What will happen if America attacks Iran? | Jerm Warfare

0:30我的名字是Jerm,這是Jerm Warfare, 《The Battle of Ideas》 Trump gave his very big state address, I think it was yesterday And I gave it a very big ignoring All of course, of course, it's the same every year But the thing I want to point out is that he again made threats about Iran Now, how dangerous do you think this whole American Iran division actually is? Is it just wordplay? No, no, it's very dangerous I mean, everybody that I know is off the view that this is not just wordplay, this is serious and he is going to do something significant and the reason that it's taking so long is because as was discussed on Wednesday's news program with Vanessa

1:31it's apparent that they are intending that this would be a multi-faceted strike so not just weapons from the United States but also proxies deployed from Syria through Iraq from Azerbaijan, from Pakistan even and incursions across the border from people that have been funded and armed as usual by UK, US, EU So basically internal strife plus the bombings plus external agents of the state of the US all heading the Iranian government at the same time But now just before we get into any kind of confusion because when you get into the details you can very quickly lose sight of the big picture Let's just go back a few steps

2:31Why? What is the issue with Iran and America? Are you on first Charles? Well, I think it depends how far back we go I mean, as it does with anywhere but that is an extremely big question Well, put it in these terms then What is the United States issue with North Korea? What's the United States issue with Iraq? What's the United States issue with Libya? What's the United States issue with Syria? What's the United States issue with every country that the United States has carried out some kind of regime change Operation Venezuela, Cuba I mean, the list goes on They have geopolitical aims and we don't necessarily know

3:32what all of those are We hear we get a narrative in the mainstream press for what they would like us to believe the reasons are and what did Afghanistan do? Well, we know what Afghanistan was said to have done but the truth is what Afghanistan did was they stopped the production of opium and that's why following 9-11 the United States and Britain invaded Afghanistan for no other reason and as soon as they got into that country they started the drug trade again. Now, in more recent years then you say, well, why did they leave Afghanistan? Well, they left Afghanistan because opium is not relevant anymore because artificial opiates exist. And so, you know, there are reasons that are publicly made available. Iran has been on the US at list for what 30 years.

4:32But openly, we need regime change in that country. But, you know, there are many reasons why the United States decides that a country needs a different regime and some of them are public and some of them aren't. Yeah, I mean, I think where I was going was concerning the specific, not quite factors or all the blocks that when put together point towards a country that has a degree of stability and independence and financial security that threatens the United States paradigm

5:32or the Israeli paradigm? Well, yes. Okay. Yeah. I mean, that, again, is another big part of it. But, sorry, therefore, the history what I think is fascinating is to, especially, if you consider the geography of Iran, what is it that has led to modern day Iran and what it is? How has that been possible? And that perhaps is a question too big to quite get to grips with today. But, you know, the meddling, I mean, previously by the British in particular, but in that part of the world has been going on for millennia. So, I think in some many respects, it's just completely fascinating to see that Iran in 2026 is, well, I suppose, it's in a way able to be somewhere that is able to

6:34present itself as a challenge, a threat, you know, a problem to the United States, to Israel, to the United Kingdom. Yeah. So, I think that's a bit that I find fascinating. I had the great pleasure of interviewing an Iranian journalist, well, the name of Storis Deirky. I'll try and get her back on, actually. And she said it pretty much goes back to 1979 when the Iranian government got rid of the Western stranglehold. You know, the Iranian revolution now depends on from which perspective you are looking. But from her perspective, it was a good thing because it returned a degree of sovereignty to Iran. And I think that the one factor might be that the US just can't handle this.

7:34It doesn't like any country that it can't have a manipulative effect over. I think, look, the Middle East, that part of the world is from a strategic and trade point of view absolutely key. Control of that is absolutely necessary. And, obviously, what Russia, China, the BRICS countries are doing with the Belt and Road is a threat to Western Hegemony. I think that was it RFK talked about Israel being America's aircraft carrier in the region. This is absolutely fair comment. And Israel is there to maintain control

8:37through destabilization. Let's put it that way. It's divide and conquer again and get a base of operations in that area, destabilizing influence, make sure that there can be no real cooperation between countries in the area because some will favor a Western alignment, some will favor an Eastern alignment and keep the thing from ever getting to the point of them from a unified standpoint, the benefits of not being Western aligned. But what they don't want is a competition for trade. And that is a key region for that. Iran is problematic. Iran is working

9:39with countries that the West doesn't like. But more than that, Iran has managed to get itself in a position where it is not reliant on other countries. It's not reliant on other countries for its self-defense. It's got its own military industrial capability. It's got a very advanced military industrial capability or when the United States actually starts this action. It's not going to be a free ride like it was with Iraq, for example. So clearly, that's why they're taking this strategy of hitting a run with pretty much everything they've got. That's clearly, you know, based on what we're saying, they've got internal

10:39destabilization, destabilization run in the borders, plus whatever the United States does because distracting the Iranian military from the big target, which is those two aircraft carriers has got to be, you know, that has got to be something that they want to achieve and we'll see. But whether they achieve that or not, I have no doubt that if the United States starts this, they will suffer casualties. This is not going to be an easy ride for them. Yeah, I mean, the previous attempt just what a month or two ago didn't end very well for the US and for the UK. Yeah, I mean, I think this is the bit that I do find fascinating because I mean, there's no way in which they can't

11:39know this. It's not like where you can be sitting here thinking Iran would give a pretty good account of itself. And that the United Kingdom armed forces have worked that one out as well. And I think going back to what Vanessa was saying on Wednesday's news program about about the use of proxy forces and this and the other. Quite how this will be conducted will be well sort of dreadful but fascinating at the same time to see because compared with any of the engagements that those countries have had, the US and the UK have had in the last few decades, it would be a totally totally different thing. And therefore they will have to think very long and hard about how they're going to try and make that happen. Because the

12:39you know, on the on the one side of it, the ability to maintain any kind of combat effectiveness in the face of that kind of a non-stop would be a huge challenge. And then you've got the public opinion. And this is the bit that, you know, going back to your opening remarks about the Trump's address. I mean, again, I covered a little bit of this on Wednesday but what he did use it to do was to was to sort of grandstand about the capability the United States capability and you know, how much he's achieved how much they've achieved in this period. But I mean, again, going back to Mike's point. These were these rule in in engagements that whether it was a sort of wasn't really a contest. I mean, and for a start, they shouldn't have ever happened.

13:39And the United States shouldn't have been there in the first place. Okay, exactly the same in any meddling in in Iran. But but you know, how to they have set, but based on in the interests of America, it's very hard to see how they will actually progress this without a significant deterioration of their own forces and a massive drop in public opinion. But I, you know, perhaps I will be proved wrong. You see the thing that we haven't yet talked about, but we did a while ago was the the looming sense that there was going to be a false flag in Iran, either on British or American soil or both. And that's absolutely. It's almost as if that's gone off track. I mean, that was, that was the case at the beginning of 2025 when they were, there was a lot of talk and a lot of legislation and whatnot about what was being called foreign influence. And you know, they were very much setting the

14:39setting the scene for a foreign Iranian false flag. Now that, that sort of, they tried a couple of things, but basically that hasn't actually come to parts. And of course, that would be the one thing that would swing it. Because now people are clinging on by their fingernails to the Ukraine narrative, the sort of, you know, British security is Ukrainian security. And the Russians will be over here before we can say Jack Robinson actually turns out no one's really believing that anymore. Whereas if suddenly something goes bang and it's got an Iranian label on it, that would change things quite dramatically. Well, that looks as if there was foreign interest in Mike's camera. But it's nice to see that you're back. That has annoyed me immensely. So that's twice that's happened. It is the browser that's causing the problem. Okay. Well, at least you're back. Sort of. But you were shaking

15:39your head there, Mike. Were you disagreeing with Charles? Or were you just checking it at the camera? Not at all. I was just wanting to lose control and swear nicely, but I didn't want to pull it. You're recording with me complaining about the problem. Um, what do you think could happen if it was a US strike on Iran? There's no doubt about what will happen if there's a US strike on Iran. This will escalate. So, you know, because inevitably, for example, Hezbollah is going to get involved. And Israel has already said that if Hezbollah gets involved in any way, then they are going to attack targets in Lebanon, for example. But, you know, this, this will undoubtedly expand beyond Iran. I mean, who knows where it will end,

16:39but it's, it's, it is an extremely dangerous situation. But, but, you know, even for Trump, though, for him personally, it's going to be hugely interesting to see, um, how this affects his, um, his personal brand because he was elected on I'm not going to start any wars. And he's busy at the same time that he started wars in all kinds of places, including, you know, he's attacked Venezuela and other stuff. He is busy saying, oh, I've stopped it in a half wars so far. Well, is he going to, is this going to be, if he, if he obliterates Iran, if it gets to that point, and he succeeds in obliterating Iran and destroying their capability to defend themselves. Well, he then say, I stopped another war. Yeah. Of course.

17:39I mean, the guy's office head at the moment, as far as I can see. Well, yes, but then again, he is, he is learning how to play the game. And, um, going back to the false flag thing, you know, he, I think he must have had dinner with Alistair Campbell recently because he did, he did, of course, talk about, um, they can do it, but, but basically the sort of 45-minute claim, you know, oh, well, Iran could be, could be targeting the United States with its weapons within, well, I don't know if you actually said 45 minutes, but I mean, he is, um, he is absolutely warming people up for this. And I think with his, um, with the family line on Israel, I don't think it would take much convincing, uh, for the public to, to be absolutely on-site with, um, I'm the president of peace, and we're going to blast

18:39Iran. I think people would be very happy to go along with those two things being true at the same time. Uh, do you think Trump is actually though in control? What? Um, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. Trump's barely in control of what comes out out of his own mouth. No, he's, he's not in control. And, and, and the thing is the people that run him have clearly worked out how to play him very well, um, and, and ego is is 100%. Uh, the main mechanism as far as I can see. So, uh, 他 He's God people radium that are effectively helping and breached the decisions that he reaches A thing another of looking at this potential conflict in Iran is who benefits?

19:39Because I can't see the US actually benefiting This is not about the US benefiting, it's about Israel benefiting in the first instance Israel benefits because they get rid of their only 他們 от現在很 Foundation in the Region 原來美美金出現後有些經驗 但是因為已經能讓任何人們奪手 以及是世界、海洋、享人、全球的 以及任何人們都可以要為美國、 China 對 那, obviously Iran knows this they have to 對, they do, what do you mean? What are they going to do about it? Well, I mean, the world talks as if Iran are these bystanders they just, they don't know what's going on but they obviously do I mean, they successfully

20:41pulled back on that stalling sort of infiltration that was used they are obviously very aware and acutely sensitive to what the US is potentially planning But what can they do about it? I mean, there's nothing they can do to stop it happening they can only prepare and hopefully they've prepared sufficiently But what does that preparation include though? Well, that preparation includes hypersonic weapons and we cannot forget that Iran has a significant capability Now, whether that includes nuclear weapons they say not and unlike Israel I have no particular reason to disbelieve what they're saying there because certainly I haven't seen any evidence that they actually have nuclear weapons they have insisted that their nuclear program is through civilian nuclear energy purposes only

21:42and nobody has demonstrated any credible evidence as far as I can see that it's anything different to that but the fact remains that they have a significant capability and the two US aircraft carriers don't have a significant defense to it and the last Iranian attack actually the last Israeli attack on Iran was not only fairly significantly repelled they Iran succeeded in getting a reasonable number of their missiles to target in Israel and Israel is supposed to have you know, it's armed dome whatever it's called to protect it from that kind of thing so Iran to a certain degree demonstrated what it's capable of but the last time it was on the receiving end of an Israeli attack

22:43and it retaliated so you know Trump said that he won't allow Iran to have nukes and I'll listen to this as of 2026 the US has a total of 5,277 nuclear warheads with 1,770 of those warheads deployed and ready for use but Iran isn't a loud one it only works one way all of this stuff it is a very difficult predicament that Iran is in and in effect broadly the Russia has been put in the same position you know, that's where they've been for the last four years and the parallels are not complete but the trouble is if they are to do anything

23:43then clearly that's regarded as a green light for unleashing absolutely everything at them which of course they will know so the whole thing the whole thing is a trap in exactly the way that Russia has been trapped and it is very difficult but the I mean really frankly bearing in mind that it's us that pay for all this it's the dishonesty that is just so utterly unbelievable on all of this the background to any of these stories when you examine it is just one gigantic minefield of lies from our side from the West it is absolutely dreadful and I'm not saying that we have necessarily a complete monopoly online but I think we get told

24:45more lies per day than most well listen to this Israel's nuclear weapons status is more complex than most countries because of its policy of nuclear ambiguity Israel has never officially confirmed or denied having nuclear weapons that probably means they do it's more than probable I mean everybody it is an open secret everybody knows that Israel has nuclear weapons that's there's not really any debate to be had about that they don't officially admit but at the end of the day this is the main issue because did you say the United States has 5,000 whatever how many could Iran possibly have even if it had any it might have one or five or ten

25:45but this is clearly not a threat to the United States the other problem is they don't have a delivery system they can't reach the United States despite what Trump may have said at the state of the nation a speech that Iran might have a capability of reaching the United States at some point a delivery capability that can reach the United States at this point it doesn't have the only country that could possibly be threatened by Iran and nuclear weapons would be Israel and bearing in mind the prevailing winds would they do that anyway I don't know I don't think it's you know the whole thing is just a setup a justification for the action that's being taken here at the bottom line is the regime in inverted commas is not one that the United States and the UK wants to be friends with and so it has to go

26:45at whatever cost and then anything else is just fluff it's just excuses Alex Krener was on my show for you could call him I think last year sometime and he argued that Trump is in favor of multipolarity I don't know if I buy that argument and this is an example of him not favoring multipolarity or maybe it is what do you think yeah I mean I would do you remember how it was that Alex sort of substantiated well he was making the argument that Trump does like the idea of competing economies I don't see that that Trump does like the idea of competing economies I don't see that I have to admit I don't see any side of that whatsoever

27:45he's I think Trump is Trump is forum monopoly he wants he wants to be winning the game every time he you know and so if it's all about the art of the deal then the deal is that he wins and the other person loses there is no win-win concept and Trump's mind at least I have not seen any evidence of it yeah I do agree it doesn't I wouldn't have said it looks like he's just disagree point blank with that point of view but given what we've seen with all the you know the tariff stuff just as most of this example and then and then Greenland and Venezuela I mean it I don't know to me that that is very much suggestive that he is intent on gathering up all the various

28:45strings he can and again the well it's just you know the way in which in particular the Chinese and the Russians are spoken about is not I don't know I really don't get the sense that they're regarded as competitors certainly not in a constructive or positive sense it's always with a you know that there is an element of threat or menace more than an element of threat or menace and therefore it is important that America is dominant in order to control not just the economic conditions but also the companies countries are able to operate but also the you know the sort of military slash security situation too I don't I mean I think there's very little evidence of that right now but

29:45and you know what would what would change I don't know No I mean in Alex's defense I would say the situation has changed as last year so if he was making those comments at some point in the middle of last year then you know that's a different world and it's incredible how quickly situation is changing yeah it's not a stupid Alex it's just a very interesting point of view and that's exactly that's why you know reference the tire of thing at all and indeed yeah again this is a crystal ball element you know could one have considered that that this would be on the cards yeah actually some of it definitely I think well we've talked about it

30:45before but certainly the green and Canada peace that is a rehash it's but you're not quite sure when it's going to happen and Iran is exactly one of those if further US does unleash the crack on Iran what what will the British government do? well this is an interesting question because you know the last we heard was that the permission to use British bases to launch this from now whether that's still the situation or not I don't know because I haven't seen any update I don't know if you've seen anything Charles but that was the last we heard now in the past

31:45with respect to Syria with other regimes well actually you know if Britain said no the United States didn't go ahead and so so this again is another indication that you know the traditional British US alignment on geopolitics isn't there at this point in time now my particular suggestion for why that is isn't that it isn't that on long-term basis the UK and the US are no longer friends or that they don't have a special relationship anymore because I think that special relationship was always about the deep-state intelligence agencies and that kind of thing anyway but I think this is

32:45more about the effort to force Britain and the United States are presenting the idea that they are not as close as they have otherwise been I think it's fake and it's all about driving trying to drive the Europeans to get themselves much more aligned together on a war footing than they are they're still pushing back against it a little bit of the European so I mean, I asked about the British government What about NATO? What is NATO? Right because what we have is the United Kingdom regime and we have the European Commission forget about the European Member States because it makes no difference what I think it's what the European Commission and the UK

33:45thinks and that's what's driving the EU at the moment so NATO is that whatever happens in Iran isn't going to be a NATO effort because it's not going to be a UK effort at this point and the relationship between the US and NATO I can't figure out what's going on there No, it's completely fake this supposed split is completely fake German this is something that Trump started in 2017 when the new NATO headquarters was opened in Brussels can't remember the 17th and Trump was already making you know noises about NATO not being fit for purpose but he still went there he still opened the place he still presented them with their their their big piece of structural art which was a piece of metal allegedly from the World Trade Center which is sitting outside and they

34:46lined up all the EU leaders there like like naughty school children while Trump gave a speech which said you guys aren't spending enough you're very naughty children you're not spending enough on defense and at that point they all laughed at them they were all sniggering in a line sniggering behind their hands but they're not sniggering anymore because the United States has kept the responsibility of the EU U.S. bases in the EU in Germany and Poland and other countries have provided the protection that the EU feels that it needs from the East and the United States is not guaranteeing that anymore but but it's all about what Trump said in 2017 he said you are you're take it way basically said you're take it

35:46because you're expecting the United States to pay for this all you need to put your hands in your pockets so I think that's what this game is with the game between the relationship between the U.S. the UK and also the relationship between the UK and the EU is all about that and just to feed into what you're saying the Secretary-General of NATO congratulated Trump on his attacks on Iran and he seems to be pretty supportive of the whole thing but Riders are not kiss but he is a Secretary-General he said he's a not job but he absolutely is he would blow up this world that man yeah yeah but my point is that it's it's aligning with what you said that it is theatre that there's no real

36:46there's no real conflict between the U.S. and NATO no there isn't but Charles, what are your thoughts? no no I mean I thought that's exactly what I see now you know using router as an example I mean he has he is saying he's always parroting Trump word for word on the sort of the requirement to spend this and deliver that but no, no I mean it it any any messaging about there being discrepancy's all differences they're not really born out by what one sees I mean you know whether it's just the civilly language that's used peace through strength or deterrence of a particular thing whether or not they're doing it under a banner that says NATO on it or that says anyone else they are all

37:46basically doing exactly the same thing with critically you know going back to who benefits with the same bits of kit the same ammunition and the same technical capabilities inputs the same accessories and all that and I think that's the that's really where we should sort of what one should look at in order to determine what's going on and and who benefits and there is you know this this is what has changed so much over the years and we've talked about this 但在這些就是一種 在 scale 的性質 是自utrwork 只是

38:48特別容易的 因為你們的東西 是如何確定光顧 有頭lear 正好 我想給大家談談 這個相關的埃根 我 think on UK column a lot over the years, but the way in which control of various elements of hardware and communications capabilities and what not, gradually governments and militaries have lost more and more and more control over what they use, how they use it, and what information. What information they have compared with or they have to themselves, you know, the sort of the partnership or the overlap or overlay of a military capability with the, you know, with a sort of civilian dimension.

39:53And it's just, it's a totally different thing now. It really is. And I like it. Yeah, go on. Yeah, I was going to say France and Germany are wanting to, you know, throw sanctions on your own. You know, when you think about this, right? You have a population in this country that is just going to suffer. And I would also argue that Americans are going to suffer. Yeah. Yeah, let's, let's, let's be realistic about what it is we're facing at the moment. We have, we have a Western, the Western nations economies are at the end. That, that is a fact, right? The, the, the death blow, forget about 2007, 2008, that was, that was bad enough. But the death blow was, was the COVID tyranny as Charles put it on the news program on Wednesday.

40:54Right? That, that, that has absolutely pulled the rug out from any possibility of, of building a new economy. But on top of that, we have systematically destroyed our manufacturing capability over the last decades. And what are we doing instead? We're, we're trying to use the massively, massively over leveraged banking system. And the banking system is now as bad as it was in 2007 in the run up to the financial crash. Right? We are, there are more and more voices starting to talk about this. No, we are staring at a major banking collapse. But we, in the meantime, we have roads that we can't drive on. We have power systems that don't, can't deliver enough power with food systems that we can't feed ourselves with. Right? We have situations which are unrecoverable without money.

41:56And we don't have any money because we're so leveraged in debt that we can't pay for these. And now on top of that, we've stuck this war policy over the, over the top. And now we're expected to spend greater and greater amounts of GDP. What GDP? There is no real GDP left in any of our countries. Right? So, so what options are there at that point? Because the backers are not going to allow for any kind of restructuring of that. Because that means they lose everything. So what they're doing is just playing another shell game here. If you think about what happened during the COVID-19, we had the, we had economy shut down. We had more and more debt being taken on. And where did that debt money go to? It went straight into pharmaceutical companies. And the pharmaceutical companies got huge quantities of profits for nothing. I mean, even if you believed in the vaccines, the jobs, whatever you want to call them, even if you believed in that,

42:58a significant proportion of what was manufactured is still setting on the shelf somewhere. It was never used. That's probably out of debt now. So most of that money was wasted. It was all, it was all debt. Then the track and trace systems, what much is Britain spent on track and trace? 30 billion pounds. Right? All debt. So debt, debt, debt, debt. We're leveraged to the health. There is no option at this point. But to go for a war policy. Right? Now what are they actually doing in the meantime? Because everybody knows we've been talking about this for long enough. Everybody knows that the UK and the EU in particular, the US still lesser extent because they spend huge quantities, trillion dollars a year, whatever on defense, on war, I should say. But there's no way that Britain or the EU can prosecute a war with Russia. But what we're doing is we're creating the environment whereby they can demand more and more taxpayers' money.

44:03Just gets funneled straight into defense companies. So they're effectively playing the same shell game with defense companies now that they were playing with farmer companies in 2020 and 2021. And all our money, all our futures, is just being pushed into profit and inverted commas for war mongers. Well, that's just more assets stripping of you and me. And assets being moved into the hands of a fewer and fewer number of people at the very top. People who have, if they haven't already, built their underground bunkers. They're in construction at the moment, right? Because we've seen, how many stories have we seen about these wealthy people building their underground bunkers? So what are they intending? Now, it's not too late to stop what they're intending because it don't think it's going to happen this year. But it might happen, it might, who knows, because the game that they're playing is dangerous and it could go anyway.

45:04But I don't think their intentions to start anything major this year. But, you know, so they're still potentially time to stop it. But people have got to recognize the situation we're in before they can consider what they might do to change the direction of travel here. Well, you've just answered the question earlier about who benefits. And you've also kind of highlighted the great taking that David Webb has so eloquently spoken about. The bankers, the early gocs. The bankers are one part of it, yes, for sure. But it's not just them. There are all the archival class that we have running across the banks, across the corporates. And politicians are just the middle managers for this. And not even very good ones, because they can't sell their rubbish narratives, nobody's buying it.

46:05I do wonder, though, what, I mean, you said you don't think anything big will happen this year. But the way Trump has been talking, I mean, I suppose it's typically Trump, though. Yeah, it's not just him. I think he's the obvious. He's the obvious one, because the way he says stuff, it does get more attention. I mean, he's delivery alone. But I think he's not really saying things that other people aren't absolutely pointing towards. And I think just to concentrate on what Mike has just described. I mean, I think this is the critical point that a lot of people are probably not understanding, is that the sequencing of this is absolutely very deliberate to have set the financial system sort of overturned it from 2020.

47:06It means that the, you know, war is a logical conclusion at that point or after that point, you know, the push towards and then the delivery of, because, first of all, if you're controlling and communicating with your population, war, I mean, let's say an invisible illness, is a pretty good one, but war is a very, very good, you know, perhaps the best tool for controlling people with. I mean, the most obvious, well, this would be the time, you know, identity cards, for example, during the Second World War, of course, people in the United Kingdom carried identity cards. So to all this discussion we have now about digital identity, you know, well, you know, it's sort of happening by itself and the other, yeah, it would be, but were there to be a state of war entered into sort of formally,

48:10then that could be one of the sort of overnight switches. So I think the, some of the reason that this is being held back to a certain extent is because there is just more, there's more groundwork to be done. And, you know, this goes across so many things, all the, those things that do have dates on them, like the 2030, you know, all the stuff that's supposed to happen by 2030, which obviously isn't happening. And we look at the, what it is that's the Russian, I mean, you know, again, look at the timing, the, it's funny to think back now because it's one sort of forgets these things, but the, the February 2022, I mean, wasn't it, what, I can't remember in terms of COVID regulations or something, didn't something end in, in that very month, 2022, I mean, it was literally, it was almost the day before.

49:10And then, and then the Russian Ukraine thing kicked off the following day, I'd have to check, I can't remember. Yeah, I think it was a coronavirus act. Because that's what it was, yeah, it was presented in your appeal. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so something, something like that. You know, you think, oh, well, it's a coincidence. Yeah, it's not really. So, yeah, so all of these things do, do have a traceable line in both directions. I think to project what happens, you know, you, when you have your war, you, you set the conditions for a complete rehash of your financial system. If you want, I mean, you sort of, you have to do it, but also it is the perfect excuse for, oh gosh, sorry, there isn't actually any more money left. And it's not because of that, it's, it's because of this, it's because of the war. So I think there are so many elements of warfare, either in prospect or in practice that just relate so absolutely to all the other things that we talk about, which is why I think it's really important that we do concentrate on it.

50:30And we do make people think about it because, like I said, a short while ago, this is done with our money. And, and in simple terms, we're not surrendering our money to do this, then, then it's much harder for it to happen. But similarly with, with people, it is, it is necessary that people go forward to take parts in these wars. And if that is, if that call is not responded to in the way that it has been in the past, then again, that, that creates a very big problem. And we were talking, well, yes, actually, again, on Wednesday's news, Vanessa was talking about the USS Gerald Ford, which has had problems with its, with its sort of sewage system on board. And the point is that there was a, you know, sort of what's described as a mutiny to try to stop these things from working in order that these guys get sent home.

51:37So it's just a demonstration of what people can do when they, when they decide they've just had enough or something. So I do, I think to, to sort of derail a war effort whilst apparently difficult, certainly not impossible. I mean, the United Kings was hardly got anyone in the armed forces now. So if no one else turns up, then that is sort of that put in really simple crude terms. Is China that kid sitting on the side of the playground watching the brawl unfold? No, because China's on the target list. So, so you know, this, this is, this is problematic for, for Russia and China, they are, they are clearly in, well, my assessment of it is that they are trying to find a way to avoid what they know is coming because they know they're on the target list.

52:45So Russia is doing things which is resulting in Russia getting criticism from certain people and, and I absolutely understand why I'm amongst others talking about Vanessa here, for example, I understand why that criticism is forthcoming. I'm going to say I, I have some sympathy with the position that countries find themselves in because, because they are dealing with a bully who is a very big bully. And, and, and so they're trying to placate or they're trying to make deals with. And, but I don't think that's going to work. I think, I think that the, the, the decision was made a long time ago that Russia has to be dealt with and the China has to be dealt with. And, and I don't think anything is going to stop that.

53:47So, yeah, but the reality, I think, I think it would be, I think it would be much better for those countries. Russia, China, Iran, India, stand up a lot in American countries. It would be much more sensible thing for them to do exactly what Mark Carney was suggesting at the World Economic Forum and consider themselves as middle countries and actually get together in a much stronger way than they are at the moment. Because they might, they might say that they support, you know, Russia might say it supports Iran. And, okay, Russia has, has run some military exercises with Iran in the last couple of weeks. And, Russia seems to be perhaps maybe sending an, an oil tanker to Cuba, for example, at the moment. But, you know, what Trump is doing to Cuba at the moment is absolute disgrace and nobody's even noticing, right? And, and so, you know, but the thing is, if Russia sends this tanker, if this tanker is on its way, you know what's going to happen?

54:56The US or the UK is simply going to say, oh, shadow vessel and they're going to seize it. If they think that it's actually going to reach a destination in Cuba. So, you know, we are absolutely in a lawless, from international law point of view, in a lawless situation. And, these countries to a certain degree recognize that. But I'm not sure that they have an answer at this stage. Now, I was going to say that I think that China's defense is probably a lot more powerful than what, than what we perhaps think. I mean, they work in long-term strategies. Yeah, I mean, Russia and China are doing a lot to develop their defensive capability. Russia is doing a lot to develop its offensive capability as it's demonstrating in, in, in Ukraine at the moment.

56:01But, you know, the point is, Jeremy, that should it come to actual kinetic conflict as you create, as demonstrating at the moment, doesn't matter. Whether you have the capability to provide some kind of defense or not, it's going to be hellish for the people on the ground and who wants that. Right, so, so, you know, Russia and China don't want to see their own populations decimated or worse. I'm trying to think of a way to come in for a final lap here with some kind of upliftment. I mean, let's just talk, let's just finish with Epstein, because there is an opportunity if it's a significant proportion of Western populations,

57:02because there's how many hundreds of thousands of emails are there, there's information there that we absolutely could see all our governments brought down, plus the oligarch class as well. There's sufficient there, probably, if, if, if enough people actually got engaged with that topic, it's there, it's, it's a gift, it's sitting there in front of us. We need to, we need to get the grips with it as, as populations, not as individual media organizations or the occasional journalists. We need to get it to grips with it as populations, and we need to get rid of the people that are driving the war agenda that are driving the surveillance agenda, the digital idea agenda. It's all the same people for going to sick. It's only a couple of hundred people, probably, that we need to actually get rid of, put them in bloody presence, excuse my language. Let's, let's, let's use the information that's in front of us and get, get that job done.

58:03Yeah, I would sort of, I would go along with that and, you know, because there is a genuine sense of panic, it's, it's unusual that one sees this, but I think people have, have, have absolutely had their, have, have, have had their feathers ruffled by this. I mean, the only other thing I would say is just, you know, we've talked a lot about sort of military capabilities and, and this and the other. I mean, I, I think what, to me, again, is fascinating, perhaps particularly about Russia, but I mean China as well is just how, how much of a contrast there is between what is said in Western countries, but the United Kingdom, I would say in particular, I was reporting on the environment, secretaries address to the National Farmers Union on Wednesday, and it's just pathetic, it is just, it's just one sort of dreary load of sort of vaguely connected sound bites and none of it really means anything.

59:09And then you look at the, the, the way in which Russia has responded to, I mean, a case of sanctions, but, but to, to all the, all the various obstacles put in its path, and it's just, you know, they've just gone with it from a, from a very self-sufficiency point of view, and we, we're going to be talking about sort of arming themselves in this, and you need much more to it than that, and food being such a critical element. And that that just, it does demonstrate something that, that we are absolutely lacking here. I mean, first of all, it totally failed narrative, but the, the action, it's just not there. And, and again, going back to the point of where, where we fit in what we can do, these are the areas in which we need to, to, to make sure that we are actually sorting ourselves out. So I think so much can be learned from these countries that are supposedly in the crosshairs of the United States, the United Kingdom, NATO and all the rest of it, because after all they are, they are under intense pressure, they do actually have to do something about it.

1:00:19And in most cases, they do respond, and I think we can all learn from that. All right, Mike and Charles, looking forward to having you joining me in the trenches next week. Hopefully. Cheers.