reSee.it - Saved Tweet Feed

HKaerialX
Posted - July 11, 2026 at 10:15 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 3:03 PM

@HKaerialX - Cyberdyne Systems

@ryanmauro @camhigby @AmberLanph21831 Cameron Rafizadeh > @camhigby [18 USC §851] 'Acting under the direction of a foreign government or officials' https://t.co/DSuWYYat7L

ValerieAnne1970
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 2:00 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 2:02 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m alarmed that medical malpractice, surgical errors, and improperly prescribed drugs kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. Researchers estimate 440,000 deaths from medical errors—the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S.—yet “death by doctor” is largely invisible and uncounted. I urge: question every prescription and seek second/third opinions.

@ValerieAnne1970 - Valerie Anne Smith

DEATH BY DOCTOR: The 3rd Leading Cause of Death in America Medical malpractice, surgical errors, and improperly prescribed drugs kill people every single day. Hundreds of thousands of Americans die each year from preventable medical harm — not from their original illness, but from the “care” meant to save them. Researchers estimate 440,000 deaths annually from medical errors. This makes it the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States — right behind heart disease and cancer. Yet these deaths are almost invisible. There is no official ICD code for “death by doctor,” so they’re swept under the rug and never properly counted. Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD warned: “Doctor-prescribed drugs kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. Half of these people die while they do what their Doctor told them to do...they die because of the drugs side effects. The other half die because of the errors made by their Doctors.” Wrong drugs. Dangerous interactions. Surgical mistakes. Hospital infections. Misdiagnosis. Medication errors. This is not rare. This is happening every single day. Question every prescription. Demand second and third opinions. Research every procedure. Your life may depend on it.

HealthRanger
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 8:04 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 2:00 PM

@HealthRanger - HealthRanger

Jim Lee (ClimateViewer) on the weaponization of the atmosphere and why weather modification is real. (From our Decentralize TV episode.) https://t.co/9uD8sr8zAm

Video Transcript AI Summary
Mike describes how his work on weather control began about two decades ago, when social media was new and information was scarce. He initially aimed to prove to moderators on the Google Earth community that he wasn’t “crazy” for mapping weather modification projects, and began archiving and learning about the topic. He says he mapped projects on climateviewer.org, and in 2015 created weather modification history dot com. He reports that the site includes 850 newspaper articles from the 1800s to the present, an 180 timeline with references for each event, and a searchable database of about 1100 weather modification and climate engineering patents. He emphasizes that he coded and built the websites himself so the information would be publicly accessible, easy to understand, and organized to show complexity, nuance, potential dangers, and the technology and people behind the efforts. During the conversation, another speaker asks whether climateviewer is a .org or .com domain. Mike replies that it is both. He explains that he originally created climateviewer.com in 2012 after having a blog before that. He says he deleted 400 articles from a previous blog and started over from scratch in 2012, describing it as painful. He states that he was influenced by something called “slave speak,” which he says involved science fiction combining “70% science and 30% BS” to skew his view, and that realizing this led him to re-read his earlier writing “in disgust” and judge it “not up to par,” prompting the restart. Mike identifies climateviewer.com as his original blog/homepage and says he later made Climate Viewer 3D on climateviewer.org. He also references weathermodificationhistory.com and recently created chemtrailfacts.com, noting it is only about 5% complete and will eventually be as large as, or larger than, weathermodificationhistory.com. He frames his efforts as something he enjoys doing, saying he remembers everything he reads and wants to put it down so others can read it.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The history of weather control, you know, it really it's amazing to me that when I started this about two decades ago, the Internet was still, you know, social media had just been born. There was a lack of information. And originally I just started out to prove to the moderators on the Google Earth community that I wasn't crazy for mapping out weather modification projects. And that really started the ball rolling into just archiving everything I could find and learn about the topic, you know, from mapping it on climate viewer dot org to like in 2015, creating weather modification history dot com. You know, it's 850 newspaper articles from the 1800s to present 180 timeline entries with all the references available for each event and about 1100 weather modification and climate engineering patents in a searchable database. I've done a lot of homework and when I do my homework, I want to make sure that it's available to the public. Everything that I've done, I'm a programmer, I'm a graphics artist. I coded these websites myself so that you don't have to listen to this redneck from Sumter, South Carolina talk to you ad nauseum about this. If you're interested in the topic, you can go to my website and spend, like you said, the next five years reading and learning more at your own pace. And I think that that's been probably the best thing that I've done over these two decades is compiling all this information in a place and then making it palatable, easy to access so that people can understand how complex this topic is, where the nuance is, where the dangers are, understand the technology and the people behind it, what their motives are. And that's kind of where I come at it from. Speaker 1: Well, real quick, Mike, I just wanted to correct myself. I said climateviewer.com. Is it .org or .com? Speaker 0: It's both. Climateviewer.com, originally I created that in 2012. I had a blog before that. Um, but honestly, I, I had really, I didn't just eat the red pill. I drank the whole bottle. So I ended up deleting 400 articles that I had written on a previous blog and starting from scratch in 2012 with climate viewer.com, which was a painful experience. But I had realized that I was under the influence of something called slave speak. And I didn't understand how people could use science fiction. That's 70% science and 30% BS to really skew my view of the world. And once I realized what these manipulating words were, I was able to go back and read my own articles in disgust. And I said, you know what, this is, this is not up to par. I gotta, I just gotta start from scratch. And that's what I did. So climateviewer.com is my blog. That's my original homepage. Um, and from there I, I, you know, made a map. Climate Viewer 3D, which is on climateviewer.org, weathermodificationhistory.com. I just recently created chemtrailfacts.com. It's only 5% done, so don't judge me if you go there. It'll eventually be as large, if not larger, than weathermodificationhistory.com. And this is just something I love to do. I'm a creative type, and I remember everything I read, so I might as well put it down so other people can read it.
FurkanGozukara
Posted - April 26, 2026 at 10:35 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 1:53 PM

@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara

Massive bombshell. George Galloway directly accuses Emmanuel Macron and the French government of secretly funding and arming ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Mali. The West is intentionally using terrorists to overthrow African nations and steal their gold. Pure imperialism! https://t.co/A2ZPcHnG0J

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 says that Al-Qaeda and ISIS are “working for the Western countries” that claim to fear and loathe them, citing that French, Belgian, British, and German people suffered at the hands of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Speaker 0 claims those governments covertly assisted ISIS and Al-Qaeda to power, including in Syria, and then recognized and welcomed the ISIS-al-Qaeda leadership in Syria. Speaker 0 references the German government welcoming “the ISIS al-Qaeda chief,” “al-Julani,” and calling him “Mr. President,” and also mentions having seen him holding up severed heads. Speaker 0 argues that Western governments’ “ambivalence” toward ISIS and Al-Qaeda is “well charted.” Speaker 0 then makes an allegation, blaming Macron, stating: “Macron were behind the ISIS-Al Qaeda super growth,” which Speaker 0 says has enabled them to infiltrate thousands of soldiers in an attempt to overthrow the government of Mali.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Smell le rat from the Elysee in Mali today. Now, of course, we already know from multiple places that Al-Qaeda and ISIS, whoever formed them, and I'll come to that in a minute, are working for the Western countries that claim to fear and loathe them as much as it's possible to do. We know that the French people suffered mightily at the hands of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. So did the Belgians, so did the British, so did the Germans at Christmas market after Christmas market. But that didn't stop all of those governments covertly assisting ISIS and Al-Qaeda to power, amongst other places, in Syria. and then recognizing the ISIS al-Qaeda government in Syria, and then welcoming, even though he wouldn't shake Anna Baerbeck's hand. Well, if you knew where she'd been, you might not shake her hand either. But Anna Baerbeck and the rest of the German government were absolutely delighted to welcome the ISIS al-Qaeda chief, the so-called al-Julani, Ashara, and call him Mr. President, even though I have seen him holding up severed heads with my own eyes. So the ambivalence, is that a French word? The ambivalence of Western governments towards ISIS and Al-Qaeda is well charted. So I'm going to make an allegation here. I'm blaming you, Macron. I'm saying you, Macron. Macron were behind the ISIS-Al Qaeda super growth, which has led to them being able to infiltrate thousands of soldiers to try to overthrow the government of Mali.
MarioNawfal
Posted - July 11, 2026 at 12:17 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 1:45 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m following Aaron Maté’s argument that Trump signed two documents in one month that cancel each other out. Clause one of the MOU calls for a cessation of hostilities “including in Lebanon,” yet a later US-brokered Israel-Lebanon deal excludes Hezbollah and lets Israel operate until disarmament is “finished.” Maté sees the same pattern in the Omani corridor and predicts Washington may ultimately walk away, conceding only the strait.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Trump signed two deals in the same month that cancel each other out, and the ceasefire may keep collapsing for exactly that reason Aaron Maté called it in writing the day the MOU landed: this was a pause. His case rests on the paper itself. Clause one commits both sides to a cessation of hostilities "including in Lebanon." Weeks later, Washington brokered a separate Israel-Lebanon deal that excludes Hezbollah entirely and lets Israel keep operating until it judges the disarmament finished. Two American-backed documents, he argues, in direct contradiction, and the strait fits the same pattern: nothing in the MOU gives the US a role in Hormuz, so every push down the Omani corridor reads in Tehran as a grab at the one lever keeping it safe. His endgame map has three exits. Full war, which he doubts before the midterms. A genuine peace deal, which he can't see this Washington signing. Or the likeliest: Trump walks away, conceding only the strait. And his math on that concession turned my head. After hundreds of billions in damage, Iran mostly wants to rebuild and be left alone, and the toll revenue funds exactly that. The detail that lingered: at the NATO summit, Trump sat beside Syria's president, whose old nom de guerre honored his family's roots in the Golan, and touted having recognized Israel's hold on that very ground. @aaronjmate

Video Transcript AI Summary
Debate focused on ongoing uncertainty around Iran, the status of any ceasefire, and the MOU’s ability to withstand clashes. One speaker said the situation is less about Israel than about Trump “dragging himself into war,” arguing the MOU was designed to fail because Trump negotiated a “pause to the war, it’s not peace.” They pointed to contradictions between MOU language and subsequent actions in Lebanon, and described how Iran’s leverage centers on control of the Strait of Hormuz to limit global shipping and impact the economy. The speaker said the MOU’s text assigns responsibility to Iran to set up a mechanism, yet the U.S. chose to send ships through the Omani-controlled part of the strait, leading Iran to fire at those ships to assert control. They then said Trump used the attack as an excuse to declare the ceasefire over, reimposing sanctions on Iranian oil exports and threatening additional strikes on Iranian infrastructure. The conversation also addressed who bombed Iran the previous day. One participant suggested Bahrain and Kuwait, while noting the information is publicly available but unclear and reportedly kept discreet; they also floated the possibility of involvement by the Americas. Turning to Syria and Hezbollah, the discussion asked whether Trump might move against Hezbollah and whether Trump, Erdogan, and F-35s are connected. The speaker argued that, even if Al-Sharaa is in power partly due to Israel, Al-Sharaa has reasons not to help against Hezbollah, including Israel’s prior bombing and destruction of Syria’s military assets. They also described an alleged humiliation involving Trump bragging at a NATO summit in Turkey, including references to recognizing Israel’s theft of the Golan, which the speaker said is personally humiliating for Al-Sharaa given Al-Sharaa’s name and origins. The debate shifted to terminology such as “terrorist” and “terrorist groups,” with one speaker referencing a historical State Department document that described Syria cooperating with the U.S. against Al-Qaeda while a “problem” was that Assad did not take action against Hezbollah and Palestinian groups fighting Israeli occupation. They connected regime change spending to installing a former Al-Qaeda leader. Regarding the MOU, one participant argued it may not be dead and that the current situation could be “bickering” over a key clause related to Iran not controlling the Strait of Hormuz versus American efforts to extract a concession. They said escalation risks exist, but argued the U.S. and Trump cannot afford a full-blown war. The other speaker outlined three options: full-blown war (unlikely), a U.S.-Iran peace deal (not seen as likely under Trump), or Trump walking away—requiring an eventual concession related to Hormuz. They added that each week brings flare-ups and threats to civilian infrastructure, while Iran’s missile capacity could target Gulf state infrastructure. A CNN report was cited claiming satellite images show Iran rebuilding the Talekhan II nuclear site in Parchin, with the roof’s holes allegedly fixed after being previously covered with sand by Iranian military engineers. The speaker tied this to the MOU’s nuclear language, quoting: “Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program,” and described the clause as vague. Finally, the discussion covered the NATO summit in Ankara and whether Trump’s closeness to Erdogan relates to F-35 approvals amid Israel-Turkey tensions. One speaker argued Israel needs enemies, suggested Israeli political rhetoric may be bluster, and said if Trump wants F-35 sales to Turkey, Israel would not be able to block it. The conversation ended with Lebanon, where one speaker said Lebanon is “pretty screwed” and linked the outcome to occupation and land theft policies, arguing Hezbollah’s support in Lebanon will persist because it has a sizable parliamentary bloc and a strong base of support, despite the population paying a huge cost.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: What the hell is going on? War, no war, ceasefire, no ceasefire. Yesterday, someone was bombing Iran. No one knows who it is. Strait of Hormuz closed, not closed. Less ships are going through. Oil is still low. What is going on? Are you still worried Israel could drag the US back into war? It's the most specific question. And do you think that the MOU will be able to survive the clashes that we're seeing right now? Speaker 0: Forget Israel, I'm worried Trump will drag himself into war. He set himself up to fail. I mean, he negotiated this MOU, and when he did that, I immediately wrote an article saying that this was a pause to the war, it's not peace. And the reasons were obvious that, you know, for Trump really to make this a peace deal, he'd have to discard not only his own policy, but decades of US policy towards Iran, recognizing its sovereignty, letting it have an economy, giving it a chance. lifting all these crippling sanctions. And the US won't do that as long as Iran retains its posture of supporting groups in the region that resist Israeli aggression, which Iran is not going to give that up. And so therefore, the US is not going to give up its traditional confrontation towards Iran. So this was designed to fail. And just to cement that, so Trump signs this MOU. And I know you and your guests have talked about this. But he signs this MOU. The first clause says, a cessation to all hostilities, including in Lebanon. And then what does he do? He pushes through a deal in Lebanon that's at direct odds with the first paragraph of the MOU, because his deal in Lebanon excludes Hezbollah. It's between the Israeli government and the Lebanese government. And it basically says that Israel can do whatever it wants inside Lebanon until it decides to leave, until it decides that Hezbollah is disarmed. So he signs two deals, Trump does, that are directly at odds. And then you have the state of Hormuz, where Iran has realized that the only way for it to get the U.S. and Israel to stop attacking it is if it can control the state of Hormuz. That's its main point of leverage because it can do serious damage to the global economy by limiting the passage of ships. So you have the MOU addressing that. And if you read the text, I mean, this depends how you interpret the text. There's certainly nothing in there about the U.S. having a role in the Strait of Hormuz. It talks about Iran being responsible and setting up a mechanism. And what does the U.S. decide to do? They decide to send ships through the Omani-controlled part of the Strait. And so predictably, Iran, knowing that this is the only form of leverage it has, and if it loses that, it's going to make itself vulnerable to continued Israeli-U.S. attacks, it fires at these ships try to assert the control over Hormuz that thought it had under the MOU. And what does Trump do? He then uses that as an excuse to say that the ceasefire is over. He's going to reimpose the sanctions he had briefly paused on Iranian oil exports and threatening to bomb more of Iran's infrastructure. So Trump has set himself up to fail here. So it's no surprise that we're back in this situation. Speaker 1: Who do you think bombed Iran yesterday? Do you think it was Bahrain and Kuwait? Have you been keeping up with those developments? Speaker 0: Not my forte. I mean, what do you think? Speaker 1: I think it's Bahrain and Kuwait. But it's just such a, I'm not, I haven't had a chance to check, talk to anyone because it's just doing so many interviews. But just from the publicly available information, or it could be the Americas, but why would they keep it so discreet and deny it? It's a bizarre thing. It's a very, very bizarre event. But let's go back to something, your forte. Al-Sharaa. Please tell me you don't think that he might actually go on against Hezbollah. Because there's a lot of people connecting Trump, Erdogan, F-35s. And one of the things that Erdogan will do for Trump is to do what Trump has been advocating for for a while and even said that al-Shara'a agreed. But al-Shara'a said to the Lebanese he won't do, and that is to the Syrian president going into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah, which means the destruction of Lebanon and the destruction of Syria through another massive civil war in both countries. Speaker 0: Well, funnily enough, You know, even though I think al-Shara is in power, in part because of Israel, because the dirty war that installed al-Shara in power, it was waged to weaken the acts of resistance, to, you know, take out Syria, which is part of the acts of resistance, and to bleed Syria's allies, Hezbollah and Iran. Hezbollah especially, which entered the Syria war and, you know, took a lot of hits and made itself more vulnerable as a result of being in Syria. So the irony, so even though al-Shara, I think, is in power in thanks partly to Israel. And in fact, after Assad fled, Benjamin Netanyahu went into Syria and said, we deserve credit for regime change. Now, though, al-Shara can say, or he can actually blame Israel if he wants an excuse to not go after Hezbollah. Because what did Israel do after Assad fled? It went on another bombing spree of Syria and wiped out all of its military assets. which now gives Alshara the excuse to say to Trump, listen, I'm sorry, I'd love to help you out against Hezbollah, but I can't because Israel, your ally, destroyed all of our military infrastructure. And that's because Israel can't tolerate any neighbors having any military power. It wants everyone to be weak and divided. And that's why it fueled the Syria war. You know, it didn't care about Assad or Alshara or any faction one way or the other. It just wanted chaos everywhere. And it got that. And then it rewarded Alshara, even though it helped him get into power by blowing up so many of his military assets. So, no, I don't think Syria is in a position, even though it might want to settle the score with Hezbollah, because, you know, al-Shara's al-Qaeda forces were opponents of Hezbollah during the Syria war. They're not in a position to. And it's just humiliating for al-Shara to sit there and listen to Trump talk about them as if they're his proxies, saying, you know, they should go in and fight Hezbollah for him and for Israel. And he also insulted al-Shara. by bragging in front of him. This was at the NATO summit in Turkey this week. They're sitting there together, and Trump is bragging about how much he's done for Israel, including recognizing Israel's theft of the Golan. And for Alshara, that's a particular humiliation, because what was his name before he was named Alshara? He called himself Muhammad Al-Jalani, which means from the Golan. It's a tribute to his family being from the Golan Heights, which Israel stole. Oh, shit. I didn't know that. Trump there sits next to him and brags about how he gave alshara's family namesake the golan heights to israel but that's what happens when you take the side of the us in a dirty war i mean alshara came to power they ousted assad who they really hated but the price of that was now being insulted by trump uh and being deemed to be a proxy to the point where trump can talk about how he wants you to go in and do his dirty work for him in israel yeah it was a pretty small cost for someone that was leading a group a terrorist group to now being on the international stage Speaker 1: with the president of the United States. So I think he's gone a long way. Speaker 0: And by the way, you know, the irony here, you know, this week, what did Trump do for Al-Shara? He removed Syria from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. And it's just the irony of you're going to install a guy who's the founding leader of Al-Qaeda in Syria and a former deputy leader of ISIS. And after he comes in, you're not going to remove Syria from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism. terrorist groups when it's led by a guy who formerly led the Al-Qaeda franchise of Syria and was a part of ISIS when it was in Iraq fighting and killing U.S. troops. It shows how meaningless the term terrorist is. Speaker 1: Terrorist, exactly, exactly. Like what bothers me from this, my learning lesson is not removing Syria from a terrorist group or, you know, saying al-Sharaf shouldn't be president. We'll see. Let's see what he does next. I think we should dictate his actions, not his past, even though we could be very skeptical. my concern when we see things like this is the word the use of the term terror group or terrorist i just think it's been something that applies as isis being the perfect example but it's just been weaponized so much it's become meaningless just like when when israel calls someone anti-semite yeah well yeah i mean what it means now is that syria is no longer in the camp that resists u.s israeli aggression so therefore they're no longer terrorists hezbollah which resists israeli aggression they're terrorists because they resist they're fighting for Speaker 0: national liberation. In fact, I recently read about this. There was a State Department document from a few decades ago in the early years of Assad's rule, and it pointed out that Assad was cooperating with the U.S. against Al-Qaeda and even helping to stop Al-Qaeda forces from crossing the border from Syria into Iraq. So it said that Syria under Assad was providing beneficial cooperation against terrorism. But there was a complaint. Assad was not taking action against Hezbollah and Palestinian groups fighting Israeli occupation. And that was a problem. And that's why he had to be a regime change. And that explains why the US then spent billions of dollars on the sturdy war and they won. They just happened to help install former Al-Qaeda leader into power. Speaker 1: The irony. Let's go back to Iran. don't know i'm i'm not as optimistic as i was before but i was pretty confident that what we're seeing right now is not the death of the mou or the end of the ceasefire which is what trump trump said both these things that the mou is dead the ceasefire is over um but i think this is trump being trump again and we should never you know ignore what he says and look what he does there's negotiations that will happen in a few days the strikes happen for two three days to try to force around to stop controlling the shadow home was um i feel like this is Just them bickering, and that's how geopolitics works, especially after war, them bickering about a very important clause, Iran not trying to control the Strait of Hormuz. We know they control it, but wanting to charge a fee at the Strait of Hormuz, and the Americans trying to get that concession from them, because that would be beyond humiliating for them. And I'm sure American allies are pressuring Trump not to allow them. So I think if this is the case, eventually one of them will blink, and that will be the end of it. One would hope, because there's always the possibility for the escalation trap. But I think, I know the MOU is just a framework. It's not really an agreement. It's very vague and that causes a lot of issues. But I still think what's more likely than not is an agreement, not an agreement, either an agreement or just Trump walking away, but an end of full-blown war because just very simple terms, reality is reality. Trump cannot afford it. The US cannot afford it. Munitions, oil, economy, the allies won't like it. The military stretched thin. Iran, you can't beat them militarily. The list goes on and on. Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, there's three options as I see them. As you just said, a full-blown war, which I strongly doubt will happen. I mean, maybe after the midterms when Trump doesn't have to worry anymore about election chances. Maybe then. But I want to be optimistic and say that a full-blown war is not going to happen because Trump tried that. It didn't work. And Iran has shown it can exert its leverage on the state of Hormuz. So hopefully that's not even an option. So then that leaves a peace deal between the U.S. and Iran, which... i just don't see happening i don't see happening under trump i mean um trump would core up the jcpoa and went to war twice against iran and calls its leadership scum as he did this week i just don't see that and he's surrounded by hawks who hate iran who want regime change the idea of them you know signing an agreement with iran recognizing its sovereignty letting it have an economy that that can meet the needs of its people uh i don't see that so I think the third option is most likely, which is just walking away. Trump walks away and he'll have to give up on the city of Hormuz. That's the one concession he'll have to make. But if you think about it, it's not that much of a concession. He caused hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage to Iran. They're in trouble. They're going to be weak for a while. They're going to be struggling at least for a long time. So in terms of like Iran being powerful, he doesn't have to worry about that. He has to just worry, you know, like what they want to do is to rebuild and be left alone. And they're not going to give up the Soto Formos because A, that helps them raise money for reconstruction. And B, it helps ensure that they're not attacked anymore. So that is the one he'll have to give up on and walk away from. And even that, I mean, he's showing right now he's not willing to do that. But how long can he keep this up for? Every single week you have these flare-ups, these bombings. He's threatening civilian infrastructure. Like this week he threatened the water... desalination plants, but he knows what happens if he does that. Iran still has significant missile capacity and they will target the civilian infrastructure of the surrounding Gulf states. And can Trump really sell them out more than he already has? He's already put them in a terrible position, but they have leverage over him. I mean, they've invested a lot of money in Trump Inc. So I just don't see him selling them out to that degree. Speaker 1: Funny enough, a report just came in now. CNN has released exclusive satellite images. Let me send it to you, Stephanie. You can show it to the audience as well. Showing that Iran has already started rebuilding the Talek Khan II nuclear site in Parchin. Talek Khan II is a heavily fortified, high-explosive testing chamber suspected to have played an important part during Iran's covert Ahmad nuclear weapons program in the early 2000s. It was rapidly expanded before the recent war. So this is a pretty big, this site was buried with sand by Iranian military engineers shortly before the attacks, attempting to protect the internal structure from severe damage. It seems all three holes in that roof have now been fixed. That's a big middle finger when you're building a nuclear weapons, when there's, one of the concessions we accept the Iranians to do is to give up some nuclear concessions. Like the only thing the Iranians could do and would do would be willing to do some nuclear concessions for the right concessions from the U.S. in terms of sanctions and the unfreezing of assets. And I think part of the MOU as well, doesn't it say that the nuclear facilities will remain as they are? I asked people to fact check this, but I thought that was part of the MOU. Not sure if it's part of the final draft. Let me check. So that, but that's, I know the U.S. already breached like half of the MOU as well. But I think the... The MOU, I'm just trying to find it now. Yeah, it doesn't say no. Oh, no, there it is. Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program. So it's very vague. This is a problem with the MOU, which you've been talking about. It is very vague. Anyway, let's go back to another topic I want to ask you about is the Turkey visit, the NATO summit in Ankara. We talked about him humiliating Alshara, but what about him getting closer and closer to Erdogan considering the approval of F-35s while Smotrich talks about imminent war between Israel and Turkey and Netanyahu goes on a press tour saying how Turkey cannot have F-35s. How meaningful is that if Trump does end up giving F-35s to Turkey, which is looking more and more likely? Speaker 0: Well, Israel just always needs an enemy, no matter what. I mean, they're incapable of being a normal functioning state. So Speaker 1: David Plylar, Jr.: Even if Netanyahu is no longer Prime Minister? Speaker 0: David Plylar, Jr.: Even if Netanyahu, yeah. I mean, one of his opponents, Naftali Bennett, he's also vowed to go after Turkey. They're just incapable of living in peace. To justify their existence as an occupier, you know, constantly engaged in aggression. They have to treat everyone as an enemy. Now, the part I understand is Turkey has still, tacitly supported Israel in some ways. They still ship energy to Israel through its ports. And they were allies in Syria, basically. So I've always wondered if this tough talk between them is a bit of a front for both sides. Domestically, in Turkey, it plays very well. The public hates Israel, understandably so. And it lets Erdogan pose as a protector of the Palestinians, even though I think his record on that is mixed. And then for Israel, they just need enemies constantly to justify their existence. They're incapable of making peace. So I don't know to what extent a lot of this blow up between Turkey and Israel is just bluster. But to the extent that it is sincere, to me, it's Israel just not being capable of tolerating any countervailing military power in this region. And Turkey is a big country and they can fight actually. And so theoretically down the line, they could be a threat to Israel. So maybe this is Israel thinking about that. Who do we have to worry about in the future who might come and try to challenge our government? Speaker 1: But if you're going to think like that, you're just going to create enemies. Imagine the U.S. starting to look at some European countries becoming enemies in 50 years' time or Latin American countries becoming enemies. It's just that no other country thinks in those terms. And also Smotrich says the same way we dealt with Iran, we're going to deal with Turkey, something along those lines a few days ago. It's just a bizarre – bizarre way of approaching foreign policy. But what I'm more interested in is what you make of Trump and what he's doing with Erdogan in the F-35s. Speaker 0: Well, he likes Erdogan. He likes him personally. I think he admires the fact that he's a strong man and he's always had a soft spot for him. But whether or not the F-35 sale, because these things take a while, whether or not Trump can push that through and once he leaves office, whether that will still be favored in Washington. I'm not sure. I mean, Turkey is interesting. They they play they try to make nice with everybody. And, you know, I'm not super intimately familiar with their foreign policy. But yeah, look, ultimately, whenever there's a clash between the US and Israel, Israel has to stand down. Israel didn't want Syria, for example, removed from the state sponsor of terror because it wants to keep Syria weak. But, you know, like Lindsey Graham said that even said this week, sorry, Israel, like Syria's cooperated with us against Iran, so they get a pass. And I suspect if Trump really wants to sell F-35s to Israel, to Turkey, sorry, then Israel won't be able to stand in the way. And again, and just on the point of Israel saber rattling, like they've been offered for decades now normalization by the entire region. The Arab League made a peace offer 2002 saying, you grant palestinians self-determination their own tiny little state is 22 percent of historic palestine will all recognize you iran even supported this at some point uh but israel won't accept it so therefore to justify being constantly in the state of belligerence you have to create new enemies and that's what i think they're doing with turkey the last thing i want to ask you about is lebanon uh there's that new deal made between israel and lebanon Speaker 1: What happens with that country, that little country that's in the middle of everything? Speaker 0: Pretty screwed. Yeah, they are screwed. I've said this before. The main answer to me is Israel becoming a normal state and respecting the sovereignty of its neighbors and ending the occupation of Palestinians. If they did that, they would reduce tensions with everybody and make it easier, actually, for Hezbollah to integrate more into Lebanese society rather than being this army within a state. But as long as Israel insists on its current policies of land theft and occupation, genocide, Hezbollah will maintain a strong base of support. I know it's not the whole country, but it's a sizable amount of the country, and they are part of a major parliamentary bloc in the Lebanese parliament. And what the U.S. and Israel are basically saying to Lebanon is they have to be wiped out. And they're essentially calling for a major segment of Lebanese society to be wiped out. And as we're seeing, that's just not going to happen. People are going to resist. Hezbollah has the base of support to resist, even though it's coming a huge cost to the population. So, yeah, Lebanon, it's not looking pretty. I agree.
RickSanchezTV
Posted - July 9, 2026 at 4:50 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 1:35 PM

@RickSanchezTV - Rick Sanchez

If the Strait of Hormuz is the nuclear bomb, then Bab el-Mandab could be the hydrogen bomb. If the US keeps escalating against Iran, Yemen has threatened to back Tehran by shutting down the Bab el-Mandab Strait. Millions of barrels of oil pass through it every day, along with container ships carrying everything from consumer goods to pharmaceuticals. Close both chokepoints, and you're looking at a crisis that could devastate the global economy. Tune in to the Sanchez Effect.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker explains that there are two key straits in the discussion: the Strait of Al-Mandab and the Strait of Hormuz. The speaker identifies the Strait of Al-Mandab as the route Dmitry Medvedev, head of Russia’s Security Council, recently called a “hydrogen bomb.” The speaker then says the Strait of Al-Mandab is under threat because Yemen geographically controls the narrow opening that leads from the Red Sea into the Mediterranean. The speaker states that Yemen is an ally of Iran and is “going at it once again” with Saudi Arabia by threatening Yemen’s airport, seaports, and sea lanes. The speaker argues that this matters because Saudi Arabia gets much of its oil into the world through these routes. They claim the Strait of Al-Mandab may be even more vital than the Strait of Hormuz, and they specify that nine billion barrels of oil flow through the Strait of Al-Mandab every day. The speaker describes how cargo moves through the route: ships enter or exit through the strait, travel through the Red Sea, and then go through the Suez Canal before reaching the Mediterranean. They add that goods travel through these shipping lanes, affecting not only oil but also broader cargo movement. Finally, the speaker emphasizes the consequences if both straits—Hormuz and Al-Mandab—are shut down, stating that a fourth of all the world’s oil, all the world’s gas, all the world’s fertilizer, and all the world’s chemicals would not be able to get in or out through those routes.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's actually two straits involved here. This that you see right here, this is the Strait of Al-Mandab. It is what the head of Russia's Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, usually recently called a hydrogen bomb. So if this is a nuclear bomb, they're saying this is the hydrogen bomb. And right now, it is also under threat because Yemen, seen right here, geographically controls that tiny little opening that goes into the Red Sea and goes into the Mediterranean right now. they are threatening again to shut it down. Remember, Yemen is an ally of Iran, right? And Yemen is, as we speak right now, going at it once again with Saudi Arabia by threatening their airport and their seaports and their sea lanes. This is how Saudi Arabia gets much of its oil into the world. Can you imagine? In fact, you know what? The Strait of Mandab, based on what I just talked about, just through Saudi Arabia alone, may be an even more vital source or a vital pathway than the Strait of Hormuz. Nine billion barrels of oil alone flows through here every single day. That's a lot. It's how cargo, not just oil, gets into the Mediterranean. Goods travel through ships right through. They go in through here or out through there. They go through the Red Sea right there. Then they go up, see up there? That's the Suez Canal. And then they go into the Mediterranean. So think, I mean, duh, right? Think about what would happen if both the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Al-Mandab, both this one and this one, are shut down. A fourth of all the world's oil, all the world's gas, all the world's fertilizer, all the world's chemicals would not be able to get in and out of here or in and out of there. RIGHT?

@RickSanchezTV - Rick Sanchez

Let me explain why Iran and the US are trading shots again. Under the MOU, Iran was to control the Strait of Hormuz shipping corridor for 60 days. Trump instead quietly backed a second route along Oman's coast, bypassing Iran's control. Tehran fired warning shots at a vessel using the new corridor. The US used that as justification to resume bombing Iran. There's no way to spin this as Iran being the side that broke the ceasefire.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Paragraph 5 states that the United States has agreed that Iran would control the Strait of Hormuz, noting the strait’s scale in the context of the area shown. This control is described as lasting for the next 60 days, or about two months. The transcript says the United States attempted to work around Iran’s control by establishing another corridor within the Strait of Hormuz, positioned closer to Oman. This corridor is identified as the “southern corridor,” with the existing area labeled the “northern corridor,” aiming to split Iran’s exclusive control by effectively taking control away from Iran at least in part. Iran is described as rejecting the plan, stating “no, no, no,” and refusing to allow the second corridor. The transcript adds that, within the last 48 hours, Iran fired a warning shot at a ship attempting to enter through the southern corridor. It states that Iran did not hit the ship or blow it up, but fired into it to demonstrate that Iran would not permit the second corridor to occur.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Paragraph 5 said the United States has agreed to the fact that the Iranians would control the Strait of Hormuz, this little area right here, which looks big in this picture. In reality, it's pretty small. They would control the Iranians for the next 60 days, right, for the next two months. Well, it looks like the United States has tried to find a way around that by establishing another corridor. right, within the Strait of Hormuz. And this other corridor would be one that's closer to Oman. In fact, you see it here in white, right? See that white bordered line that we put for you right there? They call this the southern corridor. So they call that the northern corridor and this the southern corridor, right? Thereby essentially taking Iran's exclusive control away from them, or at least trying to split it in half. Of course, Iran, that you see up there, is saying, no, no, no, we're not going to let that happen. Which is why yesterday, or within the last 48 hours, they fired a warning shot at one of the ships that was trying to enter through this southern corridor. They didn't hit it, they didn't blow it up, but they fired into it, right? To show that they're not going to allow this second corridor to take place.
MarioNawfal
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 7:50 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 1:24 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m watching the U.S. bond market, not just the Iran war. I argue the real crisis is confidence in government debt breaking down. If it does, the Fed may have to create more money to support bonds. Investors are already shifting quietly toward gold, oil, commodities, and agriculture. The risk is the belief that Treasuries are always the world’s safest asset.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

Technical Analyst and Market Strategist Michael Oliver says everyone is watching the Iran war, but the real crisis is already forming inside the U.S. bond market, and when it breaks, it could hit everything. For decades, investors have treated U.S. government bonds as the safest asset on Earth. Michael says that assumption is beginning to crack. He argues the real crisis isn't inflation, it isn't recession, it isn't even the Middle East. It's the growing possibility that confidence in government debt starts to break down. If that happens, the Federal Reserve will have to create even more money to support the bond market. And he believes investors are already starting to prepare for that shift by quietly moving into real assets: gold, oil, industrial commodities, and agriculture. Assets that can't simply be created with another round of monetary expansion. He also pointed to something that rarely gets discussed. The biggest bubble is the belief that government debt will always remain the world's safest investment. If that confidence disappears, the consequences won't stay inside the bond market; it will ripple through virtually every corner of the financial system. Most of the world is focused on the next missile strike on Iran, but he's watching the next Treasury auction. Because in his view, history won't remember the Iran war as the event that changed the markets. It'll remember it as the distraction that kept everyone looking in the wrong direction while the real crisis was gathering underneath their feet. @Oliver_MSA

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on why oil prices dropped quickly despite a wartime energy choke point and ongoing supply constraints, alongside a broader explanation of how fiat currency degradation and monetary excess influence asset pricing. The first speaker notes that during the war, many people discussed oil at $150–$200, but oil prices then fell rapidly. The speaker adds that even after the ceasefire, ships coming out of the Strait of Hormuz have remained significantly less than before the war. A guest discussion referenced the “crack spread,” arguing that paper spot prices differ from the price of oil actually coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. The speaker asks Michael for analysis of the current oil price and why it dropped, questioning claims that “something just doesn’t add up.” Michael argues that focusing on transitory news events is an error. He says larger, long-term repricing factors are underway across asset classes, especially the degradation of money units (dollars, euro, yen)—the unit used to measure asset value. He explains that his approach turned bullish on oil in January based on “long-term momentum technicals.” He describes oil as having risen from around the mid-50s (West Texas) to about 65 by the January close, and he characterized this as the start of a bull market, even though he did not anticipate the war. Michael states that “headline chasers” drove oil higher too fast when the war began, leading to an upside surge. He claims oil reached about $117 during the initial surge in March (after the war began late February), but then “they puked it back up,” causing oil to fall too low—almost back to the original buy point (around 67–68). He emphasizes that this drop reflected “technical excess” and the rejection of excess buyers who entered at higher levels, triggering selling that “had nothing to do with whether the war’s actually ending.” When pressed on the apparent mismatch between supply constraints and prices falling into the 60s, Michael reiterates that speculative war-driven price action likely created a mini-bubble that later corrected. He says the choking situation is “likely to be transitory” and that markets may be pricing broader factors rather than only the war headline. Michael then expands the framework: asset prices are measured in fiat money that constantly degrades, influenced by money supply dynamics. He argues this affects commodities, stocks, and other assets, and he describes a belief that investors eventually move money when certain assets become over-loved or overvalued. He cites long-term historical comparisons using the Bloomberg Commodity Index: 240 in 2008, under 60 in 2020, then rising to about 140 after investors returned, with a pullback during the Ukraine war and a later reacceleration, yet still below 2008 levels. He concludes that commodities remain historically underpriced versus their own history and other assets, and that a broader shift in money flow toward commodities is a prime driver. The conversation connects this to government bond and banking stress. Michael discusses a potential shift away from the “60-40” allocation framework (stocks/bonds) toward a 60-20-20 structure including gold, and he links this to eroding trust in government bonds. He references Fed actions such as buying Treasury bonds and says that yields and bond price charts show problems despite interventions. He suggests that if long-dated bonds break key lows, it could become headline-driven, force stronger monetary responses (“fire hoses”), and impact financial institutions broadly, pushing attention away from sectors like AI and semiconductors toward debt-market issues. On systemic risk, Michael compares global market behavior to earlier waves, saying China and Japan move similarly to broader market pivots and implying that a government/financial crisis could trigger market-wide “wave effects.” He also says the banking sector appears anemic versus the stock market and cites technical vulnerability signals in areas including large banks and credit-card companies. Finally, on China’s economy, Michael says he has no opinion on China’s economy, but he discusses the Chinese stock market as linked to long-term momentum metrics and suggests topping dynamics that could appear in both Shanghai and the U.S. He adds that he expects stock market rollovers to occur in ways that may coincide with bond-market stress, potentially after the war headline abates.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In the midst of the war, which many argue has not really ended, what Trump says, the ceasefire has ended. So Trump says the war is still ongoing, if you want to listen to what he's saying. But a lot of people during the war, Michael, were talking about $150, $200 oil. And then oil prices dropped so quickly, even though the ships coming out of the Strait of Hormuz are still, and have been, since the ceasefire, significantly less than they were before the war. So from a supply demand perspective, a lot of people are looking at it and just saying, it doesn't make sense. I had one of my guests talk about the crack spread and his argument is that the price, the spot price on the markets, the paper price is not the same. It's very, very different to the price of the oil coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. That's the crack spread there that they were talking about. So I'd actually would love to get your analysis, Michael, of the current price of oil. Why did it drop so quickly? And what's your analysis? What's your answer to all the people saying something just doesn't add up? Speaker 1: Well, I think looking at transitory news events that seem to shape the world is an error. There are bigger things underway in asset class pricing or repricing or underpricing and overpricing, regardless of whether you talk about stock market, oil prices, commodity prices in general, price of monetary metals, etc. The bigger long-term fundamental factors, primarily the ongoing degradation in the money units, that which we buy oil with, dollars, euro, yen, whatever. It's our unit of measure, how we measure the value of something. And if you look at oil, we turned bullish on oil based on our own unique long-term momentum technicals back in January. And oil, frankly, then was already just turning up from lows in the 55 area, I'm talking West Texas, and got up to 65 at the January close. And we said, that's it, bull market commencing. We didn't provide reasons. We certainly didn't anticipate the war, which occurred, you know, a month later. But our technical said, this guy is turning up after a very long protracted pullback. Remember back in 2022, oil was 130. So it not only had been cut in half, it had been cut to like a third to $55. So the question then is, well, isn't this asset maybe just underpriced relative to everything, relative to commodities, relative to its own history, relative to the stock market. Oil was cheap as hell at that point. So in January, we put out a buy signal. We expected the uptrend to last probably for several years. But unfortunately, we had the headline chasers. the guys who came in based on Iran, like that's the only thing that mattered. And yes, it certainly mattered because it constrained, you know, oil shipments, but they overdid it as they usually do on war news. It's like, that's the only thing that matters is the war, okay? How about that oil is just cheap as hell, off the page cheap, historically speaking, by its own metrics measured versus any other asset. And the thing we measured by pieces of paper, are changing in value. The oil in 2022 was 130 and now it's 65 in January. So we said buy it. It broke out and we, unfortunately, they came in where? March 3rd was the first, I think, trading day after the war began at the end of February. Oil goosed, got up to $117 a couple of times in that surge in the next month or so. What it meant was that, yeah, we were right, it was going up, but we didn't expect this reason. There's bigger, broader reasons. you had an orgy of news chasing traders. And we argued at that time that we're bullish on oil. And we think, yes, you could go to 250, 300 or even higher in the next several years for longer term reasons. But we knew that when these kind of guys come in, they get dumped on. It's very rare when war chasers make money sustained. So sure enough, they collapse the oil back down. And we got down to a low, I think of 67 the other day or 68. Right now it's in the low 70s. It came back to our buy point. And I think now it's refreshed enough to where it can go up on its own reasons, regardless of the Iran war. So I bet when that war finally goes out of the picture, however, however that happens, the oil is still going to go up. And that's, so I think the Iran war is a transitory and confusing event. Speaker 0: But why, okay, so why did it drop so much? Simple question. If you've got the world's biggest energy choke point closed up and not enough ships coming out, isn't it basic supply and demand the price should be higher? I understand if you want to say $120 is too high, people projecting $150 to $200 is too high. But 60s, back to 60s when the strategic petroleum reserves are still being drawn down and ships are barely coming out? Speaker 1: I think the reason for that was simply the technical bubble created by headline chasers who, one, created excess on the upside by taking the market from 65 in January. And when you open March, I think we were trading in the 70s. And boom, we ran up to 115, 117. And just like they drove it too far, too fast on the upside, when they puked it back up, it went down too low probably as well. Went almost all the way back to our original buy point. So it's a technical excess. It's not saying that no oil should be valued at 70. You puked out a lot of people who bought oil at 100, 110, and they just got stopped out. Therefore, a lot of selling hit. Had nothing to do with whether the war's actually ending or not. Had to do with Excess buyers got rejected, paid their dues. Speaker 0: But for buyers to be rejected to that level, to the 60s, doesn't that sound a bit bizarre? Yes, it does. Because there is a genuine supply constraint, a major supply constraint, the biggest constraint in many, many decades. Speaker 1: Yes, yes. You would think it would. And I think it will. But I think that was a speculative bubble, in effect, a little mini bubble. where they drove it too far, too fast on headline news that could be transitory. Maybe we win the war, or maybe somehow the Iranian government isn't in control anymore. These are all speculative events. We don't know the answer. And yes, it is a choking situation, but it's likely to be transitory. And I think maybe the market knows that. But there are far bigger reasons why oil should go up that are not specifically tied to a headline. Speaker 0: What are those reasons? Speaker 1: The reasons are that asset prices move. Generally speaking, we live in a world where the thing you use to measure asset prices is fiat money, unbacked paper money that degrades in value constantly. And therefore, if an asset sold, if oil was 120 back in March of 2022, yeah, 130. and it collapsed too far it's still the the measure the money unit we measure by is degraded in value even since 2022 due to the the best way to answer that is get an m2 chart a money supply chart and you'll see an upward parabolic curve well this is true with the euro the yen etc where the money is degrading and therefore the price that is attached to this or that asset is affected by the degradation in the money unit. We don't live in a stable world because our money unit, our unit of measure is totally unreliable, unpredictable, and we're not factoring that into the pricing of oil. So if oil was 140 a decade ago and it's now 70 or something, that's half its price. But if you factor in the money supply issue, it's probably cheaper than that even. Speaker 0: But wouldn't that apply? Yeah, I do. Of course. Wouldn't that apply to all other commodities, though? Speaker 1: Yes, it would. Yes, it would. It would apply to stock prices. It would apply to commodity prices. And over time, we'll see if you look back 50 or 100 years at stock market movements and commodity asset movements, they don't always move in sync. Quite often, investors will finally decide that after enough years of stock market buying and overpricing the stock market dot com bubble for example or the real estate bubble uh that they'll move the money somewhere else and the money flow continues because the governments keep printing money for this cause or that cause mainly to sustain their their budgets uh and right now we have a potential for a massive increase in monetary excess and that potential is not a potential it's a likelihood the degradation in the government bond market. This time we have the biggest potential fire that we've ever had that needs to be put out. The Japanese have been dealing with it by what? Print, print, print, to quote the prime minister of Japan. And we know that our president wants rates lower and the Fed will come in, even though it's not a mandate, they will have to print to defend the U.S. government bond market. In fact, they've been buying T-bonds since November. And if you look at a T-bond price chart, futures, for example, they've been going down since November, meaning yields up. They've not been able to stop the decline. That is a crisis that's so big that will spark even more monetary excess. Hence, further degradation in the thing we use to price assets. Therefore, once investors get sour on something they've loved for a decade, in our case, 16, 17 years, the US stock market. And it starts to wobble, starts to create doubt, uncertainty. We already know that's begun, especially among some big asset managers. The money starts to move elsewhere. Everything doesn't go down when the stock market goes down. Gold always goes up in stock market bear trends. Go back to the 1929 to 32. Gold miners exploded, stock market went down 80%. Anyway, the point being that when these asset class shifts, that money flow, which is ongoing, now about to accelerate, will move somewhere else. And when you measure commodities as an asset category, such as take the Bloomberg Commodity Index, for example, go back to 2008, the Bloomberg was 240. Right now, the Bloomberg Index, made a bear low in 2020 below 60. Commodities were worth 240 Bloomberg Index in 2008 and in 2020 were worth under 60. What, are they going to be free? Well, finally investors came in, drove up to 140. Then the war began in Ukraine. Commodities pulled back during that war. So did oil, by the way, even though it was a war. And now a firm back up and there are 125 right now on the Bloomberg. We're still half the price what commodities were in 2008. So obviously the money flow that's been created, visible in money supply charts from Japan, US, Europe, et cetera, hasn't been going into commodities. They've been vastly underpriced relative to their own history, relative to other key assets like the stock market. And once you get an asset or an asset category in this case, is so vastly underpriced by any way you want to measure it is it going to go free no it's going to finally reassert itself that is a subjective decision often made by investors asset managers who say okay this one this category has been great but i'm getting out i'm going to go somewhere else well where did they used to go government bonds remember the 60 40 rule Well, several months ago, we've seen some CIOs of various major firms on Wall Street say, uh-uh, 60-40 is out the window. It's now 60-20-20, gold, which is finally an acceptance that monetary metals have value and that maybe our notion that government bonds are safe is eroding. They're going out the window. The Japanese were one situation. Now, suddenly, if the US becomes the next situation, Wow. What does that do to that asset category in terms of generating fear, pricing changes in other asset categories? A lot. And I think that's where we are. I think that's probably one of the prime drivers of commodities. Speaker 0: Someone told me today that Germany struggled on their bond sale. I think it was half only subscribed. Half of it was subscribed this week. Not sure if you know what he's referring to. You mentioned it to me earlier today. They were doing a Speaker 1: on selling on the uh the demand just wasn't there yeah well that's that's interesting it's just another piece of the overall puzzle that's coming apart here and you can't have that occur because if the investment public if pension funds if governments won't buy our bonds then that creates a crisis that's far bigger than anything you can imagine in the stock market because it's bigger than the stock market And if these guys are right, the CIO, if I think it was Morgan Stanley, I think was the first one, who said, no, the 60-40 is 60-20-20 now, he was aware of something going on there. And our technical work argues that we're at a point now in history, market history, where this next phase, this new asset class shift will disfavor the bloated paper assets that have been boosted by monetary expansion over the recent decades. And we had free interest rates 10 years out of the last 15 almost in the US. We're talking the short-term rates. So it created a flow of money into an asset category that's now, we argue, technically well overdone. And when that shifts, that money's going somewhere. And we already see the evidence that it's moving into the commodity categories. We measure it technically. And the Bloomberg, by our metrics, turned up long-term bullish again in October of last year. well before the oil surge. And price then of Bloomberg was 106.50. It's now 122, 125. So it's, you know, it's... 126. Yeah, it's a good appreciation without headlines because oil really didn't contribute to this. It was the broad commodity complex. Speaker 0: By the way, I checked, I tried to find the German bond sale news. I couldn't find anything on it. So maybe my guess was mistaken there. essentially what you're saying is that the trust in government bonds is eroding because trust in the as you called it at the beginning of the conversation the ongoing because the ongoing degradation of the money units used to price commodities the the us dollar and other currencies as well and there is no alternative safer alternative to the us dollar so where that money is going instead is commodities and that's why you're bullish on the commodity index call which includes oil Speaker 1: And likely the dollar will demise as well. We turn bearish on the dollar in 2025 at a price of 104.50. Right now it's trading around 100 and 101, primarily because weakness in the yen, which is one of the major factors in the dollar index. Euro and the yen constitute 70% of the dollar index. The euro has been strong over the last couple of years, but the yen has been conspicuously weak because of the bond crisis. But that could change as well. And I think the dollar is in, state of technical demise that likely is to go a lot lower in the dollar index remember that's merely measuring one piece of fiat versus another it's not measuring true value it's relative of one fiat to another all losing value constantly but i think that's another factor that could come into play and be noticed by investors and asset managers uh that will further probably hurt the t-bonds as well well the t-bonds are hurting the dollar either way uh A major change is occurring underneath the surface here, and it's not going to be ultimately looked back upon as, oh, that's because of Iran or oh, that's because of this. It's going to be because of these very broad glacial events that are underway. And expressing themselves in different ways where money is going to move out of what used to be fully respected, the US dollar, for example, or the stock market. And we are a bubble, by the way. China, for example, has since 2009 bear low doubled in a half in price, the Shanghai. We've gone up 20 something fold on the NASDAQ. So while they've moved up with us and most global stock markets will move with us, they're not a bubble, we are. And when that bubble breaks and now we're also facing our government bond crisis, we've got a nuclear event here And I think it's only at the initial phases of acknowledgement. The Fed obviously acknowledges it because they've been buying T-bonds. Supposedly, according to Williams, the head of the New York Fed back in November, who said we're going to start buying bonds, just to provide just liquidity to the market. Right. They're trying to support it. And it hasn't worked. And we think via our technicals that what's about to happen in the bond market could become sudden headline. And when it becomes sudden headline, it'll impact financial institutions even more so than it already has. Debt markets, not just US government, but private and corporate debt. We know that it's at dangerous levels. And therefore a lot of investor perception about where should I be? And I think one of those categories that will be acknowledged, especially once the Iran thing sort of gets out of the way is, Why are commodities still going up? And there'll be a recognition that maybe, well, they're just historically cheap. It's a good, safe investment bet and they're not gonna clobber it anymore. It's done going down. The issue is now what speed does it go up? And we think for over several years, you could have a major investment grade asset class rise, including in stocks that are related to the commodities. such as grain related stocks or base metal related stocks, oil related. They can all appreciate due to the general rise in commodity asset prices, not because of just the Iran thing. Speaker 0: And the Iran thing could just exasperate it. A long term trend that's going to happen for fundamental reasons you've explained. But the Iran war could accelerate it or make it harsh. Speaker 1: Or it could dissipate or You know, I don't see how it could get worse. I mean, you know, if you've cut off the oil, the question is can that really last? And, you know, I don't want to get too involved in that subject matter because we don't like to when we consider it frankly transitory and not the real factor underlying the commodity asset class rise or oil rise even. But I cannot see it continuing forever. We already know Iran is in economic troubles domestically, and therefore that puts pressure on the government. But, you know, I don't know how it's going to end up and I don't want to get involved in that. I have some ideas, but it's what are my ideas are good as the next guys. I don't think it's a permanent event. And I think once it passes and people then realize, well, how come oil is going up again? How come it's reasserting itself? That's when you'll get finally an acknowledgment by investors. There's some bigger reason here why oil's going up. It's dirt cheap. Speaker 0: Looking at the Treasury yields, what do you expect it to get up to? Because I've had a lot of my guests wonder, 5% mark is pretty concerning. Speaker 1: I'm not sure on that. We don't have a target on T-bond, especially T-bond, long-dated bonds, 20-, 30-year bonds. We simply say we're at a technical point now in T-bonds. Forget the short end of the market that the Fed can control. They can up down rates there and it won't necessarily impact at all the 30-year bonds. You look at a chart and make that point. The 30-year bonds at price, they had a price collapse starting from 2020 when I'll give you some prices here. T-bond futures were at 190. Yields were low. T-bonds collapsed between late 2020 to late 2022 down to 117. about 190 to 117 yields went up but since october it was in 2022 you can draw a line sideways on a t-bond price chart and it's comatose dead we've had multiple rallies in bonds meaning attempts to drop yields and and then renewed drops in price but there's been a floor on the price chart of the bonds that we're now back sitting on meaning yields are pressing at the multi-year highs So whatever the Fed has tried to do to help abate that, nothing has helped. And we're at a technical point now where it's even evident on the price of the bonds that, oops, they plunged through those lows. Where are we going? You could have a crisis type news event if the bonds break that low. And we think they are because momentum is already saying they're going to bust that low, meaning new high in yields, new lows in price. That's when you'll start to hear headlines from financial TV channels that don't discuss this very much, that suddenly this is a big issue and the Fed will have to come in. And when it's noticed that the Fed comes in with fire hoses, which they have to do, they can't let the house burn, even if it's not a mandate and it's not an unemployment issue, it's not an inflation issue, it's saved the government debt market issue. If they come in with big fire hoses, like the Japanese, the BOJ has done, There's going to be an increased acknowledgement, probably very fast, panic-type acknowledgement. Uh-oh, something's underway here. And it impacts every other asset out there, including the stock market, because we have a lot of credit problems we know in the financial sector. And when that hits, suddenly all the discussion of what is AI doing, what are the semiconductors doing, will take second place to what's going on in the T-bomb market. Are we like the VOJ again? Oh, gosh, we've joined that club. So the whole world could be upended. And because of a sudden perception that, my God, the monetary excess is going to begin real big this time, because they have to print the money to save the bonds. That's, if I were to fundamentally summarize what I think is a driving force right now, I think that is the driving force. Speaker 0: there a level where or do you worry this could get to a level where it's no longer just kind of a a commodity super cycle but it comes something a lot more concerning a lot more uh what was the term used during the o8 financial crisis uh system system systemic yes yes the systemic risk for the for the world economy yeah yeah uh we are a world economy after all and that's we pointed this out in a report on the shanghai recently comparing it to the s p well Speaker 1: The S&P has gone up a dozen, 15-fold. The NASDAQ has gone up 20, 22-fold. They've only doubled in half. But their moves in the Shanghai are pretty much coincident with our moves, the up and down moves, the pivotal highs, the pivotal lows. So it is a world market. China is part of it, obviously. And so if we go down, the world market will go down. Japan wasn't enough, apparently. But we join in with Japan, suddenly it's a global financial crisis, government financial crisis. And no doubt that will cause a lot of trembling in the stock market bubbles out there, especially ours. Japan is also a technical bubble, the Nikkei. Europe is not so much a bubble in terms of the multiple gains it's seen since 2009, but it'll break too. But all these things are tied together. And I think, yes, you'll have systemic wave effects. that will suddenly people say, well, this is connected to that. And why did this bank go? You can't have a bad headline about a big bank right now. We very closely are watching the banking sector. And a lot of people were happy because the banks have firmed up recently. But if you look where the banking sector is right now versus where it was in 2022, remember S&P back then made a high at about 40, I think it was 4,800. Well, look, we're now 7,500. The banking sector is about 10 to 15% higher than it was in 2022. It was only marginally higher than it was four years ago. So it's very anemic when you compare it to the stock market. And we see a lot of also negative starting to show up technically in the financial sector broadly. Last October, for example, we put out a report saying, watch out, the credit card companies look technically vulnerable. And if you look at Visa or MasterCard since last October, no, there's no crashing effect. But they've just been steadily going down, down, down, as if they're not even part of the stock market. And we also see some extreme vulnerability potentials in some of the major banks, not the regionals. Regionals were headlines a couple years ago, but everybody, yeah, it's okay, just regional. Talking about the big name banks. don't have much tolerance on the downside price if they do they're going to trigger some long-term momentum breakage that could spark a pretty significant price decline so we notice these things going on and we think that the driving force ultimately is that potential debt crisis which we're already in but it's just not acknowledged yet and so yes major wave effects Speaker 0: Last thing I want to ask you about, Michael, is the Chinese economy. Depends who I speak to. They have a different story. What's your thoughts on how they're doing? Speaker 1: I don't have an opinion on their economy. I don't have any opinion on that. As far as their stock market goes, their stock market is right now dancing at levels that you probably don't want to close the month out any month during this quarter where you're trading right now because it will break some of our long term momentum metrics. whenever that occurs in shanghai or it occurs in the us the similar thing will happen in shanghai and vice versa so we think that the u.s stock market is also in a topping process and there are key levels below not visible so much on price but on our momentum metrics long term that if you sneeze a bit and ooze back down not in a crash type way just you know ratchet you way back down below certain levels that aren't far below our recent lows, which we were at 7,300 on the S&P, for example. You don't want to go there because you're going to start to break some long-term momentum technicals that argue, uh-oh, you've topped. And we're flexible on that, by the way. We've been thinking the stock market would peak over the last couple of years. And when we had that war sell off, remember S&P also sold off during the war while oil went up. we we decried that anybody selling the stock market here is going to get hurt because you're not going to have a bear market with a bear headline like that anybody shorting the u.s stock market you're going to new highs guys and sure enough they turned on that march low and exploded to a new high even though i still think we're topping out now i think it's more likely that the best time for the stock market to roll over is when the war abates and everybody says oh great party time we don't have any problems anymore that's the way markets move and so our suspicion is probably when the stock market does roll over and break certain technicals that we think are critical you'll have a blue sky above and then you'll get hit with the t-bond action and then suddenly it'll get dark again anyway
TuckerCarlson
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 5:03 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 1:13 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m covering the USS Liberty attack, where Israel’s critics are said to claim it was an accident. Marine Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood, who was on board, says there’s no doubt Israel intended to kill every American. I review what happened, Israeli help after Mayday, US/Johnson decisions, casualties, Lockwood’s realization, motive, why it was dismissed, and what Congress should do.

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

USS Liberty deniers will say Israel’s 1967 attack on the U.S. spy ship was a total accident. Marine Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood was on the Liberty and says there’s no doubt Israel meant to kill every American on board. 0:00 The Story of the USS Liberty 11:14 What Really Happened During the Attack? 21:28 Did Israeli Boats Help Survivors After Receiving Their Mayday Call? 26:13 Did the Johnson Administration Allow the Attack? 29:14 How Many Americans Were Killed in the Attack? 32:51 When Did Lockwood Realize the Attack Came From the Israelis? 35:06 What Was the Motive? 37:00 Was Lockwood Told Not to Talk About the Attack? 47:25 The People Dismissing the Attack as a Mistake 52:25 Why Did the US Ignore This? 55:59 What Should Congress Do? 58:33 Is Lockwood Still Preaching?

MarioNawfal
Posted - July 11, 2026 at 2:16 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 1:01 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I see Washington reportedly giving Iran until tomorrow to declare the Strait of Hormuz open and toll-free, admit the ship attacks were a mistake, or face consequences. The Axios framing, plus Larry Johnson’s “no way/no way in hell” compliance odds, clashes with Trump’s posts about Iran seeking continued talks. Talks are reported for multiple venues while Iran denies them, redeployments keep getting reversed, and Johnson expects strikes within 24 hours.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🇮🇷 🇺🇸 Washington reportedly gave Iran until tomorrow to declare Hormuz open and toll-free, and to admit the ship attacks were a mistake That's the Axios framing: a public statement by Saturday, every channel open, no fees, plus an acknowledgment that "they screwed up," with one official warning it won't be a great day for Tehran otherwise. Larry Johnson rated the odds of compliance in two flavors: no way, and no way in hell. The surrounding picture is pure contradiction. Trump posts that Iran asked to keep talking and the ceasefire is over, in the same breath. Talks are reported for Islamabad, Switzerland, AND Jordan simultaneously while Iran's side denies any of it. And per Larry's sourcing, redeployment orders keep getting countermanded, units sent home now told to stay, someone randomly pulling levers in the control booth. He expects strikes within 24 hours. The political ceiling in Tehran was set by Khomeini's own grandson this week: anyone negotiating peace with America is a traitor, because the killing planted an enmity that never goes away. One detail says how seriously the threat reports landed: per the WSJ, Trump flew home from Ankara on the OLD Air Force One, because the Qatari-donated jet lacks the defenses for an elevated-risk flight. @NewSonof

Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on fast-moving developments involving Iran, the Strait of Hormuz/Homs, U.S. military posture in the region, and competing reports about talks and potential strikes. According to Axios and CBS, a U.S. official said Iranians reached out to the administration after two days of skirmishes earlier in the week to seek further talks to resolve the dispute. The Iranians allegedly returned to negotiations saying, “we screwed up” and “let’s keep talking.” Axios also reported that a second U.S. official warned of harsh consequences if Iran refuses to commit to cease firing on commercial vessels in the Strait of Homs. The discussion then shifts to satellite/force posture claims. The number of U.S. Air Force aircraft parked at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia reportedly fell to its lowest level since the buildup began in early February. The last three AWACS left early this week, leaving a single E-11 and nine tankers, and mediators/analysts argue this suggests critical assets have left the theater while the conversation includes the idea that assets may be brought back if strikes are expected. Israel’s military posture is also referenced. At an Israeli Air Force pilots graduation ceremony, IDF Chief of Staff Ayal Zamir reportedly said “major operations” are expected against Iran, that the air force remained on standby for a major operation on June 8, and that the alert remains high, adding that if they need to return, they will return with even greater force. On negotiations, competing claims are highlighted. Iranian Fars News reportedly denied that a new Iran–U.S. round in Islamabad next week is happening, saying preparations have not been finalized and technical discussions are false and baseless, and that developments will be announced only through official Iranian channels. Axios is cited saying the next round of talks is expected in Switzerland. CNN claims intensive diplomacy is underway behind the scenes, with the U.S. prioritizing negotiations over further military action and adopting a “striking and then pausing” approach to avoid escalation. Reuters is cited saying Qatari negotiators are in Iran to de-escalate and create conditions for talks focused on implementing the MOU and stopping clashes in Hormuz. Shipping and activity levels are treated as signals. The Strait of Homs reportedly saw only 22 verifying transits logged on Thursday (according to Kepler), far below recent weeks and pre-war daily averages. Some ships are said to have switched off transponders, implying tracking data may undercount real activity. A Chinese heavy load carrier reportedly transited. The U.S. demand side is also detailed. An Axios summary says U.S. officials are demanding that Iran, on Saturday, issue a public statement acknowledging the Strait is open and committing to stop firing on commercial ships—while also explicitly or implicitly acknowledging errors related to recent attacks. The discussion describes additional demands including that every channel on the strait will be open and “toll-free,” plus expectations of an apology. One key claim is that no strikes occurred that day. There is emphasis on “not many ships” transiting, and multiple mediators supposedly trying to restart talks. The transcript also covers alleged assassination-plot reporting. CNN says U.S. intelligence detected reporting of a possible Iranian plot to assassinate Trump, while stating the Israeli warning remains unclear and has not been independently verified. A Barak Ravid report is cited as saying Israeli intelligence did not share a specific organized detailed plan, describing Iranian figures discussing the matter without a concrete plan. The New York Post is cited as saying Trump left instructions for “a devastating response” if Iran assassinated him. The discussion includes an argument about U.S. constitutional/legal effect if the president is incapacitated. A story from the Wall Street Journal is cited about Trump returning from Turkey and changing aircraft (older Air Force One and later switching back to a newer Qatari-donated aircraft), tied to U.S. officials receiving Israeli intelligence about an elevated-risk mission lacking certain defensive capabilities. The transcript notes uncertainty about timing and stresses the reports’ emphasis on threat information and aircraft defensive differences. For Israel and Lebanon/Southern Lebanon, the transcript claims the U.S. asked Israel to refrain from sensitive military operations in southern Lebanon, and that Israel froze sensitive IDF operations while strikes continued at a lower level. The Financial Times is cited as saying a U.S. team was sent to Beirut to ensure a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, alongside references to Israel’s mixed messaging and shifting operational posture. Turkey/Syria/Lebanon becomes another thread. Israel’s Energy Minister Eli Cohen is quoted saying Turkey must not establish itself militarily in Syria, with a cabinet statement that if Turkey establishes bases in Syria, Israel will establish bases there as well. Turkish influence and related plans (including pipeline discussions involving Syria and a pipeline proposal between Israel and Cyprus mentioned as “plan” rather than concrete construction) are referenced. The transcript also discusses reports about Turkey seeking Russian S-400 air defenses and how that interacts with potential U.S. F-35 access, including a stated U.S. rationale about preventing compromise of F-35 stealth via S-400 data. On Ukraine, Zeluzhny is discussed. The transcript cites his Telegraph opinion piece warning against a Western narrative that Russia has effectively lost, describing the war as attritional and saying victory depends on which side can sustain economic, military, and psychological burdens longer with consistent international support. Reuters is then cited as saying Putin is rejecting calls for peace with Ukraine despite Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian oil refineries and ports, with sources describing increased resolve to continue the war and references to Donbas. The transcript concludes with a broad recap of its central “Strait of Hormuz” framing: carrot-and-stick sanctions/lifting dynamics, mediator pressure for de-escalation, and continued attention to whether attacks resume. It notes “no strikes today,” but emphasizes ongoing risk of escalation and continuing uncertainty about whether Iran will stop charging a fee in the Strait of Hormuz or accept terms in return. The speakers also mention threats discussed in the context of major escalations and hope for “cooler heads prevail” and a pause in escalation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And how, how is my favorite young journalist tonight? Speaker 1: He has a lot of surprises for you. Oh, good. It's going to be a very entertaining day. Speaker 0: I can see you devilish, you know, that devilish grin. Speaker 1: You're going to love this. All right. So let me start with this one. You ready? Yeah. All right. So this is, um, I fact check this. I can confirm it's true. So, um, According to Axios, a U.S. official said Iranians reached out to the administration after two days of skirmishes earlier this week and sought further talks to resolve the dispute. The official claimed that the Iranians told them, quote, CBS claims as well. And they said that the Iranians came back to the table and said, they came back to the table and said, we screwed up. We made a mistake. Let's keep talking. So that came from Axios and CBS. I don't know what the original source is. Complete other nonsense. Axios also reported, a second US official stressed that there will be harsh consequences if Iran refuses to commit to cease firing on commercial vessels in the Strait of Homs. Quote, if that is not their position tomorrow, it is not going to be a great day for them. Speaker 0: Tough talk. You know, I mean, Mario, these are just bullshit stories from the West trying to create a narrative that will justify. Look, the United States, you remember all that infrastructure I told you about that has to be in place for attacks to start happening? They've been countermanding the orders, okay? So... The United States is now turning around. Units that were ordered to be withdrawn are now being ordered to stay. Of course, one of my friends basically described it as, he says, it's like watching a monkey try to fuck a football. Speaker 1: I've never seen a monkey try to fuck a football, so let me see how that would look like. It doesn't look good. It looks like a mess. Speaker 0: Yeah, it is. It's not children-friendly, number one. But it's a mess. Speaker 1: So I've got some of these for you. I don't know how recent they are. So Khan U says, the United States, and I had a footage of it. I'll try to find it. I'll play it in a bit. I had it saved somewhere. The United States has evacuated its F-22 Raptor stealth fighter squadron from the Avda airbase in Israel, returning the 12 jets to the US after five months of deployment. So I don't know whether that happened a few days ago in the last couple of days. That was... Speaker 0: That was part of that initial redeployment order that HECS has signed off on now two weeks ago. Speaker 1: Okay. Stephanie, can you show the first image as well in the meantime? There's also another one here. The number of U.S. Air Force... Oh, this is aligned with the graph I'm going to show you. The number of U.S. Air Force aircraft parked today at the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia has fallen to its lowest level since the buildup began back in early February. The last three AWACS left early this week, a single E-11 and nine tankers remain. As the U.S. military appears to put back pressure on Iran, many of its critical assets to conduct large-scale operations have left the theater. And what you're saying now is they're starting to bring them back. Speaker 0: Ben-Gurion as well. Yeah, at least they're going to redeploy to like Ben-Gurion. I don't think, I frankly don't think the Saudis and Qataris, well, I don't think they'll allow it, but if they do, then they're setting themselves up that they will be targets of attack by Iran when the United States launches these new strikes. I imagine within 24 hours, the United States is going to be launching the attacks. Okay. Speaker 1: You think they will be attacking? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: right so the bangurian airport as well the satellite images that came out um i don't know if the date will show on them that came out today but i don't know the date of the images just showing the american aircraft leaving in the last few days but uh so what you're saying now is this is being reversed now there is can you go back to the original image so that's the i prepared these for our discussion because i know this is something you watch closely go back to the first version of this one there so this shows the military aircraft in the prince al-sultan air base so the blue part is on the main tarmac And the red part is the other location around the base. So as you can see in the buildup, they had them all, see the blue lines are the long ones for the Yorges. So they had all their aircraft on the main tarmac. As the war started, they started the red part, they started scattering them around. So the red part where the aircraft were in other location in the base started increasing and the blue one getting smaller. And then if you look at the last bar in that graph, that's the lowest level it's been since the war started so this is what larry's been talking about in the last few days about military aircraft moving away from the region so that's another indication of it now what you're saying is that military aircraft stand to be deployed into the region obviously that will be a a bad sign um well i'll give you the the pieces and use hinting towards war trump posted the islamic hotels in the morning the islamic republic of iran has asked us to continue talks he puts it in inverted commas we have agreed you could remove the images stephanie thank you we have agreed to do so but the united states has stated to them in no uncertain terms that the ceasefire is over thank you for your attention to the matter and then there's another report here yesterday at the uh israeli air force pilot oh this is an important one at the israeli air force um pilots graduation ceremony in israel the idf chief of staff ayal zamir that was yesterday stated that major operations are expected to be carried out on iran during his speech quote on the drawing board are new plans major operations are still expected to lie ahead of us be prepared zamir also reiterated the fact that the israeli air force was on standby to take off for a major operation on iran on june the 8th and the state of alert remains high He said the IDF is prepared for resumption of the campaign in Iran. Quote, if we need to return, we will return with even greater force. Now, again, him making a statement publicly doesn't make it reality. He could be sending a message to Iran. He could be rallying the pilots. And also Trump saying the ceasefire is over is, you know, anything Trump says I really almost ignore. But I would love to kind of give you a dump of news, statements from Trump, the Israeli Air Force leader, Speaker 0: um whether sorry the idf chief of staff um as well as the reports from access that came in in the last 30 minutes which i know they're pretty pretty silly reports um so what do you think is going on uh it's it's chaos on the on the part of the united states uh they've been told to uh deactivate no reactivate no deactivate um so i was told that redeployments were getting turned off and on and off again. So in other words, redeployments that were not supposed to happen, then were supposed to happen, now they're not supposed to happen. Now, what this is doing to the logistics chain, and you've got to understand that you put a combat jet out there, well, it's got to have fuel. Where's that fuel coming from? Have they stored up the fuel? So then they had to go out and find the fuel, get it forward. What about the radar? So if they redeployed the AWACS, the only thing left in theater because of all the other radars that were taken down at Bahrain and Al Udeid, primarily some in Kuwait, all those key radar systems that provided information about where threats were originating, launching ballistic missiles, Those were being compensated for by flying AWACS, which could pick up the slack a little bit. Well, they're now out of theater. Now they've got to turn around and go, oh, wait, wait, we need you back. Actually, someone described it to me. He says, you'd think there was a monkey in the control booth just randomly pulling levers. Speaker 1: And trying to fuck the ball as well, the soccer balls and the football. Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah. I tried to put it in FIFA terms. Okay. FIFA fever. It is campeonato mundial time. World Cup time. Come on, man. Try to stay relevant. You know, Spain beat Belgium. Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw that. All right, so I've got some more information here on the negotiation side of it. So, Iranian Fars News reported a source close to Iran's negotiating team has denied reports by Al Arabi and Fox News. So Al Arabi and Fox News claimed that there's a new round of Iran-U.S. talks in Islamabad next week, the one you were talking about a couple of days ago. So Fars is saying these talks are not happening or no longer happening. The source said reports that preparations have been finalized and that technical discussions will continue next week are false and baseless, adding that any developments regarding negotiations will only be announced through official Iranian channels. Axios said the next round of U.S.-Iran talks is expected to take place in Switzerland. Oh, Switzerland next week. I didn't see that. As regional mediators work to revive negotiations following several days of military escalation, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi have been working to de-escalate tensions between Washington and Tehran. were the talks expected to focus on restarting nuclear negotiations and reducing the risk of further conflicts in the Straits? Speaker 0: Yeah, not going to happen. Speaker 1: Which one, the Swiss one, the Pakistan, or neither right now? Speaker 0: Neither. I mean, I know the Pakistanis, they're really keen. If you talk to the Pakistanis, oh yeah, the talks are on track, we've got this wired, it's going to work. Iran, the public, you've got to take into account the... what the public opinion is in Iran. The Iranians want revenge. They don't want negotiations. They want the United States to pay a price. They want to force the United States out of the region. And, you know, what is the United States doing to calm the situation down? Nothing. They're re-imposing sanctions against the MOU. They're threatening violence, again, against the MOU. They've laid a deadline on Iran. So what's going to happen, at least for the foreseeable future, is Iran is going to allow ships that are headed to China, to Asia, whatever they're carrying, they can go to Asia. They're going to, you know, if they're going to... South America to countries that are not aligned with the United States, they'll get to go there. If they're going to Africa to countries not aligned with the United States, they'll get to go there. All other ships that want to go to the United States or to Europe, they're going to stay in the Persian Gulf. Iran's not going to let them out. And Iran's going to hold that position until the United States comes begging again for talks as they have every single time in the last 13 months. There's never one instance where Iran went and said, oh, please, Mr. Trump, come talk to us. We can't stand the pain. It's been Trump all the time begging. Speaker 1: Yeah. There's another story that came out, and I just remembered it now. I'm lucky I found it. Axios also reported about two hours ago, an hour and a half, the Trump administration is demanding that Iran issues on Saturday, so tomorrow, a public statement acknowledging the Strait of Hormuz is open and committing to stop firing on commercial ships, according to U.S. officials, briefing reporters. Speaker 0: Well, there are two ways that will happen. First way is no way, and the second way is no way in hell. Okay? Okay, okay. Speaker 1: I was expecting some analytical answer explaining to me how that could happen. I'm like, oh. What does he mean? How is that going to happen? How is that going to convince them? Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean this is – they're just playing games. I mean the United States has committed itself to strike. And notice all this threatening bullshit came out after the markets were closed. So Trump will launch the strikes. They'll do it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, oh, the Iranians have called. We're ready to meet in Switzerland or wherever. And come Monday morning, the markets open and prices, you know, it's just more market manipulation. Same shit, different day. Oh, man, absolutely. Speaker 1: This is Groundhog Day. Same shit, different monkey. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: All right, so we've got two more reports on the negotiations. CNN says the following. intensive diplomacy is underway right now behind the scenes to ease tensions between the us and iran with washington currently prioritizing negotiations over further military action just for the audience has been no attacks today the us has deliberately adopted a strategy of striking and then pausing to avoid escalation while allowing diplomacy to work maintaining a list of potential targets as leverage multiple officials told cnn that the us preparations were made for possible u.s strikes tonight if required So that's now as we speak, but diplomacy is currently taking the lead. And there was no strike. So either this was a bluff or negotiations or diplomacy is going well. And last point on the negotiations, according to Reuters, Qatari negotiators are in Iran right now for talks with Iranian officials aimed at de-escalating and creating conditions for talks. The talks are expected to focus on implementing the MOU, blah, blah, blah. and stopping the clashes in Hormuz. So lots of different reports from various outlets, essentially saying that all the mediators are trying to activate talks again. The US saying talks are planned either in Pakistan or Switzerland. That's not officially saying this, that's media outlets reporting that. The Iranians through Fars saying there are no negotiations. And also there's been cases where the Iranians say there's no negotiations, but there's talks, but there's like a low level delegation And obviously there's many cases where the Americans say there's something and it ends up not being true. And we ended up waiting for the Iranian media to know exactly what's happening. On a positive note, at least, we can say there's no strikes today by either side. So that must be, no ship was struck by Iran, but barely any ships are going through the Strait of Homs, by the way. Speaker 0: That's the point, yeah. Speaker 1: There's a Chinese ship. Speaker 0: A Chinese ship has gone through. The Xi'an, I think it's called. So it's gone through making its way. Speaker 1: So while everyone was watching the World Cup, Larry was watching the Xi'an. Speaker 0: Yeah, Rui Shan. The Rui Shan is a heavy load carrier destination, Xinjiang, China. Tianjin, Xinjiang, China. So that's going through. Zhang Jing. X-I-N-G-A-N-G. How do you pronounce that? Do you know? X-I-N? Yep. So I say that's Xin Gang. Xin Gang. Speaker 1: How do you say it? X-I-N? What's the rest of it? Speaker 0: G-A-N-G. I say Xin Gang. Speaker 1: Xin Gang, I think it is. I learned Mandarin when I was in university, so 15 years ago. So I'm close. i'm close now there's people speaking mandarin listening to us saying these guys just disgrace to the language pathetic pathetic yeah that's japanese so okay um so in terms of homos shipping activities through the strata homos has fallen sharply with only 22 verifying transits logged on Thursday, so that's yesterday, according to Kepler. Just one vessel used the Omani channel and the remainder transited via Iran's designated shipping lane. The figure marks a steep decline from the 40 to 50 weekly transits recorded in recent weeks daily transit should be the 40 to 50 daily transit recorded in recent weeks and a fraction of pre-war daily average exceeding 100. some ships are switching off transponders entirely suggesting real traffic volume may exceed what trafficking what tracking data captures also another report as well there was some ships going through the omani side i think today or yesterday turning around going back through the iranian side i think that was yesterday But the only question is, in terms of ships turning off their transponders, that's the only one that's difficult to track on any of those websites. Speaker 0: Right. But Iran can still see them. If the transponders are off, they've still got radar. Speaker 1: Iran can, yeah. Well, assuming they weren't struck. But from everyone I spoke to, including yourself, it's not difficult for Iran to be able to spot those ships. The Strait of Homs is very, very narrow. Yeah. But I'm not an expert. I want to read one more report that will make you happy, since you seem in a good mood. According to Axios, mediators believe the recent Iranian attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Homs were orchestrated by elements within the Iranian government. I told you that yesterday already, and you got angry at it already. By elements within the Iranian government opposed to the MOU and seeking to undermine it. Speaker 0: I'm simply saying, what was the established written policy of Iran? The written policy was ship must register, provide all the information that we discussed yesterday, name of ship, destination, country of origin, et cetera, crew member identity, submit it, get approval, no problem. If you don't get approval, Iran's going to use force against you. So how is following that protocol being a rogue element? Would you explain that to me? Speaker 1: Because I don't get it. I cannot explain it. Speaker 0: You're putting me in difficult positions there, Larry. Yeah. So that's what I'm saying. This is just more Western propaganda to try to create a narrative in the West that justifies that Iran's the bad guys. We're the good guys. We've got to stop the evil. Speaker 1: And this one claims there's a split in Iran. Someone also said Reuters reported that Iran claimed that the reason they attacked the ships was because of a malfunction, but I couldn't confirm that anywhere on Reuters. You can mute and speak to them. It's fine. But yeah, so someone said Reuters claimed that Iran said that a malfunction led them to strike the ships. But I saw that just before we were coming online. I looked everywhere. I couldn't find it on Reuters. So people could check it, but I've asked the team to check it. They couldn't find it. But there is a certain narrative. Okay, there's another report now. narrative being created there's another report that just came in now from abc a u.s official has told abc news that the iran u.s talks will be held tomorrow guess where islamabad no two more guesses let's do switzerland no one more guess oh washington dc israel tel aviv um in georgia oh yeah that yeah that Speaker 0: Monkeys are going to fly out of my ass before that happens. Speaker 1: So I'll read out the rest of the report from ABC. The Iranians came back to us and asked for more talks to try to settle some issues. So ABC is claiming the same thing as other outlets. Speaker 0: So what they're doing with this narrative is saying, oh, Iran, and then when Iran doesn't show, they're going to say, see, the Iranians aren't serious. Therefore, we're going to have to show them. And how are we going to show them, oh, my God, we're going to bomb the hell out of them. Speaker 1: So tomorrow we have talks in Pakistan, Switzerland, and Jordan. All three locations tomorrow simultaneously. Speaker 0: Good Lord. Speaker 1: All right. So that's on the Strait of Hormuz, on the negotiations. No strikes today. Not many ships. About half of what there were before the clash has recently gone through the Strait of Hormuz, unless there's more that turned off AIS transponders. But that's from what we could track. Then you've got the negotiations that are being held but not being held. You've got the military equipment, the military assets that have been moving out of the region in the last few days, potentially moving back if strikes are expected. We've got Trump talking about the ceasefire being dead. Two days ago, he said the MOU is dead, the ceasefire, sorry, being over. In a post this morning, Eyal Zamir, IDF chief, saying that they're expecting major operations against Iran, but that's, you know, Israel makes statements like this all the time. So that's kind of an overview of where we're at so far. There's more reports on negotiation. I'm just going to stop reading them in the last few hours, different outlets reporting different things. So then there's the story of the Trump assassination plot, which we talked about yesterday. There's updates on that one. Now, obviously, you took this report very seriously yesterday, started getting very concerned. So it all started with a report from, I think, CNN. US intelligence had detected a steady stream of reporting in recent weeks about possible Iranian plot to assassinate Trump. But the warning from Israel was new and referred to a more specific plot, according to CNN. So I think there was an initial one reported by Axios, and CNN reported it as well. But CNN is saying the plot remains unclear and American intelligence agencies have not independently verified the Israeli information. Then Barak Ravid puts out a report this morning citing two senior U.S. officials. He reports that Israeli intelligence did not share a specific organized detailed plan by Iran to assassinate Trump. The report consisted of Iranian figures merely discussing the matter. So essentially what they're saying is just a loose... Just Iranian leaders just having a discussion about it. So they've kind of walked down the report of an assassination plot. The New York Post then reported, Trump stated that he left instructions for a devastating response should Iran succeed in assassinating him. I've left instructions if anything happens to just literally bomb them at levels they've never seen before. I've been number one for a long time, and it's the way of life, or it's the way life is, as Trump is saying he's number one on their list. Now, I mentioned this to Alex Jones earlier today, and he said, Mario, this is the third time to his memory that Trump says something like this, where if I get killed, there's instructions left for U.S. officials or the Pentagon or whoever to bomb the hell out of Iran. But he told me that, Mario, based on American law, the Constitution, If the president is incapacitated, then any orders he's already given before becoming incapacitated or assassinated would become void. So him claiming that there's orders there because something happens to him is pretty useless. Speaker 0: For heaven's sakes, why get tied up about what's legal or not? Oh, my God. He can do whatever he wants. He is God. Sorry. Alex is right. He's absolutely right. I'm just making fun of it. Speaker 1: Yeah, he praised you. He mentioned you in the interview, I just remembered. But Alex's thoughts on this whole assassination thing, because that was the main topic I brought up to him, and then he digressed into many different topics. But his theory is that these are being leaked, or it is being leaked by Israel. That's according to Axios. But his worry, not theory, but his worry is that Israel is considering potentially assassinating Trump and then putting the blame on Iran to then force the US into war with Iran. But then the reason they're not doing it is because J.D. Vance will become president. And that's a bad thing for them because J.D. Vance is critical of Israel. He's not saying it's going to happen. He believes this is more likely than Iran assassinating Trump. Speaker 0: Well, look. Number one, if it did happen to Trump, it would be called karma. He's responsible for the assassination of Soleimani and Khamenei. So it's like what goes around comes around. You can make that case. But look. this mythology, I'll call it the mythology of Iran assassinating characters. You know, I mentioned to you, I think yesterday, and I went back and looked up the details. I published it on sonar21.com. I think it was November 2nd of 2024. So there was this guy who was an Afghan national who had come to the United States as like an eight or nine year old back in 78. And he, when he became a teenager, late teens, like 18, 19, he got in trouble. He was guilty of robbery, criminal act, got convicted, sent to prison for 14 years. So it wasn't some minor offense. Speaker 1: In which country? United States, New Jersey, New York. But he's a national, sorry, he's a national from Pakistan or Afghanistan? Speaker 0: From Afghanistan. So he came from Afghanistan, but he got naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Or I guess he didn't get naturalized. So when he gets out of prison, they deport him. It's not clear where he got deported to, but the next we hear from him, he's in Sri Lanka. I had mistakenly said Singapore, Sri Lanka. And in Sri Lanka, he's caught up in a heroin deal. gets arrested by the local police. DEA shows up, makes a deal with him. CIA gets in on the deal. He walks, he gets out of prison. Next stop, Iran. He's working in an Iranian oil field. And then as the FBI story goes, the IRGC contacts him and says, oh, we want you to carry out some assassinations in the United States. So do you have some people that can do that? So he gets on the phone with some of his old prison buddies that are still living in the New York City area and gets them all, provides them money and this whole dramatic plot, but it is interrupted by the FBI. Dramatically, they saved the day. So this whole thing was staged. It was a complete setup. It was not an Iranian initiative, but that's how the story is being told. So this is just one more example of that. Speaker 1: So obviously, I hope that the Iranians or the Israelis or nobody ends up killing Trump or no one kills any leader. I'd be surprised if the Iranians or the Iranian leadership are actually contemplating that option because it just makes no sense. And they made pragmatic decisions the same way Trump killing Ali Khamenei makes no sense whatsoever. And we've seen the consequences of that. It's just backfired miserably. And there's no benefit for the Iranians to go and kill President Trump. Now, I'm sure some of them are vengeful. There was actually a statement by, this is actually a good time to read the statement by Ali Khamenei's grandson. Let me see if I can find it. He was just kind of shows you the anger. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah, I've seen it. Speaker 1: Go ahead. Khamenei's grandson, Sayyid Ali Khamenei. Was it Khomeini? Speaker 0: Okay, okay. Speaker 1: Khomeini, yeah, Khomeini's grandson. So Khomeini is the former Supreme Leader, the one that died of natural causes in 1989, the first Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, the founder of it. And he died in 1989 before Ali Khamenei became Supreme Leader and he got killed earlier this year by Trump, by the US. He says the following, anyone who wants to negotiate in order to achieve peace with America is a traitor. And anyone who sends the messages of friendship has a foul and impure mouth. Our problem with America isn't an issue of today or yesterday. It started decades ago when they committed a coup against Iran. But with what they've done recently, killing Khamenei, they've planted a seed of enmity that will never go away. So this gives you an idea of the sentiment right now in Iran. And I wouldn't be surprised that you do get maybe an Iranian rogue actor. So enmity... is just just deep deep hatred just in case anyone like me just had to look up the exact definition so the a rogue actor a rogue commander a rogue soldier that does try to take trump's life you you would expect that if you go kill the religious leader of an entire religious sect of course there's going to be some hardliners or some people that are really angry with it or they find it to be like their religious uh mission to avenge the death of their leader Um, you know, I'm not deep into Shia Islam, you know, a lot more than I do about it, but, um, it's not far fetched to, I'm sure there are people coordinating potential assassination attempts against Trump because of that exact reason, because of Trump's assassination of Ali Khamenei. But I would, I would definitely not be in the camp where the, the, the, the Iranian government or the, um, IRGC would be planning something like that. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. No, it's look, this is all about create a narrative. that will then justify a US attack on Iran, renewing the combat. And what's going to happen out of that is no ships will be coming out of the Persian Gulf going to the United States. The United States absolutely needs the Persian Gulf crude, because there is not enough of that heavy crude or the sour crude as it's called, sour because it's high sulfur content that's needed in those refineries in order to produce diesel and aircraft and aviation fuel. So that means there are going to be shortages. And those shortages, those are going to start becoming severe in the next week or two. Speaker 1: Well, the report of Axios that, we'll get back to that in a sec, because that goes back to what we were discussing earlier about the negotiations. More details on the report where they're asking Iran for guarantees they won't strike ships. Just one last thing on the assassination story of Iranians talking about assassinating Trump. Trump heard about the report. That's why he mentioned it in Ankara. And he flew home from Turkey aboard the old Air Force One. after U.S. officials received Israeli intelligence about a possible Iranian plot to assassinate him, according to the Wall Street Journal. Although the reported threat was not considered fully credible, officials determined that Trump's newly overhauled Qatari-donated aircraft lacked some of the defensive capabilities required for an elevated risk mission. Trump flew the older Air Force One from Turkey to the U.K. before switching back to the newer aircraft for the final leg to Washington. Speaker 0: Okay, so they've had... They've had this threat information for more than a week and a half, right? Speaker 1: I don't know. Speaker 0: So he... Speaker 1: Wait a second. Speaker 0: I mean, he flew... Did he fly over on the old presidential jet? Speaker 1: I think he did. I think he flew on the Qatari one. Speaker 0: Well, apparently not. I could be wrong. Let me check. I think what they're saying is, you know, that's why he flew the old jet. Speaker 1: No, he flew the old jet on his way back from Ankara to the UK. That's when he flew the old jet. I think, if I saw the reports correctly, he came to Ankara with the Qatari one. I'll let people fact-check me. But then flew back on the older one and then flew the UK to the US on the Qatari one. I'll check now in a second on Grok just to make sure I'm accurate on that point because I know where you're going with this, so I'll check it for you. But let me read out the access report that just came in. So I'll read out the exact quote. You know how I said earlier, the Americans were... Speaker 0: Excuse me for a second. Is it our friend Barak? Speaker 1: This one, no, it's just Axios, not Barak Ravid. Speaker 0: Well, it doesn't say who the author is. Speaker 1: It doesn't say. Usually, if it's Barak, they always write Barak. I'm not looking at Axios' website. I'm looking at those websites that share things. Whenever it's Barack, they mention his name. But no, this is a story I read earlier that I'm just reading the whole full context out of it. They said, we want Iran to publicly say they will stop shooting at ships and explicitly or at least implicitly acknowledge that they screwed up. So they're asking for an apology. We are working on that now, one U.S. official said. We expect the Iranians to say that every channel on the strait will be open and that it will be toll-free. A second U.S. official said there will be harsh consequences if Iran refuses. So this is kind of the full story where the Americans are asking Iran to officially announce the Strait of Homs is open both the Omani and Iranian side and will be toll-free. Both sides will be open and toll-free. And also they want an apology that the strikes where the Iranians screwed up with those strikes. So pretty big demand. Speaker 0: And I bet they want to... striped unicorn for Christmas. Speaker 1: That's not included in the article. I'm sure the unicorn would be easier, I guess. Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, this is, again, this is all just kabuki theater. They're trying to do their own version of putting Iran into a corner and Iran's not playing. You know, I found out that in preparation for possible negotiations, a U.S. deconfliction cell went to Dubai. I believe it was either Doha or Dubai. And they were supposed to meet with the IRGC. IRGC, you know, didn't show up. When was that, before or recent? Two days ago, three days ago. Speaker 1: was very different to the reporting or the narrative yeah well the iranians said that there's no plans to negotiate as i read earlier according to first news but we've seen that in previous negotiations we've seen that a lot where the americans like oh we're meeting them remember that day when i think it was in pakistan and the iranians decided not to go jd vance and krishna were meant to go and then trump said oh i cancelled jd vance and krishna from going to pakistan it was after the iranians said they're not going arachi was going to pakistan and he said oh i have nothing on my calendar to meet kushner and whitcoff and then trump then made it seem like he cancelled kushner whitcoff but it was because arachi didn't want to see them so we've seen this player the whole time trying to control the narrative um let's move on to israel so some stories here so cnn reports that the trump administration does not want israel involved And one source told CNN that Netanyahu would really want to join the U.S. strikes. But the U.S. made it clear that Israel's participation is unwanted. Another story is that the, I didn't save it. Actually, I did here. Also, another report here from Car News. The U.S. asked Israel to refrain from carrying out sensitive, so they use the word sensitive, military operations in southern Lebanon. prompting Israel's political leadership to freeze all IDF operations in Lebanon. So just two reports here that the Americans are like, hey, we don't want you to join on these strikes in Iran. Also, we don't want you to do anything sensitive in Lebanon. And we've seen that massive de-escalation in Lebanon, but not a ceasefire. There's daily strikes, including today. There was one a couple of hours ago. Very small strikes. There was one drone strike on a vehicle in the morning, I think, and one strike in Nabatiyeh, Fakwa, that place they always strike. three hours ago, two hours ago. So it's not a ceasefire, but definitely a big de-escalation. Now, this is where I want to get your thoughts on it. This comes to Turkey. Israeli Minister of Energy Eli Cohen, quote, we have to make sure Turkey does not establish itself militarily in Syria. I said in the cabinet, if Turkey wants to establish military bases in Syria, then we will establish bases there as well. So it's getting dangerous and that comes literally today. Also Turkey was, they had an official, a foreign minister or someone in Lebanon meeting the Lebanese prime minister. Um, so Turkey seems to be expanding or they have been for a while, their influence. In what they consider their sphere of influence, which includes Syria and now Lebanon. And you've got Israel's energy minister. I don't know what the energy minister has to do with these discussions, but that's well, because, because Speaker 0: Israel is dependent upon Turkey for its supply of oil. That's why. Yeah, good point. Does that make sense? Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. So that's one. And there's also talks about, because we're talking about Syria here, there's the reports that we spoke about it, I think. There's plans to develop. Macron was in Syria talking about building a pipeline from the Gulf through Syria to the Mediterranean. So Macron talked about it yesterday. Speaker 0: there's yeah and we did and we discussed that yesterday as well we did yeah yeah you know that's uh that that you you know you'll probably be a 65 year old guy before that happens if if it happens and then i'll be like when i was 60 i told that larry me and larry talked about this 30 years ago who's larry Uncle Larry, check on YouTube. Speaker 1: Check on YouTube. What's YouTube? Speaker 0: Yeah. Some crazy old coot, you know, just ignore him. He's just an angry old man. That's all he is. Speaker 1: And then he says the following. We must work with the United States to prevent Turkey from obtaining advanced weapons. We must insist that our greatest ally, the U.S., preserve Israel's quantitative military edge. The pipeline, and then he says the pipeline between Israel and Cyprus will be built. We know how to defend ourselves and no one can dictate terms to us. We have proven over the past two and a half years that those who threatened the state of Israel do not end well. Um, did we talk about, so this is, um, a pipeline that Israel wants to build. Do you know about it between Israel and Cyprus? Speaker 0: I hadn't heard about that. Speaker 1: I can't remember the details of it either, but it's not being built. It's just a plan. There's nothing concrete yet. blue sky but um did we talk about the s-400s turkey wanting to sell the s-400s to a gulf country we didn't talk about it yesterday did we did they want to sell them Yeah, so they wanted to be able to get the F-35s. They want to sell them. They're speculating it's the UAE that's buying them. And Peskov, I think, made a statement saying this is a sensitive matter. We are discussing it with the Turks. Because I think if they sell it to any country, the Russians have to approve that country getting them. And this is all part of the process, I guess, for Turkey to get the F-35s, which I know you're a fan of. Speaker 0: Yeah, this is... Well, actually, I could see Israel supporting, actually secretly supporting Turkey getting the F-35s. as opposed to getting like a fifth-generation fighter or even fourth-generation fighter from Russia or China. Because if they get the F-35, Israel knows that out of any 10 F-35s, Turkey's only going to be able to put two or three in the air. The other seven or eight will be sitting in a hangar somewhere broken. Whereas if they get a Russian or Chinese version, 10 of those, Eight out of ten of those will be ready to go. And they'll be actually cheaper, too. Less expensive. Not cheaper in the sense of less quality. Speaker 1: But the F-35 is a fifth generation, isn't it? I could be wrong. Speaker 0: No, I think it's fifth generation. So, you know, Russia, China could sell fifth generation to Turkey. You think you like theirs better? Oh, heavens, yes. Hey, they're cheaper. less cost per hour to maintain and they're just as good. It's one thing to pay $100 million a plane, vice $60 million a plane. Speaker 1: Why wouldn't the Turks buy them though if they have the S-400s? They've been trying to get the F-35s for years. Speaker 0: They're like the ugly kid in high school that wanted to date the cheerleader. You know, please, I'll do anything to date the cheerleader. Please, okay, sell your soul. Okay. Yeah, that's ridiculous. The Turks have lost. They got no self-respect left. No insult to my Turkish friends, but by God, folks, what's going on with Erdogan and his the way he just grovels. Oh my God. He's like Steppenfetchit. Steppenfetchit was back in like the 30s or 40s. He was this caricature black. He was a black American. But man, they made him appear dumb and shiftless and just, you know, it was the most racist portrayal Now, the guy that played Step and Fetch It, he laughed his ass off to the bank. I mean, he became a millionaire. So, you know, he didn't mind humiliating himself. But yeah, there he is, you know. And, you know, he'd walk over, yes, master, what do you want me to do? What you want me to do? You know, so he wouldn't even talk proper English. So again, it was the most racist character, and Hollywood thought it was entertaining. at the time. Not anymore. Speaker 1: I'm just looking him up. He's from the 1930s. That's the best example you can come up with. Come up with Dumb and Dumber. Speaker 0: That's one everyone could relate to. Yeah. It doesn't fit the description. Let's put Erdogan's face on that. Oh, man. Speaker 1: You're going to get me in trouble. If I want to try, we're discussing trying to get you. Speaker 0: It's not you. It's me. Have them get mad at me. Okay, okay. Speaker 1: That was Larry Johnson that suggested that. All right. So there's one more thing on the – okay, interesting. The Israeli estimates suggest the U.S. and Iran are returning to the diplomatic path. Okay. That's Israel. Holy shit. So when does Israel estimate diplomacy? Israeli estimates – estimates – Israel estimates or Israeli estimates suggest that the U.S. and Iran are returning to the diplomatic path, Channel 13. Okay. Channel 11, following a U.S. request, a political echelon has ordered the Israeli military to freeze all operations considered sensitive in southern Lebanon. I mentioned that already. And the Financial Times just said the U.S. has sent a team to Beirut to ensure a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. Of course. One day it's horrible, the world's coming to an end. The next day everything looks better and everything's over. Speaker 0: So you are sending mixed messages, huh? So I actually, if they really have sent a team to Beirut to tell the Israelis, stand the hell down, stop it, then that would suggest the U.S. is doing what it can to try to make up to the Iranians. So they're putting out all this bold talk. They're threatening Iran. And then they'll tell the story, oh, Iran caved to our threats. Iran did no such thing. But the Turks... the Turks, I imagine, and particularly the Pakistanis, Qataris to an extent, they're begging and pleading with Iran, please, please don't throw this away. We've got to get this straight back open. But, you know, you can't ignore the political pressure that is now on the government in Iran. After 45 million people in the streets chanting, revenge, revenge, revenge. Not... Not, you know, bend over and let the United States sodomize you. Speaker 1: Well, this quote from Khomeini's grandson, I think it's really important. And I think something is just being underestimated by all these different think tanks. But with what they've done recently, killing Khamenei, they've planted a seed of deep hatred, enmity, that will never go away. The U.S. planted a seed of hatred, of deep hatred, that will never go away. That's what the U.S. has done with Iran. I'd say that's right. Speaker 0: You can't do that many assassinations and then expect everybody to come back and say, hey, why can't we be friends? Well, because you're a bunch of murdering bastards. That's why. Speaker 1: On the Israeli front, Smotrich, of course, said something stupid as always. There is one thing, in a sense, that hurts the enemy. Land. Whoever gets involved with us will lose land forever. And then Smotrich says that Witkoff told him privately, according to Matzov, I will not let 2 million Nazis live next to your children along the border fence. According to Smotrich, Witkoff made the remark after being shown footage and intelligence from Gaza, saying the visit changed his understanding of the security situation. Witkoff didn't comment on this. But they're putting this statement out as Witkoff implying that they will not let 2 million Nazis, so the Palestinians, the 2 million Palestinians in Gaza to live in Gaza. So that's how Smatrich is interpreting that statement that Witkoff made in private and Witkoff hasn't commented on it. So it could be BS. Let's hope it's BS. But yeah, that's your daily update. We've talked about, that's your daily update on the Israeli front, mainly rhetoric around Erdogan, around Turkey, talking about Lebanon, Sorry, yeah, talking about Lebanon, they have a lot of limitations, restrictions on what they could do in Lebanon. We've talked about Turkey's potentially selling the S-400 air defense systems, according to the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, in an effort to clear the way for purchasing the F-35 fighters. The proposal came months after Erdogan suggested returning the S-400 systems to Russia. an idea that gained little support. Ankara also proposed keeping the S-400s while allowing U.S. oversight of its operations to address concerns that the systems could compromise the F-35 stealth capabilities. So just for the audience, the S-400s are the, I think, the most advanced air defense systems from Russia, one of the most advanced. Speaker 0: They are a step down from the S-500 and the S-550, but they are the most effective air defense system in the world. They outperform Patriot, Thad, David Sling, Iron Dome, all of that. They don't even compare. Speaker 1: Yeah, so the reason that countries can't have the S-400 and the F-35, which is a law that the U.S. has, is to avoid the air defense systems of another country being able to... So to not compromise the stealth capabilities of the F-35. Because if a country has the S-400 and the F-35, then the S-400 will be able to get data from the F-35 operating in the same vicinity. Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah. It'll be able to reverse engineer it. Conflict of interest, yeah. So that's the law. Speaker 1: That's why there's talks of... Speaker 0: But for the life of me, I don't understand why Turkey's so eager to get the F-35. I mean, Turkey's getting the Turkey. Speaker 1: That's it. We can talk Ukraine. I'll save it for tomorrow. Speaker 0: You know what you forgot to cover? What General Zeluzny said in the Telegraph yesterday. What did he say? Well, if you don't know, I guess I can't tell you. It must be classified. No, Zeluzny said, zaluzhny went on the attack against all these people who were saying that russia was losing the war he said that's crazy that's irresponsible and it's dangerous so he said he who said i didn't understand okay let me hang on let me find it so zaluzhny is the ukrainian general correct uh so Here's what he said. In an opinion, Zelushny was the head, he was the commander in chief of the Ukrainian army. He's now the Ukraine's ambassador to the UK. And he just published an opinion piece in the Telegraph, which appeared two days ago, July 8th. And in it, he cautioned against the growing Western narrative that Russia has effectively lost the war. He described such claims as a dangerous misreading of the war. While acknowledging Ukraine's had some tactical successes, such as deep strikes on Russian oil infrastructure and logistics, he argued these should not be over-interpreted as strategic victory. The war has become a war of attrition where success is measured in small gains at high cost, and the outcome will depend on which side can sustain the economic, military, and psychological burden longer. along with consistent international support. He warned that Russia retains significant advantages in manpower, industrial capacity, and resilience, and that assuming defeat could lead to complacency in the West. Huh. And you know what? I agree with him 110%. Speaker 1: I've got another story on the Ukrainian front since we're talking about Ukraine as well. I'll put that in the mix so we can mix them all together. According to Reuters, Putin is rejecting calls to negotiate peace with Ukraine with recent Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian oil refineries and ports, strengthening his resolve to continue the war, according to three sources close to the Kremlin. Putin is instead likely to escalate the conflict in the coming months, with one source describing a high probability of further escalation. One source familiar with Putin's thinking said the Russian leader has dug in his heels on capturing the remainder of Ukraine's Donbas region and recently rebuked advisors who proposed a ceasefire along the current front lines. Another source said Putin believes Russian forces will soon secure the rest of the Donbas. So according to this Reuters report, the strikes by Ukraine on the oil refineries inside Russia, instead of pressuring Putin to want to end the war earlier, it's strengthening his resolve to actually continue the war and not rejecting calls to negotiate peace. That's according to Reuters as well. Yeah, yeah. Speaker 0: No, Peskov said it twice this week. This is no longer a special military operation. This is war. You know, hello. You know, I can understand Russian translated into English. All you got to do, you know, my old friend Ray McGovern, you know, he always said, and he is a genuine Russia. I don't present myself as a Russian expert. I know Russians. I know some history. But, you know, Ray's a bona fide expert. As he said, listen to what the Russians say. They mean what they say. They're not the type that sit there and blow smoke up people's ass. Speaker 1: Well, there's one more story here. This one I don't think you'll agree with. Zelensky said China warned Russia against using nuclear weapons in response to Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory. He learned of Beijing's intervention from European leaders at the NATO summit in Ankara, where they discussed China's role in ending the war. Quote, Zelensky said that when Russia... When Russian media raised the possibility of nuclear response, it seems to me that this was the first time China directly responded in an ultimatum-like form, that there can be no thought whatsoever of using nuclear weapons. There's been a report like this for a while. Speaker 0: Yeah, I'm sure the Chinese called up Zelensky and told him, here's what we're telling Putin. Speaker 1: Now, according to Zelensky, NATO told him that at the NATO summit. Speaker 0: yeah i'm sure nato's they're they're so chinese love to talk to nato i mean my god you know they're they're like really close no that's nato that's nato's incredible intelligence larry they have uh jinping's uh home bugged yeah so you know it's just you know we're gonna watch uh i fully anticipate that uh uh us is gonna strike iran within the next 24 hours And then Iran's going to be on a retaliatory strike. But what they said is, you know, basically, if that happens, they said they're going to close the strait, you know, Bab al-Mandab in the Red Sea, and they're going to withdraw from the NPT. Those are the two threats on the table. So we'll see. Those threats may prevent the United States from following through on, you know, what appears to be Speaker 1: uh efforts underway to re you know to attack iran some more yeah well hopefully um hopefully cooler heads prevail and we don't see that we get a bit of a break this week well that would be nice so you can watch the we can all watch the world cup while you watch tanker trackers oh yeah well tomorrow i'll be hosting Speaker 0: You know, my friend whose birthday is on the 4th of July, he was unable to make it because he had to be at the bedside of an old friend that was dying. So we're doing the party tomorrow. Oh, nice. That's good. Well deserved. Hopefully there's no strikes. Yeah. So if there are, it doesn't affect me. Speaker 1: I'm glad. Larry, thank you so much as always. Speaker 0: All right, my friend. Uh, we'll see you probably on Sunday then. Speaker 1: I'll see you on Sunday. Speaker 0: Okay. Take care. Speaker 1: Bye-bye. Take care, Larry. Um, all right guys. So this is it. Um, a recap of the news, just so you're in the loop. Um, it seems to me that, you know, my theory has been that this is all a fight about the straight of homos. This is not, the U S did not want to start the war when the bombings were happening. I was pretty confident that this is the U S trying to, using the stick against Iran to convince them to stop pursuing a fee of the Strait of Hormuz, stop trying to control the Strait of Hormuz and blocking the Omani side. And the Iranis did not retaliate aggressively because they don't need to. All the Iranis need to do is just close the Strait of Hormuz or keep controlling the Strait of Hormuz. So the Americans are pretty adamant to make sure that Iran does not charge a fee. And if you've heard many of my guests, including former military personnel from the U.S., One of the common themes was a lot of them would say is that there is no circumstances in which the US would accept a fee at the Strait of Hormuz. But then the counter argument to this is what can the Americans do? And we're seeing that unfold right now. We're seeing what the Americans can do and we're gonna see exactly whether it works or not in the next few weeks and months. Now, remember there's a carrot and stick A week ago, if you remember, the US was giving the carrot to the Iranians. They were offering them, according to reports from Axios, they were saying, hey, we'll lift a lot of sanctions. You can make a lot more money if we lift the sanctions. Then you can make charging a fee at the Strait of Hormuz. We can unfreeze a lot of assets. So that was the carrot, trying to convince Iran not to charge a fee. The Omanis are stuck in the middle. On one day, they say they're not going to charge a fee like they did yesterday. And two days before that, we get reports that they've offered a proposal to the Americans, which includes a fee. So there's Oman stuck in the middle. There's the Iranians saying there's no circumstances in which we won't charge a fee. And there's the Americans saying there's no circumstances in which we will allow you to charge a fee. So we will, in my view, we will continue seeing this back and forth strikes. It got a lot more aggressive than I expected a couple of days ago, three days ago. I didn't expect it to get to that level. But we don't know what they were striking. So we don't know how extensive they were because we don't know what the targets were. But there was a lot of ordnance dropped, the biggest since the ceasefire started. So that gives you an idea of what we're seeing right now. That's why I keep saying the war is not over. I posted a few days ago, the MOU is not dead. Yesterday, actually, or two days ago, the MOU is not dead because I just see that as a power struggle between the two. Now, is it possible this could get out of control? Yes, this is what the escalation trap is all about. This is what Professor Pape tells me about all the time when I have him on. So these are the things that concern him and anyone watching this. So that's on the shadow homos. Then we have the other sticking point that we've talked about, which is Lebanon. And on that front, it's been looking pretty positive. I know a lot of people want Israel to get out of Lebanon. I've always said this would be very, very difficult, very difficult to achieve. I hold the belief, I'm flexible on that belief, but I do think Iran may give up their demand for Israel to pull out of Lebanon. Because for them, this is less important than Hezbollah. You guys, I've said this before, so you know exactly what I mean. Iran want to make sure Hezbollah remains strong. But for Iranian interests, Israel remaining in South Lebanon or taking their time and pulling out of South Lebanon... it does not work against Iranian interests. So this is not a big priority for them. The biggest priority for the Iranians right now is to get their economy going. And I think the Strait of Hormuz has always been and will continue to be the main sticking point. I think we will see negotiations in the next couple of days. I don't expect strikes, but I could be completely wrong. It's impossible to predict those things. I just don't know. I'm optimistic short-term. I'm pretty concerned medium to long-term. but my biggest concern remains proxy wars we've talked about you know turkey's in lebanon right now was there today and there's macon was in syria there was this terrorist attack that the explosion there and macon was in syria a couple days ago trump was meeting al-shara the israelis keep talking about syria turkey keeps talking about syria um al-shara was in ankara and he had a private meeting with erdogan um so syria is going to be um um one of the the important flash points in this proxy war between iran and the us and israel and the gulf yemen is another big one so i'll prob we'll probably see a lot of instability in those two countries we'll likely see the same thing in lebanon but i don't expect full-blown war in israel the us or iran based on where we are right now um but i i i'm not in trump's head i don't know how far the us is willing to go to ensure iran does not control the strata hummus And I also don't know how far Iran is willing to go to ensure they charge a fee at the Strait of Homs. And whether there is anything the Iranians will accept in return for giving up control of the Strait of Homs. If I had to guess, pure speculation, I would, that's a really tough one. This is a 50-50 guess, okay? This is probably something I would usually avoid saying. But I wouldn't be too surprised if the Iranians don't end up charging a fee. they get significant sanctions lifted but i also won't be surprised if they do end up getting charging a fee i'm literally 50 50 on this i have no idea it's very very tough to see what's going to happen whether what will happen with the strata almost but i'm still confident the war has not restarted and i hope we won't see many skirmishes like we saw in the last three days um all right guys i hope that overview um has been beneficial i hope you enjoyed today's conversations And I will see you tomorrow. Let me see my schedule for tomorrow. Tomorrow, we have Mima Rostami, who has his own YouTube channel. We have Vladimir Brovkin. We have Robert O'Neill. Isn't Robert O'Neill the former SEAL that killed Osama bin Laden? It is, yeah. So Robert O'Neill will be on. Brendan Wykert will be on. And we'll see who else they'll add to my calendar. Hope you enjoyed today's coverage. Thanks, everyone. I'll go through the comments now. Bye-bye.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 6:51 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 12:54 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I see Trump and Zionist neocons as sabotaging peace talks with claims Iran is racing toward a nuke. Scott Ritter argues Iran has never run an active nuclear weapons program and the scare is political, not factual. He points to prior Israeli “Iran nuke” dossiers, including a 2018 forged one, as pretext-making. Israel remains undeclared, un-NPT, and still decides who can have nukes.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Iran’s Nuclear Program Is the New WMD Lie. ft. Scott Ritter Trump and the Zionist neocons around him keep blowing up peace talks by alleging that Iran is racing toward a nuclear bomb. The question is simple: are we actually facing an Iranian nuke threat, or are we watching a reboot of the Iraq WMD scam? Former UN weapons inspector @RealScottRitter reports Iran has never run an active nuclear weapons program, and that the nuclear scare narrative is political, not factual. Israel had previously rolled out dramatic “Iran nuke” files before, including a 2018 forged dossier that was more about manufacturing a pretext for war than revealing any real, ongoing weapons program. Israel itself sits on an undeclared nuclear arsenal, has never signed the Non‑Proliferation Treaty, and still claims the right to decide which countries are “allowed” to have these weapons.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 argues that the president is “screaming” that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and that there is no proof Iran has a nuclear program. Speaker 0 responds that there has been “no proof” Iran did anything, while Iranian officials say Iran will not accept being told what it can do regarding nuclear power. Speaker 0 says Iran has offered that if the other side is uncomfortable with Iran’s uranium, it can come inspect it, and claims the negotiation continues without resolution. Speaker 1 states that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and that there is no evidence supporting allegations Iran had one. Speaker 1 claims that evidence presented in this regard was fabricated, pointing to events starting in 2018 involving Israelis breaking into a Tehran facility, stealing documents, and providing them to Donald Trump as proof Iran was cheating. Speaker 1 says Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and alleges the documents were previously submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2004 and were forgeries. Speaker 1 concludes that the Israeli case against Iran consists of forged or contextually altered documents. Speaker 1 also claims Iran does not want a nuclear weapon and that this is tied to religious beliefs, including fatwas or religious edicts from the first two supreme leaders. Speaker 1 cites that even when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, Iran did not respond in kind and framed chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction as incompatible with Islamic jurisprudence, presenting this as consistent behavior rather than contradiction. Speaker 0 says 60% enriched uranium is a provocation and that the Iranian president was asked why it happened. Speaker 0 reports Araghchi’s explanation: Iran did it to gain negotiating leverage because the United States would otherwise dismiss them as “zero, zero, zero, zero,” while Iran says the U.S. does not get to impose “zero.” Speaker 0 says this was intended to allow Iran to retain enrichment while not enriching to a level Iran has demonstrated it has. Speaker 0 further claims that before a conflict began on February 28, Iran met extensively with Jared Kushner and Steve Wyckoff and agreed to remove 60% enriched uranium, never enrich again, and accept inspections limiting enrichment to 3.75%, described as the level needed for fuel used in Iran’s Bushehr reactor. Speaker 0 says the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives Iran the right under Article 4 to possess the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, and that the U.S. and Israel should not dictate terms that deviate from the treaty. Speaker 0 asserts Iran would close higher-enrichment pathways and accept limitations without sunset clauses, making them permanent. Speaker 0 concludes that Israel refuses to allow Iran an enrichment program, despite Israel not signing the NPT and possessing nuclear weapons, and argues that the negotiation’s “easiest part” would be letting Iran enrich to 3.75% under IAEA supervision while shutting down higher-level pathways, which would eliminate a pathway to a bomb and allow Trump to claim a better deal than the JCPOA.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: The president just keeps screaming Iran can never have a nuke. Speaker 0: I mean, we never had proof that they did. But Iranian officials are saying, we just are not going to let them tell us that we can't use nuclear power. We are not going to let them tell us what to do anymore. If they're uncomfortable with our uranium, they can come and inspect it. This has always been the case. But we continue to move the football. So what is the stage of the negotiation about nuclear power? A nuclear weapon. Speaker 1: Well, sure. We know that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. They never had a nuclear weapons program. There's no evidence to sustain any allegations that they've had a nuclear weapons program. All evidence that's been put on the table in that regard have been shown to be fabricated. Remember in 2000, was it? In 2018, the Israelis launched some sort of famous attack, a raid on Tehran where they broke into a facility and stole documents. And then they did that in early 2018. And then they went to Donald Trump and they showed Donald Trump the documents. And Donald Trump said, this is proof they're cheating. And he withdrew from the JCPOA because he only takes instructions from Israel. But the interesting thing is... when these documents, some of them were made public, it turns out that these documents had already been previously submitted by the Israelis to the International Atomic Energy Agency back in 2004 and were shown to be outright fabrications, forgeries. And that's the reality of the Israeli case against Iran. It's 100% fabricated, consisting of forged documents or documents that are taken out of context. There is no Iranian nuclear weapons program, never has been, and there never will be because Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon. They've made that quite clear. It's not just that they don't want it, but it's also incompatible with their religious beliefs. There are fatwas or religious edicts that have been passed by the first two supreme leaders that said no to this. As you pointed out, the Iranians are serious about this, because even when Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops, inflicting serious casualties on these troops, Iran never responded in kind, saying that chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction in general, are against Islamic jurisprudence. So it's not that they say one thing and do another. They're consistent all along. I have pointed out that 60% enriched uranium is a provocation. I asked the Iranian president straight to his face, why did you do it? Because it makes it look like you're moving towards a nuclear weapon. And what his foreign minister answered after talking to him, Araghchi said, We're doing it so that we have negotiating leverage. The world has to take us seriously, because right now the United States doesn't. They just say zero, zero, zero, zero. And the Iranians are saying, you don't get to say zero. So the idea was to have this so that there would be a card to play so that they can retain enrichment, but not enrich to a level they've demonstrated they have. And this seems to be backed up because prior to this most recent round of conflict starting on February 28th, the Iranians had met extensively with Jared Kushner and Steve Wyckoff, and they where they basically agreed to get rid of their 60% enriched uranium and also agree that they would never again enrich, that there would be inspections that would limit the enrichment to 3.75%, which is the enrichment level needed for fuel used in the Bushir nuclear reactor. Iran has an inherent right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to possess the totality of the nuclear fuel cycle inclusive of enrichment. The United States and Israel do not get to dictate things that differ deviate from the treaty. And this is what Iran is saying. There will be no Iran exception to the treaty. Iran will do what Iran is allowed to do under Article 4 of the NPT. But Iran will agree, I believe, and the United States would agree to low levels of enrichment, Iran would agree to close the door on higher levels of enrichment to limit the number of cascades they have to limit the amount of nuclear material that would be accumulated and do so without any sunset clauses so that these limitations would become permanent. And that's how you get out of this nuclear issue. But the problem is Israel refuses to allow Iran to have a nuclear enrichment program. It's somewhat ironic since Israel is neither a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and they possess nuclear weapons. So, you know, it's stunning that the United States and the world continues to even listen to what Israel has to say on this issue. This is the easiest part of the negotiation if the United States would just use common sense. allow Iran to enrich uranium to 3.75%, to so under the supervision of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. And Iran will agree that all pathways to enrichment at a higher level will be shut down. Therefore, there is no pathway to a bomb. Therefore, there is no potential of a nuclear weapon. Therefore, Donald Trump gets to say that he has a better deal than the JCPOA. This is how you get out of it.
MarioNawfal
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 6:03 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 12:43 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m hearing analyst Tom Luongo argue that Trump isn’t “fighting Iran” for the Strait of Hormuz; he’s using it to weaken Europe’s ability to finance the Ukraine war. He says energy costs constrain European borrowing and industrial competitiveness, limiting funding for Ukraine. He adds that many leaders backed Ukraine expecting access to Russia’s resources to repay debts—if that fails, they’re stuck.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

Market Analyst Tom Luongo says Trump isn't fighting Iran to control the Strait of Hormuz; he's using the Strait to break Europe's ability to finance the Ukraine war. Most people see Iran and Ukraine as two separate conflicts, but Tom thinks they're the same war being fought on different fronts. His argument is that oil is the collateral that underpins the modern economy. The more expensive and uncertain energy becomes, the harder it is for European governments to borrow cheaply, keep their industries competitive, and continue funding Ukraine at the current pace. That's why he thinks the Strait of Hormuz matters so much, because whoever controls the world's most important energy chokepoint also influences the financial foundations that wars are fought on. Trump can't simply announce the end of the Ukraine war, even if he wants to, because too many powerful interests are invested in keeping the conflict going. So instead of attacking the war directly, Tom believes Trump is attacking the economic conditions that make the war possible. He also made one of the interview's boldest claims: Europe has poured so much money into Ukraine because many European leaders expected the war to eventually open the door to Russia's vast natural resources, providing the cash flows needed to justify years of borrowing and military spending. If that never happens, they're left with enormous debts and very few ways to pay them back. Most people think the shortest route to ending the war in Ukraine runs through Kyiv, but Tom thinks it runs through the Strait of Hormuz. And if he's right, we've been looking at the wrong map all along. @TFL1728

Video Transcript AI Summary
Mario asks Tom for an overall analysis of the current situation and where it is headed, citing rising instability around Iran and key shipping routes. He notes that, after Trump posted that Iran asked him to continue talks and that the parties had agreed, the ceasefire was declared over following U.S. bombing of Iran over two days (described as the heaviest since the ceasefire), with a third day of bombing attributed to “most likely Bahrain and Kuwait.” He adds that Iran retaliated against Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan, and fired one strike at Qatar “looks like a warning strike.” According to Kepler data, traffic through the Strait of Hormuz/Homs area collapsed, with only 22 ships passing since yesterday—mostly on the Iranian side rather than the normal 40–50—while some military assets moved slightly out of the region. Tom says he takes a “third way,” arguing Iran has never been the real target of the broader war framework. He describes Ukraine, Lebanon, and Israel as not fully sovereign in his view, and frames Iran similarly—as connected to networks of larger powers. He argues Trump’s actions are part of a larger strategic picture targeting global trade “choke points,” including the Strait of Hormuz, and that escalation is a response pattern to “poking” major pressure points and triggering reactions. He links the current pattern to prior episodes he mentions involving Ukraine in 2022, and other Trump moves he says crossed “big red lines,” producing reactions. Tom explains his central connection: by pressuring oil flows out of Hormuz, Europe cannot afford energy (“the collateral on which the money moves”), making it difficult for Europe to keep resupplying Ukraine with personnel, logistics, and support. He adds details about a nearly failed German bond auction, where $6 billion (6 billion euros) in bonds were offered but only $3.9 billion sold, forcing pricing “at five basis points” over the prior issue. He claims oil prices and energy access matter for Europe’s ability to sustain the Ukraine war effort. He further argues that Trump and “emergent civilian leadership in Iran” are distinct from the IRGC in his framing, and that ceasefires and agreements repeatedly fail. He says he sees a cycle: when negotiators sign agreements that cross a red line, the IRGC forces a reaction, then the U.S. responds, assets are expended, and hostilities resume—until civilian leadership gains enough power to restrain the IRGC. He also says the recent three-day bombing campaign feels “very different,” implying escalation into “real siege warfare.” Mario asks about an Axios report stating that mediators believe recent Iranian attacks on commercial vessels were orchestrated by elements within Iran’s government opposed to the MOU and seeking to undermine it. Tom agrees he was on a similar track, adding that the larger aim is to “flip Iran out of the camp of the chaos regime” and constrain control of oil choke points that he says support leverage over Ukraine and China. Tom then argues the objective for Europe is not cheap energy but degradation of Europe’s ability to fund Ukraine: Europe needs energy and collateral for funding flows, yet Trump’s actions remove collateral. He also says Trump is constrained by domestic U.S. politics and that he cannot end supply “because he has a political problem at home” and must “play the game.” He argues Putin hedges because policy may change and says intelligence assets and conflict infrastructure must be destroyed to prevent restarting conflict later. As the discussion narrows, Tom says he does not believe Trump must control the Strait of Hormuz directly; instead, he wants an Iran “not a failed state,” with a more friendly government, and frames the desired end state as bringing Iran into the “community of nations.” He says the conflict is tied to institutions and “lines not crossed,” and envisions Gulf/Arab governments managing themselves through new regional frameworks similar to what he calls a “Gaza Board of Peace.” In the final question about scheduled talks in Switzerland next week amid reports of explosions in Iran (including a fire in Lorestan province at a refinery), Tom says he expects escalation to continue “for a few more months” in an “off on again” cycle, and advises watching the Iranian negotiators to see what they agree on and where differences emerge. He says permanent resolution is unlikely until after U.S. midterms, because Trump lacks “political stability” to build durable outcomes, and then legal processes move slower than political and market time.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tom, pleasure to speak to you. How are you? I'm good, Mario. It's good to actually try and make this one work as opposed to what happened the last time. So I'm looking forward to it. Speaker 1: So we have, as we were coming online, Trump posted that Iran has asked him to continue the talks. We have agreed to do so, blah, blah, blah. But then he says the ceasefire is over. That comes after a few days of bombing where the U.S., three days of the, no, two days of the U.S. bombing Iran. the heaviest bombing since the ceasefire. And then a third day where no one knows who bombed Iran, not sure if you saw that yesterday, most likely Bahrain and Kuwait. And then Iran retaliating against Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and one strike against Qatar, looks like a warning strike. And then the traffic through the Strait of Homs collapsed. According to Kepler, since the fighting began, only 22, so since yesterday, only 22 ships have gone through. just one vessel on the Mani channel and all the others on the Iranian side, which is much less than the 40 to 50 that we're going through in recent weeks since the ceasefire. That's the reality we're going through right now. All this is happening while military equipment, military assets in the last few days have moved, not too much, but moving out of the region, some military assets. But, Tom, before we get into oil prices, the Strait of Hormuz closure, pretty low oil prices. This is the first time we chat, so I want to kind of get your general analysis of the state of affairs right now, and more importantly, where you think this is headed, because everyone is split. Some people think the war is over and this is just clashes because of disagreements on the Strait of Hormuz. Others think because of Lebanon, because of Hormuz, or because the US has an objective that has not been achieved of controlling the Strait of Hormuz or causing regime change, that they will continue the war until that objective is achieved. I'd love to ask an open-ended question because I kind of would love a brain dump from you. Speaker 0: Sure. So I'm going to take a third way on this because, of course, this is kind of what I do, right, which is to say this war is really – Iran has never really been the target of this war because I don't really see Iran the same way I've never saw Ukraine or Lebanon or even Israel and others as sovereign nations. I see them as – I hate to use the word like satrap. honestly, but they are playthings of vaster powers. In Ukraine's case, it's NATO and the European Union and previous US administrations. In Iran, what we've learned over the last couple of years, especially since Trump's come back to office, is that they were really just like all the Gulf states. Everybody was kind of like... Just in bed with that same kind of architecture, what you would call city of London or, you know, whatever, however you want to phrase it. So to me, I'm looking at Trump in a much more bigger strategic picture than Iran itself. Iran looks to me like a poke, like you poke the snake in the heart of their heart. of their you know of their nest and then see what reaction you get and the reaction we've gotten is very very similar to the same reaction we got with ukraine for example when putin had to move in ukraine in 2022 or every time trump tries to do something domestically that crosses a big red line and then you see a big ab reaction from either domestic you know the the domestic policy front something like the la riots last year he poked um the the the NGOs and the cartels and that created, you know, race riots and, you know, and a response. So all of these things are to me, they're all kind of the same thing. And just each time he's done this, it's a bigger and bigger state. So he starts with a laundromat in L.A. and then he moves to trying to solve the war in Ukraine. And then he like takes takes out Maduro in Venezuela, again, poking a part of that network that exists. And now Iran is kind of like the final chapter of that. Because Iran, in my way of thinking, is a linchpin to solving Ukraine, to solving Israel, to solving Turkey, to solving all of these things, because there are old relationships all the way across the board with European, old colonial powers of Europe, some of whom are British, some of whom are French. The interests are everywhere, Dutch, all of it. And at the end of the day, the big question is, is Trump trying to rewire the world's global trade away from these geographical choke points that the Strait of Hormuz represents, that the Straits of Florida vis-a-vis Cuba represents, the Straits of Malacca and Singapore represent, that Gibraltar and all the others. And so when you take a step back and get away from the microcosm and you take a look at the big board, like, quote, you know, George C. Scott from Dr. Strange, let's look at the big board, you get a different strategic picture. Because who's really in the crosshairs here? How do you solve Ukraine? My friend Joaquin Flores made the point the other day, he was on with Crypto Rich, and he said, Trump's, you know, putting, continuing to put pressure on oil flows out of Hormuz makes it very difficult for the warmongers in NATO and the EU to continue supplying Ukraine to fight Russia. So solving... Iran in many ways is solving Ukraine. You asked the open ended question there, Mario, and you're going to get the open ended Tom Luongo answer. I'm going to go on for 20 minutes about this. Speaker 1: I love it. So how would that pull back Ukraine? Can you just make that connection again? Speaker 0: Sure. Well, just think of it this way. At the end of the day, the Europeans have to have enough energy, diesel, fuel, gasoline, this, that, and everything else. Now we're getting just on the raw military logistics stuff. How do they continually resupply the Ukrainian front? with men, material, personnel, logistics, support and everything else, if they can't afford to pay for oil and they can't continue to also float debt at low interest rates based on low energy prices. Like this is an interesting thing. I was like, we're doing this in the morning after a nearly failed German bond auction. So again, this is kind of, to me, none of these things, none of these things are by Germany. It wasn't failed, but it wasn't a particularly good one. They offered up $6 billion worth of bonds, or 6 billion euros worth of bonds, and they only sold 3.9 billion. And they had to sell them at 5... at five basis points over the one issued, which, if you know anything about bond auctions, is a horribly tailing auction. If that was a similar auction here in America, everybody would be like, oh, my God, the world is going to end, right? Speaker 1: Exactly. Exactly. Okay. So essentially getting that oil, that energy oil and gas, but mainly oil out of the shadow for Europe is necessary so Europe could keep affording the war in Ukraine. Speaker 0: can keep supporting Ukraine's war effort. Again, it's multifaceted. We could take 20 minutes and kind of go through a lot of the things. But just in general, like they need oil is collateral, right? We all focus on money and price and this and everything else. But oil is the collateral on which the money moves, right? It's really important to separate money from collateral. And, you know, what Trump is doing here is this is why I I'm going to back up for a couple of seconds and say, look, I think that Trump and the emergent civilian leadership in Iran, not the IRGC, I make a separation, not the IRGC, not the theocracy or what's left of the theocracy. I see those as two separate factions and I see them as actually in many ways serving separate masters or serving separate agendas or purposes. So when I watch multiple ceasefires, MOUs, this, that, everything else. And I see them fail over and over and over again. It's similar to, will we make a deal? Will we not make a deal with Zelensky? We walk Zelensky up to the line to make a deal with Putin, and then he backs away at the last second, and we see a bombing of a Russian apartment complex, right? It's a similar situation. What I've noticed, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is what I've noticed, is that every time Trump and the negotiators get together, Iranian negotiators get together, they sign some kind of agreement which crosses some red line, the IRGC and then by extension, I would argue, London European old moneyed interest who have, I think, an agenda to continue to keep the chaos because they make a premium off the chaos. Lloyds of London makes a premium off the insurance contracts, all of that stuff. So when you look at it that way, They cross the red line. That forces a reaction, just like poking a laundromat that's laundering money for the cartels in L.A. They then turn around and create a Mexican race riot, but you've got to light up all those. You've got to move money. You've got to light up all those previously dark bank accounts and funding networks and everything else. So now you're mapping all that. It's the same thing that's been happening with the U.S. and Iran since the war started. Every time you do this, you The model is really simple. Cross a red line, force a reaction. You move a pawn, and then you force them to move a bishop. And this is, again, I don't like to think of Trump as a chess player. I like to think of him as a poker player. But you watch that, and then boom. Then we have more hostilities. And that has to light up new IRGC assets that were playing possum, to use an American phrase, playing dead. And then they light up. And then they shoot something off and then they expend an asset and then we go and blow them up. And then we come back to the table and we do it again. And why there's no more. And there's no, what I'm getting at here is like the end game is at some point, the emergent civilian, uh, leadership in iran will get to a point where they have enough power to be able to put a tamp on the irgc that was the strategy i don't know if we're at that point because it feels like this bombing campaign of the last three days feels like something very different meaning trump has been forced to go to the to the state that he doesn't want to which is to effectively start the real siege warfare against the iranian people which i don't i don't think he ever wanted to do okay Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm going to mention a report from Axios and then let you know what I understand from what you said to make sure I'm still understanding it well. So Axios put out a report that aligns with what you said. Mediators, according to Axios, you can believe it or not, mediators believe the recent Iranian attacks on commercial vessels on the Strait of Homs were orchestrated by elements within the Iranian government opposed to the MOU and seeking to undermine it. That's from Axios. Speaker 0: That's interesting that it is from Axios, who's usually a mouthpiece for the forces that are behind the conflict. Like, I read Axios, Politico, and whatnot as, you know, effectively, you know, what I would call Davosian. Speaker 1: America's... American neocons, whatever you want to call them. Yeah, so Iran has Fars News, the US has Axios and Politico. So what this report is claiming is that... So what you're saying first is that the americans are doing is that constantly poking the bear and the bear responds and then america bombs them and the end goal is to lead to the factions within the government that are opposed to the irgc to be emboldened enough and maybe have enough support to then rise up against the irgc with the end goal in mind Still remaining regime change because the control of the oil choke point is so important for the Ukraine war and even its leverage over China that they're not going to give it up so easily. Speaker 0: Am I on the right track? What I would say is to bring Iran into the country, the new Iran into the country, into the fold. And what I'm getting at is the European side of this is that you're trying to flip Iran out of the camp of the chaos regime. purveyors, for lack of a better term. I have multiple names for them. Davos, City of London, this one. You can call them whatever you want. I'm not, at a certain point, everybody has their version of that cabal conspiracy, whatever you want to call it. It's very clearly, I kind of like to use the phrase, the high table from John Wick, because it's the unseen or the mostly unseen web of organized crime and supranational governmental structure, super governmental structures that exist. And we know they exist. We know they're out there. So the bigger question here is, can Trump flip them to his end of the high table? And I think he's working with Putin and Xi in many ways to, because it's in Russia's best interest to end all this stuff. It's in China's best interest to end all this stuff. Because really all Trump wants is for China to pay retail for oil. He doesn't care where they get it from. He just doesn't want them getting it through China. you know, where he was, they were getting a wholesale prices from Venezuela and Iran because of sanctions. So, you know, again, sanctions that's Trump put on them, but that's because there's other activity that are, that are orthogonal or adjacent to the oil trade that he wanted to also solve the drug trade, the human trafficking trade and all the other stuff. So like, so the, the, the, the, the, the understanding here is that, look, if you're not going to submit Davos, then we're going to keep punishing your pets until you do submit or you run out of runway. Because Putin's strategy... Who submits? Putin's strategy in Ukraine has been attrition. Like, keep destroying the Ukrainian army over and over and over again with European money. They have to keep doing the sunk cost fallacy of dumping more money in to raise another army, to keep fighting the Russians. Meanwhile, Trump is now trying to take away their energy and their and their access to collateral. Again, it's part of the same strategy, but it doesn't look like... So they are coordinating, but it doesn't look like they're coordinating because they've got political issues in both countries and the domestic front where they can't look like they're actually in cahoots with one another. They can't do that because it would just... I know the situation here in the United States is still that if you think that Congress would be opposing Trump today forget it if he was actually out there you know organized with putin to to try and end all this stuff it's clear that he can't do that it's clear that also there are assets around the region and he can't blow up directly like that he has to allow other people to blow up for him and that's another side just to understand that one but that one i missed it so you're saying that so what trump is um doing is taking the collateral away from europe Speaker 1: To force them to end the war? Speaker 0: Yeah. In effect, again, you have to continue to degrade their ability to continue funding Ukraine because the United States isn't really funding Ukraine anymore. We have a Congress that wants the parts of Congress that want to fund Ukraine, but clearly Trump doesn't. But you definitely have that from the European side. NATO, like they're pledging another $170 billion or whatever it is that they're going to dump into Ukraine. They have a couple of reasons they have to do that, not the least of which is they need the war to continue because they pledged all these loans and the future cash flows over getting control of Russia to pay these loans back, and they're not getting them. So they have a real problem from that perspective. you so it's the Europeans do. And so now the big question is like on everybody's mind is what happens when we can all do the macroeconomics of Europe, they're terrible. Germany's de industrializing France is a mess. The UK is nothing but a you know, is nothing but city of London's Forex and insurance industry at this point, like that all of it is bad, right? So at some point, global investors The only thing keeping Europe afloat from a global investor perspective is the perceived chaos politically in the United States. So the minute Trump puts any real solid geopolitical wins on the board, which get him over the line in the midterms and everything else, forget it. All the capital is going to flow out of Europe. And they're not going to be able to continue funding their operations at 3% to 4%, or more appropriately, at lower interest rates than the United States is currently borrowing at. Speaker 1: So Tom, just so there's one part where I didn't get. So when with the US controlling the collateral, the oil coming out or the energy coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. So I initially thought what you meant by this is that the objective of it is to offer Europe cheap energy so they can maintain the war with Russia. But what you're saying is no, they want to control it. to take it away from Europe because Trump wants the war with Russia to end. And he's working with Russia to get it to end. But Europe needs it to continue because they've got all the loans that were used to be able to fund the war and to be able to pay back these loans. They need to get some assets away from Russia. Speaker 0: Well, yeah. Well, they've always wanted to take over. The Europeans want the asset pile in Russia, the coal, the timber, the oil, the gas, all of it, the uranium, all of it. There's $75 or $100 trillion worth of assets there that they can colonize. take control of the Russian government, the Russian SOEs, the state-owned enterprises, and all the rest of it, and then pull cash flow off of that in perpetuity to pay all this stuff back. And then the other side of this, of course, is that because they've done this before, the Europeans have, which is that they've repudiated their old debt, issued perpetual debt, and then they use the cash flow from the latest round of colonization to pay the the people that they stole their initial investments from, meaning when you buy a bond, right? You're supposed to get, you give the government $10,000 in a bond and you're supposed to pull 4% off of it. And at the end of the bonds, the money comes back to you. But the Europeans have done this many times. And George Soros has talked about the concept of consuls many, many times saying this is what we should do, which is the debt pile is too big. So we need to just repudiate the debt, issue consuls, which are perpetual debt, you know, at a lower interest rate in perpetuity. And we're going to pay you not 4% for 10 years. We're going to pay you 2% forever. Right? And the Brits have done this before. The French have not. Everybody's done it. Speaker 1: So I'll accept the United States. If Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine, can't he just stop supplying the weapons they need? Isn't it that simple? Speaker 0: Is he really? It is. It is. kind of that simple remember he has a political problem at the end at home which is he's got a congress that wants the war so if he wants to get other things done he unfortunately kind of has to play the game yeah and then there's there's also there's also the real factor there's a i mean i think there's a minor issue with putin which is that It's not like anybody trusts each other here. Like there's been some nascent deals and behind the scenes done. I think a lot of the architecture for what we're seeing now was discussed in August of last year in Alaska between Trump and Putin. But at the end of the day, Putin has to hedge his bets as to whether or not Trump's gonna be able to pull anything off. He knows full well having served under as Russia's president under four different presidents that were five, well, four, at least four. one, two, three, yeah, four presidents that, you know, policy changes every four years. He talks about this all the time. So Putin has to make, he may want to do this deal with Trump, but Trump doesn't necessarily want to, there's a lot going on. Moreover, and this is one of the things that I need to put in people's heads, which is that there are intelligence assets everywhere around the world. There are these terrorist groups or these, you know, they're everywhere. They're embedded all over the place. Some of them are CIA. Some of them are Mossad. Some of them are MI6. Some of them are French intelligence. And some of them are CSIS. And they have to be destroyed. That infrastructure has to be destroyed. Their ability to continue to spin this back up, this conflict back up two years from now has to be dealt with as well. So when I look at the headlines of Iran was able to bombed some bases around the Middle East, U.S. bases around the Middle East. They got their hits in. They're getting destroyed. Well, Trump wants out of the Middle East. He's made this abundantly clear. He wants out of Europe. He's been pulling troops out of Latvia. He's been moving armor out of Poland and into Greece. He's pulled troops out of Syria. He wants out of the region. He wants out of all these conflicts, but you can't leave the materiel and the bases and the infrastructure behind to fight everything. That's why he was so angry with Biden. When we pulled out of Afghanistan, because Biden left all the infrastructure behind to continue the war by other means with other people, just not with armies, just not with the U S army with, with the private army. And so, um, that is a subplot in all of this. And so it's my, in my estimation, in my read on this, Trump has to also hedge his bets that he could, that he could lose the midterms that. We could get president AOC in 2029. Okay. And we have to make it too expensive. He has to make it too expensive for anybody in the 2030s to restart this, to rebuild that infrastructure and rebuild and restart it. So it's, again, it's, this is, we have to think multilaterally and overall strategically, what's your goal. Your goal is to, to de-emphasize these physical choke points, maybe build some pipelines as opposed to the maritime sea trade. Like rewire the world's expectations about how things are going to flow. He's already done that. And I think that that means that we were looking at a foreign oil between 70 and $75 a barrel, as opposed to on Brent crude, as opposed to $60 a barrel. Because look, the shipping routes are now more expensive, right? Speaker 1: And that just- It's going to be permanently higher price. Speaker 0: Right, and somebody has to pay those logistics, right? And we're going to pay it, right? Speaker 1: So based on that strategic thinking, so just to go back to the Iran war, you don't think Trump can pull out. He needs to eventually control the Strait of Hormuz. It will take a lot for him to decide to pull out. Is that what you're saying? Speaker 0: I don't know that he necessarily needs to control it. I think in the long run, what he's going to do is hope that he can get an Iran that is not – a failed state. He doesn't want a failed state in Iran. Speaker 1: He just wants a friendly government. Speaker 0: He wants something similar to what he's been able to pull off with Venezuela. Venezuela, yeah. Again, when you look at domestic politics, Mario, we all sit around like, I'm American and I'm frustrated about everything I see and I'm like, why don't you just roll into Minneapolis and just put everybody on buses and get rid of them all? You can't because if you If he turns into a dictator, right, he's weakening the internal institutions of the United States as a body politic, as a society. It's the same kind of thing he's trying to do with Iran, the same thing he's trying to do with Venezuela, which is these, we're all at a low ebb in terms of our civilizational impulse as cohesive units. What institutional infrastructure exists needs to be supported and the lines not crossed. And of course that line that he doesn't wanna cross is of course the one that I think his European enemies are constantly telling the IRGC to cross. And that's why the conflict continues. So it's not that Trump wants to control the straight. It's that he actually wants the Arab governments to manage themselves with the, kind of like the Gaza Board of Peace is in effect a new institution. and a new institutional framework to negotiate conflicts. And they don't have to be global. They can be overall a single-issue thing, which is how are we going to rebuild Gaza, right? And then the same thing is what are we going to do in the Straits of Hormuz and blah, blah, blah. Speaker 1: So the Gulf countries to be able to, or the Arab world to all control the shadow Hormuz, to run it all themselves, to have a new government in Iran, but one that is more friendly or more adaptable U.S. policy rather than… Speaker 0: you can frame you could frame it that way if you want the way i would frame it as uh you know again i would frame it slightly differently which is just to say like you want an iran that is not trying to become a new hermit kingdom like north korea we want to bring them into the community of nations as equals and as partners so the same thing that he's trying to do in venezuela to be i mean to be honest with you it's really it's quite sad that the timing of that massive earthquake in caracas happened when it did right because we were just just getting started trying to help rebuild Venezuela, right? You know, a lot of people in this life don't like Donald Trump, but, you know, he doesn't control earthquakes. So, you know what I mean? Speaker 1: So, based on this thinking, so based on this thinking, Tom, is the final question, because we're getting reports here that there's talks scheduled for next week in Switzerland. Meanwhile, we're getting reports of explosions in Iran. No confirmation that there's an attack, but there's reports of explosions right now um including a fire in uh in loristan province in a refinery um so this all happened while we're talking so everything's on edge with with this mindset with what you've just explained what do you expect to happen how do you expect things to unfold um i'm not surprised that there are talks scheduled for next week i've already kind of laid out that every time we do this like they cross another red line we have another escalation that we move to the next stage when we move to the next stage i think that there's a um Speaker 0: I think that this can't end until after it may, this may have to go on for a few more months. Unfortunately, this kind of off on again, off again thing, but watch the Iranian interlocutors, the negotiators, watch them carefully and look at what some in substance of where they agree next and what the differences are and how they agree next. Don't that's the, the big one. This is international relations. We're not here to, to, to press our morality. My personal morality on this is 180 from where this is, right? What we've all discussed today. It's not about that at all. This is about... Trump has made it abundantly clear what he wants here. He's trying to solve about five or six problems all at once. It's why it feels scattershot. I don't know that we can get any kind of permanent resolution to this until after the midterms in the United States because Trump doesn't have the political... stability, the foundation on which to build anything permanent. So now it's going to be important for him, I think, to then shift domestically and start that process of really locking down the people's support. And that means that he's going to have to really start up in the ante on putting certain people in jail and moving the indictments forward and everything else. And unfortunately, as Alexander Mercurius likes to remind everybody, legal time moves far slower than political time and market time. And that's the big friction point, ultimately. Speaker 1: Tom, really enjoyed this. I had to really focus. I'm glad I just had my cup of coffee. You've done a great job explaining it. I really, really enjoyed how it connected everything. So thank you for doing this. I'd love to do this again, man. Speaker 0: Of course. Ping this, reach out whenever you're ready, and I'll do my thing. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Have a good weekend. Bye-bye.
GUnderground_TV
Posted - July 11, 2026 at 12:57 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 12:33 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing a new episode of Going Underground featuring ex–US State Department adviser James Carden. We discuss whether Trump’s NATO-Russia pivot in Ukraine will escalate war or bring peace, the actual goals of Europe’s elites and US neocons, and what lies are told to Trump about the proxy war’s true state.

@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground

🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Ukraine🇺🇦 Proxy War: Europe’s Elites & US Neocons Want the DISSOLUTION of Russia🇷🇺 — Ex-State Department Official James Carden Will Trump’s pivot to the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine result in an escalation of the war or peace? What are the actual goals of Europe’s leaders and US neocons in the war against Russia? What lies are being told to Trump about the state of the Ukraine proxy war? All this and more on this episode with James Carden, Ex-Asvisor to the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission at the US State Department.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshin Rattansi opens by linking NATO’s 77th annual summit to ongoing wars, saying NATO weaponry is used in Gaza and Lebanon, in Bandar Abbas in Iran, and in a proxy war against Russia. He also claims NATO leaders and President Trump want expanded conflict, while NATO member populations face hardship. Rattansi speaks with James Carden, editor of the Realist Review and senior advisor to the American Committee for U.S.-Russian Accord. Carden says Trump publicly scolded NATO at the start of the summit for not supporting the American war against Iran, including a threat to cut off trade with Spain. He argues that behind closed-door sessions Trump aligned with a neoconservative agenda, citing claims about offering Ukraine “licenses to build Patriot missiles,” and comparing the second Trump administration to the “third term for Bush-Cheney.” Carden says Trump’s approach at the summit reflects continuity with post-9/11-era policy. Rattansi asks whether Trump’s fear of nuclear war should translate into different action, contrasting him with Biden and Obama. Carden responds that Trump’s prior actions contradict his alleged fear, listing withdrawal from the 1987 INF Treaty, the ripping up of the Open Skies Treaty, and non-renewal of New START. He says Trump has come under influence of American neoconservative lobbying and frames this as support for endless war in Ukraine and the Middle East, including decisions to continue striking Iran and to walk away from an MOU. Rattansi raises concerns about legacy and a possible pivot away from neocons. Carden says that continuing to fund the Ukraine war and provide Patriot missile-related support signals no end to the conflict and argues the advisors around Trump are not serious about ending the war or engaging Russia diplomatically. He says Zelensky is “walking away quite happy” from the Ankara summit. On reports that Ukraine’s drone campaign signals success and strikes deep into Russia, Carden says for every Ukrainian drone strike inside Russia, Russia responds with a missile, and he claims Ukrainians are suffering far more. He says the headlines do not change the balance of forces on the ground and criticizes the mainstream narrative that Ukraine is “a drone away from victory,” adding that Trump lacks people telling him the truth. Rattansi asks what neocons and Western elites want. Carden says many want “a resounding defeat of Russia,” dissolution of Russia, and regime change, asserting that European elites object to diplomacy and call advocates for settlement “puppets of the Kremlin.” He says Trump and those around him are “squarely in that camp.” Rattansi asks whether Russia shares blame for not imposing “fierce red lines,” and for Finland hosting nuclear weapons. Carden says Russia likely made mistakes after the 2014 Maidan coup, including trusting the Minsk process; he cites Angela Merkel’s later revelation that Minsk was used to buy time for Ukraine to build defenses and military. He describes the war as reminiscent of World War I with drones, making it difficult for either side to break through, and frames the options for Zelensky and Putin as continuing to waste lives or seeking settlement, adding that he says alternatives to war exist but have not been pursued due to pressure from Washington and Brussels. Asked about Washington’s “deep state,” Carden says the views he describes are “pretty uniform,” calling Landau and Colby outliers. He claims Trump relies on neoconservative influence, including Mark Thiessen and Jared Kushner, and says the national security advisor and secretary of state are hardline neoconservatives, naming Marco Rubio. He argues the window for responsible action is closing as U.S. primary politics approaches, with calls to “double down” because both parties believe the war is winnable for Ukraine. During the follow-up, Rattansi questions whether Trump could pivot after U.S. midterms, and whether he might end the war or stop U.S. funds to Zelensky. Carden doubts a political turn like Reagan’s, saying Trump would need different people and a narrower conception of American interests, asserting the Donbass has “nothing to do with the United States” and that Crimea, Donbass, or access to the Sea of Azov do not affect American strategic interests. Rattansi asks about leverage for diplomacy and claims about possible propaganda “false flags.” Carden says the United States must leverage NATO, arguing that threatening to turn off funding or walk away would create leverage, while simply following European preferences leaves none. On energy impacts from wars in West Asia, Carden links energy prices to midterm politics, saying Trump must choose between continuing the war against Iran on behalf of Netanyahu and risking midterms due to oil prices, or prioritizing his constituents’ well-being. He speculates that if populations replace European governments, negotiation might become possible. Rattansi asks whether Trump might leave NATO. Carden says it is “mostly an act,” suggesting Trump could try to distance the U.S. from NATO only if he brought in ideological allies, but he argues major changes are unlikely given appointments and staffing. Rattansi shifts back to West Asia, asking what this means for the region given Kushner and Rubio connections to Israeli-linked sources. Carden says the U.S.-Iran conflict should not be treated in isolation, identifying Israel’s “drive for greater Israel” as the “true driver,” tying it to Gaza, removal of Palestinians from the West Bank and southern Lebanon. He says progress between the U.S. and Iran will not occur until that project is addressed, and rejects the claim that Iran sought nuclear weapons, citing the Ayatollah’s fatwa against such weapons. Finally, Rattansi asks whether the site of Syria’s former al-Qaeda leader Jelani (given as “Jelani of Syria”) with Trump suggests Democrats’ political situation. Carden says Hillary Clinton may go for the presidency in 2028, citing a “very weak” field, her remaining control and influence in the Democratic Party, and the idea that none of the Democrats he spoke to think Gavin Newsom has a chance. He says Clinton has money, influence, and goodwill, and if she becomes the candidate it would likely produce “regime change wars” that depose leaders such as Assad and replace them with radical Islamists like Jelani.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshin Rattansi, and welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE as neighboring Iran mourned under U.S. bombardment. While NATO held its 77th annual summit, its weaponry was used for genocides in Gaza and Lebanon and bombing fish markets in Iran's Bandar Abbas across the Gulf from this Dubai studio, let alone for bombing Russia in a proxy war that has lasted longer than World War I. This is moving in the right direction, according to glorified Trump servant and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who said NATO was also willing to play a role against Iran, the absurdly described defensive alliance that bills itself as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, mass murders nowhere near the North Atlantic. It met in Turkey, bordering the countries targeted by NATO nations, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Turkey itself has been hit during Trump's unprovoked war of aggression against Iran, which this week held the largest funeral ceremonies in human history. And as it faces NATO's Greece in a military standoff in the Aegean, It's all not enough, though, for NATO boss and bankroller Trump, though. He wants to invade NATO's Denmark and sanction NATO's Spain, while the NATO vassals want wars on the largest country in the world, Russia, and the richest country in the world by PPP, China. This is 105 million people across NATO countries don't even know if they can eat tonight. 170 million don't know if they have somewhere to sleep tonight. Joining me again from Orleans, Massachusetts, is a former advisor to the State Department U.S.-Russia Presidential Commission. He's now editor of the Realist Review and a board member member and senior advisor to the American Committee for U.S.-Russian Accord, James Carden. James, thanks for coming back on Going Underground. Let's just kick off with your assessment of this summit. I mean, it appeared the Americans unhappy that the European, Western European powers weren't supporting war here in West Asia. And those vassals were annoyed at Trump because he wasn't giving his full commitment to bombing Russia. Speaker 1: Well, I think in typical Trump fashion, what Trump said publicly differed greatly from what Trump said privately. So the first day of the summit, Trump arrived and publicly scolded the alliance for not supporting the American war against Iran. He publicly threatened to cut off all trade with Spain. Spain, of course, is a special concern of Israel because Spain has been so outspoken against the genocide in Gaza. But once the closed door sessions got underway, Mr. Trump fell in line with the neoconservative agenda and offered, for instance, Ukraine licenses to build Patriot missiles and the like. So Trump talks tough in public. and makes his alliance partners nervous. And then behind closed doors, it's all the same stuff. It's no different from Obama or Biden or even George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In some ways, the second Trump administration is really the third term for Bush-Cheney. And so that's, I think, what we are seeing play out at the summit. Speaker 0: Yeah, he even seemed to be saying things about security guarantees for Ukraine, that people automatically drew parallels with Article 5 of the NATO treaty. But I mean, for all that, do you not think that when he gets back home, he understands the threat of large-scale nuclear conflagration much better than Biden or Obama, who didn't seem to care whatsoever about arming Ukraine to attack within Russia? Trump has repeatedly said he's frightened by nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war. Speaker 1: Well, if he's frightened by it, his policy actions do not reflect that. After all, he was the president who ripped up the 1987 landmark INF Treaty between the United States and Russia. In his first term, he ripped up the Open Skies Treaty. He decided not to renew New START. So, no, and I think that if he was so concerned about the threat of nuclear war, he would have done a lot more to try to end the conflict in Ukraine than he has. I think it's very clear at this point that he's come under the influence of the American neoconservative lobby that wants endless war in Ukraine and endless war in the Middle East. And I think his policies reflect that. After all, at the summit, he announced that he was tired of the, he was going to walk away from the MOU, was going to continue to strike Iran. So this is a president who has absolutely walked away from his America first or make America great again foreign policy agenda. And now it's the same old stuff that we've been seeing since at least 9-11. Speaker 0: But then if catastrophic defeat in West Asia arguably can be more expected because of the power of the Israel lobby and so on and his donors, surely he would be thinking about legacy, in which case the pivot to the war in Europe would mean he would try and seek some kind of peace in the opposition to the neocons who want the end of the Russian Federation? Speaker 1: Yeah, but I don't see that because if you're going to continue to fund the Ukraine war and you're going to hand them access to the blueprints to build Patriot missiles, that isn't really signaling an end to the conflict. And in fact, the advisors that he now has around him aren't serious about ending the war. They aren't serious about engaging the Russians in diplomacy. So, no, I think that basically Zelensky is walking away quite happy from the Ankara summit. Speaker 0: Yeah, and they keep talking about they perhaps helped to persuade Trump by saying, look, Zelensky's use of drones is signaling great success on the part of the Ukrainian forces. What did you make of that? Speaker 1: Well, that seems to be the narrative right now, is that the Ukrainians have the wind at their back, that their drone war is wildly successful, that they are indeed striking deep within Russian territory. They're hitting energy infrastructure and the like. But the fact of the matter is, is that for every Ukrainian drone strike within Russia, Russia responds not with a drone, but with a missile. And so, again, the... The Ukrainians are suffering far more in this war than the Russians are. So the Ukrainians are making headlines right now with some spectacular drone incursions deep into Russian territory. But that doesn't change the balance of forces on the ground. This is a losing proposition for them ultimately. But Trump seems to be buying in to the mainstream narrative that the Ukrainians... are just a drone away from victory. I don't think that's the case. But unfortunately, Donald Trump doesn't have people around him who are telling him the truth. Speaker 0: Yeah, and the propaganda media repeating what Mark Rutte is saying, that it's one drone away from peace. I mean, we had the former British defense minister, Tobias Elwood, on this program, making a rare appearance. And he didn't... Even when I said dialogue could be useful... as a way of ending this terrible war that's killed so many people, he immediately almost called it a Kremlin talking point. What is it that these neocons in Washington, let alone the entire elite classes of Western Europe, what do they actually want? Speaker 1: They want a resounding defeat of Russia. They want, actually, a lot of them want to see the dissolution. of Russia as a country, and they want regime change. They would be very happy to see Putin gone, and I think that's the ultimate goal of a lot of these Europeans and neoconservatives. You're right, the European elite led by Merce and the soon-to-be-departed Starmer and Macron are absolutely every bit as... war-hungry as our neoconservatives. Any hint of diplomacy, any hint of a settlement, they are the first people to stand up and object and call it appeasement and call people who are advocating for an end to this thing to call them puppets of the Kremlin. I think that that's wrong, and I think that that's dangerous, and I think, unfortunately, Donald Trump and the people around him are squarely in that camp. Speaker 0: Is Russia to blame partly for not imposing fierce red lines? I mean, we now hear that Finland, of all places, is going to host nuclear weapons. Speaker 1: I think that the Russians could have done things differently over the past. What is it now? 12 years. I think that it was probably a mistake. Since the coup in 2014. Since the 2014 Maidan coup, I think that they probably should have acted sooner in retrospect. But Putin put his trust in the Minsk process. And that, I think, in retrospect, from the standpoint of Russian security interests, was probably a mistake. Because the Minsk process, as later revealed by the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, simply failed. was used to buy time for the Ukrainians to build up their defenses, to build up their military. And so what you have now is a war that is quite reminiscent to the First World War with the additional horror of drones. And it makes it very difficult for either side to break through on the ground. So the choice that both Zelensky and Putin face are either to continue to waste the lives of their young people on the ground in this war or to find some way towards a settlement. And I think that there are reasonable alternatives to war that ought to be pursued. But they haven't been pursued because of the pressure that Washington and Brussels has put to bear on Kiev so far. Speaker 0: And you think there's no one that shares this analysis? I mean, you're an advisor in the State Department. I know that you've been talking about Christopher Landau and Hegsett's policy under Secretary Elbridge Colby. Are these the kinds of ideas that perhaps may be emanating from some corners of the so-called deep state in Washington, or is it pretty uniform? No, we can win this. We can end Russia. Speaker 1: I think it's pretty uniform. I think that Landau... who's the Deputy Secretary of State, and Colby, who's the Undersecretary for Policy at the Pentagon, are outliers in this administration. And they're outliers because they're sensible people. I think that Trump is relying on people, outside advisors, like the neoconservative opinion columnist at the Washington Post named Mark Thiessen, who was an advisor to Bush Cheney. I think that Trump relies on far too heavily on his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is basically an agent of Israeli influence in the United States. So I think that Trump has surrounded himself with really bad people. And let's not forget, his national security advisor is a hardline neoconservative who also happens to be his secretary of state, who also then happens to be Landau's boss, who is Marco Rubio. And Rubio, presumably, may well be the Republican nominee for president in 2028. So the window for responsible action with regard to the war in Russia and Ukraine is closing by the day. Once you get into the primary season here in the United States, you're going to have calls from the Democratic Party and from the Republican Party to double down. because they've fooled themselves into thinking that this thing is winnable for Mr. Zelensky and the Ukrainians. And ultimately, it is not. Speaker 0: James Carden, we'll stop you there. More from the former U.S. State Department advisor to the U.S.-Russia Presidential Commission after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the former advisor to the U.S. State Department's U.S.-Russia Presidential Commission, James Carden. James, you were expressing pessimism about Trump's clear inability to get rid of the influence of the neocons. But I think you also noted that Reagan was unpopular in the first couple of years of his presidency and turned it around. You just see no light here at the end of the tunnel that he may realize after his defeat of the midterms. that if he's not impeached, that he has a chance to recover his reputation because it's obviously not popular with the American people, these Clintonite policies of Trump's. You see no possibility that he might try and end the war in Ukraine and just stop funds from the American people going to Zelensky, dictator Zelensky? Speaker 1: Well, I mean, a couple of things. The first thing with regard to the midterms, I'm not entirely convinced, and I could very well be wrong because my crystal ball is about as bad as everybody else's, but I'm not entirely convinced that there will be a Democratic sweep in November. You should never underestimate Donald Trump when it comes to American politics. Can he turn it around in his last two years in the way that Reagan did? I have my doubts. Again, you should never rule him out. But in order for him to do that, he is going to have to surround himself with better people. He's going to have to surround himself with people who understand the world and who have a different view of the world. And more importantly, have a different, narrower, more narrow conception of American interests. It is not in the American interest. to fund a war over basically who gets to govern the Donbass. The Donbass has nothing to do with the United States. There's no strategic interest there whatsoever. It doesn't matter to the United States. Speaker 0: Well, Trump tries to spell it, of course, by talking about minerals of Ukraine. Speaker 1: Right, which is, of course, a load of nonsense. And, you know, it isn't in the American interest. It doesn't affect the American interest as to who controls or who does not control, say, Crimea or who has access to the Sea of Azov. You know, I grew up a child of the late Cold War. I don't remember Americans being overly concerned that the Soviet Union controlled Crimea or the Donbass or, for that matter, Western Ukraine. We did in Britain, I'll tell you that, James. Well, yes, you have the Churchill hangover in Britain, which affects British politics to this day. And I think that's unfortunate. So no, if Trump is going to turn it around, he's going to need new blood. Could that happen? Absolutely, it could happen. I'm very pessimistic that it will happen. Because I think if Washington is going to affect a change between Russia and Ukraine, we are going to need partners in Europe. But European elites, as we've discussed, seem absolutely unwilling and unable to bring themselves to negotiate with the other side. So if there's no room for negotiation, what do you have? You have stalemate and you have more war. And I think that that's basically... that's what's going to happen over the next couple of years. Speaker 0: I mean, on the other hand, if there was some kind of dialogue and some kind of real peace process, would Germany and Britain in any case sabotage it with the so-called false flags? Claims that, for instance, you know, the Bucha massacre, and we've seen so many wars since 1945. catalyzed by freak events that turned out later to be not what they were, what they seemed at first sight, to try and engage publics into being passionate about a war they had no business in? To me, it's a question of leverage. Speaker 1: I don't think that a Germany under this person, Merce, who seems to me to be actually crazy, is going to be a good force. I think that the United States has to leverage NATO. And I think that once we threaten to turn off the funding or we threaten to walk away, then we'll have some leverage over them. But if we continue to do like we keep doing, which is to say one thing and then do whatever the Europeans want, we have no leverage. And so, you know, they're going to keep on acting. You know, they're going to keep playing the hawk. And I think that that's a mistake. Speaker 0: But, you know, time will tell. I mean, it's terrible, of course, the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, the increased violence again in West Asia because of the Trump-Nanyau war on Iran. But one effect of that, knock-on effect of that, is the increase in... crisis for energy and the shortages of energy affecting billions of people around the planet. Does that affect the Ukraine war too, as these Western European powers, I presume you meant Merz was crazy because Germany's cut itself off from its main energy supplier after its, well, is it the CIA that destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline? Does the West Asia war impact on the war in Europe as Western European nations become more reliant on Russian energy, even if through a shadow fleet? Speaker 1: Well, perhaps if the populations in these countries begin to overthrow these governments, right? So if Merce is replaced by, say, AFD, or if Le Pen's party in France comes to power, or if reform comes to power. Speaker 0: If she doesn't go to jail, of course. Speaker 1: Well, of course, right. Well, they're also, you know, I'm sure that the Germans will outlaw. AFD in due course, you know, it's really going to be up to those populations, those people to decide what course those governments ultimately take and how much pain they're willing to take. Because, you know, I think that one of the things that we have to keep in mind is that energy prices are going to play a key role in the midterms. And so Trump needs to make a decision. Is he going to keep on with this war against Iran on behalf of his friend Netanyahu and then suffer in the midterms because oil prices are out of control? Or is he going to prioritize the well-being of his own constituents? I think that's a very open question. He's actually said publicly that he isn't really interested in helping the American consumer. Well, if that's the case, then perhaps he should be ready for a major defeat in November. But again, you can never really tell what he's going to do because I think part of the problem is that he himself doesn't really know what he's going to do. Speaker 0: Yeah, I mean, John Bolton, who I think made a settlement eventually, he's been on this show a number of times, famously said he believes the person who last spoke to him. In which case, I mean, do you think that it's possible that... that he might leave NATO before the end of his term, as he suggested many times. And at the summit, he obviously seemed dissatisfied by NATO, although you kind of said that it's all an act. Speaker 1: I think it's mostly an act. I think that if he brought in some new people, if he brought in like a Steve Bannon type of person, or if he mended ties with Tucker Carlson, then somehow, you know, Carlson, you know, became a close trusted advisor again, then you might see Trump try to distance the US from NATO. But I just don't think that that's going to happen because Trump's record is actually one of providing jobs and opportunities and platforms to people who are very much ideologically in sync with people like John Bolton. Again, if you have a Secretary of State and National Security Advisor like Marco Rubio, and basically a very stupid person like Pete Hegseth as your Secretary of Defense, you're not going to see any major changes in American policy. You're just going to see the same old thing. Speaker 0: And what does it mean for this region? I'm speaking to you from West Asia because you talked about Kushner being an agent of a foreign power and Marco Rubio clearly who has been his political career financed by Israeli-linked sources. Does it just mean ramping up the war regardless of the energy costs that, as you reminded us, Trump says on camera he didn't plan? mind their impact on the American consumer, the inflation. Speaker 1: Yeah, right. I mean, I think when we talk about the U.S.-Iran war, and I'm not suggesting that you just did this, but I think generally speaking, it's a mistake to speak about that war in isolation from its true driver. And the true driver, I believe, of the U.S.-Persian conflict is Israel's drive for greater Israel. And so the war is inextricably tied to Netanyahu's project, not only of genocide in Gaza, but in his project to remove the Palestinians from the West Bank and from southern Lebanon. Until that is addressed, there will be no progress between the U.S. and Iran. Speaker 0: And do you think that's understood within the State Department? I should say, of course, the State Department, your ambassador in Israel, said as much. Well, I assume that it is. I don't know what goes on there anymore. Speaker 1: And I certainly have very little faith in the people who Trump has appointed to handle West Asia policy. But yes, I mean, I think that that's very clear that this project, this war has nothing to do with the shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz or the totally fictitious idea that the Iranians were this close to, you know, getting themselves a nuke and turning it on Israel. It has everything to do with Iran's support for the regional proxies that were standing in the way of greater Israel. So whenever Trump says that, you know, this war is about, you know, the Iranians can't ever have a nuclear weapon. Well, no kidding. And they weren't on their way to getting one. And they weren't on their way to getting one because the Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader, who they just murdered, issued a fatwa against such weapons. Speaker 0: Well, just finally, sorry, Peter, we're running out of time. I've just got to ask you whether the site of Jelani of Syria, former head of al-Qaeda with Trump this week, might have reminded people of the Democrats in the White House. You believe that Hillary Clinton's races may not be over in this environment that you've painted in this interview, that she may well go for the presidency in 2028. Speaker 1: Yeah, I would not be surprised because if you look at the field, it's very, very weak. And she and her husband still are very much partly in control of the party. The party is basically controlled by three factions, the Clintons, the Obamas, and Nancy Pelosi. None of the Democrats want Harris to run again. No Democrat that I've spoken to in Washington thinks that Gavin Newsom is real. or has a chance. So I would not be surprised if she steps in. They have the money, they have the influence, and she has a lot of goodwill still within the party. And so if that does happen, then what you will see are more of these regime change wars that depose people like Assad and bring radical Islamists such as Jelani, into power. James Carden, thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO and Asian wars of aggression. We'll be back on Monday with a former senior Pentagon official who advised Pacific Air Force commanders and U.S. Space Command. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media if it's not censored in your country and head to our channel, Going Underground TV on rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Monday.
PatriotPledgeUS
Posted - July 8, 2026 at 5:10 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 9:12 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Mass migration, both “legal” and illegal, is destroying American labor and the American way of life. I’ve built a map of every US business sponsoring H-1B visas. Stop funding your replacement—take the Patriot Pledge: Buy American, Hire American, Love American.

@PatriotPledgeUS - Patriot Pledge

Mass migration, both "legal" and illegal, is destroying American labor and the American way of life. We've built a map of every US business sponsoring H-1B visas. Stop funding your replacement and take the Patriot Pledge today: Buy American, Hire American, and Love American! https://t.co/ZfWJbUzoxd

patricksavalle
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 10:19 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 8:28 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Sprekers stellen dat de risicoanalyse rond inhoudscanning door Covid-beelden is vertekend. Eén partij beweert dat een kleine groep politici, gelieerd aan lobby en veiligheidsdiensten, democratische procedures saboteert en pleit voor decentralisatie. De ander onderbouwt met claims over Ylva Johansson, gelieerde organisaties/financiering, ombudsman-uitspraken, herhaalde parlementaire stemmingen en een hernieuwde (tijdelijke) procedure tot 2028 met volgende trilogen rond 29 september.

@patricksavalle - Patrick Savalle

Ik denk dat veel mensen de verkeerde 'dreigingsanalyse' maken. Het simplistische WEF beeld dat door influencers en politici werd gecreëerd tijdens de Covid helpt daar niet bij. 'De EU' stemde tegen (!) de Chat Control en had content scannen verboden (!) met een wet. Als het normale democratische proces had gewerkt, zou er niets aan de hand zijn geweest. Het is een kleine corrupte kern - veelal nationale - politici die in opdracht van de industrielobby en inlichtingendiensten, dat proces telkens weer weet te saboteren en omzeilen. Richt je woede daar op. De mensen zijn aanwijsbaar. En stop met gebruik van de (Amerikaanse) diensten die onze content scannen. Ook die zijn aanwijsbaar. Dat de EU zelf een constructie is die deze fraude buiten ons bereik en zicht brengt, is evident. Sterke decentralisatie van bestuur is de beste oplossing.

@Build100GWNucs - Build15TWnucs

@patricksavalle @mike_d68 Bekijk het even omgekeerd: als er niets gaat veranderen, waarom is de EU er dan zo op gebrand dit mordicus te willen stemmen?

@WiegertPostema - Wiegert Postema 🇳🇱

Je zegt: "richt je woede daarop, de mensen zijn aanwijsbaar." En ze zijn ook daadwerkelijk aan te wijzen. De belangenverstrengeling, met naam: Commissaris Ylva Johansson diende het oorspronkelijke voorstel in (2022). Haar eigen kabinetslid, Antonio Labrador Jimenez, zat tegelijk in het bestuur van WeProtect Global Alliance — de organisatie die actief voor dezelfde wet lobbyde. Die organisatie is zelf opgericht door de Europese Commissie, het Amerikaanse ministerie van Justitie en het Britse ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken — geen onafhankelijke ngo, maar een orgaan met overheden, veiligheidsdiensten (Interpol) en bedrijven samen, waaronder Thorn-CEO Julie Cordua. De Oak Foundation (voorzitter Douglas Griffiths, zelf WeProtect-bestuurslid) stak sinds 2019 ruim 24 miljoen dollar in Thorn en ECPAT — een netwerk bekend als ECLAG. PR-bureau Purpose (onderdeel van Capgemini) ontving daarnaast 1,9 miljoen dollar, ontmoette herhaaldelijk Johanssons kabinet, en maakte een promotievideo die Johansson als eigen boodschap verspreidde. Manfred Weber (EPP-fractieleider) vroeg de spoedprocedure aan. Roberta Metsola (EP-voorzitter, zelf EPP) zette de heropening persoonlijk door tegen haar eigen kamer in — zij droeg de zaak actief bij de Europese Raad aan. Het Parlement stemde niet één maar twéé keer tegen — 26 maart (307-306, op één stem) en 9 juli (314-276). Beide keren ving het toch bot, omdat een tweede lezing een absolute meerderheid van 361 vereist, niet een meerderheid van de aanwezigen. De stemming van 9 juli werd bewust op de laatste dag vóór het zomerreces gepland — 112 leden waren al vertrokken. Zelfs het Cypriotische voorzitterschap gaf intern toe dat dit "een absoluut novum" was. Niet anoniem, maar een bewuste keuze tegen eigen advies in: de eigen Juridische Dienst van de Raad oordeelde — voor zowel de tijdelijke als de permanente versie — dat dit onverenigbaar is met artikel 7 en 8 van het Grondrechtenhandvest. Weber en Metsola drukten het door tégen dat eigen interne advies in. Dat is geen abstracte systeemfout, dat is een concrete, aanwijsbare keuze. Voormalig EU-Hof-rechter Ninon Colneric kwam tot dezelfde conclusie. Technisch: foutpercentages van de scantools liggen tussen 13-20%, met sommige Duitse tests tot bijna 50% fout-positieven. Het is niet EPP + S&D samen S&D-rapporteur Birgit Sippel diende juist amendementen in om de scanreikwijdte te beperken, de EPP stemde daar in maart tégen. Het herhaalt zich al langer: Breyer signaleerde al in november 2025 exact hetzelfde patroon via een andere tekst na verzet van Duitsland, Nederland, Polen en Oostenrijk. Nu, juli 2026, gebeurt het weer, via een procedurele band in plaats van een herschreven artikel. Twee technieken, dezelfde aanwijsbare groep, hetzelfde resultaat. Ook Europol vroeg al in 2022 zelf om uitbreiding naar andere criminaliteitsgebieden — functie-uitbreiding voorbij CSAM is dus geen vrees maar een intern bevestigde ambitie vanaf het begin. En het is nog niet voorbij: wat op 9 juli is heringevoerd is alleen de tijdelijke, vrijwillige versie, geldig tot 2028. De permanente, verplichte opvolger — mogelijk met client-side scanning die encryptie functioneel zinloos maakt — komt terug in de triloog rond 29 september, onder Iers voorzitterschap. Dat is het moment waarop dezelfde aanwijsbare mensen opnieuw een keuze maken. Kortom: je hebt gelijk dat dit geen "de EU tegen de burger"-verhaal is — het Parlement stemde immers tégen, twee keer. Het is een precies te benoemen driehoek van belangenverstrengeling, een gefinancierd lobbynetwerk, aanwijsbare bestuurders die tegen hun eigen juridisch advies in handelden, en een datum — 29 september — om nu al op te letten.

@WiegertPostema - Wiegert Postema 🇳🇱

Dagen vóór ze het Chat Control-voorstel presenteerde (mei 2022), schreef Commissaris Ylva Johansson persoonlijk aan de CEO van Thorn — het Amerikaanse bedrijf dat de scansoftware verkoopt: "We hebben veel momenten gedeeld op de weg naar dit voorstel. Nu reken ik op jou om ervoor te zorgen dat deze lancering een succes wordt." Dat is geen indirecte belangenverstrengeling — dat is de wetsopsteller zelf die schriftelijk bevestigt vooraf samen te hebben gewerkt met de partij die er garen bij spint. Dit is geen mening, maar een officiële vaststelling: de EU-Ombudsman oordeelde in december 2023 formeel dat de Commissie zich schuldig maakte aan wanbestuur door deze correspondentie niet vrij te geven — pas na die tussenkomst en zeven maanden journalistiek graafwerk kwamen de e-mails alsnog boven water. Er liep bovendien een apart Ombudsman-onderzoek naar twee voormalige Europol-medewerkers die naar Thorn overstapten. En de Commissie deed meer dan alleen zwijgen: ze faciliteerde Thorn actief toegang tot vergaderingen met ministers, weigerde privacy-organisaties te ontmoeten, misleidde het publiek daarover, en betaalde met EU-geld voor gerichte advertenties om publieke opinie in kritische lidstaten te beïnvloeden — bekritiseerd als illegaal onder de eigen EU-regels. Toen dit alles aan het licht kwam, stemde het Parlement het voorstel in november 2023 met een bijna historische consensus weg — alle fracties samen. Maar de Commissie trok zich niets aan van die nederlaag. Ze herdoopte simpelweg het doel: in april 2025 lanceerde ze "ProtectEU", met hetzelfde onderliggende plan (brede toegang tot versleutelde communicatie), nu verpakt als strijd tegen georganiseerde misdaad in plaats van kindermisbruik. Met een eigen roadmap tot 2030, waarin Europol "next-generation decryptiecapaciteit" moet krijgen — en deze zomer breidt een deel van de lidstaten dit zelfs uit naar VPN-diensten. Dus je hebt gelijk: het zijn aanwijsbare mensen. Niet een vaag systeem, maar Johansson die zelf de brief schreef, een Ombudsman die het wanbestuur noemde, en een Commissie die na de nederlaag gewoon het label verwisselde en doorging met hetzelfde doel. Het patroon dat zich nu bij de "tijdelijke verlenging" herhaalt (spoedprocedure, EPP, Metsola) is dus niet nieuw — het is dezelfde instelling die al eerder liet zien bereid te zijn de regels te buigen om dit erdoor te krijgen.

KellyIsRightTX
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 10:06 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 8:10 AM

@KellyIsRightTX - Kelly for Texas

I have a bone to pick with @elonmusk musk. https://t.co/JalADX9vzp

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 says they have an issue with Elon Musk not allowing Patriot Front’s page to remain open on his platform, while allowing Tommy Robinson. They claim Robinson is England’s far-right figure and has been in trouble and censored, and they say they have seen many different kinds of content permitted on Twitter, including hating on white people and “white hate pages.” Speaker 1 also mentions an “Indian guy” named Rajiv, described as being about “Indian domination,” and says he is part of the “Indian Advocacy Council,” but they do not know what it is. Speaker 0 responds with, “Show me on the doll where Thomas Rousseau hurt you, Elon.” Speaker 1 then states they support Tommy Robinson and describes meeting him at an event, calling him a “solid dude” and “great,” and says Robinson follows them. Speaker 1 says the message is not “hating against Tommy.” They argue that Americans deserve an “awesome guy” too, claim Thomas Rousseau is “brilliant” and “amazing,” and say he deserves a voice. Speaker 1 ends by asking not to be banned for the video, describing it as an honest video and saying it raises an honest question people want answered.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: have a bone to pick with Elon Musk not allowing Patriot Front's page to remain open on his platform and yet he allows Tommy Robinson, which is, you know, England's far right guy, and that guy's been in trouble, he's been censored, all the things. I've seen so many different things on Twitter that are allowed to go on there. I've seen people hating on white people, white hate pages, all kinds of stuff. There's this Indian guy, Rajiv They're all about like Indian domination or whatever they do. They're part of like the Indian Advocacy Council, whatever the hell that is. I don't even know. Speaker 0: Show me on the doll where Thomas Rousseau hurt you, Elon. Speaker 1: And I just want to say I do support Tommy. He's a solid dude. I met him at an event and I think he's great. And I know he follows me on here. So this is not hating against Tommy at all whatsoever. You're awesome. But Americans deserve their awesome guy too. And I believe that Thomas is actually, he's brilliant. He's amazing. And he deserves a voice. Please don't ban me for this video. It's an honest video and it's an honest question that a lot of people are wanting the answer to. Thanks.
Iwendtster
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 5:39 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:57 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m not suicidal, and I’m not accusing anyone—I’m just raising questions as a private citizen about the truth. My elite life-insurance health qualification and my history support that I’m happy and fulfilled. Everything here is opinion except the photo and audio, which are factual. The last picture, taken by Mikey McCoy, is troubling given the timing before Charlie was killed.

@Iwendtster - Ian

*I am not sulcldaI. I recently had a life insurance policy taken out and qualified “elite” in health. I have never taken drugs in my life except for the adderral I am prescribed going on almost 20 years now. I do not drink alcohol and my relationship with my wife and kids is phenomenal. I am VERY happy and fulfilled in life and have never once ever considered taklng my own Ilfe.* I am also not accusing anyone of anything with this post but merely raising questions as a private citizen concerned with knowing the truth. Everything is a matter of opinion and not fact with the exception of the photo taken and audio message sent. Those are factual. This is the last picture taken and it was taken by Mikey McCoy. Everyone should be asking why. Especially since it was right before he looked at Dan flood and right after he looked at him again and almost 5 seconds before Charlie was klIIed. Share this far and wide. We should also be asking why he is reaching out to married women old enough to be his mother and speaking this way. So many questions and so many things don’t add up. But as many have believed since the beginning, Mikey might be the key to this whole thing.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 claims he knows what Mikey McCoy was doing when Mikey pulled up his phone: he was taking a picture of Charlie Kirk, which Speaker 0 says is “the last picture taken of Charlie Kirk before he was killed.” Speaker 0 says the photo shows a timestamp indicating Charlie Kirk was killed at approximately 10:23:30 Mountain Standard Time. Speaker 0 asserts that, based on the timestamp, Mikey took the picture between both times Charlie “looks at Dan Flood,” meaning Mikey looked at Dan Flood, then pulled his phone up and took the picture, then looked at Dan Flood again right before Charlie was killed. Speaker 0 presents this timing as something he believes he has right, and urges viewers to share the information widely, calling it one of the craziest things seen regarding “this case yet.” Speaker 2 says the question “every single person on planet Earth” should ask is why Mikey McCoy took a picture of Charlie Kirk right before he was killed. Speaker 0 then explains how he obtained the picture, saying it came from a follower who is a “stranger” with “nothing to do with Turning Point” and “nothing to do with” Speaker 0 or Mikey. Speaker 0 says the follower is a married woman whom Mikey McCoy responded to in DMs and sent the photo to. Speaker 0 adds that Mikey also sent the woman an audio message. Speaker 1 reads the audio message content from Mikey: Mikey says he does not even give out his phone number, that it is probably weird that he is giving it to her, and that since she messaged him, he has sometimes thought about stuff and “feel[s] like the Lord brings up on my heart again, just to talk to” her. Mikey says he does not know who he is to question it, mentions that he is “the world’s worst texter” and apologizes, says it has been nice talking to her and that he appreciates her reaching out and taking the time. Mikey says he does not talk to everyone, does not have time to talk to everybody, and that he thinks it may be “the Holy Spirit” or something. He ends by saying it was nice meeting her and thanking her. Speaker 0 says that when he hears this message, it “sounds really weird,” and repeatedly asks whether he is “crazy.” Speaker 0 says the woman is old enough to be Mikey’s mother, and frames the message as “hitting on an older married woman.” Speaker 0 claims he has “always felt like something is weird about Mikey” and that Mikey “comes off as somebody who is like reaching out for help because he’s been abused or whatever,” while also asking whether Mikey is reaching out for help or “hitting on this woman.” Speaker 0 emphasizes that the woman “does not have” a “massive following,” and claims it is not likely Mikey sent the photo to someone he expected to spread it widely. Speaker 0 says Mikey has “some explaining to do,” asking why Mikey looked at Dan Flood, then took the picture, then looked at Dan Flood again right before Charlie was killed, and asking why Mikey messaged the random older married woman. Speaker 0 concludes by suggesting “there’s more to this story” and implying it may explain why others “keep you out of the spotlight,” while stating “I’m just a conspiracy theorist.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I know you didn't see this. You're not gonna believe this and you're for sure gonna think it's AI, but it's not and I have proof. Guys, I know exactly what Mikey McCoy was doing when he pulled his phone up. So share this far and wide because this is probably one of the craziest things that anybody has seen regarding this case yet. He was taking a picture of Charlie Kirk. This picture. This is the last picture taken of Charlie Kirk before he was killed. by Mikey McCoy. Look at the timestamp. Charlie was killed at approximately 10.23.30 Mountain Standard Time. Look at the timestamp. If I have this right, based on the timestamp, this means that Mikey took this picture between both looks at Dan Flood. So he looks at Dan Flood, then he pulls his phone up, takes the picture, and then looks at Dan Flood again right before Charlie's killed. If I have this right. Speaker 2: So, the question every single person on planet Earth right now should be asking is why did Mikey McCoy take a picture of Charlie Kirk Speaker 0: right before he was killed. Every single person should be asking that. But there's more. Because the way that I got this picture was one of my followers who is an absolute stranger. She has nothing to do with Turning Point. She has nothing to do with me, nothing to do with Mikey. Just a follower who is a married woman who Mikey McCoy responded to in DMs and sent this photo to. But in addition to this photo, he also sent her an audio message. Listen to this. Speaker 1: hi this is mikey um to answer your question i actually don't even give out my phone number um like really to anybody either um and truthfully like it's probably even weird i'm giving it to you but um i i don't know like ever since you messaged me like there's sometimes i think about stuff or like I'm talking to people. I just feel like the Lord brings up on my heart again, just to talk to you. So I don't, I like, I don't know who am I to really question it, but, um, I'm also like the world's worst texter. So I'm sorry. I think that also correlates to being even worse at Instagram messaging. Anyways. Um, it's been nice talking to you. I really appreciate you, um, reaching out and just, you know, taking the time and, Again, like, I don't talk to everybody. Like, I don't also really have time to talk to everybody. But, yeah, I don't know. I just feel like, I don't know, maybe it's the Holy Spirit or whatever. But nice to meet you, and thank you for always taking the time. Speaker 0: I don't know about you guys, but when I hear that, it sounds really weird, okay? All the stuff about the Holy Spirit and God and whatever, like, brother, brother. It sounds like you're just hitting on an older married woman. She's old enough to be your mother. And so that to me is really strange. Am I crazy? Am I crazy? Like why, what, huh? What do you take from that? You tell me. I have said this from day one. I have always felt like something is weird about Mikey. I've always felt like he is, he comes off as somebody who is like reaching out for help because he's been abused or whatever. I don't know, man. I'm just saying, that's a weird message that Mikey is sending to some random married lady who's old enough to be his mother, who has nothing to do with Turning Point whatsoever. Is he reaching out for help, or is he hitting on this woman? What is going on? By the way, for all of you that are asking, she also does not have some, like, massive following. So it's not like he's sending this photo to somebody who he thinks is gonna be able to get the photo out to the masses. Like, it's so weird. So Mikey McCoy has some explaining to do. Why did you look at Dan Flood and then take the picture and then look at Dan Flood again right before Charlie was killed? If I have that time stamp right. Why are you messaging some random woman who's old enough to be your mother and seemingly hitting on her? If you weren't hitting on her, why does this seem like it's a cry for help? Mikey, what's going on? Where are you, buddy? What are you doing? What's with this behavior? Kind of seems like there's more to this story, Mikey. It kind of seems like something's going on with you. And it kind of seems like maybe that's why all of these people are doing everything they can to keep you out of the spotlight, even though you were in the spotlight in the beginning. But hey, I'm just a conspiracy theorist.
ns123abc
Posted - July 11, 2026 at 12:28 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:57 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m saying OpenAI allegedly stole Apple’s entire playbook—hundreds of billions of dollars and decades of work. It covers hardware engineering, unreleased product codenames, AI/ML integration, manufacturing secrets, component technologies, testing and failure analyses, supply-chain contracts and logistics, and the “negative know-how” of what didn’t work—now “all gone.”

@ns123abc - NIK

🚨OPENAI ALLEGEDLY STOLE APPLE’S ENTIRE PLAYBOOK “Hundreds of billions of dollars, decades of work” Hardware Engineering - circuit designs, component architecture, power management - unreleased products guarded by internal codenames - AI/ML integration for hardware - EMI engineering + testing methods Manufacturing Secrets - proprietary processes + custom machinery - equipment Apple builds and installs IN supplier factories - proprietary metal alloys + finishing techniques - DFM (Design for Manufacturability) expertise Component Technologies - power chips, battery systems, displays, acoustics, touch - identities of specialized sub-suppliers - exact specs Apple demands from components Testing Data - failure analyses, lifecycle simulations - “negative know-how” — everything Apple tried that DIDN’T work Supply Chain - supplier contracts, allocation strategies - global logistics coordination - systems-level integration ALL GONE 💀

thedreydossier
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 8:51 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:56 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I found an SSA announcement saying the hospital birth registration form will automatically create a “Trump Account” for your child via the Enumeration at Birth program when a Social Security number is issued, with no unbundling option. This clashes with IRS/Treasury claims these accounts open only if parents elect it. If a parent doesn’t want a biometric-linked investment file created at birth, who explains? We need answers now.

@thedreydossier - Drey

Trump Accounts are no longer going to be optional- so if you ever plan on having a child in the USA, you should read what I found: According to the @SocialSecurity Administration's announcement last week, they are modifying the hospital birth registration form so that a Trump Account is AUTOMATICALLY created for your child through that same process. It will be bundled into the Enumeration at Birth program (EAB), which is the already automated gov pipeline that gives your newborn a Social Security number. It’s one box that you check, you don’t have the option of unbundling it. So if you want your kid to have a Social Security number, they have to have a Trump account. Which is strange, because according to the IRS and @USTreasury’s public announcements, these accounts only open when a parent actively elects to open one. So which is it? Why is nobody in the government interested in explaining this flagrant contradiction? Who is going to answer the basic question of what a parent does if they don’t want a government-linked investment account (one that collects biometric data, by the way) created for their child at the exact moment their child’s Social Security number issued? They can call it a savings account all they want, but a $1,000 deposit is a hell of a cheap price for building a lifelong financial file on every American child before they can consent to anything. And once the government normalizes linking a person’s identity, financial activity, and predictive systems from birth, who gets to decide what that data will be used to predict later? We deserve answers immediately. @ndstudio @WhiteHouse

MYLUNCHBREAK_
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 4:33 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:52 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I confront the most illogical story I’ve ever seen: that television, flight, radio, and global communication were invented by broke teenagers, bicycle mechanics, and farm kids—often without electricity, funding, training, or institutions—while today’s trillion-dollar corporations can’t make a new category. I question why innovation exploded in the 1800s, then stopped, and I argue the origin timelines and patents don’t hold up.

@MYLUNCHBREAK_ - MY LUNCH BREAK

Timeline Begins in 1800? - Pt 3 Link: https://youtu.be/jjd3WdYrUIw We confront the most illogical story we’ve ever been told: that the most complex technologies in human history, television, flight, radio, global communication, were somehow invented by broke teenagers, bicycle mechanics, and farm kids… often without electricity, funding, training, or institutions, while today’s trillion-dollar corporations can’t create a single new category of technology. Why did the hardest inventions arrive first? Why did innovation explode in the 1800s… and then stop? And why do the origin stories fall apart the moment you look at timelines, patents, and who was really involved? This episode doesn’t give answers, it removes excuses. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The episode revisits and expands a prior claim that a reset occurred around three hundred years ago, followed by a surge of major inventions in the 18th and 19th centuries. The speaker argues that these inventions were supposedly produced by “random people” living difficult lives, not by massive corporations, and contrasts that with the modern era, where they say technology has largely stopped producing “hundreds of brand new inventions,” with only upgrades to existing technologies. They list a wide range of technologies attributed to the 1800s era, including phones, planes, trains, microwaves, electricity, cars, TVs, refrigerators, speakers, radio, computers, internet, batteries, elevators, jet engines, helicopters, Wi-Fi, cellular networks, GPS, artificial intelligence, robotics, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, air conditioning, dishwashers, cameras, and more. A key example is the TV. The speaker says the official narrative claims a 21-year-old built the TV idea in 1927, inspired by rows in a farm field, while noting rural electrification in the United States—claiming 90% of farms had no electricity before the Rural Electrification Act in 1936. They question how the TV inventor in that account could have lived in a place where electricity was likely unavailable. They also argue that mainstream history depicts invention as a sudden “miracle,” with little regard for real-world constraints. The speaker then turns to RCA, presented as a radio company formed in 1919, and asserts that RCA funded Vladimir Zwerkin’s work and that Zwerkin filed early electronic TV patents in 1923, preceding a timeline that they claim is attributed to Philo Farnsworth “imagining TVs in the field.” They describe a dispute over TV patents, asserting that RCA fought over who created the first TV and later lost to Farnsworth in 1935, after which Farnsworth was “forever pinned to the TV.” The speaker concludes that a group possessing the technology selected which individuals were credited with inventions. They extend the pattern to aircraft. They claim the Wright brothers, described as bicycle mechanics without formal engineering degrees, produced the first powered, controlled, heavier-than-air flight in 1903 using no government lab, research program, or facilities, and that it only took them four years and a budget of 1 to $2,000. The speaker argues this timeline is implausible and claims invention continued “forever” afterward. They also mention a story about “donkeys” and flying between towns, described as a mythical help to builders. Further digging is said to involve a person named Charlie Taylor, described as building the plane’s engine under the Wright brothers’ direction. The speaker claims Charlie Taylor had no formal engineering education and no prior aircraft engine experience, and they present this as another point making the traditional account inconsistent. The speaker argues that the 18th and 19th centuries produced major “hardest inventions” quickly and without institutional support, while modern times—despite electricity, communication, AI assistance, corporations, and universities—have produced mainly refinements rather than new technological categories. They outline two alternative explanations they consider: that people in that earlier period were “born smarter” with superpowers, or that progress randomly stopped (which they say is illogical). They then argue the “unavoidable conclusion” is that those groups may have finished giving back old-world technology or are withholding it, and they say the surge has “recently stopped.” They invite viewers to comment for part four and add a final example: they say radio was invented in the 1890s by a man without formal degrees, labs, or funding, who achieved successful wireless transmission and that the system quickly moved into government and military use.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One thousand forty six days ago, we released episode 10 where we suggested that everything was given back to us. A reset took place. A reset took place around three hundred years ago, and this ended up being our biggest episode to this point, currently having over a half a million views. Twenty eight weeks later, we went back and revisited the subject. We went further. It's been a hundred and twenty three weeks. It's time to go back and bring part three to the world. We are told that all inventions were just flying at us in the '18 nineteen hundreds, not by massive corporations, but by random people. Just random hut living, sea biscuit riding, candlelight living people that had nothing, and they were suffering in winters, struggling just to stay alive. Where today, we have massive corporations, yet technology has completely stopped. These 1819 hundreds people, they got phones. They got planes. They got trains, microwaves, electricity, cars, TVs, refrigerators, speakers, radio, computers, Internet, batteries, elevators. They got jet engines. They got helicopters, Wi Fi, cellular networks, GPS, artificial intelligence, just like we showed in episode a 139. The eighteen and nineteen hundreds people got robotics. Even things like washing machines, vacuum cleaners, air conditioning, dishwashers, all these things that we all use in our everyday life. They even got cameras. So what happened? Did they run out of all the technology? Because I don't see anything new flying at us anymore the way that it was in the '18 and nineteen hundreds like we just showed. We see them upgrading things that we've already had. But I don't see hundreds of brand new inventions when we're all supposedly evolving and advancing. Yet the people with nothing, these were the people that gave us everything that we have today. I believe that this is one of the biggest lies ever told. I believe that they already had all of this technology. It was all found from the previous civilization that was here before the eighteen hundreds. In the '18 and nineteen hundreds, this was the time period of them giving it all back to us. Because when we take a look at the people that were supposedly creating all of these incredible inventions, it's going to blow the whole thing wide open. Remember, just like we said, these inventions were not being created by massive corporations. The TV, for example, was created by a 21 year old in 1927, and he wasn't backed by a massive corporation. Where the TV idea just came to this guy as a teenager out of thin air, just inspired by the straight rows in the farm field. Can you believe this? Where are the kids today getting inspired by the farm fields to make the brand new technology of the times? This is not happening, and I don't believe that it ever did. The official narrative, the history that we are all told is that some random old living on a farm wakes up one day, and then a miracle happens. The TV is born. This is a time period where most of America did not have electricity until the mid nineteen thirties to nineteen forties, where we're all told that in the nineteen twenties, most rural farms in The USA didn't have electricity in the power lines. They were stopping at the cities and towns. Where did this 21 year old TV builder live? Just coming up with the idea of one of the most incredible technological advances ever in the middle of a town called Rigby in Jefferson County, Idaho, where we read where most farms in Rigby, Idaho did not have electricity. Where just like we stated, rural electrification did not reach most Idaho farms until the late nineteen thirties, nineteen forties. And this is exactly why the Rural Electrification Act was installed in 1936. Because before 1936, 90% of US farms had no electricity. So now we know that this 21 year old was supposedly creating the TV by looking over at some corn, And the foundational idea for one of the most complex electronic systems ever built is claimed to have come from a rural farm that likely had no electricity. This is unbelievable. This is shocking. Could you even imagine somebody sitting in Idaho today? I don't care what age they are. If they don't have electricity, can you imagine them watching TV, let alone inventing it? This is crazy. And this is just the beginning because something happened with a company named RCA. Welcome to episode 161 of my lunch break. I hope you're all having a great day. And if you're new, welcome. What if your only resolution this year was to get better sleep? Just imagine how much more energy you'd have. You'd handle stress better. Pretty much all of your goals would be easier. Right? That's why the smart way to start 2026 is with CBD from CB Distillery. Get this. Over ninety percent of CBD customers say they sleep better with CBD, and that's tough to beat. And when you sleep better, everything feels easier. And CB Distillery, they have options for more than just sleep, solutions for stress relief, mood, and pain after workouts. You can shop by benefit so it's easy to find what you're looking for. Everything from CB Distillery is premium quality, third party tested, and free of artificial dyes and fillers. And they have over 2,000,000 happy customers and a 100% money back guaranteed. So if you're ready to start your year off right, go to cbdistillery.com and use my code MLB for 25% off right now. That's cbdistillery.com. Use code MLB, cbdistillery.com. I thank all of our sponsors over on Patreon. Thank you to flat earth Dave dot com. You can check out his app, the flat earth sun, moon, and zodiac app. I'll put the link right in the description, and you can use my referral code MLB. If you click the Tartaria button, call. We're gonna Jacob Law, Jim Ribley, and Christine Duggan, Kyle Glascock, pktfnews.org, Ben Drizanel, Natalie Shippenoff, Melissa Edgar, Biggles, Fulltask Homestead, John Adams, Attila Power, Forbidden Gecko Love, Justin Grobner Grub, Leah Strong, Dakota Dunn, Jason Hockburn, Louise C, Michael Dingyu, Patriot Armory, c three s c o b, sonyadane.com, James Alvin, Jason Press, Migs, Mark Chapman, Ariana Oates, Nathan Berbaugh, Ski, Beacon of Truth, Liberty's Arborist, Thomas Thorpe Peterson, Zinger Coffee and Tea, Emily Marilyn, Sirius Cat, Mike D, etcetera, Dan McGee, Lori Hedvig Johnson, Johnson, Ellie Annie, Seth Crago, Glenn Gunderson, Mousey's Mouse Cheese Records, Robert's Brain Is Gone, Extreme Reality Check, Late For Dinner, Iolo Goncalves, Blake, Dax Bill Chekken Son, Dylan, etcetera, Petro, Cats Hill, Susie q, Yark one forty three, Doc Halo, Brenna Fernandez, Paraduction, Necrodemonics, A and W Kerrigan, Brad Wah, of peas, Road Warrior, Bruce Latour, Codremn, Devin Apocaly, Ardra Rogers, Brazawain, Armin Walker, Ivan Apocaly, Maybell, Laurel L. Burnett, Poppy John, John and Carlo, Bill, Vince Moreno, Flatter Thurbs, Sven Eric, Ducks MDFTFE, Jeremy and Amy, the Arnold's, digital strategy, Earth daughter, Eha Muir, Harvey, First Class Forklift, Bradford's Donkey Wagon Deluxe, or Neeho, Just Like That, Backyard Rob, Devlin MacGregor dot com, Dee Woods. Sherry Frost. Lynn Thielen. Effie Patriot. Corbin Mechanical. Valhalla Stars. Kent Bockey. Breaking Big Foot. Trevor Cashin. Brendy's Brenna. Sally. Alpha Auto. Christina Kelso. Tahoe Highlands Consulting LLC, Ty, Rebecca Klung, m skin, valleymedicinals.com, the lady lacey show, David Torres, charm star, Helena Funk, once upon a time in Tartaria, Busy, Tibba Shaba in the darkness. You guys are all awesome and helping this channel out a lot. I cannot believe that story. When I first read it, I was laughing. The mainstream history is just ridiculous. So now let's get into the RCA, a supposed radio company formed in 1919. This is literally the same exact time frame here. And they're also developing a TV, we are told. What are the odds of that? The mainstream history tells us about millions of years. And then all of a sudden, within the same ten years, two totally different people are just throwing the TV together, where RCA was funding this Vladimir Zwerkin's work. He had already filed early electronic TV patents in 1923, which is four years before we're all told that Philo Farnsworth was just imagining TVs in the field and transmitting the first electronic TV image. This is not a coincidence at all that they're just pinning random people to the same exact invention during the same exact years. Now did somebody give Philo the technology and allow him to be the creator and then totally just made up this farm story? I personally believe that that's exactly what happened because RCA, they were so upset about this that they started fighting over the patent in 1930, saying that Farnsworth, the guy looking in the corn, didn't create the first TV and that they did. And I want you all to remember this. You don't challenge a patent unless you believe that the technology already belonged to you. So was RCA told that they were going to be the ones to roll out the TV, and the finders handed the patent idea to a kid in the farm instead? Where in 1935, RCA lost to Farnsworth, and this kid from the farm was forever pinned to the TV. I believe without a doubt that there is a group that held all of this technology, and they were going around during this time period and choosing who was going to be the supposed creator of all of these incredible inventions that we all use today. Random people that had no business creating anything. A lot of them being poor, not a massive corporation spending tons of money on research and development like a logical story would go. We're finding that if you were born in the '18 and nineteen hundreds, you could go outside and stare off into the corn or into the barn. Stack of hay would also do. Just look at it for hours, and an invention that blows the entire world away will just come to life. But once the year 2000 hits, the evolved and advanced group of people, all of us, we can't figure out how the heck to build a bed from IKEA. No matter how long we look at the box, there's always pieces left over. So let's go further. We see that the airplane is obviously from the old world. It's been here way before the eighteen hundreds. It's depicted in Egypt as well as so many other places. So Wright brothers, it's your turn. We're all told that Wilbur and Orville Wright. They were bicycle mechanics. They had no formal engineering degrees, and somehow, they achieved the first powered, controlled, heavier than air flight in nineteen o three. These two bike mechanics did not have a government lab. They didn't have a research program. They didn't have any facilities. But they were just off creating the first powered airplane. And guess what? It never failed ever again after that. They figured out lift. They figured out propulsion. And within a few years, people all over the world were just flying everywhere. All thanks to a couple bike mechanics from nineteen o three. And the crazy part is that it only took these guys four years to figure it out. From 1899 to nineteen o three, creating the airplane with a budget of 1 to $2,000. This is unbelievable. This translates to about 30 to 70,000 today. Are you kidding me? How in the world has nobody ever questioned this nonsense before? So inventions are just flying at us at this point. They have no money. There's no training. There is no help from corporations. These stories are crazy. They're a 100% illogical, especially when they didn't get help from anybody. A two person research team. There were no outside engineers, no aeronautical department, there were no professors guiding their work, Just a couple of guys and a thousand dollars. And airplanes are here forever. Though there are legends of the Wright brothers calling up Donkeys Incorporated. Apparently, Donkeys Inc had a flight department as well. A group that will be thanked for the rest of time. An incredible group of people and their donkeys. They would ride from town to town, knocking out palaces in the night without a blueprint. Helping the farmer. Just imagine a TV in the corn. Two brothers build a plane and fly all over the world. We are all so thankful for you. Thank you to all of our badge members, all of our Patreons, and every single subscriber. You are all awesome. We're closing in on 300,000 subscribers on YouTube now. We're also on Rumble. We're on x, Instagram, TikTok, BitShoot, and Spotify if you're looking for even more content from us. We're also on eBay now where we've sold episode one and two's thumbnail. Episode one and two, those are all done. I'm not gonna be going back and selling them again. A signed limited, one of one artifact. We also have the episodes on there as well. All the money from the sale is gonna be going right back to this channel. I appreciate all of your support. Now we all know that the Wright brothers, they couldn't have actually built the plane all by themselves with zero training and basically no money. So I had to keep digging, and I ended up finding a guy named Charlie Taylor who supposedly built the engine for the plane under the Wright brothers' direction where he was supposedly working in the back of their bicycle shop. This Charlie Taylor guy was supposedly the cleaner at the bike shop, but then they hired him to build the engine for the first plane. And guess what? Charlie Taylor, he had no formal engineering education. Charlie Taylor had no prior aircraft engine experience. And yet we are all told that Charlie Taylor was the guy that built the engine for the first plane ever. He executed the machining. And I'm sorry, but I never heard about Charlie Taylor. And I believe at this point, this story is in shreds. I think at this point in time, you would have had to had your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed, screaming la la la la la la la to still think that the Wright brothers just randomly made the first plane. Now, of course, you're always free to think whatever you'd like. I've said that all along. I do believe that these are stories for adults at this point. They are completely illogical. They used to work for people that had zero common sense. Previous generations that just believed whatever they were told. They never asked a single question, and they never wanted any verification. And they would get so mad at everybody if anybody said that that story was kinda weird. I think it is kinda weird that they didn't have any training. They didn't have any money, and they used a cleaner from the back at the bike shop to build a vehicle that flies for the first time in human history. Now we are all told that the hardest inventions humanity has ever produced from flight to broadcast, worldwide communication, powered transportation. These were somehow easy in the '18 nineteen hundreds with no budget, no experience. Whereas today, we have unlimited electricity, instant worldwide communication, AI assistance. We have trillion dollar corporations, and we even have universities that are literally dedicated to research and development. Yet we're not inventing new categories of technology. We're simply updating what the '18 nineteen hundreds gave us, what already existed, what I believe was given back and found from the old world. And this alone should make every single person question what's really going on here in the last two hundred to three hundred years. These were massive inventions, and they appeared for free basically and quickly and with no institutional support. We can't even make a phone with a battery today that lasts for an entire day. And trust me, I don't need a thinner phone. I don't care if it bends, and I don't need any more g's. Four g was fine. Five g, I don't see any difference. So there are only a few options on the table realistically. Either the 18 or 19 hundreds people. They were just born smarter than all of us. Born with superpowers that gave them inventions whenever they walked into the local field. Jokes aside, this story is ridiculous and extremely unlikely since we're also told that these people slept in a shed and wiped with their hand. The second option is that progress just randomly stopped, and that's illogical. Every other area of reality, when you add money, when you add people, add better tools, add more communication, and add better education, you get more output, not less. This is beyond proven. The hardest inventions in our timeline, they all came first, and this is backwards. The story that we're all told is that the hardest problems were all solved early during a time period of dirt roads. No electricity. It's totally inverted. And today, as we all know, our so called advances are just faster versions of what the '18 and nineteen hundreds gave us. They're smaller versions and digital versions. This is called optimization. This is not called invention. It's engineering refinement, not discovery. Where in the world is our teenager that just walks outside and creates a brand new technological category? It is not gonna happen because this technology was given back to us, and I don't trust these stories one bit. So in my opinion, I believe there is only one unavoidable conclusion, and that is that they may be all done giving us the old world technology back. Maybe they have nothing left to give us back, or maybe they don't want to show us anymore. It's proven that our technology began flying back at us in the eighteen hundreds, and it's recently stopped. But we can do this for so many inventions. We showed two today. And if you'd like me to come back with part four one day, let me know in the comments. We see that the radio was invented in the eighteen nineties by a guy that had no formal degree in physics or engineering, no institutional laboratory, no documented research funding, yet he achieved successful wireless transmission. And his system worked and reliably, of course, moving immediately into government and military use. Radio depends on advanced electromagnetic principles. Yet this individual in the eighteen nineties, he didn't have any training, no money, or help. It is the shocking truth that has been here all along that these individuals were pinned to these old world technologies. They were given a story, and nobody ever questioned it until now.
leahfiles
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 9:22 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:52 AM

@leahfiles - theleahfiles

If you have Waze on your phone, you’re going to want to hear this.💃🏻🇺🇸 https://t.co/7tDOJEa70m

Video Transcript AI Summary
About 30 million Americans use the navigation app Waze, founded by three former IDF 8200 members. The transcript claims Waze’s data—navigation data and “all their data about them”—is stored in a “blue and white” country, specifically Tel Aviv. A creator (tagged below) reviewed Waze’s terms and services, noting Waze is operated out of Tel Aviv. The transcript highlights a jurisdiction clause stating the terms and services are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent court in the Tel Aviv district in the “blue and white” country. The transcript connects these findings to Google’s acquisition of Waze in 2013 for $1.3 billion, describing Google as California-based while asserting the corporate structure places Americans’ legal recourse in Tel Aviv. It claims that under the acquisition agreement, the team and Americans’ data could remain in Tel Aviv, and that if Americans have a problem, they would need to fly there to pursue legal action. The transcript further claims Waze’s legal process does not include juries, class action lawsuits are not possible, and that only 0.22% of people read the terms of service, suggesting most users would not notice the jurisdiction arrangement. It also describes the type of data held by Waze as extensive: home address, routes, family members, and the ability to connect with people. It frames Waze as a “social media GPS” application that can show traffic and the most traveled routes “for certain people.” The speaker concludes that, because the data and legal jurisdiction are located in Tel Aviv, users should delete Waze, empty their data, and look at other apps. The transcript attributes the initial discovery to the creator who highlighted the terms and services and urges viewers to stay tuned for further investigation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 30 million Americans apparently use a navigation app that was founded by former IDF 8200. Their data, navigation data, and all their data about them sits over in the blue and white country. And if you ever have a problem, need to sue them, well, you've got to fly over there because you're not protected here in America. You're gonna wanna delete Waze off your phone after hearing it, so let's get into it. There was a creator on this app, I will tag her below, who was talking about the terms and services that she found because she's one of the 0.22% of people, I guess, that reads it. And she found out that Waze itself was operated out of the blue and white country. And I was like, no way, I need to look into this. Like, why would Google do this? Google purchased Waze in 2013. Google is out of California, what's happening? So I went and looked at it for myself And you can see here that it is operated out of Tel Aviv. But that wasn't the alarming part. The real red flag was this one right here, this law and jurisdiction. You can read the little paragraph. I won't read it to you. But you can see the last line. It says these terms and services will be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent court in the Tel Aviv district in the blue and white country. And I was like, what? 30 million Americans use this app. What does that mean? Why would Google do this? Well, I pulled the thread. The deep dive on this is up on my sub stack right now. If you want to head over there, that link is in my bio. It is free. So Waze was founded in 2006 by three former IDF 8200 guys. They live in Tel Aviv. It was purchased in 2013 by Google for $1.3 billion. And in that agreement, they said, yep, you can stay over there, your team, everything. And Americans data. And if Americans have a problem with you, we don't care if they fly over there. Yellow. This was a red flag because this corporate structure made zero sense. There should be an American aspect of this, but there's not. So if you have a problem with Waze, if something happens to you and you want to sue them, for instance, well, you have to fly over to Tel Aviv and go through their court system. They don't have juries. It's just their competent judge. You can't do a class action lawsuit. And only 0.22% of Americans actually read the terms of services, which is what they were hoping. We would never know. Meanwhile, our data also sits over there in Waze. Well, it's pretty extensive. It's your home address, your routes, your family members. You can connect with people. It's like a social media GPS application. They can see where the traffic is, where the most traveled routes are for certain people. You think I trust for one second that these former 8,200 people over in the blue and white country aren't doing anything with our data? No, no, sorry. Just my opinion. This entire thing looks shady AF. Google has had 13 years to fix this. I would recommend deleting it off your phone, emptying out your data. And I'm going to look at other apps because if they're doing it on this one, I am sure there are others. Thank you to the creator who originally called this out. Unbelievable. Stay tuned.
CultivateElevat
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 6:37 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:52 AM

@CultivateElevat - Matt From Cultivate Elevate

Amanita mushroom🍄: Breaks all addictions and used to increase telepathy. Govt would say don't look it up :) Also, check out #115 | Amanita Muscaria: Why it was kept secret by Marianne & Johan and Tribes of WOTAN. All suppressed for a reason.🍄 https://t.me/ElevateThyMind/4916 https://t.co/BAQUWNVjKE

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss Amanita, a mushroom commonly presented as extremely poisonous. The guest describes doing experiments with microdosing Amanita and claims they were “going down these rabbit holes” in which Amanita “breaks all addictions.” They say Amanita is also associated with the “Santa Claus mushroom” and “Super Mario mushroom” due to its red cap and white spots, and they reference Johan and Marianne, described as a German husband and wife, who propose that Amanita was withheld from people so people could be controlled. The guest also connects Amanita to Wotan (spelled W-O-T-A-N) and to paganism, claiming pagans used Amanita mushrooms to transform the body and to break away from addictions. The guest contrasts paganism with later “new religions,” saying pagans were replaced and labeled “peasants,” and that the new religions discouraged “witchery and sorcery,” including use of Amanita. They further claim that people were told to stay away from Amanita because it would interfere with building new addictions, specifically social media, by “dispels” addiction and therefore disrupts control. They add that modern addictions—fentanyl, alcohol, cannabis—are used to keep people “hooked,” and that heavy targeting of Amanita is part of this. They attribute another claim to Johan: that alcohol was not pushed onto people until these religions took over, and that earlier practices involved “mushroom blend” drinks using Amanita with herbs, while later Amanita was removed and replaced with alcohol. The guest links alcohol to loss of “spirit” and to behaviors such as fighting, gambling, and other actions the guest associates with manipulation. They also mention reading “The Sacred Mushroom,” where a person reportedly took it and noticed increased telekinesis and psychic sense, and the guest suggests a connection to MKUltra and using Amanita to identify psychic capabilities. They conclude by encouraging viewers to research and explore multiple angles themselves, arguing that the “angles you’re being fed are from one source.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: Okay, Amanita. This is another one that we've been taught to be afraid of, right? All the stories around it and to stay away and it's very, very poisonous. So what are you finding out about that? Speaker 0: So this is a really cool mushroom that I was doing experiments with. I was actually microdosing Amanita and I was going down these rabbit holes of Amanita breaks all addictions. And this was really interesting because... the government would never tell anybody to be using that. So we hear the fear of the poison. It's going to poison you. It's going to, you know, this toxicity. And it's interesting because the Amanita mushroom is the Santa Claus mushroom or the Super Mario mushroom. And it's interesting because there was Johan and Marianne, they're two German husband and wife, beautiful souls. And they did this whole thing about how the Amanita mushroom was withheld from the people so that basically people could be controlled. And it was interesting because they were showing cardinals and they were wearing the red outfit. And he was showing this is the Amanita mushroom. So I was like, oh, wow. I didn't even think about it that way. And then Santa Claus, same thing. He's got the red cap on and he's got the white line, you know. And so same thing. You see that Amanita. You see Super Mario. And then when you connect back into the tribes of Wotan, which is an interesting one to go to, W-O-T-A-N, that's when you get into paganism. Paganism, they were using lots of Amanita mushroom. And it's interesting because I went down this whole rabbit hole with pagans and they called them peasants, which is funny because as they were replaced with all the new religions, which followed after that, they said, we don't need this paganism nonsense anymore. And you're doing witchery and sorcery and all this. And so the Amanita mushroom connects into that. would use this mushroom to transform their body and also break away from the addictions that we have and i think that the other reason they've told people to stay away from this one is because when you want to make them addicted to social media right that's a new addiction you need them hooked in and that amanita goes in there and it breaks all that and it dispels that and i think that it was attacked heavily Because when they want people addicted, they want people addicted to drugs, the fentanyl, the alcohol, the cannabis, all these things, right? They're addicted to all this stuff. When they're addicted to all these things, then they're hooked. And it was interesting because Johan also talked about that alcohol was not pushed onto the people until these religions took over. And I thought, that's interesting. He said that they drank mushroom like blends, like they would take a mushroom blend and they would drink the amanita with herbs and that was their experience then the mushroom was taken out of the blends and it was replaced with alcohol and i thought oh wow and then you think of like the spirit removing your spirit making people drunks you know controlling them they're fighting people they're doing all kinds of things they wouldn't they're gambling they're getting into things they wouldn't do so i thought wow you know this is one way to manipulate the people so this has been going on for a very long time And Amanita just kind of connects back to that. But when I saw the addiction thing, when I listened to Johan's podcast, all this stuff, because I was going down these rabbit holes, I bought this book called The Sacred Mushroom, where this guy was taking it and he noticed he could increase his telekinesis and psychic sense. I thought, oh, okay. MKUltra, they used Amanita to see how psychic people could become. So there is this connection to the psychic sense and the sixth sense with Amanita as well. So if you think about all these reasons we've kind of talked about to kind of stay away, you know, these are reasons of why you would control the people. But there's so many things people could look into. Soma, the sacred mushroom, you know, and just look it up and just kind of see what you think, because that's what I've always learned to do. I just look something up and I just go down as many things of angles. Right. Because the angles you're being fed are from one source.
CultivateElevat
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 6:39 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:52 AM

@CultivateElevat - Matt From Cultivate Elevate

Aether and the earth. Nikola tesla edition. Same as electroculture https://odysee.com/@CultivateElevate:e2/Nikola-Tesla-Free-Energy-andtheAether:d https://t.co/RFX12X4BTJ

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 says the scene causes “chills” because it shows sparks of lightning coming out of the earth. He claims that the lightning all around is “unlimited energy” that Tesla was tapping throughout his work. He states that once Tesla understood how to put his Tesla coil into the earth, Tesla understood how to capture the “etheric discharge” occurring continuously. Speaker 0 contrasts this with power lines, saying power lines compress the ether. He describes power lines as gridded across locations, running certain ways, and asserts that they compress the ether rather than discharge it like the outflow from the earth. He argues that the discharge coming straight out of the earth is what Tesla was capturing, and that this is why Tesla intended to create a car that ran off this energy. He extends the claim to ships, boats, and other technologies, saying they could run off the earth because his technology could capture the discharge and provide unlimited energy. Speaker 0 references “book 1895” and agrees with the idea that the energy could be “beamed” anywhere. He then says that beaming the energy to any place would allow powering ships, boats, cars, trucks, tanks, and airplanes.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This gives me the chills just saying that right there. See that right there? See those sparks? The sparks of lightning right there? Those sparks of lightning are coming out of the earth. The lightning that is all around us is the unlimited energy that Tesla was tapping in the entire time. Once he understood how to put his Tesla coil into the earth, he understood how to capture the etheric discharge that is taking place the entire time. Now, if you think about power lines, what do you think those are doing? Compressing the ether. Those power lines that are all gridded in all these different places and they run certain ways, those compress the ether. But right there is a discharge coming straight out of the earth and that's what Tesla was tapping into. That's why he was gonna have a car that ran off of that. That's why he was gonna have ships. That's why he was gonna have boats. That's why he was gonna have all different types of technology just run right off the earth right there because that discharge, he could capture that discharge with his technology and have the unlimited energy. So this right here, book 1895, as somebody just said, you could beam that energy anywhere. Yes, you could. You could boom that energy any place that you want to send it. And once you boom that energy any place that you want to send it, you can then power ships, you could power boats, you could power cars, you could power trucks, tanks, airplanes, the whole thing right there.
MYLUNCHBREAK_
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 1:55 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:52 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Are you ready to dig beneath our feet? I’ll show the hidden past of the catacombs and where a previous civilization may have gone—bones displayed as an attraction, with millions buying tickets to go under churches and see them.

@MYLUNCHBREAK_ - MY LUNCH BREAK

The Catacombs - Pt 3 Link: https://youtu.be/YwdDKk2YZKs Are you ready to see what has been going on under our feet? Are you ready to dig deeper into our hidden past surrounding the catacombs and where the previous civilization just might have gone? Showing these bones off as an attraction. Millions of people today, purchasing tickets to go under the churches and see these bones.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript discusses repeated findings of underground chambers and crypts beneath churches across multiple countries, focusing on human remains arranged with religious or symbolic intent. In Naples, Italy, the speaker describes descending beneath a chapel into an alchemist’s chamber (also called a chamber of secrets) and finding two human skulls, along with an interior said to involve secret passages, hidden rooms, and extensive tunnel networks connecting to the chapel’s central point. They also reference claims that symbolic elements—such as triangles tied to “alchemical Masonic” meanings (including sulfur and fire)—and depictions of angels and dragons appear throughout the structure, with carved details visible on the doorframe. The speaker then moves to Rome, describing the Our Lady of the Conception of the Capuchins as a church with a crypt under the building. According to the transcript, the crypt holds the remains of thousands of people and is divided into five chapels lit by dim natural light. The crypt walls are decorated with bones in an elaborate, artistic manner, and the speaker characterizes this as a ritual rather than a conventional cemetery space. They cite a plaque written in multiple languages in which the wording is described as: “What you are now, all of us, we once were, the previous civilization. What we are now, you shall be.” The speaker uses this to argue the crypt’s purpose is directed toward communicating a “plan,” and claims such practices appear in many places worldwide, not as isolated occurrences. From there, the transcript references examples in Odessa (catacombs said to be 1,600 miles long with a three-level system reaching about 200 feet below sea level) and the Paris Catacombs (described as 174 miles long, with only part open to the public). The speaker then shifts to Poland, describing the Skol Chapel, noting a basement area and a building that appears to go below street level, and contrasts it with a “no touching” sign while asserting the presence of art and structural oddities. Additional ossuaries and chapels are highlighted, including the Sedlec ossuary in the Czech Republic (estimated to contain skeletons of between 40,000 and 70,000 people, arranged into decorations and furnishings, including chandeliers of bones). The transcript also describes the Chapel of Bones in Évora, Portugal, described as decorated with skulls and bones, with glass barriers installed to prevent touching, and claims that it holds an estimated 5,000 corpses arranged into patterns. The speaker emphasizes that these sites are visited by large numbers of tourists and frames the normalization of public display under churches as a major focus. The transcript further references Hallstatt, Austria, where an “Austrian house of bones” is described as containing hundreds of intricately painted skulls. It claims that, in the 1700s, the church began digging up corpses, bleaching the skeletons, and then, by 1720, painting them with symbols. The speaker states the practice began declining since the 1960s, but adds that a woman from 1983 was entered into the ossuary in 1995, indicating it continues.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are you ready to go back into the catacombs? Just like we have seen every single time, the location of this chapel is in the historic center of Naples, Italy. The alchemist's chamber, or chamber of secrets, descending underground beneath the chapel yet again. We find two human skulls, and this is just the beginning. It's clearly symbolic for what is possibly behind that drywall looking very different from the original plan where half of the descendants would be placed above and then half beneath the main level of the chapel for reasons that are unknown. Now I want everybody to understand that this is most likely a bunch of nonsense. And I say this because we have seen this so many times all over the world. where millions of bones are placed underneath these places of worship. They know exactly why they're there. Telling us reasons are unknown. This is telling us a lie. And we know this now. The prince is also most likely a fictional character. A fictional backstory as to why there are bones underneath this chapel, right in the middle of Naples, Italy. This place is also home to marble statues. that are clearly not carved by hammers and chisels. We are told that these were carved in 1753, portraying Christ deposed after crucifixion, covered by a transparent veil, just chiseling marble perfectly in 1753, and then going home to his wooden shed, freezing in winters, no indoor plumbing, just relieving himself in a pot, They didn't even have toilet paper yet. Using whatever was available. Using old rags, moss, leaves, or the good old trusty hand, as we're told. But we're told that this hand-wiping civilization was just next door chiseling marble veils. So clearly somebody is lying. And here we go. The entire chapel is filled with symbolism. The chamber is said to contain secret passages, hidden rooms, and I guarantee that there are networks of tunnels, massive catacombs, all connecting to the central point, this location, this chapel. Some of these symbols inside the structure include the glory of heaven, a triangle that hides meanings that must be read in an alchemical Masonic way. The triangle signifies alchemically or sulfur, and of course, fire, where they have more angel and dragon depictions inside. It's just art, of course. If any one of these people that are just standing in line to get in just looked up for two seconds, they would see what is carved into the doorframe. This place, in my opinion, without a doubt, is a massive network of catacombs located right below their feet. Hidden rooms, secret passages, skulls on their front door, symbolism all over the place here. Let's take this up a notch and go even deeper. Staying in Italy, more specifically, Rome. We have the Our Lady of the Conception of the Capuchins, a Roman Catholic church. It is the first Roman church dedicated to the Immaculate Conception. Looking very nice and peaceful inside the building. Nothing too crazy. Everything is just fine until you scroll down to the crypt section. And just like we found on this channel back in episode 72, part one of the catacombs, the crypt is located under the church. Every single time this is the case, holding the remains of thousands of people, thousands of bones right below the floor of this church. The crypt is divided. into five chapels lit only by dim natural light seeping in through the cracks. The crypt walls are decorated with the remains in elaborate fashion, making this crypt a work of art. This is insane. Can you believe that this is going on under so many churches in so many countries, proving that this was a common practice? It was not just a clear space for the cemeteries. In my opinion, it was a ritual. And I say possibly, but I mean probably still is today. Structures and buildings, knowledge of the past. Where did all these people go? Why didn't the great fires of the 1800s kill thousands of people? Inhaling smoke would have done this by itself. And we've shown this. What if these great fires did? Or what if they were already gone? and placed in the geometric patterns. A previous civilization placed right under all of our feet, unaware that they were all under our feet, under the places of worship until now. And we are just getting started today. Welcome to episode 92 of my lunch break. I hope you're all having a great day. And if you're new, welcome. thank all of our sponsors over on patreon thank you to flat earth dave.com you can check out his app the flat earth sun moon and zodiac app i'll put the link right in the description and you can use my referral code mlb if you click the tartaria button you'll see the my lunch break playlist right here the app is awesome thank you to rebecca k christopher arietta the lady lacy show David and Sherry Ferguson, Edwin Johnson, Chuck Templeton, Joy Lee, Stephanie Nolan, The Burlesons, Suez KC, Dan Woodle, Dale, DJ Clicktrack, Edward and Brianna, Jacob Law, Jim Ribley and Christine Duggan, Kyle Glasscock, BKTFnews.org, Regna Saturna, Dendrys NL, Wanam Escher, G Power, Natalie Shipanoff, amberson emc hk sue isaac wright melissa edgar biggles clayton lamar ultimus maximus noble task homestead john adams easy and whitney roberts ozolins crypto schizo rick tapkey blake billy prater the phoenix art the arnold's attila power vkh bonner bells clarions for god forbidding gecko love Justin Grabner Grubb, Leah Strong, Peter Batani, Dakota Dunn, Eric Martinez, Ivan Apotoli, Jim Bro, Edwin Rice, Helmut, Charles Kruger, Glenn Gunderson, edgardtshirts.com, Meta, Jason Hochberg. Marie C, ValleyMedicinals.com, Kyle Logan, Alina and Chris, the IT guy, Ron Mower, David and Irene, Michael Dingu, Patriot Armory, Tom O'Hara, Wayne T, Michael D. Connor, William Royal, C3SCOB, Ancient Tallow, Jeffrey Temple, SonyaDane.com, James Alton, Buck Sui, Jason Prest, Suki Warrior, We The People, Migs, Miss Rex's Murphy, Mark Chapman, Mooji and Declan, Ariana Oates, Jenica Joyce, Nathan Berba, Ski, Coe Drenth, Mousy Mouse Cheese Records, The Sovereign, Beacon of Truth, Dex, Liberty's Arborist, Thomas Thorpe Peterson, Zinger Coffee and Tea, Natasha C., Kay Moore, DevlinMcGregor.com, Don Gaston, Frizz Tickle, Charlie, Miss Fox, Diamond Jewel, David Rauschenbach, Emily Maryland, Felipe, Curious Cam. TheGoldenTeacher.co. Anna Valdez. Mike D. Etc. Dan McGee. Leslie Filer. Festive Trev. Debreus. Eddie McCollum, Laurie Hedvig Johnson, Terry, Jesse DeLeon, Baraplegic Coffee, Papa One, The Almers, Avatars of Gaia, Secrets Beyond Earth, Ellie Annie, Ivan Apoktole, Seth Kregel, Vince Marino, Shiba Shaba in the Darkness. You guys are all awesome and helping this channel out a lot. The crypt originated of a rich and creative cult for their dead. Great spiritual masters. meditated and preached with a skull in their hand. Meditating with a skull in their hand, under a church. What are we reading? What is going on here? I definitely was not taught about this in History 101, or 102 for that matter. With a bone-chilling message, a plaque right here in the center. In one of the chapels reads, in three languages, What you are now, all of us, we once were, the previous civilization. What we are now, the catacombs, dead skulls, being used as meditation, you shall be, all of us, basically giving away their plan right here on this plaque. And what they have done to the previous civilization, putting them under our feet, putting them in places of worship. Let's read this again. What you are now, we once were. What we are now, you shall be. Crazy that they put this right on the wall, telling us what the plan is and showing who those people are. I think this proves who they were and where the previous civilization really went. And it would be one thing if this was the only one in the world, but like we have shown now within episode 72, Episode 78 and now episode 92. This is not even close to a once off. It's in so many countries and most of it is not open to the public. Meaning that there are most likely so many more people that we're not told about or can see. We have seen this in Odessa. The catacombs are 1,600 miles long. A three level system. reaching a depth of 200 feet below the sea level, a massive network, or the Paris Catacombs. We are told that they are 174 miles long. However, only a small portion is open to the public, extending deep beneath the city streets, representing one of the largest grave sites in the world. So we don't know if they are bigger than 174 miles, but to suggest that they could fit a previous civilization, I mean, They definitely could. Now we're gonna move to Poland. We have the Skol Chapel. There's nothing weird going on here at all. No skulls on the door. Not a single symbol that would give anything away. Do you see anything odd about this picture? Am I missing anything? I do see more angels, but that's just art, of course. And the building does look like it's going below the street level, which is kind of odd. And what is this in the basement? How did this get here? You know, If they found this underneath somebody's house today, I think we would all be a little skeptical. And I think it would get its own Netflix series. But as long as it's underneath a church, everything seems to check out and be just fine with everybody. Can we all wake up? At what point do we all say, hmm, that does seem a little odd. Maybe there is something weird about that. maybe thousands of bones underneath the floors of all of these places of worship is a little odd it is a little weird that my history teacher didn't tell me about this it is a little odd that they are all put into geometric patterns and i guess it is a little weird that they're holding skulls in their hand while practicing rituals all over the world in the basement anybody a little odd yeah okay and a nice no touching sign right here, in case anybody is insane and wants to do that. Ritualistic intentions in my opinion, right beneath your feet, all over the world. Collecting the bones, cleaning them all up, and putting them under the chapel, the Sedlak ossuary, Czech Republic. I told you we are just getting started, and I'm going to turn your reality upside down. I'm going to show you something that you will never unsee, the ossuary. is estimated to contain skeletons of between 40,000 people and 70,000 people. And we know it is most likely more. Whose bones have in many cases have been artistically arranged to form decorations and furnishings for the chapel? Tell me, at what point do you think that these people have your best interest in mind? At which point do you start thinking for yourself? Understand that what you've been told is planned. There was a previous civilization here, a civilization that was just like us, that was extremely advanced. They held the technology to create massive palaces all over the world. We have shown this masterpiece marble art that will be here forever. Again, all of this information is sitting right in front of your face. It's always been here. These places are real. We can all go and see them. Whenever we'd like, it's up to you to open your eyes and see the truth. Let's take a minute and thank all of our Batch members, all of our Patreons, and every single subscriber, and everybody who likes the episodes. It's because of all of you that this information continues to reach new people. Every single Saturday, we are also on X, Rumble, Instagram, TikTok, Rockfin, and Spotify. I'm gonna say it again. Imagine any other place in the world, a grocery store, somebody's house, a warehouse, a restaurant, a mall, anywhere else. Imagine that they had 40 to 70,000 people, bones, laid in artistic designs under their floors. holding skulls in their hand for meditation. What would we all think about that place? Why is this so acceptable? Because it's under a church. This is strategic. It's by design. The ossuary is among the most visited tourist attractions of the Czech Republic, drawing over 200,000 visitors annually with chandeliers of bones. containing at least one of every bone in the human body, hangs from the center of the nave with garlands of skulls draping the vault. Why is this a place that people are paying to visit? If I'm just being honest, they've done an incredible job manipulating the masses, telling us it will be us right on the wall one day. And we pay them to go look at the people that are now chandeliers. And they are so good at doing this. that it's now somehow normalized. One of the most disgusting places in the world, in my opinion. Hundreds of thousands of us pay to go inside every year. Have we all lost our minds? We have shown that these things connect to schools, places of worship, hospitals, and then they put this kind of art in there, a decoration apparently. Moving over to the Chapel of Bones, we are told it is one of the best known monuments in Évora, Portugal. Just a great attraction, a chapel located right next to the entrance of the Church of St. Francis. How did the Chapel of Bones get its name? Well, it gets its name because the interior walls are covered and decorated with human skulls and bones, of course, and a great place to spend your Saturday. Come on down. And then they need to make sure they put these glass barriers up so that nobody goes and touches the bones. because people just can't seem to help it. What is going on? Who would seriously pay to go in one of these, let alone go and touch the bones? Oh my gosh, if you could see me now, you would see that I'm looking at these people shaking my head. It's under the church though, so it's acceptable. Uh, no. Did you know that this was below our feet? Did you know how extensive this was? Did you know that it was worldwide? Did you know that this one, holds an estimated 5,000 corpses to decorate the walls of the chapel. The bones just came from ordinary people, of course, arranged into a variety of patterns. Such a normal thing to do under a chapel. Not weird at all. Very normal thing for chapels to do. But if a convenience store starts taking ordinary people and arranging them into a variety of patterns, I don't think anybody's gonna pay and take pictures. not going to get 200 000 people a year in a walgreens basement but the place of worship not an issue of course no problem at what point do we wake up i'm gonna go deeper i was going to show you these photos that are down there but then i read this sentence of what is underneath this chapel so you can go look at the pictures for yourself i'm not sharing it here this basement a place of worship holds two corpses one of which is this. And then people pay to go in there. And this is acceptable somehow. Written on the roof of this chapel is the phrase, better is the day of death than the day of birth. And we can now see who we are dealing with. A group that doesn't seem to enjoy our company. A group that seems to be fully in control of the masses. So much so, that they think these places are payment worthy. The photos that are under this church, in my opinion, are disgusting. Understanding what is under our feet is incredibly important and see what has been going on all of our lives. Places that are used as ritualistic practices, things that we are told right on their websites, holding skulls for meditation, bones of the past placed into artistic designs, decorations to make chandeliers, plaques that read that what we are now, they once were. What they are now, we shall be. If you were on the fence about this research before, unsure if there was a previous civilization that was wiped out, unsure if we are being given back technology from the past, thinking that the narrative that we're all told worldwide, thinking that it was giving you the full story, are you still on the fence? I think now is the time we all get off it. When we go to Austria, Hallstatt to be specific, an Austrian house of bones filled with hundreds of intricately painted skulls. We are told that in the 1700s, the church began digging up corpses. In my opinion, this was the previous civilization from the mud, all to make way for the newly dead, an excuse that we have seen before. taking up too much room. So let's paint these ones and put them into geometric patterns for fun and then do rituals and also make people pay to see them. Sounds good? No. Tightly stacked over 1,200 skulls. Once the skeletons were removed from the mud, they bleached them in the sun and then 1720 comes around and they start painting them. A nice tradition apparently, decorated with an assortment of symbols. Though this practice has been dying out since the 1960s, they took a woman from 1983 and they entered her into the ossuary in 1995, showing that this is still going on today.
thedreydossier
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 11:09 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:46 AM

@thedreydossier - Drey

The machines are entering the building. https://t.co/nV9Gc2KdZe

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion describes live activity at the White House North Portico on the North Lawn, where scaffolding and renovation work were said to be “standard renovations,” but large sheets have been hung over the structure. The question raised is whether more than routine architectural upkeep is being done. The second speaker claims the sheets are effectively a printed cover of the White House that preserves the appearance of the building from Lafayette Park while work continues out of view. They argue this is connected to construction they say is occurring in the East Wing, including ballroom construction and an underground military facility center, rather than merely column restoration. They contrast the North and South porticos: the South portico is described as the prominent scenic entrance where Marine One helicopters land; the North portico is described as the covered motorcade entrance on Pennsylvania Avenue for vehicles to unload and enter directly. The speaker says the North portico is the one covered over and alleges that a chandelier was taken down during restorations, suggesting workspace for infrastructure “underneath the ballroom,” including “technology” installed below. A third statement is introduced: “The ballroom essentially becomes a shed for what's being built under the military, including from drones.” The speaker then portrays the covered area as holding physical tools for a classified military facility, including “GPU racks, server racks” and “secure communication skills.” They connect this to concerns about sensitive data and a supposed rush to place it “under the executive office of the president” before legal processes like subpoena or FOIA could occur. The transcript cites claims involving “Doge” and unauthorized handling of sensitive government data, including an assertion that Social Security Administration confidential data was sent through unauthorized servers and that the SSA could not confirm what was taken or where it ended up. The speaker further claims a unified database is being built under the East Wing, framed as dangerous because it unifies information that has historically been kept in separate agencies and databases, creating access rules and safeguards. They also list related developments they say support the unified-database idea: a “modified version of the SAVE Act” described as narrowing immigration status and fusing social security identity records and citizenship information with bulk searches of state voter rolls into a single lookup. They reference the “Genesis Mission” as training and deploying AI using sensitive federal data, and they state that on June 4 Trump ordered multiple agencies and the NSA to share AI models and data and expand secure computing infrastructure. They add that three weeks later the White House Office of Administration signed a long-term data storage agreement and funded a building alteration contract with minimal public description, and then sheets went up at the North Portico. Finally, the speaker predicts that around July 22, when “Genesis Mission Awards” are announced, journalists should watch the North Portico because the sheets may come down, and they suggest that any “GPU” entry would be consequential.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this is happening in real time outside of the White House. This is the North Portico here on the North Lawn. And we had seen the scaffolding up here around those columns. And the White House had said that they were going through standard renovations. But now you're seeing this sheet go up. And so the question begs, is there something more that is being done here? Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, it is go time. This is not a drill. They are hanging up sheets in the North Portico. They have literally printed the White House onto a sheet and hung it over the White House so that it still looks like the White House from Lafayette Park. And they're claiming this is just some architectural upkeep, right? Just some basic construction on the columns, right? They're restoring the columns. They're repairing the columns. But you're not going to fool me because I don't think this has anything to do with construction, at least not with the restoration construction that they're claiming that it is. I think that the construction this has to do with is the east wing construction, the ballroom construction, the underground military facility center construction. That's right. I think it's server rack time. I mean, think about where they put the sheets, where they're doing the construction right now. Because the White House has two porticos. You've got the South portico, which is the big scenic one that you see in all the movies and TV shows, right? It's where Marine One lands, the helicopter. And then there's the North portico, the covered motorcade entrance on the Pennsylvania Avenue side. It's less visible, and its purpose is built for vehicles to be able to pull under cover, unload, and move directly into the building. Yeah, that's the one they decided to cover up. And allegedly, that's the one where they took down the chandelier as part of part of these restorations and construction. You know, the big hanging light that's overhead in the portico, they took that down, which, If you're just redoing the columns, why would you need to take the chandelier down? Unless, of course, you're making room, because we're at the part of the project where the actual technology goes in underneath the ballroom. What, like that's so crazy to think about? I mean, Trump said himself that... Speaker 2: The ballroom essentially becomes a shed for what's being built under the military, including from drones. Speaker 1: And a shed holds tools. And the tools for a modern-day classified military facility are physical, like GPU racks, server racks, secure communication skills. And if data being stored under the executive office of the president sounds insane to you, then I fear you do not realize just how much of a data tear this administration has been on since they got into office. Doge ransacked the place in a very, very serious way. I mean, they took some of the most sensitive data that the government has on American citizens, and we have no idea where they put it. Straight up nobody knows. When they were asked to account for it, the Social Security Administration had admitted that confidential data had been sent through unauthorized servers and couldn't confirm what was taken or where it ended up. Now we're talking about your Social Security records, voter data, system after system besieged by Doge and his little minions. That is why I don't think it's all that disillusioned to think that they are rushing to get all of this physically under the executive office of the president before anybody can subpoena for it, before anybody can FOIA for it, somewhere where nobody can ask any questions about what was done and what's held down there. Which is the really scary part, because I think that they are building a unified database under the East Wing. In fact, I know that they are building a unified database, and it's important that we all talk about why this is so dangerous. because the government has always held vast amounts of information on its people, but what it has not had, at least not in the same way, is the ability to treat all of that information as one unified record. And it's kept in separate agencies and databases because those boundaries have always created a legal and a practical friction. They require officials to justify access and follow very specific rules and to seek authority before using any of that information that they gathered for one purpose in another context. And that friction, while viewed as a bureaucratic inefficiency, has also been a very huge safeguard for us. And the ballroom shed may still be under construction, but you know what's already standing and already has a covered vehicle entrance and is already connected to the East Wing through a series of underground tunnels? That's right, the White House. And even putting Doge aside for a moment, look at what has been coming together. I mean, you've got the modified version of the SAVE Act, which has just become a narrow immigration status system. And the modified version has fused social security identity records and citizenship information and bulk searches of state voter rolls into a single lookup. That's what a unified database does. And on the compute side, the Genesis mission has been building out the government's capabilities to train and deploy AI using sensitive federal data. And it just so happens that on June 4th, Trump ordered the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, the Energy Department, and the NSA to share AI models and data across all of these classified systems and to expand the secure computing infrastructure to run them. Then three weeks later, on June 30th, the White House Office of Administration signs a long-term data storage agreement and funds a building alter contract whose public description says almost nothing and then sheets go up at the North Portico and then in 13 days on July 22nd that's when the Genesis Mission Awards are announced and that's when we find out who gets plugged into the system so if you're a journalist and you live in DC then please for the love of God keep an eye on the North Portico because the sheets will come down around that time and if so much as one GPU sneaks through that door then I don't know, we might all be screwed.
visegrad24
Posted - July 9, 2026 at 11:41 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:45 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m seeing news that the European Parliament just passed “Chat Control 1.0.” A bid to stop it failed: an absolute majority of 361 votes was needed but only 314 were cast. Many MEPs skipped the surprise vote as it was the last day before summer recess. “Chat Control 2.0” is still in preparation and would make message scanning mandatory.

@visegrad24 - Visegrád 24

BREAKING: The European Parliament just passed Chat Control 1.0 A proposal to stop the new law, which will allow big tech companies to voluntarily scan all private messages, needed an absolute majority of 361 voted but received only 314 votes. As it was the last day before summer recess, many MEPs had returned to their home countries and didn’t take part in the surprise vote. Chat Control 2.0 is still being prepared. That law will make it mandatory to scan people’s private messages.

MYLUNCHBREAK_
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 12:05 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:28 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I look into the history of Galveston, Texas, focusing on a man tied to old world buildings and used as a pawn by 1800s leaders. I explore lodges and mysterious fires around him, compare the mainstream population chart, and trace back to a major problem with the numbers—how “nobody” was here for thousands of years, yet humans suddenly reproduce rapidly in the 1700s.

@MYLUNCHBREAK_ - MY LUNCH BREAK

Finding Texas Today we look into the history of Galveston Texas. We investigate a character that has old world buildings, pinned to his name. A man that was used as a pawn by the leaders of the 1800's. We look into lodges and mysterious fires, all surrounding this one man We also look into the mainstream narrative's population chart. We go back in time and find that there is something massive wrong with the numbers that we are given. We find that we are being told that nobody was here for thousands of years, until the 1700s hit...and all of a sudden...out of no where, humans finally start reproducing at an extremely rapid rate. What happened in the 1700s? Take Control of Your Money and claim $10 in US Stablecoin (USA₮)! Download now at wallet.rumble.com/MLB and use the code MLB10. This is a paid advertisement for Rumble Wallet. Rumble is compensating me for this ad. Void where prohibited. No purchase necessary. Offer available to US residents only. Offer not available in New York State. Must be 18+. Offer is available for a limited time and for the first 500 wallets activated and funded. Details and full official rules available at rumble.com/promoofficialr…

Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript alleges that Texas contains 47 buildings attributed to Nicholas J. Clayton that are under investigation today, with 11 demolished, and three more reportedly burning down, including the electric pavilion said to have been built in 1882 and burned the next year. It claims Clayton was also “pinned” to multiple other sites: the Masonic Lodge building (demolished), a temple at 816 22nd Street later becoming the Masonic Temple, St. Mary’s Infirmary in Galveston (said to be knocked out in 1874, though demolished in 1865), the temple and related Masonic structures, St. Edward’s University in Austin (including a fire in 1903 after work there is said to be missing from his recorded works), and the Beach Hotel in Galveston (construction beginning 1882, completed 1883, then destroyed by a mysterious fire described as occurring one year later; later referenced as a 25-minute fire in 1898 with the building gone). The transcript also focuses on Masonic buildings and timelines: it asserts that the Harmony Hall cornerstone was laid late in 1882, and that Clayton’s building work completed in 1884 “before the power tool was even invented in 1895.” It describes the Harmony Hall as having gothic detail grafted onto classic forms and claims it was destroyed by a fire in 1928. It then quotes Abbey Hughes, described as a master Mason and Scottish Rite member for 56 years, claiming that during the 1928 fire they saved books and removed items piece-by-piece, including an Italian marble staircase, relocating it to serve as a centerpiece for the current cathedral. The transcript questions whether this accounts for a fire or a demolition process after valuable items were removed. Clayton is further connected in the transcript to Ball High School in Galveston: it states that in 1884 Ball High became the second high school in Texas, that the cornerstone was laid in February 1884, and that construction started in 1884 and ended in 1886. It cites alleged construction damage and a crowd watching a fire described in the transcript’s narrative. It then claims a 1955 upgrade occurred, referencing a galvestonmonthly.com account that a letter was buried beneath the cornerstone in a time capsule containing items related to the school’s incarnation. The transcript states that by 1954 a new school was built, soon after the old structure was torn down, and the building site later involved a new building sold to the United Fire and Casualty Company on the same site. Additional “Clayton” associations in the transcript include a synagogue in Texas said to be one of the oldest standing synagogues in Texas, attributed to local architect Fred Stewart and described as designed and built in 1870; it claims the synagogue was sold to a Masonic Lodge in the same year Ball High was demolished (1955). It also claims Clayton is linked to courthouses: it describes a sequence of multiple courthouses on the Galveston site, including a third courthouse designed by Eugene Thomas Heiner in 1882 and a later “present” courthouse built in 2006, stated to be the seventh courthouse on the site, with an omitted replacement building said to have been built in 1966. The transcript argues that the official historical narrative provides insufficient information for earlier courthouses and contrasts modern construction with earlier stone structures. The transcript highlights the Ashbell Smith Building in Galveston: it states the building is the oldest medical school building west of the Mississippi River, claims it survived the 1900 category four hurricane with only roof damage, and contrasts this with buildings and houses described as destroyed or wiped out. It adds that it survived Hurricane Ike after being flooded by six feet of water in 2008. It asserts the building was “supposed to be built in one year” and argues that its survival and condition demonstrate the durability of “old world” construction. The transcript then shifts to a mathematical argument about global population, repeatedly asserting that population worldwide was “basically zero” in earlier centuries, specifically connected to constructions and timelines such as the Reims Cathedral in France, said to have begun in 1211. It claims Reims Cathedral construction is described as lasting 80 years after an earlier church was destroyed by fire. It also describes a population-decline calculation based on stated rate assumptions and uses this to argue that large-scale cathedral building was “mathematically not probable,” and that historical records and dates are “forced” into an inconsistent timeline. The transcript continues with Athens, Greece and the Acropolis: it references an 1860 photograph, Google Earth observations of stairs on a nearby hill that the transcript says viewers cannot zoom into, claims grass and dirt cover a larger structure, and states the site was constructed by an “advanced civilization.” It claims scaffolding has lasted decades as a “magic trick” to suggest modern maintenance, and argues that the site was intentionally destroyed rather than crumbling. It further asserts connections to “Mu,” “Lemuria,” and Greek mythology terms, and uses additional population-decline math to argue that in years such as 644 worldwide population would have been three people, implying either a reset or a recent massive event. The transcript concludes by stating that population data is a key to uncovering a previous civilization before the modern era and that this “data” supports a reinterpretation of global building history.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Nicholas J. Clayton, an 1800s master architect who is pinned to 47 buildings, mainly located in the state of Texas, that are under investigation today. 11 of the 47 buildings have been demolished. Three more burning to the ground, including the electric pavilion that we are being told was constructed in 1882 and burned down the very next year. while he is also pinned to the Masonic Lodge building, which was also demolished, pinned to the temple located on 816 22nd Street, which later became the Masonic Temple, with his father having the exact same name, Nicholas J. Clayton, which we have seen so many times, reoccurring names constantly, where the mainstream narrative is no longer able to hide. and make flaws that nobody cares about anymore. When we are told that Clayton knocked out the St. Mary's Infirmary in Galveston, Texas in 1874, and it's demolished in 1865, knocking a building down nine years before it was constructed. Clayton was born in 1839 and moved to the USA as a small child from Ireland. And I think this is gonna show us how these people like Clayton were inserted into these roles. pinned as the architect of old world buildings. Clayton went into the United States Navy, where he was now planted in Galveston, Texas in the 1800s, and was destined to be a master architect in our history books, where he became one of the first professional architects in Texas. And of course, the very first architect in Texas would be the best to ever live in Texas, with zero mistakes ever, and his buildings built to last lifetimes, knocking out the Sacred Heart Catholic Church in 1905, where in 1888, the Jesuits took over the responsibilities of the parish. Clayton was also pinned to the main building at St. Edward's University, located in Austin, Texas, where we are told that the first one was completed in 1888, the same exact year that the Jesuits took over the other clayton church and they tell us that the one we see today is the second one when they rebuilt it no problem at all in 1903 after a fire where it gets very interesting when they tell us that they hired clayton to design the structure but when we go back to his works this building is not listed adding to the fire total that we mentioned earlier Clayton also is said to have designed the Beach Hotel in Galveston, Texas. Construction began in 1882, and they just wrapped that thing right up in 1883. One year later, not a problem in the 1800s, where it was destroyed by a mysterious fire. Just 15 years later, where the cause of the fire was never determined. A 25-minute fire in 1898 And the whole thing is gone. A mysterious fire. Yeah. Okay. And apparently the Harmony Hall is another Masonic temple that Clayton was pinned to where we are about to turn this thing up a notch. The Masonic temple had its cornerstone late in 1882 after they just upgraded their chisels over at Donkeys Incorporated Home Depot. this building was done in two years by clayton and his horse and wagon team completed in 1884 all of this is done before the power tool was even invented in 1895 so we all know who gets the old world building taken over in 1884 with gothic detail engrafted on classic forms in the italian renaissance it was a masterpiece where they tell us that the building was later destroyed by a fire in 1928. Just take a look at the building and tell me if this is something that looks like it would be built in two years today. Now for a paid advertisement from Rumble Wallet. How much control do you have over your money right now? Technology has changed everything, and now it's changing how money works. Crypto started as a niche, but now it's going mainstream. Faster payments, way more control, and fewer middlemen. This isn't hype, it's just where things are going. And getting started today is easier than you think. With Rumble Wallet, you can buy Bitcoin, hold dollar-backed stablecoins, and even own digital gold, backed by real gold, all in one place. It's a non-custodial crypto wallet, which means that you, not a bank or a platform, control access to your funds. Setup is so simple. It connects with Moonpay, so you can use your debit card, credit card, or bank account and be up and running in minutes. And for a limited time, you can start your wallet with just $10 in U.S. stablecoin by downloading the Rumble wallet and entering my exclusive promo code MLV10 when you sign up now. And if you'd like to, you could even use Rumble Wallet to support your favorite Rumble creators like me directly. So do this right now. Scan the QR code on the screen, click the link in my description, or just go to rumblewallet.com slash MLB and download Rumble Wallet. From there, you can set up your wallet. Enter promo code MLB10 to get your $10 in US stable coin. This is a limited time offer, So act now. Take control of your money and get started with Rumble Wallet today. Terms and conditions apply. See the description below or visit rumble.com slash promo official rules for details. I mean, I would say it's possible if we had the very best tools, the most incredible equipment, the best workers that were fully trained, a shipping company that was right on time and all the rest. But for us to believe that this took 24 months in 1884 before the power tool and then randomly burns down is, in my opinion, is complete nonsense. Back then, many of the Masons worked downtown and even as the building burned, they saved the books, said Abbey Hughes, a master Mason and member of the Scottish Rite for 56 years. They moved almost everything, even the grandfather clock. where we are told this building also held an elaborate Italian marble staircase. And they saved that as well. I'm going to ask you guys, does this sound like a fire? Or does this sound like a demolition after they removed everything? Let me know what you think in the comments. Do we all trust what Master Abby has to say? Her story seems a little odd if you ask me. When they go on to say, during this fire that burned down the incredible building, with the flames ripping through it, they were able to remove piece by piece this Italian marble staircase. They cleaned it up and gave it a brand new home, making it the centerpiece for the current cathedral. And this was an acceptable narrative for nearly 100 years, until now, where we all know, after everything we've seen to this point, we know that this is complete nonsense and was a destruction process on a building that they did not build. They found it. They repurposed it. And they took all the valuable books and items out of it that belonged to the previous civilization and destroyed the building. What else they pinned to this Clayton guy? Ball High School in Galveston, Texas, where Ball High tells us that in 1884, Ball High became the second ever high school in the state of Texas. And this was their high school. I mean, do I even have to say anything? Does it get any more incredible than that? This was built in the 1800s as a high school. The cornerstone is said to have been laid in February of 1884, that same year that Clayton wrapped up this building that had a demon fire that licked its way through the rich furnishings, gutted the building, and cracked the walls, sending debris flying into the streets where thousands of people watched. Another quote from Abbie Hughes, the master mason of the Scottish Rite for 56 years. when I'm sure nobody was watching them do anything. Ball High started its construction in 1884 and wrapped it right up in 1886. Two years, done. So Clayton was just knocking these things out, no problem at all. And could you imagine him today? Just ripping through these things in our towns today. And could you imagine if this guy actually had power tools? What kind of buildings would he be building today? I mean, I think he would be the Picasso of our time. Just imagine if Clayton had one cordless drill. Imagine him having a saw or a shipping company that had the trucks that we have today. I think this building would have gotten done in like a week. Why do we not have statues of this Clayton guy? We would have a total of zero houses with vinyl siding. I can guarantee you that. There's no way Clayton would have allowed that. Our town halls, our high schools, they would have been palaces. And we know that there was a much more advanced previous civilization that is definitely being hidden from our timeline. A civilization that had incredible knowledge, had proper training, had all the tools and understood how to get these buildings done all over the world. And they did not do it while riding around like a cowboy. while in their wagon when we are told that in 1955 this building just wasn't cutting it anymore and they felt like they needed to upgrade it where according to galvestonmonthly.com they say that this was the oldest public school in texas they say there is a letter that was beneath the cornerstone buried in a time capsule that contained the items related to the school's incarnation And I would love to know what they found in 1955 in that time capsule. And here we're gonna see how incredibly well built these old world buildings really were. In 1900, a category four hurricane devastated this location, killing around 8,000 people, which remains the worst weather-related disaster in US history in terms of loss of life. Yet, a year later, in 1901, this school was back in service. as if nothing happened. In 1954, they had a new school built, as we have mentioned. And soon after, they tore down the structure. And since they just can't leave it out of the story, of course, they had built a new building, which was later sold to the United Fire and Casualty Company, located on the exact same site. Now, we were also given the synagogue in Texas that has incredible architecture and a very strange past, where we are told that this is one of the oldest standing synagogues in Texas. And all of these buildings that we've mentioned are all attached to the same exact character, Nicholas Clayton. The synagogue was supposedly designed by local architect Fred Stewart. Designed and built in the same year of 1870. And then they sell it the same year that Ball High School was demolished in 1955. And they sold it to the Masonic Lodge with this building. of course, also surviving the 1900s, category four hurricane, no problem at all. Now, I'm gonna be honest, I'm shocked they didn't just name this town of Galveston the town of Clayton, because he's pinned to everything here. He's pinned to the temples, he's pinned to the high schools, the courthouses, where he knocked out the town's fourth courthouse. Three-story stone structure, completed in 1892. when it just wasn't cutting it anymore. And they knocked it down to build a new one six years later in 1898. And I'll tell you what, Galveston, your historical narrative is one of the sketchiest narratives that I've ever heard. The first courthouse was done in 1838, 186 years ago, built by nobody. And what happened to it? They tell us nothing. We're just supposed to believe them. And guess what? A brand new one is on the way. In 1857, it's here. Who built that one? It will forever be a mystery, just the way the mainstream narrative likes it. Second courthouse, get out of the way. A third one is coming in, a three-story stone structure, exactly like the fourth one. This one is designed by Eugene Thomas Heiner in 1882. And this one was, of course, not up to the 1800 standards, a time period where we had nothing better to do besides build three-story stone palaces and then knock them down 10 years later, only to build a brand new three-story stone structure in 1892. And just get rid of that one six years later, where that one is partially destroyed by the 1900s hurricane. And the sixth... and present courthouse was completed where this gets strange. The current building was built in 2006. It says that according to multiple sources, but the main source leaves out this other building where they say that another building was built in 1966, which we aren't being told about in the official narrative. So this is the current day courthouse and it's actually the seventh courthouse on this site. We are all understanding they were not building massive courthouses and knocking them down over and over and over and we've shown this many times throughout all of the episodes the first courthouse was a masterpiece from the old world where the first courthouse is always a masterpiece from the old world and they replace it with this thing and give us these insane stories where they knock down 10 buildings and only need them for a few years where i have gone even deeper and found that there were actually seven courthouses, not six. With this box being the replacement in 1966, our modern construction in the last 60 years is pathetic. This box, the one that they tell us, was highly regarded for its modern architecture. The governor proclaimed it the most beautiful courthouse in the state of Texas. This guy must have been blind as a bat. This box, built in the architecture style called your basic box style, he called that a modern masterpiece of the 20th century. And that replaced this courthouse. And we all understand that this was the original courthouse, where in any of their seven courthouses, this story would not hold up. where they have zero information on the 1838, 1856, 1875, or 1892 courthouses. They don't even have a fake drawing to show us, nothing, because this 1898 building was built long before 1898 and long before 1838. This building was here and built by the previous civilization that once lived in this location. They can't just say they had seven courthouses. and give the public zero information about them. That is nonsense. It's not true. And this nonsense may have worked for a century, but it does not work anymore. We have possibly the most incredible building that is pinned to Clayton's name, the Ashbell Smith Building, also located in Galveston, Texas. And it still stands here today. this is the oldest medical school building west of the mississippi river according to the mainstream narrative where we have photos before 1900 and we have nothing we have dirt roads and then we have this palace and then we have a photo from september in 1900 right after the hurricane and the building held up pretty well where only the roof took some damage but the rest of the building looks fine especially when you compare it to the 1900s construction where a house we built was completely destroyed. Here are some more houses that we built that are just gone. We have four blocks of our houses that we built completely wiped out. And then we have the old world building just needing a little roof work. And there are a lot of photos of the 8,000 casualties that I'm not gonna show here obviously. But for a storm this big to hit, and the building really doesn't look affected at all. Shows how impressive these structures from the old world really are. And it's interesting to see the comparisons of our construction at the exact same time, totally wiped out. Oh, and did I mention that this building we are supposed to believe was built in one year, over 130 years ago? And where is this thing located? Was it like five miles away from the ocean? And that's why it wasn't really affected by this massive hurricane. Of course not. It was right on the front lines, taking a direct hit from the 1900s hurricane. And not only did it survive the 1900s hurricane, no problem at all, it also, of course, was a survivor of Hurricane Ike after being flooded by six feet of water in 2008. These buildings are incredible and built with perfection and not in a year with zero backstory. These buildings hold a hidden past, one that we are working to uncover. and showed to the world every single week. Today, we are gonna show mathematically that the population worldwide in the last 1,400 years was basically zero. When the mainstream history tells us that at the exact same time period, where basically nobody was here, they were building palaces, castles, and cathedrals. And before we expose the population lie today, we have to get an understanding of how this all works. from the bottom up. Welcome to Reims, France, where we hold one of the most incredible structures in the world, and it's under investigation today. The Reims Cathedral, where we are being told that the construction of this cathedral started in the year 1211, where this is 813 years ago. Now, in the USA, they can tell us that these type of cathedrals were built in the 1800s. So they're at least trying to fit this type of construction into this mainstream timeline that we're given today. But when we go over to Europe, they just don't seem to care one bit. They throw dates around and everyone just accepted it for years. Could you imagine that next week, any city in the world tells us that one of these are going to be thrown together? I think the world would be shocked. Yet, when we are told that this was built 813 years ago, in the year 1211, we all just said, yeah, that sounds like a good year, until now. Because we have patterns to look for, especially when a building holds the fire narrative, where we have found over 100 buildings to this point. that hold a fire narrative which is no longer mathematically possible and we have found this fire pattern on this channel and we will soon have a running tally on the screen every time we find a new one and this one's going to be added to the group when we are told that this cathedral in france wasn't even the first one they had an even earlier church that was destroyed by a fire a year before construction began on this new one and this one lasts forever So they knocked this thing out in 80 years when, let's be honest, if we didn't have a power tool or a car or a shipping company or any architectural training processes today, do any of us actually believe that our civilization would just knock this thing out in 80 years? Realistically, I'd love to know in the comments below how long you think this building would take today. I'm interested to see what you all think. especially because we're being told that this building was built over 800 years ago. The fact that we can see these buildings all over the world, they're still here. It's not like I'm talking about something that's a hidden mystery. We can all go there and look at it and then compare it to the buildings that we produce today, which is supposedly over 800 years of evolving and advancing. And it's not even close. So let's think about this for a second. We are supposed to believe that they had construction down and it was perfect since the beginning of time, yet nothing else advanced. Only construction. Building palaces was the only thing the 1200s were good for, apparently. The problem is, is that the buildings are the only thing that are left from the 1200s. Which is exactly why they're forced to make these dates up. In order to try to explain them into our fabricated timeline. Where as a car, or a watch, a phone, a plane, and a helicopter, they've all been here before as well. They just aren't built into the ground all over the world for all of us to see. When the buildings are. We are told that the designer of this cathedral was Jean d'Orbès. And who exactly was this master designer? Starting at Pointgard, making his debut for the France National Historians. Jean constructed the Abbey church or did he find it? Where they tell us that the Abbey was found at the end of the 7th century. And don't worry, they had construction down of course. still there in the town center today when they go on to say 600 years later gene debuts building the saint pierre saint paul church where it was built between the end of the 12th century and early 13th century and we have all of this documented of course no today we are going to show that there were mathematically basically no people here in the 12th and the 13th century, a time that the mainstream history likes to tell us was knocking out palaces. So they were just throwing dates around, telling us that they constructed the St. Paul Church between the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th century from 800 years ago. And we were all just nodding in acceptance for 200 years with zero documentation proving this. This is all based on trust. And this group that we're supposed to be trusting has proven to be pretty shady, where they tell us that the architecture is superb, particularly the facade with its two towers, the choir with ambulatory, with five radiating chapels. Interesting. And telling us that in 1835, that the population of this location was only 1,000 people. And the population of England since 1801, the exact timeline that we're talking about here worldwide. From the beginning point of this fabricated mainstream timeline, beginning around 1776 was at around 9 million people. It has grown to over 56 million in just the last 220 years. So if we do the math on this, the population is decreasing at a rate of 83.92% in just the last 220 years. And this fact alone should get everyone thinking. This stat shows that in the year 1141, the time period that they're talking about here, according to the math, based on data that they're providing, the population of England would sit at 37,898 people in the entire country, having only 37,000 people in the year 1141. knocking out palaces is not mathematically probable at all you would think that there would be a single argument that goes the mainstream history's way you would think that if their tales were true this type of stuff would not happen yet every single time you go deeper there is yet another flaw the worldwide population mathematically was basically zero based on everything that we know and have seen in my opinion I believe that that anything before 1776 is basically fabricated and an attempt to fit into this timeline that we are all in and this is when we take it a step further and we go to spain and according to the world o meters dot info spain's population sits at roughly 47 million people growing around 18 million people in the last 69 years this drop off of people is so dramatic worldwide that in my opinion proves that the beginning of our timeline our batch of people was simply not that long ago. This is according to their math, their numbers, that anyone in the world can go look at. These people of the 12 and 1300s were supposedly also without shipping companies. They were without power tools, no light bulbs, and suffering, again, They give us these stories of the past and tell us that there were events. They tell us all of these things, where the population was this and that. But at the end of the day, we are not 100% sure that these stories from the 1300s are true. So the only math we can go off of is what we are provided from when we are actually here. and documenting it. And now we can do the same thing with the worldwide population where the population is decreasing at a rate of 66.1765% every 69 years. The rate of the population worldwide should not be increasing or decreasing by 66%. This is obviously showing that there's something going on. At this rate, 1886 would have realistically only had 928 million people. And 1817 worldwide would mathematically already have been down to 314 million people. And this is information that is provided to us sitting right here in front of our faces where they in my opinion were just waiting for us to find this at this point i think this is a game to this group to see who can figure this out all of this information is all here provided with clues all we have to do is simply look the math doesn't lie the worldwide population would mathematically drop down to only 106 million people in 1748 which was only 31 years after we are told that this group began. In 1679, according to this math, there were only 35 million people here worldwide. The population in 1610 would have only been 11.8 million, 3.9 million people in 1541. And if we bring it all the way back to the year 1200, 800 years ago, the exact same year that the mainstream history is telling us all about, like they were there and saw it happening themselves. They saw those 1200s and 1300s people just smacking those stones right into place and they're there forever. They are telling us that it was built at the end, not the beginning, but at the end of the 12th century at this rate, every 69 years decreasing by 66% overall. Nobody is even here. only 17,700 people worldwide, and this is all based on basic math and numbers that are provided to us. And if this is true, this completely disproves these stories, these tales that people in the 13th century were building massive cathedrals. It basically puts an end to all historical narratives suggesting that a population of basically nobody, more specifically 17,000 people worldwide, were as advanced or more advanced than we are today in terms of construction. Construction that we can still see today, yet being primitive, wearing night outfits and fighting with swords, having zero power tools, no light bulbs, riding around on horses and not having a single truck to ship millions of pounds of stone. No form of communication other than using their local raven to send messages to far lands. Having provided zero factual evidence that they were ever even transporting stones. And zero mention of any training processes ever. Leaving this part of the story out every single time. Or ever explaining how these shipping routes were all figured out. Where is the evidence that we need to show that their stories are true? Where is it? That civilization of nobody with nothing had the capabilities to construct castles, cathedrals, basilicas, and the rest. No. Once you actually stop and think about it for two seconds, it simply doesn't add up. The 1200s, riding by feathers and sleeping in huts. Suffering in winters, yet knocking out massive cathedrals. Faster and in most cases much better than we do today. And they last for thousands of years. And they survive floods, hurricanes, and the rest. And their population was mathematically proven to be basically nobody. This tale that we are told is nonsense at this point. Now that we all have an understanding that the worldwide population, the math, is on our side, that this is not probable. An ancient cathedral located in Athens, Greece, a photo that was taken in 1860, 164 years ago, where we have shown that the worldwide population was just over 300 million, nowhere near the 8 billion mark that we are told that we have today. a cathedral that was sitting on dirt. We're gonna zoom in on this thing and find something incredible. The detail on the front of this building is unbelievable. We know that Tartaria's flag was a griffin. We've seen this logo on buildings all over the world, which we have even seen in episode 40, when we went to Wisconsin, a civilization that I believe most likely originated in the Pacific Ocean, in a no-fly zone today, and spread out to the rest of the world from that point on, as we have shown in episodes 60 and 61. As we get closer to the front of this building in Greece, we have a logo of the previous civilization. And again, these photos were taken in the 1800s in a collection by Nicholas Katzenpoulos. And here we have the Acropolis in Athens, Greece. And I was just looking at this area on Google Earth where there is another hill next to the Acropolis. I saw these stairs on the side of this hill. And it's weird because they won't let you drop the view down on them. and get a closer look at them. It seems to me like this grass and dirt is covering a much larger structure that we can't see with the stairs being exposed on the side. It looks like it's been melted and they've just built on top of it. It's very strange. So here at the top, that's where these stairs are. And down here at the bottom is the Acropolis. So you can see how close they are to each other. And before we even look at the mainstream narrative surrounding it, it should just show anyone in a split second that this site was clearly constructed by an advanced civilization. We have detailed columns all over the place. We have some sort of stage here, and we have a mainstream story that should be a lot of fun for us today. And now that we have unlocked the advanced civilization of Mu in episodes 60 and 61, that I think a lot of us enjoyed, we understand where these buildings and people most likely originated from, where Lemuria, holds the name Mu inside of it, putting it right in our faces. The hill of Mu, Zis, where Mu is also right in the name, meaning a type of goddess in Greek mythology. Another connection to Mu. It's very interesting. before we go on with this mainstream narrative i have to point this out we all understand that these scaffolding that they have here for decades are put here to make us believe that our civilization is somehow helping the ancient structure survive repairing it when we all know that it doesn't need our help at all this site was obviously destroyed on purpose It is not crumbling and falling apart over time. The scaffolding is, in a sense, a magic trick. It's there to make 99% of people think that our civilization is giving this place an upgrade, making our civilization think that we are more advanced and that it needs our help when it doesn't need our help at all. When we construct our buildings like this and then you have the previous civilization's work towering over it, we are not evolving. we are not advancing we have a side-by-side comparison right here now that we have a solid understanding of this area and what it looks like a little bit let's all take this thing up a notch and have some fun we know that the population mathematically was basically nothing in the 1200s we've calculated it to around 17 700 people worldwide now could you imagine the 600s based on the math and the data that we've been given at a decreasing population rate of 66.17% every 69 years, where we saw that there would have only been 11.8 million people in 1610 and 17,000 people in the year 1196. Well, I did the math and based on the numbers that they have provided us and based on a 66.1765% population decrease rate, Per 69 years, in the year 600, the population worldwide would have been three people, meaning that either the beginning of human existence was in or around the year 644, based on math, or something massive happened and reset the population very recent. Either way, something massive is going on here that's just been uncovered especially when the mainstream history tells us that the Acropolis of Athens, Greece was constructed on a massive hill around the year negative 1300 to negative 1200, which we know the population worldwide would have been zero. Even if the population hasn't always decreased at 66%, the simple fact is, is that going back in time, the population decreases. This is proven through the data that they provided us, the population in negative 1300, however you want to go about it, would have been zero. If you are going off the mainstream story, their data, you can say that there were plagues, you can say that there were these stories, when we know that these stories have massive flaws at this point. Anything provided hundreds of years ago can easily be picked apart. We have done this hundreds of times at this point. based on facts, things that we can prove, things that we have here, right in front of us, data, it proves to me that we aren't wrong. The population data was always a massive key for us, a key that proves that there was a previous civilization here before us, and something massive happened in this place that we all live, right around the year 1776, worldwide. This information, this data, that three people We're here worldwide in the year 644. This map, it's been here. It's always been here. It's just been waiting for us to see it. And now that we all do, we can all go much, much deeper.
AureaLibe
Posted - July 9, 2026 at 6:35 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:14 AM

@AureaLibe - Aurea

Je lance l’initiative Exit Chat Control. https://exitchatcontrol.org/ Ce site est un guide complet qui vise à répertorier tous les outils nécessaires pour contourner tout système de surveillance de vos messageries privées. Le site est open source et sera amélioré en continu.

@AureaLibe - Aurea

x.com/i/article/2075…

Article Cover

[Guide] Comment échapper à Chat Control et à la surveillance de vos messages privés

Le Parlement européen a adopté Chat Control. Le scan de nos messages privés est désormais autorisé dans l'Union, au nom de la « protection des enfants ». Une majorité d'eurodéputés a pourtant voté contre le texte, mais, à cause d'une règle de procédure, il aurait fallu une majorité absolue pour le rejeter. Elle n'a pas été atteinte. La surveillance de masse est passée par la fenêtre. Depuis mes débuts, je défends trois choses simples : le Peuple, la Liberté et la vie privée.

Alors voici un guide pour agir. Cet article est une version allégée de mon guide complet. Vous pouvez retrouver la version complète sur un site web dédié ici :

�
� exitchatcontrol.org
👈

Je vais vous donner tous les outils pour agir, avec des étapes concrètes, dans l'ordre, du plus simple au plus avancé.

La version la plus dangereuse de Chat Control repose sur le « scan côté client » : un logiciel qui lit vos messages directement sur votre téléphone, avant qu'ils ne soient chiffrés.

En conséquence, un VPN seul, ou le simple chiffrement, ne suffiront pas à s'en protéger.

Chacune des méthodes qui va suivre vous protège un peu plus. Vous n'êtes pas obligé de tout faire d'un coup. Mais la résistance commence par des actes individuels et la responsabilité individuelle commence par l'éducation, et je vais vous aider à vous former.

Ce qui vous protègera vraiment, c'est de changer d'outils pour des logiciels libres qui refusent ce mouchard, et de reprendre le contrôle de son appareil, et donc de devenir souverain des outils qu'on utilise.

Étape 1 : Changez de messagerie (le geste le plus urgent)

C'est le premier réflexe, celui qui vous protège le plus vite. Quittez WhatsApp, Messenger et Telegram et installez Signal.

Article image

C'est une messagerie aussi simple d'utilisation que WhatsApp, mais chiffrée de bout en bout par défaut, gérée par une fondation à but non lucratif, et son équipe a promis de quitter l'Europe plutôt que d'installer un scan de vos messages.

Rendez-vous sur signal.org, installez l'application, confirmez votre numéro, puis dans Réglages > Confidentialité, créez un nom d'utilisateur pour masquer votre numéro.

Si vous voulez aller plus loin, SimpleX Chat (simplex.chat) ne demande ni numéro, ni e-mail, ni aucun identifiant. Personne, pas même les serveurs, ne sait qui parle à qui. Je peux aussi vous recommander dans le même registre Session (getsession.org). Le plus important : faites installer Signal à vos contacts. Une messagerie chiffrée ne sert à rien si vous êtes seul dessus. Pour en apprendre plus, le guide complet est disponible ici.

Étape 2 : Quittez Gmail

Gmail lit vos e-mails et vit aux États-Unis, sous une juridiction de surveillance. Le quitter est un énorme gain pour très peu d'effort. Créez un compte sur Proton Mail (proton.me), basé en Suisse et chiffré. L'offre gratuite suffit pour commencer. À l'inscription, utilisez l'outil « Easy Switch » pour importer vos anciens messages et contacts, mettez une redirection depuis Gmail, et prévenez vos contacts de votre nouvelle adresse.

Article image

Alternative tout aussi solide que je recommande : Tuta (tuta.com), allemand, entièrement libre.

Pour en apprendre plus, le guide complet est disponible" target="_blank">https://exitchatcontrol.org/">disponible ici.

Étape 3 : Changez de navigateur, de moteur de recherche, et fuyez Google

Chrome est un mouchard publicitaire, et Google enregistre chacune de vos recherches. On remplace les deux.

Pour un changement indolore, installez Brave (brave.com), le navigateur internet de @BrendanEich. Il a travaillé sur le premier navigateur internet, a inventé JavaScript, le langage utilisé partout sur internet et a cofondé le navigateur Mozilla Firefox.

Article image

Brave est comme Chrome, mais sans logiciel espion. Il bloque les pubs et les traqueurs par défaut, coupe les publicités YouTube, et intègre même un accès à Tor en un clic. C'est un navigateur respectueux de la vie privée qui fera que vos données ne seront pas espionnées par Google.

Comme alternative libre, je peux vous recommander Librewolf (librewolf.net). Je ne recommanderai par contre pas Firefox, dont la dirigeante a eu certains propos contraires à la protection de la vie privée. Enfin, changez le moteur de recherche par défaut de votre navigateur, que ce soit sur votre ordinateur ou sur votre smartphone. Je vous recommande d'utiliser le moteur de recherche de Brave, Brave Search (search.brave.com), et, comme alternative, DuckDuckGo (duckduckgo.com).

Pour en apprendre plus, le guide complet est disponible" target="_blank">https://exitchatcontrol.org/">disponible ici.

Étape 4 : Utilisez un VPN

Un VPN ne vous protège pas du scan sur votre appareil, mais il masque votre adresse à votre fournisseur d'accès et vous rend l'accès aux sites qui exigent une pièce d'identité. C'est indispensable le jour où l'anonymat sera verrouillé.

Je recommande Mullvad (mullvad.net) : pas d'e-mail, pas de nom, juste un numéro de compte, une politique sans journaux auditée, et un prix fixe.

Article image

Concrètement : 1. Allez sur mullvad.net (si le site est bloqué chez vous, ouvrez-le via le navigateur Tor ou son adresse .onion).

2. Cliquez sur « Générer un numéro de compte ». Sauvegardez ce numéro dans votre gestionnaire de mots de passe et ne le partagez jamais : c'est votre seule clé.

3. Payez. Si la carte bancaire passe, faites au plus simple. Si vous voulez l'anonymat total, payez en cryptomonnaie : cliquez sur « Créer une adresse de paiement à usage unique », et envoyez le montant depuis votre portefeuille. Monero est le plus confidentiel. Le tutoriel d'achat détaillé (Bitcoin, Monero via un swap) est dans ce guide complet : https://x.com/AureaLibe/status/2016126634235953211.

4. Téléchargez l'application sur mullvad.net/download, entrez votre numéro, et connectez-vous à un serveur hors Union européenne. Activez le « kill switch ».

Pour en apprendre plus, le guide complet est disponible" target="_blank">https://exitchatcontrol.org/">disponible ici.

Étape 5 : Sécurisez vos comptes

Un mot de passe unique et fort par service, c'est la base de toute la sécurité.

Installez Bitwarden (bitwarden.com), gratuit et libre. Créez un mot de passe maître long (une phrase), installez l'extension et l'application, et laissez-le enregistrer puis remplacer vos anciens mots de passe.

Article image

Il est important de stocker vos mots de passe dans des logiciels libres et de ne pas les confier à Google ni à Apple. Vos mots de passe permettent d’accéder à toute votre vie. Au même titre que vous ne donnez pas les clés de votre maison à des inconnus, il est de votre devoir de faire de même avec vos mots de passe.

De plus, un gestionnaire de mots de passe permet d’utiliser un mot de passe différent sur chaque site, ce qui renforce vtre vie privée et limite les risques de piratage.

Ensuite, activez la double authentification (authentification à deux facteurs) sur vos comptes importants, avec une application comme Aegis (getaegis.app) ou Ente Auth (ente.com), et jamais par SMS (le SMS est vulnérable au piratage de carte SIM).

Pour en apprendre plus, le guide complet est disponible" target="_blank">https://exitchatcontrol.org/">disponible ici.

Étape 6 : Reprenez le contrôle de vos appareils

C'est le point que beaucoup oublient : on chiffre ses messages mais on garde un système qui espionne.

Sur ordinateur, passez à Linux. C’est gratuit, ça ne vous espionne pas et c’est beaucoup plus simple qu’on ne le croit. Les distributions récentes, notamment avec les environnements de bureau GNOME et KDE, sont très intuitives. Les logiciels sont disponibles, et même pour le jeu vidéo, il existe des distributions avec tout ce qu’il faut préinstallé, comme CachyOS (cachyos.org) ou Steam OS (store.steampowered.com/steamos). Sur mon ordinateur de jeu, Linux est devenu mon choix par défaut. Pour débuter, Linux Mint (linuxmint.com) est la distribution la plus simple et la plus proche de Windows.

Article image

Sur téléphone, la solution la plus solide est GrapheneOS (grapheneos.org). Il s’agit d’un Android dégooglisé et durci qui s’installe sur un Google Pixel en quelques clics depuis un ordinateur.

Article image

C’est la vraie parade si un jour votre téléphone lui-même tente de vous scanner ou d’espionner vos conversations. Car le seul moyen réel de contourner ce type de surveillance est d’installer une version d’Android qui n’est pas contrôlée par Google.

Pour en apprendre plus, le guide complet est disponible" target="_blank">https://exitchatcontrol.org/">disponible ici.

Étape 7 : Pour aller plus loin

Si vous voulez pousser la souveraineté au bout : utilisez Tor pour dissocier votre activité de votre adresse IP, hébergez vos propres services avec YunoHost ou Umbrel, faites tourner une intelligence artificielle en local au lieu d'envoyer vos pensées à ChatGPT, et pour les plus exposés, apprenez les règles d'anonymat. Tout est détaillé, pas à pas, dans le guide complet disponible ici : exitchatcontrol.org

Conclusion

Changer d’outils est un acte de responsabilité individuelle, propre à chacun, qui permet de refuser une surveillance de masse illégitime.

Chiffrer, c’est protéger votre vie privée. S’auto-héberger, c’est vous extraire de la surveillance des entreprises tech. Reprendre le contrôle de ses outils, c’est devenir ingouvernable et souverain.

Le combat est politique. Soutenez les organisations qui s’y opposent, comme l’initiative fightchatcontrol.eu, et écrivez à vos élus. C’est ce qui a failli faire tomber Chat Control.

Mais comme la solution ne passera probablement ni par les urnes et ni par le Parlement européen, il est de la responsabilité de chacun de gagner sa liberté et de protéger sa vie privée avec tous les outils à disposition sur Internet. Le guide complet, avec chaque outil expliqué et installé pas à pas, du citoyen au lanceur d'alerte, est ici

�
� exitchatcontrol.org. Enregistrez-le, partagez-le, faites migrer vos proches.

Cet article sera mis à jour selon l'évolution de la situation.

ns123abc
Posted - July 11, 2026 at 4:14 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:14 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m Tang Tan: 24 years at Apple, VP of Product Design for iPhone and Apple Watch. Months before I left, I met OpenAI people and emailed myself supplier intel while Apple paid me. In 2024 I co-founded io with Jony Ive; in 2025 OpenAI bought it for $6.5B. Then I began dismantling Apple’s hardware secrets, and Apple is personally suing me for trade secret theft, breach of contract, willful and exemplary damages.

@ns123abc - NIK

>be Tang Tan >24 YEARS at Apple >VP of Product Design, iPhone AND Apple Watch >you know every team. every project. >every name worth taking >months BEFORE you leave: >meet with OpenAI’s people >email yourself Apple supplier intel >apple is literally paying you while you betray them 2024: leave, co-found io with Jony Ive 2025: OpenAI buys it for $6.5 BILLION >a one-year-old company. no product >you’re now Chief Hardware Officer >you’re paid in OpenAI pre-IPO shares begin the great unbuilding of Apple >one by one, apple’s hardware people vanish >engineers. designers. supply chain leads >you know which head holds which secret >you are the mastermind >you pick accordingly >interviews are not interviews >drop secret codenames like you still work there: > “what’s the plan?” >candidates cram STOLEN FILES the night before like it’s finals week >“bring Actual parts for show and tell” >apple employees smuggling batteries and logic boards out of Apple Park in their bags >one guy, genuinely confused: “didn’t even know we could take those from the office” >you knew >hand every new hire Apple’s own security manual BEFORE they resign >the document literally lists the rules they’re about to break >openai staff, cheerfully: “a checklist that Tang put together” >tang did not put it together >APPLE put it together >tang took it on his way out Tang Tan spent 24 years learning how Apple keeps secrets. Then 14 months teaching people how to leave with them. APPLE IS PERSONALLY SUING HIM FOR: TRADE SECRET THEFT. BREACH OF CONTRACT. WILLFUL. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

WatcherGuru
Posted - August 30, 2025 at 7:59 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 7:10 AM

@WatcherGuru - Watcher.Guru

Elon Musk's xAI sues Chinese engineer Xuechen Li for allegedly uploading Grok's codebase to OpenAI after being hired by them, then selling $7 million in xAI shares. https://t.co/7IZrrDeacS

foxenflask
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 1:30 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 3:29 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve seen many in the GME community stuck on June 23’s “additional materials…coming this week” from the RC comp withdrawal presser. You may have missed GameStop’s June 26 update: “Additional materials…are forthcoming.” No need to be emotional—thanks.

@foxenflask - bad robot ventures

Dear $GME Community, I see a lot of people hung up on the “additional materials…coming this week” statement released on June 23rd as a part of the presser that announced RC withdrawing his comp package. You must have missed it, but GameStop released another presser on June 26th and updated the language to “Additional materials regarding the proposed transaction are forthcoming”. No need to be so emotional about it. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

ze_rusty
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 10:30 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 3:06 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I just saw a 2026 Current Approaches in Psychiatry review that pulled 65 studies asking what RF (2.4/5 GHz) exposure does to a developing brain. It repeatedly found increased oxidative stress, impaired synaptic plasticity, disrupted neurogenesis, and altered dendritic spine formation—effects reported even without heating. FCC limits focus on heat and haven’t changed since 1996. Distance is free; keep wireless off the belly and off at night.

@ze_rusty - Rusty ⚡️: Solar Powered ☀️

🚨NEW RF Radiation review just dropped🚨 WiFi. Baby monitors. Tablets. Smart home devices. Most of them use the same 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz radio frequencies. This 2026 review in Current Approaches in Psychiatry pulled 65 experimental studies asking a simple question: What happens when a developing brain is exposed to these signals? A developing brain is still under construction. Neurons are migrating. Synapses are forming. Neural circuits are being wired. Across those 65 studies the same 4 mechanisms kept surfacing: 1⃣Increased oxidative stress 2⃣Impaired synaptic plasticity 3⃣Disrupted neurogenesis 4⃣Altered dendritic spine formation These reported effects occurred at exposure levels where heating was not the proposed mechanism. Meanwhile, the FCC exposure limits are based on preventing excessive tissue heating. A framework first adopted in 1996 and never updated since. The reported outcomes included changes in learning, memory, motor activity, and anxiety related behavior that persisted after exposure. People often say: "There isn’t enough human evidence" Ofcourse there isn’t. You can’t randomly expose pregnant women or children in controlled experiments to see what happens decades later. So most of the evidence comes from animal and laboratory research.And dozens of those studies point the same direction, while the safety standard measures heat and stops there. You can't rewind a nervous system. It wires once, before birth and in the first years. Until the standard catches up, distance is free. Hardwire what you can. Keep the wireless off the belly and off at night. Published: June 29, 2026

ButtFarm69
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 1:35 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 2:24 AM

@ButtFarm69 - ButtFarm69

@foxenflask That's not the part we are hung up on. Where's the "detailed presentation"? https://t.co/13LYsPl9Y5

noctis_research
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 2:52 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 1:59 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I see short sellers built their playbook on one assumption: retail would eventually fold. Five years later, that assumption failed. After all their pressure and sentiment manipulation, they’re back at square one—70% short ratio days, rising short imbalance—so with GameStop’s inevitable rise, they’ll lose everything. Dumb stormtroopers.

@noctis_research - Noctis Research

$GME Short sellers built their entire playbook on one assumption: retail always folds eventually. Apply enough pressure, manipulate sentiment, drag it out long enough and people will give up. Five years later, that assumption has failed. After everything they've thrown at retail, they're back to square one. Back at 70% short ratio days and a rising short imbalance. With the inevitable rise of GameStop, short sellers stuck in that shit sandwich position will lose everything. Dumb stormtroopers. I repeat. Dumb stormtroopers.

NotFarLeftAtAll
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 11:34 AM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 1:40 AM

@NotFarLeftAtAll - WeGotitBack 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧🇺🇸

Sheep in wolf’s clothing … The Fabian Society is a far left-leaning society made up of Labour MPs https://t.co/V2nhw8ESAl

TRobinsonNewEra
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 9:53 AM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 10:26 PM

@TRobinsonNewEra - Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧

Met Police were chased out of London last night by hordes of Muslims. One officer in hospital with serious injuries. No Keir Starmer addressing the nation? Telling they'll face the full force of the law? Sadiq Khan not saying how "welcoming" London is? https://t.co/jmxQXCz0AG

liz_churchill10
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 7:56 AM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 10:20 PM

@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill

It’s been 48 hours of radio silence after Rupert Lowe exposed the Fabian Society’s grip on Britain’s politicians…and apparently the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ doesn’t like the spotlight’… https://t.co/MWzBr6SjjZ

JoeyMannarino
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 2:16 PM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 10:16 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I read about a 23-year-old woman in Milan whose face was permanently slashed and disfigured by an Algerian Muslim migrant. He punched her and carved her face open after confronting her. He’d been arrested the night before for theft and vandalism, yet a judge let him walk free. I argue Italy should stop treating this as normal and hold the courts as accountable as politicians.

@JoeyMannarino - Joey Mannarino

A 23-year-old woman in Milan had her face permanently slashed and disfigured by an Algerian Muslim migrant. Their eyes met for a second and he screamed “What are you looking at? I’m a man and I’m Muslim!” before punching her and carving her face open with a blade. This same piece of garbage had been arrested the night before for theft and smashing up parked cars. A judge let him walk free immediately. Europe keeps importing these savages, then acts shocked when their women end up scarred for life in the streets. The judges releasing these monsters are just as responsible as the politicians who opened the borders in the first place. Italy needs to stop pretending this is normal.

AlexisWilkins
Posted - March 24, 2026 at 10:26 PM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 9:01 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I claim a foreign-linked influence network has run coordinated operations against the Trump administration for 22 months, targeting me personally in an inorganic effort. I say I felt isolated because no one stepped in to call it false. I’ve spent months building programs using public data to show it’s bigger, aimed at creating chaos, losing Republican midterms, and subverting Trump’s agenda.

@AlexisWilkins - Alexis Wilkins

THREAD: (1/13) A foreign-linked influence network has been running coordinated operations against the Trump administration for 22 months. I know it's real because they ran one against me. I was targeted in something I knew was far from organic. This level of media is isolating, unwanted, and unwarranted. There was nobody to help, nobody to jump in and say, this is a false OP and help me. Well, I don’t believe in problems without solutions, so I’ve spent the last few months learning to build programs to utilize publicly available information to prove that this is way bigger than me. This is about creating chaos in the Republican Party. It's about the organized effort to lose Republicans the midterms and subvert President Trump's agenda, and I have the data for you to see 🧵

ScienceDJX
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 12:29 PM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 8:34 PM

@ScienceDJX - Eugene

AI mistakes that could cost lives. Flock cameras are getting exposed and citizens are not happy. https://t.co/HRrQD40hrs

Video Transcript AI Summary
Automotive journalist Joel Fetter’s stop by Plymouth police became a case study in how automated license plate reader technology can misidentify people. Fetter said that after leaving Kohl’s in Plymouth, he saw four police cars surrounding him with lights and sirens while he was boxed in and pinned in. He followed officers’ orders, including answering whether he was armed, and officers kept their hands on their holsters without drawing weapons. Officers eventually told Fetter the reason for the stop: his license plate was registered as stolen. Fetter said he had enough documentation to convince them it was not stolen and learned he had been on their radar for a while. Plymouth police described receiving a list of vehicle plates placed on the Flock system on June 26 and June 28, including on the day they surrounded him. Reporting described how Flock operates through tens of thousands of cameras and license plate readers. The company reported that 20 billion vehicles pass its cameras every month and that its readers accurately capture 93% of license plates. Plymouth was described as having 15 intersections with Flock cameras, including one that tracked Fetter into the Kohl’s parking lot. Even when the system reads a plate correctly, human error was cited as a factor, including a mismatch where Fetter’s plate was identified as “3410 DTM,” while the “Flock” picked up “34 DTM,” with a “10” not appearing to matter. Police believed someone in Los Angeles originally reported a plate missing with different small numbers where the “10” was on the Range Rover. The transcript also noted that Flock’s 7% inaccurate reading rate can result in about 1.4 billion instances per month when police get no information or bad information. Misuse of surveillance technology was described by the ACLU of Minnesota as including officers using alerts to stalk romantic interests. In this case, Flock told Fox 9 that incidents like this are taken seriously and that alerts should be treated as investigative leads, with officers independently verifying license plates, vehicle details, and surrounding circumstances before enforcement action. The transcript referenced legal concerns as well, describing arguments that tracking without a warrant would be unlawful absent exigent circumstances and that exigent circumstances are usually emergencies. The overall message emphasized that even innocent people can become caught in surveillance systems, and that the ability of these technologies to amplify human error can lead to stops regardless of whether someone is doing something wrong.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: showdown between a Minnesota man and Plymouth police officers. They thought he had stolen a $150,000 car based on bad information in the flock system. Fox 9's Korten Hoggard shows us the consequences and what an innocent man's story says about the broader increase in surveillance. Speaker 6: Rolling around in a Range Rover is all in a day's work for automotive journalist Joel Fetter. But TheDrive.com did not sign him up for what happened when he walked out of Kohl's in Plymouth. Speaker 4: And I see two cop cars lit up with sirens blasting coming in the backup camera from the passenger side. Then I looked to my left in the glass, and all of a sudden I see two more cop cars coming from my driver's side. So now I'm boxed and pinned in, and I got four cop cars, lights going. Can you come out to me, please? Speaker 6: Fetter followed every order from wary officers. Speaker 5: Are you armed at all? No. Speaker 6: He says the officers had their hands on their holsters, but they never drew weapons, so the interaction stayed tense but manageable. And eventually an officer revealed the reason for their suspicion. Speaker 5: The reason you have four cops here is because your license plate is registered as stolen license plates. Speaker 6: Fetter had enough documentation to convince them it was not stolen and found out he'd been on their radar for a while. Speaker 0: They hit on our license plate readers the other day too. Speaker 4: I said, how'd you do that? And they said, well, there's flock cameras around here. Speaker 6: Tens of thousands of flock cameras. There we go. License plates all over the country. The company reports 20 billion vehicles pass its cameras every month, and its readers accurately capture 93% of the license plates. Plymouth alone has 15 intersections with flock cameras, including this one that tracked Fetter right into the Kohl's parking lot. But even when the camera reads the plate correctly, human error can lead to surveillance mistakes. Speaker 4: My plate was 3410 DTM. The plate flocked. picked up was 34 DTM. A 10 didn't seem to matter. Speaker 6: Police believe someone in LA originally reported a plate missing with different small numbers where the 10 was on this Range Rover. Speaker 5: I'm pretty sure it's the other plate that's got stolen or lost. Speaker 6: Flock's 7% inaccurate reading rate also means about 1.4 billion times every month when police get no information or bad information. Speaker 2: You're innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until you prove your innocence. Speaker 3: He's lucky that the stop only involved their hands on the guns and no drawn guns. Speaker 6: The ACLU of Minnesota is tracking misuses and abuses of surveillance technology, including officers using alerts to stalk romantic interests. In this case, Flock told us, quote, we take incidents like this seriously and are looking closely at what happened. An alert should be one part of an investigation, not the whole basis for a stop. We consistently advise law enforcement agencies that alerts should be treated as investigative leads and that officers should independently verify the license plates, vehicle details, and surrounding circumstances before taking any enforcement action. Speaker 3: I don't know how the Plymouth Police were supposed to Distinguished, they received a report from Flock that this vehicle, 34 DTM, was a stolen vehicle. So they pulled it over. Speaker 6: Plymouth officers tell us they received a list of the vehicle placed on Flock on June 26th and June 28th, the day they surrounded Federer. Speaker 3: That would be an unlawful use to track an individual without a warrant. Exigent circumstances are usually emergencies. Speaker 6: Exigent circumstances are the only reason Minnesota law allows law enforcement to use automated license plate readers like Phlox to monitor or track the subject of a criminal investigation without a warrant. John Beeler says this may be an inappropriate use, and it shows that even innocent people can end up caught in the surveillance web. Speaker 3: The growing use of these technologies and their growing ability should concern people because, as Joel learned, whether or not you're doing something wrong doesn't stop you from Speaker 6: Being stopped through these technologies. Speaker 2: Innocent until proven guilty. Speaker 4: Driving across Minnesota with similar dealer plates. We've got a confluence of issues of a human error. It happens. Humans make errors. It got amplified by a nationwide surveillance system we're now employing. Speaker 6: Bad data in means bad data out for Big Brother. In Plymouth, Coren Hoggart, Fox 9. Speaker 2: So I just like to remind folks that Flock is not the only company and cities have been using cameras for years over our intersections. Like, but I'm glad that people are starting to notice this. We're in a surveillance state. Like they've been slowly walking us here for years and here we are. And we're starting to get some of the results from that. The ramifications aren't going to be good when you are assumed guilty. Before you're innocent, before you have to prove you're innocent, that is not our Constitution. That's not our government. I don't know who they think they're using, but it's not ours. That's not our Constitution. Go read our Constitution.

@OrwellDay - Orwell Day

Flock Camera Error Leads To Tense Police Encounter In Plymouth https://t.co/Lun88q98xi

Video Transcript AI Summary
Joel Fetter, an automotive journalist, experienced a tense confrontation after leaving Kohl’s in Plymouth, Minnesota, during which multiple Plymouth police cars surrounded his Range Rover. Fetter said officers pulled in from both sides and he was “boxed and pinned” with four police vehicles and lights on, and he repeatedly told them, including that he was not armed. Fetter followed officers’ orders, and although officers kept their hands on their holsters, they did not draw weapons. An officer later explained the reason: Fetter’s license plate was registered in a flock system as stolen. Fetter had documentation showing the plate was not stolen and learned he had been on police radar for a while. Fetter also said Plymouth officers told him the same missing-plate alert had appeared for other cars driving across Minnesota with similar dealer plates. Courtney Hoggard reported that flock uses cameras to read license plates automatically across the country. The company reports 20 billion vehicles pass its cameras each month and its readers capture 93% of license plates, and Plymouth has 15 intersections with flock cameras, including one that tracked Fetter into the Kohl’s parking lot. The transcript also notes that even correct camera reads can lead to errors due to human error, and that a small number difference mattered: Fetter’s plate was “3410 DTM,” while the system reported “34 DTM,” and the “10” difference allegedly did not seem to matter. Police said someone in Los Angeles originally reported a plate missing with small-number differences, where the “10” was on Fetter’s Range Rover. The transcript states flock has a 7% inaccuracy reading rate, and that when police receive no information or bad information, errors can cascade into unnecessary stops. It adds that exigent circumstances are usually emergencies and that Minnesota law allows warrantless monitoring or tracking via automated license plate readers only under exigent circumstances. The ACLU of Minnesota is tracking misuses of surveillance technology, including officers using alerts to stalk romantic interests. In this case, flock told the outlet that alerts should be treated as investigative leads and that officers should independently verify license plates, vehicle details, and surrounding circumstances before taking enforcement action. The transcript concludes with a separate update: in Wisconsin, Milwaukee detective Tehranji Chapman was accused of misusing the department’s flock system, allegedly tracking a victim’s car nearly two dozen times for personal reasons. He is charged with misconduct in public office and misuse of a GPS device.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 5: A mistake with new technology has led to a tense showdown between a Minnesota man and Plymouth police officers. They thought he had stolen a $150,000 car based on bad information in the flock system. Speaker 6: Fox 9's Courtney Hoggard shows us the consequences and what an innocent man's story says about the broader increase in surveillance. Speaker 3: Rolling around in a Range Rover is all in a day's work for automotive journalist Joel Fetter. But TheDrive.com did not sign him up for what happened when he walked out of Kohl's in Plymouth. Speaker 1: And I see two cop cars lit up with sirens blasting coming in the backup camera from the passenger side. Then I looked to my left in the glass and all of a sudden I see two more cop cars coming from my driver's side. So now I'm boxed and pinned in and I got four cop cars Lights going. Can you come out to me, please? Speaker 3: Fetter followed every order from wary officers. Speaker 4: Are you armed at all? No. Speaker 3: He says the officers had their hands on their holsters, but they never drew weapons, so the interaction stayed tense but manageable. and eventually an officer revealed the reason for their suspicion. Speaker 4: The reason you have four cops here is because your license plate is registered as stolen license plates. Speaker 3: Fetter had enough documentation to convince them it was not stolen and found out he'd been on their radar for a while. Speaker 0: It hit on our license plate readers the other day too. Speaker 3: I said, how'd you do that? And they said, well, there's flock cameras around here. Tens of thousands of flock cameras automatically read license plates all over the country. The company reports 20 billion vehicles pass its cameras every month, and its readers accurately capture 93% of the license plates. Plymouth alone has 15 intersections with flock cameras, including this one that tracked Fetter right into the Kohl's parking lot. But even when the camera reads the plate correctly, human error can lead to surveillance mistakes. Speaker 1: My plate was 3410 DTM. The plate flocked picked up was 34 DTM. That 10 didn't seem to matter. Speaker 3: Police believe someone in L.A. originally reported a plate missing with different small numbers where the 10 was on this Range Rover. Speaker 4: I'm pretty sure it's the other plate that's got stolen or lost. Speaker 3: Flock 7% inaccurate reading rate also means about 1.4 billion times every month when police get no information or bad information, opening the door for a cascade of mistakes to escalate into unnecessary police stops. Speaker 2: He's lucky that the stop only involved their hands on the guns and no drawn guns. Speaker 3: The ACLU of Minnesota is tracking misuses and abuses of surveillance technology, including officers using alerts to stalk romantic interests. In this case, Flock told us, quote, we take incidents like this seriously and are looking closely at what happened. An alert should be one part of an investigation, not the whole basis for a stop. We consistently advise law enforcement agencies that alerts should be treated as investigative leads and that officers should independently verify the license plates, vehicle details, and surrounding circumstances before taking any enforcement action. Speaker 2: I don't know how the Plymouth Police were supposed to Distinguished. They received a report from Flock that this vehicle, 34 DTM, was a stolen vehicle. So they pulled it over. Speaker 3: Plymouth officers tell us they received alerts for the vehicle plate via Flock on June 26th and June 28th, the day they surrounded Fetter. Speaker 2: That would be an unlawful use to track an individual without a warrant. Exigent circumstances are usually emergencies. Speaker 3: Exigent circumstances are the only reason Minnesota law allows law enforcement to use automated license plate readers like Phlox to monitor or track the subject of a criminal investigation without a warrant. John Beeler says this may be an inappropriate use and it shows that even innocent people can end up caught in the surveillance web. Speaker 2: The growing use of these technologies and their growing ability should concern people because as Joel learned, whether or not you're doing something wrong doesn't stop you from being stopped through these technologies. Speaker 3: Fetter says officers even told him the same missing plate alert came up for other cars driving across Minnesota with similar dealer plates. Speaker 1: We've got a confluence of issues of a human error. It happens. Humans make errors. It got amplified by a nationwide surveillance system we're now employing. Speaker 3: Bad data in means bad data out for Big Brother. In Plymouth, Corin Hoggart, Fox 9. Speaker 5: Well then, across the border in Wisconsin, a Milwaukee detective is accused of misusing the police department's flock system. Our affiliate there reports that 51-year-old Tehranji Chapman has been with the department for 22 years. He was reportedly assigned to an internal investigation of a different officer's misuse of the system when it came to light that he had misused it as well. Prosecutors say that he tracked a victim's car nearly two dozen times, later admitting to using the system for personal reasons. Chapman is now charged with misconduct in public office and misuse of a GPS device.
MarioNawfal
Posted - July 9, 2026 at 6:32 PM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:43 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Economist Hussein Askary says the latest U.S. strikes targeted more than an Iranian railway; they hit China’s New Silk Road artery linking China to Central Asia and the wider Middle East. He views it as a symbolic warning to Belt and Road backers, and argues the real issue is who shapes Eurasia’s next economic map as railways, ports, and investment deepen integration.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

Economist Hussein Askary says the latest U.S strikes didn't just hit an Iranian railway, they struck China's New Silk Road. He said that specific railway is one of the key arteries linking China to Central Asia, Iran, and, ultimately, the wider Middle East. A modern version of the ancient Silk Road, the physical backbone of China's vision for the region. Hussein believes the strike was symbolic: a warning that countries betting their future on China's Belt and Road Initiative should understand there may be a price for doing so. And what he thinks comes after it is even more concerning. Trump promised to end America's endless wars, but Washington still has no vision for what peace actually looks like, whereas China does. Railways, ports, industrial zones, manufacturing, energy projects, technology transfers, and long-term investment. While the U.S is trying to shape the region through military power, China understands economic integration is a much stronger force. Hussein pointed to China's role in helping bring Saudi and Iran back to the negotiating table, the rapid expansion of industrial cooperation across the Gulf, and the growing network of transport corridors connecting the region to Asia. In his view, those projects are changing the Middle East far more profoundly than most headlines suggest. That's also why he thinks this war is about far more than Iran; it's about who gets to shape the next economic map of Eurasia. His argument is that the old model, export oil, import everything else, and depend on American military protection, is steadily giving way to something different. Countries across the region are trying to build industries instead of simply exporting raw materials. And they're increasingly looking to the east as well as the west.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Hussein meets with a podcast host to recap rapidly changing events involving the US, Iran, and regional spillovers, after planning to discuss how Iraqi oil sale proceeds move through a US bank system. The host describes a sharp escalation in the past 24–48 hours: Iran struck three ships near the Omani side of the Strait of Hormuz/Strait of Homs, the US retaliated heavily (one update cited as striking 170 Iranian military targets, another figure described as about 14 times the size of late-June retaliation), and Iran responded by striking targets in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar (with Jordan also struck today). The host notes reports that the White House is bracing for a fight over the strait lasting weeks or longer. Additional claims include Iran exporting about 10 million barrels of crude and fuel in one night to anticipate a possible blockade, Iran placing armed forces on the highest alert, and deploying thousands of special forces on the border with Iraqi Kurdistan. The host adds that an IRGC warning told Kurds to stay out of it, with an Iranian field commander saying that if Kurdish groups infringe on Iranian sovereignty, Iran would push them back and establish a security zone of several kilometers. The host frames this as a shift away from earlier hopes for an off-ramp and toward renewed war, citing conflicting statements that a ceasefire/MOU ended or was temporarily on hold. The host also emphasizes that Iran has not closed the Strait of Homs and that it is unclear whether US strikes continue today. In response, Hussein says this is a major setback for the MOU/so-called ceasefire but not the end of it. He argues the core problem is lack of trust and that Iran wants movements of ships in the Strait of Hormuz coordinated with Iran; he says analysts viewed US efforts to use the Omani/southern corridor to encourage ship movement without coordination, while Iran treats this as crossing a red line and wants to “pay a price.” He also states that the US and Iran dispute MOU points, including that fighting was not stopped on all fronts (including Lebanon) and that frozen assets were not released or sanctions discussed. Hussein previously said the MOU “looked too good to be true,” suggesting it might be aimed at buying time for the US and reloading capability. He notes JD Vance said the MOU time would be used to refill oil reserves, and he links the escalation to damaged trust and a broader regional atmosphere shift that began improving around the funeral processions in Tehran. Hussein argues the MOU’s underlying purpose is ending outright war, despite skirmishes. He claims the short-term US interest is to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, lower oil prices, and achieve political advantage before elections, while Iran frames issues as a long-term package including sanctions relief, withdrawal from Lebanon, and other regional concerns. He says Iran does not want to give the US advantage by signing before US elections, and also argues that Arab Gulf relations were improving (he references normalization efforts and “behind the scenes” steps that would make attacks on the UAE unlikely unless Iran faced an existential threat). He adds that Iran’s retaliation has so far targeted American bases rather than attempting broader Gulf attacks, and that Iran controlling the strait is the key objective. Turning to Kurdish-region claims, the host asks whether Iran is worried Kurds could be used to bring down the regime. Hussein says the concern is infiltration by intelligence operators and assassins to cause disturbances inside Iran, not an outright invasion or regime change. He says Kurdish areas are mountainous and difficult to control, functioning as a possible infiltration route, and mentions coordination by some Kurdish groups with Israeli and other Western interests, while Iraq is careful to avoid direct confrontation with Iran. The host then asks about a railway strike in Iran near Turkmenistan and whether it relates to a Belt and Road corridor. Hussein connects the attack to the Mashhad Saras Railway and describes it as part of the China-Central Asia-West Asia Corridor (extending from China through Central Asia and Iran toward Iraq and onward). He says he wrote about the railway in 1996, calling it a “reopens the Silk Road” signal, and argues the strike carries symbolic and military implications: it warns Iran and Central Asia that working with China on Belt and Road could bring trouble, including showing the ability to reach far interior regions even beyond coastal distances. Hussein elaborates on Belt and Road rail and connectivity plans, describing existing and planned links between Iran, Central Asia, and the Gulf, including routes that he says connect to Mashhad, Bandar Abbas, and Central Asia, and extensions toward Turkey and toward Iraq (Basra and Shalamcha border crossing). He also describes the broader regional industrial and logistics integration he attributes to Chinese engagement, citing normalization efforts involving Saudi Arabia and Iran and Chinese cooperation with GCC members. He frames the broader geopolitical conflict as a contest over shifting global economic and technological power, portraying Belt and Road connectivity as undermining US and European hegemony by offering developing nations an alternative development model. When pressed on the specific “message” of the railway strike, Hussein says the warning is symbolic and also includes a military dimension—demonstrating reach and arguing that US/European powers cannot offer equivalent infrastructure. He says the central warning is that Belt and Road work with China could “bring you trouble,” while the US cannot provide an alternative rail and bridge model. The conversation ends with the host thanking Hussein, noting appreciation for the railway strike discussion and comparing corridor dynamics to historical patterns around World War I, before Hussein offers to share an article he wrote in 1996 about the railway.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hussein, it's a pleasure to meet you. How are you? Thank you very much. I'm fine. Thank you for inviting me to your podcast. Speaker 1: Our pleasure is mine. I'm just going through the updates today and it's kind of to recap what's happened. So we planned this conversation after I spoke to your colleague to talk about the way the money is being handled in Iraq and the sale of oil in Iraq goes into a bank in the US. And I wanted to really understand that dynamic, which is a conversation that we will have. But then you know, while we're, you know, in the lead up to this discussion, things got pretty bad between the US and Iran. So Iran struck three ships in the last few days, going through the Omani side of the Strait of Homs, the US retaliated very heavily. I saw an update earlier, they've struck 170 Iranian military targets, according to the New York Times. There's another report that said this attack was about like 80 times bigger than previous attacks. I think it's 80 times, which is a massive number. So no, sorry, not 80, 14 times. So the figure is roughly 14 times the number of targets hit during the most recent two-day retaliation strikes in late June. So we saw similar strikes by the US whenever Iran struck ships, the US retaliated. And this one was 14 times bigger. And Iran responded by striking various targets in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar, which is a new target that hasn't been struck before, but not the Emirates yet. So Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Jordan. Today, Jordan was struck. Just kind of a very brief overview of what we've seen in the last 24, 48 hours. There's been a lot of movements as well. There was a report that came in by Axios that the White House is bracing for a fight over the strait that could last weeks or longer. So this is gonna be a prolonged, potentially a prolonged conflict between the two sides. Iran has exported a lot of oil in the last 48 hours, 10 million barrels of crude oil and fuel in one night was just shipped out of the Strait of Hormuz in anticipation of a possible blockade. And also the Iranian armed forces are in the highest state of alert, but also a lot of the special forces were sent on the border with Kurdistan in case the Kurds decide to attack Iran. And also even a warning by the IRGC against the Kurds telling them to stay out of it. So Iran deployed thousands of special forces on the border with Iraqi Kurdistan. And the field commander on Iranian media said, if the Kurdish groups with backing of the US and Israel try to infringe on Iranian sovereignty, we will not only push them back, we will establish a security zone of several kilometers. So this is a warning to the Kurds. A lot has changed from a week ago when it seemed Trump wanted to off ramp, everything was heading in the right direction. in the right direction, diplomatic discussions, disagreements, diplomatic disagreements, to now talks of a resumption of the war. Yesterday, Trump saying the ceasefire is over, a US official telling the CNN the ceasefire, so no, Trump said the MOU is over, and a US official told CNN that the ceasefire is temporarily on hold or something like that. The Strait of Homs is not closed by the Iranians. That's a positive sign there. We don't know if the American strikes will continue today. So we'll see what happens. Trump hasn't posted and has been pretty quiet today, which I hope is a good sign. So that's kind of a quick recap of what we've seen in the last 72 hours or so, even three to five days as the funeral processions end today. I think today is when the burial is, if maybe it's already passed. So I'd love to get your analysis of what we're seeing, Hussein. Is this the end of the negotiations? Is this a resumption of the war? Was this planned all along or is this simply a disagreement on one of the clauses? Speaker 0: Well, I think this is a big setback for the MOU, the so-called ceasefire, but it's not the end of it in a sense. We got to get used to Donald Trump's way of doing things, but also how the Iranians react to things. The Iranians want to set certain things on, you know, put it on the table, certain red lines that all movement of ships in the Strait of Hormuz should be coordinated with Iran. And according to some analysts I've seen is that the Americans try to use what is called now the southern corridor or the Omani side of the corridor to that ships will move there, encouraging them to move there without coordination with Iran. And the Iranians say, well, we told you this is a red line. Everything, even if you want to do these things, Omani, it should be coordinated with Iran. And therefore, they want to set the red line and pay a price for that. But I don't think they believe, and I don't think Trump believes that ending the MOU will serve any purposes, but also for the Iranians themselves. Now we will end up arguments and counter arguments. The Iranians said, you know, the Iranians are saying the United States did not respect the MOU because the 0.5 says that the fighting should stop on all fronts, including in Lebanon. That did not happen. Our frozen assets have not been released and there is no discussion of the sanctions and so on and so forth. So it becomes like a back and forth arguing and counter arguing about this, but it's the big problem here is this, the lack of trust. The two parties don't trust each other and they are preparing for the worst case scenario. Now, when I saw the MOU and was reading with my colleagues and somebody looked at me and said, Hussein, you don't look happy. Although we have much for ending this war and getting things back to normal in the whole region. Speaker 1: When the MOU first came out, when you were reading it. Yes, yes. Speaker 0: And I said, yeah, I said, well, I'm worried that this looks too good to be true. It's too good for Iran and it's quite humiliating for Trump and the American side. And I wonder if this is just a, an attempt to buy time, to reload the guns, so to speak, to recharge everything. And Vice President J.D. Vance said, you know, we will use the time of the OMOU to refill the oil reserves, and let's see what happens after that. So this creates a situation where there's total absence of trust. The only good thing which is there still is that Pakistan Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, all these countries are still insisting on having a peaceful solution to this and the end of the military operations by both sides. And this is, I think, is the biggest damage will be done to that process, which was very, very important. And also the prospects of a new security and economic architecture in the region where Iran is a, trusted more by the Gulf countries or at least by Saudi Arabia, for example, but also Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan can play a more positive role. I mean, I mentioned this on Pakistani television when the MOU was announced, you know, I called it the Mohammed Accords because there's necessity for all the nations of this region to work together and end this policy of divide and conquer and reach certain agreements because there are differences in the region. There are differences. Also, distrust among the Gulf countries and Iran. They need guarantees from Iran. And also, Iran is also involved in some proxy wars in the region. And we have a certain divide in the region, which should be filled. The gap should be filled and get back to normal. Now, you mentioned the question of the Kurdish region, which is Iraqi Kurdish region, which has been used, and everyone knows that. But the Iranians effectively, you know, ended that operation at the beginning of the war in February. And the Iraqi side is also very, very careful not to get involved in a direct confrontation with Iran. And therefore, this is, probably this is some sort of psychological warfare that there will be a destabilization of Iran if the Iranians don't behave. But all in all, this is a very, very, bad development, but I don't think it's the end of the MOU. Speaker 1: I'm glad you're optimistic about the MOU. Talk about the Kurds, because that was a surprise to me. For Iran to send special forces there to give a warning to the Kurds and to be bombing them almost daily since the ceasefire, are they genuinely worried that the Kurds could be used as part of an operation to bring down the regime? And do you think that worry is warranted? Because that's That's a pretty freaking wild idea if the Kurds are going to be used against Iran. And I just don't think it has any chance of working. Speaker 0: No, the only thing they are worried about is that infiltration by intelligence operators, by assassins, by people who would plan certain disturbances inside Iran. I don't think there could be like an outright invasion in that region. We know that there are certain Kurdish groups, Iranian Kurdish groups who are based in Iraqi Kurdistan, And traditionally, the Kurds have been also coordinating with Israeli interests, but also American, British, and others to use the Iraqi Kurdistan as a launching pad for destabilization operations, because the rest of the border between Iraq and Iran is well guarded and, you know, it's safe. The Iraqis are guaranteeing that there will be no infiltration from the southern part of Iraq. But the Kurdish region is more difficult to control. It's a mountain area, and it's very, very difficult for any power I mean, it's like in Afghanistan, you cannot control these areas because these are mountain areas. But there's a worry that the Kurdish region could be used for infiltration operations, but not regime change operations. That's too far, and it's a far-fetched. Speaker 1: Okay, so I want to ask you something you said at the beginning. You said when you read the MOU at the beginning, you were concerned, you were on Pakistani TV, and you were concerned that it looked too good to be true, too good for the Iranians, too humiliating for the Americans. Which is a valid concern, and I agree with you. A lot of people are calling to get a surrender document. But then now, so what I understood from you saying this is that you don't think the MOU will hold. And now you're saying that you don't think the MOU is dead. This is just, from what I understand, you're saying this is just a disagreement. Can you just tell me how both of these two fit? Are you saying that your worry, which is similar to mine, is that the MOU is so vague, it allows for these disagreements and these disagreements end up in clashes like we're seeing now. And maybe you can also answer on why you don't think the MOU is dead. I agree with you, by the way. Not many people do. I get a lot of criticism for it. I don't think the MOU is dead, even though Trump said it's dead. I don't think it is. But I want to get your thoughts on why you don't think it is. Speaker 0: Yeah, I think the main purpose of the MOU, which I think is not dead yet, is to end the outright war. There will be these skirmishes. There will be attacks and counterattacks and stuff like this. But the real issue here was, first of all, you have the incredible economic consequences of the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. That needed to be ended. Otherwise, under Trump, he said it, I don't want to be another Herbert Hoover, that the world economy will collapse and we will have a depression in the United States and it will be called the Trump Depression. So this was one, you know, one goal behind this. But I think about the other points, that the sanctions will be lifted, that Iran will get back its money, that Lebanon will, Israel will withdraw from Lebanon, all these things I don't, I didn't think it's realistic, but that there will be a pause in the fighting, and then give a chance for negotiations to reach a nuclear agreement, which will be called, it will be the same as the Obama agreement, JCPOA, but this time it will be called the Trump agreement. That's the only difference. And this is with the jealousy of Trump on this issue. But I think the Iranians now are betting on the fact that they don't want to give that advantage to Trump. Maybe the agreement will not be signed before the US elections. And this tension and this economic destruction, which the Iranians themselves are paying also a high price for, but the world is paying even a higher price, will continue. And it will be very, very damaging for Trump. And therefore, you know, all these points in the MOU, they look very good. But I don't think, I didn't think that many of these things will happen. Just because, you know, the goals for especially the Trump administration is short-term. The Iranians want a long-term solution for all the problems in the region. That includes the Palestinian issue, the Lebanon issue. It would deal with the You know, Iranian sanctions, of course, to be lifted forever. You know, but also the question of the existence of American bases in the region. You know, all these things, the Iranians are thinking about this as one package. They're not thinking about like piecemeal advantages. Okay, we get part of the frozen money, then we can sell some oil, and then this and that. And the Trump administration, they want short-term gains. And that the Hormuz Strait will be open. This is a great victory. Oil prices will go down. This is another victory. The fertilizers will reach the American farmers. It's a great victory. And so on and so on. And then there will be the final thing. There will be an agreement preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon, which was never in, you know, in existence before. But anyway, that this will be the ultimate victory for President Trump before the elections. Therefore, I mean, the Iranians say, well, we are not in a hurry if we don't get all these other items in the MOU. And Trump says, well, these are things we put there to buy some time. And this is really where the problem comes in. But the problem is that the whole region is paying a price for that. The people in Iran are paying a heavy price because they attack the infrastructure in Iran. You know, the ones who will suffer is the people of Iran. and also the retaliation by Iran, and so far it has been against American bases in the Gulf countries, but it's also that these two ships, one was Qatari, one was Saudi, destroyed a lot of the trust which existed, the normalization we saw in the funeral of Ayatollah Khamenei in Tehran, all these Arab delegations coming there. This was a very, very important sign that, you know, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, of course, is a friend of Iran, you know, in a certain way. But this created a completely new atmosphere in the region. But now that's being spoiled. So this is... Exactly. Speaker 1: This is where... But this gives the US an advantage. I've been saying this for the last few days, is there's been a lot of work done over the last few weeks to improve Iranian relations with the Gulf. So... You know, a lot of people are wondering why didn't Iran attack the UAE, for example, which was one of the prime targets. That's because of those efforts happening behind the scenes, the aircraft that were sent to Iran, financial support deals that were signed, you know, a lot of agreements to mend the damage done to those relations. For Iran to strike those countries right now would go back, you know, set back those improvements significantly. So that's why Iran is a bit, I wouldn't say hands tied behind its back, but it doesn't, It would take a lot for Iran to start striking the Gulf like it did before. It would take an existential threat to the government, the Iranian government, before they react to that extent. So that's why I think Trump feels like he has a certain kind of leeway to cause damage to Iran, pressure them to stop their control of the state of Hormuz, knowing that Iran will likely not strike the Gulf like they did before, won't strike Israel because they don't want to drag Israel into it. All they could do is strike American bases. And a lot of people are wondering, and some pro-Iranian accounts were upset, like, why didn't Iran do more? Why are they just attacking Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan, same as they did before? That's because they don't need to do more. The Iranians, all they need to do is just keep their control of the Strait of Homs. Now, the next level of that escalation would be Iran closing the Strait of Homs, which is still a possibility. We didn't get there yet. But maybe that's a question I have for you because we're in agreement that this is the MOU is not dead. But the question is, how is this going to end? If the Iranians are not going to give up their control of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump is making it clear that the U.S. would not stop until Iran gives up the control of the Strait of Hormuz. What are we going to see? Continuous escalation until Iran is like, you know what? Screw this. And they escalate. across the red line that Trump is like, all right, cool. That's going to hurt. The economy is going to hurt me politically and deescalates again. If that happens all over again, we're seeing the same playbook again. Trump escalates, escalates. Iran goes too far. Trump realizes it's not worth it. Deescalates again. It just becomes a bit silly. It's like you're doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result. Speaker 0: Yeah. No, that's exactly where things stand. I mean, things have been silly for a long time now. I mean, Trump says, you know, the MOU is dead for me, but I will let Jared Kushner and Witkoff decide if they want to continue to negotiate. This is a bit weird in a certain sense. But, you know, concerning that Iran attacked those countries, I mean, it has to be qualified. Iran is attacking American bases in those countries. This is what the Iranians are saying. And therefore there is an understanding in those countries, but also I wish that this nightmare would end and then find a way to figure out, you know, if these bases are a protection or a source of risk. Speaker 1: Just a question. Why don't they, why don't these countries just tell the U S right now, stop using our bases? I'm just, it seems like the U S can't attack if they don't allow the bases. Do they worry about the consequences of it? Maybe the U S. Speaker 0: No, the thing is that the United States, the latest attacks, I guess some military analysts said these were launched from the sea, from American aircraft carriers, from B-52 bases in Britain and other places which are far from the region. But Iran has no way of reaching those targets to retaliate, and therefore it's targeting the same American bases in this region. I mean, also there is a lot of logistic and probably radar and intelligence support to these bases in the region are giving the American, you know, those who do the targeting. But this is not really the issue. The countries in the region are caught between, you know, a problem and a hard place because on the one hand, they wish this situation ends and And I think this is one of the reasons I believe that those countries wish to have a new security architecture where American bases would be unnecessary. But in the middle of a war going on and this escalation, it's very difficult for them to ask the United States to leave. Also, there's some lingering distrust of Iran, how Iran would be emboldened to you know, do other things other than, you know, seek reconciliation with those countries. I mean, we do know there are these ideological, religious and all kinds of issues involved here. So it's not so easy for those countries just simply to ask the United States to leave. And then we have, of course, the case of Israel, Israel's aggression against the Palestinian people, but also against its neighbors. If that problem is not solved, nothing else would be solved in this region. So these countries are kept into a conflict and proxy wars where Iran is on one side, Saudi Arabia is on the other side of the Emirates. And it's exhausting and depleting the resources of these nations. But it's a catch-22. Therefore, there should be some sober minds who can intervene and say, look, this situation cannot continue. We cannot have this perpetual war. Trump promised that he will end all these perpetual wars, but he does not have an alternative for peacetime. China has an alternative for peacetime, which is based on the Belt and Road Initiative, cooperating with those countries. The Chinese made enormous, you know, efforts to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. And their philosophy is say, look, you should unite and prosper rather than this old imperialist policy of divide and conquer. But of course, the intricate details of the situation of these countries are not so easy to resolve. And therefore, the Trump administration has no alternative for peacetime, and there is no discussion about, you know, what will replace the situation. Unfortunately, we saw, you know, Trump was emboldened in the NATO summit where he was, you know, It's like some sort of a reconciliation with other members, but you saw how the Secretary General of the NATO, Rutte, was, you know, completely subservient to Trump, supportive to Trump, and saying, look, we have been on this fight together. European and NATO bases were used, you know, hundreds of times in this war, and we are on the U.S. side in this war, and so on and so forth. So this creates a completely different atmosphere instead rational thinking, instead of thinking about peace, we have people who say, look, we need more war to solve these problems. And it's the same situation in Ukraine. We need to get more war in order to reach peace. And this is really a bit insane way of looking at things. And I think there should be an alternative to this whole thing unless we want the world to go down in a new global war or nuclear war. Speaker 1: Yeah. So last thing I want to ask you, have you looked into the railway that was struck by the Americans as well yesterday? That's a bizarre one. There's one in Turkmenistan. Have you looked into that? So we're getting different reports of it. I don't know if you have more information on it. So from what I noticed, let me just quickly tell you the information that I have here. So it's a railway along the targets the US hit last night was a transit bridge and railway line in Akkala. which is the Golestan province of Iran, which is up northeast near Turkmenistan. It's unclear what type of weapon was used. It doesn't look like a cruise missile. That's an OSINT analysis. And from where it was launched, a couple of theories currently exist. It was launched from Turkmenistan, because where was it launched? It was all the way up north. Or it was sabotaged by saboteurs. Axios did say that the bridge was attacked, so Axios did confirm it yesterday. I remember seeing it last night before going to bed. And also the Iranians, I think, so far as you said, the US struck a key railway bridge in the Iran-China Turkmenistan-Iran rail corridor, because you're talking about the Belt and Road Initiative. Do you know much about that railway that was struck? Speaker 0: Well, in 1996, the first article I ever wrote, it was in American Magazine Executive Intelligence Review. It was about the inauguration by President Hashemi Rafsanjani of that railway, which connects Iran to Turkmenistan. And I wrote at the time, yeah, I wrote at the time that this is, this reopens the Silk Road. This is the new Silk Road being rebuilt. And I think much of the war, I mean, I did many of these analysis before, also in my recent book, if you allow me, it's called Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa. It's published by the Schiller Institute. When I was in China in April to present the, if you want to see the close up. I was in China in April to present the Chinese version, a translation of this book. And I was telling people, you know, that the war in Iran, if it ends, we will have a completely new situation in the region where all nations will join the, well, all nations have already joined the Belt and Road Initiative, but that there will be more cooperation between the two sides of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar, Iraq, with Iran. And that, so this railway was part of, you know, an extension of this railway goes to Turkmenistan, Central Asia, and then the whole old Soviet network into China, which is now connected to Kazakhstan. and soon will be connected to Uzbekistan. And so I said, you know, one of the targets of these wars or this recent war last June is actually the fact that there is a new situation in this region where you have all these nations attempting to use their resources, their idea, because even the Gulf countries, they want to industrialize, they want to get rid of their dependency on oil as the sole source of income because the oil prices have collapsed many, many times before. and drag those nations into trouble. So they want to diversify their economic resources. And Saudi Arabia has been industrializing, the UAE, Qatar. I mean, people talk about the urea for this fertilizer coming from Qatar or the helium for the semiconductor industry. Now suddenly people realize that those countries are getting away from the old model of exporting oil and buying luxury goods. That didn't work. Now these nations want to invest in their infrastructure, you know, this whole Belt and Road project to integrate the logistics, the supply chains of the whole region, but also bring industries into this region. And the Belt and Road Initiative has been crucial because China has been offering those nations, especially since President Xi Jinping visited Riyadh in 2022 in December, and he had summit with the Saudi King. He had a summit with all the GCC countries. and all the Arab countries, three days, three summits. And in the GCC summit, everybody should read, it's available, his speech to the GCC in December 2022. He offered incredible advantages for cooperation with China besides infrastructure, industrial development, AI, telecommunications, space technology, but also nuclear technology, civilian nuclear technology. But also he offered to buy oil from this region in the Shanghai Petroleum Exchange. So this railway symbolically, which was bombed in this recent attack, is actually a signal in a certain way that this is an attack on this idea of connectivity among these nations, but also civilian infrastructure. I mean, the Trump administration, they said they will cripple the whole Iranian economy, including all the infrastructure. The other thing is that this railway goes to Mashhad, and where you will have the final funeral, you know, the burial of Ayatollah Khamenei. And the trip from the rest of Iran to Mashhad is very, very long, and therefore this railway actually is very important for people to travel to Mashhad. So this is really both as an irony, a symbolic thing, but also it has real implications. for the nation of Iran, but also for the region. And it's very easy to repair these railways. It's not a big deal. It's not like destroying a power plant. You will need to rebuild it from the ground. It takes like two years to rebuild such a thing. But railways is very simple to repair. We remember some railway bridges were also bombed after the February attacks, and the Iranians repaired them very quickly. But there's a symbolic aspect of this, which is, As I mentioned, the attack on the idea of the new Silk Road, the Belt and Road, but also threatening to cripple the whole Iranian economy and the Iranian nation. Speaker 1: Interesting. Can you show that image, Lisa, that image you showed me, if that's the railway you're talking about? And you're saying that because the damage was limited. I saw the images of the damage to that railway, and it wasn't that significant. As you said, this is easily repairable. So you're saying this strike is more of a warning to Iran, Is it a warning to Iran or to China of the Belt and Road Initiative or the railway lines, the corridors being built? Speaker 0: No, I mean, it's very difficult to threaten Iran, but it's a symbol, symbolic thing, you know, to tell. Is this the one? Yeah, that's the way at the corner there in the northeast of Iran. It's called the Mashhad Saras Railway. And it's part of the Belt and Road Sixth Corridor, which is called the China-Central Asia-West Asia Corridor. which extends from China to Central Asia through Iran to Iraq, the Gulf countries, Syria, and all these other countries in West Asia. West Asia is the real name for Middle East. Middle East is an old colonialist idea. So, but it's difficult to threaten China, but also it's a way to tell the Iranians that this is a no-no. Actually, a few weeks before the June attack on Iran, in May 2025, the first train arrived from Iran through this line to Iran, to Tehran, from China. So just a couple of weeks after that, the war, you know, broke against Iran. But the general context for this war, and I think this is the analysis we have had in the Schiller Institute for many years, is that we have a shift in the global economic power. economic, technological, industrial power, which is moving further to the east and the global south with China's rise. We have a transatlantic financial and economic system which is collapsing. It's held alive by money printing, by quantitative easing, and now by attempts to revive the economy through military industries. That's in the United States, but also in Europe. But the irony is that even the military industries of the United States and Europe now depend on a lot of input from China. So this is a very, very futile attempt to bring back the unipolar world in a time when it's impossible to go on that road. Speaker 1: OK, interesting, interesting, interesting. OK, this is really interesting. That sentence you just said now, can we start it again? I want to really understand it. So there's this railway line that we were just showing. Lisa, if you can show it again, please. There's that railway line that goes that corridor. That's one of many. It's all part of the Belt and Road Initiative, which you know very well and you've read about. It goes all the way from China, goes through all of Central Asia, all the way through Iran, goes down south and ends in Egypt, based on the image I was just looking at. Actually, let me see. I've got it here. Yeah, it goes to Iran and then ends in Iraq. Sorry, not Egypt. Sorry, Iraq. Yeah. I don't know how it's gonna get to Egypt without sounding. Speaker 0: Well, in our maps in our we have made maps of the Belt and Road and it goes to Egypt. You know, it's very, very simple. Yeah. Okay, but it's not built yet. These are the parts which exist now. Speaker 1: This is the part the one in the image, the one in the image is the one that exists, correct? Speaker 0: Yes, but the one from Tehran to the Gulf goes actually, there is one goes south from Tehran to Esfahan. but also to Bafk and then Bandar Abbas. I wrote about that also in 1996 because the Iranians connected to Central Asia. They also connected Central Asia to the Gulf countries because Central Asian nations are landlocked. They have no access to the seas. So the Mashhad, Bafk, Bandar Abbas railway became very, very crucial for trade between the world and Central Asia. And it became electrified and double tracked by the Iranians. And a lot of trade from Dubai, especially from the Jabal Ali port, would go from the global markets to Dubai and then transshipment to Bandar Abbas, and then from Bandar Abbas goes north to Mashhad and Central Asia. This became a very, very important artery for those nations. But extending to the west from Tehran, There was also, I also wrote about it at the time, that one year after that, the Iranians built a railway which goes all the way to the border with Turkey, and then to the Lake Van, which connects now the Central Asia and China to Europe. So the Iranians are also building a connection to Iraq. That's the, which is in the picture. It's not there yet. It goes from southern Iran to Basra, to the Shalamcha border crossing. But the total idea of the Belt and Road is to connect all the nations in the Gulf, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, the Palestinian territories, even Israel, if there's peace, and Egypt to this whole network. So this is something which we have been advocating. That's why I said in my book, we have a blueprint for connecting all these nations and industrializing those nations. It's not simply about- Is China leading those efforts? China is leading those efforts. As I said, in 2022, President Xi Jinping came to Saudi Arabia and signed a strategic comprehensive economic agreement with Saudi Arabia. And then two months after that, signed a similar agreement with President Raisi who visited Beijing in February, 2023. Also a 25 year plan. Now everybody's saying $400 billion deal between China and Iran. Iran would simply exchange oil exports for technology, for infrastructure. But then, one month after Raisi's visit to Beijing in March 2023, the Chinese brought the Saudis and Iranians to normalize relations. This was a very big breakthrough for the region. And therefore, the cooperation with China accelerated around both connectivity, but also around industrial projects. There are many industrial projects by China in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, especially in the petrochemical area, but also in other industries. For example, last year, Lenovo, the laptop producer in China, signed an agreement with the Saudi Public Investment Fund for $2.5 billion to build a plant in Saudi Arabia in the industrial zone near Riyadh to produce laptops and other electronics in Saudi Arabia. So this kind of, we have the whole Jizan industrial complex on the Red Sea. This is enormous petrochemical and chemical industries and logistics center on the Red Sea built with- Which one? Which one? Jizan, it's called, or Jaza. Jizan, it's on the Red Sea south of, almost close to Yemen. you have the whole Suez Canal area is now overpopulated by Chinese companies, industrial companies producing home appliances, now even cars. Speaker 1: You're talking about Jizan in Saudi Arabia, correct? Speaker 0: Yes, yes. There are some use the name Jizan industrial zone or economic zone. This is almost exclusively Saudi Chinese industrial zone. Speaker 1: It's a port. Is that linked to the whole corridor? Does it go all the way down to Jizan? Speaker 0: Yeah, the Saudis have what is called the land bridge, the Saudi land bridge, which will go from Dahran in the Gulf through Riyadh to the west coast of Saudi Arabia, to Jeddah, but also to Jizan. The Saudis have very advanced plans to connect this whole the Arabian Peninsula, but also make Saudi Arabia, as Mohammed bin Salman said, a major logistics hub. Speaker 1: So there's all these things, all these corridors being built, and China's leading those efforts to kind of build those corridors that go all the way from China through Central Asia, all the way to the Gulf. And what you're saying is that this is obviously a threat to the unipolarity of the US. So the US has seen this as a threat. I've had other guests in the early days of the war talk about this. Not many, by the way. And this is something you specialize in, which made it really interesting. And what you're saying is that strike on the railway line was a symbolic strike, a warning shot to the region to not depend too much on these corridors, the Belt and Road Initiative by China, which kind of goes back to my initial theory of the war, that this war, a big reason for this war There's obviously Israel, there's maybe nuclear weapons, whatever. But the main reason is China and Chinese influence, whether it's through China's control of the Strait of Hormuz through Iran or the Belt and Road Initiative that China's building that goes through Iran. And that strike on the railway, whether it's a direct strike through a missile or a sabotage operation, which could be pretty easily repaired, it's not that major of a strike, is a warning shot in that regard. You seem to be nodding. So what I'm saying is accurate so far. Am I understanding it correctly? Speaker 0: Yeah, I guess that's the reason. I mean, Joe Biden, I mean, this is a longstanding American policy. You know, this geopolitics in Central Asia. It goes all the way back to Halfard Mackinder. But let me just answer the question on the Americans see this. President Biden, when he visited Riyadh in 2022, July 2022, that was about five months before Xi Jinping came there. He told the Saudis, quote, we will not leave a vacuum in this region to be filled by Russia and China. End of quote. This is a quote from the press release by the White House. I still have a copy just in case it disappears. So this was a direct. Can you say the quote again? He said, we will not leave a vacuum in this region to be filled by Russia and China. Biden was very upset by Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed because when the war broke out in Ukraine, they refused to break cooperation with Russia. Actually, they enhanced cooperation with Russia. And according to some reports, they even refused to answer phone calls from Joe Biden. And you remember. Speaker 1: When did Joe Biden say the quote? Sorry to interrupt you a few times. When did he say this quote? I'm taking these notes because that's really interesting. Speaker 0: Joe Biden July 2022 when he visited Riyadh. And that was supposed to be the, to ease the tension because you remember before that, Biden when he was running in the elections, he called Saudi Arabia a pariah state because of the Khashoggi, Jamal Khashoggi case. Speaker 1: And he said they will punish. The Saudi American journalist that was killed in the Saudi embassy in Turkey chopped up. Speaker 0: And the United States, a whole part of the establishment wanted to punish Saudi Arabia for that. And there are many theories that there was even attempts to do a palace coup or whatever. And the Ritz-Carlton Hotel thing could have been a way to block that. Anyway, so the United States makes no secret of it does not want those nations on the heartland, which Halfard Mackinder, the British geopolitician, before World War I said, you know, that the heartland, which is from Central Asia, the Eurasian landmass, it should be divided. those who control central asia and the heartland will control the world island and those who control the world island will control the world so the british empire all the time made sure certain things don't happen that germany and russia never become allies and this is one reason we have world war one also the berlin baghdad railway and the hijaz railway which the germans and the Ottomans were building to connect the hard land, the land bridge to outflank the maritime British Empire, that this was, according to a friend of mine who wrote a book about it, this was the cause of World War I, because they never allow Germany or Russia get closer to the warm waters. And therefore, the other maxim of the British Empire is that, and then later adopted by Henry Kissinger, is that, Russia and China should never be allies. Okay? So this, the United States must do everything possible that China and Russia will be rivals forever. This has failed. And actually, I was reading Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, The Grand Chessboard, because I wanted to pick a quote. He says in this book in 1997, not only China and Russia should never be allies, He said the worst-case scenario, which he thought it will never happen, is that China, Russia, and Iran will become allies. So the idea that the U.S. That is a worst-case scenario. It's materializing. This happened. The China and Russia are now very close allies. Iran is being integrated into a China-Russia some sort of strategic alliance. But also the whole thing is going through the Belt and Road. It's economic development. It's economic relations. And this is really the basis for what we are discussing in our book is that the United States and Europe cannot stop China. They cannot stop the Belt and Road because the Belt and Road has shown developing nations in the global south that this is the best model, that they could get the technologies, will pull them out of poverty. They don't need to be satrapies. They don't need to be, you know, dependent on everything coming from the West, including food. You know, Egypt for many, many years, they would borrow money to buy food from outside. Now Egypt is producing its own food. You have the same thing, the Gulf countries. And I said this, there are two models which failed in the Gulf. And that's why I say there will be a new model. The first model was that the Gulf countries would sell oil to buy what they need. and live a luxurious life. This ended in 2014. Because from 2014 to 2022, the oil price went below the break-even line of $60 and stayed there. Some years, it went below $30. During the COVID, it was even negative. So this was a disaster for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries. And therefore, they decided that we need a new model. And the new model means that you have to diversify your oil, your income, not depend on exporting oil. So they need to industrialize. They take the oil and make other products out of the oil. Plastics, paints, cosmetics, all kinds of things you can do from oil. Natural gas is fertilizer and other things. I was in a factory in China in a plant. They use natural gas to produce even clothing, you know, polyester stuff. So the Gulf countries, now even in Saudi Arabia, but also in Egypt, now they will be producing cars, Chinese cars. So this is how this whole idea of the Belt and Road is transforming the mindset of nations in the global south and said, oh, this old model we had doesn't work. This is a much better model. But also the idea that the Saudi, not only the South, the Gulf countries would use part of their money To buy American and British weapons and get American security protection, that also has failed. I mean, Kissinger said, to be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend of the United States is fatal. Why? Because the United States will drag you into all kinds of dangerous adventures. And this is why those countries now are hoping that this thing will end with the United States bases leaving the region. Because this has become a liability. It's a source of danger. It's not a source of security. Because the Iranians have developed certain weapons, and before that the Houthis in Yemen, that they can actually outflank the most advanced military powers in the world. systems don't really work against these new asymmetrical weapons. So our point is that we need a new architecture based on economic development. The United States and Europe should participate in that. It's enormously... And not fight it. Not fight it. This is great for... Look here in Europe, people are complaining about immigration from West Asia and Africa. Well, You have contributed to regime changes in the whole region, including in Libya, and that's why you have floods of immigrants. But also, the last 70 years, you did nothing for the development of Africa so Africans can stay at home. This is what the Chinese are saying. You want to deal with the immigration problem? Give African youth something meaningful to do in Africa. Nobody wants to leave their home if they can secure a good life in their country. Speaker 1: This is a different point of view. And that strike on the railway is just to as a final question, who's saying that strike on the railway is a warning of what exactly because the strike if you can show the images, Lisa, the strike didn't cause that much damage is repairable. So it's a warning for what for these countries to stop these projects to stop investing in these projects to shift to American projects. What's the exact warning? What's the message? Speaker 0: Abdulaziz M Alhamdan, Yeah, well, there are no American projects. I told you, the United States cannot build railways and bridges anymore, and Europe soon will not be able. Speaker 1: Abdulaziz M Alhamdan, What's the warning? Speaker 0: Abdulaziz M Alhamdan, No, it's a signal that working with China, working on this new Silk Road will bring you trouble. This is the symbolic meaning. But there is also a military aspect of this, that the United States can reach, the military can reach even further into the areas in West Iran, which are, very far from the sea, very far from, you know, the American bases and the Gulf, very far from Europe. So they can also say if you have missile systems, you are hiding in that far area, we can reach it too. But I think symbolically this is very, very important as a warning to Iran and Central Asia and all these nations that working with China on the Belt and Road could be dangerous for you. The problem is that the United States cannot offer an alternative. The United States is not building railways or bridges. I mean, it's just completely absurd situation. And I think there should be a new architecture, as I said, in the Mohammed Accords. There should be, as the Chinese also say, the security of this region should be guaranteed by the people of the region themselves. But then we have like Pakistan and nuclear power. Turkey is a major military power. Egypt is another military power. They can guarantee the security of the Gulf countries. They don't need to place weapons and stuff over there, although that could become necessary if you want to replace American bases with Egyptian or Turkish or Pakistani bases. I mean, that would look very awkward. But the security of these nations should be guaranteed by those nations. At the same time, there should be economic cooperation as the bridge to build trust among those nations. And therefore, the nations of this region are sick and tired of it. And then you have the whole Palestinian-Israeli situation. This needs to be dealt with immediately. You cannot have this absurd, murderous situation in Palestine and believe that you can still have some sort of normalcy in the region. That's why I say the Abraham Accords never work. They will never work. Because they were not meant to establish peace. Speaker 1: Exactly. The core issue is not resolved. It's putting a bandaid on a wound. Speaker 0: No, it was meant to dilute the Palestinians. That the Palestinians will not exist. I mean, you look at the Benjamin Netanyahu speech at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2023. That was before Hamas attack. And he showed the map of the region and There were nations in green who were allegedly friends of Israel, or they will enter the Abraham Accords, and then the rest are the enemies of Israel. So the, but then the map of Palestine, there is no Palestine. There's only Israel. And this is the Israeli right-wing faction greater israel ideologues who say there are no palestinian people they just happen to be here when we came they can go somewhere else yeah and this is the uh an ideology deep deep ideological thing in israel which has to be dealt with internally but also through pressure from the united states that you cannot hold those dreams of greater israel and imagine you can live in peace among all these nations you know imagine that You know, how many hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims are in this region? And those nations are advancing very quickly, even in military terms. Look, Egypt is preparing itself for a potential war. And they are diversifying their arms imports so they don't depend on the United States alone. They have brought in Russian and Chinese weapon systems because they fear that one day they will get the same treatment as Syria or Iran. Turkey now being threatened by Israeli ministers and even Netanyahu, you know. So it's a really incredible, insane idea that you think you can destroy all those nations and live in peace like an oasis or a garden in the middle of a jungle. Just forget about it. Those nations will advance very fast. The economic and demographics of this region will change so rapidly the Chinese model is followed, Israel even technologically will look very, very small compared to those nations because technological progress now is very cheap and affordable and accessible thanks to China's efforts. Before, only the elites and the friends of the United States and Europe will get these technologies. Now China says technology is free for all. You want some? Here. 10th of the price you get from the United States. And it's much better quality. So the Israelis have to wake up and not, you know, become a source of their own. I agree, I agree. Speaker 1: Hussein, I am, just because we've got my next guest, Anna Kasparian is joining the studio. But I really enjoyed this conversation. I think we started off, you know, trying to get to know each other. Then you went really deep and gave us a, a peek into what you've been studying and covering for so many years. And I'm glad I brought up the railway strike. Speaker 0: I will send you the article I wrote in 1996 about that railway. Speaker 1: Yes, of course, send it through. And also I'd love to do a sit down on this as well, because it's part of a broader discussion. I had one of my guests, I can't remember the name. maybe it's like a month, a month and a half ago now, who was explaining to me the comparisons to World War I, the corridor that was being built by the Russian and German empires, I think goes through all the way to the Ottoman Empire, and how that was one of the reasons that caused the British Empire that wanted to maintain hegemony, to see this as a threat. And that was one of the core issues that eventually led to World War I. And we could be seeing something similar here with Iran, China, the Belt and Road Initiative and the hegemony. united states seeing this as a threat so i really enjoyed the uh um the explanation but hussein it's been a pleasure to meet you thank you so much for your time thank you very much
MarioNawfal
Posted - July 9, 2026 at 11:27 PM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:38 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m told Trump has talked about taking Kharg Island since the late 1980s. In a recent quote, he warned not to touch the oil, saying it could mean taking the island. Karen Kwiatkowski traces it to older TV interviews, doubts he’s ever been there, and says the idea predates the war. She also contrasts this with Washington’s stated plan to pull back from the Middle East.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Trump has reportedly talked about taking Kharg Island since the 1980s. Whether that's a plan or a decades-old fixation may decide what happens next "We attacked Kharg Island last night," Trump told reporters. "I said, don't touch the oil, because maybe we'll take over Kharg Island." Karen Kwiatkowski traced that line back further than people realize, to television interviews from the late eighties where he floated the same idea about the same island. Whether he's ever set foot there, she doubts it. he fixation, she says, predates the war by decades. Her read on the military reality is blunt: the island would be brutal to seize and worse to hold, and hitting it outright might be the more honest option than trying to run it. Iranian territory, Iranian defenses, and a very short list of allies willing to help occupy it. What struck her more was the contrast with Washington's own strategy document, the one that talked about pulling back from the Middle East entirely. Ships already committed, she thinks, don't come home easily once they're committed to something. That gap between the stated plan and the moment-to-moment decisions is where she sees the real risk. @karen4the6th, @WeTheBrandon

Video Transcript AI Summary
Brandon Weikert begins by referencing a quote attributed to Donald Trump: “We attacked Carg Island last night. I said, don’t touch the oil because maybe we’ll take over Carg Island.” Weikert questions whether Trump is misunderstanding the feasibility of military action against “Carg Island” and suggests the comment may reflect verbal excess. Karen Katowski says she did not see the quote, but argues Trump has long been fixated on “Carg Island” dating back to the late 1980s and that the military is right: taking the island would be extremely difficult and impossible to hold. She adds that Trump is prone to repeated verbal errors and that his decision-making capability is diminished because he processes everything personally; she contrasts this with how leadership requires respecting and motivating people rather than creating fear. The conversation then turns to how Trump communicates about Iran and diplomacy. Weikert and Katowski discuss Trump calling the Iranian leadership “scum,” framing it as an unusual and disruptive diplomatic tactic. Katowski says Trump takes personally the large international attendance at Iran-related ceremonies following an assassination and compares Trump’s tendency to center himself in every event. They further discuss internal U.S. assessments, suggesting military capacity to fight “a distant war” may diminish over time, making immediate action seem like a “last gasp,” while noting the U.S. has systems that cost too much, too few assets, and delays in adapting to modern warfare such as drones. Katowski references the November national security strategy, saying it seemed easy to understand and included an intention to pull back from the Middle East. She argues that even if the strategy points toward withdrawal, the problem is that no effective “something else” is put in its place, and she says the Pentagon is poorly balanced and cannot sustain expeditionary wars or defend the United States effectively. She claims that simply adding large sums (1.5 trillion) to the same system would waste money without paradigm change. Weikert asks about Pete Hegseth and whether Pentagon personnel respect him, given his earlier comments about hypersonic weapons and acquisition reform. Katowski says many within the system hold contempt for him and that the military-industrial complex and Pentagon bureaucracy are structured with networks and plans that outlast any single Secretary of Defense. She illustrates this with a story from her Pentagon time involving an elderly civil servant employee who was allowed to remain despite not producing work, emphasizing that entrenched systems can resist change. They then discuss Section 219 (and related legislation) and claim it functions as a cover rather than a practical procurement merger, suggesting Israel’s interest may be access to intelligence and data. Katowski describes a broader pattern of influence inside U.S. institutions and says that if such legislation moves forward, Israel would likely learn who reacts negatively and potentially target compromises within the system. Weikert shifts to ongoing war dynamics, asking about a plan to arm Iraqi Kurds as a front against Iran. Katowski says she lacks inside information beyond Trump’s statements on social media, where he said the U.S. gave arms to the Kurds north of Iran that they took. She argues the Kurds do not trust the United States due to repeated “shafting,” including during Trump’s prior term. They debate where Iraqi oil revenue flows and connect it to an executive-order framework from 2003 associated with moving Iraqi oil sales to be tied to the dollar and routed through institutions in New York, with the claim that this arrangement affects sovereignty and political outcomes. Katowski argues the system has effectively persisted since 2003 and that it reduces Iraqi control over oil revenues. The conversation expands into Syria and Lebanon, discussing HTS/Jolani and whether HTS elements could be deployed in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah. Katowski says she does not have special contacts confirming this, but calls it dangerous and notes concerns about Jolani’s history and brutality. They also discuss shifting alliances and the idea that NATO leadership and some Middle East partners are strategically ineffective. Weikert asks specifically about Israeli Defense Force struggles against Hezbollah and Katowski answers by saying the IDF is struggling in Gaza and highlights what she portrays as poor training and leadership, pointing to a former retired special forces officer’s critiques. Katowski argues Israel’s mandatory service system can resemble a “camp,” contributing to dysfunction across multiple fronts (Gaza, Hezbollah, Yemen/Houthis, and Iran), along with high suicide and alcohol abuse rates and harsh treatment of others upon return. In closing, Weikert asks whether the direction of events with Iran points toward de-escalation. Katowski says she doubts the U.S. has staying power, implying low remaining weapon stocks, worn-out personnel, and shipyard delays affecting readiness. She suggests Trump may be seeking a diversion and that Israel may be more willing to escalate. She ends by saying she expects some sort of MOU or ceasefire arrangement, while expressing concern that Israel would prefer chaos, which she says Israel can exploit.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: All right. Well, I am one of the regular guests for Mario. And today I'm going to be the slightly better looking version of Mario filling in for him while he gets ready for the next show. It's very good to be here with you all. As some of you may know, I'm Brandon Weikert. I am joined now by retired Lieutenant Colonel, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Katowski. Uh, Karen, uh, Stephanie, can we pull up that graphic? I sent you the quote of what Trump said yesterday. I don't know if you saw this, uh, uh, Karen. Um, but it's not up there. Ah, there it is. Uh, Trump was talking yesterday to the press and he made this classic offhanded comment. We attacked Carg Island last night. I said, don't touch the oil because maybe we'll take over Carg Island. End quote. Now, A lot of people I talk to, I talk to a lot of dinosaurs and they're, you know, from the military and they're all saying, ah, it's just vamping. We can't militarily do it. I keep telling them, I don't think Trump understands this. And I think he's going to try something like a Marine amphibious landing on card. Do you think that's accurate? Do you think this is just sort of, you know, verbal diarrhea from a president who has loose lips? What do you think's going on here? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I don't know. And I didn't see I didn't see that particular quote. But, you know, I always hearken back to the one he made in like 1988 or 1987 when he was on television. He talked about Carg Island and how they had all this oil and we should get that oil. So he's kind of had for 40 years in his brain or over 40, 45 years, 46 years. You know, he anyway, he's... you know, got this idea that this is, well, first off, that the world is his oyster and he can take whatever he wants from anybody he wants. And now that he's president, of course, who can stop him? But he's got this thing about Carg Island in his mind. And I don't think he's ever been there or anything like that. I don't think so. You know, I mean, he's probably traveled widely, but I just don't think he's ever been. I think it's the idea of Carg Island that he likes. And no, the military is right. This would be extremely difficult to take and impossible to hold. So this is what you're left with. I'm sure the military is telling him, sir, you know, we would be better off just exploding the whole island and obliterating it. Because if you want to take it and operate it, you know, and export American oil like we're doing in Venezuela, then, you know, I mean, Venezuelan oil that we've stolen, that we're exporting, you know, then maybe we can plan for that. But it's not going to be possible. It's Iranian property. They can defend it. They can make our life quite miserable. In fact, He's he's really the verbal diarrhea thing is real. That is real with Trump. You know, he also said and I didn't see this. Well, I did watch it. I saw it on repeated by someone else before. But I'm talking about the Islamic Republic of Japan. And he said it twice in the same paragraph, in the same set of sentences. He said that twice. So he didn't I mean, a lot of people. do, I mean, I misspeak, everybody misspeaks sometimes, you know, but usually you catch it and you go, oh, wait, you know, first off, you usually catch it right away. And if you don't, you usually catch it with the second or third sentence. And Trump repeated it twice. So he's not catching his errors. He's got, I think maybe he's overstimulated for what he can handle. You know, he's at that NATO meeting. He's just, he's trying to do everything. He's trying to be the sole integration of all knowledge and first off he's not qualified to do that but no one is you know i mean it's not even that if he was you know he's he has this idea that you know i'm the big dog i'm the boss i'm the decision so everything comes to him and he will process it but his processing capabilities um are diminished well they're they're diminished it And even on its best day, he could never do it because nobody can do it. That's not how you lead a country. And it's really not how you lead an organization. You know, Trump talks a lot about his business, you know, running businesses and getting good people around him. But he is very obviously he needs to be flattered. He needs his employees scared of being fired. Right. And that's not you don't ever want that. You don't. You know, you do not want that. If you want the best of the best around you, you have to respect them and you have to you don't want them scared of you. You want them, you know, motivated as opposed to fearful. And Trump Trump doesn't really do that. He's. Yeah, do that. Speaker 0: Yeah, you're right. And I'm reminded of that, which the late great Lou Holtz once said, which is that as a head coach, you have to know which players to give a kick in the ass to and which ones to give a pat on the ass to. You know, it's it's it's not you know, it's it's not one size fits all. Speaker 1: So respect people. And Trump really doesn't respect people. He respects the idea of people like in the sense of, you know, when he was doing his campaign and he was handing out McDonald's burgers at the drive-through and, you know, he's posing as a man of the people, a working class, like I understand a working class. And that's an act for him, which I didn't realize at first. I thought he actually, you know, dumb me. I thought he actually cared about people. But he really doesn't. He objectifies everything around him and it's something to be used. And I think this is part of his transactional, you know, He's now he loves his family members. He's capable of respecting people. But in his world, you're either for him and you're flattering him or I'm going to take you out and destroy you and humiliate you. Speaker 0: And that's true. Yes, that's true. And I think we're we're seeing that play out. I mean, he called the Iranian scum two days ago. You know, it's you know, even if you hate the regime and I'm certainly not a fan of the regime, that's definitely a weird diplomacy thing. tactic to employ. Speaker 1: He took personally the fact that pretty much the whole world, including the people that watch the world in the United States, he was insulted by the fact that 9, 10, 15 million Iranians and Iraqi Shia showed up He was insulted by the fact that 80 countries' heads of state representatives, at least. Speaker 0: Including Putin, or his envoy, at least. Speaker 1: Yeah, that they showed up, that they bowed their heads and kind of shared in this painful departure of a guy who was assassinated by Trump, okay? But Trump's insulted that more people showed up there. He said, oh, yeah, I draw that many people at one of my rallies, which you'll never have again. But that's just, it's all about Trump. He can't see past his, you know, he's quite a limited person, really. And the use of the word scum kind of tells you that. It's one thing for us to use that word in conversation. It's another thing for the president to say that about a country that not only is in mourning, but is basically shocking the whole entire world by the degree of the mourning and the the popularity of this guy that we were told the West was told, Oh, he's a terrible dictator. He, he holds everybody back. Everybody hates him. If we just knock him off, they'll rise up against him. And so he's been proven wrong so many times. So obviously, and I think he's mad about it. So he calls him scum, but the rest of the world is looking at Iran and, and most of the rest of the world, actually 95% of the planet is looking at Iran and they're impressed with their resilience. They're impressed with their, um, moral character in terms of withstanding this assault, which the rest of the world understands was an illegal war. Aside the fact that Israel talked us into it, what was Israel's reason? Nobody had a reason. It was just like, well, we want to do this. Can we do this now? Can we do it tomorrow? When can we do this? Speaker 0: Well, I think the reason is because the Israelis assessed that popular opinion was turning against them in the United States. Speaker 1: Better get going quick. Better get going quick before. Speaker 0: Yeah. You know, it's funny. I talked to somebody who supposedly was informed of some kind of a briefing that happened with Trump and certain elements of the intelligence community where they basically ran through an assessment which found if trends continued, U.S. military was basically our capacity to wage war Speaker 1: a distant war was going to diminish precipitously over the next decade and if we didn't hit iran now we might never be able to now that actually makes sense because it's already clearly diminished we've been humiliated by the way we've performed and we have no choice because we can't do any better we're doing the best we can i think the military is doing everything it possibly can and i think they're straining their own timbers really in doing that. But that's the best we have. We have systems that cost too much. We have too few of them. They're not really adapted to modern warfare. We're late on the stage with drones, certainly defending against them and then using them. We're not the leader anymore. So we've shown our weakness, but yeah, the people inside the system and probably observers, you could see that our military is not keeping up. All you have to do is look at China and Russia And you can clearly see that we're not keeping up at all. Haven't been for some time. So maybe, yeah, it does make sense that this was his last gasp and, and you know, the, the national security strategy, which I actually liked it because it was short. I did too. Speaker 0: The NSS from last November. Yeah. Speaker 1: I thought it was more, I thought it was more easy to understand, more straightforward, had a lot less gobbledygook in it. It was shorter. And I also liked it because it said hemispheric. We're going to pull back. I saw pulling back in there. We're not going to worry about the Middle East so much. Russia will be like, we can handle Russia. And then ultimately we'll see what China has. Maybe we want China, maybe we don't. But pulling back was good. And I thought that was reflected in that NSS. And so maybe, but then he's doing this thing in Middle East. Maybe he's like, well, we got the ships over there. Let's use them up. Then we'll bring back home and and figure out something else. But the problem is they're not figuring out the something else. You know, there's no, you know, our military is trashed and it's not well designed or balanced. It's not capable. It certainly can't defend the United States and it can't do expeditionary wars anymore. That's obvious. But 1.5 trillion thrown at the same system is going to waste that money. Just like you got a permanently flushing toilet, just shovel the money in it because you're not going to get anything different unless we have people who And ideas that are, you know, really a paradigm change. And I don't see that happening. I don't see that happening. You think Hegseth is going to come up with something? That guy, I mean, seriously, he doesn't even know what I'm talking about. Speaker 0: So it's interesting because, you know, when Hegseth was doing the rounds before he was officially nominated, he made certain comments. And I know... who gave him those comments to make. He made certain comments about hypersonic weapons and about the need for acquisitions reform. And where it was like, okay, this guy isn't just a talking head. He actually kind of got it. And he, I thought, was initially very good for recruitment. I think a lot of the rank and file, he's running with them. He's pulling up a lot. Speaker 1: Sure, there's that, yeah. Speaker 0: But at that sort of grand strategic level, at the kind of higher-end enterprise level of the Pentagon, you used to be involved with the Pentagon at pretty high levels. Do you think those people actually respect him and actually think what he's doing? No. Speaker 1: In fact, I actually forgot that some of the ground troops and the lower-ranking folks away from the Pentagon do like this, did see this as a fresh thing. I forgot about that because what I know and what I – perceived today is that they have complete contempt for him. And it's pretty well earned. He has contempt. Well, it's mutual. He also has contempt for the bureaucrats and the generals and uniformed officers that are part of that bureaucracy there. So it's mutual contempt. But the thing is, they have a system, the military industrial complex and the Pentagon itself is the civilians, the generals who have promised jobs, colonels and majors, all the people that recycle into the defense industry. These guys have a plan, and they have friends, they have a network, and they will outlive any Secretary of Defense. They don't care about this. They know how to slow roll like anything. And this is unrelated, but it's a story I like to tell. I haven't told it that much, really. But when I worked at the Pentagon, there was around the corner, I don't know, there's so many corners, but it wasn't too far from our office, there was a lady And she she was the oldest civil servant employee in the Pentagon. And I don't know if it was ever or or at that time. She was like in her 90s. I mean, early 90s. And she was a civil servant. And the reason I found out about it is had to deliver something to the office. And I walked in and she had a desk at the front. She sound asleep. You know, I mean, sound asleep. And she's got white hair and she little tiny lady and sound asleep. And so I walked back and gave my document. I said, what's up with that? what's happening there? What is that? You know, cause I mean, I'm not saying people don't sleep at their office, but it was just weird. And they said, oh yeah, yeah, she's, she's been here. She's like the oldest, she's a celebrity almost. And yet they could not, they couldn't get rid of her. Somebody was paying her salary benefits for decades. And we weren't getting anything. We weren't getting anything, but she chose not to retire and, And I don't think being her, her generation is 20 years ago. She's 90 years old. She was probably not part of the litiginous society that we may assume we have today where she would have sued them for, you know, elderly prejudice or something. She was, she didn't want to leave and they were fine having her there. And, but none of it relates to the needs of the taxpayer. None of it relates to the needs of a defense establishment. What it relates to is she needs a job and, I don't mind. And who cares? I need a job too. So we'll just go with the flow. They will outlast anybody. They believe they have the power. There's a very arrogant mindset at the top of the Pentagon and at the course of military industrial establishment, which is populated by the same people. It's just like big pharma and the FDA, right? You just go back and forth. So it's an organization that They're not intimidated by headset. They're not afraid of him. They simply have to adjust the speed that they operate with while he's there until they get somebody else that they like. So what I'm saying is if you want to fix the Pentagon, you're going to break that whole thing up. And who's going to do that? Trump's not going to do it because he has no idea. If someone flatters him and whispers sweet nothings into his ear, he's good to go. He does not have, he's not, you need somebody who, like you who sees it. You know, there's a lot of people that look at the system. You know, we got POGO. There's all kinds of organizations that understand the real deep flaws in our acquisition system. They understand the military congressional industrial complex, really, that put the Congress in there, and that's part of the problem. And, of course, you know, the fact that we have concentrated our systems acquisitions to produce the most profit for the least amount of delivery. That's right. And you have a system like that. And that would be fine if everybody else did it like that. But Russia doesn't do it like that. China doesn't do it like that. India doesn't do it like that. Iran doesn't do it like that. Honestly, honestly, even Israel doesn't do it. Speaker 0: That's right. Speaker 1: That's right. But don't, but I'm not advocating the merger. Speaker 0: No, of course not. No, no, no. But it is interesting though, because I mean, this is why I've just to that last point, This is why I've never believed for a second that the real purpose of, I guess it's now Section 219. It used to be 219. They changed it. Speaker 1: Very coy. Speaker 0: I've always thought that was a cover because I don't really think the Israelis actually want to emulate the way we procure weapons because it's just not practical. I think they want access, though, to the data. And I think they want access to the intel. And they're using this idea that we're going to jointly merge defense bases as some kind of propaganda tool. Oh, it's mutually beneficial. Speaker 1: Oh, no, no. There's much bigger benefits. And the money will flow unseen and, you know, examined. And that's another plus. But that's not the biggest plus. biggest plus is being there and you know john kiryaku has uh he has a little clip where he says um you know somebody's asking if israel spies on us and whatever of course yes and he says they already have 90 we give them like 99 of what we have very little that we keep from israel in terms of intelligence technology but that one percent is is really a thorn in they're obsessed with getting 100 and this way they'll know they'll know they're getting 100 they'll be right into every And again, we can't, it can't work. There's no way it can work. You know, I remember so many years ago, I was probably, I was probably a captain at the time, but it was, I think during the Yugoslavia thing, when we were bombing the first NATO humanitarian war. And there were a lot of issues with the UN and would we be, would Americans be, would American troops be under UN? And of course we weren't going to be, we'd have our own general and everything. But that was a big issue. We said, oh, my God, we're not going to we're not going to be under UN control. But what will be OK with being under Israeli control? Our intelligence will be fine if a Mossad officer clears what they produce. Is that what they are OK with? I don't think so. And I think maybe, you know, they can break the system if they pass this thing. They're going to break the system. They're not they have no idea. The ramifications, not so much that what Israel would do, but the reactions of Americans when Israelis boardroom. OK, it's not going to happen. There's going to be incidents. There's going to be issues. And they'll say, oh, it's anti-Semitism. And we don't care. We don't work with Israelis. This is American technology. Speaker 0: We don't trust it. We're already seeing that pushback from certain factions within the intelligence community, aren't we? Yes. You know, with the related Intelligence Authorization Act out of the Senate, we're there. I'm forgetting. I always forget the number. It's section... 622, I think, where they're basically elevating Israel from a transactional intelligence sharing partner to a full-blown trusted partner on the same level with Five Eyes. Now, I know there are groups out of CIA, DIA, labeling them a counterintelligence threat, number one. That came 48 hours after the Senate got through the, you know. So there are factions already that are arraying against Israel. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. That's that release of that document. The biggest spying threat is Israel. Yeah, like we already know that. But of course, the timing is important because they're right. And, you know, this I hate to be all like conspiratorial or or just totally negative about this. But it's very it's very possible that part of this is to smoke out the opposition for the Israelis to smoke them out. Because, you know, just like they deal with politicians and they're peccadilloes and their little crimes they commit on the side, you know, or, or you can put your honey pot over there and get some good stuff. And then you manage your, your, your politician better because you've got something on him. That's, that's the whole thing. Speaker 0: In some cases they marry the handler and become Senate majority leader, but you know, that's another story for another time. Speaker 1: This is actually, I'm just joking. This is, this is how it's always worked with spine, right? I mean, this is, You know, you want to get leverage every way you can. So Israel's good at that. We know that they manage quite a few people in the political realm. They have less ability to manage bureaucrats inside the system and particularly military people. You know, they're not, you know, when military people, it's a tight community. You know, if you're married to a, I don't care who it is from another country, we know that you're married. Your neighborhood knows what country they came from. it's, you know, if that country is an enemy or some people consider it untrustworthy, that is something that's there. So maybe when they, this merger legislation to move it through, I mean, hopefully it won't succeed, but if it does happen, then they're going to know who's reacting negatively to it in the system and they'll know who they need to compromise. So maybe the whole Israel compromise situation, the program, the Hasbara program, maybe it has a wing that calls, you know, the honeypot wing or the let's get dirt on this military guy or that career civilian. Because we need that well-placed person to fire this other guy who is opposed to us. So I wouldn't put it past them. Speaker 0: It sounds like a grand scheme, but it's really just little bits and pieces that... Well, if you're a small country like Israel, though, who's punching above its weight in these areas, you have to behave that way. And they have such good... Speaker 1: Yes, and they're good at it. They're good at it. Speaker 0: They're very good at it. Yes. Speaker 1: And so when you're good at something and you're a small country punching above its weight, then you need to... keep doing what you're good at. They're extremely good at controlling politicians. They're extremely good at compromising major influencers. They're good at that. So why wouldn't they want to extend that into the military industrial complex even more than it already is? Because I think if you look at some of the major companies and subcontractors, you know, we have tons of Israeli subcontractors and contractors to the Pentagon. They're already in there working with people. But what they don't have is inside the Pentagon as well in the uniformed crowd they don't have. Speaker 0: And this was actually an issue. If you remember during the 12 day war, I was told on more than one occasion there were almost fistfights breaking out in these briefing rooms at the Pentagon because Israeli officers would come barreling into classified Pentagon briefings about the war, demanding to know what they aren't being told. Speaker 1: That's right. That's right. But also, if an individual stands up against that, we do remove them. They're getting fired. Because they have a great... The Zionists, I don't consider them very religious people, but they have a great comeback to any type of criticism, and that is you're an anti-Semite. Well, we can't have that, and we shouldn't have that. People should not hate other people based on ethnicity or religion. That is true. I share that value system. But If you're going to, you know, if it was communists, you know, Trump's all big about communism now for some reason, like, oh, the communists are coming. Maybe it's too late. But anyway, he's got the communists coming. And, you know, if we had if we don't when a communist comes, you know, it's like an ideology. Clearly understand that, you know, you could have Christian, Islamic, Jewish communists. any type of religion or atheists could all be communists, right? Communism doesn't have a certain religion associated with it or a certain ethnicity. Communism opened everybody. It's an idea that you might want to follow. So, but Zionism is exactly in the same category. It's a governing, it's really national socialism with a, you know, kind of a a twist, a Zionist twist to it. And that's just an idea. Anybody can be a Zionist, Christian Zionist. We have plenty of them. Speaker 0: There's more Christian Zionists, I think, in the world than there are actual Jewish Zionists at this point. Speaker 1: Well, that is true. That is actually speaking, you know, that's an actual fact. And so, so, you know, this, this idea that if you don't like Zionism or the behavior of a particular Zionist, when he's acting in the capacity of promoting the Zionist state of Israel in your Pentagon or wherever, well, you shouldn't be able to, just you can be called a racist or a anti-Semite for that. That makes no sense because it's an ideology that can be freely chosen. It can be rejected. It can be adopted. And, you know, actually over half of Jews in the diaspora are not Zionists. They oppose Zionism. So, I mean, the whole thing's just a game. And I think it's getting old. I think people are seeing through it. And maybe that's also why they need to be inside because I think it's a very effective way What they've done to Congress with money donations, tracking their crimes, and they have many crimes that they commit. Well, actually, there was a guy who wrote a book, Three Felonies a Day, about 25 years ago, about all the crimes that we all commit every day. We drive in front of a flock camera and we weren't looking at the road. I don't know. I mean, we commit these crimes. But, you know, they're good at doing it with Congress. Congress is controlled very well. Most of them are not believing Zionists. They support Israel because their alternatives are very bleak if they don't. Right. Speaker 0: Well, they're paid to or they're blackmailed or both. Speaker 1: That's right. So maybe they want to expand the blackmail regime inside. But anyway, I don't know how we are going to let this pass in the legislation, but they're not debating it. Speaker 0: No, purposely. I mean, Ro Khanna tried to bring it up. God bless Ro. Ro Khanna is one of the last, you know, he gets a lot of flack for other reasons, but I said he's one of the last true Americans, regardless of his party. I mean, that was... one of the most honorable things I've seen. Uh, and, and I'd be saying this if they were doing it about any country that was trying to gain influence, uh, in the United States, the way that the Israelis are, but kind of tried it and they shot his own parties, you know, that's what's sort of crazy because, um, you know, uh, Speaker 1: I noticed him when he stood up with Massey on the Epstein Files and other things. But he is a guy like Massey, like Ron Paul used to be when he was in Congress, and like many of them, who is willing to say, well, if you and I agree on this one project and it's a good project, we should work together. And we don't care. Speaker 0: And that's how it should be. Speaker 1: Yeah, of course it should be. That's how we work in our neighborhoods. You think we look at our neighbors and go, well, you don't keep your grass at three inches high, so therefore I will never work with you. No. You say, you know, he mows his grass weird and he puts tomatoes in his backyard. That's okay. I don't do that. I don't like that. But I like this other thing. We're going to work together on this other thing that we agree on. And leave the disagreements aside. That's how it should be done. And Roe got shut down by his own Democrats because they're all compromised by Israel. Speaker 0: So that's right. Speaker 1: Very, very sad, very. Speaker 0: And this, and this, and Lieutenant Curl, this, this does lead into what we started with, which is the war, because all of those things that we're talking about, I mean, this is why we're in the war we're in right now is this kind of influence. Something that I'm, I'm hearing is that the, the plan, which is another one of those crackpot plans, I think that this administration gloms onto is, that they're moving forward with trying to arm the Iraqi Kurds to be used as a front against Iran. Are you hearing anything more about this? What do you know about that wing of the pantomime of the absurd that we're living in? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I don't have any inside information on what we're doing, other than what Trump has told me. personally, through his social postings. Speaker 0: That's right. Speaker 1: He said that we gave a bunch of arms to the Kurds north of Iran and they were supposed to help, but they took the guns. Speaker 0: Classic Kurds. Speaker 1: I don't blame them. Speaker 0: Who wants to go to war for us? Good God. How many times have we screwed the Kurds over? Speaker 1: And Trump probably doesn't remember this because he wasn't president or he was president, but he didn't know. We shafted the Kurds so many times that any self-respecting Kurd, whether they're a separatist Kurd or they're happy to live in Turkey or they're happy to live where they are and they don't want to fight wars, if they are self-respecting, they do not trust the United States of America. They cannot because we have shafted them so many times. Speaker 0: Trump himself shafted them in his first term. That's what I thought. Yeah, remember that. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. So so but he probably didn't see it that way or nobody. Speaker 0: He was just doing the air to want a solid because that's his homie. Speaker 1: You know, there you go. So so they don't trust us. And if we gave him more guns, I would encourage him to hold on to those two. But but I will say, you know, and this is I saw an interview of somebody saying something I've talked about. Other people have, but it's not really well known. And this the woman, I forget her name. Well known. pointed out that it wasn't well-known. And that is what happens to Iraq's oil revenues. So you know where they go, right? Iraq's oil revenues. Speaker 0: Well, I thought part of them are going through the Turkish pipeline and that the Israelis are reaping some of that. Speaker 1: That could be. But the stuff they're selling above the board, like open market sales and not smuggled stuff or side deals. Speaker 0: Why don't you inform the audience? Speaker 1: Well, it is left over from 2003 – George W. Bush executive order, which took all of Iraq's oil when we got rid of Sodom, put it on the dollar, because that was partly why we had to go and hit Sodom the second time because he had gone off the dollar with his oil sales. So we took all the Iraqi oil sales, the state, because it's the state industry, took the state oil sales, put them on, on the dollar and to ensure that they would stay on the dollar and that we would know everything that's happening. They go to New York, to the New York fed. Speaker 0: Oh yeah. You're talking about the national. I thought you were talking about Iraqi Kurdistan. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Speaker 1: No, not Iraqi Kurdistan, but obviously they have some oil that, you know, they're benefiting. Yeah. Speaker 0: Cause Gary Vogler talks about what's going on with Iraqi Kurdistan, but I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off. Keep going. Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, anyways, Maine, not Kurdistan, but, main iraqi oil sales which um now that they're not being bombed you know those those oil sales are are getting bigger not so much going through the straight right now but their cap their capacity and capability is bigger but that money that profit the sales money goes to the new york fed And the New York Fed has an account run by probably Besant or somebody like that who certainly has visibility into it. And then we dole it back to them, which is how we got the current president. Remember, they were going to do Maliki. And Maliki's been the president before, but they didn't like him. He's too close to Iran. So they said, no, you can't. Your parliament cannot choose Maliki. We're not going to let you do that. And they said, we are going to do that. And they said, no, we're not. And finally, they said, you're not getting your oil money if you don't pick the guy we approve. And guess what? They folded and gave the other guy. So... That should not be happening, first off. OK, what sovereignty is that when your state oil sales go to a foreign bank and then that foreign bank writes checks back to you as they see fit? Who would who would agree to that? And plus, this has been in place since 2003, since May of 2003. That's when the executive order was passed and rescinded. OK, so Trump's a thief. But so is every president since George W. Bush. They they well. Speaker 0: Yeah, I would say, really, I think this originated from America's first prime minister, which was Dick Cheney. I think that was all his... Oh, absolutely. Speaker 1: I'm sure Dick Cheney had that one written ready to go, because as soon as they had control of Baghdad, it was the first, going back to the dollar, was the very first executive order they signed after we went in there. And it's never been rescinded or modified. It's not right. We're running a rack, like a like a colonial master in terms of their money. Speaker 0: Not a particularly good colonial master either. I mean, I think the British were probably far more competent at running a colony than the United States ever been. Speaker 1: Oh, for sure. Because I mean, the green zone gets overrun periodically. It's just like, okay, well, you better hide in the basement. But seriously, this is outdated. We're not good at it. As you said, we're not good at it. It's not part of our value system. It's not an American value system. It might be the government's preferred way of doing business, but we don't value it. And we don't respect it. Most Americans don't know we're doing it because when they hear this, they don't understand. Wait a minute. I thought that was all over with. What do you mean this is our relationship with Iraq? Anyway, major oil producer, too. I think it's number three in OPEC. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: Something like that. I mean, it is a major provider. So we leverage that to get our way. It's, again, empire out of control. We don't do it very well. It's failing. But the thing is, maybe some of that money, I could see Trump giving it to the Kurds. I'm sure he, yes, and especially... And he might already be doing that, but I could see them saying, you know, if we need to turn the spigot on, we'll just, they're Iraqis. I mean, they play word games all the time, like the red card thing. Remember the red card Trump got involved with in Fontana? Speaker 0: Yeah, the FIFA thing or the fight game. Speaker 1: He goes, oh, we can just let that start after the next game. We'll have a, or whatever. You can't do that. But this is how Trump thinks. And so he thinks the Kurds, well, maybe we'll turn those guys on. Maybe we didn't give them enough guns. Maybe they wanted more money. Okay, let's switch the account we returned the money to instead of to Baghdad. Let's give it to our Kurdish friends. I could see him doing that. Of course, total disregard for sovereignty, total immorality in how you would manage other people's money. I mean, if you took, honestly, if you manage money like a U.S. government does, Anybody who touched U.S. government money and managed it would all be in jail. The SEC, everybody would be after them. It goes beyond the Ponzi scheme. It's way worse than that. It's like highly developed fraud. Speaker 0: It's highly developed fraud is exactly what it is. Speaker 1: A little guy or a guy with just $100 million to his name, just that kind of little guy, he'll go to jail for that. but our president can play these games. And I think it, I think people are getting a glimpse of it. Speaker 0: If Trump had done this when he was running the Trump organization, he'd be in prison right now, but because he's the president of the United States of America, it's okay. It's, it's all acceptable. Speaker 1: He may still end up. Speaker 0: I mean, this is, I think that might be why he doesn't want to leave. Speaker 1: Yeah. But you know, he's, he is behaving in a way that is illegal. I mean, we, and you know, I honestly did think Biden was, was a crooked piece of crap. I honestly thought Biden was bad compared to what he's doing now. That's right. And I thought his little cokehead son was a problem. And now, and now I see Trump and all the Trump juniors, whoever they are, his sons, his family members, his Kushner. I mean, Jared Kushner by himself is an icon of corruption. It's just crazy. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and, and, and that, and you know, I, I'm watching the Iraqi situation very closely because it, I think that thing is going to pop open real soon. And I think that Trump has it in his head that he can get the Kurds to do this. And then also another sort of backdoor way for escalation. What are you hearing about this, this so-called plan that Trump sort of let out about using Jelani to In Syria to be fair. And I said this to Mario last week. I said, look, this wouldn't be the first time Jelani has allowed himself to be used as a shock troop by the U S and whoever else against, you know, one of our common enemies. Are you hearing anything serious about the HTS elements being deployed into Southern Lebanon to go fight Hezbollah on behalf of. Speaker 1: I, I don't have any special contacts that tell me. Okay. but except Jelani says that he doesn't want to do that. But, um, you know, the, it looks like the band's getting back together. Speaker 0: It does. Speaker 1: It gets back together. They're going to do concerts, you know, and people will show up. So this, yeah, I, I think it's very dangerous. And, and I will say too, um, I, I mean, Jelani, obviously his history speaks for itself. You know, the guy is, uh, uh, Well, there was a reason he had $10 million on his head, and it shouldn't have been taken off, most likely. Speaker 0: Now he's playing basketball with CENTCOM's commander. I know. I know. Speaker 1: And then, you know, you could say, well, does that reflect our own corruption? Or has Jelani left it behind? And I don't think he has left it behind because of the way he's governed Syria so far. He has been brutal. And they, you know, the issue of... Assad, you know, Assad kills, does this and that. But Assad was an ophthalmologist and he was not that brutal. He might not have been the best manager of his military, but he was not brutal. This guy knows how to kill and he has no qualms about it. I don't know what his religion is because I'm not, I think a guy that murders that much is not probably putting God first in their life. You know, I don't care if he prays five times a day. Speaker 0: Definition of God. That's right. Speaker 1: So, so he, but he's brutal and he is, Very transactional. I mean, the way he dresses tells you everything. Speaker 0: He's pulling an air fat, right? I mean, it's, you know, now he's suddenly wearing the $3,000 suits and whatnot. Speaker 1: He is a way smarter criminal than Zelensky. Speaker 0: Oh, for sure. Speaker 1: Because Zelensky's a smart criminal. He's enriched himself. Speaker 0: But Zelensky... Zelensky's also a hostage too, though, I think. Is he? I think Zelensky's also a hostage of the Banderites. who will kill him and his family if he gets out of line. Well, he's useful, right? I mean, look, hey, you know, he's, you know, can you call him a Nazi? As in he descended from Jews, you know, Jewish Ukrainians. So it's harder, you know, he gets along better with Western leaders, I think, than the Banderites would. The Banderites are nuts. They're Nazis, you know, I mean, they're literal Nazis. I don't mean to distract you, but please continue. Speaker 1: The Polish people are like, had it. They've had it. The Polish government said, what are you doing? Speaker 0: I think he put out, I think one of those Ukrainian kill lists was updated to include this Polish MP, the woman who led the movement to revoke that title to Zelensky because of the whole Nazi thing. Speaker 1: Is this the Markovits one or whatever? Speaker 0: Yeah, I think so. It was a woman. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: Brunette woman. I don't I don't know. Yeah. But this morning I read that. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: So, you know, with friends like that, I mean, but this is, you know, this is the world we're living in now. And these are the people that we're supposedly trusting to do our bidding. That's scary. Speaker 1: It is. And it's also a sign of weakness that we can't get better. You know, and I think about the NATO suck up fest they had. Yes. A couple of days ago in Ankara. I guess Istanbul, wherever it was. Yeah. The NATO leadership, you know, very weak, very... Speaker 0: They're poodles. They're pet poodles. Speaker 1: They're pet poodles. Except the poodles is one of the smartest dog breeds. And so I wouldn't call them poodles. They're like the pugs. They're like pugs. Pugs are very smart. So they're more like pugs than poodles. Or maybe they have a poodle body with a poodle face. But these guys are useless to their own countries. They're useless to the defense of their own countries. They're useless to the advancement of NATO. They have no sense whatsoever of strategic balance. They don't understand anything that you would expect NATO leaders who are speaking for a military organization of that stature... that is just terrible. And NATO has big problems. I mean, massive, massive problems. They're not solving any of those. They got the same problem we do in our acquisition system. Speaker 0: You know, we, we have, well, they're modeled on us. I mean, this is, they're replicating our worst. Speaker 1: Nobody's got a paradigm change. Nobody can, you know, they see drone swarms from other countries and they go, what do we do? And they see the China, Chinese producing literally, you know, hundreds and hundreds of ships that are more capable than any ship we have. And certainly any ship that NATO has, because they command so few ships. But they can't get out of their box. They can't figure it out. So those friends are useless. The most psychophantic ones are the most useless. And yet Trump seems to like them. And then you look at our friends in the Middle East. Of course, Israel, not a friend. Not sure who pulls whose chain. Maybe we take turns. I don't know. But If you look at our Arab friends, you know, we're friends with all these kingdoms, these autocrats who are hanging on to power in some of the Gulf states because of past history. We've got, you know, I think I know I'm not going to pick on Lebanon, but the elected leader or the parliamentary, you know, President Ayoun of Lebanon. What a, I mean, seriously, the guy, you know, total puppet of US, total puppet of Israel, totally out of touch with his people. Maybe he's got rich friends. Maybe he's rich. I don't know. I don't understand him. Speaker 0: Do you buy that the Lebanese people are generally turning against Hezbollah or do you think that is that? Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think so. Look, look, here's the thing. It would be nice in a perfect world that if you had militias and or a defense organization that was not from the state, it was not your state. You know, you had an army. It wasn't very good. Wasn't very well led. one didn't have much to say for itself. And then you had these guys running around that were actually fighting and they're pretty scary. And you're a little bit scared of them because obviously if they're next door and somebody hits them, you could get, okay. So there's, there's anxiety on, on both parts of this, but after what Israel does, who fights, who defense, who responds, who channels your personal rage as a, your anxiety, your disgust and, as an individual Lebanese person or as a Lebanese family who lost somebody because Israel decided, oh, I'm going to blow you up because you need to be taught a lesson or I don't like the depth of my security barrier. And I think you all are a bunch of useless things anyway. You're animals. Speaker 0: You're in the way. Speaker 1: You're in the way. And so when those shots are fired, when those incidents happen and people individually lose something, well, a million of them lost their houses. So, you know, a house is something, right? An apartment, a place that you have stuff in. That's all blown up now. And then you say to your state, your government, President Ayun, tell our generals to make this go away. We want to go back and rebuild or we want to go get my stuff out of my house. And I'd like my kids to be brought back to life. But I guess you can't do that. But do something. And he does nothing. And Hezbollah does something. It clears day where they're going to side. And also. I don't know what the demographics really are in Lebanon. I mean, there's, it's a complicated thing, but I think the young people would be far more likely to want to get involved with Hezbollah than they would getting involved with the Lebanese army. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: It doesn't have, it's just like a, it's kind of like what we're talking about with headset. You know, he came in and he said, the military is fat, which is so funny. He brings all the generals in, you know, and a target reach environment. I'm sure he brings him in. And he says, you're too fat. You're lazy. You can't run a mile. Well, you know, he didn't respect him. But Hentz had a point. He said people don't want to be, a lot of parents don't want their kids to go in a military that is filled with DEI, that is strange. If you get your people from conservative parts of the United States, you want to send your kid into an organization that you as a parent respect. Well, if the parent doesn't respect it, they're not going to let their kid go in it. And then the kid goes in it and says, well, I want to be stronger and better. And they go, well, you can't be better than her and you can't be better than her and him or whoever it is because you might hurt their feelings. Well, there's no place for that in the military. I mean, you need to. It's just like, well, it's like professional sports or any other type of sport. You know, it's I'm sorry, you can't be a first. You're not going to be on team one. If we're winning by three points, then we'll put you in the second half late, the second half late five minutes. Even little kids understand that. So you have to perform. So in the military, kids come in and want to perform, and it has to change. Hedges was right about that, in a sense. It was poor recruiting to have a DEI military filled with, I should say, fat people, because they're obviously not fat, but you know, he's kind of making a point. We need to have a fit military and kids, parents, everybody wants to be in a fit military. Nobody wants to join the fat military, the fat sloppy military that can't win a war. And again, Hedgeseth cannot fix this because we can't win a war. That's also the other big problem, which is why people don't want to go in. But anyway, I think Hezbollah is playing that recruitment game far better just by being competent, just by getting their hits in against a major power. And the Lebanese military isn't doing that. Anyway, I don't know. Speaker 0: So I actually, I want to follow up because, you know, something that I've been banging on about is, objectively speaking, whether you are, you know, pro-Israel or not, the Israeli Defense Force, contrary to what their propaganda is saying, the Israeli Defense Force has struggled in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah. Is that what you're seeing too? Speaker 1: They're struggling in Gaza. Speaker 0: Well, of course they struggle in Gaza as well. Speaker 1: Nobody's shooting at him in Gaza. Well, yeah, right. There's major, major problems with that. First, you know, I go back to, oh, who was, I can't remember his name. He's running for Congress in North Carolina. He worked for the... He he's retired army guy, special forces. And he took a job with the Gaza foundation. Speaker 0: Oh yeah. Was it? Yeah. Speaker 1: So Colonel Aguilar, Tony Aguilar. When he first, the very first thing he wrote or said interviews when he left that organization beyond telling the story of, of the kid that I heard that one, but he also said he, that the, Things could be done better because he was brought in and they were herding them down through these channels and then shooting them and doing weird stuff. And he said the IDF is poorly trained. He said the IDF is poorly led. And that caught my eye because, you know, that's not what we hear. We say, oh, they're great. You know, they're wonderful. World's best military and the most moral military. Of course, we knew that wasn't true. Speaker 0: Only Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin believe that. Speaker 1: Yeah. It's nuts. But the fact that he noticed that they were poorly trained, and then it makes sense. You think about the youth. It's a mandatory service. It's like anything. You know, it's almost like college. So many people go to college in the United States that it became a rite of passage rather than something you would just do to pursue an interest and get a job and whatever. It's something, well, you got to go to college. You don't know what you're going to do, but go to college. You'll figure it out. And college became... a place where nobody learned anything, pretty much. I mean, our U.S. colleges are not what the universities in America are. They're horrible. We lost our reputation there. And that's kind of the military when you draft every kid and women, men and women, everybody has to serve in the IDF in some capacity for two or three years. It becomes something, well, you just got to do it, you know, so let's make the best of it. So if that means I need to party, I need to have a good time, just get through, keep my head down or do whatever I want. Maybe I'll like it. Maybe I want to stay in, whatever. That is not a winning military. That's a camp. That's a frickin summer camp. OK, it's not going to do it. But that's what they have created for themselves with their idea of with the government, you know, the idea of security. Everybody has to be trained. But they forgot, you know, they forgot to maybe check it along the way to see, are we training? What are we accomplishing? And so now they're fighting on seven fronts. Obviously, Gaza is a shooting fish in a barrel, targeting kids, taking turns having fun with the degradation that is Gaza. So that's got to disturb some of them. The more sane among the IDF are disturbed by that. Then you've got Hezbollah, which are kicking their butts. You've got Yemen, which they have a tough time with the Houthis. Speaker 0: They've given up on the Houthis. It sounds like they've given up trying to like we did, like we did. Speaker 1: And then you have Iran, which clearly can get through their, their iron dome, which is antique really at this, at this stage. So people feel vulnerable. They feel like they're not getting security. Then they talk to their kids in the military and they're going, well, how did that help us? And then the suicide rate's high. Alcohol abuse rate is high. They say people are coming back from tours, IDF tours, where they're smacking people around. Maybe they're serving in the torture prisons that they have. And they're treating people really badly. And then they come home and they treat their wife and kids badly. And they go, well, why are you yelling at me? Why are you pushing me around? I'm not. So it's a societal problem because everybody has to go in the military. Speaker 0: Well, and it sounds like the the. Post-1968 U.S. Army that was full of draftees, and by that point in the Vietnam War, that contingent that was there at the beginning was getting out, and they were handing it off to people who did not want to be there. And that's what it sounds a lot like to me. Speaker 1: That's right. And this is why we'll never have a draft in this country, not anytime soon. Speaker 0: Well, I don't know. Caroline Leavitt keeps bringing it up every time. Speaker 1: Her kids will be 18 and 20 when they get a draft, the one she just had. It's going to be that, and I don't think they'll get it then because can you imagine being a training officer or a sergeant or NCO or an officer leading a bunch of 18-year-olds that came out of high school able to read at the fourth grade level, maybe, addicted to their phones to the point that You can't break that addiction. We don't even know how to. And then you try to reform them in your image. You shave their heads and make them run laps. That's not going to work. Half of them are going to die. Speaker 0: I mean, the rot is too deep. Speaker 1: Yes. And and we have raised multiple generations, not just one, but multiple generations where their needs come first. Their wishes are our commands. You know, that's not raising people to serve in a military. The way you get people to serve in a military is they have a motivation because probably they've been attacked. Well, we haven't been attacked. Speaker 0: So all we do is- We're the attackers. Speaker 1: We're the attackers, that's right. And so, but we haven't been attacked. And if we're not attacked, it's good, peace. We don't, people don't need to be warriors all the time, but that warrior spirit can be stimulated under the right, you know, circumstances. say you're in danger and you have to defend your family or whatever but uh we're fighting overseas they're talking about raising a draft what so we can go do something to somebody else that we don't even know that is very unpopular i mean the iraq the iran war none of these have been super popular but the iran war usually after the firing starts and the beginning you know 27th of february and we got hit hard actually they lied about how the damages were but people knew and um you know, we, we were, uh, usually those words get popular. They go, Oh my God, they, they, they shot American. They blew up on AWACS. We all saw the pictures. We're like, Oh, I mean, military people like, Holy crap. I'd never seen that before. But America is like, dude, put it in the wrong place. We're not, that doesn't support your war anymore. And they didn't, the war's more unpopular today than it was. Um, and Trump is so unfair. Speaker 0: out of touch, you know, with, Oh, he's completely, he's done. I mean, politically it's over whatever the Republicans are clinging on to, unless they've got some secret rigging plan for the election. It's, it's over, um, in our last minute or two, cause I know we got to move on. Cause I know Mario's going to be doing the next show in our next, in our last minute, based on everything you're seeing, um, what do you think, where do you think this is going with Iran? Do you think ultimately we're going to deescalate or do you think Trump is like, uh, you know, is he captain Queeg? Somebody stolen his strawberries and he's not going to drop it. Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I mean, he is like, I think we get a little bit, but, um, but not, I think, I don't think we have the staying power. Um, I think, I don't think we've had any chance to, uh, rebuild or replenish our stocks. I think they are low. Most people are, most of the people that look at the numbers of weapons we have remaining, they're low. Uh, our people are worn out. I mean, these same ships, I think the Lincoln's been over there for quite a while. We've got, we've got two years of repairs on the Gerald Ford just because it's going to be longer than that because the shipyards can't keep the shipyards can't keep up. Oh my gosh. See, so, so we don't have the capability. So I think he's messing with them. I think he's mad that big crowds showed up for common day. I think he's mad that the, uh, Iranians are respected around the world. He's not, he's, he's a laughing stock increasingly. I think he senses that he doesn't like it. Um, he needs a diversion. Epstein's still out there. There was something else that came up. Uh, uh, there's something else in the, the, the, was really, he was ordered to release something that president Trump. Speaker 0: Oh, I thought it was the Seth rich thing, but they're not doing that. Yeah. Speaker 1: But there's all kinds of things, you know, the, the, a lot of these cases are rolling slowly. Um, none of it looks good for Trump or the establishment in any case. So I think he's going to, I don't think we have staying power. So I think it will go back to some sort of a MOU and, and Trump is so not believed anymore. You know, he goes from morning, noon and night back and forth, says this and that I hate the MOU, they're scum. And then he goes, Oh, they're very good people. What are you talking about? Which what's true here? So I don't think we have the staying power. I think if we had the capability to, To do it, that's fine. And I don't think Trump wants to go nuclear. So I think Israel does. That's my only concern. Israel would love it. They're debating. Speaker 0: They've got nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on those dolphin-class subs. And they're tipping off the coast of the world. Speaker 1: And they have a very different view of what's moral. And they love to have chaos. Chaos is an opportunity for them. They plan for chaos. They love it. They create it. they get us to create it for them, which we happy to do. So, but I don't think we ourselves have staying power. And, you know, I honestly, I still harbor the thought that Netanyahu's visit to Trump will either not happen, be delayed, or he'll come and Trump will treat him like scum. Speaking of scum. Speaker 0: We will see. We will see. We'll see. Speaker 1: I'm looking to see how that goes, but yeah, I, I, I'm not happy that it went hot again, but I think, I just don't think we have staying power. And I know that Iran does. Speaker 0: Well, this is what I keep hearing, but I keep saying, I don't think this is a rational act anymore, but we'll see. Chaz Freeman calls this a ceasefire with Israeli characteristics. So, so, On that note, I'm going to have to end it here. Colonel, it was wonderful meeting you. Thanks for being my first guest. Maybe they'll have me back. I don't know. Mario is taking over in like a minute. So I will let you go. I follow you on, do you have a Twitter? Speaker 1: Substack. I do have a Twitter. I don't tweet out that much. It's just Karen Katowski, substack.com. I think something like that. It's easy to find. Speaker 0: Everybody should give her a subscribe. Thank you so much. And we'll meet again. I'm Brandon Weikert. Check me out at the Weikert Brief on Substack. That's where all of my stuff's going up now. And 1945.com as well. So thank you very much.
MarioNawfal
Posted - July 9, 2026 at 10:14 PM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:37 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I reached for the precedent within minutes: after losing World War One, Turkey still kept the straits, then just raised Bosphorus fees 15 percent with no debate. Iran, I say flatly, keeps the Gulf the same way—no negotiation over tolls or anything, no document ends it until the last missile flies or the bond market breaks.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🇮🇷 🇹🇷 Turkey lost World War One and still kept control of the straits. The same history may be writing itself in the Persian Gulf Douglas Macgregor reached for that precedent within minutes. The Turks held the Dardanelles after defeat, just raised Bosphorus fees 15 PERCENT, and nobody debates it. Iran, he says flatly, keeps the Gulf the same way, and there will be no negotiation over tolls. His harder claim: no negotiation over anything. Nobody signs a document ending this. It runs until the last missile flies or the bond market breaks, and the experts he trusts call 5 percent on the ten-year financial Armageddon. It's climbing. Great powers, he reminded me, always end this way. Romans in Britain, the British everywhere: everything mortgaged to vanity, then gone overnight because staying became unaffordable. On tonight's mystery blasts, reported across Iran's coast then DENIED by everyone, he offered a rule from 1991, when his green troops mistook A-10 chaff for a bombardment: the first report is always wrong. And the thread nobody's watching: he reads the F-35 offer to Erdogan as payment to keep Turkey out of this war, while Smotrich publicly talks of preparing for military action against Ankara. @DougAMacgregor

Video Transcript AI Summary
Reports of explosions in Iran began about an hour after the discussion started, with Iranian media citing strikes in Shabahar, Bandar Abbas, Qanarak, Ahvaz, and Bashir—locations reported struck in the previous two rounds. Early speculation treated the events as “wave three” of American strikes against Iran. An Axios report said the US was not striking Iran, shifting speculation toward Israel. The speakers said that if it were Israel, evidence like cruise missiles and reports of Israeli fighter jets would usually appear, but Israeli media also said it was not Israel. That left speculation about Gulf actors, with Bahrain and Kuwait seen as the remaining possibilities after noting Saudi was reportedly attacked and the UAE was not. The speakers described a further turn: in the minutes before they discussed it, Iranian media began denying that the reported explosions across those cities were true, creating confusion about whether the Gulf attacked or whether air defenses were active. One speaker said there were no reports of ship missiles launching from Iran, while another said air defenses were active and that Iranian media “jumped to conclusions” because everyone was on edge. They acknowledged they lacked conclusive information and were relying on scattered reports. They asked whether it would be surprising if a Gulf country participated in an attack on Iran, with the response emphasizing that such participation would be very surprising, and expressing that it made little sense for tiny states like Bahrain or Kuwait to initiate action that could invite retaliation. The speakers also contrasted this with Qatar, which they said had not been struck by Iran (except for what was described as a single warning shot yesterday). A new Iranian-media claim (IRNA, citing a deputy political and security governor) reported that an Iranian military headquarters on the outskirts of Bashir was hit by a “projectile from the American Zionist enemy,” with no casualties. The speakers discussed the uncertainty of the term “projectile” and offered a war anecdote about a mistaken assumption that friendly equipment effects (chaff) meant soldiers were being attacked. They concluded that early battlefield reports are often wrong and that multiple parties involved (Saudi/UAE, Iran, the US, Israel, the Houthis) make interpretation especially confusing. Switching to a different subject, they discussed a US truck strike on the Akkala Khan Railway Bridge in Golestan (near the Turkmenistan border), describing it as a node connecting China’s Xi’an to Tehran along Belt and Road routes running through Iran. One speaker suggested it appeared to be a warning shot and tied it to broader Belt and Road significance in Eurasia, arguing it was meant to signal to Iran and potentially to China that Washington could isolate Iran. The other speaker connected it to historical precedent, including the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway and British concerns before World War I, and relayed speculation that the strike signaled threats to US hegemony and might also relate to possible delivery of air defense batteries via the railway. On escalation over the prior 48 hours, one speaker said Iran attacked three ships passing the Omani side, after which the US “went ballistic.” They cited claims that the US attacked 14 times as much as in previous retaliation cycles and framed two schools of thought: the ceasefire/MOUs being dead and war continuing, or a long power struggle to control the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran purportedly maintaining control rather than escalating broadly. Another speaker said Iran appeared to be on a full war footing and argued that the US was not mobilized similarly, noting a US Navy admission of having more missile launchers/tubes than available missiles. They said the US lacks a coherent military-political strategy and asked what the objective is if regime change is not the goal, while asserting that Israel’s objective is the destruction of Iran. They also discussed economic and political constraints, including oil, inflation, strategic petroleum reserve replenishment, interest rates, and the bond market. One speaker said Iranian armed forces entered the highest state of alert and moved to wartime conditions, including reports of special forces moving to Iraqi Kurdistan to worry about infiltration. Another claimed that tanker trackers showed Tehran shipped out 10 million barrels of crude oil and fuel overnight in preparation for possible blockade or continued war. The speakers cited Axios reporting that the White House braced for a weeks-long fight with Iran. They considered whether the US was using a “carrot and stick” approach—unfreezing assets and easing sanctions in exchange for Iran not charging tolls in the Strait of Hormuz—while Iran refused to yield. The discussion then expanded to Turkey and Israel. They said Trump and Netanyahu coordinated closely on regional issues, and that Netanyahu raised Erdogan’s “increasingly hostile rhetoric” toward Israel and the importance of Israeli security zones. They recounted Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich’s statements that Israel must prepare for every scenario involving military action against Turkey and that Erdogan is a significant threat to Israel. They also said Trump praised Erdogan and considered approving F-35 sales to Turkey despite Netanyahu’s opposition. One speaker suggested this was effectively a bribe aimed at keeping Turkey on the sidelines and claimed Erdogan would later face pressures to act. The other speaker described a worrying theory that Trump might condition F-35s on Erdogan convincing Syria’s al-Shara to fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, though they said this idea seemed unlikely and that Syria’s situation would make such an action difficult. Finally, they discussed the broader pattern of US commitments and great-power decline, arguing financial/economic pressures would ultimately limit escalation. They also debated US policy toward Ukraine, describing Trump’s support for deeper strikes into Russia and licensing Patriot missiles to Ukraine, while arguing the timelines and Russian retaliation could undermine the effect. The conversation concluded with reflections comparing US and Russian/Chinese diplomatic behavior as professional and interest-focused, then ended with thanks and farewell.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: It started off about an hour ago. Yeah, exactly an hour ago. So we got reports of explosions in Iran. Immediately, all of us assumed it's wave three of the American attacks. Iranian media was reporting explosions and strikes in Shabahar, Bandar Abbas, Qanarak, Ahvaz, Bashir. Sorry, Ahvaz, Bashir. So the same places that were struck the last two times. So everyone immediately assumed it was the Americans on the third round of strikes, the third wave. also cash in Syria, just all the same places. And then Axios put out a report saying no, the US is not striking Iran. So everyone's like, Alright, that must be Israel. But usually, if it's Israel, you'd see the cruise missiles, like we saw before, you'd get all sent reporting, the fighter jets, the Israeli fighter jets. And then you got Israeli media saying it's not Israel. So then who's left? It's the Gulf. It's not going to be the UAE won't be them because they weren't attacked. Saudi was an attack, so it only left Bahrain and Kuwait. And then Israeli media started claiming that Bahrain and Kuwait were behind the attack. And then, so that's what everyone was speculating. Bahrain and Kuwait was trying to create deterrence by striking Iran, saying, look, this is between you and the U.S. Stop striking U.S. bases in our country. And then in the last few minutes, as you were coming on, Iranian media started denying the report, saying, no, the reports of explosions in all these cities we reported in the last hour are all untrue. So I don't know. I told you it's going to be confusing. I don't know whether the Gulf did attack Iran. Some Gulf countries, maybe Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran didn't want to escalate. So they didn't want to make a big deal out of it. I don't know whether the air defenses were active or maybe And the ship missiles launched from Iran, but there's no reports of that. But air defenses were active and the Iranian media jumped to conclusions because everyone's on edge. So I don't really have anything conclusive for you, Colonel, that we can go off, but except these scattered information from different sources. But maybe I can start with this question. Would you be surprised if any Gulf country participated in an attack on Iran today? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Very definitely. The only thing that sprung to my mind it seems like a remote possibility, but that an Israeli strike was flown from a position along the Gulf. You know, that's not impossible, but it doesn't sound as though we have any real clarity. And there's confusion as to whether or not anything really happened. So, you know, but the last thing I would do if I were in Qatar right now or Bahrain is launch a strike against Iran. What's to stop Iran from flattening the place? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Speaker 1: I agree, especially Bahrain, tiny little Bahrain or Kuwait. I would be surprised if Qatar participated in it because Qatar was not struck by Iran, except it seems one strike yesterday, one missile, more of a warning shot. There was one new report that just came in now, according to Iranian media, a military headquarters, Iranian military headquarters on the outskirts of Bashir was hit by a projectile from the American Zionist enemy, according to IRNA, so Iranian media, citing the deputy political and security governor, of Bashir. The deputy says the attack resulted in no casualties. So that might have been a very, you know, the air defense is a touch on everyone's on edge responding to that little attack. But I would agree with you as well. I understand Bahrain and Kuwait would want to maybe consider building deterrence, but they're too small to build deterrence, like a chihuahua barking at a lion. Speaker 0: Exactly. Doesn't make any sense. I also don't know what to make of the word projectile. uh you know what is this a lawn dark you know thrown from a ship or something i don't know it doesn't make any sense but you know these things happen in war you know when i was in 91 this is actually before we had begun the offensive on the ground we had some soldiers troops that were very far forward right on the border with saudi arabia and of course you have to understand that these soldiers had never seen combat they were all green at this point So everything was fascinating and interesting and scary. And we got this report. I was awakened at, I think, something like 2 in the morning. Sir, we have a report that so-and-so in G Troop is under bombardment. So, you know, I got up. I said, all right, let's go there and find out. Walked over to the Tactical Operations Center, this vehicle that we'd set up. I walked in there and said, what's going on? so-and-so report such and such. I said, did this come through the exec? No, no, no. Who the hell sent this report? So get them on the phone. So who's sending this report up and what do they say? They said the report they said, sir, where we have air to ground bombs at our location. What the hell else are there other than air to ground bombs? And I mean, are we, do we have any gravity bombs and people are throwing things into the air? This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. So then I said, wait a minute. Get somebody else over there. Go up there. Find out what the hell's going on. Call me back. Well, it turned out they were watching A-10s. They were flying over us. We had an A-10 squadron that ultimately flew over us for much of our offensive. And they, as they were pulling out, they were engaged by so many aircraft weapons or missiles. And so they had chaff that came out that looked like fireworks. And the chaff was designed to divert the missile. But these soldiers had never seen that before, and so they were convinced the chaff was meant for them and that they were under attack. So, you know, anything is possible in war. And the first report you get is always wrong. Just remember that. Speaker 1: Especially with... With so many parties involved in this war, you've got, remember we had the reports earlier of Saudi and the UAE attacking Iran during the war. You've got Iran striking the Gulf. You've got the US and Iran being the two main players. You've got Israel jumping in whenever necessary. Then you've got the Houthis that might pop in here and there. So there is a lot of parties involved in this war. It makes it very confusing. How about those Balookis? Exactly, exactly. You saw the strike. Did you see the strike on the railway yesterday? Have you had a chance to look at that? Speaker 0: Are you talking about the one that connects to the Chinese and the Russians? Speaker 1: Yeah, the one next to the Turkmenistan border. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: That's interesting. Speaker 0: To me, that's very significant. Speaker 1: That's worth talking about. Exactly. Well, I did save it to mention it to you. So the U.S. truck hit the Akteke Khan Railway Bridge in Golestan. So that's a bridge. It's the node connecting Xi'an to Tehran, so Xi'an in China. in 10 to 15 days over land, China's Belt and Road running straight through Iran. So it's, Lisa, if you can, oh, Stephanie now, the producer. Stephanie, I don't know if you can find the images. Lisa had them earlier to show them for the audience. But that was a railway line in Akkala that, you know, very close to Turkmenistan. But I don't know where it was attacked from. And also the damage is not that significant. So it seems more of a warning shot by the Americans. But it's... Speaker 0: it's interesting it's very different to everything else we've seen I'd love to get your thoughts on it well it's interesting to see the photographs I did not have the photographs when I received the report and the report said that they thought they would have this repaired in 24 hours now maybe that's possible but looking at the damage it looks like it may take a little longer than that and this of course also highlights something else that the Belton Road which is enormously important to everybody in Eurasia uh is new is is new and not all of the rail lines are completed and there has been some discussion and debate about where you can send the rail lines the chinese would like to have sent rail lines down through pakistan in greater numbers and greater volume that hasn't happened because the chinese are not confident of security along the railways now that may change But this one is important because it tells me that someone in Washington said, well, we'll do some damage to this and try to signal that we can isolate Iran. And also as a message to the Chinese, since we tend to treat the Belt and Road as a threat to us. I don't subscribe to that view, but then again, I'm not a China threat hawk. but I see the Belt and Road as the alternative to the United States Navy, which does represent a serious threat to China. We can shut down the whole Chinese coastline with our submarine fleet. Chinese know that. They've been through this before. Remember the Imperial Japanese Navy before the Imperial Japanese Navy, the Royal Navy. So they don't want to be cut off. And so it becomes very important to build these overland routes. Now, as you can see from what you're showing up there right now, This is not going to change the game fundamentally. They'll repair the railway, and I think you'll see redundant railways show up in the near future. There are other ways to get into Iran as well across the Caspian. So it's not a strategic game changer, but I think you're making a valid point. It's a pretty serious message. I don't think it's a smart thing to do. I don't think it's going to change anything of consequence. But I think that there are people in the White House that probably thought in those terms. We've been down this road before. Well, hit so-and-so out there, that'll signal to them. You know, we did this sort of thing in Vietnam along the border with China. We did it during the Korean War along the border with China. You know, it didn't make any difference. Speaker 1: Yeah, it is interesting. Like, I looked at it as a warning, but I'm, like, warning of what exactly? Like... what does it really signal? One of my guests who's part of the Belt and Road Institute and he's been studying this for decades. He was on earlier today for the first time on the show and he was explaining to me how how significant this is, how this is a threat to US hegemony. And you've studied history and you always reference history, Colonel. He started referencing how the corridors that were being built, I think, from Russia to the Ottoman Empire were seen as a threat by the British Empire before World War One. And that played a role in what eventually led to World War One. So that shows the significance of this Belt and Road Initiative by China as a threat, or at least the US would perceive it as a threat to the hegemony and the hegemony in the region. mentioned a quote, he said this quote always stuck with him, a quote by Biden in 2022. He went to Saudi at the time in Riyadh in July 2022, so it's before October 7th, and he said during the Ukraine war, he said, we will not leave a vacuum in this region, the Gulf, to be filled by Russia and China. So that was a statement that Biden made. So he referenced that statement as what this strike on the railway could include is the Americans sending a warning to Iran, another country's part of the initiative. So that's some of my speculation or his speculation. Speaker 0: Well, the railway that you referred to before the First World War was the Berlin to Baghdad Railway. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: And that was taken as a threat by the British Empire who wanted a monopoly of control over the sea lanes. And they also didn't want oil and anything else for that matter of significance transported over land. They wanted to make sure that whatever was moved out of the Middle East, particularly with oil, would be at the mercy of the Royal Navy. And the Kaiser, you know, who wasted a lot of money trying to build a German surface fleet, did have some strategic thinkers. And they said, look, we don't need a big fleet. You know, we don't need, frankly, Bismarck was always opposed to colonies. So the Berlin to Baghdad railway came up and that of course ran through the Ottoman Empire of which Baghdad and Iraq, most of Northern Iraq, in fact, all of Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire at that stage. This time around, I don't think it's quite that significant. And I think there are people in Washington, as I said before, who are hopeful that this will be significant. In other words, they hope this frightens the Chinese or the Russians or something. It won't. It won't make any damn difference at all. We don't live in 1910. We're in a very different world today. And you have all of these countries and states across Central Asia who have an interest in participating in this. Belt and Road Project. They all stand to profit in some way. It's kind of an annoyance for the Chinese. We could do it much more easily across North America because we all speak the same language. We all have one law from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I wish we would do something similar to what the Chinese have done in Eurasia on the North American continent. I've written about that. I published about that. It's on my website. People can see it. It's called the Golden Spike Program. And it basically goes back to our railroad connectivity across the continent. So bottom line is, yes, that was the one strike that popped out when I looked at the list as being significant. I know no doubt they'll repair it. It's not going to dampen Chinese enthusiasm for supporting Iran. Come on, wake up. They have a very good relationship with the Iranians on the basis of the petroleum. and a number of other products. So do the Indians. So the notion that you're going to do something like this, and this is going to warn everybody that things can get worse, it's not going to help our position at all. But there are some, we have a sort of late 20th century military establishment, and we have an early 20th century thinking establishment, if you want to dignify it with that word in Washington, D.C. That's our problem. Speaker 1: Yeah, and also it could be, there might be some intelligence that we obviously don't know about. Maybe some, the Americans know some air defense batteries are being delivered through that railway in the next couple of days or on their way, and they struck it as a warning for the Chinese or for Iran not to import them. I'm just saying there could be more to it as well than something. Speaker 0: Air and missile defense capability and radars and so forth, even missiles themselves have been flown in by the Chinese. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 1: A very important one. Speaker 0: airlift on the scale of only something that we historically have been able to do chinese can do it now so i you know the point the bottom line is somebody's trying to say something about the chinese or to the chinese in connection with iran we got that it's not going to change anything that's my point yeah um since we're talking about the strikes and there's no information on the strikes today everything's quiet now on the explosions we heard earlier Speaker 1: It's just very bizarre. Very, very bizarre. I'm sure we'll get reports of it. Similar to the attacks by Saudi and the UAE, we only got reports about it weeks later after the ceasefire. We'll probably hear about this in a few days. We'll start hearing leaks come out. But I haven't asked you yet your thoughts on the escalations in the last 48 hours. So you had Iran attack those three ships going through the Omani side and the US just went ballistic. They've attacked the last two days it was 14 times the level of attacks we saw the last two times they retaliated against the strikes on the uh on the um the iran on the and the ships going through the omani side so the iranian strikes beforehand in the last couple of weeks so it's significantly more according to the new york times about 14 times more um there's kind of two schools of thought here one of them is the ceasefire that is or the mou's dead as trump has said and this is the beginning of a continuation of the war and the other one which i'm in that camp at least for now is that this is just the two sides, a bit of a power struggle between the both. Iran saying, we're going to control the Strait of Homs, and the U.S. trying to break that, trying everything they can to break that. And the Iranians' retaliation kind of confirms that, because they're not escalating. They're like, we're going to strike Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan, and keep our control of the Strait of Homs. And today, the ships are going through the Iranian side, so they seem to be playing the long game there. What's your analysis of this escalation, and how worrying is it? Speaker 0: I think perhaps the first observation is that Iran has gone to a full war footing. In other words, they are now mobilized for war, total war against us. Are we mobilized for total war against them? No. We have a fraction of our military capability. Now, most of the fleet is currently involved in this. And there's something interesting that should be brought up and that is that the United States Navy is now officially admitted that they have more launchers and more launch tubes for missiles than they have missiles to fire so what are we doing I don't know but I suspect that we're pulling assets missiles from other locations other theaters and concentrating them in the Indian Ocean and potentially the Mediterranean But I think that's an important point to keep in mind. Iran is in a total war mode, full war footing. Russia is very close to a full war footing and could go to a total war mobilization state very rapidly. Both of them are mobilizing their scientific industrial base, their population, everything. We are not. And Trump has failed miserably to extract more performance from our so-called five major defense industries. So I guess, I think it's an important observation because the most important question is not what are we doing because I can tell you we don't know what we're doing. We have no coherent military strategy because we have no attainable military political objective. We're back to the problem we began with. We have 93 million people living in an area the size of Western Europe, surrounded on three sides by mountains, and on one side by impassable desert. Everything of real importance is a long, long flight for U.S. aircraft or for missiles. So what are we trying to achieve? We've given up on regime change, you know. We've decided that the most that we can do is insult and offend the people of Iran and everyone who happens to be a Shiite Muslim by attacking during the funeral of the leader of Shia Islam who is being laid to rest near Mashhad, right? Dumb idea. We should have waited. We should have demonstrated some sort of sensitivity. Instead, we chose to insult everyone. This is hard opposition to us. So what's your objective? If you can't bring the regime down, what are you bombing to get? You think the more bombs you drop, the more likely the Iranians are to jump into little rubber boats with white flags and say, We're through, we're finished. You can have the Persian Gulf. That's not likely. So why are we attacking Bushehr? Because there's a nuclear power station there? Is that designed to endear us to the Iranians or do we want a large nuclear accident and poisonous radioactivity all over the region? I mean, what are we doing? No one has explained it. What the hell is the objective? Well, I know what the Israeli objective is, and I'm afraid that's the objective that we're pursuing. The total destruction of Iran. I said that to you months ago. What do the Israelis want? The destruction of Iran. End of story. We have no interest in that. Never have. So what are we doing? We're trying to destroy Iran. Why would some man stand up who is in charge in the United States and say, I'm going to destroy a civilization in one night? sheer unadulterated lunacy we saw a glimpse of rationality with donald trump when he was in versailles in paris and what did he say he said we've got to get this war over with this could send the world into a global depression that's why i signed the mou well well done mr president thank you that was the most intelligent action he's taken since this nonsense began what's happened then what's changed Have we decided, oh, the hell with the world. Send the world into a global depression. Can we do that? Well, what are the three things we ought to be focused on? Number one is oil. I don't know what the price is right now. A few hours ago, it was $78 a barrel. What is it now? Is it above 78? I think it'll go to 120 and 150 in the next few weeks. What about this business of restoring or resupplying the strategic petroleum reserve remember vice president vance well you gotta understand this is just a pause we just want to refill everybody's oil reserves and get everybody healthy and then we'll go back to war well what's happened there we've thrown that out you know what about this thing called inflation inflation in the united states is getting worse it's getting worse across the western world wars breed inflation this is only going to make matters worse And then finally, it's time to look at the United States bond market. Look at the interest rates for the 10-year bond. That's the bellwether. Everybody who's an expert in the area told me to say, Doug, if we hit 5%, it's financial Armageddon we go under. And it's climbing. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah, we did a deep dive. I think you did a piece on it as well. We did a deep dive on it in our last discussion. I've got some information to just, because you started off by Iran is preparing for war. And there's indications of that. So the Iranian armed forces, as of yesterday, entered the highest rate of alert, highest state of alert and moved to wartime conditions. Also, there's reports of special forces moving to the Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan region as well, worried about potential infiltration from there, which is bizarre to me. The Kurds can't do much in Iran. But then the more important one is yesterday, Tehran, according to the tanker trackers, they shipped out 10 million barrels of crude oil and fuel overnight. Massive amount of oil shipped out in case there is an American blockade or a continuation of the war. Similar to what we saw before this war. Remember the floating reserves had all these ships out there. So I saw those reports this morning and I had someone close to me say, look, is it looking bad? Because I'm I've been more on the optimistic side for a while. And I said, look, it wasn't great in the last 48 hours, but these indications are not good. But I want to give you a theory and let me know if you... By the way, Axios also put out a report that the White House is bracing for a weeks-long fight with Iran. So this is not the end of it. Is it possible this is... But this is... not a plan to continue a full blown war. And the reason I don't think the US wants to continue wars for the reasons that we've talked about, depleted munitions, bond market, the economy, inflation, oil, strategic petroleum reserves, political suicide for Trump, allies being upset. All these different reasons make it, if you're looking at this from a pragmatic lens, just makes it such a stupid idea to continue the war. So could this be just literally the US trying to force Iran with a carrot and stick approach not to charge a fee in the Strait of Hormuz, saying, hey, we'll lift the sanctions, we'll unfreeze the assets, like Axios reported a few days ago. Just don't charge a fee in the Strait of Hormuz. But if you don't accept, we'll bomb you. And Iran's just saying, we're going to charge a fee. You can do whatever you want. We're not budging. Could we just see that power dynamic playing out or just more likely something more significant? Speaker 0: The Turks just raised the fees for the Bosporus passage through the Dardanelles by 15%. And what happened after World War I, in which the Turks were defeated, or at least they were on the losing side, they retained control of the Dardanelles. Persia or Iran is going to retain control of the Gulf. End of discussion. Forget it. You know, why did they hit all these bases again in these last targets? They blasted the living daylights out of bases they've hit previously, only made the damage much worse. Why? What's the message? We're not coming back. It's over. Our role in this region is at an end. Our hegemony over the region is at an end. No, there will be no negotiation over tolls or anything else in connection with the entrance to the Persian Gulf. Forget it. It's done. And you gotta go back to the big issue again. What compels us to quit? That's where we are. The Iranians take the position, we're gonna hold what we've got. We're gonna defend ourselves. We'll use every missile at our disposal. We are in a war to the last missile. So we'll use whatever we have until we don't have any, number one. Number two, we're in this war until the financial crisis at home is so bad we can't continue. That's how this thing ends. There will be no agreement. I don't think anybody's going to sign anything. I think all of a sudden, people are going to say, look, this is a stinker. Eventually, you're going to have people from the Senate, from the House, from industry who crowd into the Oval Office and say, listen, Donald, it's time to end this. It's not going to work. Pull the plug on this. If you don't pull the plug on it, you're not going to last. because we can't tolerate this. Now, when does that happen? I don't know, but I think it's coming between now and the end of the year. He'll be lucky to survive. I said before, if he stops the war after this last round, before we began the new one, I said he can survive. All he has to do is sort of quietly withdraw, you know, postpone any serious negotiations on big issues. get the straight open, demonstrate our sensitivity to the needs of our friends, allies around the world, forget the rest of it. Then he could stay in office. He's now backed out of that. He's in the hell with the world, the hell with everybody. I'm going to break Iran. I'm going to win this. That's where he is. It's back to this problem that he has with the parent-child relationship. With him, everyone's a child and he's in charge. Remember, I went over Roy Cohn's rules. That's an inevitable outcome. So he says, well, I told them, you know, they could, you know, they have to do this or there's no deal. Oh, they called me last night. They're desperate for a deal. Yeah, okay. Smoke some more crack. They're not desperate for a deal. You're desperate for a deal and everybody knows it. So what can he do? Can he stand up and be the man we know he's not? Take responsibility for this thing and end it? No. he's just going to hammer away and hammer away and hammer away and eventually the other factors that you and i have been discussing will descend they'll all converge on him and compel us to leave and i don't think he'll make it i think he'll be booted from office yeah he told me that last time um oh trump and netanyahu spoke this evening and they've agreed to continue close coordination between israel and the us on multiple regional issues Speaker 1: Trump briefed Bibi on recent US operations in the Gulf. During the conversation, Bibi raised what his office described as... Okay, this is what I wanted to ask you about. Perfect. So Netanyahu raised what his office described as Turkish President Erdogan's increasingly hostile rhetoric towards Israel and stressed the importance of maintaining Israeli security zones along its borders. And that goes to my next question. We've talked about Turkey before. And the rhetoric on the Israeli side just keeps getting, you know, more and more hostile towards Turkey. And our friend Smotrich, probably one of the worst voices in Israel, went all the way to say to prepare for war with Turkey. Let me see if I can find, there it is. He said, Erdogan is a very dangerous man. Fine. Turkey as it stands today is a very significant threat to the state of Israel. Stupid, but fine. They've said this before. We are conducting very intensive discussions with the president, Erdogan, and with the administration, Trump. And we are working very hard, both publicly and behind the scenes, to try to prevent the sale of the F-35s to Turkey, which we've spoken about. Erdogan must not be given access to game-changing weapons. So this is not, okay, this is not the crazy scenario. There's another one where he's talking about, oh, this is it. We are preparing for every scenario, including military action. That's Smotrich, so Israeli... Finance Minister about Turkey. We understand that there is a threat and we will not allow Turkey to threaten Israel's existence just as we have not allowed and will not allow the Iranian regime to do so. So he's talking about preparing for the military action against Turkey and comparing Turkey to Iran, which was just bombed for the second time in war last year and this year by Israel. That's pretty extreme. But Trump doesn't seem to give a damn, Colonel. He went to Turkey. He kept praising Erdogan time and time again and said he's considering approving the F-35s. Speaker 0: Well, why would President Trump do that? Why would he praise President Erdogan and why would he lift the sanctions and sell F-35s to Erdogan? It's called a bribe. We are bribed. President Erdogan and the Turks to stay out of the war with Israel. We want them to sit on the sidelines. We don't want to bring them into the fight. Have you been to Turkey recently or Turkey? Yeah, four months ago. Everybody here loves Israel, right? Speaker 1: The population is overwhelmingly supportive of the Israelis, right? Israeli flags everywhere. Yeah, that's right. Speaker 0: So our friend Erdogan is the master fence straddler. You know, he says, well, Donald, okay, you know, what are you going to give me? Well, you know. Speaker 1: This is the godfather now. This is the godfather. Speaker 0: I'll give you some F-35s, you know, you got to play ball with us. Okay, you give me the F-35s, there'll be peace. What do you think you're dealing with? That's the level of discourse right now. The only thing is that our friend Erdogan is much smarter than Donald. Because just because Erdogan says, fine, we'll sit on the sidelines. You know, we won't involve ourselves. But I have to talk to the population. I have to be on the right side of the issue. But we won't do anything, at least until he feels he has to or wants to. And that's coming. And the Israelis know that. When I was in Israel in 2013, I think it was 2013, was the anniversary of the 73 War. And I gave a presentation. You can find it on the internet. You can Google it. And it was a good conference. I learned a lot about things. I was trying to write about a chapter in my book about the 73 War, the Egyptian front. And I told them, and at the time people said, oh, come on, don't be ridiculous. I had a, I had a slide. I said, I know all of you are worried about Iran. You're concerned about Iran, but you know, historically Iran is not a state with whom you have to have hostilities. In fact, the opposite is the case. Iran is the most inclined to cooperate with the West. And you and Iran share similar interests and some of the same opponents." So I said, I think you should start to look carefully at the one true potential existential threat to Israel that exists in the region, and that is the Turkish state. And everyone looked at me as though I was crazy. And I said, now, you and the Iranians can lob missiles and bombs at each other, but the Iranians can't invade Israel. The Turks can invade Israel. And you are living on territory that the Ottomans governed for hundreds of years. Don't you remember? And you could have heard a pin drop in the audience, but ultimately after it was over, several people came up and said, you know, you're making a good point. They were depending upon, oh, somebody found it. They were depending upon, see, you can find the slide that shows you on Turkey. That's what's most interesting. They were very dependent upon the, what I would call the legacy of, oh gosh, oh goodness, my brain has just gone into vapor lock. Speaker 1: That's okay. I'm watching the younger you give a presentation. Speaker 0: I know, I know. Speaker 1: Look at all that hair. Speaker 0: Exactly, exactly. Anyway, you know, Ataturk, you know, they were looking at, Turkey through the lens of Ataturk. And I was trying to tell him, you know, Ataturk is still revered. He's respected. But this is not Ataturk's Turkey anymore. The Turks have made a choice. They know who they are. They're not Europeans. They're Turks. Their roots are in the Middle East, in Islam, and in Central Asia, not in Europe. So this whole NATO thing, this whole facade of NATO is very flimsy. The Turks are not going to march out of it voluntarily. But they're not going to pay a great deal of attention to it if it's not in their interest to do so. And I think we need to understand that. And I think the Israelis have figured it out. Now, threatening to attack Turkey is a dumb idea. I don't know why they're talking publicly that way, except that they're suffering from what appears to be a sense of racial prejudice, racial supremacy, cultural supremacy, and extreme arrogance on a scale that I don't think I've ever seen in my life. I don't know what's brought this on, but I think it's control of us. They feel that they have such complete control of us that they can say or do anything they want. I think that President Trump was doing two things. He was saying, come on, Erdogan, stick with us, stay out of this war, and we'll do this. And on the other hand, he was saying to the Israelis, don't push the Turks. They're friends. Don't get involved. He's not dumb. In this sense, he's being very smart. I just don't think it's going to work because I think Islam as an entity is coalescing. Forget the rich fat cat elites in the Arabian Peninsula. I'm talking about Muslims. There's a greater coalescence of people inside the house of Islam than we've seen for hundreds of years. Speaker 1: There's another, and by the way, you asked me if I've ever been to Turkey. I was meant to be there for an important interview during the NATO summit in Ankara. So I could have been doing this from Turkey, but it had to be rescheduled because the war broke out. But I have one theory that is worrying me. A few people are floating around, is that Trump is giving the F-35s to Erdogan, conditional on Erdogan convincing the Syrian president, al-Shara, to actually fight Hezbollah in Lebanon. Now, I dismiss that as a just completely stupid idea. I don't know if we briefly mentioned it in our last interview, but very briefly, because it just sounds ridiculously stupid. But Trump keeps talking about it, and it's starting to get a bit worrying. Is that possible? Do you think al-Shara is a puppet of Erdogan, or does he have agency where he decides? Because al-Shara said he doesn't want to attack Hezbollah, and it makes sense. Syria barely has a military to fight Hezbollah. They've got Israel on the border. Speaker 0: If you're Erdogan, you listen and say, well, you know, I'll talk to him. Speaker 1: We'll see what we can do. Speaker 0: I'm sure he made no promises. And I know that the Syrian leadership right now is very focused on the border with Israel and the Kurds. Speaker 1: Exactly. Speaker 0: They have their hands full. I don't see them disengaging and rushing up to northern Lebanon. And I think Erdogan knows that. And Erdogan would rather have the Islamist radicals that are in charge in Syria right now in Damascus than Israelis. Speaker 1: Yeah. What do you make of... I haven't asked you about this, actually. You've seen J.D. Vance and Trump criticize Israel nonstop. We talked about it last week when we spoke. But now after Trump... considering the F-35s and warming up to Erdogan despite Netanyahu's opposition. They're going to be meeting in a few days, so we'll see if that changes anything. Is it possible we are seeing maybe a decoupling between the US and Israel? Are we seeing more indications of this or I'm getting way ahead of myself? Speaker 0: Yes, you're way ahead of yourself. Speaker 1: I got optimistic when you said yes. I'm like, you agreed with the first point. So nothing to nothing to be happy about yet. Speaker 0: I think until we are in serious financial economic trouble, that's that's key. We're not going to make any sudden moves in any particular direction. And this is the history of all great powers. They they tend to be more aggressive at the end than at any point in their history. And then all of a sudden it stops and they're gone. In other words, everything happens quickly. The Brits were there and then they were bang, gone because they couldn't afford to stay. The Romans, 400 years in Britain, boom, they left. What happened? They couldn't afford to stay. I mean, we could just go down the list. All great powers go through this sort of thing. You write it off, you leave. Everything's mortgaged to vanity at the end because by the time you reach the end of the imperial period, you're broke. I mean, this is Paul Kennedy's book. You know, the decline of the great powers, open it up and read it. We have been, he calls them frontiers of insecurity. We've created new frontiers of insecurity all over the world to justify 750 bases and hundreds of thousands of troops, airmen, Marines, sailors, all over the world. And all of a sudden it's going to collapse like a bag. It'll just deflate because we can't afford to do it anymore. And Trump is playing against that adversary. The adversary is financial Armageddon. He's trying to outpace it. He's trying to keep it under control. He and his friends on Wall Street have done everything they could to manage the decline, to manage the problem of interest rates, to manage the oil problem, to manage the precious metals problem. All of these things. It's not going to work. It's going to fall apart. But it's not going to happen because Somebody sat down and negotiated an end to anything. Speaker 1: So we have kind of a gradually but suddenly. So what we'll see is that all this build up and suddenly under a future administration, we'll see everything unravel, the bases closed, the US moving away from the entire world and moving towards its sphere of influence, all these things happening within a couple of years. Speaker 0: I think it will happen under this administration. Whether or not Trump is still the president, I don't know. I can't answer that. That depends on what he does next. What he's doing right now, as you rightly pointed out, is very stupid. He's harming himself. He's harming our country. He's harming our interests. And you would think if he were such a brilliant businessman, you know when to cut your losses and pull out. That's what he should have done months ago. But he can't because he's not a free agent. He's under duress. And I think we understand that. I don't know what that duress is. I have not figured it out. But somebody's got something on him. And I think it's our friends that are in the Israeli lobby. And you got to take something else into consideration. Somebody said to me, well, Doug, you know, we could lose the midterms. I said, okay. And he said that Trump can't afford that. I said, why not? He said, well, if he loses midterms, then they'll try to impeach him. You know, people in his own party hate him. I said, okay, well then you have to make a choice. And if you're Donald Trump, you say, who do I want on my side when they come for me to impeach me? The answer is I want the Israel lobby. I want all those billionaires with all their money, their control of finance, control of the media, They're the ones in control of the government, effectively. They're the ones I want on my side. Because if I don't have them, I'm done. I'm out. They're the reason I'm here to begin with. Do you understand? He thinks that. So if you tell him, well, you're going to lose the midterms. Well, I may lose the midterms, but if I continue with the war, I do what my backers and supporters want. My donors, as they say. what the lobby demands, they'll prevent me from going under. Speaker 1: Stephen Winick, Jr.: So self-preservation. David Rubenstein, Jr.: Yeah, I think so. Speaker 0: And that's not, you know, I'm not saying that's right or wrong. That's not me. I'm not that kind of person. But he's been in this business of business for a long, long time. Nobody knows how to self-promote better than Donald Trump, and nobody knows the financial realities better than he does. So I think that's going to keep him and keep us fighting. Unless you get to the last missile and you can't afford to stay. That's when we bug out. Speaker 1: Well, as we wrap up, there's another front that would have been a whole other discussion within itself if we didn't have these strikes in the last couple of days, and that's the comments by Trump on the war in Ukraine. Yes. Talking about supporting Zelensky's strategy of striking deeper into Russia, striking Russian refineries. and approving, I think he's been approved or he said he will approve the licensing of the Patriot missiles to Ukraine. I thought the positive side is the production capacity of Ukraine, but the negative side is first, it will take a long time to set up and Russia will just bomb it whenever they set up a factory to develop Patriot missiles. But it'll take too long from what I understand, my limited knowledge, it would take too long for the Ukrainians to even build those facilities in the first place to make a difference. Speaker 0: Would you say that we in the United States underestimated Iran's military potential and capability? Yes. Yes. Would you say that we have consistently underestimated Russian military power and its capabilities? Yes, I think so. Now, why? We've never understood the war, frankly. because we don't want to. We're not interested in understanding the war. For Russia, Ukraine is an existential question. Who rules, who occupies it, who controls it can be a friend or can be an enemy. And there's not much in between. It was obvious that we were building an enemy force designed to do one thing to destroy Russia in Ukraine. That led to the intervention and it's led to the war. But for the last four years, Putin has absolutely consistently always wanted to avoid a war with NATO and especially with us. And if you go back to Anchorage where the Russians were fooled into thinking that Donald Trump was serious and wanted a better relationship with Russia and wanted to do business with Russia, they've now figured out that was nonsense. The Russians have been incredibly naive in ways that I would never have imagined, but they really have been. They were naive over the Minsk Accords. They were naive about us as a nation, as a people. They've been naive about Donald Trump. They listened to his words. They didn't look carefully at his actions. What has Donald Trump changed with regard to Russia since he came to power? Nothing. So now all of a sudden, at a point in time where he privately has concluded Zelensky is a loser, Ukraine is a loss, it's not going to win, all of a sudden, He does a 180-degree turn, similar to the F-35s to Erdogan. He's now decided, oh, let's give more money to the little man in Kiev that he can steal or waste so that he can kill more Russians, hopefully, and how many of his own people die is of no consequence. And the Europeans are delighted because the Europeans have one goal. It's the same goal the Israelis have. Israel's goal is to drag us into war with Iran and anybody else they don't like, because without us, they can't win. With us, they probably can't win, but that's another story. And the Europeans have decided, and I say Europeans, I'm not talking about the average European citizen who's completely disinterested. I'm talking about the globalist leaders, these governments that are seething with anger, hatred, and hostility for Russia. because Russia is a real national state with a national identity, a national culture, a foundation in Orthodox Christianity. Oh my God, these people are serious. They've got to go away. We've got to destroy them so they can become globalists, nihilists, atheists, Marxists. So they're happy now for the moment because they think they've talked Donald Trump into confrontation with Russia. Donald Trump was foolish enough to state right after Rubio pointed out, oh yes, we think this is a new phase striking deep into Russia is good. And then Donald Trump says, yes, I know it's escalatory, but I think that's the path to negotiation and peace. That's like saying, you know, I got a pain in my left hand. I'm cutting my wrist and enough blood flows out. The pain will go away and I'll pass out and die. It's stupid. But he's fallen for it. Now, why would he do that? Well, he probably says, you know, it's too much trouble to deal with Congress. That's what the Senate wants. That's what the Congress wants. They're all making money from this. I've made money. So what difference does it make? I mean, I've seen this thing before. FDR, when he left the Potsdam Conference, Admiral Leahy was his senior military advisor. And Admiral Leahy said to him, Mr. President, do you really think the Soviets are going to abide by any of these things? They're going to honor their obligations? Are they going to do the things they've promised? And he said, you know, I don't know, but I'm just too tired to fight anymore. He died, what, a month later. This kind of thing goes on. These are the perils of democracy. Democracy sounds great in theory, but in practice, it's got real problems. Speaker 1: Yeah, far from perfect. Speaker 0: It depends on the people that you appoint, the people that are elected. And, you know, the great historian Macaulay said, this will work very well in the United States until they run out of high quality people in office, then everything will fall apart. I think we've run out for a long, for quite a while. So, you know, all you have to do is sit there and take a listen, just listen to the foreign minister of China. Listen to the foreign minister of Russia. Listen to these men speak. Look at how they behave. Are there any fits of emotion? Any snide remarks? Any off-color remarks? Speaker 1: No. Speaker 0: They're extremely professional. They're focused like lasers on interests. the interests of their country and understanding the interests of other countries and when they speak everything they say reflects that mentality and understanding they're called diplomats we don't have any colonel it's a pleasure and uh i love the impersonations today it's a record number of impersonations it was a good conversation Speaker 1: It's a good conversation. Speaker 0: You have to laugh a little bit, right? Speaker 1: You do, you do. Speaker 0: Thank you for your time, Colonel. Speaker 1: Appreciate it. Speaker 0: Bye-bye.
DonaldBestCA
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 3:30 AM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:33 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I had to put it down more than once and force myself to continue. What happened was monstrous; the institutional betrayal was unforgivable. If I love my family and my country, I have a duty to read the report and know the truth: https://rapeganginquiry.co.uk/

@DonaldBestCA - DonaldBest.CA * DO NOT COMPLY

The official report of the Rape Gang Inquiry, led by MP @RupertLowe10. I had to put it down more than once - then force myself to continue. What happened was monstrous. The institutional betrayal was unforgivable. If you love your family and your country, you have a duty to read this report and know the truth. https://rapeganginquiry.co.uk/

MarioNawfal
Posted - July 9, 2026 at 7:17 PM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:31 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I say Israel has already lost the one war it can never afford to lose: America. Not the White House or Congress, but the American people. After three years, no censorship, algorithm tricks, PR, or antisemitism accusations can erase what people have seen. Polling shows growing criticism, including among American Jews, and the public vs. Congress gap keeps widening.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

Ana Kasparian says Israel has already lost the one war it can never afford to lose: America. Not the White House, not Congress; the American people. No matter what happened in the Middle East, U.S support for Israel remained constant. Ana thinks that era is over. She says no amount of censorship, algorithm manipulation, PR campaigns, or accusations of antisemitism can undo what people have watched unfold with their own eyes over the past three years. The images are already out there, and the opinions have already changed. She pointed to polling showing growing criticism of Israel, including among American Jews. Younger generations simply aren't accepting the old narratives anymore, and politicians haven't caught up yet. Congress continues backing policies that growing numbers of Americans reject, and the gap between public opinion and political decision-making keeps getting wider. While Israel's current strategy may be winning individual military victories, she argues it's simultaneously making Israel less secure over the long term. Every new conflict and escalation creates more resistance abroad while eroding support in the one country Israel has depended on more than any other. That's why she thinks this isn't just another foreign policy debate, it's a political realignment. The old assumptions that protected Israel in Washington are beginning to break down, and once public opinion changes, politicians eventually have to decide whether to change with it or fight against it. And Ana thinks that battle has already turned against Israel. @AnaKasparian

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on social media visibility, censorship, and the political and military implications of the conflicts discussed, especially Israel’s role and U.S. policy. Speaker 2 says Kushner follows them so they are not blocked and asks whether Netanyahu blocked them. Speaker 0 responds that Netanyahu cannot stand even minor “jabs,” implying a need for “all or nothing” treatment. Speaker 2 then describes a post: Netanyahu shared a video greeting “Happy 4th of July” and “Happy 250th Independence Day,” and Anna replied “fuck you,” which drew about twice the engagement of Netanyahu’s post. Speaker 0 says they pinned the reply and emphasizes that replies gaining more engagement than the original tweet is “very rare.” Speaker 0 argues that Israel cannot reverse its public-relations damage and claims Israel and supporters rely on bans, algorithm control, and influencing AI so the public will “forget.” They argue that, even where people have been favorable to Israel, international views are shifting and that the ongoing war against Iran began “specifically on behalf of Israel.” They also connect continued kinetic action with potential global economic depression if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, predicting that people will redirect anger toward Israel due to shared suffering. Speaker 0 contrasts the spending on bots and social media manipulation with what they say is “everyone knows” about underlying responsibility. Speaker 2 asks whether censoring critical voices could affect younger generations. Speaker 0 says young people are “too savvy,” and points to Nick Fuentes being banned on most platforms but continuing to build a “pretty significant audience” on at least one remaining platform, arguing that bans can create “forbidden fruit” appeal. Speaker 0 adds that calling people anti-Semites previously worked but has become less effective because it is now applied broadly, “including Jews.” They claim that this conflation of the Jewish population with the Zionist project has harmed Jewish people and insist Zionism is “a political ideology” rather than a religion, ethnicity, or identity. The conversation shifts to YouTube and algorithms. Speaker 0 says YouTube is “pretty good,” but argues the algorithm rewards repeating the same topics and punishes deviation; they describe their channel as heavy on foreign policy and say domestic coverage performs worse. They also claim algorithm incentives can push audiences toward more extreme thought. Speaker 2 asks whether public perception has changed since earlier discussions about censorship. Speaker 0 says public opinion against Israel continues to grow and cites Associated Press and NORC polling, including that 30% of American Jews say Israel has carried out a genocide in Gaza. Speaker 0 also discusses a “disconnect” between populations and political leadership in Western countries and Gulf countries, and warns that systems not representing constituents can lead to unrest, uprisings, or civil war amid economic strain and concentrated wealth. They then focus on U.S. legislative action. Speaker 0 discusses “Section 219” in the National Defense Authorization Act, claiming it would merge the U.S. military with the IDF, calling it problematic and saying the House Armed Services Committee gatekeeps whether a full House vote occurs. They criticize committee assignment processes and the Senate parliamentarian system and legislative filibuster as mechanisms that prevent bills from passing. Speaker 2 asks about who is talking about Section 219. Speaker 2 references Massey and Ro Khanna (and others) raising attention, plus Trita Parsi’s Quincy Institute analyzing it first. Speaker 0 says voters should pressure committee members by contacting their offices “incessantly,” naming them, and warning of political consequences if they “sell our country out” to Israel. Speaker 0 states the provision “has to be stripped out.” The conversation then turns to NATO allies, Turkey, and U.S.-Israeli dynamics. Speaker 2 describes escalating rhetoric about a possible Turkey conflict, noting statements attributed to Smotrich and Netanyahu, and contrasts that with Trump praising Erdogan, considering F-35 approval, and removing CAT sanctions. Speaker 0 says details may be unknown, speculates Trump might have personal business motives, and adds an alternative explanation: Turkey is described as an important component for European/NATO preparation for a face-off with Russia. They argue the U.S. may eventually have to choose between Israeli ambitions and NATO plans involving Turkey, with Israel wanting war with Turkey. Speaker 0 also mentions internal Israeli politics, stating that Ben-Gvir is reportedly favored in Israel polls and interpreting that as reflecting Israel’s cultural and political direction. They say they do not expect Israel to pull back and describe Israel as “lashing out.” Speaker 2 discusses the shifting U.S. posture, arguing that if unconditional support changes, Israel would have to adapt. Speaker 0 says they see public sentiment shifting in the U.S. and describes formerly “forbidden” topics becoming discussable. Speaker 0 argues Israel is bombarded with a 24-hour news cycle intended to terrify Israelis and create a sense that “the whole globe hates them,” distinguishing what they call propaganda aimed at the Israeli public from what they describe as bad-faith behavior by Israeli politicians and media figures. They debate the rationale for actions against Hezbollah and describe Hezbollah as a resistance group formed after Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. Speaker 0 argues that disarming neighboring countries is “ridiculous” and that engaging in behavior that creates “reasons to resist” perpetuates resistance. In the middle of the transcript, Speaker 2 shares emotional examples from Gaza. They mention Palestinians watching World Cup matches amid rubble and describe an organizer, Mohamed El Wahidi, who helped set up giant screens for families to watch Egypt vs. Argentina but was killed in an Israeli airstrike before kickoff, with two brothers aged 8 and 10 also killed. They ask how anyone could respond without being upset and say Gaza is being forgotten. Finally, Speaker 2 returns to “strikes back and forth” between the U.S. and Iran. Speaker 0 says Israel did not play a role in “the latest developments,” but maintains the war is “because of Israel.” They argue the conflict should be called “war,” criticizing attempts to downplay it as not war or as a “special military operation.” Speaker 0 claims U.S. actions are provoking Iran, that diplomatic solutions for transiting vessels through the Strait are the only option, and that continued hostilities deplete weaponry, fertilizer supply, and strategic petroleum reserves.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 2: Oh, Kushner follows me as well, so I'm not blocked. Let me see if Netanyahu blocked me. I doubt it. Speaker 0: Why would Netanyahu block you? You're so needlessly, overly fair to Israel. But, you know, to be fair to them, the reality is they can't even stand a little jab. Like, you have to be all or nothing with the Israelis. Speaker 2: Exactly, yeah. Let me find that... Because I posted what he did. Did you pin it? Your reply? There it is. Speaker 0: I did. I did. I pinned it. Speaker 2: I swear that is hilarious. Lisa, I'll send you something now to show to the audience. So what Anna did is so I loved it. I loved so much that day. So he posted a video saying, happy 4th of July, America. Happy 250th Independence Day. And Anna just replies, fuck you. And then Anna gets about twice as much engagement as Benjamin himself. And I said, I posted a screenshot on this. This is the embodiment of the sentiment right now in the US or something along those lines. Speaker 0: Yes, I saw that. Oh, you saw that. You're correct. Yeah, you're correct. Speaker 2: But that was epic. It's not only your reply. It's the fact that your reply got more engagement. It's very rare for a reply to get more engagement than the tweet. So this is it. I swear this is epic. Speaker 0: I swear I did not expect the kind of... reaction or response that i got but um i will allow it i love it yeah i love it there's nothing israel can do at this point to reverse the pr damage that they've done to themselves they're under the impression that if they just get people banned if they take control of the algorithms if they influence ai you know somehow we're all going to forget everything that we've been experiencing and seeing with our own two eyes over the last nearly three years and you know aside from the genocide in gaza aside from the you know barbarism that's being carried out against the lebanese people as we speak you can't forget the fact that even if you're a country or a citizenry that's been very favorable to israel you've had favorable views Everyone knows that this ongoing war against Iran started specifically on behalf of Israel. And as the global economy starts to suffer, we haven't really borne the real brunt of it yet. But if the kinetic action continues and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, we are barreling toward a global depression. And everyone knows that the heart of that issue, what started all of this, is Israel. People are going to draw... They're going to direct their ire toward Israel because of the pain they themselves are suffering, pain that has been inflicted on them for a war that's being fought for the Israelis. So it's just, it doesn't matter how many hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on Hasbro. It doesn't matter how many bots they buy on social media. Everyone knows the truth. So it is what it is. Speaker 2: Do you not worry on the algorithm side, especially the younger generation? So if they start censoring voices critical of Israel, if they start censoring voices like yours and Cenk's, how do you know the younger generation that are absorbing all this information right now would realize what you know, what we know? Speaker 0: I think young people are just too savvy. And as much as the algorithms on major platforms might be controlled or changed to the favor of the Israelis, the fact of the matter is there's so many other opportunities for ideas, and certain viewpoints to thrive. So I'll give you a specific example. Nick Fuentes was banned on every platform except one. And so he continued doing his thing, I think on Rumble, I'm not entirely sure, but there was some other platform where he was spreading his message and his perspectives. Regardless of how you might feel about it, he garnered a pretty significant audience. And in fact, I do believe that him being a target for these bans made him that forbidden fruit for a lot of young men. And so it's so counterproductive to engage in censorious behavior, but the Israelis can't help themselves. And honestly, to be fair to them, I don't think they've ever been accustomed to the kind of backlash that they're receiving. A lot of people internationally have always been so afraid to call out the Israelis because everyone knows that their only retort is, you are an anti-Semite. And for the longest time, that label would destroy your life. But they've now called everyone an anti-Semite, so. Including Jews. Exactly. So I think they've actually done a lot of harm to Jewish people across the globe. for selfish reasons. And they have intentionally conflated the worldwide Jewish population with the Zionist project. And Zionism, as I've said a billion times before, is a political ideology. It's not a religion. It's not an ethnicity. It's not an identity. It's a political ideology. Speaker 2: Before we talk about the latest developments and especially the visit to Turkey and what happened there, I was talking to Cenk about it yesterday. I was thinking just as you're speaking, we're talking about the algorithms and all that. The Young Turks... You guys are one of the biggest channels on YouTube. I remember watching you when I was much, much younger. YouTube seems to be pretty fair, or do they censor as well? Speaker 0: I actually agree with you. I think YouTube is pretty good. I do have one complaint, and it's not about censorship. It's just about how I believe the algorithm is modeled right now, and it's obviously subject to change. But it's obvious to me that right now you have to constantly cover the same subject matter. And when you deviate even a little bit from that subject matter, the algorithm punishes you. So right now, our channel is very heavy on foreign policy, but obviously I wanna cover domestic policy as well. When we tend to cover domestic issues, it doesn't perform as well because what gets rewarded in the algorithm is to continue giving your audience the same content over and over and over again. And that's a problem, it really is. And it honestly is more conducive to pushing people to more extreme thought, if that makes any sense. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Again, one more question from our last discussion. I remember in our last chat or maybe two chats ago, we talked about the censorship. You've been facing depression. Our first conversation we had a few months ago. Has anything changed since? Has the Iran war changed anything? Because you talked about how calling people anti-Semite doesn't work as well anymore. People are waking up. People are accepting. It's become, you know, actually one of my guests explained it really well. There's a difference between everyone knowing something and then everyone knowing that everyone knows something. I'm not sure if that makes sense. Everyone knew about, you know, the censorship on any voices critical of Israel beforehand. But now, and you know, Israel's influence in the US. But now I think we crossed a chasm where we're at a stage where everyone knows that everyone knows. And that's really difficult to reverse. Have you sensed any change? Because you've been covering it for so long. Have you sensed any change now? Speaker 0: I mean, the only change that I've noticed is that public opinion continues to grow against Israel. So in fact, the latest Associated Press and NORC polling shows that a growing percentage of Jewish Americans are turning on Israel, the Zionist project. In fact, 30% of American Jews say that Israel has carried out a genocide in Gaza, which is a pretty big deal. And so that has changed. But Mario, what I've noticed has always been a major disconnect in, I think, Western countries is you have actually, I think with the Gulf countries as well, you have the populace, like you have the people and what the people believe and what the people want is very different from what they're getting from their political leadership. And so, you know, UAE leaders might be willing- That's not sustainable. It's not sustainable. And in fact, what I'm really worried about, I think it's not gonna happen anytime soon, but it's building up and I'm starting to hear whispers of it. When you live under a government that doesn't represent you, doesn't care what you think, and you feel like there's no other choice, more and more people are gonna turn to potentially violence, right? I mean, when your government isn't listening to you, when you're struggling, especially economically, and this war, if it continues, and it looks like it's going to, it's going to cause a lot of economic pain and suffering for people across the globe, Americans are certainly not shielded from it. And so you're living under a system that doesn't give a damn about you. You're seeing these billionaires now become trillionaires in the case of Elon Musk. While more and more wealth is concentrated at the top, more and more people in the middle class are getting booted into poverty. All of this is like a dangerous cocktail for uprisings, for potentially civil war. I think there's going to be a lot of unrest in the country unless our government wakes the hell up and realizes, oh, it turns out we need to take care of our own constituents. And if we don't, there will be consequences. And I don't want those consequences. I don't want violence. I don't want some big violent revolution to happen. But I do agree with people who say that our political system is just inherently broken at this point. We have corruption baked into it. Congress is like useless, the most useless group of people imaginable. And it's by design, Mario, it's by design. So for instance, the effort, Section 219, to merge the US military with the IDF, a genocidal terrorist organization, that is very likely just gonna barrel through in the National Defense Authorization Act because the very committee, the House Armed Services Committee, which gets to decide whether or not an amendment that would basically strip that provision from the NDAA, that amendment will never be allowed, or for now, is not being allowed for a floor vote, a full House floor vote, because the committee gets to decide whether or not that amendment gets a vote to begin with. And that's a big problem, because you shouldn't allow for those types of gatekeepers to exist. You should allow... for democracy to play out the way that it's supposed to play out. And the way that it's supposed to play out is allow the full House to vote on that amendment and actually represent the people. The whole committee assignment thing, I think, is incredibly shady, as is the parliamentarian system. I'm sorry, the Senate parliamentarian and the legislative filibuster in the Senate, which is, in my opinion, put in place in order to prevent bills from passing. Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm not sure if you can see me. There's a bit of a technical issue, but you can hear me. Yeah. I know. Speaker 0: I can hear you. Yeah. I don't see you though. Speaker 2: Oh, perfect. Yeah. They're sorting it out. But as long as you could hear me, um, for me, that section is, is wild, but the, um, what about the other option of the politicians adapting to this new reality? So you've got Trump criticizing Israel, JD Vance criticizing Israel, but now going to Turkey and considering the approval of F-35, which would drive Israel nuts. So do you think that we could actually see politicians change before people seek other ways of forcing that change? Speaker 0: No, politicians are, Mario, you have to understand, our political system, I believe, incentivizes the biggest scumbags to run for public office. And that's not just a comment about Trump, although I do believe Trump falls under that category. When we have a system that allows for insider trading, I mean, look at how much money Donald Trump and his family have personally made off of his presidency in the second term. Billions and billions of dollars off crypto schemes and all sorts of things like that. there is no incentive for them to change. And in fact, our system incentivizes the worst among us to wanna run for public office. So I have no faith in these politicians becoming more clear-minded about the policies that they're championing and carrying out. I think that we are incentivizing self-enrichment and corruption, and that's what we're gonna continue to get unless we change that system. I do think though that politicians at the end of the day are subject to pressure campaigns and more often than not tend to change their position if they feel their political aspirations are being jeopardized thanks to the views they hold and the fact that their constituents don't agree with them. So we'll see what happens with Section 219 because I think that if there would be enough pressure by the American people toward these politicians, especially those on the House Armed Services Committee, they will allow a full House vote. And I think the House of Representatives is fully aware of how the American people feel about that section, that provision in the National Defense Authorization Act. We don't want it. We shouldn't merge with a foreign country's military. That's insane. Speaker 2: Is anyone talking about it? Because I remember Massey and Ro Khanna and a few others, I think I could be getting their name. I think it was them that started bringing attention to it. I think it was the people that brought the attention to it is Trita Parsi's Quincy Institute. They were the first one to do an analysis into this. And you guys spoke about it. I did interviews about it because it just sounded so freaking wild and from people that don't know, it literally merges the US military and the Israeli military. And I think one, Senator Cotton is trying to do the same thing with Mossad and the CIA. and make it irreversible. How fricking wild is that? But then it went silent. Everyone got distracted. That's what's crazy about the news cycle. Everyone moves on to the next thing. And now we've got the world around potentially restarting. So everyone's forgetting everything else. Do you think this is gonna pass from what you're seeing? Speaker 0: It better not. It better not. I mean, I'll do everything in my power to prevent it from passing. And look, the voters need to keep their boot on the necks of these committee members. We know their names and I'll go ahead and repeat them on the show again today if I need to. But they need to be. I'm not saying they need to be harassed, but I think that their offices need to be called and contacted incessantly. They need to know through their own constituents that they don't have any shot of getting reelected if they go ahead and sell our country out to a genocidal terrorist state like Israel. Like we've had enough. And there needs to be a come to Jesus moment for these politicians. They need to understand that there will be political consequences if they go against the will of their own constituents, which they excel at, there's no question. But the thing is, a lot of stuff flies under the radar because we have pathetic legacy media, corporate owned media, increasingly Zionist owned media. And so most Americans might not be aware of it, but we're gonna continue talking about it to ensure that we defeat that provision. It's got to be stripped out of the bill. Speaker 2: I swear, if that passes, it'd be... I just don't know. I could say it would be too far, but I think that we've already crossed the too far stage. But I just wouldn't know what to say. It's just such a crazy thing to do. Speaker 0: I mean, and look, the Israelis, along with their supporters here in the United States, people like Rahm Emanuel, who's pretending like he's like wagging his finger at Israel and like, oh, you don't need our military aid. Same with Netanyahu. Oh, we don't need your military aid. They think we're stupid. And that's the thing that really gets under my skin, Mario. They think we don't know about the provision in the NDAA that would merge Israel. the IDF with our military. They think we don't know about Tom Cotton's proposal to merge Mossad with the CIA, which by the way, seems like a redundant thing to do. I mean, isn't it basically the same agency at this point anyway? Come on. Speaker 2: But anyway, I'm definitely- But didn't, hold on, the CIA, didn't the US intelligence label Israeli intelligence as a critical threat? Is that still the case? Has anything happened on that front? Speaker 0: Not the CIA. was a different intelligence agent remember we had like dozens of intelligence agencies so it was a different agency that uh determined that the cia like excuse my language uh i try to be a lady but i'm when we talk about israel it's very difficult um i think the cia you just you just you just said you didn't attend yahoo i think we've crossed I'm actually, like, shockingly going to pull back a little bit. No, but the CIA does the dirty work of Israel. Like, I don't think the CIA is an agency that has any real interest in protecting the national security of the United States. Remember, the CIA was formed a few years after the establishment of Israel. And people like Epstein worked for Mossad and the CIA. They have very similar objectives, very similar agenda items. So... Speaker 2: Great. By the way, a few of my guests mentioned the speech that Rahm Emanuel gave. It's just a perfect indicator of the turning point that the US is going through. Because this is someone that's pro-Israel, has been pro-Israel throughout the entire administration. So it meant a lot for him to critique. Do you believe the same thing, that actually he's sincere about it? Speaker 0: No, are you kidding me? No, he's not. His father was a terrorist with the Irgun terror group. Rahm Emanuel himself served in the IDF. He's a massive loyalist to Israel. He wants to run for president in 2028, and he knows that Democratic voters overwhelmingly are against Israel, so he's positioning himself for a presidential run, which I find hilarious. He has no chance in hell. Speaker 2: Okay, I didn't know he was running for president. Speaker 0: Yeah, he can go ahead and play these cute little games though. It's amusing and entertaining. Speaker 2: All right, so before we look at the latest developments, because that's obviously the elephant in the room now is the restart of the strikes between the US and Iran. I want to ask you about the trip that Trump made to Turkey. I spoke to Cenk about it yesterday. Is that, because we've seen the talk, the rhetoric in the last few weeks between JD Vance and Trump criticizing Israel. But it seems that, at least to me, it seems that action has followed this rhetoric. This is the first action that has been taken that's been negative towards Israel. And Netanyahu was doing his press tour, criticizing any deal with Erdogan, criticizing Turkey. Smatric talking about a war with Turkey. He's actually talking about a war. Not Turkey is a threat. It's like we have to prepare for war with Turkey. Just freaking wild. But Trump didn't care. He keeps praising Erdogan and now talking about approving the F-35 and removing those sanctions. Not major sanctions, but I think it's called the CAT sanctions on Turkey. Is that yet another indicator that maybe things are changing? Maybe we are seeing a decoupling or too early to make a statement like this? Speaker 0: I think there are details to the story that we're not privy to yet. And this is just my speculation. President Donald Trump will throw... anyone under the bus when there are opportunities for self-enrichment. So I'm curious whether there was some sort of secret deal made between Erdogan and Trump in regard to a personal business matter. So who knows? That's a possibility. I am speculating on that and kind of leaning in that direction because really Trump hasn't done anything to check Netanyahu. And going against him in this way, the only explanation I can think of is Trump did it because it's gonna benefit him personally in some way. I could be wrong, so let's wait and see. The other thing is, and I think this is probably a more, this is easier to confirm. Right now, and if you've been paying close attention to what our NATO allies have been whispering about, in some cases, even overtly saying, they appear to be ready or preparing for a face-off with Russia. So you hear European leaders, you know, kind of reference or hint at eventually coming together and attacking Russia. And they see Turkey, with its pretty powerful military, as an important puzzle piece in that effort. And so... It's a really interesting thing happening. We have Israel on one side, which tends to get everything they want, but then we have our European or Western allies who see Turkey as an incredibly important component of fighting Russia. So what do you do when you're in the United States and you're caught in the middle, right? So I think eventually there's gonna be a pretty significant face-off where the United States government, whether it's during the Trump administration or during the next administration, is gonna have to decide between the Israelis who want to go to war with freaking Turkey. I mean, can we just pause for a second and address how, like, these people are so bloodthirsty. Like, how about you don't go to war for once in your lives? How about Turkey isn't actually posing a threat to you? And maybe you don't need to be... Like, what you hear from Israelis about their real reason for wanting to go to war against Turkey, I mean, Netanyahu has said it multiple times, it's about the power balance in the region. And that arming Turkey with the F-35s, by the way, I don't like the Turkish government, okay, at all. But putting that aside entirely, he's arguing that if you give Turkey F-35s, that throws off the balance of power in the region, i.e., we want to be the dominant ones in the region. Well, sorry, you are a small, irrelevant country that sure knows how to do dirty tricks to get the United States to carry out your dirty deeds. at the end of the day no natural resources okay constantly creating enemies across the globe and certainly in the middle east can't stop themselves from attacking their neighbors i mean i just i don't understand these people how about you don't like try to provoke for more war but they can't help themselves they love it they can't get enough and you want to know why they can't get enough mario because the united states pays for their iron dome system so they get to attack with impunity, right? They don't have to worry about blowback the way other countries do. The fear of blowback is an important component in making decisions about questions of war and peace. And when Israel feels like we can do whatever we want and there are no consequences, they are going to become increasingly more belligerent, right? And they are, they're incredibly belligerent. Turkey is not posing a threat to them. So just stop, but they can't help themselves. But anyway, I think that face-off between the EU, not the EU, our NATO allies and Israel is coming because if they're really going to challenge Russia, which I think is, they should really rethink that. But if they are really planning on doing it, they would need Turkey in order to have a fighting chance. What are you looking up? Speaker 2: No, nothing. I'm just thinking. I play with these little things so I can focus there, like just fiddling with them, just thinking about it, of how that would look like. Because I've always dismissed the risk of Israel and Turkey fighting. But when I see statements like what Smotrich said two days ago and what even Netanyahu has been saying the last few days, I'm like, man, am I really underplaying that risk between the two countries? Because it just continues to escalate and escalate. But what surprises me, though, is that it seems Israel bit off more than it could chew with Iran. You know how pissed off Trump is, how pissed off J.D. Vance is. Let's see what happens when Netanyahu visits the U.S. But it seems Iran might have been a step too far, and that might be breaking the U.S.-Israeli relationship. So what I would expect them to do in response is kind of take a step back. Do what the other candidate talks about. He's like, we stretch too thin. We're a small country. We should act like it. He's not a pacifist, but he has a different mindset to Netanyahu. We're a superpower. He says we're not a regional superpower. We're a global superpower. That's something he said a few weeks ago. So I would have expected Israeli policy to kind of go ahead, to take that path, but instead to be changing the rhetoric. You're not done with Iran. You lost the war with Iran, but now you're talking about Turkey. It's just bizarre to me. Speaker 0: I was having a conversation with a journalist friend of mine last night, and he made reference, and I haven't double checked this, maybe you can look it up as I talk about it, but he had referenced that the latest polls out of Israel show that Ben-Gavir is the favorite among the Israelis. And I think that tells you a lot about the mental state and the current culture within Israel, if that's true. I mean, Ben-Gavir is not an unpopular person or politician in Israel, regardless of where he is in polling about elections. Fact of the matter is the people of Israel like him. And he's one of the people who not only spews disgusting genocidal rhetoric, he makes good on the promises he makes, his genocidal promises. So yeah, I would never in a million years expect modern day Israel to pull back They're lashing out. It seems like it's the only tactic they know how to carry out. Speaker 2: I think it all depends on what the US does. And if they're starting to see, and Naftali Bennett, I had him on the show, I think two weeks ago now. And he said the biggest problem, what concerns him the most is the changing sentiment in the US around Israel. And he sees it, and he's someone that's, one would argue, even more hawkish than Netanyahu. He's like, we really need to reconsider our strategy in the region because of that. And Eisenkot is, from my limited research on him, I really need to spend the time looking into what his policies will be. But I think he's the favorite on betting platforms of being prime minister. Him and Netanyahu. Naftali Bennett, his odds collapsed in the last few days. I don't know why. But yeah, he talks about, he's a former IDF commander. I'm not sure if you know much about him. But he talks about how we're a small country. We can't be fighting a multi-front war. We could do, you know, quick, you know, short-term strikes to achieve a certain objective and pull back and that's it. We're just going to have a step in the, I want to say the right direction, but a more logical direction. I just don't think it's sustainable. These, they're not suicidal and they will have to adapt, but I could be wrong. You know, one of my guests a couple of days ago was talking about how a fascist country, how they act, and he's making comparisons to other fascist countries in history. And, you know, that example was worrying because those, those, those other examples historically did not go down any, any reassuring paths, but I don't know if the US changed. Yeah. He did. Yeah. It was a very good point. A very concerning way, the way he's explained it and he's explained it really well. But, um, if the US, if you guys really change your approach to Israel, I think it all starts there. If that protection, that unconditional support to Israel changes, Israel will have no choice but to adapt. But if you're going to offer that level of security for Israel, whatever they do, you're protected, it's justified, then they have no reason to stop. But I am in the belief that, as you've just explained, the sentiment is shifting and politicians will eventually have to adapt. And we are seeing indications of this, especially in the Democratic Party. More and more members of Congress and candidates are no longer accepting AIPAC money. So these are good signs, aren't they? Speaker 0: There are good signs in terms of public sentiment here in the US. And I never thought throughout my entire career that this day would come where people are openly critical of Israel, questioning our alliance with Israel, questioning some of the narratives that we were fed in regard to the so-called global war on terror. There are certain topics that are being broached now that previously were So forbidden. I mean, the fact that under the Obama beginning, under the Obama administration, the U.S. government was funding Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists in Syria just to overthrow overthrow Bashar al-Assad. That used to be considered a crazy conspiracy theory. But now it's just it's demonstrably true. We have evidence of it. And Trump can't help himself every once in a while. You know, he slips up and he just says that Al-Shara was installed by Trump. or by the U.S. government. Speaker 2: And he's trying to convince him to go fight Hezbollah. It's crazy. It's crazy. When he said that, it took me a while to digest it. And he said it again and again and again. I'm like, fuck. It's insane. At least he's being honest. Speaker 0: Yes. At least he's being honest. Sometimes he's honest. Sometimes, I mean, not sometimes. A lot of times he's dishonest. But in that case, he's telling the truth. Yeah. But no, Mario, going back to Israel's behavior... Look, I don't hide the fact that I loathe the fact that the U.S. is aligned with that country. I think it's a stain on America's reputation. And at some point, it'll be a stain on our history. But to strawman, not to strawman, to steel man the Israeli perspective, let me be fair to the Israelis. They're in a lot of trouble right now. Now, it's their own doing. I don't think they needed to be in the kind of trouble that they're in right now. But what has happened is, You've got the Houthis in Yemen who were not defeated. Trump gave up on defeating them, which means that we couldn't defeat one of Iran's proxy groups. So that's a smaller threat, but still a threat. You have Hezbollah, which the IDF has failed to disarm. They're unable to disarm. And as we know, the Lebanese military or Lebanese army is so weak that it is a pipe dream to think that they would be able to disarm Hezbollah. So I get what the Israelis are trying to do in annexing land, and they wanna settle Gaza, even though they haven't defeated Hamas. Here's the thing, you can't defeat Hamas ideology or Hezbollah ideology when you continue engaging in the very behavior that gave birth to that ideology, and that's the ideology of resistance. If you want these resistance groups to no longer exist, then stop giving them a reason to resist you. Stop expanding your borders. So, you know, Israel's going to do what Israel does. They're going to build settlements. I'm sure they're going to try to settle southern Lebanon as well. But those people are going to live in fear because the resistance isn't just going to go away. It's not going to die off. And this idea of disarming... By the way, disarming every... neighboring country or every Middle Eastern country is ridiculous. Like, I love the idea that Israel gets to be the only country in that region that has a military and everyone else has to disarm. You know, Netanyahu has all these strong words to say about Hezbollah, and they're trying to get the Lebanese army to fight Hezbollah, right? But it's so funny because every once in a while, Homeboy slips up and he starts talking about how, ooh, but there are some terror elements in the Lebanese army, too. Speaker 2: I mean, just... Just call him homeboy? Speaker 0: Yeah, he... I shouldn't call him homeboy. He's cancer, okay? He is the cancer. But it's just... It's an ideology in Israel right now that's making them less safe. Do you get what I'm saying? What they are doing is making them less safe. And J.D. Vance was correct in noting that the U.S. is the only friend to Israel at this moment. And with increasing pressure by the American people to... abandon Israel, imagine we get there at some point in an environment where Israel has been made less safe thanks to these wars. Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember speaking twice to a guy, Ishai Fleischer. He's very close to Ben-Gavir, and he's the closest person to Ben-Gavir I've spoken to because it's really hard to speak to people that openly support Ben-Gavir and some of the things he says, not everything. he's a he's a settler he lives in hebron he i showed him a video of he i showed him a video of um palestinian sorry a settler throwing rocks at palestinians in their homes etc he's like oh i know this palestinian so he's like that close to it and he's my neighbor i think he was this neighbor so he's he's the type of person i really want to speak to because i want to understand how they see things and i wanted to get it through to him is that their policies the israeli policy because one of the things he said to me on the first day how the israelis want to support the druze he's talking about why he hates al-shara which is fine a lot of people hate al-shara and they've got a lot of reasons to but his solution was arming the druze and i kept telling them like do you understand that this is what's causing the cycle of violence that backfires on israel and i gave him examples of there was a syrian militia militant group that was marching on israel that's not public knowledge and al-shara had to go and stop them because israel would then retaliate and they threatened to retaliate and strike them that would cause issues with with syria So I was trying to explain to him that this, you see that violence is the solution. But what I think a lot of people in Israel don't understand is that violence feeds the violence against them or the hate against them. The Hezbollah seeing Israel as a threat or not wanting to seek diplomatic solutions with Israel or recognize Israel is because of Israeli policies in the region against Palestine. The Iranians, when they yell death to Israel, honestly, if you speak to Iranians and I've spoken to professors in Iran, It's not about Israeli people. It's about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, not Palestinian state, because they don't recognize the Palestinian state. And it's what Israel is, what they call the Zionist entity. So it's the Israeli policies. But I just wish more Israelis see that message. It's just hard to get to them. They live in a bubble. And it's not only them. Iranians live in their bubble. Every country lives in their bubble. But I wish they understand it. I wish they see things the right way. Speaker 0: I think that the Israeli people, there's two different things happening. And I want to be fair to the Israeli people, even though they hold beliefs that I vehemently disagree with and find immoral. They are bombarded with a 24 hour news cycle that is intended to terrify them. OK, so they genuinely believe that the whole globe hates them and is out to get them and is looking to kill them. That is the messaging they get from their government and their media every single day. So propaganda is powerful, and I wanna be mindful of that because I don't ever wanna turn into what Israel is, right? I would never wanna turn into a US version of Ben-Gavir where I hate an entire group of people, in this case, like the Israeli population, because they're wrong. They're very wrong. But I understand why they're wrong and why they believe what they believe. I don't think they're inherently bad people. but I do think they've been propagandized to accept ideas and perspectives that actually makes them a lot less safe. Okay, now putting that aside, that's very different from the power structure, the politicians, and even media figures in Israel who I think are totally bad faith. They know exactly what they're doing. In fact, I know they know exactly what they're doing because they say it out loud. The politicians say it out loud. And I want... Israelis to maybe be a little more aware of that cognitive dissonance. Because on one hand, they're saying, we need to do this. We need to have our soldiers invade southern Lebanon for safety reasons, for a security buffer zone, right? But at the same time, you also hear the politicians talking about settling that land. So what is it really about? Is it really about a buffer zone for our own security? Or are you looking to annex and settle that land? And do you think is going to happen to the people who end up living in those settlements are they going to be safe because there will be resistance and i would i in no way would ever criticize that resistance their land was stolen from them okay mexico comes in and tries to expand their borders into southern california if we have a weak government or a corrupt government that's empowering that land theft you better believe I would join a militia of Americans to resist. That's what you do. You defend your country, you defend your borders, you defend your land. So Americans acting like they're shocked that there would be a Lebanese group, in this case, Hezbollah, that pushes back against Israel's barbaric behavior and attempts at land theft, which they've done again and again for many, many decades. That's the reason why Hezbollah formed in the 1980s. And Hezbollah was able to end an 18-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. That's what Hezbollah is. You might not like Hezbollah, and I totally understand that. You might not agree with their ideology. But at the core of what Hezbollah is, is a resistance group to Israeli aggression. It wouldn't have even existed had it not been for Israel constantly invading Lebanon. Speaker 2: The number of times I say to myself, I'm so sick of talking about Israel because there's so many things to talk about. I really want to talk about Ukraine and what's happening there right now and the Chinese policy, the Belt and Road. There's just so many interesting things happening around the world. You talked about domestic politics, but then something constantly happens. Smatric talking about war with Turkey. Where did this come from? I never thought I'd be talking about a possible conflict between Turkey and And Israel and that being an actual threat. But then when you have Netanyahu talking about it and other politicians talking about it every day and to prepare for war with Turkey, how can you not talk about it? But when you're talking about the war in Lebanon, and also the point about what's happening in Lebanon, the argument of getting rid of Hezbollah, I was supporting that argument. I'm like, okay, Israel, you're right. Hezbollah is a threat. You don't fight them. That's your right. They attacked you. They fired rockets. It's fine. I understand the explanation. I'm not saying I agree, disagree. I understand it. But then when they say, okay, cuts, actually, not random politicians, 20% of the Lebanese people can't return home, even after the war ends. And they're demolishing villages on a daily basis. Now, is it Hezbollah infrastructure, entire villages? It's both. They are destroying tunnels. We've seen videos of them destroying tunnels, but they're also leveling homes with bulldozers. And then you've got a louder and louder minority talking about settling Lebanon. Speaker 0: Yeah. And I mean, look, if people in the audience were more deferential toward Israel and its lies when it came to Gaza, all right, well, you got fooled. And I hope you accept that. But are you really going to get fooled again? Because they're doing the same thing in southern Lebanon. Literally the same thing. Literally the same thing. Same lies, same bullshit. OK, how are you going to argue that you're fighting Hezbollah? You're going after Hezbollah's infrastructure when you're leveling entire villages. Like, please, I just I need the global community who continues to buy into these lies to just wait. Please wake up. Please stop being played for a fool and stop supporting this. Like, I hate the fact that our government supports this because it makes it. the American people have blood on their hands, even though the vast majority of Americans are not in favor of what's going on. They want it to stop. But since our government represents us on the international stage, we all look like butchers. It's wrong, and it's totally immoral. Speaker 2: Let me, like, today I woke up to this. So, Lisa, can you show the second link I sent first? So it's a nice story. Heartbreaking, but a warm story, but heartbreaking nonetheless. It was about... Palestinians and Gaza watching the World Cup. Not sure if you saw that video, the Egypt versus Argentina war. So first it was heartbreaking seeing, you'll see the video, you'll understand what I mean. So I saw that yesterday. That was on BBC. You can play the video, Lisa, if you don't mind. Just to show you. And then I'll tell you what I woke up to today. So this is, you can expand the video. So this is Palestinians watching football in Gaza. It's heartbreaking watching on the rubble. So that enough is a heartbreaking story to talk about how Gaza is being forgotten. Palestinians are being forgotten. Look at them, just how they're watching that game, trying to have some normalcy in their life. Okay, so that's enough. This is enough for us to talk about, okay? This is yesterday. They're watching the game. And then today, can you play the first thing I sent you, Lisa? I woke up to this news this morning. And then when you see things like this, How can you not be as upset as you were just now in this interview? You and Cenk are, I am as well, and many others are. When you see stories like this, I don't know if you saw this one, but it's pretty sad. Someone organized that FIFA, that World Cup to be played. Play it with the audio. Can you actually put the audio? Essentially, the story of the second video doesn't show much. But the person that organized this, his name is, that organized the World Cup, his name is Mohamed El Wahidi. He helped organize giant screens where families in Gaza could gather to watch Egypt and Argentina. Speaker 1: Just before Egypt takes off against Argentina. Speaker 2: So that's the guy they organized it. Speaker 1: Hundreds of people in Gaza gathered to do something ordinary. to watch Egypt play against Argentina in the World Cup. But the man who made it possible was killed in an Israeli airstrike before kick-off. Mohammed al-Wahidi helped organize giant screens where families in Gaza could gather to watch Egypt's World Cup matches together. He was the director of the Egyptian committee in Gaza, which provides food, shelter, and other humanitarian assistance to Palestinians. But just before Egypt kicked off against Argentina, a strike hit a car in Gaza City's Sabra neighborhood. Al Wahidi, a driver, and two brothers aged 8 and 10 were killed, according to the director of Shifa Hospital. The Israeli military says Al Wahidi was not the target of the strike and that it was aiming for a Hamas militant. For many Palestinians in Gaza, Egypt's World Cup run has become about more than just soccer. Egypt shares a border with Gaza and the team's head coach, Hossam Hassan, has repeatedly... Speaker 2: So when you see things like this, when I wake up to this news... How is someone meant to feel when they do this? Speaker 0: I can't wait for the day Israel is fully alienated. And it's going to happen. It's going to happen. I would say I can't wait for the day that they finally wake up to it because I they're not going to they're not going to Mario Mario, they're not going to they're not going to listen to the way that they talk. The ideology in Israel right now is our lives are the most important lives everyone else. Who cares? disposable, useless, unimportant. They intended to kill that guy because he committed the crime of, first of all, dispersing humanitarian aid. I'm sure they didn't like that. But he committed the crime of providing a modicum of joy to the Palestinian people in a situation where they've had everything robbed from them, taken from them, including, for most of them, many members of their families. So I just... I don't understand people who still give the modern-day Israeli state the benefit of the doubt. They don't deserve it, and they haven't deserved it in a long time. They intended to kill that guy and the two children he was with. Disgusting. Just disgusting. Yeah. Speaker 2: Final thing to get your thoughts on is the big news is the strikes back and forth. What do you and Cenk think about it? Obviously you now, because I know you guys talk about it on the Young Turks. Do you guys think that the war could restart? Do you think this is just a power struggle about the Strait of Hormuz? How worried are you that Trump will be dragged into it? And also, would you agree this time around it doesn't seem to be about Israel, this is about the Strait of Hormuz? Or do you think Israel plays a role in what we're seeing right now again? Speaker 0: You know, I think in the latest developments, Israel didn't play a role. I want to be clear about that. The problem is we're in this war because of Israel. So the Israelis aren't dumb, and they certainly knew that Iran was going to take control of the Strait of Hormuz. They knew it. And once that happens, especially under the leadership of Donald Trump— That's it. We're stuck in this war because Trump isn't going. I mean, look at what's happening right now. So the we are at war. Like, let's be clear. Let's stop normalizing this BS of no, it's not war. I mean, like we're bombing the hell out of the country and they're retaliating by bombing military U.S. military bases in Gulf countries. But it's not war. It's not war. We're still what? We're still at a ceasefire. Like, what is this? Is this a special military operation? Is that what's happening? Like, we are at war. Like, let's accept it and let's stop. Because Mario, what we're doing is we're playing into what the gross warmongers want, which is the downplaying of what we're experiencing in reality. We're at war. This is war. Trump doesn't want to say he's at war because it's not a good look for him. But bitch, we're at war. And that was to Trump, not to you. But anyway... Speaker 2: So, but anyway, going back- Just in one week, you say, fuck you, then it's a meow, call Trump a bitch. That's a hell of a week. Speaker 0: He is a bitch. I mean, what else? He entered a war without really considering what the consequences, what the ramifications, what the strategy should be. He just did it. And he's making decisions on the fly, day by day, and it is hurting the global economy. It's hurting society. americans it's hurting his own base his own voters it's hurting the israelis too but you know they love war so they're too blind to see how disastrous this is for them nonetheless you know the strait of hormuz was open okay the vessels commercial vessels were sailing to and fro with no problem and so now our war aims went from complete surrender of the IRGC, which was laughable, I knew it wasn't gonna happen, but okay, to we're gonna try to take back control of the Strait of Hormuz, which I personally don't see a feasible military option there. I don't. So we'll see what happens. I mean, we're not really doing anything beneficial right now. We're needlessly keeping this war going when in reality, We should have stuck to the MOU. The US should not have done this provocative thing of encouraging vessels to travel through the Omani side of the Strait of Hormuz, which of course was gonna provoke the Iranians. That's exactly what happened. If you want to prevent future tolls or future fees being charged for vessels transiting through the Strait, you have to find a diplomatic solution. I know that's difficult for Trump to do because he actually isn't a good deal maker. But that's the only real option. But that's not the route that the president has decided to go toward or take. And again, he understands what the consequences of this will be. He understands what the consequences of this have been. We are depleting not only our weaponry and our interceptors, we're dealing with a shortage of fertilizer, a third of which travels through the Strait of Hormuz. We are also... Strategic petroleum reserves. Depleting that. That's a big problem. So, I mean, he is quoted as saying, I don't want to be the next Herbert Hoover. He understands what his legacy will be if he continues with this war, yet... He's continuing with this war. Maybe he needs to focus a little bit more on the Islamic Republic of Japan, you know? Maybe a useful distraction would be good for him, but alas. Speaker 2: An absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for coming on again. Speaker 0: Lots of fun. I always love talking to you, Mario. Thank you.
Glenn_Diesen
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 12:10 PM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:18 PM

@Glenn_Diesen - Glenn Diesen

Douglas Macgregor: Disastrous NATO Summit - Renewed War on Iran & Russia https://youtu.be/opeymG_Imxc https://t.co/PfB1RXhfaY

Video Transcript AI Summary
Colonel Douglas McGregor discusses his takeaways from a NATO summit, linking the summit’s themes to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov’s claim that NATO’s involvement means a “war” rather than a “special military operation.” McGregor argues that the summit reflected Donald Trump’s lack of strategic coherence, describes Trump’s Greenland remarks as aimed at preventing Chinese and Russian threats via Greenland and Europe, and says Trump was treated with contempt by Giorgia Meloni while others were sycophantic. McGregor argues Trump’s decisions—lifting sanctions and providing F-35s to Turkey—are not aimed at Israel but are meant to “bribe” Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to stay on Trump’s side, distance from Moscow, reduce cooperation with the Iranians, and “be our friend.” He portrays Erdoğan as “innately Machiavellian,” saying Trump’s goal is what he wanted to achieve “for the moment,” and he adds that Trump seeks ceremony and celebration, which he believes Turkey provided. McGregor claims European governments are emphasizing money and equipment for the Ukrainian regime to drag the United States into direct military confrontation with Russia, while also baiting President Vladimir Putin. He says Lithuania and other NATO states bordering Russia are openly providing bases and even potentially nuclear weapons on their soil for potential use against Russia, and he calls this “catastrophic.” He states that Trump should have “put his foot down” but instead listened to Rubio argue that helping Ukrainians strike deep into Russia would be important for negotiations, and then Trump allegedly called it an escalation while claiming it is the path to success. McGregor compares current dynamics to World War II and claims the United States lacked strategy during that period. He contrasts earlier statements Trump reportedly made—wanting Europeans to deal with Ukraine and wanting to “get out”—with later actions that he says effectively take over. He also says certain European actors appear less committed: Hungarians, Croats, Slovaks, and especially Poles, who he argues are disinterested in losing additional Polish soldiers in a war with Russia. McGregor references events involving Zelensky returning to Poland an honor and describes celebrations of figures he says were “Nazi” supporters, arguing this fuels Polish dissatisfaction with Ukrainians. He warns that if Trump pursues a no-fly zone or similar steps, neighboring countries would face consequences, and he describes the prospect as “insane,” asking whether Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, and other locations would respond by allowing routes for US sorties. When Glenn asks about possible US policy shifts—such as talk of no-fly zones, licensing Patriot production for Ukraine, and Rubio’s comments endorsing strikes into Russia—McGregor says the danger is high and compares Trump’s approach to FDR’s unilateral “unconditional surrender” decision. He argues Russia takes these steps seriously because the West repeatedly “misjudged Moscow,” dismisses Russia militarily, and misunderstands the logic of “poking the cobra.” He also says American “bloviate,” promises, and bullying are not effective against Russia, Iran, or China, and he claims the US is losing support in Europe and the Gulf. He argues Trump is manipulated by the “wrong people” including Israelis and Europeans. McGregor shifts to economic and political pressures, saying European economies face de-industrialization and trouble sustaining employment and that war drives inflation while interest rates rise. He discusses oil price dynamics, bond rates, and the potential inability to service debt if rates reach around 5%. He claims these pressures could lead to class conflict in Europe and the West. He adds that Donald Trump’s statements function as “bait” for Russia and argues Putin has avoided taking the bait. He says Russian troop movements are advancing slowly and attributes delays to handling “thousands of drones,” calling drones an “irritant” rather than a strategic game changer. He says Peskov’s remarks declaring the “SMO” over and the war as now could have prompted an immediate call to the White House to prevent “World War III,” because McGregor claims Russia is prepared while the US and Europe are not. In response to whether Sergei Lavrov’s position about already being in World War III is agreed with, McGregor says that if he were in Lavrov’s position he might feel that way due to actions he believes contradict Russian national security, but he adds the US does not reassure Russia and behaves as though only it matters, attempting a parent-child relationship. Glenn raises US remarks at the summit about Iran, including Trump declaring a memorandum of understanding dead, a ceasefire over, and Iranian diplomats being “scum,” and asks whether the US is heading into an all-out war against Iran. McGregor says the conflict is a “Jewish war waged against Iran,” involving Israeli leadership, the Jewish lobby, and “massive numbers of billionaires,” and he claims Netanyahu’s strategy is one of scorched-earth outcomes meant to destroy Iran’s state and society. He frames Trump as executing on behalf of Netanyahu. McGregor also says people believe Israel expects nuclear escalation if the US disengages, describing it as the end of Israel’s state if nuclear use occurs. Discussing a potential US strike or seizure options after Karg Island—plus alternatives involving ports like Shabahar—McGregor argues the US has underestimated the Iranian regime and military systems, referencing an earlier attempt involving Isfahan and special operations that he says ended in disaster. He describes special operations as dependent on accurate intelligence and explains that failure can occur with a single RPG or similar event. He argues that if forces seize positions like an island, the defenders may become a “pincushion” for missiles and unmanned systems. He asserts he does not see options leading to anything “clean, decisive and effective.” Finally, Glenn asks about Turkey becoming an increased concern for Israel relative to Saudi Arabia. McGregor says Turkey has the capacity to conquer, put “a million men” into the field rapidly, has modern weapons and its own industrial base, and can cooperate with Pakistan for nuclear capability. He argues that Turkey and Iran may prefer being “nuclear threshold states” without becoming nuclear powers, and he claims US behavior sends a signal that other states should build nuclear weapons. He references a French nuclear deterrent strategy analogy where only “one” nuclear weapon is needed because it imposes unacceptable damage, and he says Iran’s demonstrated ISR and strike capability suggests many middle-sized powers can now make deterrence costly enough to discourage aggression.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome back. We are joined again by Colonel Douglas McGregor, a decorated combat veteran and author and former advisor to the US Secretary of Defense. So thank you for taking the time. I'm sure you have also followed the NATO summit, which is, yeah, been hoping to get your take on this. And this happened around the same time as Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov argued that due to NATO's involvement in this war, it's no longer a special military operation, but a war. I mean, all of this, um, yeah, it's deeply troubling, but, uh, yeah, I thought I would ask you first, uh, what your takeaway was from this NATO summit? Speaker 2: Well, that's an interesting question because I suppose, depending upon where you are and what you think, you're going to have a different takeaway. Mine, my takeaways are fairly straightforward. Uh, once again, I'm always stunned by the complete lack of any strategic coherence in anything that Donald Trump says or does. Uh, that makes him very entertaining. That's why he was successful as a reality TV star. But I think that creates havoc and uncertainty everywhere he goes, perhaps has something he likes and thinks he benefits from. So I was surprised that we went back to Greenland. and the criticality of occupying Greenland to keep all those Chinese and Russian ships from somehow or another threatening the United States via Greenland and Europe. So hopefully everybody was just as disinterested in that as I think Georgia Maloney was. I was impressed with her level of complete contempt with which she treated Trump. A very wise move. Unfortunately, others were horribly sycophantic and... far too interested in cultivating him. Other than that, I think it should be clear to people, even to the Israelis who I don't think completely grasp this, that his decision to lift sanctions and provide the F-35 to the Turks is not aimed at Israel. I know the Israelis who are justifiably, I would add, very concerned with the threat from Turkey because it's quite real. Not at the moment, but that That's something that they're going to have to live with if they survive this round. More important, I think Donald Trump is bribing Mr. Erdogan once again to stay on side, to leave the Israelis alone, to distance himself from Moscow, to reduce his cooperation with the Iranians and, quote unquote, be our friend, which really means do what we tell you to do. Now, the fact that he was able to turn these F-35s over to Erdogan may or may not guarantee any of that. Erdogan is innately Machiavellian. He'll move in whatever direction he thinks benefits him and his country. So be it. But I think for the moment, that's what Donald Trump wanted to achieve. And Donald Trump loves ceremony and loves to be celebrated. And I think the Turks did a marvelous job of providing him with all the trappings of power and glory that he could have ever wished for. Much better than anything he gets in the United States, incidentally. Now, beyond that, the Europeans, they were treated to the usual rhetoric because the man is a broken record in the sense that he just keeps repeating, you're not spending enough, you're not doing enough, and every time I deal with you, I'm frustrated, I feel I should withdraw, and so forth. This, in turn... feeds the European desire to find a way to drag the United States into direct military confrontation with Russia. And so all the emphasis on providing more money and more equipment and more nonsense to the Ukrainian regime, which admittedly is very much on its last legs, is part of this effort to drag us in. But it's not just a question of dragging us in. It's also a question of baiting President Putin. And this is something Europeans have tried now for, I would argue, for at least the last three years, but now it's gotten very serious. It is blatantly obvious that Lithuania, other countries that are in NATO, Finland, that border Russia, they're not only openly providing bases and even potentially nuclear weapons on their soil that may belong to us for potential use against Russia, They're effectively letting it be known that they're quite willing to cooperate with Ukraine in any way possible to facilitate harm to Russia. This is catastrophic. This is where President Trump, if he were genuinely interested in any sort of stability in Europe, would put his foot down immediately and say, that's out of the question. That's unacceptable. But he hasn't done that. In fact, what he did... after much cajoling and private hustling, is that he sat there and listened to Rubio, our Secretary of State, explain why it was so important at this phase, if we were going to make progress with negotiations to end the war, that we help the Ukrainians strike deep into Russian territory. If that wasn't enough, President Trump then had to intervene and say, yes, I think this is an escalation. But I think that's the path to success in negotiations and peace. I mean, incomprehensible. All of it reflects complete ignorance of the true situation in Europe and in Russia. But that's not really new. I mean, you have the most blatant amateurs that I think we've had certainly since FDR. I mean, everybody tried to tell FDR over and over and over and over again. They did Churchill as well. and said, look, you know, we're 100% for defeating the Nazis. We understand that. But there is no point in creating a situation that is beneficial to the Soviet menace. And they openly said, you can read this in the General Staff Notes from the Imperial General Staff of the British Army. Stalin's communist Russia represents a far greater and more permanent threat than Nazi Germany. People tried to tell him these things over and over and over again. And what did we get back from FDR? Speaker 0: I have a hunch. Speaker 2: Uncle Joe's a good man and we can work with him. After which, with all the information, the people around him, everyone from Harry Dexter White to Harry Hopkins and Felix Frankfurter and Henry Morgenthau, most of these are what we would call today Zionist globalists who are pro-communist. fed him a lot of nonsense, which he eagerly adjusted and repeated. So we had no strategy for the Second World War. And when it became clear that we were finally going to enter Central Europe, that's when, of course, Churchill shows up too late to the party with no real voice anymore because he's now a vassal state of greater America and says, you know, Ike, it would be good if we controlled Berlin, Prague, and Vienna. It would be useful if you took those right away. You know, it was too late and the rest is history. We all know the history and people celebrate, oh, World War II is great. No, it wasn't. It left us in a terrible state of conflict and hostility that lasted almost 50 years that we could have all done without. Then when it finally was, you know, overcome, we couldn't wait to double down on it once again in the hopes of destroying this Russian state that it recently liberated itself from communism. So what do we have with Donald Trump in Istanbul? The same kind of ignorance, the same foolishness, demonstrating once again that he is most influenced, not just by the people around him, but those who talk to him just before he opens his mouth. Because if you'd have asked Trump some of these questions two weeks ago, I think you would have probably gotten a different answer. On more than one occasion, he says, I don't want to send any more money to Ukraine. I want the Europeans to deal with this. I want out. Well, how do you get out when you essentially step in and effectively take over? Which is what he's done. This is, of course, music to the ears of the globalist cabal bouts, Macron. I don't know how he's doing right now, but certainly Starmer and Starmer's successor, who is another Starmer in different clothing. So, The whole thing, I think, was deeply disappointing. Now, there are others who were there who didn't say much. And they're the ones that we should look at very carefully. And I'm talking specifically about the Hungarians, the Croats. You know, they're singularly disinterested in this war against Russia. The Slovaks, even the Poles. And if you look at the Poles recently and the return of the Order of the White Eagle by Zelensky to Poland... because they're sick of Ukrainians for a whole range of reasons. They're also disinterested in losing another 10,000 Polish soldiers at a war with Russia, which is what they did earlier. So he said, here's your white chicken. Take it. Speaker 0: This is what Zelensky said to the Poles. Speaker 2: And then they celebrated this Nazi, Bandera and his friends, who were not satisfied just to kill Jews. They wanted to kill Poles and killed over 100,000 of them. And this was celebrated in Ukraine. Insane. Makes no sense. So I think they are going to be more and more influential because Slovakia and Poland, Hungary, they border Russia. They border Ukraine. In other words, they have an interest in what happens there. And at some point, they're going to step up. But as far as we're concerned, everybody wants us involved. But if you're going to try and fight Russia, or if you're going to try and establish, I think, Trump notion that he was thinking about a no-fly zone over Ukraine. I mean, if he tries to do this, what are the Poles, Hungarians, and Slovaks going to do? What are the Romanians going to do? Are we going to start flying all of our sorties out of Sweden and Finland? Are we going to start flying them out of Denmark, Norway, England? I don't know if anybody's thinking about it, but that's insane. So I think the whole thing was a catastrophe, except for Donald personally. And he enjoyed himself immensely. Speaker 0: Yes, seemingly so. But what do you make of the shift by the United States, though? That is, all this talk, as you mentioned, about a no-fly zone. Again, perhaps it shouldn't be exaggerated. It was more of a casual response. I don't think he thought this one through at all, but also now licensing the manufacturing of a Patriots to the Ukrainians or this again comments by Rubio that all these strikes into Russia are a good thing. I mean, does this signal in your mind a shift in the US or is it just, you know, throwing a bone to the Europeans? Because as you said, the main objective of the Europeans appears to be to pull the US into a war now with Russia. Well, it's already, I guess, in the war with Russia, but deepening its involvement. And I guess towards this end, Europeans are willing to swallow any insults coming their way, if it's about Spain or about Greenland or Meloni. As a journalist, I asked Mark Rutte, have you no self-respect? Because we didn't used to be this much of a satellite states before, but I guess, yeah, it is quite remarkable. I mean... Embarrassing, but remarkable. Anyways, my question was just, do you see a shift in US policy or is this just talk? Because it's hard to tell sometimes with Trump. Speaker 2: No, I think that's a legitimate question. I said on one level, it's dangerous, very dangerous. You know, again, if you go back to Casablanca in January of 1943, this is where FDR suddenly announced his demand for unconditional surrender. And Churchill was shocked. I mean, you could see the film. He sort of turns around, what? We've never discussed that. Even Stalin, who is by no means a humanitarian, Stalin was smart enough to say, you know, we think we should negotiate with these people. And we have contacts. And the Germans may be willing to come to some sort of a negotiated end to this. Why are you doing this? Well, FDR decided that. He decided in isolation. He decided it looked and sounded good. And somebody said, well, where'd you get this? And there was some confusion. Somebody said, well, U.S. Grant during the American Civil War. True American. Unconditional surrender. Why am I bringing that up? Because that's Donald Trump. It's off the top of his head. Oh, I thought this was a good idea. Now, what do you do if you're a Russian? Speaker 0: That's the question. Speaker 2: And I think the Russians are taking all of this very seriously. And what have we continually done poorly? We have always missed judged Moscow. We have always dismissed them out of hand. We grossly underestimated them from day one. And even now, we continue to effectively dismiss them out of hand militarily. Now, how one could do that at this stage is incomprehensible. But Glenn, I'm sure you've seen it. I see it all the time here in Washington. Russians, they won't do anything. See, it's the idea that you poke the cobra and you poke the cobra. The cobra sits there but doesn't strike. See, he won't strike. And you poke the cobra. And eventually, what does the cobra do? He strikes. You die. That's what we don't get. That's where we're headed. That's what we're pushing for. The other thing I think is that there's a tendency on the American side to bloviate a great deal, to talk out of turn, to make promises we can't keep. And when all else fails, we bully people. You cannot bully the Russians. You cannot bully the Iranians. You cannot bully the Chinese. Forget it. It's over. It's done. So what do you hope to achieve? I think we're losing a lot of support in the Gulf as well as in Europe from a lot of people. It's not popularly appreciated or known here in the United States, but it's real. I think that's only going to get worse. So I'm afraid. I think it's very dangerous. But I don't think President Trump has any idea how dangerous his statements are and how foolish he looks in front of the world. how easily he's being manipulated by the wrong people, whether it's the Israelis or the Europeans, it doesn't matter. Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I think this tendency to underestimate the Russians, it's probably from the hegemonic piece, because during the Cold War, we knew that we had to be cautious. But after the Cold War, when you have a hegemonic piece, by definition, if you're going to security depends on being so powerful, it doesn't matter what the Russians thinks. The whole logic is that it's safe to ignore the Russians. Once one admits you have to take into consideration their concerns, you essentially recognize that the hegemonic era is over. So I think this is a leftover of the unipolar moment. But the Europeans, though, how are you reading their intentions or strategy? Because they keep making the point that we need to have an immediate... know ceasefire peace as soon as this is in place we can put our troops in ukraine ukraine had kind of nato membership i mean is this i mean stupidity or belligerence are they seeking to prevent the peace or they bought into their own like war propaganda that this is uh you know an imperial war by russia has nothing to do with nato expansionism i mean how are you assessing the europeans there Speaker 2: Well, I don't know what the average European who votes thinks. I have some inkling of it in Germany. My experience with most Germans is that they're very unhappy with the government in Berlin. They don't support all-out war against Russia. They're much more concerned about the wave of criminality that has come into the country since 2015, thanks to all of these non-Europeans they have. They would like to rid themselves of that problem. Beyond that, I can't You know, I can't say too much. We know that Germany and I would argue great Britain as well. We could say that to some extent about ourselves is de-industrialized. So they're on the verge of economic collapse. The financial system won't support them much longer. And people say, well, how can you say that? Well, all you have to do is look at the numbers of people that can't find work in Germany. Look at the numbers of people who are officially on the dole. who are dependent entirely on checks from the government. I include in that number vast numbers of these unwanted migrants. Same thing is true in Great Britain. What does war always breed? War breeds inflation. And right now, in order to cope, what are we doing? Well, we're raising interest rates. We have no choice. We really don't control them anymore. And if you look at the 10-year bond, in the United States, which is very, very important. Everybody, if you bring on anybody who's an expert in the bond market, whether it's somebody like Guntlach or Luke Grohman or any number of people, and look at oil inflation in the bond market for the interest rates, oil has already inched up to almost $80 a barrel now that the straits are shut down again. They're going to remain shut down for some period of time. I don't know how long that is. People think that we're going to be on a yo-yo. Pause this week, war next week. Pause the following week, war the next week, and so forth. The markets can't cope with that. And eventually, all of the efforts undertaken by the financial gurus that surround Trump, his friends and billionaires in New York City, to suppress the cost of oil by shorting oil repeatedly, exploiting all these public statements at the right point in time, That's going to fail. It's not going to work anymore. And when that does, if you look at the bond market today, the 10 year bond is up to something in the neighborhood of 4.5 or higher. Everyone I know tells me the same thing, and I'm not an expert on this, but I don't think you have to be to figure this out. When that 10 year bond rate, interest rate hits 5%, we're through. We cannot service the debt. We cannot borrow any longer. The destruction of credit, which is inevitable at that point, is going to bring everybody in the West down. And that's where we're headed right now. A lot of people, including me, I thought Trump understood the danger, which is why I thought he made an intelligent statement when he signed the MOU. Everybody knows that that MOU is anathema to Donald Trump and his administration and to everybody in Washington. It's essentially an admission that we are not the hegemonic power. That's your point. We've surrendered. Everybody says, well, it's a surrender document. Well, what we've said is we're not the hegemon anymore. And that's perfectly fine with me and most Americans because we don't want to spend the money on that nonsense. It's unnecessary. We don't have to be the hegemon. We have to defend ourselves and our true interests. But that's not the attitude in Washington. So I think we're going to hit that wall. We're going to hit that 5%. It's going to break, and then we're going to be in free fall. That's going to bring everything to a screeching halt. Now, when does that happen? I don't know. It could happen next month. It could happen at Christmas. It could happen in October. But I think we're headed there. I don't see how you stop it. The Europeans, I think, don't believe that. I think they believe that somehow or another, magically, we can rig the system. And carry on with the, this enormous debt load. I don't think so. I think the, the British, I used to, it would be the French beginning to think the British are the first to go under. You have to look at their guilt market. They have similar problems. They almost went under, under Liz trust. Everybody since Liz trust has essentially been putting band-aids on the economy and on the financial system. That's not gonna last much longer. Britain is very close to open warfare in the streets. I mean, you can only tolerate Pakistani rape gangs and other thuggish elements in your unwanted migrant population from hunting British citizens who are not armed until finally somebody says, enough's enough. So I think bad things are coming. The other thing is this overlaps with not just economic disappointment, but with a very serious class war. And I think that's true in much of Europe because the globalist elites are They're largely out of touch with the majority of people in the population. They don't care. You know, if you listen to people like David Betts, he'll tell you that the people in parliament don't understand the world just 20 kilometers away. They have no idea what's going on. I think that's more and more the case in Paris. You have this sort of bureaucratic parasitic class that sustains itself and thinks that life will go on regardless. And they don't care what happens to the population as long as They get to hold their position of authority and get their paycheck. In the United States, it's all the people that are invested in pension funds, which we're borrowing against at a very high rate. And those people are going to lose everything. That's my generation. These are the so-called boomers that have been paying into these things for years. All of this is going to happen. That is finally going to change everything. But in the meantime, the danger is the stupid remarks we're making about the things that we really cannot do, and if we try, we'll fail, are essentially a bait for the Russians. We're baiting them. Prove that you're serious. Prove that you can do this. And the one thing I would give President Putin great credit for is that he's avoided taking the bait. And he is progressing. I sat down the other day with someone who's experienced in these Russian matters and understands the military and the problems they have. All militaries have problems, by the way. The Russians have theirs. But along the forward line of troops, that continues to advance westward. There's no question about that. It's slow because if it were not for these thousands of drones that have to be dealt with, I think things would be over in a few days. But when you finally create a cauldron and you surround it, it takes two weeks to reduce it, to destroy the people that are in there, and then move in, and then you move forward. But they're getting closer and closer and closer to the edge. But the drone is an irritant. It is not the strategic game changer that people in the West think it is. It's a serious strategic irritant to Moscow. Their public is furious over it. The Russian people are sick of it. And so when Peskov comes out and says, effectively, the SMO is over, war is now, And this is not really new because we've been listening to many people, including Sergei Lavrov, say we're already in World War III. That would have been enough for me, had I been a secretary of state or something, to immediately go to the White House and say, look, we can't allow this. We've got to sit down and talk with these people. The last thing humanity needs is World War III. Well, the Russians are prepared to fight it. We are not. And neither is Europe, as you know. The little Lilliputian armies aren't going to be able to do anything. And when you look at the numbers of troops that we have on the ground, about 110,000, 113,000, maybe more, what are you going to do with that? And then you have to fuel it and sustain it and move it. You have to protect it against all these threats. We're not prepared for any of that. So what are we going to do? Rely on air power? Our air power is largely committed to the Persian Gulf and the war with Iran. I don't know what is really on the backs of these people's minds. I think most of the time it's a bluff, but I do think there's a certain amount of self-delusion that we are really the same power and in the same position as we were in 1991. Speaker 0: Do you agree with that sentiment of Sergei Lavrov that we're already in World War III or are we heading there or how do you see it? Speaker 2: I think if I were in his position, viewing the things that are being done that are fundamentally antithetical to Russian national security, I would feel that way. On the other hand, I would be very interested in disabusing him of that thinking, and I would take concrete steps to reassure him. We don't want to do that. We act as though we're the only people that count, and whatever they think is irrelevant. It's this parent-child relationship. that Trump attempts to establish everywhere he goes with everyone and the rest of the world. You know, well, I told them they have a chance and they want a deal. Well, if they want a deal, they'll have to do what I say. You know, really, Mr. President? Speaker 0: You know, haven't you heard him talk about the, oh, the Iranians are desperate. Speaker 2: They want a deal. Well, guess what? The Iranians are in a full war footing. Are we? No. And if you're going to fight them, in the region where they live on their doorstep. You better think long and hard about what that means because you're in for a long fight and a real war. And again, we're not prepared for that. I don't give a damn what he says publicly. We're not, you know, the Navy has now admitted that they have more launchers and more tubes for missiles than they have missiles to fire. It's out in the open. Speaker 0: That's kind of extraordinary. What are you doing? About Trump, though, talking down to all these people, it's not just Trump, though. I think it's also, again, part of the hegemonic order after the Cold War, that his diplomacy was replaced with this teacher-student relationship. That is, we're no longer doing mutual understanding for compromise. Rather, it's the civilizational teacher telling the rest of the world how they should make unilateral concessions to be more like us. We continue to say these things, but the rest of the world isn't listening anymore. But I'm glad you mentioned Iran and all, because at this NATO summit, they didn't only go after Russia. Trump was quite vocal about Iran. That is... Yeah, he argued that the memorandum of understanding is dead. The ceasefire is over. He called the Iranian diplomats for scum. Is the U.S. now heading back into all-out war? Because as you said before, the assumption is often that we have this escalation control. We can do this yo-yo thing. We go to war, we do a pause. War, pause. But the Iranians, they have their internal politics too, it seems. That is, their hawks are... being proven right that the opponent wouldn't abide by these deals. And at some point, why would they want to end the fighting if this off and on fighting is always on their opponent's terms? I mean, at some point, they wouldn't grant this escalation control to the US. Again, that's why I'm a bit... I don't see the strategic value in going back to war against Iran. Not like this, at least. Speaker 2: Well, first of all, this is a Jewish war waged against Iran. I say Jewish because it's by no means exclusively Israeli. It involves the Jewish lobby here in the United States and the massive numbers of billionaires that constitute the backbone of it. They effectively own lock, stock, and barrel, not just Donald Trump, but the Hill. Mr. Netanyahu, when he embarked on this war, this was a war to the finish. He was talking effectively from the very beginning in scorched earth terms. You know, I mean, it's what I call the Mongolian way of war. You know, once the Mongols went to war with you, you were finished, and they would do everything in their power to utterly eradicate you. leaving only enough people alive to pay tribute and govern in your absence. I think that's kind of what Mr. Netanyahu has always wanted. And if you look at the strategy for Russia, it's the same strategy for Iran. We're going to destroy you. We're going to cause the disintegration of your state and society. You will be divided and fragmented. And we will determine who ultimately rules. That's the Netanyahu program, not just for Iran, but for the Middle East. And you can either submit to that or you can go down. And that was always the Mongolian answer. Join us or die. Submit or be destroyed. We are executing on behalf of Israel. Mr. Trump is executing on behalf of Mr. Netanyahu and the people that put him into office. That's where he is. Now, people say to me all the time, what's going on, Doug? Why would he do this? All I can tell you is I think the man's under duress. I don't know what it is. But this is not something that I remember him expressing much interest in. On the contrary, I remember him as being very disinclined to be involved in any of this in the Middle East. So it's not just a tremendous change in him personally. There's something else going on. And I think that we'll learn more when Mr. Netanyahu comes to Washington next week. And there will be closer coordination and more planning. Somebody said to me the other day, well, you know, the Israelis have privately made it clear that if for some reason we should disengage from the war, they will use nuclear weapons. Because that's their answer. Well, you know, I don't know what to say, except that... If they were to do that, that would be the end of the Israeli state once and for all. No chance whatsoever, in my judgment, for that state to survive. But I guess the answer is, okay, we understand and we don't want that to happen, so we'll do whatever you want us to do. Perhaps that's the answer that they've been getting. They certainly seem to get anything they want. They have access to anything they want, including intelligence, and now increasingly to our entire military potential. And no one on the Hill seems interested in obstructing In fact, most of them were eager to turn everything over to them. Then you have to look at the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent over decades to buy up these politicians. They own them now. At some point, this can't go on. Now, I keep saying I think it's the financial system and the underlying economic fundamentals, which are so weak, that will bring this to an end. I hope that happens before something worse comes along. And of course, when you listen to President Trump and he is so capable of flip-flopping, I worry that he suddenly flip-flops in the wrong direction and says, well then, let's use a nuclear weapon. He said repeatedly he won't do that. He thinks that's insane. He's repeated that publicly. He's repeated it within the last couple of months. But then we've seen him say a lot of things, turn around and do a 180-degree turn, right? Speaker 0: And that's what he's just done on the... Speaker 2: mou but in fairness the mou was never acceptable to us because we were surrendering hegemony we don't want to do that and we're not going to prevail upon the israelis to do anything because they're the ones who seem to have control over us i mean i don't know how else to interpret it do you Speaker 0: No, I didn't expect the US to implement MOU. I mean, this whole idea of paying all this money in reparations, unfreezing the assets, ending all sanctions. I mean, it wasn't in the cards. I think it was impossible to do as well. But I thought that the US would gradually just string the Iranians along, try to renegotiate, say, oh, we can't pay any reparations because of Congress. something just to, well, open up the Strait of Hormuz and put an end to this on more favorable terms. But for going back into war now, in which that would only harden the Iranian position, this, as I said, it doesn't make any sense, strategically at least, unless they have something up their sleeves I'm not aware of. But when it comes to Trump's new threats now, because he was making the point, we attacked Karg Island, but we might seize it as well. How do you make sense of this? Because again, there must be a reason why they didn't do it in the two last rounds. Why would it go to this extent now? Or is this again, just talk? Speaker 2: Well, you remember the operation in Isfahan, where we tried to insert special operations forces with considerable air support and expertise from the CIA and so forth on the grounds that they were within range of plutonium that could be, I guess, acquired and then spirited out of the country. That ended in disaster. It was covered or concealed, if you will, by this supposed officer who had been shot down that had to be recovered. That was kind of a cover story. And what we discovered was that in a part of Iran where we thought they would be vulnerable. They didn't turn out to be vulnerable. And so once again, it was a question of have we underestimated the regime? Have we underestimated the military establishment, its various systems, human and remote? Well, I guess we did. And I think a number of people said, in fact, I know they did. They were grateful that this happened because it put an end to his fantasy that we could replicate what we did in Venezuela. Remember, Venezuela... worked because we'd bribed everybody in sight. But even so, as someone with a lot of experience in that area told me, he said, Doug, you know that all these operations are very fragile and failure is only one RPG away. All you have to do is hit one helicopter that's flying by with an RPG or a high powered, you know, machine gun, automatic cannon, something, and you have a disaster in your hands. That's what people don't understand. Special operations forces have remarkable capabilities, but they also have extraordinary limitations. They depend on a degree of accurate information and intelligence in a way that nobody else does. If you're in the regular fighting force before you go and execute a mission, you don't say, I'm sorry, I can't do that mission because I don't have perfect information. There are too many risks involved. will probably get killed because there are too many enemy out there and so forth. That doesn't exist. You get the mission, you go, end of discussion. But special operations forces know their own limitations very well, especially my experience with the Army special ops, very realistic people. And so I think a lot of them were relaxed after they saw this fail, but we avoided heavy casualties and got out. So I think that was taken to mean, look, you want us to go into an island? That's very dangerous. We could probably get there. I don't know if we'll get there without losses, but if we do, what do we do? You know, we're in the island. Do we dig giant holes and jump into them and wait for somebody to rescue us? Or we're just going to be a pincushion for every ballistic missile and unmanned system that's out there. You do have people who have talked about Shabahar seizing that port because it's outside of the Gulf in the theory that if you gained control of that, that would give you leverage over Iran. I haven't quite figured out what that leverage is strategically. I think the Iranians would probably take the Russian position. Well, if they're going to seize Shabahar, we'll defend it if we can. But if we can't, we'll make sure they seize nothing. So then are you going to use the ruins of Jabahar as your launch pad for penetrating Iranian airspace once again with helicopters and B-22s to take control of, say, Bandar Abbas? Excuse me. Or are you going to try and fly from the UAE right across the Gulf? And I think everybody's saying, wait a minute, this is just not... If you're looking for something clean... decisive and effective, this may not be a good option. But I don't know who's there. You've listened to General Kellogg and General Keene. I think they would probably support any of those options. I don't know. I assume so. They'll do whatever in order to widen this war in the hopes that by doing so, they can bring Iran to its knees. I don't see that happening. Speaker 0: Yeah, I noticed Trump, he removed Syria from this list of state sponsors of terrorism. At least he said he would at the same summit. So yeah, I'm not sure if that is intended to widen the war. But I did want to just follow up on something you said earlier. This is that the Israelis now see Turkey as a growing threat. What is it about Turkey and Israel that doesn't make war unavoidable, but at least sets them on the path to more conflict? Speaker 2: In 2013, I was invited to a conference in Israel that celebrated the anniversary of the 73 war. And it was a very good conference. I learned a great deal. And of course, I was writing a book at the time and I covered the Egyptian front. of the 73 war. And I got to meet some interesting people who were in it. And that's always best to talk to somebody who's actually in those things. Speaker 1: But while I was there, I was asked to brief talk about the future. And I had a slide about Turkey. Speaker 2: Now this is posted on the internet. If you want to Google my name, you can see the presentation, I guess. And at the time I told them, I said, don't misinterpret America's desire to disengage its forces from much of the region as evidence for a lack of support for Israel. We will help you defend yourselves. Absolutely. The problem is everybody's now realized we're not helping them defend themselves. We're helping them kill everybody that they don't like. There's a huge difference between defense and that sort of thing. But I put a slide up about Turkey and said, you know, Turkey has been through, and Turkey is the way they want you to say it now, through a rather profound but steady evolution away from the Ataturk model, which was fundamentally secular and rather Euro-oriented, European in its orientation insofar as modernization was concerned. That's over. The Turks have discovered their roots. Their roots are not in Europe. Their roots are in the Middle East and Central Asia. They are different in terms of religion, culture, language, and race. And they are now celebrating that as opposed to suppressing it because they perceive that Ataturk, who is still widely revered and for good reason, was a brilliant man, was seen as suppressing those things that cannot be suppressed. It's unnatural. You know, it would be like suggesting that all the Norwegians abandon their Norwegian citizenship and Swedes do the same, embrace each other and live in the giant Scandinavian state not likely to happen so i think the turks have come around to the point that we have other obligations we are a great power we are not weak and we should have a greater say in what goes on in this region and oh by the way for a very long time and i've had these discussions with turkish officers they said you know what are you doing in turkey you know you don't need to be here anymore You know, you don't need nuclear weapons here. We don't have bad relations with the Russians. We don't want bad relations with the Russians. I think there's a view that the region can do without us. And they frankly are looking at the Sunni Islamic countries and they're saying we should have better relations with them and we should be prepared to help and support them in the future. I think the Pakistanis and the arrangements that they've now made with the Saudis are just the beginning of that. I think you're going to see more integration and cooperation militarily aimed at defending the Islamic world against outsiders, not just Israelis, but anybody who wants to come in and rule. And that's why in that 14-point memo, it says, no more bases, U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf. It's time for you to get out. You're finished here. And they make that point. I'm somebody who agrees with him. I think we ought to get out. But an awful lot of what we have and what we do, as we've discussed before, Glenn, is mortgage to vanity. You know, by the time the British Empire was liquidated, there were a lot of people saying, gee, we held onto that for a long time. We should have gone out earlier. Absolutely. You know, at some point, you've extracted all the benefits you're going to get. And I think we should go. That's not necessarily a criticism of us. It's in the nature of the world. But, you know, that I think is where we're headed. And the Turks fit in with that. And they also have interests that diverge sharply from NATO and sharply from the EU and sharply from us. It doesn't mean we have to have a war, but it means we have to respect it. Speaker 0: But this puts... But why would the Turkey be more of a concern, say, than Saudi Arabia for the Israelis? Speaker 2: The Saudis couldn't conquer anybody. Fair enough. The Turks can. And the Turks can put a million men into the field in 30 days. And they have modern weapons. They have their own industrial base. They can build their own weapons and equipment. And remember, you've heard Erdogan say this publicly. He wags his finger. Don't lecture us Netanyahu. Don't tell us what you have We know what you have and we're not afraid What's he talking about nuclear weapons? Because the Turks have always known for years that they could turn to Pakistan if they needed a nuclear weapon What we don't seem to get is both the Turks and the Iranians and others see value in being what I would call potentially a nuclear threshold state, but not being a nuclear state. You know, if you don't have to have a nuclear weapon, why do you want it? It's more trouble than it's worth. But you want to be in a position where if you need it, you can be a threshold state. We, unfortunately, by our behavior, the way we've approached things in Iran, I think we're making it increasingly likely that many, many states will now develop, build, and establish nuclear weapons. In other words, we're achieving the very opposite of what Donald Trump continues to harp on. Speaker 0: They may never have a nuclear weapon. Speaker 2: Okay, good luck with that, Donald, because everything we've done has sent an unambiguous signal. You're fools if you don't build one. But I don't think even now they really want it. I certainly wouldn't. I wish we had none of them on the planet, frankly. Speaker 0: We'd be better off. Yeah, I think that's become the new or will become the new nuclear deterrence. That is, if you develop the nuclear weapons, you incentivize others to get them as well. But to be these nuclear threshold states, that is, if Israel attacks Iran with nuclear weapon, the Israelis know that the Iranians can build a few by the end of the week. I think this is essentially will be sufficient, a middle road, that is, to have the deterrence without their proliferation. Speaker 2: Well, you know, I can't remember the gentleman's name. I should, but it doesn't occur to me right now. Maybe you'll remember, but the Frenchman who developed and built the French nuclear deterrent force. And he was asked by a visiting U.S. Army officer, well, how many nuclear weapons do you think you really need? And he smiled and he said, one. He said, one? He said, of course. These things are so damaging. They're so destructive. One is enough. Well, there's a lot of truth and wisdom in his statement. You don't need very many. Now, the Russians, for various reasons, and this is back to where we began. Why is it so dangerous when someone like Sergei Lavrov, who's a very, I would call him one of the more balanced, thoughtful men in international relations today, You know, in the old 19th century, we would point to him as the sort of dean of the diplomatic community. You know, he would be viewed in those terms, as Bismarck was at one point. Gorshikov, you know, I'm trying to remember his name, but it... Oh, gosh, I can't remember. He was a German. Nesselrode, who was also the Tsar's representative. And before these people, you had... You had many others, but the point is these were professionals who had spent years, if not decades, in these communities. And when they spoke, everyone listened, whether it was meditation and so forth, because they had the reputation for integrity, accuracy, and seriousness. And they were educated men. So when I hear him, that really should get everyone's attention. It doesn't, because those things that I just mentioned are not respected. in Washington. If they were, most of the people sitting there wouldn't have a job. Speaker 0: I think the French was the goal who made this comment that a nuclear weapon only needs to impose unacceptable damage. It's a bit like the Swiss strategy during the Second World War. They didn't need The turns by denial, all they needed to do was make sure that it would be too painful for the Germans to take Switzerland. So that kind of puts the limitations on how many nukes you need, I guess. Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think the nice thing is that this ISR strike capability, intelligence, defense, reconnaissance, matched to strike weapons, demonstrated by the Iranians, suggested most middle-sized and smaller powers can build that and impose exactly what you're talking about. The cost becomes suddenly so high. Let's forget it. That's not the way forward. Let's talk. Speaker 0: We're learning this lesson the hard way. Well, that's historically been the source of peace, though. When the weapons favor defense as opposed to offense, then you usually have some period of stability. But anyways, thank you very much for taking time out every day to share your perspective. So thanks again. Speaker 1: Sure. Thank you, Glenn.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 12:33 AM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:18 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve learned that days before the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, U.S. Air Force U‑2 spy missions were canceled over the exact sea area where the ship was later bombed. Sgt. Bryce Lockwood says U‑2 flights were barred between June 3 and June 9, leaving the Liberty effectively unwatched. He now believes it was a false flag setup to pull the U.S. into war with Egypt.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 USS Liberty Survivor: U‑2 Flights Were Grounded Before the Attack In the days leading up to the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, U.S. Air Force Lockheed U‑2 spy plane missions were suddenly canceled over the exact stretch of sea where the ship would later be bombed. One of the last surviving crew members, Silver Star recipient, U.S. Marine Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood, reveals those U‑2 flights were explicitly barred from the area between June 3 and June 9, 1967, a blackout window that left the Liberty effectively unwatched from the sky. Sgt. Lockwood now believes the USS Liberty wasn’t just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but was being set up as part of an international false flag operation designed to drag the United States into a full-scale war against Egypt.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript discusses the June 8, 1967 USS Liberty attack and claims that U-2 reconnaissance flights were intentionally disrupted around the time of the incident. The host says there are “no coincidences” and points to U-2 flights being canceled or postponed, including not flying over a designated area until a specific date—one day after the USS Liberty was to be bombed—framing this as a “new revelation” learned from Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood, a United States Marine Corps survivor of the attack. Lockwood describes the USS Liberty as a US Naval intelligence ship operating in international waters during the Six Day War when it was attacked by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats. The transcript states that 34 Americans were killed and more than 170 wounded. It says Israel described the attack as mistaken identity, but that survivors have disputed this explanation for nearly six decades, and that declassified documents also dispute it. It adds that Lockwood was badly burned and still saved three shipmates trapped below deck, earning the Silver Star for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity, as referenced by Military Times. The host asks Lockwood about new information regarding U-2 spy planes. Lockwood says a friend sent him documents from the U.S. Intelligence Board. He reports that, on 1 June, the USIB formally approved the transfer of SIGINT (signals intelligence) and overhead reconnaissance functions over denied areas to a new committee structure, “effectively institutionalizing controlled imagery exploitation in the Middle East.” He then reports that on 3 June a separate directive explicitly barred U-2 flights until no earlier than 9 June, citing “sensitive diplomatic negotiations.” Lockwood says the result was a “reconnaissance blackout” for conventional overhead platforms during the precise window of the Liberty incident while new bureaucratic systems were being implemented to manage signal and imagery from denied zones, and that this stands in direct contradiction to existing narratives and other contemporaneous documents. When asked what he thought on hearing this, Lockwood states, “We were set up,” adding that, in his view, they were sent with a direct purpose to establish an international false flag operation: “Save the shit, kill everyone aboard it, blame it on the Egyptians, get the United States involved on the side of Israel.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, we don't believe in coincidences here on our show, here on Redacted. And when U-2 flights are suddenly canceled or postponed, not to fly over a designated area until a specific date, one day after the bombing of the USS Liberty by the Israelis, it's all very interesting. Why would U-2 flights be postponed specifically over the area until where the USS Liberty was to be bombed. This is a new revelation that we're just learning about. We learned about it from Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood, United States Marine Corps, one of the last living survivors of the June 8th, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. The Liberty was a US Naval intelligence ship operating in international waters during the Six Day War when it was suddenly attacked by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 Americans were killed, more than 170 wounded. Israel, of course, said the attack was a tragic case of mistaken identity, but that's not the case at all. Many survivors have disputed that explanation for nearly six decades. And by the way, declassified documents also dispute that. Bryce Lockwood was badly burned in the attack, still risked his life to save three shipmates trapped below deck. For that courage, he received the Silver Star for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity. according to his citation in the Military Times. So, Sergeant Lockwood joins us now. Thank you for being here, and thank you for your service, and thank you for your bravery in speaking out about this. Speaker 1: My pleasure. Speaker 0: So, at the beginning, I mentioned perhaps a new revelation. You know, much has been written and said about the USS Liberty attack, but you just learned about... some new information that came to light about these U-2 spy planes. Maybe before we get into the details of the attack and everything that you experienced, can you talk about this new revelation? Speaker 1: A friend of mine sent me some documents from the U.S. Intelligence Board. And this document states, on 1 June, the USIB, the U.S. Intelligence Board, formally approves the transfer of SIGINT signals intelligence, overhead reconnaissance functions over denied areas to a new committee structure, effectively institutionalizing controlled imagery exploitation in the Middle East. On 3 June, a separate directive explicitly bars U-2 flights until no earlier than 9 June, citing sensitive diplomatic negotiations. The net result was a reconnaissance blackout for conventional overhead platform U2 during the precise window of the Liberty incident while new bureaucratic machinery was being stood up to manage signal and imagery from denied zone. This stands in direct contradiction to the narrative and other contemporaneous documents. Speaker 0: What did you think when you heard that? Speaker 1: We were set up Not that we didn't already suspect that. We believe that we were sent there with a direct purpose, setting up an international false flag operation, if you like that term. Save the shit, kill everyone aboard it, blame it on the Egyptians, get the United States involved on the side of Israel.
MarioNawfal
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 1:35 AM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:13 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m seeing Washington brace for weeks of fighting while the units meant to carry it are sent home. I track the “machinery”: the US–allied deconfliction cell is being pulled and the crisis action teams activated before Feb. 28 haven’t been reconstituted, so the path remains withdrawal. I also challenge “rogue elements” and “fresh plot” logic with published protocols and exports.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🇮🇷 🇺🇸 Washington says it's bracing for weeks of fighting. The units you'd actually stand up for that fight are being sent home instead Larry Johnson tracks the machinery behind the threats. Per his sourcing, the deconfliction cell that keeps US and allied aircraft untangled mid-operation is being pulled out of the region, and the crisis action teams activated before February 28 have never been reconstituted. Real operations run on that plumbing. Its absence, he argues, means the path is still withdrawal, whatever the podium says. He gave the "rogue elements" theory the same treatment. Axios reported mediators believe MOU opponents inside Iran struck those ships. Larry pulled up the published protocols: any vessel that skips Iran's application gets denied passage or fired on. Paragraph five enforcement, spelled out in black and white, requires no rogues. The bigger moment lands tomorrow. Tasnim says the new Supreme Leader will lead commemorative prayers at Qom, his first public appearance, with Israel's death threat still hanging in the air. And on the WSJ report of a fresh Iranian plot against Trump, Larry's logic ran opposite: a country working to push America out of the Gulf doesn't hand Washington a reason to return. The ledger underneath it all: 60 MILLION barrels exported in three weeks per Windward Intelligence, 10 million of them in a single night. @NewSonof

Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation starts with Mario describing phases of backlash on X, which he says can spike with the Gaza war and due to changes in following behavior, such as Elon unfollowing and then refollowing him. He explains that his team warned him that a particular tweet would be “the most controversial thing” he had ever posted. He then shares the tweet’s content: “the refs did not rob Egypt,” and that the match was “not fixed nor rigged,” followed by text encouraging research and “bring on the hate,” while noting readers would click the image. He says his interactions after years on X left him with “no feelings left,” and he mentions a prior viral tweet about Khamenei’s funeral processions and his feelings “about Iran,” which he says went “crazy viral.” He and Larry Johnson then discuss censorship and platform migration, with Larry saying his YouTube account removal “wiped out a lot of material” and that content has been backed up on BitChute. They also reference Larry’s “Transition Protocol” channel. Turning to news, Mario says “today is genuinely bizarre.” He recounts early reports from Iranian media that multiple locations across Iran—including Shabahar, Bandar Abbas, Ahvaz, and others—were hit, with many people immediately concluding this was a new wave of U.S. airstrikes. He says the narrative became confused when Axios reported U.S. officials said the U.S. was not striking Iran and that radar showed no indications of American aircraft active. He then describes further shifting assumptions: some believed Israel had joined after Israel reportedly sought U.S. green light, while Israeli media denied Israel involvement and suggested Gulf countries such as Bahrain and Kuwait instead. Mario describes a sequence where Iranian media initially denied explosion reports, then later reaffirmed that some attacks occurred. He cites IRNA reporting a projectile hit a military headquarters near Bashir, with no casualties reported early on, and Tasneem later reporting airstrikes on an Iranian Navy site in Qanarak “but they don’t know who.” He summarizes that multiple Iranian outlets gave conflicting details and that other claims included missiles allegedly launched from Kuwait and Saudi drones reported off the coast, making “it confusing.” He concludes that he can only speculate but “would guess Bahrain and Kuwait,” adding that it “definitely looks like there were strikes.” Larry then shifts to what he describes as U.S. de-escalation: he says regional efforts deescalated the situation after the U.S. did not launch new strikes on Thursday, referencing a deconfliction cell that was reportedly redeployed home and crisis action teams not being reactivated. He says Iran retaliated against previous U.S. strikes by hitting Muwaffaq al-Salt air base among others, and he claims the U.S. responded by “quit while we’re ahead,” rather than further escalation. Mario says he sees the conflict as a struggle over control of the Strait of Hormuz and suggests Iran would continue retaliating in limited ways rather than escalating into a full-blown war. He lists targets he says Iran struck: Muwaffaq al-Salt Air Base in Jordan; Ali al-Salam Air Base in Kuwait; and Bahrain’s Fifth Fleet Headquarters, plus an airfield tied to Sheikh Issa. He mentions that the New York Times said the American attack was “14 times larger” than earlier strikes and that someone involved in early targeting said it “didn’t even come close.” The discussion then focuses on Strait of Hormuz control and war-resumption indicators. Larry says no ships attempted to go through the Omani Channel, and Mario says “Pretty hard to dispute… Iran,” while also saying the U.S. cannot break Iran’s control without incurring major losses. Mario reports indicators he says suggest Iran is preparing for potential resumption: tanker trackers showing “10 million barrels” shipped out overnight from the Strait of Hormuz; Iranian armed forces entering highest alert with “scatter orders”; and further estimates that Iran exported about “60 million barrels” over three weeks. He also mentions a claim that oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Homs is near standstill with only two tankers transiting, and that a statement attributed to the IRGC warns foreigners to get out while not ordering closure. Mario adds that the Omanis told the UN IMO they do not support imposing transit fees and reaffirmed transit passage rights under international law, contradicting earlier reports. He also says another Axios report claims mediators believe Iranian attacks on commercial ships were initiated by elements inside the Iranian government opposed to the MOU, which Larry disputes by pointing to compliance protocols he says are “in black and white.” They then discuss additional claims about Khamenei-related funeral and leadership attendance. Mario says reports changed regarding whether Khamenei would attend funeral prayers, with Tasnim saying he will attend a commemorative prayer at the shrine of Fatima Massoumi “tomorrow after Maghreb and Isha prayers.” Larry adds that the oldest son led prayers in Mashad. Mario then mentions ongoing concerns about whether Israel would target Khamenei and references an Israel-Washington warning described via the Wall Street Journal quoting Larry Johnson: Israel warned Washington of an Iranian plot to assassinate Trump, with Trump alluding to being on lists and with funeral banners reading “we will kill Trump.” The conversation includes a dispute between Larry and Mario about whether Iran would consider assassinating Trump and what goals Iran has regarding keeping the U.S. out of the Persian Gulf. They also discuss claims that Pakistan and Qatar are working to bring the U.S. and Iran back to negotiations after recent escalations. Finally, Mario mentions other regional developments he says include Iranian deployment of thousands of special forces to the border with Iraqi Kurdistan and warning that a security zone would be established if Kurdish groups backed by the U.S. and Israel attempt to infringe Iranian sovereignty. He also discusses a France-reported idea of alternative energy corridors, including Syria as a possible route for Gulf oil to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, and recalls prior Israeli discussions of a pipeline alternative. The segment ends with plans for upcoming coverage, including interviews about sabotage of a railway line in Iran, further discussion of U.S.-Iran back-and-forth, and additional guests.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This could be every period of time something happens and I get a lot of hate on X. It happens. It's normal. It's sometimes related to the Gaza war. Sometimes Elon unfollowed me, then refollowed me. That got a lot of engagement. So remove it. Just don't show it yet, Stephanie. So I've gone through my phases of like a hate campaign. But I came up with a tweet. I'm like, guys, I want to post this. What do you think? You know, before I tweet it, before we come on. They're like, Mario, they sent me a warning on my WhatsApp group. They're like, Mario, this will be the most controversial thing you've ever posted. And another one of my team members, I have like a group with all my writers. You want to start a civil war? Actually, a world war. All my team's like, Mario, you're going to get through a lot of shit. And this is the tweet. If you can show it now, Stephanie. I just posted it. So expect by the end of this interview, my Twitter feed is going to click bait. Speaker 1: What did you do? Speaker 0: You can consider it click bait. I said, no, the refs did not rob Egypt. The match was not fixed nor rigged. Feel free to do your research and come to your own conclusion. And then I wrote under it. As I post this, my team warned me. This might be the most controversial thing you've ever posted. So bring on the hate. And they click on the image under it, Stephanie. And then this is me and one of my team members. He says, just don't look at the comments because they're going to be trying to legitimately hurt your feelings. And then I reply after years on X, I have no feelings left. Speaker 1: It burned off all your nerve endings. Speaker 0: Oh, man, it's been a journey. But now we get billions of impressions. So sometimes I tweet something because I get like a thought. And then it ends up, you know, it goes well, sometimes backfires. Like two days ago when we were, just before we did an interview, I posted, what did I say? Something about the funeral. I said, where is it? After watching the size of Khamenei's funeral processions, I feel light too about Iran. Fair tweet, you know, because I just had that perception of Iran. And then that went like crazy viral, you know, two, three, I think. Speaker 1: I thought you were a Mossad asset. Speaker 0: I'm an asset of everybody. I just need to get paid. Mossad's not paying me. The Iranians are not paying me. Speaker 1: I keep sending my invoices to Vladimir Putin and he doesn't pay them. Yeah. Speaker 0: Oh, man, it's fun. You've been going through this for many more years than I have since your TV days, so you know exactly what I'm talking about. Speaker 1: You've become a musician. Well, there's once in a while, somebody writes something that really pisses me off, and I want to start writing back, torture them. And then I'm going, why even give them the satisfaction? I just delete them. You're not even worth listening to, okay? Not even worth paying attention to. Speaker 0: Have you ever been targeted? Oh, you've had your YouTube account removed. That's painful. That's like the worst when you get censored that way. Speaker 1: Yeah, that was, I mean, that wiped out a lot of material. It was unfortunate, but, you know, but, you know, it's not the end of the world. So I started backing it. I started backing what I'm doing now. It gets backed up on BitChute. Speaker 0: BitChute, yeah, that's good. Yeah, and you also have... You also have the channel with Pepe and the guy from Pakistan. Dr. Z. Yeah. Speaker 1: What's the channel called? Speaker 0: Transition Protocol. Speaker 1: Pepe and I just did another transition protocol about two hours ago, three hours ago. Nice. Speaker 0: Yeah, I've mentioned it on my show a few times, so it's good that you're rebuilding it. All right. So let's go through today's news. Today is a very bizarre day. So let's go through the biggest news. So it all started out. I've got my notes here. Speaker 1: Every day has been a bizarre day. What are you talking about? Speaker 0: Now, the others are like surprising, unusual. This one's genuinely bizarre. So we get initial reports from Iran, Iranian media, that Shabahar, Bandar Abbas, Qanarak, Ahvaz, Bushir were all targeted. There's explosions there. Kashim, Sirik, Jask. All these were being targeted. And everyone just immediately came to the conclusion, including people in Iran, that this is the new wave of airstrikes by the U.S. And then it all starts becoming bizarre when Axios reports that, no, there's no, the White House or whoever they spoke with, U.S. official, says that the U.S. is not striking Iran. So it was a bit bizarre. We saw no indications on all the radars of any American jets or aircraft that are active. So it was in the US and immediately everyone came to the conclusion that Israel has joined the fight because we were talking earlier today. We didn't talk about it yesterday because I think the news came in today that Israel requested a green light from the US or asked the US whether the US would like Israel to join. So immediately everyone assumed it was Israel. But then Israeli media say it was not Israel. The Iranians don't point to Israel either. And there were no, usually when it's Israel attacking, you'll see their fighter jets in the air on the radars, or you'll see their cruise missiles, just like that attack right before, right before the MOU was signed days beforehand, when Israel attacked without American involvement. And then Israeli media said it's Gulf countries hinting at Bahrain, Kuwait, and I think naming Bahrain, one of the outlets named Bahrain and Kuwait. And one would come to the conclusion that maybe Bahrain and Kuwait are doing what the UAE and Saudi did, which is retaliate against Iranian strikes as a way to deter future strikes. So Iran, whenever they want to retaliate against the US, they might attack US warships, but not US bases in those countries. So that was the new assumption. So while these reports were coming in, Iranian media started reversing or denying the reports of explosions, saying they were untrue. So they said the initial reports of explosions are not true. They did not happen. So that seemed like a cover-up. For me, I concluded this would be This made it seem more likely to be the Gulf countries, the Bahrain and Kuwait, but Iran not reporting about them because they don't want to escalate things from Bahrain and Kuwait. They got the message, doesn't mean they want to attack Bahrain and Kuwait, but they're like, we don't want to have things escalate between us and our Gulf neighbors. So that's why they've asked the media to kind of reverse those claims. And then afterwards, the Iranian media reaffirmed the claims that no, there were attacks, and it said the following. So it seems they came up with a narrative or a report was approved or whatever happened. One outlet said a military headquarters on the outskirts of Bashir was hit by a projectile from, quote, American Zionist enemy, according to IRNA, citing the Deputy Political Security Governor Bashir. The deputy says the attack resulted in no casualties. That was... in the early days, but then afterwards, so then they were denied, sorry. Then afterwards, Tasneem said Iranian Navy site at Qanarak. So this is the report where they confirmed it. The one I read earlier was before they denied them afterwards. Tasneem said that the Iranian Navy site in Qanarak was subjected to airstrikes, but they don't know who. And then the Qanarak governor says Iran's Navy military area was targeted by enemy fighter jets in two stages this evening, responsible agencies, rescue efforts, blah, blah, blah, are underway. It's unclear who attacked. And there's one more report, I didn't save it, by another Iranian media saying a projectile struck one of the locations. So in terms of who it was, depends who you want to trust. Israeli broadcast Khan, for example, is blaming the Arab countries, but then you want to take that with a grain of salt, because obviously Israel would like to see the Gulf and Iran fight. So it's always take that with a grain of salt. Naya, which I think is Iranian, saying that they were launched from Kuwait. The missiles were launched from Kuwait. Axios says it was in the US. So we've got all these. Naya also said there was activity by Saudi drones off the coast. But these are drones. Doesn't mean there were strikes. So this is why I said it's confusing. You've got all these different conflicting reports. I haven't spoken to anyone to get any information. I've just been doing interviews. So I don't really have anything to share. So I can only speculate. And based on what we've seen in this war, my guess, I really don't know. I would guess Bahrain and Kuwait. Obviously, there's always a possibility that there were no strikes, but it definitely looks like there were strikes, all the locations and reports. Speaker 1: The U.S. is blinking and backing down. So there is a report, you know, on Naya, the French outlet, that may be tied to Iranian sources, but according to a U.S. official, the failure of the U.S. military to launch new strikes against Iran on Thursday was the result of regional efforts to deescalate the situation. That explains Trump's comment last night that, oh, Iran's begging, begging to start negotiations again. Iran is not begging. It is the United States. I have checked with a variety of sources which know what the US military is doing. One of my friends sent me word that he was in contact with one of his active duty buddies who is who's deployed right now in the region was involved what's called a deconfliction cell so the deconfliction cell its job is to make sure that u.s aircraft don't get tied up with israeli aircraft that there's no friendly fire that you don't have friendly forces shooting at each other uh that uh that neutral states aren't attacked, et cetera. He's being redeployed home, okay? Now, if the United States was going to conduct major combat operations, you would want that deconfliction cell still in place. So that's being deactivated. They're coming home. And there is still no evidence that the CATs, the Crisis Action Teams, which were set up a week before the war started on the 28th, that those have been reactivated. So the United States, despite all this chess, you know, beating and tough talk, and we're bombing this, and we're bombing that, the U.S. is still on the path to withdraw and to disengage. Now, Iran retaliated for that last round of American strikes, and it had Muwaffak al-Salt, the air base, among others. And I think it caused some significant damage. And the United States, instead of retaliating, is like, okay, let's go quit while we're ahead. They're not really ahead, but that's how they'll betray it. Speaker 0: Yeah, I'm aligned. I don't see this escalating into a full blown war or a death. I know that Trump said the MOU is dead. I see it as a struggle between the US and Iran on who controls the Strait of Hormuz. And I think Iran, we've discussed yesterday they'll retaliate by striking the same locations they did strike qatar yesterday which i'll ask you about now um limited strike more of a warning shot it seems like very limited air force base yeah so that's a new one well no it's because there were kc-135s that uh uh showed up there and uh um you know the united Speaker 1: The Iranians said, hey, if you're going to allow your airfields to be used by the U.S., we're going to bomb them and hit them with missiles, which they did. Speaker 0: Yeah, or also telling the Gulf countries as well could be a message like, hey, if you don't work with us to make sure the Americans either don't use your base, don't keep attacking us, you're going to be dragged into it as well. So we've got these escalation ladders. The way I feel it happens every time is the Americans strike Iran sometimes escalate, as we've seen now, and Iran would escalate until it gets to a level where, as we said yesterday, the Americans would be like, all right, the cost is too high now, and kind of take steps back again. And we're seeing that happen again. But it's not going to change anything. That's what I've been saying for days. There's nothing that's going to change. And let me talk about what the Iranians have done. So they've struck, as we said, the Mufwaka, Muwaffaq Salty Air Base in Jordan. They've also struck the Ali al-Salam Air Base in Kuwait and the Bahrain Fifth Fleet Headquarters again in Bahrain. Speaker 1: And the Alisa Airfield in Bahrain as well. Speaker 0: So, Sheikh Issa, is it the Sheikh Issa one you mean? Speaker 1: Yeah, Sheikh Issa. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah, so they struck that as well. So Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, the American attack, according to New York Times, was 14 times larger than the ones a couple of weeks ago. So we've seen those back and forth about, whatever, two weeks ago or so? Yeah, yeah. Speaker 1: Like June? Oh, it's so big and massive. All I can tell you is someone who was involved with the targeting and the attacks in the first weeks of the war said this didn't even come close. Speaker 0: Two weeks. Speaker 1: Could it be that the United States is lying, exaggerating? Oh, no, that couldn't be. That never happened. That's my sarcasm for today, to this point. Speaker 0: It doesn't come close to the 14 times larger, doesn't come close to the pre-war ferocity of the strikes, the intensity of the wartime strikes. Speaker 1: Yeah, look, right now what's happening, you gotta look, it's important to understand that when you carry out military operations, there is an infrastructure behind it. And the, if you will, the bigger the operation, the bigger the infrastructure. So if we saw that infrastructure getting built up, being expanded, or being basically turned on, turned back on to what it was on June 14th, before the MOU was signed, Then I'd say, yeah, it looks like the United States is, and then I'd give it up. That's not what happened, just the opposite. So, and what happened in the Strait of Hormuz today? Any ships attempt to go through the Omani Channel? Nope. Speaker 0: No. Speaker 1: Ah, so who's in control? Who's in control of the Strait of Hormuz? Speaker 0: Pretty hard to dispute, though. Iran. Speaker 1: You can say, come on, you can say it. Speaker 0: Iran has always been in control. Speaker 1: And can the United States break Iran's control? The answer is no. It can't. They might be able to do some significant damage if they're willing to incur some significant losses. And the losses would not just be on aircraft in that field, but the bases from which they operate will be decimated. They hit 10 ballistic missiles on Muwaffa. You're not going to see any damage reports right now coming out, but I guarantee you those strikes inflicted some casualties and probably destroyed some aircraft. Speaker 0: So some indications of the war restarting. Now, as I said, I'm not in the belief it will restart, but just to share some of the reports. So Iran is preparing for a potential resumption of war and taking precautions. So the biggest one is the 10 million barrels, according to tanker trackers, 10 million barrels overnight were shipped out from the Strait of Homs by Iran of crude oil and fuel oil overnight. So I'm guessing last night or the night before. I'm guessing it's the night before in anticipation of potential war. Also, the Iranian armed forces have entered the highest state of alert and have moved to wartime conditions. Scatter orders are now in place. I'm assuming scatter orders is scatter, don't be all in one place, in case there's strikes, it's not significant casualties. Speaker 1: Also, there was reports that... Before we go on there, you know those 10 million barrels of oil? Let's say the minimum price they were probably sold at was $100 a barrel. That's a billion dollars right there. That's for 10, but I actually heard the number was $30 million, right? Speaker 0: Maybe over more. So this is one night. So maybe more if you include other nights. Speaker 1: Yeah, I've heard the total number is $30 million. So Iran just pocketed another $3 billion in one week. That's not a bad payday. Speaker 0: When they sell it, so they would use it. They would chip it out, sorry, they would chip it out into the sea, and then as the orders come in, the money will start coming in. But it's like, you know, similar to before the war, there was that floating storage we talked about in the early days of the war. Speaker 1: Well, I can imagine they put it out to sea. They're going to sell it. Who wants to buy it? Who needs it? And there are a lot of countries that need it. And so they'll be putting in, hey, we'll take it. And Iran will probably require payment up front. And it's going to be payment not in dollars, Chinese yuan. Speaker 0: So then there are other indicators of possible resumption of war. There's an Axios report that says the following. The White House, this is a summary of it. The White House is bracing for a fight over the Strait of Hormuz that could last weeks or longer. Per Axios, the administration is preparing for a potentially prolonged exchange of fire with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. US officials say the escalation could run days, weeks, or longer, hinging entirely on whether Iran keeps attacking commercial ships. It follows. two record strike nights, Iran's forward-based retaliation claim, and sirens across four countries. Speaker 1: That's not Barack Ravid, is it, by chance? Speaker 0: It's Axios. I don't know who the exact author is. Speaker 1: It's Barack Ravid. I'd be willing to make a minor wager on that. Dinner at your best restaurant in Dubai. Fly me to Dubai. And if I lose, I'll buy you dinner in Dubai. Speaker 0: Well, if I'm going to fly you every time you're going to make you get some Barack Ravid, you're going to be eating every night. Speaker 1: I'm on a diet. I can't afford that. Speaker 0: You told me that. And then another report came in on that front. Trump prepared to depart the White House. So this is more context on what happened that day on what led Trump to decide on these strikes. I don't know. This is the Wall Street Journal. Trump prepared to depart the White House for Turkey on Monday evening. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Pete Hexeth briefed him on reports that Iran had launched cruise missiles and one-way attack drones at commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Homs, the Omani side, striking three ships, including an LNG tanker. Trump questioned whether Iran remained committed to reaching a final agreement and, after consulting with his senior national security advisors, concluded that it did not. The meeting marked a turning point, leading Trump to abandon the interim ceasefire framework, authorize a new military strikes against Iranian targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, revoke Iran's oil selling license and renew economic pressure. While he has not ordered the US Navy blockade to be reinstated, officials said American warships remain in position should he decide to do so. So that's an update on where they decided to strike. Speaker 1: Where are they remaining in position? About 200 miles offshore, right? Speaker 0: Yeah, we talked about it yesterday. I can't remember where they are exactly. Speaker 1: Gee, why is that? They're afraid. Okay? The United States said, now we got this under control. We can kick Iranian ass whenever we want. Fine, guys, go sell. Sell into that Strait of Hormuz. Show what you can do. They're not stupid. You know, they... To the credit of the Navy commanders, they're not stupid. You know, they know that that would be a potential death sentence. So, you know, they're not interested in that. And as far, okay, what's the evidence of the United States is making preparations for a multi-week, multi-month fight with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz? What's the evidence? Because they say, making preparations. It's not just that you got planes out there on the ground. That goes back to what I was saying about they're setting up the CAT teams. The CATs are being reorganized. They're being put into place. You're keeping your deconfliction cell out in the area. But the opposite is happening. Deconfliction cells being withdrawn. CATs have stood down. Sorry, but that makes sense. Speaker 0: Mr. Yeah, the only indication Just disclaimer, as you know, I've been saying the war is over for months. I don't think that's going to restart. But just going to give you an indication of something showing not preparation for a full-blown war. Centrum did say there's X number of warships still in the region patrolling. We've mentioned the number yesterday. I can't remember what that was. But there's military aircraft that came from the Ben Gurion Airport to the Gulf. But more importantly, from Europe, some of it came to the Gulf. Now, I'm not saying it's enough for a full-blown war. Just kind of... drawing my best answer to your question. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not even close. And again, the United States, there's always infrastructure that's put in place. I was involved several times, like when there's a report of a hijacking, okay, we would stand up a counterterrorism cell that you'd activate immediately a task force, you'd bring all people in, you start working behind the scenes, you then, you know, JSOC would be alerted for deployment to a possible, for possible military action. They'd be tasked, hey, this is the scenario, or like we've got an embassy being overrun, they'd be alerted. There's all sorts of moving parts behind the scene before you get to the actual part about a plane taking off and dropping a bomb. And what I'm telling you is the things that ought to be happening, that they were really intent on doing this for multiple weeks and keeping the pressure on, is not happening. That's the key. That's why you have me here. Speaker 0: I did get a piece of news that just came in now. I'm going to read it in a second. It's very interesting. I just want to talk or give you one more fact on the Strait of Hormuz because you mentioned the number of 30 million barrels. So the 10 million barrels that I mentioned earlier was according to tanker trackers. And that was just overnight. That was in one night. There's another report here from Windward Intelligence. Estimates Iran exported around 60 million barrels in total over the previous three weeks. So over three weeks before now, whenever this report came out today or yesterday, they've exported 60 million barrels. You could do your math there at $106 billion. Speaker 1: Yeah, $6 billion plus another billion, $7 billion. That's, I said, you know, hey, I think that'll feed the widows and orphans for a couple of days. Speaker 0: And then another report by Homewoods before I read the news that just came in. Oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Homewoods is at a near standstill, that's today and yesterday, with only two tankers transiting the waterway in the early hours of today. So that's today. The two vessels are the U.S. sanctioned crude supertanker Berg-1, which had loaded oil at Iran's Karg Island, and the Marshall Islands-flagged chemical tanker Well Sail. IRGC Navy said, quote, foreigners have no place in the Strait of Homs administration, and the Americans should get out while they still can. This is not an order to close the Strait of Homs, just a warning to the Americans, nothing significant. There is a report here that the Omanis told the United Nations International Maritime Organization that it does not support imposing transit fees on vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, reaffirming that the right of transit passage through the straits used for international navigation is guaranteed under international law. So they made a statement contradicting the initial reports by Bloomberg that the Omanis are going to be charging a fee and contradicting what the Iranian requests are. That's the statement they've made to the UN's International Maritime Organization, Could be symbolic. You could look at the wording. Maybe it was vague on purpose. So I'm not saying it's a massive development because Oman is in the middle between the two sides, the U.S. and other countries and Iran and any country that supports its attempt to charge a fee. I'll read this one afterwards. It's something about France and Syria. So the news that just came in, this is an interesting one. It came in as I was speaking. Mediators believe the recent Iranian attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz were initiated by elements inside the Iranian government that oppose the MOU and want to undermine it, according to Axios, according to Axios. So I just want to make sure you know who's reporting it. And then the person that sent me this said, go ahead. Speaker 1: That's just nonsense. I mean, look, the protocols say what the protocols say. Any ship that does not follow the Iranian PGSA protocol protocol will be denied passage and or the use of force against it. That's not some bureaucrat somewhere said, well, I'm going to undermine the MOU. I mean, hell, the United States has broken every part of the MOU. What MOU? Speaker 0: So that's what Axios is saying. So that's something that one of my guests said as well, that they It was one of the energy traders on my show. That was a while ago. That was when the Iranians were attacking ships early on in the MOU days. And when the first time the Americans retaliated was strikes on Iran. So the first strikes on Iranian territory after the MOU was signed. So it was late June, I guess. And he was speculating. He's like, Mario, what I would speculate is that maybe these are, so it's not based on any intel or anything, that rogue elements within the IRGC struck the ships. And what he says could, sorry. Speaker 1: That is utter nonsense because the MOU, paragraph five, gives Iran the authority to control what goes in and out. And Iran, in tandem with that MOU, established PGSA protocols. And the protocols are there in black and white. They're not written in heavy lawyer language. Very simple. You want to come through, fill out the application with the IRGC. It's at the PGSA website. provide the name of the captain, the name of the ship, the ownership of the ship, what your destination is, what's the cargo that's on board, and the sixth element is, what are the nationalities of your sailors? Period. And they said, any ship that tried to not comply with this will be denied passage or use of force. That's not rogue elements. They're following their damn procedures. Jesus. why do these people go off on these stupid tangents that when they don't even they haven't even taken time to read the documents would you like to uh let you know the the theory from earlier you want to hear the rest of it so probably go ahead get my blood pressure up so he was uh he was um Speaker 0: So he also said that what he believes could happen is the Iranian government or the ones in charge might. So these rogue elements might have struck the ships and the Iranian government coordinated with the Americans to say, hey, look, these are the rogue elements that attack the ships. Can you strike them? And so instead of the Iranians striking those rogue elements, which would be a bad look, you said you want me to tell you the rest of it? Instead of the Iranian military targeting those rogue elements which is a bad look and it shows instability or lack of cohesion within iran they could have coordinated with the americans saying these are the rogue elements can you target them so that was the theory but that was three weeks ago not not now but that i remembered that when i read this access report that just came in did you hear what the crowds and mashad were chanting with the crowds and com were chanting and the joff chanting uh intercom Speaker 1: Intercom. Farsi for revenge. Revenge. And they're carrying the red flag. These are rogue elements. That is the majority of the feeling. You now had an estimated 45 million people came out to mourn the passage of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 45 million. million you've never had anything like that in the recorded history of the world okay so everybody in the west is in denial wake up people this government now has a level of support that it did not have on the 27th of february yeah i agree with that point um and to give a a hold on Speaker 0: That's just came in as well. Interesting. Oh, wow. So sorry, let me read it out. This is a pretty keep it going on a suspense. The Supreme Leader so Ayatollah Sayyid Mustafa Khamenei will hold a common commemorative prayer for his late father at the shrine of Fatima Massoumi income tomorrow after Maghreb and Isha prayers. according to Tasneem Hughes. Speaker 1: Well, and you saw who, you saw who led the prayers in Mashad. Speaker 0: No, I did not. Speaker 1: His son, his other son. His oldest, oldest son, not just other son, the oldest son. In Iranian Islamic tradition, it is the duty of the oldest son, not the younger son, even if he is the supreme leader. It was the duty of the oldest son to lead the prayers, which he did. Speaker 0: Messaging a few people on this, because that's pretty significant. Everyone was worried whether the Israelis would target him, remember? Everyone's still worried. Speaker 1: Well, they go ahead and target him and kill him. Do you think that is going to make the Iranians less willing to pursue the war against the United States and Israel? If the Israelis are that stupid, they deserve what they get. Speaker 0: Do you remember the other report where the Israelis were considering or planning to strike the Arachi in Ghalibaf, mainly Ghalibaf, during the Islamabad negotiations? that report came out i think by the new york times yeah but that was uh that that was five week old news i mean peppy and i reported on it back when it was when it was happening yeah so that's um that's pretty concerning iran's supreme leader has been buried okay so that's that's coming from testing news that he's this is much about coming they will show That's pretty significant. That is very significant. Because Israel is saying very clearly that there's a target on his back, they will assassinate him. It cuts himself said that there's a target on his back. And he said that recently, a few days before the funeral. And there's a lot of people calling for strikes during the funeral, because a lot of the leaders and commanders are congregating in one place. Obviously, it'll be just putting the humanitarian aspects of it, the international legal aspects of it just strategically stupid. Speaker 1: Just a reminder of what a rogue state Israel is. Do you hear Iran threatening to kill Netanyahu, threatening to kill Katz, threatening to kill Ben-Gavir? I mean, if I was in Iran, I'd come up with good reasons to kill them, but you don't see Iran doing that. Iran is behaving like a civilized nation, not like a group of uncivilized savages. Speaker 0: A lot of news in this. We've got the Axis report about rogue elements, which obviously you disagree with, that I disagree with as well. But right after, we've got the report, a much bigger report, that Mustafa Kamenei will be at the funeral prayers. Oh, talking about assassinations. Another report as well came in. That was just before we went live, 30 minutes before we went live. I'm sure this one you'd believe 100%. So this one, I'm confident you will believe. And you might have been the one to leak it. I'm pretty confident as well. So this is Israel warned Washington. So this is according to Wall Street Journal quoting Larry Johnson. There it is. All right. Okay. Israel warned Washington of a fresh Iranian plot to assassinate Trump. Israel shared new intelligence with the U.S. indicating Iran was considering a new plan to kill the president. Trump alluded it himself in Ankara. Quote, they want to take out the U.S. leader. Me, I'm on every list so far. I guess I've been a little lucky. but that maybe doesn't last very long. So that was a member, he'd made statements in NATO summit that he's on Iran's list to be killed. Iran has vowed for years, according to the report, to avenge the Soleimani killing, and Khamenei's funeral featured a banner reading, we will kill Trump. The intel lands amid the frayed Trump-Netanyahu relationship with the two speaking today and agreeing to continue coordination. I'm reading my team's summary of the article. The sourcing deserves its own scrutiny. Israel delivering this intelligence right now serves as a documented interest. Netanyahu wants the war continued. Trump wants out. And nothing re-anchors an American president then to the fight like a credible plot against his life. The threat itself is completely plausible. Tehran's revenge vow is public and the funeral banners were literal. But the timing of the warning mid-rupture, mid-diplomacy from the ally most invested in keeping the bombs falling is a detail worth remembering. The source of the report was Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal didn't put that commentary. That's just my team. But the report just says that Israel says they've got proof that Iran is planning a new plan to kill Trump. Speaker 1: So do you know where the original intelligence came from about these plots to kill Trump and to carry out Iranian assassinations inside the United States? Do you remember where they came from? Speaker 0: No, I spoke to Kent about it. I don't remember the details. Go ahead. Speaker 1: So where it came from was there was an Afghan, Afghani, who was moved, sent out of the country. You know, he'd been a criminal, had time in prison, gets out of prison, hauled his ass off. He winds up, I think it was in Singapore, and he gets with one of his buddies, and they do a major drug deal. Oh, my God. They get busted in Singapore with a bunch of heroin. Now, can you name me the top five countries in the world that you don't want to get caught trying to traffic heroin? One of those countries would be Singapore. I mean, hell, they lock people up for chewing gum. All right? So this guy, he gets, you know, he's jailed. And then within a week or two, he's released. Huh, how does that happen? Well, it turns out DEA went in and met with him and said, hey, we got a deal for you. You become a cooperator with the United States and we'll help you out. We'll get you off the hook. And the CIA got involved with it too. And so where does this guy next go? He goes to Iran. He gets a job working in one of the oil fields. He then, out of the blue, decides to call up and claims the Iranian intelligence service came to him and said, hey, we want to use you, a guy that's convicted of drugs and who's on the watch list in the United States. We want to use you to set up an assassination in the United States. So he gets on the phone. with a couple of his former cellmates and convinces them to try to carry out this attack that was then thwarted. Yeah, there's no chance that that was a staged, manipulated operation involving the CIA and the DEA with the FBI pitching in to create a narrative. See, Iran's trying to carry out assassinations in the United States. Sorry, but that has the smell of horse manure all over it. So, you know, and now here's, here's what's coming. No, no, no, this time we really got the solid information. They're gonna kill you. So what you need to do is go bomb the shit out of them. Now, there's no chance that Israel's trying to manipulate Trump. Oh my God, heaven forbid. No, they're always going to give him the straight skinny. Speaker 0: Oh, Lord. Do you think there's a possibility, though, that Iran would consider such a plan as being discussed? No. Speaker 1: Zero. Zero. They don't need to do that. Their goal is to drive the United States out of the Persian Gulf. They don't want to give the United States another reason to come back and attack them. The revenge they're talking about is against U.S. forces that are doing the bombings and making sure that they don't come back to inhabit any of the bases that they've had to vacate in Kuwait and Qatar and Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the UAE. Speaker 0: So why do you think they wouldn't consider assassinating Trump, whether now or later, considering he killed their supreme leader and he killed Soleimani? Because, as I just said... And killed thousands of Iranians as well. Speaker 1: They don't want to give the United States a reason to come back and attack them. Their goal is to drive the United States out of the Persian Gulf, which they're doing. They've done it in a de facto session, and they're continuing right now to thwart any chance of the United States to regain control of the Strait of Hormuz. No, they're not going to assassinate Trump. Now, is the United States going to try to stage something to make it appear that it's an Iranian assassination? Oh, I fully believe that. I mean, hell, we've already had three unexplained assassination attempts on Trump, or two legitimately. The guy at the correspondence dinner, you know, that was a joke. But the butler, Pennsylvania... The FBI's covered that up. And then the guy down in West Palm, where he, you know, he was directly tied to the Ukrainians. He said the Ukrainians tried to whack Trump because he wasn't providing the aid. But no, not Iran. Speaker 0: So in other news as well, there's a... So just an update as well, two hours ago, Pakistan and Qatar, according to CNN, are working to bring the U.S. and Iran back to the negotiating table following the recent escalations. That's expected. You'll have mediators involved whenever things escalate to try to calm things down. But this report came in from CNN. Speaker 1: Well, that's true. I mean, Pepe and I just reported on that. Now about... Let's see, what is it, 7.30? We did it four hours ago on transition protocol. You want to get the skinny, go to transition protocol. You can hear the full explanation. Yes, Pakistan's doing that. Asim Muneer is heavily involved. And the Qataris, they keep playing both sides of the fence, but they've got more at stake. They'd much rather come out of this having some economic hope left. Speaker 0: So we've covered the Iranian attacks. We've covered the American attacks yesterday and this morning, or outside of last night, but this morning, Iranian time, last night for you, the retaliation from Iran. We'll talk about the sabotage of the railway. We've got more information on that. On the Kurd front, Iran deployed thousands of special forces to the border with Iraqi Kurdistan. an Iranian field commander on Iranian media said, if the Kurdish groups with backing of the US and Israel try to infringe on Iranian sovereignty, we will not only push them back, we will establish a security zone of several kilometers. So warning by the Iranian field commander on the border with Iraqi Kurdistan against Kurds rising up against Iran or attacking Iran, which to me just I just don't see that happening unless there's a full regime change operation being planned with a full-blown war back on the table, which, as you know, is not a position that I hold, at least not at the moment. We've talked about the reports of the war restarting. I've gone through the various reports of the possibility of the war restarting. Then we started talking about the Strait of Hormuz, how Iran pumped out a lot of oil in case the war restarts, 10 million barrels in one night. And then the statement by the Omanis to the United Nations. And then there is one more piece of news there, France. So as we know, Macron was in Syria. And this report came in from TF1, a French news outlet. France is considering Syria as a possible alternative route for Gulf oil to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Speaking to TF1, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrault said, diversified energy corridors are needed to ensure stable supplies, to global markets. Quote, among all the efforts we've made since the start of the crisis, there is the idea of preparing alternative routes so that we are not dependent on blockages here or there. So there was talks about a pipeline going through Syria. I'm guessing that would go to the Mediterranean. Let me see if I've got the maps of it to show it to the audience. I'll show it to you later, but this is an alternative for the oil to come out of Iran. Israel has been talking about a similar pipeline to go through Israel Haifa, they put their Netanyahu mentioned that in the early days of the war as an alternative to the Strait of Homs that was money many months ago. Okay, I'm sure an idea. Speaker 1: Just stop there. Where's that oil going to come from? Speaker 0: The ones out of Syria? I'm guessing out of Iraq. And out of Saudi Iraq, Saudi out of the Gulf, you'd have it coming out of a graph, the Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi. So Gulf oil, Syria. Speaker 1: But that means they're going to have to build a pipeline, right? Speaker 0: Yeah, exactly. Land-based pipelines. So this is what would be targets for Iran in case war breaks out. Speaker 1: So how many years off is that pipeline? Speaker 0: Yeah, it's a long-term plan. Nothing short-term. Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 1: If they're counting on oil coming out of Syria, Syria puts out about, right now, about 100,000 barrels per day. That's nothing. Speaker 0: No, no, so this pipeline is for oil to, so this pipeline is for the Gulf to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. This is a long-term plan. There's multiple pipelines being discussed. This is the long-term plan so the Gulf no longer are as dependent on the Strait of Hormuz. So obviously the UAE have Fujairah, Saudi have the east-west pipeline, and there's talks of a new pipeline to go through Syria, go through the Mediterranean. Israel wants a pipeline to go all the way down to Israel to Haifa, which there's nothing serious being built there, and the Gulf won't accept it anyway after this war. But these are all talks about alternatives being built to the Strait of Hormuz. Just thought I'd mention it because it's in line with Macron's visit to Syria and what makes Syria strategically important. Interesting. So CNN earlier today reported that Mustafa Khamenei will not attend the funeral of his father. So I just saw that, I wrote it down. That was this morning. So as we know, Tasnim now reports that no, he will be attending the funeral. The funeral, the prayer is tomorrow. So that's on that front, and we have the funeral. Okay, we've got the Israeli front, and we're done for today's news. Israeli Prime Minister, this is a quote of him. He had a call with Trump, no information on what was discussed. He complained about Turkey, and they talked about the latest strikes on Iran. We don't have any more context. Sky News, Zorabia, was talking to Mark Rutte, If a conflict were to happen between... Oh, this is interesting. So Sky News asks Mark Reuter, NATO Secretary General, if a conflict were to happen between Turkey and Israel and Syria, for example, does that trigger Article 5? So they're trying to see if NATO would trigger Article 5 if Turkey is attacked. Mark says, Erdogan is an extremely wise president. He has been there for years in his role, and he will avoid getting into a situation that gets out of hand. The Sky News Arabia is trying to get an answer from him. in a click-baity answer. What if Mr. Netanyahu makes a conflict unavoidable? And Mark says, let's not speculate on what could happen because in the end, let's not forget what happened on October 7th, 2023, the terrible attack by Hamas on Israel. It started not with Israel. Speaker 1: What a stupid answer. Speaker 0: We're talking about, all right, will Article 5 be triggered if anyone attacks Turkey? No, no, it's all October 7th. It's October 7th. What the fuck are you talking about? I know you want to avoid a question. Just say, let's not speculate on what could happen and leave it there. Because at the end of the day, let's not forget on October 7th. Speaker 1: Come on. I can give you the answer to that question. And the answer would be no. NATO would not act. debate Article 5, because as far as they're concerned, the Turks are just a bunch of ragheads that aren't real Europeans. They're racist and demeaning. As far as NATO is concerned, it's a one-way street. They expect Turkey to give, but they ain't giving back a damn thing to the Turks, which is one of the reasons why Turkey has never been allowed into the EU. So hopefully Erdogan and his group realizes that they're getting played by those boys in Brussels. Speaker 0: I don't know much about the whole Turkey-EU saga and the Cyprus saga as well. I've never looked into it, never done a deep dive. But do you think they will accept him into the EU? Because I know that Erdogan spoke about it a few days ago. Do you think it will happen? Speaker 1: No. Turkey's been trying, what is it, 25 years to get in? And EU keeps coming up with excuses not to let him in. Speaker 0: And it is, again, so it's not genuinely about Cyprus. How big of an issue is the Cyprus matter? Speaker 1: Well, for Greece, it's a big issue. But again, they're still part of NATO. But, you know, the EU, who is, you know, makes up the bulk of NATO, the overwhelming majority, they want to use Turkey. You know, if they get into a fight with the Russians, they want Turkey to come to their aid. But they're not going to do it. They're going to lift a damn finger to help the Turks or to bring the Turks into the economic union. Not at all. Speaker 0: So before I ask you the most, I want to go back to the initial story we talked about. So there's an I-24 story saying the current assessment is that Iran has no interest in drawing Israel into the war. According to two senior officials, Israel would only consider joining the campaign if Iran directly attacks Israel or if Washington formally requests Israeli participation. Neither has occurred so far. And then other reports of Netanyahu asking the U.S. not to deliver F-35s or to deliver downgraded versions. People in Israel are telling the U.S. to deliver downgraded versions of the F-35. Now, the question I want to ask you, let's go back to the original story of the stream of the chat today. The bombing today, I should have asked you that earlier. So it seems someone bombed Iran. Iran talked about being bombed, then denied those reports. Then Akshay said it wasn't the U.S. No indications it was the U.S. Iran did not name the U.S. Then Israel, no indications it's Israel. Iran did not name Israel. And then Israeli media and I think Al Arabiya maybe, I can't remember. Oh, Fatouk, I think, which is Turkish, if I'm not mistaken, started talking about Gulf countries having attacked Iran, which are the last ones possible. Do you think it's possible Bahrain and Kuwait attacked Iran as a way to try to deter? You don't think so? Speaker 1: Oh, well, but it's possible. Look, it's possible. I can't say, you know, absolutely not, but it didn't work. And right now the United States admitted it hasn't carried out any further attacks. So, and so we'll sit there and watch what happens with the Strait of Hormuz tomorrow. You know, ships will start moving again through the Iranian channel. And if any ships dare to go through the Omani channel without permission, Iran will hit him. Speaker 0: You mean the rogue elements from Iran would hit him? Speaker 1: Yeah, the rogue elements. That's right. Speaker 0: I have to be factual here, Larry. Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Speaker 0: Yeah, and nothing else on that front. Yes, it's impossible. You have no other guesses on who it could be. It could be a Gulf coalition. There's no one else it could be. It's not the Israelis, not the Americans. There's only none left other than the Gulf coalition. Speaker 1: Bahrain and Kuwait trying to deter Iran attacks on their territory, which... Well, again, the thing I look at, though, is, again, to get from where they were to carry out strikes there, they would have had to have air refueling. Who did the air refueling if that happened? Speaker 0: If it was the Israelis? Because Bahrain and Kuwait could do it. They could fire from their own territory. Speaker 1: Well, if they fired missiles, yes. But I think actually if they fired missiles, Iran would have seen that and Iran would have hit them back. Speaker 0: Yeah, unless Iran doesn't want to escalate. Maybe the attacks were limited and Iran doesn't want conflict. Speaker 1: Iran does want, they will escalate. If you hit them, they're going to hit you. They're not absorbing blows. You hit them, they're going to hit you. So this, you know, I don't know what's going on with the media there, but... Speaker 0: Maybe it's those rogue elements, Larry, that were striking. Yes. Speaker 1: Yeah, there you go. Speaker 0: All right, man. Thanks for the chat. Always a pleasure. Speaker 1: All right, brother. Hey, sorry to keep you up so late, but, you know, it is what it is. All right. See you, man. I'm sure we'll be talking again tomorrow. Same bad time, same bad station. Speaker 0: Thank you, Larry. See you, man. Speaker 1: Okay. Bye-bye. Speaker 0: Bye-bye. All right, guys, this is it for today. We had interviews for you to check out. We had Colonel McGregor was the last one I did. I also spoke with Anna Kasparian from the Young Turks. And we had for the first time on the show, the gentleman from the Belt and Road Institute. focus up we didn't talk about it with larry but we'll do it tomorrow to focus on the strike that was my first interview of the day to focus on the strike on the railway line in iran up north because that was a very symbolic and important strike and we did a deep dive with hussein askari on that strike that was my first interview of the day and then we did a recap there on the back and forth between iran and the us then i had an interview with anna kasparian she was back on the show to talk about the um with the latest developments and Israel's involvement in all this, Trump's visit to Turkey. Then we had an interview with Artem Owaini, but he had internet issues, so we rescheduled. Colonel McGregor is back on the show, on our weekly show. Then Brendan Wyker, who is a regular on the show, he filled in for me and did an interview with Karen Kwiatkowski. He'll be filling in on more interviews from traveling on unavailable. And then we just did Larry Johnson now. So that was today's coverage. I hope you enjoyed it. And I'll be live again today if there's any strikes, which I don't think there will be. I think this is it. So I'll probably see you tomorrow. Same time as always. Let me see who we've got tomorrow. Tomorrow. Oh, nice. Tom Luongo, Ben Hodges, Michael Oliver. We've got Alex Jones is back on the show. So I've got an incredible lineup for you tomorrow, guys. See you then. Bye-bye.
georgegalloway
Posted - July 9, 2026 at 7:42 PM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:06 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I read Shaun Rein’s interview warning that warmongers like NATO’s Mark Rutte could succeed in provoking a coming war with China. Rein says Rutte views China as Russia’s “puppet master” and believes it would push Russia to bomb NATO countries.

@georgegalloway - George Galloway

INTERVIEW: The coming war with China Neverending warmongers like Nato's Mark Rutte could succeed and provoke it, says analyst Shaun Rein. Rutte sees China as Russia's puppet master and believes it will force Russia to bomb Nato countries Follow #MOATS 567 X: @shaunrein #georgegalloway #China #Russia #Nato #MarkRutte

Video Transcript AI Summary
George (Speaker 0) discusses an earlier conversation with Professor Glenn Deason asserting that the “ultimate aim” of Western trouble is China, and argues that China’s growing economic strength—described with examples like large-scale commerce in Shanghai—makes Western leaders treat China as an existential threat. He asks Sean Ryan where he stands on the possibility of a coming war with China, referencing developments in the Philippines, Japan, and Australia. Sean Ryan (Speaker 1) says China does not have to be an enemy of the Western world, but argues Western leaders have turned that relationship into a self-fulfilling prophecy. He says the Americans and Western Europeans have framed China as an existential threat over the last 10 years, increasing the risk that tension escalates beyond trade and tech conflicts into a hot war, “maybe in the South China Sea” involving the Philippines. He says he is “not particularly worried about Taiwan.” Ryan responds to remarks attributed to Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, claiming Rutte portrays China as the biggest threat to NATO and as Russia’s “puppet master,” forcing Russia to bomb NATO countries. Ryan calls that “preposterous talk,” adding that China is trying to improve economic relations with Germany, Italy, the UK, and other parts of Europe. He claims China accounts for about 30% of the world’s manufacturing and wants to export Chinese-made products into Europe, with companies such as Huawei and Xiaomi opening factories in Europe. He argues there may be “no pulling back” if Washington and Europe do not take a more pragmatic stance. George highlights a paradox involving leaders who, despite seeking strategic partnerships with China, also treat China as a threat, citing Keir Starmer’s experience in Shanghai and prior airport grilling by police. Ryan agrees and says Europe and India should get closer to China. He argues the United States poses a greater existential threat to Europe, pointing to Trump’s actions and rhetoric including Greenland. Ryan claims Germany’s biggest market is China and cites BASF investing about $7 billion in China, along with Mercedes, BMW, and Volkswagen selling most in China. He argues business leaders see politicians’ criticism of China as irrational because China drives major global GDP growth, estimating that China’s 2026 GDP growth alone is larger than Thailand and Vietnam combined. Ryan then addresses Australia, saying it depends on Chinese trade yet participates in an anti-China political posture. He claims China is Australia’s largest trade partner, buying iron ore, and that Chinese students are going to Australia; he notes that Chinese student numbers in the U.S. dropped about 20% in 2024 and suggests Australia benefits. He contrasts this with Australian politicians pushing alignment with the Quad, NATO, and the Western “curtain” to contain China. He says relations improved under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong compared with Scott Morrison, whom he describes as denigrating Chinese values. He argues ideological bigotry toward China exists in Australia and Europe, attributing it to discomfort with a powerful non-“predominantly white” nation rising. George notes that Japan is not improving and argues Japanese policy is shaped by the U.S., citing the U.S. dropping atomic bombs and referencing post–World War II tribunal accounts of atrocities committed by Japanese imperial and colonial forces in Asia. Ryan replies by claiming Japan is remilitarizing faster than China, with Japan set to double military spending over five years and China over ten. He also claims Germany made amends after WWII while Japan has not made proper apologies and rewrites history in school books. He describes an example involving a former classmate sent by the Japanese military to Harvard who allegedly said enslaved women were paid and “weren’t raped,” and says the individual later gained senior military authority overseeing China-Japan relations. George shifts to the Philippines as a “third front,” describing his earlier struggle against the Marcos dictatorship, and says Marcos is back, Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base are open, and the Philippines is being prepared for war. Ryan says he is “very scared” about the Philippines under Bongbong Marcos, describing deteriorating relations with China after being warm under President Duarte. Ryan claims Bongbong reopened Clark base, pushed the U.S. to invest more in Philippine military installations, and takes a stringent line against China. He argues China views Taiwan as cousins or brothers and wants peaceful reunification, but expects China to respond strongly to the Philippines, including “huge economic sanctions,” such as not buying Filipino fruit and potentially banning Chinese tour groups, referencing similar actions against Japan. He also says he worries about an accident between a Chinese fishing vessel and the Philippine Coast Guard that could ignite escalating conflict. Ryan frames China’s stance as unlikely to involve action against Taiwan and less likely against Japan due to Japan’s military and economic strength, but more likely to make “an example” of the Philippines to create pressure in the South China Sea. He concludes by saying Bongbong is a “tool of the United States” intended to create a proxy war that “bog[s] China down” like Russia was bogged down in Ukraine. George asks for a scorecard for the 105-year anniversary of the CPC. Ryan says the CPC has “got a nine and a half.” He argues China is better for low- and middle-income people, saying the government takes care of these groups, and he credits Xi Jinping with reining in capitalist excesses like those associated with Jack Ma and Alibaba, with wealth transferred toward education and healthcare improvements. He compares access to healthcare and specialist appointments, contrasting China’s quicker access with what he describes as delays in the United States. He ends with personal comments about safety in China, and George signs off with thanks to Sean Ryan and mentions The Split.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, if it's the middle of the night for me, it sure is the middle of the night for my second guest of the evening, who's in the same city as me, but hey, it's a very, very big city. Sean Ryan, author of The Split, an indispensable book, which both Gayatri and I have both read and sits on our home shelf, is with us now. Sean, thank you for your forbearance. We had a long talk earlier about with Professor Glenn Deason about the trouble in the world. And Glenn was very clear that the ultimate aim of the trouble in the world is China, which is the competitor. More than a competitor in my view, not least because I've read your book. The Chinese economy, as I viewed earlier this evening, on a Wednesday evening, with a million people in the Bund. Imagine all that shopping, all that eating. China is vaulting from strength to strength, and that is regarded by Western leaders as an existential threat to them. You and I would argue that it isn't or needn't be, but they don't seem to agree. And so When you look at developments in the Philippines, look at developments in Japan, in Australia, you're left wondering if indeed the big enchilada is not a coming war with China. Where do you stand on that? Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you and I agree that China doesn't have to be an enemy of the Western world. But here's the problem, George. It's becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Americans, the Western Europeans are saying China is an existential threat. And they basically are turning or maybe even have turned China into an enemy of the Western world over the last 10 years. And that's why I am worried about tension not just being contained with the U.S.-China trade war or the tech war, but going into a hot war, maybe in the South China Sea, in the Philippines. I'm not particularly worried about Taiwan. But here's the thing, George. You see that Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, he says that the world's biggest threat to NATO is not Russia, but it's China. And he says that China basically is Russia's puppet master and is undoubtedly going to force Russia to bomb NATO countries. I mean, this is kind of preposterous talk. I don't understand why Ruti is looking at China as such a threat when China is clearly trying to improve its economic relations with Germany, with Italy, with the UK, with the rest of Europe, because the economy here, even though it is strong, it's also weak at the same time. So China controls about 30% of the world's manufacturing, and they want to export China-made products into Europe. Chinese companies like Huawei, like Xiaomi, want to open up factories in Europe. So, yeah, we have to be concerned because the never-ending warmongers, like Mark Rutte, like some of DC politicians, want to turn China into an enemy. It's sad because it didn't have to be this way, but we might be on the brink where there's no pulling back if Washington and Europe doesn't take a more pragmatic stand. Speaker 0: The paradox is obvious, though. The very same leaders... and Starmer is the best case in point because I actually saw him with my own eyes in Shanghai where he had come to China seeking a strategic partnership with China when his goons, his police force, had grilled me not two months earlier or three months earlier at a London airport about China as if China were a threat to the United Kingdom. And so they are. The paradox, as I say, is obvious. They need China and yet they hate China and fear China at the same time. Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree. It's kind of odd right now. So Europe should get closer to China. India should get closer to China. I mean, when you look at who's threatening Europe, for instance, it's the United States. You know, I'm American, but I'm embarrassed that Trump is trying to take Greenland from Denmark. So, you know, you look at what Trump is doing with the trade war against all of the European nations. You see what he's talking about with Greenland. He is more of an existential threat to the Europeans. So what should countries be doing? You look at a country like Germany, right? Their biggest market is China. You see BASF invested about $7 billion in China to build up chemical plants. And the for the Germans. Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, their largest markets in the world is actually China. So it doesn't make sense that the politicians, like a Merz in Germany, are criticizing China, like Keir Starmer is criticizing China when he was the PM. But The business community is taking a much more pragmatic outlook. When I talk with European businessmen, they find that their politicians are downright crazy and that they should be getting closer to China right now because they need the economic growth. You've got to remember, China is the world's largest retail market. growth in China will count for about a third of the world's GDP growth in 2026. So when a lot of economists talk about let's go to Thailand, let's go to Vietnam, those are going to be major new engines for growth. Well, actually, China's GDP growth in 2026 alone is larger than Thailand's and Vietnam's economy combined. So you have to look at scale. If European countries don't want to fall into an economic morass, then they need to rely on China as a growth engine. Speaker 0: But the Australian paradox is perhaps even more extreme. Australia depends on Chinese trade, yet is willingly— willfully forming a part of an anti-China ring and the rhetoric of its politicians. I mean, if I was running China, I'd tell them to go and take a run and jump myself. If you feel that way, we'll stop buying your stuff. But they're completely dependent on China purchasing their stuff. And yet they are openly in league with Trump against China. Speaker 1: It doesn't really make a lot of sense. It's insane. I think with Australia's case, China is their largest trade partner. It's China that's buying all of Australia's iron ore. It's Chinese students who are going to Australia to study. And that's a big thing because Chinese students in the United States spent about 90 billion U.S. dollars a year on you know, go in tuition fees, buying real estate. Now, the number of Chinese and this was in 2024, the number of Chinese going to the US has dropped about 20 percent. And so they want to be going to Australia. Yet at the same time, you have a lot of Australian politicians who want to build up Arcus, who want to be part of Quad and sort of be part of the United States, NATO and Western Europe's sort of curtain in containing china um i will say though george that relations between australia and china have gotten markedly better in the last couple years under the new prime minister anthony albanese and under penny wong the foreign minister um they did a much better job than the previous uh prime minister scott morrison or scomo who chinese view is a complete bigot i mean he used to denigrate um chinese value system so to albanese's credit He said, we will disagree with China, but we will respectfully disagree and try to come to some accommodation. So the current PM is better than the previous bunch. You know, you saw Malcolm Turnbull. Tony Abbott and ScoMo was the worst. These were all Sinophobes. So Albany's is trying to hold that in. But you're right. There are a lot of politicians in Australia who take an ideological, I would say, bigoted, maybe even racist view of China. And I think that's underscoring a lot of what's happening, not just in Australia, but also Europe. I think a lot of these nations don't like that a non- predominantly white nation is emerging strong and powerful. Now, let's give an example. Just last week, the deputy secretary of state for the United States, Lando, he gave a speech where he said the U.S. is not going to make the same mistake with India that it made with China. It's not going to allow India to get strong, powerfully with advanced technology and with major manufacturing. Now, if you were Modi and He should be criticizing this, but he's been silent. It doesn't make any sense to me. And a lot of your viewers are in the global south or the global majority. If you're a citizen in one of these nations, you should be angry that the United States is saying no other country. Especially a brown, a black, or a yellow country can rise and rival us technologically or in power. We always have to be at the top of the totem pole. That's imperialism. That is basically like colonialism. This is like they're acting as if it's the 19th century. It's something that I'm shocked that Modi, he seems to be a really weak man, is not stepping up and saying, this is not right. Why is the United States saying they want to contain us the same way that they are trying to contain China and failing, but the way that they succeeded in containing Japan in the 1980s with the Plaza Accords? It just doesn't make any sense right now. But race and ideological bigotry is coursing through the capitals of far too many countries, George. Speaker 0: Yes, and I'm glad you corrected me that the situation in Australia is improving. It's not improving, however, in Japan. And no Chinese person, let alone a Chinese political leader, will or even could forget the gigantic atrocities, the war crimes almost beyond imagination I'm reading at the moment. the story of the tribunal that took place at the end of the Second World War and which outlines the anti-human, not inhuman, anti-human activities of the Chinese fascist colonialists, for that's what they were. No Chinese person will ever forget that and yet We now have a government in Tokyo, perhaps we always have, who make absolutely no bones about the fact that they are the plaything of the President of the United States. On the US's 250th birthday, they were firing fireworks to celebrate the American birthday, a country which in the end dropped to atomic bombs upon them. Speaker 1: Yeah, when you read the New York Times, you read the Wall Street Journal, they talk about how China is remilitarizing. But when you look at the numbers, Japan is going to double its military spending over the next five years, China over the next 10 years. So when you look at the numbers and you're logical, you have to think who's remilitarizing faster. It's the Japanese, not the Chinese. Second, George, here's the thing. You know, when you talk to Germany, Germany has made amends for World War II. You read their history, school books and schools. You see monuments. They talk about what happened with the Holocaust. But the Japanese haven't made proper apologies and they rewrite history about what happened in the school books about what happened during World War II. For instance, the Japanese Imperial Army essentially kidnapped 250,000 Chinese, Filipinos, South Koreans, and enslaved these women to be sex slaves, sometimes raping them 50 times a day. Now, I went to Harvard for graduate school, and one of my classmates was sent by the Japanese military to Harvard to study and get a master's degree alongside me. And this Classmate of mine told me, these 250,000 women weren't raped. They were paid by the Japanese Imperial Army, so they were happy because they were so poor Chinese. Now, this person went on to become a very senior person in Japan's military, overseeing China-Japan relations. And so the problem, George, that Chinese have, and frankly, everywhere in Asia have, is that the Japanese aren't They're rewriting history. They're not looking at what happened saying, sorry, we will never make that mistake again. They're saying something happened, but it was okay. The real problem was China. The real problem was America. The real problem was someone else. But what the Imperial Army did was okay. Just like what my classmate said to me 25 years ago. I was horrified and I saw that classmate's career move up and up and gain more power. So if you were China, And you see Japan is doubling military spending over five years when their military and government officials are whitewashing what happened during World War Two. Wouldn't you be scared? I mean, it just it doesn't make any sense that the Western world views China as an enemy, but not Japan. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Speaker 0: No, not to me. We're taught to love Germany and Japan and hate Russia and China. It makes no sense at all to me. Finally, if you like, the third front is in the Philippines now. Cards on the table. I spent some of the best years of my life in the 1980s struggling against the late 70s to mid-80s. struggling against the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines, struggling to close the Clark Air Base, struggling to close the Subic Naval Base. Now Marcos is back, Clark is open, Subic is open, and the Philippines is being prepared for war. How can we account for that? Speaker 1: How does China view that? So I'm not worried about war between Taiwan and China. Relations between the KMT, the opposition party in Taiwan, and relations with China are at the highest in the 29 years that I've lived in China. But I am very scared, George, about the Philippines. Bongbong Marcos, who's the son of Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator you fought against in the 70s and 80s, has taken a very stringent line against China. And it's really shocking to me because, you know, the previous president, Duarte, actually had really good relations with China. China wasn't threatening the Philippines. There was a lot of trade. There was increased tourism. Relations were very warm and literally overnight. As soon as Bongbong became president, relations deteriorated. Bongbong has allowed the Clark base to reopen. He's pushing for the United States to invest more in their military and installations in the Philippines. I'm very scared about what could happen in the South China Sea. I'm not scared about Taiwan. But here's the thing. The Chinese view the Taiwanese as cousins or brothers. They don't want to kill them. They don't want to hurt them. They don't want to go to war with them. They want to reunify peacefully. But there's a lot of anger at the Philippines right now because the Chinese feel that they didn't do anything bad to Bongbong. They didn't do anything bad to the Philippines. And now the Philippines is basically aiming the American military and their weapons straight at China right now for really Unknown reasons, except for maybe Bongbong is paid by the Americans, is a vassal, is a puppet. I don't really quite understand it. I used to live in the Philippines, actually. I used to live in Manila and I used to live in Quezon City. And it was a wonderful, wonderful time for me. But we also have to be honest. The Filipinos don't like Chinese ethnically. There's a lot of racial tension. And we also have to be honest that a lot of Chinese in China look down on Filipinos. So I think you have the ideological fight between communists versus democracies. You have even bigger would be the American vassalism you know, puppet compared to China. But then I think you have this underlying racism on both sides. And I think China is not going to allow the Philippines to cause problems. China will put on huge economic sanctions. I think they're already not buying a lot of Filipino fruit. They're probably going to ban Chinese tour groups from going to the Philippines, which is what they've done with Japan. But I worry that there could be an accident between, say, a fishing boat vessel from China and the Coast Guard in the Philippines. And then you would see people from both sides screaming for blood. That is the world's hotspot that we need to worry about. The Chinese, I don't think will do anything against Taiwan. I actually don't think they would do anything against Japan because Japan's military and economy is too strong. But I think that they would be willing to make an example of the Philippines. And I think Bongbong is just a tool of the United States and is willing to do whatever America wants to create a proxy war and bog China down in the South China Sea the way that they've bogged Russia down in Ukraine. Speaker 0: 105 years, CPC anniversary. I see the bunting is still out on the streets. What would your scorecard be, your report card? 105 years of the CPC. How many marks out of 10 have they earned? Speaker 1: I think they've got a nine and a half right now, George. I think, you know, here's the thing. If you want to be really, really rich and be a billionaire like Elon Musk, then you should go to the United States. America has the great financial capital ecosystem, and basically the wealthy buy off the politicians through their donations. It's legalized corruption when George Soros or Ken Griffin or Elon Musk donate millions or hundreds of millions to politicians or Adelson, Miriam Adelson to Trump. But if you want a fairer, more equitable society where the little guy has the ability to go up, where the government takes care of the low and middle class, then China's better. I had a billionaire tell me in China, the CPC is never good to the rich people. They're good to the low income. And I think that's borne fruit and is true, especially in the last 10 years. You have to give credit to Xi Jinping that he's reined in some of the capitalist excesses from, say, Jack Ma and Alibaba. And he's transferred some of that wealth to to low and middle class Chinese so that they can get access to education. It only costs about two thousand U.S. dollars a year to go to Tsinghua University, while it's like one hundred thousand U.S. if you want to go to MIT, where the president makes over a million U.S. a year and the business and the professors fly business class. Access to healthcare is much improved in the last 10 years for low-income Chinese. If I wanted to see a specialist tomorrow, I could get up, I would have to queue in line, but I would just get up and go to a hospital. In the United States, it can take weeks or months to see a doctor. So in my mind, if for a low middle-class society, It's almost like the China model. It's sort of like improving upon the Nordic model. I think China's system is really quite good. You know, it's 3.48 a.m. my time. I might go for a walk or go for a run after we get off this podcast because it's totally safe in China. I would never do that if I was in Chicago or if I was in New York. So for the middle class and low middle class, China's system or China's model has worked. If you want to be truly rich, yeah, China's not great for you. The government oversees the capitalists, while in America, the capitalists oversee the government. Speaker 0: A phrase is born. It is 348 for me. But I ain't going for any walk or run. You're a better man than me, Ganga Din. Thank you very much. As always, Sean Ryan, author of The Split. I really can't stress how good a book it is. The Split by Sean Ryan. R-E-I-N. Do check him out.
Glenn_Diesen
Posted - July 9, 2026 at 4:37 PM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:04 PM

@Glenn_Diesen - Glenn Diesen

Daniel Davis: Trump Says "the Ceasefire Is Over" With Iran & Escalates the War With Russia https://youtu.be/Mp1drUnqlig https://t.co/PrIvXt8w26

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centered on NATO summit claims about the US returning to a more direct war posture against Iran while also deepening involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war, and how abrupt escalation could unfold. On Iran, Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis said President Trump is “trapped” in a position he “can’t get out of,” and that during an Air Force One interview he was asked whether the US was going back to full-scale war and answered “I don’t know,” then said that if it happened it would be “easy” and “blooder.” Davis argued that prior coercive and military approaches are “fizzling out” and that Trump lacks a clear idea of what military power is supposed to accomplish when it does not produce the expected compliance. Davis compared this to earlier performative or expectation-driven strikes, but said the current situation is not “following the script.” Davis then described how the US-Iran memorandum of understanding and ceasefire ended, focusing on Point 5 regarding administration of the Strait of Hormuz. He said the wording left room for interpretation: it stated the Iranian side would determine “safe passage” and “not charge a fee” for 60 days, with a shift afterward in which “Iran and Oman would determine the future course,” while Iran maintained that on day 61 it would resume fees and govern administrative rules. Davis said the Iranian side interpreted the paragraph as granting Iran authority to set rules, including enforcement if ships did not comply with Iran’s prescribed course and paperwork procedures. He said the US, lacking authority in the MOU to determine how things happened in the strait, nevertheless attempted to set a southern corridor path “nearly in Omani waters,” after which Iran warned ships for about two days, then hit ships on the third day. Davis said CENTCOM’s ex post assessment on July 7 characterized the action as response to Iran violating the ceasefire and MOU, and that US strikes continued under that interpretation. Davis argued the ambiguity and differing readings of the same paragraph created a friction point, and questioned the “20 to 1” rationale as large-scale strikes that did not change Iranian behavior and risked driving escalation. He said Iran responded by indicating possible withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty and changing nuclear doctrine, and by continuing to fire back. Davis also referenced Iran’s stated claim that it shot 10 missiles at an air base in Jordan, with Jordan claiming it shot everything down. He said Trump has suggested further measures such as seizing Karg Island and targeting desalination plants and oil, and warned this could push the conflict toward action against Gulf states. Davis argued the Iranian approach is not likely to be submissive and that Iranian leadership has previously specified responses if the US targets certain sites. He also said US statements described potential strikes that might expand from military targets to Iranian cities, calling this a punitive raid against civilian populations and describing it as a war crime. He linked such escalation risks to a collapse of “guardrails,” including separation of powers and the War Powers Act, and said he expects retaliation against Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and further refusal to yield on nuclear proliferation constraints. The conversation expanded to wider NATO dynamics. Davis argued that Western leaders have abandoned moral or rule-of-law “guardrails” and replaced them with “pure power politics,” using language to steer public perception and keep populations controlled. He specifically cited Mark Rutte’s comments portraying US actions against Iran as understandable because Iran was not following the ceasefire, while condemning Russian actions as “evil,” describing the contradiction as part of a power-based narrative. On the Russia-Ukraine war, Davis said Trump’s position is unclear and that Trump, like with Iran, “doesn’t know” what to do because he faces no “rational way out” without political or strategic loss. Davis described a “least destructive” option as winding down support for Ukraine over time, giving time for a negotiated deal with Moscow to end the war and stop the killing, potentially requiring changes including acceptance of that outcome not including Volodymyr Zelensky. He argued Trump is unlikely to do this and instead may “kick the can down the road.” Finally, Davis addressed Dmitry Peskov’s assertion that the “special military operation” has become a war because of NATO involvement. Davis said this language opens the door to a broader framework where Russia’s public and leadership begin preparing for wider consequences, including gradual escalation, since war changes what Russia can mobilize. The discussion concluded that public admissions about NATO involvement could pressure governments to respond and that the speakers feared the world is “sleepwalking” toward wider conflict.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 2: Welcome back. We are joined again by Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, a four times combat veteran and host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive. And I will leave a link in the description to his excellent podcast. So thank you for coming on. We now see that the US seemingly is going back to war against Iran, but also deepening its involvement in the war against Russia, if we're to believe some of the statements being made now at this NATO summit. I thought a good place to start might be Iran. How exactly did this happen? From what I understand, Iran attacked civilian ships that did not follow Iran's administration of the Strait of Hormuz. Anyways, now we're told by Trump that the Iranians are scum, the MOU is dead, and he's going to hit the Iranians very hard. I'm also wondering if we can unpack... I guess none of us really believed that this would last, but nonetheless, this seems to be a very abrupt and violent end to this ceasefire. Speaker 1: You know, Glenn, the bottom line here is that President Trump has no idea what he's doing, and he doesn't know. And I'm not using that as a pejorative. I'm using his own words and observing what's going on. He's trapped himself into a position he can't get out of and doesn't know how to get out of. All the levers he has previously used to be able to succeed and to bludgeon people and to coerce them and to threaten them or whatever has worked up until now. And he doesn't know how to act when all of a sudden, all of these things that have historically worked, not just for him, but also for previous presidents are now fizzling out. They're not succeeding. Even when we use a lot of military power. And this dynamic was caught on Air Force One last night. There was an interview he had where he was point blank asked, are we going back to full-scale war? Not just is the MOU dead, not just is the ceasefire dead, but are we going back to war? And his literal answer, the first word out of his mouth and the second phrase is, I don't know. I don't know. But if we did go back, it would be easy. It would be blooder. And then he goes on there. But his initial answer as the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, the guy that took us into this war, doesn't know what to do now. And when you when you have the guy who's calling the shots, it doesn't know. And he has, you know, here just this whole recent experience here, episode here of trying to use military power. And he bragged about hitting them 20 to one. And, you know, I'll do the same if they don't learn the lesson, although he never says what the lesson is supposed to be. He doesn't even have a clear idea what this power is supposed to accomplish here. And that by itself is a huge problem. But he just it's not working, whatever he may think that he wants them to do, which I think is just generally speaking to just bow the knee and to submit and to go to ground. Like what used to happen when whether it was I think even I don't remember if Obama did, but certainly Biden and Trump, they used to launch cruise missiles periodically into Syria. Bashar al-Assad would, you know, go to ground or he would take no reaction in response. And I think that's what they expected here, too, that that's what would happen. Look what happened in Venezuela. Trump keeps talking about that. We had one big splashy make for TV military operation where we killed a bunch of people, had some helicopters against the backdrop of some cool videos and fires in the background, all of which were performative, had nothing to do with the actual seizing of Maduro. That was coordinated from the inside and could have been done at a much lower level. But he wanted the for TV splashy stuff. And he got it and he got him and it worked in and out clean, no casualties, et cetera. That's what he think is supposed to be the case. And so this one is not following the script because it's not working. So what is he going to do now? He doesn't know. You ask about how we got to this point here. This really is another one of the examples of of why we're in such dire straits, both here and in the Russia-Ukraine war, because we don't want to do the hard work of diplomacy. When we got this memorandum of understanding, it took whatever it was, I think from April the 9th, 8th, or 10th, somewhere around there, until it was finally signed on, I think, June 17th. So just barely a month away to get a 14 point thing signed up, which by the way, was never a deal, which is the phrase President Trump kept using, but it was merely a signpost that started The negotiations to get to a deal that would have ended the war and that juxtaposition and confusing of terminology is, I think, more important than just wordsmithing, because he thinks that this is a deal and he wanted to short circuit it. He wanted to do it quickly, just get it done. So he finally agreed to something. And I think even you and I have talked about this in the past that there wasn't even going to be an agreement until both sides had a single agreement. group of points word for word that everybody agreed to and would sign off on. And up until just right before this thing was signed, you had these radically different claims from the two sides about what the points were. But then when it was signed, it nearly was all on what the Iranian side had been talking about. Well, here's the problem that we're facing right now. Point number five is the part about who's in control of the Strait of Hormuz. in that point, there is a lot of room for interpretation. And herein is your first problem, because we were going really quickly to get this done to where we could just at least get both sides to sign it. It was left ambiguous. And this is the first friction point. In it, it says that the Iranian side will determine the safe passage for the Strait of Hormuz, and they will not charge a fee for 60 days. And then it said that going forward, and it said 60 days only. So it was a very finite period of time. And then the remainder of that paragraph talked that Iran and Oman would determine the future course. And the Iranian side was unambiguous both before the thing was signed and afterwards that they would go back to charging a fee on day 61, and they never said anything different than that. Well, Iran interpreted that paragraph in number five that they would set for the administrative functions that they set rules out. And they said, okay, Here's our rules. You have to follow this course of action here. You have to get this authority and this approval and go through this paperwork or whatever. And then here's the path you can go. And if and then they added and this is not an MOU. And if you don't, there's going to be an enforcement. And here's what it's going to be. Well, when the southern passage, the U.S. tried to set up their own in violation of the MOU because we had no authority on the MOU. the MOU President Trump signed, did not give us any authorization to determine how anything happened in the strait. But we took it and we said, here's our path through the southern path, the southern corridor, nearly in Omani waters. And we said, this is where it's going to be. And so ships started going through it. And the Iranian side says, no, this is the rules we set. You're going to go on this one and you're going to go on according to what we say. And if you don't, then we're going to fire on you. And I wanna say it was like two days that they were given that warning and then on the third day, then they hit the ships and they hit those three ships and you know what happened after that. So we interpreted that and Central Command in its first ex post on the 7th of July said that this was in response to Iranian violating the ceasefire, violating the terms of the MOU and we're gonna continue hitting them until they come back into compliance or something to that effect here. But you had two very different interpretations of the same paragraph, which was left ambiguous. Now, here's the problem with us. That's not surprising. It's not shocking you have a disagreement. But our response, this 20 to 1, as Trump calls it, and there was some pretty big shots that came after that. Towards what end, Glenn? What are you trying to accomplish here? Where is the value in going 20 to 1? And CENTCOM released overnight because I think this is the second or third consecutive night that we've done something. All these targets... And they're showing that, you know, in these images and these the black and white pictures that come out and, you know, the thermal imageries and all that kind of stuff and all the stuff blowing up stuff on tarmacs, just buildings here and there, some what looks like something on some water or something near. What does that do? What is it? Are you just trying to be punitive and you're trying to harm them? So that they don't do what the MOU says they can, which is to determine how the I don't know what we're trying to accomplish, but it's having the exact opposite effect because the Iranian side has come out and said, oh, by the way, and this is through one of their official news agencies, as far as I believe it was. is they said, hey, we have a bill on the floor in the parliament that may withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty, the NPT, and we may change our nuclear doctrine. So if you keep going, we may take other measures. On top of, we're going to continue to fire back on anything that happened. And just before you and I came on the air here today, the Iran side said that they shot 10 missiles at an air base in Jordan. Jordan claims they shot everything down. We'll find out later on what's the truth of that, but they apparently did take them under fire. So they're not backing down from anything. Not on none of this, none of these. Therefore, where is President Trump going to go? And you have his answer. I don't know. So where can this war go? I don't know either, but it ain't good. Speaker 2: Well, this is the weird part. The measure of success seemingly by Washington, which is just, oh, look how many people were killed or how much destruction we inflicted. Because Again, this could make sense if it's a war of attrition, you're bleeding out the adversary. But again, the whole point there for the Iranians is they demand to have security. And again, if you undermine your security to too great of an extent, you do need nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent. You do need stronger control over the Strait of Hormuz as a way of shaping a regional security architecture. It seems, as you said, very counterproductive. But again, as long as this isn't challenged, that, oh, look how many people were killed and stuff we blew up, that this is the measurement of success, it's, yeah, it doesn't make any sense. One really has to go back to the question you said. How does this actually help us put an end to this thing? But it seems, well, if the goal here is to bleed out the other side or exhaust, you know, it's not random stuff you have to kill. I guess it's, you know, this... the assets along the Strait of Hormuz. I'm not sure exactly how this would be achieved, but who is exhausting who at this point? And Trump also made the point that, oh, we might seize Karg Island. And, you know, this kind of random comments, it seems, you know, why didn't the US seize Karg Islands in the two previous rounds? It seems that it would be so reckless and be such a crazy escalation. But Are we past that now? We go straight from we ended the war to now all out. It could be total war because the Iranians would then possibly take actions against the Gulf states, which could cease their existence. That is, if they end all their energy infrastructure, their desalination plants, a lot of these countries will go back to being deserts. I mean, where do you think this is going? Are they actually going where Trump is suggesting? Speaker 1: Listen, I mean, that's a very legitimate question you ask because President Trump broached it. He's the one that specifically said desalinization plants, that they could go after the oil on Kargalin. And I don't know, I might want to take it, says President Trump. I mean, just adding even more concern on the Iranian side that this isn't a literal existential fight and that we may have to fight this to the death. And listen, Tom is not on our side here. And I think whereas we're, President Trump doesn't know what he's doing, I think the Iranian side does. And I don't think that it was just any haphazard action that they were surprised turned into kinetic response when they were firing on those ships. I think they knew full well that it was likely we were going to do that. But I think that they also recognize that if President Trump does that and goes too far, that then that gives the Iranians all the justification that they would ever need to hit all of those targets in the GCC countries in Israel, which they have again specified they would do if we hit those kinds of targets. They've never changed any of that. And for President Trump to go back and say, well, yeah, we might do it as I don't know if he thinks he's going to scare them into submission. I don't know. But I mean, that's That should be long since in the dustbin of history. They're never going to submit to words. And they've shown that they will sit tight and suffer a lot because we can. I think I saw it was either President Trump or somebody from the Department of Defense yesterday leaked out that the United States is considering if these message strikes here haven't worked these first few rounds, the next one might be to Iranian cities. And listen, that's just a war crime. I mean, that's straight up. You cannot say, all right, we're going to now go on a punitive raid and we're going to start hitting Iranian cities. That has nothing to do with military capability, has nothing to do with control of the Strait of Hormuz. It's just harming the population and putting pain on the government by hitting their people. That is a literal war crime, point blank, black and white. And are we considering going down that path? And of course, I used to think, well, we wouldn't do that. They might find some Oh, well, you know, like that bridge that we hit in Tehran before the end of the 40 days, right at the end of that, which clearly had no military utility at all, had nothing to do with the conflict in the Persian Gulf or the Strait of Hormuz. It was just a punitive thing. And Trump hit that. And now he's saying, I can take them all out, et cetera, which is, again, a war crime. And given what we have done on that bridge, given what we did in the Caribbean Ocean, given what we did in Venezuela, given what we're talking about doing in Cuba, what we might even doing for God's sake, Greenland, for crying out loud, how can you say that he might not do this too? Where are the constraints? Where are the balance of power within the U.S. government? Where are the guardrails? They're gone. It used to be the Constitution, separation of powers between the Article I, Article II, the executive branch, and the judicial legislative branch. That used to exist. That's gone. It used to be the 1973 War Powers Act. That's gone, too. It used to be morality. That's gone, too. So I can't put past that he would do that. And listen, tell me what you think. I can't even imagine a scenario where we expand this and just start a punitive raid against killing civilians in cities throughout Iran that have no relation to the war at all. and to think that they're not gonna do everything they can to likewise hit similar targets in Israel, in Saudi Arabia, in Qatar, in UAE, et cetera, or that they wouldn't make good on that last threat and get rid of the NPT and go to race to a bomb somewhere. And from what I'm told from technical people I've talked to, if they made that decision, even with the damage from the Midnight Hammer, that's not the only place they can do business throughout their country. They could literally have a bomb within a month or so of a decision, and then we could just get a nuclear detonation somewhere in the middle of an Iranian desert and say, hey, the next one is going to be falling on one of your countries if you want to go down that path. That's where we're pushing them if we continue on with this immoral, unethical, and illegal path to just try and force them by death to do what we want. Speaker 2: No, I agree. I think while the Iranians see this as an existential threat, so they will go all the way, I think, up that escalation ladder. And I think that's one of the things they communicated clearly in this war as well, that they weren't going to be like the Syrians or the Iraqis sitting by and being hit, hoping that, you know, if we don't respond, perhaps the US won't bomb us so hard. And I think this, again, they see this as an existential threat. And I think the restraint is simply that they don't want the US to go up the escalation ladder either. That is to start punitive bombing of city centers. But of course, if the US goes up the escalation ladder and does this, there's no reason for restraint on the Iranians either. And I think this is why it's very dangerous. But I think you're correct as well about that. the assumptions by Trump. I think for him, diplomacy means a little bit of sweet talk that is, oh, the Iranians are good people. We're actually friends. We get along. And then, well, he didn't use those words with Iranians, but that's usually what he says. And then actually delivering nothing. You know, it worked on the Russians in 2025 at least, but the Iranians, it seems they won't have any of it. But overall, this... This NATO summit, this is where all these comments were made. It was just a weird, very hawkish comments that were coming. Trump was going to remove Syria from the list of state sponsor of terrorism, which is a strange point in time now that the US installed Al-Qaeda leaders in Syria. This is apparently the time to make them removed from the sponsorship of terrorism. He called the Spanish terrible people. He wanted economic blockade of them. The Danes, of course, making threats, seizing their territory, continuous fighting with Maloney, essentially calling her a stalker, this squabble with Starmer. All these people, it seems so reckless and pointless. But I did want to ask about the NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, because he essentially made the Europeans now complicit in the attacks on Iran, because he said, oh, the US efforts are, you know, bombing are completely understandable of Iran, because Iranians aren't following the ceasefire. So, of course, America should bomb them a little bit. Again, he also came out almost in the same breath, also telling the Russians that, you They're crazy because they attacked another country. He called this, this is a playbook of the 19th century, you know, and he doesn't do that. You know, the West doesn't do this because we are growing, we are grown, we are grown up democracies. Uh, how do you, how do you make, I mean, do these people not hear themselves talk? Speaker 1: Yeah, no, they don't. Or they do. Uh, they don't care. They're, they... the European elite and really just say the Western elite, because I can't exclude our side from this conversation either. We have jettisoned any actual moral foundation. I mean, just cut to the chase. We no longer have a moral basis for what we do. We used to claim it and we never were fully applied it to ourselves, of course, but we kind of tried to and in large parts, sometimes more, sometimes less, we kind of held to these moral foundations and boundaries to our actions. We were limited in how far we would go in something. We would do a lot of stuff that was always dark and whatever, covertly and small scale. Now then, that facade has come off. And now then that, what we used to do behind the shadows and things on small scale, now that we do out in the open. And so there are no longer any moral guardrails. I'm not talking about any specific religion. I'm just talking about normal human morality of, you know, do unto others as you would have them do unto you and just rule of law, standard rule of law. We have jettisoned all that, not just the United States, but Europe too. And so what we have put in its place is pure power politics. And we have also, because many of our majority, I would argue, of our populations in the West are still moral people, and they do use moral guardrails in their normal conduct of business. We do have rule of law. If you don't follow, you'll go to jail. So you have to, whether you want to or not. But by and large, less today than it has been because of what our leaders are doing, but still, by and large, we are still moral people. But these folks are now using us as tools. And so they're using language as tools to control us. They condescend on us. They mock us with stuff like what Mark Rutgers did. I shouldn't have been, but I was shocked when I first saw that clip, because on the one hand, he's saying everything that we did against Iran is perfectly just, even though it violated every kind of law you can imagine, even common sense. And then you turn around at the same time and point a finger over in Moscow and say, well, they can't. They're evil people for doing this. The Iranian people are evil. Everybody's evil except for us. And whatever we want to do is therefore right by definition. And whether there was a law or not, whether it was separation of powers or not, it doesn't matter. If we want to do this, we can. And I'm going to lie to you. And I'm going to try to convince you that we're actually right and that they are evil. Therefore, they deserve it. Whatever the laws may be, we're the one by our actions by definition are right. And there's by definition are wrong. Doesn't matter what it was or if they happen to contradict each other. Don't look under the curtain. Don't think about that. Just listen to the words coming out of my mouth. Believe it and act on it. Because Glenn, here's the thing. They are mocking us by saying, I have such low regard for you as a body. You're just a bunch of sheep. All I wanna do is keep you controlled. And so I'll tell you whatever I think you need to hear to make you happy. I'm gonna block information that I don't want you to have. And I'm gonna prevent some people from talking here. So the only thing you hear is my voice. Just pay attention to my voice. And then that way that they don't get people rising up, they don't get people voting them out of office, or at least that's the theory. And then they'll keep on doing whatever they want to. And I can't imagine that these intelligent, educated people are not fully aware of these contradictions and could care less about them. It's about power. And so they want to do what they want to do and they don't want the people to get in the way. So they're going to keep them in the dark and they're going to keep them like sheep, just fed a bunch of crap and then just ignore them and try to block them from being able to do anything. That is why what Mark Rutgers says is logical and because if you take the morality out of it, then words are just tools for me to control the population. We're not doing anything for the people. We're doing things in spite of the people, and we're trying to keep them in the dark as much as we can and keep them content or focused on something else so they're not focused on what we're trying to do. Here's the big problem with that, aside from just the surface of it itself by the immorality you're leading a population into historically, it just doesn't work. And you end up collapsing and causing tremendous harm to yourself. But the bigger issue at stake right now is that it's not going to work because the Iranians are are fed up with it, and now because they had about a 20-year preparation period, they can endure the military, and now they're no longer following instructions. And God help us, over in Russia, they were late coming to the recognition here. They still thought there was a chance for diplomacy and logic and ration to avoid the war in 2022, 2021, up until that point. And now I think they, too, even after four years of war, they still thought, as of 2025 in Anchorage, I think, They still thought, no, and actually throughout 25, they thought maybe we'll still make this work. And I think now finally they too have come to realize and adopted our view that only power is going to work here. And that is why it is catastrophically dangerous for all of us right now, because if Iran's holding on to here and they're not going to give in to any more of these strikes and they're going to issue their own. And yet the Russians for firmly go over to the side that says we're going to recognize now the new rules. It's no longer rule of law or the international rules-based orders that we used to kind of keep to. Now it's just power. Okay, that's the rules. Then we're going to play according to those rules. And that means we're going to start using power in ways that we never had before either. And that's how you get World War III. Speaker 2: Well, Trump used to warn about this. I mean, when he met with Zelensky in the Oval Office, he told Zelensky exactly what you said. He said, you're playing with World War III. But now, Ford... the following year. We see now at the NATO summit, he's arguing that Ukraine can get a manufacturing license for the Patriot missiles. He casually threw out that, well, we could implement a no-fly zone. You had Marco Rubio making the point that, well, there's these deep strikes on Russia, deep into its territory, by the way, with NATO weapons based on targeting from NATO intelligence. This will help to facilitate peace. You have this constant comments about Article 5, because I think they know Russia will retaliate. And well, then they need this reassurance that Americans will come to the aid of the Europeans. And overall, Zelensky is every reason in the world to sell all this optimism, wishful thinking, delusion. But NATO seems so eager to buy it as well. So yes, of course, we're defeating the Russians, the world's largest nuclear power. which sees itself fighting an existential war, yes, we're defeating it. This is going to end perfectly, no problem. I mean, no real discussions, just sloganeering. Where is Trump headed here, though? Because I saw a Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, argue that the special military operation is now a war. And we see Trump essentially making this war his own. I mean, he can't seriously say this is Biden's war anymore. This is Trump's war as well. So is the U.S. going back into war with Russia? Or it was already fighting, but deeper, I guess. Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll give you an authoritative answer from no less an authority than the president of the United States. I don't know. He doesn't know what he's going to do in the Iran war. He doesn't know what he's going to do in the Russia war because there's no rational way out that doesn't see him being a loser. And that seems to animate him more than almost anything else. because he doesn't want to walk away from the rents, which has been my argument all the way through. And still to this day, even with all the stuff that's happened since, that's still the most, I won't say best, because that's not an accurate term. The least worst of all the options on the table right now is to just walk away and take the heat that's going to come with that. And then in the Russia situation, it's like the least worst there is just say, you know what? This can't be solved militarily. And for us to continue trying is going to potentially escalate this into Europe. And therefore, Article 5 or any, no matter what happens, even if it's a quasi-Article 5, then we could be in a continental conflict that we can't win there either. So the only thing that we can do is just bring this to an end. And I'm going to stop all my support for the Ukraine side. And I know this is, to many of the supporters, this is like heresy. But hear me out. because it's the rational, logical thing to do by saying, I'm gonna give you X amount of time, a month, three months, six months, whatever, you pick a number, And we're going to maintain our current level of support. And then at that point, it's going to go down to 40%. And then it's going to go down another 40%. And then a month later, it's going to be zero. So you're going to get wound off of it. But that gives you time with the current situation to make the best negotiated deal you can with Moscow. And it will be bad for you. It will definitely be on the plus side of Moscow because they have the leverage. But then the war will come to an end. The killing of your people will stop. You'll still maintain whatever you can negotiate in terms of control. from your side. And it may not include Volodymyr Zelensky. That may be part of the requirement. And then you have to be willing to accept that. But that's something that they've got to figure out. President Trump can say, we're out of this. And then, therefore, signaling also to Brussels and to Berlin and Paris and London, et cetera, that, hey, folks, this is undoable. And obviously, he'll be saying all this behind the scenes, too, before anything is set out public. And just say, listen, it doesn't make any difference what we want. It only matters what we can do and what we can't do. And what we can't do is is win on our terms. So let's don't get us into a war we can't win, and it could be catastrophic. It could be nuclear. We could lose millions of people, and everyone will lose. Whatever you think the cost would be for doing this kind of the European walkaway plan here, however bad it would be, and it would be, it would be a lot of bad things. It is nothing compared to ignoring all that and continue trying to go down this path, which will lead to potential catastrophic destruction for us all. That's logical. That's what he should do. But that's not what he's going to do because I don't think he has the capacity. Just like he's now just foundering here in Tehran, trying to figure out what to do and just throwing some missiles down to just buy some time to hope something else emerges that it can allow him to win without admitting defeat. I think he's doing the same thing over here because I think they still have this mentality that we'll just kick the can down the road and we'll just punt this until I'm out of office. I don't know, something like that. Because he doesn't recognize that the conditions are changed and that Iran and that Russia and everybody else is paying attention to this too. China is paying attention to it. Other adversaries are paying attention to it too. And they realize how limited our power is as we exposed it in Iran by itself in the first 40 days and what we couldn't make happen because of all of our air and naval power. that has exposed our weakness and our industrial capacity, et cetera. That's all been exposed, so there's no good way out of any of this, Glenn, none. We just have to find the least destructive way to escape and pray that we can live to fight and rebuild and retool ourselves for another day that can sustain us going into forward. If we don't, we're probably going to stumble into World War III. Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the Europeans, they saw this as a success, that is to them. get Trump to become more hawkish on Russia, get deeper involved. It's very to what ends, a bit like you said with Iran. They haven't thought this one through exactly how this is going to end. I mean, which side wins? I think all of this will be kind of pointless by the time nuclear war would arrive. But as you said, we're kicking the can down the road while moving towards World War III. And I think that's a good point. The assumption is that we can just continue the current status quo. But I think what's evident with this conflict is they keep escalating. And also the messages which are sent, because now that Trump says the MOU with Iran is dead, that's what the Iranian hawks said. That's why they said, don't sign this, because the Americans will never implement it. well, they were proven right. Now they're going to have wind in their sails. The next time around, it's going to be very hard to get a similar deal in place. Same as Russia. I think they watched what happened in Iran. They've seen their own deals, well, continuously being violated. And of course, China's probably making the same conclusion. But on the Russian issue, just the last question since World War III, I think the most likely answer a place that will break out would be the war against Russia. What is the significance, you think, of Dmitry Peskov making this comment that the special military operation has now, because of the involvement of NATO, become a war? Speaker 1: I've asked a number of Russian speakers and I've got a lot of different answers. My assessment from really paying a lot of attention to all the things that the Russians have been doing and saying for, I mean, actually for decades, but certainly during the four and a half years of this war. I perceive, because they made such a big issue of it earlier, and even as recently as a year ago, you may recall last year, I think it was late last year, President Putin himself said, hey, listen, y'all need to understand this is not a war. This is a special military operation, because if it's a war, he said, that's going to mean a bunch more things. He said that. And so now that Peskov has used that language and nobody in the Kremlin that I saw contradicted him, then I think that that is said, that door, we're now opening it. Not opened, but opening it. And I think that they're saying, all right, we're going to now explore where we're going and what we can do here. And we may be in the process of changing things. And I think that mentally for the Russian public, I think that they're saying, hey, we don't want to hit this from zero to 100 in one move. So I'm going to start... slowly get in the idea and that some things may be changing because you can't do mobilization, you can't bring, you know, mobilize the reserve, et cetera, until you have, you know, a war. You can't fully mobilize the economy unless you have a war, et cetera, because that's what Putin said is the difference between it. So I think that by saying that, they're now opening the doors that if something doesn't happen with diplomacy that we can live with, This is where we're going. So I think that we can see, look for more signs coming out, more statements, and then maybe some more action. And I think that that's where it's going to head if we don't do something different. And of course, I don't think we will. So I'm really worried about it. Speaker 2: Yeah, another sign could be Maria Sakharova. She was making the point that the Estonians were essentially caught for being involved in the strikes on St. Petersburg. I find this to be very interesting. I mean, everyone knew this, but as soon as the Russians confirm it, that they know it, then that puts a lot of pressure on the government to actually do something about it. Why would you admit that tiny Estonia is attacking you? Why would you admit this if you're not prepared to do something about it? So the fact that they're now recognizing publicly the deep involvement of NATO in attacking Russia, destroying Russian territory, infrastructure killing russians that nato is involved in this now they have to do something so i think um yeah i think they also have to prepare their own public for the for the fact that we are going up that escalation ladder it's gone too far and i just wish some of this would be reflected in any of the western media or at least a comment by any politician but we have nothing as you said we have making the point that oh this is the russians attacking other countries how 19th century i mean It's sad that this is where we are. Any final thoughts before we wrap up? Speaker 1: No, I got nothing to add to what you just said and what I ended with a minute ago. If it was said that the world sleptwalked into World War I, we are now more like zombie heading into World War III and somebody better damn wake up pretty quick from this malaise. Or we're all going to stumble right into it and it won't be anywhere near limited like it was in World War I. This could be catastrophic. Speaker 2: Well, Lieutenant Colonel Davis, thank you so much for your time and let's hope for better days. Speaker 1: Let's hope. Speaker 0: Thanks very much, Glenn.
TrumpsLostBalls
Posted - July 8, 2026 at 2:54 AM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 3:57 PM

@TrumpsLostBalls - 𝔗𝔞𝔵 ℜ𝔢𝔳𝔬𝔩𝔱 🇺🇲

Armed gang members pose on empty cop cars in Goodman, Mississippi https://t.co/laeP7jwvzK

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker says a group “run their own city” and “run the city,” claiming police are not present. They describe a man “knocking on the police door” and say “ain’t no police,” asserting the situation is controlled by “the smackers.” The speaker repeats that they were told to expect this, reacts to seeing the man demanding help, and commands the man to get down. They conclude by saying they are “about to run this shit for real.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They run their own city, they run the city. Look, police, look, look at this man. Ain't no police, look at him. This man knocking on the police door. What the fuck? Hey man, the smackers out here. Is somebody in there? Exactly, I told you. Look at him, look at him, fool. Look at this man, fool. Oh, hell no, fool. Wait till my ass like, get down, bro. Get down, bro. Man, I'm about to run this shit for real.
View Full Interactive Feed