The Iran War Explained: Are American Boots About to Hit the Ground? | Dr. Jonathan Lockwood

Is the U.S. war with Iran really about protecting America — or did Israel's existential threat pull us in? I sit down with Dr. Jonathan Lockwood, retired Army Colonel and intelligence analyst, to break down everything happening in real time: Iran's decentralized "mosaic defense," the battle over oil through the Strait of Hormuz, the prediction that the U.S. will seize Karg Island, Ukraine's role in the conflict through drone technology, and the growing frustration among Trump's own base.

We also explore the deeper strategic questions — what is Israel's true end game, why doesn't America learn from history, and was there ever truly an imminent threat to the United States? Plus: a frank conversation about the moral complexity of political power, grand strategy, and faith in a fallen world.

🔔 Subscribe & hit the bell so you never miss an episode of The Cameron Brown Show.

📌 Topics Covered:

• Iran's mosaic defense strategy after U.S./Israeli strikes
• Iran's drone warfare & the Strait of Hormuz oil threat
• The Karg Island prediction & U.S. Marines deployment
• Ukraine's drone technology changing the war
• Did Israel pressure Trump into entering the conflict?
• Tulsi Gabbard's testimony & the "no imminent threat" controversy
• Trump's base growing frustrated with the war
• Israel's end game in the Middle East
• Why America keeps repeating history
• Grand strategy, geopolitical balancing & the national debt
• Faith, moral ambiguity, and political power

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

The occupation of Corn Island is one of the key things that I would be looking for in the very near future, because that would be a very positive step, not only for the US to take in neutralizing the irresponsibility to project power. If the United States and Israel continue their efforts to reduce the irresponsibility to project power on Australia's producer, it's going to be critical in that they have to reduce that. And once they reduce that they secure the shipping lanes, so you get free-flowing oil, which reduces the price pressure, causes prices to come down. That's going to be the key indicator.

SPEAKER_00 0:43

Well, I I don't know that I need to open the second monster, but I might at some point during this conversation unleash the beast, to say the least. But there's there's so much for us to discuss, and once again, welcome back on for another episode of the Cameron Brown show. I am really looking forward to diving into this one because with everything going on in the world, there's so much to piece together and to try to understand. And what I've always appreciated about our conversations is it's very objective. This is the information, these are the facts, this is where we're going. Um, and I I think people really need to understand the overall strategy here and kind of try to get into the head of some of our leaders and see where they're maybe thinking. Um, but uh but we we will start with the Iranian situation and then we'll just expand from there if that works.

SPEAKER_01 1:36

Sounds good to me.

SPEAKER_00 1:37

Wonderful. So starting with Iran uh and with where things have progressed to at this point, uh obviously started it a couple weeks ago, and now we've seen just I mean, the amount of information shared in the media from every single angle, it's it's a lot to keep up with. So in the Dr. Lockwood um summarizing fashion, can you kind of just give us maybe a better understanding of what you see going on right now and uh the general direction that this war is going in?

SPEAKER_01 2:10

Well, on the positive side, uh the United States with its military strikes and and in conjunction with Israel, they have managed to significantly reduce Iran's ability to s to launch attacks against the West in a coordinated fashion. They have they have largely decapitated the centralized leadership, and the um the number of attacks that they are able to execute in a coordinated fashion has dropped very sharply. And so Iran is not capable of inflicting major damage on our military forces in any significant way. What is also happening, though, is that they have trying to effectively close the Strait of Hormuz and place what they have done is they're pushing back on the pressure point, which they control, you know, shutting down as much as possible the flow of oil to the West and really to direct oil uh transfers to those places who are willing to willing to bargain for it, such as China and India and so forth. And this has c in turn has caused the price of oil to go way up, you know, past$100 a barrel, and it has also had the knock-on effect of causing gasoline prices to go up in the United States, and that places puts pressure on the American people. It makes them feel a certain amount of economic pain. And you have that and it's it's really not and then there's this interesting trade-off in costs between the use of drones, the Shahid drones that the Iranians are using. Those cost maybe$500 a copy, and the interceptors, which uh the interceptors cost many times more than that that uh that are used to try and block them. And that would be unsustainable over the long term for for the West. But what's helping to counteract that is the fact that the Ukraine has div been building millions of drones per year now. And they have drone interceptors. It's a whole it's a whole subclass of drones. You have drones, they have drones for logistics, they have drones for attacking, they have drones for defending against other drones. It's just a whole subclass of robots that are that are waging the war. And the fact that these these drones they have interceptor drones that are much lower in cost than the missile interceptors, this enables them in turn, it gives them them the potential to supply the West with interceptor drones to basically cancel out the Iranians' use of drones.

SPEAKER_00 4:58

I have seen a lot of this as of late. This I think just with the Ukrainian war going over the past number of years, I kind of thought that in preparation for this, the U.S. would have seen or would have been a little more prepared on the drone side of things to already have anti-drone drones in place. And what seems to be the case is that we're still using very expensive weaponry to shoot down the drones, regardless of the U.S.

SPEAKER_01 5:22

The United States did not foresee, well, they for one thing, they were unprepared as a whole for the Ukrainian war. They were just not prepared to respond operationally, and they did not foresee the direction in which it would go with the development and heavy use of drones. They did not foresee that. That I would argue took U.S. defense industry by surprise. And they had to s to adapt quickly in order to figure, okay, what can we do in response to this? And they are not in wartime mode, they are in ad hoc responding to the immediate threat. So instead, now what you have is that we are finding that we can learn a great deal from Ukraine. And we are making making great efforts to learn from Ukraine, and and this is going to work out to Ukraine's benefit in a great deal. Because many countries are asking Ukraine for help. Not the US directly, but Ukraine. Much cheaper, much more effective. They've demonstrated that it works. And so you have so the Ukrainian war is having its effect on the Iranian war. They are linked. They are they're not you cannot treat themselves as neat little compartmented problems that you completely separate. It doesn't work that way. And it it never will. And so now the Iran, for its part, in reaction to the US military military campaign and the Israeli campaign to uh decapitate the leadership. Essentially, what uh one uh analyst has has called this, Iran has resorted to a mosaic defense. It is not a centralized defense. You have about 30 plus districts now, they are all re reacting and uh conducting operations independently of each other. They are not central. If nothing goes through to Iran, it can't. Right. There's no there's no centralized link controlling the whole thing. So you've got a very decentralized defense reacting to on their own initiative against the West with whatever means they have. And while that has the advantage of, okay, Iran cannot conduct a centralized assault or a large scale assault, it does have the advantage of allowing them to continue the fight for an indefinite period.

SPEAKER_00 7:47

Right. Yeah. So this it's also a fight that they've been preparing for for decades as well. Yes. And so and I think this is one thing that people don't realize too, regardless of how many things you destroy at the end of the day, these individuals have already been given their orders. And um what seems to be from my perspective and what I'm seeing as well is they're this is a fight to the death sort of situation. Um with a lot of these splinter groups, too, that are maybe not going to get that com that communication at the end of the day, they're just gonna keep keep on keeping on until their their dying breath. Um, I'm not sure how much the US is prepared for something like that unless we deploy ground troops, which it looks like we actually have a group of 2,500 Marines that are on the way currently to potentially be situated in the Strait of Hormuz in some way, shape, or form.

SPEAKER_01 8:29

Once again, not entirely sure of the projection on that was that they would occupy Carg Island.

SPEAKER_00 8:34

Okay, got it.

SPEAKER_01 8:36

Their major refinery. That is the most obvious, the most valuable, and from the U.S. perspective and the West, and from the U.S. especially, you noticed why that President Trump did not order the oil refineries, the oil targets to be hit.

SPEAKER_00 8:50

That's because they still are being hit by Israelis, the Israelis. So that would also probably frustrate the President terribly, thinking, hey, the Peter's.

SPEAKER_01 9:00

Don't destroy them all. We want he's probably gonna use those. We want to use those and have that be able to because that would be instrumental if once the United States has an adequate and cost-effective defense against drones to be able to counter what Iran is doing in a decentralized fashion, if they can block that and keep Iran from reacting effectively that way, then that makes the occupation of Karg Island much more valuable. Because then, under U.S. supervision, they can then restore the flow of oil and control and escort and if more effectively escort uh ships through the Strait of Hormuz and be able to but you have to have Karg Island as the critical base and being being able to conduct effective anti-drone defense and anti-missile defense as needed. And once you have that and you're able to ensure the flow of oil, bring the price of oil back down, then Iran has lost its last lever. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 10:07

Understood. Well, that would actually align with timeline-wise, too, um, with the you know, the marines that are being sent there currently. But I also like to think, too, that any ground troop invasion is not a win necessarily for the U.S., in my personal opinion.

SPEAKER_01 10:22

Um it's not a win optically, but if you if the if you have the if you have the marine, you've had if you have a nice visual of the Marines successfully conducting an amphibious operation, and you know, amphibious operations are are the are the Marine Corps' main stock in trade.

unknown 10:40

Right.

SPEAKER_01 10:40

They would I would be willing to bet with metaphysical certitude that the Marines have an amphibious operation plan for every everywhere it's possible to invade amphibiously.

SPEAKER_02 10:52

Right.

SPEAKER_01 10:52

They they probably have one for Antarctica, just for fun. But although I don't know why they'd do it. But anyway.

SPEAKER_00 11:04

We needed something that we needed something to do. There's plenty of reasons.

SPEAKER_01 11:09

Exactly. Yes, we need or just say we needed something to do. We were getting bored.

SPEAKER_00 11:14

But discovering frozen Nazis from World War II, I don't know. A bunch of crazy reasons they might make it out of there. Crazy Nazi technology, that's the latest thing, too, for whatever reason.

SPEAKER_01 11:24

Exactly. Yep. There's this and so oh, there is just uh but in any case, the um the occupation of Karg Island is one of the key things that I would be looking for in the in the very near future, because that would be a very positive step, not only for the U.S. to take in neutralizing Iran's ability to project power, to conduct its own economic, to to reduce its ability to sustain its economy, but also it would ease that pressure point. If you can restore the flow of oil and guard it and make sure that ships can go through the Strait of Hormuz unmolested, that's the key for the U.S. Because once you do that, then the oil pressure point the Iran is pressing on, that ruins their ability against that pressure point. And the the economic threat goes down and things become more stabilized, if you will. Kind of in uh in a way like uh the op in the Korean War, when the when the Chinese intervened in Korea and the MacArthur had foolishly overextended UN forces by going right up to the Chinese border. I mean, if you if you take a look at a map, uh any sensible military planner would have said, stop right at the narrowest neck of the Korean peninsula, right at Pyongyang, stop there, build your defense line, then let's negotiate peace. Don't don't cause the Chinese to come in and in large numbers. But in any case, do but you you want to be able to establish in any kind of offensive operation, you want to be able to set the conditions so that you can go back on defense and hold and hold your what you have gained. And this is what the United States is uh successfully, uh in large measure reducing Iran's offensive capability for large-scale offensive operations. And it w within the next few weeks, uh based on the j what the U.S. military and political leadership uh conclude, uh they may have said, okay, we've achieved our point, especially if they occupy Karg Island. I'm still watching that for the as the key point. But if they do that, then they will then be able to say, and if they are able to generate a successful offense uh against the against the US, excuse me, if they are able to neutralize any uh further Iranian offensive efforts, you know, then they will be in a good position to say, okay, mission accomplished. Now we go to diplomacy.

SPEAKER_00 14:03

Uh so let's I I want to go backwards here for just a moment and bring up some some points and some things that I've seen pretty consistently online. I think this will resonate pretty well with the crowd. Um one of the biggest reasons that I think a lot of lot the vast majority of the population is upset, uh mainly because not many people have actually studied our relationship with Iran before. And so any Americans dying overseas for another another war in the Middle East is obviously frustrating to anyone and everyone. We don't want to see any any more Americans die. Um we also don't want to invade another country just because we believe they have a ballistic or uh uh uh nuclear weapons. We don't we don't want to make that mistake again. And so these are things that the you know, a lot of the Americans are thinking right now, this doesn't make any sense. Why are we doing this? Um another comment of that too, Tulsi Gambert, uh Joe Kent, who obviously resigned today, which would be another kind of conversation here as well, the director of the um Center for Counterterrorism, um, also talked about the uh Iranians not being an imminent threat to the U.S. Um Joe Kent said it, Tulsi said it, especially today during the hearing. Um so these comments are being made across the board that Iran was not a direct or an imminent threat to the United States of America, and therefore, uh, and obviously at the end of the day, it's still the president's decision to make this decision to go into another country. But I guess my question, my I want to start here with the beginning of this uh incursion. It was at first it was not it wasn't a war, and then it became a war, and they didn't really have you know a really good hold on the the I guess the media at that point and the presentation of this event. So in your professional opinion, do you think that us going into Iran at this time was um something that we could have avoided and or should have avoided, or do you think this actually is the right time for this invasion, incursion, um, war, etc., based off of everything else you're seeing globally as well?

SPEAKER_01 16:07

Okay. If you're approached, let's let's approach it from the standpoint of the uh of the grand strategy that I had been recommending as far back in my in my recent book, The Russian view of US Strategy, in which I advocated that the US for a grand strategy should adopt the posture of a geopolitical balancer. Not world policeman, not isolationist, it's sort of the right in between. It's very much similar to the position that Great Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries took as a balancer vis-a-vis the continent of Europe. The idea is not to Great Britain would employ its naval power and its other f forces to balance uh ally with in such a way as to prevent any one nation from dominating the world island of Europe and Asia. And so Great Britain as a geopolitical balancer was able to preserve the peace in Europe for almost a century after the Napoleonic Wars, which is which is quite an achievement. Now the problem is you the Great War you know drained Britain's ab Great Britain's ability to perform as geopolitical balancer after that, after World War I. But now you have here a situation with the United States since the during the Cold War, the United States did have a grand strategy, the grand strategy of containment, you know, which George Kennan espoused in his 1947 article, The Sources of Soviet Conduct in Foreign Affairs. He wrote under the pseudonym X, uh, and in that he espoused it that uh it was not necessary for the United States, uh the Soviet Union, to engage in what some would advocate as rollback, you know, trying to reduce these uh the communist empire by military means. All you had to do was contain, prevent the Soviet Union from either expanding either by political subversion or other means, so long as you could do that and prevent them from expanding, that eventually the Soviet Union would buckle under the col under the internal contradictions of its of its political and economic system. History proved that Kenan was right. And the big advantage of the containment strategy, having an overarching grand strategy that ordered, that prioritizes what you are going to spend your money on, how you are going to structure your military forces, what strategies you're going to employ as a result. If you have that kind of a grand strategy, then it doesn't and if both political parties agree to function under that grand strategy, as the Democratic and Republican parties did during the Cold War, then it did not matter who was president. All presidents agreed to operate under that the uh that under that grand strategy of containment. So even though the means might be somewhat different, the overall strategy was being executed. And that was the great advantage that the United States had during the Cold War. They had a consistent grant grand strategy that they could use to select their allies, support their allies, and it was a defensive grand strategy, but it worked. And now in the post-Cold War period, here you have the United States as the arguably the only true superpower in the world, but they did not have a grand strategy. What do we do? And so, you know, do we expand? Do we expand NATO? You know, did the the former members of the Warsaw Pact wanted to join NATO because they didn't want they knew what the former Soviet Union was like and they knew what they know pretty much knew what Russia would be like. And Henry Kissinger had been warning that Russia would eventually try to reassert itself, which they did. And so now you have this situation, okay, we're we don't have a grand strategy. Yeah, what I was suggesting is that yes, we can formulate one, a be the geopolitical balancer. It's a modified version of containment. It's somewhat more aggressive. You have to have in order for the United States to successfully be the geopolitical balancer, they have to have dominance of the sea and dominance in space. Dominate both those spheres, and you can act as the balancer.

SPEAKER_00 20:40

And just to plug our previous episode where we discussed space and the military in space. People should go back and listen to that. That was a good one.

SPEAKER_01 20:48

See that exciting episode, right. But but that but that's the key. So I'm looking at it from the standpoint of what the United States should be evolving toward moving towards in terms of a grand strategy. Now, the current Trump administration strategy is showing some signs of doing that. But President Trump is trying to correct certain imbalances or injustices or certain threats that he believes ought to be neutralized before we can truly put America first. He doesn't want to go isolationist, but he does want to make sure that it that the United States is an economically powerful nation, economically powerful.

SPEAKER_00 21:27

So let's start, let's start there too. And there's plenty more to add to that as well. Um the President Trump ran on a few different things. Um and there was there was one particular thing that he ran on that frustrates a lot of people nowadays, which is uh the release of the Epstein files, which he's now pushed back against um pretty heavily. And um I personally believe it's because of the number of connections and individuals that are involved there, and they're trying to use a lot of it from a strategic perspective, and it's kind of backfiring to a certain degree from a PR perspective. And the other side of it, which once again this conversation is not about the Epstein files tonight, but I do love bringing Them up because all the individuals that were in involved in the Epstein files need to be properly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Past that, the other part of it was not getting involved in any additional foreign wars. That was that was one of the main things that he he ran on. And so now that people are starting to see um more alignment with the warmongers of the world, like the Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, um, people are not very happy with that. So, with what you're seeing and from your perspective, um, is this a betrayal of his base because he's now pivoting and going a different direction, or do you see it differently?

SPEAKER_01 22:39

Well, you recall, if you recall, President uh Roosevelt in 1940 ran on the slogan, your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. Oh my. Did they get sent? Yes. No, he didn't exactly. So he so pr President Roosevelt's behavior prior to and during World War II, you know, is markedly different. He he was trying to first correct the Great Depression, right, and then he realized that, well, we're if if if we go to war in World War II and fully mobilize, that's gonna cure the Great Depression all by itself. Full mobilization. One of those one of those things, having a nice long war to fully activate your economy.

SPEAKER_00 23:19

But uh it doesn't make it sound any better from that angle. No, it doesn't. And I think that's where it's like, oh, it's just gonna be great, we're gonna go to war and hopefully we win because it's gonna be good for the economy. I think this is the same thing with the Epstein files, too. It's frustrating because you look at it from a strategic perspective and you look at it from an intel perspective, you look at it from a military and a government perspective, and you're like, yeah, I mean that that makes sense, but doesn't make it any better. It doesn't make it a good thing. They may have made that decision based off of the economy being better.

SPEAKER_01 23:45

It's the great moral ambiguity of the entire situation that many Americans f find frustrating. Uh the German theologian Martin Luther uh pointed it out pointed out that they are that uh that all pe that we have two kingdoms in the world, the kingdom of the left hand and the kingdom of the right hand. The kingdom of the right hand is the kingdom of God, in wh in whom in which all Christians reside. All Christians are members of the of the kingdom of the right hand. That is the kingdom of heaven. But now it and now the kingdom of the left hand, however, is the kingdom of this world, the secular part, the governmental part. The role of the kingdom of the left hand is to maintain stability and order. That is the kingdom of the left hand. It does not take into account purely moral considerations and Martin Luther recognized this ambiguity. That those who become leaders in the kingdom of the left hand have to struggle with this dual nature. That they were perfor they would perfor have to perform actions that would otherwise seem morally wrong in an absolute sense to a to a Christian. And it it's a it's a it's a very it's very frustrating thing and is something which all Christians have had to struggle with, especially those who uh aspire to political office because they they are aspiring to be the holders of power. And what does power do? Power corrupts, as Lord Acton said. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. So you have this constant struggle that they're going on that all politicians uh wrestle with to one extent or another. They find themselves uh doing things or advocating things which, if they were private citizens, might get them sent to jail. Right. So you've got that continuous tension going on. And so now you have so what I what I try to do in the in the strategy of geopolitical balancer is to maintain dance that fine line between empire and isolationists. Right. You have to dance that fine line in order to exercise enough power so that you preserve the peace and deter aggression and and create the maximum possibility for economic growth, development, and prosperity. That's a very narrow line to tread. You and what a grand strategy of uh being the geopolitical balancer does is it also should impose certain restrictions or priorities as to where you will spend your uh money for developing military power, as well as in how you will use it. So and that is why, for example, I support uh President Trump's um uh concept of the Golden Dome in order to protect America from nuclear attack. Well, in order and according to my experience in analysis and war gaming analysis, the only way you're going to be able to do that is you have to have a space force. One that is capable of blocking nuclear missiles that are in their boost phase. And that requires a different force structure. It uh imposed the uh being a geopolitical balancer, it actually you're you're seeing space forces c come first, air forces, okay, to a certain extent, and the army, even though I'm an army colonel, a retired army colonel, low priority. It has to it doesn't have to be primitive, it has to be high tech, but a lot smaller than it is. We do not need occupation forces. We do not need we need a certain amount of defense forces, but not not the type of for not the type of force that we have now. We are out of balance, we are out of priority, and we're trying to correct that. So right now, and this war is an example of that. Yeah, we for example, we have those marine amphibious forces. Okay, well, it's a yeah, you remember the old saying, if you've got a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Yep.

SPEAKER_00 27:51

So let's let's start there then, because your project uh uh prediction here is that we're taking carg island, basically. That's that's your prediction over the next probably what probably what seems like probably a week or two, um, frankly. And uh ultimately with gas and oil and everything else increasing in price, it probably needs to happen a lot sooner rather than later. Um my other comment to that too, the other part of this is with the with the drones, with the Shahid drones that the Iranians are are launching everywhere, um, which don't seem to be depleting. They seem to be just they just seem to kind of continue rolling out. Um I believe I just saw that today they hit um uh the hit cutter um as well, an oil field in Qatar. And so that also happened today. Um so there's like that angle of if we do secure carg island and we do have that leverage now there, that's wonderful, but they're still going to be launching drones at other oil um and uh fields and other countries to disrupt the city.

SPEAKER_01 28:51

And the US will the US and Israel will be using their military power in an effort to reduce and destroy those drone launching sites and drone production facilities as much as possible. Mattiswoods.

SPEAKER_00 29:01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 29:01

As much as possible.

SPEAKER_00 29:02

Okay. So we take Carg Island, this is your prediction, and then what happens next? When does when does, in your opinion, when does this war actually start to dwindle down or does it just ramp up from here?

SPEAKER_01 29:16

Aaron Ross Powell Yeah, well it if the United States and Israel continue their efforts to reduce uh Iran's ability to project power and launch drones and produce drones, it's gonna be critical and it f they have to reduce that threat. And once they reduce that threat and they secure the shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz so that oil is they're able to so you get free-flowing oil which reduces the price pressure, causes prices to come down. That's gonna be the key indicator. If prices start of oil start coming down and Iran is no longer able to use that pressure point to put pressure on the U.S. population, pressure on its Western allies. If they can do that, that's the key contest here. It's an economic contest as well as a military one. And that will be so we have to watch those very carefully to see how and in turn that that Ukraine gets involved because the U.S. is behind the scenes, I'll bet you. You know, they're they're talking to Ukraine, say, hey, can you give us some really good deals on drone interceptors, you know, to to make it more cost effective for us for knocking? Good deals.

SPEAKER_00 30:24

I thought we've sent them billions of dollars. I feel like they should just be giving them to us at this point, right?

SPEAKER_01 30:29

Yeah. Well, Zelensky knows uh contrary to what President Trump said last year, uh Zelensky has more cards than President Trump thinks. They they have Ukraine has their own defense industry now. It's a very sophisticated defense industry. They are innovating, they are producing, they have changed the nature of warfare in the twenty first century. That is no small feat uh for a nation of Ukraine size. And it it became it and they did it because it was necessary for them to do it in order to survive against the Russian invasion and be able to and they're still on the offensive in the Ukraine. They are still driving the Russians back and creating the preconditions, in my opinion, as I've said on the Ukraine show, they are creating the preconditions for a successful counteroffensive against Crimea which would to successfully isolate Crimea from Russian reinforcement and logistics. And then with whatever strategic reserve that Ukraine, I have no doubt, has assembled, launch an offensive against Crimea that will force the Russian occupiers to surrender. And that is going to be a major political which you know could bring an end to the Russian-Ukrainian war by the end of this year. Or it could escalate. It could escalate, but the the the Russians don't have much to escalate with. So that is that is going that is almost unprecedented. And uh even though the conflict uh between Russia and Ukraine is now gone into its fourth year, uh as long as the as long as the war on the Eastern Front took in World War II and and the Russians are doing a lot worse worse now than they were then, their ability to wage offensive warfare against Ukraine is steadily dwindling. So this could be that in and that indirectly is going to have an effect on the on the Iranian war, because the Ukrainians will be able to greater assist the U.S. indirectly by helping with drone interceptor technology, drone interceptors, supply, which can help the U.S. and and help them defend against uh Iranian drone attacks.

SPEAKER_00 32:51

That's that's the technological perspective. Um let's just speak of it from a timeline perspective for a second. I don't see this ending anytime soon, personally. I think the hope and the prayer was that we would get in, destroy, and then remove ourselves and Trump would get himself a win. But um obviously that that that doesn't seem to be happening.

SPEAKER_01 33:10

So it's going to start having a major impact on the on the midterm elections. It's and I think it already is.

SPEAKER_00 33:16

I've seen a lot of people that voted for Trump last election cycle that are not very happy at all. And this is this is probably the majority of the folks I've talked to that voted for Trump last election cycle are not very happy at all. So you're already starting to see kind of that transition start to occur, especially with local politicians that I'm speaking with as well. People are not are not happy. Um so that that being said, it needs to end sooner rather than later for it to benefit him specifically. Right. So you would think that that would be the game plan is to wrap things up as as quickly as possible. Um the other part of it, too, that I have not seen, which you would you would think, maybe once again strategically speaking, this is a 4D chess move that makes no sense to me, but you would think they would go ahead and identify who they were trying to replace the regime leader with. And uh having the son of the I the Khamenei come in and replace him, which we have not seen, he might also be dead, we don't actually know yet. Um, but having him come in behind as a more um uh radical leader who actually seems to be a bit more of an aggressive force doesn't seem like the move that we were looking for at all, but we've killed all the other leaders that we would have potentially replaced him with, right? So bit of a bit of an issue there. And then you have Pelavi, right, who could have who could come in, but doesn't seem to want to come in. He just wants to play the rum rum, I'm in support of my country, I love my country, but I've never been there before, card, right? Like I've never I've lived there for a very long time, card. Um and a lot of this I just I know some of my one of my good friends is living in Iran and um just recently today um got out of a Raman. So he is safe, thank, thank the good lord. Um but a lot of these conversations we've had back and forth, and it's very difficult because for me, I know the frustrations that he's experienced, and I've heard all of his stories. I know how many people were recently killed in the in the riots. Um, we don't actually know the number, but he he seems to believe it was closer to 30 to 50,000 versus the five to ten thousand that was mentioned on the news. Um regardless, the Iranian regime is is not like it's not like they're a good entity. And I think this is other other area where people get confused and they're like, well, why are we attacking Iran if they're not bad? It's like, well, they are. They're they're not, it's it's not like they're a good body or a good group of individuals. But at the end of the day, um I I go back to this imminent threat thing, is where they but was the country where we this was there an imminent threat to the United States of America to to pull us into a situation like this that has led to the death of Americans and will likely lead to the death of a lot more Americans, especially with putting ground troops um in into Iran. So as a as a follow-up to that, uh do you know foresee um do you believe that it would have been more beneficial if they had identified who the replacement would have been early on, or do you think they're just trying to figure that out at this point because they've killed everybody else that could have potentially replaced, except for the outsiders?

SPEAKER_01 36:18

The pr problem with trying to identify or replace it is the same problem that uh the Allies faced. Well, actually, the the Germans themselves tried to assassinate Hitler, as you'll recall, in July of 1944. And there was a there was a fictional novel, an alternate history novel, uh that was entitled Fox on the Rhine. And uh basically the premise of the novel is what if Hitler had been assassinated, but his replacement was even worse? Heinrich Himmler. Right. Pure evil, it's very sane, very intelligent, but also pure evil. Right. And the yeah, World War II, uh the basically the the the point of the book is that yeah, you still would have wor won World War II, but it would have been at an even higher cost. Right. And so you you have you have to be very careful. Trying to if trying to affect regime change is always a very tricky thing. And it's something that the United States, in uh, in the grand strategy of the geopolitical balancer, we would not be involved at all in regime change.

SPEAKER_00 37:24

Yeah, because you've got to But we love to attempt and then it never works.

SPEAKER_01 37:28

That was unfortunate. That was unfortunate because we even tried it during the Cold War and it didn't work very well. Yeah, the grand the overall grand strategy of containment is what worked, not regime change.

SPEAKER_00 37:40

Then everyone realizes that the CIA funded the in the organization that we ended up calling terrorists at the end of the day. Um it happens over and over and over and over again. I think we're all just kind of becoming aware of the um the involvement that we have with these entities that we now refer to as terrorist organizations. Like, well, we we kind of we did, we created them.

SPEAKER_01 37:59

It's that's well we did, as a matter of fact, in uh in Afghanistan when we were supporting the tali the Taliban against the the against the Soviets. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we were supporting what eventually became the Taliban.

SPEAKER_00 38:17

And then we just followed the Soviet footsteps and went right in and said, Oh, we didn't learn from all the people that you that had you that died for you, but we just we're just gonna go do it ourselves.

SPEAKER_01 38:26

We didn't we didn't we're we didn't learn from the Soviet experience, we didn't learn from the British experience in Afghanistan.

SPEAKER_00 38:33

So why don't we learn? There we go. There's the simple question. Why don't we learn?

SPEAKER_01 38:36

Why don't we learn from history? I wrote an editorial on that once years ago, because the uh and as Mark Twain once pointed out, history doesn't repeat itself, it does rhymo. But you point out we we do we don't learn from history because we as Americans, as a people, tend to be very ahistorical. Right. And the reason part of the reason for that is that we view ourselves as a unique nation, or have for many years regarded ourselves as a unique nation, as a special nation. And then there's been comments on this.

SPEAKER_00 39:13

Definitely special.

SPEAKER_01 39:15

Yeah, we we are special because we were founded on Christian principles, our founding fathers adhered to Christian principles, and our constitution is in many ways a unique document. But the problem with that is is that we are all morally flawed people, regardless of whether or not we are Christians, Christians are still morally flawed. It's like it's like one of one of uh my brother told me about um about one of his parishioners, uh husband came in and says, I'm having problems in my marriage. And the pastor said to him, Well, of course you're having problems in your marriage. You're a sinner, your wife's a sinner, so naturally you're going to have problems in your marriage. What's new about that?

SPEAKER_00 39:57

So true.

SPEAKER_01 39:58

So and the thing is, we are if we we are a Christian nation by virtue of the structure, and we have a plurality, I would argue, right now, a plurality of people in this country who are Christians. But that still does not mean that we don't thin. Right. We still thin. You know, we we're going to be doing that for the rest of our lives. The battle the internal battle that we each wage against the evil s the evil part of ourselves, that goes on for your entire life and it doesn't stop until you die. Right. And you're liberated from your evil self. So right now, and that is the great moral ambiguity that the United States that we unconsciously in some some people realize is a conscious struggle. Other people just simply aren't aware of the fact that they are imperfect people trying to impose perfection on a morally fallen world.

SPEAKER_00 40:48

I honestly think that every single politician should have to make that statement before they get into office. I think along with their oath to the country and to the Constitution, they should also make a very, very clear statement that I am not a perfect human being. And we should only be voting for those individuals that actually understand that they are not a perfect human being. And that with new information, they can pivot and they can adjust their their opinions and the government.

SPEAKER_01 41:30

And power itself, while it is neutral, it is also on an imperfect human being, it is also a corrupting influence. To get re-elected. That's the that's the main priority.

SPEAKER_00 41:50

Hence the reason term limits are so important.

SPEAKER_01 41:53

That's right. And the it it to a certain extent it works in the governorships and forces that rotation. And uh, yeah, there there are it needs to be consistent across the board.

SPEAKER_00 42:05

It needs to be consistent across the board. Um the this is one of the biggest things I'm pushing for here here soon, because to your point, it does absolutely you know turn into corruption of some kind. And so to keep people in and get people in and out of office rapidly ultimately leads to a reduction in that corruption as best as possible.

SPEAKER_01 42:24

And that's about the best result you can achieve prior to the second coming, prior to the return of Jesus. That's about the best you can do. The best we can do is the best we can do is fight evil to a draw. Yeah. In chess, getting a draw against your opponent is considered a victory enough and in itself.

SPEAKER_00 42:40

I'm just becoming a bigger and bigger JC guy as time goes on. I've been making that comment of my friends. I'm like, you know, I've always been a Jesus Christ guy. I was like, but I was like, as as of late, I just become a bigger and bigger Jesus Christ fan. Like it's just, and once again, as a Christian, we're obviously Jesus Christ fans of Jesus Christ, but at the end of the day, uh you don't really realize how maybe far you strayed away from the religion until you start to experience these of these things and realize how close you need to become, uh come to God and to Jesus in order to really ground yourself. So I'm like, I am doing that.

SPEAKER_01 43:12

You want to hear something really weird? You want to hear something really weird. I believe it's in the book of Luke. I'd have to or look it up again, but uh where Jesus is talking about the consider the cost before you become his disciple. And his first example, he talks about uh making sure that you are able to finish finish, have enough funds to f to finish a house or a building and not just stop at the foundation. Otherwise you look very foolish. You you started to build and you didn't have enough to finish. Then he says, Or what king seeing an army seeing another king with an army of twenty thousand men that cometh against him, sits not down first with his counsellors and determined whether he be able with his army of ten thousand men to defeat him that comes against him with twenty thousand men. And he determined that the Not be able to do that sends out not envoys while the enemy is yet afar off to discuss terms of peace. And I'm looking at that and I'm saying Jesus is actually speaking favorably. And I said this to a in a lecture to another organization, Jesus is actually speaking favorably of what we would call nowadays the war gaming process. And I'm saying, well, let's hear a big Amen out there, because if if war gaming is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us.

SPEAKER_00 44:32

Well, let's follow up to that. Do you think we've war game this properly?

SPEAKER_01 44:36

No.

SPEAKER_00 44:37

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 44:39

Simply because of the the urgency, because President Trump is a very activist president, and he basically gave the order, and he he didn't just sit there and let it happen. Like he did in Venezuela and in other places where he deemed the threat to American citizens and American stability is great enough that he had to tackle uh take aggressive action now. Now that does this mean that he's going to be taking aggressive actions for the rest of his term? No. My my prediction is that he will take these aggressive actions that he thinks that he can do execute quickly so that we basically create that position of strategic stability so that he can then stabilize that, operate from that position rather than from a position where he perceives imminent threats to the security of American citizens and the stability of the world. So whether he succeeds in that uh calculated, I'll call it a calculated gamble.

SPEAKER_00 45:48

Even though uh the intelligence uh community uh uh told him there was not an immediate threat.

SPEAKER_01 45:55

Right. He was saying not an immediate threat. He would be in, and this is again where the intelligence community, this this is where we run into the problem of uh sources of error. When I I wrote it wrote an article, Sources of Error and Indications and Warning, which uh later the Defense Intelligence Agency translated into a lesson they teach their intelligence analyst, why intelligence fails. One of the reasons why intelligence fails, well, there are four reasons. One, the enemy, two, the analyst, three, the system, and the four, the policymaker. But with a with a policymaker, when you are when the intelligence analyst or the intelligence community conveys their conclusions to the policymaker, they are the they are the people without power. The analysts do not hold power, the policymaker does. So this is where you get the phrase speaking truth to power. You have to be able to do that because gender puts it, you speak truth to power, and then you are depending upon the policymaker. If the policymaker has respect for your opinions, or if your policy, if your what you are recommending does not contradict the policymaker's chosen policy, okay, then it's going to have a positive effect. But the policymaker has the luxury of being able to ignore what an intelligence analyst says and say, I understand what you're saying, but I've decided we're going to do this. Right. Okay, that's the risk that the intelligence analysts and professionals run.

SPEAKER_00 47:28

Well, I think that's one thing that people don't understand, especially with the Tulsi Yabra going on today and sharing this information. And she she seemed to answer questions very um bluntly. You know, did you tell the president that there wasn't an immediate threat? Did you share this information? Yes, this is the report. It's open, it is. This is what it is. And the at the end of the day, the president decided to make a decision because he still believed there was an imminent threat to the United States of America. And I I think this is where like I have I have the utmost respect for individuals in her position because she clearly is doing a job.

SPEAKER_01 48:01

She clearly understands the this the she exhibited she exhibited moral courage.

SPEAKER_00 48:06

Correct. Correct. But she didn't have to lie about it. This is what I did. This is very clear. And I provided this information to the president, but she doesn't have to throw him under the bus. And she didn't. Um and I was like, well, I feel like the president of the United States could learn from Tulsi Gabbard a little bit about throwing people under the bus.

SPEAKER_01 48:24

She prevents Senator She presented moral courage, she did the right thing, she did it well, and I th I think that uh this will come out very well in the end for her, as well as for the president. Now, this may have an effect in that the president says, Well, I better make sure that my military achieves at least the ability to delay or reduce the ability of Iran to disrupt the oil flow. Right. Because that's about about the best of a result they could achieve at this point. So it's a very it's it's we are still we are still witnessing a very dynamic process and it's and we have more insight into it. We don't know we don't don't have 100 percent visibility. We do not know what the classified discussions are that are going on behind the scenes. Right. There is still that classified element. We can infer or we can to a certain extent uh say we can say, okay, we can see maybe about 80 percent of what's going on. But the 20% with the the very classified discussions behind closed doors that even the press is not allowed to be privy to, you know, though that's still the X factor in this entire equation.

SPEAKER_00 49:33

It's it's absolutely the X factor, and this is so we'll I'm actually gonna I'm gonna go ahead and crack open the energy drink for this this last portion of the uh you're you're you're running on fumes, are you? No, I'm I'm not running on fumes, but I thought I'd just do a little bit of a a little bit of a pick-me-up. I'm not sure if if monster is exactly the best way to do it, but uh a little sip of an energy drink. Cheers.

SPEAKER_01 49:52

Well let's let's get let we're in the entering into the home stretch here.

SPEAKER_00 49:56

So we're we're getting into the home stretch, but we're also entering entering into what I believe to might be the most interesting part of this conversation. And um I have plenty of opinions, plenty of thoughts on this. But while it might there might not have been an imminent threat to the United States, there very clearly was an imminent threat to Israel. And this has been mentioned multiple times that the imminent threat was under the United States, but it was to Israel. Therefore, did we enter into this war seemingly again for a foreign country? So what uh with that element being discussed or being brought brought now to the conversation, let's just go there. Um a lot of Americans right now believe that we were brought into this war because Iran or Israel wanted us in this war, because of the truly imminent threat to the country of Israel. We're not denying that Iran and Israel don't like each other, it's very clear. They've been lobbying missiles at each other for a period of a long period of time. So is it though uh the right thing for our country to have done to enter a war because our foreign a foreign ally of ours, seemingly an ally, was uh had an imminent threat against their country? Is that a reason for us going into a war with Iran? Do you think there was maybe a hint of truth behind um what Marco Rubio said about Israel basically saying, you know, if you don't, we're going to, sort of thing? And then he kind of backtracked on it the next day. But is there a hint of truth that they might have done something a little more aggressive had we not gotten involved at the level that we've gotten involved?

SPEAKER_01 51:37

I I would tend to agree that the United States, in order to forestall Israel from uh undertaking e much more aggressive actions as a matter of their own survival, potentially nuclear action. Israel does it's kind of like an unspoken. Israel is They absolutely have nuclear action. Yeah, Israel has never declared themselves to be a nuclear power, but it is probably one of the worst-kept secrets, yes, that Israel does have, in fact, uh nuclear capability, including probably uh hydrogen thermonuclear weapons. Yeah, because remember, Israel has something of a Masada complex. Right. You remember the Masada, yeah, where basically all the Jews in the fortress basically committed suicide.

SPEAKER_00 52:22

I actually hiked Masada, which um was a great experience at about three at 3 30 in the morning in Israel.

SPEAKER_01 52:30

Sorry, it gives you a whole new perspective on things.

SPEAKER_00 52:32

An entirely new perspective. Entirely new perspective.

SPEAKER_01 52:35

Yeah, and so in this case, Masada uh the Israel has this Masada complex, and the and the the motto of Masad is never again. So this is the mindset that Isra Israel has. And when you have a an ally with that kind of a mindset, in order to prevent them from going and taking an extreme measure in order to preserve its own existence, then you would have to agree to, okay, we'll help you to this extent, we will help you take out these types of facilities, and hopefully that will in an effort to forestall the threat, the perceived threat, to push it down the road several years. That would be the best possible outcome for both the U.S. and Israel at this point. It's not a perfect result, but they would be able to forestall the in the Iran's ability to threaten Israel and the US and the West for at least a couple to release two or three years, until hopefully you get some sort of regime change internally or as a result of other forces. So that's still a very that's still a very much a merry thing very much in progress. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 53:44

So it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that that Trump quite literally entered into this war because he was threatened by the Israelis to a certain degree.

SPEAKER_01 53:51

I would say the Israel I would say that the Israelis hadn't had an influence in in talking to him behind the scenes, and that President Trump felt that he had to try to split the difference by exerting enough military power to satisfy Israel and prevent them from taking undertaking more extreme unilateral actions on their own. We had it in World War II, for example. We i Eisenhower had to deal with Montgomery as the British British commander, as well as Patton, his commander, he had to manage that rivalry as well as other rivalries. And the British, because of their heavy casualties that they took in World War One, they tended to be very gun shy about undertaking major military operations. They tended to be very conservative. Whereas the Americans, not having quite suffered quite so much in World War One, and were, shall we say, fresher and had much more firepower at their disposal, were willing to be much more aggressive against the Germans. So again, it's these things that you have to manage. Managing allies is one of the most complex things that you have to do in warfare. And again, uh behind the scenes, it you this won't the full extent of this difficulty will not become apparent for the next couple for at least in the next couple of decades. Right. Because we we learned a number of things many years after the fact when things became declassified. And so we are we are still in a certain to a certain extent operating in a fog. So we have we we can see what's going on, we can appreciate the economic factors that are that are influencing this, and how the and to a much greater extent than in previous wars because of mass media, because of all because we are exposed to so much more information now than we were exposed to in previous wars.

unknown 55:54

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 55:55

Well it wasn't it also allows me to call myself on my own BS as well, which is which is kind of hysterical because you're you say something and then the next day you're like, whoa, I didn't get the full picture. I apologize. I that's not that's not at all what I meant to say. But I said people say, Oh yes, you did. Yes, you did. You said it. And I'm like, yeah, but you learned so much so rapidly. Um but I think it's a comment to that as well, and from the Israeli angle, because obviously Israel is Israel and the US against the run right now. That's that's what's going on. And we're also seeing a lot of NATO countries be like, I don't want anything to do with this. I don't I want nothing to do with this this conflict. So it'll be interesting to see who does kind of end up supporting the US and all this and who doesn't over the over the coming days. But I just go back to Israel because one of the biggest frustrations for me as of late has been that it it's almost like if you criticize Israel, just like if you criticize Trump, you're you're no longer a Republican or you're not conservative. It's the same thing as if you if you if you criticize Israel, you're immediately anti-Semitic. And I've been seeing this all over the place. And I'm like, no, that's not really how that works at all, personally. Um I'm allowed to be openly critical of organizations and governments, especially a secular government, um, and the actions that they take. That is not me being critical of a of a religion or an entity in that regard. So that being said, the war into Gaza was obviously um a what seemed to be an opportun an opportunity for Israel to expand and also to completely annihilate a group of people. It did not seem like a good strategic move um for the for the world, but it seemed like a good strategic land grab for Israel. Once again, that's just an outsider looking in. That's my that's my perspective. Um in the 90s, and I believe it was in the 90s, is when Israel invaded um Lebanon or Beirut specifically for the first time. Is that correct? Which actually lent or it led to the creation of Hezbollah um in its current form today. So just like you know, the CIA and MI6 and every other organization has done for a while, we tend to create our own enemies over time. So not being hypocritical there, we all we all have done it uh at some point, but that created Hezbollah, and now they're going back into southern Lebanon pretty pretty aggressively while also simultaneously going after Iran. Um I I just I'm I'm curious to know what what that looks like from your perspective. What is what is Israel's end game um from what you're seeing right now?

SPEAKER_01 58:25

Israel's end Israel's end game is really dominance. They they want to be a they want to be able to ensure in order for them to be able to ensure their own continued existence, because to them, every Arab nation surrounding them is potentially an existential threat. Yeah, because they the the the other the if the uh if Israel stops fight if if the Arab from the Israeli perspective, if the Arabs stop fighting, there will be peace. If Israel stops fighting, they will cease to exist. So it the it it is that kind of a an absolute perspective. So the only uh uh objective is very very similar in in a way, it's very similar. The Israeli perspective is very similar in some ways to the Russian perspective on security. The Russian word for security is oposnost without danger. That's its translation. Your opponents say you you have to be totally subjugated or you know made harmless.

SPEAKER_02 59:41

Right.

SPEAKER_01 59:41

That is a very absolute concept of security from the Russian perspective. So the the Israelis obviously have a similar form of that in that they arguably confront an even greater existential threat to their existence. And so therefore their concept of security, their end game has to be the neutralization, whether polic by political means or military means, of all of its neighbors that they are made harmless, that they are willing to acknowledge, they are either forced to acknowledge Israel's continued existence, or yeah, well, yeah, it would be uh it would be great if they could uh adopt Abraham Lincoln's approach. Yeah, Abraham Lincoln was questioned about why he had certain uh certain political opponents as part of his cabinet. And he said, Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends? So yeah, it would be wonderful if Israel is able to destroy their enemies by making them their friends. But short of that, you have to be able to neutralize your ability, your enemy's ability to destroy you or or to deny you existence. So this is a very complex problem for Israel, but their logical objective is the neutralization or to make harmless. To make harmless either through friendship or negotiations or whatever other means they can, but to make harmless any potential threats to Israel's existence.

SPEAKER_00 1:01:10

There's a lot more to unravel there.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:13

Isn't there that in and of itself is a very we haven't solved we have not solved the world's problems in one hour.

SPEAKER_00 1:01:19

Doggone it. But we got close to doing it. Um I just once again, I I appreciate your objective factual approach to all this too. And like, I just like I there there's been so many emotions for me as of late and so much frustration. And I think more than anything, as Americans, what I believe we should be frustrated about, we should be frustrated about being manipulated into believing anything. Um and we really should fight to find the truth and in everything we do, uh, because everyone has an angle at the end of the day. And so we we just to be able to see those angles clearly, yes, I feel like helps you to make better daily decisions or to see things more clearly across the board.

SPEAKER_01 1:02:02

So in the cloth in the closing play pages of my book, The Russian view of US Strategy, uh the one of the uh I I borrowed from a uh a Scottish poet who said, Oh, would some power of the gifty gee us to see ourselves as others see us? Twould fry money a blunder free us and foolish notion.

SPEAKER_00 1:02:25

Yeah, Robert Burns. Robert Burns, correct? Yes, yeah, Robert Burns. I've been to a couple of Roberts Burns Society's events as of late with a mentor of mine. They're they're fun. They're fun.

SPEAKER_01 1:02:35

And that's the philosophy that Yes, that's the philosophy that I adopted in writing both the Soviet view of U.S. strategic doctrine and the Russian view of U.S. strategy. If you have the ability, especially as an intelligence analyst, to be able to see yourself as others see you, that provides a whole new perspective. And it it also helps avoid what we in the intelligence community refer to as the mirror imaging fallacy. Psychologists refer to it as projection. Where you are projecting your own attitudes, thoughts, and feelings onto another person. Right. Yeah, the the organizational intelligence equipment is mirror imaging. Right. You are assuming that your opponent sees that sees things the same way you do. And that is a fallacy which the intelligence community consciously struggles to avoid. Right. And they have a number of means for doing so effectively. But they can't always avoid it comp consistently in every in every situation. It is still one of the occupational hazards of the intelligence profession.

SPEAKER_00 1:03:38

Here's a this might be a good conversation for our this might be a good segue into our next podcast. Um because I there are what I refer to as very plainly radical organizations within every religion um around the world. And we all have them. There, there, and there are those groups that have very clearly defined missions. And some of those groups have very clearly defined missions of bringing about Armageddon or bringing about the end of the world.

SPEAKER_01 1:04:09

And that I and that I could tell you I can those who those who think that they can manipulate God. I mean, the the sheer arrogance of that assumption is that you're going to trigger Armageddon how you're going to convince God to intervene and come again. And but I think this would be a really good episode.

SPEAKER_00 1:04:28

I feel like you probably have a lot of uh information on the on that front. And I would I would love to just like identify the organizations and then dive into each what each one of them is looking to accomplish and achieve. And but like that in and of itself, like those are the people that are at play above, right? And people always talk about like the world elite and the and Illuminati and all these different organizations, and it's like And those those are the types of organizations who my f my fear of those is that they would attain enough power to be able to trigger a world war in the mistaken belief that that is somehow going to convince God to intervene. Or Lucifer, whoever they are trying to convince. Right.

SPEAKER_01 1:05:06

Yeah. And and the uh the that that is why I am that is why I'm vehemently opposed to the concept of world government. Right. Any world government, yeah, that is the ultimate concentration of power uh in in one per in one organization to rule the world, I mean that's practically that's practically giving an open invitation to the to the advent of the Antichrist. Yeah, because the because unless Jesus Christ Himself is the ruler of the world and therefore incorruptible, because a lot of the Christians talk about Christ and his thousand year reign, once he returns and establishing a thousand year millennial reign. Short of that, anything short of that is an invitation to an Antichrist, if not the Antichrist.

SPEAKER_00 1:05:57

A lot of Christians nowadays say, like, oh, the infant. Times are upon us. We are in the end times. I'm like, but once at the end of the day, you don't decide that.

SPEAKER_01 1:06:05

Like Yeah, Christ himself said that no man knows the day or the hour.

SPEAKER_00 1:06:11

No man is the son of man. No man does. And I once again.

SPEAKER_01 1:06:14

No man does. And anyone who claims they do, you can automatically assume that they're a liar.

SPEAKER_00 1:06:18

And the arrogance of those individuals. And I even say this too, like with like the religious complex that it has become nowadays, too, especially online, the fear-mongering that comes out of a lot of these, like and I, you know, so not to be hypocritic. A lot of like some of my come my my posts are sensationalists and kind of fear mongering to a certain degree. So I've also done it. But to make your career around preaching about the coming of end times and it coming soon, and it's coming soon and it's coming soon to scare people into following your organization and tithing to your organization, the arrogance there, the sheer arrogance there in the hypocrisy is is what is unbelievable. I that part of it I do not understand, and it gets to me every single time. I think more than anything, though, nowadays, I think it is good though for people to see these organizations and be able to clearly identify them and be like, that's what they're trying to accomplish. Now I can see it. And then you figure out who's going to be able to do that.

SPEAKER_01 1:07:15

And the more you bring it to light, the more you bring it to light, the more you expose these individuals and organizations for what they are and what they're trying to achieve, the more you can the better able you will be to prevent the negative effects of such organizations. And that's the bad that's about the best you can do in this current day and age. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 1:07:36

It also does seem like, and this is this might be a bit out there, but it seems like the more so I released an Epstein file, a couple uh video podcasts a few weeks ago. And the night that I released it, I I didn't sleep super well. Uh it felt kind of attacked in my sleep to a certain degree. And I don't really know what that looks like personally, but very much so a believer in the spiritual realm, uh, especially as of late with everything that's been occurring. But as of the past few weeks, too, the more that I discuss certain topics, it seems like the more I become what feels like spiritually attacked. That also could probably become an entirely different episode in and of itself, too.

SPEAKER_01 1:08:13

But I don't really Well, my my men to join the club. Yeah. My men's Bible study uh at my local church, every Friday morning we get together, we call ourselves the men of iron. And what we what we are studying right now is C. S. Lewis's The Screw Tape Letters.

unknown 1:08:30

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:08:30

And if you've read the Screw Tape Others, I would highly recommend reading it again. I have not, but I will Because it is what The Screw Tape Letters by C. S. Lewis. Very influential, written by one of arguably the most influential Christian apologist of the twentieth century, and he still has a great deal of influence and a great many people who admire and continue to read his work in the twenty-first century. But uh the uh there are a great many quotes by C. S. Lewis which are worthy of repetition. But uh one one of the ones that uh that's that sticks in my mind right now is that the safest road the the safest road to hell is the gradual one. The the the the gentle slope, the soft underfoot, with no sudden tur without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. And that's a kind of rather frightening quote when you think about it, because S C S Lewis explores from the standpoint of a demonic a a demon in hell, you know, right counseling a junior tempter on how to lure his patient into hell. And it it is a very eye-opening read. It is a, shall we say, a read from the mindset of the enemy. Right. And it is something which every Christian really, every adult Christian certainly, should read and and discuss, because the the devil's methods are very subtle. It is not something like he comes out dressed in red tights and try to lure you into hell. No, no, no. He makes it attractive. And that's and that's the problem. And so now the uh and in uh in all of this, you know, when we are when we are operating in today's world, we are operating in the devil's kingdom. Right. We are operating in the devil's territory. And the because we are all morally fallen, because we are all imperfect, and we are all naturally more inclined to want to follow, more naturally inclined to want to follow the devil rather than God. And that is that is an that's the ongoing struggle for every Christian. Doesn't matter what denomination. So in in and certainly in my own life, my own personal experience, my struggle is a daily one. It's of a different nature. I'm much more conscious of it, but I do have I do comfort myself in that I do have the tools to stop it. I have the tools to fight it. And as long as I can remind myself to rely upon those tools, rely upon the Holy Spirit, repla rely upon my fellow Christians, the more able I am to deal with these and to function, as you say, objectively, as objectively as possible. And by the way, you know, if we were to if I were sitting before uh sitting before the president, you know, I said, I would tell him, Mr. President, I want to help you. I want to help you. And I said, I said I would tell him, I have a present for you. A present? I said, well, two actually. One, I would tell him, you know, remember I see that you're visibly struggling with whether or not you you don't think you're gonna you don't know if you're gonna be able to get into heaven. And he his struggle is the same for me with millions of people who are in this struggle. They think that they somehow have to earn their way into heaven. There's something that they have to do, and they miss the point. The point is that as in John 3.16, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. God does not say, Well, first you have to do this and this and this and this and this, and then I'll judge you worthy enough to enter heaven. No. First he gives you the gift. He says, I'm gonna you you believe in my son and what he has done for you, you're going to heaven. Period. You don't have to do anything else. What you do after that, the so-called good works, the works of a good Christian, those are meant to demonstrate that your faith is real. That is a witness to other people. And it is also what you are doing in gratitude to God for what He has done for you. Once you do that, then the Christian life, although it will still be difficult, you will you will have know you will uh be living the Christian life knowing that you the final result in the final end result you have won. Right. You have won everything there is to win. And that then that's the ultimate source of peace for many Christians. So then that will that will be the one thing. The second thing I would tell uh, Mr. President, I have a solution for you for how to solve the national debt. And that might be a subject for us to be able to do that.

SPEAKER_00 1:13:20

Is it the Warren Buffett line? Basically, if uh if we don't start to reduce the the national debt over a three-year period, like you don't let people run again, something along those lines. Or you like you basically just fire every single politician and you rehire new ones.

SPEAKER_01 1:13:33

Yeah, that that's pretty that's pretty good. That's pretty good. Although I would I would not go be quite so radical as that, although the solution that I would discuss, and I think we can say we can save that for a future program. That's a that's a good breakpoint.

SPEAKER_00 1:13:45

Yeah, that is definitely definitely a good breakpoint. Uh I I did send to you the other day that Ted Cruz said that saying Christ is king is ant is basically anti-Semitic now. Um did you happen to watch that clip at all?

SPEAKER_01 1:13:59

I didn't watch that clip, but I said that uh my response to it, it it's difficult for me to say for for some to agree with someone who says that saying that Christ is king is anti-Semitic because Christ himself was Jewish. Because Christ himself was Jewish, he lived a perfect Jewish life. And really, there are such things as Hebrew Christians, Jews who have concluded that Christ is the Messiah and He is the He is the one He is the Son of God. These are Jews who have accepted Christ as their Savior. They are Jewish, but they are fully fulfilled, they call themselves completed Jews. So there is that. So there's there's always a there's always something to be s to be said for it. And after all, Christianity could not have existed unless Judaism had preceded it. Judaism laid the groundwork, it made it paved the way. So so I would I would uh disagree, respectfully disagree with a person who's saying that saying Christ is king is an anti-Semitic statement. No, it is simply a recognition that Christ is king.

SPEAKER_00 1:15:12

Yes. And on that note. Dr. Lockwood, thank you so much for another wonderful episode. Uh we've got plenty to discuss here soon, as things continue to evolve as well. We we might have to turn this into a weekly episode, if not um a little bit more more frequently than that. But uh we'll discuss that offline to say the least.

SPEAKER_01 1:15:30

It's not it's not gonna it's not gonna hurt my feelings.

SPEAKER_00 1:15:34

We will we will wrap it up there and we will talk soon.