Trump’s Chaotic Policies toward Houthis, Iran, Russia (w/Larry Johnson) | Geopolitical Trends

Hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Excited to be with you as always. I have an interesting, uh, show for you today. I have none other than Larry Johnson, so I'm gonna bring him in and we'll get in into our conversation immediately. But before I'll do this, uh, remember to join me on, uh, Friday. As a matter of fact, the interview with the Karlsa has been moved by one day till about Saturday. And on Sunday, I will be having a conversation with Professor Anna Malandag regarding the visit of the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hadseth, to the Philippines, where he is currently there, and before he travels also to Japan. So anyway, let's bring in Larry, and we're gonna get into it right away. Hi, Larry.

Hey, David, I'm here.

Good to see you as always. Excited to be here once again, and thank you for carving out time for us. You are very, very busy, especially now with managing the, uh, the, the Counter Currents, which by the way, guys, you need to— I'm gonna put in a link for you, this, uh, Larry's channel here. Check it out. You need to subscribe for it. Very interesting info. I just listened to one of his interviews yesterday with Alistair. If you know who Alistair is, you'll, you'll find it very interesting. So here is Larry's channel. Go ahead, guys, and sign up for or subscribe to his channel. So, and we'll talk further about all this. All right, Larry, we got a lot to cover. Where do I start? I like to, just for the community to know, we're going to be dividing this interview into two parts. One, we're going to be talking about Russia, Ukraine, Europe, and so forth, and Donald Trump. And the other one, we're going to be talking about Iran, the Houthis, and the Middle East writ large. So, so I'm going to start by asking you, Larry, your, your assessment. Can Trump really pull the US out of NATO?

Is this—

is there possibility to this?

There's always a possibility, and the question is, should he? I would argue yes. The problem that Trump faces right now is that the NATO countries, the principal ones, particularly Germany, England, France, are doing everything in their power to sabotage peace negotiations, to sabotage Trump's efforts to try to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. And so, and we're seeing that this week is so, um, and let me just add a side note. I, I just saw the U.S. annual intelligence assessment, threat assessment, and boy, talk about repeating and pushing Biden propaganda. Uh, this intelligence community document and, and talking about Russia— and the threat it represents— concludes that, oh boy, NATO is getting stronger, it's united, and they've added all these people. Boy, whoever wrote, you know, the analyst that wrote that crap, they're not reading newspapers, they're not paying attention to what's in the news. What we're seeing is NATO is fragmenting. NATO is beginning to fall apart, and there is no consensus within NATO. So I think, you know, Trump ought to just, you know, make a clean break, but he's not going to do that yet, at least.

So regarding his proposal to the Russians, and I'd like to highlight this one because It's very important. The American audience does not understand that the Russians are smart enough to know not to trust the Americans. So for what Mr. Trump's saying, "I'm gonna end the war on Ukraine in one phone call," whatever that, which is pathetic anyway, it becomes clear to me now that the Russians are not gonna waver from their security demands. Wouldn't that be a fair assessment?

Oh yes. No, it's taken the Russians a while to wake up to the fact that, you know, we can't be trusted. When you look at the history of relationships between the United States and Russia going back to 1990, the, the Western narrative, the U.S. narrative, is that, boy, you can't trust Russia, they break They break agreements. You can't make an agreement with them. Okay, let's look at the facts. Who walked away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? That was George W. Bush, not Vladimir Putin.

Yeah.

Who walked away from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Agreement? That was Donald Trump, not Vladimir Putin. Who has repeatedly imposed sanctions on the other country going back to 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment? That would be the United States. First, we did the Jackson-Vanik Amendment punishing the Soviet Union for not allowing Jews to emigrate. Then we followed that up with the Majinski Act Uh, it was— this was a result of lobbying by a communist guy named Bill Browder. His father was the— was the first— was the head of the Communist Party in the United States. Well, Browder hated Putin because Putin wasn't a communist, you know. Putin wasn't embracing and following the communist doctrine. So by God, can't have that. So, broader, got the US Congress to impose sanctions. Again, that was done by the West and then followed up with the sanctions in the wake of the special military operation. How about ceasefires? Again, the ceasefires that were negotiated under Minsk I, Minsk II, sabotaged by Ukraine and who began despite the ceasefire began shelling civilian areas in the Donbas, particularly Donetsk. Then the— and I heard this direct from Lavrov's mouth 3 weeks ago— that when they met, when the Russians met with the Ukrainians in Turkey, in Istanbul, in March of 2022, March 29th, to be precise, that the document that the Russians ended up signing initially, the document outlining what the ceasefire agreement would be, that was brought to the table by the Ukrainians. So the Russians actually agreed to a Ukrainian deal. And who was it that came in and broke that? It was the United States with Great Britain. So the record here is one of, if you will, I liken it to the United States is the abuser in an abusive spouse relationship. We're the ones showing up drunk. We're the one beating up the spouse. We're the one threatening the spouse with a knife, with a gun. We're the problem, and Russia is not. And, and I don't want to hear from people, well, there's always two sides to a story. No, sorry, this is a very one-sided story with the United States constantly being the abuser. So that's, that's why the Russians at this point, they don't trust us, and it's for good reason. So they're going to require very concrete demonstrations. They're not going to take our word for it. We can't say trust us, man, we'll we'll deliver. No, there's no more trust basis.

This leads me to address Europe. Europe into this, what's going on now, thinking that they are being sidelined, which they are anyway, because they are useless anyway. This leads me to ask you the key question, given what just happened a few weeks ago with the meeting that took place in London. And of course, with the idiots Macron and Starmer pushing for this narrative of, well, we're going to stand by Ukraine and so forth. Is Ukraine— is Europe, rather, Larry, in your opinion, capable militarily and politically to defend Ukraine?

Oh, hell no. Absolutely not. And that's the spectacle of, you know, where they're pretending they're having a ménage à trois between Starmer, Macron, and Zelensky. The Europeans are— I describe them as children playing dress-up. You know, they put on a cowboy outfit and say, I'm a cowboy, I'm a rancher, or, hey, I'm a doctor, or, you know, a policeman, or, you know, whatever. But it's pretend. It's dress up, because if it comes down to, okay, we've actually got to put troops on board transports and move them into Ukraine, they can't— they can move a few. Yeah. And then if they get there, they're going to get killed. Russia has made it very clear, you put any other— you put your Europeans knowingly in here anymore, we're going to kill you. You know, I This deviates a little bit, but we just had reports yesterday about 4 US soldiers died in Lithuania up on the border of Russia. Huh. And yet it's not like they came out and said, oh, these 4 soldiers were driving in an armored personnel vehicle and they, they drove into a lake and they drowned. No, they said, oh, they found the vehicle in water but didn't find the bodies. Uh, I, I think what they're— what this is, is they're, they're pretending that they were in Lithuania when they're probably actually killed in Kursk. And, uh, the, you know, they're going to bring the bodies out, and I suspect the families won't even be allowed to see the bodies because they will have shown not death from drowning but death, uh, death from combat, uh, you know, an explosion or something. But getting back to the Europeans, they're going to be in the same boat. They're already suffering casualties. There are already significant reports of the Russians striking targets where there are British and French officers already in country. So it'd be one thing if in the three main countries in Europe—Germany, France, and England—if in each of those countries you had a ruling party with over 50% of the public support, but you don't have that. There's not a single political entity in any of those countries that is winning more than 50% support or more. They're down in the 30s, all of them. Wow. So, you know, that's number one. Number two, their economies are in recession. They're not growing, and in Germany in particular, they're de-industrializing. They're losing capability. So they have neither the economic strength, the political strength, or the military strength to— even if they act together, uh, to be— do— to represent any kind of credible threat to Russia. But nonetheless, if they act on their words, Russia will hold them accountable and make them pay.

Well, actually, I want to go quickly to your point about having Western officers being targeted or killed there. I confirmed that because I read it also through different sources from overseas, and to my knowledge, there were about 30 officers from Western countries that they were trainers, you know, and so forth. They were targeted. So you absolutely Correct on that. Now, within this aspect, Larry, will it be fair to say, if we are to think on the big picture as to what Donald Trump is doing versus, you know, sending his envoy and all that, which is useless anyway, would it be fair to say that the Russian president outmaneuvers Donald Trump?

I know he's Putin's not playing games, and I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting he's playing games, but no, not at all, not at all. What, what— it's a different, uh, Trump views negotiation as a game, his Art of the Deal, you know. It's, you know, he's got a, he's got a whole, um, I guess, plan of action where, you know, he makes threats and he bullies up front, and then he, you know, he can make some conciliatory gestures in private, but what he doesn't do is first sit down, listen to what the Russians are saying. What Putin said in June of 2024 when he spoke to the senior officials at the Foreign Ministry, he laid out what the terms are for an end to the war in Ukraine. The most important of those was that the Ukrainians have to immediately withdraw from the Russian Federation territories that have become incorporated into Russia newly. They used to be part of the Ukraine, and they were recognized by Russia as Ukrainian oblasts. To now, they are part of Russia because they have had votes. The people voted to join Russia, and that is Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. Well, all Trump has to do is listen to Putin on that score. He also listened about the need for elections, the need to reject any possibility of joining NATO, and the need to end all U.S. military and intelligence assistance. That is what, you know, those are non-negotiable points for Putin. Trump and his team actually believe that they can, you know, they can finagle, they can, you know, bamboozle Putin in some way and make him back off on some of those demands. No, they're non-negotiable, and that's what Trump fails to understand. So while they're hopeful that their negotiations can succeed. I think, frankly, the negotiations are probably not going to go anywhere, at least with respect to bringing a definitive end to the war in Ukraine. It is likely that Russia and the United States will, you know, make some progress in normalizing their own relationship, But some of the agreements that the United States made with Russia in Riyadh on Monday are going to be impossible to implement because one of them was the lifting of sanctions on agricultural products, particularly grains and fertilizer. Well, the main ones imposing those sanctions right now is Europe. And Europe's— Macron came out today, yesterday, and said, hell no. No, no, no, no, we're not withdrawing our sanctions unless Russia gets completely out of Ukraine. That's not going to happen. Yeah, so right there they've sabotaged it. And then, you know, Zelensky— yeah, we heard Scott Bessant, the Secretary of Treasury, say, oh yeah, I think we got this deal used. Yeah, it's a done deal, we'll sign the deal next week on the rare earth minerals with Ukraine. And then Zelensky in the last 24 hours said basically, you know, uh, you know, uh, bovine manure, which is a polite way of saying BS. He said, no, no, no, no, no, we haven't agreed on anything and we're gonna, you know, we haven't signed anything. In fact, I'm not even going to, you know, so the, the Trump team's putting out like, yo, everything's great, man, these negotiations are going terrific. But the Europeans and the Ukrainians certainly aren't cooperating, and within all that, Russia's going to do— Russia has made its demands very clear, and that I asked Sergey Lavrov that very question, and he came back, provided a lengthy answer, but the bottom line was, no, we haven't changed at all. In fact, based on comments that Vladimir Putin made a week ago today before a group of industrialists, he made it clear. He says, look, Ukraine's got about 2 to 3 weeks to accept these deals that are on the table. If they don't accept those deals, then, you know, we're not going to stop until we've taken Odessa, We've secured the entire Black Sea coast, and we've secured Novorossiya, New Russia, which includes all land east of the Dnieper River and part of the land on the West Bank, which would include Kiev, because Kiev was a Russian city. That's where Russian Christianity in Russia was born.

Well, a lot of, a lot of people in the West do not know this reality, Larry, right?

That's the problem— ignorance. You know, we have no memory. You know, good God, they can't even remember, you know, if you go back and say, who was president in 2009, they'd go, oh geez, I don't remember. Whereas, you know, the Russians, you know, the That, that's, I think, the one thing that really differentiates Russians from Americans. They remember the past. And like on May 9th, when they do the March of the Immortals, where the population comes out and marches in memory of their grandfather— I was going to say their fathers, but now, you know, most of the people marching, it's It's not their fathers, it's their grandfathers or their great-grandfathers, their great-grandmothers who died or served in the Great Patriotic War, which we know as World War II. They remember, it's personal. It touches almost every family in Russia and they haven't forgotten. Whereas, you know, look at the United States. You know, we basically, we don't pay attention to December 7th anymore. We don't, certainly don't pay attention to May 5th, is what we've celebrated as Victory in Europe Day. It's that, that's 80 years ago. Good God, that's ancient history. And the majority of Americans didn't, you know, didn't suffer any loss in that war. It was only, it was only a small, small percentage of Americans who had family members that paid the ultimate price.

Well, I remember, Larry, when I was teaching at the university and something came up about World War I and II, but I focused on World War II, and I asked the questions, do you guys know who won World War II? And most of the students, you know, always say, well, it was the United States and all that. I said, you have to understand how history has been manipulated. If it weren't for the Soviet Union, we won't even get involved in World War II to begin with, let alone how many, uh, the Russians have lost— over 25 million, up to 27 million people, right? For you guys to understand, you need to understand this reality. And sadly, here in the West, we— history is manipulated. I, I know this for a fact. Yeah.

Now you mentioned— let me just, on a side note there, while I was in Moscow We toured the— Judge Napolitano and I toured the Victory Museum, which is a special museum that they've constructed as a commemoration of World War II. It is the most magnificent exhibit I have ever seen. You know, I've been through the various art galleries and exhibits of the Smithsonian, of all the aerospace museums, both of them. I've been through the Louvre, British War Museum. This thing is spectacular. It, it, it's so— you walk, they, they've created— it's almost like, uh, the, the stage set for a World War II movie where you've got, uh, you, you literally feel like you're in the midst of of what the battle was, and they take you from the start of the war all the way to the very last room, which is you're in Berlin. You're on the steps of the Reichstag, and they've really gone to great lengths that they don't forget. And also, when I was afterwards, we went downstairs and they have— you can look names up, this thing. And I was— one of our guides is young 24-year-old, I'll call it a girl, you know, young woman. And they got talking to her and asked her about her family. And so she goes in and types up and up pops her great-grandfather and his picture and service record. I mean, it's really, it was just, it was incredibly moving. And we don't have anything like that in the States, nothing.

Yeah, for sure. Yeah, Smithsonian and all that, uh, it's, it's nothing in comparison to all those. And I remember seeing some in Europe myself, uh, when I used to travel back then. You mentioned the Lavrov, and I'd like to share with the community, guys, I'm going to share with you a clip from Larry's interview with Mr. Lavrov. But before I'll do that, Larry, I want to ask you a personal question, if I may. Sure. Your assessment about Mr. Lavrov, that you met him face to face, like in You know, we read about— I've been reading about Mr. Lavrov for, for years and years. We all know he's been around for a long time. What was your assessment meeting with the guy face to face? What kind of impression did he give you? Was he like that snobbish diplomat, or was he like very down to earth?

No, he's a, he's a regular guy that you'd, uh, enjoy sitting down having a beer or having a vodka or drinking a glass of wine with. He is, he is an unassuming person. He doesn't walk in and, and I'll compare him to, you know, I, I used to be on CNN's Crossfire quite a bit. I remember, and I was on with Pat Buchanan several times. Yeah. And even though I'd been on with Pat Buchanan several times, I mean, literally sitting where I could touch him with my left, you know, my left arm. He was, he was within arm's distance. There were times, there was one time when I was in the lobby of the CNN building and here comes Pat. In fact, we had just been on a show together like 2 hours before. I go, hey Pat, and he looks at me like, you know, what insect, who are you and why are you talking to me? Okay, so I've been around people with that vibe. That ain't, that ain't Lovegrove. Lovegrove is very personable, uh, he's very funny, does have a sense of humor. And, uh, and you know, he didn't come in with this attitude, okay, I got a message to deliver and you guys, uh, sit down, shut up and listen. We had been asked by our hosts to prepare questions in it, you know, to submit questions in advance, which we did. Yeah. But we got in there, those questions went out the window. I didn't use mine. Yeah. You know, because, because the conversation was going in a different direction and it was, it was a good give and take. I mean, he, he would give comprehensive answers to what we asked, But that's just his nature. He's, you know, he thinks well on his feet. And it was just, you know, I came away very impressed with him. I was impressed with him as a diplomat before, but then, you know, meeting him as a person, you know why he's effective as probably the leading diplomat in the world today? Because he's likable. He's not, he's not an unlikable person. He is, you know, he doesn't pretend that you're not there. He, he looks at you, he looks you in the eye, he talks to you, and he listens. Very interesting.

Well, I wanted to, I wanted the community to hear this from you personally because you had the opportunity. How many of us will get that opportunity? Slim to none. Let's, let's be honest about that. But let me, guys, I'm going to share with you a clip here. We'll take a listen quickly here, and I'll have Larry sort of comment on it because there is one particular aspect into this clip and we'll get into it once we take a listen here. So take a listen, guys. Okay.

I'm not sure I trust my own country. And I know that the Russian government is quite sincere in looking to pursue a diplomatic solution. The— what troubles me, and, and something that I continue to hear now from people in, you know, significant positions, just as the United States cynically developed a relationship with China in 1972 under Nixon, it was for the express purpose of going after then the Soviet Union to try— wanted to make sure that they split them apart. I have heard several people, and I know that this Elbridge Colby, who is going to be like the number 3 person in the Department of Defense, that they see China as the enemy, and they want— they believe that they can split Russia from China and again use you— not you personally, Mr. Minister, but the country— as as a wedge against China. Now, I try to say that's foolishness, because unlike the United States, the Russian government takes its agreements seriously and adheres to them. So how do you think, you know, what, what will be Russia's approach in juggling this, this, let's call it subterfuge by the United States to on the one hand offer you a hand of friendship, but at the same time they have not released their desire to destroy your country, and to also use you cynically against the Chinese. Well, we have been through this, as you mentioned, in 1972, when Nixon wanted this, the relationship in this triangle to be like this. The relations between the US and China and the US and Russia, both must be better than the relations between Moscow and China.

Very interesting. I'm going to stop it right there, Larry, because I want to get your takes into all this. Now, you brought up some really interesting questions because I listened to the entire our interview, uh, and specifically David. And I argued that point before, uh, in when I wrote, uh, in the My Russia book, that down the road the US will be forced to try to create that wedge between the Russians and the Chinese because their friendship, their partnership was coming stronger.

Yeah, well, and in fact, if you look at this latest, uh, intelligence assessment, uh, through a threat assessment by the U.S. intelligence community. It reflects that, you know, this, this— I call it stupidly naive view that Russia is dependent upon China, that Russia is the junior partner, Chinese are dominant, that Russia is basically China's prison bitch, okay? Yeah. And all the— what Russia's got to wake up and realize that the West is its real friend, and then we can work together against those nasty Chinese. I mean, it is like, I, I am so disgusted with this crap. It is, it is, uh, a manufactured worldview. Yeah, because, well, you know, those Chinese and Russians, man, they are imperialist powers. We don't stop them, they're going to take over the world. And then you go, okay, really? How many countries has China invaded in, let's just say, the last 50 years? Oh, they've had one— one foreign military adventure, and that was 1979. Other than that, they stay at home. They don't have 700+ military bases around the world, unlike the United States. Yeah, same can be said for Russia. Russia's not been out, you know. The invasion of Afghanistan under the Soviet Union was, uh, equally sort of provoked by the West, as Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that. Before he died. And it was deliberately designed by us to try to entrap the Russians in a war of attrition that they couldn't extricate themselves from. And ultimately they pulled out. Now let's remember, they only lost 15,000 soldiers in that 10-year adventure, which is not, you know, it's a lot, but it's nothing compares with what they've lost now You know, they've lost 10 times that many, uh, in, you know, a third of the— two-thirds of the amount of time. So, um, they— Russia is also not an imperialist power, but here it is, the United States. We're the ones manipulating, we're the ones invading, we're the ones pushing war policies. And, you know, what Lavrov is coming along— you know, what he— what he acknowledged there was You know, we recognize what the United States is doing. We understand it now, and we're not going to fall for that trap. You know, we're not going to fall for that banana in the tailpipe trap, you know, to quote Eddie Murphy. This highlights though, when you look at the intelligence assessment, they genuinely do not understand nor do they really address in an intelligent manner what the nature of this relationship between Russia and China is. China needs the oil and gas that Russia produces in abundance. Russia— China actually needs some of the rare earth minerals that Russia produces. There's not a thing from— that Russia needs from China other than a market where they can sell their goods. And, you know, that doesn't put Russia in a position of being, uh, depend— you know, dependent upon them. Um, Russia is needing workers. They do have a manpower shortage, and they can get some labor out of places like China and North Korea. But again, China is starting to deal with its own sort of population issues despite being a 1.3 billion size country. Its replacement rate is dropping, but, but actually that's, that is common across, let's call it, the developed world. It's not confined to China or to Russia. It's certainly happening throughout Europe, happening in the United States. So this failure to understand properly this relationship between China and Russia is, you know, it's one of the real failings of U.S. policy.

I couldn't agree more, Larry, because I've also been convinced years and years, even during my days in Washington, that the lack of depth in understanding you know, where the world is headed, where this relationship, especially between the Russians and the Chinese. And even back then I argued, and somebody like roll his eyes when I said that. I said, Mike, my word, down the road you're going to see some strong partnership between China and Russia, and I won't even be surprised it might even move to the level of a strategic. Oh, what are you talking about, Mr. Oh? You know, and that's kind of like they just didn't they couldn't understand. They couldn't. So I'm glad you clarified this for, for our audience to, to have a better understanding on, on this. Let's move on to our part, or second part of the conversation here, and we're going to move, guys, into the Middle East or West Asia. And I'm going to start by the key question, Larry, given what the US is doing right now in the Red Sea regarding the deployments of the Carl Vinson and the USS Harry Truman and the bombing of the Houthis and so forth. So in your opinion, given your experience, Larry, would you see Yemen becoming a second Vietnam for the US?

No, Yemen is being used as a stepping stone to go to war with Iran. Okay. It's— Yemen is a pretext in that regard. We couldn't even mobilize to attack, to conquer Yemen. And what do I mean by conquering Yemen? If we continue to drop bombs from airplanes and launch cruise missiles and that kind of, that's not gonna defeat them. That's not gonna stop Yemen from launching its own missiles and from attacking ships in the Red Sea and from launching hypersonic missiles into Ben Gurion Airport and other parts of Israel. The only way to stop that, to fully get control, would be to invade Yemen and conquer it. Well, you know, we, we'd need, we need probably an army of at least 500,000 capable of deploying that ignoring, you know, our other commitments around the world, maybe upwards of a million men. Well, hell, right now our Army actual strength is like 470,000 globally. So we're not, we're not even from a manpower standpoint, we don't even have the resources in place to do that. So let's set that aside. That's, that's just fanciful. It's not going to happen. Um, the Trump team has made it clear, in my view, in the last few weeks that they've delivered an ultimatum to, uh, Iran, that Iran must, uh, get rid of any nuclear program, even its peaceful nuclear program, and cut off all support to Hamas and Hezbollah, or else they will be attacked by us. Now, uh, my friend Ray McGovern— Ray believes that that's just posturing on the part of Trump, and that could be, but I am inclined to take Trump and Waltz and Rubio and Hegseth at their word for what they've said. Because even though in the— this U.S. intelligence assessment, the one sort of bright spot in an otherwise hot mess of a report is the presentation that, or the conclusion, that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, does not have a nuclear weapon, and is not embarked in a program to build a nuclear weapon. Yet despite that being the judgment of the intelligence community, you've got Donald Trump saying just a week, two weeks ago, Yeah, we're down to the short strokes. Uh, you know, he's using, using sexual imagery there. Yeah, we're in the short strokes, and you know, they better, we better come clean of not building that nuke or else. And, uh, in, in that regard, we don't just have the carrier strike group, the Harry S. Truman, in the Red Sea. The Carl Vinson is apparently sailing out near in the Indian Ocean headed towards the coast of Iran. You've got B-2 bombers and B-52 bombers that have been deployed to Diego Garcia, which is also in the Indian Ocean. So the United States is certainly making a show of force that we intend to do something militarily. And you know, it's really— it's predicated Um, let me emphasize this. The intelligence community is lying or mistakenly reporting on certain issues. One of those issues is the intelligence community is reporting that Iran's air defense system has been shredded, that it's non-existent, and that they're extremely vulnerable. Uh, one of the others, just as a sidelight, you know, that Russia suffered 750,000 casualties, you know, most of those dead, in the battle in Ukraine. Well, that's not true. That, that's a lie. But the point is, the intelligence community is providing false misleading information to Trump and his team, and they're believing it. And when you believe something that's not true, but you act on it accordingly— so let me give you an example. If you're standing blindfolded on a, on a roof, and I tell you, hey David, it's just a 3-foot jump, so we're going to push you, and you're you know, you're gonna land in 3 feet, and you believe me, you trust me, you'll act on that, and you jump. Well, I was a little off. It wasn't 3 feet, it was 30 feet. Hmm. The outcome's a little different, uh, when you hit the ground. You're going to break some legs, maybe kill yourself. That's the situation the United States is in right now. If we go forward with this plan to attack Iran, because Iran has built up underground missile storage and launching facilities. There's a great picture of it, you're showing it, um, that are beyond our reach to destroy. Uh, they have, uh, quite excellent air defense systems of their own. That they've developed, plus they've got air defense systems from Russia, plus they've got Russian electronic warfare capabilities, plus, and most importantly, they signed on January 17th a comprehensive strategic security agreement that, that covers all aspects, both military, economic, political, of their strategic relationship with Russia. Because Russia now views Iran as part of its economic future, because they're going to build a railway line that will run from the ports in southern Iran all the way up through Azerbaijan into Russia. And this will be a way for— to move cargo that comes out of Asia, and even if it comes out of Canada or the United States, more quickly, uh, running it into, into Russia via that line, as opposed to going through the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, the Mediterranean, the Bosphorus Sea. So Iran is, is in a new economic relationship with, with Russia, and Russia is going to protect that relationship. In fact, this is one of those areas where if the United States follows through on this kind of attack It could destroy any possibility of normal relations with the United States, that Russia would break off contact with the United— we could potentially be at war with Russia over this.

I do believe that they will step in, and I know some— I remember when I mentioned that way back and somebody put some comments like, no, there is no way the Russians will risk that. I said, no, they will move forward beyond what we could even imagine. And Washington is not thinking in those terms of— I mean, we look at it, we are looking at it right now, Larry, with the Houthis. I mean, the administration didn't expect that the Houthis is going to fire back. Now they've been targeting the Israeli airport, the Gurion Airport, for the 6th time while we are bombing, thinking we're going to intimidate them. And that's to me where that short thinking comes in, in Washington, not thinking that Houthi is not going to back down. So if the Houthis couldn't back down, what makes us think that Iran, with all its, you know, they do have some military capabilities, especially in the missile technology. And this leads me to the original question, Larry, you know, do you foresee the possibility of a strike against Iran?

Yes, I think, and if you ask Raymond Gover that question, he'd tell you no. So we just, we do, we have a polite disagreement on that, on that particular issue. I think the Trump administration is so blinded by its ties to the Zionists in Israel that they have concluded that the only way they can deal with Iran is by trying to destroy it. And the irony here is, I believe that in doing that, if Trump does that, he will be sowing the seeds of the destruction of his own presidency because it will turn into a military disaster and Trump, uh, Trump will be humiliated. Apart from the United States being shown to be incapable of dominating a place like Iran. You know, we need to look back. This is, again, this gets back to the issue of memory and forgetfulness in this country. You know, I haven't forgotten our shock and awe in Iraq in 1991. That didn't exactly stop the ground fighting, and then what followed in 2003. And to recall that even though we, we entered Afghanistan, um, and had— which is about— Afghanistan's about the size of Ukraine— and we had every military advantage as the most modern, most expensive military in the world. We had tanks, vehicles, uh, air supremacy, air control of the air, helicopters, um, and yet we couldn't defeat a bunch of mountain warriors who were carrying rifles and pistols, a few grenade launchers and a few mortars, but we couldn't Well, we couldn't defeat them. That's true. Yeah, we could kill a lot of them, but we did not defeat them. We did not erase the threat. And after 20 years, we got run out of there. So, you know, at some point, some humility ought to come in on the U.S. side. We recognize, you know what, I know we think we're really good. But there are certain battles, certain combat environments that we really don't succeed in without having to put— entertain significant losses. Now, could we have conquered Afghanistan? Yeah, maybe with a 2 million man force, but we weren't willing to make that kind of expenditure. Or that kind of sacrifice. Um, you know, we lost Vietnam and people, oh, we just didn't put enough troops in. Okay, we would have put in— let's say we would have put in the number of troops required to actually control everything on the ground, we still would have been taking casualties. So, uh, what we're looking at here is, uh, on paper, uh, talking about attacking Iran without thinking it through. Now, and this is where I have a real fundamental criticism of the Secretary of Defense, Pete Haig, Seth. I think that young man is in so far over his head, he doesn't know what he's doing. And let's take this decision to attack Yemen. When Trump, I applauded Trump and his emissary, Steve Whitcoff, and they negotiated the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Because when they did that, it brought an end to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, because the Houthis said, oh, okay, that's, that's the reason they've been launching attacks, in order to get Israel to stop the attacks on the Palestinians. So once that started, the Houthis said, hey, we're done, you know, no more attacks, no more interference with shipping in the Red Sea. Uh, but then the Trump administration, for whatever reason, we still don't know why they issued the first order because, you know, I think, I don't know how much you got into what's called JOEPs during your career in the Army, but the entire process starts with an alert order where an order comes from, say, the president well, from the president or the Secretary of Defense alerting the relevant combat units that, hey, you might be going into action. And out of that, as a result of that alert order, then it can be followed by a warning order. Yeah, definitely, man, we're going to need to prepare for combat. Then the, those combatant commands, and this is under CENTCOM, well, they have to address, provide a a concept of operations and complete with other course of action and provide a variety. We could do, here's option 1, here's option 2, here's option 3, here's the resources we need for this, the resources we need for that. And, you know, lay out in detail what the operation will be. Once that they go through the command you know, the White House in particular signs off on it and goes, yeah, that's what we want to do. Then they issue a warning order and then a deployment order. And once the deployment order is up, then you move the assets out to be prepared to carry out the operation. And then you get the execution order. So there's, there's a whole military bureaucracy process in this. So this— the attacks that were launched on March 15th, the planning for that, this wasn't crisis planning, because under crisis planning you can do— get some decisions made, it can start assets moving within, you know, 48 hours, sometimes 24 hours. No, this was— this, this started at least a month in advance, but Yemen wasn't doing anything. Yemen hadn't started bombing or attacking ships, and they certainly weren't hitting Israel. They were observing the ceasefire. And that's why we, you know, we've now got this SignalGate, as they're calling it, the captured chat of Hegseth and the whole national security team, Mike Waltz. And to the credit of JD Vance and then Tulsi Gabbard's chief of staff, Joe Kent, Joe, who's an actual combat veteran and whose wife has died in combat operations in Syria, so he understands the price. They both said, uh, you know, what's the urgency here? You know, why, why are we rushing into this? You know, we can wait a month. No, no, no, no, no, we're gonna go now. We're gonna show Iran what we're doing. So This was all such a cynical, uh, action on the part of the United States. There was no justification for it. And they did— again, Hegseth didn't think it through, and I don't think Trump was properly briefed upon what he was getting into. Because once, once those ships get into the Red Sea and have to start firing air defense missiles against inbound missiles from the Houthis and inbound drones. Well, you run out of missiles. Yeah, there's a limited supply on board. You know, I think it's 96 on each destroyer. And when you calculate that for every missile fired by the Houthis, a destroyer needs to fire 2. Well, if you know, do the math. If the Houthis fire 20 missiles, That means 40 of the 96 missiles have been fired off of one of the destroyers. They can't— they cannot stay into the Gulf for 3 weeks if the Houthis continue to attack them with regularity, which they are. And at some point they're going to have to— they're going to withdraw because the only way they can reload those tubes with missiles is they have to go to a port. Where there are cranes that can load the missiles on. But then there's another problem. Those Aegis missiles, the particular version is called an SM-3, I believe. There's a limited supply. In 2018, there were like only 660 of them. Wow. So it's not like there's, you know, we've got some factory blazing away, turning them and turning out 20 or 30 a day. No, that's not happening. So again, this is a typical military— this is like, you know, a teenage boy looking for just immediate gratification and not thinking through, you know, what's the long-term implications of this. So yeah, we shot our missiles off, woohoo! Yeah. Well, what, you mean we got to reload? You mean we got to find replacement missiles? Oh, I hadn't thought about that. You know, that's the sign of a juvenile brain, undeveloped, not able to make strategic connections.

Well, for sure, Larry, because there is, to me at least, with these actions that the US is taking, to me this is not strength, this is weakness. Lack of thinking, really, really serious thinking about this. This leads me to one point before I move to my last, uh, uh, segment of this conversation here, uh, regarding the Houthis, you know, uh, to me, uh, and, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that the Houthis have put now the Arab and Muslim leaders to shame. Yeah. And specifically for the Middle East, when you look at, for example, the deployment of the aircraft carriers and so forth, Uh, how do you think those Arab incompetent leaders, especially in the Gulf States— Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt— how do you think they perceive now the Houthis standing to the US? And what might lead— what might this lead to in case the US decided to attack Iran?

Clearly, the Houthis, and they just held a conference this week that brought around a number of international observers. I know that my friend Pepe Escobar was there, another US blogger, social media guy, Jackson Henkel, he was there. The Houthis are reaching out, and you are correct. They're the only, the only ones in the Arab Muslim world that are really standing up and fighting for the Palestinians. And, you know, this is not a recent phenomenon for them. Remember, they, you know, they've been attacked by the United States via its Saudi proxy going back for 11 years. And they've withstood Western-backed efforts to defeat them. There were covert actions being run against them out of Sudan and also out of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and yet the Houthis have defeated it. And they've— listen, they've suffered hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties inflicted by these Western-backed efforts. They're, they're not backing down. And our, our, our false belief in the superiority of air power without recognizing power has real limitations. Yeah, it can do some things well, but there are a lot of things he can't do. And defeating the Houthis? No. So if, uh, if the United States goes forward With an attack on Iran, the potential for this to get out of control is significant because the United States will not destroy Iran's ability to retaliate, and Iran in its retaliation will destroy U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia— or in Qatar and Bahrain, uh, in Saudi Arabia. If the U.S. also attacks oil infrastructure in Iran to damage the oil, uh, business. Iran in turn will destroy the Persian Gulf oil of the Saudis, set them— set those fields on fire and shut down the Straits of Hormuz. And let's not forget that since 2019— and so by my count, that's a full total of 7 years until today— if you go 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 Every March since 2019, Russia, China, and Iran have held joint naval exercises there at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and into the Indian Ocean. And why do they do that? They're sending a message that they're cooperating and they're going to take steps, uh, to help defend Iran and The West better take that into account. Yet, if you read this latest threat assessment, they don't even, they don't give any attention to that or describe that even as a possibility. So Iran's actually holding quite a few cards that it can play. And the United States is not holding, even though we got Donald Trump in charge, he's not holding a trump card.

It's becoming very, very clear. So, guys, by the way, if you have any question for Larry, I will answer only super sticker questions. Just prepare them because we're going to do one last question here, and I'll see if you guys have any questions because I don't want to hold up Larry for too long. He is busy. He also has a life to live. So we are just grateful, Larry, for you really to come on here because I know how busy you are. And once again, yeah, it means a lot to me. And you know me, I'm the type that you give— you give sort of be grateful when people step forward. And you're one of those. I reach out to you, you respond within 24 hours, literally, if you are in the country. So I'm very grateful. The last thing I want to ask you, Larry, before I answer the community questions and let you go, the visit of the Secretary of Defense. Uh, Pete Hegseth, to Philippines, Japan, Guam, and Hawaii. So I'm not going to talk about Hawaii, I'm not going to talk much about Guam, but I am interested in the Philippines and Japan. And even Japan, I won't worry about it much. I'm more interested in Philippines. What do you think the purpose of the visit at this time, given what's going on in the Philippines? In reference to the ICC illegal arrest of the former president, in relation to the escalation tensions between Philippines and China regarding South China Sea. Are we pushing China, the Philippines over the cliff?

Well, yeah, I mean, look, we've used the Philippines as a proxy against China. We certainly encouraged them to, you know, take, if you will, a hostile position vis-à-vis the Chinese. Now, you know, the Chinese and the Filipinos, they've got, they've got some disputes over who owns which island. Yeah. And who's got navigation control over this portion of the sea. But when all is said and done, if it was just the Philippines versus the Chinese, the Chinese would win that. Uh, now with the Filipinos are relying upon the United States to give them the muscle to push back. So, you know, once again, uh, the Filipinos, uh, are being used as a proxy. Uh, you think these, these foreign countries, these little countries, and I, and I put the Philippines in as a little country compared to something like China, the United States, or Russia. You think they'd realize, man, you know, I call it sort of like they're like the fat girl in high school that the guys only want to date because they want to take advantage of her. You know, she's not getting the dates because she's the prom queen, because she's the best-looking girl in the school. Sorry, it's a crude divide, but it helps communicate what the nature of that relationship is. And yet they're foolish enough to think, oh my God, they really love me. No, no, no, no, we don't, we don't have your best interest at heart at all. We're using you. You're just a tool. And you know what? When you get dirty or when you get dull or when we no longer use you, we'll discard you. You'll be, you know, throw you away. That's what we do with tools. And, uh, in that regard, you know, Pete Hegseth is there to try to convince the, uh, the Filipinos, hey, will you continue being our sucker? You know, we— will you continue to be dumb enough to, to cast your lot with us? Uh, because we'll give you all sorts of, you know, we give you blankets and trinkets and, you know, baubles. It's, it's, you know, this has unfortunately been the sick part of U.S. foreign policy over the last 70 years. We keep, uh, you know, we, we will, we will maliciously use other countries for our own immediate benefit, and once we're gratified Forget about them. We disregard you.

Absolutely spot on, Larry. Couldn't agree more. So, uh, let me take some questions from the community— from not the community, those who got a super sticker here. Chili Pepper, thank you so much for your super sticker and support for the channel. Larry, what do you think of Brian Berlik's views, uh, that Trump is implementing Project 2025 and EU taking on Russia in written in the book and parts of the plan.

Uh, yeah, I don't, I don't think they're following a plan. I mean, I like Brian and he's a smart, capable analyst. Yeah, but, but I, you know, unlike Brian, I have worked directly in at higher levels of government, seeing how the decision-making takes place, and he's making an assumption that it's a rational process. People are following the plan, that they're sort of like airline pilots. You know, if you've been around an airline pilot, when they go out, get on the plane to fly, man, they gotta just— they go down, check one, check two, check three. Gotta— these guys aren't like that. Uh, you know, they, they, they are embracing and doing things, uh, of their own accord. The split that's occurring right now between Europe and the United States, it's real. It's not— this is not contrived. This is not some drama, artificial drama. And Trump really doesn't like Europe and Trump really is wanting Europe to take more responsibility. And Trump is, I think, sincere about trying to get a deal with the Russians. That much I believe, but what I don't believe What I hope the Russians understand is Trump does not represent a majority view in the United States. The vast majority of Americans still hold a very jaundiced view of Russia, and they bought into the propaganda that Russia is our enemy and China is our enemy, and we got to be prepared to deal with them.

Next question from Rafael. Thank you, Rafael, for your continued support. Greatly appreciate you, man. Uh, Russia, the team needs a new coach. Putin was good to bring Russia up here, but his tactics are outdated. The West is taking advantage of his niceness now. Like, uh, Gandhi was, Putin is in danger now. What do you think, Larry?

Yeah, I, I disagree. Um, Putin— while, while it's true that the West mistakes patience and restraint as foolishness and weakness. Putin has also been, you know, he's been very tough and very direct. It's like, go back and look at what he was saying on the eve of the start of the special military operation. You know, he pulled the whole security team in and allowed it to be televised. And he was asking a lot of people some very direct, very tough questions. As I recall, Narishin, the head of the FSB, boy, he almost got humiliated in public because his answers weren't up to snuff. So Putin's not a weakling. But Putin is understanding. He's not going to react emotionally. You know, there's a tendency when we get, you know, if you allow your anger to be driven by your emotions, you're going to make some very, very bad decisions. Whereas Putin has been, you know, been doing it thoughtfully, you know. So one of the criticisms— oh, their offense is so slow, why are they taking their time? Well, I had a chance to ask one of the Russian retired generals that very question. I was on a show hosted by Dmitry Symes, and General I think it's Bereshnik, and Bereshnik, I said, hey, why this slow pace? He says, because we're not going to needlessly expend the lives of our Russian soldiers. We're going to try to minimize casualties on that front, and we're going to minimize casualties of Russian civilians, because if we go in and just without any regard, if we're going recklessly with ultimate violence, yeah, we will be able to move quicker, but we're going to cause a lot of civilian casualties, and we'll have a much higher casualty rate among our soldiers. No need for that. So that's what he's doing.

That's very, very obviously, yeah. Francis Tango, thank you so much for your Super Sticker and support. A question: if there is a war between Iran and U.S., how good is Russia? And who will help Iran? And what will BRICS countries do in this scenario? In other words, will BRICS countries intervene also?

Russia will intervene on behalf of Iran if Iran is attacked in an unprovoked manner. When you read that comprehensive security agreement, yeah, Russia didn't provide an un— you know, an uncritical, limitless commitment to defend Iran. But they did say very specifically that they would provide all necessary aid and assistance to Iran in the event that it was attacked in violation of Article 51 of the UN Security, uh, Council— there's a UN Charter. So They made it very clear that an unprovoked attack against Iran is going to bring in Russian military and intelligence support. They left open the possibility that if Iran did something that, you know, took action and by its own action provoked an attack, then Russia was not obligated to respond. That's how that portion of the agreement's written. Uh, so, um, they will— this will be backed up by, by China at a minimum, which is the most important one. It really doesn't matter what South Africa and Brazil say or do because, you know, they don't have much clout to intervene one way or the other other than to express, you know, outrage at the United States. The relationships between South Africa and the United States already are shaky and going to get worse in light of the recently announced ambassador, Trump's nominee for ambassador to South Africa, Brent Bozell, who's seen as this ardent Zionist, and the South Africans are likely going to refuse to accept his credentials. So, um, that's why this— an attack by the United States, an unprovoked attack like this could rapidly get out of hand and put us on the threshold of World War III.

Wow, yeah, sad outcome, very scary. Another one from Francis Tango, once again thank you Francis. A question: Larry, if you interview Trump, what would you say?

I would start off by saying, why are you not requiring the intelligence community to provide you hard numbers and facts about Ukrainian losses. Uh, that'd be number one. Number two, but perhaps more importantly, is why are you willing to sacrifice U.S. national security for the cause of Zionism? I thought you put America first, not Zionists first.

Yeah, very interesting, very interesting. Uh, I'll have two more questions, one here from Rafael. Once again, appreciate you, man. Larry, I know you like movies. In Rocky III, after he lost the fight, the old man told Rocky, you have been civilized. Are Putin and Lavrov too civilized?

No, look at what they've done. They've been civilized and yet have stripped NATO bare. Neither Germany, England, or France have any reserves of military supplies in their warehouses. They've been emptied. The United States can't even produce artillery shells to replace Ukraine's rate of use. We've been hollowed out in terms of HIMARS missiles, Patriot missiles. So, you know, Russia, by being civilized, has actually defeated NATO. I think there's a lesson there.

For sure, for sure. And last question here, we take from Army with Harmony. Thank you very much for your kind support. What if, what if, if, what if provocation is questionable?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I didn't understand the question either. So basically the way I, I, I guess I understood it. Uh, what if, if we think about this provocation of, uh, of the, I'm, I'm assuming he's talking about the Iranians here. The provocation of attack in Iran is questionable in itself, meaning the whole notion of the provocation itself.

Um, well, let me, let me deal with the whole question of provocation. When I, when I— in fact, the book, you can see it behind me, uh, over my left shoulder. Yeah, Provoked, Scott Horton's book Provoked. Uh, when you go through and read that, it's, it's my, my gut reaction in reading it, I was, I was getting madder with each page I read because you, you realize how, you know, deceitful, devious, dishonest the United States has been. And where we've, we've been given the chance almost, uh, multiple times to do the right thing, to do— to choose a path that's going to promote peace, that's going to promote, uh, good relations with Russia. And every single time we choose the opposite path, every single time. And in choosing that opposite path, we choose actions deliberately that are going to provoke Russia, Russia, as it ultimately did. That, and when we talk about provoke, think of yourself, you're standing in a bar and some loudmouth drunk comes up to you and go, hey, I don't like how you're looking at me, and they poke you in the chest and you back away. Friend, listen, hey, I, you know, they keep poking you in the chest, they keep poking you in the chest, they're literally making physical contact with you. Which is called battery. It's criminal battery. And finally, they back you into a corner where you, you know, you no longer have any way to get out. They poke you one more time and then you flatten their nose. You punch them. You knock them to the ground. And then they call the police and say that you've attacked them. We're that obnoxious drunk. Russia is the one that's flattening our nose, knocking us to the ground, because they've had enough. They recognize, you know, we, we've been— you've mistaken our desire for peace with weakness and our desire to avoid war with fear, and neither are true. And So now we're going to pay it. The West is going to learn a hard lesson this way.

And it's about time for it, uh, said to Sebastian. Reality. So yeah, uh, guys, before we say goodbye here, I'm gonna share with you a link to Larry Johnson's Substack. Make sure you sign up there. I, I read his stuff. I get his, uh, uh, letters and so forth. I read them out, so I read the what's going on. It's very, very interesting. Platform for you too if you want to educate yourself and be more informed. There is another link here also for his archives, all of them. But I highly, highly recommend that you guys go and subscribe to his channel, The Counter Currents. Very interesting guests there. Yesterday, as I said, I was listening to Alastair, and I might extend an invitation for him if he would like to come over in this channel as well. So Uh, well, Larry, I can't thank you enough, man, for really carving out time for us here. Yeah, the community is always happy to have you. Yeah, an hour and 20 minutes. I don't know where it went. Well, I, I look forward, forward to seeing you next time, Larry, and truly, truly appreciate you. And all right, my friend. Yeah, it's, it's an honor and privilege, really a privilege to, to share this stage with you here, and I'm always grateful listening to. No, of course. So you take, you take care, Larry. All right, all right, bye-bye. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye. All right, guys, hope you, you enjoyed listening to Larry here. So very, very insightful guy and, uh, wonderful human being. So, and, and very— anytime I reached out to him, literally within 24 hours he'll let me know if he's available or not. So I appreciate that. So anyway, look forward to seeing you on Saturday for our community conversation with the presence of Dr. Stewart. Make sure you guys prepare your questions ahead of time, and because that's always gonna— it's our community, although we don't talk geopolitics. And on Sunday I will be— and also on Saturday night I'll be having conversation with the Karlza. And on Sunday, I will be having a conversation at 8:30 AM with Professor Anna Malandag. So anyway, I hope you guys enjoy it. As always, uh, I look forward to seeing you. Remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.