i yes, the fire body program now once again, we now posts or show every single day used to do it weekly. now we're doing it daily. we hold no punches here, like the other guys. so look for a truth problem. number one, iran metalli age with an attack that seems more like good. ok, creator, truth, problem number 2, reading that done yahoo is most dangerous game truth bomb number 3. dick cheney for president who was saying that i'm going to tell you, i'm rick sanchez. this is direct impact. the ok,

let's get started with what you need to know about this retaliatory strike by iran on israel, by the way, the key word there. retaliatory, let me say it again, retaliatory. and it, by some chance you see or read reports on this and some other news platform, plenty of them. and they don't key in on that term that word. well then stop reading or turn them off because they're lying and they're spinning. you ok? so yes, you're ron fired some suppose a 300 project dials, some combination of drones and missiles, none of them precision guided by the way. they also see some cargo ship which happen to have some, 17 india nationals on board something. and they've been like, by the way on board the ship was 17 indian nations of the. okay, by the time feed operation said the west was these 92 kilometers northeast off for general, an area of close to the state of almost that phone's the entrance to the gulf. now

i mentioned that because this is a kind of thing where 3rd countries like india could get caught up in this kind of these types of actions without unintended consequences, of course. and, and that's why the world is on edge m, as in the world shouldn't be on edge the ronnie and the talk was a show of force. but let me play with those words a little bit. let me just play a little bit here. if you'll allow me right to make a point, it was a show of force, but an actuality not so much force as it was. show. what am i saying? yes, iran look tough with its missile attack into israel, which a piece many of its citizens as you saw and some of the celebrations on the streets of para what as we look at these folks who obviously are saying finally, our government did what it needed to do was iran truly trying to effect maximum damage on its nemesis?

think of that question i just asked was it trying to effect maximum damage on its nemesis, israel? the answer is obviously no, it was not. in fact, iran gave ample warning. it put out a statement that after it's volley, it would expect that both sides all sides really cuz it was started the united states as well. would consider this matter, resolved. this is it, we're done no more about fight anymore also or the wrong well really serious, if it really want to inflict maximum harm, what did of use more deadly weapons which would have, by the way, it would also not have given the us and this real a 5 hour heads up a, you know, like imagine you're going to hit somebody and you say, i'm gonna hit you. i'm gonna hit you 5 hours of the inside. the missile attack only injured one person. according to the reports i've seen. it may change. 99 percent of the projectiles were intercepted. now were the us and israel

in the on those couple condense. it sure seems like it. oh, and by the way, don't be food. when you hear reports from the state department or the pentagon, delivered of course by their p r agents in the national us media, like this one, us official with direct knowledge of the conflict in israel. tell cbs news president bite and told prime minister benjamin netanyahu. america will not participate in a retaliatory strike on iran following saturdays drone in missile attack. okay. that what you just heard right there is that in minimum, a deceptive statement. and here's why. who do you think is shooting down those incoming drones and missiles? we are the united states of america. i'm a block from the white house, as i like to say, that decision was made to do that there. our military is very much involved in this already. and though it seems at this point,

like both sides are doing their best to let this be a momentary bar fight. it's important to compare these 2 attacks at this point. that in other words, what got us here, right? what got us to this place where we are right now? first and last. not forget the as railey attack on a rainy m embassy. that is really as dr. destroyed a building belonging to a. ron's embassy in damascus. according to a rainy and state media, ron's revolutionary, god said one of the senior commanders was among the dead. he's rails military didn't comment, but it's thought to regularly strike a ron linked targets. did you hear what you just said regularly striking ron link targets? i mean, when that language makes it sound like it's no big deal, no big deal. one country without notice bombs, another country. that's

a violation of international law. oh, they also destroy an embassy that belongs to a 3rd country. that's a violation of the vienna convention, at least then they assassinate, assassinate, not one, but 2 iranian officials. that's a violation of every law. no man. oh yeah, they regularly do this, says cbs or whatever. so, so let's play this out. let's play out this comparison again is real bombs, that embassy killing many, including as rarely officials, pardon me, including many stop there. right? is really officials right. uh, and iran now comes in and sends missiles meant to shoot down others and injures one person. so on the one hand, you have somebody bombing an embassy in another country and this estimating leaders . on the other hand, you have a country single. by the way, we're going to shoot a bunch of missiles, but we're going to give you notice so you can shoot them all down which is more

serious, which was done with the actual malice. you tell me. but here's an even more important question that brings us to the real wild card and all of this which should be concerning to the entire world. the question is why we know that israel started this latest situation, but why? why did they started for better said why they to keep started and by see, i mean prime minister, be nathan, yahoo! the prime minister, by all indications, can only keep his job stay in office and even avoid going to jail for corruption, so long as he can prolong escalate his country's war foot. continuing the war and gaza killing palestinians. right, is in fact not good for the us, but it is good for the prime minister. and what about starting a war between a ron and the united states, starting a war between a ron and the united states? that would obviously be horrible for us, for the united states. it wouldn't danger the lives of countless us men and women

in uniform, not to mention the citizens of iran and the soldiers of iran as well. but once again, wouldn't be so bad for the prime minister. you must remember what a lake has done to you says on our from holy bible and we've got many remember and we are fighting our truck. so ray that troops in combatants who are now in gaza that is met then. yeah. who using the hebrew bible as a reference for it and reason to kill palestinians and perhaps others. but he seems to be suggesting is that the i'm on kites and their descendants, presumably the palestinians in this case are said to be cursed and forever and must be illuminated for what they did in 2 ancient israel as if it sounds crazy to you. it sounds crazy to a whole lot of people around the world. but while most see that type of talk is dangerous, from a karl rove in perspective,

it's actually very effective. karl rove, you may remember was the us advisor, the president george w bush. you openly talked about how the disastrous iraq war was good for the president's approval ratings. he was right. do you know who and when us presidents achieve the highest approval ratings of all time here in the history of our country, the united states. let me help you, according to dell, if i just looked it up the highest was president truman, after he dropped an atomic bomb on hiroshima, the stair, soviet leader, joseph stall. it is a pretty rating, sort the 87 percent. does anyone surpass that? has anyone surpassed that? yes, george w bush had the highest premium ratings ever in our country when, after he sent troops into iraq and afghanistan, his approval rating past truman's. and with the help of the media, is it 90 percent 90 percent?

joining us now to talk about it, somebody who i consider a perfect guest for this conversation may disagree, by the way, with some of the things i said. professor mohammed mirandi is also uh, by the way, he's a professor at the university of k ron and has been a frequent guest on this show. we're also joined by a still on got audio. i'm showing off and pronouncing my ours that way. we could say a step one, got a real, he's competitor for our lives, news magazine, the cradle gentleman. i'm not sure where i want to begin, but i guess professor, i'm going to start with you. and i said a lot there. but i did find it that it seemed to me and please correct me if i'm wrong. you're wrong. did everything possible to attack? well, not really attacking. am i right? i would say that the strike was very calculated and carefully managed and that it could have been much more severe and very deadly.

but it wasn't simply a spectacle what the iranians did in response to the uh, is rarely impression on your, on your sovereignty in syria. mm hm. and the time of the embassy was it iranians warmed everyone before and what they wanted to do. and then they sent a large number of drugs for the as well. but in the drones were old to drones. uh, none of them were the more modern and more technologically developed and drugs. so they were very cheap and they had no technology that could be compromised. and therefore, when those drones reach as well, the writings knew that the americans would, uh, and you're absolutely correct. americans play the main role in downing the most of

the drones and the miss house. mm hm. you run is knew that these drugs would be attacked and that they would be down. but that was the objective. the one is wanted, the americans and these riley's to use their most advanced technology because they're very expensive and they're limited number of missiles. and also because they're their best technology, so you run gained a lot of intelligence. so can you didn't, can you characterize for me the thinking behind that because you're right. it looks to me like iran was very careful, tactical, almost mechanical in the way they approach this. they want to make noise, but they didn't want to make too much noise. they wanted to get attention, but they didn't want to get that much attention. they wanted to hurt israel, but they don't want to destroy israel or even come close to it. what is the mindset in tehran?

do you believe professor, you're there, you talk to people behind this type of approach as well. there. again, the 2 things. one is that, as i said, they wanted to defeat theirs, their, their weapon systems themselves, and they wanted to learn about their capabilities. okay. and this really isn't americans by the estimates put forward by this. riley's spent over $1300000000.00. whereas the running drones and a series of mist files that were old. again, none of them had the wrong key technologies. they were also fired. those were also down. but all of these were decoys. and then they were tab between 10 and 20 missiles that were sent that were fired, that were directed towards 2 targets, one in the north and intelligence gathering center and one an air base and the south that was used to attack the embassy and also to carry out the genocide and

gaza, those missiles got through. and so that the serious missiles, which were somewhere between 10 and 20, they all made it through, but all of the others that were decoys. and all of them combined probably costs it costs like $1015000000.00. i don't know that which is what you are, but that was which is a tiny number compared to what we usually talk about in, in, in military terms of state. but let me bring you into this. i want to ask you a question about maybe nathan. yeah, i'm going to share with you something that i believe as an american that i think my country should site to be that then. yeah. and it's something probably it came to this and you continue for your own political purposes or for whatever purposes you may think of. mr. nathan. yeah. who did you continue trying to start a war between us the united states and the ron. we are a going to hold you accountable for that we are not going to respond. we are going to stop giving you funding for anything else you do. and we may consider breaking

the relations that we presently have with your country. why is it so hard for my country to say that to someone who seems to be acting like an outlaw a good day? they seem to be trying to get to that point. now when you hear uh when you hear joe bite in uh, just so angry. now understand that when you see all the western media, all of us started trying to make uh, the issue the, the general side of us uh, a result of other policies, a one man to positions a one man instead of the size of this project, instead of the no 75 year history of their division of palestine. mm hm. that tells you that, that guy who a hobby most so his days concert, so to speak. but the anything but it stay on hold on a minute even now there's nothing cool. this one of the 1st words out of joe by his mouth when he heard that there had been this a somewhat lucid attack by iran on uh,

on uh, israel this weekend. the 1st words out of his mouth for something like to be effective . we stand behind 100 percent israel, etc, etc. instead of being at least a little more tablet and saying something like, we understand this is a difficult situation and we really wish, as we all had not attacked iran just for this on. but nonetheless, we will help israel in any way we can. i would understand something like that. but the immediate response was where we're going to go to war for as well. if we have to that just seem childish and stupid to me. tell me how i'm wrong. indeed. no, no not. you know, like they for 5 iron class does a bite and said, today one of the piece of called the sacrosanct. you know, this is the level that they will go to defend after they've been israel against, against the rest of the world. so you is, i feel like at this point, joe biden is a man that he's even willing to give up his own companies on re election just to

protect it, just to get the drug down into our work with it on. right that, uh, in the end of the part for us line there seems like something you never talk about just because of why the driver presents. so the reason for the reason of west asia, which is, you know, not leaving on the right, his demonic order. not leaving on there. are you in the port out order? yeah, he's the same throughout the china rush. i represent. and there are so many people in this country who are now starting to see the difference between real threats and made up threats. and maybe that's what we need to talk about when we're, i'm take a quick break. i want to come back and ask our professor mirandi about that the perception of what the united states is intending to do or shouldn't do. is there a difference between the bible ministration and the trump administration when it comes to this matter? remember, uh, president trump assassinated a israel, pardon me, a, uh, the radi and liter. so what is the difference? we're gonna talk about that stay right there. we're going to be right back the

of the show seemed wrong. just don't

safe house because the advocates and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves will support, we choose to look for common ground. the, the russian states never is as tight as one of the most sense community best. most all sense and up in the system must be the one else holes. question about this, even though we will then in the european union, the kremlin media mission, the state on russia cruising and supports the r t. suppose next,

even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube, the payment services for the question, did you say a request to check? the water is part of the blog post that isn't the deepest to you of us in that, in the word part. is it something deeper, more complex might be present? let's stop without please. is that scope out of the

just didn't do it at the ports, you just don't want that back to me soon. so media central, i'm gonna send you settings for some great things. i'm really from it on the computer. no. me? yes it personally. so the, to the sale be the name is e, as in whiskey e, as your permission to complete, it looks like you should get us the books which and such as to me and i don't, i thought a soup. inducing that to, to see the purpose passed the

job, search the store because the model girl that you no problem seem to them out of the know the arguments he, i suddenly drive i showed my brother through. he was sudden to help people for a lo so now i never looked at searches as being the same. well, i guess i lost my list. that's the outcome of chicago police. it'd be gang chicago is like to give you a photo of that police. you really think your life as another crime, say another could have been a doctor, a nurse could have been the next president. we can't keep losing people out here the i hey,

welcome back coverage sanchez and i have enjoyed by professor mojave mirandi from toronto as well as a step on korea. and my thanks to both of you gentlemen, the professor let me uh, begin with you. by the way, i wasn't trying to leave the impression in case you may have gotten mad at the beginning that i wanted to ron to buy or how and brimstone into israel and punish every part. know that, that's not what i was trying to say. i just wanted to comment on the calculated and careful way in which this whole thing was addressed. maybe more importantly is now that a step on a 9 you overheard is talking about the reaction from the binding administration, which i thought was a bit happened. um, how do you see the bite and administration thus far as reaction to all things iran, you and i had a good chance to talk back when, during the trump administration. i thought trump was really hard on iran, in some cases more stern, perhaps unnecessary, maybe even

a little and just do you see a difference here, or is it the same old, same old as we say here when it comes to iran, the us political establishment, and the mainstream media, they've always been very irrational and they basically have been influenced by the sinus lobby and barrier to the extraordinary when the united states supports the genocide in gaza, then it's obvious that the united states is going to support any atrocity that is ready regime carries out and of course, since the iranians have always been the key supporters of the policy, i mean, cause there's only no country in the region or in the world that seriously supports the policy and people and their resistance against the occupation and against ethnic cleansing. so obviously the us hospitality and is there any hostility will

be focused on iran and that of course, whether it's trump, or obama, or a bite in or bush, it really doesn't make that much of a difference. obama imposed maximum pressure sanctions to target ordinate ryan's trump. did the same to target ordinary, iranians abiding has continued with the maximum pressure of sanctions. all of them have spoken about all options being on the table and of course, bush as well. so there really has been a continuity when it comes to run. but the problem for the united states is that now they're pushing the region towards it. they do it dangerous situation. one thing that has changed after the attack on the running embassy is that the iranians have now declared that to be the, the equation has changed. if the is res, attack iranians anywhere is not inside the work, not just inside the run and embassies,

anywhere from now on the run is want to hit back at the is there anything missing directly and they will attack them very hard and you will consider you consider when, but let me ask you the question from your point of view, do you believe that a wrong considers that when it is attacking sea floor or full throttle? the is riley's there really just as well are getting ready to be attacked back by both israelis and the united states. in other words, do they perceive a war with israel as a war with america as well? if the united states strikes the iran, then the iranians will strike back at the americans. very hard in defiance, have been preparing for 2 decades. 6, they have drone bases and missile bases across the country underground basis at the they have been designed to protect the wrong from the united states. if the united states attacks iranians will, uh, expound the us from iraq using their,

their that, that, you know, their capabilities. but also their allies in iraq will overrun us spaces and their bases in syria would collapse to because they're dependent on their occupation in iraq. but more importantly, you romwell it strikes us base is across the persian gulf. and even more important than that, you, ron will strike those countries at host us spaces because it'll be seen as compress it. and if that happens, that means there will be no oil and gas coming from the persian gulf region, not just the persian gulf, but the yeah, yeah. and the global economic catastrophe. that will be worse than 1929. so i think there's a sort of balance of terror between your on, in the united states, sort of like between the soviet union and the united states. and that's what i think is the time being lighted. save, and i think there are a lot of same people still same people in washington to recognize that. yeah, so that perhaps maybe a bridge too far. but, but of course, the united states today is not being rational at all. the very fact that the united

states is supporting the israelis carry out the genocide is demolishing the us. across the world is just drawing a soft power as to throwing his credibility, its reputation, its image. but the united states seemed handy. european seemed willing to sacrifice everything for his res, i'm on a minute left to step on and i want to come back to you and ask you this question about this situation. the professor and i were just talking about, do you think as a student of the united states and his political policies, that there is something within the united states that could get away from this mindset of. busy or even perhaps those who think it would be good. people like john bolton, for example, recently said he wants dick cheney to be the next president. imagine that can separate us from that more. they months mindset that we have right now. do you see it? i don't, i don't break. i know. yeah, i do hope that uh, maybe i would say

a different answer, but i did not because this is sadly that he started the other states over the past, you know, 5060 years just war and more war and more war. why? because war's profit of all, because everybody else might be solved for the weapon companies that you're lucky, marty, who's your art, the x, your i, you know, north improvement. they're all laughing all the way to the right and can, this is also one of the reasons why, you know, this big, big support for israel and all of a sudden they want to revive this package for ukraine and israel. $60000000000.00. so there's going to go, they're going to go into the pockets of the work on somewhere else. so you need to be looking at this phone call. there's, you know, for the cell phones at the best companies and then see where the change can begin. yeah, you know, you just made me think of a line and maybe i should klein it but it's almost like i was just having a conversation with both of you, including the professor about the united states of america and it's position,

but it just reminded us it's not so much the united states of america anymore. it's the national security states of america. and that's, that's, that's a problem that we're gonna have to fix down the line. if we want to all get along better, i'm out of time. my thanks to both of you as usual, a professor my randi, good to see you again. my friend, thank you so much for sharing your insight with us. and as usual, good is good to be with you as well as them. thank you very much. before i go, i want to remind you of our mission here, what we try to do anyway. pretty simple. be silo the world. we've got to stop living and these little boxes truths don't live in boxes, too. sure. everywhere i'm rick sanchez, is what we're shooting for here. underactive tax. the .