. Stop it. You know, the idea, they're trying to make it impossible, create facts on the ground and make it impossible for anybody to live in Gaza. They're well on the way to do that.

But it has to stop. People, the bombing has to stop. The transfer of weapons there has to stop. The people have to be given food and water. They have to be given a chance to survive. And there doesn't seem to be any concern about that. And I will tell you, just as a human being, I'm not, I totally reject everything that's happened since October 7th in Gaza. You know, we all know the importance of stating our objection to the, and I do object to any Israeli who lost their lives on October 7th by whatever means.

but the horror of the attack on the Palestinians, the disproportionate use of force, everything about it is wrong. So you cannot begin to achieve peace until that stops, and it's ongoing. And, of course, you have these individuals who believe in greater issues, Israel, even if greater Israel is just mountains of rubble with dead bodies underneath of people from Gaza, from the West Bank, from Lebanon, from Syria, Yemen, on and on. Just stop it. And the U.S. has to be the ones that do that because it's our money, it's our planes, it's our bombs.

I just find it, you know, here we are, 2025, and the whole world is aware of this. This is not just me talking. There are millions of people marching around the world to say, stop it. But it's a lot more difficult to find a way back to say that we will no longer license the destruction of Palestinians. and we will find a path for the survival of all the parties in the Middle East. Dennis Kucinich, thank you for that marvelous interview. You have been incredibly insightful and eloquent as always, and I do hope we will have you back many times.

If you could just wait a little, could I ask you to wait just because Alex, I'm sure my colleague has some questions. I will, and I just want to remind your viewers to make sure you can always find me on Substack, I'll be writing a column about Gaza that will appear today. So thanks so much, Alex, Alexander, and the Duran. I will have the link to the substack in the description box as well as a PID comment when the stream is over. So definitely check out the substack. Do you have time for maybe one or two questions? Absolutely.

Okay, great. I'm here. I'm at your disposal right now. I think this is very important. Thank you. Thank you so much. Let's get a question from Nikos, who asks, Mr. Kucinich and Duran, do you feel that Trump made a deal with the neocons to give up Ukraine for Iran? No real diplomacy has been used to achieve peace. Your thoughts? I don't know. I mean, because there isn't any deal in Ukraine. Things are suspended. and that could go on for quite some time. But the pot is boiling for a war with Iran. And the idea of a cross-of-deal,

no, I mean, there is a difference between getting a deal, quote-unquote and diplomacy. Diplomacy is intricate. It requires many sub-deals and this nomenclature of a deal

dumbs down the the manifest complexity of diplomacy. and we're not selling used cars here. You're trying to stop the world from blowing itself up.

Great answer. From Studio Renner, one more question. From Studio Renner, is American incompetence the greatest threat to humanity? Henry Kissinger's era seemed a lot more managed. And when he died, it was like the U.S. had a mass exodus of intelligence. Did Kissinger run everything? The timing matches. Well, you know, I had a chance to meet Mr. Kissinger on many occasions.

I mean, you have to remember, he licensed a bombing of Cambodia. He wasn't, he was the prince of the real politic. And, no, I don't think it's, I don't think it's a lack of an intellectual. intellectual capacity, although diplomacy does require that, I think it's something more like arrogance that we have the power and you don't. That is hubristic. That is apropos of Barbara Tuckman's The March of Folly,

which traced throughout history from Troy all the way to Vietnam, leaders who made bad decisions, made worse, the better reason, and, you know, all but destroyed their own societies. You know, we, this is a human capacity. We all have. We're all fallible. We can all make mistakes. The question is, what's our intent? If the underlying intent is war and destruction, well, if that happens, we're all affected. If it's peace, if that happens, we're all affected. We live within an envelope of a unified field. We're all in it together, and we can only hope that those of us who are marching around the world, those of us who have influence with people in public life around the world,

that we call people, we talk, that we let them know this is not the time to put the accelerator on, put the, towards war. We really need to pull back here and say, hey, wait a minute, let's think this through before we start ratcheting things up to the point of no return. This dialectic of conflict is made possible by the limitations of human thinking. And we need to, so in part, the questioner raises a point about who are we? Do we have the capacity to summon our higher intellect to escape from the, from the implications of our lower limbic system that might call us to forever be in fear, in flight,

and in fright, and sometimes in combat? We really are at a point where we have to consciously self-evolve to be more than we are in better than we are. And do we have that capacity? Well, species do have that capacity. There's an evolutionary break of a punctuated equilibrium that happens in the growth of a species. Human beings need to experience that.

And America needs to experience what it means to evolve past war as any kind of a condition that is to be desired. Marika says wise words from a wise man. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Dennis Kucinich, for joining us on the Duran and for answering some of the questions from our viewers. Once again, I will have the substack link in the description box down below, as well as a pinned comment.

Mr. Dennis Kucinich, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Alexander. But giving us your time. You bet. Take care.

Thank you. Thank you. Take care. Gosh, I'll tell you what I think. He said that, you know, he said that, you know, people need to, that, you know, that there are all the people who were, knew how to do diplomacy before or on the outside.

He, of course, is one of them. Let's not forget that. He was in the House of Representatives. He had all that experience. I think a good thing for Donald Trump and J.D. Vance to do would be to call him in and have a chat with him. I think that would be a very good idea. not just here, but all sorts of others, but certainly him.

Yeah, I'm thinking about his comment about, he's right, about diplomacy and making the deal. Two very different things. Completely different things. I talk a lot, I mean, we talk a lot about deals. We do talk a lot about the deals, but he's right. It is the overall diplomacy that matters as well, yeah. Carol says, thank you so much, Alex, Alexandra and Dennis Kucinich, a wonderful live stream. Thank you for that. Carol, let's get to the questions, Alexander?

Absolutely. Questions? We have quite a lot of good questions here. From Bad Wolf, TX says the IRGC is universally acknowledged to be an ideologically driven organization. Personally, I see it not entirely unlike the Banderites in Ukraine. Does the 85-year-old Supreme Leader still have full control of Iran, and especially the IRGC, or has the IRGC become too powerful?

Who will be the next supreme leader and will he be able to control the IRGC or will the next leader be part of the IRGC? My own understanding of the IRGC is rather different, actually. I understand that when it was first created, which is basically... The Revolutionary Guard by the Revolutionary Guard, exactly. It was created as a basically as an outgrowth of the original Iranian Revolution and it was developed during the Iran-Iraq war, partly as a kind of Praetorian Guard to protect the regime itself

from an army that was at that time very much the Shah's army and was therefore deeply mistrusted. But since then, and we're talking about it a long, long time, it is gradually, in fact not gradually, it is steadily evolved into an absolutely conventional security force. It's very, very little different now in its politics and its motivations and its organization structures, which have become very elaborate and very conventional from the other parts of the Iranian security system. So I don't think we should separate it, so it's that different from the army and the other various parts of the organization.

I think Harmane, the supreme leader, is in full control. That is my own experience. I mean, I don't know how hands-on he is, but he seems to be an extremely skilled at controlling the various factions and groups within the Iranian leadership

and using them to advance his own policies. And I think he does have, control of the government. Who will come after him? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. I don't have that depth of knowledge about Iran myself. All right. From Nikos, in his interview with Alex Jones, Tucker said many idiotic things, including how nuclear energy is dangerous. However, one thing was partially right. Russia has experienced many terror and drone attacks. They can't protect their capital. Estonia has stolen a ship and now tourist missiles will be used. If Putin ignores the terrorists, that just gives the sociopaths an excuse to terrorize Russia. How can Russia and their

people survive under constant terror? Attacking just Ukraine doesn't work anymore. People, did you get that, Alexander? Absolutely all of it. Okay, there's a little bit more. People like Dimitri Kulko said this, said this to Constantine. I don't want to admit it, but the cracks are there. Russia cannot protect Iran when the U.S. attacks them. How can both countries survive this? Well, can I just say something, Nick, because every so often you come up with these things

about, you know, how the Russians are on the back foot, that they're not acting strongly and vigorously in response to these provocations. And what then happens is, and we're seeing it now on the Ukrainian battlefields, is that the Russians simply continue advancing and continue winning the war. And that becomes ever more clear. Now, yes, the Ukrainians are conducting various attacks. They've conducted drone attacks on Moscow. None of these drone attacks have been particularly effective or indeed at all effective. Larry Johnson was actually in Moscow. during one of those attacks, he told me, he didn't even know that was happening in this huge city, there was no sound to be, he slept through it all, he woke up the following day, he found everything in the city exactly the same and as normal, and there was no sign of panic or fear or terror or any of those things. So we mustn't overstate the significance of this, just as we shouldn't overstate the significance of the tourist missiles. When the attack and's missiles were, we must not state the significance of the tourist missiles,

launched against Russian targets. I thought that would be a big thing. I thought that the missiles would get through and they would do significant amount of damage. And I was worried about what would happen if they did. And I was worried about the storm shadow missiles when they were launched against Russian territory also. And they failed. They were a complete failure. The Russians managed to shoot nearly all of them down. Why do you think that the tourist missiles are going to be any different?

Far from being critical of Russian restraint in the face of these extreme provocations, which is what they are, we should be grateful for it because not only are the Russians showing

an ability to absorb this and to move forward and to move forward effectively, as I said, they're winning the war. But if they had given weight of these provocations in the way that so many people say they should have done, well, given what we now know about how centrally involved Biden and his whole administration and the British were involved in the decision making relating to the war in Ukraine, we could very easily have found ourselves, in fact, we would definitely have found ourselves in a kind of World War III scenario with consequences for all of us, every single one of us, that would have been completely

unpredictable. It required discipline on the Russian side and far-sightedness. And vulva criticizing them for it, we should be thankful that they exercised it. They are, to repeat again, still winning the war. Now, what will the world? the Russians and not just the Russians, the Chinese and others do, if there is a war against Iran, they will certainly oppose that war. They will not come to Iran's defense. I mean, they've never said that they would and they won't. Iran will have to bear the brunt of the attack upon itself, just as Russia has borne the brunt of the attack upon itself. But that doesn't mean that the Russians cannot do a great deal and they will they will provide intelligence to the iranians and that will be

important they will probably provide weapons as well probably in larger and larger flows they will provide food and other supplies and they will help the iranians to get through and as the iranians are strong and are able to maintain the kind of discipline and that you know the russians have shown then probably they will get through, just as the Russians have done in facing off the attack that has been made against them. So that's my complete answer to your question. Linda O'Brien asks, why some pundits, such as Scott Ritter, are so sure U.S. attack on Iran, would be nation-ending when in reality, after many invasions by some great empires, Persia still managed to come back from it. Well, I haven't been following Scott Ritter's

comments about this. I mean, again, I think it does depend a lot on the scale of an attack on Iran. I mean, if we're looking at nuclear weapons being used, which heaven forbid, well, obviously Iran cannot survive an attack with nuclear weapons. But then if nuclear weapons are used against Iran, we're in a world that is completely different from the one we're in now. The United States would have used them in that kind of way. The kind of world we are, we would be in. in that case would not be just different, it would be dystopian. And I don't want to even think about or discuss a world like that, because I hope very much we don't find ourselves in that situation.

But for the rest, for what you say, I think you're absolutely right. Iran has a millennial civilization. It emerged as a major power in the world in the sixth century before Christ. It's had a tremendously sophisticated polity. It has survived many crises in its time. And it has always come through and come through as a great power. So I don't share the belief that I think some people have, that if Iran is attacked, it will simply crumble like a house of cards.

I don't think that is true. I don't think that is what history shows. We'll see whether or not I'm going to. right let's hope we don't see well we don't see exactly well absolutely yeah uh nico says uh i say this because constantin roshkov a pro-russian but brutally fair about it has guests who say they are behind the drone that russia is behind the drone production and lately wages aren't catching up to the sanctions your thoughts every single every single report that i've seen about production says exactly the opposite. In fact, I saw a report recently, which is in a Western

publication, that Russia produces five million drones a year against one million Russian Ukrainian drones. And in fact that the Russians are not only moving ahead in drone production, but they're moving head decisively in drone production and technology as well, which is logical and what you would expect. Now, about the Russian economy, wages in Russia have consistently remained ahead of prices, price increases, over the last three years. So I don't know who this person is or what the guests are saying, but that is the statistical facts. Even in the last two months, when the Russian economy has been going through an absolutely planned and intended slowdown in order to bring prices down, wages have still grown faster than prices.

So again, I don't quite understand the last point. If you're talking about payment problems with third countries, the mere card is gradually being accepted in more and more countries. And of course, with the tariff crisis between China and the United States, it's almost certain, I would say, that the mere card will be accepted in China also very soon. That'll be big. that'll be very big if that happens

Alexander USA now says Nuclear energy is dangerous If attacked as Kucinich said It would pollute large areas Would be inhabitable for centuries Also nuclear waste Last centuries too Burying is out of sight, out of mind

But still there Well I'm not going to comment upon these things I'm sure that's right I've heard that said many many times But I don't have the technical knowledge to add to the knowledge of this on this topic. Commandal Crossfire says, I can't imagine a country more justified to pursue nuclear deterrence than Iran,

maybe North Korea. Iran should seek treaty protection from Russia as a tradeoff. Well, we're almost there, and I would not be surprised. I've discussed this many times. We've discussed this. Alex and I have discussed this many times in many programs. that, you know, this is quite likely that as part of the deal, I'm sorry to use that word, the treaty, the agreement that will be negotiated over time if we do get a successful negotiation. The Americans will have a guarantee, perhaps on the Russians, that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons.

And the Iranians will have security guarantees from the Russians. and perhaps the Chinese, that they will be protected from future attacks. And I could see that being agreed. I can see how that could be agreed. It would be an elegant and satisfactory and sustainable way to resolve this. And the Russians have said that they're up for it.

So why not engage in a tripartite discussion to try to achieve it? Chile Pepper says remaining a threshold state is the closest thing short of nukes for Iran to stop their adversaries from attacking. After all, they can't let the U.S. or Russia making decisions on their sovereignty. Your thoughts? It's an incredibly dangerous position to be in. I think the Iranians feel that they've been forced to come to this point. But it's like having, you know, an elastic. and you've pulled it

and it's stretched at its limit because you're not going all the way to acquire nuclear weapons, which provides you with one type of stability, and at the other hand, you're not deciding to remain a non-nuclear

power, which is another kind of stability. I think they feel they've been driven to this. I don't think they particularly want to have nuclear weapons. I think they have religious inhibitions against that, which I'm sure on the path of some people in Iran is sincere. I also think that they calculate that acquiring nuclear weapons for many reasons would be against their best interests. It would set off an arms

race in the Middle East. The Saudis would quickly acquire nuclear weapons. It would probably create a more dangerous situation long term for Iran than the one that they would prefer to be in, So I don't think they want nuclear weapons. But as you absolutely rightly say, I think that in order to maintain that level of deterrence, they feel that they've had to take this step. But as I said, it's a dangerous one. And it's one that makes them look potentially threatening in ways that attracts threats to themselves. It's not one, I think, that they want to maintain and preserve indefinitely.

So that's why better to negotiate a way out of this for Iran, for the United States, for the Middle East, yes, for Israel too, than to pursue this to the point where, as I said, that elastic finally breaks and we have a major crisis with all kinds of terrible consequences of the kind that some of them have been described. Nico says, what's your opinion on Tucker lately? He has devolved to religious absolutism and Trump damage control. Look, I hate communism, but how is China an expansionist threat? Russia and China build stuff. And I just don't understand his stance on nuclear energy. It's the best form of energy by production. Stop letting Chernobyl haunt you, your thoughts.

Well, I still think that Tucker is a great and incredibly, brave journalist. I don't happen to agree with him on everything. Thank goodness. I mean, none of us agrees with everybody, anybody else on everything. And I don't agree with him on some topics. I don't agree with him about China, for example. I don't think China at this time is an expansionist threat, at least not in the way that many people in the United States seem to think. I think that this is a relationship with China. which is fully capable of being managed. And I think if we put some of these fears aside

and understand Chinese national interests and concerns and the fact that China itself is a very complex society, very difficult, I would have thought, I know for a fact, very difficult to govern with many kinds of problems. I don't think the Chinese want to make it even more complicated and difficult and dangerous from them. by pursuing policies of expansionism and war, as many people think.

But as I said, I think it can be managed. I think it can be managed well. I don't agree with Tucker on this, but I agree with him on many, many other things. Mitchell LeBlanc says, I agree with both on how the U.S. should approach Russia and Iran. As an American, I think it makes total sense to be partners with Russia economically and militarily. I agree with Robert Barnes, though, on China. Could you be wrong? Well, I might be wrong. I don't pretend I know China anywhere near as well as I know Russia because I've been to Russia many times. I'm not being to China. I have many more

contacts in Russia. I have very, very few indeed in China. But that is my own sense. As I said, before, by the way, I started on Russian things, which came about mostly by accident. I was interested first in Indian and then Chinese history and philosophy. And I don't have this nervousness of China that many people do. As I said, the history of China that I know I will accept is the older history, the pre-1911 history. But every country is the product of its past. and I've never felt that China was a particularly aggressive society

either before or even now. Back up, welcome to the Duran community. From last rights, Zero, Long Live the Duran. Cheers for your work, lads. Stay Frosty. Thank you for that. Banayotis. Stathis says the Duran is my favorite channel. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Banayotis. Last Rites, Zero says, can we get some just saying,

merch. Sure. That would be a cool shirt. Mad Lad Matt says they do realize Iran's missiles can reach Diego Garcia, right? Well, I don't know. I don't know how far Iran's missiles can reach. They can reach Israel because we've seen them do it. And that should be enough in itself to cause concern and to see about finding some kind of a way to end this conflict in a peaceful way. Last right, zero. Welcome to the grand community. Zick Nas says, I think we are past the excuse that Trump is receiving bad advice. So who really controls Trump? Well, I don't think he's controlled by people.

I think that Trump himself is very inexperienced in the conduct of foreign policy and many things. And I think he sometimes himself seeks bad advice. I mean, he goes for it himself. Nothing that we have said on the Duran is an excuse for Donald Trump. It's not our job here to apologize for him or to defend him. We don't do that. We try to analyze and understand him. And he's got lots of ideas, some of them good, some of them bad, some are very contradictory.

His execution sometimes is unconventional to the point of bizarre. He does lots of things which I think ultimately are counterproductive. We've made many comments about the way he's run the trade war. We've made many comments about his eccentric approach to the Ukrainian conflict. If I'm going to blame anybody for that, I would say I would blame Donald Trump. But at the same time, he does have insights. He does have instincts. They do sometimes pull him in the right direction.

And, you know, we need to hold on to that and hope that that side ultimately prevails. Trump is a funny way, and I get to say this, of going through all the bad things and eventually ending up with the right one. And I wouldn't be surprised if both on trade and economics and relations with China and relations with Russia and Ukraine, at some point we end up there with all of those. Madlat Matt, thank you for joining the Duran community. Dickus Brat says, Alex, in your last video, you mentioned Zelensky should play Leonidas in 300. Bro, didn't you know that he actually has played the role of Leonidas in 300 on the Ukraine TV as a sketch? This guy is a mega meme machine. I had no idea that Zelensky played Leonidas.

Did you know what? I did not. I have to say, I have to say, Two more unlike people, the Leonidas and Zelensky, as war leaders. I simply cannot imagine. You are aware, by the way, that, you know, Zelensky managed to avoid the draft. He did. He was, apparently, he was apparently intent.

He was supposed to join the draft in the Ukrainian army. Remember, you know, 2014 and all of that. There's all sorts of conflicts. But he managed to avoid it. He's the right age. just saying. So he's, what, 48 now? So 10 years ago, he'd have been 38 when the conflict began. So he's avoided it. So he is not, shall we say, of the same cut of the same cloth that the only of the Spartans work up from. He wouldn't have survived five minutes at Sparta. I say that as somebody who knows all about Sparta and who's been there many times. Yeah, interesting, the whole 300 narrative that they've built, huh? You're telling me.

All right. Matthew says, are we heading to all-out war with Russia? I think not, actually. I think the most dangerous moment of that has gone, and that was last year. I think that last year, after the failure, after the failure, of the 2023 offensive. I think that there was a lot of uncertainty about what to do. I think the Biden people were absolutely determined to continue the war and still achieve victory.

And they were looking for ways to escalate it. And we had the missiles against Russia and all of that. And I think that there was some kind of agenda, if you like, to escalate to the point where either the Russians back down and capitulated finally or perhaps, you know, there was willingness to take risks, which could have led to a war. I think we're past that. I think the one thing that Donald Trump absolutely does not want is any kind of war with Russia.

Yeah. USA now says Tipper thinks David Garcia's an open Indian ocean wouldn't have anti-missile defense. Interesting. And Wade says Alexander Guided Tour of Sparta. where do I buy tickets? Oh, it's a great place. Actually, it's a beautiful town, if I may say.

It's a beautiful town. It really is. It was rebuilt in the 19th century, a very, very handsome way. And the hill where the old town was is fascinating. And not far away, you have the mountains and there's mistra, which Byzantine things. It's one of my favorite parts of Greece. Matt says, do Jews realize Cyrus the Great

an Iranian saved them from Babylon and rebuilt the temple. Iran is the last country they should want to destroy. You're quite agree. I absolutely agree with you about that too, in the sense that if that was the history. And if I have to say, the Jewish people know their history very, very well, I think lots and lots of people know it. Whether they draw lessons from it is another question. From Rutwidge, Toulankur, over imperialism,

is fiscal, military and social benefits, in military, social benefits. Can you say that again? Over imperialism in fiscal and military and social benefits. Over imperialism. I'm not sure what quite... Do you mean ending imperialism results in all kinds of benefits? Or that imperialism itself provides benefits? Because I don't accept the latter proposition at all.

I live in the capital city of what was the world's biggest empire. And I can tell you, I see the problems that empire has left behind, the atrophy of British industry, the atrophy of its institutions, the decay that you see in British society. You see that everywhere you go here. Miko says, question from the previous week, how does Russia have such a low debt when they had to pay all the debt of the USSR? They spent just as much as the U.S.

Because they have had, they had a leader who was determined to keep fiscal things under control. And he made sure that they did. I mean, this is where Putin's role really cannot be underestimated. Yeah, discipline. Boa Omega says, I may agree Israel and Palestine are the issue. So how do you resolve the issue that the real? rebuilding of the temple isn't negotiable, nor is the removal of the mosque negotiable? Well, I think this is, I mean, we're not getting into massively difficult territory.

I think very simply, I mean, the first thing about the restoration of the temple, I think it needs to be made very clear by, you know, the world community, that this isn't something that any part of the world, community would support. I mean, it may be something that some people in Israel want to do, but the destruction of the Alaska mosque is something that really is completely contrary to all humanity, to the interest of humanity in general, as many Jewish people, including Jewish people I know, have pointed out. And I just mentioned this, a, very good friend of mine, who is a very devout, very orthodox Jew, is completely opposed to this. He says that this is an attempt to try to force something which can only come from God himself. And to try to do this through human action would be disastrous and impious as well.

Just saying. Erhammond, what happened to the Ferengi in Star Trek? I have no idea. To be honest, I love to start. I love the first series. I mean, because I remember I was of that time in the 60s and early 70s. I used to watch it there. I never maintained quite the same interest in the subsequent iterations of it.

You know, the next generation was quite good. But, you know, afterwards, the further and further it moved away, beyond a certain point, I just stop watching. From Jeff, we all out here take the Duran very seriously. Are the people like Gabbard and Kennedy in this administration allowed to study rational alternative media as well? I'm sure they do. I'm sure they can. Why not?

Who's to salt them? Rutwitwit Toulinker says Khamenei is Turkmeni is Turkmen, but views Iran as an ancient power. I don't know very much about his background. There's lots of stories that he was educated in Moscow, by the way. But I wouldn't put them very seriously. Life of Brian says, possible that the Duran, based in Europe, underestimates the popular contempt for and irrelevance of mass media in the U.S. was Kamala a jobber? No, I don't think we, I don't think we underestimate the level of dislike for the mainstream media in the United States. We're very well informed. Can I just say that?

John Ski says, why will no Arab country take in Palestinian refugees? Jordan knows. Well, for the very simple reason that if that were to happen, they would destabilize their own societies. And some of them probably do feel that, you know, they don't want to do something that might facilitate Israeli conquest of Arab land, which would also be very destabilizing for Arab governments, if that were to happen. Niko says, I am not critical about Russia's restraint. I am stating facts. If they don't react, then the sociopaths will continue attacking.

Is that preferable? The sociopaths are losing. that's the thing to say we had an election last year in which the Biden people lost and the Trump people won I don't think that this is as I said my own

sense is that the most dangerous moment in this conflict actually has gone what now remains is how it is going to be wrapped up is it going to be wrapped up with a Russian military victory which I think is by far the most likely

Or will there be a negotiation leading to an agreement which would be only possible between the Americans or the Russians? No one else. Murad Aliyev says, Hi, Alex. I recently learned a quote you may like. When the heroes go off the stage, the clowns come on. Heinrich Hein, 19th century German poet. He's a brilliant poet, by the way.

Fantastic quote. Thank you for that. Sal, thank you for that. Super chat. Jamila says, yeah, very incredible. My head is full of questions today and I don't want to ask you.

And I say thank you for your great work, Duran, and your guest. Thank you, Jamila for that. Thank you. Banos says, regarding elites and narratives around Russians, Soviets, seemingly have played no role in World War II.

Where did Russophobia come from? predates communism. I don't understand it. Why such hatred? Thank you for that amazing Super Chat Bono, by the way. Alexander, a question that we have talked about many times. With many, many times. It's an interesting topic. Ultimately, you can't

come up with a simple, single reason for it. Rosophobia has a history going back all the way to the 17th century. Partly, it's religious, partly it's the sheer size of the country. But certainly it was being promoted, and anti-Russian narratives were being promoted in Europe in the 18th century, for example,

especially in France, by the way. Now, modern Russophobia, and I've been reading this book by Grierson that Jeffrey Sachs directed me to. I've never, because I'm so busy, even that's not a very long book. taking me time to get through it. But he clearly identifies modern Russophobia as ultimately a British product. And he believes that it had its origins in this period between roughly 1820 and 1850.

And I think that's probably right. And it's partly the clash of empires, the Russian and British empire that took place then. One must never underestimate another effect of the British Empire on Britain, which is the fossilization of the British mind, they get stuck on many of the things that they developed in the 19th century because they can't really move beyond them. Yeah, I also think there's something with George and Sir Nicholas. I think there's something there as well. Well, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure you're right.

That feels a lot of the Russophobia, yeah. George the Fifth refused to allow Nick. The Second to come to Russia, to Britain, to become an exile in Britain. We now know, by the way, that even Lenin, even Lenin wanted this. What was the reason? That George gave. There's never been, there's never, he didn't give one. I mean, it was kept secret for many, many years, and we still don't have a complete explanation.

But there was clearly something going on, which, presumably they didn't like, he didn't like him. He didn't like him. I mean, he had some complex issue for not liking Nicholas. Have historians waited on this, why they believe that George did not allow the family to seek exile in Britain? The most common explanation, which I don't take seriously, is that George V was worried that if Nicholas II came to Britain, this is a time of some social unrest in Britain after the First World War that, you know, this would also. somehow result in a revolutionary upswing in Britain. He was taking on the terrible tyrannical Tsar and all of that. Either that's nonsense, frankly. I think anybody who knows anything about British history

knows that, yes, there was an element of social unrest in Britain at that time, but it was very, very far from being a revolutionary situation. There was some personal issue between these two, which is difficult to explain and understand, and for which, as I said, ultimately, we have no final explanation. What I will say is this, George V's wife, Queen Mary, was from the same sort of background

as Nicholas II's mother, in the sense that they were both, you know, from Danish part of the Danish royal family. At least that's what I may be getting it scrambled. But there may have been some kind of antagonism there that I've never understood fully because it seems that the Nicholas's mother, who was a Danish princess,

though she was Empress of Russia, couldn't stand Nicholas's wife, Alexandra. And it seems that some of that got communication. and went round, circled around, and may have poisoned attitudes and created all kinds of issues. So as I said, there's lots of things that have never been properly explained. And in Britain, they never will be. Because we have, you know, all the archives held in Q, but there are people called weeders. I mean, that's the actual name for, go through the archives with scissors,

and cut out all the things that we're never allowed. never allowed to see. So it's quite likely that the paper trails is gone. I'll give another example from that time. Nicholas had an account in the Bank of England. It was perfectly legal, but he had an account in the Bank of England, and he had an awful lot, most of the private money of the Romanoffs abroad was held there. What happened to it? We've never had an explanation. nobody knows what happened to it what happened to it

nobody did it go in fact in fact nicholas brought most of his money that he had abroad most when the first world war began he made a decision to close down most of his foreign investments and bring his money to Russia because he felt that was the right

thing to do but he did keep this account in England in London going and we know that when Nicholas and Alexander was still alive in Yakutcheon book, they talk with each other about the fact that even if they did have to go to, when they did go to England, they would not be poor because they had this money there, which is quite a lot, and that they would be able to live off that. So what happened? Nobody's ever provided an explanation as to what happened

to the Tsar's money. When that account was closed, presumably it was closed. And who acquired the money. I mean, you can make all kinds of guesses. But there's never been an explanation about it. And I don't expect the rebel will be. There never will be, yeah. Commander Crossfire says, in my opinion, I think Russophobia has its roots with the Mongols.

Possibly. Going all the way back to Kiev and Rusk and the capture of, you know, the fall of Kiev to the Mongols. And who knows? I mean, you know, it's a complicated. It's, there's never an easy, this is, this is not a question that has an easy explanation to it. Yeah. Ratwaj, Toulanker says, Alex, disagree, China, slave, non-Han in West, and is imperial.

Can you say that again? Alex disagree, China, slave to not non-Han in West and Imperial. Oh, I see. You mean Xinjiang and Tibet. Well, again, I mean, I get this from a British academic who's been to these places. He thinks this story is misrepresented and he doesn't agree with this view. But talking in general about Chinese foreign policy and the Chinese don't regard these regions as foreign. They regard them as cool parts of Chinese territory.

just a second. But talking about foreign policy, China has never, it seemed to me, at any point in its history, being an expansionist bound. Maria says stealing Russian money is a habit. So absolutely true. Raphael says in 1971 after India won a war against Pakistan, U.S. and England were on their way to attack India, Russia intervened with a float. They both backed down. Russia going to do the same for Iran. China will come also. This is absolutely true. And India has never forgotten it, by the way, that there was an American aircraft carrier in the Bay of Bengal, and there was talk of U.S. intervention on Pakistan side. And the Soviets made absolutely clear

that they would back India to the Hilt in that situation. Anyway, it's a complex story, but it's one that has never been forgotten in India, and it explains what it's one of the reasons why this relationship between India and Russia today is so strong. Will that repeat itself over Iran? Possibly. Bear in mind that India already in 1971 was a very very,

strong military power. It showed its ability to defend itself. So for that reason, the Russians had something to ally themselves to. I think, again, it's the same with Iran. If Iran is able to show that it has the ability to defend itself, the Russians and the Chinese will be there. Commando Crossfire says imperial powers see everything through empire, China, Russia, Iran. If Bollywood began to outdo Hollywood, they'd accuse India. of evil expansionism. It was true enough. India has been even less of an expansionary

than China has been, just as a second. Florina says, who should play Leonidas is Alex? True. The beard. I second. Double, double down says, would the tariffs work if pursued in 2016?

Interesting question. It's a very interesting question. Well, you know what, there was a Greek philosopher who said, You can never go into the same river twice because the water moves along and the current changes. So 2016 was a different world. And China was a different place then. And the United States is a different place then.

I think maybe they would have been more effective then than today. But of course, the politics made it impossible. Russell Hall says Trump's habit of going through bad options, till he finds his way is likely the process of working through the bad advice and falsehoods presented to him. Yes, I think so. I mean, I think this is the way Trump is. He talks to people. He has an idea, which he is an idea of proposal, which seems to him like it might work.

He runs with it. And if it doesn't work, he moves on. Bo Omega says Kamala equals drunkhand. That's true. Klaus Vatne says, how can the U.S. reindustrialize when lower Chinese wages, high tariffs, tech set back in different industries, et cetera. There's no way. Well, I don't, I think if the United States is going to reindustrialize, it needs an industrial policy. At the moment, it has a rather chaotic tariff policy, which is not enough.

I think the United States could re-industrialized, by the way. I don't see why it could. It's got a huge internal market, as we know. It's abundant in natural resources. It's got a very skilled workforce. It's got science and technology. It's got no shortage of capital. All it needs to do is to put all of these things together, and it can be done.

And have bilateral negotiations with China. Absolutely. So it can have a controlled... Divorce. Divorce. Divorce. Think of it that. Controlled.

Exactly. The alchemist says, can you explain the Eisenhower doctrine? Oh gosh. This goes back to the 50s. I want to go and I can't anymore. It relates to the Cold War period and it was a foreign policy doctrine, but I'm afraid I've forgotten it. Sorry. Boa Omega says, a longer book than Kamala, my accomplishments.

brilliant oh boy elza says the russian commentators have noticed that trump said it's biden's war it would be great to know whether the duran is the source for the phrase you must ask him i don't know i will say something by the way milay the argentian president has now started talking about how the americans the russians or the chinese are all about spheres of influence. Where do you hear that first?

I don't know. Does he also listen to us? Maybe. Daniel Mann says, The irony is the current government in Iran, which U.S. dislikes, was installed by Jimmy Carter in the January of 1979,

shortly after General Husser secretly traveled there right after Shah's departure. There's a lot of truth here. I think this is a much, this is a very, very complex story. But it is absolutely the case that Carter and his team decided the Shah should go. The Shah didn't want to go and it was all very, it became all very, very tangled and complicated.

But as I said, it was one of the factors that led in the end to the fall of the Shah's regime, that the United States eventually withdrew support. USA Now, thank you for that generous tip. Alex C here is something. to encourage to feed the strays, maybe while doing clown world on your walks if you choose. Also, save the snails next time. I will definitely buy cat treats that super chat. Thank you so much. Miriana says, thank you for your hard work.

Could you invite Candice Owens? We've tried, actually, but it's... Oh, really? No easy. No reply. So, Irish partisan. says the Tsar's money earned off the backs of Russian people. Well, true.

I mean, many people would say that. Absolutely. I mean, I'm not going to argue with that. I just asked the question, what became of it? Just as that. Michelle LeBlanc says, It was never returned to the Russian people. It wasn't given to the Romanovs.

There's never been an account of it. There's a great reluctance to talk about this issue, by the way. Mitchell LeBlanc says, how would you both structure a bilateral U.S. Russia trade deal? You said Putin and Witkoff talked about U.S. access to bricks. Well, indeed, you need to have all kinds of, a U.S.-Russia trade deal is a very interesting idea,

and it could be done, but you'd need to have people from industry. You'd have to have business people, the various business associations involved, You have trade representatives. It's a negotiation that, again, just as David Kucinich, Dennis Kucinich was saying, would take time to work out. But if you worked it out properly, it could be done. Absolutely.

And I think Whitgolf, who is a businessman, and Dimitriyev, who is a former businessman, could play a big role here. Yeah. Maria says Americans created China and their mega industrial complex. China was slow and methodical. Well, China is far. I'd say China's fast and methodical action. Back, yeah, back then, yeah.

Oh, yeah, before. You mean in the, well, it depends which period of Chinese history you refer to. Again, I'm sorry, I don't want to sort of. getting to sidetracked into the discussions of Chinese history. It was a subject that I used to study long ago. I mean, in the Song Dynasty, at the time from about 900 to about 1200 AD, China appeared to be on the brink of industrialization. They developed mass production processes.

They developed printing. They developed paper money. They had a central bank. They had gunpowder. all of these things, they were starting to get some sense about, of steam power. It didn't happen. And perhaps the reason it didn't happen

because they got absorbed into wars. There was an invasion from the north, and everything went wrong. But that was in the past. China has a long industrial technological history behind it, which people underestimate. Commando Crossfire says Tucker got an interview with Putin, the Duran can too. Who knows?

That would be fantastic. We'll be very interesting. I think it will be a very different interview from the one Tucker did, which is not in any way to criticize, although it was a great interview, by the way. Ritwitch says Russophobia is because Slavs were never part of Rome. Yeah, I know. This is a widespread view, and there may be some truth to it, too. probably a lot of truths to it. Absolutely. Double down says global economic

Samson option isn't worth it. Bricks. Yeah. E82 says Fulani terrorist by Nigerian government killings of Biafra Landan Mazzi Nambi Karu is still being locked up after courts found him not guilty. Oh my goodness. Okay. I get I don't pretend I know much about this case, but thank you for telling us about it. USA Now says,

forgot you guys split the tips and the tip for you, Alexander, for your cats and your dogs. Oh, thank you. Thank you for that. USA now. Raphael says, the reason I brought this is because Israel needs to be careful as a result of,

as a result or Russian intervention. This is how Bangladesh got their independence. Palestine may benefit. from this event also. What do you think, Alex? Well, I, I, one mustn't, first of all, make analogies too closely. If we have a conflict with Iran, that will in itself be a disaster. If we have a superpower confrontation on top of that conflict, which is what we had in the Indo-Pakistani War, for example, then that is incredibly dangerous, but it might actually bring the whole situation under control.

And that might lead to agreements as well, and it might also sober up people, if you like, on every side. So I don't want to move ahead. I hope we can avoid a confrontation with Iran. whether any good or possible good might come out of that kind of confrontation. I don't want to test that possibility. Just say. Sparky says President Trump's potentially catastrophic decisions effectively illustrate what doesn't work in an unintentionally sarcastic way, which may be good long term.

Sarcasm is a good way to make a point. Well, yeah, but I mean, I'm not. favour of making bad or wrong decisions. I'm just pointing out that that's what Donald Trump tends to do. He tends to work his way through things because he's trying to do things that nobody has ever done before. And he does so with a background of inexperience. If he has experience, if he'd been a member of the political class, if he was subject to conventional thinking, he He wouldn't be Donald Trump. He would be trying these things.

You'd be Mitt Romney or someone like that. So, you know, you have to accept that in order to accept to have change, you sometimes have to have these unpredictable and destabilizing individuals who affect that change. USA Now says Trump thinks out loud verbally, similar to Alex Jones. Yeah, it's true. Very, very, very true. Boa Omega says Russia has publicly welcomed persecuted minorities to immigrate.

If you have money for new flats being built, if not old Soviet flats exist. Yeah, absolutely true. Sparky says, didn't Churchill say something about Americans getting it right after trying all the wrong things first? President Trump is very American. He is. He's very American, actually. He reminds me a lot of the Americans I remember from the 19th. when they came to Greece then.

He has that same sort of drive and energy and sometimes crudeness that I remember from the Americans at that time. People don't get this in Europe today. And a lot of the people on the, you know, the more sophisticated people in the United States don't get it either. But he is the most intensely American president I know of, at least going back to Reagan. Rutwich says, Alex, your take on Turkey and NATO is a destabilizer? No, I do think it's a destabilizer. I think Turkey is a semi-detached member of NATO that knows how to use NATO to its own advantage and has done so with incredible skill for the last, what, 60, 70 years.

Sir Mug's game says, Mee thinks Jamie Diamond said it best. America first is fine as long as it doesn't end up being America alone. Well, yeah. Interesting quote from Jamie Damien. All right. I think that is everything, Alexander. Let me just do a quick check and your final thoughts. Well, it's an incredible live stream.

I mean, Dennis Kucinich, as I said, for me, I mean, he's a living legend. I mean, he's somebody, I remember. He says he went all the, goes back all the way to 67. I remember him. I remember him through the 70s and 80s and ever after. So it's enormously wonderful to speak to him. And to hear him, and he's so. fresh and so much up-to-date and so full of wise words today but the Q&A afterwards was i think one of the

best we've ever had just to say so thank you very much to dennis kucinich once again i will have his uh substack in the description box linked down below uh chili pepper says recently russian deputy foreign minister andre rudenko told the duma that in case of a u.s attack on iran moscow did not have to help tehran what are your thoughts on that. No, I said, sir, I didn't, I said that this is not a security agreement, that kind of defence treaty. It doesn't pretend to be, but that doesn't mean that there aren't security provisions as well. And the Russians won't go to war for, on behalf of Iran, but they will support Iran in all sorts of other ways so that Iran can defend itself, which by the way is what

the Soviet Union did for India. Ari Hammond, can you type the question in the chat? You're saying I didn't get to the question. I know you sent the question about Star Trek, but was there another question? Just put it in the chat and I'll wait a minute or two, just type it in and we'll read it out. Let me look for it, Alexander. I think it was the Star Trek comment or question from Ari. The Ferengi.

The Ferengi, yeah. I don't know, maybe we didn't. Maybe I didn't read it correctly. Yeah, not sure. It's been a while since I've seen Star Trek. I don't know about you, Alexander. Ages. Ages.

Yeah, what happened to the Ferengi in Star Trek? That was the question. Yeah, well, I don't know. People, people who follow it better than me can answer the question. As I said, I remember they were quite busy, quite active, and all that. But as I said, what eventually became all of them? I have no idea.

Level 50 says the Klingons are having trade issues with the Vulcans. Yeah, that's it. Alex. What happened to the Ferengi? No. Yes. But I don't know. I simply don't have to be honest.

If someone in the chat help out? I don't know what happened to the Ferengi. Sparky says Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing once all other possibilities have been exhausted, attributed to Churchill. Attributed. probably not said by him, I should say. But he was a clever man. He made lots of clever, very witty comments.

But anyway, it doesn't sound to me like Churchill, actually. Texanomics says Zelensky is the head, Perenki. Well, there you go. And Boa Omega says, Grand Nagas Rome initiated reforms installed human rights. Yeah. Yeah. There we go.

Death Dealer says people keep treating the strategic friendship as a defense treaty. Yes, exactly, which is not the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership is not a defense treaty. It doesn't pretend to be. It does contain security provisions, but it is not a defense treaty. And Tanvir says the Ferengi got exterminated after a false flag against them. Oh, there we go. Questions answered. Great live stream.

Thank you to Dennis Kucinich. Thank you to everyone that joined us on Odyssey on Rockfin, Rumble, and where else. And YouTube, of course,

and thejadotlokles.com. Thank you to our moderators as well. and who was moderating myself, Peter, and I think it was just us too, actually, Peter. Brett, Brett was also moderating. So thank you to our moderators. Alexander, I believe your video will be up very soon, correct? Absolutely correct, yes.

What did you talk about, and we'll end this. Well, actually, I'll tell you briefly, negotiations, the state of negotiations between Russia and the USA. I sense that Trump is going definitely away from divorcing from Ukraine and Zelensky, and I think he's just finally had enough. That's my own sense. Well, I did with command the crossfire who says it should be a defense treaty in place of Dukes. Well, it could evolve into that.

It's not impossible. All right. Take care. buddy.