953: Why Does the U.S. Give Money to Other Countries?

Unknown Speaker  0:00  
Music.

Brian Nichols  0:05  
Instead of focusing on winning arguments, we're teaching the basic fundamentals of sales and marketing and how we can use them to win in the world of politics, teaching you how to meet people where they're at on the issues they care about. Welcome to The Brian Nichols Show. Wow. Hey there, folks. Brian Nichols here another fun filled episode of The Brian Nichols Show. I am Yes, as always, your humble host joining you from our lovely cardio miracle Studios here in sunny Eastern Indiana. The Brian Nichols Show is powered by our phenomenal sponsors, amp America. Get the news you need to know about the corporate media bias or fluff at amp america.com and as for the cardio miracle, yes, our favorite studio sponsor, they are the best heart health supplement in the world. So if you want to go ahead and learn more how to improve your heart health overnight with Yes, cardio miracles stick around. We're talking about that more in today's episode, but first, we're going to go ahead and talk all things Middle East, specifically looking at what's been unfolding over in the Greater Israel, Palestine area, the Gaza Strip. And I can't do that conversation alone. So joining me today, from young voices is Abdullah Hayek. Welcome to Brian Nichols show you doing

Unknown Speaker  1:10  
great, Brian. Thank you for having me doing good.

Brian Nichols  1:13  
Great to have you, Abdullah, looking forward to today's conversation, but first, do me a favor. Introduce yourself here to The Brian Nichols Show audience and why your your focus on the Middle East and specifically what's been going on over in Israel, Palestine and the Gaza Strip.

Speaker 1  1:26  
Thanks, Brian. My name is Abdullah Hayek. I'm an independent Middle East analyst and consultant based here in Washington, DC. I focus predominantly on the political, economic and military affairs of the Levant the Arabian Gulf and Iraq. And I'm a contributor with young voices, and part of that program brought me to cross paths with Brian today. So I'm happy to be here.

Brian Nichols  1:48  
We're great to have you here. And yeah, we're going to talk about your article you wrote part of young voices that aired over at Real Clear world, talking about the diploma diplomatic master class. Say that 10 times fast Abdullah from Jordan's King and specifically talking about what's been unfolding there in the Gaza Strip. He sat down with our president here in America, Donald Donald John Trump, and a lot unfolded there. But before we get into what was the the so called Master Class, do us a favor. It's at the stage here what's been going on over in the Middle East, specifically when we look at the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, and why are we even in a conversation right now where your king of Jordan there is having to have a conversation with Donald Trump about potentially taking in refugees or being forced to take in refugees, but helps with the stage for us before we get into the meat and potatoes in today's article, Of course.

Speaker 1  2:38  
Thank you. Brian, well, unfortunately, with the heinous act of October 7 by Hamas on Israel, it set forth an unprecedented retaliatory strike on the strip, which cost the lives of over 46,000 civilians in Gaza, and it has taken a toll not just on that region, but the broader Middle East as a whole, and the ring of fire that Iran set to leash unleash on Israel spread to Lebanon, to Iraq, to Syria to the Houthis in Yemen, who are currently taking strikes from US forces. And this has led to many in the West to delve up ideas try and figure out a solution for this conflict. And of course, with Donald Trump coming into office on January 20 he, you know, is unique amongst the former US presidents of the 21st century, he has actually addressed the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He has come forth with a plan, with a solution in his first term, although it was met with opposition, but still, his efforts to directly address it are commendable now, right now, his second term, his his plan includes to solve the conflict on the basis of, you know, displacing the 2 million plus Gazans and relocating them into Egypt and Jordan to create a so called Riviera in the Middle East. Now, obviously this is an according to the 21st century, you can't simply just relocate 2 million people. So the Arabs and the Arab leaders in general have come up with a plan that you know solves the Gaza problem that, you know, removes Hamas from the decision making process in Gaza and helps befit everyone's interests and concerns and in the pursuit of peace.

Brian Nichols  4:33  
So I'm gonna start off with an objection I'm sure you hear all the time, right? And by the way, just to set the stage, a lot of my audience here is more of a libertarian ethic. Yours truly is also more on a libertarian ethic, which of course, leads to the question, well, Abdullah, we're over here in this country called the United States of America. What interest does the USA have over in the Middle East, specifically looking at this conflict with Israel and the Palestinians, which, if we're being fair. Hasn't, you know, just been a conflict that's been taking place since October 7, but it's been a conflict taking place for at this point, generations. So just help that set the stage there. From your perspective, what interest does America have over in this foreign, foreign affair? Well,

Speaker 1  5:14  
obviously, you know, we hear this all the time, the US is not the police force of the world, but regardless, the US remains the sole superpower on the global stage today, and it does have a direct tie, connection or influence to every conflict, war, international, diplomatic issue in the world today, and including that is the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Now the Middle East is the center of the world. It is, you know, the bridge point between Asia, Europe and Africa. It is a strategic trading location, major source of energy trade, anything you can imagine. The Middle East has a central point in it. Now, if if the issue remains that the United States, you know, follows the pursuit of isolation and withdraws from the Middle East, that power vacuum is immediately, immediately going to be filled in by American adversaries such as Russia, China, and, most importantly in the region right now, Iran. Now, whether we like it or not, that will affect American interests on the long on the long run. And you know, it resonates with with the terrorists that committed the 911 attacks in 2001 al Qaeda, those, you know, those groups were not given that much attention prior to the 911 they were neglected, and eventually they grew enough to become the threat that they became on 911 so it's better to remain focused in that region and put all efforts to promote and advance American interests, rather than receive any setback like what happened at 911

Brian Nichols  6:55  
Are you? Are you at all concerned, Abdullah, of any unintended consequences here? And let me set the stage there, right? Because we look to American foreign policy, and one needs to look back no further than the past 20 plus years. And it has been, pardon the expression, it's been a cluster F, right? Like, and that's, that's the PG 13 version for the kids playing along at home. But like, it has been a crap show, a cluster F, whatever you want to call it, and we look at us to your point, we are the, you know, the number one superpower in the world, and yet we still couldn't actually make headway in countries like Afghanistan or Iraq, or even go back further to countries like Vietnam, for example, right? So there is a very strong non interventionist argument, not so much from the argument that you're responding to that is, well, you know, if we leave, then somebody else is going to fill that vacuum, fill that void. But is it not, at the very least, fair to say that part of the problem has been our role in, you know, playing this, this world policeman. And I hear you like, because if we do step away from this, this, you know, this area, there are going to be other forces that will try to step in. But again, is that our main priority here is to just constantly be there, spending all of our money overseas, to, I guess, maintain this perception of safety and security.

Speaker 1  8:20  
You know, Brian, you said yourself, the role the solution to the whole issue is not withdrawing the role of the United States, but amending it. You know, I've always said to whenever we discuss this, that the problem with the United States foreign policy is that it alienates a broader region to appease the interests of a certain group. You know, in the Middle East, you can't alienate the interests of over 500 million people for the sake of a country that has 10 million people. You can work with both of them. You can work in a strategic partnership, like manner, in which all can receive interests that benefit not just themselves, but the United States as well. Now obviously, with the war in Gaza, the effects of Hamas and Hezbollah and the Ring of Fire and the whole Middle Eastern crisis that started since October 7, that could have been easily avoided if the United States throughout the past quarter century had accelerated and push forward the Palestinian statehood issue. Because the main concern, the main scapegoat that the Iranians are taking right now is that they want to feel as the saviors of the Palestinian issue, and they go ahead and they as they infiltrate the communities bordering Israel, like in Lebanon and Syria and Iraq, the main, let's say, excuse that they relay is that, look, you deal with the West, you don't get anything. The Israelis keep bombing you and bombing our brethren. Let us come in as saviors, and we'll help you. That excuse can be easily removed if the United States just manages to. Put forward a plan that works in collaboration with the Israelis, with the Palestinians and with the broader Middle East to solve the Palestinian issue, so that extremist groups such as the Iranians and such as Islamic fundamentalists like al Qaeda and ISIS don't have an excuse to infiltrate Middle Eastern societies and breathe a havoc of a region. This

Brian Nichols  10:24  
is where I get stuck. And I'm not pushing back just to be an old curmudgeon here, but more so from a kind of a logical deduction standpoint, I get stuck because you mentioned al Qaeda, for example, of which I remember. I think it was Rambo three. Perhaps the end of the movie concludes with and we give our strong, heartfelt support to those fighting communism over in Afghanistan, which is at that point, the Mujahideen, which turned into al Qaeda. And you couple that with the destabilization of the Iranian government back in the 70s. And then you factor into the fact that, according to the Government Accountability Office, since 1949 The United States has given over $243 billion which roughly averages out to $4 billion a year, over to the country of Israel. So I guess it's more from a we have been kind of playing that role, and it doesn't seem to really make things better. If anything, I would dare say there was a strong argument to say it's actually made things worse, made things more destabilized. So I guess my question is, what better outcomes can we see by a more involved United States in the Middle East relative to how involved we've been for the past 70 plus years, and seeing that it's become more destabilized than ever?

Speaker 1  11:35  
You know, going back again, like I said, the region is the central point of the world. Every major civilization, Empire and power, has been in the Middle East and has stayed there for a very long time. Every major Abrahamic religion stemmed from the Middle East. The United States simply cannot forsake its influence and its role in the Middle East. It is just simply unattainable to not just US interests, but to the interests of its partners and allies in both Europe and East Asia. And let's take the oil issue. For example, if oil flow from the Arabian Gulf and the Suez Canal is cut off, there would be a dip, a major energy crisis, just like what happened in 1973 after the Arab oil embargo. The United States needs the Middle East, and the Middle East does need the United States even more now. How can we circumvent issues like what you mentioned with the al Qaeda, developing from the Mujahideen, with the Iranian issue? It's that you need to have a partnership mechanism in the Middle East present right now that mirrors that that is in Europe today. You need an Arab like NATO. You need a Middle Eastern like NATO, where unilateralism becomes multilateralism. In the Middle East, where partnerships thrive. You can't go in solo in the Middle East anymore. That just doesn't work. We've seen it for the past 70 years. As you've mentioned, we need a creation of a Middle Eastern like NATO, that includes us Arab partners like the Gulf, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Israel, Turkey. The the need to work together in a collaborative manner to prevent mishaps like October 7, like the Houthi maritime crisis, like the Iranians in the Gulf, if that framework and coordination is fully implemented, I'm telling you, it's going to be a much calmer region. For

Brian Nichols  13:28  
the sake of continuing the conversation, I think we're going to have to put a pin in that, that piece of the dialog. I want to go back to the main thesis of your article, but I will say I definitely have some more questions. I think you and I should have a follow up conversation at some point, because I think from a just a kind of, not in the debate, just, I want to understand better, because there is a lot of, you know, I say a lot of folks, not even in the libertarian camp, just kind of who are starting to pay attention for the first time in their political lives, right? Like I see folks that I've talked to for my entire life, they've never cared about politics now they're like, wait, wait, why are we doing X, Y, Z, over in x, y, z, country? Why are, you know, I look at East Palestine, Ohio, which had a horrible train derailment, and then toxic sludge going into their water systems. And I see cities like Flint, Michigan, Have they fixed their water pipes yet? Like I see that stuff. And this is what my friends say, and then I say, and we're spending how much overseas, in in, you know, these foreign conflicts, which, by the way, Abdul I think this is where the America first argument that I very much am empathetic with, really does, you know, have some some legs, because I can see the problems here in my backyard. I can drive an I 70 here in Indian or in the Indiana and see the potholes on my road. They're going to destroy my cars, wheels and rims, but I see billions of dollars go overseas. And then there are questions raised internally, from a domestic standpoint, like, Well, hey, we have oodles of natural resources. I would dare say America is one of the most abundant natural resource countries in the world. Why aren't we taking advantage more of that? And that's where the conversation from, both a foreign policy and domestic policy perspective, really, they kind of Jive together, because I would argue right, and we'll move forward after this. But I would argue that if you were to have a more strong America at home, taking care of it's the Jordan Peters, and take care of your own room first, like clean up our own room, make our own world better that a lot of the issues you mentioned, right, like the not having the the oil flowing through from the Middle East, or going through the Suez Canal, like, oh, maybe we could take care of that by having something like in our backyard, like the Keystone pipeline. Oh, wait, Biden canceled that. But that's the conversation, right? But anyways, we'll move forward. I want, I do want to talk more about this, this Gaza Strip conversation, because Trump definitely, I mean, he's a master, uh, marketer, I would say, if anything. And there was that video that went out, I think, what, two, three weeks ago, and it showed that, yeah, you're shaking your head. It was the Gaza Strip as you know. It was like a Trump Mar a Lago, but Middle East version. So that's it sounded like, you know, a starting out point from a negotiation standpoint, in the Trump administration, helped move us forward from Trump presenting it as Mar a Lago 2.0 Middle East ago. You know, the new version to what we're talking about now with the conversation with the King of Jordan.

Speaker 1  16:19  
You know, I when you mentioned that video, I'm speechless. You know, it's just entirely unpresidential and unbefitting of the White House. And this is coming from a conservative here in the United States. I'm telling you. You know, I was very hopeful during the campaign process of the Trump campaign, you know, that we're going to solve the Middle East. And they went to Michigan and they met with the Arab American community. No more people dying, no more lives lost, your families, your cousins, your whatever, they're all going to be saved. And it was, you know, it's really resonated with the Arab American community. And then, you know, when February 4 comes and he meets with Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House, and they have a press conference, and hear the words Riviera, the Middle East and demolition site and prime real estate for an Arab American. You know, profiteering of war and genocide is really an unhealthy way to gain the community for elections to come. Now, moving back to the Gaza issue itself, like I said, What happened on February 4, Netanyahu Trump, they, you know, revealed the Gaza plan. Now, a week later, the King of Jordan, who's usually, you know, the architect of the Arab negotiating process for the Palestinian issue, he was invited to the White House by Trump himself, and this is the fourth time he's been invited by the new administration in the White House, fourth consecutive time. And you know, first things first, you can obviously say that the way he conducted himself, the way he carried himself, was extremely diplomatic. And the first reason I can tell you why, is going to two meetings after that. Look at the meeting with Emmanuel Macron of France in the Oval Office. You know the hand gestures, the shaking hand pulling back and forth. It was obviously a very tense meeting, and of course, the straw that broke the horses back was with when President Zelensky came into the White House, and we all saw the hostile exchange of words that happened between the Ukrainian President Trump and Vice President Vance. So obviously the king during that meeting, he was very calm, very confident. It was a very tense environment. You know, rarely does press conference be conducted in the Oval Office itself with that much people. You know, it was, it was, it was a cold day. It was very cold in Washington. The fireplace was on. There were at least 40 to 50 people in that room itself. It was a very tense environment. Yet, you know, the king urging the President and wanting to prevent the falling of a Jordanian American relations. He kept the line perfectly. He kept the the friendship He has with the President, which predates him becoming president in the first place. And he maintained the relationship that he needs for the flow of US foreign aid to Jordan that is a primary benefactor of us, foreign aid. And he made sure that he does not alienate his people by befalling into the Trump demands that he should just unilaterally accept the displacement of Palestinians.

Brian Nichols  19:32  
You, you mentioned the foreign aid. Man, I hate to keep on going back here, Abdullah, but you're, you're mentioning things that just make me question, right? Not so much. You just, I'm trying to, like, put this together, because you mentioned creating more or less a Middle East NATO, right? And then the importance of the continued American presence. Give me a solution where America isn't I know we said earlier, like, we don't want them to play the policeman of the world, but like, give me a scenario where. You see this NATO of the Middle East, plus maybe Jordan becoming self sufficient on in terms of their ability to fund themselves and their aid not needed from the US. Like, what does a world look like where we can at least take a step back out of the Middle East?

Speaker 1  20:14  
Well, it's just not attainable. You need to have a presence of the Middle East and countries like Jordan, where, economically, they don't provide the world that much. Jordan is one of the very few Arab countries that does not have an oil based economy. It does not have any natural resources. It is the second most water scarce country in the world. So really, on an economic level, Jordan doesn't really provide, you know, unlike the Saudis, when they come to the Oval Office and they buy multi billion dollar weapons deals from the United States, what Georgia provides is that it is first and foremost, a center of stability and security in the region. As I always said, some it's a rose garden amongst raging volcanos with Syria to the north, Iraq to the east, Israelis and the Palestinians to the west, and Saudi Arabia to the south. It is a very stable country, and it stems that stability from the relationship that the King of Jordan, a strong US ally, has with his own people. It is a very strong military, law enforcement based culture. You know, everyone wants to join the army there. Everyone wants to join law enforcement. And they really like that. And a reason that fuels that culture is us support to that country. You know, Jordan, Jordanian air force crewmen. They fly F 16 American base. They they use M 60 patent tanks in the army, American made. They ride Humvees. American made. They all carry around m4 carbines American made. So the relationship that has done that has produced a stable Jordan that has sufficed American interests to become a stable center for promoting American interests abroad. For example, there are around 4000 US personnel stationed in Jordan right now. They are central for the fight against ISIS, for the Combating against Iranian expansionism, and for, you know, resolving an issue for the diplomatic solution for the Israelis and the Palestinians. So the Jordanians need the Americans, and the Americans, and the Americans need the Jordanian. So really, what Jordan befits the US primarily, is that it is a strong military, defense and security partner that really provides a lot has it has included itself and participated in every US led mission to combat terrorism, to combat authoritarianism and combat extremism, for the past 30 years, and it has done so in a very, very active manner. Okay,

Brian Nichols  22:50  
I'm not, I'm not debating, I promise, Abdullah, I just, I have to play my role as I am the the show is libertarian today, right? Um, first, it sounds like Jordan is in much more need of America support than vice versa, right? And that's, I think, going across the board here. Your the conversation is that America basically is the big guy on the street, right? Like we are, even though we don't want to be you, we are more or less in your world that the world's policeman, and that is the value we're creating, because not only can we back things up financially, but we also have the brute strength of the American American army. But from a sales perspective, it's not a sales guy by trade, right? Just to set the stage, I'm a messaging guy. I'm a sales guy, and it sounds like your positioning is much more of a sale towards the Jordanian citizens to support America than it is to the American taxpayer who is footing this bill to then, in turn, support Jordan. And here's my concern from your positioning is that you're going to create the very world of America, not becoming non interventionist, but truly isolationist by selling only to the foreign citizens who are benefiting from America's America's blood and treasure. And in this case, you're going to lose the support of Bill and John over in Kentucky, who have been voting to support, you know, all these different expenditures overseas with the idea that they're getting something in return, but when they continue to see all the problems that are happening here domestically in America, they're going to start to say, You know what, no, maybe I am going to actually actively vote against sending money overseas, against supporting another NATO. Actually, not just not supporting a new NATO. How about get us out of existing NATO, which, by the way, is a topic of conversation right now. And this is, I think, the part that a lot of folks, more, and I'm not calling you a neocon, don't take this the wrong way. But more in that, more neoconservative, you know, America might, foreign policy perspective might, might argue is that you're actually selling opposite of what your intended goal is. You're you're hurting your your actual buyer, in this case, the person who's. Footing the bill the American taxpayer at the expense of selling to the person who's benefiting. Um, do you see that possibly being an issue? At the very least, you

Speaker 1  25:09  
know that issue resonates not with the Jordanian case. The Jordanian government receives $1.8 billion from the United States government annually. That argument can be implemented to the Ukrainians, to the Israelis, to the Taiwanese, the Ukrainians. Since the onset of the Russian invasion in Ukraine in February 2022 you know, they received so far, $350 billion plus. And which, by the way, we don't

Unknown Speaker  25:33  
like, of course, I

Speaker 1  25:35  
agree with you. You know, the same thing with the Israelis. Is the October 7 attack. They received more than $30 billion in military aid that was expedited. So, you know, those are the numbers that you know should concern the American taxpayer. You know, when it gets to $1.8 billion to Jordan and, you know, $3 billion to Egypt, the countries that really have no anti Americanism in any part of their policy, both internal and foreign, and our staunch US allies, and they provide a significant amount of interest, not just to the US, but to the global stage. I don't really see there's a reason that there should be an argument on the concern of the American taxpayer as to why they should continue to support countries like Jordan and really

Brian Nichols  26:25  
quick, just to make sure we're not crossing waves here on accident. But like the argument is, I look in my backyard and I see tangible problems, right? I can see the trail train derailment. I can see the potholes in the road. I can see the hurricanes that hit the East Coast and wiped away entire communities. I can see the the aftermath of horrible wildfires or the accidents that are happening because of dust storms. I can see all this, feel all this. It's real in my backyard. Everything we're talking about is quite literally 1000s of miles across the world, and it's still billions of dollars going overseas, and that's that's the concern. I'm not saying what your positioning is not correct, but I'm saying in terms of selling it to the average person, they say, Hey, Abdullah, that's great, but and don't take this the wrong way, but I don't care about what's happening over in Israel. I don't care about what's happening in Jordan. I don't care what's happening in Gaza. Not from a humanitarian standpoint, what's happening is horrific in many circumstances. But what I care about as an American citizen, right? And this is where the argument I think you're gonna have to really face, right, is I, as an American citizen, first and foremost, care about America. And it's not to say that I see the I don't see the value of a strong Egypt or a strong Jordan being pro America, but in terms of how it tangibly impacts me, Mr. American tax paying citizen, I don't see the real value from that, like I would if the American government, instead of giving 1.8 billion to to Jordan or 30 billion to Israel, if America said, You know what, let's invest $31.8 billion in just all infrastructure improvements here in America, that's all we're doing, right? That would be a tangible good that the average American can see, and that is, that is the position. I want you to think about more, not so much about the the because you're like, you're going more from the the like the foreign policy, like conversation that people in our world have. But I'm saying to the average person who's voting right to actually decide who's representing me and my interests, and then with that, what are they doing with their votes? I mean, we're even seeing folks like Lindsey Graham starting to change some of their tune when it comes to some conversations in foreign policy, looking at Ukraine, for example. So like you're seeing that some of these politicians now are starting to feel the pressure from the voting base, who's starting to get much more, not just non interventionist, but actually kind of isolationist.

Speaker 1  29:00  
You know, Brian, I hear you, and I hear that narrative very often. But let me tell you something. There's a common misunderstanding that any penny that goes from the United States into that region, the Middle East, is not returned at all. It is completely false. Let me tell you an example. As soon as Trump got into office in January 20, when he had his first inauguration rally in capital one arena in Washington, DC on january 20, that evening, you know what he said? He said, I just got off of phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and he said that he's going to invest $600 billion into the US economy over the next two years. And he said, if you make it into a trillion, I'm going to come to Saudi Arabia. And a week and a half later, he made it into 1 trillion. And that is just one example of the enormous investments that come from that region into the US as. Let me give you another example. Trump's first foreign visit during his first administration was in Saudi Arabia as well. May 2017, and he left with a $550 billion arms package that he signed with them there. And you know, a year after that, in June 2018 Mohammed bin Salman came to the White House, signed a $450 billion arms deal with the these create jobs. These help the US economy. So the region does provide services, you know, benefits, interests, to the American taxpayer, in an indirect way that is not really covered that much. Not to mention, you know, this is a topic of extreme controversy right now. Is the role of the Qataris right now, with them donating to numerous universities and supporting scholarships and fellowships, that's a direct support that the American taxpayer receives from that region. You know that there's more examples of that, but I refuse to believe that. You know, it's a one way street when it comes to money flowing into and from that region. It's a two way street. Now, like I stand firm to my point. You know, the US relationship with countries like Egypt and Jordan is vital to both of them. The US needs them, and they need the US as well. But you know, on a fiscal level, the region does provide to the US, and it does help the American tax rate. I completely agree that, you know, the the potholes on the 495, freeway here in in Washington are just unimaginable. The other day, I was driving on a, you know, someone threw their their beer bottle off the car, and it almost hits, you know, the law and order needs to be revitalized, the graffiti in the streets of Washington, the rusted bridges, the infrastructure, the airports. It all needs revitalization, and that needs to be addressed immediately. I agree, but on the foreign policy aspect, you can't relate an internal policy narrative and implement it on a global stage. It's just unattainable. So

Brian Nichols  32:08  
help me here in steel, Manning your position the best you can, right? Like paint the picture. I guess it for me, if I get what I want, and a lot of folks in the more we'll say just America first camp. They get what they want, right? That we America starts to pull back globally and not, not from a relationship standpoint, we'll still be, you know, friends with as many folks as we can. We'll try to engage in trade with as many folks as we can. But from a an investment standpoint, instead of sending literally trillions of dollars over generations, over to these foreign countries, to invest that here at home in America, like there's that's not even a conversation from a fiscal standpoint of, should we be spending that much from an American standpoint, or should that be private sector? That's a whole libertarian conversation for a different day. But let's just say what we have today, right? If that money were to be spent here at home, give, give me the argument of worst case scenario if I get what I want, like, make me HL Mencken, right, say the average person, you know, they vote, they get what they want, and they get it good and hard, right? Like, help paint that picture for me so I can at least understand your worst case scenarios.

Speaker 1  33:19  
You know, we live the worst case scenario. That's the thing. You know, the US, the US allies in Europe and Canada and Mexico have been ripping off the United States on a trade war for the past. You know, two decades, the tariffs, the the taxes that have been imposed on American goods going into those countries were just enormous compared to the taxes that they are imposed when they enter the United States. It's just crazy. Billions have been made do doing that. You know, in a perfect world, I would say that every possible good that can be produced in America that is currently produced overseas needs to be brought into America. The same goes to, you know, importing things that we don't need to be imported. Why not use them domestically? But, you know, like, I say, from the Middle Eastern perspective, that's pretty difficult, because the only thing that well, it's not really the case anymore today. But you know, the energy sector is the main important thing that comes from the Middle East. But that's not the issue now you have the drill baby, drill agenda right now in the Middle East, in the United States, where, you know, the tri state area of Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania are sitting on a literal ocean of oil. You know, that's an enormous and has so much potential for American, self sufficient sufficiency in the energy sector. And it doesn't just include American, you know, expectancies for for oil. They can export it. You know, the US has the potential to become a world energy. Exporter if it wants to, if it delves into those reserves, and you know, it needs to put the America first narrative in a rational manner, and not a unilateral manner. Because America first doesn't come in a unilateral manner. There's a reason why World War Two was won as part of the allies, and it wasn't just America that won World War Two. America did play the biggest role, of course, but it had the Allies next to it. The same thing can apply to Korea, to Vietnam, to the war on terror, to the effort to remove Saddam from Kuwait. These were done in a multilateral manner. There's a reason why the United Nations exists. There's a reason why NATO exists. The the United States works more efficiently when its partners are with it. However, however, it is extremely important to make sure that those allies do not cross the line and take advantage of the United States, because when they do so, they do it in a manner that really dreads out the United States. They they really drain out all its capabilities that can. And it just puts them in a really bad mess. And you can see it right now. You know, with Ukraine, with the whole Israel issue, with Canada and Mexico, you know, back and forth, with the slamming of tariffs, with Trudeau, it's just not a way to go through and they have to face it. You know, many countries in Europe owe their existence and prosperity to the United States. The same thing can go to Japan and to Korea, who if it weren't for 40,000 fallen US personnel in Korea, South Korea would not exist today. That's all I have to say. All right,

Brian Nichols  36:38  
so I'm going to give my final thoughts, and I'm going to do the opposite. I'm going to position what I think is the worst case the opposite way. And I'm gonna give you the final word here. And I also wanna make sure, you know, as we wrap things up, you tie things back to our article here at Real, real clear world. Say that 10 times fast. Here's my concern, though, right a duel is that, number one, we are on a fiscal cliff ourselves. We are 36 plus trillion dollars in in debt, and that number is is creeping up higher, exponentially, even despite the efforts of Doge. With that, you look into a post 1947 world order at where America has been the dominating force on the the world stage. And while you can argue that the way of life for the average American has gotten much less expensive because of our engagement in foreign affairs, shall we say, in expanding our reach, both in terms of trade but also in terms of foreign might. We've seen both cost of living greatly improve here in America, but the same point in time at a very real expense. You fast forward, both in terms of the dollars and cents being sent overseas in mass, but also the blood treasure from an American military foreign policy perspective, being spent over in all these countries across the world. The number one thing I'm concerned about is that the average person in America is going to focus on the things that they can themselves, see, touch, smell, hear and taste, right? I used to tell this to my sales team when I teach them all the time about the idea of controlling what you can control, right? And your average person is very much in a I'm going to be able to at least control what I can control, and that is, I don't want money for going overseas. So I have a very real fear that in the pursuit of kind of maintaining the status quo of existing organizations like NATO or the UN or, you know, go back to a post a post Cold War America. And the argument that we had for all those old systems was, well, because we had this one big evil country, the USSR, and then all sudden they go away, and it's like, well, oh well, we're gonna keep doing, we're doing we're gonna keep this big military state, because there's always going to be another big boogeyman, right? And it has turned into now where America has become more or less the piggy bank for the world. We are that the parent who's giving out allowances every single day only in this case, it's not a few dollars to go buy something at the down the corner mark, but it's to go spend billions of dollars, be that, you know, for for their own domestic internal affairs, or then using that as a call it a Ponzi scheme. Call it well, you will funneling back to Raytheon and all the other war entities here in America to create the perception that's creating American jobs like this is where I think your average person is gonna say, You know what, I'm out. I'm out. I don't want America involved anymore, so I'm going to start doing is voting for elected officials who are not just America first. They are America only, right? And in that world, I fear that your worst case, imagined world where America literally puts the walls up and says no, nobody else talk to us will become more real and potentially more realistic if we were to go through with your kind of vision for continuing to spread America too thin, because people are feeling it at home. And that's again, I'm not trying to be confident, confrontational, but more so, I think this is the argument that needs to be heard, not so much the the behind the scenes, like foreign policy conversations. That take place. Because while that's important, we have to be able to then take that and package it in a way to sell to your average person. And I'm trying to position where your average person is right now. Like, they can hear the argument that, well, there is investment in a roundabout way, that's great. I don't feel it. I mean, I hear there's gonna be a trillion dollars invested from Saudi Arabia. I would love to see where it's going to go. I love to see, like, see that real, like, very realized to me. But I've heard of investments across the, you know, for the past, what, 7080, years, and I've only seen jobs leave America. I've only seen, you know, issues rise in America from a cultural standpoint, like, we're not in America anymore. We're just kind of a Pluribus Unum from one many, but now it's just one big blob. So people are feeling that they're not having an American identity anymore. And what am I? What am I doing right now? Why are we putting all this effort into all the foreign, foreign affairs? So I think that is the position of doula. I would say, not to necessarily, like, go after that, but like, I would challenge you and a lot of folks more in your camp, to say, let's start better understanding how to sell to that average person. And if we're gonna say, like, there's gonna be really bad outcomes, right? I again, one more thing, one more sales analogy. I had a sales mentor who used to teach me. He actually used to be a Mormon, and whenever he'd go and he would do his conversions, he would always say, Listen, it was easy for me, because all I had to figure out was if a person wanted to go to heaven or if they were afraid to go to hell, right? Like, take that mentality and understand to those people, like, are they afraid of worst case scenario for America, or are they trying to, like, create a better world for America, right? And just help quell those fears. But that's my final thoughts. And I do say this all love and respect true like I love when we have these conversations on the show, because this is how we actually are able to, like solve things and have dialog to move things forward in a better way, is when we hear each other's perspectives and can kind of talk through them. So thank you for being an active participant in this today. I know I enjoyed it. I'm sure the audience is going to love this as well. But with that, final thoughts on your end. Abdul Well, Brian,

Speaker 1  42:06  
you've said it all. You know, I completely agree that the United States should tend to its citizens first and foremost. They should come. They first. They are the priority. But that doesn't mean that, you know, chipping away a little bit from what the foreign imperatives that the US has abroad will immediately resolve the issues that the United States has domestically. It might have an effect to some certain extent, but it would not solve the problem. It is imperative that the United States attends to the domestic issues like infrastructure, like energy, like grocery prices, real estate prices, but the foreign policy aspect is still as vital as it needs, because the United States would not be able to provide the freedoms, the liberties, the the luxury lifestyle that most Americans live today in comparison to the rest of the world, had it not been the sole superpower in the world today. Okay,

Brian Nichols  43:03  
that's your final thoughts. Love it. All right. Cool. Abdullah. Real Clear world. Go ahead. Give us a quick lowdown. Where can folks find this article? Where can folks go ahead if they want you to continue the conversation with you? I'm sure you're going to go into the comments and have a lot of folks either agreeing or disagreeing. Have fun with that. But with that where folks can go ahead reach out if they want to follow up after the episode, but also we're going to go ahead and find some more articles written

Speaker 1  43:27  
by Yours Yours truly. Everything can be found on my Twitter page now called X on a hyac 99 and I can be reached out through there, and I look forward to hearing anyone's perspectives and opinions. Abdullah,

Brian Nichols  43:41  
I lied. I have one more question. How many times do you get asked by the more political folk? Oh, last name, Hayek, like Friedrich Hayek.

Speaker 1  43:51  
He is a very distant relative. Let's say, you know, four or five generations ago. But wait for real, very distant, you know, like ancestral level. Let's say,

Brian Nichols  44:03  
Well, hey, we'll take it because this, Hey, here we go. This is where we all come together at the end of the show. Because this is a libertarian show, right? So you, you can almost guarantee that there are folks here who are like, hey, at the very least, he's got some, he's got some libertarian economist blood flowing through his veins. That's what we care about. We'll take, we'll take the win

Speaker 1  44:19  
where we can get it. Of course, I'm happy to hear that Abdullah has been a great conversation.

Brian Nichols  44:23  
Thank you again for joining in, folks. If you got some value from today's conversation, please go ahead. Give it a share. When you do tag yours truly at B Nichols liberty, I'll include Abdullah's links for all of his social media in the show notes as well. And by the way, yes, we are available on your favorite podcasting platform, so if you want to listen to the show over on Apple podcast, Spotify, YouTube, music, wherever it is, get your podcast. You can go ahead and do that. Just hit that subscribe button. And by the way, we are a video show, so this whole conversation, if you're listening to this right now on your podcast feed, you can watch it over on your favorite video platform, like YouTube, Rumble, Twitter or Facebook, which, by the way, we recently announced we are doing all episodes. Live stream over on x and on rumble at 8pm on Monday and on Friday night. So go ahead and tune in there, and you'll see a live stream of The Brian Nichols Show. But with that being said, we're gonna go ahead and put a pin in today's conversation Abdullah. We gotta have you back. I think that's a really good part one conversation. I would love to have part two sometime soon. So with that being said, Brian Nichols, signing off here on The Brian Nichols Show for Abdullah Hayek, we'll see you next time.

Unknown Speaker  45:24  
Thank you, Brian, take care. Bye.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai