Why Trump Can’t Attack Iran

0:01 Hello and welcome everyone to this very important video on geopolitics and geo strategy and it's all about the question why Trump cannot attack Iran. I don't mean this in a moral or ethical sense that's a whole different topic but in a purely political and pragmatic sense why I believe Trump will not decide to attack Iran directly. This is very important for us to predict markets to predict geopolitics and to know what's happening in the future. In this video, I'm going to go into the details that back up why I came to that conclusion. And before we jump into that, let me just address some things about the purpose of this video. The purpose of this video is prediction and not activism. This is not about what I want. It's not about what should happen. It is

0:48 about what is most likely to happen in this whole situation. I'm just addressing that topic because people get very emotional over Israel and the United States and Iran and the United States and everything in between. This here is not a tribal debate. I'm not for tribal debates. I don't want to take any sides. I just want to explain to you what I think all the different forces that pull on Trump are going to say, what they are saying right now, and how Trump will react to that most likely. So, tribal discussions and emotions have no place in pioneer lands. We want to be rational, effective, nice, and fair. And most important of all, we want to be right about the future. And we focus only on that. Okay. The prediction I'm going to make is of course high risk on

1:33 my reputational side as every prediction I make because I'm probably the only one on YouTube who is very clear on his predictions with the election. I told you Trump is going to win with 312 electoral v votes and I was right. On Tesla, I tend to be right. I predicted the robo taxi launch in time and so on and so forth. So sometimes I'm not right but I make very clear predictions as I will in this video. You know high risk. I just want to I want you to appreciate that. I put my reputation on the line by making very clear stances here. But I will explain how I arrive at that conclusion. I will put the conditions on it and help you to understand the situation and make up your own mind so you come to the right prediction for yourself. Okay. So, let's look at what

2:20 happened so far in this conflict between Israel and Iran and then get into what the situation for the United States is and what decisions are on the table and probably will be made in the next 2 weeks and what forces pull on Trump and pull him in different directions. Hey, creating these videos is a lot of work. Please like and subscribe. It really helps out the channel. Now, let's get back to the video. So, what happened so far? Bear with me. I'm going to make it very quick, but you need some context to understand what the problem here is. In April 2024, Israel bombed Iran's embassy in Damascus in Syria and killed 16 people in the Iran embassy, which is pretty invasive, right? If someone bombs your embassy,

3:05 you get pissed. But that included the Iranian Republican Guard, Commander Muhammad Raza Zahedi. And then Iran retaliated with missiles on Israel, but most of them were intercepted by the Iron Dome and David Sling and all these protective measures that Israel has in place. Israel then responded with a limited strike on Isfahan targeting a radar system and then it got de escalated interestingly enough. Right. So Israel very aggressive move bombs and kills people in the Iranian embassy in Damascus. Then Iran retaliates with no casualties on the Israeli side. And then Israel retaliates on that retaliation with a limited strike on Isfahan on radar system. So that was basically an initial aggression act by Israel responded by kind of a less aggressive

3:53 act by Iran with no casualties responded with a less aggressive act by Israel. So a deescalation letter. So both didn't seem to be in the mood to escalate this. Okay. Then in September 2024, Israel killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Masarallah. and Iran Republic guard official Abbas Nil Furu Shan in Birut again Israel killing Hezbollah leaders I don't I wouldn't describe that as an aggressive act at all on Iran because Hezbollah is Israel's enemy attacks Israel they are neighbors in Beirut so Israel killing an espah leader I don't think counts as any kind of aggressive act but it killed also Iranian guard official Abbas Nil Furan

4:38 in Beirut which is clearly an aggressive act. Of course, Israel would argue, what is this guy doing in Birut? So, it's much less aggressive than the first thing where they attacked the embassy in Syria. But Iran launched 180 ballistic missiles at Israel on October 1st, citing these assassinations. And then Israel responded again with strikes on Iranian missile sites on October 26. So again, similar pattern, less initial aggression by Israel, back and forth and a deescalation letter. So the responses of by each side were actually less escalating. And then it ended on June 12th and 13th this year. So very recently last week, Israel launched operation rising lion, a massive air campaign targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, Natans, Isvahan, Ford and

5:25 Iraq. Missile silos and military leadership. So this is a huge huge huge aggression because it's not in Birut. It's also not in Damascus. It's flying right into Iran and really killing a bunch of leaders, right? Military leadership, but also nuclear scientists. So, this is clearly a, you know, some would argue unprovoked aggression. Of course, Israel has its reasons and argues that, but from a pure objective perspective, imagine someone flies into your country with like war planes and kills a bunch of your leaders. I would describe that as kind of an escalatory step. And then Iran retaliated with over 100 ballistic missiles, hitting Israeli cities and a hospital in Bea, killing

6:11 and injuring civilians. And very important, this kind of missile attack that happened from Iran was very different from the previous missile attacks. Iran used a much more sophisticated and intense strategy. They also used hypersonic missiles that just flew right through the defenses. Uh so I would describe the initial attacks by Iran in April 2024 and September 2024 as response of the Israeli aggression as much more tame. That that is why Israel could defend itself against that. Here Iran of course became much more aggressive, ramped it up and used a missile attack strategy that just went through the defenses and killed civilians. And of course also important to say the Israeli attack, the initial

6:57 Israeli aggression inside Iran targeted military leadership and nuclear scientists which is debatable but these nuclear scientists are involved in some kind of nuclear program which is from an Israeli point of view very dubious because if Iran gets a nuke it's a big problem. So these were targeted strikes. I'm not saying they were not hugely aggressive, but they were targeted on military personnel. And of course, the Iranian attacks are indiscriminate. I don't know if they target hospitals, but they definitely target civilians, which is a problem. Over the last few days, the conflict intensified with Israel claiming air superiority over Thran and destroying a third of Iran's missile launchers. I I don't know if that's true, but that's,

7:43 you know, that's what people think. But they destroyed a bunch of stuff. Iran faced an internet blackout and struggled to respond effectively after losing key commanders. At least that's the narrative. But basically, you know, Israel claims that they have achieved air superiority over Thran, maybe all of Iran. And so far by June 19th, over 220 deaths were reported in Iran and 24 in Israel with global oil price rising and so on and so forth. So that's what's happening right now. That's the situation. And what is the current status as of today? We have June 20th. Right here you see the USS Nimmits. That's an air aircraft carrier. And now, of course, the big question with this mess, you know, if Israel and Iran want to have a war,

8:30 fine. That's one thing. It's a regional war. These nations hate each other. There is a history of aggression on both sides. You know, on face value, Israel often makes the first visible aggressive strike as you saw, but behind the scenes, everyone knows that Iran is also fostering terrorism, funding Hamas, funneling rockets to Hezbollah. So, there's many, many problems. And Iran is a regional power that tries to influence the Shia people all over the place and also enabling terrorism. At least that's what we are being told and it's probably true. So the current status now now it gets interesting for you as a US taxpayer or you as a European, German, French, UK taxpayer, right? Who might

9:15 get dragged into this whole thing if you're not very cautious. The US wrote now is that it hasn't joined the fight but deployed B2 bombers that are now maybe withdrawn. It's becoming a little opaque what's happening. And the US has nimmits to the region, right? And the White House also announced today or yesterday night that they want to decide on strikes on Iran in the next weeks. So here it gets very interesting. You can tell with Trump's tweets and his statements and posts on truth social that he's a little torn. Sometimes he says he wants total surrender, no nukes for Iran, but then there is no evidence that there are nukes right now in preparation. So who knows? So Trump is going back and forth. He has some threatening lingo, but he also says we

10:01 can have diplomacy and we can meet and discuss these things. And he also wants to send US envoy Steve Bitco, you know, to Iran or engage at least indirectly uh they plan European talks in Geneva and of course the US has the the usual demands for no uranian enrichment and the nuclear program of Iran that needs to be stopped and dismantled. And Iran of course ramps up the rhetoric and wants out of a wants of an allout war if attacked. Now what we also see very interestingly with the Iranian rhetoric is that it's pretty dampened muted towards the United States compared to what historically happened. And so it seems that Iran really doesn't have an interest pulling the US into the war obviously because it would end of course

10:49 badly for Iran potentially also very badly for the US but guaranteed very badly for Iran. and its leaders. So they're actually they're pushing back, of course. They say, "Don't attack us. We're going to kill you all." But they are not talking about Satan and the devil and the great devil as us, but they take they tone it down. They don't insult Trump directly, which is interesting. So it seems like they try to avoid this. And Trump is a little caught between the lines. We are coming there very soon in this video. The domestic debate in the United States is that we have hawks, a bunch of neocons and hawks who want war. Senator Tom Cotton, but we have also Lindsey Graham and the usual suspects. They say there's a nuclear threat and we want to attack Iran. That's what they're saying. And then on the other side, Tim Kaine and a

11:35 whole range of people we are going to get into in a second are really against that and demand congressional approval. So the key questions are now should the US join Israel to delay Iran's nuclear program or should they avoid escalation given the risks of militia attacks, oil market disruptions and other escalations? Is diplomacy viable? What are the escalation risks? What is Congress roles? Can Trump decide that? Should there be, you know, a vote of Congress to declare war if they want to do something? What is the situation? Okay, now it gets very political and this is what we are going to discuss here. What is Trump's rationale? What is he going to decide? Because when you read social media and X and listen to mainstream media, you it feels like we are building up to war. It feels everyone is escalating. It feels people

12:22 say, "Okay, Israel is our greatest ally. These people are trying to develop nukes. They are a crazy crazy regime in Iran that are Islamic terrorists or fanatics. If they get a nuke, we are screwed." And maybe they're in the process of getting a nuke. And in addition, we have to help Israel and also we have to liberate the women of Iran and things like that. But it's getting a little chaotic and conflated the arguments. It's a little unclear. So let's take a quick excursion to understand the risks, right? Because you could say there are good reasons to attack Iran, but are there risks? And here's a quick uh graphic that just, you know, tells you we have a lot of experience at this pointing wars in the Middle East. And uh here is the example

13:08 of the true cost of the war in Iraq. If you remember back in 2013, they did this analysis. And the initial estimate of costs in 2003 by the Bush cabinet for the entire war in Iraq was $55 billion. It ended up to be 4 trillion, you know, including interest on all the debt of the initial how much was it? 1 point something trillion. So we have to be very cautious when people say no problem. This is what's happening, right? That happened in Afghanistan. It happened in Iraq. It's something that happened very often. Syria went wrong. Libya went wrong. There is basically no example of a war that the US started in the Middle East that went the way they wanted. That's a big problem. So, to give you a quick overview, a

13:53 quantitative overview how Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran compare, just to get a feel for the risks here, I created this little table. And you know Iraq the Iraq war 2003 you just saw we have six trillion in debt interest because of that six trillion in debt that wouldn't exist without it. In Afghanistan we have you know also a huge amount of uh costs. I can tell you the costs for this entire thing. Uh 2.3 trillion right and that doesn't include the interest. So this is probably also roughly 5 trillion in total. So there you have the problem. So if you compare Afghanistan and Iraq, let's say they were equally costly or Iraq a little more costly than Afghanistan, how many casualties did we

14:38 have did the United States have? So we had 4 and a half thousand US soldiers killed 4 and a half thousand killed. That's more than 9/11, by the way. 4 and a half thousand killed United States soldiers and, you know, service members in Iraq. 32,000 wounded Americans. In Afghanistan, we had 2,400 killed and 20,000 wounded. So together, these two wars, you know, led to 7,000 US deaths. 7,000. So two times or more than two times 9/11 deaths and wounded veterans. So that's pretty serious. 6 trillion costs and 5 trillion costs.

15:25 So 11 trillion 11 trillion in costs for these two wars. You know, also enormous amounts of losses on the sides of Iraqi and Afghanistan, Afghan civilians. So it's a total disaster. What is the outcome? By the way, there is no democracy. There has no freedom. The women in Afghanistan or the people in general are more suppressed, oppressed than before. In Iraq, it was a total show that happened after the war, after the US won, right? It turned into a ISIS and terrorist haven and fell apart. Actually strengthened Iran ironically. So politically a total failure. And now we understand the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan politically, human toll, US losses and money. Now let's look at the

16:12 strength of Iraq, the army, and the strength of a Afghanistan, the army, and the economy. Uh Afghanistan, 22 million population. Iraq very similar 25 million the GDP under Saddam Hussein in Iraq 38 billion a year GDP in Afghanistan ridiculous 4.5 billion so a tremendously tiny economy here we had roughly 425,000 soldiers on the Iraqi side and less than 10,000 on the Afghan side of course that's a de deceptive because in Afghanistan every man is kind of a soldier because they're used to war but the official army only 10,000 here 425,000 Okay. Drones, basically none. Ballistic missiles,

16:57 you know, Saddam Hussein has had 520 Scuds with 3600 km range. The Taliban had none of these missiles. Saddam had 300 combat aircraft. Taliban, none. Tanks, roughly 2,000 tanks. Saddam and negligible on the Taliban side. Okay, these are the numbers. Now, how does it compare to Iran? If the US wanted to attack Iran, how does it compare to these two other countries that in total created 50,000 wounded soldiers? So does 7,000 dead, probably over a million civilian deaths and 11 trillion in debt. How does it compare? Well, Iran has 90 million population. 90 million. That's three and a half times more than Iraq or

17:43 Afghanistan. You know, 350% larger. The GDP is roughly 1,200% larger than Iraq and 100 times larger than Afghanistan. So, it's a hugely more developed country, hugely more sophisticated and hugely larger economy. Now, the army size, 960,000 total soldiers. That's over twice as large as the Iraqi soldier Iraqi army size. They have an extensive domestic program of drones with thousands of combat drones. We don't know how many, probably more, probably tens of thousands at this point. And we're not talking these many Ukrainian drones. We're talking major combat drones that are actually internationally used. Ballistic missiles, they are known to have the

18:30 largest ballistic missile program in the Middle East, which is also something that Israel points out how dangerous Iran is. But here it literally backfires if you attack them, of course. So massive missile program. Uh air force nearly twice as large as Iraq. Of course air force you can knock that out easily. So I'm not concerned about the air force. Tanks as many tanks as Iraq had. And there you have it. So the bottom line is Iran is vastly larger and more sophisticated. The economy is the key thing. The whole technology and sophistication of this thing is massively larger than Iraq and 12 times 1,200% I would say you know 1,100%

19:18 more dangerous than Iraq and Iraq wasn't great. So now we know the risks. There are some other risks of course geostrategy. This can turn into a proxy war right, China and so on. They can fuel that war. They can deliver weapons if it escalates. And then you have a proxy war US and Europe against the BRIC states. So it's not great. It would of course derail the MAGA agenda domestically because this war would heavily would be heavily distracting. And then we have the distraction from the big elephant in the room which is AI. I will talk about this in the end. Okay, so bear with me one more chapter and then we get into the politics. What's really going on? I will just quickly address what are the benefits. I mean, are all these warhawks and Israel and the neocons, are they all completely

20:04 nuts or do they have actually an argument? Well, there's one argument that could convince everyone that this is necessary and that one argument is a nuclear bomb because nearly no one would be okay with Iran having a nuclear bomb because they are a little bit nuts. They're religious extremists in charge and the government and having giving them nukes or allowing them to acquire nukes could be a huge problem for everyone. Right? So, we initially heard it was about nukes but we haven't seen any evidence. So if there would be clear evidence all Israel, the Mossad or CIA, whoever would need to just present something like here's a photo, here is the enriched uranium. They were ready to deploy this into a warhead. It's a huge

20:49 problem since there's no evidence presented. There's a lot of what I call mushroom cloud fatigue, right? So this fear thing, there's, oh, there could be a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or over New York. We heard that in the Iraq war. And of course it would be something we absolutely have to avoid. But do you just make this up? So people have mushroom cloud fatigue and they say sure whatever dude would do you have any evidence? We haven't seen any. Another goal would be other outside the nukes is uh is of course the call for regime change that we hear more and more. And the argument is very simple. Mullers are bad. Let's get rid of them and help the people in Iran. Of course that's correct. Let's not kid ourselves. The moola, a terrible regime. They oppress and torture people. They're really mean

21:35 to women. This is all unacceptable in theory. In reality, it's a, you know, sovereign country and you can't just walk into countries and kill a bunch of people because you don't like what they're doing, especially if it's a government because if you do so, you might not achieve your goals if we have as we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, right? So, regime change is another potential upside, but this upside has to be, you know, put into perspective. We tried that before and it always failed. So we were promised upside in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Syria and in every single instance we got the opposite. So and then finally women's rights regime change women's rights like we need to help the poor people in Iran. And I don't want to discount if you're Persian or Iranian in exile. We know that Persia has a tremendous culture and

22:20 history. It's a tremendous people and they live under oppression and it's terrible. But look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. Same argument. you know just because we find it awful and we want to do something doesn't mean it works and for the populations of these other liberated countries it turned out to be extremely bad and then finally maybe the most important argument outside the nukes is we need to support Israel because Israel is our most important ally and our I mean Germany France Britain but especially United States everyone well there is a big narrative that Israel is the most important ally so now with that let's get into what really matters here and that is exactly that debate. The Israel narrative is at the core and center of this whole thing and it's shifting. So I have this little sticker here. I found

23:06 it on Amazon. I stand with Israel. You see it all over the place in America. It is an old age, old decade, old mantra. Israel is our most important ally. And even though they're not part of NATO, but we kind of voluntarily make Israel part of NATO and say if they're attacked, we need to attack whoever attacks them. Even though there is no treaty like that, that would also mean that Israel has to become part of that alliance and they're not. So what is going on here with that narrative? And the most important and interesting thing is that this decade old narrative is now fundamentally shifting. That is one of the core tenants of this video and this analysis cuz you need to understand that if you really want to know what's going on in America, you need to understand what happens right now as we speak to the

23:53 Israel narrative. It's a seismic shift and change in the domestic American cultural and political landscape. So we have that our greatest ally coalition, right? Let's say Israel is our greatest ally and whatever happens to Israel, we need to jump in and start or support them in whatever war Israel wants to wage and that coalition consists of Democrat and GOP neocons. So they are evenly distributed between these parties. A lot of representatives and senators and all these kinds of people are neocons. They say when it comes to Israel, when Israel says go to war here or we want to go to war and America should join us, they just say great let's do it. Apac and donors of course that is connected to

24:39 this. So Ape is the lobby organization by the way it's completely legitimate to have a lobby organization right as a country. Of course we just had the Takalson debate that I Apac is actually not registered as a foreign agent. So technically they are not allowed or would be highly illegal for Apac to lobby for Israel. And so technically they're not doing that. They're just saying they're lobbying for the American Israeli relationship and not for Israel. But it's very tricky. Uh so a lot of Dems and Republicans have a lot of Apac donors. Then of course you have the Christian right that are for that mostly based on biblical things that the Bible says you have to stand with Israel. So they take it literally and say the Bible meant modern Israel, which makes not too much sense, but that's what the

25:25 Christian some in the Christian right believe and they are a very important constituency of this greatest ally coalition. Then of course the majority of the Jewish community stands with Israel. And even though you have a lot of liberals in the Jewish community, you also have a lot of critics inside the Jewish community of the Netanyahu regime, right? Because if you're a liberal Jewish person in New York, for example, you don't like Netany and Yao. But the problem is in the Jewish community naturally, you know, you know, you either have relatives who live in Israel or you know a lot of people who have relatives who live in Israel. So it becomes if you're Jewish very personal and I understand that obviously if your brother or mother or someone lives in a country, you can't be completely objective anymore. If they are threatened, if their lives are

26:11 threatened, you get very nervous, right? And you can't always think rationally. So that's obvious. And then the mainstream media for whatever reason is really into this. So Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, there's a huge huge, you know, captive uh audience and there's also a huge captive employee base in these media corporations that is very pro-Israel. And then finally, besides this coalition, we have the narrative since the early '8s. remember this, not the early ' 80s, but I remember late ' 80s, 90s, all these talks about Arabs and Iranians are just bad guys and they're crazy terrorists, right? This is just deeply ingrained in the American culture and

26:56 also in European culture to some extent, Western European culture, we see all the movies. I remember all these crazy movies. What was this one? Arnold comedy movie, True Lies and things like that. It was just obvious, you know, sitting there in Europe or America that all Arabs and Iranians are just crazy. They're bad guys, Islamic terrorists. You can't even reason with them. That was what we all learned in the media. So, that fits into that narrative clearly. Therefore, Israel as a non-Muslim country in the Middle East is our most important, you know, ally and can defend us against the crazy people. That is the narrative. Now what happened very recently is that the MAGA the make America great again coalition started to kind of break through that

27:41 big coalition and narrative which is unexpected and that is also the core of the current you know problem and situation and fight in America now over what needs to be done. So MAGA we see a giant push back because one of the MAGA main tenants is no wars of choice anymore. Absolutely no America first. Do not spend our taxpayer money on these all these foreign wars. Maga also believes that nearly all these foreign wars that are wars of choice and we'll get into this in a second if it's a war of choice or not are completely unnecessary and they are just made for making America dependent on all kinds of people including the military-industrial complex. So we see a

28:29 huge huge push back from MAGA that includes all the alternative media from Joe Rogan to Theo Juan to Tucker Carlson to all the to Candace Owens even Charlie Kirk to Alex Jones and of course many left-wing alternative media like the Young Turks also joining forces here. So this is very interesting. There's a giant new media landscape that's taking over and is already vastly larger than mainstream media in the United States. And the majority there pushes against that narrative with a focus not necessarily against Israel but against wars of choice. It also is part of the MAGA narrative that all this is the swamp, right? So why are we even starting these wars? Why do we owe 11 trillion? Why did we do these wars? And the narrative is it's a conspiracy more

29:14 or less. It's the swamp that drags us into these things and we really don't want that. Finally, very important paradigm is the look up inside. I just watched some a very interesting episode with Dave Smith who is a libertarian, right-winger libertarian who voted for Trump and Changeng Uger, who is the founder of the Young Turks, which is very left-wing but also very alternative and independent. And they both develop this look up paradigm in America where it's basically saying, you know, they make us in the sense of the left and the right fight over dumb stuff like abortion, transgender, maybe even immigration. And all these things might have a legitimate points on both sides to discuss, but what do they all have in common? They don't look up. They don't

30:00 look into what the people in power don't want us to discuss. money, wars, taxation, debt, you know, that's the real big topics and all the other topics, the social culture war topics are designed to distract us from seeing the obvious that we are getting robbed by the people on top. That is the narrative of the lookup theme and that is really becoming a mainstream theme and they're basically saying look this is just another joke this war they want to suck us in and that is treason. So what does Maga say? I give you some quotes. Tucker Carlson may be the most important voice in MAGA. A full-scale war with Iran, Tucker Carlson quote, would end I believe Trump's Trump's presidency effectively ended. I'm really afraid that my country

30:48 going to be weakened by this. I think we are going to see the end of American empire. So Trump Tucker is very opposed to it. Major Taylor Green, super important figure in the MAGA landscape. often believed to be, you know, the left called her a complete Trump bootlicker. Disagree. I think she is a MAGA person and she just supports Trump because she sees Trump as a MAGA representative. But at the moment where she wouldn't see Trump as a MAGA representative, for example, because of war like this, she would change her opinion. And here's a quote from her. Anyone slobbering for the US to become fully involved in the Israel Iran war is not America first MAGA. Wishing for a murder of innocent people is disgusting. We are sick and tired of foreign wars. All of them. So just to give you a taste, this is not

31:33 compromising, right? These these people are very serious that they're against it. Candace Owens also very important voice. If Trump in any way places us into this conflict, he will ruin his legacy. You can also see it's already getting it's preparing for a war against Trump, right? If he does that, it's already starting start to, you know, sound a little threatening towards Trump. Dave Smith, long story, did a great interview. Steve Bannon, he is the mind behind, you know, Trump's first victory and super important strategist. I'm sure you know of him. And Steve Bannon said allowing the deep state to drive the US into a war with Iran would blow up the coalition of Trump supporters. There you have it in a nutshell. Alex Jones, the military-industrial complex, is trying to pull Trump into a war with Iran, just like they did with Bush and Iraq. This

32:20 is a trap to destroy his presidency and America's future. stay out. So the loudest and most important voices in MAGA are absolutely milit militantly opposed to this war and that's very important. You also have another huge huge constituency of Trump not huge but hugely important constituency the tech bros which are orthogonal to MAGA Elon Musk Chamath Pyapatia and others David Sachs and these are very sophisticated tech billionaires they also made it happen that Trump won right they played a major major role not just Elon the other guys too they are also absolutely opposed just said if you go to war this totally screws everything up you could see oil double Every time we are on the verge of victory, somebody

33:07 in the military-industrial complex invents some escalation of something so that we can just go to war. So they don't like it at all. And then finally, Charlie Kirk, who normally is considered MAGA, I would not put him into MAGA. I would put him mostly into Trump loyalist camp. My distinction is if you're make America great again and America first, you're not a strict Trump loyalist. You're only supporting Trump because you think Trump is making America great again. So there are conditions that come with that with Tucker for example if Trump would not make America great again in their perspective they would not stay loyal to Trump Kirk on the other side for many reasons I believe is much more Trump loyalist same of course with his family with Trump's family they are MAGA but they're Trump first and then America

33:52 first so even Trump loyalists like Charlie Kirk changed their tune right I will tell you in a second why because I was very surprised I thought you know Charlie Kirk is also extreme extremely loyal to Israel. So I thought he would never say that he would stay like oh let's see let's see what happens. No, he actually made pretty clear statements here. One of the core tenants that is Charlie Kirk of MAGA is no forever wars. Trump's base voted for peace not another Middle East quagmire. Charlie Kirk said that and he said I don't know if President Trump will choose to involve America against Iran but he's a man I trust to be making that decision. So you see he's hedging his bets, but you can already see he's trying to push Trump into that direction, too. And one reason for that is look at Charlie Kirk's

34:37 survey that he did on on X. Very unexpected. He did not expect that. He actually well um Ferrell, I don't know this guy, but he said that Charlie Kirk deleted this poll because he didn't expect the outcome. And he asked, should the US get involved in Israel's war against Iran? He got 489,000 votes. That's a lot. 90% of his followers or his the people who saw his post voted no. That was 100% guaranteed not expected by Charlie Kirk. So that was shocking. So that's not a little bit that's extreme. And you can see that the mega base who follows Charlie Kirk is absolutely opposed to the US getting involved in Israel's war. And I think that is weighing on Charlie Kirk because Charlie Kirk is also a politician more or less like he's someone who's really relying on his base. And I think that's

35:23 why he's also coming around. So, Charlie Kirks, just to give you an example, why this is so important before we get to Trump. Why are these people so important for Trump? Very simple, because they they elect him. These people I just quoted, Alex Jones, you know, Tucker Carlson, Theo Juan, Dave Smith, this whole crowd, and of course, Charlie Kirk, they are responsible for Trump's power. If Trump loses these people, he is done. He is toast. This is his base. For example, Charlie Kirk's Turning Point action pack very likely won Trump Wisconsin and won Trump Arizona by turning out 60,000 low propensity votes that normally wouldn't have turned out wasn't in Arizona. Both above the margin

36:10 of victory. So of course you can debate this. Was it true? Was it not true? But we know that turning point is a very significant force. So Trump cannot afford to lose these people. He would absolutely get destroyed in the midterms if MAGA turns against him. So what what does it all mean? Well, now we come to my final analysis here. What's happening? Okay, what is Trump going to do? So all of that context I gave you. So we can make a prediction because nothing is more valuable ever than making the right prediction about the future. And the White House and Trump, they just announced that they will make a decision in the next two weeks if they attack Iran. So it's very decisive to really understand this situation. So what is Trump going to do? Okay, the first thing Trump has to consider is, is that a war of choice to attack Iran or

36:55 not? Is it a war of necessity? That question boils down to a singular question. Will Iran develop nuclear weapons if we don't attack it? It's a very simple yes no question, not for you and me, but for Mossad and the CIA. There's no way in hell that Mossad and the CIA don't know exactly what the status of that program is. And here if they would have a program, if they would be close, if they had enriched uranium, weapons grade uranium and enough weapons grade uranium to put together the weapon that if the evidence is being presented to the public would turn MAGA around. Even Tucker Carlson, they would say, "Okay, fine. Nuke, not nuke them, but kill these this nuclear program. bump

37:41 bump that bump shelter whatever like bump and destroy these nuclear facilities because this is not an option. We cannot allow them to have a nuke. But but since we didn't see that evidence and they are talking about this for years and some people even claim the nuclear program doesn't exist anymore. The objective probability that this program doesn't even exist or at least that they are nowhere close to a nuclear warhead is much higher than not. So this argument is very likely non-existent. If evidence is presented, that's a gamecher. But if it's presented and then turns out to be fake, which everyone would, you know, suspect if it's being presented, that would be also a complete disaster and would even lead to impeachment. So we are not in the direct war anymore where you can just lie about that how Bush and everyone else lied

38:28 about the weapons of mass destruction. you cannot do it again because this time if you say they have nukes and present evidence there would be huge huge doubt so you have to be extremely cautious I don't think you can fake it this time so you would need real evidence absent of this evidence no nukes this becomes a war of choice it becomes a war that you could also not do and if it's a war of choice what's the situation I think this is extremely likely to be a war of choice because we haven't even heard anyone claim that they actually have nukes or are very close to nukes. So, if it's a war of choice, is there a good outcome? Could that actually work? Well, here's my argument. The risks are extremely high, right? We know that the risks, we

39:13 know from the past, we know I showed you the table, the risk are extremely high because it never went well. And this time it would be 10 times more dangerous than in the Iraq case, even more dangerous than Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. The risk of escalation would therefore be higher. The risk of defeat even would be higher. The risk of everything going wrong would be even higher than in all the previous instances where it already went wrong every single time. So you need to be a little delusional to think oh it's just going to be fine. But you know the risk is also that MAGA regardless of outcome will be breaking apart because you don't even know the outcome if the war escalates. Now it takes years and years to see the outcome. So MAGA breaks apart. This is a huge risk and the best outcome the best outcome this is the

40:01 scenario that you always have to consider right think about what is the best best scenario here the best outcome if you do a war of choice with Iran you you achieve quick regime decapitation you kill the bad guys the moolas are gone let's say in 3 months or two months or whatever if you're very good somehow you occupy tan which is not very easy right or you instigate a revolution of some sort that actually works which is also extremely unlikely. But let's assume you can create a revolution. They somehow put a the sha in or elect someone and it just works and for some reason it's not creating a civil war. The country is stable. So this is by far the best possible outcome. That is extremely unlikely. But let's assume it works. Then you still have turmoil over the next 12 months, right? Even in that

40:49 even in that scenario, you would be guaranteed as Trump to lose MAGA support in the meantime. Maybe in two years you get MAGA back after you show how triumphant you turned Iran around and now it's like beautiful because you got lucky. But even in that best case, you lose MAGA in between. There would be a rebellion of grand proportions. You would lose Congress very likely, extremely likely next year. So then the Democrats take over Congress and you couldn't execute on the MAGA agenda in the meantime and that is the best case. That is the best case. So my key predictions because of that. Here comes the central predictions. Trump is a rational actor who excels at making himself win. If Trump has one superpower is that he

41:35 listens very closely to the political surrounding. He listens very closely and senses very well what the population wants and where it's going. And his superpowers is to translate that into words and actions of himself that make him win. That is his singular goal. He wants to win. And winning means he himself wins. He wins elections. He's seen as the winner. That's it. If his entire base turns against him, he becomes a loser. A giant loser. So a war of choice with Iran is guaranteed to destroy the MAGA agenda and base. So this is something that Trump cannot allow to happen. And I think Trump is learning this as we speak. You know, that was not clear to Trump two weeks ago. It wasn't even clear to me. That's why I was waiting until today. It just

42:22 became clear maybe yesterday to me that this is a very clear situation politically. It is guaranteed that if Trump starts a war of choice with Iran, it will destroy the MAGA base. It will destroy mega support and it will derail the MAGA agenda, including deportations and all these things. Trump is done if this happens. And therefore, my conclusion is Trump will not go to war with Iran. The pressure on Israel, he will pressure Israel to go it alone. He will be supportive, but he will not engage American personnel directly in this war. Now, he can deliver all kinds of weapons to Israel and help them in other ways, but no direct involvements of the US in this war. He will try to ramp up diplomacy with Iran, and he will try to deescalate in the next two weeks.

43:08 Of course, Israel will try to escalate and he will try to deescalate and Iran will maybe also try to deescalate, but Iran has to respond if they can because they can cannot just sit there and uh be seen as weak by their own people. So, I think strategically Iran wants to deescalate. Tactically, they have to co-escalate with Israel. Israel clearly wants to escalate and my conviction is that Trump wants to deescalate and make it go away because he's in a terrible predicament. How can I be wrong? Well, there are three options how I can be wrong. The first one is of course if suddenly compelling evidence of imminent nukes is being presented gamecher because MAGA could change its mind. But you have to be incredibly cautious with this. You cannot fake it. If this is fake, that's the worst outcome. If you

43:55 fake that evidence so they can manufacture something that's half true, maybe or if there's it's actually true, that would be fine. But it's it seems incredibly unlikely that this is going to happen. The next thing is of course a terror attack on the United States, right? If there's an Iranian terror attack or assassination attempt or something, of course that would change the equation. But again, MAGA would immediately flag it as a false flag, right? They would immediately say this is fabricated or manufactured by someone else. So you have to be incredibly cautious that this is actually true. also not likely because Iran would be completely it would be completely not in the interest of Iran to execute a terror attack before the US gets involved. So extremely unlikely not going to happen.

44:41 Well, I can be wrong if Trump just makes the biggest mistake of his career. That can happen. Maybe Trump gets scenile. Sometimes he looks a little weak to me right now. Maybe he's old and confused and just makes a mistake. It can happen, but it didn't happen in the past. especially not a mistake of this grand proportion. Maybe there's overwhelming pressure from pro-war and Israel lobby to force him to sacrifice himself. But let's make no mistake. If Trump does that, he self-sacrifices. Trump is not a guy who likes self sacrifice. So, I do not think I'm wrong. Let's see what happens. I think Trump is going to push for deescalation. Not by words, but you have to judge him by his deeds. I think he has absolutely no interest to get

45:26 involved here and having absolutely no interest will further escalate for him because MAGA is going nuts on this. Trump cannot go to war. That is my conviction. And finally, I want to conclude this video now that you know my prediction and can hold me accountable. Can leave me comments what you think. Please no stupid tribal comments. Oh, you know, no tribal stupid comments, but analytical comments on this. Did I overlook something? Did I get something wrong or do we have new information? What do you think about the state of MAGA? But I want to conclude with this. Elon Musk was recently in an interview at Y Combinator, I think. Let's scroll up here. You see what Elon is doing. Elon is collecting trash on a beach, needles and bottles to make sure the beach is clean. But there's a giant tsunami that's going to, you know, swap

46:13 swap over the beach. And what Elon said is about politics and about his experience in DC. It was a nice side quest. Now he's back and focusing on the important things. And the important things are AGI, Tesla, robo taxis, X X AI. Now, why does he say that? He says dealing with politics right now is like trying to clean up a beach and the needles and the bottles on the beach while a giant 1,000 ft tsunami is approaching. And that tsunami is artificial general intelligence that will arrive end of this year. It's my prediction or absolutely latest next year. And once we have AGI, we live in a completely different world. Nothing is the same. Nearly no one understands the implications for 2026 and 2027. Everything in the world, the economy,

46:59 our job system, our income taxes, our fiscal health of our countries and of course geostrategy and geopolitics will be completely wiped out, reformatted and completely reset in the next 48 months, 36 months. Nothing will be left of what you think is normal. Elon of course is smart and understands this. getting involved in the stupid tribal war against Iran and this idiotic thing that's going on in the Middle East. While that tsunami is approaching at lightning speed is a giant mistake on a historic level. Trump has one mission and that mission is to make the US survive AGI and he has to get it done before 2028. Thing else is a giant distraction.

47:45 listen to Elon, understand the tsunami, and understand cleaning up the beach is a nice thing, but not if a 1,000 ft tsunami is 12 months away. So, I want to conclude it with this. That's why you should join pioneerlands.net. In this description, we are preparing ourselves for the age of AGI. That means we have to be level-headed, cleareyed, see the future, predict it accurately, train our thinking so we can simulate reality more effectively so we know what's going on and then take the right actions, form smarter networks, more effective people, grow our capital, and make sure that we are not victims of this tsunami, but that we win with it and understand what's going on. This is very serious. So, I hope that was helpful. Let me know what you think.

48:32 Like and subscribe and see you next time.