on the, [000:00:00;00] the issue is nancy and welcome back to going on design goal costing you around the world from you a all tied to is back and this time with a country aided by nature well strikes. caesar sanctions in the us occupation, vital energy and food regions bus our last side, that'd be agency of damascus for asylum in moscow. even nato subsidized zalinski sent soldiers to help outright or indeed live this week. the package flag is loaded over the citadel and the level of the one is invaded in the north, killing c, i a back to goods nato on these rail is copied from syria and invaded from the

south and destroying supply line for palestine by 11 and nature. probably gotten a mediator of to fix chemical attacks is anxious to be trying to rehabilitate a move of how much l gilani knows his real name as the president of syria. the terrorist with a tony blinking $10000000.00 bounty on his head is already done in an interview. dress like ukraine dictates as a landscape to cnn, an ice, isabel tie the lido, he was tortured at abu ghraib by the us for smoldering american soldiers in iraq. as his genocide continues in palestine. netanyahu times israel secured the black flags devices flying over the ad mosque in damascus. in chicago is professor john measure. i'm a co author of these rel, lobby and u. s. foreign policy, and how states think the rationality of foreign policy is the best. the best time a thank so much for coming back on going underground. i guess. first your reaction the victory of the united states and is rarely neutralizing palestine facilitates a turkey and bathing in the north israel. as i said from the south,

russia losing its military bases, presumably we can talk more about the china, the end of its belt road as far as its ports in the west to yeah, i mean is so many implications of what's going on as a result of the collapse of syria is. ready hard to know where to start. i mean it's quite clear that the losers in this conflict were a ran russia and has. ready ha, uh there's no question it for ran. this is a big blow. ready in the sense that syria was an ally and empower. busy now i, and very importantly, siri was a conduit for a rainy and weapons to get to has the law inside of lab and on. and for the time being at least that conduit has been shut down. i think the russians also lost because they were supporting syria and of course has the last of the reasons i just described in the winter is, are clear. ready is real,

the united states and turkey. how this all plays out moving forward is almost impossible to say. other than it's looks like there will be considerable chaos in syria for the foreseeable future, because it's hard to see a co here in government forming in damascus. that can control the entire country, i presume you in short term success as regards the united states, i don't know when the, when the majority, another great deal of success in afghanistan against the soviets. there was celebrating, in some nature perf, attend newspapers and television. and that arguably would lead to $911.00 is a short term success in terms of the united states. and do you see the hand of a frenetic blinking state department here ahead of the an organization of trump on the 20th of january. it is a short term success. there's no question about that. what happens in the long term

is somewhat difficult to say, but it is possible that as a result of what's happened in syria that a ran will acquire nuclear weapons. and if a ran for choirs to clear weapons, that would be disastrous for israel. and it would also be disastrous for the united states and who's to say whether that will happen or not. it's also just not clear what the implications are for turkey and all of this. i think the turks believes that over throwing the side would lead to a new syria. it would be friends. ready with turkey and allowed turkey to solve a lot of his problems, especially with the kurtz, but i wouldn't bet a lot of money on that. i think there's going to be a. ready deal of unrest in syria for the foreseeable future. and the short term victory for us for turkey will not turn out to be a positive development in the long term. so i want to, i want to go to run in

a 2nd, but on to a case you just said, i mean how, which american weapon we did these good just groups have to attack a turkey a symmetric. we can, we expect the bombs and assemble and i'm for this christmas. asymmetric is very hard to say. i mean, they'll certainly be incentives to do that. but i'm not sure what's going to happen on that front. and in terms of timing. i mean, if the state department in the bible regime is desperate to get things moving into chaos in place iran, but they make a move on to by the nuclear weapon and goes, come any on record because it was on his left make. but a, do they need the nuclear weapon before january, and can they produce a nuclear weapon in that sort of time? they cods, can they run or they don't need a nuclear weapon before january. i mean, is every indication that the by did ministration is as hard line on iran as the

trump administration will be. so i think what happens on january 20th does it matter to the iranians with regard to developing a but they have not made that decision yet. as best we could tell, but they're all sorts of good reasons to think they well, there's no question that they can produce enough. is i on material for a bob in a couple weeks time. they're that close. but having the physical material is not the same as having a bomb and it, but in my opinion, take them a good year to develop a bomb and the capability to deliver that bomb. yeah, on the january 20 of that 9, it was actually saying jump was a more and the peaceful side of things, arguably then divide the ministration. so iran has to get approval. and because trump would try and seek some sort of peas on like the blinking state, which is what i was referring to. i mean, do well, is it your understanding that this by the ministration wants to so as much chaos as possible for trump as well?

i think there's not much question about that i think with regard to both ukraine and with regard to the middle east. but what the by did ministration would like to do is law trump band and get him as little to do a room as possible. but i don't think they have to worry that much. i don't think that trump is gonna radically alter american foreign policy in the middle east for one second. the administration is filled with hawks who want to destroy or ran if they can, or at least affect regime change. and trump himself is a hawk on a rand. i think of trump is going to have any effect on foreign policy. and in other words, if he's going to change foreign policy in any meaningful way, it will be in ukraine, not in the middle east. i think there was some hopeful people who support vladimir fusion saying,

perhaps it was russia taking outside out of the situation in damascus. to us, so the chaos because he believes it'll blow back somehow. wishful thinking, arguably as ro was the wishful thinking coming out the russian foreign ministry that the to bases was safe on the mediterranean. how important to these bases? and does this mean the end of russian power in the middle east? certainly, uh, in terms of um, an expression of power if the bases and talk to us and a lot takia are gone. well, i think there's no question that syria was important for russia for purposes of having influence in the middle east. they don't have any basis any place else. and if they lose the. ready space, is it serious? it's hard to see where they can go is, you know, it's not clear they're going to lose the bases. and in my, do you think, what do you think? i, i don't know. i mean,

it's just impossible to say at this point in time when sees evidence that the regime is cooperating with the russians and not interested in throwing the russians out, the new regime. and one can make an argument that the russians have an interest in state. one could also make an argument that the russians or to just cut their losses and get out because it just doesn't matter that much. i think what's happened in syria is a bigger blow to a ran than it is to russia. from russia's point of view. this is basically a side show for russia. what really matters is what's happy then ukraine. they would have preferred that to solve remain in power in syria, but it was not altogether that important to them because again, throwing their weight around in the middle east is not of great importance to. ready russians at this point in time. well, it's connected to a break, so the bell road initiative for china and it is kaylee. uh,

important that you have that mediterranean presence. i think it's somewhat important for the russians. i don't deny that. i think all things considered the russians would prefer the side stay in power for sure, and that they keep the bases. but i think if they lose the bases, it's not that big a deal because will be an influence in mid, at least in the final analysis, is not that important to the russians. and if they prefer that it was the bed chief to support syria for iran and russia as compared to i agree, obviously it's more important to run. we take the central, i'll give you need to run, and that's how we were around, would see it. why didn't they pour the money into was needed to ensure up they all positions rises. now guys are in syria or i think they were committed to helping syria defend itself against the

h t. s. and the other groups. there is no question about that. but the problem they faced is that syria was incapable of defending itself, and they were just limits to, with both the radians and the russians could doke. there's all sorts of evidence the russians and your radians were talking to a side about the problems in his military and the need to fix the military. and the need to reach some sort of a combination with early one at turkey and with the rebels to head off this problem . and it's also quite clear that they were doing what they could to provide assistance once the conflicts started. but the fact is that the syrian military was so hollowed out, it was. so we did, it just couldn't stand up, give a rebel, certaintly. they were giving as much money as your generous us public money and the manufacturers, your us tax payers were giving way more money so much money that ukraine was able,

able to send the soldiers directly to train the guy to people according to the what i need both money is not the issue here. i mean, just go back to the vietnam war. we gave huge amounts of money and huge amounts of equipment to the south vietnamese military, much more cells. and the soviets are the chinese gave to the north vietnamese. but the fact is, the south vietnamese military was an incompetent military. and when the north vietnamese attacked in 1975, the south vietnamese military quickly collapse. and this is an analogous situation . the syrian army was simply incapable of standing up to the rebels. it collapsed almost overnight. the russians tried to help. there were wagner forces in there, the russians were using their air force. but if the syrians are not going to put up a flight, there's not much the russians can do, or not much the uranium can do. and you might say, well, why didn't they try to fix this problem beforehand? and my problem is the, my point is there's

a lot of evidence that they were trying to fix the problem. they were warning a saw that he had to do something to head this problem off at the bass, but they couldn't make any progress with his side. he was a remarkably stubborn and foolish man and yet, and as a result, he's now sitting in moscow and his country is occupied by the rambles proposal. mash, i'm or i'll stop you. the law from the university of chicago scholar after this, right the the

activity because it's the deal in the system. really zip. what's the news use in periods number jim you'll uh allow me to miss people don't lose some of the no, no go commercial bushes. tillman because us off assume if i give it to you as a senior citizen, all over the phone, with the same you as the news before of my speed and the reward of this to us, to see

the welcome back to going underground. i was still here with professor political science of university of chicago. so i'm not sure i'm a professor showing that you were telling me of as how stubborn aside was in the syria. but sanctions on syria would clearly important. although historically they've never worked us sanctions. they obviously haven't worked with russia, they had their work in cuba, venezuela. their work on north korea has been you need a us troop presence like, occupying the energy fields that it added to the sanctions for it to make an impact . what do you think this means for us sanctions? the fact that they successfully destroyed syria using sanctions? well, it was not just sanctions that destroyed syria. i mean there were a number of other key factors that play as well. uh, 1st of all that. ready just a huge amount of corruption by almost all accounts inside of syria military.

furthermore, there were these oil fields out in the eastern part of syria that before the war produced about $400000000000.00 in revenue. and what happened is that the americans and the kurtz basically took over those oil fields and the amount of money that the syrians are getting from those were getting from those oil fields had been remarkably reduced. so they didn't have a lot of they didn't much of an economy at home. the sanctions were all know there was a great deal. ready of corruption and as a result of the army was hollowed out. and what we have seen happen in the past few weeks, is that, that army collapse because it was hollowed out. so can we expect a turkey costs our gas pipeline to compete with us?

sell in g coming to your above to the north stream was destroyed? is this actually not so good for the united states in terms of uh, a geo political realignment in this region? financially, it's very hard to say, i'm just not sure what's going to happen on that front. there just so many questions that are open here that are hard to answer. and this is just another one of those. where why do you think of the state department? they would just blank, i mean they're always blank spaces of those press conferences, but the $10000000.00 bounty is still on the web side of the us state department of doing the blinking. so what i can get $10000000.00 of i tell you will government to information about i have to kill july any whatever his real name is you're, you're asking me, am i surprised that that's up there? i am surprised that they haven't taken it down. i mean, it's quite clear that the administration and the mainstream media in the united

states is doing everything they can to clean up val gilani and portray him as a changed man to make him look like he's now thomas jefferson and no longer an advocate operative so the fact that they've left that up on the website is somewhat surprising. what do you think go through the heads of old is john list on the news rooms on the coal face that your broadcast is and your big newspapers, knowing full well. the pictures coming through on social media of judge is being destroyed. half is our last sides was a liam being destroyed. and the executions and the isis flags full across syria. i will go through the i think i think it, most of them are not going to be surprised at all. have you eat it? it's just not surprising. we basically tour a lot in with

a number of l k to and isis offered tips and they won and they have scores to settle it, sorry, sorry to interrupt, but they keep telling the public in the united states. i know the united states more interested in uh, united healthcare. so you can play, but certainly in the information in western europe on uses. know this guy's good, and look how terrible asset was, what a torture he was is if going down to move a didn't exist. what goes through? the trend is going full. well, they must know who the ice is, all kinds of people that killed american soldiers. of course, i mean, these journalists understand for, well, most americans understand full well. there's all sorts of this course, you know, in the media here on this very issue that the united states is supporting a terrace and that the terrorists or the rebels called them what you want have

one. but i think when you ask what's going through their head, i mean, it's pretty simple. everybody knows the basic story here. as you know, a lot of people say that us policy is about creating chaos. actually, the 9 to the president, very tray, a country i'll give you the most sanctioned in the world. and he said it was all about k us. i know you've been predicting the defeat for the land scan ukraine, but you don't think that the, there's some in the state department do believe at least create as much tales as i think it was another. another so many b2xb from the united states as part of 50000000000 g 7 loan paid by interest, unfrozen, rushing people's money to kill russian soldiers. how well do you think the chaos is going in georgia? romania moved over as a by john wayne blinking his go. all seeing eyes here. it is an incredibly competent state department. i don't think the american policy is to create

chaos in places like ukraine or, or in places like syria. i think what we were interested in in syria was regime change. we wanted to get rid of a saw and we thought that we could put in place for government that would be friendly to the united states. and most importantly, friendly to israel. i think the united states believes that chaos and syria would not work to air advantage and it would not work. israel's advantage with regard to ukraine. i think our basic goal there was to d. o, the russians a severe blow to defeat them on the battlefield in ukraine, we can rush it to the point where it was knocked out of the ranks of the great powers. i don't believe that we wanted to purposely. so k us and ukraine and effectively rec, ukraine. i don't think that was the goal. one could argue that the end result is that we're ranking ukraine. that's been my argument all along. and one can argue

that the end result of what we're doing in syria is to create chaos. but that's not the same thing as saying that that was the intended goal to start with. it's just a way of saying that the united states because of its phone headed policies, often times does end up creating chaos, which is at odds with what it wants to do. so they actually believed that they could defeat russia. i think there's no question that they believe that good defeat russia. i think if you look at how the ukranian military performed on the battle field in 2022, that was when the war started, the war started in february 2022. if you look at how the ukrainian military performed on the battlefield, if you look at the fact that the russians uh, in the summer, late summer, early fall of re treated from the western part of your son and retreated from heart keys. and also if you look at the fact that the west or

the united states especially thought that sanctions would bring the russians to their knees, the west concluded, based on those 2 factors that they could deal russia a devastating blow. that seems ridiculous. now when you think about what's happened in 20232024, where we are at today. but if you go back to late 2022. it looked like we were in excellent shape. it looked like the sanctions might work. and also it looked like the ukrainians were doing very well on the battlefield. and it was all sorts of talked about how when confident the russian army was. so that led us to believe that we could actually defeat the rush. you never believed at the progress and find all through it. i did and obviously they, they was clearly not listening to you. but now of course, uh, infamously, when the boots inside the nuclear doctrine was changing as regards nuclear weapons . uh,

i think one of your papers could have been sold the biggest deal times with the business, the washington post. but it was just a yawn in the state of 500. when uh these uh, new ideas of the use of nuclear weapons were emerging from moscow. well, is proves in going to do as these a new longer range weapons are increasingly being engaged against russia as well. you want to remember the proven has 2 goals here. one is to win the war and ukraine . and number 2 is to make sure that the conflict doesn't escalate into world war 3 . put, has a deep seated interest in defeating ukraine. and it also has a deep seated interest in avoiding nuclear war. so i don't believe the pool is likely to use nuclear weapons unless he is in a position where it looks like rush it is going to lose the war and ukraine. but

that's not going to happen. so i think that there's little chance at this point in time that russia will use nuclear weapons. but there's no question that the russians understand that they're facing the next a central threat in ukraine. and there is no doubt that the russians understand that the united states has its cross hairs on russia. and that's not gonna change even when donald trump comes into power. so as a consequence, the russians are sending a very clear signal that if the americans push too far and they do back rush it into a corner, they should fully understand that russia has lowered the nuclear threshold. which means that it is likely to use nuclear weapons if it's in that situation. thanks. have a rush, i can still hear by then you hypersonic a miss. i know we talking literally about this christmas, really because the head of trump senior organization, trump, who is said, i mean, as you say, he's pointed all these old civil war with roger. but the jump says he's going to

change policy. so it's all about the next 3 weeks, and russia has to come up with some strategy and some responses and how to reply to increasing provocation avoided by blinking jake sullivan and the rest of them literally in the next 3 weeks. it's all going to happen now on it, but the problem is, these prob occasions are, are not that significant. it's not like these a tac homes that ukraine is firing at russia or having a major impact on the course of the war. they're just not. so there's no questions the russians have to retaliate and it has to be a forceful retaliation against any use of a tac them's or storm shadows, or what have you. but the russians don't have to do too much. they certainly don't have to use nuclear weapons. and what's gonna happen here is that in a few weeks, we're going to have

a new government and we'll see what happens then. and just finally, how soon can we expect the blow back for these policies? are the bible at era of simple or the guys outside or in syria of means? or lensky is supporting with american weapons the isis of kaiser elements in syria, all these years, 4 years of foreign policy, billions of dollars. if you're a public money, how soon of the blow back and we felt in uh, in the mainland united states with a symmetric warfare. it was i said to you before, it's just impossible. ready to say with any certainty when we should expect flow back. first of all, we just don't know exactly how things are going to play out in syria. but furthermore, we find it very difficult to guess as to when the blow back will take place. i think there's going to be significant blow back. i think you'll be significant.

blow back for what's happening in gaza. many people around the world think that the united states is complicit. the genocide, they think the germany in west europe more generally is complicit the genocide and one can i potter sized all sorts of plausible scenarios where you get blow back there. so i think the potential for a blow back in the west as a result of what's been happening in the middle east since october 7th is a huge, but predicting exactly when that will happen and what it will look like is upset the site impossible for us to draw measure, thank you. you're more than welcome. that's it for the show. i continued condolences to those surviving u. k u s. u, i'm genocide here in this region where we back on monday with the legendary pink floyd front van roger was his until then keep in touch by the social media. if it's not expensive in your country, and how do i channel going under guaranteed the hon dot com to watch new and old episodes,

ongoing undergrad. seem under the the if you think about russia, what does your mind picture the landscapes open up the phone lines. the last one does, can you imagine the, the discounts dodge the journey?

the, the you ready to come along? the pair bonded administration confirmed vincent direct talks with the hired to rent alshaun terrorist group. the controls damascus for us troops reportedly expands the military present, submit decalle in syria. meanwhile, the h t. s, leader, all the well, the health as he sounds as well for it's hunting and invading syria. that sounds the idea of bombs. tom gets across the arab states while instructing is ready troops to brace to stay in southern syria. so the wind as the georgia routing policies and how many is elected president the countries in tumbling pro west and head of state to reject the results and refuses to step down