Pod Insights The Tucker Carlson Show Jeffrey Sachs: The Inevitable War With Iran, and Biden’s Attempts to Sabotage Trump About this episode Jeffrey Sachs on how Joe Biden has been the most destructive president in American history, and how Donald Trump can repair the damage.
(00:00) The Regime Change in Syria
(08:48) What Is Greater Israel?
(25:45) Were Americans Involved in the Overthrowing of Assad?
(37:26) War With China by 2027
(52:10) The Attempted Coup of South Korea
(58:20) Jeffrey Sachs’ Warning to Trump of Potential Nuclear War
(1:00:10) Will We See the Declassification of the 9/11 Documents?
(1:13:11) Will Trump Pardon Snowden and Assange?
Paid partnerships with:
Hillsdale College: Take a free online course today at https://TuckerforHillsdale.com
Policygenius: Get your free life insurance quotes today at https://Policygenius.com/Tucker
Liberty Safe: Promo code “Tucker” at https://LibertySafe.com/Tucker
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript 15,957 words · 6 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:00 Speaker 00 LinkedIn is pretty amazing at helping you grow your small business. We cannot stop your new clients from emailing you at 3 a.m. We can help you sell, market, and hire in one place. We cannot help you be in three places at once. And while we can't help you organize your calendar, LinkedIn can help you land more clients so you have a calendar to organize. Grow your small business on LinkedIn. Learn more at LinkedIn.com/smallbusiness.
0:29 Tucker Carlson? Well, first of all, thank you. So many things have happened in the last two weeks. I keep thinking, where's Jeff Sachs? I want to know what this means. So the most dramatic and, from my perspective, unexpected thing that happened was all of a sudden, the government in Syria changed. There was regime change in Syria. Who did that? Why? And what does it mean?
0:50 Speaker 02 Well, it's part of a 30-year effort. This is Netanyahu's war to remake the Middle East. It's been a disaster. It continues to be a disaster. But as Netanyahu himself said after Assad left, "We have remade the Middle East." And so it has to be understood as something that didn't just happen in a week, but has been an ongoing war throughout the Middle East.
1:20 Tucker Carlson? Welcome to the Tucker Carlson Show. We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere else. And they're not censored, of course, because we're not gatekeepers. We are honest brokers, here to tell you what we think you need to know and do it honestly. Check out all of our content at TuckerCarlson.com. Here's the episode.
1:49 Speaker 02 And maybe the right way to understand what's happened with Syria is to... Think back to a really remarkable occasion when Wesley Clark, the general who headed NATO.
2:02 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
2:03 Speaker 02 Went to the Pentagon just after nine eleven and famously he was showed a piece of paper that said, we're going to have seven wars in five years. And he was completely dumbfounded. He said, what does this have to do with anything? And he was told that the neo cons and the Israelis are going to remake the Middle East. And the seven countries on the list are very telling. They were Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and then in Africa Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. And seven countries, we've been at war in six of them now. And I mean, we, the United States,
2:48 Speaker 02 on behalf of Israel, including in Syria. And so what happened in Syria last week was the culmination of a long term effort by Israel to reshape the Middle East in its image. It started with Netanyahu and his American advisors in 1996 in something called Clean Break, which was a political document that the Americans and Netanyahu made when Netanyahu became prime minister. After nine eleven, it went into full gear with the Iraq wars being the first of those wars.
3:26 Tucker Carlson? Clean Break, what does that refer to?
3:28 Speaker 02 Clean Break is we're going to make a clean break of the Middle East.
3:32 Tucker Carlson? A break with the past.
3:33 Speaker 02 We're going to break with the past. We're not going to have land for peace, which is the idea that Israel would have a Palestinian state next door. No, we're going to have Greater Israel and we're just going to bash anybody that doesn't like it. And we're going to do that by bringing down any government that supports the Palestinians. It's a rather shocking amount of hubris. It has been, in my view, a complete disaster for the United States and for the Middle East. It has been Netanyahu's MO since 1996, actually, and he's been prime minister more than half the time since then. And the United States goes to
4:17 Speaker 02 war on his behalf. And what happened in Syria is the culmination of That effort. So, seven wars in five years. Netanyahu came to the US in nineteen, in 2002, excuse me, after nine eleven. Actually, he came in September 20th, 2001, if I remember correctly, and gave a speech that said, "There's terrorism, but you don't fight the terrorists, you fight the governments that back the terrorists. That's the idea. So, you go to war. You don't just have a kind of an anti-terrorism effort, you go to war."
5:01 Speaker 02 And the first of those wars was Iraq, but Syria was supposed to be exactly the next war. And the timeline was this remarkable idea of seven wars in five years. According to all of the understanding that we now have from lots of insiders, from documents, from the archives, what happened was, the US got bogged down in Iraq, there was the insurgency. We didn't move onward to the next war, which was to be Syria, which was to happen already 20 years ago. But in 2011, what really brought Assad down last week
5:42 Speaker 02 started under Obama. And, yes, and this is also interesting. It doesn't really matter who's president. This is long-term, deep-state policy. Obama ordered the CIA to overthrow Assad. So, that started in 2011.
6:04 Tucker Carlson? But why would Obama want to overthrow Assad?
6:07 Speaker 02 Because Israel has run American foreign policy in the Middle East for 30 years. That's how it works. We have an Israel lobby, we have this clean break strategy, we have a plan for seven wars in five years.
6:27 Speaker 02 And what's interesting is they actually kind of carry out this madness. They don't explain any of it to the American people. They don't tell anybody, but you can watch step by step. We've had six of those seven wars. The only one that hasn't happened is Iran. And if you watch every day now, the MSM, the mainstream media is pushing for US war with Iran. Netanyahu is pushing for war with Iran. They're really trying to get this started to make seven out of seven. But Obama, you know, for no particular reason, by the
7:07 Speaker 02 way, but he launched two of these wars on the list of seven. He launched the war to bring down the Libyan government, Muammar Gaddafi, in the fall of, or the war started in March 2011. And he and Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State, said Assad must go in the spring of 2011. I remember scratching my head at the time, saying, oh, that's interesting. How are they going to do that? Syria was a normal functioning country at the time,
7:48 Speaker 02 despite whatever you read, whatever propaganda is said, Syria was a normal functioning country. I recently dredged out a report by the International Monetary Fund on Syria in 2009 that praised the Syrian government for its reforms and its rapid economic growth and look forward to continued years of economic development. In other words, it was not this wasteland or this battlefield. It was an actual normal country.
8:24 Tucker Carlson? Was it a threat to the United States?
8:26 Speaker 02 It was no threat to the United States whatsoever, but it was deemed to be by Netanyahu a threat to Israel because of a simple reason, which is that Netanyahu wants to control
8:41 Speaker 02 All of Palestine wants to rule over the Palestinian people, does not want a Palestinian state, and that has led to militant opposition. That's led to Hamas, that's led to Hezbollah, that's led to other groups. Netanyahu's theory is, well, we're never going to allow a Palestinian state, so we have to bring down any government that supports those militant groups against us, because our core aim is Greater Israel. That's not much of a worthy cause, by the way. Having a Palestinian state next door and having peace could have saved probably a million lives by now over the last 30 years. But that's not Netanyahu's
9:26 Speaker 02 crazy ambition, which is-
9:28 Tucker Carlson? What is Greater Israel?
9:29 Speaker 02 Greater Israel means, depending on how crazy the people are, either, that Israel controls not only its geographic territory, but that it essentially controls or annexes the West Bank, the Golan Heights, which they've just enlarged, Gaza-
9:54 Tucker Carlson? Golan Heights being part of Syria historically?
9:56 Speaker 02 It was part of Syria. It's claimed by Israel, and now with an expanded territory, and East Jerusalem. So everything that was captured in 1967, Netanyahu explicitly said, "We're never giving that back." Now, there are two motivations for that. One, Netanyahu says, "Not safe to give it back," because he doesn't want to negotiate any kind of peace or any state of Palestine. Then there are religious zealots, I would use even stronger terms, who use-
10:37 Speaker 02 The Book of Joshua, which is 2,700 years ago, that said, "Well, God gave us everything from the river in Egypt," meaning the Nile, "to the Euphrates." And there are zealots in Israel, and they're in the government, who believe, "Yes, this is God's ordinance, we're gonna take whatever we want."
11:00 Tucker Carlson? So the Nile to the Euphrates would include what?
11:03 Speaker 02 Well, if you take the greater view of this, it would include Lebanon, it would include Syria, it would include part of Iraq, it would include part of Egypt. And some of these people actually quote the Bible and say, "We're gonna do this." And it's a little sad and absolutely terribly frightening. But I'd say the more narrow vision is what they call "from the river to the sea," from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. That's taken as a pro-Palestinian chant, but it's exactly the opposite.
11:47 Speaker 02 It is the greater Israel literal vision of the government of Israel. It's the literal idea. There happen to be 7 million Palestinians there, that's a minor problem. Maybe they can be ethnically cleansed, maybe they can be thrown out, maybe they can just be ruled in a military dominant way. Of course, probably well over 100,000 have been killed in the most recent war by Israel. Official count, 45,000 bodies claimed from the rubble, but we know that there are a
12:31 Speaker 02 lot more that have died since this war in Gaza began. But all of this is to say...
12:41 Speaker 02 This Greater Israel idea says we can't make peace with the Palestinians. So, anyone that supports the Palestinians is, by definition, a mortal threat to us. And when you have a mortal threat, you must destroy it. And so, this is the opposite of diplomacy. It's war. And as Netanyahu crowed last week, it's war to remake the Middle East. It's all spelled out, by the way, in very clear ways. But you have to dig for them. You have to find them. You have to understand that this is longstanding.
13:22 Speaker 02 You have to understand that each president has played part of that role. So, when we come back to Obama, he started the war with Syria in 2011. I can remember, actually vividly, the call that Assad must go. And I did scratch my head. I was actually, I think I was on Morning Joe when it was said. And I was asked by Joe Scarborough, "What do you think?" And I said, "Well, that's pretty odd. How's he gonna do that?" It turned out it was gonna be 13 years of mass war, 300,000 dead, and destroying a country. That's what it turned out to be.
14:06 Speaker 02 But Obama signed an order called Operation Timber Sycamore. People should look it up. You can find it online, but you can't find it in the mainstream media because it's not discussed. But it was a so-called presidential finding that the CIA should work with Turkey, with Saudi Arabia, with others, to overthrow the government of Syria. So, that was the plan. We went to war, we had...
14:40 Tucker Carlson? This is what led to Benghazi, correct?
14:42 Speaker 02 Benghazi is Libya, so Libya...
14:44 Tucker Carlson? I understand.
14:45 Speaker 02 Yes, but it was the same time in 2011.
14:49 Tucker Carlson? My understanding was the reason there were so many American intel assets there was because they were moving arms from Libya to...
14:56 Speaker 02 Oh, sorry, yes, if you say it that way.
14:58 Tucker Carlson? To Syria.
14:59 Speaker 02 One of the first things was to establish a rat line, so-called, from Libya to Syria, absolutely. And Seymour Hersh wrote a terrific piece explaining all of that.
15:12 Tucker Carlson? That was never explained. I mean, I worked at a news organization at the time that made a lot out of Benghazi and the death of a US ambassador and, you know, what was the Obama administration, you know, thinking? They were so negligent. But there was never any discussion about what they were doing there in the first place.
15:27 Speaker 02 No, none of this is explained, of course. This is... It's none of the public's business. This is our business. We're the war machine. You stay out of this. So none of this is explained. Interestingly, the whole Syrian operation, I think I counted right that the New York Times mentioned Operation Timber Sycamore, I think, three times in the 2010s. So a war that caused billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, CIA operation, covert action, links with Libya, never explained, never discussed. And even when the government
16:08 Speaker 02 falls last week, no background given. You know, we're supposed to have amnesia. We're not supposed to understand that what happens is the result of long-term plans that have been pretty disastrous. And, by the way, as I've said, Israel has driven so many American wars, and we say, absolutely, yes, that's our greatest ally. These have been at huge cost to the United States, cost of trillions of dollars, cost geopolitically, but somehow...
16:45 Speaker 02 We gave away our foreign policy to Israel years and years ago, and it's been absolutely devastating. And it's interesting to go back and watch Netanyahu speak to the American people. Go look at a video clip of 2001, 2002. In 2002, in October, he comes and testifies in the Senate. And there's a nice clip of him promising how wonderful the war in Iraq is gonna be. Because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. He says 100% certain. Complete lies, by the way, and they knew that they were lies at the time. And it's gonna be wonderful. We're gonna topple that dictator.
17:28 Speaker 02 And then dictators are gonna be toppled everywhere. And the young people of Iran are gonna rise up. This is his idea. Together with his US political consultants, together with neocons in the US government for the last 25 years. They have never apologized for dragging the United States into countless wars in the Middle East, spending trillions of dollars, running up US debt. And doing what? Creating chaos. So just to go back to the seven countries, because it's worth remembering. Lebanon, it barely exists as a functioning country right now.
18:12 Speaker 02 Syria, it's going to be picked to pieces. Don't believe... Well, it's obvious in what we're seeing every day. Territorial integrity, yeah. Israel's just invaded from the southwest into a deeper Syria. Turkey from the north. Russia has its area. The United States and the Kurds have their area. This place is just gonna be a battlefield for years to come. Iraq, we know what happened with Iraq. Trillions of dollars, a complete destabilization of the country. Look at the other three wars. The United States broke apart Sudan. Why?
18:54 Speaker 02 Well, Sudan was an enemy of Israel, so we had to break apart Sudan. So we supported the South Sudanese. Now we have the real trifecta. Massive civil war in Sudan and massive civil war in South Sudan. In other words, we broke apart the country and now there's civil war in both halves of the country. Somalia basically doesn't exist as a country. Libya, it doesn't exist. It's a battlefield. It's a war zone. So that's six out of six. And Netanyahu's crowing. Now we go on to Iran.
19:30 Tucker Carlson? Do you ever feel like you can't trust the things you hear or read? Like every news source is hollow, distorted, or clearly just propaganda, lying to you? Well, you're not imagining it. If the last few years have proven anything, it's that legacy media exists to distort the truth and to control you, to gatekeep information from the public instead of letting you know what's actually going on. They don't want you to know. But there is, however, a publication that fights this that is not propaganda, one that we read every month and have for many years. It's called Imprimis. It's from Hillsdale College in Michigan. Imprimis is a free speech digest that features some of the best minds in the country, addressing the questions that actually matter, the ones that are not addressed in the Washington Post or NBC News.
20:15 Tucker Carlson? The best part of it? It is free, no cost whatsoever, no strings attached. They just send it to you. Hillsdale will send Imprimis right to your house, no charge. All you got to do is ask. Go to TuckerforHillsdale.com and subscribe for free today. That's TuckerforHillsdale.com.
20:32 Tucker Carlson? The only way this stays a democracy is if the citizenry is informed. You can't fight tyranny if you don't know what's going on. Imprimis helps. It's free. Don't wait. Sign up now.
20:43 Speaker 03 Imagine if every time inverse Kramer or another top investor bought a stock, you bought it too, in your own brokerage account, automatically. Well, that now exists and it's called Autopilot. Built by the team behind the viral Pelosi stock tracker, Autopilot lets you browse their marketplace of strategies run by proven investors or AI-driven models. Just find one with a high return, connect your personal brokerage account like a Schwab or Robinhood, and every trade they make, you make automatically. Your money never leaves your own account. Autopilot just mirrors the moves. So now, no more guessing, no more staring at charts, and no more checking the market between meetings. With over $1.3 billion already invested,
21:26 Speaker 03 you can find Autopilot on the App Store or go to joinautopilot.com. That's joinautopilot.com. Investing has risks like the loss of principal.
21:36 Speaker 04 We all hear the radio ads about the IRS. They tell you to be afraid, to be scared, and they try to frighten you into calling. I'm not here to do that. Tax Relief Advocates is different. TRA is here to tell you that if you owe money to the IRS, whether it's $5,000, $50,000, or $500,000, we have a solution. It doesn't matter if you're sitting in your car, at work, or with your kids. No matter where you are, call now. 800-576-4705. Don't lose hope. TRA can eliminate or reduce what you owe to the IRS. Generous programs are now available that can give you a fresh start. Our passion is taxes and helping individuals fix their IRS problems. We have over 1,000 5-star reviews on Google and an 8+ with the Better Business Bureau. You don't need to be afraid of the IRS any longer.
22:21 Speaker 04 End your tax nightmare today by visiting us online at TRA.com or call 800-576-4705. That's 800-576-4705. Tax Relief Advocates. Real solutions for real people.
22:49 Tucker Carlson? Who's paid for all this?
22:52 Speaker 02 You have, I have, of course. This is, where does 28 trillion dollars of debt come from? We've paid probably 7 trillion dollars if you add it up according to Brown University Studies, for example. Something like 7 trillion dollars has gone into this. Israel couldn't do this for one day. Israel, Netanyahu, "We are liars." Yeah, right, you are liars, but we are the ones funding you, arming you, paying for all of this. That's the United States. And this is weird to me because we say, "Yes, to defend our ally." No, no,
23:34 Speaker 02 no. We're doing their foreign policy, which makes no sense, which doesn't lead to any peace, which leads to, basically, a war zone across the Middle East. And we say, "This is good for us?" Why is this good for us? What's the United States getting out of any of this? We haven't gotten anything out of any of this, except massive geopolitical isolation. The most recent votes in the UN, for example, put the United States alone, alone with Israel. And I shouldn't exaggerate, we have Micronesia on our side, we have Nowruz on our side with its 12,000 people, maybe a couple of other countries. The whole
24:17 Speaker 02 rest of the world is saying, "What is going on? Endless war in the Middle East." Well, this is because we're defending someone with some 7th century B.C. vision of what they want their country to be.
24:32 Tucker Carlson? Were Americans involved in the overthrow of Assad last week?
24:36 Speaker 02 Of course they were, because this has been an ongoing operation. Whether they were involved in the final days, I don't know. They were involved in the 13 years nonstop.
24:50 Tucker Carlson? I don't understand how...
24:51 Speaker 02 Actually, let me tell you an interesting story, by the way.
24:57 Speaker 02 The war started in 2011. It was portrayed, as always as the CIA does, as a local uprising and the Freedom Fighters. And it was said this was Syrians protesting against Syria. That's always how any CIA regime change operation works. There may also be local opposition, but the CIA provides the armaments, it provides the flow of heavy weapons, it provides the financing, it provides the training, it provides the camps, it provides the political organization. So this started in 2011.
25:42 Speaker 02 In 2012, there was already a bloodbath underway, and a lot of people dying, and a lot of civilians dying, and a lot of ancient historic sites, because this is the Fertile Crescent, this is the birthplace of humanity itself, of civilization, being destroyed. And so, a very senior global diplomat that I knew very, very well, was tasked with trying to find peace. "Peace, nice idea, maybe we don't need the bloodbath." And I met him in the spring of 2012, and he said it failed. And said, "Why did it fail?"
26:27 Speaker 02 He said, "Well, we had a full peace agreement, but it was blocked by one party alone. We had the different forces in Syria, we had the regional, but it was blocked by one." Who was it blocked by? It was blocked by the United States government. "Why?" "Well, because their condition was that Assad must go on the first day of the agreement, rather than a political process. Everyone else agreed on a political process, but the United States said, 'No, no, this is regime change, Assad must go on the first day,' and that was not possible." So that was the end of the attempt at peace.
27:08 Speaker 02 So, we should understand, this was an American operation.
27:13 Tucker Carlson? But I never understood, what I didn't understand, and still don't understand, is why we're all required to hate Assad? Speaking for myself, I don't have strong feelings about Assad one way or the other. Apparently, he's protected the Christians, so I'm grateful for that as a Christian. But I don't, why am I required to hate Assad? Tulsi Gabbard went and met with Assad. She's been attacked ever since. Has anyone ever explained why Americans should hate Assad?
27:40 Speaker 02 Because every regime change operation we ever do, we have to make sure that the opponent is the worst villain since Hitler or Hitler reincarnate.
27:53 Tucker Carlson? Some ophthalmologist from London is a bloodthirsty dictator. I never, I didn't really.
27:57 Speaker 02 We have to say this, and this is part of the psyops or the info war that goes along with regime change operations. This is completely typical. And we're told if we don't stop him now, it's only gonna spread and.
28:14 Tucker Carlson? He'll be in Des Moines.
28:15 Speaker 02 Exactly. This is, the Nicaraguans were gonna be in Harlingen, Texas, remember? You know, this is, this is standard fare. It's so pedestrian, such bad script writing, that you can't believe it's still rolling out.
28:34 Tucker Carlson? Why doesn't someone at the New York Times just ask the obvious question? Which is, why am I supposed to hate Assad exactly? Why is it somehow a test of my loyalty to the United States when I think of Bashar al-Assad? Like, who cares? Like, what, that's such a core question. I've never heard anyone ask that.
28:50 Speaker 02 Can I, can I laugh when you mention New York Times? Because they won't cover any historical background of any conflict at all. Because all of this is aimed at a free hand for the security state, a free hand for the military.
29:14 Tucker Carlson? But why would the New York Times be parroting the security state?
29:17 Speaker 02 Well, I think that's, that's a question that goes back decades, partly because it's staffed in part by. Probably people from the intelligence agencies. We've known that for years.
29:32 Tucker Carlson? Work at the New York Times.
29:33 Speaker 02 Who, who, we know in the past that CIA just had reporters on, on the payroll. I mean, whether they do or not now, I have no idea. So I'm not making a current claim, but we know that that's a historic fact. We know historically that the, with, with very rare exceptions, the New York Times has just followed the, the unnamed official sources, that this is the whole MO. This patriotic newspaper follows what it's told to do. And it doesn't ask questions. It has not asked any questions about any of these wars in recent memory, not about Ukraine, not about the, the wars raging throughout
30:18 Speaker 02 the Middle East. As I said, I think there was one full page actually about Operation Timber Sycamore in 2016. You would think that something that got us into a war of 13 years where we spent billions of dollars, where hundreds of thousands of people died, even at this stage, there would be a kind of page or a box explaining the historical background to this, but it didn't exist. I, I actually wrote, I have to say, I wrote to one of the reporters saying, couldn't you mention a little background? He said, oh, very interesting idea, Mr. Sax. So I'm waiting.
30:58 Tucker Carlson? You wrote to a New York Times reporter?
30:59 Speaker 02 Well, I, I know these people for decades.
31:01 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
31:03 Speaker 02 And, and by the way, I, not only do I know them and some I like very much, by the way, and some have been classmates of mine, long time ago, and they, they know things that they don't report. And that's also important to understand that what they will say in private is the opposite of what their newspaper says. And I, I mean literally the opposite. So that's very.
31:31 Speaker 02 Worrying to me because we operate foreign policy in secrecy. We do not have any kind of democratic oversight of foreign policy. There's no explanation of it. There's no accountability for it. It's in very few hands. It's not in good or reliable hands. It's not explained. We gave over Middle East foreign policy to Israel a long time ago, not to US interests, but to Israel's interests, that is, the Israel lobby. And we don't hear questioning of this at all. Of course, not from the government, not from the Congress, not from oversight by any democratic
32:14 Speaker 02 institutions, nor does the mainstream media, which fewer and fewer people are interested in because they don't get any facts from it, look into these issues.
32:27 Tucker Carlson? What happens next in Syria?
32:30 Speaker 02 Well, there'll be continued war, and now the drumbeat is for war with Iran. Anything is possible. Netanyahu dearly wants the US to go in and bomb Iran. Probably some of President Trump's advisers will feel the same. The incoming administration is a mix of old-school hardliners and people with a very different perspective, so there will be an internal battle for the heart and soul of the new administration. But there will be some who say, yeah, now's time to carry on the war.
33:11 Speaker 02 Hezbollah and Hamas have been weakened, Syria has fallen, the air defenses are gone, now we can fly and do in Iran. Of course, all of this is a profound delusion, and that's, I think, really important to understand. We've had six wars so far: Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya. Six out of the seven that were on the list shown to Wesley Clark. Not one of them has led to stability, to peace even, much less to geopolitical interests
33:56 Speaker 02 being solved. So...
33:59 Speaker 02 It's not like we're finding solutions to anything. Yes, it has allowed at unbelievable cost Israel to hold on to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and Gaza, as if that's some kind of grand strategic aim of the United States, or justifiable in the face of international law and nearly global opposition to such thinking. But it doesn't lead to any answers, and there's no way to quote "defeat Iran."
34:41 Speaker 02 Even if we went in and bombed Iran, Iran has strong allies. Iran has Russia and China as allies. Iran is part of the BRICS. Iran has a military relationship with Russia. Of course, we have even crazier people who think we're going to defeat Russia. But Russia has 6,000 nuclear warheads, of which 1,600 are deployed.
35:14 Speaker 02 It has its new hypersonic Erashnik ballistic missile, which travels at Mach 11. It has other hypersonic weapons. So yes, we have people in the US who, in their mental blindness, think about continued escalation all the way to nuclear Armageddon. They really do. They're very ignorant people, and they're around in high positions. And so when you ask what comes next, what comes next is whether...
35:59 Speaker 02 President Trump can change course. This is the most important question facing the United States. And there are several different factions in Washington right now that are fighting for ultimate say. There's a piece by Mitch McConnell, our octogenarian, who is completely living in a delusional past, who has a lead article in Foreign Affairs magazine calling for America to commit to primacy.
36:44 Speaker 02 And he calls for a massive military buildup to get ready for every kind of eventuality with Russia and China. That's the old school, and it remains very powerful. And it's got very powerful interests because it's the biggest business in Washington, about one and a half trillion dollars of annual spending for the military machine. And Mitch McConnell absolutely represents that. Then there are groups that say, you know, we don't really have any fundamental conflict
37:23 Speaker 02 with Russia, and Russia's no real threat to us, but China's the real threat, so we should end the war in Ukraine, something I completely agree with. But we should do it so that we build up and get ready for the war with China. And this is kind of the middle ground, which is...
37:46 Tucker Carlson? A war with China?
37:48 Speaker 02 Well...
37:50 Tucker Carlson? A country that manufactures all of our antibiotics.
37:52 Speaker 02 Ev- ev- ev- everyone is talking about war with China in Washington by 2027. And it's so weird as if we just are trying to rush headlong into complete destruction. But we have official documents, a Navy strategy saying we must prepare for war with China by 2027. We had a major article in the New York Times, which I actually, once upon a time, read with interest. But in any event, it was a story about the Pentagon preparing for war with China.
38:34 Speaker 02 And I, I wrote the reporter, actually, this is another, I know these people for decades. So I wrote the reporter and I said, "Thank you for writing that story. I was happy to read it now because there'll be no time to read it after the war. We'll all be dead. So I'm glad that we have the story now." And the reporter wrote back to me right away, said, "Oh, Jeff, the editor, I, I had put in three times that the Pentagon doesn't want this war, but the editor took it out three times, and I don't really know why, and I didn't notice that in, in the hurrying to finish the piece." Do you understand that?
39:18 Speaker 02 You're, you're one of our world's great journalists, a person writing a front page story about war, and she's written three times the Pentagon doesn't want it, and the editor takes that out all the time, and she didn't recognize that. That's the New York Times. I don't, I don't know even what that means, but...
39:37 Tucker Carlson? Well, that's when you quit. I mean, you can't allow that.
39:40 Speaker 02 This is so amazing, but, yes, there, so there is a group gearing up for war with China. It's unbelievable, nuclear superpower with a much larger army in their, on their shores. The whole thing is, is beyond belief. Then there is a group, there actually is a group.
40:05 Speaker 02 That says, hey, we don't need war with anybody. We're not threatened. The United States is more secure than at any time in history and any time that a country could be secure. We have two big oceans. No one can attack us. We have every amount of deterrence. China does not threaten us and could not threaten us. And so what are we talking about war this way? Why are we in war with Russia in Ukraine? And that is a US-Russia war, as everybody should understand. Why are we at war all over the Middle East? And that is a US war. We've got absolutely troops on the ground in the, I mean, we have
40:50 Speaker 02 troops on the ground, of course, but we have forces on the ground. They're often CIA or covert. But yes, this is our wars. We're paying for them. We're financing them. We're arming them. We're the intelligence, if you can use that word. Why do we need a war in with China? And so there are people who say, hey, why don't we make business, advance technology, actually have some attention to our economic needs, not go bankrupt in the process? And that group is also part of the Trump incoming team. And this is probably
41:34 Speaker 02 the most consequential question that a country could face is which of these different voices will prevail in this new administration?
41:43 Tucker Carlson? This time of year, we are focused on our families because we're apt to be with our families, celebrating together. And it's the time of year where you might ask yourself, what happens when you're gone? What's left behind? Well, protect your family's future and peace of mind with a product called Policy Genius. Policy Genius has one goal, to make it easy to find and buy life insurance. So your loved ones have something when you're not here. Something they can use to cover debts and expenses if something unex- Unexpected happens because unexpected things do happen. With PolicyGenius, you don't need to struggle to do this. You can find life insurance policies that start at $292 per year for $1 million of coverage.
42:28 Tucker Carlson? Some options are 100% online, and that lets you avoid unnecessary medical exams, which is always good. PolicyGenius combines digital tools with the expertise of real licensed agents. You compare quotes from America's top insurers side by side for free, and there are no hidden fees. Their licensed support team helps you get what you need fast so you can get on with your life. Join thousands of happy PolicyGenius customers who left five-star reviews on Google and TrustPilot. So, secure your family's tomorrow so you have peace of mind today. It's easy. Go to policygenius.com/Tucker to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. Again, it's policygenius.com/Tucker.
43:12 Speaker 05 It's me, the
43:16 Speaker 05 We don't need the jingle twice. Stop it. This is about vacation inflation and how Priceline negotiates amazing deals on hotels, flights, and rental cars.
43:27 Speaker 05 Yeah, but I didn't mention that you can save up to 60% off hotels in the Priceline app.
43:33 Speaker 05 Fine. No one deals more deals than Please stop. Touche.
43:40 Speaker 05 Priceline.
43:40 Speaker 00 LinkedIn is pretty amazing at helping you grow your small business. We cannot make your email response time faster. We can help you sell, market, and hire in one place. We cannot help you find space for your three-desk drinks. Why do you have three? And while we can't help you find the perfect volume for your presentation video, LinkedIn can help you find the perfect audience for your business. Grow your small business on LinkedIn. Learn more at LinkedIn.com/smallbusiness.
44:24 Tucker Carlson? I've never felt more uneasy than I have in the last few weeks during this period between the election and the inauguration. And it does, what doesn't seem like, it is a fact, that the outgoing administration is trying to accelerate conflict to leave the incoming administration in charge of a bunch of different wars, especially with Russia.
44:43 Speaker 02 I have to say, you know, my, I think the Biden administration has been the worst of our governments in modern history. And that's saying a lot because I'm a complainer. So I don't generally, I don't generally praise administrations. I'm a, like to think of myself as a responsible, tough grader. And I haven't given high marks to any administration from Clinton onward. I think they've all been failures. But Biden's administration has been a complete shocking disaster, which has brought us closer to nuclear war, brought
45:26 Speaker 02 us into more conflict, didn't have one iota of diplomacy. I don't count diplomacy, meaning you go talk to a junior ally. I mean diplomacy, meaning you talk to someone on the other side to figure out how not to escalate.
45:46 Tucker Carlson? To a peer power.
45:46 Speaker 02 And we know, you know very well, and you heard it recently from the Russian Foreign Minister, that our Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister have not spoken at all for years. This is the most mind bogglingly stupid approach to our security and survival imaginable. And as far as we know, and this is what, what, what Lavrov said in his interview with you, Biden and Putin have not spoken once since February 2022. It's just unbelievable.
46:33 Speaker 02 To not even speak, to not try to understand each other's position, to not discuss, to not try to find a way out, when now the most accurate assessment is that there are at least a million Ukrainians dead or severely wounded since February 2022, and the United States hasn't lifted a finger, not even one time, to try to talk to the other side. So, yes, this has been a shockingly terrible government. Biden, we don't know, really, you may know, I don't know whether he's compos mentis, I don't know whether the guy thinks,
47:14 Speaker 02 I'm told, till four in the afternoon, he can still function to some extent, I don't know if it's true, but Jake Sullivan, Antony Blinken, I regard as complete failures. Sullivan's job is our security. He's not made us any more secure, he's made us profoundly insecure, and we're getting closer and closer to nuclear war. And the only way we avoid that realization is to laugh away every statement, and President Putin said it again today,
47:52 Speaker 02 by the way, that we are absolutely mocking Russia's serious red lines. Is that really for our security, that we don't have a discussion about them even? And we're not. And everything, yes, is escalating. We see little fires being set all over the neighborhoods of these war zones, and it's not only throughout the Middle East and the drumbeat for war with... Iran, it's not only Biden authorizing the use of long-distance strikes into Russia,
48:35 Speaker 02 which as President Putin has accurately said and has not been denied by the United States, are actually US strikes on Russia. But this is incredible. How would we feel if Russia were attacking the United States? Would we say-
48:55 Tucker Carlson? And trying to kill the president, which we are trying to kill Putin right now.
48:58 Speaker 02 Would we say, "That's just fine. Don't worry if Americans are getting a little upset about that." But that's literally what Biden has approved. And then we see hotspots around, you have to be, you know, really into this to be following them, but in the country of Georgia, in the South Caucasus region, there's a little typical regime change maneuver that's been underway in recent weeks. It will not succeed, but the aim was to destabilize that region. The hand of the US is absolutely clear in that.
49:40 Speaker 02 We see in Romania, another bizarre episode where a presidential election was in its second round, and the lead candidate was saying, "We should end the war with Ukraine." And the Supreme Court of Romania annulled the election, claiming Russian interference. And so that candidate that was calling for peace could not win election. We're seeing those kinds of events all over.
50:12 Tucker Carlson? What are we seeing in South Korea?
50:14 Speaker 02 In South Korea, of course, we saw something that we don't understand that's also mind-boggling, which was an attempted coup by the president of Korea, President Yoon, who called out the military to surround and arrest the parliament. And ultimately, the coup failed and the president was thrown out of office. But why he made that coup is not absolutely clear. And the US reaction was- Bizarre. The US said, "We're watching with concern." That was all. It didn't say anything about restore the constitutional order,
50:58 Speaker 02 or we're against the coup, or anything else. And there was a glimmer of possible reason. I don't want to overstate any certainty on this, because this is, of course, also not analyzed properly or made public, so we don't have the information. But the week before the military action, the coup attempt, there was a visit by the Ukrainian Defense Minister for armaments from South Korea, something that the United States has been pushing very hard for. The United States has been trying to get South Korea to ship arms to Ukraine,
51:43 Speaker 02 because the US inventories are depleted. And South Korea, under its law, cannot do so, because it cannot ship arms to belligerents that are engaged in war. And the parliament opposed it. The parliament president does not have a majority in the parliament, or the former president, and the opposition opposed the armaments.
52:14 Speaker 02 So there's some possible relationship with this, that when Yoon declared martial law, he said that the opposition was siding with the North Koreans. That was his statement. And some read that as a way to clear the way for South Korea to enter the Ukraine war with massive arms shipments. I don't know whether that's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the case. Maybe we'll find out. It happens that the acting president was my first PhD student at Harvard now. So I go back with him 44 years, which is nice.
53:00 Tucker Carlson? Amazing.
53:01 Speaker 02 Yeah, just a coincidence.
53:03 Tucker Carlson? That's amazing. I meant to ask you, why did Russia stand aside as Assad fell?
53:11 Speaker 02 I think that it was a, first of all, a military choice because Russia is in the midst of a very tough war along a 1,200-kilometer front in Ukraine, and it did not want to divert any major military effort in that direction. Second, the approximate reason why Assad fell was that the main military backing of Assad
53:48 Speaker 02 was Hezbollah forces and the Iranian guard, and they had both been, especially Hezbollah, had been very badly mauled by Israel in the last month and a half and had pulled its reinforcements from Syria to reinforce Lebanese positions. And so Assad was left without the backing of Hezbollah forces, several thousand, which was the bulwark of his military. I think a third reason is that Russia doesn't think it's leaving Syria, that this isn't the end of the story.
54:31 Speaker 02 And immediately, the supposed new force in Syria, the HTS, said that it wants Russia to stay and to keep its bases in Syria. Russia has a naval base and a small one and an airfield, and Russia has redeployed its forces from within Syria to both of those bases, but is probably not leaving. So I think from probably a strategic calculus, Russia just regards this as a temporary step
55:10 Speaker 02 on a path to continued conflict and that this was not the time to get into another major front. Yes. And that would be my assessment.
55:23 Tucker Carlson? So we've got a little over a month between now and the inauguration. Clearly, as noted, the Biden administration is trying to make decisions that are evocable and deepen the war between the United States and Russia, and then all these other things. If you were the Trump people right now, before the inauguration, what would you be doing?
55:43 Speaker 02 Well, I would first be clear, we, under, under the Constitution, Biden is president until January 20th. I think it's right to say that Biden should not put America into further insecurity. He's done enough damage. And so I think it's right for every political figure to say to Biden, you're at the end of your term, and the world is very dangerous. You do not have a mandate to increase the danger. You should never have authorized the
56:27 Speaker 02 use of attackums and other US missiles in deep strikes into Russia. Stop further provocations now. So I hope that politicians of both parties, and I think President Trump can also make this clear, it's not to take over the government until January 20th, but Biden absolutely, in my view, is without the legitimacy to further endanger us. And they should prevent
57:08 Speaker 02 any actions from abroad that threaten American security, of course, but I don't see those happening. I think the biggest risk right now is continued US provocations of the kind that we've been discussing in Ukraine, in the Middle East, in the periphery of Russia, in the Far East. Stop any further provocations.
57:33 Speaker 02 The idea of somehow tying Trump's hands is completely illegitimate constitutionally and politically, and it's a disastrous approach. We're not playing a game of two people or a game of two administrations. We're trying to survive at a time of perhaps maximum global peril right now. So just to say, most experts that look at this think we're closer to nuclear war than we have ever been. And I refer often to the doomsday clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which
58:17 Speaker 02 is the graphic to demonstrate how close or how far we are from nuclear war. And that doomsday clock puts the clock at 90 seconds to midnight, which is the closest to nuclear Armageddon that it has ever been since the clock was first rolled out in 1947. So I think it behooves those people who are making the decisions in the Biden administration to stop imperiling Americans at this point and to understand that their job right now
58:58 Speaker 02 is to keep things stable, to give power over to President Trump on January 20th, 2025.
59:05 Tucker Carlson? One of the promises of the new administration is massive declassification, pardons for...
59:15 Speaker 02 Please, if it could only be. This would change so much.
59:21 Tucker Carlson? So one of the things that I'm interested in learning about is 9/11, because I think it's important to understand why that happened. And I think my guess is that one of the reasons so many documents from 9/11 are still classified 23 years later, it's hard to imagine why, is because they tell a more detailed story about why Al Qaeda struck the United States. And it seems clear it was a response to, and I'm not defending it, of course, obviously, but it was still cause and effect. And the cause was American foreign policy was response to that. Um, A, do you think that's true and B, if it is true, then how afraid should we be
1:00:04 Tucker Carlson? about future terror attacks, given what we've been doing?
1:00:07 Speaker 02 Well, let me say something about declassification. We had one and only one close look at the CIA in its entire history of the last 77.
1:00:22 Tucker Carlson? 1974.
1:00:23 Speaker 02 And that was actually 74, 75. It'll be the 50th anniversary this coming year of the Church Committee.
1:00:32 Tucker Carlson? Yep.
1:00:33 Speaker 02 It was the only time that there was even a partial look inside what the CIA had been doing. What they uncovered was a viper's nest of stupidity, evil, disaster, and of course, unbelievable unaccountability. They uncovered, of course, numerous assassination plots. They uncovered an absolutely shocking and awful program called MKUltra, which was a
1:01:15 Speaker 02 massive warped program to, for trying for mind control, where they took innocent people, vagrants, off the streets of Times Square and shot them up with drugs or drove them to suicide through sleep deprivation, every kind of shocking thing you can't even make up, and that made for great movie series like the Bourne series, which is about MKUltra in fact. Now, that was 1975. We've gone 50 years of.
1:01:57 Speaker 02 Further secretive operations, I've mentioned one of them, the timber sycamore. But that's one of many. I've seen many myself by accident because I'm not in the security field. I'm an economist. But I'm around lots of governments. I'm all over the world. I've seen coups with my own eyes. I've seen the US role in these coups. I've seen things that are absolutely disgusting, not because people are showing me secret documents. I don't even want to see those, by the way. I see them because I happened
1:02:36 Speaker 02 to be told or shown or walked around the Maidan soon after a coup overthrew Yanukovych. And people explain things to me, which I found completely awful about American complicity in all of this. I had a president in the Western Hemisphere say to me, Jeff, they're going to take me out. And I said, no, no, no, no, we're going to, everything's going to be fine. And they CIA took him out in broad daylight. And so we have no review
1:03:15 Speaker 02 of any of this. We have gone to war repeatedly on false pretenses. We have gone to war repeatedly in so-called covert operations. They're not covert to the people being affected. Well, that's right. But we just hear denials. We hear stupidity from, from the New York Times, a complete imbecility childishness that they don't want to ask any single question. What about the Maidan? What was the US government doing there? Well, it's easy enough to find out.
1:03:54 Speaker 02 What were the decisions taken in overthrowing various regimes? What about a number of assassinations that we have every forensic reason to know were?
1:04:10 Speaker 02 Conspiracies that the US never allowed to be understood. Whether any of this is ever found, I don't know, but if it is, it would change the course of America back to a true republic. Because what happened in this country is that we were overtaken by the security state. And we became a system of confidentiality and unaccountability. And it's a big, massive machine. And a lot of people are paid to keep quiet or to salute whatever the military industrial
1:04:51 Speaker 02 complex or the intelligence agencies are doing without asking questions. Because when you have one and a half trillion dollars a year spent on that, you're a pretty big business. And it has affected the universities, the think tanks, of course, the Congress, which asks no questions of any serious kind. And so, major, major events of fundamental significance for our insecurity take place without any truth telling at all. So, all of this is to say, it may be the most important thing that President Trump could
1:05:31 Speaker 02 do, would be to open up the historical records so that we understand what has really happened. Because we are 90 seconds to midnight. We are closer to nuclear war than ever. We have a military machine in the service of the Israel lobby, or in the service of the military contractors, or in the service of the deep state on its own, or for whatever other crazy idea. And we just don't have... Democratic deliberation or accountability about this, but we could. If we did, we would change the direction of this country.
1:06:14 Tucker Carlson? For 35 years, Liberty Safe has been the number one manufacturer of safes made in this country, American made, from start to finish. They make high-quality gun safes, I've got one, vault doors, home safes, handgun vaults, whatever you need to protect the things you value. And again, I can tell you from personal experience, these guys know what they're doing. I use Liberty Safes, the things that I don't want stolen, the things that really matter. My father's shotguns, the documents that I've gotta have, and a lot more. I'm not gonna tell you what else. But you need one. Primates are way up, and if you have anything you would like to protect, that you need to protect, Liberty Safes is the way to do it.
1:06:56 Tucker Carlson? Now Liberty Safe has over 350 dealers nationwide who specialize in delivery and installation and answering any questions you have. If you've got somebody to protect, they've got a way to protect it. Visit LibertySafe.com, pick out what you need, and be sure to use the code TUCKER at checkout to let them know that we sent you, they'll take care of the rest. Liberty Safe is a product we fervently believe in. With Liberty Safe, you are always protected.
1:07:23 Speaker 05 It's me, the
1:07:26 Speaker 05 We don't need the jingle twice.
1:07:29 Speaker 05 Stop it. This is about vacation inflation and how Priceline negotiates amazing deals on hotels, flights, and rental cars.
1:07:38 Speaker 05 Yeah, but I didn't mention that you can save up to 60% off hotels in the Priceline app.
1:07:44 Speaker 05 Fine. No one deals more deals than Please stop. Touche. Priceline.
1:07:51 Speaker 00 LinkedIn is pretty amazing at helping you grow your small business. We cannot make your email response time faster. We can help you sell, market, and hire in one place. We cannot help you find space for your three desk drinks. Why do you have three? And while we can't help you find the perfect volume for your presentation video, LinkedIn can help you find the perfect audience for your business. Grow your small business on LinkedIn. Learn more at LinkedIn.com/smallbusiness.
1:08:35 Tucker Carlson? Well, the system is designed with accountability at the heart of it. And we have oversight committees in the House and the Senate that are supposed to be making certain that the intelligence community, the IC, is operating in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. That's their job.
1:08:52 Speaker 02 They don't, they obviously don't do their job, but what they do is very interesting. Our system of government is, is actually rather ingenious. It's ingenious because you can buy a piece of government at very low cost. If the military industrial contractors just buy off a couple committees, that's enough because they're the only ones that have responsibility.
1:09:19 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
1:09:19 Speaker 02 If the health insurers just buy off the health committees in the House and the Senate, that's enough. If the Israel lobby just gets its hold on a couple of committees, they run American foreign policy in the Middle East. So what I have found to be ingenious about our completely corrupted political system is how inexpensive it is to buy your corner of the story. You don't control everything. No one controls everything, but if you want to control healthcare, it's a couple committees. If you want to control the military industrial machinery, that's just a couple of committees. And so there is no oversight, and there won't
1:10:04 Speaker 02 be oversight until there is public oversight. Nobody oversees themselves. And the idea that a few congressmen, and I know some of them, that they're really constraining anything that the CIA or the intelligence community does.
1:10:25 Speaker 02 No way. Let me, we've talked about it before.
1:10:29 Tucker Carlson? Well, they're puppets, they're puppets of it.
1:10:30 Speaker 02 Completely, and they're, they're funded.
1:10:33 Tucker Carlson? They need some scrutiny.
1:10:34 Speaker 02 They're funded by it, they're puppets of it, there are almost no independent members of our Congress. Everyone, almost everyone is on the take. Rand Paul is my one exception, I think he's the most principled member of our Congress in, in, in both houses. He really believes in, in honesty and small government and, and wants to know the truth. And give, I'll give an example of the complete lack of oversight and something we may know, and something we talked about, okay, where did that pandemic come from?
1:11:12 Speaker 02 The, the evidence is now overwhelming, though still not definitive, that it was made in a US lab. This is overwhelming, even the report of the House Committee that issued a report a couple of weeks ago says, yes, there was obviously a lot of cover up and, and a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of engagement of US scientists in this. And we know that the US government lied up the wazoo on all of the question of the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that made the pandemic and has lied until today. We know that the intelligence agencies know a lot that they haven't said.
1:11:57 Speaker 02 So this is another area, could we actually have some, some honesty? Could we actually have some transparency? Could we actually look at something where a pandemic took perhaps 20 million lives worldwide? Where'd that come from? Especially since the evidence is now overwhelming that it was a laboratory creation with US scientists and US funding playing a huge role in this.
1:12:28 Tucker Carlson? Do you think the new president will pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange?
1:12:33 Speaker 02 No, Snowden is a remarkable person. I don't know Julian Assange, I do know Edward Snowden. And he is an absolutely remarkable person. And, yes, he is a hero because he told us what the government was actually doing towards us. And of course, the security state, which really runs America, therefore immediately branded him as the worst villain. But we found out more from Snowden about the risk to our freedom than from just about anybody else.
1:13:13 Speaker 02 And Julian Assange, you know, I, almost every day, I invoke a memorandum that he enabled me to see, and you to see, and all of us to see, that explains the Ukraine war better than anything else. And Julian Assange deserves all of the credit for this. And it's also an interesting story, if I may just say. In one minute, our current CIA director, William Burns, in 2008 was the US ambassador to Russia.
1:13:55 Speaker 02 And when he was US ambassador to Russia, he understood completely, perfectly, that the US push to expand NATO to Ukraine was disastrous. Pure provocation, crossing Russia's red lines, likely to create a civil war inside Ukraine, and a possible war between the United States and Russia. And he wrote a memo back to Condoleezza Rice, who are Secretary of State.
1:14:29 Speaker 02 And the memo said that the entire Russian political class opposes NATO enlargement, and for real reasons. And that memo famously became known as "Nyet means yet, no means no, don't play games with this, this is real, this is a red line." Okay, something like this should be understood by the American people. We've just spent around $200 billion, we've just caused deaths of perhaps 600,000 Ukrainians on completely false pretenses.
1:15:11 Speaker 02 On false pretenses that as The New York Times has wrongly stated unendingly, that the war in Ukraine was "unprovoked." Not only was it provoked, the US provoked it, and not only that, our senior diplomats knew that, knew that at the time, and wrote about it. Now, this memo makes this perfectly clear. Anyone can go online and type William Burns "Nyet means yet" cable, and you will come up with this cable, and then you can read why in 2008, we knew that the deep state
1:15:48 Speaker 02 push for NATO enlargement was mind-bendingly stupid, dangerous, provocative, and likely to get us into disaster, which it did. How do we even see that memo? Do you think that a congressional committee called Condoleezza Rice and said, "Could we have the documentary evidence to understand the choices you're making?" Of course not, there's no oversight when it comes to security issues. We are already in a security state that has no resemblance to democracy whatsoever. But Julian Assange enabled us to see it.
1:16:29 Speaker 02 So we have to express gratitude for that. This is the truth. If you don't want leaks, don't have a world run where every consequential fact is hidden from the American people, and it enables one disaster after another. And just to make clear how disastrous this is...
1:16:53 Speaker 02 Bill Clinton, who was, in my view, a completely ineffectual president and a long list of ineffectual presidents, came to office in 1993 when the doomsday clock was at 17 minutes from midnight, meaning that it was the farthest away from nuclear war in the whole history of the nuclear age. Every single president, starting with Clinton, brought the doomsday clock closer to Armageddon. So, we went from 17 minutes to midnight to 90 seconds to midnight with no accountability or explanation at all.
1:17:33 Tucker Carlson? Do you think it's fair to say that anyone who opposes pardons for Ed Snowden and Julian Assange should be looked at with suspicion or is actually an enemy of the country?
1:17:47 Speaker 02 Well, I think that they may just be ignorant or don't understand, or maybe they're New York Times readers. In other words, there are a lot of people who really don't understand the situation right now, don't understand how dangerous it is, don't understand how lawless it is, don't understand how we're driven by these long-term aims that are absolutely disastrous. I thank Mitch McConnell, by the way, for writing his essay that the goal is primacy.
1:18:21 Tucker Carlson? Too late.
1:18:23 Speaker 02 If our goal is primacy and we pursue that like this octogenarian who can barely function anymore says we should, we'll all get blown up. We'll move from 90 seconds to midnight to 60 seconds to midnight to 30 seconds to midnight and goodbye. Because we can't have a world where the United States says, "We're in charge of everything." If you aim that way, we will end up with World War III that will not go well.
1:18:54 Tucker Carlson? Well, we're begging South Korea for munitions, so the truth is, we don't have the power to affect that anyway.
1:18:59 Speaker 02 But, you know, this is the interesting thing.
1:19:04 Speaker 02 Already, you could know, back in 2014, don't overthrow the Ukrainian government. You could know in 2015, honor the Minsk agreement that would end the war. You could know in 2021, negotiate with Russia because actually, Ukraine, I won't even say Ukraine, the United States cannot win a war in Ukraine against Russia. We knew that, but these are not clever people. Jake Sullivan's not a clever person. They don't understand, they're like terrible poker players that somehow are sitting at,
1:19:49 Speaker 02 you know, the grand slam of poker, they don't know what they're doing. And they're bluffing, and they're betting, and they're doubling down with our money, by the way, you know, and so, yes, you could know this primacy thing. Come on, this is, what does it even mean in a world of multiple nuclear superpowers? What does it even mean? It means we just ignore all of that till we're all blown to smithereens? No, but, you know, Mitch McConnell's barely functions anymore. But he's got the big story in foreign affairs about how we need to preserve primacy.
1:20:28 Speaker 02 So, there's a lot of momentum and ignorance and deep state arrogance. Who the hell are you to tell us, you don't even read the secret files, you know? This is really where we have been for a very long time. Since 1991, the deep state, the CIA and others have been trying to defeat Russia. Since 1991, Netanyahu's been with American military, remaking the Middle East. It's been a disaster on both fronts. It's made America drastically less secure.
1:21:10 Speaker 02 But they continue this group in power, and there's a chance.
1:21:16 Speaker 02 That President Trump could change this. This is the most promising single reality of his government if he chooses rightly. He has to understand he's got a completely divided team and he's got a completely divided landscape in Washington. And I think he knows the deep state is not going out with a whimper. It's gonna fight for its prerogatives.
1:21:46 Tucker Carlson? Are people you know worried about a terror attack in the US?
1:21:50 Speaker 02 I don't know. They don't tell me and I'm frankly, myself, more worried about World War III.
1:21:59 Tucker Carlson? Yes. So you said the president has assembled a divided team. One person who I think is pretty close to his stated objectives on foreign policy is Tulsi Gabbard.
1:22:10 Speaker 02 Yes.
1:22:11 Tucker Carlson? Who he's nominated to be Director of National Intelligence. The entire Senate Intelligence Committee appears to be against her, I think every member.
1:22:19 Speaker 02 And that shows that she is completely on the right side.
1:22:22 Tucker Carlson? Well, that's exactly right. Do you think she'll make it? How important is it that she make it?
1:22:28 Speaker 02 She's probably, and I don't want to jinx anything, she's probably the most important appointment of the Trump administration.
1:22:35 Tucker Carlson? It does seem that way.
1:22:36 Speaker 02 She is incredibly intelligent, incredibly honest, incredibly committed to US security, and would do a superb job. So that's why she's being opposed. Because the forces that be, that are worse than mediocre, that are right now on top of a $1.5 trillion a year machine, that have been running disastrous wars, that have been bringing us closer and closer to doom, don't want any accountability.
1:23:16 Speaker 02 And what Tulsi Gabbard would represent is competence, honesty, forthrightness, and not having been a party to all these failures.
1:23:30 Tucker Carlson? So if you're the incoming administration, how hard do you fight for her nomination?
1:23:34 Speaker 02 Well, she's critical because this is the most important question facing the United States today. We have many important questions. We have major financial, social, political, economic, institutional questions. But the most important question facing us is, is a country that potentially is more secure than any country in the history of the world going to do itself in by a self-provoked World War III? And we're on that course. And five presidents have been on that course through their incompetence and their obedience to
1:24:15 Speaker 02 an unaccountable deep state. And President Trump is coming in saying that he's going to change direction. He says every day that he wants to be president of peace. By the way, I think the greatest thing that could happen is four Nobel Peace Prizes for President Trump. He could end the war in Ukraine. He could end the war in the Middle East, not by bombing Iran, that would do the opposite, but by enabling a two-state solution in the Middle East and the wars would all end. He could end the talk of the war in East Asia,
1:24:55 Speaker 02 which would be the utter disaster and folly, by recognizing that we shouldn't be meddling in China's internal affairs, and Taiwan is an internal affair of China. And he should be restoring a framework of nuclear arms control. I'd give him four Nobel Peace Prizes for that. If he chooses that direction, he'll be the most consequential president in our modern history, perhaps in our history, because he will reestablish security for the American people. If he follows the hardliners, we're just, he's just gonna add yet another years of bringing us closer to doom.
1:25:38 Tucker Carlson? How is the Ukraine war settled?
1:25:41 Speaker 02 The Ukraine war is settled, literally, in one call, just as he says, because all he has to do... Really, all he has to do is pick up the phone and call President Putin and say, "You know, that 30-year effort to expand NATO to Ukraine and to Georgia was ridiculous, unacceptable, unnecessary provocation, and it's led us to this juncture. I'm against it. I'm gonna say it publicly. We're gonna end this adventurism, and you stop fighting
1:26:21 Speaker 02 today." And the fighting will stop that moment, actually. Then there will be details, and the details are where the borders will be drawn exactly. But the war will end. The war will not end, by the way, by saying, "Let's have a ceasefire." That's a meaningless statement, as you heard repeatedly from Foreign Minister Lavrov, and as I know and as that anyone thinking about this knows, this isn't about a ceasefire. This is about a cause of this war. And the cause of this war is that Russia does not want the US and its missile
1:27:03 Speaker 02 systems on its 1,200-kilometer border with Ukraine right now. And Biden was so stupid, and I'm using the term, of course, it sounds, I don't know how it sounds, but it's true, that he couldn't say that and avoid the war. There was obvious how to avoid this war, obvious how to avoid this war. But Biden couldn't do it. He's, that's why I say he's been such a terrible president. And I think that President Trump wants to do it this way. Now, again, he's got people around him of many different views. Some say, "Promise
1:27:48 Speaker 02 him, just ask for a ceasefire. Freeze the conflict. Armistice. Korean solution, 1953." This is completely beside the point. Russia isn't gonna freeze the conflict. It's actually winning on the ground. But why is it fighting? It's fighting because it does not want this regime, which was installed by the United States in 2014, to have US...
1:28:16 Speaker 02 Bases NATO, US weapons and missile systems on its border. And the fact that Biden just proved the point by saying, yeah, we'll fire the missiles into Russia. Make it all the more clear why they're concerned about this. This isn't an idle threat. This isn't some dumb thing. This is they're being hit right now by US missile systems, by US, by US personnel firing these missile systems. So it's not an idle threat. So people who say freeze the conflict, they don't get it. People who say, and there was an initial statement, NATO will not enlarge for at least X years.
1:29:01 Speaker 02 Somebody said 10 years, somebody said 20 years. This is also completely ridiculous. Then another idea, well, we'll give Russia this territory, Donetsk and Lugansk and maybe Kherson and Zaporizhzhya and Crimea, but all the rest of Ukraine will be part of NATO. Of course not. It's the same deal. This is ridiculous. So if you understand what this is about, where it came from, why it continues to this moment, there is one phone call that ends it, which is get to the underlying cause of the war.
1:29:40 Speaker 02 The underlying cause of the war, going back to a decision that Bill Clinton made in 1994, is the decision to expand NATO to Ukraine. And by the way, they want to expand it to the South Caucasus, to Georgia, which is also in turmoil right now. It's very interesting, Tucker, that Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled this out to the letter in 1997. And it's fascinating to read his account. All wrong. He got it completely wrong, but he spelled it out.
1:30:21 Speaker 02 And what he said was in his book, The Grand Chessboard in 1997.
1:30:29 Speaker 02 We should expand NATO eastward. We should expand Europe eastward. And we should ask the question, what will Russia do? Russia won't like it. So Brzezinski spends a whole chapter, what will Russia do? And he asked the question, well, could Russia ever align with China? Nope, that's not gonna happen. Uh, could Russia ever align with Iran? Nope, that's not gonna happen. Uh, Russia's only choice is to exceed to the US action. So in 1997, it was perfectly clearly understood. What is the strategy? What are we gonna do?
1:31:14 Speaker 02 And what will happen? The only problem is, it was wrong. This is the only problem. He got it completely wrong. And you can go back and to his credit, he wrote his prediction. It's wrong. But why are we still playing that game until today? Why did Biden exactly continue on that failed course? Because he's a failure. That's why. Because he didn't understand. Because he's surrounded by mediocrities at best.
1:31:47 Tucker Carlson? The Biden administration has tried to kill Vladimir Putin. Um, that's a fact, I think. Um, and they funded separatist groups within Russia, probably going back before Biden.
1:31:57 Speaker 02 Well, this has been, by the way, CIA ops to, to have separatist groups everywhere. And it fascinating, just if I could mention, because it's, it's almost humorous. Except that it's so tragic. There was a, I don't remember the exact name, but something around 1998 called the Chechnya Friendship Committee. Chechnya, okay. Burning issue for the United States? I dare one in a million of your listeners to know exactly where Chechnya is and its history. Because who knows? Who cares? But if you look at the Chechnya Friendship Committee? It was the blue ribbon committee of American neocons. This big Brzezinski, right there.
1:32:42 Speaker 02 Everyone that wants the hard line. Why? They couldn't care for one iota.
1:32:50 Speaker 02 Of a moment about Chechnya, of course not. They wanted to break up Russia. Everything is antagonism.
1:32:59 Tucker Carlson? So they fund Islamic extremism.
1:33:01 Speaker 02 So they funded the jihadists everywhere. And by the way, it's not even, it's, we made al Qaeda, I think everyone understands this. We made Osama bin Laden. We made this, the overthrow in Syria where they're saying, oh my God, it's HTS. Why do you think this was what Obama tasked in 2011, 12? Jihadists.
1:33:28 Tucker Carlson? So what would happen if they succeeded in killing Putin? I mean, what? I don't understand why that would be in America's interest to have 6,000 nuclear warheads unsecured floating around in a country that's 20% Muslim and very complicated. And like, that seems like the last thing that you would ever want to do. When he's the most pro-Western leader in Russia.
1:33:53 Speaker 02 Let me address it in a, in a little bit different way. In the last year, the leaders of Hamas wanted to make peace with Israel. And their political negotiator was a man named Hania. What did Israel do when the peace feelers came out? They assassinated him to make sure that there would be no attempt by Hamas to make peace. Nazrullah of Hezbollah.
1:34:29 Tucker Carlson? For real?
1:34:31 Speaker 02 For real. They, that he's the one that they killed at the inauguration of.
1:34:35 Tucker Carlson? Yes, I remember, but that was after.
1:34:38 Speaker 02 He was the political negotiator for Hamas. And they wanted to try to find a peace. Israel. Hates the idea that there would be negotiations with Hamas, the ideas to remake the Middle East through war, not through a peaceful negotiation. Then Nasrullah in Hezbollah wanted to make peace with Israel. What did they do? They killed him, of course. This is, this is a basic point. Kill the peacemakers. This is very important to understand.
1:35:22 Speaker 02 You assassinate the people that might want to negotiate. And we, this is-
1:35:28 Tucker Carlson? This was something that JFK learned, I think, the hard way.
1:35:31 Speaker 02 Well, this is the modus operandi of the CIA, and it's the modus operandi of Mossad, and it's the modus operandi of this deep state, which is, you're not aiming for peace. You're aiming for primacy. You're aiming for dominance. You're aiming to remake the region in your image. You're resisting any call for compromise. Yitzhak Rabin, when he wanted to make peace, he was assassinated. Killed the peacemakers. But what we know is that this is state action. We know this in the United States.
1:36:15 Speaker 02 Killed the peacemakers. We know it of Mossad. Rise and kill. And they've done it repeatedly in front of our eyes. So it's not the harshest enemy you try to kill. It's the one that threatens you not with war, but with diplomacy. That's what they dislike. They don't want peace. They want primacy. This is really a different thing. Where is it getting us? Since the whole thing is completely delusional, it's getting us closer and closer to nuclear annihilation.
1:36:49 Speaker 02 How could anyone think you'd kill the president of a nuclear superpower? Of course, it's, it's the most mind-boggling, wrong-headed idea. I have no information about that. I, what I do have information about is the ones that they actually kill. By the way, I also know through lots of, lots of discussions, and I can't go into all of them, because I just have been lucky to have fascinating discussions. Iran has been asking for peace
1:37:28 Speaker 02 and for reaching out to the Biden administration for the last two years. How do we take that? Oh, they must be vulnerable. Now we must kill them. That's the idea. It's so weird.
1:37:42 Tucker Carlson? Iran is reaching out for peace now?
1:37:44 Speaker 02 Iran has been for two years. There have been, I talked to an intermediary recently. I have talked to many diplomats in, in the last, in, in, in most recent months. By the way, there's an astoundingly, oh my God, an astoundingly insightful episode that was reposted of PBS NewsHour with Robert McNeil interviewing Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock in 1994. So this is the 30th anniversary of this show. And the show was on NATO enlargement.
1:38:26 Speaker 02 And Matlock, who was the US ambassador to the Soviet Union and a wonderful diplomat and a very, very smart, fine man, was saying in 1994, "Don't provoke. We have peace now. Don't expand NATO. We've said we won't, we shouldn't. And if Russia ever becomes belligerent again, of course, we would reconsider and, and take action. But right now, there's no belligerency. There's, there's no reason to provoke." Kissinger...
1:39:01 Speaker 02 Is incoherent, actually, which is unusual. But Robert McNeil kind of can't even fathom what Kissinger is saying until Kissinger finally stumbles out with the statement, and I won't get it exactly right, but he says something to the effect, "If you can't provoke Russia when they're weak, how are we going to provoke them when they're strong?" And it's just such a weird idea, that there's no moment when you could actually try to make peace, because if they're weak, definitely don't make peace, because if you try not to provoke them then, well, then you won't be credible when they're strong.
1:39:44 Speaker 02 And so the idea is you always must be aggressive. So Kissinger was saying in 1994, "Of course, we need to expand NATO." And yes, Russia won't like it, but they're weak now, so they can't resist. Later on, by the way, he came to understand that expanding NATO to Ukraine was just too far. He actually did reach that understanding in 2015. But watching him in 2004 is very interesting, because 2004 was the year that the decision was made. And this is also something very important to understand about our foreign policy. It's not that a president comes in, and then we have a new foreign policy, and then another president, we have a new foreign policy.
1:40:28 Speaker 02 These things are very deeply set courses. These wars in the Middle East go back 30 years. This war against Russia actually goes back to 1945, at the end of World War II, but in the current version goes back to 1991, and by plan, to 1994, when Clinton laid out the NATO enlargement. And then Brzezinski spelled it out for the public in 1997, but it was decisions already taken. So we can watch Kissinger in 1994 explaining, "Yeah, Russia's weak, take advantage of them. This is the time to take advantage of them."
1:41:12 Speaker 02 This is what gets us into such unbelievable insecurity. We could be the safest people in the world in history. No one could conceivably attack us, and yet we're 90 seconds to midnight.
1:41:26 Tucker Carlson? Do you have any expectation that will change?
1:41:30 Speaker 02 I'm counting on President Trump to change this. I think his instinct is right. I think his sense is right. I think he doesn't like war. I really do. You know, he
1:41:44 Tucker Carlson? Oh, he doesn't.
1:41:44 Speaker 02 He displayed that in the first term.
1:41:49 Speaker 02 And he said that repeatedly now. This is the best thing we have going for us. Now, in his first term, he hired a lot of very irresponsible people that like war or that like duplicity or that like the deep state or that like accountability, unaccountability, like John Bolton, one of my least favorites among all of these.
1:42:16 Tucker Carlson? Fair.
1:42:17 Speaker 02 And Trump hired them. So the question now is
1:42:25 Speaker 02 probably not his deep sense, which I think is absolutely right. But now his tactical sense inside the US government. Please don't let the deep state continue on a path that it's been on. And don't let the normal hardliners, because Washington is filled with people who have been on the payroll of the military industrial complex their whole careers. Don't let them dominate policy. And the incoming administration is such a mix right now. And we see that the clarity of those who want to control this,
1:43:10 Speaker 02 how hard they're being, you know, how harshly they're being opposed, like Tulsi Gabbard. Or, let me say, Bobby Kennedy, though. His department is health. But he understands this peace side as well, very clearly. These are the ones that they're fighting because we have been for I'd say, again, thirty years at least, and arguably, basically eighty years since the end of World War II, on a particular jag, which, at least Mitch McConnell does us the service of naming by its name, which is primacy. And if we continue on that course,
1:43:55 Speaker 02 Trump will fail, and the United States will be gravely endangered. And if he reverses that course, he stands to be a great and historic president.
1:44:05 Tucker Carlson? Because there's so much at stake, you sort of wonder what the people who oppose that kind of reform would do. I mean, the national security state has been willing, eager, to use violence abroad, again and again and again, murdering people. As I said, trying to murder Putin. Would they, or are you concerned that they would be willing to use that domestically?
1:44:25 Speaker 02 I think there's no doubt that they've used assassinations at home. I'm of the view that JFK was the first clear case of that at home. This is a long, long story, and some people roll their eyes at it, but I've spent much of my life reading, studying, examining this. I think it's quite arguable for Bobby Kennedy the same way, and I don't think that there have been scruples inside about keeping prerogatives.
1:45:03 Speaker 02 At the same time, the situation is better now in one regard. Thirty years of failure. So it's not as if the course that we're on is giving us these great benefits. The United States needs to change course for our own security. We need to change course for our own finances. We're not in good shape in this country.
1:45:35 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
1:45:35 Speaker 02 When seventy-five percent or so of Americans repeatedly say, "America's on the wrong track," they're correct at that. And they say that now. That's the latest gallop. Findings, and they're completely right. So this is not the exuberance, and I would say the hubris of 1991. And I was there then as economic specialist and an advisor, unpaid and informal, but an advisor to President Gorbachev and an advisor to President Yeltsin and an advisor
1:46:17 Speaker 02 to Ukraine's President Kuchma on how to stabilize their desperately destabilized economies and how to move to market systems. And the United States was not interested in peace. We had this hubris that history had ended, we had won, and now America would run the show. The difference today is that we're 33 years after the end of the Soviet Union. We tried the neocon approach for 30 years now. We have engaged in all of Netanyahu's wars.
1:46:59 Speaker 02 We went to war in Ukraine. Everything that was predicted has been proved wrong. The neocons failed time and again. They didn't remake Afghanistan. They didn't remake Iraq. They did not remake the Middle East. They did not call Putin's bluff and enter Ukraine with NATO. They did not enter Georgia with NATO. They completely misjudged how we would push the rest of the world into unity, as I mentioned
1:47:41 Speaker 02 with Big Brzezinski, saying Russia will never side with China on this. Well, of course, he got wrong. The most fundamental diplomatic change of our age, the rise of China and the creation of a group that does not want US hegemony and a group that is increasingly integrated in production and military and security and diplomacy. So... We are at a time where the failures are self-evident if people open their eyes and the American people know it in fact, so it's not even convincing the American people,
1:48:20 Speaker 02 "Oh, it's worse than you think." No, they know. They want their own problem solved.
1:48:27 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
1:48:27 Speaker 02 How about jobs, some housing, reduce crime in my neighborhood, keep the inflation down, could you keep the debt from destroying American public finances? They're not interested in Mitch McConnell's primacy continuing. He's an octogenarian, go, done, you're done. It's time for something different. So in this sense, it's really possible for this administration, this incoming administration to change course because it doesn't require a massive public education. It requires honesty, it requires seeing down the deep state internally,
1:49:08 Speaker 02 it requires making sure that the key appointments that want competence, honesty, and security for America actually get the job. And of course, it requires President Trump following through on his profound main insight, which is that there is no reason for war with Russia, there's no reason for war with China, and I want him really to know, really to know, there's no reason for war with Iran. None.
1:49:41 Tucker Carlson? But every week, every day, Fox News tells me that there's some assassination attempt by Iran, they're sending drones from their ships offshore over our country to scope it out for future attacks. I mean, Iran is presented in the US media as the aggressor trying to kill Trump, for example.
1:50:04 Speaker 02 I don't know if those Fox reporters have the chance to speak with the Iranian senior officials or
1:50:11 Tucker Carlson? Well, that's not allowed.
1:50:12 Speaker 02 Middle East officials. I do. I do all the time. I am able to ask questions, to check facts, to understand circumstances. I speak to lots of people engaged all over the Middle East on these questions, and it's simply not true. So, the first thing one should do, period, in this world, is talk to the other side. And if, if Donald Trump has that, this would be the farthest reach, but if he has that impulse with Iran too,
1:50:53 Speaker 02 he will be perhaps amazed, perhaps gratified, but he would do a huge service for the American people. Huge service for the American people.
1:51:03 Tucker Carlson? My sense is that, you know, a war with Iran feels inevitable. I'm obviously opposed to it, but tell us how you think that would go if it happens.
1:51:14 Speaker 02 There's nothing inevitable till it happens.
1:51:19 Tucker Carlson? Amen. Thank you.
1:51:20 Speaker 02 This is extremely important. A war with Iran will be World War III. So, that's the point. Iran is not alone, and it will not remain alone. And so, if we go to war with Iran, we are expanding the war with Russia. With Russia, we are at a possibility of peace, but we're also at a possibility of nuclear war. They're both very close. And if we go to war with Iran, we make the war, nuclear war, all the more likely.
1:52:00 Tucker Carlson? Do you think that the people pushing us toward war with Iran understand that?
1:52:05 Speaker 02 No, no, I think that they're following a plan, clean break, 1996, and a plan 1991, seven wars in five years, that has been deep set and that has been Netanyahu's baby all the time. Netanyahu, I regard as one of the most delusional and dangerous people on the planet, and he has engaged the United States so far in six disastrous wars, and he's aiming to engage us in yet one more. But Netanyahu's track record is just about
1:52:47 Speaker 02 the worst of any person on the planet right now in terms of damage done, and we should be able to understand that. And we have a lot of rhetoric in this country standing up for Israel. We're not standing up for Israel. We are engaging in war on Israel's behalf all over the Middle East. That's a completely different thing. I believe in Israel's security alongside a state of Palestine, which I know completely to be possible and achievable and peaceful and ending this risk of World War III and could have prevented
1:53:29 Speaker 02 the million or so deaths that have come from Netanyahu's wars up until now. And the Arab states have been saying this repeatedly since 2002. It's called the Arab Peace Initiative. Anybody can look it up. They repeat it, they repeat it basically nonstop in the last two years. The Iranians want peace. I know that as well. And so...
1:53:55 Speaker 02 The whole game is to make claims about the other side and to say if you talk to the other side, oh, you're a traitor. That's what they say about Tulsi Gabbard. She talked to Assad. Well, what about that? Isn't that amazing?
1:54:09 Tucker Carlson? But I just, again, just to refer back to the core of it, I don't understand when Assad became our enemy and why, and why should I go along with that?
1:54:18 Speaker 02 It was almost a flip because there were nice words said about him by Hillary Clinton one year and then the next year exactly the opposite. Because these are mind games that are played for reasons that are not said directly.
1:54:35 Tucker Carlson? And that have no bearing on American national security or aren't motivated by a desire to protect the United States. There's nothing to do with that.
1:54:41 Speaker 02 Of course not. Nothing that has happened in the Middle East has been for American national security. None of it. Not one of these wars. These have been Netanyahu's wars. Watch him cheerlead.
1:54:54 Tucker Carlson? Why does, I mean, it's just amazing how few Americans, many Americans love their country and were willing to lay down their lives for it and have, but how few are willing to say what you've just said?
1:55:06 Speaker 02 Because they're told repeatedly the opposite. And you can be told, anything can be sold, even, not that people believe it, by the way, but they don't hear the correct story anywhere in the mainstream. They hear things that don't quite make sense to them. And by the way, this is one of the points of Infowar. The public didn't believe the official narrative about JFK's assassination. The public didn't believe the official narrative about RFK's assassination. The public didn't believe the official narrative about COVID. The public didn't believe the official narrative about Iraq. The public doesn't believe these
1:55:51 Speaker 02 things, but it doesn't hear the coherent.
1:55:55 Speaker 02 Explanation from the New York Times, or MSNBC, or CNN, or anybody else, no one actually tries to explain. And so what hangs out there is something completely unsatisfactory, but it doesn't have an alternative explanation. And if you don't have the clarity of the alternative, then this miserable, phony, info war approach, it fills the space. And they're not interested in convincing us, because we don't have any say in any of these issues. They're interested in doing what they want to do without being stopped. That's the difference.
1:56:40 Tucker Carlson? When was the last time you appeared, or wrote for a mainstream publication or television channel here?
1:56:46 Speaker 02 It was the day that I was on Bloomberg, and I said, "The US blew up Nord Stream."
1:56:53 Tucker Carlson? That would, I remember that. And they cut you off?
1:56:56 Speaker 02 And they cut me off, and then, and then berated me for several minutes while I was watching on the screen, but cut off. And that was the last moment.
1:57:06 Tucker Carlson? But the US did blow up Nord Stream?
1:57:07 Speaker 02 Pardon me?
1:57:08 Tucker Carlson? You were telling the truth.
1:57:09 Speaker 02 Of course. And exactly who did it, when, is something that would be easy to find out in five minutes. So that's not even hard to find out.
1:57:18 Tucker Carlson? But you haven't appeared on any?
1:57:20 Speaker 02 Not once. Because, yeah, it's not quite true. You know, if it has nothing to do with foreign policy issues, it's just an economics question once in a while. But, but basically, the mainstream follows the security state line.
1:57:40 Tucker Carlson? But so, I mean, and they're acting in their own interest. This is not flattery, but it's just true. Whenever we do an interview with you, it gets millions of views, and people love it, and we make revenue off it. And it's like, it's good business to have you on. I happen to agree with you, and think you're wise. But it's not like people don't want to hear what you're saying. Lots of people do. We've proven that.
1:57:56 Speaker 02 People want to hear some explanations about-
1:57:59 Tucker Carlson? No, but you specifically, so you were a fixture on different channels, NBC, for example. And so when they ban you from those channels, they're hurting themselves because viewers want to watch you. Well, it's just, I know that, because I have you on. So.
1:58:14 Tucker Carlson? How exactly does that order go out, do you think? Do you know the mechanics of keeping you off? Like, one day, there's just a bulletin, you know, no more Jeffrey Sachs? Or how does that work?
1:58:23 Speaker 02 I need to ask you, because the phrasing, the official lines, kind of the stupidities and silliness is, on almost any story of the kind that we're talking about, get repeated across the mainstream space very, very quickly. And not only on the US side, but generally in the British media as well. And so, there's certainly some, there's an official narrative, of course. So, this is part of the story that senior White House briefing Jake, or somebody else
1:59:06 Speaker 02 briefs, and that becomes the meme, that becomes what you have to defend. You have to defend your continued access, you have to be good loyal citizen of this. By the way, there are lots of contracts that go out with the military industrial complex. This is a trillion and a half dollar a year business, not a small business, by the way. It's real business. It's lots of think tanks, it's lots of academic centers, it's lots of people on hire, it's lots of contracts, it's lots of, that all, you don't get any, I mean, I don't want any of that, but you don't get any of that if you're standing outside that, none of it.
1:59:50 Speaker 02 So, people make decisions. I think one of the best lines of modern history is the line of Sinclair Lewis, that you can't convince a person to believe something when their salary depends on believing the opposite.
2:00:06 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
2:00:06 Speaker 02 And that's a real thing. People have jobs. They don't, they just don't want to get out of line. They don't necessarily believe, but they don't want to get out of line. And it's very worrisome. And we thought that checks and balances of the US government would be a stabilizer, and especially that we would have voices in Congress that would be able to...
2:00:39 Speaker 02 Ask real questions and we have in the past. We had Frank Church. We had J. William Fulbright, who was not only brilliant and a critic of American foreign policy, was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Who do we have now? Well, we have Rand Paul, and we had Tulsi in Congress, but basically almost nobody now. They're scared, or they don't want to talk, or they're paid for by, who knows, RSX, or Northrop Grumman, or General Dynamics, or Boeing, or somebody. So they don't even ask questions. This is the reality.
2:01:22 Tucker Carlson? Jeffrey Sachs, thank you very much.
2:01:27 Speaker 02 Great to be with you as always.
2:01:28 Tucker Carlson? Great to be with you.
2:01:29 Speaker 02 Thank you.
2:01:30 Tucker Carlson? Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson Show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to TuckerCarlson.com to see everything that we have made. The complete library. TuckerCarlson.com.
Previous Why the Intel Agencies Want to Track Your Every Transaction and Throw Roger Ver in Jail for Life Next Tom Homan’s Plan to Destroy the Cartel Empire, End Child Trafficking, and Secure the Border for Good Page updated November 5, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
