Speaker unverified: belief

Transcript context

…Who’s the dog that didn’t bark there? The current director of National Intelligence who issued her threat assessment, Trump’s director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard who issued her threat assessment in February that repeated the exact same language that from the National Intelligence estimate of 2007, and that the CIA and the NIE, the National Intelligence Council have reaffirmed repeatedly ever since then, which is that supreme leader has not decided to pursue nuclear weapons. He has not made the political decision to pursue nuclear weapons. She testified in fact under oath in front of the senate in March and then according to CNN and the New York Times, there was a brand new assessment that was put together the week before the attack was launched reaffirming the same thing and at least in history, if you read it in Haaretz, Massad agreed with the CIA. I’d like to just sort of quote CIA director John Radcliffe because Scott brought up the CIA and the intelligence committee. I think Radcliffe had a good way of looking at this and that he said is when you’re in the 99 yard line as a football team, you have the intention of score a goal, and what he was actually pointing to is let’s not talk about this debate about whether Khamenei had given the order or not given the order, because Khamenei knows that if he gives an order, the US and Israeli intelligence community will pick up on that order and that will be the trigger for strikes. What Radcliffe is saying is that Khamenei had built the nuclear weapons capability. He’s at the 99 yard line, and both the CIA and European leaders, the European Intelligence Committee has said for yours that if Iran has that capability and they’re on the 99 yard line, at that point, it’s going to be too late to stop them. Once that decision is made to assemble the final warhead, which by the way is the final piece of what you need for a deliverable nuclear weapon. That’s not true at all, right? They have to resort to a crude analogy about football yard lines because they can’t say the truth, which is that they had zero weapons grade uranium, they were not producing it. They were trying to get the United States back in the deal that they are still officially within the JCPOA with the rest of the UN Security Council wherein they shipped all of their enriched uranium stockpile out of the country to France to be transferred to fuel rods. Their insistence was on their continued ability to enrich uranium, and so this goes to one of the things that he at least sort of brought up that deserves addressing. When Trump came into power in 2017, he decided on this Israeli influence maximum pressure campaign, and he said the JCPOA was the worst deal in the history of any time any two men ever shook hands and all these kinds of things in his hyperbolic way, which of course made it very difficult for him to figure out a way to stay in the thing or to compromise along its lines. But the fact of the matter is if he had just played it straight and said, “Listen, Ayatollah, we don’t have to be friends, but we do have a deal here, which my predecessor struck with you, but I don’t like these sunset provisions and I want to send my guys over there and see if we can figure out a way to convince you that we really wish you’d shut down and them all together.” Or this or that or the other thing, and tried to approach them in good faith. We talk about yard lines and things. We had a JCPOA, okay? So toward peace, we were past the 50 yard line. Donald Trump could have gone to Tehran and shook hands with the Ayatollah as Dick Cheney complained that we had cold relations with Iran back in 1998 when he was the head of Halliburton and said, “We can do business with these guys.” Donald Trump could have gone right over there and done business, and instead he gave into Netanyahu’s lies in this ridiculous hoax that they had uncovered all these Iranian nuclear documents, which he pretends is legit, where all they did was recycle the fake Israeli forged smoking laptop of 2005, which they lied and pretended was the laptop of an Iranian scientist that was smuggled out of Iran by his wife and had all this proof of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program on it, but every bit of that was refuted, including the thing about the warhead he said was refuted by David Albright and his friend David Sanger in the New York Times, that all those sketches of the warhead for the missile were wrong because when Mossad forged the documents, they were making a good educated guess, but they didn’t know that Iran had completely redesigned the nose cone of their mid-range missiles and had an entirely different nose cone that would require an entirely different warhead than that described in the documents.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.