was the prediction that makes Saudi Arabia the most important player in this drama. When and if they take a side, the new narrative is formed. As I was writing this tweet at the same time, Saudi Arabia was announcing that they were going to end all negotiations on normalizations with Israel and they've informed Secretary of State Blinken that it's ending negotiations on normalizing relations according to the Jerusalem Post.

So I'm going to give myself a little bit of credit even though I ended up predicting something that happened half an hour before I predicted it. But it was obvious that Saudi would be the big player. Now of course this is related to the Abraham Accords and the normalization of things. So you assume that Hamas wanted to make sure it didn't get isolated in the region by having everybody be chummy with Israel and having lots of economic ties that would make it harder for Hamas to operate.

So it looks like they won. It looks like Hamas got what they wanted in the short run, which is to tank the deal. So not only did Hamas get an immediate victory of destroying the warming of relations between Saudi and Israel, but they might get a longer-term win by making Israel look like an aggressor far more than people have seen it that way in the past.

Yeah, so there it is. Now do you think the fact that we heard a story with questionable truth that Iran had actually met with Hamas and Hezbollah, it all makes sense now, right? You can see that all of this is gearing up to attack back. Iran, this is the beginning of a war with Iran. It can't go any other way because you know what Israel can't allow to happen? The leadership of Iran to still be alive a year from now. It's not an option anymore. That's what I think.

In my opinion Israel will have to take out the leadership of Iran. I think they'll first take care of business with Hamas, and once they get on top of it sometime between now and the end of the year, there's going to be some explody things happening in Iran and it's going to be over. Now it might make things much, much worse, but they don't have a choice at this point. The current system guarantees Israel's destruction in time. Israel is pretty good at long-range planning, right? Hamas is pretty good at long-range planning it seems, but Israel is good too.

And there is no way they're going to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons so that they can continue funding Israel's enemies forever with impunity. They have to take them down before their nukes are operational. We've had this whole narrative about, "Oh they're going to break out any day, any day Iran's going to be nuclear." At the same time we have the narrative that they just funded an active war, an actual invasion with hundreds if not thousands of victims on the Israeli side. If you put those two stories together, Iran's getting close to a nuclear breakout at the same time that they're funding a war in Israel. Israel doesn't have a choice. They have to take out the leadership of Iran.

Am I the only person who said that directly? As it was coming out of my mouth I was thinking I haven't heard anybody say that directly. But I don't think there's any other choice.

As Jack said it. So my statement, I want to be very clear about my statement. I'm not recommending it. I'm not joyous about it. I'm not celebrating it. We are simply looking at a set of facts that guarantees it. And Israel will never have a better opportunity because at the moment public opinion is on their side, at least outside of the Middle East. And if they wait it'll be too late. Iran will have nukes.

And may I further suggest that America thinks it's the right time too. Why? Because Iran was helping Russia. And so now you have a Ukrainian reason to attack Iran. You have a nuclear breakout reason and now you have the supporting Hamas reason. Are we done? War with Iran is guaranteed and it's guaranteed this year. There isn't any way around it. But I hope it's limited to the leadership. I don't know if anybody's ever pulled that off. When was the last time somebody took out the leadership of a country and that settled things? Does that ever happen? Because you have to still, because otherwise they just get replaced with their supporters who are even worse.

Do you mean 2024? You know this would be the best thing that Biden could do is lose the election. Except I don't think Israel is going to wait that long. I think Biden's going to have to be part of the solution. So this will be a good test of whether Biden is his own person. Because you could imagine that Biden would not naturally be on board with attacking Iran because that would be very different from anything that's come before. But if he does anyway, what would you assume about who is controlling Biden?

You might say to yourself he's not his own person. You might say that Ukraine wants Iran to be taken out so maybe Ukraine has control over him. You might say that the Jewish lobby in the United States, presumably getting very active because that's what they're for, might be persuasive. It might persuade Congress and the president to do something that they would ordinarily be unlikely to do.

So I looked into who is funding Gaza because that's a big question here. So just to give you some numbers so you can kind of understand the landscape. So there are fewer than two million people living in Gaza, which around two million, half of them are children as I said. So that's your demographics. And then how much money are they getting and from whom?

Well from lots of places. Germany actually is one of the people funding the Palestinians. So Germany is funding people who in part are destroying, trying to destroy Israel and kill Jews. That's not a good look for Germany. They might rethink that.

All right. So here are some numbers. These are 2021 numbers but they're probably not too far off. The United States has provided over half a billion in assistance, more than 400 million in humanitarian aid, 75 million in support through some other U.S. thing, and a bunch of COVID stuff. So from 2014 to 2020 UN agencies spent 4.5 billion. So it looks to me like it's in the billion or two per year between what all the Europeans and the UN is doing which is funded by the Europeans and us and what U.S. is doing directly.

Then there's Qatar that's given money there. But basically we're in the low, looks like one or two billion a year here from a variety of places. But do you think that they're going to keep getting that? Who's going to keep giving them money after today? I don't know.

Here this seems like it's unrelated but everything's related. So Governor Noem with the worst timing I've ever seen in politics tweets yesterday, "We just passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment on guns in California." Seriously? The entire news landscape shows armed men with guns running through residential places shooting civilians who have what? What are the civilians armed with? Balls. Yeah, they're armed with their fingers, right?

Apparently you can get a gun in Israel but it's a hard process and you're only going to get one and it's going to be a pistol. That's it. I mean they have really good gun control. Now maybe they need that gun control because they also have a lot of people in their population that might be tempted. But at the moment it's looking like the biggest mistake in the world because people with guns are just wildly killing people without guns.

Now what would that look like in the United States in 2023? Pick any town, any city in the United States and you see the bad guys running through. Except maybe some of the cities where they have really strict gun control. But imagine it in most places. Well actually imagine it in a city. Imagine in a city because you know what would happen if it happened in an American city? Everybody from the suburbs would throw their guns in the back of a pickup truck and start driving in that direction. In about three hours the city would be well armed. They would just, it would be the people from the burbs just showing up with pickup trucks literally with all their guns in the back and all their ammo. And they're saying, "He