Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: It's 20 years to the day since Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks. That revealed Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi was equating Narendra Modi's BJP to terrorists to a US Ambassador. The anniversary comes as Indian officials of this week been in Pakistan at a Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting with officials from here, the UAE as well as Iran, China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to name just a few. I'm Afshin Ratatsi and you're watching New Order.
Today marks 20 years since WikiLeaks was founded. The organization that helped expose the hidden workings, abuses and secrets of governments and powerful institutions. Britain tortured Julian Assange to near death but years after his escape from the threats of US torture. The questions WikiLeaks raised about elite NATO nation class power are the context of today's wars on Russia, Iran and brics for India as it marked Gandhi Jayanthi New Delhi sent its delegates to Islamabad for the SCO's coordinators meeting engaging Pakistan with China, Russia and Iran. At the same time Indian and ASEAN navies are conducting their second maritime war practice in the Philippines. Russia, China and the USA are all ASEAN dialogue partners. Next week Switzerland's Kiev aligned president is likely to visit India and the wider strategic picture is becoming graver. Washington has been proposing an urgent trilateral Russia, Ukraine, US meeting here in the uae but there looks like no signs of peace after Trump's Epstein Fury shut the Strait of Hormuz in Saudi attacks on Yemen triggered the closure of the Bab El Mandeb Straits. New Order Zahra Khan will be on later to answer your questions posted on social media. Joining me again from Fourth Church Virginia is Colonel Larry Wilkerson, a 31 year US army veteran who was Chief of Staff at the now Rubio run State Department department. Colonel Larry Wilkerson, thanks so much for coming on New Order. I should also mention what happened this week because you were involved in it because not only the 2022 SMO kickstarted BRICS and the New Order, arguably the Iraq War of 2003 kickstarted the New Order. And of course you were Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Your view about the significance of the I mean they still have control of Iraqi oil but the end of the US occupation
[00:02:33] Speaker B: a long overdue I think a series of elected members of Iraq's parliament and its leaders actually including the current one have wanted and not been very vocal about it because they know the trouble they would get in the US to leave and have been discreetly asking the United States to leave.
That, I understand, grew into a shout, in secret, if you will, when the Israeli outfits were discovered in the western deserts with US help, and they moved out to do something about it. And their advance guard got fired on and I understand it incurred a couple of casualties. Then they sent, just for our audience.
[00:03:20] Speaker A: So there were Israeli bases in Iraq, basically?
[00:03:23] Speaker B: Absolutely. In the western. Yeah, in the western desert. And we facilitated those bases, of course.
And when the Iraqis went out with a light force to check on it, they got shot at, they sent a heavier force, and as I understand it, the Israelis and the US Sort of moved out.
But it's time we left Iraq. But it is not time, if you believe in the strategy we've been carrying out for so long now, since 1978, for us to leave the entire region wholesale. And I think that's what's happening.
[00:03:59] Speaker A: Yeah, but of course, if you believe all those who think that the decision to bomb Iran was a wise one and we actually have them on our, you know, someone there really are, you know, they're former CIA operatives. There are.
Well, just the other day I was speaking to an ex chief executive of Lockheed Martin.
If you really wanted to pursue this victory in Iran, as if you were watching the Murdoch Fox News, you'd believe that perhaps Trump had already been victorious. Iraq would have been useful, wouldn't it, given that Iraq is now firmly aligned arguably with Iran.
[00:04:40] Speaker B: Oh, yeah. But just to comment on your comment, if you're the CEO, former or current of Lockheed Martin, what you want is war and death.
You know, the CEO of Lockheed Martin gets two times, and I'm not even counting share options and stock options and such, the pay of a Nucor Steel chief executive officer. They are rolling in coin from this war and I wouldn't expect them to say anything else. They tell their shareholders we are war and war is good for business.
That's what goes on all the time.
[00:05:18] Speaker A: And yet the politicians don't, the politicians don't ask these weapons manufacturers anything but for more advice on how to conduct wars. I mean, the destruction of all the bases in this region has been good for business
[00:05:38] Speaker B: for the Lockheed Martins and RTXs and Grummans. No, it hasn't been good because I think the result of this, the end result of this is the United States is withdrawal in terms of ground forces, in terms of facilities, even on the ground in Southwest Asia. We're leaving. Iraq's just the first installment.
[00:06:00] Speaker A: And another side effect, say to not only the Iraq war, but the NATO war on Russia through Ukraine.
Do you think Xi Jinping meeting Modi in Delhi would have been less likely?
Are these wars in Europe and here in the Gulf really moving brics closer?
[00:06:21] Speaker B: I think these people, the meeting in India that Modi sort of chaired didn't go all that smoothly. That's my report anyway.
But I think these people, and reasonably so, are getting very concerned about a.
As Ricardo Alecon, Cuban head of the national assembly, said to me years ago, a dying elephant can thrash a lot of grass. Well, the U.S. empire is not necessarily dying. It's too big probably, to die and go to a grave. But it is having enormous problems maintaining its stature in the world. In fact, it is not maintaining its stature in the world, is doing everything it can to unravel it itself, Donald Trump being at the head of that.
So these countries are very concerned now about what this elephant that is somewhat dying, wounded, to be sure, thrashing around in the world, so to speak, is going to do to them. Because they were kind of fat, dumb and happy. Well, I shouldn't say dumb. They're smart. I'm just reading about Chinese automobiles this morning.
They are so much better than anything we have that if they introduce their lines in America, it would destroy American auto manufacturing overnight.
[00:07:37] Speaker A: Yeah, I should just say. I should just say Iran is the largest manufacturer of automobiles in this region. But then on that very subject, how impressed or depressed are you about the abilities of brics leaders to fully comprehend the kind of violence a dying elephant can mete out?
[00:08:02] Speaker B: I think they're acutely aware of that. All they have to do is look at Southwest Asia and what Donald Trump is doing in a war of choice. That's absolute insanity in terms of the way he's conducting it. And you know, the word is on the street now, the word is on the street in Hebrew and English that Trump has given Bibi Netanyahu the green light for using a nuclear weapon or two or three.
So we're looking at an entirely different dimension to this war, even as you and I discuss it at this moment. And I think it already is so much out of control and plaguing this president at a critical time for his political party that is probably going to cost that political party its supremacy, maybe even in both houses, that I don't know what he's going to do. I have no idea. I usually don't know what he's going to do, but in this circumstance, I really don't know. I just picked up the information this morning that the Secretary of War, Defense Pete Hegseth, has just put out an edict. The Marine Corps and the Navy and the Air Force have already adapted it. And it takes the recognized religions in the world.
And the authority here is what can go on your tombstone in Arlington National Military Cemetery, for example.
And it's about 200, 200 plus different religious affiliations. Think about our Constitution for a moment. No test religious like shall be used for testing someone's ability to serve in the government and so forth. That includes the military.
It's taking it down to 30 to 31 affiliations, and that's all Marines and sailors and Air Force and space personnel can identify in their official records. Well, ask yourself what this is all about.
These are all Christian organizations. PD preaches in the Pentagon every month. He brings pastors into the Pentagon. This is an effort to create Christian nationalism within the armed forces and therefore to ensure there is a segment of those forces whose allegiance is not to the Constitution but to Jesus.
[00:10:13] Speaker A: So it's religiously fundamental. I've got to ask you, though, in this eschatological perspective that you're bringing to the show today, where the word on the street is that Netanyahu has been given permission to use the nuclear weapons. And if you tell me where this is being talked about, because Netanyahu faces elections on 27th of October. So if he's given permission, presumably, and he's going to lose them, he's going to use them before the end of the month.
Aren't you hearing this?
[00:10:49] Speaker B: It's his choice. I'm hearing it from a number of people who are plugged into people like the deputy chief of staff for policy, who's the most powerful man in Trump's administration, Stephen Miller, and from people like Russ Voutt, that omb, who is probably the second most powerful man in Trump's administration, author of the Heritage Project 25 report, which, by the way, he is implementing from his position as OMB head.
That's a very powerful position because it controls all the money and where it goes and to whom it goes, even more so than the president and the Congress.
[00:11:25] Speaker A: I should just say that he's a friend of Tucker Carlson, who I interviewed just recently, and Tucker said that he was quite a good guy. And of course, another thing that people who have been close to the president have previously said is he really cares about the threat of nuclear weapons, which is why he famously sought to curb the problem of North Korea, which of course can destroy Washington, D.C. in 30
[00:11:50] Speaker B: minutes, which is why Elbridge Colby in the Pentagon, for example, is writing and talking about we have these weapons We've made this monumental investment in them. Why are we not using them? And Jonathan Pollard, traitor that he is, is in Tel Aviv going on TV shows and saying the same thing, in fact saying we should use them first, not last.
So you've got quite a group of people who are advising and talking about using tactical nuclear weapons.
And it's scary if you're over here listening to it. This is the class of weapons that Colin Powell took the greatest, greatest pride in under Ronald Reagan, having a hand in eliminating in the INF treaty, the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty. These are the most dangerous weapons in the world because they are the most apt to be used.
[00:12:49] Speaker A: But simultaneously, he's seeking peace with the Russia, perhaps in a meeting in Abu Dhabi for Ukraine, Russia talks Trump.
[00:12:58] Speaker B: And if you want, if you want to bet on the outcome of that being anything but just nonsense, please keep going.
[00:13:06] Speaker A: But, so that's just theater.
[00:13:09] Speaker B: It's theater for Donald Trump. It's not theater for the Russians. It's not theater at all for the Russians. They would love to have some kind of agreement whereby they get what they want because they have shed lots of blood. Not as much as Ukraine, but they have shed a lot of blood and now they're shedding a lot of Nazi blood. So that's good stuff because Zelensky has finally put the Bandera Boys on the front lines and they shocked the Russians at first at the points where they took the line because they're tough, hard nosed fighters, they're good, they're competent and they're tough and brave, but they are Nazis. And so now the Russians have figured out who's in front of them and are destroying them.
So Zelensky's not going to have anything left. But drones are hurling everybody in the world and those aren't going to work. So it's over in Ukraine, except the crying and maybe the murder of Zelensky.
[00:14:04] Speaker A: Colonel Larry Wilkerson will continue after the break. Keep watching New Order.
You're watching New Order. Colonel Larry Wilkerson, in part one, you were talking about the supposed go ahead by Trump to Netanyahu to use nuclear weapons.
The impact on the global economy, regardless of where the tactical nuclear weapon dropped. Presumably you're envisaging it as a pickaxe mountain or some uninhabited part of Iran for showmanship rather than actually mass civilian casualties would be catastrophic.
And that's not going to help Trump in the midterms, is it? And that's not going to help all the vested interests that are usually behind the scenes in Washington.
[00:15:02] Speaker B: Well, Trump's already said, categorically stated, and this is one of the few statements he's made of late that I actually believe.
He doesn't give a damn. He's elected, he's been elected. He doesn't care what's going to happen in the midterm. He said that. Categorically, he said that.
And I believe him, I truly believe him. He doesn't, he doesn't care about the Republican Party, he doesn't care about its leadership, its money. He doesn't care about any of that.
So he's free to act. And he said that too. I'm free to act. I'm elected. I got two more years, maybe more. The intimation was strong there.
So that's not a hold up for him. And what this probably is, and I've said this in the circle that knows what I'm telling you, what this probably is, is a last ditch effort by Bibi to forestall Iran, pretend preempting him.
And if that were to take place and Iran were really serious about it and used all of its best missiles and in a coordinated fashion on Haifa, Tel Aviv and perhaps one or two other places, Dimona, for example, Israel was ceased to exist as a viable state.
So he's trying to put that off, he's trying to deter them. And I think a lot of this is rhetoric, but I can't count on that.
[00:16:21] Speaker A: But could these months leading up to the UN General assembly, will they later be seen as mistakes, strategic mistakes by Iran as it sought some kind of diplomatic dimension to this conflict, when, I mean previously any negotiations usually happened and only led to bombing, do you think it'll be seen that Iran made some mistakes? Now?
[00:16:49] Speaker B: I think that could be true, but I think in a larger scheme of things, Iran is doing what one would expect them to do when it's been so clear that every time any kind of real negotiations took place, and by the way, let me say that real diplomatic negotiations have never taken place.
Just like I had to experience in the six party talks with North Korea, China, Russia, Japan and us. Hell, mostly in Beijing, we couldn't even talk to the North Koreans, but we were at least in the same room with them. But we could not talk with them, nor they to us. We had to talk through the Chinese or the Russians or whatever. That's the same thing here, only worse. They have not had face to face negotiations. These recent negotiations in Qatar, they were simply by people going back and forth from the two rooms. You can't build trust that way. And trust is the most important part of diplomacy. So all to say Iran's figured it out, we are duplicitous, we lie, we cheat, we hide behind supposed diplomacy in order to drop more bombs.
There is no effort, really, on the part of the real power in Iran today to negotiate or to have diplomatic relations. They've made up their mind. They're going to hold out until whatever they are at the middle of the escalation R right now, they own that middle. They can go higher. They don't want to because it would mean that their allies, for example, China and Russia in particular, would be probably hurt, too, because we're talking about global recession, perhaps even depression. If they go on with their target list and take out things like Rostonora and other facilities that are similar, with the Houthis doing much the same with regard to Saudi Arabia, it would be a traumatic situation in Western Asia. You would have all manner of problems right now. You don't just have the Bab El Mandev and the Strait of Hormuz. You have the Panama Canal. The Koreans just paid $4 million US to buy a slot to go through the Panama Canal. That's how difficult it is to get through that strait right now. And you got ships looking into the Panama Canal entrance on both sides, Pacific and Caribbean. You got ships like you had at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz at the beginning of this fiasco. So we have the whole world jammed up right now with. With some really serious things going on. The governor of Louisiana just told his state they can use dirty diesel. This is prohibited. But he's not going to have any harvest if he doesn't allow that. The governor of Georgia just took away the fuel taxes in Georgia, what's used to build roads and maintain roads and so forth to give the Georgia people some relief. This is going to start blossoming all across the United States.
This is how serious it is. You got diesel prices in California already approaching $10 a gallon. And right here in my hometown, Fall Search, Virginia, they're almost five and a half to $6 already.
[00:20:10] Speaker A: And billions, of course, are affected in the global South. And as you rightly point out, at the heart of empire, it's starting to take hold. The effect of the war on Iran and the war on Russia through Ukraine. But what is the probability then of civil unrest within the United States if, I mean, heaven forbid, there's a nuclear weapon strike, but even a resumption of the war in the Gulf?
What are the prospects of violence on the streets of America, of the USA
[00:20:43] Speaker B: well, you know, I've always said that January 6th in the first administration's end didn't fail because the system held. It failed because the coup plotters were incompetent. They won't make that mistake again. And hecent is working hard daily to make sure there's an element of state force, militia and active and certainly ICE. ICE just hired 5,000 more people this past week.
Those are the brown Shirts, the praetorian Guard of whatever Trump and Hegseth and others want to do, if they want to do it, whether it's piecemeal, this battleground state is suddenly the site of an insurrection. I'm going to invoke the act and martial law in that state. I could see that happening. He said, I think I'll stay around for a while, in addition to saying he's already elected.
So I'm worried about that. I'm very much worried about that as in terms of even a civil war. But at the same time, I'm thinking about what we just talked about with regard to tactical nuclear weapons and the naivete of people in the world about those weapons. Those weapons will be used. Mark my words, they will be used sometime in the not too distant future. And the question about it is, will the doctrine of the Cold War be proven legitimate, correct? That is to say, use one, you'll use them all, or will we find out that this is in fact, not that huge a deal, and will we begin to deal with tactical nuclear weapons as if they were just instruments of the normal battlefield? That could happen, particularly if it starts in a place like Iran, which is probably capable of a sword being 40 or 50 of them.
They're not that big a weapon. They only get huge and damaging in the sense that most people think when they become thermonuclear and they really take out a lot of people and a lot of territory when they go off? And those are mostly on our ballistic missile submarines and Russian ballistic missile submarines. What's on BB submarines is roughly a tomahawk with a small nuclear warhead.
We could get really quickly used to using this type of nuclear weapon. I think it's dangerous, though.
[00:23:08] Speaker A: I really do, because all the treaties are off the table.
I mean, do you think since you were negotiating with the North Koreans before you were allowed to speak to them, after they allowed you to, Iran could obtain urgently nuclear weapons technology in the face of this US Israeli threat?
[00:23:29] Speaker B: I think Iran and the new leadership, I think the moment the Ayatollah was killed in the way he was killed The IRGC leadership not only took over the reins of real power in Iran, it took over the nuclear program.
And I think they are inches away or have already completed a warhead and a matchup with say, a Castle Breaker missile.
And they are ready to present Israel with a preemption that might devastate Israel when it occurs.
[00:24:02] Speaker A: So Trump was self fulfilling when he, when he talked about nuclear weapons. As he continues.
[00:24:09] Speaker B: I think they're having a battle, I think they're actually having a battle behind the scenes over who's telling the truth and who's apt to use what he's got.
[00:24:19] Speaker A: Colonel Larry Wilkerson, thank you.
[00:24:21] Speaker B: Too early.
[00:24:28] Speaker A: Well, after that, former chief of staff at the US State Department, Zahra Khan with the social media. But I don't know what to say because what he was saying, and he's worked in the US State Department as chief of staff, that Trump has given Netanyahu to go ahead for a nuclear strike on Iran and 5,000 ICE officers. That's only a plan, at least until
[00:24:48] Speaker C: the end of the year. They're supposed to be hired. But yes, to quote some great musicians, what is war good for? Absolutely nothing.
But what social media might be good for is having some of our questions from the audience. Zeus has asked Afshin, what is the best way America can pay off the $40 trillion debt that we created since 1948 for the Greater Israel Project?
[00:25:08] Speaker A: Greater Israel Project. War is good. War is good for the military industrial complex. As our friend the Colonel was just saying, debt has increased every year since 1948. Debt was last zero US debt under Andrew Jackson in the 19th century.
20% of the $40 trillion debt you could attribute to all the post 911 wars that Israel wanted the United States to get into. But there are only two ways really of getting rid of the debt.
If one of the, if they started to go into surplus, the United States, they never do that. Four of the past 50 years were surplus. And the deficit anyway every year is 2 trillion a year.
Or they could hold interest rates below inflation, devalue the dollar so the bondholders all get less, the dollar becomes worthless. And that's probably why China is selling all its dollars anyway. The war in Iran is $2 billion a day.
[00:26:02] Speaker C: Some people have estimated and junior CTB has asked, since the US is guilty of funding and enabling the genocide in Israel, why hasn't the ICC put out a warrant on them too?
[00:26:11] Speaker A: A warrant on the icc? Well, the US hasn't ratified the Rome Statute, so says correctly, it doesn't have to abide by any decision but PA and so technically, US personnel on Palestinian ground or affecting what's happening in Palestine would make US people subject to ICC jurisdiction. Of course, the United States has a Hague Invasion act. They'll invade Holland 2002. They'll invade Holland if Holland tries to act against any US official. And that would be Holland, a NATO country. So Article 5 would kick in and so the United States would have to attack itself.
I don't think the ICC really there's any point ICC is to imprison Global south leaders and to attack anyone opposed to the neoliberal project. That's what the International Criminal Court is trying to do.
[00:27:02] Speaker C: I think that's all the time we have today. Thank you for those answers, Afshin. I'll see you again next Sunday.
[00:27:05] Speaker A: Okay, Zahra. And follow us on X at NeworderTV to ask your questions. We'll keep following India and its BRICS partners as they navigate the new multipolar world order. See you Sunday, Sam.
