Larry Johnson: GAME OVER, TRUMP!

LARRY JOHNSON: Donald Trump is making policy decisions like a roulette wheel: spins the wheel and hopes that if it lands on red then it's red, and if it lands on black it's black; and he may even invent some new colors for it.

He literally does not know what he's doing.

It is whatever he's feeling at the moment and who was the last person to speak to him.

Now remember, he's taken at least four different positions on the Strait of Hormuz.

One: "Ah, it doesn't matter, that doesn't affect us, I don't care, it can stay open, closed, it doesn't matter."

Two: "Well, we need the help of England and, and our allies, NATO allies, to come open it up, we, we got to get it open."

Three: using the F-word.

With respect to the Iranians and calling them crazy and that they better damn well open it up now! Uh, "It doesn't need to be open, we're going to blockade it."

So yeah, there's a lot of consistency at all four different positions.

That's why I've claimed that Trump is well on his way to earning the gold medal in the gymnastics division for all the backflips and reversals that he's engaged in.

So they're going to enforce a blockade - I don't know how.

The last US ship, well, we had two destroyers that tried to enter the Strait of Hormuz yesterday during a cease-fire, and Iran went out and basically threatened them and they turned around and left.

The last one when there was not a cease-fire, was the Abraham Lincoln - it got within 200 miles of Iran's coast and it got shellacked with a variety of drones and missiles,it took damage and retreated out to 700 miles off the coast.

So if they're going to enforce a blockade, the question is where? How?

How close in to the Iranian coast are they going to be?

I would argue that if they want to avoid getting blown out of the water, that they will be at least 500, 600 miles offshore.

Well, the farther you go offshore, the greater then the area of coverage that you have.

It's like, you know, take a circle and like you're cutting slices of pizza.

At the outer edge it's much wider than it is at the center of the pizza.

And so the farther out you move from that center point, the wider and wider the box gets that you have to try to cover, which means then trying to track ships in that, uh, becomes, becomes difficult.

I know that maybe there's been some changes in technology in the last five years, but I just recall working military exercises where one of the tasks was to try to follow a located ship and that was difficult.

You know, it was not easy.

And then once you find it, then what do you do?

Uh, you board it. Well, you can board it, you know, the Seals doing a maritime assault, you know, with boats; you draw alongside, then they have to throw up a grappling ladder of some sort and then climbing up with combat gear, particularly if you've got semi-heavy seas, can be very dangerous.

And then if the crew on board the ship are fighting to try to keep you from getting on, it can be risky in that regard.

Or you do a helicopter assault, except, you know, uh, if the ships know that they're now going to be under potential assault, they load up some man pads, they put a security team on board with man pads that'll shoot down any incoming helicopter.

So it's, it's not, it's not an easy task.

But if you're going to go up against a ship that's flying a Chinese flag, that's Chinese territory.

You don't get to invade Chinese territory without starting a war.

So this is, this is a stupid, reckless policy on the part of Donald Trump and to what end?

Uh, if he's trying to disrupt this, uh, Iran's ability to supply oil, then that's, again, 180 degrees opposite from what he was advocating four weeks ago when he and Scott Bessent, the Secretary of Treasury, lifted the sanctions and, and said, "Yeah, we know we need as much Iranian oil out there just to keep the price of oil

down." Now he's going to be curtailing the supply. So that's, that's one of the reasons we've seen, uh, the, the oil futures rise for both Brent and, uh, West Texas Intermediate.

Well, yeah, and we're going to talk about that in a bit because one of the people that's going to be most affected by this is America's very close ally, Japan and South Korea. And I'm hearing conversations that people within Japan are going to think about selling their US bonds, which is going to harm the US.

But, um, coming back to what you were referring to, what you were speaking about, in terms of the Chinese, how, I mean, this is going to, this is a very complex situation now, and not in terms of strategy, obviously that doesn't make sense, especially the timing of that strategy.

But in terms of the fact that, as you mentioned, the Chinese came out, I believe an hour or two before we came on, and said, "Our oil tankers are going to still continue to traverse the Strait of Hormuz." But obviously it's going to be complex because we saw two attempts to leave, uh, the strait and then turn back, two Chinese ones.

So I guess the question mark becomes, do you think the Chinese are actually going to try and take that risk where they may end up in a situation of a kinetic warfare, a kinetic disagreement? Or do you think the Chinese will basically retreat and just wait this out? What's your thoughts? Well, I think, I think initially they're going to, uh, take a wait-and-see attitude.

But ultimately they will, uh, they'll take on the United States. I think they realize now the United States is weak, and despite its claims to be powerful, um, and, you know, the, the United States is not in a position, hell, it can't defeat Iran, and it's going to, quote, "defeat China"?

Yeah, forget about that. So this is, this has exposed the weakness and limits of US military power. No doubt, but I guess, and I'm with you, I think the Chinese are going to try and make sure that they deal with this issue where they don't have to get into a kinetic disagreement or kinetic warfare.

Now, in terms of this sieges perspective, just with the timing of it, does it make sense, we're eight days away from this 14-day cease-fire, uh, basically ending.

We've now seen a large movement of US, um, and, you know, US KC tankers, um, the transport vehicles, cargo transport, various other things. It does seem like he's planning something else, or do you think that he's now going to just continue with this chokehold method?

Yeah, no, they're, the United States is gearing up to try to continue the war as it was before. But again, you got real limitations on air power.

And if, uh, Trump follows through on his threats to, uh, try to destroy the energy sector in, uh, the energy and power grid in Iran, Iran is going to destroy it in the rest of the Persian Gulf and in Israel.

So it, it doesn't, you know, doesn't advance, uh, doesn't get the United States in any better strategic position, number one. Um, the, uh, but Iran's not sitting around doing nothing.

Uh, Iran, in fact, uh, with the help of the Chinese and the Russians, is dramatically upgrading some of its, uh, capabilities for both, uh, delivering offensive weapons with drones and defensive with air defense systems being put in place.

And, you know, despite Trump's claim to have wiped out the, uh, Iranian Air Force, the Iranians were able to put up two SU-24s. They carried out a bombing run in, uh, uh, I, I think it was in Kuwait, or, or the UAE, just, uh, two days ago.

So, you know, what, what we're, what we're seeing is, uh, both countries regrouping, but ultimately, uh, Iran is in a far stronger position to continue this war and exact cost on the United States that will frankly, as the, as the election, uh, draws near, that they will be more

in unable to, uh, uh, sustain the effort. Trump will be looking for an exit road. Uh, um, you know, they'll be sunk.

And so if, if this, if, if the United States persists in using offensive methods against Iranian ships, then I think you'll see Iran start striking back and the cease-fire will end, and there will be US ships sunk, uh, and there will be sailors killed.

And then Trump's, uh, Trump is going to be deeper into this war that he thought was going to be a quick in and out. And, uh, at that point then, I think you're going to see tremendous pressure, uh, political pressure, uh, against him.

So, I mean, Trump said that he was going to use the Venezuelan model, which means just shoot from the air. I had some naval experts on, and they said that they could just commandeer the vessels without any kind of kinetic warfare. Um, so if he was, I mean, what's your thoughts on that?

First of all, and if he was to commandeer those vessels, I guess the question mark becomes, won't it be difficult for Iran to then offensively hit because then they may be seen as the aggressor? And one thing we've noticed about Iran through this war is they're always averse to coming across as the aggressor, hence why they went to the negotiations.

Yeah, no, well, look, if, if, uh, if the US boards an Iranian tanker, or, um, then it's an active war. It's an international, it hasn't broken any so-called international law, which the United States doesn't recognize at all anyway.

So, um, you know, Iran will retaliate with force. That will, now, the, the time lapse from, you know, announced that it was a day in advance that this was going to be done.

Uh, this gives some of the ships, uh, the owners time to decide whether or not they want to put a security team on board armed with man pads and, and weapons to fight off any, anyone that tries to board them.

And then it, it gets in the situation where if the United States is going to be firing on oil tankers, again, there goes the price of oil, because the United States, instead of working on increasing the supply of oil, is now taking steps that are going to limit supplies. So, yeah, it's just, it's an insane policy.

They, I guess, they think that now they what they want to try to do is economically cripple Iran. And, you know, Iran's going to fight back. They're not, they're not going to, they're not going to take it laying down.

And the, the ability, you know, the United States can talk tough and, "Oh, we got 16 ships." Uh,right now I, I only count potential seven, uh, in the re in the region. I, I discount the destroyers because, you know, to, to, to really interdict these ships, you got to do more than sell in front of them.

They're just too damn big, unless you're going to sink, try to sink them. Um, so that means you, you need to board them and put people on board that can take control of the ship. Well, that's helicopters. And there are countermeasures that crew on board these ships can use.

And that's why I say they could, um, it would not be out of the ordinary, like if it's an Iranian ship, to put an IRGC, uh, platoon on board one of those ships. And just, you know, in the event of attack, they would respond. Yeah, possibly, possibly. You mentioned about how this would harm the global market.

There's no doubt that oil prices should increase, although I do believe they're manipulating it quite a bit. But in terms of who's going to be the most affected in a tangible way, well, China has reserves. The second and third biggest countries joined together is South Korea and Japan. Yeah. After India.

So, but them two combined because they're very close allies of the United States of America. I mean, this is a specific direct assault on your own allies, your allies in Asia. What's your, what's your thoughts on that? Oh, no, I absolutely agree with you.

This is, uh, the ones who are suffering the most from this are the countries that ostensibly were the most closely allied with the United States. So that includes, uh, you know, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Vietnam. Um, Taiwan. You know, Malaysia, Indonesia.

And then you're going to look at the effects on Western Europe. The, the, uh, the most painful effectsright now are being felt in Asia. Uh, by next week, it'll be hitting Europe hard. Uh, and the United States is not going to escape this either.

You know,right now, the, even though we, quote, "produce our own gas and fuel," the price of diesel has gone up, uh, $2 a gallon. And, um, I was listening to someone yesterday, he has a friend who's a rancher farmer out in Washington State.

And, um, he buys his fuel for his trucks, tractors, farm vehicles. It's diesel. He buys it 10,000-gallon, uh, installments.

Well, you know, $2 a gallon to 10,000, that's 20,000 extra dollars in his bottom line that he didn't have, he wasn't spending last year. And, and so that's, that, that cost is going to get built into whatever, you know, food product that he's growing.

And then the, the cut, the trucks that haul the food to the processors, and then from the processors to the supermarkets. You know, there's $2 added on in each installment there. So this, this is going to cost Americans significantly, and it's going to make it very difficult for the Republicans come, uh, come November.

Of during, during the war with Iraq in the 1980s. Iraq was supplied with chemical weapons by the United States. Or to be precise, we gave them precursor chemicals they used to build chemical weapons, weapons, so-called weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq used those 20 times in the court between August of '83 and August of '88. So that's six years. Uh, during that entire time, Iran did not retaliate by building its own chemical weapons and using them. Why? Because it is a sin.

They see it as something that runs against their Islamic principles. So that, that same thing applies to the use of a nuke. So there is, look, there's a way to, uh, the JCPOA was sufficient.

Uh, you know, Trump, Trump came up with a complaint that it was, um, um, you know, to only limited to 10 years. But, but, you know, Iran, Iran was willing to make a deal then. They'd still be willing to make a deal now, but it's not at 0%, and they're not going to surrender their sovereignty.

You know, they're a sovereign nation. They don't have to bend, bend the knee to the United States or to Israel at all. It's been the victim, it's been the victim of relentless US attacks for 47 years.

And, and the, and what's the most ridiculous about it is this constant lie being told by American politicians that Iran's been attacking us. Bullshit. Go back to 1980 when Saddam Hussein launched the war against Iran in September of 1980.

The CIA was involved with that. There was a secret finding. Part of it was part of a broader, uh, uh, attempt to put pressure on the Iranian government in order to get the US hostages released. But it didn't.

Once the hostages were, were, were released, Ronald Reagan's president, so do you think the United States backed off and said, "Okay, we'll stay out of this"? Oh, no. At that point, the United States began providing funding. They took Saddam off the list of terrorists.

Then we provided precursor chemicals used to produce weapons of mass destruction. And we provided intelligence from that came from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency to the Iraqi government that they, so they could use that information for the chemical weapons attacks and other attacks.

And how do I know that? Because one of my mentors, who's now deceased, Walter Patrick Lang, was the colonel who was carrying that intelligence to Iraq. So I, I don't want to hear another goddamn American complain about, "Oh, Iraq, Iran's been attacking us." No, it's been the exact opposite.

I'm saying that as he is, he is suffering, uh, not early dementia because he's almost 80 years old in two months. Uh, but he's suffering a mental decline. And, uh, people who are, you know, are inside the White House report his, he's lost his ability to control his temper.

He has these outbursts at times which are just, you know, seemingly out of touch with reality. I mean, just like we saw yesterday, he put on, on Orthodox Easter Sunday, he posts this, posts this image of him as a Christ-like figure.

Now, many and even some Trump supporters viewed that as he's the Antichrist, which, uh, you know, something to be said for that. And then today he took it down. And he claimed, "Oh, no, he thought the picture was him as a doctor." Oh, police. God, you know, he doesn't even lie well anymore. Yeah, yeah, he doesn't come out with the best excuses.

Yeah, so, um, uh, what, what we're seeing out of, out of Trump is the initial proposal that was presented, Iran gave Pakistan its 10 points and look, these, and these are not points to be negotiated over. Like they said, uh, we're going to stay in control of the Strait of Hormuz.

That's not something to get with the United States and say, "Okay, you get 50% or 20%." No, they're saying, "This is sovereign territory for us now." That's, that's not negotiable. Release our frozen funds. That's not negotiable. Pull your military bases out of the region. Not negotiable.

That's nothing we're, we're going to negotiate about. Um, the lifting all sanctions. Not negotiable. Releasing our frozen funds. Not negotiable. Okay? Those were, those were the starting points. And stopping the war, cease-fire on all fronts including Lebanon. Not negotiable.

The Trump administration agreed to all of that. And then Iran said, "Great. Then we'll get together and talk and figure out how do we have actually a long-term agreement." And then Trump, the, the, the Zionists lost their friggin' minds. Again, making phone calls to him, threatening him, whatever.

And, uh, within about, you know, three, four hours, he reversed himself. No, we never agreed to that. Well, he had agreed to it, but, you know, he was lying. So, um, you know, that then they went into the negotiations with this complete, uh, you know, reflect the point of view of Israel.

It's about making Israel great again. Yeah. This is not America first, it's Israel first. And that, that was belied by the fact that he sent, uh, you know, the two Zionists, Wittkoff and Kushner, along to keep J.D. Vance on the leash.

If, if Vance had been left there to his own devices without having to call back to talk to Trump and said, "Here, I'm, I'm here to negotiate for the United States," there would have been a deal made. Now, Israel wouldn't have been happy with that deal, but too damn bad. Yeah, I'm not sure about that. Um, I have a different opinion on Vance. I think he's like a Palantir product.

But in terms of coming back to what you said, in terms of the specific negotiations, um, one of the questions people have is this: that J.D. Vance mentioned that he called Trump 21 times. He called Bibi Netanyahu once.

And he said that Bibi said today that Vance was reporting to him. Based on your experience as being part of the intelligence services, is this normal during negotiations where you call a foreign government, uh, during negotiations? Is it normal that you have to report to the leader of a foreign government?

Uh, only if they, only if they own you. Yeah, if you, if they own you, yeah, you got to report into the boss. Mm-hmm. You know, otherwise, if you own them, you're going to tell them how it is and they don't, you don't consult with them beforehand. You tell them afterwards, "This is the deal.

This is what you're going to have to do." So, I mean, it's just, it's, it's one more embarrassing reminder that the United States government is held hostage to a foreign government. No doubt. But just through your experience though, like, is because I'm, I'm sure, look, you were in part of the intelligence services. You were given briefing to the US president.

Was there ever a scenario where you'd have to give those briefings to a foreign, uh, foreign, uh, uh, prime minister or president? Was there ever scenarios where they'd be brought in and you'd have to kind of, you know, bring them into the loop or report to them? Like, is this something that you even experienced while you were in the intelligence services?

Well, no, I mean, if you're talking about, if you're talking about briefing them in order to get their approval, never. If you're talking about briefing them so that they understand what's going on, but you're not asking their permission and you're not interested in whether they like it or not, yes.

So this is exponentially worse than even your own experience? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, there's, this is, this is just a, again, it's a reminder that Israel is in charge. Donald Trump is just, he's doing what, what he's told to do. And is it because they've got Epstein compromising material on him? Maybe.

Well, he is financially, uh, making sure that he has enough money that he's going to keep his future generations in financial strength, strong well-being. And so it could be Epstein, obviously this is possible.

It could also be a combination of basically they're incentivizing him based on just paying him as well because he's made more money this year than any of the previous years combined together. So this has been very lucrative for him. Oh, yeah, no, he's corrupt.

He's, he's, the corruption of the Trump administration this go around, you know, during his first term, he actually avoided that. And now he's like, he's on, he's like a pirate pillaging a village. No doubt. Now, in terms of the Strait of Hormuz again, like, one of the arguments people make on my show is from the other side.

They say that, look, there's no way logically Iran should be allowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz. Yes, it's in the area, it's in the shores. But if Iran is allowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz, Israel won't be happy.

The Gulf States will definitely not be happy because them having control of the Strait means that they become a Middle Eastern powerhouse, maybe even a world powerhouse. Some economists say maybe closer to top three economies in the world. And so they just simply can't have that risk when they see Iran as a rival.

This is just something they can never, ever agree to. And this is a red line. What's your thought on that? Allright. So, so what? What are you going to do about it? War? Yeah, okay. With what? What, what, what, the Saudi Arabian army? Do you mean the same Saudis that couldn't defeat the Houthis over 10 years?

Qatar doesn't have an army. United Arab Emirates, they don't have an army. So, uh, and Israel doesn't have an army that's going to march over and conquer Iran. There's not a damn thing they can do about it. And I didn't hear those same people, I bet those same critics were cheering Donald Trump on with respect to, "The Panama Canal is ours." Really?

It's in Panama? It's thousands of miles away from your coast and yet you, the United States, claim that's yours? You know, uh, that it's just, uh, what we're talking about is just blatant hypocrisy. Uh, Iran, uh, Iran was finally, they were provoked into this.

They didn't take control of the Strait of Hormuz until they were illegally, immorally, viciously attacked on February 28th. They had been willing to negotiate up to that point. It was only then after they were attacked that they said, "Okay, we're now going to exercise the power that we have.

We can close down access to the Persian Gulf by virtue of controlling, uh, the, the, the narrow opening at the Strait of Hormuz." And that's exactly what they're doing. And I say good on them.

Now, one of the questions I've got for you is from just bringing it back to the Strait, uh, from a military perspective is Trump mentioned that he was going to deal with them in the same way that he dealt with the Venezuelan boats. With the Venezuelan—sorry, yeah, no, sorry, go ahead, explain why you think that is, uh, it's—Oh, it's absurd.

The, the, the Venezuelan, look, I, I, I've got, uh, I, I, I'm good, good friends for now almost 30 years with a person that was directly involved with this. It involved three informants that were a part of a material security team. That's how the United States got in and out.

Those guys basically turned off all the air Venezuelan air defenses and got the military to go along. There was, there was no US military power that made that happen whatsoever. Just nonsense. Interesting, interesting.

But in terms of—And understand the, the three guys that did it, they did it to collect a $50 million reward that was being offered for, uh, giving up, uh, uh, Maduro. And then once they, once they did their part and it came time to pay them, Trump wouldn't pay them. I read that, I read that he didn't pay up.

Um, but, um, coming back to the, um, so what I mean is that he claims that he's going to be blowing them from the sky. And so I'm asking, like, from a logistical perspective, how capable is the United States of America to blow up these vessels from the air? Uh, very, very limited capability.

You know, the, the, they had an advantage, you know, in the Caribbean, off the coast of Venezuela, we didn't have to worry about getting shot back at. Iran, Iran can shoot back. And we'll shoot back.

That any, any ships that try to, you know, unless the Iran's not going to be running their fast boats, you know, 100 miles offshore. They'll be, they'll be running them within 20 miles, uh, maybe 40 miles, uh, of the shore. But, but they've got other, they've got other weapon systems to choose from. They got drones, they got cruise missiles.

Uh, they have drone boats, you know, the speed boats that are, uh, piloted like a drone is piloted. So this is, again, the United States is, uh, if they think they're going to control the blockade, they're, they're going to, they're in for a surprise. Yeah, yeah.

And so I guess the question mark's going to become because we have seen a large movement of US military. We've seen a lot of, uh, carriers go to—sorry, not carriers, cargo transports go to Qatar, uh, Jordan, and Israel. And we've also seen a, a number of KC tankers go to the Middle East and Israel as well.

And so obviously, uh, I'm in agreement with you. I don't think this, uh, choke-hold method is going to work because they did it now. I think it was, it was a mistake. Uh, that being said, then we're expecting escalation. And obviously, you've mentioned quite many times on this show and in many other shows that there's nothing the US can do.

So, I mean, escalation as well, do you think they're going to continue bombing the way they're doing? They've just reloaded and they're going to continue bombing civilian infrastructure. They did, they started going for a ground invasion. We know they had an attempted failed ground invasion. Like, what did they do? They're kind of in a quagmire. The, the, a ground invasion would be a suicidal mission.

The United States doesn't have the ability to, uh, sustain such a, such an effort. Uh, the troops would be wiped out. Uh, so it's—and, and what would they accomplish? What is, if you're going to have, quote, "a ground invasion of Iran," for what purpose? Well, in theory, to defeat the government, to take control of the government.

Okay, if you're going to do that, you better have an army of about four or five million people. It's going to take that many. And that's going to take, you know, a year or two to develop.

And then you got to figure out how to deploy them forward without them getting wiped out once they are at an assembly point in, say, Iraq or Kuwait or something like that. No, it's just, um, the United States doesn't have any, any good military options.

Uh, Iran, Iran is, uh, well supplied with ballistic missiles. They are underground, they are protected, and they continue to manufacture more underground. Plus, they've got the backing now of China and of Russia.

And the Chinese are providing, uh, the Iranians with some advanced technology that the US will like if the, if the US renews conflict, the US is likely to discover that they, uh, they don't have any counter to this technology.

So we're, you know, this, this is all in Trump's, you know, it's under the control of his administration. And at, at some point, they're going to come to realize that it's costing them politically. And the political cost is so great that they're going to have to stop it.

That's the bit I'm not sure about because I had a conversation with Scott Ritter before the war happened. And I actually said the war was going to happen. He was adamant it wouldn't because of the political pressure, because of the midterms. And as we saw, the, the, the actual war happened because we know it's not in the US interests, it's in the Israeli interests. Now, one of the points of disagreement is Lebanon.

Again, based on your experience, your knowledge, there was the Americans came out and said Lebanon is not part of the agreement. Israelis said that Lebanon isn't part of the agreement. The Iranians said it was part of the ceasefire agreement. And the Pakistanis came out and said it's part of the ceasefire agreement as well. What's your, what's your thoughts on what happened there?

Do you think it was Trump lied from the beginning, or you got a call from Netanyahu and changed his mind? The latter. He, he got, he got pressure from the Israelis to change his mind. It was agreed upon. US agreed on it. Pakistan agreed to it. Iran agreed to it. Uh, it was then Israel said, "Hell no, that's not going to happen." And, uh, Trump caved.

You know, basically, Trump should have told Netanyahu to fuck off. But he didn't because he's, uh, he's, uh, compromised. And I don't know what it is they have on him. But whatever it is, it's sufficient to compel, uh, and coerce Trump into doing, uh, you know, breaking agreements that he made. So.

I guess that's one of the questions that I personally do have is why is the ceasefire still in act? Why is the ceasefire still in place? Because the Israelis are clearly violating it. They're bombing Lebanon significantly, bombing civilian areas. Hezbollah is responding, obviously.

Hezbollah has hit a number of Israeli areas, especially in the northern, especially in northern Israel through drones and missile attacks. That being said, isn't that a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement? Well, it is, except, uh, Israel actually has scaled back its attacks on Lebanon.

The attacks are combined in, combined to the south with the attacks on Hezbollah positions.

And, you know, candidly, I don't see Iran rushing to, to, to dissuade Hezbollah from doing what it's doing because it's inflicting significant damage on Israeli military capabilities. So there's almost an advantage to keep it up because it's, it's attriting.

It's causing attrition to, uh, Israel's capabilities. Interesting. That's actually an interesting point. So you're saying they made them scale back on bombing Peru, which was the real problem, killing lots of civilians. And now it is actually more of a warfare perspective. Hezbollah, we know, is dominating, so.

Yeah, actually, I, I would anticipate, um, if the fighting continues at the level that it is inside the southern border of, of Lebanon, uh, Israel in two weeks will be asking for a ceasefire. You think so within two weeks? Yeah. Um, interesting. And, um.

Well, that, and that's based upon, that's what they did back in 2006. And in 2006, they suffered far less damage than what they're suffering now. Their casualty figures are far higher. And they've lost more tanks and more, uh, armored personnel carriers. Even 2024, they had lost a lot less tanks.

They'd lost, they'd been hit less even though they were losing quite badly. But this time, it's been significantly higher both in terms of the number of tanks, the personnel, the injuries, different angles. They're struggling. Um, I'm actually surprised they've lasted this long. So, I mean, two weeks makes a lot of sense.

Um, do you think if Israelis do ask for a ceasefire in two weeks, you're going to have a scenario where, uh, Iran's included as well or no? Um, yeah, yeah, no, I, I think Iran would be included in that. Um, see, now the, the problem is the public opinion in Israel is overwhelmingly committed to destroying Iran.

Yeah. They don't want to seek a peaceful coexistence. But the reality of the events on the ground may force them to do that. Because Iran's not going to give up and Iran's not going to be defeated by Israel. So basically what you're saying is you think the war's going to end in a couple of weeks?

No, no, the, well, you mean the war with, uh, in southern Lebanon? No, because you said Iran would end in two weeks, there'd be a ceasefire with Iran as well, which means. Oh, no, well, no, well, the ceasefire with respect to southern Lebanon. Ah, okay. I understand. Yeah, no, no. Why would, why would Iran.

No, actually, I, I think, I personally think that, uh, this war is going to continue until Donald Trump decides to take an exit ramp. And so I, I think that, I think it'll likely continue through the end of August at a minimum. Wow.

And, um, coming back to this specific war, um, we've also got a very important, uh, wildcard, which is the Houthis shooting off the Red Sea, the Bab al-Mandab. And I guess the question is, the Iranians quite smartly have not used that card yet.

And they don't want to use it too soon. When do you think they could use it? Do you think many, uh, postulate that it could be used as an escalation in terms of the Strait? Or do you think it'd be used as an escalation if they try the ground invasion? They can't use it too soon. But when do you think they use it?

Yeah, no, the, if, uh, if the attacks on Iran start again, then Iran will encourage the Houthis basically to take out the Saudi port, uh, that is on the Red Sea. Already, the traffic, traffic on the Red Sea is already limited.

I mean, you're not getting any ships that are selling to Israel's ports, uh, either Eilat or, uh, or Haifa. Uh, so that's not happening.

And a lot of the other shipping companies have, because of previous fighting going on and ships being hit, they've opted not to enter the Red Sea and take the longer trip around the Horn of Africa and up the, uh, west coast of Africa into the Mediterranean.

Uh, so this would be, uh, this would be probably targeted more just preventing the Saudis from moving any oil out, uh, if the, if this, uh, war restarts. Because Iran's going to make sure that the Saudis, Saudis suffer along with everybody else. Yeah.

And actually the Houth, I mean, sorry, the Iranians have already said that they're not going to allow, not that bit, but the Iranians already said they're not going to allow any vessels to go from any of the ports in the Gulf States if this blockade continues as well. Correct.

And so I guess the question, question mark becomes in terms of all of this, this, there's only limited time Trump can do this because it's just going to, the, the Iranians can wait it out, the Chinese can wait it out. And just if you can explain to the audience how much the Iranians and the Chinese can wait this out.

Yeah, well, uh, you cannot defeat a ground force from the air. Can't be done. You have to put troops in on the ground. And the United States does not have that capability.

Uh, it doesn't to, you know, could it, yeah, could it insert a platoon, you know, or a company sized element, 150 guys here or there? Sure, put it, put them on Cargill and then what happens? They get chewed up. They, because you can, um, launch drone after drone after drone and ballistic missile.

And, you know, pretty soon those Americans are dead. So there's not a ground option. The air option doesn't work. It's limited. Uh, yeah, it can cause a lot of destruction, but that's not going to cause the nation to collapse. And, and Iran is just too big a country. It's, it's like 80 times the size, uh, of Israel.

So let's, let's just, you know, let's assume that every day, uh, Iran drops a 1,000-pound bomb on Israel and Israel drops a 1,000-pound bomb on Iran. Which country is going to get saturated with bombs first? Israel.

Because it's smaller. You know, you only really have to worry about destroying two cities, Haifa and Tel Aviv, uh, to take control of Israel. Whereas in Iran, good luck. Uh, you know, you got at least, uh, 15 different cities with a million or more people.

They got 91 million people and then they're a lot just spread out in villages. It's just, it's too big. So, uh, just the military task, uh, Israel is at a disadvantage. No doubt.

One last question, and this is again something that the audience we speak about a lot is the capability of the American Navy in comparison to the Chinese Navy. Now, obviously, I've read a lot of, uh, information about the American Navy and no doubt it is very powerful and very strong.

Um, but the Chinese Navy, the information we have out isn't, is very secretive, like in terms of the Chinese keep it very secretive. So based on your information and knowledge and your, uh, you know, being part of intelligence, what's your understanding of the strength of the Chinese Navy? Is there a big difference?

Is the US Navy a lot more, better, stronger, capable than the Chinese Navy? Or do you think the Chinese have advanced quite a lot in recent times and kept it undercover? Well, let's, let's divide it. Submarine, in terms of submarine force, the United States has a superior capability of submarines. Chinese can't match it, not yet.

Uh, surface, surface fleets, uh, you know, surface fleets are becoming obsolete. You know, wasting money building expensive aircraft carriers and destroyers and cruisers.

In the era of hypersonic missiles, you got to step back and say, "What the hell?" Because the, the, the role that the ships played was to be able to sail into a port, intimidate, and then offload personnel or other, other material.

Well, now you get too close to shore, you get blown up and sunk. Now, so, but from that standpoint, uh, the United States doesn't have the quantity to match what, uh, what China has.

You know, who was it that said, was it Stalin that said, uh, quantity has a quality of, uh, in and of itself? You know, just mass of something can overwhelm no matter how sophisticated your one system is.

Uh, the, the system that's got more mass, more girth, uh, that turns out being more effective. So, uh, I guess the long, uh, I think if it, if it comes to surface fleets having to engage each other, China would have the advantage.

So submarines, the US has the advantage, surface fleets, China has the advantage. And what was the third, third category that you were going to mention? That, that was it. I mean, the, yeah, just with the hypersonic missiles though, as we've seenright now, well, we've seen it both with the Houthis in the Red Sea.

And then now we've seen it with the Iranians in the Persian Gulf, vis-à-vis the United States. The United States declared victory in the Red Sea and bailed out because it was losing. And they're, they're, they're facing now a similar debacle, uh, in the Persian Gulf. Yeah.

And this is, uh, I guess the situation that they've got where the Chinese have advanced so much and they don't really want to connect war with the Chinese, but the Chinese don't want one as well. And I think that's where. Well, yeah, you're, you'reright, you'reright there. Well, and look, China just, uh, Xi Jinping just hosted the opposition, uh, leader of Taiwan. Yeah.

And, you know, she's, she's a tall, good-looking woman. Uh, and had a very, just the body language in terms of how they interacted with, uh, other, uh, with the Chinese officials, advised the Taiwanese officials that was very friendly, very warm.

So, and she's talked, accepted invitation, he's going to go visit Taiwan. So look, this reconciliation of Taiwan with mainland China, it's going to take place, not militarily, but politically. Well, it's the same point where we speak, what we spoke about earlier. Japan is going to have a tough decision to make.

South Korea is going to have a tough division, uh, decision to make. And Taiwan is also struggling by this, uh, situation in the Strait of Hormuz. And with this blockade, they'll be struggling even more. They may not even have a choice, there'd be the survival and they may have to make an agreement.

Hey, if you hired somebody as a bodyguard, and every time you went out with him, he got his ass kicked, would you, uh, keep him as a bodyguard or hire somebody else? Yeah, definitely not hire the guy who's getting his ass kicked or the fact that my bodyguard ends up guarding someone else while I thought he was going to be guarding me. I think I wouldn't like it. Yeah.

So that's, that's what's going on here. The United States had promised security to these Gulf States, and they didn't get security. They got just the opposite of it.

So they're now saying, "Okay, we're, we're, uh, we're going to, you know, Iran may offer a better deal, China may offer a better, better deal." So I, I, I think we're, we're looking for a real shakeup in, in what has been the international system. No doubt, no doubt. Uh, Mr.

Johnson, it's always a pleasure and an honor to have you on. We always love you, love having you on because you have such great insight and knowledge. I know you've got a great Substack, uh, Sonar21. Yes. And, um, so everyone do follow, um, Mr. Johnson's Substack, which is Sonar21. I believe the website's called Sonar21 as well,right? Yeah, Sonar, the blog is sonar21.com.

That's it, so Sonar21. And I know you don't use your X as much, but it's, uh, Larry Solar Sonar as well. So everyone, make sure you follow it. I will put it in the nest. We've got quite a large number of people listening. Always appreciate you, always love having you on. Thank you so much for giving us your time. Allright, Solar Man, good to, good to see you and we'll chat again. Thanks.

Former CIA intelligence officer and CIA mission planner Larry Johnson