The Hormuz Trap: How Iran is Quietly Emptying the US Military Arsenal (PART II)

Hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. We're going to be doing a part 2 of our conversations regarding whether the US Navy helpless against the $10,000 drone swarm. So as I promised you yesterday, we did the part 1, so today I'm going to continue that analysis and providing you I'm providing you rather my own insights and we'll conclude with some clips like we always do. So, so what if— here is the— here's one of the things that I need to, to piggyback on my last conversation. What if the real target in the Persian Gulf isn't just the US military bases? What if it is also the stability of the European Union or lack thereof? Because they depend so much on energy. Because now when you look at this, the collapse of the Islamabad-Versailles Memorandum, you're looking at, like I mentioned yesterday, the punishment. And what punishment I'm referring to here? I'm referring to the double invoice system that has emerged now in the Strait of Hormuz. Between— because you have to think about it— between the unilateral transit fees enforced by Iran Okay, that's one. And a 300% spike in private maritime insurance. So what are we left with? You know, Western consumers are footing the bill. We are. American tax dollar— taxpayers, rather. Yeah, the Europeans, you know. And we are footing the bill for crisis that Washington cannot seem to resolve and is unable to resolve. Because we dug ourselves into a hole, basically. And that is why in this part 2 here, I want to pull, uh, I want to pull back the curtains on this strategic bottleneck facing now the White House. And of course, it's, it's concerning to me as a citizen of the world, besides being an American. It concerns me because what concerns me is the future of the world trade. What it's going to be, because you're talking about energy prices here. It's because the Strait of Hormuz is now— or the whole Persian Gulf now. This— let me put the map here for you. This whole area, it's not about just now strikes and all that stuff, or bombs, or what have you, you know. It's about now who dictates the rules of global trade. That is exactly where This is what it's all about, in my opinion. So now let me pick up where we left off yesterday. So, and one of the, 'cause I only answered 2 questions, I believe, yesterday. The next question we need to ask is, is this the crux of this dispute now about the future of the Strait of Hormuz administration? In other words, have we moved now from Iran's nuclear program Iran missile program and what have you, to who's going to now manage this rate of war moves moving forward. And that's legitimate question to ask because that is exactly where things are going to go right now moving forward. Gone that era of we're thinking, oh, it's going to be just, uh, uh, the US is going to flex its military muscle and things will get back to normal. No, no, no, no, no, that era is gone. That era is gone. So So because the core— what I need you to understand— the core of the geopolitical conflict now has fundamentally shifted. And shifted to what? Shifted to the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz. That's the harsh reality that Washington is not willing to accept. And it won't matter to the Iranians whether Washington accepts it or not. They moving on with that. So it's because, remember, and I'm gonna take you back to the beginning of the war, and I've been covering this, I've been covering this ever since. So because while the war initially started or erupted over what? Iran's nuclear program, right? And it was also US attempt at a regime change. And all those so-called goals or strategic goals, if I may even use the term, according to what Washington, uh, uh, uh, word in this one. The strategic goals have failed and have stalled into a stalemate, because that's where we are now. Especially now when you look at the signing, the, the, the collapse of this signing of the Islamabad-Versailles Memorandum of Understanding that was signed on June 17th, uh, uh, uh, last month. So because now you're looking that things shifted between Washington and Tehran. This battleground now between the two has officially now become a legal one, become an economic one, and of course we're not going to deny the military tag of war over who dictates terms in world's most critical maritime chokepoint. This is the reality that now Mr. Trump is faced with, you know, whole administration is faced with, because it's We've been exposed. The Europeans, they're saying forget about helping the Americans. It's because they don't want to put themselves into the conflict. So, so the crisis, in my opinion, what's going on right now in the Strait of Hormuz— and of course you've heard about what the US just did last night, launching more strikes and so forth, and I'll cover this for you in due time as we move forward. But the crisis boiled down now to a sharp disagreement over what? Paragraph 5 of the Islamabad-Versailles agreement. Actually, I don't— we're gonna call it Islamabad because that's what it was. Because that clause, that paragraph in itself stipulated that Iran will ensure free transit, right? For 60 days only. On the other hand, while working with Oman and other Gulf states to define the permanent future maritime framework. Yeah, but what did the US end up doing? You're attacking Iran for that while even that ceasefire still on. So how do you think the Iranians gonna look at that? And that's why now Washington is saying, you know what they're saying? They're saying, oh, that language in that paragraph 5 is ambiguous. That is what they're saying. So which— that, that agreement, or even that— it's not even an agreement, it's an MOU, a Memorandum of Understanding, is dead. So, and this is why through the new Persian Gulf Strait Authority, this is what Iran now is— it, that's it sets on now. Because it is now institutionalizing its authority by mandating transit fees or permits and threatening future commercial tolls. So if you cooperate with the Iranians, your ship will pass. If you don't, it will be something else. The Americans are saying, no, no, no, no, we're going to send our assets and we're going to escort the ships and all that. Ships companies and so forth are not willing to take a chance. We're not willing to take a chance. I did, uh, I did an analysis for you in a recorded setting. I will release it on a weekend that addresses this particular point. So be on the lookout for that, and I will, I will keep you posted on that. Now, the next question that comes after this, which is a crucial one for me personally asking the question, I'm looking at it from a strategic aspect. Does Iran see it as an opportunity right now? Because it's now or never. Remember last time when I— yesterday, rather, not last time— when I shared the clip with you about the voices inside Iran calling for now the nuclear deterrence? Iran also seeing another aspect to it, which is now what it's doing in the, in the Strait of Hormuz as an opportunity, strategic one. And the answer is yes, because Iran assesses and sees the— or views the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz as a historical opportunity. For what? Is it for its dominance? No, has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the reshaping of the global maritime rules. And of course, it will assert its dominance as the gatekeeper of regional trade. Remember, 20 to 21% of global energy transits through that narrow strait. So to Iran, it makes perfect sense. And why not? It's because when it seems to be we, the Americans, now seems to be willing to hold our end of the bargain when we negotiate. This is why Iran is moving forward with that. And this is why, you know, when you think about it, I'm trying to put myself in the Iranian shoes as far the policymakers as far as thinking, because the way they're going to be seeing it— well, now we have the collapse of the AMOU, okay? Then Iran will be thinking in terms— does not want to see the standoff as an unwanted conflict, but rather as a highly effective mechanism to do what? Is to counter American financial pressure. Because remember, Saudis already now agree to certain transactions with the Chinese in the yuan. Remember, Iranians are accepting the fees in the Chinese yuan, not in the dollar. This is why Iran is thinking in terms of a historical opportunity, a strategic one, because by leveraging its geographic control over the choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has successfully weaponize its possession to force Western nations to negotiate on its terms. Same thing we do. What do you think when we impose sanctions on countries? We weaponize the dollar. Well, so what makes it wrong for Iran to do so and right for us to do so, you know? And I'm just being objective and fair. And that is why Now what you are noticing is that we are moving away. The whole conversation now is moving away from domestic nuclear program inside Iran and directly onto the security of global energy supplies. Are you with me? You're following that shift because that is exactly what is going on. It's still— I am wondering what Bibi, when he gets there, what he's going to push for, because he's going to push for something one way or another. And with the movement— and I'm aware of some movements of US assets into the region— it makes you just start to think in terms of what are we looking at moving forward. But remember, all this is working in favor of Iran Iran is not ignoring the military aspects of it. Why is this important? Because Iran recognizes that asymmetric warfare has granted it an unprecedented cost advantage over the United States. Like I said yesterday, you don't match this for that. You know, Iran is not going to do that, and it doesn't make any sense. Common sense doesn't make it common sense to— because like I mentioned yesterday, Iran can manufacture and deploy hundreds of low cost munition, naval mines, shore-to-ship missiles for a fraction of the cost that it takes Washington to intercept it. You know, all the stuff you're seeing, uh, sort of in the, in the region. I want to share a picture here, like, like those that Iran just dispersed all over the waters there. So, and while the U.S. is deploying a $2 to $4 million missile Iran is deploying 10,000 to 20,000 drones, swarms of them. Yeah, that cost us this much money to launch one of those, and Iran is figuring it out. That's why to me it's kind of smart move. So this dynamics, in my opinion, allows Iran to systematically deplete the American missile arsenal and exhaust US Navy logistics. I know some of you might say, It can be, Dr. O, with the US assets and all that stuff, they will not run out of missiles. Don't be too certain of this. It's because of where we have to deploy the missiles in all, most of the bases we have around the world. I mean, I welcome your criticism of something like this, which, you know, I really, really encourage this kind of conversations because that's how we learn from each other. I'm not saying that we don't have any left. All I'm saying is we don't have any left for a major conflict over the horizon next 5, 6, 10 years. That is where the problem is, because in every base, especially in Asia, for example, or even Middle East, we have to put those missiles. We don't produce as much as Iran does. That's my point about this one. So, and I just wanted to highlight this one. So the US missile arsenal and exhaust its US Navy logistics without provoking a full-scale ground invasion. That is just what it's trying to do. Iran, on the other hand, sees this differently because Iran views this ongoing attrition as a golden opportunity to do what? To prove one thing, and that thing is that the US military can no longer guarantee unconditional freedom of navigation. Think about it. Think about it from a strategic perspective. Thereby, when you think in those terms, permanently damaging by Iran doing this is permanently damaging American deterrence in West Asia or Persian Gulf. That is, you have to think strategic with this kind of stuff. And to me, right away, I end up myself thinking, Immediately about the Strait of Malacca, right away, right away, because what we are seeing in the Persian Gulf could be replicated in the Strait of Malacca, and it's worth highlighting. Why not? Adding to this is that Iran is actively using the crisis to drive the geopolitical wedge between United States and Europe. Never ever underestimate, and then no matter what, what the circumstances, when a country finds itself in a conflict, uh, it finds itself under always the geopolitical wedge. If you as part of the, let's say, the party to the conflict, whatever, if you succeed in creating that wedge You got it, mate. Iran. This is what Iran is doing. Why do you think they're doing this, blocking the oil tankers and all that stuff? Because most of them also reach Europe. And now you're having voices inside Europe that's saying, what the US is doing, it's impacting us. Of course. Are you going to trust what the Europeans say? Europeans are so weak. The EU, that is. Nonetheless, Iran is actively using the crisis to drive that geopolitical wedge between the US and Europe, you know. And that is why the establishment of the BSA, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, that's one, and the threat of the commercial vessels with the shipping fees, of course, and the retaliatory strikes You put all this together and basically what Iran is saying to the US and the Europeans, we passing the financial and logistical bill of the conflict directly to you, especially European economies and American consumers. Because Iran thought of this and not because of this conflict, they thought about it few decades ago. Because think about it in terms— like I said at the beginning, I'm going to put myself in the shoes of the Iranian leaders just from the mindset to think. If I am to think in their— from their perspective, I would say, you know what? I strongly believe that the shipping insurance rate will skyrocket. The energy supply will face enormous disruption. And that in itself, because you have a desperate European Union, will eventually break ranks. With Washington. This is what Tehran is thinking in terms of the strategic, because it hopes that this pressure will force Europeans to bypass unilateral US sanctions and establish independent direct trade channels with Iran. The possibility is there. I've seen it before. So, and this leads me to my next question, and the next question, as clear as it gets: who Who's paying the bill? Straightforward. Who's footing the bill? European economies, commercial shipping lanes, and ultimately Western consumers. Us here in America. I know the Canadians, I know what have you. So we are paying the financial bill for a crisis that the incompetent president led us into with no strategy, exit strategy, and of course in a war that wasn't even ours to begin with. And that is why I, I kind of use the term double invoice, because in this case, ENA gets paid from both ends. So the first invoice is the unilateral transit fee and mandatory payment. And like I mentioned, the Iranians are accepting it in the yuan, and those funds are collected directly by the, uh, the, uh, the authority, the Iranian Persian Gulf Strait authority. So that is what it is, because it's also securing the monitoring and also the safety of the vessels and so forth. Iran— this is why the US is calling for a now renew of a blockade of Iranian ports. That's why Garkh Island came into the conversation as we speak. The White House is zooming at this. As we speak. And that is again for the commercial shippings. They're gonna find themselves having to pay exorbitant— yeah, exorbitant rates. You know, we're talking— you know, what are we talking about? We're talking about $2 million per transit for specific vehicles, or vessels rather. Think about it. If they don't want to be targeted by the IRGC, they have to pay up. Isn't that what Donald Trump does? You have to pay up, as he's saying to the Gulf states. You have to pay up for the security we provide you. Well, at the same time, what security? Because Iran now is able to pound US locations in Kuwait. This is the attack on that was, uh, that was targeted by Iran. No, Iran is able to pound locations like in, uh, this is a Chinese satellite picture of Ali Salim Air Base that was targeted, uh, by Iran. So where is that protection? That's the same arguments I'm making. So Iran is saying to those, uh, transits, pay up and you pass with no issues, whatsoever. The second invoice comes from the private sector and global logistic markets and what have you. This is where the insurance company comes in, shipping conglomerates comes in, because they have drastically now raised their prices to absorb the risk of navigating a combat zone. So, hey, Pak Lloyd, Maersk, The CGM all have stacked emergency freight increases now, you know, up to 300%. Just think about it. This creates a compounding financial penalty, if I may use the term. A single container like this one here— let me put the image for you right there— a single container that previously cost $2,200 to ship, now carries up to $7,000 in surcharge alone, effectively doubling or tripling the amount for the total shipping cost. And that's exactly why I want you to understand the really the impact economic and financial, of this double invoice, because it's hitting the European nations hard, the hardest. And I have family in Europe. I, I call and I ask and where things are and all that stuff, because the European Union or Europe at large, their geography— except the northern states and so forth, we're not talking about this, uh, their geographical reliance on West Asia crude, and at the same time on, on the manufactured goods coming from Asia, Far East, because now it leaves the Europeans exposed. And let alone one other dimension, and you know what that is? We are selling them gas at 5 or 6 or 7 times the price what they used to pay before, because we told them, oh, we're gonna sanction Russia and so forth. Russia said, sure, we'll turn the spigot off, go buy it from the Americans, paying 5, 6, 7 times the price. And that's exactly what was our objective. We wanted to squeeze the Europeans economically. And yet those incompetent leaders in Europe, they have no key, no political will, no determination to stand up to Trump and say Listen, man, what you're doing is wrecking our economy. We don't get along with this because the rising energy costs now in Europe cost so much money they can't afford, and we're selling them that. So, so, and that is why, why the US continue to absorb this massive military expenses, because now, as I said, it deployed the Navy deployed some naval assets to the region, so to counter so-called the threat. Well, we creating the problem. You know how Donald Trump works, he'll create a problem and said, I have the solution, even in case— except in this case, he has no solution for it. So, but when you consider the daily operational cost of the crisis is transferred now straight to the American consumers and to the European businesses and energy grids. Straightforward. There is no, no, no, uh, if, if and buts, you know. And that's again where you think about what is really the target of the Persian Gulf. So now let me get to, uh, to the ones where I'll give you some scenarios, because I talked to you about yesterday. I will share with you some scenarios that I could think of based on my own research and so forth. Uh, and, and, and the scenarios are limited, by the way, for, for, for Donald Trump. That's for Donald Trump. So, so let's start first of all with the future of the Strait of Hormuz will likely be determined by three distinct geopolitical scenarios that I believe, and each one carries a vastly different outcome for global trade, for the European energy stability and economy, and for the American military posture. So we'll start with the first one. The first one, scenario one, we're talking about a dual corridor, and I'm going to explain, break it down for you. The dual corridor will mean its objective is to de-escalate. And who's included in this? It includes Oman. Let me put the map here. Show you first of all where Oman is. That gives you an idea. Do you see here the Gulf of Oman? This is Muscat, the capital, and Oman right there, because that's where the Persian Gulf is. So when we think about the dual corridor de-escalation, the Omani compromise in this scenario, international mediators successfully finalized the dual corridor navigation proposal, which is, by the way, championed by the Sultanate of Oman. I don't believe, I don't believe it was the Omanis. It was the Americans telling the Omanis to take the lead on this. It's not Oman, it's the Americans that want that because we can't fight any longer. Suffice it to say, in this scenario, under this framework, the strait is split into two distinct zones. You have the northern corridor, which remain under the strict regulatory control of the PGS, which is the Iranian Persian Gulf Strait Authority. And in this case, let me put the map here once again for you to see exactly how this is going to work. We're talking about the northern part. Remember, uh, this will make more, uh, if I put this other map. Here is the— look where Oman is. Look what this is, Iran The northern part, we're talking about the top here for Iran. The southern part, we're talking about the, uh, right here of Oman. And this is exactly what we are referring to, that the northern part, when ships coming over, is going to cross in the northern part here. The shipping lanes choosing this route submit to Iran tracking and potentially pay a localized service fee. The southern corridor, however, running through the Omani territorial waters— uh, once again, just to highlight this to you, look at the map, look where Oman is— and that operates under traditional pre-war free navigation rules, heavily escorted and guaranteed by the US-led coalition. First of all, Can the US really escort those? I'll let you answer that yourself. This compromise allows Iran to claim a legal victory, limits the risk of a full-scale war, and gives commercial shipping a predictable— alibi— legally fragmented pathway through the chokepoints. Might work, it might not work. I'm just providing you the scenarios that I see could work. We don't know. Scenario number 2, we're talking about the possibility of the chronic attrition under the new normal. The new normal, remember that. And the way I bring this to your attention, because I highlight to you, uh, something that took place a few years ago. I don't know whether you will recall it or not, the incident in the South China Sea between the US and China. And the US said, oh, that's freedom of navigation and so forth. The Chinese went ahead and deployed their naval assets, and that became the norm, the new norm. The US doesn't do any freedom of navigation anymore. That's what I'm referring to here in the Persian Gulf, chronic attrition of the new normal. In this scenario, This one will project a continuation of the current tit-for-tat. US strikes, Iran retaliates, because that's the status quo is going to be. And this will harden into a protracted, low-intensity war of attrition. And guess who's going to be paying the price for this? Yes, you guessed it right, the Gulf states, no exception. Why will the US care? It's like, hey, you guys pay us if you want to, if you want us to defend you. But even if you pay us, we won't be able to defend you. But in this scenario, Iran avoids a large-scale conventional clash, even though I don't believe the US will put troops on the ground. But at the same time, Iran continues launching periodic drone strikes, and that in itself— excuse me— will enforce its so-called double invoice we talked about earlier, because that double invoice is going to be the system that is, is going to be on a commercial traffic to extract financial concessions. That's what it would be in this case. Also, in this scenario, rather, the United States will maintain some naval presence there. They can't get closer to the Strait of Hormuz anyway. Like I said last time, uh, I showed you the map, and I'm gonna put it back up here. This is the US naval assets. We're talking about this location right here. Abraham Lincoln and George H.W. Bush and Boxer. Those are the, uh, the, uh, the US strike groups, the aircraft carriers and so forth. So it will maintain it there. They're not gonna get closer.

Close?

No, they can't. So, but the US will claim, oh, because of our military presence, that's why And now there is security for the shipping lanes and so forth. But for Europe, this creates a permanent economic drag.

Why?

Because the shipping premiums, okay, will remain permanently elevated. They're not going to go down. That's like what we had here in America, uh, to— especially for my American viewers, you remember after 9/11, what was the airline doing? Airline carriers, whatever. They said we're going to put a surcharge, right? They start charging the luggage, right? And Congress said, oh, this is just temporary. Still today, when you go fly and you check in a luggage, you have to pay for it. They will never go down or, or, or removed. The same arguments I can make here. So for Europe, this create this permanent economic drag because you have now forcing logistic conglomerate companies to continuously reroute the cargoes through Africa and indefinitely, indefinitely absorb the high war risk surcharges.

No.

And when you look at the map, uh, let me show you. I don't know if I have one. Yeah, maybe this might work. But anyway, this one, you have to go all the way across to the tip of Southern Africa. To, to go, uh, ship the stuff. That's where that cost is going to be, and that in itself will raise inflation across European markets. They already have it. Ask anybody in England to tell you where the economic conditions in England are. Scenario number 3: total naval blockade and escalatory war. Now this, in my opinion, is the most dangerous one. Why? Because it involves a complete breakdown of diplomatic channels. Still, as of today, believe it or not, Qatar and Oman behind closed doors, they are doing shuttle diplomacy. But if this scenario, the third scenario, total naval blockade happened, an escalatory war, we're looking at a different outcome altogether, because this breakdown in diplomatic channels is going to trigger by either an Iranian attempt to entirely close the Strait of Hormuz, which they can do, to Western vessels, or the other possibility is the US decision to launch a comprehensive naval blockade on Iranian oil export. In either case, in response Iran will deploy its full arsenal of anti-ship cruise missiles, swarm boats, and small mines to completely shut down the waterways. Yeah, Iran will be in a position to do that because all they're gonna do, deploy their assets. That's all they need to do because there is no US aircraft is going to get closer to that area. And like I said before, Iran has some other surprises that they didn't show yet. So this scenario, the third one, that is rapidly expanding into a multi-domain regional war. Why? Because it's gonna draw in regional oil producers because that's all they make a living on. How do you think Saudi is going to survive? Qatar United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait. If it weren't for oil, they will be hanging out in a desert, whatever they do in the desert. Let's be frank about it, and I'm not putting down any country, I'm just talking objectively. If it weren't for oil, we won't be talking about the Gulf States altogether. And that's exactly why they will be drawn into this regional war, the oil producers, because the devastating global energy markets going to experience. So the immediate result will be an unprecedented spike in global crude prices. And of course, it's not only about prices, it's also about the depletion of the US naval missile arsenals in the region. And that in itself is going to force Western nations to consider high-risk ground intervention. And that will— because they're going to say, if we do a ground invasion, we're going to forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Good luck with that. Good luck with that. If you only know what the Russians just stated regarding Iran, and we'll get into that in a second. And that's exactly those three scenarios I want just to share them with you to have a better understanding of where things are going. So here is my, my, my take on this before I share my own other conclusion. When you look at the current situation in the Persian Gulf, it has definitely unequivocally proven that the era of uncontested US and Western maritime dominance is over, and it is replaced now by an unforgiving age of a cost-imposing asymmetric warfare. Because the collapse of the Islamabad, uh, MOU, which was signed on June 17th, And you have the implementation of the Iran, the PGS, uh, authority issuing the, the fees for the transit and so forth. What does it demonstrate? It demonstrates that regional powers now can now successfully rewrite global trade rules without matching the United States. Apparatus, militarily speaking. And that in itself, forcing the US to deplete its million-dollar interceptor stockpile against low-cost autonomous— Tehran has now turned America's heavy naval assets into an economic liability. And once again, I am not saying that we won't have no missiles whatsoever. That's not my point. It's my, my point is when you deplete your reserves that you have always maintained for a major conflict, you are left with nothing. And that in itself, when you have US heavy naval assets are turning into an economic liability, what does the US do? What is, what, what does the US do? It passes the operational bill directly to a fractured Europe. How so, you may ask? That's going to be through skyrocketing insurance premiums, and of course the American taxpayers paying for that. So this is what I want you to get from this part 2 of this analysis. So here's my conclusion for you, and I'm gonna play clips with— for you and sign off this. Now, this strategic— and I call— use the term strategic, I don't use the term loosely— but the way I look at it is a strategic bottleneck now leaves the White House, leaves Donald Trump with highly volatile options. He's stuck and he doesn't know what to do, either accepting Oman's highly compromised dual corridor framework, because if you accept it, that means that becomes the norm or you execute escalatory strikes that risk an all-out regional war. And we proved— Iran proved that it couldn't— that the US couldn't defeat it. In either case, we are losing one way or another, no matter how you look at it. And that is why, as we watch the final components of this international transit. The law in itself unravel in real time. We seeing things changing in real time. It leaves us with one fundamental question, and that fundamental question is, if the most so-called advanced— and we are advanced in the Navy, let's not, uh, uh, diminish that— but at the same time, you can undermine what the Russians have, you can undermine what the Chinese have, also the level of the naval assets. But for us, we say the most advanced navy, uh, uh, for now, because that is the fundamental question. If the most advanced navy can no longer protect the global supply chain without exhausting its own arsenal, it begs the question: who will actually control the critical maritime choke points of tomorrow? Forget about today. Today we're dealing with it. You have to think about tomorrow. There are other choke points around the world. And remember, when I shared this, my mind went directly to the Strait of Malacca. My mind also went straight to the Bab el-Mandeb right here. Those are also another choke points. And of course, in Latin America as well. And that is the fundamental question. We had to ask. So, and, and I'll pin this, this question for you. If you can, if you feel like to share your thoughts in the comment section, I would greatly, greatly appreciate it. So, uh, the next, uh, lives that I will be working on, and I will tell you in a second here, the one is has about Israel misleading, uh, Donald Trump because Washington about Iran plots to assassinate Trump. And the other topic is what's going on in Yemen. I am following. I'm going to be working on it this afternoon and make some calls and so forth, and, and we go from there. Now, pardon me, let me share something with you that I mentioned earlier about Russia. What you're looking at, you're looking at a new type of missiles the Russians just tested. As a matter of fact, I just found out about it yesterday. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna share a clip with you and highlight to you in a brief, brief translation of it what is going on with this particular one. Take a look, or take a listen rather, because I'm gonna do the translation for you. Let me share the screen first. And, and makes you just wonder Why will Iran— why will— I'm sorry, why will Russians mention about a warning to the US or Israel about attacking Iran? Makes you just wonder why. The timing— I've always believed the timing is important. So just take a look here, and I'm gonna translate for you as we move forward. Okay, it eludes radar and defies time constraints. The Burevestnik, or Storm Petrel, the name of the missile, is nuclear-powered. It requires no fuel, knows no boundaries, and is not limited by range. Vladimir Putin announced it with the Cold War-style chill. No defense system on Earth can intercept it, and nothing like it will appear for decades. Russia described its new weapon as the most dangerous creation born of nuclear physics, designed to cruise at a low altitude almost indefinitely. And a miniaturized nuclear reactor within its airframe grants it the ability to circle the globe for days before selecting the moment of attack. NATO calls it skyfall. Western estimates suggest that the, the Burevestnik range could exceed 20,000 kilometers. It can maneuver via the North or South Poles, attacking from trajectories uncovered by U.S. defense radars. Militarily, it is viewed as a new generation of offensive, not defensive, nuclear deterrence, a weapon that bypasses guard lines strike from the rear and forces the enemy to ponder how to detect an adversary whose arrival time and point of origin are unknown. Yet the crucial question remains: can the world cope with a nuclear reactor-equipped missile roaming the globe freely? And what would be the scale of the disaster should it fall somewhere other than its intended military target. Amidst a mix of awe and alarm, the Burevestnik emerges as a game-changing weapon, delivering a nuclear message from Moscow. And it says, we will not wait for war. We will outflank you from where you cannot see us. Very, very interesting. And again, I find the timing very, very crucial for that. So, uh, next, uh, clip, uh, let me see here about the targets. Yes, uh, this one is about— it was announced inside Iran, so I just wanted to share it with you and you decide for yourself. Take a listen, please.

An Iranian newspaper has published images of several Western leaders on revenge list over Khamenei's death. The graphic lists US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as the top priorities, while also featuring Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, U.S. Navy Commander Brad Cooper, Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir, and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. The image was published by Hamshahri, a newspaper owned by Tehran municipality, alongside the caption "Revenge is certain." It also depicts the officials wearing orange prison uniforms, a move that has quickly drawn international attention, with critics questioning what the likes of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron's pictures doing there, despite their stands throughout the conflict. The publication comes amid heightened tensions between Iran, the United States, and Israel following recent military confrontations and escalating rhetoric between the sides. As of now, There has been no official response from the Iranian government explaining the publication, and the leaders featured in the image have not publicly reacted. The image is already sparking widespread debate online, with many viewing it as another sign of the increasingly hostile political climate in the region.

Yeah, I, I don't know what you make out of that. I just wanted to share that with you.

You.

Uh, next one is about, uh, is, uh, from The Turks. It's a podcast. I don't know if you guys familiar with it or not. Uh, take a listen, please.

Attack Iran tonight, not $1, not one soldier. Uh, we didn't ask for this war. Uh, they asked, uh, Trump about it. Trump said do not attack. They attacked anyway. Well, then you're on your own, brother. Why are we funding a war that we told you not to start? In fact, we were in the middle of peace negotiations when you went in and bombed. So now I guarantee you that they're going to ask us to pay for it all, and the establishment will say, well, of course, our special allies, they need the money to start more wars. They have to have it. And it was a preemptive war, just like Iraq. And just like Iraq, the American people will have to pay for it. Okay, well, then we're going to have a populist uprising because the grassroots of both the right and the left don't want this. And we don't want to spend any money on Israel's wars. We don't want it. Not $1, not one soldier. So who's going to win? The establishment or the populists?

Very interesting. But he said that the American people— but American people are are ill-informed. We, we are too weak to take a stand. We're too weak. And I'm talking generally here, not everybody, of course. We would have done this way back, but Americans, some of us distract them with whatever. They won't even pay attention what's going on. Uh, next one is this. I found very interesting, and I can see why. This is the son of Bibi. And he lives in Florida, by the way. It's not a secret. So, and, uh, I want you to read this one because, uh, I'm not gonna— I'll play it, but, uh, it has a soundtrack, but you can read. Pardon me here, so let me get it. Here we go, take a look. Yeah, yeah, I guess he knows what's coming. I guess he knows what's coming. So that is the, uh, this one, it's about MQ-9. This is the US drones that's been downed by an, an Tucker. This is not my word. This is Tucker Carlson confirmed some aspects of this because I know I've talked about it before when I confirmed the downing of some, but now it's a different story. Take a listen, please.

Down an American MQ-9 Reaper drone in the Strait of Hormuz using a new air defense system. This is the wreckage of another US MQ-9 Reaper drone shot down by Iranian air defenses, fallen near Hormuz in Bushehr Province. Iran has downed 30 US MQ-9 Reaper drones since the start of the war, US official says. How exactly is this winning? Why are we losing expensive assets like they're disposable toys while promising decisive victory? Who's making these decisions, sending these drones in without better protection or jamming or whatever our billion-dollar electronic warfare is supposed to do? And more importantly, what are we even doing there? Another Middle East adventure sold as vital national security with a mission creeps. The costs pile up. And the American people are expected to just nod along and pay the bill. Remember when they told us drones would revolutionize warfare, cheap, risk-free dominance? Turns out the other side read the manual too. We're dumping high-end drones into contested airspace against an enemy that's apparently figured out how to track and kill them with alarming regularity.

Very interesting. And that's in itself, uh, it, it shows you that of course the Pentagon's not gonna disclose because that's, that's bad. That's bad for the, the MIC, military-industrial complex. That's, that's not going to be good. And, uh, pardon me, last one I want to play for you is from Pierre, uh, Paul, uh, Paul Yeager. He used to be the— he's a politician in Canada. I found it very, very interesting, his take into that. I found it very interesting, so I figured If I find something interesting, I think of you, the community. That's the— so take a listen, please.

Facts. Explain this to me. 50 years ago, a barber and a waitress could buy a house with a big yard for a dog and raise 4 kids, meat and potatoes on the dinner table every night. And now an accountant and a lawyer can't do that. Why is that? Just making dollar bills with nothing behind it, nothing to back it. If you have an economy with 10 apples and $10, it's a buck an apple. You double the number of dollars to $20, you still only have 10 apples. Wealth, all of a sudden it's $2 an apple. It's not that the cost of apples has gone up. It still costs the same resources to grow the— and pick the apples. It's that the price has gone up because the value of the money has gone down. Right. So in America, over the last 55 years, you've doubled the number of homes in America. From both $70 million to $150 million. You know how much the money supply has grown? 30 times. So you have twice the homes but 30 times the cash. Housing costs have gone up 15-fold in 55 years, and now an entire generation of kids can't afford homes. This is the biggest wealth transfer from the working class to the elites, from, uh, I say, the have-nots to the have-yachts.

Yeah, and I give credit to Joshua Holland Ward for that clip because that's, that's It's his there. I just, I figured, you know, do most Americans understand this basic reality? Unfortunately not, they don't. So anyway, uh, I hope you guys enjoyed this. Uh, I want to say something. I saw a comment earlier. Well, first of all, I need to say thank you to, uh, Axi Mora. Thank you so much, man, for your continued support. For the channel. I'm very grateful to you. You wrote, a bit more coin to add to the excursion fund. Much appreciate your work, Doc. As always, God bless and stay safe. By the way, it's Aximus Raw. Aximus Raw, here you are. Thank you so much. And, and so that means this, uh, donation here is going to go in support of the upcoming trip to Asia. Which, speaking of that, uh, let me just show you where we are with the fundraising right now. So of course I'm gonna update it with this recent donation here, and we'll just go from there. So, uh, should you decide to support this, uh, upcoming trip to Asia, here is the link for it right there. So I would greatly appreciate— as I said, I would like to reach this, uh, target goal by the end of this month. That gives me enough time to just start making plans and reservations and so forth, and that is time-consuming also. So I would greatly appreciate if you feel comfortable enough to support my upcoming Asia trip. This is for you, not for me. This is again not tourism, because if I want to go on tourism, I go on my own dime because it's the right thing to do. So, so I will greatly appreciate that. Also for the channel, for those who might want to support the channel, here is the link for it. I would greatly appreciate that one. And the last one is one for my, uh, for my books. Should you get a copy, I know the members already sent an excerpt from my upcoming book about China. So once that completed and all that stuff, you'll, uh, if you want to get a copy of it, you, you, you'll get that one. So, all right, I wanted, as I said earlier, I wanted to say something here. Hanging G, I want to really thank you for your support and kind words. You wrote, we are thankful to Dr. Wualaalou for hosting this live stream today. If you are new to GT Geopolitical Trends, please join the community. Feel free to post any queries you may have. Dr. Wualaalou is factual and impartial. Indeed, I'll do my best, and if I am not sure of something, I let you guys know. Another comment from you, Hengying Ji, thank you so much. In GT, the community shares facts, real events, and impartial opinions. No fake news, no lies, and half-truths straight from the horse's mouth. No flips, no fairy tales. Thank you so much for— and please, to all the community, please make sure to hit the like button and share this video with others. Uh, and I'm going to be working on the stories for you for tomorrow, and I'll see you then. As always, remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, bye-bye.