The Duran Podcast - US military fighting with militias in the Middle East intensifies

Episode Date: November 14, 2023

US military fighting with militias in the Middle East intensifies

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the situation in the Middle East. And let's start things off talking about the escalation outside of the war in Israel and then Gaza because we had another U.S. airstrike in Syria. This one, thisirstrike claimed to have targeted Iranians. militia who were operating, allegedly operating out of Syria and hitting the U.S. base, the illegal U.S. base in Syria. So that was what the Pentagon said. But it seems like these exchanges, these skirmishes between the United States and these various forces,

militias in Iraq and in Syria are becoming more. commonplace. And I think that's that's a very, very bad sign, given all the rhetoric that we've heard from the Biden White House about. If you, if you hit any of our U.S. resources, military bases, assets in the region, well, then we're going to, we're going to inflict the heavy price on you. And they're speaking to Iran, as they say these, these statements. So what are your thoughts on the escalation that's happening outside of the war in Israel, then we'll probably get back to the war in Israel as well. Well, I think the first thing to say is that in geopolitical terms,

in global terms, it's obviously the battle in Gaza that is getting the most attention, and it's understandable because we see the pictures every day. There's a humanitarian disaster there. This is a politically fraught subject. but I would actually suggest that in fact it's these fights these battles that are raging off behind the curtain if you like between these militias and the United States which are clearly intensifying that actually is the more dangerous and the more worrying event and you're absolutely correct the all the indications are that the fighting between these militias and the United States is intensively. The US, as you rightly said, has just launched another big air strike on what it claims is a militia base. There's now lots of pictures, if you really want to search for them, of rocket attacks and missile attacks on American bases in Syria, especially. You're absolutely correct to say that these bases should not be in Syria.

they've not been authorized by the Security Council in New York, in the UN Security Council. They've not been agreed to by the Syrian government. No political agency that has sovereignty over Syria has authorized the presence of these bases. So these bases are illegally present in Syria, and they're now becoming a bone of contention. They're becoming sites of actual battle. and the United States is retaliating by launching air strikes in Syria, which again are illegal. I mean, they're part of the United States is present illegally in Syria,

and these air strikes is launching in Syria are, therefore, by extension, illegal as well. The fighting, as you correctly say, is intensifying. And I saw a really troubling comment in one of Larry D. Johnson's pieces on Sonar 21, in which he said that somebody that he knows, who is, well, informed about these things. And here, by the way, I should say that I take this report very seriously. I am sure it is true. Anyway, he says that hospitals, military hospitals, US military hospitals are quietly filling with US soldiers who have been wounded in this fighting and that the fighting clearly is taking place at a much greater level of intensity

than the administration wants people to know. So already we can see fighting is taking place between the United States and Iran's allies, the US courts and proxies in the Middle East. The United States, as you absolutely correctly say, is issuing further warnings against Iran. latest statement that was issued by the US government, straightforwardly said that Iran is responsible for these attacks. It warned Iran to take tighter control over its proxies, and it made it clear again that the United States stands ready to retaliate. And we've discussed in the past

how there are people in the United States who are aching for an outright attack on Iran and we see more and more military assets being deployed to the Middle East which look to be the kind of assets you would want if you were

considering a military strike on Iran. So we've now had confirmed reports about the deployment of an Ohio class nuclear submarine. capable of launching 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

We know about this deployment because it had to transit through the Suez Canal, so it was visible as it transited through the Suez Canal. It is now apparently in the Red Sea, so it is moving into position where it would be capable of launching a strike upon Iran. And this is a very potent warship indeed, not one that you deploy casually and by the way

the United States has only four submarines apparently of this type and we've also seen more pictures now of A10 war-hawk ground attack aircraft being deployed and they've been deployed with all kinds of

weapons including apparently missiles and bombs that you would use to attack bunkers and again the suggestion is that they would be deployed against presumably Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah being seen by the United States as Iran's ally, with, of course, if there's a strike on Iran, the worry the United States would have is that Hezbollah would react. So we can see that all the pieces have been moved into place,

preparatory for some kind of a conflict between the United States. States and Iran. Now the United States continues to insist, the US government continues to insist that that is not its plan. There is across the Arab world a marked objection, hostility to this when the United States has floated this idea with the Arab states, even with its traditional allies. They've all made it clear that they don't want to see this happen. But what the United States, what the Biden administration is saying is not consistent with what it is doing. It's moving more assets, military assets of this nature towards Iran against a background of intensifying fighting. And of course, the Iranians are seeing all of this and one must assume

that they're taking counter measures. Yes, so I imagine the only thing that the United States is waiting on, or at least this is how it looks, is that they're just waiting for all the military assets to get into place. Yes. And then I imagine we could be heading into a situation where there's another attack on a U.S. base in Iraq or Syria, and that would be the trigger to set everything off. We are dangerously close to that point, and we're getting ever closer to that point. Let me say this again. Even if a political decision, to attack Iran has not yet been made. Even if, you know, there's argument and dissension about this within the administration, which there may be,

even if we assume that someone like, let's say Blinken, is opposed to this, which he might be. I mean, he's been going around the Middle East, he's been getting doors slammed in his face there, he probably has a better sense of the strength of Arab opinion than other people in Washington do. The mere presence of these military assets in the Middle East, poised to attack Iran, means that the temptation to use them to attack Iran is going to grow. And the pressure, therefore, from the people who have always wanted to attack Iran, is going to increase also.

And it's going to increase even more as the situation in Gaza itself looks increasingly as if it is becoming bogged down. So why doesn't Iran, if you are to believe what the U.S. is saying and these groups are run by Iran, they're controlled by the Iran state, why doesn't Iran just tell these groups, look, we understand that, you want to attack these these u.s. bases which illegally occupy Syria and that are present in Iraq but for the time being because things are so tense don't don't launch any attacks on these illegal U.S. basis. I think that is exactly what the way. Or maybe they don't control or maybe they don't control his militias. I mean once again, if we are to believe what the U.S.

is saying, that's why I'm asking, that's why I said, if we are to believe what the US is saying. Well, I think you, to a great extent, to answer the question, because of course the US and Israel act as if these militias are pure Iranian proxies, that the Iranian intelligence agencies, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, call controls, has tight control over these militias. It's important to remember, however, that they are malicious. They are not part of any regular army. That is also true, by the way, of Hezbollah itself. And it is a fundamental misconception to think that these militias have the same kind of discipline

that, say, a irregular military force has. And I am no doubt at all that the Iranian government is not looking for the most, for a war with the United States. And they've been sending their people to Beirut, to Baghdad, to eastern Syria. They've been talking with these militia people. All the evidence is that this is indeed what they're doing. And they're telling them, cool down, keep disciplined. Don't begin this fight.

And we had that speech last weekend on Saturday. last weekend from Hassan Lazralah, who is the head of the Lebanese Hezbollah, by far the most powerful. And he said, look, Iran wasn't involved in what happened on the 7th of October and wasn't consulted. We weren't consulted and we weren't involved. We are not looking to fight. He was trying, in other words, to exert discipline on his own fighters and on his own people. But of course, discipline like that is difficult to maintain.

And when fighting between malicious in this very tense and fraught international atmosphere in the Middle East begins, it may be very, very difficult for Iran itself to control its own allies and to exert the kind of discipline over them that the United States is demanding that it should. there is another factor which is of course Iran itself as we also know is not a political monolith

I get the sense that you know the supreme leader Ayatollah Hamene is not looking for a conflict with the United States the Iranian government led by Abraham Raizi is not looking for a conflict

with the United States but that doesn't mean that everybody in Iran within the leadership and political structures might not might you know might necessarily shares those views there may be some people you know in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard call for example that you know are also furious about what's going on in Gaza furious about this build-up by US forces still burning to revenge the assassination some years ago of their chief General Soleimani

and they might actually be looking for a fight with the United States so you know the Iranian government of you know itself may want to avoid a war but that doesn't mean it is able to control the situation right so the best thing they can do is

is prepare Yeah. And I'm sure that's what they're doing. And of course, the trouble is, you know, it works on the other side. Obviously, Iran doesn't have the scale of military assets that the United States does. But of course, the more they prepare, the more again, the risk of escalation increases. Because, you know, the U.S. will see all these forces. They'll see the missiles being moved to their bases. And we know that this is happening. They will see all of those steps being taken. And, you know, the U.S. will see all of those steps being taken. that will increase pressure in Washington from people there. They will say, look, the Iranians are taking all of these steps. That means that they have some aggressive intention. They're also attacking our people across the Middle East. So let's retaliate and let's retaliate hard before the Iranians get their blowing. So it's an incredibly dangerous situation.

And one which, you know, I think the Iranians get their blowing. Iranian government does have some control over it. But, you know, within Washington at the moment, I'm not sure that anybody does. And that's an even more dangerous situation than everything else we've been talking about. Well, the neocons in the U.S. are definitely saying strike first. Tim Scott in the debates the other day, the GOP debates, I think he said, cut off the snake of cut off the head of the snake, meaning Iran, it's strike first now. That was what Tim Scott said. So, I mean, the neocom thinking right now is, is dominated by this strike first at Iran mentality. Anyway, okay. So that's the World War III angle. Let's talk about what's happening in the war in Gaza, in Israel. What's happening there? I mean, it's essential to understand that these two things are connected with each other. I mean, the reason people like Tim Scott, and of course he's a Republican, but of course

the neocons are present in both parties, and they're neocons first and foremost before they are Republicans or Democrats. I always remember that. So, you know, the reason they are in such a strong position at the moment, in such a poll position, is because there is already a conflict in the Middle East, an armed conflict in the Middle East, in which the US is intimately involved, and that, of course, is the conflict in Gaza.

And one gets the sense, you know, this is a difficult conflict to read, because, again, we get very controlled information from each side. But one gets the sense, again, that this isn't going particularly well. General Scott, the new chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of the United States. He stopped over in Tokyo on Thursday and he was interviewed there by reporters and he said that what the Israelis are trying to do to destroy Hamas in Gaza is a very tall order.

So he didn't seem to think that it would be an easy thing to do from, in fact my own impression reading his words is that he didn't think it was an achievable thing to do. And apparently again, the Israelis are suffering losses. not huge losses, but real losses in both men and equipment. And I get the sense also that they've managed to, you know, encircle Gaza City by moving along the main roads. They've not really so far taken the battle to where Hamas is strongest in its own strongholds, which is, of course, in the urban areas.

And meanwhile, the fighting there continues, rather the bombing has continued. But what we now see is that the political pressure to ease off is growing. And we now have these humanitarian pauses, which is supposed to happen every day. I mean, partly the intention is to try to get people out of northern Gaza into southern Gaza. It's not clear to what extent that is actually happening. But when there are humanitarian pauses, the pressure to, extend them into a permanent ceasefire is inevitably going to grow. And there are reports of increasing dissension within the administration, within the US government, within state

department, within even the White House, White House aides are unhappy. People within the Democratic Party are unhappy. They're looking at the situation in Michigan and other states like that, where there's large Arab votes Arab communities that are key in tightly fought elections and you can sense

that both Biden and Netanyahu are feeling the pressure because both of them have again had to come out and say that for the moment they're opposing a ceasefire even though as I said the pressure is growing on

is growing all the time. And can I just say, I mean, it's not just political pressure in Israel and in the United States and in the Middle East, it's political pressure in all the European countries. There is now a major political crisis, which is just stirred up in Britain, in which the Home Secretary,

the person in charge of the police forces ultimately is now in conflict. That's a person called Suella Braverman, is now in conflict with the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. She wants to take a stronger line against pro-Palestinian protesters than the Prime Minister is happy about. There's calls upon her to resign. We've already discussed in a programme the major conflict there is

within the opposition Labour Party. It's now starting to break out within the Conservative Party also. And I'm sure that this is true. across Europe as well. I can understand why Netanyahu does not want to call for a ceasefire. He has committed himself to annihilating Hamas. He understands that if he calls a ceasefire, then that might turn into, if he calls a three-day ceasefire, that might turn into a longer ceasefire.

And perhaps there may be some sort of sort of, sort of, ramp to this war. And for Netanyahu, the person, the prime minister, Netanyahu, he faces all of these court cases. It's already understood in Israel that they're going to deal with Netanyahu when the war comes to a conclusion. I mean, that's already been stated. And so for Netanyahu, I can see the incentive for Netanyahu to avoid a ceasefire at all costs, his own personal incentives. And at the end of the day, we are dealing with people. Yes, people who are narcissists, who have huge egos, who are, some people could describe them as as psychopaths or crazies. But at the end of the day, these are people with motivations. And so I can understand Netanyahu's motivation

to avoid a ceasefire. I mean, if you think about it, okay, he doesn't want to ceasefire for X, Y, and Z reasons. The Biden White House is a bit more interesting as to why they just don't say ceasefire. Biden hates Netanyahu. So for him, if he can engineer Netanyahu out, for him, it's a win. Obviously, this is hurting his 2024 election campaign. We had CNN reporting that there's a cable that's making the rounds inside the Biden administration, which is saying that all of the Arab and the Muslim countries, they've told American diplomats that this is going to damage the United States for a very, very long time amongst the Arab and then the Muslim nations. So they're very, very upset. They're furious. And they even said that

this is on Biden. I mean, they've singled out Biden. They said that Biden is the one that fails to call a ceasefire and he's the ones that's supporting these war crimes. So, you know, you come to the question, I understand Netanyahu's personal motivations for avoiding a ceasefire. But it seems like the Biden White House has every single incentive, including Biden himself personal incentives, to order a ceasefire, to call for a ceasefire, to demand a ceasefire. Now, either the neocon, the hardcore neocon influence is so great that even Biden, who's a neocon, can't convince them to call the ceasefire. Or the other reason that I can think of is they need to keep the fighting going to a certain extent at a certain level in order to get the war with Iran. Or a combination of both, the neocons want the wars to keep on going. want Biden to not call a ceasefire in order to get to a war with Iran. I mean, I guess my question

is, you know, what's, why does, why doesn't the U.S.? Why don't the Democrats? Why doesn't the DNC, Sullivan, all of these guys? Why don't they say, look, if we're going to win 2024, we got to get to a ceasefire. We got to call a ceasefire. Well, I think there is, I think there is that realization within the Democratic Party, and I think there is a sense of crisis about this. In fact, I've been reading today in the British media that the Biden White House is having to push back now and say that Biden isn't actually going to step down. He's not minded. I mean, when a president has to start doing things like that,

then you can see that he's in serious political trouble. Now, how did they get into this mess? Because you're absolutely correct in what you said at the start. In the case of Netanyahu, he ought to have been a fully-neutral. known quantity. Well, everybody knows, everybody around the world knows about Netanyahu's political problems in Israel. Everybody knows how those political problems were massively compounded by what happened on the 7th of October. Everybody also knows about Netanyahu's long-term stances on security in Israel, Israelis, and his long-standing opposition.

to any move towards a Palestinian state. So this is something that the administration should have realized in advance. And yet what happened was that Biden went instead to Israel, embraced Netanyahu, who, as you absolutely correctly say, doesn't actually like him, and with whom he has had a history of bad relations and gave Netanyahu a blank check. Now, which Netanyahu ever since has been busy cashing,

as he was bound to do. Now, that was, well, we said it at the time, that was a bizarre thing to do. I mean, it was an incredibly stupid thing to do. Even if you wanted a conflict with Iran, you should have allowed yourself some kind of exit strategy, and the administration didn't. It just closed off.

The president didn't. It closed off its own exit strategy. It gave a complete blank check, a green light, to Netanyahu. In public, enabling him to do whatever he wanted to do in Gaza, and we see these comments from General Brown suggest that they are not going well. So why did it happen, and why, given the results,

are they not turning? it back. Well, I think one of the reasons it happened is because Biden himself, as you correctly say, is Amya Khan. He takes a very aggressive approach to all foreign policy issues. He's destroyed the relationship with Russia completely. He's created enormous tensions with China. And his immediate instinct when there was another conflict in the Middle East and one in Gaza was to take the near-con approach to back Israel to the hilt and to send all this huge military force to the Middle East to take on Iran now I think there is another factor as well which is that I think that Biden is out of touch and sees both the

world, the Middle East, Israel itself and the United States very much in terms of what he knew about these places 30 years ago. So 30 years ago, support for Israel across the United States was pretty much universal. A political leader could not lose by backing Israel to the hilt. And I think that he wasn't prepared. He didn't understand that. the mood, the ground within the United States itself has shifted and that in fact it might be politically damaging for him, electorally damaging for him, to do what he has done. He also underestimated the changes that have been happening in the Middle East as well.

And I suspect lastly, he probably overestimated the ability of the Israeli army to gain a rapid victory in Gaza because again he's thinking about the Middle East of 30, 40 years ago when of course he was in the Senate and he was dealing with all of these people he's still thinking in terms of those politics but of course the one part of his strategy his original strategy which is still functional up to a certain point is this possible war against Iran. He's got all of his military assets there. As you correctly say, in a kind of a sense now, assuming he does want or is thinking about a strike on Iran, keeping this conflict in Gaza festering at a certain level, as he might think, containing the political damage as he might

think not that he's doing that by the way but anyway keeping it sort of on the burn until he's ready to launch a strike on iran well i don't know whether that is his strategy or his plan but it is the temptation and given that we're talking about biden who always goes in the end for the most kinetic option has done so consistently i can't say i have any confidence that he's going to resist that temptation. Yeah, I agree. He's not going to resist at all. When we mean Biden, we don't necessarily mean Biden, the man.

We mean Biden the mechanisms behind the man and around the man, running the man. Anyway, all right. Well, well, that is true. That is true. But as I said, to the extent that he himself retains any capacity for decision making. He always uses it to pursue confrontation.

That has been the consistent pattern since he became president in 2021. We saw that with the Russians, we've seen that with the Chinese, and we're seeing it now with the situation in the Middle East. No, it's easy to convince Biden to go to war, to escalate.

I mean, it's very simple to whisper in his ear and move him in the direct, of conflict because that's that's where he has always tended to to position himself so yeah all right we'll we'll end it there the Durand not local yeah yeah go ahead no no I mean just to say a situation which actually is continuing to get more dangerous by the day and you know it may seem the things in Gaza are not quite as you know dramatic as they were In reality, if you look offstage, things are deteriorating and they're deteriorating fast.

Yeah. All right. The durand.com. We are on Odyssey Rumble, Hitch, Telegram, Rockfin, and TwitterX and go to the Duran Shop. 20% use the code. The Duran 20. Take care.